0:16
I'll call to order the July 17th 2017
0:23
city regular council meeting and ask
0:25
those in the audience would like to join
0:28
the council and myself and the pledge of
0:30
allegiance to please stand of the United
0:38
States of America and to the Republic
0:40
for which it stands one nation
0:43
indivisible authority is
0:52
with that our first item of business
0:55
this evening is audience comments
1:01
citizen comments are an important part
1:04
of the public process we take them
1:07
seriously and factor them into the
1:09
decisions that we make I just point out
1:13
this evening that in addition to
1:15
audience comments there are three public
1:19
hearings scheduled for later in the
1:22
meeting and those are for the capital
1:25
improvement plan the annexation of the
1:30
King County Island and establishment of
1:32
pre-annexation zoning and annexation of
1:36
Bellevue utility island and
1:39
establishment of pre nxs Owen so if you
1:43
want to speak to one of those three that
1:47
would be the appropriate time and just
1:50
as a preview I'm guessing that we will
1:53
move pretty quickly to those three items
1:56
following audience comments for those
1:59
that want to speak on other issues so
2:02
anyone from the public who wishes to
2:04
comment on tonight's agenda items or
2:06
other topics should do so at this time
2:08
please direct your comments to the whole
2:11
council and not individuals while this
2:14
is not a question and answer session we
2:16
will contact you to follow up if needed
2:18
you did not have an opportunity to
2:21
include your email address on the
2:23
sign-in sheet
2:24
you may leave that information on the
2:26
clipboard at the front table after
2:29
speaking and recognize please use the
2:33
lectern and speak into the microphone
2:35
state your name address and any
2:37
relationship to the city limit your
2:39
comments to 5-minutes if you have
2:42
written comments please submit them to
2:44
the city clerk it's a visual timer at
2:49
the lectern what it turns yellow you are
2:51
within the last minute of your comment
2:53
period if you use the full five minutes
2:56
the timer will sound to indicate the end
2:58
of your allotted
3:00
at time personal attacks I've seen
3:03
language derogatory remarks and
3:05
disruptive behavior will not be
3:07
permitted again citizen comments written
3:11
and verbal are an important aspect of
3:13
the public process the city takes these
3:15
comments seriously and we thank members
3:17
of the public for taking the time to
3:20
address us during our meetings and with
3:23
that I would ask if anyone has signed up
3:25
to speak this evening yes Liz Toby min
3:41
good evening for the record my name is
3:44
Liz Tye diamond and I now live in
3:46
Issaquah when I have spoken to you
3:48
before I was a bellevue resident and my
3:51
interest in Issaquah was that my parents
3:53
lived here and i'm here today as a
3:57
private citizen to give you information
3:59
about two things first there's an event
4:03
coming up at the Issaquah Public Library
4:06
on July 29th at 11:30 a.m. that would be
4:11
of interest to family caregivers it is a
4:15
film and a discussion and the film is
4:19
called the Sandwich Generation my
4:22
experience from 2006 and my parents
4:24
moved here until they passed away within
4:27
the last couple years was as a member of
4:30
the Sandwich Generation being involved
4:32
in bringing up my own son and helping to
4:36
look out for the interests of my aging
4:38
parents and anyone who has been in that
4:40
situation while certainly speaking from
4:43
my experience I benefit from the
4:45
opportunity to have conversations with
4:48
other people having the same experience
4:51
so I've been asked to be one of the
4:54
panelists at the Issaquah event because
4:57
I live here in Issaquah and I have the
4:59
experience so number one is to give you
5:02
information about that event and I have
5:06
a flyer from the sponsoring organization
5:09
and I've written the event details
5:11
second I'd like to give you the facts
5:14
that on July 1st a new state law went
5:18
into effect
5:18
it's our cw18 dot 390 and it relates to
5:24
continuing care retirement communities
5:26
and there is one such entity here in
5:28
Issaquah Timber Ridge after my parents
5:32
were shopping for a place to live and
5:34
they chose to help finance and then live
5:37
at timber Ridge during those years we
5:40
came to understand that there wasn't a
5:43
lot of clarity about the difference
5:45
between a continuing care retirement
5:46
community and an assisted living
5:49
facility so that clarity in the senior
5:54
living and services landscape starts
5:57
with having a chapter of state law 18.3
6:02
90 applicable to continuing care
6:04
retirement communities so they're no
6:06
longer confused with assisted living
6:09
facilities which are governed by 18 20
6:13
of the Revised Code of Washington and I
6:16
have a fact sheet about continuing care
6:20
retirement communities and the new law
6:24
so those are the two pieces of
6:25
information I wanted to inform the City
6:28
Council about because they're things
6:29
that interest me thank you
6:31
IQ lives no one further has signed up to
6:37
speak is there anyone else in the
6:41
audience who has not signed up and
6:43
desiring to speak general under general
6:46
audience comments again
6:56
my name is Ken easement I reside at to
6:59
473 Northwest Stoney Creek Drive in
7:03
Issaquah in the talus community first
7:07
off I want to thank City Council for
7:10
their vote to fund the infrastructure
7:14
repairs on shangri-la way that were
7:19
impacted by the talus hill slide the
7:23
work is started there's construction
7:25
equipment out there there's hope in the
7:27
community that were this is the first
7:29
step to a more permanent solution so I
7:34
want to thank the council I want to
7:36
thank city engineering for having staff
7:38
out there there's a member of Sheldon's
7:42
team out there who's supervising and
7:45
answering questions and looking
7:47
officials so thanks for that I am
7:51
hopeful that this will spur the property
7:53
owner to take care of their part of the
7:56
problem but thank you city for taking
7:59
care of our part of it I'd also like to
8:03
express my thanks to counsel for the
8:05
Bergsma development agreement decision I
8:09
think it's a wonderful piece of property
8:12
that could be preserved for the public
8:15
good and I would encourage council and
8:18
administration to work diligently on
8:22
that it is a unique piece of property in
8:25
that it contains mature forests but that
8:29
is unflattering at the top there and
8:32
that's somewhat unique we have lots of
8:35
forested open space but oftentimes
8:38
they're steep and it's difficult for
8:40
young families and people that are not
8:43
great hikers to navigate so that's a
8:47
nice piece of land and then it's mostly
8:48
flat on the top so thank you again thank
8:53
you can anyone else was not signed up to
8:56
yes
9:01
thank you for the record Justin Walsh to
9:03
196 shy bear away and candidate for
9:06
counsel position three I wanted to speak
9:08
briefly on a bee
9:09
7250 regarding the establishment of
9:12
transportation benefits district I
9:14
definitely agree with the recommendation
9:17
that this is needed however I've just
9:19
urge the council as we go forward to be
9:22
very wary of how we implement these new
9:25
revenue models specifically tying any
9:28
new revenue to additional sales tax this
9:31
is as we all know places the burden on
9:34
those least able to afford it any use of
9:37
sales tax to fund any transportation
9:39
project should be looked at with a very
9:41
critical eye as we go forward with this
9:45
if this does go forward I'd recommend
9:47
looking closely to maybe graduated
9:50
Bisons fees with a floor or utilization
9:53
of property levies which don't have the
9:55
same disproportionate impact thank you
9:58
thank you anyone else desire to speak
10:02
who has not signed up to speak under
10:04
general comments Mary Lynch
10:12
my name is Mary Lynch and I recited to
10:14
6/9 own Northwest Oak Crest Drive aqua
10:16
Washington I just wanted to come and
10:19
reintroduce a topic that we spoke of
10:22
back in November December and into
10:24
January about mitigation fees and I
10:27
really think going forward the city
10:29
needs to take a much more serious look
10:31
at mitigation fees especially for
10:32
developers and the impact back then they
10:36
was identified that staff time is not
10:38
covered by fully burden cost and in most
10:42
capital projects staff time is covered
10:45
by fully burden cost and I really think
10:47
we need to do that because I at this
10:50
point we are not paying the developers
10:53
are not paying their fair share with
10:54
development and what's been identified
10:56
also as the cost of land is going up and
10:58
with something such as the school's the
11:01
land value or the land to build those
11:03
schools are going up and I really think
11:05
we need to look at all of our mitigation
11:07
fees with development and make sure that
11:09
we are increasing those impact fees and
11:12
that we're also looking at other ways we
11:14
can work with developers to come up with
11:18
solutions I grew up in Indiana where
11:20
developments were formed around the
11:22
schools and developers contributed a
11:25
large percentage of the land for the
11:27
schools and just two weeks ago was back
11:30
in a neighborhood where this elementary
11:33
was in the center of that school or of a
11:36
development that was built around the
11:37
elementary school so no blessing was
11:39
needed
11:40
no carpooling was needed kids could walk
11:42
to school and the developer paid for the
11:45
land and then the school system built
11:47
the school on top of it and we have that
11:50
opportunity still to do that if we work
11:53
with staff to get them to understand the
11:55
impact that developers have the need to
11:59
establish more public mounted schools
12:01
other public buildings and going forward
12:04
I would hope especially with the central
12:05
area plan we do a much better and
12:07
earlier job of engaging with the schools
12:10
and Fire Department and everybody in
12:13
deciding what we need going forward to
12:16
handle the growth that we have now and
12:17
into the future thank you thank you Mary
12:22
anyone else
12:23
who has not signed up desiring to speak
12:27
anyone else third and final call and
12:30
with that audience comments are closed
12:33
and will now move to committee and
12:36
regional reports beginning with Mariah
12:39
Thank You mr. mayor on July 12th I
12:43
attended the town Cities Association
12:45
public issues committee no action was
12:48
taken or votes taken but several updates
12:52
we had a long discussion regarding
12:54
regional affordable housing the regional
12:57
affordable housing task force which is
12:59
now been set up and the SCA board has
13:04
nominated and put four representatives
13:07
there the basically what we talked about
13:14
were getting all of the the needs that
13:19
we might need per city out on the table
13:23
so that could be documented and
13:25
forwarded on to the task force so mostly
13:28
we just focused on the kinds of things
13:30
that are of concern and needs that we
13:33
have in our city there was also an
13:36
update on regional centers
13:38
I would imagine all might be talking a
13:41
little bit more about this but the GMP
13:43
be focused on three primary policy areas
13:46
in July
13:48
how large military installation should
13:50
be incorporated into planning for
13:52
centers the minimum eligibility criteria
13:55
for manufacturing industrial centers and
13:57
reviewing and standardizing regional
13:59
growth center designations they are
14:02
looking for feedback for their September
14:06
7th upcoming meetings the veterans
14:10
senior and Human Services Levy was also
14:14
discussed mostly just an update in that
14:16
area and then an update on the state
14:20
legislative session and that concludes
14:23
my report I do you know Thank You mr.
14:26
mayor um the Infrastructure Committee
14:29
will meet this Thursday at 6:30 here in
14:31
Council Chambers we have three items on
14:33
the agenda transportation benefit
14:35
District transportation advice
14:37
three board and project updates so those
14:39
interested please come the Regional
14:43
Transit Committee I met last June
14:45
meanwhile since reported here in June
14:48
and 21st we we approved the Metro work
14:52
plan so that was a good thing to get
14:54
done and then just a note there zero
14:57
emission bus purchase program is in full
14:59
swing their plan is basically to go
15:02
almost 100% to that they've got one
15:04
contract out now for sixty buses with it
15:07
that able to expand I think to close to
15:09
300 buses so they're pretty much the
15:10
replacement fleets going to be going to
15:12
through emission electric buses from
15:14
here on out so that's some good news
15:16
there then this Wednesday in two days on
15:21
19th we have a another regional transit
15:23
committee meeting and that one will be
15:24
working on metros report on speed and
15:26
reliability so then them and the 22nd
15:32
June I was at the Washington city's
15:35
Convention for Association of Washington
15:38
City excuse me
15:39
convention down in Vancouver
15:40
representing the city so I attended the
15:42
board meeting and did some voting there
15:44
for new board members and and that
15:46
nature and presented us there that was
15:50
June 22nd on the 12th last week I was
15:54
the emergency management advisory
15:55
committee meaning nothing of a note on
15:57
the agenda many updates there the
16:00
Eastside Fire and Rescue I was at last
16:02
week on the 13th - I Tamar note on the
16:05
agenda we established two systems one is
16:08
a pay-for-performance
16:09
method for the chief so now there's an
16:12
established system for the chief on how
16:14
he gets paid for performance and you
16:16
know better performance and so forth and
16:18
the other item was establishing a method
16:20
for adding new partners to yfir so
16:22
there's actual process and criteria that
16:25
people can look at versus just
16:27
considering it so there's some methods
16:29
decided there which is nice um I've
16:32
tended a couple of workshops last week
16:33
one for affordable housing with the
16:34
county and another one for
16:35
suburbanization of poverty and tomorrow
16:39
I will be represented city again at the
16:41
commute trip reduction meeting that's at
16:44
PSR C be there
16:47
and that concludes my report thank you
16:49
thank you Bill Paul Thank You mr. mayor
16:53
on July 6 I attended the meeting of the
16:55
growth management policy board and as
16:57
council member batiste mentioned the the
17:01
topics covered were the consideration of
17:05
military installations as regional
17:07
centers and then the manufacturing
17:09
industrial centers as well as the
17:11
regional growth centers the conversation
17:14
is very much dominated by military
17:16
installations it's a new concept and and
17:20
the the GMP B was really all over the
17:23
place I didn't really have much of a
17:25
comment because it it was really
17:26
dominated by people who were affected by
17:30
the existing military installations but
17:32
one thing of note that has changed and
17:37
whiskey was clarified by the intent of
17:40
those that are pushing for military
17:41
installations to become regional centers
17:43
is that they do expect them to compete
17:46
for the regional funding which was
17:49
something I think I said differently
17:50
last time I reported on this so it's
17:52
definitely would be a concern for any
17:55
regional center that wants to remain
17:57
competitive for limited funds with no
17:59
new sources of funds but more
18:01
competitors for funding the
18:05
manufacturing industrial centers was
18:07
talked again at length in it and and it
18:10
really only left a few minutes to talk
18:12
about regional growth centers which is
18:13
our primary concern that was really
18:15
unfortunate we probably ended up with
18:18
just a few minutes of talking about what
18:21
I know the FDA caucus was most concerned
18:23
about and they had posed a number of
18:26
questions and our caucus did was able to
18:29
address them in the brief time that we
18:32
were able to make comments one was
18:34
should the criteria recognize some
18:36
centers are vastly different in size and
18:39
function are expected to evolve at
18:40
different rates
18:42
that's a criteria there has been no real
18:45
kind of size or function or growth rate
18:47
criteria before and we were in favor of
18:51
that there there was a question of
18:53
whether or not the performance of a
18:55
growth center should be measured and lot
18:58
the conversation about that as well
19:00
and we were in favor of that not
19:02
necessarily as a punitive tool but there
19:06
really is no standard y method today to
19:09
measure the employment and population
19:12
objectives and and their performance
19:14
towards reaching those goals and what
19:17
other factors either helping or
19:19
hindering their performance so we did
19:22
have a short conversation about that and
19:23
then the last piece that we got in had
19:25
to do with whether or not the framework
19:28
should include new criteria such as the
19:30
availability of transit service and it's
19:36
amazing thing so regional growth centers
19:38
today there's no criteria to address
19:40
whether or not they're served by transit
19:42
which is kind of unthinkable if you
19:46
think about it so I so the with that the
19:50
ESRC staff will be providing preparing
19:53
their first draft to complete draft from
19:55
staff for us to consider and begin
19:57
discussing and starting in September
19:59
that concludes my report
20:01
thank you Cola Thank You mr. mayor
20:05
mystical City Council services and
20:07
Safety Committee did not meet this month
20:09
our next meeting will be held Tuesday
20:11
August 8th at 6:30 p.m. here in chambers
20:14
you already heard a report Mariah
20:17
thank you so much for sitting in for me
20:19
while I was out on vacation with my
20:21
family I appreciate it
20:23
King County growth management policy
20:26
Council will next be meeting Wednesday
20:28
September 27th at 4 p.m. and that
20:32
concludes my report thank you
20:35
Eileen thank you on the this Thursday xx
20:40
I will be attending the why were eight
20:42
that's the water resource inventory area
20:44
we're still working on our planned
20:46
update for the Chinook conservation plan
20:49
received some updates in regards to
20:51
what's been going on with the Ballard
20:52
Locks and the repair is necessary for
20:54
that the 30 to 60 million dollar bill
20:57
that comes along with those recoveries
20:59
yes and just some concerns in regards to
21:06
the warmer summer and some of the water
21:08
levels so hopefully this fall
21:12
water will return and the salmon will be
21:13
coming back up our streams thank you
21:15
thank you Mary Lou Thank You mr. mayor
21:18
just two items first off thanks to
21:21
council member Ramos for sitting in for
21:23
the u4 board meeting for me last week
21:24
and reporting out the next efore meeting
21:27
will be a Finance and Administration
21:29
Committee meeting on Wednesday July 26
21:32
at 12:30 at headquarters and I do not
21:34
have agenda items for that thank you
21:36
Thank You Stacy Thank You mr. mayor it's
21:41
across city council Landon Shore
21:43
committee met on July 6th we had four
21:45
items arm on our agenda three of those
21:48
items are on our agenda tonight so I to
21:53
the extent that I have reporting out to
21:55
do I on those I can do that at the time
21:57
at that time the one item I wanted to
22:01
talk about briefly is agenda bill 74 52
22:04
transit oriented development
22:06
we had you'll recall that the meeting on
22:10
July 6 we had a special council meeting
22:12
right before landed Shore and on the
22:14
consent agenda was that Tod agenda bill
22:17
that was referred to when ensure the
22:20
very next hour so we had a presentation
22:24
that included health fairs from spectrum
22:28
and spectrum development solutions and
22:32
spectrum is one of the parties that
22:36
would be involved in the Tod project and
22:39
just to recap the Tod project its
22:43
proposed to be a three party
22:45
public/private partnership between the
22:47
city spectrum development solutions King
22:50
County Housing Authority combo there and
22:54
CenturyLink and it would propose it
22:57
would be to redevelop the site that
22:59
currently functions functions and
23:01
operates for CenturyLink truck parking
23:06
and material storage is over by the
23:08
Transit Center on SR 900 it's sort of
23:13
just next door east of the Transit
23:16
Center and the proposal would be a 325
23:20
multifamily mix
23:22
youth development and 110 to 165
23:27
affordable units 36,000 square feet of
23:29
non-residential space a portion to be
23:32
deeded to the city to allow for
23:33
nonprofit services and a quarter-acre
23:35
Plaza open to the open to the public
23:39
we haven't had a lot of public
23:41
conversation about this we are about to
23:45
the landed shore was asked to look at
23:47
two memorandums of understanding and the
23:51
reason we were looking at those prior
23:54
before prior to when we might have a lot
23:56
more community conversation about this
23:58
is because there's a deadline to apply
24:00
for funding from the King County Tod
24:03
fund
24:04
Landon Shore recommended to bring that
24:07
forward to the full council for the
24:09
consideration of the mo youth and that
24:12
will be at our council meeting on August
24:14
7th one of the questions that was asked
24:20
to how Farris when he was there
24:22
presenting from spectrum and we had
24:26
their work a couple of concerns raised
24:29
from the community about the fact that
24:31
we haven't had any we would normally
24:33
have open houses or we have more of a
24:35
community conversation and how so these
24:38
well aware of that and normally would
24:41
host a number of open houses and is
24:43
planning to doing that getting a lot of
24:45
input from the community starting in
24:47
mid-september assuming the sole council
24:50
approves the mo use which would be even
24:52
before knowing if if there would be a
24:55
grant for this project and what that
24:59
grant amount might be so that so this is
25:03
the beginning of the public conversation
25:06
not the end of it and we will I'm sure
25:09
get a fairly in-depth presentation on
25:12
the project like we did it landed short
25:14
there wasn't one piece of interesting
25:16
information that howl mentioned that I
25:20
wanted to just mention and that was
25:23
we've heard particularly in the months
25:28
that we've since we've had a moratorium
25:29
in place about economic conditions being
25:35
the right having the right economic
25:39
conditions for getting the kind of
25:41
developed development that that we want
25:43
and we've talked about in particular
25:46
mixed-use and that having mixed-use on
25:51
one hand requires that we have the right
25:53
economic market conditions and that we
25:57
don't have that that times not right now
25:58
that maybe in five or six years we'd
26:00
have that and how said I'd I've never
26:03
heard this before I don't think anybody
26:04
on the committee had either that the
26:06
soils in the valley
26:08
I'm are such that it adds fifteen to
26:11
twenty dollars per square foot for
26:13
foundation costs so I think one of the
26:17
questions that we probably would have is
26:21
you know how does that affect market
26:23
conditions and and is that going to
26:27
always affect market conditions we
26:29
didn't have that conversation because we
26:30
weren't there from there to talk about
26:32
that that night at Lehman sure but it is
26:34
a piece of information that I thought
26:37
was significant enough that I wanted to
26:39
let the entire council know that that's
26:40
what how Faris a spectrum said next
26:45
Landon Shore meets on August third at
26:47
6:30 here in Council Chambers and the
26:49
agenda has not been set yet report thank
26:52
you there will not be an executive
26:55
session this evening I have some sad
26:59
news to share with the community tonight
27:02
longtime community member
27:04
Dorothy knitter asked away on July the
27:07
6th at age 92 she dedicated thousands of
27:12
volunteer hours serving our community
27:14
she also helped create the asuka farmers
27:18
market and rana ran salmon days for many
27:21
years he was inducted into our Hall of
27:24
Fame in 1995 and was recognized as
27:28
volunteer of the year in 1991 horse our
27:33
thoughts are with Dorothy's family at
27:37
this time I attended the July 13th Puget
27:42
Sound Regional Council transportation
27:44
policy board meeting where we
27:47
approved a draft financial strategy for
27:50
the transportation 2040 update and I
27:55
chaired the July 13th sound transit
27:58
capital committee meeting where we
28:00
approved a number of action items
28:01
related to East link I 405 bus rapid
28:06
transit and the Lynwood link extension
28:09
that concludes the mayor's report this
28:14
evening and with that I would ask if the
28:19
accounts payable and payroll have been
28:22
reviewed yeah thank you and I would now
28:27
ask the clerk to read into the record
28:29
the consent calendar the consent
28:32
calendar was distributed to council in
28:34
advance for study if authorized council
28:36
action will occur by single motion
28:37
regarding the following items item a
28:40
seeks approval of the accounts payable
28:41
in payroll of July 17th items B C and D
28:45
seeks approval of the minutes of the
28:46
special meeting of June 9th June 10th
28:49
and July 6th item e a b7 1 1 2 LED
28:52
streetlights Department of Commerce
28:54
grant seeks to accept grant item F a B 7
28:57
1 2 8 Wildwood reservoir rehabilitation
29:00
project seeks to accept project item G a
29:03
B 7 1 3 3 2016 water main rehabilitation
29:07
project seeks to accept project item H a
29:10
B 7 2 5 0 transportation benefit
29:13
district seeks referral to Council
29:15
Infrastructure Committee item I a B 7 4
29:18
5 5 Human Services Commission midterm
29:21
appointment seeks to confirm item J a B
29:24
seven four five six additional 2017
29:27
staffing request seeks referral to
29:29
council services and Safety Committee
29:31
this concludes the reading Thank You
29:33
tisha and with that I would ask does any
29:39
council member desire to remove any item
29:42
for separate consideration Stacey I move
29:49
to adopt the consent calendar as
29:50
presented second
29:55
in fact all approval all in favor of
30:00
approving the consent calendar is
30:02
submitted signify by saying aye
30:04
hi as opposed at carries unanimously
30:08
I'm moving now to the first of three
30:11
public hearings this evening the first
30:14
agenda bill seven three one three
30:17
capital improvement plan including
30:19
transportation 2018 to 2022 with that
30:25
Jen Olsen our director of finance for a
30:28
brief introduction before I opened up on
30:32
the queue
30:32
Thank You mayor Butler tonight is a
30:35
continued discussion about the proposed
30:36
capital improvement plan for 2018
30:39
through 2022 the council's have had a
30:42
number of different discussions about
30:44
the proposed capital budget per council
30:48
policy the capital improvement plan
30:50
seeks to achieve the objectives in our
30:54
financial policy including a vision for
30:56
growth and levels of service ensuring
30:58
that planning efforts are changing with
31:01
the demand financial responsibility and
31:05
maintaining a high quality service
31:06
infrastructure the proposed five-year
31:09
plan have identified projects in a
31:12
variety of different asset categories
31:14
with a total five-year CIP dollar amount
31:18
of about 165 million dollars funding
31:23
sources are come from a variety of
31:25
different places from special revenue
31:29
funds or special funding sources such as
31:31
REIT or mitigation funds grants
31:33
developer contributions utility funding
31:35
the general fund and other cash on hand
31:40
there are some unfunded projects that
31:43
the council is in the process of
31:45
discussing along with all of those you
31:48
can see primarily those projects that
31:51
have a debt requirement as part of the
31:53
funding are for mainly park improvement
31:56
projects or transportation related
31:58
projects for a total unfunded piece of
32:01
the five-year plan of about a fifty
32:04
eight million dollars
32:06
there have been a number of discussions
32:08
about the proposed plan we started back
32:11
in May of 2017 where we say console
32:15
conducted their first council work
32:17
session starting the public hearing in
32:20
on June 5th some additional council work
32:23
sessions tonight is a continuation of
32:25
the public hearing there at the last
32:28
council work session it was identified
32:31
that additional discussion was necessary
32:33
so there are some new meetings you can
32:36
see down the bottom of the screen we
32:37
have a new council work session
32:40
identified for August 17th
32:42
I believe it's August 10th actually I
32:45
think it's left 14th the 14th okay we'll
32:47
get that corrected and we'll make sure
32:49
that that's online and we got that after
32:52
three tries and then of course proposed
32:55
continued public hearing and
32:59
consideration and adoption of the
33:01
proposed plan so with that I wanted to
33:04
keep it brief to hand it back to you
33:07
mayor Butler Thank You Jen and with that
33:13
reminder the same same comments that I
33:18
made early about earlier about
33:21
guidelines for public participation
33:26
apply to this and I will open the public
33:30
hearing at 7:30 8:00 and ask if anyone
33:36
has signed up to speak no one has signed
33:39
up honey would you like to speak to this
33:43
item
33:51
square okay hi my name is Connie Marsh
33:55
I live on squawk Mountain here and
33:57
Issaquah so I have been going to two CIP
34:03
meetings for at least I know maybe 18
34:07
years and my favorite and I think this
34:11
should be the process for next year is
34:12
where each of the sort of chapters gets
34:16
put out to a committee for in-depth
34:18
conversation where the community can
34:21
engage in a more personable way work
34:25
sessions are difficult because the last
34:28
one was very long and public comment
34:31
would have made it onerous so this is a
34:35
way where the community can actually
34:36
discuss it in advance of the public
34:39
hearing when everybody has done all of
34:41
the work and we have the ability to
34:43
change it in our interest so now in an
34:47
attempt to change it in our interest now
34:50
dog park not splash park everybody wants
34:53
a dog park has been delayed forever just
34:56
do it for goodness sake put it in the
34:58
CIP with funding we need to allocate
35:01
dollars to help Metro build parking
35:04
rights outside of the city limits and
35:07
that has not been addressed anywhere on
35:09
any plan ever but we need to keep people
35:12
from needing to come through our town
35:13
they don't have options they don't have
35:16
funding and we can help them with that
35:18
you can see from the community survey
35:20
that you're going to be talking about
35:22
this evening the community still wants
35:25
land we need our hillsides protected so
35:28
we need to buy our forested land and we
35:30
need a trail Creekside to go from the
35:32
outside of town down to Lake Sammamish
35:33
State Park that needs to be a priority
35:36
because the community deserves a little
35:38
more we've been sort of slapped without
35:40
and the last thing is we have oddly a
35:43
very expensive public square area in the
35:47
central Issaquah plan that the community
35:49
has never discussed what that might look
35:51
like or what that could do for them and
35:53
so I think that needs to pop back out
35:55
outside of pro stew or whatever we're
35:58
calling this City thing in a in a
36:00
conversation of its own because if this
36:03
is going to be
36:03
core area of our core we need a lot of
36:06
input thank you very much
36:08
Thank You Connie or anyone Mary I see
36:13
you moving towards the lectern my name
36:20
is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2 6 9 own
36:22
Northwest Oak Crest Drive Issaquah
36:24
Washington I'm back again tonight I
36:26
spoke with the first public hearing and
36:27
I also spoke last week at the City
36:31
Council sub meeting and I went to
36:35
formally again submit my comments about
36:37
the central area or excuse me the
36:40
capital improvement plans I glad that it
36:43
is out earlier than it was last year
36:46
I want to support what Connie says is I
36:48
really think it needs to have more
36:50
public review and as well as City
36:53
Council review the 7 points that I made
36:55
last week and I'll make again is I want
36:58
to know why the s900 to South 54th
37:01
funding scheme is not moved up further
37:04
so that any work that's done by
37:06
developers can be done concurrently
37:09
we've heard from Public Works that it
37:12
saves money if they can do this and go
37:14
and work with the same contractors
37:16
it also has left I think disruptive to
37:18
the people and not only we live there
37:20
but also all the high amount of food
37:22
traffic that uses our road so that's not
37:25
been addressed I also mentioned that the
37:29
South 54th to Lake Mont Boulevard
37:32
Parshin has been pulled out of here it's
37:35
been in there for 30 years and now it's
37:37
out of there and I believe the last
37:39
concurrency that was done as far as the
37:41
central area plan that portion had to be
37:44
done because of center turn lane is
37:46
needed for concurrency so that's not
37:49
been addressed anywhere that I can see
37:51
also I would like to see that detailed
37:55
assumptions on the portion of these
37:57
projects that the developers are going
37:59
to pay for should be part of the back-up
38:02
plan so that you know what the entire
38:04
project is going to cost so for some
38:07
reason something happens with a
38:08
developer they get half way through you
38:10
need to know what the entire project is
38:12
going to be and also that hopefully you
38:15
can fund those at the same time not only
38:16
just
38:17
for a Newport way another one is the
38:21
mountain sound Greenway because conni
38:22
kind of looted to is there's no money in
38:25
here to build the rest of the mountains
38:27
to sound Greenway which is part of the
38:28
green necklace and that should be
38:30
identified in here and how that's going
38:32
to be funded and what city funds the
38:35
water-filtration purchase system to
38:37
replace the existing lease system for
38:39
Pia fault that's not identified in here
38:41
and then the other one that came up at
38:43
the last land ensures meeting that I
38:44
heard is as a water tower slated and
38:47
needed apparently for growth at the
38:48
Highlands and they're identifying that
38:51
they need land and that's part of what
38:52
this annexation is going to be talked
38:54
about tonight well where is the funding
38:56
for that and if it's known now even if
38:58
it is six years that should be part of
39:00
this plan so that you know when it's
39:03
needed and where it's going to go so
39:06
hopefully going forward we'll have
39:07
discussions with the public and also at
39:10
the City Council sub meetings that we
39:12
can also participate in but hopefully
39:14
public meetings do also bid this later
39:16
for public records thank you thank you
39:19
Mary anyone else
39:21
desire to speak often Thank You mayor
39:28
Butler again Justin Walsh to a 96
39:29
Scheiber
39:30
I just have a couple comments regarding
39:32
the CIP the first is in regards to EQ
39:35
double-oh-seven
39:36
the server replacement I was a bit
39:39
surprised in looking at a bit in the
39:40
details in this that it utilizes several
39:44
servers moving to a physical server
39:46
using virtual servers as opposed to a
39:49
cloud-based solution looks like we're
39:52
looking at 2008 technology to solve a
39:55
20-17 problem in 2022 as opposed to
39:59
looking to the cloud-based solutions
40:01
that we have now in the future ones that
40:03
are going to reduce costs increase
40:05
resiliency increase data portability and
40:07
increase redundancy and set something
40:10
keep in mind as we move forward with
40:12
that project regarding the splash park
40:15
we're also creating a pool I have issues
40:20
saying that those are separate projects
40:21
when they're both water based projects
40:23
we combine them and create a truly
40:25
innovative indoor/outdoor space using
40:28
less money and
40:29
or some of those funds for things such
40:31
as a dog perk
40:32
my other problem with the CIP is it
40:35
currently stands is we're not I'm not
40:36
seeing anything related to
40:38
telecommunications or our energy utility
40:41
at specifically working with PSC or
40:43
telecommunications companies we're going
40:46
to be quickly behind the curve when as
40:48
we develop our urban core unless we
40:49
start putting projects in the CIP that
40:52
bring fiber in to remedy that missed
40:54
opportunity that we had when fiber went
40:56
in in the highlands we won't be able to
40:59
use our tech talented residents in the
41:01
urban core unless we have clean power
41:04
and high-speed Internet for them to work
41:06
with and start looking at projects that
41:09
maybe tap off the BPA lines as opposed
41:11
to going past as a quat and then
41:13
rerouting through Bellevue which leaves
41:15
us open to catastrophic failures these
41:19
are gaps and I think we need to make
41:20
sure those are included in the future
41:21
thank you Thank You Justin
41:27
anyone else desiring to speak on this
41:30
item
41:32
anyone else third and final call with
41:36
that then I will call on make a motion
41:46
that's the time I make motion that this
41:48
would be the perfect time okay is our
41:51
time for let me after that okay I would
41:55
move to continue the public hearing to
41:57
September 5th 2017 and refer agenda bill
42:00
73 13 to the August 14th 2017 council
42:04
committee work session for additional
42:06
review and recommendation returning to
42:08
the full Council on September 5th 2017
42:10
second moved and seconded questions or
42:14
discussion Stacy I just wanted to make a
42:18
comment that we remind the council that
42:22
there are the work session that we're
42:25
gonna have on August 14th if for the
42:26
purpose of going through the projects
42:29
again now that we've gotten to know the
42:31
nuts and bolts of the new CIP plan then
42:37
it was a interest but the last work
42:40
session for us to go back to the project
42:41
list and Jen has sent us all a list it's
42:45
a starting point and it pulls together
42:48
the comments that like council members
42:52
have made so far about that projects and
42:54
if there are there's a place for you to
42:58
think you might actually looked at it so
43:01
yes I think there's a place for comments
43:04
for you to make to send back to Jen and
43:06
also an opportunity for you to provided
43:08
additional comments which would be great
43:11
if you wanted staff to be prepared at
43:13
that work session the other tasks to be
43:15
completed is that risk assessment and
43:18
the four of us that were at the work
43:20
session last week had not completed our
43:22
risk assessment so I'm assuming that all
43:24
seven of us has not completed our risk
43:26
assessment so we she extended that I
43:29
believe it's maybe the 31st so I was
43:31
just gonna remind everybody you come
43:33
complete those tasks Thanks thank you
43:37
other questions or discussion
43:39
Mary Lou hi Christian I guess for the
43:41
mayor and the council president to
43:43
comment from Connie this evening about
43:46
breaking this into smaller chunks does
43:48
that fit into the schedule for this year
43:49
uh I don't think so we we used to break
43:58
it into smaller chunks and refer to
44:00
committee that would prior to prioritize
44:03
those and bring them back but I'm
44:07
guessing that at this we had a little
44:13
bit of so I think I know the answer but
44:16
I'm going to let guess city
44:18
administrator respond to that question I
44:20
think it has to do with scheduling thank
44:23
you new this year and through the
44:27
council's new capital budget policy in
44:31
the financial management policy is the
44:34
shift to biennial capital budgeting for
44:37
the capital piece and so what's exciting
44:40
is actually for next year will be the
44:42
opportunity for those breakout sessions
44:45
in the capital budget schedule to have
44:48
those conversations about potential
44:50
projects
44:51
a larger public engagement effort on the
44:55
actual capital budget for this year
44:58
timing wise there has not been a
45:01
scheduled separate breakout sessions by
45:04
the asset categories and so that is
45:08
essentially what would be on the on the
45:12
schedule for next year's continued to
45:15
you capital budget cycle very soon I
45:20
think the other part that we heard at
45:23
the work session is that the timing is
45:26
tight for hopefully passing the CIP and
45:31
we're in early September because budget
45:35
preparing the proposed budget will be in
45:38
full swing and not having that piece
45:42
makes it not having the CIP adopt it
45:44
makes it much more difficult for the
45:45
administration to prepare the draft
45:47
budget I think that's the other piece
45:49
that we heard that is exactly correct is
45:52
to break out the different components of
45:54
the overall budget is to have those
45:56
discussions about the capital budget
45:58
prior to so that we're we're giving more
46:03
opportunity to have discussions on the
46:06
full operating budget and start at the
46:09
beginning of the year on the capital
46:10
asset piece thank you
46:17
like that Nancy question great Paul and
46:22
there were two comments tonight related
46:23
to water one of them was the pee Faust
46:25
treatment the other one the water tower
46:26
that we did discuss at a committee
46:29
meeting earlier this month I know we're
46:32
doing a water systems water system study
46:35
or whatever that called and that
46:37
conversation hasn't come into this the
46:40
CIP development what and I guess it's
46:44
entirely possible
46:46
I don't Sheldon is here that it would
46:48
inform the CIP because I know that
46:53
something like water treatment you know
46:55
could be hypothetically it'll be part of
46:58
that so yeah thank you if you could
47:00
address that for me and because based
47:02
upon the answer i'm i think that that's
47:04
those are valid issues to raise and
47:07
question why they wouldn't be in this
47:08
CIP yes I'm Sheldon Len director public
47:12
works engineering I to respond to the
47:15
question about the treatment of the P
47:17
Foss and the replacement of the system
47:20
that's currently leased there is a
47:22
capital improvement project in the
47:24
program for water treatment plant that
47:27
is the facility that will combine all
47:30
the water treatment needs of the utility
47:32
as well as replacement of the P Foss
47:35
treatment so it will it's in there it's
47:38
and right now we are currently underway
47:41
with the water system Plan Update and we
47:43
expect a draft out excuse me
47:46
by the end of this year for councils
47:48
consideration and moving through the do
47:50
H approval process as well as King
47:52
County approval process okay that
47:58
addressed the the P Foss thank you what
48:00
about the water tower that came up at I
48:02
think was the book session or is it land
48:05
in short earlier this month there there
48:07
is in the capital program a reservoir
48:10
pump station transmission main project I
48:13
where the transmission main and pump
48:16
station is known as the spar water
48:20
facilities that is to provide a
48:23
redundant way up the hill for services
48:26
on because right now the services all go
48:29
up
48:30
so the water mains all go up one
48:32
geologic hazard so we want to create a
48:34
redundant one through another area so
48:37
hopefully if you have problem in one
48:39
geologic hazard you don't get it in the
48:40
other geologic hazard so we're trying to
48:42
provide some redundancy of supply up to
48:44
the Highlands the reservoir is needed
48:47
not specifically for the Issaquah
48:49
Highlands but it is actually needed for
48:51
the central Issaquah plan with the
48:54
increase in population that's expected
48:56
with the central Issaquah development
48:58
there is a need for additional
48:59
equalizing and operating storage for the
49:02
valley floor so that's the purpose
49:04
behind that reservoir and its elevation
49:07
is the same elevation as the elevation
49:09
of the city's West Side reservoir and
49:11
Cemetery reservoirs which provide the
49:13
valley floor of water as well thank you
49:17
other questions or discussion KC Oh
49:23
Sheldon I didn't so you said you would
49:26
explain the reservoir but did you
49:27
actually say it's in the CIP it is in
49:31
the CIP it's in the center its in the
49:33
capital improvement plan right now the
49:35
pump station and transmission main is
49:38
within the five-year period with the
49:40
reservoir being out I believe it's 8 to
49:42
10 years or something like that other
49:46
questions or discussion seeing none then
49:50
all those in favor of continuing the
49:52
public hearing to September 5th 2017 and
49:55
referring the agenda bill to the August
49:59
14th council work session for additional
50:04
review and recommendation returning to
50:06
the Council on September 5th signify by
50:09
saying aye hi I was opposed that carries
50:14
unanimously
50:15
I'm so thank you thank you can I depart
50:19
here and say that at Core shooter I
50:21
missed something important in my
50:23
committee reports and that is that
50:24
Landon Shores special meeting for
50:26
tomorrow night has been cancelled
50:27
because that kid became clear this
50:29
morning that we didn't have anything on
50:31
the agenda that necessitated a special
50:33
meeting on a sunny summer evening
50:38
I'm not seeing much disappointed among
50:41
Catholics about translate that vision
50:45
moving now to agenda bill 743 annexation
50:50
of King County Island and establishment
50:52
of pre-annexation zoning Trish Hayden
50:57
from Development Services Division to
51:02
provide some background information and
51:05
to set up a public hearing mr. Olson
51:09
Thank You mr. mayor the first public
51:12
hearing on the first panic station is
51:14
called the King County Island it's known
51:17
as the King County Island PA a potential
51:19
annexation area it's been the
51:21
Comprehensive Plan forever and we are
51:24
attempting at this point to annex it
51:26
into the city this is a big picture of
51:29
where it's located
51:30
we met with backing up a bit you all met
51:34
on June 5th when you first saw this
51:36
annexation proposal and you move forward
51:39
with the ordinance resolution to move
51:41
forward to send it to the boundary
51:43
Review Board to set up the two public
51:45
hearings for pre-annexation zoning I
51:48
wanted to touch a little bit on why you
51:51
wanted to do the pre-annexation zoning
51:53
is that if we usually do annexations
51:56
with pre-annexation zoning when the
51:59
comparable zoning with King County isn't
52:01
what the city would like to see there
52:03
and in this instance the king county
52:06
parcel that the city has purchased to
52:08
work on the transit eld that parcel now
52:13
is owned mineral and we wouldn't be able
52:15
to have that land use there at this
52:18
point we would have to actually rezone
52:20
it to an IC to move that Tod forward so
52:24
we're doing that pre-annexation zoning
52:26
now so that when it comes in we'll be
52:29
ready to go with the Tod application I
52:32
just wanted to give you that reference
52:34
and we also met at Landon Shore to
52:37
answer a lot of the questions that came
52:39
out of council June 5th and part of that
52:41
helped us to realize that we wanted a
52:44
different pre-annexation zoning
52:47
categories for for the parcels and
52:50
we'll show you that in just a second
52:51
these are the surrounding zones it's
52:55
right up near the you Orban village zone
52:57
of the highlands it's community
52:59
facilities facilities to the north and
53:01
then it's right up against i-90 to the
53:04
south this is the new map and Tola right
53:10
away goes yes North is that way which is
53:13
unusual for a map but it helps us show
53:15
what land insure asked for is to see
53:18
what the projects would look like as
53:21
much as we know at this point with sort
53:23
of general site plans none of them have
53:25
been adopted none of them are officially
53:28
the last site plan but it was sort of to
53:31
give land inshore and the full council
53:32
an idea of what land would be used for
53:35
these future projects and as you can see
53:38
the zoning changed the proposed zoning
53:40
change from Landon Shore you see at the
53:43
south is still icy and that's where
53:46
CenturyLink would be moved the middle
53:49
part of the King County shopsite area
53:51
would still be open space and to the
53:53
north a smaller parcel is community
53:56
facilities facilities and that's
53:58
potentially for elementary school coming
54:02
south and the west it's such a weird way
54:08
to head north that way community
54:10
facilities facility is the reservoir
54:12
site that Sheldon just spoke of with the
54:14
pump station coming this way to the
54:17
south leaving more of the King County
54:20
shaft site area open space to the north
54:24
and then the two washed-out parcels to
54:27
the south are both open space in this in
54:31
the new proposal and so also the three
54:35
that are OS that are are the two that
54:38
are OS of washed out and the CFS that
54:41
are washed out those would all be
54:43
considered down zones because they're
54:44
currently zoned residential and
54:47
according to Sheldon he's spoken with
54:49
wash that and they're okay with the down
54:52
zone that was a question that came up
54:53
and Landon Shore was to make sure that
54:55
washed out was okay with that you also
55:01
asked about how
55:03
which forest would be left and again
55:06
this is generally because we don't have
55:07
site plans for all three projects and so
55:10
we had our our geniuses and Public Works
55:14
test out what the parcels would be left
55:17
would be left forested and what what
55:20
would be left as projects and they did a
55:22
little generalized map for us in a
55:24
little chart at the top but that's to
55:27
sort of get that in your head on what
55:29
would be left yes
55:32
so zoning is quasi-judicial so I can
55:36
only ask if if a question has been asked
55:39
previously in the best in the review of
55:43
this right I can I ask for new
55:46
information and it quasi-judicial oh I
55:50
think you can and what do ya - please
55:55
yes this is an open record hearing so
55:58
you can ask for any information you want
56:00
during this hearing okay thank you
56:01
six point seven acres is small for an
56:04
elementary school footprint is it not
56:07
yes it is the smallest to date that it's
56:11
a qua School District done it's just a
56:13
little over seven also the schools has
56:16
done something and right grande Ridge I
56:19
think is seven or something but it
56:21
usually ten is what they use so they
56:23
were really doing a good job when they
56:25
did it with seven so we're still trying
56:28
to Grand Ridge is approximately seven
56:31
correct yeah ten I thought it was seven
56:34
something oh I apologize
56:37
I thought they had already gone below
56:40
ten notches I know I know
56:43
but this is this is something that is
56:47
within the bounds of possibility for
56:49
something that the school district would
56:51
consider as a sufficient footprint for
56:53
Nala correct we're working with them to
56:55
try to figure out what's the smallest
56:57
site that could still have a appropriate
56:59
school on it yes thank you
57:04
thank you did you ever have a question
57:07
there's call it a companion piece 'let's
57:11
coming forward at some point I
57:13
understand which is in the code change
57:17
that any policy commissioned discussed
57:21
at a meeting a couple of weeks ago
57:24
Thursday night and it's my understanding
57:27
that maybe that code change needs to
57:31
happen as well as a CFS zoning for this
57:34
upper parcel that we're talking about
57:36
for a possible school site so what is
57:39
the status of that code because the
57:42
council have not seen that in any
57:44
document yet right planning policy
57:47
Commission had their public hearing on
57:48
Thursday night and they are recommending
57:51
it forward to you all and you all should
57:53
see it in August I think it comes to
57:57
Landon Shore because we couldn't because
58:00
of the last part of the their hearing we
58:04
couldn't make at the beginning meeting
58:06
in August so I think it comes to you all
58:07
at that in September comes to the
58:11
council to be referred to landed Shore
58:13
in September right but I think there's
58:15
an informal from what I remember in the
58:18
schedule there's an informal review of
58:20
Landon Shore just to try to work out
58:23
anything beforehand so that you get try
58:27
to get two touches at it so I don't
58:31
understand what you mean by informal so
58:33
the agenda bill wouldn't be completely
58:36
it's not put two it's not it the agenda
58:39
bill didn't meet the dick can't meet the
58:40
deadline because we just had the public
58:42
hearing I'm just trying to figure out
58:43
when the council's going to see that
58:44
code change that I think is a companion
58:46
to what the school district would need
58:47
so the code change is something that is
58:51
came out of joint City Council and
58:55
school board conversation in January of
59:00
16 where we talked about code issues
59:04
that the city had in its current zoning
59:06
code sorry Keith Niven director of
59:08
economic development and development
59:09
services so so there was identified
59:13
basically year and a half ago that we
59:15
had some existing code problems
59:17
that we really needed to rectify to help
59:20
the school district build the four
59:22
schools that they had gotten approved
59:25
through their successful levy the the
59:29
coincidence that that's happening it
59:31
generally is the same time that we're
59:34
talking about annexing this property and
59:36
putting zoning on this property that
59:37
would apply for a school I think is its
59:40
mere coincidence so what I would tell
59:42
you is right now the cff zone basically
59:46
limits the the density and Heights of
59:50
that zone to the adjacent most
59:52
restricted property and because the only
59:57
land use that's occupied next to this
1:00:00
property is East so right yes sorry this
1:00:05
maps going the other direction is East
1:00:07
that's urban village that's Issaquah
1:00:10
highlands which allows a building height
1:00:12
of 85 feet so so I think I think I don't
1:00:15
think they're connected so I think the
1:00:17
the concern that you raised that the
1:00:19
code revision needs to be reviewed in
1:00:22
companion with this is not I don't I
1:00:25
guess I don't share that perspective I
1:00:28
think this can happen in advance or in
1:00:33
parallel so to the school just be built
1:00:38
on this site without that code change I
1:00:41
believe it could but it would require
1:00:45
similar administrative adjustment of
1:00:48
standards as we have process for other
1:00:51
schools within the city and one of the
1:00:54
reasons why we've requested some of the
1:00:59
changes to the standards in cff for
1:01:01
schools is because basically the
1:01:04
administration was being asked to amend
1:01:06
standards for things like impervious
1:01:09
surfaces and others so part of it is you
1:01:12
know as you shrink the footprint of the
1:01:14
parcel itself the amount of impervious
1:01:19
goes up because the buildings in the
1:01:22
parking lot take up a certain amount of
1:01:24
space and so the current cff standards
1:01:29
for impervious which limited
1:01:31
fifty percent would need to be revised
1:01:33
but there are provisions in the existing
1:01:35
code that allow that so it's just it's
1:01:37
just another process to go through okay
1:01:42
so what I'm hearing is either
1:01:43
administrative adjustment of standards
1:01:45
which is that administrative Lea or the
1:01:46
new code change would work but one of
1:01:48
those needs to happen in order for
1:01:49
school to be built here and when exactly
1:01:51
is the agenda bill coming for a first
1:01:54
touch before the Council on the code
1:01:56
amendment yeah sorry September okay
1:02:03
thanks
1:02:06
any other questions on oh okay but I
1:02:14
heard a question Chris no process yeah
1:02:17
sure question answered scandalous thank
1:02:20
you hey Mary Lou I'm so Trish evening
1:02:25
this is the public hearing
1:02:26
the first of two and there is a
1:02:28
recommendation in here that that council
1:02:30
provides some direction tonight about
1:02:33
revising what came out of the landed
1:02:36
Shore on it are we just doing the public
1:02:39
hearing this evening or are you asking
1:02:41
us to make a decision on whether or not
1:02:44
the language should be revised this
1:02:45
evening because there's two public
1:02:48
hearings we're asking you to at least
1:02:51
have us write draft the ordinance for
1:02:54
you all and
1:02:56
and ask for any more information that
1:02:59
you would like to have before the second
1:03:00
public hearing which is September 5th so
1:03:03
that's what this this part is to to hear
1:03:05
public comment get more questions from
1:03:08
you all before we come to the next
1:03:10
public hearing so we'll have an
1:03:11
opportunity tonight to talk about the
1:03:13
proposed revision and whether or not we
1:03:15
want to direct staff to do that sure
1:03:17
mm-hmm not seeing any additional
1:03:24
questions or discussion I will remind
1:03:28
those that have signed up to speak on
1:03:31
agenda ville 7 4 3 3 that the
1:03:35
same guidance for our public
1:03:37
participation applies and I will open
1:03:40
the public's Tremayne I'm sorry to
1:03:42
interrupt point point of order there's
1:03:44
more to the presentation is there not
1:03:46
there was just one more slide oh sorry
1:03:49
but and I'll be quick we received a lot
1:03:53
of public comments as you know you I
1:03:57
think I there was at least 10 of them
1:03:59
perhaps and this was one of the pictures
1:04:02
that was in one of them one of the
1:04:04
public comments and I think it shows
1:04:06
it's a really good picture from the
1:04:08
valley floor with you can see the little
1:04:10
Swedish building poking out over on the
1:04:14
on the side there but I just wanted this
1:04:16
I just knew it would look really great
1:04:18
on the big screen that's that's it so
1:04:23
now you can open up that thank you I'll
1:04:28
open the the public hearing at 8:05 and
1:04:33
ask if anyone has signed up to speak
1:04:35
No
1:04:44
khadi welcome again okay Connie marsh
1:04:48
again Levon squawk Mountain so I'm going
1:04:54
to start out with what I think should
1:04:55
happen I think that all of the parcels
1:05:01
except for the intensive commercial and
1:05:03
the one cff parcel for Sheldon's water
1:05:07
tower should be community facilities
1:05:13
open space
1:05:14
Sheldon's water tower should have some
1:05:19
guidance to it indicating that it shall
1:05:22
not be visible and then it could be
1:05:26
built because and this is the big segue
1:05:29
in our comprehensive plan in our land
1:05:32
use vision we have a very very
1:05:37
straightforward sentence saying that we
1:05:39
are going to protect our forested
1:05:41
hillsides and you can see from the
1:05:43
statistics that were provided we are
1:05:46
clearly not doing that and when you look
1:05:49
at this picture you can see that the top
1:05:52
line of trees is paramount in protecting
1:05:57
us from looking at yet more of Issaquah
1:06:01
Highlands so when you ask the community
1:06:03
whether they should say yes we we want
1:06:07
to cut those trees because a school
1:06:10
needs to be put in place you are asking
1:06:13
us to take down something that will
1:06:16
never be come back you are taking it
1:06:19
away there are other places that schools
1:06:21
could be built there always is they
1:06:24
might cost more money it might not be a
1:06:25
heck of a deal but in this situation
1:06:28
this is a community value that your own
1:06:30
comprehensive plan emphatically puts as
1:06:34
a top priority so community facilities
1:06:37
open space on all of the parcels except
1:06:40
for the intensive commercial and the
1:06:42
dubbed Sheldon's
1:06:44
water tower thank you Thank You Connie
1:06:52
Steve I see you moving
1:06:55
at election followed by this request
1:06:59
school district superintendent welcome
1:07:02
to hold Steve Crawford director camper
1:07:05
projects of square School District Ron
1:07:08
nealy superintendent is squad school
1:07:10
district and we would like to share some
1:07:13
information about the potential use of
1:07:16
this site first of all Thank You mayor
1:07:18
Butler Thank You council for allowing us
1:07:21
this opportunity we do have a short
1:07:22
presentation to you need to use that
1:07:32
slide first so I think it would be best
1:07:36
to have mr. Crawford kind of share some
1:07:37
of our thinking around how the potential
1:07:39
use of this site would occur and then we
1:07:41
would certainly be available for any
1:07:42
questions as well so to start with since
1:07:53
this slide is up you're looking at a
1:07:56
view from the middle basically of i-90
1:07:58
at 900 and yes you can see a bit of the
1:08:01
hospital these dead trees here are off
1:08:05
of the property to the west and that the
1:08:08
trees behind there would basically
1:08:11
remain all the way across the ridge so
1:08:14
that the site would not be the building
1:08:16
would not be visible from the West or
1:08:18
from the south
1:08:44
look I think I lost it
1:09:04
so why is the Highland site a great
1:09:06
location or a new neighborhood
1:09:07
Elementary the projected 2017-2018
1:09:15
enrollment at Clark elementary will be
1:09:17
eight hundred and eight students Clark
1:09:19
will be our largest elementary school
1:09:21
constructed with the largest number of
1:09:23
classrooms and it was still open with
1:09:25
ten portable classrooms grand Rogell and
1:09:28
entry will be at 735 students there's
1:09:31
125 kindergarten students in the Grand
1:09:34
Ridge attendance area that are
1:09:35
transported to Challenger and endeavour
1:09:36
elementary schools due to the lack of
1:09:39
classroom space at Grand Ridge Grand
1:09:42
Ridge Hall excuse me also has ten
1:09:44
portable classrooms you can see that
1:09:47
there's a pretty small area of
1:09:49
attendance and the Highlands that fills
1:09:50
Grand Ridge Clark has a pretty large
1:09:52
attendance area just a little bit more
1:09:55
detail there in case there was any
1:09:57
questions about specifics this shows
1:10:00
that within the Grand Ridge attendance
1:10:01
area how the Grand Ridge kindergardens
1:10:03
are split to Challenger and endeavour
1:10:10
Issaquah Valley Elementary basically
1:10:13
serves west of Front Street on a valley
1:10:17
floor 2016-17 Highland area students 80
1:10:23
grand Ridge kindergarten students are
1:10:25
transported to challenge your Elementary
1:10:26
we provide busing but there will be some
1:10:30
that get transported by their parents 45
1:10:33
Grand Ridge kindergarten students are
1:10:35
transported to endeavour off of duty
1:10:37
Hill Road
1:10:37
there's 337 elementary students and the
1:10:41
Highlands that are transported to Clark
1:10:43
elementary there's another hundred and
1:10:46
seventy-three Elementary students in the
1:10:48
black nugget over Dale area that are
1:10:50
transported to Clark there's 510
1:10:54
students that are transported to Clark
1:10:56
there's 635 students that are
1:10:59
transported out of the area so using the
1:11:02
trip generation numbers per this per
1:11:04
student from the final Clark traffic
1:11:06
study
1:11:07
students transported to and from Clark
1:11:09
elementary generate in the am peak 82
1:11:12
trips in the afternoon peak 173 trips
1:11:16
and in the PM peak 107 trips it's 360
1:11:20
trips every day that we use to transport
1:11:23
students in and out of the downtown area
1:11:28
reducing enrollment at Clark elementary
1:11:31
is critical to accommodate core area
1:11:33
growth growth at fisic while Valley and
1:11:35
Clark elementary schools Grand Ridge is
1:11:40
on a 10-acre site going to an urban
1:11:43
school plan a three storey building with
1:11:44
a compacted footprint reduced surface
1:11:47
parking smaller play areas and reducing
1:11:49
the proposed footprint allows reducing
1:11:52
the proposed foot to about seven acres
1:11:54
so SPI recommends ten acres for an
1:11:57
elementary school site Grand Ridge is on
1:12:00
a ten acre site at Landon Shore we
1:12:06
brought a site plan it was a seven point
1:12:08
one acre parcel at the top of the hill
1:12:11
basically taking into comments and
1:12:15
considerations that we've heard we've
1:12:16
sort of relooked at that again we're
1:12:19
still dealing with concept site plans
1:12:21
but this basically reduces the footprint
1:12:26
down to six point two five acres
1:12:29
there's actually five point eight five
1:12:31
acres that are within the proposed
1:12:33
annexation area and we've sort of
1:12:36
scrunched a little bit of area from the
1:12:39
north area there in an area that's
1:12:41
already been cleared between the
1:12:43
boundary of the annexation and the
1:12:45
existing trail around the detention pond
1:12:50
so the existing trees will remain
1:12:52
outside the footprint area and will
1:12:54
screen the building from South and
1:12:56
westerly views school will be compatible
1:12:58
with existing highlands residential and
1:13:00
commercial development the option Plan B
1:13:03
also preserves a forty foot strip of
1:13:05
trees along the eastern section of the
1:13:07
property it's another point four acres
1:13:09
of trees that would remain a
1:13:14
neighborhood school serves the local
1:13:16
community reduces transportation and
1:13:18
enhances sustainability goals I think
1:13:21
another thing
1:13:21
keep in mind is that an elementary
1:13:23
school our soft sand play field areas
1:13:25
are about an acre plus in size when you
1:13:31
start talking about other school
1:13:33
facilities that gets even larger when
1:13:35
you're talking about a football field
1:13:36
and track and a football field and track
1:13:38
the softball field in the baseball field
1:13:39
for high schools but even at the
1:13:41
elementary level that acre that's that's
1:13:44
getting that 17 to 20 percent range of
1:13:49
the total site area which is basically
1:13:52
open area used for recreational purposes
1:13:56
but again it's considered impervious so
1:13:58
I just wanted to add a couple of things
1:14:06
first of all Toula earlier you had a
1:14:08
question about the the size and can we
1:14:11
do a school on this site and I'll be
1:14:14
honest when these plans were first
1:14:17
brought my way I had some concerns we've
1:14:19
never built a school on this small of a
1:14:21
site but as I go back to the
1:14:23
conversation that the law school
1:14:25
district board and the council had Oh a
1:14:27
year and a half or so ago we talked a
1:14:31
lot about how can we reduce footprints
1:14:34
we know the property is a very expensive
1:14:36
and rare commodity we want to try to
1:14:39
preserve as much as we can so I commend
1:14:41
Steve and his team for really crunching
1:14:45
this site down even since the last land
1:14:48
and Shore meeting and again I keep
1:14:50
asking questions well what does that do
1:14:51
to the cost of the building is it going
1:14:54
to feel like our other schools is there
1:14:55
going to be equity in this school he's
1:14:59
convinced that that's the case and he's
1:15:00
working hard to convince me as well
1:15:03
and I've seen what he's been capable of
1:15:06
in the past so I do have a lot of
1:15:07
optimism but I would point out that this
1:15:10
school just from the get-go would would
1:15:13
save over 30% of the land that we would
1:15:16
normally use for a school so we we took
1:15:21
that conversation very seriously and
1:15:23
we're trying to implement some design
1:15:25
features to this school that well we'll
1:15:28
preserve those views and things as well
1:15:31
more importantly we've had a lot of
1:15:34
conversations
1:15:35
about traffic in this community we just
1:15:37
showed you a way to take hundreds of car
1:15:40
trips off coming from the highlands down
1:15:43
to the valley floor I think that's
1:15:46
pretty significant and I would also
1:15:48
point out that many of those car trips
1:15:50
aren't going to be just displaced to
1:15:52
another place they'll actually become
1:15:55
walkers so I think there's a benefit
1:15:57
there as well does that conclude your
1:16:05
comments
1:16:06
let's have any questions yes it does
1:16:08
thank you thank you both as anyone else
1:16:13
signed up to speak yes Lisa
1:16:18
I wasn't signed up to speak but I'm Lisa
1:16:25
Callan I am live at three one five three
1:16:27
Northeast Marquette Way in Issaquah and
1:16:30
I'm also on the Issaquah school board so
1:16:32
I won I just wanted to thank the board
1:16:37
the council the board the council you
1:16:40
can see what's in my brain for the
1:16:41
consideration of the zoning and giving
1:16:43
the school district the opportunity
1:16:45
should the zoning go forward to do a
1:16:48
much deeper dive in the planning and
1:16:50
what that means for getting a school
1:16:52
built where the growth and the demand is
1:16:55
right next to where the students are in
1:16:57
the city of his claw I know as a
1:16:59
Highlands resident and having my son
1:17:02
going through Grand Ridge knowing the
1:17:04
density of that area with children and I
1:17:07
think you'll probably hear it more
1:17:09
frequently school gets back into play
1:17:11
and people are paying attention more to
1:17:13
council agendas hopefully you'll get a
1:17:16
chance to hear too from the community
1:17:18
members at large of the impacts of the
1:17:22
schools and the growth and what they're
1:17:23
doing so I think that we are looking at
1:17:26
all kinds of sites that we're doing deep
1:17:28
dives as a district on what each way
1:17:30
those sites brings to the table not only
1:17:33
for our education mandate but also from
1:17:37
a community facilities perspective and
1:17:39
from a land-use perspective and all of
1:17:41
the municipalities that we deal with we
1:17:44
have five across the AC across school
1:17:46
district and certainly the growth that's
1:17:48
right here in the city of Issaquah is
1:17:50
paramount to the needs that are taking
1:17:52
place if you have questions on land use
1:17:56
outside of a quasi-judicial and the
1:17:59
zoning I want to make sure and offer up
1:18:02
anybody in the school district as well
1:18:03
as myself this resource to answer
1:18:06
questions and to go into detail with you
1:18:09
about that so make sure you have that as
1:18:11
well as to the community we certainly
1:18:13
would love to hear from anybody in the
1:18:14
community about your concerns of what
1:18:17
the school district might be planning in
1:18:18
that arena and the other aspect I wanted
1:18:24
to also just point out was that in any
1:18:26
school that we're building not only is
1:18:29
it a educational resource for
1:18:31
educational purposes which is its
1:18:33
primary point but it is a community
1:18:35
facility in a community resource so the
1:18:38
play fields and that open space that's
1:18:40
out there will be used by the community
1:18:42
as we well know from having
1:18:44
conversations with our little league
1:18:46
teams and our various community
1:18:50
organizations that borrow our resources
1:18:51
and use those resources all the time so
1:18:53
this would be an addition and a support
1:18:55
to the community that way too
1:18:56
thank you thank you Lisa anyone else
1:19:00
desiring to speak
1:19:05
Susan beat you to it and you're next I'm
1:19:10
Susan de ville and I met 28 25 Northwest
1:19:14
pine cone drive-in scuse me it's really
1:19:18
hard to go up against the school
1:19:20
district and say why are we building the
1:19:23
school on the side of the mountain
1:19:25
I just heard all the reasons why we need
1:19:30
it we all agree we need it but why this
1:19:32
land and that's why I'm here today to
1:19:35
talk about the it's called comp land put
1:19:39
us on a path to fix the past rezoning so
1:19:41
we've gone through and the mistakes then
1:19:44
forever scarred our hillsides and I'm
1:19:49
looking at another proposal to also may
1:19:56
have this happen to us again we don't
1:19:59
have a clear
1:20:02
development to look at to say this will
1:20:06
be protected we think it's going to be 8
1:20:09
acres but once you get up there and
1:20:12
start to build you don't know what the
1:20:14
side of the mountain is going to do I
1:20:18
believe that and I'm here to support
1:20:21
Connie in her decision to rezone at this
1:20:25
point today for open space and to
1:20:29
consider when there's more proposals in
1:20:34
place to view and decide is this the
1:20:37
right thing to do for this part of our
1:20:39
visual hillside there's we have a lot of
1:20:43
land we have a lot of money we have a
1:20:46
lot of support for our schools and I
1:20:49
just don't know if this is the right
1:20:50
answer
1:20:52
City Council recently really stepped up
1:20:56
and voted to protect cougar mountain
1:20:58
with the birds m'a development agreement
1:21:03
reversal and I'm really hoping that
1:21:06
they'll take the time and really look at
1:21:08
this closely it like I said it's really
1:21:10
difficult we all agree we need schools
1:21:13
we don't want to put our education on
1:21:16
the back burner but it's the right thing
1:21:18
to do
1:21:18
thank you Thank You Susan and yes sir
1:21:25
all right Matthew Myer one zero nine
1:21:29
five northeast Park Drive in Issaquah I
1:21:32
had a concern that that particular area
1:21:35
of land the best I can tell in overlays
1:21:37
is identified by the King County land
1:21:40
side risk assessment as an extreme
1:21:42
hazard and I'm concerned about building
1:21:45
an elementary school in an area of
1:21:47
extreme landslide hazard and E with the
1:21:50
limited footprint as I've heard tonight
1:21:54
I would also be concerned that any kind
1:21:56
of abatement of that land side hazard
1:21:58
would probably shrink the footprint a
1:22:00
great deal for setbacks and retaining
1:22:02
walls that might be required to secure
1:22:04
the hillside and I would just think that
1:22:07
as much as we need schools I have a
1:22:09
young daughter who would most likely be
1:22:12
attending that school given our
1:22:14
geography
1:22:15
I understand the need for schools and
1:22:19
but I'd just be would worried about kind
1:22:22
of putting our next generation on the
1:22:24
side of a hill and I know they would
1:22:26
never get that far in construction but
1:22:28
I'd worry we'd go down a path that might
1:22:31
not be very easily panned out based on
1:22:34
the geography thank you thank you Matt
1:22:38
anyone else desiring to speak Mary my
1:22:49
name is Mary Lynch and I recited 2:16 I
1:22:51
know
1:22:51
Northwest Oak Crest Drive Issaquah
1:22:53
Washington and I just want to support
1:22:55
what Connie and Susan has already said
1:22:58
and really think this should go forward
1:23:00
especially this parcel as open space
1:23:03
that's what our goals and our policy has
1:23:06
said that's what the central area plan
1:23:08
said is that we're supposed to the
1:23:10
reason for the central area plan if
1:23:11
density is supposed to be on the valley
1:23:14
floor and or where we've already cut our
1:23:16
trees down I think the city in the
1:23:18
school district needs to work more
1:23:20
openly with the developers and look at
1:23:23
what is possible within the city that
1:23:26
could be used looking at smaller
1:23:28
footprints looking at different types of
1:23:30
schools I question the transportation
1:23:32
some of there because only those that
1:23:35
are on the west side of Highlands and
1:23:39
ninth I believe would probably walk to
1:23:43
school because with the amount of
1:23:45
traffic that goes through the Highlands
1:23:48
through traffic I don't see that as a
1:23:50
safe Avenue to allow podesta students to
1:23:54
walk to and from an elementary school so
1:23:56
I think when you look at the overall
1:23:58
long-term effect of the traffic and
1:24:00
whether they might be coming from other
1:24:03
areas of the plateau that it may switch
1:24:06
shift the traffic from Highlands but
1:24:09
that doesn't mean that it's not going to
1:24:11
put it someplace else so I think an
1:24:13
overall traffic flow needs to be done
1:24:15
for this as also some of the other new
1:24:18
schools that are done and I would hope
1:24:20
going forward that we would when I was
1:24:22
on the central area task force we asked
1:24:24
then that we start working more closely
1:24:27
with the city that was in 2000
1:24:29
and 10 11 and 12 it wasn't until last
1:24:33
year that the City Council sat down with
1:24:36
the school board and again that was with
1:24:37
me pushing I would hope that that
1:24:40
discussion is more Oakland and that's
1:24:42
what we heard last week at some of the
1:24:44
meetings is working with the PTAs and
1:24:46
the parents they could put pressures on
1:24:48
the developers we have some major
1:24:51
developers that are here locally that
1:24:53
might be able to help us we might be
1:24:55
able to locate some schools here and we
1:24:57
also have other communities that need to
1:24:59
step up to the plate
1:25:01
Newcastle King County and Sammamish need
1:25:05
to step up to the plate to help us we're
1:25:07
not the only city and piece of land
1:25:10
holder in Issaquah so I would hope that
1:25:13
we save this these trees up here because
1:25:16
the other thing we haven't done is a
1:25:18
tree canopy the last tree canopy study
1:25:21
we did for Issaquah was in 2006 that was
1:25:24
an estimate we still have not done a
1:25:27
tree canopy to NOAA for anyways near
1:25:29
close to our 50 percent goal and I would
1:25:32
say that we're not if you look just
1:25:34
right now and Exce off the Mount of
1:25:36
trees that have gone even in the school
1:25:39
district property that have gone we
1:25:41
haven't replaced those and we don't have
1:25:43
any good accountability when we put tree
1:25:47
money into the tree fund to make sure we
1:25:49
replace those trees I've not seen any
1:25:51
accounting on that so I would hope that
1:25:53
going forward with this one we make it
1:25:56
open space if it comes back and
1:25:58
justifies and though the due diligence
1:26:01
is done for this parcel of land and it
1:26:04
justifies you can always change the
1:26:06
annex or the the code so please thank
1:26:10
you save our trees thank you Mary anyone
1:26:15
else designed to speak this evening
1:26:16
Steve
1:26:26
Steve Pereira 117 northeast dogwood
1:26:29
Street so a couple of preliminary things
1:26:31
the first was I think this was not
1:26:34
communicated well there was three I
1:26:37
understand there are 3000 letters that
1:26:38
were sent out to folks to live within
1:26:40
300 feet of currently zoned cff facility
1:26:44
this issue kind of affects all Issaquah
1:26:47
so needs to be broadened and
1:26:48
communicated in a way that kind of
1:26:50
involves community so I would urge to go
1:26:53
back and look at a way that that does
1:26:55
that the second piece is this is the
1:26:59
second time I've heard of a zoning issue
1:27:01
come up the first was the planned or
1:27:05
proposed idea of moving the what's
1:27:07
called the staples lot out of the old
1:27:09
town area this is a design area and I
1:27:14
mentioned this in context of the quote
1:27:16
unquote permit or building moratorium so
1:27:18
my point is I think we need to look at
1:27:20
zoning as part of the building
1:27:21
moratorium as a whole issue not as
1:27:25
separate pieces so I would throw that
1:27:28
back to the council for consideration on
1:27:30
this particular issue I know when I
1:27:32
moved here nine and a half years ago I
1:27:33
didn't have any kids all the wood above
1:27:35
my nephews who have talked about before
1:27:36
I've been counseled to good is a
1:27:38
classical district but I liked that the
1:27:41
community supported its kids so I'm
1:27:43
making a distinction between supporting
1:27:45
this cloth school district and is this a
1:27:48
good zoning policy and it doesn't seem
1:27:50
to be a good policy to me to change that
1:27:53
zoning I would concur with the c-fos as
1:27:57
a designated except for the reservoir
1:27:58
lot I know that I've come before council
1:28:04
and talked about not enough time for the
1:28:06
plan and policy Commissioner plant time
1:28:08
and resources to look about the 14
1:28:12
issues
1:28:13
I'm sorry 16 issues that they had to
1:28:15
look at they've only looked at 7 of
1:28:17
those 16 one of which was the tree
1:28:18
canopy issue and here we're talking
1:28:21
about changing and removing trees
1:28:24
further that's one of the core things
1:28:28
that as was known for is that tree
1:28:30
canopy so I don't get why we're talking
1:28:32
about removing further
1:28:37
this seems to be a whole scale coding
1:28:40
change that keeps the letters but
1:28:42
changes where we didn't want bourbon
1:28:44
development to be I'm all for or than
1:28:47
the development in those places where
1:28:48
we've designated to be this seems
1:28:51
outside of that so my thought is again
1:28:53
we're not there that this is the best
1:28:56
way to accomplish that thank you thank
1:29:02
you Steve yes sir
1:29:15
hi Jim Cory I'm a I'm a 13 month
1:29:17
resident at West Highlands Park so I
1:29:19
actually get some some local input here
1:29:22
I appreciate you guys coming tonight too
1:29:24
mostly because I I do understand the
1:29:27
significance of a of a sustainable
1:29:30
significant school in the area and I
1:29:32
consider it an asset the wishes and
1:29:35
concerns that I came up with for for
1:29:38
this location you talked about walkers
1:29:42
and a lot of walkers that are they're
1:29:45
going to be accessing this location and
1:29:48
I just see those from West Highland Park
1:29:50
in the West Ridge proposed the West
1:29:54
Ridge stuff that's being constructed now
1:29:57
so I'm not really sure if we'll have a
1:30:00
lot of walking people from from outside
1:30:02
those areas just because of the the
1:30:05
commercial areas that let's separate
1:30:07
that site from from the other air so I
1:30:10
think it's just those two communities
1:30:11
I'm curious if there's been a road study
1:30:14
done thirteen months that I've been here
1:30:16
we've had one unfamiliar driver in a
1:30:19
cement truck over turn right at the
1:30:21
intersection where you'd be be bringing
1:30:23
kids and where buses would be bringing
1:30:25
kids in so that location is a concern
1:30:28
for me and buses are bigger than cement
1:30:31
trucks so a little harder to maneuver
1:30:37
yeah the roads an extra traffic a I
1:30:40
envisioned especially big events and if
1:30:42
it's a sustainable significant school
1:30:45
there's going to be great community
1:30:47
events around there getting people in
1:30:50
and out of there I think any smart GPS
1:30:53
anybody's coming from the north is going
1:30:56
to suggest the cars come down 4th Avenue
1:30:59
and 5th place which are actually pretty
1:31:02
tight to navigate as it is now not sure
1:31:05
what they're going to look like after
1:31:06
polygons done with it which is really
1:31:10
borderline of what they're what they're
1:31:11
working on now so those roads are a
1:31:14
concern of mine either I actually try to
1:31:16
turn that road and there's kids that are
1:31:17
there and I Drive extra slow because
1:31:20
they're they're always there
1:31:23
I'm concerned and then just that the
1:31:28
amount of parking on a site like that
1:31:31
I'm not envisioning that parking is
1:31:34
going to be sufficient I it just sounds
1:31:38
like an obvious thing to me I think
1:31:39
anybody that looks at it is going to be
1:31:41
like when a school does that and and you
1:31:45
want softball baseball tournaments or
1:31:48
soccer tournaments or anything but that
1:31:49
parking bleeds out on the street if
1:31:51
you've tried to park on 4th Avenue and
1:31:53
West silence Park after 5:00
1:31:55
on a week to errand basically on the
1:31:58
weekend it's not there and people get to
1:32:01
get it all the time because the
1:32:03
neighbors want their parking so one one
1:32:08
suggestion actually for that is to maybe
1:32:10
work with Swedish to ask for use of
1:32:14
their lot for some overflow parking not
1:32:17
sure how you discourage people that are
1:32:19
from out of the area to not use the the
1:32:22
community parking which is text already
1:32:24
in the thirteen months I've been there
1:32:25
I've had three people Park in my
1:32:27
reserved spot I don't call the tow
1:32:29
people I'm I'm a little more neighborly
1:32:31
than that so I go that direction and
1:32:34
then I'm not sure I got the estimated an
1:32:36
enrollment of what you were talking
1:32:37
about and then you talked a lot about
1:32:40
how many kids are being transported now
1:32:42
but how many are going to be transported
1:32:44
I'm just throwing questions up how many
1:32:47
would be transported to this location
1:32:50
something just thought points my last
1:32:55
one it is serious but wondering if the
1:32:59
the proposed site is a thousand feet
1:33:01
from the pot shop it's down calm down
1:33:04
the rich from there those are my
1:33:07
concerns Jim thank you very very much
1:33:13
and M M be helpful to get your contact
1:33:26
information cause of any follow-up so
1:33:30
anyone else desiring to speak anyone
1:33:38
else third and final call seeing no one
1:33:43
then that will conclude a public comment
1:33:49
on this agenda bill and are there
1:33:57
questions or discussion hallo
1:34:03
I have a question for the school
1:34:06
superintendent and a question for Trish
1:34:09
Trish first there was a lot of public
1:34:14
comment that the council receives
1:34:15
through email as well and I'm wondering
1:34:18
how that gets incorporated into the
1:34:19
agenda bills so that somebody reading
1:34:22
the agenda bill can see all of the
1:34:23
information that was submitted right the
1:34:25
information the public comment that you
1:34:27
received at Landon Shore is an exhibit
1:34:29
in the updated agenda bill that you
1:34:31
would have received for tonight and then
1:34:33
all that came after the 7th we're
1:34:35
starting another document of all those
1:34:38
emails in the public comment and that
1:34:40
would go into the next update and when
1:34:42
folks ask questions in those emails how
1:34:44
do they get the answers good question
1:34:49
because a lot of the questions are you
1:34:51
know all over the the board I think
1:34:54
we're trying to either answer them in
1:34:55
presentations or we'll go through and
1:34:57
try to answer them individually
1:34:59
depending on the comment did you have a
1:35:04
question of wrong I'm supposed to not
1:35:07
follow up to what Mary Lou asked we've
1:35:11
we have received a fair amount of
1:35:13
comments in email
1:35:17
I think it's on I think a lot of it the
1:35:20
majority of it is on the
1:35:23
the code change that Keith was speaking
1:35:25
to earlier so see I don't know the
1:35:31
answer to that but I don't know the
1:35:33
answer to the question of what do we do
1:35:34
with that because if they're commenting
1:35:36
about a school site I think a lot of
1:35:40
people are commenting actually on the
1:35:41
proposed the code change that PPC had
1:35:44
the hearing on right and those questions
1:35:47
those questions are in the agenda bill
1:35:49
for the school the urban school agenda
1:35:52
bill and we're trying to separate the
1:35:53
ones that are actually asking about the
1:35:55
annexation and the zoning of that we're
1:35:58
trying to keep them separate because as
1:36:00
Keith said they're really not they're
1:36:02
similar but they're not the same they're
1:36:03
they don't rely on each other so I just
1:36:06
wanted to point that out so that maybe
1:36:09
were potentially generous with the
1:36:11
inclusion of the comments that we the
1:36:15
comments in this agenda in this agenda
1:36:17
bill even if there may be duplicates for
1:36:19
a future agenda bill having to do with a
1:36:21
code change in September okay so you're
1:36:24
saying you want the ones on urban
1:36:25
schools in this agenda bill as well I'm
1:36:27
thinking that we should I'm suggesting
1:36:29
that we looked at them with an eye
1:36:33
towards there's a possibility they might
1:36:35
be and someone might be involved okay
1:36:38
it's all our own sir and to Trish the
1:36:42
information that Keith gave tonight
1:36:43
about being able to build the school
1:36:45
anyway isn't in the agenda bill so I'm
1:36:49
not sure how the public would know that
1:36:50
whether or not there's an urban school
1:36:52
standard or not that this zoning request
1:36:55
means that the school could be built
1:36:57
anyway under existing code how does that
1:36:59
get included in each end right we can do
1:37:01
that that would be in there urban
1:37:02
schools agenda bill but we could put an
1:37:05
update in this agenda bill as well I
1:37:08
think that they have that pretty big
1:37:10
dead zone that came up but the process
1:37:12
it's not relying on the urban schools
1:37:14
agenda bill for them for the school to
1:37:17
be built and a question for Ron Ron
1:37:22
you're up
1:37:24
Marilu not a detailed numbers question
1:37:27
but just on the slide that talked about
1:37:29
the trips and the students and it guess
1:37:33
what confused me is the numbers seem
1:37:35
high I recognize how many students there
1:37:37
are that are moving around but aren't
1:37:39
they on school buses why are the numbers
1:37:40
in the hundreds when we're talking about
1:37:42
saving trips is that parents driving
1:37:45
kids and picking kids up versus blessing
1:37:47
I I believe what I heard Steve say was
1:37:52
it was based off the generation data
1:37:54
that was used off of Clark the recent
1:37:57
motorist traffic impact analysis for the
1:37:59
Clark element document icon we had to do
1:38:02
a traffic impact analysis for the new
1:38:03
Clark elementary school and that
1:38:06
determines the number of trips per
1:38:09
student in attendance so it's using that
1:38:12
same criteria I guess my question is
1:38:15
that is it parents driving their kids to
1:38:18
school that we're counting on doing or
1:38:20
is it busing it's both okay now if you
1:38:25
look at the number of buses it's a
1:38:27
pretty insignificant number compared to
1:38:29
the total and I guess I'll just throw it
1:38:34
out there maybe this is a comment is
1:38:36
that somehow that seems to not follow an
1:38:39
urban school sustainable design thing
1:38:41
when the majority of the volume of
1:38:42
traffic we're talking about is people
1:38:43
driving in cars versus using busing or
1:38:46
walking that's part of what happens when
1:38:49
you have a large attendance area that's
1:38:51
remote from the school they attend now
1:38:53
if you look at the fact that the site
1:38:55
would provide for the ability for a
1:38:58
great number of students to walk to
1:39:00
school that changes the picture there's
1:39:02
72 homes under construction immediately
1:39:04
adjacent to the site there's another 400
1:39:07
on the west side that are coming there's
1:39:09
probably another hundred that are
1:39:10
already built and then you've got the
1:39:12
whole Lakeside properties at the North
1:39:14
End that would add to that so by the
1:39:16
time you're done on the Westside
1:39:19
Highlands Drive you're going to come
1:39:20
pretty close to fill in at school I
1:39:22
actually just think that be important
1:39:24
piece when you're presenting a proposal
1:39:25
for the property is to understand what
1:39:28
is car what is bus what is walk would be
1:39:30
important Marylou I would just add to
1:39:33
that we do a lot to encourage families
1:39:36
to put their children on the
1:39:38
our board recently had a linkage with
1:39:41
the city of Sammamish this was the hot
1:39:43
topic as well
1:39:45
I know grande ridge elementary does
1:39:47
participate in the Metro carpooling
1:39:51
program that they try to do we do have
1:39:54
one of the highest bus ridership s-- in
1:39:56
the state as well but it still only
1:39:58
represent represents about fifty percent
1:40:00
of our students so you know since I've
1:40:04
got this microphone I want to encourage
1:40:05
all parents if you have a buzz available
1:40:08
they're wonderful buses they're safe put
1:40:11
your children on them I think it is one
1:40:13
way to address our traffic issues but
1:40:15
again as you look at that site now it's
1:40:18
may be hard to envision predominantly
1:40:20
walking school but as Steve just
1:40:23
mentioned you've got hundreds of more
1:40:25
homes and dwellings to be built right
1:40:28
adjacent to where that site is that I
1:40:30
don't believe will ever be all walking I
1:40:33
actually agree that if we have to cut a
1:40:36
boundary on the other side of Highlands
1:40:38
Drive we would like to have to bus kids
1:40:39
across that that busy thoroughfare so it
1:40:43
will not be all walking if we have to
1:40:45
bring kids from some of the other
1:40:46
communities just to the north at least
1:40:49
in the beginning to populate the school
1:40:51
we would have some bus transit there as
1:40:54
well but certainly putting at school
1:40:57
that close to where all the housing is
1:40:59
in our other communities where we have
1:41:02
that intro six and Kalani those are and
1:41:05
grand rates for that matter those are
1:41:07
predominantly walking schools it helps
1:41:12
to provide capacity at Clark and I ve on
1:41:15
the valley floor which is going to be
1:41:16
necessary to accommodate the growth
1:41:18
that's coming out of the central area
1:41:20
plan oh I'm still a little murky on what
1:41:26
if any decision making we're doing this
1:41:28
evening because I have both opinions and
1:41:30
questions and I don't know whether the
1:41:32
when and if to share opinions or whether
1:41:35
to just limit myself to questions so the
1:41:38
proposed motion which has not been made
1:41:43
is to direct administration to prepare
1:41:46
an ordinance establishing annex
1:41:49
dr. King County Island pre-annexation
1:41:52
zoning consisting of a mixture of
1:41:55
various zoning to include facilities cff
1:42:01
zoning is presented in Exhibit D which
1:42:05
is potential future land uses and
1:42:08
updating so many proposals and which you
1:42:12
saw on a slide that so you're just
1:42:17
directing us to prepare the ordinance
1:42:20
and we will return following at the
1:42:28
September 5th regular council meeting
1:42:31
for a final decision on that and the
1:42:35
purpose of this is to gather public
1:42:38
input and questions and concerns on the
1:42:44
administration's proposal does that help
1:42:47
it does Thank You mr. mother question
1:42:54
mr. mayor just just to follow up on that
1:42:57
this is quasi-judicial as you know and
1:43:00
you're going to have a second public
1:43:02
hearing on September 5th
1:43:04
so no final decision should be made
1:43:06
about anything tonight the only decision
1:43:09
I think that was put forth in the packet
1:43:12
was more of a procedural one as to
1:43:14
whether staff should proceed with the
1:43:16
preparation of an ordinance but you
1:43:18
should not be making decisions and
1:43:20
deliberating what the zoning should be
1:43:23
since the hearing is not concluded or at
1:43:27
least the second hearing is not
1:43:28
concluded you're required by law to have
1:43:32
two public hearings and this is the
1:43:34
first of two
1:43:39
No so follow-up to that question then
1:43:44
again process so this motion here is to
1:43:49
direct the administration is that going
1:43:52
to be voted on today as is or that's
1:43:54
just so there's going to be an actual
1:43:56
vote on that movement of directing the
1:43:58
administration to do as stated there
1:44:00
there can the actual vote because it
1:44:02
sounded like directing ministry I had a
1:44:04
hard time today trying to figure out
1:44:05
what exactly we're going to do here
1:44:07
because that is kind of a direct order
1:44:09
and it says the exact type of zoning to
1:44:11
be in there so it seems pretty
1:44:14
pre-decisional to me so I'm not sure
1:44:16
what we're going to do next from a legal
1:44:21
perspective you cannot make the final
1:44:23
decision and you cannot make a decision
1:44:25
on the zoning until after the public
1:44:27
hearing is concluded if you wish to make
1:44:30
a procedural determination tonight to
1:44:33
direct staff to prepare an ordinance and
1:44:35
bring it back so that you can take
1:44:38
action after the next public hearing
1:44:41
that you can do but making the
1:44:45
substantive decision on the the zoning
1:44:50
itself is something you should not do
1:44:52
tonight until after the second public
1:44:54
hearing years ago okay and just clarify
1:44:59
but it has the zoning listed in there
1:45:01
and I understand what you just said but
1:45:03
to me it looks like I'm agreeing with
1:45:05
the zoning if I voted on that the way
1:45:07
it's written tonight and that that's
1:45:09
what I have a problem with so I'm just
1:45:11
trying to be as fair as it says with all
1:45:13
these zoning direct administration to do
1:45:15
that I know it's not official yet after
1:45:17
the second public hearing but if I vote
1:45:19
to direct that it looks like I'm voting
1:45:22
to establish that zoning so I'm feeling
1:45:25
kind of caught in the middle here
1:45:27
because this whole quasi-judicial thing
1:45:29
is kind of a little awkward here it's
1:45:34
with the developer and be one on
1:45:38
Malachor
1:45:41
yeah perhaps that you know that motion
1:45:45
was put forth by staff to see if the
1:45:48
council wished it to bring back an
1:45:50
ordinance at the next meeting if you
1:45:53
don't make a motion directing that what
1:45:57
will happen is that the next meeting
1:45:58
there will just simply be in ordinance
1:46:00
or excuse me there will simply be a
1:46:02
public hearing and then we will wait
1:46:05
direction from the City Council after
1:46:08
the close of that public hearing in
1:46:10
order to provide direction as to what
1:46:13
direction you want to go
1:46:14
well you shouldn't make a decision on
1:46:16
the zoning see he defected back if thank
1:46:20
you if I could offer maybe a suggestion
1:46:23
it seems like the only public comment
1:46:26
that was received this evening was
1:46:28
surrounding the parcel that's right now
1:46:32
identified as CF F at the north east
1:46:36
corner and I guess the question is I
1:46:38
hear what you're saying and you could
1:46:40
potentially solve that issue by having
1:46:45
an ordinance for both so basically the
1:46:49
other parcels are I don't know that
1:46:51
there's issues or concerns that I've
1:46:56
heard about any of the other parcels and
1:46:58
there's a timeline associated with this
1:47:00
associated with the icy parcel which I
1:47:03
don't think anybody has any concerns
1:47:05
over because that one is associated with
1:47:08
the Tod project and I guess I don't want
1:47:11
that to run this timeline but also if we
1:47:14
if we don't do the ordinance at the next
1:47:18
meeting at the conclusion of the public
1:47:20
hearing and it actually comes two weeks
1:47:22
later I think there's some time issues
1:47:25
associated with the Tod project with
1:47:28
that delay so so one way to get past
1:47:32
that would be to either write the
1:47:34
ordinance and leave the we've we've
1:47:37
created kind of a land-use map here so
1:47:39
we could either leave all of them blank
1:47:42
and fill them in as part of the
1:47:45
conversation at the next at the close of
1:47:48
the public hearing or we could populate
1:47:51
the portions of this
1:47:54
in the ordinance that are less
1:47:56
controversial so I don't I don't know
1:47:59
that there's I think I hear I'm trying
1:48:03
to get you past the concern that you
1:48:04
have by maybe either providing multiple
1:48:08
ordinances or leaving the final
1:48:11
land-uses maybe as a fill-in-the-blank
1:48:13
that we could do maybe at after the
1:48:16
hearing and the council makes the
1:48:17
decision so just a suggestion because
1:48:21
you know I have an opinion right oh
1:48:23
sorry
1:48:25
inside joke Marilu you can do sit for
1:48:28
second statutory so isn't it as simple
1:48:31
as we can actually make a motion tonight
1:48:33
for to prepare an ordinance with
1:48:36
whatever language we want vote on that
1:48:38
but it doesn't mean the ordinance passes
1:48:39
it doesn't and we amend can we make it's
1:48:43
just to make the ordinance it's not to
1:48:45
vote on it you could do that tonight I
1:48:49
don't have any issues with the process I
1:48:51
mean I've this is the way that I'm a
1:48:54
custom seeing it done this is the way
1:48:56
it's typically brought forward it is
1:48:59
directing the administration to prepare
1:49:01
an ordinance that will be deliberated on
1:49:05
later that's that's what the direction
1:49:07
is that it's as simple as that
1:49:09
I understand what the concern what you
1:49:12
think it looks like or what you feel
1:49:15
that but that's not what that's not what
1:49:17
it is it's the it's so that we are
1:49:18
prepared to deliberate on September 5th
1:49:22
the other option is to don't direct
1:49:25
administration to do anything and then
1:49:27
we made when we wouldn't have an
1:49:30
ordinance to deliberate over next time
1:49:32
all followed by Mary Lou and then Cola
1:49:37
I'm thank you mr. mayor and thank you
1:49:41
for those comments Stacey you know
1:49:42
having been through an annexation
1:49:44
process once before a couple years ago I
1:49:46
do remember the process
1:49:47
I view what's in front of us as a
1:49:50
proposal and that as was stated earlier
1:49:53
it'll be at the conclusion of the second
1:49:55
hearing on September 5th where we will
1:49:57
actually debate and and drive toward
1:50:01
some type of council a majority excuse
1:50:05
me of of what the zoning should be
1:50:07
I parcel so this is a proposal some of
1:50:11
it I agree with and have no question
1:50:15
about some I'm uncertain with I'm I'm
1:50:18
uncertain at this time of whether or not
1:50:20
I agree but but the process I think
1:50:24
we're going to follow is bring a
1:50:26
proposal forward continue the public
1:50:29
conversation which is a really good
1:50:30
conversation this is there's very good
1:50:33
points made about forested hillsides
1:50:36
schools density land use in still over
1:50:43
impact this is a very good public
1:50:46
conversation to have and I want to
1:50:47
continue to have that and and I do
1:50:50
accept the driver that we have in terms
1:50:52
of timing we have the benefit at the
1:50:55
landed shore committee to see a timeline
1:50:57
on the Tod project and one of the
1:51:00
requirements for the funding from King
1:51:03
County is that the applicant has control
1:51:06
of the land and and establishing this
1:51:11
type of zoning is just once it doesn't
1:51:14
doesn't give them control of the land
1:51:16
but it does it is a necessary step in
1:51:19
that process and I and I do so I accept
1:51:23
that timing driving particularly for
1:51:25
that particular parcel the one in the
1:51:27
northwest quadrant or the bottom-left on
1:51:28
this diagram so I'm comfortable it's a
1:51:32
proposal we will deliberate it we may
1:51:34
change the proposal and and and so I'm
1:51:39
going to if no one else does I am going
1:51:41
to feel free to I get my computer back
1:51:44
to to make a motion to prepare the
1:51:48
ordinance but I think there's going to
1:51:50
be some more comments first thank you Oh
1:51:53
Mary Lou
1:51:54
Toula um I agree with some of that but I
1:52:01
disagree that while it's a proposal I
1:52:06
actually believe that the council
1:52:08
tonight can do what Keith said which is
1:52:10
suggest that a blank be left in a
1:52:13
certain spot or that the community
1:52:15
facilities facilities be listed as
1:52:17
community facilities open space have no
1:52:20
issue having
1:52:21
then bring that back and during after
1:52:24
the second public hearing if we decide
1:52:26
that there is compelling reasons to do C
1:52:29
F F F we will
1:52:31
so I actually I'm in favor of changing
1:52:34
motion this evening
1:52:35
oh so I don't know in regards to
1:52:41
annexations but we often are given a a
1:52:46
set of options to look at as I recall
1:52:48
with polygons and some of our other
1:52:49
recent options so it seems like there's
1:52:52
sort of there's sort of two things that
1:52:54
we want to take a look at right one is
1:52:57
the option that's in front of us right
1:52:58
now and the other option would be with
1:53:00
the two CFS as CFOs and then I don't
1:53:04
know how the I don't know how the the
1:53:06
water tank works if that CF f is CFOs
1:53:09
and that'd be something the
1:53:11
administration would have to come back
1:53:12
on but that seems like the two options
1:53:13
we're talking about right now
1:53:14
and so I would suggest a further
1:53:17
modification and rather than just a
1:53:19
blank slate direct the administration
1:53:21
can come back with two options that we
1:53:24
could look at in detail and after
1:53:25
further public comment hopefully make a
1:53:28
decision between those two options and
1:53:29
we'd print that which I think would
1:53:31
address council member Ramos is Jason um
1:53:39
I'm unclear I'm unclear so two separate
1:53:42
ordinances no um leave two blanks no
1:53:46
create two options an option a and an
1:53:48
option B just like we did with polygon
1:53:50
and just like we did with Bursa yeah so
1:53:52
um I'll I think I think I've got this
1:53:57
figured out I don't have the heartburn
1:53:58
that some are especially about directing
1:54:01
the administration to prepare a proposed
1:54:03
ordinance because to me they're all
1:54:06
they're all blank spots that are filled
1:54:08
in with proposals so that doesn't bother
1:54:09
me but I'm it doesn't everyone do
1:54:15
all I'd like to make a motion we could
1:54:19
direct the administration to prepare an
1:54:21
ordinance establishing annexation of
1:54:22
King County Island and pre-annexation
1:54:24
zoning consisting of a mixture of
1:54:26
intensive commercial community
1:54:28
facilities open space and communities
1:54:30
facilities facilities zoning as
1:54:32
presented in Exhibit D for consideration
1:54:36
at the September 5th 2017 regular
1:54:38
council meeting followed following the
1:54:40
scheduled public hearing okay
1:54:43
moved and seconded I think Stacy eight
1:54:50
inches by a fraction of a second so
1:54:55
discussion additional discussion or
1:54:57
questions on the motion Mary Lou sure
1:55:01
I'm I'm still struggling I am not
1:55:03
comfortable with this motion at all and
1:55:05
for lots of different reasons one the
1:55:09
biggest one is I think one of the most
1:55:12
shocking memories I have of living in
1:55:16
town this time was when the trees came
1:55:18
down for a sickle island and that whole
1:55:21
ridge line was exposed and that is what
1:55:23
it is for good now and I am Not sure
1:55:27
that we figured out how to do this right
1:55:29
now and no argument that we need to have
1:55:31
schools but I would rather have no CFS
1:55:34
zoning in here right now until I
1:55:35
understand what those parcels are going
1:55:37
to look like we've made mistakes and we
1:55:39
haven't figured out how to do it better
1:55:41
so I would propose that the I would like
1:55:43
to make a motion to amend that motion to
1:55:46
remove any reference to CFS at this time
1:55:51
second so there's an amendment to the
1:55:56
motion questions or discussion on the
1:56:02
amendment Stacy oh I'm I'm going to
1:56:09
support the amendment like I said
1:56:11
because it to me it doesn't really
1:56:13
matter what is in the proposed ordinance
1:56:16
because that makes it what we're doing
1:56:19
here almost makes it like one out
1:56:20
deliberating that's the part that
1:56:21
troubled me but by supporting putting
1:56:25
CFS in the in the first motion or
1:56:28
changing this to see
1:56:29
Oh OS I don't I think it's I don't think
1:56:35
it matters but I would support the
1:56:36
change that makes others feel
1:56:37
comfortable or aya I I would just echo
1:56:46
what council president Goodman has
1:56:48
talked about I think that we had the
1:56:50
opportunity to to make these changes
1:56:53
down the road that I actually thought
1:56:56
that one of the best options that I had
1:56:59
heard was from was from Tola in terms of
1:57:04
presenting two options and a and a B and
1:57:07
it seemed like that would have the
1:57:09
capability to get everyone asked this
1:57:15
all I want to make sure I understand the
1:57:19
proposed amendment it says remove all
1:57:21
references the C F F so that is so it
1:57:25
doesn't replace that with another zoning
1:57:28
designation is that the intent
1:57:37
that's your understanding no and and I'm
1:57:44
I could do this or I think I might
1:57:46
prefer told us method a little better
1:57:48
but I could do it either it comes to me
1:57:51
when you have one proposal you have no
1:57:54
alternative
1:57:54
then that's pre-decisional for me I mean
1:57:57
all environmental document I've ever
1:57:59
written you have to have a no action
1:58:00
alternative is required to have at least
1:58:02
two and when you have only one and it's
1:58:06
all it looks like it's all decided
1:58:07
whether you say it is or not that's what
1:58:09
it feels like and that's what I can't
1:58:11
not support that I want to support going
1:58:13
forward and working on those keeping our
1:58:15
timing on everything keep it open for
1:58:17
looking at schools but don't have enough
1:58:18
information to to do that yet so I could
1:58:21
live with this one or two alternatives
1:58:24
or whatever but I couldn't go with the
1:58:28
original motion hello I think tons of
1:58:32
member Barbara's first oh I'm sorry I
1:58:36
mean back here in the local yeah um I'm
1:58:40
also in agreement that I could go with
1:58:43
Toula
1:58:44
at and it doesn't mean that we can't
1:58:46
even at the next meeting this comes
1:58:49
forward there can still be some changes
1:58:51
going forward so it's not like we're
1:58:53
locking ourselves into anything that's
1:58:55
being said or or here this evening we
1:58:58
can change this next councilman meeting
1:59:01
when we look forward to this so I'm not
1:59:04
having a problem with anything specific
1:59:07
this evening so therefore I'm gonna not
1:59:14
support the amendment and intend to
1:59:16
offer an alternate amendment after if
1:59:19
this amendment fits there's no
1:59:27
discussion on the amendment Oh
1:59:31
on September 5th we're going to debate
1:59:34
parcel by parcel what the zoning should
1:59:36
be that's when it's going to come down
1:59:37
to and I'm sure that this can be
1:59:39
prepared in such a way that we can
1:59:41
debate and
1:59:42
and we can we can there can be a initial
1:59:45
proposal people can offer amendments so
1:59:49
so procedural eyes I think we're making
1:59:50
this more complex than we need to and
1:59:54
and as the suit lawyers said earlier
1:59:58
actually debating where I actually want
2:00:01
to do on a point of clarification Jim
2:00:02
you said one of the things we're not
2:00:04
doing this evening is debating the
2:00:06
zoning but that sounded a little bit odd
2:00:08
to me because this is actually a
2:00:10
different proposal than what we saw at
2:00:11
land and Shore a couple weeks ago so if
2:00:13
you could clarify that comment I would
2:00:15
appreciate it well but the statement I
2:00:20
was trying to make is that you cannot
2:00:22
make a final decision on this and cannot
2:00:25
cannot debate the the actual issue
2:00:29
underlying issue of what should the
2:00:31
zoning be because you haven't completed
2:00:32
the public hearing at this point per se
2:00:35
so this is a this is a procedural
2:00:36
question and we're not this is not a
2:00:38
question about zoning this is a question
2:00:41
about process only okay thank you
2:00:47
there's no questions on the amendment
2:00:50
being none then all those in favor of
2:00:54
the amendment to remove all reference to
2:00:56
see ff8 apply by saying aye I oppose the
2:01:04
amendment carries a to the original no
2:01:11
vote oh wait excuse me I did that I
2:01:14
think for the consent calendar at the
2:01:16
last meeting all those opposed no okay
2:01:23
so the amendment passes by a vote of
2:01:25
five to two with faylene are three one
2:01:32
two three one two okay
2:01:37
or deface your hand okay
2:01:42
I got her I get it so the amendment
2:01:47
passes by a vote of order three and Paul
2:01:56
so I think we should be making some
2:01:58
decision on September 5th and again the
2:02:01
really the conversation about all of the
2:02:03
proposed zoning I do appreciate the
2:02:05
public comments we've got this evening
2:02:07
there's different points of view were
2:02:09
offered this is this is the right
2:02:11
conversation to be having it is it is I
2:02:14
think you know indicative of our times I
2:02:19
value the the forested hillsides and the
2:02:22
view quite a bit I think it's
2:02:23
appropriate to note that you know
2:02:26
further north of here that the that the
2:02:28
ridge line is been has been cut down you
2:02:31
can see the buildings that are there so
2:02:33
this community needs to have this
2:02:34
conversation I look forward for that
2:02:36
continuing and I'm going to be also
2:02:40
expecting to make a final decision on
2:02:43
the zoning and the ordinance at our
2:02:46
September 5th meeting olá so on
2:02:54
in September I hope to get to yes I
2:02:57
think there's I think a second Highland
2:02:59
School is desperately needed I think
2:03:01
that the community and and homeowners
2:03:04
and condo owners have responded to the
2:03:08
Highlands hugely and so I understand why
2:03:12
the school district wants to put a
2:03:13
school there and having been involved in
2:03:15
several boundary reviews I understand
2:03:17
the the appeal of it I think the city
2:03:20
has a long-standing relationship strong
2:03:23
relationship with the school district
2:03:25
and as long as I've been on council
2:03:26
we've had either yearly or by yearly
2:03:29
meetings with the school district and
2:03:31
one of the things that we've been
2:03:32
talking about for a long time is sort of
2:03:34
an urban site design and trying to
2:03:36
design the school that would more
2:03:38
reflect the higher density that our
2:03:41
community is evolving to and I'm excited
2:03:42
about this potential design I have to
2:03:45
say though there's three things that I'm
2:03:47
going to need to see in September before
2:03:49
I could possibly get to you
2:03:51
one is there's this question about
2:03:54
landslide zones and the stability of the
2:03:57
hillside I I think that particular
2:04:00
property itself is relatively flat but
2:04:02
I'm going to want to hear back from the
2:04:04
city on that question the second is
2:04:07
around the marijuana shop that's in the
2:04:09
valley and it's distance from the school
2:04:11
although it's a very steep and forested
2:04:14
hillsides but it's still as one of the
2:04:17
people that was involved in crafting
2:04:18
that that policy it's important to me
2:04:20
and the third and absolutely most
2:04:22
important is the tree line and so
2:04:25
Richard the third
2:04:26
in Shakespeare's Richard the thirty said
2:04:27
a horse a horse my kingdom for a horse
2:04:29
and two rows of trees in front of the
2:04:33
Highlands
2:04:34
right now it north of there would make
2:04:37
such a difference visually and so when
2:04:39
we talked about the remaining forest
2:04:42
that would be in the CFOs property I
2:04:45
want to understand what that tree line
2:04:47
would look like because if it's true
2:04:50
that it would do a nice job of of
2:04:54
covering the school that's really
2:04:57
important and that's very very different
2:04:59
for me than expanding the open space
2:05:02
that exists to the north of there and so
2:05:04
those are the three things that I'm
2:05:06
going to need to understand better when
2:05:08
we make a final decision on this
2:05:09
ordinance Mary Lou okay
2:05:13
I just want to reiterate again about the
2:05:17
ridge line I think the clearing of the
2:05:19
ridge line for the Highlands was one of
2:05:20
the saddest times around here it
2:05:22
absolutely changed the way town looked
2:05:25
and it used to be you didn't want to
2:05:27
look that way coming into town because
2:05:28
of the gravel pit and then it became
2:05:30
they took the whole hillside down and it
2:05:32
was devastating you know it feels a game
2:05:37
like we're being pushed into this tiny
2:05:40
little corner because we need to have a
2:05:41
school no doubt no argument not a single
2:05:44
person here said we didn't need to have
2:05:46
a school but we haven't talked about the
2:05:48
fact that we have god-knows-what another
2:05:52
thousand units that could be built up
2:05:54
there and seven thousand more that could
2:05:55
be built filled on the floor and this is
2:05:57
going to come up over and over and over
2:05:58
again again it just feels like it's at
2:06:00
the eleventh hour and instead of being a
2:06:02
good decision the community can support
2:06:04
if you're going to take down the trees
2:06:06
you're going to build a school I mean
2:06:07
again it's a bad bad place to be I think
2:06:12
since Landon sure we've seen this design
2:06:15
evolve and I think this is tied to the
2:06:18
urban school design even though they are
2:06:20
set in separate ones I think what breaks
2:06:23
my heart most about this is that the
2:06:25
first time we're talking about doing a
2:06:27
model like this we have to DeForest a
2:06:29
piece of land to do it that is that's
2:06:34
unbelievable to me
2:06:35
unbelievably sad and short-sighted and
2:06:37
we have four or five more schools to
2:06:39
build what's next and find a place for
2:06:41
this one where the other four going to
2:06:43
go being we just we have not figured
2:06:46
this out I don't think we have worked as
2:06:48
closely with the school district as we
2:06:49
should have I don't think we've thought
2:06:51
five years down the line or ten years
2:06:52
down the line they've got the money but
2:06:55
they can't afford the land and so we're
2:06:56
going to do for us a piece of property
2:06:57
and I think that and this is not an
2:07:02
argument about what it should be zoned
2:07:05
no matter what it is zoned councils
2:07:08
hands are not tied to not to to a
2:07:11
particular design we can wait and see a
2:07:13
design and change the zoning when we
2:07:15
want to so yes we should make a decision
2:07:17
in September but this is not a do-or-die
2:07:19
decision we need to be way more
2:07:21
thoughtful about this and we need to
2:07:23
think about the next four or five
2:07:24
schools that are coming so I I don't
2:07:29
know I find the whole conversation very
2:07:32
disheartening and we are known for our
2:07:35
school district but we're growing like
2:07:37
crazy and we're not making any plans to
2:07:39
accommodate the schools at all very
2:07:41
discerning visceral discussion or
2:07:48
questions on the amended motion poll
2:07:52
last comment before the vote at least
2:07:55
for me it actually has to do with this
2:07:58
that proposed change the cff I know it's
2:08:02
not part of the question today and I
2:08:03
would like for the administration's
2:08:05
consideration to perhaps create a new
2:08:08
designation CFS school zone or something
2:08:10
because as a change to cff actually then
2:08:14
and that's why the letter went out to so
2:08:16
many people everybody who is in 300
2:08:18
it was pointed out earlier during public
2:08:20
comment everybody who was in within 300
2:08:23
feet of a cff zone got this letter and
2:08:25
it had no context it really with no
2:08:28
backstory and do we really as a city
2:08:31
need to change CFS and maybe should we
2:08:33
be considering creating a news zone
2:08:36
specifically for schools for this
2:08:39
purpose so that's a that's a sidebar
2:08:41
comment it's not related to the question
2:08:43
in front of us but I wanted to get it
2:08:44
out there thank you well and I just want
2:08:48
a second that I'd like to see a separate
2:08:49
zone zoning versus modifying the one so
2:08:54
that would make me more comfortable as
2:08:55
we go ahead I just want to make sure
2:08:57
that's her well heard I've heard both
2:09:02
Paul and bill so it was well heard
2:09:05
Mariah and I just wanted to echo what
2:09:10
councilmember Mart's talked about he
2:09:13
asked for three different things that he
2:09:15
would like to see coming up in September
2:09:18
and I just want to echo that I would
2:09:20
like to see that as well
2:09:24
any additional discussion all those in
2:09:29
favor of directing administration to
2:09:32
prepare an ordinance establishing
2:09:33
annexation of the King County Island and
2:09:36
pre-annexation zoning consisting of a
2:09:39
mixture of intensive commercial
2:09:42
commercial facilities open space
2:09:56
let me let me start over direct
2:09:59
administration prepared more nets
2:10:00
established in annexation and the King
2:10:03
King Kelly and pre-annexation zoning
2:10:06
consisting of mixture of intensive
2:10:08
commercial and community facilities open
2:10:12
space or consideration at December
2:10:16
September 5th 2017 regular council
2:10:19
meetings signify by saying aye aye those
2:10:22
opposed that carries unanimously
2:10:29
okay moving now to agenda bill 744 -
2:10:43
annexation of bellevue utility island
2:10:47
and establishment of pre-annexation
2:10:49
zoning paren zoning element is
2:10:53
quasi-judicial for the staff set up and
2:10:58
background issue you're on again here's
2:11:02
the next one I think this was a lot
2:11:03
easier to think about this is the job
2:11:06
hopefully I must be because a lot of
2:11:10
here's the room
2:11:11
this is implementing part of you the
2:11:15
water assumption that took place January
2:11:18
1st of this year this is the site of the
2:11:21
Lake Sammamish water reservoir that we
2:11:24
took over from the City of Bellevue and
2:11:27
so now we're able to annex this property
2:11:30
into the city limits we are proposing
2:11:33
that the zoning be community facilities
2:11:35
facilities it already has the water
2:11:38
reservoir on it and a beautiful stand of
2:11:41
trees around it that are not going
2:11:44
anywhere and it's just a little less
2:11:47
than two acres any questions sorry the
2:11:53
question ah what is your bakery
2:11:56
make a motion and then like any first me
2:12:00
excuse me I will carry first for
2:12:02
demotion yeah fine so any questions of
2:12:09
Trish seeing none then we will conduct
2:12:16
the public hearing same comments apply
2:12:20
and open the public hearing at 9:14 is
2:12:26
anyone signed up to speak now anyone
2:12:30
desiring to speak on this issue seeing
2:12:36
none then the public hearing is closed
2:12:39
at 9 14 and a half up and questions or
2:12:47
discussion motion mr. mayor I moved to
2:12:54
direct the administration to prepare an
2:12:56
ordinance establish annexation of the
2:12:58
bellevue utility island and
2:12:59
pre-annexation zoning consisting of
2:13:01
community facilities facilities for
2:13:04
consideration at the september 5th 2017
2:13:06
regular council meeting following the
2:13:09
scheduled public hearing ii moved in
2:13:11
seconded questions or discussion Mary
2:13:13
Lou I'm Trish there was a question from
2:13:16
I think it was Connie at the landed
2:13:18
shore meeting as to what the clearing
2:13:20
and grading was in CF FF and even though
2:13:23
there's trees there now are there any
2:13:26
restrictions on the amount of trees that
2:13:28
could be removed for future expansion on
2:13:30
the site hi there
2:13:37
so my remember like haha so Keith Niven
2:13:40
director of development services and
2:13:42
economic development still temporarily
2:13:45
so my recollection of the question was
2:13:48
just a wee bit different and it was more
2:13:50
of a question of operations and how
2:13:53
close what their tree trimming or
2:13:57
cutting policy is around city facilities
2:14:01
with kind of a implication that maybe
2:14:04
the city took a harder stance that maybe
2:14:08
volunteer trees around
2:14:10
new facilities and that maybe this
2:14:11
reservoir was going to receive similar
2:14:13
attention so I have not had a chance to
2:14:16
connect yet with Brett Heath we've
2:14:18
exchanged phone messages I will get that
2:14:21
answer and get that out to you all
2:14:23
before we get to September other
2:14:27
questions our discussion seeing none
2:14:30
then all those in favor of the motion
2:14:32
signify by saying aye
2:14:34
aye as opposed that carries unanimously
2:14:40
how's everyone doing take five I think
2:14:45
we're going to take five please be back
2:14:47
in your seat at twenty minutes after
2:14:49
9:00
2:15:11
you
2:20:43
we are back after a short recess
2:20:47
our next item this evening is agenda
2:20:52
bill seven three four five amending
2:20:56
parking requirements in the central
2:21:01
squad development and design standards
2:21:04
and the kicked things off loose Lucy's
2:21:07
Sloman from Development Services
2:21:11
Division for the introduction all right
2:21:19
I'm sorry we're having a little
2:21:21
technical problem no it's the notes you
2:21:30
don't want them where you want them I
2:21:32
don't want it like that okay
2:21:40
sorry
2:21:45
Oh
2:21:50
okay
2:21:52
all right
2:22:02
are we rolling overcoming the technical
2:22:05
difficulties I just a reminder that July
2:22:09
27th the city will be celebrating its
2:22:11
one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary
2:22:14
at confluence park and it promises to be
2:22:19
an enjoyable and exciting evening with a
2:22:25
very few speeches a band lots of
2:22:29
activities for kids food trucks and what
2:22:35
promises to be a fun evening celebrating
2:22:38
our new confluence park improvements and
2:22:43
with that Lucy are you ready yes I will
2:22:46
be speaking without notes so that will
2:22:49
be interesting so this evening Lucy
2:22:52
Sloman land Development Manager from DSD
2:22:55
and Chris Breeland from Theron peers are
2:22:57
here to both give you a summary and some
2:23:02
background as we're attempting to
2:23:05
conclude the first of the moratorium
2:23:07
work planned items so just as a sort of
2:23:11
item history to kind of give a summary
2:23:14
of the work we've done about a year ago
2:23:16
we did the centralization which showed
2:23:20
that seven projects residential projects
2:23:23
all had structured parking but almost
2:23:25
none of the non-residential projects had
2:23:27
structured parking moratorium was
2:23:30
approved on September 6 last year
2:23:33
parking was one of the moratorium work
2:23:36
plan items in the resulting RFQ we asked
2:23:40
two questions is it's called right
2:23:42
parked or not and should structured
2:23:45
parking be required a consultant team
2:23:48
was hired in March this year it was fair
2:23:51
and peers with Echo Northwest as a sub
2:23:54
consultant on June 7th we had presented
2:23:58
to Landon Shore recommending that the
2:24:01
parking standards be unchanged and
2:24:04
implement a structured parking
2:24:06
requirement that was supported by Landon
2:24:08
Shore so we proceeded to take proposed
2:24:12
code changes to PPC
2:24:14
and then on to land and Shore I want to
2:24:18
get closer so at this point what we're
2:24:27
going to do is now take a step back and
2:24:31
kind of run through the background
2:24:33
material that got us to the point where
2:24:36
we're bringing forward something for
2:24:38
approval with for you tonight primarily
2:24:41
for the public and the council members
2:24:43
who haven't had a chance to hear this
2:24:46
research all right Thank You mayor
2:24:52
Butler and the council again my name is
2:24:54
Chris Braley and I'm a principal at fair
2:24:56
and piers in Seattle and we were hired
2:24:58
to evaluate the parking a moratorium
2:25:00
work item and so I'm going to step
2:25:02
through this at a pretty high level I'd
2:25:04
be happy to answer questions since we're
2:25:08
going at a pretty pretty high level the
2:25:12
main question that Lucy mentioned that
2:25:14
we were slated to ask was is taqwa'
2:25:16
right parked principally from the lens
2:25:18
of multifamily parking and this is
2:25:20
somewhat of an outcome of the
2:25:22
developments that have come online in
2:25:24
central Issaquah and as perceived
2:25:26
parking issues related to those and to
2:25:29
answer that question our firm and myself
2:25:31
personally had been involved with
2:25:32
right-size parking this is an effort led
2:25:34
by King County Metro which they were
2:25:37
asking a similar question on a
2:25:38
countywide basis and we've been looking
2:25:41
at this data for a number of years and
2:25:43
for a number of different communities
2:25:44
and we sort of have been advancing that
2:25:46
along so to do the analysis here in
2:25:50
central Issaquah we looked at the right
2:25:52
sized parking database from 2012 2017 we
2:25:57
did some field visits in Issaquah in the
2:26:00
central Issaquah area as part of this
2:26:03
work plan earlier this spring and we
2:26:06
also looked at parking regulations and
2:26:07
other cities just to sort of get a sense
2:26:08
as to how does this a clause stack up
2:26:11
with its current sort of tier cities and
2:26:14
also where central is squads heading how
2:26:16
does it look compared to areas that are
2:26:19
denser and more urban than
2:26:21
aqua is central Issaquah is today so you
2:26:24
can ask me points on any part of that
2:26:26
data the core of our work looked at
2:26:30
right-size parking which is field
2:26:32
collected data in other words King
2:26:35
County Metro works with develop property
2:26:37
developers to get permission to go on
2:26:39
site and see what the actual parking
2:26:41
utilization is they do this in the
2:26:43
middle of the night they pay college
2:26:45
students in pizza to basically look
2:26:49
through the the parking lots and garages
2:26:50
to see how many vehicles there are per
2:26:53
occupied dwelling units that we're
2:26:55
making an apples-to-apples comparison in
2:26:58
2014 240 sites across the county were
2:27:02
surveyed three of which were in Issaquah
2:27:03
they're currently doing a new updates to
2:27:06
this and as part of that lucy managed to
2:27:09
work with brian Manford over at King
2:27:11
County Metro to make sure that we got
2:27:13
three new sites in Issaquah one of which
2:27:17
is in central Issaquah the other two up
2:27:18
in the highlands this is just an example
2:27:21
of the 2012 data that we were
2:27:25
particularly focused on mostly on the
2:27:28
east side and in some suburban centers
2:27:31
there were 71 sites that we looked at
2:27:35
closely for this piece the 2017 data
2:27:39
that we've spent some time digging
2:27:41
through is shown here on the screen and
2:27:44
the point being here that the site's
2:27:49
there are shown in terms of the number
2:27:51
of units the the chart there to the
2:27:54
right of say site one says 344 units 54
2:27:58
percent of which are currently occupied
2:28:00
so again we're looking at the occupied
2:28:02
units and how much parking there is
2:28:05
there are 396 parking stalls and that
2:28:08
development that were constructed 169 of
2:28:11
which were occupied at the time of the
2:28:12
survey so slightly lower parking
2:28:15
occupancy then there is unit occupancy
2:28:19
pretty common phenomenon everywhere you
2:28:21
go in the county and the parking ratio
2:28:24
is there at point nine parking stalls
2:28:27
per occupied dwelling unit and you can
2:28:29
see for the other stall sites that we
2:28:32
looked at were around one point one four
2:28:35
stalls per occupied dwelling in this big
2:28:38
background data was then compared
2:28:40
against the the parking code in central
2:28:45
Issaquah in addition to that 2017 data
2:28:49
that King County collected we went out
2:28:52
on the week they were collecting the
2:28:53
data just to make sure everything looked
2:28:55
pretty typical at the site so we're out
2:28:59
at night did some field observations a
2:29:03
couple of things to note while the
2:29:06
parking lot was not heavily used almost
2:29:09
every single on street stall around the
2:29:11
Atlas apartment complex was utilized and
2:29:15
we can conveniently sort of spot who's
2:29:18
using that if they're an atlas resident
2:29:20
or not because I give it a hang tag and
2:29:23
we can confirm essentially who's there
2:29:24
and I should be be taking questions now
2:29:26
or what's the procedure here no yeah so
2:29:32
I have a question so when when you're
2:29:34
looking at this like Atlas charges for
2:29:36
parking and they're you know half full
2:29:39
now so there's plenty of street parking
2:29:40
and nobody's using that versus paying
2:29:42
for parking I'm assuming so it kind of
2:29:44
gets as at as they fill up occupancy
2:29:46
that might might change I would imagine
2:29:48
so we did talk to them about that Atlas
2:29:51
is a somewhat unique situation where
2:29:53
they have free surface parking and you
2:29:57
granted access to that with those hang
2:29:59
tags or you can pay to purchase a spot
2:30:02
in the underground garages is what we
2:30:05
had an interview with the with the
2:30:07
property manager there at the time one
2:30:10
thing that I would keep in mind is that
2:30:12
when we've looked at the sites across
2:30:14
the county the paid whether or not the
2:30:18
parking is costs money to to lease the
2:30:21
parking space or not does have an effect
2:30:23
on utilization but it's not quite as
2:30:26
strong as we actually thought it would
2:30:28
be initially so there is a relationship
2:30:29
there but in Atlas a lot of those folks
2:30:32
have the option to not pay and park on
2:30:35
site or to pay in park on site but still
2:30:37
a lot of people are confusing to park on
2:30:39
streets because it is generally the most
2:30:42
convenient place to park it's closer to
2:30:44
their door they can see if it's there or
2:30:47
not they don't have to
2:30:48
I ranted a lot to see if that spot is
2:30:50
open if they see a spot on the street
2:30:52
they're just going to grab it that's
2:30:54
pretty typical of how a lot of people
2:30:56
Park so again that what we saw here was
2:30:59
that the most convenient parking is used
2:31:03
first it doesn't sound like rocket
2:31:06
science but a lot of times it's it's
2:31:08
surprising when you actually see it in
2:31:09
action which is the on spaces that it
2:31:13
get used first and all these pieces that
2:31:15
we saw were confirmed with the interview
2:31:17
of the property manager that they would
2:31:19
like to have more people park in the
2:31:21
garage but they don't because it's on
2:31:24
street is available and even their free
2:31:28
on-site parking is not utilized and they
2:31:31
confirm that even though they would
2:31:32
again prefer people to to park on the
2:31:35
site I have information on Prague an
2:31:40
audit essentially of what we looked at
2:31:42
for a few in progress
2:31:44
projects that are in the development
2:31:46
review stage right now and what their
2:31:50
ratios look like and whether or not
2:31:52
they're providing an appropriate amount
2:31:53
of parking I'd be happy to get into if
2:31:56
you'd like but given the time I thought
2:31:58
I'd sort of just go to the conclusions
2:32:00
here that in our opinion the parking
2:32:04
minimums for residential parking within
2:32:07
central Issaquah are generally
2:32:09
appropriate in other words that they're
2:32:10
in that Goldilocks zone of parking where
2:32:12
it's not too much parking which drives
2:32:15
up the cost of housing and it's not too
2:32:17
little little which results in spillover
2:32:20
parking and so there other undesirable
2:32:23
effects in general developers are
2:32:26
building just a bit more than the
2:32:28
minimum parking requirements for
2:32:30
residential developments again that's
2:32:34
fairly typical across the county
2:32:36
people often Park just a little bit over
2:32:38
that and that's a lot of times the
2:32:40
minimums are somewhat calibrated to the
2:32:42
demand developers would much rather
2:32:45
provide a little bit more parking than
2:32:47
risk not having a an apartment get
2:32:50
leased up so there's a strong financial
2:32:52
incentive for them to provide just over
2:32:54
the minimum parking parking spillover
2:32:58
risks in central Issaquah are lower than
2:33:01
what we
2:33:01
didn't see when we do these sorts of
2:33:03
studies and we've done them all over the
2:33:04
county and it has a lot to do with sort
2:33:07
of the geography of central Issaquah
2:33:08
being set lower topographically than a
2:33:11
lot of the surrounding neighborhoods
2:33:13
there are a few areas where it does
2:33:14
touch and the freeways and other large
2:33:17
roads that sort of make it harder for
2:33:18
parking spillover to creep into the most
2:33:21
sensitive areas that that are concerned
2:33:24
about parking spillover so because of
2:33:27
that we don't really recommend any
2:33:29
changes to the parking minimums nor do
2:33:31
we recommend was a question that we got
2:33:33
asked sort of along the way here should
2:33:35
there be higher minimums around the edge
2:33:37
of central Issaquah we also do not think
2:33:39
that's appropriate in some interviews
2:33:43
that we had with with a developer and
2:33:45
talking with other developers on
2:33:46
unrelated projects if you lowered the
2:33:49
minimums you could incentivize shared
2:33:52
parking more readily than it's currently
2:33:55
done and I can get into there's a whole
2:33:56
bunch of caveats around that but if you
2:33:59
don't provide a reason for people to
2:34:01
share and they have to build the parking
2:34:04
on site they tend to not take advantage
2:34:06
of the retail parking across the street
2:34:08
because they have to build it anyway and
2:34:10
they're going to build it at about the
2:34:11
minimum so there there has to be a
2:34:14
stronger incentive if we want to see
2:34:16
sharing between say commercial and
2:34:18
residential uses and as central Issaquah
2:34:21
grows the on street parking demand is
2:34:24
guaranteed to grow from multifamily
2:34:26
projects regardless of how they're
2:34:28
parked because that's the most
2:34:29
convenient parking that will be
2:34:32
available and people will use that
2:34:34
unless there's some other regulations in
2:34:35
place to prevent that so I'll transition
2:34:40
over to Lizzie well do you want to ask
2:34:42
questions now of this part of the
2:34:45
research all the way to the end do you
2:34:47
flip back to the previous slide real
2:34:48
quickly and just tell us for just well
2:34:51
what the minimum is and you say
2:34:53
developers are building more than
2:34:54
minimum what is that what are they
2:34:56
building was the average well the
2:34:57
minimum how it may be loosely chimed in
2:35:00
a little bit it's not completely
2:35:01
straightforward because there are it's I
2:35:04
think nominally one unit per dwelling or
2:35:06
excuse me one parking spot stall for
2:35:08
dwelling unit quickly if I'm wrong but
2:35:10
there are some ways to tick that down
2:35:13
through a variety of
2:35:15
if we provide electric vehicle spaces
2:35:17
there's ways to to move that down what
2:35:21
we did see for the Vail and Ennis wood
2:35:24
projects is that the developers are
2:35:27
building around 10% five to ten percent
2:35:30
more than the minimum requirement
2:35:32
because that's where they see the market
2:35:34
demand is today almost every developer
2:35:37
that we've talked to and if you look
2:35:39
over the past 20 years the trend has
2:35:41
been for a slight decrease in amount of
2:35:43
parking demanded per unit per year
2:35:45
across the county as people choose to
2:35:48
own slightly fewer cars and family sizes
2:35:51
are a little bit smaller so a lot of
2:35:54
folks build it for today expecting that
2:35:56
they're going to have some vacant spaces
2:35:57
in the future thank you other questions
2:36:06
at this time you're also alright
2:36:14
so I'm going to give a streamlined
2:36:17
version of the presentation that was
2:36:20
given to land and shore by Eko Northwest
2:36:26
so this question is tied to or
2:36:31
requirement for structured parking but
2:36:33
the important thing to remember about
2:36:34
structured parking is it's not just
2:36:36
about parking partly it's about urban
2:36:40
form and urban design which is why this
2:36:42
has come up it's how we use our land are
2:36:45
we using it efficiently and those
2:36:48
questions impact other moratorium work
2:36:50
plan items so it's good that this one's
2:36:52
coming through first in another way
2:36:56
parking drives everything from an
2:36:58
economic perspective which is that the
2:37:02
generally the way parking works
2:37:03
especially in suburban areas the primary
2:37:06
use residential office retail etc has to
2:37:09
subsidize the parking especially if it's
2:37:12
structured which can be quite expensive
2:37:14
so there's a desire to try and be as
2:37:18
efficient as possible especially in a
2:37:20
community like Issaquah where land is
2:37:22
becoming quite valuable the market is
2:37:25
pivoting away from suburban building and
2:37:30
large Lots to urban more structured
2:37:34
parking with more density and that trend
2:37:36
appears to be continuing so the question
2:37:39
is what we can do to push to make it
2:37:42
either more parking more structured
2:37:45
parking or to ensure that it's done even
2:37:49
beyond what the market would do for
2:37:50
itself what eco Northwest did was look
2:37:55
at different uses and different
2:37:56
construction types and see where how
2:38:00
that impacted feasibility some of the
2:38:03
things to keep in mind is that for the
2:38:07
construction type it's not only about
2:38:10
the building itself but about the
2:38:11
parking so when you have a stick-built
2:38:15
townhome it's structured parking as
2:38:18
around $7,000 install when it's concrete
2:38:21
it's $35,000 install and if it's
2:38:25
underground it's 50,000 install
2:38:28
which goes up even more when you're
2:38:30
dealing with the high water table such
2:38:31
as we have in in supply so all of these
2:38:35
tested different rates and what they
2:38:38
were seeing and you know the low cost of
2:38:40
for instance stick-built structured
2:38:42
parking you can see being indicated
2:38:44
because the tuck under stick built
2:38:47
townhomes could have a hundred percent
2:38:50
structured parking and that would be
2:38:52
economically feasible when you get into
2:38:55
the concrete parking of the other three
2:38:57
scenarios which is residential podium
2:39:01
construction retail with a separate
2:39:04
structure or office with a separate
2:39:06
structure you can see that between 25
2:39:08
and 50 percent is where they move from
2:39:12
feasible to infeasible in Morgan's
2:39:17
presentation and I think because of its
2:39:18
relevance to our discussions as this has
2:39:21
evolved some of the things that he
2:39:24
pointed out specifically related to
2:39:26
retail is that right now it is very auto
2:39:31
oriented and very auto reliant and that
2:39:35
as we try and encourage it to move
2:39:37
towards structured parking a certain
2:39:40
economy of scale is necessary small
2:39:43
individual retail can't functionally or
2:39:45
financially make it work so there's this
2:39:47
certain minimum size that it has to get
2:39:50
to to be successful the implications and
2:39:56
kind of conclusion of this is that you
2:40:01
know our vision and centralized for
2:40:03
structured parking and that's the
2:40:05
community's expectations which is of
2:40:07
course why we're working on this that
2:40:10
structured parking has to address
2:40:13
parking minimums but also urban design
2:40:16
in the marketplace so they're just a
2:40:18
number of factors that are getting
2:40:19
folded into this some flexibility is
2:40:23
necessary and appropriate because
2:40:25
they're variations in site
2:40:27
configurations and site constraints like
2:40:29
high water table slopes soils all those
2:40:32
various factors that we've discussed and
2:40:35
obviously differences in construction
2:40:37
costs and techniques depending the kind
2:40:40
of use the height
2:40:41
density and so it's difficult to come up
2:40:44
with a perfect percentage we're seeing a
2:40:49
signal from the market that structured
2:40:52
parking is appropriate and yet we're
2:40:56
trying to set it at a level where the
2:40:57
market will not retreat from building in
2:40:59
this community and so we tested this the
2:41:04
tolerance through both projects and the
2:41:08
model so after that presentation we went
2:41:17
through a series of recommendations so I
2:41:20
tried to reformat some of the
2:41:22
information not giving you before to
2:41:24
make it a little easier to see so we
2:41:28
looked at three primary uses office
2:41:31
residential and retail how much should
2:41:34
be required to be in a structure how
2:41:37
much parking should be required in the
2:41:39
structure and what's the minimum
2:41:41
building size our threshold at which
2:41:43
that would apply that evolved going from
2:41:48
the administration recommendation to PPC
2:41:50
from PPC to land and shorn from land and
2:41:53
surety Council I've highlighted on the
2:41:56
the ones in yellow are where changes
2:41:58
took place from the previous
2:42:00
recommendation PPC recommended moving to
2:42:06
50% for both office and residential and
2:42:10
land and Shore recommended moving to 50%
2:42:13
for retail with a minimum threshold of
2:42:17
25,000 square feet so let's look at some
2:42:22
of the bases that we use to arrive at
2:42:25
some of these numbers from eco Northwest
2:42:29
you know we talked about this this is
2:42:32
just a summary of the information that I
2:42:33
presented that generally between 25 and
2:42:36
50 percent is where we move from
2:42:39
feasible to infeasible but there are
2:42:43
other kind of goals that we're trying to
2:42:45
achieve or policy decisions that we
2:42:49
discuss the administration's original
2:42:52
recommendation was fairly conservative
2:42:55
to try and avoid negative consequences
2:42:59
while also communicating to the building
2:43:04
builders and developers that we wanted
2:43:07
this to be a part of our community and
2:43:14
PPC said no and the residents that spoke
2:43:19
at PPC said no that they thought we
2:43:22
should be making a larger step and
2:43:24
something more aspirational
2:43:27
so our original recommendation matched
2:43:31
the median of all the research that
2:43:34
staff had done while PPC was more at the
2:43:41
average of the structured parking
2:43:43
research that we had done within the
2:43:45
community this helped us focus in
2:43:49
between the polls of twenty five and
2:43:52
fifty percent that eco Northwest had
2:43:54
presented I do want to point out that in
2:44:00
making this step we are going to be
2:44:05
leaders and I know that's an important
2:44:08
thing for us it does mean though that we
2:44:12
are using the research that we have both
2:44:17
that the staff and eco Northwest has
2:44:20
performed and we don't have other models
2:44:23
within the community to look at we
2:44:26
shared the research that or the
2:44:29
description that Mike Brennan provided
2:44:32
to us I did check back with Federal Way
2:44:36
my understanding is that they have
2:44:38
adopted a 25% requirement for
2:44:42
residential projects over a hundred
2:44:45
units all the other communities that
2:44:49
were included in eco Northwest report
2:44:54
were using incentives for structured
2:44:57
parking or credits for on street parking
2:44:59
and the incentives were related to
2:45:02
density and height bonuses but we're not
2:45:07
really seeing other communities using
2:45:09
requirements so I'm not saying that as a
2:45:13
disincentive for the actions that we're
2:45:16
taking I'm simply saying that that being
2:45:20
on the leading edge is challenging
2:45:21
because we don't have other models to
2:45:23
look at there were a couple other
2:45:33
opposed changes oh um thank you um it
2:45:39
you mean the handout that you got this
2:45:40
evening
2:45:41
no like definitions in there's this
2:45:48
being proposed like you mean in the edit
2:45:52
of the vote okay
2:45:54
so there yes the full range of edits
2:46:00
that were proposed included some changes
2:46:04
to definitions we were trying to make
2:46:07
sure that the definition of structured
2:46:09
parking what counted what didn't count
2:46:11
was clear so for instance carports would
2:46:15
not count other kinds of structures
2:46:17
would count another important point to
2:46:21
draw attention to is that based on
2:46:26
conversations with it primarily with the
2:46:29
council there are not exceptions and
2:46:31
adjustments included as part of this so
2:46:35
for instance schools are not left out
2:46:38
affordable housing are not left out we
2:46:41
felt that if this was an important part
2:46:43
of the community it would be important
2:46:48
to include them in the same way we're
2:46:50
already seeing the school district using
2:46:52
parking decks so proposing parking decks
2:46:56
as several of their projects so we don't
2:46:59
anticipate this being an issue for them
2:47:03
and then the handout that tisha gave you
2:47:07
and we have some for the public if
2:47:09
people are interested was tisha actually
2:47:13
read what we wrote and noticed an
2:47:16
inconsistency in a piece of language one
2:47:19
of the intent statements and we
2:47:22
corrected it in the piece of materials
2:47:24
that you receive hola can you go back to
2:47:30
the slide that should administrate there
2:47:32
we go
2:47:33
so the language that's in the agenda
2:47:35
bill in front of us which would have
2:47:38
resulted which column it is the land and
2:47:41
shore recommendation thank you
2:47:46
and so if a landed shore recommendation
2:47:56
is is move tonight does that require an
2:48:03
additional public hearing yeah mr. mayor
2:48:11
it's my opinion that it does this is an
2:48:15
issue that as I understand it the the
2:48:22
requirements which land in Shore is
2:48:25
suggesting were not among the range of
2:48:27
alternatives that were considered by the
2:48:29
PPC and because that's the case in order
2:48:34
to consider that recommendation the
2:48:36
council would have to hold its own
2:48:38
public hearing in order to consider that
2:48:45
thank you
2:48:49
Ola was the land insurer decision
2:48:52
unanimous I that's yes there's no
2:49:02
questions or discussion I'll make a
2:49:06
motion we'll see what happens
2:49:09
I move to adopt a dog ordinance number
2:49:12
two seven nine nine adopting by
2:49:16
reference amendments to the central
2:49:17
Issaquah development and design
2:49:19
standards including clarifying the
2:49:21
administrative adjustment of standards
2:49:22
the definition of parking structure and
2:49:25
carport and requiring structured parking
2:49:27
for new residential uses office uses
2:49:30
above 5,000 gross square feet and retail
2:49:32
uses above 25,000 gross square feet
2:49:36
moved and seconded any discussion all
2:49:41
right Lou comment and maybe ask for a
2:49:45
clarification comment is that the
2:49:48
background work that was done by the
2:49:50
consulting firms and staff was really
2:49:52
detailed a lot of data that really
2:49:55
supported the conclusions and
2:49:57
recommendations you made the one piece
2:49:59
if you want to clarify a bit Lucy as the
2:50:02
retail piece there was a difference
2:50:05
between land and shore and staff and
2:50:07
same policy and I you can clarify what
2:50:10
that was and I have a comment about wine
2:50:12
I at least land each or supported the
2:50:15
change so are you asking why my staff
2:50:22
recommended zero and then what condition
2:50:26
and policy said would apply to that zero
2:50:29
oh it's at the bottom of the slide that
2:50:33
planning policy Commission committee
2:50:35
Commission sorry I was interested some
2:50:41
of the members were ready to put a
2:50:45
square footage or a percentage on retail
2:50:49
others felt like there wasn't enough
2:50:52
information and so they recommended
2:50:59
staff combat they asked that staff come
2:51:01
back and do after they've done for their
2:51:03
research staffs intention if they were
2:51:08
going to proceed with that was to hold a
2:51:11
joint meeting of PPC EVC and potentially
2:51:16
with a retail consultant I guess the
2:51:19
question for that was then if land
2:51:23
insurers recommend to council to do
2:51:24
something different if the meeting still
2:51:26
occur and if there's still the pencil
2:51:29
that a year from now we could actually
2:51:30
be coming back and revisiting the 25,000
2:51:33
square foot number we certainly could I
2:51:39
I don't know I don't know if since if if
2:51:44
if I'm tracking what you're asking me
2:51:50
the if council chooses to adopt land and
2:51:57
Shores recommendation I don't know that
2:51:59
we would need to do that on the other
2:52:02
hand that doesn't mean that we wouldn't
2:52:04
choose to hire a consultant and do more
2:52:08
research because that was certainly part
2:52:10
of the land in short discussion that's
2:52:11
something staff would decide before
2:52:13
budget whether or not to pursue that
2:52:15
depending on what we vote on this
2:52:17
evening I'm not sure it's a staff
2:52:19
decision it is something that we could
2:52:22
discuss with the administration all
2:52:27
thank you Lucy the 25,000 square feet
2:52:32
clearly the administration was
2:52:35
uncomfortable with that at Landon Shore
2:52:37
I came away with the impression that
2:52:39
maybe you were going to take another
2:52:42
look and do to have a few more
2:52:44
conversations and then when it came back
2:52:46
in front of us as it is this evening
2:52:49
maybe you'd have some additional
2:52:50
commentary on the 25,000 square feet
2:52:54
like and do you have anything like that
2:52:57
or is there anything additional do you
2:53:00
want to share with the council because
2:53:03
so first of all I did watch the PBC
2:53:06
meeting I was aware of the conversation
2:53:07
that happened there I know how I got to
2:53:10
the recommendation hate study
2:53:11
come back it was Lyndon Shore we said
2:53:15
hey put 25,000 you guys were clearly
2:53:17
uncomfortable with that I'm just
2:53:18
wondering if you have anything that any
2:53:21
more to share with the council this
2:53:23
evening about your feeling about 25,000
2:53:31
well I I would say that 20 so 25,000 was
2:53:35
in the was the basis of the work that
2:53:39
eco Northwest did when they ran their
2:53:42
model so beyond that I will defer to the
2:53:46
economic development so the conversation
2:53:53
that we had at Landon Shore was that a
2:53:57
lot of so so eco Northwest did some
2:54:02
modeling and basically they ran a couple
2:54:04
model runs inside you know at this level
2:54:07
it was fine at this level it broke but
2:54:10
it really there was really not a lot of
2:54:11
resources spent on trying to dial that
2:54:14
down to an exact number so we spent a
2:54:17
lot of time looking at the projects that
2:54:19
have been built recently and there's
2:54:21
been quite a few commercial like office
2:54:24
and residential projects for us to pull
2:54:26
from and as Lucy mentioned earlier to
2:54:29
determine those market tolerances you
2:54:33
know when it came to retail you know
2:54:36
what we could find in the marketplace is
2:54:39
really big projects have structured
2:54:41
parking so things like belt square any
2:54:44
of the malls Grand Ridge Plaza anything
2:54:47
that smaller is really generally not
2:54:50
going to have structured parking and so
2:54:53
as we talked about that you know the the
2:54:55
number that was picked by Landon Shore
2:54:58
the 25,000 square feet that's a big
2:55:01
retail building that one you know I
2:55:05
think we're where we're sitting is how
2:55:09
many of those are we going to have in
2:55:10
our community I think part of why the
2:55:13
administration didn't provide additional
2:55:15
analysis here is because the intent of
2:55:18
Landon Shore was not fully understood
2:55:21
so we're where we are is if if the
2:55:25
council really does not want surface
2:55:28
parking to happen with new buildings and
2:55:31
and we have to include something for
2:55:33
retail you know getting that that
2:55:38
threshold of if there is if the project
2:55:41
is a certain size you know it's a harder
2:55:45
it's a harder so harder metric to pick
2:55:48
because there aren't examples out there
2:55:51
that we feel comfortable knowing what
2:55:54
that will do to our retail market
2:55:56
frankly so so it it's why if if if the
2:56:01
council wants a better number than the
2:56:03
twenty five thousand square feet it's
2:56:05
probably resources beyond what we have
2:56:08
within our administration to give you
2:56:10
that information it was a really long
2:56:14
answer sorry Thank You Stacy can you
2:56:20
give an example of a twenty five
2:56:21
thousand square foot building in the
2:56:23
case that we have now we will research
2:56:30
so there we are staples is about 27,000
2:56:36
square feet and Petsmart over in
2:56:39
Pickering is about 25,000 square feet so
2:56:42
those are two examples I don't know what
2:56:48
the intent of the other two members of
2:56:50
landed char what their intense were mine
2:56:54
were just concerned about losing
2:56:57
opportunities if we don't require any
2:56:59
structured parking for retail otherwise
2:57:03
we not required very expensive not going
2:57:09
to get it so it's possible to start off
2:57:11
with a number and maybe have that
2:57:13
reviewed over the next year
2:57:22
there
2:57:25
their questions or discussion all thank
2:57:31
you for that comment Stacy and the point
2:57:33
of my question was that it's somewhat
2:57:38
it's somewhat of a guess and I agree
2:57:42
with Stacy that we should do something
2:57:46
but this is not a very exact science to
2:57:50
me my intent in supporting this going
2:57:54
forward would include that this is
2:57:56
something that we're need to watch
2:57:58
carefully it should become part of our
2:58:00
regular report out whether it be at the
2:58:03
dashboard level or activity with a city
2:58:04
wide or within the central area let's
2:58:07
watch this closely because this is not a
2:58:09
real scientific number but I agree with
2:58:11
Stacy in that it's doing something it's
2:58:15
it's worth putting a minimum in there
2:58:18
because the downside is also something
2:58:21
we don't want
2:58:22
and that would be development that just
2:58:25
did surface parking and then that's very
2:58:28
hard to undo Moriah I just had a
2:58:33
question about whether the 25% for
2:58:38
retail was was discussed okay because I
2:58:44
it just seems like we're going all the
2:58:46
way from zero to 50 and and if the 25%
2:58:50
was feasible I just wanted to see if
2:58:52
there was a discussion surrounding that
2:59:01
every number
2:59:05
maybe mm-hmm your next comment if you
2:59:08
want my recollection from the committee
2:59:10
meeting was that that presented all of
2:59:14
the data and landed on what they
2:59:16
consider to be a conservative number and
2:59:18
the committee decided to not be
2:59:22
conservative that actually be more
2:59:24
aggressive in acquiring it and so went
2:59:27
with something that was within the range
2:59:29
but at the higher end of the range in
2:59:31
the staff recommendations at the lower
2:59:33
in the range but we talked about it
2:59:34
quite a bit okay other questions or
2:59:40
discussion yeah okay different question
2:59:47
go ahead the update to the ordinance
2:59:52
today was to just correct the language
2:59:56
that tisha had seen in the agenda bill
2:59:58
that was different than you were in his
2:59:59
circuit no subs than anything out
3:00:01
changed that basically went back to the
3:00:05
comment that Jim Haney had earlier if if
3:00:11
the council were to adopt the 25,000
3:00:15
square foot retail what's the next then
3:00:18
what is required to happen or do we have
3:00:22
to send it back before you vote on it I
3:00:24
guess it that that is my recommendation
3:00:26
let me well let me let me explain like
3:00:28
my earlier statement when you are going
3:00:36
to change a recommendation that has been
3:00:38
made after the PBC has held its public
3:00:42
hearing when you were going to change
3:00:43
the regulation if the regulation changes
3:00:47
significantly you need to hold an
3:00:50
additional public hearing prior to
3:00:52
making the change if the change which
3:00:57
you're proposing to make was within the
3:00:59
range of the alternatives which were
3:01:02
considered by the PPC then you can make
3:01:05
the change without holding
3:01:08
additional public hearing my
3:01:09
understanding from Keith is that the
3:01:13
25,000 square feet and the idea of
3:01:17
applying a 50% structured parking to
3:01:21
retail uses above 25,000 square feet was
3:01:25
not one of the alternatives considered
3:01:28
by the BBC therefore in order to make
3:01:32
your consideration of that change valid
3:01:35
you need you would need to hold an
3:01:37
additional public hearing prior to
3:01:39
adopting that change so just to make I
3:01:43
hope I'm being clear about that but
3:01:45
that's what the GMA requires I think you
3:01:48
misspoke and you said 50% we were
3:01:50
considered we are proposing here 25% yes
3:01:57
50 it's oh the the landing short cannot
3:02:02
e recommendation was 50 at 25,000 square
3:02:07
feet
3:02:08
- okay um this would be the first on the
3:02:20
first a list of tasks to be completed
3:02:26
regarding the moratorium we care for
3:02:28
what I say because it doesn't mean we
3:02:30
have to do all of the bills but so I
3:02:33
don't I don't know what I would I'm
3:02:36
guessing we're not going to lift the
3:02:38
moratorium or entertain that and just
3:02:41
guessing based on adopting just the new
3:02:44
parking proposal but so really my
3:02:48
question is we have time then to go back
3:02:51
to PPC for a hearing and come back in a
3:02:54
timely manner and save in September I
3:02:57
heard Jim say that you could hold the
3:03:00
hearing here at Council I don't know
3:03:01
that you have to go back to PPC oh sorry
3:03:03
I thought that's what we were no you
3:03:06
could hold the hearing here at Council
3:03:08
if you wish to do that all that's
3:03:09
required is a public hearing prior to
3:03:12
making the change so we could make a
3:03:15
motion to do the direct administration
3:03:17
to
3:03:19
have a organize a hearing for us right
3:03:29
okay so there is a motion on the floor
3:03:35
so the way to do that I believe would be
3:03:41
by an amendment not emotion or
3:03:46
substitute motion I think it would be
3:03:48
rad
3:03:49
yeah I was going to ask if I can with
3:03:52
dry you can need a second I'm going to
3:04:01
make a second motion then move to
3:04:04
schedule a public hearing for what date
3:04:09
would that be okay seventh is our next
3:04:12
regular council meeting or this is I'm
3:04:14
sure okay we don't know this provides
3:04:18
our this provides our notice doing it in
3:04:21
the meeting so I news paper publication
3:04:24
notice would be shorter than then is our
3:04:29
than is our practice but because we're
3:04:32
setting the hearing the public meeting
3:04:40
so we wouldn't be able to meet our
3:04:44
conservative publication so we could
3:04:47
meet we could notice the hearing a week
3:04:49
in advance in the newspaper our practice
3:04:51
is to provide two-week advance notice so
3:04:55
that would if August 7th wasn't a
3:05:00
possibility the next hearing option
3:05:02
would be September 5th
3:05:03
just to note that the moratorium public
3:05:05
hearing will be held on August 7th to
3:05:09
consider extension or modification so in
3:05:15
terms of noticing I have to look to
3:05:16
clerk some legal to tell me what date to
3:05:18
suggest in the motion my suggestion
3:05:22
would be September 5th because that
3:05:24
enables the full publication of the
3:05:26
notice okay start again move to schedule
3:05:30
a public hearing for September 5th 20
3:05:32
tene in order to consider the
3:05:33
recommendation of the land and shore
3:05:35
committee to require that retail uses
3:05:37
above 25,000 square feet provide 50% of
3:05:42
parking and structured parking okay
3:05:45
moved and seconded discussion on the
3:05:48
motion
3:05:49
question mr. mayor nope that means that
3:05:51
the public hearing and the vote would
3:05:53
occur on the same night hood oh I'm
3:05:59
going to again talk about what it would
3:06:02
take to get me to YES on this because
3:06:04
I'm not a guest right now and here's
3:06:07
what might here's what I want to
3:06:08
understand I feel that pretty much since
3:06:13
the moratorium was enacted we we've seen
3:06:17
a bawling of concern about housing
3:06:22
prices in the in the on the east side of
3:06:25
King County and I'm a little concerned
3:06:27
about mechanisms that induce an
3:06:31
increased price on residential property
3:06:35
in Issaquah knowing how hard it is to to
3:06:40
you know come up with affordable housing
3:06:43
so what I want to understand is what
3:06:45
this gets us at the end of the day if I
3:06:48
look at the valley and I think about
3:06:51
where the valley is today I think we've
3:06:54
talked about something like
3:06:56
three-quarters of the property
3:06:58
three-quarters of the land areas parking
3:07:00
in the valley or three-quarters of the
3:07:04
impervious maybe his parking so III
3:07:07
would it will help me to consider doing
3:07:10
this if on the 5th of September I have
3:07:13
some idea of what the impact of going
3:07:16
with the land and Shore recommendation
3:07:20
is compared to the baseline I realized
3:07:22
that's a lot to ask but I'm telling you
3:07:25
what would make me make it an easier
3:07:27
decision for me because I'm so sensitive
3:07:30
right now to the incredible escalation
3:07:32
of prices and concerns that the King
3:07:35
County area is just experiencing you
3:07:38
know I'm worried that 10 years from now
3:07:40
will be as expensive as San Francisco
3:07:42
and I don't want to see that happening
3:07:44
so I want to
3:07:45
understanded benefit that I would get
3:07:47
from inducing this this extra fee on on
3:07:49
development thanks other comments or
3:07:58
questions
3:07:59
I have learned that if a public notice
3:08:07
is submitted tonight which is possible
3:08:10
we can make the August would like be no
3:08:19
meant emotions information my man I'm
3:08:22
I've said the information that I would
3:08:24
like to know to be comfortable with
3:08:26
yesterday regardless of video today yeah
3:08:30
so I'd like to amend the motion to
3:08:33
switch the date from September 5th to
3:08:35
August 7th 2017 second consecutive
3:08:38
discussion on the amendment being done
3:08:42
then all those in favor of the amendment
3:08:48
signify by saying aye aye
3:08:50
as opposed the case unanimously and now
3:08:54
back to the original motion any
3:08:57
additional discussion on the original
3:08:59
motion being done then all those in
3:09:02
favor of the original the amended motion
3:09:07
signify by saying aye aye
3:09:10
as opposed that carries unanimously
3:09:14
moving now to our final item under
3:09:21
regular business agenda bill seven 4:07
3:09:28
citizens survey results Ramone deputy
3:09:34
administrator for the staff presentation
3:09:39
good evening welcome back from vacation
3:09:44
thank you
3:10:00
all right
3:10:01
last but not least this is the fun stuff
3:10:06
all right I am very happy to be here to
3:10:09
talk about our second edition of our
3:10:13
National Citizen survey and before I
3:10:16
launch into the results and how we
3:10:19
conducted the survey I just want to say
3:10:21
thanks thanks for authorizing us to
3:10:25
conduct the survey for a second time I
3:10:27
also want to say thank you to community
3:10:29
members that participated and it's
3:10:31
incredibly valuable feedback for us so I
3:10:34
want to make sure that we express that
3:10:35
gratitude first and foremost I also want
3:10:41
to say that the survey results continue
3:10:43
to demonstrate a high level of
3:10:45
satisfaction with and pride in our
3:10:48
community so organizations that are
3:10:53
focused on continuous improvement and
3:10:56
the delivery of high quality services
3:10:58
aren't afraid to ask questions and to
3:11:00
dive a little bit deeper into how
3:11:02
they're doing in our city's mission and
3:11:05
value statement emphasizes that approach
3:11:07
to public engagement communication and
3:11:10
service excellence so the survey is just
3:11:13
another avenue for us to connect with
3:11:17
our community and one of the ways one of
3:11:19
the many ways that we measure how we're
3:11:21
doing and a great way to better
3:11:25
understand our customers needs and
3:11:27
desires so this was the second time we
3:11:31
conducted the National citizen survey
3:11:33
which is a survey instrument at the
3:11:35
National Research Center and is endorsed
3:11:38
by the International City and County
3:11:40
Management Association 3,000 households
3:11:44
were randomly selected that was a bigger
3:11:46
sampling than in 2014 and this year we
3:11:52
had a option to complete the survey
3:11:56
either on paper or online and then in
3:11:59
addition to that we
3:12:01
had a new option that opened up the
3:12:03
survey instrument and a separate online
3:12:05
link to anyone in the community who
3:12:08
wanted to participate and we kept those
3:12:10
datasets separate that kind of
3:12:12
scientific survey selection and then the
3:12:15
opt-in option on line seven we also
3:12:20
broke the information down into southern
3:12:22
Geographic subgroups and the online
3:12:27
opt-in version was available for two
3:12:29
weeks so survey methodology didn't
3:12:34
change send out a postcard hey you've
3:12:36
been the lucky one you've been chosen
3:12:38
watch for your paper copy of the survey
3:12:41
instrument and then those households had
3:12:44
three weeks to complete it our I'm sorry
3:12:47
it had six weeks to respond we use a
3:12:50
method called the birthday method just
3:12:52
to try to get a better random sampling
3:12:54
within the household so we asked the
3:12:57
person that had the most recent birthday
3:12:59
to complete the survey and hopefully
3:13:00
that balances out male/female age all of
3:13:04
that and then we weight the results
3:13:09
according to US census data
3:13:11
don't know responses were recorded you
3:13:15
may have seen that in the appendices but
3:13:18
they're not included in the table and
3:13:20
charts of responses in the reports that
3:13:22
you got from NCS so I want to make sure
3:13:25
that that's understood we had a great
3:13:31
response rate in our survey 25% is a
3:13:35
very very good response rate for a
3:13:37
mailed survey instrument that is just
3:13:41
percentage higher than we had in 2014
3:13:44
and we had 251 participants in the
3:13:49
non-scientific opt-in online survey and
3:13:53
that's a great first attempt to get
3:13:56
participation in our online survey so we
3:14:00
had a grand total of nine hundred and
3:14:01
ninety one survey participants and again
3:14:05
we have those online results in a
3:14:07
separate report in your packet the
3:14:11
response rates varied by geography so
3:14:15
on some areas had a 22 response rate and
3:14:18
somewhere as high as 34 percent response
3:14:21
rate that's important to understand it's
3:14:23
also important to know that the minimum
3:14:27
response rate that we saw in a
3:14:29
particular geography increased
3:14:31
significantly this year over 2014 we had
3:14:34
as low of 12 percent participation in
3:14:37
one of our areas in 2014 also it's
3:14:40
important to understand margin of error
3:14:42
varies on each question it also varies
3:14:45
as you whittle down what your comparison
3:14:48
group is so if you're just looking at a
3:14:49
smaller geography your margin of error
3:14:51
will go up all right the questions on
3:14:58
the survey are grouped roughly into
3:15:01
these three categories in addition we we
3:15:06
do always have the opportunity to ask
3:15:08
customized questions this year we asked
3:15:10
questions to help our efforts with the
3:15:12
parks plan or Prost - and also some
3:15:17
questions about our neighborhood
3:15:19
engagement program we continue to ask a
3:15:22
custom question about sources of sources
3:15:24
of information and that helps us just to
3:15:27
track trends so we asked questions about
3:15:33
these major themes in our community
3:15:37
these are attributes of livability
3:15:39
community characteristics governance and
3:15:43
participation and community engagement I
3:15:48
just want to focus on that for a second
3:15:49
because the terminology that national
3:15:52
citizen survey uses for community
3:15:54
engagement is a little different than
3:15:55
how we talk about it as a community and
3:15:58
so here on the survey instrument that
3:16:00
includes things like participation in
3:16:03
social events opportunities to volunteer
3:16:06
and how how people felt about the nape
3:16:11
that neighborhood connections that they
3:16:13
have in the community so it's a little
3:16:15
different than I think traditionally we
3:16:17
think about that how does the city
3:16:19
engage residents this is much broader
3:16:21
than that as we did in 2014 we
3:16:28
paired to national benchmarks there were
3:16:31
over 400 in our data set and this year
3:16:35
we also asked NRC to give us regional
3:16:39
comparisons they picked 20 communities
3:16:43
and on the west coast that had similar
3:16:47
household incomes and we're in
3:16:48
metropolitan areas that we concurred
3:16:51
would be good fits and we get a lot of
3:16:57
great data looking at those benchmarks
3:16:59
the survey produces a ton of data it
3:17:01
takes quite a bit of time to sort of
3:17:03
synthesize it pull out the pieces that
3:17:05
are most meaningful but here's one that
3:17:09
that at a glance helps us to understand
3:17:11
how our community compares to others and
3:17:16
helps us understand whether we're just
3:17:19
in the ballpark of what the norm is so
3:17:24
overall quality of life is a very good
3:17:27
indicator of the overall health of our
3:17:29
community and I'm happy to say again was
3:17:33
rated very favorably ninety percent of
3:17:36
our respondents rated overall quality of
3:17:38
life in Issaquah as excellent or good
3:17:41
with often call that combined score the
3:17:43
positive score so you'll hear me use
3:17:45
that term and 92 percent of our
3:17:48
residents rated Issyk was an excellent
3:17:50
or good place to live
3:17:55
this chart breaks down some of the
3:17:59
questions that were asked about quality
3:18:00
of life overall quality of life
3:18:02
approximately 9 out of 10 residents gave
3:18:04
positive ratings to their neighborhoods
3:18:06
the city is a place to raise children
3:18:09
it's a cause of overall appearance the
3:18:12
city's cleanliness air quality feelings
3:18:15
of safety in K through 12 education
3:18:18
here's a few that I put on this chart I
3:18:21
want to give you an indication of how
3:18:23
they relate to the national benchmark so
3:18:26
the up arrow means we were higher if
3:18:28
it's left-right arrow it means we were
3:18:30
similar
3:18:31
these were stable trends - from 2014 to
3:18:36
2017 overall yeah
3:18:41
the comparison here is to our previous
3:18:44
2014 or to the cross the national its
3:18:47
comparison to the national benchmark
3:18:50
second right but when I said that they
3:18:52
were stable trends it means wherever you
3:18:55
see an up arrow it was it was up last
3:18:57
time too we were also higher in 2014 so
3:19:02
of the hundred and thirty-four items
3:19:04
that we asked our survey respondents to
3:19:07
rate this year 105 of those items were
3:19:11
rated similarly to 2014 24 got lower
3:19:16
marks than they did in the previous
3:19:18
survey most of those were in the
3:19:21
categories dealing with development
3:19:23
housing mobility cost of living and
3:19:26
Trust and 5 were increased over 2014
3:19:30
those were around engagement
3:19:32
participation health and wellness we
3:19:38
asked respondents to state the most
3:19:40
important in focus areas for the city
3:19:43
for the next two years and and their
3:19:46
given choices they named safety mobility
3:19:49
and the natural environment as the three
3:19:52
that the city should focus on in the
3:19:54
next two years
3:19:55
overall residents gave ratings that were
3:19:58
positive in each of these categories and
3:20:00
similar to other communities on safety
3:20:08
the city got very positive ratings for
3:20:10
overall safety safety and respondents
3:20:14
neighborhoods safety and s across
3:20:16
downtown and commercial areas in natural
3:20:22
environment city residents continued to
3:20:24
rate features in the natural environment
3:20:26
category very highly
3:20:28
this included overall quality of the
3:20:30
natural environment the cleanliness of
3:20:32
this aqua air quality in the city in one
3:20:35
of our custom questions we also asked
3:20:37
some feedback on priorities for parks
3:20:41
and 62% of residents said that Issaquah
3:20:44
parks trails and open space were
3:20:45
essential to the quality of life in our
3:20:48
community and 34 percent said these
3:20:50
attributes were very important they also
3:20:53
expressed a high level of support for
3:20:54
environment
3:20:55
stewardship and protection mobility was
3:21:00
a mixed bag traffic flow overall ease of
3:21:05
travel travel by car we're all rated
3:21:08
lower than the national benchmark buts
3:21:10
similar to the regional benchmark so you
3:21:14
can extrapolate west coast cities a lot
3:21:17
of them are growing and experiencing the
3:21:20
same sort of difficulties that we are
3:21:22
the exception to this is that our
3:21:25
overall traffic flow rating was lower
3:21:28
than the regional benchmark other
3:21:31
aspects though in this mixed bag
3:21:33
category like paths and walking trails
3:21:36
bus and transit services and the use of
3:21:38
alternative transportation and
3:21:40
carpooling had favorable ratings and
3:21:43
we're all higher than math benchmarks
3:21:49
survey also asked residents to assess
3:21:51
how well the city government does in
3:21:53
meeting their needs and expectations and
3:21:55
more than eight and ten participants
3:21:57
gave positive ratings for their overall
3:22:00
quality of city services and the city's
3:22:02
customer service we have specific
3:22:09
questions about the quality of city
3:22:12
services and more generically
3:22:14
governmental or public services and
3:22:18
survey respondents rated over thirty of
3:22:20
these types of services and amenities
3:22:23
bus or transit service yard waste pickup
3:22:26
health services wellness K through 12
3:22:28
education overall economic health and
3:22:30
storm drainage were rated higher than
3:22:32
the national benchmark there were some
3:22:37
slight changes in this list from 2014
3:22:40
and I can answer those questions if you
3:22:44
have them now or later these were the
3:22:48
ratings that services and amenities that
3:22:50
had lower ratings than in 2014 the women
3:22:53
stood out to me with Street repair and I
3:22:56
think it's really really important than
3:22:58
I stood this with NRC we posed our
3:23:01
survey at a different time of year than
3:23:04
we did in 2014 and that does tend to
3:23:07
make a difference
3:23:08
that's been my experience that's been
3:23:10
theirs so we actually ask these
3:23:13
questions before we did our annual
3:23:15
pavement program and and we had we had a
3:23:18
difficult winter so that's one that
3:23:22
we'll continue to watch to see if we get
3:23:24
a trend there General government's
3:23:29
approximately half of the city's scores
3:23:33
were lower this year in this category
3:23:35
than in 2014 however all of the general
3:23:40
government scores were rated similarly
3:23:42
to the national and regional benchmarks
3:23:45
well I find these lower scores to be
3:23:50
disappointing at least and why I know
3:23:54
we're committed to continue to analyze
3:23:56
those we don't get a lot of information
3:23:59
about why people felt the way that they
3:24:02
did and why they answered these
3:24:04
questions the way that they did on the
3:24:05
survey and what action we might be able
3:24:07
to take to correct that course so it's
3:24:11
it's also important to note that NRC has
3:24:13
told us that this trend mimics what they
3:24:18
see in other communities usually around
3:24:20
post election major election or
3:24:23
significant change which we did have and
3:24:27
so I'm trying to balance our data input
3:24:30
on this with that finding they said a
3:24:33
more a better more productive question
3:24:36
to pose when you get results like this
3:24:37
is where there are any results that we
3:24:41
weren't expecting and that's what I'm
3:24:43
hosing to staff now what do you see in
3:24:45
here that work was a surprise to you and
3:24:49
let's have a conversation about that
3:24:52
also we have two years worth of data so
3:24:56
two data points don't necessarily make a
3:24:58
trend so we'll want to watch that in a
3:25:00
future year so in the section about
3:25:03
participation engagement we capture
3:25:06
residents opinions about social
3:25:07
connectivity community participation and
3:25:10
the results this year again we're mixed
3:25:12
in this category so in some areas such
3:25:15
as stockpiling supplies for emergencies
3:25:18
using public transportation and car
3:25:19
pools or recycling at home
3:25:21
our residents are participating at
3:25:22
higher levels than the national
3:25:25
benchmark there are other places though
3:25:27
where we are lower than the regional or
3:25:30
national benchmark those categories
3:25:33
changed a little bit from 2014 as well
3:25:36
participation statistics also revealed
3:25:39
that residents had spent more time in
3:25:42
this past 12 months campaigning for an
3:25:44
issue or a candidate no surprise there
3:25:47
and that they done a favor for a
3:25:49
neighbor attended a local public meeting
3:25:51
and watched a local public meeting and
3:25:54
it's acquire residents tend to do these
3:25:55
things at levels that are similar to
3:25:57
residents nationwide and in our regional
3:26:01
comparison group this was one place
3:26:06
where we saw some significant changes
3:26:08
when we compared to our last survey more
3:26:12
people are now turning to electronic
3:26:15
media sources social media sources for
3:26:19
information instead of local media I
3:26:21
think there's an obvious reason for that
3:26:23
in our community with its quad press not
3:26:27
being here to serve the community
3:26:28
anymore but also I think we were on that
3:26:31
trend line for a while now so we saw
3:26:35
significant decreases in the sources of
3:26:37
information of local media the Parks and
3:26:39
Rec quarterly guide talking with staff
3:26:42
and our local government cable channel
3:26:46
so clearly a shift to use of social
3:26:50
media and online resources for
3:26:52
information and that's helpful for us to
3:26:55
understand I told you that we ran a new
3:27:00
report on demographic information remind
3:27:05
you that the margin of error increases
3:27:07
we talk about the results here I'm also
3:27:11
going to speak very broadly about the
3:27:14
results here while there were
3:27:17
differences in opinions residents who
3:27:19
earned less than $50,000 or who had
3:27:22
lived in Issaquah for 20 years or more
3:27:24
or less likely than other residents to
3:27:27
give positive ratings and broadly
3:27:31
speaking again residents who were aged
3:27:33
18 to 34
3:27:35
and who has lived in this aquifer or had
3:27:37
loads in this across for five years or
3:27:39
less tended to give more positive
3:27:41
ratings to aspects of mobility natural
3:27:45
environment built environment and
3:27:46
community characteristics these same
3:27:50
people also tended to feel more positive
3:27:52
about city leadership and governments
3:27:54
than counterparts generally residents
3:27:58
who had lived in Issaquah for more than
3:27:59
20 years we're age 55 or more or who had
3:28:03
children in the home were more likely
3:28:06
than other respondents to indicate that
3:28:07
they felt connected to their neighbors
3:28:09
and their neighborhood so while another
3:28:15
another thing that we look at is how
3:28:17
results varied by the the race that the
3:28:21
respondent selected for the census
3:28:25
purposes and we found that more often
3:28:28
non-whites gave more favorable ratings
3:28:31
and that was interesting to see this
3:28:33
year geographically this was the
3:28:38
distribution of our sampling response
3:28:41
rates in each area as I said range from
3:28:44
22 to 34 percent and squawk in Old Town
3:28:48
had the highest level of participation
3:28:50
90 Newport Tibbets area and north is
3:28:53
akua's Providence Point had the lowest
3:28:56
and yet responses work weighted to
3:29:01
correlate with each areas percentage of
3:29:03
our total population and again the sense
3:29:06
of salmon graphics so NRC you may have
3:29:10
seen in the report noted some
3:29:12
variability in the readings across
3:29:13
geographic areas but they were reluctant
3:29:17
to kind of opine what those differences
3:29:19
were and they said that the reason for
3:29:22
that was because you may have on one
3:29:26
particular survey variable very high the
3:29:29
highest response in a geographic area
3:29:31
and then on the very next question that
3:29:33
same geographic area would have had the
3:29:35
lowest and so those differences tended
3:29:38
to count cancel out however I was still
3:29:42
interested in seeing if we could find
3:29:44
any trends or information we glean from
3:29:47
this and so
3:29:49
I put together in kind of over
3:29:51
simplified way of looking at the
3:29:53
geographic differences in responses to
3:29:57
see if we could gather the general tone
3:29:59
of residence or tenor of residents in
3:30:01
each of those areas and so I looked at
3:30:03
the number of times that each
3:30:05
neighborhood had a tally mark in the
3:30:08
column for having the highest score on
3:30:10
that particular variable or I put a
3:30:14
tally mark where that neighbor had had
3:30:16
the lowest score so this chart totals up
3:30:19
if you you look at the blue bar for
3:30:22
Issaquah Highlands on the left there
3:30:23
they had the greatest number of positive
3:30:28
responses throughout the survey
3:30:31
conversely they had the fewest number of
3:30:34
lowest ratings in the survey so my next
3:30:43
steps are to continue to talk to
3:30:46
departments about the results that are
3:30:48
meaningful in the survey to them and use
3:30:53
these results to inform our other
3:30:55
planning efforts that we have going on
3:30:56
and made that pitch to you when I asked
3:30:59
for funds for the survey that it not
3:31:01
only does it help us with our
3:31:02
benchmarking and performance measurement
3:31:04
programs but it also would would help us
3:31:07
to gather some information to then base
3:31:10
our strategic planning effort or to help
3:31:13
our parks planning effort the other
3:31:18
thing that I repeat is that I in 2014
3:31:23
said it would be helpful for us to
3:31:24
repeat the survey every two or three
3:31:26
years we'd like to continue to do that
3:31:28
so you won't hear requests from me next
3:31:31
year on this and the last point of
3:31:35
interest for me is that NRC said that
3:31:39
our results on the opt-in online survey
3:31:41
we're so similar to our scientific
3:31:44
nobody likes to talk about America both
3:31:48
the world scientific talker base version
3:31:51
that in future years we should look at
3:31:54
just combining those results and not
3:31:56
keeping them separate so what that tells
3:31:58
me is that going forward when we think
3:32:02
about collecting data about the public's
3:32:06
desires we can trust our online results
3:32:12
to be fairly accurate representations of
3:32:17
public sentiment so that's very good
3:32:20
information for us to have as we think
3:32:22
about future efforts to kind of pull the
3:32:25
community olá ask about something that
3:32:30
you said earlier you said something to
3:32:32
the effect of being concerned with some
3:32:35
of the scores related to governance and
3:32:36
I'm looking at the governance figure two
3:32:39
aspects of governance and we're on all
3:32:42
of them were at least similar if not
3:32:44
higher mostly similar to the benchmark
3:32:47
cities but there aren't actually
3:32:48
anywhere in that aspect where we're
3:32:50
lower than our than our benchmark cities
3:32:53
so what about that is concealer lis
3:32:56
concerned so I'm not concerned about how
3:32:58
we relate to the national and regional
3:33:00
benchmarks and as I hope I said we are
3:33:04
similar what's concerning to me is our
3:33:08
trends over time on those measures so we
3:33:12
had lower scores in those areas in 2017
3:33:15
than we did in 2014 so is Aguada is
3:33:19
squad results on about half of those
3:33:24
variables so we need to continue to look
3:33:28
at that you know two years does not make
3:33:29
the trend but we should have some
3:33:32
conversations around that and then
3:33:34
continue to monitor and you can you
3:33:37
mention anywhere there were there was
3:33:40
the largest difference between the 2014
3:33:44
and 2016 no numbers I can certainly do
3:33:48
I'm not sure if I can pick it out
3:33:49
tonight the largest difference over the
3:33:55
two years but I can I can get you that
3:33:58
information that you will be able to
3:34:00
pick that out by looking at the trends
3:34:03
report which is the year-to-year
3:34:05
comparison what always makes it tricky
3:34:09
is
3:34:10
the governance variables show up in a
3:34:13
lot of different categories so I don't
3:34:18
have a quick way of assessing the
3:34:20
biggest difference by looking at this
3:34:22
chart but there are some that dropped
3:34:29
enough to be significant statistically
3:34:32
significant and that's what I would be
3:34:35
concerned about a couple of them were
3:34:37
value of services for taxes paid and
3:34:41
overall direction of the city confidence
3:34:45
and city government so those are those
3:34:49
are a few to give you an idea yeah and
3:34:54
it just at a glance the change
3:34:57
there's not one that pops out they had
3:34:59
similar amounts of change it's very
3:35:04
interesting that you said approximately
3:35:05
half of them are lower than they were in
3:35:07
2014 that is it's important that would
3:35:09
be something to investigate make sure
3:35:14
there's no questions right Emily I
3:35:23
wondering internally with the
3:35:28
administration and staff are there work
3:35:31
plans that sort of develop as a result
3:35:33
of some of the survey information and
3:35:37
things that can be worked on yeah
3:35:41
absolutely so our practice is to sit
3:35:45
down with every department and talk
3:35:46
about their results so Parks Department
3:35:49
is interested in certain variables on
3:35:51
the survey those might be different than
3:35:52
development services and so we have
3:35:57
conversations first to say what do you
3:35:58
see anything surprising why do you think
3:36:04
we got the numbers that we did and then
3:36:07
what are we doing now what are what are
3:36:11
the reasons perhaps we got higher scores
3:36:13
what have we done what have you changed
3:36:14
do some assessment around that and then
3:36:17
where we have lower ones do we have
3:36:19
something than work so we think we might
3:36:20
be able to move the needle for next time
3:36:24
and I think the policy questions the
3:36:28
custom questions that we ask we spend
3:36:30
more time on those incorporating those
3:36:32
into work plans that we had some around
3:36:34
the neighborhood engagement program
3:36:36
you'll see that data play out as we
3:36:39
evaluate that program and as we bring
3:36:42
the parks plan for what I would expect I
3:36:45
use that that data to help provide their
3:36:49
priorities and their recommendations to
3:36:51
you and and it sounds good to take this
3:36:58
information I guess a to to your
3:36:59
departments and really get into the
3:37:01
nitty-gritty of it there's a couple
3:37:02
points that come our that the overall
3:37:05
trends that we had 24 items decreasing
3:37:08
in five increasing so that's that's like
3:37:11
that kind of caught me off a little bit
3:37:13
and the ones that obviously know people
3:37:15
traffic and those kinds of those kind of
3:37:17
things in there but that that felt kind
3:37:20
of offered you know all the favorable
3:37:22
ratings but 24 items went down only five
3:37:25
went up so that an overall negative
3:37:27
increase to me yeah
3:37:29
I'm sorry we can explain those numbers
3:37:31
when overall it looks like a positive
3:37:33
increase right right and and I think you
3:37:36
know the it's important to look at it in
3:37:39
a very detailed way I have given you
3:37:41
top-level just at a glance what the
3:37:45
numbers are saying but when you factor
3:37:47
in margin of error on each of those it
3:37:49
kind of shave some of that away and then
3:37:53
again we have some differences in this
3:37:58
year's dynamics I will say community
3:38:01
wise and nationally so I'm not too
3:38:08
fearful about that imbalance between the
3:38:10
ones that decreased and the ones that
3:38:12
increased I think when we do this two
3:38:15
years from now we can see if that's
3:38:16
really a trend or not but it is just one
3:38:20
way to talk about the data as overall
3:38:21
results I hope you get a lot of good
3:38:23
work out of this but as you would
3:38:25
implement okay I guess I'm good idea
3:38:28
thank you other questions or discussion
3:38:34
seeing none then we will now move to
3:38:37
good of the order does anyone have
3:38:40
anything for sort of the order this
3:38:43
evening at 10:40 Lera fie that will you
3:38:49
I see none then there is no executive
3:38:55
session we are adjourned
3:39:10
you