City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, December 2, 2019 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Swearing in Ceremony, Oath of Office, Council Position No. 3 ID 0599

packet pp.5

▶ Watch from 0:50 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

City Clerk's Office 130 E. Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3000 issaquahwa.gov

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of Dec. 2, 2019, $3,017,705.03 ID 0399

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.7–99

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 21:08 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Finance Department P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 PH: 425-837-3050 www.issaquahwa.gov

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Nov. 18, 2019

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.105–111

▶ Watch from 57:29 Open packet at p.105 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR d) 11-18-19 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page (0000)

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

2019 Curb Ramp Replacement Project AB 7754

Carried 7-0

Accept Project · packet pp.113–116

▶ Watch from 1:33:50 Open packet at p.113 ↗

Staff report:

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

King County Senior Center Grant AB 7769

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.117–145

▶ Watch from 2:10:11 Open packet at p.117 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends authorizing submittal of the King County Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS) Veterans, Seniors and Human Services Levy (VSHSL) grant for 2019-2023 for the Issaquah Senior Center in partnership with the Sno-Valley and Mt. Si Senior Centers.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

2020 Aerial Mapping Project Agreement AB 7886

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.205–216

▶ Watch from 2:46:33 Open packet at p.205 ↗

Staff report:

In 2015, the City participated in a regional aerial imagery project to provide updated digital aerial photo imagery of the City limits and adjacent areas (AB 7012). This effort is being repeated in 2020 to obtain updated imagery to changes that have occurred within the City since 2015, when the previous imagery was taken.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

DNR Community Forestry Assistance Grant for Green Issaquah AB 7891

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.217–218

▶ Watch from 3:22:54 Open packet at p.217 ↗

Staff report:

The mission of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF) is to provide leadership and assistance to communities that are working to create self-sustaining urban and community forestry programs that preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for public benefits and quality of life.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Anti-Aircraft Creek Culvert Streambed Rehabilitation Project AB 7893

Carried 7-0

Accept Project · packet pp.219–223

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 3:59:15 Open packet at p.219 ↗

Staff report:

In 2017, the City completed a project that installed a 138-foot long fish passable culvert to convey the seasonal flow from Anti-Aircraft Creek where it crosses under Newport Way NW. During a site visit on June 1, 2018, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) identified a lack of stream bed sediment material within the culvert as well as a few minor modifications to structures outside of the culvert that needed to be resolved to be in compliance with the current Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit and provide a safe passage for fish.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Sewer Main Rehabilitation Project AB 7894

Carried 7-0

Accept Project · packet pp.225

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 4:35:36 Open packet at p.225 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends acceptance of the 2019 Sewer Main Rehabilitation project and release of the retainage to the contractor.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

9. APPEAL HEARING

State Environmental Policy Act Zoning Map Amendments (QUASI-JUDICIAL) AB 7877

Conduct Appeal Hearing · packet pp.335–341

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.335 ↗

Staff report:

n/a

10. GOOD OF THE ORDER

10a

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 5:11:58

6355 segments .txt ↗

0:16 ↗ good evening and welcome everyone I'm

0:18 ↗ calling the December 2nd city council

0:20 ↗ meeting to order I I'd like to ask those

0:23 ↗ who'd like to join the council myself in

0:24 ↗ the pledge of allegiance to please

0:28 ↗ stand

0:30 ↗ IED aliance to the flag of the United

0:34 ↗ States of America and to the for which

0:37 ↗ it stands one nation God indivisible

0:42 ↗ with liy and justice for

0:47 ↗ all our first item this evening is under

0:50 ↗ special business ID 0599 at swearing in

0:54 ↗ ceremony and oath of office for our new

0:57 ↗ council member in position three Barb D

0:59 ↗ Michelle

1:00 ↗ in February 2018 the council appointed

1:03 ↗ Miss hunt to fill position number three

1:05 ↗ until the next scheduled M Municipal

1:07 ↗ general election on November 26 2019 the

1:11 ↗ results of the election were certified

1:13 ↗ and Barb D Michelle was elected to serve

1:14 ↗ isquat in position number three Miss D

1:17 ↗ Michelle will now serve the remaining

1:19 ↗ two-year term of position number three

1:21 ↗ expiring December

1:23 ↗ 2021 Barb would you like to come and

1:25 ↗ join me over at the El

1:28 ↗ turn

1:36 ↗ it's time for cameras if you've come for

1:38 ↗ Barb get your cameras

1:40 ↗ out Barb can you raise your right hand

1:43 ↗ and repeat after me I state your name i

1:47 ↗ barbar n Michelle having been duly

1:50 ↗ elected having been duly elected to City

1:53 ↗ of isqua council position number three

1:55 ↗ to City of isqua council position number

1:58 ↗ three term expiring December 31st 2021

2:03 ↗ term expiring December 31st 2021 do

2:07 ↗ solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I

2:10 ↗ will faithfully and impartially that I

2:12 ↗ will faithfully and impartially

2:14 ↗ discharge the duties of this office

2:16 ↗ discharge the duties of this office as

2:19 ↗ prescribed by law as prescribed by law

2:22 ↗ and to the best of my ability and to the

2:24 ↗ best of my ability that I will support

2:26 ↗ and maintain that I will support and

2:28 ↗ maintain the constitution of the state

2:31 ↗ of Washington the constitution of the

2:33 ↗ state of Washington and of the United

2:35 ↗ States of America and of the United

2:37 ↗ States of America

2:46 ↗ congratulations get a picture with

2:51 ↗ okay thank you Tisha I didn't see a lot

2:54 ↗ of flashes so I figured we had to do

2:55 ↗ some extra

2:58 ↗ pictures

3:04 ↗ thank you Tisha this is my photographer

3:06 ↗ oh there

3:09 ↗ you she brings an Entourage thank you

3:14 ↗ congratulations for family real quickly

3:17 ↗ I think that's fine okay I'll come on

3:19 ↗ over and I'll just be really brief I'd

3:21 ↗ like to introduce uh my son John my

3:24 ↗ daughter-in-law Diane my granddaughter

3:26 ↗ Aiko and my grandson Robbie and many

3:30 ↗ supporters in the audience thank you so

3:31 ↗ much for being here thank you all for

3:33 ↗ coming

3:40 ↗ yes so at this point in time I'm going

3:43 ↗ to call I know we just started a very

3:45 ↗ short recess because we did have some

3:47 ↗ folks that came tonight for the swearing

3:48 ↗ in ceremony and not for the rest of our

3:50 ↗ regular business so we will be in recess

3:52 ↗ for five minutes coming back at about

3:58 ↗ 7:09 you can say anybody leaving hello

4:00 ↗ to all of

4:28 ↗ your

7:10 ↗ so we are back on air and thank you for

7:12 ↗ your patience we wanted to make sure

7:13 ↗ that Barb's family was able to stay for

7:15 ↗ as long or as little as they wanted to

7:17 ↗ stay tonight and it opened up a few

7:19 ↗ seats for us in the front so I'm calling

7:21 ↗ the meeting back to order and the next

7:23 ↗ item on the agenda is audience comments

7:26 ↗ there are a lot of different things

7:28 ↗ going on tonight and different

7:30 ↗ proceedings and so I have quite a

7:32 ↗ lengthy introduction to audience

7:33 ↗ comments tonight this is the time for

7:36 ↗ audience members to address the council

7:38 ↗ and the guidelines for public

7:39 ↗ participation are displayed on the

7:41 ↗ screen behind us due to the anticipated

7:44 ↗ length of tonight's meeting and in

7:46 ↗ accordance with with Section 4.08 penc

7:51 ↗ of the council rules of procedure I will

7:53 ↗ be limiting audience comments to three

7:55 ↗ minutes each with an overall duration

7:58 ↗ for this evening of 15 minutes those who

8:01 ↗ signed up will be called forward first

8:03 ↗ if you did not sign up and there is time

8:05 ↗ remaining I will ask for other speakers

8:07 ↗ before closing this portion of the

8:08 ↗ meeting if you are here as part of a

8:10 ↗ group please identify your uh yourself

8:13 ↗ as a spokesperson in the group that

8:14 ↗ you're here for and if you here this

8:16 ↗ evening listening and you hear comments

8:17 ↗ and you want to indicate to the council

8:19 ↗ your support of what you're hearing

8:21 ↗ please raise your hand so the council

8:22 ↗ has an idea of your support I'm going to

8:26 ↗ talk a little bit about a quasi judicial

8:28 ↗ uh hearing that is happening this

8:30 ↗ evening so as many of you know the

8:32 ↗ Providence Point umbrella Association

8:34 ↗ has filed an appeal of the sea

8:36 ↗ determination of non-significance issued

8:39 ↗ by City staff for the comprehensive plan

8:41 ↗ redesignation and rezone request related

8:43 ↗ to the isqua school district property

8:46 ↗ the appeal hearing will occur later on

8:48 ↗ the agenda during tonight's council

8:51 ↗ meeting this appeal is a quasy Judicial

8:54 ↗ decision when something is quasi

8:56 ↗ judicial that means the council must act

8:58 ↗ like judges and may not hear any

9:00 ↗ testimony or evidence related to the

9:02 ↗ appeal outside of tonight's appeal

9:04 ↗ hearing this means the city council may

9:06 ↗ not hear audience comments tonight on

9:08 ↗ any of the issues in the sepa appeal

9:11 ↗ this is clarified in section 4.0a Pern B

9:14 ↗ of the council rules of procedure for

9:17 ↗ those not familiar with the issues in

9:18 ↗ the sepa appeal in summary they are

9:22 ↗ whether the school district should have

9:24 ↗ been the applicant for the comprehensive

9:25 ↗ plan Amendment and rezone rather than

9:28 ↗ the city whether the information on the

9:30 ↗ sea checklist used to evaluate the

9:32 ↗ potential impacts of the 2019

9:35 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment and rezone

9:37 ↗ package was adequate and complete with

9:39 ↗ respect to the school district property

9:42 ↗ whether the city appropriately used

9:43 ↗ phased environmental review in this

9:46 ↗ instance whether the not applicable

9:48 ↗ answers to some of the questions on the

9:50 ↗ sea checklist are accurate and whether

9:54 ↗ the comprehensive plan Amendment and

9:56 ↗ reone of the school district property

9:58 ↗ will have problem probable significant

10:00 ↗ adverse environmental impacts once again

10:03 ↗ the council cannot hear testimony on

10:05 ↗ these issues under audience comments

10:07 ↗ tonight if you speak on any of the sea

10:10 ↗ related issues I will have to stop you

10:12 ↗ and will'll ask that you refrain from

10:14 ↗ speaking further on these matters you

10:16 ↗ are welcome to speak on other

10:19 ↗ issues so with that done uh I'll turn to

10:23 ↗ our Clerk and ask if anyone has signed

10:25 ↗ up to speak this evening yes William

10:28 ↗ fringer

10:30 ↗ on

10:39 ↗ upville and we have a new Podium or

10:42 ↗ Lecter for you sorry Bill we rearranged

10:44 ↗ the furniture don't know anyway there

10:46 ↗ you

10:48 ↗ go yes I want to address the uh traffic

10:51 ↗ issues in Oldtown I live I'm Bill

10:54 ↗ fringer I live at 4:15 Southeast Bush

10:57 ↗ Street so I'm I'm in that middle of that

11:00 ↗ area I'm a couple blocks from the

11:03 ↗ intersection of bush and second which is

11:05 ↗ a a particular concern area and I want

11:09 ↗ to thank the city staff for work they've

11:12 ↗ done already they've added extra traffic

11:15 ↗ control on Second Avenue near Bush and

11:18 ↗ uh I noticed they were monitoring

11:20 ↗ traffic flows I'm sure you'll get a

11:22 ↗ report on that anyway my particular

11:25 ↗ concern is that you not get carried away

11:29 ↗ and eliminate the left turns into the

11:31 ↗ neighborhood the uh my experience in the

11:34 ↗ neighborhood is that the people were

11:35 ↗ very upset when the no left turn signs

11:37 ↗ went in and very relieved when they went

11:40 ↗ out if we still if these initial things

11:44 ↗ that have been done to mitigate the

11:45 ↗ traffic has not been adequate we could

11:49 ↗ consider perhap uh like on a

11:52 ↗ intersection of Andrews in fifth there's

11:54 ↗ a little traffic Island a traffic Island

11:57 ↗ could also be put on forth in Bush while

12:01 ↗ the teenagers might enjoy flying over

12:03 ↗ the bumps they won't enjoy one side of

12:05 ↗ their car going over the bump when they

12:07 ↗ speed through the traffic Island I mean

12:10 ↗ if you if you put the no left turn signs

12:14 ↗ into the neighborhood it will cut down

12:16 ↗ on going through traffic you can also

12:19 ↗ close off those streets fourth fifth and

12:22 ↗ sixth at Sunset that'll help even more

12:25 ↗ but those are both bad ideas and should

12:27 ↗ only be viewed as last resort

12:29 ↗ thank you very much for your time thank

12:31 ↗ you Bill has anyone else signed up this

12:33 ↗ evening Tisha yes Jenny Bingham Jenny

12:37 ↗ come on

12:39 ↗ up Jenny bam 375 Southeast Andries I'm

12:44 ↗ also here to talk about uh the Oldtown

12:47 ↗ traffic

12:49 ↗ calming um in looking at uh city of

12:52 ↗ Seattle Municipal Code

12:56 ↗ 1.14.30 they have a local access traffic

13:00 ↗ only and that means Motor Vehicles

13:03 ↗ having an origin or destination along a

13:05 ↗ non-arterial street within an area

13:08 ↗ bounded by arterial streets except where

13:11 ↗ boundaries are otherwise set by

13:14 ↗ officials erected traffic control signs

13:16 ↗ are

13:18 ↗ topographical and

13:20 ↗ um the violation of the code for that is

13:25 ↗ like

13:26 ↗ $124 or11 if there is a

13:29 ↗ collision um the RCW on that is

13:33 ↗ 46.

13:35 ↗ 61.5 zero no person shall disobey the

13:40 ↗ applicable instructions of The

13:41 ↗ Unofficial traffic control device un

13:45 ↗ unless directed by a peace officer

13:48 ↗ that's what it says police officer my

13:51 ↗ recommendation for the Oldtown traffic

13:53 ↗ calming which I've been here for 20

13:56 ↗ years regarding this ever since the

13:58 ↗ Highlands was built cause more traffic

14:01 ↗ and more building out uh out of our city

14:06 ↗ is uh number one would be uh completely

14:10 ↗ close off 6th Avenue at Sunset way no in

14:13 ↗ no

14:14 ↗ out completely close off Fourth Avenue

14:18 ↗ at Sunset way no in no

14:21 ↗ out make Fifth Avenue the only access in

14:26 ↗ and out with signage says local access

14:30 ↗ traffic

14:32 ↗ only signs would be posted on Sunset way

14:35 ↗ before 5th Avenue and it would say local

14:39 ↗ access traffic

14:41 ↗ only we would still get we we would ask

14:44 ↗ also that they be posted on Second

14:46 ↗ Avenue at Fifth and Bush or excuse me at

14:51 ↗ second and Bush and second and

14:55 ↗ Andrews uh Fifth Avenue from sun sunset

14:58 ↗ way has a a sidewalk but would need a

15:00 ↗ crosswalk running East and West at

15:02 ↗ entrance off fifth of sunset way again

15:06 ↗ east and west on andw and Bush as well

15:10 ↗ to slow any traffic another speed hump

15:13 ↗ to be added between Sunset way and

15:15 ↗ Andrews running East and West the

15:18 ↗ traffic circle is already there uh I

15:22 ↗ would suggest adding some more curbing

15:24 ↗ so people can't just Dash around it it

15:27 ↗ that will manage the V vehicles and

15:30 ↗ there should be another speed hump

15:32 ↗ between Andrews and Bush running East

15:34 ↗ and West with a crosswalk as well there

15:38 ↗ as we all know we need crosswalks to

15:41 ↗ keep from another thing happening that

15:43 ↗ happened on

15:46 ↗ Sixth uh local aex traffic only signs

15:49 ↗ installed on 2 Avenue Bush and Andrews

15:52 ↗ excuse me your comment period has ended

15:54 ↗ okay Jenny do you want to if you have

15:56 ↗ some quick comments just to wrap it up

15:57 ↗ that'd be good

15:59 ↗ thank you very much thank you Jenny we

16:01 ↗ want some feedback we want to know a

16:04 ↗ little more

16:06 ↗ about the strips that were put down we

16:09 ↗ want communication and we want to know

16:11 ↗ as soon as possible with the counselor

16:13 ↗ thank you thank you has anybody else

16:15 ↗ signed up this

16:17 ↗ evening yes Dwayne strandard

16:21 ↗ yep Dwayne stard 420 Southeast Bush

16:24 ↗ Street fifth generation

16:27 ↗ isqua um

16:29 ↗ I agree with Jenny and what she was

16:32 ↗ talking about um also too I would like

16:34 ↗ to add if you're heading East on second

16:37 ↗ or on Bush Street on the on the

16:39 ↗ intersection of Bush Street and Second

16:41 ↗ Avenue no left turn this is an

16:45 ↗ intersection I use quite often and it

16:48 ↗ really gets interesting when people are

16:50 ↗ trying to make a left turn they come

16:53 ↗ down off the hill from the high school

16:55 ↗ they get confused because of the

16:56 ↗ crosswalk and

16:59 ↗ it can be a disaster at some point in

17:01 ↗ time so you know and then don't take

17:04 ↗ away our left turn into our area I you

17:07 ↗ know when we had the no left turns it

17:09 ↗ was an added 20 25 minutes depending on

17:11 ↗ the time of day to go down the second

17:14 ↗ turn on the or go down the second turn

17:16 ↗ left go up Andrews on the fifth and then

17:19 ↗ back down to my house on Bush

17:21 ↗ Street and that's about all I have to

17:24 ↗ say thank you very much thank you has

17:26 ↗ anyone else signed up this evening no

17:28 ↗ and we have approximately six minutes

17:30 ↗ remaining of the 15minute comment period

17:32 ↗ great so if there's anyone else in the

17:34 ↗ audience tonight that wants to make

17:36 ↗ comments to council not related to the

17:39 ↗ hearing that's happening later this

17:40 ↗ evening come on up to the podium we have

17:43 ↗ six minutes left and if I don't see any

17:45 ↗ hands I'll ask a second time would

17:47 ↗ anybody like to come up and speak to

17:49 ↗ council this evening and a third and

17:51 ↗ final time seeing none we'll close

17:54 ↗ audience

17:55 ↗ comments and we will move on to

17:58 ↗ committee and Regional reports starting

18:00 ↗ with council member D Michelle I'm

18:03 ↗ laughing because she hasn't been to a

18:04 ↗ committee meeting yet no report thank

18:07 ↗ you council member Walsh thank you I

18:10 ↗ have no report at this time thanks

18:12 ↗ council member Ray no report council

18:14 ↗ member winstein this Thursday is a

18:16 ↗ meeting of the uh petown regional

18:18 ↗ council's growth management policy board

18:20 ↗ meeting in December which we don't

18:22 ↗ usually do but uh there is optimism that

18:25 ↗ the board will get through all proposed

18:26 ↗ amendments and will be able to make a

18:29 ↗ recommendation to the executive board uh

18:31 ↗ before the end of the year we shall see

18:34 ↗ that concludes my report thank you

18:36 ↗ council member Goodman uh thank you the

18:38 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue board of

18:39 ↗ directors will meet on December 12th at

18:42 ↗ 4M uh the headquarters building on

18:45 ↗ Newport way and I do not have an agenda

18:47 ↗ yet that's my report thank you Deputy

18:50 ↗ council president ba thank you Madame

18:52 ↗ mayor the uh pett sound uh Economic

18:55 ↗ Development District board uh will be

18:57 ↗ meeting on Wednesday December 4th from

19:00 ↗ 1:00 to 3 in Seattle and on the agenda

19:03 ↗ will be uh some housekeeping items uh

19:06 ↗ the 2020 board Focus areas the regional

19:09 ↗ Aviation Baseline study update and an

19:13 ↗ overview of the amazing Place

19:15 ↗ implementation thus far and that

19:17 ↗ concludes my report thank you council

19:19 ↗ president Marts thank you Madame mayor

19:22 ↗ uh next Wednesday December 11th the will

19:24 ↗ be the sca ens cities Association public

19:27 ↗ issues committee meeting um at the 6:00

19:30 ↗ p.m. prepi Workshop will actually be

19:33 ↗ 2020 board of directors elections there

19:36 ↗ are actually in the north caucus all

19:38 ↗ four seats are up for election all four

19:41 ↗ seats are vacant uh because U well

19:45 ↗ several uh members of the SC uh SCA

19:48 ↗ board uh were not returned to office

19:51 ↗ this fall uh so then the meeting the the

19:55 ↗ regular meeting at 700 p.m. will be

19:58 ↗ ction of 2020 pick chair and vice chair

20:01 ↗ uh regional board and committee

20:02 ↗ appointments which will come out of the

20:04 ↗ nominating committee I think about 48

20:06 ↗ hours before that meeting we're going to

20:09 ↗ uh uh probably adopt the 2020 SCA

20:12 ↗ legislative agenda there will be an

20:14 ↗ update on the regional homelessness

20:16 ↗ response um I don't see a specific

20:18 ↗ action uh being uh in the draft agenda I

20:23 ↗ had hoped this evening to have a

20:24 ↗ conversation about the regional

20:26 ↗ homelessness response but owing to the

20:29 ↗ uh very full agenda for this evening we

20:31 ↗ are not going to try to have that

20:32 ↗ conversation uh keep apprised of what's

20:35 ↗ going on with p and I will try to send

20:37 ↗ out an email ahead of next week's

20:39 ↗ meeting summarizing where things are at

20:41 ↗ and um asking for individual feedback

20:44 ↗ from you um then also discussion of 2020

20:47 ↗ SCA priorities which is uh things that

20:49 ↗ we want to talk about in the upcoming

20:51 ↗ year that concludes my report thank you

20:53 ↗ council president Mars uh the mayor's

20:56 ↗ report is very brief this evening an

20:58 ↗ executive session is not anticipated to

21:00 ↗ occur uh we have a lot of work to do

21:03 ↗ this evening so I did also did not want

21:05 ↗ to um have a very long report we're

21:08 ↗ going to move to the consent calendar

21:09 ↗ the consent calendar was distributed to

21:11 ↗ Council in advance and if authorized the

21:13 ↗ items on the consent calendar will be

21:15 ↗ considered together and approved by one

21:17 ↗ motion have the payables and payroll

21:19 ↗ been reviewed yes thank you does any

21:22 ↗ council member desire to remove any item

21:24 ↗ from the consent calendar and consider

21:26 ↗ it under regular business

21:29 ↗ seeing none is there a motion Madame

21:32 ↗ mayor I move we adopt the consent agenda

21:34 ↗ as listed in this evening's sorry the

21:37 ↗ consent oh this is why I write these

21:40 ↗ things down normally the consent

21:41 ↗ calendar as listed in this evening's

21:43 ↗ agenda thank you is there a second

21:45 ↗ second it's been moved and seconded all

21:47 ↗ those in favor signify by saying I I

21:51 ↗ those opposed that carries unanimously

21:54 ↗ under regular business this evening our

21:56 ↗ first item is AB 78 54 amending the

21:59 ↗ isqua municipal code 13.24 13.3 and

22:04 ↗ 13.7 utility General facilities charges

22:07 ↗ and it is a request for Council to adopt

22:09 ↗ the ordinance this item was heard by

22:12 ↗ council at the October 22nd study

22:14 ↗ session and I'd like to ask Bob York our

22:16 ↗ engineering manager to elect

22:21 ↗ turn good evening mayor and council

22:23 ↗ members I'm Bob York

22:25 ↗ I'm utility engineering man in public

22:28 ↗ works just a

22:33 ↗ second we have the different information

22:35 ↗ up on the

22:37 ↗ screen uh I have a brief presentation

22:40 ↗ tonight on agenda Bill B I'm going to

22:42 ↗ stop you for a second so we can make

22:44 ↗ sure um on our screen here o sorry I

22:47 ↗ have the wrong one up hold on oh got it

22:49 ↗ okay

22:56 ↗ thanks go to

22:59 ↗ yeah the other one

23:06 ↗ is this

23:09 ↗ one here great thank

23:15 ↗ you I have a another presentation coming

23:18 ↗ up but this is the first one agenda

23:21 ↗ Bill 7854 General facility charge

23:25 ↗ adjustments for the

23:26 ↗ utilities um

23:30 ↗ first a quick definition of general

23:32 ↗ facility charges as a refresher those

23:34 ↗ are one-time charges paid when a new or

23:37 ↗ expanded service is requested from an

23:39 ↗ applicant or developer the GFC has

23:42 ↗ calculated using a strict

23:44 ↗ methodology specified in by state of

23:46 ↗ Washington

23:48 ↗ regulations and is intended to bring

23:50 ↗ Equity between existing customers and

23:52 ↗ new customers connecting to the CI these

23:54 ↗ Utility Systems in other words it

23:57 ↗ follows the principle of growth pays for

24:01 ↗ growth here's a chart showing the

24:03 ↗ overview of tonight's proposed

24:06 ↗ changes um as you might recall the

24:10 ↗ um

24:12 ↗ uh GFC for water is not going to change

24:15 ↗ because the council at a previous

24:16 ↗ meeting

24:17 ↗ said pulled the water treatment plan so

24:20 ↗ the result is no change to the water

24:22 ↗ GFC uh we do propose changes as outlined

24:26 ↗ in the um GFC report that's attached to

24:30 ↗ your agenda for sewer and storm water

24:34 ↗ and I'll go through each of these

24:35 ↗ briefly in the subsequent slides we also

24:39 ↗ as proposed in the GFC report would like

24:42 ↗ to add a automatic inflation adjustment

24:45 ↗ each year so that the GFC is increased

24:47 ↗ based on a uh certain index that

24:50 ↗ reflects the construction cost um

24:53 ↗ changes in the Seattle area and finally

24:57 ↗ um for the water and that would apply to

24:59 ↗ all three uh

25:01 ↗ utilities finally for the water General

25:05 ↗ facility charge and the Cascade water

25:07 ↗ Alliance rcfc Regional Capital facility

25:09 ↗ charge we would like to clarify the code

25:12 ↗ to uh uh be in coordination with recent

25:16 ↗ changes to the Cascade water Alliance uh

25:25 ↗ policies this is a

25:28 ↗ up on the uh screen is a the proposed

25:31 ↗ changes to the gfcs for sewer and storm

25:34 ↗ water

25:34 ↗ utilities the sewer would go up by

25:37 ↗ $100 from what it is now and the storm

25:41 ↗ water would go up for by $21 no change

25:44 ↗ of the water so the total increase for a

25:47 ↗ typical single family residence would be

25:56 ↗ $31

26:00 ↗ um the GFC annual inflation

26:03 ↗ adjustment inflation index adjustment

26:05 ↗ would be uh an automatic adjustment

26:08 ↗ starting not in 20 not in the January

26:11 ↗ 2020 but January

26:13 ↗ 2021 it would be an automatic adjustment

26:15 ↗ based on the annual percent change in

26:18 ↗ the Seattle area engineering news record

26:20 ↗ construction cost

26:22 ↗ index um this is as recommended in our

26:26 ↗ report it's coming used in other

26:29 ↗ jurisdictions um the GFC would actually

26:32 ↗ still be reviewed every 5 years because

26:35 ↗ we want to True up based on the past and

26:39 ↗ forecasted growth projections the the

26:43 ↗ recently completed projects and the

26:44 ↗ upcoming CIP so the general facil

26:47 ↗ facility charge true up would occur

26:50 ↗ because of that need to make sure we're

26:53 ↗ still balanced but we feel like staff

26:56 ↗ feels like an inflation

26:58 ↗ adjusted G GFC would be more

27:00 ↗ representative of of the changes that

27:03 ↗ occur over the course of

27:07 ↗ time two clarifications in our code for

27:11 ↗ for the water and general facility

27:12 ↗ charge and the uh CWA Regional Capital

27:17 ↗ facility

27:18 ↗ charge one is the basis for payment for

27:23 ↗ a new water meter is is based on the

27:26 ↗ domestic size we do not charge an

27:29 ↗ increase for a larger size meter due to

27:32 ↗ the

27:34 ↗ many um facilities have fire suppression

27:37 ↗ systems that extra meter charge is not

27:41 ↗ included in the GFC

27:43 ↗ calculation that's the current policy

27:47 ↗ the only change we would would make to

27:50 ↗ be coordinated with Cascade water

27:52 ↗ alliance's recently adopted resolution

27:54 ↗ is to uh if there's a lack of

27:57 ↗ documentation associated

27:59 ↗ with the the difference between the

28:02 ↗ domestic and the actual meter size we

28:03 ↗ would default to a calculation that's

28:07 ↗ one meter size smaller than the one

28:10 ↗ proposed the vast majority of people if

28:13 ↗ not all provide those calculations so

28:16 ↗ essentially wouldn't make any change in

28:18 ↗ the normal

28:20 ↗ situation and um the other thing we'd

28:22 ↗ like to do for both the rcfc and the GFC

28:25 ↗ is um is to Doc document in our code

28:29 ↗ that you if you don't have evidence of

28:33 ↗ having a pass payment for a general

28:35 ↗ facility charge or or the rcfc we would

28:39 ↗ uh not give you credit if you're coming

28:41 ↗ in for a new or uh increased meter

28:46 ↗ size which is our policy but now we're

28:48 ↗ making it clearer in the code

28:52 ↗ itself so our recommendation is proceed

28:56 ↗ with the proposed

28:58 ↗ changes as shown in the agenda

29:01 ↗ Bill any questions questions council

29:04 ↗ member Ray so I'm I'm a little confused

29:08 ↗ so the

29:08 ↗ recommendation um from the

29:11 ↗ administration is to adopt three

29:14 ↗ ordinances to approve changes to the IMC

29:18 ↗ that includes water storm water and

29:21 ↗ sewer rates correct and actually three

29:23 ↗ ordinances because that's our best way

29:25 ↗ of making sure that we have a single

29:28 ↗ ordinance for each policy decision okay

29:32 ↗ so the the water but we're not changing

29:35 ↗ the water gfcs that's correct and so the

29:39 ↗ purpose of the ordinance is really to

29:40 ↗ adopt the uh

29:43 ↗ inflation in um inflation index for

29:45 ↗ future scenarios okay great thank you

29:49 ↗ thank you Council Council M

29:51 ↗ Goodman uh I just have a question about

29:54 ↗ the the HDR report report um and that

29:59 ↗ it's a draft report and I was wondering

30:00 ↗ why we have a draft report it's a it's a

30:03 ↗ final report we in our haste to put this

30:06 ↗ into the agenda we took what they had

30:09 ↗ and and it's a it's essentially a final

30:12 ↗ report I should have taken the word

30:13 ↗ draft off okay thanks so you that won't

30:16 ↗ change as a result of tonight's

30:19 ↗ deliberations additional

30:22 ↗ questions uh council president Merz

30:25 ↗ thank you Madame mayor I move to adopt

30:26 ↗ or ordance number

30:29 ↗ 2889 amending section 13.

30:34 ↗ 24.09 of the isqua municipal code

30:37 ↗ relating to water rates and charges

30:39 ↗ adopt ordinance number 2890 amending

30:43 ↗ section

30:45 ↗ 13305 of the isqua municipal code

30:47 ↗ relating to storm water rates and

30:49 ↗ charges and to adopt ordinance number

30:52 ↗ 2891 amending section

30:55 ↗ 13702 of the Municipal Code relating

30:58 ↗ sewer rates and charges second it's been

31:02 ↗ moved and seconded is there any Council

31:05 ↗ discussion seeing none I'll call for the

31:08 ↗ vote all those in favor of the motion

31:10 ↗ signify by saying I I those opposed that

31:14 ↗ carries

31:15 ↗ unanimously the next item on the agenda

31:17 ↗ on regular business this evening is AB

31:20 ↗ 7861 this is an interlocal agreement

31:23 ↗ with East Side Fire and Rescue uh the

31:25 ↗ PFA study partner ship and the request

31:28 ↗ of council is authorization this is the

31:31 ↗ first time this agreement is coming

31:32 ↗ before city council and again Bob y

31:35 ↗ engineering manager is going to do a

31:36 ↗ small

31:42 ↗ presentation

31:43 ↗ [Applause]

31:56 ↗ r

31:57 ↗ guys go back and get

32:04 ↗ started okay council members and Mayor

32:07 ↗ Bob York again Public Works engineering

32:10 ↗ manager for

32:12 ↗ utilities uh tonight I'm going to give

32:14 ↗ you an update on the U isal Valley P

32:18 ↗ partnership P for reference purposes

32:22 ↗ stands for per and poly floral alcohol

32:26 ↗ substances

32:31 ↗ um tonight's presentation is involves

32:33 ↗ two agenda bills that are both on your

32:36 ↗ um agenda tonight one is AB

32:39 ↗ 7842 the other is 7861 7861 is an

32:44 ↗ interlocal agreement with Eastside fire

32:45 ↗ and rescue pest study

32:49 ↗ partnership AB 7842 is in your agency

32:52 ↗ agreement with Department of ecology PFS

32:54 ↗ groundwater modeling both these agenda

32:57 ↗ bills are part of the partnership and

32:59 ↗ I'll go into the

33:00 ↗ details

33:12 ↗ shortly here's a timeline a brief

33:14 ↗ timeline of the occurrence of is of

33:18 ↗ pasas and isqua coming up to today's

33:22 ↗ decision um in

33:24 ↗ 2015 we confirmed that the pest in the

33:27 ↗ groundwater in 2016 a number of initial

33:31 ↗ actions took place as many of you might

33:34 ↗ recall including a water treatment plant

33:36 ↗ at well four and studies hydrogeologic

33:40 ↗ investigations regarding the uh nature

33:42 ↗ and extent of PS and the groundwater all

33:44 ↗ these were directly performed by the

33:46 ↗ city in the absence of a

33:49 ↗ partnership following that work in 2017

33:52 ↗ 2018 there was a Evolution East Side

33:56 ↗ Fire and Rescue got involved um the

33:59 ↗ department of ecology got involved

34:01 ↗ because we're uh one of the initial

34:04 ↗ recipients of a pfast groundwater

34:06 ↗ problem for our municipality so we're

34:09 ↗ sort of a

34:10 ↗ Pioneer um as things evolved there was a

34:14 ↗ um interlocal agreement in in August of

34:17 ↗ last year that the council approved

34:19 ↗ between ecolog or excuse me East Side

34:22 ↗ Fire and Rescue epher and the city um

34:26 ↗ there was also two $100,000 of grant

34:28 ↗ funding from the state the Department of

34:31 ↗ Commerce that we spent on Consulting

34:34 ↗ investigations um and we completed the

34:38 ↗ phase one report or east side fire and

34:40 ↗ rescue did with the city and ecology and

34:42 ↗ in

34:43 ↗ early uh 2019 the phase one report was

34:49 ↗ complete now the timeline evolves we got

34:52 ↗ some additional grants I'll talk about

34:54 ↗ and in late

34:55 ↗ 2019 today we have the decision to make

34:58 ↗ as to whether to continue the

35:01 ↗ partnership with ecology and East Side

35:03 ↗ Fire and

35:06 ↗ Rescue um this slide's in your packet

35:09 ↗ but it essentially is a repeat of just

35:11 ↗ what I just

35:13 ↗ said um the one addition thing

35:16 ↗ additional thing is the partnership

35:18 ↗ would continue by adopting the Ila and

35:20 ↗ the IAA to through mid 2021 that's

35:25 ↗ a a year and a half from now this the uh

35:28 ↗ timeline for the next phase of

35:34 ↗ [Applause]

35:42 ↗ work essentially the partnership

35:44 ↗ agreement principles are as in the past

35:47 ↗ phase one effort there's an executive

35:50 ↗ committee from the city it cons consists

35:52 ↗ of the mayor and the U U City

35:55 ↗ administrator

35:58 ↗ from the fire department it's the fire

36:00 ↗ chief and there's an ecology

36:02 ↗ representative as

36:06 ↗ well

36:08 ↗ um the legislature this year gave us

36:11 ↗ $400,000

36:13 ↗ to uh continue the

36:15 ↗ partnership uh this is dedicated to

36:18 ↗ Consulting work ecology chipped in

36:20 ↗ another $100,000 of money so the total

36:23 ↗ external funding available is half a

36:25 ↗ million dollars

36:27 ↗ the principle the agreement principle is

36:29 ↗ anything over and above that would be

36:30 ↗ split between the city and East Side

36:33 ↗ Fire and Rescue

36:35 ↗ 50/50

36:39 ↗ um the way the inter agency agreements

36:42 ↗ there's two of them one for eastside

36:43 ↗ fire and rescue and one for the city the

36:46 ↗ Eastside fire and rescue is already

36:48 ↗ adopted a

36:50 ↗ 450

36:52 ↗ ,000 inter inter agency agreement and

36:56 ↗ tonight the city has the opportunity to

36:59 ↗ adopt the inter agency agreement

37:00 ↗ supplying the other 50,000 the reason

37:03 ↗ for this is the 50 the 50,000 for

37:06 ↗ hydroge hydrogeologic modeling support

37:09 ↗ the city's Consultants going to do that

37:11 ↗ and the partners agreed that this would

37:12 ↗ be a prudent way to handle the the

37:16 ↗ financial portions of

37:18 ↗ this um the total expected cost of the

37:22 ↗ Consulting work between feral on the the

37:24 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue consultant and

37:25 ↗ geosyntec the city's consultant is

37:29 ↗ $525,000 so that would require both

37:32 ↗ parties to chip in an extra

37:34 ↗ $1,500 uh in the case of the city it

37:36 ↗ would come out of our uh City Water

37:48 ↗ fund the Ia is in agenda Bill

37:51 ↗ 7861 it's already been approved by epher

37:55 ↗ at their recent uh board meeting U

37:59 ↗ essentially it defines the next scope of

38:02 ↗ work for the eers consultant defines the

38:05 ↗ executive committee Financial

38:07 ↗ contributions period of performance and

38:10 ↗ the uh an additional

38:13 ↗ technical um

38:23 ↗ details inter agency agreement with

38:25 ↗ ecology between the city and ecology

38:28 ↗ defines the scope of work for the city's

38:30 ↗ hydrogeologic consultant work modeling

38:32 ↗ support defines the period performance

38:35 ↗ reimbursement

38:36 ↗ details um but this is all done in

38:39 ↗ conjunction with the partnership the

38:42 ↗ city's responsible for this inter ency

38:44 ↗ agreement but it's it it's all supports

38:47 ↗ the partnership between the city east

38:50 ↗ side fire and rescue and

38:55 ↗ ecology so the staff's recommendation

38:57 ↗ tonight is to approve both these agenda

38:59 ↗ bills and the um and the inter agency

39:03 ↗ agreement and the inter local

39:08 ↗ agreement that's my presentation for

39:11 ↗ tonight any questions thank you Bob so

39:14 ↗ uh we will consider them as separate

39:15 ↗ motions but if you have any questions on

39:17 ↗ either agenda bill please feel free to

39:19 ↗ do that now because they are connected

39:21 ↗ any questions of

39:22 ↗ staff ccil member winter

39:25 ↗ say Bob thank you for that presentation

39:27 ↗ I'm also going to ask my colleagues who

39:28 ↗ are on on epher later on to maybe hear

39:31 ↗ their version of it as well could you

39:33 ↗ just simply in simple terms characterize

39:36 ↗ what's going to be accomplished by this

39:37 ↗ work there is material that's in in the

39:40 ↗ bill and I I've read that it sounds like

39:42 ↗ we're going to learn more we're going to

39:44 ↗ learn more about in the immediate

39:45 ↗ proximity where we think there are

39:46 ↗ sources we're going to learn more about

39:48 ↗ what's in the ground potentially

39:50 ↗ Upstream from that and we're maybe going

39:52 ↗ to outline some type of uh I for forget

39:56 ↗ the right way to describe it but some

39:58 ↗ remediation some some way to treat the

40:00 ↗ soil or what have you but it's not a

40:03 ↗ final solution no the it's

40:06 ↗ still um leading to a final solution the

40:10 ↗ this the feron scope of work the

40:13 ↗ final element of that scope is to

40:15 ↗ develop a sourcery mediation action

40:19 ↗ plan uh for dealing with what's in the

40:23 ↗ ground and in the groundwater so uh

40:28 ↗ the that would

40:30 ↗ be encapsulated in a final report that

40:33 ↗ would be available for the partners ship

40:36 ↗ so it's roughly two years from now we'll

40:38 ↗ maybe have a plan is that the time frame

40:42 ↗ I understanding

40:44 ↗ yes additional council member

40:48 ↗ questions council member Goodman there's

40:50 ↗ no more questions I was going to make a

40:52 ↗ motion yeah I would move to authorize

40:55 ↗ the mayor to enter into and execute the

40:57 ↗ interlocal agreement with Eastside fire

40:59 ↗ and rescue regarding P investigation in

41:01 ↗ the Lower isqua Valley second it's been

41:04 ↗ moved and seconded is there any Council

41:08 ↗ discussion council member Goodman

41:10 ↗ council member winstein I was just going

41:12 ↗ to say that the um questions at the East

41:15 ↗ Side Fire uh board meeting really um

41:17 ↗ there were very very few and it really

41:19 ↗ was about the questioning was about

41:22 ↗ whether um wearing our uh board director

41:26 ↗ really was about whether the uh District

41:28 ↗ was comfortable with what was in the um

41:30 ↗ in the agreement um and I think the

41:34 ↗ board was um pleased with the um good

41:38 ↗ working relationship between Eastside

41:40 ↗ fire and city of isqua and ecology thank

41:44 ↗ you council member

41:45 ↗ winterstein that's really the same

41:47 ↗ comment I had I've obviously been aware

41:49 ↗ of this issue since it first surfaced

41:52 ↗ and uh the the state of the working

41:55 ↗ relationship between all the part

41:56 ↗ parties it's it's great to see this is

41:58 ↗ how we're going to get something done as

42:00 ↗ you said we're um maybe in front of

42:02 ↗ maybe other places in the country but

42:04 ↗ it's necessary work and I'm I'm I'm

42:06 ↗ thankful to my colleagues here who's on

42:09 ↗ the council who also serve on the board

42:11 ↗ and uh for the ephra board and for

42:13 ↗ Ecology as well I'm glad we're moving

42:14 ↗ forward in such a constructive way thank

42:16 ↗ you any other

42:19 ↗ comments okay I will reread this all

42:22 ↗ those in favor of authorizing the mayor

42:23 ↗ to enter into and execute the interlocal

42:25 ↗ agreement with East Side Fire and Rescue

42:27 ↗ regarding pasas investigation in the

42:30 ↗ Lower isqua Valley signified by saying I

42:33 ↗ I those

42:34 ↗ opposed that carries unanimously would

42:37 ↗ you care to make a motion on the next

42:38 ↗ agenda

42:39 ↗ Bill yes council member

42:43 ↗ Goodman I have the right

42:45 ↗ one this is about ecology right

42:51 ↗ 7842

42:52 ↗ yes I would move to authorizing the

42:54 ↗ mayor to enter into and execute the

42:56 ↗ inter agency agreement with Washington

42:58 ↗ State Department of ecology to conduct

42:59 ↗ groundwater modeling for the Lower isqua

43:01 ↗ Valley

43:02 ↗ aquifer second it's been moved and

43:05 ↗ seconded is there any Council

43:08 ↗ discussion being none I'll call for the

43:10 ↗ vote all those in favor signify by

43:12 ↗ saying I I those opposed that carries

43:15 ↗ unanimously thank you Bob thank you next

43:18 ↗ item under regular business is AB 7878

43:22 ↗ lowincome utility assistance program and

43:24 ↗ the request of council this evening is

43:25 ↗ to adopt the ordinance at the November

43:28 ↗ 18th council meeting Council directed

43:30 ↗ the administration to draft an ordinance

43:32 ↗ establishing a utility assistance

43:34 ↗ program and to return to tonight's

43:36 ↗ meeting I'd like to ask our director of

43:38 ↗ sustainability David fuchimoto to the

43:40 ↗ lecturn good evening council members and

43:42 ↗ Madame mayor um I'll just make some

43:44 ↗ brief uh give you a brief overview of

43:47 ↗ the ordinance that's presented before

43:49 ↗ you the ordinance would adopt a utility

43:51 ↗ assistance program uh which would be an

43:53 ↗ expansion of the utility assistance uh

43:56 ↗ to include additional residents uh

43:58 ↗ regardless of age disability or housing

44:00 ↗ type uh it's important to know that this

44:03 ↗ is an initial program uh we're planning

44:05 ↗ to launch this for 2020 but expect to

44:08 ↗ undertake a review in uh as a part of

44:10 ↗ next year's work program to make some

44:12 ↗ adjustments as we go forward that's also

44:14 ↗ reflected in the ordinance as well uh

44:17 ↗ the current program includes lowincome

44:19 ↗ owner occupied single family seniors

44:21 ↗ it'll be expanded to include uh

44:23 ↗ low-income seniors and single families

44:25 ↗ homes who also rent uh those units and

44:28 ↗ then it'll also be expanded

44:29 ↗ significantly to include all low-income

44:32 ↗ households including renters and owners

44:34 ↗ um that live in multif family homes um

44:37 ↗ it will take the form of a discount for

44:39 ↗ single low-income s single family

44:42 ↗ seniors and then a rebate for um the

44:46 ↗ other low-income households um and with

44:48 ↗ that I'll be happy to answer any

44:49 ↗ questions thank you David are there

44:52 ↗ questions for the director council

44:54 ↗ member Walsh so David you said um this

44:58 ↗ expands to seniors who rent in a single

45:02 ↗ family that's correct situation um so my

45:07 ↗ understanding was one of the reasons we

45:09 ↗ were looking at a rebate for just the

45:13 ↗ regular low income um was through a

45:18 ↗ multifam um you can't get to the

45:20 ↗ individual CU they don't have their

45:22 ↗ individual utility so in a situation

45:25 ↗ like that where someone is renting the

45:27 ↗ utilities are in their name at the

45:30 ↗ residents and that's why even though

45:32 ↗ they're renting we can do a um a

45:35 ↗ percentage of the bill not just a rebate

45:37 ↗ right uh we can yes okay thank you thank

45:41 ↗ you Council M Walsh um additional

45:42 ↗ questions council member

45:44 ↗ winterstein clarification on the cost

45:46 ↗ there is a section in here about

45:48 ↗ financial information it does talk about

45:50 ↗ the cost being expected to be in the

45:52 ↗ range of $18,000 to $216,000 a year

45:56 ↗ I assume that's C is that cost or um

46:03 ↗ it how are we going to what how are we

46:05 ↗ funding that uh that would be uh

46:07 ↗ included as part of the overall rate

46:09 ↗ base so it's you could also think about

46:11 ↗ it as uh Revenue that the city would not

46:14 ↗ receive from those

46:16 ↗ customers that's okay all right and it

46:18 ↗ would and that Revenue would have gone

46:21 ↗ into uh the the various to which funds

46:25 ↗ uh to the it would be split among the

46:27 ↗ three different utilities so storm water

46:30 ↗ sewer and and water okay so if we would

46:33 ↗ have just word smiss a little bit would

46:34 ↗ have been a reduction in revenues to

46:36 ↗ those various utility funds but but in

46:38 ↗ this range that's correct okay thank

46:40 ↗ you any other

46:42 ↗ questions uh council member D Michelle

46:45 ↗ all well first of all I want to thank uh

46:47 ↗ director Fujimoto for answering some

46:49 ↗ questions that I stand him as a citizen

46:52 ↗ before I came up here um uh I asked you

46:56 ↗ if uh you were going to do Outreach to

46:59 ↗ individuals who uh whose um uh language

47:03 ↗ is not English and you assured me that

47:06 ↗ that is going to happen and then we

47:08 ↗ talked about um the application process

47:11 ↗ because sometimes the application

47:12 ↗ process for these kinds of rebates or

47:15 ↗ these kinds of assistants are so

47:17 ↗ honorous that they become barriers and

47:19 ↗ do you want to talk a little bit about

47:20 ↗ the um the application process and what

47:24 ↗ that would look like for a typical

47:25 ↗ applicant uh sure I'd happy be happy to

47:28 ↗ that certainly one of our objectives

47:29 ↗ with this is to make the application

47:31 ↗ process as simple as possible especially

47:33 ↗ from the customer standpoint we also

47:35 ↗ were taking into consideration uh the

47:37 ↗ administrative cost from the city

47:38 ↗ standpoint but first and foremost really

47:41 ↗ thinking about from the customer

47:42 ↗ standpoint and trying to simplify that

47:44 ↗ process as much as possible the linkage

47:46 ↗ to pug toown energies program helps with

47:48 ↗ that because they will already have to

47:50 ↗ undergo kind of income verification

47:53 ↗ process and so we would not want to

47:55 ↗ repeat that in this case um and so our

47:58 ↗ hope is that the application process for

48:00 ↗ the city can be very simple uh we're

48:02 ↗ hoping that it can be one page um that

48:04 ↗ it would provide linkage back to pitan

48:07 ↗ Energy's program uh we'll be meeting

48:09 ↗ with pitan energy in the next couple of

48:11 ↗ weeks to talk about how we can share

48:13 ↗ that information we have some details to

48:15 ↗ sort out about how that works uh but

48:17 ↗ essentially a resident would be able to

48:19 ↗ fill out that application we would be

48:21 ↗ able to verify their participation

48:22 ↗ through uh communication with fugit and

48:24 ↗ energy and that would greatly simplify

48:26 ↗ it um also if we're able to do that

48:28 ↗ without including personal personally

48:30 ↗ identifiable information we uh may be

48:33 ↗ able to do that electronically and

48:34 ↗ simplify it as well that would be great

48:37 ↗ thank you any other

48:40 ↗ questions council president Merz thank

48:43 ↗ you Madame mayor I move to adopt

48:45 ↗ ordinance

48:46 ↗ number

48:48 ↗ 2892 establishing a provisional utility

48:51 ↗ assistance program and amending imc1

48:54 ↗ 1392 senior citizen and lowincome

48:57 ↗ citizen fee reductions second second

49:00 ↗ lots of seconds I am not surprised a

49:03 ↗ second second okay it's been moved and

49:06 ↗ seconded is there any discussion council

49:07 ↗ president Merz I want to thank City

49:09 ↗ staff for putting together this program

49:12 ↗ so quickly we had given you the request

49:15 ↗ that we wanted this in place uh when the

49:18 ↗ uh uh rate changes that we authorized

49:20 ↗ for 2020 uh went into effect and you did

49:25 ↗ um one can argue where the the the point

49:29 ↗ should be um I think this is uh similar

49:33 ↗ is like-minded to other municipalities

49:35 ↗ on the east side um I think this is a

49:38 ↗ twofer because not only do are we

49:41 ↗ looking out for the most vulnerable in

49:43 ↗ our community but this will also uh I

49:46 ↗ think encourage I I look at the fact

49:48 ↗ that there are approximately 12200 uh

49:51 ↗ families that would be almost certainly

49:54 ↗ uh uh eligible for for this program and

49:57 ↗ the the current program that's that's

49:59 ↗ out there that we're piggybacking off of

50:01 ↗ only 354 families uh uh currently take

50:05 ↗ advantage of that so my hope is that uh

50:08 ↗ by sweetening the pot as it were and by

50:11 ↗ putting our own formidable Community uh

50:14 ↗ resources in place we can help uh Folks

50:16 ↗ At Risk to uh uh be educated on these

50:21 ↗ programs and sign up for them so in that

50:23 ↗ sense it's a twofer thank you Deputy

50:25 ↗ council president bati so I would uh

50:28 ↗ just like to Echo how what uh council

50:31 ↗ president Marts just spoke about I

50:32 ↗ wanted to thank um you and the entire

50:35 ↗ team for working so diligently to get

50:37 ↗ this done in such a short amount of time

50:39 ↗ as we um faced uh looking at um utility

50:43 ↗ taxes and everything that we uh went

50:45 ↗ through with budget this was incredibly

50:47 ↗ important uh to me and I was just really

50:49 ↗ happy to see this in place and uh while

50:52 ↗ I won't be here during the review um but

50:55 ↗ I know our uh my fellow council members

50:57 ↗ will take a close look at uh eligibility

51:01 ↗ and uh things that might uh improve the

51:04 ↗ program for the future but this is a

51:06 ↗ version one and I'm so happy to see it

51:09 ↗ in place as we go forward and hope

51:10 ↗ hoping that we can also really work on

51:12 ↗ the communication so everyone can

51:14 ↗ understand that this is available thank

51:17 ↗ you any other

51:20 ↗ comments okay if there's no further

51:23 ↗ discussion all those in favor of

51:24 ↗ adopting ordinance number

51:26 ↗ 2892 establishing a provisional utility

51:29 ↗ assistance program and amending IMC

51:33 ↗ 1392 senior citizen and lowincome

51:36 ↗ citizen fee reduction signify by saying

51:38 ↗ I I was opposed I carries unanimously I

51:42 ↗ also want to thank the council and the

51:44 ↗ administration for being able to

51:46 ↗ accomplish this through a very packed

51:48 ↗ budget session you talked about this a

51:50 ↗ lot I am really glad that it's happening

51:52 ↗ on January great the next item on the

51:56 ↗ agenda is the State Environmental Policy

51:58 ↗ Act appeal council president Marts will

52:01 ↗ be presiding over this portion of the

52:03 ↗ meeting and I need to call a five minute

52:06 ↗ recess in order for us to allow the

52:08 ↗ parties to move into the correct places

52:10 ↗ so we will be taking a five minute

52:12 ↗ recess until

52:14 ↗ about 5 to a little after 5 to 8

52:24 ↗ addicted

59:00 ↗ we are back on camera and the next item

59:02 ↗ is AB 7877 State Environmental Policy

59:05 ↗ Act appeal of comprehensive plan and

59:07 ↗ zoning map amendments this is a quasi

59:09 ↗ judicial proceeding and I'm going to

59:12 ↗ turn this over to council president

59:14 ↗ Marts thank you Madame

59:17 ↗ mayor we will be hearing appeal number

59:23 ↗ 19-6 filed by Providence Point umbrella

59:25 ↗ Association of of the final

59:27 ↗ determination of non-significance for

59:29 ↗ 2019 comprehensive plan and Zoning

59:32 ↗ amendments the appeal has been filed

59:34 ↗ under imc1

59:36 ↗ 181027

59:39 ↗ 180425 and

59:42 ↗ 180425 which provides for an open record

59:44 ↗ appeal of a sepa procedural

59:46 ↗ determination of a non-project action to

59:48 ↗ be heard by city council the council

59:51 ↗ will be issuing a decision in this

59:52 ↗ appeal based on the official record that

59:54 ↗ will be be created at this hearing which

59:56 ↗ will consist of the notice of appeal the

59:58 ↗ party's briefing and the testimony

1:00:00 ↗ submission of evidence and information

1:00:02 ↗ presented by the parties participating

1:00:04 ↗ during this hearing the sea appeal

1:00:07 ↗ hearing is a quas Judicial proceeding in

1:00:09 ↗ this appeal hearing the council is

1:00:11 ↗ serving like a court we will also sub we

1:00:15 ↗ are also subject to the appearance of

1:00:17 ↗ fairness Doctrine this proceeding must

1:00:19 ↗ be procedurally fair and conducted by

1:00:21 ↗ impartial decision

1:00:23 ↗ makers first we will address X parte

1:00:26 ↗ Communications under RCW

1:00:30 ↗ 42366 no member of the council May

1:00:32 ↗ engage in ex parte Communications with

1:00:35 ↗ applant City staff or any third parties

1:00:38 ↗ with respect to this sea appeal without

1:00:40 ↗ making the appropriate

1:00:42 ↗ disclosures comment letters the city has

1:00:45 ↗ received comments on the proposed

1:00:46 ↗ legislation legislative action

1:00:49 ↗ underlying the sea appeal specifically

1:00:51 ↗ the comprehensive plan and zoning map

1:00:52 ↗ amendments but it is my my understanding

1:00:55 ↗ that the city clerk's office has not

1:00:57 ↗ forwarded comment letters to council

1:00:58 ↗ members that reference or otherwise

1:01:00 ↗ pertain to this

1:01:02 ↗ appeal at this time I will ask if any

1:01:04 ↗ members of the council have engaged in

1:01:06 ↗ ex parte Communications concerning the

1:01:08 ↗ SE appeal and if so I will ask the

1:01:10 ↗ council members to disclose the contents

1:01:12 ↗ of those Communications at this

1:01:15 ↗ time council member D Michelle okay uh

1:01:19 ↗ it's come to my attention that there's

1:01:21 ↗ some concerned about an email that I

1:01:23 ↗ sent on September 20th to the city staff

1:01:28 ↗ um and in that email I um I stated my

1:01:33 ↗ approval of the entire package of um

1:01:37 ↗ reson for the comprehensive plan

1:01:39 ↗ amendments it was prior to October the

1:01:42 ↗ 26 when the sea appeal was filed it was

1:01:45 ↗ also prior to the planning policy

1:01:47 ↗ commission ruling and at that point on

1:01:51 ↗ September 20th I did not understand or

1:01:53 ↗ realize that there was any any

1:01:54 ↗ controversy at all about uh the parcels

1:01:57 ↗ 1 2 and three my comments were actually

1:02:00 ↗ directed at parcel 14 which is a small

1:02:03 ↗ parcel on Newport on the corner of

1:02:05 ↗ Newport Way and front about three blocks

1:02:09 ↗ from my

1:02:10 ↗ condominium and it is being proposed to

1:02:13 ↗ be set aside as part of a proposed

1:02:15 ↗ eventual Park so I was responding to

1:02:19 ↗ that particular

1:02:21 ↗ parcel

1:02:22 ↗ um as soon as it

1:02:24 ↗ appeared um possible that I was going to

1:02:27 ↗ be elected to this position I did

1:02:29 ↗ disclose this email to both the city

1:02:32 ↗ administrator and city council and I was

1:02:35 ↗ advised at that time that my email did

1:02:38 ↗ not pertain to tonight's hearing on a

1:02:40 ↗ sea pill but instead uh was related to

1:02:45 ↗ the item that will be before us on

1:02:47 ↗ December the 16th which is the

1:02:50 ↗ rezone and um I just want to state that

1:02:53 ↗ I feel very confident in my ability to

1:02:56 ↗ hear the appeal tonight to remain fair

1:02:59 ↗ and impartial throughout and to render a

1:03:01 ↗ fair and impartial

1:03:05 ↗ decision thank you um I will sayate at

1:03:09 ↗ this point that parties to this appeal

1:03:11 ↗ will be allowed to rebut the substance

1:03:13 ↗ of uh Communications disclosed in next

1:03:15 ↗ parte uh Communications at the

1:03:18 ↗ hearing I will ask if we have um at this

1:03:22 ↗ point uh where we stand in regards to

1:03:24 ↗ this disclosure of expar

1:03:26 ↗ communications you want to introduce

1:03:29 ↗ yourself sure s on uh my name is Ray Leo

1:03:32 ↗ and I'm serving as legal councel to uh

1:03:35 ↗ the city council this evening for

1:03:36 ↗ purposes of this appeal uh SE appeal

1:03:38 ↗ hearing so um the question being is

1:03:41 ↗ there any more that the council needs to

1:03:43 ↗ do in light of this disclosure regarding

1:03:46 ↗ this this this email communication well

1:03:49 ↗ um with regards to the any arguable

1:03:52 ↗ expar Communications the opportunity

1:03:55 ↗ um by the parties to reut any of those

1:03:57 ↗ comments has now been put on the table

1:04:00 ↗ and with council member Michelle's um

1:04:03 ↗ assertion that she is able to proceed in

1:04:06 ↗ this hearing on an unbiased and um

1:04:08 ↗ without prejudice going into the

1:04:10 ↗ ultimate decision um in terms of any

1:04:13 ↗ concerns regarding appearance of

1:04:15 ↗ fairness violations um at least from a

1:04:17 ↗ legal perspective I don't I don't see

1:04:19 ↗ any with those disclosures and that um

1:04:21 ↗ that statement by council member so

1:04:24 ↗ people are mumbling and not speaking

1:04:26 ↗ into the microne I'm I'm sorry there's

1:04:28 ↗ been a request in the audience for us to

1:04:30 ↗ speak louder um I we will certainly

1:04:34 ↗ attempt to do that um and uh if we can

1:04:37 ↗ get the volume turned up a little bit

1:04:38 ↗ perhaps as long as we don't get feedback

1:04:41 ↗ uh that would be helpful as well I'll

1:04:43 ↗ try to use my stage voice I I did

1:04:45 ↗ theater in high

1:04:47 ↗ school it's

1:04:49 ↗ yesterday any uh questions or concerns

1:04:52 ↗ from my fellow council members before we

1:04:53 ↗ move on

1:04:55 ↗ second we will address potential

1:04:56 ↗ conflicts of interests and disclosures

1:04:58 ↗ that council members should make at this

1:05:01 ↗ time do any council members have a

1:05:03 ↗ personal interest Financial or otherwise

1:05:05 ↗ in which he or she stands to gain or

1:05:07 ↗ lose by the decision this would include

1:05:10 ↗ prospective employment for any council

1:05:12 ↗ member or his or her family as a result

1:05:14 ↗ of this decision competitive business

1:05:17 ↗ relationships between the council

1:05:18 ↗ members and any parties at the hearing

1:05:21 ↗ familial relationships between the

1:05:23 ↗ council members and any of the parties

1:05:24 ↗ at the hearing council members owning or

1:05:26 ↗ controlling property that is near the

1:05:28 ↗ proposed areas of the zoning

1:05:31 ↗ redesignation finally have the council

1:05:33 ↗ members made a final decision on the

1:05:35 ↗ appeal before hearing any testimony or

1:05:38 ↗ evidence uh or otherwise feel they could

1:05:40 ↗ not be impartial in rendering a decision

1:05:43 ↗ in this

1:05:44 ↗ appeal seeing none are there any

1:05:47 ↗ objections to participation by

1:05:48 ↗ individual council members that the

1:05:50 ↗ parties intend to raise at this

1:05:53 ↗ time

1:05:54 ↗ um Richard AR here we go um Richard

1:05:57 ↗ deamber representing the appellant

1:05:59 ↗ Providence Point umbrella Association we

1:06:02 ↗ have raised the issue of the uh email

1:06:05 ↗ sent by council member D Michelle um the

1:06:11 ↗ um email that was sent referenced all

1:06:15 ↗ eight Parcels that were being considered

1:06:19 ↗ by the council in this in this activity

1:06:22 ↗ um so

1:06:24 ↗ we continue to um uh indicate to the

1:06:29 ↗ council that the

1:06:34 ↗ um that Miss D Michelle should not

1:06:37 ↗ participate in these hearings because of

1:06:40 ↗ appearance of fairness

1:06:46 ↗ considerations I will ask our legal

1:06:49 ↗ councel the council's legal council

1:06:51 ↗ again uh where we stand I am but a

1:06:53 ↗ humble rocket rocket scientist um well

1:06:57 ↗ uh again unfortunately the the council

1:07:00 ↗ doesn't have established procedures in

1:07:02 ↗ terms of what as a body um should be

1:07:05 ↗ done as the next step um uh if council

1:07:08 ↗ member D Michelle is uh not uh does not

1:07:12 ↗ feel that she needs she's in a position

1:07:14 ↗ to need to recuse herself because she

1:07:16 ↗ feels she can be biased unbiased and

1:07:19 ↗ impartial in proceeding tonight and and

1:07:22 ↗ being a member of the body making this

1:07:25 ↗ decision um that's that's a decision

1:07:27 ↗ that she can make the council can can

1:07:29 ↗ take it up and discussion if if you have

1:07:31 ↗ concerns but the objections been lodged

1:07:35 ↗ um and it would just remain on the

1:07:36 ↗ record if council member D Michelle

1:07:39 ↗ chooses to to remain on the dis and

1:07:41 ↗ participate in this

1:07:43 ↗ proceeding council member werstein

1:07:46 ↗ question for

1:07:48 ↗ Council we heard certain dates and

1:07:50 ↗ certain events related to those dates

1:07:52 ↗ could you clarify for me the relevance

1:07:54 ↗ of the timeline that was given um it's

1:07:57 ↗ my understanding that the um the email

1:07:59 ↗ was lodged prior to the outset of the

1:08:03 ↗ filing of the notice of appeal so

1:08:04 ↗ September was the DAT I understand

1:08:07 ↗ September 20th and the appeal was filed

1:08:09 ↗ on October 22nd so with respect to this

1:08:13 ↗ quasi judicial proceeding any

1:08:15 ↗ Communications at least um that occurred

1:08:18 ↗ at that point in time predated the

1:08:20 ↗ existence of this appeal so the only

1:08:23 ↗ thing left on the table with because

1:08:24 ↗ that's really not an expart

1:08:26 ↗ communication because this proceeding

1:08:28 ↗ didn't exist um with respect to any bias

1:08:32 ↗ that council member D Michelle has

1:08:33 ↗ that's really a judgment call we've

1:08:35 ↗ heard from coun the council member that

1:08:37 ↗ that she's not concerned with respect to

1:08:39 ↗ bias um to my understanding her comments

1:08:43 ↗ had to do with a legislative action that

1:08:45 ↗ will be before this Council that is not

1:08:47 ↗ subject to the appearance of fairness

1:08:48 ↗ Doctrine what is subject to the

1:08:50 ↗ appearance of fairness Doctrine is the

1:08:52 ↗ sea appeal determination so it's quite

1:08:54 ↗ possible to uh support that legislative

1:08:57 ↗ action but to take an opposite decision

1:09:00 ↗ with respect to the Sea determination

1:09:02 ↗ that is preceding um that decision thank

1:09:06 ↗ you so having having heard the concerns

1:09:09 ↗ raised by the appellant is there any uh

1:09:12 ↗ is there anyone wishes who wishes to

1:09:15 ↗ address this further or shall we move

1:09:17 ↗ on I I see a will of the body to move on

1:09:21 ↗ at this point we will move to to discuss

1:09:25 ↗ I'm going to discuss uh I'm going to

1:09:27 ↗ summarize the proceedings with the

1:09:28 ↗ parties we're going to have introductory

1:09:30 ↗ and opening statements each side will be

1:09:32 ↗ allowed up to five minutes uh we're

1:09:34 ↗ going to have direct testimony

1:09:36 ↗ cross-examination and redirects we

1:09:39 ↗ understand the city intends to initially

1:09:40 ↗ call two City staff members as Witnesses

1:09:43 ↗ and that the appellant will not

1:09:44 ↗ initially call any Witnesses but will

1:09:46 ↗ question the city's witness in both

1:09:48 ↗ direct and cross examination is this

1:09:50 ↗ still

1:09:51 ↗ correct that's correct is it it is also

1:09:54 ↗ our understanding that the school

1:09:56 ↗ district will call one

1:09:57 ↗ witness that is correct finally we

1:10:00 ↗ understand that the parties will try to

1:10:02 ↗ limit the total time for each witness to

1:10:03 ↗ 30 minutes is this

1:10:06 ↗ correct yes that will be the attempt yes

1:10:08 ↗ excuse me I'm going to ask the city

1:10:10 ↗ clerk and legal counsel to provide time

1:10:12 ↗ checks throughout each witness uh to

1:10:15 ↗ help the parties to be mindful of this

1:10:17 ↗ agreement rebuttal testimony

1:10:19 ↗ cross-examination and

1:10:21 ↗ redirects uh uh we understand the

1:10:25 ↗ appellant has up to three potential

1:10:27 ↗ rebuttal Witnesses and the school

1:10:29 ↗ district has one potential rebuttal

1:10:32 ↗ witness is that

1:10:34 ↗ correct yes the the uh calling of those

1:10:37 ↗ witnesses will be dependent on the on

1:10:39 ↗ the testimony received uh we will need

1:10:42 ↗ to address available time for

1:10:45 ↗ re uh we will need to address available

1:10:48 ↗ time for rebuttal at the close of the

1:10:49 ↗ party's cases in Chief the council only

1:10:51 ↗ intends to hold 3 hours of proceedings

1:10:54 ↗ tonight when we get to closing arguments

1:10:56 ↗ each side uh has been allowed up to 5

1:10:58 ↗ minutes and finally in regards to

1:11:00 ↗ council deliberation depending on where

1:11:02 ↗ we are in the evening the council May

1:11:04 ↗ close the hearing tonight and conduct

1:11:06 ↗ deliberations at a special

1:11:08 ↗ meeting have the party stipulated to the

1:11:10 ↗ entry of any of the pre-filed

1:11:14 ↗ exhibits again Richard arur representing

1:11:17 ↗ the appellant um the council have met

1:11:21 ↗ and and we have pre-filed exhibit

1:11:24 ↗ um that have been submitted and I

1:11:26 ↗ understand there is no objection to the

1:11:28 ↗ receipt of those exhibits by the

1:11:31 ↗ council James Haney representing

1:11:33 ↗ director nien and the development

1:11:35 ↗ services staff um that is correct we

1:11:39 ↗ have agreed on exhibits I believe the

1:11:41 ↗ city has 10 exhibits and then there are

1:11:43 ↗ exhibits that the uh other parties have

1:11:46 ↗ submitted and we have no objection to

1:11:48 ↗ any of the

1:11:50 ↗ exhibits Jessica Skelton Council for

1:11:52 ↗ isqua school district and we agree we so

1:11:55 ↗ stipulate thank you any exhibits to

1:11:58 ↗ which the parties have not stipulated

1:11:59 ↗ and any new exhibits will need to be

1:12:01 ↗ introduced during the

1:12:08 ↗ hearing at this time oh no we won't do

1:12:12 ↗ that part

1:12:13 ↗ yet so I believe we will now move into

1:12:17 ↗ opening statements again I will remind

1:12:19 ↗ all parties that these are limited uh

1:12:22 ↗ each to 5 minutes and we'll start with

1:12:23 ↗ the appellant excuse me oh I'm sorry um

1:12:26 ↗ council member Goodman is there a time

1:12:28 ↗ that we can ask some procedural

1:12:30 ↗ questions always sure I think I think

1:12:32 ↗ they're always in order oh okay from the

1:12:34 ↗ days okay thank you so my uh first uh

1:12:37 ↗ request is that we have folks that are

1:12:39 ↗ sitting at the table identify themselves

1:12:41 ↗ um and then my second question is I'm

1:12:43 ↗ not quite I don't quite understand if

1:12:45 ↗ the Providence Point umbrella

1:12:46 ↗ Association is the appellant and it's

1:12:48 ↗ appealing a city decision I'm not quite

1:12:50 ↗ sure um what the the role of the school

1:12:54 ↗ district is in this proceeding so if

1:12:55 ↗ somebody could clarify that please I

1:12:58 ↗ will turn to our the council's legal

1:13:00 ↗ councel on this question um I will let

1:13:02 ↗ the parties introduce themselves um it

1:13:05 ↗ is my understanding and I will let the

1:13:06 ↗ part um the school district speak for

1:13:08 ↗ themselves this school district was

1:13:10 ↗ invited to participate in this appeal

1:13:12 ↗ proceeding um as a uh the the party that

1:13:16 ↗ initially um uh owns the property and

1:13:19 ↗ what that is seems to be a greatest

1:13:22 ↗ issue in this appeal proced in um it's

1:13:24 ↗ my understanding that initially the

1:13:26 ↗ appellants uh requested that the school

1:13:28 ↗ district file a motion to intervene in

1:13:30 ↗ this proceeding but did not proceed with

1:13:32 ↗ filing that motion and has effectively

1:13:35 ↗ stipulated to their participation beyond

1:13:37 ↗ that I would leave it to the school

1:13:38 ↗ district to um introduce their interest

1:13:41 ↗ into this appeal the appellant to

1:13:43 ↗ explain too

1:13:46 ↗ thanks I I will just say towards the

1:13:48 ↗ question of uh when we have procedural

1:13:50 ↗ questions or question of content um I'm

1:13:53 ↗ mean say that we should we should

1:13:54 ↗ probably not interrupt the opening

1:13:56 ↗ statements but um as we get into uh

1:13:59 ↗ testimony from each person I I will

1:14:02 ↗ offer Council uh the opportunity to ask

1:14:05 ↗ uh substantive or procedural questions

1:14:07 ↗ as we go as we as we hear from those uh

1:14:11 ↗ Witnesses and with that I will uh uh

1:14:15 ↗ open the opening statement to the

1:14:17 ↗ apponent introductions first um I'm

1:14:20 ↗ Richard arber I'm an attorney my office

1:14:23 ↗ address is 723d Avenue in Seattle and

1:14:26 ↗ I'm here tonight representing the

1:14:28 ↗ Providence Point umbrella Association

1:14:30 ↗ the appellant uh seated to my left is

1:14:32 ↗ Dave wner um land use planner retained

1:14:36 ↗ by the appellant to um provide testimony

1:14:40 ↗ always already has provided testimony to

1:14:42 ↗ the to the Planning Commission he may

1:14:45 ↗ provide additional testimony tonight

1:14:47 ↗ concerning the sea aspects of this

1:14:52 ↗ appeal

1:14:56 ↗ would you please proceed with your

1:14:57 ↗ opening statement okay um thank you and

1:15:01 ↗ and kind contrary to what Mr marz has

1:15:05 ↗ indicated please feel free to interrupt

1:15:07 ↗ me during my opening statement if you

1:15:09 ↗ have some questions about the things

1:15:11 ↗ that I'm saying um the positions that

1:15:14 ↗ I'm taking um this is a sea appeal and

1:15:18 ↗ we've had sepa the State Environmental

1:15:21 ↗ Policy Act as a part of our fabric of

1:15:23 ↗ our environmental laws since uh at least

1:15:28 ↗ 1971 um when the legislature decided

1:15:32 ↗ there needed to be additional

1:15:34 ↗ environmental consideration of projects

1:15:37 ↗ um and at that time projects proceeded

1:15:39 ↗ ahead with um based on economics on uh

1:15:43 ↗ other factors technical factors but

1:15:45 ↗ legislature indicated that we needed to

1:15:48 ↗ really take a close look at the

1:15:50 ↗ environmental impacts so what's before

1:15:54 ↗ you tonight is a sea appeal but what is

1:15:58 ↗ really before you is a proposal by the

1:16:02 ↗ isqua school district uh for a

1:16:05 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment and a

1:16:08 ↗ rezone from the current single family

1:16:11 ↗ low density um designation for 40 acres

1:16:15 ↗ of property off of 228 to Capital

1:16:19 ↗ facilities facilities which would permit

1:16:22 ↗ them to build which they make no bones

1:16:25 ↗ about a high school an elementary school

1:16:28 ↗ a stadium and all the couta that go with

1:16:33 ↗ with such

1:16:35 ↗ facilities the there is a question and

1:16:38 ↗ we and council member Goodman raised the

1:16:40 ↗ question and I will raise it again about

1:16:42 ↗ who the real applicant here is we've

1:16:45 ↗ raised it as a part of our appeal we

1:16:47 ↗ continue to consider it a matter of

1:16:49 ↗ concern because the real party and

1:16:51 ↗ interest here is the school district

1:16:53 ↗ District not the city who has been posed

1:16:56 ↗ as the applicant

1:16:58 ↗ here fundamental question here is

1:17:00 ↗ whether or not the the environmental

1:17:03 ↗ checklist and the review that's been

1:17:05 ↗ done to date has been adequate whether

1:17:08 ↗ there have been adequate consideration

1:17:10 ↗ of the environmental impacts of this

1:17:12 ↗ substantial project one of the largest

1:17:15 ↗ projects in the city as a matter of fact

1:17:18 ↗ the checklist that was done um is I'm

1:17:22 ↗ trying to be charitable here um a model

1:17:25 ↗ of gener generality of uh ambiguity um

1:17:30 ↗ and and does not contain any specific

1:17:34 ↗ consideration of the plans of the

1:17:36 ↗ district the district has said well we

1:17:40 ↗ don't really know what we're going to do

1:17:42 ↗ and I'm sure you've had a chance to read

1:17:44 ↗ the briefs and they say well we're

1:17:46 ↗ really not sure we got $120 million

1:17:48 ↗ we've got to spend but we're not sure

1:17:50 ↗ how we're going to spend it truth of the

1:17:52 ↗ matter is that they intend a 1,400

1:17:55 ↗ student High School

1:17:58 ↗ 215,000 square feet three stories high a

1:18:02 ↗ 600 student

1:18:04 ↗ 73,000 ft Elementary School a single

1:18:08 ↗ access off of 228 with the traffic light

1:18:12 ↗ a sports Stadium Associated construction

1:18:15 ↗ and all the parking that goes with

1:18:19 ↗ this the these facilities the high

1:18:22 ↗ school in the stadium cannot be built

1:18:24 ↗ without this this rezone next door to

1:18:28 ↗ these facilities is the Providence Point

1:18:30 ↗ retirement community a th000 units Cons

1:18:35 ↗ with uh approximately 1,400 residents

1:18:38 ↗ that has been here uh since 1982

1:18:43 ↗ 883 um the impacts on the on the um

1:18:48 ↗ Providence Point Community are

1:18:50 ↗ substantial and clear along a

1:18:54 ↗ 3200t boundary between the school

1:18:56 ↗ district site and the Providence Point

1:18:59 ↗ Community we're urge the council's urge

1:19:02 ↗ to just kind of Kick this can down the

1:19:04 ↗ road let's not worry about things now

1:19:06 ↗ we'll uh do our review later truth of

1:19:09 ↗ the matter is that once this rezone is

1:19:12 ↗ is done the code kicks in and we are

1:19:15 ↗ starting to look at criteria that

1:19:17 ↗ includes 7 foot setbacks 65 ft building

1:19:21 ↗ Heights 90% impervious surfaces anybody

1:19:26 ↗ who's been in this community knows what

1:19:28 ↗ the impacts of the high school high

1:19:30 ↗ schools are they need to be carefully

1:19:32 ↗ considered and they have not been

1:19:35 ↗ properly considered by the staff and

1:19:38 ↗ we'll get into some of the questions and

1:19:40 ↗ answers that have been um resolved here

1:19:44 ↗ or not resolved in many ways the city's

1:19:47 ↗ review here has been

1:19:49 ↗ disrespectful of the Providence Point

1:19:52 ↗ Community and the refusal to consider

1:19:54 ↗ those impacts on the community um that

1:19:57 ↗ concludes my opening statement right at

1:19:59 ↗ 5

1:20:01 ↗ minutes thank you very much I'll now

1:20:03 ↗ I'll now ask the uh City legal council

1:20:06 ↗ to uh uh formally introduce himself and

1:20:10 ↗ then uh uh give his opening statement

1:20:13 ↗ thank you council president Marts and

1:20:15 ↗ members of the council for the record my

1:20:17 ↗ name is James Haney and I represent the

1:20:20 ↗ city's sea responsible official Keith

1:20:23 ↗ nen and the development services staff

1:20:25 ↗ in these proceedings Mr nen and Miss

1:20:28 ↗ Heinen are seated at the table the staff

1:20:32 ↗ table uh and they will be the witnesses

1:20:34 ↗ who will be testifying this evening on

1:20:36 ↗ behalf of the city what you have before

1:20:39 ↗ you tonight is a narrow issue uh you

1:20:41 ↗ have before you the issue of whether or

1:20:43 ↗ not the determination of nonsignificance

1:20:46 ↗ that was issued in this matter and that

1:20:49 ↗ is exhibit C10 in the record was

1:20:53 ↗ properly issued by the Sea responsible

1:20:55 ↗ official you're not here to discuss the

1:20:58 ↗ merits of the site plan and to rule rule

1:21:00 ↗ on the merits of any site plan or any

1:21:02 ↗ specific development of the school

1:21:04 ↗ district property that's not before you

1:21:07 ↗ you're not here to rule on the

1:21:10 ↗ comprehensive plan designation change uh

1:21:14 ↗ or the zoning map change from single

1:21:18 ↗ family small lot to community facilities

1:21:22 ↗ facility that's not the issue before you

1:21:24 ↗ tonight the sole issue before you is

1:21:27 ↗ whether or not the City Sea responsible

1:21:31 ↗ official properly issued the

1:21:33 ↗ determination of non-significance for

1:21:35 ↗ environmental

1:21:38 ↗ reasons there is a burden of proof in

1:21:40 ↗ these proceedings and we pointed it out

1:21:41 ↗ in our brief the burden of proof is

1:21:44 ↗ always on Providence Point in these

1:21:46 ↗ proceedings to prove that Mr nen's

1:21:50 ↗ determination was clearly erroneous and

1:21:53 ↗ that means that you after considering

1:21:55 ↗ all of the evidence here have to

1:21:58 ↗ determine that you have a firm and

1:22:01 ↗ definite conviction that Mr nien made a

1:22:04 ↗ mistake here and that's the burden of

1:22:07 ↗ proof that's what you should be looking

1:22:09 ↗ at and thinking about as you listen to

1:22:11 ↗ the evidence this

1:22:12 ↗ evening our position in this proceeding

1:22:15 ↗ is in a nutshell is fairly

1:22:18 ↗ simple

1:22:20 ↗ first what is being proposed for the

1:22:24 ↗ school district property at this time is

1:22:27 ↗ a comprehensive plan designation change

1:22:30 ↗ and a zoning map

1:22:32 ↗ Amendment there is no site plan before

1:22:35 ↗ you there is no specific development

1:22:38 ↗ before

1:22:40 ↗ you what we have in terms of existing

1:22:43 ↗ comprehensive plan designation and

1:22:45 ↗ Zoning on the site is single family

1:22:48 ↗ small lot which allows as permitted uses

1:22:52 ↗ elementary schools middle

1:22:55 ↗ schools and junior high

1:22:58 ↗ schools and it allows baseball soccer

1:23:03 ↗ and football fields that have that are

1:23:07 ↗ used and open to the

1:23:11 ↗ public the comprehensive plan

1:23:13 ↗ designation change and the zoning map

1:23:17 ↗ change will allow a high school so in

1:23:21 ↗ addition to what is already allowed in

1:23:24 ↗ terms of school uses on the property

1:23:27 ↗ elementary schools junior high schools

1:23:29 ↗ and middle schools a high school is

1:23:32 ↗ allowed under the cff

1:23:35 ↗ zoning also the cff zoning would allow a

1:23:39 ↗ high school to have a High School

1:23:42 ↗ stadium rather than a baseball soccer or

1:23:46 ↗ football field that is open to the

1:23:48 ↗ public which is already allowed under

1:23:51 ↗ the existing zoning our position is that

1:23:54 ↗ this is a fairly incremental change in

1:23:56 ↗ the zoning that have does not have

1:23:59 ↗ significant adverse environmental

1:24:02 ↗ impacts and that any environmental

1:24:05 ↗ impacts that will occur as the result of

1:24:08 ↗ site development can be dealt with at

1:24:10 ↗ the site development stage Mr nien and

1:24:14 ↗ Miss heinan will testify this evening

1:24:16 ↗ Miss heinan will testify regarding her

1:24:18 ↗ preparation of the checklist and Mr nien

1:24:21 ↗ will testify regarding his review of the

1:24:23 ↗ checklist and his issuance of his

1:24:26 ↗ environmental determination based on

1:24:28 ↗ that testimony we're going to ask you to

1:24:31 ↗ uphold the decision of Mr nen to issue

1:24:34 ↗ the uh DNS and to uh proceed uh to

1:24:40 ↗ consider the merits of those other

1:24:41 ↗ actions but those other ER actions are

1:24:45 ↗ not before you tonight and the merits of

1:24:48 ↗ a any particular site plan or

1:24:50 ↗ development of the site is not before

1:24:52 ↗ for you thank

1:24:55 ↗ you thank you for that I'll now now ask

1:24:58 ↗ representation for the school district

1:25:01 ↗ to uh formally introduce herself and to

1:25:03 ↗ give her her opening statement thank you

1:25:06 ↗ my name is Jessica Skelton and I am

1:25:08 ↗ legal council to issaqua school district

1:25:11 ↗ number 411 and seated with me at Council

1:25:13 ↗ table is my partner uh Denise stiff arm

1:25:17 ↗ and I'll just quickly address the

1:25:19 ↗ district's participation in this

1:25:20 ↗ proceeding first before moving into my

1:25:22 ↗ opening statement um as a special

1:25:25 ↗ councel to the council mentioned uh the

1:25:28 ↗ district was invited to participate

1:25:30 ↗ based on its due processed interest and

1:25:32 ↗ property that it has possession and use

1:25:34 ↗ of appellants raised a question about

1:25:36 ↗ that and we resolved that issue in a

1:25:37 ↗ prehearing conference and so the

1:25:39 ↗ district is a participant here tonight

1:25:42 ↗ and also before I get started I have a

1:25:43 ↗ handout I'd like to use for my opening

1:25:46 ↗ statement i' like it to offer it as an

1:25:51 ↗ exhibit

1:25:54 ↗ I believe the request was for 11 copies

1:25:56 ↗ of materials do you have 11

1:26:21 ↗ copies

1:26:29 ↗ so this handout is two sections of the

1:26:32 ↗ isqua municipal code and then a chart

1:26:35 ↗ drawn from a third section of the isqua

1:26:37 ↗ municipal code and I'd like to offer it

1:26:39 ↗ as an exhibit in this

1:26:43 ↗ proceeding city has no

1:26:47 ↗ objection please

1:26:50 ↗ proceed thank you we're here here

1:26:52 ↗ tonight because appellants have confused

1:26:54 ↗ environmental review of a docket of

1:26:57 ↗ proposed comprehensive plan amendments

1:26:59 ↗ with review of a specific project

1:27:01 ↗ proposal here the city properly

1:27:04 ↗ determined that there were no adverse

1:27:06 ↗ environmental impacts from the proposed

1:27:08 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment and

1:27:10 ↗ properly issued its

1:27:12 ↗ DNS appellants focus on one particular

1:27:15 ↗ proposed amendment the redesignation and

1:27:18 ↗ rezoning of the of the Providence

1:27:20 ↗ Heights property from single family

1:27:22 ↗ small lot to community facilities

1:27:24 ↗ facilities but the city properly

1:27:26 ↗ determined that this change did not

1:27:28 ↗ intensify the use of that property in a

1:27:31 ↗ way that would cause significant adverse

1:27:33 ↗ environmental impacts and properly

1:27:35 ↗ issued its DNS unable to meet their

1:27:38 ↗ burden to establish that the city's

1:27:40 ↗ decision was clearly erroneous as

1:27:43 ↗ Council for the city indicates that the

1:27:45 ↗ standard of review is here appellants

1:27:47 ↗ instead suggest that the semi city was

1:27:50 ↗ somehow obligated to review spefic

1:27:52 ↗ specific project plans that the district

1:27:54 ↗ has for the site you'll hear tonight

1:27:57 ↗ from uh the district's chief of finance

1:27:59 ↗ and operations that no such specific

1:28:01 ↗ project plans exists at this point the

1:28:04 ↗ district has developed only conceptual

1:28:07 ↗ feasibility drawings related to the site

1:28:09 ↗ and has no specific plans in fact as

1:28:12 ↗ you'll hear tonight there have been over

1:28:14 ↗ 50 iterations of those conceptual plans

1:28:17 ↗ that the district has considered up to

1:28:18 ↗ this point there simply isn't a

1:28:21 ↗ possibility for Project Specific review

1:28:23 ↗ here and recognizing that the city the

1:28:26 ↗ sea responsible official correctly

1:28:29 ↗ reviewed the a comprehensive plan

1:28:31 ↗ Amendment and not a specific project

1:28:34 ↗ proposal I'd also like to direct the

1:28:37 ↗ council to some of the legal Authority

1:28:39 ↗ that guides your decision I know that

1:28:41 ↗ not may not be something that you look

1:28:42 ↗ at every day but in particular I'd like

1:28:45 ↗ to point you to a couple of cases that

1:28:47 ↗ the district cited in our prehearing

1:28:49 ↗ brief and tellingly Council for the

1:28:52 ↗ appellants have have not discussed or

1:28:54 ↗ distinguished those cases in any way and

1:28:57 ↗ those two cases are the Narrows view

1:28:59 ↗ preservation Association in Hayden cases

1:29:02 ↗ in which the Washington Washington

1:29:04 ↗ Supreme Court held that when there is a

1:29:07 ↗ non-project zoning change with no

1:29:10 ↗ specific plans for development it is

1:29:12 ↗ proper to issue a determination of

1:29:15 ↗ non-significance an Eis is not required

1:29:18 ↗ particularly when there's an opportunity

1:29:20 ↗ at a later stage um to require an e an

1:29:23 ↗ Eis if warranted and that's precisely

1:29:26 ↗ what you have before you here today you

1:29:28 ↗ have a situation where uh the city was

1:29:31 ↗ asked to review the impacts from a

1:29:32 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment and not the

1:29:35 ↗ impacts from a specific project proposal

1:29:38 ↗ and Under The Guiding case Authority

1:29:40 ↗ that is correct the case is cited by the

1:29:43 ↗ appellants in this case all concerned

1:29:46 ↗ situations where there was a substantial

1:29:49 ↗ intensification of the use of the proper

1:29:51 ↗ property as a result of the action an

1:29:54 ↗ issue and there were clearly established

1:29:56 ↗ environmental harms as a result of that

1:29:58 ↗ intensification of use and that is not

1:30:00 ↗ what you have before you as Council for

1:30:03 ↗ the city indicated the the change in use

1:30:06 ↗ here is from a single family small lot

1:30:09 ↗ uh zoning designation to a community

1:30:12 ↗ facilities facilities designation and

1:30:14 ↗ that's where I want to point you to the

1:30:15 ↗ hand out that I provided you um first of

1:30:19 ↗ all is isqua municipal code section

1:30:23 ↗ 18069 talks about what the community

1:30:26 ↗ facilities facilities designation is and

1:30:29 ↗ in particular in subsection

1:30:33 ↗ E3 discusses um that it's used for

1:30:37 ↗ public property property that has come

1:30:38 ↗ into public ownership and that's the

1:30:40 ↗ reason why that property is being

1:30:43 ↗ considered for that reclassification for

1:30:45 ↗ that for that

1:30:46 ↗ redesignation if you turn back to

1:30:48 ↗ subsection a of that section of the code

1:30:52 ↗ it talks about how the community

1:30:54 ↗ facilities facilities designation is

1:30:56 ↗ designed um for compatibility of land

1:31:00 ↗ uses and if you turn to the next

1:31:02 ↗ statutory section which is IMC

1:31:07 ↗ 18748 this is the community facility

1:31:09 ↗ standards this Council may recall that

1:31:12 ↗ just two years ago in 2017 you adopted

1:31:15 ↗ amendments to these standards that are

1:31:17 ↗ specifically designed to try to ensure

1:31:20 ↗ compatibility particular for school

1:31:22 ↗ sighting um and to make that process

1:31:25 ↗ more streamlined in light of increasing

1:31:28 ↗ densification of the city of isqua and

1:31:31 ↗ finally if you turn to the last page of

1:31:33 ↗ this packet um it talks about the types

1:31:35 ↗ of uses that are allowed under the

1:31:38 ↗ single family small lot zoning

1:31:40 ↗ designation and the community facilities

1:31:42 ↗ facilities designation this isn't all of

1:31:44 ↗ them but it really highlights for you

1:31:46 ↗ the similarities that are allowed within

1:31:49 ↗ those two zones and underscores the fact

1:31:51 ↗ that there is not an intensification of

1:31:54 ↗ use here that would necessitate further

1:31:56 ↗ environmental scrutiny so for that

1:31:58 ↗ reason the city properly issued its DNS

1:32:00 ↗ and we would ask that you affirm that

1:32:02 ↗ determination thank

1:32:05 ↗ you i' like this is uh clerk Ager

1:32:09 ↗ speaking I'd like to not that that was

1:32:10 ↗ submitted as exhibit

1:32:13 ↗ S7 thank

1:32:16 ↗ you this is the point where by agreement

1:32:19 ↗ we would ask for whether there's any

1:32:21 ↗ direct test testimony by the appellant

1:32:23 ↗ witnesses I believe you had said you do

1:32:25 ↗ not uh will not be presenting any

1:32:28 ↗ Witnesses this

1:32:29 ↗ evening well that's not precisely true

1:32:33 ↗ in in our prehearing conference with

1:32:35 ↗ miss Lea uh we uh attempted to

1:32:39 ↗ streamline um things for the council

1:32:42 ↗ recognizing that we would in fact be

1:32:43 ↗ here at 8:30 or 9:00 at night so the

1:32:46 ↗ agreement was that we um did intend to

1:32:50 ↗ call Miss Heinen and and and Mr nen but

1:32:53 ↗ to um expedite things they were also

1:32:57 ↗ City Witnesses so the understanding was

1:32:59 ↗ that the city would call those Witnesses

1:33:02 ↗ ask them their questions and then we

1:33:03 ↗ would proceed to ask questions um and it

1:33:06 ↗ was understood that we would not be

1:33:08 ↗ bound by the uh by the usual legal

1:33:11 ↗ procedure that cross-examination

1:33:13 ↗ questions are limited to the scope of

1:33:15 ↗ the direct examination so that's the way

1:33:17 ↗ we're going to proceed tonight it it

1:33:19 ↗ would be an error to say that we do not

1:33:22 ↗ have any Witnesses those two those two

1:33:24 ↗ um City Witnesses are our Witnesses

1:33:27 ↗ thank you for that

1:33:28 ↗ clarification we're going to move to

1:33:31 ↗ direct test testimony by City witnesses

1:33:34 ↗ that will also be appellant Witnesses uh

1:33:37 ↗ at this

1:33:40 ↗ time thank you council president Martz

1:33:43 ↗ the city would call Trish Heinen into

1:33:50 ↗ stand I believe that the witnesses need

1:33:53 ↗ to be sworn for this to be a sea hearing

1:33:56 ↗ uh I don't think that the witnesses have

1:33:58 ↗ been sworn at this point so I'd raise

1:34:00 ↗ that as an issue is uh is that something

1:34:03 ↗ that uh we can

1:34:05 ↗ have I think we'll probably

1:34:08 ↗ need if if we if we need to and if

1:34:11 ↗ there's no objection I'm a notary so I

1:34:13 ↗ could swear in the witnesses if if you

1:34:15 ↗ would like me to do that we have no

1:34:18 ↗ objection to Mr Hy doing that no

1:34:20 ↗ objection from the district thank you

1:34:21 ↗ for that offer we will accept it thank

1:34:24 ↗ you um Miss hen would you raise your

1:34:26 ↗ right hand do you solemnly swear that

1:34:28 ↗ the testimony you're about to give will

1:34:30 ↗ be the truth and nothing but the truth I

1:34:34 ↗ do thank you Miss hinen and would you

1:34:36 ↗ please State your full name and give

1:34:39 ↗ your position at the city Trish honin

1:34:42 ↗ I'm the long range planning manager okay

1:34:45 ↗ see I got it wrong Hanan it's common

1:34:48 ↗ thank you uh Miss Hanan uh would you

1:34:51 ↗ please tell us uh what your ex what your

1:34:54 ↗ duties are as long range planning

1:34:55 ↗ manager um long range is in charge of uh

1:34:58 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments um housing

1:35:00 ↗ strategies code amendments annexations

1:35:03 ↗ um mostly legislative types of projects

1:35:06 ↗ and what training and responsibilities

1:35:09 ↗ do you have with respect to the State

1:35:10 ↗ Environmental Policy Act I was trained

1:35:13 ↗ about 10 years ago from our responsible

1:35:15 ↗ official uh as he was trying to um get

1:35:19 ↗ more help in in his SEO work so I was

1:35:22 ↗ trained 10 years

1:35:24 ↗ ago would you say that you use Sea on a

1:35:28 ↗ regular basis not often um but only for

1:35:31 ↗ our non-project comprehensive plan

1:35:34 ↗ amendments and code

1:35:35 ↗ amendments so would it be fair than to

1:35:38 ↗ say that with respect to the long range

1:35:40 ↗ planning duties that you have

1:35:42 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning map

1:35:44 ↗ amendments that you do engage in Sea

1:35:47 ↗ review regarding those

1:35:50 ↗ yes

1:35:52 ↗ now in this particular case uh relates

1:35:54 ↗ to the 2019 comprehensive plan and

1:35:56 ↗ zoning map amendments were you

1:35:58 ↗ responsible for shepherding those

1:36:00 ↗ amendments through the city's process

1:36:03 ↗ yes

1:36:05 ↗ um the Amendments or the the docket for

1:36:08 ↗ those amendments was originally

1:36:10 ↗ established in February of 2019 is that

1:36:14 ↗ correct yes and I believe there are some

1:36:16 ↗ exhibits in the records C1 C2 and C3

1:36:20 ↗ you're familiar with those and was that

1:36:22 ↗ the February 19th docket

1:36:25 ↗ yes um now the initial docket did not

1:36:28 ↗ include the school district property uh

1:36:31 ↗ in Providence Heights is that correct

1:36:33 ↗ correct and why was that it's my

1:36:36 ↗ understanding the school district felt

1:36:37 ↗ they would not have ownership of the

1:36:39 ↗ property by the end of 2019 so they

1:36:42 ↗ chose not to put it on the docket at

1:36:44 ↗ that time so how did it come to be added

1:36:47 ↗ to the docket um the school district

1:36:50 ↗ sent an email to Keith n in May saying

1:36:52 ↗ that they had started eminent domain

1:36:54 ↗ proceedings and hoped to take um

1:36:57 ↗ ownership of the property before the end

1:36:58 ↗ of the year and requested that we start

1:37:00 ↗ to process a

1:37:03 ↗ rezone and I believe that uh that uh

1:37:08 ↗ email is exhibit C4 yes can you uh can

1:37:12 ↗ you tell us then how it got placed on

1:37:14 ↗ the docket we brought it back before the

1:37:17 ↗ city council and they approved adding it

1:37:19 ↗ to the

1:37:20 ↗ docket now did you require the school

1:37:23 ↗ district to file an

1:37:25 ↗ application for the comprehensive plan

1:37:27 ↗ Amendment and resel we did not and so

1:37:31 ↗ who did you consider the applicant to be

1:37:34 ↗ for the comprehensive plan Amendment and

1:37:36 ↗ reone for the school district property

1:37:39 ↗ um all of the comprehensive plan

1:37:40 ↗ amendments and rezones are the city is

1:37:43 ↗ that considered the applicant and why is

1:37:46 ↗ that why does the city do consider

1:37:48 ↗ itself the applicant on matters such as

1:37:51 ↗ this because they're legislative and not

1:37:53 ↗ Project

1:37:56 ↗ Specific if a person had come in with a

1:38:00 ↗ project specific reone or comprehensive

1:38:04 ↗ plan Amendment would you or

1:38:06 ↗ comprehensive or Project Specific reone

1:38:09 ↗ would you have required them to file an

1:38:11 ↗ application yes but you didn't consider

1:38:14 ↗ this to be a project related reson

1:38:16 ↗ correct and why is that because they

1:38:19 ↗ were a public entity requesting change

1:38:21 ↗ for public purpose on the site and that

1:38:24 ↗ was consistent with the community

1:38:25 ↗ facilities facility

1:38:28 ↗ zone is there anything that you're aware

1:38:31 ↗ of in the isqua municipal code that

1:38:34 ↗ requires a a property owner to be the

1:38:38 ↗ applicant with respect to a

1:38:40 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment change

1:38:44 ↗ no would it have been made any

1:38:47 ↗ difference in the way that you processed

1:38:51 ↗ uh the 2019 comprehensive plan and

1:38:54 ↗ zoning map amendments if the school

1:38:56 ↗ district had been the applicant it's my

1:38:59 ↗ understanding that the school district

1:39:00 ↗ would have been their own sea official

1:39:02 ↗ um and they would have done their own

1:39:04 ↗ checklist and their own um designation

1:39:07 ↗ if they were the applicant so having the

1:39:10 ↗ city be the uh comprehensive plan

1:39:13 ↗ applicant and zoning map Amendment

1:39:15 ↗ applicant actually gave you the ability

1:39:18 ↗ to do sea is that correct

1:39:20 ↗ correct

1:39:23 ↗ um did you prepare the environmental

1:39:26 ↗ checklist for the uh uh 2019

1:39:29 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments which is

1:39:31 ↗ exhibit C8 I believe I did uh did you

1:39:36 ↗ have help in doing that from anybody I

1:39:38 ↗ did not okay um over the years how many

1:39:42 ↗ environmental checklists would you say

1:39:43 ↗ you've prepared probably more than

1:39:46 ↗ 20 and are you familiar with the

1:39:50 ↗ difference between a project

1:39:52 ↗ environmental checklist and a

1:39:54 ↗ non-project environmental checklist can

1:39:57 ↗ you tell us what that is um project sea

1:40:00 ↗ is much more specific you have a site

1:40:01 ↗ plan you have um something that's the

1:40:04 ↗ city has accepted to do your

1:40:06 ↗ environmental review on and there's a

1:40:08 ↗ lot more specificity to that

1:40:10 ↗ environmental review than what I do is

1:40:13 ↗ non Project Specific and it's phase one

1:40:16 ↗ of the two-phase sea review that the

1:40:18 ↗ city does so mine is much more General

1:40:21 ↗ um much more um um looking at them in

1:40:26 ↗ the big picture whereas then when a

1:40:29 ↗ project review development agree or

1:40:31 ↗ development application comes in that

1:40:34 ↗ sea at that time is very

1:40:38 ↗ specific and the the checklist has a

1:40:41 ↗ number of questions on it does it not

1:40:43 ↗ that are kind of site specific questions

1:40:46 ↗ like how many parking spaces a project

1:40:49 ↗ will have how many many uh people will

1:40:53 ↗ be employed by the project you know

1:40:55 ↗ those questions yes um on a non-project

1:40:59 ↗ application or a non-project action such

1:41:02 ↗ as this would you fill out the

1:41:05 ↗ environmental checklist and those

1:41:07 ↗ specific

1:41:08 ↗ questions what I do is I reference that

1:41:12 ↗ the um that we don't have any

1:41:14 ↗ information at this time in the phase

1:41:16 ↗ one of the sea review and that the

1:41:18 ↗ actual review of those details will be

1:41:21 ↗ done at the project when the project is

1:41:23 ↗ submitted so it sounds like you're

1:41:27 ↗ saying there is some there is phased

1:41:31 ↗ review that you you were using phased

1:41:33 ↗ review in this case cor correct and

1:41:35 ↗ there's two phases if I'm hearing you

1:41:38 ↗ correctly can you say what those two

1:41:40 ↗ phases are the first phase is

1:41:41 ↗ legislative review and that's the big

1:41:44 ↗ picture um review that we did on the

1:41:47 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning map

1:41:48 ↗ Amendment and then um if that goes

1:41:50 ↗ further then the applicant will come in

1:41:53 ↗ with a site plan and site plan and all

1:41:56 ↗ the um details like parking spaces and

1:41:58 ↗ square footage height all those and then

1:42:01 ↗ another sea checklist will be done um

1:42:04 ↗ and another sea determination will be

1:42:06 ↗ done at that time and that's phase two

1:42:07 ↗ that's the very specific um sea review

1:42:11 ↗ now you understand that in this

1:42:14 ↗ particular case uh the appellant

1:42:16 ↗ Providence Point umbrella Association is

1:42:18 ↗ saying you should have reviewed a site

1:42:21 ↗ plan which appears on the city's website

1:42:24 ↗ I believe you you understand that I

1:42:26 ↗ understand that did you review that site

1:42:29 ↗ plan and use it in the preparation of

1:42:31 ↗ your checklist I did not that wouldn't

1:42:33 ↗ have been um our phase review that

1:42:35 ↗ wouldn't have been consistent with that

1:42:38 ↗ process so when you were answering the

1:42:41 ↗ questions on the checklist that were

1:42:42 ↗ regarding site specific things you were

1:42:45 ↗ looking at them more from a on a

1:42:47 ↗ cumulative basis as opposed to on on the

1:42:51 ↗ site specific base correct and do you

1:42:55 ↗ have an understanding Miss Hanan about

1:42:58 ↗ um whether or not under the GMA there

1:43:01 ↗ are any requirements to deal with the

1:43:04 ↗ cumulative effects of comprehensive plan

1:43:06 ↗ amendments when you're reviewing them

1:43:09 ↗ well I think are you alluding to uh item

1:43:12 ↗ D on the checklist for non project well

1:43:15 ↗ I guess what I'm asking is is the GMA

1:43:19 ↗ talks about proc processing

1:43:21 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments no more

1:43:23 ↗ than once a year correct and do you

1:43:26 ↗ understand why that is to that you're

1:43:28 ↗ supposed to consider them together right

1:43:30 ↗ so that peac meal amendments don't come

1:43:33 ↗ throughout the year and then have a big

1:43:35 ↗ effect uh peace meal that you didn't

1:43:37 ↗ look at as a total so when you were

1:43:41 ↗ filling out this environmental checklist

1:43:43 ↗ were you looking at everything as a

1:43:45 ↗ total or were you looking at each

1:43:47 ↗ individual site that was proposed to be

1:43:49 ↗ reone everything as a

1:43:52 ↗ total did you also fill out the

1:43:55 ↗ non-project supplement yes and and what

1:43:59 ↗ is the purpose of that that allows you

1:44:01 ↗ to look at um the different elements of

1:44:03 ↗ earth air water um holistically to see

1:44:07 ↗ if the proposal changes those either

1:44:10 ↗ faster or more intensely versus if the

1:44:13 ↗ pro if the uh proposal did not go

1:44:16 ↗ through and since so many of the

1:44:17 ↗ permitted uses are already permitted

1:44:21 ↗ um in the zones it didn't seem like

1:44:23 ↗ anything was being changed faster or

1:44:25 ↗ more intensely with the proposals that

1:44:27 ↗ were

1:44:29 ↗ given so you were looking at the

1:44:32 ↗ impacts of the zoning and comprehensive

1:44:36 ↗ plan Amendment change

1:44:38 ↗ correct and would you characterize the

1:44:42 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment and zoning

1:44:44 ↗ map Amendment here as making a

1:44:47 ↗ significant difference in the number of

1:44:49 ↗ allowed uses or nature of allowed uses

1:44:51 ↗ on the site

1:44:53 ↗ no I don't know quite how I make an

1:44:55 ↗ objection here but but I'm going to make

1:44:58 ↗ one um um I appreciate these are

1:45:02 ↗ administrative proceedings but these

1:45:04 ↗ long leading questions that essentially

1:45:07 ↗ provide the answer to the witness I

1:45:09 ↗ think are are inappropriate and I'd ask

1:45:11 ↗ Council to to um not ask leading

1:45:15 ↗ questions of this nature if I may well

1:45:17 ↗ Mr rre if I had more time rather than a

1:45:21 ↗ half an hour to get in our her testimony

1:45:24 ↗ direct testimony your cross-examination

1:45:26 ↗ in the district's examination I would be

1:45:29 ↗ taking a lot more time doing this but

1:45:31 ↗ I'm trying to truncate the proceeding so

1:45:35 ↗ so this is our so this is our first

1:45:37 ↗ objection and uh I'll use this as an

1:45:39 ↗ opportunity to ask our Council uh what

1:45:43 ↗ the model is for the seven of us to

1:45:45 ↗ address objections generally speaking on

1:45:48 ↗ Direct um Council typically should not

1:45:50 ↗ ask leading questions of their own

1:45:52 ↗ Witnesses so um you in standard protocol

1:45:56 ↗ you might ask the city council to try

1:45:57 ↗ and abbreviate his lengthy questions

1:46:00 ↗ notwithstanding the issue and concern of

1:46:02 ↗ time that would be the city's Council

1:46:05 ↗ not the city council which city counil

1:46:08 ↗ but thank you for that advice and I will

1:46:10 ↗ ask uh the city's Council uh to ask more

1:46:13 ↗ abbreviated questions I will attempt to

1:46:15 ↗ do that uh Miss Hanan and

1:46:19 ↗ um

1:46:21 ↗ in this appeal it's alleged that your

1:46:24 ↗ use of the word not applicable or does

1:46:27 ↗ not apply in response to some questions

1:46:30 ↗ was error do you have an opinion on that

1:46:33 ↗ I don't agree that they were an error

1:46:35 ↗ and why is that because in a phased sea

1:46:38 ↗ review you look at the big picture and

1:46:41 ↗ not site specific issues and that's what

1:46:44 ↗ I would that's what the checklist does

1:46:46 ↗ and how did you deal with these um Broad

1:46:50 ↗ issues in the nonpr supplement I knew

1:46:54 ↗ that the land use code uh critical areas

1:46:57 ↗ ordinance uh setbacks height noise um

1:47:00 ↗ lighting I know those are all covered in

1:47:02 ↗ the code and when the project if and

1:47:04 ↗ when it does come in those pieces will

1:47:06 ↗ be used to evaluate the site plan at

1:47:09 ↗ that

1:47:09 ↗ time and this is your analysis relating

1:47:14 ↗ to those code sections contained in the

1:47:17 ↗ uh non project supplement

1:47:19 ↗ correct

1:47:21 ↗ uh Miss Hanan and uh do you believe that

1:47:24 ↗ the checklist you filled out on the 2019

1:47:27 ↗ conferenza plan and zoning map

1:47:29 ↗ amendments was sufficiently complete yes

1:47:33 ↗ and do you think it was adequate for

1:47:36 ↗ environmental review by the director yes

1:47:38 ↗ I do is there anything else you want to

1:47:41 ↗ add to your testimony that I haven't

1:47:42 ↗ asked you about not at this time and I

1:47:45 ↗ have no further questions for Miss Hanan

1:47:47 ↗ thank you and per the agreement that was

1:47:50 ↗ uh mentioned earlier by the appellant I

1:47:53 ↗ believe that uh the next step is going

1:47:56 ↗ to be

1:47:58 ↗ um uh direct U what's the right word to

1:48:03 ↗ use here is it it's not

1:48:04 ↗ cross-examination at this point it's

1:48:07 ↗ direct it's a hybrid between

1:48:08 ↗ cross-examination and direct

1:48:13 ↗ uh when will I know to object to Mr

1:48:15 ↗ aram's leading

1:48:18 ↗ questions I can can you tell me which

1:48:21 ↗ questions are direct and which ones are

1:48:23 ↗ I believe I believe I read some place

1:48:25 ↗ the witness is

1:48:27 ↗ yours thank you leading questions don't

1:48:30 ↗ apply to uh to adverse Witnesses so

1:48:34 ↗ um Miss h h h

1:48:39 ↗ h um let's not kid ourselves here why is

1:48:42 ↗ the School District Acting asking for

1:48:44 ↗ these um these comp plan changes in

1:48:47 ↗ reason objection calls for speculation

1:48:52 ↗ uh what is the standard for uh an

1:48:55 ↗ objection on calling for speculation you

1:48:58 ↗ might ask the council to rephrase a

1:49:00 ↗ question in a manner that would not call

1:49:02 ↗ for

1:49:03 ↗ speculation may I ask that you rephrase

1:49:05 ↗ the question in a way that does not call

1:49:07 ↗ for

1:49:09 ↗ speculation oh I'm sorry I looked at the

1:49:12 ↗ wrong

1:49:14 ↗ person do you know why the school

1:49:17 ↗ district is requesting the comp plan and

1:49:21 ↗ rezone here um in the email it said they

1:49:25 ↗ were hoping to put a school on the

1:49:28 ↗ site do you know if they're intending to

1:49:31 ↗ put a high school on the

1:49:33 ↗ site that is my understanding at this

1:49:36 ↗ time can they put a high school on the

1:49:39 ↗ site without the comp plan and rezone

1:49:41 ↗ change no it is not a permitted use in

1:49:44 ↗ single family small

1:49:45 ↗ lot so um in in terms of your review you

1:49:51 ↗ there would be

1:49:53 ↗ a um should you not be considering the

1:49:58 ↗ impacts of something made possible by

1:50:00 ↗ the rezone in phased review um that's

1:50:04 ↗ not what my checklist was to do that

1:50:07 ↗ would come later when the application

1:50:09 ↗ and a site plan comes in for a school

1:50:11 ↗ that would be evaluated at that time but

1:50:14 ↗ without the rezone there would be no

1:50:16 ↗ applicate no site plan request by the

1:50:19 ↗ district for a high school isn't that

1:50:22 ↗ correct correct okay so

1:50:25 ↗ so the the reone is a key to the land

1:50:31 ↗ use on this property is that correct

1:50:33 ↗ correct

1:50:36 ↗ okay and why wasn't this simple fact of

1:50:41 ↗ the intention of the school district

1:50:44 ↗ presented in your

1:50:46 ↗ checklist in Phase review the site plan

1:50:50 ↗ doesn't uh come into play that comes

1:50:52 ↗ into play during the second phase of

1:50:55 ↗ phase sepa review where a specific site

1:50:58 ↗ plan that's been accepted by the city is

1:51:00 ↗ reviewed very specifically for all of

1:51:03 ↗ those um possible

1:51:07 ↗ impacts is is it possible for you to um

1:51:12 ↗ review the impacts on this property of

1:51:15 ↗ locating a high school in that in that

1:51:17 ↗ location not without a site plan and

1:51:21 ↗ that and when that comes we will look at

1:51:23 ↗ it specifically when we have a site plan

1:51:26 ↗ that's been accepted by the city but but

1:51:29 ↗ without a the rezone there isn't going

1:51:32 ↗ to be a plan for high school is there

1:51:35 ↗ it's my understanding yes okay okay

1:51:40 ↗ um now one thing that's confused me

1:51:43 ↗ about this process is who the applicant

1:51:47 ↗ is I'm I'm told in your checklist that

1:51:51 ↗ the city's the applicant correct and and

1:51:54 ↗ who's the city for this

1:51:57 ↗ purpose I don't understand who's well I

1:52:00 ↗ mean the city has a mayor and the city

1:52:02 ↗ has a council and the city has an

1:52:04 ↗ administrator and it has a City attorney

1:52:06 ↗ and it has you as long Mage planning

1:52:09 ↗ who's the applicant here I would say

1:52:11 ↗ it's the administration it would be all

1:52:12 ↗ of us and and how was the decision made

1:52:15 ↗ that the that the by the administration

1:52:18 ↗ that the city would be the applicant um

1:52:21 ↗ the way that our phase review is done

1:52:25 ↗ the city is the applicant for all of

1:52:26 ↗ them because it's a legislative action

1:52:29 ↗ when it becomes a specific action any

1:52:32 ↗ property owner would have to come in and

1:52:33 ↗ apply for that development permit and

1:52:36 ↗ then they are the applicant but in this

1:52:38 ↗ first phase the city is the applicant

1:52:42 ↗ but but absent the request from the

1:52:46 ↗ school district to take to do the comple

1:52:49 ↗ plan and reone change the city would not

1:52:51 ↗ have done this on their own would they

1:52:53 ↗ objection calls for

1:52:58 ↗ speculation uh same advice to fa's

1:53:02 ↗ questions in a form that does not uh a

1:53:06 ↗ question oh council member Goodman yes

1:53:07 ↗ procedural question so um I guess my

1:53:10 ↗ procedural question is who makes a

1:53:11 ↗ decision about whether to sustain or

1:53:13 ↗ overrule objections is that the council

1:53:16 ↗ president all of us that is the seven of

1:53:18 ↗ us so it's okay so we've had now couple

1:53:21 ↗ three objections and we've had um advice

1:53:25 ↗ from Council and then and so I'm

1:53:27 ↗ wondering when it is the council weighs

1:53:28 ↗ in on what whether we get to uh vote on

1:53:32 ↗ whether to sustain or overrule

1:53:34 ↗ objections I'm sorry I had I had gone

1:53:36 ↗ with the advice of our legal counsel

1:53:38 ↗ without without looking to to my it's a

1:53:40 ↗ question I don't know the answer it's

1:53:42 ↗ the it's a

1:53:43 ↗ question kind of in no man's land with

1:53:46 ↗ procedure so however you as a council

1:53:48 ↗ decide to make that so you know if if

1:53:51 ↗ you decide to vote on every objection

1:53:53 ↗ you can do that if you decide to defer

1:53:55 ↗ to the council president it's your call

1:53:58 ↗ in this proceeding so what I will do on

1:54:00 ↗ future objections is I will first ask

1:54:02 ↗ for advice from our legal council and

1:54:03 ↗ then I will turn to my fellow council

1:54:05 ↗ members and see if there is any

1:54:07 ↗ objection to taking that legal advice

1:54:09 ↗ and if there is objection or if there's

1:54:10 ↗ a wish for further discussion we will

1:54:12 ↗ discuss it and if there's not I will

1:54:14 ↗ generally defer to our legal counsel

1:54:16 ↗ thank you for asking this question so on

1:54:19 ↗ this

1:54:20 ↗ one your advice I I think I would give

1:54:23 ↗ the same

1:54:24 ↗ advice prior can you repeat what the can

1:54:28 ↗ you repeat repeat what the

1:54:31 ↗ um what the question was and then the

1:54:35 ↗ objection and the recommendation or the

1:54:38 ↗ advice please I honestly cannot remember

1:54:40 ↗ the question I remember the objection

1:54:42 ↗ was calls for speculation so the advice

1:54:45 ↗ was to ask for the question to be

1:54:47 ↗ rephrased in a manner that would not

1:54:49 ↗ call for speculation what was the

1:54:53 ↗ question we've been around and I don't

1:54:55 ↗ have the question in mind let's let's

1:54:56 ↗ let's move on I think would be best

1:54:59 ↗ noted not do you um do you understand

1:55:04 ↗ that the school district wishes to put a

1:55:07 ↗ sports Stadium on this property same

1:55:11 ↗ objection calls for speculation this

1:55:13 ↗ witness does not have knowledge about

1:55:14 ↗ what the school district wishes to do

1:55:17 ↗ the question was whether she was aware

1:55:19 ↗ that's not speculation wa okay so what

1:55:22 ↗ the question was whether she's aware

1:55:24 ↗ that's not

1:55:27 ↗ speculation

1:55:28 ↗ so please answer the question I am

1:55:32 ↗ aware and in the checklist did you well

1:55:37 ↗ let me put it this way um is a stadium

1:55:40 ↗ permitted in the current zoning no it is

1:55:43 ↗ not and did you consider the impacts

1:55:46 ↗ that a stadium might have on the

1:55:48 ↗ adjoining

1:55:50 ↗ properties in your sea review I did not

1:55:54 ↗ because phased sea review the first

1:55:56 ↗ phase does not qualify those specific

1:55:59 ↗ sorts of um impacts because there is no

1:56:02 ↗ accepted site plan to make those

1:56:04 ↗ judgments

1:56:05 ↗ from that will happen when we have an

1:56:08 ↗ accepted site plan to which to look at

1:56:10 ↗ for

1:56:12 ↗ specifics and and you aware generally of

1:56:15 ↗ of what high school stadiums in the um

1:56:19 ↗ isqua School District look like yes and

1:56:23 ↗ would it be possible to analyze the

1:56:25 ↗ impacts of things such as light and

1:56:30 ↗ noise uh and traffic congestion from

1:56:33 ↗ such stadiums it will be once we have a

1:56:36 ↗ site plan but you can do that now can't

1:56:38 ↗ you what would we what would we base it

1:56:40 ↗ on B you would base it on the the model

1:56:44 ↗ for stadiums that are found in the isqua

1:56:47 ↗ school district I believe all four of

1:56:49 ↗ them are different different I don't

1:56:50 ↗ know how we would have we would do that

1:56:52 ↗ and that's why we do phased review so we

1:56:55 ↗ can look at the the general impacts and

1:56:58 ↗ then the specific impacts when we

1:57:00 ↗ actually have a specific site plan to

1:57:02 ↗ review but again no specific impacts

1:57:06 ↗ unless the res Zone occurs for a

1:57:08 ↗ stadium

1:57:10 ↗ correct um I don't think I no stadium is

1:57:13 ↗ possible on no Sports stadium is

1:57:15 ↗ possible on this site without this reson

1:57:18 ↗ isn't that correct correct so if if the

1:57:22 ↗ rezone is not adopted there will be no

1:57:24 ↗ Sports

1:57:25 ↗ Stadium correct

1:57:30 ↗ okay I think Mr Haney asked you if

1:57:33 ↗ cumulative impacts are required as a

1:57:36 ↗ part of the um sea review of comp plan

1:57:42 ↗ changes the annual comp plan changes is

1:57:44 ↗ that correct yes and can you tell me in

1:57:47 ↗ the checklist can you point me to a

1:57:49 ↗ place in the checklist where that

1:57:51 ↗ cumulative review is taking place

1:57:54 ↗ believe it's the whole checklist taken

1:57:56 ↗ completely is where we show that it's

1:58:00 ↗ consistent

1:58:02 ↗ with with the comprehensive plan with um

1:58:06 ↗ the uses that are provided

1:58:08 ↗ for I believe part of it's in D which is

1:58:11 ↗ non project the non project

1:58:17 ↗ part do you have in mind the the are you

1:58:20 ↗ aware of the size of the high school and

1:58:25 ↗ the elementary school that are to be

1:58:27 ↗ that would be placed on the site no not

1:58:30 ↗ specifically you you've not considered

1:58:32 ↗ any of that no I have not you have no

1:58:35 ↗ information um it's not that I don't

1:58:38 ↗ have the information it's that in Phase

1:58:40 ↗ review we don't look at that sort of

1:58:42 ↗ information that is in the second phase

1:58:44 ↗ of sea review and we actually have a

1:58:46 ↗ site plan that's been accepted by the

1:58:49 ↗ city

1:58:50 ↗ but but you are aware are you not that

1:58:52 ↗ the that the plan submitted in the

1:58:55 ↗ project narrative by the isqua school

1:58:57 ↗ district include a

1:58:59 ↗ 215,000 square foot high school three

1:59:02 ↗ stories in size to serve, 1400 students

1:59:06 ↗ I have not looked at them closely no I'm

1:59:08 ↗ not aware of all the numbers not the

1:59:10 ↗ question of closely have you are you

1:59:12 ↗ aware that that is the plan that's been

1:59:14 ↗ proposed I not aware of the plan that

1:59:17 ↗ has been proposed I've heard it's

1:59:19 ↗ changed many times so I don't know what

1:59:21 ↗ the current plan is the the size the

1:59:24 ↗ square footage height and number of

1:59:27 ↗ students has that changed I don't know

1:59:29 ↗ has

1:59:30 ↗ it well if you don't know Miss en um I

1:59:36 ↗ I'm I'm curious about some of these

1:59:37 ↗ questions the answers that you have in

1:59:39 ↗ the checklist let me refer you to

1:59:42 ↗ question eight uh and I'm going to read

1:59:44 ↗ it so we don't have to struggle through

1:59:46 ↗ things here says approximately how many

1:59:48 ↗ people would reside or work on the

1:59:50 ↗ completed

1:59:52 ↗ project now did you answer that question

1:59:55 ↗ for the proposed high school and

1:59:57 ↗ Elementary School no because I don't

1:59:59 ↗ know how many would that would happen in

2:00:01 ↗ the second phase of sea review when we

2:00:04 ↗ actually have a site plan so if so if

2:00:07 ↗ that's the case why did you say

2:00:08 ↗ approximately

2:00:10 ↗ 37,5 190 people currently reside within

2:00:12 ↗ the city

2:00:13 ↗ limits I was giving a Global Response

2:00:17 ↗ showing what the existing conditions are

2:00:20 ↗ now the the existing conditions don't

2:00:23 ↗ relate to the entire city do

2:00:26 ↗ they uh I think they do

2:00:30 ↗ yes I'd like to advise Council we're at

2:00:33 ↗ 12 minutes now if you want to maybe just

2:00:35 ↗ take a couple more questions um uh Mr

2:00:38 ↗ Haney was able to get his questions done

2:00:40 ↗ in 12 minutes so maybe a couple more in

2:00:42 ↗ in the spirit of trying to get through

2:00:44 ↗ each witness in a half hour per the

2:00:47 ↗ earlier terms well um this is my witness

2:00:53 ↗ as well and I would object to putting

2:00:56 ↗ stringent time limits on US during the

2:00:58 ↗ course of this appeal if that that's

2:01:01 ↗ your

2:01:02 ↗ intention so

2:01:06 ↗ noted did did you consider the storm

2:01:10 ↗ water impacts of development of the

2:01:13 ↗ Providence Point or the Providence

2:01:15 ↗ height

2:01:16 ↗ sight no those will be considered a site

2:01:19 ↗ plan comes in and the second phase of

2:01:22 ↗ sea

2:01:30 ↗ review and did you have an opportunity

2:01:34 ↗ to review the site and circulation plan

2:01:37 ↗ that was on the city's website no I did

2:01:40 ↗ not and and just another question about

2:01:43 ↗ kind of who's on first here are you here

2:01:46 ↗ tonight testifying for the city's staff

2:01:49 ↗ or the or as the

2:01:51 ↗ applicant I would be both so you're both

2:01:55 ↗ the city staff and the applicant I

2:01:56 ↗ believe I'm

2:02:09 ↗ both and the the cumulative impacts did

2:02:13 ↗ you consider the cumulative impacts of

2:02:15 ↗ development of the Talis site no I did

2:02:18 ↗ not I did it in a general way again

2:02:21 ↗ there was no site plan for us to look at

2:02:24 ↗ in Phase review we looked at is a school

2:02:27 ↗ an appropriate use in that area and it

2:02:29 ↗ fit those requirements and so we did the

2:02:32 ↗ same review as we did for the providance

2:02:35 ↗ point site very general very

2:02:38 ↗ legislative as phase

2:02:41 ↗ one okay we'll try to keep the time

2:02:43 ↗ limits that's the questions I have thank

2:02:45 ↗ you very much uh at this point I would

2:02:48 ↗ like to offer cross-examination by the

2:02:50 ↗ school district of this witness thank

2:02:53 ↗ you I just have one or two questions for

2:02:56 ↗ you Mr ramw Council for the appellants

2:02:59 ↗ asked you whether the desire to site a

2:03:01 ↗ high school on the properties was a

2:03:03 ↗ basis for the cff designation isn't

2:03:06 ↗ another basis that the property has come

2:03:08 ↗ into public ownership correct that's all

2:03:12 ↗ I

2:03:13 ↗ have thank

2:03:15 ↗ you uh at this point I will offer

2:03:17 ↗ redirect uh to the city's Council thank

2:03:21 ↗ you um Miss Hanan and um Mr ramw asked

2:03:26 ↗ you about a high school and the zoning

2:03:30 ↗ change being necessary to allow a high

2:03:32 ↗ school what school uses are allowed

2:03:35 ↗ under the current zoning on Elementary

2:03:37 ↗ School junior high and middle school

2:03:40 ↗ plus outdoor baseball soccer and

2:03:43 ↗ football fields that are used by the

2:03:45 ↗ public are all permitted uses now so let

2:03:48 ↗ me ask you first about the school uses

2:03:51 ↗ do you consider the

2:03:54 ↗ um change that would allow a high school

2:03:58 ↗ to be a significant use change for the

2:04:00 ↗ property no not significant and uh

2:04:06 ↗ why I'm sorry we're not taking audience

2:04:09 ↗ comment at this point

2:04:13 ↗ please and why Miss Hanan do you believe

2:04:16 ↗ that it is not a significant change

2:04:19 ↗ because we now have a high school um in

2:04:21 ↗ a single family that's ad joined by

2:04:23 ↗ single family neighborhoods um we have

2:04:25 ↗ code in place for um noise lights um

2:04:30 ↗ transportation we have all those land

2:04:32 ↗ use codes in place that would help us to

2:04:34 ↗ site such a facility with the the least

2:04:37 ↗ amount of impact to the surrounding

2:04:39 ↗ neighborhoods and you mentioned the uh

2:04:43 ↗ Mr aramu asked you about a stadium and

2:04:46 ↗ you mentioned that Sports fields are are

2:04:48 ↗ currently allowed into the sfsl zone is

2:04:51 ↗ that correct correct baseball football

2:04:55 ↗ soccer and

2:04:57 ↗ just

2:04:59 ↗ from lay person's perspective I guess

2:05:02 ↗ what do you consider to be the

2:05:03 ↗ difference

2:05:04 ↗ between uh baseball football and soccer

2:05:07 ↗ fields that are open to public use and a

2:05:10 ↗ stadium I'm not sure what the difference

2:05:13 ↗ would

2:05:14 ↗ be I've been in both they they they have

2:05:18 ↗ lights they have traffic they have kids

2:05:21 ↗ they have

2:05:23 ↗ adults you know council president Marts

2:05:26 ↗ I know I I'm just at a point here of

2:05:29 ↗ wanting to defend City staff I I I

2:05:32 ↗ understand that people's emotions are

2:05:34 ↗ high here but if you could at least show

2:05:36 ↗ staff respect uh and as I will show

2:05:40 ↗ respect and as I would urge you to show

2:05:42 ↗ respect to all Witnesses I UND

2:05:45 ↗ understood Mr Haney I I just want to ask

2:05:48 ↗ everyone uh emotions run high in this

2:05:51 ↗ issue please trust that this is a fair

2:05:54 ↗ process and that we will get to a a fair

2:05:57 ↗ decision and and let the legal councils

2:06:00 ↗ uh for the appellant and for the city

2:06:02 ↗ and for the school district uh put put

2:06:05 ↗ the best uh argument forward I'm

2:06:07 ↗ confident that if they believe that

2:06:08 ↗ there's a legal argument to be made uh

2:06:11 ↗ in regards to a a witness they'll make

2:06:13 ↗ it thank you thank you I have no further

2:06:16 ↗ questions for the

2:06:17 ↗ witness all right with that uh you you

2:06:21 ↗ you are uh what's the word you're

2:06:26 ↗ released sure released uh we will move

2:06:29 ↗ on to the city's second witness we'll

2:06:32 ↗ call Keith nen to the stand and as Mr

2:06:35 ↗ nian comes forward I'll let people know

2:06:36 ↗ in case anyone's wondering we will

2:06:38 ↗ probably we will uh around 9:30 take

2:06:41 ↗ another 5 minute bio break so if you're

2:06:44 ↗ trying to figure that out you got 24

2:06:46 ↗ minutes roughly

2:06:54 ↗ need a list of the exhibits that are

2:06:56 ↗ available

2:06:58 ↗ thanks Mr nen um do you solemnly swear

2:07:03 ↗ that uh the testimon you're about to

2:07:05 ↗ give in these proceedings will be the

2:07:06 ↗ truth the whole truth and nothing but

2:07:07 ↗ the truth I do thank you Mr nen would

2:07:11 ↗ you uh please State your full name uh

2:07:14 ↗ for the record and would you tell us

2:07:17 ↗ what your position at the city is sure

2:07:20 ↗ uh my name is Keith nien um I am

2:07:22 ↗ currently the city's uh director of

2:07:24 ↗ Economic Development and the city's

2:07:26 ↗ director of development

2:07:28 ↗ services and in your in your role at the

2:07:31 ↗ city do you have a a specific

2:07:34 ↗ responsibility with respect to State

2:07:36 ↗ Environmental Policy Act review I do um

2:07:39 ↗ so sepa is adopted by reference in the

2:07:42 ↗ city code um Title 18 chapter 10 section

2:07:46 ↗ 020 the responsible official presents uh

2:07:50 ↗ represents the lead agency to ensure the

2:07:52 ↗ sea rules are followed to ensure the

2:07:55 ↗ threshold determination meets the

2:07:56 ↗ provisions of RCW 4321 C and to ensure

2:08:01 ↗ that the procedural requirements

2:08:02 ↗ identified in wac 1971 are followed you

2:08:06 ↗ tell us Mr nien what uh uh experience

2:08:10 ↗ you've had with sea over the year sure

2:08:13 ↗ um let me start by saying that um uh my

2:08:17 ↗ background is I have a bad degree in

2:08:18 ↗ urban planning and a masters in

2:08:20 ↗ environmental planning and I've worked

2:08:22 ↗ for over 32 years uh in local government

2:08:26 ↗ um and I'm a certified planner for over

2:08:28 ↗ 30 years uh I um didn't originally uh

2:08:35 ↗ I'm not a native Washingtonian sorry um

2:08:39 ↗ moved here um from Phoenix uh so when I

2:08:42 ↗ came here I knew that um I wanted to uh

2:08:47 ↗ immerse myself in sea so I took my

2:08:50 ↗ initial job in Washington state was with

2:08:52 ↗ the city of Auburn and I worked solely

2:08:55 ↗ working on sea um review for the city

2:08:58 ↗ for two years um following that um I was

2:09:02 ↗ hired by the city of isak quaza um for

2:09:05 ↗ as part of the city's major development

2:09:07 ↗ review team of which I then became the

2:09:09 ↗ program manager and as the program

2:09:12 ↗ manager for that group I took over the

2:09:15 ↗ sepa duties for the mdrt um and then uh

2:09:19 ↗ I took over as development services

2:09:21 ↗ director in 2015 and most of the sepa

2:09:24 ↗ decisions that uh come out of the city I

2:09:27 ↗ have my name on

2:09:28 ↗ them did you uh perform a role a sea

2:09:32 ↗ role with respect to the 2019

2:09:35 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning map

2:09:37 ↗ amendments I did what was your role um

2:09:41 ↗ so my role uh was to ensure that the

2:09:44 ↗ environmental values were considered

2:09:46 ↗ during the decision-making process

2:09:48 ↗ um by the city

2:09:50 ↗ council as part of the comp plan docket

2:09:53 ↗ sorry so miss Hanan testified that she

2:09:56 ↗ prepared the environmental checklist did

2:09:59 ↗ you play any role in the development of

2:10:01 ↗ the checklist in this matter no I did

2:10:05 ↗ not when did you receive the checklist

2:10:08 ↗ from Miss haen and so the checklist is

2:10:10 ↗ dated the 28th of August um but I

2:10:13 ↗ received it on the 29th uh through an

2:10:17 ↗ email

2:10:19 ↗ now are you familiar with the school

2:10:21 ↗ district property that's proposed to

2:10:23 ↗ redes be redesignated in zone cff uh

2:10:26 ↗ both of the well both there's Providence

2:10:29 ↗ Heights and Talis that's correct I'm I

2:10:32 ↗ I'm when I referred to the school

2:10:33 ↗ district property during my questioning

2:10:35 ↗ I'm going to refer to just the

2:10:37 ↗ Providence Point or the Providence

2:10:39 ↗ Heights property since that seems to be

2:10:41 ↗ the focus of the appeal um so how are

2:10:45 ↗ you familiar with that property um so I

2:10:49 ↗ personally visited uh the site a number

2:10:51 ↗ of times during the Providence Heights

2:10:53 ↗ demolition permit

2:10:54 ↗ appeal um that sea decision was also

2:10:58 ↗ appealed uh the hearing examiner

2:11:00 ↗ remanded the decision to the Sea

2:11:02 ↗ responsible official to consider the

2:11:04 ↗ landmark status of the property which

2:11:07 ↗ had not occurred um and it well it had

2:11:10 ↗ occurred after we had issued the initial

2:11:13 ↗ sea decision so after reconsideration

2:11:16 ↗ and reissuance of the iated

2:11:18 ↗ determination of non-significance for

2:11:20 ↗ the demolition of Providence Heights uh

2:11:23 ↗ the city's hearing examiner upheld the

2:11:25 ↗ responsible officials mdns for the

2:11:27 ↗ demolition

2:11:29 ↗ permit that's that was my initial so so

2:11:32 ↗ just to be clear you were the SE

2:11:35 ↗ responsible official for that demolition

2:11:39 ↗ project relating to the old Providence

2:11:41 ↗ College is that correct yes I

2:11:45 ↗ was um

2:11:50 ↗ did you play

2:11:53 ↗ um what exactly was your role as SE

2:11:57 ↗ responsible official relating to that

2:11:59 ↗ that

2:12:00 ↗ site so um so it's my it's my opinion

2:12:04 ↗ that staff need to uh be familiar with

2:12:06 ↗ property conditions to understand the

2:12:08 ↗ potential environmental impacts that may

2:12:10 ↗ result from a proposed action uh I'm

2:12:13 ↗ personally familiar with all the

2:12:15 ↗ properties proposed for redesignation

2:12:17 ↗ and re known as part of this

2:12:19 ↗ comprehensive plan docket um I've

2:12:21 ↗ studied their relationship to

2:12:22 ↗ surrounding properties on the city

2:12:24 ↗ zoning map looked at their aerial

2:12:26 ↗ representation and relationship to

2:12:28 ↗ adjacent properties using King County's

2:12:30 ↗ IMAP and have visited all of the sites

2:12:33 ↗ that are part of the

2:12:35 ↗ docket and what do you understand the

2:12:38 ↗ specific proposal to be in the 2019

2:12:41 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning map

2:12:43 ↗ amendments for the school district

2:12:45 ↗ property in Providence Heights uh The

2:12:48 ↗ Proposal um is to redesignate the three

2:12:52 ↗ School owned properties to community

2:12:55 ↗ facilities and Zone the properties

2:12:57 ↗ Community facilities facilities and what

2:13:00 ↗ is the current zoning on the site the

2:13:03 ↗ current zoning is um single family small

2:13:05 ↗ lot sf- SSL can you give us a thumbnail

2:13:10 ↗ sketch if you will um of the differences

2:13:13 ↗ between the single family small lot

2:13:16 ↗ zoning and the uses allow there and the

2:13:19 ↗ cff zoning and the uses allowed under

2:13:22 ↗ that zoning um sure so both zones allow

2:13:27 ↗ for some school facilities single family

2:13:29 ↗ small lot allows for elementary schools

2:13:31 ↗ and middle schools as we heard earlier

2:13:34 ↗ uh Community facilities facilities

2:13:36 ↗ allows for these facilities as well as

2:13:38 ↗ high schools vocational schools and

2:13:40 ↗ colleges Sports fields or stadiums for

2:13:43 ↗ sporting facilities that would be part

2:13:45 ↗ of an allowed school would be considered

2:13:47 ↗ except accessory to the use and would be

2:13:50 ↗ allowed in either Zone and that is

2:13:51 ↗ contrary to what my staff said earlier

2:13:54 ↗ but she was

2:13:55 ↗ wrong so when you say it would be

2:13:57 ↗ accessory if someone were building an

2:14:00 ↗ element excuse me a middle school or a

2:14:03 ↗ junior high school and they wanted to

2:14:06 ↗ put in a stadium a a school wanted to do

2:14:09 ↗ that would you consider that to be an

2:14:10 ↗ allowed use or would that require a

2:14:13 ↗ reone to

2:14:14 ↗ cff if if um if the school district

2:14:19 ↗ wanted to build a stadium or an arena

2:14:23 ↗ which is a defined term in the isqua

2:14:25 ↗ municiple code I

2:14:28 ↗ 18-02 they could do that um as part of a

2:14:31 ↗ middle school Under the current Zone and

2:14:34 ↗ do you have middle schools in this area

2:14:37 ↗ that have sports Fields like that we

2:14:41 ↗ have middle schools that have sports

2:14:42 ↗ fields to my knowledge none of them have

2:14:45 ↗ um stadiums which are defined as a large

2:14:48 ↗ open or enclosed place used for games

2:14:51 ↗ and major events partly or completely

2:14:53 ↗ surrounded by teers of seats for

2:14:55 ↗ spectators that's the definition in the

2:14:57 ↗ city code do any of them have viewing

2:15:02 ↗ stands

2:15:05 ↗ um uh I am not sure if isqua middle

2:15:09 ↗ school has bleachers or not I don't know

2:15:12 ↗ I

2:15:14 ↗ apologize

2:15:16 ↗ um is a high school allowed in the uh

2:15:20 ↗ single family small lot zone it is not

2:15:24 ↗ so a would a reone be necessary to allow

2:15:27 ↗ a high school it

2:15:34 ↗ would have you had experience in a

2:15:38 ↗ project review or review of other high

2:15:41 ↗ schools in the isqua area um only I want

2:15:45 ↗ to say tangentially but uh related to

2:15:48 ↗ the addition of Portables and the

2:15:50 ↗ traffic issues surrounding isqua high

2:15:52 ↗ school but the high school itself pre

2:15:54 ↗ predates me and does that school uh

2:15:57 ↗ contain a stadium it does um does it

2:16:01 ↗ does that Stadium have lighting uh or

2:16:04 ↗ does that campus have lighting um it

2:16:07 ↗ does and um we are actually working

2:16:09 ↗ through a lighting issue with the school

2:16:11 ↗ district on the Middle School um they

2:16:15 ↗ have recently as part of their remodel

2:16:16 ↗ installed lights around the field at the

2:16:19 ↗ middle school and we've had our lighting

2:16:21 ↗ consultant go out with the school

2:16:23 ↗ district uh to kind of dial in the

2:16:26 ↗ photometrics to make sure that uh the

2:16:29 ↗ night glow is minimized would you say

2:16:31 ↗ then you're familiar with lighting

2:16:33 ↗ issues relating to high schools um I I I

2:16:37 ↗ believe I am yes and would you also say

2:16:40 ↗ you're familiar with traffic issues

2:16:42 ↗ relating to high schools from your

2:16:44 ↗ review um

2:16:46 ↗ yes do you have any current role with

2:16:49 ↗ respect to a middle school proposed at

2:16:52 ↗ Talis uh yes um I'm currently working

2:16:55 ↗ with my um plan review staff on uh the

2:16:58 ↗ site plan that has been submitted for

2:17:01 ↗ that site which includes issues on

2:17:03 ↗ traffic parking walls and site

2:17:07 ↗ coverage do you just going back to the

2:17:10 ↗ isqua high school do you know if were

2:17:12 ↗ you was there any environmental review

2:17:14 ↗ done of any of the things that you

2:17:18 ↗ reviewed or were working on with respect

2:17:20 ↗ to that site yes there was a project

2:17:22 ↗ level review done through sea and did

2:17:25 ↗ that project level review uh look at

2:17:28 ↗ issues like lighting and traffic and

2:17:30 ↗ things of that nature it did the um the

2:17:34 ↗ ultimately the traffic signal at second

2:17:36 ↗ and sunset was installed based on the

2:17:39 ↗ changes to the school the schools in

2:17:41 ↗ downtown do you know if those issues

2:17:43 ↗ were looked at at the time the high

2:17:46 ↗ school property was zoned for current

2:17:49 ↗ zoning I don't know

2:17:51 ↗ that what about the Talis uh School were

2:17:55 ↗ was there environmental review done with

2:17:56 ↗ respect to that uh so the environmental

2:17:59 ↗ review is uh the project level

2:18:02 ↗ environmental review is happening now um

2:18:05 ↗ with the uh site development permit

2:18:08 ↗ application that was submitted and are

2:18:11 ↗ you aware of any environmental review

2:18:13 ↗ that was done when that site was zoned

2:18:15 ↗ last zoned oh absolutely there was a um

2:18:19 ↗ there was a uh an Eis that was done for

2:18:28 ↗ Talis can you explain to us the

2:18:30 ↗ difference between a project action and

2:18:32 ↗ a non-project action for purposes of

2:18:35 ↗ sepa um sure um

2:18:38 ↗ so

2:18:41 ↗ um uh

2:18:46 ↗ um and non-project action um is um

2:18:52 ↗ something that is intended to be um

2:18:57 ↗ bigger picture um it is uh you know it

2:19:00 ↗ it is to look at um typically it's for a

2:19:05 ↗ legislative action uh like a comp plan

2:19:09 ↗ and

2:19:10 ↗ rezone um adoption of new ordinances or

2:19:13 ↗ programs those can all be uh examples of

2:19:18 ↗ non-project actions um project level

2:19:22 ↗ sepa um considers the layout of the

2:19:26 ↗ property uh building Heights setbacks

2:19:28 ↗ traffic study uh storm water study are

2:19:32 ↗ all part of things that come in with the

2:19:35 ↗ project level and that's when you kind

2:19:36 ↗ of roll up your sleeves and you really

2:19:38 ↗ look at how the proposal is going to

2:19:41 ↗ impact the environment and adjacent

2:19:43 ↗ properties Mr Haney I'm going to give

2:19:45 ↗ you the same uh note that I gave gave to

2:19:47 ↗ Mr araru we're at 12 13 minutes if you

2:19:51 ↗ had just two or three more

2:19:54 ↗ questions okay I will try to do that

2:19:59 ↗ um U Mr Nan can you explain why you did

2:20:03 ↗ not review U why you the the type of

2:20:07 ↗ environmental review here that you did

2:20:09 ↗ here uh what's called phase review as I

2:20:11 ↗ understand it um uh so so wack 1971

2:20:19 ↗ 65 um basically phase review States a

2:20:23 ↗ lead agency s determine the appropriate

2:20:25 ↗ scope and level of detail of

2:20:27 ↗ environmental review to coincide with

2:20:29 ↗ the meaningful points in their planning

2:20:32 ↗ and decision-making process and under

2:20:34 ↗ subsection B environmental review may be

2:20:36 ↗ phased if used phase review assist

2:20:40 ↗ assists agencies and the public to focus

2:20:43 ↗ on issues that are ready for decision

2:20:46 ↗ and exclude ude from consideration

2:20:48 ↗ issues already decided or not yet ready

2:20:52 ↗ so I think the the whack is really clear

2:20:55 ↗ on what a phase review is and why we

2:20:59 ↗ chose to do a phase review for this

2:21:01 ↗ application because there's certain

2:21:03 ↗ things that are ready to be considered

2:21:05 ↗ and thought through and then there's

2:21:06 ↗ others that aren't going to be ready

2:21:08 ↗ until a site plan is actually submitted

2:21:11 ↗ and what matters did you consider ready

2:21:13 ↗ for review at this point so um this is

2:21:18 ↗ uh you know everybody tries to make this

2:21:20 ↗ as small as possible this for me is

2:21:23 ↗ about the the land use change and the

2:21:26 ↗ zoning change and really you know we

2:21:29 ↗ have structured our community facilities

2:21:32 ↗ Zone and designation to be compatible

2:21:36 ↗ with every surrounding Zone um which is

2:21:40 ↗ why there's single family uh near the

2:21:43 ↗ the high school now but if you look at

2:21:46 ↗ um subsection a of 1807 480 which is

2:21:51 ↗ called compatibility of land uses uh

2:21:54 ↗ under Community facilities it says

2:21:56 ↗ establish General standards regarding

2:21:58 ↗ Aesthetics height uh and other

2:22:00 ↗ development standards for Community

2:22:02 ↗ facilities which ensure compatibility of

2:22:05 ↗ design construction and scale and

2:22:07 ↗ minimizes the impact of these facilities

2:22:10 ↗ on surrounding uses so the reality so so

2:22:14 ↗ this construct that we have here that

2:22:15 ↗ Community facilities is a compatible

2:22:18 ↗ Zone with other adjacent zones is in our

2:22:22 ↗ code now and so as we talked about

2:22:26 ↗ changing it from um single family small

2:22:29 ↗ lot to community facilities facilities

2:22:32 ↗ um that that is what I considered was

2:22:36 ↗ we're changing it for some to something

2:22:38 ↗ that's compatible with single family and

2:22:41 ↗ what

2:22:42 ↗ issues I just ask one more question what

2:22:46 ↗ issues do you consider not yet ready for

2:22:50 ↗ review and that will be reviewed

2:22:53 ↗ later so so just to give you an example

2:22:57 ↗ of how the middle school at Talis is

2:23:00 ↗ working um that initial site plan that

2:23:04 ↗ they brought to us had basically Talis

2:23:07 ↗ Drive comes up they had a stop sign

2:23:09 ↗ coming out of the middle school and that

2:23:11 ↗ was their whole traffic solution that

2:23:14 ↗ they were proposing and we said well we

2:23:17 ↗ don't think so we think there was going

2:23:18 ↗ to be a much bigger issue than that so

2:23:20 ↗ it went from a stop sign to a roundabout

2:23:24 ↗ to a traffic light to a possible grade

2:23:28 ↗ separated traffic

2:23:30 ↗ entrance that was a lot of different

2:23:32 ↗ iterations to go through they spent a

2:23:34 ↗ lot of money on traffic Consultants to

2:23:37 ↗ kind of walk us through all those

2:23:39 ↗ different um potential design

2:23:42 ↗ outcomes that level of detail that level

2:23:45 ↗ of detail review looking at photometrics

2:23:48 ↗ and looking at the impact that the um

2:23:50 ↗ the stadium could have on adjacent

2:23:54 ↗ residences need to know where the

2:23:55 ↗ stadium is need to know how tall the

2:23:57 ↗ light fixtures are need to know what's

2:23:59 ↗ in between those light fixtures and

2:24:01 ↗ those residences there's all of those

2:24:04 ↗ type of details going to come later

2:24:08 ↗ during the master site plan review um

2:24:11 ↗ which will come before this

2:24:13 ↗ group Mr Nan before we move on I have

2:24:17 ↗ one one question um about something you

2:24:19 ↗ said and I'll also offer my fellow

2:24:22 ↗ council members you said that during the

2:24:24 ↗ demolition fdns appeal it went to a

2:24:26 ↗ hearing examiner so um so do I still

2:24:30 ↗ have my question um why do we have a

2:24:33 ↗ different process today and have the

2:24:36 ↗ appeal coming to us rather than a

2:24:38 ↗ hearing examin uh it's because of your

2:24:41 ↗ city code um so basically the

2:24:45 ↗ legislative action um gets appealed the

2:24:48 ↗ sea gets appealed to hear that was an

2:24:52 ↗ appeal of a demolition permit or or you

2:24:56 ↗ know a construction permit which goes to

2:24:58 ↗ the hearing examiner so so a different

2:25:00 ↗ thing gets appealed to a different um

2:25:03 ↗ hearing body even though it's all sepa

2:25:06 ↗ yes okay um do any of my fellow council

2:25:09 ↗ members council member winterstein it

2:25:11 ↗ was stated earlier in the phase one

2:25:13 ↗ review that there was a question

2:25:17 ↗ um that in and this was actually asked

2:25:20 ↗ of of Miss Hanan and um that

2:25:23 ↗ specifically as in the phase one review

2:25:26 ↗ asked about a proposed project so I'm

2:25:29 ↗ confused why a phase one review has a

2:25:32 ↗ checkless question that identifies a

2:25:35 ↗ proposed

2:25:36 ↗ project so

2:25:39 ↗ um the the checklist um you know the

2:25:43 ↗ checklist has some errors in it uh

2:25:47 ↗ question nine um in the checklist uh

2:25:51 ↗ basically says that that the school

2:25:53 ↗ district has two projects in for permit

2:25:56 ↗ review that's not true the middle school

2:25:58 ↗ is in for permit review the high

2:26:01 ↗ whatever is happening on Providence

2:26:03 ↗ Heights has not been submitted for

2:26:05 ↗ permit review as yet so I I I think she

2:26:08 ↗ was anticipating that it would have been

2:26:10 ↗ submitted um it has not been

2:26:13 ↗ submitted number of issues obviously um

2:26:16 ↗ and so so if that was if that was your

2:26:19 ↗ question council member winterstein that

2:26:21 ↗ would be my answer if it was a different

2:26:22 ↗ question I might have missed

2:26:25 ↗ it um I'm not sure you answered my

2:26:27 ↗ question okay let's go

2:26:32 ↗ again are the questions for a checklist

2:26:35 ↗ defined ahead of time or are they

2:26:37 ↗ Dynamic per uh per docket no the

2:26:40 ↗ checklist is adopted by the city so we

2:26:43 ↗ have a standard checklist okay it comes

2:26:46 ↗ comes with um different environmental

2:26:51 ↗ issues that need to be considered so for

2:26:53 ↗ example Earth um water air uh uh traffic

2:26:59 ↗ lights housing all those things are

2:27:01 ↗ standard for no matter what permit comes

2:27:03 ↗ through the door um when you're doing a

2:27:05 ↗ non-project action there's um an

2:27:08 ↗ addendum to the standard checklist which

2:27:10 ↗ is to consider different questions for a

2:27:14 ↗ nonpr action okay so there was a

2:27:16 ↗ standardized list of questions was an

2:27:18 ↗ addendum for a non-project one and

2:27:20 ↗ that's why there was a question

2:27:23 ↗ considered in a phase one review that

2:27:25 ↗ has the phrase in their proposed

2:27:27 ↗ project I believe so thank you for

2:27:29 ↗ clarifying

2:27:31 ↗ that council member

2:27:33 ↗ Ray so there there could be in the

2:27:36 ↗ future a master site plan and at that

2:27:39 ↗ point we would do the phase to

2:27:42 ↗ review

2:27:43 ↗ um what's the process for that review um

2:27:47 ↗ as opposed to the phase one review sure

2:27:49 ↗ so um if the council approves the rezone

2:27:54 ↗ um and the redesignation and supposing

2:27:58 ↗ that the school district brings forward

2:28:00 ↗ a plan for the use of that property um

2:28:03 ↗ because of the number of Acres it is

2:28:05 ↗ it's it's considered a master site plan

2:28:07 ↗ and not a site development permit

2:28:09 ↗ because that's a different thing it has

2:28:11 ↗ a different process than what a site

2:28:13 ↗ development permit would have a master

2:28:15 ↗ site plan goes first well first it goes

2:28:18 ↗ through City staff so we will do the

2:28:20 ↗ review we will generate a staff report

2:28:22 ↗ we will send our staff report to the

2:28:24 ↗ city's development commission the

2:28:26 ↗ development commission then will

2:28:27 ↗ consider that staff report and

2:28:29 ↗ ultimately make a recommendation to the

2:28:31 ↗ full City Council on that Master site

2:28:33 ↗ plan it then comes to you guys you guys

2:28:36 ↗ are the final decision maker on a master

2:28:37 ↗ site plan thank you council member

2:28:41 ↗ Goodman thank you uh so the phase two

2:28:45 ↗ does not involve a SE a checklist or

2:28:46 ↗ does so bless you so um so phase two um

2:28:52 ↗ sorry phase two is an environmental

2:28:53 ↗ cleanup of a property can we call it

2:28:55 ↗ project and planned action so the the

2:28:58 ↗ project level review has an additional

2:29:00 ↗ sea that needs to be done based on an

2:29:03 ↗ actual plan here's where it's a little

2:29:05 ↗ different because they are a public

2:29:07 ↗ entity the school district um the my my

2:29:12 ↗ guess is unless they seed their sepa

2:29:14 ↗ lead agency authority to the city they

2:29:17 ↗ will assume Sea lead agency Authority on

2:29:21 ↗ the project level sea review because

2:29:23 ↗ they are a higher government than we are

2:29:25 ↗ they can do

2:29:29 ↗ that on the on the pardon the expression

2:29:32 ↗ on the phase two for the master site

2:29:34 ↗ plan they would they would be the lead

2:29:36 ↗ Agency on that sea review yes okay the

2:29:40 ↗ way that it normally would work yes you

2:29:41 ↗ I ask another question please so um what

2:29:44 ↗ I heard you say about um 18

2:29:48 ↗ 18748 A1 compatibility of land

2:29:51 ↗ uses

2:29:53 ↗ might um Jim Haney asked you a question

2:29:56 ↗ about what would be ready for

2:30:02 ↗ consideration I think that was his

2:30:05 ↗ question

2:30:07 ↗ um what's ready to be considered

2:30:10 ↗ now and I understood your answer to be

2:30:14 ↗ that you looked at that code provision

2:30:17 ↗ and you said that and I didn't quite

2:30:19 ↗ understand the answer but I wrote down

2:30:21 ↗ that you said because it's compatible

2:30:23 ↗ with land adjacent land uses that thus

2:30:26 ↗ it's compatible so could you it's kind

2:30:30 ↗ of a circular answer so I wanted to make

2:30:31 ↗ sure I understood what you were saying

2:30:33 ↗ sure thank you for that redirect um so

2:30:38 ↗ what I understood the question to be was

2:30:40 ↗ what did we consider so what we

2:30:42 ↗ considered was the General construct of

2:30:46 ↗ our zoning code now and and how um

2:30:50 ↗ Community

2:30:51 ↗ facilities um is um really uh you know

2:30:57 ↗ it it it allows for some different

2:30:59 ↗ development standards we did that

2:31:01 ↗ through compact schools but what

2:31:06 ↗ um what I considered was the

2:31:09 ↗ compatibility of

2:31:11 ↗ cff or CF well cff um as an adjacent

2:31:16 ↗ down to um Providence Heights um what I

2:31:20 ↗ also considered were the public comments

2:31:23 ↗ that came in through the comment period

2:31:25 ↗ of the

2:31:27 ↗ sepa um which um all of that if you if

2:31:32 ↗ you look at the uh final DNS that was

2:31:35 ↗ issued um you will see uh cumulative

2:31:40 ↗ impacts possible Alternatives and

2:31:42 ↗ potential uh project mitigation measures

2:31:45 ↗ all identif ified as part of that final

2:31:47 ↗ sea decision and so um hopefully that

2:31:52 ↗ answers your question it doesn't really

2:31:54 ↗ it sounds to me like your answer is that

2:31:56 ↗ you considered the compatibility and

2:31:58 ↗ because the code says CF is compatible

2:32:03 ↗ then you considered it to be compatible

2:32:04 ↗ with Providence Point the neighboring

2:32:08 ↗ property because the code says CF is

2:32:11 ↗ compatible from zoning perspective from

2:32:13 ↗ the zoning P perspective yes okay

2:32:16 ↗ thanks any other council member Ray you

2:32:19 ↗ look like you're Doling oh right I'm

2:32:21 ↗ going to I'm it may be a slow Keith you

2:32:24 ↗ mention compact facilities what is a

2:32:26 ↗ compact facility so um so we changed our

2:32:30 ↗ uh zoning code a bit ago um maybe it's

2:32:33 ↗ been a year and a half um recognizing

2:32:36 ↗ that uh everybody in the city whatever

2:32:41 ↗ you were trying to build we were running

2:32:42 ↗ out of land um and so what we did is we

2:32:47 ↗ uh put requirements on for things like

2:32:50 ↗ um uh minimum F floor area ratio uh

2:32:54 ↗ structured parking we we basically the

2:32:57 ↗ half of all your parking needs to be in

2:32:59 ↗ a structure that we passed for

2:33:02 ↗ commercial uses and multif family we

2:33:04 ↗ then um said fair was fair and did that

2:33:07 ↗ to the school district um and so the

2:33:09 ↗ idea is the footprint of the facility

2:33:13 ↗ overall um could be smaller than what it

2:33:16 ↗ had traditionally been before they

2:33:18 ↗ started on their uh Pathway to build

2:33:21 ↗ these four schools that are in the

2:33:22 ↗ pipeline right now thank

2:33:25 ↗ you any other questions from

2:33:27 ↗ Council so as promised it's

2:33:29 ↗ approximately 9:30 and so I am going to

2:33:32 ↗ call a five minute bio break and then

2:33:34 ↗ proceed with appellant uh uh direct and

2:33:38 ↗ cross five minutes let's be back at 9:39

2:33:43 ↗ thank

2:33:45 ↗ you play so

2:34:15 ↗ bad

2:43:36 ↗ Mr aramburu your

2:43:40 ↗ witness well been a couple of questions

2:43:43 ↗ core questions without the rezone there

2:43:46 ↗ isn't going to be a high school on this

2:43:47 ↗ property

2:43:50 ↗ correct without the rezone there won't

2:43:53 ↗ be a high school was that your question

2:43:54 ↗ yeah sorry uh without the rezone uh or a

2:43:58 ↗ rezone there would not be a high school

2:44:00 ↗ on the property

2:44:02 ↗ okay now I just want to make sure I

2:44:04 ↗ understand your testimony correctly are

2:44:07 ↗ you saying that

2:44:09 ↗ automatically the any Capital facilities

2:44:14 ↗ rezone is consistent with the

2:44:16 ↗ surrounding land uses is that what you

2:44:18 ↗ said I'm saying that the capital

2:44:21 ↗ facilities rezone is intended to be

2:44:24 ↗ compatible with surrounding land uses so

2:44:27 ↗ so we're all just kind of wasting our

2:44:28 ↗ time here then aren't we I mean we don't

2:44:31 ↗ it's going to be automatically

2:44:32 ↗ compatible no matter where it

2:44:35 ↗ is I didn't say that well that's the

2:44:38 ↗ question to you is it is that is that

2:44:40 ↗ your testimony so my testimony is that

2:44:45 ↗ in my opinion the community facilities

2:44:48 ↗ rezone is compatible with the

2:44:50 ↗ surrounding single family land uses no

2:44:52 ↗ matter where it is in the

2:44:55 ↗ city uh I did not say that I said this

2:44:58 ↗ particular one this particular one okay

2:45:01 ↗ now

2:45:02 ↗ um and what information did you have

2:45:06 ↗ about this high school that is proposed

2:45:09 ↗ I did not have any information about

2:45:11 ↗ this high school so how could you

2:45:13 ↗ determine the high school's compat

2:45:15 ↗ if you didn't know what the high school

2:45:17 ↗ is about uh I believe that whatever

2:45:21 ↗ facilities are going to be proposed

2:45:24 ↗ under whatever zoning the council

2:45:26 ↗ determines to be on this property will

2:45:29 ↗ be able to be successfully mitigated to

2:45:32 ↗ be allowed on that property what's this

2:45:35 ↗ mitigation you're talking about what are

2:45:37 ↗ we going to

2:45:39 ↗ do we are going to mitigate whatever

2:45:42 ↗ environmental impacts might be

2:45:44 ↗ determined to be

2:45:46 ↗ generated from the proposed land use

2:45:49 ↗ okay uh how about traffic how about

2:45:51 ↗ traffic what what do you have any idea

2:45:53 ↗ what the trip generation for this high

2:45:55 ↗ school would be I do not have no idea I

2:45:58 ↗ have no idea okay and um did you make

2:46:01 ↗ any comparison with the existing single

2:46:04 ↗ family um development of the property in

2:46:08 ↗ terms of trip generation I did not okay

2:46:11 ↗ so you don't know anything about the

2:46:13 ↗ trip generation with this High School I

2:46:14 ↗ do not have not seen a traffic impact

2:46:16 ↗ analysis yet for this project did did

2:46:18 ↗ you ask the school district uh did you

2:46:21 ↗ ask the school district any questions

2:46:23 ↗ about their development about what they

2:46:25 ↗ were proposing I did not send them an

2:46:27 ↗ email say how big is a school going to

2:46:29 ↗ be what's going to look like do you have

2:46:32 ↗ any idea did you do that I already

2:46:34 ↗ answered I did not okay okay you can ask

2:46:36 ↗ again I still did not okay um let's look

2:46:40 ↗ at exhibit

2:46:41 ↗ P5 could you put that up for me

2:46:54 ↗ okay this is one of the admitted

2:46:55 ↗ exhibits if you could scroll down a

2:46:57 ↗ little bit for me and just right there

2:47:00 ↗ is

2:47:01 ↗ good um do you recognize this I do not

2:47:05 ↗ I've never seen this before never seen

2:47:06 ↗ it before okay um so this is isqua High

2:47:12 ↗ School's new High School Number Four

2:47:15 ↗ know which one that

2:47:19 ↗ is uh I've never seen this before I know

2:47:23 ↗ do you know what high school number four

2:47:25 ↗ is High School Number Four would be the

2:47:27 ↗ high school that was anticipated as one

2:47:30 ↗ of the four schools on their most recent

2:47:32 ↗ Bond Levy I see and do you know where

2:47:35 ↗ High School number four is going to be

2:47:37 ↗ uh I think they would like it to be on

2:47:39 ↗ Providence Heights okay let's look at

2:47:42 ↗ how the school district um describe

2:47:45 ↗ High School Number Four a new 24 uh

2:47:49 ↗ 240,000 square foot building including

2:47:51 ↗ core learning environments a science

2:47:53 ↗ Suite athletic facilities Community

2:47:56 ↗ facilities Library gym Commons

2:47:58 ↗ Performing Art Center administrative

2:48:00 ↗ areas special services building Support

2:48:03 ↗ Services Additionally the project

2:48:05 ↗ includes development of an all uh all

2:48:09 ↗ weather Turf Athletic

2:48:10 ↗ Field is is is that what's going to be

2:48:13 ↗ located at this property I have no idea

2:48:16 ↗ well let's go on to the next sentence

2:48:17 ↗ then it says the proposed site is

2:48:19 ↗ located at 4200 228th Avenue Southeast

2:48:22 ↗ in isqua where is

2:48:24 ↗ that I did not write that text where is

2:48:27 ↗ it so that would be the Providence

2:48:29 ↗ height site ah you the the one you've

2:48:31 ↗ been out to yeah correct okay

2:48:39 ↗ um would you put up

2:48:42 ↗ exhibit uh P4 4.3

2:48:55 ↗ please do do you recognize this

2:48:58 ↗ drawing uh I'm not I have not seen that

2:49:02 ↗ specific drawing I have seen a drawing

2:49:05 ↗ of a conceptual layout of the Providence

2:49:07 ↗ height site I have not I don't believe

2:49:10 ↗ I've seen that exact drawing I see and

2:49:13 ↗ and the conceptual drawings that you've

2:49:15 ↗ seen do they all include a separate High

2:49:19 ↗ School a separate Elementary School and

2:49:22 ↗ a separate

2:49:25 ↗ Stadium uh all the site plans that I've

2:49:28 ↗ seen have included an elementary school

2:49:30 ↗ high school and a sports Stadium okay

2:49:34 ↗ and do all of the site plans you've seen

2:49:37 ↗ show a single access off of

2:49:41 ↗ 228 uh in the middle of the site I don't

2:49:45 ↗ remember you don't remember

2:49:50 ↗ okay would you put up uh exhibit P 4.4

2:50:09 ↗ please do you recognize this document I

2:50:12 ↗ do not you've never seen this no I have

2:50:14 ↗ not

2:50:15 ↗ um did you ever inquire of other people

2:50:18 ↗ at the city as to whether or not they

2:50:21 ↗ were considering or reviewing a site

2:50:24 ↗ plan for the high school or other

2:50:26 ↗ facilities on the Providence height site

2:50:29 ↗ uh my staff have had a collaboration

2:50:32 ↗ meeting a feasibility meeting it's a pre

2:50:34 ↗ pre preapplication meeting with the

2:50:36 ↗ school district on this site um which is

2:50:39 ↗ where we got the site plan that was put

2:50:41 ↗ on the city's web page um that is all

2:50:44 ↗ that we've had and and as a part of that

2:50:47 ↗ review did you look at the project

2:50:48 ↗ narrative I did not attend that

2:50:51 ↗ meeting my staff did so your staff went

2:50:55 ↗ to this meeting and didn't tell you what

2:50:56 ↗ happened is that right uh that's right

2:51:00 ↗ really okay

2:51:02 ↗ um and the the project narrative uh

2:51:06 ↗ indicates that there is going to be

2:51:09 ↗ could you scroll down a little bit for

2:51:13 ↗ me um down a bit more

2:51:20 ↗ please um it it uh indicate site

2:51:23 ↗ improvements that are going to be done

2:51:25 ↗ in a traffic light at the entry Drive

2:51:28 ↗ did you know that that they're proposing

2:51:29 ↗ a traffic light not seen that okay

2:51:42 ↗ okay and when you you did the

2:51:46 ↗ um DNS that you did did did you um

2:51:52 ↗ consider the cumulative impact of all of

2:51:55 ↗ the comp plan changes that were proposed

2:51:58 ↗ I did and and how tell me how you did

2:52:00 ↗ that so I looked at and I

2:52:03 ↗ considered

2:52:05 ↗ um for me a cumulative impact of a

2:52:09 ↗ rezone redesignation would allow to

2:52:12 ↗ additional would lead to additional

2:52:15 ↗ rezones um or red designations so in

2:52:17 ↗ other words if you let's let's

2:52:19 ↗ hypothetically say that you decided to

2:52:22 ↗ rezone an area like Central isqua in a

2:52:26 ↗ more intense zoning district and land

2:52:29 ↗ use um it could then lead to additional

2:52:33 ↗ um changes in zoning um around it and as

2:52:38 ↗ I looked at this site and the land uses

2:52:42 ↗ that were surrounding it um that was the

2:52:45 ↗ cumulative impact that I looked at in

2:52:47 ↗ terms of the proposed legislative action

2:52:50 ↗ that was being

2:52:53 ↗ considered doesn't CA say you look at

2:52:55 ↗ all the cumulative impacts of all of the

2:52:59 ↗ proposals that are before the the city

2:53:01 ↗ at one

2:53:07 ↗ time yes did I not answer that

2:53:11 ↗ correctly I don't understand I you you

2:53:13 ↗ indicated that you were concerned with

2:53:15 ↗ the impacts that might

2:53:18 ↗ occur about induced zoning changes so

2:53:22 ↗ that's what I heard you say so for each

2:53:24 ↗ land use

2:53:25 ↗ change there was a consideration of how

2:53:29 ↗ that specific land use change would

2:53:32 ↗ affect adjoining properties so that was

2:53:35 ↗ part of the

2:53:36 ↗ cumulative analysis that I went through

2:53:40 ↗ when I was considering the cumulative

2:53:42 ↗ impact obviously the cumulative impact

2:53:45 ↗ of all of the proposed uh zone changes

2:53:49 ↗ and red designations that's part of this

2:53:51 ↗ annual docket was considered as well

2:53:55 ↗ okay um Mr nean You' indicated you've

2:53:58 ↗ had a lot of experience in here in the

2:54:01 ↗ city the program that the district is

2:54:04 ↗ talking about is a

2:54:05 ↗ 215,000 square foot high school designed

2:54:08 ↗ to serve 1400 students um Can can you do

2:54:12 ↗ a a a track traffic analysis of the

2:54:15 ↗ number of trips that are generated by

2:54:17 ↗ that activity I I can't I'm not a

2:54:20 ↗ traffic engineer could you ask excuse me

2:54:23 ↗ I don't need to interrup go ahead sorry

2:54:24 ↗ so the way that this typically Works

2:54:26 ↗ bless you the way that this typically

2:54:28 ↗ works is when a project level um

2:54:32 ↗ application comes in no that's not the

2:54:34 ↗ question my question was could could you

2:54:37 ↗ with assistance from other

2:54:39 ↗ people determine what the trip

2:54:43 ↗ generation in impact on traffic would be

2:54:46 ↗ from a

2:54:47 ↗ 215,000 ft high school and 1400 students

2:54:50 ↗ is that possible no no

2:54:53 ↗ no and why is that because there's other

2:54:56 ↗ factors that are involved for

2:54:59 ↗ example uh how many access points are

2:55:02 ↗ out onto the street um whether there's

2:55:04 ↗ only one here I don't know that that's

2:55:07 ↗ what that's what the that's what it says

2:55:10 ↗ well but you're reading something that

2:55:11 ↗ they prepared um it's not part of any

2:55:14 ↗ permit applications that are in review

2:55:16 ↗ at the city at this time so I I own

2:55:19 ↗ nothing up

2:55:20 ↗ there it could say that it's going to be

2:55:22 ↗ an orange High School fine it's going to

2:55:25 ↗ be orange I mean you're asking me to

2:55:29 ↗ validate something that they've got and

2:55:30 ↗ I I'm not going to do that because

2:55:33 ↗ that's not gone through a process yet

2:55:35 ↗ you know what the it manual is I do what

2:55:37 ↗ is it Institute of Traffic Engineers

2:55:40 ↗ they uh

2:55:42 ↗ basically generate traffic volumes based

2:55:46 ↗ on a survey of land uses that they've

2:55:48 ↗ done and uh in I the it manual is there

2:55:53 ↗ trip generation for high schools there

2:55:55 ↗ probably is did you look at it no I did

2:56:03 ↗ not we are at 13 minutes so another

2:56:07 ↗ three

2:56:09 ↗ questions I'm going to pick the best

2:56:13 ↗ three

2:56:16 ↗ did you do any noise analysis for the

2:56:20 ↗ stadium how could I don't know where the

2:56:22 ↗ stadium is I don't know what the

2:56:25 ↗ configuration of the stadium is I don't

2:56:27 ↗ know what the surrounding building

2:56:29 ↗ massing will be around the stadium I

2:56:31 ↗ could not do that without knowing those

2:56:36 ↗ details and did you ask the the district

2:56:40 ↗ to supply you with what their best and

2:56:43 ↗ current Cy plan is so you could figure

2:56:46 ↗ that out no I did not did you did you

2:56:48 ↗ talk to the school district at all I did

2:56:50 ↗ not not a word I did not I other than

2:56:53 ↗ the email that came to me requesting

2:56:56 ↗ that this be included in the stocket

2:56:58 ↗ which wasn't a conversation it was an

2:56:59 ↗ email that I forwarded to miss Heinen

2:57:02 ↗ and uh no I do

2:57:05 ↗ not one

2:57:13 ↗ more

2:57:21 ↗ did did you look at

2:57:24 ↗ the um whether or not the adjacent

2:57:27 ↗ intersections near this High School were

2:57:30 ↗ close to failing levels of service I did

2:57:33 ↗ not

2:57:34 ↗ okay thank you Miss Skelton cross

2:57:38 ↗ examination thank you uh Mr nian Mr R

2:57:41 ↗ amre was asking you whether you spoke to

2:57:44 ↗ the school district about any potential

2:57:46 ↗ plans the district had for development

2:57:48 ↗ of the Providence height site and you

2:57:50 ↗ indicated you did not why was

2:57:54 ↗ that um so okay let's break this up into

2:57:59 ↗ pieces um so there there there was like

2:58:04 ↗ I said there was a time before they met

2:58:09 ↗ with our staff in a collaboration

2:58:11 ↗ meeting um where I did sit down with

2:58:14 ↗ with um their facilities director Mr

2:58:16 ↗ Steve Crawford um and Mr Tom Mullins uh

2:58:20 ↗ to talk about this site at that time the

2:58:22 ↗ school district didn't own the site um

2:58:25 ↗ they uh there was pending litigation on

2:58:29 ↗ the demolition permit and the

2:58:32 ↗ conversation was really more academic

2:58:34 ↗ like hey we think we can fit all this

2:58:37 ↗ stuff here or we might be able to you

2:58:39 ↗ know just you know what do you think

2:58:43 ↗ then time passed and the school district

2:58:47 ↗ acquired the site uh they then asked to

2:58:49 ↗ formally meet with my staff at as a part

2:58:54 ↗ of a feasibility meeting where some of

2:58:57 ↗ the bigger items could just be discussed

2:58:59 ↗ which would help them refine their

2:59:01 ↗ designs so that then they would when

2:59:03 ↗ they come in for a pre-application

2:59:05 ↗ meeting we could have a more uh informed

2:59:09 ↗ conversation about what needs to change

2:59:11 ↗ about the site plan to be able to get it

2:59:14 ↗ through the permitting system so in Your

2:59:17 ↗ Capacity as the sea responsible official

2:59:19 ↗ why did you not ask the district for

2:59:21 ↗ more information about any proposed uh

2:59:25 ↗ project at the site as Mr rambu was

2:59:27 ↗ suggesting you should have done

2:59:30 ↗ um I I did not because I didn't think it

2:59:33 ↗ was warranted um you know the I I

2:59:37 ↗ believe that uh this the site plan that

2:59:42 ↗ has been shown uh the earlier version

2:59:45 ↗ that I saw um you know there there are a

2:59:48 ↗ lot of different code requirements that

2:59:50 ↗ are going to need to be worked through

2:59:52 ↗ it generally takes my staff um four to

2:59:56 ↗ five months uh to get through um a

2:59:59 ↗ permit review um on a site of this size

3:00:03 ↗ and to try and do that in a you know a

3:00:07 ↗ 20 minute conversation so so what I did

3:00:10 ↗ was I considered all the comments that

3:00:13 ↗ came in in um you know I considered uh

3:00:17 ↗ what I think the Providence Point

3:00:20 ↗ neighborhood would like to see happen

3:00:22 ↗ here um and it it it did not seem

3:00:28 ↗ appropriate for me to ask the school

3:00:29 ↗ district to provide more technical

3:00:31 ↗ information on a site plan that was

3:00:34 ↗ probably not going to be the one that

3:00:36 ↗ would ultimately be moved forward to the

3:00:37 ↗ city

3:00:38 ↗ council I believe you described your

3:00:40 ↗ meeting or your staff's meeting with the

3:00:43 ↗ district as a

3:00:44 ↗ a pre pre application meeting is that

3:00:47 ↗ correct we call them collaboration

3:00:49 ↗ meetings generally they're pretty high

3:00:52 ↗ level um there might be a site plan

3:00:54 ↗ there might not be a site plan it's

3:00:56 ↗ really to talk about kind of the bigger

3:00:58 ↗ picture items on the property would it

3:01:01 ↗ be typical for the city to put materials

3:01:04 ↗ submitted for that type of collaboration

3:01:06 ↗ meeting on the city's website as a

3:01:08 ↗ project so um typical is an interesting

3:01:13 ↗ word we so what we try to do is we're

3:01:16 ↗ trying to be as transparent as we can be

3:01:19 ↗ with our neighbors um and our residents

3:01:22 ↗ um and so when a project comes in um we

3:01:27 ↗ try to gauge whether we think it's

3:01:31 ↗ likely a real project or somebody just

3:01:33 ↗ you know uh speculating on a piece of

3:01:36 ↗ property and generally then it gets the

3:01:39 ↗ green light to get put on the city's

3:01:40 ↗ active projects map so that's how I

3:01:43 ↗ think um Provence Point learned about

3:01:46 ↗ this potential um application was that

3:01:49 ↗ there was this site plan that was put on

3:01:52 ↗ the city's web page um in

3:01:55 ↗ in in some in some ways I would say that

3:01:59 ↗ that could lead to people being

3:02:00 ↗ concerned about something that may not

3:02:02 ↗ really happen um but I think we're aing

3:02:05 ↗ on the side of transparency here where

3:02:09 ↗ we'd rather have a conversation with our

3:02:12 ↗ uh neighbors than not

3:02:14 ↗ so thank you I don't have any further

3:02:16 ↗ questions Mr Haney

3:02:23 ↗ redirect Madam clerk could you uh put up

3:02:26 ↗ um exhibit

3:02:38 ↗ P5 now Mr nian um Mr ramw asked you

3:02:42 ↗ about this exhibit and if I can ask the

3:02:44 ↗ clerk to scroll down a bit towards the

3:02:46 ↗ bottom right there is fine Mr nien in

3:02:49 ↗ the blue area underneath the orange uh

3:02:54 ↗ rectangle it there's a statement about

3:02:56 ↗ what how big the high school is going to

3:02:58 ↗ be what does that statement say yeah it

3:03:01 ↗ says a fourth Comprehensive High School

3:03:03 ↗ for 1600 students in grades 9 through 12

3:03:06 ↗ will be built to reduce student

3:03:08 ↗ populations at isqua and Skyline high

3:03:10 ↗ schools and meet the district's needs

3:03:12 ↗ into the future

3:03:14 ↗ and in the uh second paragraph below uh

3:03:18 ↗ that there is a statement as to what the

3:03:21 ↗ size of the building will be you see

3:03:24 ↗ that I do and what is that size it says

3:03:27 ↗ that the new 240,000 fot building

3:03:29 ↗ includes blah blah blah and Madam clerk

3:03:32 ↗ would you put up uh exhibit P

3:03:35 ↗ 4.4 which Mr ramw asked Mr niban

3:03:40 ↗ about and if you'd scroll down please

3:03:43 ↗ and that

3:03:44 ↗ thanks

3:03:48 ↗ Tina a little bit

3:03:50 ↗ further okay where it says program Mr

3:03:53 ↗ nien what's the size of the building

3:03:55 ↗ that's listed there uh it's there it

3:03:58 ↗ says it's 215,000 Square ft not 240,000

3:04:01 ↗ Square ft no and when it says what the

3:04:06 ↗ size of the high school is going to

3:04:07 ↗ accommodate how many students does it

3:04:09 ↗ say uh this one says 1,400 students not

3:04:12 ↗ the 16 00 students that were in was in

3:04:15 ↗ the other document no Mr nen could at

3:04:18 ↗ the time that the school district

3:04:20 ↗ actually submits a site plan for this

3:04:22 ↗ proposal will you have a better idea as

3:04:25 ↗ to how many students the high school

3:04:27 ↗ will have so when they submit for a

3:04:31 ↗ formal pre-application with the city um

3:04:34 ↗ assuming they're going to do that that's

3:04:36 ↗ an optional process as well um there is

3:04:39 ↗ a project narrative which then staff

3:04:43 ↗ will use to uh better understand the

3:04:47 ↗ plan set that comes in for the prea and

3:04:50 ↗ the plan set that comes in for the prea

3:04:53 ↗ could be for a high school that's less

3:04:55 ↗ than 215,000 Square ft couldn't it

3:04:58 ↗ absolutely or it could be more than

3:04:59 ↗ 240,000 Square F feet couldn't it

3:05:02 ↗ absolutely it's whatever they think they

3:05:03 ↗ need uh and it could be for more than

3:05:05 ↗ 1,600 students or it could be for less

3:05:08 ↗ than 1,400 students correct right isn't

3:05:12 ↗ doing an analysis at this point kind of

3:05:15 ↗ and analyzing a moving Target unless you

3:05:17 ↗ have a site

3:05:19 ↗ plan of object again to the leading

3:05:22 ↗ nature I mean is it a moving Target I

3:05:26 ↗ mean what a question I think Mr ramw

3:05:27 ↗ you've shown it's a moving Target let me

3:05:29 ↗ rephrase the question though Mr Mr nien

3:05:32 ↗ Mr nien uh at the time that uh site plan

3:05:37 ↗ why would site plan or excuse me why

3:05:40 ↗ would an analysis of the number of

3:05:41 ↗ students and the size of the building at

3:05:44 ↗ this time not be productive from an

3:05:46 ↗ environmental standpoint if you believe

3:05:48 ↗ it would not be productive um because my

3:05:51 ↗ guess is uh those things have not set

3:05:55 ↗ yet so the size of the school and the

3:05:57 ↗ number of students those things are all

3:06:00 ↗ um worked through between District

3:06:03 ↗ Operations and their Consultants that're

3:06:06 ↗ preparing their plans so until those

3:06:09 ↗ things stop moving or bouncing uh or

3:06:12 ↗ evolving

3:06:14 ↗ um you know doing your technical

3:06:16 ↗ analysis doesn't make

3:06:18 ↗ sense okay Mr Nan now I'd like to ask

3:06:21 ↗ you to look at exhibit C10 and if you

3:06:24 ↗ can put that up Madam

3:06:37 ↗ Clerk and if you would uh scroll down a

3:06:40 ↗ little bit please Mr Nan I see see that

3:06:43 ↗ there is a a I'm going to stop you Mr

3:06:46 ↗ Haney I'm not sure on redirect you're

3:06:48 ↗ able to ask about evidence that wasn't

3:06:51 ↗ discussed earlier in the testimony

3:06:53 ↗ actually I'm doing this in response to

3:06:55 ↗ miss Goodman's question uh during the

3:07:01 ↗ um before Mr rambu began his

3:07:04 ↗ cross-examination and also in response

3:07:06 ↗ to Mr

3:07:08 ↗ aru's uh questioning regarding

3:07:10 ↗ compatibility and that it was based

3:07:12 ↗ solely on on the

3:07:14 ↗ code because this analysis on this

3:07:19 ↗ exhibit speaks directly to that I'm

3:07:22 ↗ gonna phone

3:07:24 ↗ a uh well since it's your own objection

3:07:28 ↗ you've raised um I'm asking on this

3:07:31 ↗ explanation that I've just been given

3:07:33 ↗ because I'm not a legal person yeah if

3:07:35 ↗ he's using it to to reut an earlier

3:07:37 ↗ question either of um opposing Council

3:07:39 ↗ the councel then you might go ahead and

3:07:41 ↗ allow that all right well I'll allow it

3:07:43 ↗ thank you thank you council president um

3:07:47 ↗ Mr nen uh there is a discussion uh in

3:07:51 ↗ this under comments and evaluation that

3:07:54 ↗ talks about compatibility and the issues

3:07:56 ↗ you analyze can you walk us through that

3:07:58 ↗ in response to what Mr arre asked you

3:08:01 ↗ about compatibility and what Miss

3:08:03 ↗ Goodman asked you about

3:08:05 ↗ compatibility so um well I think we've

3:08:08 ↗ talked about this uh a bit um so the

3:08:13 ↗ community facility Zone as I state in

3:08:16 ↗ the uh final DNS is envisioned to be a

3:08:20 ↗ designation that is compatible with

3:08:21 ↗ surrounding zones um if you look at if

3:08:24 ↗ you actually look at the land uses um we

3:08:28 ↗ allow high schools in single family

3:08:29 ↗ zones we just don't allow them in single

3:08:32 ↗ family small lot so it's really hard to

3:08:35 ↗ construct a a

3:08:37 ↗ non-compatibility uh premise when we

3:08:40 ↗ allow high schools in single family

3:08:41 ↗ estates and single family I forget which

3:08:44 ↗ the other one is maybe duplex and so I

3:08:47 ↗ think um so part of this is you know

3:08:51 ↗ thinking about how this proposed land

3:08:55 ↗ use change and

3:08:58 ↗ redesignation will impact um kind of the

3:09:03 ↗ surrounding areas in the rest of the

3:09:04 ↗ city and so that that that's kind of

3:09:07 ↗ what I went through with

3:09:09 ↗ this and you also testified in response

3:09:12 ↗ to Mr ramu's questions that you

3:09:15 ↗ considered

3:09:16 ↗ comments uh in making your environmental

3:09:19 ↗ determination is there a discussion of

3:09:21 ↗ that in in this uh part of the checklist

3:09:26 ↗ so the so the decision um so under

3:09:30 ↗ potential mitigation measures um what I

3:09:33 ↗ wrote was the city believes the issue

3:09:35 ↗ specific concerns raised during the

3:09:37 ↗ comment period relating to

3:09:40 ↗ non-project actions can be fully

3:09:42 ↗ mitigated during the permitting process

3:09:44 ↗ for any future Schools project level sea

3:09:47 ↗ review should consider the incorporation

3:09:50 ↗ of mitigation measures addressing

3:09:51 ↗ potential adverse impacts on traffic

3:09:53 ↗ noise lighting and the loss of mature

3:09:55 ↗ vegetation so so what I was trying to do

3:09:58 ↗ with this was actually give a very clear

3:10:02 ↗ road map to both the school district

3:10:05 ↗ doing the project level sea review and

3:10:07 ↗ to my permitting staff when projects

3:10:10 ↗ come in on this property what they

3:10:13 ↗ should be thinking about you know they

3:10:15 ↗ should the sea process includes a

3:10:18 ↗ comment period to allow just for this to

3:10:20 ↗ allow for people to engage and to tell

3:10:23 ↗ people tell the city what they're

3:10:25 ↗ concerned about and so what I was trying

3:10:27 ↗ to do here was really say to both the

3:10:30 ↗ School District staff and to my staff

3:10:33 ↗ that these are the things you need to

3:10:34 ↗ pay particularly attention to and you

3:10:37 ↗ know there will be a neighborhood

3:10:38 ↗ meeting with um or Community Conference

3:10:42 ↗ with this project if it ever makes it

3:10:44 ↗ before it ever gets to the development

3:10:45 ↗ commission and the whole idea is to

3:10:47 ↗ allow for another public engagement

3:10:49 ↗ opportunity to talk about things and try

3:10:51 ↗ and work those issues into the site plan

3:10:55 ↗ to minimize their impacts that's this

3:10:58 ↗ process has a lot of opportunities to

3:11:00 ↗ try and kind of bend it in a way that

3:11:04 ↗ will be a lot better than I think what

3:11:07 ↗ the Providence Point folks saw on the

3:11:09 ↗ city's web

3:11:10 ↗ page Mr Haney I'm going to stop you for

3:11:13 ↗ I'm going to ask my fellow council

3:11:14 ↗ members redirect is not generally

3:11:16 ↗ supposed to be this uh involved and our

3:11:21 ↗ original sort of timeline for developing

3:11:23 ↗ this was to um have both uh cross and

3:11:27 ↗ redirect to be pretty quick we're 10

3:11:29 ↗ minutes in now on redirect and I'm going

3:11:32 ↗ to ask my fellow council member if if

3:11:34 ↗ it's okay to say we want to stop at this

3:11:36 ↗ point on the

3:11:40 ↗ redirect I I think that we have to make

3:11:43 ↗ sure that we're fair so that um the same

3:11:45 ↗ amount of time is afforded to um

3:11:48 ↗ councils whatever decision we make I

3:11:50 ↗ think we cut it off now and um Mr Haney

3:11:53 ↗ has had an extra certain amount of time

3:11:55 ↗ then we need to allow that time for

3:11:56 ↗ others as well to be fair

3:11:58 ↗ noted all right I see agreement so I

3:12:01 ↗ will however ask if Council has any

3:12:04 ↗ further questions for this witness

3:12:06 ↗ before they're excused council member

3:12:07 ↗ Goodman I do thanks

3:12:10 ↗ um Mr nen Keith uh you were reading from

3:12:14 ↗ something if you just now where were you

3:12:16 ↗ where were you reading uh I was reading

3:12:18 ↗ from the final DNS which I don't know

3:12:21 ↗ what exhibit number that is C10 C10 is

3:12:25 ↗ where were you reading on C10 uh if you

3:12:27 ↗ go down to the bottom of the first page

3:12:29 ↗ council member well stop uh potential

3:12:32 ↗ project mitigation measures okay great

3:12:35 ↗ um and it that's the one that you were

3:12:36 ↗ talking about that you were sort of

3:12:38 ↗ sending the message to the city staff

3:12:39 ↗ and the School District staff absolutely

3:12:42 ↗ thank you

3:12:43 ↗ any other qu questions for this

3:12:46 ↗ witness you are

3:12:50 ↗ excused and with that we will move to uh

3:12:54 ↗ the school districts uh Direct on their

3:12:58 ↗ witness the district calls Jacob

3:13:04 ↗ [Applause]

3:13:05 ↗ Cooper Mr Haney would you would you do

3:13:08 ↗ the honors oh yes sorry Mr would you

3:13:11 ↗ pleas raise your hand do you solemnly

3:13:14 ↗ swear that the testimony you're about to

3:13:15 ↗ give will be the truth the whole truth

3:13:17 ↗ and nothing but the truth I

3:13:19 ↗ do Mr Cooper please state your name and

3:13:22 ↗ title for the record Jacob Cooper I'm

3:13:24 ↗ the chief of finance and operations for

3:13:25 ↗ isqua school district and how long have

3:13:27 ↗ you held that role I've been in the

3:13:29 ↗ school district since 2004 and had this

3:13:31 ↗ role since 2006 and what was your uh

3:13:34 ↗ position prior to being uh chief of

3:13:37 ↗ finance and operation I was a Director

3:13:38 ↗ of Finance for two

3:13:40 ↗ years and what are your responsib

3:13:42 ↗ posibilities as Director of Finance and

3:13:44 ↗ operations currently uh have

3:13:46 ↗ responsibility of overseeing basically

3:13:48 ↗ anything uh non uh our system is divided

3:13:52 ↗ into two um so we have a deputy over the

3:13:55 ↗ academic side and I have all the

3:13:57 ↗ operational side so that would include

3:13:59 ↗ capital projects maintenance Finance

3:14:02 ↗ Student Records technology risk

3:14:05 ↗ management

3:14:07 ↗ um I think that's probably it

3:14:10 ↗ Transportation sorry about

3:14:11 ↗ transportation and food service so you

3:14:14 ↗ mentioned capital projects do you have

3:14:16 ↗ responsibility to oversee potential

3:14:18 ↗ construction of new schools I do and

3:14:21 ↗ what is your role in that area um my

3:14:24 ↗ role first off begins with the initial

3:14:26 ↗ planning of projects um from all the way

3:14:29 ↗ from the uh creation of a bond package

3:14:32 ↗ uh that goes before the uh citizens

3:14:34 ↗ committee which we usually run and the

3:14:36 ↗ board of directors so the cost estimates

3:14:38 ↗ and feasibility um and then uh also

3:14:42 ↗ examining the feasibility of school

3:14:44 ↗ sites um on the real estate acquisition

3:14:46 ↗ side cost um and then uh timelines for

3:14:51 ↗ construction and then constructibility

3:14:53 ↗ as well are you familiar with the

3:14:56 ↗ property that's at issue in this appeal

3:14:57 ↗ and for um our s I'll refer to it as the

3:15:01 ↗ three contiguous tax Parcels off of 228

3:15:04 ↗ Avenue Southeast which is the Providence

3:15:06 ↗ Heights property I

3:15:08 ↗ am and what has your role been with

3:15:10 ↗ respect to this property um um I have

3:15:13 ↗ been involved with this property since

3:15:15 ↗ um a letter sent to the uh owners in

3:15:19 ↗ September of

3:15:22 ↗ 2014 um after that um the district has

3:15:27 ↗ then proceeded to pass a bond issue

3:15:29 ↗ where um I was also working um with

3:15:32 ↗ legal council and the board of directors

3:15:33 ↗ for an eminent domain action in July of

3:15:35 ↗ 16 and then involved in the uh

3:15:39 ↗ litigation as an interested party um for

3:15:41 ↗ the historical landmark Mark status and

3:15:43 ↗ then um of course high level uh layout

3:15:46 ↗ and design of the site as

3:15:48 ↗ well and are you familiar with the

3:15:51 ↗ physical characteristics of the property

3:15:53 ↗ I am and are you familiar with the

3:15:55 ↗ current zoning of the property I am do

3:15:57 ↗ you know what that zoning is single

3:15:59 ↗ family small

3:16:01 ↗ lot so you mentioned that you first sent

3:16:03 ↗ a letter about the property in 2014 how

3:16:05 ↗ did you become aware of the property at

3:16:07 ↗ that time uh it was marketed uh Via Real

3:16:09 ↗ Estate

3:16:11 ↗ brokerage and was the district

3:16:14 ↗ interested in the property as a

3:16:15 ↗ potential site for schools uh yes we

3:16:17 ↗ were uh so interested in the fact that

3:16:19 ↗ we put a letter of interest in before we

3:16:21 ↗ actually had Bond proceeds to Pro uh to

3:16:23 ↗ proceed so we we uh believe the site uh

3:16:27 ↗ given its equidistant location between

3:16:29 ↗ isqua high and Skyline uh was very uh

3:16:33 ↗ appropriate for a School site and was

3:16:35 ↗ the fact that the property was being

3:16:37 ↗ marketed also something that prompted

3:16:38 ↗ you to inquire about it yes a willing

3:16:40 ↗ seller um

3:16:42 ↗ of course uh is a preferred way to

3:16:45 ↗ acquire property versus eminent domain

3:16:47 ↗ which can be uh both politically uh

3:16:51 ↗ difficult and um economically uh and

3:16:53 ↗ legally um challenging as well and did

3:16:57 ↗ you believe at the time the property

3:16:58 ↗ could be suitable for your school

3:17:00 ↗ purposes uh yes and why was that um the

3:17:04 ↗ site had um uh it's about 40 acres in

3:17:08 ↗ Gross um and it has a significant amount

3:17:12 ↗ which is developable um because one

3:17:14 ↗ issue we have had with our exhausted

3:17:16 ↗ property search was the amount of

3:17:18 ↗ developable property within the paral

3:17:20 ↗ itself um we believe that um utilizing

3:17:25 ↗ the 40 acres to its full potential

3:17:27 ↗ because um property is at a premium um

3:17:31 ↗ close to or at a million dollars an acre

3:17:33 ↗ on the average a million and a half um

3:17:37 ↗ that this site would be able to fit a

3:17:39 ↗ comprehensive high school and an

3:17:41 ↗ elementary and at some point did the

3:17:43 ↗ district make the decision to seek to

3:17:44 ↗ acquire the property we did and when was

3:17:47 ↗ that um we sought to acquire the

3:17:51 ↗ property in July of

3:17:53 ↗ 2016 and by what means did you do that

3:17:55 ↗ emminent domain and what is the current

3:17:58 ↗ status of that emminent domain action um

3:18:01 ↗ the district currently has possession in

3:18:02 ↗ use of the property and do you know what

3:18:04 ↗ that means from a practical perspective

3:18:06 ↗ what is possession in use um the

3:18:09 ↗ district can build design build and

3:18:12 ↗ operate and open a school on the

3:18:15 ↗ side um you mentioned that you're

3:18:17 ↗ familiar with the current uh zoning of

3:18:19 ↗ the property um what is your

3:18:21 ↗ understanding of what is permitted under

3:18:23 ↗ the current

3:18:24 ↗ zoning my understanding that is that um

3:18:29 ↗ as was mentioned earlier in testimony in

3:18:30 ↗ elementary school a middle school a

3:18:33 ↗ junior high school and all the um

3:18:36 ↗ accompanying uh play fields or

3:18:39 ↗ infrastructure needed uh would be able

3:18:41 ↗ to be cited on the so given its current

3:18:43 ↗ zoning does the district currently have

3:18:45 ↗ elementary schools or middle schools

3:18:47 ↗ with playfields all of our um School

3:18:50 ↗ sites have play fields and uh or lit

3:18:54 ↗ fields or ar T excluding Gibson at high

3:18:57 ↗ school which is a magnet school and has

3:18:59 ↗ no uh outdoor athletic facilities and

3:19:02 ↗ can any of those playfields be used by

3:19:04 ↗ the general public all of them a lot and

3:19:07 ↗ you mentioned lit Fields what do you

3:19:09 ↗ mean by that um our comprehensive high

3:19:12 ↗ schools which are Liberty High School to

3:19:14 ↗ the South um ISO High School in the

3:19:17 ↗ corridor Skyland High School on the

3:19:18 ↗ plateau all have um stadiums as they

3:19:22 ↗ were reflected in the city code and are

3:19:24 ↗ lit um uh for use in the evening time

3:19:29 ↗ our middle schools currently um isqua

3:19:32 ↗ Middle School um Pine Lake Middle School

3:19:34 ↗ and Maywood Middle School are also lit

3:19:37 ↗ facilities that um have bleachers as

3:19:39 ↗ well so all our middle schools have

3:19:40 ↗ bleachers and lights currently currently

3:19:43 ↗ um except we have not yet funded Pacific

3:19:46 ↗ Cascade Middle School or Beaver Lake

3:19:48 ↗ Middle School for the additional lights

3:19:50 ↗ are there any locations in the school

3:19:53 ↗ district boundaries where schools are

3:19:55 ↗ located next to residential zones all of

3:19:59 ↗ them and um you heard prior testimony

3:20:02 ↗ tonight but did the district suggest

3:20:04 ↗ that the city consider redesignating and

3:20:06 ↗ rezoning the Providence Heights property

3:20:08 ↗ in this that's an issue in this appeal

3:20:11 ↗ yes and what did the district S suggest

3:20:14 ↗ that the property should be rezoned and

3:20:15 ↗ redesignated as cff pursuant to the

3:20:18 ↗ city's code so you indicated pursuant to

3:20:21 ↗ the city's code why what do you mean by

3:20:24 ↗ that um the city's code which was

3:20:27 ↗ recently changed in uh December of

3:20:30 ↗ 2017

3:20:32 ↗ um uh allowed or created a cff

3:20:36 ↗ designation for the goal uh the policy

3:20:39 ↗ goal to um have clear parameters for

3:20:42 ↗ which the school district can design and

3:20:44 ↗ or site schools upon um additionally

3:20:47 ↗ there was also a desire to uh limit or

3:20:50 ↗ curtail administrative adjustments to

3:20:52 ↗ the process um particularly height or

3:20:54 ↗ perious or imp perious surface which

3:20:57 ↗ often we have to get well into the

3:20:58 ↗ development process before um those

3:21:00 ↗ issues are cleared up so this was a goal

3:21:02 ↗ for clarity and a recognition of our

3:21:06 ↗ inability to site schools outside of the

3:21:08 ↗ urban growth

3:21:10 ↗ area um is the cff designation also used

3:21:14 ↗ when property comes into public

3:21:15 ↗ ownership it is um including the city or

3:21:18 ↗ county government as well that's my

3:21:20 ↗ understanding and do you know whether

3:21:21 ↗ that's what prompted the request from

3:21:23 ↗ the school district to the city to

3:21:24 ↗ consider the cff designation here yes

3:21:27 ↗ that is the case okay so you mentioned

3:21:30 ↗ that you were familiar with a process

3:21:31 ↗ that the city undertook in 2017 to amend

3:21:34 ↗ its code and design standards related to

3:21:36 ↗ the CF designation of the cff zone is

3:21:39 ↗ that right it is correct yes can we put

3:21:42 ↗ uh exhibit s-3 up

3:21:52 ↗ please are you familiar with the

3:21:54 ↗ ordinance by which the city adopted

3:21:57 ↗ those amendments I am and is that the

3:21:59 ↗ ordinance that we're looking at here

3:22:01 ↗ ordinance number

3:22:02 ↗ 2806 yes it

3:22:06 ↗ is and was it your understanding that

3:22:08 ↗ one of the purposes of these amendments

3:22:10 ↗ was to facilitate more efficient

3:22:12 ↗ sighting of schools as the city uh

3:22:15 ↗ densifies yeah that is uh correct and to

3:22:18 ↗ also align with the goals of the GPM or

3:22:20 ↗ gmpc or the King County Pol policy

3:22:22 ↗ planning I'm not and do you know whether

3:22:24 ↗ SE Sor um I got a question from one of

3:22:27 ↗ my fellow coun I have a question about

3:22:28 ↗ whether he's able to testify about what

3:22:31 ↗ the purposes of adopting an ordinance is

3:22:35 ↗ and and it was the city council that

3:22:37 ↗ adopted

3:22:38 ↗ it I'm not sure so the questions are

3:22:42 ↗ about the purposes of adopting it and um

3:22:46 ↗ but I think it's as long as it's clear

3:22:47 ↗ that his opinion I think that would be

3:22:50 ↗ one thing but he's not City staff and

3:22:52 ↗ he's not in the city council so I'm not

3:22:54 ↗ sure it's appropriate that he testifies

3:22:56 ↗ to the as to the purpose or the goals of

3:22:58 ↗ an

3:22:59 ↗ ordinance fellow council

3:23:02 ↗ members there's a general consensus that

3:23:06 ↗ uh uh that's not uh that we don't think

3:23:10 ↗ that's an appropriate question

3:23:12 ↗ so may I address the objection it's just

3:23:15 ↗ this is an ordinance that relates to

3:23:17 ↗ sighting of schools so I've established

3:23:19 ↗ that Mr Cooper is familiar with its

3:23:21 ↗ Provisions would being familiar with the

3:23:23 ↗ provisions is not the same thing as

3:23:25 ↗ understanding the intent the the intent

3:23:27 ↗ would be the council members who who

3:23:29 ↗ passed the ordinance sure I guess if you

3:23:31 ↗ move on to your next question that be

3:23:33 ↗ great if you could move on to your next

3:23:34 ↗ question that'd be great sure um do you

3:23:37 ↗ know whether sea review was completed as

3:23:39 ↗ part of this amendment process it was

3:23:42 ↗ and do you know whether there was a

3:23:43 ↗ determination of non-significance

3:23:45 ↗ related to these amendments there

3:23:48 ↗ was so you've indicated that the

3:23:50 ↗ district uh plans to construct a high

3:23:53 ↗ school and Elementary School on the

3:23:55 ↗ Providence Heights property is that

3:23:57 ↗ right yes can you describe the

3:23:59 ↗ district's process for planning and

3:24:01 ↗ completing that

3:24:03 ↗ project um

3:24:06 ↗ well historically and it takes up to 24

3:24:11 ↗ months just for the planning and design

3:24:13 ↗ of a facility that comprehensive en

3:24:15 ↗ large um we have gone through 50 plus

3:24:18 ↗ iterations of design on the site itself

3:24:23 ↗ um most of which um and that's uh was

3:24:26 ↗ interesting when you showed the

3:24:27 ↗ difference of our website and what was

3:24:29 ↗ on the city's project narrative because

3:24:31 ↗ you just recently uh I sat down with a

3:24:33 ↗ team and cut classrooms out um for

3:24:35 ↗ budgetary purposes and so the the plan

3:24:37 ↗ is ever evolving so um often times first

3:24:40 ↗ step is take a look at the site make

3:24:42 ↗ sure soils in water um so early

3:24:45 ↗ feasibility on soils and water to make

3:24:46 ↗ sure of course there's no Landslide risk

3:24:49 ↗ um and that you know what's the

3:24:50 ↗ hydrology do on the site um what a soils

3:24:53 ↗ look like can we actually site a school

3:24:54 ↗ there that'd be check one and then onto

3:24:56 ↗ that it's um more on the design phase of

3:25:00 ↗ the building we look at as um Mr n

3:25:02 ↗ testified examples of how we may

3:25:05 ↗ construct the facility the orientation

3:25:06 ↗ of um elements on the site what may

3:25:09 ↗ facilitate student uh access access ADA

3:25:12 ↗ compliance um so they're they're ever

3:25:15 ↗ evolving um I do not have uh daytoday

3:25:19 ↗ meetings with the Architects they bring

3:25:20 ↗ me in about once a week uh once every

3:25:23 ↗ couple weeks to take a look at their

3:25:24 ↗ progress and figure out where they're at

3:25:25 ↗ so right now we are in conceptual

3:25:29 ↗ design have you has the district entered

3:25:31 ↗ into a Construction contract with any

3:25:33 ↗ architect or any contractor related to

3:25:35 ↗ construction of the proposed schools

3:25:39 ↗ no and you've heard some testimony

3:25:42 ↗ tonight about a meeting that occurred uh

3:25:45 ↗ between the city and the district in

3:25:46 ↗ June of 2019 are were you aware that

3:25:48 ↗ meeting

3:25:49 ↗ occurred no you were not aware that that

3:25:52 ↗ meeting occurred in June of 2019 I knew

3:25:55 ↗ that the my staff was going to have a

3:25:57 ↗ feasibility conversation with the city

3:25:59 ↗ um I was unaware of the uh the drawings

3:26:03 ↗ were going to be made public at that

3:26:04 ↗ point in time given that we were having

3:26:06 ↗ a staffto staff conversation and it was

3:26:09 ↗ a pre- preapplication meeting children

3:26:11 ↗ we're 13 minutes in if you could come up

3:26:13 ↗ with three more questions that'd be

3:26:27 ↗ great um have you reviewed the documents

3:26:31 ↗ that are available on the city's website

3:26:34 ↗ which are I believe exhibit P4 I have

3:26:38 ↗ and are those the project plans for the

3:26:40 ↗ school that the district intends to

3:26:43 ↗ construct on the Providence Heights site

3:26:45 ↗ they're not are you familiar with the

3:26:48 ↗ site plan that's currently posted on the

3:26:50 ↗ district's website I have and it was

3:26:52 ↗ early on in the process and does that

3:26:55 ↗ site plan reflect the the plans that the

3:26:57 ↗ district intends to use to construct

3:27:00 ↗ schools at the Providence height site it

3:27:02 ↗ is

3:27:04 ↗ not how many different versions of

3:27:07 ↗ conceptual plans has uh the district

3:27:09 ↗ developed to date 50 plus

3:27:12 ↗ and we're going to stop there uh uh

3:27:15 ↗ before we move on to uh cross I'm going

3:27:18 ↗ to ask if any of my fellow council

3:27:20 ↗ members have questions of this witness

3:27:22 ↗ thus far be really council member

3:27:25 ↗ Goodman

3:27:28 ↗ um feels weird calling you Mr Cooper but

3:27:31 ↗ I guess I should call you Mr Cooper um

3:27:34 ↗ so what's the uh there's been um mention

3:27:39 ↗ of 1400 students 1600 00 students um is

3:27:43 ↗ it fair to say that um the the high

3:27:47 ↗ school would have more than a thousand

3:27:49 ↗ students when it opens yes and what

3:27:52 ↗ would be a fair range say that a number

3:27:55 ↗ of students between 12 and 1600 okay

3:27:59 ↗ thank you any other questions council

3:28:02 ↗ member

3:28:02 ↗ Walsh not a question but Tisha the clock

3:28:06 ↗ is not running so that would be helpful

3:28:09 ↗ for everyone involved

3:28:13 ↗ can I ask a question is it not

3:28:15 ↗ [Music]

3:28:17 ↗ working it's the chair the council

3:28:20 ↗ president has been managing the time

3:28:22 ↗ manually as Mi I and so starting and

3:28:24 ↗ stopping the timer Whenever there was a

3:28:26 ↗ question at the dis was proving to not

3:28:28 ↗ feel terribly efficient so we're both

3:28:31 ↗ tracking time here if it's helpful to

3:28:34 ↗ have the time displayed I'm happy to

3:28:36 ↗ accommodate that okay I would ask that

3:28:39 ↗ when we start into uh a direct or the

3:28:42 ↗ appell appellant

3:28:44 ↗ cross uh direct hybrid that we give uh

3:28:49 ↗ 13 minutes which is where I've been

3:28:51 ↗ pulling the hook

3:28:54 ↗ uh uh council member D Michelle um I'm

3:28:58 ↗ wondering if the uh uh conceptual plan

3:29:02 ↗ on the website is it clearly labeled as

3:29:05 ↗ a conceptual plan on the website yes

3:29:08 ↗ okay it says concept design concept

3:29:10 ↗ design

3:29:12 ↗ council member Ray thanks um this is a

3:29:15 ↗ bit of a followup to my earlier question

3:29:17 ↗ about what compact design is as I look

3:29:19 ↗ through exhibit

3:29:20 ↗ S3 there's a lot of references to Urban

3:29:23 ↗ schools What's an urban

3:29:26 ↗ school well that is a very good question

3:29:28 ↗ council member um I think that both

3:29:30 ↗ parties the district and the council um

3:29:33 ↗ are working at have worked towards a

3:29:36 ↗ definition of urban schools we also use

3:29:38 ↗ the term compact schools in the code as

3:29:40 ↗ well um um so whatever your code is at

3:29:43 ↗ the time uh currently it's cff which uh

3:29:48 ↗ in my mind as we designed the code that

3:29:50 ↗ means a site that has very small or

3:29:54 ↗ narrow setbacks height of 65 ft

3:29:57 ↗ impervious and perious ratio of 90 to 10

3:30:00 ↗ um Etc so that's um a more intensive use

3:30:04 ↗ of acrid and a more vertical than

3:30:07 ↗ horizontal School than you would see uh

3:30:10 ↗ traditionally that's how my staff uses

3:30:12 ↗ it when we're designing okay

3:30:15 ↗ thanks any other

3:30:17 ↗ questions with that uh Mr araru I it is

3:30:21 ↗ your

3:30:22 ↗ witness if you would put up

3:30:27 ↗ exhibit you put up exhibit

3:30:30 ↗ p4.3

3:30:39 ↗ please now this is a um overall sight

3:30:44 ↗ and circulation plan that was prepared

3:30:47 ↗ for this property is that

3:30:50 ↗ correct uh yes it was a site plan used

3:30:53 ↗ to communicate with staff in a

3:30:55 ↗ pre-application process on the 21st of

3:30:58 ↗ June is what it's dated as and this

3:31:00 ↗ isn't labeled as a conceptual plan is it

3:31:04 ↗ um no but again that was not published

3:31:06 ↗ by the school

3:31:07 ↗ district pardon me that was not

3:31:09 ↗ published by the school district on the

3:31:10 ↗ website we did

3:31:11 ↗ we didn't we would have watermarked it

3:31:13 ↗ as such that was on the city's website

3:31:15 ↗ well that would you would you scroll

3:31:16 ↗ down a bit for

3:31:17 ↗ me on on the drawing on the

3:31:20 ↗ drawing and just over to the to the

3:31:23 ↗ right a little bit so so this was

3:31:26 ↗ prepared by scansa who's that that is uh

3:31:31 ↗ a firm that we have a pre-construction

3:31:33 ↗ Services contract for and beset our

3:31:36 ↗ current architect and isqua School

3:31:38 ↗ District that's you isn't it uh that is

3:31:40 ↗ on the footer yes yes okay so take

3:31:43 ↗ responsibility for this drawing

3:31:45 ↗ correct um I take responsibility that it

3:31:47 ↗ was used in the staff to staff

3:31:49 ↗ meeting okay if you could scroll up a

3:31:51 ↗ little bit for me now you've said

3:31:54 ↗ there's been 50 iterations of of

3:31:57 ↗ different um site plans for the property

3:32:01 ↗ I I guess what I want to ask is some

3:32:03 ↗ generalities here the the the site plan

3:32:07 ↗ here shows some baseball fields and

3:32:10 ↗ softball field fields in the north side

3:32:11 ↗ of the property is is that pretty much

3:32:15 ↗ um something that's lasted through these

3:32:17 ↗ 50 50 iterations no okay what what's the

3:32:21 ↗ current

3:32:22 ↗ iteration I think the most current

3:32:24 ↗ iteration I have seen is that those

3:32:26 ↗ fields are moved to

3:32:29 ↗ the right sorry I don't know which way

3:32:32 ↗ we're looking at the was that

3:32:35 ↗ Northeast well to to the right would be

3:32:38 ↗ East to the Northeast then um um and

3:32:42 ↗ depending upon the iteration at any

3:32:44 ↗ given point in time uh and also the

3:32:47 ↗ height of the retaining walls that we

3:32:48 ↗ are working on um those fields have been

3:32:51 ↗ condensed moved flipped I've had

3:32:54 ↗ baseball on one side softball on the

3:32:55 ↗ other batting cages no batting cages Etc

3:32:58 ↗ okay I I just I just want to get to

3:33:00 ↗ generalities here on the

3:33:02 ↗ property uh Fields moved around a little

3:33:06 ↗ bit in the North End

3:33:08 ↗ correct and then on the where the point

3:33:11 ↗ is over there the drawing shows that's

3:33:14 ↗ the location the elementary

3:33:17 ↗ school correct yes and is is that still

3:33:21 ↗ as we go through these iterations the

3:33:23 ↗ current iteration still have the

3:33:25 ↗ elementary school over in that

3:33:28 ↗ point um I believe so okay uh and we've

3:33:31 ↗ got a right in the middle of this

3:33:34 ↗ unmistakable um football field is that

3:33:38 ↗ still pretty much generally where the

3:33:39 ↗ football field is in these multiple

3:33:42 ↗ iterations yes and no we have had

3:33:45 ↗ iterations where the field is on the 228

3:33:47 ↗ side we've had iterations where the

3:33:50 ↗ field is uh been flopped with the high

3:33:52 ↗ school we've had iterations where um

3:33:55 ↗ we've turned the uh parking and the

3:33:59 ↗ field um because it's also dependent

3:34:01 ↗ upon how much Structure Parking we

3:34:03 ↗ decide to do or not to do um on the site

3:34:06 ↗ and whether we exceed city code or not

3:34:08 ↗ so there is no generalities on the

3:34:10 ↗ location of the what what what's the

3:34:11 ↗ current plan what's the current plan

3:34:13 ↗ doesn't the current plan have have that

3:34:15 ↗ field just kind of right in the middle

3:34:17 ↗ there between the tennis courts and the

3:34:18 ↗ parking the only current plan I can

3:34:20 ↗ comment on the ones that are publicly

3:34:24 ↗ disclosed this one no the publicly this

3:34:27 ↗ one here okay and so there's or the one

3:34:30 ↗ publish on District website everything

3:34:31 ↗ else is so let's let's scroll down a

3:34:33 ↗ little bit to the South here if you

3:34:35 ↗ would for me please so the high school

3:34:38 ↗ is kind of in the South part of the

3:34:40 ↗ property is that is these iterations the

3:34:43 ↗ most current iteration still have the

3:34:45 ↗ high

3:34:46 ↗ school in the South part of the

3:34:49 ↗ property uh I believe so okay so so

3:34:53 ↗ generally what we're seeing here give or

3:34:56 ↗ take maybe 30 50 ft whatever it is is

3:34:59 ↗ pretty much what the plan is would you

3:35:02 ↗ agree with that I would not agree with

3:35:03 ↗ that I just told you there were several

3:35:04 ↗ iterations we've gone through that don't

3:35:06 ↗ I understand I'm talking about the

3:35:07 ↗ current iteration where are we right now

3:35:10 ↗ that is that is the most current plan

3:35:11 ↗ publicly available okay okay good what's

3:35:15 ↗ the minimum size of high school that's

3:35:17 ↗ acceptable on this

3:35:19 ↗ property as far as the district is

3:35:21 ↗ concerned to meet your needs how many

3:35:23 ↗ how many

3:35:24 ↗ students um currently we believe uh on

3:35:28 ↗ our communication to the voters and our

3:35:30 ↗ bond process was a school of

3:35:31 ↗ approximately

3:35:32 ↗ 1,400 okay so that's the that's what the

3:35:36 ↗ district needs to meet its educational

3:35:39 ↗ responsibilities is that correct

3:35:41 ↗ okay we we would like to have that many

3:35:44 ↗ students to alleviate uh overcrowding in

3:35:46 ↗ our two largest comprehensive high

3:35:47 ↗ schools that are located nearby okay but

3:35:51 ↗ maybe you build something a little

3:35:53 ↗ bigger um currently we do not have the

3:35:56 ↗ budget to build anything bigger okay r i

3:35:59 ↗ want to point out I think I made an uh

3:36:01 ↗ error earlier I said that this witness

3:36:03 ↗ you were doing both uh a direct and

3:36:05 ↗ across you know as I as I realized the

3:36:08 ↗ the prehearing uh document we came up

3:36:11 ↗ with um Mr Cooper was not one of your

3:36:14 ↗ Witnesses so this is just cross not

3:36:16 ↗ Direct that's correct yes yes now

3:36:22 ↗ um

3:36:24 ↗ and um um Mr Nan was here and he

3:36:28 ↗ testified about the process he went

3:36:31 ↗ through did you ever reach out to Mr Nan

3:36:34 ↗ or other staff to tell them what you

3:36:37 ↗ were going to do on this property I'm

3:36:39 ↗ going to object to the question

3:36:40 ↗ questioning is being outside the scope

3:36:42 ↗ of the direct

3:36:43 ↗ examination I'm sorry elaborate further

3:36:45 ↗ so he would be limited to

3:36:47 ↗ cross-examining him on issues that I

3:36:49 ↗ covered in my direct

3:36:52 ↗ examination there was multiple

3:36:53 ↗ discussions about the numbers of schools

3:36:55 ↗ on this property and sorry council

3:36:58 ↗ member Goodman I'm Sorry Miss gon was it

3:37:01 ↗ a

3:37:02 ↗ um you about the scope so you when you

3:37:06 ↗ were asking questions you asked about

3:37:08 ↗ meetings I asked about the one

3:37:10 ↗ feasibility meeting

3:37:12 ↗ okay and I don't remember what Mr ramb

3:37:15 ↗ was just asking sorry Mr ramw what was

3:37:18 ↗ the nature of your question again let's

3:37:20 ↗ go on to a different question all right

3:37:23 ↗ thank

3:37:28 ↗ you in the

3:37:33 ↗ um there was a project narrative that

3:37:36 ↗ was written for purposes of

3:37:39 ↗ the pre application

3:37:41 ↗ conference do you remember that um yes I

3:37:44 ↗ saw it this evening on for in the

3:37:46 ↗ evidence and and did you have any part

3:37:48 ↗ in preparing that no do do you know who

3:37:51 ↗ did

3:38:04 ↗ no is it is it fair to say in terms of

3:38:08 ↗ the drawings here

3:38:11 ↗ that the high school and the elementary

3:38:14 ↗ school will be in separate

3:38:16 ↗ buildings

3:38:19 ↗ yes as our current

3:38:28 ↗ iteration let me

3:38:31 ↗ um if you would bring up

3:38:37 ↗ um

3:38:38 ↗ see exhibit

3:38:41 ↗ P

3:38:54 ↗ 4.5 the the first drawing there shows

3:39:00 ↗ the

3:39:02 ↗ um former um development on the property

3:39:06 ↗ doesn't

3:39:07 ↗ it it that appears to be the chapel and

3:39:10 ↗ the buildings I'm I would say I believe

3:39:13 ↗ so okay and and those buildings have

3:39:16 ↗ been demolished now they're no longer

3:39:18 ↗ there yeah that is correct okay thank

3:39:20 ↗ you and if you scroll down to the next

3:39:21 ↗ drawing

3:39:26 ↗ please uh let's go one

3:39:30 ↗ more well two

3:39:35 ↗ more okay um and this is a drawing that

3:39:40 ↗ again

3:39:42 ↗ scansa basetti isqua school district U

3:39:46 ↗ does does this drawing show that kind of

3:39:48 ↗ the general layout of uses on the

3:39:52 ↗ property again I've already answered the

3:39:54 ↗ question but yes in the June meeting I

3:39:57 ↗ believe that was the current iteration

3:39:59 ↗ and and is is it the proposal of the of

3:40:03 ↗ the school district to maintain these

3:40:05 ↗ forested buffers around the site that's

3:40:07 ↗ shown

3:40:08 ↗ here um the buffers of course will

3:40:11 ↗ ultimately be decided uh as we move

3:40:14 ↗ through the project itself so um

3:40:17 ↗ depending

3:40:18 ↗ upon um the zoning designated on the

3:40:22 ↗ property and uh construction the

3:40:25 ↗ resulting buffers that of course would

3:40:26 ↗ be uh looked at during the district sea

3:40:30 ↗ process but U are you I mean can the

3:40:34 ↗ district commit to buffers generally of

3:40:36 ↗ this

3:40:37 ↗ size um I'm unable to provide that

3:40:40 ↗ commitment here this evening given that

3:40:42 ↗ the project hasn't even been allowed for

3:40:44 ↗ zoning and secondarily I don't even know

3:40:45 ↗ the distances of that drawing Mr arber

3:40:49 ↗ in the spirit of of uh generally trying

3:40:51 ↗ to keep to a half hour per witness I did

3:40:53 ↗ limit Mr Haney to 10 minutes on

3:40:55 ↗ redirects and you're at 10 minutes so

3:40:56 ↗ I'm going to ask for just a couple more

3:41:03 ↗ questions does the does the district

3:41:06 ↗ have a design build contract for this

3:41:09 ↗ facility

3:41:11 ↗ the district has preconstruction

3:41:13 ↗ services not a Construction contract

3:41:16 ↗ which means the general contractor and

3:41:18 ↗ the architect are working with us on the

3:41:20 ↗ design of the project we have not

3:41:23 ↗ executed construction documents yet for

3:41:25 ↗ obvious

3:41:26 ↗ reasons

3:41:29 ↗ um well the I'm not going to go to the

3:41:32 ↗ trouble of pulling up the drawing that

3:41:34 ↗ the the isqua School District bond

3:41:36 ↗ projects page says isqua school district

3:41:38 ↗ has been approved by by the capital

3:41:41 ↗ projects

3:41:42 ↗ advisory review board to use Progressive

3:41:45 ↗ design build on this project correct

3:41:47 ↗ that is a method of procurement for this

3:41:49 ↗ project okay okay right that's all the

3:41:51 ↗ questions I have thank you uh and it is

3:41:55 ↗ uh I now ask the school district if they

3:41:57 ↗ wish to

3:41:58 ↗ redirect I'm sorry Mr Haney sorry Mr

3:42:01 ↗ Haney cross examine thank you I just

3:42:05 ↗ have uh I think just a few questions Mr

3:42:08 ↗ Cooper um

3:42:13 ↗ and if we could let's see if we could

3:42:16 ↗ look again at um exhibit

3:42:21 ↗ p4.3 let me as long as we well okay I'm

3:42:25 ↗ sorry okay so Mr Cooper um

3:42:31 ↗ this site plan you said was the most

3:42:36 ↗ current one that was publicly available

3:42:39 ↗ correct yes and did I also understand

3:42:43 ↗ you to say that there had been 50 plus

3:42:47 ↗ iterations since this site plan or is

3:42:50 ↗ this one of the were there some before

3:42:53 ↗ and some after there are some before and

3:42:55 ↗ some after there's not been 50 since

3:42:57 ↗ this June

3:42:59 ↗ iteration do you anticipate more

3:43:01 ↗ iterations of the site plan uh before

3:43:05 ↗ you actually submit something to the

3:43:07 ↗ city to review yes absolutely you have

3:43:09 ↗ any any idea how many iterations you

3:43:11 ↗ might uh you might continue to do um

3:43:16 ↗ not uh not not really I mean it we had

3:43:21 ↗ uh several in the last couple

3:43:24 ↗ weeks and and could those iterations uh

3:43:27 ↗ change the location of some of these

3:43:30 ↗ facilities for example the stadium they

3:43:33 ↗ could yes um you mentioned that the

3:43:37 ↗ stadium had been changed changed or the

3:43:41 ↗ location of it had been changed several

3:43:43 ↗ times during previous iterations yes is

3:43:45 ↗ that correct yes and so that could

3:43:47 ↗ change

3:43:49 ↗ with uh future iterations it

3:43:53 ↗ could did you also did I also understand

3:43:56 ↗ you to testify that um you've actually

3:44:00 ↗ made the high school smaller in some

3:44:03 ↗ ways uh since this drawing yes and I

3:44:06 ↗ believe the elementary school is smaller

3:44:08 ↗ as well and can you give us an idea of

3:44:11 ↗ the magnitude of of those changes um

3:44:14 ↗ roughly 200 students will be looking at

3:44:17 ↗ uh six to eight classrooms on the high

3:44:20 ↗ school a difference of and then we

3:44:22 ↗ downsized the Elementary from 20

3:44:25 ↗ historic El 32 we're down to 24 on the

3:44:27 ↗ site so eight classrooms there

3:44:29 ↗ so uh you're looking at between the two

3:44:32 ↗ buildings you're going to look you're

3:44:33 ↗ looking at um 16 classrooms of

3:44:38 ↗ reduction so is it fair to say that the

3:44:41 ↗ design of the site remains somewhat

3:44:43 ↗ fluid at this time

3:44:47 ↗ absolutely and can I get you to put up

3:44:50 ↗ uh it's

3:44:52 ↗ 4.2 and the part of it that Mr rre was

3:44:56 ↗ asking about just at the end I believe

3:44:59 ↗ that's

3:45:00 ↗ U few slides

3:45:08 ↗ in

3:45:11 ↗ okay this is this is the one um can you

3:45:14 ↗ explain what the

3:45:16 ↗ stadium uh facility is there I can't

3:45:19 ↗ tell does it have elevated stands next

3:45:22 ↗ to it uh or is that a stadium facility

3:45:26 ↗ that just has

3:45:29 ↗ bleachers I can't quite tell from that

3:45:32 ↗ drawing um I don't believe I see covered

3:45:37 ↗ stands uh on that iteration are covered

3:45:42 ↗ stands an option for this for this

3:45:45 ↗ Stadium or is that something that

3:45:48 ↗ absolutely must be

3:45:50 ↗ there um the district has covered

3:45:53 ↗ homeside stands and all of its other

3:45:55 ↗ three stadiums and so um during the BL

3:45:59 ↗ Bond planning process um we did uh make

3:46:03 ↗ a political promise to our constituents

3:46:06 ↗ that we would have parody and when it

3:46:07 ↗ came to facilities

3:46:11 ↗ those uh designs are still in flux they

3:46:14 ↗ are and I also noticed that the

3:46:17 ↗ elementary school so if those are

3:46:20 ↗ elevated stands uh they would be between

3:46:24 ↗ the stadium or the athletic fields and

3:46:27 ↗ the single family properties to the is

3:46:30 ↗ that

3:46:32 ↗ the north I'm sorry I'm mixed up um West

3:46:37 ↗ West the West yes I believe in most of

3:46:40 ↗ our iterations

3:46:42 ↗ the except for the very early ones this

3:46:45 ↗ the uh the stadium or Sports field um is

3:46:50 ↗ not located it's it's midsite it's in

3:46:52 ↗ the middle of the site surrounded by

3:46:54 ↗ other facilities so there aren't any

3:46:56 ↗ plans to place it next to the single

3:46:58 ↗ family residence there there are no

3:47:00 ↗ plans to place it

3:47:02 ↗ adjacent I don't think I have any

3:47:04 ↗ further questions thank you Mr Haney and

3:47:07 ↗ now redirect to uh Miss Skelton thank

3:47:12 ↗ you could you please put exhibit 4 P 4.3

3:47:17 ↗ up

3:47:20 ↗ again yes thank

3:47:25 ↗ you if you could scroll down to the

3:47:27 ↗ right hand corner and make it just a

3:47:30 ↗ little

3:47:35 ↗ bigger Mr ramw was asking you whether

3:47:38 ↗ the document was labeled as conceptual

3:47:41 ↗ do you recall that yes do you see what's

3:47:44 ↗ written vertically there in the corner

3:47:45 ↗ of that document oh yes pre-application

3:47:48 ↗ meeting

3:47:50 ↗ submitt is it your understanding that

3:47:52 ↗ this is a conceptual plan for the

3:47:55 ↗ district site it

3:47:57 ↗ is uh what kinds of decisions does the

3:48:00 ↗ district have yet to make before it can

3:48:02 ↗ settle on Final

3:48:05 ↗ designs um there are two new many many

3:48:08 ↗ uh counil um including uh location of

3:48:12 ↗ the proposed schools on the site itself

3:48:15 ↗ exit and entrance um the amount of

3:48:18 ↗ traffic queuing traffic

3:48:21 ↗ mitigation um boundaries which also have

3:48:23 ↗ a huge impact on the traffic itself when

3:48:26 ↗ you say boundaries do you mean service

3:48:28 ↗ areas service areas of the buildings yes

3:48:31 ↗ how about classrooms have you decided a

3:48:32 ↗ number of classrooms for the schools no

3:48:34 ↗ um and we are uh facing as I said as

3:48:38 ↗ time goes on the budget our buying power

3:48:41 ↗ decreases so we've had to downsize our

3:48:42 ↗ number of

3:48:44 ↗ classrooms so at this point does the

3:48:46 ↗ district have final plans that would be

3:48:48 ↗ available um to be submitted to the city

3:48:51 ↗ for for review no I don't have any

3:48:53 ↗ further

3:48:54 ↗ questions thank you and I will ask if my

3:48:57 ↗ fellow council members have any

3:48:58 ↗ questions for this witness council

3:49:00 ↗ member good no um I want to follow up on

3:49:03 ↗ some questions about the conceptual

3:49:05 ↗ plans so um you testified that the plan

3:49:09 ↗ aren't final and they're evolving there

3:49:11 ↗ have been 50 iterations so I want to ask

3:49:13 ↗ you about some of the concept elements

3:49:15 ↗ themselves because there's been talk

3:49:16 ↗ about movement around the

3:49:18 ↗ site but um for my understanding um

3:49:22 ↗ there are certain elements that are not

3:49:24 ↗ going to change so one of them would be

3:49:27 ↗ there there would the plan would be

3:49:28 ↗ there's a high school true correct an

3:49:31 ↗ elementary school correct um a stadium

3:49:35 ↗ that would have a football um Field

3:49:38 ↗ track

3:49:40 ↗ uh yes lights you talked about the

3:49:43 ↗ parody so the assumption is there be

3:49:45 ↗ lights yes um seats covered seats

3:49:49 ↗ probably again the parody yep um other

3:49:52 ↗ sports Fields no unlike our other

3:49:55 ↗ schools no other practice field um

3:49:56 ↗ except baseball and our other two

3:49:58 ↗ compens of high schools also have

3:50:00 ↗ practice fields in addition to the main

3:50:01 ↗ stadium um which would not be the case

3:50:03 ↗ on this conceptual design so the other

3:50:06 ↗ sports Fields those are baseball and

3:50:08 ↗ softball that's what I meant so those be

3:50:10 ↗ those Sports Fields correct uh correct

3:50:12 ↗ baseball and soccer

3:50:14 ↗ parking uh we will have to have parking

3:50:16 ↗ yes tennis courts uh tennis courts um

3:50:20 ↗ the number has been in flux that tennis

3:50:22 ↗ courts uh yes potentially tennis courts

3:50:25 ↗ okay um

3:50:28 ↗ Portables get to be determined yes

3:50:31 ↗ Portables probably so all the schools

3:50:34 ↗ that I understand open with Portables

3:50:35 ↗ well there is there a plan place to put

3:50:37 ↗ Portables on the site again we haven't

3:50:40 ↗ finalized and what we often do when

3:50:42 ↗ we're planning these schools is we will

3:50:44 ↗ try to find a place where we could uh

3:50:47 ↗ stub in or pre-plan uh potential

3:50:50 ↗ portable classrooms again we are not to

3:50:52 ↗ a place where we've decided on where the

3:50:54 ↗ number uh Etc okay and so um and you

3:50:58 ↗ testified earlier that um the plan

3:51:02 ↗ generally speaking would be about 14400

3:51:04 ↗ students could that sorry goad which is

3:51:07 ↗ consistent with our our bond planning in

3:51:09 ↗ 2015 and uh following campaign in 16 yes

3:51:13 ↗ okay so could it be that there would be

3:51:14 ↗ more students on there if there were

3:51:16 ↗ Portables on the

3:51:17 ↗ site um hard for uh hard for me to say

3:51:21 ↗ because we haven't drawn the boundaries

3:51:22 ↗ yet or I haven't anticipated um I

3:51:25 ↗ projected potential enrollment but that

3:51:27 ↗ is a long way down the road because

3:51:28 ↗ it'll depend upon long-term land use

3:51:31 ↗ decisions made by uh the cities and

3:51:33 ↗ County okay but generally the elements

3:51:36 ↗ that we just talked about regardless of

3:51:39 ↗ the number of iterations those elements

3:51:41 ↗ on the site would be there yes some some

3:51:43 ↗ area in that site yes more likely than

3:51:46 ↗ not yes okay

3:51:48 ↗ thanks any other questions for this

3:51:52 ↗ witness all right thank you very much

3:51:55 ↗ you're excused now I don't know exactly

3:51:57 ↗ the way to say it but what I have next

3:51:59 ↗ in my order of proceeding is rebuttal

3:52:02 ↗ testimony by appellants Witnesses if

3:52:08 ↗ any

3:52:11 ↗ that' be a question as to whether or not

3:52:12 ↗ at this point in time the um appellants

3:52:15 ↗ wish to call any Witnesses in rebuttal

3:52:18 ↗ do the appellant wish to call any

3:52:19 ↗ Witnesses in

3:52:21 ↗ rebuttal having so much fun here I've

3:52:23 ↗ lost track of

3:52:25 ↗ time we were trying to get this over in

3:52:28 ↗ a certain period how here here's what's

3:52:30 ↗ going to happen on time so we started at

3:52:33 ↗ 814 what I've agreed to uh with my

3:52:36 ↗ fellow council members is that at 11:14

3:52:39 ↗ or thereabouts I'm going to ask them

3:52:41 ↗ what their appetite is if we're still if

3:52:43 ↗ we're still in this hearing I'm going to

3:52:45 ↗ ask them as to their appetite for

3:52:47 ↗ further uh for continuing the hearing

3:52:49 ↗ this evening or continuing it to to a

3:52:51 ↗ later

3:52:52 ↗ point and that was the agreement that I

3:52:54 ↗ had with my Council because there's a

3:52:55 ↗ concern um whether we are uh uh whether

3:52:59 ↗ we're going to be sharp enough if we get

3:53:01 ↗ late enough in the evening to to be of

3:53:03 ↗ good

3:53:04 ↗ service the parties are aware that I am

3:53:07 ↗ not available from tomorrow until the

3:53:10 ↗ 15th um we made it very clear that 3

3:53:13 ↗ hours was we were going to we we were

3:53:15 ↗ going to look at it at three hours and

3:53:17 ↗ if if everybody's having fun then we we

3:53:20 ↗ can keep going and but if not I we had a

3:53:24 ↗ substantive discussion about the exact

3:53:26 ↗ amount of time and three hours was the

3:53:28 ↗ point that I got asked to be to ask my

3:53:30 ↗ fellow council

3:53:32 ↗ members so with with that understanding

3:53:34 ↗ I do have a rebuttal witness who's

3:53:36 ↗ seated next to me um

3:53:39 ↗ we're going to try to expedite his

3:53:42 ↗ testimony um

3:53:46 ↗ and go up so just for our planning

3:53:49 ↗ purposes the district does have a

3:53:51 ↗ rebuttal witness also so if we can share

3:53:53 ↗ the remaining time that would be our

3:53:57 ↗ preference

3:54:00 ↗ well I look to my fellow council members

3:54:02 ↗ council member Ray I'd like to see both

3:54:04 ↗ the rebuttal Witnesses this evening at a

3:54:06 ↗ minimum yes me too

3:54:10 ↗ I'm seeing at least grudging acceptance

3:54:12 ↗ of that concept so we will uh we will

3:54:15 ↗ make sure to hear from both of these

3:54:17 ↗ rebuttal Witnesses this evening and then

3:54:19 ↗ do a time check with my fellow council

3:54:22 ↗ members we will be uh I think generally

3:54:26 ↗ using the same time constraints that U

3:54:30 ↗ as an upper limit uh on this

3:54:36 ↗ process prepare to swear the witness in

3:54:38 ↗ if you please if we're ready thank you

3:54:41 ↗ Mr wner would you please raise your

3:54:42 ↗ right hand do you solemnly swear that

3:54:44 ↗ the testimony you're about to give in

3:54:45 ↗ these proceedings will be the truth the

3:54:47 ↗ whole truth and nothing but the truth as

3:54:49 ↗ I know it

3:54:52 ↗ yes Mr Reon would you please I'm sorry

3:54:54 ↗ can you stop for a second is that a

3:54:56 ↗ standard response to swearing in I've

3:54:59 ↗ not heard it said that way as I know it

3:55:01 ↗ is that acceptable the truth is I know

3:55:03 ↗ it yes yeah I'm just wondering if that

3:55:05 ↗ is a legally appropriate response to

3:55:08 ↗ that question

3:55:09 ↗ I'm asking my

3:55:11 ↗ Council I've never heard that that

3:55:14 ↗ response to being sworn in uh I I have

3:55:17 ↗ not either uh if if it's preferred you

3:55:20 ↗ could ask if he can simply affirm with

3:55:23 ↗ yes if he's comfortable doing that can

3:55:24 ↗ we please redo that amend my response

3:55:28 ↗ yes all right please

3:55:31 ↗ proceed would you state your um full

3:55:33 ↗ name and residence address please my

3:55:36 ↗ name is Dave wner I do business as wner

3:55:39 ↗ Consulting and my address is 502 noreast

3:55:42 ↗ 6th Street in cville Washington

3:55:44 ↗ 98239 and what is your profession Mr

3:55:47 ↗ rner I'm currently a land use consultant

3:55:50 ↗ but I've worked for government um as a

3:55:52 ↗ land use planner community development

3:55:55 ↗ director and planning director for many

3:55:57 ↗ years and um please give your

3:55:59 ↗ educational background I have a

3:56:01 ↗ bachelor's degree in Psychology and a

3:56:03 ↗ master's degree in Environmental Studies

3:56:05 ↗ and have have you served as a public

3:56:09 ↗ official in the planning area in any

3:56:12 ↗ jurisdictions yes I've been the go a

3:56:16 ↗ land new planner in both Clark County

3:56:17 ↗ and Vancouver Washington I've been the

3:56:20 ↗ planning director for city of Sherwood

3:56:21 ↗ Oregon the planning director for

3:56:23 ↗ Josephine County Oregon the community

3:56:26 ↗ development director for Island County

3:56:28 ↗ Washington and the interim community

3:56:30 ↗ development director for Port Angeles

3:56:33 ↗ Washington and you provide planning

3:56:35 ↗ services in each one of those jobs yes

3:56:39 ↗ um uh have you provided a report to the

3:56:44 ↗ city uh regarding these proposals yes I

3:56:48 ↗ did and was that report submitted to the

3:56:51 ↗ policy Planning Commission yes it was um

3:56:55 ↗ H have you served um in any manner as a

3:56:58 ↗ sea responsible official yes I have I

3:57:01 ↗ was a sea responsible official uh for

3:57:04 ↗ Island County and in my role as the

3:57:07 ↗ interim community velopment director for

3:57:09 ↗ Port Angeles I was also the the super

3:57:11 ↗ responsible

3:57:13 ↗ official U by proxy in Clark County by

3:57:17 ↗ proxy I mean I was assigned that role by

3:57:18 ↗ the community development director who

3:57:20 ↗ by title was a super responsible

3:57:22 ↗ official do you have any experience

3:57:24 ↗ planning uh for school sites um or

3:57:28 ↗ School site selection yes and and what

3:57:32 ↗ would that be briefly again at the city

3:57:34 ↗ of Sherwood um I was a member of the

3:57:37 ↗ school facility site citing task force

3:57:40 ↗ and provided a feasibility study for

3:57:43 ↗ that task force um looking

3:57:46 ↗ at several sites around the city and at

3:57:49 ↗ the city's Urban growth boundary um

3:57:51 ↗ which is determined by Metro we're

3:57:54 ↗ controlled um we don't control our Urban

3:57:56 ↗ growth boundary ourselves and surewood

3:57:58 ↗ it's controlled by Metro and in the

3:58:00 ↗ course of that uh study I looked at the

3:58:03 ↗ feasibility of a School site for an

3:58:06 ↗ elementary school and a middle school on

3:58:09 ↗ various

3:58:10 ↗ properties and did EnV both

3:58:12 ↗ environmental and land use analysis of

3:58:14 ↗ those

3:58:17 ↗ properties and um what do you understand

3:58:20 ↗ to be the basics of the school

3:58:23 ↗ district's proposal for this

3:58:25 ↗ property a high school an elementary

3:58:27 ↗ school um serving approximately 2,000

3:58:30 ↗ students

3:58:31 ↗ overall parking a football um football

3:58:35 ↗ or Stadium which would accommodate

3:58:37 ↗ football on track other sports and were

3:58:40 ↗ you here for the entirety of the

3:58:42 ↗ testimony this evening yes

3:58:47 ↗ um based upon what you heard this

3:58:49 ↗ evening and from your other review and

3:58:51 ↗ particularly the um testimony Mr

3:58:55 ↗ Cooper

3:58:57 ↗ can environmental review take place on

3:59:02 ↗ meaningful environmental review take

3:59:05 ↗ place based upon the program

3:59:09 ↗ and project narrative that's been

3:59:12 ↗ Advanced by the school district yes I

3:59:15 ↗ believe it can uh the elements have been

3:59:17 ↗ laid out um and

3:59:19 ↗ confirmed by by staff and the project

3:59:22 ↗ narrative and by School District

3:59:24 ↗ personnel and and tell me the kinds of

3:59:25 ↗ environmental review that that could

3:59:27 ↗ take place based upon um what you've re

3:59:31 ↗ reviewed what I would look at um if say

3:59:35 ↗ I were doing the environmental review if

3:59:37 ↗ that's the nature your question yes um I

3:59:40 ↗ would look at traffic Generation Um the

3:59:42 ↗ existing level of services uh any

3:59:44 ↗ existing traffic studies in the area I

3:59:47 ↗ would look at um any determination of

3:59:50 ↗ concurrency uh from the city engineer um

3:59:54 ↗ I would look of the degree of vegetation

3:59:55 ↗ removal and any potential impacts to

3:59:58 ↗ views drainage erosion um Etc um any

4:00:03 ↗ impacts of removing that vegetation I'd

4:00:05 ↗ look at conceptual site plans that show

4:00:07 ↗ the elements that be allowed

4:00:09 ↗ with the current Zone and elements that

4:00:11 ↗ would be allowed with the the uh zone

4:00:13 ↗ change subject to the sepa um I would

4:00:18 ↗ look at storm water treatment facilities

4:00:21 ↗ that exist that might address impervious

4:00:23 ↗ surfaces on the site um because the site

4:00:27 ↗ plan shows a fairly uh crowded site with

4:00:29 ↗ a high school and an elementary school

4:00:31 ↗ and the and the ball fields uh there

4:00:33 ↗ there's no conceptual uh storm water

4:00:37 ↗ facility I'd look at um potential access

4:00:40 ↗ for students uh pedestrian access for

4:00:43 ↗ students excuse me um I'd look where the

4:00:46 ↗ storm water might be discharged as I

4:00:48 ↗ said the existing high schools and

4:00:50 ↗ stadiums that are in the town already

4:00:52 ↗ that are in esqua and and adjacent

4:00:54 ↗ jurisdictions I look at those and see uh

4:00:57 ↗ did they have uh impacts that needed to

4:00:59 ↗ be mitigated in the sighting of those

4:01:03 ↗ schools um i' look at any Basin studies

4:01:06 ↗ the capital facilities plan especially

4:01:08 ↗ for uh 43rd and

4:01:11 ↗ 228th and potential

4:01:15 ↗ um reconstruction or Improvement of that

4:01:18 ↗ are in a capital facilities plans of

4:01:20 ↗ that Transportation facility and look at

4:01:23 ↗ any existing lighting studies and

4:01:26 ↗ potential environmental impacts that

4:01:28 ↗ were identified in

4:01:29 ↗ those and would would the there's been

4:01:32 ↗ much made by the District

4:01:35 ↗ of the kind of plan in flux for lack of

4:01:39 ↗ a better term um would would the review

4:01:43 ↗ you're talking about be dependent on

4:01:45 ↗ having a precise site plan no it

4:01:49 ↗ wouldn't um if you know the basic

4:01:51 ↗ elements of of uh of the site

4:01:54 ↗ development that's proposed by the

4:01:56 ↗ school district both in their bond um

4:01:58 ↗ and in the con conceptual site plan that

4:02:00 ↗ was that was drafted and presented at

4:02:02 ↗ the preap and on the city's website

4:02:04 ↗ that's the first plan that I looked at

4:02:06 ↗ um that gives you enough to know what

4:02:08 ↗ the potential environmental impacts

4:02:10 ↗ might be and where to look uh to look at

4:02:13 ↗ density and intensity that's the primary

4:02:15 ↗ goal of sea and you usually look at

4:02:18 ↗ information as early in the process as

4:02:20 ↗ you can when you're doing a sea

4:02:22 ↗ environmental review and and would would

4:02:24 ↗ it be possible based upon what you know

4:02:26 ↗ to give substantive answers to the

4:02:28 ↗ questions that are presented in the

4:02:30 ↗ environmental

4:02:32 ↗ checklist yes yes I believe substantive

4:02:35 ↗ answers could have been could have been

4:02:37 ↗ given and let me let me just ask about

4:02:40 ↗ one element of review and that has to do

4:02:42 ↗ with traffic and trip

4:02:44 ↗ generation um the um Miss ker indicated

4:02:48 ↗ that there's going to be approximately a

4:02:51 ↗ 1,400 student high school here and

4:02:54 ↗ approximately 600 student Elementary

4:02:56 ↗ School and a and a stadium based upon

4:02:59 ↗ that information could trip generation

4:03:01 ↗ and impacts on adjacent streets be

4:03:05 ↗ analyzed yes and and how would that be

4:03:08 ↗ done uh primarily I look at the it

4:03:10 ↗ manual as was mentioned earlier um for

4:03:13 ↗ trip generation that also includes some

4:03:16 ↗ information on AM and PM trips uh there

4:03:18 ↗ are existing traffic studies I'm sure in

4:03:20 ↗ the city that show a level of service at

4:03:22 ↗ some of the intersections that might be

4:03:23 ↗ impacted from this site because it is a

4:03:25 ↗ single access onto 228 and 43rd um where

4:03:29 ↗ the traffic goes from there is fairly

4:03:31 ↗ easy to

4:03:33 ↗ predict and would

4:03:36 ↗ um would it be possible to review the

4:03:41 ↗ traffic impacts or the difference in

4:03:44 ↗ traffic impacts from say a residential

4:03:46 ↗ development on the

4:03:49 ↗ property um that would be permitted by

4:03:51 ↗ the current zoning and the schools

4:03:55 ↗ proposal single family residential has

4:03:57 ↗ has a number assigned uh per the number

4:03:59 ↗ of potential units it would that would

4:04:02 ↗ be allowed under the current zoning and

4:04:05 ↗ then looking at square footage even a

4:04:07 ↗ range of square footage for the proposed

4:04:10 ↗ site improvements you would look at the

4:04:11 ↗ difference between the two and and have

4:04:14 ↗ have you looked at the difference

4:04:16 ↗ between trip generation for single

4:04:19 ↗ family development on this property and

4:04:20 ↗ a um and the school's proposal I would

4:04:24 ↗ defer to Mr Tillman's report that was uh

4:04:26 ↗ because he's the transportation planner

4:04:28 ↗ who submitted that as part of the

4:04:31 ↗ planning public policy meeting okay

4:04:36 ↗ um

4:04:39 ↗ do do you believe the answers in the

4:04:42 ↗ checklist that were provided by City

4:04:45 ↗ staff to be sufficient for sea purposes

4:04:48 ↗ no why um for for example if I may um

4:04:54 ↗ the cumulative impacts um the cumulative

4:04:58 ↗ impacts are looking at all when you're

4:05:00 ↗ filling out a checklist and you're

4:05:02 ↗ looking at uh the cumulative impacts of

4:05:05 ↗ all the rezone and comprehensive plan

4:05:07 ↗ amendments

4:05:08 ↗ um actually on the back of the checklist

4:05:11 ↗ um attachments list all the zones and

4:05:14 ↗ how they're being changed there's 11

4:05:16 ↗ Parcels that are ldr that are going to

4:05:18 ↗ become recreational facilities there are

4:05:19 ↗ two that are mixed use that will become

4:05:21 ↗ facilities and there's one retail

4:05:22 ↗ commercial that will become facilities

4:05:24 ↗ so there's an impact there in the change

4:05:26 ↗ of land use what Parcels are available

4:05:28 ↗ for what uses there's actually an impact

4:05:30 ↗ to housing um as a result of that and do

4:05:34 ↗ you excuse me so that is one example

4:05:36 ↗ where I think the checklist was was

4:05:38 ↗ deficient okay also looking at Citywide

4:05:41 ↗ what are um the zones and what they

4:05:44 ↗ allow uh rather than on sites because

4:05:48 ↗ we're actually talking about the reone

4:05:49 ↗ of particular properties okay no further

4:05:53 ↗ questions all right and with that I

4:05:55 ↗ would ask uh Mr Haney if he wishes to

4:05:59 ↗ cross-examine this witness you know

4:06:02 ↗ actually uh council president Marts I

4:06:04 ↗ think it may make more sense since the

4:06:06 ↗ district has a a witness that's in

4:06:09 ↗ direct rebuttal to this witness if the

4:06:12 ↗ district wants to do its

4:06:13 ↗ cross-examination I was offer them next

4:06:16 ↗ so if you're your answer is you can go

4:06:18 ↗ ahead if you have

4:06:24 ↗ questions okay um Mr Wagner the

4:06:31 ↗ um we do understand that the current

4:06:35 ↗ zoning of single family small lot allows

4:06:38 ↗ elementary schools correct yes and so

4:06:42 ↗ allowing an elementary school on this

4:06:43 ↗ site is no change from the current

4:06:46 ↗ situation

4:06:48 ↗ correct correct and you also understand

4:06:52 ↗ uh Mr Wagner that the current zoning

4:06:56 ↗ allows athletic fields that are open to

4:06:58 ↗ the public baseball fields football

4:07:01 ↗ fields and soccer fields that are open

4:07:03 ↗ to the public is that correct fields

4:07:06 ↗ that are open to the public yes

4:07:09 ↗ and the stadium is a field that will be

4:07:12 ↗ open to the public is it

4:07:16 ↗ not I don't know whether that would be

4:07:18 ↗ open to the public but a stadium is

4:07:20 ↗ otherwise defined in the code isn't Mr

4:07:23 ↗ uh Wagner the testimony that you heard

4:07:27 ↗ tonight from Mr Cooper is that the

4:07:29 ↗ stadium will be used by the public

4:07:31 ↗ didn't you hear

4:07:34 ↗ that I'm not sure that I did but I'll

4:07:36 ↗ take your word for it is at is is having

4:07:39 ↗ a football field a baseball and baseball

4:07:42 ↗ fields and soccer fields on this site

4:07:45 ↗ different from the current zoning

4:07:48 ↗ significantly

4:07:54 ↗ different not sure I understand your

4:07:56 ↗ question um a grass field where a play

4:07:59 ↗ is allowed is different than a football

4:08:02 ↗ stadium that

4:08:04 ↗ seats the number of people that football

4:08:06 ↗ stadiums generally see in your city is

4:08:08 ↗ it your testimony Mr Wagner that all

4:08:11 ↗ that's allowed under the current zoning

4:08:13 ↗ is a grass

4:08:14 ↗ field it says play fields that are open

4:08:17 ↗ to the public

4:08:18 ↗ I don't know if it's any more specific

4:08:21 ↗ than that say football fields baseball

4:08:23 ↗ fields and soccer fields that are open

4:08:26 ↗ to the public does it

4:08:28 ↗ not I'm not certain I can answer that

4:08:31 ↗ definitively no so you're you're not

4:08:34 ↗ familiar with what the code currently

4:08:36 ↗ allows relating to sports

4:08:39 ↗ fields in an sfsl

4:08:42 ↗ zone I'm not as familiar with the the

4:08:44 ↗ code as you are

4:08:52 ↗ yes now there was testimony earlier

4:08:55 ↗ about

4:08:56 ↗ the uh design changing with respect to

4:09:01 ↗ the high school you heard that testimony

4:09:04 ↗ yes and the high school ranges anywhere

4:09:09 ↗ from 1,200 students to 1,600 students

4:09:13 ↗ was that the testimony you heard yes

4:09:16 ↗ does that make any difference in

4:09:18 ↗ environmental

4:09:21 ↗ analysis it may make some incremental uh

4:09:24 ↗ difference depending upon the amount the

4:09:26 ↗ the size of the facility and the amount

4:09:27 ↗ of traffic generated yes and isn't it

4:09:30 ↗ also true that uh the testimony was that

4:09:36 ↗ the there was at one point a 240,000 sqt

4:09:41 ↗ high school and then there was a

4:09:43 ↗ 215,000 ft high school did you hear that

4:09:47 ↗ testimony yes I did I've also read that

4:09:50 ↗ the

4:09:51 ↗ U student estimates for the elementary

4:09:54 ↗ school I didn't ask you about that I

4:09:56 ↗ asked you about the size of the the high

4:09:59 ↗ school building okay and did you also

4:10:03 ↗ hear the testimony that in fact the high

4:10:05 ↗ school is smaller now that additional

4:10:07 ↗ class classrooms had been cut out of the

4:10:08 ↗ high

4:10:09 ↗ school I heard that for budgetary

4:10:11 ↗ reasons Mr Cooper did state that yes and

4:10:14 ↗ wouldn't that make a difference as far

4:10:17 ↗ as the traffic generation and

4:10:21 ↗ Analysis it probably

4:10:27 ↗ would and if the uh site plans for the

4:10:32 ↗ high school

4:10:33 ↗ changed between what they are now uh and

4:10:39 ↗ what they might be when a master site

4:10:41 ↗ plan is uh submitted that could change

4:10:45 ↗ the environmental analysis as well could

4:10:47 ↗ it not yes it would an additional

4:10:50 ↗ environmental analysis would be required

4:10:54 ↗ because the project as constructed will

4:10:56 ↗ require additional super review yes and

4:10:59 ↗ and wouldn't it be fair to say Mr Wagner

4:11:02 ↗ that at the time that there is an actual

4:11:04 ↗ site plan and you know the actual size

4:11:07 ↗ and configuration of the buildings on

4:11:10 ↗ this site and the number of students

4:11:12 ↗ that the high school is going to have

4:11:14 ↗ that you'd be able to do a better

4:11:15 ↗ environmental analysis at that point of

4:11:18 ↗ the impacts of that facility than you

4:11:20 ↗ can do now you would do a more refined

4:11:22 ↗ analysis

4:11:24 ↗ yes no further

4:11:26 ↗ questions thank you

4:11:29 ↗ Skelton Mr wner you testified you had

4:11:32 ↗ experience with school sighting in uh

4:11:34 ↗ Sherwood yes is that in Oregon yes so

4:11:37 ↗ that sighting wasn't subject to the

4:11:40 ↗ Washington growth management Act is that

4:11:42 ↗ right nor sea um the state of Oregon has

4:11:46 ↗ land use goals um that cover many of the

4:11:50 ↗ same areas of the 16 items on the

4:11:52 ↗ question right thank you um you

4:11:55 ↗ testified completed that analysis yeah

4:11:57 ↗ so you testified that there could be

4:12:00 ↗ meaningful review on the district's

4:12:02 ↗ project plans sorry you're not hearing

4:12:04 ↗ me I'm not okay you testified that there

4:12:06 ↗ could be meeting full review on the

4:12:08 ↗ district's project plans is that right

4:12:10 ↗ yes and that presupposes that there are

4:12:12 ↗ of course plans to review correct um

4:12:16 ↗ plans or elements of the project yes so

4:12:19 ↗ elements of the project what do you mean

4:12:20 ↗ by that um those described in the

4:12:23 ↗ project narrative oh so either a

4:12:25 ↗ narrative description of the project or

4:12:27 ↗ project plans yes okay and so for

4:12:31 ↗ example vegetation removal analysis that

4:12:34 ↗ would require um a statement of of what

4:12:36 ↗ trees would be be removed is that

4:12:38 ↗ correct yes okay and storm Water

4:12:41 ↗ Analysis the same thing it would require

4:12:43 ↗ an analysis of the amount of surface

4:12:45 ↗ area that's covered is that

4:12:47 ↗ right surface area and Analysis of

4:12:50 ↗ existing storm water facilities and

4:12:52 ↗ their capacity and access would of

4:12:55 ↗ course require an analysis of the number

4:12:57 ↗ and locations of the access points is

4:12:58 ↗ that

4:12:59 ↗ correct uh generally speaking yes and

4:13:03 ↗ lighting of course an analysis of

4:13:04 ↗ lighting would require detail knowing

4:13:06 ↗ detail about how the lighting would be

4:13:08 ↗ set up is that

4:13:11 ↗ correct that's more refined analysis

4:13:14 ↗ that than one would normally do

4:13:16 ↗ yes and with respect to tip trip

4:13:18 ↗ generation and traffic impacts you would

4:13:21 ↗ need to understand things like the

4:13:22 ↗ service areas for the school

4:13:24 ↗ correct correct so you would need a lot

4:13:27 ↗ of details in order to be able to

4:13:28 ↗ undertake those types of environmental

4:13:30 ↗ analysis

4:13:33 ↗ right yes I don't have any further

4:13:36 ↗ questions thank you uh and then I will

4:13:40 ↗ offer Mr aramaru on

4:13:46 ↗ redir for purposes of

4:13:48 ↗ doing environmental

4:13:51 ↗ review isn't it the case that you

4:13:53 ↗ usually refer to the worst case scenario

4:13:57 ↗ for a

4:13:59 ↗ property I like to call it the allowed

4:14:02 ↗ case scenarios yes uh those that are

4:14:04 ↗ allowed by zoning and those that have

4:14:06 ↗ been previously

4:14:08 ↗ um permitted or or on in existence such

4:14:12 ↗ as lighting of a stadium okay and um and

4:14:17 ↗ that analysis would would then take into

4:14:20 ↗ account what the project objectives were

4:14:24 ↗ that's identified by the proponent for

4:14:27 ↗ the reone would that be correct correct

4:14:30 ↗ and uh in your testimony did you take

4:14:33 ↗ account of all of those

4:14:35 ↗ factors yes

4:14:38 ↗ and with with regard to U assessing for

4:14:42 ↗ example trip

4:14:44 ↗ Generation Um the the testimony from Mr

4:14:49 ↗ Cooper tonight was that the anticipated

4:14:53 ↗ size students or the number of students

4:14:56 ↗ at the high school is about 1,400 is

4:14:58 ↗ that right correct and does that does

4:15:01 ↗ that permit environmental analysis of

4:15:04 ↗ trip generation and other similar um

4:15:09 ↗ kinds of impacts yes it would okay thank

4:15:12 ↗ you no further

4:15:14 ↗ questions any questions from Council

4:15:18 ↗ Members council member

4:15:20 ↗ winterstein thank you Mr Wagner I've

4:15:23 ↗ heard tonight uh that we have a practice

4:15:25 ↗ here in the city about was originally

4:15:28 ↗ called like phase one phase two I think

4:15:30 ↗ we were suggested that we call it nonpr

4:15:32 ↗ action and project

4:15:34 ↗ action um um

4:15:37 ↗ review uh and

4:15:41 ↗ um and I heard tonight that uh a

4:15:46 ↗ detailed analysis of this particular

4:15:49 ↗ site wasn't done because and and we

4:15:51 ↗ followed what we called nonon

4:15:53 ↗ non-project action kind of review have

4:15:56 ↗ you do you have familiarity with that

4:15:58 ↗ type of analysis and um do you you tell

4:16:03 ↗ me about your experience with doing

4:16:06 ↗ project non project as it was exp as it

4:16:09 ↗ was explained how we do it here um well

4:16:12 ↗ every jurisdiction that that has

4:16:15 ↗ comprehensive plan change or reone

4:16:16 ↗ change those are required to a SE a

4:16:19 ↗ checklist is is gone is filled out for

4:16:22 ↗ those projects and a determination is

4:16:25 ↗ made um either non-significance

4:16:28 ↗ mitigated non-significance or perhaps

4:16:30 ↗ even a determination of significance

4:16:32 ↗ depending upon the intensity or density

4:16:35 ↗ those are the two main factors that

4:16:36 ↗ you're looking at um in a checklist and

4:16:39 ↗ the change that that comprehensive plan

4:16:41 ↗ and zone change would entail so the

4:16:44 ↗ elements of a project or the changes in

4:16:46 ↗ intensity or density of the uses that

4:16:48 ↗ would be allowed by the new zone so

4:16:50 ↗ that's pretty much the scope of the

4:16:51 ↗ nonpr portion of it but if you have

4:16:54 ↗ elements of a site that are known such

4:16:57 ↗ as the soils and such as um water

4:17:00 ↗ features are on the site and other other

4:17:02 ↗ factors uh you would also detail those

4:17:05 ↗ in your sea checklist

4:17:07 ↗ so the public is aware of what's

4:17:09 ↗ available and what's What's um involved

4:17:12 ↗ in that particular site because sep is

4:17:15 ↗ primarily a public notice document about

4:17:18 ↗ the environmental elements of a project

4:17:21 ↗ and what might be affected um in a

4:17:23 ↗ change in this case of zoning okay thank

4:17:28 ↗ you I'm I'm sorry have you done a phased

4:17:31 ↗ review in Washington

4:17:34 ↗ state a phased review I've done non

4:17:37 ↗ project and

4:17:40 ↗ project so we in our briefs today we got

4:17:43 ↗ a very specific definition of what a

4:17:45 ↗ phased review was have you done a phased

4:17:47 ↗ review in Washington

4:17:53 ↗ state no I have not okay thank you not

4:17:56 ↗ one that I can recall thank you any

4:18:00 ↗ other

4:18:01 ↗ questions member Goodman no all right uh

4:18:05 ↗ and I'm sorry to have to do this but

4:18:06 ↗ simply have to do a 5minute bio break so

4:18:09 ↗ um we're going to we're going to do a

4:18:11 ↗ 5minute bio break and then we will get

4:18:12 ↗ to the district's uh

4:18:35 ↗ Witness

4:24:54 ↗ and we are back um I want to ask Mr uh

4:24:58 ↗ Mr Haney are you going to have any rutal

4:25:00 ↗ Witnesses this

4:25:02 ↗ evening no I am not all right with that

4:25:05 ↗ I will we will return uh to miss Skelton

4:25:09 ↗ and uh her rebuttal witness thank you

4:25:12 ↗ the district calls Wayne Carlson to the

4:25:20 ↗ [Applause]

4:25:25 ↗ stand um you swear that the testimony

4:25:28 ↗ you're about to give will be the truth

4:25:29 ↗ the whole truth and nothing but the

4:25:31 ↗ truth

4:25:32 ↗ yes Mr Carlson could you please State

4:25:35 ↗ your full name for the record

4:25:36 ↗ Wayne Carlson and where do you currently

4:25:39 ↗ work I work for ahbl uh 1200 uh 6th

4:25:44 ↗ Avenue in Seattle and what is your job

4:25:48 ↗ I'm a principal planner uh at ahbl

4:25:52 ↗ managing a staff of 10 planners in three

4:25:55 ↗ offices and can you briefly describe

4:25:57 ↗ your educational background sure I have

4:25:59 ↗ a masters in city and Regional planning

4:26:01 ↗ from Ohio

4:26:03 ↗ State and are you certified as a land UC

4:26:06 ↗ planner I am I've been certified since

4:26:10 ↗ 1996 and are you a fellow of the

4:26:12 ↗ American Institute of certified planners

4:26:15 ↗ I am yes and is that a selective process

4:26:18 ↗ it is yeah there's about uh I think a

4:26:20 ↗ thousand uh fellows since the Inception

4:26:24 ↗ of it uh maybe 20 years or so ago

4:26:27 ↗ throughout the

4:26:28 ↗ country what kind of uh work do you

4:26:31 ↗ currently do as a land use planner for

4:26:34 ↗ ahbl I do AIT of both Uh current and

4:26:37 ↗ long range uh planning uh activities uh

4:26:41 ↗ we do uh amendments to comprehensive

4:26:43 ↗ plans and Zoning codes uh SE

4:26:45 ↗ environmental review and then also we uh

4:26:49 ↗ uh do uh school projects and and things

4:26:51 ↗ like that so you referenced sepa

4:26:55 ↗ presumably you're familiar with the

4:26:56 ↗ provisions of sea I am and are you

4:26:59 ↗ specifically familiar with the sea

4:27:01 ↗ checklist I am have you previously done

4:27:04 ↗ a phased review I have have

4:27:06 ↗ approximately how many

4:27:08 ↗ times probably three to four times and

4:27:12 ↗ how many sea checklists have you

4:27:15 ↗ completed in the 25 years I've been a

4:27:18 ↗ planner in Washington state I have

4:27:20 ↗ probably I've done somewhere between 3

4:27:22 ↗ and 400 um that's on average maybe one a

4:27:25 ↗ month uh maybe a little bit

4:27:28 ↗ more could we put exhibit C8 on the

4:27:34 ↗ screen

4:27:45 ↗ this is the sea checklist in this appeal

4:27:47 ↗ have you reviewed this document I have

4:27:49 ↗ could you scroll down to section B

4:27:59 ↗ please there there you go what is

4:28:02 ↗ section B of the sea checklist so

4:28:05 ↗ section B is a a section where uh

4:28:08 ↗ individual environmental elements

4:28:10 ↗ associated with a proposal are are

4:28:13 ↗ described and uh and

4:28:16 ↗ analyzed and they deal with earth water

4:28:20 ↗ transportation you know Public Services

4:28:23 ↗ Aesthetics those types of

4:28:25 ↗ things when you've previously worked on

4:28:27 ↗ SE reviews have you done non Project

4:28:30 ↗ Specific reviews yeah of those uh 3 to

4:28:33 ↗ 400 uh environmental uh do documents and

4:28:36 ↗ they include uh checklist Eis planned

4:28:39 ↗ action

4:28:40 ↗ E's um I'd say somewhere between 5 and

4:28:43 ↗ 10% of those have been non project so

4:28:46 ↗ somewhere maybe 30 to 40 over my career

4:28:49 ↗ non project do you have a standard

4:28:52 ↗ approach to section B for non project uh

4:28:55 ↗ sea

4:28:56 ↗ reviews yes uh for the the

4:29:00 ↗ cities and I've been working with uh uh

4:29:03 ↗ Belleview samamish Bothel new castle and

4:29:07 ↗ uh typically when we do a a non project

4:29:10 ↗ sepa uh environmental

4:29:13 ↗ review uh as as allowed under uh wack

4:29:17 ↗ 197

4:29:18 ↗ 11235 we don't fill out section B um

4:29:22 ↗ because section B is a section that is

4:29:24 ↗ is it's almost a blunt tool for a

4:29:28 ↗ non-project uh environmental review it

4:29:31 ↗ it it asks a lot of questions that are

4:29:34 ↗ uh really geared to to project

4:29:36 ↗ environmental review and so what we do

4:29:38 ↗ is uh section A we acknowledge uh that

4:29:41 ↗ that we won't be SE filling out section

4:29:43 ↗ B under uh again 19711 235 and then we

4:29:48 ↗ fill out uh the signature which is

4:29:50 ↗ section c and then D which is the non

4:29:54 ↗ project so is it your opinion that it's

4:29:56 ↗ incorrect to fill out section B of the

4:29:58 ↗ sea checklist no it's not uh it's not

4:30:01 ↗ incorrect at all it you know in some

4:30:03 ↗ respects it may add even some uh

4:30:05 ↗ additional information but it's not

4:30:08 ↗ necessary and why is it that you do not

4:30:10 ↗ fill out section B well uh some of our

4:30:13 ↗ clients find it it it it's confusing to

4:30:16 ↗ the public when you are uh asking

4:30:19 ↗ questions um that that are that are that

4:30:23 ↗ were clearly designed for uh project

4:30:25 ↗ proposals but for uh non-project uh uh

4:30:29 ↗ requests things like updating a a

4:30:32 ↗ comprehensive plan or uh an impact Fe

4:30:35 ↗ ordinance for for instance you know all

4:30:36 ↗ of those require seep environmental

4:30:38 ↗ review and the questions for the most

4:30:40 ↗ part um for non project just don't make

4:30:42 ↗ a lot of

4:30:44 ↗ sense are you familiar with the single

4:30:47 ↗ family small rot zoning designation in

4:30:50 ↗ the city of isqua I am and how about the

4:30:53 ↗ community facilities facilities

4:30:56 ↗ designation I am what is your

4:30:58 ↗ understanding of the purpose of the

4:31:00 ↗ community facilities facilities

4:31:02 ↗ designation it's my understanding the

4:31:04 ↗ community fac facilities facilities

4:31:07 ↗ designation is is a is a a zoning

4:31:11 ↗ designation to implement the community

4:31:14 ↗ facilities comp plan

4:31:16 ↗ designation which is used for publicly

4:31:18 ↗ owned properties and uh and and those

4:31:22 ↗ facilities would be essentially any

4:31:24 ↗ public facility with the exception of

4:31:27 ↗ unprogrammed open space which is

4:31:29 ↗ community

4:31:31 ↗ facilities and uh with the exception of

4:31:34 ↗ community facilities parks that are

4:31:36 ↗ programmed so all of the others whether

4:31:38 ↗ they're transmission stations uh schools

4:31:42 ↗ Etc kind of all fall within that kind of

4:31:45 ↗ broad

4:31:47 ↗ category based on your understanding of

4:31:49 ↗ the land use zones that issue here the

4:31:51 ↗ single family small lot and the

4:31:53 ↗ community facility facilities is there

4:31:56 ↗ anything that's necessarily

4:31:57 ↗ inappropriate about citing a school next

4:32:00 ↗ to a single family residential zone no

4:32:04 ↗ and why is that

4:32:06 ↗ schools are are near uh residential uses

4:32:09 ↗ all the time it it they're considered to

4:32:11 ↗ be a good typically good neighbors for

4:32:15 ↗ uh residential areas um you want schools

4:32:19 ↗ distributed throughout a a school

4:32:21 ↗ district and and so you you want schools

4:32:24 ↗ to be near where uh you know people

4:32:27 ↗ live you've heard the testimony tonight

4:32:30 ↗ about the school district's conceptual

4:32:32 ↗ plans for the cited issue here is that

4:32:34 ↗ right yes based on your understanding of

4:32:38 ↗ the status of those plans would it be

4:32:40 ↗ possible to conduct a meaningful

4:32:42 ↗ environmental review of those plans not

4:32:45 ↗ meaningful project environmental review

4:32:47 ↗ and why is that there's still too many

4:32:50 ↗ things moving around um we we heard from

4:32:52 ↗ Mr Cooper that uh that the the student

4:32:55 ↗ count uh has been varying by you know

4:32:58 ↗ nearly uh 15 to 20% the number of

4:33:01 ↗ classrooms by by 25% and so there's and

4:33:04 ↗ and we don't know where those

4:33:06 ↗ elements uh that uh could generate

4:33:09 ↗ impacts are are necessarily even going

4:33:12 ↗ to be on the site especially with

4:33:14 ↗ respect to things like uh you know light

4:33:15 ↗ and

4:33:16 ↗ glare how about with respect to traffic

4:33:19 ↗ what would you need to know to to

4:33:20 ↗ analyze traffic

4:33:22 ↗ impacts well um a couple things we would

4:33:27 ↗ uh need to know the size of the school

4:33:29 ↗ and and how many students but but that's

4:33:31 ↗ only the very first step that would uh

4:33:33 ↗ establish trip generation but a traffic

4:33:36 ↗ study is so much more than trip

4:33:38 ↗ Generation Um and as Mr Cooper kind of

4:33:40 ↗ pointed out they don't even know exactly

4:33:43 ↗ yet what the service boundaries are so

4:33:46 ↗ trip generation is really just a

4:33:47 ↗ threshold uh uh a figure but then you

4:33:50 ↗ have to figure out where are the these

4:33:52 ↗ trips actually going to go where are the

4:33:54 ↗ students coming from and so you have to

4:33:56 ↗ take those trips and you split them and

4:33:58 ↗ distribute them among the network and to

4:34:00 ↗ the intersections and so without knowing

4:34:02 ↗ the service area map you can't do a

4:34:04 ↗ traffic impact

4:34:06 ↗ analysis thank you have any further

4:34:08 ↗ questions at this time thank you um

4:34:11 ↗ before we move on uh to the Cross uh any

4:34:14 ↗ questions from

4:34:15 ↗ Council nope I invite the appell

4:34:18 ↗ appellant to uh cross examine witness so

4:34:23 ↗ when were you retained to provide your

4:34:26 ↗ testimony

4:34:28 ↗ tonight I think I uh be uh learned of

4:34:32 ↗ this uh very late last week

4:34:35 ↗ so have you been out to the property I

4:34:38 ↗ have uh have you reviewed the plans I

4:34:41 ↗ I've reviewed yeah I have reviewed the

4:34:43 ↗ plans so you got involved late last week

4:34:46 ↗ I got yeah I was working this weekend it

4:34:48 ↗ wasn't yeah it wasn't fine okay so it's

4:34:52 ↗ I as a matter of fact um and so

4:34:57 ↗ um but you're not regularly working for

4:34:59 ↗ the school district on this site is that

4:35:01 ↗ correct no I'm not C can you do

4:35:03 ↗ environmental review if uh on a and fill

4:35:06 ↗ out these section B checklists if uh or

4:35:12 ↗ answers uh if you knew where the site

4:35:14 ↗ was and what was what was very likely to

4:35:18 ↗ be proposed on it you could do the

4:35:20 ↗ things for like earth and water but uh

4:35:23 ↗ things like Aesthetics No Light No noise

4:35:27 ↗ no because those are uh contingent on

4:35:30 ↗ where those elements are placed within

4:35:32 ↗ the site so about half of them you could

4:35:35 ↗ and and maybe another half you couldn't

4:35:37 ↗ so you you couldn't uh you could not

4:35:39 ↗ complete environmental review on this

4:35:42 ↗ without having a a pretty complete site

4:35:44 ↗ plan well let's let's take question uh

4:35:48 ↗ you you could move that over for me so

4:35:49 ↗ we have a full view of the so let's just

4:35:53 ↗ take question um

4:35:55 ↗ 1B can you um for this property can you

4:36:00 ↗ figure out what the steepest slope on

4:36:01 ↗ the site is yeah you can do you can do

4:36:04 ↗ like I said you do earth okay that's

4:36:07 ↗ that's easy to do um General description

4:36:10 ↗ of the site can you can you do

4:36:14 ↗ that for the topography yes yeah can you

4:36:17 ↗ can you figure out what the general

4:36:19 ↗ types of soils

4:36:24 ↗ are no not in a meaningful way because

4:36:27 ↗ uh USDA soil surveys are not are uh

4:36:30 ↗ are not very accurate so with with

4:36:34 ↗ respect ECT to the the infiltration

4:36:37 ↗ capacity of soils and and understanding

4:36:39 ↗ the soils on the site and how they

4:36:41 ↗ relate to uh the environment and uh no

4:36:45 ↗ you couldn't do that without getting a

4:36:47 ↗ geotechnical engineer out there and you

4:36:49 ↗ wouldn't start drilling holes for a

4:36:50 ↗ geotechnical without a site plan but it

4:36:53 ↗ talks about the general types of soils

4:36:55 ↗ found in the site don't don't don't we

4:36:57 ↗ have USGS and other maps that provide

4:37:00 ↗ the general types of soils here with the

4:37:02 ↗ glacial till they're uh wildly

4:37:04 ↗ inaccurate

4:37:06 ↗ but but but but there are those sources

4:37:08 ↗ of information available are there not I

4:37:10 ↗ don't think I trust them oh you don't

4:37:12 ↗ trust them okay um so but have you ever

4:37:15 ↗ answered a question about the general

4:37:17 ↗ types of soils on the site by saying

4:37:20 ↗ well the city of isqua has all sorts of

4:37:21 ↗ soils you ever given an answer like

4:37:25 ↗ that like this one here well if I was

4:37:28 ↗ doing a an analysis of Citywide soils uh

4:37:32 ↗ yeah I would if you're trying to say

4:37:35 ↗ whether I do it for a project specific

4:37:38 ↗ project

4:37:39 ↗ site then then no but this is for it's

4:37:42 ↗ my understanding this environmental

4:37:43 ↗ checklist was for a whole Suite of uh

4:37:47 ↗ comprehensive plan and Zoning code

4:37:49 ↗ Amendments of which this was one of just

4:37:51 ↗ uh several and so I I I think that

4:37:54 ↗ answer um would be

4:37:57 ↗ appropriate did you talk about what's

4:37:58 ↗ going on the whole

4:37:59 ↗ city yeah these disperate sites

4:38:02 ↗ throughout the

4:38:03 ↗ city

4:38:07 ↗ so for your project for your um

4:38:11 ↗ non-project review um does the non

4:38:15 ↗ project review um focus on known plans

4:38:21 ↗ for the

4:38:24 ↗ property not necessarily no because uh

4:38:27 ↗ zones have a a whole variety of uh

4:38:31 ↗ available uses that that are allowed and

4:38:34 ↗ so no we would uh non project we would

4:38:37 ↗ look at what are the uh the differences

4:38:40 ↗ in potential

4:38:42 ↗ uses that are available in either the uh

4:38:47 ↗ um the residential district that's

4:38:49 ↗ currently there or the

4:38:51 ↗ CF um

4:38:53 ↗ cff well let's not kid ourselves you

4:38:56 ↗ know as well as I do that that the

4:38:58 ↗ school district needs this property to

4:39:00 ↗ put up a high school that was permitted

4:39:03 ↗ under the 2016 Levy

4:39:05 ↗ we can agree on that can

4:39:07 ↗ we yeah you you can't build a high

4:39:09 ↗ school without a a reone without the

4:39:12 ↗ reone okay so so the impact of the

4:39:15 ↗ rezone is to allow a high school which

4:39:18 ↗ would not otherwise be permitted can we

4:39:20 ↗ agree on

4:39:21 ↗ that yeah and if we know the kind and

4:39:24 ↗ type of high school we know the number

4:39:26 ↗ of students and the size we can do some

4:39:28 ↗ environmental review can't we we don't

4:39:30 ↗ know the number of uh we don't know the

4:39:32 ↗ number of classrooms we don't know the

4:39:34 ↗ number of students I've heard some

4:39:35 ↗ pretty broad ranges well that's fine

4:39:38 ↗ there's always broad ranges don't don't

4:39:40 ↗ you ordinarily when you're doing this

4:39:42 ↗ kind of review try to look at the most

4:39:44 ↗ probable or worst case scenario in these

4:39:47 ↗ situations you look at probable

4:39:49 ↗ environmental impacts but not worse case

4:39:51 ↗ that's not the way the law reads okay

4:39:53 ↗ okay but the but the

4:39:54 ↗ probable use of this property is for a

4:39:57 ↗ 1400 student high school that's what we

4:39:59 ↗ heard tonight right I heard anywhere

4:40:02 ↗ from 12200 to 1600 well fine so so you

4:40:05 ↗ you you're going to give up on

4:40:07 ↗ environmental review because you don't

4:40:09 ↗ know whether it's going to be 14 or,

4:40:10 ↗ 1600 is that the way you do your

4:40:12 ↗ business no I'm going to wait until I I

4:40:14 ↗ I I know through phase environmental

4:40:17 ↗ review and but that phase environmental

4:40:21 ↗ review on the high school is not going

4:40:22 ↗ to take place without the reone is

4:40:25 ↗ it yeah there there there will be a

4:40:27 ↗ second phase yeah I understand but you

4:40:29 ↗ got to do the reone first don't

4:40:33 ↗ you you you know you don't even get to

4:40:36 ↗ this idea of having a site plan unless

4:40:38 ↗ this rezone happens

4:40:41 ↗ correct no I mean you could get to a

4:40:44 ↗ site plan without a a reone I mean I

4:40:46 ↗ think there's even a provision within

4:40:47 ↗ the city's codes that allow uh the uh

4:40:52 ↗ the review of of of these prior to uh to

4:40:57 ↗ to rezone but right now there is no site

4:41:00 ↗ plan have you have you asked that's a

4:41:03 ↗ part of your task ask did you go to the

4:41:06 ↗ school district and say look I'm going

4:41:07 ↗ to give some testimony out here on

4:41:09 ↗ Monday night what's what's going on out

4:41:11 ↗ there give me the best idea the best

4:41:14 ↗ iteration that you have right now of

4:41:16 ↗ this of what you're going to do on this

4:41:17 ↗ property did you do that I did you did

4:41:20 ↗ what they said they said we're still

4:41:22 ↗ working the site plans so so you didn't

4:41:24 ↗ ask for the best the the best and most

4:41:27 ↗ current um plan for the property I I

4:41:31 ↗ asked you know what what is the proposal

4:41:33 ↗ and uh you know I've seen a

4:41:36 ↗ couple okay no further

4:41:40 ↗ questions any questions from uh council

4:41:43 ↗ members before we move

4:41:45 ↗ on no all right oh council member Ray

4:41:48 ↗ and um you go down on

4:41:52 ↗ this I think it's section

4:41:57 ↗ D so cuz we filled out section B it's a

4:42:01 ↗ ways it's a little

4:42:03 ↗ journey

4:42:14 ↗ more I should have told you the page I

4:42:27 ↗ apologize almost there go back oh that

4:42:31 ↗ was right here so this is the non

4:42:33 ↗ project supplement

4:42:35 ↗ and so I was curious about this since

4:42:37 ↗ this is a

4:42:38 ↗ nonpr event we're talking about and

4:42:41 ↗ these talk about things such as um the

4:42:45 ↗ discharge of water and measures to avoid

4:42:48 ↗ such and reduce such increases are and

4:42:51 ↗ then there's one later about

4:42:52 ↗ Transportation I'm just kind of curious

4:42:55 ↗ if this

4:42:56 ↗ is stuff that would you would typically

4:42:58 ↗ do during a

4:43:01 ↗ non-project um checklist correct yes D

4:43:05 ↗ is specifically uh intended for non

4:43:08 ↗ project review and so what

4:43:11 ↗ um it's getting late I think we're all

4:43:14 ↗ starting to feel like it's getting late

4:43:16 ↗ but um it's getting late this would

4:43:20 ↗ be since this is um for the

4:43:23 ↗ comprehensive plan and it's all these

4:43:24 ↗ different uh rezones that are in the

4:43:26 ↗ package would this be in total or would

4:43:29 ↗ this um if you were doing it would it

4:43:31 ↗ break down into would you look at

4:43:32 ↗ specifics like uh um parcel 17 and Talis

4:43:36 ↗ and and what impact it would have on

4:43:39 ↗ these various

4:43:41 ↗ things we do it in total uh just as the

4:43:44 ↗ city did because you want to the

4:43:46 ↗ comprehensive plan is a is a single

4:43:48 ↗ document so you want to understand the

4:43:49 ↗ relationship by how all of these uh

4:43:52 ↗ these changes uh kind of affect one

4:43:54 ↗ another so you wouldn't do them uh

4:43:56 ↗ individually you would do them together

4:44:00 ↗ thanks any other questions from Council

4:44:03 ↗ council member Goodman you like

4:44:05 ↗ like you're wanting me to stall for a

4:44:07 ↗ few seconds so you can find the question

4:44:09 ↗ that you want to ask um it's just that

4:44:12 ↗ that La the last question and answer

4:44:14 ↗ perplex perplexes me a little little bit

4:44:16 ↗ because there is a difference um without

4:44:20 ↗ getting too deep into the law there is a

4:44:21 ↗ difference between um something that's

4:44:24 ↗ considered a non project and something

4:44:26 ↗ where it's kind of not disputed that

4:44:28 ↗ there's going to be a project on that

4:44:30 ↗ property and so I'm just a little

4:44:32 ↗ perplexed with the let's just bundle

4:44:34 ↗ them all together and call the whole

4:44:35 ↗ thing non

4:44:36 ↗ project CU it I mean I don't think

4:44:38 ↗ there's

4:44:39 ↗ any is there a dispute that there's

4:44:41 ↗ going to be a schools on this proper I

4:44:43 ↗ mean that's the only reason we're having

4:44:44 ↗ the rezone proposal

4:44:47 ↗ right no I I it's my understanding that

4:44:50 ↗ there's a a bunch of different uh uh

4:44:55 ↗ amendments as part of this pack to the

4:44:57 ↗ to the comprehensive plan so and uh it's

4:45:00 ↗ my inter understanding that this uh

4:45:01 ↗ sepa uh kind of covers all those so I

4:45:05 ↗ yes true but for one of these for two of

4:45:08 ↗ the proposed rezones one in Talis is for

4:45:11 ↗ school and that wasn't appealed um the

4:45:15 ↗ uh but for but for the Providence

4:45:17 ↗ Heights property it was and so my

4:45:20 ↗ question is just uh it's follow up to

4:45:22 ↗ Chris's question which I had that

4:45:24 ↗ similar thought in my mind about whether

4:45:27 ↗ you whether it's appropriate to bundle

4:45:30 ↗ everything together and call it a nonpr

4:45:33 ↗ and call it all non project when um at

4:45:37 ↗ least one of these Providence Heights

4:45:41 ↗ um um there is a specific reason for

4:45:44 ↗ that requested reone and that is for

4:45:47 ↗ schools it's not a speculative one day

4:45:51 ↗ the district might be interested in the

4:45:53 ↗ property so how does

4:45:56 ↗ that so I'm interested in a little more

4:45:58 ↗ elaboration from you on your answer it's

4:46:00 ↗ appropriate that we just bundle them all

4:46:02 ↗ together and call it non project

4:46:05 ↗ well

4:46:06 ↗ um yeah the the uh the there you're

4:46:11 ↗ right there there is a

4:46:15 ↗ uh there's a uh that that the

4:46:19 ↗ uh um that the school district requested

4:46:22 ↗ this because of the uh desire to build

4:46:25 ↗ um a school or schools on on this

4:46:27 ↗ particular site but you know I would

4:46:30 ↗ argue um that uh again that at as a

4:46:34 ↗ nonpr that that the the reason this is a

4:46:36 ↗ non project is that a couple things

4:46:39 ↗ first it's a it's a comprehensive plan

4:46:41 ↗ Amendment and and Zoning code update

4:46:44 ↗ second I don't think that there are uh

4:46:47 ↗ any um kind of comprehensive plan and or

4:46:50 ↗ uh uh rezone

4:46:52 ↗ requests that uh typically aren't uh

4:46:55 ↗ precipitated by somebody who wants to do

4:46:57 ↗ something they may not have their plans

4:46:59 ↗ uh on a you know on a website but but

4:47:01 ↗ they still do have some type of uh

4:47:04 ↗ motivations um to to reclassify their

4:47:07 ↗ their property uh the the only

4:47:10 ↗ difference is that um that there was a

4:47:13 ↗ you know a bond and and and and a desire

4:47:15 ↗ to to go after a money but but but but

4:47:18 ↗ the site plan is not is not refined to

4:47:21 ↗ to the degree that you could do U

4:47:23 ↗ project environmental review and and and

4:47:25 ↗ that so that would be my my my kind of

4:47:27 ↗ Distinction I mean I think there's a

4:47:29 ↗ little bit more uh information that we

4:47:32 ↗ know about the the motivations uh to to

4:47:34 ↗ build but but I would I would guess that

4:47:38 ↗ uh that everybody that requests a a a

4:47:41 ↗ reclassification is doing so because

4:47:43 ↗ they they have some future you know kind

4:47:46 ↗ of development and and and that's why

4:47:48 ↗ these all kind of wrap into a the

4:47:50 ↗ comprehensive plan non project

4:47:51 ↗ environmental review would would if I

4:47:55 ↗ what would your answer be if I asked you

4:47:57 ↗ what you know about the Providence High

4:47:58 ↗ property is if um if future development

4:48:03 ↗ of schools on that side is probable is

4:48:06 ↗ it probable or

4:48:07 ↗ not yeah I would say it's probable

4:48:11 ↗ thanks council member to Michelle okay

4:48:13 ↗ so following up on that question help me

4:48:17 ↗ or clarify for

4:48:19 ↗ me Isn't the non project the same

4:48:24 ↗ thing as the request for a zoning change

4:48:28 ↗ aren't those two synonymous or have I

4:48:31 ↗ got that

4:48:33 ↗ wrong

4:48:35 ↗ the uh you do have to do uh

4:48:40 ↗ non-project environmental review for uh

4:48:44 ↗ under GMA for for rezones and

4:48:46 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments I

4:48:49 ↗ understand that but aren't we talking

4:48:50 ↗ about the same thing when we're talking

4:48:52 ↗ about a non-project if we're saying this

4:48:54 ↗ is a

4:48:55 ↗ non-project

4:48:57 ↗ application isn't the non project the

4:49:00 ↗ request for a zoning change correct okay

4:49:04 ↗ so that's that's my point Thank You

4:49:08 ↗ council member

4:49:09 ↗ winterstein thank you Mr Carlson earlier

4:49:12 ↗ in the beginning you you talked about uh

4:49:16 ↗ section b as being confusing to the

4:49:18 ↗ public and clearly designed for project

4:49:20 ↗ proposals and we've heard tonight that

4:49:23 ↗ that um in our comprehensive our docka

4:49:26 ↗ of changes there um clearly was at least

4:49:31 ↗ two maybe more areas that the type of

4:49:35 ↗ use was uh known that would could go

4:49:39 ↗ like schools could be built there um is

4:49:42 ↗ it um is there no provision in the way

4:49:45 ↗ sea is done especially for B that you

4:49:47 ↗ can say okay here's the here's the nonpr

4:49:50 ↗ and the little bit that we know about

4:49:52 ↗ projects here's the here's section B for

4:49:54 ↗ what we know about projects do they can

4:49:56 ↗ you you split apart section B and what

4:49:59 ↗ kind of practices have you seen there

4:50:01 ↗ when I haven't seen uh

4:50:04 ↗ any of the the clients the the cities uh

4:50:07 ↗ school districts counties uh split those

4:50:10 ↗ apart so when it's when it's a

4:50:13 ↗ non-project review such as a

4:50:15 ↗ comprehensive pack comprehensive Plan

4:50:17 ↗ update it's like the whole thing is non-

4:50:19 ↗ Project there's there's not going to be

4:50:21 ↗ Project Specific anything in the sea

4:50:27 ↗ correct okay thank you any other

4:50:30 ↗ questions uh Council Deputy president p

4:50:34 ↗ thanks for your time this evening uh so

4:50:37 ↗ in the phased reviews that you have

4:50:39 ↗ participated in have they been uh do you

4:50:41 ↗ have any that have been similar in terms

4:50:44 ↗ of a whole host of um uh different

4:50:49 ↗ changes and looking at those in a

4:50:51 ↗ cumulative way have have you worked on a

4:50:54 ↗ phase review that has been similar to

4:50:58 ↗ this yeah we've done uh we've done

4:51:01 ↗ environmental review documents for

4:51:03 ↗ comprehensive

4:51:04 ↗ plans um and uh uh comprehensive plan

4:51:09 ↗ amendments uh of which some of the uh

4:51:12 ↗ the amendment requests were initiated by

4:51:15 ↗ um private

4:51:17 ↗ applicants where uh we we knew that

4:51:20 ↗ there was you know maybe a a motivation

4:51:23 ↗ to to uh to change the use and and they

4:51:27 ↗ subsequently came in with uh a change

4:51:30 ↗ used but we we didn't have a a site plan

4:51:35 ↗ and then you went forward with the

4:51:37 ↗ phased review correct based on that

4:51:43 ↗ yep Mr Haney

4:51:46 ↗ cross yeah I just wanted to clarify one

4:51:48 ↗ thing that you said um I believe you

4:51:51 ↗ referred to uh was it wack 1971

4:51:56 ↗ 11235 was that what you were referring

4:51:58 ↗ to I I I I guess the reason I'm asking

4:52:02 ↗ is I want to make sure that if the

4:52:04 ↗ council goes and looks up that whack

4:52:06 ↗ that we've got the right one so because

4:52:08 ↗ the one I when I look at 197

4:52:12 ↗ 11235 it relates to sepa and GMA

4:52:15 ↗ integration and it doesn't seem to deal

4:52:17 ↗ with the checklist so I I wanted to ask

4:52:20 ↗ you if maybe what you were referring to

4:52:24 ↗ was wack 19711 315 which relates to

4:52:28 ↗ environmental

4:52:30 ↗ checklists it was uh 315 it was I

4:52:35 ↗ believe 235 uh under Section 3 I think

4:52:38 ↗ also

4:52:40 ↗ allows for

4:52:42 ↗ uh you know and I was describing that uh

4:52:46 ↗ that the reason you know many of our

4:52:47 ↗ clients uh with respect to section B uh

4:52:52 ↗ don't fill that out is uh under under

4:52:56 ↗ paragraph three I believe of that

4:52:57 ↗ citation okay maybe maybe I am seeing it

4:53:00 ↗ now so I just want to show this to you

4:53:02 ↗ and just make make sure that

4:53:05 ↗ you if I could that you get the citation

4:53:08 ↗ right for the city council and tell

4:53:11 ↗ which part of this you are referring

4:53:14 ↗ to right uh it says uh an environmental

4:53:17 ↗ checklist if used uh and a DNS is issued

4:53:22 ↗ only Parts a which which serves as the

4:53:25 ↗ fact sheet C responsible official

4:53:28 ↗ signature and d non-pr project

4:53:30 ↗ checklists need to be

4:53:32 ↗ prepared

4:53:34 ↗ so is your testimony then that under

4:53:36 ↗ that section which I believe is 3B of

4:53:42 ↗ 235 that part B does not have to be

4:53:45 ↗ filled

4:53:46 ↗ out correct that's uh that's

4:53:49 ↗ the advice and uh that we've had from uh

4:53:53 ↗ the city's City attorneys in uh bellw

4:53:56 ↗ samamish ble other places that we've

4:53:59 ↗ done environmental review

4:54:02 ↗ documents I have no further questions

4:54:05 ↗ thank you Miss Skelton

4:54:07 ↗ re just a couple of questions Mr ramaru

4:54:12 ↗ was asking you about specific

4:54:14 ↗ subsections of section B of the

4:54:16 ↗ checklist and whether you you could fill

4:54:18 ↗ them out do you recall those questions I

4:54:20 ↗ do so my question for you is not whether

4:54:23 ↗ you could fill them out but whether it's

4:54:25 ↗ necessary in your opinion to fill those

4:54:28 ↗ those to answer those questions in the

4:54:30 ↗ context of a non project review

4:54:34 ↗ yeah and my answer would be

4:54:36 ↗ no um council member Goodman was asking

4:54:39 ↗ you questions about whether the probable

4:54:42 ↗ use of this property would be for

4:54:44 ↗ schools do you recall that question yes

4:54:47 ↗ and you testified earlier about the

4:54:49 ↗ single family small lot zoning do you

4:54:51 ↗ know whether that allows the

4:54:52 ↗ construction of schools it does I don't

4:54:55 ↗ have any further

4:54:57 ↗ questions any uh final questions for

4:54:59 ↗ this witness from

4:55:00 ↗ Council all right you excused

4:55:04 ↗ so so in the order of proceedings in

4:55:07 ↗ tonight's prehearing order we say that

4:55:11 ↗ now is the point where we could if we

4:55:13 ↗ chose to allow CL closing arguments of 5

4:55:17 ↗ minutes each and though the hour is late

4:55:19 ↗ I'm quite confident that 5 time 3 is

4:55:21 ↗ still 15 so I would like to ask I would

4:55:24 ↗ like to Prevail upon my fellow council

4:55:26 ↗ members to give us 15 last minutes so

4:55:29 ↗ that we can finish with this hearing I'm

4:55:31 ↗ seeing Universal support all right um

4:55:35 ↗ did we have a order oh we do I'm sorry

4:55:38 ↗ it's in it's in that very same document

4:55:39 ↗ that I just referenced the hour is late

4:55:42 ↗ um we start with Miss Skelton oh I'm

4:55:46 ↗ first it is

4:55:49 ↗ late

4:55:52 ↗ that this Council May overturn the

4:55:54 ↗ city's determination of non-significance

4:55:57 ↗ only if appellants establish that the

4:55:59 ↗ city's decision was clearly erroneous

4:56:02 ↗ and they have not met burden tonight in

4:56:05 ↗ the context of a non Project Specific

4:56:08 ↗ review the city did exactly what it

4:56:11 ↗ should have done and as you just heard

4:56:13 ↗ from Mr Carlson they actually did more

4:56:16 ↗ um by completing section B of the

4:56:18 ↗ checklist which is not necessary and in

4:56:20 ↗ fact very well may have led to some of

4:56:23 ↗ the confusion um that the public and the

4:56:25 ↗ council is experiencing with respect to

4:56:28 ↗ how those questions should have been

4:56:29 ↗ answered um I think Mr Carlson's

4:56:32 ↗ testimony was incredibly compelling on

4:56:34 ↗ that point and certainly establishes

4:56:36 ↗ that the city did what it needed to do

4:56:39 ↗ with respect to the environmental

4:56:40 ↗ checklist but the bigger question here

4:56:43 ↗ is whether uh the sea responsible uh

4:56:47 ↗ official correctly made a determination

4:56:50 ↗ that there were not significant adverse

4:56:52 ↗ environmental impacts as a result of the

4:56:56 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment including

4:56:59 ↗ the one specific component of that which

4:57:02 ↗ is to change

4:57:03 ↗ the zoning and designation of the

4:57:05 ↗ Providence Heights property from single

4:57:07 ↗ family small lot to community facilities

4:57:10 ↗ facilities and I'd like to direct the

4:57:11 ↗ council again to the last page of the

4:57:14 ↗ packet that I handed out to you during

4:57:16 ↗ the opening statement that shows you the

4:57:18 ↗ uses that are allowed under the single

4:57:21 ↗ family small lot zoning and the uses

4:57:24 ↗ that are allowed under the Community

4:57:26 ↗ facilities facility zoning and you will

4:57:29 ↗ see right there why the official's

4:57:32 ↗ determination was the correct one and

4:57:34 ↗ that there wasn't a significant

4:57:36 ↗ intensification of the use as a result

4:57:39 ↗ of that

4:57:40 ↗ reclassification schools are allowed

4:57:43 ↗ under both zones Park and Ride lots are

4:57:46 ↗ allowed under both zones playfields and

4:57:49 ↗ ballparks are allowed under both zones

4:57:52 ↗ and in fact you heard Mr Cooper's

4:57:54 ↗ testimony tonight that the school

4:57:56 ↗ district currently has middle schools

4:57:58 ↗ and elementary schools with playfields

4:58:01 ↗ that have bleachers that have fls um

4:58:04 ↗ there simply was not the type of

4:58:06 ↗ intensification of use resulting from

4:58:08 ↗ this comprehensive plan amendment that

4:58:11 ↗ would necessitate further environmental

4:58:13 ↗ analysis or an Eis and the city's

4:58:16 ↗ determination was absolutely correct in

4:58:18 ↗ that

4:58:21 ↗ determination thank you Mr

4:58:27 ↗ Haney yes um it is late so I will uh be

4:58:31 ↗ brief I've also submitted a couple of

4:58:32 ↗ brief briefs on this matter so you've

4:58:34 ↗ got plenty of reading material to know

4:58:36 ↗ what our position is but I just do want

4:58:38 ↗ to make a couple of points first this is

4:58:41 ↗ a non-project action um in spite of all

4:58:44 ↗ of Providence points protests to the

4:58:46 ↗ contrary there is no specific site plan

4:58:49 ↗ that has been submitted for development

4:58:51 ↗ and when a site plan is submitted for

4:58:53 ↗ development and the configurations and

4:58:55 ↗ size of the buildings are known and

4:58:58 ↗ there then that will be the time to do a

4:59:00 ↗ detailed environmental review

4:59:03 ↗ second because it is a non-project

4:59:06 ↗ action uh as Mr uh um as Mr Carlson

4:59:11 ↗ testified but also as I pointed out in

4:59:13 ↗ the brief there are other sections of

4:59:15 ↗ the whack that say you can substitute

4:59:18 ↗ basically the non-project supplement

4:59:21 ↗ Part D which was filled out here for

4:59:24 ↗ those detailed questions in Part B um

4:59:28 ↗ and the checklist was therefore adequate

4:59:30 ↗ because we did fill out the um

4:59:33 ↗ Provisions in uh Part D third the change

4:59:37 ↗ doesn't allow a for a significant

4:59:40 ↗ intensification in allowed uses and I

4:59:42 ↗ know there was a strong reaction from

4:59:44 ↗ the crowd when I said that earlier and

4:59:46 ↗ when I asked that question of Miss Hanan

4:59:48 ↗ in but I heard no evidence presented by

4:59:51 ↗ anybody here that testified that there

4:59:54 ↗ was a significant intensification of use

4:59:57 ↗ and significant differences between the

5:00:00 ↗ impacts that a high school would have

5:00:02 ↗ and the impact that elementary schools

5:00:04 ↗ junior high schools uh and middle

5:00:07 ↗ schools would have or differences that a

5:00:11 ↗ stadium would have that would be

5:00:13 ↗ different from the baseball fields

5:00:15 ↗ soccer fields and football fields that

5:00:18 ↗ are open for public use that the zoning

5:00:21 ↗ already allows so this is not a

5:00:23 ↗ significant intensification of

5:00:25 ↗ use uh fourth because there is no site

5:00:28 ↗ plan application review of many of the

5:00:31 ↗ impacts that Providence Point complains

5:00:33 ↗ about is

5:00:34 ↗ premature access points you need to know

5:00:37 ↗ where the access points are and for that

5:00:39 ↗ you need a site plan traffic you need to

5:00:41 ↗ know how big the buildings are how many

5:00:44 ↗ employees there will be how many

5:00:45 ↗ students there will be and you need to

5:00:48 ↗ know as Mr Carlson said where those

5:00:50 ↗ people are coming from and therefore

5:00:52 ↗ where the traffic is going to be

5:00:54 ↗ distributed light and glare you need to

5:00:56 ↗ know where the lights going to be you

5:00:59 ↗ need to know where the Stadium's going

5:01:00 ↗ to be you need to know where the the uh

5:01:03 ↗ lighting is going to be in relation to

5:01:06 ↗ other um in relation to the buildings on

5:01:09 ↗ the site and also in relation to where

5:01:12 ↗ it's going to be to the surroundings

5:01:14 ↗ lights that are on 228 may be entirely

5:01:18 ↗ different than lights that are directly

5:01:20 ↗ next to the Providence Point uh

5:01:23 ↗ residence and so you need to know where

5:01:25 ↗ those are where those are going to be

5:01:27 ↗ and storm water runoff you're going to

5:01:29 ↗ have a storm water code that requires a

5:01:32 ↗ detailed storm water plan and how you're

5:01:34 ↗ going to discharge drainage and you need

5:01:36 ↗ to know what that plan is and how those

5:01:40 ↗ codes are going to affect it before you

5:01:42 ↗ can determine whether there are any

5:01:43 ↗ environmental impacts so given that

5:01:46 ↗ there is no site plan application here

5:01:49 ↗ and that it is constantly changing um

5:01:53 ↗ given that uh director nien correctly

5:01:57 ↗ used phase review and I know Mr Wegner

5:02:01 ↗ testified uh about no we should have

5:02:04 ↗ done more but Mr Wagner's never done a

5:02:08 ↗ phase review before he testified to that

5:02:11 ↗ and I'm not sure we didn't ask him

5:02:13 ↗ really about his experience with phase

5:02:15 ↗ review but he's never done one so other

5:02:18 ↗ people here have done them Mr nien has

5:02:21 ↗ done them the city routinely does them

5:02:23 ↗ and that's where you decide what things

5:02:26 ↗ you can look at now based on what you're

5:02:29 ↗ looking at and then when you get a

5:02:31 ↗ detailed project design you look at

5:02:34 ↗ additional things and those things will

5:02:35 ↗ certainly be done at the time of project

5:02:38 ↗ level sepa so environmental review will

5:02:41 ↗ take place in phases that is what sea

5:02:45 ↗ allows you to do it's what I laid out in

5:02:48 ↗ my brief about phase

5:02:50 ↗ review and uh when the master site plan

5:02:53 ↗ comes before you there will be

5:02:55 ↗ additional sea done and you'll have a

5:02:57 ↗ chance to review these detailed

5:02:59 ↗ environmental Provisions then so uh with

5:03:03 ↗ that I would just ask you to uphold

5:03:05 ↗ director Nan's decision on the DNS and

5:03:08 ↗ move to the uh actually addressing the

5:03:12 ↗ merits of the application when it comes

5:03:14 ↗ forward of the comprehensive plan

5:03:16 ↗ amendments when they come forward thank

5:03:18 ↗ you Mr araru you get the last word well

5:03:23 ↗ you can run but you can't hide and you

5:03:27 ↗ can't hide from the

5:03:29 ↗ fact that um the school district is

5:03:34 ↗ moving on this comprehensive plan and

5:03:38 ↗ rezone to build a new high school that

5:03:41 ↗ you can't avoid that I mean we can all

5:03:43 ↗ talk about this and that and the other

5:03:44 ↗ thing but everybody's running from this

5:03:47 ↗ the district says oh we don't not really

5:03:49 ↗ sure what we're going to do we might do

5:03:51 ↗ this or we might do that and you might

5:03:54 ↗ there might be a faint this way and a

5:03:56 ↗ faint that way and and who knows what's

5:03:58 ↗ going to happen and the and Mr nen um

5:04:03 ↗ amazingly has keeps his blinders on he

5:04:08 ↗ doesn't talk to anybody don't even talk

5:04:09 ↗ to his own staff if theyve if they've

5:04:11 ↗ had meetings with the district to talk

5:04:14 ↗ about these things um he doesn't talk to

5:04:17 ↗ the district about what's going on with

5:04:19 ↗ this

5:04:20 ↗ application what's going on with this um

5:04:25 ↗ again we talk about phase review this

5:04:28 ↗ isn't phase review unless this rezone

5:04:31 ↗ happens there ain't going to be a site

5:04:35 ↗ plan review for a high school it's not

5:04:37 ↗ going to happen that's the reason we're

5:04:39 ↗ here and that's the reason that we're so

5:04:43 ↗ concerned about a checklist that

5:04:46 ↗ essentially is gibberish how many people

5:04:48 ↗ are going to be on the site well there's

5:04:50 ↗ 37,000 people in Isa well that's a great

5:04:52 ↗ answer that's helpful to everyone and

5:04:55 ↗ everybody's concerned as Mr Carlson was

5:04:57 ↗ about misleading information we'll talk

5:04:59 ↗ about misleading information that's

5:05:02 ↗ distributed to the public um on on this

5:05:05 ↗ on this

5:05:06 ↗ material 1,400 student high school three

5:05:10 ↗ stories high

5:05:12 ↗ 215,000 230,000 fine it doesn't make an

5:05:15 ↗ awful lot of difference that's what's

5:05:16 ↗ going to happen 600 student Elementary

5:05:19 ↗ School three stories high um uh 73,000

5:05:24 ↗ Square ft single access to the property

5:05:26 ↗ off of 228 not two accesses that's what

5:05:29 ↗ theyve said in all this material that's

5:05:32 ↗ what needs to be reviewed that's what

5:05:34 ↗ the public here needs to be confident

5:05:36 ↗ that the city is really looking at the

5:05:40 ↗ issues that are really be and not put up

5:05:43 ↗ with this this idea that that it's it's

5:05:46 ↗ all smok and mirrors um so um we we can

5:05:51 ↗ study these things we can take a look at

5:05:53 ↗ the impacts on the community we can take

5:05:56 ↗ a look at the traffic we can take a look

5:05:58 ↗ at the storm water we can do all of

5:06:01 ↗ these things and we can answer questions

5:06:03 ↗ in the checklist in an in an honest and

5:06:07 ↗ accurate uh fashion and we talk about

5:06:11 ↗ stadiums and other things um we can go

5:06:14 ↗ out here tonight and drive up the hill

5:06:16 ↗ and on Friday Night Lights Friday Night

5:06:19 ↗ Lights remember the TV show and the

5:06:20 ↗ movie that's what happens that's what

5:06:23 ↗ happens in this community and other

5:06:25 ↗ communities on Friday nights it's loud

5:06:28 ↗ it's it's it's noisy it's there's lights

5:06:31 ↗ that are are impacting other people

5:06:34 ↗ let's let's come to grips with those

5:06:36 ↗ issues there are they are issues in the

5:06:39 ↗ community so

5:06:42 ↗ um so putting off review simply means

5:06:47 ↗ that the public isn't really going to

5:06:48 ↗ get a chance to look at what's going to

5:06:50 ↗ happen as we go along phase review just

5:06:53 ↗ doesn't work here we got to be honest

5:06:55 ↗ with the people in the city about what's

5:06:56 ↗ going to happen and we're not and your

5:06:58 ↗ staff has not done that job so um

5:07:03 ↗ and staff by the way hasn't produced

5:07:05 ↗ even a staff report for you guys not a

5:07:08 ↗ staff report here we are months into

5:07:11 ↗ this process and the only piece of paper

5:07:13 ↗ that you've gotten from your staff is a

5:07:16 ↗ DNS based upon a checklist that is that

5:07:19 ↗ is that is mostly gibberish let's get

5:07:22 ↗ the full disclosure of these impacts and

5:07:24 ↗ it may be that as we look at that full

5:07:27 ↗ disclosure and make them do the full

5:07:29 ↗ disclosure we end up with some

5:07:32 ↗ information that allows us this Council

5:07:35 ↗ and staff to do a mitigated DNS maybe

5:07:38 ↗ there's some things we can do out here

5:07:40 ↗ to this site that makes it more pable to

5:07:43 ↗ the community more accessible uh to the

5:07:46 ↗ community as I said this has been

5:07:49 ↗ disrespectful to the people in

5:07:51 ↗ Providence Point and I think the people

5:07:52 ↗ in the community kicking the can down

5:07:54 ↗ the road simply doesn't work so here's

5:07:57 ↗ what I'm going to ask the council to do

5:08:00 ↗ number one grant our appeal we right the

5:08:03 ↗ the the city has not done this correctly

5:08:07 ↗ number two direct the staff to go back

5:08:10 ↗ and do a checklist based upon what the

5:08:13 ↗ proposition is before us which is the

5:08:15 ↗ building of a high school and an

5:08:17 ↗ elementary school in a stadium and three

5:08:20 ↗ redo the the DNS maybe we get a DNS

5:08:23 ↗ again I don't know but maybe we get an

5:08:25 ↗ mdns and what we're we think is

5:08:28 ↗ appropriate a DS and doing an impact

5:08:30 ↗ statement on this so I'm right right

5:08:32 ↗ there at

5:08:33 ↗ 0000 and I'm done so thank you very much

5:08:36 ↗ I'm available for any questions you may

5:08:39 ↗ have thank

5:08:41 ↗ you uh at this point unless there's any

5:08:45 ↗ objection from my fellow council members

5:08:47 ↗ um I would move to close the record on p

5:08:50 ↗ number 1

5:08:54 ↗ 19-6 and

5:08:56 ↗ uh uh I I guess that doesn't require

5:08:59 ↗ action but this does I would like to

5:09:01 ↗ move uh to postpone deliberations to a

5:09:05 ↗ future meeting meeting date to be set I

5:09:07 ↗ don't think we necessarily want to try

5:09:09 ↗ to do date certain this evening

5:09:12 ↗ second

5:09:15 ↗ discussion council member J Michelle so

5:09:18 ↗ I just want to be clear that we continue

5:09:21 ↗ to be in a quasi judicial role we can't

5:09:24 ↗ talk to anyone about this topic outside

5:09:27 ↗ of deliberations I just want to make

5:09:29 ↗ sure that that's

5:09:30 ↗ understood SE is that correct that is

5:09:34 ↗ correct okay thank you council member

5:09:37 ↗ Walsh I would also um ask that if we are

5:09:41 ↗ having future deliberations that it be

5:09:44 ↗ in a public context that would allow um

5:09:47 ↗ public attendance is that Our intention

5:09:51 ↗ is is there anyone who would argue

5:09:54 ↗ otherwise is that even council member it

5:09:57 ↗ is it is an option it is an option

5:09:58 ↗ because it's a judicial process and um

5:10:03 ↗ um even I feel speaking just for myself

5:10:06 ↗ that if we were to go Clos door and have

5:10:09 ↗ a a

5:10:10 ↗ deliberation that um uh coming back out

5:10:14 ↗ in the public I mean would be expected

5:10:16 ↗ for full full transparency on on um any

5:10:21 ↗ one of ours uh how we came to whatever

5:10:24 ↗ conclusion we've come to that would be

5:10:27 ↗ Ved and support of yeah I think you know

5:10:30 ↗ we are a legislative body that doesn't

5:10:32 ↗ have experience doing things behind

5:10:33 ↗ closed door except the executive session

5:10:36 ↗ and this being a Judicial matter by the

5:10:38 ↗ way you're a pretty good judge for your

5:10:39 ↗ first time I mean thank you there's

5:10:41 ↗ areas for opportunities for improvement

5:10:43 ↗ but that was pretty good of course but

5:10:46 ↗ so it's all kind of new to us and I and

5:10:48 ↗ I just think because that's an option

5:10:49 ↗ and I know the desire and I share that

5:10:52 ↗ desire to be transparent I've said that

5:10:54 ↗ many times before I don't think we

5:10:55 ↗ should just take that off the table at

5:10:57 ↗ this point I think I was just clarifying

5:11:00 ↗ for the public that the General intent

5:11:03 ↗ uh of the body right now is not to stop

5:11:07 ↗ public deliberation and take it to close

5:11:10 ↗ doors but merely it's midnight we're

5:11:13 ↗ tired we're not going to get a good

5:11:16 ↗ conversation out of this and so we're

5:11:18 ↗ looking for another date

5:11:21 ↗ understood any further

5:11:24 ↗ discussion council member Goodman no

5:11:26 ↗ nope all in

5:11:28 ↗ favor I

5:11:30 ↗ I opposed we need need a motion I oh to

5:11:33 ↗ close it sorry yes sorry thanks yes I

5:11:37 ↗ believe that was unanimous I yes all

5:11:40 ↗ right and uh before I hand things back

5:11:42 ↗ off to the mayor I just really want to

5:11:43 ↗ thank Miss Le uh for all of her

5:11:46 ↗ assistance this evening with all of us

5:11:47 ↗ non-legal six non-legal types and one

5:11:50 ↗ legal type

5:11:51 ↗ well thank you council president Marts

5:11:55 ↗ um we're still in session and the next

5:11:58 ↗ item is good of the order and I'm

5:11:59 ↗ thinking there isn't any good of the

5:12:01 ↗ order but I am asking if anybody has

5:12:03 ↗ anything to

5:12:04 ↗ share uh upcoming Council meetings um I

5:12:09 ↗ don't have a list in front of me uh we

5:12:13 ↗ do have the uh Tia do we have any dates

5:12:16 ↗ that we can share

5:12:19 ↗ tonight um Monday the

5:12:23 ↗ 9th Monday December 9 a Tietz Creek

5:12:27 ↗ Manor thank you City administrator uh

5:12:29 ↗ the 10th of of December is Council study

5:12:32 ↗ session uh currently scheduled for 6:30

5:12:36 ↗ if the council's looking for an optional

5:12:37 ↗ meeting date that may be one you want to

5:12:39 ↗ look at and then your last meeting of

5:12:41 ↗ the year is scheduled for December 16th

5:12:43 ↗ 7 o' regular meeting thank you it was up

5:12:47 ↗ here I missed it uh there is no

5:12:49 ↗ executive session this evening and there

5:12:51 ↗ being no further business the meeting is

5:12:53 ↗ adjourned at

5:12:55 ↗ 1213 Tuesday Tuesday

5:13:00 ↗ Tuesday

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (6)

1) Adopt Ordinance No. 2889, amending Section 13.24.090 of the Issaquah Municipal Code relating to water rates and charges. 2) Adopt Ordinance No. 2890, amending Section 13.30.055 of the Issaquah Municipal Code relating to stormwater rates and charges. 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2891, amending Section 1…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute the Interlocal Agreement with Eastside Fire and Rescue regarding PFAS investigation in the lower Issaquah Valley.

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by REH

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute the Interagency Agreement (IAA) with Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to conduct ground water modeling for the Lower Issaquah Valley Aquifer.

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by REH

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2892, establishing a provisional Utility Assistance Program and amending IMC 13.92, Senior Citizen and Low Income Citizen Fee Reductions. . Mayor Pauly called a recess to allow the participants in the appeal hearing to take their places. APPEAL HEARING Councilmember Marts opened …

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Postpone Council deliberations until a later date to be determined. .

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein