City Council Special Meeting · Wednesday, February 8, 2017 · City Council Digest

2101 segments .txt ↗

0:15 ↗ I call the regular City Council meeting of February 8th to order. Due to the

0:20 ↗ inclement weather and the closure of City Hall and City offices on February 6th, the

0:26 ↗ City Council regular meeting was adjourned and continued to this evening. Mayor Fred Butler and

0:31 ↗ Councilmember Tola Martz are unavailable to attend tonight's meeting. The record should reflect that their

0:36 ↗ absences are excused. I also would like to report that Mayor Butler had a minor

0:41 ↗ fall this morning and he's at home resting tonight. So if you're watching, Fred, we

0:46 ↗ wish you well and look forward to your State of the City address later this

0:50 ↗ month. I would like to invite those in the audience who would like to join

0:55 ↗ me and the Council to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

1:03 ↗ I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United

1:08 ↗ States of America and to the republic for which

1:14 ↗ it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty

1:19 ↗ and justice for all. First item on the agenda

1:25 ↗ tonight is special business, proclamation honoring the Issaquah Press.

1:30 ↗ I would like to ask, those are here.

1:35 ↗ Debbie Birdo and Christina

1:40 ↗ Corrales-Toy and Greg Farrar

1:45 ↗ and anybody else from

1:50 ↗ the press? I see

1:55 ↗ Liz Giordano coming in

1:59 ↗ to please come to

2:04 ↗ the lectern. Stuart Miller

2:09 ↗ is here and Liz

2:14 ↗ Giordano is also here. First

2:20 ↗ of all, I want to say that having spent nearly 10 years at the Issaquah

2:25 ↗ Press myself as an editor and a reporter, this particular duty tonight is difficult and

2:30 ↗ emotional for me. I am at once grateful to be part of this presentation, but

2:35 ↗ I'm also extraordinarily sad that we were having this presentation tonight. Never ever occurred to

2:40 ↗ me since my initial work with the Issaquah Press starting in 1996 that we would

2:45 ↗ be here. I'm profoundly, profoundly sad. So

2:51 ↗ I'm going to read a proclamation. They usually have several whereases. Whereas in January

2:56 ↗ 1900, the Issaquah Independent was founded and later became known as the Issaquah Press,

3:02 ↗ the oldest newspaper on the East Side. And whereas the Issaquah Press has chronicled

3:08 ↗ our community's milestones and been published continuously for the past 117 years. And whereas

3:13 ↗ the Issaquah Press has worked to embody its mission to foster community pride, history,

3:19 ↗ and identity. And whereas the Issaquah Press has exemplified our community's commitment to

3:25 ↗ First Amendment freedoms, and whereas the Issaquah Press has been recognized in numerous times for

3:31 ↗ its high quality journalism and dedication to community service, and whereas the Issaquah Press and

3:37 ↗ its sister newspapers will cease operations in February 2017. Now therefore, Fred Butler, Mayor of

3:43 ↗ the City of Issaquah, did hereby recognize and honor the Issaquah Press, as I also

3:49 ↗ do today, for more than a century of service to Issaquah and I can

3:55 ↗ encourage our community to join me in recognizing the newspaper's invaluable contributions to Issaquah

4:00 ↗ on the east side. In witness whereof, Mayor Fred Butler set his hand and

4:06 ↗ seal of the city of Issaquah this eighth day of February 2017. Before we

4:12 ↗ go on, I do have some separate words myself. Proclamation is one thing and

4:17 ↗ I just want to I'm not representing the council or the mayor, but I

4:23 ↗ did have a few more words just because I think it's important to recognize the

4:28 ↗ contributions of Issaquah Press. "The purpose of journalism," wrote Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in

4:33 ↗ The Elements of Journalism, "is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques

4:39 ↗ they employ. Rather, the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic:

4:44 ↗ the function news plays in the lives of people." News is that part of communication

4:50 ↗ that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world. Though

4:55 ↗ it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a

5:01 ↗ utility to empower the informed. The purpose of journalism then is to provide citizens with

5:07 ↗ the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities,

5:13 ↗ their societies, and their governments. Community journalism is local. professional news coverage that

5:18 ↗ focuses on city neighborhoods, individual suburbs or small towns rather than the

5:24 ↗ metropolitan, state, national or world news. The Issaquah Press is our community

5:29 ↗ newspaper for 117 years. It has provided our small town with the

5:35 ↗ information that our citizens need to make the best possible decisions about

5:41 ↗ their lives, their community and their local government. their

5:47 ↗ purpose one of their primary purposes is to watch our local government all of us

5:52 ↗ here and to hold us accountable of course the isaac press has done so much

5:58 ↗ more than that reflecting our community telling our stories together and as individuals and embracing

6:03 ↗ a leadership role and it has served that purpose for 117 years no other newspaper

6:09 ↗ or publication has ever come close to infiltrating in a good way our community,

6:14 ↗ homes, graduations, sports, schools, politics, meetings, and so on. The press has had such

6:20 ↗ a vital role in our community, but more importantly, it is a member of

6:26 ↗ our community. So it is indeed a very sad day when we say goodbye

6:32 ↗ to the Issaquah Press, the oldest member of our community. You will be missed.

6:39 ↗ I want to thank you all for

6:44 ↗ your service and for being such a

6:49 ↗ vital member of our community. No, no

6:55 ↗ comments. All right. - Thank you. -

7:00 ↗ Thanks. The next item on our agenda

7:06 ↗ was agenda bill 7311, mayor state of

7:11 ↗ the city address. But in light of

7:17 ↗ mayor Butler's absence, the state of the

7:22 ↗ city address will be heard at the

7:27 ↗ February 21st council meeting. Next item on

7:33 ↗ the agenda is audience comments. Citizen comments

7:38 ↗ are an important part of the public

7:44 ↗ process. We take them seriously and factor

7:49 ↗ them into the decisions we make. Anyone from the

7:55 ↗ public who wishes to comment will have the opportunity to do so. Please direct comments

8:00 ↗ to the whole council and not individuals. While this is not a question and answer

8:04 ↗ session, we will contact you to follow up if needed. If you did not have

8:09 ↗ an opportunity to include your email address on the sign-in sheet, you may leave that

8:14 ↗ information on the clipboard at the front table after speaking. When recognized, use the lectern

8:19 ↗ and speak into the microphone. State your name, address, and relationship to the city. For

8:23 ↗ example, if you are a resident, property owner, or business owner, limit your comments to

8:27 ↗ five minutes and submit any written comments to the city clerk. A visual timer has

8:31 ↗ been placed on the lectern. When it turns yellow, you are within the last minute

8:36 ↗ of your comment period. If you use the full five minutes, the timer will sound

8:40 ↗ to indicate the end of your allotted comment time. Personal attacks, obscene language, derogatory remarks

8:45 ↗ and disruptive behavior will not be permitted. If a speaker is out of order, the

8:50 ↗ mayor will direct the speaker to return to his or her seat. If a speaker

8:55 ↗ does not comply, the mayor will ask, I will ask him or her to leave

9:00 ↗ the council chambers. Again, citizen comments written and verbal are an important aspect of the

9:05 ↗ public process Please note that comments relating to the closed record appeal, which is agenda

9:10 ↗ bill 7319, Talos Parcels 7 and 8, will not be allowed as part of audience

9:15 ↗ comment, as council will be hearing the appeal later this evening. Has anyone signed up

9:20 ↗ to speak this evening? No, no one signed up to speak. Is there anyone who

9:25 ↗ has not signed up this evening who would like the opportunity to speak, as long

9:30 ↗ as it's not related to the closed record appeal hearing? One final call. Does anyone

9:35 ↗ wish to speak? Okay, seeing no one, audience comments are closed and we

9:41 ↗ will move to committee regional reports and we will start with Council Member Batiste. -

9:47 ↗ Thank you. My first King Conservation District Advisory Committee meeting will be February 15th at

9:52 ↗ 4:00 p.m. with SCA caucus meeting beforehand at 3:00 p.m. This is at the

9:58 ↗ King County Wastewater Treatment Plant in Renton. On Tuesday, February 28th, I'll attend my

10:04 ↗ first Economic Development Council Board meeting at 3:00 PM in Seattle, and they're also

10:10 ↗ hosting an orientation for new members on February 15th. On Wednesday, January 18th, I

10:16 ↗ attended the Eastside Human Services Forum Board Meeting. At that meeting, we

10:22 ↗ approved the budget, approved the state legislative agenda previously discussed, discussed

10:27 ↗ a federal legislative agenda for the first time and the 2017 work plan. I

10:33 ↗ just wanted to give you a couple bullet points on what we talked about

10:38 ↗ for the work plan. So the items are to engage and advocate to address

10:44 ↗ emergent human services issues on the east side, impact local funding and policies, impact

10:50 ↗ state and federal funding policies and enhance forum capacity. And this year, there's both

10:55 ↗ the state and federal legislative agenda with different bullet points, but both falling under the

11:01 ↗ same four categories. To support access to basic needs and health services, to make homelessness

11:07 ↗ rare, brief, and one time, to support older adults and people with disabilities, and to

11:12 ↗ strengthen early learning and youth programs. And all of the bullet points would be available

11:18 ↗ on the website. That concludes my report. Thank you. Council Member Bill

11:24 ↗ Ramos. - Thank you. On January 18th, I attended the Regional Transit Committee meeting.

11:30 ↗ Main focus on that, this meeting and a few to come will be

11:36 ↗ working on implementing Metro Connects, their long range plan, how to get into the details

11:42 ↗ of working with that. And following that RTC on the 18th, next meeting is scheduled

11:47 ↗ for the 15th of February. That meeting may get moved, so I don't know for

11:53 ↗ sure, but it may get moved because of Washington City's day in the legislature. On

11:59 ↗ the 1st of February, I attended the SCA orientation. And then on the

12:05 ↗ 8th, today, I was at the Emergency Management Advisory Council, and they're working

12:10 ↗ mainly on catastrophic planning, particularly, again, what we learned from Cascadia Rising. Tomorrow

12:16 ↗ will be my first Eastside Fire and Rescue meeting as an alternate there.

12:22 ↗ Friday, the Eastside Transportation Partnership and on the agenda, as I noted, there is an

12:27 ↗ item that I'm going to find something out about there. I don't know, it's on

12:32 ↗ the South King County Transportation Benefit District. And I have not been able to find

12:37 ↗ anything about that, but I will find out Friday and report back on that. And

12:41 ↗ the next infrastructure committee meeting is on the 16th, coming next week, and we're working

12:46 ↗ on that agenda and that'll be out shortly, includes my report. Council Member Winterstein.

12:52 ↗ Thank you. I'm going to give the Council Infrastructure Committee report from the meeting

12:58 ↗ in January the 19th. And as Council Member Ramos just mentioned, the next one

13:03 ↗ is coming up on February 16th. That's because after two years as the committee

13:09 ↗ chair, Bill is replacing me as the chair and will be running those meetings and

13:14 ↗ giving reports in the future. So this is my last report as chair for the

13:19 ↗ Council of Infrastructure. And we met back on January 19th here in Council Chambers. There

13:24 ↗ were four items on the agenda of special note, two of which are going to

13:29 ↗ be in front of the council later this evening during regular business. The first was

13:34 ↗ agenda bill 7290, which is now item 9B on tonight's regular business agenda, and it

13:39 ↗ concerns the proposed winning bid for construction of the 62nd Street extension. I'll save my

13:44 ↗ comments for that during that item under regular business. Next, we discussed Agenda Bill 7308,

13:49 ↗ which was funding for Phase 1 of a Gilman Boulevard corridor study for

13:55 ↗ the stated purpose of improving safety for all users, improving accommodations for non-motorized

14:01 ↗ users, and developing standard consistent redevelopment standards. The committee voted to the one against the

14:06 ↗ proposal. However, it was felt that further work on the proposal was warranted and it's

14:11 ↗ back in the hands of council leadership and in the administration how and when to

14:16 ↗ bring this back to council. Next we addressed agenda bill 7309 which is now

14:22 ↗ item 9c on tonight's agenda and it concerns funding for safety and usage improvements on

14:27 ↗ Maple Street at the intersection of the Trader Joe's and Target's parking lot entranceways and

14:33 ↗ I'll reserve comments for that under regular business. And then we also had a continuation

14:39 ↗ of the discussion about enhancements to the Complete Streets programs and potential projects for 2017,

14:44 ↗ including on Second Avenue North at the high school where the Rainier Trail crosses that.

14:50 ↗ And then one item that we did not get time to address was to pick

14:55 ↗ up the discussion about the formation of the Transportation Mobility Board. We simply ran out

15:00 ↗ of time. And so, and as I already mentioned, Bill will be taking over the

15:06 ↗ chairship of that committee starting on February 16th, 6:30 here in council chambers. My second

15:11 ↗ report is regarding the Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management Policy Board, or GMPB. The

15:16 ↗ GMPB met on February 2nd at PSR headquarters in Seattle. The notable item on the

15:21 ↗ agenda was just for discussion. There was no action. And I'm going to read some

15:26 ↗ comments that I wrote. I actually read them a month ago because it still pertains.

15:31 ↗ And then later on, I think during the, for the good of the order, there's

15:36 ↗ some additional information I'm going to want to share and discuss. with the council but

15:41 ↗ we received an update under update on the regional centers framework project there has been

15:46 ↗ a working group developing a proposal and this will come in front of the GMPB

15:51 ↗ next month actually they'll be released the working groups report will be released this week

15:56 ↗ I looked and it wasn't there earlier today so we the GMPB will be considering

16:02 ↗ changes to the regional centers program of which our city's regional growth center is part

16:07 ↗ These changes will affect future city designations and it may even affect our

16:13 ↗ own designation and the funding formula for transportation projects. So this will be

16:19 ↗ important to us. It will also provide input to the region's Vision 2040

16:25 ↗ and Transportation 24 guiding documents that will be updated starting, process will start

16:30 ↗ in next year in 2018. So for all these reasons, the Regional Center Framework Update

16:35 ↗ Project is critical to Issaquah and our citizens both now and long into the future.

16:39 ↗ And I will be bringing issues related to this back to the council for discussion,

16:43 ↗ probably ongoing for the next three or four months. And like I said, during good

16:48 ↗ of the order, I have some other material I'll share for your consideration. That concludes

16:52 ↗ my report. - Council Member Barber. - Thank you. No active meetings

16:57 ↗ so far, but I will be attending Eastside Fire and Rescue this Thursday. So I'll

17:03 ↗ be back as a commissioner on that particular meeting. And on the 16th, I'll be

17:08 ↗ attending WIRA 8, the Water Resource Inventory Area. And that will be held on the

17:14 ↗ 16th. So that's my report, thank you. Council Member Pauley. Thank you.

17:20 ↗ On January 26th, I attended the WFCA Washington Fire Chiefs Association Legislative Day

17:26 ↗ down in Olympia. We were able to meet with Senator Mullet and Representatives

17:31 ↗ Sen, Claiborne, and Graves. The top priority issues that were brought up that

17:37 ↗ day were restructuring of the 1% levy lid and how important that is

17:43 ↗ to cities and agencies. Some topics included wildlife fire prevention and

17:49 ↗ mitigation, capital improvements for the Fire Training Academy, and an issue that cities also

17:55 ↗ deal with, which is public records abuses and potential legislative changes to address that.

18:01 ↗ The next Eastside Fire and Rescue Board meeting is this Thursday as was mentioned at

18:06 ↗ four o'clock at EFERS headquarters on Newport Way. Most of the items for business that

18:11 ↗ day are administrative updates and the representatives this year as Councilmember Barber mentioned are myself

18:16 ↗ and Barber and Councilmember Ramos as our alternate for this year. That concludes my report.

18:21 ↗ Thank you. As chair on Land and Shore, I would like to report out that

18:26 ↗ Land and Shore met on February 2nd One item on our agenda was

18:32 ↗ transfer, sorry, transit-oriented development. We had an update on that. King County

18:38 ↗ has a $10 million grant for transit-oriented development, for a transit-oriented development

18:44 ↗ project in our area of the county. The administration is planning to

18:50 ↗ apply for that grant and so has sought requests for proposals for a

18:55 ↗ project and selection of the development team is scheduled to be made on

19:01 ↗ February 10th. The components of the transit oriented development would include vertical mixed

19:06 ↗ use, at least 350 affordable and market rate housing units, ground floor commercial,

19:12 ↗ a city owned space for non-profit services and perhaps some others. The identified

19:18 ↗ site right now is the CenturyLink property which is adjacent to the park and ride

19:23 ↗ on State Route 900. CenturyLink of course would need to move and the thought right

19:29 ↗ now is likely to the King County property near the north side of I-90 nearer

19:34 ↗ to the shop site, city shop site which the city is in the process of

19:40 ↗ purchasing. The policy considerations for the council would include annexation of the King

19:46 ↗ County property, zoning for that land, and other policy items such as whether to and

19:52 ↗ how to facilitate affordable housing and maybe some other policy items. There's planned to be

19:58 ↗ a presentation to the council at its April Committee of the Whole meeting. And the

20:03 ↗ entire council received the presentation that Land and Shore received. I think after Land

20:09 ↗ and Shore, but you did all receive it. So there's additional information, additional details in

20:14 ↗ there. It was just an update. Oh, actually it was first presentation. We also received

20:19 ↗ a moratorium update and primarily we reviewed the preliminary calendar for the work items that

20:25 ↗ need to be accomplished this year before lifting the moratorium either in parts or all

20:30 ↗ at once. The schedule was in the Land and Shore packet. So if you have

20:35 ↗ questions, you can let leadership know. We also had on our

20:41 ↗ agenda, agenda bill 7219, the development agreement for Gilman Lofts, This is a

20:47 ↗ proposal for a development agreement for development on the north side of Gilman at the

20:52 ↗ intersection of Rainier and Juniper. The proposal would include 3700 square feet of first floor

20:57 ↗ retail and 44,000 square feet of commercial space. The purpose would be to allow the

21:02 ↗ development to move forward during the moratorium, but also to provide a cost sharing agreement

21:07 ↗ between the city and the developer for adding a traffic signal to that intersection.

21:13 ↗ Currently, C curbing is permitted and required in the SEPA decision. Neither the businesses

21:19 ↗ in that area nor Seacon, the developer, like that requirement as it creates right

21:25 ↗ in, right out only and the development agreement provides for a light there instead.

21:31 ↗ The intersection light is estimated to cost about $1.4 million. The city's share would be

21:36 ↗ about half a million dollars, and the developer would pay the rest. We had quite

21:42 ↗ a discussion over a couple of meetings, and the committee focused very generally on a

21:47 ↗ couple of questions. One was the public benefit of the development agreement, and the other

21:52 ↗ was the function of that intersection. If a light went in, there were concerns raised

21:58 ↗ about the south side of Gilman that the light would not change that south side

22:04 ↗ arrangement, which is awkward. So the committee ended up to be a two

22:09 ↗ to one split to recommend in favor of the development agreement coming to

22:15 ↗ the full council. And I don't have it in my notes, and I

22:21 ↗ think maybe February 21st, it was scheduled to come back to the full

22:27 ↗ council. Also, we had agenda bill 7270, 2016 comp plan amendments. that was a

22:33 ↗ thick packet we got pretty far kind of proud of us um and uh it's

22:37 ↗ coming back in march because we did have um asked for a little more information

22:41 ↗ on a couple of items and we asked for some revised language the next land

22:45 ↗ and shore meeting is march 2nd and the agenda has not been set The

22:50 ↗ mayor's report tonight is very brief. There will be an executive session held this

22:56 ↗ evening for the purpose of discussing property acquisition per RCW 42301101B. This item is

23:02 ↗ expected to take approximately 15 minutes. Action is anticipated to follow in open session.

23:08 ↗ Moving on to the consent calendar on the agenda, I would ask, have the

23:14 ↗ payables and payroll for February 6 been reviewed? Yes, they have.

23:19 ↗ I would now ask the clerk to read the consent calendar into the record. The

23:24 ↗ consent calendar was distributed to council in advance for study. If authorized, council action will

23:29 ↗ occur by single motion regarding the following items. Item A seeks approval of the accounts

23:34 ↗ payables and payroll of February 6th. Items B, C, and D seeks approval of the

23:39 ↗ minutes of the regular meeting of January 17th, the council committee of the whole of

23:44 ↗ January 24th, and the special meeting of January 25th. Item E, AB 7282, Arch 2017,

23:50 ↗ Proposed Work Program and Budget, seeks referral to Council Services and Safety Committee.

23:56 ↗ Item F, AB 7283, 2016, Arch Fall Trust Fund, seeks referral to Council

24:02 ↗ Services and Safety Committee. And Item G, AB 7323, Interlocal Agreement for Public

24:08 ↗ Defense Monitoring Services, seeks authorization. This concludes the reading. Does any

24:13 ↗ council member desire to remove any of the items from consent

24:19 ↗ down to the regular agenda? I would entertain a motion on

24:25 ↗ the consent calendar. So moved. Second. Motion has been moved and

24:31 ↗ seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any

24:37 ↗ opposed? Thank you. Next item on the agenda is agenda bill

24:43 ↗ 7319, appeal of Talos parcels seven and eight, quasi-judicial matter. This

24:48 ↗ is a closed record appeal. This is

24:54 ↗ a closed record appeal of the hearing examiner's decision to grant final plat approval for

25:00 ↗ Talus Parcels 7 and 8. I would ask the City Attorney to please explain what

25:05 ↗ a closed record proceeding is and lay out the final plat approval criteria.

25:13 ↗ - Thank you. What is before the council tonight is a closed record appeal of

25:19 ↗ the hearing examiner's decision on the final plat of Talos seven and eight. A closed

25:25 ↗ record appeal means that the record is limited to the materials and evidence that was

25:30 ↗ presented to the hearing examiner in this matter and that there will be no additional

25:36 ↗ testimony putting in any additional facts into the record tonight. What will occur tonight

25:42 ↗ is oral argument by the parties based on the record that was made

25:48 ↗ at the hearing examiner's level. And according to the procedure to be followed

25:54 ↗ this evening, that oral argument There will be oral argument from both the

26:00 ↗ appellant or a TALIS at approximately 10 minutes according to the city's

26:05 ↗ closed record appeal procedures. There will also be argument from the applicant,

26:11 ↗ TALIS 7 and 8 investment, again, approximately 10 minutes. The staff is

26:16 ↗ also charged with making a brief factual or background staff report for

26:22 ↗ the council and that's supposed to last about five minutes.

26:28 ↗ The council is in the position in this appeal to consider the

26:34 ↗ decision of the hearing examiner. The city's code provides that that decision is

26:40 ↗ to be given substantial weight, which means that the hearing examiner's decision is

26:45 ↗ entitled to some deference by the council and that the appellant, in this

26:51 ↗ case, Ora Tallis, nine, has the burden of proving that the hearing examiner decision

26:57 ↗ was clearly erroneous. Clearly erroneous is a standard that is adopted

27:02 ↗ by the courts and is enshrined in the Land Use Petition

27:08 ↗ Act law as well. The clearly erroneous standard holds that a

27:14 ↗ decision is clearly erroneous only if after reviewing the entire record

27:20 ↗ of the proceedings before the hearing examiner, the counsel is left

27:26 ↗ with the definite and firm conviction that the hearing examiner made

27:31 ↗ a mistake. The hearing examiner in this matter used

27:37 ↗ two criteria to make the decision on the final plat. Those

27:43 ↗ criteria are set forth in the Issaquah Municipal Code. They are

27:48 ↗ one, whether or not the final plat meets the conditions or

27:54 ↗ is consistent with the conditions set forth in the preliminary plat

28:00 ↗ approval, which occurred on the TALIS 7 and 8 plat. And

28:06 ↗ second, whether the plat, the final plat is consistent with the provisions

28:11 ↗ of the state subdivision law relating to final plats and the provisions

28:17 ↗ of the Issaquah Municipal Code. In order to overturn the hearing examiner,

28:22 ↗ the city council would have to find that the hearing examiner's decision

28:28 ↗ that this final plat met those two criteria was clearly erroneous. So

28:34 ↗ if that will be, that's the standard of review and the task of the

28:40 ↗ council tonight is to listen to the oral argument made by the parties and

28:46 ↗ then to make a decision as to whether or not the hearing examiner's decision

28:52 ↗ should be upheld or affirmed or whether the hearing examiner's decision should be overturned.

28:58 ↗ Thank you. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding, so

29:03 ↗ at this time I would ask council members, including myself, by

29:09 ↗ a show of hands, if there are any disclosures based on

29:15 ↗ appearance of fairness to be disclosed. I see none. Let's see.

29:21 ↗ Procedural matters. We need to be led, city attorney, through any

29:27 ↗ procedural matters. - I think the procedures are set forth in

29:33 ↗ the council's procedures manual and resource manual. They're also set forth in the memo

29:38 ↗ that I provided to the council that's in your packet. And there's also a copy

29:44 ↗ of the council resource manual that is in the packet relating to this. I think

29:50 ↗ that's all the procedures that I know of that you need to follow. If there

29:56 ↗ are any questions from the parties concerning the procedures, you may wish to entertain them

30:01 ↗ now. Okay. Do we have any questions about the process from

30:07 ↗ the parties? Thank you. Well, this time, it would be time for the

30:13 ↗ staff presentation. I understand that's Mike Martin, and this should take, my understanding

30:18 ↗ is approximately five minutes. Good evening. My name is Mike Martin. I'm a

30:24 ↗ senior planner with the Development Services Department, and I am the project planner

30:30 ↗ for the final application.

30:40 ↗ There's a very concise history of the permit background on the second page of

30:46 ↗ the agenda bill and I'm just going to read that briefly as it provides

30:52 ↗ some good background as to the permit process up to this point. The preliminary

30:58 ↗ plat application for TALIS parcel 7 through 9 file number PP1400001 was brought before

31:04 ↗ the Urban Village Development Commission on April 1st. April 15th, 2014 and May

31:09 ↗ 6th, 2014. On May 6th, the UVDC entered its recommendation to the city

31:15 ↗ council to approve the preliminary plat application with conditions. The preliminary plat was

31:21 ↗ then brought before the Land and Shore Committee on May 13th, 2014. The

31:26 ↗ committee recommended by a vote of three zero to approve the preliminary plat

31:32 ↗ application. The preliminary plat was then brought before the full city council on

31:38 ↗ June 2nd, 2014. the council voted to approve the preliminary plot application by

31:44 ↗ a vote of 6-0 with council member Scher recusing himself. The final plat

31:49 ↗ application then came forth for parcels 7 and 8 only. Parcel 9 which

31:55 ↗ was included in the pre-plat was sold and was not included in the

32:00 ↗ final plat. That final plat application number is 150003 which was submitted on

32:06 ↗ September 18, 2016. The Development Services Department issued the final plat

32:12 ↗ staff report on December 9th, 2016. And the final plat public meeting

32:17 ↗ rather was held before the hearing examiner on December 16th, 2016. The

32:23 ↗ hearing examiner issued the notice of decision to approve the final plat

32:28 ↗ on January 4th, 2017. And that's exhibit B. And then lastly, the

32:34 ↗ appeal of the final plat, application number APP 1700001, was brought forth

32:40 ↗ on behalf of the ownership group, Oratelis 90 LLC on January 18th, following

32:45 ↗ the January 4th decision of the hearing examiner. And I'll allow the appellant

32:51 ↗ to summarize their arguments there. That's a brief history of the permit overview.

32:57 ↗ And then I'll just give a refresher here as to the plat itself

33:03 ↗ and the location. Parcels 7 and 8 are located in the red area.

33:09 ↗ kind of a top talus. This plaque calls for 63 single-family

33:15 ↗ detached residences. There additionally is 27 open space road and utility

33:20 ↗ tracks, also walls. Parcel 9 is this area right here located

33:26 ↗ just outside of the final plat boundary if you can see

33:31 ↗ that and the site is served by public roads shangri-la extension which

33:37 ↗ will come which would be a future public road here foothills drive provides most

33:43 ↗ of the access there are a couple other roads associated with the project you've

33:48 ↗ probably seen the two water towers that have been constructed at the top those

33:54 ↗ will be pulled online at a future date upon completion i'm happy to answer

34:00 ↗ any questions about the plat itself as noted in the staff report staff

34:05 ↗ reviewed this for applicable approval criteria with the state subdivision code, RCW

34:11 ↗ 5817 and the applicable IMC criteria for final plats and found that

34:17 ↗ it was consistent with those criteria and issued its recommendation to the

34:22 ↗ hearing examiner to approve the final plat. So I'll conclude my presentation

34:28 ↗ there and I'm happy to answer any questions at the applicable time.

34:33 ↗ Thanks. - Thank you. At this

34:39 ↗ time, I would ask the appellant to come forward and make

34:45 ↗ their presentation. For a Talus 90 LLC and the appellant has

34:50 ↗ approximately 10 minutes to present its case. Before you begin, do

34:56 ↗ you wish to reserve any time for rebuttal? Okay. Yes, we

35:02 ↗ will reserve two minutes for rebuttal. Thank you. The clerk is

35:07 ↗ going to track the time and provide a prompt at one

35:13 ↗ minute remaining for your presentation. Thank you. My name

35:19 ↗ is Chris Brain. I represent Ora Thales and we are the appellant in this action.

35:24 ↗ According to the memorandum of the city attorney as well as the staff report which

35:29 ↗ was dated December 9th, the approval is based upon the consistency of the preliminary plat

35:34 ↗ or the final plat to the preliminary plat. One of the issues here however is

35:39 ↗ that the preliminary plat approval was for all three parcels, 7, 8, and 9. And

35:45 ↗ so today you're only looking at 7 and 8. In the interim period

35:50 ↗ of time, there was a significant slide on 9. You know about that

35:56 ↗ slide. Yet the staff report does not mention the slide at all. The

36:02 ↗ memorandum of counsel doesn't mention the slide at all. And it's a significant

36:07 ↗ event. If you were truly making sure that the preliminary, that the final

36:13 ↗ plat followed the preliminary plat, and all three parcels were before you today,

36:19 ↗ ask yourselves, would you approve the final plat knowing that there was

36:25 ↗ a slide that has not been remediated or completely studied on nine

36:31 ↗ so clearly you're not necessarily following the preliminary plat and making it

36:37 ↗ consistent now there have been very few changes except for the fact

36:42 ↗ that we have the landslide on parcel 9 and it is significant

36:49 ↗ and i'd like to point out as testified to by mr schlep

36:54 ↗ at the december hearing recommending the plant approval that the critical area

37:00 ↗ study for parcels seven eight and nine again a study for all

37:06 ↗ three and the peer review of that critical area study was done

37:12 ↗ in 2014 early 2014 and there has been no subsequent review

37:18 ↗ post slide of the issues addressed in the critical area study. What

37:24 ↗ impacts they would have on nine, what impacts eight has on nine.

37:30 ↗ And indeed, these weren't addressed at all during the staff report recommending

37:36 ↗ final plan or anything in the record. If you review the written

37:42 ↗ record, the only items you will find that reference the slide

37:48 ↗ and a soldier pile wall are in the December 15th letter from Hart Krauser and

37:54 ↗ the oral statements made at the hearing. There is no written evidence submitted by anyone

37:59 ↗ else. At this point, I'd like to turn this over to Gary Horvitz, who is

38:05 ↗ a senior principal geotechnical engineer with Hart Krauser, and let him address some of the

38:10 ↗ issues that we had raised in that letter. Thank you.

38:16 ↗ We believe that it would be premature to allow completion of development of Parcels 7

38:22 ↗ and 8 without first confirming slope stability of these parcels given the recent landslide activity

38:28 ↗ on Parcel 9. As you know, a significant landslide occurred over a substantial area, and

38:33 ↗ that is currently under investigation with regard to the cause, and also we are looking

38:39 ↗ at remedial alternatives that can be implemented to stabilize the site. We've

38:45 ↗ reviewed the geotechnical investigation, slope stability analysis, and engineering recommendations for Talus

38:50 ↗ Parcel 7 and 8 sites by Terra Associates, and in particular, their

38:56 ↗ proposed shoring wall plant along Shangri-La Way between Talus 8 and Talus

39:02 ↗ 9. Based on our review of these documents, our evaluation reveals

39:08 ↗ that initial soil investigation and slope stability analyses do not adequately characterize

39:13 ↗ existing site subsurface conditions in this mapped landslide area or analyze all

39:19 ↗ likely landslide causes and potential for landsliding on Talus 8.

39:25 ↗ We are specifically concerned that the design of the proposed soldier pile wall

39:31 ↗ on Shangri-La Way between Talus 8 and 9 may be under designed if

39:36 ↗ it needs to provide stabilization of a larger than currently envisioned slide mass.

39:46 ↗ Again, we think what's significant here, and I'll go to Mr. Shepherd's response to Hart-Crowser,

39:52 ↗ and the only response, by the way, to that letter, again, is an oral statement

39:58 ↗ at the time of the hearing. There is no written response. But that response doesn't

40:03 ↗ have any evidence as to the design of the wall, the peer review of the

40:09 ↗ wall, or what could happen in areas that are adjacent to the wall

40:15 ↗ and adjacent to. Realize that on parcel 8 itself, there are seven individual

40:20 ↗ lots. Those lots are basically between the large concrete city water system tank

40:26 ↗ and the two new tanks. If you've ever been to the site, it's

40:32 ↗ quite steep. These are directly above the road where there was a slide,

40:38 ↗ and this slide actually was right up next to that. And so

40:44 ↗ these things simply haven't been addressed. It's as if it's incomplete. And

40:50 ↗ to a certain degree, you've got to realize that it is the

40:56 ↗ stability of this entire area, which is an issue, primarily eight and

41:01 ↗ nine, which hasn't been studied. You've had the slide, but there's been

41:07 ↗ no study. The basic statement by Mr. Shepherd was, well, it hasn't

41:13 ↗ slid in again. well it hadn't slid before the slide either

41:18 ↗ and so you can't simply look at whether there was a slide and then say

41:24 ↗ well now it's stable to say there won't be another one or there's problems on

41:29 ↗ eight and there has been nothing submitted on eight as to how it can impact

41:34 ↗ nine so why are we here why do we care well we're very concerned that

41:40 ↗ a slope failure on nine or eight could affect both parcels And we're very

41:45 ↗ concerned that if it happens on 8, it causes more problems for 9. These are

41:50 ↗ large parcels, and there's a lot of money involved for all the parties. And we

41:56 ↗ really ask that the I's be dotted and the T's crossed, because you are dealing

42:01 ↗ with a unique situation. This is not a preliminary plat that had been studied and

42:06 ↗ nothing happened, and people are objecting to the density or they're objecting to the typical

42:11 ↗ things that are happening. This is a preliminary plat for three parcels. where one

42:16 ↗ of the three slid significantly. One minute remaining. I'll hold for rebuttal.

42:22 ↗ Is that for, we still have two minutes? Yes. Three. We'll take

42:28 ↗ the three minutes. Thank you. Thank you.

42:34 ↗ I'm for the applicant response. Talus 7 and 8 investment LLC and Talus 9 investment

42:39 ↗ LLC. You have approximately 10 minutes and the Thank you. or 10 minutes and the

42:45 ↗ clerk will time. Okay. Good evening. My name is Patrick Mullaney. I'm a land use

42:50 ↗ attorney at Foster Pepper here tonight on behalf of the applicant Talus 7 and 8

42:55 ↗ LLC. The issue on this appeal is that a landslide occurred on November 13th

43:01 ↗ 2015 on the ORA property. It's important to understand that that landslide originated and was

43:07 ↗ contained on ORA's property. It did not start or extend to the TALA 7 and

43:12 ↗ 8 property and there is absolutely no evidence in the record that there are landslide

43:18 ↗ hazard conditions on TALA 7 and 8's property. The testimony at the

43:24 ↗ hearing, and I would particularly refer you to the testimony of Terra

43:30 ↗ Associates Engineer Mr. Shepper and the City Engineer, which is found at

43:36 ↗ pages 29 through 30 and 12, 14, and 32 of the hearing

43:42 ↗ transcript, and that's what I'll be speaking to primarily. was that both before

43:47 ↗ and after the Auris slide, the slope stability on Tallis' property was thoroughly

43:53 ↗ analyzed. At the hearing, Mr. Shepper from Terra Associates testified that the detailed

43:59 ↗ landslide hazard mapping for Tallis 7 and 8 was rated the landslide risk

44:05 ↗ as low. He also testified that the ground conditions encountered during the Platte

44:10 ↗ infrastructure construction were consistent with the characterizations that were included in the 2014 critical

44:16 ↗ areas and geotechnical studies that had been submitted to the city and had been

44:22 ↗ peer reviewed by the city's engineering consultant subterra as part of the preliminary Platte

44:27 ↗ process. He concluded, quote, "No unforeseen conditions were encountered that would give us cause

44:33 ↗ for concern. Mr. Shepherd's testimony was corroborated by the city engineer. He

44:39 ↗ stated that instrumentation installed on ORA's property to monitor its landslide demonstrated there

44:45 ↗ was no indication of the slide migrating off-site. He also testified that monitoring

44:51 ↗ on Parcels 7 and 8 showed no indication of instability.

44:59 ↗ Now, one of the issues that ORA raises is that there was a

45:05 ↗ large wall constructed on Talus 7 and 8, and I'd like to quickly

45:11 ↗ talk about why that occurred. A portion of the ORA landslide came near

45:16 ↗ Talus 7 and 8's property line at the outer edge of the Shangri-La

45:22 ↗ right-of-way, which is now called Foothills Drive as it extends up into the

45:28 ↗ Platts. After the ORA landslide occurred, the city told TALIS 7 and 8 that

45:33 ↗ in order to obtain its final plat approval, it would have to come up with

45:39 ↗ an engineering solution to ensure the integrity of the Foothills Drive extension. For the first

45:44 ↗ part of 2016, TALIS 7 and 8 worked with ORA and the city on the

45:49 ↗ assumption that an engineering solution to stabilize the road right-of-way could occur on ORA's property

45:55 ↗ and be included in their landslide remediation plan. ORA did submit a draft plan,

46:00 ↗ however around July 2016 it stopped communicating with the city. At the hearing, Mr.

46:06 ↗ Shepherd testified that ORA told him "to stand down from discussing the landslide with

46:12 ↗ the city." The ORA landslide delayed TALIS 7 and 8's final plat by nearly

46:18 ↗ a year. Because ORA was not moving forward with its remediation plan, TALA 7 and

46:24 ↗ 8 directed Terra Associates to come up with a shoring wall design that could be

46:29 ↗ constructed on its property. There are several reasons why the ORA appeal

46:35 ↗ should be denied. Perhaps the most straightforward reason is the hearing testimony showed that ORA

46:40 ↗ is just plain wrong when it claims the landslide condition on its property was not

46:45 ↗ taken into account in the design of the shoring wall that Talus 7 and 8

46:51 ↗ recently completed on its property. The expert testimony at the hearing demonstrated several things. One,

46:56 ↗ that the Tallahassee 7 and 8 property was examined for potential landslide risks both before

47:02 ↗ and after the ORA landslide. That the shoring wall design was peer reviewed by the

47:08 ↗ city's consulting engineer, Golder Associates. That the shoring wall design was very robust and specifically

47:13 ↗ took into account the landslide condition on ORA's property. In fact, the shoring wall

47:19 ↗ was engineered so that it will support the Foothills Drive road right away, even if

47:25 ↗ the ORA landslide remobilizes at some point in the future. That was the testimony of

47:31 ↗ Mr. Sheppard at pages 29 and 30, as I mentioned before. What ORA apparently failed

47:36 ↗ to understand or refuses to acknowledge is that the shoring wall was permitted as part

47:42 ↗ of a separate city permit. SW1400049 not as part of the

47:48 ↗ final plat. Thus, contrary to ORRA's appeal, there is

47:53 ↗ no missing information or unanalyzed danger. Had ORA looked at

47:59 ↗ the appropriate files, it would have discovered that there was geotechnical analysis that was specific

48:05 ↗ to the ORA slide, there was design comment notes from the city's third-party engineering consultant,

48:10 ↗ and that detailed plans for the wall design had already been approved by the city.

48:16 ↗ Unfortunately, ORA waited until 4 p.m. on the afternoon before the hearing to have Hart

48:22 ↗ Krauser submit its objection letter. Before that, it never spoke with the

48:27 ↗ applicant and apparently didn't review the city's permit files that were associated

48:33 ↗ with the final plat. The failure to review those relevant documents flaws

48:38 ↗ both the Hart-Krauser letter and the ORA appeal because they ignore the

48:44 ↗ information they claim is missing. Now, another thing about the Hart-Krauser

48:50 ↗ letter, if you look at it closely, it lists three documents that Hart-Krauser claims they

48:56 ↗ reviewed. Those documents were from the 2014 preliminary plat. One of the problems with the

49:02 ↗ letter is that they misstate the dates for those studies and claim that they are

49:08 ↗ 2016. For two of the three documents, they also inexplicably add the word landslide into

49:14 ↗ the document titles for reasons that I don't know. But the point

49:19 ↗ of that is that they didn't have the information that they claim was missing because

49:25 ↗ they were looking in the wrong place for it. Now I'd like to quickly turn

49:31 ↗ to the law and say that it's important to note that ORRA's appeal statement does

49:37 ↗ not point to any preliminary plat approval criteria, city code, or provision of state subdivision

49:42 ↗ law that TALIS 7 and 8 somehow failed to meet. Here the hearing

49:48 ↗ examiner reviewed the evidence and applied the proper legal standards. He concluded that

49:54 ↗ each of the 32 preliminary plaque conditions of approval had been met. That

50:00 ↗ was a decision paragraph 9. And he heard testimony from all three engineers.

50:06 ↗ The city engineer, the applicant's engineer, and the appellant's engineer. When confronted

50:11 ↗ with that expert testimony, he was entitled to weigh the evidence and

50:17 ↗ the decision shows he did just that. His conclusion, one on decision

50:22 ↗ page 17, is supported by findings 21 and 23 where he discusses

50:28 ↗ the testimony of Mr. Shepper and the city engineer. He

50:34 ↗ also discusses the testimony of Mr. Bingham, Hart-Krauser's engineer, and ORAS representative

50:39 ↗ Susan Wilson at finding 22. After weighing this testimony, the examiner concluded,

50:45 ↗ and I'll quote this, Although concerns have been raised about slope stability,

50:51 ↗ especially on adjacent parcel nine, comments at the public meeting from both the city

50:57 ↗ and the applicant's professional engineers reveal that the site had been continually monitored for

51:02 ↗ approximately one year, that all geotechnical and critical area reports were peer reviewed, and

51:08 ↗ that the proposed plat may move forward without threat to public health, safety, or

51:14 ↗ welfare. So in conclusion, The examiner correctly applied the appropriate legal standards

51:20 ↗ and determining the final plat met the 32 conditions of approval. His decision was

51:26 ↗ supported by substantial evidence that included testimony regarding the evaluation of Talus 7 and

51:31 ↗ 8 for landslide hazard and that the shoring wall was subject to rigorous engineering

51:37 ↗ evaluation which resulted in a robust design that addressed the slide conditions on Orr's

51:43 ↗ property. Orr's appeal is based on its erroneous understanding of the record and

51:49 ↗ it has not meant its burden of showing that the examiner's decision was clearly

51:54 ↗ erroneous. It also cannot collaterally attack the building permit that was issued for the

52:00 ↗ shoring wall or the engineering and geotechnical design that was behind that in this

52:06 ↗ proceeding when it failed to appeal those permits when they were issued. For

52:11 ↗ all of these reasons, TALIS 7 and 8 respectfully request that

52:17 ↗ the Council affirm the hearing examiner's decision and approve TALIS 7

52:23 ↗ and 8's final plan. Thank you very much. Thank you. And

52:28 ↗ the appellant has three minutes for rebuttal. Hopefully I won't use

52:34 ↗ them all. As a practical matter, Hart-Krauser did review the other

52:40 ↗ documents the Council referred to. And there was a lot of statements that

52:46 ↗ were outside the record, but I would like to point out that Terra was told

52:50 ↗ to stand down because Terra had been the designer for all of the geotechnical work

52:55 ↗ and there was a slide. And they didn't even point out in those reports the

53:00 ↗ slide risk. And so that's when Hart Krauser was retained to do the independent study

53:05 ↗ and to look into this problem. And there were correspondence that was sent to the

53:10 ↗ city that was never responded to. So where we are is we're in a situation

53:15 ↗ now where we are working and tend to work toward the remediation and the cause

53:20 ↗ of this slide to figure it out and know what we're doing. But again, you

53:25 ↗ have parcel 8 right above this and you have a partial wall. This is not

53:31 ↗ a wall along the entire Foothills Drive. This is a very small portion of the

53:36 ↗ wall that is basically between the city water tank and the Talus 9 parcel.

53:43 ↗ The real important thing is, is read the record and look at what was stated.

53:49 ↗ There's a very little testament. The only written documentation which raises issues regarding the soil

53:54 ↗ and the stability is the Hart-Krauser report. The rest of it is self-serving statements by

53:59 ↗ the engineers who did the initial analysis saying that there were no slide issues or

54:05 ↗ no risks. Where is the safety? Where is the peer review that is being talked

54:10 ↗ about having to do with parcel eight, parcel nine? These are the questions that we

54:16 ↗ raise, and we raise them because they hadn't been answered. They haven't been answered. And

54:22 ↗ this is a very unique situation. And again, the criteria that council has talked about

54:27 ↗ and the other criteria, think about it. If you had all three before you or

54:33 ↗ the hearing examiner said, we're going to look at this as a three-lot plat. One

54:39 ↗ minute remaining. And one of them slid. Would it be approved? No,

54:44 ↗ you would have said go back, do your homework, let's figure

54:50 ↗ this out. And that's what we're asking. Thank you. Thank you.

54:55 ↗ We were at the point now where we have an opportunity

55:01 ↗ for council questions. When we're asking questions, are we just asking

55:06 ↗ either the appellant's lawyer or the applicant's lawyer or we also

55:12 ↗ let us ask questions of any staff, any consultants that they

55:17 ↗ might have brought? You are allowed to ask questions

55:23 ↗ of any of the parties and the staff. They are to

55:29 ↗ confine their answers to what is in the record. But yes,

55:34 ↗ you can ask questions of any of those. Okay. So yes,

55:40 ↗ I will start with the Appellants Group, which is called-- -Or

55:46 ↗ a-- -Or a-- -Or a TALIS. -Or a TALIS. Thank you.

55:51 ↗ And my question is, In talking about geotechnical studies that were done, actually I'll

55:57 ↗ start with the applicant. I think that makes it simpler and then I may have

56:02 ↗ a follow-up question for the appellant. And when questions are asked, could you please come

56:06 ↗ up to the lectern and speak in the microphone to answer? Thank you. Start with

56:11 ↗ the applicant. There is reference in the transcript from the hearing that

56:17 ↗ I had a hard time following in terms of when studies happened,

56:22 ↗ when peer review happened. And so in looking through the documents and

56:28 ↗ then reading the transcript, documents state that in the original application during

56:34 ↗ preliminary plat that the information submitted showed that there was no landslide

56:39 ↗ hazard. And then in 2014, there was a geotechnical report and

56:45 ↗ a peer review. Subsequent to that in 2015 there was a slide and it

56:51 ↗ was hard to see in the transcript record if that geotechnical study for 7 and

56:56 ↗ 8 was redone and re-peer reviewed not for the wall that was built along the

57:01 ↗ road but for the actual development itself in light of the fact that a slide

57:07 ↗ had happened and now it's a landslide area and not just a no risk. So

57:12 ↗ Mr. Shepard is here if you want more of the technical details, but I'll

57:18 ↗ try to answer your question. You're correct. There was an original set of peer-reviewed

57:24 ↗ studies that were done in 2014 as part of the preliminary plat. Those were

57:30 ↗ peer-reviewed at the time by, and let me, I'll find the right, the city's

57:36 ↗ consultant at that time was Subterra. The following, so there were

57:42 ↗ those studies. Then there were the observations when the plat infrastructure was

57:48 ↗ built out that Terra and Associates did as they were building out.

57:53 ↗ They confirmed that the soil conditions on 7 and 8 were consistent

57:59 ↗ with the borings and things that had been done in those original

58:05 ↗ geotechnical studies. In addition, Tara and associates also characterized the

58:10 ↗ landslide when it occurred on Talus 9. And the city engineer at

58:16 ↗ pages, I believe it's 12 through 14 and 32 at the hearing

58:22 ↗ transcript, testified that there was monitoring set up both on parcel 9

58:28 ↗ and parcel 7 and 8. to check the landslide conditions and that

58:34 ↗ there was no indication that any of the properties were moving finally in

58:40 ↗ regards to the wall there was additional geotechnical studies done then that were

58:45 ↗ reviewed by another city consultant and that was golder and associates and that

58:51 ↗ was also testified to by mr shepherd and the city engineer that looked

58:57 ↗ at and specifically looked at the area of um around the wall and in this

59:02 ↗ and conjunction with these ora landslide and this is mr pew he's one of the

59:07 ↗ principals with talus seven and eight and he might be able to elaborate better than

59:13 ↗ I can on the details. Let me just rephrase the question. So I think you

59:19 ↗ just restated exactly what I said I saw in the record. The question is after

59:25 ↗ the slide was the geotechnical study that originally said the risk of slide was non-existent

59:31 ↗ or low re-looked at in light of the fact that an actual slide happened?

59:37 ↗ Do you want to answer that? And then peer review Jay. Maybe Ted can

59:43 ↗ answer a little bit of that, but I think there are a couple facts

59:49 ↗ that go to that. First of all, TELUS 7 and 8 construction started in

59:54 ↗ 2014. So right after the preliminary plat approval, we started construction. majority of

1:00:00 ↗ the, matter of fact, all of the grading and all the wall work and

1:00:06 ↗ infrastructure work for the plat was complete prior to the slide and

1:00:12 ↗ prior to ORA starting construction on their property. So we had already done

1:00:18 ↗ everything, all of our construction. It was monitored by Terra Associates during that.

1:00:24 ↗ There was nothing found during that construction that would change any of those.

1:00:30 ↗ And then subsequently following the slide, we monitored it continuously for a year

1:00:35 ↗ to determine if there are any other, any movement or anything that we

1:00:41 ↗ should be concerned with regarding the plat and we found nothing in those observations. So

1:00:47 ↗ specifically there were no re-review of that report because there was no reason to re-review

1:00:53 ↗ it. There was no evidence of anything to re-review. I think another minor point is

1:00:59 ↗ that I don't think anybody has said the review said there was no existence of

1:01:05 ↗ any slide hazard. It's in a steep slope area. Those hazards were reviewed, and I

1:01:10 ↗ think as Ted has indicated in both the record previously, that was a low risk,

1:01:16 ↗ but not non-existent. Okay, thank you. - Can you answer my question? There was, I

1:01:22 ↗ guess I'm still a little confused. Even though it slid, and now it's an active

1:01:27 ↗ slide area, there was never a new study done. Not that there was

1:01:33 ↗ not a study done, certainly evaluation and observation and testing was completed

1:01:39 ↗ to verify that the slide limits were contained within parcel 9 and

1:01:44 ↗ were not affecting Talus 8, 7 and 8. We did extensive testing,

1:01:50 ↗ installation of instrumentation on the Talus 9, our Talus 9 slide.

1:01:56 ↗ We actually produced a report in February of 2016 that was

1:02:01 ↗ submitted to the city on behalf of the developer. It was

1:02:07 ↗ reviewed by both Golder Associates and Shannon & Wilson, two geotechnical engineering

1:02:13 ↗ firms. And based on the peer review, I believe that they were

1:02:18 ↗ satisfied that the limits of the slide that we had delineated on

1:02:24 ↗ parcel 9 were correct. And we were just in the throes of going through

1:02:30 ↗ conceptual mitigation procedures that we were going to implement to stabilize the slide on a

1:02:35 ↗ permanent basis. We were continuing with that work up through into June of

1:02:41 ↗ 2016 when we were basically, like I testified, we were asked to stand

1:02:47 ↗ down by the developer on parcel 9. We're still continuing to monitor the

1:02:53 ↗ instruments up there. Our crews are going out there on a weekly basis

1:02:59 ↗ during the winter season and after a one-inch rainfall. and we have been I

1:03:04 ↗ think we have like 12 instruments that are called slope indicators that are installed that

1:03:09 ↗ give us an indication if the slide is still active. Also have piezometers installed that

1:03:14 ↗ give us pore pressure readings and we've been monitoring that continue on a regular basis

1:03:19 ↗ and reporting those results to the city as well as to the developer and his

1:03:24 ↗ and their and their and their consultants and so we have still been active on

1:03:29 ↗ from that perspective and again from a From a characterization of

1:03:35 ↗ the slide on 9, it's been determined that

1:03:41 ↗ it's totally contained on parcel 9 and does

1:03:46 ↗ not affect 8 at all, and particularly not

1:03:52 ↗ 7. 7 is pretty well removed. Other questions?

1:03:58 ↗ No? Did you get your question answered? No

1:04:04 ↗ more questions from anyone. Okay. So I would

1:04:10 ↗ just remind the council has two options. Uphold

1:04:16 ↗ the decision of the hearing examiner granting final

1:04:22 ↗ plat approval and adopt the hearing examiner's findings

1:04:28 ↗ and conclusions in support of that decision.

1:04:34 ↗ or overturn the decision of the hearing examiner and deny final

1:04:40 ↗ plaid approval, entering the council's own findings and conclusions in support

1:04:46 ↗ of denial based on the evidence in the record. At this

1:04:52 ↗ point, we should probably entertain a motion, whatever that motion is.

1:04:57 ↗ - We don't have a written motion.

1:05:03 ↗ Stacey? Yeah. Paul? Yeah. I would move that we

1:05:09 ↗ affirm and uphold the decision of the hearing examiner

1:05:14 ↗ granting final plat approval and adopt the hearing examiner's

1:05:20 ↗ findings of conditions in support of the decision. Second.

1:05:25 ↗ Deliberations? Comments? I'll just -- I want to comment

1:05:31 ↗ that, you know, given the criteria we have to

1:05:36 ↗ use, and especially the phrase not about -- there

1:05:42 ↗ was I didn't see or hear or read anything that the hearing examiner was clearly

1:05:47 ↗ erroneous in this decision. I appreciate the line of questioning, trying to understand

1:05:53 ↗ was there any other changes on 7 and 8, as you, I think,

1:05:59 ↗ Mary Lou, were saying, in light of 9. I'm not really sure what

1:06:04 ↗ that means in light of. I think it means after the fact that

1:06:10 ↗ there was further examination done. Even that line of questioning, I haven't heard

1:06:16 ↗ or seen anything that makes me think that the hearing examiner was clearly

1:06:22 ↗ erroneous in this decision. Other comments?

1:06:29 ↗ - So I see it a little differently. I see a

1:06:35 ↗ question that's asked a number of times and not been answered.

1:06:40 ↗ So in my mind, there's more information needed when someone asks

1:06:46 ↗ and says the record, the question that has come up has

1:06:51 ↗ not been answered. So I see that's, to me, that's an

1:06:57 ↗ error. If the question comes up, new information that needs to

1:07:02 ↗ be answered, to me it wasn't answered, as Council Member Pauley

1:07:08 ↗ asked a number of times. - Fair.

1:07:20 ↗ I think considering the standard that we have and the burden

1:07:26 ↗ of proof on the appellant to show that the hearing examiner

1:07:32 ↗ made a, was clearly erroneous. I'm not convinced of the clearly

1:07:37 ↗ erroneous either. The hearing examiner is afforded deference, which includes the

1:07:43 ↗ ability to judge credibility of witnesses and so forth. And so

1:07:49 ↗ at this point I would not find But I

1:07:55 ↗ would not find that the decision was

1:08:00 ↗ clearly erroneous. Other comments? I would just

1:08:06 ↗ echo that based on the criteria given,

1:08:11 ↗ and in hearing the presentation, and while

1:08:17 ↗ I appreciate all of the information and

1:08:22 ↗ complications here, I did not see something

1:08:28 ↗ that told me that the decision was

1:08:33 ↗ clearly erroneous. I did not see that.

1:08:39 ↗ Others? Yeah, I think it's a pretty high standard. I

1:08:45 ↗ think that the question that we're being asked tonight typically is more of an administrative

1:08:50 ↗ one that a lot of the heavy thinking and the big lifting is done during

1:08:56 ↗ the preliminary plot. And that when you get to the final plat piece, what the

1:09:01 ↗ hearing examiner is looking at is checking the boxes to make sure that all the

1:09:05 ↗ different conditions were met. And I get that, but I believe that one of the

1:09:10 ↗ conditions that has changed is that part of the body of the record that goes

1:09:14 ↗ along with this final plat approval is a geotechnical report and a geotechnical peer review

1:09:20 ↗ that occurred prior to a landslide. And that is part of what makes

1:09:25 ↗ this decision go forward. I think that is an error on the hearing

1:09:31 ↗ examiner's part. I think that's a significant change in conditions and that this

1:09:37 ↗ is not, it doesn't make sense to me.

1:09:49 ↗ Anybody else? Paul? - Yeah, I think that's a good question to ask. I agree

1:09:53 ↗ with you, but it appears in the record, and I think it was told to

1:09:58 ↗ us this evening as well, that there was additional monitoring and

1:10:04 ↗ study. So of parcels, primarily parcel eight, for the

1:10:09 ↗ permitting process for the wall and just done of

1:10:14 ↗ the land after it was already graded and the

1:10:20 ↗ infrastructure built out. And the testimony given and accepted was that there

1:10:25 ↗ is no further evidence of any impact to eight after the slide on

1:10:31 ↗ nine. And I think the hearing examiner considered that and made his judgment

1:10:37 ↗ based upon the evidence and the testimony that was given. And I cannot

1:10:43 ↗ disagree with his judgment. Don't disagree with his judgment. There was analysis done

1:10:49 ↗ afterwards. Any other

1:10:55 ↗ comments, deliberations? Are you ready to vote? So

1:11:01 ↗ the motion that has been seconded is to

1:11:06 ↗ affirm the hearing examiner's decision. All those in

1:11:12 ↗ favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Opposed. Okay.

1:11:18 ↗ Give me that board of two. Board of

1:11:24 ↗ two. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the

1:11:30 ↗ agenda is agenda bill 7114 strategic, the park

1:11:35 ↗ strategic plan regarding authorizing additional funding I'd like

1:11:41 ↗ to invite Parks Director Jeff Watling to introduce this item. Thank you.

1:11:47 ↗ Before you tonight is a request for additional funding. As you know,

1:11:52 ↗ updating the City's Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan is a key

1:11:58 ↗ City Council, community and staff priority to be accomplished in 2017. We

1:12:04 ↗ have been at work last fall and through the winter working through consultant

1:12:10 ↗ team selection. We've selected a consultant team. It's the team of Berger Partnership

1:12:15 ↗ and Burke Consulting. With their work and our work, we've been putting together

1:12:21 ↗ a framework for actual completion of this plan. that's really starting to take

1:12:27 ↗ shape through that work with the consultant team we have developed a much better

1:12:33 ↗ idea of the tasks needed to complete this work and the time it's going

1:12:39 ↗ to take to get this work done and produce the document and the product

1:12:45 ↗ that we're all seeking all that to say we're going to need more

1:12:51 ↗ than the $50,000 needed to produce this plan. And so the request tonight before

1:12:56 ↗ you is for an additional $25,000 to fund this refined scope of work. I

1:13:02 ↗ included in the packet a timeline, an overview of some of the primary tasks

1:13:07 ↗ and key sort of groupings and process that we're going to take. Clearly with

1:13:13 ↗ the goal we have for a rather robust public engagement plan, a real keen

1:13:19 ↗ look at goals, putting together an actual vision and some mapping work that we want

1:13:25 ↗ to get done for this plan as well as the prioritization and the identification of

1:13:31 ↗ some real actionable projects. It's pretty clear that additional funding will be needed to get

1:13:37 ↗ that done. Included with the request, we've identified a suggested funding

1:13:43 ↗ source for this and that would be the King County Parks Levy

1:13:48 ↗ Funds. This is the six year levy that is from 2014 through

1:13:54 ↗ 2019. As you likely know, a small portion of the overall King

1:13:59 ↗ County proceeds are allocated to cities. Issaquah's share of that allocation is

1:14:05 ↗ approximately $90,000 a year. Proceeds from the King County Levee have

1:14:10 ↗ recently funded and been used towards Confluence Park Phase 2. They've also

1:14:16 ↗ been utilized for some restoration work on the Swamp Trail up at

1:14:22 ↗ Lake Tradition. These funds, as an example, are also identified to help fund

1:14:27 ↗ the interpretive signs that we want to get done at Salmon Run Nature Park this

1:14:33 ↗ year, and also are allocated for some trail renovation work we want to get done

1:14:39 ↗ along the Central Park Falls Drive Trail. uh looking forward into the

1:14:45 ↗ completion of this park plan there does remain some funding in

1:14:51 ↗ this allocation that's not yet identified for a project or allocated

1:14:57 ↗ The investment, the requested investment of this additional $25,000 to complete this park plan work

1:15:03 ↗ will in a lot of ways provide the strategic vision and the priorities that will

1:15:08 ↗ help us determine where we want that additional funding, that unallocated funding, as well the

1:15:14 ↗ remaining two years of King County levy funding that would be coming our way.

1:15:22 ↗ If approved, the $75,000 to complete this work is still a very cost-effective way to

1:15:28 ↗ get this important work done. When you look at comparisons of recent park plan updates

1:15:33 ↗ that have been done in neighboring cities around King County, we are still below the

1:15:39 ↗ cost of those recent efforts. As staff, we're very excited and ready to proceed with

1:15:45 ↗ this first phase of public engagement that will really kick off the park planning effort.

1:15:51 ↗ and thank you for considering this tonight appreciate it thanks have questions for jeff just

1:15:57 ↗ a clarification i mean um jeff i under i heard you say that the 25

1:16:03 ↗ 000 would be coming from the king county parks levy fund of which that pot

1:16:08 ↗ of money is ninety thousand dollars That is our yearly, we receive about $90,000

1:16:14 ↗ a year for- From King County Parks. From King County, correct. And we will be

1:16:20 ↗ taking the $25,000 we need from that pot of money. We would actually be taking

1:16:25 ↗ the $25,000 from some unallocated funds from prior years. So this wouldn't even address the

1:16:31 ↗ $90,000 from this year. So we wouldn't be impacting those dollars for future use. What's

1:16:36 ↗ that? The $90,000. would not be touched for this particular project. - Correct. -

1:16:42 ↗ Okay. - Questions? - Just to clarify, I thought I knew this, but the way

1:16:48 ↗ you said it, just want to make sure. - You said the 75 would come

1:16:54 ↗ from King County. I think you're talking about just the 25 would come from the

1:16:59 ↗ fund and the 50,000 we already allocated to that. - Correct, yes. - And you're

1:17:04 ↗ saying so 17 King County money, the 90,000 is not from that but it's from

1:17:09 ↗ 15 or 16 or something that's left over and hasn't been spent yet. - Correct,

1:17:14 ↗ correct. 25,000 request is to augment the 50 already budgeted. I'd like to

1:17:20 ↗ make a motion. Sure. I'd like to move to authorize $25,000 of the

1:17:26 ↗ 2014-2019 King County Parks Levy Funds for the 2017 Park Strategic Plan and

1:17:31 ↗ direct the Finance Director to include $25,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment.

1:17:37 ↗ Second. Second. A lot of seconds. Comments or?

1:17:43 ↗ Yeah, thank you, Jeff, for the information. You know, there's a number of reasons why

1:17:48 ↗ I'm supporting this. This actually really wasn't difficult. First of all, you know, it was

1:17:53 ↗ this council who charged the administration to develop a strategic plan for parks. And so

1:17:57 ↗ this is exactly the carrying out of that legislative intent. And so doing this work

1:18:02 ↗ is our priority. We've made that very clear. The fact that we do have the

1:18:08 ↗ funds, so we're not in an appropriate account that we can use, that's important. And

1:18:13 ↗ also I would say that the original amount of $50,000 was never really presented to

1:18:18 ↗ us at all as being based upon any clear assessment of what type of effort

1:18:23 ↗ would be required to complete the work. Well, I know now that you and your

1:18:28 ↗ staff have been putting in that work to develop a project plan to meet the

1:18:33 ↗ objectives of developing a strategic plan and so now you've got much better tools to

1:18:37 ↗ estimate the amount of effort. You've got a refined number of what it will take

1:18:41 ↗ for the consultant's time. So I think based upon that more complete assessment with the

1:18:46 ↗ availability of the funds and also that it is in the direction of completing a

1:18:50 ↗ strategic plan, that's why I'm gonna support this ask this evening. - I'll

1:18:56 ↗ also be supporting it. I think what I like most about it is some of

1:19:02 ↗ the previous discussions we were talking about. The plan laid out is really that first

1:19:08 ↗ part of you had marked as listen and learn. That's like really taking what I

1:19:13 ↗ want in our public involvement and getting their cares, their intents, their drives, whatever they

1:19:19 ↗ want into that plan. I really see this as really being a model for driving

1:19:24 ↗ that public input side on this. So we're looking forward to see how that comes

1:19:29 ↗ out and how that works and seeing that as you described that as really, really

1:19:33 ↗ front loaded to get all that information, not come up with a conceptual design and

1:19:37 ↗ then start worrying but really get the input because it's a complicated question. There's a

1:19:41 ↗ lot of lands involved, a lot of different types of things from very high use

1:19:45 ↗ to low use and it's a lot, it's a big question to ask and that's

1:19:49 ↗ what we want you to answer so go forth and do it.

1:19:55 ↗ I can call, I can just go. So I'm going to support it as

1:20:00 ↗ well. However, I do want to mention that it is a, this is a

1:20:06 ↗ one touch agenda bill and I'm generally not supportive of those for transparency reasons.

1:20:12 ↗ They should be referred to committees so that we can have deliberation and have

1:20:17 ↗ the public have the opportunity to comment before we make a decision. And that's

1:20:23 ↗ just, generally what I like the process to be, but for

1:20:28 ↗ the reasons I've heard tonight and I agree with those reasons,

1:20:34 ↗ it's just not ideal. And I just don't like to see

1:20:40 ↗ that very often. Everybody for the vote? All those in favor?

1:20:46 ↗ of authorizing $25,000 of 2014 to 2019 King County Parks levy funds

1:20:51 ↗ for the 2017 parks strategic plan and directing the finance director to

1:20:57 ↗ include $25,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment signify by saying aye.

1:21:03 ↗ - Aye. - Okay, that passes unanimously. - Thank you. - Moving

1:21:09 ↗ on, thank you. Next item on the agenda is agenda bill

1:21:15 ↗ 7290, bid award regarding the North Issaquah Southeast 62nd Street Extension Construction

1:21:20 ↗ Contract. Coming out of the January 19th Council Infrastructure Committee meeting. -

1:21:26 ↗ I mentioned this earlier as coming out of the meeting, I'll just

1:21:32 ↗ make some introductory comments and then I believe staff has some additional

1:21:37 ↗ information to share with us. So this bill requests the City Council to award

1:21:43 ↗ a contract for the construction of the Southeast 62nd Street extension. This project will

1:21:49 ↗ provide for a new roadway over Issaquah Creek that connects East Lake Sammamish Parkway

1:21:55 ↗ to Lake Drive, which is a public street that runs through and adjacent to

1:22:01 ↗ Costco headquarters. and it will also include improvements along lake drive and a

1:22:07 ↗ what's known as a grade separated trail crossing of the east lake sammamish

1:22:13 ↗ trail at 62nd street so that's the so you know that's accounting for

1:22:18 ↗ the trail that's already there so um this project um you

1:22:24 ↗ know really the the idea of this project started um uh back in

1:22:30 ↗ in 2010 when some preliminary design studies were concluded and then when the

1:22:35 ↗ council approved the costco development agreement a part of that development agreement was

1:22:41 ↗ transportation funding of a significant portion for the completion not

1:22:47 ↗ only of this project but also a number of others in

1:22:53 ↗ the vicinity of their property. So this is a very significant

1:22:59 ↗ project to address circulation in the North Issaquah area in the

1:23:05 ↗ vicinity. And the contract, we went out for bid.

1:23:10 ↗ The design was complete, they put it out for bid, we got a number of

1:23:15 ↗ responses, and I think Sheldon, if you're gonna maybe talk a little bit about the

1:23:20 ↗ responses that we get, so it gives us, it speaks to perhaps to the confidence

1:23:24 ↗ that we have in the bid that we're selecting. And so before us tonight is,

1:23:29 ↗ and this is what we always have to do, we have to approve contracts like

1:23:34 ↗ this. And so Sheldon, I'll turn it over to you to give us the background,

1:23:39 ↗ a little bit more background and also on the contract itself. - Thank you, Council

1:23:44 ↗ Member Winterstein. My name's Sheldon Lin. I'm the Director for Public Works Engineering And yes,

1:23:50 ↗ tonight I'm going to talk about the Southeast 62nd Street Extension Bid Award, Agenda Bill

1:23:55 ↗ 7290. And as Council Member Winterstein mentioned, I'm going to speak a little bit about

1:24:01 ↗ the project, about the bids, and a little bit about the actual total estimated project

1:24:07 ↗ cost as well as the funding partners that are involved in this project. First, I'm

1:24:12 ↗ going to talk a little bit about the project. From an aerial perspective,

1:24:18 ↗ we have East Lake Sammamish Parkway over here on the right. We have the existing

1:24:24 ↗ lake drive right here with Costco headquarters right here and the wholesale store just off

1:24:30 ↗ the map. This project actually does work in a number of different arenas. It does

1:24:36 ↗ work for the non-motorized connectivity from the regional trail here, upgrades the Pickering Trail through

1:24:42 ↗ here to make it wider, makes it a concrete trail in accordance with our construction

1:24:47 ↗ standards, as well as it's going to provide some baller lights along the trail as

1:24:53 ↗ well for users. The other thing it's going to do, which is a major connection,

1:24:58 ↗ brand new road connection between East Lake Sammamish Parkway here, it's going to realign 62nd

1:25:03 ↗ Street and widen it, create a large roundabout intersection here, and as Mr. Winterstein mentioned,

1:25:09 ↗ a grade separated trail crossing for the existing East Lake Sammamish Trail so that the

1:25:14 ↗ trail users don't have to cross the roadway. They'll actually go under the roadway. And

1:25:19 ↗ then extending the road with a brand new road connection across the North Fork, across

1:25:25 ↗ the sensitive areas, and across Sissiquah Creek, all as one large bridge structure. And then

1:25:30 ↗ we're going to bring it back down and at grade come in here and tie

1:25:36 ↗ into Lake Drive. And then improve Lake Drive from this intersection all the way up

1:25:41 ↗ to 10th. A very large road improvement project and as Mr. Winterstein mentioned, it's a

1:25:47 ↗ series of three major projects that the city has on the docket for the north

1:25:52 ↗ side of I-90 and Issaquah. East Lake Sammamish Parkway was the first of the three

1:25:57 ↗ projects. This is the second and the third one that's dialed up in

1:26:03 ↗ the development agreement is actually intersection over by the Holiday Inn 12th and SR

1:26:09 ↗ 900 intersection. There's some capacity improvements there that are slated to occur once this

1:26:15 ↗ project is open for use. So this is an aerial picture of the project.

1:26:21 ↗ Zooming in on the portion on the east side in this area because there's

1:26:27 ↗ a lot going on there, I want to give you a better picture of what

1:26:33 ↗ that is going to entail. This work in here involves bringing in a large amount

1:26:38 ↗ of fill material, which once that material is in place, we're going to have to

1:26:42 ↗ give time for the soils to consolidate before we can do any further work in

1:26:47 ↗ that area. So what's going to happen is we're going to see a major road

1:26:52 ↗ closure at the intersection of 4th, 62nd, and 220 First. in order for the fill

1:26:58 ↗ to be placed and for the work to occur before we can even get this

1:27:04 ↗ back open. And it won't open until we basically get it to a finished product.

1:27:10 ↗ So it's a closure that's going to occur likely mid to late June of 2017

1:27:16 ↗ and is likely going to be in place for over a year, 12 to 18

1:27:21 ↗ months likely. So it's a major thing for the public, but it may look like

1:27:27 ↗ not a lot's going on, but there's a lot going on. Trust me. So this

1:27:33 ↗ does give you a nice view though from an aerial oblique angle, shows the entrance

1:27:39 ↗ to the grade separated crossing for the trail. It shows the amount of fill that's

1:27:44 ↗ being placed generally, and then a large scale roundabout and touching in with the bridge

1:27:50 ↗ over here. So in general, that's the project. Bids. results, reference checks. We

1:27:56 ↗ had eight bidders on this project. Of the eight bidders,

1:28:01 ↗ the low five bidders were all within 5% of one

1:28:07 ↗ another, with the top two bidders being within 1% of

1:28:13 ↗ each other. The lowest bidder was Quigg Brothers with a

1:28:18 ↗ bid of $23,078,983. The total bids ranged, of all

1:28:24 ↗ the eight bids, they ranged from approximately $23 million to $27

1:28:29 ↗ million, 20% range. What this indicates is a very good set

1:28:35 ↗ of bid documents where the bidders felt comfortable enough to really

1:28:40 ↗ compete closely together. Sorry, I have to put my glasses on,

1:28:46 ↗ read my notes. Reference checks. The construction management firm KBA has

1:28:51 ↗ been retained by the city to help it manage this project.

1:28:57 ↗ As part of this, they've done reference checks on the lowest bidder and the reference

1:29:03 ↗ checks came back stellar. They came back with remarks such as, "We'd love to work

1:29:09 ↗ with Quigg Brothers again." So we feel not only did we get a good set

1:29:14 ↗ of bid documents, a very good competitive environment in the bids we received, but we

1:29:20 ↗ also got an excellent contractor to boot as the low bidder. Things have

1:29:25 ↗ lined up really well for the city in this instance.

1:29:31 ↗ Estimate for the project as well as revenues, i.e., the

1:29:37 ↗ funding partnerships, the total project cost estimate right now is

1:29:43 ↗ at about $44,042,700. That includes design, right-of-way acquisition, construction management,

1:29:48 ↗ construction, all the costs associated with it. One caveat to that

1:29:54 ↗ number is that we don't know yet the total cost for right-of-way acquisition. So we're

1:29:59 ↗ still in the cusp of finaling out a couple of properties for acquisition for this

1:30:04 ↗ project, but we should know those shortly. But at the time in which this estimate

1:30:10 ↗ was done, we don't know that number exactly. So that number may change. So just

1:30:15 ↗ be aware of that. The revenues from this come from multiple different partners. It comes

1:30:21 ↗ from the Transportation Improvement Board from the state, comes from the State Department of Commerce,

1:30:26 ↗ and then it comes from the development agreement with Costco and then the city putting

1:30:32 ↗ in its share. Those four entities make up the partnerships that fund this project, all

1:30:37 ↗ $44 million of it. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

1:30:45 ↗ Yeah, one more. When we talked about this in committee a little bit, when I

1:30:49 ↗ look at the pictures, I'm not sure I see it. So for the tunnel, I

1:30:53 ↗ know some people don't like tunnels and I understand why. And I asked, was there

1:30:56 ↗ a way around and you said going to East Lake Sammamish crossing over and coming

1:31:00 ↗ back. But when I see the picture here, it looks like there's a sidewalk only

1:31:04 ↗ on one side and there wouldn't be one on the other. So I'm just asking

1:31:08 ↗ if that is truly. So if you don't want to go through the tunnel and

1:31:11 ↗ you're coming from the south here, I understand an option to cross at this crosswalk

1:31:16 ↗ on East Lake Sammamish, but how do you get there from the trail right here?

1:31:21 ↗ I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your question in committee, Mr. Ramos. I understood it

1:31:26 ↗ to be during construction when this is closed for people to cross through there.

1:31:33 ↗ There would be a detour during construction to bring people to East Lake Sammamish Parkway

1:31:38 ↗ and utilize that. Otherwise, they would have to go under the tunnel, come back up,

1:31:43 ↗ and then use the trail and sidewalk on the north side of 62nd. The reason

1:31:48 ↗ for that is that we had environmentally sensitive areas down in this area. I.E., the

1:31:53 ↗ north fork right adjacent to almost adjacent to the pavement here that we're trying to

1:31:59 ↗ protect and not encroach further on. So we're trying to maintain our distance there, which

1:32:04 ↗ is why there's no sidewalk and there's no bike lane on the south side of

1:32:10 ↗ 62nd Street. It all got moved to the north side with a cycle track and

1:32:15 ↗ I believe it's an eight foot wide pedestrian path. So there is no alternative.

1:32:21 ↗ Once it's finaled, once the pedestrian reaches this

1:32:27 ↗ area, they could actually come up on the

1:32:32 ↗ left-hand side of the tunnel. of the road, let me get my

1:32:38 ↗ mouse here, come up through here, cross at an RRFB here and they can come

1:32:42 ↗ around here and then cross here. It's a long way around. They've got to cross,

1:32:47 ↗ you know, a couple more crossings but there is a way around the trail at

1:32:51 ↗ this intersection. There will be crossings there actually? There will be crossings, yes. So they

1:32:56 ↗ can get around the town going that way? Surface crossings, that's correct. Otherwise, they could

1:33:01 ↗ take the High Point Way Trail back further south than this point, and they could

1:33:07 ↗ walk just north of the interstate along the regional trail, connect in, and then walk

1:33:13 ↗ up the sidewalk northbound on East Lake Sammamish Parkway if they didn't like this undercrossing.

1:33:19 ↗ Okay, thank you. Other questions? You have your hand up, Paul? Yeah, I was --

1:33:25 ↗ we don't have a motion in front of us, so I wanted to actually --

1:33:31 ↗ Can we make a motion? Make the motion. I would move to

1:33:36 ↗ award the construction contract to Quigg Brothers Incorporated the amount of $23,078,983.03

1:33:42 ↗ including sales tax. - Second. - Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

1:33:48 ↗ Paul? - A couple other important facts that came out during the

1:33:53 ↗ committee meeting is, and Sheldon had the number up there of 44

1:33:59 ↗ million total. Now originally when we looked at this it was 40

1:34:05 ↗ million, and change, so the cost has gone up. And so those

1:34:10 ↗ sources that he identified, the TIB, the Transportation Investment Board, and I think

1:34:16 ↗ there was one of the departments, what was the State Department from Commerce,

1:34:22 ↗ that grant, and from Costco, those amounts right now, those are basically fixed.

1:34:28 ↗ So if costs fluctuate anymore, it's all the burden is fully upon the

1:34:34 ↗ city. And normally we carry some percentage of the estimated costs as

1:34:40 ↗ also contingency. And that would be fully responsible for the city right now.

1:34:45 ↗ So really at this point, including covering the contingency, the council has not

1:34:51 ↗ yet fully approved all the funds we think it's gonna take. So that question will

1:34:56 ↗ be in front of us in the future. But what that number actually will be,

1:35:01 ↗ whether that will be nearly zero or two and a half million dollars more, we

1:35:06 ↗ won't know until we get further along in the project and whether or not any

1:35:11 ↗ contingency is known. So I just think it's very important that we all understand that

1:35:16 ↗ we're at a place where we can proceed but the actual final cost of the

1:35:21 ↗ city will probably won't be known until 2018. Right and to help clarify that Mr.

1:35:26 ↗ Winterstein I appreciate you bringing that up the $44 million does include a contingency of

1:35:31 ↗ approximately 10% just a hair over 10% and it's about two and a half million

1:35:36 ↗ dollars. Yes, and I think it's something that we as the council haven't authorized at

1:35:41 ↗ this point. That's correct. You've only authorized budget for 2017, and it was from a

1:35:46 ↗ cash flow perspective of we expect to spend a certain amount this year, and then

1:35:51 ↗ we're expecting to spend another certain amount next year. And so it's an estimate of

1:35:56 ↗ what we think will get done this year under construction. So it's just from a

1:36:01 ↗ budgetary perspective rather than budget the full budget. 25, 26 million for construction when you

1:36:06 ↗ start adding in construction management and things like that. We tried to estimate from a

1:36:11 ↗ cash flow perspective what was needed and asked for that for this year's budget. And

1:36:15 ↗ then next year we'll have to come back and ask for more. Okay. And I

1:36:20 ↗ also appreciate during your presentation that you did mention, I think this is very important,

1:36:25 ↗ that if it proceeds on the current schedule, it would be in June of this

1:36:30 ↗ year. maybe four months from now roughly, that area would be closed at 4th,

1:36:35 ↗ 62nd, and 221st, and that it could, you said up from 12 to 18

1:36:41 ↗ months. So this could be closed for 18 months. Now that's, through December

1:36:47 ↗ 2018. So that's got a very big impact, obviously, but it's the price we

1:36:52 ↗ have to pay to get this improvement. But it also suggests, could you just

1:36:58 ↗ share with us what, and maybe this is just normal, but what are we

1:37:04 ↗ doing specifically for this project for overall notification to the public and to guests

1:37:10 ↗ and visitors and shoppers here in Issaquah, but also people, especially the people who

1:37:15 ↗ live here. What is gonna be our program for notification and keeping people informed

1:37:21 ↗ on the progress? We're going to have large-scale pushes utilizing social media, the website.

1:37:27 ↗ We'll have email lists. We'll have sign-ups for people that can sign up on

1:37:33 ↗ the website for direct emails of status, things like that. We'll be using our

1:37:39 ↗ variable message boards. We're going to pretty much be using every tool that we

1:37:44 ↗ have available to us. We'll be coordinating with City of Sammamish, WSDOT, Metro. everybody

1:37:50 ↗ you can think of we're going to be coordinating with because this is a big

1:37:56 ↗ deal. While Metro may not have a route on 221st or 4th, when that traffic

1:38:01 ↗ starts to get diverted, you bet they're going to be interested to know what's going

1:38:06 ↗ on. So we're not going to leave any stone unturned. All right. Thank you. Mariah?

1:38:12 ↗ Is there other construction in the city or Sammamish or surrounding areas that would sort

1:38:17 ↗ of during that time of the closure? - Yes, one particular

1:38:23 ↗ project is a WSDOT project, which is on East Lake Sammamish Parkway. It's

1:38:29 ↗ for fish passage. It's just between the intersection of 229th and the Front

1:38:35 ↗ Street interchange, so just north of Front Street interchange. WSDOT has a

1:38:41 ↗ fish passage project where they're relocating the north fork of Issaquah Creek outside

1:38:46 ↗ of the interchange, but creating a fish passage culvert across East Lake Sammamish

1:38:52 ↗ Parkway. They're expecting to have roughly about a four to five day closure,

1:38:58 ↗ full closure, 24/7, of East Lake Sammamish Parkway. We've been working very closely with WSDOT

1:39:04 ↗ Northwest Region and their design team to coordinate between the two projects so that we

1:39:09 ↗ can minimize risk of the two closures happening at the same time. I do say

1:39:15 ↗ minimize that risk. It's, you know, when construction happens and they start digging in the

1:39:20 ↗ ground, They may get delayed, but their goal is to be in and out of

1:39:26 ↗ there before the end of June. And so we're hopeful that we don't do the

1:39:31 ↗ closures until the end of June, keeping another detour available to them. So, yes, we

1:39:36 ↗ are coordinating closely. That is one project that is very high on the radar screen.

1:39:42 ↗ i i'm not aware of other projects that are going to impact necessarily in sammamish

1:39:48 ↗ or locally that we're going to have that are going to impact the traffic flow

1:39:53 ↗ in this area thank you other questions or well i want to make sure anybody

1:39:59 ↗ else who has a question or comments i think they're yeah i just -

1:40:05 ↗ Just to reiterate, that 18 month closure of our one, basically our one of three

1:40:09 ↗ ways across I-90 isn't very important and it's gonna be quite a bit of effect

1:40:14 ↗ 'cause of course most locals use that to avoid the other two ways and when

1:40:18 ↗ everything goes those other two ways for 18 months and we have to, can't sneak

1:40:23 ↗ through there, it's gonna be a big deal so I wanna get that out as

1:40:27 ↗ soon as possible. I've heard people asking me about that as well 'cause that's gonna

1:40:32 ↗ have a large effect on everybody including, So I regret that we have to do

1:40:37 ↗ that, but I don't know how else to build otherwise. - Paul? - I think

1:40:43 ↗ another, thank you, another point that's important that the public has awareness as well as

1:40:47 ↗ any construction project. When you're in the ground and you're digging, that's when you have

1:40:51 ↗ the biggest risk, right? As long as you're in the ground, what you might run

1:40:55 ↗ into and the likelihood of delay or something that'll affect the scope and have some

1:41:00 ↗ downstream impact happens when we're in the ground, when we're digging holes or digging a

1:41:04 ↗ tunnel, what have you. And I know this is gonna go in the ground quite

1:41:08 ↗ a bit. to put in those pylons to support the bridge. But during the committee

1:41:14 ↗ meeting, I asked you about that. I think I'd like to ask you to kind

1:41:19 ↗ of share for the public watching now about what we have done to minimize and

1:41:25 ↗ mitigate the likelihood of some unexpected finding when they're actually down there constructing and in

1:41:30 ↗ the ground for this project. - Thank you, yes. What the city has done with

1:41:36 ↗ this project is, They've done an extraordinary amount of soil boring and test

1:41:42 ↗ holes along the alignment of the new bridge, specifically to minimize risk and

1:41:47 ↗ increase knowledge of what the conditions are going to be like for the

1:41:53 ↗ piling, the deep foundations for the bridge structure that support the bridge.

1:41:59 ↗ This also was shown when we talked about how well the-how close the bids were.

1:42:05 ↗ It shows a confidence in the bidders of a relatively low risk. They understand what's

1:42:10 ↗ in the ground. The other way that we help minimize that risk is the type

1:42:16 ↗ of piles that are going in the ground are going to be driven pipe piles

1:42:22 ↗ rather than large diameter drilled caissons. So the risk is much more reduced

1:42:28 ↗ or it's reduced quite a bit by driving piles rather than having to drill

1:42:34 ↗ the hole and then keep it open and then pour concrete in there and

1:42:39 ↗ put your rebar in. So that's another way we reduce risk. Can't eliminate it

1:42:45 ↗ 100%. Probably the largest risk would be hitting the log or something like that

1:42:50 ↗ as we're driving the piles. Okay. And I

1:42:56 ↗ just had one more thing. I think it's very important. Previously, we've received public comment,

1:43:01 ↗ as a matter of fact, from someone who's even here this evening, a concern about

1:43:05 ↗ the tunnel that the East Lake Sammamish Trail is going to pass through. And I

1:43:09 ↗ wanted to share, I had a conversation with our chief of police about that, and

1:43:13 ↗ I asked him if, you know, when it comes to safety, user safety, I think

1:43:17 ↗ Bill mentioned it as well, maybe some people who wouldn't want to use a tunnel,

1:43:21 ↗ you know, what is their alternative? And I think that's a good consideration. So a

1:43:25 ↗ couple things about that. We know it's going to have lighting. We also know that

1:43:30 ↗ it's going to have very straight lines of sight. So anybody who, before they even

1:43:35 ↗ enter that tunnel, they're going to be able to see the full distance. So if

1:43:40 ↗ there's anybody else in there or any obstruction or anything, they're going to have the

1:43:45 ↗ opportunity to see that before they enter. And also, and this is what the chief

1:43:51 ↗ told me as well, is that they, and I think those diagrams, the pictures kind

1:43:56 ↗ of showed it, But, so those look kind of straight if you look at that

1:44:01 ↗ opening there, but he said that design where it's kind of, where it's a little

1:44:06 ↗ bit wider at the opening than the tunnel itself and the slope of that, it

1:44:10 ↗ makes it also very, very difficult. for anybody to kind of hide around a corner

1:44:16 ↗ when you come in or out of it. And so he said, so with that,

1:44:21 ↗ with a clean line of sight, with lighting and the way the openings are designed,

1:44:27 ↗ he didn't feel that this tunnel represented any additional risk than frankly many other places

1:44:32 ↗ that we have in the city where you could be obscured from sight or sound

1:44:38 ↗ of anybody else And then the last thing he mentioned is that even

1:44:44 ↗ compared to our neighbors nearby, Issaquah, our community, does have an excellent history

1:44:49 ↗ of a very low person-on-person crime, the kind of crime that you would

1:44:55 ↗ maybe worry about in a hidden place like this. He said, "We do have

1:45:01 ↗ other places in town. They're along trails. They're in parking garages and long hallways in

1:45:06 ↗ buildings where these same kind of circumstances could arise, and we don't have much of

1:45:11 ↗ a history at all." Matter of fact, relative to our neighbors, a very safe community

1:45:16 ↗ from that type of crime. I just wanted you to know that those concerns were

1:45:21 ↗ raised. I thought that was a fair line of questioning. I was pleased to know

1:45:26 ↗ that the chief and his staff had kind of taken some consideration of that and

1:45:31 ↗ that was the opinion that he had offered to me in response to that request.

1:45:36 ↗ So I just wanted to share that for everybody's information. - Rayla? - Sure, actually,

1:45:42 ↗ just something that Bill had said triggered a question in my mind about the closure.

1:45:46 ↗ So I think you'd stated that there was no bus routes that we would have

1:45:51 ↗ to worry about, but have we also been in touch with the school district? And

1:45:55 ↗ I'm not sure about bus routes for them or if there is even any over

1:46:00 ↗ there, but just thinking of other major users that might. - We're gonna have to

1:46:05 ↗ contact the school district, Metro, just as a general purpose, we need to contact the

1:46:09 ↗ mass transportation people and things like that. I'm not aware of this being

1:46:15 ↗ a school bus route. It's mostly industrial along 221st. There's a small residential

1:46:21 ↗ population at the Confluence area off of, I think it's southeast 221st, southeast

1:46:26 ↗ 64th. or something like that. But yeah, it's mostly industrial. Second part to that, I

1:46:32 ↗ think it was a good point that what Bill had made about the disruption that

1:46:36 ↗ that will be to everybody. One of the major disruptions with the Gateway project at

1:46:41 ↗ the other end of town isn't just to the residents who are trying to get

1:46:46 ↗ home or to shop or whatever, but also the number of trucks that are going

1:46:50 ↗ to be in that area for a long period of time in terms of slowdown.

1:46:55 ↗ That just seems to make matters worse. But how do we factor that in when

1:47:01 ↗ we're planning alternate routes and all the rest of it? Because it seems like between

1:47:06 ↗ the working hours, the construction hours, they are adding to the pain, if you will.

1:47:11 ↗ There is going to be a heavy trucking element to this. They are moving and

1:47:17 ↗ importing thousands of yards of material to create this fill embankment here that builds up

1:47:22 ↗ the road here. We also have a similar situation on the west bank of Issaquah

1:47:27 ↗ Creek where they have to bring in a considerable amount of material there, similar type

1:47:32 ↗ of construction. It's gonna be a lot of trucks that are gonna go down Lake

1:47:38 ↗ Drive and we're coordinating that very closely with Costco given their wholesale as well as

1:47:43 ↗ their business corporate, two separate hours of operation and so we're working very closely with

1:47:49 ↗ them. On this one, we're basically gonna have to notify people what's happening. I'm guessing

1:47:54 ↗ we haven't heard from the contractor yet on what their preferred haul route would be,

1:47:59 ↗ but I would guess their preferred haul route is going to come off of East

1:48:04 ↗ Lake Sam and come right in right here and start putting the material down and

1:48:09 ↗ they'll probably either turn around and go right back out or until Most of it's

1:48:15 ↗ done. They may just head north on 221st and make a loop around. Depends

1:48:21 ↗ on where their pit is. But my guess is they're going to come right

1:48:26 ↗ off the interstate or come right out of the lakeside pit and deliver. But

1:48:32 ↗ you're right. It's going to add truck trips. Other questions or comments? Are we

1:48:38 ↗ ready to vote? All those in favor of awarding the construction contract to Quigg

1:48:44 ↗ Brothers Incorporated signify by saying aye. Aye. That was unanimous. Correct? Nobody said nay.

1:48:50 ↗ Oh. Who's opposed? Next item on the

1:48:55 ↗ agenda, agenda bill 7309, Trader Joe's Target Maple

1:49:01 ↗ Street Intersection and Interim Improvements. This is also

1:49:07 ↗ coming out of the infrastructure committee meeting.

1:49:14 ↗ Yes, thank you. So I'm going to just introduce it and then I know

1:49:20 ↗ that there is a staff presentation as well. And so this bill requests the

1:49:26 ↗ Council for Council direction and funding for a preferred alternative for improvements to the

1:49:31 ↗ intersection of Maple Street and Trader Joe's/Targets Driveways. Let me ask the

1:49:37 ↗ staff who's standing there now. In your material, are you going to give

1:49:43 ↗ the background about the work that was done in the original recommendation by

1:49:49 ↗ TSI, the Transportation Solutions, Inc.? We are, yes. Okay. So I won't repeat

1:49:55 ↗ that right now because it is in the bill, the background. So this

1:50:00 ↗ came to infrastructure in the January meeting. We were not unanimous.

1:50:06 ↗ There's actually two alternatives in the original proposal or in terms of a mini

1:50:12 ↗ roundabout. And one is, I think we're going to hear about both of them.

1:50:17 ↗ One at a lower cost is doesn't have the kind of the, I would,

1:50:23 ↗ you know, the cosmetic and other kind of improvements, especially when it comes to,

1:50:29 ↗ you know, just for the visual element of this with landscaping. The second improvement

1:50:35 ↗ does have this landscaping and it has a higher cost as well. So in the

1:50:40 ↗ committee, We had one committee member, myself, who was in favor of the landscape option.

1:50:46 ↗ Another committee, Stacy, was in favor of the lower cost option without the landscaping.

1:50:52 ↗ And Council Member Ramos was in opposition to both choices. So that's where the

1:50:58 ↗ committee lands. So it's not a unanimous or clear direction from the committee for

1:51:04 ↗ us to consider this evening. So with that as an introduction, I'll turn it

1:51:09 ↗ over to staff. Thank you, Curt. Thank you, Councilman Winterstein. We're very happy to be

1:51:15 ↗ here to follow up with our conversation that we had with the Infrastructure Committee a

1:51:21 ↗ few weeks back and talk about potential solutions on Maple Street Northwest in the

1:51:27 ↗ vicinity of Target and Trader Joe's. As everyone's aware, this is an intersection

1:51:33 ↗ that's been a long time source of confusion and aggravation, I think, for

1:51:38 ↗ both our residents and shoppers in the area. It was identified as a

1:51:44 ↗ high priority project to be looked at by our traffic task force here

1:51:50 ↗ last year. And then most recently the council has set

1:51:56 ↗ aside $50,000 for improvements to this intersection and The main

1:52:02 ↗ reason we're here tonight is that council directed the administration to look at additional

1:52:07 ↗ potential options for that intersection and to come back with those and explain those

1:52:13 ↗ to you. And so we're very happy to do that tonight. Brianne Ross here

1:52:19 ↗ from our transportation group is going to walk you through those three alternatives. And

1:52:24 ↗ we do have a recommendation to the council and I'm as a

1:52:30 ↗ way to move forward on this project and to make improvements at this confusing

1:52:36 ↗ intersection. So with that as an introduction, I'll turn it over to Brianne and

1:52:42 ↗ she's got about 10 or 12 minutes of slides to walk you through the

1:52:47 ↗ various options here. So thank you. All right. So as been discussed,

1:52:53 ↗ we have three options. And the first is what is currently

1:52:59 ↗ included in our Complete Streets budget that you have already approved,

1:53:04 ↗ which is the $50,000 recommendation out of the TSI Pedestrian Crossing

1:53:10 ↗ Study. This was identified in the Pedestrian Crossing Study as an

1:53:16 ↗ intersection of interest and TSI recommended different levels of improvements, the

1:53:22 ↗ first being this option. They also mentioned a mini roundabout or a full-scale

1:53:28 ↗ roundabout should funding and opportunities arise in the future. This option simply removes

1:53:33 ↗ the decorative pavement and tightens up the intersection, bringing in the stop bars

1:53:39 ↗ and crosswalks closer together. That way it creates a standard two-way stop intersection

1:53:45 ↗ and helps to reduce the confusion and frustration that we see

1:53:50 ↗ with the decorative pavement and the current intersection layout. And all in

1:53:56 ↗ all, this is a similar, what would be a similar intersection at

1:54:02 ↗ Mall and 12th. So in that same neighborhood, standard two-way stop intersection

1:54:08 ↗ with a commercial driveway. So the

1:54:14 ↗ second option is a mountable rubber-curbed mini roundabout with an asphalt center.

1:54:20 ↗ This would just install temporary roundabout rubber curbing on top of the

1:54:25 ↗ existing intersection. It's pinned in and then the center of that rubber

1:54:31 ↗ curbing is filled in with asphalt. And this, we would then

1:54:37 ↗ also have pedestrian refuge islands on Maple and upgrade some ADA ramps.

1:54:43 ↗ And this again should reduce confusion and frustration, providing an intuitive intersection

1:54:48 ↗ for people to use. And it helps pedestrian access with the pedestrian

1:54:54 ↗ refuge island, allowing them to cross one lane at a time on

1:55:00 ↗ Maple and improves access for the commercial driveways.

1:55:05 ↗ And then our third option is what you would see as

1:55:11 ↗ more of a standard roundabout. It's removing the existing concrete roadway

1:55:17 ↗ in the center. It's pouring standard wash dot curb and gutter

1:55:22 ↗ roundabout curb and a truck apron for access and also the

1:55:28 ↗ Landscape Center in the middle. This provides the option for landscape,

1:55:34 ↗ some sort of a gateway feature, or things like that. Again,

1:55:39 ↗ there's pedestrian refuge islands on Maple, and the splitter islands on

1:55:45 ↗ the driveway access are paint, and it also upgrades the curb

1:55:50 ↗ ramps on Maple. So this option, again, It provides a standard

1:55:56 ↗ intersection, reducing confusion at what we currently have with the decorative intersection. It's

1:56:02 ↗ intuitive. It's like any other roundabout that you would see. It provides pedestrian,

1:56:08 ↗ improved pedestrian access with pedestrian refuge islands and improves access and safety for

1:56:14 ↗ the users. So, suitability of a mini roundabout in

1:56:20 ↗ this area, it improves mini roundabouts, both options two and three,

1:56:25 ↗ would improve motorist and pedestrian safety and reduce the severity of

1:56:31 ↗ potential crashes in the area. and it is well suited

1:56:36 ↗ for the volumes of this roadway. WSDOT actually recommends replacing stock

1:56:42 ↗ controlled intersections with mini roundabouts to reduce delay and increase capacity.

1:56:48 ↗ And with our current ADT of 9,700, we're well within our

1:56:54 ↗ 15,000 ADT limit of installing this without even having to do

1:57:00 ↗ a detailed capacity analysis. So our recommendation is

1:57:06 ↗ alternative three. The advantages that we see of the landscaped center being

1:57:11 ↗ that distinguishing feature of a standard roundabout further helps to reduce any

1:57:17 ↗ confusion that there might be had at that intersection. It clearly indicates

1:57:23 ↗ that drivers can't go through the intersection and it discourages pedestrians from

1:57:28 ↗ trying to cross the street in the middle of the intersection. Discussion?

1:57:34 ↗ - Do we have any questions? I've got a few,

1:57:40 ↗ but I just wanted to start with one. Could you, in alternative

1:57:46 ↗ two and three, could you show me where the crosswalks would be

1:57:51 ↗ with the roundabouts? So, yes. Because it talks about the pedestrians taking

1:57:57 ↗ sort of refuge in the center is the point to walk.

1:58:03 ↗ onto the roundabout, wait there, and then cross again? - No, so with options two

1:58:09 ↗ and three, there would be the roundabout in the middle of this intersection,

1:58:15 ↗ but there would also be pedestrian refuge islands that would be located here, the splitter

1:58:20 ↗ islands that you would typically see in a roundabout. So that this, the left turn

1:58:25 ↗ lanes would go away, those would not be in existence, and cars would be forced

1:58:31 ↗ to stay in this lane and go around, and this area here that is currently

1:58:36 ↗ the left turn lane would be a pedestrian refuge island. So pedestrians would cross be

1:58:42 ↗ in this refuge island and then cross again. So they're not going through the

1:58:48 ↗ center of the roundabout. They're staying out here. And then would that be a

1:58:54 ↗ crosswalk? Would that be marked? This would be a marked crosswalk. In both 2

1:59:00 ↗ and 3? Correct. Okay. Other questions? Brianne? Yeah. Brianne, could you please give us

1:59:06 ↗ more information about the difference in cost between what you're calling options 2 and

1:59:12 ↗ 3? And let me make one comment really quick. option one isn't really

1:59:18 ↗ on the table that's what we've already approved in the budget for 2017. so the

1:59:23 ↗ potential options that we're considering are really two and three i mean we're not gonna

1:59:29 ↗ there's no intention here this evening to vote up or down on option one. I

1:59:35 ↗ mean, that's already what's been improved. We've added that during the budget process already. So

1:59:40 ↗ what we're gonna, questions we're gonna be considering this evening is whether or not to

1:59:45 ↗ what you're calling options two and three is whether to look at those. But I

1:59:50 ↗ don't feel like we've nearly heard enough to explain the difference in cost. There's a,

1:59:55 ↗ you know, many hundreds of thousands of dollars in difference between the two.

2:00:01 ↗ Yes, one has landscaping and one doesn't, but that doesn't by itself seem

2:00:07 ↗ to explain the difference. Sure, absolutely. So the biggest difference between two and

2:00:13 ↗ three is that the second option, that temporary rubber curbing, is placed on

2:00:18 ↗ top of the existing roadway. so they can go out there and pin

2:00:24 ↗ it in to the existing concrete and fill it. So it's a much

2:00:30 ↗ shorter duration for construction and it's much less disruptive. Our option three, you

2:00:36 ↗ have to remove the existing roadway in the center of that intersection, those

2:00:41 ↗ concrete panels, so that you can form and pour the standard curb and

2:00:47 ↗ gutter that you see around the outside here. and then pour in the

2:00:53 ↗ construction or the truck apron here. And then this is actually another set of curb

2:00:59 ↗ that's poured there. And then whatever costs we would choose, whatever we would choose to

2:01:04 ↗ put in here, which is currently proposed as landscaping, we bring in irrigation.

2:01:10 ↗ and a water meter to fill in, to have irrigation

2:01:16 ↗ there as well. So the main cost difference is that

2:01:22 ↗ the construction takes longer. There's additional traffic control required during

2:01:28 ↗ construction, and it's the removal of the roadway. Instead of

2:01:33 ↗ using a prefabricated rubber curbing, you're forming and pouring more

2:01:39 ↗ traditional curbing. - And bringing in the irrigation and

2:01:45 ↗ the metering for that, I mean, how much does that

2:01:51 ↗ add itself as a percent of that total additional cost?

2:01:56 ↗ - If I recall correctly, the irrigation is roughly like

2:02:02 ↗ 15,000 and then the landscaping is an additional 15 or

2:02:08 ↗ so thousand on top of that. off the top of

2:02:14 ↗ my head. Okay. Thank you. Mariah. Could you explain a little bit in three as

2:02:19 ↗ opposed to two. So you talked about a truck apron. Yeah. Could you explain that

2:02:24 ↗ a little bit? Does that allow the trucks to just go up on there if

2:02:29 ↗ they need to up on to the Correct. So in option three,

2:02:35 ↗ we would use, we would look at the truck turning movements

2:02:41 ↗ and dictate the center, the size of the center landscaped median

2:02:46 ↗ that would accommodate vehicles, but large trucks would still go over

2:02:52 ↗ what you can see this outside truck apron as being.

2:02:58 ↗ Passenger cars would not need to utilize that in any way. In option two,

2:03:04 ↗ the whole thing is actually mountable. So technically anybody can drive up and over

2:03:10 ↗ it in any fashion. Does that answer? - Thank you. - Mm-hmm. - And

2:03:16 ↗ I'm looking at the cost of these. - Yes. - And am I correct

2:03:22 ↗ in the fact that alternative three is $480,000 as opposed to what two is

2:03:28 ↗ 100? - So, As Paul mentioned, we

2:03:33 ↗ already have 50,000 approved. So option

2:03:39 ↗ three is 500,000 as shown here with one thing I

2:03:45 ↗ didn't really discuss, it was at some point we were also asked to look

2:03:50 ↗ at the RRFBs, installing RRFBs on the crosswalks across Maple and that's an additional

2:03:56 ↗ 30,000. - Those are, what are RF, what's an RFB? - Sorry, rectangular rapid

2:04:02 ↗ flashing beacon that similar to exactly the same as what was installed here on

2:04:08 ↗ Front Street this year. So that actually brings alternative three to a

2:04:14 ↗ total if you would elect to also include the RFBs to a

2:04:19 ↗ total of 530,000. And so to do alternative three in addition to

2:04:25 ↗ the 50,000 that we currently already have, it would be an additional

2:04:31 ↗ 480,000. And then alternative two would be $100,000 and

2:04:37 ↗ that has the RFPs in there? No. Or that would

2:04:42 ↗ then be an additional $30,000? Right, it would be $130,000

2:04:48 ↗ to include the RFPs. So an additional $80,000 into what's

2:04:54 ↗ already budgeted. Other questions? Mariah? I was trying to think back. I

2:05:00 ↗ don't have it in my head right now, but could you, the deliveries that one,

2:05:05 ↗ two or three talked about deliveries and I think one of those options restricted

2:05:11 ↗ deliveries on the street could you talk a little bit about that um

2:05:17 ↗ yeah so option three so since option two is fully mountable you can

2:05:22 ↗ go over it any truck can it does not restrict access in any

2:05:28 ↗ way option three would not allow large delivery trucks to turn left into

2:05:34 ↗ either driveway Because they would be going around and trying to

2:05:40 ↗ turn left that way so there are other entrances for both of

2:05:45 ↗ these properties and Technically this is not this is not a frequently

2:05:51 ↗ used intersection for delivery There could be a substitute driver that occasionally

2:05:57 ↗ tries to use it but with the congested nature of this intersection

2:06:03 ↗ It's not moving those deliveries to another entrances would be something

2:06:09 ↗ that would be considered. Thank you. Yeah, the most of them are already

2:06:15 ↗ happening at the rear of the properties because their delivery accesses and ramps

2:06:20 ↗ are all located in the back of their buildings. Yeah, so they have

2:06:26 ↗ other entrances off of Gilman and also off of the street that's over

2:06:32 ↗ here. - So as far as function goes, two and three

2:06:37 ↗ will function exactly the same, correct? - Similar. So two is fully mountable, three

2:06:43 ↗ there is the landscape center, so it restricts the left turns. - You're saying

2:06:49 ↗ that left turns, a large truck would make a left turn over that? -

2:06:55 ↗ A large truck could make a left turn over the option two. But

2:07:01 ↗ option three, the landscape center prevents large trucks from turning left into there. Or one

2:07:05 ↗ of those had a sign in the middle, something in the middle. You could actually

2:07:10 ↗ put something in there that would make it function exactly the same way, basically, and

2:07:15 ↗ not left turns of large trucks and have it look a little bit better than

2:07:20 ↗ just a... piece of concrete in the middle and have it more visible functioning more

2:07:26 ↗ in a safety standpoint because it would have more visibility to it just versus something

2:07:30 ↗ just off the ground, right? - That's something that we can consider. - And then

2:07:35 ↗ the actual-- - That's not something that's included in the current cost in front of

2:07:39 ↗ you. - Okay. And then as far as the mounting, the truck mounting, They would

2:07:44 ↗ have a smoother, obviously designed one, they'd have a smoother rolling path of that versus

2:07:49 ↗ the rubber mount would be more of a jolt. So it discouraged some of that,

2:07:54 ↗ but from other folks, because it would actually be less smooth than a regular one.

2:07:59 ↗ Even from a car cutting the corner, you wouldn't want to do it on this

2:08:04 ↗ option two. It's pretty jarred. I mean, a car in general wouldn't really want to

2:08:08 ↗ jump either one of them. In general, you wouldn't want to, but. to mention

2:08:14 ↗ that thank you all right so just to clarify um bill's question so

2:08:20 ↗ something could be placed on top of two other than just the sign

2:08:26 ↗ that is something that we can explore that's not something that we currently

2:08:32 ↗ have looked into there because we're not removing that existing roadway it would

2:08:38 ↗ have to be something that was very that didn't need a deep

2:08:44 ↗ foundation or we're gonna be in a similar position where we're removing the

2:08:49 ↗ existing roadway. And like I said, that's not considered in our current cost.

2:08:55 ↗ - Thank you. - Motion. - We wanna entertain a motion. - Move

2:09:01 ↗ to direct the administration to proceed with Maple Street Northwest Trader Joe's target

2:09:06 ↗ intersection improvement, alternative three, an installation of rectangular rapid flash beacons and

2:09:12 ↗ authorize an additional allocation from the general fund ending

2:09:18 ↗ balance to fund the intersection improvements and direct the

2:09:23 ↗ finance director to include $480,000 in the next 2017

2:09:29 ↗ budget amendment. Second. She can pick herself. Oh, that's

2:09:34 ↗ me. I forgot. I keep forgetting. - Yeah, so

2:09:40 ↗ I don't support spending a total of $530,000, as I mentioned

2:09:46 ↗ in committee, on a roundabout that functions essentially the same way.

2:09:51 ↗ Because what, maybe it's more permanent, maybe it has landscaping.

2:09:57 ↗ I haven't seen any pictures that make it look prettier. I

2:10:03 ↗ think we can spend a total of $130,000. And as I

2:10:09 ↗ mentioned in committee, we can figure out ways to make it

2:10:14 ↗ pretty. It's supposed to be, it's not temporary, but it's considered

2:10:20 ↗ although it could be long-term interim, nobody knows what that means. But I

2:10:26 ↗ mean, for an extra few hundred thousand dollars, we could do a lot

2:10:32 ↗ with that money. Mary Lou? - So first a comment for staff. I

2:10:38 ↗ wanna thank you for all the work you did on the, actually in

2:10:44 ↗ telling us what improvements were coming, already approved, and a couple of options. Council

2:10:49 ↗ requested this after we decided not to include this in the bond proposal for last

2:10:55 ↗ year and recognized that it was one of the citizens' highest priority. So thank you

2:11:00 ↗ for getting back this. I think it's a great complete package. It's fantastic. I disagree

2:11:06 ↗ with Mayor Pro Tem Goodman. in that I do see that a more permanent, the

2:11:11 ↗ more expensive option that looks more permanent, I think will have a much higher level

2:11:16 ↗ of traffic calming because it looks like an actual road improvement. Option B to me

2:11:21 ↗ looks like a bandaid for a problem. I don't think it's a significant enough improvement.

2:11:26 ↗ I think when we were originally considering putting this in and doing a significant traffic

2:11:31 ↗ circle, we were talking about a $5 million project. I look at what staff has

2:11:36 ↗ brought for $500,000 and I am really impressed. I like it. I think it will

2:11:41 ↗ work better. And I think it looks like a permanent fixture, whether it's there for

2:11:45 ↗ a year or 15 years. The only thing that's missing for me is some artwork

2:11:50 ↗ or signage that says, welcome to Central Issaquah. I still think we need to give

2:11:54 ↗ this neighborhood some identification. And I know that's not in the budget, but I felt

2:11:59 ↗ like I had to say it. Art commission can take care of that for you.

2:12:03 ↗ Art commission. I'm in favor of the third alternative, which is the $500,000 alternative. And

2:12:08 ↗ I think the Arts Commission can take care of the second. Eileen? I can't support

2:12:14 ↗ $500,000 for this roundabout either. I can do the lower dollar amount at

2:12:20 ↗ a hundred and some thousand dollars. We just need to make sure that

2:12:25 ↗ the consumer is able to cross the streets in a safe fashion. To

2:12:31 ↗ be honest, there's not that much traffic, foot traffic on that particular piece.

2:12:36 ↗ And I believe that our residents will be just as safe at

2:12:42 ↗ the lower dollar, not the $500,000. I can't support $500,000 for

2:12:48 ↗ this roundabout. Mariah? - So this is something that obviously we

2:12:53 ↗ talked about, that we got a lot of feedback about trying

2:12:59 ↗ to solve what was happening at this intersection. So again, I

2:13:05 ↗ would also thank staff for putting together all these great options

2:13:10 ↗ that we can take a look at. And I

2:13:16 ↗ understand sort of the background behind the $500,000

2:13:21 ↗ option. But to me, this could be interim,

2:13:27 ↗ even long-term interim. and I think that there's some things that we

2:13:33 ↗ could do with option two that would get us to the same place. So I

2:13:39 ↗ would support option two. I would support the beacons as well. I think that that

2:13:45 ↗ would be really important. And I guess what was in the back of my mind

2:13:51 ↗ is we had several agenda bills that we talked about that that could

2:13:56 ↗ be coming forward and probably other things coming down

2:14:02 ↗ the road. So I was really looking at this

2:14:08 ↗ as trying to solve the situation and make that

2:14:13 ↗ safe for both pedestrians and drivers. So I would

2:14:19 ↗ go with option two. So I need to say a few things because I

2:14:25 ↗ was actually a dissenting vote according to the chair of the committee and that wasn't

2:14:30 ↗ brought up at all. So I just want to give a little background on why

2:14:34 ↗ I was dissenting in committee. In committee, the neighbor, Jason Landor over there, requested that

2:14:39 ↗ we don't do this right now. They wanted to work with us on an alternative

2:14:44 ↗ because they didn't like this one. And there's some history behind that and I don't

2:14:49 ↗ know all the details of the history, but I felt it was a fair request

2:14:52 ↗ to take two months, I didn't talk about a long time, but like two months

2:14:56 ↗ to work with them to see if they wanted to come up with another alternative

2:15:00 ↗ that we could work on together. And they're talking about partnering with us and maybe

2:15:04 ↗ we could get something nicer in a partnership. So that wasn't, that isn't being discussed

2:15:07 ↗ here. I just want to give you a note because It was mentioned that I

2:15:12 ↗ was a dissenting vote. So I'm not against the roundabout in any way. But that's

2:15:17 ↗ what I was looking at there. So I'm actually torn here on this because I

2:15:21 ↗ hate temporary things because most temporary things turn into long-term things. And you sit there

2:15:26 ↗ and go, why did we do that that way? Because 15 years later, you've been

2:15:31 ↗ complaining about it never being quite right. But at the same time, there's a lot

2:15:36 ↗ of money to do this. Both these function the same way. In my mind, they're

2:15:40 ↗ totally functioning in the same way. And I thought a lot about this since

2:15:46 ↗ our committee meeting. It functioned the same way, but I think if you

2:15:52 ↗ pull up the pictures of the alternative two, these are as bad as

2:15:57 ↗ stark as you can imagine. And I think we can take these and

2:16:03 ↗ turn them into something else a very little bit amount of money of something even

2:16:08 ↗ if you just put flower pots in the middle that we have on front street

2:16:13 ↗ when they're done from that front street landscaping could be done something could be done

2:16:18 ↗ interestingly to make them look a lot better and and function just as well and

2:16:22 ↗ then that money could be used in many other places that we do have a

2:16:27 ↗ lot of other needs it's not like we yes we have it there but there's

2:16:32 ↗ other needs we need as well so i'd like to see something other than just

2:16:37 ↗ bare bones here to make it look. So the people drive up, you see that,

2:16:41 ↗ if you just see, you know, a six inch curb in the middle of the

2:16:46 ↗ street, that doesn't tell you anything. Roundabouts have something more as you're coming up to

2:16:50 ↗ see them in the middle that tells you it's a roundabout, not just a little

2:16:54 ↗ slight elevation. So we have to do something of that nature to make it function.

2:16:58 ↗ And that's where I am on that. So I would prefer alternative two.

2:17:04 ↗ - Any other comment? So one thing we haven't discussed and to Bill's point as

2:17:09 ↗ well, I think you have to imagine and I wish we had more visuals to

2:17:13 ↗ go with this in that the striping that would happen. So as you approach and

2:17:18 ↗ every roundabout generally you see there's some signage that you're approaching a roundabout to indicate

2:17:22 ↗ that. Also, I think we need to learn to stop saying turn left. I mean,

2:17:27 ↗ when you really learn how to use a roundabout, you're talking about take the first,

2:17:32 ↗ second or third exit. And that's turn right, go straight, or

2:17:38 ↗ go left, we're used to now. But I supported the

2:17:43 ↗ motion for the same reasons that Mary Lou gave as

2:17:49 ↗ well. Honestly, it is about cosmetics and some about function

2:17:55 ↗ as well. I would look at this as it's an interim solution. It's

2:18:01 ↗ gonna be there for, we don't know how many years. It could be

2:18:07 ↗ five, it could be 15, it could be something different. And we

2:18:13 ↗ have a very healthy fund balance in the general fund to

2:18:19 ↗ work with. And I've always said that if we're going to

2:18:25 ↗ use that, we should use that to create assets of value

2:18:30 ↗ to the community. And this is just a, a percentage of

2:18:36 ↗ that fund balance above our financial policy limits of 15, our goals of 15%.

2:18:42 ↗ We're still gonna be way, very, very healthy general fund balance even with the

2:18:48 ↗ additional roughly over 300,000 additional over OSHA under two. So from a funding perspective, I

2:18:53 ↗ realize it's more, but I think what we get in terms of aesthetics, overall functionality,

2:18:58 ↗ something that we can be proud of, something that we can say, we really have

2:19:03 ↗ made a difference here. And Mary Lou, I think makes a really good point. I

2:19:08 ↗ think the overall calming effect and the proper use and the net goal of creating

2:19:13 ↗ a safer, more intuitive system intersection is achieved with a full-fledged mini roundabout still but

2:19:18 ↗ one with the proper type of design including the the what people are used to

2:19:24 ↗ seeing along as well you know with the with the the landscaping in the

2:19:30 ↗ middle of vibrant growing plants that are permanent. So it's really, those are the

2:19:36 ↗ reasons for I think better functioning, something that we would be proud of. We

2:19:41 ↗ do have the money to fund that and that's why I'm gonna be supporting

2:19:47 ↗ the motion. So in option two you had talked at one point I'm

2:19:53 ↗ not sure which option it was that in the crosswalk piece there would be these

2:19:58 ↗ pedestrian refuges do you still get that in plan B in in the option B

2:20:04 ↗ or do you is it just striped you get a concrete So in option two

2:20:10 ↗ you would get the same materials. You would get a pedestrian refuge island. You still

2:20:15 ↗ would get the pedestrian refuge island. But it would not be the concrete curb and

2:20:21 ↗ gutter. It would be the temporary rubber curbing. So the left turn lane still goes

2:20:27 ↗ where? Correct. And you get the refuge. It's just made out of rubber. Correct. Correct

2:20:32 ↗ me. It'd still be out of concrete with rubber curbing as this one would say.

2:20:38 ↗ So you got, would you, The mini roundabout is concrete. It really is concrete.

2:20:44 ↗ It just has the rubber curb around the edge. So the refuge island, I'm assuming

2:20:49 ↗ it would be the same kind of thing? Yeah, asphalt and probably asphalt inside of

2:20:55 ↗ the rubber curb. So it's not a rubber island, refuge island. Okay. Are we ready

2:21:01 ↗ for a vote? So all those in favor of directing the administration to proceed with

2:21:06 ↗ the Maple Street Northwest Trader Joe's Target Intersection Improvement Alternative 3, an installation

2:21:12 ↗ of rectangular rapid flash beacons and authorizing the additional allocation from

2:21:18 ↗ the general fund ending fund balance to fund the intersection improvements

2:21:24 ↗ and direct the finance director to include $480,000 in the next

2:21:30 ↗ 2017 budget amendment signify by saying aye. - Aye. - Those

2:21:36 ↗ opposed? - Nay. - The motion fails. So I would make

2:21:42 ↗ a motion. First I have a question. So if the

2:21:48 ↗ alternative two, there's already, so it would be directing the administration to

2:21:53 ↗ move ahead with number two and for directing additional $80,000 and that

2:21:59 ↗ would be ending fund balance then. - Right, that would be alternative

2:22:04 ↗ two with the rapid flashing beacons. - So I would make a

2:22:10 ↗ motion directing the administration to proceed with the Maple Street Northwest Trader

2:22:16 ↗ Joe's Target Intersection Improvement Alternative Two. installation of the rectangular rapid

2:22:21 ↗ flash beacons and authorizing an additional allocation from the general fund

2:22:27 ↗ ending balance to fund the intersection improvements and direct the finance

2:22:33 ↗ director to include $80,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment. Second.

2:22:39 ↗ Comments? Bill? Point here. Can we put an amendment with this?

2:22:45 ↗ You propose it. I propose an amendment that we add

2:22:51 ↗ I don't know what, how much here, but something to beautify this and make it

2:22:55 ↗ a more substantial piece in the middle, not just a flat piece of concrete. So

2:22:59 ↗ I don't know how you want to word that, but I don't know how much

2:23:03 ↗ money to put there, but somehow we want to add something more than just a

2:23:07 ↗ flat piece of concrete out there. So I would, so I had the same comments

2:23:11 ↗ at infrastructure about somehow beautifying it. I think there are a lot of ways to

2:23:15 ↗ do that. You could have get the Arts Commission involved, you could have some

2:23:21 ↗ kind of a competition, I don't know. We don't have any idea what,

2:23:27 ↗ how much that would be to include, but we could send message, direction,

2:23:33 ↗ I guess, to the administration if it passed that we wanted the administration

2:23:39 ↗ to come back with us with proposals, alternatives of how we might be

2:23:44 ↗ able to beautify it. And that if there were if there needed to

2:23:50 ↗ be a budget allocation for that and that could come along with that. Um, I'd

2:23:56 ↗ be okay with that versus a full fledged amendment. I think would if that if

2:24:01 ↗ directions on that work, I think that's simpler. So I'll just i don't know

2:24:07 ↗ if this is appropriate i'll just jump in here though so um thank you uh

2:24:12 ↗ so sure so we can look at that and i am understanding from the council

2:24:18 ↗ that it's something something along the lines of option two here but not exactly something

2:24:23 ↗ a little a little more aesthetic or a little something more than this and so

2:24:28 ↗ i guess uh we'd be happy to look at that and i don't tonight um

2:24:34 ↗ I don't know if I can tell you what that is or what that would

2:24:39 ↗ cost. One of the things, you know, as we, so Brianne didn't mention this, but

2:24:44 ↗ we've talked about this somewhat. I think we talked about this at infrastructure as being

2:24:49 ↗ sort of like a pancake. So it's just placed on top, on top of the

2:24:54 ↗ existing roadway. And so, I don't know structurally if we start putting, if we start

2:24:59 ↗ adding things to that, if that's artwork or what that might be, how that would

2:25:03 ↗ all work. So I guess it's a long, long way of saying we don't know

2:25:08 ↗ exactly - We would be happy to look at alternatives here. I don't know

2:25:14 ↗ what those are exactly or what those might cost, but it's likely to cost something

2:25:19 ↗ more than, obviously something more than option two and presumably something less than option three,

2:25:25 ↗ but we don't really know that tonight. - That would be the idea. - Yes,

2:25:31 ↗ I understand. - Move the horse from front street. - So any other comments?

2:25:38 ↗ no are you ready for the vote then okay all those in favor of i'm

2:25:44 ↗ going to say this one more time just because it's fun directing the administration to

2:25:49 ↗ proceed with the maple street northwest trader joe's target intersection improvement alternative two an installation

2:25:55 ↗ of rectangular rapid flash beacons and authorizing an additional allocation from the general

2:26:01 ↗ fund ending fund balance to fund the intersection improvements and direct the finance

2:26:07 ↗ director to include $80,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment signify by saying

2:26:13 ↗ aye. - Aye. - Those opposed say nay. - Nay. - If that

2:26:19 ↗ passes, order two. And with the, you heard the direction to come back

2:26:25 ↗ with the budget amendment. - And enhanced. - Yes, ideas

2:26:31 ↗ on how it might be beautified, whatever that means. - Simple enhancement. -

2:26:36 ↗ Okay, thank you very much. And I would echo the comments about appreciating

2:26:42 ↗ all the work that you've done, particularly in the short amount of time

2:26:48 ↗ that we sort of directed to be done with alternatives. Next is agenda

2:26:54 ↗ bill 7321, citizen survey and online engagement tool. And we have deputy city

2:27:00 ↗ administrator Emily Moon, Yes, Autumn's going to be joining me.

2:27:05 ↗ This is co-presented. Thank you very much. We have before you

2:27:11 ↗ a proposal, and that proposal in a nutshell is to authorize

2:27:17 ↗ use of technology budgeted funds for the strategic planning effort, at

2:27:22 ↗ least the first portion of that effort in a different way than

2:27:28 ↗ perhaps you had envisioned during the budget adoption this fall and early

2:27:33 ↗ winter. And that's to use, reallocate or authorize the use of that

2:27:39 ↗ budgeted amount in part to complete a national citizen survey and also

2:27:45 ↗ purchase an online engagement tool. So Autumn's going to cover the

2:27:51 ↗ latter. I'm going to talk just briefly about the National Citizen Survey.

2:27:57 ↗ The reason that we are pitching this idea now is we don't

2:28:02 ↗ have a well-built game plan yet on how to execute on the

2:28:08 ↗ strategic plan. And that was put aside during the budget development process as

2:28:14 ↗ a future conversation with council members. And we also had discussed that additional

2:28:20 ↗ resources would likely be needed in order to complete a full plan.

2:28:27 ↗ So with that, I'm going to talk about the citizen survey. The last

2:28:33 ↗ time we did a national citizen survey, this is an instrument that's used

2:28:38 ↗ across the country and is considered best practice by a lot of local

2:28:44 ↗ government organizations, was in 2014. We reported the results out in early 2015.

2:28:50 ↗ And at that point in time, City Council stated a desire to do that survey

2:28:56 ↗ on a regular basis. We had a little bit of discussion about whether that would

2:29:02 ↗ be every year or something a little less frequent. And it was my recommendation that

2:29:07 ↗ we do it every two or three years at that time. And so we have

2:29:13 ↗ gone beyond that point in 2017. So the National Citizen Survey

2:29:19 ↗ is a really important tool for us in a lot of different ways.

2:29:25 ↗ It's a way for us to gauge the preferences of the community, their

2:29:30 ↗ satisfaction levels with the community as a whole, its quality of life, and

2:29:36 ↗ also our local government services. In addition, because that's a national instrument, we

2:29:42 ↗ get regional and national comparison data. That's very helpful for us as well to

2:29:48 ↗ understand in comparison how well we are doing. and we believe that that survey

2:29:54 ↗ will provide helpful data for us to use as we begin to

2:30:00 ↗ contemplate how to complete the strategic plan for the city it would

2:30:06 ↗ for example highlight some areas of investigation potentially some themes that we

2:30:11 ↗ want to explore with the community and It would also provide us with

2:30:17 ↗ that updated data that we use for our performance measurement and benchmarking that we

2:30:23 ↗ do in our departments. We also believe that this would be a great precursor

2:30:29 ↗ tool for some of the efforts that you know are identified on our work

2:30:34 ↗ plan this year, including aligning our capital and operating budgets more with

2:30:40 ↗ our various strategic plans. And the National Citizen Survey will help us

2:30:46 ↗ to understand, give us a data point about where people would like

2:30:51 ↗ us to invest public funds. So with that,

2:30:57 ↗ I'm going to turn it over to Autumn. Autumn's

2:31:03 ↗ going to talk about the online engagement tool and

2:31:09 ↗ then after she does, be happy to answer any

2:31:15 ↗ questions about either of these opportunities. Hi, my name

2:31:21 ↗ is Autumn Monahan. I'm the assistant to the city

2:31:27 ↗ administrator and work very closely with our city's communications

2:31:33 ↗ team. Tonight I'm here talking about an online engagement tool that I'm quite excited about

2:31:38 ↗ and excited to show you a demo tonight. First up, I've already talked to you

2:31:43 ↗ several times about the fact we have a lot of engagement efforts coming up in

2:31:48 ↗ 2017, including what we've dubbed the mega projects. So that includes the Old Town sub

2:31:53 ↗ area plan, our housing strategy, the Central Issaquah district visions, the park strategic plan, and

2:31:57 ↗ the end of the development agreements. We have a lot of other examples that are

2:32:03 ↗ on my list for the coming years as far as assistance with engagement with our

2:32:08 ↗ departments, including the sustainable building strategies, the alternative service project with Metro, our neighborhood engagement

2:32:14 ↗ program, the CIP revamp, budgeting, and a lot more, including a lot of capital projects.

2:32:19 ↗ So what does an online engagement tool have to do with our strategic plan?

2:32:29 ↗ Each engagement effort will provide data to inform our future strategic plans. So all of

2:32:33 ↗ these smaller efforts that we're working on in the coming year can definitely help inform

2:32:37 ↗ a larger strategic plan moving forward. So how does

2:32:43 ↗ this tool fit in with our so far? We are a national leader when it

2:32:47 ↗ comes to social media. We have thousands and thousands of followers. One area we've struggled

2:32:50 ↗ with now for a couple years is how to close that loop. And I've talked

2:32:54 ↗ with you several times about finding ways to do that. So how can we leverage

2:32:58 ↗ all of those followers and all those people we're engaging with all the time to

2:33:01 ↗ ensure that they're providing you feedback that's useful as elected leaders? Right now we have

2:33:07 ↗ a survey tool via our website which is hosted by Civic Plus. There are limited

2:33:12 ↗ options for how we can build forms on our website and also the results spit

2:33:17 ↗ out in Excel documents. So oftentimes when we're asked to aggregate data or to look

2:33:22 ↗ at what the responses are, it takes a lot of staff time in synthesizing those

2:33:27 ↗ results. We also have utilized social media polls via Facebook and Twitter. These are really

2:33:33 ↗ quick, great ways to ask one or two simple questions in your feed. But oftentimes,

2:33:38 ↗ you can't really dig into a subject. And also, if you use the same polls

2:33:43 ↗ in multiple platforms, it's very hard to also aggregate that data and package it up

2:33:48 ↗ for you guys. So we have struggled with how to best collect engagement. We're great

2:33:52 ↗ at communicating and letting people know about opportunities, but as far as finding a tool

2:33:58 ↗ where people can come and provide their feedback has been a struggle. So some benefits

2:34:03 ↗ of having an online engagement tool. All of our online surveys would live in one

2:34:07 ↗ place. Right now our engagement efforts can vary. You can find something on SurveyMonkey. You

2:34:10 ↗ can find something on the city's website. You can find something on social media. So

2:34:14 ↗ we've tried a lot of different tools, but there's not one place that you can

2:34:18 ↗ go to. If there is, and we've got several engagement efforts going on at one

2:34:21 ↗ time this coming year, someone might come to this tool and want to provide input

2:34:25 ↗ on our park strategic plan and say, oh, I also have some input about Old

2:34:28 ↗ Town. So there's some cross connection that can go on there as we drive people

2:34:32 ↗ to this tool. They can see there's multiple ways that you can engage and provide

2:34:36 ↗ feedback to the community or to the council. Results are also shown in real time.

2:34:39 ↗ So right now when you submit your feedback to the city via the website, it

2:34:43 ↗ comes in just as submitted to us and it's not something that can be engaging

2:34:47 ↗ for community members to see each other's feedback and kind of leverage their ideas. And

2:34:51 ↗ also we're looking for some approved reporting and data we can provide both you and

2:34:55 ↗ the community as far as what the community wants. So we've researched several tools online

2:35:01 ↗ and they've gotten better over the years and gotten a lot of feedback from other

2:35:06 ↗ agencies that are using these types of tools. We've been conducting some demos and considering

2:35:11 ↗ cost, the customer service of these tools and the support that's offered. And our favorite

2:35:16 ↗ so far is called Peak Democracy and I'll show you some demos tonight of that

2:35:20 ↗ tool. Several local agencies are using Peak including King County, the City of Sammamish, Auburn,

2:35:26 ↗ Ellensburg, and Walla Walla here in Washington state.

2:35:32 ↗ So peak democracy offers I think it's 10 ways that you can set

2:35:37 ↗ up a survey online. And there's a lot of different ways you can fill out

2:35:42 ↗ these forms. You can offer up just a simple survey with a single or multiple

2:35:46 ↗ choice question. You can ask open-ended questions where people can offer in their support, a

2:35:51 ↗ thumbs up if they like your response. You can prioritize lists that the city provides.

2:35:55 ↗ There's a budget tool that I'll show you that's really cool. You can provide feedback

2:36:00 ↗ via maps. You can also provide photos, videos, or files of examples that you'd like

2:36:05 ↗ to share, and you can also annotate documents. And then there's several analytics and ways

2:36:11 ↗ to look at the data. So you can look at it in many different filters,

2:36:17 ↗ including demographics, by a map, by percentages, several different ways, even word clouds. So I'll

2:36:22 ↗ show you a few demos now.

2:36:36 ↗ So the city of Sammamish just launched using Peak Democracy a few months ago and

2:36:40 ↗ have had some very good success in participation. And so I'm just going to show

2:36:44 ↗ you an example of a few different cities that are using this tool and what

2:36:49 ↗ they're using them for. So this is a question the city of Sammamish is asking

2:36:53 ↗ about their proposed plan and strategies for acquiring new lands. And just to start, it

2:36:56 ↗ asks me if I'd like to submit my information with my name, without my name,

2:37:01 ↗ or do it completely anonymously. So you can register and let the city see who

2:37:05 ↗ you are, or you can do it completely anonymously. I like having these options because

2:37:10 ↗ oftentimes we've heard from other cities, and I've seen it too, that when you require

2:37:14 ↗ people to register, you see a huge drop off in participation. So giving people this

2:37:19 ↗ choice is a really good feature. So I'm just going to pretend to fill this

2:37:23 ↗ out. This is not how I feel about the city of Sammamish and them acquiring

2:37:27 ↗ new lands. But just want to show you a few options. So no, I'm not

2:37:31 ↗ a resident of Sammamish. I could fill in my information on my address. I'll say,

2:37:35 ↗ yes, I think the city should acquire more lands for parks, recreation, and open space.

2:37:38 ↗ And then it says, if you answered yes to the previous question, what should be

2:37:42 ↗ the focus? I'm going to say active use. And if you support active use, prioritize

2:37:48 ↗ what or more of the following uses you'd like to see. So I think the

2:37:52 ↗ priority should be playgrounds. I'm going to make that the first priority. And then waterfront

2:37:57 ↗ recreation. Again, this is not my own opinion. This is just showing you how you

2:38:02 ↗ can use this tool. A predictable answer, I would say. So anyway, you can set

2:38:07 ↗ these to what priorities you want. You can move them up and down. You can

2:38:12 ↗ say, you know what? Playgrounds actually are not something that I want to support. So

2:38:17 ↗ you can prioritize a set list that the city provides. You can also upload images,

2:38:22 ↗ which is pretty cool. So people can react to an image. And this one is

2:38:26 ↗ based on a map. And I think that's all I want to show you on

2:38:31 ↗ this. survey so you also can see as i mentioned the responses in real time

2:38:36 ↗ of how this this survey is going for the city so far and you can

2:38:40 ↗ look at it in many different ways so you can look at it via the

2:38:44 ↗ demo well first you can see just the raw data so autumn yeah when you

2:38:48 ↗ say you who do you mean can see that in real time the public the

2:38:53 ↗ public okay yep so this is me just at the city of sammamish's site right

2:38:57 ↗ now yep So you can see just all of the raw data and you can

2:39:02 ↗ say, you know, you can see here the average priorities of 100 responses so far.

2:39:07 ↗ Waterfront recreation is the number one and then it's playgrounds. So I wasn't totally off.

2:39:12 ↗ You can also filter this information by demographics that people provide when they register. So

2:39:17 ↗ of the responses, most people are of the age of 50 to 59. You can

2:39:22 ↗ look at it by gender, the frequency of participation. So you can see

2:39:31 ↗ For 35 people, this is the first time they used this forum or

2:39:37 ↗ this tool. Others have used it and this is their second topic. So

2:39:42 ↗ you can see just kind of level participation of who we reached, if

2:39:48 ↗ it's someone that's an active participant in city government or someone that may

2:39:54 ↗ be new. When you register, you also can provide your address. This is

2:39:59 ↗ something our neighborhood engagement coordinator is very excited about, in that you can

2:40:05 ↗ provide GIS layers of neighborhoods and see the responses by neighborhood. so you

2:40:11 ↗ can click on this i can see there is a high level response to

2:40:17 ↗ this neighborhood so i click on it and then the tool will spit out

2:40:22 ↗ those 10 responses so i know in this neighborhood these are the responses so

2:40:28 ↗ in that area the number one priority for that neighborhood is waterfront recreation and

2:40:34 ↗ then you also can filter the data too so i may decide that i

2:40:40 ↗ only want to look at people who say that they're residents of sammamish and

2:40:45 ↗ i only want to look at the responses from people who do think that they

2:40:51 ↗ should be acquiring more land for parks, recreation, and open space. And then you apply

2:40:55 ↗ the filter and you can look at the results that way too. So you can

2:41:00 ↗ pick your own filters. This information then can be downloaded in PDF or a CSV

2:41:05 ↗ file. You also can go back after you've registered and look at your own response.

2:41:10 ↗ And then what's great about this is after a decision's been made, staff can go

2:41:14 ↗ in and upload what the outcome of that is. project was. So we can go

2:41:19 ↗ back and close the loop with folks. When you register and sign in, you provide

2:41:23 ↗ your email address and we can let you know about future opportunities for engagement or

2:41:27 ↗ let you know what the outcome was, which I think is also a really great

2:41:31 ↗ way that right now we're asking for a lot of feedback, but we're not always

2:41:35 ↗ closing the loop with residents or community members about what the outcome was. So I

2:41:39 ↗ like that feature a lot as well. Here's another example where the

2:41:45 ↗ city asked several really open-ended questions and just gave respondents a field that said, go

2:41:49 ↗ ahead and fill out what you want. I just wanted to show this option because

2:41:54 ↗ this is one way that you can support other people's comments so you can see

2:41:59 ↗ what are the most popular ideas or responses from the community. And then you also...

2:42:08 ↗ can see who has very similar responses to that one. So a connected statement means

2:42:13 ↗ that this software has looked at what some common words are to see what kind

2:42:18 ↗ of statements are connected. You can also look at this not only by text, but

2:42:23 ↗ You can say, all right, this person who decided not to share their name, they

2:42:28 ↗ have connections with eight other people. And you can look in and say, this person

2:42:32 ↗ also has the same kind of feedback as Bob Moss does, that Paul does. So

2:42:37 ↗ you can kind of start to see a network of who all the supporters are

2:42:41 ↗ or who has some connected thoughts. So I thought that was an interesting feature as

2:42:46 ↗ well. You can also just look at word clouds. So when you ask an open-ended

2:42:50 ↗ question, you can see what, just on a snapshot, what people are talking about.

2:43:02 ↗ This option is really fun, especially for CIP planning and budgeting. And this is where

2:43:08 ↗ you can provide community members $100, $500 and say, how would you best spend that

2:43:14 ↗ money? So it would give you feedback on what priorities are for the community. So

2:43:20 ↗ again, these are not my own feelings, but for police services, I'm going to dedicate

2:43:26 ↗ $20. For neighborhood and policing, I'm going to dedicate $5. And crime prevention,

2:43:32 ↗ I'm going to dedicate $7. So you can go through and you can

2:43:37 ↗ start to build your budget and see how much you're spending as you

2:43:43 ↗ go along. I'm going to give a lot of money to code enforcement.

2:43:49 ↗ So you can see your budget building. And then here is an example

2:43:54 ↗ of how the aggregate submissions look like. So that way you can say,

2:44:00 ↗ all right, in this community, for their $500, the biggest priority is police

2:44:06 ↗ services. The next would be Let's see, economic development and then animal services.

2:44:12 ↗ So you can see it broken down by what priorities are. So that would be

2:44:17 ↗ also really interesting for CIP priorities or any other lists we want people to provide

2:44:22 ↗ their feedback on. And it's a great way to distill that down into how would

2:44:27 ↗ you spend your money in your budget. You can also ask for comments via a

2:44:32 ↗ map. So here the community is asking where should some new bike stations go in

2:44:37 ↗ their community. And I can just dig in on this.

2:47:30 ↗ There's more than one option of things to engage on. This tool is also responsive

2:47:35 ↗ for tablets and phones. About 50% of our web traffic is mobile-based, so that's really

2:47:40 ↗ important for us. Also, this is an exciting tool we could use if we were

2:47:45 ↗ to bring a few iPads to neighborhood meetings and ask for feedback on something that

2:47:49 ↗ may not be the topic of the meeting, but we're looking for some engagement on.

2:47:53 ↗ So we could hand out those tablets and people could submit their comments really easily,

2:47:58 ↗ which is a nice option. And they also have a... an option where you can

2:48:03 ↗ create, it's called Open Town Meeting. So you can post a survey at a meeting

2:48:07 ↗ and everyone can get on their phones and vote live and you can see your

2:48:12 ↗ results voted live. So kind of a fun icebreaker, a way we could do some

2:48:16 ↗ kind of fun intro before a community engagement meeting. So something else to try that

2:48:21 ↗ other communities have had some success with.

2:48:34 ↗ So how would we drive people to this tool? Neighborhood meetings is one thing I've

2:48:39 ↗ already mentioned. Social media will be a huge way that we can drive people online.

2:48:45 ↗ The Issaquah Insider E-News, which has several thousand followers. Our website, and then we've got

2:48:50 ↗ plenty of other communication tools where we can drive people to this one engagement spot.

2:48:55 ↗ So with that, Emily and I are available for any questions. I have a question.

2:49:01 ↗ In the agenda bill, the... - The engagement tool, it says $10,000

2:49:07 ↗ cost annually. So it'd be an ongoing cost. And is there a limit

2:49:13 ↗ with that price, with that ongoing maintenance cost or whatever you call it?

2:49:19 ↗ - Nope. - You can do it however much you want. - I

2:49:24 ↗ find the structuring of the bill a little bit odd. It really seems

2:49:30 ↗ like two different asks. I think you're trying to just be more efficient

2:49:36 ↗ with it. But if there is some other kind of nexus between the

2:49:42 ↗ engagement tool and the survey we want to do for the purposes of informing

2:49:48 ↗ our strategic plan development. Could you address that for me? Sure. I'm very excited

2:49:54 ↗ about how those two pieces complement each other and also will assist us collectively

2:49:59 ↗ with the work plan for this year, which does involve a lot of

2:50:05 ↗ strategic planning efforts, a lot of major capital projects, a lot of

2:50:11 ↗ engagement topics. And I'm also excited about how the two will also contribute

2:50:16 ↗ to where we're going with the strategic plan. I think both will initially the national

2:50:22 ↗ citizen survey will provide us with a foundation. So let's hypothetical would be we see

2:50:28 ↗ some response on that survey that we want to dig in a little bit deeper

2:50:34 ↗ on and pose a variety of questions. the online engagement tool will allow

2:50:40 ↗ us to do that. So National Citizen Survey can be a springboard to posing

2:50:46 ↗ additional questions and then ultimately getting the quality of a strategic plan that you're

2:50:52 ↗ looking for. The national citizen survey, as I said earlier, will

2:50:57 ↗ help us to identify community priorities, which I think is a basic element in

2:51:03 ↗ a strategic plan. You need to know, as we've talked about, a starting place

2:51:09 ↗ of understanding what your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats might be. Survey helps to

2:51:15 ↗ assess that and then you can pose more in-depth questions. You can lead

2:51:21 ↗ discussions around focused topics on the online engagement tool that will then provide

2:51:27 ↗ some of that content for your strategic plan. - Okay, thank you for

2:51:33 ↗ that. So I have one other question and then a comment for your

2:51:38 ↗ consideration. So the question is, so it appears within the language of this

2:51:44 ↗ bill that we're conceding that we are not gonna complete the strategic plan in

2:51:50 ↗ 2017. - That's correct. And during budget deliberations, we talked about that installation being

2:51:56 ↗ just part of it. - Okay, but this is the kind of the first

2:52:01 ↗ time I've seen in writing anywhere or in front of us that this is

2:52:07 ↗ really gonna be the actual completion next year in 2018. Okay, so that's

2:52:13 ↗ unfortunate. I really do. I think the time is now, and so this

2:52:18 ↗ is unfortunate of that timing. The comment is, or I guess it's a

2:52:24 ↗ question as well. Autumn, the last slide you had up there on ways

2:52:30 ↗ that you are going to use, ways that you can promote the availability

2:52:36 ↗ of this tool and citizens opportunities to participate. I would maybe add another one to

2:52:41 ↗ the list and I will maybe ask the clerk if this is actually okay. There

2:52:45 ↗ may be other opinions as well. But you know, why not embed links to certain

2:52:50 ↗ specific questionnaires right inside some of our documentation? Like this, we have agenda bills that

2:52:55 ↗ have all kinds of elements in them, right? And you could write within an agenda

2:53:01 ↗ bill or some attachment to an agenda bill, have a link out to a specific

2:53:06 ↗ questionnaire where we could get specific feedback on content of some policy that we're doing.

2:53:12 ↗ So the link to it could be right within some of the policy language that

2:53:17 ↗ we're working ourselves. Just an idea. But it would be very focused. You know, if

2:53:23 ↗ someone is actually reading the same material and the same considerations that we're making, if

2:53:28 ↗ they would then contribute and we could gather some type of input. You know, you

2:53:34 ↗ can embed links and documents. So it was just another way to maybe use the

2:53:39 ↗ tool to gather feedback on specific policy elements or other legislation we may be considering.

2:53:45 ↗ Mariah? Could you remind me if we were to go forward,

2:53:50 ↗ what would be the timeline to have the results back on the

2:53:56 ↗ citizen survey and be able to take a look at that and

2:54:02 ↗ analyze that? Sure. which is the consultant that has the proprietary national

2:54:08 ↗ citizen survey, has told me that depending on, of course, when we start

2:54:14 ↗ and how much time we want to allocate for each piece of the

2:54:20 ↗ schedule, they can hit a May or June final report presentation or delivery.

2:54:26 ↗ And that would be my goal, That means finalizing the tool in the

2:54:31 ↗ questionnaire in the next couple of weeks or very early March and then

2:54:37 ↗ getting underway with the distribution into the community in say March timeframe. My

2:54:43 ↗ goal would be to wrap up May or June because I think it

2:54:49 ↗ would be helpful for us to have that information as we, look

2:54:55 ↗ toward our budget development process internally and staff first over

2:55:01 ↗ the summertime. Also that would sequence well with a potential

2:55:06 ↗ retreat between senior leadership team and the council to start

2:55:11 ↗ talking about budget priorities. - Thank you. - I'd like

2:55:17 ↗ to move to Authorize the use of $36,000 of the

2:55:22 ↗ 2017 budget allocation for the strategic plan for the purpose of

2:55:28 ↗ conducting a national citizen survey, which is $26,000, and purchasing an

2:55:34 ↗ online engagement tool at $10,000. Moved and seconded. I

2:55:40 ↗ just have a comment to what Paul was saying. It's also a disappointment to me

2:55:45 ↗ that we may not demonstrate any progress on even a first step in a process

2:55:50 ↗ for a strategic plan, but maybe there is an opportunity if we have a council

2:55:55 ↗ retreat or mini-retreat or something this year. that we could have it after this data

2:56:00 ↗ is collected and after this tool is in use and maybe schedule strengths, weaknesses, opportunity,

2:56:05 ↗ threats, some sort of first step discussion in a strategic plan. I'd like to demonstrate

2:56:10 ↗ some progress this year on that. We're not going to get the plan, but I

2:56:15 ↗ don't want to put the whole thing on the back burner. I kind of agree

2:56:20 ↗ with you, it's a bit disappointing. But the presentation they did, exciting. Mariah? We just

2:56:25 ↗ echo Mary Lou's comments in terms of I'm disappointed too that we wouldn't

2:56:31 ↗ be focusing on that but with the amount of work that we have

2:56:37 ↗ I would hope that we could take this as a starting point and

2:56:42 ↗ maybe do something toward the end of the year when the results are

2:56:48 ↗ back to sort of launch into a little mini strategic planning effort I

2:56:53 ↗ guess. Bill? - So just to clarify, so there's 50,000 we set aside, so

2:56:59 ↗ this would leave 14,000 basically unallocated. And if you do the national survey, you gave

2:57:05 ↗ us a timeline on that. The timeline on the software here is probably fairly quickly

2:57:11 ↗ and implement that Basically, because they're going to be totally separate. The national survey is

2:57:15 ↗ using their stuff. This will be our stuff for anything we want in addition to

2:57:20 ↗ that, right? Yeah, and that tool would go, I'd want to implement that as soon

2:57:24 ↗ as possible. We have several engagement efforts starting this month. And one of the largest

2:57:28 ↗ projects, the park strategic plan and working with the consultant was very excited if we

2:57:32 ↗ were to be using the peak democracy tool. So I'd like to get that going

2:57:36 ↗ soon. Yeah. I MIGHT JUST CLARIFY THAT $14,000 WOULD STAY ALLOCATED IN YOUR BUDGET

2:57:42 ↗ TOWARD THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AS THE AGENDA BILL STATES, WE ARE PLANNING TO COME

2:57:47 ↗ BACK MID-YEAR-ISH, SORT OF DURING BUDGET DEVELOPMENT TIME, TO TALK TO YOU MORE ABOUT

2:57:53 ↗ how do you want to proceed with doing a strategic plan knowing that we do

2:57:59 ↗ need additional resources to complete that. But you'd have the 14,000, we'd be having the

2:58:05 ↗ conversation about how to proceed and certainly there are opportunities to either use that allocation

2:58:10 ↗ or a different allocation to get some scope of work done later in the year.

2:58:16 ↗ Thank you. - Yeah, I just, I wanna clarify my comment a little bit about

2:58:22 ↗ disappointment. I know when we went through budget that we were very clear on where

2:58:27 ↗ our priorities were and things related to work program related items related to the moratorium

2:58:32 ↗ and transportation. But we never were definitive that we weren't gonna get the strategic plan

2:58:38 ↗ done in 2017. I also know that there were some other requests for additional staff

2:58:44 ↗ that you had made that would have helped that actually achieve that. I don't

2:58:49 ↗ need to rehash all we went through there. And so I always knew that it

2:58:54 ↗ wasn't we made it, not the top tier. That's correctly reflected in the agenda bill,

2:58:59 ↗ so I'm not debating that at all. But just to now know that, okay, you

2:59:04 ↗ know, we're at this point where we've made this assessment and getting more clarity on

2:59:09 ↗ how we do want to proceed, that the actual kind of completion, to be able

2:59:14 ↗ to kind of deliver, you know, like, you know, the... like Chief Clark did for

2:59:19 ↗ the Eastside Fire and Rescue. We got a document, we got the strategic plan. And

2:59:23 ↗ when we can begin putting together our budgets and our work plans in light of

2:59:28 ↗ this new framework that set priorities and also some sequencing of some key things. So

2:59:33 ↗ my comment was more of, okay, I was hoping it wasn't gonna be true, but

2:59:37 ↗ now I'm hearing it's likely to be true that we're not gonna have that available

2:59:42 ↗ to us. in 2017. So it's not that I didn't know the possibility didn't

2:59:48 ↗ exist. But to the bill itself, it's a very compelling point about doing the

2:59:54 ↗ survey. I mean, that is very critical part of any strategic plan to actually

2:59:59 ↗ get that type of SWOT analysis. I know which is something that you mentioned

3:00:05 ↗ a number of times that we want to complete. and the

3:00:11 ↗ engagement tool is, my only concern about the

3:00:16 ↗ engagement tool is that I hope we don't

3:00:22 ↗ create an impression that maybe certain decisions we need to

3:00:28 ↗ make. Some we can completely blue sky them. We're going to be open to, now

3:00:33 ↗ we don't design and sell t-shirts, but if we wanted to do t-shirt design, we

3:00:37 ↗ could totally 100% crowdsource that and do it. It could be totally open. But some

3:00:42 ↗ things as a city, as a municipality, as a corporation that we run certain lines

3:00:47 ↗ of business, there's a lot more structure. And the input that we receive from our

3:00:52 ↗ citizens, It's not as open. We're gonna give people more limited choices. That's just the

3:00:57 ↗ way a municipality operates. And there's a range of those with a lot of choice,

3:01:03 ↗ versus it's gonna be more restricted, choose between A, B and C. And I hope

3:01:08 ↗ with the survey, I don't wanna create this false impression that everything is wide open

3:01:14 ↗ all the time. We just be setting ourselves up and for our citizens for some

3:01:20 ↗ disappointment. I just wanna make sure that we have clear policy and administrative procedures in

3:01:26 ↗ place that we use that in constructive ways without creating false impression of what

3:01:31 ↗ we're trying to accomplish with a given survey or citizen engagement and feedback.

3:01:37 ↗ I don't know if anybody else kind of shares my concern, but I

3:01:43 ↗ mean, this is so wide open and the capabilities are very, very powerful.

3:01:48 ↗ We still need to be very smart on how we use that.

3:01:55 ↗ - Right, so I have the same comment, first of all, about

3:02:00 ↗ this one that I have about the One Touch agenda that we

3:02:06 ↗ talked about earlier. One Touch, I don't like it. As a policy,

3:02:11 ↗ we shouldn't do it. I understand the timeliness of it, and I

3:02:17 ↗ think in particular, the online engagement tool looks really exciting, and I

3:02:22 ↗ think I find myself wanting to say, I hope we

3:02:28 ↗ don't end up relying on this as a substitute for face-to-face

3:02:34 ↗ interactions. But at the same time, we've also been looking for

3:02:39 ↗ trying to find ways to get more interaction. So, you know,

3:02:45 ↗ be careful what you wish for, right? So I think it

3:02:50 ↗ looks very exciting. and I'll be supporting it. I too am

3:02:56 ↗ disappointed about the strategic plan. This is year four of disappointment. So

3:03:02 ↗ I am at least happy to see that it looks like we

3:03:08 ↗ will make some progress on it this year. Everybody for a vote?

3:03:15 ↗ All those in favor of authorizing the use of $36,000 of the 2017 budget

3:03:21 ↗ allocation for the strategic plan for the purpose of conducting the National Citizen Survey

3:03:27 ↗ for $26,000 and purchasing an online engagement tool for $10,000 signify by saying aye.

3:03:33 ↗ Aye. Those opposed? Say nay. Passes unanimously. Thank you.

3:03:39 ↗ - Madam Pro Tem Mayor. - Yes. - I had a family event this evening

3:03:43 ↗ that started at six and I'm just going to ask if it's okay if I

3:03:48 ↗ can be excused a little early to catch the time. - Yes, you already asked

3:03:52 ↗ me earlier. - Thanks. - Thanks, you're excused. Next item on the agenda is good

3:03:56 ↗ of the order. And after that, we will have an executive session. So is there

3:04:01 ↗ anything for the good of the order? - You know, I said earlier, I was

3:04:05 ↗ gonna talk at the good of the order a little bit about this, but I

3:04:09 ↗ think I'm looking at the time that we've put into this. I guess I wanna,

3:04:14 ↗ this meeting already this evening, I think there would be diminishing returns to try to

3:04:18 ↗ start educating you on regional growth centers and the framework changes. There are some really

3:04:22 ↗ good material. I'll work through the clerk to get that distributed. And I won't be,

3:04:28 ↗ I'll be traveling and I will not be at the work session a week from,

3:04:34 ↗ well, next Monday on the 13th. And that would have been maybe another opportunity to

3:04:40 ↗ talk about this a little bit more. So we're gonna kind of miss that opportunity.

3:04:45 ↗ But the second regular business meeting, later this month, I'm gonna try to be

3:04:51 ↗ more, I'm gonna get, be prepared and have some more structured thing. The issue is

3:04:57 ↗ is that with the regional center kind of redefinition that's gonna happen, there were real

3:05:02 ↗ clear advantages for the city at the time we said let's go forward and apply

3:05:08 ↗ for a regional growth center designation. And maybe some of those advantages are gonna be

3:05:14 ↗ now put at risk. We don't know that. but they could be. But just the

3:05:19 ↗ fact that they've opened this up and they're gonna reform how new centers are designated

3:05:25 ↗ and what happens, the kind of the tiering potential system of existing centers, the likelihood

3:05:31 ↗ of it kind of affecting what we thought we might be eligible for and the

3:05:36 ↗ benefits, I think is pretty significant. So it would be very important for this council

3:05:40 ↗ to be very clear on any type of kind of stake we put in the

3:05:44 ↗ ground and trying to affect this change in a way that we think is right.

3:05:49 ↗ for the region, but also especially right for Issaquah. Everybody's gonna need to be a

3:05:54 ↗ little bit more informed. I'm looking at you two because you weren't on the council

3:05:59 ↗ when we went through that whole designation process and there was a lot of learning

3:06:04 ↗ that we did about that. So I think, I've said this many times before, we

3:06:09 ↗ now know this, that when any one of us represents the council at a regional

3:06:15 ↗ committee or somewhere, when we say, "I've talked to my council and my council prefers

3:06:20 ↗ this position or we've taken some position," You see it at the PIC and SCA

3:06:25 ↗ quite a bit. That's a very powerful testimony, and it's the best way for actually

3:06:30 ↗ us to get leverage and actually influence other policy makers. And so that's, I mean,

3:06:35 ↗ I'd like to be able to get to the point where we could do that

3:06:39 ↗ same thing. But it will require some additional time and coming up to speed and

3:06:44 ↗ I know by the end of June, the Growth Management Policy Board will be making

3:06:49 ↗ a recommendation to the Executive Committee at PSRC. So that's the very latest by which

3:06:55 ↗ we have to be, I think as a city and as a council, clear on

3:07:01 ↗ what type of recommendation, what type of updates we would like to see. So

3:07:06 ↗ I'll be providing more information and talking about it and maybe we could brainstorm a

3:07:12 ↗ little bit more as we did during leadership this morning on how we can help

3:07:17 ↗ with the education process. - For all of us? - For all of us, absolutely.

3:07:22 ↗ - Okay, anything else for good of the order? Mariah. - I just wanted to

3:07:27 ↗ quickly echo the comments during the proclamation for the Issaquah Press. And I just wanted

3:07:32 ↗ to say that I, was shocked and saddened by the news. With my journalism

3:07:37 ↗ background, I have been impressed ever since I moved to Issaquah with

3:07:43 ↗ the Issaquah Press and their whole journalism team. And I just think

3:07:49 ↗ this is a huge loss for our community and they're going to

3:07:55 ↗ be greatly missed. - Thank you. Anything else for good of the

3:08:01 ↗ order? Okay.

3:08:04 ↗ The

3:08:21 ↗ next

3:08:38 ↗ item

3:08:55 ↗ on

3:09:11 ↗ our

3:09:28 ↗ agenda

3:09:45 ↗ is

3:10:01 ↗ executive

3:10:18 ↗ session.

3:10:35 ↗ We

3:10:51 ↗ will

3:11:08 ↗ now

3:11:25 ↗ recess

3:11:42 ↗ into

3:11:58 ↗ executive

3:12:15 ↗ session

3:12:32 ↗ for

3:12:48 ↗ the

3:13:05 ↗ purpose

3:13:22 ↗ of

3:13:39 ↗ discussing

3:13:55 ↗ property

3:14:12 ↗ acquisition

3:14:29 ↗ per

3:14:45 ↗ RCW

3:15:02 ↗ 4230.110.1b.

3:15:19 ↗ This

3:15:35 ↗ item

3:15:52 ↗ is

3:16:09 ↗ expected

3:16:26 ↗ to

3:16:42 ↗ take

3:16:59 ↗ approximately

3:17:16 ↗ 10

3:17:32 ↗ minutes.

3:17:49 ↗ Action

3:18:06 ↗ is

3:18:22 ↗ anticipated

3:18:39 ↗ to

3:18:56 ↗ follow

3:19:13 ↗ in

3:19:29 ↗ open

3:19:46 ↗ session.

3:20:03 ↗ Okay,

3:20:19 ↗ we

3:20:36 ↗ are

3:20:53 ↗ back

3:21:09 ↗ in

3:21:26 ↗ session

3:21:43 ↗ and

3:22:00 ↗ we

3:22:16 ↗ are,

3:22:33 ↗ we'll

3:22:50 ↗ make

3:23:06 ↗ a

3:23:23 ↗ motion

3:23:40 ↗ in

3:23:56 ↗ just

3:24:13 ↗ a

3:24:30 ↗ minute.

3:24:51 ↗ in just a few

3:24:57 ↗ seconds. - Looking for

3:25:02 ↗ the actual acquisition for

3:25:08 ↗ 4.7 million. - Appreciate

3:25:13 ↗ it. I move that

3:25:19 ↗ we authorize the mayor

3:25:24 ↗ to execute a purchase

3:25:29 ↗ and sale agreement for

3:25:35 ↗ the Costco property for

3:25:40 ↗ $4.7 million. - Second.

3:25:46 ↗ - Any discussion? All

3:25:51 ↗ right, ready for the

3:25:56 ↗ vote. All those in

3:26:02 ↗ favor say aye. -

3:26:07 ↗ Aye. - Any opposed?

3:26:13 ↗ It passes. - All right, if you don't have anything else

3:26:19 ↗ on our agenda, we are adjourned, thank you.

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Stacy Goodman

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Tola Marts

Motions and votes (8)

AFFIRM, uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner granting final plat approval and adopt the Hearing Examiner’s findings and conclusions in support of the decision [dated Jan. 4, 2017]. . (Opponents: Pauly, Ramo

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by BARBER

Carried 4-2

In favor: Stacy Goodman, Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos

Authorize $25,000 of 2014-2019 King County Parks Levy funds for the 2017 Parks Strategic Plan, and direct the Finance Director to include $25,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment.

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-0

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

Award the construction contract to Quigg Bros, Inc., in the amount of $23,078,983.03 (including sales tax).

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by RAMOS

Carried 6-0

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

1. Direct the Administration to proceed with Maple St. NW/Trader Joe's/Target Intersection Improvement Alternative 3 and installation of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons; and 2. Authorize an additional allocation from the General Fund ending fund balance to fund the intersection improvements and dire…

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Failed 2-4

In favor: Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Stacy Goodman, Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Bill Ramos

1. Direct the Administration to proceed with Maple St. NW/Trader Joe's/Target Intersection Improvement Alternative 2 and installation of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons; and 2. Authorize an additional allocation from the General Fund ending fund balance to fund the intersection improvements and dire…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BARBER

Carried 4-2

In favor: Stacy Goodman, Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Bill Ramos

Opposed: Mary Lou Pauly, Paul Winterstein

Authorize the use of $36,000 of the 2017 budget allocation for the strategic plan for the purpose of conducting the National Citizen Survey ($26,000) and purchasing an online engagement tool ($10,000). .

Moved by BARBER · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

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

Authorize the Mayor to execute a purchase and sale agreement for the Costco Property for $4.7 million. .

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 6-0

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

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Feb. 8, 2017; Approved $ 7,967,700.64. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK NUMBERS AMOUNT Accounts Payable Replacement Check 166054 to 166054 867.15 Accounts Payable Replacement Check 166055 to 166055 1,976.06 Accounts Payable Replacemen…

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-0

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