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