0:27
I'll call the March 20th, 2017 regular City Council meeting
0:33
to order and ask those who would like to join
0:39
the City Council, myself and Troop 676 in the Pledge
0:45
of Allegiance to please stand.
0:52
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
0:58
of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
1:04
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
1:09
all. With that, our next order of business is audience
1:15
comments. Citizen comments are an important part of the public
1:21
process. We take them seriously and factor them into the
1:27
decisions we make. Anyone from the public who wishes to comment will have
1:33
the opportunity to do so this evening. Please direct your comments to the whole Council
1:39
and not individuals. While this is not a question and answer session, we will contact
1:45
you to follow up if needed. If you did not address, include
1:50
your email address on the sign-up sheet. Please provide that after
1:56
you speak on the roster at the table so that we
2:01
can follow up if there is a need. When recognized, please
2:07
come to the lectern, speak into the microphone, state your name and any relationship
2:13
to the city and your address, and limit your comments to five minutes. If
2:19
you have written comments, please submit those to the city clerk. A visual
2:24
timer has been placed on the lectern. When it turns yellow, you are within the
2:30
last minute of your comment period. If you use the full five minutes, the timer
2:35
will sound to indicate the end of your allotted comment time. A reminder, personal attacks,
2:40
obscene language, derogatory remarks, and disruptive behavior will not be permitted. If a speaker is
2:45
out of order, I will direct the speaker to return to his or her seat.
2:51
If the speaker does not comply, I will ask them or her to leave
2:57
the council chambers. Again, citizen comments, written and verbal, are an important aspect of
3:02
the public process. We take them seriously and we thank members of the public
3:08
for taking the time to address us during our meetings. And with that,
3:13
I would ask as anyone's, or just as a reminder, we have two
3:19
public hearings this evening and there are separate sign up sheets for that.
3:25
Those two public hearings, one is for agenda bill 7219, Gilman-Loff's Three Trails
3:31
Development Agreement, and one on agenda bill 7333, 2017 First Budget Amendments. And
3:37
those will be concur after we act
3:43
on the consent calendar. And then
3:49
with that I'd ask if anyone
3:55
has signed up to speak. Yes,
4:01
Satyajit Ranganathan and Susan Marshall. Mr.
4:06
Mayor, sir, council members and residents
4:12
of Issaquah. My name is Satyajit
4:18
Ranganathan. I live at 21213 SE 22nd Place in Issaquah and I'm here as
4:24
a member of the Issaquah Library Board. It's my privilege to present to you our
4:29
2016 Annual Report, a copy of which can be found outside. The objective of the
4:34
Library Board is to serve as a liaison and in an advisory capacity to city
4:39
officials, community members and the King County Library System. Our goals which we identified
4:45
this year, re-energising our 2015 goals, are to raise awareness in the community about
4:51
what the library offers and to be knowledgeable about KCLS's mission, vision, values, philosophies,
4:57
programs and services. We can agree that the KCLS is indubitably the finest library
5:03
system that we are aware of and it is our privilege to serve in
5:08
the capacity that the board serves as. Some of the activities that we
5:14
did this year were in the realm of outreach. We ventured out into the
5:20
community through social media as well as into the communities themselves and put out
5:25
posters as well as communications about the King Kaurti Library system. We also attended
5:31
several events such as the City Senior Forum, the KCLS Board Trustees Meeting, as well
5:36
as the KCLS Budget Meeting so as to be better apprised of the activities of
5:41
the King County Library System. And then we attended several sessions to educate ourselves about
5:46
the activities of the library. The one I found most interesting was of intellectual freedom,
5:51
where we got to see on what basis members of the community are able to
5:56
request materials to be purchased and procured by the library, and also to comment about
6:01
what choices the library makes. So the fact that there is a process for that
6:06
was an utterly charming piece. One other page I will draw your attention to is
6:11
about the history of the of the library system itself here in Issaquah. Issaquah
6:17
is celebrating its 125th year and there has been some form of library for 117
6:23
of those. And from a humble beginning to the facility that we have now, we
6:29
are truly privileged to have that in our system. Thank you. Susan. Thank
6:35
you. My name is Susan Marshall and I live at 4697 234th Place,
6:40
Southeast Sammamish. I was in Issaquah and they moved one block and now
6:46
suddenly Sammamish. Sorry about that. I am so honored to be serving on the Issaquah
6:52
Library Board and I want to thank you so much for this opportunity to give
6:58
back to my community and I've lived in the area for two and a half
7:03
years. As a former librarian in three different states, I have always been passionate about
7:09
public libraries and I discovered that Issaquah and the King County Library System is at
7:15
the top. My passion for being part of a library system, a
7:20
public library system especially, is stated so well by the KCLS mission statement,
7:26
and that is to provide free, open, and equal access to ideas and
7:32
information to all members of the community. When Issaquah Library
7:38
started, apparently in 1908, as a reading room in Enos Cuss's
7:43
barbershop, sounds very interesting to me, they had 40 books then,
7:49
40 books. I don't know if people got to take them home or
7:55
just read them in the barbershop, but there it is. It has grown in
8:01
109 years now as being a part of the King County Library System and
8:06
using all of its services and also the items to having 239,482 visits in
8:12
2016. That's to the Issaquah Library, by the way. 655,909 items were
8:18
checked out and this is a physical item, this doesn't count the electronic items.
8:24
While in 1983 they only had 35,000 items. This is before they became part
8:30
of King County Library System and I didn't do the math but if you
8:36
divide the 35,000 to 655, everything would be checked out most of the year.
8:42
So just to let you know that we've come a long way. the
8:48
but it's not just books anymore by the way and as needs
8:53
rise public libraries always rise up to meet those new needs. The
8:59
Issaquah Library and KCLS have excelled at this. Almost two million minutes
9:05
of computer use has been used here at the Issaquah Library and
9:11
that's 54,467 sessions. 327 programs which are from newborn,
9:17
toddler and preschool story times, adult senior discussion groups,
9:22
tech tutoring and computers, learning how to use computers.
9:29
There have been programs for adults, teens, and tweens, and tutoring for students,
9:34
summer reading to keep the students' reading levels at their par, wisdom cafes
9:40
and everyone is talking or discussion groups. The wisdom cafe is especially for
9:46
50 years and older. English as a second language and the training talk
9:51
time sessions for people who are practicing English. So and also
9:57
in a city of 30,434 population in 2016, we had 6,147
10:02
new cardholders. So I'm telling you this is impressive. If you
10:08
don't know it, I'm telling you it's impressive. Also this last
10:14
year, the 20,013 Issaquah School District students have been given accounts
10:19
to have easy and free access to all sorts of databases
10:25
and information for them to use. And this is electronic, so
10:30
therefore there is no problem. They just get it with their
10:36
student ID with the county library system. And then they
10:42
also have other resources. So changes over the years have
10:48
included from books only to also audio, video and programs
10:54
in multiple languages, e-books to download or listen to also
11:00
download, Technology, our computers, printing from mobile devices and training
11:05
for use of these technologies, especially also for the senior
11:11
citizens. English as a second language and citizenship classes. Now
11:16
I'm going to probably start crying. Sorry.
11:22
I attended a special naturalization ceremony swearing in 15 new citizens of the United
11:28
States a couple weeks ago. And Michelle asked me if I cried, and you
11:34
can tell, yes, I did. I cried the whole ceremony. It was just wonderful.
11:40
And Mayor Butler gave this wonderful opportunity. heartwarming welcome to the group. It was
11:46
fantastic and you can see it on YouTube if you would like to see it
11:51
because it's really worth seeing. So therefore, the Issaquah Library and
11:57
King County Library System is truly offering people access to
12:03
achieving the American dream. And we want all of you
12:09
that are here listening tonight and everyone to please continue
12:15
to help the library board spread the news about this
12:21
wonderful resource in Issaquah. Thank you. Thank you both very,
12:27
very much. Next we have Jennifer O'Neill. Good
12:33
evening Mayor Butler and members of the council. I am
12:39
Jennifer O'Neill, manager of the Eastside Cultural Navigation Program of
12:44
Chinese Information Service Center, which assists immigrants from all countries.
12:50
We are receiving funding from the City of Issaquah for
12:56
the first year and we're very grateful. I'm
13:02
here to talk about an extremely serious situation involving the vicious, long-term, and
13:08
apparently racially motivated harassment of Michael Chen, an Issaquah resident from Taiwan.
13:14
I want to start by saying we've all heard people's comment on TV and in
13:19
the news that we're in uncharted territory now politically in our nation. This is true.
13:24
And Issaquah is no exception. And this is true for everywhere when it comes to
13:30
hate incidents and hate crimes perpetuated against immigrants and people of color. As I've been
13:35
assisting Michael, I've slowly become aware that we're dealing with a new strain of virulent
13:40
hate activity that was not anticipated when the law, statutes, and police department policies currently
13:46
in effect were formulated. This probably explains why when Michael called the police one time
13:51
and visited the police department five times, no action was taken. No report or few
13:57
reports were even made, and this is in a period of two years. And I'm
14:03
here and I've been in touch with, of course, Chief Bierbaum and with Councilman Ramos
14:08
and they've all been very helpful and we're going to meet with the Chief tomorrow
14:14
and others. So this is in no way criticism. Michael will speak more in
14:20
detail about his experience, but let me summarize it here. Since he moved into his
14:25
home more than two years ago, Michael has been the victim of an estimated 300
14:30
incidents of hate-motivated harassment by members of 16 of the 20 families in his neighborhood.
14:35
These incidents include stalking, surveilling, patrolling, and intimidation. They range from neighbors staring into his
14:40
windows, patrolling the roads repeatedly when he's outside, stationing cars near his home for surveillance,
14:45
and tailing him. These may not be new, but what is new is it's not
14:50
a one-off or occasional occurrence. It started out as two to three times a week
14:55
for the first year, but now since September, it's three to four times every day.
15:00
People from other neighborhoods and even parents and grandparents from his children's elementary school are
15:05
joining in. He's now being harassed. Every time he leaves his house, he's been being
15:10
tailed. People are coordinating, taking turns, waiting for him at different locations, and then tailing
15:15
him. There are now 50 people engaging in this daily harassment of Michael Chen. The
15:21
second thing I want to emphasize is this new harassment is being perpetuated by highly
15:26
educated people. Somebody works for the FAA, others work for Microsoft. They know the law
15:32
well. They never trespass on property. They conduct their surveillance activities from their homes, the
15:37
street, or the sidewalk just inches over Michael's property line. They hide their cars and
15:42
pull them into strategic places and swing into traffic when Michael is coming down the
15:48
street. They know to refrain from verbal comment. Organized, intentional, premeditated, planned, and perpetrated by
15:54
not just one person or a few people, but a mob of literally scores of
15:59
individuals working in coordination to ensure the victim is harassed by microaggressions every minute of
16:05
the day, every day, month after month, year after year. careful observance of the letter
16:11
of the law crafted acts that are difficult or impossible to provide credible evidence of
16:16
and as a result police may be unable according to current procedures even to file
16:22
a report this is a new strain of hate actions i spoke with Bellevue council
16:27
member Conrad Lee today and he asked me what would be the motivation for people
16:33
to do this well this is not the time to be naive it is not
16:38
the time to assume it can't happen here we have evidence that people in very
16:44
high offices in our country have ties to hate groups and that these hate groups
16:50
operate on the deep net and they can mobilize people. This is the time to
16:55
chart the waters we are now swimming in whether we want to swim in them
17:01
or not or intended to swim in them or not. We need to develop coordinated
17:06
frameworks and infrastructures to deal with these threats. We must leverage the immense resources Issaquah
17:12
already has such as my organization and its other funded service providers. We're networked,
17:17
I am networked, we are all networked with the entire east side of King
17:23
County and my funding extends to seven cities within the county with whom I
17:29
work closely. I ask all of you to immediately consider such efforts as a
17:35
mayor's task force like they have in Renton. A MONTHLY MEETING OF MARTHA SASARASI WITH
17:41
ALL OF THE PEOPLE, SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT YOU FUND SO WE CAN EXCHANGE AND WE
17:46
CAN GET INFORMATION ABOUT THE IMMIGRANTS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR THAT WE SERVE TO EACH
17:51
OTHER AND TO MARTHA AND THROUGH HER TO THE CITY REGULARLY EVERY MONTH. And above
17:57
all, one last thing, please do continue to support the Better Together series by
18:03
Issaquah Schools Foundation, Margarita Leis. This is a wonderful opportunity. Issaquah is doing something
18:09
nobody else is doing. Schools, Schools Foundation, PTA, City of Issaquah, we're coming together
18:14
to bring resources to school for teachers to know how to combat bullying. Thank
18:20
you very much. Well, thank you for coming to speak tonight. Let
18:26
me just say this for the viewing audience that we take every
18:32
report of harassment very seriously and are here to assist our citizens
18:37
when they feel threatened. We want all members of our community to
18:43
feel safe and secure accessing city services and engaging with us.
18:48
I know you've already been in touch Michael with several staff
18:54
at the city and that you will be meeting later this
19:00
week and we are looking forward to continue to follow up
19:05
and investigate those claims as alleged this evening. Thank you. Next
19:11
we have Michael Chen.
19:21
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and mayor, and everybody. My name is Michael
19:27
Chen. I live in 1110 Ridgewood Place, Southwest, Issaquah. Diversity is the fundamental
19:33
to the success of the United States. In 1998, I completed my undergraduate
19:39
degree in Taiwan and came to the United States for graduate studies. During
19:45
my study for a master and PhD in educational leadership in Washington State
19:51
University, I was involved with the International Student Mentor Program to help
19:57
international students adjust their new environment as smoothly as possible. I fell in
20:02
love with the freedom and endless opportunity the land can offer. It is
20:08
my belief that because the United States is such a tolerant and a
20:14
free country that it is able to attract top talent from around the
20:20
world to come and stay.
20:28
excuse me we move into our
20:34
our current address current address soon
20:39
after we move in i noticed
20:44
a male neighbor standing in front
20:49
of our house staring into our
20:54
window i saw him doing this
20:59
several times as i brought my
21:05
children home he was usually walked
21:10
back home directly without greeting me
21:15
I felt uncomfortable. I tried to introduce myself to him and strike
21:21
up an acquaintanceship, but he did not seem interested in getting to
21:27
myself to him and to know me. He continued to stare into
21:33
our window and even walk into our side yard to check from
21:38
the living room. I feel my privacy was being violated.
21:44
One day I saw this man doing this again. I make
21:50
a point to watching him as he did it. He was
21:55
not happy with that and communicate his displeasure with profanities. I
22:01
respond in kind and he had an argument. His wife had then
22:07
called the police on me. The police officer told me to calm down. I did
22:12
not understand why they called the police because I was standing on my property watching.
22:17
Two weeks later, I was in front of my garage door talking over the cell
22:22
phone and a man's wife came out again and said, "Michael, if you continue to
22:28
stand there looking at my house again, I'm going to call the police." again. I
22:33
was not even thinking about my neighbors, simply standing in my driveway, walking to, talking
22:39
to my friends. Finally, I realized that I had become the target of harassment. Soon
22:45
after that, I saw the neighbor had put a for sale in his yard. Then
22:51
he came to my attention. Then more and more neighbors in our community started to
22:57
show the same pattern of behavior They would walk their dog in front of
23:03
our house back and forth, sometimes would sit in the car next to my house
23:09
and watch us while my children were outside playing. There was even a lady who
23:15
lived down the hill who began to drive her car up and down from my
23:21
house several times every day. I asked her why she was doing this and she
23:27
said she doesn't socialize with the neighbors. She was just looking at the
23:32
scenery. We don't actually have any scenery to see because the upper hill
23:38
of our house is a dead end. More and more neighbors came to
23:44
surveil us, so I installed a four camera outside of my house.
23:50
This captures strange behaviors by my neighbors on a continuous, continuing basis. I try
23:56
to communicate with at least eight times, eight different neighbors to ask why they
24:02
seem to be hospitality toward me. Nobody wanted to tell me the reason, and
24:08
I always got the same answer. Michael, I have not heard of anything. If
24:13
I know something, I'll let you know. However, those behavior continues. Over the
24:19
course of the next two years, I experienced about 300 incidents of harassment.
24:25
Please summarize. I noticed that you have a written statement that you're reading
24:31
from. If you would give that to the clerk, we can enter that
24:37
into the record.
24:44
I can understand why the neighbor did not want to respond, but I approached
24:50
them to solve the problem there may be. Why did they choose instead to
24:55
engage in hate crime? I understand at a personal level how difficult the struggles
25:01
are that one has to go through to live in a totally different culture. However,
25:07
I have been living in the United States over 17 years and never had those
25:13
kind of experiences with the neighbors. Michael? If you would summarize, I, I, was that
25:18
your summary? If you would leave a copy of that with the clerk. And let
25:24
me just repeat some of my remarks that I made following the previous speaker.
25:30
I'd like to thank you for coming this evening. We take allegations
25:36
and reports of harassment very, very seriously. Again, I know that you're
25:42
scheduled to meet with the Issaquah Police Department, and I hope that
25:47
that can bring some closure to what is obviously a very emotional
25:53
thing for you. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Next
25:59
we have Angela Bartholomews.
26:10
Good evening everyone. I'm Angela Bartholomus and I live at 24319 SE
26:15
132nd Way. I went to the Streetscapes open house that was recently
26:21
here in Issaquah at the Depot Park. And I was a little
26:27
concerned because of the loss of parking and I know traffic is
26:33
my biggest concern. I moved to Issaquah from Kent and I expected my
26:38
life to improve but my commute time has doubled compared to what it was
26:44
in Kent. And I think we live a lot closer. So I would hope
26:50
that you would consider actually fixing traffic and fixing parking before you spend money
26:56
on the streetscape. I love that you want to green up the city but
27:02
I can't go anywhere. I can't park anywhere. And I miss time
27:08
with my children. Thank you. Angela, thank you very, very much.
27:14
No one further has signed up to speak. Is there anyone
27:20
else who has not signed up to speak during audience? Steve,
27:25
approach the microphone. Hi, my name is Steve Pereira, 170 Northeast
27:31
Dogwood Street, for about nine years. So several thoughts first one to start with
27:37
thanks to the scouts and those involved in supporting them. It's a great program So
27:41
thanks guys for being here appreciate that Second shout out to the library. It's one
27:45
of the things that attracted me to King County to here in Issaquah So they
27:49
do a great job trying to promote the services. So thanks to them and thanks
27:53
to the staff that worked there and thanks for the city of Issaquah for having
27:57
a library board Third item is consent calendar item number EAB7330,
28:02
the 2017 docket of comprehensive plan amendments. And I guess I look at this as
28:08
two parts. The first is one of the things I hear people talk about that
28:14
they like and where the Issaquah Treasures are kind of that small town feel, the
28:20
wooded hillsides. And I don't think that the existing things that we used
28:26
to guide is a quad reflect those and have measurements to how to how to
28:31
guide those for so, for example, the tree canopy or the wildlife canopy aren't included.
28:36
So I think we need a better way of measuring those things of that small
28:40
town feel that we currently don't have in place. The second is what we have.
28:46
existing policies in place, the docket of comprehensive plan amendments one through eight is only
28:51
half of the, I guess less than half of the nine through 17 items that
28:56
aren't included. I know we don't want to have staff, but I don't think we're
29:02
looking at long-term planning enough to update those measurements. And I'm not advocating for staff,
29:07
but I'm advocating a way to try to include more of those things in an
29:13
accelerated timeframe, not pushing things out to 2018 and 2019. So I guess I
29:18
would like to see that go back to the drawing board before it moves forward
29:23
as part of the consent calendar being approved. I guess one other thought, when I
29:29
was reading through the packet of items today, there were some citizens that sent in
29:34
input on what they thought. A lot of the feedback that I saw from staff
29:39
regarded more policy and didn't seem to address the specifics of how things were done.
29:45
And so I think based on that, there needs to be more, I guess that's
29:50
further evidence of needing further deliberation before that moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. Is
29:56
there anyone else desiring to speak this evening? Yes. Mary.
30:05
My name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oak Crest Drive, Issaquah,
30:10
Washington. I just want to ditto what Steve said about the comprehensive plan. I also
30:16
want to thank King County for providing the meeting rooms. They have some of the
30:21
few available free public meeting rooms for larger groups and make those available to us
30:26
for public meetings. and also the printers, they didn't mention the printers. For those of
30:31
us that don't do a lot of printing it's really worthless to have a printer
30:36
at home because you run out or the ink dries up so the printers are
30:41
good. That being said at the May or at April 5th at 7:00 p.m. Newport
30:47
Way Northwest Community Meeting will hold another one of its meetings in the King County
30:52
Services Library and everybody is welcome to attend. We will be coming back as a
30:57
group having broken into subgroups looking at vision for our area and be discussing the
31:02
revisioning as part of the central area plan and also be talking about construction impacts
31:07
and what we have seen and hope to see the city do in the future.
31:12
So I want to invite people to that that being said I have
31:18
asked the city via emails direct talking for their the city's best practices
31:24
for construction management as it comes to contractors dealing with the public and
31:29
also Setting up around on public streets and all and I've seen nothing
31:35
and Today, as I drove back from work, I see all
31:41
these large vehicles with trucks along Newport Way up into our
31:47
small neighborhood set along the parking or along our sidewalks, totally
31:53
unmanned, unprotected. And this was the first we knew that anything was going to happen
31:58
there. We had congestion on our street without any knowledge. And we've consistently asked that
32:03
there be notification of the neighborhoods when construction is going to be impacting the road.
32:09
There should have been at both sides of Newport Way at Lakemont and at Newport
32:14
Way the large flashing signs directing through traffic away from Newport Way so that those
32:19
of us can get out of our neighborhoods. Our drive Oak Crest was consistently blocked
32:25
with traffic because of the road work that was going on and there was no
32:30
flaggers at that intersection or any of the other intersections along there. and there was
32:35
no police there either and we had people that were speeding up to the road
32:40
area going through the road block and then speeding away from that. And where they
32:45
were speeding away from that was right at our intersection right through the crosswalk. And
32:50
I at one time went down and was taking pictures and talking to the foreman
32:54
there and had people not yielding even though the lights were flashing when I tried
32:59
to cross. And they were speeding away at more, I mean they were going from
33:04
zero to 30 to 35. away from there and we need to have better control
33:09
of all our construction practices. When I drove home through by Confluence Park I noticed
33:14
that there's a bunch of dirt on the road and see nothing doing with that
33:19
contractor to prevent the mud being carried on down the other streets around the Confluence
33:24
Park projects. projects. So where's our best practices? Who's looking at those? And who is
33:29
talking, you have a new city engagement tool that you're going to be talking about
33:35
tonight, but are you using that internally in the city so that public works, public
33:41
engineering, your development services and your parks people are talking together? I don't think so.
33:47
Because one of the things I heard last Monday, I wasn't able to stay and
33:52
talk, is we had city staff up here talking about the Old Town project, and
33:57
I've noticed all the parking spaces along Front Street, the parking width has been reduced.
34:03
And yes, city staff said that's to code. But I was at several December meetings
34:08
where we had This area full of people from the highlands and people that
34:14
used the Central Park up there complaining and asking the city to spend park funds
34:20
to widen parking stalls that were built to code because it was not safe.
34:25
UP THERE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK AND USE THE PARK. WELL, IF IT'S NOT SAFE
34:31
IN CENTRAL PARK, HOW CAN WE COME DOWN TO FRONT STREET WHERE WE HAVE MUCH
34:36
MORE TRAFFIC AND EXPECT THOSE REDUCED PARKING SPACES TO BE SAFE FOR PEOPLE DOWN HERE?
34:42
WE NEED TO TALK AMONG OUR STAFF. WE NEED TO ENFORCE CODES THE SAME ACROSS
34:48
ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS. AND WE NEED TO DO IT FOR SAFETY AND THE PUBLIC.
34:54
and I don't see that happening and it's getting really tiring of having to come
34:59
and spend my precious time asking for stuff to be done and it's not done.
35:04
It's been over two years when I've showed up at meetings, I've spent time and
35:09
nothing really seems to be changing. A new tool won't fix it. If we don't
35:14
internally work with staff and educate them on best practices it's just not going to
35:19
happen. Thank you, Mary. Anyone else desiring to
35:25
speak this evening? Yes. Elizabeth. My name is
35:30
Elizabeth Mopin. I live at 100 Big Bear
35:36
Place in Issaquah and run a small bed
35:42
and breakfast. I know that in planning ahead,
35:47
one of the things that the city has
35:53
often talked about is preserving the character of
35:58
the community. And one of the reasons that I've
36:04
been particularly concerned about a trend towards more and more unaffordable
36:10
housing is that this trend threatens to push out the descendants
36:16
of many of the people who made Issaquah what it is.
36:22
And when we lose those people, we lose our
36:27
contact with the character of the town. It isn't just
36:33
architecture that makes the character of a community, but it's
36:38
the members of the community. I've heard from people like
36:44
David Wagoner, who's donated hundreds of hours to our senior
36:50
center and driving bus and all of that and working
36:55
with the veterans. If his rents continue to go up,
37:01
he can't stay here. So the other thing was that today
37:07
I was at a meeting of the Sammamish Nourishing Network where
37:12
the Issaquah Schools Foundation was making a presentation and they were
37:18
talking about the levels of stress and anxiety in the students
37:24
and that students are particularly afraid of failure in this community
37:29
that Part of the character of our community is
37:35
that we have a lot of successful people here, economically successful, and the
37:41
students don't see people who are dealing with failure. When people fail economically
37:47
in our community, they have to leave because they can't afford to stay
37:53
here. So we don't have a chance to see people who struggle and
37:59
get back on their feet. We just get rid of them.
38:05
So I hope you'll keep all of that in mind as you
38:11
look at ways of making sure that we can keep some affordable
38:16
housing in our community and make this a place where people can
38:22
work and live and stay for several generations. Thank you. Thank you,
38:28
Elizabeth. Is there anyone else desiring to speak this evening?
38:35
Anyone else? Third and final call. Anyone else desiring to speak? Seeing no
38:41
one then, audience comments are closed and we will now move to committee
38:47
and regional reports. Before we do that, you'll notice that Councilmember Bill Ramos
38:52
is not here this evening. He has an excused absence. And with that,
38:58
Councilmember Patis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Eastside Human Services Forum Board
39:04
will meet Wednesday, March 22nd at Bellevue City Hall, so coming up this
39:10
week. I also attended the Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee on March
39:15
8th and TOLA will be giving more information with an update on that
39:21
meeting. Wednesday, March 15th, I attended the King Conservation District
39:27
Advisory Committee. And two items of note were discussions about urban
39:33
forestry. It was the Urban Forestry Working Group Report.
39:39
long discussion about project locations that have typically fallen
39:45
in sort of the northern cities and trying to
39:50
focus some of those projects in the southern, more
39:56
southern areas. Very interesting and impactful projects that were focused on
40:02
tree canopies, reducing storm water runoff, and some things that I think could
40:08
be really useful to our city. And also a report on the regional
40:14
food system grant working group report Thank you. - Thank you. Council
40:20
Member Winterstein. - Thank you. The Growth Management Policy Board will be meeting next Thursday,
40:25
not next Thursday, but on Thursday, April 6th. The full agenda has yet to be
40:31
published. We know that in this meeting will be kickoff of the conversations about updates
40:37
to the growth to the excuse me regional centers framework and regarding this topic the
40:42
board has extended the period from three to six months for conversation and developing a
40:48
recommendations that will be making to the PSRC executive committee in September. It was going
40:53
to be July now it's going to be September so we have more time to
40:59
make our policy which is known that concludes my report thank you
41:05
council member uh martz thank you mr mayor the council services and safety committee met
41:10
on tuesday march 14th and we had a there was a discussion of agenda bill
41:16
7331 public engagement toolkit we voted 3-0 to bring it back to this evening's regular
41:22
business as it is on the agenda for this evening we also received a report
41:28
uh from the finance department, basically an update on where they are and some
41:34
potential expenditures that they're going to want to have going forward. And so
41:39
that'll be something that full council will be seeing more of as we
41:45
proceed into the year. But there's definitely some some expenditures that are going
41:51
to come our way for getting the finance department up to where they feel they
41:57
need to be. Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee met on Wednesday, March 8th. Sorry
42:02
about getting that date wrong last time. We had a pre-pick meeting on regional centers
42:08
policy framework. Issaquah was well represented at that meeting, but I was the only one
42:14
who spoke, so there was no quorum issues. But there's a large number of cities
42:19
present. to hear about Vision 40, potential changes to Vision
42:25
2040 regional center policies at the PSRC. Then at the regular
42:30
PIC meeting, we had appointments to the Mid Advisory Committee and the King County Flood
42:36
Control District. We had a discussion on PSRC regional economic strategy, including some good supplemental
42:42
information. If you have a chance to take a look at the PIC minutes, the
42:48
PIC staff put together a little visual representation of how we do economic policy in
42:54
the region that I found very useful. Then there was a discussion
43:00
on a potential cultural access sales tax that may be on the ballot later
43:06
this summer, and that would be something like $60 million a year, so there
43:12
was not a move to take this up in terms of SCA taking a
43:18
position on it, but there were general conversations around some of the same issues that
43:24
we saw at Best Starts for Kids around governance, regional equity, and making sure that
43:29
the financial side of things, if this goes forward, are well covered. And there were
43:34
members of the group, forgive me, I can't remember the name of the group that's
43:39
running this particular issue, but they were present and they took copious notes. So we
43:44
felt like we had a good conversation. We also let them speak and audience comment.
43:49
Then finally we had a Regional Committee Work Plan update
43:55
for Regional RPC, RTC and Regional Water Quality. So then
44:01
Growth Management Planning Council, never to be confused with GMPB,
44:06
is meeting on Wednesday, March 29th. The tentative agenda includes
44:12
upcoming GMPC work items and a Regional Growth Centre's update
44:17
from PSRC. And then a little bit further out, the E911 group will
44:23
be meeting on Thursday, June 20th. This concludes my report. Thank you. Council Member Barber.
44:29
Thank you, Mayor. I attended the YRA 8 meeting this week, this month. We were
44:34
reviewing some plans and some revisions to those plans for update and policy decisions.
44:40
on some of the streams and habitats designating their tier designation adjustments from a
44:46
one to a two. There was also discussion on tier designation for the upper
44:51
Cedar River watershed to a tier one. This reflects the significant use of that
44:57
area by Chinook for spawning purposes. Also provided support for ongoing investigation into
45:03
tier two streams to support spawning for juvenile, for the spawning of juvenile
45:09
and also their rearing in those streams. The 2018 budget was reviewed. A
45:14
lot of discussion was held on that, but we've decided to hold it
45:20
over for approval until the May vote. So that concludes my report. Thank you. Thank
45:26
you. Council Member Pauley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On March 9th, I attended the Cascade
45:31
Water Alliance Resource Management Committee. The discussion mainly focused on a series of contract awards,
45:37
and there's no significant issues to bring back to the council at this time. On
45:42
March 9th, I attended the Greater Issaquah Chamber of Commerce luncheon. And also the
45:48
Sammamish Plateau Water District did a aquifer modeling presentation up at their offices and
45:54
I was able to attend that as well. And there is one item under
46:00
the Eastside Fire and Rescue Board meeting from last month that we'll be taking
46:06
up for good of the order tonight. Thank you. Council President Goodman. I have
46:12
no report tonight. For the Mayor's report, there will
46:17
be an executive session held this evening for the purpose
46:23
of discussing potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110-1-I. The item is
46:28
expected to take approximately 30 minutes. Action may follow in
46:34
open session. Finally, if you've received a postcard from
46:40
the City of Issaquah, you live in one of the 3,000 households
46:46
randomly selected to participate in our 2017 Citizen Survey. We're using the
46:52
Statistically Valid National Citizen Survey to learn more about your view of
46:58
city services and Issaquah's quality of life. This information will help us
47:04
better serve our community. For those who did not receive a
47:09
survey, we still want to hear from you. Look for an online
47:15
version for all citizens next month. And with that, we'll move
47:21
now to the consent calendar and I would ask if the payables and payroll for
47:27
March the 20th have been reviewed? Yes, they have. Thank you. And then with that,
47:33
I would ask the city clerk to read the consent calendar into the record.
47:38
The consent calendar was distributed to Council in advance for study. If authorized, Council action
47:44
will occur by single motion regarding the following items: Item A: Seeks approval of the
47:49
accounts payables and payroll of March 20. Item B: Seeks approval of the minutes of
47:55
the regular meeting of March 6. Item C: AB 7312 2017 Regional Agenda. Seeks referral
48:01
to various Council committees. Item D: AB 7327 Amending various Issaquah Municipal Code sections
48:06
related to permit fees seeks referral to Council Land and Shore Committee. Item
48:12
E AB 7330 2017 Dockett of Comprehensive Plan Amendments seeks to approve. Item
48:18
F AB 7335 Mount Hood Tank Improvements Project seeks to award bid. Item
48:24
G AB 7341 King County Animal Services Interlocal Agreement Seeks referral to Council
48:30
Services and Safety Committee. And item H AB 7402, ratification of King County
48:35
countywide planning policies. Seeks to approve resolution. If approved, the resolution will be
48:41
assigned number 2017-02. This concludes the reading. Thank you. Does any council member
48:47
desire to remove any item from the consent calendar for consideration under regular
48:53
business? Councilmember Goodman. I would move to adopt the
48:58
consent calendar as presented. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor signify
49:04
by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that carries unanimously. Moving now to the
49:10
first of our two public hearings. The first, Agenda Bill 7 2 1
49:16
9, Gilman Lofts Three Trails Development Agreement. Just a reminder that
49:22
the same rules that I outlined for audience comments earlier
49:28
apply and with that a staff presentation to kick things
49:34
off. Keith Niven, Director of Development Services and also Economic
49:40
Development.
49:49
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council, Keith Niven. So this evening, we're
49:55
here to talk about a proposed development agreement for the Gilman Lofts
50:01
Three Trails project. The proposal really consists of two significant
50:07
parts. The first is a partnering agreement for the construction of a
50:13
traffic signal at the King County Trail crossing of Gilman Boulevard just
50:19
west of where the Pagacha restaurant is. The second is to enter
50:24
into a development agreement with the applicant and that would allow
50:30
the project to move forward during the existing temporary development moratorium
50:36
that's in place. So I'll address both of those pieces separately.
50:42
So that's a location map. So the project site is
50:48
encompassed by the red polygon. This is Gilman Boulevard right
50:54
here. And this is the King County Trail right here.
50:59
And here's where Pagaccia Restaurant is right here. And the
51:05
first piece of this is about the the trail crossing, but it
51:11
also is about Gilman and what is happening with the current permit conditions
51:17
that are on this project. So the first image is the existing Gilman
51:22
Boulevard right now. You can see that there's actually a gap in the
51:28
median right here, and people right now can make a left hand turn
51:34
into this driveway which serves both the project site and Pagacha as well as
51:39
the other businesses. There's actually the way that the parking lots work, they're actually all
51:45
connected to this driveway. So all the businesses on the north side of Gilman that
51:50
are east of here also can take advantage of this full access driveway. What
51:56
was conditioned as part of the permit, this property right now is actually under construction
52:02
for vertical mini storage. And then the second piece of the project is what we're
52:08
talking about, which would happen more towards the front of the property. But because of
52:14
the added traffic that would be coming to this site, Condition of the permit
52:20
was to install a C-curb or a vertical curb in the middle of the road
52:25
and that's shown by this black line and what that would do would be take
52:30
this existing driveway and turn it into a right in right out only. No longer
52:35
would you be able if you were eastbound on Gilman to turn left into this
52:40
driveway. What's being asked for by the applicant is to actually construct a
52:45
traffic signal in this location. And I've got another slide of it, a little bit
52:51
bigger image. Although it hasn't been designed yet, this is a schematic that was provided
52:57
by the applicant. So again, this is Gilman Boulevard. You see Juniper Rainier right here
53:02
on the south leg. The trail sits right here. What they would like to
53:08
do is to signalize this intersection which would allow trail users, bicycles
53:14
and pedestrians to cross directly at this location. It would also put
53:20
a signalized intersection access to their property on the, I think that's
53:25
the north side of Gilman.
53:31
They have asked to be able to move forward while the moratorium is in
53:37
place. And the reason for that is the way I understand it primarily because
53:43
of The economics would work for them because they have to
53:48
cut Gilman to put in both water and sewer connections to
53:54
their property. At that time, putting in the under street conduit
54:00
for those traffic signals is something that can fall within their project
54:05
budget. If they could not do that and had to go back and
54:11
cut the street a second time, it changes the scope of their overall
54:17
costs. The moratorium, as you know, has six work items associated with it.
54:23
And so right here is really a list how this proposed project falls
54:28
generally in line with those six items. The one item that is maybe
54:34
too early to tell or is going to fall maybe a little bit
54:40
out of sync with is architectural fit. We've started that contract. We've awarded
54:46
that contract to a Portland firm. They'll be meeting with the council next month.
54:52
as they will with development commission, but their work product will probably not
54:57
be finished before a land use application for the Gilman Lofts project would
55:03
be completed. But in terms of parking, most of the parking that's proposed
55:09
on the site will be structured. There is no housing being proposed on
55:15
this property. It is mixed use with ground floor retail and commercial space
55:21
above. The site plan, as you can see, this is Gilman
55:26
down here. Here is the existing King County Trail right here. This
55:32
is the existing or the under construction storage facility that's being built
55:37
now. This is the four story Gilman loft project right here in
55:43
the front. And then here's a rendering of what that project would
55:48
look like Assuming it gets permitted. So that's the summary of
55:54
this. Really, it's about two things. It's about cost sharing in a
56:00
traffic signal that's on the city's current non-motorized concurrency TIP. The proposal
56:06
would be for the applicant to pay $1 million towards the cost
56:12
of that, and the city would pay $375,000, and our costs would
56:18
be capped. And then the second piece would be to allow them to move forward
56:23
in advance of the moratorium being lifted. There were two public comments that were provided
56:29
previously. One was about a bus shelter because this was a location because of the
56:35
office space that it made sense to try and get a bus stop in this
56:40
location. So the development agreement that's attached to this agenda bill does address. working with
56:46
Metro to try and get a bus stop in this location and the second is
56:52
was related to because of the proximity of this the adjacency of this project to
56:58
the King County Trail part of the site plan would be to have a plaza
57:04
that would really kind of be the front door of this project and it would
57:09
orient to the trail and there was a conversation about kind of that interrelationship between
57:15
the project and the trail. So with that I'm going to go ahead and stop
57:20
and either look for questions or turn it over for public comment at your discretion.
57:26
Stacy? I have a question. So what we heard at Land and Shore was
57:31
initially the $375,000 city contribution, but then there was comment from the applicant that
57:37
it would be more like $500,000. So can you clarify that, please? Yes. So
57:43
the development agreement draft that's attached to the AB is clear. Our cost and
57:49
exposure is maxed at $375,000. I think the applicant might address that this evening
57:55
with their public comment. And then the second question I had is
58:01
you said there was a condition of the permit regarding the C curbing. And it's
58:06
my understanding that the C curbing arose out of the applicant's transportation consultant. That's where
58:12
the recommendation came from. And that's how it ended up as a condition. It wasn't
58:17
a condition that the city came up with. Is that right? So my understanding is
58:23
yes, that the way that the way these things typically work through permitting is
58:29
when there's a traffic impact that needs to be mitigated, the applicant's traffic consultant
58:35
proposes the mitigation that would be implemented with the project. That C curbing, the
58:40
way I understand it is that C curbing proposal came from the applicant, but
58:46
then was conditioned by the city. So if we if we if we don't
58:52
do something different that that C curbing would need to be installed? The reason I
58:57
asked that question is because there is, we received communication from the business owners on
59:03
Gilman in that area that have stated in their comments to us that it was
59:09
a condition of the permit, the city conditioned it, and I just want to make
59:14
it clear how that process worked. Okay. paul
59:20
uh that's um still along the c curbing question in the the um the three
59:26
images that you had in the middle on the rightmost one that include the um
59:31
it so the c curb is still in this rendering and yet um you didn't
59:37
say this but were you implying that eastbound traffic on gilman can make a left
59:42
turn into this intersection to access the businesses on the north side of the road
59:48
Correct. That's the way that was my error. So yes, that's the way that would
59:54
function is you would be able to turn left at the signalized intersection and there
59:59
is as there is east of that current driveway west of that current driveway. There's
1:00:05
also a pavement connection and we would if this is the solution that we end
1:00:10
up with we would ensure that there was cross access easement dedicated for the benefit
1:00:15
of those properties to the east. Other questions before I open the public
1:00:21
hearing? Maybe I missed it, but can you talk a little bit more about
1:00:27
the intersection, the signalization that's not yet designed and what, if any, improvements would
1:00:33
happen on the south side? That's a great question. For those that
1:00:39
haven't been in the multitude of conversations we've had about this, what's
1:00:45
happening here, because Rainier comes in right at Juniper, right near Gilman,
1:00:50
there's not adequate queuing distance back from that intersection that we would
1:00:56
typically get with a new signalized intersection. What's being proposed right now
1:01:02
is to go ahead and signal all four legs of this intersection, recognizing that there
1:01:08
needs to be a follow-up traffic solution for this southern leg because it doesn't meet
1:01:14
current standards. I did bring my friend, the traffic engineer, this evening. If you guys
1:01:20
do want to get further into that. Oh, he took my seat. So I'm less
1:01:26
qualified, obviously, to talk about the technical merits of that. But I think Kurt's here
1:01:31
if you guys want to have a conversation about that a little bit further in
1:01:37
detail. But I think your answer is that this project doesn't improve the South Side.
1:01:42
This project, well, so I didn't say that. I personally as just a
1:01:48
driver, not a traffic engineer, would tell you that if I was wanting
1:01:54
to take a left onto Gilman from Juniper that I would appreciate an
1:02:00
actual dedicated movement, which I would get with the the signaling of that southern leg
1:02:06
even in its nonconforming configuration. Whereas today, if I want to make a left out
1:02:11
of Juniper, I have to wait -- I either have to wait for a gap
1:02:16
in traffic or I just kind of go and hope I don't get hit. Yeah.
1:02:21
So I guess maybe I should be more clear in my question. Does it address
1:02:26
the issues on the south side or is it -- There's still issues that
1:02:31
need to be addressed on the south side. There would
1:02:37
be a follow-up traffic solution that would be necessary for
1:02:42
the south leg. Seeing no other questions, I'll open the
1:02:48
public hearing at 8:03 and ask if anyone has signed
1:02:53
up to speak. No. Is there? Yes, sir. I'm going
1:02:59
to get to everyone. So yeah, go ahead.
1:03:05
It's time to get you to the mic. All right. So my name's Steve King.
1:03:11
I'm the owner of Pagaccia Restaurant. And actually, a couple-- about a month or two
1:03:16
ago, we had a committee hearing where we made some public comments and talked about
1:03:22
the impact it would have on our business, not to mention the businesses that are
1:03:28
on basically the north side of Gilman. It's very simple. If people can't turn left
1:03:33
into your business, they're going to go elsewhere. If you look at the traffic flow
1:03:39
on Gilman, There's literally would be no, it's almost like landlocked from the standpoint that
1:03:45
if you went up to, you'd have to go through the intersection, through Front Street,
1:03:50
make a U-turn, then come back to get into our restaurant or to get into
1:03:55
Big O Tire or get into, you know, the Marks Auto Repair and stuff like
1:04:01
that. Or you could try to turn left onto Front Street. And we know what
1:04:06
the traffic is like on Front Street. So realistically, If you turn left and maybe
1:04:12
try to snake back through the Shell station, that's a total backup on its own
1:04:17
and all this other good stuff. We know how bad Front Street traffic is. So
1:04:22
literally, it would be devastating to our business. I would also like to point out
1:04:28
that I would suggest, and I'm not a traffic engineer, this is just, I know
1:04:33
there's been too many accidents at that intersection, but I would suggest that what's going
1:04:38
to happen Because people are going to be leaving the restaurant, and they immediately
1:04:44
want to get all the way over and try to make a U-turn on Juniper
1:04:50
to basically turn around so they can head east. If that was the case, probably--
1:04:56
and again, you'd have to discuss the accidents involved on Juniper, Rainier, and Gilman. But
1:05:02
I would suggest that too often they're a result of you have two lanes of
1:05:08
traffic on Gilman heading east, traffic will stop to let the car
1:05:14
turn left onto Rainier or Juniper or Rainier, where the person in the
1:05:19
right lane is driving up Gilman, doesn't realize traffic is just about to
1:05:25
turn in front of him, and boom. Numerous accidents have occurred at that
1:05:30
intersection. If you literally eliminate a left turn out of this property, it's
1:05:36
going to just add to the potential likelihood of accidents. So Clearly that
1:05:42
whole intersection needs help because they're, you know, being in this business for 19 years
1:05:48
at Pagacha, we've seen plenty of police cars out front with, you know,
1:05:54
taking testimony or getting ambulance service. I mean, even last Thursday, there was
1:05:59
a rear end collision on Gilman. Oops, sorry, I pushed that. So anyway,
1:06:05
so needless to say, I think to approve this would be huge. It's
1:06:11
gonna benefit everybody. It's obviously a financial benefit to the city. And honestly,
1:06:17
if you take that access to our business away, there are the keys,
1:06:22
okay? That's all I've got to say.
1:06:28
Thank you. I believe I saw a hand.
1:06:33
Please. Hi, Sarah Barnes. I'm a manager at
1:06:39
Pagacha as well. I can absolutely attest to
1:06:44
everything Steve has said. Outside of our business
1:06:50
interest, that intersection is a hazard. You've got
1:06:55
too many roads crossing. We've seen a lot
1:07:00
of accidents. Would without question I think everyone can see would be a real
1:07:06
detriment to the business and not just ours there's a whole group of businesses so
1:07:11
you've got Pagacha and then you've got all of the auto mall transmission people are
1:07:16
here. Mark Spago everything it's it's eliminating anyone coming northbound on Gilman you're blocking them
1:07:21
from our business and I you know I appreciate the city not wanting to grow
1:07:26
I don't want this to grow up like Redmond or Bellevue I love Issaquah the
1:07:31
way Issaquah is. Pagacha has been there for almost two decades and we're a good
1:07:36
community member. We major sponsor for Relay of Life, we sponsor the Village Theater, we
1:07:42
donate to the library system which really appreciate you guys and we want to stay
1:07:47
here and keep being a good community member. I also would speak outside of my
1:07:53
role as restaurant manager but as an outdoor enthusiast and a mother of a competitive
1:07:58
distance runner. You guys have done as a city this fabulous job with that King
1:08:03
County Trail connecting to Lake Sammamish. It's beautiful outdoor activity goes to the Sammamish River
1:08:08
Trail. You can get to Marymoor Park. You can get on the Burke Gilman Trail.
1:08:12
I mean this is a mecca for bikers and runners and hikers and walkers. And
1:08:17
then we have the Issaquah Alps. You've got Tiger Mountain. You've got Squawk Mountain. Fabulous
1:08:21
trails. You can get to them from Issaquah High School. and you can shoot right
1:08:26
up there and then you get stuck and I see bikers and runners and hikers
1:08:30
and walkers crossing Gilman with no crosswalk I know there's a crosswalk down there and
1:08:35
there's a crosswalk down here but I see them coming across there every day in
1:08:39
the morning I come out with a sign and you'll see people racing their bike
1:08:43
across and I think it's the advantage to the city of of connecting all these
1:08:47
outdoor activities I mean it really speaks to what Issaquah is that celebration of the
1:08:52
outdoors and everything I think it it you have a great opportunity with these guys
1:08:57
willing to pitch in for the traffic light. I just would say jump on it,
1:09:02
do it. I think it's good for business, but it's good for a lot of
1:09:07
other things. Thank you. Anyone else desiring to speak here and then there?
1:09:18
Hi, I'm Rob Henderson. I own Rob's Transmission Shop. I'm in the Issaquah Auto Center
1:09:23
right next to Pagatcha, and I do test drives, you know, 10 a day plus
1:09:27
where we turn right out of there, and then we come back on Juniper or
1:09:32
just Gilman sometimes, and if we can't turn in and across there, it's just we're
1:09:36
going to have to go down towards the XXX to turn around, and the It's
1:09:41
not a great turnaround spot there down by Triple X, but sitting at that light
1:09:46
to get through that, it's nice that we can just sort of do this little
1:09:51
short trail there. We do do a longer route too where we get on I-90
1:09:55
and it is all right turns to come in. great point that steve made about
1:10:01
people are gonna with the curb up there they're i'm for the light um but
1:10:06
if you just put the curb up there people are going to pull out of
1:10:10
um our facility and just get over to the far left and try and whip
1:10:15
a ue right there around that median and it's just going to be a pain
1:10:20
in the butt people at northwest juniper turning left just sit and sit because that's
1:10:25
my road trip. They just sit and sit and sit and wait and wait and
1:10:31
wait, turn left. A light there would be wonderful. Give them an opportunity that's free
1:10:36
and clear. Go for it. I wouldn't mind just leaving it alone how it is.
1:10:42
But if you've got to have one thing one way or the other, you know,
1:10:47
I would rather have a light than a curb. You know, that's about it. Thanks
1:10:52
a lot. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thanks, Fred and council members. I've been a
1:10:58
resident of the area for about 17 years, been driving up and down this road
1:11:03
for 17 years. I've come Juniper, I've come Rainier. I used to live right on
1:11:09
the corner of Rainier and Juniper there. Sir? Fire of fact. Your name? Ed Evans.
1:11:14
What I can tell you that I've seen in 17 years of this intersection going
1:11:19
on is... The intersection between Juniper, Rainier, and Gilman
1:11:25
Village is kind of chaotic and most of the accidents that I see occur from
1:11:31
people taking a left out of Juniper or Rainier trying to go left, beat traffic,
1:11:37
make it right, and then you got people coming up on the other side and
1:11:43
that's what causes the accidents. Having a stoplight here and a signalization four-way would
1:11:49
improve not only the pedestrian crossing off of the trail onto Juniper and continue the
1:11:54
trail system, would also regulate what's happening at this intersection. Right now this intersection is
1:12:00
a hazard any way shape or form you look at it because you can't take
1:12:05
a left, you can't take a right without having to try to speed through some
1:12:10
kind of traffic. That's number one point. Number two point, I agree with all of
1:12:16
the businesses that are on that side. Only being able to take a left into
1:12:22
that area, all you're going to do is create a long roundabout area between where
1:12:28
people are trying to go into Bogotra or the auto business or the Shell station.
1:12:34
They're going to have to now go down to XXX, whip a UE, come back
1:12:40
in, and go through. all you're doing is creating a
1:12:46
huge roundabout which creates more traffic. We already know that Gilman and Front Street
1:12:52
during rush hour, during the busy part of time, is very busy, it's congested
1:12:57
anyway. Regulating this intersection at that point would take care of a lot of
1:13:03
that. Most importantly, increases the amount that that trail is used. Again, somebody else
1:13:09
pointed out that people are crossing that intersection anyway. on bike or on foot,
1:13:15
this gives you an opportunity to give them a safe passage across that intersection and
1:13:21
use the trail system that ISCWA has built up. I would just like to see
1:13:26
the city take on what is proposed here with signalization on that intersection for the
1:13:32
safety of our people, allowing the trails to continue along and allowing
1:13:38
the businesses on that side to prosper. Regarding what benefit does it
1:13:43
give to the south side, the south side now has a way
1:13:49
to get across safely because right now it doesn't. It is hair
1:13:54
raising to try and make a right or even a left in
1:14:00
that area. So all for this plan. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
1:14:05
Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. And David, eventually, I It
1:14:11
looks like he's deferring to you, David. David Capler, 255 Southeast Andrews
1:14:17
Street. The council committees have spent a long time on this. I
1:14:23
think it's been complicated by two issues. One, there's the moratorium, and
1:14:29
we don't want to take it lightly to approve projects during that time and if
1:14:35
we do it's got to be for a good reason and fair the second is
1:14:40
the south side the the the juniper rainier issue This project is called the Three
1:14:46
Trails Project, but it's almost the Five Corners Project. There's two neighborhoods, one
1:14:52
in Burien and one in Seattle in Queen Anne, and the whole community
1:14:57
and the businesses are all named Five Corners. If Rainier actually came to
1:15:03
Gilman, we would have Five Corners, but we got Rainier coming in to
1:15:09
Juniper just before it gets to Gilman. So, you know, we... This is
1:15:14
as good as we're going to do, I'm afraid. I had to get my windshield
1:15:19
replaced and I got to appreciate when you get out of there. It was pretty
1:15:24
exciting even on an afternoon time. Well, it was starting to get busier time. Just
1:15:29
trying to get over to coming out of the auto area over there and then
1:15:34
making that little movement to get across and to the left and then come Rainier.
1:15:39
And... it would be a whole bunch worse if people couldn't get in there
1:15:45
with the left turns eastbound. So I think the project's got merit. One thing
1:15:51
is this is on the trail. It's on three trails, but it's mainly that
1:15:56
East Lake Sammamish Trail We want people to not just go to Costco
1:16:02
and then head west or whatever they're doing or whatever. We want them to
1:16:08
come all the way to Central Lizard, the south side of I-90. Let's have
1:16:14
something attractive that comes out of this project, welcoming them to Gilman and then
1:16:20
wherever they go from there. Thank you. Thank you.
1:16:32
i'm victor saleman with transportation solutions we've laid out this conceptual design i did want
1:16:37
to correct one thing i heard earlier is when we did the initial traffic analysis
1:16:41
we actually did not propose the curb we we did an analysis that would show
1:16:46
how much traffic would be added by the proposed development city staff looked at that
1:16:50
and then wrote us back a comment saying based on the current condition they felt
1:16:54
that before they added any more traffic to that intersection that they wanted to minimize
1:16:59
the number of conflicts and that's what generated the C-curve which we then agreed with.
1:17:04
But initially we did not include that as a proposal. And then I'll be here
1:17:09
if you have any questions about how this design might work with other features of
1:17:14
Gilman Boulevard. Thank you, Victor. Yes, sir. Finally. Sorry. That's okay. Very patient. Bob Power,
1:17:20
165 Northeast Juniper Street. I represent, excuse me, the proponent of this development agreement.
1:17:26
I won't take much of your time. You've heard a lot from staff. You've
1:17:31
heard from the citizens. I guess my only real comment on this is that
1:17:38
when the moratorium was put in place you carved out some very specific exemptions one
1:17:43
of them being a development agreement if the development agreement could show a benefit to
1:17:49
the city and uh I'll leave you tonight with what I think you've heard is
1:17:54
the benefit to the city and I just hope you keep that in mind when
1:18:00
you make your decision thank you thank you is there anyone else desiring to speak
1:18:05
Steve
1:18:16
Steve Pereira, still 170 Northeast Dogwood Street here in Issaquah for about nine years. I
1:18:21
guess I have a couple concerns with this going forward. One is development agreement for
1:18:26
one project seems a little extreme. I'm not sure it's what we intended unless there's
1:18:32
some bigger concept that we're gaining. I don't know that we're gaining enough of a
1:18:37
plus in this to move forward with that. One of the things I heard at
1:18:43
one of the earlier meetings on this was something I hadn't heard before was to
1:18:47
connect Rainier directly with Gilman Boulevard. I had not ever heard that before in the
1:18:52
nine years of TIP projects. Why hasn't that received more focus, more attention? So I'm
1:18:56
just concerned we're not getting enough of what we should. There's not enough city gain
1:19:01
for this as there could be. I don't know if there's a way to say
1:19:05
give us X number of dollars for us to do something that has a bigger
1:19:10
bang for the buck. as one possibility. So the other thought
1:19:16
was, I guess again, there's some plus, just not enough
1:19:21
of it. The other thing, A concern that I have is that we're going
1:19:27
to take now I think three three off three buildings where the off space. We've
1:19:31
talked about design standards as one of the things that's laid out by the moratorium.
1:19:35
Something I haven't heard talked about is what traffic is going to do to this
1:19:39
close to the front street connection. I know we're talking about having the bus stop.
1:19:43
I don't know how many people are going to use that bus stop. I'm just
1:19:47
concerned we're adding more congestion to an already tight area. I don't know that that's
1:19:53
laid out by the moratorium specifically, but I think that needs to be inclusion in
1:19:58
how we move forward with this. So I guess I would like to see it
1:20:03
hold in some further discussion. I'm sorry, I'm gonna add one more thing. It seems
1:20:08
like after the discussion, there was, I don't know, and I wanna say that maybe
1:20:14
this is evidence that We're not asking enough of when folks want to develop, we're
1:20:18
not doing enough ask for them to build or contribute to Issaquah since they came
1:20:23
back and said with some figure around $1 million additional costs could be incurred by
1:20:27
the developer. Maybe we need to look at what we're asking or expecting from developers.
1:20:32
when they want to develop so we're getting enough bang for a buck. Again that
1:20:37
might just be me reading into this. I'm not trying to say that's the case.
1:20:42
It makes me ask the question though and I hope it asks or I hope
1:20:46
the question gets asked by city staff, by administration, by you the city council. Thank
1:20:51
you. Thank you. Is there anyone else desiring to speak? Anyone else? Third and final
1:20:57
call. Seeing no one, then the public hearing is closed
1:21:02
at 8:21. And I'll open it up to the council
1:21:08
for questions or discussion.
1:21:20
Stacy. There's no more questions. I think in order for us to have a
1:21:26
conversation to deliberate, we would need to have a motion. I'm gonna make the
1:21:32
motion because I'm chair of Land and Shore. Doesn't necessarily signal how I would
1:21:38
be voting this evening, but I will make a motion to approve resolution number
1:21:44
2017-03. approving the Gilman-Loff's Three Trails Development Agreement and direct
1:21:49
the finance director to include $375,000 in a subsequent 2017 budget amendment utilizing
1:21:55
$75,000 from the mitigation fund and $300,000 from the general fund ending fund
1:22:01
balance. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion or questions? So I appreciate a lot
1:22:07
of the comments we got this evening and I'm going to ask for
1:22:13
a little bit of clarity. because actually when some of the speakers were sharing
1:22:19
their comments, I was a little bit unclear. But so let me say what I
1:22:24
thought I heard and see if there's a question in here. So the light, what
1:22:29
it does is it enables left-hand turns off eastbound Gimlin into the property and then
1:22:34
really gives that access to all the businesses on the north side. That's the question
1:22:39
I asked earlier. But also then people leaving that, any of those locations, the restaurant
1:22:44
or any of those other stores, they would come back, you know, the intention is
1:22:48
they would come back to the same. And if they wanted to make a left-hand
1:22:53
turn to eastbound Gilman, then that would be, that's the left out. So as you're
1:22:57
showing there with the arrows, they're still only right in, right out in the old
1:23:02
entranceway in front of the restaurant. But now for the restaurant patrons or anybody visiting
1:23:07
the businesses further east, then the left out is now going to be at the
1:23:12
light to go eastbound on Hillman. You're shaking your head. I want to make sure
1:23:18
that that was absolutely clear. Yes. We're basically taking the full access driveway and we're
1:23:23
moving it west to this location where you could have full access via the new
1:23:28
traffic light. Okay. All right. And so and then there was some conversation further and
1:23:34
it's a little bit out of scope, I think, of the actual issue in front
1:23:40
of us. But the intersection of Juniper and Rainier, is there any at this time
1:23:46
anything planned to change as part of this or the stop at Rainier and the
1:23:51
stop for Juniper both south that they both have now? before Juniper even connects
1:23:57
with Gilman? Is the plan that both those stops would just stay?
1:24:03
So I can't exactly answer that now. What would happen is this
1:24:08
kind of cartoon drawing would become actual permits that one of the
1:24:14
things that was discussed at Land and Shore Committee was that there
1:24:20
could be a I don't know the technical term. I'm gonna call it
1:24:26
a white box painted on the asphalt to basically give drivers another visual cue
1:24:31
that they shouldn't stack up through this intersection. We have those in a number
1:24:37
of places through town at the moment. So whether or not there would be something
1:24:43
like that included in this final design, I don't know yet. But that would be
1:24:48
part of the conversations I think Public Works Engineering would have with the applicant's traffic
1:24:53
engineer. Okay, thank you. You answer my question. We don't know yet. I was curious
1:24:59
of the, what's the, the trail users actually experience, say if someone's going
1:25:05
northbound from Rainier Boulevard. So this matter was in front of the
1:25:10
infrastructure committee last year At one point, I know we had conversations about
1:25:16
the trail users experience, especially for cyclists northbound. And I don't know if Kurt
1:25:22
remembers that call or that conversation, but I remember it seemed in committee at
1:25:28
that time, and I apologize, I don't have detailed notes about that, that there
1:25:33
may be some special consideration for non-motorized use crossing. Is that part of the
1:25:39
thinking at all right now? He's nodding his head. Kurt, can you share
1:25:45
that with us? Move to the microphone and introduce yourself, please. Kurt Seaman, transportation manager
1:25:51
here at the City. So you're right, and just to follow on with what Keith
1:25:56
talked about earlier, so this is the, if Council decides to move forward with this
1:26:02
development agreement and the signalized intersection, there's, this is, sort of a cartoon representation
1:26:08
of what that intersection looks like and so there's some quite a bit of detail
1:26:13
that needs to be figured out with this intersection including safe crossing of gilman and
1:26:18
especially for the non-motorized for the peds and the bikes so that is something we'll
1:26:23
be working closely with the developer to make sure that that all of those movements
1:26:28
are safe and that you can get safely across Gilman as either a pet or
1:26:33
a bike. This doesn't show that, but that doesn't in no way implies that we
1:26:38
won't be paying careful attention to that. Does that get to your
1:26:43
question? Well, I heard you say that more details need to be worked
1:26:49
out. So, yeah, and then the other part, just to reiterate, is so
1:26:55
this design does a lot for safe crossing, both motorized and non-motorized. It
1:27:00
does not. really sufficiently address everything that needs to be that we'll need to look
1:27:06
at on the south side it doesn't preclude that design from happening in the future
1:27:10
but that is not to be clear a part of this proposal a couple of
1:27:15
the really quick questions i hope um on the very left side of this image
1:27:19
is the existing signalized uh crosswalk um is that is that going to stay there
1:27:23
or is that going to be i don't think that was mentioned earlier so i
1:27:27
think for everybody's benefit i think we're removing that crosswalk right at the very left
1:27:32
edge as part of this project. - Right in here. Correct, that
1:27:37
would be the intent. - Okay. And my last comments are that, so
1:27:43
as far as the development itself, I mean, the mixed use, the engagement
1:27:49
with the trail, I appreciate the way you've addressed the outstanding moratorium issues
1:27:54
and there seems to be a good faith effort to still comply with
1:28:00
the intent of what we're trying to do with the moratorium. And
1:28:06
so I appreciate that. It is every time, you know, we
1:28:12
do put in a housing project of any type now going
1:28:17
forward when there is not any housing affordable to people who would
1:28:23
live in proximity of their jobs if they live there. In other words, that's unfortunate.
1:28:29
It's a missed opportunity for some affordable housing. I think you had mentioned in there
1:28:34
specifically there's none of the units in this plan are affordable.
1:28:41
So the lofts are kind of semi a misnomer in that they give you
1:28:47
an impression that they are residential. They're not. They're commercial loft space. So this
1:28:53
is a retail and office project. There is no residential that's being included in
1:28:59
this particular- I thank you for that clarity. Sure. That's why, okay, thank you.
1:29:05
Tola? Paul, I had that exact same confusion when I first read this. I
1:29:11
saw studios. I thought, oh, okay. Well, I'm going to be supporting this this evening
1:29:16
and for two reasons. One is that I see the public benefit. You know, I've
1:29:21
been clamoring about workforce housing and living wage jobs for eight years now. And this
1:29:26
is, I've worked in these sort of studio farm type setups in the past when
1:29:32
I've worked in commercial software. And a lot of times companies start these
1:29:38
before they're large enough to have a full sales office. So It really is
1:29:43
a seed for the kind of living wage jobs that I sure want to see
1:29:49
more of in the Valley. And wanting to see more of these types of developments
1:29:55
is precisely why we had the moratorium. So I'm comfortable with this as an exception.
1:30:00
In terms of Juniper and Rainier, I understand why people have concerns. However, I have
1:30:06
confidence in the intelligence and the driving skills of the residents of Issaquah that, uh,
1:30:10
they have muddled through with Juniper and Rainier in the past, and it can only
1:30:15
get better if there's a stoplight at the intersection. And so there'll be a common
1:30:20
orderly, uh, proceeding through the intersection. And, uh, so while I certainly think that I
1:30:25
understand that there's work to be done on Juniper and Rainier side, I don't, I
1:30:30
don't have a concern that that intersection will get soured by putting this in.
1:30:35
Thank you. Mayor Lowe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm not actually supporting this agenda bill
1:30:41
this evening. A couple of concerns. It was a two-to-one vote in Land and Shore
1:30:46
as to whether or not to bring it forward. I was the person who voted
1:30:51
not to bring it forward in its current form because I felt there was some
1:30:56
more work needed. I'll start first with the moratorium. There are actually two elements within
1:31:02
the moratorium that are not established yet with new criteria or new standards, and that
1:31:07
is not just architectural review but urban placemaking. We have had a couple of projects
1:31:12
come through where we have lost some opportunities to create something. Here we have a
1:31:17
project located right next to the trail. We have an excellent opportunity to do something,
1:31:22
but we have nothing yet. We have nothing to help That is one of the
1:31:27
items that is being worked on. Architectural review is another item. Again, I really feel
1:31:32
like we haven't got clear standards in place right now to deliver the kind of
1:31:37
product we want. So I am not really feeling that this particular development agreement takes
1:31:42
this application and moves it above the bar and it should be relieved from the
1:31:47
moratorium. The second reason I did not support it is that we do not
1:31:53
have a corridor design for this corridor. We're working on it. We're surveying. We're gathering
1:31:59
physical survey data. We're gathering informational survey data, but we don't know what it's going
1:32:05
to look like. We don't know if what the solution is for the south side.
1:32:10
So we're going with an assumption that this light will and definitely there's no doubt
1:32:14
it is a great benefit for those businesses on the north all the way to
1:32:19
the Shell Station. It is an improvement. It's an odd layout. There's old frontage road
1:32:23
right of way. But if the ultimate solution on the south end is that Rainier
1:32:27
Boulevard does intersect, maybe the light should be where Pagaccia's driveway is. I mean, that's
1:32:32
not anything we ever talked about because we don't know what's going to happen on
1:32:36
the south. In addition to that, we have development occurring at the end of Juniper
1:32:40
on Newport that's going to add a lot of new cars trying to access 90.
1:32:45
I'm not sure that what we're doing with the light there in two years won't
1:32:51
make it worse for those trying to access 90 because of the odd configuration at
1:32:57
Juniper and Rainier that we never talked about. Us not having that kind of plan
1:33:02
makes me concerned that this is exactly what we need to do. So that was
1:33:08
my third reason. I think the last one was, actually no, I think I'll just
1:33:14
leave it there for now. Thanks. Thank you Mary Lou for that because I've been
1:33:20
sitting here sort of looking at it. No because you're not yet Land Insurer. I'm
1:33:25
not on Land Insurer and you really miss a lot when you can't be right
1:33:29
in the depth of the conversation. And what to start with one of the pieces
1:33:34
so the piece of of roadway that I'm not even sure who is ownership of
1:33:38
it is if you are at Pagachas and you are going towards the auto dealer
1:33:43
auto tires now who exactly Whose piece of property is that? Is that legal
1:33:48
roadway? So right now, it's hard to see. I apologize because it's the
1:33:54
color of the lines. This is actually showing up as the back of
1:34:00
right-of-way right here, and it goes back this direction. So this is all
1:34:05
right away, unless I'm misunderstanding the map, but the way that this shows right away
1:34:11
comes across here, goes back, takes in this stub in between these two buildings, comes
1:34:17
back and comes along here and then continues all the way across here. So all
1:34:23
of this where people drive now, that frontage road is right away. The city right
1:34:29
away and going further to the east on that. So as you're going literally into
1:34:34
the parking lot where the tire dealers are. That becomes private property. So the right
1:34:39
away jogs. That would become or is it what is it now? So right now
1:34:44
it is private. So from here so the the automotive place right here So
1:34:50
like the Shell guy, if the Shell guy was wanting to
1:34:56
drive across that property, you know, legally, they probably don't have
1:35:01
access. But for these guys, for the automotive places, they can
1:35:07
legally access off of this proposed future intersection the way the
1:35:12
property line maps show right now. Did you follow
1:35:18
me on that? That would be making ingress into that particular little --
1:35:24
But we own -- all this is right away, right? So from here
1:35:30
to Gilman is all right away. So it's access for the public. If
1:35:35
I'm the driver of the vehicle who I want to get back in
1:35:41
and have my tires realigned, do I have -- will I have the
1:35:47
ability to access that road? Yes. I think there's a lot
1:35:53
of still discussion for me. I'm not sure I'm ready to vote on this
1:35:59
this evening, just because there's so much unknowns. And I need some more thought
1:36:05
on it. But I'll keep listening. CHRIS JERRAM: Stacey? STACEY STRAIN: So I voted
1:36:10
to support in Land and Shore. And I've changed my mind. This is a
1:36:16
tough one. It's not for lack of appreciating the development itself. And, you
1:36:22
know, I like the proposed project. But for all the reasons that Mary
1:36:28
Lou said, and also, Eileen, what you mentioned about having more questions and
1:36:34
answers right now, we have had -- it's an incomplete solution for a,
1:36:39
you know, longstanding problematic intersection. I can see that there are benefits.
1:36:45
Are there enough benefits as we heard tonight? Is there enough gain right
1:36:51
now? I think the answer is no. The comment is as good as
1:36:57
we're going to do. Is this as good as we can get? And
1:37:03
I want to say no. I struggle to figure out how this is
1:37:09
an extremely positive change at that intersection. C curbing, you know,
1:37:15
I haven't heard anything positive in the last year about C curbing. You know, maybe
1:37:20
we need U-turns on U-turn spots on Gilman. Maybe we need to realign those, that
1:37:25
whole intersection and, you know, fear I say put in a big roundabout. I don't
1:37:30
know. But it seems like we're just trying to figure out a stopgap right now.
1:37:35
And that doesn't That doesn't sound right to me. But
1:37:41
it's not for lack of liking the project. That's
1:37:46
the development. That's not my issue. But it really
1:37:52
needs to be a pretty significant benefit for me
1:37:57
to consider a development agreement to get around the
1:38:03
moratorium. And I don't see that here. This particular
1:38:08
issue has been really difficult to work through. It has a
1:38:14
lot of pros and cons, I would say. I wanted to
1:38:20
start out by just saying I really like the project and very
1:38:25
supportive of having the office and retail and the multi-use on Gilman
1:38:31
in the area that we've talked about and having the ability to
1:38:37
work and live in Issaquah and also the trail alignment and the
1:38:42
enhanced safety that it would provide for the pedestrians and the cars.
1:38:48
And those are all of the reasons that I was on
1:38:54
land and shore for part of the time and had supported
1:39:00
this. Something that changed for me was our last council session
1:39:06
when we started to talk about the Gilman Corridor Study. And
1:39:12
I guess my thought at the time is that When
1:39:17
we're looking at Gilman, has enough study been done for us
1:39:23
to know whether this really is the solution that we need?
1:39:29
on Gilman and I started to feel a little bit like it was
1:39:34
sort of the cart before the horse. And I still am struggling with
1:39:40
the southern part of the intersection with Rainier. There was a lot of
1:39:46
talk about that and there were actually some really interesting ideas that came
1:39:52
up that I had never heard before. But but those are just sort of
1:39:57
to the side and I just, I kind of walked away feeling like the
1:40:03
conversation was incomplete. And the C curb, obviously, as we talked
1:40:09
a little bit about, maybe is not a good solution. So I'm
1:40:15
in a tough spot right now because I really like the project.
1:40:21
But from a transportation perspective and traffic perspective on Gilman, I wish
1:40:27
we had a more developed plan. So I'm not going to support
1:40:33
this this evening. Hold on. I have a question for the
1:40:38
administration. So I hear that there may and there may not be, but
1:40:44
I hear some interest in getting some further information before making a decision.
1:40:50
I get that some people may be ready, just don't don't feel that it rises
1:40:56
to the level of moratorium, but I'm also hearing that there may be some interest
1:41:00
in getting supplemental information. We are in the middle of a hearing, so my question
1:41:05
is, is it in order to propose a motion to and the word is escaping
1:41:11
me, the hearing, continue the hearing. And if so, does the
1:41:16
administration believe that there would be a reasonable amount of time
1:41:22
that would allow the administration to respond to some of the
1:41:28
concerns that have been addressed here this evening, that have been
1:41:33
raised here this evening? Well, Jim, I see you leaning towards
1:41:39
the microphone. Can't see that well.
1:41:45
A motion to postpone is the appropriate motion at this point. There is a motion
1:41:51
on the floor unless that motion is withdrawn and then if the motion was withdrawn
1:41:57
then and the second was withdrawn you could move to continue the public hearing but
1:42:02
given that there's a motion on the floor and I believe the mayor closed the
1:42:08
public hearing at this point the matter would be to postpone, a move
1:42:14
to postpone this and to a date certain would be the
1:42:20
appropriate motion. And if I were to make such a motion,
1:42:25
well, my question would be if I were to make such
1:42:31
a motion, what a reasonable amount of time to address the
1:42:37
questions that have been raised here this evening. If the administration
1:42:43
feels, for instance, four weeks from today would be a sufficient
1:42:48
amount of time. Well, I think so I heard a lot
1:42:54
this evening and so I what I'd like to do is be able to get
1:42:59
all that information, you know, more clearly articulated so that I can give you a
1:43:05
very clear and definitive answer in terms of timing. I'm uncertain how long it might
1:43:10
take some of that to turn around. You know, the Gilman project, obviously, that was
1:43:15
mentioned here this evening in terms of the study would take longer than four weeks
1:43:20
to complete. So that's an answer I couldn't give you. but there may be concerns
1:43:25
that were expressed within that concept that we may be able to address so um
1:43:29
that's not a not giving a very definitive answer but i think you know what
1:43:34
we heard here tonight was there were several items and i may be able to
1:43:39
answer some of the council members concerns i may not be able to answer all
1:43:43
of the council members concerns Well, I'd like to take a sounding then and by
1:43:49
I'll make a motion to postpone. There's a motion on the floor right now
1:43:55
unless the motion is withdrawn. I heard the motion to postpone supersedes the motion
1:44:00
that's on the floor. I thought that's what I heard. A motion to
1:44:06
postpone is a secondary motion, a subsidiary motion. So you can make the motion to
1:44:12
postpone while the motion is on the floor. What it does if it passes is
1:44:17
it simply postpones action on this motion until a specific date. Thank you. Can I
1:44:23
ask a question? Stacey? So I heard that there was a timing issue. The
1:44:29
applicant has a timing issue, and so I think that we would
1:44:34
want to know from the applicant if what the effect of the
1:44:40
delay is, and if there's -- well, that's one of the questions
1:44:45
that needs to be answered. Sure. why we may be looking a
1:44:51
little bit deer in the headlights is because there was some conversation
1:44:57
that you all had about this. I heard at least one thing
1:45:03
or two of you say it seems premature to act on this
1:45:09
before the Gilman study has been completed. If that is indeed what
1:45:14
you expect to happen before, then the postponement needs to be until after that
1:45:20
happens, which would be, I think, an issue for the applicant because that would
1:45:26
then eclipse the timing that they would need to be able to do the
1:45:31
construction this summer out in Gilman. So this conversation started in July. of last year
1:45:37
um and so i think the question for you guys is is if
1:45:43
if you What I've heard from Public Works Engineering, so if Kurt wants to add
1:45:49
in, he can. What I've heard is the traffic light is the answer here. You're
1:45:54
not going to put a roundabout here because that's not pedestrian or bicycle friendly, as
1:45:59
friendly as a traffic light would be. If the reason we're doing this is to
1:46:04
satisfy the non-motorized project that was identified, which is the three trails non-motorized direct crossing
1:46:09
of Gilman, This is the best way to do that is with the traffic light.
1:46:15
What I've heard from Public Works Engineering is that whatever the IJR is doing at
1:46:20
Front and Gilman, whatever the study is on Gilman, that the traffic light will be
1:46:25
the solution for this location. So whether or not they're willing to stand behind that
1:46:29
tonight, I don't know, but that's the conversation that we've had leading up to this
1:46:34
hearing. So Mr. Mayor, I'm gonna, I've heard it at least one of the issues
1:46:40
is whether there's some clarity on Juniper and Rainier just as an example of an
1:46:45
issue that in four weeks we might be able to get enough clarity to to
1:46:50
address some of the concerns but I don't even know if I have four votes
1:46:55
for this but I'm going to move to postpone to the April 7th this this
1:47:00
agenda item to the April 17th meeting which I believe is four weeks from today.
1:47:06
Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion on the
1:47:12
motion. So, postpone. I've heard questions, I
1:47:17
asked some questions about Rainier and Jupiter.
1:47:23
I heard some questions Keith just addressed
1:47:28
about Gilman Boulevard study, which isn't scheduled
1:47:34
to complete until the end of 2018.
1:47:40
I didn't hear other questions. I didn't
1:47:45
know what other questions people had asked.
1:47:56
I think maybe I didn't state it very clearly. One of the questions
1:48:01
that I have is, it's a pedestrian multimodal solution. So it does solve
1:48:07
some of the things we want to do. There is a south side
1:48:13
larger issue as well, which is the car piece of it and how
1:48:19
that works with the new development that's coming in on Newport Way near
1:48:24
Juniper. It's just a mystery of what's going on. And if there could be some
1:48:30
analysis that says how this improves it for drivers in the south with the new
1:48:35
development, that might be all the information that I need. But my concern is that
1:48:40
I haven't heard enough. to convince me that this doesn't make a problem for the
1:48:46
Southside, more of a problem than you have right now. For example, if I'm a
1:48:51
car on Rainier Boulevard and the Juniper turning lanes are full because of people from
1:48:56
apartments trying to access Gilman Boulevard, when the light turns green, how do I on
1:49:01
Rainier Boulevard ever make a right-hand turn? Tell me it's going to make it better.
1:49:06
with what we know is already coming and we didn't get that answer. We got
1:49:11
the answer that it does improve safety for pedestrians, bicycles, and it does improve access
1:49:16
to the north. We don't know what's going to happen to the south. It's hard
1:49:21
to judge the benefit to the community when it may make something better and something
1:49:26
worse. I don't know if it does or not. So for everybody's benefit, could you
1:49:31
be more specific on which project you're talking about? I'm not sure what you're saying.
1:49:36
You've referenced some apartments being added. - If I know what
1:49:42
it's called. - So Seventh and, so we have, so you
1:49:47
have Atlas that everybody knows is at Seventh and Gilman. You
1:49:53
have the Vale apartments that are going in at Seventh and
1:49:58
Locust. You have Innisfood going in at Newport and Juniper, basically.
1:50:04
So those three projects are all adding residents
1:50:10
into this general vicinity and traffic pattern. Mariah
1:50:15
and then Tola. So for me, just to
1:50:21
follow up on the questions, I think more
1:50:26
information surrounding the southern area, what would happen
1:50:31
with Rainier and Juniper, are important that we could understand how
1:50:37
that intersection is going to work and if it's going to be problematic. So
1:50:43
I'm echoing a little bit about what Mary Lou talked about. And that was
1:50:49
an area where I think I got a little bit stuck. And Rainier Boulevard,
1:50:54
There was discussion on Land and Shore about some ideas of what might happen
1:51:00
with Rainier Boulevard, and I'm not trying to pull that into the conversation, but
1:51:06
knowing what some of those options down the road might be, I think that
1:51:12
a lot of that information actually would be helpful for me. polo
1:51:18
um two things the first is that in terms of additional questions i think there
1:51:23
was a question having to do with the trail and how the design integrates with
1:51:28
the trail and how that reflects back maybe on existing standards, I'm not sure, but
1:51:33
there was definitely a question about the integration of the trail to the design. And
1:51:38
secondly, I would really like to request my fellow council members to approve this postponed.
1:51:43
I think that this, in terms of as a living wage job opportunity, I really
1:51:48
worry that this moratorium will go on for a while longer. And if somehow this
1:51:53
development is no longer in the state to move forward when the more time is
1:51:57
over, I think it would be a real shame. It may well be that we
1:52:01
come back in four weeks and people are still unconvinced, at which case, you know,
1:52:05
if people just say, look, it doesn't meet our standards for the moratorium or whatnot.
1:52:09
But I really think it'd be a shame if we missed this because of some
1:52:13
missing information that maybe a little bit more time could could address. I'm fine with
1:52:19
-- I'll support that. I don't know where I'll be with that information. I also
1:52:24
want to make it really clear that I did not suggest a roundabout. I don't
1:52:30
want that very clear. It was more of -- it was an example of, well,
1:52:36
you know, we've had one, two options. One is very unpopular and one is not
1:52:42
satisfying. So that's where the what other options do we have pops into
1:52:48
my head and I just said for fear that I
1:52:53
even mention it and I mentioned it and then been
1:52:59
interpreted perhaps that I suggested it which is not the
1:53:04
case. So I've heard two questions. How it improves the
1:53:10
Juniper/Rainier/Gilman intersection and I heard a question around how this
1:53:15
project integrates with King County Trail. And so those
1:53:21
are the two questions that I've heard. Mariah?
1:53:27
And I also would like to see some
1:53:33
just additional information about some ideas for Rainier.
1:53:38
So the motion on the floor is to
1:53:44
move to postpone the resolution until our meeting
1:53:50
on April the 17th. - Paul? -
1:53:55
Still have a couple of questions just for clarity. - Okay. -
1:54:01
So there is activity on this site right now, right? And that's
1:54:07
permitted, that's going through. And this lofts proposal is going nowhere because
1:54:13
of the moratorium. And so the whole C-curb question is where, I
1:54:19
mean, so basically if that existing construction on the property today
1:54:25
is that doing any mitigation to the intersection in and of
1:54:31
by itself? Okay, so only with the addition of the lofts
1:54:36
building, is there any mitigation, traffic mitigation? - Yes. - Okay,
1:54:42
so whether it be the delay or some other kind of
1:54:48
outcome other than approval as proposed right here, there is no
1:54:53
C-curb going in because there's no mitigation being, Can I?
1:54:59
Yeah, I think. Could you clarify a little bit where they're at? Because they actually
1:55:04
have a permit for that site and they could develop now without the development agreement.
1:55:09
That's what I was trying to get clarity on. So so we would need to
1:55:14
go back and change the permit condition. because right now the permit condition says as
1:55:20
a mitigation for this development which the mini storage is this development it's part of
1:55:26
it is you have to install the c-curb so what we could do would be
1:55:32
to talk about that with the applicant and if they don't move forward with a
1:55:38
second project I believe that the traffic generation from the mini storage is not
1:55:44
enough to warrant the C curb. But what I also believe might be and
1:55:49
this is where and Kurt's not going to know because he wasn't part of
1:55:55
this. I don't believe is that the trucks that might be accessing the mini
1:56:01
storage, there was concern about them making a left out of this intersection because they
1:56:07
would have to come out of the driveway. So if you had like let's say
1:56:12
you had a large U-Haul and you were taking it to the mini storage to
1:56:16
drop off whatever it is you put in the mini storage that comes out now
1:56:21
at this driveway and if they wanted to go to Front Street they would then
1:56:26
make a left out of that driveway to try and get onto eastbound Gilman. Right,
1:56:31
so that they could get to Front Street. So there was concern about larger trucks
1:56:36
accessing the mini storage and I can't answer your question this evening, council member, on
1:56:42
whether or not public works engineering would be okay without the installation of the C
1:56:47
curb if there was not a second project on the horizon. So sorry for that.
1:56:53
yes mayor very low keith but the the c curb and the permit application you're
1:56:58
talking about is approved for a different um part two project than the lofts but
1:57:04
it was it wasn't the problem is it wasn't segmented so it was so the
1:57:09
the mini storage and the tire store came in as one project and the mitigation
1:57:14
was just for that project it didn't differentiate a timing or what would happen if
1:57:20
just part of it built oh thanks
1:57:27
Are you ready to act on
1:57:32
the motion to postpone to April
1:57:37
17th? All those in favor signify
1:57:43
by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed?
1:57:48
That carries unanimously. Moving now to
1:57:53
agenda bill 7333, 2017 first budget
1:57:58
amendments before I open the public hearing.
1:58:04
We will have a short presentation to sort of
1:58:10
set up the discussion. Jen Olsen, our finance director,
1:58:15
is here to provide some introductory remarks. Thank you,
1:58:21
Mayor, Councilmembers. The budget amendment has been proposed for
1:58:27
adjustments to cover-- can you hear me OK?
1:58:34
Probably one more time. Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers. Budget adjustments have been
1:58:40
proposed for unforeseen expenditures and revenues that were not anticipated in the
1:58:46
adopted budget. The budget was adopted back in December of 2016, and
1:58:52
a public hearing is required for these proposed adjustments.
1:58:59
An original ordinance and exhibits were proposed and there were some City Councilmember
1:59:05
questions with regards to those. An updated exhibit has been provided in the
1:59:11
packet as well as the administration's responses to Councilmember questions that were received.
1:59:21
And so tonight is the public hearing for the proposed budget
1:59:27
amendments, and I'd be happy to answer any questions otherwise to
1:59:33
hand that back over to take public testimony. Seeing no questions
1:59:38
at this-- Whoops. Ntola? So we're talking about, if I'm reading
1:59:44
the bill correctly, we're talking about increasing expenditures by $7 million.
1:59:50
If the expenditure required is $206 million, $484,000
1:59:56
in the amount budget is of $1,099,319,000.
2:00:01
So the difference is $7 million. And
2:00:07
aye, the middle column, I see, gotcha.
2:00:12
The middle column on page something on
2:00:17
the chart, on the exhibit A, the
2:00:23
ordinance shows the increases. Thank you, Council
2:00:28
Member Winterstein, for answering my question.
2:00:41
CHRIS RODGERS: Is the administration planning on walking
2:00:47
through these items as part of this evening's
2:00:52
presentation? RICK MACLENNAN: If that's the council's desire,
2:00:58
we can do that. We provided some responses
2:01:03
to questions based on our last meeting. And
2:01:08
so is the desire to walk through each
2:01:14
of the items that we
2:01:21
asking for consideration of this evening? Well, it's presented
2:01:27
that way, I guess no. Thanks for bringing that
2:01:32
up, Chela. If we aren't going to talk them
2:01:38
through it all, I would just like to have
2:01:44
some, and I'm not sure Jen is the right
2:01:49
person to answer it or not, because it's the...
2:01:56
$750,000 2016 appropriation for TALIS Light expenses. I just want some context around
2:02:02
that for residents who may be looking at this and wondering why the
2:02:07
city is doing this. And I know at a future date, we're going
2:02:13
to have a bigger conversation about that. But I'm just wondering if you
2:02:19
could talk about that one a little bit. And so-- I'll have Keith
2:02:25
Niven help me with that. Thank you. So I'll just be general,
2:02:30
and then if you want to ask some questions, that'd be great.
2:02:36
On Friday the 13th in November of I think it was
2:02:42
2015, parcel 9 in Tallis slid. There was excessive rains. The
2:02:47
property was under construction and it basically started coming down the
2:02:53
hillside. And so there was a lot of effort that was
2:02:58
put into stabilizing the property and the city incurred some expenses.
2:03:04
towards doing its own geotech studies so that we could understand
2:03:09
exactly what was happening on that property. The issue, one of
2:03:15
the primary issues is that where that property is located and
2:03:21
where the slide was focused was on the potential removal of
2:03:26
a piece of city infrastructure. And that Shangri-La Road, right as
2:03:32
it gets north of Talus Drive. And so there's wet utilities, water, sewer
2:03:37
and stormwater in that road. They were all damaged by the slide. None of
2:03:43
them actually failed, which is the good news. But all of them are currently
2:03:49
considered at risk. So the city has been trying to work with
2:03:55
the property owner to try and come up with a partnership to repair
2:04:01
that damaged infrastructure. And at this point, we are still continuing conversations, but
2:04:07
nothing has happened yet. So we believe that the The responsible move would be
2:04:13
to move forward with replacing that damaged infrastructure no later than the tail end
2:04:19
of this summer. So that means that design work needs to proceed right now.
2:04:24
If we're going to develop a set of bid documents that we can take
2:04:30
out to bid kind of later, early summer is what we're targeting. So, so
2:04:36
money's being spent. Um, we're trying to, uh, fix what's been damaged and the conversation
2:04:42
about who pays for it at the end of the day is still an ongoing
2:04:47
conversation between the city and the property owner. It helps a lot. Thank you. Yeah.
2:04:53
Good. Paul, I'll just say I have a number of questions, um, about the responses
2:04:58
to my questions and the other questions are in there. I was going to, um,
2:05:04
I'm going to hold off until after the public hearing. Okay. So then, uh,
2:05:09
We'll open the public hearing at 9:05.
2:05:15
Same rules that applied to the previous
2:05:20
one in audience comments apply. Has anyone
2:05:26
signed up to speak? David, I see
2:05:32
you moving towards the microphone. David Capler,
2:05:37
255 Southeast Andrew Street. I want to know more
2:05:43
about the $750,000, so I hope more of that discussion will come out. When
2:05:49
I talk to people about the Tallis slide, I say this isn't like every
2:05:54
slide that you see going down onto the railroad blocking the train from Everett
2:06:00
to Seattle or Seattle to Tacoma or all those other slides that I've seen
2:06:06
by the old Rainier Brewery all along that side. This slide was deep enough so
2:06:11
it raised the road. If we ever had a slide that raised the railroad tracks
2:06:16
over there on Puget Sound or somewhere else where you get that such a deep
2:06:20
slide and then it raises things up, It's a big deal. And this is very
2:06:26
complicated and a lot of impact. We just didn't get mud coming down and covering
2:06:31
up utilities. We got something happening lifting them up. So it's a big deal and
2:06:37
it's very complicated and it will take some time. But hopefully you'll explain that. In
2:06:42
the previous hearing or the issue is not quasi-judicial, it is legislative, right? I
2:06:48
think needs to be cleared out for the people in the world so
2:06:54
they understand that difference. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else desiring to speak
2:07:00
during the hearing? Anyone else? Third and final call. I'll
2:07:06
close the public hearing at 9:07. And with that, then, Paul, I believe
2:07:12
you had some questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, first of
2:07:18
all, Jen, thanks so much for providing in written form the answers to
2:07:24
the questions. And actually, I do want to start with the -- in
2:07:30
general, it's about the -- what I'm using the phrase reappropriation.
2:07:35
the reappropriation for 750K for TALIS
2:07:41
is the, it's really, it was not expended in 2016. So it's
2:07:47
not pertaining to an additional scope of work or anything beyond what was
2:07:53
already planned to do when we originally approved it for 2016. This is
2:07:58
just, it wasn't spent in 2016 and we require additional legislative action to
2:08:04
appropriate the spend or is it something more? I'm going to bring up
2:08:10
some detail. Thank you.
2:08:26
So what we have here is in this column here, there are some major, these
2:08:32
are essentially the vendors who were brought in to deal with and help the city
2:08:38
with the slide issue. They were for geotechnical and for engineering
2:08:43
and design work. So I wanted to provide for you some
2:08:49
information about the scope of work. Last 2016, the budget amendment
2:08:55
was an ask of $807,150. that was $750,000 that had
2:09:01
been identified as being a general fund cost and so this
2:09:06
is some detail based on the different phases here. So the
2:09:12
original budget proposal, the budget was that $807,000. We have identified some additional
2:09:18
scope work because not all of the $807,000 in 2016 has been actually spent.
2:09:24
And so what happened, because this is a complicated issue, we wanted to make
2:09:30
sure that this was ongoing and we kept working on the geotechnical work,
2:09:36
the preparation for any potential reconstruction. So that
2:09:41
is essentially this column here of about 264,000
2:09:47
of identified additional scope of work. for things like
2:09:53
contingency for those unknowns for the reconstruction and preparation for this. And so that
2:09:59
is why we get to a revised scope of work of a little over
2:10:05
a million dollars, $1,071,150. The total spent to date on this issue is about
2:10:11
$320,704, bringing us back to then a need for that $750,000. So it does in
2:10:16
fact have some additional, but that is because of some of the unknowns for this
2:10:22
particular issue. Well, thank you for that clarity. And I really do appreciate that. I
2:10:28
don't think I have this information. It would be great if we could. SUGGEST
2:10:34
TO ME THAT LABELING IT IN THE MATERIAL THAT WE
2:10:39
HAVE AS A -- I'LL GET THE WORD EXACTLY --
2:10:45
2016 APPROPRIATION FOR SLIDE EXPENSES, THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT THIS
2:10:50
IS. IT'S SOME REAPPROPRIATION, BUT IT'S A MORE COMPLICATED FORMULA,
2:10:56
AS YOU HAVE THERE DOWN THERE. SO I'D LIKE TO
2:11:01
SPEND This is the first time we're seeing that we have a contingency in the
2:11:06
2016 number originally. So I know we'd like to talk about this more. I don't
2:11:11
think we're in a position right now to talk about this. We may be able
2:11:15
to talk a little more because of the potential litigation and executive session. And I
2:11:19
do think, you know, we've made a commitment to tell the community when those expenses
2:11:24
are kind of finalized. So I don't want to spend a lot of time talking
2:11:28
about some of these numbers. until we have that opportunity to brief the council
2:11:34
under executive session. All right. All right. Thank you. I need to
2:11:40
think about that. Okay. Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? Yes.
2:11:45
So, Paul, is it a matter maybe that the description in the
2:11:51
agenda bill doesn't accurately depict the combination of some reauthorization and some
2:11:57
new? Is it a matter of changing that to provide clarity?
2:12:02
It says 2016 appropriation for TALIS slide expenses. It's a bit of that and a
2:12:08
bit of something else. Yes. Historically our practice has been if we're going to use
2:12:14
the word appropriation or suggest reappropriation, it's because it was authorized expenditures that weren't used
2:12:19
in the previous year. And so that is what I assumed that this meant with
2:12:25
that label. So it means that and something else. Or more. Some more. The variation
2:12:30
is a couple hundred thousand dollars. Okay. Okay, so let me just ask
2:12:36
in general if I move on to some of the other, especially
2:12:42
in the general fund, there's a total of with this one that's
2:12:48
-- so if I back the 750 out of the 2016 appropriation,
2:12:54
there's still about 80,000 in appropriations, 2016 appropriations. So I'm just kind
2:13:00
of curious on why Now are all those truly 2016
2:13:06
funds that just weren't spent as labeled? Do you have an
2:13:12
example of the line item that you're talking about? Oh, okay.
2:13:17
We're right there. $25,000 for, excuse me, $24,000 for professional services
2:13:23
parks, $15,500 for human services, 26,000 related to police repair and
2:13:28
maintenance, 13,660 for professional services, human services. So, I mean, all of those
2:13:34
ones that are labeled 2016 appropriation. That's my understanding is that that was
2:13:40
dollars that were budgeted in 2016. The project or program did not get completed and
2:13:45
so it was not included in the proposed 2017, so is asked for at this
2:13:50
budget amendment time. Okay, so and one of my questions and you answered it and
2:13:54
I'm going to go back to it. Why isn't there a restatement of the beginning
2:14:00
fund balance then for those amounts that truly weren't, but were allocated to spend but
2:14:06
weren't spent? Why aren't we also restating the beginning fund balance? The beginning fund balance
2:14:12
is a snapshot in time. So it is a number from a budget perspective
2:14:18
The beginning fund balance for 2017 is an estimate based
2:14:24
on the forecast for how we anticipate 2016 will end.
2:14:30
If these numbers had been included in the 2017 proposed
2:14:35
budget, the impact to the ending fund balance would have
2:14:41
been an additional drawdown had they been included there. They
2:14:46
were included in the budgeted ending fund balance for 2016.
2:14:52
Okay. So, that was the point of my question I
2:14:57
was trying to get to was that You just said they were included
2:15:03
in the budgeted ending fund balance for 2016, which becomes the beginning fund balance. Okay.
2:15:08
So it's a snapshot in time. You're trying to forecast what you think is going
2:15:12
to be in that account at that time. You knew that these expenditures, even though
2:15:17
appropriated, weren't going to happen, so you forecasted the ending fund balance appropriately. The department
2:15:21
may not have known or identified at the time of the budget that the program
2:15:26
or project was not going to be completed. Okay.
2:15:32
I can understand that. I just -- it just -- and, you know, tell me
2:15:36
-- it just seems to me that when we know we didn't spend something, why
2:15:41
aren't we also adjusting the beginning fund balance? Because it wasn't -- That just seems
2:15:46
because that's an important factor that we use to understand what the actual drawdown is
2:15:52
So so it kind of muddies the waters on what we're actually drawing down if
2:15:58
we're not also making that adjustment that doesn't so so I Know that lack of
2:16:04
clarity. I wish I had more clarity on that and then There's just one
2:16:10
other point in there. I think there's two other points in the questions that I
2:16:16
wanted to address was in one point it talks about it was just a simple
2:16:22
misstatement. It had me scrambling for a little bit. It talked about the $1,470,500 being
2:16:27
paid as interest to the sewer construction fund. I said, wow, that must have been
2:16:33
a big principal balance if that's interest. But then in another place, it actually says
2:16:39
principal and interest. So I assume that that's what that is. It's principal and interest.
2:16:45
That's correct. OK. All right. And then one last question was you do mention in
2:16:50
there also that they're part of the funds we're going to an outstanding stormwater utility
2:16:56
bill. Whose bill was that? So at the-- Black-doll water. I'm sorry? When
2:17:02
we purchased the Mallard Bay property, there was an outstanding -- there was
2:17:07
an LID on that property, and we had to pay for them for
2:17:13
that LID to close it out. So that's not LID 24? No. Okay.
2:17:19
That was another one. When property got taken back by the
2:17:25
county, the outstanding taxes were, they were primarily responsible for, but because it
2:17:31
didn't go through typical tax and title foreclosure, the LIDs and the property
2:17:37
taxes weren't extinguished, so they remained on the property. So we were able
2:17:42
to buy the property for the back taxes from the
2:17:48
county, but we also brought along-- we bought the liabilities that
2:17:54
came along with that. And so what the sale has done
2:18:00
has been able to make all the LID holders whole. OK.
2:18:06
All right. Thank you for that clarity. That's all my questions.
2:18:12
Other questions or discussion? Mary Lou? Mr. Mayor, I'm-- I'm
2:18:18
not sure what the process would be, but I guess just after
2:18:23
Councilmember Winterstein asked his questions, I was under the assumption that the
2:18:29
$750,000 was a complete reappropriation. I think the comment or description
2:18:35
should be changed to show that it is a partial reappropriation plus
2:18:41
an additional expense, just to be clear, because it wasn't clear to
2:18:46
me. I don't know how we go about doing that, because it's
2:18:52
an attachment to an agenda bill. I'm not sure. What I would
2:18:58
suggest is that it read 2016 appropriation of X dollars for slide
2:19:04
expenses plus proposed additional expenditures in the amount of that,
2:19:10
just to make it clear. And so would that be
2:19:15
in the, in exhibit A and the description there? That's
2:19:21
correct. That's where the change would be made. Mm-hm. And
2:19:27
that's, that's, that's easily done. Okay. I don't believe we
2:19:32
have any motion. Stacy? Is there a time sensitivity to
2:19:38
this? Because I'm asking because of the new information we
2:19:44
have tonight and also the. Mm-hm. the comment we had
2:19:49
from the administration about having additional discussion about the $150,000. So is
2:19:55
there a time sensitivity with the agenda bill? Well, in essence, any
2:20:01
expenditures we're making doesn't have an authorized amount. So if you chose
2:20:07
and you wanted to just go back to the original appropriation that
2:20:13
was made last year, you could do that. I think you could
2:20:18
probably take-- couple hundred thousand off that number and you would be at what was
2:20:24
authorized last year and then we can have some further discussion about the additional I
2:20:29
don't think that additional 200,000 would probably get spent this year some some of that
2:20:34
would be anticipated litigation and then the council will still have to authorize the contract
2:20:39
to approve the work that's up there I think what's One of the concerns we
2:20:45
had was that the original estimate was 350 to do the street and given where
2:20:50
the cost escalators have been in doing some of these projects that's been bumped up
2:20:56
by $100,000 just to be on the safe side. But if you wanted to wait
2:21:01
until the final contract got bid and awarded, we could, I think we would be
2:21:07
safe in doing that at that time too. So if you wanted to go back
2:21:12
to the original authorization, we could do that. Well, as council member
2:21:18
polly just kind of whispered it sounds like a cleaner way to do new things
2:21:23
i'm sorry it sounds like a cleaner way to do things reappropriate and then consider
2:21:29
new makes the record very easy to follow for someone who's trying to follow this
2:21:35
okay so i don't believe we have a motion we don't we don't there's not
2:21:40
a question on the table right now so i'll make a motion and then we
2:21:46
can discuss um any changes i move to adopt ordinance number 2-7-9-5. 2-7-9-5.
2:21:52
Amending the 2017 budget as set forth in ordinance number 2-7-9-1 concerning revenues,
2:21:58
expenditures, and fund balance for various funds for the year 2017 and authorizing
2:22:04
the finance director to make the necessary adjustments in approving prior expenditures. Second.
2:22:10
Moved and seconded. And with that, I'm assuming that the change, Mary
2:22:16
Lou, that you suggested to clarify. I'm trying to write it up.
2:22:22
And it might be a, because is that incorporated by reference? We
2:22:28
just have to talk about maybe changing the number that's on that.
2:22:34
I'm trying to look if it's actually the numbers themselves are in
2:22:40
the ordinance. Ordinance? If they're not, then they're just, it's
2:22:46
incorporated by reference. We just have to make a change to
2:22:51
exhibit A, particular on, let me see if that's page two.
2:22:57
Are the details, those are still part of exhibit A? It's
2:23:03
actually not labeled? - That's correct. - Okay, all right. Okay,
2:23:09
so then, and I appreciate city administrators suggesting that that would
2:23:14
work. Do you have a suggested number change? It says 750,000
2:23:20
today. Mr. Mayor, can I propose something? Just a second. You're responding
2:23:26
to Paul? Yes. I think if you reduce that to 500,000, let's
2:23:32
see. Yeah, I think if you reduce that to $500,000, we would
2:23:37
be fine. It would cut 250,000 off. And we'll have to come
2:23:43
back to the council at some point here when we do the
2:23:49
road reconstruction. But I think given... what those estimated costs are through this period of
2:23:55
time. And then when the bids come through this summer, we'll have a much better
2:23:59
idea of where those numbers are. Okay. Thank you. Chair Greg Musil: Mary Lou. I
2:24:04
was just wondering if it would be simpler to do it with a second motion,
2:24:09
a motion to amend the item related to the reauthorization of funds for 2016 for
2:24:13
the TALIS slide to reflect the remaining unspent balance of the original 2016 authorization. Then
2:24:18
we don't change a number. We just -- they can change it when they want.
2:24:23
Chair Greg Musil: I think we need a number. It's a budget motion. We need
2:24:27
a number because there's actual appropriation amount we have to approve. Is that
2:24:33
the number? Is the reappropriation actually $500,000? Or
2:24:38
we know? The original, if we got that
2:24:44
spreadsheet, the original scope and budget request was
2:24:49
$807,150. And then the amount spent to date
2:24:55
was $327,004. And I think most of that
2:25:01
has been paid to date. that balance, I don't
2:25:06
have a calculator in front of me, whatever the balance would be
2:25:12
of that original amount less that would get you to what would
2:25:18
essentially get you the balance of what the council originally authorized. And
2:25:24
most of the utility funds I think at this point is spent
2:25:30
out of that, well, not all of them, there's a little bit
2:25:36
of There were some out of the
2:25:42
water fund as well as the street fund.
2:25:47
Yeah. So give me one moment to pull
2:25:53
a number. I think that's what we're waiting
2:25:59
for. Yes. OK. So it was-- Mr. Mayor? While
2:26:04
he's doing that, I'll just say that I had a chance to review the
2:26:10
addendum A that Councilmember Winterstein had pointed me towards and understood then that there's,
2:26:16
while there was $7.5 million of additional expenditures, there's $8 million roughly of additional
2:26:22
revenues, thus more than compensating, although in differing funds, not necessarily apples to
2:26:28
apples. But anyhow, I had my earlier concerns about $7.5 million concerned. Lest
2:26:34
anyone think that that was a 7.5 net, it was not that when
2:26:40
looked at overall. Thank you for that good work during the-- Well, I
2:26:46
don't know if I would care. --apolosian discussion. So the magic number is
2:26:52
486446. 486446. - 46446? - Yes. - 486446. - And
2:26:58
that number is essentially taking the original appropriation and deducting
2:27:03
what has been spent to date and that leaves the
2:27:09
balance. - Yeah, so, well, there's, we have a motion
2:27:14
on the floor now, so yeah. - We do. -
2:27:20
So I'm not really amending the motion, but I would
2:27:25
move that we amend the Appendix A. um to
2:27:31
show the amount of the 2016 appropriation for talus to
2:27:37
be i got half the numbers 486 thousand four four
2:27:43
six four hundred forty six dollars and um change that
2:27:49
and recalculate the numbers it's appropriate to handle a document
2:27:55
change as a as a as a separate motion or
2:28:01
as a as an amendment to the motion the motion
2:28:07
is to adopt the ordinance That's the motion on the
2:28:13
table. So this would be a motion to amend the ordinance by
2:28:18
striking and inserting. Thank you. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion
2:28:24
on the amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment
2:28:30
signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That carries unanimously. Back to
2:28:36
the main motion.
2:28:43
All those in favor of adopting ordinance number
2:28:49
2795 as amended, amending the 2017 budget is
2:28:54
set forth in ordinance number concerning revenues, expenditures,
2:29:00
and fund balance for various funds for the year 2017
2:29:05
and authorizing the finance director to make the necessary adjustments
2:29:11
in approving prior expenditures. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
2:29:16
That carries unanimously. I had announced
2:29:22
during the mayor's report that there would be an executive session
2:29:28
and typically that falls after regular business and for the good
2:29:34
of the order. The attorney here that was going to talk
2:29:40
to the council about pending litigation as an emergency that he
2:29:45
needs to respond to at home and We are now going to
2:29:51
move into executive session for the purpose of discussing potential litigation. It's
2:29:57
expected, the item is expected to take 30 minutes. Action may follow
2:30:03
an open session. Take a five minute. And why don't we take
2:30:09
a five minute break and we need to change the clock here.
2:30:15
So we would go back into regular.
3:07:51
And then somebody dumped a bunch of stuff in there. Stuff on
3:07:57
Sunday. Well, that's why I didn't, I mean. And we're on. We're
3:08:03
on. We're back in regular session at 10:08. No action is going
3:08:08
to be taken on the topic that we talked about in executive
3:08:14
session. Moving now to regular business, agenda bill 7331, public engagement toolkit.
3:08:21
Autumn Monahan, Special Assistant to the Administrator for the introduction and of this
3:08:27
bill. Hi, thanks for having me tonight. I'm here to talk a bit
3:08:33
about a public engagement toolkit that I have drafted for our staff and
3:08:39
are looking forward to your feedback as council members. So why develop and
3:08:44
propose a toolkit? We conduct engagement here at the city at all levels
3:08:50
and with all departments. But that engagement, as you guys know, varies by approach, timing,
3:08:56
and the tools that we use. That said, there's no one way to conduct engagement.
3:09:01
Flexibility is key to our success. But I wanted to provide some structure for our
3:09:06
project managers as they're developing their projects. This also sets some common language for staff,
3:09:10
council, and the public so that we're all referring to the same standards. Why
3:09:16
is engagement important? It's at the heart of our roles as public servants, both as
3:09:21
council members and as staff. It provides council some quality public input, which is important
3:09:26
as you're making tough decisions, and ensures that community voices are heard. So I developed
3:09:31
some engagement principles to be a part of this toolkit, and they include delivering information
3:09:36
on complex issues in a consistent and understandable format, determining the right level of engagement
3:09:42
with the right groups at the right time, providing engagement opportunities early in the
3:09:47
process, training staff across all of our departments in effective engagement practices, successfully communicating
3:09:53
public perceptions and feedback back to council, and identifying interrelationships of projects and policies over
3:09:59
time. And a good example of this is, you know, we could be working on
3:10:03
a parks as we are, a park strategic plan and have a lot of interest
3:10:07
from the public. And are we going out to our other departments and seeing if
3:10:10
we can leverage that interest to also ask for input on other key items the
3:10:14
city is looking for engagement on? So I started out this project by
3:10:20
doing a lot of research and there's been some great work done by other agencies
3:10:25
nationwide on engagement and developed five steps for engagement that I'll cover tonight. The first
3:10:31
is ensuring that the project manager has assessed their own readiness to engage. And so
3:10:36
the toolkit asks that project manager to ask themselves a series of questions. So I've
3:10:40
picked out a few, there's a lot more in the toolkit, but some key ones
3:10:44
are, is this an issue or topic that you need engagement on is clearly defined.
3:10:48
I have that question a lot with staff as they start a project. Will this
3:10:52
issue or topic have significant impact? Have you identified what success looks like both for
3:10:56
your project and for your engagement efforts? And is there enough time for meaningful engagement?
3:11:01
Once the project managers decided that yes, they're ready to engage, the next step is
3:11:06
determining an engagement level. So we've been using and hearing the term engagement a lot
3:11:11
at the city and that can mean a lot of different things. So engagement can
3:11:15
be a very collaborative process or it can be used simply to inform the community
3:11:19
of a decision that's already been made. This is my graph to kind of show
3:11:23
that visually. A project can start with collaboration and work all the way toward informing
3:11:27
after a decision has been made or we may have a decision that's been made
3:11:31
that we're just wanting to inform the community about. So the first level of engagement
3:11:36
collaboration usually begins at the start of a project. We're developing alternatives and identifying some
3:11:42
preferred options. It really is co-creation at its best. Oftentimes this is for projects that
3:11:47
are long-term and visionary and examples include the Central Issaquah Plan which was more than
3:11:53
a five-year engagement process. the walk and roll plan and aging in isaac another good
3:11:58
example is our park strategic plan you'll see we're in that first phase of collaboration
3:12:02
right now we say provide us your feedback there is nothing for people to provide
3:12:06
their input on that we are providing them it's it's more of just tell us
3:12:11
your feedback and your hopes and visions and dreams for parks and trails and isaac
3:12:15
the next level is consultation so this is where we consult with committee members by
3:12:20
educating them on a limited number of options or drafts and asking for feedback This
3:12:25
option is best for projects that have already been informed via collaboration. So we've already
3:12:29
gone through that phase where we've asked folks, what are your hopes and dreams? And
3:12:33
now we're going to come to you with some options. Or these could be projects
3:12:37
that need engineering, design, or other staff or consultant expertise to refine before the engagement's
3:12:41
effective. Examples of this including vote for your favorite playground design where we went to
3:12:46
the community and said here's three options. We've looked at where the parkland is and
3:12:50
this is what fits and this is what works within our budget. So provide us
3:12:55
your feedback on these three options. The build a road exercise that we used for
3:12:59
sunset during that open house in the Eagle Room where we had this Kurt and
3:13:03
his team put together, here's the width of the road and you can build your
3:13:07
own road on those parameters. We could have an agenda bill that's already drafted that
3:13:12
we're looking for feedback on from the public. Another example is we may have CIP
3:13:17
projects that we've defined but we necessarily haven't prioritized. So we ask for the public's
3:13:22
help in prioritizing those projects. And then there's the inform stage. This is just simply
3:13:27
informing community members about a decision that's already been made, providing objective information and really
3:13:32
a one-way push of information to the public. Examples of this include road closures, emergency
3:13:37
information, or changes in service that have already been decided on.
3:13:45
So my colors don't show up the best here, but they do hopefully in your
3:13:49
packet. But this is a visual that we developed for staff as they're trying to
3:13:53
decide what level of engagement is needed for their project. And oftentimes not only is
3:13:57
it what stage of your project are you in, but also who's the decision maker.
3:14:02
As you'll see, if the decision maker is city council, we've said engagement, go for
3:14:06
it at any level. And then if there's something that's maybe more of a staff
3:14:10
decision, that could be just more of a one-way push of information. So now
3:14:16
that you've identified what level of engagement you're doing, the next step as a project
3:14:20
manager is identifying stakeholders. So again, there's a series of questions for the project manager
3:14:25
to really consider who may be affected by this issue, who can contribute a solution
3:14:30
that's effective, what other departments should be involved. And that's where I think communications oftentimes
3:14:34
can come in and say, you know, we're doing this engagement effort over here on
3:14:38
this project. Is there any way we can also loop you in and harness or
3:14:42
leverage that interest? And then how should council members be involved? The toolkit also includes
3:14:47
a list of ISACWA specific examples of groups or audiences to consider. That's not just
3:14:52
your standard push of information, but maybe you also target specific groups that would have
3:14:57
some interest or feedback on your project. After identifying the stakeholders, the next step is
3:15:02
selecting the right tools, and this is where our communications team can definitely be of
3:15:07
help to staff. So the toolkit includes a long list of engagement tools that we
3:15:11
have and these are just a few examples. If you're at the collaboration phase, maybe
3:15:15
you're doing focus groups where you sit down with folks for several hours and really
3:15:19
dig in on a topic. Consultation could be more of the new online engagement tool
3:15:23
that we just launched where we might have a few options and people can provide
3:15:27
their input on that set example of options. And then inform could be a simple
3:15:31
push of social media. One area I really
3:15:37
wanted to define is the types of meetings, engagement meetings we have at the city.
3:15:41
We've called them different things and that depends on the department or the project manager
3:15:45
and we're not setting clear expectations for the public, for you as decision makers or
3:15:49
for staff and oftentimes I feel like we're reinventing the wheel each time we go.
3:15:52
So I wanted to set some parameters behind the types of meetings that we hold
3:15:56
for engagement. So there's the workshop and neighborhood meeting which are really great for collaboration.
3:16:00
Presentations typically happen at the beginning of the meeting followed by smaller group sessions where
3:16:04
you work on a set list of questions and then you do a report out
3:16:08
at the end and that also can work well with neighborhood meetings at just a
3:16:12
smaller scale. If you're working on something that's consultation where you've got something for people
3:16:17
to react to, that's where an open house is better where you might have several
3:16:21
stations set up around the room. People can go and interact with staff or interact
3:16:25
with experts and really provide feedback on something specific. If you're leveraging existing events, say
3:16:29
we have a booth at Salmon Days, I'm not going to try to pull someone
3:16:33
aside and say, "Hey, spend an hour talking to me about your vision for Central
3:16:37
Issaquah," but I might have a few options of, "Hey, quickly, what's your feedback on
3:16:41
this or what's your first reaction on this?" Again, it really depends on the type
3:16:44
of feedback you're looking for. These are two points that we talked about
3:16:50
extensively at the Services and Safety Committee meeting. The first feedback from council members was
3:16:54
no matter the tools that we use, ensure that staff collect contact information from those
3:16:58
along the way who are engaging in the process. That way we can update them
3:17:03
on their progress so far and also once the decision is made, we can loop
3:17:07
back with them. I think it's one area we can really improve on. And also
3:17:12
when possible, explaining the full engagement process. So if we've got someone's attention and we
3:17:17
can keep it for a period, explaining that full process and the story behind where
3:17:22
you are along that spectrum of engagement. And as a last step, reporting and evaluating
3:17:28
on your engagement efforts. So it's key that we share our results and that is
3:17:33
both with, well actually there's three groups. One is those who we've engaged with specifically
3:17:39
on a project. It's the community at large and then it's our decision makers and
3:17:43
that's especially important for projects that require collaboration or consultation. We've asked for a lot
3:17:47
of feedback from the community. We talked a lot at service and safety about how
3:17:51
that information is packaged and oftentimes it could be a part of an agenda bill
3:17:55
or presentation. But ensuring that project managers really think through that process and that they
3:17:59
tell the story at the end and provide you that engagement so you can see
3:18:03
what we heard. We also, I've also noted in the toolkit, it's important to know
3:18:09
that effective engagement can draw competing values and doesn't always provide a clear consensus. And
3:18:14
I think you all know that as decision makers. Afterwards, we're also encouraging staff to
3:18:19
really take time to evaluate on their engagement process. and look back and see if
3:18:24
there was areas they can improve. And then also asking our customers, the community, how
3:18:28
that engagement process went. So ensuring that we've got feedback cards at meetings or that
3:18:33
we send out a survey online or through email afterward and ask for their feedback
3:18:37
as well on how they felt that process went. So with that I would
3:18:43
love your feedback. Tonight we're asking that we proceed with this toolkit. It's an internal
3:18:47
document but I definitely wanted to come in and present this to council members to
3:18:52
get your feedback because you're an important part of that process. And I've already shown
3:18:57
this toolkit to several staff and they provided me some feedback so I do see
3:19:01
this as kind of a living document that as we learn more or our tools
3:19:06
change this document will also be updated for staff. With that, I'm here
3:19:11
to answer any questions. Coming back from the services and
3:19:17
safety, Pola? Okay. Well, I will then move to proceed
3:19:23
with implementation of the public engagement toolkit. Second. Moved and
3:19:29
seconded. Questions or discussion? Paul. You were the perfect person
3:19:35
to start this off at 10 o'clock at night. Thank you for your energy
3:19:41
and enthusiasm. It's going to carry us for the rest of the meeting. Thank
3:19:47
you, thank you, thank you. Nice plan, too. CHRIS JERRAM: Plus one. Other questions
3:19:53
or discussion? Mary Lou? Adam, I wonder if you
3:19:58
could walk us through the document, the public
3:20:04
engagement toolkit, and just sort of point out
3:20:10
where those changes were that resulted from the
3:20:16
infrastructure recommendations. Sure. Services 1025. I think the
3:20:22
first one was? Mary Lou.
3:20:31
I think there are one, two, three, there's four.
3:20:37
You know what, I need a newer version. I'm
3:20:42
sorry, I have my old one. Do we have
3:20:48
the packet? So on page 11 of the toolkit,
3:20:53
it's the section that's titled what to consider before
3:20:58
engagement. And that whole section is new, following services.
3:21:04
And then also on page 12, I've rewritten most
3:21:09
of that section to ensure that we include some
3:21:15
recommendations that when possible package the actual feedback for
3:21:20
council members to review and be sure to provide
3:21:25
a recap. so that language was included in the third bullet point on page 12.
3:21:31
and most of the discussion i'm sorry most of the discussion that we had at
3:21:36
services is really about how that information is brought back to council and package up
3:21:40
and we've talked a lot about that i think over the years and um after
3:21:45
some discussion it was you know if if we're able to uh providing all of
3:21:50
it but also a recap so it depends on if you really want to dig
3:21:54
in on a subject or if you just want a recap that says here's what
3:21:59
we heard from the community there's both so when possible i included that that recommendation
3:22:05
in the toolkit. - Autumn, what, how do we know, how would you
3:22:11
know if this is successful? What does success look like with this toolkit?
3:22:17
First, our communications team is not large enough to help support every engagement effort that
3:22:21
is going on. So this is really an advantage to us that as we sit
3:22:25
down with project managers at the start of a project that we can pull this
3:22:29
out. I did already with Jeff and his team for the park strategic plan. And
3:22:33
we walked through it to make sure we weren't reinventing the wheel on even just
3:22:37
logistics of what to bring to the public meetings. So it's going to be a
3:22:41
huge value to us. I've also heard a lot of positive response from staff that
3:22:45
they feel like they're not reinventing the wheel every time they start a project and
3:22:48
that they've got a standard to work from. So I see success in feedback from
3:22:52
our internal staff as a supporting role, but then also feedback from our public once
3:22:56
we check in and say, how did this engagement effort work? And from our decision
3:23:00
makers on whether you're feeling like you're getting the engagement you need and report out
3:23:04
for those larger projects that we're doing a lot of collaboration on.
3:23:10
Other questions or discussion? Seeing none, oh, Paul. I just want
3:23:16
to make some more comments. So just having the structure is
3:23:22
very much appreciated. And this is very much kind of how
3:23:27
the administration staff is going to execute. It affects us. It
3:23:33
affects the citizens dramatically as well. it certainly does look nice and professional it
3:23:39
seems to be comprehensive i like the however what you said about it being a
3:23:43
living document uh and and and i have no doubt that you know that you
3:23:48
mean that i think as we go through this a couple times it'll be those
3:23:53
lessons learned and um but i'm glad to see this established like a baseline And
3:23:59
we have something now which we can assess whether we like something
3:24:04
went well or not. And what kind of changes should we suggest
3:24:10
to make improvements? So I like what this establishes. Thank you. -
3:24:16
Mary Lou. - So Adam, just to go back to the update,
3:24:21
the one about the city council participants in larger community see the
3:24:27
results of the engagement process especially for projects that require collaboration or consultation.
3:24:33
I see the edit now in the document itself. What would be an example of
3:24:39
why we couldn't get that feedback? Because it's kind of softly worded in the document
3:24:44
that the project manager, if it's possible, can do that. So what would make it
3:24:50
not possible to do that? So there's been times where we've had significant dialogue over
3:24:55
a very large period of time and collecting all of that, the comments on Facebook
3:25:00
can take several days and just screenshotting and producing all of that as a report.
3:25:04
So I think that would be one time where we would check in and say,
3:25:08
do you want all of that feedback as a report? Is that worthwhile of staff's
3:25:12
time to aggregate all of that? Or would you rather have you know, a recap
3:25:17
or a summary of that information. So I think a lot of it just depends
3:25:22
on how much time it is to collect all that information. I think that comment
3:25:27
came from me at services and it wasn't about collecting the data and seeing the
3:25:32
data. I think that came from somebody else. It was about how are we going
3:25:37
to assess whether the public believes that the toolkit, the tools that were used improved
3:25:42
engagement, improved participation. It's the feedback on the toolkit that was the question. So
3:25:48
a project manager coming at the end and saying something that would let us
3:25:54
know that the toolkit is getting the desirable outcomes, not the data dump piece,
3:26:00
but the assessment of the toolkit. So in the very last sentence on page
3:26:05
12, before the questions to consider, There's also a note about, you know,
3:26:11
afterwards take time to evaluate and reflect on your engagement process. Find ways to ask
3:26:16
your participants for feedback on the engagement process itself. Ideas include asking the question at
3:26:20
the end of a public meeting, via email, or an online survey. Yeah, and it
3:26:24
was about getting that information back to Council. Oh, okay. And so I'm not sure
3:26:29
if that just means another tweak, but I'm interested in not a data dump of
3:26:35
how many and who said what, but sort of an assessment of are we being
3:26:41
more effective? Are these tools working or have we got the right tools? Did it
3:26:47
make the process more effective? And I think the second question I had was at
3:26:52
the very end of our conversation, we talked about the disconnect that we as council
3:26:57
members can have where the process, the toolkit is designed to work with the public,
3:27:02
businesses, residents and all the rest. We don't necessarily use it, but we will hear
3:27:07
people's comments about I like this aspect or I didn't like that aspect and wondering
3:27:12
about a test drive on council members, whether or not it was possible to use
3:27:17
this toolkit In an activity with council, so we understand how it works. So when
3:27:23
people talk to us about it, we at least get it. Say, a retreat. Can
3:27:27
we use some of these tools, survey tools, et cetera, when we're planning our retreat
3:27:32
process so we actually get to experience what this is and what this feels like.
3:27:36
And I didn't-- that could be an idea that's outside of the agenda bill. But
3:27:41
I remember we kind of talked about that. OK. My other hope too
3:27:47
is that as project managers come to you and say this is my proposal for
3:27:52
my project, again, we're all using that same language so that there's shared expectations for
3:27:58
what that means both at the council and the administration level so that when we
3:28:03
come back with that engagement at the end, you understand the process we went through.
3:28:08
I just wanted to, Autumn, thank you for putting this together. I think that it's
3:28:13
great to, as we discussed a little bit in services, that it's great to have
3:28:18
this toolkit together and be able to see all of this. And I just wanted
3:28:23
to follow up on what you were talking about, Mary Lou. I think we had
3:28:27
two different comments. One was about the toolkit and one was about when we do
3:28:32
get agenda bills, if it's possible to provide some of that feedback. And then
3:28:38
we sort of got into would we prefer the whole, all of the data
3:28:44
or a recap? And then we came up with, well, maybe both if possible,
3:28:50
because somebody might want to read through that and recaps might work better for
3:28:56
others. So thank you. So
3:29:01
all those in favor of proceeding with the implementation of
3:29:07
the public engagement toolkit signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
3:29:13
That carries unanimously. Moving now to our last regular business
3:29:19
item, agenda bill 7-2-7-0, 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments.
3:29:24
This is coming back from Land and Services. Council President Goodman. Thank you. Yep,
3:29:30
this is coming back from Land and Shore. It's been in Land and Shore
3:29:36
for quite a while. More than six months, I believe. It's much more than
3:29:42
six months. I think the first review was a year ago. So this is
3:29:48
the... We're allowed to amend comprehensive, the city's allowed to amend comprehensive plans once
3:29:54
a year. This is a list of amendments. It's not a major update. That was
3:30:00
in 2015. It is a very long agenda bill and it, for a number of
3:30:05
reasons, is confusing because it's been in committee so long and there are a lot
3:30:11
of fact changes and revised proposed revised language and some substantive
3:30:17
changes. So one of the things that I did a couple
3:30:22
of months ago when I took over as Land and Shore
3:30:28
chair this year is I created a table that listed all
3:30:33
the amendments, the reasoning behind the amendment, what the policy question
3:30:39
is, And then staff took over that table and updated it
3:30:44
in the next couple of meetings. But still it doesn't help navigate,
3:30:50
help you navigate through the long agenda bill. So you all received
3:30:56
over the weekend a memo that I created that lists, describes, explains
3:31:01
the amendments that were the most discussed in Land and Shore.
3:31:07
And that memo was added to tonight's packet today. And I also have
3:31:13
-- there isn't anybody here from the public now, but I have copies
3:31:19
of that memo over here on top of the dais. So if you
3:31:24
have questions, Keith is still here, and we've also, I think, every
3:31:30
five of the seven council members that have had an opportunity to review this agenda
3:31:36
bill at Land and Shore one time or another over the last several months because
3:31:42
we've had subs and then we've had changes in membership of that committee at the
3:31:48
first part of the year. So I wasn't going to go through every single one
3:31:53
of the changes. Are there any questions or I can go ahead and make a
3:31:59
motion? - Make a motion. - Yep. I would move to adopt ordinance number
3:32:05
Mending the comprehensive plan and zoning map as part of the
3:32:11
2016 annual review process. Second. It's moved and seconded. Questions or
3:32:17
discussion? Paul? Thank you. And Stacy, thank you for your letter.
3:32:23
Thank you very much. That I guess is now part of
3:32:29
the, so even if someone downloads the electronic copy of the
3:32:36
packet or the agenda bill, your letter is now part of that. Is that what
3:32:41
I heard you say earlier? Mm-hmm. Just hard copy? Yeah. The memo is part of
3:32:47
the packet. It is. Is the PDF as well? The full PDF? Electronic copies as
3:32:52
well? Okay. I just want to make one comment. I know that there's a number
3:32:58
of issues related to land use. And Stacey, you've kind of started the process at
3:33:03
the staff level to help all of us get more educated on things
3:33:09
related to regional growth center and countywide planning policies. And we all
3:33:15
know that the framework for regional growth centers is changing. And so
3:33:20
there's a lot about, as much for my fellow council members as
3:33:26
much as anything, there's a, you know, the comprehensive plan is our
3:33:32
official kind of policy about land use and many other things as
3:33:38
well. So we're, There's a lot of language in here that I, you know, this
3:33:43
is my sixth year on the council and I think I understand all the language
3:33:48
now. And I probably shouldn't admit that, but I tell you, it is, this is
3:33:53
some pretty complex stuff to navigate. And I know that Keith is gonna be preparing
3:33:58
some, I heard, you know, some material, you know, to help this out. And this
3:34:02
is, and so as we, I've mentioned how, and it's been mentioned a couple times,
3:34:08
PSRC is going through this update to the regional centers framework and
3:34:13
there's a lot of concepts in there that are actually captured, codified
3:34:19
in our comprehensive plan and such, including concepts about targets and capacity
3:34:25
and I just wanted to, I just wanted to share one bit
3:34:30
of information that as I've worked more and more to understand this
3:34:36
topic in general I think this idea of these growth
3:34:42
targets, and we discussed this one quite a bit, that are part
3:34:47
of our comprehensive plan. We get our allocation from the county, and
3:34:53
actually in terms of, not just in terms of population, but also
3:34:59
in terms of housing units and employment. That in particular area is
3:35:05
actually very critical and it also relates also to the regional center discussion that's going
3:35:10
on as well. So I just wanted to highlight there's a very strong connection here
3:35:15
that's already in our comprehensive plan. They embrace some of the changes that we're talking
3:35:21
about here that are part of this proposal in front of us this evening as
3:35:26
well. But they're gonna keep coming back to us as we go through the year.
3:35:32
regarding regional centers and of course, that should be good helpful information about the moratorium
3:35:37
conversations as well. One thing in particular I just wanted to add and you know,
3:35:42
this is for future consideration because I actually had my opportunity, I actually came to
3:35:48
Land and Shore with some language changes and we got so tied up in some
3:35:53
other things I never really got them across. But the, and this, I just, I'm
3:35:58
not proposing a change here, but for future conversations, I think that the, and it's
3:36:04
in your letter, and I appreciate, there's the piece in here where you talk about
3:36:09
language. - Assumptions and targets. - Yeah, where is that? It's on, in your letter.
3:36:15
Thank you, that is, it's on page one. It's the first page of your letter.
3:36:21
It's the second paragraph, it's the land use one at the bottom. And, and. -
3:36:27
Oh, it's on, It's under, it's number one, second paragraph. Right, right, right.
3:36:33
So, and just in this particular area, I know when we did, so what
3:36:39
this talks about is the EIS that was done for the central area. And
3:36:44
this uses the word assumptions, and that's exactly now what's in the proposed changes
3:36:50
to the comprehensive plan as well. And as I worked on this,
3:36:56
I thought, you know, really, those are what the EIS, what we did, we
3:37:02
proposed certain land use and zoning changes, and that created a new capacity for
3:37:07
what could've been built out. And that's what, it was that capacity what was
3:37:13
used when the EIS was performed. And so, this word assumptions
3:37:19
is really about that capacity in the central area that was
3:37:25
used during the performance of the environmental impact work that was
3:37:30
done for a central area. For me, I just found actually
3:37:36
the word assumptions a little bit confusing. It was the capacity
3:37:42
for dwelling units and employment that was considered by the
3:37:48
EIS. So that was my only nuance, only point I wanted
3:37:54
to point out. Thank you. - Additional question, Mariah. - So
3:38:00
I just wanted to thank everybody that worked so hard on
3:38:06
this and I just was reading through because there were just
3:38:11
a few changes made after I had left Land and Shore,
3:38:17
but For example, on number two, talking about the PSRC
3:38:23
language and then coming up with considering policies that I know
3:38:29
there was a lot of back and forth and a lot
3:38:34
of just a lot of work that went into so many
3:38:40
of these details. So I appreciate that.
3:38:48
Just a comment. A big thank you to Stacy as well. It was helpful to
3:38:52
have some new people come on Land and Shore and help us get through this.
3:38:57
And the table that you added I think is an important thing that we should
3:39:02
make part of our process. It was extremely helpful in actually moving forward and getting
3:39:07
through these sections. And then your memo at the end that you wrote this weekend
3:39:12
really helped to make something that looked like a crazy amount of information changes and
3:39:17
very complicated, much simpler to digest. So thank you very much for your work on
3:39:23
it. It was super helpful. And with that, all those in favor of adopting ordinance
3:39:28
-- I'm sorry. Oh, wait. There was one other comment I wanted to add, is
3:39:34
that one of the things that we're doing this evening is we're memorializing in the
3:39:39
comprehensive plan the redesignation and rezone of what's known as the wall property. And I
3:39:45
just wanted to make a public comment how I'm very grateful.
3:39:51
This was a donation of private land to the city and
3:39:56
well, for a reason, I said that wrong, for rezone purposes
3:40:02
to preserve it as open space. And so that's a real
3:40:07
gift for all of us. And we actually did that rezone a while
3:40:13
ago. This is getting it into the comprehensive plan. And I just think that's worth
3:40:18
noting. And it's a real gift to the public, not only for us now, but
3:40:23
all in the future. And also is a really a good example of a concerned
3:40:29
citizen in this case. It was Janet Wall who asked for this. And I just
3:40:34
want to express my gratitude to her publicly. Thank you, Janet. And I purposefully pointed
3:40:39
that out in the memo because even it certainly wasn't controversial and it didn't
3:40:45
garner a ton of discussion, but as you pointed out at Landed Shore, Apollo,
3:40:51
it's noteworthy, so that's in there. Thanks, Fred.
3:40:56
All those in favor of adopting Orders Number 2796, amending the Comprehensive
3:41:02
Plan and Zoning Map as part of the 2016 Annual Review Process,
3:41:08
signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously. That's our last
3:41:14
item under regular business. Moving now to good of the order.
3:41:20
Mary Lou? Just one thing for council members
3:41:25
to consider tonight. Eileen and I both attended the IFRA board meeting two
3:41:31
weeks ago. I haven't quite got the date in my head. There were a lot
3:41:37
of items on the agenda, but the most noteworthy one for us, I emailed you
3:41:42
two documents this evening or forwarded them that the fire chief sent out today or
3:41:47
yesterday. It's some recommended language changes to the ILA that would extend the current ILA
3:41:53
for a period of seven years to to a total of 10 for this
3:41:59
current ILA. And there is one other change. Bob, what's the other change
3:42:04
that we were looking at? There's two in there. Anyway-- The automatic renewal?
3:42:10
The automatic renewal was already part of it. So the extension of the
3:42:16
existing and then changing the length of renewals from 10 to 7. Correct. So we
3:42:21
had a discussion of this at the EFRA board. All the partners are being asked
3:42:27
to take this change back to their legislative body, discuss it and recommend approval of
3:42:32
the changes. We have discussed it with the administration and these are changes that are
3:42:38
acceptable, desirable actually to allow for longer long-range planning exercises. It's really hard when you're
3:42:43
renewing every seven years and we've only got four years left right now to make
3:42:47
some of these long-term decisions we have to make about fire station locations, etc. So
3:42:52
you have the information. The fire agency has asked that we all the partners come
3:42:56
back with this approved by May if possible. So what I'd like to do is
3:43:01
I'll leave it with Bob and maybe talk about it at leadership as to what
3:43:05
sort of how this comes back next time and when it comes back. Anything else
3:43:09
you want to add from the administration? So I think, you know, we would prepare
3:43:14
an agenda bill. There was a, I think a Scrivener's error in number E on
3:43:19
that. So I was going to contact the chief and let them know about that
3:43:23
and then hopefully I'll get cleared up. That's great. So if you have any questions
3:43:28
about it, Eileen and I are both at the board meetings and we can provide
3:43:33
you backup information, but we will have this coming back to us at some point.
3:43:38
Any questions tonight? Seeing none. Anything else for good of the order this evening? Seeing
3:43:43
none, then we are adjourned.