I'll call the uh city council regular
meeting for Tuesday, February the 21st,
2017 to order and ask those who would
like to join the council and me and the
pledge of allegiance to please stand.
I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Our first item under special business
this evening is agenda bill
7311, the mayor's state of the city
address.
My fellow citizens, community members,
business leaders, city employees, and
Isiqua City Council members, I'm pleased
to appear before you tonight to present
my state of the city address.
During my past three years as Isakqua's
mayor, many of you have visited my
office at city
hall. Inside you will find my favorite
tool a
whiteboard. Along with quotes that
inspire me and occasional notes from my
grandchildren, my whiteboard
consistently features Isiqua's
strengths weaknesses opportunities
and threats.
Mapping out our city's SWAT
analysis helps all of us at city hall to
see the larger picture, set
priorities, and continually focus on
what is
next. Alongside my whiteboard, however,
you'll find two other
tools, an eraser and plenty of dry erase
markers.
Thanks to consistent feedback from
citizens, community leaders, city staff,
business owners, and regional
partners, this SWAT analysis is a fluid,
everchanging
snapshot of this roadmap for reaching
our ultimate vision where we are the
best place uh to invest in your
future. In a way, this evolving
whiteboard represents what makes Isiqua
so
special. By listening to each other,
considering all perspectives, and
setting common goals, we are a stronger
community. It all comes down to
partnerships.
Whether through citizen engagement or
relationships formed at the regional
level, Isiqua's partnerships are
essential to our future
success. Our history proves this. From
the creation of the Isqua Highlands to
the recently voter approval of Sound
Transit 3.
You may
ask,
what's on your whiteboard
today? First and foremost, the state of
the city is
strong, but challenges
remain. Tonight, you'll hear about some
of these strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats. And together
using
partnerships on an individual, group and
agency level, we will achieve our common
goals. Our number one focus as a
community is
clear. Tackling
traffic. Both a threat and an
opportunity. Traffic must be addressed
at a regional level.
Congestion doesn't stop at our city
boundaries. Last November, during a
regional transportation summit hosted by
Isiqua, we heard a common theme from
state, county, and local
leaders. We are not alone.
Cities surrounding Isiqua and throughout
the Pacific
Northwest are battling with regional
pass through traffic on a daily
basis. If you weren't able to attend the
summit, here's the Cliff's Note version.
Regional problems mandate regional
solutions.
No single
city in our area is isolated and
unaffected by any other
city. People today and in the future
will continue to move between
communities to access jobs, schools,
entertainment housing recreation and
more.
As a region, we must work together to
ensure our transportation system
reflects the reality of our
interconnectedness. I'm thankful we have
dedicated partners committed to working
together on this regional issue.
In the first quarter of 2017 this year,
technical staff from each city in King
County plan to meet, share existing
data, and develop a regional arterial
network which will help the group
identify long-term funding solutions.
As part of that effort, I plan to create
a regional partnership focused solely on
how to relieve congestion along Isiqua
Hobart Road. This partnership will
include state and county
representatives along with several local
cities. Our corridor study of that uh uh
that road which is currently underway
thanks to uh King County's partnership
is just one step needed to tackle
this consistent
headache. You'll hear a common theme
tonight.
Partnerships turn ideas into action.
A great example is the success of Sound
Transit 3, which will someday bring
light rail to
Isiqua. Long-term transportation
solutions don't happen
overnight. Voters strong support of ST3,
however, proved that our vision for
planning for mobility at a regional
level is on the right track.
Light rail, however, won't fix today's
traffic
congestion. Next month, we will
celebrate the groundbreaking of an
exciting project which will build a new
road connecting East Lake Samameish
Parkway to Costco's international
headquarters.
This significant capital project won't
wouldn't be possible without Costco's
funding assistance and partnership.
This is a great example of how we're
working together with local employers to
grow Isiqua's economy while also
investing in
infrastructure. Creating more good
paying jobs within our community and
reducing the amount of time we all spend
in our cars is a win-win.
To expand transit service options for
residents and employees in two pockets
of our community, Squawk Mountain and
Talis, Isiqua will partner with King
County Metro and local stakeholders this
year to develop an alternative services
pilot
program. Last fall, after significant
public input, Isiqua placed a 50 million
traffic improvement bond on the
ballot. While a majority of Isiqua's
voters supported it, the measure didn't
reach the required 60% yes threshold
needed for approval.
It's clear, however, that a majority of
Isiqua voters are supportive of making
local investments to reduce
congestion, enhance safety, and improve
our local
streets. As a next step, we will be
conducting some research to answer
everyone's question, what's next? How do
we as a community invest in needed
infrastructure
improvements? As we begin a new year, I
always like to reflect on the
past. Isiqua has a strong history of
implementing smart growth philosophies
and our most current chapter reflects
that
tradition. In 2012, to protect Isiqua's
existing neighborhoods and natural
environment, the city adopted the
central Isiqua plan to guide the
long-term evolution of our existing
commercial core into an urban center.
While this long range plan sets an
important vision, it also requires
periodic tweaks to incorporate changing
conditions. Using a moratorum this year,
we pushed the pause button to address
several issues before more development
proceeds, including architectural fit
within the community and availability of
affordable housing.
The city is continuing its work to
develop a housing
strategy through analysis and feedback
from
residents employers service
organizations, and builders. The housing
strategy will inform ways in which the
city can help shape the affordability
and types of housing in Isiqua.
Our goals is to enhance the city's
character and environment while
providing a diversity of choices to meet
the needs of people who choose to live,
work, and play in
Isiqua. As we all know, more people will
choose the Pacific Northwest as their
home in the coming years and decades.
We are fortunate to live in a very
desirable region, one that attracted
more than
86,000 new residents in the past two
years
alone. Throughout our community, from
Facebook to local coffee shops, many
community conversations are taking place
about growth.
Understanding our residents views is
essential as we focus on future planning
efforts. Speaking of growth, the city is
also closely partnering with the Isiqua
School District as it plans its future
facilities within Isiqua to meet current
and
future population demands.
Now turning back to my
whiteboard, a key focus for 2017 is
service
delivery. The city of Isiqua is after
all in business in the business of
service. Each of us is dedicated to
serving our residents, businesses, and
larger community no matter their
background.
Several planned capital projects on the
horizon will target traffic congestion,
enhance our parks, and improve our
public
assets. As we work to deliver these
amenities, the city is approaching each
project with a focus on continuous
improvement and partnership.
Now's the time to revisit our capital
improvement plan process, which will
help better inform decision making as we
develop future city
budgets. Meanwhile, a focus on crossf
functional teams will also enhance our
internal project
management. Here in Isiqua, we have
plenty to celebrate. From our
breathtaking natural beauty to Isiqua's
inspiring community members, it's no
wonder our city is a desirable place to
raise a family, build a business, or
enjoy
retirement. And in 2017, we have another
reason, 125th anniversary.
In the coming months, look for a variety
of opportunities to celebrate our
history. From community events to
partnerships with local businesses and
nonprofits, as we honor our past, we are
also focusing on the future. Along with
delivering important capital projects in
2017, Isiqua is moving full steam ahead
on long range planning efforts that
require significant partnerships within
the
community. We're shaping the vision for
our
parks, assessing your needs through a
healthy community strategy, and
reflecting on our shared vision for
Oldtown.
Each of these efforts will require
significant public engagement. From
neighborhood meetings to new online
engagement tools, further strengthening
customer connections ensures we as
public servants are providing
exceptional customer service.
As we recognized earlier this month, our
community is preparing to say goodbye to
the Isiqua Press, the oldest newspaper
on the east side, which will cease
operations later this
month. The press has told our community
stories for the past 117 years.
Now more than ever, it is essential that
we foster engagement opportunities
ensure citizens remain informed about
important community decisions that will
affect their everyday
lives. In conclusion, tonight has
personal significance for me. This will
be my last State of the City address.
After much consideration, I will not be
running for reelection as your
mayor. While 2018 will be a year of
change for Isiqua's leadership, I'm
confident our community strong
partnerships will ensure a smooth
transition.
We have an exciting and challenging year
ahead and I intend to be fully engaged
as we continue our mission to provide
quality services that support a
sustainable, safe, and welcoming
community that is
inclusive for everyone.
As you will hear throughout our birthday
celebrations this year, history happens
every day. I'm excited to see what
Isiqua's next chapter holds. Thank you
very much.
[Applause]
Next uh we uh we move to audience
comments. Citizen comments are an
important part of the public process. We
take them seriously and factor them into
the decisions that we make. Anyone from
the public who wishes to comment will
have the opportunity to do so. Please
direct comments to the whole council,
not individuals. While this is not a
question and answer session, we will
contact you to follow up if needed. If
you did not have an opportunity include
to include your email address on the
signup sheet, you may leave that
information on the clipboard at the
front table in front of me after
speaking.
When recognized, please move to the
lectern. Speak into the microphone.
State your name, address, and any
relationship to the city. Limit your
comments to five minutes, and submit any
written comments to the city
clerk. As an aside, we have two
scheduled public hearings this evening.
uh uh one uh on agenda bill
7215 ninth major amendment to the Isqua
Highlands two-party development
agreement and the other uh uh agenda
bill
7291 to consider additional extension to
the temporary moratorum related to
certain permit
applications. So, uh, those two public,
uh, hearings will provide an opportunity
if you would like to speak to those two
issues. A visual timer has been placed
on the lectern. It turns yellow. Uh,
when you are within the last minute of
your comment period. If you use the full
five minutes, the timer will sound to
indicate the end of your allotted
comment time. Personal attacks, obscene
language, derogatory remarks, and
disruptive behavior will not be
permitted. Uh again, citizen comments,
written and verbal, are an important
aspect of the public process. The city
takes them seriously, and we thank
members for the public for taking the
time to address us this evening. And
with that, I would ask uh the clerk, has
anyone signed up to speak this evening?
Yes, Lindseay Walsh.
Just um my name is Lindseay Walsh. I'm
in the Highlands at
176928th Avenue Northeast. Um and just
looking further down the consent
calendar, I am really pleased to see AB
7331 about the public engagement
toolkit. I read it over. I'm really
pleased that our community is going in
that direction. Um, and I like so many
of the elements of that and I just
wanted to say thank you for considering
it and I hope it moves forward and gets
active engagement in the community.
Thank you. Thank you.
Steve Pereira.
Hi, my name is Steve Pereira. Uh, Mayor
Butler, I'm sorry it'll see be your last
year on the council. you've been
actively engaged and involved. So, thank
you publicly. Um, so I'm here to talk
about two things in part of the general
comment section. The first this start of
the year I've been kind of thinking
about democracy uh not in the sense of
democrat or republic and but in the
sense of democracy is the engagement of
people in the public process. Um, and
kind of that light I've been thinking
about uh indeed the demise of this the
Isqua press. Uh, one of the things I
really liked about there was a section
that listed all the things that were
going on in the city each week and as a
way of being engaged and involved. I
didn't know if at this hour there's any
way for the city to take more
advertisement in the paper to expand
that section to say things like carry
parts of the agenda or the topics as a
way of kind of a lifeline to the city of
Isqua and the city of Isqua press as a
way of staying engaged in that process.
If there's any way for that to happen, I
think that should be followed up as part
of that engagement process. Uh, barring
that, I'd like to see if the city could
I know the city has you can sign up for
different activities and events on in
Isqua, whether it's rivers and streams
or uh various activities, send out links
to active links to uh things like city
council meetings and agenda meetings and
active links to engage people in the
process and not have to make us go to
the website and find and look for the
things, make it more apparent and
transparent.
uh of course and I'm sure all of you up
in the das are aware of this the
announcement or the appointments of
various city councils will be various
city committees we made later this year
anybody in sound of the my voice or my
presence might be seeing this please
take this opportunity to be engaged and
uh participate in the process uh the
second activity I wanted to talk about
is uh item G in the consent calendar
which is uh docket of comprehensive plan
amendments And uh in that the policy
planning commission has been looking at
eight of the 17 activities with the
remaining nine seven nine of 17
activities being deferred until next
year. Uh which to me is a shame. This is
really kind of the blueprint and of who
we want to become as a city and we're
not even looking at the first half.
Uh I think a lot of those things that
we're not even talking about this year
have direct bearing on things like the
zoning or not zoning but on the u
developmental moratorium that we need to
look at like the transportation and the
uh we talked about the green necklace or
uh tree canopy. I think that should if
anything be expanded to talk about
wildlife zones. Uh I'm not trying to
talk about those things here. I'm just
referencing as another example, let's
say the Bergsma property where we talk
about the city talks about wanting to
retain a 50% tree canopy. We're going to
be losing an awful lot of trees uh or
tree canopy with that and that seems to
be in not in compliance with where we're
wanting to go as a city and maintaining.
Um so I would look at more whatever
needs to be more staffing more time to
develop that
uh comprehens not comprehensive plan the
uh comprehensive plan
amendments before we do things like
lifting the moratorum because we're not
putting those things in the correct
order for them to happen develop the
plan and
then developed in accord to that plan.
So please go back and uh review that.
Other than that, I'll reserve any other
comments for the moratorium until a
little bit later. Thank you all. Thank
you.
Julie Adam,
my name is Julie Adameck and I live at
1667 24th Place Northeast up in the
Highlands. And I'm um simply just here
to say how thrilled I am that you are
considering more affordable housing. I
would be the first person on that list.
Um I work for the school district and um
I have lived up in the Highlands for
many years and
um I'm just here to say I'm watched the
last two videos the meetings that you
had online but wasn't able to make it. I
was actually kind of surprised there
weren't more people in attendance in
support of that. But I just want to make
sure I came and let you know that I was
really happy to see that that it's being
considered. Um whether was it tracked D
or the other one down by the um bus bus
bus station I really have no preference
but um I'm mainly wondering what I'm
wondering about that I guess would be
for Polygon what the price is if there's
any kind of price point what
affordability means um at this point if
that's even um known. So anyway thank
you. Thank you.
No one else has signed up to speak. Is
there anyone desiring to speak who has
not uh signed up?
Anyone desiring to speak? Yes, sir.
Uh good evening. I thought I had signed
in, but perhaps there is a uh
Sorry. Did you sign in for the uh one of
the two public hearings? Yes, I did.
Okay. Well, where that comes later in
the agenda? I'm jumping the gun then. I
will withhold my comments until that
time. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Uh is there anyone uh else desiring to
speak who has not signed up? Third and
final call. Anyone else? Seeing none,
then audience comments are closed and
we'll now move to committee and regional
reports. Uh beginning with council
member Batis.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh on February
15th, I attended uh my first King
Conservation District uh committee uh
both the caucus and the committee
meeting. And of note uh in a very long
sort of overview and introduction
program um was the member jurisdiction
grant program. Um, and we got a chance
to view the the new online application
portal and the dedicated pages to the
member uh organizations and they've
really done a lot of work to make that
whole process much easier and I just
want to make sure that we are all aware
of that. So, I'll I'll definitely be
wrapping around uh with some um staff
members to talk a little bit more about
that. The next meeting uh is March 15th
in Reon. I also attended the uh economic
development uh council uh board meeting.
Well, first was an orientation so all of
the new members could meet each other
and then we'll have our first board
meeting on February 28th. And that
concludes my report. Thank you. Thank
you, Council Member Ramos. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor. on um February 8th, I
attended the emergency management uh
advisory council and I have no report
from there. Uh on the 9th, just to say I
went to my first east side fire and
rescue meeting. I'm an alternative
alternate member this year. Uh so I'll
let someone else report that, but I just
want to say I'm going there now. Um on
the 10th of February, I was the East
Side Transportation Partnership and a
couple things happened there of note. Uh
one of which, uh you may remember I'm on
the legislative committee there. Uh I
also now got drafted on the planning
committee there. So I'll be helping set
the agenda for the year for that. Uh but
they had a presentation there I want to
let everybody know about. Um there was a
council member from Maple Valley uh who
is proposing a transportation benefit
district for southeast King County. And
all the details get very very detailed,
shall I say, but I'll give you a quick
little overview. The area would start at
Isiziqua's southern border and go south
from there and bounce down to Reton. So
that southeast corner, King County is
what they're looking at. This is and I
say just just a proposal. Maple Valley
has taken the lead on it and they are uh
trying to com uh include three other
cities, Coington, Black Diamond, and
Enimclaw as well as all the uh King
County area in between. Um, and their
proposal is to put together $250
million and and to do that by having a
$30 uh license tab fee and that would
raise 20% of the funds and to get the
other 80% from other grant sources. And
they the proposal is to spend those $250
million on four projects. 180 million of
that would be on Highway 169, which is a
major one in and out of there, of
course, 46 million on Highway
516, 20 million on Highway 410, and
interestingly enough, 4 million on the
Isqua Hobart Road, a couple roundabouts.
So, they are just starting that process.
They're going kind of taking it around,
letting folks know what they're doing.
They have a lot of work to do to get
something like that put together. Um,
but let you know that that's that's what
I know at this point in time. It'll be
interesting.
Um then on uh let's see coming up on the
22nd tomorrow uh will be the uh
infrastructure committee meeting and I'm
starting as a new chair on that uh this
year and on the agenda on that is uh
four major topics. Uh first one is uh
complete streets and we'll be looking at
what projects are going to be done
completed this year in the complete
streets program of the money that's
already in the budget. So we'll be
deciding that. Second one is uh agenda
bill
7308 and that's uh starting the to look
at improvements on Gilman Boulevard.
It'd be just a start of doing the survey
work to start getting the the base
information so we long term we can make
a plan for that boulevard but now it's
just starting to gather the information.
Um both those are coming back to the
infrastructure committee. Um a new one
that is starting uh is the uh question
uh and it's just up for discussion. The
question on the uh traffic coming in
Oldtown East Sunset area. So that's
discussion will be starting um there. No
decisions on that. Uh the last one is
also coming back to infrastructure. It's
the AB
7249. It's discussion of of the creation
of a transport transportation mobility
board and that's coming back with some
further discussion and see where that
goes. Uh again, not planned for a final
decision on that either. Um and then
project updates. Another thing we'll
also discuss is the March meeting is
going to be moved because of conflict
with that dates. That'll be decided
tomorrow night as well. I'll let you all
know that. So, but that will be moved in
March as well as this one tomorrow. It
has been moved from last week. And
um then also on the 23rd, I'll be
attending the uh regional transportation
uh regional transit committee. Um two
major things on that agenda. Uh again
stepping into the program of work.
They're looking at how to guides to
develop their service and capital
decisions and looking at the main
problem of how can they expand their
system when right now cap infrastructure
and capital is one of their limiting
factors such as they don't they need
another bus base if they want to add
more buses. They're at capacity. Those
types of things and those are major
decisions and how to how to make those
and and move on down the road with
those. Uh, so that's what we're going to
be working on a lot this year. And, uh,
that concludes my report. Thank you,
Council Member Winterside. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor. The, um, the only committee
I'm going to report on is next Thursday.
There will be a meeting of the Puget
Sound Regional Council's Growth
Management Policy Board. The agenda for
that has not yet been published.
However, I do know that we will be
talking about the new regional centers
framework report that was released last
week. Uh, and I've been kind of um
letting you guys know kind of the
process of that that becoming available.
We're going to have some discussions
about this. The uh that um regional
cent's framework update um will likely
have an impact on Isiqua and uh the the
policy board is aiming for um the July
time frame to make a recommendation to
the executive committee. So, we have a
couple months but um to to decide as a
council and as a city uh you know what
direction we'd like to see any changes
take. Uh and I was encouraged I I liked
what I just heard about the TBD down
south and Mr. Mayor you talked about the
the the new committee to regional
traffic requires regional solutions.
That type of partnership I think is in
the spirit of I think that type of
changes uh I think we're going to be
discussing in this city when it comes to
uh regional centers framework. That
concludes my report. Thank you, uh,
Council Member Mars. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor. Uh, the Council Services and
Safety Committee met on, uh, February
8th here in City Hall. Uh, I'm sorry.
Sound Cities I get my two committees
mixed up. Sun Cities Association Public
Issues Committee met on February 8th in
Reton City Hall. And there were no
action items other than housekeeping
related uh, items. There was a
discussion uh of no uh we noted the uh
GMPB's uh evolving uh uh interest in
perhaps changing the way urban center uh
urban centers are designated and uh u
eager to see how that how that might
potentially affect Isiqua. Uh and then
the sound city the services and safety
committee met on February 14th. Agenda
bill 7282 was the arch 2017 proposed
work program and budget. Uh that was uh
recommended action 3 to 0 in favor of
moving forward to the March 6th consent
agenda. Agenda bill 7283 was an arch
related uh trust fund bill and that was
also moved 3 to 0. Uh we had an opioid
use report which was very informative.
Uh and if anyone's interested now that
we have committee uh meetings televised,
I would encourage folks at home to take
a look at that report that David
Fujimoto uh presented. Uh additionally,
SCA is planning on having I believe for
the May I believe it's the May pick um
we're going to have the prep meeting on
opioid use and its relationship with
property
crime. And then we also had a senior
center update and the transition thus
far has been uh very smooth. Jeff
Watling uh told us about uh uh the
programs uh that are in place and that
uh initial reports back have been very
positive moving forward. Uh both folks
who uh had been involved and folks uh
who had recently returned to the senior
center. This concludes my report. Thank
you. Uh Council Member Barber. No report
this evening. Council member Paulie.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I attended the
Cascade Water Alliance Resource
Committee meeting on February 9th at
their offices in Belleview. They
reviewed a few contract bid offerings um
for recommendation for board approval.
The board meeting is this week. They
also had a discussion of the water
quality management work plan that has
been developed for uh Lake Taps. Um
there was a new policy uh proposal that
will also be going to the board on how
Cascade will uh deal with property
acquisitions going forward and notifying
the board at various stages through
those processes.
There was a the probably the most
interesting issue um for Isiqua was that
there is a draft policy that is going to
come forward regarding how reclaimed
water is used within the Cascade Water
Alliance Service District. This is uh an
issue that I'll probably be able to
provide more information on in the
following
months. Uh the EHER board meeting was on
February 9th at Ephera headquarters. Uh
the first item up was an introduction
and recognition for the staff of the
finance and human resources department.
Uh they completed a year of installing
their new financial software and now are
down to their new platform only. We had
a new formalized warrant review process
that the board approved and then the
fire chief reported out on a uh benefit
summary of healthc care benefits and an
update on the POS property. uh POS
impacts to the headquarters property. Uh
potential bidding opportunity to the
Snowquami Fire Department to get the
equipment maintenance contract and also
provided some information about the
firefighters benevolent fund program to
provide life jackets at var three lakes
in the area lakeish, Pine Lake, and
Rattlesnake
Lake. That's my report. Thank you,
Council President Goodman. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
The land and shore committee meets on
March 2nd at 6:30 here in council
chambers. Um and uh as uh council member
Marcus noted the committees are
televised. So I encourage people to
watch. On the agenda for that meeting um
we have a standing item moratorum
update. Uh just a few minutes to discuss
any um updates that there might be.
Agenda bill
7317 vertical mixeduse analysis uh for
discussion only. um which uh will be
getting some feedback and then it will
be going on to the work session uh
planning policy um uh commission back to
Landon Shore back to city council. So
it's just one of the public touch
points. Agenda Bill 7270 uh the 2016 uh
comprehensive comprehensive plan
amendments. We are continuing to work on
those. hope to uh get that back to the
full council with a recommendation after
Landon Shore agenda bill 7330 which is
2017 docket of comprehensive plan
amendments. We will be discussing the
list of items that will be um moving
through the um amendment process this
year. And the last item for discussion
only is a sustainable building action
strategy. Uh this was a council goal. Uh
we last discussed this at our November
work session and we'll get an update and
then it will be going to a work session
and then uh back to city council in May.
That's my report. Thank you. Uh there
will be an executive session held this
evening for the purpose of discussing
property acquisition per
RCW42.30.110
pernb and collective bargaining per
RCW42.30.140
30.140 per N4. These items are expected
to take approximately 70 minutes. Action
is anticipated to follow in open
session. I'm pleased to announce that
the city of Isiqua was recently
recognized as a storm ready community by
the National Weather Service. This
recognition uh uh is uh thanks to the
hard work of our emergency management
staff uh who help our community prepare
for emergencies and disasters. For more
information on how to prepare, go to
isuawa.govm. Following recent events on
the national stage, I want to reassure
our community that nothing has changed
here in Isiqua. Our community as always
is welcome welcoming of all people. As
your city government, we welcome all
people and ideas with the belief that we
are smarter and stronger when we join
together.
Similar to several sanctuary cities
throughout our region and nation, Isiqua
uh has always provided services and
enforced the law equally, fairly, and
without discrimination towards any
individual or group, regardless of
immigration status. Importantly, our
Isiqua Police Department is committed to
providing law enforcement services to
the community without regard to racial,
cultural, or other
differences. As your local government,
we are ensuring that all staff have
clear direction not to inquire about
immigration status when interacting with
our community. We want all members of
the community to feel safe. Uh uh
uh
yes and secure
uh when interacting with our officers,
accessing city services, and engaging
with us. If you or your family feel
unsafe or need assistance, or if you see
harassment or hate crimes in our
community, call 911
immediately. We will always be a
community that embraces diversity and
welcomes all viewpoints. Thank you for
your support in keeping Isiqua a safe
community for everyone. And that uh
concludes the mayor's report. Uh sorry
for that stumble on the last topic. Uh
we'll now move to the consent calendar
and I would ask if the accounts payable
and payroll uh dated 21 February have
been reviewed. Yes. Yes. Uh with that I
would ask the clerk to read into the
record the consent calendar.
The consent calendar was distributed to
council in advance for study if
authorized. Council action will occur by
single motion regarding the following
items. Item A seeks approval of the
accounts payables and payroll of
February 21st. Items B and C seeks
approval of the minutes of the city
council regular meeting and special
meeting of February 8th. Item D,
AB7276, King County Conservation Futures
Tax Levy 2018 grant seeks to authorize
submittal. Item E,
AB7292, Northwest Dogwood Bridge
replacement seeks to accept project and
release retainage. Item F AB7324 lodging
tax advisory committee annual
appointments seeks to confirm. Item G
AB7330 2017 docket of comprehensive plan
amendments seeks referral to council
land and shore committee. Item H AB7331
public engagement toolkit seeks referral
to council services and safety
committee. This concludes the reading.
Uh thank you. Does any council member
desire to move uh any item on the
consent calendar to regular business for
separate
consideration? Seeing none, then council
president Goodman, I would move to adopt
the consent calendar as presented.
Second.
It's moved and seconded. Uh all in favor
signify by saying I. I. Those opposed.
That carries unanimously.
Moving now to uh uh item eight on our
agenda, agenda, public hearing. Uh the
first agenda bill 7215, the ninth major
amendment to the Isiqua Highlands
two-party development agreement.
Uh-holy Northwest requesting major
modification for transfer of development
rights.
Uh the the comments that I offered uh
earlier uh for uh audience comments uh
uh uh are still in effect. Uh we
appreciate those coming to uh uh to
speak uh at this public hearing. When
recognized uh again come to the lectan,
state your name, address, and any
relationship to the city and you have
five minutes uh to speak. The yellow
light comes on when you are with uh
within a minute and uh uh uh if you have
written comments uh you can submit those
to the city clerk. Uh with that uh I
will open the public hearing at uh
7:47 and uh we'll kick things off with a
a brief
uh let me
see a a short presentation by Keith Nan,
our director of development services.
Thank you Mr. Mayor, city council. Um
Keith Nan, director of economic
development and development services. So
uh this evening is a continuation of the
public hearing um for the ninth major
amendment to the Zqua Highlands
development agreement. Um and I'm just
going to quickly go through a summary to
get everybody back up to speed because
it's uh it's been a month um since we
talked about this last. So, the proposal
is to add 100 transfer of development
rights to Isiqua Highlands and
specifically uh it's to property that's
owned by the applicant Polygon
Northwest. And to give you all, um some
orientation on this map, you can see the
Safeway. Here's the Highlands um drive
and 9th Avenue coming down the hill.
Swedish sits down here. Um, this is
Discovery uh Drive which leads out to
West Highlands Park and Polygon owns
property north of Discovery and south of
High
Street. Um, want to kind of go through
this really quickly. get some numbers
and and I don't want to spend too much
time here, but I think part of what's
important here is to talk about kind of
the history of the entitlement in Isiqua
Highlands um and where we are today
versus where we started back in 1995.
So, the original development agreement
had 3250 residential units, 2.95 million
square feet of commercial, and
425,000 square feet of retail space. Um
the first amendment included um some
preserved uh property called Mitchell
Hill. This was transfer of development
rights from King County into the city
and it included 500,000 square feet and
it could be either used as retail or
commercial space.
Um the second uh thing that that changed
the original numbers was the development
agreement had a provision which allowed
the master developer to increase the
number of residential units by up to
700. And what that meant was that the
commercial square footage went down
by 1,200 square feet per one residential
unit which was the conversion which
equals 840,000 square feet for those of
you who want to know the math. Um then
there was an additional 500 residential
units that were added as part of the
washd development agreement. Um so
before this proposal tonight the numbers
currently as they sit are 4450
residential units
uh 2.11 million square ft of commercial
space and approximately
925,000 square feet of retail. And
that's assuming that all of this
500,000, which could have gone either as
retail or commercial, is likely going to
pan out as retail space. It's not built
yet. The owner could go either way, but
it's most likely going to be retail
because it's owned by Regency Centers
and um Shelter Holdings. Um so then what
we have here is uh this line in the
chart which is 100 residential units
which would then bring the totals to
4550 2.11 and
925. So this chart down below is
important as well because with the washd
development agreement we actually added
property and additional entitlement to
what most people consider to be isqua
highlands. So, track D, and you heard
some discussion about that earlier
tonight. Um, that is a piece of property
owned by the city, and it's slated for
50 affordable housing units. It may not
get that many, uh, but that's, uh, what
it could, um, uh, be entitled for.
Belleview College has 372,000 square
feet of institutional use. Um, our hope
is someday we'll get a some sort of
branch campus out there. Um, Ichi Joe
purchased 60 uh units. They only built
35. Um, and then Bernsteads purchased 40
units. So, this is without Swedish.
Swedish is a separate thing, but here is
basically the entire entitlement of the
Highlands um with um the wash out
development agreement. So, in summary,
oh, I left it. Sorry about that. Um, so
the 100 TDRs were left over from the
city preserving Park Point um as
permanent open space and I left out an
IMC reference. My apologies. City's TDR
code identifies Isiqua Highlands as a
receiving site. Um, that's done by a
map. Um, the TDRs may only be used if
their traffic impact is fully mitigated
and that's uh from the SEPA DNS decision
17-1. The applicant and the
administration have discussed 30% of the
TDRs being affordable. Um, and the
proposal was reviewed by the Urban
Village Development Commission and the
UBDC recommended approval with
conditions on the 6th of
December. And then we received three
letters recently um, and I want to make
sure that they were part of the record.
I believe you all got them. There was a
letter from Forterra. There was a letter
from the master builders. And then there
was a letter from um the attorney
representing the applicant. So that
concludes my brief presentation.
I'll leave it there. Thank you. Lack of
better choice. Keith, uh
we will reserve discussion and questions
after those desiring to uh uh speak at
the at the public hearing. And with
that, has anyone signed up to speak?
Yes, Nicholas Bratton.
Welcome back.
Thank you. Uh my name is Nicholas
Bratton. I represent Fortra. Address is
901 Fifth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington. Uh thank you very much for
the opportunity to speak tonight, mayor
and council chair and members of the
city council. As a quick introduction,
Fora is a regional sustainability
organization created uh or dedicated to
the protection of the great landscapes
around our region and creating great
communities for our people to live in.
Um having had a role in designing the
city's transfer of development rights
program, uh we want to see it used as
intended. Uh from our perspective, it's
encouraging to see that there is an
applicant that that and that there is
demand for the use of this
tool. At the same time, we appreciate
that this single decision is a small
piece of a much larger issue. How does
the city want to look and feel and
function moving into the future? We also
appreciate that the priorities of Isiqua
today may not reflect those that the
city had 10 or 15 years ago and that the
city is a different place and continues
to change.
So my question is, is there a way to
make TDR transfer of development rights
work that strikes a balance between the
current needs and desires around growth
and programs and regulations created in
a different
environment? I've seen firsthand the
consequences of local government
creating exemptions for transfer of
development rights at the moment when
it's poised to work.
um the the result has been major
setbacks for for growth management and
for certainty or rather creating
uncertainty in the regulatory
environment. I don't have time to get
into it here but there is a potential
opportunity for the city to explore
around infrastructure financing. Um this
is a the topic of infrastructure has
come up in in many of the comments this
evening and there is a tool that is
available for the city to pursue um that
would create access to new sources of
financing for infrastructure and public
improvements as a financial incentive
for the city to use transfer of
development rights to a greater extent.
Be happy to discuss that on an
individual basis or at a future time. Um
but one option might be for the city to
consider is allowing the use of transfer
of development rights in this particular
instance and then modifying or updating
its transfer of development rights
program in such a way as to incentivize
growth in places where there is greater
need and desire for it such as the
central plan
area. So, as you weigh this single
decision in the broader context of the
city's growth, uh we urge you to support
the integrity of the transfer of
development rights program. Thank you.
Thank you.
Jennifer Anderson.
Good evening, Mayor Butler, City
Council. My name is Jennifer Anderson.
I'm with the Master Builders
Association. Our office is located in
Belleview, um Washington. I'm here to
testify today on the city's transfer de
development rights program as it
pertains to the two party development
agreement up for consideration this
evening. There's been a lot of um time
and effort put into this development of
the TDR program both locally and
regionally. And by not identif by not
honoring the identified receiving areas,
you're undermining the concept of the
program and the viability of its future.
I think it's important to note that the
master builders association is here
tonight and um as well as for terra
where we're often on two separate sides
of issues we've come together because
it's important this program is very
important regionally
um the public benefit of pre permanently
preserving the 140 acres of forested
land in and around the city has already
been realized. This massive conservation
effort could not have been achieved
without the TDR program. So, I encourage
you tonight to adopt the amendment and
show the city's commitment to the TDR
program and permit promote its use and
viability in the future. Thank you.
Thank you,
David Kappler.
Uh, good evening. Thank you. Um, just
one clarification on the um homepage of
the uh city today, there's the agenda
bill. There's a link to the to the
original agenda bill, but not the agenda
bill that was updated. So, people that
are saw that um wouldn't see the whole
story about the three uh uh reasons the
council committee recommended denial or
the actual proposed motion by the
committee. Um but going on from there,
um I'm concerned about um what we're
talking about tonight. Are we just
talking aboutund 100 units with 70 and
then 10 10 and 10 for three different
levels of uh affordability? Are we
talking about 130 units? So, I'm
hopefully I'm here to support the
hundred in in the area of the
um Northwest Ridge area east of N west
of 9th Avenue.
Um, I worked for I'm sure it's been over
30 years on park getting a park point
acquired and the transfer of development
rights issue with that was critical and
it's going to be critical for some other
things that are potentially happening on
East Cougar Mountain and other areas.
some of which are outside of the city
but are included in the city's agreement
with the county about transfer of
development
rights. Um, if we're going to the 130, I
think the math is
incorrect. If there's going to be 130
dwelling units, then 39 of them should
be in fit into the affordable and 13 and
13 in the three different uh deals.
Also, I disagree with the um calling a
group home equal to five dwelling units.
I don't think if that now if we're just
that doesn't all apply if we're not
talking about the um the parcel to the
east, but if we're just talking about on
West
Ridge 100 units 70 10 and 10, I support
that. Thank you.
Thank you,
Steve Pereira.
Hi, Steve Brerrera. I don't think last
time I said 170 Northeastwood Street
here in Isqua for nine years. Uh, I also
am one of those going by outdated. I
didn't have the current information that
David Kappler referenced, so my
apologies for that. Uh, I very much like
the idea of affordable housing and want
to say very much I support the TDR
uh of this. I just don't know that I'm
still seeing the proposed site as the
best site for single family homes for
affordable housing. I'd like to see some
other place for those 30 houses not on
that lot. I I just wonder if there's
some way to tweak that proposal that
would still allow the TDR to happen but
just not in its current location. I
don't know if there's some kibbits in
between the city and uh the builder. I
very much like the 140 acres park point
that got preserved. I want to honor that
TDR. I just want some more another
opportunity or another way of doing that
before saying yes. Thank you. Thank you,
Rose Finnegan.
Good evening. I'm Rose Finnegan. I live
at
24601 Southeast 165th Street, Isiqua.
I'm a founding member and board member
of Lifeen Enrichment Options. I'm here
tonight to support Polygon Northwest in
their request for building additional
homes in the West Ridge area. To me,
it's kind of a deja vu experience. I was
here 15 years ago when Polygon Northwest
maybe a few different players built our
home not far from here. And this home
really became a ray of hope for parents
in Isiqua as well as in many other
communities. We have provided
information to many parent groups
throughout the state and some have been
able to follow the example and build
adult family homes in their communities.
Our organization is proactive in
providing young adults the opportunity
to live as
independently as possible before a
family crisis or
happens. Today,
76% of people with intellectual or
developmental challenges live with their
parents. Many are in families with older
parents. In King County, there are 800
individuals ages 30 to 50 who have
challenges and are living with aging
parents. And soon we'll need access to
secure supportive
housing. In our community, we have a
list of 20 interested applicants for our
next adult family home. And each year,
the high school transition
program graduates 20 people with special
needs. Granted, all of them may not want
to live in an adult family home, but a
significant number will need this type
of care.
The need for housing in the community is
being driven not only by the extended
lifespan of these people, but by the
fact that the state is downsizing the
institutions and closing them. When that
happens, there will be no safety net for
those whose families can no longer care
for them. Where will they go? Will they
be homeless? The problem is not in the
future. It is now. There is a shortage
of housing now. Well, we can't solve the
state's problem. But if each community
could take care of their own, it would
sure help. Isiqua is a model for many
other communities in how a responsive
and caring community addresses the needs
of people with intellectual and
developmental
disabilities. And I thank you from the
bottom of my heart. Without you, we
would not today be operating three adult
family homes, each full, with five
residents. and some of their parents and
residents are here tonight to show their
support. We are very excited that the
new development in the Highlands will
provide the opportunity for the possible
inclusion of a new adult family home.
Thank you very much. Thank you uh very
very much. Rose,
no one further has signed up to speak.
Is there Yes, please.
I'll be pleased to start this segment of
the comments off. My name is Dwana
Koskova. I am the attorney for Polygon
Northwest and I uh previously submitted
uh written materials to you uh earlier
this week as well as prior to your uh
hearing in January. Written materials at
that time as well. I would like to
clarify uh one very important
consideration uh to the council which is
that these are not proposed TDR
uh TDRs that the council is looking at.
The city has issued a TDR certificate
for use of these TDRs at this site under
the existing TDR program. Polygon
submitted its application for amending
the development agreement in order to
ensure that this council has the
opportunity to address the specifics of
TDRs under the development agreement
provisions and to ensure complete
transparency to the public as to what
Polygon is proposing for this particular
site. This application, however, is not
a legal or appropriate venue for the
council to reconsider the TDR program
policies or as a referendum for on the
already legislative legislatively
adopted receiving sites which include
the rest west property.
The council made its policy
determinations under the TDR program
years ago and the council respectfully
is legally committed to acting in a
manner consistent with that program. The
public benefit that this city has
derived from the TDR program is
unquestionable and you've already heard
about it tonight. The city used this
very program to pres preserve the 101
acre Parkpoint property in
perpetuity. And that significant
conservation effort relies on the social
contract that this city engaged in with
the purchasers of the TDRs and to that
provided for the relocation of the
density from the Parkpoint property in a
manner consistent with the adopted
program. As a result, again, this
development agreement process is not a
forum to reconsider receiving sites or
the TDR program
policies. Beyond the council's legal
obligations, we urge the council to
consider the ramifications were the
council to take away Polygon's rights to
use the TDRs on the West Ridge property
and the reality that doing so will
seriously jeopardize the critical
regional nature of the TDR program
itself. In the future, if this TDR
program is not supported, potential TDR
users will have no choice but to
question the reliability of this program
by looking at the track record of the
city related to how it has administered
the program here today. Conversely,
owners of potential future sending sites
would equally have to be questioning the
viability of this program.
The significant public benefit of this
program is reflected to you tonight in
hearing from organizations which s with
such diverse missions as both
Masterbuilders Association and Forra. It
is rare to see these organizations come
together in such a clear
consensus. Recognizing again that
significant public benefit of the
program as a whole. You heard tonight
extensive conversation by uh the mayor
in his state of the city urging
partnership and that's exactly what we
ask from this council. Polygon fully
committed to the TDR program from day
one. We ask this council to as well
partner and provide that same commitment
to a program that the growth management
act terms a critical innovative tool
essential for the city's long-term
planning. We urge you to please approve
the amendment to the development
agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Yes,
sir.
That's good.
Good
evening. Uh, good evening, Nick Abnor,
Polygon Northwest. Uh, I've been before
you uh several times. Thanks for your
time again this evening, mayor and
counsel. Um, I'm not going to get into
the weeds. I'm not going to reiterate
what everyone said. Um, but I think
what's at the heart of the matter here
for Polygon and for the program is what
is fair and equitable. Um, we clearly
just want to be treated fairly and
equitably. Um, you know, I look back at
the recommendation of approval and
denials that have been drafted for this
evening. And, uh, it's rare to see
several approvals from the
administration and committee um, in a
denial recommendation. Um, what I do
want to do say is I I keep falling back
to the city's website.
Um, under the fourth paragraph, I mean,
this was a city initiated
uh development
agreement. This wasn't a private sector,
private citizen. This was at the time
the governing body providing policy and
wanted to achieve something great and in
this term once in a lifetime. Um, we
happen to own the last 100 TDRs that
created this and we're just asking for
you to realize what was agreed upon and
for us to utilize them in what is
currently a receiving site. I sympathize
greatly with the new council members um
and also a re-election coming this fall
and that there are different concerns in
today's environment than were 20 years
ago when the development agreement was
drafted, let alone in 2011 when this
development agreement was drafted. Um so
definitely appreciate the concerns from
the public. Um but this program doesn't
get utilized and if in this case you
choose not to allow it to work um it
does have ramifications uh beyond the
city of Estquanda King and Snow Mission
to Pierce County. Um so with that being
said, community benefit timing,
evaluation location
um if the agenda bill before you, um
which includes affordable
housing is something that the council is
not comfortable with. What I would ask
you to do is to delineate the 100 TDRs
tonight and to ask the administration
and staff and Polygon to revisit the
affordable housing proposal before you.
To me, that's as equitable as it can
get, allowing the 100 TDRs to be
received, to be utilized in the form and
fashion they were always intended for.
And if the land and shore committee uh
and or council would like to see a
different proposal um whether it be on
city land or not on city land, I think
that's something that needs to be
discussed. U but denying the use of the
100 TDRs is a cause for great concern
and at the end of the night, we're just
asking for fair and
equitable treatment by the city council.
Thank you.
Thank you. Is Yes.
up to you. Thank you.
Uh Lindseay Walsh. I live in the
Highlands. My address is previously. Um
this is a difficult subject. You know,
it it's something where yeah, if we had
been able to make that designation of a
receiving
site many, many years ago, I'm sure we
would have done it. Maybe this needs to
be something where we say, "Hey, when
we're looking at receiving sites in the
future, let's make sure that they're in
the areas um where we want that building
to happen." Um when it comes down to it,
being able to have another Leo house,
being able to have more affordable
housing is beneficial. And gosh darn, if
there's a way that we can get that down
by the um park and
ride, it's absolutely beneficial. But
to not be able to do that and say no to
the TDRs, I would say would be a shame
for us. And it's a difficult situation,
but hopefully we can at least get more
of the things even if they're not in the
place where we would like them to be.
Thank you. Thank
you. Is there anyone else desiring to
speak? David, are you uh leaning
forward? Nope. Anyone else desiring to
speak? Third and final call. Anyone
desiring to speak? Seeing no one, then
uh we will now
move to a discussion and uh questions.
Close. Uh
I don't want to close it unless if
there's if it's so sure they only get
one.
went by that itself.
Time for questions. Time for questions.
Keith is here to answer questions. Keith
is moving to the microphone.
Keith's going to do his best to answer
questions.
A question. Go ahead, Stacy. Keith, can
you put up the numbers that you showed
again please?
Um, so we talked in Landon Shore about
the
numbers and um, I'm not sure that I see
that it up there, but when you're
talking about the specifics of the wash
entitle DA entitlement usage,
um, the understanding that we had from
Landon Shore is that um out of
the uh what's left is 23
u 23 units. Is that right? So the units
um the units that are left are basically
um so if you if you do the math here
there's 25 but then polygon actually
took one of these and built it on a
piece of parcel three um which I didn't
even represent here because it was one
unit. So, so there's I believe there's
24, but 23 whether it's 24 or 23. Okay.
Um somewhere in that vicinity is the
number of entitlement that to date. Now,
I want to I want to make sure
everybody's tracking on that detail. So,
there's sold entitlement now that's not
built. Um there's a hotel site up there.
Sumitomo owns a piece of property.
Shelter Holdings owns a piece of
property. Um, Polygon owns a piece of
property. They all have entitlement
that's not built out yet. Um, so of the
properties that are built out right now
there's 24 or 25 units that were not
realized. Okay. So, when you're talking
about maximum density under the Isqua
Highlands development agreement and you
take into account original entitlement
under the DA, um, Mitchell Hill
conversions, wash. DOA
um the what's what's left over before we
get to max buildout I'll say under the
original plus the add-ons anything we've
changed is 23 right so the delta between
what's currently either built or owned
by a property owner and what's been
approved through the entitlement process
is 23 24 residential units and I bring
that up because the um because we didn't
have that number up there I wanted the
council members and the folks who are
watching and here and and here today to
understand uh where those um where the
where the remaining number is for
residential units. Yes,
welcome.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so the transfer
of development right program, this maybe
is more of a general question. I mean
that we're actually that's not what
we're voting on tonight. We're voting on
a development agreement. Yes or no? A
change to a development agreement? Yes
or no?
But the Isqua Highlands is a slightly
different animal than other parts of the
city in that it doesn't really have a
zoning layer right now. It has
entitlements and there were supposed to
be a certain mix of things um up there.
And if I'm understanding it correctly,
build out was 24 more homes. And that
that leaves over whatever the remaining
parties that are entitled to build some
homes. What was left over without
upzoning or densifying was just 24 but
the ask in the development agreement is
to go beyond that.
Um, so yes, but what I would the way I
would describe it is so there's zoning
capacity and there's what's currently
built and those are at different levels.
The the property and what's in the
development agreement in terms of
maximum buildout includes things like
eightstory buildings and you know 80
units per acre. uh nothing is built to
that level of density within the
development agreement. But in terms of
the entitlement that's been approved by
either this council or previous councils
and what's out there or currently owned,
the delta's like 24 units. Okay. Yeah,
makes sense.
Keith, is that tw you explain that one
more time to me? is there were 24
units after after this is all completed
if this project goes forward and there
will only be 24 additional units
residential units.
So, so if so if if if all the property
owners that currently haven't built yet
build out their maximum entitlement, so
what they bought from the master
developer, the only thing that's left
are is the is 24 units left over from
this one particular property. So, they
bought 60 and then um they ended up
doing a design for their property and
they they wanted to actually only build
35 because they felt like that better
fit the market. So, that's the only and
that's why it's included here. That's
the importance of this particular line
in the chart is that's the only kind of
unused residential units up in the
Highlands. But some of the other do the
the other
um units available have not simply been
built on. They've been committed for but
not built on. Okay. Yes. And then when
this is completed there will be 24 or
whatever it is left to be built on. Yes.
Thank you. No. Well, there's 24 plus
whatever might be left over from those
other built building
projects which could be zero or it could
be some. We don't know. Right. So, if we
were going to build out residential
units, how many how and what's
unaccounted for now? How many? So, right
now there's um there's three residential
units that shelter holding zones on
land.
That's That's right here. Um and then
there's I believe somewhere in the
ballpark of 230 units. No, not not built
yet. What's left to be accounted for? So
none. 23 or 24. 23 or 24. Right.
Everything else has been sold. Right. So
So just to make it clear, what this what
Polygon would like to do is to have a
hundred and there's 23 left.
Right. So if the proposal was was
approved, then we would be over by
77 for what was envisioned and included
in conversions and whatnot for the
school islands. Does that make sense?
Okay.
Okay. Questions.
So let me let me ask a
question. Uh I hear certified and uh how
many have been certified?
How many how many TDRs have been
certified? Um, so all of the ones from
ParkPoint and one Hey, so in other
words, um, besides if you took
ParkPoint off the table, our TDR program
has actualized one TDR, um, and it was
within the rally development. Okay.
And so the difference between certified
and uh uh and others. Jim, do you want
to comment on that?
Mayor, are you asking about TDRs that
have been certified as being taken off
of a property or are you asking about
TDRs and where they are supposed to go?
Where they're supposed to go? I mean, my
understanding of the city's TDR program
is that the TDR certificate says
that a
um that a particular property has a
certain excuse me that TDRs have been
taken off of a property. I'm not sure
that they specifically provide that they
are going to a specific site, but I
heard Ms. Koshkova say during her
testimony that this particular TDR
certificate somehow allocates these TDRs
to this specific site. And that's the
first time I have heard that. So if if
you do have
that, thank you for the opportunity for
clarification. Um, the TDR certificate
was approved by the city and a deed
recorded uh on title to both the sending
and receiving property which was um
recorded and returned to the city that
indicates both that the TDRs were taken
from the sending site and have been
legally recorded on title of the
receiving site, the Westridge. And that
is recording number
20148
05
000941. And again that's that's been
returned to the city of Isiqua. Um, I
would also note for the record that the
isqua
uh title, excuse me, chapter 1810
provides that um
TDR units are uh expressly intended to
be in addition to the density allowed
under any development agreement. Thank
you. Thank
you. Does that uh answer your question,
Jim?
It does to the extent that uh certainly
Miss Klushka has testified concerning
that. I haven't reviewed the document so
I can't I can't speak to the document
itself and what it says. Uh Keith, I see
you moving back to the microphone.
Yes, I am.
Um, so I'd like to follow up um the code
um in addition to stating that the TDRs
um specifically states transfer of TDRs
into a urban village project subject to
a development agreement shall be subject
to the following. Um and it was just
previously stated that the TDR shall be
in addition to and not as a substitute
for the development rights as specified
in the development agreement. Um but the
next subsection says the TDRs shall not
cause any of the existing or planned
infrastructure to fall below the
infrastructures capacity to handle the
maximum density as set forth in the
development agreement. Um and I think
that certainly makes sense when you
think about it. Um and the reason that
makes sense is because when you have a
development agreement that has been um
very carefully negotiated to make sure
that the infrastructure um is balanced
in such a way that the infrastructure
meets the needs of the um the specific
density um in that urban village. I
think it makes sense that if it's going
to be additive that the TDRs not cause
um you know overstress of the
infrastructure that's there. So my
question is what
um what what do we have or I haven't
seen anything. Yeah. How has that been
been demonstrated because I haven't seen
that's been demonstrated.
So so that evaluation um dealing with
the infrastructure impacts was part of
the SEIPA review that was done. So, um,
the DNS that was issued, um, and the
file is
SCP17-00001. Um, the checklist and the
evaluation for that considered the
impacts on infrastructure. Um the only
issue that's worth noting is that uh the
traffic uh study that was provided with
the SEPA checklist was deemed um
inadequate by the city and the city and
the applicant discussed
um that that current traffic volumes
needed to be incorporated into the model
that was being run for these 100 units.
um so the existing background numbers
and so there's a note and it's note
number five on the uh DNS the
determination of non-significance that
set a performance standard uh for
um what the applicant needed to be able
to meet to be able to use these 100 TDR
units on the property that they want to
use them for. If that makes sense. Sorry
for that was a lot.
And so
um what would be the process then?
What's the public process for that for
when is that does that come back to the
council? Is that daylighted or is that
if this is
approved? Um how is that demonstrated to
us that um the standards are met in that
code section? Um so that's um I can't be
explicit about that answer because I
don't know what the solution is going to
be. If the solution includes some sort
of council action, then that would need
to come back to the council as a
separate ask um or as part of this
proceeding or some version of it. Um if
if though that solution that caused
traffic to work
um did not require additional council
action, then that would simply be
something that would be incorporated
into the preliminary plat to utilize
those 100 units.
Question for Jim. Um Jim, the
information tonight about um
specifically recording the the TDRs with
the site that I may have a bad memory.
That's new to me. So if that's already
there, why do we even have to do this
amendment? How does that if you looking
at the development agreement language,
if it's already registered on title, why
do we have to do anything?
Well, that's a good question. I because
the development agreement does not
provide or currently provides a a
certain number of units and this takes
you beyond that then yes I think you
need to amend the development agreement.
The question and again this argument is
new to me tonight that the certificate
itself has already approved those TDRs.
I don't know until I look at that
document exactly what how that that
factors in here. But the development
agreement amendment is required because
the development agreement provides only
for a certain number of units that have
been previously approved.
So,
Anyone else have a question before I go
back to Stacy?
Stacy.
Um so
um based on
the based on the um discussion that we
had at
uh Landon Shore and there was a lot of
discussion about affordable housing and
there was also some discussion tonight
about confusion about affordable housing
and also in um reading the code that was
referenced both by the applicant and by
um me tonight. Um I I'm going to make a
motion and we'll see where we go from
there. I move to continue the public
hearing to
um no later than 60 days from
now. And in the meantime that we remand
Agenda Bill 7215 back to land and shore
committee to uh number one specify how
the proposal complies with IMC 18 10
2030
C4 which requires that the TDRs not
cause any existing or planned
infrastructure to have insufficient
capacity to handle the increased density
and second to provide further
information on refinement of the
affordable housing proposal. addressing
the concerns of the land and shore
committee and the public and council
members.
Second. It's moved and seconded. Uh,
additional discussion.
Mary Lou, I'm still really confused
about what we heard tonight about
registering it on the title and I maybe
it's not part of the motion, but somehow
there's some missing information here
that we never saw and we never discussed
and that needs to come back to landing
shore. So maybe that's not part of the
motion.
And so uh that's easy for the
administration to provide that uh uh uh
that information and uh a uh an opinion
on really what that means what it means.
Thank you
Stacy. Thank you. So um I made the
motion because um in looking at the so
it's um been suggested that um we are
sort of have to um accept the TDRs. This
is not um as Mary Lou said earlier sort
of a referendum on the TDR program. I
support the TDR program. I support the
purposes and the goals. It's a it's a
very good thing. Um uh I think the um
the concern is about you know what the
standard is. Um, and the standard seems
to be in the in the statute making sure
that the infrastructure can handle it.
Um, and an additional 77 may not sound
like a lot, but but we don't know. Like
I said, we have a development agreement
and the infrastructure is uh supposed to
be carefully matched to the density. And
um uh the the code um the TDR code
identifies not only what the standard is
and it als but it also identifies that
there needs to be a that modification
needs to be um part of the uh it is
identified in each uh development
agreement and the Isiqua Highlands urban
development urb the Isiqua Highlands
development agreement requires that a
major modification be approved by the
council and um I think it's the I
certainly feel that it's my
responsibility to make sure that the
proposal complies with the with the
specific provision of the TDR code um is
Squa Municipal Code that makes sure that
we watch out for the infrastructure
needs in the urban village. Um but it's
not about not agreeing with the TDR
program.
Paul, thank you Stacy for those uh
comments. I thought they were um well
spoken and and I I agree. Um the um the
packet in front of us today has a
proposed um both accept the uh agreement
or decline. We have language for both in
those and I know that the committee had
recommended to uh deny um uh the the
um amendment to the development
agreement. Um and um I think we've heard
uh this evening um a number of issues um
that we need clarification on. So, I
fully agree that and it is clear within
our code and the TDR statute. Uh, as
Stacy said and I and I think this is
very important that um to that um the
additional TDR units, you know, we
understand and that they that they um
either the infrastructure supports them
or um some um whether it be mitigated or
not that the the infrastructure has to
support them. So, I think we it's a very
important gate. Let's let I think I
think this council is at a place where
it needs to know what that's going to
be. Um and and so we're we're creating
some more time uh to get that
information. I would also add that that
the um um I know the committee had
conversations uh about uh the affordable
housing piece and yes, that is a piece
that is in flux uh here within the city.
uh and and um and yet um I think this
proposal um is um that that and I my
interpretation is that it would um add
30 uh units at different levels of
affordability. Um that certainly is is a
benefit uh to the city. Uh and I and so
um I'm very interested in seeing if you
if uh a way to bring that benefit to the
city if we can do it, if we can absorb
that. But finally, just about the TDR
program. Um, uh, I appreciate the
comments we heard tonight. Um, whereas,
uh, I I'm I'm sympathetic to every
existing Isiqua resident who thinks, you
know, we've got congestion, we've got
build out, please don't add anymore. I'm
very sympathetic to that. uh and and at
another level um uh grow um this idea
that we have are adjacent to open space
and that we want to preserve that and
that preservation of open space um is
valuable to us. I'm glad that we've got
that into the conversation. I think that
was missing before. there is so and and
it might be hard for an existing
resident of the Highlands to say okay
that park point land is now preserved as
open space and that's a benefit that I
value um I I understand if you're
struggling with that but at a high level
policy level for Isiziqua for growth
management in general um that idea
preserving open space and taking that
those development rights and and
including that in the urban areas like
Isiziqua for greater density um that's a
core tenant and there was even a I
appreciate the refer reference tonight
uh uh about how um the growth management
act recognizes uh TDRs as an essential
tool for achieving these objectives. And
so um I would ask that my fellow
residents who who are realizing now that
we're going to re reconsider this
question to also keep in mind the
benefit of the preservation of open spa
open space. It's a benefit to not only
us, to all of us, and to future
generations. And and and that's a very
important element that I'm going to
consider as we go forward with this
issue. Thank you,
Mariah.
Thank you. Uh, I wanted to uh basically
to say that I support uh the amendment
and that I wanted to echo uh some of
what my fellow council members have
talked about that um um this is a
complicated issue. It involves a a lot
of different things, but we're we're
talking about a major modification to
the development agreement. And as we
start to talk this through um even more
that we than we have on land and shore,
uh there are a number of issues that I I
really do think we need more information
about. Um um is there this sufficient
infrastructure? Um and as we start to
talk a little bit more um maybe more
work that needs to be done in terms of
the affordable housing element. Uh I'm
very much in support of the TDR program
and and uh of course of affordable
housing and any sort of efforts in those
areas. Uh but I think that we need to uh
take a step back and uh get some more
information regarding some of those
issues. You
anyone else? Hola.
So I I mean I think you're hearing a
consensus uh around the deis that this
is not a uh this is not any sort of a
nimi reaction but really a uh wanting
clarity on some areas that are very
important. I'm struck by the fact that
um in the mayor's state of the city
address he said the most important issue
we have in front of us is traffic. And
so I feel that that's absolutely uh
correct and that it it leads us to
wanting to uh measure twice and cut
once. And so I am eager to see a little
bit more clarity around that and and
some of the other issues that have been
addressed here this evening before uh
being confident about uh being able to
support this. I I mean I'll be
supporting the amendment here this
evening but uh supporting the the the
larger issue. Thank you.
Um I too very much appreciate the TDR
program. It's done great things uh in
the area and and we want to continue to
work on that. I do think that we we have
some more information that we need to to
have uh before we make this decision. So
uh particularly as council member
um stated that was on the impacts that
we need to know what those are not guess
what they are but know have some more
facts on those. Uh the affordable
housing piece needs more definition
right now. It's kind of a side plate
issue. We need to have that wrapped up
and and and know what that is as well.
and and work through this. And I think
it's reasonable to say we need a little
more information in 60 days to get that
is uh I think reasonable and we
supporting this.
Anyone else?
Then the motion is to uh remand agenda
bill
7215. Oh, just
this. Motion is to continue this public
hearing to April 17th, which is the
closest meeting to 60 days out. And in
the meantime that we send agenda bill
7215 back to the land and shore
committee uh to uh evaluate
uh uh uh a how the proposal complies
with the Isqua Municipal Code 18.10.20.
2030 point
C.4 point B which requires that the TDRs
not cause and any existing or planned
infrastructure to have insufficient
capacity to handle the increased density
and to provide further information and
refinement of the affordable housing
proposal addressing the concerns of the
land and shore committee and the public.
That was moved by council president uh
Goodman and seconded by uh council
member Winterstein. All those in favor
of the motion signify by saying I. I.
Those opposed. That carries unanimously.
Keith, you thought you were going to sit
down, but I believe our next agenda uh
item this evening under regular under
the public Hey, look, it's me again.
And I guess uh we'll close where we'll
continue the public hearing to April the
17th. Uh uh with that agenda bill
7291 consider additional extension to
temporary moratorum related to certain
permit applica. This is
uh a public hearing and we will begin
with a brief uh uh staff report on the
progress on the moratorum.
And uh Keith Nibbon, I guess you're
still the director of development
services, so if you would please
and economic development. Economic
development.
So um thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council
still here. Um sec second uh second
topic of the night. So
um just to again similar to the last
agenda bill um wanted to um kind of give
some context and some history uh so that
we can all kind of get back up to speed.
So the mortorium was initiated on the
6th of September 2016 by ordinance. It
was an emergency moratorum. Um it was
amended on the 16th of November uh by
ordinance 2784 and that amendment added
an exclusion uh for small projects
consisting of four or fewer residential
units or non-residential development
including existing and new not to exceed
3,000 square ft of total building area.
Um in addition um that uh ordinance 2784
set the six-month hearing uh to lift,
extend or amend the moratorum on
February 21st and that's
tonight. So the moratorum there were uh
six uh work items that were identified
architectural guidelines, urban design,
vertical mixuse, affordable housing,
parking and uh reooking at the district
visions. There are 10 within central
Isiqua. Um so here I thought I would
quickly kind of go through um kind of
where we are with each of these. So
architectural fit and urban design. I
actually married those two up as one
work item. They just the more I thought
about it, the more it seemed like um
they wanted to be handled by the same
kind of work effort. And so we issued an
RFP
um on that. And those were actually due
today at close of business. Um so when I
left the office um I had four um from
architectural firms, planning and
landscape architecture firms from
Seattle and Portland. Actually I think
there were two from Portland and two
from Seattle. Um
uh we are uh scheduled for consultant
interviews on Monday. Um and then from
March to June, we're going to go through
an outreach program, uh which includes a
lot of touches with the development
commission. Um and then this particular
project we expect will be done by
August. Vertical mixuse. Um to remind
you, um Eco Northwest, uh provided an
analysis of where we were, uh or where
we currently are in terms of having the
market bring, uh vertical mixuse to us
without any kind of additional
regulations or incentives. And if you
remember, there were a bunch of slanting
lines and the conclusion was we're about
5 to 10 years away from the market
actually supporting vertical mixuse. So
what's been happening since then? um and
that was in September of last year is
staff have been working um both with our
consultant and having conversations with
the economic vitality commission. Um and
then we're going to go to uh Landon
Shore. There was an agenda bill on
tonight's consent agenda to go to Landon
Shore in March and that's really to walk
through basically three alternatives
that we've um that we've put together
and and go through the logic behind
those. Um and then we'll bring that back
to full council at a work session in
April and then we expect this item to be
done by September. Affordable housing.
Um coincidentally we used Eco Northwest
to provide an inventory of our existing
housing stock. And that was really just
to paint a picture of what we had and
what the trends look like we were going
to get over the next 20 years if
everything stayed the same to help us
really identify what are we missing. Um
we then started um discussions. We put
our economic vitality commission, our
planning policy commission, and our
human services commissions together as a
super commission, and they've met three
times to talk about um housing and
affordable housing um because they
represent different perspectives, and I
think it's really been a rich
conversation. Um we're going to start um
an online survey um and then do outreach
um from basically March to May with a
completion of this work item by
September. Parking is our quickest one.
And actually parking um it makes it's
actually fortuitous that it is the
quickest one uh because it could
potentially influence some of the other
items like vertical mixuse um and
architecture fit and urban design. So,
parking, uh, there was an RFQ sent out,
um, and those are due, uh, the 28th, so
next week. Um, and then we go from to
consultant interviews and basically have
them develop a report. And that report
is really looking at two things. One,
are we right parked? In other words, are
we underparked or overparked in central
Isiqua? And the second is is should we
be mandating any percentage of
structured parking as part of any
redevelopment project. So those are
really two very clear questions I think
we're looking to have answered with
parking. And then last, as I mentioned
earlier, the district visions or the
neighborhood visions. There's 10
neighborhoods in central Isiqua. We've
started um by having focus group
conversations within each neighborhood
um with property owners and businesses.
And we're we're um we don't have a date
yet, but we're planning to get the
centraliz plan task force back together
um to talk about uh the district visions
and what we've seen uh over the past
four years. Um and that's really going
to happen between February and April uh
with public meetings then going moving
into April and then kind of continuing
in through May to August. So, so because
this one is mostly about hearing what
the community thinks about these sub
areas within central Isiqua, it's a lot
of public outreach. It's a lot of
talking to the community and the
community has so many different voices.
There's there's the property owners, the
businesses, the residents, and then the
bigger community and what they think
these areas are. So, it's a lot of
outreach. And this is why this one um
is, even though this arrow is shorter
than some others, this one's actually
the longest one. And we don't expect to
be done with this one till November. So
this is where we are. Um
uh and that's the end of my brief
presentation.
Oh well. So what does it mean that only
two of the five would be done by the
time that this next six months is up?
[Laughter]
Well, um, it means that you guys have a
hard decision if you want to lift the
moratorum at that
point. I mean, so that's what I thought
it might mean. So, so um, so part of
so there's we're running in these kind
of six-month kind of cycles, right? And
so
um you know there some of these will be
done and some of them will
be pretty well baked um but maybe not
fully baked. Um the question is for you
guys I think I think it's a pretty easy
question tonight. My guess is you're
probably not inclined to lift the
mortorium. Um but in six months um when
we have some of these done and some of
them almost done there might be a
different conversation.
So, I'm going to go ahead and uh take
public testimony now. Uh the public
hearing is opened at uh
8:52. Has anyone uh signed up to speak?
Yes, Todd Baxter.
I'm Todd Baxter with Windmir Real Estate
out of Isiqua and I have a client who I
represent who has a property in Isiqua
now and he due to a medical condition
was not able to be here. So he wrote a
letter that um he wanted asked me to
come in and read. Um dear Isakiqua City
Council, my name is Dr. David Hildrth.
I'm writing a request that you do not
extend the current building moratorum. I
owned the property located at 2300
Newport Way Northwest. I operated Lake
Seamish Veterinary Hospital there for
over three decades. I really enjoyed
caring for all the animals in Isiqua
community. My daughter and her husband
and children currently live at this
address. Before the current moratorium
was in place, I'd been actively trying
to sell this property. I have a buyer
under contract, but everything had to be
put on hold due to the moratorum. My
health is precarious and I would like to
complete the sale of this property for
the sake of my family. We are surrounded
by the gate gateway project on all
sides. Allowing my property to be
developed will add safety for
pedestrians such as sidewalks and
decrease traffic delays. The development
of my property fits in with the existing
city plan and will allow this area of
the city to be completed for the
community. I am requesting an exemption
for any properties that either had a
pre-application media meeting prior to
the moratorum or were already under
contract at the time of the moratorum or
replace the current moratorum with a new
plan once it is ready with no surprises
to the city residents. Sincerely, David
Hilddrth.
Thank you. Thank you. Is
there anyone who has not signed up
desiring to
speak? Anyone desiring to speak? Third
and Oh, wait. Do you have someone else?
I do. I'm sorry. Steve Carrera.
Steve you're
back. Wow. Indeed. Uh, so Steve,
everything else is still the same. Uh,
so a couple things struck me. one again
I referenced earlier policy planning
commission is only dealing at this point
with eight of 17 uh planning items that
are think are part of who we want to be
as IUA as is and those aren't even going
to be looked at until next year. In
addition the
um I guess six initial but five listed
here items aren't even going to be
completed until November. uh it seems a
no-brainer that we should continue the
mortorium pause at least for another six
months and I would propose even beyond
then but I'm sure that will receive more
discussion so in brief again yes please
continue the
moratorum thank you
has anyone else signed up to speak
uh
yes Lindsay Walsh still the same um I'm
concerned with the idea of setting a
six-month timeline on this when as we
have stated the the work that needs to
be done in order to figure out what
decisions need to be made at the end of
that obviously won't be completed and I
I really just don't feel like there is a
clear sense of what those decisions need
to be. Um the summary statement says
prior to 6 months expiring the city
council must consider whether the
moratorum should be expired, extended or
lifted. It it does
not clearly I believe
delineate the decision makers in any of
those and whether or not those there is
a requirement that any of those are
completed. I just feel like there should
be
more clarity there in looking at that
six-month timeline in expecting to start
at this point considering we've already
had that um period
previously. Thank you. Thank
you. Anyone else desiring to speak who's
not signed up? Anyone else? Third and
final call. Anyone else? Seeing none,
then the public hearing is closed at uh
856.
Uh Keith, you're back. Just to see if
there's any questions,
questions or
discussion. Stacy, thanks. Um we just
get some clarity um just because we've
had a question and just to make sure we
um council understands. So the um what
are the options? Um and this is probably
a question for Jim. What are the options
tonight is can uh could the council so
the question has been raised about six
months. Could the council for example
extend for shorter for longer? Um
the council can extend for shorter. It
cannot extend for longer than six
months. Um, under the state law, a
moratorum, if you're doing a moratorum
initially, you can make it for one year
as long as you have a work plan. In this
case, the moratorum was adopted for six
months because we didn't have a work
plan at the time you initially adopted
it. After the initial adoption, you can
then extend it in six-month increments,
but no longer than six months. and you
have to hold an additional public
hearing prior to extending it once
again.
And in a followup, um, if we get
to the toward the end of the six months,
can it can you could the council adopt a
shorter than six-month period if it
wanted to extend? Absolutely. Um the
ordinance that you have in front of you
says 6 months or until you amend
um adopt permanent regulations whatever
you want to do.
Other questions or discussion
Stacy? I would move to adopt ordinance
number
sorry it's
2793 adopting findings and extending the
moratorum established by ordinance
number 2778 as amended by ordinance
number 2784 for an addition additional 6
months commencing March 6, 2017 and
ending September 6, 2017 providing for
severability declaring an emergency and
establish lishing an effective date.
Second. Moved and seconded. Additional
discussion or questions.
Stacy. Um I just want to um acknowledge
and commend um the work that the staff
done is already that the staff has done
already to come up with a work plan. Um
that looks like a very simple chart that
has had a lot of work go into it. um and
we've since seen um that the background
information in very various iterations
and it has not been a small task and I
want to thank you for all the work that
you've done so far. Thank you.
Other questions or discussion?
All those one comment
um it's actually more about the other
comment that we received this evening
and um I know that there are some
exception uh in the moratorum especially
for the uh subplatting small um units
and I'm wondering if um I just would ask
that someone could follow up with the
gentleman who spoke to see if indeed
their property may qualify already for
an existing exemption.
We will follow up.
I'll just read it again. There's a lot
of work here and there's been a lot done
and a lot to do and uh really appreciate
that and and getting to it. Also
recognizing the fact that there are a
number of people that are having a
hardship due to this and uh appreciate
we're getting to it as fast as we can
and I think we're doing that but at the
same time we have to do it right. That's
why we did this. So thank you.
Thank you. Additional
questions? Seeing none, then all those
in favor of adopting ordinance number
2793 as outlined in the agenda bill.
You signify by saying I.
Signify by saying I. Please signify by
saying
I. I. Those opposed.
Thank you, Stacy. Welcome. I uh suggest
that uh we uh we take a short 10-minute
uh break before we uh move to agenda
bill
7219. So, please be back in your seats
at 11 minutes after 9. Thank you.
You're welcome. Fell asleep there for a
minute. Okay.
We are back in regular session. Uh our
next item under regular business is
agenda bill
7219 Gilman Lofts three trails
development agreement. And uh uh Keith
again will you kick it off with a short
presentation? This one's very short. So,
we've been talking about this. If y'all
remember, um the applicant um came
forward to the city council and asked
for um the city to allow this project to
move forward during the moratorum and um
ultimately resulted in a proposal for a
development agreement which then has
been discussed at land and shore for a
number of months. So all we're doing
this evening is um is I'm going to kind
of go through my one slide uh which is
what the proposal is and what I think
the action is for this evening. So the
proposal is a partnering agreement for
the construction of a signalized
intersection of Gilman Boulevard at the
Juniper intersection. Um it's also to
enter into a development agreement with
the applicant that would allow the
project to move forward in advance of
lifting the moratorum. And there's
reasons why that's important to the
applicant and economically makes um
number one under the proposal make
sense. So the action for this evening I
think simply is to schedule the public
hearing for the 6th of March um and then
to consider the proposed development
agreement which is attached to the
agenda bill. Uh thank you council
president Goodman.
I would move to direct the
administration to
prepare
resolution approving the proposed
development
agreement. Hold on one second.
Y second.
Is there anything else you'd like to
offer at this time, Keith?
Some words of
silence.
No, I think I'm good. I'm flipping open
the um the agenda bill. So, if I can be
of assistance on the screen, is the is
the hearing to be on the 6th or the
20th? Uh I believe the hearing could be
should be on the 6th and then back to
the council.
Can I interject that we may have missed
our opportunity for noticing on the 6th
as it's Tuesday night and for our
publication requirements they would have
needed documentation of the hearing
today. So I believe that's why the
agenda bill references the 20th.
Right. I would direct the administration
to prepare a resolution approving the
proposed development agreement and
schedule the related public hearing for
the March 20, 2017 city council meeting.
Second. Moved and seconded. Questions or
discussion? Mary Lou. Just a comment. Um
I can't remember Keith. Did you include
in the update what what the vote was out
of landed shore because it wasn't
unanimous.
Um, two to one. It's in the agenda bill.
Okay. Thanks.
Hola. I want to make sure I understand
what we would we wouldn't be actually
moving forward with anything tonight
except the next step towards potentially
doing this because I'll have lots of
questions before the council actually
has to decide here. Nay. I think all
we're doing is scheduling the public
hearing and I'm still a little bit
um remiss about the date
um that we talked about some
alternatives.
All right. Thank you. Other questions or
discussion? All those in favor of uh
directing the administration to prepare
a resolution approving the proposed
development agreement and schedule the
related public hearing for the March
20th, 2017 city council meeting. Signify
by saying I. I. Those opposed? That
carries unanimously. Moving now to good
of the
order. Uh anyone have anything for good
of the order this evening?
Seeing none, then uh we will now move
into executive session for the purpose
of discussing property acquisition for
RCW42.30.110
pernb and collective bargaining per
RCW42.30.140
PN4. These items are expected to take
approximately 70 minutes. Action is
anticipated to follow in open session.
We are back in uh regular session at uh
10:27. Council member Martz. Mr. Mayor,
I move that we authorize the mayor to
execute a revision to the purchase and
sale agreement for the King County roads
property in order to reduce the purchase
price by $100,000 and to authorize
proceeding with the low bid for
remediation on the roads property in an
amount not to exceed $100,000. Second.
Moved and seconded. Any questions or
discussion? Yes question. So, I was
googling around a little and I'm not a
lawyer, but there is some stuff on the
AG site that talks about
um properties of sale between
governments and it talks specifically
specifically about selling properties
for full
value
and let me find
it. Making governments fully accountable
for their property. ensuring that the
resources allocated by law to one
government are not used to subsidize the
activities of a different government.
Still have concerns that we haven't
examined that avenue of law carefully
enough and that that's my concern with
this ask
tonight. You may be able to Yes, that
statute I am familiar with. That's the
state accountancy act. It basically says
that one government agency cannot
subsidize another government agency. The
theory being that taxpayers of one
jurisdiction should not be subsidizing
the activities of another jurisdiction.
But that I think if if if King County
wanted to assert a larger purchase price
for the roads property on that basis,
you know, they should have done so. But
that doesn't prohibit the city from
purchasing the property for the county
for what the county has offered it to
the city for. And uh if the city decides
at some future point to sell a portion
of the property for receiving the full
value which the city would be required
to receive.
County can do something wrong.
Interesting. Other questions or
discussion?
All those in favor of uh authorizing the
mayor to execute a revision to the
purchase and sales agreement for the
King County Roads property in order to
reduce the purchase price by
$100,000 and to authorize proceeding
with the low bid for reiation on the
roads property in an amount not to
exceed $100,000. signify by saying I I
those opposed that
that uh that passes by a vote of six
two five to two with uh council member
Paulie and Barbara Goodman and Goodman
declining.
Okay. Council Pine Goodman. I would
author I would make a motion to
authorize the acquisition of land and
temporary construction easement for an
amount of
$47,100 for the purpose of building the
Southeast 62nd Street Road and Bridge.
Second.
Got a motion that has been made and
seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Seeing none, then all those in favor of
authorizing the acquisition of land and
temporary construction easement for
amount of
47,100 for the purpose of building the
Southeast 62nd Street Road and Bridge
project, signify by saying I. I. Those
opposed. That carries unanimously. There
being no further business uh uh this
evening, we are adjourned.
You should have taken