[0:00] 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

[0:06] Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, February 24, 2026, regular business

[0:11] meeting of the Olympia City Council. For the record, we have a quorum with all council

[0:15] members present tonight. So before we adopt the agenda, I do have a statement here that

[0:21] I wish to read regarding the rally that is taking place just outside. So there was a call

[0:29] that went out to the community for individuals to be here tonight to comment to us on

[0:34] flock cameras. We always want to encourage community members to give public comments

[0:38] on the issues that are important to them. However, I do want to take a moment to reiterate

[0:43] several facts about flock camera, our flock camera program before we continue with tonight's

[0:49] public comment. So, late last year we heard from community members about strong concerns

[0:55] with flock and a call to shut it down. We heard fears and anger about the federal government using

[1:00] data and other communities for purposes of immigration enforcement, data security and overall

[1:06] privacy concerns, and the expanding use of advanced license plate reader or ALPR, which it will

[1:14] be referred to from here on out, and other similar technologies. We as a city respond it to those

[1:20] concerns. The FLOC camera program has been suspended since December. All camera equipment has been

[1:26] removed and the current contract with FLOC will not be renewed. All data outside the 30-day

[1:32] retention window or which is required for local law enforcement investigation purposes has been

[1:38] deleted. We remain committed to providing opportunities for transparent processes with public input

[1:44] before any future movement towards public safety technology solutions.

[1:50] We have also taken action to help community members feel safer and more empowered in response to ICE activities.

[1:57] We are upholding our sanctuary city commitments, educating community members by making available

[2:03] no-your-rights cards, issuing a mayor's statement, convening elected officials from the region to talk about safety planning, and providing opportunities for

[2:11] community members to take part in or help co-host know your rights trainings.

[2:17] Tonight, Council will also take formal action on two items that demonstrate our sanctuary

[2:22] city values in commitment.

[2:24] The first is the approval of a resolution calling for the end of dangerous immigration enforcement

[2:29] tactics by ICE and US customs and border protection.

[2:33] Using protection of constitutional rights, urging protection, excuse me, of constitutional rights,

[2:38] and requiring guardrails on Department of Homeland Security funding.

[2:43] The second is an update on the Olympia Municipal Code that prohibits the use of city-owned

[2:50] or controlled property for civil immigration enforcement activities or operations by federal

[2:55] agents.

[2:57] We acted in response to community concerns about suspending flock and we will continue to act

[3:02] in response to our community's concerns about actions by the federal government, specifically

[3:07] specifically the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Custom Enforcement.

[3:11] Earning and maintaining public trust is critical to this council, city leadership, and the Olympia Police Department.

[3:20] So with that, I do believe we will hear more from our community members during our public comment segment of the meeting.

[3:27] But for now, we will continue with the rest of the agenda and I need a motion to adopt tonight's agenda.

[3:34] Move to adopt the agenda.

[3:35] Second.

[3:36] All those in favor of adopting the agenda is published, signify by saying aye.

[3:41] Aye.

[3:42] We have an agenda.

[3:43] So our first item tonight is special recognition, which is a poetry reading from the city of Olympia's Poet Laureate Ocean, who was here with us tonight.

[3:53] So I'd like to welcome up Stephanie Johnson, who is our arts program manager to.

[3:59] Hi Stephanie.

[3:59] Hi, thank you. Mayor Payne and members of Council, I am Stephanie Johnson with City of Olympia Parks Arts and Recreation and I'm here tonight with our Poet Laureate for 2025 to 2027 Ocean.

[4:12] And part of the work of Olympia's Poet Laureate is to present a Poet Laureate Policy Council meeting near the beginning of each year.

[4:18] And the goals of the Poet Laureate Program are to promote poetry as an art form, expand access to the literary arts,

[4:25] connect the community to poetry, promote poetry as a community voice that contributes

[4:30] to a sense of place, and to address the topic of the Poet Laureate appointment, which

[4:35] is to utilize the power of poetry and language to contribute to thoughtful response and

[4:40] centering around the concept of resilience.

[4:58] Hi, Elshin, it's good to see you.

[5:00] Hi.

[5:01] Thanks, Tom.

[5:02] The old

[5:10] tree breathed with me, O bright child, placenta, Doug undercrumbed to feed this

[5:19] seedling, ye coast pines, swung and broken, clawing cliffside, over glitter seas, blighting

[5:29] brine.

[5:31] Where under slither tenderl, through my father's ashes, and arch in spring-time

[5:38] reverie, or swing in shore-gales, cackling, Up through brittling air,

[5:47] strain branches, strain arms, in the space-lintled between finger and twig snag

[5:56] whispers of revenants, we breathe each other, have ever breathed, through alveoli and stomata,

[6:05] leaves and skin co-evolved to vain the star.

[6:11] We oxygen-brithers,

[6:14] we external lungs of our ancient kin, you one-legged gods who rise over us,

[6:22] strong of phloem and bast, who sleep bowed in hibernal ice only to erupt again in seas

[6:32] of Verdant foliage, your cycle of rebirth modeled for us religion.

[6:40] All mothers coil back to you, we peel over skin your bark.

[6:46] sun flare in leaf and palm, unfurl to receive star heat, red-wing flood in

[6:55] pilgrimage, star-ling and flutter-hawk, chlorophyll boiling in the mammals

[7:02] loins to make life from drops of sun all it is is oxygen, mother-molded

[7:11] matrices, and whirling helices, mammals but a side-roll in the drama beyond our reckoning.

[7:21] You old ones sing your story, brushing canopy against canopy.

[7:28] Trail weak ghosts mother, I raise my eye-waters glimmering on the sky. Old tree, breathe with me,

[7:37] we're here a while yet.

[7:48] Just a moment ocean. Just a moment.

[7:52] Thank you so much. That was beautiful, but I would love to hear more about

[7:57] what inspired you to write it or I see that it's from 2025 to 2027. So when exactly did you write it?

[8:05] This is my latest poem and I was working on it for my friend puts out a magazine for severed branches press.

[8:15] who's here tonight. And he invited poems around sacred trees. And so I was

[8:21] working on this theme of how we humans and trees, I mean the animals and the

[8:27] plants breathe together and how ancient that story is. So that was my theme and

[8:35] the sort of resilience of our relationship with the plant beings. Yeah. Thanks

[8:42] for asking. Yeah, beautiful. Well, thank you so much for sharing with us. And this is the first of

[8:48] several that in the future during your term that you'll be back here to read. And well, other than

[8:56] when you first were appointed obviously, but the first for this year. Are there any other comments

[9:01] from Council? Yes, Council Member Gilman. Thank you, Ocean. I wonder if you or Stephanie might

[9:08] describe what kinds of opportunities there are for people in the community to interact with you as

[9:13] Polet Lauret in this year. I could say that coming up in the spring that we have an in-person

[9:23] poetry workshop planned and a poetry reading plan that's open to the public also including an

[9:32] open mic so folks could come to that if you want to write and you can also come to that if you

[9:37] want to listen and you want to pretend share your work. That will be at the Olympia Center

[9:45] and traditions on the same day. But I have to look up what the aid is because I can't

[9:49] think of it. I'll stop my head. But that's in April. That might be a wonderful first

[9:55] place for folks to meet.

[10:00] Thank you for that question and the additional comments. Well, thank

[10:04] you so much again for sharing it with us. And I'll just quickly say that I'm going to admit

[10:08] to you that I highlighted at least 12 words that are not part of my vocabulary so this poem is

[10:15] also very educational for me to do my homework and find out what they mean.

[10:20] Thank you. Thanks Ocean.

[10:24] All right so that concludes our special recognition portion of our

[10:28] agenda for tonight and we are going to move on to public comment and I am going to turn it over to

[10:35] Mayor Pro Tem.

[10:38] All right.

[10:39] So for any of you that are need to public comment, each public comment trick, it's two minutes.

[10:44] We have quite a few public commenters signed up.

[10:47] And so if it does exceed 30 minutes total of public comment time, please know that we will

[10:53] pick up and continue public comment after all of the business meeting items.

[10:59] And so we will return to public comment if it doesn't make it within the 30 minutes.

[11:04] Because we have so many signed up, we are going to prioritize the folks that came to speak on topics that we're covering tonight, both in person and online, and then we'll pick it up with everyone else.

[11:20] So with that, I will call forward a few different names or a few names that you can sort of know when you're in queue to stand up at the podium here.

[11:28] Once you start speaking, the two-minute timer right over here will begin counting down to your time.

[11:36] It'll give you a little notice where it'll turn yellow in the lights before you to tell you that you have 30 minutes,

[11:43] or sorry, not 30 minutes.

[11:45] You have 30 seconds.

[11:47] You have 30 seconds, so that just tells you to wrap up your time.

[11:51] And if you hear me say thank you, that's my way of trying to politely wrap you up

[11:57] so that we can get to the next person.

[12:00] And with that, if your time elapses of two minutes,

[12:05] you can feel free to submit your comments through email.

[12:11] Mayor, we don't typically take Q&A during this time,

[12:14] but we have a community member with their hand raised

[12:17] that do you mind?

[12:18] If I, OK, go ahead.

[12:21] You'll let me speak, because I have a disability.

[12:24] I cannot be out driving at night,

[12:26] and I can only tolerate artificial lives for a short time.

[12:31] So I'm hoping that you'll just let me speak.

[12:33] I'm the first one in.

[12:34] I'll make it quick.

[12:36] Are you Kristen?

[12:37] I am.

[12:38] Okay.

[12:39] Thank you for that.

[12:40] Got it.

[12:41] Thanks for sharing.

[12:44] Was that everything?

[12:46] Okay.

[12:47] All right.

[12:48] So without further ado, we'll get started.

[12:52] So we do have Kristen first.

[12:56] Yes.

[12:56] And then we have Edith, who would follow by Rick Bird?

[13:02] And when you do come up, please state your first and last name for the record.

[13:06] Yeah, my name is Christina Townsend, 2141 Grove Road.

[13:12] I am also part of the soft lights foundation because I now have a new fun brain injury

[13:18] from LED street lights. Don't worry, they're not from yours.

[13:23] But I'm here to raise awareness on your light pollution that has gotten pretty severe.

[13:28] You guys have an amazing light policy, unfortunately nobody is following it and nobody is enforcing

[13:34] it.

[13:34] This is the border scale.

[13:36] A few years back you were back in here which is still bad but you now are here.

[13:44] And unfortunately no one got the memo on LED lights and there's absolutely no safety,

[13:49] no regulation and no standards for LEDs.

[13:52] What we now know is LED lights are linked to everything,

[13:56] and I'm sorry I'm going to like start your meeting off

[13:59] with some depressing news.

[14:01] Good news is it's easy fixable.

[14:03] But these lights now living under, these lights you guys see,

[14:08] increases everybody's risk of cancer by 30 to 60%.

[14:14] Let me let that say again, 30 to 60%.

[14:17] But now we know in the last year,

[14:18] There's so much research, over 20,000 research articles now coming out flooding on the impacts

[14:26] of LED lights, especially the blue, the flicker, and the strobing.

[14:29] So now we know that these also increase cardiac risk by 54% and stroke risk by 54% increase

[14:36] cardiac deaths by 28% and the main damage happens between the hours of 1130 and 530 at night.

[14:43] We have some serious things to go on.

[14:48] Here's your main culprit.

[14:49] So here's what a house should look like

[14:51] or a business should look like when they're closed.

[14:54] Unfortunately this is what's happening

[14:56] where people are putting out these high intensity LED lights.

[15:00] I said, cause permanent eye damage, by the way. You can't test these on humans because they cause damage. I think that's what they're looking at. This is, this is not good. This is good. We need the dark sky. You be the LED blue light, immediate impacts the macular. It is increasing macular Alzheimer's, dementia, permanent working memory and children, whether getting exposed to all these bright lights that are in schools, that are on the side of the road. We need to correct this really fast.

[15:29] But I'm going to give you a quick little history. So LED lights, I might done.

[15:34] Yes, although if you would like to leave any of that information with us, we can look at it.

[15:40] And if you had further comments, please feel free to email us.

[15:43] I will. Is there possibly a time that I can actually schedule to do a better presentation for the council?

[15:49] Is that allowable?

[15:52] I'm going to ask staff to follow up with you and also retrieve the documents from you.

[15:58] I want to you'll get the answer to your question. Yeah. Thank you.

[16:05] Okay. Next we have Edith. Who?

[16:15] My name is Edith Hewlett. I live on Woodard Green Drive. On the north side of that street is a

[16:23] Huntington apartment complex. It's a very big apartment complex. On the south is Sequoia assistant

[16:29] Living at the end of the street and across Lily Road is Kaiser Hospital and so we do get a lot of traffic there.

[16:41] My problem is this street is a very, very long block that's by the apartments and assisted living and then a short block where there's 26 houses.

[16:54] people have figured out that they can park their car there and just leave it. It's a safe place.

[17:04] Occasionally one gets towed away, but not often enough.

[17:08] The vehicles make it impossible to pass someone. You have to wait until the car goes by and then you can...

[17:15] It's not a two-lane anymore. It's a one-lane.

[17:19] I've been informed that the residents of the apartment complex have filed some kind of paper work to have something done about these abandoned vehicles, but nothing has happened.

[17:30] And so I understand they're allowed to be there three days, 72 hours, and then they have to be moved.

[17:38] I have pictures of some that have been there since 2022 and I would like to

[17:46] lead them with someone who would be able to give it to whoever the person is who

[17:50] would take care of this. Okay? That's about it. Thank you. Thank you Edith. We

[17:58] have staff coming up now that I'll follow up with you and take your documents.

[18:04] With

[18:05] With that, we have Rick Bird, followed by Jessa Davis, followed by Roslyn Irwin.

[18:16] Council members, my name is Rick Bird. I've lived in Olympia since 1973, a long time teacher and administrator with the Olympia school district.

[18:27] Currently, my wife and I live at Briggs East in the 55-plus Silver Leap Apartments from old folks.

[18:39] And one of the main reasons that we moved there was the whole concept about the bridge village.

[18:49] we want to be able to walk to a grocery store. We want to walk to the YMCA. It's part of our

[18:58] understanding about how to age in a way that works. And so, as you are considering, the

[19:08] changes that have been proposed for the Briggs Village, we ask you to be very aware

[19:18] of the motivation of people like us and others that have bought property in the village community

[19:25] to have that walkable community and to have the services that we need. If that means reducing

[19:33] the size of the grocery store to 9200 square feet in order to attract to make that happen then I'm

[19:43] for that. But as long as the grocery store is big enough for fresh fruit, fresh vegetables,

[19:53] the kinds of things that you need, the healthy kind of foods that you need. I encourage you to

[19:59] make sure that that happens. Thank you. Thank you. For those of you that are hoping for a response

[20:06] from Council, you may very well get one at the end of the 30 minutes. There will be a time for

[20:11] counsel to respond if they choose to do so. But we are listening. So oh I think we have our next

[20:19] person.

[20:24] Hello everyone thanks. My name is Jesse Davis my apprentice is she her and I'm the executive

[20:28] director of the Seattle Coalition for Family and Relationship Equity. So I wanted to come up today

[20:33] to say thank you for the hard work and effort that you've been putting into two bills that are before

[20:37] counsel tonight. And you know as a former Olympia resident someone who lived on the west side here

[20:41] instills a lot of connections in this community and comes here for work a lot. I just wanted

[20:46] to underscore the importance that bills like these protecting people's family and relationship

[20:52] status will have for those of us who live and work here even if we don't live here, right?

[20:57] So the organization for polyamory in Ethical Lamanogamy gives us some data that shows that social

[21:03] stigma is one of the greatest barriers that people who are polyamorous face in society.

[21:08] and non-discrimination efforts like these bills will help people begin to live

[21:14] authentically and openly. And so I'm excited for how creating this space in

[21:18] the public sphere to change the tone of the conversation will allow people to

[21:22] come out of the closet, speak up, and begin to chip away at that stigma, right? So

[21:27] the changes they're making in the law tonight hopefully are going to build

[21:32] towards a movement of acceptance. And I'm excited to see that Olympia is moving

[21:36] forward with increasing its status as a welcoming city. So thank you very much. I'm done early,

[21:42] which I was afraid I wouldn't be. So thank you. Yes, well done. Next we have Rosalyn Irwin.

[21:51] And if I do miss for now, it's your name. Please do correct it for the record. And followed by Brian

[21:56] Faller, followed by Linda Shotwell. All right. My name is Rosalyn Irwin. I'm speaking on the issue

[22:03] a family in relationship structure. My daughter has three parents when she was just two days old,

[22:09] her midwife came for her checkup and found that her heart was beating at about half the pace

[22:14] that it should have been. We rushed her to the ER where she was taken into the back with her

[22:18] biological mom. When we checked in the person at the front desk asked who we were to the patient.

[22:25] One of us hesitated and then we said mom, other mom and dad. In that moment we feared that the

[22:31] a person sitting across from us might say,

[22:33] well, only two parents can go back with the child,

[22:36] with the patient, or that there may be other questions

[22:39] that would keep us from our baby for any longer.

[22:43] The person across from us gave us a search and look,

[22:45] and then to our relief, we were allowed to go back with her.

[22:48] No parent should ever have to fear being kept

[22:51] from their child because of their relationship

[22:52] or family structure.

[22:54] No child should ever be separated from their parent

[22:56] because of their family structure,

[22:58] not even for a moment.

[23:01] Thank you for recognizing the need to pass protections for people with different

[23:04] relationships structures. Our daughter is two years old now and is happy and healthy and driving.

[23:10] Thank you for your time.

[23:13] Thank you.

[23:16] Next we have Brian Fowler.

[23:24] Good evening. I'm Brian Fowler with the Briggsville community group.

[23:28] I'm here to speak about the minimum grocery store size for urban villages like Briggs.

[23:32] The Planning Commission recommended a 12,000 square foot minimum for the grocery.

[23:37] The ordinance before you now provides for a minimum of only 9,200 square feet.

[23:42] Well you might say 9,200 square feet is only a minimum and that won't prevent a bigger

[23:47] store.

[23:48] If say a bigger grocery comes along, the problem is that grocery stores pay lower rents.

[23:55] And if the minimum stays at 9,200, the developer will build exactly that to maximize profits.

[24:01] He'll build a shell store at 9200 square feet that locks out any chance of a larger store

[24:07] that would better serve the community grocery needs.

[24:12] We're offering a compromise amendment to the ordinance.

[24:15] Set the minimum at 12,000 square feet as the Planning Commission recommended, but allow

[24:20] the developer to build down to 9200 feet if he actually has a grocery operator under contract.

[24:28] We've been waiting for it.

[24:29] This protects what we call the Goldilocks Zone, the stores between 9,200 and 12,000 square feet.

[24:36] These are the proven successful neighborhood grocers, H&O produce Lakewood,

[24:41] Tacoma boys and Tacoma and Puyallup.

[24:44] Harbor Greens and Gig Harbor and Spokane, in the Olympia food co-ops,

[24:48] planned 10,000 square-foot store. These stores are big enough to meet a lot of

[24:52] grocery needs and be successful.

[24:53] in summary. Oh, I still have time. Oh, I was rushing.

[25:01] It's summary. Our

[25:02] compromise hits another Goldilocks out. It better protects the community's

[25:07] needs and it still gives the developer flexibility. It's a fair and

[25:11] reasonable path forward. Thank you.

[25:16] Thank you. We have Linda Shotwell, followed by

[25:21] Tyson Holman and David Carlson.

[25:25] Well, you just said my name, but I'll say it again anyway.

[25:29] Hello, I'm Linda Schottwell, and I'm a resident

[25:32] at a cooperative village itself sound.

[25:35] It's just Kitty Corner from Briggs, why?

[25:40] And besides everything that Brian just said very well,

[25:45] I'm here to just respectfully ask that you consider

[25:50] honoring the Briggs master plan which included a full service grocery store and I

[26:01] would like to say that a full service grocery store will offer us life

[26:08] sustaining healthy food choices and a smaller store can't always do that

[26:15] especially when it comes to quality fresh fruit and produce. So thank you very much for listening,

[26:23] and I appreciate it, and you could have had more time, Brian, or wherever you are.

[26:30] Thank you, Linda. It doesn't work that way, but I appreciate you.

[26:37] I know. Did I sound like a kill,

[26:39] Joy? Thank you, Linda. All right. To add Tyson Holman?

[26:48] Okay. Hello. I am Tyson Holman,

[26:50] and I'm with the Seattle Coalition for Family and Relationship Equity.

[26:53] And I'm really stoked to be here tonight.

[26:56] I drove all the way from Seattle, and I came here to thank each and every one of you for passing protections for diverse family structures.

[27:03] I think it's really important for me personally. I'm a polyamorous and queer man, and I know firsthand what it's like to have to face discrimination and have to edit myself to prevent that from happening.

[27:12] I've got in the public with people that I love and have to pretend like that love doesn't exist.

[27:17] I've gotten really, really good at using the word partner as broadly and generally as possible to make sure people don't realize that I have more than one

[27:24] And this isn't just me. This is something that we all have to deal with. This editing of ourselves to avoid discrimination some of us when talking to a landlord

[27:32] We have to say roommate when really we mean family. Some of us when introducing a partner to a coworker

[27:38] We say just a friend when really we mean partner and I think one of the most tragic things that we have to deal with is some of us

[27:45] have to choose which partners are visible in public and which remain hidden.

[27:50] And I can tell you, I have been the hidden partner and it is a painful thing

[27:54] to go out into this world and feel like the way that I love isn't real or doesn't exist

[27:59] and it makes me question myself sometimes.

[28:01] And so the protections that you're putting forth for the City of Olympia

[28:04] are going to really dramatically help people like me.

[28:08] And I really, generally, hope that the City of Seattle is able to follow your leadership

[28:12] and implement similar protections. Again, thank you.

[28:18] Thank you.

[28:20] David Carlson, followed by Debbie Carter and Tom Colleen.

[28:30] Good evening, friends. My name is David Carlson.

[28:32] I'm the Legislative Campaign Coordinator for Open.

[28:35] That's the organization, probably Henry and ethical nominogamy.

[28:38] Really, I'm just a fear because I got to say thank you.

[28:42] I've been doing this job for over a year and talking to city council members across the country.

[28:47] Y'all show real leadership. This is impressive. We were able to have a conversation.

[28:53] You understood the need for your community, for the people that love in your community.

[28:57] And you took it up. You didn't ask, you asked real questions. You had concerns.

[29:03] And you moved forward. You didn't, you didn't make up issues. I've seen that.

[29:10] You didn't slow-roll it. You saw the need and you took, you took action.

[29:14] and so really, I'm just here to say thank you.

[29:21] Thank you, Debbie, go ahead.

[29:27] Council members, my name is Debbie Carter

[29:29] and this is actually my first time

[29:32] at a city council meeting, so fun.

[29:37] I am a resident of Silverleaf apartments

[29:41] and I am actually my apartment and faces out

[29:44] to the Briggs YMCA, Briggs TAP room

[29:48] and the most amazing ice cream shop ever, Humblecow.

[29:54] I'm here today because I'm concerned about the changes that are being...

[30:00] I've spoken to about the rezoning. Already, just from my apartment building looking out, I can see where parking has become an issue without anything even being built in those green spaces. Also, I'm concerned about the amount of traffic that additional housing units in that area would bring. It's really hard. People will come over and actually park over in our open parking area.

[30:29] across from humble cow and they are trying to get over across the street and I'm concerned with

[30:37] little kids that are out there we actually almost witnessed a little kid being hit trying to

[30:44] cross the street and so it's just my concern about putting more housing in there the parking and

[30:53] also I'm kind of concerned about the infrastructure also if it will support the additional

[30:59] units in there. Last summer, we had about four power outages because of power

[31:07] surges. And I'm not sure if that has been corrected. And then, yeah, like I said,

[31:14] I'm just concerned about having more housing units put in there. Thank you.

[31:20] Thank you. Tom, you're up next, followed by Ribbon Beagle. And then just for head

[31:27] up for staff, and then we're going to move to virtual.

[31:33] I, my name is Tom Colhane.

[31:36] I live near Olympia High School, and I'm an active member of Briggs, YMCA.

[31:42] I oppose amending the zoning requirement to increase the number of residential units and

[31:47] decrease the required commercial space in urban villages, including Briggs.

[31:53] The existing requirements took into consideration plans to decrease traffic and support a walk-walk

[31:59] community. They include a strategic mix of residential and commercial space and shared

[32:05] parking plans for commercial properties. To change the zoning now, Arthur requested

[32:11] the developer, Mr. Gill, after he provided virtually no evidence of a meaningful effort

[32:17] to recruit a full service grocer would be wrong.

[32:22] In public meetings, Mr. Gill has mentioned only a single contact with Spuds and that contact

[32:29] was never pursued.

[32:32] Obviously it's more lucrative for Mr. Gill if the grocery

[32:36] requirement is reduced and he's allowed to lease the space to hire rent tenants.

[32:41] However the council is supposed to be acting on behalf of the community and not

[32:46] just one individual. Briggs is a great location for a grocery store for our

[32:53] region. The man exists, the community exists there, the walkable design exists. What's missing

[33:02] is a developer willing to pursue the grocery store, the city plan for, and the residents

[33:08] were promised. For these reasons, I asked the council to uphold the original zoning requirements

[33:14] requiring a grocery size that actually meets the community needs. Thank you.

[33:21] Thank you.

[33:27] Ribbon Beagle.

[33:32] Good evening, City Council.

[33:34] And thank you for your time today.

[33:35] I'll try to be brief.

[33:36] My name is Ribbon Beagle, and I am a member of the Olympia Democratic Socialists of America.

[33:40] I would like to start by thanking you and your efforts around the additions and amendments to

[33:44] City Code in regards to family and relationship structure.

[33:47] I am a polyamorous woman, and conversations are about, and my partner is always the ones I'm open about,

[33:51] and the ones I'm not open about.

[33:53] So I appreciate City Council's quick and immediate action once this ordinance was suggested the council.

[33:58] I understand that city counselors are asked to learn about a lot, even in topics where

[34:03] they have no understanding in, especially in these uncertain times of safety within

[34:07] our sanctuary cities.

[34:08] It is important that ordinance like these are simple and easy to do in your own words.

[34:13] These are protections that will add another layer of legal lifelines of safety for our communities

[34:18] wholly in intent, whether it be in great families had to link together and hiding from ice,

[34:22] way back to that, legally documented or not, to queer families who have been promised the

[34:27] freedom to be who they wish to be, and to live how they wish to love, only to be let

[34:31] down time and time again. And even yes, your mother-in-law, that is on the mortgage

[34:35] of lives downstairs on the first floor because it's cheaper than the apartment or a nursing

[34:39] home, sorry Robert. Me and my comrades may have fine disagreements

[34:43] with the City Council and business-owning class cooperation and success to Simon Proposition

[34:48] 1. But ordinances like this are how we show that we as a chapter are committed to assisting

[34:52] in the defense of every one in Olympia, regardless of those disagreements.

[34:56] It is also within the same breath that I must ask for the City Council to take another

[34:59] look in regards to the resolution in regards to CBP and ICE.

[35:03] ICE has blown open the door quite literally to the conversation around the immigration,

[35:07] robbing due process and civil liberties from people regardless if they are an American citizen

[35:11] or not.

[35:12] The only difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal one is paperwork.

[35:16] Reforming ICE is a conservative position, abolishing ICE is the moderate position.

[35:21] We need to stand up for our neighbors and the most marginalize and any nonviolent means

[35:25] should be possible. And the second to last line of defense should be the Olympia Police Department

[35:29] to uphold our sanctuary policies and laws and punish anyone who wishes to harm our neighbors

[35:33] for and domestic. Any organization that is also colluded with us should be held accountable as well.

[35:39] Thank you again for your time. I appreciate it. It is all I can ask for.

[35:43] Thank you, Ribbon. We'll go ahead and move to online public comments.

[35:50] First, we have Andrew Peterson.

[35:57] Yes, hi, thank you, Councilmembers, for the opportunity to speak tonight.

[36:01] My name is Andrew Peterson.

[36:03] My family and I have lived in Briggs Village for more than a decade.

[36:06] We've bought here for the dream of a walkable neighborhood with good parks for the kids and

[36:11] easy access to fitness, shops, and grocery stores.

[36:14] So I support the proposals suggested earlier by Brian Fowler.

[36:19] I understand Mr. Gil's desire to build more apartments, and we're willing to compromise

[36:24] some of our dream because Olympia needs more housing.

[36:28] Against our best interest, we even compromise when the original grocery store size because

[36:32] we just want something built that's large enough for us to buy the ingredients we need to

[36:38] make a healthy meal for our families.

[36:40] We have not, however, seen any willingness for Mr. Gil to compromise.

[36:43] In fact, he spends a lot of money to not compromise.

[36:46] His high-price attorney pushes his rejected proposals forward and planning commission recommendations

[36:52] to get ignored.

[36:54] He bought a market study that doesn't hold up any serious review to try and trick us into

[36:59] believing his proposals were justified.

[37:01] His potential business partners and our interest groups write letters of support claiming

[37:06] there's no commercial demand and that we shouldn't trust our lying eyes, that people line up

[37:11] ice cream, and crowd tables for beer and pizzas on weekdays in the middle of winter.

[37:16] If his claims were true, he could have saved up those letter fees and just shown us evidence

[37:20] he's been trying to actually sell the commercial space.

[37:23] He could have shown us the listings, he could have shown us phone calls or emails.

[37:27] In the full 12 months we've been going through this, he's shown us nothing.

[37:31] We'd even look for the evidence and we've found nothing, not mad because I don't like being

[37:35] lied to.

[37:37] But if the City Council allows it to not count the entire Briggs property in determining commercial space or allows him to build multiple tiny food stores, I'll just be sad.

[37:50] I'll be sad for me, my family, my neighbors, because the dream that we brought into got sold from beneath us to an out of town developer with deep pockets.

[37:58] Weaved his money around and got his way. Thank you.

[38:00] Thank

[38:04] you. Next we have Franklin Wilson.

[38:26] Is Franklin with us?

[38:28] Okay.

[38:38] Can you hear me now? We can. You sound great. Go ahead.

[38:42] Well, that's great. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My wife and I have lived in

[38:48] Briggs Village since, what, May of 2019. And we oppose to proposed alterations in the city's

[38:56] zoning codes in relation to Briggs Village. We believe the zoning regulations adopt

[39:01] adopted at the outset of Briggs Village, constitute a moral, if not a legal, contract with

[39:06] the citizens who have purchased or rent homes and apartments in Briggs Village.

[39:11] Further, we believe that capitulating to the demands of the developer before the original

[39:15] descriptions of Briggs Village had been given opportunity to work, constitutes a breach

[39:21] of trust between the city and residents who live in Briggs Village, as I think others have

[39:26] indicated so well this evening. Finally we believe that any current or future alterations

[39:31] to the original Briggs plan should be made contingent on the developer first a providing

[39:38] a Briggs 12,000 square foot or larger village grocery store and B working out appropriate

[39:45] arrangements for the maintenance and management of the planned commercial areas of Briggs

[39:49] Village including the regular removal of trash and the pruning of trees in the village

[39:55] commercial center and along the streets. I mean, the landscaping is minimally done in this village

[40:02] and especially along the streets. The trees are in terrible shape. And finally, see, working out

[40:08] appropriate arrangements for the management and maintenance of trees and sidewalks in the Briggs

[40:12] Village neighborhood, these things should be done prior to any alterations to the original Briggs

[40:17] Village Plan that was and and it seems to us that the city should support the

[40:23] residents primarily and development yes but when when the development sticks to

[40:31] the plan as purchased or sold. So thank you for your time. Appreciate it very

[40:36] much.

[40:39] Thank you. Next we have Ike Peterman.

[40:42] Thank you very Betty Bailey.

[40:48] Hello. Can you hear me? Yes we can.

[40:51] Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm also commenting on the Briggs Village development. It's where I live and I support a minimum 12,000 square foot grocery store and using the entire property to determine the minimum commercial space.

[41:05] It's been 13 years since I moved here primarily because of the grocery store and the walkable community concept.

[41:11] It seems like a pretty natural and organic idea, but people who don't live here are making

[41:16] life impacting decisions about us.

[41:19] So I support whatever my neighbors are supporting in this.

[41:24] It has been too long, and I'd like to see the council support their residents here, rather

[41:28] again, and outside individual.

[41:31] So thank you very much for your time and your consideration.

[41:37] Thank you.

[41:39] All right.

[41:40] so we have Betty Bailey and then we'll finish this round of public comment with Heather Burgess.

[41:48] Thank you. I'm Betty Bailey. I live adjacent to Briggs Village or, yes, at the Village Co-op

[41:56] of South Sound. And I have written testimony before you, but I do wish to speak briefly.

[42:03] There are hundreds, likely thousands of neighbors and interested parties who want this grocery

[42:12] store and other commercial plants in the Briggs Village.

[42:17] And we also want to win win solution, as Andrew mentioned, we've sometimes compromised

[42:23] what our original goal was mainly because we do want this grocery so badly.

[42:28] So, we do want to win for the developer, otherwise obviously you won't do the work.

[42:35] And we want a win for the community.

[42:38] So, high density.

[42:40] Okay, well, we're fine with that if parking is addressed.

[42:45] And that is a win for the developer.

[42:48] Adding another floor to the apartment buildings.

[42:51] Well, okay, again, if the parkings handled, and that is a win for the developer.

[42:58] Really, the only way to have a win for our community is to put in that grocery store.

[43:05] And I love what Brian Waller said about the 12,000 square foot requirement,

[43:11] flexing down to the 9,200 if the grocer was identified.

[43:17] And signed into a lease, right?

[43:19] so please give us a win-win solution. The neighbors are counting on it. Thank you.

[43:32] Thank you. Right, so our final public commenter. Thank you. Heather Burgess.

[43:40] Good evening members of City Council.

[43:42] This is Heather Burgess of the law firm of Dix and Frolic Phillips Burgess. I represent Briggs R.E. development and its principal Gordy Gill, who owns the undeveloped property being addressed this evening

[43:53] as part of the OMC 1805 amendments. I submitted a detailed comment to you on February 17th,

[43:59] 2026, and another one earlier today regarding applicants requested amendments to the proposal.

[44:05] I appreciate you considering those requests. I wanted to make two brief additional points.

[44:10] First, to draw the council's attention to written comments that you received from Kathy McCormick.

[44:14] Ms. McCormick was a city planner at the time the original Urban Village Code was written

[44:18] and also actively participated in the 2013 master plan amendment process, which is addressed in some detail in your staff report.

[44:26] She's pointed out that changes that occurred to reduce housing density elsewhere in the city over the last 20 years,

[44:33] such as the down zoning of LV8 Park have contributed to the lack of commercial demand at Briggs Village that was expected by the original plan,

[44:40] and that were built into the assumptions underneath it.

[44:43] So that's consistent with the results of the CIA and AI market study, increasing residential

[44:49] density and right sizing the retail component, including the grocery store, is necessary

[44:53] to achieve the vision that Ms. McCormick and others had in creating the urban village

[44:57] concept in that the neighbors and

[45:00] The residents there deserve and want to see. Finally, I just want to address briefly. There are many comments in the record from the why and its members about parking, although the applicant has disagreed and made that clear to city staff that about its legal duties to provide the why with free parking. He is committed to working cooperatively with the why and with the city to resolve those issues is needed in conjunction with the master plan amendment, which is the next step in the process.

[45:25] We urge the council to please consider allowing the smaller demising grocery stores as a way

[45:30] to bring grocers to the village and again greatly appreciate your time and consideration

[45:34] and the staff's work on this extended process.

[45:37] Thank you very much.

[45:39] Thank you.

[45:41] At this time we're going to conclude this portion of public comment and I recognize that

[45:46] we have a number of in-person and online public commenters that have been awaiting to speak

[45:52] and we just appreciate your patient so much and we will pick it up after we conclude business items.

[46:00] For what it's worth, many people are here to speak about Briggs Urban Village and I hope you

[46:06] will stick around to listen to those business items as they come up and counsel discuss them.

[46:12] But for now, let's turn it back to the mayor.

[46:16] Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. And just for the folks that are either in person or online,

[46:20] And actually, if you're looking at your agenda,

[46:23] we'll return to public comment after item 6D

[46:26] on your agenda.

[46:28] So stay tuned.

[46:31] All right, so we're going to move on to adoption

[46:35] of the consent calendar.

[46:37] I am tracking that we are going to pull.

[46:40] I am for G and for H. Are there any additional requests

[46:47] for polls for questions or comments on the consent calendar all right seeing

[46:54] none so at this time I will pull them after I get a second so is there

[47:02] a motion to adopt tonight's consent calendar so must second all right we have

[47:08] a motion in a second and we're going to begin with item 4g which is the approval of

[47:13] a resolution calling for an end to dangerous immigration enforcement tactics by

[47:17] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs Border Protection,

[47:22] urging protection of constitutional rights and requiring meaningful guardrails

[47:26] on Department of Homeland Security funding. And this resolution is spearheaded by Council

[47:32] Member Gilman who has comments and has requested support.

[47:37] Thank you. I'm really pleased that we can

[47:41] bring this resolution. We're bringing it at the same time as many cities across the United States

[47:49] are bringing very similar language and it's to help bolster our members of Congress who are willing

[47:57] to call to put guardrails contingent on any additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security

[48:07] to stop the ridiculous, cruel, dangerous tactics and actions that immigration is taking right now.

[48:19] So I also wanted to shout out that Councilmember Theresa Mosqueda from King County Council

[48:26] reached out to us and helped have a discussion with staff from King County about both this measure

[48:34] and the 4-H, how they're going about prohibiting ICE from staging on public property.

[48:42] So I just, I very much appreciate that we're bringing this forward.

[48:48] Thank you, Council Member Gilman, are any additional questions or comments?

[48:54] All right, I just want to say thank you to Council Member Gilman, again, for your work in

[48:59] spearheading this in arranging the meeting with Council Member Mosqueda and her staff.

[49:03] This is important because the resolution is about stating our position, frankly, as a local government,

[49:15] one of several across this country who disagree with the way that our federal agencies are handling the current enforcement of our immigration policies at the moment.

[49:31] and this resolution will also be shared with our congressional delegation as well to let them know

[49:39] our position and that we're one of many cities that are lending our voice to this conversation.

[49:46] And so I thank you for that. All right. So that's item 4G and then for item 4H we have the

[49:54] approval of an ordinance enacting Olympia Municipal Code chapter 12.75, which is prohibiting

[50:01] the use of city-owned or control property for civil immigration enforcement activities

[50:05] or operations by federal agents, declaring an emergency and establishing an effective date

[50:11] first and final reading. And just a few weeks ago, I made a request to the city manager that we

[50:18] to explore the concept of prohibiting ICE or any other federal agency from using city

[50:26] property for any of their purposes of enforcing their immigration policies that includes their

[50:35] personnel, their equipment, whatever.

[50:39] And so this gives us a mechanism to put this into our code and to enforce that code.

[50:47] And frankly, what's important is that we have a mechanism to challenge this, should this

[50:53] become a problem in the future.

[50:55] And so I will just be transparent about the fact that this does not mean that it cannot

[51:00] occur, and I want to be clear about that.

[51:04] But it does give us some ability to push back against it, and hopefully prevail if we need

[51:12] if we need to do that and if it comes to that and so hence the reason for making sure that we

[51:18] adopt this into our code as something that we feel very strongly about and so I understand that

[51:26] this is not something that everyone in our community is happy about but by majority our community is a

[51:35] welcoming city and we welcome people from all different backgrounds and this is one of very few ways

[51:41] that local governments have to try to have some kind of control of what's happening across

[51:48] communities across the country, and so we are happy to take this up to do all that we

[51:55] can as we promised our community members that we would.

[51:59] All right, so we have a motion in a second to adopt tonight's consent calendar.

[52:06] Actually before I do that, I also want to take the time to thank staff for acting so quickly

[52:12] And for doing a work particularly our legal department to prepare this for us to act on tonight. So thank you for your work. Much appreciated.

[52:21] All right, so we have that motion in a second. All those in favor of adopting tonight's consent calendar, signify by saying aye.

[52:28] Aye.

[52:28] Hi, consent calendars adopted. So that takes us to our first business item, which is item 6a,

[52:35] which is the approval of an ordinance amending the Olympia Municipal Code related to development

[52:40] standards for urban villages. And we have Jackson Ewing, who is our senior planning planner for

[52:47] community planning and development, who is presenting tonight.

[52:53] Hi Jackson. Good evening. Thank you.

[52:57] So just give me a pair with me a moment while I get set up.

[53:04] Thank you, Mayor Payne, and thank you, Council.

[53:06] My name is Jackson Ewing, Senior Planner with the Community Economic Development Department.

[53:12] And I am here to discuss amendments, proposed amendments to development standards regarding

[53:19] urban villages being OMC 1805.

[53:22] And I guess I'll start. There's a lot of names up here on the on my presentation. I have myself, Nicole Floyd, planning director,

[53:35] Jinnick Machado, economic development director and Tim Smith, the CPED director here as well with me to answer any questions.

[53:44] And if we need to get into some depth on this project.

[53:50] So, I'll start with some history of Olympia centers in the village approach.

[53:58] This kind of came to light through the 1995 Comprehensive Plan update looking out into

[54:04] the next 20 years, where we recently just adopted a new comprehensive plan looking out

[54:10] into 45.

[54:13] There's four types of villages within the city of Olympia that the code would allow creation

[54:20] of that be a neighborhood center. It's a very small retail district neighborhood village,

[54:25] which is a slightly larger with more of a retail core, an urban village, which is intended to be

[54:32] the largest of the mixed use village, and then the community oriented shopping center,

[54:40] which generally doesn't have any residential components. So we're talking about the largest of our

[54:45] urban villages and the comprehensive plan really points to the reasons why these are important.

[54:53] To provide a mix of housing types, village green, that's the central draw to the urban

[54:58] village, a balance of retail, office, residential, and recreation, and open space, that's all

[55:04] usable by the community members that live in that space.

[55:08] and this urban village is intended to serve a number of nearby neighborhoods, so you think that it's not just a draw for the folks that live in the village, but that folks living nearby the village would also be drawn for the retail services and recreation opportunities, parks or open space where events might be taking place.

[55:38] So talking about the zoning code amendment evaluation process, really looking at furthering

[55:47] the goals of the comprehensive plan, looking at urban villages as walking mixed use regional

[55:54] commercial centers. Learning from the past, in 1995, the assumption was that commercial was the

[56:00] main economic driver. And we are really in a different place than we were back in the mid-90s.

[56:09] But most development was commercial focused at that time, that was where the profit was.

[56:18] We couldn't predict COVID, and basically the First and County Economic Development Council

[56:25] data indicate that there's an increase in commercial demand, but not office-based demand.

[56:32] and we're looking to allow the amendment,

[56:37] the zoning code amendment evaluation process

[56:39] was looking to allow for adaptability

[56:42] and to really avoid over detailed requirements.

[56:48] The code that sets up urban villages is incredibly detailed

[56:56] and staff supports some clear clean requirements

[57:00] that have direct tiebacks to their purposes.

[57:04] So now I'm talking about the Briggs Urban Village.

[57:08] It's important because in the city of Olympia,

[57:11] the Briggs Urban Village is the only urban village

[57:14] of its type approved under OMC 1805.

[57:17] There are neighborhood centers and

[57:20] and other types of villages approved under 1805.

[57:24] But when we're talking about an urban village,

[57:26] bridge, Briggs urban village is the one that has been developed in the city of Olympia

[57:32] with no others of its type. The Briggs urban village is 137 acres, 75 of that is open

[57:39] space, there's lots of kettles and park space that both are protected for critical area

[57:46] purposes as well as dedicated for folks to enjoy. This area was annexed back in 1999.

[57:56] Between 97 and 2003 was when the city went through its plan to adopt these urban village

[58:05] code requirements. And like I said, it's the only one of its kind.

[58:11] And so, this is an important slide, getting into the differences between the zoning code

[58:20] amendments and master plan amendments.

[58:22] I think there's been a lot of public comment about a number of different things, but this

[58:29] slide really clarifies what we're looking at tonight and what we'll be on our plate as

[58:37] we move into the future looking at any potential changes to the adopted BRICS master plan.

[58:43] So the zoning code is what establishes the master plan.

[58:47] The master plan takes that zoning code and applies it to the site.

[58:52] And so what we're talking about tonight is the actual zoning code that establishes these

[58:57] village villages density, the grocery size, the range of allowable commercial space and

[59:04] height are things that are applicable to the zoning code amendments.

[59:10] Things like the number of residential units, how the village is laid out, where a grocery

[59:16] might be, parking requirements, things like that, will all be looked at in depth if

[59:24] an amendment to the bridge's master plan is brought forward.

[59:29] any changes that are decided on tonight would not affect the current adopted

[59:37] Bregs Urban Village and the plan. That would require separate public process that

[59:45] we'll talk about in a little bit.

[59:49] Okay, so this this this project has been before

[59:57] planning commission as well as the

[1:00:00] City Council Land Use and Environment Committee. And the recommended zoning changes that came from those public processes were reducing the required commercial space in the village, removing office space requirements as well, increasing the allowed percentage of multifamily and reducing the required percentage of single-family homes allowed in urban villages, eliminating the maximum square

[1:00:29] For a maximum number of stories for mixed use buildings facing the town square, maintaining

[1:00:37] their requirement for a grocery store and setting a minimum of 9,200 square feet.

[1:00:43] The current zoning code does not set a minimum for the grocery store.

[1:00:48] It is a range of zero to 50,000 square feet with the caveat that one that a grocery must

[1:00:54] be provided in an urban village.

[1:00:59] and so this is actually the 9200 would set that minimum threshold of the expectation for the amended plan.

[1:01:11] And an additional thing is that there's a new threshold being set for the timing of development of the village green or plaza.

[1:01:19] Currently, the code requires that that space be developed when 50% of the commercial space has been built out in the urban village.

[1:01:30] As we know, the development has been relatively slow out there and we're nowhere close to that 50% number to establish that village green.

[1:01:40] but these changes aim to, well, the code would require the next residential project, any residential units being constructed in the mixed use core to require that establishment of the village green.

[1:02:00] And this really breaks down throughout the ordinance where changes are happening.

[1:02:07] and so you can see on the screen what is adopted and what is proposed and so I'll just walk through them real quick.

[1:02:17] A daycare currently is required in urban villages and being proposed to being allowed as a permitted use.

[1:02:26] The amount of commercial space removing the tie between residential units and providing a certain amount of commercial space,

[1:02:34] moving towards a range that still meets the general intent of what was expected for commercial

[1:02:42] through this or through the original master plan approval and would hopefully allow a flexibility

[1:02:54] in what that commercial would look like. You're not locked into 500. You could really choose

[1:03:01] that range per acre to provide.

[1:03:04] Single-family multi-family, I won't get into that.

[1:03:08] The numbers are pretty straightforward, but the height of mixed use buildings,

[1:03:14] fronting the town square, going from three stories to four, allowing for more units above

[1:03:22] areas where there would be required commercial space on the ground floor.

[1:03:27] and removing max housing densities removing that limit to allow as many housing units as the village could support.

[1:03:42] The next is that phasing. You can see as it was adopted before it used to say before 50% of the required commercial space is under construction.

[1:03:51] the proposed is at the time, at the time residential development occurs in the village core and then the grocery store requirements.

[1:04:00] What is adopted is that the grocery stores required in urban villages, no minimum with a maximum of 50,000.

[1:04:07] The proposed code amendments would still require the grocery store and set a minimum of 9,200 square feet with a maximum of 50,000.

[1:04:17] So,

[1:04:23] what really guided staff's review of this before it ever got to Plain and Commission,

[1:04:28] I'm working through with the applicant to get a package that could be considered by Plain

[1:04:35] and Commission was really looking at the comprehensive plan for the support and where we needed to move

[1:04:42] with this project.

[1:04:44] And really, these goals from the comprehensive plan really supported taking, looking at these amendments and looking at ways that we could decrease, or increase residential units while being flexible towards the retail and the retail and office space side of things, recognizing that over the past 20 plus years since the adoption of the Bergs Master Plan.

[1:05:14] and that things have changed and market conditions have changed as well.

[1:05:18] And so I want to point out that the bottom, the bottom goal require village integrity,

[1:05:25] but providing, provide flexibility for developers to respond to market conditions.

[1:05:31] And I think that as we took, as staff took this project on and took it through the process,

[1:05:36] that was a really important thing is to look at really maintaining the integrity of the village,

[1:05:43] but also allowing for potential change that we don't have to stay locked into exactly what was

[1:05:50] proposed in the past or approved in the past. So public comments, there were a lot of public

[1:05:58] comments received throughout the process, a lot of community input and throughout planning commission

[1:06:05] and public comments received up until this evening. Those public comments were mainly

[1:06:13] around grocery size and making sure that the grocery size was big enough to support

[1:06:18] basic food needs, not a convenience store was really what we heard. Not allowing the

[1:06:25] applicant or city to abandon the intent of the urban village and focusing on basically

[1:06:34] the expectation of a walkable community that people can get to services easy and don't

[1:06:40] to get in their car and drive to Safeway.

[1:06:44] And the other one is parking as recognized as a major concern as related to the YMCA

[1:06:51] at Briggs.

[1:06:52] And I'll just say that we recognize that concern and that there are,

[1:07:01] we will be doing a deep

[1:07:03] dive into that and ensuring that the YMCA is provided with the adequate parking through

[1:07:09] that master plan amendment if it does move forward.

[1:07:14] I did want to address some comments that were submitted by the applicant because they

[1:07:19] seemed to relevant.

[1:07:21] After the Land Use Environment Committee meeting, the applicant had looked at putting together

[1:07:29] Mark plans to see what the future would look like and how the fork story buildings would

[1:07:36] work and it was identified that design standards in Briggs Village would not allow the fourth

[1:07:43] story to be built because of requirements for really tall ceilings on the first floor,

[1:07:49] high-gloss windows throughout areas in Briggs for the commercial part of the requirement.

[1:07:56] And so the applicant had reached out and said that they wouldn't be able to get the fourth story

[1:08:03] with the current 45 feet height limit and that 50 feet would be needed to achieve those four stories.

[1:08:12] As you've probably read, the applicant also has provided information about the challenges around the grocery store requirements in the village.

[1:08:21] And at this point, I think I will open it up to questions.

[1:08:25] I thank you all for being here and I'm excited to field questions.

[1:08:29] I have a group of my co-workers available as well.

[1:08:35] This was definitely a team effort that was worked on by a number of folks and over the

[1:08:40] course of a number of years.

[1:08:42] So, I'll open up from the floor to any questions.

[1:08:45] Thank you.

[1:08:46] Yeah.

[1:08:47] Well, thank you so much, Jackson, for the presentation and for your work on this.

[1:08:53] Thank you.

[1:08:54] Yes.

[1:08:55] Council Member Mendron.

[1:08:57] Yeah.

[1:08:57] Thank you.

[1:08:58] I wanted to share.

[1:08:58] Just a conversation that happened in land use committee to bring it to where it is today.

[1:09:04] And I also have some follow up questions for staff just because of some of the conversations

[1:09:07] we had there and some of the ongoing work that's happened on it since then.

[1:09:15] And I think one of the primary issues on this concept of an urban village is very similar

[1:09:23] to a lot of the conversations we've had around neighborhood centers before where we have an

[1:09:27] idea of what we want to have, where we want to have it, what it should look like, and

[1:09:31] then nobody comes along and builds it, nobody opens the business, and you know it's one

[1:09:35] of those, it's one of those situations where we can have the best vision in the world for

[1:09:38] something, but we ultimately, we can't force the bell, we can't force a business to open.

[1:09:44] And so some of the concept around this is that, you know, if we're able to achieve more

[1:09:49] housing in that area, commercial becomes more viable, including a grocery store.

[1:09:55] And so that's kind of the premise of some of the conversation that we had in the Land Use Committee.

[1:10:04] I also wanted to follow up with Jackson and your team there with some of the questions that have come up.

[1:10:11] You know, one of our public commenters spoke about maintenance issues.

[1:10:15] We talked about this a little bit and the Land Use Committee expressing some frustration actually with the lack of maintenance

[1:10:23] and then said is required in the private area.

[1:10:24] So I'm wondering if you could share a little bit about that

[1:10:26] to bring the council up to speed.

[1:10:28] And what are the levers that we can pull

[1:10:31] to address maintenance issues?

[1:10:33] Thank you, Council Member.

[1:10:35] I will actually call on Tim Smith

[1:10:37] to speak to those issues.

[1:10:38] I think it's more of a collaborative approach

[1:10:41] from our department.

[1:10:45] Yeah, good evening.

[1:10:46] Tim Smith can be planning

[1:10:47] an economic development director here at the City of Olympia.

[1:10:50] And Council Member Modrona,

[1:10:51] I assume you're talking about maintenance of public infrastructure

[1:10:54] or private infrastructure such as roads, street trees, lighting, sidewalks,

[1:10:58] deeds growing, the trees, all of that.

[1:11:01] Yeah, right, so those were installed by the developers some years ago in anticipation

[1:11:04] of the commercial core developing and so that hasn't happened and over time we've seen some

[1:11:09] deterioration of those facilities.

[1:11:12] What staff generally does every few years is that our department reaches out to public works

[1:11:16] and they do an inventory of the facilities looking primarily at life safety issues first.

[1:11:21] And so an example, you know, if there's striping, this missing signage that's gone, everything, that's the top priority.

[1:11:27] We develop the list, and then we coordinate with the owner in cooperation to get a plan for improving those,

[1:11:34] or making the necessary maintenance items move forward and improved.

[1:11:38] And so it's a collaborative effort.

[1:11:40] We don't like to go down the code of code enforcement unless there's resistance.

[1:11:43] Typically, the owner is cooperative and does make those, but it is time to do that again.

[1:11:48] And so we can start that process.

[1:11:50] Okay, great. I appreciate us being proactive on that, because I've been in that area recently,

[1:11:55] and I'm like, yeah, this is very problematic to have, you know, the infrastructure itself

[1:12:00] will degrade over time without that maintenance. And one of the things I'm hearing and what

[1:12:05] you're saying is that there's a belief that if we can get the full development of the commercial

[1:12:10] and housing in there, then that would naturally occur, a more frequent maintenance. However,

[1:12:15] it is a current responsibility that it does need to happen on a regular basis.

[1:12:18] So, okay. That's all ahead on that. Just wanted to make sure, especially since it came up in public comment.

[1:12:27] Also, the 9200 square feet for a grocery store. It's not a number that was invented by the Land Use Committee.

[1:12:34] My understanding is that our economic development director read through the market study and I see her coming up right now.

[1:12:40] She probably knew I was going to ask this question. So I just want to get some perspective.

[1:12:43] That was the number that was recommended to us by staff in terms of what was feasible realistic in terms of a grocery store size.

[1:12:53] So if you could just speak to that 9200 square feet number and where that comes from.

[1:12:57] Sure. So I believe the staff and land use environment committee recommendation is a data driven recommendation that comes from the market analysis.

[1:13:05] And this recommendation matches the minimum size to demonstrated subordable square footage.

[1:13:12] And so the study identifies 900 square feet as the maximum potential size based on demand.

[1:13:18] And so this avoids exceeding quantified demand, preserves flexibility, and reduces risk

[1:13:24] of long-term vacancy.

[1:13:26] I think the risk of vacancy exists at any minimum size, but the recommendation is based on

[1:13:31] the data provided and aims to decrease the chance of a vacant development.

[1:13:36] The 12,000 square foot minimum that was mentioned exceeds the upper bound of what was supported

[1:13:42] by the data and the analysis.

[1:13:44] Okay, great, thank you.

[1:13:47] And I also understand that, you know, one of the things that Jackson shared is like markets

[1:13:52] have changed over time.

[1:13:53] It used to be that commercial was very strong, now housing is more strong.

[1:13:56] But I also understand that one of the changes that have happened in this nearby area since

[1:14:01] the envisioning of breaks that maybe has changed this equation is when the city decided to preserve

[1:14:06] LBA woods. So there was going to be significant housing over in that area and now it's preserved

[1:14:11] as a park. So that's also part of the equation of how the market has changed around over this

[1:14:16] over time. So my understanding looking at the market study that was conducted in 2023 they looked

[1:14:21] at existing conditions and that is how they quantified demand. Okay great, thank you. And just for

[1:14:29] a little bit more context. One of the things I understood from the planning commission,

[1:14:32] because there is no minimum size for a grocery store at this point, and one of the things

[1:14:38] the planning commission was, I think, rightfully concerned about was getting a mini-mart instead

[1:14:42] of a grocery store, a mini-mart being probably 3,000 square feet or less. So that's why the

[1:14:47] conversation even came up at all. I believe it came from the planning commission to establish

[1:14:51] a minimum size. And just for some context, I just did some quick googling on this. So,

[1:14:56] like, you know, spuds, the larger size store is 4,400.

[1:15:04] So, just to contextualize some things, I think on the land use committee, one of the things we talked about is really wanting to make sure that you all get a grocery store and not wanting to take away so much flexibility that it doesn't happen at all. So that's some of the context there. I did hear one of the decisions that was made on the land use committee was to not allow the separation of that into

[1:15:29] multiple businesses. And that was very intentional. We wanted there to be a grocery store where you

[1:15:34] can get every single ingredient you need to make a meal. Not have to go to one store because it's

[1:15:39] a butcher and one store because it sells cheese and then you get to the end of it and you don't

[1:15:43] even have all the ingredients. So that was intentional. So I do hear that Ms. Burgess is requesting

[1:15:48] that amendment and I wouldn't support that myself. I think I have one final question for you Jackson

[1:15:54] and that is Ms. Burgess asked about adjusting the maximum building height to 50 feet from 45 so

[1:16:01] that they can actually accommodate four stories. Previously, the number was 55 feet when it came to

[1:16:08] land use committee, but it sounds like 50 feet is now feasible.

[1:16:12] We asked this question at land use

[1:16:14] at the time, but has your perspective changed on that at all? Do you think that 45 feet is enough or

[1:16:19] should we tonight consider boosting that up to 50 so they actually are able to achieve

[1:16:24] four stories. Thank you for that question. It does seem important. The documents I have

[1:16:31] reviewed seem to show that four stories would be extremely difficult to achieve based on the design

[1:16:36] standards at the 45 feet, 45 foot height and that 50 feet does seem appropriate if we want to

[1:16:45] to achieve the fourth story.

[1:16:47] Okay, so an additional thing for us to consider tonight,

[1:16:50] this is new information since the Land Use Committee

[1:16:52] last talked about it as we may consider an amendment

[1:16:54] to raise that commercial area up to 50 feet

[1:16:58] so that they can actually achieve the four stories

[1:17:00] that are part of the recommended change.

[1:17:02] So I know I talked earlier about people talking a lot

[1:17:05] in council meetings, but I actually did have a lot

[1:17:06] to say on this one, and I'm done now.

[1:17:11] I wasn't too bad at all.

[1:17:12] All right. Yes, Council Member Green followed by Council Member Barrett.

[1:17:19] Thank you, Mayor Payne. Council Member Madron, thank you for that background. You answered

[1:17:23] a couple of my questions. I will say I would be, you know, I appreciate the process that

[1:17:31] planning commission and that land use went through. The multiple tenant option to me is appealing

[1:17:35] only because, like for myself, I live in a neighborhood where there is a bakery and there is

[1:17:41] a butcher and there, you know, and so I feel like there are models, or even if you think

[1:17:47] about when you go to a farmer's market, right, you don't go to one stall to find everything.

[1:17:51] And so when I think about the ideal of getting some commercial development and getting some

[1:17:57] food in there, I feel like that's one of those flexibility pieces, but I, you know, I recognize

[1:18:01] the concern on the other end as well, so I just would say I would be supportive of reconsidering

[1:18:07] that amendment, but there it is.

[1:18:09] But I have a question for Jenica.

[1:18:14] So we heard some people tonight and we've seen some written public comment and just as

[1:18:20] a matter of practice, would you help me understand if someone is developing any type of reach

[1:18:27] and so I'm thinking even of like craft district or if you are a developer, is it typically,

[1:18:34] is it typical that that developer needs to recruit tenants retail, that sort of thing

[1:18:40] or if the design and the location and everything is right, are retailers regularly sort of

[1:18:47] seeking out those opportunities?

[1:18:51] I guess I'd be hesitant to comment on what typically happens because it can look different

[1:18:57] for different developments and so I don't know that I would feel comfortable saying this

[1:19:02] is the way something should proceed in that area.

[1:19:05] Yeah.

[1:19:06] Okay.

[1:19:06] Then you're probably not going to answer this question, but I'll just take, because where

[1:19:09] my brain is, is with no retailer coming in in 30 years, I just question, is it a combination

[1:19:22] of both of that?

[1:19:23] It feels like if that was an attractive space, an attractive design, an attractive whatever

[1:19:28] that would have happened, or does that just never happen if a realtor or developer or somebody

[1:19:35] is an actively sort of selling that location.

[1:19:40] I think I have not had enough time meeting with the developer, chatting to really understand

[1:19:47] more of the historical context of what has or hasn't taken place in terms of marketing

[1:19:54] or conversations with potential tenants.

[1:19:59] And that's fine.

[1:20:00] I want to be like this.

[1:20:01] I'm not necessarily asking specifically about this developer and I don't feel like anybody

[1:20:05] but he has to give evidence of it.

[1:20:07] I just was curious if in general

[1:20:09] sort of how that market works.

[1:20:11] So if I'm a specialty grocery store,

[1:20:15] am I out looking for the next opportunity

[1:20:17] if I'm ready to grow or am I waiting

[1:20:18] for somebody to come to me and say,

[1:20:20] hey, we've got this awesome spot.

[1:20:23] I see it happen both ways.

[1:20:24] Okay, thank you.

[1:20:28] Thank you, Council Member Barrett.

[1:20:32] Thank you.

[1:20:33] Jenica, I have a question too.

[1:20:35] It's regarding the market study, it's my understanding that that study was, that the data

[1:20:45] used was several years old as far as population and whatnot, and so it doesn't include the

[1:20:51] 900 people that are anticipated moving into Briggs Village when it's built out.

[1:21:00] There was additional comments submitted by CAI who noted that there had been no material

[1:21:08] change in the number of households close to Briggs Village or the number of households

[1:21:14] or the competitive supply in the area to warrant additional technical analysis and so no

[1:21:19] additional technical analysis was provided.

[1:21:23] Is my understanding that actually 400 more residents have moved in in the last two years in the general region of Briggs, new developments and whatnot, particularly kind of on the county side.

[1:21:44] So, it certainly didn't include the 900 people that are anticipated once it's built out,

[1:21:54] correct?

[1:21:56] I mean, my recommendation and staff recommendation is based on the hard data that was provided to us in the market study.

[1:22:04] Yeah, but I'm just questioning market study and the facts they're in. So the market study

[1:22:14] didn't include the population of what Briggs would be when it's totally built out. That's

[1:22:22] all. So the people who would be moving in would of course be accounted.

[1:22:30] I guess that's

[1:22:31] I just wanted to make that point, thanks.

[1:22:36] Thank you.

[1:22:37] Council Member Gilman.

[1:22:39] Thank you.

[1:22:40] I've got a couple of questions and a little bit of a rant.

[1:22:44] So I realized we're not dealing with the parking

[1:22:49] is really going to be reflected in the master plan,

[1:22:51] but here's my question about parking.

[1:22:55] We've reduced across the city the parking requirements

[1:23:00] for multi-family.

[1:23:01] So would those reduced parking requirements apply to the next round of multi-family units being built in the village?

[1:23:14] That is correct. The currently adopted parking standards would apply to a current project right now or a future project in the village.

[1:23:26] There aren't separate, there aren't the ability to have separate parking standards in the village compared to areas outside.

[1:23:34] I just wanted to check my understanding.

[1:23:36] That means there's two sort of compounding factors.

[1:23:39] One is we're going to propose allowing increased density in this area.

[1:23:45] And then since the plan was adopted, the city has reduced the parking requirements for multi-family,

[1:23:52] which means that the artists' renderings, the sketches in the master plan, won't reflect

[1:23:59] the kind of parking that would actually be required. That is a correct assumption.

[1:24:07] The one thing that I would say regarding, I guess, the YMCA concern is that

[1:24:11] that was the YMCA's approval when they went through the expansion, had a specific requirement

[1:24:19] to provide parking spaces off site and they are still in the process of working through how that would look as the rest of the commercial core at Briggs is developed.

[1:24:38] So there's more to that story, but that's where I'm listening to Jackson.

[1:24:41] So I'm just trying to picture, we're relying on the on the street parking, which is currently

[1:24:48] used by the retail, there is retail there now, and that retail uses the along the street

[1:24:53] parking.

[1:24:56] And at this point in history, we haven't really pivoted to walking everywhere we go.

[1:25:03] So people tend to get their ice cream cone via single occupancy vehicles.

[1:25:09] It's just the reality right now.

[1:25:11] So apartment dwellers also haven't gone down to 0.6 of a car per unit.

[1:25:18] And so they're parking along the streets surrounding our apartment complexes.

[1:25:22] So I'm just I'm thinking out loud about that pressure for a minute, which to my mind means

[1:25:27] these changes do impact parking even though we're going to address it more specifically if there

[1:25:35] are master plan amendments that come after this. So that's the first thing. The other one is

[1:25:41] I want to clarify because I'm this 9,200, 12,000, there's two different ways to think about commercial

[1:25:51] space. One is for construction, the shell and core, the empty space on the first floor

[1:26:00] of the building, how much square footage do we ask them to build to be ready for commercial

[1:26:06] utilization? And then the other one is what is the minimum amount of a lease, a grocery

[1:26:13] store lease that might get built out within that space? So when we're talking about 9,200

[1:26:20] Would that likely be the size of the commercial shell in core that would be built so that that would effectively be an upper limit on what a grocery store could be?

[1:26:34] That's a great question.

[1:26:36] I would say there's a lot of flexibility in that.

[1:26:40] The layout of how the village might look through a master plan amendment will have to show.

[1:26:47] So show those commercial spaces where they'd be located up to the required minimum square

[1:26:56] footage. Oftentimes we see kind of a minimum and then a maximum provided in these type of

[1:27:03] plans to give a scale of feasibility that both ranges could work based on how the buildings

[1:27:12] and parking areas and everything is being laid out.

[1:27:16] And so I don't have a, I guess a clear answer,

[1:27:19] other than to provide that background information

[1:27:21] that it could go both ways.

[1:27:27] So that gives me interest in the comments we've had

[1:27:30] about the 12,000 number, perhaps being appropriate

[1:27:34] for how much space is left for a potential retail

[1:27:39] or grocery use within the first floor of this next large building and then it's a separate

[1:27:47] discussion about what in the master plan would be a minimum size of grocery tenant within

[1:27:53] that space.

[1:27:54] So I just want to make sure that we don't limit, you know, size it all down so we limit

[1:28:02] the commercial build out initially the open space that's not residential on the first floor

[1:28:08] And then that further limits who might come to grocery.

[1:28:14] That's a good point.

[1:28:16] Yeah, thank you.

[1:28:17] So that's on my mind.

[1:28:18] That makes me interested.

[1:28:19] And I just, I can't help but question.

[1:28:24] From my experience, the saying that commercial was the driver in 1995

[1:28:29] and today it's residential.

[1:28:31] My experience living through that urban village in Dupont

[1:28:37] And that whole was kind of a fad in planning, was that it was planners having a vision of

[1:28:42] walkable, village type, street nowly kinds of centers that we might master plan, which we're

[1:28:51] calling the master plan villages, and that it wasn't so much that there was a huge demand for

[1:28:56] small grocery stores, and we were going to accommodate that, it was our trying to insist actually

[1:29:02] over neighborhood opposition 30 years ago that this master plan was a better vision for

[1:29:08] the future and my experience at least in Western Washington was that the struggle to get the

[1:29:15] grocery store was the same in both urban in downtown Seattle and downtown Tacoma as well as in

[1:29:22] these these planned community master planned communities. It just wasn't easy for anybody to find

[1:29:30] a grocery store that was going to come into a neighborhood and plunk down.

[1:29:35] So, I just want to acknowledge that's my experience of that history.

[1:29:41] But I believe that the people who bought homes and who bought businesses within Bergs Village

[1:29:50] in these intervening 30 years bought it with an understanding of the master plan and the

[1:29:56] vision and the promise of a grocery store.

[1:29:59] All right.

[1:30:00] And then I would just close by saying, I also believe that the current owner purchased the Briggs Village project with the understanding that it was master plan, that it was guided by these documents and that these documents included the requirement to make provision for a grocer. So, I just, that's, you know, that's Mike Smith. And I was way over in the West side, not in the Southeast. So I didn't have a front row seat to all this.

[1:30:29] but I watched pretty closely and I'm glad that we're considering I think this is a reasonable

[1:30:40] move. I do appreciate both the proposal to consider including the total area and not just

[1:30:49] the buildable area and also this idea of a larger shell-in-core to make sure that there's room

[1:30:57] when a tenant is located, so that's, I appreciate the time, thank you.

[1:31:06] Thank you, Council Member Gellman.

[1:31:08] Yes, Council Member Marron.

[1:31:11] Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure that this is the correct form, and so I'll have to defer to the city manager and the attorney,

[1:31:18] but I do have a couple of amendments I want to, I want the council to consider that I've circulated,

[1:31:28] And sure, is it appropriate for me to make that motion now or should I just want to make

[1:31:34] sure we follow the right decorum?

[1:31:36] Sure.

[1:31:37] One moment, Council Member Barrett.

[1:31:38] I have a couple of questions and then we'll get to that.

[1:31:42] Are there, but before I go, does anybody else have any additional questions?

[1:31:48] Okay.

[1:31:49] All right, Jackson, the development agreement caps the number of units.

[1:31:56] it's 810 currently. So what would be the new threshold or maximum at that point if we don't have 810?

[1:32:08] Yeah, so the land area would actually be the driving factor, removing the density, fitting in units

[1:32:18] around those services above those services is the goal and basically that cap was based on a lot of community

[1:32:31] concern over the amount of residents moving into the area and concern over the adoption of the

[1:32:38] Bergsmaster Plan and my understanding that they 110 was to not go too far and it also tied

[1:32:47] directly back to the amount of required office and commercial that would have

[1:32:52] been that's that was required per the current code and so there wouldn't the

[1:33:00] only thing restricting would be development standards setbacks height limits and

[1:33:05] then what else is required in the village and so those commercial those

[1:33:10] commercial spaces would need to be accounted for but the rest could be

[1:33:14] developed in a configuration of different housing types?

[1:33:19] Okay. I'm asking this question in part because of the conversation that Councilmember

[1:33:29] Gilman just mentioned a moment ago around parking and that was going to be my point as

[1:33:35] well or my question as well is that so if we're not sure of what the new maximum threshold

[1:33:43] is and any action we take tonight would in fact affect the master planning process.

[1:33:51] So I'm trying to understand like if we don't understand what that maximum is, that would

[1:34:00] have implications on the parking concerns, correct?

[1:34:03] So I feel like there's a little bit of a potential consequence as a result of that.

[1:34:14] And so I'm just trying to understand, because I hear the community members that are here, frankly,

[1:34:22] the concern is congestion, right?

[1:34:27] And unfortunately for the people who are living there also having difficulty finding parking.

[1:34:32] And then you have to think about the people who are living there when they have guests in their homes, and they also have visitors and they need to park.

[1:34:41] And so, I'm struggling a little bit with this concern around the parking and not having an understanding of the maximum number of units that would be developed.

[1:34:55] Councilmember Branderpool.

[1:34:57] Yeah, I mean, I have a lot of thoughts about Urban Villages and we've talked a little

[1:35:03] bit around it, and I had a bunch of notes here, but my two councilmates said everything

[1:35:08] I was going to say, which is awesome, but then you talked about the issues of congestion

[1:35:12] and transportation issues around breaks.

[1:35:16] You know, one of the things about cities and planning in places like downtowns and urban

[1:35:22] densities or areas is that there's this tipping point where you have to hit a certain amount of

[1:35:28] units per acre housing 20-ish before you start seeing people walking more than driving and it's

[1:35:35] one of those little growing pains that we experience right where we wanted to have the density

[1:35:39] for walkability but you also have people surrounding it and low density housing right which is

[1:35:44] kind of the the the the issue we're dealing with right to understand the fact that even if you make

[1:35:50] density inside, you still have people that live a quarter mile away and the bus route doesn't go

[1:35:56] quite there, right? And so that's what that's, I think that's the most complicated part of this

[1:36:01] and I'm glad you're bringing that up because, you know, I don't want us to over build parking

[1:36:06] and then there be no space for housing and you don't want to under build how, under build parking

[1:36:12] before you transition to walkability. And so I think that's one of the, I think that's,

[1:36:17] That's one of the most difficult things, and I want to express that when we're talking

[1:36:23] about minimums, and this is, I just want to talk to this for a second because there's

[1:36:27] always confusion about what parking minimums are, right?

[1:36:30] Parking minimums are the minimum that a city requires a developer.

[1:36:34] They're not the amount that a developer will build, right?

[1:36:38] And I always want to express that.

[1:36:40] The other side of this is the city of Olympia had reduced parking minimums for housing, but

[1:36:47] not for commercial. We haven't touched that yet as far as I know. We need to have a

[1:36:50] knot. And so that's the other part of it, right? Because this is mixed use. The commercial

[1:36:55] part of it will have some layer of requirement on parking, right? I see Tim Smith standing

[1:37:02] up and walking over to maybe I don't know. But that's kind of the thing that I, that is

[1:37:08] the trickiest part of it is we don't really want to overdo it. We also don't want to underdo

[1:37:12] it, right? And I hear the stress that folks have over this because they want to be able

[1:37:19] to get to that service, but they want to get to walk a building one day, right? And so

[1:37:23] we have to think about the future while also thinking about where we are. And I kind of

[1:37:28] wanted to, while you're talking about that, kind of speak to that, that weird transition

[1:37:33] to get there, right? Just some thoughts I was having on.

[1:37:39] Just to add a couple more points, so the master planning process is good.

[1:37:43] I need to look at parking and how we can provide parking for the area including the issue with the YMCA.

[1:37:49] I will say that we're talking a lot about increasing residential, increasing parking.

[1:37:52] If you remember, we're also decreasing commercial, decreasing retail in this situation too.

[1:37:57] So it's not necessarily net gain or loss.

[1:37:59] We don't know the exact number, but retail is a huge traffic generator.

[1:38:02] And we're reducing that amount and we're increasing residential.

[1:38:04] So I guess here and say that it's going to be a big impact to do know that it something was typically would be worked out through the master plan process.

[1:38:18] Hello, I'm Nicole Floyd. I'm the director of planning and I happen to know that the applicant had sort of envisioned about 1400 units.

[1:38:27] And I think that's a relatively safe number. So they would go from 810 to about 1400.

[1:38:33] That's obviously not been calculated for parking and all the different things, but I thought that was really.

[1:38:39] Thank you, Nicole. That's helpful.

[1:38:43] Okay. Any additional discussion on that? Yes, Council

[1:38:49] member Renderpool. Nicole, I don't know if you want to speak to this a little, but I'll

[1:38:54] be for the public. When it comes to parking and when it gets to the hearings in the

[1:38:59] Samaritan Park, could you express what is the possibility? What comes out of that? Because

[1:39:04] sometimes a hearing examiner decides some of that. There's some not decides, but some of

[1:39:09] that is interpreted, right?

[1:39:12] Well, so when we get to the master plan,

[1:39:15] it will go through a bit of a road show.

[1:39:18] Mostly it's gonna go to the design review board

[1:39:20] to make sure that the design standards

[1:39:21] that they propose are consistent with the vision

[1:39:24] and values of the comprehensive plan.

[1:39:26] Then the packet of things will go to the hearing examiner

[1:39:30] and that's more of a technical review

[1:39:31] to make sure that it does as a whole,

[1:39:34] the whole master plan meets the standards.

[1:39:36] It's not every single building precisely.

[1:39:39] We don't know how big each building is going to be, so we won't know precisely how many parking spaces each building will have to have, but we have a good idea.

[1:39:48] So what typically happens is that the applicant would propose some sketches of what's possible.

[1:39:55] That's typically what manages or gets into the master plan.

[1:40:00] And that's why you see, for example, in the master plan currently it shows about a 30,000 square foot grocery store.

[1:40:06] Well, the minimum is zero and the maximum is 60.

[1:40:10] They picked, they picked something and they said, well, here's how we could accommodate

[1:40:14] that.

[1:40:14] It fits on the site.

[1:40:15] There's enough parking.

[1:40:16] So that's the review that would happen at the hearing exam or level is, does it all conceptually

[1:40:21] fit within the ranges of what's available?

[1:40:24] And so they would have to show how all of the parking for commercial and residential could

[1:40:30] fit.

[1:40:31] But they wouldn't have to pick precisely how big each building was going to be or exactly

[1:40:35] how the parking lot would be laid up then it comes to City Council after that.

[1:40:40] Thank you.

[1:40:45] All right.

[1:40:49] So I'm hearing a couple of things that just kind of just want to quickly recap.

[1:40:58] I'm hearing about the additional five feet or the 50 feet in height for the commercial space for the fourth floor.

[1:41:05] there's some interest in making that amendment or adjustment.

[1:41:12] Also Councilmember Gilman's

[1:41:14] point about incorporating the total area, not just the building area, and still some concerns

[1:41:23] around parking minimums for me. I want to make sure that we're not creating a problem that a future

[1:41:31] Council is going to have to address it later. And Council member Vanderpool, you were kind

[1:41:38] of speaking to the complexities of trying to weigh that. And I also hear the recommendations

[1:41:46] from the Planning Commission and the Land Use and Environment Committee's recommendation

[1:41:51] as well. So I would love to just hear more about when we get to the master planning

[1:42:01] process. How can we ensure that we're not going to create this problem that we're talking about

[1:42:10] right now, which is just this jam of congestion for this area and not enough spaces?

[1:42:19] How can we make

[1:42:20] sure that that is part of the dialogue around master planning? Thank you, Mayor Payne. I'll do my best

[1:42:29] to answer that, but I think it really, so as Nicole described, we'd look at a general layout,

[1:42:36] but when an individual project comes in each, so even though there's a master plan approved

[1:42:42] for Briggs Village, each one of those projects that then gets built comes in for land use review.

[1:42:48] And depending on the size of the project, that might trigger a traffic impact analysis,

[1:42:55] which would potentially look at adding streetlights or other crossings or speaking generally for any project.

[1:43:06] But each project, so Master Plan gets amended when each project comes in after that,

[1:43:14] they would be reviewed for how many units, how much square footage of commercial,

[1:43:18] and then they would need to before before the city was able to recommend approval of of such project they would need to show how their meeting are adopted range of parking standards.

[1:43:32] And so the master plan is this overarching document, but then when we get down to each individual project level, those projects would also be reviewed and scrutinized by the code.

[1:43:45] and ensure that each project being built out

[1:43:49] has the space to provide what our code requires

[1:43:54] for both commercial and residential.

[1:43:57] So it is hard to speak to the BRiggs Master Plan at large,

[1:44:05] but it really often comes out on a project by project basis

[1:44:10] of whether or not we need that traffic impact analysis,

[1:44:13] us whether we need to figure out is this an unusual use that's going to draw a lot more people

[1:44:19] to the area. That's the time where we city staff requires a traffic engineer to get involved

[1:44:27] to provide studies of that type of use and what expected peak trips would be, things like that.

[1:44:35] And so I understand definitely the community's concern and I think

[1:44:41] I think that the other piece is just that YMCA parking agreement and the fact that they

[1:44:49] do not have the parking that they were approved under land use for and that hopefully as we

[1:44:57] move into the future that that will be resolved.

[1:45:00] And alleviate a lot of the problems with the existing conditions. Knowing that there's a lot of commercial spaces and parking that has yet to be developed.

[1:45:12] I think the other piece that you're talking about this really meaty thing of like, how do we best use the land and what is an urban village? And I think looking back to the comprehensive plan might bring some value because it's a helpful guidance document about what what is the vision for this area? And when you look at what an urban

[1:45:33] villages opposed to be, it's a lot more like downtown than it is like other places. And I think

[1:45:41] it's fair to say that downtown doesn't have enough parking. And I think that's by design.

[1:45:47] And so when you think about what was the vision in 03 and then in 2016, I think you might find that

[1:45:55] that it looks more like Ballard or the U-District or some of these places where you do have

[1:46:04] to kind of build it and then walkability happens because driving is inconvenient.

[1:46:11] And so that's, I think, part of what's built into our comprehensive plan is this idea of

[1:46:16] really putting more into our multimodal transportation methods.

[1:46:20] is it's why parking was reduced for multifamily in part because I think council was weighing

[1:46:29] whether we wanted more housing or more parking when land is short supply, you don't really

[1:46:34] get both.

[1:46:35] And that's a heavy thing to evaluate, especially on this scale.

[1:46:39] But in this moment, there's also a significant reduction in area that's going to be spent

[1:46:45] on commercial, which does tend to have higher parking volumes and parking counts, so I think all

[1:46:52] of that ties together to a more philosophical point of, it's a hard decision, Council, to evaluate.

[1:47:00] Thank you, Nicole. Thank you both, actually. Jackson and I appreciate the mention of the

[1:47:06] traffic impact analysis on a project by project basis. I think that's helpful in terms of me understanding.

[1:47:12] Nicole, I, yeah, you're talking about growing pains, so yeah, that's a tough one.

[1:47:21] All right.

[1:47:23] Yes, Council Member Vanderpool.

[1:47:25] Not to belittle this and make it any longer than it is, but I have a couple, when we're

[1:47:29] talking about traffic analysis, the thing that came to my mind, the other part of this,

[1:47:36] is the investment in the multimodal protected bike lanes, all of that.

[1:47:40] because one of the concerns I hear from folks in and around Briggs is also the safety problems with

[1:47:46] young highway and high speeds and other issues like that. That didn't get brought up tonight,

[1:47:50] but that is a part of it, right? With higher amounts of vehicle traffic, there's a safety concern.

[1:47:56] Well, there was a few comments about that, people crossing the street with kids, and so I don't,

[1:48:01] we don't have anyone from public works here, but I'm very curious about if there were any

[1:48:08] conversations with the developer about impacts and investments for the developer in that

[1:48:14] safety, in that corridor around safety. If there was any conversations about including

[1:48:22] investments to make it the traffic slower and safer for people who live through there,

[1:48:25] because that is a major concern and with more vehicles that could potentially cause more problems.

[1:48:35] Councilmember Vanderbilt, I'd say I can't really fully speak to that. There haven't really been those discussions. Often those discussions come down more from city engineering staff and through hearing examiner decisions or land use decisions of conditions that are put on projects.

[1:48:54] And in my position right now, I couldn't speak to, we haven't had those conversations with the developer and

[1:49:05] those would generally come down from our city engineering public works department.

[1:49:13] Yeah,

[1:49:16] it's really a timing issue.

[1:49:18] I mean, typically for zoning code amendments, we don't get into those types of conversations.

[1:49:21] At the master plan stage or project stage, certainly that's a big issue.

[1:49:25] So, um, tensor question, no, that conversation hasn't happened, but it's forthcoming in the future.

[1:49:32] So, if it, when it comes back from the hair examiner, there may be an opportunity to have a conversation about this.

[1:49:36] Yes. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to that.

[1:49:41] Mayor Pro Temwen.

[1:49:46] Yeah. Um, it kind of sounds like we were a little bit wrapping up here.

[1:49:49] So, I just wanted to share with my colleagues that I would be interested in supportive of, uh, having that, uh,

[1:49:57] 90 to 100 square feet. The stay at 90 to 100 square feet have the flexibility of

[1:50:06] separating it into multiple food specific, different sizes, I suppose. So just

[1:50:14] having the flexibility for that but keeping it to be food. So I'm not sure if

[1:50:19] there's more discussion on that. Yes, Council Member Madron. Yeah, I just wanted to

[1:50:25] be hearing different opinions on different pieces of this. I wanted to just kind of

[1:50:29] recommended that maybe there's a motion for the, you know, what's articulated there and then we consider amendment by amendment and people can introduce amendments as they are interested.

[1:50:39] We discussed them separately. We learned about impacts from staff, potential impacts from staff and then vote on the amendment separately.

[1:50:46] Yep. You beat me to the punch. So that was going to be the next thing that I mentioned. So I know we have a couple different opinions here on the days and we have.

[1:50:55] of a potential, potentially different motions.

[1:51:01] So if one passes, then we can't entertain

[1:51:06] the other proposal.

[1:51:08] So my suggestion would be for us to speak

[1:51:13] to what exactly it is that we're supporting.

[1:51:16] And if there is a motion that is made,

[1:51:19] then we will vote on that motion.

[1:51:21] if it fails then we will move on to the other motion. But if we take up one and speak to it right

[1:51:28] away and then it passes then we can't consider the other motion. Does that make sense? And so we need

[1:51:33] to be able to speak to each of them. Yes?

[1:51:40] I was thinking, because you're thinking that if a

[1:51:44] amendment comes forward and fails then a different amendment couldn't be considered or?

[1:51:50] no, not a amendment by a amendment specifically, but we have a proposal for a potential amendment here

[1:51:56] to be added with a motion, and so what I'm saying is is that if we put a motion on the floor

[1:52:03] and there is an alternative motion to be proposed later, if we then vote on that motion,

[1:52:10] we can't go back to the other.

[1:52:13] I see what you're saying.

[1:52:14] Yeah.

[1:52:14] I think what we could do is make the original motion and then introduce amendments through that process one at a time and then and then we

[1:52:24] And then we got you know can alter the the original motion as we go through the process. Sure. Sure

[1:52:32] Yes, thank you

[1:52:33] Yes

[1:52:35] City manager Bernie. I'm just here in the discussion to conferring with the city attorney and just to counsel member Madrone's proposal

[1:52:42] what you could do is make the motion that is the land use committee's recommendation, make a motion in a second.

[1:52:49] Right? Once it's seconded, Mayor, you don't have to call for a vote. You can continue to discussion.

[1:52:53] There could be an amendment proposal that's made. If that amendment proposal is seconded, you could have discussion.

[1:52:58] And then you can have a vote just on the amendment only. If that amendment vote fails, that it's not considered in the original motion.

[1:53:05] And so we could help you over here keep track of what's proposed and what amendments come forward.

[1:53:10] to help you wrap this up at the end.

[1:53:11] Okay, so if the amendment vote fails,

[1:53:14] it's not considered that we are adopting the whole thing.

[1:53:18] It just means that the original motion stays

[1:53:21] as is minus any proposed amendment if it doesn't succeed.

[1:53:24] Okay, thank you for that clarification.

[1:53:26] I'm trying to keep, I'm trying to keep these guys

[1:53:29] from attacking me later if I get it wrong.

[1:53:34] Okay, all right.

[1:53:36] So we will go ahead and do that then.

[1:53:38] And so is there a motion to for the land use and environment committees recommendation?

[1:53:48] You looked at me, so I will go ahead and move to approve an ordinance amending OMC chapter

[1:53:55] 1805 related to urban villages.

[1:54:00] Second.

[1:54:01] All right.

[1:54:02] We have a motion in a second.

[1:54:03] And so is there any discussion further discussion?

[1:54:10] Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion to amend the recommendation by the Land Use Committee.

[1:54:20] And I've handed out the substance of my motion, if I shall I just speak to them a bit, thank you.

[1:54:28] I have two, I'd like to move them both as one amendment or

[1:54:33] to shall I bless those in half? Okay, we'll have two. Okay, the first amendment addresses the number

[1:54:39] of square feet of commercial space and how it's calculated. And it's not inconsistent with the

[1:54:47] report that was given, but it kind of locks in. The report I feel was somewhat vague, you know,

[1:54:53] just locks in the point that it's designed to make sure that the open space is included in the formula of how to determine the required number of square feet for commercial space allowed.

[1:55:10] It's just saying let's be clear that the critical areas in the open space are a part of that calculation.

[1:55:20] that eliminates any day-gary, and it's consistent, I think, with what you presented.

[1:55:30] Correct. Yeah, that's right. So that would be my first amendment. And that deals with

[1:55:36] the total number of commercial space totally at rings, which, by the way,

[1:55:43] you know, there's been a lot of moaning about all the failed businesses and what I, but actually

[1:55:50] the businesses are booming at Briggs, you know, so I believe if we can add commercial space we will

[1:55:59] have a robust, we will have a robust business area that will add to the city's coffers through

[1:56:06] tax revenue, drinkly.

[1:56:13] Yes, Council Member Madroman followed by Council Member Gilman.

[1:56:16] Yeah, Council Member Ben, I wonder if you could just move to amend and just read it off to open up

[1:56:22] beneficial motion. And then someone could second and then we can discuss, we can ask questions

[1:56:27] of staff, et cetera. Okay, I thank you very much, Councilman. I moved

[1:56:32] to amend OMC 518-05-05 table 5.02, the amount of commercial space district, row, a minimum

[1:56:43] or maximum total amount of commercial floor space, column, urban village, to read as follows,

[1:56:51] minimum, 500 square feet per acre of the entire village.

[1:56:58] The entire is really the amendment.

[1:57:01] And maximum, 1,300 square feet per acre of the entire village.

[1:57:06] So it's really adding just the word entire.

[1:57:10] Second.

[1:57:10] All

[1:57:14] right.

[1:57:14] We have a motion and a second on that first amendment.

[1:57:18] And Council Member Madron, you have the floor.

[1:57:20] with discussion open. And I believe you just asked our staff this question, but I just want to be clear, you know, is what you said that this change really has no impact?

[1:57:31] Or what is the impact of making this change? Let me just make that clear. Yeah, what does this do for us?

[1:57:38] Well, that's a great question. So we do have a lot of different ways that we calculate, look at total properties and determine different things like density.

[1:57:48] We do pull out critical areas and things like that.

[1:57:51] The code is generally silent on how we would calculate the total acreage.

[1:58:01] And so in that case, we would look at the entire site.

[1:58:05] However, I don't see anything wrong with adding that language for clarity.

[1:58:10] There are a lot of different density calculations that we have that are

[1:58:14] in a different part of our code that do speak about excluding a lot of different certain

[1:58:20] areas from that calculation, and I guess there could be an argument made that that's

[1:58:25] how you should, you could look at this, but that's just off the cuff I guess.

[1:58:34] So by adding the word entire, it just clarifies that that is the method that we would use,

[1:58:40] and it's probably what we would have done anyway, is that what I'm hearing you say?

[1:58:43] It's what we would have done anyway,

[1:58:45] but it would provide additional clarity.

[1:58:47] Okay, great.

[1:58:47] Thank you.

[1:58:48] I'm supportive.

[1:58:52] Thank you.

[1:58:53] Additional discussions on that amendment.

[1:58:57] All right.

[1:59:01] Okay.

[1:59:02] And so you made the motion on that first one.

[1:59:05] So, yeah.

[1:59:07] Yes.

[1:59:09] Okay. Mayor Brotems making our way back.

[1:59:11] All

[1:59:15] right.

[1:59:15] So there's been a motion and a second on that first amendment.

[1:59:20] That one there on the top.

[1:59:21] So, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

[1:59:25] Aye.

[1:59:27] Aye.

[1:59:27] Opposed?

[1:59:28] Okay.

[1:59:29] Motion passes.

[1:59:30] All right.

[1:59:31] And now for your second.

[1:59:32] Thank you.

[1:59:34] Ms. Red, this amendment, amends the approach to the size of the supermarket.

[1:59:42] And essentially what it says is, if the,

[1:59:48] if, well, let me, let me just read the amendment

[1:59:51] and then I'll discuss it a bit.

[1:59:54] I'd like to amend OMC 1805.0.

[2:00:00] Section 06BE to read as follows.

[2:00:03] Urban village and community oriented shopping center, district requirements, the minimum grocery store size is 12,000 instead of 9,200 square feet with a maximum size of 50,000 square feet of gross floor area provided. This is a new language provided. If a grocer has committed.

[2:00:29] by contract to lease or buy a grocery space of at least 9,200 square feet such

[2:00:36] store may be permitted and constructed not withstanding the 12,000 square

[2:00:42] feet minimum. And the reason for this is a we can talk about all kinds of grocery

[2:00:53] store models. But the popular models for a mid-sized store is more in the 10 to 11,000,

[2:01:04] 12,000 square foot range. It is true. There are stores all different sizes. We're not

[2:01:14] saying that the developer can't have a 92-hundred square foot store, but he must have a store

[2:01:22] under contract if he wants to go down that otherwise it needs to be larger.

[2:01:29] So it just allows a greater flexibility.

[2:01:35] I think there's a great fear that if we were to just say 9200 square feet there's an

[2:01:42] argument against just locking in that number and this is the argument that the developer would

[2:01:49] probably then build a 9200's Fairth Square with Shell and that he'd say that's going to be

[2:01:56] the super market and that would be that, including the opportunity for many grocery retailers

[2:02:06] that might be very interested in the Briggs space. So in my view, it expands the opportunities

[2:02:18] for different retailers moving in, and that's why it's a good amendment.

[2:02:26] All right. Thank you. Is there a second on that motion?

[2:02:29] Second. All right. We have a motion in the second. Is there further discussion?

[2:02:33] Council Member Gilman. Here's the scenario that makes me supportive of this amendment,

[2:02:41] and that's that first you've got our requirements and our guidelines requiring what gets built when

[2:02:48] And a mixed use, a commercial and residential building is put up.

[2:02:53] And I want to ensure that there is an adequate size area that's built for commercial use on that first floor.

[2:03:01] Because while the master plan requires a grocer, there's no way to guarantee that a particular grocer who might come in is going to stay for the rest of time.

[2:03:13] And so for us law and I actually I guess the rest I think it's a 50 year agreement there's there's some time on the master agreement is in there.

[2:03:22] I did not have that information.

[2:03:24] It might not be for eternity but nonetheless a grocer could come in and leave.

[2:03:31] And we would still have the another the desire for another grocer to come in and for it to be at least 90 200 square feet.

[2:03:39] But it's two separate discussions, what kind of a groucher and what rules we put on them and what kind of a commercial space we insist they leave on the ground floor of a mixed use building to allow for a groucher to come in.

[2:03:55] So that's why I think that this language would help.

[2:04:01] Thank you.

[2:04:02] So Council Member Green, followed by Council Member Madron.

[2:04:06] Yeah, thank you for that Council Member Gilman.

[2:04:09] I'm not in favor of this amendment for really one big reason, and I know there's a lot

[2:04:15] of disagreement about the data that was used in the market study and in the assessment, but

[2:04:21] there was something that jumped out in that study to me that had nothing to do with that

[2:04:26] data.

[2:04:26] And that was the reality that the way Briggs is currently constructed and will continue

[2:04:32] to be constructed, any business that goes in, any retail inclusive of a brochure is going

[2:04:38] to be, you know, by design in the middle of the village in the core. And the busy thoroughfare

[2:04:45] there is Yamahaway. So that any brochure there will not be pulling in business that's on its

[2:04:52] way to somewhere else. Or, you know, I'm on my way to Safeway, but oh, I see that there's a

[2:04:56] whatever right here. And I'm going to pull over the audience or the customer base is truly

[2:05:02] the people living in the community, which again is totally the intent and people who go to

[2:05:08] that community, you know, intentionally, right? I'm going to the YMCA. I'm going to the dentist.

[2:05:13] I'm like that like that is the audience. And so I feel like the higher we set that minimum,

[2:05:19] Um, the higher the likelihood that no one will do it because the bigger you get in square footage and the more you recognize it.

[2:05:28] And I recognize that the population there will be bigger than what it is now.

[2:05:32] Again, that's like that's all totally the point, but I just really worry that, um, making this, uh, that this minimum bigger and envisioning, uh, you know, the original plan envisioned a certain size grocery store and it's 30 years later and it hasn't come.

[2:05:48] And I just feel like what I hear is interest in moving this forward.

[2:05:54] And I just feel like this is setting it up for another long stretch of, you know, the

[2:05:59] reality of the free market.

[2:06:00] And Councilmember Madron, you mentioned this earlier, is that we can't dictate a business

[2:06:06] to open if it's not going to be profitable, right?

[2:06:08] We live in a capitalist society and people feel all kinds of ways about that.

[2:06:13] And that's okay.

[2:06:14] but the reality is, if I can't make a profit in 12,000 square feet based on the number of people

[2:06:21] that will be shopping at my store, it's just, you know, no amount of municipal code in the

[2:06:27] world is going to change that reality for me. So, for me, I'm not in favor of that. And to,

[2:06:35] you know, Jackson, you mentioned earlier that one of the goals you had was to avoid overly detailed

[2:06:41] requirements, and I will admit, and I think I asked you about this once, Councilmember

[2:06:45] Barrett, it took me forever to understand the language in this. I was like, it's the minimum

[2:06:50] 12 or is it 9200, and I don't understand why we're saying 12, but not really 12. And

[2:06:55] so I do understand it now, but I don't feel like it's clear. I don't feel like it's a strong

[2:07:01] amendment.

[2:07:05] All right. Councilmember Madron followed by Mayor Pro Tem win.

[2:07:09] I'm laughing a little bit, because it's actually not clear to me.

[2:07:13] Because, and so Jackson, I'll ask you to clarify, but I'll just show you my, my plane

[2:07:19] interpretation, not being a planner or a developer.

[2:07:23] I read that to say that the minimum is 12,000 unless somebody has a contract in hand saying

[2:07:31] I will open a grocery store, but it'll be 9,200 square feet.

[2:07:35] And at that point, it could be constructed at 9,200 square feet.

[2:07:41] That is my exact reading of the code as well.

[2:07:44] Okay, so it actually doesn't get to the goal that council member Gilman was just stating

[2:07:48] in terms of having a larger building that could be grown into.

[2:07:53] Correct.

[2:07:54] Okay, so I don't see this amendment as reaching the goal that I heard articulated.

[2:08:01] And so for that reason, I don't support it.

[2:08:08] Thank you.

[2:08:08] Mayor Pratton-Win.

[2:08:15] Jackson, you're a champ.

[2:08:17] Thank you.

[2:08:18] So, we're all the public commenters that are waiting to speak.

[2:08:24] I absolutely support sort of keeping our promise, if you will, or I guess councils before

[2:08:36] us, of the vision of breaks and having a fresh food available, right?

[2:08:42] And so, we've been hearing that tonight.

[2:08:43] right? I don't think that this amendment will help make that a reality. I, for the reasons

[2:08:54] that Council member Green said about just, you know, if they would get enough visibility

[2:08:59] and traffic. Also, on Yom Highway, there are at least two major grocers,

[2:09:09] I think, big

[2:09:13] And I question if another grocery or grocery is going to want to compete with that.

[2:09:21] I also think of when people talk about neighborhood centers, and they light up when they talk

[2:09:27] about places like the co-op, they talk about spuds, smaller, large spuds.

[2:09:34] And even people still talk about the little general that used to be in downtown.

[2:09:38] And I think about the, I think, making it larger is, I think it's a dated idea.

[2:09:56] I think that we're seeing smaller footprints for restaurants, for grocery, for other service deliveries.

[2:10:02] stories. And I don't want to get locked into our idea of what, you know, what a grocery

[2:10:09] store needs to be like. I think just being really focused on, will there be fresh food

[2:10:14] available? You know, will there be things that are not the sort of typical convenience stores?

[2:10:23] But if we could get a convenience store, like the ones that they have in Japan, I'm all

[2:10:32] I just don't see that this one adding value I think that it would work against us.

[2:10:36] I think it comes with great intentions. I worry about the impact. Also perhaps this is another

[2:10:42] amendment, a separate amendment mayor, but I am not only in favor of keeping it 9200, but also

[2:10:52] with the flexibility of separating it out potentially.

[2:11:01] Yeah, so hold on to that because

[2:11:04] Because should this amendment fail, you'll need to make a proposed and alternative.

[2:11:10] All right, Council Member Vanderbilt, followed by Council Member Mangeron.

[2:11:14] Well, I want to clear, I want to ask a staff, a clarifying question about what Council Member

[2:11:20] Drones said about, if you're a developer and you're trying to build the ground floor

[2:11:29] of a mixed-use development, right, and you read this and they say,

[2:11:35] as, you know, I want to build the building,

[2:11:38] and then I want to attract it.

[2:11:39] Do developers usually attract the tenants first,

[2:11:45] or do they build it first?

[2:11:47] What is usually the place of thought

[2:11:49] that people go through when they go through this?

[2:11:51] Because that's kind of the crux of the question

[2:11:54] I'm hearing from my council mates is like,

[2:11:56] is would the developer build it,

[2:11:59] and then something would happen,

[2:12:01] or would they attract,

[2:12:03] Like, because that's what this provided statement is really about the crux of is, would

[2:12:11] the developers usually just build a space, like we see it in downtown all over the place

[2:12:16] where we, like, just over here, there's a, there's a, on state, there's some vacant spaces,

[2:12:21] right?

[2:12:21] Some of them are starting to come in.

[2:12:23] So, my question is, does this, that's the provided question, right, is, is, if they're

[2:12:32] to develop a mixed-use development with so many feet up and have this many units, aren't

[2:12:37] they going to have to build the whole bottom first anyway? Or would the provided limit

[2:12:42] that? I'm just curious.

[2:12:45] Thank you, Council Member Vanderpool. I would say, going back to Gina's comments, that it

[2:12:51] does kind of go both ways, but I would agree this amendment would require that larger space

[2:12:59] to be built out if they didn't have a tenant and so I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all approach to how businesses seek out tenant spaces.

[2:13:16] I think that it all kind of is dependent on exactly their story. I'll leave it at that.

[2:13:25] Can I clarify a question, maybe Tim can answer it, but let's say the developer builds the whole space, and then they look at this provided, and they put up walls that meet that provided, right?

[2:13:39] They have a huge floor, wide floor, and then they subdivide it to the 9200 and it says, and based on the provided, would a developer do that?

[2:13:48] Or is that something that doesn't make any sense because utility and other things?

[2:13:53] I would say that would be difficult to, I mean they could petition it off and create

[2:13:57] that smaller 9200 square foot space, but I think they'd be renting likely the whole space

[2:14:06] unless they broke out these really small micro commercial spaces to be used for something

[2:14:11] else in that building.

[2:14:12] But I think I have Tim behind me that might want to speak to it.

[2:14:15] Okay.

[2:14:16] Thank you.

[2:14:21] My responsibility is based on what the market is.

[2:14:24] I mean downtown you're seeing very hot residential development market,

[2:14:27] not so much for gone for retail.

[2:14:29] And so what's happening is that they're building shell space

[2:14:32] for the commercials, for future tenants use.

[2:14:35] And then the residential goes and it gets immediately rented out.

[2:14:38] Probably the same thing within Briggs unless there's a huge market change

[2:14:41] it's likely to be a mixed use building with a shell for the commercial

[2:14:44] and then the residential on top.

[2:14:47] And so whether or not it's to partition out that again depends on the market as well.

[2:14:50] Sometimes it's, it'll work sometimes it doesn't.

[2:14:53] And so it's this kind of a big answer of that's really what we're seeing.

[2:14:57] with the language as it is.

[2:15:00] There's a limit, someone from subdividing it. I guess it's not a way to ask it. I think it's subdivided, but unless the council get direction that you could partition off into this into different spaces, it would have to be used for something besides commercial. Okay. Thank you. Or at least as a store, it could be something else in office or some other type of thing. Okay. So there's nothing in it that would limit them from doing that. Just cost. Okay. Thank you.

[2:15:26] All right. Council Member Menderon. Don't worry. This one's not a question for you, Jackson.

[2:15:32] I just want to remind us all that currently the minimum is zero.

[2:15:37] So we are establishing a minimum through this conversation.

[2:15:40] And I also want, you know, as we've been talking about, like, you know, will they build

[2:15:45] it first?

[2:15:46] Will they build it after someone's, you know, secured, you know, that we can't really speculate

[2:15:51] about the future.

[2:15:55] and I think we see some examples downtown where we do require commercial to be built with housing and and some of it gets filled and some of it stays vacant.

[2:16:07] So I think that's something that we need to keep in our minds, you know, what if we end up requiring something to be built that remains vacant is that a service to the community.

[2:16:19] So just want to put that out there.

[2:16:27] So we have a motion in a second on this amendment.

[2:16:30] So I'm going to go ahead and take that vote unless there is any further discussion, and

[2:16:36] I'm not seeing any.

[2:16:38] Okay.

[2:16:39] So all those are favor of adopting the amendment as proposed, signified by saying aye.

[2:16:45] Aye.

[2:16:46] Opposed?

[2:16:47] Nay.

[2:16:48] Nay.

[2:16:49] All right.

[2:16:50] All right, amendment fails.

[2:16:54] So, yes, Council Member Green.

[2:16:57] I'd like to make a new amendment.

[2:16:58] Sure.

[2:16:59] And I unfortunately don't have the exact language,

[2:17:02] so I'm not sure the best process.

[2:17:07] So, you manager, do you have a recommendation?

[2:17:11] I think you're going to make a motion to amend,

[2:17:14] to allow the space to be subdivided into smaller spaces.

[2:17:17] Is that the one you're speaking of?

[2:17:19] Correct, so when I'm looking at this language in B that we're seeing here, but negating the 12,000, rather than saying grocery store, saying grocery square footage, that could be comprised of multiple grocery tenants.

[2:17:41] I'm going to look at Tim and Nicole and Jackson, but I think we could probably work with the intent if you made that motion in that way and then we could construct the language as it comes back to you on second reading to match what you're asking.

[2:17:54] There was some language that came to the land use committee and we changed it.

[2:18:00] Do you have that in front of you Jackson?

[2:18:02] I was looking for it. I could not find it in the packet.

[2:18:04] I do not have it right in front of me, but it was very much along the lines of what you just spoke to being able to take that $9,200 and break it into things that would fall under the food store definition, which is where the grocery store lives and that would be something some business that primarily sells some food product and that that could be a bakery that could be a butcher shop those are a nice cream or not a nice cream.

[2:18:34] You may not be for, not retail, not a restaurant, but something you would buy food, leave it, prepare it at home.

[2:18:44] So, that is my motion to amend this to make 9,200 the required square footage for grocery, but achievable through multiple businesses that meet the food store definition or tenants.

[2:18:59] Yeah, multiple tenants, but it's properly.

[2:19:01] All right,

[2:19:04] is there a second on that motion?

[2:19:06] Second.

[2:19:07] All right, we have a motion in a second.

[2:19:10] Councilmember Majron.

[2:19:13] I was just trying to frantically find the language and ledistar.

[2:19:17] I just want to make sure that what we,

[2:19:20] what I think, what your intent is,

[2:19:22] I'm still on support if I'm going to vote against it.

[2:19:23] Just to be transparent.

[2:19:25] But I just want to make sure that we're still talking

[2:19:29] about food stores.

[2:19:31] And I think that was the language that came to lane you so it can't be broken up for any kind of retail. Okay. That's all. All

[2:19:40] right. Thank you council member Gilman.

[2:19:42] Well, that's an example of I'm from the government and I'm here to help. That's pretty nice.

[2:19:47] Pretty nice. So, so I'm speaking against this this motion.

[2:19:54] In my perspective, the deal that was made to approve the Briggs Urban Village in 2006

[2:20:07] was that the neighbors agreed to have dense multifamily in an area that was primarily

[2:20:16] single-family houses in exchange for also having a retail center that had at its core a

[2:20:23] grocery store. That grocery store has been, that was the, that was the center of the end

[2:20:29] of the debate, however many years ago that was, 20 years ago, and it's been the center

[2:20:38] of the last year of conversation around this. So for me, a single grocery store was the

[2:20:45] deal, and it was the deal, as I said earlier, when this current property owner purchased

[2:20:51] just the property.

[2:20:51] They bought it with this master agreement,

[2:20:53] this master plan for the village in place.

[2:20:59] So I would prefer that we left it as a single grocery store.

[2:21:04] Thank you.

[2:21:05] Count some member, Madron.

[2:21:07] Yes, first half I found the language.

[2:21:10] And so we're all on the same page.

[2:21:14] After a floor area, the language was grocery or food stores

[2:21:18] can be separated into multiple tenant spaces.

[2:21:21] That's what it says.

[2:21:24] I'm on team Gilman on this one.

[2:21:27] The discussion that we had in the land use committee is we want the folks at Briggs Village

[2:21:30] to be who live in that area to be able to walk over to a store and get everything they need to make a meal.

[2:21:37] They are not guaranteed to be able to do that under this kind of scenario.

[2:21:41] So that I think I think what councilmember Gilman was speaking to in terms of, you know,

[2:21:47] So what we've heard from the community on this and what they bought into as being a part

[2:21:54] of that community, that's what we've been trying, that was what we wrestled with the

[2:21:58] Land Use Committee even talking about what's the right square footage to make sure that

[2:22:02] we get a grocery store to not have enough flexibility.

[2:22:06] I think once you start allowing that to be separated into separate tenant spaces for different

[2:22:10] types of food stores, you've lost the intent there.

[2:22:14] All

[2:22:18] right. Yes. Councilmember Green. Yeah. You know, I completely appreciate the sentiment and I and again, I know you all had robust discussion about this.

[2:22:29] I think just one additional comment on where my lens is with this is that, you know, and when we've heard it from several people tonight, is that small retail there is working, right?

[2:22:41] The ice cream parlor is busy, the tap house is busy, and so in my mind, giving some flexibility to this just increases the opportunity again that someone's going to see that as an opportunity of, you know, a smaller square footage, which is a little less expensive to lease less expensive to operate just maybe more appealing.

[2:23:01] So my intent is really around, it feels like more of an opportunity to get there, but I recognize that, you know, at the end of the day, you know, if it's not the exact perfect mix of tenants, you know, again, you don't meet that.

[2:23:16] So that was just a piece of where I was coming from is the smaller footprints are working out there. So it feels like the ability to build on to those to achieve a goal.

[2:23:25] All right,

[2:23:31] Council Member Gilman, followed by Council Member Barrett.

[2:23:34] So I just want to check my understanding that the grocery store, we're talking about

[2:23:44] sort of the requirement for the grocery store, some parameters around it, but we're not

[2:23:48] talking about the total commercial space.

[2:23:51] So there are several retail and office spaces now.

[2:23:56] There are some parcels along, is that Henderson?

[2:24:00] Yeah, along Henderson that there are folks

[2:24:03] have expressed interest in having additional retail

[2:24:06] and commercial.

[2:24:07] So something I don't know is if you took that minimum

[2:24:10] 500 square feet for the entire village,

[2:24:14] how much more retail that might be other small shops?

[2:24:20] What's the net between 10,000 square feet of grocery store and the amount that's built and then the amount that's required under the urban village plan?

[2:24:34] Great question and I do have a few numbers prepared to speak to that.

[2:24:40] Currently doing some math or looking at the assessor's records there's about 14,000 square feet of commercial retail.

[2:24:47] that counts the coffee, the coffee stand, the ice cream parlor and the dentistry with Briggs

[2:24:53] tap house, all those different spaces. The code based on the math, it would require approximately

[2:25:03] 68,000 of commercial as a minimum based on these proposed amendments. And so doing some quick math,

[2:25:13] your left with, you know, over 40,000 after subtracting out the required grocery and what's

[2:25:22] existing. Thank you, Jackson. So this could be really good news. This might mean that we could

[2:25:28] hold on to the grocery store requirement and there could still be room for oodles of small food shops.

[2:25:37] Not oodles, parking, remember. All right.

[2:25:40] All right. Councilmember Barrett.

[2:25:45] Thank you. I just want to voice my opposition to this.

[2:25:51] We don't want a wine shop, a deli, a vinegar store, a cheese shop, next to each other.

[2:26:00] We want a supermarket where there is fresh food and big goods and meat,

[2:26:11] I don't think that vusting up the space really serves the needs of the community and just leave it at that.

[2:26:25] Council member Vanderpool.

[2:26:29] I'm against this, but I also want to express an understanding of why because, you know,

[2:26:37] I want to express this because

[2:26:41] because we really don't see the problem with urban villages and the problem with this type

[2:26:47] of development and it was kind of expressed a little earlier and I had it in my thoughts

[2:26:50] earlier but we kind of passed that but the problem with an urban village and the problem

[2:26:55] with where we are and having this conversation I'm just kind of deeply looking into this is

[2:27:03] to get to a walkable mix used place like a downtown and other places usually you don't have

[2:27:09] Now this type of granular, prescriptive code amendments and stuff.

[2:27:15] But for me, it's, you know, I'm just, I'm glad that we're having these conversations

[2:27:21] because we want to get there.

[2:27:23] We want to get to that, that use and I appreciate the amendment to consider what do we do if

[2:27:28] we split it up.

[2:27:29] We do this and that.

[2:27:30] But ultimately, I can't wait until, I'm saying this, I'm probably going to say this later,

[2:27:34] I can't wait till we don't have to do this type of planning for a while or maybe never

[2:27:38] again.

[2:27:38] because I'm such a fan of flexibility and zoning and so this is kind of navigating through this. I

[2:27:48] wouldn't say I appreciate the amendment even though I'm going against it because I understand

[2:27:54] that the need to try to get the thing and it's really difficult because cities don't build things but

[2:28:00] we have to like navigate prior code from years ago to get the thing because half of it's already built

[2:28:06] and there's only one developer on like a downtown where you have multiple parcels right all over the place

[2:28:12] But they're on by one person and so I want to say I appreciate that even though I'm gonna vote against it. Thank

[2:28:20] you

[2:28:21] We are about two and a half hours in and we still have three other business items

[2:28:26] So I just want to mention that for us to make that mental note, although this is an important conversation and we also have public commenters here as well

[2:28:36] Mayor Pro Temwen.

[2:28:39] That's just my final effort to say that I don't think

[2:28:43] that the 9200 square footage is and it being only a single

[2:28:53] grocery location, I don't think it's the only way to have a store

[2:28:56] where people can go and use it as a grocery store,

[2:29:00] not just a place to buy one thing.

[2:29:03] There we've seen smaller models succeed in our city, and also just for me, I don't go

[2:29:13] to any grocery store and find all of my ingredients.

[2:29:15] I have different ingredients in different places.

[2:29:17] I won't say who, but some people got bad produce, okay?

[2:29:20] I buy it and then in two days it's going brown, okay, and so I've marked them in my mind

[2:29:26] as great for bread, bad for produce, you know, and there's a little laughter maybe because

[2:29:31] people can relate to that. You know, maybe one day I want to be making Asian food. One day I'm

[2:29:38] going to be Asian American food. You know, I'm going to need different ingredients. So, hey, and I

[2:29:43] also I get that this is about walkability, but I just and I would love for it to be a grocery store

[2:29:51] that's local. I really, really would. I think that it I think it would be hard to have a local

[2:29:58] that's 9,200.

[2:30:00] Square foot, or feet. And then I also think about like, okay, well, are we just, you know, holding out hope that there's going to be a big chain grocery store that comes in? I'm not sure if they will, because not too far away, there's some big chain grocery stores. So I don't, again, want to, you know, abandon the notion of having a Briggs village that is an urban village that has food that people

[2:30:29] can walk to. And also we had heard from one of our planners that it's going to look a little bit

[2:30:37] more like downtown. In a good way hopefully, you know, that's a smaller footprint. People getting

[2:30:43] their their produce, it's changed. People sign up for a community shared or community supported

[2:30:49] agriculture. They'll go and get their pickup of fresh produce somewhere nearby. They'll even,

[2:30:56] there's all of these, I don't want to advertise for them. I feel like they're already on my algorithm.

[2:31:00] But there's all of these like fresh food boxes that required no or a little prep that

[2:31:06] get shipped to your door and people do that now and so I just feel like why are we,

[2:31:16] I think with good intention, but why are we boxing in what a grocery store needs to look

[2:31:20] like?

[2:31:21] You know, I think it's over complicating it to an extent and if they get a single one, great.

[2:31:27] right. If they can do it with multiple, great. At the end of the day, don't we want to

[2:31:32] just get fresh food to people? So that's not a question, Jackson. Okay.

[2:31:40] I do wonder

[2:31:41] though, if there is a way, I know we're already long on this, but I wonder if there is a way

[2:31:46] that they could break it up, perhaps, because it kind of seems like this motion is failing,

[2:31:51] even by some that race to second it, though I wonder if there's something that we can put in about, you know, if you can break it up if you get a grocery store with all the traditional things that we think of a grocery store that's smaller than 92 hundred square foot and then you can do something else with the rest.

[2:32:15] Yeah, other food things, but it's just also why are we acting like we don't go bananas when there's a new bakery in town?

[2:32:23] When there's a new taco shop in town, I guess we're not going for a restaurant here, but when there's a new cheese shop, you know, I mean this town loves it.

[2:32:31] If you look at the best of Olympia page, people are freaking out over shops that only sell one thing. So I suppose I rest my case.

[2:32:42] All right, so we have a motion in the second on the floor for the previously proposed amendment.

[2:32:52] So we're going to go ahead and take that vote now.

[2:32:54] There's no further discussion.

[2:32:56] All those in favor signify by saying aye.

[2:32:59] Aye.

[2:33:00] Aye.

[2:33:01] Opposed?

[2:33:02] May.

[2:33:04] Motion fails.

[2:33:07] Okay.

[2:33:08] So that takes us.

[2:33:09] Yes, all right. Council Member Maggiorne followed by Council Member Vanderpool.

[2:33:15] I do have one more amendment. I move that we adjust the maximum building height

[2:33:23] for mixed use buildings facing the town square to 50 feet from 45.

[2:33:30] Second. That's right. Any discussion on this?

[2:33:36] All right, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

[2:33:40] Aye.

[2:33:41] Aye.

[2:33:43] All right, motion passes unanimously.

[2:33:45] Thank you.

[2:33:46] All right.

[2:33:48] So that takes us back to adoption of this entire slate.

[2:33:54] Yes, Mayor Patelman.

[2:33:57] Okay, this is my last last try.

[2:34:02] So I just, I just don't want to ignore the mark.

[2:34:06] and the organizations that, you know, do economic development that have reached out to us.

[2:34:11] So, with that, I, I'll just say in my own words, I would like to amend that the night that we do have the minimum at 9200 square feet for a grocer.

[2:34:27] And we would be considerate of breaking up to smaller food stores if there can be a

[2:34:39] main sort of grocer with, I guess, the typical grocery items that are smaller.

[2:34:51] And that's your motion.

[2:34:52] Okay, so I guess I want to check in is that specific enough to capture the intent?

[2:35:00] I

[2:35:03] mean, seeing head nods from staff, we generally are

[2:35:06] in agreement that we understand what the motion is.

[2:35:08] If it's made.

[2:35:11] Second.

[2:35:12] All right.

[2:35:13] We have a motion in a second.

[2:35:14] Uh, yes.

[2:35:15] Council member Barrett.

[2:35:18] I'd like to ask the staff what the motion was then.

[2:35:26] I'll try since I put Jackson in this box.

[2:35:29] All right.

[2:35:30] What I heard was that you could subdivide the 9200 square feet.

[2:35:35] If you have a main tenant that is a grocer, there's kind of a one-stop grocer, and you can still have some smaller tenants that do other things.

[2:35:46] That's what I heard. That's what I heard as well.

[2:35:53] Yes, thank you, Jay. Council member Madrown.

[2:35:55] I'm also not going to support this one.

[2:35:58] We set the 9200 square feet based on the data-driven recommendation from staff.

[2:36:04] And at this point, I just kind of want to get on with it.

[2:36:12] All right, we have a motion in a second on that.

[2:36:16] Mayor Pro Tem, would you like to proceed on a vote?

[2:36:21] Yeah, I like to do things all the way.

[2:36:22] Okay.

[2:36:24] All those in favor signify by saying aye.

[2:36:27] Aye.

[2:36:28] Opposed?

[2:36:29] No.

[2:36:30] Okay, motion fails.

[2:36:33] All right.

[2:36:33] All right, so that takes us back to adoption of the whole thing which we made the original

[2:36:41] motion for to move to approve the ordinance amending OMC chapter 18.05 related to urban

[2:36:48] villages with all of the approved amendments signify by saying aye.

[2:36:55] One moment looks like we have a question.

[2:36:58] I would love to hear what I believe there's two that were approved.

[2:37:04] Sorry.

[2:37:04] Give us three.

[2:37:05] So if you give me a quick recap.

[2:37:06] Or two.

[2:37:07] Two.

[2:37:08] Sorry.

[2:37:09] Jackson, you got it.

[2:37:11] I'm going to rely on you.

[2:37:13] Over there.

[2:37:14] J, thank you.

[2:37:15] Okay.

[2:37:15] So the first one is and I need any of that sheetback that I gave to Susan.

[2:37:20] Oh, sorry.

[2:37:21] The first one is number one above on table.

[2:37:25] the amendments a table 5.02 so that was the amendment was supported.

[2:37:30] The second was the change to 50 feet for building height and the third, that's it, that's

[2:37:39] the second.

[2:37:39] That's the two.

[2:37:42] Uh-huh.

[2:37:43] Thank you.

[2:37:43] Okay.

[2:37:44] So we're going to return to that vote.

[2:37:46] So all those in favor of the motion to amend OMC chapter 18.05 related to urban villages

[2:37:53] with all of the approved amendments by by saying aye.

[2:37:56] Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. I'm posed. Motion passes.

[2:38:01] Thank you very much. Thank you.

[2:38:05] Jackson, you are a trooper. Yeah, I wish I could walk away, but I have another presentation again.

[2:38:13] Oh, anywhere.

[2:38:16] Yeah. Alright. So, next item on our agenda is item 6B, which is the approval of a resolution authorizing an agreed.

[2:38:26] agreement to terminate the Briggs Urban Village Development Agreement.

[2:38:30] And we have Jackson Ewing, our Senior Planner, presenting on this item as well.

[2:38:35] Thank you, Mayor Payne.

[2:38:36] I'll hopefully keep this one a little shorter than the last presentation.

[2:38:40] So the item today is regarding the Briggs Urban Village Development Agreement termination.

[2:38:49] And my name is Jackson Ewing, and I'm a Senior Planner here with Community Planning and

[2:38:54] economic development. And we're talking about Briggs Urban Village. I won't go

[2:38:59] through the stats but we'll get us cited here. The development agreement, what's

[2:39:06] important about it. The applicant has requested to terminate this

[2:39:11] development agreement associated with Briggs Village. And the key points of this

[2:39:17] are that the agreement occurred before the adoption of the Briggs Village. The

[2:39:22] agreement caps the number of residential units at 810, including 80 years. And that other

[2:39:30] elements of the agreement created the zoning, or created zoning standards and the city

[2:39:35] has since adopted a zoning, zoning code chapter four urban villages and the AMC, which you

[2:39:43] just voted to amend during your last action.

[2:39:48] The benefits of terminating this agreement, it would allow an increase in housing density

[2:39:54] to support the commercial space, including a grocer.

[2:39:57] It supports furthering residential development in the village, including accessory dwelling

[2:40:04] units.

[2:40:05] Currently, if someone came in and wanted to permit an accessory dwelling unit in a subdivision

[2:40:10] that's part of Briggs master plan, they would not be able to, based on the current agreement

[2:40:16] It supports development where infrastructure is in place furthering our climate goals.

[2:40:25] City Council has basically two options today either to approve, to terminate the development

[2:40:32] agreement or retaining the development agreement.

[2:40:36] I didn't have this in the slide, but if it would take both parties wanting to renegotiate

[2:40:43] to come up with something new.

[2:40:47] And so just as a note,

[2:40:49] terminating the agreement is necessary

[2:40:51] for the applicant to increase the number

[2:40:53] of residential dwelling units provided

[2:40:56] by the requested code amendments

[2:40:58] that you just heard.

[2:41:02] And I will stop there and open it up for any questions.

[2:41:06] I can go back to probably the third slide

[2:41:09] if you'd like to see that again.

[2:41:15] Thank you.

[2:41:17] Council Member Gilman, followed by Council Member Vanderpoul.

[2:41:22] Jackson, I just want to check my understanding. I think they're sort of an affirmative argument

[2:41:29] for terminating this agreement that many of the items that were described in this agreement

[2:41:36] are now incorporated into our urban village chapter within our codes so that we don't require

[2:41:43] a separate agreement here.

[2:41:45] That is correct. The agreement took place in a time where those codes were being developed and

[2:41:52] there was a partner in the community that was interested in going down that path.

[2:41:58] So this is the development agreement. We still have the master agreement that we discussed in

[2:42:05] the previous item. The master agreements intact, this development agreement would essentially be folded

[2:42:10] it into the urban village zoning codes.

[2:42:15] And that's correct.

[2:42:17] The only thing that really staff was able to find applicable

[2:42:22] from this agreement that's left over is the unit cap.

[2:42:26] All of the other items that were spelled out in that have been either executed or

[2:42:32] code has been adopted.

[2:42:34] Thank you.

[2:42:34] I have a premonition.

[2:42:35] This won't go more quickly than the last item.

[2:42:37] You

[2:42:43] said in a great, you mentioned briefly that after this there will be an agreement

[2:42:46] with amongst both parties. Could you just generally for the public quickly express what

[2:42:51] that is after this, after this?

[2:42:55] I apologize for that confusion. I meant to say that amending this development agreement

[2:43:01] when I was going over council's options, that amending it would not be an option unless both

[2:43:08] both the applicant and city council were agreeable to the terms.

[2:43:13] Thank you.

[2:43:18] All right, I see council member Barrett.

[2:43:20] Yeah, I just had a question.

[2:43:24] Supporting development where infrastructures in place are further in climate goals.

[2:43:29] That could be a thousand different things.

[2:43:32] Could you flesh that out a little bit?

[2:43:36] Yeah, thank you for that question.

[2:43:38] That's kind of a high level one, but I'm prepared to answer that tonight.

[2:43:42] We look at cities like Olympia as the takers of density were mandated by the Growth Management Act to protect rural areas within counties and natural resource areas and that a city that has sewer and water and infrastructure in the streets are already there.

[2:44:09] Those are prime opportunities to support our housing and climate goals because we are not

[2:44:17] say supporting a new large lot subdivision of five acre parcels out in a forest land area.

[2:44:27] That's my best example.

[2:44:36] Council Member Madron.

[2:44:38] I do go ahead and just make a motion here. I move to approve a resolution authorizing an agreement

[2:44:43] to terminate the Briggs Urban Village Development Agreement.

[2:44:47] Second.

[2:44:48] All right.

[2:44:48] We have a motion in a second.

[2:44:50] Is there any further discussion?

[2:44:52] Council Member Mendron.

[2:44:54] Just want to quickly again thank Jackson and team.

[2:44:57] This has been a significant amount of work to get it this far.

[2:45:00] I know you're not done yet, but just want to offer my gratitude. Thank you. All right, thank you. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for now.

[2:45:25] Sure. Anyone else need a little bit of a break. So let's go ahead and take a five minute recess.

[2:45:32] us. All

[2:55:34] right, we're going to come on back. Just want to thank the council for that robust discussion on our last two agenda items. And I also want to thank the council members who it did quite a bit of engagement with many of the community members in previous months on that particular issue. I know that there were a few of us that met with folks in that area. So thank you for doing that and bringing representing those voices back here at council. Thank you. All right. So we're going to move on.

[2:56:03] on to agenda item 6c, which is the approval of an ordinance amending Olympia municipal

[2:56:08] code chapter 5.80 on unfair housing practices related to diverse family structures. And

[2:56:16] this presentation I believe will roll right into our next agenda item, which is 6d, which

[2:56:22] is the approval of an ordinance enacting Olympia municipal code chapter 7.01, the Olympia

[2:56:28] code against discrimination. So we will present and but we will act on these two items separately,

[2:56:35] even though they will be presented together. So now I'm going to turn it over to City Manager

[2:56:40] J. Bernie. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, for the record, J. Bernie City Manager. In front

[2:56:45] of you, this evening for your consideration are two ordinance updates that address the request

[2:56:50] outline in the referral around diverse family structures. As the mayor said, I'm going to take

[2:56:55] on 6C and 60 is just one presentation.

[2:56:58] I'm going to serve them both up to you.

[2:56:59] There will be two separate motions at the end.

[2:57:04] Just looking back at the referral,

[2:57:07] the diverse family structures referral was introduced

[2:57:08] by Council Member Vanderpul

[2:57:10] at the January 13th council meeting,

[2:57:12] supported by Mayor Payne and Pro Tem,

[2:57:14] when passed by the full council to explore the issue.

[2:57:17] The problems outlined in the referral included

[2:57:21] diverse families face systemic barriers

[2:57:23] in housing, healthcare, education, and services.

[2:57:27] The diverse family definition is around single parent,

[2:57:30] multigenerational blended, chosen, non-monogamous structures,

[2:57:33] family structures.

[2:57:35] The existing policies often assume dual income or nuclear households

[2:57:38] creating inequities.

[2:57:40] The request of a proposal was to add family relationship structure

[2:57:44] as a protected category in city code to cover multi-parent,

[2:57:48] blended, multigenerational, chosen, non-monogamous,

[2:57:51] and single parent by choice households, and that you ask the city attorney to draft this

[2:57:56] based on the model legislation.

[2:58:00] In terms of equity, excuse me, and that enforcement be done through civil action, and that in

[2:58:06] terms of an equity impact, this work supports inclusion, reduces discrimination, affirms non-traditional

[2:58:12] families in our community, and it also advances Olympia's sanctuary city and civil rights commitments.

[2:58:17] So, in looking at the referral, the city attorney is proposing adding a new OMC chapter

[2:58:25] and amending another to address the items requested in the referral.

[2:58:29] The new OMC proposed is Olympian Municipal Code, chapter 7.01.

[2:58:34] This new chapter would establish comprehensive protections against unlawful discrimination

[2:58:39] in Olympia, closing any gaps.

[2:58:42] It is a comprehensive policy declaration of the city of Olympia against discrimination.

[2:58:46] and it also expands protections and coverage to discrimination that includes familiar status and family relationship structures.

[2:58:54] And one thing I want to point out here, we have some late breaking news, a late breaking email, that as we drafted this ordinate 7.01,

[2:59:03] we added family and relationship structures, families with children and familial status in 7.01.01.0,

[2:59:10] but we also needed to add it in the same definition in 0.040, and it's just a drafting mistake.

[2:59:17] So I'm going to ask you tonight if you support this to make your motion as amended to update 7.040,

[2:59:26] and we'll make sure we make that change when it comes back to you on second reading.

[2:59:29] So that's what's in front of you there.

[2:59:33] Also is proposed as an amendment to Olympianist of Code Chapter 5.80 on for our housing practice.

[2:59:39] This amendment specifically adds protections for traditional and non-traditional family structures and

[2:59:44] Concentral relationship structures. It also adds new and clarified definitions

[2:59:49] And as I mentioned both the new OMC and the amended OMC provide civil enforcement revenues for any violations

[2:59:56] Which means the city is not the enforcement mechanism for

[3:00:00] Complaints against the ordinance. This provides a civil remedy for folks in court.

[3:00:08] Staff believes that approval of both the new OMC and the amended OMC meet the intent of what was requested in the referral and provide the required protections. With that, having to take any questions or approval of the two motions on the screen, I would just add, I think you have a much shorter motion on your motion sheet in front of you. If you want to make that motion, rather than want it's here, I just ask if you make the motion around OMC chapters.

[3:00:32] or 7.01 you make it as amended to 0.040.

[3:00:38] That's it for me.

[3:00:40] Thank you, City Manager Bernie.

[3:00:42] Can you say that chapter one more time, point 0?

[3:00:47] Chapter 7.01, making amendment to section 0.040

[3:00:53] to match the definitions that are included in 7.01.010.

[3:01:01] Okay.

[3:01:03] It's late, as amended.

[3:01:05] Okay.

[3:01:10] Yes. All right. So I'm going to turn it over to the prime sponsor of the referral

[3:01:18] that brought forward our first item on this topic, Council Member Vanderpool.

[3:01:25] I'm just going to speak to both, because that's the intent. You know, I had written something

[3:01:31] down, but then I also wrote a little bit more afterwards because of folks who came and commented

[3:01:35] because the folks in the community, you're the reason for this change, it's your lived experience,

[3:01:42] it's you coming to us and expressing your concerns, your experiences that you feel that you've had

[3:01:54] in the community of discrimination, because I may not always experience it, but I want to listen to

[3:02:00] what folks in the community are living through and be there for you because this policy is because

[3:02:06] folks came to us and I think that I want to express that. I got thanked for this and we got

[3:02:10] thanked for this but it's ultimately because folks in the community are willing to come forward

[3:02:14] and talk with us about this. That makes it makes the real difference. I'm going to speak a little

[3:02:19] bit to the history and a little bit where this comes from and that will hopefully have a motion.

[3:02:25] So, over a year ago, we had folks in the community reach out and ask the council to create

[3:02:31] a sanctuary city status for LGBTQIA2S plus folks in the community.

[3:02:37] Since then, we've had an opportunity to talk with folks who are experiencing discrimination

[3:02:42] or identify as part of this community.

[3:02:44] Out of those conversations came an idea of strengthening our sanctuary city status with

[3:02:49] city code through civil protections.

[3:02:51] Several groups talked, I've talked about, talked with, on the concept of civil protection

[3:02:57] related to family structures, specifically diverse family structures, including chosen,

[3:03:03] nominog and a splendid, multi-generational, single parent, and polyamory.

[3:03:07] With the help of the folks that open, and the local DSA group, Socialist, Feminist, Queer,

[3:03:14] Working Group, and many individuals who I've spoken with, who experience stomach and

[3:03:19] culture just discrimination each and every day were able to create a referral with the intent

[3:03:25] of creating more civil protections. Proving that government can help folks when the federal

[3:03:31] government is acting to harm civil liberties is very important that local, county, city,

[3:03:37] county, states continue to push for more protections.

[3:03:42] I would lastly want to reflect on some feedback that I've had from some folks in the community

[3:03:46] and we not understand why we're doing this.

[3:03:49] I had some folks tell me,

[3:03:51] they'd rather have me focus on housing

[3:03:53] or transportation policies.

[3:03:56] That is something that doesn't solve

[3:03:59] the real, the traditional role of local government.

[3:04:03] My answer is yes and then some.

[3:04:07] Housing affordability, social housing,

[3:04:09] public transportation, street safety, urbanism,

[3:04:13] affordability crisis, and for working class folks,

[3:04:16] or all the issues that I fight for and I push for, there are things that are dear to my heart,

[3:04:21] but so are the people in our community. I have a responsibility to protections whether it be

[3:04:28] civil or bicycle infrastructure, because ultimately we want to have a community where people feel

[3:04:34] accepted and loved and welcomed. And so this is just, I'm very proud of this work. I'm proud of my

[3:04:43] Council mates were supporting me on this and I'm proud of my community for coming and asking for these protections.

[3:04:51] Thank you.

[3:04:55] Thank you.

[3:04:56] Council Member Vanderpool.

[3:04:59] Any additional comments?

[3:05:04] Mayor Pro Temwen.

[3:05:06] Yeah, I think Council Member Vanderpool covered it well.

[3:05:08] I just want to lift up really your last word of protections.

[3:05:15] A lot of times when folks, well, I suppose this is not going to sound good, but a lot

[3:05:23] of times when folks, I hear about council mates wanting to pass something or see something

[3:05:30] that says we're welcoming to so-and-so, not necessarily diverse family structures, just

[3:05:37] in general, like the LGBT plus sanctuary city. To me, I was a no on that unless it had specific

[3:05:44] things that we would do, unless it had something that people can hold on to and it had teeth to it.

[3:05:52] And so when this came across, I was the same way I was like, well, are we just saying, you know,

[3:06:00] is it a symbolic thing or is it going to be something that holds weight, right? Is there really

[3:06:05] going to be a protection there. And so I think that probably the folks that are coming to advocate

[3:06:11] for it, know enough about it. But I think it is a big deal to not just pass a proclamation

[3:06:21] or say a statement to say that you care about ex-types of community members and you're broadly

[3:06:30] welcoming, but to actually go and do things like this and to change code, that is something

[3:06:36] to get behind because unfortunately, not to be downer, but unfortunately folks that want

[3:06:46] to judge or want to discriminate, probably are going to do it anyway to some extent.

[3:06:52] And so to have a protection was really something that was really important to me was important

[3:06:58] to us so I just wanted to lift that up.

[3:07:03] Thank you Mayor Prattam. Additional comments?

[3:07:09] Thank you Council Member Vanderpool for bringing this forward. I was happy to

[3:07:16] sign on to this as a as a co-sponsor specifically because you know I'm all for the expansion of

[3:07:26] rights and civil liberties. And as an openly gay man, I can think about all the times when

[3:07:33] people said that, you know, anything that states or local governments were doing in

[3:07:40] the space of trying to legitimize those relationships was something that was we should not be doing.

[3:07:46] And that was due to a lot of fear about the change in not understanding same-sex relationships

[3:07:55] right now we see that happening with the transgender community, people do not

[3:08:00] understand and so we see a lot of frankly brutal and archaic proposals coming

[3:08:09] forward to weaponize specifically our transgender community members and so

[3:08:16] for me this is recognizing the fact that people who are in different kinds of

[3:08:23] families already live in our community, already have come forward, but some are not. And so I do want

[3:08:32] to just point out the fact that we are talking about diverse family structures as a big umbrella.

[3:08:38] Polyamory and non-monogamy is a part of that who certainly face the utmost discrimination in the

[3:08:45] context of talking about diverse family structures. But I do also just want to point out that it is an

[3:08:51] umbrella intentionally. And if you think about what we're doing here, there are not many people who

[3:08:58] actually are part of a traditional family in the sense that your parents are married, not divorced,

[3:09:05] all the children are from the same, and on and on all the way back. You will find that that is not

[3:09:11] very many of us. Most of us do have some sort of non-traditional structure to our families.

[3:09:17] And so what we're doing here tonight actually impacts people that you probably know, and it also affects people that are hiding as we just heard earlier or not coming out about who they truly are.

[3:09:33] And so the chances are you have those people in your life too and they already live here.

[3:09:40] And so I couldn't be more proud to be part of this body that's taking this action.

[3:09:45] I do believe this would mean that we're the first city in our state to do this, similar

[3:09:51] to what we did with LGBTQI2S plus sanctuary city resolution that we passed.

[3:10:00] So it would be a similar thing here.

[3:10:03] And so I'm certainly supportive of our efforts to do this tonight.

[3:10:08] And then also, I do want to mention something that I noticed, sorry, I forgot that I had written

[3:10:15] this down in my notes in my staff report packet on item 6D on the code against discrimination.

[3:10:22] And the reason I wanted this is because the first item 6C addresses unfair housing practices

[3:10:28] and that's extremely, extremely limited.

[3:10:31] We want to, we want to outlaw discrimination across the board.

[3:10:36] So it's important to have a discrimination code.

[3:10:39] And so in the first section here of 7.01.010, which is what I believe you mentioned earlier referred to as the declaration of policy, it says the equal opportunity to all persons residing in the city of Olympia.

[3:10:57] I'm wondering if we could have something to the effect of all persons residing and or employed or visiting in the city of Olympia.

[3:11:05] is

[3:11:10] that okay it's a little technical change but I think it got it needs to be there okay all right

[3:11:19] so I'm getting head nods on that and so other than that I just think everybody for for being

[3:11:24] supportive of this action and ready to take this historic vote when you all are

[3:11:35] counts remember

[3:11:36] random will you have the motion yeah thank you I would like to move to approve an ordinance

[3:11:41] Mending Olympia, Municipal Code, Chapter 5.8, unfair housing practices related to diverse

[3:11:48] film structures.

[3:11:51] Second. All those in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion

[3:11:59] passes unanimously.

[3:12:09] Okay, and we have the next motion item 6D, and that is coming from Mayor

[3:12:16] pro-time win.

[3:12:22] I move to prove on first reading and for to second reading and ordinance enacting

[3:12:27] new Olympia Municipal Code chapter 7.01 and 7.01 0.04. No you're good you can just say 7.01

[3:12:39] as amended and we got you.

[3:12:43] Let's do it again. I move to prove on first reading and for to second

[3:12:47] reading and ordinance enacting new Olympia municipal code chapter 7.01 as amended

[3:12:54] Olympia code against discrimination. Second all right just really quickly the important thing

[3:13:03] on this item as well is that it also codifies all of the other protected areas where discrimination

[3:13:09] has forbidden according to state law and then we're also adding this additional category as well

[3:13:14] for diverse family structures and relationships, so that's important because this action actually

[3:13:21] caused us to have a whole discrimination code and to codify what's already protected by

[3:13:25] state law as well. So, yes, Council Member Rainerport. I want to thank staff for

[3:13:31] thinking to work on this, the thinking about doing a whole new chapter in the city code, and that's

[3:13:37] I think this is important for what it does for folks in our community, but it's also important because

[3:13:43] it could be added on to, right? This is a place where in the future of Social Justice and Equity

[3:13:49] Commission or any folks want to add onto this and add more freedoms, rights, civil liberties,

[3:13:54] however you want to say it, onto what we have in the code. It can be put in there and I think that

[3:13:59] that's valuable. And I just want to give some gratitude to the City Attorney on that one

[3:14:05] for helping us get there. Thank you, Mark. Yes, thank you.

[3:14:11] All right, we have a motion in a second, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

[3:14:16] Aye.

[3:14:17] Opposed?

[3:14:18] Motion passes unanimously.

[3:14:28] Thank you so much, City Manager Bernie and staff.

[3:14:31] Again, our legal department, you are killing it as we say tonight.

[3:14:39] So thank you for all of your work.

[3:14:41] And I want to thank all of our community members who came out in support of this.

[3:14:46] your presence is certainly important.

[3:14:50] I know people were sort of questioning,

[3:14:52] like is this something that people are actually asking for,

[3:14:55] or where's this coming from?

[3:14:56] And so your presence is actually very important,

[3:14:59] and I hope.

[3:15:00] It's a win for you and yours tonight, and it's a pleasure to see you. So congratulations.

[3:15:07] All right, so that concludes our business items for tonight, and we're going to move on and return to our public comment section that we had our quite extensive list earlier. So there isn't a timer on this one, except you do have two minutes for your comments, but we're not going to cap it. Our business is done, so we will keep moving through our list until we're complete.

[3:15:30] So mayor Proton. All right, so we'll start with in-person public comment and see if there is any remaining public commenters.

[3:15:40] So start with Isaac Wagnitz.

[3:15:47] Okay, moving on to Lynn Welton,

[3:15:56] moving on to Liberty Evans Agnew,

[3:16:08] Nova Stewart.

[3:16:09] Hi.

[3:16:18] I came to speak about the flat cameras. I wanted to start by saying that I was really impressed

[3:16:26] and happy about how quickly the City Council moved to get the contracts suspended last year.

[3:16:35] And I just wanted to emphasize a few points. One is that I would really hope that we don't have

[3:16:45] any intention of replacing flock with another ALPR vendor. I think that, like, ALPRs in general

[3:16:52] are a technology that we shouldn't really be moving into. And I would also encourage

[3:17:00] three councils to consider banning or regulating private deployment of flock and other ALPR vendors.

[3:17:08] Even though we don't have public flock cameras, there are still private deployments of them at, like,

[3:17:14] Home Depot and grocery stores and things like that and finally I think considering

[3:17:21] regulation of ring cameras and other automated facial recognition systems

[3:17:28] that are in use would be good so thank you. Thank you and thank you for your

[3:17:35] patients. Moving on to Tracy Hartman,

[3:17:47] David Webb, the mic is yours.

[3:17:53] David Webb,

[3:17:57] I do want to address that when a crowd shows up, they just want to believe you'll do the right thing, but historically public pressure seems to be the only way good things have happened.

[3:18:12] I do say seams because that is how it seems, and I understand that may not be how it seems from your guys is you, but that crowd is outside because they feel like if they're not there, you won't do the right thing.

[3:18:25] If you're an fascist, which you do seem to be, you don't need to be so defensive.

[3:18:30] I see that you're trying to ensure Olympia protects its people and on the right side

[3:18:34] of history, and I do appreciate it.

[3:18:36] So thank you very, very, very much for recognizing non-traditional relationships.

[3:18:41] I am a polyamorous man, and the way you handle this matter is great.

[3:18:44] I wish this party handled more like it without the double speak.

[3:18:48] Thank you, too, Mr. Manager.

[3:18:50] I appreciate how this was put together.

[3:18:53] Notably, this does seem to be one of the indicators of a progressive city.

[3:18:56] I'm proud of some reveal Massachusetts, where I'm from, not some reveal, but Massachusetts.

[3:19:01] And this is a reason to be proud of Olympia.

[3:19:04] That being said, this police department is not.

[3:19:07] Sure, maybe it's less oppressive than to come what were spoken.

[3:19:11] But if your goal is less oppressive, you're still on the wrong side of history.

[3:19:15] I'm talking about this because I was an unlawfully arrested December 9th.

[3:19:19] And then a few days later, only an hour after first talking about that experience at the

[3:19:23] stand to this body, threatened with arrest for constitutionally protected speech by the

[3:19:28] OPD. I recognize that a city manager needs to support his departments, but it seems there's

[3:19:33] a glaring lack of accountability here. Olympia has an independent auditor, but all they appear to do

[3:19:39] is make sure that OPD followed their policies and procedures. There is no part of any investigation

[3:19:45] As far as I can tell, that questions whether or not the police's policies and procedures are systematically harmful and should be changed simply, even if simply if those policies were followed.

[3:19:57] The city contracting with the OIG group is so the city can pretend to have a semblance of oversight instead of actual accountability for its departments ongoing harm.

[3:20:07] I had had to just ask Chief Parker if there was an outstanding probable cause for me, and I don't even know what that really means, but because I was arrested without a lawful process being completed, I have no reason to know if I can be arrested at any time walking down the street going forward.

[3:20:20] Obviously, this is harmful, it's anxiety inducing, and kind of scared.

[3:20:24] I'm certain I'm not the only one this has happened to, because when people do shit like this to me, they typically are doing it much, much, much, much more to people who aren't white men.

[3:20:32] Thank you, David.

[3:20:33] I hope this city can hold its police accountable. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:20:40] And thank you for your patience.

[3:20:46] Jeff Thomas, you seem to have an advocate on council here.

[3:20:52] Hi, go ahead.

[3:20:54] Thanks for hanging out.

[3:20:57] Council members, my name is Jeff Thomas. I come here to share with you what I believe to be the bottom line on surveillance.

[3:21:04] violence, and policing as well. I believe that we should, there is no safe way to outsource

[3:21:10] policing and surveillance to private corporations. And we can look at this informed by history,

[3:21:16] going back to 1893 when they outlawed the government hiring the pinker pins. And there

[3:21:23] is a lot of actually the same issues being discussed that we might consider today.

[3:21:28] The foundations of why privatized policing and surveillance are not outsourced is well

[3:21:32] established and but today we have new threats and outsourcing surveillance to venture capital

[3:21:39] back startups replicates old dangers. It removes public oversight, creates a paywall for public

[3:21:46] data, replaces democratic accountability with corporate interests. In this new era that we live in,

[3:21:54] we have threats that we should be thinking about. I'm particularly afraid of election fraud

[3:21:59] in tampering. I know that's held handled by the county, but the county is thinking about having

[3:22:06] cameras that the public will not know where they are. As somebody who's showing up tonight,

[3:22:12] if I understand it right, I'm considered to be by the federal government a domestic terrorist.

[3:22:17] I don't take that lightly. That Trump said that people affiliated with the deflocked motion

[3:22:22] movement are domestic terrorists, and that scares me to think that there might end up being

[3:22:28] cameras at election sites that are live streaming my images.

[3:22:34] So I don't say, Mayor Payne, I know that you're working closely with Commissioner

[3:22:39] Mejia, and she is pushing an ordinance with the county to look into surveillance systems.

[3:22:45] And so I hope that the county can swiftly ask an ordinance that blocks any corporate surveillance.

[3:22:51] Especially if it's being done anything of involving your elections.

[3:22:56] Thank you.

[3:22:57] Thank you. And for Jeff or others that are hoping to get a response from council, once we go through all the public comments, then there could be an opportunity for responses.

[3:23:11] Thanks for standing by. Next we have VL Huntington Bradley.

[3:23:25] Oh, wonderful. Thanks for being patient tonight and you can begin when you're ready.

[3:23:31] Hello. I'm here. Well, first of all, I would like to say, speaking favor of the anti-ice

[3:23:43] resolutions and reiterate what someone said earlier that pressuring Congress to like

[3:23:51] restructure, DHS is not enough. It is extremely reasonable to advocate for the abolition of

[3:24:01] Department of Homeland Security and ICE, that's a department that has only existed since 2003.

[3:24:09] It's younger than probably most of us in this room, it's, yeah.

[3:24:16] And also to applaud the pro-polyamory resolutions.

[3:24:21] And also I'm here to speak out against AI surveillance as many others are.

[3:24:29] It's good that the city has terminated the contract with ICE and will not be renewing it,

[3:24:36] but I think that Olympia residents also should have a right to absolutely know that we're

[3:24:44] not being surveilled and are images being sent to the cloud by private businesses in Olympia as well.

[3:24:51] I think it is reasonable to consider legislation against AI-powered surveillance

[3:24:58] in general in Olympia as well as data being sent to the cloud and retained. Thank you.

[3:25:11] Thank you.

[3:25:15] Terry Ballard. Did you know it was your turn?

[3:25:20] Oh, it's your turn. Yes.

[3:25:23] Yeah, I was trying to connect with you just now. Oh, we're not supposed to have a back and forth. That's right, Mayor. Go ahead.

[3:25:33] Hi, my name is Terry Ballard. I own property, which is on the list. I'm not going to list it in Olympia in 2017.

[3:25:43] I bought that property for an investment. Also in 2017, I had a wetland specialist go out and say it was in a wetland.

[3:25:54] In February of 2018, I found out why it was at land is because the city of Olympia through its piping system was dumping sediment and storm water without an easement onto my property.

[3:26:10] You are the genera of the waste and you are responsible for the cleanup of my property.

[3:26:17] In the geomaping system, I had it removed, that's, I had it removed from the geomaping system

[3:26:24] and I had it removed from the assessors printout, which were faulty and they were all blaming

[3:26:32] each other at that time.

[3:26:35] The sediment and erosion is going to the lowest point of the property in the kettle.

[3:26:41] It's collected in a sediment and the soil is so absorbent there that the sediment is

[3:26:50] causing the land, the water to collect and it doesn't filter into the soil as it should

[3:26:59] be.

[3:27:02] As far as last month, I did a spill report.

[3:27:07] I've offered the city many times by this property.

[3:27:11] You can develop it to five to eight residents per acre or lots per acre.

[3:27:17] That's what it can be developed in.

[3:27:19] I did a pre-submission. I can only develop 24 lots out of it.

[3:27:23] Each lot by a developer is worth 50K a lot.

[3:27:29] I already know the price of it.

[3:27:30] And as far as the generator waste and storm water and

[3:27:36] fiddling with it, what you have a sediment and erosion people to help clean up

[3:27:42] these properties, but you haven't. And what I did was I contacted the

[3:27:47] Department of Ecology. So they do the sediment and clean up because storm water

[3:27:53] is not your utility. Storm water was given to the EPA. EPA gave it to

[3:27:59] Department of Ecology and you have it on a five year permit from the from Ecology.

[3:28:05] Thank you Terry.

[3:28:06] Okay, so you can talk to me, I'm talkable, but I'm just tired of paying $3,000 a year for taxes for this property.

[3:28:17] Thank you.

[3:28:18] Thank you.

[3:28:20] All right, looking at staff moving to online now.

[3:28:24] if there are any online folks still standing by, at first I see Chris Wickham,

[3:28:34] okay. Craig

[3:28:35] Burley?

[3:28:40] Chris, no really, yes?

[3:28:44] Wonderful.

[3:28:47] And we'll just give Chris a moment to get online.

[3:28:52] Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you so much for standing by. Of course. First of all,

[3:28:59] I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your efforts. You've done some really important work

[3:29:03] tonight. I appreciate that. And given the outcome of the conversation about the Briggs Village

[3:29:11] grocery store, it feels a little awkward, but there's still important things to be said here.

[3:29:16] I'm a member of the Briggs Community, and here to explain why you should reject 40-gills proposal

[3:30:00] It comes from Gill's market study which contains major errors such as failing to count more than 500 residents already living in Briggs Village and ignoring the 1,000 plus future residents in the 600 units Gill wants to add. But even with those mistakes, the study itself actually calculated a supportable grocery size 11,000 square feet. It then dismissed that number by claiming that there were no prototypes.

[3:30:29] type stores of that size.

[3:30:32] But that contradicts the study itself,

[3:30:34] which cites three examples around 1,100 square feet

[3:30:37] in University Place, Gig Harbor, and Spokane.

[3:30:40] And we can name four more.

[3:30:42] H&L Produce and Lakewood at 900

[3:30:44] to coma boys and to coma and to allop,

[3:30:46] at 11,000, in the plan to 10,000 square foot,

[3:30:51] Olympia food co-op.

[3:30:53] Second, dividing the 9,200 square feet

[3:30:57] into small specialty shops will not provide the anchor grocery and urban village needs.

[3:31:02] Under Jill's amendment, the requirement would be met with things like a wine bar that sells

[3:31:08] bottles, a cookie shop, vinegar store, or a mini-mart. Jill justifies this model by comparing

[3:31:13] Briggs Village to Whistler Village, a ski resort, a tourist town. But we are a neighborhood that needs a

[3:31:19] store where families can find a broad affordable selection of groceries for real meals,

[3:31:23] not a cluster of boutique shops geared toward tourist grabbing snacks. Thank you.

[3:31:30] Thank you.

[3:31:33] Next, we have LaHella Peterson, Maria Ruth, and finally David Merchant.

[3:31:49] I'm still here. Yes, thank you all for sticking around. I'm a resident of Briggs Village and I would

[3:31:56] signed on to everything that's been said by the commentators. I would also really like to thank

[3:32:01] the council members who met with us and discussed our concern.

[3:32:07] As was just mentioned it's a little awkward to talk about what's already done but in many ways

[3:32:12] it's perfectly fine because my concern is actually more future oriented. Is that the developer

[3:32:18] will build out residential units and structure the process to minimize or delay the actual building

[3:32:25] out of commercial. And in looking at this, I'd ask you all a rhetorical question, which is

[3:32:33] more consistent with the evidence you've seen, A, that the developer has been actively trying

[3:32:38] to build out according to the plan, and just can't do it despite his best efforts, or B,

[3:32:44] the developer sees more profit in residential, has the funds to hold on to the property,

[3:32:50] and has created the conditioning he now complains about, and is using that to get changes in the

[3:32:55] plan. It's been more than a year into this process. And we have seen zero evidence of any marketing.

[3:33:04] There's been the market study. I won't go into the math as much. But I will, I was kind of

[3:33:11] curious. Anybody reading this says this is kind of is not right. They didn't talk to the businesses,

[3:33:17] didn't talk to the people. And I wondered about CAI. So I looked them up, very rapid people company.

[3:33:23] And they've been hired by the city of Bellevue.

[3:33:26] They did a retail study for the city of Bellevue

[3:33:28] and a different one for one of the neighborhoods in Bellevue.

[3:33:31] And everything that's missing in the market study

[3:33:35] that was given to the city of Olympia

[3:33:37] is present in the city of Bellevue study.

[3:33:40] The biggest part of it is interviewing residents

[3:33:43] and the people who are going to use the retail markets.

[3:33:48] I know I'm running out of time,

[3:33:49] but I would suggest you look at that

[3:33:51] and does do not give it any credence to that market study. Now here's the worry and I'll be

[3:33:57] I'll wrap it up fairly quickly. Based on the numbers that were provided earlier, there's 44,000

[3:34:03] square feet of commercial that needs to be built out in addition to the store. That's basically

[3:34:08] three of the humble cow buildings. I am very worried that the developer will structure the project

[3:34:15] So that those will be done last and might not ever be done at all because clearly the developer is focused on a residential building.

[3:34:24] So as we move forward in this process, if you

[3:34:32] can still hear me, I really appreciate.

[3:34:35] We really appreciate you hanging on and sharing your thoughts at this.

[3:34:40] I did let it go a little over two minutes because you've hung on so long.

[3:34:45] So, I think on Zoom, it comes across much more abrupt since you're moved out instead

[3:34:54] of sort of, if you're in person, then we would say thank you and let you wrap up and

[3:34:59] kind of walk away.

[3:35:00] So, I hope you won't take any offense to that.

[3:35:03] We are listening to what you're saying, though.

[3:35:05] With that, that concludes public comment and we'll turn it back to the mayor.

[3:35:10] Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

[3:35:11] them. So are there any responses from Council on public comment? All right. Council member

[3:35:20] Green.

[3:35:21] Mine will be quick. I just want to, you know, as the flocc refresher comes around, I just

[3:35:28] want to give credit where credit is due and just remind folks that City Council did not

[3:35:33] take any action on flocc. It was a recommendation from Interim Chief Parker, leadership of OPD

[3:35:39] that was approved by the city manager. So I just want to kind of come back to that was as

[3:35:43] much as we were there and ask questions and had conversations that was ultimately the recommendation

[3:35:48] of OPD that we had those cameras removed and we were new in the contract. So I just want to give

[3:35:54] a lot of credit to that leadership team for that.

[3:35:59] Yeah, important clarification, thank you.

[3:36:02] Mayor Pro Temwen.

[3:36:07] Yeah, I just wanted to thank the public commenters that are still here. I had

[3:36:13] some, for both, well, I guess all of the topics covered tonight, but I had some new learnings

[3:36:21] and sort of curiosities from Jeff and Nova. Something that each one of you said

[3:36:32] stuck out to me, and so Nova, you were talking about also, you know, when you had kind of digressed

[3:36:39] from flock and you're talking about just like private or commercial surveillance and then

[3:36:44] also thought of like regulating ring cameras perhaps or cameras like that basically like home cameras.

[3:36:52] So it's just something that I'm chewing on. So I thank you for that. And then likewise with Jeff,

[3:37:01] Yes, it's interesting that surveillance election, yeah, I won't say that I necessarily

[3:37:13] have an opinion now, although I am also worried about tampering of elections and I'm also

[3:37:19] worrying about, you know, tampering of getting video footage and then what might happen with

[3:37:26] that, right? And so it is, yeah, it's a really interesting thing, I'll say. And I think

[3:37:33] that you are actually right to come to us a while. We are not the Auditor's Office

[3:37:38] or Thurson County Commission. We do work with them and interact with them quite a bit.

[3:37:46] I mean, this last election, but the presidential election, we actually had some briefings with

[3:37:53] them about just about election tampering, right? And it is something that we've talked about,

[3:38:01] you know, when we all the elected sort of know each other, right? Doesn't necessarily mean we all like

[3:38:05] each other. But so it is something that I'll bring up in conversation and trying to learn more about

[3:38:12] that. So I just thank you for for bringing that that learning to me tonight. And then also folks

[3:38:20] that are online for breaks can still hear me.

[3:38:25] I appreciate you sticking on and hanging out in the awkward space.

[3:38:32] I recognize that it could be awkward, but you still had some things to share.

[3:38:36] And I appreciate that.

[3:38:40] I also want to say that for what it's worth,

[3:38:44] there's colleagues here that have done a lot more work on the breaks village

[3:38:49] and I have myself I think about colleagues that were on the land use and environment committee when you know that sort of that makeup of land use and environment when they were going through the proposed amendments and also some folks that did get outreach.

[3:39:06] And so I just think that we got here tonight for what it's worth because of that continued community care and bringing your issues to us.

[3:39:18] So while the amendments that we're leaving with tonight, folks might not have gotten

[3:39:25] everything that they wanted, I think that we wouldn't have gotten here if it wasn't

[3:39:30] for that continued engagement, so thank you.

[3:39:36] Terry on yours, I'll leave you out, Terry, I see you've been sitting there and you've been

[3:39:41] joining us every so often at City Council Meeting, so all I can say is that I will follow

[3:39:47] up with my colleagues and with staff.

[3:39:51] Thank you.

[3:39:55] All right.

[3:39:56] Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

[3:39:57] There's no other comments, actually I do have a comment for Jeff.

[3:40:04] I will consult, I'll have a conversation with Commissioner Mejia on the county's surveillance

[3:40:12] policy and see the work that they're doing there and learn more, so thank you.

[3:40:18] All right, so if there's no further response to public comment, we're going to move on to council reports.

[3:40:29] So just a quick mayor's report, let's try to not take 40 minutes like we talked about.

[3:40:36] Okay, so attended the opioid abatement council meetings where we are in the process of having each of the jurisdictions sign the ILA

[3:40:48] so that we can get, which will allow us to then start to form an RFP process so that

[3:40:55] we can start getting dollars out of the door to fund organizations that are doing the

[3:41:00] work of helping us respond to our drug crises. Eventually, this money will run dry, but

[3:41:07] my understanding is that the opioid abate and council will have work through 2038.

[3:41:12] So, I did have a background briefing with Council Member Gilman as well on and learned

[3:41:24] a little bit more because we are the new members assigned to the council and so we learned

[3:41:32] more about the one Washington memorandum of understanding which specifies how we're

[3:41:38] allowed to spend the opioid resettlement funds.

[3:41:42] And we also learned that our county is one of the co-chairs

[3:41:45] of the state opioid abatement and overdose response plan,

[3:41:49] or what's called SOARP, and we're actually

[3:41:52] the only local government to be part of that,

[3:41:55] helping develop a response plan for our state.

[3:41:59] So that was great information to learn.

[3:42:01] I also enjoyed my visit to Franklin Street

[3:42:04] harm reduction site. They had come to us a few weeks ago and we expressed some concerns about

[3:42:14] some of the activity we were seeing around the space downtown and they have since been very

[3:42:20] responsive to some of those concerns and so we were able to visit and by the time I even got

[3:42:26] there for that visit they had already taken action on a few things that we were concerned about.

[3:42:31] things like loitering, they've added additional lighting to the space and things like that.

[3:42:37] So I'm very pleased to see that and we'll continue engaging with them on Good Neighbor Policies,

[3:42:42] but I appreciate the work that they're doing.

[3:42:45] And lastly, I just want to say I had an incredible time at the Lunar New Year celebration with Mayor Pro Tem win

[3:42:52] at the Lean Hoa Buddhist Temple.

[3:42:55] And I hope I said that appropriately, but it was an incredible honor to be there.

[3:42:59] there was so many people there were at least 300 people and it was a huge celebration and

[3:43:05] they were very pleased to have us there and I was pleased to be there.

[3:43:08] So thank you for the invitation and I look forward to joining you.

[3:43:15] And with that, I'll start to my left with Council Member Barrett.

[3:43:20] Thank you.

[3:43:20] I'm going to keep it very short.

[3:43:22] I do things I attended, I attended the EMS-1 briefing and there's talk of having a

[3:43:31] levy lid lift in August of 27. I just want to get that on people's radar. It hasn't been

[3:43:39] finalized yet, but in our fiscal planning, it might be important. I also have attended the

[3:43:49] Olympic Clean Air Agency, and there's probably a budget crunch going on because they're losing

[3:43:59] a quite a bit of state, vodka funding, model toxic control act funding, and one of the places

[3:44:07] where they're making up some of that funding is through a recommendation and increase

[3:44:13] S-bestus inspection fees of houses by $50. So they go from like $47 to $100, actually $53.

[3:44:23] We haven't voted on that yet, but that's something that will be coming along. And I would

[3:44:27] just leave it at that.

[3:44:31] Thank you. Questions, comments for Council Member Barrett? I don't suspect

[3:44:37] it'll be any for anyone. Council Member Gray. Thank you Mayor Payne. I have nothing to report.

[3:44:44] Thank you. Mayor Pro Temwen.

[3:44:49] I just have some gratitude that I think it is important to say now.

[3:44:56] in this space.

[3:45:00] In this space, in prior years, I felt like this responsibility to bring things like the

[3:45:10] Lunar New Year proclamation or any sort of recognition about it.

[3:45:18] And there are years

[3:45:21] where if I didn't bring it up, it would be missed.

[3:45:26] And this past year, and to be clear,

[3:45:30] I did start feeling away about that. Though this past year, we have assistant to the

[3:45:39] City Council, Melissa McKee, that spent a lot of time working to intentionally draft it.

[3:45:46] And, you know, checking, checking in, doing some research, checking in with me, thinking

[3:45:51] about the language that it's not generic, but it's very specific to this lunar new year,

[3:45:57] the year of the fire horse.

[3:46:00] And it was something I appreciate very much.

[3:46:04] I really appreciate colleagues going out, so I know Councilmember Gilman and Vanderpool went

[3:46:12] to the Olympia Area Chinese Association's Lunar New Year celebration. You had delivered

[3:46:18] the Proclamation Council Member Gilman and had stayed and I'm sure you made some funny jokes

[3:46:24] too and just and just were in community with with that group of folks and the Olympia Area Chinese

[3:46:32] association till this day exist to one preserve Chinese culture and traditions and to be in

[3:46:44] community with other Olympians to say hey we're part of your community too and come have fellowship

[3:46:52] with us. I mean that is why they exist and so I think that's it meant a lot to to many people. I'm

[3:47:01] my personal email, your photos, popping up. I'll share them with you, but popping up on their

[3:47:07] newsletter, they're so proud. If you go to their website, today, they have it on their homepage.

[3:47:12] That's it. You just have to go to their website. You will find a photo of yourself.

[3:47:16] They're so excited. And then I know Mayor Payne had just shared the other one about the Vietnamese

[3:47:22] Buddhist temple. There are other people there too, but it is a Vietnamese Buddhist temple. And

[3:47:27] And there was just a moment where I was totally overwhelmed in a good way in that space

[3:47:37] with other Vietnamese people and they handed me the mic and I blinked out and I started

[3:47:42] speaking English.

[3:47:43] It was very weird.

[3:47:46] And all's to say is I know that we all have a lot of places to be and we're at different

[3:47:54] events when we can.

[3:47:55] and I just felt like it was so great this year to have intentionality and be out in community.

[3:48:06] So, yeah, that's how I want to share in the report, so thank you so much.

[3:48:10] It means a lot to a lot of people.

[3:48:14] Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, and Happy Lunar New Year.

[3:48:17] All right.

[3:48:18] Questions or comments for the Mayor Pro Tem?

[3:48:21] Seeing none, Councilmember Gilner.

[3:48:25] I've had a busy couple weeks and we had an awesome finance committee last night, and I'm going to tell you about it next week.

[3:48:36] Thanks. Council Member Vanderpool.

[3:48:39] I'm going to keep it to two items and the rest I'll just email you.

[3:48:45] So, land use, matte last Tuesday, went through the interviews for the hearing examiner.

[3:48:51] On Thursday, we'll go over that, make a decision, and it'll come back to council just letting you know.

[3:48:55] So, you'll get a recommendation soon.

[3:48:58] The other one is, the reason why I'm not putting this in email because this is kind

[3:49:01] of an interesting.

[3:49:02] I've been continuing to hear from folks in the community that are very concerned and

[3:49:07] I've expressed to them it's a different system than ours, but I've had a lot of concerns

[3:49:11] about the library system from folks, about what's going on with the budget, what's going

[3:49:15] on with the employees, and the impact on the community.

[3:49:17] I want to bring this to our attention because although we are a separate entity, we are partners

[3:49:22] with them and this is something that I feel that we may need to either reach out as a city or

[3:49:30] talk with them about because I have some concerns about what's going on and I'm only hearing from

[3:49:35] the great vine about what's happening and I want to get some clarity on the future of because the

[3:49:43] downtown library is owned by the city, the properties owned by the city and there's future plans

[3:49:52] on stuff, and I'm a little nervous right now with the budget, and I'm nervous about

[3:49:56] what's going on over there, and so I just want to bring out the focus attention.

City Council Study Session on 2025-02-24 at 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript