City Council - Regular Meeting

Director Leato, can we test your microphone, please? Can you unmute and test your microphone? Unmute. Can you hear me, Liz? Oh, it's it's Say again. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thanks.

Alrighty, the time is 7 p.m. and I call this meeting of the Battleground City Council to order. Please rise if you are able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, Liz, could you call roll, please? Mayor Overhozer, present. Deputy Mayor Vale, present. Council member McCoy, here. Council member Ferrer, present. Council member Mson, present. Council member Kypers present and council member Bowman is absent this evening. Make a motion to excuse council member Bowman. All seconded. All right. Uh motion by council member Mson, second by council member Ferrer. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes unanimously. Enjoy your spring break, Shane. All right. Does any council member wish to amend the agenda this evening? Move to approve the agenda as presented. Second. Motion by council member Troy McCoy. Second by Deputy Mayor Bale. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes unanimously. All right. On the summary reports and uh presentations, do we have any council member reports this evening? Chime in if you have them. I do, Mr. Mayor. Floor is yours, council member.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Um on March 19th, I attended the regional parks task team, which I'm a member of. Uh Joanna Martin, the city facilities manager, was also in attendance. Um, just for a refresher, we have eight regional parks in Clark County. Lewisville, Daybreak, Lucia Falls, Molton Falls, Lakamus, Whipple Creek, Vancouver Lake, and Frenchman's Bar. I had to really make sure I understood which ones were not state, were not were regional, and were not specific to cities. All of those rely solely on two sources of funding. one is either um park revenue or it is the county general fund. And as funding resources continue to dry up, the county will not be able to continue to fund parks, regional parks, and support them out of the general fund. And so they're reaching out to see if there's interest from the cities to pursue a more regional funding approach. And that is why this task force was brought together. Um, as the local and county population grows, we continue to see more peak um, citizens in the parks, more maintenance issues to address and with cost of living or cost-saving efforts, staff has been reduced and thus the staff to the ratio that they use for um, staffing um, staff numbers to how many square feet um the parks are and the population in the county. Those numbers were at a very low ratio um comparatively um and so not all the work's getting done, not surprising. The task team was formed by the county um and it includes city

council members and staff representatives and the following goals were given to the task team. One was to tackle current and future challenges that uh will be presented by lack of adequate park funding, understand the needs of each local park, and evaluate dedicated park funding options for Clark County region. So the next steps um are that in April there will be one more task team meeting uh to finalize key findings and recommendations that the team has been going over over the last five months. Then in May, that document will be presented to county commission asking them to approve next steps, which would be conducting a mar market research um for ballot measure, forming another group of city representatives to develop a framework for revenue sharing. And so the cities that were have been participating in this have all said, you know, we really can't make any early prediction as to whether we're interested in being part of such an approach or not because we don't have enough information. We still don't know, you know, what is the impact of these kinds of decisions uh to battleground specifically. Uh what are the pros, what are the cons, and then what would be the specifics of revenue sharing if we did go with any of those models? what would that look like? Um, and so that would still have to be um determined. So, as more information comes available, I'll be bringing it back. But um I do think that in the meantime, we need to be thinking about what are the positive and negatives of any of these approaches for battleground. um start to be thinking about the economic impacts for us with having so several of these parks right in our own backyard. You know, what does

that mean economically for us um what does it mean for us uh with visitors coming into the area and then how how such changes might align with our own priorities for parks and trails. So just um kind of setting some guidelines as to where we are with that, what it's starting to look like um could go anyway, but we need to be looking at is this something that in the future we would be wanting to participate in and how will that work for Battleground? So more to come, but thank you, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Thank you, Council Member Kypers. Good information there and I can't wait to hear more information as most of the cities have echoed that, I think. Thank you. Yeah. Uh any other council member reports this evening? I'll just uh I'm pretty sure staff's already aware that the Urban County Policy Board is not meeting this month. That was that's it. I could be wrong, but I think Echo as well is not meeting right, are they?

All right. Any additional council member reports? Hearing none, we'll move on to the mayor's report. And first up, we have a proclamation. And uh I'm very proud to be able to present this. Um tonight, it is my pleasure to proclaim April 12th through the 17th, 2026 as Student Artist Week. Um, just a reminder, proclamations are not statements of policy, but are a means by which the city can recognize an event, group, or individual. Proclamations can be issued at the discretion of the mayor and may be for organizations, individuals, or businesses within or outside of Battlegrounds jurisdiction. Individual council members will not issue proclamations, and requests for a proclamation should be directed to the mayor or the city clerk. Um, and tonight Natalie Worthy will be accepting the proclamation.

Good evening. All right, there we go. We good. Hear me? Okay. Oh, you

I'll go ahead and read the proclamation and then I'll give you a moment to speak on your behalf. Um whereas student artists strengthen our schools and communities and participation in the arts foster students academic growth, creativity, and social and cultural development. And whereas K through 12 students demonstrate increased academic success when their artistic interests and goals are supported and valued. And whereas research consistently shows that students who participate in arts education achieve higher scores on standardized assessments. And whereas students engaged in art programs are significantly less likely to drop out of school, reflecting the arts role in fostering student engagement, belonging, and perseverance. And whereas student artist week provides an opportunity to recognize, celebrate, and uplift the achievements, voices, and creative contributions of student artists across all disciplines. Now therefore, I, Eric Overhauls, mayor of the city of Battleground, by virtue of the authority vested in me, do hereby proclaim April 12th through the 17th, 2026 as Student Artist Week in the city of Battleground, Washington, and encourage educators, families, and community members to support, celebrate, and invest in student arts, artists, and arts education as an essential component onent of student success and community well-being.

Thank you very much. Take it away.

Thank you, Mayor Overholser and city council for accepting the proclamation for student artist week. Hello all. My name is Natalie Worthy and I am currently serving as Miss Greater Vancouver 2026, a local title in the Miss America organization. I am a lifelong resident of Clark County and have lived in Battleground for over 10 years. I graduated from Prairie High School in 2021 and earned my bachelor of music from the University of Puet Sound last year. I now work as a private voice and piano teacher working with students of all ages and abilities. As Miss Greater Vancouver, I have had the opportunity to visit classrooms, a music camp, and even a career fair to talk with students about my passion for the arts. In all of these experiences, I have been truly overwhelmed with how many students have expressed an interest in a future career in the arts. Students have told me they want to be a painter, a writer, and even a seventh grader who wants to be a pottery maker. Many of my own students aspire to one day be the next Taylor Swift. Hearing so many young voices express their love for artistry is why this proclamation exists. To highlight student artists talents and their unique capabilities as young people. To make this next week even more special, I have organized through my nonprofit Amplify the Arts the Battleground Student Art Walk. I encourage all of you to take a stroll down Main Street where we have partnered with businesses to display artwork of local K through2 students. During the art walk, public can also vote for their favorite display, and the winner of the people's choice vote will receive a prize package generously sponsored from the Battleground Cinema. So, next week, April 13 through 17, I encourage everyone to walk through Main Street, visit some incredible small businesses and take a look at the talents of Battleground students. So, take a walk, cast your vote, and help us

uplift the next generation of artists right here in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Danaly. All right. Now, I will ask council to step down from the dis so we can join Natalie in a photo. Good job, G. Thank you. Let's

All right. Now we will move on to uh presentations. We have a new employee introduction. Um Ryan James. I'm not the new employee. Just Yeah. Just for clarification. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

Good evening, council. It is my pleasure to introduce Cali White, our construction project manager. She and her husband, Drew, a firefighter, have two dogs and live in Salmon Creek. She is an avid golfer and volleyball player who enjoys the competitive side of it in a beer league as she um she enjoys.

Yeah, sorry. Um she's an avid Seattle uh Seahawks and Mariners. Kelly White. Yes. Welcome aboard, Cali.

All right, now we move on to citizen communication. I will open the meeting for citizen communication. Individuals are limited to three minutes to provide comments. The total time for public comments shall not exceed 30 minutes unless extended by the mayor. This is an opportunity to hear from members of the public in a limited public forum, not an opportunity for extended comments or dialogue. Please refrain from derogatory remarks, personal attacks, campaign speeches, and applause. Although the city council desires to allow public comment, the city's business must proceed in an orderly, timely manner. If your comments pertain to an item listed on the agenda as a public hearing, please reserve your testimony for the designed or designated public hearing period. All comments should be directed to the mayor. The council may not be able to respond to individual comments and may refer citizens to a staff member for assistance. The city manager has placed her business cards at the podium. Please feel free to take one if you would like to contact her with any questions. If you have handouts, please hand them to the city clerk directly to the right of the podium. Thank you for understanding and participating in the council meeting this evening. You also have an option if you would like to sit or stand. Uh if you choose to sit, you just have to bring the mic over to the uh the desk there. Um, Liz or Miss Haley, are there any members of the public on Zoom who wish to provide public comment tonight?

No, Mr. Mayor. All right. Thank you.

First up, Michelle Black. You always have to go first when your last name is black. So, um I'm not here to complain. I just want to give a compliment to Chief Flynn and thank him for his communication and service to our community. Um in particular, there was a situation that I'm sure you're aware of. Um that has to do with the 28th the No Kings uh protest that went on on the 28th and there was a situation where an individual was I guess it's called rolling coal. I'd never heard of it. Um, and one of the community members um, complained, sent, I believe, an email, maybe a call as well, and Chief Flynn uh, responded almost immediately. And it's my understanding that it's being investigated. I don't know what the outcome is, but I think we are really lucky to have you um, as our chief of police for our community, and I really, really appreciate it. So, that's all I had to say.

Thank you, Michelle. No, no, no. I I wanted you. No, you're good. You're good, Michelle. I I as much as I love the encouragement, um please hold your applause. Yeah, jazz hands are great. Yeah. Um Jordan Espazito, come on up, Jordan. Uh, so I've never been to one of these before, so I'm assuming this is okay to talk about the RV storage that we're talking about tonight.

RV is this is an appropriate time to talk about that. Okay. So, I looked over the proposed changes and honestly, I don't think that it's really focused on the right issues. The current code already covers like the main concerns which are visibility and safety by requiring RVs and trailers to be stored behind the house. While I don't necessarily even fully agree with that, I can at least understand the rationale. However, this proposal shifts into regulating how much someone can have on their own property even if no safety concern exists, which feels like a pretty big overreach. Um, and honestly more like something you'd expect from a homeowners association than a city. So my concern here is how it this is how it usually starts like small changes that don't seem to make a big deal on their own gradually expands what the city feels entitled to regulate and how um I don't like the precedent this would set going forward. There's also the reality that rules like this tend to be complaint driven um meaning that they're inconsistently reinforced. So that ends up doing a better job at creating more conflict between neighbors than it does at preventing any potential problems. Um it also doesn't account for the fact that properties are different sizes. um a fixed limit isn't going to affect everyone the same way. Um it's also super frustrating to see energy go toward regulating what's on private property when there are bigger issues in the neighborhoods like streets that need desperate attention. So bottom line in my opinion, if it's not a legitimate safety issue, it's not something the city should be regulating. That's all.

Thank you, Jordan. Yeah, there you go. Jazz hands. That's what I'm talking about. Um, and I did not catch that your topic was RV, but uh, we are going to have a public hearing on the RV and parking. Um, and so the only clarification I have, uh, Josh add yours about RV parking as well. Josh, are you in here? Okay. Well, yeah. Sorry, Nelson. Yeah, I

Okay, so you guys um anybody who has anything pertaining to the RV, please bring it up during the public hearing, which we will get to here shortly. Okay, thank you. Um and I do have Miss Jessica Cole. Come on up.

Hello, council. I'm Jessica Cole and it'd be nice if the last speaker could come again at the hearing so if we come to listen to hearing we could hear all the comments but that's just my personal opinion and um I really appreciate the proclamation tonight. Um I I'm really looking forward to the um student art walks especially, you know, this is the first year we haven't had it before and art is really amazing and um I think it's very unifying and it's great to see everybody's creativity and that it's focused on the youth. Um I think I'm I'm really excited apparently. Um, so, um, a community event I went to recently was the Cram the Cruiser and I ended up hanging out and chatting because I like to talk and, um, it was really nice, um, just as a community member to connect with the people putting on the event and, um, the youth that did the um, the cheerleaders there um, they were like two lines of them at um, Fred Meyer and so like when anybody walked out of the store, you didn't have to donate, but they were like and cheering. It was very like I feed off their energy. So, um that was put on partnership with um because of our SRO's with our two um food pantries at the two um comprehensive high schools. And so, it was our police department and the sheriff's police department since we have a they have a SRO at Prairie and um uh my mind's blank, but I'll say just give me a second. the Battleground Education Foundation and um they got over like 8,000 items of snacks and um about $500. So if anyone ever wants to keep supporting, I think they have like donation buttons and they might have something set up with stores in town. So reach out to them. But anyways, um also um one thing I wanted to talk about real quick is that um this month we're also

having our drug takeback again. We do it every spring and every fall, April and October. And um that's with the Battleground Prevention Alliance. And I'm on their board, but I'm speaking as myself. Um so if anything's messed up, that's on me. But um we have to do that in partnership with the um police department because it is drugs. And um so um I'm just grateful that our police department continues to do that. That's a great way for um in partnership, you know, just to to connect connect with your police department and for them to connect with the community, but to get like prescription drugs, you know, safely dep uh disposed of and um prevent um overdoses. And that'll be Saturday at the police department um April 25th from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. And um thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Jessica. All right. Do we have any other um citizens communication that does not pertain to RV ordinance or parking? Just to make sure, somebody let a duck in here. Hold on. All right, we're going to move on to the consent agenda. A motion to approve the consent agenda. Mayor second. All right. We have a uh motion of approval for uh the consent agenda by council member Ferrer, second by council member Mson. All those in favor? I

I I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes unanimous. All right. on to public hearings. Um, Miss Haley, uh, was there any, um, testimony submitted for the public hearing that has not yet been provided to the council? No, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. No.

All right. Moving on to ordinance number 2026-04, uh, municipal code amendment. Chief Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This my comments will be b will be brief just as an overview. On February 2nd, uh I provided details about the current municipal code. More importantly, the enforcement actions that the police department was taking regarding what that ordinance was. Uh on March 2nd, uh Lieutenant Keller, who has joined me uh this evening, sitting behind me as my uhme as you will uh presented uh draft code language for review and discussion and ask the council to set a public hearing for tonight on April 6. So now is the time to discuss have the opened up for the public's comments regarding uh the proposed ordinance uh under municipal code 17.135-150. Thank you chief. All right. Do we need to read the title yet or

No, just go right in. Okay. Not yet. All right. I will open open the public meeting um at 7:27 for public testimony. Individuals are limited to 3 minutes to provide comment on the ordinance 2026-04 which would amend regulations related to storage of recreational vehicles and trailers in residential districts. All comments should be directed to the mayor. Uh, Miss Hily, are there any comments on Zoom? No, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Thank you. All right. Now, I'm back into the stack for you guys. Thank you for being patient. Uh, first up, since I butchered your name the first time, Josh Nelson, you're out and I apologize for that. A lot yesterday. I'm used to reading in crayon. Yeah, me too. I have two nieces that are wonderful. Um, there's lots of crayons on the wall. This is the city clerk speaking. Could you please state your name and uh city of residence for the record? Joshua Nelson, Battleground, Washington.

Thank you. Um, I was just informed of this this morning actually. As I I work a lot with trailers. I haul cars for a living. Um, so I was told about this just this morning. I'm not quite sure of everything. I read the article as fast as I could today to make it here. Um, my concern is this is that I have a piece of property. I park my trailers on there to haul vehicles to work for a living. Um, it is graveled. It is well taken care of. It is a vacant piece of property that I to according to what I understand it's it's in the city limits. Um there's no house on it. There's no nothing. My house is across the street actually. So my concern is is if this is the pass I use multiple trailers obviously I'm sure lots of people are aware of shipping things in today's world. There's all kinds of different products that are being shipped from cars to freight to, you know, heavy equipment to anything. And I haul all of that. So, I have five or six different trailers that I use to provide a living for me and my better half um in this very expensive state that we all live in that we get to enjoy with the wonderful parks that the young lady talked about that are all surrounding us. I've grown up here my whole life. Um, I've been in Battleground for about 20 years. Um, I don't live in an HOA neighborhood. I am concerned that now the city of Battleground is becoming my HOA. Um, to my understanding from reading it, and I don't know if you can clarify this right now while I stand here, is it's not to be parked on grass. I have a vacant piece of property that is graveled. Does that affect me? I'm here for myself today along with others that I know in the community that I've been great friends with my whole life. I don't know

if that's something that somebody can answer for me here today as of now, but that is my ma main concern. That's why I have shown up to my first city council meeting of my entire life at 42 years old. Um, I don't want to have be put out of work because I can't park a trailer on my own property that is gravel that I paid for. Um, I don't think that's right in America. That is taking away my freedom to do what I want. I'm not harming anybody. Lots of people I know, we do race cars as well. their trailers are used to haul race cars and to go have fun at a racetrack and enjoy our life and do good fun with friends and family and kids. Um, the concerns that I have heard from people today is that they they feel that the city is overstepping by telling us what we can do with our own property that is not actually harming anybody. Um, I understand if I have trailers out in the sidewalks or, you know, obviously blocking the streets for cars to go both ways. That is not my case. That is not most cases for most people. So, for this to just be a law that is put in as a whole for everybody, it just seems unfair.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up, uh, Tony Smiley. Again, please remember, state your name and city of resident. Tony Smiley, uh, battleground.

Uh, good evening and thank you for your time. I'm here to request clarification and reconsideration of how the current ordinance is being interpreted regarding both the classification and placement of recreational vehicles on our property. First, I would like to address the classification of a boat and its trailer. A boat trailer is not a recreational vehicle. It is transport accessory with no independent recreational function. It cannot be used on its own and it does not meet the any reasonable definition of a recreational vehicle. A boat and its trailer are functionally inseparable. A boat cannot be transported, stored, or realistically used without its trailer. Counting them as two separate recreational vehicles creates an artificial and unreasonable inflation of a total. Uh more importantly, this interpretation does not align with the intent of the ordinance. The purpose of these regulations is a to manage impacts such as space, safety, neighborhood appearances, not to separate components of a single function unit. Uh if applied consistently, this interpretation would also require a camper and its tow vehicle, a jet ski, and in their trailers to be counted as multiple recreation vehicles as well, which highlights the inconsistency. Second, I would like to address the placement of the vehicles on on our property. The boat and with trailer, dump trailer, and RV are not located in the front yard. They are positioned on the side of our home. uh on a designated gravel RV pad which is accessed by a driveway incline which I assume is regulation. This is not informal storage. It's maintained an intentional parking area designed specifically for this purpose. The pad

functions as an extension of our driveway, not as a yard storage. The placement does not create additional visual impact. It does not create safety concerns or neighborhood disruption beyond the ordinance uh ordinance as it's intended to regulate. Storing these types of vehicles in our yard on prepared surface is a normal and reasonable residential use. Interpreting this as a violation imposes unnecessary and overly restrictive limitations that does not reflect how properties are commonly and responsibly used. Uh ultimately a regulation should reflect function and impact not technical components in a single unit. Um I simply just want to reiterate that uh you know what they said our property is our property and we want to uh I I know the regulation is about three units and I have a boat, a trailer and an RV which are all nicely neatly set on a pad which is regulation and I agree that uh the councilman should not be you We we purposely are in this neighborhood that is not

Thank you. HOA. That is your time. Thank you. Appreciate it, Tony.

All right. Next up, Sharon Murph. Hello, Sharon Murph Battleground. And I can't believe I'm here again. I feel like a political activist for my own property and I don't like it. Um, on March 2nd of 2020, my home was annexed into the city. Um, I got a new trash service and uh, a $13 a month bill for I still don't know what. But anyway, so things are changing. I get it. Um, I'm going to say a little story about my septic. My septic failed and I came to a city council meeting. I literally after a month of poop in my tub had to beg the city council, some of you are here, to please let me put a sewer, I mean a septic because they said I had to do sewer. I didn't care what it was. I just wanted no poop in my tub. But I say all this to show you that a lot of times the city council looks at a piece of paper, not at the situation. And I feel like we're going back to that again. Um the unique nature of my property. Like I'm so excited to hear other people I have over an acre. You know, we have things on our property. We have paint trailers. We have uh RVs. We have a lawn tractor, a lawn trailer. I mean, I bought this property because it was property. And three, limiting three on property just doesn't work. I didn't buy this property as an HOA. Um I wrote some things down. Limiting the number of trailers and similar items to three on a property this size is unreasonable and undermines the intended use for which I bought this home. As a legacy homeowner, I believe that these rules fail to consider the use of larger parcels. The application of a one-sizefits-all ordinance is like setting the same speed limit like in a school zone and a freeway. We don't do

that, right? So, I'm asking you guys, could we look at the size of the property? I don't even have a driveway. Okay? It's like, where would I park it? On the side. Now, mind you, all my stuff is behind my house and behind my shop. So, it's way back there on pads and gravel. And I read this law under the fifth amendment. The government cannot alter or diminish the use of my property without compensation. while not seeking any compensation. I respectfully request the city recognize the situation of larger parcels and considering grandfathering existing uses established by case by case review having some humanity to this um and looking at the codes as being harsh or you know I know you're trying to do the best with you don't want it in the streets we all get that you have to look you have to look at properties that guy that's his livelihood it's our livelihood and forcing us to comply with these new zones is just unfair and it just disregards everybody who lives in battleground. I urge the city to reconsider the proposed ordinance and ensure the voices of all of us, especially legacy homeland owners. We've been here a long time and you can't just change the laws on us, you know. Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon. Are there any other members of the public who wish to testify on behalf of this? Jessica, come on up.

Hello, city council. My name is Jessica Cole from Battleground and um I just want to say about the proposed ordinance. I do appreciate the um very detailed of explanation of what is considered in this and someone did speak about some of it being problematic which I cannot speak to. I guess I should say I do not own any of these. So as an owner of these this does not impact me but I do live in the city and um I wrote an email several weeks months ago. I don't remember I don't remember exactly what I said. Um, but as the last spoker speaker said, um, I I was hoping that you would take into consideration it would be like over time, you know, when we think of a house and a property, you know, X and it's not oneizefits-all. So, as stuff comes up, whatever you end up adopting, as stuff comes up for different property owners besides the ones here, you know, um take that into consideration to change it over time to um make it work for all the owners of these types of things instead of just one and done. Um so, I just hope you take into consideration how this impacts the um owners of these in our city. Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica. I saw a hand up back there. Couple. All right. Uh, ma'am, why don't you come up first? Ladies first.

And again, just as a reminder, please state your name and city of residence.

Yes. Beth Weston and Battleground, Washington. and I'm 71 and this is the first time I've ever been at a city council meeting. So, um, my situation is different than them. I do live right in town. Um, it is a bigger piece of property, older piece of property on the old side of Battleground. There is no HOA. Okay. I feel the same as a lot of these other people. I feel like this is massive overreach of a property that I've been buying for 26 years and you're going to say I can't have my motor home there because the way the house was set up and the way they added to it, which was insane. Um, I don't have access to my backyard to put a motor home back there. I have a big enough backyard for it. Had a heart attack last year. I've been out of work for four months. Don't have a savings. don't have the money to pay people to get them to redo my backyard so that I have access besides which would also the only place where there would be access is through an easement road that I would have to sign whatever to join two other people to be on an easement to use a gate to get into my own backyard. It's why it's never been done in 26 years. My situation, my husband passed away. I'm on my own. I would like to retire sometime. Um, I work part-time as a school bus driver. Not a big income.

I luckily got a motor home, an older motor home. needs work that I don't have the money to pay for storage. My property is big enough to put it in my front yard. I have one motor home. Now you're telling me it can't be in my front yard. On the other side of my house is a small access area because they built a onecar garage, which isn't big enough for a motor home. So, there's no way on either side of my house that I can get into my backyard with a motor home. I can't even get into it with a car. So, this really seems like overreach for not being in an HOA, a place that I've paid for for 26 years and have managed not to lose even after my husband passed away, and be able to count on something for my future to have something as simple as a motor home that I can put a little bit of money into. It runs and drives, needs work on the inside that I can put the money into so that I can feel free to do something in the next couple of years when I retire.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

All right, we got one more hand up. Come on up. uh Matthew Lester uh Battleground Washington. So, a lot of people are here talking about their their own situation. Um I'm here to focus on the the overreach as a whole. Ordinate Ordinance 2026-04 is an overreach of private property. We all pay our mortgages, our property taxes, sales tax, all the taxes that we pay, and you guys are trying to dictate where we can park trailers on our private property. As long as these things are off the street, not a safety concern, it's it's nobody's business but our own. As long as you know everything is wellkept and these things are being used, not stored on city streets, you know, with old tabs or licenses or something being a problem. If it's if it's well-kept property that we're keeping on our property, you guys shouldn't be allowed to dictate where we park it or where we keep it on our private property. I'm I'm speaking for everybody as a whole here today, not just any, you know, size of anything limit to three. That's not the way this works. If it's it's there, if it's our property, it's wellkept. That's that's it. It's private property, guys. Let's not overreach. Thank you.

Thank you, Matthew. I will clarify the ordinance that we're looking at adopting is to amend and relax the existing ordinance that is in place and has been in place for many years. And so just to clarify, and I'm not sure if it needs clarification or not, but I feel like it might. Uh there is an existing ordinance that's been in place since, I believe, 2009. And Yeah. So, I just want to give clarification. No, it's Yeah. And so, the idea is um we just we're trying to make it a little bit more relaxed, but let me go ahead and close this hearing and then we'll go on to discussion. All right. I close the public hearing. Uh, seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak, I now close the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. And I will ask the uh city clerk to read the title of the ordinance 2026-04.

An ordinance amending battleground municipal code title 17 zoning chapter 17.135 supplementary regulations for specific uses. Section 17.135.150 trailer and boat storage in residential districts providing for severability providing for corrections and establishing an effective date.

Thank you, Liz. All right, I will uh call for a motion or discussion at this time. Discussion.

We have council member Mson here up. Can we bring the ordinance up on the screen? So, while we're waiting for that, I just would like to reiterate what the mayor is stating to the community that this is a restriction in place, an ordinance in place now that does not allow you to park your RV on your property in the front of the house. What we're looking at here is to do away with that to allow more trailers and more freedom to that. as we found out, chief, last fall with all the complaints that were driven that the way the ordinance was written, how many complaints did you receive?

I don't have the exact number, but there was a lot.

Hundreds. And so after hearing about this, this council is looking at this to that overreach that was referred to is to do away with that overreach so that your property is your property. you can do what you need to do with it. So, with that being said, mayor, I'd like to jump in. Um, I do still have hesitation uh specifically where it talks about three trailers on the property as Sharon mentioned earlier. She's got a larger piece of property and we discussed I believe in March and I think V council member Ferrer and I said that this isn't a one-sizefits-all that if you do have property why can't you have more um you know I was kind of going through a scenario and I know it might be a real rare one but you you you come into the city you buy a house that maybe you're R seven or R5 and you start a family and as you grow and Your family grows, you start to amass your toys, you get a trailer, you get a boat, maybe you have a utility trailer, kids become teenagers, you now want to get a fourth one. It's got maybe you got some jet skis. If you have the property to do it and it can be, you know, still allow for one in the front, but if you can get three in the back, by all means, what's it of our business? So, as I mle over this ordinance, I understand that just being one of seven, I can't change it to that. I am accepting this ordinance because it is easing the restrictions on people. But I would encourage this council to take the next year if this does pass and challenge the chief to see what kind of complaints are coming in. And if there's no complaints coming in, let's look at people that have property or have the ability to be able to store those

vehicles in the way that they can. I get uh I think council member McCoy brought up his concern was as long as the public is not in danger, as long as there's no obstruction of view. I I I agree with that. I think everybody here can agree with that. You don't want your kids running in your driveway and can't see and a car comes around. We get that. But I I think that we still need to and I'll make for efficiency wrap my my statement up here. I don't like the three three limit. I think we should allow for more, but I'm willing to concede it for now if we can look at this again in a year. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Mson. Um, next up, Council Member Ferrer. So, I have um some concerns regarding the agenda and its wording. Um for the past two meetings, we've consistently and specifically addressed the Battleground Municipal Code 17.135150 and it was titled uh storage for boats, trailers, and RVs. But then tonight when I'm looking at this, it's a lot broader um chapter that we're looking at. It's 17.135 supplementary regulations for specific uses. My concern is by us stripping these specific key words from the agenda, we risk failing to provide fair notice to the citizens who are specifically I mean we had what over 35 people sitting in here last time. I don't see many of the same faces and I know that they would have liked to been here this evening. I mean, I don't know personally, but I'm assuming if they showed up at one meeting and we didn't um fix the solution, they're going to be looking at those agendas and trying to verify, they're going to be skimming it and looking for RV storage. RV, nothing was there. Instead, it said 135 supplementary regulations. So, I guess what I'm trying to ask is um what was the specific se why was this specific subsection removed? And I want to ensure that in the future our agenda items maintain the specific identifiers so the public isn't left guessing which regulations were actually talking about. Um is there a reason before I move on to the actual addressing?

Council member Ferrer, would you like the clerk to address your question? Yes. Yes, ma'am.

It would be my pleasure, ma'am. So because this is an ordinance, the uh name of the ordinance is this uh adjustment to the title and the chapter and the section. If you look on the agenda, you'll see in the summary, the summary describes what actually will be occurring during that item. So if you visit or if you look at the agenda, you'll see that it references changes to RV and trailer storage and amending the code. So the public can see the official what's going to be changed in the code itself per this ordinance because um an ordinance is a law made by our local governing body that will impact that part of the code. And then you'll see the in the summary where we have a more descriptive um explanation of what that means. So oftent times you'll see with ordinances when they're placed on with they're officially placed on they're they're going to be voted on you're you're going to see a sighting of where in the code will this change occur? Where will this ordinance make a change? And then in the summary, you'll see that descriptive language explaining to the layman what that means.

Okay. Thanks, Liz.

So, all right, I'll move on with um in this the concern that I have um moving forward. So, the background writing down notes. So, I would because I was looking at this a while ago, so I wanted to make sure. Um my thoughts is this code has been in existence like you said mayor for 25 years with no problems until now which that problem was correct me if I'm wrong one citizen had a complaint against them that they were you know in violation of the code cuz they had parked their RV in their driveway. So then they went out and started driving around the neighborhood and they wanted to get everybody else identified as breaking the same code. So and then looking at the um the numbers from our last meeting um it was there was two major concerns. Correct me if I'm wrong. There was two major concerns. Number one is people are parking in their their current as it states that they're not supposed you shall be kept behind the front building line. So number one is people obviously they have houses with driveways in front of their house. So how do we address problem one is just allowing people to park in the front building line if if they have a driveway. I think that since this is already we haven't had a problem in 25 years except for this one issue right now. I don't think we need all of this extra stuff which is putting more restrictions on, you know, people then it's actually I know that we're relieving one of the restrictions which is, you know, it can only be parked behind the the front building line, but it it's putting more restrictions by

telling people you can only have three on your driveway or excuse me, on your lot. And again, I don't believe I said it at the last council meeting. I don't believe that we should be doing a one-sizefits-all. I I drove the neighborhood. You have people that have, you know, very respectful looking, you know, homes and their yards. And with no complaints, I knocked on doors. I talked to neighbors. I asked, you know, do you have concerns with your neighbors who have trailers? And they said no. Um I I saw them very wellkept and so you could have like uh one of the citizens came out and said they have a boat sitting on a trailer. Well then that's two right there. I've seen houses that have two boats with two trailers right there. That's four. But it's undercover. It's on the side of their house. It's in their driveway. It it was very wellkept. Uh I I think that this adds some restrictions. I think the the two main concerns that I read looking back at our last meeting was again allowing people to park in their in the front building line. Um how do we address that? Allow put an exemption that they can park in front of the building line if they have a driveway. Number two was parking in the front yard. Well, you have that address right there in 2B. Recreational vehicles shall not be parked in the front yard. We've gone over what exactly that means. What a front yard. It's not the side, even though there's grass. It's just the very front of the house. So, I would make a motion, but I won't right now because I know other people want to speak and I want to be respectful of that. But, um, I would make a motion that we stay with the original, add the exemption to build um to allow for front building line if the house has a a driveway and just say no

parking. Problem solved. I don't think we need all this extra stuff. Council member Ferrer, it appears that you have just made a motion. Um, if you have, could you please clarify that motion again for the clerk? Yeah, don't say motion. Go ahead. Unless you wish to withdraw. But

um I can make a motion cuz we still have two rounds to debate after that. So I will make a motion. What? Okay. I'll make a motion that we go with the original 17.135.150 adding an exemption for frontline build um to be parking in the front building line if they have a driveway. and then add um no parking in the front yard. Hearing no second motion fails. All right, let's move on. Uh, Deputy Mayor Bale.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, as other council members have expressed, I personally on this council um was concerned about the lack of storage that was I'm sorry, I lost my voice. My son's on a baseball team and I was cheering very loudly this weekend. I'll do my best. Um, so I was concerned that the original language did not allow for the storing of RVs and driveways at all. Uh, that was extremely concerning to me. Um, and my view is that we as the council, we need to protect private property rights and limit government oversight when it's not necessary. So, the original language, however, does not allow for any RVs to be parked in front of the front line of the actual house building itself. That's my understanding. The front building line where your front door basically is on a lot of our houses, straight line either way, an RV could not be beyond that. So, the language in regards to the front uh uh the front yard is a little bit concerning to me because a front yard and my understanding is that it's anything in front of the home and also to the sides of the home so long as those sides are in front of the actual dwelling unit. I always thought a front yard was just the area immediately in front of the structure and it's not true. it's the area also to the sides of the structure as long as they fall um in front of the of the housing line if that makes sense. So that would remove a lot of these ideas. A lot of these RVs they cannot be parked. Sorry. Water doesn't help. It's it's it's hopeless. Um, so

my goal was to be able to put language here that allows for Thank you. that allows for uh RVs to be able to be placed that allows for RVs to be able to be placed in driveways and also allows for multiple trailers and RVs to be able to be placed in the backyard or and places um other than the actual legal driveway. I will say that I do have concerns about the language that is expressed in the code which you will see in blue. Um, one fact is the fact that um, no more than three recreational vehicles or trailers may be parked outside on a single family lot. I would like to see language potentially pertaining to the lot size. Another concern that I have is in regards to the number the number of RVs. I agree that only one should be allowed to be parked in a driveway. I don't think that many of our homes, myself included, has a driveway that can house more than one RV without it being an issue. Um, so those two things I would say for this first round of discussion are concerns that I hold with the current language as written in blue.

Rob, can you scroll down just a little bit so we can get all the blue there, please? Thank you. Council member, Council Member McCoy,

thank you. Um, council member uh Mson brought up brought up a point which I think uh may solve a lot of this if we make this simpler and his point was let's see if there's an issue in a year and so what I would propose is we eliminate a wait a year and if it is an issue we add it in. So in other words, we allow more than three if it comes to council that that is a problem or even before a year, whatever that time frame is. The time frame is not germanine. So uh that eliminates I think three of your concerns. uh this ordinance does allow the one in front of the house which I think is what all of us are uh in agreeance with. So with that, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we amend the uh ordinance in front of us to eliminate uh a second. All right, we have a motion on the floor by Council Member McCoy, second by Council Member Mson, and uh let's go ahead and continue discussion. Jeanie, do you have anything?

Yeah, I was going to I want to make sure Robert's rules are followed. Thank you. Go ahead,

J. Um yeah, thank you and thank you for the motion. I would um I agree with that approach and I do think that um this will give us time to also look at if we really need to separate out um property sizes. You know, we put a lot of time into this one already and and we want to do the right thing. Um there's a lot of nuances and um we've you know, it wasn't one person's complaint that got us to this. So, um I think we need to to really pay attention to the fact that there were more issues than one person and we need to um you know provide some more flexibility and yet have some guard rails that allow us to, you know, keep keep some some level of structure so that things don't get crazy. And hopefully some of the concerns that some of the citizens have had tonight will be addressed through that. Um, so I'm I would like to um I'd like to add to the motion. Are we able to do that? Yeah. Can we add to a motion?

Yeah, you can amend amend the motion. Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm still learning some of these rules, but I would Can I amend that now? I'd like to amend the motion to uh include the year uh review. At the end of the year, we go back, we take a look, see what uh if any issues there have been, and then have we addressed some of this the um property size issues that were of concern.

I I just I have a question on that for the clerk because that's something to put into the ordinance or a city council look back inside an ordinance. That's that's my only concern. I would think that ultimately um this motion is going to look like a motion to adopt ordinance number 20264 minus section A um with a scheduled review in one year um of the uh section Okay. However, you

I I'll second the motion. Okay. All right. We have or I'll just allow it as a friendly amendment. How's that? The clerk highly objects to friendly amendments. I But I don't I'd like to add it as a friendly amendment. All right. Uh an amendment motion by Council Member Kyper, seconded by Council Member McCoy. So, just so we're clear, as Liz just put so eloquently, the proposed adopted language with the removal of section A with a scheduled revisit to uh look at the verbiage of section A in a calendar year to review. Yeah.

Okay. We would need to vote on that amendment. Yeah. I just want to continue discussion and then we'll we'll we'll get we'll get to that. Um couple things. I just wanted to offer some clarification to the public on some of this stuff. Um and I'm going to ask for some staff's help in this. Ryan, you can probably chime in or or not. You either way. Um, just to clarify the ordinance for the parking on the gravel, uh, as it states, um, that it's an approved driveway, if I remember right,

um, and what the conditions are for an approved driveway as an impervious surface, if I remember right, some of the language with Yes. Good evening. Uh to make sure I understand what you're saying, are you saying that approved driveways need to be at least gravel or some kind of imperous surface? I'm asking for your clarification of what the city would consider as an approved driveway.

Yes. That of being uh some kind of an impervious surface, asphalt, um concrete. If it's not the one original with the house, if it was a secondary, that would be something different as we don't allow them. Okay. Secondary driveways, I should say.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Again, offering clarification so people understand that we're not even reviewing that as part of this. We are it's just stated that it's a legally established driveway. Um, also to clarify that in the co in the verbiage here on the top, if you guys can see it, I know it might be small up there, but it does state as you're going through um, and I'll just read it. Recreational vehicles and trailers are defined as travel trailers, folding tent trailers, motor homes, truck campers removed from a truck or pickup, horse trailer, boat trailer with or without boat. Just to clarify, if your boat's on the trailer, it's still counted as one. And other recreational trailers and utility trailers and boats. And the and boats part is to cover if for some odd reason you take your boat off the trailer and it's sitting in your yard or it's up on stands or whatever to be worked on. Um, that's where that separation of the boats is in there. And just to answer some of the public comment, I I wanted to be able to respond to some of that. Um, and that's that's really what I have. Just to clarify, I just wanted to help offer some clarification. I am in full support of the amended motion um of striking A um having the verbiage be the way it's written with the removal of A and reooking at that in a year for review. Uh let's go around to the second round of discussion. We have council member Fer.

Thank you, mayor, and thank you, Council Member Troy, for clarifying my motion. Um and I do appreciate it that we are going to take out one of my biggest concerns, which is putting that restriction of three recreational vehicles um on people's properties. Um, however, I still do have concerns with like of course I do um still have um concerns with the uh number B or letter B when we're saying however one recreational vehicle or trailer is allowed to be parked on a legally established driveway because again we come into lot sizes that are one 2 acres and I just don't see again I'm going to agree with what one of the citizens said out there is you purchase your lot a bigger lot so you can put more toys on it or more work trailers, you know, whatever you need. As long as um and what another citizen said, as long as it's being it's not a safety hazard, it's not an eyesore, it's wellkept, I just don't see why we have to put that restriction um for one recreational vehicle. Um, I've mentioned it at this um at the last meeting that I've driven around, you know, and seen several different lot sizes with very wide parking lots. I mean, not parking lots, but driveways and other ones that are very long driveways. So, um, I'm going to make an amendment to the amendment to the amendments. It's the last one that's allowed um to remove one recreational vehicle um be established in um and then all in the driveway and then also um but I do agree with everything else that we should you know come back and visit this in a year see if there's any issues if we want to do any updates um but I would

make it a mo an a motion to remove the restriction of one recreational vehicle or trailer is allowed to be parked on a legally established driveway. So, you're looking to strike all of B just for clarification. Um, no, it's No. What are you reading, dude? No, I'm not. I believe in the whole first set sentence and then all of the other stuff. It's just however one recreational vehicle. I'm just saying remove the one recreational vehicle. Since we're getting rid of the three, just get rid of the one and let's revisit all of this in a year and see where it puts us.

Okay. For clarification, striking that language would make it illegal to park anything in the front yard. That's the motion on the floor. No, it's just saying you're striking at however. It currently says recreational vehicles shall not be parked in the front yard. You're striking everything after that. What you're doing is making it illegal to park in the front yard. I'm not gonna second this motion. Okay. So, I'm just saying don't put a number. So, okay, fine. You want me to put exact language? However, one recreational vehicle trailer is allowed to be parked. However, Okay. So, the language would be Can can we vote on the amendment in front of us?

We're going to need a second. And for sake of conversation, I will go ahead and second this amended motion so we can open it up for discussion. Okay.

All right. We have we have an amended motion. Amending the amended motion. We are getting deep into this. This is fun. Robert's rules 101, guys. Here we go. We do have a second by uh Council Member Mson. Um, and let's open this up for discussion. But I will say that the amendment did not offer clear language of really anything be um, and so I I honestly don't feel that that was very clear in the amendment what I meant by the motion.

Can you read that word for word of what you want the amendment to be? However, any recreational vehicle or trailer is allowed to be parked on a legally established driveway.

So, you just you're just asking for recreational vehicles and trailers shall not be parked in the front yard to be removed. I'm asking the motion is to where it says however. Yeah. Replace one one with any any recreational vehicles or trailer is allowed to be parked on a legally established driveway. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you.

Let's open that up for discussion. Council member Mson, I'm going to I see some names dropped off here. So I wanted I second this because I want to have a good conversation so that I understand exactly where your mindset is so I can come into this clear because I think often times we think very similar on keeping the government out of their their business. So I I just I guess I want to open I want to hear more of what your intent behind your motion is so I can understand it better. Um, again, like I said earlier, I agree that, especially looking at this from a year from now, maybe the term one-sizefits-all, it does not apply. Maybe if you have a couple acres and your house is set way back on your property. Uh, let me just give a a real quick example. My aunt Carol lives just outside the city limits and she's going to be getting annexed within the next few years. She's on two and a half acres. Her house, it's dead center in her property right now. They got four or five trailers. It's a very well-kept house. It looks great. So, I I agree. Like, we have no business telling them telling Aunt Carol where she what she can and can't park. So, I just I guess I want to open my part up by understanding exactly what your intent is here so I can make the best decision on the time when it comes to vote. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Mson. Uh, Council Member Kypers, you're up. Thank you. I I would just like to go back to the council and we had a lot of conversation about this. Um and so I'm trying to get back to what got us to one in the front anyway. So I want to ask the council that. I mean we already have been back and forth on this. We spent a lot of time talking about should it be two, should it be one, should it be zero. As it is in the code today at zero. So, I'm I'm not making a statement. I'm asking the question. How did we get to one?

Can I jump in or do we want to do keypad here to make sure everybody speaks? Um, Troy, you Troy chimed in. Go ahead, Troy. You want to offer clarification on that? Uh, I think one of the concerns was if you have two recreational vehicles in a driveway, you now are parking all your cars potentially on the street. That's right.

And um, some of these larger properties, this is going to be a case- by case basis. And I think you might be able to put some some leeway in there for for the bigger lots as far as from a enforcement mechanism. Um, the problem with continuing to amend this after it comes forward, it just makes meetings very long, very confusing. And to Council Member Kyper's point, this this battle, I mean, this I'm not saying we can't change it. I'm just saying that starting to amend this stuff, it starts to get fuzzy. And I still think that one in the driveway is is plenty. It's more than we have right now. Um, and it allows however many you can fit in your backyard up to fire code or whatever other potential regulations are out there. Uh, so I'm not in favor of the motion on the floor.

Thank you, Council Member McCoy. Council member, actually, you've already got Yeah, go ahead. Uh, Council Member Ferrer.

So, I'm going to go Oh, sorry. So, I'm going to go with what one of the citizens said out there, which is she doesn't have access to her backyard. So, she only has her driveway. She doesn't have access to any of that. So, we're going to Yeah, we're putting a restriction on how many she can have in her driveway. She has one. Exactly. But maybe something happens and she needs to bring a trailer in. Maybe she has to empty your yard and then the police, you know, the code enforcement officer drives right by and says, "Wait a minute, there's two." Now, I'm sure our code enforcement officer will be very friendly and have that conversation, but what if they're not there? I think that she might still give them a a heads up. I don't know, though. I'm assuming. And we may not have this code enforcement officer later. We might have, you know, somebody else who is just like wants to throw down tickets left and right. I don't know. I gota That's why we're putting this down now. we're discussing it. Um, so the intent of this is exactly what you said, um, Council Member Mson, is I don't support government overreach. I don't believe in a one-sizefits-all. I believe in private property rights. I don't think we should be in there acting like an HOA. I'm stealing the citizens words here because I agree with it. Um, that we should not be the city should not be acting as an HOA. Again, I go back to we've had this code in here for 25 years. There hasn't been and the the many people that showed up here at the last meeting. They they were confused on why their their houses, many of them were getting hit with violations when they're like, "We've parked our vehicles out here. It's been like this for over 20 years. Why are we getting hit with this now?" So, that shows me that there isn't a need for all of these restrictions. That's why I I asked for us to remove all of these, you know, these restrictions and treating it as a

one-sizefits-all and then um coming back to it and revisiting it. I I just don't think it's a concern. I don't think it needs to be there. Hopefully that addressed my intent. But I will Okay, I'm going to just speak real quick and uh I will point out that these ordinances are complaint driven. It is not like our code enforcement just drives around looking for violations of these codes. They have enough other things on their plate. The deal is this all started from one complaint spurred many complaints, hundreds of complaints,

and this is where we're at now. Okay? And so my goal, one, the whole reason we're bringing this up is we had somebody that took advantage of that complaint system and flooded our department with complaints. And we I felt that we needed to make a change to modify this code so that those complaints can't necessarily come in as frequently and give the people their property rights. Um, I still think that whatever decision we make here, it still should remain a complaint driven uh code and it's the only reason since again 25 years or however long that this is even coming up is is somebody went around and made a whole lot of complaints. So, um I don't necessarily want to completely, you know, throw the baby out with the bath water, though. I think it's it's our job to try to make responsible decisions. Um I'm also in favor of reviewing this after one year, no matter what decision we make to see if we've had any new complaints, if there's additional modifications that need to be made. Uh nobody up here is perfect. Nobody can claim to be. Only Jesus was. And so the way this is written, um I I like it. I'm actually in favor of some of the amendments. Uh, but I'm also in favor of us trying to get business done. Um, and so, Council Member Mson. Okay, I'll make this quick. Uh, I want to be efficient, but I would like to address Council Member Kyper's question because we kind of fell off of that. Um, if I recall, Miss Swanson, when this come when this came up about the one in the front yard, we were talking about people parking

things in front of their front door in the grass. And am I incorrect?

And that's why we came up with the one is because we didn't want, as we asked uh Mark, I believe when he was here, the sideyard is the front yard because it has grass. You said if there's an impervious service there that's attached to the driveway, that's an extension of the driveway. We wanted to keep people from parking travel trailers, etc. in the grass component that is in front of their front door. Isn't that not why we came up with this to answer Council Member Kyper's question? There were several different conversations around this, but I think that at the retreat it did come back to available parking on the street ultimately when there was consensus on landing on the one in regards to the yards. This is where impervious surface comes in, right? We were toying with can they park on gravel and the answer to that was no. It has to be one established, right? there's a legal driveway and there's only one established for every single family dwelling,

right?

Um so that the conversation I think steered around the gravel piece and we didn't want them so we weren't park you can't park on the grass. We don't like park in your front yard. Anything in front of the facade of the home. We had that drawing what was considered uh the front yard, the sideyard, and the backyard. I think that's what you're referring to. So, I'll wrap it up with this is I appreciate Council Member Barrer's amendment. Uh, I I agree with her in her estimation of what we need to do. But to be prudent and efficient, what I will ask right now is a council consensus so that it's not having to be written into an ordinance that one year from today's meeting date that the staff come back to us with any complaints between now and then. and that they also start to establish um this ordinance with the possibility dependent on the zoning whether it's R seven or R1 because again as Sharon spoke earlier um ma'am I forget your name in the back um everybody has different needs everybody's houses are different I think that this government should be more prudent to addressing the people in the community and how they need to park their vehicles instead of just establishing one generic policy. So, if I could get consensus from council that this be addressed in one year from now, um I know that's a long time out, but I think with Google calendar, Miss Swanson can make it happen. Well, and I'll also point out that we have an amendment to the original motion which has since been amended, but in that includes in Jeanie's recommendation to add the one-year review to this ordinance. So, I think it's already in there. We can vote on that after we vote on

the current standing amendment. Yeah, and I agree with that. I'm just trying to be redundant to make sure that we're addressing the community's concern in the most absolutely

efficient way possible. So whether it's typed up or it's also with a consensus, I think we're going to cover our base there so that we don't continue to drop the ball here. Okay. Any further discussion. All right. Hearing none. So we have an amendment to the amendment on the floor um that was uh motioned by council member Fer, second by council member Muntz. And this is pertaining to section B. Uh that is to remove one vehicle from section B. That would be however one recreational vehicle would be changed to any recreational vehicle. Um and we're going to bring that to a vote. All those in favor of that amendment say I.

I. I. I. Any opposed say no. All right. Motion passes unanimously. We will move on. Well, you have to still vote on the other amendment. Yeah, you were in there. I didn't catch that. Okay. Um, I'll tell you what. We have keypads up and and Liz would love to use our new fancy keypads that are finally working. Let's bring this to a roll vote.

Can we get clarification on what is being changed? The word any means what? So any number of Yeah. So vehicles from my understanding again please correct me if I'm wrong. Section B would read, "Recreational vehicles and trailers shall not be parked in the front yard. However, any recreational vehicle or trailer is allowed to be parked on a legally established driver." So, it just changes the one to any.

Point of clarification, Mr. Mayor, if we My understanding was that we wanted to be able to allow a plurality of vehicles in the driveway, that that was um Council Member Ferrer's intent. Intent. plurality plurality that however any recreational vehicle is allowed to be parked in legally established driveway leaves it to one or many unless you can fit in your driveway

and I'll just clarify and maybe that helps how people are reading it it's the first one is saying you cannot park in your front yard however you can park on a legally established driveway that's what I'm trying to Right. And you're eliminating the one. Yeah. To leave it. But the intent is Yeah. The intent is just to cuz right now you guys were saying the first one that I was trying to put up there kind of cancelled everything out and it puts us right back to where we were. So I I want to allow parking on the driveways and without a restriction of how many just because we do have different law. I think that's shouldn't be a I think we're all in agreement.

Yeah. Yeah. Point of clarification. And I was just pointing out that recreational vehicle would need to be plural vehicles or trailers. Otherwise, the law would still read however recreational vehicle or trailer, which would suggest a singular or trailers. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now, we're going to bring this to a roll vote. Chris, I feel like you're you're wanting to say something. Well, I just want to make sure we've got a main motion. It was amended and then it was voting on the second amendment. Yes, you're voting on that first before you get to the Okay. Just go amendment, then back to the other amendment, then back to the main motion. Correct.

Yep. So, say yes to an amendment now. All right. Does everyone understand what they're voting on right now? Our first vote will be for Council Member Ferrer's amended amended motion. Yes. of section B for the elimination of one moving to any and pluralizing vehicles and trailers. Lock it in. Once you vote, hit lock in.

It's Yeah, motion amendment passes. I just want to let Liz do her thing. Yep. Council member McCoy voted nay. Council member Ferrer voted yay. Council member Mson voted yay. Council member Kypers voted yay. Council member or deputy mayor Vale voted yay and mayor overhoser vad voted nay. That is four yays to two nazs and the amendment carries.

Thank you, Liz. All right. Now, we're going to move on to the amendment to the original motion, which council member Kypers added to revisit this motion and and this uh ordinance al together in a one-year period. So, this is what we're going to vote on now. A yes is for adding the one-year review. A no is for not reviewing it in one year. Let's stay with the uh roll call if we could. Hold on a second. Mayor, go ahead. Isn't the the amendment by Was it the amendment by Genie? Okay. To Troy's original motion, which in Troy's Troy's original motion is to remove a

Yes. Yep. I'm I'm writing it down because there is no other way I would have been able to track this. So, uh, now we're going to vote on the one-year review of the original motion, uh, made by Council Member McCoy. So a yes is to do the review. A no is to not made by Kypers. Sorry. Yeah, it's okay. I was saying the original motion by council member McCoy, amendment by council member Kypers. Like I'm reading a Dr. Seuss novel right now. All right, let's go ahead and vote. Looks like our boards are up. Everyone,

am I the only one here not doing that? Okay, we're waiting on the mayor. All right. Sorry. Council member McCoy voted no. Council member Ferrer voted yay. Council member Mson voted yay. Council member Kypers voted yay. Deputy Mayor Vale voted yay. and Mayor Overhozer voted yay. That's five yays to one no and the amendment carries.

Thank you, Liz. All right, here we go, folks. We are finally to the original motion by Council Member McCoy. Um the original motion was to have the language as it was written but to strike A due to the amendment. Now we have an amendment to B and we also have A being removed and then a review period being added after a year. Those have all been voted in as amendments. So now we have the original motion of just removing A from the language. Um, submit, dude. Sorry. Lock it in. Is that your final answer? Council member McCoy voted yay. Council member Ferrer voted yay. Council member Mson voted yay. Council member Kypers voted yay. Deputy mayor Vale voted yay. And Mayor Overhozer voted yay. We have a unanimous passage of that uh amendment to the ordinance. Mr.

Mayor, I make to make a motion to adopt ordinance 2026-04 amending regulations related to the storage of recreation vehicles and trailers in residential areas. Second. All right, we have a motion on the floor by Council Member McCoy with the fastest reading I have ever heard. And we have a second by Ed. Council member Kite. Yeah. As amended. As amended multiple times.

Okay. Now, we're going to go to a roll vote on this adopting of the overall ordinance. Don't forget to lock in your vote. probably could have done the Micro Machines commercial back in the 90s. Any of you are old enough to remember that. Council member McCoy voted nay. Council member Ferrer voted yay. Council member Mson voted yay. Council member Kypers voted yay. Deputy mayor Vale voted yay. And Mayor Overhozer voted yay. The motion carries 5 to one.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So, I'll jazz hands that one up. Um, I would like to take a quick five minute recess if we could. Uh, recess at 8:39 to return at 8:44.

in the meeting, please. Mics are hot. Mics are hot. All right, the time is 8:44. I will reconvene the city council meeting. We are moving on to business. I will uh ask the clerk, Liz, if there is any communications were submitted regarding business items that have not yet been provided to the council. No, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. And we will uh what we I would like to uh introduce Samrummet up to talk about spring 26 battleground municipal code updates. Actually, Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'll lead off. It's gonna be a tag team approach to the to the event. Sounds great, Rob. Thank you.

Uh so just for background, this is regarding the city's updates to the battleground municipal code. As council is aware, um municipal code is updated every year. Uh often these changes result from mandates in state law, state law changes or that we encounter problems of interpretation at the staff level. Um so during the meeting, we'll be providing you an update of what these proposed changes are for 2026. There'll be three of us making presentations. I'll be handling the the few the first few ones that deal with the general administrative aspects of the code. Uh Ryan James will be here to discuss issues that deal with um public works related and engineering and then Sam will talk about land development, community development type. Uh just so council knows but for the benefit of the public uh these code changes were reviewed by the planning commission in March I want to say Sam if I have that correct.

Yep. two meetings in March.

Thank you. Um these were also presented to the city council at our retreat that we had in March on the 6th. Uh the this evening we'll discuss those with city council in a public forum and then on the 20th there'd be a public hearing uh to follow uh when we ask council to take specific action. So Sam, if you could bring up the Perfect. And then scroll down to the table. There we go. And if you can increase that in size if possible. And if not, I'll just start talking. Uh the first uh proposed code change deals with section 2.28.010. That's the planning commission terms. Uh this part of the code was last updated I want to say in 2010. At that time there was a high turnover on the planning commissioners um on the commission itself. They instituted a series of staggering uh of offices that was mentioned in the code. Uh through the course of time that is pretty much taken care of itself and so staff just recommends removal of the staggering language. Um all other changes would continue. So it's a basically clean up in the term language. Code 2.60.010 deals with the pace board. This request actually came met uh from the paceboard itself. There is a youth member that serves on that seven member body. Um and as the code is currently written, the age limit for that youth member is 14 to 18. Typically what happens is it's difficult to recruit the member because uh students come and go. uh typically there are juniors or seniors and they serve basically one year and so we have a higher turnover in that uh seat and so Pace requested that council consider this change to increase the upper age

limit to 21. So if you're a student age person either in high school or even college 14 to 21 uh you could be considered for that position or you could apply for that position position I should say. Section 2.84.050 050 deals with LE which is the law enforcement officers something or other firefighters. Thank you. Uh it's the change of the term of office. It changes it from it's a cleanup. It changes it for board officers from one year to two years. Section 6.20 and 6.10.400 are new additions that come from PD. Uh the former deals with feral cats, the latter deals with rabbits. And as I mentioned, these are new additions to code. Section 8.32 is the regulatory standards for emergency services. That is requested be removed from the municipal code. As council's aware, we now have ambulance services through an ILA. So it's redundant. We request that be removed. And the last one that I have to speak about this evening is section 8.36. It's special event permits. It adds one term circuses to a definition of what qualifies as a special event. Elsewhere in the code, I want to say it's in section 17. It it specifically talks about how circuses and carnivals are subject to the special event permits process. We just want to clear clear that up. Make sure that we have all the terms defined in both places. That's all that I have. Do you have any questions from council members regarding my updates?

Can we get the touch pads? Oh, yeah. Can you reenable the Thank you, Liz. Sure. Go ahead, Council Member Mun. Okay. Oh, thank you. Uh, yes. Scroll back, please, to scroll, scroll up a little bit, please. I think it's around 6 something or other. CMS. Let's talk about rabbits. Let's talk about that.

Can we go to the language? I'd like to propose some challenges to staff and I'd like to see how council wants to go down a rabbit hole with me. I'm here all night.

Yeah, we've been down a few already tonight. There we go. Na. Okay. It's unlawful for where was that? Where's the Where's the No, there's no person shall keep more than five rabbits on a single single residential lot. Can you show me without making this inefficient the code where it says how many cats you can have or how many chickens you can have? I'll tell you right now. I already know the answer. Yeah.

Okay. So, why are we putting a number on rabbits when we don't do it on other things? So, now I'm going to dress this away from staff and bring it to council. I understand uh you know, I heard from one council member previously that he has rabbits all over his neighborhood. I understand that could be frustrating, but I guess the question I have is we're going to introduce a whole new section of rabbits and restrictions and I just don't think it's a benefit to the community when we're not addressing all the other wildlife that we have. So animals,

let me give you just a real quick backstory, council. In 2013, 2014, somewhere around there, I was on planning commission. The council at the time took exception to roosters. They passed it. You're not allowed to have a rooster in the city. We have roosters all over the city. We're not enforcing that. Now, we're going to add some code language that's creating more restrictions, which puts more of a strain on city resources. I don't want to put more strain on the city resources. So, personally, I don't think that we need to even have this added into this. Um, if we could see, go ahead and scroll down just a little bit so the council can read some more of what you're adding at the bottom of it. your your code that the city's presentation of this and in all honesty the the spirit is there and I get it but being conservative with taxpayer money I think this just takes more time for the city to have to deal with it again do I'll go back to staff do we have hundreds of complaints by one person so that silence tells me what I need to hear I'm not interested interested in this code council. Okay. If I still have the floors, then let's keep going. Um, can we go to Can we go back to your table? We'll do a lot of back and forth here. I promise I'm not going to pick on everyone. Go up a little for me. Okay. Oh, actually for for this chapter, I'm good here. I I would like to jump into 12 when we get to that point. So, I guess I'm asking for council

consensus. Well, we have uh council member Kypers, you are up. Thank you. Uh, I would just like to understand what um why we've got the addition of the rabbits and the feral cats. What drove this? I think you were asking were there complaints? We didn't have anything specific, but how did this get here in the first place? Um, there must have been something. You guys don't make stuff up, so I know there had to be a reason. kills.

So, we have had several complaints from a lot of residents about feral cats. We did start cooperating with a program that pays for spayed and neuter. However, we found out we could be in legal standing because we don't have an ordinance that allows us to capture spay and neuter cats. Um, that's the reason for the cat ordinance. The rabbit ordinance is kind of the same. They procreate exponentially causing issues going under porches, digging holes. So, we have had a couple of residents complain about possible structural issues with their front porches due to the rabbits.

So, the the rabbits language is more it's not domestic rabbits. I mean, although the the language has limits that we're putting limits on the number of rabbits people can have, but the rabbits that are causing problems, are they the domestic rabbits? If I have I'm just if I have five rabbits or eight rabbits, whatever, and it's chewing and they're chewing up my property on, you know, door frames or whatever, that's my issue. But if if it's feral rabbits, correct? It's a feral feral rabbit. It's the wild rabbits and the feral cats is what this is being designed to help control. Okay.

And I would just point out that if you have a domesticated rabbit that is in your backyard, I don't know if they necessarily respect fence line. Oh yeah. You know, if you if they don't keep and next thing you know, you got barrel rabbits right along with the cats. Mhm. But to address the cat issue, it's allowing us to have legal standing and the spay and neuter of the cats do not cost us any money because there's an organization that will pay for that. It's allowing us to legally capture, have the cats spayed and neutered, and then re-release them in the same location they were found. Yeah. So, you're trying to put

there it had some language about the feral cat trapping. Yeah. Trying to find that. It's trapneuter and but it's saying a domesticated rabbit. Yeah. So, what about wild rabbits? Yeah. And it says domesticated rabbit. Yeah. For the purpose of the code, rabbit is defined as any domesticated rabbit, including those kept as pets, raised for domestic purposes or otherwise maintained within the city limits. And any domesticated rabbit that has been abandoned, released, or has become feral, has become feral. That's the definition. That's under the code as it's presented is the definition of a rabbit.

The specific population that we're dealing with now, the owners moved. They did not take the rabbits with them. They just released them and they had exponentially procreated and more taken over about three neighborhoods in in specifically would it happen to be the Robinwood neighborhood? Just saying. Uh all right. Um, council member Herrer, take it away.

Um, I would be I would be in agreement with council member Mson that um I don't think we need to be putting a restriction of five rabbits on a single residential lot. I do hear your concerns and I would like to help with those concerns. So, it's just like the feral cat situation. you need something in your code, right? That helps you, you know, gives you the opportunity to go and address that. So, I don't have a problem with the rabbit code being here. If that's a problem, gives you that opportunity to address that as well. My only concern is with the limit of five because I'm thinking about WSU, right, with the youth programs. You've got 4 and you've got the FFA right there. it it's for like me breeding and there's there's a lot of different things that they cover. And so if you're limiting those those youth programs to five, they're they're not going to be able to meet those requirements. And then what about rabbits who if somebody has a litter and now all of a sudden we know that litter has what six to 10 bunnies right there we're not they've just been in violation of that code. So, um I don't know if I would I would suggest maybe putting some language that put like puts exemptions in for 4 or FFA pro um programs for you those youth programs or and also um weaned um litters because they needed their mother for a while. But also at the same time, I'm just not in favor of putting the five on there. I I'm completely in favor of keeping this up to help our law enforcement and you know and people who are being un overrun by bunnies. I like them out there personally, but I'm not up here for that. Um but the other thing is um 6.10.430

it talks about containment and housing. I would like to see maybe um something where you have to uh because I'm some of the complaints that people have is when they do have these shelters, they can be stinky. They can have flies and stuff like that and sometimes people could be without thinking putting them behind underneath somebody's window. So, I don't know if um how what council thinks about maybe putting up a setback requirement from people's homes from bedroom windows and stuff so they're not smelling it. Yeah. Maintain sanitary conditions. Yeah. Yeah. So, okay then I'll just um I'd say I'm not in favor of the five rabbit restrictions because of the youth programs. Do you have a recommended restriction number?

I would just say get rid of 420 alto together and um just leave it as you know the 410 and the 430 everything except for just remove 420 because you are putting you're helping the police officers deal with the rabbits who are running the muck. That's the idea that these are they're I would hope they're not trying to get domesticated rabbits that are actual pets, but they are going after feral rabbits where homeowners I mean if you look at the feral cats, domesticated is totally different language. Domesticated means that they can still be working. You can still they're adoptable. Whereas um and the feral is meaning I correct me if I'm wrong. feral is more like they can't engage socially. They they're not adoptable.

They're just not domesticated. Anything that's not domesticated is feral. Well, if you go up to the the cats, you Anyways, so yeah, I'm just I would be in favor of removing 420. Okay. Um Deputy Mayor Vil,

thank you. I was just going to say it's shocking that we have a rabbit problem with a feral cat problem. you think that that would have equaled out somehow, but um but I digress. Um I would say that I agree with striking um 420. I am not in favor at all of us regulating how many pet rabbits somebody can have in their home or in their residential lot. And I I have a friend actually who lives in the Battleground city limits who has a yard bunny and he's adorable and he has respected the boundaries because his owners have been um respectful and they've established a cage containment system for him, but he has free reign of the backyard. And I love that. And again, I think that that's our job to be able to step in when there's issues, but to not um to not have that government overreach. And I see this as as that. So, I would love to see language that pertains to us being able to to trap those rabbits when there is a problem because there is a problem. I took an amazing ride along with an incredible um uh incredible officer here with Battleground and um I was shown the bunny issue and it was massive. It was massive. They were adorable, but they were adorable because I don't live in that neighborhood. And if they were in my garden eating all of my produce, I would be very upset, too. So, I understand that and I would like language where that allows us to be able to trap and remove um these and hopefully rehome them in some way. But, I think um I think us having oversight again with a number is is restrictive and I don't appreciate that language at all. I think, deputy mayor, uh, the language you're talking about is found in 6104102. Rabbits found running at large may be impounded by animal control.

All right. And your your neighbor's domesticated bunny better watch out for your sparrow cats. She didn't she didn't say neighbor. Not neighbor, but within limits. I will not

I will not specify where Council member McCoy, just a quick question for uh law enforcement. Uh whatever the number is, I'm doesn't matter to me. My question is, is providing a number in the ordinance give you clear and actionable enforcement? So, would you rather have a higher number in there than none at all? because I see this ordinance as trying to prevent hoarding and situations that get out of control and not necessarily uh getting down to that singular level.

I don't think a number is really relevant to the argument that we're trying to control is just that wild undomemesticated rabbi population that gets out of control. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. H was a good that was a good section of presentation. I don't we've made our recommendations. Let's move on.

Good evening, council. Oh, is that loud enough? Hello. Good evening, council. Uh code section 12.108.010 010 adds a missing state law reference. Um, code sections 1210.108.010 through 12.108.140 adds a process for getting dangerous and damaged sidewalks fixed as recommended by WCIA. Um 12108.150 just renumbered the section. 121640. This we added a new crosssection for East Main Street per the old town plan.

Sam, can you scroll down so we can follow along? Please keep going. There we go. Okay. Yeah. 06. Yeah,

carry on. Ryan 1211660 clarified our um the ability for consultants and others to um modify our standard asphalt and crush surfacing base course depths or the base rock underneath asphalt. Added some language on transit stops for request from CAT. 12116180 added uh some language from as a request, excuse me, from CRA for transit stops. 1218010 added some new definitions and updated uh outofdate ones. 12182 referred to or referenced where annual permit procedures can be found. 121802 025, excuse me, created procedures for annual rideaway permit for franchises. As it sits now, we don't, it mentions the ability to do annual rideaway permits, but we didn't have any procedures in place, but now we do for telecommunications, gas, those type of things. Um 1218030 uh some additional clarification for franchises when they're exempt. 12118060 minimum standards uh for permit renewals and then added fines for late work. So going past uh the rightway dates. 12118080 discusses uh language for contractors who do not meet permit standards. 1218 1110 added language to address how long bonds are good for. So depending upon if some kind of work activity impacts the public right away, we require the

contractor to get a bond to cover that work. So should they go under don't finish the job completely, we have a mechanism that we can go in and complete that work. Um 12112, excuse me, 12122030 added some new definitions and deleted outofdate ones. 12122040 clarified when a storage container can be placed in the street. 12122050 updated roles and document name. 12122060 updated roles. 121220262 added language to clarify when riderway permits expire. 12122065 updated rules.

Anything any questions about the twelves? Yeah. Okay. I'll pause there and then we can get to the sewers. Can we get into the meat and potatoes of 12? Can we look at the changes that you added so the council can see it up? Are you sorry you asking me to not read them all but have Sam show them? Yeah. Can you guys Can you scroll down to where it's at? Scroll down to the beginning of the 12. Yeah. What's section should we start at the beginning? Uh 12 page right there. Yep. There you go. Yep. Okay.

So, for council um staff at some capacity has heard me complain about trees in the boulevard strips. I just really want to challenge us up here to read through this in its entirety. And I get that this is being driven by the recommendation from our insurance, but let's just revisit an old story. So, when a developer comes in and builds a neighborhood, the city gives them a guidelines of what kind of trees they can put in their boulevard strips. I'll use my neighborhood for an example. Uh those trees are beautiful trees. Uh, I'm already seeing some uplift on the concrete in front of my house and I'll address that when the time comes. But if we read through these 13 new subchapters they added, it puts the burden on the citizen who did not have the decision of what kind of tree was put in there, but the decision was made by the city. And now here we are 10 to 15 to 20 years later and we're seeing concrete that's coming up and creating a hazard. I think there's a better way than all of this new language. And this language you'll find when you read through it. It requires the citizens to get permits. It requires them to remediate within 60 days if not face punitive uh fines. Um I I won't go through line by line. I just encourage you all to look at this because I don't think it's fair to our community that when they buy a house and it's got a brand new six-foot tree in the boulevard strip, they don't they're not arborists. They don't know that in 10 years their sidewalk's going to be destroyed, but they're going to find out the hard way with this new language. Um, again, the permitting fees, the time it takes, you know, we we have community members, especially in this tough economic time, that just don't have the means to do this. now they're going to get down this

uh they're going to get into the system because they're not able to remediate. I think there's a better way to do it. I understand the WCIA's concern. I I personally feel the WCIA's concern is, for lack of a better term, a blanket policy for most cities where each city is different. Each city has different landscaping criteria. So, um, I'm not going to ask that this be removed tonight for I'm not asking for consensus, but I would hope that we would all look at this intently and that when this comes back, if something resonated with you, um, I I'd love to hear it because none of what I read over the last few days is something that sits well with me. It just puts the burden on the property owner who did not have the decision other than to say, "No, I don't want to buy my dream home. I have a question to that point.

Um, in a it states defective sidewalk surfaces caused by property owner actions. If you buy a a home that a developer was told he had to plant trees in there, is that a property owner's action? I don't know who wants to take that but well I was going to ask

I was looking at section C that talks about defects in sidewalk and public way is caused by or contributed to by the roots or trees of similar growth blahy bl um except that where a sidewalk street or curb is damaged by a parking strip tree maintained by the city. I don't know if that really answers your question. That's probably more along Rasmusen and those type of streets that we talk about. I'm looking at you, right? That's how I read it. Is that so the question is when the say a developer has to plant those trees in the in the strip there between the sidewalk and the curb,

is that cities maintained or is that property owner maintained? It is the abuing property owner. So the city says developer fill in the blank. You have to plant these types of trees or you have to plant some trees in this strip. 10 years later property sold once or twice. Maybe it's the original owner. Now those roots are pushing up the sidewalk. Now hey property owner you have to fix the sidewalk. I while I've been here 18 years, I don't know off the top of my head when we started to require root barriers. So, they're

three or four feet high, 5 to 10 feet long, thick plastic that goes in the landscape strip between the sidewalk and the tree. The older neighborhoods did not have those mechanisms. So that's where we're seeing the uprooted sidewalks due to tree roots. Since I have been here where we've had the root barriers installed, I have not heard of any issues with sidewalks uplifting due to tree roots because of the root barrier being installed. I don't know if that helps to answer your question, but at least moving forward again from whenever we started that requirement. And again, I'm sorry, I don't know off the top of my head, we shouldn't see any more issues with sidewalks uplifting because of that mechanism in place.

Right. So, we might be dealing with neighborhoods, to council member Mson's point, that are older than the requirement of the root barrier installation. Correct. During the planting strip, yes, development. Okay. Um, council member Ferrer.

So, um, I'm reading the way I interpreted it was you have the first, you know, the first paragraph A is talking about here's all the things, you know, that um, you can't do and se and then it says section C um, def. Can you scroll up to uh, the very first the purpose or the big one? at says hazardous conditions on public street rideway is unlawful for the owner blah blah blah blah blah right street rideway structures objective dangerous okay then you go to see well it says including but not limited to the following conditions C defects in sidewalks or public rideways caused or contributed to by the roots of trees or similar growth or vegetation located on private adjoining property except that where a sidewalk street or curb is damaged damaged by a parking strip tree maintained by the city. Responsibility for damage to the sidewalk shall remain with the city. So is that not now the we're talking about this is all sidewalks and stubbing toes, you know, obstructing causing hazards. This is is that not addressing what they're saying? We have these planter strips. These trees were put in by developers because they were following city codes at the time and then they're the roots are causing the unleveling. People are tripping on it, but this clearly is saying that's the city's responsibility. No,

no, no. It's actually saying the opposite. It's the opposite. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but so the way the code reads generically now, it is the abuing property owner's responsibility to maintain landscaping, the trees, ground cover, sidewalks, etc. So what C is saying is that any city property that we have, we're responsible for the landscaping strip in those areas. So, should First Street out front here have a landscaping strip, we would be responsible for maintaining and correcting those issues with the sidewalk

versus another street, pick one, where it's a private citizens property, they're responsible for the same thing. So, it's just clarifying or defining when and where the city is responsible for sidewalk. Okay. Before we go a second round, want to make sure finish Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just going to

I just It was really quick. I was just wondering on CN. Thank you, Mayor. Um Cene, it it uses the words um where is it? Parking strip tree. Why why aren't we using planters strip like we use on all of our other codes? Because I I'm just thinking somebody's looking at this to see what the responsibility is and you know I'm on city council and I was like wait is that I had to second guess and then go do all of this research. Can we fix that to add you know so it flows smoothly and it's uniform with all of our other language. When you look into 12 for transportation and all the pictures that you specifically says planters strip, this is the only. So yeah, that was my only little thing.

Well, isn't the parking strip the part? It's your driveway approach. It says spec what the planting strip is and it's that little piece in between the curb and sidewalk. The planting strip, but the parking strip is your question, right? I'm just Well, is that not what that is? It's a the parking strip is a planter strip, Ryan. Is the parking strip your approach to your driveway? It's the the beveled piece of concrete as I see it. And you know the landscaping strip, the landscaping part is the planter

grass area planting strip between the sidewalk and the curb. I where it says the parking strip tree. I'm not sure where that came from. I it it to me it doesn't mean the same thing. Well, to somebody else it could be right. the way how they read it or define something, but that's not how I see this. I'm not sure. I I could get there possibly, but to me, it's not as clear as Okay. I guess I'll just ask that you bring that forward next time. What's the difference? Because I Yeah, like you said, I've never seen the language and I couldn't find it exactly. That does

when I looked it up, that's it came up with, well, it could be called parking strip depending on your area or planters. So I just so if it is something different please let me know if it's the same can we just keep it for uniformity. Yes. And as I understand this new section or new language we had borrowed it and from a different agency. Okay. And worded it if you will. So this could have been an overlooked, you know, warning in there that uh Okay. Is there anyone who has not spoke on this section that wishes to before we go a second round? All right. Hearing none.

So I'm going to just recap this again for efficiency. So I'm going to pick on Northwest 12th Street. uh arborist came through about a month ago and the homeowners all understanding what these trees do to their sidewalks and they hired this arborist who wiped out six or seven trees in just a couple lots. So when we talk up here about RV ordinances and how it damages property value. Well, when you cut down all these mature trees because you're trying to prevent concrete buckle. When you cut down these trees, you're hurting property value because people love to see mature trees when they're buying a house. So, they're cutting these trees down to prevent themselves to being put in this situation. The biggest part of this that I have a concern with is, and correct me Chris and our attorney online, but by putting this language in there, if it's not enforced and litigation gets involved because somebody gets hurt, who's got a bigger pocketbook, the homeowner or the city? So, by having an admission that you think that this is a problem, and I'm not a lawyer, so correct me, but by putting this in here, if code gets a complaint about an uplifted piece of concrete and that does not get addressed, and that same complaint then goes back a month or two later and gets hurt, their lawyer is going to look at this and they're going to look at the property owner. They're going to go for lowhanging fruit, which is the city. So again, I would just ask that this council, if you can take a deep dive into this because when it comes back, I'd love to be proven wrong. I really do, but the way I read it over the last few days, it just brings some heartburn to me.

Kirk, can you weigh on? Sure. I was just going to comment that, you know, the changes in the the code provisions won't necessarily trigger liability on behalf of the city, but if we're receiving complaints and we're not acting on those complaints, yes, that certainly will be problematic. So that's Thank you, Kirk. And I'm not trying to cut you off. Did you have more before I finish my No, I didn't. I'm sorry to interrupt. So, thank No, no, you didn't. So, thank you for for that. I appreciate that. And that's kind of reiterates council my concern. We we don't have big Los Angeles budgets to be paying out settlements because we added 13 subsections of code tonight.

Yeah. Okay. Uh I had one last thing I wanted to ask about section 12. We haven't touched on it yet. Uh let's shoot down to 12116.06 060 through80. This is the CRAN recommended changes.

Yeah, keep going.

There's one. Go up just a little bit. It's going to be on and I can just ask overall one be on 23. That's 180. Yeah. Yeah. That's the last one. Frontage improvements for CRANS recommendation. We were looking for 130.

No, no, no. We're we're there. We're we're right there actually. Um, so they're CRAN is asking us to make these changes to our code to be in compliance with their ass on their stops. Right.

As I understand it, yes. The only issue I really have with this is um we uh we spend a decent amount of money for Sean to provide a bus service to our city. From my understanding, there are some bus stops sitting in the storage area somewhere, I've heard, as council member Bowman would state. Um that have been removed by CRAN. Uh and and so they're from my understanding they're asking us to make sure that we have the ADA ramps and sidewalk adjacent to the property under development that do not meet the requirements of the current version of the public rightway accessibility guideline shall be removed and replaced as part of the project. That is on CRAN's bill or our bill

the developers bill. So when they make an improvement they have to do all those ADA installs. No. So what it's saying for F under uh 1211660 F is the is adding transit stops to that list. So if a if a developer comes in where a a um a transit stop is adjacent to the property, if that ad sorry, if that transit stop does not meet current ADA requirements, they would be required to update it to be ADA compliant

so that CRAN can say they have another ADA compliant stop.

Correct. I guess I don't know if anyone's picking up the the vibe I have here, but um yeah, I just don't know if I agree with just going along with whatever CRAN asks us to do until they start making their own improvements on our stops and and pull outs and and their own ADA compliance because I just sat in a CRAN meeting not too long ago and and they had touted how they have had all these improvements ADA stops and they took the credit for all that uh it's real simple to just have code amended and have the city require the developer to do those amendments and then claim, hey, we're doing this. We're doing great. Um I'd be just a little leerary of that um in general, but I'm not recommending any changes right now, but I definitely don't know if I just go along with whatever they're asking us to do. Um I think that should be on them if they want to make those changes. All right. Council member Oh, you know what? Deputy Mayor Bale, did you have anything you wanted to just mention there?

Yeah. Well, on on the twelves, not with that specific one. I am in full agreement with exactly what you said and the vibe that you were sending all of us, I completely support it. Um, I just had a different a different 12. If it's okay to move on. Um, okay. Go ahead. So for 12.118.060, it's on page 112. Um, we were limiting and it's in section C. I'm trying to find it in my Oh, you're fine.

I don't have the Okay. So, we're looking at 1211860. a number C. And so I see that we're removing the name. So it's the MUTCD, but I didn't see anywhere else in this that that name is actually provided. So I wanted to ensure that these codes are easy for for citizens to be able to understand. So I don't know why we are removing the name. I can check into that actually. Let me just one second. Is it in definition?

Oh, yeah. That's where I don't have the full section in front of me, but I'm going to assume and I can look here in a moment that the MUTCD is defined under the definition section. So, it would similar to where WASHDOT is referred or Washington State Department of Transportation is referenced above as WS do. It's not fully laid out that the manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways is defined further up in the code section or that chapter. Okay. I I didn't see it. You could absolutely be right, but I I did read through it all, but I could have I could have missed it.

Yes. Actually, no, excuse me. 128 18 is it's elsewhere you say okay so previously stated

correct thank you good catch Council member Fer, I will make this one quick. So mine is on if it helps you page 23 out of 79 or 107. It's sections 12.116 180 11216 180 and then section J. Right. Oh yeah. Oh, ABC. Oh, sorry. You're almost there. It's on. You're teasing. Okay, there. No, there it is. Okay. Nope. Nope. Wrong section.

Oh, yeah. That Yeah, that's not it. That's not it. What page number are we on? Yeah, that's 283. Go up one more full page. Right.

And there you go. That purple right there. where frontage improvements are required. If a project is located further than 250 ft of an existing or proposed transit stop on a transit route, applicants for project shall work with the transit agency in locating a transit stop and shelter directly adjacent or as close as possible to the main building entrance, provided that Catran agrees that they will service the new stop. I'm thankful to see if CRAN will not service the new stop then the transit stop is not required. My concern is seeing that there is 250 ft. So they could be 260 ft and this and see if C train want to put a stop then this person is going to be obligated to put something there. 250 ft 260 ft we're talking like a minute apart. That is not far. If you go to Vancouver, right, you're looking at 800, you know, averages 800, 900 feet apart. And that's a big city, you know, compared to us, very rural. And we're going to have this requirement in our code that if you're further than 250 ft of an existing transit stop, you're going to have to work, you know, to put a project in there for that. I don't know if you guys are how you guys feel about it, but I think that is ridiculous. That's my time.

It just goes right along for me with Catran asking us to put these things in his favors to them.

I don't like it. All right. Any other questions on the twelves? I'll just note that I'm an hour past my bedtime already. Let's roll. Next. Okay. So 13 code section 1312010 added language regarding ADUs and when they're required to connect to city sewer. Well, excuse me. 131260 made modifications to code to bring in compliance with our NPDS phase 2 permit. 13130 added a new chapter to address utility easement vacations. um as we currently don't have anything. So, if a business um had a new building or development that they wanted to put in and there's an existing sewer line, water line, and there's an easement there, uh we didn't have a process to vacate that easement and relocate the lines.

Okay. Y that's me for the for now. Uh on to Sam. Okay. 15104010. In a case where there's a shell permit for a building uh and the tenant improvements come after that that at some point they they can they can go back to when that shell permit was issued. It provides some some more flex uh more flexibility for the building community. Back to Ryan easements. This is under our building code section, but it's cases for um Yeah, threw me off there. I'm like, wait a minute, that's under you.

But um it addresses situations that come up and not currently addressed for easements and um yeah, I didn't even familiarize myself with that. I apologize. Skipped right over it. Okay, moving on. There's no questions on that. In 2012, the city was required to allow for collective cannabis gardens for medical medical use. State law and case law have since changed and we can now prohibit these. So, these are proposed to be prohibited throughout the city.

And I think council member Mson has a question. So, um I don't know if it's a question more than I think a clerical mishap. Collective gardens are not by def definition from RCW medical cannabis. They RCW specifically addresses medical cannabis. Collective gardens by definition and I'll just use Vancouver as an example. Collective gardens are when the community comes together and there's a vacant there's a vacant plat they can work with whatever municipality it is and they can grow tomatoes and corn and whatever they want to do community

and so by striking collective gardens we're saying we won't allow that when I think the intent by the city when they put this in had they followed the RCW it wouldn't have been labeled collective garden so under the spirit of understanding what Sam you're talking about with the case laws. Yes, I I see the the need for the change, but I think that by striking Collective Gardens, if say the property just north of Albertson's, which we gave to the fire department during the annexation, that has not sold and it's going to be a long time before they will sell it. If a nonprofit or a church or anybody wants to go in there, the community, the neighbors want to work with a fire department and build a collective garden. I mean, we could look at Fruit Valley down there by Fruit Valley Elementary. One of the best collective gardens I've seen. It's well landscaped. It's wellmaintained. The community loves it, but we're going to strike language saying that we can't have collective gardens. So, I guess Chris, I'm asking, is there

I can add clarity. Okay. Um, our code 171350650. Even though the title says collective gardens, I agree they should have added cannabis there to avoid the confusion, but when you get into the actual code language, it's very clearly can a cannabis written code. Yeah. So, we would allow community gardens any day.

Uh, so so we're tracking on the same page, which I appreciate. The bulk of the code is specific towards medicinal marijuana use. I get that. I I think that we just need to reconfigure. You know, if you need to take that all that code out because you want to be compliant with case law, perfect. But I don't want to see collective gardens removed because I think the community if they go to look up, are we allowed to do a collective garden and they want to work within the entity and there's nothing in there? Then they have to come to the city and ask about that and how how that looks. When collective gardens in nature are truly what they are, a collective garden again by definition is where you plant, you grow, and you harvest. And that doesn't mean we're harvesting bud. We're harvesting fruits and vegetables in the greater good of the nature of the community and the people that want to put their their effort into it. So what I'm asking for if council agrees is rework this to leave collective garden in our code of some fashion for the allowance of it but take out the marijuana part that you need to take out

or unless you all see something different than I'm seeing in collective cannabis garden. Yeah, throw in the cannabis. This chapter it's was entirely written for the medical cannabis. As a matter of fact, it refers to title 69 back in the day from initiative 502 and title uh title 69 has been completely repealed.

Okay. So again, when I looked at the RCWS uh they it's like 30 I it's on my computer at home. Uh they don't refer to it as collective gardens at all. They refer it strictly for what it is. Medicinal marijuana use and the grow and you know what I'm you see what I'm saying? So all I'm getting at is is take out what you need to take out but reconfigure it somehow that people don't think that they can't do a true collective garden and not a marijuana collective. Chris, I don't think you I mean, are you kind of going see where Yeah, I I I hear what you're saying, but what we're striking is I mean, it's so completely geared towards medical,

but Well, but what I read and I could be wrong, but what I read is you're striking collective gardens completely. Yes. If you go down to the Are you seeing the same thing? No, I think you're confusing collective gardens. No, it's Collective. Well, community gardens RCW3521 194 collect community gardens RCW3634 360 they're completely different. Do we have community gardens in our definition? I don't think we do. Well, we have RCW in our residential districts. We define them as gu it just says gardens and non-commercial green houses are permitted outright across all of our residential districts.

Say that again to me one more time. gardens and uh our zoning code says gardens and non-commercial green houses those are permitted outright. So that would fall under community or collective garden. Right. Okay. No. And I would just say that looking underneath collective gardens underneath our code 17.135.06 the very first thing in the sentence I think this is why they're having a hard time thinking about striking it is because says the very first sentence purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate medical cannabis collective gardens in blah blah blah. So it's seems like the whole chapter is all about cannabis

and that's what I was saying earlier. I believe it's it wasn't written with the true intent what it needs to be written for because if you look at a collective garden by definition it's not for medicinal marijuana. Collective gardens like this per RCW this RCW is wrote look at collective gardens on a on a front on our code. No, not on our code. In our code, collective garden is defining medical marijuana. I'm saying as a whole like if I go to Vancouver and I look at their code, their collective garden is a true garden and not med medical marijuana. So, I just don't want the community be to be confused by a play of words.

Well, I think they could be pointed to the RCW previously stated about gardens and residential and and uh green houses. And to be fair, it's not that easy to find just looking at like zoning. You have to go to zoning first to find this and then you're going through and you're like, "Yeah, it's not that easy." Anyways, um Victoria, did you have anything else you wanted to add? your own. Okay, let's move on.

Okay, next section is uh what was signs. We realized that that section of our code is going to require a heavier lift and we don't want to bog down our existing work because we have a lot of code changes. The next section would be under Ryan section 182502 the NPDES permits.

Yes. So it just updates some dates and when uh the applicability they are applicable, excuse me. 1825170. Then we made some modifications to bring our code into compliance with the NPDS phase 2 permit. 1825310 made some modifications again to bring our code into compliance with the NPDS phase 2 permit. 18257040 is clarifying how the quantities of grading permits are calculated in terms of the total overall cut plus fill. 18257080 there's a typo that was fixed and then 1828070 uh some updates for plats to substitute for a conservation covenant. So, a note on the plat rather than having a separate document where they can put that conservation tract in a conservation covenant, they can put that area in a tract and then there's a note on the plat that refers to that track being under a conservation covenant. Love it.

Deputy Mayor Vale. I thought I waited I thought I waited long enough to see if anybody else had a a question about this particular number. I actually had a question about a different one that we had previously Yeah. Um had had not had any questions about but I just wanted to point out a concern that I had. Okay. Okay. Um mine is regarding it's section 13.120. 010 and it's in regards to the uh ADUs and the sewer system.

Let me get that page. Is it on page 43 that talks some might be on page 43? It might be. I was going to say when I was reviewing this I was just taking screenshots and not you know notating everything on my own. So possibly not the most efficient way because I did miss this in my pictures. right here. Uh, yes. Okay.

So, it's um number one under D. And so I just wanted to point out to council that it um that if a detached ADU was located 600 ft from the city sewer line that that property owner is going to be required to put in the piping to install the sewer line from that detached ADU all the way 600 ft to the city sewer line. So, I don't know if there was a specific reason why that number was chosen if it comes from a building code that I was not aware of. Um, but I would just like to ask where that number came from because it seems like an excessive distance.

So, if you go um to the previous page 42 and 1312010 a number one is where the 600 ft comes from. Okay. So, we were just being consistent um with that distance in relationship to the new one under D1.

And are those is that discussing ADUs specifically or just residential dwelling units? Because my understand is that's just a residential like a single family home

for A1. Yes, it is this the residential dwelling. Mhm. So my concern would be um what my thought process was if you have a home that is annexed into the city on a large piece of property and they are 600 ft away from the city sewer line that that property owner is going to be required to pay for 600 ft of sewer line. So those are those are kind of the concerns that I had had. So, I understand that residential homes, single family homes, that those those have to be because we can't continue to have septic systems. Um, but my concern is those ADUs.

It does state in there that um with the exception that you do have a septic system and then you can get Clark approval, Clark County approval for tying into your SE within the capacity use. Yep. So I think that kind of if we annex a large property most time they're on sepic uh council member Ferrer just another quick one going up to 86.010E 010E. I think that's Yeah, it's mentioning um circuses.

I'm just questioning why we're putting circuses there. Do um because if you go to 17.135.060, it specifically talks about circuses and carnivals and they're and the permitting uh it says circuses and carnivals are permitted subject to um the special event permit. So it's be it's because circuses aren't defined in in chapter eight. Yeah, but it's circuses aren't defined in chapter eight. Okay, let's look at chapter eight then. It's special events. We covered this at the last retreat. We want a circus. It can I mean come on guys

circus is our it's just

to your question council member in chapter 8.36.010 010 definition sub paragraph E. It includes a definition of what a special event is. Special event includes any event which is to be conducted on public property or on a public ride of way. Also any event held on private property which would have a direct significant impact on traffic congestion or traffic flow to and from the event over public streets or rights of way or which would significantly impact the need for city provide emergency services such as police, fire, medical aid. Special events may include but are limited to temporary activities such as photography or videography, shoot, movie film, carnival, parade, assembly, procession, block party, run, walk, bike event, community sponsored activity, art, craft fairs or other similar functions. Carnival is mentioned in in chapter 17, but circus is not but circuses too.

Circuses and they're both in 17, but in in in eight you only have carnival. And so we'd like to have redundancy to make sure that we're all speaking from the same language. Yeah. ring from the same sheet of music. Yeah, because it also says similar functions. So I'm like, is circus not a similar function? Staff believes it makes more sense to have some some clarity in the code than not. All right, let's move on. Are we finished with that whole? Yes. Sorry. Yes, I've finished the code updates as it relates to engineering. Hallelujah. Okay.

You ready for growth management code updates? Yes. Ready as I'm going to be. Sam got a two-hour presentation. Prepare.

One second. Let me get to the right page here. Okay, these changes are are kind of twofold. They're to implement state laws that have that we've been directed to make changes to, and then there's other changes that are intended to make sure that our comprehensive plan is compliant with state law. Um, so I'll I'll go through these and feel free just to interrupt me as we get to a certain section where you have questions or need clarification. But, uh, maybe I'll start with a planning commission recommendation. Um, they, uh, first of all, when it comes, you'll see transitional housing, emergency housing, these shelters. This is all coming out of state law. We initially drafted our language uh best of our reading of state law was that you have to permit these wherever there's a hotel or residential or or wherever residential is allowed which is essentially all over our city um and drafted these permitted outright in all of our residential uh all of our zoning districts. The planning commission raised some concerns that that they did want more regulations around these. So, they came up with the idea of a conditional use permit and so uh that is what's drafted. I since got some clarification from our legal counsel today and there's a recent state law that was passed as of March 31st that I think is not going to allow for

us to regulate these through conditional use permits. Um uh these would be authorized to go through they they can't be more restrictive is really the phrase. What we can do though is um run them through like any other uh development which would be a site plan review. So, you know, if it was a hotel coming into our city, we'd say submit for a site plan review. Make sure you comply with our parking, landscaping, traffic studies, etc. Um so that we'll add more. We we'll we'll be able to provide a clear legal answer on that the next time we meet on these. But uh that was one change our our plan commission proposed. Second change was for actually I'm going to scroll through these just to give you more context and I'll add the planning commission's comments as we go through these. So we are required by state law to allow for new types of housing. These are really all geared around people that are on the edge of homelessness um or in home a homeless situation. Emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing. I know I'm glossing through this at a high level. We can talk about these differences if you want. And then transitional housing. We have to have all these defined in our code. And then these are permitted if if we need one. If Battleground needs one. I I don't think we need one anytime soon, but if if there is a need for one, it's in our code. And then the the next change would be these are all we're still under the housing changes.

Uh we currently it's currently in our code temporary encampments for homeless on by any religious organization. That's in our code. That that's that's a right that any religious organization could set one of these up. New state law says that the city cannot impose permit fees in excess of actual cost associated with that permit and then update on the definition of duplex state law requirement. And then the biggest discussion was surrounding cottage housing in our city. Um at the public hearing two weeks from now uh you'll likely hear from uh Derek Hugall with Wolf Industries. He had a lot of comments for our plan commission and help craft some of these changes. But I'll just kind of go through this. First of all, currently our city allows for cottage housing. We do have a small cottage housing development just on the edge of our downtown. Um it's worth driving in and visiting if you haven't seen it. Uh these are smaller units. Uh our existing code has them at no larger than 1,200 uh square feet. Uh we're proposing 600 square feet to allow these to be a little bit larger. And where these are proposed, you can have a density uh bonus. Our code currently says you can have a one to one and a half bonus. Planning commission actually bumped that up to to two.

Uh height limit would be changed from 25 ft to 35 ft, which is the same as a single family house. And again, I think if you want to like organize all these, all these changes are to make housing, you know, most of these changes both from what was proposed by staff and and uh in looking at state law and then the planning commission was to increase affordability and flexibility. That's that's kind of underneath these changes. Some of them maybe you may have question marks about. Um, cottage housing shall be oriented around uh units shall be oriented have covered porches uh and main entries and then have usable open space. Our code uh currently at 250 planning commission dropped that down to 200. And then we added language. This really a lot of this came out of um some discussion with Wolf Industries is kind of more unique cases where if you had an existing house with property, that existing house could be grandfathered and incorporated into the development. Language about trash and recycling. I'll pause there. Any any questions around cottage housing?

I have one council member for Sorry, you weren't looking and I tried. Just a quick question on section D, the cottage uh you talked about. So, we're looking at affordability with the cottage homes, but yet we have uh the why did they increase the height limit? Right there, D. Why did they increase the height limit from 25 feet to 35 feet? What was that the thought behind that?

I think the thought was given that um given that the square footage is going to change. There wasn't a whole lot of discussion for one. I I actually can't remember the the planning commission even talking about that. But I think the idea is if someone came in with an innovative design and wanted to go taller, almost like a town home or something, you know, maybe not that tall, but they needed something taller, we'd be in a position to say go for it, like Amsterdam thing.

Sam, I think you spoke to it already. It matches our existing residential height and it allows for loft homes. It's also a construction issue. So when you increase the size of a house, your pitch of your roof is going to increase. So that's going to increase your height. So that's why that they're their square footage increase. So they have to increase the pitch. They're matching the Yeah. And it's Yeah. Even at more of a and there's so many innovative designs out there. uh build a 612 on a larger square foot category.

Often like whether you're looking at a city large scale or even design like this sometimes if you if you want to pack more into a property you're going to be going up if you still want to maintain square footage you're putting a second floor on or something like that.

All right. Thank you Sam. Okay, moving on from cottage housing. There's a requirement for co-l livingiving um that needs to be in most of our residential districts except for our R3 and R5. And co-l livingiving is essentially like uh well I'll just read the definition is a de is a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and lockable and provide for living sleeping space and residents share a a kitchen. So again trying to provide other forms of housing that's that's more affordable. Um I mean essentially you could do this today in battleground. You could rent out your your house or room sublet. That's we don't prohibit that. We don't prohibit Airbnbs, etc. This just adds a little more clarity. If someone wanted to come in and do something like this, it could be permitted.

This also allows for like Oxford homes, correct? Mhm. And this is these are all um kind of some standards surrounding the co-l livingiving. Next section are parking requirements. um state law specifically uh Senate Bill 6015. I don't have the RCW. Um actually it's right there in the code uh 367A 622. We cannot um require parking spaces that are larger than 8 by 20 ft. We have to allow tandem parking spaces. Uh required parking spaces can be enclosed or enclosed or unenclosed. We apply our code that same way today. So that doesn't really change anything. Uh required parking spaces can be paved with uh grass block pavers. And then uh we'll have to think through a little bit more about this one. It might be actually hard to figure this out on some cases, but we must allow six parking spaces in legally established non-conforming gravel parking areas that be that can be counted toward minimum parking requirements. And then minimum parking spaces are not required if tree come if there's tree retention requirements. We don't really have a tree retention ordinance in our city yet. So that shouldn't apply more on co-l livingiving.

Sorry, I know I'm just cruising through this, but it's getting late. Tell me to slow down if I need to. But um that's that's kind of the essence of our GMA required changes. I'm here to answer any questions or clarify anything if you have it. And if you need more time to go through that, feel free to send me an email too anytime in the next week or two. I could I could um add any information you want before we get to a public hearing. But I think the main thing I I think I wanted to separate a lot of this out from the main staff report of our code changes is

it's required by state law. It's there's some things where we have discretion and there's other things not a lot. Yeah, we're just bringing it up to GMA requirements, right? Thank you, Sam. Appreciate that. I'm not seeing any questions on the board as of yet. Let's move on to administrative reports. Are there any administrative reports from staff this evening? Yes, there are a few. I'm going to first turn this over to uh Chief Lynn to make a quick announcement first.

Good evening. I know it's late. Everybody wants to get out of here, but this man's waited for three hours, and I I owe this to him. U we've been working real hard at the police department on exposing our officers and supervisors to quality training opportunities. It's beneficial to the agency for their career growth and ultimately the citizens. In police leadership, there's three big schools. Uh the FBI National Academy, SMIP, which is in Boston, and Northwestern University, which is the police school of staff and command. Um all three have their benefits. The school of staff of command is the most academically challenging. So, uh, on March 23rd, our own Lieutenant Jim Keller graduated from the pre prestigious Northwestern School of Police Staff and Command. It's a 10-week program. Covers everything from budget, police deployment strategies, uh, police leadership. What was really impressive was there's 25 of his peers from around the United States and he graduated with a 97% near the very top of his class. Um, I mean certainly his attendance and graduating up with the top of the class really uh puts a great spotlight on our city. Um, but the relationships that he walks away from and the knowledge uh that he's bringing back going to be able to share with uh people that work with him uh but ultimately makes our agency better and allows us to continue serving our our residents for well into the future. I had a chance to go to this course. I didn't do nearly as well as what Jim did. And I think that's just a testament to how serious he takes this job. Um, in addition to that, he still stayed engaged uh with everything that we're going through with reacredititation and other projects that are working on. So, I just want to take a a moment to recognize uh all that he did uh the

commitments that were involved and say congratulations to him. Thank you. Phenomenal. Great job, Nintender. Okay,

you got your coloring books up there. We're excited to share that the city's 75th anniversary coloring book featuring Benny the Bee is complete. Uh, buzzing through the history of Battleground Washington features milestones in our city's history dating back to the 1855 battle that never happened. Benny takes us on a journey sharing information about Battleground's first postal route, the booming dairy industry of the early 1920s, the formation of our government structure, and the many community volunteers, leaders, and staff that make the city so wonderful. There's a page where you might recognize some of those individuals on the coloring page, but we wanted to share a very uh special thank you to Kendra Lorada and Inc. Ability Printing for their generous co-sponsorship of this coloring book. Um the coloring books will be available free of charge for visitors at city hall, the event center, and the police department starting tomorrow. Additionally, they will be shared at upcoming community events. As planning continues, we encourage public and council to follow us on social media for more 75th anniversary announcements and visit the 75th anniversary web page on our city's website. Also, thank you to our communications manager, Alicia Smith, um, for leading the efforts on this, including this coloring book. And a bonus, you got some Benny stickers, too, there on the DAS. Yep. So, we'll be sharing all kinds of fun things for the celebration this year. Uh, two more administrative reports. I'm going to turn this over to Ryan to talk with you about the railroad storm water facility land purchase in the Grace Avenue phase 2 right away purchase.

Good evening. Uh on the Southeast Grace Avenue phase 2 project, we're about ready to start making offers for the ride ofway. In this case, including three full acquisitions, 12 partial acquisitions, and 18 temporary construction easements necessary to complete this project. Offers will be based on the fair market value indicated in the appraisals or waiver evaluations and will be negotiated per city's policies. If we can settle within policy limits, we will bring back the approval. We will bring the approval back via consent. If we receive a counter offer that is more than policy allows, then we will bring that to an executive session for discussion with council. All we'd need from council tonight is a consensus to move forward with the offers for this project following city policy. Basically, a thumbs up.

Anybody want to give consensus for right away of grace? Good. Thank you. Number two is for the railroad facility rightway reading from script. So I'm just telling what Mark said to say. I won't repeat everything from the last one as the same requirements apply here. But the railroad storm water facility project involves one full acquisition which is necessary to complete the project. All we need from council tonight is consensus to move forward with the offer for this project following city policy. Wonderful. Thank you.

Moving right along now. I like this. You're on fire, Ryan. Keep going. Meeting adjourned. That concludes the administrative reports. Mayor, on to council communications. Uh got council member Mson. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. Council uh coordination manual uh committee is going to convene pretty soon. A lot of what I'm seeing in that manual is just some clerical errors that will be easy to present uh for changes. But looking at some of the bigger stuff, I'm going to talk about ordinance 2021-40 salary commission. Uh I see as we saw today, you guys announced that we now have a vacancy, which I don't know if this makes this easier or harder. Um, but based off of my time here and watching the salaries increase the way that they have and looking at the last couple years of salary commission meetings and the requirement it takes of your staff to do a fiveminute meeting, I'd like to see if I can get consensus from council to align with repealing this ordinance as we look at the governance coordination manual and just essentially leaving our code that says what a salary commission is, but repealing this ordinance and dissolving the salary commission. Now, we have salary schedules for increases that'll take place over the next couple years. I just don't see the need for us to exhaust staff time for salary commission meetings. Uh I think we can save some staff time and you know, they've they made a decision last year that I believe gives three three years of increases. You sent me the report here a couple months ago. So, uh, yeah, again, I'm just looking for consensus that we open this up, uh, to bring to a formal meeting for discussion to see if we want to repeal it or keep it play. I mean, uh, thumbs up, consensus, thumbs down, no consensus, I just to bring it forward onto an agenda. I mean, I'm I'm willing to look at it. So, we'll just have that on a meeting agenda item. And did did you

say what meeting? Uh, well, we're going to start meeting. The governance committee command is going to start meeting two weeks. Let's bring this up in the next couple meetings discussion. So, I'd like to line it up with There's no such thing, right? Yeah. Right. I'd like just to line it up so that we're not modifying the governance manual multiple times that we line it up so if it does get repealed, it goes in line with whatever updates we do to the manual. All right. Any further council communication? Uh

um real quick, just a reminder, April 14th, I'm sorry I forgot to put this into my presentations. Um, April 14th, um, the meeting for Echo will have the panel featuring, um, officers from law enforcement agencies across Clark County. So, it's going to be downtown. Jessica Jessica, no, it's um, it's going to be uh, downtown on the sixth floor until meet. So, I think it's going to be a lot of fun. It's gonna be interesting. And then unfort I'm sad to see the civics be is going to be happening from 5 to 7 on our city council meeting night. Yeah.

So I was really wanting to go. My kid was supposed to be in there and so