City Council Special Meeting · Thursday, December 5, 2019 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Appeal of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Decide Appeal Appeal No. APP19-00006 | Appeal by Providence Point Umbrella Association of the Final Determination of Non-Significance for Amendments – File No. SEP19-0009 issaquahwa.gov/dec2appeal for appeal materials.] AB 7877

Carried 5-2

packet pp.3–9

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

n/a

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Barbara de Michele, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Reh, Goodman

Executive Session (if needed)

2463 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ [Music]

0:11 ↗ good evening all I'm going to open the

0:13 ↗ City Council special meeting of Thursday

0:15 ↗ December 5th there is only one agenda

0:18 ↗ item this evening it is a b7 877 the

0:22 ↗ state Environmental Policy Act appeal of

0:25 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning map

0:27 ↗ amendments it is a quasi judicial

0:30 ↗ proceeding the council asked this

0:33 ↗ evening is to make a decision on the

0:35 ↗ appeal so as we open the CEPA appeal

0:48 ↗ this evening this quasi judicial hearing

0:50 ↗ this is an appeal by Providence Point

0:52 ↗ umbrella Association of the final

0:53 ↗ determination of non significance for

0:55 ↗ the 2019 comprehensive planning zoning

0:58 ↗ amendments file number S EP 19000 9 in

1:04 ↗ Monday's meeting the first portion of

1:06 ↗ this hearing there was a general

1:08 ↗ overview of proceedings and many of the

1:10 ↗ items all the way through closing

1:11 ↗ arguments were completed the task this

1:15 ↗ evening for council is the deliberation

1:16 ↗ and decision so this is a continuation

1:18 ↗ from our Monday evening meeting and I'm

1:22 ↗ going to hand over the chair for this to

1:25 ↗ the council for our City Council this

1:27 ↗ evening ray liao Thank You mayor if you

1:34 ↗ want to go ahead and put on the next

1:35 ↗ slide that would be helpful so so at

1:42 ↗ this point the council needs to make

1:44 ↗ their deliberations with regards to this

1:47 ↗ appeal as we stated on Monday night the

1:50 ↗ record has been closed and so at this

1:53 ↗ point in time the council will be going

1:57 ↗ through the process of deliberations and

2:01 ↗ doing each of really these four things

2:04 ↗ listed in these on this slide so what I

2:09 ↗ recommend that before you start diving

2:12 ↗ into the details of the people

2:14 ↗ proceeding itself is to actually just

2:15 ↗ confirm the record to make sure that we

2:18 ↗ understand all the materials and

2:19 ↗ everyone's on the same page with respect

2:20 ↗ to what that consists of

2:22 ↗ and then as required by code and by law

2:26 ↗ at some point in throughout this process

2:28 ↗ the the council needs to reach findings

2:32 ↗ effects as well as conclusions of law

2:35 ↗ with respect to the issues that have

2:37 ↗ been presented by the opponents in this

2:39 ↗ appeal in conjunction with those

2:44 ↗ conclusions of law as a recommendation

2:47 ↗ putting a few bullet points up here that

2:50 ↗ it would probably be helpful to discuss

2:51 ↗ the standard of review through the

2:54 ↗ outside of discussion of what those

2:56 ↗ conclusions of law you might get to as

2:58 ↗ well as the appeal issues themselves

3:01 ↗ because that essentially focuses the

3:03 ↗ scope of what you should be deliberating

3:04 ↗ and there's actually another slide that

3:06 ↗ that highlights those that will help

3:08 ↗ keep you on track and then at the point

3:11 ↗ at which you are ready to reach your

3:13 ↗ ultimate decision there's a final slide

3:16 ↗ that gives you those those options of

3:17 ↗ what you have to do so

3:19 ↗ so with that maybe start with just

3:22 ↗ confirming everyone's understanding of

3:24 ↗ the record and if it's helpful I'll just

3:28 ↗ reference the materials that the city

3:31 ↗ clerk has made available in the agenda

3:34 ↗ fortunately for all of you all of the

3:37 ↗ exhibits that were pre filed by the

3:39 ↗ parties had been stipulated to a to

3:42 ↗ admission and so all of those exhibits I

3:45 ↗ just realized I don't have them in front

3:47 ↗ of me but they're all they're all

3:48 ↗ numbered by C for the city P for

3:51 ↗ Providence Point and then asked for the

3:54 ↗ school district there was one addition a

3:56 ↗ seven which is what that did that make

3:59 ↗ it online as well now yeah so all of

4:02 ↗ those exhibits are part of your record

4:04 ↗ in addition the testimony of the parties

4:09 ↗ that we heard on on Monday night those

4:13 ↗ are all as well evidence in the record

4:15 ↗ and then of course the briefing by the

4:18 ↗ parties which is also available via the

4:21 ↗ clerk's posting as well as the the

4:24 ↗ appeal statement itself maybe I can just

4:27 ↗ ask is there anything that counsel you

4:30 ↗ believe I missed and just helping recess

4:32 ↗ recite with the record consists of

4:35 ↗ yeah so the pre-hearing briefs from each

4:39 ↗ of the parties is included in that as

4:43 ↗ well as their what was it and when they

4:47 ↗ responded that more incorrect their

4:49 ↗ replies yeah and are those in the record

4:53 ↗ Tina I don't remember I don't see them

4:59 ↗ linked off of there but they are not

5:04 ↗ part of they are part of the record they

5:07 ↗ but you do not have a direct link to

5:10 ↗ that okay thank you actually

5:12 ↗ no there's not okay and if if anyone

5:17 ↗ needs to reference those during your

5:19 ↗ deliberations do we still have card

5:22 ↗ copies of those available I have it

5:24 ↗ electronically for display okay other

5:29 ↗ questions about the record itself just

5:34 ↗ we have to talk about any of the

5:36 ↗ authority that's part of the record or

5:39 ↗ any other citations to any of you the

5:42 ↗ legal citations that the party cited and

5:44 ↗ their briefing or as referenced in the

5:47 ↗ exhibits are part of the record by

5:50 ↗ virtue of the parties having submitted

5:52 ↗ them so those as I let you all know that

5:57 ↗ those those those cases and links to the

6:03 ↗ statutes regulations and city code have

6:06 ↗ been provided to you because I know you

6:08 ↗ all don't necessarily have access to

6:10 ↗ those exciting cases unless you have

6:15 ↗ Westlaw accounts that I don't know about

6:16 ↗ so so unless there's any further

6:23 ↗ discussion on their record at I'm gonna

6:29 ↗ mostly turn this over to you all at this

6:30 ↗ point to discuss what the council feels

6:35 ↗ to be those issues of fact that are

6:37 ↗ effectively relevant to reaching your

6:39 ↗ decision I'm doing this with the

6:42 ↗ assumption that that most likely by the

6:45 ↗ end of this evening you will ask me to

6:47 ↗ write this decision for you

6:49 ↗ so I will be doing my best to take good

6:51 ↗ notes as you discuss those issues and as

6:54 ↗ you are discussing those please feel

6:56 ↗ free to ask me questions along the way I

7:00 ↗ guess I can start by saying other

7:02 ↗ questions at this point about about

7:04 ↗ trying to kick off this discussion at

7:06 ↗ least from this perspective of

7:08 ↗ identifying findings of fact do you have

7:12 ↗ suggestions about how we would yeah so

7:16 ↗ generally speaking in a decision such as

7:19 ↗ this it's not necessary to identify

7:21 ↗ absolutely every fact that was presented

7:24 ↗ into the record that is the record in of

7:26 ↗ itself but what was which is typically

7:29 ↗ helpful particularly as I try to

7:31 ↗ document this for you all any of the

7:34 ↗ issues that potentially were in dispute

7:37 ↗ or in question by the parties you know

7:39 ↗ might just be helpful almost to go

7:40 ↗ through in some ways that chronology

7:43 ↗ each of the parties and their briefs you

7:47 ↗ know presented their own version of the

7:49 ↗ facts as I'll say it that might be a

7:52 ↗ helpful start place to start is to

7:54 ↗ determine and at least in each of their

7:56 ↗ respective summary of the facts if

7:57 ↗ there's anything as a council that you

7:59 ↗ think that would be worthwhile

8:00 ↗ discussing with each other with respect

8:02 ↗ to resolving any any issues of concern

8:05 ↗ or dispute or even questions that you

8:07 ↗ have of each other with respect to the

8:09 ↗ evidence that you've collectively been

8:11 ↗ prevented as relevant to this appeal

8:19 ↗ and you don't have to do it in this

8:22 ↗ order you can also just jump right to

8:23 ↗ some of the issues but legal issues that

8:27 ↗ have been raised in this appeal perfect

8:29 ↗ and and you can kind of go back and

8:31 ↗ forth and I can help tease those out as

8:33 ↗ you guys are discussing at least in my

8:34 ↗ notes so I can make sure to capture

8:35 ↗ those effectively and in your ultimate

8:38 ↗ decision you can please speak freely to

8:45 ↗ each other what I was gonna say is I

8:54 ↗ wonder if there are any of those five

8:57 ↗ issues that were raised by the appellant

8:59 ↗ that the seven of us feel like we have

9:05 ↗ an agreement on or anything as a

9:08 ↗ starting point I don't know whether

9:10 ↗ starting with some of the issues or

9:13 ↗ starting with findings of fact is more

9:16 ↗ useful for us I actually had a both a

9:22 ↗ question and just to comment it sounded

9:24 ↗ like there there are some that are

9:26 ↗ similar and related and if we could talk

9:32 ↗ about those together I think that it

9:34 ↗ maybe looked at three point one and

9:36 ↗ three point five and it might it might

9:40 ↗ help with the conversation if

9:45 ↗ I'll just I'll jump in so a suggestion

9:49 ↗ might be that you know we when we're in

9:52 ↗ our role as council members and not as

9:54 ↗ effectively jurors we start with sort of

9:57 ↗ technical questions and then move to

9:59 ↗ perhaps opinions so you know I'll I'll

10:05 ↗ say it seems like one of the questions

10:08 ↗ that we have in front of us that I'm not

10:10 ↗ I don't know if we have consensus on or

10:12 ↗ not is the extent to which we see sort

10:16 ↗ of all of these there's a question

10:18 ↗ around phased review and whether or not

10:20 ↗ phased review was applicable in this

10:25 ↗ situation and whether it was

10:27 ↗ accomplished correctly by the city or

10:29 ↗ not and I'll say that I have questions

10:32 ↗ about in the city's brief there's their

10:37 ↗ their statement about the criteria under

10:41 ↗ which they did phased review I didn't

10:43 ↗ completely understand what that

10:46 ↗ reference which of those there's two

10:48 ↗ criteria in there I didn't know which

10:50 ↗ one they were using I also wasn't sure I

10:52 ↗ entirely understood the appellant

10:54 ↗ response as to the applicability of

10:59 ↗ phased review it seems like they were

11:02 ↗ sort of arguing that maybe it wasn't

11:03 ↗ appropriate or that it wasn't

11:05 ↗ appropriately executed so I'm curious

11:06 ↗ how other people parsed this issue of

11:10 ↗ phased review because it seems like it

11:11 ↗ directly affects all five of these

11:12 ↗ questions yeah can i pile on just a

11:16 ↗ little bit and I'm actually gonna make a

11:17 ↗ little left turn into two law verses and

11:20 ↗ I'm going to look to Turay for some

11:22 ↗ guidance here one of the areas that I as

11:25 ↗ I read through all the the briefs of

11:26 ↗ significant difference of opinion of the

11:30 ↗ three participants related to whether or

11:33 ↗ not it is appropriate when doing a non

11:37 ↗ project review to include information

11:40 ↗ that is known about the project in the

11:44 ↗ context so I mean it was it was argued

11:46 ↗ by one side that absolutely positively

11:48 ↗ you have to consider the all the data

11:51 ↗ and the other

11:51 ↗ where it's just we don't have that data

11:54 ↗ yet because it could change so what what

11:57 ↗ what standard should we be using because

11:59 ↗ I think it will affect how we interpret

12:02 ↗ the entire checklist to understand kind

12:05 ↗ of what the what the parameters that are

12:08 ↗ laid out because I heard that was the

12:10 ↗ the area of most contention that I read

12:12 ↗ in the briefs I have to tread lightly

12:14 ↗ here because I'm not taking a position

12:17 ↗ either way so let me see if they can

12:21 ↗ capture some of those questions and try

12:23 ↗ to address those best so one of the

12:27 ↗ issues here is that or maybe one of the

12:30 ↗ stipulations here is that this is a non

12:32 ↗ project action so I didn't hear any

12:35 ↗ dispute amongst the parties and in that

12:37 ↗ regard but really the question perhaps

12:40 ↗ in that context is how deep does the

12:42 ↗ city need to go in the context of a non

12:45 ↗ project action with respect to known or

12:48 ↗ potentially known projects is that yeah

12:53 ↗ and unfortunately I mean that is the

12:55 ↗ heart of this appeal and so you know and

13:00 ↗ some we're going to really need to look

13:01 ↗ at the briefing and the arguments of

13:03 ↗ each respective party I mean I you know

13:06 ↗ I rendering a legal opinion here is a

13:09 ↗ little bit tricky because that's really

13:11 ↗ what the parties have argued but at

13:13 ↗ least maybe we can try and break this

13:16 ↗ down a little bit to help the

13:17 ↗ understanding I mean I guess to some

13:21 ↗ extent I think the way that you captured

13:22 ↗ it is that you know there's again

13:25 ↗ there's a there's there's a recognition

13:28 ↗ that there's some some knowledge

13:30 ↗ available that there are some plans out

13:32 ↗ there that the school would certainly

13:33 ↗ acquiring this to do more than just have

13:35 ↗ a nice piece of property but to what

13:37 ↗ extent in that review did they need to

13:40 ↗ consider that maybe that maybe maybe to

13:42 ↗ start with the facts is to to talk about

13:44 ↗ to what extent the city did consider

13:47 ↗ that if if any I mean that might be a

13:50 ↗ good place to start the discussion

13:52 ↗ amongst the councilmembers at least in

13:54 ↗ terms of the evidence and the testimony

13:56 ↗ that you heard with respect to what the

13:58 ↗ city did consider if they did at all

14:04 ↗ well I want to go that's so many things

14:08 ↗ up here go back to Paula's question

14:11 ↗ about phased review and is that that's

14:19 ↗ the same sort of the same as one of the

14:22 ↗ issues here about issue 3/3 whether city

14:28 ↗ staff could rely on future mitigation

14:30 ↗ during permitting is that sort of the

14:32 ↗ same question as the phased review

14:36 ↗ question

14:37 ↗ so just in reviewing the briefs of the

14:40 ↗ parties I can try and be even-handed

14:42 ↗ here it appears that the the city and

14:46 ↗ the school district have offered that is

14:48 ↗ the response in large part to issue

14:51 ↗ three point three as it was teed up by

14:53 ↗ the appellant that that's part of their

14:55 ↗ defenses if there was so there will be

14:57 ↗ phased review that they conducted this

15:03 ↗ in the manner of phased review and that

15:05 ↗ that that in the school district in the

15:07 ↗ city staff's position that that was

15:08 ↗ appropriate and the and the appellant

15:11 ↗ remark about that seemed to be sort of

15:14 ↗ that that was kicking the can okay

15:16 ↗ just making sure that and I'm on the

15:19 ↗ same page about that

15:28 ↗ yep that better okay okay I'll start out

15:41 ↗ with rather than questions on the first

15:45 ↗ idea I believe that it was demonstrated

15:48 ↗ that phased review is appropriate as

15:53 ↗ established both in testimony and the

15:56 ↗ briefs WAC 197 11060 Ren 5 mentions that

16:04 ↗ environmental review may be phased if

16:06 ↗ used phased review assists agencies in

16:08 ↗ the public to focus on issues that are

16:10 ↗ ready for decision and exclude from

16:12 ↗ consideration issues are already decided

16:14 ↗ or not yet ready and from my

16:18 ↗ understanding of the case that we have

16:21 ↗ heard was that the project ideas that

16:29 ↗ had been posted on the website were not

16:32 ↗ yet ready for review and that thus a

16:36 ↗ phased reveal approach in this case was

16:40 ↗ appropriate based on the state law

16:44 ↗ I guess we we I think I still had a

16:51 ↗ question in my mind and the question in

16:54 ↗ my mind is really about the Phase two

16:56 ↗ review and the non-project

16:58 ↗ and there's a lot of there's a lot of

17:01 ↗ areas that's so sort of overlap there

17:04 ↗ and I'm not exactly sure what my

17:07 ↗ question but I guess I'm wondering how

17:09 ↗ everyone else is feeling about that

17:12 ↗ those are in two different buckets I see

17:16 ↗ there's overlap between the two and I

17:19 ↗ wonder how we should go about talking

17:22 ↗ about that they both been the first two

17:25 ↗ issues that we've brought up I don't

17:27 ↗ know if that makes sense but the phase

17:29 ↗ review and what's the other one on non

17:32 ↗ project

17:36 ↗ so I'm not sure the issue is whether

17:38 ↗ it's a non project I think the issue in

17:40 ↗ terms of non project is that I think

17:44 ↗ it's I think regardless based on the

17:48 ↗ case law and based on the case law that

17:51 ↗ was presented what you call it isn't

17:56 ↗ dispositive I think what the question is

17:59 ↗ whether or not you've gone deep enough

18:01 ↗ into the environmental review at the C

18:03 ↗ Pechanga stage and yeah and that's

18:06 ↗ that's what i i didn't define it at all

18:09 ↗ but that's what I was thinking yeah and

18:11 ↗ so I'm I'm I'm I'm hemming and hawing

18:18 ↗ about phase review because I'm not quite

18:21 ↗ sure that that's any I think that's one

18:25 ↗ of the issues that was brought up by the

18:26 ↗ appellant that is kind of a secondary

18:29 ↗ issue I think the other issues that are

18:32 ↗ issues one two three four and five that

18:35 ↗ we have on the screen

18:37 ↗ [Music]

18:39 ↗ are the ones with that we should be

18:41 ↗ looking at and I'm not sure that phase

18:43 ↗ review is a specific issue that's not

18:47 ↗ listed in here we've been given this as

18:49 ↗ the list of issues but my response on

18:52 ↗ issue three point one if if phase review

18:55 ↗ was not appropriate and this was the

18:57 ↗ entirety of the CEPA then I clearly the

19:02 ↗ answer would be no but if there's a

19:05 ↗ phased review and there's another review

19:08 ↗ coming down the road then my answer

19:10 ↗ isn't an obvious no and so I think so

19:14 ↗ with a phased so the question about the

19:17 ↗ whether the environmental checklist was

19:18 ↗ prepared adequately and completely is an

19:23 ↗ independent question independent of the

19:25 ↗ phase review because I think it has to

19:26 ↗ be it has to be filled out completely in

19:29 ↗ adequately regardless or the level that

19:32 ↗ you're at for the order yes in well I

19:34 ↗ think it's for the information that you

19:36 ↗ have and I'm sorry barb you had

19:38 ↗ something to say I'm gonna show up until

19:40 ↗ you tell and we just it's just that was

19:43 ↗ the heart of the question that I asked

19:45 ↗ is is the non-project same thing as a

19:50 ↗ request for his zoning change and the

19:52 ↗ answer to that was yes and so when we're

19:55 ↗ talking about a non project we're

19:56 ↗ basically talking about as though I'm

19:59 ↗ trying to find in the paperwork that was

20:01 ↗ sent to us at five o'clock there was a

20:05 ↗ statement in the Washington State AIS

20:09 ↗ and I can't find it now but I found it

20:12 ↗ earlier that said that request for

20:15 ↗ rezoning change is considered a

20:17 ↗ paperwork it is not considered

20:21 ↗ significant and and therefore the answer

20:26 ↗ to number one and so then we're not

20:29 ↗ really talking about the phase review

20:31 ↗ we're talking about an application that

20:33 ↗ was related to a request for zoning

20:35 ↗ change and under Washington state

20:38 ↗ regulations that is considered a non

20:40 ↗ significance it's just considered a non

20:43 ↗ significant action and so and Ray can

20:49 ↗ you help me find that was it one of the

20:52 ↗ 35 or 36 would have been also one of

20:55 ↗ these sited either cases or treatise

20:59 ↗ materials that the parties Washington

21:01 ↗ State Environmental Policy Act could I

21:05 ↗ just have a few can you go ahead yeah

21:07 ↗ let me let me pull that is it and see if

21:13 ↗ I can find it here so I'm guessing was

21:21 ↗ it was it does it is it say Washington

21:23 ↗ law review at the top okay so it's a

21:27 ↗ it's a statement contained within that

21:32 ↗ document do you have that in front of

21:39 ↗ you here do you need some do you want to

21:40 ↗ put down in front of you so you can ask

21:41 ↗ the question again just it's on page 36

21:55 ↗ okay

21:59 ↗ want to be able to read it exactly

22:10 ↗ this is this is a PDF that was entitled

22:14 ↗ you dumb article and SEPA book pages so

22:19 ↗ that both were cited by the party and

22:21 ↗ one of the parties at least hmm

22:25 ↗ this is the mean the two PDFs that I

22:29 ↗ sent to the clerk's into the City

22:31 ↗ Council at about five o'clock tonight

22:34 ↗ yeah the bottom one yeah and it sounds

22:45 ↗ like it's on page 36 did you find it

22:47 ↗ okay so it says by contrast proposals or

22:58 ↗ actions where you mean

23:00 ↗ oh I'm sorry page 36 of the document

23:06 ↗ that was sent to us the washings

23:13 ↗ Environmental Policy Act oh I'm sorry

23:17 ↗ it's on page 36 of that you're on the 60

23:20 ↗ so oh I see so it's maybe at that thing

23:24 ↗ yeah I say I'm bird yeah yes by contrast

23:29 ↗ proposals or actions not meaning EIS is

23:31 ↗ take on the hue of the routine and

23:34 ↗ unexceptional and affirmance of a

23:37 ↗ negative declaration is the likely

23:39 ↗ outcome in cases of typical construction

23:42 ↗ projects in urban areas the same is true

23:44 ↗ of a rezoning and then they give a

23:48 ↗ specific example but rezoning that

23:51 ↗ amounts to a paper shuffle working no

23:54 ↗ practical change in usage

23:57 ↗ it's the yeah I think I've seen it now

24:01 ↗ yeah so so in a furnace always like an

24:04 ↗ affirmance of a negative so so so

24:07 ↗ affirmance of a and NDS which is what we

24:11 ↗ have now is they're saying that it's

24:14 ↗ typical for these types of projects

24:16 ↗ including a rezoning so from

24:20 ↗ single-family dwelling to print planned

24:22 ↗ residential of an 89 acre tract and to

24:25 ↗ come overlooking the Tacoma Narrows that

24:28 ↗ amounts to a paper shuffle working no

24:31 ↗ practical change in usage that I was

24:34 ↗ actually one of the cases that has been

24:36 ↗ cited in the briefs by at least one of

24:39 ↗ the parties so there is at least there

24:42 ↗ yes this what this article is saying is

24:44 ↗ that there is some Authority at least

24:46 ↗ based on this case that a determination

24:49 ↗ of non significance would be appropriate

24:51 ↗ in this context right when when the when

24:56 ↗ the non project is a request for a

24:59 ↗ zoning change in this context and this

25:02 ↗ is in this particular case yeah okay

25:06 ↗ should we raise our hands how should we

25:08 ↗ do yeah so so I read that too thanks for

25:12 ↗ bringing that up so the 89 acre tract in

25:15 ↗ Tacoma overlooking the Tacoma Narrows

25:17 ↗ refers to footnote 27 which is the

25:21 ↗ Narrows of narrows view Preservation

25:23 ↗ Association Verdes versus City of Tacoma

25:24 ↗ case and that's the case that the ISD is

25:29 ↗ a classical district was relying on and

25:31 ↗ talked about in their in their closing

25:33 ↗ statement and I think it's important to

25:35 ↗ note in that case I think what this is

25:37 ↗ not saying is that just because you

25:40 ↗ somebody applies for a rezone that

25:42 ↗ doesn't mean that it is necessarily a

25:45 ↗ paper shuffling exercise what the

25:48 ↗ Narrows view case says is that I have it

25:53 ↗ here

25:55 ↗ there was an applicant for a rezone of

26:03 ↗ acreage in Tacoma and there the the plan

26:10 ↗ was to rezone it and instead of building

26:13 ↗ some single-family the plan was to build

26:15 ↗ a lot of multifamily and so when the

26:20 ↗ Planning Commission issued a

26:25 ↗ determination of non significance for

26:27 ↗ its Seba review and the City Council

26:30 ↗ affirmed that then that was appealed by

26:33 ↗ Association called the Narrows View

26:35 ↗ Preservation Association and so as it

26:40 ↗ worked its way through the courts the

26:43 ↗ case ultimately was decided and the

26:48 ↗ court said that it was entirely

26:49 ↗ consistent for government to determine

26:51 ↗ that a determination of non significance

26:54 ↗ was okay if that determination was

26:57 ↗ actually supported in the record record

26:59 ↗ in an actual determination was made and

27:02 ↗ they said that and in this case the that

27:06 ↗ record of determination was supported by

27:08 ↗ evidence and that record was this and

27:11 ↗ the activity to make that DNS was this

27:15 ↗ that comments were solicited from

27:17 ↗ annotate and obtained

27:18 ↗ the Planning Commission personnel in

27:21 ↗ this case so it would be city staff

27:23 ↗ regarding the environmental impact of

27:24 ↗ the proposed rezoning and those comments

27:28 ↗ and information was obtained from Tacoma

27:31 ↗ Health Department Metropolitan Park

27:32 ↗ District Fire Department Public Works

27:34 ↗ Department light division water

27:36 ↗ divisions Public Schools and the

27:38 ↗ Washington State Highway Commission and

27:39 ↗ Department of Agriculture in addition

27:41 ↗ reports were obtained from Geo Labs

27:43 ↗ foundation and soils engineers

27:45 ↗ concerning the suitability of the

27:46 ↗ project in connection with the soils

27:48 ↗ upon which the construction would be

27:50 ↗ located public hearings were held for

27:52 ↗ the benefit of the affected public to

27:54 ↗ obtain objections to the possibility of

27:56 ↗ increased traffic from construction of

27:58 ↗ apartments in the area the court

28:01 ↗ specifically found that the planning and

28:03 ↗ I quote the Planning Commission will I

28:05 ↗ quote all of it the Planning Commission

28:06 ↗ investigated the environmental factors

28:08 ↗ which were required to be considered

28:10 ↗ under Seba the Planning Commission then

28:13 ↗ concluded that development as proposed

28:15 ↗ under the proposed zoning would not have

28:17 ↗ a substantially greater impact on the

28:19 ↗ surrounding area then development of

28:21 ↗ property under its present r11 family

28:23 ↗ classification and again I think it's

28:28 ↗ important to note that in my reading of

28:32 ↗ this case was not exactly as the

28:34 ↗ attorney for ISDN represented it which

28:36 ↗ was sort of as this says which is just

28:39 ↗ sort of a paper shuffling exercise

28:41 ↗ exercise if you have a rezone the the

28:45 ↗ cases including the King County versus

28:47 ↗ boundary vert boundary Review Board case

28:52 ↗ require that you actually look you

28:57 ↗ actually in in investigate it I have to

29:01 ↗ look at look at the wording you have to

29:03 ↗ actually make a determination by by

29:06 ↗ asking questions and in the in the sorry

29:15 ↗ so in art and in this in art so

29:18 ↗ similarly we know that something is

29:20 ↗ going to happen on this property it's

29:22 ↗ not it's it's almost a certainty if it

29:25 ↗ gets rezone this that something going to

29:27 ↗ happen on there on this property so both

29:29 ↗ this case in the other case and

29:31 ↗ and which is Washington law dictates

29:34 ↗ that as though an application for a

29:36 ↗ reason such as this does not amount to a

29:39 ↗ paper shuffling exercise there are

29:41 ↗ activities that need to take place there

29:42 ↗ are questions that need to be asked

29:44 ↗ there needs to be a a real effort and

29:48 ↗ real activity to determinate to

29:50 ↗ determine whether there should be a DNS

29:53 ↗ and the record needs to show what

29:56 ↗ evidence was considered for those for

29:59 ↗ the environmental factors that are

30:00 ↗ considered that are that need to be

30:02 ↗ considered so I I read that too but I

30:07 ↗ also read read the case and I think with

30:10 ↗ what the Law Review is saying is that if

30:12 ↗ you just have a rezone and it doesn't

30:18 ↗ come with it

30:20 ↗ probable development or certain

30:23 ↗ development that's different than if you

30:25 ↗ have development you know something's

30:28 ↗ going there or you're relatively it's

30:30 ↗ probable something's going to go there

30:32 ↗ then there is an obligation to ask all

30:34 ↗ of those questions and what I heard what

30:38 ↗ I read and what I heard very clearly was

30:41 ↗ that those that type of investigation

30:47 ↗ that kind of examination was not done at

30:54 ↗ all it was we are aware of course we're

30:58 ↗ aware we're all aware that there's that

31:00 ↗ the school district is interested in

31:01 ↗ that property we're all aware that the

31:03 ↗ school district wants to put schools on

31:05 ↗ that property and in fact we've had

31:07 ↗ hundreds of people tell us and the

31:09 ↗ school district tell us that we really

31:12 ↗ really really need to put us put schools

31:14 ↗ on that property for all of these

31:16 ↗ reasons still there was zero

31:20 ↗ investigation so I think the cases

31:23 ↗ dictate exactly the opposite and that is

31:26 ↗ that the environmental checklist was not

31:29 ↗ completed it was not adequate and the

31:32 ↗ one other question that I would ask in

31:34 ↗ terms of issue number three one is

31:40 ↗ the school district is very clearly the

31:44 ↗ proponent of this the school district

31:46 ↗ asked for this to be rezone and it's

31:48 ↗ completely fine for the city to be the

31:51 ↗ one that fills out that checklist but I

31:53 ↗ don't think the city is obligation is

31:56 ↗ different if it fills out the checklist

32:01 ↗ sorry or the school district is the

32:04 ↗ application that fills out that

32:05 ↗ checklist

32:05 ↗ I think the answers have to be pretty

32:07 ↗ much pretty much the same if if that's

32:11 ↗ not if that if the if we could get

32:16 ↗ around asking answering all of those

32:18 ↗ questions simply by having somebody else

32:22 ↗ to be the applicant then that's

32:23 ↗ tantamount to gaming the system and I

32:25 ↗ don't think that that's how see if it

32:26 ↗ works and I don't think that's what

32:28 ↗ Washington lies

32:32 ↗ I'll try to moderate councilmember

32:34 ↗ Batista

32:36 ↗ so I I've actually got a question that

32:43 ↗ that is unrelated to what you were just

32:46 ↗ talking about and so I can also hold if

32:50 ↗ there are other because I don't want to

32:52 ↗ interrupt the flow here councilman I

32:55 ↗ remember right yeah can I pick up on

32:58 ↗ that was that a non project

33:02 ↗ determination do you know in that case

33:06 ↗ the Narrows mutase was a reason I'm not

33:11 ↗ sure I'm going to guess yes as it was a

33:15 ↗ rezone but I think though the switch

33:18 ↗ Seba requires I don't think in this type

33:21 ↗ of a case differentiates between project

33:23 ↗ and non project just because something

33:25 ↗ is is categorized or labeled as non

33:29 ↗ project does not get the applicant or

33:31 ↗ the proponent out of the obligation to

33:35 ↗ completely and adequately fill out the

33:37 ↗ checklist just don't energetic real

33:39 ↗ quick there are definitions under the

33:42 ↗ CEPA regulations that for both non

33:44 ↗ project and project actions that might

33:46 ↗ be helpful for clarification just given

33:48 ↗ that that does seem to be some of the

33:50 ↗ questions and it's hyperlinked actually

33:53 ↗ my SEPA book over here if you want me to

33:55 ↗ read those aloud if that would be

33:56 ↗ helpful

34:04 ↗ and then we can get to all the other

34:06 ↗ hands so

34:16 ↗ so I'm going to first read the

34:18 ↗ definition of non-project and this was

34:25 ↗ in at least one of the briefs I believe

34:27 ↗ as well non-project means actions which

34:30 ↗ are different or broader than a single

34:33 ↗ site-specific project such as plans

34:36 ↗ policies and programs let me see I

34:42 ↗ believe there's a definition for project

34:47 ↗ there is not there's just a definition

34:49 ↗ for non-project

34:51 ↗ Thank You councilmember Walsh so on that

34:56 ↗ idea of whether or not the environmental

34:58 ↗ checklist needs to be filled out to the

35:02 ↗ fullest there were at least three

35:05 ↗ indications in WAC 197 but 11 it was to

35:09 ↗ 35 3 B 3 15 1 e and 960 which said that

35:18 ↗ hurt or a serves as the fact sheet or C

35:26 ↗ serves of the responsible officials

35:28 ↗ signature and Part D as the non project

35:31 ↗ checklist was acceptable for a non

35:35 ↗ project situation meaning basically

35:38 ↗ skipping B which is the project specific

35:41 ↗ part makes sense like I said there are

35:45 ↗ there are three indications in there

35:47 ↗ that state very clearly that Part B this

35:52 ↗ isn't required which we also heard in

35:54 ↗ testimony as well

35:56 ↗ councilmember D Michelle did you have

35:58 ↗ something you were in bautista so I just

36:07 ↗ sort of related but but on a different

36:11 ↗ track for just a moment I just wanted to

36:13 ↗ ask about

36:15 ↗ there's our CW quoted our CW 4321 that

36:20 ↗ talks about under conclusions of law

36:22 ↗ that state law and the code required the

36:25 ↗ City Council to give a degree of

36:27 ↗ deference to the decision made by Keith

36:29 ↗ Niven as the city's SEPA responsible

36:32 ↗ official to the issue to issue the final

36:35 ↗ dns and specifically the threshold

36:38 ↗ determination by these cities SEPA

36:40 ↗ responsible official shall carry

36:42 ↗ substantial weight in this appeal

36:44 ↗ proceeding and that is it looks like is

36:48 ↗ referring to our CW 43 - 21 so I can

36:51 ↗ read that and I believe I understand it

36:54 ↗ but I was wondering can you give it a

36:56 ↗ little more - yeah and so this is the

36:59 ↗ question being this

37:00 ↗ stan shil wait requirement that's both

37:03 ↗ under the CEPA statute as well as city

37:06 ↗ code so this was briefed by the parties

37:08 ↗ believe it or not this is really

37:10 ↗ considered the standard of review and so

37:12 ↗ I'm glad you brought it up because I did

37:13 ↗ think that that was important for you

37:15 ↗ all to at least briefly discuss so

37:18 ↗ substantial weight effectively means

37:22 ↗ that there's some degree of deference

37:23 ↗ that you are giving to the determination

37:26 ↗ that the city staff has already made

37:28 ↗ that that there is not a significant

37:31 ↗ environmental impact that would result

37:33 ↗ from the action as defined and the

37:36 ↗ checklist and so there's there's a

37:40 ↗ additional judicial interpretation of

37:43 ↗ what that means and how that's applied I

37:44 ↗ believe both the city and the school

37:47 ↗ district briefed to that under what's

37:49 ↗ called the clearly erroneous standard so

37:52 ↗ it's probably helpful to reference the

37:56 ↗ briefing of the parties at least to see

37:59 ↗ how from a legal perspective that the

38:02 ↗ parties are arguing that should be

38:03 ↗ applied but at least the the substantial

38:07 ↗ weight in and of itself at least I can

38:10 ↗ objectively say that it means that you

38:13 ↗ know that that you don't come in and and

38:15 ↗ presume that the city was potentially

38:18 ↗ wrong you poop there is some presumption

38:19 ↗ there that the that that they did their

38:23 ↗ job correctly but it is it can certainly

38:26 ↗ be a you know reversed it's not ironclad

38:29 ↗ for sure right so to to get back to your

38:32 ↗ comment about the clearly erroneous so I

38:35 ↗ guess if I'm kind of understanding that

38:38 ↗ there there have been times that that

38:40 ↗ has been linked but I'm still trying to

38:44 ↗ understand I understand the substantial

38:47 ↗ weight and the deference but when we get

38:49 ↗ to the clearly erroneous is that

38:52 ↗ something that we can turn to a certain

38:56 ↗ law - well it's it's it's really how

39:00 ↗ it's the courts have interpreted over

39:04 ↗ time so there are probably there

39:05 ↗ different case laws where they've talked

39:08 ↗ about it would have to be clearly

39:10 ↗ erroneous yeah so

39:12 ↗ we'll just feel more comfortable signing

39:14 ↗ from the party's briefs at this point so

39:16 ↗ at least like the the city's opening

39:20 ↗ pre-hearing brief you know their

39:22 ↗ argument is that the substantial weight

39:24 ↗ requirement directs an appellate body to

39:26 ↗ review the responsible officials

39:28 ↗ decision under the clearly erroneous

39:30 ↗ standard case law citation a decision is

39:33 ↗ clearly erroneous only when although

39:36 ↗ there is evidence to support it the

39:39 ↗ reviewing body is left with the definite

39:41 ↗ and confirmed conviction then a mistake

39:43 ↗ has been committed citation to case law

39:46 ↗ okay so that's that's been a common

39:49 ↗ judicial interpretation what that means

39:51 ↗ thank you the question that's already

39:59 ↗ what is the specific question we are

40:03 ↗ addressing today I know we've got the

40:05 ↗ five issues that the appellant I brought

40:07 ↗ forward what is the specific thing we

40:09 ↗ are going to ultimate conclusion

40:11 ↗ well you advance to the last slide

40:13 ↗ what's the punchline there that's that's

40:17 ↗ ultimately the decision I don't know and

40:19 ↗ maybe that's oversimplifying what you're

40:21 ↗ asking here what's the basis of the

40:24 ↗ appeal is there was a mistake made in

40:26 ↗ the checklist and the determination on

40:28 ↗ significance is that a fair statement

40:30 ↗ let me let me tweak that a bit whether

40:35 ↗ or not there was an error in the

40:36 ↗ checklist that does not necessarily

40:39 ↗ determine it determinative of whether

40:41 ↗ you feel that the determination of non

40:44 ↗ significance was properly issued or not

40:46 ↗ you you may reach the conclusion that

40:48 ↗ the checklist was properly completed but

40:52 ↗ the determination of non significance is

40:54 ↗ still erroneous clearly erroneous so

40:57 ↗ they're not there they're they're not

40:59 ↗ necessarily coupled at the hit but you

41:01 ↗ may also decide that the checklist was

41:02 ↗ incomplete and therefore the

41:04 ↗ determination of non significance was

41:06 ↗ should not have been issued because that

41:08 ↗ checklist wasn't complete yes customers

41:13 ↗ oh yes thank you

41:22 ↗ Thanks I will say that when when I look

41:28 ↗ at the different the different issues

41:32 ↗ that are broken down for me I'm still

41:35 ↗ and still thinking it through but the

41:38 ↗ phased review piece of this and whether

41:41 ↗ that was appropriate really is like a

41:46 ↗ thread that that that seems to go

41:48 ↗ through a lot of these issues and so I

41:53 ↗ we we sort of started out with that

41:55 ↗ question and that that is definitely

41:58 ↗ still on my mind because it's hard for

42:00 ↗ me to go through each one of the

42:03 ↗ questions like the environmental

42:05 ↗ checklist when I'm looking at that

42:11 ↗ question of phased review and whether

42:13 ↗ the phased review was appropriate

42:16 ↗ council member rain so I agree

42:20 ↗ where I'm binding up and the question

42:22 ↗ I'm wrestling with in the first one I

42:24 ↗ threw out on the table was phase review

42:27 ↗ or not phase review do we have an

42:29 ↗ obligation to consider all of the

42:32 ↗ information that we have a reasonable

42:35 ↗ likelihood of knowing for instance that

42:38 ↗ there will be a high school on that site

42:40 ↗ and that's you know so I don't think

42:43 ↗ that's a phase review question I think

42:45 ↗ that's a when what information needs to

42:48 ↗ be included in the CEPA checklist and

42:51 ↗ and factored into the determination of

42:54 ↗ significance or not you know so the

42:59 ↗ argument that we heard very clearly from

43:01 ↗ the city and from the school district

43:03 ↗ was that because we don't have certainty

43:05 ↗ about what's going to be built there we

43:08 ↗ can't factor that in because we don't

43:09 ↗ know when I read the brief from the

43:12 ↗ appellant they reference many cases that

43:16 ↗ say that it is the

43:20 ↗ the one of Sheba's purposes is to

43:23 ↗ provide consideration the environmental

43:25 ↗ factors at the earliest possible time so

43:27 ↗ if we know over that it's going to be

43:29 ↗ school we may not know a hundred percent

43:31 ↗ of what those environmental factors are

43:32 ↗ but we know something so my question I'm

43:35 ↗ really wrestling with is what obligation

43:38 ↗ do we have to include that information

43:40 ↗ into this checklist to make this

43:42 ↗ determination I think that quite

43:44 ↗ honestly I think that's the the single

43:46 ↗ point we're we have to determine tonight

43:49 ↗ Council we're good

43:51 ↗ that's exactly what I spoke to earlier

43:53 ↗ that's in the case law the case law is

43:55 ↗ clear you have to have a record that

43:57 ↗ shows that you that has the evidence

44:01 ↗ that showed that you considered the

44:03 ↗ environmental factors and the record in

44:07 ↗ this case shows that we did exactly the

44:08 ↗ opposite II did exactly the opposite

44:11 ↗ comes from every winter sign you wanted

44:13 ↗ to say something yeah I did I think and

44:18 ↗ thank you for the reference of the

44:19 ↗ Washington Code staff decided to conduct

44:26 ↗ this review as non-project

44:28 ↗ as a result the completion of the

44:31 ↗ environmental section was not required

44:32 ↗ they did fill it out and and I think and

44:39 ↗ they also said clearly that and multiple

44:44 ↗ times it's in the record as well that

44:46 ↗ and I think it's one of our other

44:47 ↗ questions I think it's number three 3.3

44:50 ↗ that I want to want to when there's a

44:54 ↗ specific

44:56 ↗ [Music]

45:00 ↗ site plan being considered an another C

45:03 ↗ per review to specific to details that

45:07 ↗ they were dependent upon that process to

45:11 ↗ identify and prescribe whatever actions

45:16 ↗ may or may not be required based of the

45:19 ↗ impacts and and if I think about issue

45:23 ↗ number one the way it's phrase for us

45:25 ↗ and that standard of clearly erroneous I

45:30 ↗ conclude that it's not clearly erroneous

45:32 ↗ when you make a choice non project

45:35 ↗ supported by Washington Code planning uh

45:37 ↗ knowing that there will be a detailed

45:40 ↗ seat but done specific to the project

45:42 ↗ I cannot conclude that that was clearly

45:44 ↗ erroneous council member dimi Salomon

45:47 ↗ best to follow up on council member

45:50 ↗ winter Stein's comments if we have a

45:52 ↗ phased review than this the next phase

45:55 ↗ will include a SEPA it's that's my

45:58 ↗ understanding that the school district

46:00 ↗ will conduct a SEPA in as part of Phase

46:04 ↗ two and so what we're looking at is what

46:08 ↗ they're talking about again in the

46:10 ↗ Washington environmental whatever that

46:17 ↗ this is a time to project where we have

46:21 ↗ review timed over the the length of the

46:25 ↗ project and so that's what phase review

46:27 ↗ means and so this isn't as though we're

46:30 ↗ saying we're not going to do a seat but

46:32 ↗ we're not going to look at the

46:33 ↗ environmental impacts yes we are but it

46:36 ↗ will be at a time when the project is

46:39 ↗ clearly able to studies are clearly able

46:42 ↗ to be done and demerits so there were

46:52 ↗ seven potential six six or seven

46:56 ↗ potential reasons as part of this docket

47:01 ↗ it seems to me that it was filled out

47:06 ↗ appropriately for six or seven

47:09 ↗ for those six or seven in total the

47:11 ↗ argument is that they're the smaller

47:13 ↗ Delta the idea that the CFF going from

47:17 ↗ the SF SL to c FF is a small Delta so it

47:23 ↗ didn't it didn't when you take a look at

47:25 ↗ those six or seven in total they didn't

47:27 ↗ amount to a substantial change to the

47:30 ↗ city that seems to make sense

47:32 ↗ and so I think it would be erroneous to

47:36 ↗ attempt to guess the environmental

47:39 ↗ impacts of a project that we didn't have

47:41 ↗ a submission for I think it would

47:44 ↗ clearly the example that was used was

47:46 ↗ traffic right without an idea of the

47:48 ↗ potential catchment area the impacts on

47:51 ↗ traffic in the region couldn't possibly

47:53 ↗ be estimated and it would be just as

47:55 ↗ wrong to for the city to have guessed

47:59 ↗ what the potential impacts would be for

48:01 ↗ a high school those will all be

48:03 ↗ addressed in the second round of the

48:05 ↗ phased review there will be a thorough

48:07 ↗ SEPA investigation as my understanding

48:10 ↗ ones remember do Batista three so I had

48:16 ↗ asked the question earlier about

48:19 ↗ substantial weight and deference and

48:21 ↗ something that was clearly erroneous and

48:24 ↗ in my understanding as I was listening

48:27 ↗ to all of the information of everyone

48:30 ↗ who testified is that the Phase two

48:33 ↗ review and that's why I was bringing

48:36 ↗ that up earlier that the phased review

48:37 ↗ is something that's used not only from

48:40 ↗ our city but other cities and that and

48:44 ↗ it was also my understanding that the

48:48 ↗ section B even though part of that was

48:50 ↗ filled out was was not required and so

48:53 ↗ it sounded like again from what I heard

48:57 ↗ is that a phased review meant that there

48:59 ↗ would be another look at looking at all

49:03 ↗ of those environmental impact impacts so

49:07 ↗ when when I look at question one it 3-1

49:13 ↗ it would be hard for me to say that that

49:16 ↗ was that that was done in an incomplete

49:22 ↗ in

49:23 ↗ way because that in a phased review just

49:30 ↗ going ahead and filling out Section B

49:31 ↗ but knowing that you're going to it in

49:34 ↗ the next step I I think that that's an

49:38 ↗ important piece of that and and I and I

49:41 ↗ am going back to the substantial way the

49:47 ↗ deference to the the people who work in

49:50 ↗ this every day and again we we had

49:54 ↗ testimony that we heard that was not

49:56 ↗ only from our city but other cities in

49:58 ↗ similar situations where they had worked

50:00 ↗ on face reviews councilmember Rey so I'm

50:04 ↗ not sure I'm in agreement on section B

50:08 ↗ but let me talk about section D for a

50:10 ↗ section second which is the which is the

50:13 ↗ non prod sorry non project supplement

50:18 ↗ and there's there's there are a number

50:20 ↗ of questions here and I don't know what

50:22 ↗ the answer I mean I know what the

50:23 ↗ answers that we're provided are and

50:25 ↗ they're very vague for instance I'll

50:27 ↗ just pick on number six how would the

50:29 ↗ proposal be likely to increase demands

50:32 ↗ for transportation or other public

50:34 ↗ services and utilities and the answer

50:36 ↗ was specific project impacts would be

50:37 ↗ evaluated with project applications well

50:40 ↗ that's fine that section B so that's

50:42 ↗ irrelevant and there are no proposed

50:44 ↗ changes that would increase demand for

50:46 ↗ transportation or public services great

50:48 ↗ assertion but there's nothing in the

50:49 ↗ record that establishes the data that

50:52 ↗ establish that point and so I guess what

50:55 ↗ I'm coming back to is okay

50:56 ↗ that that's that's possible but I see no

50:59 ↗ snow work that was done to establish

51:02 ↗ that that that is the case and so I

51:04 ↗ can't say yes or no because I have no

51:07 ↗ data to support either a yes or no

51:09 ↗ decision on that particular thing and we

51:12 ↗ could go through the other non project

51:13 ↗ points to and they may all be absolutely

51:16 ↗ correct I just have nothing that I can

51:19 ↗ point to that says this work was done

51:21 ↗ and we did these things to make this

51:23 ↗ assertion that this is the case it's not

51:25 ↗ in the record so I'm not saying this is

51:27 ↗ wrong I'm just saying I have no data to

51:29 ↗ support this and

51:31 ↗ and I don't want to make it as don't

51:33 ↗ want to make a decision about this

51:34 ↗ without the data in the public record

51:37 ↗ that supports the assertion that's made

51:39 ↗ in the checklist councilmember Weill

51:41 ↗ sure so I can agree with that concept

51:44 ↗ there that the information could have

51:48 ↗ been presented in a different way but I

51:50 ↗ think what we heard from testimony from

51:53 ↗ the city was that looking at the

51:56 ↗ difference between single family small

51:58 ↗ lot and see FFF because there was such

52:04 ↗ similarities in potential uses between a

52:08 ↗ middle school and a high school or you

52:11 ↗ know sports fields and sports stadium

52:15 ↗ when you don't know the specifics of the

52:19 ↗ project of a high school versus the

52:22 ↗ specifics of a project of a potential

52:25 ↗ middle school you can't look at

52:29 ↗ something and say there's going to be a

52:31 ↗ significant increase or change in the

52:34 ↗ intensity of use and so without a

52:38 ↗ specific project plan to evaluate I

52:43 ↗ think you have to default to looking at

52:45 ↗ the potential uses in those two zoning

52:49 ↗ and evaluate the intensity of use to

52:52 ↗ determine if there is truly an

52:56 ↗ intensification that would need to be

52:58 ↗ studied

53:03 ↗ cancel my per good lemon so again I'm

53:09 ↗ just gonna keep saying it case law

53:11 ↗ dictates that you don't just get to turn

53:14 ↗ your cheek the other way just because

53:16 ↗ you don't have specific plans submitted

53:20 ↗ there is a lot of case law two of them

53:23 ↗ are here that says that there is an

53:25 ↗ obligation to fill out the checklist

53:28 ↗ with the information that you have it's

53:32 ↗ not and we heard testimony that although

53:36 ↗ the city knows of these plans and we

53:40 ↗ heard testimony from the school district

53:42 ↗ that it's probable from their expert

53:44 ↗ probable it's gonna be built there we

53:47 ↗ have an obligation this is not just a

53:49 ↗ zone of some tract somewhere where

53:51 ↗ somebody says boy to be nice to put some

53:53 ↗ houses there one day there is an

53:55 ↗ obligation to fill out the checklist

53:57 ↗ there is an obligation to provide a

54:00 ↗ basis with evidence for the

54:03 ↗ determination of non significance that

54:05 ↗ is missing that's what Washington law

54:08 ↗ says we have to have and that's not

54:11 ↗ there

54:16 ↗ council member wash so let's dig into

54:19 ↗ this because I think this is an

54:20 ↗ important area so what if we're thinking

54:24 ↗ through say the environmental impacts

54:28 ↗ that are listed in Section B or D how

54:34 ↗ how do you go about filling those out

54:38 ↗ for a non project situation so I don't

54:44 ↗ think I'm an answer it in with a

54:49 ↗ different question I don't think it is

54:52 ↗ our responsibility our job as the

54:55 ↗ decision-makers up here on this appeal

54:57 ↗ to determine what that evidence should

55:02 ↗ be it is the the responsibility of the

55:07 ↗ agency or the applicant filling out the

55:10 ↗ checklist to determine to figure out

55:14 ↗ what evidence they what evidence there

55:16 ↗ is to support that basis of making a

55:19 ↗ determination of non significance so if

55:25 ↗ the decision-making body were to decide

55:29 ↗ that that basis for that decision is not

55:32 ↗ there if the evidence is not there and I

55:34 ↗ read you a whole list of evidence from

55:35 ↗ the Narrows view case that gave the

55:39 ↗ reason for the Court of Appeals to

55:43 ↗ affirm the decision by the City of

55:45 ↗ Tacoma was correct if if the

55:49 ↗ decision-making bodies such as ourselves

55:50 ↗ decides that the basis is not there then

55:54 ↗ it would be probably remanded to the

55:57 ↗ city for further work it's not for us in

56:01 ↗ my opinion and we can ask that our legal

56:03 ↗ counsel not for us in our role to

56:06 ↗ creative list of all of the things the

56:08 ↗ city has to do in order to create that

56:10 ↗ record that forms the basis for its

56:13 ↗ decision of DNS I don't know if that

56:15 ↗ helps up answering it yeah it's just

56:17 ↗ starting a conversation yeah I'm trying

56:19 ↗ to understand where that line is

56:23 ↗ Oh cause I remember ray so councilmember

56:33 ↗ Goodman brought up a really interesting

56:34 ↗ point because when we go to the next

56:36 ↗ slide and we talk about what our options

56:38 ↗ are you know grant or deny

56:41 ↗ is there a remand option here because

56:43 ↗ quite honestly I think the problem we

56:45 ↗ have isn't a grant or deny I think the

56:48 ↗ problem we have is we we need more more

56:51 ↗ information and to have a complete list

56:53 ↗ so actually to grant the appeal would be

56:56 ↗ actually to have to send macdennis yeah

56:59 ↗ you'd be sending that back to staff it's

57:01 ↗ it's it's basically it's almost like a

57:03 ↗ do you get to move forward is you get to

57:06 ↗ say environmental review is done which

57:08 ↗ would be denying the appeal or are you

57:11 ↗ going to say no environmental review is

57:13 ↗ not done and there's a series of options

57:15 ↗ you can take within that decision to say

57:19 ↗ no environmental review is not done

57:20 ↗ which can range from go back and redo

57:23 ↗ the checklist and make sure if you issue

57:25 ↗ another threshold determination that

57:27 ↗ that information is there all the way to

57:29 ↗ the other extreme which is we think

57:31 ↗ there's a determination if there's

57:32 ↗ there's actually going to be significant

57:34 ↗ adverse impacts that result from this

57:36 ↗ action and you should actually go to an

57:40 ↗ environmental impact statement not just

57:42 ↗ more checklist not another checklist and

57:45 ↗ not another threshold determination

57:47 ↗ thank you so I want to pick up a little

57:51 ↗ bit on where councilman president marks

57:53 ↗ was going to there's there are more than

57:54 ↗ one parcel involved in this

57:57 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment and Adam I

58:03 ↗ mean I guess I'm pretty clear I would

58:05 ↗ like to see the checklist further

58:09 ↗ developed and the record further

58:12 ↗ established and I believe it is more

58:14 ↗ than just Providence point I think we

58:16 ↗ have other parcels that are in this

58:19 ↗ comprehensive plan that also haven't

58:20 ↗ been fully vetted either and so if we

58:25 ↗ send it and it's big if I think if we

58:27 ↗ send it back to staff for a further

58:29 ↗ development I would like that

58:31 ↗ development to include other parcels

58:33 ↗ that might have an impact on I would

58:39 ↗ like to have the record show why we

58:40 ↗ don't think that there is there going to

58:41 ↗ be an impact on those parcels too I got

58:45 ↗ some already Michelle so I'm going to

58:48 ↗ respectfully disagree and I will

58:50 ↗ acknowledge that you have a law degree

58:53 ↗ and I don't but when I think one of the

58:57 ↗ purposes of a phase review is to help

59:02 ↗ governments whether it's the city or the

59:04 ↗ county or the state to be efficient in

59:07 ↗ their use of funds to do studies and if

59:10 ↗ we are asking the city to do a deep

59:13 ↗ analysis of for example transportation

59:16 ↗ which is a very expensive thing to do at

59:19 ↗ the very very beginning of the project

59:22 ↗ before a plan is is on the table we are

59:26 ↗ asking the city to to spend money that

59:28 ↗ then will have to be done we know it's

59:30 ↗ going to have to be done again over when

59:33 ↗ we have an exact plan so I think if we

59:38 ↗ send this back to the staff or a remand

59:41 ↗ this back to the staff we have to also

59:43 ↗ be talking about where are we finding

59:45 ↗ the funds to do the studies that that

59:51 ↗ are going to be acceptable someday

59:52 ↗ because this is really just delaying

59:54 ↗ this project where are we going to find

59:59 ↗ the funds for that and what would be the

1:00:01 ↗ standards that the staff would use to do

1:00:04 ↗ those studies when we've already

1:00:06 ↗ discussed that there is no traffic this

1:00:08 ↗ the school district has not come forward

1:00:10 ↗ with a site plan and so and they don't

1:00:13 ↗ have the boundaries for the schools

1:00:15 ↗ determined yet so how would how would

1:00:17 ↗ staff do a traffic review so I think the

1:00:22 ↗ purpose of

1:00:23 ↗ Faye's review is to do some of the

1:00:26 ↗ paperwork upfront and then we can move

1:00:28 ↗ on to the site plan and do the deep

1:00:32 ↗ environmental work on a plan that the

1:00:35 ↗ school district stands behind they

1:00:37 ↗ obviously are not standing behind one

1:00:40 ↗ that's on the website right now so I I

1:00:43 ↗ think that we would be stepping into if

1:00:49 ↗ we apply that standard now we're going

1:00:52 ↗ to have to apply that to every project

1:00:54 ↗ that comes before us and I I think that

1:00:58 ↗ would be a very expensive thing to do

1:01:02 ↗ apply what standard is that we have to

1:01:05 ↗ do a deep review for every zoning change

1:01:08 ↗ so I want to be really clear I'm not I'm

1:01:13 ↗ not when I'm talking about an inadequate

1:01:18 ↗ record I'm not presupposing what that

1:01:21 ↗ record would be there just isn't one

1:01:24 ↗ that's the problem I'm not suggesting

1:01:26 ↗ there would be traffic studies hundred

1:01:29 ↗ thousand dollar traffic studies I'm not

1:01:30 ↗ I don't know what that is there has to

1:01:32 ↗ be a basis for the decision also it

1:01:35 ↗ doesn't presuppose what what a new

1:01:40 ↗ determination if we would if we were to

1:01:43 ↗ grant it and send it back if I'm just

1:01:45 ↗ saying if and send it back to create a

1:01:49 ↗ record and make a new determination

1:01:54 ↗ whatever that might be I have no idea

1:01:56 ↗ what that be I would no idea what the

1:01:58 ↗ record would be I have no idea what the

1:01:59 ↗ DNS is all I know is the law says there

1:02:02 ↗ needs to be a record and there isn't a

1:02:03 ↗ record so I'm not disagreeing with you

1:02:06 ↗ that it may be not the appropriate time

1:02:09 ↗ to do some a huge traffic study I'm not

1:02:12 ↗ saying that that needs to be done I

1:02:14 ↗ don't know what needs to be done but

1:02:15 ↗ there needs to be something and the

1:02:17 ↗ testimony we heard was oh yeah we've

1:02:19 ↗ known for we we've known for several

1:02:21 ↗ years in fact the whole the whole city

1:02:22 ↗ knows where there's gonna be schools

1:02:24 ↗ there but it was nope we didn't ask any

1:02:25 ↗ questions because this is a non project

1:02:27 ↗ that's not what the law says

1:02:29 ↗ so all I'm all I'm saying is the law

1:02:32 ↗ says there has to be a record and

1:02:33 ↗ there's not a record the REC the record

1:02:35 ↗ is

1:02:36 ↗ yeah we didn't ask any questions really

1:02:38 ↗ we that's so I I'm just clarifying that

1:02:41 ↗ I'm not saying a law says what

1:02:45 ↗ specifically there has to be that what

1:02:48 ↗ those what the evidence is that there

1:02:50 ↗ just has to be evidence there has to be

1:02:51 ↗ a basis for that determination you see

1:02:54 ↗ on asking a question that case Tacoma

1:02:56 ↗ was it a non project rezone and was it

1:03:00 ↗ part of a comprehensive plan amendment

1:03:02 ↗ it that cases are consistent whether

1:03:05 ↗ it's an annexation case whether it's a

1:03:08 ↗ non project okay matter whether it's a

1:03:12 ↗ comp plan amendment all of the cases are

1:03:16 ↗ the same the obligations are the same

1:03:18 ↗ generally the same about the basis that

1:03:21 ↗ you the record the basis that you need

1:03:24 ↗ to have in order to make a determination

1:03:26 ↗ and it makes sense how do you make a

1:03:28 ↗ determination about something if you

1:03:31 ↗ have if you don't have the information

1:03:33 ↗ some sort of basis for that decision I

1:03:36 ↗ mean it makes sense sorry did you

1:03:45 ↗ council member to take the tea stage you

1:03:46 ↗ want to say something yeah so the yeah

1:03:52 ↗ I'm still I'm still coming back to the

1:03:56 ↗ and just trying to better answer the

1:03:59 ↗ question in my own head back to the

1:04:02 ↗ phased review and the fact that this is

1:04:06 ↗ it sounds like from the testimony that

1:04:08 ↗ we heard that the phase review is

1:04:11 ↗ something that has been used in our city

1:04:15 ↗ is used in other cities so so it's

1:04:18 ↗ something that's actually used so it is

1:04:22 ↗ so it I'm just I guess that that's kind

1:04:24 ↗ of my 10,000 level foot lens that I'm

1:04:31 ↗ looking at this through and it's I'm

1:04:34 ↗ just sort of hung I'm we're we're

1:04:36 ↗ getting down into the details and I'm

1:04:38 ↗ listening to everything and it does it

1:04:39 ↗ is making sense but I'm thinking about

1:04:41 ↗ precedent I'm thinking about the fact

1:04:44 ↗ that this is a process that

1:04:46 ↗ that we have done in the past that that

1:04:49 ↗ is part of it sounds like appropriate

1:04:54 ↗ planning if we if we are able to do a

1:04:57 ↗ phased review and so that's still you

1:05:01 ↗ know sort of again a 10,000 foot level

1:05:04 ↗ question that I'm still going over in my

1:05:08 ↗ head that's one of the way I want to I

1:05:10 ↗ want to kind of take pays review off the

1:05:13 ↗ table because even if we are doing a

1:05:17 ↗ phase review we still need to have

1:05:20 ↗ something in there this is I'm gonna

1:05:22 ↗ pair it councilmember Goodman just a bit

1:05:24 ↗ we have to have something in the record

1:05:25 ↗ that we can point to whatever it is that

1:05:28 ↗ establishes why we made the

1:05:30 ↗ determination that we made and what I

1:05:32 ↗ find when I look at the check list which

1:05:34 ↗ is all I've got in the record is I have

1:05:36 ↗ assertions made in there but I don't

1:05:38 ↗ have any any reason or any any thing to

1:05:42 ↗ back them up so I don't know what the

1:05:46 ↗ final determination is going to be but I

1:05:48 ↗ don't feel like I have the data to do

1:05:51 ↗ that and so I just want to be really

1:05:55 ↗ clear I don't know if this is a

1:05:57 ↗ nonsignificant order there is going to

1:05:58 ↗ be a need for any I guess because I

1:06:01 ↗ don't have the data in the record to

1:06:03 ↗ make that determination and so if I as I

1:06:06 ↗ go down that road I go yeah we have a

1:06:09 ↗ clear error in the creation of this

1:06:13 ↗ determination of non significance

1:06:15 ↗ councilmember marks I'm not taking

1:06:19 ↗ phased review off the table I think it's

1:06:21 ↗ essential to considering the questions

1:06:24 ↗ that are in front of us both as a legal

1:06:27 ↗ matter and as a policy matter because it

1:06:29 ↗ points to the fact that when there is a

1:06:32 ↗ site-specific plan there will be a C per

1:06:35 ↗ review of that plan I think that we have

1:06:38 ↗ heard the the law of vests in director

1:06:41 ↗ Niven a certain authority to fill out

1:06:45 ↗ this application and what we have heard

1:06:48 ↗ in testimony was that the administration

1:06:52 ↗ viewed those rezoning x' as

1:06:55 ↗ fundamentally you know there's a

1:06:58 ↗ standard right that there needs to be

1:07:00 ↗ and I remember the exact term more than

1:07:01 ↗ moderate impact I think or words to that

1:07:03 ↗ effect and it was his position that

1:07:06 ↗ going from s FS l to c FF you know this

1:07:12 ↗ smaller Delta criteria and you can

1:07:14 ↗ disagree with that assessment but it was

1:07:18 ↗ their assessment and so you know I I

1:07:21 ↗ think that with all the respect saying

1:07:24 ↗ we need to take this off the table or

1:07:25 ↗ that off the table the seven of us will

1:07:27 ↗ arrive at the conclusions we arrived at

1:07:29 ↗ and you're free to come to a different

1:07:31 ↗ conclusion that I do and that was my

1:07:33 ↗ conclusion I'm following a good place

1:07:37 ↗ until following up on that so whether or

1:07:42 ↗ not there will be a future

1:07:43 ↗ SEPA that we have a SEPA checklist now

1:07:46 ↗ and that same law review says ultimately

1:07:49 ↗ the courts must be convinced that the

1:07:52 ↗ judgment of no significant environmental

1:07:54 ↗ effects which is what we have here was

1:07:56 ↗ genuinely undertaken fairly explained

1:07:59 ↗ and intuitively correct the selected

1:08:02 ↗ solicitation of information from other

1:08:04 ↗ agencies and even a pro forma hearing

1:08:06 ↗ will not suffice to sustain a negative

1:08:08 ↗ declaration if it produces a record

1:08:10 ↗ quote filled with many assertions

1:08:13 ↗ numerous and answered questions and a

1:08:15 ↗ paucity of information so whether or not

1:08:20 ↗ there will be what did you say as E is

1:08:24 ↗ later is that what you said sorry SEPA

1:08:27 ↗ so we have a seepage checklist now that

1:08:30 ↗ determination has to have been as I said

1:08:35 ↗ has to have a basis and it has to have

1:08:37 ↗ been fairly and explained intuitively

1:08:40 ↗ correct and genuinely undertaken I'm

1:08:44 ↗ sorry for what document are you quoting

1:08:46 ↗ it's page 42 of the Washington

1:08:50 ↗ Environmental Policy Act

1:08:51 ↗ it's the Law Review thank you on it I've

1:08:55 ↗ got electronically Thanks

1:08:57 ↗ it's not it was cited it sorry it was

1:08:59 ↗ cited in appellant brief handsome ever

1:09:01 ↗ Walsh so just looking at Washington

1:09:07 ↗ state code I was trying to find

1:09:10 ↗ something that related the CEPA with the

1:09:15 ↗ comprehensive plan so whack 365 196 620

1:09:22 ↗ and then let's see where I'm at

1:09:27 ↗ oh gosh I lost it again yeah

1:09:42 ↗ okay three G no find it in a second but

1:09:52 ↗ basically I think the part that comes

1:09:55 ↗ down to me is the idea of this within a

1:09:57 ↗ comprehensive plan means that you have

1:10:01 ↗ to evaluate all of the items together

1:10:05 ↗ and so creating a well I will find it

1:10:13 ↗ [Music]

1:10:15 ↗ did you want the legal citation again

1:10:17 ↗ 360 oh this is whack 365 196 620 yeah

1:10:24 ↗ it's the integration of State

1:10:26 ↗ Environmental Policy Act process with

1:10:28 ↗ creation and adoption of comprehensive

1:10:30 ↗ plans and development regulations that's

1:10:32 ↗ actually the G and May regulations

1:10:37 ↗ okay so 3d says when evaluating

1:10:40 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments these

1:10:42 ↗ amendments should generally be

1:10:43 ↗ considered together as one action under

1:10:45 ↗ SEPA so the cumulative effect of various

1:10:48 ↗ proposals can be evaluated together and

1:10:50 ↗ from my reading of that it suggests that

1:10:55 ↗ you know getting into details on a

1:10:59 ↗ specific site in the non project section

1:11:03 ↗ of SEPA wouldn't necessarily be

1:11:07 ↗ appropriate because you have to look at

1:11:10 ↗ the effect on the city as a whole of a

1:11:14 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment councillor

1:11:18 ↗ Cobden you know if that was so what

1:11:22 ↗ you're suggesting is that the we could

1:11:26 ↗ roll in roll in a whole bunch of actions

1:11:29 ↗ a whole bunch of things into a comp plan

1:11:31 ↗ amendment and everything just kind of

1:11:33 ↗ disappears into one non project that's

1:11:37 ↗ clearly not the law everything would go

1:11:41 ↗ under the radar there would be no review

1:11:42 ↗ there would be no environmental review

1:11:44 ↗ that's that's not how it works

1:11:53 ↗ and if the school district had been the

1:11:56 ↗ applicant the city staff never would

1:12:00 ↗ have accepted these answers so I'm

1:12:10 ↗ wondering if we want to consider taking

1:12:14 ↗ a once-around for the seven of us on

1:12:17 ↗ this question and move on to the next

1:12:19 ↗ question as it sounds it seems like

1:12:21 ↗ we're winding down our questions and our

1:12:25 ↗ comments to each other this question are

1:12:28 ↗ we I was just gonna ask three point one

1:12:31 ↗ I think there was a suggestion that

1:12:33 ↗ three point five is is fundamentally

1:12:35 ↗ similar but I would be happy if we just

1:12:37 ↗ I mean my suggestion and again I'm not

1:12:39 ↗ sharing this meeting is that maybe we

1:12:42 ↗ just go go around on three point one and

1:12:45 ↗ then move on to three point two right

1:12:49 ↗ I can do this all night it's so much to

1:12:56 ↗ do it yeah oh sorry

1:12:58 ↗ I do believe that the checklist was

1:13:01 ↗ complete in adequate and I'm going to

1:13:04 ↗ read another statement from that

1:13:07 ↗ infamous page 36

1:13:10 ↗ another group of cases better viewed as

1:13:12 ↗ timing cases

1:13:14 ↗ I know major action attending a variety

1:13:17 ↗ of preliminary planning moves that

1:13:20 ↗ cannot produce observable impact without

1:13:22 ↗ later decisions that can be attended by

1:13:25 ↗ full AIS compliance I think what they're

1:13:28 ↗ talking about there is his phased review

1:13:30 ↗ and I think the checklist for the

1:13:33 ↗ request or a zoning change was complete

1:13:38 ↗ inadequate just in closing just keep

1:13:43 ↗ going down the line maybe okay so

1:13:45 ↗ similarly for three point one and three

1:13:48 ↗ point five whack one which one am I

1:13:52 ↗ going to choose whack 197 dot 11 960

1:13:58 ↗ States use of checklist for non project

1:14:00 ↗ proposals for non project proposals

1:14:02 ↗ complete this checklist and the

1:14:04 ↗ supplemental sheet did I choose the

1:14:07 ↗ wrong one basically you don't need to

1:14:09 ↗ complete Section B and so I believe that

1:14:12 ↗ shows that it was not incomplete or

1:14:15 ↗ inadequate

1:14:16 ↗ I think the checklist is more than the

1:14:20 ↗ section B I think section D a specific

1:14:22 ↗ section D is very specific to this this

1:14:25 ↗ undertaking and I'm sorting meeting my

1:14:30 ↗ hobbyhorse right now but I don't have

1:14:32 ↗ enough data in what was provided in the

1:14:34 ↗ checklist on in Section D which is for

1:14:36 ↗ non projects which this is to support

1:14:40 ↗ the assertions that are made in there

1:14:42 ↗ they I mean councilmember Goodman did a

1:14:45 ↗ much more eloquent job of speaking to

1:14:47 ↗ some of the requirements and what we

1:14:50 ↗ have here are the things that the case

1:14:53 ↗ law said don't meet those requirements

1:14:55 ↗ so

1:14:56 ↗ I I can't say that this has been

1:14:59 ↗ prepared completely and adequately

1:15:02 ↗ regardless of whether we include section

1:15:04 ↗ B in it or not section D and my

1:15:07 ↗ estimation is completely unsupported I'm

1:15:14 ↗ hearing two recitation x' case law

1:15:16 ↗ washington law that seem like they're in

1:15:19 ↗ conflict it seems like if whatever desai

1:15:22 ↗ whatever side of one you choose is your

1:15:24 ↗ preference you can make a vast evidence

1:15:26 ↗ here you can make a very strong argument

1:15:28 ↗ for one or the other I don't like being

1:15:32 ↗ put in that situation because it means

1:15:37 ↗ you know you know it's gonna be more of

1:15:39 ↗ a judgement then based on law you can

1:15:42 ↗ choose to choose the case law

1:15:43 ↗ representation I think these are also

1:15:45 ↗ valid sites as well and I you know my

1:15:49 ↗ criteria is gonna be I'm gonna step back

1:15:52 ↗ and think about you know the big picture

1:15:54 ↗ and what we're trying to do here and and

1:15:57 ↗ you know I heard a lot of people had

1:16:00 ↗ heard a lot of people say boy I'm in

1:16:02 ↗ favor of schools and and on both sides

1:16:07 ↗ of this issue and here strong arguments

1:16:11 ↗ for and against whether or not this was

1:16:15 ↗ there was an error whether or not it was

1:16:19 ↗ clearly erroneous I've heard strong

1:16:22 ↗ arguments for and against and

1:16:27 ↗ I know that there's gonna be a detailed

1:16:29 ↗ SEPA done and so I I stated my point

1:16:33 ↗ earlier that I don't think there was

1:16:36 ↗ anything clearly erroneous

1:16:40 ↗ in other words I wouldn't remand it back

1:16:43 ↗ on this issue well I think you know what

1:16:49 ↗ I'm going to say I think that

1:16:50 ↗ environmental checklist was I'm

1:16:51 ↗ inadequate incomplete I think it I think

1:17:02 ↗ I've said it all before I just I think

1:17:10 ↗ it's stunning

1:17:11 ↗ I would absolutely send it back on this

1:17:14 ↗ issue so in in regard to three point one

1:17:24 ↗ and three point five then we can go back

1:17:29 ↗ use me just for a second I really do

1:17:38 ↗ earlier we had talked about phase two

1:17:41 ↗ review coming off the table and and I'm

1:17:43 ↗ not in a place where I can take faced

1:17:46 ↗ review off the table the again repeating

1:17:54 ↗ what I said earlier this is something

1:17:56 ↗ that from the testimony that I heard all

1:18:00 ↗ across the board this is something that

1:18:02 ↗ is used and looking at all of the

1:18:07 ↗ everything together as a group there are

1:18:10 ↗ there the the people who do this every

1:18:14 ↗ day had come forward and come up with

1:18:16 ↗ the determination of non significance

1:18:19 ↗ and I also am paying attention to the

1:18:25 ↗ issue that talks about substantial

1:18:27 ↗ weight and deference and and and

1:18:31 ↗ especially something being clearly

1:18:33 ↗ erroneous I don't think that that was

1:18:36 ↗ the case and so I will say that I

1:18:40 ↗ believe that because this was a phased

1:18:44 ↗ review and it and from what I'm hearing

1:18:46 ↗ that this would be looked at

1:18:49 ↗ later and that with the really the first

1:18:53 ↗ phase that the checklist was prepared

1:18:57 ↗ adequately so um I I will reiterate that

1:19:03 ↗ I think that the concept of phased

1:19:05 ↗ reviews at the part of this you either

1:19:07 ↗ believe that you can talk the general

1:19:11 ↗ and then get into the specifics or you

1:19:13 ↗ don't and I believe that this checklist

1:19:16 ↗ again reflected six or seven depending

1:19:19 ↗ on how you account it rezoning and for

1:19:24 ↗ that I I think that it was filled out in

1:19:28 ↗ the in the spirit of the phase review

1:19:30 ↗ and so I I don't I don't find it wrong

1:19:34 ↗ I make a comment since I was the one you

1:19:36 ↗ through phase review out there and I I

1:19:40 ↗ was not very articulate in how I thank

1:19:45 ↗ you I was not very articulate in how I

1:19:47 ↗ said taking phase review off the table

1:19:49 ↗ and what I meant

1:19:51 ↗ isometry clear I agree with phase review

1:19:53 ↗ and I agree that we should have the

1:19:55 ↗ ability to do a first pass in a second

1:19:58 ↗ pass with greater levels of detail and

1:20:00 ↗ specificity my point about phase review

1:20:04 ↗ was I think it failed on phase on phase

1:20:06 ↗ review I think it fell short even on the

1:20:10 ↗ initial phase review so I'm not

1:20:13 ↗ disagreeing with any of you that it's a

1:20:16 ↗ good practice to do non project review

1:20:20 ↗ and something like this and then come

1:20:21 ↗ back and do the specifics I think that's

1:20:23 ↗ right I think that's good I guess my

1:20:25 ↗ point was where I was sitting this

1:20:27 ↗ failed on the first phase of the CEPA

1:20:31 ↗ checklist so so I just want to be real

1:20:33 ↗ clear on kind of where I was on that

1:20:34 ↗ position because I I was I was hearing

1:20:38 ↗ you guys exactly what you were saying

1:20:39 ↗ and I was I was agreeing with you I on

1:20:41 ↗ the principle of phase review so when I

1:20:44 ↗ was saying that it was I was going in a

1:20:45 ↗ different direction and I asked a

1:20:47 ↗ question of my fellow council members

1:20:49 ↗ just to be clear so is there anybody who

1:20:54 ↗ is interpreting my comments as thinking

1:20:57 ↗ that if the checklist is incomplete or

1:21:01 ↗ we where it gets remanded for further

1:21:04 ↗ work on it that that sum is anybody

1:21:07 ↗ interpreting that is I'm somehow

1:21:09 ↗ thinking that's that we should require

1:21:11 ↗ an EIS an environment an impact

1:21:14 ↗ statement is that what anybody's

1:21:15 ↗ thinking I'm saying you're just making

1:21:17 ↗ sure

1:21:19 ↗ and I if there are if if any of us don't

1:21:22 ↗ understand what any of those things are

1:21:24 ↗ I think that's the time for us to ask

1:21:25 ↗ now because a sip a checklist for this

1:21:29 ↗ non-project action and requiring more

1:21:34 ↗ work on it or sending it back for more

1:21:35 ↗ work on it at asking for a new

1:21:37 ↗ determination whatever that is does not

1:21:42 ↗ negate phase review just so everyone's

1:21:45 ↗ clear it is just it would it would my

1:21:48 ↗ comments are strictly because this phase

1:21:51 ↗ was not done correctly it's not because

1:21:53 ↗ I oppose phase review just to be clear

1:21:56 ↗ shall we move on to issue three point

1:21:59 ↗ two don't everybody else peak at once we

1:22:09 ↗ point to yes issue three point two

1:22:12 ↗ whether the environment checklist and

1:22:14 ↗ finally should everything yes

1:22:23 ↗ I'm sorry just very briefly I thought

1:22:30 ↗ the the city staff gave a good rationale

1:22:34 ↗ for could you pull it in microphone

1:22:35 ↗ closer I thought the city staff gave a

1:22:37 ↗ good rationale for why they decided to

1:22:41 ↗ be the applicant rather than the school

1:22:43 ↗ district if I heard it correctly they

1:22:47 ↗ being the applicant opened the doorway

1:22:49 ↗ to the next phase of the project and so

1:22:54 ↗ it seemed me or it sounded to me like

1:22:58 ↗ bureaucratic or paperwork kind of thing

1:23:01 ↗ that the city took on the applicant role

1:23:03 ↗ during this phase and that later on the

1:23:06 ↗ school district would be in that role

1:23:08 ↗ and maybe maybe heard that wrong so

1:23:10 ↗ councilman Barry I think it's absolutely

1:23:14 ↗ appropriate for the city to be the

1:23:16 ↗ applicant on this the school district

1:23:18 ↗ has a few of the components of this

1:23:20 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment not all of

1:23:23 ↗ them and this was a checklist that was

1:23:25 ↗ aimed at the entire comprehensive plan

1:23:27 ↗ amendments so it would actually have

1:23:30 ↗ made no sense for the school district to

1:23:31 ↗ have taken the lead on that

1:23:34 ↗ councilmember Goodman I think the school

1:23:36 ↗ district should have been named on the

1:23:37 ↗ applicant as a proponent a proponent of

1:23:40 ↗ one of the specific docket items which

1:23:44 ↗ is the Providence Heights property

1:23:49 ↗ and if I and probably tell us to since

1:23:52 ↗ those are both yes

1:24:07 ↗ sorry I think I could go either way on

1:24:11 ↗ that from my perspective it does not

1:24:13 ↗ change whether or not something should

1:24:18 ↗ necessarily be remanded back whether or

1:24:22 ↗ not the school district should have been

1:24:24 ↗ named as a proponent or or not that's

1:24:31 ↗ not a big deal from my perspective what

1:24:36 ↗ you're saying yeah

1:24:37 ↗ again I want asked as Stacey to your

1:24:39 ↗ point what's the what's the material

1:24:41 ↗ difference if they are actually named as

1:24:42 ↗ a proponent there is a lot isn't stated

1:24:49 ↗ in terms of material difference the law

1:24:51 ↗ just requires the CEPA checklist to be

1:24:54 ↗ filled out completely inadequately and

1:24:56 ↗ it requires identify identification of

1:25:00 ↗ enough information for people to be

1:25:02 ↗ aware of what's being proposed okay

1:25:06 ↗ thank you when when I look at this tying

1:25:19 ↗ this back to the whole entire the bigger

1:25:25 ↗ question here I'm I'm struggling a

1:25:27 ↗ little bit but I believe that when we're

1:25:30 ↗ looking at this because there were

1:25:32 ↗ several different elements to this the

1:25:35 ↗ the different comprehensive plan pieces

1:25:39 ↗ that it seems like it would have made

1:25:41 ↗ sense for the city to be the applicant

1:25:48 ↗ so

1:25:53 ↗ that's my remarks you have any sure this

1:25:57 ↗ is again if you believe in phase review

1:26:01 ↗ this this DNS in front of us is around

1:26:05 ↗ the entire packet of materials and

1:26:08 ↗ that's clearly this is it at City basic

1:26:10 ↗ whether appear to be a mechanism to have

1:26:13 ↗ multiple proponents on this so I don't

1:26:16 ↗ know how or how it would have worked to

1:26:18 ↗ say Oh on one of these there's a there's

1:26:20 ↗ a co proponent or something it it's it's

1:26:23 ↗ fine to me that the city was both the

1:26:26 ↗ applicant and the proponent Goodman

1:26:29 ↗ question so if we had I don't know if

1:26:34 ↗ this amounts to things in the record so

1:26:37 ↗ if something if it was in the record or

1:26:39 ↗ not but

1:26:42 ↗ for prior comprehensive plan amendments

1:26:46 ↗ is it fair to discuss what we have done

1:26:51 ↗ in the past as a council what's have

1:26:54 ↗ been in Prior comp plan amendments for

1:26:58 ↗ maybe you could clarify a little bit

1:26:59 ↗ that do you mean with respect to who has

1:27:02 ↗ served as the applicant or project

1:27:04 ↗ proponent and person included in the in

1:27:07 ↗ what some I guess if you can speak with

1:27:10 ↗ authority on that for as a known fact I

1:27:13 ↗ mean I guess if we were doing it from

1:27:15 ↗ memory that might be a bit concerning

1:27:17 ↗ and it's it is not really in the record

1:27:20 ↗ so I guess I mean are you are you asking

1:27:24 ↗ that from the perspective of precedent

1:27:26 ↗ or just trying to gain greater

1:27:30 ↗ understanding of how you define who

1:27:33 ↗ should be the proponent or the applicant

1:27:34 ↗ in with this type of proposal yeah yeah

1:27:39 ↗ I'm not I don't want to kind of knock it

1:27:43 ↗ up that's okay okay it Casimir Walsh

1:27:45 ↗ sorry so looking at the environmental

1:27:48 ↗ checklist in Section a question 9 it

1:27:53 ↗ does mention two properties of the

1:27:55 ↗ ethical school district are proposed for

1:27:57 ↗ community facility does reach

1:27:59 ↗ designation rezoning are currently in

1:28:00 ↗ the permit review process and then two

1:28:03 ↗ other times when it's looking at the

1:28:05 ↗ specific parcels it does mention schools

1:28:10 ↗ so I feel like it's it's included in the

1:28:17 ↗ environmental checklist even if not

1:28:19 ↗ listed as the proponent

1:28:22 ↗ you

1:28:30 ↗ yeah their discussion on this particular

1:28:34 ↗ issue we kind of already did the go

1:28:35 ↗ around what kind of a winter something

1:28:37 ↗ look like you're gonna say something I

1:28:39 ↗ was going to ask if we wanted to kind of

1:28:42 ↗ just go through one more time or were

1:28:45 ↗ you saying you think you have an

1:28:46 ↗ accounting

1:28:47 ↗ I think everyone except for our global

1:28:50 ↗ EU has have indicated your current

1:28:53 ↗ thinking on that okay all right that's

1:28:57 ↗ that's what I was wondering I agree with

1:29:02 ↗ councilmember Walsh it's there was for

1:29:06 ↗ just awareness about what's going on

1:29:09 ↗ what would be the purpose of this rezone

1:29:11 ↗ who's doing it what might who's asking

1:29:13 ↗ for it or who it may benefits and for

1:29:16 ↗ what purpose

1:29:17 ↗ there was no mystery about any of these

1:29:20 ↗ I don't I don't this issue 3.2 whether

1:29:24 ↗ they're as the applicant or the

1:29:25 ↗ proponent or certain school district

1:29:29 ↗ plans as proposed project and proposal

1:29:33 ↗ again I think there's sufficient

1:29:36 ↗ information communicated

1:29:39 ↗ [Music]

1:29:40 ↗ somebody doesn't agree with me

1:29:43 ↗ sufficient information I'm sorry could

1:29:45 ↗ you just complete that thought from my

1:29:47 ↗ checklist that addresses that does the

1:29:55 ↗ council want to move on to issue three

1:29:57 ↗ point three okay let's do that

1:29:59 ↗ how about I read it out loud so then I'm

1:30:02 ↗ not distracted whether city staff could

1:30:04 ↗ rely on future mitigation during

1:30:05 ↗ permitting to address adverse impacts

1:30:08 ↗ are raising from development permitted

1:30:10 ↗ and or anticipated by the proposed

1:30:12 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment or rezone

1:30:16 ↗ councilman remarks so I feel very very

1:30:20 ↗ strongly that the appellant argument is

1:30:23 ↗ basically a rejection of phased review

1:30:27 ↗ it says there is no evidence or

1:30:30 ↗ reference to report studies or project

1:30:32 ↗ analyses that indicate adverse impacts

1:30:34 ↗ from the schools proposal can or will be

1:30:36 ↗ mitigated and that is just one hundred

1:30:39 ↗ percent counter to the concept of the

1:30:41 ↗ phased review council member austrane

1:30:48 ↗ so my perspective on this is if there

1:30:51 ↗ was well and truly an application in to

1:30:55 ↗ the city staff with a plan that was in

1:31:00 ↗ the works that then you would almost you

1:31:04 ↗ would have to start to address some of

1:31:06 ↗ the needed mitigation and because this

1:31:13 ↗ was a pre-application conversation and

1:31:17 ↗ an application had not been submitted I

1:31:20 ↗ feel like it's impossible to look at

1:31:26 ↗ potential adverse impacts from just a

1:31:30 ↗ rezone when you've determined that the

1:31:35 ↗ intensity of use between those two zones

1:31:38 ↗ is early similar and thus the ability to

1:31:46 ↗ mitigate between the differences of

1:31:48 ↗ those at this stage in the process I

1:31:50 ↗ think is is diff

1:31:51 ↗ if there was a big difference in the

1:31:54 ↗ array zone even if it was phased review

1:31:57 ↗ there might be something there to

1:31:58 ↗ mitigate but I don't think in this case

1:32:00 ↗ because of the zone differences that

1:32:02 ↗ there is because we were winter Stein

1:32:05 ↗ the phrasing of this issues is funny to

1:32:09 ↗ me whether staff city staff could rely

1:32:12 ↗ on

1:32:12 ↗ I'll just going to get rid of the word

1:32:15 ↗ future just rely on mitigation and and

1:32:18 ↗ it well we we absolutely rely upon a

1:32:24 ↗ super review and if any items are

1:32:26 ↗ identified some type of EIS and

1:32:29 ↗ mitigation potentially identified so

1:32:31 ↗ yeah we're very we we do rely upon the

1:32:36 ↗ process to identify and and identify

1:32:40 ↗ impacts and print essentially prescribe

1:32:42 ↗ some type of mitigation and and it seems

1:32:46 ↗ the question some of the question here

1:32:48 ↗ is where in the timeline do you want to

1:32:51 ↗ do that and and it was clear especially

1:32:56 ↗ during Trish Hainan ins testimony early

1:33:03 ↗ on it's like yeah we know there's going

1:33:05 ↗ to be a project one we're absolutely

1:33:07 ↗ those questions about impact are going

1:33:10 ↗ to be assessed in detail and and I

1:33:14 ↗ thought that was pretty powerful and I

1:33:16 ↗ and in anybody who is wondering if

1:33:19 ↗ there's going to be impacts

1:33:21 ↗ I would hope heard that and see what the

1:33:24 ↗ plan is to know that that is going those

1:33:27 ↗ are going to be addressed

1:33:29 ↗ I think it's commits whether you do it

1:33:31 ↗ sooner or later and I think later with a

1:33:33 ↗ lot of detail and the final detail makes

1:33:36 ↗ a lot of sense so yeah absolutely could

1:33:39 ↗ rely upon the future mitigation

1:33:41 ↗ councilmember Rey thank you

1:33:45 ↗ this really is my opportunity to come

1:33:48 ↗ back two-faced based pays review so yes

1:33:53 ↗ we have to do this in the second phase

1:33:55 ↗ and that's not an option

1:33:58 ↗ my issue since my kind of first words

1:34:03 ↗ this evening go back to the statements

1:34:07 ↗ that there's an obligation to provide as

1:34:10 ↗ much information as soon as possible as

1:34:12 ↗ early in the process

1:34:13 ↗ as you can and so maybe that's more of a

1:34:18 ↗ three point one question but we're gonna

1:34:25 ↗ do three point three I'm sure that I

1:34:26 ↗ would just rather have the information

1:34:27 ↗ sooner rather than later councilmember

1:34:31 ↗ Goodman so the issue if the question

1:34:34 ↗ whether city staff could rely on future

1:34:37 ↗ mitigation during permitting future

1:34:43 ↗ sorry whether city staff could rely on

1:34:45 ↗ future mitigation during permitting to

1:34:48 ↗ address adverse impacts arising from

1:34:50 ↗ development permitted and/or anticipated

1:34:52 ↗ by the proposed Comprehensive Plan and

1:34:55 ↗ amendment or rezone and I would continue

1:35:00 ↗ it and therefore not comply with the law

1:35:11 ↗ for this SEPA checklist then my answer

1:35:15 ↗ is no I don't think you can rely on the

1:35:21 ↗ future and completely ignore the

1:35:22 ↗ environmental impacts when you're doing

1:35:24 ↗ a SEPA checklist I'm going to keep going

1:35:26 ↗ back to that

1:35:33 ↗ council member Batista so I guess I

1:35:42 ↗ think that part of especially after

1:35:44 ↗ listening to councilmember Goodman's

1:35:48 ↗ answer I this is worded very strangely

1:35:52 ↗ to me I did it it's it's hanging me up

1:35:55 ↗ in a couple of different places so I I'm

1:35:59 ↗ an answer based on the way that I

1:36:01 ↗ interpreted that which I and I think

1:36:04 ↗ that we we all might have some different

1:36:06 ↗ interpretations of number three but to

1:36:10 ↗ me when I read this this is really the

1:36:13 ↗ crux of phased review and that was my

1:36:17 ↗ read on that is that we that we would

1:36:22 ↗ that we would be looking at all of these

1:36:26 ↗ issues as as we as we look to the next

1:36:32 ↗ phase and so that was my that was my

1:36:35 ↗ read initially and that's how I was

1:36:38 ↗ interpreting that three point three

1:36:41 ↗ councilmember marks and then Danielle

1:36:43 ↗ yeah I mean I think yes it is

1:36:47 ↗ interestingly worded so this is why I go

1:36:49 ↗ back to the appellant brief that they

1:36:52 ↗ initially submitted reliance on featured

1:36:54 ↗ mitigation is inappropriate that is just

1:36:56 ↗ a rejection of phase review great

1:37:00 ↗ so I'd like to focus in on the word rely

1:37:03 ↗ and I want to acknowledge that the

1:37:05 ↗ people of Providence Point have raised

1:37:07 ↗ many many important issues about this

1:37:11 ↗ project or this particular piece of land

1:37:16 ↗ and I think that we're dealing with

1:37:18 ↗ trust not only can the city staff rely

1:37:20 ↗ on this but can people of Providence

1:37:23 ↗ Point rely on future mitigation during

1:37:26 ↗ the permitting process and I think that

1:37:29 ↗ we would be remiss if we don't take to

1:37:31 ↗ heart that many important issues have

1:37:33 ↗ been raised and that those all need very

1:37:35 ↗ very careful review I do think that that

1:37:38 ↗ review needs to take place as a phased

1:37:40 ↗ review at an appropriate time because we

1:37:44 ↗ again are the stewards of your tax

1:37:47 ↗ dollars and it is not in my mind

1:37:50 ↗ appropriate to spend a lot of money on

1:37:53 ↗ environmental studies when then those

1:37:56 ↗ get changed later on when we actually

1:37:58 ↗ have a plan in front of us but so I

1:38:01 ↗ would affirm three-point-three but I

1:38:04 ↗ would say that that is more than just

1:38:07 ↗ the city staff it's does our community

1:38:09 ↗ and especially do the people at

1:38:11 ↗ Providence poink and they rely on that

1:38:13 ↗ phased review it's going to depend a lot

1:38:15 ↗ on how we communicate and how well we

1:38:18 ↗ communicate and how well we bring

1:38:20 ↗ everyone into the conversation

1:38:28 ↗ other additional discussion on issue 3.3

1:38:32 ↗ has a member Goodman I'm did and did we

1:38:35 ↗ hear that who would be the lead agency

1:38:38 ↗ once the project was off the ground that

1:38:42 ↗ school district Recife but we have the

1:38:46 ↗ we have the approval of the master site

1:38:48 ↗ could you speak into your microphone

1:38:49 ↗ sorry

1:38:50 ↗ the seafood would be done by the school

1:38:52 ↗ district but the City Council was

1:38:54 ↗ responsible for the master site plan for

1:38:56 ↗ proving that and I as part of that

1:38:58 ↗ approval I would presumably would be

1:39:00 ↗ would be able to access the tests and

1:39:04 ↗ studies that are done for the CEPA

1:39:09 ↗ others okay I was kindly reminded at

1:39:14 ↗ some point we should take a bio break so

1:39:17 ↗ before we launch into issue 3.4 I'll

1:39:20 ↗ pause and see if the council would like

1:39:22 ↗ one now okay I'm seeing heads nodding

1:39:24 ↗ why don't we take ten minutes is that

1:39:30 ↗ okay

1:49:21 ↗ we're back

1:49:22 ↗ thank you for my benefit could we

1:49:25 ↗ actually bring the slides backed one so

1:49:30 ↗ just a reminder because we just don't

1:49:33 ↗ Amin of the issues as I'm trying to

1:49:37 ↗ capture for myself the discussion not

1:49:40 ↗ only on the appeal issues which wearing

1:49:42 ↗ nicely marching through I actually just

1:49:44 ↗ thought before we do event again with

1:49:46 ↗ respect to the factual determinations

1:49:50 ↗ that are leading into some of the

1:49:51 ↗ decision-making that you are concluding

1:49:54 ↗ I just wanted to take this opportunity

1:49:57 ↗ before we stop start in to see if there

1:49:59 ↗ are any factual issues at this point in

1:50:01 ↗ time that the council think are

1:50:03 ↗ necessary to resolve or discuss I mean

1:50:06 ↗ for the most part from what just to try

1:50:09 ↗ and capture some of the issues that I

1:50:10 ↗ think we've covered I mean don't think

1:50:12 ↗ you know for example some of the issues

1:50:14 ↗ with respect to you know you know who

1:50:16 ↗ should have been the applicant versus

1:50:17 ↗ who was the applicant I mean those are

1:50:19 ↗ all very straightforward with respect to

1:50:22 ↗ some of the other facts that have we've

1:50:25 ↗ been you know essentially talking about

1:50:27 ↗ but not necessarily directly so with

1:50:29 ↗ respect to the school district proposal

1:50:31 ↗ itself because I do think that in the

1:50:34 ↗ briefing that was there was some

1:50:36 ↗ differences in how the parties

1:50:37 ↗ characterized what to what extent that

1:50:41 ↗ was known or you know was an actual

1:50:44 ↗ project proposal it would be helpful for

1:50:46 ↗ me if the council at some point in this

1:50:49 ↗ conversation if there's any you know

1:50:51 ↗ discussion around that issue in

1:50:53 ↗ particular from a factual basis and I'll

1:50:56 ↗ try and think if there were any others

1:50:57 ↗ but I know that that was one is

1:50:59 ↗ definitely a threat of what you all have

1:51:01 ↗ been talking about with respect to its

1:51:02 ↗ relevance from a legal perspective but

1:51:04 ↗ in terms of if there was any disputes

1:51:07 ↗ with respect to what the what to what

1:51:11 ↗ extent there is a proposal or not by the

1:51:13 ↗ school district at this point in time so

1:51:15 ↗ but if you want to go right back into

1:51:17 ↗ issue three point four and come back to

1:51:19 ↗ this at some point at least it would be

1:51:20 ↗ helpful for me and in trying to capture

1:51:22 ↗ your decision

1:51:27 ↗ but we can why don't we flip the slides

1:51:29 ↗ and we'll just let's keep powering

1:51:30 ↗ through at three point four thank you

1:51:35 ↗ so issue three point four is whether

1:51:38 ↗ city staff should have considered

1:51:40 ↗ impacts of the proposed comprehensive

1:51:42 ↗ plan amendment or rezone on the

1:51:45 ↗ environment where plans prepared for

1:51:47 ↗ development of the properties exist

1:51:52 ↗ Oh councilmember right thank you well

1:51:54 ↗ this is sort of my hobby horse so I'm

1:51:56 ↗ gonna go first on this way this is where

1:51:59 ↗ I actually do believe that the city

1:52:01 ↗ should have considered based on what

1:52:06 ↗ we've seen in terms of state law

1:52:09 ↗ this was known information it should

1:52:11 ↗ have been fact in my opinion should have

1:52:13 ↗ been factored into the preparation of

1:52:16 ↗ the the the checklist canceled never

1:52:22 ↗ could have been I'll just follow up

1:52:23 ↗ quickly and I won't I'll spare everybody

1:52:26 ↗ everything I already said before because

1:52:28 ↗ you know my answers yes

1:52:36 ↗ can some of my mites I'll spare everyone

1:52:38 ↗ for their comment of mine I believe

1:52:41 ↗ phased review says the answer is No

1:52:46 ↗ councilmember Walsh so in the timeline

1:52:49 ↗ that was presented in the briefs there

1:52:53 ↗ was a discussion of basically whether or

1:52:55 ↗ not this was a pre-op location or an

1:52:58 ↗ actual application that would have

1:53:00 ↗ included plans and so I looked up IMC

1:53:05 ↗ 1804 1:30 a paren a which talks about

1:53:10 ↗ the pre-application conference and it

1:53:13 ↗ says the intent of the pre-application

1:53:14 ↗ conference is to save the applicant time

1:53:17 ↗ and resources in the preparation of the

1:53:19 ↗ application and so Reese opposing that

1:53:23 ↗ this proposal or this image of the site

1:53:30 ↗ came out of a pre-application meeting I

1:53:34 ↗ feel like it should not based on that be

1:53:38 ↗ included in in a SEPA review because it

1:53:45 ↗ was not an accepted application

1:53:49 ↗ it was a reapplication conversation and

1:53:53 ↗ thus should not be used for a SEPA

1:53:57 ↗ review that which should be based on

1:53:59 ↗ fact not conversation

1:54:08 ↗ Oh councilmember de Michelle yeah is it

1:54:11 ↗ appropriate to bring personal experience

1:54:12 ↗ to this discussion or is it completely

1:54:14 ↗ on the facts and the things that were

1:54:16 ↗ presented maybe well thank you for the

1:54:21 ↗ definitive answer I worked for 17 years

1:54:26 ↗ at King County department transportation

1:54:27 ↗ and as a community relations person and

1:54:32 ↗ work through that worked on several

1:54:35 ↗ projects novelty Hill Road project the

1:54:40 ↗ mountainside bridge project other major

1:54:42 ↗ projects and it just is very very common

1:54:45 ↗ for plans to be changed and so the fact

1:54:49 ↗ that the school district had not filed

1:54:51 ↗ for had not done filing for permits I

1:54:57 ↗ think that the determination was

1:55:00 ↗ appropriate on the part of the city that

1:55:04 ↗ plans prepare for developments did not

1:55:07 ↗ exist right so petite so I would I would

1:55:17 ↗ say that the answer would be well I I'll

1:55:22 ↗ just go back to phase review and I think

1:55:26 ↗ that in in the spirit of phase review

1:55:29 ↗ that would not be something that would

1:55:31 ↗ be looked at at that time as there

1:55:33 ↗ wasn't an official there was not an

1:55:36 ↗ application and this was a phase two

1:55:39 ↗ review so no

1:55:46 ↗ interesting how I think it was mr.

1:55:49 ↗ Karlson who was a witness for the school

1:55:51 ↗ district tried to address this it's like

1:55:53 ↗ yeah there may be some things you can do

1:55:56 ↗ in phase one of a phase review you might

1:55:58 ↗ know something about the earth he said

1:56:00 ↗ and but he didn't go any further it was

1:56:03 ↗ it was like it was just a possibility

1:56:06 ↗ and so I didn't ever hear any definitive

1:56:12 ↗ expert testimony that in this case it

1:56:16 ↗ should have it should have been done and

1:56:18 ↗ I think it was well established that the

1:56:21 ↗ plans even as we heard during the trial

1:56:24 ↗ the other day are still in flux and so I

1:56:29 ↗ I I do feel some tension to like well

1:56:33 ↗ they should have done something I think

1:56:34 ↗ for my colleague to the right here keeps

1:56:36 ↗ talking about as soon as possible uuuugh

1:56:39 ↗ that things as soon as possible

1:56:40 ↗ and I think there's a judgement there's

1:56:42 ↗ room for judgment in this case when the

1:56:45 ↗ people involved know and believe that

1:56:48 ↗ more details were coming and a full

1:56:50 ↗ assessment will be made and we shall

1:56:53 ↗ rely on that I I think that's what

1:56:56 ↗ happened

1:56:57 ↗ and so so I think the fact that there

1:57:01 ↗ were no consideration even of the earth

1:57:04 ↗ as well as we were told about about

1:57:07 ↗ prepared plans or what was being yet

1:57:09 ↗ that were incomplete the fact that those

1:57:11 ↗ weren't considered I don't think is what

1:57:13 ↗ reason for remanding it

1:57:22 ↗ other comments

1:57:29 ↗ okay would you like to move on to issue

1:57:32 ↗ 3.5 then which is whether city staff

1:57:36 ↗ properly completed the environmental

1:57:39 ↗ checklist by including answers such as

1:57:41 ↗ not applicable or none for certain

1:57:43 ↗ questions

1:57:45 ↗ I do believe this is the same as 3.1 I

1:57:49 ↗ think we've already cast I answered if

1:57:51 ↗ you will great so I guess at this point

1:58:00 ↗ in the evening we have covered all of

1:58:05 ↗ these specific issues that have been

1:58:07 ↗ raised by the appellant and for the most

1:58:11 ↗ part it seems like there is a little bit

1:58:14 ↗ of a discrepancy but the there does seem

1:58:18 ↗ to be a majority of you who are leaning

1:58:21 ↗ one certain way at least on all of the

1:58:24 ↗ issues I just want to take this

1:58:25 ↗ opportunity to see if there's any desire

1:58:27 ↗ to revisit I mean we haven't taken a

1:58:28 ↗ formal vote per se but at least I've

1:58:31 ↗ certainly got some clarity on where the

1:58:33 ↗ majority are landing on each of these

1:58:35 ↗ issues but would is there any desire to

1:58:37 ↗ return to any of these issues given

1:58:40 ↗ where we're at at this point in the

1:58:41 ↗ discussion so procedurally what I have

1:58:46 ↗ two questions the first one is I think I

1:58:49 ↗ know but I'll let you answer what

1:58:50 ↗ happens from here well at some point in

1:58:56 ↗ this evening and it could be immediately

1:58:58 ↗ after this round of conversation you

1:59:00 ↗ need to make an ultimate decision as to

1:59:04 ↗ whether to grant or deny the appeal and

1:59:06 ↗ I think the way I had been thinking this

1:59:09 ↗ gets teed up is that that's the point

1:59:10 ↗ where you would take a formal vote

1:59:12 ↗ that's the emotion that was put in your

1:59:14 ↗ council bow with respect to what happens

1:59:18 ↗ after that then these issues that you've

1:59:21 ↗ been discussing essentially I mean this

1:59:24 ↗ is a little bit unusual because but if

1:59:26 ↗ you think of it since you know so well

1:59:28 ↗ and like a effectively like in a multi

1:59:31 ↗ judge panel situation is that with the

1:59:33 ↗ majority of you leaning one way on each

1:59:36 ↗ of the issues is that that that we would

1:59:38 ↗ come to differently we would come to

1:59:40 ↗ legal conclusions on each of those

1:59:41 ↗ issues on the basis of where the

1:59:43 ↗ majority of you had had essentially

1:59:46 ↗ landed if you prefer though to take a

1:59:49 ↗ formal vote on each of those issues I

1:59:51 ↗ mean that is something that we could

1:59:53 ↗ certainly do I think my question was a

1:59:58 ↗ you draft the findings of fact and

2:00:02 ↗ conclusions of law and then does it come

2:00:06 ↗ back to us for approval and is but you

2:00:09 ↗ can't do that until we take a vote

2:00:11 ↗ you can't dress weight correct so so I I

2:00:14 ↗ don't I don't draft it up and then you

2:00:16 ↗ decide you we would ask that you'd make

2:00:18 ↗ your decision about whether to grant or

2:00:20 ↗ deny the appeal and then the decision

2:00:22 ↗ that I write would come back to you for

2:00:25 ↗ final mostly Corrections you know it the

2:00:28 ↗ decision as to how you land on each of

2:00:30 ↗ the issues and ultimately denying or

2:00:32 ↗ granting has been made is then just a

2:00:34 ↗ matter of form did I get the decision

2:00:37 ↗ correct you know are there any edits

2:00:39 ↗ that you would like to make to that yeah

2:00:45 ↗ councilmember Martin so I'd like to

2:00:48 ↗ suggest that we make a motion and if the

2:00:50 ↗ council would like to make comments

2:00:52 ↗ about that motion before we take a vote

2:00:54 ↗ so I will move that we deny the appeal

2:00:58 ↗ and uphold the final DNS second sir

2:01:03 ↗ discussion motion I'll start so this is

2:01:08 ↗ normally the point where we sort of talk

2:01:10 ↗ about policy and kind of talk to the

2:01:12 ↗ audience and because this is a quasi

2:01:14 ↗ judicial proceeding I'm gonna stay away

2:01:16 ↗ from the Sun the policy side only to say

2:01:19 ↗ that I look forward to talking to the

2:01:21 ↗ community about their concerns about

2:01:22 ↗ this very important project after this

2:01:25 ↗ quasi judicial proceeding is over and I

2:01:27 ↗ encourage them to contact all of us on

2:01:29 ↗ those issues as a matter of law I

2:01:33 ↗ understand the concerns raised by those

2:01:36 ↗ who feel that the CEPA checklist was not

2:01:39 ↗ done correctly and I appreciate

2:01:40 ↗ councilmember Goodman's detailed legal

2:01:45 ↗ sightings I do think that the

2:01:48 ↗ combination of having a be a phase

2:01:49 ↗ review with a non project review inside

2:01:52 ↗ a comp plan leads me to not to not not

2:01:57 ↗ accept those arguments which is why I

2:01:59 ↗ made that this motion this evening that

2:02:03 ↗ really concludes my comments

2:02:07 ↗ um

2:02:12 ↗ because whenever Goodman I will so I

2:02:16 ↗ won't support it obviously that's not a

2:02:20 ↗ surprise

2:02:20 ↗ based on how my comments the I will say

2:02:27 ↗ that even a phase read view does not

2:02:31 ↗ relieve the applicant or proponent or

2:02:35 ↗ whoever is filling out the CEPA

2:02:36 ↗ checklist and doing that initial

2:02:38 ↗ environmental check-in does not relieve

2:02:41 ↗ that I'll call them agency from the

2:02:44 ↗ obligations under Seba and the reason

2:02:48 ↗ I'm voting now is because I think it

2:02:50 ↗ should read be remanded to comply with

2:02:53 ↗ the law it's not compliant with the law

2:02:55 ↗ and for the very reason I think that you

2:03:01 ↗ mentioned Tola

2:03:02 ↗ phased review of a compliment some

2:03:05 ↗ something in a comp plan a non project

2:03:08 ↗ inside a comp plan is just layers upon

2:03:11 ↗ layers of non transparency that's not

2:03:14 ↗ Washington law that's not compliant with

2:03:17 ↗ the State Environmental Policy Act and I

2:03:23 ↗ would again not presupposing what the

2:03:26 ↗ result would be but my vote would be to

2:03:31 ↗ remand it with further work and then

2:03:34 ↗ have another determination being made

2:03:37 ↗ whatever that is and that would be up to

2:03:40 ↗ again the folks in the community who

2:03:43 ↗ felt if they felt so to appeal that but

2:03:48 ↗ I have no presupposition about what that

2:03:50 ↗ may be I just think that what the city

2:03:52 ↗ has done in this case is awfully

2:03:54 ↗ woefully inadequate and I will vote no

2:04:01 ↗ councillor Marais there are very many

2:04:09 ↗ assertions in the checklist that don't

2:04:15 ↗ have any facts in the record to support

2:04:18 ↗ them as we move forward with this

2:04:22 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment I think

2:04:27 ↗ that the the sepa document should be an

2:04:30 ↗ important tool for evaluating if this is

2:04:34 ↗ the right way for us to approach the the

2:04:37 ↗ comprehensive plan

2:04:39 ↗ I think we've missed and we if we go

2:04:43 ↗ forward with the current determination

2:04:45 ↗ of non significance we have missed an

2:04:49 ↗ opportunity to have better information

2:04:52 ↗ to inform our decisions going forward so

2:04:55 ↗ I think the biggest loser in not

2:04:59 ↗ insisting on a thorough and complete

2:05:02 ↗ checklist is us because we won't have as

2:05:05 ↗ good of information as we could have had

2:05:07 ↗ to made the decisions that we need to

2:05:09 ↗ make about the comprehensive plan

2:05:11 ↗ amendment

2:05:19 ↗ the request has been really made that

2:05:22 ↗ the audience is requested not to make

2:05:24 ↗ comment at this point this is a

2:05:26 ↗ quasi-judicial proceeding it is not a

2:05:27 ↗ legislative action at this point in time

2:05:33 ↗ quote Forrest Gump that's all I have to

2:05:35 ↗ say about that other discussion

2:05:40 ↗ councilmember Walsh so I support the

2:05:45 ↗ city's determination of non significance

2:05:49 ↗ in this case I think looking beyond the

2:05:54 ↗ environmental checklist at the actual

2:05:56 ↗ final DNS and the evidence that was

2:06:03 ↗ brought forth through testimony and the

2:06:06 ↗ briefs suggests that the differences

2:06:12 ↗ between the single-family small lot and

2:06:16 ↗ cff zoning were the considerations and

2:06:21 ↗ that there was not a determination of

2:06:24 ↗ increased intensity between the

2:06:27 ↗ differences between those two zones and

2:06:30 ↗ I think that's supported in the DNS yeah

2:06:39 ↗ I want to deny the appeal and and I

2:06:44 ↗ think though that the comments just made

2:06:48 ↗ I agree with those and that that the the

2:06:53 ↗ determination and the basis that was

2:06:54 ↗ that it was a bait well what it was

2:06:56 ↗ based upon and then on and for the

2:07:00 ↗ information about the current zoning and

2:07:02 ↗ the proposed zoning and the intensity of

2:07:05 ↗ use differences in the judgment of the

2:07:08 ↗ CEPA official who we shall defer to or

2:07:11 ↗ at least put well I don't give a lot of

2:07:13 ↗ weight to I think is is enough for me to

2:07:16 ↗ agree with that determination I also

2:07:20 ↗ wanted to cite I found it really

2:07:22 ↗ interesting that in the the appellant

2:07:25 ↗ lawyer and his closing arguments the

2:07:27 ↗ first comment that he made was that we

2:07:29 ↗ were running from the fact that a school

2:07:31 ↗ will be built but that was really

2:07:33 ↗ interesting I felt like I was anybody

2:07:36 ↗ was running from anything I heard

2:07:37 ↗ nothing but support for schools and it

2:07:39 ↗ did make me wonder if there was if this

2:07:43 ↗ Challenge was really about Seba or not

2:07:46 ↗ because that comment seems to suggest it

2:07:49 ↗ was really need to stop a school and I

2:07:51 ↗ heard nothing but comments from public

2:07:53 ↗ the public about how we support schools

2:07:56 ↗ and and then later on he also made the

2:07:59 ↗ point that that putting off review means

2:08:02 ↗ the public isn't going to know what's

2:08:04 ↗ going on and I disagree with that and I

2:08:06 ↗ think there's processes and there's

2:08:08 ↗ checks and places here when there is a

2:08:10 ↗ project and there will be a detailed

2:08:13 ↗ super review and and which way the water

2:08:16 ↗ flows and which way the traffic flows

2:08:18 ↗ and where it comes out and where the

2:08:20 ↗ lights are placed and exactly what can

2:08:23 ↗ be done to mitigate those impacts they

2:08:26 ↗ that will be reviewed that will be

2:08:28 ↗ assessed and if something needs to be

2:08:31 ↗ mitigated it will be required as part of

2:08:34 ↗ the permit process and and I don't think

2:08:37 ↗ that that will be hidden and so I I

2:08:40 ↗ thought that those arguments were not

2:08:42 ↗ very convincing in fact I disagreed with

2:08:44 ↗ those arguments so that also ways I just

2:08:47 ↗ think that was very important that was

2:08:49 ↗ the appellant case that that those were

2:08:54 ↗ unfortunate points to make

2:09:01 ↗ the others council member deputies this

2:09:07 ↗ is a difficult decision and while

2:09:12 ↗ thinking this through I will be

2:09:14 ↗ supporting the motion to deny the appeal

2:09:16 ↗ and uphold the final DNS we we do have a

2:09:22 ↗ process in the city and and through all

2:09:25 ↗ the testimony that that I heard that we

2:09:28 ↗ do have a process of phase two review

2:09:30 ↗ which means that well as we've talked

2:09:35 ↗ about that there that there are two

2:09:37 ↗ levels and that that from what I've

2:09:42 ↗ heard that was the intent going forward

2:09:45 ↗ there is also information here that says

2:09:48 ↗ that we will give a degree of deference

2:09:50 ↗ to the SEPA responsible official and it

2:09:54 ↗ shall carry substantial weight in the

2:09:57 ↗ appeal proceedings and also talks about

2:10:00 ↗ a piece of something being clearly

2:10:03 ↗ erroneous I think that the intent to go

2:10:08 ↗ forward with the phased review was was

2:10:12 ↗ the intent and that is the reason for

2:10:16 ↗ how I feel at this point

2:10:22 ↗ councilmember de Michelle thanks first

2:10:25 ↗ of all and thank everybody for being so

2:10:27 ↗ polite and civil tonight and for

2:10:29 ↗ listening so well there were times when

2:10:32 ↗ I forgot you all were here because

2:10:34 ↗ you're being so quiet so as I said

2:10:38 ↗ earlier I think that some really

2:10:40 ↗ important issues have been raised I

2:10:43 ↗ checked this afternoon to make sure that

2:10:47 ↗ the next phase that this both the school

2:10:50 ↗ district will be conducting as Seba and

2:10:53 ↗ the council will be looking at the

2:10:55 ↗ master site plan coming up on December

2:10:58 ↗ 16th we actually have the vote on

2:11:01 ↗ whether or not to approve the rezone and

2:11:05 ↗ I would encourage everybody to contact

2:11:08 ↗ us and talk with us I spent some time

2:11:11 ↗ walking around Providence Point to see

2:11:13 ↗ the layout and the land there and I

2:11:17 ↗ understand that there are many houses

2:11:19 ↗ there that will be impacted by this

2:11:22 ↗ proposed project and so I think to me

2:11:26 ↗ this is a microcosm of what's going to

2:11:29 ↗ happen in Issaquah over and over and

2:11:31 ↗ over again because we are being impacted

2:11:33 ↗ by growth and we're going to all have to

2:11:36 ↗ learn how to get along with each other

2:11:39 ↗ in much closer quarters and

2:11:42 ↗ [Music]

2:11:45 ↗ as we address that and how we address

2:11:47 ↗ that will be how we come together as a

2:11:51 ↗ community and I want to be a part of

2:11:54 ↗ making this a good process and something

2:11:56 ↗ that we can all live with eventually so

2:11:59 ↗ I will be supporting the motion tonight

2:12:02 ↗ but I'm looking forward to me this is

2:12:05 ↗ the beginning of a long process of all

2:12:08 ↗ of us working together to see what is

2:12:09 ↗ the best outcome we can get at this

2:12:16 ↗ point I feel that I need to hand this

2:12:18 ↗ back over to the mayor all right I'm

2:12:30 ↗ doing it so all those in favor of the

2:12:34 ↗ motion to deny the appeal signify by

2:12:38 ↗ saying aye it was opposed nay all right

2:12:42 ↗ the motion to deny the appeal as passes

2:12:47 ↗ believe we may have one hopefully more

2:12:50 ↗ motion on the table potentially in terms

2:12:53 ↗ of that next step to complete the

2:12:57 ↗ decision it's not necessarily automatic

2:12:59 ↗ that I would go off and write it I think

2:13:01 ↗ that you need to delegate that that

2:13:03 ↗ request to me unless what you want

2:13:05 ↗ unless you all want to collectively

2:13:07 ↗ write that decision would be directing

2:13:14 ↗ the cities the City Council's council to

2:13:17 ↗ prepare a findings of fact to support

2:13:19 ↗ the decisions almost night

2:13:22 ↗ all those in favor aye any opposed

2:13:27 ↗ all right so for clarification for

2:13:30 ↗ council members I will be working on

2:13:33 ↗ that draft I will get you a draft in

2:13:35 ↗ advance of your next meeting so that you

2:13:37 ↗ have the opportunity to review that and

2:13:40 ↗ I'm guessing maybe the best way to treat

2:13:43 ↗ it is like your minutes is that when you

2:13:44 ↗ come and meet you know if any any

2:13:46 ↗ changes or Corrections that be done in

2:13:50 ↗ your next open session unless there's

2:13:52 ↗ any disagreement there then that's how

2:13:54 ↗ we'll proceed so now maybe I'll hand it

2:13:56 ↗ over back to the mirror

2:13:58 ↗ now that's a good time thank you very

2:14:01 ↗ much Council and City Council for all of

2:14:04 ↗ your work this evening and just for the

2:14:06 ↗ public who is here thank you for

2:14:08 ↗ participating and following this through

2:14:10 ↗ it's been a long process it's been a lot

2:14:12 ↗ of time and it could be very much with

2:14:14 ↗ what council member do Michelle said

2:14:16 ↗ that it's been a it's been a good

2:14:18 ↗ respectful process and we appreciate it

2:14:20 ↗ because we know it's an emotional issue

2:14:21 ↗ and we know it is a very important issue

2:14:24 ↗ to the residents that are adjacent to

2:14:26 ↗ these parcels so thank you all for that

2:14:28 ↗ and there being no other business

2:14:31 ↗ tonight we are now adjourned

2:14:34 ↗ [Music]

2:14:44 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Mariah Bettise

Barbara de Michele

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (2)

Deny the appeal and uphold the Final DNS [Final Determination of Non-Significance for 2019 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments] . (Opponents: Reh, Goodman)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 5-2

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Barbara de Michele, Tola Marts, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Reh, Goodman

Direct City Council legal counsel, Ray Liaw, to prepare Findings and Conclusions for review and approval by the Council, consistent with the Council’s discussions and decision to deny appeal number APP19-00006. .

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by MARTS

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Barbara de Michele, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh, Paul Winterstein