City Council Regular Meeting · Tuesday, February 21, 2017 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Mayor's State of the City Address Hear Presentation AB 7311

packet pp.5

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Feb. 21

Approve · packet pp.2017

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2017 ↗

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Feb. 8, 2017

Approve · packet pp.7–12

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 02-08-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7788

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, Feb. 8, 2017

Approve · packet pp.13

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this special meeting was to allow the City Council to recess into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation.

King County Conservation Futures Tax Levy (CFT) 2018 Grant AB 7276

Carried 5-2

Authorize Submittal · packet pp.15–22

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Parks & Recreation Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BARBER

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Goodman, Pauly

NW Dogwood Bridge Replacement AB 7292

Accept Project; Release Retainage · packet pp.23–25

Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7292 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 21 Feb 2017 Calendar

Lodging Tax Advisory Committee AB 7324

Confirm · packet pp.27–36

Topics: BudgetTourism

Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

Applicants meet the requirements for membership on LTAC; therefore, the Administration recommends Council confirming the appointments.

2017 Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB 7330

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.37–48

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017

Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

B. Implementation Strategies

Public Engagement Toolkit AB 7331

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.49–66

Topics: Public Safety

Open packet at p.49 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

8. PUBLIC HEARING

9th Major Amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Two Party Development Agreement - Polygon Northwest Requesting Major Modification for Transfer of Development Rights AB 7215

Carried 7-0

Conduct Continued Public Hearing; Approve · packet pp.67–101

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.67 ↗

Staff report:

POLICY & BUDGET INFO Expenditure Required Comp Plan Policy Nos. GMA-2, LU-A2, LU-A3, LU- A4, LU-A13, LU-C2, LU-G2, $ 0 LU-G3, LU-H5, H-A2, H-A3, H-A6, H-A9 Consistent: Yes Amount Budgeted

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Consider Additional Extension to Temporary Moratorium Related to Certain Permit Applications AB 7291

Carried 7-0

Conduct Public Hearing; Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.103–123

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.103 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Development Services Department:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Gilman Lofts (Three Trails) Development Agreement AB 7219

Direct Administration; Set Public Hearing · packet pp.125–146

Topics: Parks

Open packet at p.125 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7219 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 21 Feb 2017 Business

2777 segments

0:31 ↗ I'll call the uh city council regular

0:34 ↗ meeting for Tuesday, February the 21st,

0:38 ↗ 2017 to order and ask those who would

0:41 ↗ like to join the council and me and the

0:44 ↗ pledge of allegiance to please stand.

0:49 ↗ I aliance to the flag of the United

0:53 ↗ States of America and to the republic

0:56 ↗ for which it stands. One nation under

0:59 ↗ God, indivisible, with liberty and

1:02 ↗ justice for all.

1:09 ↗ Our first item under special business

1:12 ↗ this evening is agenda bill

1:15 ↗ 7311, the mayor's state of the city

1:18 ↗ address.

1:39 ↗ My fellow citizens, community members,

1:42 ↗ business leaders, city employees, and

1:46 ↗ Isiqua City Council members, I'm pleased

1:50 ↗ to appear before you tonight to present

1:54 ↗ my state of the city address.

1:57 ↗ During my past three years as Isakqua's

2:00 ↗ mayor, many of you have visited my

2:02 ↗ office at city

2:04 ↗ hall. Inside you will find my favorite

2:08 ↗ tool a

2:10 ↗ whiteboard. Along with quotes that

2:13 ↗ inspire me and occasional notes from my

2:17 ↗ grandchildren, my whiteboard

2:19 ↗ consistently features Isiqua's

2:21 ↗ strengths weaknesses opportunities

2:25 ↗ and threats.

2:29 ↗ Mapping out our city's SWAT

2:32 ↗ analysis helps all of us at city hall to

2:35 ↗ see the larger picture, set

2:38 ↗ priorities, and continually focus on

2:42 ↗ what is

2:44 ↗ next. Alongside my whiteboard, however,

2:48 ↗ you'll find two other

2:50 ↗ tools, an eraser and plenty of dry erase

2:55 ↗ markers.

2:57 ↗ Thanks to consistent feedback from

3:00 ↗ citizens, community leaders, city staff,

3:04 ↗ business owners, and regional

3:06 ↗ partners, this SWAT analysis is a fluid,

3:10 ↗ everchanging

3:11 ↗ snapshot of this roadmap for reaching

3:15 ↗ our ultimate vision where we are the

3:18 ↗ best place uh to invest in your

3:23 ↗ future. In a way, this evolving

3:26 ↗ whiteboard represents what makes Isiqua

3:29 ↗ so

3:31 ↗ special. By listening to each other,

3:34 ↗ considering all perspectives, and

3:37 ↗ setting common goals, we are a stronger

3:40 ↗ community. It all comes down to

3:43 ↗ partnerships.

3:46 ↗ Whether through citizen engagement or

3:48 ↗ relationships formed at the regional

3:50 ↗ level, Isiqua's partnerships are

3:54 ↗ essential to our future

3:58 ↗ success. Our history proves this. From

4:00 ↗ the creation of the Isqua Highlands to

4:04 ↗ the recently voter approval of Sound

4:07 ↗ Transit 3.

4:09 ↗ You may

4:10 ↗ ask,

4:12 ↗ what's on your whiteboard

4:16 ↗ today? First and foremost, the state of

4:20 ↗ the city is

4:22 ↗ strong, but challenges

4:26 ↗ remain. Tonight, you'll hear about some

4:29 ↗ of these strengths, weaknesses,

4:30 ↗ opportunities, and threats. And together

4:34 ↗ using

4:35 ↗ partnerships on an individual, group and

4:39 ↗ agency level, we will achieve our common

4:46 ↗ goals. Our number one focus as a

4:49 ↗ community is

4:51 ↗ clear. Tackling

4:53 ↗ traffic. Both a threat and an

4:56 ↗ opportunity. Traffic must be addressed

4:59 ↗ at a regional level.

5:03 ↗ Congestion doesn't stop at our city

5:13 ↗ boundaries. Last November, during a

5:16 ↗ regional transportation summit hosted by

5:18 ↗ Isiqua, we heard a common theme from

5:21 ↗ state, county, and local

5:25 ↗ leaders. We are not alone.

5:28 ↗ Cities surrounding Isiqua and throughout

5:30 ↗ the Pacific

5:32 ↗ Northwest are battling with regional

5:35 ↗ pass through traffic on a daily

5:39 ↗ basis. If you weren't able to attend the

5:42 ↗ summit, here's the Cliff's Note version.

5:46 ↗ Regional problems mandate regional

5:50 ↗ solutions.

5:52 ↗ No single

5:54 ↗ city in our area is isolated and

5:58 ↗ unaffected by any other

6:02 ↗ city. People today and in the future

6:05 ↗ will continue to move between

6:07 ↗ communities to access jobs, schools,

6:11 ↗ entertainment housing recreation and

6:13 ↗ more.

6:15 ↗ As a region, we must work together to

6:18 ↗ ensure our transportation system

6:21 ↗ reflects the reality of our

6:26 ↗ interconnectedness. I'm thankful we have

6:28 ↗ dedicated partners committed to working

6:31 ↗ together on this regional issue.

6:34 ↗ In the first quarter of 2017 this year,

6:37 ↗ technical staff from each city in King

6:39 ↗ County plan to meet, share existing

6:42 ↗ data, and develop a regional arterial

6:46 ↗ network which will help the group

6:49 ↗ identify long-term funding solutions.

6:54 ↗ As part of that effort, I plan to create

6:57 ↗ a regional partnership focused solely on

6:59 ↗ how to relieve congestion along Isiqua

7:02 ↗ Hobart Road. This partnership will

7:05 ↗ include state and county

7:07 ↗ representatives along with several local

7:10 ↗ cities. Our corridor study of that uh uh

7:14 ↗ that road which is currently underway

7:17 ↗ thanks to uh King County's partnership

7:20 ↗ is just one step needed to tackle

7:24 ↗ this consistent

7:26 ↗ headache. You'll hear a common theme

7:30 ↗ tonight.

7:31 ↗ Partnerships turn ideas into action.

7:36 ↗ A great example is the success of Sound

7:39 ↗ Transit 3, which will someday bring

7:42 ↗ light rail to

7:43 ↗ Isiqua. Long-term transportation

7:46 ↗ solutions don't happen

7:48 ↗ overnight. Voters strong support of ST3,

7:52 ↗ however, proved that our vision for

7:54 ↗ planning for mobility at a regional

7:57 ↗ level is on the right track.

8:01 ↗ Light rail, however, won't fix today's

8:05 ↗ traffic

8:07 ↗ congestion. Next month, we will

8:09 ↗ celebrate the groundbreaking of an

8:11 ↗ exciting project which will build a new

8:15 ↗ road connecting East Lake Samameish

8:17 ↗ Parkway to Costco's international

8:20 ↗ headquarters.

8:23 ↗ This significant capital project won't

8:25 ↗ wouldn't be possible without Costco's

8:28 ↗ funding assistance and partnership.

8:32 ↗ This is a great example of how we're

8:35 ↗ working together with local employers to

8:39 ↗ grow Isiqua's economy while also

8:43 ↗ investing in

8:45 ↗ infrastructure. Creating more good

8:48 ↗ paying jobs within our community and

8:52 ↗ reducing the amount of time we all spend

8:55 ↗ in our cars is a win-win.

8:59 ↗ To expand transit service options for

9:01 ↗ residents and employees in two pockets

9:04 ↗ of our community, Squawk Mountain and

9:07 ↗ Talis, Isiqua will partner with King

9:11 ↗ County Metro and local stakeholders this

9:14 ↗ year to develop an alternative services

9:18 ↗ pilot

9:21 ↗ program. Last fall, after significant

9:23 ↗ public input, Isiqua placed a 50 million

9:27 ↗ traffic improvement bond on the

9:30 ↗ ballot. While a majority of Isiqua's

9:33 ↗ voters supported it, the measure didn't

9:36 ↗ reach the required 60% yes threshold

9:41 ↗ needed for approval.

9:44 ↗ It's clear, however, that a majority of

9:46 ↗ Isiqua voters are supportive of making

9:49 ↗ local investments to reduce

9:52 ↗ congestion, enhance safety, and improve

9:55 ↗ our local

9:56 ↗ streets. As a next step, we will be

9:59 ↗ conducting some research to answer

10:01 ↗ everyone's question, what's next? How do

10:05 ↗ we as a community invest in needed

10:08 ↗ infrastructure

10:11 ↗ improvements? As we begin a new year, I

10:15 ↗ always like to reflect on the

10:18 ↗ past. Isiqua has a strong history of

10:21 ↗ implementing smart growth philosophies

10:24 ↗ and our most current chapter reflects

10:28 ↗ that

10:30 ↗ tradition. In 2012, to protect Isiqua's

10:34 ↗ existing neighborhoods and natural

10:36 ↗ environment, the city adopted the

10:38 ↗ central Isiqua plan to guide the

10:41 ↗ long-term evolution of our existing

10:45 ↗ commercial core into an urban center.

10:50 ↗ While this long range plan sets an

10:52 ↗ important vision, it also requires

10:56 ↗ periodic tweaks to incorporate changing

11:01 ↗ conditions. Using a moratorum this year,

11:04 ↗ we pushed the pause button to address

11:06 ↗ several issues before more development

11:10 ↗ proceeds, including architectural fit

11:13 ↗ within the community and availability of

11:16 ↗ affordable housing.

11:19 ↗ The city is continuing its work to

11:21 ↗ develop a housing

11:23 ↗ strategy through analysis and feedback

11:26 ↗ from

11:27 ↗ residents employers service

11:29 ↗ organizations, and builders. The housing

11:32 ↗ strategy will inform ways in which the

11:35 ↗ city can help shape the affordability

11:39 ↗ and types of housing in Isiqua.

11:42 ↗ Our goals is to enhance the city's

11:46 ↗ character and environment while

11:48 ↗ providing a diversity of choices to meet

11:51 ↗ the needs of people who choose to live,

11:54 ↗ work, and play in

11:57 ↗ Isiqua. As we all know, more people will

12:01 ↗ choose the Pacific Northwest as their

12:03 ↗ home in the coming years and decades.

12:07 ↗ We are fortunate to live in a very

12:10 ↗ desirable region, one that attracted

12:13 ↗ more than

12:15 ↗ 86,000 new residents in the past two

12:19 ↗ years

12:21 ↗ alone. Throughout our community, from

12:24 ↗ Facebook to local coffee shops, many

12:28 ↗ community conversations are taking place

12:31 ↗ about growth.

12:33 ↗ Understanding our residents views is

12:35 ↗ essential as we focus on future planning

12:40 ↗ efforts. Speaking of growth, the city is

12:42 ↗ also closely partnering with the Isiqua

12:45 ↗ School District as it plans its future

12:49 ↗ facilities within Isiqua to meet current

12:53 ↗ and

12:54 ↗ future population demands.

12:58 ↗ Now turning back to my

13:01 ↗ whiteboard, a key focus for 2017 is

13:05 ↗ service

13:08 ↗ delivery. The city of Isiqua is after

13:11 ↗ all in business in the business of

13:14 ↗ service. Each of us is dedicated to

13:17 ↗ serving our residents, businesses, and

13:20 ↗ larger community no matter their

13:23 ↗ background.

13:25 ↗ Several planned capital projects on the

13:27 ↗ horizon will target traffic congestion,

13:31 ↗ enhance our parks, and improve our

13:34 ↗ public

13:35 ↗ assets. As we work to deliver these

13:39 ↗ amenities, the city is approaching each

13:42 ↗ project with a focus on continuous

13:45 ↗ improvement and partnership.

13:50 ↗ Now's the time to revisit our capital

13:52 ↗ improvement plan process, which will

13:54 ↗ help better inform decision making as we

13:58 ↗ develop future city

14:00 ↗ budgets. Meanwhile, a focus on crossf

14:02 ↗ functional teams will also enhance our

14:06 ↗ internal project

14:09 ↗ management. Here in Isiqua, we have

14:11 ↗ plenty to celebrate. From our

14:14 ↗ breathtaking natural beauty to Isiqua's

14:17 ↗ inspiring community members, it's no

14:20 ↗ wonder our city is a desirable place to

14:23 ↗ raise a family, build a business, or

14:27 ↗ enjoy

14:29 ↗ retirement. And in 2017, we have another

14:33 ↗ reason, 125th anniversary.

14:37 ↗ In the coming months, look for a variety

14:40 ↗ of opportunities to celebrate our

14:42 ↗ history. From community events to

14:45 ↗ partnerships with local businesses and

14:49 ↗ nonprofits, as we honor our past, we are

14:53 ↗ also focusing on the future. Along with

14:57 ↗ delivering important capital projects in

15:00 ↗ 2017, Isiqua is moving full steam ahead

15:04 ↗ on long range planning efforts that

15:07 ↗ require significant partnerships within

15:10 ↗ the

15:11 ↗ community. We're shaping the vision for

15:14 ↗ our

15:15 ↗ parks, assessing your needs through a

15:18 ↗ healthy community strategy, and

15:21 ↗ reflecting on our shared vision for

15:24 ↗ Oldtown.

15:26 ↗ Each of these efforts will require

15:28 ↗ significant public engagement. From

15:31 ↗ neighborhood meetings to new online

15:33 ↗ engagement tools, further strengthening

15:36 ↗ customer connections ensures we as

15:40 ↗ public servants are providing

15:42 ↗ exceptional customer service.

15:47 ↗ As we recognized earlier this month, our

15:49 ↗ community is preparing to say goodbye to

15:51 ↗ the Isiqua Press, the oldest newspaper

15:55 ↗ on the east side, which will cease

15:58 ↗ operations later this

16:00 ↗ month. The press has told our community

16:03 ↗ stories for the past 117 years.

16:08 ↗ Now more than ever, it is essential that

16:10 ↗ we foster engagement opportunities

16:13 ↗ ensure citizens remain informed about

16:16 ↗ important community decisions that will

16:19 ↗ affect their everyday

16:23 ↗ lives. In conclusion, tonight has

16:27 ↗ personal significance for me. This will

16:30 ↗ be my last State of the City address.

16:33 ↗ After much consideration, I will not be

16:36 ↗ running for reelection as your

16:39 ↗ mayor. While 2018 will be a year of

16:42 ↗ change for Isiqua's leadership, I'm

16:45 ↗ confident our community strong

16:47 ↗ partnerships will ensure a smooth

16:49 ↗ transition.

16:51 ↗ We have an exciting and challenging year

16:53 ↗ ahead and I intend to be fully engaged

16:56 ↗ as we continue our mission to provide

16:59 ↗ quality services that support a

17:02 ↗ sustainable, safe, and welcoming

17:06 ↗ community that is

17:08 ↗ inclusive for everyone.

17:11 ↗ As you will hear throughout our birthday

17:14 ↗ celebrations this year, history happens

17:19 ↗ every day. I'm excited to see what

17:22 ↗ Isiqua's next chapter holds. Thank you

17:26 ↗ very much.

17:29 ↗ [Applause]

17:47 ↗ Next uh we uh we move to audience

17:52 ↗ comments. Citizen comments are an

17:54 ↗ important part of the public process. We

17:56 ↗ take them seriously and factor them into

17:58 ↗ the decisions that we make. Anyone from

18:01 ↗ the public who wishes to comment will

18:03 ↗ have the opportunity to do so. Please

18:06 ↗ direct comments to the whole council,

18:08 ↗ not individuals. While this is not a

18:11 ↗ question and answer session, we will

18:14 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed. If

18:18 ↗ you did not have an opportunity include

18:20 ↗ to include your email address on the

18:23 ↗ signup sheet, you may leave that

18:25 ↗ information on the clipboard at the

18:28 ↗ front table in front of me after

18:31 ↗ speaking.

18:33 ↗ When recognized, please move to the

18:35 ↗ lectern. Speak into the microphone.

18:37 ↗ State your name, address, and any

18:39 ↗ relationship to the city. Limit your

18:42 ↗ comments to five minutes, and submit any

18:45 ↗ written comments to the city

18:48 ↗ clerk. As an aside, we have two

18:50 ↗ scheduled public hearings this evening.

18:54 ↗ uh uh one uh on agenda bill

18:58 ↗ 7215 ninth major amendment to the Isqua

19:01 ↗ Highlands two-party development

19:02 ↗ agreement and the other uh uh agenda

19:06 ↗ bill

19:07 ↗ 7291 to consider additional extension to

19:11 ↗ the temporary moratorum related to

19:14 ↗ certain permit

19:16 ↗ applications. So, uh, those two public,

19:19 ↗ uh, hearings will provide an opportunity

19:21 ↗ if you would like to speak to those two

19:24 ↗ issues. A visual timer has been placed

19:27 ↗ on the lectern. It turns yellow. Uh,

19:31 ↗ when you are within the last minute of

19:34 ↗ your comment period. If you use the full

19:37 ↗ five minutes, the timer will sound to

19:39 ↗ indicate the end of your allotted

19:42 ↗ comment time. Personal attacks, obscene

19:45 ↗ language, derogatory remarks, and

19:47 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

19:49 ↗ permitted. Uh again, citizen comments,

19:52 ↗ written and verbal, are an important

19:54 ↗ aspect of the public process. The city

19:57 ↗ takes them seriously, and we thank

19:59 ↗ members for the public for taking the

20:02 ↗ time to address us this evening. And

20:05 ↗ with that, I would ask uh the clerk, has

20:08 ↗ anyone signed up to speak this evening?

20:10 ↗ Yes, Lindseay Walsh.

20:17 ↗ Just um my name is Lindseay Walsh. I'm

20:19 ↗ in the Highlands at

20:21 ↗ 176928th Avenue Northeast. Um and just

20:25 ↗ looking further down the consent

20:27 ↗ calendar, I am really pleased to see AB

20:30 ↗ 7331 about the public engagement

20:32 ↗ toolkit. I read it over. I'm really

20:34 ↗ pleased that our community is going in

20:37 ↗ that direction. Um, and I like so many

20:40 ↗ of the elements of that and I just

20:41 ↗ wanted to say thank you for considering

20:43 ↗ it and I hope it moves forward and gets

20:45 ↗ active engagement in the community.

20:47 ↗ Thank you. Thank you.

20:52 ↗ Steve Pereira.

21:01 ↗ Hi, my name is Steve Pereira. Uh, Mayor

21:04 ↗ Butler, I'm sorry it'll see be your last

21:05 ↗ year on the council. you've been

21:06 ↗ actively engaged and involved. So, thank

21:08 ↗ you publicly. Um, so I'm here to talk

21:12 ↗ about two things in part of the general

21:13 ↗ comment section. The first this start of

21:15 ↗ the year I've been kind of thinking

21:16 ↗ about democracy uh not in the sense of

21:19 ↗ democrat or republic and but in the

21:21 ↗ sense of democracy is the engagement of

21:23 ↗ people in the public process. Um, and

21:25 ↗ kind of that light I've been thinking

21:27 ↗ about uh indeed the demise of this the

21:30 ↗ Isqua press. Uh, one of the things I

21:33 ↗ really liked about there was a section

21:34 ↗ that listed all the things that were

21:35 ↗ going on in the city each week and as a

21:38 ↗ way of being engaged and involved. I

21:40 ↗ didn't know if at this hour there's any

21:42 ↗ way for the city to take more

21:44 ↗ advertisement in the paper to expand

21:46 ↗ that section to say things like carry

21:49 ↗ parts of the agenda or the topics as a

21:52 ↗ way of kind of a lifeline to the city of

21:54 ↗ Isqua and the city of Isqua press as a

21:57 ↗ way of staying engaged in that process.

21:59 ↗ If there's any way for that to happen, I

22:01 ↗ think that should be followed up as part

22:02 ↗ of that engagement process. Uh, barring

22:05 ↗ that, I'd like to see if the city could

22:07 ↗ I know the city has you can sign up for

22:10 ↗ different activities and events on in

22:12 ↗ Isqua, whether it's rivers and streams

22:14 ↗ or uh various activities, send out links

22:18 ↗ to active links to uh things like city

22:22 ↗ council meetings and agenda meetings and

22:24 ↗ active links to engage people in the

22:26 ↗ process and not have to make us go to

22:27 ↗ the website and find and look for the

22:29 ↗ things, make it more apparent and

22:31 ↗ transparent.

22:32 ↗ uh of course and I'm sure all of you up

22:35 ↗ in the das are aware of this the

22:37 ↗ announcement or the appointments of

22:38 ↗ various city councils will be various

22:40 ↗ city committees we made later this year

22:43 ↗ anybody in sound of the my voice or my

22:45 ↗ presence might be seeing this please

22:47 ↗ take this opportunity to be engaged and

22:49 ↗ uh participate in the process uh the

22:52 ↗ second activity I wanted to talk about

22:54 ↗ is uh item G in the consent calendar

22:57 ↗ which is uh docket of comprehensive plan

23:00 ↗ amendments And uh in that the policy

23:04 ↗ planning commission has been looking at

23:05 ↗ eight of the 17 activities with the

23:08 ↗ remaining nine seven nine of 17

23:09 ↗ activities being deferred until next

23:11 ↗ year. Uh which to me is a shame. This is

23:14 ↗ really kind of the blueprint and of who

23:16 ↗ we want to become as a city and we're

23:18 ↗ not even looking at the first half.

23:20 ↗ Uh I think a lot of those things that

23:23 ↗ we're not even talking about this year

23:24 ↗ have direct bearing on things like the

23:26 ↗ zoning or not zoning but on the u

23:29 ↗ developmental moratorium that we need to

23:30 ↗ look at like the transportation and the

23:34 ↗ uh we talked about the green necklace or

23:37 ↗ uh tree canopy. I think that should if

23:39 ↗ anything be expanded to talk about

23:41 ↗ wildlife zones. Uh I'm not trying to

23:44 ↗ talk about those things here. I'm just

23:46 ↗ referencing as another example, let's

23:47 ↗ say the Bergsma property where we talk

23:49 ↗ about the city talks about wanting to

23:51 ↗ retain a 50% tree canopy. We're going to

23:54 ↗ be losing an awful lot of trees uh or

23:56 ↗ tree canopy with that and that seems to

23:59 ↗ be in not in compliance with where we're

24:03 ↗ wanting to go as a city and maintaining.

24:05 ↗ Um so I would look at more whatever

24:08 ↗ needs to be more staffing more time to

24:10 ↗ develop that

24:12 ↗ uh comprehens not comprehensive plan the

24:16 ↗ uh comprehensive plan

24:18 ↗ amendments before we do things like

24:20 ↗ lifting the moratorum because we're not

24:22 ↗ putting those things in the correct

24:24 ↗ order for them to happen develop the

24:26 ↗ plan and

24:27 ↗ then developed in accord to that plan.

24:30 ↗ So please go back and uh review that.

24:33 ↗ Other than that, I'll reserve any other

24:34 ↗ comments for the moratorium until a

24:36 ↗ little bit later. Thank you all. Thank

24:38 ↗ you.

24:42 ↗ Julie Adam,

24:50 ↗ my name is Julie Adameck and I live at

24:52 ↗ 1667 24th Place Northeast up in the

24:55 ↗ Highlands. And I'm um simply just here

24:58 ↗ to say how thrilled I am that you are

25:00 ↗ considering more affordable housing. I

25:02 ↗ would be the first person on that list.

25:04 ↗ Um I work for the school district and um

25:09 ↗ I have lived up in the Highlands for

25:10 ↗ many years and

25:12 ↗ um I'm just here to say I'm watched the

25:16 ↗ last two videos the meetings that you

25:18 ↗ had online but wasn't able to make it. I

25:20 ↗ was actually kind of surprised there

25:22 ↗ weren't more people in attendance in

25:23 ↗ support of that. But I just want to make

25:25 ↗ sure I came and let you know that I was

25:27 ↗ really happy to see that that it's being

25:29 ↗ considered. Um whether was it tracked D

25:34 ↗ or the other one down by the um bus bus

25:38 ↗ bus station I really have no preference

25:41 ↗ but um I'm mainly wondering what I'm

25:43 ↗ wondering about that I guess would be

25:45 ↗ for Polygon what the price is if there's

25:48 ↗ any kind of price point what

25:50 ↗ affordability means um at this point if

25:53 ↗ that's even um known. So anyway thank

25:57 ↗ you. Thank you.

26:01 ↗ No one else has signed up to speak. Is

26:04 ↗ there anyone desiring to speak who has

26:07 ↗ not uh signed up?

26:11 ↗ Anyone desiring to speak? Yes, sir.

26:17 ↗ Uh good evening. I thought I had signed

26:19 ↗ in, but perhaps there is a uh

26:23 ↗ Sorry. Did you sign in for the uh one of

26:26 ↗ the two public hearings? Yes, I did.

26:28 ↗ Okay. Well, where that comes later in

26:30 ↗ the agenda? I'm jumping the gun then. I

26:32 ↗ will withhold my comments until that

26:34 ↗ time. Yes, sir. Thank you.

26:39 ↗ Uh is there anyone uh else desiring to

26:43 ↗ speak who has not signed up? Third and

26:46 ↗ final call. Anyone else? Seeing none,

26:49 ↗ then audience comments are closed and

26:51 ↗ we'll now move to committee and regional

26:53 ↗ reports. Uh beginning with council

26:56 ↗ member Batis.

27:01 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh on February

27:03 ↗ 15th, I attended uh my first King

27:06 ↗ Conservation District uh committee uh

27:10 ↗ both the caucus and the committee

27:11 ↗ meeting. And of note uh in a very long

27:15 ↗ sort of overview and introduction

27:17 ↗ program um was the member jurisdiction

27:21 ↗ grant program. Um, and we got a chance

27:25 ↗ to view the the new online application

27:28 ↗ portal and the dedicated pages to the

27:32 ↗ member uh organizations and they've

27:34 ↗ really done a lot of work to make that

27:37 ↗ whole process much easier and I just

27:40 ↗ want to make sure that we are all aware

27:43 ↗ of that. So, I'll I'll definitely be

27:45 ↗ wrapping around uh with some um staff

27:48 ↗ members to talk a little bit more about

27:50 ↗ that. The next meeting uh is March 15th

27:52 ↗ in Reon. I also attended the uh economic

27:56 ↗ development uh council uh board meeting.

28:00 ↗ Well, first was an orientation so all of

28:03 ↗ the new members could meet each other

28:05 ↗ and then we'll have our first board

28:06 ↗ meeting on February 28th. And that

28:09 ↗ concludes my report. Thank you. Thank

28:11 ↗ you, Council Member Ramos. Thank you,

28:14 ↗ Mr. Mayor. on um February 8th, I

28:17 ↗ attended the emergency management uh

28:19 ↗ advisory council and I have no report

28:20 ↗ from there. Uh on the 9th, just to say I

28:24 ↗ went to my first east side fire and

28:25 ↗ rescue meeting. I'm an alternative

28:27 ↗ alternate member this year. Uh so I'll

28:29 ↗ let someone else report that, but I just

28:31 ↗ want to say I'm going there now. Um on

28:34 ↗ the 10th of February, I was the East

28:35 ↗ Side Transportation Partnership and a

28:37 ↗ couple things happened there of note. Uh

28:40 ↗ one of which, uh you may remember I'm on

28:41 ↗ the legislative committee there. Uh I

28:44 ↗ also now got drafted on the planning

28:45 ↗ committee there. So I'll be helping set

28:47 ↗ the agenda for the year for that. Uh but

28:49 ↗ they had a presentation there I want to

28:51 ↗ let everybody know about. Um there was a

28:54 ↗ council member from Maple Valley uh who

28:56 ↗ is proposing a transportation benefit

28:58 ↗ district for southeast King County. And

29:02 ↗ all the details get very very detailed,

29:05 ↗ shall I say, but I'll give you a quick

29:07 ↗ little overview. The area would start at

29:10 ↗ Isiziqua's southern border and go south

29:13 ↗ from there and bounce down to Reton. So

29:15 ↗ that southeast corner, King County is

29:17 ↗ what they're looking at. This is and I

29:18 ↗ say just just a proposal. Maple Valley

29:21 ↗ has taken the lead on it and they are uh

29:23 ↗ trying to com uh include three other

29:25 ↗ cities, Coington, Black Diamond, and

29:27 ↗ Enimclaw as well as all the uh King

29:31 ↗ County area in between. Um, and their

29:33 ↗ proposal is to put together $250

29:37 ↗ million and and to do that by having a

29:41 ↗ $30 uh license tab fee and that would

29:45 ↗ raise 20% of the funds and to get the

29:48 ↗ other 80% from other grant sources. And

29:52 ↗ they the proposal is to spend those $250

29:54 ↗ million on four projects. 180 million of

29:57 ↗ that would be on Highway 169, which is a

30:00 ↗ major one in and out of there, of

30:02 ↗ course, 46 million on Highway

30:04 ↗ 516, 20 million on Highway 410, and

30:07 ↗ interestingly enough, 4 million on the

30:09 ↗ Isqua Hobart Road, a couple roundabouts.

30:12 ↗ So, they are just starting that process.

30:14 ↗ They're going kind of taking it around,

30:15 ↗ letting folks know what they're doing.

30:16 ↗ They have a lot of work to do to get

30:18 ↗ something like that put together. Um,

30:19 ↗ but let you know that that's that's what

30:21 ↗ I know at this point in time. It'll be

30:23 ↗ interesting.

30:25 ↗ Um then on uh let's see coming up on the

30:29 ↗ 22nd tomorrow uh will be the uh

30:32 ↗ infrastructure committee meeting and I'm

30:34 ↗ starting as a new chair on that uh this

30:36 ↗ year and on the agenda on that is uh

30:38 ↗ four major topics. Uh first one is uh

30:42 ↗ complete streets and we'll be looking at

30:44 ↗ what projects are going to be done

30:45 ↗ completed this year in the complete

30:47 ↗ streets program of the money that's

30:48 ↗ already in the budget. So we'll be

30:50 ↗ deciding that. Second one is uh agenda

30:53 ↗ bill

30:54 ↗ 7308 and that's uh starting the to look

30:58 ↗ at improvements on Gilman Boulevard.

31:00 ↗ It'd be just a start of doing the survey

31:02 ↗ work to start getting the the base

31:04 ↗ information so we long term we can make

31:06 ↗ a plan for that boulevard but now it's

31:08 ↗ just starting to gather the information.

31:12 ↗ Um both those are coming back to the

31:14 ↗ infrastructure committee. Um a new one

31:17 ↗ that is starting uh is the uh question

31:20 ↗ uh and it's just up for discussion. The

31:22 ↗ question on the uh traffic coming in

31:24 ↗ Oldtown East Sunset area. So that's

31:26 ↗ discussion will be starting um there. No

31:29 ↗ decisions on that. Uh the last one is

31:31 ↗ also coming back to infrastructure. It's

31:33 ↗ the AB

31:34 ↗ 7249. It's discussion of of the creation

31:37 ↗ of a transport transportation mobility

31:39 ↗ board and that's coming back with some

31:41 ↗ further discussion and see where that

31:43 ↗ goes. Uh again, not planned for a final

31:45 ↗ decision on that either. Um and then

31:48 ↗ project updates. Another thing we'll

31:50 ↗ also discuss is the March meeting is

31:52 ↗ going to be moved because of conflict

31:54 ↗ with that dates. That'll be decided

31:56 ↗ tomorrow night as well. I'll let you all

31:57 ↗ know that. So, but that will be moved in

32:00 ↗ March as well as this one tomorrow. It

32:02 ↗ has been moved from last week. And

32:05 ↗ um then also on the 23rd, I'll be

32:08 ↗ attending the uh regional transportation

32:10 ↗ uh regional transit committee. Um two

32:13 ↗ major things on that agenda. Uh again

32:15 ↗ stepping into the program of work.

32:16 ↗ They're looking at how to guides to

32:18 ↗ develop their service and capital

32:20 ↗ decisions and looking at the main

32:22 ↗ problem of how can they expand their

32:25 ↗ system when right now cap infrastructure

32:27 ↗ and capital is one of their limiting

32:29 ↗ factors such as they don't they need

32:31 ↗ another bus base if they want to add

32:33 ↗ more buses. They're at capacity. Those

32:35 ↗ types of things and those are major

32:36 ↗ decisions and how to how to make those

32:38 ↗ and and move on down the road with

32:40 ↗ those. Uh, so that's what we're going to

32:41 ↗ be working on a lot this year. And, uh,

32:43 ↗ that concludes my report. Thank you,

32:45 ↗ Council Member Winterside. Thank you,

32:47 ↗ Mr. Mayor. The, um, the only committee

32:50 ↗ I'm going to report on is next Thursday.

32:53 ↗ There will be a meeting of the Puget

32:55 ↗ Sound Regional Council's Growth

32:56 ↗ Management Policy Board. The agenda for

32:58 ↗ that has not yet been published.

33:01 ↗ However, I do know that we will be

33:03 ↗ talking about the new regional centers

33:05 ↗ framework report that was released last

33:08 ↗ week. Uh, and I've been kind of um

33:11 ↗ letting you guys know kind of the

33:13 ↗ process of that that becoming available.

33:15 ↗ We're going to have some discussions

33:17 ↗ about this. The uh that um regional

33:19 ↗ cent's framework update um will likely

33:23 ↗ have an impact on Isiqua and uh the the

33:25 ↗ policy board is aiming for um the July

33:28 ↗ time frame to make a recommendation to

33:30 ↗ the executive committee. So, we have a

33:32 ↗ couple months but um to to decide as a

33:36 ↗ council and as a city uh you know what

33:38 ↗ direction we'd like to see any changes

33:40 ↗ take. Uh and I was encouraged I I liked

33:42 ↗ what I just heard about the TBD down

33:44 ↗ south and Mr. Mayor you talked about the

33:47 ↗ the the new committee to regional

33:49 ↗ traffic requires regional solutions.

33:51 ↗ That type of partnership I think is in

33:52 ↗ the spirit of I think that type of

33:54 ↗ changes uh I think we're going to be

33:56 ↗ discussing in this city when it comes to

33:58 ↗ uh regional centers framework. That

34:00 ↗ concludes my report. Thank you, uh,

34:02 ↗ Council Member Mars. Thank you, Mr.

34:05 ↗ Mayor. Uh, the Council Services and

34:08 ↗ Safety Committee met on, uh, February

34:12 ↗ 8th here in City Hall. Uh, I'm sorry.

34:16 ↗ Sound Cities I get my two committees

34:18 ↗ mixed up. Sun Cities Association Public

34:20 ↗ Issues Committee met on February 8th in

34:21 ↗ Reton City Hall. And there were no

34:24 ↗ action items other than housekeeping

34:27 ↗ related uh, items. There was a

34:29 ↗ discussion uh of no uh we noted the uh

34:33 ↗ GMPB's uh evolving uh uh interest in

34:37 ↗ perhaps changing the way urban center uh

34:40 ↗ urban centers are designated and uh u

34:43 ↗ eager to see how that how that might

34:44 ↗ potentially affect Isiqua. Uh and then

34:48 ↗ the sound city the services and safety

34:51 ↗ committee met on February 14th. Agenda

34:54 ↗ bill 7282 was the arch 2017 proposed

34:58 ↗ work program and budget. Uh that was uh

35:01 ↗ recommended action 3 to 0 in favor of

35:04 ↗ moving forward to the March 6th consent

35:06 ↗ agenda. Agenda bill 7283 was an arch

35:09 ↗ related uh trust fund bill and that was

35:12 ↗ also moved 3 to 0. Uh we had an opioid

35:15 ↗ use report which was very informative.

35:18 ↗ Uh and if anyone's interested now that

35:20 ↗ we have committee uh meetings televised,

35:23 ↗ I would encourage folks at home to take

35:24 ↗ a look at that report that David

35:26 ↗ Fujimoto uh presented. Uh additionally,

35:29 ↗ SCA is planning on having I believe for

35:32 ↗ the May I believe it's the May pick um

35:35 ↗ we're going to have the prep meeting on

35:38 ↗ opioid use and its relationship with

35:40 ↗ property

35:41 ↗ crime. And then we also had a senior

35:43 ↗ center update and the transition thus

35:45 ↗ far has been uh very smooth. Jeff

35:47 ↗ Watling uh told us about uh uh the

35:50 ↗ programs uh that are in place and that

35:53 ↗ uh initial reports back have been very

35:56 ↗ positive moving forward. Uh both folks

35:58 ↗ who uh had been involved and folks uh

36:01 ↗ who had recently returned to the senior

36:03 ↗ center. This concludes my report. Thank

36:05 ↗ you. Uh Council Member Barber. No report

36:07 ↗ this evening. Council member Paulie.

36:10 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I attended the

36:11 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance Resource

36:13 ↗ Committee meeting on February 9th at

36:15 ↗ their offices in Belleview. They

36:17 ↗ reviewed a few contract bid offerings um

36:20 ↗ for recommendation for board approval.

36:22 ↗ The board meeting is this week. They

36:24 ↗ also had a discussion of the water

36:26 ↗ quality management work plan that has

36:28 ↗ been developed for uh Lake Taps. Um

36:32 ↗ there was a new policy uh proposal that

36:35 ↗ will also be going to the board on how

36:37 ↗ Cascade will uh deal with property

36:40 ↗ acquisitions going forward and notifying

36:42 ↗ the board at various stages through

36:44 ↗ those processes.

36:46 ↗ There was a the probably the most

36:48 ↗ interesting issue um for Isiqua was that

36:50 ↗ there is a draft policy that is going to

36:53 ↗ come forward regarding how reclaimed

36:55 ↗ water is used within the Cascade Water

36:57 ↗ Alliance Service District. This is uh an

37:00 ↗ issue that I'll probably be able to

37:01 ↗ provide more information on in the

37:03 ↗ following

37:04 ↗ months. Uh the EHER board meeting was on

37:07 ↗ February 9th at Ephera headquarters. Uh

37:09 ↗ the first item up was an introduction

37:11 ↗ and recognition for the staff of the

37:13 ↗ finance and human resources department.

37:15 ↗ Uh they completed a year of installing

37:18 ↗ their new financial software and now are

37:20 ↗ down to their new platform only. We had

37:23 ↗ a new formalized warrant review process

37:26 ↗ that the board approved and then the

37:27 ↗ fire chief reported out on a uh benefit

37:31 ↗ summary of healthc care benefits and an

37:35 ↗ update on the POS property. uh POS

37:39 ↗ impacts to the headquarters property. Uh

37:42 ↗ potential bidding opportunity to the

37:44 ↗ Snowquami Fire Department to get the

37:47 ↗ equipment maintenance contract and also

37:49 ↗ provided some information about the

37:51 ↗ firefighters benevolent fund program to

37:53 ↗ provide life jackets at var three lakes

37:56 ↗ in the area lakeish, Pine Lake, and

37:59 ↗ Rattlesnake

38:00 ↗ Lake. That's my report. Thank you,

38:03 ↗ Council President Goodman. Thank you,

38:04 ↗ Mr. Mayor.

38:06 ↗ The land and shore committee meets on

38:09 ↗ March 2nd at 6:30 here in council

38:11 ↗ chambers. Um and uh as uh council member

38:15 ↗ Marcus noted the committees are

38:16 ↗ televised. So I encourage people to

38:18 ↗ watch. On the agenda for that meeting um

38:21 ↗ we have a standing item moratorum

38:23 ↗ update. Uh just a few minutes to discuss

38:25 ↗ any um updates that there might be.

38:28 ↗ Agenda bill

38:30 ↗ 7317 vertical mixeduse analysis uh for

38:33 ↗ discussion only. um which uh will be

38:37 ↗ getting some feedback and then it will

38:40 ↗ be going on to the work session uh

38:42 ↗ planning policy um uh commission back to

38:45 ↗ Landon Shore back to city council. So

38:47 ↗ it's just one of the public touch

38:48 ↗ points. Agenda Bill 7270 uh the 2016 uh

38:53 ↗ comprehensive comprehensive plan

38:55 ↗ amendments. We are continuing to work on

38:57 ↗ those. hope to uh get that back to the

38:59 ↗ full council with a recommendation after

39:01 ↗ Landon Shore agenda bill 7330 which is

39:04 ↗ 2017 docket of comprehensive plan

39:07 ↗ amendments. We will be discussing the

39:09 ↗ list of items that will be um moving

39:12 ↗ through the um amendment process this

39:14 ↗ year. And the last item for discussion

39:16 ↗ only is a sustainable building action

39:19 ↗ strategy. Uh this was a council goal. Uh

39:22 ↗ we last discussed this at our November

39:23 ↗ work session and we'll get an update and

39:26 ↗ then it will be going to a work session

39:27 ↗ and then uh back to city council in May.

39:31 ↗ That's my report. Thank you. Uh there

39:33 ↗ will be an executive session held this

39:35 ↗ evening for the purpose of discussing

39:37 ↗ property acquisition per

39:42 ↗ RCW42.30.110

39:44 ↗ pernb and collective bargaining per

39:47 ↗ RCW42.30.140

39:50 ↗ 30.140 per N4. These items are expected

39:54 ↗ to take approximately 70 minutes. Action

39:58 ↗ is anticipated to follow in open

40:01 ↗ session. I'm pleased to announce that

40:04 ↗ the city of Isiqua was recently

40:05 ↗ recognized as a storm ready community by

40:09 ↗ the National Weather Service. This

40:12 ↗ recognition uh uh is uh thanks to the

40:17 ↗ hard work of our emergency management

40:19 ↗ staff uh who help our community prepare

40:23 ↗ for emergencies and disasters. For more

40:27 ↗ information on how to prepare, go to

40:35 ↗ isuawa.govm. Following recent events on

40:38 ↗ the national stage, I want to reassure

40:41 ↗ our community that nothing has changed

40:44 ↗ here in Isiqua. Our community as always

40:48 ↗ is welcome welcoming of all people. As

40:52 ↗ your city government, we welcome all

40:54 ↗ people and ideas with the belief that we

40:58 ↗ are smarter and stronger when we join

41:01 ↗ together.

41:02 ↗ Similar to several sanctuary cities

41:04 ↗ throughout our region and nation, Isiqua

41:08 ↗ uh has always provided services and

41:12 ↗ enforced the law equally, fairly, and

41:14 ↗ without discrimination towards any

41:17 ↗ individual or group, regardless of

41:20 ↗ immigration status. Importantly, our

41:24 ↗ Isiqua Police Department is committed to

41:26 ↗ providing law enforcement services to

41:31 ↗ the community without regard to racial,

41:33 ↗ cultural, or other

41:35 ↗ differences. As your local government,

41:38 ↗ we are ensuring that all staff have

41:40 ↗ clear direction not to inquire about

41:43 ↗ immigration status when interacting with

41:46 ↗ our community. We want all members of

41:49 ↗ the community to feel safe. Uh uh

41:58 ↗ uh

42:01 ↗ yes and secure

42:04 ↗ uh when interacting with our officers,

42:07 ↗ accessing city services, and engaging

42:10 ↗ with us. If you or your family feel

42:13 ↗ unsafe or need assistance, or if you see

42:16 ↗ harassment or hate crimes in our

42:19 ↗ community, call 911

42:21 ↗ immediately. We will always be a

42:24 ↗ community that embraces diversity and

42:27 ↗ welcomes all viewpoints. Thank you for

42:30 ↗ your support in keeping Isiqua a safe

42:33 ↗ community for everyone. And that uh

42:37 ↗ concludes the mayor's report. Uh sorry

42:40 ↗ for that stumble on the last topic. Uh

42:44 ↗ we'll now move to the consent calendar

42:48 ↗ and I would ask if the accounts payable

42:50 ↗ and payroll uh dated 21 February have

42:54 ↗ been reviewed. Yes. Yes. Uh with that I

42:59 ↗ would ask the clerk to read into the

43:02 ↗ record the consent calendar.

43:04 ↗ The consent calendar was distributed to

43:06 ↗ council in advance for study if

43:08 ↗ authorized. Council action will occur by

43:10 ↗ single motion regarding the following

43:12 ↗ items. Item A seeks approval of the

43:14 ↗ accounts payables and payroll of

43:16 ↗ February 21st. Items B and C seeks

43:18 ↗ approval of the minutes of the city

43:20 ↗ council regular meeting and special

43:22 ↗ meeting of February 8th. Item D,

43:25 ↗ AB7276, King County Conservation Futures

43:28 ↗ Tax Levy 2018 grant seeks to authorize

43:31 ↗ submittal. Item E,

43:33 ↗ AB7292, Northwest Dogwood Bridge

43:35 ↗ replacement seeks to accept project and

43:37 ↗ release retainage. Item F AB7324 lodging

43:41 ↗ tax advisory committee annual

43:43 ↗ appointments seeks to confirm. Item G

43:47 ↗ AB7330 2017 docket of comprehensive plan

43:50 ↗ amendments seeks referral to council

43:52 ↗ land and shore committee. Item H AB7331

43:56 ↗ public engagement toolkit seeks referral

43:58 ↗ to council services and safety

44:00 ↗ committee. This concludes the reading.

44:02 ↗ Uh thank you. Does any council member

44:04 ↗ desire to move uh any item on the

44:07 ↗ consent calendar to regular business for

44:09 ↗ separate

44:11 ↗ consideration? Seeing none, then council

44:14 ↗ president Goodman, I would move to adopt

44:17 ↗ the consent calendar as presented.

44:19 ↗ Second.

44:20 ↗ It's moved and seconded. Uh all in favor

44:23 ↗ signify by saying I. I. Those opposed.

44:26 ↗ That carries unanimously.

44:28 ↗ Moving now to uh uh item eight on our

44:32 ↗ agenda, agenda, public hearing. Uh the

44:35 ↗ first agenda bill 7215, the ninth major

44:39 ↗ amendment to the Isiqua Highlands

44:40 ↗ two-party development agreement.

44:43 ↗ Uh-holy Northwest requesting major

44:46 ↗ modification for transfer of development

44:49 ↗ rights.

44:51 ↗ Uh the the comments that I offered uh

44:55 ↗ earlier uh for uh audience comments uh

45:00 ↗ uh uh are still in effect. Uh we

45:04 ↗ appreciate those coming to uh uh to

45:07 ↗ speak uh at this public hearing. When

45:09 ↗ recognized uh again come to the lectan,

45:12 ↗ state your name, address, and any

45:14 ↗ relationship to the city and you have

45:16 ↗ five minutes uh to speak. The yellow

45:19 ↗ light comes on when you are with uh

45:22 ↗ within a minute and uh uh uh if you have

45:26 ↗ written comments uh you can submit those

45:28 ↗ to the city clerk. Uh with that uh I

45:33 ↗ will open the public hearing at uh

45:41 ↗ 7:47 and uh we'll kick things off with a

45:46 ↗ a brief

45:47 ↗ uh let me

45:50 ↗ see a a short presentation by Keith Nan,

45:54 ↗ our director of development services.

45:58 ↗ Thank you Mr. Mayor, city council. Um

46:01 ↗ Keith Nan, director of economic

46:04 ↗ development and development services. So

46:06 ↗ uh this evening is a continuation of the

46:08 ↗ public hearing um for the ninth major

46:10 ↗ amendment to the Zqua Highlands

46:11 ↗ development agreement. Um and I'm just

46:14 ↗ going to quickly go through a summary to

46:17 ↗ get everybody back up to speed because

46:18 ↗ it's uh it's been a month um since we

46:21 ↗ talked about this last. So, the proposal

46:23 ↗ is to add 100 transfer of development

46:26 ↗ rights to Isiqua Highlands and

46:28 ↗ specifically uh it's to property that's

46:31 ↗ owned by the applicant Polygon

46:33 ↗ Northwest. And to give you all, um some

46:37 ↗ orientation on this map, you can see the

46:39 ↗ Safeway. Here's the Highlands um drive

46:43 ↗ and 9th Avenue coming down the hill.

46:45 ↗ Swedish sits down here. Um, this is

46:48 ↗ Discovery uh Drive which leads out to

46:50 ↗ West Highlands Park and Polygon owns

46:54 ↗ property north of Discovery and south of

46:57 ↗ High

46:59 ↗ Street. Um, want to kind of go through

47:02 ↗ this really quickly. get some numbers

47:05 ↗ and and I don't want to spend too much

47:07 ↗ time here, but I think part of what's

47:09 ↗ important here is to talk about kind of

47:11 ↗ the history of the entitlement in Isiqua

47:14 ↗ Highlands um and where we are today

47:17 ↗ versus where we started back in 1995.

47:20 ↗ So, the original development agreement

47:22 ↗ had 3250 residential units, 2.95 million

47:26 ↗ square feet of commercial, and

47:28 ↗ 425,000 square feet of retail space. Um

47:32 ↗ the first amendment included um some

47:35 ↗ preserved uh property called Mitchell

47:38 ↗ Hill. This was transfer of development

47:40 ↗ rights from King County into the city

47:43 ↗ and it included 500,000 square feet and

47:46 ↗ it could be either used as retail or

47:48 ↗ commercial space.

47:50 ↗ Um the second uh thing that that changed

47:54 ↗ the original numbers was the development

47:57 ↗ agreement had a provision which allowed

48:00 ↗ the master developer to increase the

48:02 ↗ number of residential units by up to

48:04 ↗ 700. And what that meant was that the

48:06 ↗ commercial square footage went down

48:09 ↗ by 1,200 square feet per one residential

48:13 ↗ unit which was the conversion which

48:14 ↗ equals 840,000 square feet for those of

48:17 ↗ you who want to know the math. Um then

48:19 ↗ there was an additional 500 residential

48:21 ↗ units that were added as part of the

48:23 ↗ washd development agreement. Um so

48:26 ↗ before this proposal tonight the numbers

48:30 ↗ currently as they sit are 4450

48:33 ↗ residential units

48:35 ↗ uh 2.11 million square ft of commercial

48:38 ↗ space and approximately

48:41 ↗ 925,000 square feet of retail. And

48:44 ↗ that's assuming that all of this

48:45 ↗ 500,000, which could have gone either as

48:48 ↗ retail or commercial, is likely going to

48:50 ↗ pan out as retail space. It's not built

48:53 ↗ yet. The owner could go either way, but

48:55 ↗ it's most likely going to be retail

48:57 ↗ because it's owned by Regency Centers

48:59 ↗ and um Shelter Holdings. Um so then what

49:02 ↗ we have here is uh this line in the

49:05 ↗ chart which is 100 residential units

49:07 ↗ which would then bring the totals to

49:10 ↗ 4550 2.11 and

49:13 ↗ 925. So this chart down below is

49:16 ↗ important as well because with the washd

49:19 ↗ development agreement we actually added

49:22 ↗ property and additional entitlement to

49:25 ↗ what most people consider to be isqua

49:27 ↗ highlands. So, track D, and you heard

49:30 ↗ some discussion about that earlier

49:32 ↗ tonight. Um, that is a piece of property

49:34 ↗ owned by the city, and it's slated for

49:36 ↗ 50 affordable housing units. It may not

49:39 ↗ get that many, uh, but that's, uh, what

49:42 ↗ it could, um, uh, be entitled for.

49:46 ↗ Belleview College has 372,000 square

49:48 ↗ feet of institutional use. Um, our hope

49:51 ↗ is someday we'll get a some sort of

49:54 ↗ branch campus out there. Um, Ichi Joe

49:58 ↗ purchased 60 uh units. They only built

50:01 ↗ 35. Um, and then Bernsteads purchased 40

50:05 ↗ units. So, this is without Swedish.

50:08 ↗ Swedish is a separate thing, but here is

50:10 ↗ basically the entire entitlement of the

50:14 ↗ Highlands um with um the wash out

50:18 ↗ development agreement. So, in summary,

50:21 ↗ oh, I left it. Sorry about that. Um, so

50:23 ↗ the 100 TDRs were left over from the

50:25 ↗ city preserving Park Point um as

50:28 ↗ permanent open space and I left out an

50:30 ↗ IMC reference. My apologies. City's TDR

50:33 ↗ code identifies Isiqua Highlands as a

50:35 ↗ receiving site. Um, that's done by a

50:37 ↗ map. Um, the TDRs may only be used if

50:40 ↗ their traffic impact is fully mitigated

50:42 ↗ and that's uh from the SEPA DNS decision

50:47 ↗ 17-1. The applicant and the

50:49 ↗ administration have discussed 30% of the

50:52 ↗ TDRs being affordable. Um, and the

50:55 ↗ proposal was reviewed by the Urban

50:56 ↗ Village Development Commission and the

50:58 ↗ UBDC recommended approval with

51:00 ↗ conditions on the 6th of

51:04 ↗ December. And then we received three

51:06 ↗ letters recently um, and I want to make

51:09 ↗ sure that they were part of the record.

51:11 ↗ I believe you all got them. There was a

51:12 ↗ letter from Forterra. There was a letter

51:15 ↗ from the master builders. And then there

51:16 ↗ was a letter from um the attorney

51:19 ↗ representing the applicant. So that

51:21 ↗ concludes my brief presentation.

51:24 ↗ I'll leave it there. Thank you. Lack of

51:26 ↗ better choice. Keith, uh

51:30 ↗ we will reserve discussion and questions

51:32 ↗ after those desiring to uh uh speak at

51:37 ↗ the at the public hearing. And with

51:39 ↗ that, has anyone signed up to speak?

51:41 ↗ Yes, Nicholas Bratton.

51:46 ↗ Welcome back.

51:49 ↗ Thank you. Uh my name is Nicholas

51:52 ↗ Bratton. I represent Fortra. Address is

51:55 ↗ 901 Fifth Avenue, Seattle,

51:57 ↗ Washington. Uh thank you very much for

52:00 ↗ the opportunity to speak tonight, mayor

52:02 ↗ and council chair and members of the

52:04 ↗ city council. As a quick introduction,

52:06 ↗ Fora is a regional sustainability

52:08 ↗ organization created uh or dedicated to

52:11 ↗ the protection of the great landscapes

52:13 ↗ around our region and creating great

52:15 ↗ communities for our people to live in.

52:18 ↗ Um having had a role in designing the

52:20 ↗ city's transfer of development rights

52:22 ↗ program, uh we want to see it used as

52:24 ↗ intended. Uh from our perspective, it's

52:27 ↗ encouraging to see that there is an

52:28 ↗ applicant that that and that there is

52:30 ↗ demand for the use of this

52:32 ↗ tool. At the same time, we appreciate

52:35 ↗ that this single decision is a small

52:37 ↗ piece of a much larger issue. How does

52:39 ↗ the city want to look and feel and

52:42 ↗ function moving into the future? We also

52:45 ↗ appreciate that the priorities of Isiqua

52:47 ↗ today may not reflect those that the

52:50 ↗ city had 10 or 15 years ago and that the

52:52 ↗ city is a different place and continues

52:55 ↗ to change.

52:57 ↗ So my question is, is there a way to

52:59 ↗ make TDR transfer of development rights

53:01 ↗ work that strikes a balance between the

53:05 ↗ current needs and desires around growth

53:07 ↗ and programs and regulations created in

53:09 ↗ a different

53:11 ↗ environment? I've seen firsthand the

53:13 ↗ consequences of local government

53:15 ↗ creating exemptions for transfer of

53:18 ↗ development rights at the moment when

53:20 ↗ it's poised to work.

53:22 ↗ um the the result has been major

53:24 ↗ setbacks for for growth management and

53:27 ↗ for certainty or rather creating

53:29 ↗ uncertainty in the regulatory

53:31 ↗ environment. I don't have time to get

53:33 ↗ into it here but there is a potential

53:36 ↗ opportunity for the city to explore

53:38 ↗ around infrastructure financing. Um this

53:41 ↗ is a the topic of infrastructure has

53:43 ↗ come up in in many of the comments this

53:45 ↗ evening and there is a tool that is

53:47 ↗ available for the city to pursue um that

53:50 ↗ would create access to new sources of

53:52 ↗ financing for infrastructure and public

53:54 ↗ improvements as a financial incentive

53:57 ↗ for the city to use transfer of

53:59 ↗ development rights to a greater extent.

54:01 ↗ Be happy to discuss that on an

54:03 ↗ individual basis or at a future time. Um

54:06 ↗ but one option might be for the city to

54:08 ↗ consider is allowing the use of transfer

54:11 ↗ of development rights in this particular

54:13 ↗ instance and then modifying or updating

54:16 ↗ its transfer of development rights

54:17 ↗ program in such a way as to incentivize

54:20 ↗ growth in places where there is greater

54:23 ↗ need and desire for it such as the

54:24 ↗ central plan

54:26 ↗ area. So, as you weigh this single

54:29 ↗ decision in the broader context of the

54:31 ↗ city's growth, uh we urge you to support

54:33 ↗ the integrity of the transfer of

54:34 ↗ development rights program. Thank you.

54:37 ↗ Thank you.

54:42 ↗ Jennifer Anderson.

54:48 ↗ Good evening, Mayor Butler, City

54:49 ↗ Council. My name is Jennifer Anderson.

54:51 ↗ I'm with the Master Builders

54:52 ↗ Association. Our office is located in

54:54 ↗ Belleview, um Washington. I'm here to

54:57 ↗ testify today on the city's transfer de

55:00 ↗ development rights program as it

55:01 ↗ pertains to the two party development

55:03 ↗ agreement up for consideration this

55:05 ↗ evening. There's been a lot of um time

55:08 ↗ and effort put into this development of

55:10 ↗ the TDR program both locally and

55:13 ↗ regionally. And by not identif by not

55:15 ↗ honoring the identified receiving areas,

55:18 ↗ you're undermining the concept of the

55:19 ↗ program and the viability of its future.

55:21 ↗ I think it's important to note that the

55:23 ↗ master builders association is here

55:25 ↗ tonight and um as well as for terra

55:28 ↗ where we're often on two separate sides

55:30 ↗ of issues we've come together because

55:31 ↗ it's important this program is very

55:33 ↗ important regionally

55:35 ↗ um the public benefit of pre permanently

55:38 ↗ preserving the 140 acres of forested

55:40 ↗ land in and around the city has already

55:43 ↗ been realized. This massive conservation

55:46 ↗ effort could not have been achieved

55:47 ↗ without the TDR program. So, I encourage

55:49 ↗ you tonight to adopt the amendment and

55:52 ↗ show the city's commitment to the TDR

55:54 ↗ program and permit promote its use and

55:57 ↗ viability in the future. Thank you.

55:59 ↗ Thank you,

56:01 ↗ David Kappler.

56:07 ↗ Uh, good evening. Thank you. Um, just

56:10 ↗ one clarification on the um homepage of

56:13 ↗ the uh city today, there's the agenda

56:16 ↗ bill. There's a link to the to the

56:18 ↗ original agenda bill, but not the agenda

56:21 ↗ bill that was updated. So, people that

56:24 ↗ are saw that um wouldn't see the whole

56:27 ↗ story about the three uh uh reasons the

56:30 ↗ council committee recommended denial or

56:33 ↗ the actual proposed motion by the

56:35 ↗ committee. Um but going on from there,

56:42 ↗ um I'm concerned about um what we're

56:46 ↗ talking about tonight. Are we just

56:48 ↗ talking aboutund 100 units with 70 and

56:51 ↗ then 10 10 and 10 for three different

56:54 ↗ levels of uh affordability? Are we

56:56 ↗ talking about 130 units? So, I'm

56:59 ↗ hopefully I'm here to support the

57:01 ↗ hundred in in the area of the

57:05 ↗ um Northwest Ridge area east of N west

57:09 ↗ of 9th Avenue.

57:14 ↗ Um, I worked for I'm sure it's been over

57:18 ↗ 30 years on park getting a park point

57:21 ↗ acquired and the transfer of development

57:24 ↗ rights issue with that was critical and

57:27 ↗ it's going to be critical for some other

57:29 ↗ things that are potentially happening on

57:32 ↗ East Cougar Mountain and other areas.

57:34 ↗ some of which are outside of the city

57:36 ↗ but are included in the city's agreement

57:39 ↗ with the county about transfer of

57:40 ↗ development

57:42 ↗ rights. Um, if we're going to the 130, I

57:47 ↗ think the math is

57:49 ↗ incorrect. If there's going to be 130

57:51 ↗ dwelling units, then 39 of them should

57:53 ↗ be in fit into the affordable and 13 and

57:57 ↗ 13 in the three different uh deals.

58:00 ↗ Also, I disagree with the um calling a

58:03 ↗ group home equal to five dwelling units.

58:06 ↗ I don't think if that now if we're just

58:09 ↗ that doesn't all apply if we're not

58:10 ↗ talking about the um the parcel to the

58:13 ↗ east, but if we're just talking about on

58:16 ↗ West

58:17 ↗ Ridge 100 units 70 10 and 10, I support

58:22 ↗ that. Thank you.

58:25 ↗ Thank you,

58:28 ↗ Steve Pereira.

58:38 ↗ Hi, Steve Brerrera. I don't think last

58:40 ↗ time I said 170 Northeastwood Street

58:42 ↗ here in Isqua for nine years. Uh, I also

58:46 ↗ am one of those going by outdated. I

58:47 ↗ didn't have the current information that

58:48 ↗ David Kappler referenced, so my

58:50 ↗ apologies for that. Uh, I very much like

58:52 ↗ the idea of affordable housing and want

58:54 ↗ to say very much I support the TDR

58:58 ↗ uh of this. I just don't know that I'm

59:00 ↗ still seeing the proposed site as the

59:02 ↗ best site for single family homes for

59:04 ↗ affordable housing. I'd like to see some

59:08 ↗ other place for those 30 houses not on

59:11 ↗ that lot. I I just wonder if there's

59:13 ↗ some way to tweak that proposal that

59:17 ↗ would still allow the TDR to happen but

59:19 ↗ just not in its current location. I

59:21 ↗ don't know if there's some kibbits in

59:23 ↗ between the city and uh the builder. I

59:27 ↗ very much like the 140 acres park point

59:30 ↗ that got preserved. I want to honor that

59:32 ↗ TDR. I just want some more another

59:35 ↗ opportunity or another way of doing that

59:37 ↗ before saying yes. Thank you. Thank you,

59:44 ↗ Rose Finnegan.

59:56 ↗ Good evening. I'm Rose Finnegan. I live

59:59 ↗ at

1:00:01 ↗ 24601 Southeast 165th Street, Isiqua.

1:00:05 ↗ I'm a founding member and board member

1:00:07 ↗ of Lifeen Enrichment Options. I'm here

1:00:10 ↗ tonight to support Polygon Northwest in

1:00:13 ↗ their request for building additional

1:00:15 ↗ homes in the West Ridge area. To me,

1:00:18 ↗ it's kind of a deja vu experience. I was

1:00:21 ↗ here 15 years ago when Polygon Northwest

1:00:25 ↗ maybe a few different players built our

1:00:27 ↗ home not far from here. And this home

1:00:30 ↗ really became a ray of hope for parents

1:00:33 ↗ in Isiqua as well as in many other

1:00:36 ↗ communities. We have provided

1:00:39 ↗ information to many parent groups

1:00:41 ↗ throughout the state and some have been

1:00:44 ↗ able to follow the example and build

1:00:47 ↗ adult family homes in their communities.

1:00:50 ↗ Our organization is proactive in

1:00:54 ↗ providing young adults the opportunity

1:00:57 ↗ to live as

1:00:59 ↗ independently as possible before a

1:01:02 ↗ family crisis or

1:01:04 ↗ happens. Today,

1:01:08 ↗ 76% of people with intellectual or

1:01:11 ↗ developmental challenges live with their

1:01:14 ↗ parents. Many are in families with older

1:01:18 ↗ parents. In King County, there are 800

1:01:22 ↗ individuals ages 30 to 50 who have

1:01:26 ↗ challenges and are living with aging

1:01:29 ↗ parents. And soon we'll need access to

1:01:33 ↗ secure supportive

1:01:35 ↗ housing. In our community, we have a

1:01:38 ↗ list of 20 interested applicants for our

1:01:42 ↗ next adult family home. And each year,

1:01:46 ↗ the high school transition

1:01:48 ↗ program graduates 20 people with special

1:01:53 ↗ needs. Granted, all of them may not want

1:01:56 ↗ to live in an adult family home, but a

1:01:59 ↗ significant number will need this type

1:02:01 ↗ of care.

1:02:03 ↗ The need for housing in the community is

1:02:05 ↗ being driven not only by the extended

1:02:08 ↗ lifespan of these people, but by the

1:02:12 ↗ fact that the state is downsizing the

1:02:15 ↗ institutions and closing them. When that

1:02:19 ↗ happens, there will be no safety net for

1:02:22 ↗ those whose families can no longer care

1:02:25 ↗ for them. Where will they go? Will they

1:02:29 ↗ be homeless? The problem is not in the

1:02:32 ↗ future. It is now. There is a shortage

1:02:35 ↗ of housing now. Well, we can't solve the

1:02:39 ↗ state's problem. But if each community

1:02:43 ↗ could take care of their own, it would

1:02:45 ↗ sure help. Isiqua is a model for many

1:02:48 ↗ other communities in how a responsive

1:02:52 ↗ and caring community addresses the needs

1:02:55 ↗ of people with intellectual and

1:02:58 ↗ developmental

1:02:59 ↗ disabilities. And I thank you from the

1:03:01 ↗ bottom of my heart. Without you, we

1:03:05 ↗ would not today be operating three adult

1:03:08 ↗ family homes, each full, with five

1:03:11 ↗ residents. and some of their parents and

1:03:14 ↗ residents are here tonight to show their

1:03:16 ↗ support. We are very excited that the

1:03:20 ↗ new development in the Highlands will

1:03:22 ↗ provide the opportunity for the possible

1:03:25 ↗ inclusion of a new adult family home.

1:03:29 ↗ Thank you very much. Thank you uh very

1:03:32 ↗ very much. Rose,

1:03:34 ↗ no one further has signed up to speak.

1:03:38 ↗ Is there Yes, please.

1:03:48 ↗ I'll be pleased to start this segment of

1:03:51 ↗ the comments off. My name is Dwana

1:03:53 ↗ Koskova. I am the attorney for Polygon

1:03:56 ↗ Northwest and I uh previously submitted

1:03:59 ↗ uh written materials to you uh earlier

1:04:02 ↗ this week as well as prior to your uh

1:04:05 ↗ hearing in January. Written materials at

1:04:08 ↗ that time as well. I would like to

1:04:11 ↗ clarify uh one very important

1:04:14 ↗ consideration uh to the council which is

1:04:16 ↗ that these are not proposed TDR

1:04:20 ↗ uh TDRs that the council is looking at.

1:04:23 ↗ The city has issued a TDR certificate

1:04:26 ↗ for use of these TDRs at this site under

1:04:30 ↗ the existing TDR program. Polygon

1:04:32 ↗ submitted its application for amending

1:04:35 ↗ the development agreement in order to

1:04:37 ↗ ensure that this council has the

1:04:39 ↗ opportunity to address the specifics of

1:04:41 ↗ TDRs under the development agreement

1:04:44 ↗ provisions and to ensure complete

1:04:47 ↗ transparency to the public as to what

1:04:50 ↗ Polygon is proposing for this particular

1:04:52 ↗ site. This application, however, is not

1:04:56 ↗ a legal or appropriate venue for the

1:04:59 ↗ council to reconsider the TDR program

1:05:02 ↗ policies or as a referendum for on the

1:05:06 ↗ already legislative legislatively

1:05:09 ↗ adopted receiving sites which include

1:05:11 ↗ the rest west property.

1:05:14 ↗ The council made its policy

1:05:16 ↗ determinations under the TDR program

1:05:19 ↗ years ago and the council respectfully

1:05:21 ↗ is legally committed to acting in a

1:05:24 ↗ manner consistent with that program. The

1:05:26 ↗ public benefit that this city has

1:05:29 ↗ derived from the TDR program is

1:05:31 ↗ unquestionable and you've already heard

1:05:33 ↗ about it tonight. The city used this

1:05:36 ↗ very program to pres preserve the 101

1:05:39 ↗ acre Parkpoint property in

1:05:42 ↗ perpetuity. And that significant

1:05:45 ↗ conservation effort relies on the social

1:05:48 ↗ contract that this city engaged in with

1:05:51 ↗ the purchasers of the TDRs and to that

1:05:56 ↗ provided for the relocation of the

1:05:59 ↗ density from the Parkpoint property in a

1:06:01 ↗ manner consistent with the adopted

1:06:04 ↗ program. As a result, again, this

1:06:07 ↗ development agreement process is not a

1:06:09 ↗ forum to reconsider receiving sites or

1:06:12 ↗ the TDR program

1:06:14 ↗ policies. Beyond the council's legal

1:06:17 ↗ obligations, we urge the council to

1:06:20 ↗ consider the ramifications were the

1:06:22 ↗ council to take away Polygon's rights to

1:06:25 ↗ use the TDRs on the West Ridge property

1:06:28 ↗ and the reality that doing so will

1:06:32 ↗ seriously jeopardize the critical

1:06:35 ↗ regional nature of the TDR program

1:06:38 ↗ itself. In the future, if this TDR

1:06:42 ↗ program is not supported, potential TDR

1:06:45 ↗ users will have no choice but to

1:06:47 ↗ question the reliability of this program

1:06:50 ↗ by looking at the track record of the

1:06:52 ↗ city related to how it has administered

1:06:56 ↗ the program here today. Conversely,

1:06:59 ↗ owners of potential future sending sites

1:07:02 ↗ would equally have to be questioning the

1:07:04 ↗ viability of this program.

1:07:07 ↗ The significant public benefit of this

1:07:09 ↗ program is reflected to you tonight in

1:07:12 ↗ hearing from organizations which s with

1:07:15 ↗ such diverse missions as both

1:07:17 ↗ Masterbuilders Association and Forra. It

1:07:20 ↗ is rare to see these organizations come

1:07:22 ↗ together in such a clear

1:07:25 ↗ consensus. Recognizing again that

1:07:28 ↗ significant public benefit of the

1:07:30 ↗ program as a whole. You heard tonight

1:07:33 ↗ extensive conversation by uh the mayor

1:07:36 ↗ in his state of the city urging

1:07:39 ↗ partnership and that's exactly what we

1:07:41 ↗ ask from this council. Polygon fully

1:07:44 ↗ committed to the TDR program from day

1:07:46 ↗ one. We ask this council to as well

1:07:50 ↗ partner and provide that same commitment

1:07:53 ↗ to a program that the growth management

1:07:55 ↗ act terms a critical innovative tool

1:07:59 ↗ essential for the city's long-term

1:08:01 ↗ planning. We urge you to please approve

1:08:04 ↗ the amendment to the development

1:08:05 ↗ agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Yes,

1:08:09 ↗ sir.

1:08:17 ↗ That's good.

1:08:23 ↗ Good

1:08:35 ↗ evening. Uh, good evening, Nick Abnor,

1:08:38 ↗ Polygon Northwest. Uh, I've been before

1:08:40 ↗ you uh several times. Thanks for your

1:08:41 ↗ time again this evening, mayor and

1:08:43 ↗ counsel. Um, I'm not going to get into

1:08:45 ↗ the weeds. I'm not going to reiterate

1:08:46 ↗ what everyone said. Um, but I think

1:08:48 ↗ what's at the heart of the matter here

1:08:49 ↗ for Polygon and for the program is what

1:08:52 ↗ is fair and equitable. Um, we clearly

1:08:55 ↗ just want to be treated fairly and

1:08:58 ↗ equitably. Um, you know, I look back at

1:09:01 ↗ the recommendation of approval and

1:09:03 ↗ denials that have been drafted for this

1:09:04 ↗ evening. And, uh, it's rare to see

1:09:07 ↗ several approvals from the

1:09:08 ↗ administration and committee um, in a

1:09:11 ↗ denial recommendation. Um, what I do

1:09:14 ↗ want to do say is I I keep falling back

1:09:17 ↗ to the city's website.

1:09:20 ↗ Um, under the fourth paragraph, I mean,

1:09:22 ↗ this was a city initiated

1:09:25 ↗ uh development

1:09:26 ↗ agreement. This wasn't a private sector,

1:09:30 ↗ private citizen. This was at the time

1:09:33 ↗ the governing body providing policy and

1:09:36 ↗ wanted to achieve something great and in

1:09:38 ↗ this term once in a lifetime. Um, we

1:09:41 ↗ happen to own the last 100 TDRs that

1:09:43 ↗ created this and we're just asking for

1:09:46 ↗ you to realize what was agreed upon and

1:09:49 ↗ for us to utilize them in what is

1:09:51 ↗ currently a receiving site. I sympathize

1:09:55 ↗ greatly with the new council members um

1:09:59 ↗ and also a re-election coming this fall

1:10:01 ↗ and that there are different concerns in

1:10:03 ↗ today's environment than were 20 years

1:10:05 ↗ ago when the development agreement was

1:10:06 ↗ drafted, let alone in 2011 when this

1:10:09 ↗ development agreement was drafted. Um so

1:10:13 ↗ definitely appreciate the concerns from

1:10:15 ↗ the public. Um but this program doesn't

1:10:18 ↗ get utilized and if in this case you

1:10:22 ↗ choose not to allow it to work um it

1:10:24 ↗ does have ramifications uh beyond the

1:10:26 ↗ city of Estquanda King and Snow Mission

1:10:28 ↗ to Pierce County. Um so with that being

1:10:31 ↗ said, community benefit timing,

1:10:34 ↗ evaluation location

1:10:38 ↗ um if the agenda bill before you, um

1:10:43 ↗ which includes affordable

1:10:45 ↗ housing is something that the council is

1:10:48 ↗ not comfortable with. What I would ask

1:10:51 ↗ you to do is to delineate the 100 TDRs

1:10:54 ↗ tonight and to ask the administration

1:10:57 ↗ and staff and Polygon to revisit the

1:11:01 ↗ affordable housing proposal before you.

1:11:04 ↗ To me, that's as equitable as it can

1:11:06 ↗ get, allowing the 100 TDRs to be

1:11:08 ↗ received, to be utilized in the form and

1:11:10 ↗ fashion they were always intended for.

1:11:13 ↗ And if the land and shore committee uh

1:11:16 ↗ and or council would like to see a

1:11:18 ↗ different proposal um whether it be on

1:11:21 ↗ city land or not on city land, I think

1:11:24 ↗ that's something that needs to be

1:11:25 ↗ discussed. U but denying the use of the

1:11:28 ↗ 100 TDRs is a cause for great concern

1:11:30 ↗ and at the end of the night, we're just

1:11:32 ↗ asking for fair and

1:11:33 ↗ equitable treatment by the city council.

1:11:37 ↗ Thank you.

1:11:39 ↗ Thank you. Is Yes.

1:11:43 ↗ up to you. Thank you.

1:11:47 ↗ Uh Lindseay Walsh. I live in the

1:11:48 ↗ Highlands. My address is previously. Um

1:11:52 ↗ this is a difficult subject. You know,

1:11:55 ↗ it it's something where yeah, if we had

1:11:57 ↗ been able to make that designation of a

1:12:02 ↗ receiving

1:12:03 ↗ site many, many years ago, I'm sure we

1:12:06 ↗ would have done it. Maybe this needs to

1:12:08 ↗ be something where we say, "Hey, when

1:12:09 ↗ we're looking at receiving sites in the

1:12:11 ↗ future, let's make sure that they're in

1:12:13 ↗ the areas um where we want that building

1:12:16 ↗ to happen." Um when it comes down to it,

1:12:20 ↗ being able to have another Leo house,

1:12:22 ↗ being able to have more affordable

1:12:24 ↗ housing is beneficial. And gosh darn, if

1:12:27 ↗ there's a way that we can get that down

1:12:29 ↗ by the um park and

1:12:32 ↗ ride, it's absolutely beneficial. But

1:12:37 ↗ to not be able to do that and say no to

1:12:40 ↗ the TDRs, I would say would be a shame

1:12:42 ↗ for us. And it's a difficult situation,

1:12:44 ↗ but hopefully we can at least get more

1:12:47 ↗ of the things even if they're not in the

1:12:49 ↗ place where we would like them to be.

1:12:51 ↗ Thank you. Thank

1:12:53 ↗ you. Is there anyone else desiring to

1:12:56 ↗ speak? David, are you uh leaning

1:12:59 ↗ forward? Nope. Anyone else desiring to

1:13:03 ↗ speak? Third and final call. Anyone

1:13:07 ↗ desiring to speak? Seeing no one, then

1:13:13 ↗ uh we will now

1:13:15 ↗ move to a discussion and uh questions.

1:13:24 ↗ Close. Uh

1:13:27 ↗ I don't want to close it unless if

1:13:29 ↗ there's if it's so sure they only get

1:13:33 ↗ one.

1:13:34 ↗ went by that itself.

1:13:39 ↗ Time for questions. Time for questions.

1:13:43 ↗ Keith is here to answer questions. Keith

1:13:45 ↗ is moving to the microphone.

1:13:48 ↗ Keith's going to do his best to answer

1:13:50 ↗ questions.

1:13:52 ↗ A question. Go ahead, Stacy. Keith, can

1:13:55 ↗ you put up the numbers that you showed

1:13:56 ↗ again please?

1:14:10 ↗ Um, so we talked in Landon Shore about

1:14:13 ↗ the

1:14:14 ↗ numbers and um, I'm not sure that I see

1:14:17 ↗ that it up there, but when you're

1:14:19 ↗ talking about the specifics of the wash

1:14:23 ↗ entitle DA entitlement usage,

1:14:27 ↗ um, the understanding that we had from

1:14:28 ↗ Landon Shore is that um out of

1:14:32 ↗ the uh what's left is 23

1:14:38 ↗ u 23 units. Is that right? So the units

1:14:42 ↗ um the units that are left are basically

1:14:45 ↗ um so if you if you do the math here

1:14:48 ↗ there's 25 but then polygon actually

1:14:51 ↗ took one of these and built it on a

1:14:54 ↗ piece of parcel three um which I didn't

1:14:57 ↗ even represent here because it was one

1:14:58 ↗ unit. So, so there's I believe there's

1:15:01 ↗ 24, but 23 whether it's 24 or 23. Okay.

1:15:06 ↗ Um somewhere in that vicinity is the

1:15:09 ↗ number of entitlement that to date. Now,

1:15:14 ↗ I want to I want to make sure

1:15:15 ↗ everybody's tracking on that detail. So,

1:15:17 ↗ there's sold entitlement now that's not

1:15:20 ↗ built. Um there's a hotel site up there.

1:15:22 ↗ Sumitomo owns a piece of property.

1:15:25 ↗ Shelter Holdings owns a piece of

1:15:26 ↗ property. Um, Polygon owns a piece of

1:15:28 ↗ property. They all have entitlement

1:15:30 ↗ that's not built out yet. Um, so of the

1:15:34 ↗ properties that are built out right now

1:15:37 ↗ there's 24 or 25 units that were not

1:15:41 ↗ realized. Okay. So, when you're talking

1:15:44 ↗ about maximum density under the Isqua

1:15:47 ↗ Highlands development agreement and you

1:15:49 ↗ take into account original entitlement

1:15:51 ↗ under the DA, um, Mitchell Hill

1:15:54 ↗ conversions, wash. DOA

1:15:58 ↗ um the what's what's left over before we

1:16:01 ↗ get to max buildout I'll say under the

1:16:04 ↗ original plus the add-ons anything we've

1:16:06 ↗ changed is 23 right so the delta between

1:16:09 ↗ what's currently either built or owned

1:16:11 ↗ by a property owner and what's been

1:16:14 ↗ approved through the entitlement process

1:16:16 ↗ is 23 24 residential units and I bring

1:16:21 ↗ that up because the um because we didn't

1:16:24 ↗ have that number up there I wanted the

1:16:26 ↗ council members and the folks who are

1:16:28 ↗ watching and here and and here today to

1:16:31 ↗ understand uh where those um where the

1:16:35 ↗ where the remaining number is for

1:16:37 ↗ residential units. Yes,

1:16:42 ↗ welcome.

1:16:44 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so the transfer

1:16:47 ↗ of development right program, this maybe

1:16:48 ↗ is more of a general question. I mean

1:16:50 ↗ that we're actually that's not what

1:16:52 ↗ we're voting on tonight. We're voting on

1:16:53 ↗ a development agreement. Yes or no? A

1:16:55 ↗ change to a development agreement? Yes

1:16:56 ↗ or no?

1:16:58 ↗ But the Isqua Highlands is a slightly

1:17:01 ↗ different animal than other parts of the

1:17:02 ↗ city in that it doesn't really have a

1:17:04 ↗ zoning layer right now. It has

1:17:05 ↗ entitlements and there were supposed to

1:17:07 ↗ be a certain mix of things um up there.

1:17:11 ↗ And if I'm understanding it correctly,

1:17:13 ↗ build out was 24 more homes. And that

1:17:17 ↗ that leaves over whatever the remaining

1:17:20 ↗ parties that are entitled to build some

1:17:21 ↗ homes. What was left over without

1:17:24 ↗ upzoning or densifying was just 24 but

1:17:28 ↗ the ask in the development agreement is

1:17:30 ↗ to go beyond that.

1:17:35 ↗ Um, so yes, but what I would the way I

1:17:40 ↗ would describe it is so there's zoning

1:17:43 ↗ capacity and there's what's currently

1:17:45 ↗ built and those are at different levels.

1:17:48 ↗ The the property and what's in the

1:17:50 ↗ development agreement in terms of

1:17:52 ↗ maximum buildout includes things like

1:17:55 ↗ eightstory buildings and you know 80

1:17:58 ↗ units per acre. uh nothing is built to

1:18:01 ↗ that level of density within the

1:18:03 ↗ development agreement. But in terms of

1:18:06 ↗ the entitlement that's been approved by

1:18:08 ↗ either this council or previous councils

1:18:10 ↗ and what's out there or currently owned,

1:18:13 ↗ the delta's like 24 units. Okay. Yeah,

1:18:16 ↗ makes sense.

1:18:24 ↗ Keith, is that tw you explain that one

1:18:26 ↗ more time to me? is there were 24

1:18:30 ↗ units after after this is all completed

1:18:33 ↗ if this project goes forward and there

1:18:35 ↗ will only be 24 additional units

1:18:38 ↗ residential units.

1:18:41 ↗ So, so if so if if if all the property

1:18:45 ↗ owners that currently haven't built yet

1:18:48 ↗ build out their maximum entitlement, so

1:18:50 ↗ what they bought from the master

1:18:52 ↗ developer, the only thing that's left

1:18:55 ↗ are is the is 24 units left over from

1:18:59 ↗ this one particular property. So, they

1:19:01 ↗ bought 60 and then um they ended up

1:19:05 ↗ doing a design for their property and

1:19:07 ↗ they they wanted to actually only build

1:19:09 ↗ 35 because they felt like that better

1:19:12 ↗ fit the market. So, that's the only and

1:19:14 ↗ that's why it's included here. That's

1:19:16 ↗ the importance of this particular line

1:19:18 ↗ in the chart is that's the only kind of

1:19:21 ↗ unused residential units up in the

1:19:24 ↗ Highlands. But some of the other do the

1:19:28 ↗ the other

1:19:30 ↗ um units available have not simply been

1:19:34 ↗ built on. They've been committed for but

1:19:36 ↗ not built on. Okay. Yes. And then when

1:19:38 ↗ this is completed there will be 24 or

1:19:41 ↗ whatever it is left to be built on. Yes.

1:19:45 ↗ Thank you. No. Well, there's 24 plus

1:19:47 ↗ whatever might be left over from those

1:19:50 ↗ other built building

1:19:52 ↗ projects which could be zero or it could

1:19:55 ↗ be some. We don't know. Right. So, if we

1:19:58 ↗ were going to build out residential

1:20:00 ↗ units, how many how and what's

1:20:02 ↗ unaccounted for now? How many? So, right

1:20:05 ↗ now there's um there's three residential

1:20:07 ↗ units that shelter holding zones on

1:20:11 ↗ land.

1:20:14 ↗ That's That's right here. Um and then

1:20:18 ↗ there's I believe somewhere in the

1:20:20 ↗ ballpark of 230 units. No, not not built

1:20:23 ↗ yet. What's left to be accounted for? So

1:20:26 ↗ none. 23 or 24. 23 or 24. Right.

1:20:29 ↗ Everything else has been sold. Right. So

1:20:31 ↗ So just to make it clear, what this what

1:20:34 ↗ Polygon would like to do is to have a

1:20:38 ↗ hundred and there's 23 left.

1:20:41 ↗ Right. So if the proposal was was

1:20:45 ↗ approved, then we would be over by

1:20:48 ↗ 77 for what was envisioned and included

1:20:53 ↗ in conversions and whatnot for the

1:20:55 ↗ school islands. Does that make sense?

1:20:57 ↗ Okay.

1:21:05 ↗ Okay. Questions.

1:21:08 ↗ So let me let me ask a

1:21:11 ↗ question. Uh I hear certified and uh how

1:21:17 ↗ many have been certified?

1:21:20 ↗ How many how many TDRs have been

1:21:22 ↗ certified? Um, so all of the ones from

1:21:26 ↗ ParkPoint and one Hey, so in other

1:21:31 ↗ words, um, besides if you took

1:21:34 ↗ ParkPoint off the table, our TDR program

1:21:38 ↗ has actualized one TDR, um, and it was

1:21:42 ↗ within the rally development. Okay.

1:21:46 ↗ And so the difference between certified

1:21:50 ↗ and uh uh and others. Jim, do you want

1:21:55 ↗ to comment on that?

1:22:04 ↗ Mayor, are you asking about TDRs that

1:22:07 ↗ have been certified as being taken off

1:22:11 ↗ of a property or are you asking about

1:22:13 ↗ TDRs and where they are supposed to go?

1:22:17 ↗ Where they're supposed to go? I mean, my

1:22:19 ↗ understanding of the city's TDR program

1:22:22 ↗ is that the TDR certificate says

1:22:26 ↗ that a

1:22:28 ↗ um that a particular property has a

1:22:31 ↗ certain excuse me that TDRs have been

1:22:34 ↗ taken off of a property. I'm not sure

1:22:36 ↗ that they specifically provide that they

1:22:39 ↗ are going to a specific site, but I

1:22:43 ↗ heard Ms. Koshkova say during her

1:22:46 ↗ testimony that this particular TDR

1:22:49 ↗ certificate somehow allocates these TDRs

1:22:52 ↗ to this specific site. And that's the

1:22:55 ↗ first time I have heard that. So if if

1:22:57 ↗ you do have

1:23:08 ↗ that, thank you for the opportunity for

1:23:11 ↗ clarification. Um, the TDR certificate

1:23:16 ↗ was approved by the city and a deed

1:23:19 ↗ recorded uh on title to both the sending

1:23:22 ↗ and receiving property which was um

1:23:25 ↗ recorded and returned to the city that

1:23:28 ↗ indicates both that the TDRs were taken

1:23:32 ↗ from the sending site and have been

1:23:35 ↗ legally recorded on title of the

1:23:39 ↗ receiving site, the Westridge. And that

1:23:41 ↗ is recording number

1:23:44 ↗ 20148

1:23:45 ↗ 05

1:23:49 ↗ 000941. And again that's that's been

1:23:51 ↗ returned to the city of Isiqua. Um, I

1:23:54 ↗ would also note for the record that the

1:23:56 ↗ isqua

1:23:57 ↗ uh title, excuse me, chapter 1810

1:24:00 ↗ provides that um

1:24:03 ↗ TDR units are uh expressly intended to

1:24:08 ↗ be in addition to the density allowed

1:24:11 ↗ under any development agreement. Thank

1:24:13 ↗ you. Thank

1:24:15 ↗ you. Does that uh answer your question,

1:24:19 ↗ Jim?

1:24:24 ↗ It does to the extent that uh certainly

1:24:27 ↗ Miss Klushka has testified concerning

1:24:30 ↗ that. I haven't reviewed the document so

1:24:31 ↗ I can't I can't speak to the document

1:24:34 ↗ itself and what it says. Uh Keith, I see

1:24:37 ↗ you moving back to the microphone.

1:24:40 ↗ Yes, I am.

1:24:44 ↗ Um, so I'd like to follow up um the code

1:24:47 ↗ um in addition to stating that the TDRs

1:24:51 ↗ um specifically states transfer of TDRs

1:24:53 ↗ into a urban village project subject to

1:24:55 ↗ a development agreement shall be subject

1:24:57 ↗ to the following. Um and it was just

1:24:59 ↗ previously stated that the TDR shall be

1:25:01 ↗ in addition to and not as a substitute

1:25:04 ↗ for the development rights as specified

1:25:05 ↗ in the development agreement. Um but the

1:25:08 ↗ next subsection says the TDRs shall not

1:25:11 ↗ cause any of the existing or planned

1:25:13 ↗ infrastructure to fall below the

1:25:15 ↗ infrastructures capacity to handle the

1:25:17 ↗ maximum density as set forth in the

1:25:20 ↗ development agreement. Um and I think

1:25:22 ↗ that certainly makes sense when you

1:25:24 ↗ think about it. Um and the reason that

1:25:26 ↗ makes sense is because when you have a

1:25:27 ↗ development agreement that has been um

1:25:30 ↗ very carefully negotiated to make sure

1:25:32 ↗ that the infrastructure um is balanced

1:25:35 ↗ in such a way that the infrastructure

1:25:38 ↗ meets the needs of the um the specific

1:25:42 ↗ density um in that urban village. I

1:25:44 ↗ think it makes sense that if it's going

1:25:46 ↗ to be additive that the TDRs not cause

1:25:50 ↗ um you know overstress of the

1:25:52 ↗ infrastructure that's there. So my

1:25:54 ↗ question is what

1:25:57 ↗ um what what do we have or I haven't

1:26:00 ↗ seen anything. Yeah. How has that been

1:26:02 ↗ been demonstrated because I haven't seen

1:26:05 ↗ that's been demonstrated.

1:26:07 ↗ So so that evaluation um dealing with

1:26:11 ↗ the infrastructure impacts was part of

1:26:13 ↗ the SEIPA review that was done. So, um,

1:26:19 ↗ the DNS that was issued, um, and the

1:26:22 ↗ file is

1:26:26 ↗ SCP17-00001. Um, the checklist and the

1:26:29 ↗ evaluation for that considered the

1:26:31 ↗ impacts on infrastructure. Um the only

1:26:35 ↗ issue that's worth noting is that uh the

1:26:39 ↗ traffic uh study that was provided with

1:26:42 ↗ the SEPA checklist was deemed um

1:26:45 ↗ inadequate by the city and the city and

1:26:48 ↗ the applicant discussed

1:26:51 ↗ um that that current traffic volumes

1:26:55 ↗ needed to be incorporated into the model

1:26:58 ↗ that was being run for these 100 units.

1:27:01 ↗ um so the existing background numbers

1:27:04 ↗ and so there's a note and it's note

1:27:06 ↗ number five on the uh DNS the

1:27:10 ↗ determination of non-significance that

1:27:12 ↗ set a performance standard uh for

1:27:16 ↗ um what the applicant needed to be able

1:27:19 ↗ to meet to be able to use these 100 TDR

1:27:23 ↗ units on the property that they want to

1:27:25 ↗ use them for. If that makes sense. Sorry

1:27:27 ↗ for that was a lot.

1:27:30 ↗ And so

1:27:32 ↗ um what would be the process then?

1:27:35 ↗ What's the public process for that for

1:27:37 ↗ when is that does that come back to the

1:27:39 ↗ council? Is that daylighted or is that

1:27:41 ↗ if this is

1:27:42 ↗ approved? Um how is that demonstrated to

1:27:45 ↗ us that um the standards are met in that

1:27:47 ↗ code section? Um so that's um I can't be

1:27:52 ↗ explicit about that answer because I

1:27:54 ↗ don't know what the solution is going to

1:27:56 ↗ be. If the solution includes some sort

1:27:59 ↗ of council action, then that would need

1:28:01 ↗ to come back to the council as a

1:28:03 ↗ separate ask um or as part of this

1:28:08 ↗ proceeding or some version of it. Um if

1:28:12 ↗ if though that solution that caused

1:28:16 ↗ traffic to work

1:28:19 ↗ um did not require additional council

1:28:21 ↗ action, then that would simply be

1:28:24 ↗ something that would be incorporated

1:28:26 ↗ into the preliminary plat to utilize

1:28:28 ↗ those 100 units.

1:28:37 ↗ Question for Jim. Um Jim, the

1:28:41 ↗ information tonight about um

1:28:43 ↗ specifically recording the the TDRs with

1:28:46 ↗ the site that I may have a bad memory.

1:28:49 ↗ That's new to me. So if that's already

1:28:52 ↗ there, why do we even have to do this

1:28:54 ↗ amendment? How does that if you looking

1:28:57 ↗ at the development agreement language,

1:28:59 ↗ if it's already registered on title, why

1:29:02 ↗ do we have to do anything?

1:29:04 ↗ Well, that's a good question. I because

1:29:06 ↗ the development agreement does not

1:29:09 ↗ provide or currently provides a a

1:29:12 ↗ certain number of units and this takes

1:29:15 ↗ you beyond that then yes I think you

1:29:16 ↗ need to amend the development agreement.

1:29:18 ↗ The question and again this argument is

1:29:21 ↗ new to me tonight that the certificate

1:29:26 ↗ itself has already approved those TDRs.

1:29:29 ↗ I don't know until I look at that

1:29:31 ↗ document exactly what how that that

1:29:34 ↗ factors in here. But the development

1:29:37 ↗ agreement amendment is required because

1:29:40 ↗ the development agreement provides only

1:29:43 ↗ for a certain number of units that have

1:29:47 ↗ been previously approved.

1:29:54 ↗ So,

1:30:02 ↗ Anyone else have a question before I go

1:30:05 ↗ back to Stacy?

1:30:07 ↗ Stacy.

1:30:16 ↗ Um so

1:30:18 ↗ um based on

1:30:22 ↗ the based on the um discussion that we

1:30:25 ↗ had at

1:30:26 ↗ uh Landon Shore and there was a lot of

1:30:30 ↗ discussion about affordable housing and

1:30:31 ↗ there was also some discussion tonight

1:30:33 ↗ about confusion about affordable housing

1:30:35 ↗ and also in um reading the code that was

1:30:39 ↗ referenced both by the applicant and by

1:30:41 ↗ um me tonight. Um I I'm going to make a

1:30:45 ↗ motion and we'll see where we go from

1:30:48 ↗ there. I move to continue the public

1:30:51 ↗ hearing to

1:30:56 ↗ um no later than 60 days from

1:31:00 ↗ now. And in the meantime that we remand

1:31:03 ↗ Agenda Bill 7215 back to land and shore

1:31:06 ↗ committee to uh number one specify how

1:31:10 ↗ the proposal complies with IMC 18 10

1:31:15 ↗ 2030

1:31:17 ↗ C4 which requires that the TDRs not

1:31:20 ↗ cause any existing or planned

1:31:21 ↗ infrastructure to have insufficient

1:31:23 ↗ capacity to handle the increased density

1:31:25 ↗ and second to provide further

1:31:28 ↗ information on refinement of the

1:31:29 ↗ affordable housing proposal. addressing

1:31:31 ↗ the concerns of the land and shore

1:31:33 ↗ committee and the public and council

1:31:34 ↗ members.

1:31:36 ↗ Second. It's moved and seconded. Uh,

1:31:40 ↗ additional discussion.

1:31:44 ↗ Mary Lou, I'm still really confused

1:31:46 ↗ about what we heard tonight about

1:31:48 ↗ registering it on the title and I maybe

1:31:50 ↗ it's not part of the motion, but somehow

1:31:53 ↗ there's some missing information here

1:31:54 ↗ that we never saw and we never discussed

1:31:56 ↗ and that needs to come back to landing

1:31:58 ↗ shore. So maybe that's not part of the

1:32:00 ↗ motion.

1:32:01 ↗ And so uh that's easy for the

1:32:04 ↗ administration to provide that uh uh uh

1:32:09 ↗ that information and uh a uh an opinion

1:32:14 ↗ on really what that means what it means.

1:32:16 ↗ Thank you

1:32:19 ↗ Stacy. Thank you. So um I made the

1:32:22 ↗ motion because um in looking at the so

1:32:25 ↗ it's um been suggested that um we are

1:32:28 ↗ sort of have to um accept the TDRs. This

1:32:32 ↗ is not um as Mary Lou said earlier sort

1:32:35 ↗ of a referendum on the TDR program. I

1:32:37 ↗ support the TDR program. I support the

1:32:40 ↗ purposes and the goals. It's a it's a

1:32:42 ↗ very good thing. Um uh I think the um

1:32:46 ↗ the concern is about you know what the

1:32:48 ↗ standard is. Um, and the standard seems

1:32:51 ↗ to be in the in the statute making sure

1:32:53 ↗ that the infrastructure can handle it.

1:32:55 ↗ Um, and an additional 77 may not sound

1:32:59 ↗ like a lot, but but we don't know. Like

1:33:01 ↗ I said, we have a development agreement

1:33:03 ↗ and the infrastructure is uh supposed to

1:33:06 ↗ be carefully matched to the density. And

1:33:08 ↗ um uh the the code um the TDR code

1:33:15 ↗ identifies not only what the standard is

1:33:17 ↗ and it als but it also identifies that

1:33:19 ↗ there needs to be a that modification

1:33:21 ↗ needs to be um part of the uh it is

1:33:24 ↗ identified in each uh development

1:33:26 ↗ agreement and the Isiqua Highlands urban

1:33:29 ↗ development urb the Isiqua Highlands

1:33:31 ↗ development agreement requires that a

1:33:32 ↗ major modification be approved by the

1:33:34 ↗ council and um I think it's the I

1:33:37 ↗ certainly feel that it's my

1:33:38 ↗ responsibility to make sure that the

1:33:40 ↗ proposal complies with the with the

1:33:42 ↗ specific provision of the TDR code um is

1:33:45 ↗ Squa Municipal Code that makes sure that

1:33:48 ↗ we watch out for the infrastructure

1:33:50 ↗ needs in the urban village. Um but it's

1:33:53 ↗ not about not agreeing with the TDR

1:33:54 ↗ program.

1:34:02 ↗ Paul, thank you Stacy for those uh

1:34:05 ↗ comments. I thought they were um well

1:34:06 ↗ spoken and and I I agree. Um the um the

1:34:10 ↗ packet in front of us today has a

1:34:12 ↗ proposed um both accept the uh agreement

1:34:16 ↗ or decline. We have language for both in

1:34:18 ↗ those and I know that the committee had

1:34:20 ↗ recommended to uh deny um uh the the

1:34:26 ↗ um amendment to the development

1:34:28 ↗ agreement. Um and um I think we've heard

1:34:32 ↗ uh this evening um a number of issues um

1:34:36 ↗ that we need clarification on. So, I

1:34:38 ↗ fully agree that and it is clear within

1:34:41 ↗ our code and the TDR statute. Uh, as

1:34:45 ↗ Stacy said and I and I think this is

1:34:47 ↗ very important that um to that um the

1:34:51 ↗ additional TDR units, you know, we

1:34:54 ↗ understand and that they that they um

1:34:57 ↗ either the infrastructure supports them

1:34:59 ↗ or um some um whether it be mitigated or

1:35:03 ↗ not that the the infrastructure has to

1:35:05 ↗ support them. So, I think we it's a very

1:35:07 ↗ important gate. Let's let I think I

1:35:09 ↗ think this council is at a place where

1:35:10 ↗ it needs to know what that's going to

1:35:12 ↗ be. Um and and so we're we're creating

1:35:15 ↗ some more time uh to get that

1:35:17 ↗ information. I would also add that that

1:35:20 ↗ the um um I know the committee had

1:35:22 ↗ conversations uh about uh the affordable

1:35:26 ↗ housing piece and yes, that is a piece

1:35:27 ↗ that is in flux uh here within the city.

1:35:31 ↗ uh and and um and yet um I think this

1:35:34 ↗ proposal um is um that that and I my

1:35:40 ↗ interpretation is that it would um add

1:35:43 ↗ 30 uh units at different levels of

1:35:46 ↗ affordability. Um that certainly is is a

1:35:49 ↗ benefit uh to the city. Uh and I and so

1:35:52 ↗ um I'm very interested in seeing if you

1:35:55 ↗ if uh a way to bring that benefit to the

1:35:58 ↗ city if we can do it, if we can absorb

1:35:59 ↗ that. But finally, just about the TDR

1:36:01 ↗ program. Um, uh, I appreciate the

1:36:04 ↗ comments we heard tonight. Um, whereas,

1:36:08 ↗ uh, I I'm I'm sympathetic to every

1:36:10 ↗ existing Isiqua resident who thinks, you

1:36:12 ↗ know, we've got congestion, we've got

1:36:14 ↗ build out, please don't add anymore. I'm

1:36:17 ↗ very sympathetic to that. uh and and at

1:36:20 ↗ another level um uh grow um this idea

1:36:25 ↗ that we have are adjacent to open space

1:36:29 ↗ and that we want to preserve that and

1:36:31 ↗ that preservation of open space um is

1:36:34 ↗ valuable to us. I'm glad that we've got

1:36:37 ↗ that into the conversation. I think that

1:36:39 ↗ was missing before. there is so and and

1:36:42 ↗ it might be hard for an existing

1:36:43 ↗ resident of the Highlands to say okay

1:36:45 ↗ that park point land is now preserved as

1:36:47 ↗ open space and that's a benefit that I

1:36:49 ↗ value um I I understand if you're

1:36:51 ↗ struggling with that but at a high level

1:36:53 ↗ policy level for Isiziqua for growth

1:36:56 ↗ management in general um that idea

1:36:59 ↗ preserving open space and taking that

1:37:01 ↗ those development rights and and

1:37:02 ↗ including that in the urban areas like

1:37:04 ↗ Isiziqua for greater density um that's a

1:37:07 ↗ core tenant and there was even a I

1:37:09 ↗ appreciate the refer reference tonight

1:37:11 ↗ uh uh about how um the growth management

1:37:14 ↗ act recognizes uh TDRs as an essential

1:37:17 ↗ tool for achieving these objectives. And

1:37:20 ↗ so um I would ask that my fellow

1:37:22 ↗ residents who who are realizing now that

1:37:24 ↗ we're going to re reconsider this

1:37:26 ↗ question to also keep in mind the

1:37:28 ↗ benefit of the preservation of open spa

1:37:30 ↗ open space. It's a benefit to not only

1:37:32 ↗ us, to all of us, and to future

1:37:35 ↗ generations. And and and that's a very

1:37:37 ↗ important element that I'm going to

1:37:38 ↗ consider as we go forward with this

1:37:40 ↗ issue. Thank you,

1:37:42 ↗ Mariah.

1:37:45 ↗ Thank you. Uh, I wanted to uh basically

1:37:50 ↗ to say that I support uh the amendment

1:37:52 ↗ and that I wanted to echo uh some of

1:37:55 ↗ what my fellow council members have

1:37:57 ↗ talked about that um um this is a

1:38:00 ↗ complicated issue. It involves a a lot

1:38:03 ↗ of different things, but we're we're

1:38:04 ↗ talking about a major modification to

1:38:06 ↗ the development agreement. And as we

1:38:09 ↗ start to talk this through um even more

1:38:12 ↗ that we than we have on land and shore,

1:38:15 ↗ uh there are a number of issues that I I

1:38:17 ↗ really do think we need more information

1:38:20 ↗ about. Um um is there this sufficient

1:38:25 ↗ infrastructure? Um and as we start to

1:38:27 ↗ talk a little bit more um maybe more

1:38:30 ↗ work that needs to be done in terms of

1:38:32 ↗ the affordable housing element. Uh I'm

1:38:35 ↗ very much in support of the TDR program

1:38:38 ↗ and and uh of course of affordable

1:38:40 ↗ housing and any sort of efforts in those

1:38:42 ↗ areas. Uh but I think that we need to uh

1:38:45 ↗ take a step back and uh get some more

1:38:47 ↗ information regarding some of those

1:38:49 ↗ issues. You

1:38:53 ↗ anyone else? Hola.

1:38:56 ↗ So I I mean I think you're hearing a

1:38:58 ↗ consensus uh around the deis that this

1:39:01 ↗ is not a uh this is not any sort of a

1:39:04 ↗ nimi reaction but really a uh wanting

1:39:07 ↗ clarity on some areas that are very

1:39:09 ↗ important. I'm struck by the fact that

1:39:11 ↗ um in the mayor's state of the city

1:39:12 ↗ address he said the most important issue

1:39:14 ↗ we have in front of us is traffic. And

1:39:16 ↗ so I feel that that's absolutely uh

1:39:19 ↗ correct and that it it leads us to

1:39:22 ↗ wanting to uh measure twice and cut

1:39:24 ↗ once. And so I am eager to see a little

1:39:26 ↗ bit more clarity around that and and

1:39:28 ↗ some of the other issues that have been

1:39:30 ↗ addressed here this evening before uh

1:39:32 ↗ being confident about uh being able to

1:39:34 ↗ support this. I I mean I'll be

1:39:36 ↗ supporting the amendment here this

1:39:37 ↗ evening but uh supporting the the the

1:39:39 ↗ larger issue. Thank you.

1:39:43 ↗ Um I too very much appreciate the TDR

1:39:46 ↗ program. It's done great things uh in

1:39:49 ↗ the area and and we want to continue to

1:39:51 ↗ work on that. I do think that we we have

1:39:53 ↗ some more information that we need to to

1:39:56 ↗ have uh before we make this decision. So

1:39:59 ↗ uh particularly as council member

1:40:02 ↗ um stated that was on the impacts that

1:40:07 ↗ we need to know what those are not guess

1:40:09 ↗ what they are but know have some more

1:40:10 ↗ facts on those. Uh the affordable

1:40:13 ↗ housing piece needs more definition

1:40:14 ↗ right now. It's kind of a side plate

1:40:16 ↗ issue. We need to have that wrapped up

1:40:18 ↗ and and and know what that is as well.

1:40:21 ↗ and and work through this. And I think

1:40:22 ↗ it's reasonable to say we need a little

1:40:24 ↗ more information in 60 days to get that

1:40:26 ↗ is uh I think reasonable and we

1:40:28 ↗ supporting this.

1:40:31 ↗ Anyone else?

1:40:34 ↗ Then the motion is to uh remand agenda

1:40:38 ↗ bill

1:40:41 ↗ 7215. Oh, just

1:40:46 ↗ this. Motion is to continue this public

1:40:50 ↗ hearing to April 17th, which is the

1:40:53 ↗ closest meeting to 60 days out. And in

1:40:58 ↗ the meantime that we send agenda bill

1:41:01 ↗ 7215 back to the land and shore

1:41:03 ↗ committee uh to uh evaluate

1:41:08 ↗ uh uh uh a how the proposal complies

1:41:13 ↗ with the Isqua Municipal Code 18.10.20.

1:41:17 ↗ 2030 point

1:41:19 ↗ C.4 point B which requires that the TDRs

1:41:23 ↗ not cause and any existing or planned

1:41:27 ↗ infrastructure to have insufficient

1:41:29 ↗ capacity to handle the increased density

1:41:32 ↗ and to provide further information and

1:41:35 ↗ refinement of the affordable housing

1:41:38 ↗ proposal addressing the concerns of the

1:41:40 ↗ land and shore committee and the public.

1:41:44 ↗ That was moved by council president uh

1:41:47 ↗ Goodman and seconded by uh council

1:41:50 ↗ member Winterstein. All those in favor

1:41:54 ↗ of the motion signify by saying I. I.

1:41:57 ↗ Those opposed. That carries unanimously.

1:42:04 ↗ Keith, you thought you were going to sit

1:42:06 ↗ down, but I believe our next agenda uh

1:42:09 ↗ item this evening under regular under

1:42:12 ↗ the public Hey, look, it's me again.

1:42:15 ↗ And I guess uh we'll close where we'll

1:42:19 ↗ continue the public hearing to April the

1:42:23 ↗ 17th. Uh uh with that agenda bill

1:42:27 ↗ 7291 consider additional extension to

1:42:31 ↗ temporary moratorum related to certain

1:42:33 ↗ permit applica. This is

1:42:37 ↗ uh a public hearing and we will begin

1:42:42 ↗ with a brief uh uh staff report on the

1:42:48 ↗ progress on the moratorum.

1:42:52 ↗ And uh Keith Nibbon, I guess you're

1:42:54 ↗ still the director of development

1:42:56 ↗ services, so if you would please

1:42:59 ↗ and economic development. Economic

1:43:01 ↗ development.

1:43:02 ↗ So um thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council

1:43:05 ↗ still here. Um sec second uh second

1:43:08 ↗ topic of the night. So

1:43:11 ↗ um just to again similar to the last

1:43:14 ↗ agenda bill um wanted to um kind of give

1:43:18 ↗ some context and some history uh so that

1:43:21 ↗ we can all kind of get back up to speed.

1:43:22 ↗ So the mortorium was initiated on the

1:43:24 ↗ 6th of September 2016 by ordinance. It

1:43:27 ↗ was an emergency moratorum. Um it was

1:43:30 ↗ amended on the 16th of November uh by

1:43:33 ↗ ordinance 2784 and that amendment added

1:43:36 ↗ an exclusion uh for small projects

1:43:39 ↗ consisting of four or fewer residential

1:43:42 ↗ units or non-residential development

1:43:44 ↗ including existing and new not to exceed

1:43:46 ↗ 3,000 square ft of total building area.

1:43:49 ↗ Um in addition um that uh ordinance 2784

1:43:54 ↗ set the six-month hearing uh to lift,

1:43:57 ↗ extend or amend the moratorum on

1:44:00 ↗ February 21st and that's

1:44:02 ↗ tonight. So the moratorum there were uh

1:44:05 ↗ six uh work items that were identified

1:44:08 ↗ architectural guidelines, urban design,

1:44:10 ↗ vertical mixuse, affordable housing,

1:44:12 ↗ parking and uh reooking at the district

1:44:14 ↗ visions. There are 10 within central

1:44:17 ↗ Isiqua. Um so here I thought I would

1:44:21 ↗ quickly kind of go through um kind of

1:44:23 ↗ where we are with each of these. So

1:44:26 ↗ architectural fit and urban design. I

1:44:28 ↗ actually married those two up as one

1:44:30 ↗ work item. They just the more I thought

1:44:32 ↗ about it, the more it seemed like um

1:44:35 ↗ they wanted to be handled by the same

1:44:36 ↗ kind of work effort. And so we issued an

1:44:39 ↗ RFP

1:44:41 ↗ um on that. And those were actually due

1:44:44 ↗ today at close of business. Um so when I

1:44:47 ↗ left the office um I had four um from

1:44:51 ↗ architectural firms, planning and

1:44:54 ↗ landscape architecture firms from

1:44:55 ↗ Seattle and Portland. Actually I think

1:44:57 ↗ there were two from Portland and two

1:44:58 ↗ from Seattle. Um

1:45:03 ↗ uh we are uh scheduled for consultant

1:45:07 ↗ interviews on Monday. Um and then from

1:45:10 ↗ March to June, we're going to go through

1:45:12 ↗ an outreach program, uh which includes a

1:45:15 ↗ lot of touches with the development

1:45:16 ↗ commission. Um and then this particular

1:45:19 ↗ project we expect will be done by

1:45:21 ↗ August. Vertical mixuse. Um to remind

1:45:24 ↗ you, um Eco Northwest, uh provided an

1:45:28 ↗ analysis of where we were, uh or where

1:45:31 ↗ we currently are in terms of having the

1:45:34 ↗ market bring, uh vertical mixuse to us

1:45:37 ↗ without any kind of additional

1:45:38 ↗ regulations or incentives. And if you

1:45:40 ↗ remember, there were a bunch of slanting

1:45:41 ↗ lines and the conclusion was we're about

1:45:45 ↗ 5 to 10 years away from the market

1:45:47 ↗ actually supporting vertical mixuse. So

1:45:50 ↗ what's been happening since then? um and

1:45:52 ↗ that was in September of last year is

1:45:56 ↗ staff have been working um both with our

1:45:58 ↗ consultant and having conversations with

1:46:00 ↗ the economic vitality commission. Um and

1:46:03 ↗ then we're going to go to uh Landon

1:46:06 ↗ Shore. There was an agenda bill on

1:46:07 ↗ tonight's consent agenda to go to Landon

1:46:09 ↗ Shore in March and that's really to walk

1:46:12 ↗ through basically three alternatives

1:46:14 ↗ that we've um that we've put together

1:46:16 ↗ and and go through the logic behind

1:46:18 ↗ those. Um and then we'll bring that back

1:46:20 ↗ to full council at a work session in

1:46:22 ↗ April and then we expect this item to be

1:46:25 ↗ done by September. Affordable housing.

1:46:28 ↗ Um coincidentally we used Eco Northwest

1:46:31 ↗ to provide an inventory of our existing

1:46:33 ↗ housing stock. And that was really just

1:46:36 ↗ to paint a picture of what we had and

1:46:38 ↗ what the trends look like we were going

1:46:39 ↗ to get over the next 20 years if

1:46:41 ↗ everything stayed the same to help us

1:46:43 ↗ really identify what are we missing. Um

1:46:46 ↗ we then started um discussions. We put

1:46:49 ↗ our economic vitality commission, our

1:46:50 ↗ planning policy commission, and our

1:46:52 ↗ human services commissions together as a

1:46:55 ↗ super commission, and they've met three

1:46:57 ↗ times to talk about um housing and

1:46:59 ↗ affordable housing um because they

1:47:02 ↗ represent different perspectives, and I

1:47:04 ↗ think it's really been a rich

1:47:05 ↗ conversation. Um we're going to start um

1:47:08 ↗ an online survey um and then do outreach

1:47:12 ↗ um from basically March to May with a

1:47:14 ↗ completion of this work item by

1:47:16 ↗ September. Parking is our quickest one.

1:47:19 ↗ And actually parking um it makes it's

1:47:22 ↗ actually fortuitous that it is the

1:47:24 ↗ quickest one uh because it could

1:47:26 ↗ potentially influence some of the other

1:47:28 ↗ items like vertical mixuse um and

1:47:32 ↗ architecture fit and urban design. So,

1:47:34 ↗ parking, uh, there was an RFQ sent out,

1:47:36 ↗ um, and those are due, uh, the 28th, so

1:47:40 ↗ next week. Um, and then we go from to

1:47:43 ↗ consultant interviews and basically have

1:47:45 ↗ them develop a report. And that report

1:47:48 ↗ is really looking at two things. One,

1:47:50 ↗ are we right parked? In other words, are

1:47:52 ↗ we underparked or overparked in central

1:47:54 ↗ Isiqua? And the second is is should we

1:47:57 ↗ be mandating any percentage of

1:48:00 ↗ structured parking as part of any

1:48:02 ↗ redevelopment project. So those are

1:48:04 ↗ really two very clear questions I think

1:48:06 ↗ we're looking to have answered with

1:48:08 ↗ parking. And then last, as I mentioned

1:48:10 ↗ earlier, the district visions or the

1:48:12 ↗ neighborhood visions. There's 10

1:48:13 ↗ neighborhoods in central Isiqua. We've

1:48:15 ↗ started um by having focus group

1:48:18 ↗ conversations within each neighborhood

1:48:20 ↗ um with property owners and businesses.

1:48:22 ↗ And we're we're um we don't have a date

1:48:25 ↗ yet, but we're planning to get the

1:48:27 ↗ centraliz plan task force back together

1:48:31 ↗ um to talk about uh the district visions

1:48:33 ↗ and what we've seen uh over the past

1:48:35 ↗ four years. Um and that's really going

1:48:38 ↗ to happen between February and April uh

1:48:41 ↗ with public meetings then going moving

1:48:43 ↗ into April and then kind of continuing

1:48:46 ↗ in through May to August. So, so because

1:48:49 ↗ this one is mostly about hearing what

1:48:51 ↗ the community thinks about these sub

1:48:53 ↗ areas within central Isiqua, it's a lot

1:48:55 ↗ of public outreach. It's a lot of

1:48:57 ↗ talking to the community and the

1:48:58 ↗ community has so many different voices.

1:49:00 ↗ There's there's the property owners, the

1:49:02 ↗ businesses, the residents, and then the

1:49:04 ↗ bigger community and what they think

1:49:05 ↗ these areas are. So, it's a lot of

1:49:07 ↗ outreach. And this is why this one um

1:49:10 ↗ is, even though this arrow is shorter

1:49:13 ↗ than some others, this one's actually

1:49:14 ↗ the longest one. And we don't expect to

1:49:17 ↗ be done with this one till November. So

1:49:19 ↗ this is where we are. Um

1:49:22 ↗ uh and that's the end of my brief

1:49:24 ↗ presentation.

1:49:28 ↗ Oh well. So what does it mean that only

1:49:32 ↗ two of the five would be done by the

1:49:34 ↗ time that this next six months is up?

1:49:39 ↗ [Laughter]

1:49:41 ↗ Well, um, it means that you guys have a

1:49:45 ↗ hard decision if you want to lift the

1:49:46 ↗ moratorum at that

1:49:49 ↗ point. I mean, so that's what I thought

1:49:51 ↗ it might mean. So, so um, so part of

1:49:55 ↗ so there's we're running in these kind

1:49:58 ↗ of six-month kind of cycles, right? And

1:50:00 ↗ so

1:50:02 ↗ um you know there some of these will be

1:50:05 ↗ done and some of them will

1:50:06 ↗ be pretty well baked um but maybe not

1:50:09 ↗ fully baked. Um the question is for you

1:50:12 ↗ guys I think I think it's a pretty easy

1:50:13 ↗ question tonight. My guess is you're

1:50:15 ↗ probably not inclined to lift the

1:50:16 ↗ mortorium. Um but in six months um when

1:50:20 ↗ we have some of these done and some of

1:50:22 ↗ them almost done there might be a

1:50:24 ↗ different conversation.

1:50:27 ↗ So, I'm going to go ahead and uh take

1:50:30 ↗ public testimony now. Uh the public

1:50:33 ↗ hearing is opened at uh

1:50:36 ↗ 8:52. Has anyone uh signed up to speak?

1:50:40 ↗ Yes, Todd Baxter.

1:50:47 ↗ I'm Todd Baxter with Windmir Real Estate

1:50:49 ↗ out of Isiqua and I have a client who I

1:50:52 ↗ represent who has a property in Isiqua

1:50:55 ↗ now and he due to a medical condition

1:50:58 ↗ was not able to be here. So he wrote a

1:51:01 ↗ letter that um he wanted asked me to

1:51:04 ↗ come in and read. Um dear Isakiqua City

1:51:08 ↗ Council, my name is Dr. David Hildrth.

1:51:11 ↗ I'm writing a request that you do not

1:51:13 ↗ extend the current building moratorum. I

1:51:15 ↗ owned the property located at 2300

1:51:18 ↗ Newport Way Northwest. I operated Lake

1:51:21 ↗ Seamish Veterinary Hospital there for

1:51:23 ↗ over three decades. I really enjoyed

1:51:26 ↗ caring for all the animals in Isiqua

1:51:28 ↗ community. My daughter and her husband

1:51:30 ↗ and children currently live at this

1:51:32 ↗ address. Before the current moratorium

1:51:34 ↗ was in place, I'd been actively trying

1:51:36 ↗ to sell this property. I have a buyer

1:51:38 ↗ under contract, but everything had to be

1:51:40 ↗ put on hold due to the moratorum. My

1:51:44 ↗ health is precarious and I would like to

1:51:46 ↗ complete the sale of this property for

1:51:48 ↗ the sake of my family. We are surrounded

1:51:51 ↗ by the gate gateway project on all

1:51:53 ↗ sides. Allowing my property to be

1:51:56 ↗ developed will add safety for

1:51:58 ↗ pedestrians such as sidewalks and

1:52:00 ↗ decrease traffic delays. The development

1:52:03 ↗ of my property fits in with the existing

1:52:06 ↗ city plan and will allow this area of

1:52:08 ↗ the city to be completed for the

1:52:10 ↗ community. I am requesting an exemption

1:52:13 ↗ for any properties that either had a

1:52:16 ↗ pre-application media meeting prior to

1:52:19 ↗ the moratorum or were already under

1:52:21 ↗ contract at the time of the moratorum or

1:52:24 ↗ replace the current moratorum with a new

1:52:25 ↗ plan once it is ready with no surprises

1:52:29 ↗ to the city residents. Sincerely, David

1:52:32 ↗ Hilddrth.

1:52:34 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. Is

1:52:37 ↗ there anyone who has not signed up

1:52:40 ↗ desiring to

1:52:41 ↗ speak? Anyone desiring to speak? Third

1:52:45 ↗ and Oh, wait. Do you have someone else?

1:52:46 ↗ I do. I'm sorry. Steve Carrera.

1:52:51 ↗ Steve you're

1:52:54 ↗ back. Wow. Indeed. Uh, so Steve,

1:52:59 ↗ everything else is still the same. Uh,

1:53:01 ↗ so a couple things struck me. one again

1:53:03 ↗ I referenced earlier policy planning

1:53:05 ↗ commission is only dealing at this point

1:53:07 ↗ with eight of 17 uh planning items that

1:53:10 ↗ are think are part of who we want to be

1:53:12 ↗ as IUA as is and those aren't even going

1:53:15 ↗ to be looked at until next year. In

1:53:17 ↗ addition the

1:53:19 ↗ um I guess six initial but five listed

1:53:22 ↗ here items aren't even going to be

1:53:24 ↗ completed until November. uh it seems a

1:53:28 ↗ no-brainer that we should continue the

1:53:29 ↗ mortorium pause at least for another six

1:53:32 ↗ months and I would propose even beyond

1:53:34 ↗ then but I'm sure that will receive more

1:53:35 ↗ discussion so in brief again yes please

1:53:38 ↗ continue the

1:53:39 ↗ moratorum thank you

1:53:42 ↗ has anyone else signed up to speak

1:53:47 ↗ uh

1:53:49 ↗ yes Lindsay Walsh still the same um I'm

1:53:53 ↗ concerned with the idea of setting a

1:53:56 ↗ six-month timeline on this when as we

1:54:00 ↗ have stated the the work that needs to

1:54:03 ↗ be done in order to figure out what

1:54:06 ↗ decisions need to be made at the end of

1:54:07 ↗ that obviously won't be completed and I

1:54:10 ↗ I really just don't feel like there is a

1:54:14 ↗ clear sense of what those decisions need

1:54:17 ↗ to be. Um the summary statement says

1:54:22 ↗ prior to 6 months expiring the city

1:54:24 ↗ council must consider whether the

1:54:25 ↗ moratorum should be expired, extended or

1:54:27 ↗ lifted. It it does

1:54:31 ↗ not clearly I believe

1:54:36 ↗ delineate the decision makers in any of

1:54:38 ↗ those and whether or not those there is

1:54:42 ↗ a requirement that any of those are

1:54:44 ↗ completed. I just feel like there should

1:54:46 ↗ be

1:54:47 ↗ more clarity there in looking at that

1:54:50 ↗ six-month timeline in expecting to start

1:54:54 ↗ at this point considering we've already

1:54:56 ↗ had that um period

1:54:59 ↗ previously. Thank you. Thank

1:55:03 ↗ you. Anyone else desiring to speak who's

1:55:05 ↗ not signed up? Anyone else? Third and

1:55:09 ↗ final call. Anyone else? Seeing none,

1:55:12 ↗ then the public hearing is closed at uh

1:55:19 ↗ 856.

1:55:21 ↗ Uh Keith, you're back. Just to see if

1:55:24 ↗ there's any questions,

1:55:26 ↗ questions or

1:55:28 ↗ discussion. Stacy, thanks. Um we just

1:55:32 ↗ get some clarity um just because we've

1:55:34 ↗ had a question and just to make sure we

1:55:36 ↗ um council understands. So the um what

1:55:40 ↗ are the options? Um and this is probably

1:55:43 ↗ a question for Jim. What are the options

1:55:45 ↗ tonight is can uh could the council so

1:55:49 ↗ the question has been raised about six

1:55:50 ↗ months. Could the council for example

1:55:53 ↗ extend for shorter for longer? Um

1:55:58 ↗ the council can extend for shorter. It

1:56:00 ↗ cannot extend for longer than six

1:56:02 ↗ months. Um, under the state law, a

1:56:06 ↗ moratorum, if you're doing a moratorum

1:56:09 ↗ initially, you can make it for one year

1:56:12 ↗ as long as you have a work plan. In this

1:56:15 ↗ case, the moratorum was adopted for six

1:56:17 ↗ months because we didn't have a work

1:56:18 ↗ plan at the time you initially adopted

1:56:20 ↗ it. After the initial adoption, you can

1:56:24 ↗ then extend it in six-month increments,

1:56:26 ↗ but no longer than six months. and you

1:56:29 ↗ have to hold an additional public

1:56:30 ↗ hearing prior to extending it once

1:56:32 ↗ again.

1:56:34 ↗ And in a followup, um, if we get

1:56:37 ↗ to the toward the end of the six months,

1:56:40 ↗ can it can you could the council adopt a

1:56:44 ↗ shorter than six-month period if it

1:56:46 ↗ wanted to extend? Absolutely. Um the

1:56:50 ↗ ordinance that you have in front of you

1:56:51 ↗ says 6 months or until you amend

1:56:55 ↗ um adopt permanent regulations whatever

1:56:58 ↗ you want to do.

1:57:01 ↗ Other questions or discussion

1:57:05 ↗ Stacy? I would move to adopt ordinance

1:57:10 ↗ number

1:57:12 ↗ sorry it's

1:57:16 ↗ 2793 adopting findings and extending the

1:57:18 ↗ moratorum established by ordinance

1:57:20 ↗ number 2778 as amended by ordinance

1:57:23 ↗ number 2784 for an addition additional 6

1:57:27 ↗ months commencing March 6, 2017 and

1:57:30 ↗ ending September 6, 2017 providing for

1:57:33 ↗ severability declaring an emergency and

1:57:35 ↗ establish lishing an effective date.

1:57:38 ↗ Second. Moved and seconded. Additional

1:57:40 ↗ discussion or questions.

1:57:44 ↗ Stacy. Um I just want to um acknowledge

1:57:48 ↗ and commend um the work that the staff

1:57:50 ↗ done is already that the staff has done

1:57:53 ↗ already to come up with a work plan. Um

1:57:55 ↗ that looks like a very simple chart that

1:57:58 ↗ has had a lot of work go into it. um and

1:58:01 ↗ we've since seen um that the background

1:58:04 ↗ information in very various iterations

1:58:07 ↗ and it has not been a small task and I

1:58:09 ↗ want to thank you for all the work that

1:58:10 ↗ you've done so far. Thank you.

1:58:13 ↗ Other questions or discussion?

1:58:17 ↗ All those one comment

1:58:20 ↗ um it's actually more about the other

1:58:22 ↗ comment that we received this evening

1:58:24 ↗ and um I know that there are some

1:58:25 ↗ exception uh in the moratorum especially

1:58:28 ↗ for the uh subplatting small um units

1:58:33 ↗ and I'm wondering if um I just would ask

1:58:35 ↗ that someone could follow up with the

1:58:37 ↗ gentleman who spoke to see if indeed

1:58:39 ↗ their property may qualify already for

1:58:41 ↗ an existing exemption.

1:58:43 ↗ We will follow up.

1:58:46 ↗ I'll just read it again. There's a lot

1:58:48 ↗ of work here and there's been a lot done

1:58:50 ↗ and a lot to do and uh really appreciate

1:58:53 ↗ that and and getting to it. Also

1:58:55 ↗ recognizing the fact that there are a

1:58:57 ↗ number of people that are having a

1:58:59 ↗ hardship due to this and uh appreciate

1:59:01 ↗ we're getting to it as fast as we can

1:59:02 ↗ and I think we're doing that but at the

1:59:04 ↗ same time we have to do it right. That's

1:59:05 ↗ why we did this. So thank you.

1:59:09 ↗ Thank you. Additional

1:59:12 ↗ questions? Seeing none, then all those

1:59:14 ↗ in favor of adopting ordinance number

1:59:17 ↗ 2793 as outlined in the agenda bill.

1:59:25 ↗ You signify by saying I.

1:59:28 ↗ Signify by saying I. Please signify by

1:59:31 ↗ saying

1:59:33 ↗ I. I. Those opposed.

1:59:38 ↗ Thank you, Stacy. Welcome. I uh suggest

1:59:41 ↗ that uh we uh we take a short 10-minute

1:59:44 ↗ uh break before we uh move to agenda

1:59:49 ↗ bill

1:59:50 ↗ 7219. So, please be back in your seats

1:59:53 ↗ at 11 minutes after 9. Thank you.

1:59:59 ↗ You're welcome. Fell asleep there for a

2:00:02 ↗ minute. Okay.

2:02:12 ↗ We are back in regular session. Uh our

2:02:16 ↗ next item under regular business is

2:02:18 ↗ agenda bill

2:02:19 ↗ 7219 Gilman Lofts three trails

2:02:22 ↗ development agreement. And uh uh Keith

2:02:26 ↗ again will you kick it off with a short

2:02:29 ↗ presentation? This one's very short. So,

2:02:32 ↗ we've been talking about this. If y'all

2:02:34 ↗ remember, um the applicant um came

2:02:38 ↗ forward to the city council and asked

2:02:40 ↗ for um the city to allow this project to

2:02:44 ↗ move forward during the moratorum and um

2:02:49 ↗ ultimately resulted in a proposal for a

2:02:52 ↗ development agreement which then has

2:02:54 ↗ been discussed at land and shore for a

2:02:56 ↗ number of months. So all we're doing

2:02:58 ↗ this evening is um is I'm going to kind

2:03:02 ↗ of go through my one slide uh which is

2:03:05 ↗ what the proposal is and what I think

2:03:07 ↗ the action is for this evening. So the

2:03:09 ↗ proposal is a partnering agreement for

2:03:11 ↗ the construction of a signalized

2:03:13 ↗ intersection of Gilman Boulevard at the

2:03:16 ↗ Juniper intersection. Um it's also to

2:03:19 ↗ enter into a development agreement with

2:03:21 ↗ the applicant that would allow the

2:03:22 ↗ project to move forward in advance of

2:03:25 ↗ lifting the moratorum. And there's

2:03:27 ↗ reasons why that's important to the

2:03:29 ↗ applicant and economically makes um

2:03:32 ↗ number one under the proposal make

2:03:34 ↗ sense. So the action for this evening I

2:03:36 ↗ think simply is to schedule the public

2:03:39 ↗ hearing for the 6th of March um and then

2:03:41 ↗ to consider the proposed development

2:03:43 ↗ agreement which is attached to the

2:03:45 ↗ agenda bill. Uh thank you council

2:03:48 ↗ president Goodman.

2:03:51 ↗ I would move to direct the

2:03:52 ↗ administration to

2:03:55 ↗ prepare

2:03:58 ↗ resolution approving the proposed

2:04:00 ↗ development

2:04:04 ↗ agreement. Hold on one second.

2:04:07 ↗ Y second.

2:04:11 ↗ Is there anything else you'd like to

2:04:12 ↗ offer at this time, Keith?

2:04:15 ↗ Some words of

2:04:16 ↗ silence.

2:04:18 ↗ No, I think I'm good. I'm flipping open

2:04:21 ↗ the um the agenda bill. So, if I can be

2:04:24 ↗ of assistance on the screen, is the is

2:04:27 ↗ the hearing to be on the 6th or the

2:04:29 ↗ 20th? Uh I believe the hearing could be

2:04:31 ↗ should be on the 6th and then back to

2:04:33 ↗ the council.

2:04:36 ↗ Can I interject that we may have missed

2:04:40 ↗ our opportunity for noticing on the 6th

2:04:43 ↗ as it's Tuesday night and for our

2:04:46 ↗ publication requirements they would have

2:04:49 ↗ needed documentation of the hearing

2:04:51 ↗ today. So I believe that's why the

2:04:53 ↗ agenda bill references the 20th.

2:05:05 ↗ Right. I would direct the administration

2:05:07 ↗ to prepare a resolution approving the

2:05:09 ↗ proposed development agreement and

2:05:11 ↗ schedule the related public hearing for

2:05:13 ↗ the March 20, 2017 city council meeting.

2:05:16 ↗ Second. Moved and seconded. Questions or

2:05:20 ↗ discussion? Mary Lou. Just a comment. Um

2:05:23 ↗ I can't remember Keith. Did you include

2:05:26 ↗ in the update what what the vote was out

2:05:28 ↗ of landed shore because it wasn't

2:05:29 ↗ unanimous.

2:05:31 ↗ Um, two to one. It's in the agenda bill.

2:05:33 ↗ Okay. Thanks.

2:05:39 ↗ Hola. I want to make sure I understand

2:05:42 ↗ what we would we wouldn't be actually

2:05:45 ↗ moving forward with anything tonight

2:05:47 ↗ except the next step towards potentially

2:05:50 ↗ doing this because I'll have lots of

2:05:52 ↗ questions before the council actually

2:05:53 ↗ has to decide here. Nay. I think all

2:05:57 ↗ we're doing is scheduling the public

2:05:59 ↗ hearing and I'm still a little bit

2:06:01 ↗ um remiss about the date

2:06:05 ↗ um that we talked about some

2:06:07 ↗ alternatives.

2:06:10 ↗ All right. Thank you. Other questions or

2:06:13 ↗ discussion? All those in favor of uh

2:06:16 ↗ directing the administration to prepare

2:06:18 ↗ a resolution approving the proposed

2:06:20 ↗ development agreement and schedule the

2:06:21 ↗ related public hearing for the March

2:06:23 ↗ 20th, 2017 city council meeting. Signify

2:06:27 ↗ by saying I. I. Those opposed? That

2:06:30 ↗ carries unanimously. Moving now to good

2:06:34 ↗ of the

2:06:35 ↗ order. Uh anyone have anything for good

2:06:39 ↗ of the order this evening?

2:06:43 ↗ Seeing none, then uh we will now move

2:06:46 ↗ into executive session for the purpose

2:06:49 ↗ of discussing property acquisition for

2:06:55 ↗ RCW42.30.110

2:06:57 ↗ pernb and collective bargaining per

2:07:03 ↗ RCW42.30.140

2:07:05 ↗ PN4. These items are expected to take

2:07:07 ↗ approximately 70 minutes. Action is

2:07:11 ↗ anticipated to follow in open session.

2:08:01 ↗ We are back in uh regular session at uh

2:08:10 ↗ 10:27. Council member Martz. Mr. Mayor,

2:08:13 ↗ I move that we authorize the mayor to

2:08:15 ↗ execute a revision to the purchase and

2:08:17 ↗ sale agreement for the King County roads

2:08:19 ↗ property in order to reduce the purchase

2:08:21 ↗ price by $100,000 and to authorize

2:08:24 ↗ proceeding with the low bid for

2:08:26 ↗ remediation on the roads property in an

2:08:28 ↗ amount not to exceed $100,000. Second.

2:08:32 ↗ Moved and seconded. Any questions or

2:08:35 ↗ discussion? Yes question. So, I was

2:08:38 ↗ googling around a little and I'm not a

2:08:40 ↗ lawyer, but there is some stuff on the

2:08:42 ↗ AG site that talks about

2:08:45 ↗ um properties of sale between

2:08:48 ↗ governments and it talks specifically

2:08:52 ↗ specifically about selling properties

2:08:55 ↗ for full

2:08:56 ↗ value

2:08:58 ↗ and let me find

2:09:01 ↗ it. Making governments fully accountable

2:09:03 ↗ for their property. ensuring that the

2:09:05 ↗ resources allocated by law to one

2:09:07 ↗ government are not used to subsidize the

2:09:08 ↗ activities of a different government.

2:09:11 ↗ Still have concerns that we haven't

2:09:12 ↗ examined that avenue of law carefully

2:09:15 ↗ enough and that that's my concern with

2:09:18 ↗ this ask

2:09:23 ↗ tonight. You may be able to Yes, that

2:09:26 ↗ statute I am familiar with. That's the

2:09:28 ↗ state accountancy act. It basically says

2:09:31 ↗ that one government agency cannot

2:09:34 ↗ subsidize another government agency. The

2:09:37 ↗ theory being that taxpayers of one

2:09:39 ↗ jurisdiction should not be subsidizing

2:09:42 ↗ the activities of another jurisdiction.

2:09:44 ↗ But that I think if if if King County

2:09:49 ↗ wanted to assert a larger purchase price

2:09:54 ↗ for the roads property on that basis,

2:09:56 ↗ you know, they should have done so. But

2:09:58 ↗ that doesn't prohibit the city from

2:10:01 ↗ purchasing the property for the county

2:10:03 ↗ for what the county has offered it to

2:10:05 ↗ the city for. And uh if the city decides

2:10:09 ↗ at some future point to sell a portion

2:10:12 ↗ of the property for receiving the full

2:10:14 ↗ value which the city would be required

2:10:16 ↗ to receive.

2:10:18 ↗ County can do something wrong.

2:10:21 ↗ Interesting. Other questions or

2:10:23 ↗ discussion?

2:10:31 ↗ All those in favor of uh authorizing the

2:10:35 ↗ mayor to execute a revision to the

2:10:36 ↗ purchase and sales agreement for the

2:10:38 ↗ King County Roads property in order to

2:10:41 ↗ reduce the purchase price by

2:10:44 ↗ $100,000 and to authorize proceeding

2:10:47 ↗ with the low bid for reiation on the

2:10:50 ↗ roads property in an amount not to

2:10:53 ↗ exceed $100,000. signify by saying I I

2:10:57 ↗ those opposed that

2:11:01 ↗ that uh that passes by a vote of six

2:11:10 ↗ two five to two with uh council member

2:11:13 ↗ Paulie and Barbara Goodman and Goodman

2:11:17 ↗ declining.

2:11:21 ↗ Okay. Council Pine Goodman. I would

2:11:24 ↗ author I would make a motion to

2:11:25 ↗ authorize the acquisition of land and

2:11:28 ↗ temporary construction easement for an

2:11:30 ↗ amount of

2:11:31 ↗ $47,100 for the purpose of building the

2:11:33 ↗ Southeast 62nd Street Road and Bridge.

2:11:37 ↗ Second.

2:11:39 ↗ Got a motion that has been made and

2:11:44 ↗ seconded. Any discussion on the motion?

2:11:47 ↗ Seeing none, then all those in favor of

2:11:49 ↗ authorizing the acquisition of land and

2:11:51 ↗ temporary construction easement for

2:11:52 ↗ amount of

2:11:54 ↗ 47,100 for the purpose of building the

2:11:56 ↗ Southeast 62nd Street Road and Bridge

2:12:00 ↗ project, signify by saying I. I. Those

2:12:04 ↗ opposed. That carries unanimously. There

2:12:07 ↗ being no further business uh uh this

2:12:11 ↗ evening, we are adjourned.

2:12:19 ↗ You should have taken

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (5)

Continue the public hearing to the April 17, 2017 Council meeting and remand AB 7215 back to the Council Land & Shore Committee to: a) Specify how the proposal complies with IMC 18.10.2030 (C)(4)(b), which requires that the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) not cause any existing or planned infr…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2793, adopting findings and extending the moratorium established by Ordinance No. 2778, as amended by Ordinance No. 2784, for an additional six months commencing March 6, 2017 and ending September 6, 2017; providing for severability; declaring an emergency and establishing an eff…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 7-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Direct Administration to prepare a resolution approving the proposed development agreement; and schedule the related public hearing for the March 20, 2017 City Council meeting. .

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 7-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

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 authorize proceeding with the low bid for remediation on the Roads property in an amount not to exceed $100,000. . (Opponents: Goodman…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BARBER

Carried 5-2

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Goodman, Pauly

Authorize the acquisition of land and temporary construction easement for an amount of $47,100 for the purpose of building the SE 62nd Street road and bridge. . 02-21-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7802

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by MARTS

Carried 7-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein