City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, April 5, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

First for Roll Call Vote: Goodman

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of April 5, 2021, $ 9,551,137.57 ID 0781

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.5–44

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 31:29 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Minutes: Special City Council Meeting, Jan. 30, 2021

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.45–46

▶ Watch from 31:31 Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this special meeting was to hold a Council-Administration retreat.

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Minutes: City Council Study Session, March 9, 2021

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.51–52

▶ Watch from 31:34 Open packet at p.51 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR e) 03-09-21 Council Study Session Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH Council Study Session 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting March 9, 2021 MINUTES

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, March 15, 2021

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.53–57

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 1, 2021

▶ Watch from 31:37 Open packet at p.53 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR f) 03-15-21 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Virtual Meeting March 15, 2021 MINUTES

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

New and Replacement Purchases of Paving Equipment AB 8120

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.59–62

▶ Watch from 31:39 Open packet at p.59 ↗

Staff report:

The Public Works Department is responsible for providing many services to the City, including operating and maintaining the roadways within the transportation network. The City currently has a backlog of over three years of asphalt patching needs that meet the patching criteria that were either identified by staff or reported by residents. Many of these patches are unable to be performed by the City’s Public Works Department, Streets Division with the current equipment.

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Non-Profit Relief Grant Funding Postpone to May 3, 2021 Council Meeting AB 8139

Carried 7-0

packet pp.63

Topics: Budget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 15, 2021

▶ Watch from 31:42 Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends postponing the non-profit relief funding

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

RH2 Lease Agreement AB 8149

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.65–79

Topics: Housing

▶ Watch from 31:45 Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

RH2 Engineering has been directly supporting Public Works as Consulting engineers and leasing office space in CHNW since 2011. RH2 Engineering remains in good standing with the City and has been consistent with payments and maintaining compliance with all terms of the lease(s) over the last nine years. Proposal The Administration proposes the City enter into and execute a new one-year lease agreement with RH2 Engineering that will automatically renew annually at the end of each term. A proposed lease agreement is attached (Exhibit A).

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

2021 Water Main Replacement Project Change Order AB 8156

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.81–83

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 31:47 Open packet at p.81 ↗

Staff report:

SUMMARY STATEMENT

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Council Rules of Procedure Ad Hoc Committee Establish AB 8161

Carried 7-0

packet pp.85–86

Topics: Boards & Commissions

▶ Watch from 31:50 Open packet at p.85 ↗

Staff report:

At the City Council retreat held earlier this year, there were "a number of concerns expressed around ambiguity of Agenda Bill (AB) development processes, and concerns around City Council communication." In response to the retreat

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

7. REGULAR BUSINESS

Amending the Issaquah Municipal Code and Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards Related to Electric Vehicle Charging AB 8066

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.87–120

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 31:53 Open packet at p.87 ↗

Staff report:

This ordinance aims to reduce one of the biggest barriers to EV ownership, which is the lack of EV charging. This will help the City increase EV usage and reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals.

8. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL HEARING

Consolidated Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Denial of the Preliminary Plat of High Street Collection at Issaquah Highlands, QUASI-JUDICIAL, APP21-00001 AB 8136

Conduct Appeal Hearing · packet pp.121–383

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Previously discussed: Hearing Examiner · Feb 1, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 12, 2021

Open packet at p.121 ↗

Staff report:

On February 1, 2021, the City’s Hearing Examiner denied the Preliminary Plat of High Street Collection at Issaquah Highlands (Exhibit C). Both the City and IHIF-C have appealed the denial of the plat. However, IHIF-C also appealed the “Determination of Vested Status” that the City’s Development Services Director made in Section V of the March 3, 2020 Staff Report. Section V of the Staff Report related to the vesting determination is generally summarized as follows: 1. The extent of vesting for IHIF-C’s August 1 and 28, 2017 preliminary plat application is limited to (i) the use designation identified under the 1996 Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement (“IHDA”), and (ii) the substantive land use standards of the IHDA that are necessary to effectuate the specific development proposal, if any, that was identified in IHIF-C’s August 1 and 28, 2017 plat application; and 2. Vesting for…

9. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 22:12

5340 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ due to the governor's proclamation 20-28

0:03 ↗ relating to the covet-19 emergency

0:05 ↗ and open public meetings this meeting

0:07 ↗ will be held entirely remotely

0:10 ↗ at this point we will take a moment to

0:12 ↗ take a roll call of the council members

0:13 ↗ in attendance so please stay here when i

0:15 ↗ call your name

0:16 ↗ councilmember t michelle here thank you

0:19 ↗ councilmember goodman

0:20 ↗ here thank you councilmember hall here

0:25 ↗ great council president hunt here

0:28 ↗ thank you council member marks here

0:32 ↗ thank you deputy council president ray

0:34 ↗ dear

0:36 ↗ thanks and council member walsh here

0:39 ↗ thank you all seven council members are

0:41 ↗ here this evening

0:43 ↗ the next item on the agenda this evening

0:45 ↗ is the pledge of allegiance so if you

0:46 ↗ could all keep your microphones muted

0:49 ↗ i would still like to welcome you to

0:50 ↗ join me in the pledge of allegiance

0:55 ↗ i pledge allegiance to the flag of the

0:58 ↗ united states of america

0:59 ↗ and to the republic for which it stands

1:02 ↗ one nation

1:03 ↗ under god indivisible with liberty and

1:05 ↗ justice for all

1:09 ↗ i have a brief announcement before we

1:11 ↗ get into audience comments this evening

1:14 ↗ um before entering the public comment

1:16 ↗ portion of our meeting tonight i'd like

1:17 ↗ to announce at the public hearing

1:19 ↗ regarding the city's sale of a portion

1:21 ↗ of the rv park property at 650

1:24 ↗ first avenue northeast which was

1:26 ↗ originally scheduled for tonight's

1:28 ↗ meeting

1:28 ↗ has been cancelled and will not be

1:30 ↗ conducted

1:32 ↗ and now we will be moving into audience

1:34 ↗ comments for those of you who submitted

1:36 ↗ the online form to make comments

1:37 ↗ your name will be called shortly for

1:40 ↗ those who have joined us tonight and

1:41 ↗ would like to make comments but did not

1:43 ↗ sign up in advance

1:44 ↗ please raise your virtual hand if you're

1:47 ↗ on the phone

1:47 ↗ press star 3 if you have joined by

1:50 ↗ computer or smartphone

1:52 ↗ look for a hand icon this varies by

1:54 ↗ device

1:55 ↗ one option may be to go to the

1:57 ↗ participant panel and

1:59 ↗ choose the raised hand icon in the lower

2:01 ↗ right hand corner

2:03 ↗ keep in mind no comments are allowed

2:04 ↗ from the public regarding av

2:06 ↗ 8136 as this item is a quasi-judicial

2:10 ↗ closed record appeal and city clerk has

2:13 ↗ anyone signed up to speak for general

2:15 ↗ audience comments or indicate a desire

2:17 ↗ to speak this evening

2:18 ↗ thank you yes we have three folks who

2:22 ↗ signed up in advance and give me a

2:24 ↗ moment while i look to our green worm

2:28 ↗ and see our attendee list

2:32 ↗ and while you're doing that um tina i

2:34 ↗ will go through with some general

2:35 ↗ comments for those that are going to

2:37 ↗ provide comments excuse me

2:38 ↗ thank you please make sure you direct

2:40 ↗ your comments to the whole council and

2:42 ↗ not to individuals

2:43 ↗ and while this isn't a question and

2:45 ↗ answer session we will contact you to

2:47 ↗ follow up if needed

2:49 ↗ when you are recognized unmute your

2:51 ↗ microphone

2:52 ↗ state your name address relationship to

2:55 ↗ the city

2:56 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently and

2:58 ↗ limit your comments

2:59 ↗ to five minutes and please remove

3:02 ↗ yourself when you might

3:03 ↗ remove your microphone when you are done

3:06 ↗ if you do not respond after your name or

3:08 ↗ phone number is called

3:09 ↗ or if your connection is lost

3:11 ↗ unexpectedly

3:12 ↗ the meeting will still need to proceed

3:14 ↗ and you are encouraged to rejoin the

3:16 ↗ meeting if able personal attacks obscene

3:19 ↗ language derogatory remarks and

3:20 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

3:22 ↗ permitted

3:23 ↗ citizens comments both written and

3:25 ↗ verbal are important aspect of the

3:27 ↗ public process

3:28 ↗ and the city takes these comments

3:30 ↗ seriously we thank you for taking the

3:32 ↗ time to address this this evening

3:34 ↗ city clerk who is the first person on

3:36 ↗ our list this evening

3:37 ↗ hi thank you um i will read the all

3:40 ↗ three

3:41 ↗ i will start with uh leah misik i'm on

3:44 ↗ meeting you now

3:45 ↗ and then we'll proceed to david hoffman

3:47 ↗ and then ann fletcher

3:52 ↗ leah good evening yeah can you hear me i

3:54 ↗ can thank you

3:56 ↗ awesome good evening everybody and thank

3:58 ↗ you for the opportunity to comment today

4:00 ↗ um like as was read my name is leah

4:02 ↗ misik and i work for climate solutions

4:03 ↗ which is a regional clean energy

4:05 ↗ nonprofit with the mission of

4:06 ↗ accelerating clean energy solutions to

4:08 ↗ the climate crisis

4:09 ↗ um i also participated in issaquah

4:11 ↗ community convening on climate

4:13 ↗ last fall and i'm here to comment on the

4:15 ↗ proposed electric vehicle readiness

4:17 ↗ ordinance

4:18 ↗ we're really excited to see this type of

4:19 ↗ ordinance being considered and i want to

4:21 ↗ thank staff for their work to bring this

4:23 ↗ forward

4:23 ↗ we need to electrify our vehicles in

4:25 ↗ order to meet is across climate goals

4:27 ↗ there's a lot of momentum on this front

4:29 ↗ on all levels and this is good and also

4:31 ↗ necessary

4:32 ↗ frankly we're behind on climate action

4:34 ↗ and we need to reduce emissions rapidly

4:36 ↗ given current policy of business actions

4:38 ↗ we know we will be seeing more and more

4:40 ↗ evs and this transition will be quick

4:42 ↗ washington state has adopted the zero

4:44 ↗ emissions vehicle mandate which requires

4:46 ↗ an increasing amount of sales of evs

4:48 ↗ puget sound energy is working on a

4:50 ↗ transportation electrification plan

4:52 ↗ major automakers including gm recently

4:54 ↗ have announced that they will

4:55 ↗ exclusively produce evs by 2035.

4:58 ↗ evs will also achieve upfront price

5:00 ↗ party in just a few years and they are

5:01 ↗ already much cheaper to operate so

5:03 ↗ given all of this we need to ensure

5:05 ↗ we're taking simple but important steps

5:06 ↗ to ensure the transition is not hindered

5:08 ↗ and people do not miss out on this

5:10 ↗ opportunity when it's time for them to

5:11 ↗ purchase a vehicle

5:13 ↗ and right now not having a place to

5:15 ↗ charge at home is consistently cited as

5:17 ↗ one of the main barriers to purchasing

5:18 ↗ an eb

5:20 ↗ so as i mentioned i was a participant in

5:21 ↗ israel's community competing on climate

5:24 ↗ and what i've heard was a strong desire

5:26 ↗ for isaac lead and act quickly

5:28 ↗ we only have about a decade to have our

5:30 ↗ missions um

5:31 ↗ this eb readiness ordinance is an

5:33 ↗ important step that really needs to be

5:34 ↗ taken now

5:35 ↗ each year that we wait more people will

5:37 ↗ be in buildings that will potentially

5:38 ↗ require expensive retrofits to allow for

5:40 ↗ adequate eb charging

5:42 ↗ the buildings we build now will last for

5:44 ↗ decades and they need to be

5:45 ↗ future-proofed

5:46 ↗ we would like to see this ordinancy

5:47 ↗ passed as soon as possible so we can

5:49 ↗ consider other important climate actions

5:51 ↗ that will also support community our

5:52 ↗ health in our future so we strongly

5:54 ↗ support this

5:55 ↗ ordinance it is an important step along

5:57 ↗ the way of climate action

5:59 ↗ it will ensure people who live in

6:00 ↗ multi-family buildings with parking will

6:02 ↗ be able to access evs

6:03 ↗ we think the proposed language around

6:05 ↗ affordable housing is really well done

6:07 ↗ kudos to staff and it ensures that lower

6:09 ↗ income people

6:10 ↗ will be precluded access to cheaper and

6:12 ↗ cleaner vehicles while at the same time

6:14 ↗ not adding cost to affordable housing

6:15 ↗ construction i want to note that we

6:18 ↗ strongly believe that single-family

6:19 ↗ homes

6:20 ↗ and townhomes should be included in this

6:22 ↗ ordinance i understand there are

6:24 ↗ different interpretations as to what may

6:25 ↗ or may not align with state law and

6:27 ↗ given that legal opinions

6:29 ↗ are not consistent i urge you to simply

6:31 ↗ take the lead and suggest the best

6:32 ↗ possible policy

6:34 ↗ i was excited to hear comments from some

6:36 ↗ council members in the last meeting on

6:37 ↗ this topic that emphasized their desire

6:39 ↗ to lead

6:39 ↗ and include single-family homes and

6:41 ↗ townhomes under the eva readiness

6:42 ↗ requirement

6:43 ↗ that would truly be the best policy it

6:45 ↗ makes no sense to include a garage or a

6:47 ↗ parking spot and a home and for it not

6:49 ↗ to be capable of level two ev

6:50 ↗ charging without expensive retrofitting

6:53 ↗ so just to reiterate we think this is an

6:55 ↗ important policy

6:56 ↗ it's a step along the way of issaquah

6:57 ↗ meeting its climate goals it's a smart

6:59 ↗ policy

7:00 ↗ evs might be a small percentage of

7:01 ↗ vehicles in this moment but that's about

7:03 ↗ to change drastically and well within

7:05 ↗ the early lifetime of new buildings so

7:07 ↗ we want to see this ordinance pass

7:08 ↗ without delay and we hope to see the

7:09 ↗ city

7:10 ↗ take further action to require eb

7:11 ↗ readiness for all building types

7:13 ↗ thank you again for considering this

7:15 ↗ important matter and i hope you'll move

7:16 ↗ forward tonight with a strong

7:17 ↗ ev readiness ordinance um and also while

7:19 ↗ i'm here i just wanted to express the

7:21 ↗ thank you to the city for supporting the

7:23 ↗ clean fuel standard at the state

7:24 ↗ legislature on behalf of itself and k4c

7:26 ↗ it's really helpful thanks thank you

7:30 ↗ city clerk who's next on our list this

7:32 ↗ evening david hoffman

7:34 ↗ uh has joined by computer i'm gonna

7:36 ↗ elevate you to

7:37 ↗ as a panelist in case you would like to

7:40 ↗ have your camera on while you address

7:42 ↗ council and

7:44 ↗ there you are thank you

7:48 ↗ yeah sure i'll turn my camera on thank

7:50 ↗ you mayor paulie council president hunt

7:52 ↗ deputy president ray

7:53 ↗ and members of the council my name is

7:56 ↗ david hoffman and i'm with puget sound

7:57 ↗ energy

7:58 ↗ my address is 355 110th avenue northeast

8:01 ↗ in bellevue

8:02 ↗ i'm here tonight to speak in favor of

8:04 ↗ item 7 on your agenda which is the

8:06 ↗ ev charging ordinance puget sound energy

8:09 ↗ supports the development of electric

8:10 ↗ vehicle or ev charging infrastructure

8:13 ↗ pse had the first customer facing

8:16 ↗ electric vehicle program in washington

8:18 ↗ state

8:18 ↗ and we've continued to expand our ev

8:21 ↗ program offerings over the past six

8:23 ↗ years

8:23 ↗ most recently pse has installed a public

8:26 ↗ charging station in lacey

8:27 ↗ with plans to add similar stations at

8:29 ↗ several other locations in our service

8:31 ↗ territory

8:32 ↗ gsc also supports personal charging

8:35 ↗ stations and runs

8:36 ↗ personal charging stations and runs

8:38 ↗ pilot programs to better understand the

8:39 ↗ impact of ev charging on the electric

8:41 ↗ grid

8:42 ↗ as more local government fleets and

8:44 ↗ individuals invest in ebs pse is proud

8:47 ↗ to partner on the infrastructure to make

8:49 ↗ these changes possible

8:50 ↗ as you know in january pse announced our

8:53 ↗ beyond

8:54 ↗ net zero carbon pledge the pledge

8:56 ↗ commits pse to reduce carbon emissions

8:59 ↗ from our operations our electric supply

9:02 ↗ and local natural gas distribution

9:04 ↗ business

9:05 ↗ but doesn't stop there the pledge also

9:08 ↗ commits pse to help address carbon

9:10 ↗ emissions from

9:10 ↗ other sectors like transportation

9:12 ↗ through electrification

9:14 ↗ supporting the use of low-carbon fuels

9:16 ↗ and building the infrastructure we need

9:18 ↗ to make this transition

9:20 ↗ the draft ordinance before you this

9:21 ↗ evening is one way issaquah can plan for

9:24 ↗ a clean transportation future

9:26 ↗ in an effort to make this ordinance

9:28 ↗ effective to your goals we would suggest

9:30 ↗ making permitting for ev chargers an

9:32 ↗ over-the-counter process

9:34 ↗ administrative backlog is an ongoing and

9:36 ↗ challenging barrier to the

9:38 ↗ to the completion of many proposed ev

9:41 ↗ installations

9:42 ↗ in our experience an over-the-counter

9:44 ↗ permit dramatically reduces the time

9:46 ↗ necessary to install an ev charger

9:48 ↗ dse appreciates the many decades of

9:50 ↗ partnership with the city of issaquah

9:52 ↗ and our customers who work

9:53 ↗ live and play in issaquah we're building

9:56 ↗ a clean energy feature together

9:58 ↗ and we think and we thank you for the

10:00 ↗ opportunity to comment on the ev

10:02 ↗ charging ordinance

10:03 ↗ thank you very much thank you david city

10:06 ↗ clerk who else do we have signed up this

10:07 ↗ evening

10:17 ↗ oh come on this is super fun for me

10:19 ↗ you're on mute

10:20 ↗ i sure am thank you sorry about that

10:24 ↗ um if anyone in our attendees

10:27 ↗ area would like to speak or dress

10:29 ↗ counsel under public comment here

10:31 ↗ please press star three i do have ann

10:33 ↗ fletcher next

10:38 ↗ and and you have been unmuted okay can

10:41 ↗ you hear me

10:44 ↗ yes you can hear me okay great thank you

10:48 ↗ uh this is ann fletcher uh resident

10:52 ↗ and people for climate action member

10:55 ↗ uh good evening everyone i'm really

10:57 ↗ happy to be here tonight i'm heartened

11:00 ↗ to see the city taking this step toward

11:03 ↗ electric vehicle charging

11:07 ↗ can you hear me

11:10 ↗ yes we can hear you thank you um

11:14 ↗ uh okay i appreciate the thorough

11:18 ↗ package

11:18 ↗ and the process the staff the

11:20 ↗ administration the council the

11:22 ↗ environmental board

11:23 ↗ and the planning policy commission have

11:25 ↗ completed leading up

11:26 ↗ to your consideration of this ordinance

11:30 ↗ i am generally in favor of the city

11:32 ↗ council approving this ordinance

11:34 ↗ as a significant step toward meeting our

11:36 ↗ climate goals

11:38 ↗ i'd like to see you consider some minor

11:40 ↗ amendments and direction to the

11:42 ↗ administration

11:44 ↗ from the recommendations of the

11:45 ↗ environmental board

11:47 ↗ and the planning policy commission

11:49 ↗ here's my input

11:52 ↗ have several ways to achieve cost

11:54 ↗ neutrality

11:55 ↗ for ev charging in affordable housing

11:58 ↗ development

11:59 ↗ because it is development specific and

12:02 ↗ challenging to predict

12:05 ↗ number two having enough actual charging

12:08 ↗ infrastructure in place may be more

12:10 ↗ important

12:10 ↗ than having the full number of parking

12:13 ↗ spaces and landscape amenities

12:16 ↗ having the recommended percentages of

12:18 ↗ edse

12:19 ↗ and ev ready units will be much cheaper

12:22 ↗ than retrofitting later

12:24 ↗ it will provide lower income people with

12:27 ↗ the economic benefits

12:29 ↗ of using electric vehicles and it will

12:32 ↗ reduce carbon emissions

12:34 ↗ number three ev ready is

12:38 ↗ closer to full use and better than ev

12:41 ↗ capable

12:41 ↗ if any trading is needed to reduce costs

12:46 ↗ moving on to the single family issue

12:49 ↗ many of those providing input would like

12:51 ↗ to see single-family housing

12:53 ↗ included in an eb charging ordinance

12:56 ↗ they wonder how likely is it that a

12:58 ↗ single-family home builder would sue for

13:01 ↗ having to include a fairly inexpensive

13:03 ↗ eb

13:04 ↗ ready infrastructure as the demand

13:07 ↗ increases builders will want to be

13:09 ↗ competitive

13:10 ↗ still most people are not willing to

13:14 ↗ take

13:14 ↗ this risk given the city attorney's

13:17 ↗ interpretation of the state building

13:18 ↗ code

13:20 ↗ so please be proactive

13:23 ↗ about correcting this state rule

13:26 ↗ by recommending the city one

13:30 ↗ automatically revise the ordinance one

13:32 ↗ single family is allowed

13:34 ↗ two revisit this ordinance annually

13:38 ↗ for updates in a rapidly changing sector

13:42 ↗ three work with other government bodies

13:44 ↗ to request the state building code

13:46 ↗ council

13:47 ↗ allow single-family ev charging

13:50 ↗ and four lobby the state to change the

13:54 ↗ single-family exception

13:57 ↗ so after considering the affordable

13:59 ↗ housing issues and recommending ways to

14:01 ↗ correct the single family

14:02 ↗ exclusion i urge you to approve this

14:05 ↗ ordinance

14:06 ↗ i would celebrate the city's first

14:09 ↗ significant action to meet our climate

14:11 ↗ goals

14:12 ↗ and then let's redouble our efforts to

14:16 ↗ achieve the many

14:17 ↗ other needed environmental and climate

14:19 ↗ goals we have here in issaquah

14:22 ↗ thank you thank you anne

14:25 ↗ to the correct way of anyone else

14:26 ↗ present or indicating a desire to speak

14:29 ↗ this evening

14:30 ↗ we do not thank you very much

14:34 ↗ i'd like to thank those that came

14:36 ↗ tonight we had several speakers speaking

14:38 ↗ about one of our abil

14:39 ↗ abs this evening on our ev our draft eb

14:43 ↗ ordinance thank you very much for coming

14:46 ↗ in

14:46 ↗ this is a reminder to the general public

14:48 ↗ or anybody that's watching written

14:50 ↗ comments can always be submitted at any

14:51 ↗ time to city council at issaquah.gov

14:55 ↗ city council at issaquah.gov going to go

14:58 ↗ over to council president hunt right now

14:59 ↗ and see if she has any email comments

15:01 ↗ that you would like to summarize on any

15:02 ↗ of tonight's agenda topics

15:05 ↗ thank you madam mayor we did receive

15:07 ↗ several emails

15:08 ↗ from community members on multiple

15:11 ↗ topics this evening and while we are

15:13 ↗ doing virtual meetings i am summarizing

15:15 ↗ um those comments on the electric

15:18 ↗ vehicle charging

15:19 ↗ ordinance ab-8066

15:23 ↗ um we received multiple emails one

15:26 ↗ requested that we add in the single

15:29 ↗ family requirement

15:30 ↗ also that we simplify or eliminate the

15:33 ↗ cost neutral affordable provisions but

15:35 ↗ rather just require

15:37 ↗ the same the same charging

15:40 ↗ infrastructure in affordable housing as

15:42 ↗ in the other housing types

15:44 ↗ um and then also said that since

15:47 ↗ the electric vehicle charging and

15:49 ↗ parking are

15:51 ↗ interrelated this might be prudence to

15:54 ↗ include these changes in the title 18

15:57 ↗ overhaul

15:59 ↗ we received comments in support from one

16:00 ↗ of the speakers this evening so i won't

16:02 ↗ re-summarize those comments and then we

16:05 ↗ also received

16:06 ↗ comments asking around the sales

16:09 ↗ and demand in our region for electric

16:12 ↗ cars and citing a wall street journal

16:14 ↗ article from a different region about

16:15 ↗ sales and demand of electric

16:17 ↗ vehicles and then on

16:21 ↗ two items on consent we also received

16:23 ↗ feedback on ab120 which is

16:26 ↗ new and replacement purchases of paving

16:28 ↗ equipment

16:30 ↗ we received the email commenting that

16:32 ↗ the more we build and develop

16:34 ↗ the more we have to maintain and the

16:35 ↗ more these costs will be coming up

16:37 ↗ and then uh ab-8149 which is the rh2

16:41 ↗ lease agreement

16:42 ↗ um had some questions around the benefit

16:45 ↗ and the rationale for

16:46 ↗ subletting this office space that

16:48 ↗ concludes comments um that were emailed

16:50 ↗ to council on topics for tonight's

16:52 ↗ agenda

16:53 ↗ thanks thank you council president hunt

16:56 ↗ the next item on the agenda this evening

16:57 ↗ is committee and regional reports

16:59 ↗ and so i will call each council member

17:01 ↗ by name for the reports and we'll start

17:02 ↗ with council member hall

17:07 ↗ thank you this is councilmember hall i

17:08 ↗ have a couple of quick reports and

17:10 ↗ please let me know if i'm choppy at all

17:12 ↗ my connection seems to be a little

17:14 ↗ choppy on this end because i've got

17:15 ↗ someone next door watching the

17:17 ↗ gonzaga baylor game but i can tell them

17:18 ↗ to stop watching if that helps so just

17:20 ↗ let me know

17:21 ↗ uh first one is for the affordable

17:24 ↗ housing committee of the growthman

17:25 ↗ atlantic growth management planning

17:27 ↗ council

17:28 ↗ we met on wednesday march 24th at 1pm

17:32 ↗ i wanted to highlight that we received a

17:34 ↗ interesting presentation from king

17:35 ↗ county

17:37 ↗ on their health through housing

17:39 ↗ implementation plan

17:41 ↗ and just as a quick reminder health

17:43 ↗ through housing is the county's plan to

17:45 ↗ fund uh

17:46 ↗ the acquisition of single room settings

17:48 ↗ like hotels

17:49 ↗ throughout the county uh for those who

17:51 ↗ are experiencing

17:52 ↗ or at risk of experiencing homelessness

17:55 ↗ and this is using that 0.1 percent

17:57 ↗ affordable housing taxing authority that

18:00 ↗ came from the passes of

18:01 ↗ house bill 1590. i wanted to make sure

18:04 ↗ to mention that the county

18:07 ↗ said in the meeting that they were

18:08 ↗ committed to working very closely with

18:10 ↗ local jurisdictions

18:11 ↗ as they begin this work i thought that

18:14 ↗ their plan

18:15 ↗ personally was very thoughtful and so

18:16 ↗ did the sound cities association caucus

18:19 ↗ but i would like to share the memo with

18:21 ↗ all of you so i'll be emailing that

18:23 ↗ out shortly and if you have any

18:25 ↗ questions i'd be happy to go through it

18:27 ↗ with you i thought it was a detailed

18:28 ↗ memo

18:29 ↗ and if there are any community members

18:31 ↗ um listening in who would like a copy of

18:33 ↗ that memo or would like to chat about it

18:35 ↗ i'm also

18:35 ↗ open to that as well and the next

18:38 ↗ meeting of the committee

18:39 ↗ is scheduled for wednesday may 19th at

18:42 ↗ 12 p.m

18:44 ↗ uh and then cascade water alliance board

18:48 ↗ of directors met also on the same day

18:49 ↗ wednesday march 24th

18:51 ↗ at 3 30 p.m nothing of particular

18:54 ↗ importance to reportback but i did want

18:55 ↗ to mention

18:56 ↗ uh that mayor paulie and i will be

18:58 ↗ attending a series of workshops this

19:00 ↗ summer

19:01 ↗ that's just being put together now on

19:03 ↗ the future of the alliance

19:04 ↗ and on the future of the lake taps

19:06 ↗ reservoir project which will

19:08 ↗ certainly be of importance um to council

19:11 ↗ members here and to the city of issaquah

19:13 ↗ so

19:13 ↗ we'll be sure to share more details on

19:15 ↗ that series uh as soon as possible

19:17 ↗ and as soon as we get those um and the

19:19 ↗ next board meeting for cascade water

19:21 ↗ alliance is wednesday

19:23 ↗ april 28th at 3 30 pm and that concludes

19:26 ↗ my report

19:27 ↗ thank you councilmember hall next up is

19:29 ↗ councilmember d michelle

19:32 ↗ thank you mayor paulie this is

19:33 ↗ councilmember d michelle

19:35 ↗ on thursday april 1st i attended the

19:38 ↗ monthly meeting of the healthier here

19:40 ↗ governing board we heard an extensive

19:42 ↗ report on the performance metrics that

19:44 ↗ are in development for approval by the

19:46 ↗ board

19:47 ↗ we also received a legislative update an

19:50 ↗ equity update and an update from

19:52 ↗ public health on resurgence of covet

19:55 ↗ cases

19:57 ↗ and then a meeting of east side

20:00 ↗ transportation partnership is scheduled

20:02 ↗ for this friday

20:03 ↗ april the 9th and that concludes my

20:05 ↗ report

20:09 ↗ thank you councilmember d michelle

20:10 ↗ councilmember walsh

20:12 ↗ thank you this council member walsh very

20:15 ↗ quick report in that

20:17 ↗ there is a meeting next friday for the

20:19 ↗ chamber of commerce but the agenda has

20:21 ↗ not been set so

20:23 ↗ that's all i got for you that concludes

20:24 ↗ my report thanks

20:26 ↗ thank you councilmember goodman uh thank

20:29 ↗ you mayor paulie councilmember goodman

20:31 ↗ here

20:31 ↗ eastside fire and rescue board of

20:33 ↗ directors will meet this thursday april

20:35 ↗ 8th at 4 pm

20:37 ↗ and uh there are um there's nothing

20:40 ↗ remarkable

20:41 ↗ on the agenda um there are some standard

20:44 ↗ uh reports out

20:46 ↗ such as um and i will report back

20:49 ↗ on those uh lodging tax advisory

20:52 ↗ committee will meet april 14th

20:54 ↗ at 10 a.m and i do not yet

20:57 ↗ have a set agenda yet but i

21:01 ↗ understand that the committee will be

21:03 ↗ reviewing

21:04 ↗ grant applications and also we should be

21:07 ↗ getting a quarterly

21:08 ↗ report from visit issaquah and that's my

21:11 ↗ report thank you

21:13 ↗ thank you councilmember goodman next up

21:14 ↗ councilmember marks

21:16 ↗ thank you madam mayor this is

21:17 ↗ councilmember marks go zags

21:19 ↗ puget sound regional uh council growth

21:22 ↗ management

21:23 ↗ policy board met on thursday april 1st

21:27 ↗ no actions were taken go zags sound

21:29 ↗ cities association public issues

21:31 ↗ committee will be meeting on wednesday

21:33 ↗ april 14th from 7 until 9.

21:36 ↗ it's a little bit of an unusual

21:38 ↗ situation because

21:39 ↗ the main meeting

21:43 ↗ may be cancelled and so uh

21:46 ↗ there is talk of potentially taking um

21:49 ↗ emergency action on an opinion regarding

21:53 ↗ king county rates and fees uh this is

21:56 ↗ pretty new information as of the end of

21:58 ↗ last week that

21:59 ↗ um there might there might be an

22:01 ↗ advisory opinion taken from pick

22:03 ↗ what i would like to suggest is if we

22:05 ↗ find ourselves somehow at the end of the

22:06 ↗ evening this evening with lots of time

22:08 ↗ on our hands

22:09 ↗ and not much to talk about um that i

22:11 ↗ would bring this up

22:12 ↗ at the uh good of the order otherwise

22:16 ↗ if people have opinions about this

22:19 ↗ subject

22:20 ↗ they can feel free to contact me and

22:23 ↗ i will i will endeavor to

22:26 ↗ share that view with uh with nick

22:29 ↗ that that concludes my report goes x

22:33 ↗ thank you councilmember mahrez next up

22:35 ↗ deputy council president ray

22:37 ↗ thank you mayor paulie the king cannon

22:39 ↗ growth management planning council

22:40 ↗ met on wednesday march 31st

22:44 ↗ on the agenda of import was a update on

22:47 ↗ the 2021 county wide planning policies

22:50 ↗ uh there was a review of the draft

22:53 ↗ policies

22:54 ↗ and a direction to release the draft

22:56 ↗ policies to the public for comment

22:58 ↗ additionally there was a review of the

23:01 ↗ urban growth capacity report

23:04 ↗ the overview included a the approach for

23:07 ↗ the new requirements

23:08 ↗ and initial county wine findings again

23:11 ↗ the

23:12 ↗ direction to staff was to release the

23:13 ↗ report to the public for comment

23:17 ↗ and there was a informational packet on

23:19 ↗ the

23:21 ↗ affordable housing committee's

23:25 ↗ recommendations and we had a received an

23:28 ↗ updated

23:29 ↗ schedule for the balance of the year

23:31 ↗ this is a big year for

23:33 ↗ gmpc with the county-wide planning

23:36 ↗ policies

23:38 ↗ and that is all that concludes my report

23:41 ↗ for this evening

23:44 ↗ thank you deputy council president

23:45 ↗ council president

23:48 ↗ thank you madam mayor um the wyra eight

23:51 ↗ salmon recovery council

23:53 ↗ met on um march

23:56 ↗ 18th and wyra8 is the technical name for

23:59 ↗ our watershed um the major agenda items

24:02 ↗ were discussion of the 2020

24:04 ↗ client survey a presentation on king

24:06 ↗ county's clean water healthy habitat

24:08 ↗ initiative

24:09 ↗ our 2020 progress report and then also

24:12 ↗ an update on

24:14 ↗ the wyrate's recent work on diversity

24:17 ↗ equity and inclusion

24:19 ↗ and the next meeting of the wire eight

24:21 ↗ salmon recovery will be

24:22 ↗ may 20th um two to four

24:25 ↗ fifteen pm there's also a kokanee um

24:28 ↗ working uh kokanee ila meeting

24:32 ↗ um this week on april 7th

24:35 ↗ which i will report back on after that

24:37 ↗ meeting

24:38 ↗ and then lastly on march 12th the title

24:41 ↗ 18 ad hoc committee

24:43 ↗ met with um staff this is a ad hoc

24:46 ↗ committee

24:47 ↗ um of council members that meet with

24:49 ↗ staff to discuss

24:50 ↗ the title 18 work which is our land use

24:54 ↗ code and the efforts to improve that

24:56 ↗ land use code

24:58 ↗ we met with the community planning

25:01 ↗ and development department director um

25:04 ↗ and we also met with the consultants and

25:07 ↗ we discussed um the progress on title 18

25:10 ↗ and how it's gone so far with those

25:12 ↗ um those individuals and then we also

25:15 ↗ uh briefly got an update on where the

25:16 ↗ sign code is through the process and

25:19 ↗ public engagement on that topic and that

25:21 ↗ concludes my report

25:23 ↗ thank you council president hunt the

25:25 ↗ next item is the mayor's report

25:28 ↗ and i have a few things tonight a couple

25:30 ↗ of announcements and a couple of

25:32 ↗ proclamations

25:33 ↗ so first off there will be an executive

25:35 ↗ session this evening for deliberations

25:37 ↗ related to agenda bill 18136

25:41 ↗ rcw 42.30 0.140 parent two

25:46 ↗ the item is expected to last 60 minutes

25:48 ↗ and may be extended if needed and action

25:50 ↗ is anticipated in open session

25:53 ↗ so one of my favorite parts about april

25:55 ↗ is that there is an

25:56 ↗ earth day proclamation so whereas the

26:00 ↗ global community faces

26:02 ↗ extraordinary challenges such as climate

26:04 ↗ change

26:05 ↗ global health issues environmental

26:07 ↗ degradation

26:09 ↗ food and water shortages and economic

26:12 ↗ struggles

26:12 ↗ and whereas local communities can lead

26:15 ↗ the way in taking steps to protect

26:18 ↗ and preserve our natural resources and

26:20 ↗ wildlife

26:21 ↗ by encouraging energy and water

26:23 ↗ conservation

26:24 ↗ waste reduction environmentally sound

26:27 ↗ land use

26:28 ↗ pollution prevention habitat restoration

26:31 ↗ and non-drive alone transportation

26:33 ↗ choices

26:34 ↗ and whereas earth day offers residents

26:37 ↗ of all ages

26:38 ↗ a unique opportunity to make a personal

26:40 ↗ commitment to protect the quality

26:42 ↗ of all life in issaquah for generations

26:44 ↗ to come

26:45 ↗ i urge all residents to celebrate this

26:48 ↗ special observance

26:49 ↗ and further to pledge to take action

26:51 ↗ together so that we can contribute to a

26:53 ↗ healthy environment

26:54 ↗ and make issaquah an even greater place

26:56 ↗ to live work and play

26:57 ↗ learn and to visit i proclaim april 22

27:01 ↗ 2021 to be earth day in the city of

27:04 ↗ issaquah

27:05 ↗ i'm going to add a few additional

27:07 ↗ comments

27:08 ↗ so the city is encouraging families and

27:10 ↗ individuals to celebrate earth day

27:12 ↗ all month long with activities and

27:14 ↗ actions that anyone can pursue on their

27:16 ↗ own or pick from a list of socially

27:18 ↗ distant events that can be found on the

27:20 ↗ city's website

27:21 ↗ for example the downtown issaquah

27:23 ↗ association is hosting

27:24 ↗ keep issaqua beautiful day where

27:26 ↗ residents are invited to help with trash

27:28 ↗ pickup

27:29 ↗ vegetation maintenance and flower

27:31 ↗ planting while wearing masks and being

27:33 ↗ socially distant

27:34 ↗ between april 20th and may 2nd the

27:36 ↗ friends of lake samama state park will

27:38 ↗ host an educational

27:40 ↗ celebrate the earth walk recology will

27:43 ↗ help residents learn which items go in

27:45 ↗ which bins at an informational webinar

27:47 ↗ and you can sign up to receive a free

27:49 ↗ rain barrel or compost bin

27:52 ↗ from the city at a socially distanced

27:54 ↗ pickup event

27:55 ↗ these and other earth month events can

27:57 ↗ be found online at issaquah.gov

28:01 ↗ earth month issaquahwad.gov earthmonth

28:05 ↗ i'm also going to do a proclamation

28:07 ↗ today on sexual assault awareness month

28:10 ↗ whereas sexual assault awareness month

28:12 ↗ calls attention to the fact that sexual

28:14 ↗ violence is widespread

28:16 ↗ and impacts every person in this

28:18 ↗ community and whereas in washington

28:20 ↗ state

28:21 ↗ 45 percent of women and 22 percent of

28:24 ↗ men

28:24 ↗ report having experienced sexual

28:26 ↗ violence in their lifetime

28:28 ↗ and whereas in king county more than 7

28:31 ↗ 100

28:32 ↗ adults and children received sexual

28:34 ↗ assault assistance from organizations

28:37 ↗ with programming for sexual assault

28:38 ↗ victims last year

28:41 ↗ and whereas working together as a

28:43 ↗ community we can alleviate the trauma of

28:45 ↗ sexual violence by ensuring supportive

28:47 ↗ resources are available

28:49 ↗ to all survivors while standing up to

28:52 ↗ harmful attitudes and behaviors that

28:54 ↗ contribute

28:54 ↗ to sexual assault i encourage all

28:57 ↗ citizens to join me in this special

28:58 ↗ observance

28:59 ↗ and join advocates and communities

29:01 ↗ across king county

29:03 ↗ in taking action to prevent sexual

29:05 ↗ violence

29:06 ↗ together we commit to a safer future for

29:10 ↗ all children

29:11 ↗ young people adults and families in our

29:13 ↗ community

29:14 ↗ i proclaim april 2021 to be sexual

29:17 ↗ assault

29:17 ↗ awareness month a couple more

29:20 ↗ announcements

29:21 ↗ i hope you can join us for the next

29:23 ↗ recovery task force meeting which will

29:25 ↗ be on april 6th

29:26 ↗ and thanks for the american rescue plan

29:29 ↗ act the city of issaquah anticipates it

29:31 ↗ will receive

29:31 ↗ 8.6 million in federal funds that must

29:34 ↗ be spent

29:35 ↗ through the year 2024. under the act

29:38 ↗ cities are authorized to use these

29:40 ↗ federal funds to respond to the covet 19

29:42 ↗ pandemic

29:44 ↗ to the cover the costs as a result of a

29:46 ↗ public health emergency

29:48 ↗ who replaced lost delayed or decreased

29:51 ↗ revenues due to covet 19. to address the

29:54 ↗ negative economic

29:55 ↗ impacts of the pandemic and to make

29:58 ↗ necessary investments in water

30:00 ↗ sewer and broadband infrastructure

30:03 ↗ during its april 6 virtual meeting

30:05 ↗ the issaquah recovery task force will

30:07 ↗ discuss guiding principles

30:08 ↗ to help inform how our city spends these

30:10 ↗ funds we want to hear from the community

30:12 ↗ and hope that you will join us

30:14 ↗ you can find the meeting login

30:16 ↗ information on our website meeting

30:17 ↗ calendar

30:18 ↗ or you can contact my office for

30:20 ↗ assistance and

30:22 ↗ techies i think this is the last one

30:24 ↗ okay last one issaquah community vaccine

30:27 ↗ partnership update

30:28 ↗ the usa claw vaccine community

30:30 ↗ partnership met earlier today for our

30:32 ↗ weekly coordination meeting

30:33 ↗ our focus remains helping our eligible

30:36 ↗ community members to get fully

30:37 ↗ vaccinated

30:38 ↗ a drive up mass vaccination site is now

30:41 ↗ ready for operation nissaquah

30:43 ↗ and we plan to share some exciting news

30:45 ↗ later this week

30:46 ↗ meanwhile supporting our most vulnerable

30:49 ↗ residents

30:49 ↗ remains a top priority isco is

30:52 ↗ partnering with eastside fire and rescue

30:53 ↗ to offer limited mobile

30:55 ↗ covid19 vaccination clinics to eligible

30:59 ↗ residents who are not physically able to

31:00 ↗ travel outside of their home

31:02 ↗ appointments are dependent on available

31:04 ↗ vaccine supply

31:06 ↗ if you are eligible for this mobile

31:08 ↗ clinic or you know someone who is

31:09 ↗ eligible for this mobile clinic

31:11 ↗ or if you need special assistance please

31:14 ↗ call us

31:14 ↗ at 425-837-33

31:21 ↗ 425-837-3300

31:22 ↗ we are here to help and that concludes

31:24 ↗ the mayor's report for tonight

31:27 ↗ we will move on to the next item of

31:29 ↗ business which is the consent calendar

31:31 ↗ the consent calendar was distributed to

31:33 ↗ council in advance

31:34 ↗ and if authorized the items on the

31:36 ↗ consent calendar will be considered

31:38 ↗ together

31:38 ↗ and approved by one motion have the

31:41 ↗ payables and payroll been reviewed

31:44 ↗ yes yes

31:47 ↗ thank you very much does any council

31:50 ↗ member desire to remove

31:51 ↗ any items from the consent calendar and

31:53 ↗ consider it under regular business this

31:55 ↗ evening

31:58 ↗ not seeing anything is there a motion to

32:02 ↗ approve

32:02 ↗ the consent calendar council president

32:04 ↗ hunt thank you this is council president

32:07 ↗ hunt i move to approve the consent

32:08 ↗ calendar as it appears in this evening's

32:10 ↗ agenda

32:11 ↗ thank you and deputy council president

32:13 ↗ ray second

32:15 ↗ thank you very much it has been moved

32:17 ↗ and seconded city clerk can you please

32:19 ↗ do a

32:19 ↗ roll call vote for uh on the consent

32:23 ↗ absolutely uh we're going to start with

32:24 ↗ council member goodman

32:28 ↗ i council member hall

32:32 ↗ aye council president hunt

32:36 ↗ aye council member marks aye

32:41 ↗ deputy council president ray aye

32:44 ↗ councilmember walsh

32:45 ↗ aye councilmember d michelle hi

32:49 ↗ thank you that's 7i zero nays thank you

32:52 ↗ city clerk that passes unanimously

32:55 ↗ we're now going to move into regular

32:57 ↗ business and the first item this evening

32:59 ↗ is ab-8066

33:01 ↗ amending the isuka municipal code and

33:03 ↗ central isco development and design

33:05 ↗ standards

33:06 ↗ related to electric vehicle charging the

33:09 ↗ request before council this evening is

33:11 ↗ to adopt the ordinance

33:12 ↗ and this item was last before council at

33:14 ↗ the february 9

33:16 ↗ 2021 council study session so i'd like

33:19 ↗ to

33:19 ↗ invite megan curtis murphy senior

33:21 ↗ sustainability coordinator to introduce

33:23 ↗ this item

33:24 ↗ welcome megan and mayor if i may

33:27 ↗ uh make just a few comments before megan

33:30 ↗ uh starts with the item

33:32 ↗ excuse me this item was last before the

33:34 ↗ council in february i was absent from

33:36 ↗ that meeting

33:37 ↗ but there was a concern expressed by

33:40 ↗ several community members members of our

33:42 ↗ planning policy committee

33:43 ↗ over comments that were made at the

33:45 ↗ january

33:46 ↗ discussion of this item regarding the

33:49 ↗ work the planning policy committee has

33:51 ↗ done uh reviewing council items and

33:53 ↗ certainly the work moving forward i just

33:54 ↗ wanted to take a quick opportunity

33:57 ↗ uh to clarify uh those comments and

34:00 ↗ really share my appreciation for the

34:02 ↗ work the planning policy committee

34:04 ↗ has done on many difficult topics in my

34:07 ↗ year and a half as the city

34:08 ↗ administrator

34:09 ↗ and certainly over the last few months

34:11 ↗ and they're working very diligently

34:13 ↗ on this topic along with the environment

34:15 ↗ board i think our

34:16 ↗ our citizen boards and commissions have

34:18 ↗ tough jobs um

34:20 ↗ the the work that they do to provide

34:22 ↗ good comment and feedback to the council

34:24 ↗ is very important and i wanted to just

34:26 ↗ take this moment madam mayor members of

34:27 ↗ the council

34:28 ↗ uh to recognize uh that good work and

34:30 ↗ the important part that they play

34:32 ↗ in these processes so with that i'll

34:35 ↗ introduce

34:36 ↗ megan to take the item forward megan

34:39 ↗ thanks

34:39 ↗ uh administrator bob quits but i did see

34:42 ↗ that in the chat councilmember hall had

34:44 ↗ asked to make a comment first

34:46 ↗ so councilmember hall i'm not sure if

34:47 ↗ it's about this particular a b

34:49 ↗ before we start or was it on the consent

34:52 ↗ it wasn't it was a quick comment this

34:53 ↗ council member hall is just a quick

34:55 ↗ comment on the consent calendar but

34:56 ↗ that's okay no worries we can move on

34:58 ↗ okay okay sorry i missed that i had my

35:01 ↗ talking points over top of the chat my

35:03 ↗ bad

35:04 ↗ okay we're up to me okay are you seeing

35:16 ↗ my screen

35:18 ↗ yes you can thank you

35:27 ↗ all right good evening council members

35:28 ↗ i'm megan curtis murphy the senior

35:30 ↗ sustainability coordinator for the city

35:33 ↗ and i'm here this evening to talk about

35:34 ↗ the electric vehicle charging proposal

35:37 ↗ which i last presented on to council in

35:39 ↗ early february

35:42 ↗ so since that time we've made some

35:43 ↗ changes to the proposal and received

35:45 ↗ feedback from the planning policy

35:47 ↗ commission

35:48 ↗ the environmental board and community

35:49 ↗ stakeholders

35:51 ↗ so the purpose of the meeting tonight is

35:53 ↗ to seek council authorization

35:55 ↗ to adopt the ev charging ordinance and

35:57 ↗ to help increase ev use and access in

35:59 ↗ our community

36:03 ↗ as you know the city is working towards

36:04 ↗ climate actions to reduce our greenhouse

36:06 ↗ gas emissions

36:08 ↗ and increasing the infrastructure need

36:10 ↗ to support vehicle electrification

36:12 ↗ has been one of those main strategies

36:14 ↗ that's included in two of the city's

36:16 ↗ plans

36:16 ↗ the sustainable building action strategy

36:19 ↗ and the release

36:20 ↗ recently adopted mobility master plan

36:23 ↗ in addition it was requested by members

36:25 ↗ of our community at the community

36:26 ↗ convening on climate last year

36:28 ↗ as well as by council members we're also

36:31 ↗ currently developing a climate action

36:33 ↗ plan this year and plan to reconvene

36:35 ↗ that group to get their input on

36:37 ↗ specific strategies and actions moving

36:39 ↗ forward

36:40 ↗ so adopting this ordinance will

36:42 ↗ demonstrate the city's commitment to

36:43 ↗ action and will be something to

36:44 ↗ celebrate at that meeting

36:48 ↗ this slide shows an overview of the

36:50 ↗ percentages of ev infrastructure that

36:52 ↗ are included in the proposal

36:55 ↗ we've heard from our boards and

36:56 ↗ commissions these percentages are about

36:58 ↗ right at this time

36:59 ↗ there is some discussion that they

37:01 ↗ should be revisited in the future as

37:03 ↗ electrification increases

37:04 ↗ but that these are a good starting point

37:07 ↗ evse

37:08 ↗ stands for electric vehicle supply

37:10 ↗ equipment which is the charging

37:11 ↗ equipment itself

37:12 ↗ and ev ready means it's wired for a

37:14 ↗ charging station to be added at a later

37:17 ↗ date

37:20 ↗ so here's a summary of the updates and

37:22 ↗ recommendations made to the ordinance

37:24 ↗ since the last study session

37:26 ↗ the first change is the removal of the

37:28 ↗ 350 single family and town home

37:31 ↗ incentive program that was originally

37:32 ↗ proposed

37:34 ↗ second no changes have been made for

37:36 ↗ tods so the ev requirements will

37:38 ↗ continue to apply to them

37:41 ↗ third due to equity concerns so we heard

37:43 ↗ from the community

37:44 ↗ the administration removed the waiver

37:46 ↗ for affordable housing units

37:48 ↗ and instead the ordinance now includes

37:50 ↗ provisions for affordable housing

37:52 ↗ that more accurately reflect the

37:54 ↗ services and needs of residents

37:57 ↗ last there is no change to the

37:58 ↗ single-family requirements

38:00 ↗ so single-family continues to be exempt

38:02 ↗ from the ordinance

38:06 ↗ the first item i want to discuss is

38:08 ↗ affordable housing

38:11 ↗ um excuse me megan if i may just check

38:13 ↗ in for a second council member goodman

38:14 ↗ would you like to ask your question

38:17 ↗ as we're going through or do you want to

38:18 ↗ wait for the end of the presentation

38:21 ↗ um i think i'd like to ask this question

38:22 ↗ now if you don't mind

38:24 ↗ and do we need to be on a different

38:26 ↗ slide uh yes back to the chart

38:29 ↗ megan that you had

38:33 ↗ so um this is the proposed ordinance um

38:37 ↗ it's my understanding that we already

38:40 ↗ have

38:42 ↗ um an ev charging code so to speak and

38:44 ↗ that we have the international building

38:45 ↗ code right

38:48 ↗ correct so can you um

38:51 ↗ just because we're discussing this and

38:54 ↗ we haven't discussed that i don't think

38:55 ↗ that's been in our materials since

38:57 ↗ either january early maybe january maybe

39:00 ↗ it was early february

39:01 ↗ um just just briefly describe what the

39:06 ↗ the code the ibc already requires

39:09 ↗ and that that is the code that is it's

39:12 ↗ not like we don't have any

39:13 ↗ ev charging requirements we have a code

39:16 ↗ that we have a code now it's ibc

39:18 ↗ and so if you could just clarify the

39:19 ↗ difference between that and this

39:21 ↗ proposal that would be great sure

39:25 ↗ so with the state building code they

39:29 ↗ do updates to their um to the building

39:31 ↗ code every or to the energy code every

39:33 ↗ three years

39:34 ↗ and as part of the 2018 updates that

39:37 ↗ became

39:38 ↗ effective on i believe february 1st of

39:40 ↗ this year that we

39:41 ↗ adopted along with other jurisdictions

39:43 ↗ in washington

39:44 ↗ there is an ev charging component to

39:46 ↗ that

39:48 ↗ so that requires all multi-family and

39:51 ↗ commercial

39:52 ↗ buildings to do some ev infrastructure

39:56 ↗ the way that is defined is um

39:59 ↗ a little bit different than what we have

40:01 ↗ in our ordinance so

40:03 ↗ to fulfill those requirements projects

40:06 ↗ have an option of either

40:08 ↗ installing uh electric vehicle chargers

40:11 ↗ for five percent of their parking spaces

40:14 ↗ or to have five percent of their parking

40:17 ↗ spaces

40:18 ↗ be ev capable um so that does not

40:20 ↗ include the the wiring

40:22 ↗ um that is required so projects have an

40:25 ↗ option of choosing between those two

40:27 ↗ pieces

40:31 ↗ thank you thank you councilmember kevin

40:33 ↗ does that answer your question

40:34 ↗ yeah it does answer my question and i

40:36 ↗ think when we get further it would

40:38 ↗ probably be i asked um some questions

40:41 ↗ and i don't

40:41 ↗ know that all of them went out they

40:43 ↗ probably did but the public didn't get

40:45 ↗ to see those responses one of them is

40:47 ↗ the exemption for um projects i'll just

40:51 ↗ say projects

40:52 ↗ where um there's certain exempt

40:54 ↗ exemption for smaller projects

40:56 ↗ and also um not

41:00 ↗ everything in the ibc is included so

41:03 ↗ for example it doesn't include retail so

41:06 ↗ ours is a

41:08 ↗ much broader ordinance so maybe if you

41:10 ↗ get to places

41:11 ↗ during your presentation where where

41:13 ↗ it's an opportunity for you to explain

41:15 ↗ some of the differences that would be

41:16 ↗ helpful

41:18 ↗ thank you councilmember goodman uh megan

41:20 ↗ that's a good suggestion but maybe at

41:22 ↗ the end

41:23 ↗ um you could go through the questions

41:25 ↗ and answers so that the members of the

41:26 ↗ public who may not have seen them

41:28 ↗ um hear what answers the council got

41:31 ↗ this week i think that'd be good

41:35 ↗ sure keep going all right

41:44 ↗ okay so going into affordable housing

41:47 ↗ so as i mentioned on the previous slide

41:50 ↗ the administration has removed the

41:52 ↗ waiver for affordable housing units

41:54 ↗ so at the study session we heard a few

41:56 ↗ different ideas for requirements for

41:57 ↗ affordable housing

41:59 ↗ overall we heard that the council wants

42:01 ↗ to ensure access to reflect the services

42:03 ↗ and needs of these residents

42:05 ↗ but perhaps in a more flexible manner so

42:08 ↗ we're now proposing that affordable

42:09 ↗ housing units meet eva infrastructure

42:11 ↗ requirements

42:13 ↗ but allow the builders to take some cost

42:15 ↗ reduction measures

42:16 ↗ like reducing parking spots and

42:18 ↗ structured parking to meet those

42:20 ↗ requirements

42:21 ↗ then if these are not feasible there are

42:24 ↗ allowances for reducing parking lot

42:25 ↗ landscaping

42:26 ↗ or providing a portion of the stalls ev

42:29 ↗ capable

42:30 ↗ so this option is the administration's

42:33 ↗ recommendation as in currently included

42:35 ↗ in the proposal

42:37 ↗ the other options that were discussed

42:39 ↗ with council and at the board and

42:40 ↗ commission meetings are listed here

42:42 ↗ and a mix include a mix of full

42:45 ↗ requirements for affordable housing or

42:47 ↗ variations of reduced requirements

42:50 ↗ and city staff has reached out to

42:51 ↗ several affordable housing groups to ask

42:53 ↗ for their perspective on these options

42:56 ↗ both imagine housing and a regional

42:58 ↗ coalition for housing

43:00 ↗ were supportive of the administration's

43:02 ↗ recommendation to remove

43:03 ↗ to reduce costs however king county

43:06 ↗ housing authority

43:07 ↗ and a developer working on tod project

43:10 ↗ were concerned that the ev charging

43:11 ↗ space

43:12 ↗ spaces wouldn't be utilized in

43:13 ↗ affordable housing units due to a lack

43:15 ↗ of ev ownership

43:19 ↗ so megan before we move on it looks like

43:20 ↗ we have a couple questions council

43:22 ↗ president

43:23 ↗ just want to check in is the question

43:24 ↗ related to the slide would you like to

43:26 ↗ ask it now

43:27 ↗ yes okay and then i think uh council

43:30 ↗ member mars also has a question council

43:32 ↗ president hunt

43:33 ↗ thank you my question is on the ev

43:36 ↗ capable and you had earlier given the

43:39 ↗ definitions of eb

43:41 ↗ s e and ev ready and so um i wonder if

43:44 ↗ you could give the definition of

43:46 ↗ evie capable because that is one of the

43:49 ↗ that is part of the recommendation and

43:52 ↗ then also

43:52 ↗ what would it mean to have to um what

43:55 ↗ would it mean for somebody to actually

43:56 ↗ be able to

43:57 ↗ charge their car if it started out as as

44:00 ↗ only at ev

44:01 ↗ capable spot

44:04 ↗ sure thank you this is megan um ev

44:08 ↗ capable means that there is um

44:11 ↗ there's conduit but there's no wiring

44:13 ↗ there so

44:15 ↗ there would be space to put in the

44:16 ↗ wiring at a future date

44:18 ↗ so if you're gonna take an ev capable

44:20 ↗ spot

44:22 ↗ and want to someone to actually be able

44:24 ↗ to plug into a charger there

44:26 ↗ you would first need to run the wiring

44:28 ↗ which we've been calling ev ready

44:30 ↗ and then install the ev charger itself

44:34 ↗ evse

44:36 ↗ was there a second part council

44:38 ↗ president second part of the question or

44:40 ↗ um i think that answers it just to

44:42 ↗ clarify that the

44:44 ↗ the person who has the card to charge

44:46 ↗ wouldn't be able to do the wiring

44:48 ↗ step themselves right that would be the

44:50 ↗ the owner of the

44:52 ↗ um responsibility thank you

44:56 ↗ and council member mertz thank you madam

44:59 ↗ mayor this is council member mart

45:01 ↗ you know um in prepping for the meeting

45:03 ↗ tonight i was reading the materials and

45:05 ↗ i'm

45:05 ↗ still not sure i know exactly what

45:07 ↗ number one means

45:09 ↗ but meet the eevee infrastructure

45:11 ↗ requirements through a cross-neutral

45:12 ↗ approach

45:14 ↗ can you give me an example of how that

45:16 ↗ would how that might work

45:18 ↗ in involving changing structured parking

45:21 ↗ requirements and

45:22 ↗ what the i don't really understand what

45:24 ↗ that means

45:26 ↗ thanks yes uh this is megan

45:30 ↗ so were trying to find um ways that we

45:33 ↗ could reduce the overall cost for adding

45:35 ↗ this ev

45:36 ↗ infrastructure hearing both that cost is

45:38 ↗ a

45:39 ↗ an added concern for especially for

45:41 ↗ affordable housing but also want to make

45:43 ↗ sure it's there

45:44 ↗ um so we are thinking about projects and

45:46 ↗ ways that we could reduce that projects

45:49 ↗ or reduce that cost so projects

45:53 ↗ by code are required to have a certain

45:54 ↗ number of parking spots and depending on

45:56 ↗ where they are

45:57 ↗ structured parking so those were thought

46:00 ↗ as ways to

46:01 ↗ be able to reduce those costs we had

46:04 ↗ heard that parking is

46:06 ↗ a major cost in all projects but

46:08 ↗ especially affordable housing kind of as

46:10 ↗ a percentage of the overall project

46:13 ↗ i don't have the figures in front of me

46:14 ↗ but i think for each spot it could range

46:16 ↗ from 30 to 60 000

46:17 ↗ kind of depending on structured uh level

46:20 ↗ underground all of those factors

46:22 ↗ so we thought that that would be a good

46:24 ↗ way to be able to offset some of those

46:26 ↗ cost

46:27 ↗ so still require the project to install

46:30 ↗ the um you know the full ev

46:32 ↗ infrastructure requirements

46:34 ↗ um for multi-family buildings but that

46:37 ↗ they might be able to reduce a parking

46:39 ↗ spot or do maybe less structured parking

46:42 ↗ and they would need to do a proposal to

46:44 ↗ demonstrate those costs and how those

46:46 ↗ would be cost neutral

46:47 ↗ okay i understand it now thank you i

46:49 ↗ appreciate that explanation

46:51 ↗ councilmember martz this is the mayor i

46:53 ↗ just wanted to add one other

46:54 ↗ point to that too it's a nuance that's

46:56 ↗ maybe not apparent in the material

46:58 ↗ the needs of those in affordable housing

47:00 ↗ units may be different

47:02 ↗ and so it may be possible to actually

47:05 ↗ result in more ev charging stations

47:08 ↗ than what we have in the code and i

47:10 ↗ think what we want to do is give them

47:11 ↗ that flexibility

47:13 ↗ if they can show that there's a lesser

47:15 ↗ stall demand

47:16 ↗ we may be able to then have our

47:19 ↗ affordable housing code say

47:20 ↗ then make a mall electric vehicle

47:23 ↗ charging capable

47:24 ↗ so the hope is that it's a win-win and

47:27 ↗ an improvement

47:28 ↗ so thank you megan uh you want to

47:31 ↗ continue on with your

47:34 ↗ sure thank you

47:38 ↗ so the next topic of discussion is

47:40 ↗ around the single family requirements

47:42 ↗ so in the original proposal single

47:44 ↗ family is exempt from the ev

47:46 ↗ ordinance the city administration

47:48 ↗ recommends that they continue to be

47:49 ↗ exempt for the advice of the city

47:51 ↗ eternal

47:52 ↗ is the city attorney that was detailed

47:54 ↗ in the memo at the last study session

47:56 ↗ so the other option discussed was to

47:59 ↗ require ev-ready infrastructure

48:01 ↗ in single-family and townhomes

48:07 ↗ the environmental board had a meeting to

48:09 ↗ discuss the proposal on march 10th

48:12 ↗ overall they recommended that the

48:13 ↗ council move forward with the ordinance

48:15 ↗ but with a couple of amendments

48:18 ↗ the first was to require ev ready

48:20 ↗ requirements for single family if

48:21 ↗ possible now

48:23 ↗ but if not to include them in the future

48:26 ↗ the second recommendation was about the

48:28 ↗ new proposal on affordable housing

48:30 ↗ they wanted to specify that substituting

48:33 ↗ ev ready or ebsc

48:34 ↗ infrastructure with ev capable should

48:37 ↗ only be done

48:38 ↗ as a last resort they also provide a few

48:41 ↗ other pieces of feedback including one

48:43 ↗ to revisit the proposal

48:45 ↗ encouraging pathways for single-family

48:48 ↗ requirements

48:49 ↗ and considering subsidies for affordable

48:51 ↗ housing within the larger title 18

48:53 ↗ update process

48:55 ↗ and one update that i wanted to include

48:57 ↗ here is that we recently learned that

48:59 ↗ the regional code collaboration

49:01 ↗ will be submitting an amendment to the

49:03 ↗ state building code council

49:04 ↗ to allow jurisdictions to require

49:06 ↗ single-family

49:08 ↗ charging so they'll be submitting this

49:10 ↗ on behalf of king county

49:12 ↗ and if passed it would become an option

49:14 ↗ in the next energy code update

49:20 ↗ on march 11 the ppc held a public

49:22 ↗ hearing on the proposal

49:23 ↗ and also recommended the council move

49:25 ↗ forward with the ordinance with a few

49:27 ↗ changes

49:29 ↗ they recommended removing the affordable

49:31 ↗ housing section in the ordinance

49:33 ↗ and instead require affordable housing

49:35 ↗ to meet a hundred percent of the quiet

49:37 ↗ of the requirements with none of the

49:38 ↗ other

49:39 ↗ stipulations are currently in the

49:40 ↗ proposal

49:42 ↗ they also specified that if the council

49:44 ↗ wants to include the affordable housing

49:46 ↗ approach proposed by the administration

49:49 ↗ then can

49:50 ↗ then to consider switching evsc spaces

49:52 ↗ to ev ready spaces

49:54 ↗ as a cost reduction mother method rather

49:56 ↗ than the other options included in the

49:58 ↗ proposal

50:00 ↗ so one reason for ppc's recommendation

50:02 ↗ is that the commissioners review

50:03 ↗ land use codes and they had specifically

50:06 ↗ recommended items like

50:08 ↗ landscape requirements for the their

50:09 ↗ environmental benefits

50:14 ↗ the options before the council this

50:16 ↗ evening are to adopt the ordinance as

50:17 ↗ proposed

50:18 ↗ or to make modifications to the proposal

50:23 ↗ the administration recommends the

50:25 ↗ council adopt the ordinance as proposed

50:27 ↗ which would include having the

50:28 ↗ provisions of ev infrastructure and

50:30 ↗ affordable housing

50:32 ↗ with that flexibility that the mayor was

50:33 ↗ referring to

50:35 ↗ but not the requirements for single

50:38 ↗ family

50:41 ↗ so this council meeting comes after two

50:43 ↗ previous touches with the city council

50:46 ↗ the environmental board and ppc so if

50:49 ↗ passed tonight the projects would be

50:50 ↗ required to comply with the ordinance on

50:52 ↗ april 13th unless their

50:54 ↗ permits are vested by that date and i

50:57 ↗ want to make one clarification from the

50:59 ↗ memo which incorrectly stated that the

51:01 ↗ projects going through land use permits

51:03 ↗ would not need to comply

51:05 ↗ under washington state vested rights

51:07 ↗ doctrine vesting is only with a building

51:10 ↗ permit preliminary pat

51:12 ↗ platt or development agreement so thus

51:14 ↗ projects going through land use will

51:16 ↗ need to comply

51:17 ↗ unless vested

51:22 ↗ so once again here's the

51:24 ↗ administration's recommendation

51:26 ↗ so thank you for your time and this

51:27 ↗ concludes my presentation

51:30 ↗ thank you megan there was a reference

51:32 ↗ earlier to

51:34 ↗ some questions and answers that were

51:36 ↗ distributed this week but may not have

51:37 ↗ been available to the public i wonder if

51:39 ↗ you could cover some of that and then

51:41 ↗ under the questions it looks like

51:42 ↗ councilmember goodman is also lined up

51:44 ↗ for a question

51:46 ↗ um thank you councilmember goodman here

51:48 ↗ i was just going to ask megan to go over

51:50 ↗ that um what she said about single

51:53 ↗ family

51:53 ↗ and the recommendation and possibly

51:56 ↗ change during the next cycle

51:57 ↗ and i think you said energy go every

51:59 ↗ three years so i was just wanting you to

52:02 ↗ repeat that because i wasn't quite sure

52:04 ↗ i heard it all correctly thank you

52:07 ↗ sure this was just something that i

52:09 ↗ learned today talking with

52:10 ↗ representatives from the regional code

52:12 ↗ collaboration

52:13 ↗ that they are also wanting to include

52:17 ↗ single-family requirements and king

52:19 ↗ county

52:20 ↗ is looking at a similar proposal right

52:22 ↗ now

52:23 ↗ and has the same desire so they are

52:25 ↗ going to be approaching the

52:27 ↗ state building code council so that

52:30 ↗ they can propose an amendment that would

52:32 ↗ allow the um

52:33 ↗ single family to be included in by

52:36 ↗ jurisdictions if they choose to

52:38 ↗ it would still have to be something that

52:40 ↗ is adopted by jurisdictions

52:42 ↗ um and what i mentioned about the

52:45 ↗ updates is that that would be

52:46 ↗ an optional amendment to the next energy

52:49 ↗ code cycle from the way i understand it

52:51 ↗ now

52:52 ↗ so they would be able to um as i

52:55 ↗ mentioned we just

52:56 ↗ had the state um

53:00 ↗ electric vehicle requirements just

53:01 ↗ became effective on february 1st

53:03 ↗ that was actually part of the 2018

53:06 ↗ energy code process

53:07 ↗ so this would be an amendment for the

53:10 ↗ 2021 energy code so three-year cycle

53:14 ↗ that would then be an option a couple

53:16 ↗ years after that to be adopted by

53:18 ↗ jurisdictions

53:20 ↗ and you're saying energy code but it

53:21 ↗ would be potentially a change to the

53:23 ↗ building code

53:24 ↗ yes yes that's part of the building it'd

53:27 ↗ be a 2020 and

53:28 ↗ one amendment that okay thank you

53:34 ↗ thank you megan is there anything else

53:35 ↗ that you need to recap

53:37 ↗ on q a or are we pretty much caught up

53:40 ↗ um i am going to just

53:42 ↗ look at that we had a few questions by

53:46 ↗ council members that came in

53:53 ↗ and i will try to summarize those

53:56 ↗ briefly

54:05 ↗ i will try to summarize those briefly so

54:08 ↗ we had um

54:10 ↗ a couple questions about um how

54:13 ↗ um the townhome incentive program that's

54:17 ↗ currently included in the ordinance

54:19 ↗ um previously in code since

54:22 ↗ we did not have any specific

54:24 ↗ requirements for

54:26 ↗ electric vehicle infrastructure the city

54:28 ↗ used to have or

54:29 ↗ currently has an incentive program on

54:30 ↗ the books that allows projects to reduce

54:32 ↗ their parking

54:34 ↗ so there was just a question about that

54:36 ↗ so that is one of the

54:38 ↗ the pieces in the code that we are

54:40 ↗ changing um so since

54:42 ↗ we are now with this ordinance if passed

54:44 ↗ we'd be requiring ev infrastructure

54:46 ↗ um it was recommended that that that

54:49 ↗ incentive program reflect that so we're

54:50 ↗ not reflecting things that are already

54:52 ↗ required we also had some clarification

54:57 ↗ questions on the cost

54:58 ↗ neutral approach which i think we were

55:00 ↗ talking about a little bit

55:01 ↗ to council member mart's questions

55:06 ↗ and we had some kind of clarification

55:08 ↗ questions around

55:09 ↗ some of the recommendations from the

55:12 ↗ environmental board and the ppc

55:14 ↗ which we talked about some in the

55:18 ↗ presentation let me just scan

55:21 ↗ through

55:30 ↗ and then we also have the question from

55:33 ↗ member goodman about the current state

55:35 ↗ code

55:36 ↗ which we talked about a little bit in

55:38 ↗ this presentation

55:40 ↗ and then also looking at the number of

55:42 ↗ projects that we might be seeing in the

55:44 ↗ next two years

55:46 ↗ so although we're not able to um to

55:49 ↗ project exactly the projects that are

55:52 ↗ um going to be coming down the road we

55:54 ↗ had some numbers

55:55 ↗ about projects from recent years um and

55:57 ↗ then we also talked about a couple of

55:59 ↗ the

55:59 ↗ the projects that are currently in the

56:02 ↗ pipeline and how many units

56:04 ↗ might be there and i think that mostly

56:07 ↗ summarizes it but i'm happy to address

56:09 ↗ any further questions

56:11 ↗ from the council about those items thank

56:13 ↗ you megan we'll move into

56:14 ↗ q a now and it looks like council

56:16 ↗ president hunt has a question

56:19 ↗ thank you um yes so uh

56:22 ↗ i had a question um it was it was in the

56:25 ↗ email

56:26 ↗ um but i think there was some more

56:28 ↗ information there

56:29 ↗ so the question is around what is

56:33 ↗ what kind of homes are currently

56:36 ↗ covered in the ordinance so are town

56:39 ↗ homes

56:39 ↗ covered duplex triplex fourplex or any

56:42 ↗ of those covered by the ordinance

56:44 ↗ currently

56:51 ↗ this is megan i might let

56:54 ↗ the city attorney james haney elaborate

56:57 ↗ a little bit more on

56:58 ↗ on what was covered in the ordinance

57:00 ↗ there

57:05 ↗ i can start off and give you a minute so

57:08 ↗ overall

57:09 ↗ we do have the multi-family and

57:11 ↗ commercial requirements

57:13 ↗ and then we did not include

57:16 ↗ single-family

57:19 ↗ single-family homes but there was a

57:21 ↗ little bit of discussion around

57:22 ↗ townhomes in there that i can let

57:24 ↗ the city attorney talk about well we

57:28 ↗ discussed townhomes

57:30 ↗ and it comes down to whether or not the

57:34 ↗ state the state building code

57:37 ↗ states that

57:41 ↗ cities cannot impose additional

57:44 ↗ regulations on

57:45 ↗ single-family residential and on

57:48 ↗ multi-family residential buildings

57:50 ↗ without the approval of the state

57:52 ↗ building code council

57:54 ↗ the building code the state building

57:57 ↗ code however defines

57:58 ↗ multi-family buildings in a way which

58:01 ↗ is a little bit different from what

58:05 ↗ what we would ordinarily think of

58:08 ↗ as a as multi-family and in fact

58:12 ↗ it provides specifically

58:15 ↗ that multi-family buildings are

58:18 ↗ include buildings which are

58:23 ↗ four or fewer units which uh

58:26 ↗ contain five thousand or fewer square

58:29 ↗ feet

58:30 ↗ which are less than uh or which are

58:34 ↗ two or excuse me less than three stories

58:37 ↗ high

58:38 ↗ and that have

58:41 ↗ a certain one-hour fire resistive

58:43 ↗ construction between the common walls

58:46 ↗ of the units so

58:49 ↗ that does make it so that you can have

58:53 ↗ certain uh town homes uh

58:56 ↗ certain commonwealth construction

58:59 ↗ covered by your ordinance and other

59:04 ↗ construction you can't so things that

59:07 ↗ meet the

59:08 ↗ definition of multi-family residential

59:10 ↗ building in the state

59:11 ↗ building code which again is different

59:13 ↗ from what we would normally think of as

59:15 ↗ the commonly accepted definition of

59:17 ↗ multifamily

59:18 ↗ those things cannot be covered just like

59:20 ↗ single family cannot be covered

59:22 ↗ but things which don't meet that

59:24 ↗ definition

59:25 ↗ can in fact be covered by the ordinance

59:27 ↗ if you wish to make them covered

59:30 ↗ as i read the ordinance currently under

59:32 ↗ multi-family

59:34 ↗ just r1 which are hotel occupancies

59:38 ↗ r2 occupancies and i2

59:41 ↗ occupancies are covered so i don't think

59:44 ↗ that town homes

59:46 ↗ that you were talking about

59:49 ↗ would be covered under the current

59:50 ↗ ordinance

59:52 ↗ but they could be

59:57 ↗ that's the president um thank you i do

1:00:00 ↗ have one quick follow-up if i

1:00:01 ↗ may um and i think

1:00:05 ↗ this is for um megan so uh

1:00:08 ↗ in the regional code collaboration um

1:00:12 ↗ code that we're basing this ordinance on

1:00:15 ↗ originally could you remind us what the

1:00:19 ↗ um town home requirement is for

1:00:22 ↗ for eb charging

1:00:28 ↗ yes this is megan um in the original

1:00:30 ↗ regional code collaboration proposal

1:00:32 ↗ they had split out

1:00:34 ↗ um single family and town homes

1:00:36 ↗ separately and were requiring

1:00:38 ↗ one ev ready spot and then they had

1:00:42 ↗ multi-family and commercial separately

1:00:45 ↗ from that

1:00:46 ↗ and they are they are um are looking at

1:00:48 ↗ those items

1:00:49 ↗ still as well megan can you elaborate on

1:00:54 ↗ what it means that they're looking at

1:00:55 ↗ those

1:00:56 ↗ items what does that mean

1:00:59 ↗ they have those recommended in the in

1:01:02 ↗ the current proposal

1:01:03 ↗ and then king county is currently

1:01:06 ↗ looking to

1:01:07 ↗ adopt that as well and they're

1:01:08 ↗ discussing that single family element

1:01:10 ↗ right now whether or not

1:01:12 ↗ they wanted to include the single family

1:01:13 ↗ element or not

1:01:15 ↗ so is it settled ordinance or is it

1:01:18 ↗ in progress the king county one is in

1:01:22 ↗ progress

1:01:23 ↗ okay uh looks like city administrator

1:01:25 ↗ bob quits has turned his camera on

1:01:27 ↗ and then after we have a question from

1:01:29 ↗ councilmember goodman

1:01:31 ↗ yes thank you madam mayor i just wanted

1:01:32 ↗ to elaborate a little bit more on your

1:01:34 ↗ question

1:01:35 ↗ uh back to megan regarding what is the

1:01:37 ↗ status of other king county cities

1:01:39 ↗ that the the collaborative is the king

1:01:42 ↗ county

1:01:43 ↗ as well as other jurisdictions i know

1:01:45 ↗ megan that other jurisdictions

1:01:47 ↗ are uh there have been one or two over a

1:01:50 ↗ period of years who have adopted

1:01:51 ↗ something similar

1:01:52 ↗ with many jurisdictions quite frankly

1:01:54 ↗ are watching issaquah

1:01:55 ↗ uh to see what makes sense and certainly

1:01:59 ↗ the legal

1:01:59 ↗ issues that mr haney has been looking at

1:02:02 ↗ as far as the state code goes has been

1:02:04 ↗ something that the

1:02:06 ↗ collaborative really hadn't delved into

1:02:08 ↗ prior to the issaquah discussion is that

1:02:09 ↗ correct

1:02:12 ↗ uh i think they've delved into it but

1:02:15 ↗ not as

1:02:15 ↗ as deep as we have in issaquah

1:02:19 ↗ and they're in the the cities in king

1:02:20 ↗ county that have already adopted

1:02:22 ↗ something similar

1:02:23 ↗ what are they uh they were adopted

1:02:26 ↗ um prior to

1:02:30 ↗ the state building code having ev

1:02:33 ↗ infrastructure

1:02:34 ↗ requirements um and that was uh seattle

1:02:37 ↗ edmunds and montlake terrace

1:02:39 ↗ and so we would be the first community

1:02:41 ↗ to to our that are

1:02:42 ↗ considering this with those after those

1:02:44 ↗ changes were made in the state code

1:02:45 ↗ correct

1:02:46 ↗ correct us and king county is also doing

1:02:48 ↗ at the same time

1:02:49 ↗ thank you for clarifying that thank you

1:02:52 ↗ administrator councilmember goodman you

1:02:54 ↗ have a question

1:02:55 ↗ uh thank you um i had asked a couple of

1:02:57 ↗ other um

1:02:58 ↗ questions and so i just wanted to make

1:03:01 ↗ sure

1:03:02 ↗ that those get out to council members

1:03:04 ↗ and to the public

1:03:05 ↗ um i had asked megan for

1:03:08 ↗ the split between um eb ownership

1:03:12 ↗ so what do we know the split

1:03:16 ↗ between owners in single-family homes

1:03:19 ↗ and owners in not single-family homes

1:03:23 ↗ and megan provided information that 72

1:03:27 ↗ percent

1:03:27 ↗ of electric vehicles are owned by people

1:03:30 ↗ who

1:03:32 ↗ are in single-family homes also we had

1:03:35 ↗ answered an email from the public and i

1:03:38 ↗ know the

1:03:39 ↗ council saw it but the rest of the

1:03:40 ↗ public did not that we're

1:03:42 ↗ expecting a 9 increase

1:03:46 ↗ in electrical electric vehicle ownership

1:03:49 ↗ by 2025.

1:03:51 ↗ so i wanted those um stats out there

1:03:54 ↗ um and then the other question that i

1:03:57 ↗ had asked megan

1:03:58 ↗ and i um and actually

1:04:02 ↗ had talked to department of ecology um

1:04:04 ↗ the ordinance

1:04:06 ↗ the ordinance talks about senate bill

1:04:08 ↗ 5811

1:04:10 ↗ um and the it talks about

1:04:13 ↗ as megan mentioned that it authorizes

1:04:16 ↗ the department of ecology to require

1:04:18 ↗ um automakers to sell a certain

1:04:21 ↗ percentage of

1:04:22 ↗ um zero emission vehicles each

1:04:25 ↗ year but um sorry it authorizes doe to

1:04:28 ↗ to make the rules for that so doe

1:04:31 ↗ is going to start that rulemaking pretty

1:04:34 ↗ soon

1:04:35 ↗ and they expect that rule making to be

1:04:38 ↗ done

1:04:39 ↗ by early next year however

1:04:43 ↗ i further asked when that is going to be

1:04:46 ↗ effective

1:04:47 ↗ and the federal law and megan correct me

1:04:50 ↗ if i'm wrong the federal law

1:04:53 ↗ says that it can't be effective

1:04:57 ↗ um any sooner than um

1:05:03 ↗ it's two years it has to do with the

1:05:08 ↗ year of the car and i don't so i in this

1:05:11 ↗ case

1:05:11 ↗ i don't think the rule could be in

1:05:13 ↗ effect until

1:05:15 ↗ 2024 model cars

1:05:18 ↗ so megan correct me if i'm wrong

1:05:23 ↗ this is meg and i don't have further

1:05:25 ↗ details on that

1:05:27 ↗ okay let's see um

1:05:32 ↗ so from doa that it says the

1:05:34 ↗ requirements will begin two

1:05:36 ↗ vehicle model years after adoption due

1:05:40 ↗ to federal law

1:05:41 ↗ um so doe says it gets confusing since

1:05:44 ↗ automakers

1:05:45 ↗ introduced the next model year far ahead

1:05:48 ↗ of the calendar date likely it will mean

1:05:49 ↗ washington's requirements

1:05:51 ↗ will begin sorry i was wrong with the

1:05:53 ↗ 2025

1:05:54 ↗ model year so i'm guessing that means

1:05:59 ↗ 2025 model cars don't go on sale usually

1:06:01 ↗ until

1:06:02 ↗ the fall of the year before so that

1:06:04 ↗ would be fall of 2024.

1:06:06 ↗ so i so my question is whether

1:06:11 ↗ megan has any corrections to that it

1:06:13 ↗ sounds like she

1:06:14 ↗ she doesn't anyway i just wanted those i

1:06:17 ↗ just that one of those clarified

1:06:19 ↗ or out thank you public health goodman

1:06:21 ↗ megan do you have any additional

1:06:23 ↗ information on that

1:06:25 ↗ i do not thank you okay thanks

1:06:28 ↗ i am we are still in the question and

1:06:30 ↗ answer portion and i'm looking at the

1:06:31 ↗ chat

1:06:32 ↗ i am not seeing that there are any

1:06:33 ↗ additional questions right now and if

1:06:35 ↗ somebody would care to make a motion

1:06:37 ↗ we could entertain a motion and council

1:06:39 ↗ could continue to ask questions and also

1:06:41 ↗ deliberate

1:06:43 ↗ council president hunt

1:06:48 ↗ thank you um clerk eggers could i get

1:06:52 ↗ the main motion in the chat please

1:06:57 ↗ thank you i moved to adopt ordinance

1:06:59 ↗ number two nine

1:07:00 ↗ four one amending sections of

1:07:03 ↗ amending sections eighteen point zero

1:07:05 ↗ two point zero seven zero and eighteen

1:07:07 ↗ point zero

1:07:08 ↗ nine point one four zero of the israel

1:07:11 ↗ municipal code related to electric

1:07:12 ↗ vehicle charging and amending chapter

1:07:14 ↗ 8.12 and 8.13

1:07:17 ↗ of the central is supply development and

1:07:18 ↗ design standards to add electric vehicle

1:07:20 ↗ charging

1:07:22 ↗ thank you happy council president ray

1:07:24 ↗ second

1:07:25 ↗ it's been moved and seconded i will go

1:07:28 ↗ back to

1:07:29 ↗ council president hunt for comments

1:07:33 ↗ thank you madam mayor this is council

1:07:35 ↗ president hunt i am

1:07:38 ↗ very excited to be talking about this i

1:07:40 ↗ think that it's an important step

1:07:42 ↗ towards future proofing

1:07:43 ↗ our development i think we will be

1:07:46 ↗ experiencing a big shift in

1:07:49 ↗ um in people becoming uh wanting to

1:07:54 ↗ for example use a electric car and

1:07:56 ↗ transition to an electric car well

1:07:58 ↗ within the lifetime

1:07:59 ↗ of these um new developments and new

1:08:02 ↗ buildings and so

1:08:03 ↗ um i think it may feel like we're a

1:08:05 ↗ little bit ahead of the curve on this

1:08:07 ↗ one but

1:08:08 ↗ for the most part i think that

1:08:10 ↗ infrastructure um the infrastructure

1:08:12 ↗ being there is super important because

1:08:14 ↗ these buildings that they're associated

1:08:15 ↗ with will

1:08:16 ↗ um be there for 50 plus years and

1:08:20 ↗ having the infrastructure in place is a

1:08:23 ↗ is a positive forward-looking way

1:08:25 ↗ we can future proof um and

1:08:28 ↗ i i do however have a few

1:08:32 ↗ concerns um that i would like to talk

1:08:35 ↗ through with council

1:08:37 ↗ and one of them is around the eevee

1:08:40 ↗ capable

1:08:41 ↗ the ability to um switch from eb ready

1:08:45 ↗ to

1:08:46 ↗ ev capable for affordable housing and my

1:08:49 ↗ concern on that particular aspect is

1:08:52 ↗ that

1:08:53 ↗ um as was discussed at great length by

1:08:56 ↗ our commissions including the planning

1:08:58 ↗ policy commission

1:08:59 ↗ it's an equity issue if there isn't

1:09:02 ↗ that infrastructure in place

1:09:04 ↗ specifically only for affordable

1:09:06 ↗ housing and if we allow in that cost

1:09:09 ↗ neutral approach allow

1:09:11 ↗ developers to switch to ev capable then

1:09:15 ↗ that does not that means that the

1:09:17 ↗ infrastructure isn't actually

1:09:19 ↗ available for a person that um is living

1:09:22 ↗ in that affordable housing to charge

1:09:25 ↗ they would need

1:09:26 ↗ the the person in charge of the building

1:09:28 ↗ to make a change

1:09:29 ↗ um to actually wire the conduit and so i

1:09:33 ↗ think that that

1:09:35 ↗ i think that that is problematic and it

1:09:37 ↗ seems from my

1:09:38 ↗ understanding of the commission's

1:09:40 ↗ discussions they also

1:09:41 ↗ both planning policy thought that you

1:09:44 ↗ should allow the switch from evse which

1:09:46 ↗ means all the equipment

1:09:48 ↗ is there to ev ready which means just

1:09:49 ↗ the outlet is there

1:09:51 ↗ um but and then also in some of the

1:09:53 ↗ comments from environmental board also

1:09:55 ↗ concerned about this capable

1:09:57 ↗ eb capable switch because again it

1:09:59 ↗ doesn't actually

1:10:00 ↗ allow um people to charge without a

1:10:03 ↗ change being made to the building

1:10:06 ↗ then the bigger and more complicated

1:10:08 ↗ concern but one that i think we are on

1:10:10 ↗ our way to

1:10:12 ↗ um addressing is that i think we can

1:10:16 ↗ while still taking into account our the

1:10:18 ↗ city attorney's

1:10:19 ↗ recommendations and not to not

1:10:22 ↗ um require this for single-family homes

1:10:24 ↗ i think we can still be

1:10:26 ↗ more expansive in the kinds of homes

1:10:29 ↗ that we do cover with this ordinance

1:10:31 ↗ if we cover everything except for that

1:10:34 ↗ which is specifically in the definition

1:10:36 ↗ in the state code for multi-family which

1:10:39 ↗ is

1:10:40 ↗ three stories um for

1:10:44 ↗ uh less than four four or less units and

1:10:46 ↗ the other um

1:10:47 ↗ things that city attorney haney read off

1:10:50 ↗ earlier so

1:10:51 ↗ that definition is is more restrictive

1:10:53 ↗ than what we are currently excluding

1:10:55 ↗ from our ordinance and i would like to

1:10:58 ↗ discuss that with council but my strong

1:11:00 ↗ feeling is we should cover as much as

1:11:03 ↗ as much building types as possible with

1:11:05 ↗ this ordinance

1:11:06 ↗ and to make it as applicable broadly as

1:11:09 ↗ possible

1:11:10 ↗ across the building types and i i do

1:11:12 ↗ from my understanding think that most

1:11:13 ↗ town homes would be able to be included

1:11:16 ↗ in the ordinance

1:11:18 ↗ um and also not um

1:11:21 ↗ while also taking into account and

1:11:23 ↗ following the recommendation of our city

1:11:24 ↗ attorney but that would take a

1:11:28 ↗ that would take a um

1:11:31 ↗ a amendment and um also wanted to

1:11:35 ↗ comment that it seems many people in the

1:11:38 ↗ community that commented over the

1:11:40 ↗ many meetings that we multiple meetings

1:11:42 ↗ that we had on this um did think that

1:11:44 ↗ single families should be there so i'm

1:11:45 ↗ should be included so i'm uh grateful to

1:11:49 ↗ hear that that is being brought up by

1:11:50 ↗ the regional code collaboration that

1:11:52 ↗ there's efforts to look into that

1:11:53 ↗ further

1:11:54 ↗ but i think for tonight we can also do

1:11:57 ↗ um

1:11:57 ↗ i i think we could also expand and cover

1:12:00 ↗ more

1:12:01 ↗ grounds and then very last thing i

1:12:03 ↗ wanted to say on this is we will need to

1:12:04 ↗ do a lot of things

1:12:06 ↗ um at all levels the city level state

1:12:08 ↗ level multiple levels of government to

1:12:11 ↗ do the best we can to avoid the worst

1:12:13 ↗ possible effects of climate change so

1:12:14 ↗ this is not the only

1:12:16 ↗ it's not uh the only thing that we'll

1:12:18 ↗ need to do this is one action of

1:12:20 ↗ of many many actions but it's definitely

1:12:22 ↗ a step in the right direction

1:12:25 ↗ thank you guys in the hand um before i

1:12:27 ↗ go to uh deputy council president ray i

1:12:29 ↗ wonder

1:12:30 ↗ mr haney you had mentioned before in a

1:12:31 ↗ previous meeting that if the council

1:12:33 ↗ were to propose changes

1:12:36 ↗ there's possibility it would have to go

1:12:38 ↗ back to planning policy but this doesn't

1:12:40 ↗ sound like a substantive change

1:12:42 ↗ is that correct

1:12:47 ↗ haha you're muted

1:12:52 ↗ i knew i was going to do that at some

1:12:53 ↗ point

1:12:55 ↗ um yeah my understanding

1:12:59 ↗ is that the council's intent was to have

1:13:02 ↗ this cover everything it was within the

1:13:04 ↗ scope of the alternatives that were

1:13:06 ↗ discussed so you

1:13:07 ↗ you'd be able to to make that change if

1:13:10 ↗ you wanted to make it

1:13:12 ↗ thank you for that clarification deputy

1:13:14 ↗ council president ray did you want to

1:13:15 ↗ make comments before i move to others uh

1:13:18 ↗ thank you mayor paul this is chris ray i

1:13:19 ↗ just want to be very brief i have a

1:13:21 ↗ couple thoughts about this ordinance one

1:13:23 ↗ is i think this

1:13:24 ↗ not only does it make good quality

1:13:26 ↗ decision but i think

1:13:28 ↗ this is also just a good business

1:13:31 ↗ decision

1:13:32 ↗ it seems very clear to me that

1:13:33 ↗ electronic v or electric vehicles

1:13:36 ↗ are um are on the horizon and and it may

1:13:39 ↗ not be

1:13:40 ↗ until 2025 or 2026

1:13:43 ↗ but they definitely are on the horizon

1:13:45 ↗ so i think this is

1:13:47 ↗ this is about getting ahead of

1:13:50 ↗ the demand the

1:13:54 ↗ and also the life expectancy of the

1:13:56 ↗ buildings that would be being built

1:13:57 ↗ now would be

1:14:00 ↗ far far into a period where electric

1:14:03 ↗ charging

1:14:03 ↗ will be required and the cost of

1:14:06 ↗ retrofitting is

1:14:07 ↗ so much higher than the cost of the

1:14:08 ↗ initial installation

1:14:10 ↗ again i just think it makes it makes

1:14:12 ↗ good business good economic

1:14:14 ↗ sense as well as making good policy and

1:14:17 ↗ environmental

1:14:18 ↗ uh sense so i think this is the right

1:14:20 ↗ thing for us to do and i think it's good

1:14:22 ↗ for us to be out in front of

1:14:24 ↗ the of this leading the way thank you

1:14:28 ↗ deputy council

1:14:29 ↗ president ray councilmember goodman

1:14:33 ↗ uh thank you councilmember goodman here

1:14:36 ↗ um

1:14:37 ↗ so i took the liberty of

1:14:41 ↗ looking at this ordinance

1:14:44 ↗ i spent a lot of time on it and i took

1:14:46 ↗ the liberty of looking at it through the

1:14:48 ↗ criteria that

1:14:49 ↗ we adopted at our i think it was our

1:14:52 ↗ last meeting

1:14:53 ↗ time flies about whether we should

1:14:56 ↗ consider things outside of

1:14:57 ↗ title 18 holistically um and so i'm

1:15:00 ↗ going to run through those

1:15:02 ↗ um the first one was whether there's an

1:15:03 ↗ urgency or time sensitivity

1:15:05 ↗ um so i talked about the senate bill

1:15:07 ↗ already um that doesn't represent

1:15:09 ↗ although it's suggested in the ordinance

1:15:10 ↗ that's at some sort of

1:15:12 ↗ time sensitivity and the um commissions

1:15:15 ↗ have been

1:15:15 ↗ told that there's a quote fled unquote

1:15:18 ↗ of

1:15:19 ↗ um um evs um coming soon

1:15:22 ↗ um what you can see in that senate

1:15:24 ↗ senate bill and the actual reality is

1:15:26 ↗ that

1:15:27 ↗ that's not going to take effect until at

1:15:29 ↗ least

1:15:30 ↗ model 2025 um

1:15:33 ↗ our year and also as we heard tonight

1:15:38 ↗ that gm isn't going to start exclusively

1:15:40 ↗ um

1:15:41 ↗ having evs until 2035.

1:15:45 ↗ um there's also some other interesting

1:15:48 ↗ statistics

1:15:49 ↗ um regarding the time sensitivity

1:15:52 ↗ so i got a some statistics from a

1:15:56 ↗ website provided by

1:15:57 ↗ doe in the 902

1:16:01 ↗ 98027 and 98029 zip codes

1:16:05 ↗ which encompass isla but where are

1:16:07 ↗ broader than issaquah

1:16:09 ↗ we have a total of 1352 evs that are

1:16:12 ↗ registered in those two zip codes right

1:16:14 ↗ now

1:16:15 ↗ by 2025 we're expected to have a nine

1:16:17 ↗ percent increase

1:16:19 ↗ that nine percent increase in those two

1:16:21 ↗ zip codes which again is broader than

1:16:22 ↗ isoqua

1:16:23 ↗ is 122 evs by 2025.

1:16:27 ↗ uh 72 percent uh which i mentioned

1:16:30 ↗ earlier 72

1:16:32 ↗ of that number um is

1:16:35 ↗ uh single-family homeowners that

1:16:37 ↗ represents 89

1:16:39 ↗ um of those evs and uh 33 of those evs

1:16:43 ↗ would be owned by people who don't live

1:16:45 ↗ in single family

1:16:47 ↗ yet the ordinance does it doesn't

1:16:48 ↗ address single family which we heard

1:16:50 ↗ i'm glad too that we're hearing that

1:16:53 ↗ single family would get addressed

1:16:55 ↗ but it's not addressed in this in this

1:16:57 ↗ ordinance

1:16:59 ↗ i also don't think that it covers the

1:17:00 ↗ tod project because that would be a

1:17:02 ↗ development agreement

1:17:04 ↗ so um one of the next um

1:17:08 ↗ things we were promised also ourselves

1:17:10 ↗ that we would consider

1:17:12 ↗ trade-offs or potential conflicts with

1:17:14 ↗ other parts of title 18.

1:17:16 ↗ so one of the things i like to do with

1:17:18 ↗ code is to run through a

1:17:20 ↗ practice project and the practice

1:17:22 ↗ project that i could think of

1:17:24 ↗ was my own real project which was the

1:17:26 ↗ remodel of our

1:17:27 ↗ law office at sixth and sunset that we

1:17:29 ↗ did a couple of years ago

1:17:31 ↗ um so per our per our own city parking

1:17:34 ↗ code

1:17:35 ↗ for our 3 000 square foot building we

1:17:37 ↗ were required to have 10 spaces

1:17:40 ↗ the international building code would

1:17:42 ↗ exempt

1:17:43 ↗ us from having to provide

1:17:47 ↗ ev charging infrastructure because we

1:17:50 ↗ don't have to provide

1:17:51 ↗ we would have to provide less than 20

1:17:53 ↗ on-site parking

1:17:55 ↗ spaces but this proposed code would

1:17:57 ↗ require

1:17:58 ↗ us to provide um forty percent dedicated

1:18:02 ↗ forty percent

1:18:03 ↗ of our parking spaces uh to ev

1:18:06 ↗ infrastructure so okay that doesn't

1:18:09 ↗ sound like a big deal the problem is we

1:18:10 ↗ only have two or three spaces we're not

1:18:12 ↗ we're in an old house

1:18:13 ↗ we have a driveway so we have two

1:18:16 ↗ three spaces max um

1:18:20 ↗ the way we get around the ten spaces is

1:18:22 ↗ because

1:18:23 ↗ prior to current building ownership

1:18:26 ↗ there were some things worked out with a

1:18:28 ↗ city where

1:18:30 ↗ the business could park tandem

1:18:33 ↗ in front and use the easement on the

1:18:35 ↗ side of the building

1:18:37 ↗ and then during this remodel two years

1:18:40 ↗ ago

1:18:40 ↗ the city required us to have an

1:18:42 ↗ agreement with uh

1:18:44 ↗ somebody um another business down the

1:18:47 ↗ street that we could

1:18:48 ↗ use their parking lot if we needed

1:18:49 ↗ parking and that business is flintoff's

1:18:51 ↗ funeral home

1:18:53 ↗ so if this if we were to do our remodel

1:18:57 ↗ after if this code were adopted we would

1:18:58 ↗ not be able to comply

1:19:00 ↗ i don't know where a business like us is

1:19:03 ↗ supposed to put

1:19:04 ↗ ev charging infrastructure if we only

1:19:07 ↗ have three spaces

1:19:09 ↗ we're required to utilize four and

1:19:11 ↗ you're not going to be able to put ev

1:19:13 ↗ um in charging infrastructure in an

1:19:16 ↗ easement or in somebody else's parking

1:19:18 ↗ lot

1:19:19 ↗ so um

1:19:22 ↗ that doesn't okay you're thinking that's

1:19:24 ↗ a that's a law office

1:19:26 ↗ um but this could happen we have a

1:19:29 ↗ parking issue

1:19:30 ↗ with lots of buildings lots of

1:19:31 ↗ businesses around town think of all the

1:19:33 ↗ businesses along front street

1:19:35 ↗ who don't have any parking parking

1:19:37 ↗ spaces who don't have any

1:19:39 ↗ dedicated parking spaces that could

1:19:41 ↗ create a real problem

1:19:42 ↗ and i think it will create a real

1:19:44 ↗ problem um

1:19:46 ↗ it's it's

1:19:49 ↗ you know like a florist shop or even

1:19:52 ↗ flintoffs or a daycare you know a

1:19:55 ↗ daycare

1:19:56 ↗ this code although the international

1:19:58 ↗ building code

1:19:59 ↗ exempts um small businesses this code

1:20:02 ↗ encompasses

1:20:03 ↗ everybody all retails all retail

1:20:06 ↗ every non-residential business it

1:20:09 ↗ encompasses would require to comply

1:20:11 ↗ that is a big problem the

1:20:15 ↗ the next one is what benefit public or

1:20:17 ↗ otherwise would be gained or what is

1:20:18 ↗ lost if we don't do this now

1:20:21 ↗ again as noted the statistics say that

1:20:23 ↗ we will gain

1:20:24 ↗ 33 evs by 2025 they're not owned by

1:20:27 ↗ single-family

1:20:28 ↗ homeowners and i think that that number

1:20:30 ↗ is statistically immaterial for

1:20:31 ↗ determining

1:20:32 ↗ whether there is a gain or a loss here

1:20:34 ↗ budgetary

1:20:35 ↗ and or resource staff impact what

1:20:39 ↗ impacts would this have

1:20:40 ↗ um i think that this code creates

1:20:42 ↗ another implementation headache for

1:20:44 ↗ staff

1:20:44 ↗ just as i was talking about you're going

1:20:46 ↗ to have um

1:20:48 ↗ applicants applying for waivers and

1:20:50 ↗ adjustment of standards because they're

1:20:52 ↗ simply not going to be able to apply

1:20:53 ↗ to comply with it that's the reality we

1:20:56 ↗ are not unusual

1:20:57 ↗ we are a typical business in the older

1:20:59 ↗ part of downtown that is not going to be

1:21:01 ↗ able to comply with the parking code

1:21:03 ↗ and provide you know 30 or 40 percent

1:21:06 ↗ of parking spaces when they don't even

1:21:08 ↗ have those to for evs

1:21:11 ↗ other considerations as i mentioned

1:21:13 ↗ before we already have a code

1:21:14 ↗ it's ibc section 429 it already requires

1:21:18 ↗ some type of ev

1:21:19 ↗ infrastructure i think that this

1:21:22 ↗ proposed

1:21:23 ↗ code is a unicorn and it goes way beyond

1:21:27 ↗ the ibc

1:21:29 ↗ and our code our title 18 already

1:21:32 ↗ is a unicorn it to say it nicely

1:21:36 ↗ does not have a very good reputation it

1:21:38 ↗ is extraordinarily difficult

1:21:40 ↗ to maneuver through i've lived it we've

1:21:43 ↗ had several

1:21:44 ↗ attorneys trying to work through the

1:21:46 ↗ code already in a very minor remodel

1:21:48 ↗ and it was a nightmare um i think this

1:21:51 ↗ is

1:21:52 ↗ and i think that is the wrong time to be

1:21:55 ↗ piling on

1:21:57 ↗ something that's this complicated when

1:21:58 ↗ we already have

1:22:01 ↗ a state code um and we're in the middle

1:22:03 ↗ of

1:22:04 ↗ title 18. you know i don't think we need

1:22:06 ↗ another unicorn

1:22:07 ↗ in our code title 18 has a ton of

1:22:09 ↗ unicorns

1:22:10 ↗ and although i love unicorns i don't

1:22:12 ↗ think that the city

1:22:14 ↗ should be a unicorn with even a

1:22:18 ↗ longer horn on it i mean we already have

1:22:20 ↗ a bad reputation

1:22:21 ↗ um and lastly

1:22:25 ↗ for the other considerations the

1:22:27 ↗ proposed code goes in the opposite

1:22:29 ↗ direction of what we're trying to

1:22:30 ↗ achieve for title 18 and two of the mo

1:22:33 ↗ the two of the

1:22:34 ↗ stated goals that are applicable here

1:22:36 ↗ for title 18

1:22:37 ↗ overhaul are we want it to be effective

1:22:39 ↗ equitable

1:22:40 ↗ and have predictable results we want it

1:22:42 ↗ to be easier to understand and better

1:22:44 ↗ organized for use by the

1:22:46 ↗ public by property owners and by staff

1:22:48 ↗ and it's not

1:22:51 ↗ i think that we should hold off and

1:22:52 ↗ consider this holistically as part of

1:22:54 ↗ title 18.

1:22:55 ↗ it sounds like by then we will have the

1:22:56 ↗ single family issue address which i

1:22:59 ↗ think would be fantastic

1:23:00 ↗ it's just another layer of complexity

1:23:03 ↗ here

1:23:04 ↗ that based on the numbers that i've read

1:23:06 ↗ off does not meaningful

1:23:08 ↗ meaningfully address climate change

1:23:10 ↗ issues

1:23:11 ↗ um i know it sounds like

1:23:15 ↗ perhaps i'm not for addressing climate

1:23:19 ↗ change that couldn't be farther from the

1:23:21 ↗ truth

1:23:21 ↗ we just need meaning we need things that

1:23:23 ↗ are meaningful i don't think that this

1:23:25 ↗ is

1:23:25 ↗ meaningful you're talking about nine

1:23:27 ↗ percent

1:23:28 ↗ of an increase i read off the numbers um

1:23:32 ↗ businesses are not many businesses are

1:23:34 ↗ not going to be able to comply with this

1:23:36 ↗ i think it's unnecessarily um

1:23:39 ↗ complicated

1:23:40 ↗ it's not as meaningful as we want it and

1:23:43 ↗ we are

1:23:44 ↗ have will have a title 18 code done

1:23:47 ↗ in 18 months

1:23:51 ↗ at the most anyway

1:23:54 ↗ i um i'm gonna have a very difficult

1:23:56 ↗ time supporting this

1:23:58 ↗ thank you thank you councilmember

1:24:00 ↗ goodman we have a few other

1:24:02 ↗ council members going to weigh in it

1:24:03 ↗ sounds like council member walsh with a

1:24:05 ↗ comment and a question

1:24:06 ↗ followed by council member mark thank

1:24:08 ↗ you this is councilmember walsh

1:24:10 ↗ um as far as comment i just wanted to

1:24:13 ↗ thank ppc and the environmental board

1:24:16 ↗ and staff

1:24:17 ↗ on all of the work on this this is not

1:24:20 ↗ easy being

1:24:22 ↗ the first city to go through something

1:24:25 ↗ like this and so i appreciate the

1:24:28 ↗ thoughtfulness for which we have done

1:24:30 ↗ that

1:24:31 ↗ um i

1:24:36 ↗ i guess i want to ask a question

1:24:37 ↗ following up on some of the things that

1:24:39 ↗ councilmember

1:24:40 ↗ goodman has asked because i had really

1:24:43 ↗ focused very much on the residential

1:24:45 ↗ portion of things

1:24:47 ↗ and thinking through the non-residential

1:24:50 ↗ portion you know i i think you think oh

1:24:53 ↗ big box store or large office building

1:24:56 ↗ that has all of this

1:24:58 ↗ large um parking infrastructure

1:25:01 ↗ and well that's an entirely different

1:25:03 ↗ story and something that

1:25:05 ↗ i'd love to address later um

1:25:08 ↗ what about these situations where

1:25:12 ↗ we've got you know smaller businesses

1:25:16 ↗ that may have shared parking such as in

1:25:18 ↗ our downtown

1:25:19 ↗ um that may have only

1:25:22 ↗ street parking how do

1:25:25 ↗ businesses like that

1:25:28 ↗ handle um this type of code

1:25:32 ↗ um particularly shared parking street

1:25:35 ↗ parking

1:25:37 ↗ or very little parking um for a small

1:25:40 ↗ business

1:25:41 ↗ is there any information on that

1:25:44 ↗ i believe that's a question for megan

1:25:46 ↗ and megan

1:25:47 ↗ um may uh be

1:25:51 ↗ able to answer that tonight but she's

1:25:53 ↗ not

1:25:54 ↗ deeply involved with the land use code

1:25:56 ↗ and much other things so i may

1:25:57 ↗ see if they even scary bob quits has an

1:26:00 ↗ answer

1:26:01 ↗ i'm on the spot

1:26:08 ↗ why don't you try and i'll i'll follow

1:26:11 ↗ up as uh as i can

1:26:13 ↗ sure happy too this is megan um i think

1:26:17 ↗ overall um when projects are being

1:26:21 ↗ built or or going through the

1:26:23 ↗ substantial remodel which is the

1:26:25 ↗ the 50 value that would trigger this

1:26:28 ↗ they would be assigned a certain number

1:26:31 ↗ of parking spots

1:26:32 ↗ that they need to accommodate so this is

1:26:35 ↗ taking

1:26:35 ↗ into consideration this would be doing a

1:26:38 ↗ percent of those parking spaces

1:26:40 ↗ um you are correct that i don't have the

1:26:43 ↗ exact details on

1:26:44 ↗ if some of those parking spaces are

1:26:47 ↗ street parking

1:26:48 ↗ versus some are being built parking um

1:26:52 ↗ i don't quite have the answer on that

1:26:55 ↗ but it's it's taking an

1:26:56 ↗ overall percentage and requiring the

1:26:58 ↗ infrastructure on

1:26:59 ↗ parking spots that are required to be

1:27:01 ↗ built associated with the project

1:27:04 ↗ megan let me let me throw an example on

1:27:06 ↗ the table we know that

1:27:08 ↗ big picture is coming to old town and

1:27:09 ↗ doesn't have any parking

1:27:12 ↗ so how would it apply to them they don't

1:27:14 ↗ have any dedicated parking

1:27:17 ↗ then they would not need to comply they

1:27:20 ↗ would not need to

1:27:21 ↗ go and um put in eb chargers in

1:27:24 ↗ in spots they wouldn't okay

1:27:29 ↗ administrator bob quiz did you have

1:27:30 ↗ anything to add uh only that i

1:27:33 ↗ see that our new community planning and

1:27:35 ↗ development director

1:27:36 ↗ emini dalawal is uh here

1:27:39 ↗ in in the green room uh i've asked the

1:27:41 ↗ clerk to let her in

1:27:43 ↗ to the council the virtual council

1:27:45 ↗ chambers uh be nice to

1:27:46 ↗ introduce her um and uh and see if she

1:27:50 ↗ has any thoughts

1:27:50 ↗ or comments on this um while she's

1:27:53 ↗ coming on

1:27:54 ↗ megan i guess i also would go back to

1:27:56 ↗ councilmember goodman's question

1:27:58 ↗ um with her uh commercial business which

1:28:00 ↗ has a limited amount of parking

1:28:02 ↗ would they have to uh put that

1:28:06 ↗ ebay charging in if they were to do a

1:28:08 ↗ substantial

1:28:09 ↗ uh improvement if in the future or had

1:28:12 ↗ the code bit in place

1:28:15 ↗ i believe they would with the special

1:28:18 ↗ cases

1:28:18 ↗ about the some parking being down

1:28:22 ↗ the street and some parking spaces being

1:28:25 ↗ tandem

1:28:27 ↗ i don't think that if there's 10 parking

1:28:29 ↗ spaces required that then they would

1:28:31 ↗ have to go and put ev infrastructure on

1:28:33 ↗ parking spaces down the street

1:28:36 ↗ but i don't have the best answer on how

1:28:37 ↗ exactly that would be implemented for

1:28:39 ↗ that project

1:28:41 ↗ and so madam mayor let me take this

1:28:43 ↗ opportunity to formally introduce minnie

1:28:45 ↗ dollar wall the

1:28:46 ↗ our new community planning and

1:28:47 ↗ development director uh i'm sure she

1:28:49 ↗ didn't come to the meeting tonight

1:28:50 ↗ prepared to speak to any of this but

1:28:53 ↗ since she's on the line minnie i don't

1:28:54 ↗ know if you want to make any

1:28:56 ↗ any comments about what what we've been

1:28:58 ↗ discussing

1:29:00 ↗ sure good evening council members um

1:29:02 ↗ glad to be here

1:29:03 ↗ um on the topic that you're discussing

1:29:07 ↗ tonight

1:29:08 ↗ um you know if it is a concern um to

1:29:11 ↗ tie the requirement to something

1:29:15 ↗ different than 50 substantial value

1:29:18 ↗ uh improvement uh we can look at maybe

1:29:21 ↗ perhaps

1:29:22 ↗ tying it to if you're increasing the

1:29:23 ↗ number of parking spaces

1:29:25 ↗ so if you're expanding and you have 10

1:29:29 ↗ parking spaces but

1:29:30 ↗ now the code requires you to add about

1:29:32 ↗ 20 more

1:29:33 ↗ or something you know there could be a

1:29:35 ↗ threshold tied to increase in parking

1:29:37 ↗ supply

1:29:40 ↗ that's one threshold if it is generally

1:29:42 ↗ a concern for

1:29:43 ↗ um trying to work with the existing

1:29:45 ↗ businesses that don't have that much

1:29:46 ↗ parking

1:29:47 ↗ so right now the code the way i

1:29:49 ↗ understand it is written it's tied to a

1:29:51 ↗ dollar

1:29:52 ↗ value so if your building is valued at

1:29:55 ↗ 100 000

1:29:56 ↗ and you're making it more than 50

1:29:59 ↗ percent of that

1:30:00 ↗ 150 000 value then this

1:30:04 ↗ requirement would be triggered so we can

1:30:06 ↗ look at different triggers if that is a

1:30:08 ↗ concern

1:30:09 ↗ um and then i think uh the other

1:30:12 ↗ um or if you want to not deal with the

1:30:15 ↗ existing

1:30:16 ↗ businesses now and just make it

1:30:18 ↗ applicable to new development that's

1:30:20 ↗ going to go in

1:30:21 ↗ that may be another option for council

1:30:23 ↗ to consider mini could you expand on

1:30:25 ↗ that a little bit this is the mayor we

1:30:27 ↗ do have a couple places in town where

1:30:29 ↗ existing landowners have more parking

1:30:31 ↗ than required

1:30:32 ↗ in the code would they be required under

1:30:36 ↗ this new ordinance

1:30:37 ↗ to do 40 percent of all of the parking

1:30:41 ↗ they have or 40

1:30:43 ↗ of the parking there required under the

1:30:45 ↗ code if they were trying

1:30:49 ↗ the way that the ordinance is written

1:30:51 ↗ right now it's my understanding it's

1:30:53 ↗ 40 of your entire the supply that you

1:30:56 ↗ have on the ground

1:30:56 ↗ not what the code requires okay

1:31:00 ↗ thank you um i'm gonna take a second

1:31:03 ↗ here

1:31:03 ↗ and check in if it's okay with council

1:31:06 ↗ member mart

1:31:06 ↗ with council member d michelle who

1:31:09 ↗ doesn't have a subject question but a

1:31:11 ↗ process question

1:31:12 ↗ so i'm wondering if we can just hear

1:31:14 ↗ what that is

1:31:15 ↗ yeah thank you this is uh council member

1:31:17 ↗ d michelle

1:31:18 ↗ um earlier today uh the council was sent

1:31:22 ↗ a copy of some

1:31:23 ↗ possible amendments to the motion

1:31:27 ↗ and it sounds like we're kind of

1:31:29 ↗ straying from questions into

1:31:31 ↗ deliberations on the central motion so

1:31:35 ↗ i just wanted to check you know maybe

1:31:38 ↗ maybe nobody wants to make those

1:31:39 ↗ amendment motions but

1:31:41 ↗ i just wanted to check and make sure

1:31:43 ↗ that we if we are going to pick up

1:31:45 ↗ amendments we

1:31:46 ↗ i believe we need to do those before we

1:31:48 ↗ can get to the main

1:31:51 ↗ uh motion so that's just my question

1:31:54 ↗ thank you for that yes we will stick to

1:31:57 ↗ um

1:31:58 ↗ questions versus comments questions

1:32:01 ↗ on the main motion so um i want to go

1:32:04 ↗ back to council member walsh first

1:32:06 ↗ did you get the answer you were looking

1:32:07 ↗ for before i moved to councilmember

1:32:10 ↗ marks

1:32:14 ↗ yes i think i did it gives me a lot to

1:32:17 ↗ think about

1:32:18 ↗ um i'll be very council member hall like

1:32:23 ↗ but yeah thank you

1:32:26 ↗ and councilmember mark you had indicated

1:32:28 ↗ a comment it's a comment or a question

1:32:30 ↗ at this point

1:32:31 ↗ i actually do have a question so

1:32:34 ↗ uh in customer goodman's example of a

1:32:38 ↗ commercial application

1:32:40 ↗ uh the build says that parking

1:32:43 ↗ associated with non-residential uses

1:32:45 ↗ shall meet the requirements of table

1:32:46 ↗ eight two it's a total of fifteen

1:32:48 ↗ percent

1:32:49 ↗ not forty percent and it's rounding down

1:32:51 ↗ when you're at a fraction below 0.5

1:32:54 ↗ so if you have 10 parking stalls

1:32:58 ↗ you have to have maybe one ev ready

1:33:01 ↗ parking space and maybe

1:33:03 ↗ one evse so i just want to get clarity

1:33:06 ↗ because the example that was used made

1:33:08 ↗ it sound like it was a lot

1:33:10 ↗ um but for a commercial application i

1:33:13 ↗ don't think that's what the ordinance

1:33:14 ↗ says

1:33:15 ↗ yes clarity on that please no i think i

1:33:18 ↗ think you're

1:33:19 ↗ i think you're correct councilman for

1:33:22 ↗ government speaking

1:33:23 ↗ yeah this is council member good machine

1:33:24 ↗ you're right i'm sorry you're right

1:33:26 ↗ um i think my point was that we have a

1:33:29 ↗ um like there are difficult very

1:33:32 ↗ difficult situations in the city

1:33:34 ↗ and we're going to find many

1:33:37 ↗ um applications out of this or that are

1:33:39 ↗ going to be have to comply and are going

1:33:41 ↗ to be very difficult

1:33:42 ↗ thank you for correcting that thank you

1:33:44 ↗ councilmember mertz

1:33:46 ↗ i'm looking forward awesome i'm looking

1:33:48 ↗ for any additional

1:33:50 ↗ questions and i believe we have heard

1:33:53 ↗ from

1:33:54 ↗ most of our council members and if there

1:33:57 ↗ are no more i'm going to go for a second

1:33:58 ↗ round of questions and go back to

1:34:00 ↗ council president hunt

1:34:04 ↗ thank you i well

1:34:07 ↗ firstly i think there is a main there is

1:34:09 ↗ a motion on the floor

1:34:10 ↗ and so my understanding and you can

1:34:12 ↗ correct me

1:34:13 ↗ if i'm wrong but my understanding of the

1:34:15 ↗ procedure here would be that we can

1:34:17 ↗ discuss that main motion and then um

1:34:21 ↗ if there is an interest in making those

1:34:23 ↗ amendment motions then we can make those

1:34:24 ↗ and then

1:34:25 ↗ um discuss those but i i think that um

1:34:28 ↗ it would be appropriate so i just wanted

1:34:30 ↗ to

1:34:32 ↗ mention that i had earlier made the main

1:34:33 ↗ motions there is a motion on the floor

1:34:35 ↗ to be deliberated right now

1:34:37 ↗ okay thank you for that um and then

1:34:40 ↗ i had one comment on that so on the main

1:34:43 ↗ motion

1:34:44 ↗ um it was mentioned that something like

1:34:47 ↗ 70

1:34:48 ↗ uh something percent of the

1:34:52 ↗ electric vehicles are in single family

1:34:55 ↗ um

1:34:56 ↗ are in homes that are single family and

1:34:59 ↗ i think one of the

1:35:00 ↗ main reasons that that is the case is

1:35:02 ↗ that a lot of people that might choose

1:35:04 ↗ to

1:35:05 ↗ have an electric vehicle or might want

1:35:07 ↗ to have an electric vehicle are in

1:35:09 ↗ situations where they don't have access

1:35:11 ↗ to charging and that's been found to be

1:35:12 ↗ one of the

1:35:13 ↗ main barriers in fact to owning an

1:35:16 ↗ electric vehicle or

1:35:17 ↗ to using an electric vehicle so i just

1:35:20 ↗ wanted to point that out is that it's

1:35:21 ↗ not

1:35:21 ↗ um not indicative i think that people in

1:35:25 ↗ other forms of housing wouldn't want to

1:35:28 ↗ also have those but rather that there is

1:35:30 ↗ a barrier that we're trying to address

1:35:31 ↗ with this bill

1:35:34 ↗ thank you any so let's just move into

1:35:37 ↗ comments and be

1:35:38 ↗ uh before we call for a vote is there

1:35:41 ↗ any

1:35:41 ↗ other council member who would like to

1:35:44 ↗ make a comment and

1:35:45 ↗ please add your name in the chat and

1:35:46 ↗ i'll start with councilmember marks

1:35:48 ↗ thank you madam mayor yeah i i support

1:35:51 ↗ this measure tonight

1:35:53 ↗ i think that it's true that uh

1:35:57 ↗ you have to be careful when looking at

1:35:59 ↗ estimates right because you have to be

1:36:00 ↗ careful at

1:36:01 ↗ what's the cause and what's what's

1:36:03 ↗ correlation and what's causality right

1:36:05 ↗ if you have a nine percent uh predicted

1:36:08 ↗ growth rate that's with certain

1:36:09 ↗ assumptions

1:36:10 ↗ right if you're a town that has more

1:36:13 ↗ charging capability you may be getting

1:36:15 ↗ more growth we don't know

1:36:17 ↗ but we do know that electric vehicle

1:36:19 ↗ growth is increasing and as

1:36:22 ↗ the council president has pointed out

1:36:24 ↗ access to charging is an important

1:36:25 ↗ aspect of people's decisions

1:36:27 ↗ to buy electric vehicles i think you

1:36:30 ↗ know looking at these numbers i think

1:36:32 ↗ this

1:36:32 ↗ is a careful and prudent way

1:36:36 ↗ to continue our environmental leadership

1:36:38 ↗ uh

1:36:39 ↗ in king county so i'll be proud to

1:36:41 ↗ support this this evening thank you

1:36:42 ↗ thank you councilmember mertz

1:36:44 ↗ councilmember g michelle

1:36:48 ↗ thank you mayor paulie i too will be

1:36:51 ↗ supporting the motion um and i did also

1:36:54 ↗ i wanted to comment on the

1:36:56 ↗ policy planning commission and the uh

1:36:59 ↗ environmental board

1:37:01 ↗ work i listened in on the policy

1:37:03 ↗ planning commission

1:37:05 ↗ and their discussion and certainly

1:37:07 ↗ swayed my opinion

1:37:08 ↗ on requiring charging stations for

1:37:10 ↗ affordable housing

1:37:12 ↗ i wasn't able to sit in on the

1:37:15 ↗ environmental board

1:37:16 ↗ but i read their recommendation

1:37:18 ↗ thoroughly

1:37:19 ↗ and i agree with the points that they

1:37:21 ↗ made especially

1:37:22 ↗ about

1:37:26 ↗ that electric vehicle charging is a

1:37:29 ↗ rapidly developing

1:37:30 ↗ industry and that the council should

1:37:33 ↗ revisit the impacts of this ordinance uh

1:37:36 ↗ with within the next year or the next

1:37:38 ↗ couple of years whatever we think is a

1:37:41 ↗ is a good uh cycle but uh it is rapidly

1:37:45 ↗ developing and changing

1:37:47 ↗ and we should be monitoring the impacts

1:37:49 ↗ of this

1:37:50 ↗ ordinance um and i just want to point

1:37:53 ↗ out because the comments were made

1:37:56 ↗ that um that the council doesn't listen

1:37:59 ↗ to the

1:38:00 ↗ planning policy commission in the

1:38:01 ↗ environmental board and i think that's

1:38:04 ↗ very wrong and i really learned a lot

1:38:06 ↗ from

1:38:07 ↗ listening in and from reading the

1:38:09 ↗ recommendations and i really commend

1:38:11 ↗ uh both of them for the thoughtful input

1:38:14 ↗ that they provided

1:38:15 ↗ to us my last comment is

1:38:18 ↗ as a person who lives in a multi-family

1:38:22 ↗ condo i'd love to have an electric

1:38:25 ↗ vehicle i don't have an electric

1:38:27 ↗ vehicle charging station and i do think

1:38:29 ↗ it's the major barrier so

1:38:31 ↗ if we're looking at the potential of

1:38:32 ↗ only 33

1:38:35 ↗ multi-family housing uh coming in in the

1:38:38 ↗ next few years i would say it's because

1:38:40 ↗ there's

1:38:41 ↗ no place to charge uh your electric

1:38:44 ↗ vehicle

1:38:44 ↗ and so i think we need to start changing

1:38:46 ↗ it uh working with young people i hear

1:38:49 ↗ all the time

1:38:50 ↗ why aren't you moving now now if we wait

1:38:53 ↗ three years

1:38:55 ↗ to do this that's three years of

1:38:58 ↗ construction that we've missed

1:38:59 ↗ so i will be supporting this tonight i

1:39:02 ↗ will be voting for it

1:39:03 ↗ um and uh i thank the council for its

1:39:07 ↗ deliberations

1:39:07 ↗ thank you thank you councilmember d

1:39:10 ↗ michelle

1:39:11 ↗ any uh other comments um before i come

1:39:14 ↗ back to you council president hunt i'm

1:39:15 ↗ going to see if there are any

1:39:17 ↗ that have not commented uh council

1:39:19 ↗ member hall

1:39:22 ↗ uh thank you mayor paul this is

1:39:23 ↗ councilmember hall i actually just have

1:39:24 ↗ a quick

1:39:25 ↗ uh clarifying question um the scope of

1:39:28 ↗ the title 18 ad hoc committee

1:39:30 ↗ are they charged with and i'm not sure

1:39:32 ↗ who this is particularly for remember an

1:39:34 ↗ ad hoc committee member or for a city

1:39:36 ↗ administrator but

1:39:37 ↗ is that ad hoc committee charged with

1:39:39 ↗ considering policy

1:39:41 ↗ changes or cleaning up the code so it's

1:39:44 ↗ more

1:39:44 ↗ friendly for customers and for city

1:39:46 ↗ staff could someone just quickly go over

1:39:50 ↗ the charge of the title 18 ad hoc

1:39:52 ↗ committee again

1:39:53 ↗ sure it looks like city administrator

1:39:54 ↗ bob quits is coming in

1:39:57 ↗ uh councilmember hall members of the

1:39:58 ↗ council uh i i think it really is both i

1:40:00 ↗ think that certainly the cleanup

1:40:02 ↗ uh streamlining is important but i think

1:40:05 ↗ that the policy questions are also

1:40:07 ↗ a part of that and so i think part of

1:40:09 ↗ the reason that the the process is a

1:40:11 ↗ a complicated one is uh make there be an

1:40:15 ↗ overall better code

1:40:16 ↗ that serves the needs of our community

1:40:18 ↗ and that's just a pretty tall order so

1:40:20 ↗ members of the ad hoc can chime in but i

1:40:22 ↗ i hope i've answered that correctly

1:40:27 ↗ council member hall did that answer your

1:40:28 ↗ question

1:40:30 ↗ uh it sure does thanks mayor paulie okay

1:40:33 ↗ great

1:40:35 ↗ any other comments and if not i'm going

1:40:37 ↗ to go back to

1:40:38 ↗ council president hunt

1:40:41 ↗ that's president hunt thank you madam

1:40:43 ↗ mayor i am going to

1:40:45 ↗ make an amendment

1:40:48 ↗ um and this is the amendment that was

1:40:51 ↗ emailed

1:40:52 ↗ out um it is rather long but i will read

1:40:55 ↗ it um and it is in our

1:40:57 ↗ it is in our email oh okay

1:41:01 ↗ um and city clerk before i start this i

1:41:03 ↗ do need to read the entire amendment is

1:41:05 ↗ that correct

1:41:09 ↗ hi thank you yes you would need to to

1:41:11 ↗ read it in its entirety

1:41:12 ↗ if you'd like me to pull it up on the

1:41:14 ↗ screen i'm happy to do that

1:41:16 ↗ so it can be shared with all um i think

1:41:20 ↗ yes thank you i think that would be good

1:41:21 ↗ because it is rather long um

1:41:23 ↗ i am n section 2 of ordinance number

1:41:26 ↗ 2941 adding the following language

1:41:28 ↗ within table

1:41:29 ↗ a1 as follows new multifamily

1:41:32 ↗ parenthesis

1:41:33 ↗ r1r-1 r-2 and i-2

1:41:37 ↗ occupancies and any other multi-unit

1:41:39 ↗ residential building not meeting the

1:41:40 ↗ definition of

1:41:42 ↗ quote multi-family residential building

1:41:44 ↗ under the state building code rcw

1:41:47 ↗ 19.27.015 parenthesis

1:41:49 ↗ for existing multi-family

1:41:52 ↗ buildings undergoing substantial

1:41:54 ↗ improvement our

1:41:56 ↗ parenthesis r1 r2 and i2 occupancies in

1:41:59 ↗ any other multi-unit residential

1:42:01 ↗ building not meeting the definition of

1:42:03 ↗ multi-family residential building under

1:42:04 ↗ the state building code

1:42:06 ↗ rcw 19.2 7.015

1:42:10 ↗ princess 4 nmn section 3 of ordinance

1:42:12 ↗ number two nine four one striking imc

1:42:16 ↗ eighteen point zero nine point one four

1:42:18 ↗ zero b

1:42:20 ↗ and further amends section four

1:42:22 ↗ ordinance number two nine four one

1:42:23 ↗ amending centralistic web development

1:42:25 ↗ and design standards striking paragraph

1:42:27 ↗ 8.13

1:42:28 ↗ princess b princesses 11 electric

1:42:30 ↗ vehicle charging

1:42:33 ↗ um electric google charging parking

1:42:37 ↗ provisions of the central island

1:42:38 ↗ development and design

1:42:40 ↗ standards

1:42:46 ↗ give you a second council member g

1:42:49 ↗ michelle

1:42:55 ↗ oh i'll second that motion sorry thanks

1:42:59 ↗ uh and uh council president hunt do you

1:43:02 ↗ want to speak to the amendment

1:43:04 ↗ yes i would thank you madam mayor this

1:43:06 ↗ is council president hunt

1:43:07 ↗ most charging does occur at home and the

1:43:10 ↗ intent of this

1:43:11 ↗ ordinance is to expand our

1:43:14 ↗ ability to have the ordinance cover more

1:43:18 ↗ residential home types of buildings

1:43:22 ↗ and it's not clear really from the

1:43:24 ↗ amendment itself but

1:43:26 ↗ um as as our city attorney haney

1:43:29 ↗ spoke to earlier the state's

1:43:32 ↗ um building code council has a much more

1:43:36 ↗ narrow definition of

1:43:38 ↗ what the the purview is it's single

1:43:41 ↗ family and then also a very

1:43:43 ↗ um a very narrow definition in my

1:43:47 ↗ opinion of multi-family and so town

1:43:50 ↗ homes if we make this change

1:43:52 ↗ the big takeaway is that if we make this

1:43:54 ↗ change

1:43:55 ↗ most townhomes townhomes with more than

1:43:57 ↗ four units for example

1:43:59 ↗ would be um would be covered by the

1:44:02 ↗ ordinance and they would not

1:44:03 ↗ they are not currently there so this i'm

1:44:06 ↗ making this motion to

1:44:07 ↗ cover more residential building types

1:44:09 ↗ recognizing that

1:44:10 ↗ uh charging at home is where most people

1:44:13 ↗ do

1:44:14 ↗ choose to charge and um charging is a

1:44:15 ↗ barrier for people to own evs and also

1:44:18 ↗ to take into account a lot of the public

1:44:20 ↗ comment that we received and the

1:44:22 ↗ comments that we received from our

1:44:23 ↗ commissions really

1:44:24 ↗ advising that we should um have single

1:44:27 ↗ family in there so this gets a little

1:44:28 ↗ closer to covering

1:44:29 ↗ more housing types while still not while

1:44:32 ↗ still um taking into account our

1:44:34 ↗ city attorney's legal advice

1:44:38 ↗ thank you and councilmember d michelle

1:44:40 ↗ did you want to make comments before we

1:44:42 ↗ go to other council members

1:44:44 ↗ i'll just be very brief council

1:44:45 ↗ president hunt covered it very very well

1:44:48 ↗ um i think this amendment uh helps us to

1:44:51 ↗ stretch

1:44:53 ↗ this ordinance to um cover

1:44:56 ↗ more and i you know our

1:44:59 ↗ original goal was to cover everyone so

1:45:01 ↗ we're getting closer there legally

1:45:03 ↗ and so i support this amendment thank

1:45:06 ↗ you

1:45:07 ↗ thank you i'm not seeing any other

1:45:09 ↗ comments but i'll give it a second if

1:45:11 ↗ there's any other comments

1:45:12 ↗ from council members please add your

1:45:14 ↗ name in the chat

1:45:18 ↗ councilmember goodman

1:45:21 ↗ uh thank you councilmember goodman here

1:45:23 ↗ um

1:45:24 ↗ so i have the precise answer to

1:45:28 ↗ um councilmember hall's question about

1:45:31 ↗ the ad hoc committee you want me to wait

1:45:33 ↗ or read it now

1:45:35 ↗ um i think that's okay to read it now

1:45:37 ↗ all right

1:45:38 ↗ uh so march of last year

1:45:43 ↗ we had an agenda bill and the motion

1:45:46 ↗ was made and approved and it said direct

1:45:49 ↗ the

1:45:50 ↗ land use code title 18 ad hoc committee

1:45:52 ↗ to continue meeting

1:45:54 ↗ on the planning phase of the project and

1:45:56 ↗ expand its scope to include making

1:45:58 ↗ recommendations on the policy decisions

1:46:01 ↗ within the land use code title 18 update

1:46:04 ↗ through

1:46:04 ↗ project completion um

1:46:08 ↗ dot dot dot so that was the answer to

1:46:11 ↗ your question

1:46:14 ↗ thank you do any other council members

1:46:17 ↗ want to make a comment or have a

1:46:18 ↗ question before we go to the boat

1:46:24 ↗ being done i will uh re-read the

1:46:28 ↗ uh amendment the motion on the floor is

1:46:31 ↗ to amend

1:46:33 ↗ the ordinance section two of ordinance

1:46:35 ↗ number two nine

1:46:36 ↗ four one adding the following language

1:46:38 ↗ within table 8.1

1:46:40 ↗ as follows multi-family bracket r1

1:46:44 ↗ r2 and i2 occupancies and any other

1:46:46 ↗ multi-unit residential building

1:46:49 ↗ not meeting the definition of

1:46:50 ↗ multi-family residential building under

1:46:52 ↗ the state

1:46:53 ↗ building code rcw 19.27.015 for n4

1:46:58 ↗ existing multi-family buildings

1:47:00 ↗ undergoing substantial improvements

1:47:02 ↗ r1 or bracket r1 r2 and i2 occupancies

1:47:06 ↗ and any other multi-unit

1:47:08 ↗ residential building not meeting the

1:47:09 ↗ definition of multi-family residential

1:47:11 ↗ building

1:47:12 ↗ under the state building code rcw

1:47:15 ↗ 19.27.015 for n4

1:47:18 ↗ and amends section 3 of ordinance number

1:47:20 ↗ 2941 striking imc

1:47:23 ↗ 18.09.14 for nb

1:47:25 ↗ and further amounts section 4 of

1:47:27 ↗ ordinance number 2941

1:47:29 ↗ amending central ethical development and

1:47:31 ↗ design standards striking paragraph 8.13

1:47:34 ↗ paren b

1:47:35 ↗ parent 11 electric vehicle charging

1:47:38 ↗ parking provisions of the central squad

1:47:41 ↗ development and design standards

1:47:43 ↗ and it's being moved in second allows

1:47:45 ↗ the city clerk to do a roll call on this

1:47:47 ↗ amendment

1:47:49 ↗ roll call vote on this amendment thank

1:47:51 ↗ you

1:47:52 ↗ we'll be starting with a council member

1:47:54 ↗ hall

1:47:55 ↗ aye council president hunt

1:48:00 ↗ council member martz aye

1:48:03 ↗ deputy council president ray aye

1:48:06 ↗ council member walsh aye

1:48:10 ↗ council member d michelle aye

1:48:14 ↗ councilmember goodwin hi

1:48:17 ↗ thank you that's seven eyes zero nays

1:48:27 ↗ the main motion i just unmuted you mayor

1:48:32 ↗ so that passes unanimously the amendment

1:48:34 ↗ passes and we'll go back to the main

1:48:36 ↗ motion are there any additional

1:48:38 ↗ any council members who wish to comment

1:48:40 ↗ on the main motion before we go for a

1:48:42 ↗ roll call vote

1:48:47 ↗ i'm not seeing anybody else additionally

1:48:50 ↗ in the chat oh council president hunt

1:48:56 ↗ my apologies i chatted to the wrong

1:48:58 ↗ person this is council president hunt

1:49:01 ↗ um i would like to make one more

1:49:04 ↗ amendment and this would be to

1:49:08 ↗ um strike from the cost neutrality

1:49:13 ↗ part of the ordinance to strike section

1:49:18 ↗ 10 point 10

1:49:23 ↗ d which is the portion that reads

1:49:26 ↗ substitution of a portion

1:49:28 ↗ of evse and evs ev ready stalls

1:49:31 ↗ with ev capable stalls equivalent to the

1:49:33 ↗ number of stalls that are no longer eps

1:49:36 ↗ and eb ready

1:49:39 ↗ do we have that one written up can you

1:49:42 ↗ put that one in the chat

1:49:43 ↗ and is there a second

1:49:48 ↗ i don't have the motion um if it can be

1:49:51 ↗ provided to me that would be great

1:49:53 ↗ maybe council president hunt can put in

1:49:54 ↗ the chat

1:49:59 ↗ is there a second

1:50:03 ↗ council member second

1:50:07 ↗ it's been moved and seconded to make an

1:50:10 ↗ amendment that um to strike

1:50:14 ↗ the language substitution of a portion

1:50:16 ↗ of evse

1:50:17 ↗ and ev ready solved with ev capable

1:50:19 ↗ stalls equivalent to the number of

1:50:21 ↗ stalls that are no longer evse and dv

1:50:23 ↗ ready

1:50:24 ↗ is there any comments or questions

1:50:27 ↗ clerk ecker speaking um was there a

1:50:30 ↗ reference

1:50:31 ↗ section of the ordinance or an imc that

1:50:34 ↗ was included as well

1:50:42 ↗ so um would the amendment meet read to

1:50:45 ↗ strike the language in 10d

1:50:48 ↗ that says substitution of a person would

1:50:50 ↗ that be the appropriate way to read that

1:50:55 ↗ um this is council president hunt that's

1:50:57 ↗ my intent okay

1:51:00 ↗ any comments or questions

1:51:09 ↗ thank you um this amendment is um

1:51:12 ↗ partly to see um i i really wanted to

1:51:15 ↗ put this out for council's consideration

1:51:17 ↗ council hadn't

1:51:18 ↗ previously seen the cost neutral

1:51:20 ↗ approach because it was

1:51:21 ↗ added in response to concerns that were

1:51:24 ↗ raised

1:51:24 ↗ at our last study session um and my

1:51:28 ↗ um i think that for the most part this

1:51:30 ↗ cost neutral approach for affordable

1:51:32 ↗ housing

1:51:33 ↗ um i am i think it's important to note

1:51:36 ↗ that it was supported by

1:51:37 ↗ arch and it was supported by imagine

1:51:39 ↗ housing um

1:51:40 ↗ specifically the cost neutral aspects of

1:51:43 ↗ it but then in our

1:51:44 ↗ commissions it seems to me my reading of

1:51:47 ↗ their recommendation that

1:51:49 ↗ they were concerned about the ev capable

1:51:52 ↗ part and that would prefer to have it

1:51:54 ↗ switch from eb sc which means there's

1:51:56 ↗ the equipment there it's ev

1:51:57 ↗ ready which means there's still the

1:51:58 ↗ outlet there and again ev capable means

1:52:01 ↗ there's not even any wiring

1:52:03 ↗ you would need to um go back in and do

1:52:05 ↗ that wiring which would be something

1:52:07 ↗ that the building would have to do

1:52:09 ↗ so this uh this sort of removes one of

1:52:12 ↗ the options from the cost neutral

1:52:14 ↗ approach but i think it's an important

1:52:16 ↗ way to ensure that the infrastructure is

1:52:19 ↗ actually

1:52:19 ↗ available for people to use um because

1:52:22 ↗ again if you have

1:52:23 ↗ if you switch from ev ready to ev

1:52:26 ↗ capable

1:52:27 ↗ that the infrastructure would not

1:52:29 ↗ actually be ready until the building

1:52:31 ↗ person decided to actually put in that

1:52:33 ↗ wiring so that's the intent of the

1:52:35 ↗ amendment the intent of the amendment is

1:52:37 ↗ to make it so the

1:52:38 ↗ infrastructure is truly available in an

1:52:41 ↗ equitable way

1:52:42 ↗ to people in affordable housing

1:52:47 ↗ thank you council president hunt are

1:52:48 ↗ there any other comments or questions

1:52:50 ↗ councilmember hall uh yeah thank you

1:52:53 ↗ this is councilmember hall i was just

1:52:54 ↗ wondering if megan

1:52:56 ↗ could potentially speak to the

1:52:58 ↗ difference in cost

1:52:59 ↗ from a a developer perspective or a

1:53:01 ↗ building perspective

1:53:03 ↗ between ev capable and ev ready spots

1:53:11 ↗ yes this is megan um i did have that

1:53:14 ↗ information

1:53:15 ↗ listed in um a previous

1:53:19 ↗ packet and i do not have it memorized

1:53:22 ↗ but i'm pulling it up right now

1:53:34 ↗ thank you and i did not expect you to

1:53:36 ↗ commit that to memory so um

1:53:40 ↗ so we have that an eevee capable spot

1:53:43 ↗ um hovers around 280 to

1:53:47 ↗ 760 per space

1:53:50 ↗ whereas the um

1:53:53 ↗ the costs for ev um

1:53:56 ↗ ready and evsc are more than that and in

1:54:00 ↗ a different space

1:54:02 ↗ in my memo or closer to the

1:54:06 ↗ 1000 or so so it is a quite a bit of a

1:54:09 ↗ savings there with eb capable

1:54:13 ↗ i can continue to find that exact number

1:54:17 ↗ if that would be helpful

1:54:20 ↗ that answers my question i appreciate

1:54:22 ↗ that but if other council members are

1:54:24 ↗ interested they can speak up

1:54:25 ↗ thanks uh councilmember walsh

1:54:29 ↗ thank you this is councilman walsh um

1:54:31 ↗ i'm a very visual person so i'm having a

1:54:33 ↗ hard time

1:54:33 ↗ since this didn't come through earlier

1:54:36 ↗ understanding

1:54:37 ↗ where it is in the

1:54:41 ↗ um a b so i'm wondering whether the

1:54:44 ↗ clerk could

1:54:46 ↗ show that section and show what it looks

1:54:49 ↗ like with the strike and replacement

1:54:51 ↗ because that would help me a lot

1:54:56 ↗ uh i'd be happy to share my screen uh

1:54:58 ↗ clerk baker speaking

1:54:59 ↗ and show you the location of that item

1:55:02 ↗ on the screen

1:55:04 ↗ that would work thank you

1:55:09 ↗ and let me increase the font size here

1:55:12 ↗ so you

1:55:12 ↗ can see it better

1:55:22 ↗ you said

1:55:31 ↗ can you confirm that this is the

1:55:32 ↗ paragraph

1:55:37 ↗ yes that's right and also just to

1:55:39 ↗ clarify there was no replacement it

1:55:41 ↗ would be to

1:55:42 ↗ remove um this option

1:55:49 ↗ okay thank you thank you city clerk

1:55:52 ↗ i'm not seeing any other questions or

1:55:55 ↗ comments at this moment

1:55:56 ↗ so um the amendment that's on the table

1:56:01 ↗ is to revise section 10 d of the

1:56:03 ↗ ordinance

1:56:04 ↗ to strike the words substitution of a

1:56:08 ↗ portion of evse

1:56:09 ↗ and eb ready cells with eb capable cells

1:56:12 ↗ equivalent to the number of stalls that

1:56:13 ↗ are no longer

1:56:14 ↗ evsc and eb ready

1:56:18 ↗ city clerk can you do a roll call vote

1:56:20 ↗ on the amendment

1:56:23 ↗ thank you i will be calling uh

1:56:27 ↗ first a council president hunt hi

1:56:32 ↗ councilmember mark aye

1:56:35 ↗ deputy council president ray aye

1:56:38 ↗ council member walsh aye councilmember d

1:56:42 ↗ michelle

1:56:43 ↗ aye councilmember goodman nay

1:56:47 ↗ councilmember hall nay

1:56:51 ↗ that's five eyes and two nays

1:56:55 ↗ thank you city clerk the amendment um

1:56:57 ↗ passes five to two and now we are back

1:57:00 ↗ to the main motion i'll just

1:57:01 ↗ hold off on the chat for another 10

1:57:03 ↗ seconds and see if there's any

1:57:04 ↗ additional comments

1:57:06 ↗ or questions

1:57:09 ↗ i am not seeing any so i'm going to move

1:57:11 ↗ back

1:57:12 ↗ up to the main motion uh council member

1:57:15 ↗ hall

1:57:19 ↗ uh thank you mayor paulie uh this is

1:57:21 ↗ councilmember hall again um

1:57:23 ↗ i am just looking back again at our

1:57:27 ↗ kind of um checklist of questions

1:57:30 ↗ to ask ourselves when we want to

1:57:33 ↗ consider something outside of the title

1:57:35 ↗ 18

1:57:35 ↗ scope of work that's going on and one of

1:57:37 ↗ them was are there trade-offs or

1:57:39 ↗ potential conflicts with other parts of

1:57:41 ↗ title 18 and i don't think i can

1:57:43 ↗ accurately answer that so i was

1:57:44 ↗ wondering if administration

1:57:47 ↗ or any other council members could

1:57:48 ↗ comment on that where they think they

1:57:50 ↗ have more information than i do on it

1:57:52 ↗ because i'm um i guess

1:57:55 ↗ not comfortable voting for this without

1:57:58 ↗ getting some more information on that

1:58:04 ↗ one

1:58:07 ↗ go to city minister bob quits and let

1:58:09 ↗ him pick somebody to answer that

1:58:10 ↗ question

1:58:12 ↗ thank you madam mayor um

1:58:16 ↗ you know i think it's a difficult

1:58:17 ↗ question that the councilmember hall

1:58:19 ↗ raises because i think as we've talked

1:58:20 ↗ about title 18

1:58:22 ↗ for a long period of time that there are

1:58:25 ↗ are portions of it um that

1:58:28 ↗ we're just not sure that we know where

1:58:29 ↗ all the conflicts are

1:58:31 ↗ um you know i'll i'll ask megan if she

1:58:33 ↗ has any thoughts off the top of her head

1:58:35 ↗ uh minnie is also still on uh

1:58:39 ↗ the call and perhaps she could chime in

1:58:41 ↗ um i think it's

1:58:42 ↗ very difficult for us to say that

1:58:43 ↗ there's 100 no conflicts

1:58:45 ↗ um with this i i don't think that we are

1:58:48 ↗ aware of any other

1:58:50 ↗ substantial conflicts obviously this

1:58:51 ↗ goes into the whole area of parking

1:58:53 ↗ um and so as we're going through uh

1:58:56 ↗ looking at parking requirements

1:58:58 ↗ as we move through a revisions of title

1:59:00 ↗ 18

1:59:01 ↗ i'd be surprised if we didn't find

1:59:02 ↗ something um

1:59:04 ↗ but megan and many are you aware of any

1:59:07 ↗ red flags as we sit here this evening

1:59:12 ↗ megan let's start with you and then

1:59:13 ↗ we'll go to uh director dollywell

1:59:16 ↗ uh this is megan i am not um i agree i

1:59:19 ↗ think as we go through title 18 there's

1:59:21 ↗ um you know there's some things that

1:59:23 ↗ could come up but there's nothing that

1:59:24 ↗ comes to mind with the review that we've

1:59:26 ↗ done thus far

1:59:30 ↗ dallywell yes for the record uh mini

1:59:33 ↗ dollywood

1:59:34 ↗ yes i don't i'm not aware of any

1:59:36 ↗ conflicts per se

1:59:37 ↗ at this time uh however as we get did

1:59:41 ↗ start taking a deeper dive into title 18

1:59:44 ↗ and there is a conflict that comes up we

1:59:46 ↗ can clean that up with the ordinance for

1:59:48 ↗ title 18 and we'll point that out at

1:59:50 ↗ that time

1:59:51 ↗ in terms of any um minor amendment that

1:59:54 ↗ might be

1:59:55 ↗ needed um so i don't think this this

1:59:57 ↗ precludes us from doing anything later

2:00:00 ↗ down the road if the council chooses to

2:00:01 ↗ adopt this tonight

2:00:10 ↗ oh i muted myself okay

2:00:13 ↗ uh thank you director dollywall any

2:00:15 ↗ additional questions or comments before

2:00:17 ↗ i go back to the main motion and i'll

2:00:18 ↗ give it a few seconds again and keep my

2:00:20 ↗ eye on the chat

2:00:25 ↗ okay i'm going to go up to the main

2:00:27 ↗ motion

2:00:30 ↗ uh which is it the motion is to adopt

2:00:32 ↗ ordinance number 2941

2:00:34 ↗ amending sections 18.02.070 and 18.09.14

2:00:40 ↗ of the isco municipal code related to

2:00:42 ↗ electric vehicle charging and amending

2:00:44 ↗ chapter 8.12 and 8.13 of the central

2:00:47 ↗ isco development and design standards to

2:00:49 ↗ add electric vehicle

2:00:50 ↗ charging and i will go to the city clerk

2:00:52 ↗ for a roll call vote

2:00:54 ↗ yes and that would be the ordinance as

2:00:56 ↗ amended

2:00:58 ↗ first on my list is councilmember martz

2:01:00 ↗ aye

2:01:03 ↗ deputy council president ray hi

2:01:06 ↗ councilmember walsh aye councilmember d

2:01:10 ↗ michelle

2:01:11 ↗ aye councilmember goodman

2:01:14 ↗ nay councilmember hall

2:01:18 ↗ aye council president hunt

2:01:21 ↗ aye that's six eyes

2:01:24 ↗ one nay thank you city cleric that

2:01:28 ↗ passive

2:01:28 ↗ six to one and thank you megan

2:01:32 ↗ and director dolly wall for coming this

2:01:34 ↗ evening

2:01:35 ↗ the next item on a business tonight is

2:01:38 ↗ the closed record

2:01:40 ↗ of appeal hearing this is ab-8136

2:01:44 ↗ consolidated appeal of hearing

2:01:46 ↗ examiner's denial of the preliminary

2:01:48 ↗ plot of the high street collection at

2:01:49 ↗ issaquah highlands

2:01:51 ↗ it is a quasi-judicial hearing related

2:01:54 ↗ to

2:01:55 ↗ app 21-0001

2:01:59 ↗ and

2:02:03 ↗ zero zero app21-0002 and at this time

2:02:05 ↗ i'd like to turn the gavel over to

2:02:07 ↗ council president hunt

2:02:09 ↗ who will preside throughout the appeal

2:02:11 ↗ hearing as well as the executive session

2:02:13 ↗ and any action to follow and before we

2:02:16 ↗ start that

2:02:19 ↗ yes looking at the chat yes we are

2:02:22 ↗ before we start

2:02:23 ↗ that next piece of business we will be

2:02:25 ↗ doing a five-minute recess so when we

2:02:26 ↗ come back

2:02:28 ↗ your chair for this evening will be

2:02:29 ↗ council president hunt so we are in

2:02:31 ↗ recess at 903 until 908.

2:02:34 ↗ see you then

2:09:48 ↗ 3 6 consolidated appeal of hearing

2:09:51 ↗ examiner's denial of the preliminary

2:09:53 ↗ plot of high street collection at

2:09:54 ↗ issaquah highlands

2:09:55 ↗ quasi-judicial 8pp 21-0

2:10:01 ↗ and app21-002

2:10:07 ↗ um and

2:10:11 ↗ uh i wanted to introduce myself my name

2:10:13 ↗ is victoria hunt i'm the council

2:10:15 ↗ president and i will be presiding over

2:10:16 ↗ the croatia

2:10:17 ↗ judicial appeal hearing i will now ask

2:10:20 ↗ attorney brett vinson to give

2:10:22 ↗ a brief introduction and to make the

2:10:24 ↗ necessary inquiries related to the

2:10:26 ↗ appearance of fairness

2:10:33 ↗ thank you uh council member council

2:10:35 ↗ president

2:10:36 ↗ my name is brett vinson and i've spoken

2:10:38 ↗ with council as well as

2:10:40 ↗ the appellants about the process that

2:10:43 ↗ we're going to follow today

2:10:45 ↗ this is a quasi-judicial hearing matter

2:10:48 ↗ and

2:10:48 ↗ therefore the first item of business

2:10:50 ↗ that we need to conduct

2:10:52 ↗ is to determine on the record

2:10:55 ↗ the appearance of fairness questions

2:10:58 ↗ there are a series of about three or

2:10:59 ↗ four questions that i need to ask

2:11:01 ↗ i will then ask

2:11:04 ↗ the council members and if any of you

2:11:07 ↗ are to answer in the affirmative please

2:11:10 ↗ so indicate

2:11:11 ↗ the first question is that

2:11:16 ↗ do any of you have any interest in the

2:11:17 ↗ property or the application

2:11:20 ↗ or if you own property within a certain

2:11:23 ↗ distance

2:11:24 ↗ 300 feet of this property subject to

2:11:27 ↗ this application

2:11:29 ↗ do any of you do any of the council

2:11:31 ↗ members

2:11:32 ↗ have any interest in the property

2:11:36 ↗ that is subject to the appeal or that is

2:11:39 ↗ located near

2:11:40 ↗ the property

2:11:47 ↗ carrying none we'll move to the next

2:11:49 ↗ question

2:11:50 ↗ do any of you stand to gain or lose any

2:11:52 ↗ financial benefit as a result of the

2:11:54 ↗ outcome of the hearing

2:12:00 ↗ and hearing none

2:12:03 ↗ can each of you here consider the appeal

2:12:06 ↗ in a fair

2:12:06 ↗ and objective manner

2:12:11 ↗ i'm seeing head nods all

2:12:15 ↗ have any of you had any ex party

2:12:17 ↗ communication with either of the

2:12:19 ↗ appellants next party communication

2:12:21 ↗ means any contact with them

2:12:26 ↗ since the time of the appeal february

2:12:28 ↗ 21st

2:12:29 ↗ to today's date

2:12:34 ↗ any emails or any other correspondence

2:12:38 ↗ great thank you very much hearing none

2:12:40 ↗ we'll move to the next question

2:12:42 ↗ now based upon the responses and in

2:12:44 ↗ light of rcw 4236080

2:12:48 ↗ which requires that notice of challenges

2:12:50 ↗ be

2:12:51 ↗ uh for uh for appearance of fairness to

2:12:54 ↗ be

2:12:55 ↗ raised at uh as soon as they are known

2:12:59 ↗ are there any uh do either of the

2:13:01 ↗ pellets

2:13:02 ↗ have any basis on which to challenge the

2:13:06 ↗ any of the council members on appearance

2:13:08 ↗ of fairness grounds

2:13:12 ↗ that's directed to the city and

2:13:26 ↗ do you have any basis to challenge uh

2:13:29 ↗ any of the council members on the

2:13:31 ↗ appearance of fairness

2:13:32 ↗ i know no objection from the department

2:13:34 ↗ thank you

2:13:35 ↗ thank you and uh mr schneider

2:13:39 ↗ uh no basis thank you thank you sir i

2:13:42 ↗ appreciate both of your

2:13:44 ↗ careful consideration of these matters

2:13:48 ↗ i will now give a brief introduction of

2:13:51 ↗ the process and the ground rules for

2:13:53 ↗ this appeal hearing

2:13:54 ↗ as well as a brief summary of uh the

2:13:56 ↗ issues on appeal

2:13:59 ↗ as council members are aware

2:14:03 ↗ pursuant to the provisions of rcw 4236

2:14:07 ↗ oh and oh this is a quasi-judicial

2:14:09 ↗ hearing

2:14:10 ↗ essentially the council is sitting as

2:14:13 ↗ judges in this matter and therefore

2:14:16 ↗ that they have very specific duties and

2:14:19 ↗ instructions and responsibilities

2:14:22 ↗ in the issaquah municipal code

2:14:27 ↗ table 1804 250-2

2:14:30 ↗ table of level 0-6

2:14:34 ↗ and council rule 4.15 discuss the rules

2:14:38 ↗ for

2:14:38 ↗ quasi-judicial hearings this type of

2:14:41 ↗ hearing is an appeal from

2:14:42 ↗ a denial of a plot is based upon the

2:14:45 ↗ record

2:14:46 ↗ that was before the hearing examiner

2:14:48 ↗ this is called

2:14:49 ↗ a closed record appeal hearing what that

2:14:53 ↗ means is that there could be no

2:14:54 ↗ new testimony no new evidence

2:14:59 ↗ brought for the council tonight the

2:15:02 ↗ record

2:15:02 ↗ the sum total of the record and the

2:15:04 ↗ evidence and the testimony is contained

2:15:08 ↗ in the record that was provided to the

2:15:10 ↗ council as well as to

2:15:12 ↗ mr zell and mr schneider mr zell did you

2:15:16 ↗ receive an email which contained the

2:15:19 ↗ complete record of the hearing

2:15:22 ↗ examiner's

2:15:23 ↗ matter

2:15:27 ↗ yes sir i think you were on mute just

2:15:29 ↗ temporarily there

2:15:33 ↗ pardon me yes i answered i did receive

2:15:35 ↗ the email thank you

2:15:37 ↗ thank you and mr schneider did you also

2:15:39 ↗ receive a copy of the hearing examiner's

2:15:42 ↗ record

2:15:42 ↗ yes thank you thank you

2:15:45 ↗ as such we will not take any new

2:15:49 ↗ arguments or evidence to be presented

2:15:52 ↗ before the council

2:15:54 ↗ the this matter was based upon a hearing

2:15:57 ↗ examiner's decision dated february 21st

2:16:00 ↗ 2021 wherein the city hearing examiner

2:16:03 ↗ denied the preliminary

2:16:04 ↗ plot of high street collection at

2:16:07 ↗ issaquah highlands

2:16:09 ↗ both the city and ihifc

2:16:13 ↗ also known as shelter have appealed the

2:16:16 ↗ denial of the plat

2:16:18 ↗ however shelter also appealed the

2:16:20 ↗ determination of vested status

2:16:22 ↗ that the city's development services

2:16:24 ↗ director made in section 5

2:16:26 ↗ of the march 3rd 2020 staff report

2:16:30 ↗ section 5 of the staff report related to

2:16:32 ↗ the vesting determination

2:16:33 ↗ and is generally summarized summarized

2:16:36 ↗ as follows

2:16:37 ↗ the extent of vesting for ih ifc's

2:16:40 ↗ august 1st and 28 2017 preliminary flat

2:16:44 ↗ application

2:16:45 ↗ is limited to the use designation

2:16:48 ↗ identified under the 1996

2:16:50 ↗ issaquah highlands development agreement

2:16:53 ↗ the

2:16:54 ↗ ihda and to the substantive land use

2:16:58 ↗ standards of the ihda that are necessary

2:17:00 ↗ to effectuate the specific development

2:17:02 ↗ proposal

2:17:03 ↗ if any that was identified in

2:17:07 ↗ ihifc's august first and twenty

2:17:10 ↗ twenty eight two thousand seventeen plat

2:17:12 ↗ application

2:17:13 ↗ and secondly vesting for the ihifc's

2:17:16 ↗ august first and

2:17:17 ↗ uh august 28 2017 preliminary flat

2:17:20 ↗ application

2:17:21 ↗ is limited to substantive land use

2:17:23 ↗ controls

2:17:25 ↗ does not extend the subsequent permit

2:17:26 ↗ applications and

2:17:28 ↗ three does not include post build out

2:17:30 ↗ period submittals

2:17:32 ↗ and as i indicated the city council is

2:17:35 ↗ the

2:17:36 ↗ decision maker for these appeals this

2:17:38 ↗ process is going to flow

2:17:40 ↗ as follows each side will have a total

2:17:43 ↗ of 15 minutes for argument

2:17:45 ↗ inclusive of any rebuttal time each side

2:17:48 ↗ will be responsible for ensuring that

2:17:50 ↗ the time for rebuttal is reserved

2:17:52 ↗ the parties can allocate the time

2:17:54 ↗ between the vesting appeal and the

2:17:56 ↗ platypill

2:17:56 ↗ in their discretion the order for

2:17:59 ↗ argument will be as follows

2:18:00 ↗ first the city then ihifc

2:18:04 ↗ the city will then use its rebuttal time

2:18:07 ↗ if any was reserved

2:18:09 ↗ and then ihifc will use their rebuttal

2:18:12 ↗ time if any is received

2:18:14 ↗ reserved madam clerk has indicated that

2:18:17 ↗ she will assist

2:18:18 ↗ in keeping track of the

2:18:21 ↗ argument time so at the beginning of

2:18:24 ↗ your arguments

2:18:25 ↗ mr zell mr schneider if you would just

2:18:27 ↗ indicate how many minutes you would like

2:18:29 ↗ to have

2:18:30 ↗ reserved for rebuttal

2:18:33 ↗ madam clerk will assist in keeping track

2:18:36 ↗ of that time

2:18:38 ↗ after uh ihifcs rebuttal

2:18:41 ↗ there will be an opportunity for the

2:18:43 ↗ council to ask any questions

2:18:45 ↗ if they have any there are no

2:18:47 ↗ requirements for the council to ask

2:18:49 ↗ ask any questions but if they do have

2:18:52 ↗ some that will be the time for which

2:18:54 ↗ they

2:18:54 ↗ asked previously to this uh to this

2:18:57 ↗ hearing

2:18:57 ↗ i did speak with mr zell and with mr

2:19:00 ↗ schneider and indicated that the council

2:19:02 ↗ had indicated that there was one

2:19:04 ↗ question that they would like to have

2:19:06 ↗ addressed during that period of time

2:19:08 ↗ that question relates to the polygon

2:19:10 ↗ development

2:19:11 ↗ i asked both both the pellets to take

2:19:15 ↗ three minutes each

2:19:16 ↗ no more than three minutes each to

2:19:19 ↗ explain why the polygon project

2:19:23 ↗ is either applicable or not applicable

2:19:25 ↗ in this

2:19:26 ↗ situation after uh

2:19:29 ↗ the the question period is completed

2:19:33 ↗ there will be 10 minutes of closing

2:19:34 ↗ arguments in each side

2:19:36 ↗ again the city will go first and then

2:19:39 ↗ ihifc

2:19:40 ↗ will go second once the hearing is

2:19:43 ↗ closed the council will recess

2:19:45 ↗ uh two deliberations pursuant to rcw

2:19:47 ↗ 423140

2:19:49 ↗ and the council may either affirm

2:19:54 ↗ remand reverse or modify the hearing

2:19:56 ↗ examiner's decision based upon the

2:19:57 ↗ record

2:19:58 ↗ and the arguments that were presented to

2:20:00 ↗ them tonight

2:20:02 ↗ we will now proceed in the orders

2:20:03 ↗ described above

2:20:06 ↗ mr zell do you have any questions about

2:20:08 ↗ the process

2:20:10 ↗ just one point of clarification mr

2:20:12 ↗ vincent my understanding again

2:20:14 ↗ for your comments is that um our the

2:20:16 ↗ party's opportunities to address the

2:20:18 ↗ the question you identified from the

2:20:20 ↗ council was going to be

2:20:22 ↗ after our original presentation could

2:20:24 ↗ you verify that please

2:20:26 ↗ uh that is correct unless they had

2:20:30 ↗ unless the parties had already uh

2:20:32 ↗ planned to speak to that

2:20:34 ↗ during their original presentation they

2:20:36 ↗ may do so

2:20:37 ↗ but the question will be presented

2:20:41 ↗ for you to respond to after

2:20:44 ↗ your original presentation you don't

2:20:47 ↗ have to address it in the original

2:20:49 ↗ presentation if you do not like you can

2:20:51 ↗ wait and tell the question thank you

2:20:54 ↗ thank you mr snyder any questions about

2:20:57 ↗ the process

2:20:58 ↗ no thank you uh right thank you very

2:21:02 ↗ much

2:21:03 ↗ we'll now proceed with the hearing

2:21:08 ↗ mr zell for the city uh and if you could

2:21:11 ↗ please identify

2:21:12 ↗ if you want to reserve any rebuttal time

2:21:16 ↗ thank you mr benson uh good evening

2:21:18 ↗ council

2:21:19 ↗ zach lowell representing the community

2:21:21 ↗ planning and development department

2:21:24 ↗ time is limited and i will be attempting

2:21:26 ↗ to be efficient this evening

2:21:27 ↗ because the issues have been extensively

2:21:29 ↗ briefed i would like to reserve three

2:21:31 ↗ minutes of my argument time for rebuttal

2:21:35 ↗ as explained in the department's appeal

2:21:37 ↗ statement my role here this evening is

2:21:39 ↗ twofold

2:21:40 ↗ first to explain the context and legal

2:21:42 ↗ basis for the department's vesting

2:21:44 ↗ determination on shelter's plat

2:21:45 ↗ application

2:21:46 ↗ which should be upheld by the city

2:21:47 ↗ council and second to explain

2:21:50 ↗ why the hearing examiner's decision

2:21:52 ↗ denying the plat should be reversed

2:21:54 ↗ with respect to vesting i'd like to make

2:21:57 ↗ three points

2:21:59 ↗ the first is that the general rule of

2:22:01 ↗ preliminary plot vesting under state law

2:22:04 ↗ is not absolute it's subject to several

2:22:06 ↗ exceptions

2:22:08 ↗ all of which are important here there is

2:22:11 ↗ no vesting

2:22:12 ↗ to procedure or process testing is

2:22:14 ↗ limited to simply

2:22:16 ↗ substantive land use controls vesting

2:22:18 ↗ does not apply to future mitigation

2:22:21 ↗ investing only applies to future

2:22:23 ↗ land-use development projects

2:22:25 ↗ on the subject property to the extent

2:22:28 ↗ that a specific development proposal is

2:22:30 ↗ identified in the plat

2:22:32 ↗ application separately and most

2:22:35 ↗ importantly for purposes of this appeal

2:22:37 ↗ the general vesting rule is also limited

2:22:40 ↗ in this context

2:22:41 ↗ contractually by the party's 1996

2:22:44 ↗ issaquah highlands development agreement

2:22:47 ↗ a key

2:22:47 ↗ feature of that agreement was a 20-year

2:22:49 ↗ build-out period

2:22:51 ↗ after which the parties agreed that

2:22:53 ↗ proposals could not

2:22:54 ↗ vest and that 20-year build-out period

2:22:57 ↗ expired

2:22:58 ↗ on september 18 2017.

2:23:02 ↗ the department's vesting determination

2:23:04 ↗ that's set forth in the staff report at

2:23:06 ↗ exhibit r

2:23:07 ↗ properly reflected all of these legal

2:23:10 ↗ parameters

2:23:11 ↗ the second point that i'd like to

2:23:13 ↗ emphasize tonight is that the director's

2:23:15 ↗ vesting determination was a correct and

2:23:17 ↗ appropriate response to shelter's own

2:23:19 ↗ plat application materials

2:23:22 ↗ in this regard i'd like to emphasize

2:23:24 ↗ that divesting determination was not

2:23:26 ↗ made in the abstract or in a vacuum

2:23:29 ↗ but it was it was a response to things

2:23:31 ↗ that shelter said

2:23:32 ↗ and did the first of those was in

2:23:34 ↗ shelter's own plat narrative which it

2:23:36 ↗ submitted concurrently with its

2:23:38 ↗ preliminary plot application in august

2:23:42 ↗ of 2017

2:23:44 ↗ in that plat narrative shelter

2:23:46 ↗ unilaterally and broadly attempts to

2:23:48 ↗ vest

2:23:49 ↗ all future development on the property

2:23:51 ↗ to the standards

2:23:52 ↗ mitigation etc of the development

2:23:55 ↗ agreement without identifying any

2:23:57 ↗ particular development proposal

2:23:59 ↗ and here shelter essentially attempted

2:24:01 ↗ to write the city staff report

2:24:03 ↗ for itself and i would respectfully

2:24:05 ↗ direct the council's attention

2:24:07 ↗ to exhibits 1.2 1.3

2:24:11 ↗ 2.4 and 6.3 which make this point very

2:24:15 ↗ clear

2:24:16 ↗ in short there is no washington legal

2:24:18 ↗ authority that supports this approach

2:24:21 ↗ the second point i'd like to emphasize

2:24:24 ↗ what shelter did or attempted to do

2:24:26 ↗ was to depict building footprints and

2:24:28 ↗ construction level detail

2:24:30 ↗ in its various plant materials after the

2:24:33 ↗ build-out period of the development

2:24:34 ↗ agreement had expired

2:24:37 ↗ this is content that goes far beyond the

2:24:39 ↗ definition and the purpose of a

2:24:41 ↗ preliminary plot under state law

2:24:43 ↗ which is a supposed to be a neat and

2:24:46 ↗ approximate drawing of a subdivision

2:24:48 ↗ nothing more and nothing less depicting

2:24:51 ↗ this level of

2:24:53 ↗ detail on a plaid addressing future

2:24:55 ↗ buildings future development

2:24:58 ↗ encroaches into separate future permit

2:25:00 ↗ stages of the city's

2:25:02 ↗ regulatory approval framework

2:25:04 ↗ specifically site development and

2:25:06 ↗ construction permits

2:25:08 ↗ again the key point here for vesting

2:25:10 ↗ purposes under the agreement

2:25:12 ↗ is that these submittals all occurred

2:25:14 ↗ during a time where the parties had

2:25:16 ↗ contractually agreed

2:25:17 ↗ that project applications could not vest

2:25:22 ↗ from staff's perspective shelter's

2:25:24 ↗ intent was very clear

2:25:26 ↗ in doing these things it was attempting

2:25:28 ↗ to use its plat application

2:25:30 ↗ to vest its future buildings in a way

2:25:32 ↗ that was inconsistent with state law

2:25:34 ↗ and not allowed under the development

2:25:36 ↗ agreement's out period

2:25:38 ↗ framework and because shelter was

2:25:40 ↗ attempting to do this

2:25:41 ↗ in the context of its plot application

2:25:44 ↗ and not through some separate document

2:25:46 ↗ it was necessary for the department to

2:25:48 ↗ address this issue

2:25:50 ↗ squarely and head head-on in the staff

2:25:52 ↗ report including the vesting

2:25:53 ↗ determination that it made

2:25:55 ↗ for the platte simply ignoring this

2:25:58 ↗ concern would have been tantamount to

2:26:00 ↗ kicking the can down the road

2:26:01 ↗ and avoiding staff's responsibility

2:26:04 ↗ under these circumstances the director's

2:26:07 ↗ vesting determination

2:26:08 ↗ ultimately concluded that shelter was

2:26:10 ↗ vested to the development agreement

2:26:12 ↗ for those aspects of its development

2:26:14 ↗ proposal that were submitted to the city

2:26:16 ↗ before the build-out period expired and

2:26:19 ↗ this is in keeping

2:26:20 ↗ with a often repeated aspect of

2:26:23 ↗ washington platt vesting law

2:26:25 ↗ that what is vested is what is sought in

2:26:28 ↗ the plot application itself

2:26:30 ↗ stated differently as a plat applicant

2:26:33 ↗ you vest to the substantive land use

2:26:35 ↗ standards

2:26:35 ↗ that are necessary to implement and

2:26:38 ↗ effectuate

2:26:39 ↗ the specific development proposal that

2:26:41 ↗ you have identified in your plat

2:26:43 ↗ application

2:26:45 ↗ the third and final point i'd like to

2:26:46 ↗ make regarding vesting tonight

2:26:48 ↗ is that the city staff agrees with both

2:26:50 ↗ shelter and the hearing examiner

2:26:52 ↗ that multiple iterations of a plant

2:26:54 ↗ application are a normal

2:26:56 ↗ regular process or component of a

2:26:59 ↗ process

2:27:00 ↗ during the plant review stage and this

2:27:02 ↗ sort of give and take and back and forth

2:27:04 ↗ does not operate to deprive the original

2:27:07 ↗ plot application of its vested status

2:27:09 ↗ we concur about that but what a plat

2:27:12 ↗ applicant cannot do

2:27:14 ↗ is use these subsequent submittals to

2:27:16 ↗ radically expand the scope of its vested

2:27:18 ↗ rights to impu

2:27:20 ↗ to include future site development that

2:27:22 ↗ will be subject to

2:27:23 ↗ separate regulatory review processes

2:27:26 ↗ even if this was permissible under state

2:27:28 ↗ law

2:27:29 ↗ and it would respectfully suggest that

2:27:31 ↗ it is not

2:27:32 ↗ allowing that result would directly

2:27:34 ↗ contravene the clear purpose

2:27:36 ↗ and legal effect of the build out period

2:27:38 ↗ under the 1996 development agreement

2:27:41 ↗ now this does not mean that the plot

2:27:43 ↗ application should be denied

2:27:45 ↗ quite the contrary what it does mean is

2:27:48 ↗ that future site development on the

2:27:50 ↗ property

2:27:50 ↗ including future buildings are not

2:27:53 ↗ vested to the development agreement

2:27:55 ↗ standards and will instead need to be

2:27:56 ↗ reviewed against

2:27:58 ↗ and ultimately satisfy the applicable

2:28:00 ↗ provisions of the city's code

2:28:03 ↗ as indicated in the revised version of

2:28:05 ↗ the department's proposed conditions of

2:28:07 ↗ approval for this plan

2:28:08 ↗ and those are in the record and were

2:28:11 ↗ submitted on august 10

2:28:12 ↗ 2020 this outcome can most effectively

2:28:16 ↗ be addressed through conditions that

2:28:19 ↗ clarify future site development

2:28:21 ↗ including future buildings are not

2:28:23 ↗ vested to the development agreement

2:28:25 ↗ standards and will instead be reviewed

2:28:27 ↗ against the city's applicable

2:28:28 ↗ regulations

2:28:30 ↗ this is the result that the council

2:28:32 ↗ should reach in addressing shelter's

2:28:33 ↗ appeal

2:28:34 ↗ of the director's vesting determination

2:28:37 ↗ with respect to the city's appeal of the

2:28:40 ↗ platte denial by the hearing examiner

2:28:43 ↗ i'll be very brief because i think the

2:28:45 ↗ issues here are very clear

2:28:46 ↗ and the outcome is dictated very clearly

2:28:49 ↗ by your own code and by washington law

2:28:51 ↗ there is simply no evidence or testimony

2:28:55 ↗ in the record that supports denial of

2:28:57 ↗ this plat

2:28:59 ↗ the hearing examiner felt impeded or

2:29:01 ↗ confused

2:29:02 ↗ or somehow prevented from reaching

2:29:06 ↗ a substantive approval decision on the

2:29:08 ↗ plaid

2:29:10 ↗ based on the city's vesting

2:29:11 ↗ determination but

2:29:13 ↗ that was an error on his part because

2:29:15 ↗ the hearing examiner himself had no

2:29:17 ↗ jurisdiction overvesting

2:29:19 ↗ he should have simply analyzed the plat

2:29:22 ↗ application within the parameters that

2:29:23 ↗ had been established by the director

2:29:25 ↗ the one official in the city who does

2:29:28 ↗ have authority to issue

2:29:29 ↗ vesting determinations and if the

2:29:31 ↗ examiner had done that

2:29:33 ↗ the application would have been approved

2:29:34 ↗ for the simple reason

2:29:36 ↗ that there is no evidence or testimony

2:29:38 ↗ that supports denial

2:29:41 ↗ the case law relevant to this issue

2:29:44 ↗ does not support the denial of this plat

2:29:47 ↗ denial of a plan is appropriate only

2:29:49 ↗ where the plot does not meet

2:29:51 ↗ the relevant standards for approval and

2:29:53 ↗ here again

2:29:54 ↗ no evidence indicates that the plat

2:29:56 ↗ should not have been approved

2:29:58 ↗ and there is no meaningful argument

2:29:59 ↗ between the parties regarding the basic

2:30:02 ↗ elements of plat approval

2:30:04 ↗ things like lot size lot configuration

2:30:07 ↗ basic use standards compliance sipa

2:30:10 ↗ mitigation etc

2:30:12 ↗ that is virtually uncontested in this

2:30:14 ↗ case

2:30:16 ↗ and the examiner's decision did not

2:30:18 ↗ identify any specific standard that

2:30:20 ↗ shelter's proposed plat

2:30:21 ↗ could not or did not meet the sole basis

2:30:24 ↗ of the examiner's denial decision

2:30:26 ↗ was instead the generic public use and

2:30:29 ↗ interest criterion

2:30:30 ↗ of the state subdivision statute

2:30:33 ↗ washington case law is very clear that

2:30:34 ↗ that standard in and of itself

2:30:36 ↗ is an insufficient basis to deny a plat

2:30:40 ↗ i'd like to be very clear though for the

2:30:42 ↗ record that it is not

2:30:43 ↗ staff's position or intent tonight to

2:30:46 ↗ cascade

2:30:47 ↗ or cast aspersions or otherwise attack

2:30:49 ↗ the hearing examiner

2:30:51 ↗ as you can see from the decision that he

2:30:53 ↗ issued on february 1st

2:30:54 ↗ he's a very thorough very methodical and

2:30:56 ↗ very conscientious professional

2:30:58 ↗ and in point of fact he's ruled almost

2:31:01 ↗ uniformly in the city's favor

2:31:03 ↗ throughout the three-year history of

2:31:04 ↗ this dispute we have no doubt

2:31:07 ↗ that his frustration that he sensed was

2:31:10 ↗ sincere

2:31:11 ↗ but with all respect i do believe that

2:31:15 ↗ the forest here was

2:31:17 ↗ likely missed for the trees if the

2:31:19 ↗ examiner felt that the

2:31:21 ↗ department's position on vesting was

2:31:23 ↗ unclear or concerning in any manner that

2:31:25 ↗ would have prevented him from fulfilling

2:31:27 ↗ his own decisional function

2:31:29 ↗ the proper recourse should have been for

2:31:31 ↗ him to request clarification from the

2:31:33 ↗ director

2:31:34 ↗ at some point during the several months

2:31:36 ↗ that the city staff report was

2:31:37 ↗ physically in front of him

2:31:39 ↗ simply denying approval of an

2:31:41 ↗ uncontested flat application

2:31:43 ↗ under these circumstances is not the

2:31:46 ↗ constructive or otherwise legally

2:31:48 ↗ correct outcome

2:31:50 ↗ in closing i just like to note

2:31:54 ↗ as the council is very aware this has

2:31:56 ↗ been a very heated

2:31:58 ↗ very difficult dispute over the last

2:32:00 ↗ three years

2:32:01 ↗ and the city has disagreed with shelter

2:32:04 ↗ holdings

2:32:05 ↗ on many aspects of their development

2:32:07 ↗ projects

2:32:08 ↗ including vested status but this case

2:32:12 ↗ involves a very rare

2:32:15 ↗ circumstance where both parties agree

2:32:19 ↗ and their point of agreement is that the

2:32:21 ↗ shelter plat should be approved

2:32:23 ↗ and this is the result that the city

2:32:25 ↗ council should reach

2:32:26 ↗ preferably through a directed remand to

2:32:29 ↗ the examiner

2:32:30 ↗ or an outright reversal decision with a

2:32:32 ↗ new decision substituted for the one

2:32:34 ↗ that the examiner issued

2:32:36 ↗ on february 1st and i'd be very happy to

2:32:38 ↗ answer any questions that the council

2:32:40 ↗ may have

2:32:40 ↗ other than that i'll reserve the rest of

2:32:42 ↗ my time for rebuttal

2:32:45 ↗ thank you clerk yeager speaking there

2:32:47 ↗ was one minute of unused time

2:32:49 ↗ so that would be four minutes remaining

2:32:51 ↗ thank you

2:32:56 ↗ i would like to share a powerpoint and

2:32:59 ↗ my share button is not working if that

2:33:02 ↗ could be

2:33:02 ↗ authorized please i will hand you

2:33:06 ↗ that ability now

2:33:20 ↗ can the council see the the

2:33:24 ↗ document i'm sharing

2:33:27 ↗ yes i can okay thank you

2:33:31 ↗ mr lal has spoken for

2:33:35 ↗ 10 odd minutes now and did not once

2:33:37 ↗ address

2:33:39 ↗ explain excuse me uh can you indicate

2:33:42 ↗ how much time you'd like on the clock

2:33:44 ↗ or how much you're reserving yeah thank

2:33:46 ↗ you i will reserve two minutes for a

2:33:48 ↗ rebuttal please

2:33:49 ↗ all right give me a moment to reset the

2:33:51 ↗ clock here

2:33:58 ↗ and again you said you went 13 minutes

2:34:01 ↗ at this time reserving two

2:34:03 ↗ yes thank you thank you thank you for

2:34:04 ↗ clarifying

2:34:06 ↗ i'm starting the time now thank you

2:34:10 ↗ mr lal spoke and did not once address

2:34:13 ↗ the statute

2:34:14 ↗ that is at issue in this appeal

2:34:17 ↗ which is the state vesting statute at

2:34:22 ↗ 5817.033

2:34:26 ↗ which i've called up here in my

2:34:30 ↗ remarks this evening i'm going to talk

2:34:32 ↗ about this statute

2:34:34 ↗ and its meaning and i'm going to talk

2:34:38 ↗ about how the administration has

2:34:41 ↗ applied this statute differently to

2:34:44 ↗ shelter

2:34:45 ↗ than it is asking you to apply it or

2:34:48 ↗ to apply it differently to polygon than

2:34:51 ↗ it is

2:34:51 ↗ asking you to apply it to shelter so

2:34:54 ↗ this is the statute at

2:34:56 ↗ issue that mr lell did not address a

2:34:58 ↗ proposed division of land

2:35:01 ↗ and i've highlighted the key words shall

2:35:03 ↗ be considered

2:35:04 ↗ under the land use control ordinances in

2:35:07 ↗ effect on the land

2:35:09 ↗ at the time of fully completed

2:35:11 ↗ application for preliminary plat

2:35:13 ↗ has been submitted this statute has been

2:35:16 ↗ in place since 1987.

2:35:19 ↗ it is undisputed that

2:35:23 ↗ shelter my client submitted a fully

2:35:25 ↗ complete application

2:35:27 ↗ in august of 2017.

2:35:31 ↗ this statute could not be simpler it

2:35:34 ↗ requires

2:35:34 ↗ the division of land the decision

2:35:38 ↗ that you are being asked to make about

2:35:40 ↗ the preliminary plat

2:35:42 ↗ be considered under

2:35:46 ↗ the regulations that were in effect in

2:35:48 ↗ august of 2017.

2:35:51 ↗ those regulations were the development

2:35:53 ↗ agreement

2:35:59 ↗ the city in approving an application

2:36:03 ↗ that polygon submitted

2:36:06 ↗ in july of 2017 two weeks before shelter

2:36:10 ↗ submitted its application

2:36:12 ↗ agreed that shelter was vested

2:36:15 ↗ to the development agreement and

2:36:18 ↗ proceeded to process shelter's plat

2:36:20 ↗ application under the procedures in the

2:36:22 ↗ development agreement

2:36:24 ↗ and to recommend approval

2:36:27 ↗ to this council to approve the plat

2:36:30 ↗ as vested under the development

2:36:32 ↗ agreement this is highlighted language

2:36:35 ↗ it's from exhibit ll of the urban

2:36:38 ↗ village development commission

2:36:40 ↗ that says even though the highlands

2:36:42 ↗ development agreement was terminated

2:36:44 ↗ by action of this council on march 28 of

2:36:47 ↗ 2018

2:36:48 ↗ and replacement regulations have been

2:36:50 ↗ enacted this application was vested to

2:36:53 ↗ the now terminated development agreement

2:36:55 ↗ and was

2:36:56 ↗ reviewed under those regulations

2:37:00 ↗ this council accepted the ubdc's

2:37:03 ↗ recommendation

2:37:04 ↗ and approve the plat by a 7-0 vote in

2:37:07 ↗ july of 2017

2:37:10 ↗ as vested to the development agreement

2:37:13 ↗ that the administration today is

2:37:15 ↗ attempting to deny

2:37:17 ↗ that shelter is vested to

2:37:21 ↗ this is the staff report for shelters

2:37:23 ↗ platt it's

2:37:25 ↗ from section six of the plat or assuming

2:37:28 ↗ of the vesting determination

2:37:30 ↗ section six is the portion of the staff

2:37:33 ↗ report

2:37:34 ↗ that immediately follows the vesting

2:37:36 ↗ determination that

2:37:38 ↗ mr lal spoke about at length and this

2:37:41 ↗ tells you what the

2:37:42 ↗ administration is asking you to approve

2:37:44 ↗ and agree to

2:37:46 ↗ the right-hand column are the portions

2:37:48 ↗ of the development agreement

2:37:50 ↗ that the administration has decided that

2:37:53 ↗ shelters plat

2:37:54 ↗ is not vested to and the left-hand

2:37:58 ↗ column is the portion of the development

2:38:00 ↗ agreement that the administration is

2:38:02 ↗ asserting that shelter is vested to

2:38:06 ↗ but the statute that i showed you

2:38:09 ↗ 5817033

2:38:11 ↗ says shelter is vested to the

2:38:13 ↗ development agreement

2:38:15 ↗ not to the replacement regulations that

2:38:17 ↗ the staff report

2:38:19 ↗ is asking you to apply

2:38:24 ↗ this is an excerpt from the staff report

2:38:27 ↗ the same

2:38:28 ↗ staff for polygons plat the plant that

2:38:30 ↗ you approved under the development

2:38:32 ↗ agreement

2:38:33 ↗ in 2017 exhibit b

2:38:38 ↗ is the land use standards that the staff

2:38:41 ↗ report for sheltersplat

2:38:43 ↗ said shelter is not vested to in the

2:38:46 ↗ staff report for polygons

2:38:48 ↗ plat staff said yes

2:38:51 ↗ polygon is is vested and analyzed how it

2:38:54 ↗ complied

2:38:55 ↗ with the that portion of the development

2:38:57 ↗ agreement

2:38:58 ↗ in fact the staff report from paulie's

2:39:00 ↗ guns platt

2:39:02 ↗ went through and analyzed the compliance

2:39:04 ↗ of the plat

2:39:05 ↗ with all of the standards in the

2:39:07 ↗ development agreement

2:39:08 ↗ that the administration is saying

2:39:10 ↗ shelter is not

2:39:11 ↗ vested to

2:39:20 ↗ so how did the administration end up

2:39:24 ↗ taking such a different approach to

2:39:27 ↗ shelter than it took to polygon and

2:39:30 ↗ why is it asking you to bless such a

2:39:32 ↗ differential approach

2:39:34 ↗ the staff report this is section 5 of

2:39:37 ↗ the staff report the section that mr

2:39:38 ↗ lell talked about

2:39:40 ↗ says section six the section that

2:39:43 ↗ says the replacement regulations apply

2:39:46 ↗ to shelters plat

2:39:49 ↗ that that section six results from this

2:39:52 ↗ analysis

2:39:53 ↗ so the administration is telling you

2:39:55 ↗ that the vesting determination

2:39:57 ↗ leads to the violation of shelter's

2:40:00 ↗ vested rights

2:40:01 ↗ in section 6 of the staff report because

2:40:04 ↗ you cannot apply the replacement

2:40:06 ↗ regulations to a plat

2:40:08 ↗ that is vested under rcw 5817033

2:40:13 ↗ because it plainly says the regulations

2:40:16 ↗ in effect in july of 2017 when the

2:40:19 ↗ application were submitted

2:40:21 ↗ are the regulations that apply to the

2:40:23 ↗ plat

2:40:26 ↗ this is a site plan and a satellite

2:40:29 ↗ photo that

2:40:30 ↗ illustrates shelter's property and the

2:40:34 ↗ polygon property for which

2:40:35 ↗ the plat was approved by this council

2:40:39 ↗ this is an old satellite photo because

2:40:41 ↗ it look makes it look like

2:40:42 ↗ all of the land is undeveloped well this

2:40:44 ↗ is true of shelter's property it is as

2:40:47 ↗ vacant

2:40:48 ↗ and unusable today as it was when the

2:40:50 ↗ satellite photo was taken

2:40:52 ↗ but polygons plat was approved by this

2:40:55 ↗ council the preliminary plat

2:40:57 ↗ in the summer of 2018 it has now

2:40:59 ↗ obtained final plat approval

2:41:01 ↗ because the infrastructure is in place

2:41:03 ↗ and polygon is proceeding to build homes

2:41:07 ↗ the property in the middle that is

2:41:09 ↗ identified as the polygon westridge

2:41:11 ↗ west ridge townhomes north sdp

2:41:15 ↗ is another polygon application

2:41:18 ↗ which is polygon is proceeding full

2:41:21 ↗ speed ahead with

2:41:22 ↗ pursuant to an sdp application

2:41:25 ↗ that the administration acknowledged was

2:41:28 ↗ vested

2:41:29 ↗ to the development agreement the vesting

2:41:32 ↗ determination that you're being asked to

2:41:34 ↗ uphold

2:41:35 ↗ denies that shelters applications are

2:41:37 ↗ vested

2:41:38 ↗ svp applications are similarly vested

2:41:41 ↗ even though there is

2:41:42 ↗ no material difference in the facts

2:41:45 ↗ between shelters application and

2:41:47 ↗ polygons application

2:41:49 ↗ polygon submitted its sdp application

2:41:53 ↗ in the fall of 2017 just as

2:41:56 ↗ shelter did but the administration

2:41:59 ↗ divested

2:42:00 ↗ shelter's applications by letter in

2:42:03 ↗ april of 2018 it did not divest polygons

2:42:07 ↗ applications and in fact it approved

2:42:10 ↗ polygons

2:42:11 ↗ sdp applications five weeks after it

2:42:14 ↗ divested

2:42:15 ↗ shelters

2:42:20 ↗ the administration's attempt to apply

2:42:24 ↗ the replacement regulations to shelters

2:42:26 ↗ plat

2:42:27 ↗ and to its sdp applications has led to

2:42:30 ↗ all sorts of absurdity

2:42:33 ↗ and that absurdity is demonstrated in

2:42:35 ↗ the record before you

2:42:36 ↗ in the staff report the administration

2:42:40 ↗ asserts that it only reviewed the

2:42:42 ↗ materials that were submitted in august

2:42:45 ↗ of 2017

2:42:47 ↗ and yet the staff report talks about

2:42:49 ↗ materials that were submitted after that

2:42:52 ↗ similarly the administration's

2:42:54 ↗ representative at the platte hearing

2:42:56 ↗ said she had only reviewed the plans

2:42:58 ↗ that were submitted

2:42:59 ↗ in august of 2017 and yet she asked the

2:43:03 ↗ hearing examiner

2:43:04 ↗ to make changes to the plans that

2:43:07 ↗ shelter had submitted in march

2:43:09 ↗ of 2019 in response to the

2:43:12 ↗ administration's comments

2:43:14 ↗ there is no principled way to reconcile

2:43:18 ↗ what the administration is attempting to

2:43:21 ↗ do to shelter

2:43:22 ↗ with what it is done to polygon or with

2:43:25 ↗ the vesting statute

2:43:27 ↗ 5817033 which could not be simpler

2:43:30 ↗ in which mr lell did not address

2:43:34 ↗ this is the other statute that the

2:43:37 ↗ administration has been flouting since

2:43:40 ↗ 2017.

2:43:42 ↗ 5817 140 requires the city to have made

2:43:46 ↗ a decision

2:43:48 ↗ on shelter's preliminary plat within 90

2:43:50 ↗ days

2:43:51 ↗ of its submittal in august of 2017.

2:43:56 ↗ we are now three and a half years on and

2:43:59 ↗ counting

2:44:00 ↗ and there is evidence in the record that

2:44:02 ↗ demonstrates

2:44:03 ↗ the hundreds and hundreds of days that

2:44:06 ↗ the administration

2:44:07 ↗ did nothing took no action on shelter's

2:44:10 ↗ application

2:44:12 ↗ even though it was required to act uh in

2:44:15 ↗ no

2:44:16 ↗ no later than november of 2017 and if

2:44:19 ↗ the administration had complied with the

2:44:21 ↗ statute

2:44:22 ↗ and taken action in november of 2017

2:44:25 ↗ there wouldn't be any vesting

2:44:27 ↗ issue for you to resolve because that

2:44:29 ↗ was months before this council adopted

2:44:32 ↗ the replacement regulations

2:44:37 ↗ the washington supreme court has said

2:44:39 ↗ that this statute

2:44:41 ↗ which has been in place since the 1970s

2:44:44 ↗ is also a vesting statute

2:44:46 ↗ before 58 1703 which i've been talking

2:44:50 ↗ about was enacted in 1987

2:44:53 ↗ the washington supreme court in a case

2:44:56 ↗ called norco construction versus king

2:44:58 ↗ county in 1982

2:45:00 ↗ said that this statute requires the

2:45:03 ↗ local government to make a decision

2:45:06 ↗ on the 90th day after an application is

2:45:08 ↗ submitted

2:45:10 ↗ in light of the regulations in effect on

2:45:12 ↗ that 90th day well once again those

2:45:14 ↗ regulations

2:45:15 ↗ were the development agreement not the

2:45:18 ↗ replacement regulations

2:45:21 ↗ the statute could not be simpler

2:45:23 ↗ anything submitted

2:45:24 ↗ in support of an application is part of

2:45:26 ↗ that application

2:45:28 ↗ and has to be reviewed and considered

2:45:31 ↗ under the regulations to which an

2:45:33 ↗ applicant invested

2:45:35 ↗ mr lal has talked at great length about

2:45:37 ↗ the development agreement

2:45:38 ↗ which has nothing to do with vesting

2:45:40 ↗ under 5817033

2:45:43 ↗ development agreements are authorized by

2:45:45 ↗ a different part of the rcw

2:45:48 ↗ 58 or 3670b 170

2:45:52 ↗ we completely disagree with his

2:45:53 ↗ interpretation of the development

2:45:55 ↗ agreement

2:45:56 ↗ which requires him to read a single

2:45:57 ↗ sentence out of context

2:45:59 ↗ and ignore fundamental principles of

2:46:02 ↗ statutory construction

2:46:04 ↗ but you don't have to reach any of that

2:46:06 ↗ because it has nothing to do with

2:46:08 ↗ vesting under 5817

2:46:11 ↗ which is the issue before you and which

2:46:13 ↗ mr lal has not addressed

2:46:21 ↗ it's too late to for you as the city

2:46:23 ↗ council

2:46:24 ↗ to undo the three and a half years of

2:46:28 ↗ delay

2:46:28 ↗ that the administration has caused for

2:46:31 ↗ shelter's application

2:46:33 ↗ which has led to the property sitting

2:46:35 ↗ unused and unusable

2:46:36 ↗ while polygon proceeds with its

2:46:38 ↗ applications but you're being asked to

2:46:40 ↗ make a quasi-judicial

2:46:42 ↗ decision tonight and you can put an end

2:46:45 ↗ to the administration's

2:46:46 ↗ violation of shelter's vested rights by

2:46:50 ↗ making a quiet quasi-judicial decision

2:46:53 ↗ applying 5817.033

2:46:56 ↗ to undisputed facts and those undisputed

2:46:58 ↗ facts

2:46:59 ↗ are the fact that shelter vested in

2:47:01 ↗ august of 2017

2:47:04 ↗ and that is submitted materials since

2:47:06 ↗ then

2:47:07 ↗ that have to be reviewed under the

2:47:09 ↗ development agreement that was in effect

2:47:11 ↗ in 2017

2:47:13 ↗ and if you mean if you make that

2:47:15 ↗ decision

2:47:16 ↗ uh quasi-judicial decision you will

2:47:20 ↗ overrule the vesting determination and

2:47:22 ↗ approve the plat

2:47:23 ↗ as shelter is asking that it be approved

2:47:26 ↗ thank you

2:47:42 ↗ city would you like to mr zell would you

2:47:45 ↗ like to

2:47:47 ↗ now have your rebuttal time yes thank

2:47:50 ↗ you mr vincent

2:47:51 ↗ madam clerk how much time was left four

2:47:54 ↗ minutes

2:47:55 ↗ thank you yes four minutes let me reset

2:47:58 ↗ the clock here please

2:48:04 ↗ ready thank you again council again zach

2:48:07 ↗ lowe on behalf of the

2:48:09 ↗ department um i'd like to address a few

2:48:11 ↗ of the points that mr schneider made in

2:48:13 ↗ his presentation to you

2:48:15 ↗ the first point that i'd like to address

2:48:17 ↗ and the most overriding issue

2:48:19 ↗ is his contention and i'm paraphrasing

2:48:21 ↗ here that the development agreement has

2:48:23 ↗ nothing to do with vesting

2:48:26 ↗ i don't believe that there is anything

2:48:28 ↗ that could be further from the truth

2:48:30 ↗ in relation to this dispute and i would

2:48:33 ↗ respectfully ask the council

2:48:35 ↗ to read with your own eyes the

2:48:36 ↗ provisions of the development agreement

2:48:38 ↗ that govern this issue specifically

2:48:40 ↗ and those are sections 3.2 3.2

2:48:44 ↗ and sections 5.13 and

2:48:47 ↗ i don't believe that you need to take my

2:48:49 ↗ word for that you can also read the

2:48:51 ↗ hearing examiner's decision

2:48:53 ↗ dismissing shelter's previous motion for

2:48:56 ↗ summary judgment

2:48:57 ↗ and granting the city's motion for

2:48:59 ↗ summary judgment that was issued in the

2:49:01 ↗ fall of 2019

2:49:03 ↗ that's also contained in the record here

2:49:05 ↗ and that decision

2:49:06 ↗ solidly refutes mr schneider's argument

2:49:09 ↗ concerning the effective vesting

2:49:12 ↗ under the development agreement i would

2:49:14 ↗ also respectfully direct the council's

2:49:15 ↗ attention to the governing statute for

2:49:17 ↗ development agreements

2:49:19 ↗ rcw 3670b 170.

2:49:22 ↗ one of the key points that a development

2:49:24 ↗ agreement can

2:49:26 ↗ contain under that statute is a vesting

2:49:29 ↗ or build out period

2:49:30 ↗ and that is precisely what the 1996

2:49:33 ↗ issaquah highlands

2:49:34 ↗ development agreement did and in this

2:49:37 ↗ context

2:49:38 ↗ the parties are afforded the opportunity

2:49:41 ↗ under state law

2:49:42 ↗ to determine the length and extent

2:49:46 ↗ of vesting contractually that is what

2:49:49 ↗ they have done here

2:49:50 ↗ and that is something that shelter's

2:49:52 ↗ position in this appeal

2:49:54 ↗ simply disregards i'd also like to

2:49:57 ↗ draw your attention to a point

2:50:01 ↗ that mr schneider's presentation did not

2:50:03 ↗ address

2:50:04 ↗ and that is shelter's own application

2:50:06 ↗ materials

2:50:07 ↗ and the extent to which they attempted

2:50:09 ↗ to gratuitously vest

2:50:11 ↗ future development on the property and

2:50:13 ↗ here i'd like to read a brief quote

2:50:15 ↗ from exhibit b 6

2:50:18 ↗ 3 which is shelter's plot narrative

2:50:22 ↗ quote pursuant to section 3.23

2:50:27 ↗ and 6 of the development agreement a

2:50:30 ↗ plat is an implementing approval which

2:50:32 ↗ vests to the development standards

2:50:34 ↗ established in the development agreement

2:50:37 ↗ therefore future development proposals

2:50:40 ↗ within this plat

2:50:42 ↗ shall be vested to the development

2:50:43 ↗ standards under the development

2:50:45 ↗ agreement

2:50:46 ↗ that is a statement that is contained in

2:50:49 ↗ at least three versions

2:50:51 ↗ of shelters plant materials that were

2:50:52 ↗ submitted to the city from

2:50:54 ↗ august of 2017 through march of 2019

2:50:59 ↗ and you see there a very naked attempt

2:51:01 ↗ by this developer

2:51:03 ↗ to overreach in its vested rights

2:51:06 ↗ approach

2:51:07 ↗ and extend the plot vesting that it's

2:51:10 ↗ entitled to

2:51:12 ↗ and that we don't contest to future

2:51:14 ↗ development proposals that hadn't even

2:51:16 ↗ been proposed yet

2:51:17 ↗ that simply has no basis in state law

2:51:20 ↗ and it is

2:51:20 ↗ fundamentally at odds with the vesting

2:51:22 ↗ framework under your development

2:51:23 ↗ agreement

2:51:29 ↗ the final point that i'd like to make

2:51:32 ↗ has to do

2:51:33 ↗ with mr schneider's allegations of the

2:51:36 ↗ delay

2:51:37 ↗ that occurred in the processing of the

2:51:40 ↗ plan

2:51:41 ↗ and while he's correct that there is

2:51:44 ↗ evidence in the record that that shelter

2:51:47 ↗ was able to submit

2:51:49 ↗ that supports at least facially shelters

2:51:52 ↗ delay argument

2:51:53 ↗ what is missing from mr schneider's

2:51:55 ↗ presentation is the fact that the

2:51:56 ↗ hearing examiner

2:51:58 ↗ prevented the city staff from refuting

2:52:01 ↗ those arguments

2:52:02 ↗ and i will represent to you that the

2:52:03 ↗ staff came to the august 3rd 2020

2:52:06 ↗ hearing prepared to do

2:52:07 ↗ just that and to offer its own rebuttal

2:52:10 ↗ testimony and evidence

2:52:14 ↗ thank you

2:52:23 ↗ so i understand i have about 90 seconds

2:52:25 ↗ left is that correct

2:52:35 ↗ clerk clerk edgars you were on mute if

2:52:37 ↗ you were speaking

2:52:40 ↗ thank you i'm resetting the clock now to

2:52:43 ↗ um one minute

2:52:46 ↗ 50 seconds thank you

2:52:51 ↗ mr lowell spoken rebuttal but he did not

2:52:53 ↗ once

2:52:54 ↗ even mentioned let alone explain

2:52:57 ↗ the administration's violation of

2:53:01 ↗ 5817.033

2:53:02 ↗ he has now spoken for 15 minutes and not

2:53:05 ↗ once even acknowledged the existence of

2:53:07 ↗ that statute

2:53:08 ↗ let alone attempted to explain how the

2:53:10 ↗ administration has complied with it

2:53:13 ↗ he refers again to the development

2:53:15 ↗ agreement and i made it very clear that

2:53:17 ↗ we profoundly disagree

2:53:18 ↗ with mr lal's interpretation of the

2:53:20 ↗ development agreement

2:53:22 ↗ but you don't have to reach that issue

2:53:24 ↗ because we are not

2:53:25 ↗ asking you tonight to do anything other

2:53:28 ↗ than acknowledge the simple

2:53:29 ↗ straightforward unequivocal language of

2:53:33 ↗ 5817.033

2:53:34 ↗ that the administration is violating

2:53:37 ↗ with its divesting determination that is

2:53:39 ↗ it is asking you to uphold and with the

2:53:42 ↗ flat conditions that it is asking you to

2:53:45 ↗ also

2:53:46 ↗ uphold it wants you to approve a plat

2:53:49 ↗ subject to replacement regulations with

2:53:53 ↗ 5817033 simply says

2:53:56 ↗ you cannot do there's been absolutely no

2:53:59 ↗ response to that argument because there

2:54:02 ↗ is none

2:54:03 ↗ the city is violating 50 the

2:54:05 ↗ administration is violating 5817.033

2:54:09 ↗ and you have the opportunity tonight to

2:54:11 ↗ put an end to that

2:54:12 ↗ i want to conclude by referring to mr

2:54:15 ↗ lal's comment about

2:54:17 ↗ shelter attempting to present

2:54:20 ↗ information to the city

2:54:21 ↗ about his future intended use of the

2:54:23 ↗ plat

2:54:25 ↗ kia heim testified at the hearing in

2:54:27 ↗ front of the hearing examiner that that

2:54:28 ↗ was in the application because then

2:54:30 ↗ director niven

2:54:31 ↗ suggested that it be there there's

2:54:34 ↗ absolutely nothing inappropriate

2:54:36 ↗ about an applicant and explaining to a

2:54:39 ↗ city its intended use of a plat

2:54:41 ↗ because it helps inform the city so that

2:54:44 ↗ they know what they are

2:54:47 ↗ thank you

2:54:54 ↗ i would like to thank both

2:54:57 ↗ appellants for their arguments this is

2:55:00 ↗ now a time where the council has

2:55:02 ↗ questions can ask questions if they

2:55:04 ↗ they would like as i indicated one

2:55:07 ↗ question

2:55:08 ↗ that a council has determined that they

2:55:11 ↗ would like to ask was related to polygon

2:55:14 ↗ as you are aware the city council has

2:55:18 ↗ been reviewing the record has been

2:55:19 ↗ reviewing the

2:55:20 ↗ hearing examiner's decision and based

2:55:22 ↗ upon that review uh prior to tonight's

2:55:24 ↗ hearing they had formulated this the

2:55:26 ↗ question which i presented to both of

2:55:28 ↗ you previously

2:55:29 ↗ that was related to polygon and the

2:55:32 ↗ question

2:55:33 ↗ for the the department is

2:55:36 ↗ uh why is the polygon project not

2:55:39 ↗ applicable in this situation

2:55:41 ↗ and we've heard mr schneider's

2:55:44 ↗ presentation and what he believes that

2:55:46 ↗ it is

2:55:47 ↗ he can have additional time if you would

2:55:49 ↗ like to explain that as well

2:55:51 ↗ both sides will have three minutes um mr

2:55:54 ↗ zell will go first

2:55:55 ↗ and then mr snyder if you'd like to

2:55:57 ↗ elaborate further could also

2:55:59 ↗ uh take his three minutes there will be

2:56:01 ↗ no rebuttal it is a straight three

2:56:03 ↗ minutes

2:56:04 ↗ mr well thank you again zach lowell on

2:56:08 ↗ behalf of the department i'm

2:56:09 ↗ very happy to answer that question for

2:56:11 ↗ the council and the short answer is

2:56:13 ↗ the cities made a mistake an inadvertent

2:56:15 ↗ mistake

2:56:16 ↗ in processing the polygon plot in 2018.

2:56:21 ↗ as the city staff testified during the

2:56:24 ↗ shelter plat hearing

2:56:26 ↗ the city did not discover that it had

2:56:28 ↗ aired in this regard

2:56:30 ↗ during the the actual processing of the

2:56:32 ↗ polygon plat

2:56:33 ↗ and no one challenged the city at that

2:56:35 ↗ point or otherwise raised this as an

2:56:37 ↗ issue as the polygon plan was being

2:56:40 ↗ processed

2:56:42 ↗ the the reference to that is at the

2:56:43 ↗ hearing examiner's decision at page 33

2:56:46 ↗ finding number 57. it's also important

2:56:49 ↗ though to provide some explanatory

2:56:51 ↗ context there

2:56:52 ↗ that unlike shelters plat the polygon

2:56:55 ↗ plot was actually in process

2:56:57 ↗ before the city adopted ordinance number

2:57:00 ↗ 2830

2:57:01 ↗ that adopted the replacement regulations

2:57:03 ↗ in fact

2:57:04 ↗ not only the staff report for the

2:57:06 ↗ polygon plat but also

2:57:08 ↗ the first installment of the public

2:57:09 ↗ hearing for that plat

2:57:11 ↗ occurred before the replacement

2:57:12 ↗ regulations became effective and before

2:57:15 ↗ the development agreement had been

2:57:16 ↗ formally terminated

2:57:17 ↗ so hopefully the council can understand

2:57:20 ↗ and provide some context to

2:57:22 ↗ staff's inadvertent mistake in that

2:57:24 ↗ regard there was certainly no

2:57:25 ↗ deliberate discrimination and staff

2:57:27 ↗ testified to that effect at the shelter

2:57:29 ↗ hearing

2:57:30 ↗ but the main point in the the issue that

2:57:33 ↗ i would like to to drive home

2:57:35 ↗ in answer to the council's question is

2:57:37 ↗ that it does not matter what the city

2:57:39 ↗ did

2:57:40 ↗ in regard to the polygon flat state case

2:57:42 ↗ law is

2:57:43 ↗ very clear that municipalities are not

2:57:46 ↗ bound or otherwise constrained by their

2:57:48 ↗ prior administrative decisions in any

2:57:50 ↗ regard

2:57:50 ↗ this is an unbroken line of washington

2:57:52 ↗ precedent that dates back

2:57:54 ↗ almost 50 years and i will just recite

2:57:56 ↗ for the council's edification

2:57:58 ↗ of some of the many cases that hold this

2:58:00 ↗ steinman versus city of mercer island

2:58:03 ↗ buchel versus the department of ecology

2:58:05 ↗ north lake marine works versus the

2:58:07 ↗ department of natural resources

2:58:09 ↗ dixtra versus skagit county these are

2:58:12 ↗ all controlling washington cases that

2:58:14 ↗ govern this issue precisely

2:58:16 ↗ and this is a benchmark principle of

2:58:18 ↗ washington land use law

2:58:20 ↗ it's also rooted in the public interest

2:58:22 ↗ to ensure that

2:58:23 ↗ municipalities are not bound and legally

2:58:25 ↗ required

2:58:26 ↗ to keep repeating their mistakes once

2:58:29 ↗ they realize that a mistake has occurred

2:58:31 ↗ so in short answer to the council's

2:58:33 ↗ question the polygon plot is utterly

2:58:35 ↗ irrelevant to the shelter plot

2:58:37 ↗ proceedings

2:58:38 ↗ and it should not bear on your decision

2:58:40 ↗ tonight at all

2:58:41 ↗ be happy to answer any other questions

2:58:43 ↗ that the council may have

2:58:48 ↗ thank you mr hello mr schneider do you

2:58:51 ↗ have any

2:58:52 ↗ remarks yes thank you

2:58:55 ↗ the case law that mr lal

2:58:58 ↗ cites at most

2:59:01 ↗ means that the city is not required to

2:59:05 ↗ recognize that someone has vested the

2:59:07 ↗ process nothing in the case law

2:59:10 ↗ and nothing in the city's code prohibits

2:59:13 ↗ a city from extending vested rights

2:59:16 ↗ to process and the city ex the

2:59:19 ↗ administration

2:59:20 ↗ extended that procedural right to

2:59:24 ↗ polygon and the equal protection clauses

2:59:27 ↗ of the federal and state constitution

2:59:29 ↗ say you can't you have to apply the same

2:59:33 ↗ laws in the same way

2:59:34 ↗ to similarly situated people having

2:59:37 ↗ extended

2:59:38 ↗ vesting to the process for polygon the

2:59:41 ↗ city

2:59:41 ↗ administration was required to do that

2:59:43 ↗ for shelter

2:59:44 ↗ mr lell's comments also are directed

2:59:47 ↗ entirely to process

2:59:49 ↗ not to substance and the administration

2:59:52 ↗ substantively reviewed and approved

2:59:55 ↗ polygons

2:59:56 ↗ applications under the development

2:59:58 ↗ agreement

2:59:59 ↗ and it is substantively attempting to

3:00:02 ↗ review and approve shelter's application

3:00:06 ↗ under the replacement regulations set

3:00:08 ↗ out on page 12 of the staff report that

3:00:10 ↗ i

3:00:11 ↗ screen shared with you earlier this

3:00:13 ↗ evening

3:00:14 ↗ there is absolutely no basis for the

3:00:17 ↗ city to have treated polygon one way and

3:00:19 ↗ shelter

3:00:20 ↗ another both substantively and

3:00:22 ↗ procedurally

3:00:27 ↗ thank you thank you mr schneider

3:00:33 ↗ members of council do any of you

3:00:36 ↗ have any questions if you do can you

3:00:39 ↗ follow the normal process for notifying

3:00:43 ↗ council president hunt if you would like

3:00:46 ↗ to speak

3:00:56 ↗ um president do you see anybody

3:01:00 ↗ seeking to ask any questions thank you

3:01:03 ↗ mr vincent i do not see

3:01:05 ↗ any council members indicating that they

3:01:08 ↗ would like to ask a question

3:01:10 ↗ thank you we will now proceed to

3:01:14 ↗ closing arguments as i indicated

3:01:16 ↗ previously

3:01:17 ↗ closing arguments are going to be 10

3:01:19 ↗ minutes each

3:01:21 ↗ the city will go first and then ih

3:01:24 ↗ ifc will conclude

3:01:31 ↗ thank you again council zach lowe on

3:01:32 ↗ behalf of the department

3:01:34 ↗ i'll be hopefully very brief there's a

3:01:37 ↗ simple reason

3:01:38 ↗ why the approach to vesting taken in the

3:01:40 ↗ city's staff report

3:01:42 ↗ is at least to mr schneider's

3:01:44 ↗ perspective unusual

3:01:46 ↗ and that is because it was compelled to

3:01:47 ↗ be that way by virtue of what shelter

3:01:50 ↗ said and what shelter did in its

3:01:52 ↗ application materials

3:01:54 ↗ it was a necessary response to a very

3:01:56 ↗ clear overreach by a developer

3:01:58 ↗ that was attempting to extend its vested

3:02:00 ↗ rights beyond the scope of any

3:02:03 ↗ boundaries recognized under the state

3:02:05 ↗ law or the party's development agreement

3:02:08 ↗ there is also an extremely

3:02:11 ↗ unique factor to all of this

3:02:14 ↗ based on the simple fact that we are

3:02:16 ↗ dealing with the development agreement

3:02:17 ↗ in the first

3:02:18 ↗ instance the state statute that

3:02:20 ↗ authorizes

3:02:21 ↗ contracts of this type was adopted by

3:02:23 ↗ the state legislature in 1995.

3:02:26 ↗ the issaquah highlands development

3:02:27 ↗ agreement in 1996

3:02:29 ↗ was one of the very first contracts if

3:02:32 ↗ not the first contract

3:02:33 ↗ that was executed negotiated and

3:02:35 ↗ implemented under the authority of that

3:02:37 ↗ statute

3:02:38 ↗ and the short answer is that's a

3:02:40 ↗ relatively recent period and there

3:02:41 ↗ simply has not been much case law that

3:02:43 ↗ has grown up around that

3:02:45 ↗ issue because of its relative novelty

3:02:49 ↗ but the the key point there is that

3:02:51 ↗ unlike the run-of-the-mill

3:02:53 ↗ standard vesting situation the parties

3:02:56 ↗ to a development agreement

3:02:57 ↗ have the ability under state law

3:03:00 ↗ to define the duration and extent of

3:03:03 ↗ vesting through their written contract

3:03:04 ↗ and that's what they did here and

3:03:07 ↗ there's one thing that i think has been

3:03:09 ↗ missing

3:03:09 ↗ in the discussion this evening by both

3:03:11 ↗ parties admittedly

3:03:13 ↗ and that is the rules for interpretation

3:03:15 ↗ whether it's

3:03:16 ↗ rules for interpreting the city's

3:03:18 ↗ ordinances the city's replacement

3:03:20 ↗ regulations

3:03:21 ↗ or the investing provisions and other

3:03:25 ↗ aspects

3:03:26 ↗ of the development agreement and the

3:03:28 ↗ overriding rule

3:03:29 ↗ of interpretation in this contract

3:03:32 ↗ whether you're looking at a contract or

3:03:34 ↗ whether you're looking at a local

3:03:35 ↗ ordinance or other land use standard

3:03:38 ↗ is to try to obtain and understand and

3:03:41 ↗ glean

3:03:42 ↗ the underlying intent of that provision

3:03:45 ↗ so the question then becomes

3:03:47 ↗ what did the city council intend when it

3:03:50 ↗ negotiated and approved the 1996

3:03:54 ↗ development agreement and the build-out

3:03:56 ↗ period framework

3:03:57 ↗ that was such a central feature to that

3:03:59 ↗ what did the council

3:04:01 ↗ mean and intend when it adopted the

3:04:03 ↗ replacement regulations for the issaquah

3:04:05 ↗ highlands

3:04:06 ↗ in the spring of 2018.

3:04:09 ↗ well your staff doesn't make policy in

3:04:12 ↗ that regard

3:04:13 ↗ what your staff is tasked with doing is

3:04:16 ↗ serving as a steward of the local

3:04:17 ↗ development process

3:04:19 ↗ staff doesn't make code staff doesn't

3:04:21 ↗ approve agreements

3:04:23 ↗ staff interprets and enforces and

3:04:25 ↗ administers them

3:04:27 ↗ and that that is what your staff has

3:04:28 ↗ done here to the best of its ability it

3:04:31 ↗ has essentially attempted to

3:04:33 ↗ put itself in your shoes and try to

3:04:35 ↗ understand

3:04:36 ↗ and effectuate what you and your

3:04:39 ↗ predecessors on the council dice

3:04:40 ↗ intended

3:04:42 ↗ when you and your predecessors approved

3:04:44 ↗ the 1996 development agreement

3:04:47 ↗ and the staff staffs vesting

3:04:49 ↗ determination

3:04:50 ↗ in the staff report for shelters plat is

3:04:53 ↗ staff's best effort best attempt

3:04:55 ↗ at effectuating that intent ultimately

3:04:59 ↗ you as council members are the ultimate

3:05:01 ↗ arbiters of your code

3:05:03 ↗ and you're the ultimate decision makers

3:05:05 ↗ when it comes to this appeal

3:05:07 ↗ the only decisional body the only

3:05:10 ↗ officials in the city that have the

3:05:12 ↗ ability to

3:05:13 ↗ modify overrule change or even

3:05:17 ↗ uphold the director's vesting

3:05:19 ↗ determination are you

3:05:20 ↗ the hearing examiner didn't have that

3:05:22 ↗ power but you do

3:05:24 ↗ so the question for you in reviewing

3:05:26 ↗ this issue along with your legal counsel

3:05:29 ↗ is what did you and your predecessors

3:05:31 ↗ intend

3:05:32 ↗ by adopting that development agreement

3:05:35 ↗ and

3:05:35 ↗ was the city's vesting determination

3:05:38 ↗ correct under the circumstances that

3:05:40 ↗ you've seen in the record and that have

3:05:41 ↗ described for you tonight

3:05:43 ↗ ultimately staff will defer to your

3:05:45 ↗ position on that but i'd like it to be

3:05:47 ↗ clear for the record

3:05:48 ↗ that the department did not have any

3:05:51 ↗ animosity or for that matter any

3:05:53 ↗ particular affinity

3:05:55 ↗ for shelters plat again it's not staff's

3:05:58 ↗ role to do that

3:05:59 ↗ staff simply serves as the

3:06:01 ↗ administrative wing of the city's

3:06:03 ↗ government

3:06:04 ↗ and that's what it attempted to do here

3:06:08 ↗ i'll be happy to answer any questions

3:06:10 ↗ that the council may have

3:06:11 ↗ but for the reasons that i've previously

3:06:13 ↗ discussed

3:06:14 ↗ it is the staff's position and request

3:06:18 ↗ that you uphold the city's vesting

3:06:20 ↗ determination

3:06:21 ↗ and that you reverse the examiner's

3:06:24 ↗ denial of shelter's plat application

3:06:27 ↗ because again

3:06:28 ↗ at the end of the day even though the

3:06:30 ↗ city disagrees

3:06:31 ↗ with shelter regarding the extent of

3:06:34 ↗ vesting for its

3:06:35 ↗ development application there is no

3:06:38 ↗ disagreement that the plan

3:06:39 ↗ itself should be approved and that is

3:06:41 ↗ the ultimate result that i would ask

3:06:43 ↗ that you make tonight

3:06:44 ↗ thank you

3:06:49 ↗ ms edgars i'd like to share a couple

3:06:52 ↗ more slides please if you could give me

3:06:54 ↗ the capability of doing so

3:06:56 ↗ again it'll be a moment

3:07:12 ↗ and you should have that capability now

3:07:24 ↗ uh

3:07:34 ↗ okay i'm thank you

3:07:38 ↗ this again is the statute that the

3:07:41 ↗ administration's attorney

3:07:42 ↗ refuses to address it could not be more

3:07:45 ↗ simple

3:07:46 ↗ the preliminary plat which you have yet

3:07:48 ↗ to approve

3:07:49 ↗ has to be considered under the

3:07:52 ↗ development agreement

3:07:53 ↗ the substantive standards in the

3:07:55 ↗ development agreement

3:07:56 ↗ that were in place in the summer of 2017

3:08:00 ↗ and the only reason excuse me this is

3:08:03 ↗ 140

3:08:04 ↗ 033 is the one we've been talking about

3:08:08 ↗ and as i said earlier it's too late to

3:08:10 ↗ undo the three and a half years of delay

3:08:13 ↗ but it's not too late for you to make a

3:08:16 ↗ quasi-judicial decision

3:08:18 ↗ that is consistent with o33

3:08:21 ↗ so this is a copy of the city's notice

3:08:24 ↗ of application for shelters plat

3:08:27 ↗ the city administration gave notice of

3:08:29 ↗ shelter's application

3:08:31 ↗ on the same day in december of 2017 that

3:08:35 ↗ it gave notice

3:08:36 ↗ of polygons plat application and both of

3:08:39 ↗ them

3:08:40 ↗ inc both polygons and shelters included

3:08:43 ↗ the language that i've highlighted on

3:08:45 ↗ this

3:08:46 ↗ slide that the preliminary determination

3:08:49 ↗ is that the issaquah highlands

3:08:50 ↗ development agreement

3:08:52 ↗ applies well it's the final

3:08:54 ↗ determination under

3:08:56 ↗ 5817033 and that the city council is the

3:08:59 ↗ decision maker for the preliminary platt

3:09:01 ↗ application well you the city council

3:09:04 ↗ were

3:09:05 ↗ the decision maker for shelters

3:09:07 ↗ preliminary

3:09:09 ↗ excuse me for polygon's preliminary plat

3:09:11 ↗ application

3:09:12 ↗ based on a recommendation by the uvdc

3:09:15 ↗ but under the replacement regulations

3:09:17 ↗ that the administration has applied to

3:09:18 ↗ shelter

3:09:19 ↗ the hearing examiner was the decision

3:09:21 ↗ maker based on a staff recommendation

3:09:24 ↗ and it's before you only because of the

3:09:27 ↗ cross appeals

3:09:29 ↗ you would not be involved under the

3:09:31 ↗ replacement regulations but for the

3:09:33 ↗ appeals

3:09:34 ↗ whereas you were involved as the

3:09:36 ↗ original decision maker when it came to

3:09:38 ↗ polygons plat application

3:09:42 ↗ this is the site plan that was included

3:09:45 ↗ in that

3:09:45 ↗ notice of application on december 27th

3:09:48 ↗ of 2017

3:09:50 ↗ that shows the the proposed lots and the

3:09:54 ↗ proposed development of those lots

3:09:56 ↗ and as i mentioned a short while ago in

3:09:58 ↗ response to one of mr lal's comments

3:10:00 ↗ mr liv niven encouraged shelter

3:10:04 ↗ to provide this information about its

3:10:06 ↗ intended use of the plat

3:10:08 ↗ and any applicant for a platt would

3:10:10 ↗ provide

3:10:11 ↗ information about intended use and any

3:10:13 ↗ normal city would be grateful for such

3:10:15 ↗ information because it would allow the

3:10:17 ↗ city

3:10:18 ↗ to evaluate the impacts of the plat this

3:10:21 ↗ site plan which was part of the notice

3:10:23 ↗ of application

3:10:24 ↗ in 2017 is virtually identical

3:10:28 ↗ to the site plan in the approved in the

3:10:30 ↗ plans that

3:10:31 ↗ you are being asked to prove today there

3:10:33 ↗ has been no material change

3:10:35 ↗ in the plat over those three and a half

3:10:37 ↗ years

3:10:39 ↗ these are proposed findings that are

3:10:41 ↗ exhibit ww14

3:10:43 ↗ in the record we are asking you to adopt

3:10:47 ↗ these findings

3:10:48 ↗ uh we agree with mr lao that you should

3:10:50 ↗ approve the plot we profoundly disagree

3:10:53 ↗ with mr lal

3:10:54 ↗ that you should approve the plat as

3:10:56 ↗ recommended by the administration

3:10:58 ↗ subject to the replacement regulations

3:11:00 ↗ instead of subject to the development

3:11:02 ↗ agreement

3:11:03 ↗ to which the plant is vested so we ask

3:11:05 ↗ that you adopt these

3:11:07 ↗ proposed findings which ensure

3:11:09 ↗ consistency

3:11:10 ↗ with the vested development agreement

3:11:13 ↗ then the

3:11:14 ↗ administration also proposed conditions

3:11:17 ↗ and shelter submitted this document to

3:11:19 ↗ the hearing examiners

3:11:20 ↗ w ww15 this is one page of a much longer

3:11:24 ↗ document

3:11:25 ↗ that goes through and takes the

3:11:27 ↗ administration's proposed conditions

3:11:29 ↗ and either accepts them

3:11:32 ↗ deletes them or proposes changes to them

3:11:36 ↗ every time with an explanation the

3:11:39 ↗ administration has not responded to this

3:11:41 ↗ and we ask that you consider these

3:11:43 ↗ proposed conditions

3:11:44 ↗ and adopt them as proposed by shelter

3:11:47 ↗ because they will make the plat

3:11:49 ↗ conditions consistent with the

3:11:50 ↗ development agreement to which the plant

3:11:52 ↗ is vested you're

3:12:04 ↗ we're here tonight because the hearing

3:12:06 ↗ examiner

3:12:08 ↗ was caught between a rock and a hard

3:12:10 ↗ place

3:12:11 ↗ the vesting determination that mr lal is

3:12:14 ↗ asking you to uphold

3:12:17 ↗ said the rest of the staff report

3:12:20 ↗ including the application of the

3:12:22 ↗ replacement regulations to shelter

3:12:24 ↗ is required by the vesting determination

3:12:27 ↗ and

3:12:27 ↗ you mr hearing examiner have no

3:12:30 ↗ authority to disagree

3:12:32 ↗ with this vesting determination made by

3:12:34 ↗ the staff

3:12:35 ↗ so the hearing examiner was being told

3:12:38 ↗ he had to comply with that vesting

3:12:39 ↗ determination

3:12:41 ↗ but the hearing examiner knew he also

3:12:43 ↗ had to comply with state law

3:12:45 ↗ and he could not comply with state law

3:12:48 ↗ and comply with the vesting

3:12:50 ↗ determination because he knew

3:12:51 ↗ they were incompatible and that's what

3:12:53 ↗ his decision

3:12:55 ↗ talks about at length in its discussion

3:12:58 ↗ of the case law and what he refers to as

3:13:01 ↗ the administration's highly problematic

3:13:04 ↗ position you cannot

3:13:07 ↗ they are not compatible the vesting

3:13:09 ↗ determination which applies the

3:13:10 ↗ replacement regulations to shelters plat

3:13:14 ↗ is not compatible with state law

3:13:17 ↗ the hearing examiner could not

3:13:20 ↗ violate the the vesting determination

3:13:24 ↗ without violating state law and could

3:13:26 ↗ not comply with that state law

3:13:28 ↗ without violating the vesting

3:13:29 ↗ determination so he threw up his hands

3:13:31 ↗ in despair

3:13:33 ↗ denied the plat and presented the issue

3:13:35 ↗ to all of you

3:13:36 ↗ but you cannot do what the hearing

3:13:38 ↗ examiner did because you are not bound

3:13:41 ↗ by the besting determination

3:13:43 ↗ you have to decide whether it's correct

3:13:45 ↗ and therefore you have to decide whether

3:13:47 ↗ you are going to

3:13:50 ↗ participate in what i submit

3:13:53 ↗ is a clear and years-long denial of

3:13:56 ↗ shelter's vested rights

3:13:58 ↗ by the administration by approving the

3:14:01 ↗ plat

3:14:02 ↗ subject to the replacement regulations

3:14:04 ↗ which is what the administration is

3:14:06 ↗ asking you to do

3:14:07 ↗ or approve the plat subject to the

3:14:09 ↗ development agreement which is what

3:14:10 ↗ shelter is asking

3:14:12 ↗ you to do it's a quasi-judicial decision

3:14:15 ↗ the law is clear 581703

3:14:18 ↗ has not been responded to in any fashion

3:14:20 ↗ by the administration

3:14:22 ↗ and the facts are clear shelter vested

3:14:24 ↗ in 2017.

3:14:27 ↗ the only reason it's taken three and a

3:14:28 ↗ half years to get to you

3:14:30 ↗ is because of the delay on the part of

3:14:32 ↗ the administration

3:14:33 ↗ but the law is clear shelter is vested

3:14:36 ↗ and we are asking you to approve

3:14:38 ↗ the plat subject to the conditions and

3:14:41 ↗ findings that shelter has proposed

3:14:44 ↗ and to overrule the vesting

3:14:45 ↗ determination

3:14:47 ↗ and more specifically we ask three

3:14:50 ↗ things

3:14:51 ↗ three things that you reverse the

3:14:53 ↗ director's vesting determination

3:14:55 ↗ and recognize that not only the plat but

3:14:58 ↗ the sdp and asdp

3:15:00 ↗ applications that shelters submitted are

3:15:02 ↗ vested by virtue of the plat

3:15:05 ↗ that you reject the administration's

3:15:07 ↗ implementation of the vesting

3:15:08 ↗ determination that subject shelters plat

3:15:10 ↗ to replacement regulations

3:15:13 ↗ and that you approve the plat with

3:15:14 ↗ findings and conditions proposed by

3:15:16 ↗ shelter

3:15:17 ↗ and that you do so without a remand to

3:15:19 ↗ the hearing examiner

3:15:20 ↗ the the record is before you you have

3:15:23 ↗ the authority to go ahead

3:15:24 ↗ and a remand to the hearing examiner is

3:15:27 ↗ both unnecessary and would cause

3:15:29 ↗ additional delay so we ask you to apply

3:15:32 ↗ the law to the facts

3:15:33 ↗ the clear law 5817.033 to undisputed

3:15:37 ↗ facts

3:15:38 ↗ and approve the plat as recommended by

3:15:41 ↗ shelter

3:15:41 ↗ in the findings of proposed conditions

3:15:43 ↗ that i presume just presented to you

3:15:46 ↗ and i'd be happy to answer any questions

3:15:48 ↗ and thank you very much for your

3:15:49 ↗ attention this evening

3:15:57 ↗ thank you both appellants

3:16:00 ↗ given the nature of this i know the

3:16:02 ↗ council had already had one opportunity

3:16:04 ↗ to ask any questions but i would like to

3:16:07 ↗ just

3:16:08 ↗ ask one more time if council after

3:16:10 ↗ hearing the closing arguments

3:16:12 ↗ have any questions for either side

3:16:20 ↗ thank you mr vincent and i will look to

3:16:23 ↗ the chat so if any council members do

3:16:25 ↗ have any questions please indicate in

3:16:26 ↗ the chat

3:16:30 ↗ we do have a question from councilmember

3:16:32 ↗ michelle

3:16:34 ↗ thank you this is just something that's

3:16:36 ↗ been nagging at me so i just

3:16:39 ↗ i guess i better ask the question i

3:16:42 ↗ always thought that equal protection

3:16:43 ↗ under the law

3:16:44 ↗ applied to individuals and not to

3:16:46 ↗ corporations

3:16:48 ↗ uh can uh can can i get some

3:16:52 ↗ enlightenment on that does equal

3:16:53 ↗ protection

3:16:54 ↗ under the law apply to corporations as

3:16:56 ↗ well as individuals

3:17:04 ↗ well if we could if i'm sorry mr

3:17:06 ↗ schneider if we could just

3:17:08 ↗ give both sides an opportunity to

3:17:10 ↗ respond would

3:17:11 ↗ would one minute each be appropriate

3:17:17 ↗ thank you mr snyder would you go first

3:17:26 ↗ it's certainly my understanding that it

3:17:28 ↗ applies

3:17:29 ↗ to any entity uh whether

3:17:32 ↗ a natural person or a corporate person

3:17:34 ↗ that is subject to the law

3:17:36 ↗ a local government or any government

3:17:38 ↗ cannot apply the same

3:17:40 ↗ law differently to people who are

3:17:42 ↗ similarly situated

3:17:44 ↗ and there is no material difference

3:17:46 ↗ between

3:17:47 ↗ shelter and polygon when they submitted

3:17:50 ↗ their plat applications and when they

3:17:52 ↗ submitted their sgp

3:17:53 ↗ applications

3:17:57 ↗ thank you mr schneider mr zell

3:18:03 ↗ in short the answer is yes

3:18:08 ↗ thank you thank you and mr vincent i

3:18:12 ↗ i do not see any other council members

3:18:14 ↗ that are indicating

3:18:16 ↗ they would like to ask questions thank

3:18:19 ↗ you

3:18:19 ↗ um madam president if you want to uh

3:18:22 ↗ close the hearing and then we can

3:18:25 ↗ proceed to

3:18:26 ↗ uh closed deliberations uh pursuant to

3:18:29 ↗ state law

3:18:31 ↗ thank you mr vincent i will um i will

3:18:33 ↗ momentarily close

3:18:35 ↗ the um the hearing i did want to

3:18:38 ↗ indicate though that we

3:18:39 ↗ will um we will be having the executive

3:18:41 ↗ session later but we also have

3:18:42 ↗ one more item of business on our regular

3:18:45 ↗ agenda so

3:18:46 ↗ um i will be also doing that it's my

3:18:49 ↗ understanding is that correct

3:18:50 ↗ clerk eggers that's correct okay thank

3:18:54 ↗ you

3:18:54 ↗ all right at this time the consolidated

3:18:57 ↗ appeal hearing is now

3:18:58 ↗ closed and we will go on to the next

3:19:01 ↗ item

3:19:02 ↗ of business which is good of the order

3:19:05 ↗ um and i will ask if any council members

3:19:08 ↗ have anything for good of the order at

3:19:10 ↗ the time

3:19:11 ↗ at this time if they would indicate in

3:19:12 ↗ the chat

3:19:16 ↗ council member martz um

3:19:19 ↗ as i uh feared the hour has gotten late

3:19:22 ↗ and i would prefer not to dig into a

3:19:25 ↗ conversation about county fees

3:19:27 ↗ right at the moment so i would ask uh

3:19:30 ↗ the packet

3:19:31 ↗ the fpa pick packet uh is available

3:19:34 ↗ i believe it goes out to everybody if

3:19:36 ↗ you are interested

3:19:38 ↗ uh in the topic i see some heads nodding

3:19:41 ↗ no so i will forward the

3:19:42 ↗ pick packet onto the rest of my fellow

3:19:44 ↗ council members if you want to take a

3:19:46 ↗ look at the county

3:19:47 ↗ uh fees uh line item pick is very good

3:19:51 ↗ about teeing these questions up for us

3:19:53 ↗ so if you have any thoughts or comments

3:19:55 ↗ if you get back to me before the 14th i

3:19:57 ↗ would appreciate it thank you

3:19:58 ↗ that is all thank you councilmember

3:20:01 ↗ marks

3:20:02 ↗ and i see that we have um two more

3:20:05 ↗ good of the order uh first is

3:20:07 ↗ councilmember michelle

3:20:09 ↗ thank you and i'll be brief too since

3:20:10 ↗ it's late

3:20:12 ↗ we received an email regarding uh the

3:20:15 ↗ availability of

3:20:16 ↗ uh bathroom facilities in downtown

3:20:19 ↗ issaquah

3:20:20 ↗ and i did appreciate the research that

3:20:23 ↗ was done by staff and the

3:20:24 ↗ email that went back to that

3:20:26 ↗ correspondent but i do

3:20:28 ↗ i've heard this uh from many different

3:20:30 ↗ people and

3:20:32 ↗ i think it's because it's becoming a

3:20:34 ↗ greater concern so

3:20:35 ↗ i just wanted to put it out there that

3:20:38 ↗ this might be a good test

3:20:39 ↗ for whatever procedure we want to use to

3:20:43 ↗ get council items on the agendas

3:20:47 ↗ because i would be interested in going a

3:20:49 ↗ little bit deeper into that issue

3:20:51 ↗ and seeing what we can do particularly

3:20:54 ↗ as we

3:20:54 ↗ get closer to summer and perhaps have

3:20:58 ↗ more people sleeping outdoors

3:21:00 ↗ because the weather is getting nicer so

3:21:03 ↗ i'll just put that out there thank you

3:21:06 ↗ thank you councilmember

3:21:07 ↗ michelle uh councilmember hall

3:21:10 ↗ uh thank you this is councilmember hall

3:21:12 ↗ i just really quickly wanted to

3:21:14 ↗ um you know since earlier we adopted the

3:21:16 ↗ creation of the new adah committee to

3:21:19 ↗ um review our council rules and

3:21:20 ↗ procedures i just wanted to really

3:21:22 ↗ really quickly thank

3:21:24 ↗ uh council members d michelle goodman

3:21:26 ↗ and walsh i believe

3:21:27 ↗ are the three that we have pointed to

3:21:29 ↗ that so i just wanted to thank you for

3:21:30 ↗ volunteering to do that and i'm looking

3:21:32 ↗ forward to

3:21:33 ↗ seeing your work

3:21:37 ↗ thank you councilmember hall i

3:21:40 ↗ believe that as all council members who

3:21:41 ↗ have indicated that they have something

3:21:43 ↗ for good of the order i have some

3:21:45 ↗ um upcoming council meetings to describe

3:21:49 ↗ i have there is a city council study

3:21:50 ↗ session tuesday april 13th

3:21:52 ↗ so facilities assessments and draft

3:21:54 ↗ evaluation criteria and surplus policy

3:21:57 ↗ will be discussed

3:21:58 ↗ special city council meeting following

3:22:00 ↗ the study session on april 13th

3:22:02 ↗ potential agenda items include continued

3:22:04 ↗ celebrations of the consolidated appeal

3:22:07 ↗ of tearing examiner's denial of the

3:22:08 ↗ preliminary plot of high street

3:22:10 ↗ collection at issaquah highlands and

3:22:12 ↗ then city council regular meeting on

3:22:14 ↗ april 19th potential agenda items to

3:22:16 ↗ include

3:22:18 ↗ the 2022 to 2027 capital improvement

3:22:21 ↗ plan including transportation

3:22:23 ↗ improvement program

3:22:24 ↗ and then the last item on the agenda

3:22:26 ↗ this evening

3:22:27 ↗ is our executive session as earlier

3:22:30 ↗ announced there will be an executive

3:22:31 ↗ session this evening for deliberations

3:22:33 ↗ related to ab-8136

3:22:35 ↗ consolidated appeal of hearing of the

3:22:37 ↗ hearing examiner's denial of the

3:22:39 ↗ preliminary plat of high street

3:22:40 ↗ collection at isqua highlands for rcw

3:22:43 ↗ 42.3 0.140 parenthesis 2.

3:22:46 ↗ the item is expected to take

3:22:47 ↗ approximately 60 minutes and may be

3:22:49 ↗ extended if needed

3:22:51 ↗ action is anticipated to follow an open

3:22:53 ↗ session as a reminder executive sessions

3:22:55 ↗ are closed

3:22:56 ↗ to the public we will now recess into

3:22:59 ↗ executive session

3:23:00 ↗ at 10 24 pm

3:23:04 ↗ and i will ask the clerk to move the

3:23:06 ↗ city council into a separate session

3:23:07 ↗ within this meeting

3:23:08 ↗ anyone who is not part of the closed

3:23:10 ↗ session will remain in the main

3:23:12 ↗ meeting and you are welcome to stay in

3:23:13 ↗ the meeting until it is reconvened

3:23:16 ↗ council president uh if i may just

3:23:20 ↗ make uh one have one question uh

3:23:23 ↗ i know previously we had indicated that

3:23:25 ↗ we wanted to do deliberations for an

3:23:27 ↗ hour

3:23:28 ↗ i think that was before all of us knew

3:23:30 ↗ that we'd be going into deliberations

3:23:32 ↗ at 10 20. it would be perfectly

3:23:35 ↗ appropriate

3:23:36 ↗ uh for the council to reduce that time

3:23:39 ↗ at this time as

3:23:40 ↗ you would indicated we are coming back

3:23:43 ↗ on the 13th

3:23:44 ↗ so if you wanted to and if the council

3:23:46 ↗ wanted to entertain

3:23:47 ↗ a shorter deliberation period i would

3:23:50 ↗ understand

3:23:51 ↗ uh so um

3:23:54 ↗ okay um thank you mr benson my apologies

3:23:57 ↗ i think so then in that case

3:23:59 ↗ i would have to indicate that it would

3:24:01 ↗ take an approximately a different amount

3:24:02 ↗ of time

3:24:03 ↗ um correct correct and that still

3:24:06 ↗ provides you the opportunity

3:24:08 ↗ opportunity to extend further if needed

3:24:10 ↗ but

3:24:11 ↗ at this point you wouldn't be able to

3:24:12 ↗ take action until the hour mark

3:24:15 ↗ at the soonest so okay but i can still

3:24:18 ↗ correct it

3:24:19 ↗ yes you can okay great um i think then

3:24:22 ↗ council um given the late hour

3:24:27 ↗ 30 minutes would that be

3:24:31 ↗ okay with council

3:24:35 ↗ okay i'm seeing i think some

3:24:38 ↗ some head nods um so in that case this

3:24:41 ↗ item is expected to take approximately

3:24:43 ↗ 30 minutes and may be extended if needed

3:24:47 ↗ and i believe i am now ready to

3:24:50 ↗ recess into executive session at 10 26

3:24:52 ↗ am

3:24:53 ↗ thank you and if you can provide me a

3:24:55 ↗ moment to um

3:24:57 ↗ move individuals to our green room that

3:25:00 ↗ would be great

3:25:01 ↗ and we are not in the official executive

3:25:04 ↗ session

3:25:05 ↗ quite yet but thank you thank you

3:57:56 ↗ yeah i want to make sure that we have

3:57:57 ↗ this part on recording

3:58:11 ↗ so thank you for allowing him the time

3:58:13 ↗ to set up his

3:58:15 ↗ tv connection for recording

3:58:18 ↗ okay um thank you so clerk address to

3:58:21 ↗ confirm we are

3:58:22 ↗ back um back on recording

3:58:25 ↗ yes you are thank you thank you

3:58:28 ↗ all right we are back in open session at

3:58:31 ↗ 10

3:58:32 ↗ 59 p.m and um

3:58:35 ↗ i will at this time move to continue

3:58:38 ↗ deliberations on ab-8136 to a special

3:58:41 ↗ city council meeting of

3:58:43 ↗ april 13th 2021 beginning at 7 30 pm or

3:58:47 ↗ at the conclusion of the study session

3:58:48 ↗ that precedes the special meeting

3:58:50 ↗ whichever is later um

3:58:54 ↗ whichever is later

3:59:01 ↗ thank you that has been moved and

3:59:03 ↗ seconded is there any council discussion

3:59:10 ↗ okay i am seeing none um

3:59:13 ↗ clerk everest if you could please take a

3:59:14 ↗ roll call vote

3:59:16 ↗ thank you uh starting with uh deputy

3:59:18 ↗ council president ray

3:59:20 ↗ aye councilmember walsh aye

3:59:24 ↗ councilmember d michelle aye

3:59:27 ↗ councilmember goodman

3:59:28 ↗ aye bounce member hall aye

3:59:32 ↗ council president hunt aye council

3:59:35 ↗ member mark

3:59:36 ↗ aye thank you that seven eyes zero

3:59:39 ↗ nays thank you that passes

3:59:43 ↗ unanimously and there

3:59:46 ↗ being no further business this meeting

3:59:49 ↗ is adjourned

3:59:50 ↗ at 1101 pm

3:59:54 ↗ good night good night thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Barbara de Michele

Stacy Goodman

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Motions and votes (6)

Adopt Ordinance No. 2941, amending Sections 18.02.070 and 18.09.140 of the Issaquah Municipal Code related to electric vehicle charging and amending Chapter 8.12 and 8.13 of the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards to add electric vehicle charging.

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

AMEND: Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2941, adding the following language within IMC 18.09.140, Table A.1 as follows: “New Multifamily (R-1, R-2 & I-2 occupancies and any other multi-unit residential building not meeting the definition of “multifamily residential building” under the state building code,…

Moved by HUNT · seconded by DE MICHELE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

AMEND Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2941, striking IMC 18.09.140(A)(10)(d): d) Substitution of a portion of EVSE and EV-Ready stalls with EV-Capable stalls, equivalent to the number of stalls that are no longer EVSE and EV Ready. . (Opponents: Hall, Goodma

Moved by HUNT · seconded by MARTS

Carried 5-2

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Zach Hall, Stacy Goodman

Continue deliberations to a Special City Council Meeting of April 13, 2021, beginning at 7:30 PM or at the conclusion of the Study Session that precedes the special meeting, whichever is later. .

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

Carried 7-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

Carried 7-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Main motion as amended: AMEND: Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2941, adding the following language within IMC 18.09.140, Table A.1 as follows: “New Multifamily (R-1, R-2 & I-2 occupancies and any other multi-unit residential building not meeting the definition of “multifamily residential building” under …

Moved by HUNT · seconded by DE MICHELE

Carried 6-1

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh

Opposed: Stacy Goodman