City Council Regular Meeting

Monday, March 20, 2017

7:00 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way

Topics tracked across meetings:

King County Library System Climate Action Planning AB 7402 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Environmental Board · Oct 15, 2025

View full lifecycle → Next: Environmental Board · Oct 15, 2025 ▶

Informational Update: Public Engagement Toolkit ID 1408 ››› 2/4

City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 21, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Equity Board · Feb 1, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 3, 2023

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 21, 2017 View full lifecycle → Next: Equity Board · Feb 1, 2023 ▶

Olde Town Subarea Plan Update AB 7326 ››››››››››››› 4/14

Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 15, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 7, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 1, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 19, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 19, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018

◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 View full lifecycle → Next: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 ▶

Central Issaquah District Visions AB 7344 ›››››››››››› 2/13

Planning Policy Commission · Mar 9, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Nov 30, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 18, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Jan 25, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 15, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 22, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 28, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 8, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 22, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 2, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 9, 2017 View full lifecycle → Next: Planning Policy Commission · Nov 30, 2017 ▶

2017 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan AB 7483 ››› 2/4

Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Sep 14, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 16, 2017

◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 View full lifecycle → Next: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 14, 2017 ▶

2017 Regional Agenda AB 7312 ›› 2/3

City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 6, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 16, 2017

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 6, 2017 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 16, 2017 ▶

King County Animal Services Interlocal Agreement AB 7341 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 1, 2017

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · May 1, 2017 ▶

2016 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments AB 7270 ›››› 5/5

Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 → Planning Policy Commission · Oct 13, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 7, 2016 View full lifecycle →

2017 Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB 7330 ›› 3/3

Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 21, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 21, 2017 View full lifecycle →

Gilman Lofts (Three Trails) Development Agreement AB 7219 ›› 3/3

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 21, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 21, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 21, 2017 View full lifecycle →

2017 First Budget Amendments AB 7333 ›› 3/3

City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 19, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 6, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 6, 2017 View full lifecycle →

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, March 20

Approve · packet pp.2017

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2017 ↗

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, March 6, 2017

Approve · packet pp.5–9

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 03-06-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7807

2017 Regional Agenda AB 7312

Refer to Various Council Committees · packet pp.11–26

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

City Council / Stacy Goodman, Council President:

Amending Various IMC Sections Related to Permit Fees AB 7327

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.27–40

Topics: Land UseBudget

Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Development Services Department:

2017 Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB 7330

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.41–55

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017

Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

B. Implementation Strategies C. 2017 Docket recommended by Council Land & Shore Committee (new)

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Mt. Hood Tank Improvements Project AB 7335

Award Bid · packet pp.57–60

Open packet at p.57 ↗

Staff report:

POLICY & BUDGET INFO Expenditure Required Comp Plan Policy Nos. U-2.9; U-2.10; U-2.13 $ 625,000

King County Animal Services Interlocal Agreement AB 7341

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.61–127

Topics: Public Safety

Open packet at p.61 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Parks & Recreation Department:

Ratification of King County Countywide Planning Policies AB 7402

Approve Resolution · packet pp.129–150

Open packet at p.129 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Development Services Department:

7. PUBLIC HEARING

Gilman Lofts (Three Trails) Development Agreement AB 7219

Conduct Public Hearing; Approve Resolution · packet pp.151–175

Topics: Parks

Open packet at p.151 ↗

Staff report:

CITY COUNCIL UPDATED AGENDA BILL AB 7219 - City Council Regular Meeting - 20 Mar 2017 Public Hearing

2017 First Budget Amendments AB 7333

Carried 6-0

Conduct Public Hearing; Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.177–188

Topics: Land UseBudget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 19, 2016

Open packet at p.177 ↗

Staff report:

City Council / Stacy Goodman, Council President:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

8. REGULAR BUSINESS

Public Engagement Toolkit Proceed AB 7331

packet pp.189–223

Open packet at p.189 ↗

Staff report:

Council Services & Safety Committee / Tola Marts, Chair:

2016 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments AB 7270

Carried 6-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.225–357

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 Planning Policy Commission · Oct 13, 2016

Open packet at p.225 ↗

Staff report:

Council Land & Shore Committee / Stacy Goodman, Chair:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

2024 segments

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.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Bill Ramos

Motions and votes (6)

Approve Resolution No. 2017-03, approving the Gilman Lofts (Three Tails) Development Agreement; and, direct the Finance Director to include $375,000 in a subsequent 2017 budget amendment, utilizing $75,000 from the Mitigation Fund and $300,000 from the General Fund ending fund balance.

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Postpone the motion to the April 17, 2017 Regular Council meeting. . b) AB 7333 - 2017 First Budget Amendments

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Adopt revised Ordinance No. 2795, amending the 2017 Budget as set forth in Ordinance No. 2791 concerning revenues, expenditures and fund balance for various funds for the year 2017 and authorizing the Finance Director to make the necessary adjustments and approving prior expenditures.

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Amend Exhibit A of the Ordinance, relating to Talus Slide expenditures as follows: “Professional Services - DSD $ 750,000 $ 486,446” and recalculate amounts throughout the exhibit as necessary. . .

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Proceed with implementation of the Public Engagement Toolkit. . b) AB 7270 - 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments

Moved by MARTS · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2796, amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map as part of the 2016 annual review process. .

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein