City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, April 17, 2017 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Community Environmental Award Hear Presentation AB 7328

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Office of Sustainability:

Earth Day Proclamation Hear Presentation 9 - 10 AB 7412 - Stand Against Racism Day c) Proclamation Hear Presentation AB 7411

packet pp.7–8

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Office of Sustainability:

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, April 17

Approve · packet pp.2017

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2017 ↗

Boards & Commissions Annual Appointments AB 7289

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.17–99

Topics: Land UseBoards & Commissions

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7289 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Apr 2017 Calendar

Landmarking Gilman Town Hall Building AB 7347

Refer to Committee of the Whole Council · packet pp.115–135

Open packet at p.115 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Development Services Department:

South Cove Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Project AB 7376

Authorize Submittal · packet pp.137–140

Open packet at p.137 ↗

Staff report:

POLICY & BUDGET INFO Expenditure Required Comp Plan Policy Nos. U-A4; U-B1; U-C1; U-C4; U- C5; U-C6; U-C7; U-C9 $ 511,061

Ecology Local Source Control Program Grant AB 7416

Authorize Submittal · packet pp.143–144

Topics: Critical Areas

Open packet at p.143 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Skate Park Construction AB 7195

Carried 5-0

Approve Resolution · packet pp.275–293

Topics: Parks

Open packet at p.275 ↗

Staff report:

The Skate Park at Tibbetts Valley Park project provides: 10,500 sq.ft. skate park for skaters of various skill levels

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Downtown Streetscape Plan AB 7304

Carried 5-0

Authorize Additional Funding · packet pp.321–379

Topics: Land UseBudgetEconomic Development

Open packet at p.321 ↗

Staff report:

In 2015, in response to a City Council goal, the Mayor established the Olde Town Vitality Task Force in order to provide recommendations on things the community can do to enhance the vitality of the downtown. Among the Task Force's recommendations was the creation of a streetscape plan to promote a more consistent downtown character and to facilitate pedestrian activity that would support local businesses. The streetscape plan focuses on areas of interest identified by the Olde Town Vitality Task Force within the Cultural Business District (CBD) including Front Street from Bush Street to Gilman Blvd, the entrance to the Hatchery, and the right-of-way area behind Front Street businesses that is adjacent to Pedestrian Park and Depot Park.

Roll call:

Moved by PAULY · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

2379 segments

4:23 ↗ I'll call the City Council regular meeting for April 17th to order

4:29 ↗ and ask those in the audience who would like to join the

4:34 ↗ Council and me in the Pledge of Allegiance to please stand. I

4:40 ↗ pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and

4:46 ↗ to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

4:52 ↗ with liberty and justice for all.

4:59 ↗ We have three items under special

5:05 ↗ business this evening. The first is

5:10 ↗ Agenda Bill 7328, the Community Environmental

5:15 ↗ Award. So I'll ask Council President

5:20 ↗ Goodman and myself along with Tracy

5:25 ↗ Malloy and Kelly Richardson to join

5:31 ↗ us up here. Thank you.

5:41 ↗ The Community Environmental Award builds upon the vision of

5:47 ↗ the Ruth Keys Environmental Award to recognize outstanding achievements

5:52 ↗ by individuals, groups, and organizations within the community. Ruth

5:58 ↗ Keys was a teacher, mentor, and role model for

6:03 ↗ those committed to pursuing the vision of sustainable Issaquah.

6:10 ↗ She brought environmental issues to the forefront of community

6:16 ↗ consciousness and inspired activism, leadership, and participation. The Community

6:22 ↗ Environmental Award was launched in 2015 to recognize noteworthy

6:28 ↗ efforts to conserve, protect, and preserve Isoquois environmental resources

6:34 ↗ and attributes. Tonight I'm excited to present the 2017

6:39 ↗ Community Environmental Award to Friends of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, more

6:45 ↗ affectionately known as FISH. As we all know, the Issaquah Salmon

6:51 ↗ Hatchery is an important part of our community and we have

6:56 ↗ the Friends of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery to thank for its

7:02 ↗ tremendous support. FISH was formed as a not-for-profit organization

7:08 ↗ in December 1993 to support the hatchery. Thanks to FISH's

7:13 ↗ hard work, Issaquah has the most visited hatchery in Washington

7:19 ↗ state, and it is currently used as a model for

7:24 ↗ education programs at other hatcheries. With a focus on outreach

7:30 ↗ and education, Fish staff, docents, and volunteers act as interpreters

7:36 ↗ and ambassadors for the hatchery. They teach people of all

7:41 ↗ ages about salmon life cycle and the importance of the

7:47 ↗ environment in preserving its habitat. The impact of fish's work

7:53 ↗ reaches far beyond the hatchery's boundaries. Through in-class presentations,

7:59 ↗ summer science camps, and outreach activities, Fish teaches youth

8:04 ↗ and the public about hatchery operations, salmon life cycle,

8:10 ↗ and habitat needs, environmental issues, and how to protect

8:15 ↗ and restore our Northwest icon. So it is

8:21 ↗ a great pleasure for Council President Goodman and I to

8:27 ↗ present this certificate. Come on in close. this certificate

8:33 ↗ for your selection this year and to thank you for all of the wonderful

8:39 ↗ work that you have done in educating not only our community but the region

8:45 ↗ and I some say the nation and the world because I have seen visitors

8:51 ↗ from around the world visit our salmon hatchery and as a tangible recognition

8:56 ↗ for Fish's selection this year. This is an Art

9:02 ↗ by Fire phase to commemorate that. You're welcome. So

9:08 ↗ would you like to say a couple of words?

9:13 ↗ Sure. I'm Tracy Malloy. I'm the president. Come step

9:19 ↗ Tracy Malloy, I'm the president of the board of the Issaquah, Friends of the Issaquah

9:24 ↗ Salmon Hatchery. I just want to thank the city of Issaquah for this honor. I

9:30 ↗ believe that our mission to champion the annual miracle of salmon in our fragile environment

9:35 ↗ is more important now than ever before. And we continue to work hard as a

9:40 ↗ board and with our docents and our partners in the community to help make sure

9:45 ↗ that all of uh... isaac while all of the surrounding municipalities and

9:51 ↗ washington state and as you mentioned visitors from around the world

9:57 ↗ understand the significance of salmon environment and the importance of helping

10:02 ↗ to ensure that art environment is supportive of this iconic species

10:08 ↗ in our community so thank you very much thank you tracy

10:13 ↗ and for those for those of you looking for

10:19 ↗ a tremendous volunteer opportunity in the fall. You could

10:25 ↗ be like Kelly Richardson here who has Ordosan fish

10:30 ↗ vest on with all of those pins. So again,

10:36 ↗ Tracy, congratulations. Thank you so much. Thank you. Kelly,

10:41 ↗ congratulations. Thank you so much. Our next

10:47 ↗ item under special business is Agenda Bill 7411, Earth Day Proclamation.

10:53 ↗ And so I would ask for Brenda DeFore to please join

10:58 ↗ me. And Keith, do you want to come up here also?

11:04 ↗ Come on up. You're an important part of DIA also.

11:10 ↗ So, whereas Earth Day offers residents of all ages a unique opportunity

11:16 ↗ to make a personal commitment to practices that are vital in protecting

11:22 ↗ the quality of human and other life in Issaquah for generations to

11:27 ↗ come, And, whereas the City joins together with residents to plant

11:33 ↗ trees along Issaquah Creek in celebration of Arbor Day and Earth

11:39 ↗ Day, and whereas the Downtown Issaquah Association is holding its annual

11:44 ↗ Spring Cleanup in honor of Earth Day, when community members will

11:50 ↗ contribute to the beautification and celebration of the environment, Therefore,

11:56 ↗ I, Fred Butler, Mayor of the City of Issaquah, do hereby proclaim April 22,

12:02 ↗ 2017 to be Earth Day, and the City of Issaquah and urge all residents

12:08 ↗ to celebrate this special observance and to further to pledge to take actions together

12:14 ↗ so that we can all contribute to a healthy environment and make Issaquah an

12:20 ↗ even greater place to live, work, play, and visit. and witness whereof

12:25 ↗ I hereunto set my hand and seal of the city of

12:31 ↗ Issaquah the 17th day of April 2017. And then with that,

12:37 ↗ I would like to present this proclamation to the Downtown Issaquah

12:43 ↗ Association. And just say that there is another tremendous opportunity for those

12:48 ↗ who want to be involved in the community this Saturday beginning at

12:54 ↗ 9 o'clock at the Hailstone Feed Store where Dia will be organizing

13:00 ↗ clean-up activities in our community. So come on down. I think there's

13:06 ↗ free pizza at noon also. So, Brenda? Thank you very much.

13:12 ↗ Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

13:17 ↗ Is Gina Yarwood here this evening? Would you

13:23 ↗ do me a favor and come on down.

13:29 ↗ Our final item under special business this evening

13:34 ↗ is a proclamation proclaiming April 28, 2017 to

13:40 ↗ be Stand Against Racism Day in the city

13:46 ↗ of Issaquah. And with that, whereas the

13:51 ↗ YWCA is committed to eliminating racism, empowering women,

13:57 ↗ and promoting peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for

14:03 ↗ all, And whereas the City of Issaquah aligns with

14:09 ↗ the YWCA mission and works to eliminate racial inequity through

14:14 ↗ internal practices, citywide initiatives, and partnerships with other institutions and

14:20 ↗ the community. And whereas Issaquah residents value initiatives that will

14:26 ↗ end race-based disparities and make the world a more equitable

14:32 ↗ inclusive and dignified place for all to live. Now therefore I, Fred Butler,

14:38 ↗ the Mayor of the City of Issaquah, do hereby proclaim April 28, 2017

14:43 ↗ to be Stand Against Racism Day. In the City of Issaquah and I

14:49 ↗ urge all residents to join me in observing this day and to commit

14:55 ↗ themselves going forward to fight against racism, whatever and wherever it

15:00 ↗ may appear. And witness whereof I hereunto set my hand in

15:06 ↗ steel of the city of Issaquah the 17th day of April

15:12 ↗ 2017. And I would like to present with you this proclamation

15:18 ↗ also. Thank you. And I see you're clutching a piece of paper. Is there

15:24 ↗ anything you'd like to say this evening? A couple of things, yes. Thank you very

15:29 ↗ much. Step up to the mic. Thank you very much. As you know, the City

15:34 ↗ of Issaquah has been longtime supporters of the YWCA. And this is our new mission.

15:39 ↗ It is a nationwide mission across the United States with eliminating racism. We're excited to

15:44 ↗ be partnering with the city as well as the school district to be planning an

15:48 ↗ event within the next couple of months in conjunction with a couple of our other

15:53 ↗ sites on the east side. And up in the Issaquah Highlands on April 26th, we'll

15:57 ↗ be doing an event in our village commons between 4 and 6 that is open

16:02 ↗ to the community. And I can pass on those information through the email, but we

16:06 ↗ would like to have everyone come up through there. And again, just want to thank

16:11 ↗ you guys for your support, ongoing support with the agency and all that you do.

16:15 ↗ Thank you. Jada. Thank you very, very much

16:21 ↗ for all you do and

16:26 ↗ for the tremendous support that

16:31 ↗ you provide. Thank you. Thank

16:36 ↗ you. Moving now to audience

16:41 ↗ comments. Citizen comments are an important part of

16:47 ↗ the public process. We take them seriously and factor them into the decisions we make.

16:53 ↗ Anyone from the public who wishes to comment this evening will have the opportunity to

16:59 ↗ do so. Please direct your comments to the entire council and not individuals. While this

17:04 ↗ is not a question and answer session, we will contact you to follow

17:10 ↗ up if needed. If you did not have an opportunity to include your

17:16 ↗ email address, please at the conclusion of your marks, fill it in at

17:21 ↗ the clipboard at the table in front of me.

17:31 ↗ When recognized, please come to the lectern and speak into the microphone. State your name,

17:37 ↗ address, and relationship to the city. Resident, property owner, or business owner, limit your comments

17:43 ↗ to five minutes. Submit any written requirements you have to the city clerk. A visual

17:48 ↗ timer has been placed. On the lectern, when it turns yellow, you are within

17:54 ↗ the last minute of your comment period. If you use the full five minutes, the

18:00 ↗ timer will sound to indicate the end of your allotted comment period. Again, personal attacks,

18:05 ↗ obscene language, derogatory remarks, and disruptive behavior will not be permitted. And with that, I

18:11 ↗ would ask... Let me just point out also that there is a

18:17 ↗ public hearing scheduled this evening also later in the agenda on the

18:22 ↗ ninth major amendment to the Esquire Highlands two-party development agreement, Polygon Northwest

18:28 ↗ requesting a major modification for the transfer of development rights. So if

18:34 ↗ you're here to speak for that, that comes a little bit later

18:39 ↗ in the agenda. And with that, I would ask,

18:45 ↗ has anyone signed up to speak? Yes, David Kapler.

18:51 ↗ Good evening, David Kapler, 255 Southeast Andrew Street. No

18:56 ↗ jurisdiction in the county has benefited more from King

19:02 ↗ County Park and open space people than the city

19:08 ↗ of Issaquah from the Taylor Mountain area. County forest in

19:14 ↗ the headwaters of Issaquah Creek to all the parks and open space that surround most

19:20 ↗ of the city. I mean except for that northern part where you got King County

19:25 ↗ interface that the rest almost 300 degrees. Tomorrow night up in Preston Community Center the

19:31 ↗ county is going to make a presentation about how they hope to go forward for

19:37 ↗ the next 30 years to let some other communities and cities catch up to Issaquah

19:43 ↗ would be one way of saying it because we have benefited so much more than

19:47 ↗ so many other places. We've got a lot to do in terms of parks and

19:52 ↗ open space given the development pressures on this whole region. I would hope six o'clock

19:56 ↗ is the dinner it's seven o'clock is the meeting I hope some of you can

20:01 ↗ be there. The three trails proposal tonight on there. I hope you approve that get

20:06 ↗ that going get that into care of there was some mention about the plaza in

20:11 ↗ interest in making sure the plaza is Something significant there at the not the terminus,

20:16 ↗ but it's kind of where the East Lakes of Miami's trail terminus But then it

20:21 ↗ continues course on to the the Rainier trail across the street. But let's make sure

20:27 ↗ something good happens there. The signal is necessary compared to the C-curb.

20:33 ↗ You have the culvert tonight, anti-aircraft peak culvert. Anti-aircraft peak is named, that's

20:39 ↗ where the radar station was, that's where the staff were there. The actual

20:44 ↗ Nike missiles were west of there at another location, but that's where the

20:50 ↗ headquarters was or whatever. I have to leave early tonight, West Ridge North.

20:56 ↗ The traffic studies for 100 units. But there's been numbers out there

21:02 ↗ of 100 regular units, 38 less unaffordable units, and one group home, and

21:08 ↗ then talking about on parcel D some others. So the traffic study was

21:13 ↗ for 100. If we're up to potentially to 150, we've got to make

21:19 ↗ sure that's covered. But hopefully you'll get that resolved tonight. Thank you. Thank

21:25 ↗ you. Teresa Stoppard.

21:35 ↗ Good evening. On behalf of Skate Issaquah, the Issaquah Skate Park Funding Committee, and the

21:40 ↗ Citizens Advisory Committee, I would like to express our support for the Skate Park Project

21:45 ↗ Bid Award going to Grand Line Skate Parks tonight. I would also like to thank

21:50 ↗ everyone involved in this long-awaited project. The Issaquah City Council, Mayor Fred Butler, City of

21:55 ↗ Issaquah Parks and Recreation Department for all of their support and hard work to help

22:00 ↗ this become a reality. I not only speak for myself, but the skateboarding youth of

22:05 ↗ our city, everyone who contributed to our fundraising and skate park event, and also the

22:10 ↗ kids who sparked this idea in a backyard in downtown Issaquah in 2009. I'm proud

22:15 ↗ to have watched these kids put all this work into this. Most of those kids

22:20 ↗ are now young adults who've moved away to college, but when they come home, they're

22:25 ↗ going to take great pride in seeing their work having come to fruition. I appreciate

22:30 ↗ everything. Thank you so much. Thank you. Austin Fisher.

22:35 ↗ Hello, my name is Austin Fisher and I live at 203-420

22:41 ↗ Southeast Black Nugget Road. Same as Teresa, I'm here on behalf

22:47 ↗ of the Escape Issaquah Funding Committee and I just want to

22:53 ↗ say thank you to the Issaquah Parks Department, Mayor Butler, and

22:59 ↗ the entire City Council for ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT, REALLY, AND FOR PUTTING

23:05 ↗ UP WITH OUR COUNTLESS E-MAILS IN REGARDS TO THE NEW ESSAQUAH SKATE PARK TO BE

23:10 ↗ BUILT AT TIFFETZ FIELD. I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT. AND JUST ECHOING WHAT THERESA SAID, WE'RE

23:16 ↗ HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR GRINDLINE SKATE PARKS

23:21 ↗ TO BUILD THE NEW ESSAQUAH SKATE PARK AND FOR THE BASE PROJECT AND ALTERNATE ONE

23:26 ↗ AND TWO. So we're very excited to have the park built

23:32 ↗ and ready for you. So just want to say thanks

23:38 ↗ again. Thank you, Austin. Susan Neville. My name is Susan

23:43 ↗ Neville, and I live at 2825 Northwest Pinecone Drive. I'm

23:49 ↗ a 21-year resident of Issaquah. Can you hear me okay?

23:54 ↗ Okay. I would like to discuss the importance of the

24:00 ↗ Bergsma-Winward Commission Development Meeting, which is to be held this

24:05 ↗ Wednesday, April 19th. A group of property owners from Newport

24:11 ↗ Corridor, including Cougar Ridge, Tierra Highlands, Pine View, Sammamish Point, Spyglass,

24:17 ↗ Summer Hill, plus residents of Tallis are planning to attend and

24:23 ↗ give public comments at this D.C. meeting. We also have representatives

24:28 ↗ of the various neighborhoods here tonight with a show of hands.

24:34 ↗ Thank you. As a group, we've been meeting since February 4th to

24:39 ↗ educate ourselves on both city policy and the Berksma-Winward development project. In particular,

24:45 ↗ the plan to open a road leading from Tallis through Berksma housing development

24:51 ↗ to Newport Way. The residents want to stress to City Council how important

24:57 ↗ the April 19th meeting is to the outcome of the Winward proposal. In

25:03 ↗ the beginning, in early February, The residents asked for an open community meeting

25:09 ↗ with planning and other parties to discuss the connector road. The city chose to handle

25:15 ↗ the open discussion request within the DC meeting framework, which is this Wednesday, by adding

25:21 ↗ an extra 30 minutes to the beginning so that we could solely address this issue.

25:28 ↗ The first part of the DC meeting, which will include a presentation from city staff,

25:33 ↗ will be followed by the public to comment, and this would be our comment period.

25:39 ↗ The public has limited time on a proposal and a development that changes the character

25:45 ↗ of our neighborhood and overall quality of life for both Newport Way and TALIS residents.

25:51 ↗ On another point, we are also unclear if the connector road falls within the DC

25:57 ↗ purview. or most importantly is the Developmental Commission comfortable

26:02 ↗ making a recommendation to City Council concerning this important

26:08 ↗ issue. Another concern is the traffic impact analysis done

26:13 ↗ for the Berksma-Winward development. Currently, Tallis has 1,700 residential

26:19 ↗ units. At the Wednesday DC meeting, will the City be

26:24 ↗ able to clarify what criteria was used to estimate the daily trips from

26:30 ↗ Tallis to Newport Way via Birdsma? Noted, during the a.m. and p.m. peak

26:36 ↗ hours, the City estimated 137 daily commuter trips from both the Tallis and

26:42 ↗ Birdsma developments to Newport Way. Can the city confirm six months

26:48 ↗ of continuous traffic data was used to calculate these number of trips? I took it

26:53 ↗ upon myself to analyze the traffic impact report, which is quite difficult, and I only

26:59 ↗ cited two individual dates using data, which were August 11th and December 8th, 2015. So

27:05 ↗ I'm hoping during that time period the city will be able to include that in

27:10 ↗ their presentation. For these reasons, the residents would like to invite

27:16 ↗ City Council members to attend the April 19th D.C. meeting to hear firsthand

27:22 ↗ the residential concerns we have. We do realize this is a departure from

27:28 ↗ the normal process, but the neighborhood's special interest in the complexity of this

27:33 ↗ Bergsma-Winward development may require extra measures before your final decision. We were

27:39 ↗ informed under city policy up to three members from city council might attend the DC

27:45 ↗ meeting without public announcement. I appreciate you sharing your time with me so we

27:51 ↗ can explain our needs prior to this meeting. And I want to explain one other

27:56 ↗ thing, and this is for a different meeting I hope to bring up, but I

28:01 ↗ wanted to share how difficult it has been to find out simple questions concerning the

28:06 ↗ Burzma Windward development and how much of our time along with the city's time was

28:10 ↗ spent answering our numerous emails and calls. And also, I would

28:16 ↗ like to hand in, we've collected 25 more

28:21 ↗ names of petitions and concerns, and there will

28:27 ↗ be more to follow. Thank you. Thank you,

28:32 ↗ Susan. Steve Pereira. Hi, I am indeed Steve

28:37 ↗ Pereira, 170 Northeast Dogwood Street, Issaquah for about

28:43 ↗ nine and a half years. Three things on

28:48 ↗ my mind today. The first was I recently

28:54 ↗ attended the GALAXER event, or some such name over at the

28:59 ↗ community center. It seemed from a community member perspective it was well attended. People

29:05 ↗ liked it. There was lots of things, different types of things for people to

29:11 ↗ do. So I just want to say thanks for hosting that activity. The second

29:17 ↗ item has to do with AB 7304, the downtown streetscape plan. Just two comments

29:23 ↗ that I heard when this was in committee. One was that There seems

29:29 ↗ to be a lot of sense of if we get state funding if we get

29:33 ↗ national funding There's a lot of ifs and dependents on this I know there's a

29:37 ↗ lot going on in the city But it seems like a large part of what

29:41 ↗ we do is what we prioritize and that's what we get So I'd like to

29:46 ↗ see less dependence upon Grants to get these I certainly go for the grants and

29:50 ↗ get whatever is available but I prioritize to think to do what we think are

29:56 ↗ the things that citizens want to do. The third item has to do with

30:01 ↗ the Providence Heights Chapel being maintained. I'm not here to talk about whether it

30:07 ↗ should or shouldn't be maintained in and of itself. I think though that what

30:13 ↗ seems strange to me is that a permit for the demolition was recently issued

30:18 ↗ with folks having until April 14th to Right in stating why they think it should

30:24 ↗ be maintained. What seems strange to me and that I do ask your support in

30:29 ↗ is I don't understand why this gets submitted to the Issaquah staff for the development

30:34 ↗ office and economic development growth when the things we look at for determining that are

30:38 ↗ artistic, cultural, and historic factors. There seems to be a conflict to me between

30:45 ↗ A DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC FORUM DECIDES WHAT ARE CULTURAL, ARTISTIC AND HISTORIC FACTS THAT SHOULD

30:50 ↗ BE MAINTAINED. THAT'S THE FACT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BOTH FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE

30:55 ↗ AND FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE. THE GROUP OF YOU UP THERE DECIDE NEEDS TO BE

31:01 ↗ REVIEWED. MAYBE IT SHOULD BE THE ARTS COMMISSION OR ARTS BOARD. MAYBE IT SHOULD BE

31:06 ↗ THE HISTORY COMMITTEE. MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE BODY THAT GETS convene. This is

31:12 ↗ things like this are what gets people upset and they don't understand why it seems

31:16 ↗ leadership doesn't understand why they're not hearing what it is people say when we put

31:21 ↗ at the end whether or not we want this thing to be maintained after we

31:25 ↗ go through all this rigmarole and this process when that should be one of the

31:29 ↗ first things that gets looked at is whether or not we want to do the

31:34 ↗ same type of thing. A similar type, I've heard the same language used for the

31:38 ↗ Bergsma property Do we want to do this

31:44 ↗ thing gets asked after the fact or

31:50 ↗ towards the end of the process of

31:56 ↗ what? What city code says? Thank you

32:01 ↗ for your time. Thank you Steve David

32:07 ↗ Wagner Okay Good evening council. Good evening

32:13 ↗ mayor David Waggoner 360 Northwest Dogwood Street

32:19 ↗ Park McKay 204 kind of nice to

32:24 ↗ be able to come to the council

32:30 ↗ in meeting and not talk about the

32:36 ↗ senior center and except for wonderful things that's happening there,

32:42 ↗ and we're working very hard to make it even better. So I'm

32:48 ↗ here tonight for two things. One is to thank you for the

32:53 ↗ honor and privilege to serve as your cemetery board member and chair

32:59 ↗ for the last seven years. A couple of facts that you need

33:04 ↗ to keep in the back of your mind. We have 574

33:10 ↗ veterans buried in that cemetery. We have 19 Civil War

33:16 ↗ veterans buried in that cemetery, of which we've replaced for

33:21 ↗ free four brand new headstones for those Civil War vets.

33:28 ↗ It's been an honor to work with the people I've worked with,

33:33 ↗ but it's time to walk away and salute like we normally do

33:39 ↗ in the military. And I will keep my eye on and make

33:44 ↗ sure that that cemetery stays as wonderful a resting place for friends,

33:50 ↗ family, and the people of Issaquah. The second thing I'm here for

33:56 ↗ is to ask you a question. How many of

34:02 ↗ you know what tomorrow is? Raise your hand. Think about military.

34:08 ↗ How many of you know what tomorrow is? Fred, tomorrow is

34:13 ↗ the 75th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid. And you're going to

34:19 ↗ say, "What is the Doolittle Raid?" Some of you don't remember

34:25 ↗ the Doolittle Raid. I don't because it happened two years before

34:30 ↗ I was born. And it was done... Hang on just a

34:36 ↗ second. Technical difficulties. with a 16 B-25s and there they

34:42 ↗ are. 80 wonderful Americans volunteered for this mission after December 7th, 1941.

34:48 ↗ President Roosevelt wanted to strike back in the worst way so that

34:53 ↗ Americans would know that we were not going to be defeated by

34:59 ↗ an enemy. And that enemy at that time happened to be the

35:05 ↗ Japanese. And he got together with several of the military. They picked

35:10 ↗ a young lieutenant colonel by the name of Jimmy Doodle. He volunteered for the

35:16 ↗ mission and took these medium bombers. Each one of these bombers carried only four

35:22 ↗ bombs, four 500-pound bombs. So they didn't do a lot of damage. But what

35:27 ↗ they did do was in that short period of time, They let

35:33 ↗ the Japanese know that America was not down and out,

35:39 ↗ that we were going to do everything possible to win

35:44 ↗ that war. And it was the first strike against the

35:50 ↗ Japanese homeland. Eighty people... Trish, you might have to help

35:56 ↗ me here. There it is. And that's the Raiders. Eighty

36:02 ↗ of them. When Jimmy Doolittle got on the aircraft carrier,

36:08 ↗ they were actually... stopped a little short, about 180 miles. They were

36:13 ↗ discovered by a Japanese patrol boat. So they had to take off a little

36:19 ↗ early. There wasn't enough gasoline for them to complete their mission. And he told

36:25 ↗ all 80 of them, "If in fact we don't make it all the way,

36:31 ↗ you're free right now to step back and not go on this mission." Not

36:37 ↗ one failed to go. They all went.

36:42 ↗ Eight of them were captured and/or killed. One that

36:48 ↗ I want to tell you about, and I see

36:53 ↗ my time is at yellow here, Tom Griffin. He

36:59 ↗ was on airplane number nine. He was the navigator.

37:05 ↗ Tom crashed on the beaches of China. He worked

37:10 ↗ to get back to the States, caught malaria, was

37:16 ↗ in fact treated for malaria, survived malaria, and then

37:22 ↗ went to the European theater where he flew on B-17s,

37:27 ↗ not B-25s, B-17s. And he, in fact, was shot down

37:33 ↗ within the last 60 days of the mission. And he

37:39 ↗ was in a prisoner of war camp in Germany for

37:44 ↗ three months and then came home. What I want to tell

37:50 ↗ you, and please allow me just a few more seconds. The last few years of

37:56 ↗ Tom's life, I don't know precisely what you call a hero, but after he retired,

38:02 ↗ his wife was in a nursing home not very far from where they lived. For

38:08 ↗ three years, Tom walked the clothes of his wife home every night, washed them, ironed

38:14 ↗ them, and brought them back to the nursing home. Thank you for those comments, Dave.

38:20 ↗ Thank you. No one

38:25 ↗ further has signed up

38:31 ↗ to speak. Mary Lynch,

38:36 ↗ are you here to

38:41 ↗ speak this evening? My

38:47 ↗ name is Mary Lynch

38:52 ↗ and I reside at

38:57 ↗ 2690 Northwest Oakcrest Drive.

39:03 ↗ I want to first

39:08 ↗ thank the Parks Department

39:13 ↗ for extending their survey

39:19 ↗ period. I was actually

39:24 ↗ going to say something

39:29 ↗ nice. We're going to start all over again. Okay. I want to thank the Parks

39:35 ↗ Department for extending their survey period another week. I would hope that the other surveys

39:39 ↗ get extended too because I think we've been allowed a very short period of time

39:43 ↗ to respond to the surveys, especially in light of spring break and all. So that's

39:48 ↗ just my input there, but thank the Parks for doing that. And I will do

39:52 ↗ my best to get more input to you from other people. That being said, I'm

39:57 ↗ here first to talk about Anti-Aircraft Creek and give you the rest of the story

40:02 ↗ that wasn't presented in the staff report. A little bit of the history, Anti-Aircraft Creek

40:08 ↗ is a glacial fan stream that in the mid-'80s was allowed by condition to be

40:13 ↗ relocated to allow for the Summer Hill development and Oak Crest Drive to be built.

40:19 ↗ It was conditioned that the city council back then put on it that as the

40:24 ↗ relocation, it had to have two search ponds and also wrapped rock wire stream banks

40:30 ↗ put in so that when it came rushing down in the winter and the rains,

40:35 ↗ it did not sleuth away the hill like it had been doing prior to that.

40:41 ↗ The city did not follow through with that and make the developer do that. So

40:46 ↗ what happened the first year that the people moved into their homes? They were flooded.

40:52 ↗ The second year, they were flooded. And that happened until 1995. when a group of

40:57 ↗ us got sandbags together and when the floods came in 1995, we managed to get

41:03 ↗ the stream diverted so that it actually sleuthed onto what is now the trailhead and

41:09 ↗ the King County property and created a new channel over there. But what happened is

41:14 ↗ it went downhill. It continued to sleuth this way, put rocks down, and flood over

41:20 ↗ Newport Way, which it proceeded to do. Since the early 90s, I personally have been

41:26 ↗ working with the Homeowners Association trying to get the city, even before that, we tried

41:31 ↗ to get the city to work with us to hold the developer accountable. The city

41:36 ↗ refused. They said it was our issue, our problem, not involved. We have continued throughout

41:41 ↗ the time to ask the city to help us with that to improve the stream.

41:46 ↗ We're not included until all of a sudden this project popped up And luckily, with

41:52 ↗ the new project plan and having to be a little bit more transparent, we found

41:56 ↗ out about it. It still does not address the real cause of all the rocks

42:01 ↗ over the roadway. The project you'll see tonight allows for the channel to be redirected.

42:06 ↗ But my concern is there with that is what is it done to the rest

42:11 ↗ of the neighborhood? Sammamish Point when it was built, it was built at the corner

42:16 ↗ of the with the stream buffer and that's a you'll see the drawing that I

42:21 ↗ gave you the attachment B when that was put in there was a buffer a

42:26 ↗ screening buffer and all for Sammamish Point and And they were told that this is

42:31 ↗ a creek, this is a wetlands, you will never have anything built close. That didn't

42:37 ↗ happen now because they're going to abandon the stream with that. So I'm concerned with

42:43 ↗ that. The other thing I want to go on real quickly though, since I'm running

42:48 ↗ out of time, is we got the plan on what's happening in Newport Way.

42:54 ↗ If you'll count, there's not 12 projects listed on that. We have 12 projects that

42:59 ↗ are happening this summer, or we're told they're going to happen, along Newport Way. That

43:04 ↗ doesn't include anything else in the city. And my concern is who is coordinating all

43:10 ↗ of the construction, all of the road closures, all of the truck routes. Most of

43:15 ↗ those, as you'll see up there on that list, there's cubic yards coming out. That

43:20 ↗ means major dual-haul trucks we're going to have happening. We still have them coming out

43:25 ↗ of Gateway. How are we going to be able to get around the city with

43:30 ↗ all this construction on one of our main roads? We've seen no plans. We as

43:35 ↗ a community have not been involved. We also are told that we've got a roundabout

43:40 ↗ going at Gateway and also down at Juniper. We've not been involved in really in

43:45 ↗ those to be able to see will they work? Can fire trucks get down them?

43:50 ↗ Can muni ladder back or not ladder back can articulated buses get through those roundabouts

43:55 ↗ the reports that I see right now say no my concern is we've got all

43:59 ↗ this going on we're going to be congested and we got projects that have not

44:03 ↗ gone and been vetted by the public to make sure that they're really going to

44:07 ↗ be doable and function and we're going to be redoing a lot of projects but

44:12 ↗ look at the list that's not on what you've got there but this is the

44:16 ↗ correct list it's right off the active project list thank you Thank you, Mary.

44:21 ↗ Is there anyone else? Yes, please.

44:42 ↗ My name is Julie Clark. I live at 915 Bear Ridge Court, Northwest, in

44:48 ↗ Issaquah. And I came this evening because I'd like to submit a petition that

44:54 ↗ I have been collecting signatures on. I currently have 44 signatures. This is opposing

45:00 ↗ the connector road between Tallis and Berksma. I could have been here sooner, but

45:06 ↗ I still had people wanting to sign. So I anticipate having even more

45:12 ↗ signatures coming in the future. But clearly there's a significant number of

45:17 ↗ people from Trieres, which is the main neighborhood that would be affected

45:23 ↗ by the connecting road. And as I said, 44 signatures of people

45:29 ↗ not wanting the connector road. So I'd just like to submit this.

45:34 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Keith.

45:42 ↗ Good evening. My name is Keith Watts. I live at 1525 Hillside Drive

45:48 ↗ Southeast in Issaquah. I am here as a resident and a task member,

45:54 ↗ downtown task member, and also the president of the Downtown Issaquah Association. And

46:00 ↗ you have two agenda items I would like to ask you to support

46:06 ↗ tonight. The first, of course, being the... the streetscape plan for downtown.

46:12 ↗ It's great to see all the work that was put into it, some

46:17 ↗ great planning, some great ideas, and we finally will have an outline that

46:23 ↗ we can follow for future plan with with a great insight and a

46:29 ↗ really clean look for downtown. As development comes and we grow, we will stop

46:35 ↗ piecemealing Front Street and we'll have a good solid plan that we can follow.

46:41 ↗ So I'd like you to support that agenda item. The other agenda item is

46:47 ↗ the support for the downtown Issaquah. I don't need to tell everyone on

46:53 ↗ the board knows how much work we've done and the relationship we've had

46:59 ↗ with the city for several decades now. This is a one-time request because of the

47:04 ↗ lack of funding that we got earlier in the year. It's in your agenda item,

47:10 ↗ all the details on that. This is a one-time request. We're not going to come

47:15 ↗ back for this in the future. I know that the state is looking at upping

47:20 ↗ the funding amount. They're also considering readjusting the way that those funds are distributed so

47:26 ↗ that we don't run into these kinds of problems as we know as it was

47:31 ↗ described in your agenda bill, the issue that we had this year. The funding will

47:37 ↗ allow us to hire that second individual that gives us the ability also to put

47:43 ↗ into place all the plans that we had had already this year to do a

47:49 ↗ greater amount of fundraising so that if this does happen or we have a

47:54 ↗ lack of funding in the future, we have a plan in place that

48:00 ↗ can overcome these other funding issues. So that's being said. Thank you very

48:06 ↗ much for your support of those agenda items. Thank you, Keith. Anyone else

48:11 ↗ desiring to speak this evening? Yes, please. Kathy? Kathy? Good

48:17 ↗ evening. My name is Kathy McCorry. I'm the executive at the Greater Issaquah Chamber of

48:22 ↗ Commerce and our executive committee meeting. This afternoon, the executive group asked me to come

48:27 ↗ here today and read a message that they have regarding an issue on the agenda

48:32 ↗ this evening. The Greater Issaquah Chamber of Commerce thanks the city staff and the council

48:37 ↗ for all you do. As a pro-business advocate for economic vitality in the region, the

48:43 ↗ Chamber supports business opportunities that meet the vision of the Central Issaquah Plan and enhances

48:48 ↗ the economic vitality of our community. We support projects that improve mobility, enhance the look

48:53 ↗ and feel of our business districts, and bring in goods and services that add value

48:59 ↗ to the region in terms of job growth and higher paying wages. The Chamber

49:04 ↗ Board of Directors would also like the City Council to know that we are here

49:09 ↗ to help educate our members and the community in any way we can. And we

49:14 ↗ look forward to opportunities in the future to help and collaborate with you in that

49:19 ↗ matter. On your agenda this evening is the Gilman Loft project. At the request of

49:23 ↗ some of our members, we have been asking surrounding businesses, city staff, and council members

49:28 ↗ about the project. Businesses agree that the intersection is a problem and requires a solution

49:34 ↗ that will enhance pedestrian safety while moving traffic forward through a system as smoothly as

49:39 ↗ possible. It appears that many of the surrounding businesses are in favor of the intersection

49:44 ↗ improvements and the project will also provide much needed office space for our business community.

49:50 ↗ We appreciate all the City Council is doing to support our shared vision for a

49:56 ↗ healthy and sustainable business community. We look forward to working with you to the swift

50:02 ↗ completion of tasks required to lift the moratorium as we do not want to miss

50:08 ↗ the opportunity to attract businesses and jobs to Issaquah during the business cycle. Thank you

50:13 ↗ again for your commitment to our future. Thank you, Kathy. Anyone else desiring to speak

50:19 ↗ this evening? Brenda? good evening my

50:25 ↗ name is brenda devore i live at 835 wildwood boulevard southwest issaquah And I would

50:31 ↗ like to thank you for your support for the streetscapes plan as an event planner

50:36 ↗ for the city. I am very excited about the Festival Street aspect on Alder Street

50:41 ↗ especially. And the Downtown Issaquah Association is going to work very hard to provide some

50:46 ↗ great lighting that will add some ambiance and effect and some fun to that street.

50:51 ↗ So I just want to thank you so much for considering and for supporting that

50:56 ↗ plan. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else desiring to

51:02 ↗ speak this evening? Anyone else? Third and final call. Seeing no one else

51:08 ↗ then, audience comments are closed and we'll now move to committee and regional

51:14 ↗ reports beginning with Councilmember Patis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The

51:19 ↗ next King Conservation District meeting will be this Wednesday, April 19th in

51:25 ↗ Renton. And on the agenda is urban forestry presentation, shorelines update, and

51:31 ↗ a city soil farm tour. I'll be going on that. And just

51:36 ↗ an update from the Eastside Human Services Forum. The board of directors

51:42 ↗ has sent a letter from from the board to the Bellevue Mayor and

51:48 ↗ Council in support of the Eastside Men's Shelter and supporting housing project

51:54 ↗ to be located at the Eastgate site. And that concludes my report.

52:00 ↗ - Thank you. Council Member Ramos. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'll

52:06 ↗ start with the Infra Council Infrastructure Committee which will be meeting this Thursday the 20th

52:11 ↗ 6:30 right here in in chambers and we have four main items on the agenda.

52:17 ↗ First one is AB 7376 which is dealing with a pressure reducing valve in the

52:23 ↗ South Cove area and as we take over the the water systems over there.

52:29 ↗ Second and third item are going to be more informational discussion on sidewalk codes and

52:34 ↗ complete streets and how that all comes together. Fourth one being looking at the assignment

52:40 ↗ we got before on regional agenda transportation issue and bringing that one up to a

52:45 ↗ finalization hopefully. And then updates is always on there. After other than that, I was

52:51 ↗ at the Emergency Management Advisory Council meeting on the 12th. On that agenda was to

52:56 ↗ vote on the grant, the budget that are funding all the grant projects from the

53:01 ↗ county. That was pushed back till next month with some further discussion to go. Last

53:06 ↗ Friday on the 14th, I was at the Eastside Transportation Partnership and two main items

53:12 ↗ on that. One of more interest is the Metro's program called One Center City. and

53:17 ↗ it is part of that Metro Connects, their long-range plan on how they're also changing

53:22 ↗ bus lines and all that as they move forward. This focus is mainly on their

53:27 ↗ downtown. Seattle is having quite a bit of construction as we are here in parts

53:32 ↗ of our neighborhood. So they're trying to figure out how to keep buses flowing, such

53:37 ↗ as work at the convention center and the bus tunnel changing over to just light

53:41 ↗ rail. So those buses have to come up on the street. So the only concern

53:46 ↗ I have from our side is some of the east side folks are feeling it's

53:50 ↗ pretty Seattle-centric. So we want to make sure we get our voices heard on that

53:55 ↗ to keep the east side buses that are going into Seattle functioning well for us

54:00 ↗ as well. They also talked about the 520 corridor. This Wednesday on the 19th,

54:06 ↗ I'll be at the Regional Transit Committee meeting. We'll continue working on with Metro on

54:11 ↗ the fare program and also the development program for the Metro Connects, also the long-range

54:16 ↗ plan. - Last week on the 13th, I was at Eastside Fire and Rescue and

54:21 ↗ I will talk more about that at good of the order, a few items I

54:26 ↗ want to bring to a little discussion on that. And that concludes my report. -

54:31 ↗ Thank you, Council Member Winterside. - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On April 6th, I attended

54:36 ↗ the Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management Policy Board meeting and two items of interest.

54:41 ↗ We did recommend approval of the comprehensive plans for North Bend and Snoqualmie, which marked

54:46 ↗ the end of the controversy over their small city plans for growth. So that

54:51 ↗ is behind us now. Second item that we discussed was the regional center framework update.

54:57 ↗ There is a new schedule for that. So at first we were going to look

55:01 ↗ at it for three months and then we were going to look at it for

55:05 ↗ seven months and now we're going to look at it for eight months. So it's

55:10 ↗ going to go all the way to November, which is really good. In this meeting

55:14 ↗ on April, we did discuss the recommendations from the working group and discussed some of

55:18 ↗ the alternatives to their recommendations. I did take the opportunity to

55:24 ↗ make some comments, pointing out, made two comments, one pointing

55:30 ↗ out that we're talking about making a strategic plan update

55:36 ↗ that's supposed to inform a future update to our vision.

55:41 ↗ And I asked people to let's consider what what that

55:47 ↗ vision update ought to be first and let it inform our plan update. That kind

55:53 ↗ of turned things on their head a little bit and got a lot of discussion

55:58 ↗ about that. Then also the framework update from recommendation recommends tiering regional centers really based

56:04 ↗ upon size and other measurable units. But there's a lot of consternation about that across

56:09 ↗ the entire region. And just like Bill just said about transportation, metro related, seems to

56:15 ↗ be Seattle centric. that this tiering system would favor kind of large cities

56:21 ↗ on the I-5 corridor for regional center funds for transportation. And I made a

56:27 ↗ suggestion that we drop the tiering concept and look at develop some formula to measure

56:33 ↗ the proportion of need to each of the regional centers and we do distribution of

56:39 ↗ funds based upon proportion, not just pure magnitude. That also generated some really good conversation

56:45 ↗ at that meeting afterwards. So these are just initial ideas. And I know that we

56:50 ↗ as a council will be taking this up more as we go forward, though we

56:54 ↗ don't have a formal time. Not sure yet exactly how we're going to develop our

56:59 ↗ recommendation, but that is a work plan we have to develop. So the other item

57:04 ↗ I want to regional meeting was the Forterra Getting Growth Right Research Project. On

57:10 ↗ Wednesday, April 5th, Council Member Pauley and I, along with elected representatives from Kirkland,

57:16 ↗ Redmond, North Bend, Duval, Sammamish, and Snoqualmie met at Redmond City Hall for a

57:22 ↗ roundtable discussion about growth within our cities and the region. The objectives of the

57:28 ↗ meeting, the The objective of the meeting was to identify specific growth-related topics to explore

57:33 ↗ in a series of upcoming focus group interviews and telephone surveys that Forterra and EMC

57:38 ↗ Research will be conducting within Issaquah, Redmond, and Kirkland over the coming weeks. And we

57:44 ↗ are the three funding cities. The other cities participated just in that brainstorming, but the

57:49 ↗ research isn't going to be focused within them. So the schedule for the research is

57:54 ↗ to be actually complete, the round tables and the survey complete by the end of

57:59 ↗ May. and that there will be a draft report from Forterra by around mid-June, the

58:04 ↗ final, hoping to finalize the report by late June, end of June, and there will

58:10 ↗ be customized content for each of us funding cities, and that there also is some

58:16 ↗ follow-up communication plan, like taking the message out to the public for what's in those

58:21 ↗ reports, things such as op-eds and other community events. So that concludes my regional report.

58:28 ↗ Thank you. Council Member Pauley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On Thursday, April 13th, I

58:33 ↗ attended the Greater Issaquah Chamber of Commerce luncheon with guest speaker Dow Constantine. Later

58:39 ↗ in that day, as Bill mentioned, we had a board meeting. On Friday, April

58:45 ↗ 14th, I attended the annual meeting of the NORCOM representatives with Fire Chief Clark, and

58:50 ↗ in the evening there was a Firefighter Academy graduation ceremony at Lake Washington High School

58:55 ↗ where seven new recruits for Eastside Fire and Rescue graduated with their class of 40

58:59 ↗ or so. It was a great event. I'm going to report out on service and

59:04 ↗ safeties, if that's okay, because the two other members of the committee are... - Excuse

59:10 ↗ this evening. - Not only is it okay, it's probably pretty important that you do

59:15 ↗ that. - Okay, so my notes are probably a little less thorough than our chair

59:19 ↗ told us, but I will do my best. Services and Safety met on Tuesday, April

59:25 ↗ 11th and discussed AB7406, the Downtown Issaquah Association funding request, which is on the

59:31 ↗ agenda under regular business this evening. As mentioned earlier, it's a $25,000 one-time stopgap

59:37 ↗ funding request for this year. The committee moved it 3-0 to regular business tonight.

59:43 ↗ AB 7346, an interagency agreement with the Mountains to Sound Greenway regarding

59:49 ↗ the Lake Tradition parking lot and access road. This agenda bill covers

59:54 ↗ a grant that Mountain-South Sound Greenway received for improvements to pave both the access road

1:00:00 ↗ and the parking lot early in the summer of 2017. The discussion was the city

1:00:06 ↗ is actually going to do the paving and then later on invoice Mountain-South Sound Greenway

1:00:12 ↗ for payment. The only change to that agenda bill was a request to add City

1:00:18 ↗ of Issaquah signage at the trailhead. That was moved 3-0, and it's a future council

1:00:23 ↗ meeting. It is not on our agenda this evening. AB 7304, Downtown Streetscape Plan, is

1:00:29 ↗ on regular business this evening, and it was moved forward with a 2-1 vote. The

1:00:34 ↗ vote not to move it forward was a concern expressed by the chair about dealing

1:00:40 ↗ with the impacts of a... parking deficit in Old Town before moving forward

1:00:45 ↗ with a plan. It is on regular business this evening. AB 7341 King

1:00:51 ↗ County Animal Services ILA. Vote 3-0 with the committee to move it forward

1:00:56 ↗ to a future council meeting for approval. AB 7195 Skate Park Construction. 3-0

1:01:02 ↗ to move it to tonight's council regular business. AB7312, Regional Agenda. There were several,

1:01:08 ↗ potentially five or six sections of our new Regional Agenda that were referred to this

1:01:14 ↗ committee. Some minor edits to the staff update were proposed but it's going to come

1:01:19 ↗ back to the council to be put back together pretty much looking the way it

1:01:25 ↗ did when it came out of our staff work section. And there was an information

1:01:30 ↗ item on the agenda the City of Issaquah salary compensation study and the committee got

1:01:35 ↗ an update. - That's it, that concludes my report. - Thank you. Council

1:01:41 ↗ President Goodman. - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Land and Shore Committee met on

1:01:47 ↗ April 6th and we had a typical moratorium update and I don't think there

1:01:52 ↗ was anything notable or new to that you all don't know

1:01:58 ↗ about already. We also had agenda bill 7215, ninth major amendment to the Issaquah

1:02:04 ↗ Highlands two-party development agreement, the Polygon Northwest proposal. And that is on the agenda

1:02:10 ↗ tonight. So I will save comments about what the committee did until that item,

1:02:16 ↗ until we get to that item on the agenda tonight. Agenda bill 7327, amending

1:02:22 ↗ various municipal code sections related to permit fees. This is on the

1:02:27 ↗ consent agenda tonight and the committee decided 3-0 to approve the agenda

1:02:33 ↗ bill. It really was housekeeping except for one item, the special use

1:02:39 ↗ permit for temporary signs. The fee was lowered from $300 to $50.

1:02:45 ↗ which saves administrative costs, if I recall that correctly. Again, that's

1:02:50 ↗ on the consent agenda. Agenda Bill 7312, the 2017 regional agenda.

1:02:56 ↗ We are holding that over because we have more discussion on

1:03:02 ↗ that item. And I think that was it. Then a little

1:03:07 ↗ bit unusual, but I didn't want to wait until the

1:03:13 ↗ good of the order because I want it, I'm afraid, well, if we have a

1:03:19 ↗ long meeting, we'll either lose people in the audience or we'll lose people watching at

1:03:24 ↗ home. What we heard tonight from Susan Neville during public comment was the mention of

1:03:30 ↗ Bergsma, also called Windward, and the council has not seen that proposal yet. We are

1:03:35 ↗ just starting to go through the process. However, we have received a fair amount of

1:03:41 ↗ email traffic and heard things in the community. So I just wanted to let the

1:03:46 ↗ council know what the upcoming process is so everybody is aware and also the public

1:03:51 ↗ knows what the public touches will be for that proposal, at least what is scheduled

1:03:57 ↗ now. So just a little bit of background, Bergsma, or what's being

1:04:02 ↗ called Windward, is a clustered subdivision plat. It's just off Newport Way to

1:04:08 ↗ the south. It is 78 lots, and the property is split zone, which

1:04:14 ↗ means it has two different zones. It's 46 acres. The two zones, the

1:04:19 ↗ two zoning codes, sorry, the two split zones are single-family estates and single-family

1:04:25 ↗ suburban estates. And the proposal is to cluster the development,

1:04:31 ↗ whereas I think property gets preserved if you cluster the development.

1:04:36 ↗ But a development agreement is required in the municipal code for

1:04:42 ↗ such clustered development. So the process for that proposal is for

1:04:48 ↗ the first meeting, public meeting, to be held at the Development

1:04:53 ↗ Commission on April 19th. And... I don't know the details of what

1:04:59 ↗ were stated at during the public comment period tonight. But I, the, in terms of

1:05:05 ↗ extra half an hour for public comment, I didn't, I don't, I don't know about

1:05:10 ↗ that. But the Development Commission will have a meeting and make a recommendation to the

1:05:15 ↗ City Council, which is required by the code. They will have, it's what's called an

1:05:21 ↗ open record hearing. The recommendation will then come to the City Council after that April

1:05:26 ↗ 19th meeting. And presumably the plan is for that agenda bill

1:05:32 ↗ to be referred to Land and Shore. And there has been

1:05:38 ↗ some talk amongst leadership that perhaps it also would get referred

1:05:43 ↗ to infrastructure because there is the road connection that will be

1:05:49 ↗ part of that proposal. And it is unclear whether Development Commission,

1:05:54 ↗ whether that's included in their proposal. their jurisdiction, their charge, whatever

1:06:00 ↗ you want to call it. Let's see. Then it will come back to the

1:06:06 ↗ City Council when those committees have reviewed it and the decision that the Council

1:06:11 ↗ makes will be called a closed, it will involve a hearing and it will

1:06:17 ↗ be a closed record hearing. That does not mean that we can only consider

1:06:23 ↗ the items that were talked about at the Development Commission. If it's in the

1:06:28 ↗ record, the file, we can talk about it. This is a

1:06:34 ↗ legislative matter, it's not a quasi-judicial matter. Associated with that

1:06:40 ↗ proposal were three variances. and a SEPA decision, all of

1:06:45 ↗ which have been decided. The three variances were regarding a detention

1:06:51 ↗ vault, encroachment in a stream buffer, and steep slope grading. And

1:06:57 ↗ there was a mitigated determination of non-significance, that decision related to

1:07:02 ↗ SEPA. So I just wanted the council to know that that's the process going

1:07:08 ↗ forward because it has received some attention already in the emails and we've heard people

1:07:13 ↗ talking. The other thing I wanted to mention is that I understand that there are

1:07:18 ↗ council members who are interested in attending the development commission meeting and I don't have

1:07:24 ↗ opinions on that. It's not my position to have opinions on that. But I think

1:07:29 ↗ a couple of things are important to note. One is that if you are planning

1:07:35 ↗ on attending, I would ask that you let the clerk's office know because my understanding

1:07:41 ↗ of public Public meeting laws are that if more than three of us attend,

1:07:46 ↗ then it would be a quorum and it would be a potential problem if it

1:07:52 ↗ wasn't noticed as a public meeting because that quorum would be receiving information at a

1:07:58 ↗ meeting on a topic that we would be making a decision on. And then the

1:08:03 ↗ other... item I would note is that those meetings are

1:08:09 ↗ all televised so anyone including us can watch them. And

1:08:15 ↗ I mention that because I think it is, I don't

1:08:20 ↗ know how to say it, I don't know and I haven't asked

1:08:26 ↗ but I would think that if council members showing up at a commission that is

1:08:31 ↗ making a recommendation to the council, I don't know how that changes the dynamics of

1:08:36 ↗ how the commission works. So I just mentioned that and also request that you let

1:08:41 ↗ Tina know or let the clerk's office know if you plan on attending. That's my

1:08:46 ↗ report. Thank you for the mayor's report. I notice two empty seats up here.

1:08:52 ↗ Councilmember Eileen Barber and Councilmember Tolomarch are excused this evening. There will not

1:08:58 ↗ be an executive session held this evening. I'd like to thank all of

1:09:04 ↗ the individuals who have applied to serve on the City's boards and commissions

1:09:10 ↗ this year. We are fortunate to have a strong volunteer community to support

1:09:16 ↗ our 13 City boards and commissions. 2017 appointments will be confirmed

1:09:22 ↗ this evening on the consent calendar. Now last council meeting

1:09:27 ↗ you heard some concerns expressed about parcel 9 in the

1:09:33 ↗ in TALIS. I'd like to provide an update on what's

1:09:39 ↗ what's happening up there. Starting in late 2015 movement was

1:09:44 ↗ detected in the parcel 9 hillside. With safety as the

1:09:50 ↗ top priority, immediate mitigation measures were taken to address the movement.

1:09:56 ↗ All construction activities have stopped except for work to monitor the

1:10:02 ↗ site regularly, ensure safety, manage stormwater, and collect data to determine

1:10:08 ↗ next steps. This summer, the City plans to make permanent repairs

1:10:14 ↗ to Shangri-La Northwest as well as utility lines. We will

1:10:19 ↗ share more exact timelines for that work as soon as those details are

1:10:25 ↗ available. In addition, the City continues to work with the property owner to

1:10:31 ↗ determine remediation obligations and how to improve the condition on the site.

1:10:37 ↗ Property owner is hopeful that their stabilization efforts following city review

1:10:43 ↗ will lead to their ability to move forward with a new

1:10:49 ↗ development review process. I recently issued a proclamation declaring April 30th

1:10:55 ↗ National Animal Day in the city of Issaquah and I encourage

1:11:00 ↗ our citizens to celebrate our therapy animals and their human handlers

1:11:07 ↗ We are grateful for the service that therapy animals

1:11:12 ↗ bring to our communities. The City of Issaquah is

1:11:17 ↗ partnering with the Public Health Seattle King County on

1:11:23 ↗ education efforts following two recent cases of a

1:11:29 ↗ hantavirus in our area. Hantavirus is a virus caused by

1:11:34 ↗ some rodents, including deer mice, in Washington state. Hantavirus can

1:11:40 ↗ cause a rare but deadly disease called Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome

1:11:46 ↗ or

1:11:52 ↗ ... by Mountain to Sound Greenway for celebrating Arbor Day

1:11:57 ↗ by building a new trail at Lake Samadish State Park

1:12:03 ↗ and planting trees. DNR also presented Issaquah with a Tree

1:12:09 ↗ City USA award, our 24th consecutive award. And that concludes

1:12:14 ↗ my report this evening. Moving now to the consent calendar,

1:12:20 ↗ I would ask if the accounts payables and payroll for April 17th

1:12:26 ↗ have been reviewed? They have. They have. Thank you. I would then

1:12:32 ↗ ask the clerk to read into the record the consent calendar.

1:12:38 ↗ The consent calendar was distributed to Council in advance for study. If authorized, Council action

1:12:43 ↗ will occur by single motion regarding the following items. Item A seeks approval of the

1:12:48 ↗ accounts, payables, and payroll of April 17th. Item B seeks approval of the minutes of

1:12:54 ↗ the regular meeting of April 3rd. Item C, AB 7289, Boards and Commissions Annual Appointments,

1:12:59 ↗ seeks to confirm. Item D, AB7327, amending various Issaquah Municipal Code sections related

1:13:05 ↗ to permit fees, seeks to adopt ordinance. If adopted, the ordinance will

1:13:10 ↗ be assigned number 2797. Item E, AB 7347, Landmarking Gilman Town Hall

1:13:16 ↗ Building, seeks referral to the Committee of the Whole Council. Item F, AB

1:13:22 ↗ 7376, South Cove Pressure Reducing Valve Project, seeks referral to the Council Infrastructure

1:13:27 ↗ Committee. Item G, AB 7414, King County Flood District Grant, East

1:13:33 ↗ Lake Sammamish Parkway, Southeast 52nd Street, conveyance improvement, seeks to authorize submittal.

1:13:39 ↗ Item H, AB 7416, ecology local source control program grant, seeks to

1:13:45 ↗ authorize submittal. This concludes the reading. Thank you. Does any council member

1:13:51 ↗ desire to remove any item for special consideration under regular business? Council

1:13:57 ↗ President Goodman. I would move to approve the consent calendar as presented.

1:14:03 ↗ Second. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

1:14:08 ↗ Aye. Those opposed, that carries unanimously. Moving now to public

1:14:14 ↗ hearing, Agenda Bill 7215, Ninth Major Amendment to

1:14:19 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands Two-Party Agreement. This is coming

1:14:25 ↗ back to the Council from the Land and

1:14:30 ↗ Shore Committee, Council Member Goodman and Council Member,

1:14:35 ↗ I mean, Council. Keith, I just, I don't

1:14:41 ↗ know whether that was a promotion or a demotion. Director

1:14:47 ↗ of Development Services Division and Economic Development here for the

1:14:53 ↗ staff report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and good evening, City

1:14:58 ↗ Council. I'm Keith Niven, Director of Economic Development and Development

1:15:04 ↗ Services for the City. Okay.

1:15:11 ↗ So this is a continuation of public hearing related to

1:15:17 ↗ the purchase of 100 transfer of development rights by Polygon

1:15:23 ↗ Northwest and their desire to put them into property they

1:15:29 ↗ own in Issaquah Highlands Because this is a development agreement, an

1:15:35 ↗ existing development agreement for Issaquah Highlands, this requires council action to authorize those

1:15:40 ↗ transfer of development rights to be added to the Highlands, which is why

1:15:46 ↗ we're having this conversation this evening. So the proposal is to

1:15:52 ↗ add 100 transfer development rights to the Highlands. There has been

1:15:58 ↗ conversation about providing some affordable housing and there's There's at least at

1:16:04 ↗ least hopefully at most maybe two issues that remain under discussion at

1:16:10 ↗ Land and Shore. One is traffic impacts and the second is affordable

1:16:15 ↗ housing. At the last the predecessor to the public hearing, there was

1:16:21 ↗ conversation about ensuring that the infrastructure in Issaquah Highlands could accommodate the

1:16:27 ↗ additional 100 TDRs. At committee, we've talked about the water, sewer, and the stormwater.

1:16:33 ↗ We've also had a conversation about traffic, but there remains some follow-up items for

1:16:39 ↗ staff to get back to the committee on. And then affordable housing, the proposal

1:16:44 ↗ was originally by the applicant to put... 30 affordable housing units on track D. It's

1:16:50 ↗ now changed. This was the best way I think to show this. So track D

1:16:56 ↗ is over here on the right hand side. It's basically a college drive and 15th

1:17:02 ↗ and Falls Drive, kind of the intersection of those. It was entitled

1:17:08 ↗ for up to 50 affordable housing units through the wash dot development

1:17:14 ↗ agreement Polygon Northwest owns a neighborhood that they're developing right now called

1:17:20 ↗ Westridge and Right now the affordable housing Proposal has been modified to

1:17:26 ↗ basically put 39 affordable housing units down here in Westridge and in exchange

1:17:31 ↗ the builder would want to build 11 market rate units up here on parcel D.

1:17:38 ↗ That's a proposal that's on the table. It has not been deliberated on by

1:17:43 ↗ the committee. And my guess is where this is going after the continuation of

1:17:49 ↗ the hearing is back to committee for additional conversation. So that's the entirety of

1:17:55 ↗ my presentation this evening. If there's any questions, I'll field them now. Otherwise, we

1:18:00 ↗ can take public comment if there is any. Are there questions at this time?

1:18:06 ↗ Council Member Pawlik? Keith, just a question from some of the testimony this evening.

1:18:12 ↗ David Kapler asked if we're doing a looking at the 139 versus 100. Is

1:18:17 ↗ that one of the outstanding questions? So what I heard Mr. Kapler say this

1:18:23 ↗ evening was to make sure that traffic covered more than 100 units. So right

1:18:29 ↗ now there's up to 50 units that have been entitled for this property that

1:18:34 ↗ have vested traffic trips in the model right now. The 100, so if you keep,

1:18:39 ↗ it's kind of, I hate to say like a shell game, but you have to

1:18:45 ↗ kind of keep track of how many units are going where. So if there was

1:18:50 ↗ 50 here that already have traffic entitlements, The proposal is to move them down

1:18:56 ↗ here, actually only 39 of them, and to take 11 of the

1:19:01 ↗ 100 that the traffic analysis has been done for and move them

1:19:07 ↗ up here. So even though we're talking about really 139 units, there

1:19:12 ↗ was traffic entitlement for 150. So I think we're under the cap

1:19:18 ↗ of traffic analysis. Thanks.

1:19:24 ↗ Any other questions of Keith before I open a public hearing? Seeing

1:19:29 ↗ none then, I will open the public hearing at 8:21 and remind

1:19:35 ↗ those desiring to speak that the same rules that I mentioned under

1:19:40 ↗ audience comments are still appropriate. I'd ask if anyone has signed up

1:19:46 ↗ to speak this evening. Yes, Sue Ann Alexander.

1:20:03 ↗ Hello, my name is Sue Ann Alexander, homeowner 1627 14th Place NE. I will keep

1:20:08 ↗ my comments brief as I spoke at the Land and Shore Committee meeting and my

1:20:12 ↗ understanding is that the issue is currently going to be parked there. I would like

1:20:16 ↗ to comment though that I continue to be concerned with the rhetoric that Polygon is

1:20:20 ↗ using and the continual changes to their proposals. I respect Polygon's previous endeavors in this

1:20:25 ↗ community, building the Leo House many years ago. Additionally, I respect their right as a

1:20:30 ↗ business to want to make a profit, but I also wish that they would balance

1:20:34 ↗ their need to make a profit with the needs of this community. The City Council's

1:20:39 ↗ long-term plan would like more growth in City Center Issaquah versus the Highlands, which is

1:20:43 ↗ already overdeveloped. I have not heard any proposal from Polygon that would consider using their

1:20:48 ↗ TDRs at any other receiving site that is not in the Highlands. The company would

1:20:52 ↗ still make great profit off of homes in other locations in the city. It does

1:20:57 ↗ not appear that Polygon is willing to compromise in any way concerning this current amendment.

1:21:02 ↗ Not one of their proposals includes building affordable housing or the Leo House unless they

1:21:07 ↗ get the extra 100 TDRs in the Highlands. No proposals have included 264 houses in

1:21:11 ↗ Westridge plus a Leo House. Out of the 265 they already have no proposals for

1:21:17 ↗ 265 in Westridge and 100 TDRs that are receiving site other than in the Highlands.

1:21:23 ↗ Instead the request is actually increased to 365 market rate homes in Westridge, market rate

1:21:28 ↗ homes on track D and then if they get those they will build the LEO

1:21:34 ↗ and the affordable housing. I see no compromise here, only increased number of market rate

1:21:39 ↗ homes requested while trying to use the idea of affordable housing as leverage to get

1:21:43 ↗ City Council votes. Finally, instead of trying to work with the City, Polygon seems to

1:21:48 ↗ have thrown down the gauntlet and now is saying that if Council does not approve

1:21:52 ↗ the request, they will wait out the development agreement expires and then they will build

1:21:56 ↗ more houses in the Highlands. This rhetoric is downright alarming to me. In closing, I

1:22:01 ↗ would like to remind the council that we are not talking about low-income housing. We

1:22:05 ↗ are talking about homes, most of which would be sold to people already earning 100

1:22:09 ↗ to 120 percent of the average income in the area. In return, Polygon gets over

1:22:14 ↗ 100 extra market-rate homes in an area that the city and the citizens don't want

1:22:18 ↗ as it's already overbuilt. Are we getting enough return on our exchange or is this

1:22:24 ↗ agreement becoming one-sided? In my opinion, it has become very one-sided and I would like

1:22:29 ↗ to encourage both sides to go back to the table and work together on a

1:22:35 ↗ proposal that benefits not only Polygon but also the city and the citizens of Issaquah.

1:22:41 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. David Kapler. David is no longer here. No one further has

1:22:47 ↗ signed up to speak. Is there anyone else desiring to speak

1:22:53 ↗ who has not signed up? Anyone else? Third and final

1:22:59 ↗ call. Seeing no one then. Council President Goodman. Thank you.

1:23:04 ↗ I think before I make a motion, I think Keith

1:23:10 ↗ and I should probably tag team here on what the

1:23:15 ↗ recommendation is from the administration based on land and shore,

1:23:21 ↗ the conversation at land and shore. The There were a

1:23:27 ↗ couple of reasons why it's not moving forward with a recommendation from Land and

1:23:33 ↗ Shore. One is there was still confusion about what the proposal was. There was

1:23:38 ↗ a little bit of new information and also continued questions, the value of Track

1:23:44 ↗ D. The committee wanted to know what the full proposal was. Put some

1:23:50 ↗ dollar signs. What's the proposal? You're getting what, we're giving what. That was

1:23:56 ↗ one broad issue. And then the second one was we learned at Land

1:24:02 ↗ and Shore that Track D, which is the subject of the Washington State

1:24:08 ↗ development agreement between the Department of Transportation, State Department of Transportation and the

1:24:13 ↗ city, involves, as Keith said earlier, 50 ERUs that are

1:24:19 ↗ entitled on that track. But as you start moving things around

1:24:25 ↗ with the proposal, changing track D, moving the ERUs somewhere else

1:24:31 ↗ requires amending the a wash dot development agreement so what the committee nodded

1:24:37 ↗ their heads to at keith's suggestion was or somebody suggested i don't remember that maybe

1:24:43 ↗ we move everything forward together so the proposal was before the committee do a major

1:24:49 ↗ amendment to the isaac highlands development agreement and then later on we will consider the

1:24:55 ↗ step of mending the the wash dot development agreement So the committee with

1:25:01 ↗ the nod of heads with the process that I'll talk about in just a

1:25:07 ↗ second, the nod of heads was about the process, bringing everything forward together. The

1:25:13 ↗ nod of heads was not the substance of what those proposed changes to the

1:25:19 ↗ development agreement would be. And I just want that clear to council members who

1:25:24 ↗ are not on that committee. So the recommendation in the packet

1:25:30 ↗ tonight is to continue, not close, but continue the public hearing

1:25:36 ↗ for the Agenda Bill 7215, which is what we're considering right

1:25:41 ↗ now. And then additionally, a second motion would be to direct

1:25:47 ↗ the administration to prepare a new agenda bill that would propose

1:25:53 ↗ amending the WSDOT Development Agreement and establish a new development agreement

1:25:59 ↗ relating to parcel D with Polygon and then conduct the related public

1:26:05 ↗ hearing at the May 15th council meeting so we still have public

1:26:10 ↗ hearing opportunities. So I wanted to give Keith an opportunity to maybe

1:26:16 ↗ fill in anything I missed and also council members to ask questions before I

1:26:22 ↗ make a motion and then we usually make comments. I think that was a

1:26:28 ↗ great summary. It was. I would actually add nothing. I think you've hit the

1:26:34 ↗ details right on the head. Are there questions of Keith before Stacey makes a

1:26:39 ↗ motion? Okay. I would move to continue

1:26:45 ↗ the public hearing to the May 15, 2017 Council meeting and remand

1:26:51 ↗ Agenda Bill 7215 to the May 4, 2017 Council Land and Shore

1:26:57 ↗ Committee for additional review and recommendation returning to the full Council on

1:27:02 ↗ May 15. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion on the motion. Are you

1:27:08 ↗ ready to act? All those in favor of the motions,

1:27:14 ↗ signify by saying aye. - Aye. - Those opposed, that carries

1:27:20 ↗ unanimously. The public hearing is continued to the May 15th council

1:27:26 ↗ meeting. With that and moving to-- - We have a second

1:27:31 ↗ motion. - Oh. - The second motion is to direct the

1:27:37 ↗ administration to prepare a new agenda bill for consideration that

1:27:43 ↗ amends the Washington State Department of Transportation Development Agreement specifically relating to

1:27:49 ↗ affordable housing in parcel D, B, establishes a new development

1:27:55 ↗ agreement with Polygon Northwest relating to parcel D and the construction of affordable

1:28:00 ↗ housing. And C, conduct the related public hearing at the May 15, 2017

1:28:06 ↗ council meeting. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? I just

1:28:12 ↗ have a question. Stacey? I just have a question for clarification. I would

1:28:17 ↗ assume that this comes to the May 1st council meeting for referral. Okay.

1:28:23 ↗ Okay. All those in favor of

1:28:28 ↗ the motion signify by saying aye. Aye.

1:28:34 ↗ Those opposed, that carries unanimously. Thank you,

1:28:39 ↗ Stacy. Moving now to regular business. The first

1:28:45 ↗ item under regular business, Agenda Bill 7195, skate park

1:28:50 ↗ construction. To award the bid, Jeff Watling, Director of

1:28:56 ↗ Parks and Recreation, and Jennifer Fink as board members. backup and

1:29:02 ↗ subject matter experts. So Jeff, kick it off, please. - Absolutely, thank you, Mayor. Good

1:29:08 ↗ evening, Council. As Council Member Pauley mentioned earlier, this item was discussed last week at

1:29:14 ↗ the April 11th Services and Safety Committee meeting. In that discussion, I'm excited to

1:29:19 ↗ bring back with a 3-0 recommendation from the Council for your consideration tonight

1:29:25 ↗ bid award for this long-awaited skate park project and a request that does

1:29:31 ↗ not have with it the need for additional funding. As I mentioned, this

1:29:36 ↗ is certainly a long-awaited project. One that has not only been in the dreams

1:29:42 ↗ of some of our youth since 2009, but as a project, an official project for

1:29:47 ↗ the city began in 2014. A lot of hard work by staff and this community

1:29:53 ↗ looking at site selection. A lot of public outreach in terms of the skate

1:29:58 ↗ park itself, the size of the skate park, some terrific fundraising efforts that were

1:30:04 ↗ done by the community, seeking some additional grant funds, as you'll see that were

1:30:10 ↗ part of this project. So a lot of work that's gone into this effort

1:30:16 ↗ for certain. Bids were opened on April 3rd, earlier this month. We had three

1:30:21 ↗ bids. One of which was not complete. The two bids that were complete,

1:30:27 ↗ there was an apparent low bidder grind line. Was that apparent low bidder?

1:30:33 ↗ Excuse me. They are experts in constructing skate parks. That's what they do. So certainly

1:30:39 ↗ with their wealth of experience, a lot of positive feedback we got from other cities

1:30:45 ↗ that have worked with them, we would certainly recommend proceeding with this. If you recall

1:30:50 ↗ in the bid package, we put the bid package together with three alternatives to give

1:30:56 ↗ ourselves flexibility knowing where our budget was. Those three bid alternates, the first alternate had

1:31:01 ↗ to do with the site furnishings, the tables, chairs, fixtures as part of this. The

1:31:07 ↗ second alternative had to do with fencing, some fencing that needed to be done with

1:31:13 ↗ the project. And the third alternate had to do with landscaping and irrigation work.

1:31:19 ↗ As we open bids we recommend that we proceed with this project with the base

1:31:24 ↗ bid and alternate one and alternate two being performed by Grindline as part of the

1:31:30 ↗ award. That third alternate we would still want to get completed but we would do

1:31:35 ↗ that given the expertise of our park operations staff in terms of irrigation and landscaping

1:31:41 ↗ we would recommend to perform that in-house and not award that as part of the

1:31:47 ↗ bid. Jennifer Fink, who's going to be serving as project manager on this, has met

1:31:52 ↗ with and worked with our park operations team to begin looking at that, evaluating them

1:31:57 ↗ doing that work, and also looking at the other side of that equation is what

1:32:03 ↗ doesn't get done. And there's a number of maintenance projects that we would need to

1:32:08 ↗ defer. Some work that we do on our infields, we would need to defer some

1:32:13 ↗ of that work. to 2018. We have some play equipment that's beginning to life cycle

1:32:19 ↗ out. We would need to defer some of that work to 2018 in

1:32:25 ↗ getting this work done as well. So I would also mention as we

1:32:30 ↗ proceed with this project Another budget reality to this that has us

1:32:36 ↗ excited for the challenge but a little nervous. Typically we'd love to

1:32:42 ↗ go into a project with a 10% contingency. We'd be going into

1:32:47 ↗ this project with just under 4, 3.9, well 3.89% contingency on this

1:32:53 ↗ work. Given it's primarily concrete, we're going to proceed with project management, but

1:32:59 ↗ I know that this brings with it a vulnerability. Should something arise, should the

1:33:05 ↗ need arise that goes beyond that contingency, we at that time would need to

1:33:11 ↗ seek additional funding. Ideally, as I said earlier, a 10% contingency is more of

1:33:16 ↗ a comfort level, but... So with that, we recommend approval tonight. - Thank you. Questions

1:33:22 ↗ of Jeff. Mary Lou. - Actually, Mr. Mayor, I'm wondering if you want a motion

1:33:27 ↗ first or I could also provide some of the committee input since the other two.

1:33:32 ↗ - Why don't you make a motion? - Okay. - I don't think I have

1:33:37 ↗ it open. - Can I borrow yours for a second? - Yeah. - Well, it's

1:33:41 ↗ not in the right place. - There we go. - I think you keep that

1:33:46 ↗ one more. Thank you. Move to award the construction contract for the base

1:33:52 ↗ bid and bid alternates number one and two for the skate park at

1:33:58 ↗ Tibbetts Valley Park project to Grindline Skate Parks Inc. in the amount of

1:34:04 ↗ $503,328.76 including sales tax. Second. Moved and seconded. Would you like to report

1:34:10 ↗ out anything that has not been covered from services and safety? Sounds good, thanks. I

1:34:15 ↗ was subbing that night and the other two members, the ironic part is that they

1:34:21 ↗ are probably the two biggest boosters of this project and would love to be here

1:34:27 ↗ tonight if this is approved. Both of them have been working on this as a

1:34:33 ↗ drafting it as a council goal years and years ago. So this would be a

1:34:37 ↗ very exciting night for them, except they're sick, so it's not. The two things that

1:34:42 ↗ got talked about the most in committee were the 4% was a concern that that's

1:34:47 ↗ a very light contingency fund. And just an ask for, you know, top-notch due diligence,

1:34:52 ↗ watching what's going on, because that is a really tight number. That's a hard one.

1:34:57 ↗ And it does, as Jeff so eloquently said, said, it is a risk and it's

1:35:02 ↗ something that needs to be managed. The second part was a real big kudos to

1:35:07 ↗ the parks team. Obviously there was going to be a question about what we're not

1:35:12 ↗ doing and they had only answers. Their presentation that night was bang on. And so

1:35:17 ↗ the committee members really appreciated that if we're going to self-perform a piece, what are

1:35:22 ↗ we not doing? And so the committee was very much in favor and very excited

1:35:27 ↗ about the project. Thank you. Any additional questions or

1:35:33 ↗ discussion? Paul? So Jeff, thanks for putting that picture up there. It's actually

1:35:39 ↗ exciting to look at. The concept that Issaquah could obtain and own and

1:35:45 ↗ operate and have for the enjoyment of our residents, people here today, people

1:35:51 ↗ who are going to come in the future, people from around the region,

1:35:57 ↗ and for all the skateboarding enthusiasts, their families, their supporters, I think

1:36:02 ↗ this is the moment where all hurdles may be cleared and we

1:36:08 ↗ can go forward with this project. It's reason to be excited. And I appreciate there's

1:36:14 ↗ a couple members in the audience this evening that have shown a lot of patience

1:36:19 ↗ and diligence and have shown leadership for the support group. And there's others here as

1:36:24 ↗ well. And it's been a real joy to interact with and communicate with the members

1:36:29 ↗ of the community that support this and understand now better than ever before, perhaps

1:36:35 ↗ better than even some of us sitting myself, I think, how

1:36:40 ↗ these processes work sometimes. Appreciate your patience and your support. And

1:36:46 ↗ I'm really excited and maybe, maybe, maybe I'll strap on a

1:36:51 ↗ helmet and try it myself someday. Perhaps, I'm gonna support this.

1:36:57 ↗ - Stacy and then Bill. - I'm going to support this

1:37:03 ↗ as well. Paul's right, it's a great picture to look at.

1:37:08 ↗ And this has not been without some significant bumps along the way.

1:37:14 ↗ But tonight I would, I want to mention how appreciative I am

1:37:19 ↗ for the agenda bill and for your presentation. Just, it was very

1:37:25 ↗ thorough. You're very candid and I just want to, I'm sometimes critical of when it's

1:37:31 ↗ not easy for me to make a decision because I don't have the information. That's

1:37:36 ↗ not the case tonight and I wanted to thank you for what you've provided presented

1:37:42 ↗ in the agenda bill and also what I heard about services and safety was just

1:37:47 ↗ what Mary Lou said, that it was a great presentation. So I very, very much

1:37:52 ↗ appreciate that. Thank you. That's extended to Jennifer Fink as well. Thank you. Bill? Yeah,

1:37:57 ↗ I'd just like to say this is what I consider a true citizen-led project from

1:38:02 ↗ the initiation and going through the process and coming finally to fruition. So that's really

1:38:07 ↗ nice to see. something come up from the grassroots there. I'd like to thank them

1:38:13 ↗ for having all the tenacity to follow that through. And also to you folks at

1:38:18 ↗ the park, the presentation here of figuring out a way to get the whole thing

1:38:23 ↗ done, even though there's not quite enough money there. That's stepping out a little bit

1:38:28 ↗ and being above and beyond, and I appreciate that. That's a good way to do

1:38:32 ↗ things and not coming back and asking for more money and figure out a way.

1:38:36 ↗ I am cautious about the things we're going to set back on that, though. That

1:38:40 ↗ always concerns me when you take our force count crews and do the other stuff.

1:38:44 ↗ We're going to lose some things there, but this is important to get it done,

1:38:49 ↗ so that's a better way to do that. So thank you all very much, all

1:38:53 ↗ the citizens involved and everybody else who led through this. Mariah? I'll also be supporting

1:38:58 ↗ this bill tonight, and I just wanted to thank Jeff and Jennifer and the team

1:39:04 ↗ for all the great work on this. This has been a long time coming, this

1:39:10 ↗ project, and so it is really exciting. And I just wanted to echo what the

1:39:16 ↗ other council members were saying, that this is just a reason to be excited. I

1:39:22 ↗ did have a A question about the contingency being so low, that percentage, but thank

1:39:27 ↗ you for explaining that and appreciate all the hard work on this. - Mary Lou.

1:39:32 ↗ - Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an exciting project. I will be supporting it

1:39:37 ↗ tonight as well for all of the reasons that my fellow council members have said.

1:39:42 ↗ But what I think is just really, this project, as Council President Goodman said, had

1:39:47 ↗ a lot of hurdles to get over, maybe more than many other projects do. But

1:39:52 ↗ what really makes it, So exciting to me is how hard the staff worked on

1:39:56 ↗ getting the grant funding and how the community rallied around this and raised funds too.

1:40:01 ↗ I mean, I think you just can't understate how impressive it is, that piece of

1:40:05 ↗ this project. And also, thank you for being creative and considering doing bid alternate so

1:40:09 ↗ that the council had a way to look at the various pieces and how they

1:40:13 ↗ came in. Such a difficult time. It's a difficult economy right now. It's a building

1:40:17 ↗ boom and this is hard to do at this time. So thank you for looking

1:40:21 ↗ at that. Are

1:40:27 ↗ you ready to act? All those in favor of

1:40:32 ↗ approving the contract award for the Skateboard Park signify

1:40:38 ↗ by saying aye. - Aye. - Opposed? That carries

1:40:43 ↗ unanimously. Moving now to agenda bill 7-219 Gilman Lofts-Perrin

1:40:49 ↗ Three Trails Development Agreement. And is Keith still here?

1:40:54 ↗ - Yep. Yeah, this is only my second stop tonight. I'll

1:41:00 ↗ be back again. This is coming back from the Land and Shore

1:41:06 ↗ Committee. Keith Niven, still here for this report, please. I am. So

1:41:12 ↗ thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. So this is a continuation from

1:41:18 ↗ the March 20th City Council meeting. So just to get everybody back

1:41:24 ↗ up to speed, There's a proposal in front of the

1:41:29 ↗ city to execute a development agreement to allow a four-story,

1:41:35 ↗ approximately 60,000 square foot mixed-use project to move forward during

1:41:40 ↗ the city's temporary development moratorium. The Kind of the the crux of

1:41:46 ↗ this is to partner with the city in the construction of the

1:41:52 ↗ three trails signalized intersection Which is part of the city's adopted? non-motorized

1:41:58 ↗ plan I What we've learned through this conversation is that that

1:42:03 ↗ signalized intersection will improve access for pedestrians and bicycles. It improves

1:42:09 ↗ vehicular access from Juniper to Gilman. And it does not decrease

1:42:15 ↗ access to other Northside businesses, many of which are here this

1:42:21 ↗ evening and have previously testified in support of this project.

1:42:27 ↗ A couple of questions that came up at the March 20th

1:42:33 ↗ City Council meeting. The first was how to make this project

1:42:38 ↗ really connect in with the regional trail. that runs next to it.

1:42:44 ↗ So this is the East Lake Sammamish Trail right here. Gilman

1:42:50 ↗ is down here. This building sits right here, and there is

1:42:55 ↗ a plaza that's on the south side of the building. And

1:43:01 ↗ so... What's envisioned is to use a decorative pavement to visually

1:43:06 ↗ indicate the connection between the trail and this kind of plaza here

1:43:12 ↗ that's at the end of the trail right before Gilman and the

1:43:18 ↗ adjacent plaza to add some benches and some wayfinding kiosks to help

1:43:23 ↗ kind of improve that atmosphere of maybe creating a node along the

1:43:29 ↗ trail corridor. The other thing that was asked for

1:43:34 ↗ was information on traffic. And so the city asked our concurrency

1:43:40 ↗ consultant, CH2M Hill, to provide an analysis of what the signalized

1:43:46 ↗ intersection would do in terms of traffic operations. both today and

1:43:52 ↗ in 2030. And so that's part of this table right here,

1:43:58 ↗ although I can speak to it. Kurt Seaman is hiding --

1:44:04 ↗ oh, he's moved closer. He's here to answer any questions you

1:44:10 ↗ might have about traffic movement. So that's -- that is kind

1:44:15 ↗ of the sum of my presentation. Are there questions of Keith

1:44:21 ↗ at this time? Or Kurt? Or President Goodman?

1:44:27 ↗ make a motion to make a decision tonight or not? So I talked about

1:44:33 ↗ that because we have two council members missing there was some conversation with the

1:44:39 ↗ applicant about maybe postponing the decision on this until the full council was here

1:44:44 ↗ in attendance. I think unfortunately given that the applicant has invited a number of

1:44:50 ↗ business owners to a number of council meetings they were reluctant to push this

1:44:56 ↗ another two weeks. So I think they're looking for a decision from

1:45:02 ↗ the council this evening if that's possible. I was hoping that before

1:45:08 ↗ I make a motion that you could I don't think there's been

1:45:14 ↗ any talk tonight about the substance of the traffic analysis because there

1:45:20 ↗ were questions asked. And so I think in the interest of transparency

1:45:26 ↗ for people here and watching that we could probably Spend a

1:45:32 ↗ little bit of time with this? Yeah, just a little bit of time explaining that,

1:45:36 ↗ please. Absolutely. Kurt, do you want to move towards the microphone? No, wait, I'll do

1:45:40 ↗ it. No, I will step aside. I'd be happy. So Kurt Seaman, Transportation Manager here

1:45:45 ↗ at the City. I'd be happy to give it a try. There's a lot of

1:45:49 ↗ information here. And maybe a little bit, there's a lot of information here. So

1:45:55 ↗ let me try to simplify things just in a big picture. So first of

1:46:00 ↗ all, what the city looks at and what is required to meet our standard

1:46:06 ↗ of level service D is the overall intersection, what's happening at the overall intersection.

1:46:12 ↗ So that is this box right here. And so let me just, and then

1:46:18 ↗ what these other, One, two, three, four, five boxes here are the individual legs

1:46:24 ↗ of the intersection which I think council asked us to look at as well. So

1:46:29 ↗ we did that. We had our consultant look at that as well. But just to

1:46:34 ↗ start with the basics here. try to kind of walk you through the table.

1:46:39 ↗ So here we are at the overall intersection part of the matrix, and there's

1:46:45 ↗ three columns in the overall intersection. There's the level of service, which is, as

1:46:51 ↗ you know, A through F, and then this is the delay. This is the

1:46:56 ↗ overall delay at the intersection in seconds per vehicle, and then this is what's

1:47:02 ↗ called the volume over capacity, and that's a... That's a measure of how

1:47:08 ↗ much volume there is trying to use the intersection versus the capacity of

1:47:13 ↗ the intersection. So in principle, when the principle that that number should not

1:47:19 ↗ exceed one, right? So the capacity shouldn't be larger than the volume of

1:47:25 ↗ the intersection, but it can be actually higher in capacity. pretty congested

1:47:30 ↗ situation. So that's these three pieces here. And then so what

1:47:36 ↗ we have over here on the rows of this matrix is

1:47:42 ↗ two scenarios. So this is the existing, this is, says 2014, that's when the modeling

1:47:48 ↗ was done, but that is meant to represent the current conditions and it includes the

1:47:54 ↗ volumes of this development have been factored in. So there's three scenarios here. So again,

1:48:00 ↗ current conditions with either leaving the intersection unsignalized, signalizing in a more, in a standard,

1:48:05 ↗ presumably it would be a four-legged intersection, and then signalizing in a somewhat more

1:48:11 ↗ a little less standard way of five-legged intersection. So that's, so just again,

1:48:17 ↗ very simply, so unsignalized currently the overall intersection functions at level service D,

1:48:23 ↗ which meets our standards. If we were to signalize it, it would currently

1:48:29 ↗ and measure the the performance now it would it would um with a four-legged intersection

1:48:35 ↗ would be level service b and then five-legged c and then so that's the current

1:48:40 ↗ conditions and then and then in 2030 um with the signal um well unsignalized the

1:48:45 ↗ whole the whole intersection would not operate very well it would operate a level of

1:48:51 ↗ service f signalized in a standard way four-legged would be a d and then with

1:48:56 ↗ a five-legged configuration e so that's So that just in a, I don't know if

1:49:02 ↗ I'm helping you or confusing you, but I'm trying to help you. No, I appreciate

1:49:07 ↗ that. I think it's a little engineer speak. It is. I apologize. We have a

1:49:13 ↗ table and then we also have a memo. And so I don't know if somebody

1:49:19 ↗ can summarize the memo in non-engineer language. Keith, do you want

1:49:25 ↗ to try that? Since you're not an engineer.

1:49:31 ↗ From a summary standpoint, let me take a

1:49:36 ↗ whack at this. So basically any of the three choices under current traffic situation

1:49:42 ↗ allows that intersection to operate within the council's adopted level of service. So we're looking

1:49:48 ↗ at a D, a B, and a C. So all of those, since your adopted

1:49:53 ↗ level of service is D, All those three scenarios would meet your criteria. But

1:49:59 ↗ when you go to 2030, what you see is if we do nothing there, we're

1:50:04 ↗ at level of service F. So what that would tell us is in the next

1:50:09 ↗ 15 years, we have to do a traffic improvement in that location. Otherwise, that intersection

1:50:14 ↗ will drop to level of service F. The four-legged, as Kirk called it, the

1:50:20 ↗ four-legged signal, which basically leaves the southern configuration where Rainier hooks into

1:50:26 ↗ Juniper and doesn't hit Gilman directly, that will operate at level of

1:50:31 ↗ service D. So 2030, if this traffic signal is built, we're still good

1:50:37 ↗ at this intersection. And that's an important piece to pull away from this. If

1:50:43 ↗ we chose the five-cornered intersection or the five-legged intersection, in 2030, that drops to

1:50:49 ↗ level of service So that would tell us unless the council between now and

1:50:55 ↗ 2030 drops its level of service to E as standard, if we still have

1:51:00 ↗ a level of service D as our standard, we would have to do something

1:51:06 ↗ else at that intersection to bring that E up to a D if we

1:51:12 ↗ choose the five corner option. So that's a short summary of this table. Thank

1:51:18 ↗ you. I'd like to ask a question. All? So Keith, you - Kurt, you

1:51:24 ↗ focused your comments on the overall score. The table and in some of the, even

1:51:29 ↗ in the memo that Stacey referenced that's in the packet, there's a reference to actually

1:51:35 ↗ a very specific use of the intersection that's eastbound on Gilman. So in the 2030

1:51:40 ↗ timeframe, eastbound, if we signalize, not the five leg, but the four leg, or the

1:51:46 ↗ signalize, on the second row from the bottom eastbound goes E, goes below the adopted

1:51:51 ↗ service level. I don't recall

1:51:57 ↗ before evaluating an intersection on one specific direction of travel. We

1:52:03 ↗ consider overall the leftmost column in terms of whether it meets

1:52:09 ↗ our adopted minimum level of performance. And I think that's important

1:52:15 ↗ too. It's a minimum level of performance. It's not our target.

1:52:22 ↗ It's the minimum level of performance that we've set before something would have to be

1:52:27 ↗ mitigated. Okay, so I think I answered my own question, is that we don't consider

1:52:32 ↗ one direction. Even though this model does show eastbound, it would fall below. The overall

1:52:38 ↗ for the intersection would still be at least at our minimum level of performance. Yes.

1:52:43 ↗ All right, Lou. So just generally, what are our goals for that

1:52:49 ↗ corridor? Are we trying to move cars over people? Are we more concerned

1:52:55 ↗ with moving people along Gilman Boulevard or having access from the various driveways?

1:53:00 ↗ Because it looks like eastbound Gilman, even with the signal, does not perform

1:53:06 ↗ as well. And so for that corridor, what are, what are we trying

1:53:12 ↗ to do? So that's a

1:53:17 ↗ hard question to answer. I think what I would say is, so, and this

1:53:23 ↗ is a conversation that Mariah and I had earlier. So Gilman, there's... You're

1:53:29 ↗ going to get my opinion, which may represent nobody's views other than my own. I'm

1:53:34 ↗ going to go ahead and disclaim that. So because of our geography, you've got I-90

1:53:38 ↗ runs through the middle of town. You've got a number of properties that are very

1:53:43 ↗ shallow that have no other access other than on to Gilman. Then you have Gilman,

1:53:48 ↗ and then you have other properties that are on the south side of Gilman. There

1:53:53 ↗ are, as properties redevelop, this is one, Atlas was another example of properties

1:53:59 ↗ redeveloping along Gilman, and adding additional traffic to that facility. They really have

1:54:05 ↗ only one access point, and that's out onto Gilman. I think there's

1:54:10 ↗ a lot of conversation about what we want Gilman to look like,

1:54:16 ↗ but at the end of the day, it provides legal access to

1:54:22 ↗ a number of properties, and as those properties redevelop and add cars

1:54:27 ↗ to that roadway, it's going to have to accommodate that added traffic,

1:54:33 ↗ right? Yeah. As Mariah and I talked about earlier, none

1:54:38 ↗ of us want to have a traffic light every 10 feet on

1:54:44 ↗ Gilman. Every 650 feet. So there's definitely a need to try and

1:54:50 ↗ consolidate access points and provide for places where those side properties do

1:54:56 ↗ feed into Gilman. This is one of those locations because we already have the Juniper

1:55:01 ↗ intersection here where we know that this is a place where we have to manage

1:55:06 ↗ traffic. And so I don't know if I answered your question or if I made

1:55:10 ↗ it worse, but I think to answer your question about what is Gilman at the

1:55:15 ↗ end of the day, Gilman is legal access to a number of properties on both

1:55:19 ↗ the north and south sides of Gilman today. And it will continue to be for

1:55:24 ↗ the next 100 years. How Gilman operates and the number of cars that

1:55:29 ↗ will need to be accommodated on Gilman is complicated and right now

1:55:35 ↗ we're taking it on a development by development basis since there is

1:55:41 ↗ no other kind of structure to evaluate the projects. In the central Issaquah

1:55:47 ↗ plan, I know you got the task force back together, and there was discussion about

1:55:51 ↗ superblocks and that maybe we're not doing a good enough job cutting up superblocks. So

1:55:56 ↗ how does transportation work on the north side when all you've got is superblocks? I

1:56:01 ↗ mean, does the plan for Central Issaquah ever -- it does in some areas envision

1:56:07 ↗ a new road network with smaller grids, but was the plan to just leave super

1:56:13 ↗ blocks between 90 and Gilman? And so lots of driveways, lots of lights. I have

1:56:18 ↗ planning staff here, so I'm going to look at Kristin and see if you want

1:56:24 ↗ to give me any thoughts. Yeah. So like, like, yes, yes, yes. You're

1:56:30 ↗ going to need to come. So like there. So where the so where Meadows is

1:56:35 ↗ in that area and then further to the east. Actually, when you get on the

1:56:40 ↗ north side of all of them. Yeah. That whole strip. What was the plan transportation

1:56:46 ↗ wise for that? There are there are no additional roads proposed there to make smaller

1:56:51 ↗ blocks. So that will be developed as super blocks. Yes. And unless we amend the

1:56:56 ↗ plan. I'm just trying to ask questions to try and figure out

1:57:02 ↗ if this light is, I don't understand really how it fits in, I guess.

1:57:08 ↗ I might have a few more questions. Go ahead. No, no. Thank you. Thank

1:57:14 ↗ you. Someone else can have a turn. I'm thinking about it. Any questions? Sure.

1:57:19 ↗ There's a couple things that keep getting talked about I want to clarify. A

1:57:25 ↗ lot of this, there's pressure on this saying that because we must do this

1:57:31 ↗ because if we don't, we'll put a C-curve there, which is a really bad

1:57:37 ↗ thing. And that's what's required. And it just feels really weird to me because it

1:57:42 ↗ sounds like that's someone from somewhere else making us do this C-curve. But my understanding,

1:57:46 ↗ that is a city of Issaquah requirement that they decided to put there. So it's

1:57:51 ↗ not anybody telling us that we have to put a C-curve there except ourselves. So

1:57:55 ↗ that's something that should not put pressure on ourselves because that's the only thing we

1:57:59 ↗ have to do. Because we can change that. If we decide a C-curve is really

1:58:05 ↗ not right because it would not be beneficial to those other businesses there to all

1:58:09 ↗ of a sudden cut them off, we could change that. And I'm not sure why

1:58:14 ↗ the history of why that decided that had to be done without public input, some

1:58:18 ↗ sort of something when you go and cut off a whole stretch of businesses like

1:58:23 ↗ that, which was before the light was discussed. So that just... Sounds like a lot

1:58:28 ↗ of pressure coming from ourselves in a pseudo way. I'm trying to figure out why

1:58:33 ↗ that's all. So there's two pieces to your question that I'll go ahead and field.

1:58:39 ↗ One is, so, and this is to give everybody some context who hasn't been

1:58:45 ↗ following this agenda bill. So the property owner has an existing permit to build

1:58:51 ↗ a single story large retail building with surface parking. And so right now if

1:58:57 ↗ we don't, we have a choice in front of us to either go into

1:59:02 ↗ this development agreement and get a different kind of project or let them build what

1:59:08 ↗ they have already permitted. The C-curb, the reason for the C-curb and I'm looking at,

1:59:13 ↗ I've got two engineers standing back here and they'll tell me if I'm wrong, but

1:59:19 ↗ the reason for the C-curb is the added traffic into the site causes concern over

1:59:25 ↗ the full access driveway that's right now in front of Pagaccia. And so to

1:59:31 ↗ add that traffic volume into that location where people will be queuing up to

1:59:36 ↗ make lefts either in or lefts coming out was a traffic safety concern. And

1:59:42 ↗ that's why the C-curbing was a product of the permitting for that initial development.

1:59:48 ↗ And so what I don't understand with that is if added traffic is causing

1:59:54 ↗ a problem, And the cheapest solution is to put a C-curb, so it means one

2:00:00 ↗ business, by adding business to that place, could shut off all the other businesses' access

2:00:04 ↗ except the one way in. That doesn't seem like a reasonable requirement. If that business

2:00:09 ↗ is causing all this additional traffic, that there needs to be more access or more

2:00:14 ↗ controlled access in a way that doesn't, is it to the detriment of other people

2:00:19 ↗ that have been there already for many years? I don't understand how it got to

2:00:24 ↗ that requirement. I think that signal probably would have been a requirement of the

2:00:30 ↗ project because if that much traffic is coming in there, a signal is required,

2:00:36 ↗ then a signal is required when it gets to that tipping point. So the

2:00:41 ↗ retail building, my understanding is the retail building adds traffic but not enough to

2:00:47 ↗ meet signal warrants. The mixed-use building, because it's more square footage, does meet the

2:00:52 ↗ warrants because of more trips. So we're at a pivot point, I guess. Beaten on

2:00:58 ↗ this a little bit, but he's finishing my question. So then what you say, so

2:01:03 ↗ the new request for the additional building said now meets that, and so then they

2:01:07 ↗ have to meet that traffic light. Then why are we paying for part of it?

2:01:12 ↗ That would be a requirement of that because of the additional trips, then the developer

2:01:16 ↗ should pay that as part of the thing and not come back to the city

2:01:21 ↗ for additional funding. So I can't answer that question.

2:01:26 ↗ I can ask the applicant for that history. Just

2:01:32 ↗ sort of looking to see if the applicant was

2:01:38 ↗ leading forward a little bit and would like to

2:01:44 ↗ comment. Since your traffic engineer is not here, you

2:01:49 ↗ might be the best one in the room to

2:01:55 ↗ speak to this. I didn't bring him this week.

2:02:01 ↗ Bob Power, 165 Northeast Juniper, Iskwa. The original analysis that

2:02:07 ↗ was done in concert with the city with our traffic engineer was that

2:02:12 ↗ that intersection was already in a failure mode and that something needed to

2:02:18 ↗ be done regardless of what happened on our site. There was a lot

2:02:23 ↗ of issues regarding what you are seeing tonight regarding juniper and

2:02:29 ↗ rain here. And the C curb was the solution that was recommended.

2:02:35 ↗ I can't remember whether the city was the one behind it or

2:02:41 ↗ a traffic engineer, but that was the approved MDNS requirement of SEPA.

2:02:48 ↗ The position that we have is that once the C curb is

2:02:54 ↗ in place, that that intersection now functions safely and there is no

2:02:59 ↗ need for a signal with the C curb in place and that

2:03:05 ↗ the studio loft project would proceed safely without the requirement of a

2:03:11 ↗ signal and not further and i'm trying to use traffic engineers words i'm not

2:03:17 ↗ doing a great job but uh would would function safely and there was no requirement

2:03:23 ↗ to put a signal in on the basis that the c curb was already there

2:03:28 ↗ so i'm not sure if i thank you your question or not hello that's your

2:03:34 ↗ question oh i don't think bill's not done i don't think bill well my question

2:03:39 ↗ is not answered Because so what I heard is it doesn't meet warrant by itself

2:03:45 ↗ but they're offering to do a traffic light because they Want the improved access and

2:03:51 ↗ they see that as a better solution than the C curb which right now is

2:03:56 ↗ conditioned by SIPA so so what I'm hearing is the C curb was for the

2:04:01 ↗ original project and Now we're changing projects, and we're using that C-curve as a pry

2:04:07 ↗ bar to have something else happen. If we're changing a project, that C-curve is not

2:04:12 ↗ a requirement of the new project. You look at the new project, you're saying it

2:04:17 ↗ would require signalization, then the project should just take on the signalization. I mean, because

2:04:22 ↗ if you look at it right there, right now, our level service is at a

2:04:27 ↗ D. So we're okay. We're not failing until they put the additional traffic in.

2:04:33 ↗ That's just what I see. Perhaps I could comment. We're correcting a safety problem.

2:04:39 ↗ There is a traffic signal located west of that intersection that is in the

2:04:45 ↗ wrong place. The five corners which includes access to the King County Regional Trail

2:04:51 ↗ Most people don't go down to the traffic signal and cross

2:04:57 ↗ there. They try to cross from the Juniper Rainier across Gilman

2:05:02 ↗ to the trail. So there is a benefit to the city

2:05:08 ↗ of relocating and having a partner help us relocate that traffic

2:05:13 ↗ signal to a better location. So now that's my understanding. Now

2:05:19 ↗ any one of you three guys want to comment? So the

2:05:25 ↗ traffic signal right now is on our non-motorized concurrency plan. So

2:05:30 ↗ we want that traffic signal to improve non-vehicular access across Gilman

2:05:36 ↗ in this location. They have asked for the traffic signal because they like

2:05:42 ↗ it as a traffic improvement for their lofts project They think it's more marketable

2:05:48 ↗ to have that traffic light there than to have the C curb and have

2:05:54 ↗ it right in right out only So this is one of those opportunities where

2:05:59 ↗ it's a Partnering proposal that would benefit the city and the developer. They're

2:06:05 ↗ willing to pay a million dollars We would pay three hundred seventy five thousand

2:06:11 ↗ dollars towards the construction of that traffic light. That's what's being proposed right now

2:06:16 ↗ Right now they don't have a permit to build the lofts project. It hasn't

2:06:22 ↗ gone through Permitting yet it would they're waiting to do that. They're stuck by

2:06:28 ↗ the moratorium, right and Does that answer your question?

2:06:34 ↗ Not really, but I'll go on to somebody else. It's a little three card money

2:06:39 ↗ here of what comes first. Mary Lou? I was going to pick up on something

2:06:44 ↗ else that Council Member Ramos said, and it was about adding... changing an

2:06:50 ↗ intersection for existing businesses which we're going to see happen over the next few years

2:06:55 ↗ as this corridor is designed and developed and properties are built but when atlas went

2:07:00 ↗ in there was still the possibility that those businesses who lost their you know full

2:07:05 ↗ access turns to move along either a easement or something so that they could access

2:07:10 ↗ the light as well Why, if the warrants don't justify a light right now, why

2:07:14 ↗ not do the same thing for those businesses that are being negatively impacted by the

2:07:19 ↗ C-curb? Why not use the frontage road that goes across? And right now, for this

2:07:24 ↗ property, you used to have to enter Pagaccia and go across the frontage road to

2:07:28 ↗ get to it. Why can't it work the other way with the C-curb so that

2:07:33 ↗ all those businesses can still be served from the existing turning motions with C-curb? but

2:07:38 ↗ they're going to go along the frontage road of this new development to

2:07:43 ↗ get to that. Why can't we preserve their access just like we did

2:07:49 ↗ at the other installation? So where would they be able to make a

2:07:55 ↗ left-out... Under so there's so there is that so there is pavement basically between the

2:08:01 ↗ Shell station and this site all the way along Gilman and there's a number of

2:08:06 ↗ driveways, but none of them have Left movements. The only one that has the left

2:08:11 ↗ movement today is the one in front of Pagacha And so if we're see curbing

2:08:16 ↗ in front of that all those businesses basically from shell to this property are now

2:08:21 ↗ right in right out only and Right. I guess what I'm saying is that

2:08:27 ↗ right now, Pagacsa can do left in, left out because there's no C-curve.

2:08:33 ↗ Right. And once the C-curve is in, the Gilman-Lofts can do left in,

2:08:38 ↗ left out, right? Or no? Everybody. Even Gilman-Lofts is right. Everybody. Okay. Thanks.

2:08:44 ↗ Okay. Helpful. That's very helpful. Thanks. Paul? i want to uh i'm gonna

2:08:50 ↗ go back to bill's last question i think it's actually kind of simple for me

2:08:56 ↗ to understand i get the impression maybe the question isn't understood um um you know

2:09:02 ↗ the project in its in its proposed form um calls for signalization at this intersection

2:09:08 ↗ and yet um the proposal in front of us this evening which we have no

2:09:14 ↗ motion for yet yes we do oh It's still open from the

2:09:19 ↗ previous meeting. Thank you. Okay. Thanks for the reminder Then the motion in

2:09:25 ↗ front of us asks us to consider $375,000 for the construction of that

2:09:31 ↗ intersection I think Bill's question is why are we paying anything if the

2:09:37 ↗ project? Requires it and I'm gonna I think I heard a partial answer

2:09:43 ↗ that was well beyond what the project asked for the city is also asking

2:09:49 ↗ for that intersection the the crosswalk movement or relocation that's further west today to

2:09:54 ↗ move it over there I can't imagine a relocation cost 375 so what else

2:10:00 ↗ is in this that is a benefit to the city that's above and beyond

2:10:06 ↗ what's required for the project that justifies 375 so So I

2:10:11 ↗ think I need I think I need to maybe be

2:10:17 ↗ clear or so right now the non-motorized signal is in

2:10:22 ↗ our transport is in our non the the the traffic light the traffic

2:10:28 ↗ signal in this location is on a non motorized concurrency list right so

2:10:34 ↗ they can get concurrency credits for that that is this small it's like

2:10:40 ↗ fifty thousand dollars okay and so what's being proposed is uh... what i

2:10:46 ↗ understand is that the gilman lofts project does not trip the traffic warrant for a

2:10:52 ↗ signal here. Because if it did, then they should build it all on their dime.

2:10:58 ↗ But it doesn't. But we want the light. They want the light. And so we

2:11:03 ↗ both want the light. It's not needed from a SEPA standpoint, but it's wanted for

2:11:09 ↗ one, better access for them and for the other businesses along the north side of

2:11:15 ↗ Gilman and for us from a non-motorized perspective. -

2:11:21 ↗ Other questions? -

2:11:25 ↗ Other questions or

2:11:30 ↗ discussion? There is a motion on

2:11:36 ↗ the floor to approve resolution number 2017-03, approving

2:11:41 ↗ Gilman-Loff's Three Trails Development Agreement and to direct

2:11:47 ↗ the finance director to include $375,000 in a

2:11:52 ↗ subsequent 2017 budget amendment using $75 from $75,000 from the

2:11:58 ↗ mitigation fund and $300,000 from the general fund. - Another question? - Is there any

2:12:04 ↗ additional questions or discussion? - Yes. So there's other items in this, we're approving the

2:12:10 ↗ whole project in a development agreement, correct? So there's a whole lot of, right? Okay.

2:12:16 ↗ So I think there's some other questions as far as the development agreement goes, because

2:12:22 ↗ we haven't talked about that at all. All we've talked about is the signal.

2:12:29 ↗ Think a clarification I think the projects referred to in this agreement. I don't think

2:12:35 ↗ the entire project is in the development agreement It's right the project still has to

2:12:40 ↗ go through permitting which will go through the development commission. This really is I hate

2:12:46 ↗ to say it's a partnering agreement to build the traffic light for the most part.

2:12:51 ↗ But then there were certain things that came out of the process. For example, there

2:12:56 ↗ was a suggestion that there be a transit shelter put out somewhere in this vicinity

2:13:01 ↗ because if we're building office space, we should have a bus stop. and a transit

2:13:06 ↗ shelter. So along the way, as we've had conversations, we've added things into

2:13:12 ↗ the development agreement, but the specific project has to still go through permitting,

2:13:17 ↗ which will be reviewed and approved by Development Commission at some point. Okay,

2:13:23 ↗ so my question in that is, basically, we're doing this development agreement very

2:13:29 ↗ clearly to bypass the moratorium. So they've asked for this

2:13:35 ↗ development agreement to be able to move forward during the moratorium because it coincides

2:13:40 ↗ with work that they're going to do in Gilman this summer. And so I

2:13:46 ↗ guess some of the questions of the development agreement itself is talking about meeting

2:13:53 ↗ the standards we're going to want after the moratorium when we get them in place

2:13:57 ↗ and how we're going to meet all those standards. And there's some language in here,

2:14:01 ↗ and a couple things I saw about, you know, development commission, but I saw review

2:14:06 ↗ of development commission, not approval. Didn't say if it's coming back through here. I mean,

2:14:10 ↗ to get those things that we'd like, the reason to allow the additional approval structure

2:14:14 ↗ is to get some things that fit better into central Issaquah. So how do we

2:14:19 ↗ know what we're getting here? I kind of don't know exactly what I'm going to

2:14:23 ↗ get right now at this point in time. So this one, so the site plan

2:14:28 ↗ that that they have put together as part of the development agreement. And part of

2:14:32 ↗ that is, and I think there's language in the development agreement that says if they

2:14:36 ↗ deviate substantially from that, it has to come back to the council as an amendment

2:14:40 ↗ to the development agreement. So basically, so the, and the part of the reason for

2:14:44 ↗ that is that there's not intended to be a bait and switch. that really we're

2:14:49 ↗ getting a four-story mixed-use with structured parking, you know, basically most of the things

2:14:55 ↗ we want with the development agreement. The interesting thing about this particular situation is

2:15:00 ↗ we're going to get something on this property no matter what because they have

2:15:06 ↗ a vested right to go build a single-story retail building with surface parking, right?

2:15:12 ↗ So in some ways we can get None of what central is a quad

2:15:18 ↗ plan really wants and that's what's already permitted or we can get 90% of

2:15:24 ↗ what central is a quad plan wants by approving this during the moratorium

2:15:33 ↗ And then so some of the language said coming back to that they would go

2:15:38 ↗ by what we get in place in as in through the moratorium our architectural standards

2:15:42 ↗ and so forth they're agreeing to even though those aren't officially and they don't have

2:15:46 ↗ to but they're agreeing to they will use all those standards as we get them

2:15:50 ↗ in place. So what they've agreed to is to allow the Development Commission

2:15:56 ↗ to use whatever has been drafted by our consultant at the time that

2:16:02 ↗ their permit goes through D.C. What they weren't willing to agree to was

2:16:07 ↗ to go ahead and get their permits and then have to go

2:16:13 ↗ back through DC in August or whenever we get our architectural

2:16:19 ↗ guidelines done and have a whole other set of reviews because

2:16:25 ↗ at that point the project would have already been most likely

2:16:30 ↗ financed for construction and if there were some significant alterations that

2:16:36 ↗ would be, it's like a blank check. So they're willing to

2:16:42 ↗ comply with as much as has been drafted through the process.

2:16:47 ↗ Thank you. Paul? What

2:16:53 ↗ do you think the timing will be for the DC review if

2:16:59 ↗ this were to proceed? I would guess with you that just give

2:17:05 ↗ me a guess on how long to do an application a month.

2:17:11 ↗ So let's say it's April, May, June, July, August. So it would

2:17:17 ↗ be about August, which is when our consultants said they should have

2:17:23 ↗ their architectural guidelines done if they stay on track. So it's

2:17:28 ↗ going to be close. The one thing, so just to be candid

2:17:34 ↗ and clear as I can be, the one thing that's lagging in

2:17:40 ↗ the moratorium work plan is the neighborhood vision updates, right? Now, what

2:17:46 ↗ we're getting here is office and retail, which I think is what

2:17:52 ↗ we need in this neighborhood if we want it to be...

2:17:58 ↗ neighborhood. That is the biggest risk,

2:18:04 ↗ I think, the biggest unknown. Will

2:18:10 ↗ the vision for Gilman change as

2:18:16 ↗ part of the neighborhood conversations? Can

2:18:22 ↗ you talk about the agreement by

2:18:28 ↗ the applicant to comply with architectural

2:18:34 ↗ review standards? I'm having trouble finding the DA in here.

2:18:40 ↗ And I thought it was that they didn't have to be adopted. They had

2:18:46 ↗ to be draft. They've agreed to comply with whatever's in place at the time

2:18:51 ↗ they go through DC. So if there's draft guidelines that have been compiled, they'll

2:18:57 ↗ comply with it. They'll allow DC to use those in the review of their

2:19:03 ↗ application. They've agreed to that. If there isn't? If there

2:19:08 ↗ isn't, then there isn't. But we should, again,

2:19:14 ↗ depending on timing, we should have something in

2:19:20 ↗ draft form by then. That would be my

2:19:26 ↗ expectation. - Keith, sorry. - Mariah. - Mariah.

2:19:32 ↗ - And so with the trail connectivity, the

2:19:38 ↗ plan in place would be, then go back

2:19:44 ↗ to the development commission once that's designed and-

2:19:51 ↗ So the council has been clear on their desire for connection

2:19:57 ↗ to be made between their project and the trail. They've proposed something schematically that's

2:20:03 ↗ been included within the council packet. So staff and Development Commission will work with

2:20:09 ↗ the applicant to kind of get it into whatever final form it would take

2:20:15 ↗ that would hopefully meet the expectations of the council. So I think we heard

2:20:21 ↗ conversation about wanting it to be kind of this inviting place where people using the

2:20:27 ↗ trail would feel comfortable maybe going to the retail space in this building if it's

2:20:32 ↗ a restaurant or something and going and hanging out potentially if you're in the middle

2:20:37 ↗ of one of your bike rides or whatever. And so I think part of

2:20:43 ↗ it is working out the details of what the materials look like,

2:20:49 ↗ how to minimize the impact of that dry vial across that way.

2:20:55 ↗ And so that would be something we would work out through the

2:21:01 ↗ permitting process. Thank you. I want to make a couple comments. Oh,

2:21:07 ↗ Stacy, I'm sorry. So the development agreement is not in the packet.

2:21:12 ↗ I think there was just a mistake. So it's

2:21:18 ↗ not attached. I think it was supposed to be attached to the resolution as an

2:21:24 ↗ exhibit. Yes, I can speak to that. That appears to have been an omission of

2:21:30 ↗ mine in this 400 page packet. But I can tell you that the motion to

2:21:36 ↗ approve the resolution was made on March 20th, at which time the resolution and development

2:21:42 ↗ agreement were before council. So there is a copy at the front desk if anyone

2:21:48 ↗ would like to take a look. So is

2:21:54 ↗ timing -- I'll just ask a question. Is

2:21:59 ↗ a delay to May 1 a problem? Is

2:22:05 ↗ a delay for two weeks a problem? I

2:22:11 ↗ think the applicant is willing to wait for

2:22:17 ↗ two weeks. So I know it's a long

2:22:23 ↗ packet and I feel for a mistake. But

2:22:28 ↗ it seems a little bit odd to be voting when we

2:22:34 ↗ don't have a development agreement included in the packet. So I

2:22:40 ↗ guess I would look to fellow council members to make comments

2:22:45 ↗ on whether they think that's an issue. We also would likely

2:22:51 ↗ have our full council here. Mary Lou? I think... It is not

2:22:57 ↗ as much of an issue for me having been on development commission and had an

2:23:01 ↗ opportunity several times to go through it. But there are commissioners or council members who

2:23:06 ↗ did not and I could see how that could be an issue. My only concern

2:23:11 ↗ with delaying it is, well, a couple of things. From a process point of view,

2:23:15 ↗ we have looked at every little inch of this a couple of times now and

2:23:20 ↗ it seems maybe unfair to for another two-week extension. As well, I'm not so sure

2:23:25 ↗ that it's information, it's necessarily the actual specifics of the language of the development agreement

2:23:31 ↗ that is an issue for some council members. For me personally, it's Should this be

2:23:37 ↗ excluded from the moratorium? And that's a bigger question. There are 12 projects that were

2:23:42 ↗ built in Issaquah that did not meet the expected standards for architectural urban design. There

2:23:47 ↗ are 10 to 12 more that will be built in central Issaquah that are not

2:23:52 ↗ in the moratorium and were approved under a set of standards that at best were

2:23:58 ↗ called the other day. It would give us a tepid project. I mean, we have

2:24:03 ↗ a policy document. We do not have standards. Now we are going to look at

2:24:08 ↗ a development agreement that has no standards with it. It'll get done with what it

2:24:12 ↗ gets done at the time. So for me, I'm actually comfortable going ahead and voting

2:24:17 ↗ this evening, but I could understand why those who have not had the experience to,

2:24:22 ↗ had not had the opportunity to look at this several times may be extremely uncomfortable

2:24:26 ↗ with that. That's my thought.

2:24:38 ↗ So previously we were considering maybe giving a chance for the full Council to participate

2:24:44 ↗ in this clearly difficult decision and I think that has merit. And I know only

2:24:49 ↗ what we all heard, both council members who are not here this evening. What I

2:24:54 ↗ know is what they said at the last meeting. I know nothing more than that.

2:25:00 ↗ So I think that has merit for that purpose alone. I wanted to add another

2:25:05 ↗ comment related to Gilman Boulevard, just it's part of the calculus. I think we kind

2:25:10 ↗ of had some comments this evening, but it wasn't really, um we haven't discussed it

2:25:15 ↗ in much detail so but maybe if but i'll so i'll hold on to those

2:25:21 ↗ because i think you're trying to get a read from the rest of the council

2:25:27 ↗ on the on the delay first i'm not uh Because I sat on Land

2:25:33 ↗ and Shore and I feel like we really have, at least I have touched

2:25:39 ↗ every little detail of this, I wouldn't have a problem going forward in voting,

2:25:45 ↗ but I am concerned that we don't have two of our council members here.

2:25:51 ↗ So I'm a little bit, I'm concerned about the other two council members not

2:25:57 ↗ being here. And having not been on land and shore, I

2:26:02 ↗ kind of feel like I'm leaving it to someone's goodwill because I haven't been able

2:26:07 ↗ to see in writing what the agreement is. And so I kind of feel like,

2:26:11 ↗ okay, everybody will try to do a good job and it will get there. But

2:26:16 ↗ that makes me a little... A little tenuous, for sure. And this is a big

2:26:21 ↗ deal. I mean, because this to me is to bypass the moratorium. This isn't just

2:26:27 ↗ a decision on itself. It's saying we're going to go, we're finding a way around

2:26:33 ↗ our moratorium that we established. So that's a big question. So I personally would like

2:26:38 ↗ to see that in writing so I know exactly what I'm voting on myself. Well,

2:26:44 ↗ there are There's a motion on the floor from our

2:26:50 ↗ last council meeting that was moved by Goodman and seconded

2:26:55 ↗ by Pauley to approve the resolution that so... So I'm

2:27:01 ↗ going to make a motion. Can I just make a

2:27:06 ↗ new motion? Amend the motion, I think, would be the

2:27:12 ↗ appropriate... Oh, I think it's a move to postpone. Oh,

2:27:17 ↗ okay. So I would only make this motion if

2:27:23 ↗ the applicant was still agreeable that two weeks is okay. If

2:27:28 ↗ it's not, then I think we should move ahead. Deal with

2:27:34 ↗ it. Yeah. Okay. I move to postpone this motion to the

2:27:39 ↗ Council's regular meeting on May 1st, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. or

2:27:45 ↗ as soon thereafter as the business of the Council permits. Second.

2:27:50 ↗ Move and seconded discussion on the motion. Seeing

2:27:56 ↗ none then, all those in favor of

2:28:02 ↗ postponing the motion to our May 1st

2:28:08 ↗ meeting, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those

2:28:13 ↗ opposed, that carries unanimously. We want to

2:28:19 ↗ take a five minute, please be back

2:28:25 ↗ in your seats at, oh goodness. 9.31.

2:28:31 ↗ Oh goodness. 9.40.

2:28:36 ↗ We are back in session at 9.42. If

2:28:42 ↗ you would please take your seats and be

2:28:47 ↗ quiet. Our next item this evening is Agenda

2:28:53 ↗ Bill 7304, Downtown City. streetscape plan coming back from

2:28:59 ↗ land and shore. We've got a staff report by

2:29:04 ↗ Kristen Leeson and Ida Otteson who will introduce the

2:29:10 ↗ topic. So Kristen, if you would please. All right.

2:29:15 ↗ So I'm going to do a broad overview here. This was brought to the Council

2:29:21 ↗ work session on March 13th. And at that meeting there were three primary items that

2:29:25 ↗ were discussed. One was the biggest concern was the removal, the proposed removal of parking,

2:29:30 ↗ 23 parking spaces between Bush and Sunset. Another conversation that was had was that they

2:29:36 ↗ wanted to keep the pedestrians' cramble in place and also keep the parklets in place.

2:29:41 ↗ There was discussion, pros and cons against parklets, but in the end, those were left

2:29:47 ↗ in the plan. The following week a community survey was completed and the

2:29:52 ↗ results were essentially the same. Keep the park. They like the idea. People like the

2:29:57 ↗ idea of parklets. They love the Festival Street. They like the proposed improvements, but they

2:30:02 ↗ did not want the parking removed. So as a result of the meeting on the

2:30:08 ↗ 13th and the survey in the final draft that you have with you, we actually

2:30:13 ↗ took out the section of from Bush to Sunset, thereby keeping most of the parking.

2:30:18 ↗ So now from Front up to Gilman, there is proposed one space that would be

2:30:23 ↗ removed because of a pedestrian crosswalk improvement. And there is a potential space that could

2:30:28 ↗ be removed because of a parklet. That could be a temporary situation, but

2:30:34 ↗ that's based on a partnership between the business owner and the

2:30:40 ↗ city, so I don't know if that would happen. When we

2:30:45 ↗ took this to services last Tuesday on April 11th, there were

2:30:51 ↗ three topics of discussion or three proposed changes that took place.

2:30:56 ↗ One was to... put the section from Bush to Sunset back in place with the

2:31:02 ↗ caveat that this not be implemented until additional parking is found in or near Old

2:31:07 ↗ Town to cover the deficit in parking in that location. Another one would be, another

2:31:11 ↗ proposed change would be to add in a feasibility study for the pedestrian scramble at

2:31:16 ↗ Front and Sunset during phase one. We don't know yet what the cost of that

2:31:21 ↗ feasibility study would be. We would have to check with our traffic consultant and find

2:31:25 ↗ out. And the third possible change would be to include timing from study to implementation

2:31:31 ↗ or to construction in the plan as it's already been proposed in the draft 2018

2:31:37 ↗ capital improvements plan. That is what I have for you. Do you have any questions?

2:31:43 ↗ Questions of Lisa and Paul and then Mary Lou. Who was first? I was just

2:31:48 ↗ going to have a few committee comments first. Okay. So before you do that, real

2:31:54 ↗ quick, could you go back one slide, please? One more.

2:32:00 ↗ Where's the one, the older picture? Keep going back until you get that one. Like

2:32:05 ↗ when and where was that picture taken? When was that taken? Just five lanes of

2:32:10 ↗ something. I know. We've made so many improvements, it's great now. That looks pretty nasty,

2:32:16 ↗ by the way. Is that Front Street? Pardon me, it is. That's Front Street? I

2:32:21 ↗ think it is. Yes, it is. Holy cow. Better now. Yeah. Just saying. Just saying.

2:32:26 ↗ Okay, sorry, Mary Lou. Okay, Mary Lou. Thank you. A little bit

2:32:32 ↗ of humor this evening. So Kristen did a really good job summarizing about the

2:32:37 ↗ committee discussion. There were really four items that came up and I just wanted to

2:32:42 ↗ give a little bit more context around them. It came out of committee with a

2:32:47 ↗ two to one vote, both Council Member Barber and I in favor of moving it

2:32:51 ↗ forward but considering four items for tonight to be added into the motion. And Council

2:32:56 ↗ Member Martz really wanting a focus on traffic, steadying traffic capacity before adopting a plan

2:33:00 ↗ for improvements. - Parking capacity. - Parking capacity before talking

2:33:06 ↗ about planned adoption. The first one was adding the improvements back to the final

2:33:12 ↗ plan that were included in the draft plan, Front Street from Bush Street to Sunset.

2:33:16 ↗ And the discussion around that was that while we know that eliminating parking can cause

2:33:21 ↗ additional stresses in the area, that the plan design can stay as is but maybe

2:33:26 ↗ be included as a later phase. So that there would have to be some parking

2:33:31 ↗ added or parking before you would go there, but because it's been designed, leave it

2:33:36 ↗ on the plan. We should have improvements down there. We're gonna have a future city

2:33:40 ↗ park down there. The second one was adding the feasibility study for the pedestrian scramble.

2:33:44 ↗ The recommendation from staff when it came back from the work session was to just

2:33:48 ↗ look at this at a future date. And I think that discussion at the committee,

2:33:52 ↗ at least with Council Member Barber and I was that we think it should be

2:33:56 ↗ looked at and discussed earlier. And so it was a request to put it in

2:34:00 ↗ phase one. And if feasible, the third item was that if these projects are being

2:34:06 ↗ added to the capital improvement plan to make sure that the scramble shows up in

2:34:11 ↗ one of those outer years if it's feasible. And the last one, came

2:34:17 ↗ up with a staff discussion was that staff is currently, and you can correct me

2:34:22 ↗ if I'm wrong, Kristen, but including these elements in the draft 2018 CIP. Correct. So

2:34:27 ↗ these different phases are going to show up again in front of council in a

2:34:32 ↗ draft CIP. Correct. With year, in certain outer years with funding or with project estimates.

2:34:37 ↗ Correct. So those were the four items. In talking with the city

2:34:43 ↗ clerk today, I do have a proposed revision to the amendment that includes some

2:34:49 ↗ of those. However, references to including things in the draft CIP is not part

2:34:54 ↗ of that motion. So item number four on there is not in my proposed

2:35:00 ↗ amendment to the motion, which you've all been given a copy and we can

2:35:06 ↗ discuss after it's been made. - Thanks, Stacy. - Nope. -

2:35:11 ↗ Make a motion. - Nope. - I can make a motion. Move to

2:35:17 ↗ approve-- - From Land and Shore? - Nope. - Oh, services. - Services.

2:35:23 ↗ - Oh. - Mr. Councilmember Martz. Move to approve the Downtown Streetscape Plan

2:35:29 ↗ as presented. - Second. - Okay. Discussion or questions? - I presented, do

2:35:35 ↗ you mean this? - No. - Presented is in

2:35:41 ↗ the AB and after people have had a chance to ask

2:35:46 ↗ questions and provide comments, I would then like to talk about

2:35:52 ↗ a proposed amendment to the motion. And I could do that

2:35:58 ↗ now if you think that would add clarity. - I have

2:36:03 ↗ a number of general questions, so I'm fine. - Got seconded,

2:36:09 ↗ right? - Got seconded. - Okay. - So what about the

2:36:15 ↗ segment from, called from, Novitz-Renier, where it intersects now

2:36:20 ↗ Dogwood, all the way up to Gilman. I think that's it. There it

2:36:26 ↗ is. I didn't see that in any of the phases. Right. Edith, do

2:36:32 ↗ you know why that wasn't included as a cost estimate as part of

2:36:38 ↗ the phases? Come on. I believe that was because of just thinking about

2:36:43 ↗ the capital improvement plan, which is for the next Could you get a

2:36:49 ↗ little bit closer to the mic, please? The next six years? Yes. So the next

2:36:55 ↗ six years, it seemed unlikely that you would get to all those three phases that

2:37:01 ↗ sort of facing -- basically that would be a future phase with three phases happening

2:37:07 ↗ in that six-year period seemed maybe more realistic. And also knowing that in six years

2:37:13 ↗ those costs are going to be, you know, very different. Given that that

2:37:18 ↗ was the face that would be just further in the

2:37:24 ↗ future, we didn't include that. Okay, so it was no

2:37:30 ↗ intention to drop it from the overall, I'll call it

2:37:36 ↗ a master plan. It was just staff's, or I don't

2:37:42 ↗ know if the committee shaped it at all, recognition of

2:37:47 ↗ just overall feasibility. Okay? Yes. Okay. Other questions? Mm-hmm.

2:37:53 ↗ Did the committee talk about funding? Just in very general that if

2:37:59 ↗ it's in the CIP, if it's showing up in the draft CIP

2:38:05 ↗ that the council would likely like information on what various funding sources

2:38:10 ↗ would be available, whether it's a mitigation fund or grant opportunities or

2:38:16 ↗ whatever. Very much general comments on that. And so if the council

2:38:22 ↗ were to approve the plan, it still is... It still goes

2:38:28 ↗ through the budget process. Absolutely. CIP and budget. Yep, CIP and budget. So this would

2:38:33 ↗ not be an approval to fund. It would be approval of the plan and the

2:38:37 ↗ proposed phasing. Correct. Where this would go from here is that the plan would be

2:38:42 ↗ incorporated by reference into the Old Town plan as part of this update right now,

2:38:47 ↗ and then the plan itself would be incorporated into the Old Town design standards when

2:38:52 ↗ those are updated right after the plan. Thank you. Bill? And while

2:38:58 ↗ we're on funding, so basically I'm seeing this as there's five phases, really. There's the

2:39:03 ↗ one that's taken out that we may talk about later, and then the other phase

2:39:08 ↗ that isn't even talked about. So there's three of five. And just realize that those

2:39:13 ↗ three are over $3 million. And if you add up the estimates plus the other

2:39:18 ↗ two are going to be in that range. So I just want to note that

2:39:22 ↗ we're looking at a fairly large piece of funding here if we're really going to

2:39:26 ↗ implement this and how long that's going to take if we're doing it on our

2:39:30 ↗ own from a city for sure. That's significant funding. When I was originally thinking of

2:39:36 ↗ doing a streetscape plan after we did that work, I was not thinking of multi-million

2:39:41 ↗ dollars to make it a little more beautiful. I don't think anybody here was thinking

2:39:45 ↗ that kind of level of stuff. At least I wasn't. So it's kind of put

2:39:50 ↗ it in a whole different perspective than what the original thoughts were, at least for

2:39:54 ↗ me. I can explain some of the costs, if you would like to, just briefly.

2:39:59 ↗ And that is that we were looking at widening the sidewalk as part of improving

2:40:03 ↗ the streetscape. And in doing that, we have to basically make sure that the drainage

2:40:09 ↗ and so forth works and that we have ADA accessibility everywhere. And that means we're

2:40:14 ↗ extending into the roadway. And so it also impacts the roadway to some extent. We're

2:40:20 ↗ not including costs for rebuilding the roadway completely because then you would look at a

2:40:25 ↗ much higher cost. But just based on Public Works input and from the recent drainage

2:40:30 ↗ project that they did, they discovered that there were some, you know, there's layers of

2:40:36 ↗ concrete under the road that they had to tear up when they redid the, when

2:40:42 ↗ they widened the sidewalk. So that's why the cost has gone up or is higher

2:40:47 ↗ than you expect. And the only follow-up to that, I think that the people expected

2:40:52 ↗ that we said that we'd fix the drainage problems and all that stuff, and then

2:40:56 ↗ we'd implement the streetscape. We'd have their input, and we'd come up with this plan.

2:41:00 ↗ And to me, it was kind of like a pretty much we'd do it right

2:41:04 ↗ away, you know. Something was going to come right away. This, to me, is not

2:41:07 ↗ going to come right away at all. We're going to live with this for a

2:41:11 ↗ long time before we really implement that. So I think that's kind of... not what

2:41:16 ↗ the people were expecting either as far as this larger scale

2:41:22 ↗ of undertaking. I'm not saying I don't like it, it'd be

2:41:28 ↗ wonderful, but how do you get there is the question. -

2:41:34 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Regarding funding, and I realize, I think

2:41:40 ↗ just as we go forward, and I appreciate Bill's comments right

2:41:46 ↗ there, there is funding mechanisms are mentioned in here. I will

2:41:52 ↗ tell you, and I, I didn't go back and research everything. So I

2:41:57 ↗ spent two years on the Joint Recommendations Committee, and that's the committee between cities, Seattle,

2:42:03 ↗ King County, a number of jurisdictions, other interested parties, of what they do is make

2:42:08 ↗ final approvals for the expenditures of CDBG money, or Community Development Block Grants. And when

2:42:14 ↗ I read that, my first reaction was, boy, I don't recall any projects like this

2:42:19 ↗ ever going through JRC. So, and again, I think, I don't know where the basis

2:42:25 ↗ of that came from, but as I was assessing the information here about funding, I

2:42:30 ↗ actually took the CDBG concept and just took it off the table. Maybe I'll be

2:42:35 ↗ wrong, but I just don't think that that's likely to happen. Somebody proved me wrong.

2:42:40 ↗ Now I'm not as familiar with these other, well, actually I was very surprised. I

2:42:45 ↗ am familiar with one of them, the TIB, the Transportation Improvement Board. I mean, it

2:42:50 ↗ would be, I didn't, It's not my experience and if somebody can enlighten me

2:42:55 ↗ that they've funded projects like this before. I just think of the 62nd Street extension

2:43:02 ↗ which is a major transportation project as opposed to a streetscape plan. And I'm not

2:43:08 ↗ as familiar with these other ones. So if I'd like to learn a little bit

2:43:13 ↗ more, if even this evening, if anybody knows anything more about the ones that are

2:43:19 ↗ mentioned in here, I did not look them up, but just so that we can,

2:43:26 ↗ I want my fellow council members to know as well. I'm somewhat skeptical about being

2:43:32 ↗ able to get significant funds from other sources. So, you know, to give it my

2:43:37 ↗ support going forward is I'm basically assuming that we're going to have to pay the

2:43:42 ↗ whole bill. Somebody proved me wrong, but tell me maybe a little bit more about

2:43:47 ↗ the State Transportation Improvement Program or the... or the Washed Out Surface Transportation Program and

2:43:53 ↗ whether we've ever benefited from them in the past. Do you know, Sheldon? Can anybody

2:43:57 ↗ add to that? Could you go to the mic?

2:44:08 ↗ I'm Sheldon Lynn, director of public works engineering. We have benefited from

2:44:14 ↗ the STP funding mechanisms through PSRC. That's where the grant applications are

2:44:19 ↗ asked. WSDOT administers the grants once they've been awarded. That's federal money.

2:44:25 ↗ Typically those are for capacity type projects so that are regional in

2:44:31 ↗ nature, not local projects so much. for where you already have

2:44:36 ↗ sidewalks and things like that. So I think you're right that the probability is relatively

2:44:42 ↗ low for substantial funding from those sources. Similarly with TIB, probably pretty low because you've

2:44:48 ↗ got to really present a strong need to compete with other projects that have no

2:44:54 ↗ sidewalks or have other major issues going on. Okay. I appreciated that candid response. Thank

2:45:00 ↗ you.

2:45:07 ↗ - Just wondering on process, Mr. Mayor, does it make sense to me to propose

2:45:12 ↗ an alternate motion now or an amended motion, or does it make sense to just

2:45:17 ↗ put questions on the table and let the council members? - I think put questions

2:45:21 ↗ on the table. - Okay. So I guess the two questions I would have is

2:45:26 ↗ I'd like to hear from the rest of the council members on what they think

2:45:31 ↗ about the... extending or including the streetscape that was deleted from

2:45:37 ↗ the final version south of Sunset back in, and also about the addition

2:45:42 ↗ of a feasibility study for a pedestrian scramble into phase one. I'd like

2:45:48 ↗ to hear people's comments on that. - Paul. - So I just learned

2:45:54 ↗ this evening that they didn't include all five, partly because of just feasibility

2:45:59 ↗ over a six year period of time. And, but I also heard that, you

2:46:05 ↗ know, exclusion of the Southern portion was due to concerns about parking. And so it

2:46:11 ↗ was more than that. So it seems to me that we still will be back

2:46:16 ↗ into that issue about feasibility if we say, hey, yeah, include the Southern portion. Are

2:46:22 ↗ we really going to absorb that much and then some because there'd have to be

2:46:28 ↗ some parking work done. So why move the southern portion back in scope?

2:46:33 ↗ I think because the portion to the north is in the scope. So

2:46:39 ↗ it's not described as I believe that are there any improvements shown in that north

2:46:44 ↗ portion or none on the plan? Maybe I misunderstood right there. Yeah They're improvements shown

2:46:48 ↗ on the plan, but they're not included in any faces and there's no cost. That's

2:46:53 ↗ the phasing So yeah, there's three phases. Yeah, so I wasn't proposing adding additional phases

2:46:57 ↗ just to add the original design back similar to what they've done in the north

2:47:01 ↗ section so you have a complete corridor picture and from Gillin Boulevard to south of

2:47:07 ↗ Sunset. You know what build out could look like because they don't have that

2:47:12 ↗ phase in there either. So it was just to complete the plan. - Okay,

2:47:18 ↗ thank you. You know, one of the ways we put packets together is if

2:47:24 ↗ we seen something first that stays and then we just add to it. And

2:47:30 ↗ so there's two versions of this plan in here and, and, Sometimes I'm not

2:47:35 ↗ sure which version I'm looking at. So the second one that was added has the

2:47:40 ↗ southern portion completely removed. Okay, okay, so you've answered my question. It's not about phasing,

2:47:45 ↗ it's just keeping it in the plan. I agree with that. - So the motion

2:47:50 ↗ on the floor is to approve the final plan, which has that part of the

2:47:55 ↗ design removed. My question is, do you want to go back to the draft version,

2:48:00 ↗ which has that design included? I would support an amendment to add that segment back

2:48:05 ↗ to the version that we're considering. Even though it's not currently proposed in any of

2:48:10 ↗ the phasing, it is still a complete plan. If you would do that amendment, I

2:48:15 ↗ would. jc has a question bill was first bill um to answer your question um

2:48:20 ↗ i probably have a hard time dealing with that because when you're getting rid of

2:48:24 ↗ 22 parking spaces and a half million dollars to replace them in some sort of

2:48:28 ↗ structure i'm not sure that's the design i want to i want to go with

2:48:32 ↗ down there at this point in time and maybe it is when we get a

2:48:36 ↗ park down there and all sorts of things that may be that but at this

2:48:40 ↗ point in time i would have to not look at that because that's like shooting

2:48:44 ↗ yourself in the foot. I can't see taking away 22 parking spaces in a design

2:48:50 ↗ I'm accepting. That's a complaint now and say that that's what we're looking for. And

2:48:55 ↗ then if someone goes to develop something there, that's what we're going to try to

2:49:00 ↗ build, right? And then it's not what we really want. So I'd have a hard

2:49:06 ↗ time supporting it. All right. So I would be in support

2:49:12 ↗ of -- I think it's important to look at the full corridor. And I

2:49:18 ↗ believe -- so help me out here, Mary Lou. But basically the language is

2:49:23 ↗ talking about that being completed in a future phase and then looking

2:49:29 ↗ for the parking supply elsewhere. So it would be making up

2:49:35 ↗ for that parking before going forward. And I definitely think that

2:49:41 ↗ there are areas where, you know, in the city where that

2:49:47 ↗ could be looked at. An example of that would be some

2:49:53 ↗ of the areas where you can park in downtown behind a

2:49:59 ↗ lot of the restaurants and some of those businesses have time limits

2:50:05 ↗ on the parking, just as one example. So I do think that

2:50:10 ↗ there might be some creative ideas in terms of replacing or finding

2:50:16 ↗ that other parking. So just to clarify, the one we're talking about

2:50:22 ↗ now is to add front to bush parking Sorry, from front,

2:50:28 ↗ on Front Street, Front Bush, how late is it? To add it back

2:50:34 ↗ in with the caveat, is that right? That the improvements would be completed

2:50:39 ↗ in a future phase when it has been demonstrated that adequate parking supply

2:50:45 ↗ exists to meet the parking demand. So there would not be removal of

2:50:51 ↗ parking until that parking could be accommodated, right? Correct interpretation. Okay. That's what's

2:50:57 ↗ written. Okay. Pedestrian scramble? I would support that. Do you

2:51:03 ↗ want to take these one at a time as amendments or? Well, maybe

2:51:08 ↗ just, I haven't actually proposed it yet. It's just maybe to get comments

2:51:14 ↗ on pedestrian scramble and then I'll read it. I'll read it all together.

2:51:19 ↗ Makes sense. Next one. I like pedestrian scramble. I would support that. What's

2:51:25 ↗ that do to the cost? Kristen, is there a cost? For the pedestrian

2:51:31 ↗ scramble, we do not have a cost yet for a feasibility study. We

2:51:36 ↗ would need to get that.

2:51:44 ↗ So when you're saying you're adding the feasibility study, what does that mean as far

2:51:49 ↗ as is that direction to do it or is that just part of the plan?

2:51:53 ↗ None of it is direction to do it. What I would assume would happen is

2:51:58 ↗ that staff would look at the 2018 draft capital improvement, capital... The capital improvement plan.

2:52:03 ↗ Yeah, they look at the CIP and when they're putting in these different phases and

2:52:08 ↗ different years, that's a cost they would add. So it's not approval of doing it.

2:52:14 ↗ It's just that you would show up and you would -- it would show up

2:52:19 ↗ on the plan and you would see it, where it is, what year and what

2:52:24 ↗ it would cost. That's all this says. Not approval to do it. Because I would

2:52:30 ↗ hate to have you approve that with the expectation that we would come up with

2:52:35 ↗ the money when we don't really know what the cost is that we've had enough,

2:52:41 ↗ have not had an opportunity to look at. And so I think it's important as

2:52:46 ↗ far as the administration is concerned that the direction be clear and unambiguous so that

2:52:52 ↗ there's a clear understanding of what the expectation is. And if

2:52:58 ↗ I understand it correctly, the expectation is that these items would

2:53:03 ↗ be included in the 2017 capital improvement plan, a phased approach

2:53:09 ↗ with the best cost estimates that we have at the time,

2:53:15 ↗ so that when the council has that, then you can debate

2:53:20 ↗ and prioritize what's important. i get that right well you

2:53:26 ↗ just want to make sure i would add um so the scramble is a

2:53:32 ↗ um it's an interesting it's a unique idea for isaac and in especially in

2:53:38 ↗ that place so understanding if it's feasible or not sooner or later i'd be

2:53:43 ↗ interested in just knowing that And I think that would be the

2:53:49 ↗ only ask. It's just a feasibility study. - Correct. - And

2:53:55 ↗ with the likelihood that it could come back as non-feasible. -

2:54:00 ↗ Correct. - So it's just a feasibility. I think knowing, I'd

2:54:06 ↗ like to know that sooner rather than later. - Mariah. -

2:54:11 ↗ I just want to echo what Council Member Winterstein just talked

2:54:17 ↗ about. I think it's really important to know what the, to

2:54:22 ↗ go forward and do the feasibility study. - Okay. Unless Bill

2:54:28 ↗ doesn't have a comment, the last one is it was a direction that came

2:54:34 ↗ out of the committee that these different phases show in the draft CIP. So

2:54:40 ↗ that just wasn't -- And I think we've sorted this good. Yes. Anybody has

2:54:46 ↗ comments on that? I'm not sure I understand it. Include timing from studies to

2:54:52 ↗ build out for each phase of the plan as noted in the draft. Oh,

2:54:58 ↗ because it's not -- because I didn't write it. For each phase of the

2:55:04 ↗ plan, The language back up. The plan. It's not as

2:55:10 ↗ noted in the draft 2018 CIP. It would be include timing

2:55:15 ↗ from studies to build out in the draft 2018 CIP for

2:55:21 ↗ each phase of the landscape plan. Okay. So it's just kind

2:55:26 ↗ of poorly crafted. My fault. I'm fine with that one. Procedure,

2:55:32 ↗ would I then propose to amend the motion that's on the

2:55:37 ↗ table? - I propose to amend the motion to read, move to adopt the Downtown

2:55:43 ↗ Streetscape Plan as presented with the following amendments. Under section four, streetscape concept plans, add

2:55:49 ↗ improvements on Front Street from Bush Street to Sunset Way as shown on the draft

2:55:54 ↗ streetscape plan attached into the adopted streetscape plan with the caveat that these improvements will

2:55:59 ↗ be completed in a future phase when it has been demonstrated that adequate parking supply

2:56:04 ↗ exists to meet parking demand. 2. Under Appendix B, detailed cost estimate,

2:56:10 ↗ add a feasibility study for the pedestrian scramble at Front Street and

2:56:16 ↗ Sunset Way to phase one. 3. Under Section 6A implementation, proposed project

2:56:21 ↗ phasing, include time from studies to build out in the draft 2018

2:56:27 ↗ CIP for each phase of the streetscape plan. - Second. - Move

2:56:33 ↗ and seconded. Any discussion on the amended motion?

2:56:39 ↗ Seeing none then, no? - Yeah, I'm stuck with one and two and not

2:56:45 ↗ the third. So that's kind of where I am, it's a package. - Mary

2:56:50 ↗ Lou? - I wanted to thank Kristen for stepping in and taking over this

2:56:56 ↗ project halfway through. That's a really, even close to the end, that's a hard

2:57:02 ↗ thing to do. And also the consultants for their work. I participated in several

2:57:07 ↗ of the, design charrettes that you had and they were well done and an awful

2:57:13 ↗ lot of fun and I find the plan extremely inspirational and exciting. So I agree

2:57:18 ↗ that funding is going to be a huge issue but I'm supporting this tonight because

2:57:23 ↗ I think this is what the public expected. They wanted to see an investment in

2:57:28 ↗ the plan. - Other comments or discussion? Stacy? - I'm going to support it as

2:57:33 ↗ well but I do want to acknowledge that I do agree with Bill's comments that

2:57:38 ↗ he made earlier about sort of not what, it's certainly not what I

2:57:44 ↗ expected, the price tag that comes with it. It was a surprise. However,

2:57:50 ↗ I don't think that's a... I don't think that it was, you

2:57:55 ↗ know, there's a fault or that the administration tried to do something to get an

2:58:01 ↗ expensive project in front of us or didn't tell us in the beginning. What we

2:58:06 ↗ have is a task force that came up with ideas of what they wanted downtown.

2:58:11 ↗ And so that was the... That's where this came from. And so that's what we

2:58:17 ↗ got. And so I agree with Mary Lou. I think it's an exciting plan. And

2:58:22 ↗ I also agree that funding will be an issue. And I am also concerned, as

2:58:27 ↗ Bill alluded to, that I think the expectation... Because there was not... I

2:58:33 ↗ think that is

2:58:38 ↗ going to be

2:58:43 ↗ -- I think

2:58:48 ↗ we will probably

2:58:54 ↗ hear about that. to

2:58:59 ↗ further that a little bit. So I guess my question would be the complaints that

2:59:05 ↗ we've had of what it looks like now, basically empty sidewalk and a couple pots.

2:59:10 ↗ So, and this may be years out, is there something we would propose somewhere along

2:59:15 ↗ the line for some interim, something relatively inexpensive to do something versus a couple pots

2:59:20 ↗ and empty sidewalks? So just a thought. Doesn't have to be dealt with tonight, but

2:59:25 ↗ just want to throw that out there. - Yeah, I don't, I'm not tripping on

2:59:30 ↗ the same thing. There's some other comments. I mean, the work that we did on

2:59:35 ↗ Front Street did go past Alder Street and most of the disruption of the trees

2:59:40 ↗ was how around Alder Street and South. We're looking at a phase one to be

2:59:44 ↗ done maybe in the next couple years. That doesn't seem out of whack with the

2:59:49 ↗ expectations that were set for me. This plan goes beyond the improvements we already made.

2:59:54 ↗ It does something significant to Alder Street never discussed before. It goes further north actually

2:59:59 ↗ all the way to Gilman and south to Bush. So the scope of this plan

3:00:03 ↗ is beyond - What I ever imagined when we first said we're gonna make some

3:00:07 ↗ improvements to Front Street, in which we did some when we did the tear up

3:00:12 ↗ there. So it doesn't really, these things take time. It doesn't bother me. And if

3:00:16 ↗ we do this first section, we do that section that was hit the most by

3:00:21 ↗ the changes we just did in the roadway first, then that's not waiting too long

3:00:26 ↗ in my mind. - Mariah. - So we just have to move.

3:00:33 ↗ I would also have a concern when I was looking at the

3:00:39 ↗ numbers and the funding, but I think that this is a really

3:00:45 ↗ well thought through long-term strategic plan for the downtown streetscape, which I

3:00:50 ↗ love seeing and there's so many exciting components, just being able

3:00:56 ↗ to see the enhanced crosswalks and pedestrian areas, the Alder

3:01:02 ↗ Festival Street and that whole idea I think is something

3:01:08 ↗ that would be amazing. But just an overall beautification of

3:01:14 ↗ the area and as Paul talked about, I think these

3:01:19 ↗ things take time. I'm in support of this.

3:01:25 ↗ Anyone else? Seeing none then, all those of approving the downtown

3:01:31 ↗ streetscape plan as amended signify by saying aye. Aye. We haven't

3:01:36 ↗ amended it. Yeah, we did. We didn't vote on the amendment.

3:01:42 ↗ First vote has to be on the amendment. That's not what

3:01:48 ↗ he, you're right, that's not what. Yeah. All those. Amendment. Thank

3:01:53 ↗ you. All those in favor of the

3:01:59 ↗ amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed?

3:02:05 ↗ Nay. The amendment passes by a vote of

3:02:10 ↗ four to one with Bill dissenting. Now back

3:02:16 ↗ to the amended motion. All those in favor

3:02:21 ↗ of the amended motion signify by saying aye.

3:02:27 ↗ Aye. Those opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you.

3:02:36 ↗ Okay. Okay, moving now to agenda

3:02:41 ↗ bill 7395, Trader Joe's/Target. Nope, no,

3:02:47 ↗ right here. Oh, anti-aircraft creep culvert.

3:02:53 ↗ I know, I know. That's a

3:02:59 ↗ different one. Good evening and thank you for requesting that I

3:03:04 ↗ come back with some additional information this week. This is a continuation of a presentation

3:03:10 ↗ that I gave you all here about two weeks ago on the award of the

3:03:16 ↗ contract for the Anticare Craft Creek culvert replacement. Excuse me. My voice is starting to

3:03:22 ↗ collapse on me. I do not have a presentation. What we did is we

3:03:28 ↗ took in the questions that were received by council members both during the

3:03:33 ↗ council session as well as during a couple days after the council session

3:03:39 ↗ and we tried to group the questions. A lot of your questions were covering some

3:03:45 ↗ of the same material, some of the material that you had requested additional clarification on

3:03:50 ↗ at the council meeting, and so then tried to answer them in groups. So I

3:03:56 ↗ just wanted to briefly summarize some of the points that were raised in the addendum

3:04:01 ↗ that we attached to the agenda bill, and then open it up for additional questions

3:04:06 ↗ to see if there's anything further. So a couple of the questions that were asked,

3:04:12 ↗ one of the ones related to the timing, the why now aspect of the project.

3:04:17 ↗ So there are a couple things one is of course this project has been on

3:04:23 ↗ the city's plans a variety of plans for a very long time As was mentioned

3:04:28 ↗ earlier this evening. This is a condition that has existed for nearly 30 years in

3:04:33 ↗ one form or another the flooding has certainly existed for the last 10 to 15

3:04:38 ↗ years and this projects been on our capital program since 2012 so Some of the

3:04:44 ↗ answer to that question is this just happens to be in the natural course of

3:04:49 ↗ the identification of a project to move forward on and get finished. One of the

3:04:55 ↗ other considerations that comes into play, though, is the ease of the project and the

3:05:00 ↗ ease of the project translating as the cost to the city. When we were talking

3:05:05 ↗ about a culvert that was essentially... fairly undeveloped area on either side of the

3:05:11 ↗ street. It was a project that was a lower priority. With the development on the

3:05:17 ↗ north side of the street, that raises its sensitivity not so much from the standpoint

3:05:23 ↗ of facilitating the development, but from the standpoint of the city's cost associated with the

3:05:28 ↗ project. If they go forward with the project, even if we were in the ordinary

3:05:33 ↗ course of events, to establish easements so that we could come in at some future

3:05:38 ↗ date and put in the culvert, the reality is the culvert would have to be

3:05:44 ↗ in very close proximity to a couple residential buildings there. The difficulty would be much

3:05:49 ↗ more difficult than even it is right now, and that would translate into increased costs

3:05:54 ↗ down the road. So, let's see here. I'm paging the wrong direction. That's not good.

3:06:01 ↗ Another question related to the cash flow and some additional questions related to

3:06:07 ↗ how this project impacted the surface water enterprise fund, how that fund has

3:06:13 ↗ typically flowed in the past, how we're envisioning under the auspices of the

3:06:19 ↗ new draft 2018 CIP that's under development right now, how we're envisioning it

3:06:25 ↗ for the next few years. And whether or not at the end of the

3:06:31 ↗ day this project will actually delay other projects. So starting with the last question first,

3:06:36 ↗ this project, the funding level that we are seeking will not delay any projects. The

3:06:41 ↗ next one in the pipeline that was mentioned at the last council meeting is the

3:06:47 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Parkway drainage improvements. That project has its own technical difficulties. There's some

3:06:52 ↗ difficulties in design decisions that the city needs to make and weighing various alternatives and

3:06:58 ↗ options. So that project is moving under its own timeframe. It's not being held up

3:07:03 ↗ by this project. Backing up a little bit further, generally speaking, on the average, the

3:07:09 ↗ enterprise fund, and this is looking at the Stormwater Enterprise Fund as a whole, so

3:07:15 ↗ this is a fund that branches out and funds different aspects of surface water

3:07:21 ↗ and storm water in the city, not just capital projects, generally hovers at about a

3:07:26 ↗ balance of $3 million at the end of every year. That's after revenues are taken

3:07:32 ↗ into account and then expenses for that year are taken out. And that's what we

3:07:38 ↗ tried to illustrate in general in the addendum that we gave you.

3:07:45 ↗ So another question related to this was, and this was one of my comments from

3:07:51 ↗ two weeks ago, and we were able to drill into this and apply an additional

3:07:56 ↗ level of clarification to it, is the three hypothetical options and what would be the

3:08:02 ↗ cost implications so far as traffic management goes. The three options when you look at

3:08:07 ↗ them on the basic level is closing the street entirely, and that's entirely, no passage

3:08:13 ↗ through the street, The second one is some form of one-lane signalized closure

3:08:18 ↗ with the recognition that you can't have flaggers out there 24/7, and so some

3:08:24 ↗ form of signalization would have to manage traffic during off hours, weekends, holidays, during

3:08:30 ↗ the course of the project. And the project in the form that we bid,

3:08:36 ↗ which was to sustain using bypasses the two-lane traffic through the intersection.

3:08:42 ↗ trying to separate out those into scenarios using the current bids

3:08:47 ↗ was a bit difficult. It's a bit complicated because a contractor doesn't apply the same

3:08:53 ↗ costs to various unit prices depending on different scenarios. He or she is very often

3:08:59 ↗ bidding risk as well as cash flow and a lot of other equations. So when

3:09:05 ↗ we drilled into our bid items to try and provide an answer for you, what

3:09:11 ↗ we came out with was the difference between a full roadmap road closure and two

3:09:17 ↗ lanes open today came out at roughly $166,000. That's not necessarily what could be

3:09:23 ↗ actually achieved in a change order because again, that tends to be a negotiation.

3:09:28 ↗ But that was what we were able to tease out in terms of the

3:09:34 ↗ numbers, but realize My caveat in saying that is these are

3:09:40 ↗ not add-ons. These are not alternatives. Unfortunately, with a culvert, you

3:09:46 ↗ are cutting literally a swath perpendicular across the road. That's very

3:09:52 ↗ different from your ordinary utility project, which is usually in line with the traffic, and

3:09:57 ↗ so you have a few more options that you can sustain during long periods of

3:10:02 ↗ time. So consequently, a contractor looking at a full enclosure is very possibly going to

3:10:07 ↗ look at the project very differently and bid it accordingly than looking at the project

3:10:13 ↗ that we bid. So that's my cautionary on that number as far as it goes.

3:10:18 ↗ In terms of the one lane closure, and this is following on conversation, so

3:10:24 ↗ I am including in the one lane closure the idea that was discussed during

3:10:29 ↗ the last council meeting as what was called local access. So local access in

3:10:35 ↗ the conventional sense is providing local business or residential access within the construction area

3:10:41 ↗ Usually you're closing it to through traffic at either end, but still allowing a certain

3:10:47 ↗ amount of either vehicle or pedestrian traffic into and through the construction area to be

3:10:52 ↗ able to keep businesses open and or residences accessible. It's not really the situation that

3:10:57 ↗ we have here. What we have is a little more like a roadblock. in many

3:11:03 ↗ respects. It's not very wide. There's no businesses or driveways or residences within

3:11:08 ↗ the narrow corridor of the culvert. So really what you're talking about in

3:11:14 ↗ a local access is more along the lines of local through access. The

3:11:20 ↗ downside of that one is there's no real way to tell easily who

3:11:25 ↗ is local passing through to, for instance, go to one of the nearby neighborhoods and

3:11:31 ↗ who is just passing through Newport Way. So at the end of the day, what

3:11:36 ↗ you end up with is the one-laned scenario, whether you try and manage it that

3:11:42 ↗ way or not. So that's just kind of a broad overview and again with recognition

3:11:47 ↗ of time and such, I want to just go ahead and open it up to

3:11:53 ↗ additional questions. Mary Lou sure thanks Mr Mayor

3:11:58 ↗ um I think the reason that local access came up was because it seemed that

3:12:04 ↗ there was a lot of money put into completely having two lanes over here and

3:12:09 ↗ then shifting and having two lanes over here um I'm not so sure the concern

3:12:14 ↗ was that um how to enforce it if you will in that I agree with

3:12:19 ↗ you it's open-ended on both sides however Pretty soon people who are trying to use

3:12:24 ↗ that road and not trying to get one of those houses would be enormously frustrated

3:12:29 ↗ not, you know, somehow it's just going to filter itself out. But what was the

3:12:34 ↗ cost implication of that? Because it seemed like so much was just built into having

3:12:39 ↗ the two lanes all the time instead of just having local access. So one of

3:12:44 ↗ the factors, and it was less of a cost than a constructability factor associated with

3:12:49 ↗ the one lane closure scenario. was what kind of backup it creates. So you

3:12:54 ↗ have a street that has a average daily traffic in the range of about

3:13:00 ↗ 11,000 trips per day passing through there. And whenever you're doing, especially if

3:13:06 ↗ you're not necessarily got the human element. So flaggers tend to be a little

3:13:12 ↗ more flexible in responding to actual traffic conditions as they see them at that

3:13:18 ↗ point in time. Signals are not responsive, temporary signals aren't. And what we found

3:13:23 ↗ was the backup that a signal generated on, particularly on the eastbound or the

3:13:29 ↗ westbound east direction of the site, very quickly stacked traffic back down to

3:13:35 ↗ the 900 intersection, which is an intersection we don't control. It's a WSDOT intersection. And

3:13:40 ↗ so you had a strong potential of that stack effect, something that the city wouldn't

3:13:46 ↗ easily be able to react to very quickly, especially if it was during off period

3:13:51 ↗ and such, or excuse me, off hours. was going to multiply

3:13:57 ↗ the number of problems that are out there and definitely multiply

3:14:03 ↗ the frustrations as well as really largely prevent emergency vehicles from

3:14:09 ↗ getting into the corridor at that point in time because really

3:14:15 ↗ there's not enough room for them to bypass that stack traffic.

3:14:21 ↗ So that was really the primary detriment of the one lane

3:14:27 ↗ closure scenario. Okay, thanks. Other questions? This, uh,

3:14:33 ↗ This agenda bill was postponed to this meeting based

3:14:39 ↗ on a response to a number of questions that

3:14:44 ↗ were responded to in an April 13th memo. And

3:14:50 ↗ it is I think to move

3:14:56 ↗ us forward just so we can at least have discussion, I'll make a motion.

3:15:02 ↗ I would move to award the anti-aircraft creek culvert replacement project construction contract to

3:15:08 ↗ Rodart Construction Incorporated in the amount of $788,957.50 including sales tax and direct the

3:15:13 ↗ finance director to include $450,394 in a subsequent 2017 budget amendment utilizing the stormwater

3:15:19 ↗ capital fund. Second. Moved and seconded. Any additional discussion or comments? Seeing none then,

3:15:25 ↗ oh, Bill, you've got to be quick. No. All right. I guess one of

3:15:31 ↗ the things that bothers me here is how this came about. And I just

3:15:37 ↗ have to say it up front. It was mentioned a little bit last time

3:15:42 ↗ why we had to come back, but none of this was mentioned. When the

3:15:48 ↗ project scope changed, and it was never brought to leadership, to the chair of

3:15:54 ↗ the infrastructure committee. Nothing was mentioned when you knew the price was gonna go up

3:15:59 ↗ and it was waited to bid upon and then come after you have a bid,

3:16:05 ↗ which gets us in a timeframe and a crisis mode of having to respond to

3:16:10 ↗ the change, which is double the cost. That process bothers me. It's a good project.

3:16:15 ↗ I wanna get the thing done, but that whole process is...

3:16:22 ↗ is bothersome and the decisions were made of how to handle the traffic. We're not,

3:16:27 ↗ didn't talk to the public, didn't talk to us, anybody else. You know, I don't

3:16:32 ↗ know right now if you know, to totally shut down that road and just shut

3:16:37 ↗ it down and build it quick and fast and get it done, is that a

3:16:41 ↗ better option? I don't know. I'm never going to know that. But that wasn't brought

3:16:46 ↗ to anybody. It was kind of made in a silo. And that bothers me. And

3:16:50 ↗ then it just came here to us with double the cost and We should have

3:16:54 ↗ had some warning on that, and I don't care how much warning, some warning. It

3:16:58 ↗ took time to put the package together. It wasn't a two-week time frame. It took

3:17:02 ↗ time to put the package together, new specs, all that kind of stuff. And some

3:17:06 ↗ mention should have come to us on that. So I'm really bothered by that. So

3:17:10 ↗ that's, I don't, I hope this process doesn't happen again. I think the folks in

3:17:14 ↗ this neighborhood have suffered a whole bunch of other stuff, and then this right on

3:17:18 ↗ top of it, them not being consulted on how this is going to work, I

3:17:23 ↗ think that's a miss on our part and I think that's a black eye for

3:17:29 ↗ us. - Any additional discussion or comments? Mary Lou. I support the project similar

3:17:34 ↗ to what Councilmember Ramos said. We need to do this project. But again, I agree

3:17:39 ↗ also with his comments on process. That this was kind of clunky and this is

3:17:44 ↗ a neighborhood that has more development going on there than anywhere else. I guess I'm

3:17:49 ↗ curious too. Am I allowed to get an answer? Why couldn't we just shut the

3:17:53 ↗ road down and do it faster? Why isn't that a possibility? I thought that was

3:17:58 ↗ kind of a good question. Because we're shutting down South East 62nd Street. It's about

3:18:04 ↗ for a year. The challenge that we have with

3:18:10 ↗ shutting it down at this stage and again I

3:18:16 ↗ definitely hear what has been said and whatnot and

3:18:22 ↗ I'm not saying that had we Perform this process

3:18:27 ↗ better that this wouldn't be an option or the at very least we wouldn't be

3:18:33 ↗ looking at this then as opposed to now So a lot of the comments that

3:18:38 ↗ you heard me mention a few minutes ago on the one lane closure go double

3:18:43 ↗ for the full closure In a full closure scenario, you are literally cutting our an

3:18:49 ↗ arterial and there is a lot of pain associated with that and the sort of

3:18:55 ↗ public involvement that goes into a decision like that by the time we reached

3:19:00 ↗ the point where we were at that did not take place. So you have

3:19:06 ↗ multiplicity of issues that creep into cutting a road entirely, cutting an arterial entirely,

3:19:12 ↗ from emergency vehicle access and emergency vehicle response to buses routes, particularly school bus

3:19:18 ↗ routes, given the fact that we were looking at doing this project at least

3:19:24 ↗ partially within the school year. Those are the sorts of things that one would

3:19:30 ↗ have to approach in that fashion to decide between those two options. That did

3:19:36 ↗ not happen at the time frame that it would have happened, but that's the sort

3:19:41 ↗ of problems that exist with the full closure. The last thing that exists in a

3:19:46 ↗ full closure, and this one's actually pretty critical, is how long. So a full closure

3:19:51 ↗ in which you're trying to blow it out as quickly as possible can actually end

3:19:56 ↗ up almost as expensive as the project that we have today just because of the

3:20:01 ↗ risks associated with that. And so that's part of then the conversation that goes into

3:20:06 ↗ how long are you going to close an arterial is exactly that. How long are

3:20:12 ↗ you going to close it? Balancing cost versus the tolerance of the community to deal

3:20:17 ↗ with that sort of thing. It's really helpful and it is included in our information,

3:20:22 ↗ but I just thought it was good for the public to hear it as well.

3:20:28 ↗ I wanted to also compliment you on... The fund explanations in the bill were really

3:20:33 ↗ clear and I think in the last couple of agenda bills we've looked at for

3:20:38 ↗ different from different departments it really helps when you can put that in the original

3:20:43 ↗ agenda bill so your explanation on that was really good and I think getting out

3:20:47 ↗ in front and getting this project done prior to having development happen on the site

3:20:52 ↗ is a great idea so there are some really big pluses here too. Thanks. Stacy?

3:20:57 ↗ I don't know that I have a whole lot to add. I'll be supporting

3:21:03 ↗ the project. I'm very, very disappointed with the process and how it was just

3:21:08 ↗ sort of a surprise. Not sort of a surprise, it was a surprise. But

3:21:14 ↗ I also see the benefits of not waiting. I appreciate the answers in the

3:21:20 ↗ agenda bill to the questions that were presented. I appreciate the thoroughness. Anyway, I'll

3:21:25 ↗ be supporting. I add my voice

3:21:31 ↗ to that, that when we know change is coming, it's pretty significant.

3:21:37 ↗ It's a project that's been on our list. Nothing more than a

3:21:43 ↗ courtesy. Some sharing of this changing conditions with us earlier on.

3:21:49 ↗ I'm not saying that would have changed any outcome here, but it is, I think

3:21:54 ↗ that would just be as the budget deciders, knowing that this has changed quite a

3:21:58 ↗ bit from the numbers that we already have would be good to know earlier. And

3:22:03 ↗ also, so thanks so much for the information that we did get. I learned actually

3:22:07 ↗ something about these enterprise funds through this process. There's one fund and we just siphoned

3:22:12 ↗ some of it off to a capital form of it when we're gonna do capital

3:22:17 ↗ projects. really have to look at the entire enterprise, which funds both operations and capital,

3:22:22 ↗ but we move the money to a capital fund. So we have greater visibility into

3:22:27 ↗ this. So I looked at the numbers, you provided the detail. It's actually a pretty

3:22:32 ↗ healthy fund, except in year 2021, the expenses go really low. And that number is

3:22:37 ↗ probably gonna change. And if it's really gonna be anything close to what it is

3:22:42 ↗ has been, you know, we'll, you know, at the end of 2021, we could be,

3:22:46 ↗ you know, we could be $2 million lower in ending fund balance than we are

3:22:50 ↗ today, but it's still going to be a healthy balance at that point. So anyway,

3:22:54 ↗ thank you for providing that number, those numbers. That's what I was looking for. Mariah.

3:22:58 ↗ I'll be supporting this bill as well and great project and I am glad to

3:23:03 ↗ see it's going forward for all of the reasons that we've already talked about a

3:23:09 ↗ little bit in terms of some of the development that's going on. The one thing

3:23:14 ↗ that I was going to say is that thank you for all the information. It

3:23:19 ↗ was really well done and then the additional questions. That was very helpful just to

3:23:25 ↗ read through. But in one of the questions when we were talking about that there

3:23:29 ↗ was a bid and design and that it was going to change and there was

3:23:34 ↗ an assumption made that bringing the information to council would have caused confusion. I think

3:23:39 ↗ it's just a kind of a learning moment that regardless of whether there's an assumption

3:23:44 ↗ that that would cause some confusion that that would have been a good way to

3:23:49 ↗ go. in some way and maybe that

3:23:55 ↗ could be talked about at leadership. Thank

3:24:00 ↗ you. All those in favor of awarding

3:24:05 ↗ the anti-aircraft creek culvert replacement project to

3:24:11 ↗ road air construction signify by saying aye.

3:24:16 ↗ Aye. Opposed? Carries unanimously. Now moving to

3:24:22 ↗ Trader Joe's/Target/Maple Street. Agenda Bill

3:24:27 ↗ 7395. This is coming

3:24:32 ↗ back from the Infrastructure

3:24:38 ↗ Committee. And brief staff report and then I'll turn

3:24:43 ↗ it over to you or you want to roll without the staff report? Either way,

3:24:49 ↗ go ahead and I'll take whatever you missed. Okay, that sounds fair. So thank you

3:24:55 ↗ very much. We're happy to be back to hopefully wrap this discussion up and move

3:25:01 ↗ forward on a roundabout, mini roundabout solution. at the Target, Trader Joe's, Maple

3:25:07 ↗ Street intersection. So just briefly to bring you all, this is all history for

3:25:13 ↗ you, I'm sure, but just very briefly, council asked staff to look at some

3:25:19 ↗ mini roundabout alternatives at the entrance to Trader Joe's and Target. So we came

3:25:25 ↗ to you, we've been both through the infrastructure committee and the council talked about

3:25:31 ↗ three different approaches. One was just a, basically a modified intersection

3:25:36 ↗ improvement, which was what was originally approved by council for approximately

3:25:42 ↗ $50,000. We also presented a, it was a rubberized curb with

3:25:47 ↗ an asphalt center that was placed on top of the intersection.

3:25:53 ↗ And then we, we, the sort of the more deluxe version was a mini

3:25:58 ↗ roundabout with a mountable curb and landscaping in the middle. And we talked about the

3:26:04 ↗ pros and cons of each of those. And at that point, council directed staff to

3:26:09 ↗ move forward basically with the concept, the second concept, the rubberized curb with the asphalt

3:26:14 ↗ center, but to somehow enhance it or beautify it. I don't remember all the words

3:26:19 ↗ that you all use, but the idea is, to come back with something more

3:26:25 ↗ than the rubber curb and asphalt, but something less expensive than

3:26:31 ↗ the landscaped version. So we went back to CIC last month

3:26:37 ↗ and presented what we feel is recognized as council's comments and

3:26:42 ↗ honors what you asked us to do and provided our version

3:26:48 ↗ of an enhanced version We talked about beautified being in the eyes of

3:26:54 ↗ the beholder, I suppose. But we'll just call it enhanced beautified being.

3:27:00 ↗ round mini roundabout and so what that version that is in front of you tonight

3:27:05 ↗ is a So it I guess just to go through the features very quickly. So

3:27:11 ↗ it has the mountable curb, which is a standard truck Mountable curb it follows the

3:27:16 ↗ wash dot standards for a mountable curb for a roundabout It would have a concrete

3:27:22 ↗ center now not an asphalt center stamped concrete Some sort of feature there

3:27:27 ↗ could be colored. We don't have the details of what that could be But certainly

3:27:33 ↗ something more aesthetic than than just an asphalt center It would have the rapid flashing

3:27:39 ↗ beacons on Maple Street, which is the public right-of-way. It would also have concrete Pedestrian

3:27:45 ↗ refuge islands, which would be a poured concrete and a standard curb as well different

3:27:51 ↗ from the rubberized curb that was in our initial proposal So yeah,

3:27:56 ↗ so that's that's that's basically the the elements of what we're What

3:28:02 ↗ we're recommending to counsel for approval tonight the cost for that proposal

3:28:08 ↗ Including the rapid flashing beacons including a 20% contingency is three hundred

3:28:13 ↗ and sixty one thousand dollars so You have the agenda bill in

3:28:19 ↗ front of you and I think with that - Mr. Ramos, I'll

3:28:24 ↗ stop there and then let you add whatever you'd like. - Sure, I think the

3:28:30 ↗ main difference here is that we took out the landscaping and all the beautification, but

3:28:36 ↗ it's a standard roundabout that we're recommending here. We say trucks won't need to go

3:28:41 ↗ through there 'cause they have other access to there, but we have 60 foot buses,

3:28:47 ↗ articulated buses that need to use that street. So we need something that's working well.

3:28:52 ↗ And this is reasonable. The other thing we didn't talk about was mentioned earlier about

3:28:56 ↗ art and so forth. We're not going to discuss that in this part. We're just

3:29:01 ↗ going to talk about the structure itself. And then at a later point in time,

3:29:05 ↗ we can deal with the Art Commission or anybody we want to, and we can

3:29:09 ↗ look at that as a separate item. We didn't want to confuse that with this.

3:29:14 ↗ And that's I WILL MOVE THIS. I FORGOT ONE THING.

3:29:19 ↗ IT'S IMPORTANT. YOU FORGOT IT BOTH. IF I COULD JUST ADD ON SCHEDULE.

3:29:25 ↗ SO THE -- I THINK IT'S So we understand this is an important

3:29:31 ↗ improvement and that it was Council's desire to move forward with this project

3:29:37 ↗ this year. And so we're getting towards the time where we're going to

3:29:43 ↗ need to have approval and complete the design and bid this project here,

3:29:49 ↗ which we We are certain we can do that this year and have this built

3:29:54 ↗ before the, we talked about the shopping season, but later this fall. So we can

3:29:59 ↗ have this design and built and completed this year, assuming we have council direction tonight

3:30:04 ↗ is the other piece of this. That's a promise. It'll be done before the shopping

3:30:09 ↗ season. Yeah. So with that, I'll move to direct the administration to proceed with the

3:30:15 ↗ change in scope of the Maple Street Northwest Trader Joe's Target mini roundabout to include

3:30:21 ↗ standard concrete curbing and center material, and direct the finance director to include the additional

3:30:26 ↗ $230,000 in a subsequent budget adjustment utilizing the general fund. Second. Moved and seconded. Any

3:30:32 ↗ additional discussion? Mary Lou. Just a quick comment for the public and sort of a

3:30:38 ↗ reminder. This is one of three items that came out after our budget session last

3:30:43 ↗ fall. When the transportation bond did not get approved by the vote, the two-thirds majority

3:30:49 ↗ voted needed 60%. There were three action items that the council directed the staff to

3:30:55 ↗ follow up on. This is the first of three. The others, one was... to come

3:31:01 ↗ back on the providence point light installation within the second quarter which i think at

3:31:06 ↗ some future date we're going to get an update on that one and then a

3:31:11 ↗ parking study of old town which was pushed into 2018. so i'm glad to see

3:31:15 ↗ this one come back i'm going to support it tonight i think the configuration is

3:31:20 ↗ a major improvement over the original small what i would have considered temporary design look

3:31:25 ↗ like so i'm in favor of this project tonight Stacey yeah, I'm

3:31:31 ↗ not gonna support it. I went back and watched the discussion that we had at

3:31:36 ↗ the last meeting we talked about it and it was The beautification part of it

3:31:42 ↗ that was mentioned by a couple of council members and I've talked about the art

3:31:48 ↗ part a whole bunch of times and option and the opportunities there it was

3:31:54 ↗ We weren't sure, the comments were that from the administration, we

3:32:00 ↗ weren't sure what that beautification looked like. It could be art,

3:32:05 ↗ it could be something. What it seems to me that we

3:32:11 ↗ got is a better roundabout with what I considered the beautification

3:32:17 ↗ part ignored. It's not within the spirit of what

3:32:23 ↗ I was suggesting. So I do want a roundabout there. I'm fine

3:32:28 ↗ with the one we had before. I don't think we need to

3:32:34 ↗ spend any more money on it. So that's why I'm not supporting.

3:32:40 ↗ Any additional discussion? All those in favor of the direction to the

3:32:46 ↗ administration on the roundabout at Maple Street, Trader Joe's, and... Target

3:32:51 ↗ signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. That motion

3:32:57 ↗ carries by a vote of four to one with

3:33:03 ↗ Councilmember Goodman dissenting. Moving to our last item under

3:33:09 ↗ regular business, Agenda Bill 7406, Downtown Issaquah Association Funding

3:33:15 ↗ Request. Keith Niven, our Director of Development Services and

3:33:21 ↗ Economic Development, is back for his final performance this evening. So

3:33:26 ↗ I'm going to keep coming back until you approve one of

3:33:32 ↗ these. So I've got all night. We love you. All right.

3:33:38 ↗ So good evening, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, City Council. I'll make

3:33:44 ↗ this fairly brief. So... So,

3:33:50 ↗ Issaquah and the downtown Issaquah association is a member of the Main Street

3:33:55 ↗ program. And the state provides tax rebate program for Main Street cities. And

3:34:01 ↗ what it does is it allows a certain amount of the taxes that

3:34:07 ↗ are generated locally to basically stay locally. But it's an application process. And

3:34:12 ↗ the state has a cap. in how much it will allow to

3:34:18 ↗ be allocated out to those main street cities and it's very competitive

3:34:24 ↗ and the application window is very narrow and so long story short

3:34:30 ↗ story so you can see in 2016 We were successful

3:34:35 ↗ and we got almost $90,000 to benefit downtown Issaquah

3:34:41 ↗ Association. In 2017, we unfortunately didn't make our window

3:34:47 ↗ and so there's zero. So the conversations that have

3:34:52 ↗ unfolded between the administration and DIA is could the

3:34:58 ↗ city appropriate an additional $25,000 this year as a one-time kind of stopgap

3:35:04 ↗ to account for the fact that the funding didn't happen in 2017.

3:35:09 ↗ I think there's a couple different pieces to this. One is that

3:35:15 ↗ we are working with our lobbyists to try and get the state

3:35:21 ↗ to increase the allocation. And we're also working to improve the processes

3:35:26 ↗ so that we will be successful. And as you heard from Keith Watts

3:35:32 ↗ earlier, DEA is also working on building their reserves so that if there is

3:35:38 ↗ a case where we miss funding in the future, that there would be the

3:35:44 ↗ ability for DEA to kind of make up that difference themselves. Yes, please.

3:35:49 ↗ Go ahead. So I just wanted to clarify a little bit.

3:35:55 ↗ You said missed the window. I think it's a little bit

3:36:01 ↗ more significant. The facts are more significant and relevant, I guess.

3:36:07 ↗ It's not like somebody missed a window, oh, I forgot. I forgot to apply. The

3:36:13 ↗ application process, from what I understand, is just a little bit crazy. So it starts

3:36:18 ↗ at, what, midnight on December 31st? Right. And there's a race to phone in, and

3:36:24 ↗ the city's, from what I understand, the city's responsibility or has been the city's responsibility

3:36:29 ↗ to do that. And the person that was tasked with doing that had a major

3:36:34 ↗ family emergency, and they could not do that. So it wasn't like somebody made a

3:36:40 ↗ mistake or forgot. I mean, it was a -- so I just want that clear.

3:36:45 ↗ Because, you know, I don't think we'd be here if there was just a major

3:36:51 ↗ foolhardy thing that happened. But that's not what happened here. That's not what happened here.

3:36:56 ↗ You're right. I want it clear. Thank you for those comments. Are

3:37:02 ↗ you through? I'm done. Mayor, can you make a motion? This is coming back from

3:37:06 ↗ Services and Safety. Mary Lou? Thanks. So this was discussed at the last Services and

3:37:11 ↗ Safety meeting and recommended to come here on regular business. I would move to authorize

3:37:16 ↗ a one-time additional funding allocation in 2017 to the Downtown Issaquah Association and

3:37:22 ↗ direct the finance director to include $25,000 from the general fund in a

3:37:28 ↗ subsequent budget amendment. Second. Second. Moved and seconded. Any additional discussion? Seeing none

3:37:33 ↗ then, all those in favor? Oh. I just want to mention why I

3:37:39 ↗ support it. I think it's the right thing to do. I mean, the city, you

3:37:45 ↗ know, in good faith tried to secure those funds and could not do so for

3:37:51 ↗ very, very good reason. And I think to help Dia out with this fairly, you

3:37:57 ↗ know, minor amount of money is the equitable thing to do. And Mary

3:38:02 ↗ Lou. Just add on to that too that DEA did actually use this money last

3:38:08 ↗ year to expand their executive director position to full-time. This is an association that has

3:38:13 ↗ made dramatic impact in our downtown community. I'm pleased to see that the city is

3:38:18 ↗ advocating to change the state process and encourage the increase in the total amount allocated.

3:38:23 ↗ It seems very unfair right now the way things are done. and to hear that

3:38:28 ↗ DIA has got a plan to change the way they manage their reserves and plan

3:38:32 ↗ for the reserves so that they could deal with this in the future. And also

3:38:36 ↗ that because it's a one-time stop gap measure to keep an organization that's doing such

3:38:40 ↗ a great job for our city and our residents and our businesses downtown going that

3:38:45 ↗ I'm totally in support of this tonight. - No. - And I'll just second that,

3:38:48 ↗ working with DIA and the work they do with us is a good partner for

3:38:52 ↗ a long time, a lot of good work in the city and the businesses and

3:38:55 ↗ we need that and we can't just let that slip. So I'll be supporting it

3:38:59 ↗ also. And with that, all those in

3:39:05 ↗ favor of approving the amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously.

3:39:10 ↗ Moving now to good of the order. Does anyone have anything for good of

3:39:16 ↗ the order this evening? You're going to kill me. You're going to shoot me.

3:39:22 ↗ 1057. Yeah, okay. I'll do this really quick. How about speed? Speed, good of

3:39:27 ↗ the order. All right. I mentioned it in reports. So it... Eastside Fire and Rescue,

3:39:33 ↗ we're working on the ILA to extend that. So there's been some discussion already. This

3:39:37 ↗ is just information. There's going to be more happening. But there's three main things they

3:39:42 ↗ want to do with the ILA, and one will start, you might have heard some

3:39:47 ↗ discussion of having a five-year extension now and then an automatic 10-year renewal. So there's

3:39:52 ↗ been a little discussion around that. The two other things that have come up since

3:39:56 ↗ then that they want to work on is the the right to withdraw from the

3:40:00 ↗ agreement. And they talked about a one and two and a three year leeway. And

3:40:04 ↗ right now it looks like everybody would probably be leaning towards the three year. So

3:40:08 ↗ it's got to go through our staff, Bob and our attorney and all that kind

3:40:11 ↗ of stuff. So this is no decision yet, but letting you know that people lean

3:40:15 ↗ towards a three year. And then look at that on both sides of the coin.

3:40:19 ↗ If you're left in the group and someone leaves, how you adjust, or if you're

3:40:22 ↗ going to leave, it's going to take you some time to figure out how you're

3:40:26 ↗ going to replace the group as well. All right, and the last one is changing

3:40:31 ↗ the formula funding. Currently, they update it every four years, which leaves quite a gap,

3:40:36 ↗ so they're recommending updating it every two years. Not every one, that's too often, but

3:40:41 ↗ every two years, that keeps the funding balance. probably more in line. So those are

3:40:46 ↗ the three things at this point in time they're looking at. There'll be discussion here

3:40:50 ↗ later and definitely with the staff and our attorney and so forth to make sure

3:40:53 ↗ those are all looking good and if they are it sounds like that's what everybody

3:40:57 ↗ like to go with from the Eastside Fire and Rescue and I will close. How's

3:41:01 ↗ that? Quick? There's a timeliness piece too, I think we would say. EFRA is looking

3:41:06 ↗ for some sort of feedback from each of its partners by mid-May, and so we

3:41:12 ↗ would be actually discussing and making a motion to go forward with these changes at

3:41:17 ↗ the next council meeting. Great. Mariah? So I'm going to make this super quick. I

3:41:23 ↗ just wanted to say that I was excited to see all of the commissioners coming

3:41:28 ↗ on that to the city and to thank them for their volunteer efforts. And right

3:41:34 ↗ along those same lines were, I just wanted to remind everyone that on Monday, April

3:41:40 ↗ 24th at 6:30 at Issaquah Senior Center, there's a dessert social recognizing board and commission

3:41:46 ↗ members. And I hope to see all of the board and commission members there.

3:41:52 ↗ thank you for that enough i'm looking

3:41:58 ↗ forward to that a wonderful variety of

3:42:03 ↗ desserts will be provided the key lime

3:42:08 ↗ ones especially appeals to me is there

3:42:14 ↗ anything else 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 (5)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Eileen Barber

Tola Marts

Motions and votes (9)

Continue the public hearing to the May 15, 2017 Council meeting; and remand AB 7215 to the May 4, 2017 Council Land & Shore Committee for additional review and recommendation, returning to the full Council on May 15, 2017. .

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 5-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Direct the Administration to prepare a new agenda bill for consideration that: a) Amends the Washington State Department of Transportation Development Agreement, specifically relating to affordable housing and Parcel D. b) Establishes a new development agreement with Polygon Northwest relating to Pa…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 5-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Award the construction contract for the base bid and bid alternates #1 and #2 for the Skate Park at Tibbetts Valley Park project to Grindline Skateparks, Inc, in the amount of $503,328.76 (including sales tax). . b)

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 5-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Postpone the motion to the Regular meeting of May 1, 2017 at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the business of the Council permits. . c)

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 5-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Approve the Downtown Streetscape Plan as presented.

Moved by PAULY · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 5-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Adopt the Downtown Streetscape Plan with the following amendments: 1. Under Section 4, Streetscape Concept Plans: Add improvements on Front St. from Bush St. to Sunset Way, as shown on the Draft Streetscape Plan, into the adopted Streetscape Plan, with the caveat that these improvements will be comp…

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 4-1

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Ramos

Award the Anti-Aircraft Creek Culvert Replacement Project construction contract to Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the amount of $788,957.50 (including sales tax); and direct the Finance Director to include $450,394 in a subsequent 2017 budget amendment, utilizing the Stormwater Capital Fund. . e)

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 5-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Direct the Administration to proceed with the change in scope of the Maple St. NW/Trader Joe's/Target mini-roundabout to include standard concrete curbing and center material; and direct the Finance Director to include the additional $230,000 in a subsequent budget adjustment utilizing the General F…

Moved by RAMOS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 4-1

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Goodman

Authorize a one-time additional funding allocation in 2017 to the Downtown Issaquah Association; and, direct the Finance Director to include $25,000 from the General Fund in a subsequent budget amendment. . 04-17-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7832

Moved by PAULY · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 5-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein