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