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

2777 segments .txt ↗

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

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

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

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

0:44 ↗ pledge of allegiance to please stand.

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

0:53 ↗ States of America and to the republic

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

0:59 ↗ God, indivisible, with liberty and

1:02 ↗ justice for all.

1:09 ↗ Our first item under special business

1:12 ↗ this evening is agenda bill

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

1:18 ↗ address.

1:39 ↗ My fellow citizens, community members,

1:42 ↗ business leaders, city employees, and

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

1:50 ↗ to appear before you tonight to present

1:54 ↗ my state of the city address.

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

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

2:02 ↗ office at city

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

2:08 ↗ tool a

2:10 ↗ whiteboard. Along with quotes that

2:13 ↗ inspire me and occasional notes from my

2:17 ↗ grandchildren, my whiteboard

2:19 ↗ consistently features Isiqua's

2:21 ↗ strengths weaknesses opportunities

2:25 ↗ and threats.

2:29 ↗ Mapping out our city's SWAT

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

2:35 ↗ see the larger picture, set

2:38 ↗ priorities, and continually focus on

2:42 ↗ what is

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

2:48 ↗ you'll find two other

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

2:55 ↗ markers.

2:57 ↗ Thanks to consistent feedback from

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

3:04 ↗ business owners, and regional

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

3:10 ↗ everchanging

3:11 ↗ snapshot of this roadmap for reaching

3:15 ↗ our ultimate vision where we are the

3:18 ↗ best place uh to invest in your

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

3:26 ↗ whiteboard represents what makes Isiqua

3:29 ↗ so

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

3:34 ↗ considering all perspectives, and

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

3:40 ↗ community. It all comes down to

3:43 ↗ partnerships.

3:46 ↗ Whether through citizen engagement or

3:48 ↗ relationships formed at the regional

3:50 ↗ level, Isiqua's partnerships are

3:54 ↗ essential to our future

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

4:00 ↗ the creation of the Isqua Highlands to

4:04 ↗ the recently voter approval of Sound

4:07 ↗ Transit 3.

4:09 ↗ You may

4:10 ↗ ask,

4:12 ↗ what's on your whiteboard

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

4:20 ↗ the city is

4:22 ↗ strong, but challenges

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

4:29 ↗ of these strengths, weaknesses,

4:30 ↗ opportunities, and threats. And together

4:34 ↗ using

4:35 ↗ partnerships on an individual, group and

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

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

4:49 ↗ community is

4:51 ↗ clear. Tackling

4:53 ↗ traffic. Both a threat and an

4:56 ↗ opportunity. Traffic must be addressed

4:59 ↗ at a regional level.

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

5:13 ↗ boundaries. Last November, during a

5:16 ↗ regional transportation summit hosted by

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

5:21 ↗ state, county, and local

5:25 ↗ leaders. We are not alone.

5:28 ↗ Cities surrounding Isiqua and throughout

5:30 ↗ the Pacific

5:32 ↗ Northwest are battling with regional

5:35 ↗ pass through traffic on a daily

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

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

5:46 ↗ Regional problems mandate regional

5:50 ↗ solutions.

5:52 ↗ No single

5:54 ↗ city in our area is isolated and

5:58 ↗ unaffected by any other

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

6:05 ↗ will continue to move between

6:07 ↗ communities to access jobs, schools,

6:11 ↗ entertainment housing recreation and

6:13 ↗ more.

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

6:18 ↗ ensure our transportation system

6:21 ↗ reflects the reality of our

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

6:28 ↗ dedicated partners committed to working

6:31 ↗ together on this regional issue.

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

6:37 ↗ technical staff from each city in King

6:39 ↗ County plan to meet, share existing

6:42 ↗ data, and develop a regional arterial

6:46 ↗ network which will help the group

6:49 ↗ identify long-term funding solutions.

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

6:57 ↗ a regional partnership focused solely on

6:59 ↗ how to relieve congestion along Isiqua

7:02 ↗ Hobart Road. This partnership will

7:05 ↗ include state and county

7:07 ↗ representatives along with several local

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

7:14 ↗ that road which is currently underway

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

7:20 ↗ is just one step needed to tackle

7:24 ↗ this consistent

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

7:30 ↗ tonight.

7:31 ↗ Partnerships turn ideas into action.

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

7:39 ↗ Transit 3, which will someday bring

7:42 ↗ light rail to

7:43 ↗ Isiqua. Long-term transportation

7:46 ↗ solutions don't happen

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

7:52 ↗ however, proved that our vision for

7:54 ↗ planning for mobility at a regional

7:57 ↗ level is on the right track.

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

8:05 ↗ traffic

8:07 ↗ congestion. Next month, we will

8:09 ↗ celebrate the groundbreaking of an

8:11 ↗ exciting project which will build a new

8:15 ↗ road connecting East Lake Samameish

8:17 ↗ Parkway to Costco's international

8:20 ↗ headquarters.

8:23 ↗ This significant capital project won't

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

8:28 ↗ funding assistance and partnership.

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

8:35 ↗ working together with local employers to

8:39 ↗ grow Isiqua's economy while also

8:43 ↗ investing in

8:45 ↗ infrastructure. Creating more good

8:48 ↗ paying jobs within our community and

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

8:55 ↗ in our cars is a win-win.

8:59 ↗ To expand transit service options for

9:01 ↗ residents and employees in two pockets

9:04 ↗ of our community, Squawk Mountain and

9:07 ↗ Talis, Isiqua will partner with King

9:11 ↗ County Metro and local stakeholders this

9:14 ↗ year to develop an alternative services

9:18 ↗ pilot

9:21 ↗ program. Last fall, after significant

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

9:27 ↗ traffic improvement bond on the

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

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

9:36 ↗ reach the required 60% yes threshold

9:41 ↗ needed for approval.

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

9:46 ↗ Isiqua voters are supportive of making

9:49 ↗ local investments to reduce

9:52 ↗ congestion, enhance safety, and improve

9:55 ↗ our local

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

9:59 ↗ conducting some research to answer

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

10:05 ↗ we as a community invest in needed

10:08 ↗ infrastructure

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

10:15 ↗ always like to reflect on the

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

10:21 ↗ implementing smart growth philosophies

10:24 ↗ and our most current chapter reflects

10:28 ↗ that

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

10:34 ↗ existing neighborhoods and natural

10:36 ↗ environment, the city adopted the

10:38 ↗ central Isiqua plan to guide the

10:41 ↗ long-term evolution of our existing

10:45 ↗ commercial core into an urban center.

10:50 ↗ While this long range plan sets an

10:52 ↗ important vision, it also requires

10:56 ↗ periodic tweaks to incorporate changing

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

11:04 ↗ we pushed the pause button to address

11:06 ↗ several issues before more development

11:10 ↗ proceeds, including architectural fit

11:13 ↗ within the community and availability of

11:16 ↗ affordable housing.

11:19 ↗ The city is continuing its work to

11:21 ↗ develop a housing

11:23 ↗ strategy through analysis and feedback

11:26 ↗ from

11:27 ↗ residents employers service

11:29 ↗ organizations, and builders. The housing

11:32 ↗ strategy will inform ways in which the

11:35 ↗ city can help shape the affordability

11:39 ↗ and types of housing in Isiqua.

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

11:46 ↗ character and environment while

11:48 ↗ providing a diversity of choices to meet

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

11:54 ↗ work, and play in

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

12:01 ↗ choose the Pacific Northwest as their

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

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

12:10 ↗ desirable region, one that attracted

12:13 ↗ more than

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

12:19 ↗ years

12:21 ↗ alone. Throughout our community, from

12:24 ↗ Facebook to local coffee shops, many

12:28 ↗ community conversations are taking place

12:31 ↗ about growth.

12:33 ↗ Understanding our residents views is

12:35 ↗ essential as we focus on future planning

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

12:42 ↗ also closely partnering with the Isiqua

12:45 ↗ School District as it plans its future

12:49 ↗ facilities within Isiqua to meet current

12:53 ↗ and

12:54 ↗ future population demands.

12:58 ↗ Now turning back to my

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

13:05 ↗ service

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

13:11 ↗ all in business in the business of

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

13:17 ↗ serving our residents, businesses, and

13:20 ↗ larger community no matter their

13:23 ↗ background.

13:25 ↗ Several planned capital projects on the

13:27 ↗ horizon will target traffic congestion,

13:31 ↗ enhance our parks, and improve our

13:34 ↗ public

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

13:39 ↗ amenities, the city is approaching each

13:42 ↗ project with a focus on continuous

13:45 ↗ improvement and partnership.

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

13:52 ↗ improvement plan process, which will

13:54 ↗ help better inform decision making as we

13:58 ↗ develop future city

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

14:02 ↗ functional teams will also enhance our

14:06 ↗ internal project

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

14:11 ↗ plenty to celebrate. From our

14:14 ↗ breathtaking natural beauty to Isiqua's

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

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

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

14:27 ↗ enjoy

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

14:33 ↗ reason, 125th anniversary.

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

14:40 ↗ of opportunities to celebrate our

14:42 ↗ history. From community events to

14:45 ↗ partnerships with local businesses and

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

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

14:57 ↗ delivering important capital projects in

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

15:04 ↗ on long range planning efforts that

15:07 ↗ require significant partnerships within

15:10 ↗ the

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

15:14 ↗ our

15:15 ↗ parks, assessing your needs through a

15:18 ↗ healthy community strategy, and

15:21 ↗ reflecting on our shared vision for

15:24 ↗ Oldtown.

15:26 ↗ Each of these efforts will require

15:28 ↗ significant public engagement. From

15:31 ↗ neighborhood meetings to new online

15:33 ↗ engagement tools, further strengthening

15:36 ↗ customer connections ensures we as

15:40 ↗ public servants are providing

15:42 ↗ exceptional customer service.

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

15:49 ↗ community is preparing to say goodbye to

15:51 ↗ the Isiqua Press, the oldest newspaper

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

15:58 ↗ operations later this

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

16:03 ↗ stories for the past 117 years.

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

16:10 ↗ we foster engagement opportunities

16:13 ↗ ensure citizens remain informed about

16:16 ↗ important community decisions that will

16:19 ↗ affect their everyday

16:23 ↗ lives. In conclusion, tonight has

16:27 ↗ personal significance for me. This will

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

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

16:36 ↗ running for reelection as your

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

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

16:45 ↗ confident our community strong

16:47 ↗ partnerships will ensure a smooth

16:49 ↗ transition.

16:51 ↗ We have an exciting and challenging year

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

16:56 ↗ as we continue our mission to provide

16:59 ↗ quality services that support a

17:02 ↗ sustainable, safe, and welcoming

17:06 ↗ community that is

17:08 ↗ inclusive for everyone.

17:11 ↗ As you will hear throughout our birthday

17:14 ↗ celebrations this year, history happens

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

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

17:26 ↗ very much.

17:29 ↗ [Applause]

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

17:52 ↗ comments. Citizen comments are an

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

17:56 ↗ take them seriously and factor them into

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

18:01 ↗ the public who wishes to comment will

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

18:06 ↗ direct comments to the whole council,

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

18:11 ↗ question and answer session, we will

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

18:18 ↗ you did not have an opportunity include

18:20 ↗ to include your email address on the

18:23 ↗ signup sheet, you may leave that

18:25 ↗ information on the clipboard at the

18:28 ↗ front table in front of me after

18:31 ↗ speaking.

18:33 ↗ When recognized, please move to the

18:35 ↗ lectern. Speak into the microphone.

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

18:39 ↗ relationship to the city. Limit your

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

18:45 ↗ written comments to the city

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

18:50 ↗ scheduled public hearings this evening.

18:54 ↗ uh uh one uh on agenda bill

18:58 ↗ 7215 ninth major amendment to the Isqua

19:01 ↗ Highlands two-party development

19:02 ↗ agreement and the other uh uh agenda

19:06 ↗ bill

19:07 ↗ 7291 to consider additional extension to

19:11 ↗ the temporary moratorum related to

19:14 ↗ certain permit

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

19:19 ↗ uh, hearings will provide an opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

19:39 ↗ indicate the end of your allotted

19:42 ↗ comment time. Personal attacks, obscene

19:45 ↗ language, derogatory remarks, and

19:47 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

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

19:52 ↗ written and verbal, are an important

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

19:57 ↗ takes them seriously, and we thank

19:59 ↗ members for the public for taking the

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

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

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

20:10 ↗ Yes, Lindseay Walsh.

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

20:19 ↗ in the Highlands at

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

20:25 ↗ looking further down the consent

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

20:30 ↗ 7331 about the public engagement

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

20:34 ↗ pleased that our community is going in

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

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

20:41 ↗ wanted to say thank you for considering

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

20:45 ↗ active engagement in the community.

20:47 ↗ Thank you. Thank you.

20:52 ↗ Steve Pereira.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21:19 ↗ democrat or republic and but in the

21:21 ↗ sense of democracy is the engagement of

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

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

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

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

21:33 ↗ really liked about there was a section

21:34 ↗ that listed all the things that were

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

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

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

21:42 ↗ way for the city to take more

21:44 ↗ advertisement in the paper to expand

21:46 ↗ that section to say things like carry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22:10 ↗ different activities and events on in

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

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

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

22:22 ↗ council meetings and agenda meetings and

22:24 ↗ active links to engage people in the

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

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

22:29 ↗ things, make it more apparent and

22:31 ↗ transparent.

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

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

22:37 ↗ announcement or the appointments of

22:38 ↗ various city councils will be various

22:40 ↗ city committees we made later this year

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

22:45 ↗ presence might be seeing this please

22:47 ↗ take this opportunity to be engaged and

22:49 ↗ uh participate in the process uh the

22:52 ↗ second activity I wanted to talk about

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

22:57 ↗ which is uh docket of comprehensive plan

23:00 ↗ amendments And uh in that the policy

23:04 ↗ planning commission has been looking at

23:05 ↗ eight of the 17 activities with the

23:08 ↗ remaining nine seven nine of 17

23:09 ↗ activities being deferred until next

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

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

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

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

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

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

23:24 ↗ have direct bearing on things like the

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

23:29 ↗ developmental moratorium that we need to

23:30 ↗ look at like the transportation and the

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

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

23:39 ↗ anything be expanded to talk about

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

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

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

23:47 ↗ say the Bergsma property where we talk

23:49 ↗ about the city talks about wanting to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24:10 ↗ develop that

24:12 ↗ uh comprehens not comprehensive plan the

24:16 ↗ uh comprehensive plan

24:18 ↗ amendments before we do things like

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

24:22 ↗ putting those things in the correct

24:24 ↗ order for them to happen develop the

24:26 ↗ plan and

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

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

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

24:34 ↗ comments for the moratorium until a

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

24:38 ↗ you.

24:42 ↗ Julie Adam,

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

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

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

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

25:00 ↗ considering more affordable housing. I

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

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

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

25:10 ↗ many years and

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

25:16 ↗ last two videos the meetings that you

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

25:20 ↗ was actually kind of surprised there

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

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

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

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

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

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

25:38 ↗ bus station I really have no preference

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

25:43 ↗ wondering about that I guess would be

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

25:48 ↗ any kind of price point what

25:50 ↗ affordability means um at this point if

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

25:57 ↗ you. Thank you.

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

26:04 ↗ there anyone desiring to speak who has

26:07 ↗ not uh signed up?

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

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

26:19 ↗ in, but perhaps there is a uh

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

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

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

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

26:32 ↗ will withhold my comments until that

26:34 ↗ time. Yes, sir. Thank you.

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

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

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

26:49 ↗ then audience comments are closed and

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

26:53 ↗ reports. Uh beginning with council

26:56 ↗ member Batis.

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

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

27:06 ↗ Conservation District uh committee uh

27:10 ↗ both the caucus and the committee

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

27:15 ↗ sort of overview and introduction

27:17 ↗ program um was the member jurisdiction

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

27:25 ↗ to view the the new online application

27:28 ↗ portal and the dedicated pages to the

27:32 ↗ member uh organizations and they've

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

27:37 ↗ whole process much easier and I just

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

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

27:45 ↗ wrapping around uh with some um staff

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

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

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

27:56 ↗ development uh council uh board meeting.

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

28:03 ↗ the new members could meet each other

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

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

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

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

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

28:17 ↗ attended the emergency management uh

28:19 ↗ advisory council and I have no report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28:35 ↗ Side Transportation Partnership and a

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

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

28:41 ↗ the legislative committee there. Uh I

28:44 ↗ also now got drafted on the planning

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

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

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

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

28:54 ↗ council member from Maple Valley uh who

28:56 ↗ is proposing a transportation benefit

28:58 ↗ district for southeast King County. And

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

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

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

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

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

29:15 ↗ that southeast corner, King County is

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

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

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

29:23 ↗ trying to com uh include three other

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

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

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

29:33 ↗ proposal is to put together $250

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30:02 ↗ course, 46 million on Highway

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

30:07 ↗ interestingly enough, 4 million on the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30:23 ↗ interesting.

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

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

30:32 ↗ infrastructure committee meeting and I'm

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

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

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

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

30:44 ↗ what projects are going to be done

30:45 ↗ completed this year in the complete

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

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

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

30:53 ↗ bill

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

30:58 ↗ at improvements on Gilman Boulevard.

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

31:02 ↗ work to start getting the the base

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

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

31:08 ↗ just starting to gather the information.

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

31:14 ↗ infrastructure committee. Um a new one

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

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

31:22 ↗ question on the uh traffic coming in

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

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

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

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

31:33 ↗ the AB

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

31:37 ↗ of a transport transportation mobility

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

31:41 ↗ further discussion and see where that

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

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

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

31:50 ↗ also discuss is the March meeting is

31:52 ↗ going to be moved because of conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

32:08 ↗ attending the uh regional transportation

32:10 ↗ uh regional transit committee. Um two

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

32:15 ↗ stepping into the program of work.

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

32:18 ↗ develop their service and capital

32:20 ↗ decisions and looking at the main

32:22 ↗ problem of how can they expand their

32:25 ↗ system when right now cap infrastructure

32:27 ↗ and capital is one of their limiting

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

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

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

32:35 ↗ types of things and those are major

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

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

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

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

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

32:45 ↗ Council Member Winterside. Thank you,

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

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

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

32:55 ↗ Sound Regional Council's Growth

32:56 ↗ Management Policy Board. The agenda for

32:58 ↗ that has not yet been published.

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

33:03 ↗ talking about the new regional centers

33:05 ↗ framework report that was released last

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

33:11 ↗ letting you guys know kind of the

33:13 ↗ process of that that becoming available.

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

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

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

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

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

33:28 ↗ time frame to make a recommendation to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33:47 ↗ the the new committee to regional

33:49 ↗ traffic requires regional solutions.

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

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

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

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

33:58 ↗ uh regional centers framework. That

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

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

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

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

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

34:16 ↗ Sound Cities I get my two committees

34:18 ↗ mixed up. Sun Cities Association Public

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

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

34:24 ↗ action items other than housekeeping

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

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

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

34:37 ↗ perhaps changing the way urban center uh

34:40 ↗ urban centers are designated and uh u

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

34:44 ↗ potentially affect Isiqua. Uh and then

34:48 ↗ the sound city the services and safety

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

34:54 ↗ bill 7282 was the arch 2017 proposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

35:15 ↗ use report which was very informative.

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

35:20 ↗ we have committee uh meetings televised,

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

35:24 ↗ a look at that report that David

35:26 ↗ Fujimoto uh presented. Uh additionally,

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

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

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

35:38 ↗ opioid use and its relationship with

35:40 ↗ property

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

35:43 ↗ center update and the transition thus

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

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

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

35:53 ↗ uh initial reports back have been very

35:56 ↗ positive moving forward. Uh both folks

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

36:01 ↗ who had recently returned to the senior

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

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

36:07 ↗ this evening. Council member Paulie.

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

36:11 ↗ Cascade Water Alliance Resource

36:13 ↗ Committee meeting on February 9th at

36:15 ↗ their offices in Belleview. They

36:17 ↗ reviewed a few contract bid offerings um

36:20 ↗ for recommendation for board approval.

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

36:24 ↗ also had a discussion of the water

36:26 ↗ quality management work plan that has

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

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

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

36:37 ↗ Cascade will uh deal with property

36:40 ↗ acquisitions going forward and notifying

36:42 ↗ the board at various stages through

36:44 ↗ those processes.

36:46 ↗ There was a the probably the most

36:48 ↗ interesting issue um for Isiqua was that

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

36:53 ↗ come forward regarding how reclaimed

36:55 ↗ water is used within the Cascade Water

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

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

37:01 ↗ provide more information on in the

37:03 ↗ following

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

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

37:09 ↗ the first item up was an introduction

37:11 ↗ and recognition for the staff of the

37:13 ↗ finance and human resources department.

37:15 ↗ Uh they completed a year of installing

37:18 ↗ their new financial software and now are

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

37:23 ↗ a new formalized warrant review process

37:26 ↗ that the board approved and then the

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

37:31 ↗ summary of healthc care benefits and an

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

37:39 ↗ impacts to the headquarters property. Uh

37:42 ↗ potential bidding opportunity to the

37:44 ↗ Snowquami Fire Department to get the

37:47 ↗ equipment maintenance contract and also

37:49 ↗ provided some information about the

37:51 ↗ firefighters benevolent fund program to

37:53 ↗ provide life jackets at var three lakes

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

37:59 ↗ Rattlesnake

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

38:03 ↗ Council President Goodman. Thank you,

38:04 ↗ Mr. Mayor.

38:06 ↗ The land and shore committee meets on

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

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

38:15 ↗ Marcus noted the committees are

38:16 ↗ televised. So I encourage people to

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

38:21 ↗ we have a standing item moratorum

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

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

38:28 ↗ Agenda bill

38:30 ↗ 7317 vertical mixeduse analysis uh for

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

38:37 ↗ getting some feedback and then it will

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

38:42 ↗ planning policy um uh commission back to

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

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

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

38:53 ↗ comprehensive comprehensive plan

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

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

38:59 ↗ full council with a recommendation after

39:01 ↗ Landon Shore agenda bill 7330 which is

39:04 ↗ 2017 docket of comprehensive plan

39:07 ↗ amendments. We will be discussing the

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

39:12 ↗ through the um amendment process this

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

39:16 ↗ only is a sustainable building action

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

39:22 ↗ we last discussed this at our November

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

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

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

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

39:33 ↗ will be an executive session held this

39:35 ↗ evening for the purpose of discussing

39:37 ↗ property acquisition per

39:42 ↗ RCW42.30.110

39:44 ↗ pernb and collective bargaining per

39:47 ↗ RCW42.30.140

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

39:54 ↗ to take approximately 70 minutes. Action

39:58 ↗ is anticipated to follow in open

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

40:04 ↗ the city of Isiqua was recently

40:05 ↗ recognized as a storm ready community by

40:09 ↗ the National Weather Service. This

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

40:17 ↗ hard work of our emergency management

40:19 ↗ staff uh who help our community prepare

40:23 ↗ for emergencies and disasters. For more

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

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

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

40:41 ↗ our community that nothing has changed

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

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

40:52 ↗ your city government, we welcome all

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

40:58 ↗ are smarter and stronger when we join

41:01 ↗ together.

41:02 ↗ Similar to several sanctuary cities

41:04 ↗ throughout our region and nation, Isiqua

41:08 ↗ uh has always provided services and

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

41:14 ↗ without discrimination towards any

41:17 ↗ individual or group, regardless of

41:20 ↗ immigration status. Importantly, our

41:24 ↗ Isiqua Police Department is committed to

41:26 ↗ providing law enforcement services to

41:31 ↗ the community without regard to racial,

41:33 ↗ cultural, or other

41:35 ↗ differences. As your local government,

41:38 ↗ we are ensuring that all staff have

41:40 ↗ clear direction not to inquire about

41:43 ↗ immigration status when interacting with

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

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

41:58 ↗ uh

42:01 ↗ yes and secure

42:04 ↗ uh when interacting with our officers,

42:07 ↗ accessing city services, and engaging

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

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

42:16 ↗ harassment or hate crimes in our

42:19 ↗ community, call 911

42:21 ↗ immediately. We will always be a

42:24 ↗ community that embraces diversity and

42:27 ↗ welcomes all viewpoints. Thank you for

42:30 ↗ your support in keeping Isiqua a safe

42:33 ↗ community for everyone. And that uh

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

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

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

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

42:50 ↗ and payroll uh dated 21 February have

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

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

43:02 ↗ record the consent calendar.

43:04 ↗ The consent calendar was distributed to

43:06 ↗ council in advance for study if

43:08 ↗ authorized. Council action will occur by

43:10 ↗ single motion regarding the following

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

43:14 ↗ accounts payables and payroll of

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

43:18 ↗ approval of the minutes of the city

43:20 ↗ council regular meeting and special

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

43:25 ↗ AB7276, King County Conservation Futures

43:28 ↗ Tax Levy 2018 grant seeks to authorize

43:31 ↗ submittal. Item E,

43:33 ↗ AB7292, Northwest Dogwood Bridge

43:35 ↗ replacement seeks to accept project and

43:37 ↗ release retainage. Item F AB7324 lodging

43:41 ↗ tax advisory committee annual

43:43 ↗ appointments seeks to confirm. Item G

43:47 ↗ AB7330 2017 docket of comprehensive plan

43:50 ↗ amendments seeks referral to council

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

43:56 ↗ public engagement toolkit seeks referral

43:58 ↗ to council services and safety

44:00 ↗ committee. This concludes the reading.

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

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

44:07 ↗ consent calendar to regular business for

44:09 ↗ separate

44:11 ↗ consideration? Seeing none, then council

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

44:17 ↗ the consent calendar as presented.

44:19 ↗ Second.

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

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

44:26 ↗ That carries unanimously.

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

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

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

44:39 ↗ amendment to the Isiqua Highlands

44:40 ↗ two-party development agreement.

44:43 ↗ Uh-holy Northwest requesting major

44:46 ↗ modification for transfer of development

44:49 ↗ rights.

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

44:55 ↗ earlier uh for uh audience comments uh

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

45:04 ↗ appreciate those coming to uh uh to

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

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

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

45:14 ↗ relationship to the city and you have

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

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

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

45:26 ↗ written comments uh you can submit those

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

45:33 ↗ will open the public hearing at uh

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

45:46 ↗ a brief

45:47 ↗ uh let me

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

45:54 ↗ our director of development services.

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

46:01 ↗ Keith Nan, director of economic

46:04 ↗ development and development services. So

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

46:08 ↗ public hearing um for the ninth major

46:10 ↗ amendment to the Zqua Highlands

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

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

46:17 ↗ get everybody back up to speed because

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

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

46:23 ↗ is to add 100 transfer of development

46:26 ↗ rights to Isiqua Highlands and

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

46:31 ↗ owned by the applicant Polygon

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

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

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

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

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

46:48 ↗ Discovery uh Drive which leads out to

46:50 ↗ West Highlands Park and Polygon owns

46:54 ↗ property north of Discovery and south of

46:57 ↗ High

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

47:02 ↗ this really quickly. get some numbers

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

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

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

47:11 ↗ the history of the entitlement in Isiqua

47:14 ↗ Highlands um and where we are today

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

47:20 ↗ So, the original development agreement

47:22 ↗ had 3250 residential units, 2.95 million

47:26 ↗ square feet of commercial, and

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

47:32 ↗ the first amendment included um some

47:35 ↗ preserved uh property called Mitchell

47:38 ↗ Hill. This was transfer of development

47:40 ↗ rights from King County into the city

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

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

47:48 ↗ commercial space.

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

47:54 ↗ the original numbers was the development

47:57 ↗ agreement had a provision which allowed

48:00 ↗ the master developer to increase the

48:02 ↗ number of residential units by up to

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

48:06 ↗ commercial square footage went down

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

48:13 ↗ unit which was the conversion which

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

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

48:19 ↗ there was an additional 500 residential

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

48:23 ↗ washd development agreement. Um so

48:26 ↗ before this proposal tonight the numbers

48:30 ↗ currently as they sit are 4450

48:33 ↗ residential units

48:35 ↗ uh 2.11 million square ft of commercial

48:38 ↗ space and approximately

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49:05 ↗ chart which is 100 residential units

49:07 ↗ which would then bring the totals to

49:10 ↗ 4550 2.11 and

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

49:16 ↗ important as well because with the washd

49:19 ↗ development agreement we actually added

49:22 ↗ property and additional entitlement to

49:25 ↗ what most people consider to be isqua

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

49:30 ↗ some discussion about that earlier

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

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

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

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

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

49:46 ↗ Belleview College has 372,000 square

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50:10 ↗ basically the entire entitlement of the

50:14 ↗ Highlands um with um the wash out

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

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

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

50:25 ↗ city preserving Park Point um as

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

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

50:33 ↗ code identifies Isiqua Highlands as a

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

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

50:40 ↗ their traffic impact is fully mitigated

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

50:47 ↗ 17-1. The applicant and the

50:49 ↗ administration have discussed 30% of the

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

50:55 ↗ proposal was reviewed by the Urban

50:56 ↗ Village Development Commission and the

50:58 ↗ UBDC recommended approval with

51:00 ↗ conditions on the 6th of

51:04 ↗ December. And then we received three

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

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

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

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

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

51:16 ↗ was a letter from um the attorney

51:19 ↗ representing the applicant. So that

51:21 ↗ concludes my brief presentation.

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

51:26 ↗ better choice. Keith, uh

51:30 ↗ we will reserve discussion and questions

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

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

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

51:41 ↗ Yes, Nicholas Bratton.

51:46 ↗ Welcome back.

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

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

51:55 ↗ 901 Fifth Avenue, Seattle,

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

52:00 ↗ the opportunity to speak tonight, mayor

52:02 ↗ and council chair and members of the

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

52:06 ↗ Fora is a regional sustainability

52:08 ↗ organization created uh or dedicated to

52:11 ↗ the protection of the great landscapes

52:13 ↗ around our region and creating great

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

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

52:20 ↗ city's transfer of development rights

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

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

52:27 ↗ encouraging to see that there is an

52:28 ↗ applicant that that and that there is

52:30 ↗ demand for the use of this

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

52:35 ↗ that this single decision is a small

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

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

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

52:45 ↗ appreciate that the priorities of Isiqua

52:47 ↗ today may not reflect those that the

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

52:52 ↗ city is a different place and continues

52:55 ↗ to change.

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

52:59 ↗ make TDR transfer of development rights

53:01 ↗ work that strikes a balance between the

53:05 ↗ current needs and desires around growth

53:07 ↗ and programs and regulations created in

53:09 ↗ a different

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

53:13 ↗ consequences of local government

53:15 ↗ creating exemptions for transfer of

53:18 ↗ development rights at the moment when

53:20 ↗ it's poised to work.

53:22 ↗ um the the result has been major

53:24 ↗ setbacks for for growth management and

53:27 ↗ for certainty or rather creating

53:29 ↗ uncertainty in the regulatory

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

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

53:36 ↗ opportunity for the city to explore

53:38 ↗ around infrastructure financing. Um this

53:41 ↗ is a the topic of infrastructure has

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

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

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

53:50 ↗ would create access to new sources of

53:52 ↗ financing for infrastructure and public

53:54 ↗ improvements as a financial incentive

53:57 ↗ for the city to use transfer of

53:59 ↗ development rights to a greater extent.

54:01 ↗ Be happy to discuss that on an

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

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

54:08 ↗ consider is allowing the use of transfer

54:11 ↗ of development rights in this particular

54:13 ↗ instance and then modifying or updating

54:16 ↗ its transfer of development rights

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

54:20 ↗ growth in places where there is greater

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

54:24 ↗ central plan

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

54:29 ↗ decision in the broader context of the

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

54:33 ↗ the integrity of the transfer of

54:34 ↗ development rights program. Thank you.

54:37 ↗ Thank you.

54:42 ↗ Jennifer Anderson.

54:48 ↗ Good evening, Mayor Butler, City

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

54:51 ↗ I'm with the Master Builders

54:52 ↗ Association. Our office is located in

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

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

55:00 ↗ development rights program as it

55:01 ↗ pertains to the two party development

55:03 ↗ agreement up for consideration this

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

55:08 ↗ and effort put into this development of

55:10 ↗ the TDR program both locally and

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

55:15 ↗ honoring the identified receiving areas,

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

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

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

55:23 ↗ master builders association is here

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

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

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

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

55:33 ↗ important regionally

55:35 ↗ um the public benefit of pre permanently

55:38 ↗ preserving the 140 acres of forested

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

55:43 ↗ been realized. This massive conservation

55:46 ↗ effort could not have been achieved

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

55:49 ↗ you tonight to adopt the amendment and

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

55:54 ↗ program and permit promote its use and

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

55:59 ↗ Thank you,

56:01 ↗ David Kappler.

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

56:10 ↗ one clarification on the um homepage of

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

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

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

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

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

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

56:30 ↗ council committee recommended denial or

56:33 ↗ the actual proposed motion by the

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

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

56:46 ↗ talking about tonight. Are we just

56:48 ↗ talking aboutund 100 units with 70 and

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

56:54 ↗ levels of uh affordability? Are we

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

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

57:01 ↗ hundred in in the area of the

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

57:09 ↗ of 9th Avenue.

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

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

57:21 ↗ acquired and the transfer of development

57:24 ↗ rights issue with that was critical and

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

57:29 ↗ things that are potentially happening on

57:32 ↗ East Cougar Mountain and other areas.

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

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

57:39 ↗ with the county about transfer of

57:40 ↗ development

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

57:47 ↗ think the math is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

58:16 ↗ West

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

58:22 ↗ that. Thank you.

58:25 ↗ Thank you,

58:28 ↗ Steve Pereira.

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

58:40 ↗ time I said 170 Northeastwood Street

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

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

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

58:48 ↗ David Kappler referenced, so my

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

58:52 ↗ the idea of affordable housing and want

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

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

59:00 ↗ still seeing the proposed site as the

59:02 ↗ best site for single family homes for

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

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

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

59:13 ↗ some way to tweak that proposal that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59:35 ↗ opportunity or another way of doing that

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

59:44 ↗ Rose Finnegan.

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

59:59 ↗ at

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

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

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

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

1:00:13 ↗ their request for building additional

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:00:36 ↗ communities. We have provided

1:00:39 ↗ information to many parent groups

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

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

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

1:00:50 ↗ Our organization is proactive in

1:00:54 ↗ providing young adults the opportunity

1:00:57 ↗ to live as

1:00:59 ↗ independently as possible before a

1:01:02 ↗ family crisis or

1:01:04 ↗ happens. Today,

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

1:01:11 ↗ developmental challenges live with their

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

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

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

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

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

1:01:33 ↗ secure supportive

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

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

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

1:01:46 ↗ the high school transition

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

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

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

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

1:02:01 ↗ of care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:02:55 ↗ of people with intellectual and

1:02:58 ↗ developmental

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:03:32 ↗ very much. Rose,

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

1:03:38 ↗ Is there Yes, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:04:11 ↗ clarify uh one very important

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:04:32 ↗ submitted its application for amending

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

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

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

1:04:41 ↗ TDRs under the development agreement

1:04:44 ↗ provisions and to ensure complete

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:05:06 ↗ already legislative legislatively

1:05:09 ↗ adopted receiving sites which include

1:05:11 ↗ the rest west property.

1:05:14 ↗ The council made its policy

1:05:16 ↗ determinations under the TDR program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:05:39 ↗ acre Parkpoint property in

1:05:42 ↗ perpetuity. And that significant

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

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

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

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

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

1:06:01 ↗ manner consistent with the adopted

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

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

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

1:06:12 ↗ the TDR program

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

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

1:06:20 ↗ consider the ramifications were the

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

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

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

1:06:32 ↗ seriously jeopardize the critical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:07:04 ↗ viability of this program.

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

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

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

1:07:15 ↗ such diverse missions as both

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

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

1:07:22 ↗ together in such a clear

1:07:25 ↗ consensus. Recognizing again that

1:07:28 ↗ significant public benefit of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:08:04 ↗ the amendment to the development

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

1:08:09 ↗ sir.

1:08:17 ↗ That's good.

1:08:23 ↗ Good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:09:01 ↗ the recommendation of approval and

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

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

1:09:07 ↗ several approvals from the

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

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

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

1:09:17 ↗ to the city's website.

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

1:09:22 ↗ this was a city initiated

1:09:25 ↗ uh development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:10:13 ↗ definitely appreciate the concerns from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:10:34 ↗ evaluation location

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

1:10:43 ↗ which includes affordable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:11:32 ↗ asking for fair and

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

1:11:37 ↗ Thank you.

1:11:39 ↗ Thank you. Is Yes.

1:11:43 ↗ up to you. Thank you.

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

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

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

1:11:55 ↗ it it's something where yeah, if we had

1:11:57 ↗ been able to make that designation of a

1:12:02 ↗ receiving

1:12:03 ↗ site many, many years ago, I'm sure we

1:12:06 ↗ would have done it. Maybe this needs to

1:12:08 ↗ be something where we say, "Hey, when

1:12:09 ↗ we're looking at receiving sites in the

1:12:11 ↗ future, let's make sure that they're in

1:12:13 ↗ the areas um where we want that building

1:12:16 ↗ to happen." Um when it comes down to it,

1:12:20 ↗ being able to have another Leo house,

1:12:22 ↗ being able to have more affordable

1:12:24 ↗ housing is beneficial. And gosh darn, if

1:12:27 ↗ there's a way that we can get that down

1:12:29 ↗ by the um park and

1:12:32 ↗ ride, it's absolutely beneficial. But

1:12:37 ↗ to not be able to do that and say no to

1:12:40 ↗ the TDRs, I would say would be a shame

1:12:42 ↗ for us. And it's a difficult situation,

1:12:44 ↗ but hopefully we can at least get more

1:12:47 ↗ of the things even if they're not in the

1:12:49 ↗ place where we would like them to be.

1:12:51 ↗ Thank you. Thank

1:12:53 ↗ you. Is there anyone else desiring to

1:12:56 ↗ speak? David, are you uh leaning

1:12:59 ↗ forward? Nope. Anyone else desiring to

1:13:03 ↗ speak? Third and final call. Anyone

1:13:07 ↗ desiring to speak? Seeing no one, then

1:13:13 ↗ uh we will now

1:13:15 ↗ move to a discussion and uh questions.

1:13:24 ↗ Close. Uh

1:13:27 ↗ I don't want to close it unless if

1:13:29 ↗ there's if it's so sure they only get

1:13:33 ↗ one.

1:13:34 ↗ went by that itself.

1:13:39 ↗ Time for questions. Time for questions.

1:13:43 ↗ Keith is here to answer questions. Keith

1:13:45 ↗ is moving to the microphone.

1:13:48 ↗ Keith's going to do his best to answer

1:13:50 ↗ questions.

1:13:52 ↗ A question. Go ahead, Stacy. Keith, can

1:13:55 ↗ you put up the numbers that you showed

1:13:56 ↗ again please?

1:14:10 ↗ Um, so we talked in Landon Shore about

1:14:13 ↗ the

1:14:14 ↗ numbers and um, I'm not sure that I see

1:14:17 ↗ that it up there, but when you're

1:14:19 ↗ talking about the specifics of the wash

1:14:23 ↗ entitle DA entitlement usage,

1:14:27 ↗ um, the understanding that we had from

1:14:28 ↗ Landon Shore is that um out of

1:14:32 ↗ the uh what's left is 23

1:14:38 ↗ u 23 units. Is that right? So the units

1:14:42 ↗ um the units that are left are basically

1:14:45 ↗ um so if you if you do the math here

1:14:48 ↗ there's 25 but then polygon actually

1:14:51 ↗ took one of these and built it on a

1:14:54 ↗ piece of parcel three um which I didn't

1:14:57 ↗ even represent here because it was one

1:14:58 ↗ unit. So, so there's I believe there's

1:15:01 ↗ 24, but 23 whether it's 24 or 23. Okay.

1:15:06 ↗ Um somewhere in that vicinity is the

1:15:09 ↗ number of entitlement that to date. Now,

1:15:14 ↗ I want to I want to make sure

1:15:15 ↗ everybody's tracking on that detail. So,

1:15:17 ↗ there's sold entitlement now that's not

1:15:20 ↗ built. Um there's a hotel site up there.

1:15:22 ↗ Sumitomo owns a piece of property.

1:15:25 ↗ Shelter Holdings owns a piece of

1:15:26 ↗ property. Um, Polygon owns a piece of

1:15:28 ↗ property. They all have entitlement

1:15:30 ↗ that's not built out yet. Um, so of the

1:15:34 ↗ properties that are built out right now

1:15:37 ↗ there's 24 or 25 units that were not

1:15:41 ↗ realized. Okay. So, when you're talking

1:15:44 ↗ about maximum density under the Isqua

1:15:47 ↗ Highlands development agreement and you

1:15:49 ↗ take into account original entitlement

1:15:51 ↗ under the DA, um, Mitchell Hill

1:15:54 ↗ conversions, wash. DOA

1:15:58 ↗ um the what's what's left over before we

1:16:01 ↗ get to max buildout I'll say under the

1:16:04 ↗ original plus the add-ons anything we've

1:16:06 ↗ changed is 23 right so the delta between

1:16:09 ↗ what's currently either built or owned

1:16:11 ↗ by a property owner and what's been

1:16:14 ↗ approved through the entitlement process

1:16:16 ↗ is 23 24 residential units and I bring

1:16:21 ↗ that up because the um because we didn't

1:16:24 ↗ have that number up there I wanted the

1:16:26 ↗ council members and the folks who are

1:16:28 ↗ watching and here and and here today to

1:16:31 ↗ understand uh where those um where the

1:16:35 ↗ where the remaining number is for

1:16:37 ↗ residential units. Yes,

1:16:42 ↗ welcome.

1:16:44 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so the transfer

1:16:47 ↗ of development right program, this maybe

1:16:48 ↗ is more of a general question. I mean

1:16:50 ↗ that we're actually that's not what

1:16:52 ↗ we're voting on tonight. We're voting on

1:16:53 ↗ a development agreement. Yes or no? A

1:16:55 ↗ change to a development agreement? Yes

1:16:56 ↗ or no?

1:16:58 ↗ But the Isqua Highlands is a slightly

1:17:01 ↗ different animal than other parts of the

1:17:02 ↗ city in that it doesn't really have a

1:17:04 ↗ zoning layer right now. It has

1:17:05 ↗ entitlements and there were supposed to

1:17:07 ↗ be a certain mix of things um up there.

1:17:11 ↗ And if I'm understanding it correctly,

1:17:13 ↗ build out was 24 more homes. And that

1:17:17 ↗ that leaves over whatever the remaining

1:17:20 ↗ parties that are entitled to build some

1:17:21 ↗ homes. What was left over without

1:17:24 ↗ upzoning or densifying was just 24 but

1:17:28 ↗ the ask in the development agreement is

1:17:30 ↗ to go beyond that.

1:17:35 ↗ Um, so yes, but what I would the way I

1:17:40 ↗ would describe it is so there's zoning

1:17:43 ↗ capacity and there's what's currently

1:17:45 ↗ built and those are at different levels.

1:17:48 ↗ The the property and what's in the

1:17:50 ↗ development agreement in terms of

1:17:52 ↗ maximum buildout includes things like

1:17:55 ↗ eightstory buildings and you know 80

1:17:58 ↗ units per acre. uh nothing is built to

1:18:01 ↗ that level of density within the

1:18:03 ↗ development agreement. But in terms of

1:18:06 ↗ the entitlement that's been approved by

1:18:08 ↗ either this council or previous councils

1:18:10 ↗ and what's out there or currently owned,

1:18:13 ↗ the delta's like 24 units. Okay. Yeah,

1:18:16 ↗ makes sense.

1:18:24 ↗ Keith, is that tw you explain that one

1:18:26 ↗ more time to me? is there were 24

1:18:30 ↗ units after after this is all completed

1:18:33 ↗ if this project goes forward and there

1:18:35 ↗ will only be 24 additional units

1:18:38 ↗ residential units.

1:18:41 ↗ So, so if so if if if all the property

1:18:45 ↗ owners that currently haven't built yet

1:18:48 ↗ build out their maximum entitlement, so

1:18:50 ↗ what they bought from the master

1:18:52 ↗ developer, the only thing that's left

1:18:55 ↗ are is the is 24 units left over from

1:18:59 ↗ this one particular property. So, they

1:19:01 ↗ bought 60 and then um they ended up

1:19:05 ↗ doing a design for their property and

1:19:07 ↗ they they wanted to actually only build

1:19:09 ↗ 35 because they felt like that better

1:19:12 ↗ fit the market. So, that's the only and

1:19:14 ↗ that's why it's included here. That's

1:19:16 ↗ the importance of this particular line

1:19:18 ↗ in the chart is that's the only kind of

1:19:21 ↗ unused residential units up in the

1:19:24 ↗ Highlands. But some of the other do the

1:19:28 ↗ the other

1:19:30 ↗ um units available have not simply been

1:19:34 ↗ built on. They've been committed for but

1:19:36 ↗ not built on. Okay. Yes. And then when

1:19:38 ↗ this is completed there will be 24 or

1:19:41 ↗ whatever it is left to be built on. Yes.

1:19:45 ↗ Thank you. No. Well, there's 24 plus

1:19:47 ↗ whatever might be left over from those

1:19:50 ↗ other built building

1:19:52 ↗ projects which could be zero or it could

1:19:55 ↗ be some. We don't know. Right. So, if we

1:19:58 ↗ were going to build out residential

1:20:00 ↗ units, how many how and what's

1:20:02 ↗ unaccounted for now? How many? So, right

1:20:05 ↗ now there's um there's three residential

1:20:07 ↗ units that shelter holding zones on

1:20:11 ↗ land.

1:20:14 ↗ That's That's right here. Um and then

1:20:18 ↗ there's I believe somewhere in the

1:20:20 ↗ ballpark of 230 units. No, not not built

1:20:23 ↗ yet. What's left to be accounted for? So

1:20:26 ↗ none. 23 or 24. 23 or 24. Right.

1:20:29 ↗ Everything else has been sold. Right. So

1:20:31 ↗ So just to make it clear, what this what

1:20:34 ↗ Polygon would like to do is to have a

1:20:38 ↗ hundred and there's 23 left.

1:20:41 ↗ Right. So if the proposal was was

1:20:45 ↗ approved, then we would be over by

1:20:48 ↗ 77 for what was envisioned and included

1:20:53 ↗ in conversions and whatnot for the

1:20:55 ↗ school islands. Does that make sense?

1:20:57 ↗ Okay.

1:21:05 ↗ Okay. Questions.

1:21:08 ↗ So let me let me ask a

1:21:11 ↗ question. Uh I hear certified and uh how

1:21:17 ↗ many have been certified?

1:21:20 ↗ How many how many TDRs have been

1:21:22 ↗ certified? Um, so all of the ones from

1:21:26 ↗ ParkPoint and one Hey, so in other

1:21:31 ↗ words, um, besides if you took

1:21:34 ↗ ParkPoint off the table, our TDR program

1:21:38 ↗ has actualized one TDR, um, and it was

1:21:42 ↗ within the rally development. Okay.

1:21:46 ↗ And so the difference between certified

1:21:50 ↗ and uh uh and others. Jim, do you want

1:21:55 ↗ to comment on that?

1:22:04 ↗ Mayor, are you asking about TDRs that

1:22:07 ↗ have been certified as being taken off

1:22:11 ↗ of a property or are you asking about

1:22:13 ↗ TDRs and where they are supposed to go?

1:22:17 ↗ Where they're supposed to go? I mean, my

1:22:19 ↗ understanding of the city's TDR program

1:22:22 ↗ is that the TDR certificate says

1:22:26 ↗ that a

1:22:28 ↗ um that a particular property has a

1:22:31 ↗ certain excuse me that TDRs have been

1:22:34 ↗ taken off of a property. I'm not sure

1:22:36 ↗ that they specifically provide that they

1:22:39 ↗ are going to a specific site, but I

1:22:43 ↗ heard Ms. Koshkova say during her

1:22:46 ↗ testimony that this particular TDR

1:22:49 ↗ certificate somehow allocates these TDRs

1:22:52 ↗ to this specific site. And that's the

1:22:55 ↗ first time I have heard that. So if if

1:22:57 ↗ you do have

1:23:08 ↗ that, thank you for the opportunity for

1:23:11 ↗ clarification. Um, the TDR certificate

1:23:16 ↗ was approved by the city and a deed

1:23:19 ↗ recorded uh on title to both the sending

1:23:22 ↗ and receiving property which was um

1:23:25 ↗ recorded and returned to the city that

1:23:28 ↗ indicates both that the TDRs were taken

1:23:32 ↗ from the sending site and have been

1:23:35 ↗ legally recorded on title of the

1:23:39 ↗ receiving site, the Westridge. And that

1:23:41 ↗ is recording number

1:23:44 ↗ 20148

1:23:45 ↗ 05

1:23:49 ↗ 000941. And again that's that's been

1:23:51 ↗ returned to the city of Isiqua. Um, I

1:23:54 ↗ would also note for the record that the

1:23:56 ↗ isqua

1:23:57 ↗ uh title, excuse me, chapter 1810

1:24:00 ↗ provides that um

1:24:03 ↗ TDR units are uh expressly intended to

1:24:08 ↗ be in addition to the density allowed

1:24:11 ↗ under any development agreement. Thank

1:24:13 ↗ you. Thank

1:24:15 ↗ you. Does that uh answer your question,

1:24:19 ↗ Jim?

1:24:24 ↗ It does to the extent that uh certainly

1:24:27 ↗ Miss Klushka has testified concerning

1:24:30 ↗ that. I haven't reviewed the document so

1:24:31 ↗ I can't I can't speak to the document

1:24:34 ↗ itself and what it says. Uh Keith, I see

1:24:37 ↗ you moving back to the microphone.

1:24:40 ↗ Yes, I am.

1:24:44 ↗ Um, so I'd like to follow up um the code

1:24:47 ↗ um in addition to stating that the TDRs

1:24:51 ↗ um specifically states transfer of TDRs

1:24:53 ↗ into a urban village project subject to

1:24:55 ↗ a development agreement shall be subject

1:24:57 ↗ to the following. Um and it was just

1:24:59 ↗ previously stated that the TDR shall be

1:25:01 ↗ in addition to and not as a substitute

1:25:04 ↗ for the development rights as specified

1:25:05 ↗ in the development agreement. Um but the

1:25:08 ↗ next subsection says the TDRs shall not

1:25:11 ↗ cause any of the existing or planned

1:25:13 ↗ infrastructure to fall below the

1:25:15 ↗ infrastructures capacity to handle the

1:25:17 ↗ maximum density as set forth in the

1:25:20 ↗ development agreement. Um and I think

1:25:22 ↗ that certainly makes sense when you

1:25:24 ↗ think about it. Um and the reason that

1:25:26 ↗ makes sense is because when you have a

1:25:27 ↗ development agreement that has been um

1:25:30 ↗ very carefully negotiated to make sure

1:25:32 ↗ that the infrastructure um is balanced

1:25:35 ↗ in such a way that the infrastructure

1:25:38 ↗ meets the needs of the um the specific

1:25:42 ↗ density um in that urban village. I

1:25:44 ↗ think it makes sense that if it's going

1:25:46 ↗ to be additive that the TDRs not cause

1:25:50 ↗ um you know overstress of the

1:25:52 ↗ infrastructure that's there. So my

1:25:54 ↗ question is what

1:25:57 ↗ um what what do we have or I haven't

1:26:00 ↗ seen anything. Yeah. How has that been

1:26:02 ↗ been demonstrated because I haven't seen

1:26:05 ↗ that's been demonstrated.

1:26:07 ↗ So so that evaluation um dealing with

1:26:11 ↗ the infrastructure impacts was part of

1:26:13 ↗ the SEIPA review that was done. So, um,

1:26:19 ↗ the DNS that was issued, um, and the

1:26:22 ↗ file is

1:26:26 ↗ SCP17-00001. Um, the checklist and the

1:26:29 ↗ evaluation for that considered the

1:26:31 ↗ impacts on infrastructure. Um the only

1:26:35 ↗ issue that's worth noting is that uh the

1:26:39 ↗ traffic uh study that was provided with

1:26:42 ↗ the SEPA checklist was deemed um

1:26:45 ↗ inadequate by the city and the city and

1:26:48 ↗ the applicant discussed

1:26:51 ↗ um that that current traffic volumes

1:26:55 ↗ needed to be incorporated into the model

1:26:58 ↗ that was being run for these 100 units.

1:27:01 ↗ um so the existing background numbers

1:27:04 ↗ and so there's a note and it's note

1:27:06 ↗ number five on the uh DNS the

1:27:10 ↗ determination of non-significance that

1:27:12 ↗ set a performance standard uh for

1:27:16 ↗ um what the applicant needed to be able

1:27:19 ↗ to meet to be able to use these 100 TDR

1:27:23 ↗ units on the property that they want to

1:27:25 ↗ use them for. If that makes sense. Sorry

1:27:27 ↗ for that was a lot.

1:27:30 ↗ And so

1:27:32 ↗ um what would be the process then?

1:27:35 ↗ What's the public process for that for

1:27:37 ↗ when is that does that come back to the

1:27:39 ↗ council? Is that daylighted or is that

1:27:41 ↗ if this is

1:27:42 ↗ approved? Um how is that demonstrated to

1:27:45 ↗ us that um the standards are met in that

1:27:47 ↗ code section? Um so that's um I can't be

1:27:52 ↗ explicit about that answer because I

1:27:54 ↗ don't know what the solution is going to

1:27:56 ↗ be. If the solution includes some sort

1:27:59 ↗ of council action, then that would need

1:28:01 ↗ to come back to the council as a

1:28:03 ↗ separate ask um or as part of this

1:28:08 ↗ proceeding or some version of it. Um if

1:28:12 ↗ if though that solution that caused

1:28:16 ↗ traffic to work

1:28:19 ↗ um did not require additional council

1:28:21 ↗ action, then that would simply be

1:28:24 ↗ something that would be incorporated

1:28:26 ↗ into the preliminary plat to utilize

1:28:28 ↗ those 100 units.

1:28:37 ↗ Question for Jim. Um Jim, the

1:28:41 ↗ information tonight about um

1:28:43 ↗ specifically recording the the TDRs with

1:28:46 ↗ the site that I may have a bad memory.

1:28:49 ↗ That's new to me. So if that's already

1:28:52 ↗ there, why do we even have to do this

1:28:54 ↗ amendment? How does that if you looking

1:28:57 ↗ at the development agreement language,

1:28:59 ↗ if it's already registered on title, why

1:29:02 ↗ do we have to do anything?

1:29:04 ↗ Well, that's a good question. I because

1:29:06 ↗ the development agreement does not

1:29:09 ↗ provide or currently provides a a

1:29:12 ↗ certain number of units and this takes

1:29:15 ↗ you beyond that then yes I think you

1:29:16 ↗ need to amend the development agreement.

1:29:18 ↗ The question and again this argument is

1:29:21 ↗ new to me tonight that the certificate

1:29:26 ↗ itself has already approved those TDRs.

1:29:29 ↗ I don't know until I look at that

1:29:31 ↗ document exactly what how that that

1:29:34 ↗ factors in here. But the development

1:29:37 ↗ agreement amendment is required because

1:29:40 ↗ the development agreement provides only

1:29:43 ↗ for a certain number of units that have

1:29:47 ↗ been previously approved.

1:29:54 ↗ So,

1:30:02 ↗ Anyone else have a question before I go

1:30:05 ↗ back to Stacy?

1:30:07 ↗ Stacy.

1:30:16 ↗ Um so

1:30:18 ↗ um based on

1:30:22 ↗ the based on the um discussion that we

1:30:25 ↗ had at

1:30:26 ↗ uh Landon Shore and there was a lot of

1:30:30 ↗ discussion about affordable housing and

1:30:31 ↗ there was also some discussion tonight

1:30:33 ↗ about confusion about affordable housing

1:30:35 ↗ and also in um reading the code that was

1:30:39 ↗ referenced both by the applicant and by

1:30:41 ↗ um me tonight. Um I I'm going to make a

1:30:45 ↗ motion and we'll see where we go from

1:30:48 ↗ there. I move to continue the public

1:30:51 ↗ hearing to

1:30:56 ↗ um no later than 60 days from

1:31:00 ↗ now. And in the meantime that we remand

1:31:03 ↗ Agenda Bill 7215 back to land and shore

1:31:06 ↗ committee to uh number one specify how

1:31:10 ↗ the proposal complies with IMC 18 10

1:31:15 ↗ 2030

1:31:17 ↗ C4 which requires that the TDRs not

1:31:20 ↗ cause any existing or planned

1:31:21 ↗ infrastructure to have insufficient

1:31:23 ↗ capacity to handle the increased density

1:31:25 ↗ and second to provide further

1:31:28 ↗ information on refinement of the

1:31:29 ↗ affordable housing proposal. addressing

1:31:31 ↗ the concerns of the land and shore

1:31:33 ↗ committee and the public and council

1:31:34 ↗ members.

1:31:36 ↗ Second. It's moved and seconded. Uh,

1:31:40 ↗ additional discussion.

1:31:44 ↗ Mary Lou, I'm still really confused

1:31:46 ↗ about what we heard tonight about

1:31:48 ↗ registering it on the title and I maybe

1:31:50 ↗ it's not part of the motion, but somehow

1:31:53 ↗ there's some missing information here

1:31:54 ↗ that we never saw and we never discussed

1:31:56 ↗ and that needs to come back to landing

1:31:58 ↗ shore. So maybe that's not part of the

1:32:00 ↗ motion.

1:32:01 ↗ And so uh that's easy for the

1:32:04 ↗ administration to provide that uh uh uh

1:32:09 ↗ that information and uh a uh an opinion

1:32:14 ↗ on really what that means what it means.

1:32:16 ↗ Thank you

1:32:19 ↗ Stacy. Thank you. So um I made the

1:32:22 ↗ motion because um in looking at the so

1:32:25 ↗ it's um been suggested that um we are

1:32:28 ↗ sort of have to um accept the TDRs. This

1:32:32 ↗ is not um as Mary Lou said earlier sort

1:32:35 ↗ of a referendum on the TDR program. I

1:32:37 ↗ support the TDR program. I support the

1:32:40 ↗ purposes and the goals. It's a it's a

1:32:42 ↗ very good thing. Um uh I think the um

1:32:46 ↗ the concern is about you know what the

1:32:48 ↗ standard is. Um, and the standard seems

1:32:51 ↗ to be in the in the statute making sure

1:32:53 ↗ that the infrastructure can handle it.

1:32:55 ↗ Um, and an additional 77 may not sound

1:32:59 ↗ like a lot, but but we don't know. Like

1:33:01 ↗ I said, we have a development agreement

1:33:03 ↗ and the infrastructure is uh supposed to

1:33:06 ↗ be carefully matched to the density. And

1:33:08 ↗ um uh the the code um the TDR code

1:33:15 ↗ identifies not only what the standard is

1:33:17 ↗ and it als but it also identifies that

1:33:19 ↗ there needs to be a that modification

1:33:21 ↗ needs to be um part of the uh it is

1:33:24 ↗ identified in each uh development

1:33:26 ↗ agreement and the Isiqua Highlands urban

1:33:29 ↗ development urb the Isiqua Highlands

1:33:31 ↗ development agreement requires that a

1:33:32 ↗ major modification be approved by the

1:33:34 ↗ council and um I think it's the I

1:33:37 ↗ certainly feel that it's my

1:33:38 ↗ responsibility to make sure that the

1:33:40 ↗ proposal complies with the with the

1:33:42 ↗ specific provision of the TDR code um is

1:33:45 ↗ Squa Municipal Code that makes sure that

1:33:48 ↗ we watch out for the infrastructure

1:33:50 ↗ needs in the urban village. Um but it's

1:33:53 ↗ not about not agreeing with the TDR

1:33:54 ↗ program.

1:34:02 ↗ Paul, thank you Stacy for those uh

1:34:05 ↗ comments. I thought they were um well

1:34:06 ↗ spoken and and I I agree. Um the um the

1:34:10 ↗ packet in front of us today has a

1:34:12 ↗ proposed um both accept the uh agreement

1:34:16 ↗ or decline. We have language for both in

1:34:18 ↗ those and I know that the committee had

1:34:20 ↗ recommended to uh deny um uh the the

1:34:26 ↗ um amendment to the development

1:34:28 ↗ agreement. Um and um I think we've heard

1:34:32 ↗ uh this evening um a number of issues um

1:34:36 ↗ that we need clarification on. So, I

1:34:38 ↗ fully agree that and it is clear within

1:34:41 ↗ our code and the TDR statute. Uh, as

1:34:45 ↗ Stacy said and I and I think this is

1:34:47 ↗ very important that um to that um the

1:34:51 ↗ additional TDR units, you know, we

1:34:54 ↗ understand and that they that they um

1:34:57 ↗ either the infrastructure supports them

1:34:59 ↗ or um some um whether it be mitigated or

1:35:03 ↗ not that the the infrastructure has to

1:35:05 ↗ support them. So, I think we it's a very

1:35:07 ↗ important gate. Let's let I think I

1:35:09 ↗ think this council is at a place where

1:35:10 ↗ it needs to know what that's going to

1:35:12 ↗ be. Um and and so we're we're creating

1:35:15 ↗ some more time uh to get that

1:35:17 ↗ information. I would also add that that

1:35:20 ↗ the um um I know the committee had

1:35:22 ↗ conversations uh about uh the affordable

1:35:26 ↗ housing piece and yes, that is a piece

1:35:27 ↗ that is in flux uh here within the city.

1:35:31 ↗ uh and and um and yet um I think this

1:35:34 ↗ proposal um is um that that and I my

1:35:40 ↗ interpretation is that it would um add

1:35:43 ↗ 30 uh units at different levels of

1:35:46 ↗ affordability. Um that certainly is is a

1:35:49 ↗ benefit uh to the city. Uh and I and so

1:35:52 ↗ um I'm very interested in seeing if you

1:35:55 ↗ if uh a way to bring that benefit to the

1:35:58 ↗ city if we can do it, if we can absorb

1:35:59 ↗ that. But finally, just about the TDR

1:36:01 ↗ program. Um, uh, I appreciate the

1:36:04 ↗ comments we heard tonight. Um, whereas,

1:36:08 ↗ uh, I I'm I'm sympathetic to every

1:36:10 ↗ existing Isiqua resident who thinks, you

1:36:12 ↗ know, we've got congestion, we've got

1:36:14 ↗ build out, please don't add anymore. I'm

1:36:17 ↗ very sympathetic to that. uh and and at

1:36:20 ↗ another level um uh grow um this idea

1:36:25 ↗ that we have are adjacent to open space

1:36:29 ↗ and that we want to preserve that and

1:36:31 ↗ that preservation of open space um is

1:36:34 ↗ valuable to us. I'm glad that we've got

1:36:37 ↗ that into the conversation. I think that

1:36:39 ↗ was missing before. there is so and and

1:36:42 ↗ it might be hard for an existing

1:36:43 ↗ resident of the Highlands to say okay

1:36:45 ↗ that park point land is now preserved as

1:36:47 ↗ open space and that's a benefit that I

1:36:49 ↗ value um I I understand if you're

1:36:51 ↗ struggling with that but at a high level

1:36:53 ↗ policy level for Isiziqua for growth

1:36:56 ↗ management in general um that idea

1:36:59 ↗ preserving open space and taking that

1:37:01 ↗ those development rights and and

1:37:02 ↗ including that in the urban areas like

1:37:04 ↗ Isiziqua for greater density um that's a

1:37:07 ↗ core tenant and there was even a I

1:37:09 ↗ appreciate the refer reference tonight

1:37:11 ↗ uh uh about how um the growth management

1:37:14 ↗ act recognizes uh TDRs as an essential

1:37:17 ↗ tool for achieving these objectives. And

1:37:20 ↗ so um I would ask that my fellow

1:37:22 ↗ residents who who are realizing now that

1:37:24 ↗ we're going to re reconsider this

1:37:26 ↗ question to also keep in mind the

1:37:28 ↗ benefit of the preservation of open spa

1:37:30 ↗ open space. It's a benefit to not only

1:37:32 ↗ us, to all of us, and to future

1:37:35 ↗ generations. And and and that's a very

1:37:37 ↗ important element that I'm going to

1:37:38 ↗ consider as we go forward with this

1:37:40 ↗ issue. Thank you,

1:37:42 ↗ Mariah.

1:37:45 ↗ Thank you. Uh, I wanted to uh basically

1:37:50 ↗ to say that I support uh the amendment

1:37:52 ↗ and that I wanted to echo uh some of

1:37:55 ↗ what my fellow council members have

1:37:57 ↗ talked about that um um this is a

1:38:00 ↗ complicated issue. It involves a a lot

1:38:03 ↗ of different things, but we're we're

1:38:04 ↗ talking about a major modification to

1:38:06 ↗ the development agreement. And as we

1:38:09 ↗ start to talk this through um even more

1:38:12 ↗ that we than we have on land and shore,

1:38:15 ↗ uh there are a number of issues that I I

1:38:17 ↗ really do think we need more information

1:38:20 ↗ about. Um um is there this sufficient

1:38:25 ↗ infrastructure? Um and as we start to

1:38:27 ↗ talk a little bit more um maybe more

1:38:30 ↗ work that needs to be done in terms of

1:38:32 ↗ the affordable housing element. Uh I'm

1:38:35 ↗ very much in support of the TDR program

1:38:38 ↗ and and uh of course of affordable

1:38:40 ↗ housing and any sort of efforts in those

1:38:42 ↗ areas. Uh but I think that we need to uh

1:38:45 ↗ take a step back and uh get some more

1:38:47 ↗ information regarding some of those

1:38:49 ↗ issues. You

1:38:53 ↗ anyone else? Hola.

1:38:56 ↗ So I I mean I think you're hearing a

1:38:58 ↗ consensus uh around the deis that this

1:39:01 ↗ is not a uh this is not any sort of a

1:39:04 ↗ nimi reaction but really a uh wanting

1:39:07 ↗ clarity on some areas that are very

1:39:09 ↗ important. I'm struck by the fact that

1:39:11 ↗ um in the mayor's state of the city

1:39:12 ↗ address he said the most important issue

1:39:14 ↗ we have in front of us is traffic. And

1:39:16 ↗ so I feel that that's absolutely uh

1:39:19 ↗ correct and that it it leads us to

1:39:22 ↗ wanting to uh measure twice and cut

1:39:24 ↗ once. And so I am eager to see a little

1:39:26 ↗ bit more clarity around that and and

1:39:28 ↗ some of the other issues that have been

1:39:30 ↗ addressed here this evening before uh

1:39:32 ↗ being confident about uh being able to

1:39:34 ↗ support this. I I mean I'll be

1:39:36 ↗ supporting the amendment here this

1:39:37 ↗ evening but uh supporting the the the

1:39:39 ↗ larger issue. Thank you.

1:39:43 ↗ Um I too very much appreciate the TDR

1:39:46 ↗ program. It's done great things uh in

1:39:49 ↗ the area and and we want to continue to

1:39:51 ↗ work on that. I do think that we we have

1:39:53 ↗ some more information that we need to to

1:39:56 ↗ have uh before we make this decision. So

1:39:59 ↗ uh particularly as council member

1:40:02 ↗ um stated that was on the impacts that

1:40:07 ↗ we need to know what those are not guess

1:40:09 ↗ what they are but know have some more

1:40:10 ↗ facts on those. Uh the affordable

1:40:13 ↗ housing piece needs more definition

1:40:14 ↗ right now. It's kind of a side plate

1:40:16 ↗ issue. We need to have that wrapped up

1:40:18 ↗ and and and know what that is as well.

1:40:21 ↗ and and work through this. And I think

1:40:22 ↗ it's reasonable to say we need a little

1:40:24 ↗ more information in 60 days to get that

1:40:26 ↗ is uh I think reasonable and we

1:40:28 ↗ supporting this.

1:40:31 ↗ Anyone else?

1:40:34 ↗ Then the motion is to uh remand agenda

1:40:38 ↗ bill

1:40:41 ↗ 7215. Oh, just

1:40:46 ↗ this. Motion is to continue this public

1:40:50 ↗ hearing to April 17th, which is the

1:40:53 ↗ closest meeting to 60 days out. And in

1:40:58 ↗ the meantime that we send agenda bill

1:41:01 ↗ 7215 back to the land and shore

1:41:03 ↗ committee uh to uh evaluate

1:41:08 ↗ uh uh uh a how the proposal complies

1:41:13 ↗ with the Isqua Municipal Code 18.10.20.

1:41:17 ↗ 2030 point

1:41:19 ↗ C.4 point B which requires that the TDRs

1:41:23 ↗ not cause and any existing or planned

1:41:27 ↗ infrastructure to have insufficient

1:41:29 ↗ capacity to handle the increased density

1:41:32 ↗ and to provide further information and

1:41:35 ↗ refinement of the affordable housing

1:41:38 ↗ proposal addressing the concerns of the

1:41:40 ↗ land and shore committee and the public.

1:41:44 ↗ That was moved by council president uh

1:41:47 ↗ Goodman and seconded by uh council

1:41:50 ↗ member Winterstein. All those in favor

1:41:54 ↗ of the motion signify by saying I. I.

1:41:57 ↗ Those opposed. That carries unanimously.

1:42:04 ↗ Keith, you thought you were going to sit

1:42:06 ↗ down, but I believe our next agenda uh

1:42:09 ↗ item this evening under regular under

1:42:12 ↗ the public Hey, look, it's me again.

1:42:15 ↗ And I guess uh we'll close where we'll

1:42:19 ↗ continue the public hearing to April the

1:42:23 ↗ 17th. Uh uh with that agenda bill

1:42:27 ↗ 7291 consider additional extension to

1:42:31 ↗ temporary moratorum related to certain

1:42:33 ↗ permit applica. This is

1:42:37 ↗ uh a public hearing and we will begin

1:42:42 ↗ with a brief uh uh staff report on the

1:42:48 ↗ progress on the moratorum.

1:42:52 ↗ And uh Keith Nibbon, I guess you're

1:42:54 ↗ still the director of development

1:42:56 ↗ services, so if you would please

1:42:59 ↗ and economic development. Economic

1:43:01 ↗ development.

1:43:02 ↗ So um thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council

1:43:05 ↗ still here. Um sec second uh second

1:43:08 ↗ topic of the night. So

1:43:11 ↗ um just to again similar to the last

1:43:14 ↗ agenda bill um wanted to um kind of give

1:43:18 ↗ some context and some history uh so that

1:43:21 ↗ we can all kind of get back up to speed.

1:43:22 ↗ So the mortorium was initiated on the

1:43:24 ↗ 6th of September 2016 by ordinance. It

1:43:27 ↗ was an emergency moratorum. Um it was

1:43:30 ↗ amended on the 16th of November uh by

1:43:33 ↗ ordinance 2784 and that amendment added

1:43:36 ↗ an exclusion uh for small projects

1:43:39 ↗ consisting of four or fewer residential

1:43:42 ↗ units or non-residential development

1:43:44 ↗ including existing and new not to exceed

1:43:46 ↗ 3,000 square ft of total building area.

1:43:49 ↗ Um in addition um that uh ordinance 2784

1:43:54 ↗ set the six-month hearing uh to lift,

1:43:57 ↗ extend or amend the moratorum on

1:44:00 ↗ February 21st and that's

1:44:02 ↗ tonight. So the moratorum there were uh

1:44:05 ↗ six uh work items that were identified

1:44:08 ↗ architectural guidelines, urban design,

1:44:10 ↗ vertical mixuse, affordable housing,

1:44:12 ↗ parking and uh reooking at the district

1:44:14 ↗ visions. There are 10 within central

1:44:17 ↗ Isiqua. Um so here I thought I would

1:44:21 ↗ quickly kind of go through um kind of

1:44:23 ↗ where we are with each of these. So

1:44:26 ↗ architectural fit and urban design. I

1:44:28 ↗ actually married those two up as one

1:44:30 ↗ work item. They just the more I thought

1:44:32 ↗ about it, the more it seemed like um

1:44:35 ↗ they wanted to be handled by the same

1:44:36 ↗ kind of work effort. And so we issued an

1:44:39 ↗ RFP

1:44:41 ↗ um on that. And those were actually due

1:44:44 ↗ today at close of business. Um so when I

1:44:47 ↗ left the office um I had four um from

1:44:51 ↗ architectural firms, planning and

1:44:54 ↗ landscape architecture firms from

1:44:55 ↗ Seattle and Portland. Actually I think

1:44:57 ↗ there were two from Portland and two

1:44:58 ↗ from Seattle. Um

1:45:03 ↗ uh we are uh scheduled for consultant

1:45:07 ↗ interviews on Monday. Um and then from

1:45:10 ↗ March to June, we're going to go through

1:45:12 ↗ an outreach program, uh which includes a

1:45:15 ↗ lot of touches with the development

1:45:16 ↗ commission. Um and then this particular

1:45:19 ↗ project we expect will be done by

1:45:21 ↗ August. Vertical mixuse. Um to remind

1:45:24 ↗ you, um Eco Northwest, uh provided an

1:45:28 ↗ analysis of where we were, uh or where

1:45:31 ↗ we currently are in terms of having the

1:45:34 ↗ market bring, uh vertical mixuse to us

1:45:37 ↗ without any kind of additional

1:45:38 ↗ regulations or incentives. And if you

1:45:40 ↗ remember, there were a bunch of slanting

1:45:41 ↗ lines and the conclusion was we're about

1:45:45 ↗ 5 to 10 years away from the market

1:45:47 ↗ actually supporting vertical mixuse. So

1:45:50 ↗ what's been happening since then? um and

1:45:52 ↗ that was in September of last year is

1:45:56 ↗ staff have been working um both with our

1:45:58 ↗ consultant and having conversations with

1:46:00 ↗ the economic vitality commission. Um and

1:46:03 ↗ then we're going to go to uh Landon

1:46:06 ↗ Shore. There was an agenda bill on

1:46:07 ↗ tonight's consent agenda to go to Landon

1:46:09 ↗ Shore in March and that's really to walk

1:46:12 ↗ through basically three alternatives

1:46:14 ↗ that we've um that we've put together

1:46:16 ↗ and and go through the logic behind

1:46:18 ↗ those. Um and then we'll bring that back

1:46:20 ↗ to full council at a work session in

1:46:22 ↗ April and then we expect this item to be

1:46:25 ↗ done by September. Affordable housing.

1:46:28 ↗ Um coincidentally we used Eco Northwest

1:46:31 ↗ to provide an inventory of our existing

1:46:33 ↗ housing stock. And that was really just

1:46:36 ↗ to paint a picture of what we had and

1:46:38 ↗ what the trends look like we were going

1:46:39 ↗ to get over the next 20 years if

1:46:41 ↗ everything stayed the same to help us

1:46:43 ↗ really identify what are we missing. Um

1:46:46 ↗ we then started um discussions. We put

1:46:49 ↗ our economic vitality commission, our

1:46:50 ↗ planning policy commission, and our

1:46:52 ↗ human services commissions together as a

1:46:55 ↗ super commission, and they've met three

1:46:57 ↗ times to talk about um housing and

1:46:59 ↗ affordable housing um because they

1:47:02 ↗ represent different perspectives, and I

1:47:04 ↗ think it's really been a rich

1:47:05 ↗ conversation. Um we're going to start um

1:47:08 ↗ an online survey um and then do outreach

1:47:12 ↗ um from basically March to May with a

1:47:14 ↗ completion of this work item by

1:47:16 ↗ September. Parking is our quickest one.

1:47:19 ↗ And actually parking um it makes it's

1:47:22 ↗ actually fortuitous that it is the

1:47:24 ↗ quickest one uh because it could

1:47:26 ↗ potentially influence some of the other

1:47:28 ↗ items like vertical mixuse um and

1:47:32 ↗ architecture fit and urban design. So,

1:47:34 ↗ parking, uh, there was an RFQ sent out,

1:47:36 ↗ um, and those are due, uh, the 28th, so

1:47:40 ↗ next week. Um, and then we go from to

1:47:43 ↗ consultant interviews and basically have

1:47:45 ↗ them develop a report. And that report

1:47:48 ↗ is really looking at two things. One,

1:47:50 ↗ are we right parked? In other words, are

1:47:52 ↗ we underparked or overparked in central

1:47:54 ↗ Isiqua? And the second is is should we

1:47:57 ↗ be mandating any percentage of

1:48:00 ↗ structured parking as part of any

1:48:02 ↗ redevelopment project. So those are

1:48:04 ↗ really two very clear questions I think

1:48:06 ↗ we're looking to have answered with

1:48:08 ↗ parking. And then last, as I mentioned

1:48:10 ↗ earlier, the district visions or the

1:48:12 ↗ neighborhood visions. There's 10

1:48:13 ↗ neighborhoods in central Isiqua. We've

1:48:15 ↗ started um by having focus group

1:48:18 ↗ conversations within each neighborhood

1:48:20 ↗ um with property owners and businesses.

1:48:22 ↗ And we're we're um we don't have a date

1:48:25 ↗ yet, but we're planning to get the

1:48:27 ↗ centraliz plan task force back together

1:48:31 ↗ um to talk about uh the district visions

1:48:33 ↗ and what we've seen uh over the past

1:48:35 ↗ four years. Um and that's really going

1:48:38 ↗ to happen between February and April uh

1:48:41 ↗ with public meetings then going moving

1:48:43 ↗ into April and then kind of continuing

1:48:46 ↗ in through May to August. So, so because

1:48:49 ↗ this one is mostly about hearing what

1:48:51 ↗ the community thinks about these sub

1:48:53 ↗ areas within central Isiqua, it's a lot

1:48:55 ↗ of public outreach. It's a lot of

1:48:57 ↗ talking to the community and the

1:48:58 ↗ community has so many different voices.

1:49:00 ↗ There's there's the property owners, the

1:49:02 ↗ businesses, the residents, and then the

1:49:04 ↗ bigger community and what they think

1:49:05 ↗ these areas are. So, it's a lot of

1:49:07 ↗ outreach. And this is why this one um

1:49:10 ↗ is, even though this arrow is shorter

1:49:13 ↗ than some others, this one's actually

1:49:14 ↗ the longest one. And we don't expect to

1:49:17 ↗ be done with this one till November. So

1:49:19 ↗ this is where we are. Um

1:49:22 ↗ uh and that's the end of my brief

1:49:24 ↗ presentation.

1:49:28 ↗ Oh well. So what does it mean that only

1:49:32 ↗ two of the five would be done by the

1:49:34 ↗ time that this next six months is up?

1:49:39 ↗ [Laughter]

1:49:41 ↗ Well, um, it means that you guys have a

1:49:45 ↗ hard decision if you want to lift the

1:49:46 ↗ moratorum at that

1:49:49 ↗ point. I mean, so that's what I thought

1:49:51 ↗ it might mean. So, so um, so part of

1:49:55 ↗ so there's we're running in these kind

1:49:58 ↗ of six-month kind of cycles, right? And

1:50:00 ↗ so

1:50:02 ↗ um you know there some of these will be

1:50:05 ↗ done and some of them will

1:50:06 ↗ be pretty well baked um but maybe not

1:50:09 ↗ fully baked. Um the question is for you

1:50:12 ↗ guys I think I think it's a pretty easy

1:50:13 ↗ question tonight. My guess is you're

1:50:15 ↗ probably not inclined to lift the

1:50:16 ↗ mortorium. Um but in six months um when

1:50:20 ↗ we have some of these done and some of

1:50:22 ↗ them almost done there might be a

1:50:24 ↗ different conversation.

1:50:27 ↗ So, I'm going to go ahead and uh take

1:50:30 ↗ public testimony now. Uh the public

1:50:33 ↗ hearing is opened at uh

1:50:36 ↗ 8:52. Has anyone uh signed up to speak?

1:50:40 ↗ Yes, Todd Baxter.

1:50:47 ↗ I'm Todd Baxter with Windmir Real Estate

1:50:49 ↗ out of Isiqua and I have a client who I

1:50:52 ↗ represent who has a property in Isiqua

1:50:55 ↗ now and he due to a medical condition

1:50:58 ↗ was not able to be here. So he wrote a

1:51:01 ↗ letter that um he wanted asked me to

1:51:04 ↗ come in and read. Um dear Isakiqua City

1:51:08 ↗ Council, my name is Dr. David Hildrth.

1:51:11 ↗ I'm writing a request that you do not

1:51:13 ↗ extend the current building moratorum. I

1:51:15 ↗ owned the property located at 2300

1:51:18 ↗ Newport Way Northwest. I operated Lake

1:51:21 ↗ Seamish Veterinary Hospital there for

1:51:23 ↗ over three decades. I really enjoyed

1:51:26 ↗ caring for all the animals in Isiqua

1:51:28 ↗ community. My daughter and her husband

1:51:30 ↗ and children currently live at this

1:51:32 ↗ address. Before the current moratorium

1:51:34 ↗ was in place, I'd been actively trying

1:51:36 ↗ to sell this property. I have a buyer

1:51:38 ↗ under contract, but everything had to be

1:51:40 ↗ put on hold due to the moratorum. My

1:51:44 ↗ health is precarious and I would like to

1:51:46 ↗ complete the sale of this property for

1:51:48 ↗ the sake of my family. We are surrounded

1:51:51 ↗ by the gate gateway project on all

1:51:53 ↗ sides. Allowing my property to be

1:51:56 ↗ developed will add safety for

1:51:58 ↗ pedestrians such as sidewalks and

1:52:00 ↗ decrease traffic delays. The development

1:52:03 ↗ of my property fits in with the existing

1:52:06 ↗ city plan and will allow this area of

1:52:08 ↗ the city to be completed for the

1:52:10 ↗ community. I am requesting an exemption

1:52:13 ↗ for any properties that either had a

1:52:16 ↗ pre-application media meeting prior to

1:52:19 ↗ the moratorum or were already under

1:52:21 ↗ contract at the time of the moratorum or

1:52:24 ↗ replace the current moratorum with a new

1:52:25 ↗ plan once it is ready with no surprises

1:52:29 ↗ to the city residents. Sincerely, David

1:52:32 ↗ Hilddrth.

1:52:34 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. Is

1:52:37 ↗ there anyone who has not signed up

1:52:40 ↗ desiring to

1:52:41 ↗ speak? Anyone desiring to speak? Third

1:52:45 ↗ and Oh, wait. Do you have someone else?

1:52:46 ↗ I do. I'm sorry. Steve Carrera.

1:52:51 ↗ Steve you're

1:52:54 ↗ back. Wow. Indeed. Uh, so Steve,

1:52:59 ↗ everything else is still the same. Uh,

1:53:01 ↗ so a couple things struck me. one again

1:53:03 ↗ I referenced earlier policy planning

1:53:05 ↗ commission is only dealing at this point

1:53:07 ↗ with eight of 17 uh planning items that

1:53:10 ↗ are think are part of who we want to be

1:53:12 ↗ as IUA as is and those aren't even going

1:53:15 ↗ to be looked at until next year. In

1:53:17 ↗ addition the

1:53:19 ↗ um I guess six initial but five listed

1:53:22 ↗ here items aren't even going to be

1:53:24 ↗ completed until November. uh it seems a

1:53:28 ↗ no-brainer that we should continue the

1:53:29 ↗ mortorium pause at least for another six

1:53:32 ↗ months and I would propose even beyond

1:53:34 ↗ then but I'm sure that will receive more

1:53:35 ↗ discussion so in brief again yes please

1:53:38 ↗ continue the

1:53:39 ↗ moratorum thank you

1:53:42 ↗ has anyone else signed up to speak

1:53:47 ↗ uh

1:53:49 ↗ yes Lindsay Walsh still the same um I'm

1:53:53 ↗ concerned with the idea of setting a

1:53:56 ↗ six-month timeline on this when as we

1:54:00 ↗ have stated the the work that needs to

1:54:03 ↗ be done in order to figure out what

1:54:06 ↗ decisions need to be made at the end of

1:54:07 ↗ that obviously won't be completed and I

1:54:10 ↗ I really just don't feel like there is a

1:54:14 ↗ clear sense of what those decisions need

1:54:17 ↗ to be. Um the summary statement says

1:54:22 ↗ prior to 6 months expiring the city

1:54:24 ↗ council must consider whether the

1:54:25 ↗ moratorum should be expired, extended or

1:54:27 ↗ lifted. It it does

1:54:31 ↗ not clearly I believe

1:54:36 ↗ delineate the decision makers in any of

1:54:38 ↗ those and whether or not those there is

1:54:42 ↗ a requirement that any of those are

1:54:44 ↗ completed. I just feel like there should

1:54:46 ↗ be

1:54:47 ↗ more clarity there in looking at that

1:54:50 ↗ six-month timeline in expecting to start

1:54:54 ↗ at this point considering we've already

1:54:56 ↗ had that um period

1:54:59 ↗ previously. Thank you. Thank

1:55:03 ↗ you. Anyone else desiring to speak who's

1:55:05 ↗ not signed up? Anyone else? Third and

1:55:09 ↗ final call. Anyone else? Seeing none,

1:55:12 ↗ then the public hearing is closed at uh

1:55:19 ↗ 856.

1:55:21 ↗ Uh Keith, you're back. Just to see if

1:55:24 ↗ there's any questions,

1:55:26 ↗ questions or

1:55:28 ↗ discussion. Stacy, thanks. Um we just

1:55:32 ↗ get some clarity um just because we've

1:55:34 ↗ had a question and just to make sure we

1:55:36 ↗ um council understands. So the um what

1:55:40 ↗ are the options? Um and this is probably

1:55:43 ↗ a question for Jim. What are the options

1:55:45 ↗ tonight is can uh could the council so

1:55:49 ↗ the question has been raised about six

1:55:50 ↗ months. Could the council for example

1:55:53 ↗ extend for shorter for longer? Um

1:55:58 ↗ the council can extend for shorter. It

1:56:00 ↗ cannot extend for longer than six

1:56:02 ↗ months. Um, under the state law, a

1:56:06 ↗ moratorum, if you're doing a moratorum

1:56:09 ↗ initially, you can make it for one year

1:56:12 ↗ as long as you have a work plan. In this

1:56:15 ↗ case, the moratorum was adopted for six

1:56:17 ↗ months because we didn't have a work

1:56:18 ↗ plan at the time you initially adopted

1:56:20 ↗ it. After the initial adoption, you can

1:56:24 ↗ then extend it in six-month increments,

1:56:26 ↗ but no longer than six months. and you

1:56:29 ↗ have to hold an additional public

1:56:30 ↗ hearing prior to extending it once

1:56:32 ↗ again.

1:56:34 ↗ And in a followup, um, if we get

1:56:37 ↗ to the toward the end of the six months,

1:56:40 ↗ can it can you could the council adopt a

1:56:44 ↗ shorter than six-month period if it

1:56:46 ↗ wanted to extend? Absolutely. Um the

1:56:50 ↗ ordinance that you have in front of you

1:56:51 ↗ says 6 months or until you amend

1:56:55 ↗ um adopt permanent regulations whatever

1:56:58 ↗ you want to do.

1:57:01 ↗ Other questions or discussion

1:57:05 ↗ Stacy? I would move to adopt ordinance

1:57:10 ↗ number

1:57:12 ↗ sorry it's

1:57:16 ↗ 2793 adopting findings and extending the

1:57:18 ↗ moratorum established by ordinance

1:57:20 ↗ number 2778 as amended by ordinance

1:57:23 ↗ number 2784 for an addition additional 6

1:57:27 ↗ months commencing March 6, 2017 and

1:57:30 ↗ ending September 6, 2017 providing for

1:57:33 ↗ severability declaring an emergency and

1:57:35 ↗ establish lishing an effective date.

1:57:38 ↗ Second. Moved and seconded. Additional

1:57:40 ↗ discussion or questions.

1:57:44 ↗ Stacy. Um I just want to um acknowledge

1:57:48 ↗ and commend um the work that the staff

1:57:50 ↗ done is already that the staff has done

1:57:53 ↗ already to come up with a work plan. Um

1:57:55 ↗ that looks like a very simple chart that

1:57:58 ↗ has had a lot of work go into it. um and

1:58:01 ↗ we've since seen um that the background

1:58:04 ↗ information in very various iterations

1:58:07 ↗ and it has not been a small task and I

1:58:09 ↗ want to thank you for all the work that

1:58:10 ↗ you've done so far. Thank you.

1:58:13 ↗ Other questions or discussion?

1:58:17 ↗ All those one comment

1:58:20 ↗ um it's actually more about the other

1:58:22 ↗ comment that we received this evening

1:58:24 ↗ and um I know that there are some

1:58:25 ↗ exception uh in the moratorum especially

1:58:28 ↗ for the uh subplatting small um units

1:58:33 ↗ and I'm wondering if um I just would ask

1:58:35 ↗ that someone could follow up with the

1:58:37 ↗ gentleman who spoke to see if indeed

1:58:39 ↗ their property may qualify already for

1:58:41 ↗ an existing exemption.

1:58:43 ↗ We will follow up.

1:58:46 ↗ I'll just read it again. There's a lot

1:58:48 ↗ of work here and there's been a lot done

1:58:50 ↗ and a lot to do and uh really appreciate

1:58:53 ↗ that and and getting to it. Also

1:58:55 ↗ recognizing the fact that there are a

1:58:57 ↗ number of people that are having a

1:58:59 ↗ hardship due to this and uh appreciate

1:59:01 ↗ we're getting to it as fast as we can

1:59:02 ↗ and I think we're doing that but at the

1:59:04 ↗ same time we have to do it right. That's

1:59:05 ↗ why we did this. So thank you.

1:59:09 ↗ Thank you. Additional

1:59:12 ↗ questions? Seeing none, then all those

1:59:14 ↗ in favor of adopting ordinance number

1:59:17 ↗ 2793 as outlined in the agenda bill.

1:59:25 ↗ You signify by saying I.

1:59:28 ↗ Signify by saying I. Please signify by

1:59:31 ↗ saying

1:59:33 ↗ I. I. Those opposed.

1:59:38 ↗ Thank you, Stacy. Welcome. I uh suggest

1:59:41 ↗ that uh we uh we take a short 10-minute

1:59:44 ↗ uh break before we uh move to agenda

1:59:49 ↗ bill

1:59:50 ↗ 7219. So, please be back in your seats

1:59:53 ↗ at 11 minutes after 9. Thank you.

1:59:59 ↗ You're welcome. Fell asleep there for a

2:00:02 ↗ minute. Okay.

2:02:12 ↗ We are back in regular session. Uh our

2:02:16 ↗ next item under regular business is

2:02:18 ↗ agenda bill

2:02:19 ↗ 7219 Gilman Lofts three trails

2:02:22 ↗ development agreement. And uh uh Keith

2:02:26 ↗ again will you kick it off with a short

2:02:29 ↗ presentation? This one's very short. So,

2:02:32 ↗ we've been talking about this. If y'all

2:02:34 ↗ remember, um the applicant um came

2:02:38 ↗ forward to the city council and asked

2:02:40 ↗ for um the city to allow this project to

2:02:44 ↗ move forward during the moratorum and um

2:02:49 ↗ ultimately resulted in a proposal for a

2:02:52 ↗ development agreement which then has

2:02:54 ↗ been discussed at land and shore for a

2:02:56 ↗ number of months. So all we're doing

2:02:58 ↗ this evening is um is I'm going to kind

2:03:02 ↗ of go through my one slide uh which is

2:03:05 ↗ what the proposal is and what I think

2:03:07 ↗ the action is for this evening. So the

2:03:09 ↗ proposal is a partnering agreement for

2:03:11 ↗ the construction of a signalized

2:03:13 ↗ intersection of Gilman Boulevard at the

2:03:16 ↗ Juniper intersection. Um it's also to

2:03:19 ↗ enter into a development agreement with

2:03:21 ↗ the applicant that would allow the

2:03:22 ↗ project to move forward in advance of

2:03:25 ↗ lifting the moratorum. And there's

2:03:27 ↗ reasons why that's important to the

2:03:29 ↗ applicant and economically makes um

2:03:32 ↗ number one under the proposal make

2:03:34 ↗ sense. So the action for this evening I

2:03:36 ↗ think simply is to schedule the public

2:03:39 ↗ hearing for the 6th of March um and then

2:03:41 ↗ to consider the proposed development

2:03:43 ↗ agreement which is attached to the

2:03:45 ↗ agenda bill. Uh thank you council

2:03:48 ↗ president Goodman.

2:03:51 ↗ I would move to direct the

2:03:52 ↗ administration to

2:03:55 ↗ prepare

2:03:58 ↗ resolution approving the proposed

2:04:00 ↗ development

2:04:04 ↗ agreement. Hold on one second.

2:04:07 ↗ Y second.

2:04:11 ↗ Is there anything else you'd like to

2:04:12 ↗ offer at this time, Keith?

2:04:15 ↗ Some words of

2:04:16 ↗ silence.

2:04:18 ↗ No, I think I'm good. I'm flipping open

2:04:21 ↗ the um the agenda bill. So, if I can be

2:04:24 ↗ of assistance on the screen, is the is

2:04:27 ↗ the hearing to be on the 6th or the

2:04:29 ↗ 20th? Uh I believe the hearing could be

2:04:31 ↗ should be on the 6th and then back to

2:04:33 ↗ the council.

2:04:36 ↗ Can I interject that we may have missed

2:04:40 ↗ our opportunity for noticing on the 6th

2:04:43 ↗ as it's Tuesday night and for our

2:04:46 ↗ publication requirements they would have

2:04:49 ↗ needed documentation of the hearing

2:04:51 ↗ today. So I believe that's why the

2:04:53 ↗ agenda bill references the 20th.

2:05:05 ↗ Right. I would direct the administration

2:05:07 ↗ to prepare a resolution approving the

2:05:09 ↗ proposed development agreement and

2:05:11 ↗ schedule the related public hearing for

2:05:13 ↗ the March 20, 2017 city council meeting.

2:05:16 ↗ Second. Moved and seconded. Questions or

2:05:20 ↗ discussion? Mary Lou. Just a comment. Um

2:05:23 ↗ I can't remember Keith. Did you include

2:05:26 ↗ in the update what what the vote was out

2:05:28 ↗ of landed shore because it wasn't

2:05:29 ↗ unanimous.

2:05:31 ↗ Um, two to one. It's in the agenda bill.

2:05:33 ↗ Okay. Thanks.

2:05:39 ↗ Hola. I want to make sure I understand

2:05:42 ↗ what we would we wouldn't be actually

2:05:45 ↗ moving forward with anything tonight

2:05:47 ↗ except the next step towards potentially

2:05:50 ↗ doing this because I'll have lots of

2:05:52 ↗ questions before the council actually

2:05:53 ↗ has to decide here. Nay. I think all

2:05:57 ↗ we're doing is scheduling the public

2:05:59 ↗ hearing and I'm still a little bit

2:06:01 ↗ um remiss about the date

2:06:05 ↗ um that we talked about some

2:06:07 ↗ alternatives.

2:06:10 ↗ All right. Thank you. Other questions or

2:06:13 ↗ discussion? All those in favor of uh

2:06:16 ↗ directing the administration to prepare

2:06:18 ↗ a resolution approving the proposed

2:06:20 ↗ development agreement and schedule the

2:06:21 ↗ related public hearing for the March

2:06:23 ↗ 20th, 2017 city council meeting. Signify

2:06:27 ↗ by saying I. I. Those opposed? That

2:06:30 ↗ carries unanimously. Moving now to good

2:06:34 ↗ of the

2:06:35 ↗ order. Uh anyone have anything for good

2:06:39 ↗ of the order this evening?

2:06:43 ↗ Seeing none, then uh we will now move

2:06:46 ↗ into executive session for the purpose

2:06:49 ↗ of discussing property acquisition for

2:06:55 ↗ RCW42.30.110

2:06:57 ↗ pernb and collective bargaining per

2:07:03 ↗ RCW42.30.140

2:07:05 ↗ PN4. These items are expected to take

2:07:07 ↗ approximately 70 minutes. Action is

2:07:11 ↗ anticipated to follow in open session.

2:08:01 ↗ We are back in uh regular session at uh

2:08:10 ↗ 10:27. Council member Martz. Mr. Mayor,

2:08:13 ↗ I move that we authorize the mayor to

2:08:15 ↗ execute a revision to the purchase and

2:08:17 ↗ sale agreement for the King County roads

2:08:19 ↗ property in order to reduce the purchase

2:08:21 ↗ price by $100,000 and to authorize

2:08:24 ↗ proceeding with the low bid for

2:08:26 ↗ remediation on the roads property in an

2:08:28 ↗ amount not to exceed $100,000. Second.

2:08:32 ↗ Moved and seconded. Any questions or

2:08:35 ↗ discussion? Yes question. So, I was

2:08:38 ↗ googling around a little and I'm not a

2:08:40 ↗ lawyer, but there is some stuff on the

2:08:42 ↗ AG site that talks about

2:08:45 ↗ um properties of sale between

2:08:48 ↗ governments and it talks specifically

2:08:52 ↗ specifically about selling properties

2:08:55 ↗ for full

2:08:56 ↗ value

2:08:58 ↗ and let me find

2:09:01 ↗ it. Making governments fully accountable

2:09:03 ↗ for their property. ensuring that the

2:09:05 ↗ resources allocated by law to one

2:09:07 ↗ government are not used to subsidize the

2:09:08 ↗ activities of a different government.

2:09:11 ↗ Still have concerns that we haven't

2:09:12 ↗ examined that avenue of law carefully

2:09:15 ↗ enough and that that's my concern with

2:09:18 ↗ this ask

2:09:23 ↗ tonight. You may be able to Yes, that

2:09:26 ↗ statute I am familiar with. That's the

2:09:28 ↗ state accountancy act. It basically says

2:09:31 ↗ that one government agency cannot

2:09:34 ↗ subsidize another government agency. The

2:09:37 ↗ theory being that taxpayers of one

2:09:39 ↗ jurisdiction should not be subsidizing

2:09:42 ↗ the activities of another jurisdiction.

2:09:44 ↗ But that I think if if if King County

2:09:49 ↗ wanted to assert a larger purchase price

2:09:54 ↗ for the roads property on that basis,

2:09:56 ↗ you know, they should have done so. But

2:09:58 ↗ that doesn't prohibit the city from

2:10:01 ↗ purchasing the property for the county

2:10:03 ↗ for what the county has offered it to

2:10:05 ↗ the city for. And uh if the city decides

2:10:09 ↗ at some future point to sell a portion

2:10:12 ↗ of the property for receiving the full

2:10:14 ↗ value which the city would be required

2:10:16 ↗ to receive.

2:10:18 ↗ County can do something wrong.

2:10:21 ↗ Interesting. Other questions or

2:10:23 ↗ discussion?

2:10:31 ↗ All those in favor of uh authorizing the

2:10:35 ↗ mayor to execute a revision to the

2:10:36 ↗ purchase and sales agreement for the

2:10:38 ↗ King County Roads property in order to

2:10:41 ↗ reduce the purchase price by

2:10:44 ↗ $100,000 and to authorize proceeding

2:10:47 ↗ with the low bid for reiation on the

2:10:50 ↗ roads property in an amount not to

2:10:53 ↗ exceed $100,000. signify by saying I I

2:10:57 ↗ those opposed that

2:11:01 ↗ that uh that passes by a vote of six

2:11:10 ↗ two five to two with uh council member

2:11:13 ↗ Paulie and Barbara Goodman and Goodman

2:11:17 ↗ declining.

2:11:21 ↗ Okay. Council Pine Goodman. I would

2:11:24 ↗ author I would make a motion to

2:11:25 ↗ authorize the acquisition of land and

2:11:28 ↗ temporary construction easement for an

2:11:30 ↗ amount of

2:11:31 ↗ $47,100 for the purpose of building the

2:11:33 ↗ Southeast 62nd Street Road and Bridge.

2:11:37 ↗ Second.

2:11:39 ↗ Got a motion that has been made and

2:11:44 ↗ seconded. Any discussion on the motion?

2:11:47 ↗ Seeing none, then all those in favor of

2:11:49 ↗ authorizing the acquisition of land and

2:11:51 ↗ temporary construction easement for

2:11:52 ↗ amount of

2:11:54 ↗ 47,100 for the purpose of building the

2:11:56 ↗ Southeast 62nd Street Road and Bridge

2:12:00 ↗ project, signify by saying I. I. Those

2:12:04 ↗ opposed. That carries unanimously. There

2:12:07 ↗ being no further business uh uh this

2:12:11 ↗ evening, we are adjourned.

2:12:19 ↗ You should have taken

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein