City Council - Regular Meeting

You guys ready? Hello, everyone. I'd like to call to order the city council meeting on 05/05/2526. City clerk, will

you please call the roll? Councilmember Tim Chisholm

here

councilmember Arnold

here

councilmember Prem here councilmember Falcone here councilmember Pascal

here

deputy mayor black

here

mayor Curtis

here Our study session tonight is on two items. First, we'll hear an overview of the public defense services in Kirkland. Second, we will discuss proposed amendments to the city's code enforcement process. We expect to reconvene our regular meeting at 07:30, city manager.

All right. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members of the council. So our first topic is a discussion of public defense. This is a staff focused conversation. As you saw in the memo, we really want to talk a lot more about the potential implications to the budget of caseload issue that's coming up, but we will talk a little bit about what public defenders do in the court. So and then the second session will be on code enforcement. That will be later. So I'm going to keep an eye on the clock for about forty five minutes each. The presentation slides can be made by our Deputy City Manager, Tracy Dunlap, and our Interim Senior Management Analyst, Juliana DeCruz. Take it away, Tracy.

Thank you, City Manager. I'm just going to make a brief introduction repeats a little bit of what the City Manager said is this will be a little bit different than some of the other criminal justice initiative presentations in that we'll focus less on what public defenders do and more on the state of public defense in the state of Washington and the impacts on the city's budget. And so you saw a lot in the prosecution presentation about the process, and Julianna will touch on that briefly. And then we'll get into what's happening in the state of Washington, and then I'll close with the budget discussion. We have about 15 slides, and Andrianna is here, now our government affairs manager, to also answer questions as she's been involved in this discussion as well during the legislative session and before that.

So I'll turn it over to Juliana.

Thank you again. I think we're working on getting the slides up, but I'm going to jump right in in the interest of time. So we are gonna start with a brief overview of what is public defense, and as you know, a criminal defendant's right to counsel is guaranteed by the US Constitution, the state constitution, state statutes, and court rules, and if a defendant cannot afford legal counsel then an attorney is appointed to them. This is a public defender, and they represent the defendant through the same process that was outlined in the previous counsel meeting, which will be briefly outlined on the screen. So typically a case is filed by the prosecutor or direct filed by police, and when the individual comes to court for their arraignment they usually screen for indigency qualification for a public defender, before the arraignment or shortly after, and then the public defender represents them throughout the resolution of the case.

You'll hear us use the term indigent defense and public defense interchangeably throughout this presentation. A person can be assigned a public defender if they are deemed indigent, and indigency is defined by RCW ten ten ten ten ten, and they are considered indigent if their income is 125% or less of the federal poverty level, if they receive public assistance, if they're involuntarily committed to a public mental health facility, or if they're unable to pay the anticipated cost of counsel. The RCW also outlines how an individual should be determined to be indigent, but there is some latitude in how the screening occurs, and in the Kirkland Municipal Court, staff provides screening daily during operating hours, and usually this happens when the individual arrives for arraignment. Public defenders do have a challenging job. They occupy a very important role in the criminal justice system.

They have to have a JD and have passed the state bar exam, and in addition they also have to be knowledgeable about advocating for clients who have complicating factors such as poverty, mental health challenges, or substance use disorders. It's a challenging job of building empathy with clients and providing ardent representation while managing historically high caseloads. Washington State is one of five states in The U. S. Where public defense is funded primarily by local governments.

Washington does have an office of public defense that provides grant funding for counties and cities, but this funding is a very small proportion of the cost of public defense. Counties receive the majority of this funding as well. Most cities in Washington contract with private public defense firms for public defense services, but some cities also contract with their county organizations to provide public defense. Kirkland's current contract for their primary public defense services is with Stein, Lotts, Skart, and Star, and if that agency has a conflict, then Valley Defender is the conflict public defense for Kirkland. Kirkland is responsible for funding public defense and also for establishing the local standards for public defense, but those standards are informed by the RCW and by the state Supreme Court and the Washington State Bar Association.

These standards have been established by Kirkland by resolution 4,949, last updated in 2012, but those standards will need to get updated again because recommendations from the State Bar Association and from the State Court are also changing, which is part of why we're here today. So last when the standards were updated by the Washington State Supreme Court is in 2012, and the Supreme Court set the maximum cases that a single public defender full time can represent at 400 unweighted misdemeanors per public defender. And we're gonna continue to talk about unweighted cases during the course of this presentation because historically we've not used a case weighting system. And so in 2012, we operated under the 400 unweighted misdemeanor cases per public defender, and then in 2023 the American Bar Association released a national caseload study examining what it means to provide effective assistance of counsel and making recommendations about the maximum number of cases that a public defender should represent. As a result of that study, the Washington State Supreme Court asked the Washington State Bar Association to review the report and make recommendations.

And then in 2024, the WSBA recommended a reduced caseload standard of a 120 unweighted misdemeanors per year per full time public defender. In June, WSBA officially adopted those revisions, and then in 2025 the Supreme Court adopted those same stamplers. However, there's a difference in implementation schedule. So the Washington State Bar Association recommended a three year implementation to reach these new standards, but the Supreme Court recommended a ten year implementation to reach standards. And you can see the difference here as it plays out for implementation.

So ultimately they get down to the same number, but the speed at which they decrease varies, and this has resounding impacts both for cities and how they think about charging or providing representation and for the timelines have created a lot of confusion, so some public defense firms contend that they are obligated to comply with the WSBA recommendations, others disagree and say that the Supreme Court rules are binding and they supersede that recommendation, and as such, firms are deciding on a firm by firm level which standards to or which timeline to comply with, but regardless, the standards remain the same, and effectively by the end of it, three times more attorneys will be needed to represent the same number of cases. And there are not enough public defenders in the workforce to meet this demand, and so as a result, there has become a very competitive hiring retention pool and that has been driving up the cost of public defense in the state. Before we dive completely into the cost of public defense, we wanted to first ground you in some of the caseloads caseloads that we've been seeing in Kirkland. So under the new standards, maintaining these caseloads will require additional public defenders, but we also have seen an increase in cases, especially since a dip during the COVID pandemic.

So there's both these competing pressures of additional cases, but also the need for more representation for the same number of cases. And now to talk about the money of all of this and funding it is Tracy.

One of the reasons we wanted to provide that caseload table is what we've noticed over the course of these criminal justice presentations is the numbers change a little bit, which concerned us, but when we talked about it, the court pointed out that the state who maintains the statistics, the administrative office of the courts, is always adjusting those numbers, and so these numbers are slightly different than what you've seen in the presentations, but they didn't change enough to change the storyline. And I just wanted to point out that the number of public defense cases that you see on the right is the number from our primary public defender. There are about 100 cases that are done by the conflict defenders as well, so that just gives you an idea of how many of the total criminal cases goes to the public defense. So the impacts of those revised standards on our budget is a hard thing to convey. We've tried to figure out the best way to show you some of those numbers.

And what we thought we'd do is just show you the twenty twenty five actuals and compare them to the estimates based on the contract we just entered into with Steinlotzka and Star for 2026. And both contracts have a base rate, and that base rate is a flat charge for a given number of cases per month, or in this case, we're showing per year. During the pandemic, the caseloads decreased, and the contract that was entered into with that firm reflected a decrease. But over the last several years, the caseloads have increased to the pre-twenty twenty level and now exceeded it in 2025. And so the way that contract was written, there were seven twenty cases included, so the cost per case for that base rate was about $350 a case.

But because the caseloads are recovering, they charged us an overage per case charge for over 200 cases, an additional $100,000 so we paid about $355,000 or $376 a case in 2025. The city did a request for proposals in the 2025. We got two, and I'll talk about that in a moment. Stein, Latzgar and Starz proposal was a much more moderate cost, though, as you can see, it's still a much higher cost than we've been paying. It was the subject of quite a bit of negotiation.

We did decide to increase the base caseload to nine fifty cases, and that should take us through the three year period of the case reductions under the Supreme Court tenure implementation, and their cost is to staff up to be able to meet those reductions. And so they are hiring now, And then as time goes on, in 2029, we'll have to negotiate a new contract to be able to meet the new standards. And so that cost per case is $568 a case. There's an additional charge for services they provide to those that they don't represent directly. They serve as a friend of the court to explain charges, and they charge a weekly fee for that.

And so a very long story short, the 2026 estimated cost is $631,000 or $664 a case. Not quite double, but a substantial increase. And one of the reasons this contract financially was advantageous is, while there's an increase each year, it's not nearly as large as the case reduction that's required. So they're staffing up, getting the resources in place to be able to meet the reductions for the next three years. So the cost goes up to $740 per case in 2028, which is a big increase.

That is double what we paid in 2025. So we provided a few pieces of information just for context.

Tracy, you repeat

the last sentence? Last couple of sentences?

On the caseload? On the cost?

Which number doubled?

The cost per case?

The very bottom line.

The very bottom line?

Oh, from $3.76 to The seventh.

At the end.

Go ahead, Tracy. Thank

you. So, to give you a sense of to try to put that number into context, so the number for this year, $6.64. In talking with some of our neighboring jurisdictions and the proposals they've received and contracts they've entered into with their public defenders, their costs are between $750 and $1,000 per case. We talked to the King County Office of Public Defense just to get a sense of what it would cost if we were to contract with them because they do provide some cities with misdemeanor services. It is even multiples from there because their primary business is to provide felony services.

And so, we feel like this is an advantageous contract financially. We believe that they're providing good service to the people that are being served in our court. And one of the things that we also wanted to point out is the other proposal we got was an example of the three year implementation. I mean, the cost was more than double, almost triple per case. And so it is a very, very constrained market, as Julianna was discussing.

And it will continue to increase. King County is also hiring a very large number of those coming out of school and from other firms because they pay well. They have a pension system. And as a government, they can offer student loan forgiveness under federal programs, which are in place at this point, and so they're actually hiring a lot of the public defenders that are coming out of the system and from some of the private firms. So that's another reason those costs are increasing so much, not only the caseloads, but they're having to pay more.

There is some speculation that there'll be some compounding impacts on the costs of operating the court, given that there may be more motions, longer timelines to settle cases, which will create potentially more hearing schedules, more activities by the prosecutors. It remains to be seen, but if there are more attorneys for the same number of cases, there is some, I guess I'd say trepidation that there'll be an overall impact in cost increases of operating the court overall. So, more numbers just because I can't give a presentation without numbers. So, the primary public defender, again, Lotzgar and Star, has the base rate and an additional charge that we're showing there for kind of a budget versus actual picture that I talked about in detail. The conflict defender costs, you can also see, have increased over time.

And we expect, because that's a one year contract, that they will increase again. So we'll be putting out a request for proposal for this primary conflict defense contract probably before the end of this month so that we have a new contract in place. And to just give you a sense, the reason we say that $20.27 figure is a low estimate is we're using the same number as we're paying this year, but we don't know what the market will produce. And the other thing that's noteworthy in the detail is that second to last line on interpreter fees, interpreter fees are going up. Interpreters are also in demand.

There are fewer interpreters, I think the court talked about that, than there are the needs, and so that's a cost that's being driven as well. So right now, our actual was just over $05,000,000 in 2025. We're expecting by next year, it'll be over $900,000 And this is something that's difficult

for

us to be able to control directly, but we keep in contact with our neighbors and with the Association of Washington Cities to try to stay on top of what's happening space.

Counsel, any questions? Deputy Mayor?

Thank you. And thank you for all this. One quick question. I tried to find it in my notes. I couldn't find what we're spending on prosecution services. It'd be interesting to me to compare what we're spending on prosecution versus what we're spending on public defense, and I realize that's a little bit of a green apple compared to a yellow apple, but just for level setting for my own benefit.

Think

We know that?

I think the city attorney is looking at I'll

pull that up. Don't have

it right on the top of my head.

Perfect. Thank you.

Yeah, I think we have that in that retreat packet, so

Yeah, think and probably we spoke about it two weeks ago, but I just can't remember.

Councilmember Prem? Yeah, thank you

so much for this presentation. The only question I had was, are you based on these new requirements for caseload for defense attorneys, Do you anticipate that this will impact the number of prosecutions moving forward? Like, is that going to be, do you think, a policy shift?

Think that's a good segue into our final slide.

Before you segue, I could briefly answer. Sure. Deputy Mayor Our Black's contracts average is $486,000 annually. There's some other fees we talked about those hearings that can cost extra per hour, but roughly $486,000 plus the 4% COLA each year.

So the attorney, for example, if we look at 2026 budget, dollars $527,393 for public defense and $480 something for and maybe a little bit more for prosecution services.

Yeah, I mean, so if you take the total minus interpreter fees would be roughly what I'd say because we're covering our conflict defense in those two, so some of those cases are not by our contracted firm. They're paid per case to conflict counsel. The numbers are closer. Prosecution ends up being a little less.

And what I find interesting, I guess, is they're not wildly out of comparison with each other. But that could change rapidly over

It will at this point.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

Councilor Tim Chisholm, go ahead.

Questions or comments? What are you doing here?

I was going to say, why don't we let her answer Councillor Prem's question, and then I'll

we'll take one more slide, and

open it up.

Okay, thank you. So, we're working to ensure that we continue to provide a vigorous defense, but that we also try to control the cost growth. Again, I mentioned we're going to release a request for proposals for the conflict public defense contract because our current one is only one year in duration. So we think we'll get a better sense of where the market is than it was seven or eight months ago when we did the last one. We have been convening the Kirkland Municipal Court stakeholders, so that's the court, the prosecutors, the public defenders, and the police, the jail representation, and the city manager's office as the liaison with the court and the manager of the public defense contract.

We've been meeting monthly to talk about what's happening, how court operations work, but also what they see in other courts and to see if there's anything we might want to consider or look at. One of the issues that emerged was we have a fairly large number of driving with license suspended three, the lowest level. It's a misdemeanor, and it's something that there are some courts that handle differently. We're looking at those courts to see if there's a way that we can encourage people to relicense because this is for people who don't have a driver's license, and if it's just an oversight or something where they weren't aware, to see if there's a way that we could ease the caseload or at least reduce number of public defense cases because some of them do get assigned to a public defender. Some of them are settled very quickly, but some of them go on for a period of time.

So we're talking to those other jurisdictions to see if there's anything we might want to do, if nothing else, to provide more information at the time of citation to get people relicensed. Because one of the concerns is when you're driving with a suspended license, you can't get insurance. The other thing we're looking at is exploring a regional approach to public defense. It's something where, if we did it as a governmental or quasi governmental, we might be able to qualify for that same federal loan assistance, but we also might get economies of scale because there are not that many firms offering the public defense services in King County, and if we were to do it with a regional approach, either through a contractor or through staffing, we might be able to get some economies among the jurisdictions. And so we're talking to our regional neighbors about that and our partners at the court.

In terms of the growth in costs, we talked at the February retreat about House Bill twenty fifteen and the local sales tax authority. Our understanding is that is one of the legislature's ways of trying to help with funding because it specifically calls out public defender services as one of the elements that can be paid for out of that local sales tax. As you're all aware, we continue to advocate at the legislature to get clarity on the standards and to potentially get funding. AWC, the Association of Washington Cities, is very active on this issue as well and following it very closely. And then, we're also looking at possible grants that the Office of Public Defense at the state offers to maybe look at some different data as well.

As Julianna highlighted, the original study that was the basis of these was a national study, and we're interested in whether Washington's experience is different or maybe even more localized, whether the East Side's experience is different in terms of what the caseloads and case waiting might look like. And lastly, in talking with people who are very familiar with this space, the Supreme Court has said that they'll reevaluate the caseload implementation schedule in late twenty twenty eight, which would also correspond when our when our next contract cycle would come up. And so the hope is maybe there'll be some clarity between now and that time, and it'll allow the industry to stabilize because this has created a lot of instability in the public defense firms as well. So that's our final slide.

I think I'd like to add a little more context just to answer your question. I wouldn't want to be alarmist and say, Well, you have to stop prosecuting cases as a result of this. In the short term, there is space in capacity and our public defense contracts sort of accounted for moving up through the numbers, dropped numbers. And so they'll have public defenders to provide. I mean, that's some of the reasons you see on the East Side that they're saying we can't prosecute cases, is there's no public defenders available to defend them, and so they end up being dismissed.

And so they end up sort of deciding what to prosecute in order to not have those cases dismissed. So that isn't something that's gonna happen in the short term in Kirkland. Long term, we could see what the contract costs continue to increase. You're gonna have to evaluate we'll have to evaluate what the impacts are and how we address that. I also do think there's gonna be impacts on the system. And so we'll have to see how much time and effort it takes to potentially have additional court calendars taking longer, cases being continued longer, and potential motions of practice and what the impact is there on the prosecution system, too. So eventually we'll have to face potentially what that looks like. Like. But in the short term, no.

So will we have some check ins then? Okay. Just to see how things are going. Right. Okay.

And no doubt we'll be talking about this many times.

All right. Sounds good. Thanks.

Thank you. I'm going go to Councilmember Falcone and then Councilmember Tim Chisholm.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, thank you for this presentation. It was really helpful, as was the memo. I have a question more from like a big picture perspective. Just wanting to make sure I understand kind of our our contracts with the public defenders. So our contracts, it seems like, are based on number of anticipated cases, and so we pay them, like, a set amount each year for what we estimate to be the cases. And does that change depending on whether there's a plea deal or whether it goes to trial for each of these cases? It's the same amount?

No. If they're assigned a case, it's the same amount. There are some charges if it goes to trial or to appeal, but at this point, it's a flat rate per case.

Okay. So the ones that do go to trial, we pay them more or we pay them the same?

They get paid more when they go to trial and when they appeal.

Okay, thank you. I mean my line of questioning this was really I just want to make sure that there's not like an incentive to negotiate a plea deal on behalf of our clients in pay structure. So I just want to make sure I understand that and that we're doing everything we can to avoid that and not really incentivize either way, but make sure that really the motivation is what's best for the clients and not

the money. You. Council Member Tim Jensen.

Thank you. First, I want to thank staff for attachment number two. This is the public defender screening form and I believe it's been updated and corrected since our last meeting with the appropriate questions and the appropriate penalty of perjury attestation that's required by state law. Thank you for that. At the top of the packet page, There's a percentage of Bothell and Issaquah in terms of where is this?

What page? There's a public defense rate of Bothell versus Issaquah in here, and Bothell is like 50% and Issaquah is like 90%. Unless there's another explanation, I think this demonstrates the importance of screening or the difference that a screening process can have. This appears that has a rather robust screening process. It indicates to me that Bothell has a rather robust screening process, which it does on its website in the city of Bothell, top of page seven, and the city of Bothell has a rather robust screening form and packet, and the city of Issaquah on the other hand, I don't know what they're doing, but those numbers make no sense.

The city of Issaquah actually has a higher income than Bothell. So Bothell's numbers are half that of Issaquah's. My opinion on DWLS three is that they have very little value to have in a criminal court and that appropriating a public defender for even a non weighted case is probably not a very good use of resources in the vast majority of cases. In terms of controlling our costs, I don't see public defender recruitment fees listed there and it would be interesting to know if we're doing that. I know a lot of surrounding cities are doing that and public defender recruitment fees usually range between 300 to $500 per defendant.

Did confirm that we are doing that. We charged $250 It generates about $20,000 27,000 or $28,000 a year. It's a flat fee of $250

Okay.

Well, I have a bunch of more questions about why a $250 fee would only be generating that much money unless it's only being charged on a very small number of our cases.

I think it's actually about 800 of the cases, if I was doing the math. Is it? We just got this number right before we came in.

What is

it? We'll have to

look Anyway, that would be a question. I know the City Of Bothell's public defender recruitment fee is $3.50, and it may range in the area. And that may at least help us defray some Thank of the you so much for looking into this. You've really done an excellent job, staff, of bringing back some good information. And I think council member Prem's question is a good one. I know this isn't happening in the short term, but in the long term, I think dumping DWLS threes may prevent us from having to dump more significant cases. Thank

you. You.

Can I oh, I'm sorry? I just wanted to that's why finance people always say, never try to do math in your head. That's about 115 cases. And it's it's subject to that financial obligations test that the court talked about, and so I do think it is waived on a regular basis.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. And just a comment and a question on the regional approach to public defense. I think that makes a lot of sense in that every city around here is facing the same problem and rather cooperate versus compete against each other for these public defense resources. So if there's a way to join forces and do that, especially we look at what King County is doing and being able to leverage our status as public sector employer to recruit good people. I really like that idea. Has there been any look at doing the same for interpretive services given the same escalation on that?

Actually, I think the court may have described that they have a consortium. I think it's 13 cities that are sharing 13 courts, I'm sorry, that are sharing an interpreter pool, which is more efficient in some ways, but what happens is the interpreters are sort of assigned a day at a given court, which is why we have an interpreter calendar. It helps because they can schedule in advance, and Kirkland gets priority, for example, on Thursday. But there's still a limited supply. But they are participating in a regional approach currently, and I think they feel like it's quite successful.

And then, finally, for the topic that you and Councilmember Tim Chisholm were talking about, can you give us a brief overview on the recruitment fee?

I believe it's charged after the case is settled, essentially after it's there. And it's basically a charge that's for public defense. And so it's something that's allowed in state law. It's something that recovers a portion of the costs. But again, it's subject to what's now kind of a financial means testing that ends up in waiving a lot of fines as well. So I think that's why the collection rate is so low, is it's a charge that we can, to recoup a portion of the cost, we can charge at the end of the case.

And it's charged to the defendant, so it's sort of hitting the small percentage of indigent people who qualify as indigent but the court determines has some funding available that could be able to pay fee. It's part of those LFOs, those legal financial obligations the court talked about. It could be ordered as part of that at the conclusion the case.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to as we're talking here, I was thinking about a potential legislative priority that we as a city, potentially we in our role as a member of the Association of Washington Cities. I was thinking about one of the biggest problems we're going to face, the state of Washington is going to face, is we're not going have enough young lawyers going into public defense. And it just dawned on me as deputy city manager was talking that, well, you said it, there's a lot of public defenders who are doing this on a contract basis through a private firm with cities like ours who are not getting their loans, their law school loans forgiven. And I wonder I'll just throw it out there, this may be something that Andrean and I can discuss when we're talking with other AWC members of the legislative priorities group for AWC is whether there's something here about if you go to work for a firm that has a contract with cities and you're doing public defense work, is there some kind of partial forgiveness?

I do think we really have to get to this if we're going to have caseload limitations on public defense, we are going to have to figure out a way to attract young lawyers to this this work, especially given the price of law school these days. I'll just throw that out there as something I may be disclosing. And maybe as a legislative work group, can also talk about it, too. Thanks.

Thank you. City manager?

I just want to see if Ananda and I could give a brief update. There was a discussion that she was in about this at AWC. Maybe just tell her what you shared with me earlier today.

Absolutely. Last Friday, Deputy Mayor Black and I attended the AWC legislative priorities committee. And, I mean, the good news is I don't think there was a single city in the room that wasn't kind of raising the red flag issue on this. So it is being daylighted and elevated, across the state as an issue many cities are really beginning to feel the effects of. The bad news is, you know, this past legislative session, there was a sliver of a win, if you can even say that, with the intent statement in the millionaires tax bill to set aside $200,000,000 to help cities fund public defense.

That's just an intent statement, right? There's no legal ties to that. Okay. That aside, we also had a nice quick discussion with expert, Derek Nunnally, on this topic today, and just reiterating again that it is on the top of many cities' minds, and AWC is going keep pressing for this. I would say, for legislative priorities, this falls under the unfunded mandate of our general principles, and it's something we should stay on top of regardless, either as a City of Kirkland priority or something that AWC pushes for, and we're right there behind them.

Thank you. Anything else, Tracy?

That's it. Thank you.

Thank you all.

You.

Right, we are gonna, while we switch over, we're gonna move to proposed amendments for code enforcement process, city manager.

All right, so we're gonna switch out our presentation and also change our esteemed panelists. So to talk about the code enforcement potential changes, we have our planning and building director, Adam Weinstein our planning manager, Don Nelson our code enforcement officer, Shannon Sedlacek and our senior assistant, the attorney, Stephanie Kroll.

Don't be shy. Come on down. Yeah.

Welcome everybody. Thank you, Emily. Who gets to start? All right, go for it.

Shannon, is your mic on?

Okay it is now thank you good evening madam mayor council members and community members my name is Shannon Sedlacek and I'm a code enforcement officer using shehertheythem pronouns Thank you for the opportunity to present tonight. I'll be walking you through a 17 slide presentation outlining proposed amendments to the Code Enforcement Chapter 1.12 of the Kirkland Municipal Code. These updates are intended to improve clarity, enhance consistency and ensure our enforcement tools support the city's goals for public health, safety and neighborhood quality of life. Over the next twenty five minutes, I'll provide an overview of our current code framework, highlight key areas where we have identified gaps and inefficiencies and explain amendments proposed to address them. I'll also share examples of how these changes will streamline our processes and provide clearer expectations for property owners, businesses and residents.

My goal is to give you a clear understanding of why these updates are necessary, how they'll function in practice and the benefits they offer to our community. Please feel free to ask questions as we move through this presentation.

This

slide gives a high level overview of what code enforcement is and the types of cases we typically handle in a year. At its core, code enforcement ensures that properties and activities in the community follow local laws designed to protect health, safety, the environment and neighborhood quality of life. The pie chart shows a breakdown of twenty twenty four code enforcement cases. It helps to illustrate the variety of issues we respond to on a daily basis. Overall, this distribution shows that code enforcement supports many different city priorities, from environmental protection to neighborhood livability to safe construction practices.

This context helps frame why clarity and consistency in our code enforcement chapter are so important, and it sets the stage for proposed amendments I'll be discussing today. This slide summarizes the core functions of the code enforcement team and the role we play in day to day city operations. First, we respond to community complaints about potential violations. Most of our cases begin when a resident, business owner or city staff member reports a concern. We then conduct site visits to inspect properties, structures and conditions.

This allows us to verify the concern, understand the full context and determine whether a violation exists. A major part of our work is public education. We spend a significant amount of time explaining code requirements to residents and businesses, helping them understand what the rules mean and how they stay in compliance. We also work collaboratively with property and business owners to achieve voluntary compliance whenever possible. This is our preferred approach, correcting issues through communication rather than enforcement.

When voluntary efforts aren't successful, we have the responsibility to issue notices or take enforcement action to address ongoing violations. These tools help ensure fairness and consistency across the community. Ultimately, all of these activities support the broader goal of maintaining safe, clean and well maintained neighborhoods, which is central to the city's vision and long term planning goals. This slide highlights the core goals driving the proposed code enforcement chapter amendments. These updates aren't just technical cleanups.

They're designed to make the entire enforcement process more effective and more predictable for the community. First, the amendments aim to shorten code case timelines. Streamlining steps and clarifying expectations helps us resolve issues faster and reduces prolonged impacts on neighborhood and staff resources. Second, we want to increase voluntary compliance. Clearer language, more consistent processes and better communication tools make it easier for property owners to understand what is required and correct issues without the need for escalation.

Another major goal is to improve consistency and fairness across cases. By refining definitions and aligning procedures, we can ensure similar situations are handled in similar ways. The amendments also enhance the city's ability to remediate violations and recover costs when necessary. This is particularly important in longstanding or high impact cases where the city must step in to protect public safety or the environment. And lastly, the updates help ensure clear expectations and fair, predictable process for residents, businesses and staff.

Everyone benefits from a code that is easier to understand, easier to follow and easier to enforce. This slide highlights the major amendments being proposed to strengthen and modernize the city's code enforcement chapter. I'll address each of these topics in the following This is a summary of the updates that create a clearer and more consistent structure for how civil fines are defined and applied within the code enforcement chapter. We're proposing to establish a dedicated civil fines section within the code, which would consolidate all fine related provisions into one place, making the code clearer and easier for property owners to navigate. The first update is a terminology change carried throughout the entire code, replacing the phrase monetary penalty with civil fine.

This improves clarity, aligns with common municipal practice and helps distinguish civil enforcement from criminal penalties. The second update clarifies that the city will continue to use flexible case by case criteria when assessing fines. This allows staff to consider the circumstances of each violation, such as severity, cooperation and corrective action. It also reaffirms that the city may reduce a fine when the facts support it, ensuring fairness and proportionality. The third update is an internal process improvement.

Staff will develop and adopt a standardized policy for applying civil fines. This ensures fines are issued consistently across cases and provides clear expectation for property owners. Overall, the new civil fines section strengthens transparency, reinforces fairness and makes code easier for both staff and the community to understand. Another key update is a transition from the current hearing process to an appeal based system. This provides a more streamlined and transparent path for resolving disputes, and it aligns our process more closely with other city departments and regional jurisdictions.

This would reduce unnecessary hearings and ensure that formal proceedings occur only when a property owner chooses to appeal a decision. This slide outlines the current process we follow when a code violation progresses to the hearing examiner. It provides a baseline for understanding why the proposed changes are needed. Under compliance has not been achieved, the code enforcement officer initiates the hearing process. This step alone can add significant time to case resolution.

A hearing is then formally scheduled, and staff begin preparing a detailed staff report along with all supporting documentation. This is a resource intensive step for both staff and the Hearing Examiner's Office. Under this system, reaching a resolution can take considerable time, leaving the community exposed to the impacts of ongoing violations. At the hearing, both the city and the appellant present evidence and arguments, and the city requests the appropriate remedy or fines based on the violation. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, the hearing examiner issues a written decision, which staff then must formally convey to the appellant.

This adds additional administrative steps and delays final resolution. Ultimately, the outcome goes one of two ways: the hearing examiner finds in favor of the city or the hearing examiner finds in favor of the appellant. This process is often lengthy and can be burdensome for both the city and property owner. It also creates delays in resolving violations that may be affecting neighbors or the environment. This is the system we're proposing to update.

On the next slide, I'll walk you through the new streamlined appeal based process and show how it improves consistency and reduces overall case timelines. Under this model, the process no longer starts automatically when a violation continues. Instead, it only begins when the appellant files a formal appeal. This ensures that hearings are only used when needed and when property owner disagrees with the city's determination that a property is not in compliance or they disagree with assessed fines. Once an appeal is filed, notification is sent to all parties, and staff prepare the necessary report and supporting documents.

This step is similar to the current process, but it occurs only in response to an appeal and not as a default escalation. The appeal hearing itself follows a familiar structure. Both sides present evidence and arguments, and the hearing examiner evaluates whether the city's original decision was reasonable and supported by code. After the hearing, the hearing examiner issues a written notice, and staff notifies the appellant, as they do today. This approach creates a cleaner, more predictable process.

It reduces unnecessary hearings, shortens overall time lines and focuses resources on cases where there is a genuine dispute. Abatement updates provide a clear authority for the city to step in quickly, which is called a summary abatement, when a property poses hazardous or unsafe conditions. It helps to address urgent issues without unnecessary delays. It adds explicit authority to proceed with abatement under a default order, which means that if someone receives proper notice but fails to appear for their hearing, the city is not stuck in limbo. It closes a procedural gap and keeps cases moving forward.

The code clarifies that abatement can also occur under other applicable city or state laws, such as RCW 7.48 for nuisances or RCW 7.43 for drug or moral nuisances, which is something that we would work in tandem with KPD on. This ensures consistency and avoids conflicting interpretations between regulatory frameworks. The RCW framework ensures abatement is legally enforceable, timely and transparent. And lastly, it expands the city's ability to recover the actual costs of abatement. This includes legal work, expert services, monitoring, debris and hazard removal and law enforcement support.

It also authorizes the city to place a lien on the property so taxpayers aren't left absorbing those expenses, and that's from RCW This slide provides an overview of what a notice notice on title, or NOT, is a document the city records with King County. Its purpose is to alert potential buyers or anyone reviewing the property record that there are restrictions, violations or unresolved issues affecting the property. This ensures transparency for anyone reviewing the property record, including potential buyers or lenders. The first key point is purpose. A notice on title informs property owners of ongoing code violations, typically related to missing permits or unresolved corrections.

It ensures the issue stays tied to the property record until it's resolved. The next point is the legal impact. Because it is recorded with King County, the notice becomes part of the official chain of Anyone reviewing the property, such as during a sale, refinance or due diligence, will see it. It provides a legally binding notice that there is an outstanding issue requiring attention. The final point is protection.

A notice on title functions similarly to a lien or a les pendens in that it protects the city's interest by ensuring the violation cannot be overlooked or ignored. It also ensures that prospective buyers are not unintentionally inheriting unresolved complaint issues. One example I wanted to give on this is a case of mine recently where a house was flipped without any permits. The developer, it was sold. I had reached out to the buyer to let him know that there issues and problems, and in that conversation, found out that escrow never shared with him that this was recorded on the title.

And so they were able to go back to escrow, discuss it, and then, as many of you know, escrow then had to enact their insurance, and insurance is now working with that party to resolve all of the issues and get all of the permitting completed. So that was an example that initially having to tell somebody that just bought their first house that there are problems was not the best conversation. However, because of the process that we have in place with NOTs, it ended up working out in their favor. Overall, the notice on title is a transparency tool. It ensures full disclosure, it protects buyers from unknown liabilities and helps the city to bring longstanding violations into compliance.

This slide provides a high level overview of what a stop work order is and why it's an important tool within our enforcement process. A stop work order is a legal directive, such as when a contractor is doing electrical renovations without approved permits. The code enforcement officer or building inspector can post a stop work order that immediately halts construction or work activities at a site until identified issues are corrected and authorization is granted to resume. The amendments establish a fine for removing a stop work order, ignoring a cease and desist order, continuing to work without authorization. Some of the key updates: Currently, there is no penalty for removing a stop work order or continuing work in a violation of one.

The proposed amendment adds a $1,000 civil fine consistent with KMC 1.12.045. A per day fine may also be imposed when work continues after the order has been posted, which aligns with the same section of code. The update also establishes a formal appeal process, which does not exist under the current chapter. On this slide, I want to walk through the key benefits of the proposed stop order updates. The proposed updates give us a clearer, more direct authority to halt hazardous or unauthorized activity the moment we identify it.

That means we can intervene earlier, prevent further violations and reduce safety risks to the public and to staff. When we issue a stop work order, staff time, site visits and follow-up inspections add up quickly. This update ensures that city has a more reliable mechanism to recover those costs from the responsible party rather than shifting those expenses to the city. In addition, the proposal changes preserve our existing nuisance remedies. Nothing we're doing replaces or weakens the nuisance tools we already rely on.

Instead, it adds an additional, more targeted enforcement option when work is occurring without approval or outside parameters. It supports the tools we have rather than competing with them. Overall, the proposed changes make our enforcement process more responsive, more accountable and more equitable. The fun parts. The next three slides provide an overview of the proposed amendments related to tree protection.

These changes focus on preventing avoidable damage during construction, one of the most common causes of premature tree failure. The updates add clear expectations, defined consequences and improved alignment with our broader environmental and department development regulations. The goal is to support healthier, long term canopy outcomes while giving property owners and contractors a more predictable process. This slide illustrates what can happen when required tree protection fencing is removed relocated during construction activity. On the left, the image shows a tree with exposed structural roots that have been cut or damaged.

This type of damage typically occurs when tree protection fencing is removed or is not installed correctly. Root cutting significantly decreases the likelihood of long term tree decline or failure. It also creates potential safety concerns for the surrounding area and structures. On the right, the image shows tree protection protection fencing that has been moved away from the required location. When fencing is shifted or removed altogether, construction equipment and grading work can encroach into the critical root zone.

This puts the tree at high risk of canopy loss or destabilization. It also means the eventual property owner may unknowingly inherit the burden of a compromised tree. And one thing I was going to point out here is if you picture the tree that's on the left hand side, now say that's the tree on the right hand side, but it's all been covered up with that fill, and no one would ever know that those structural roots have been severed all along one side of the tree. These examples demonstrate why clear standards and enforceable consequences are important. When tree protection fencing is not allowed, the impacts can be irreversible, affecting safety, neighboring properties and the city's long term tree canopy goals.

This is why the proposed amendments include establishing fines for removing or relocating tree protection fencing. The goal is not to penalize contractors but to ensure that critical tree protection measures remain in place throughout construction. This slide shows examples of trees that have been significantly damaged but do not meet the threshold for immediate removal. On the left, the image shows a tree where they prune to create a window for a view to the lake. The trees in this grove were all pruned similarly.

While the trees may remain standing, their long term health has been compromised. They may struggle to survive and now have a higher likelihood that they may not survive long term. On the right, the image shows a tree that has been heavily and incorrectly pruned, leaving only a small portion of live foliage. This greatly reduces the tree's structural integrity and long term viability, but again, it may not meet the criteria for mandatory removal under code. These examples illustrate why the proposed amendments introduced reduced fines for damage that harms a tree but does not require removal.

Under the the current code, penalties are tied almost entirely to removal, which doesn't reflect the wide range of damage that can occur. The new structure allows the city to address these intermediate situations more fairly and consistently. The intent is to encourage proper protection during construction, reduce preventable canopy loss and ensure that enforcement aligns more closely with the degree of impact to the tree and not just whether it ultimately must be removed.

Uh-oh. Sorry, the computer decided to restart.

Does anyone have any questions thus far? I think we've got two slides left.

Does anybody have any questions?

Okay.

This slide focuses on situations where a tree has been removed and only the stump remains, which can make it difficult to determine the tree's original size. Under the current code, fines are based on the tree's DBH diameter at breast height, but when a stump is all that remains, DBH can't be measured, and evidence of the original tree size may be incomplete or the stump has been completely removed. The proposed amendment updates the fine methodology to address this gap. When DBH is unknown, the city may use the stump diameter minus 10% as a reasonable estimate of the original tree size. This ensures the fine calculation is fair, consistent and based on physical evidence that remains on-site.

The update also establishes a landmark tree equivalent minimum for cases where a stump has been completely removed, and no physical evidence is available. This prevents situations where removing the stump eliminates the ability to assess damage or determine an appropriate fine. These changes help maintain accountability and ensure that tree protection requirements are enforceable even when the original tree is no longer present. Overall, strengthening the city's ability to address unpermitted tree removal more fairly and consistently. The intent is to encourage proper protection during construction, reduce preventable canopy loss and ensure that enforcement aligns more closely with the degree of impact to the tree and not just whether it should be ultimately or must be removed.

I want to thank you, Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, for your time and attention this evening. The amendments I presented today are designed to strengthen our code enforcement chapter in ways that support transparency, consistency and fairness. They streamline our processes, provide more predictable time enforcement tools with the city's broader goals for safety, environmental protection and neighborhood quality of life. These updates also address long standing gaps, such as clearer fines for construction related violations, improved transparency in notices and procedures, stronger tree protection provisions and a more efficient appeal based process. Together, they create a more understandable and enforceable code for residents, property owners and staff.

We believe these changes will help us resolve violations more quickly, reduce avoidable impacts during construction and ultimately support healthier, safer and more sustainable neighborhoods. With that, we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Shannon.

Yes, ma'am.

That was a great presentation, and I know that our public will be pleased with these changes because, as we know, there's a lot of frustration around things not happening quickly enough. So how long have you been with the city, and how large is the code enforcement team?

So our team is three people, and we have three three separate supervisors. I've been with the city for almost eleven years now in code enforcement for eight. It.

You for your service. And how many cases would you say that you average a month or a

year? I'm

just guessing the number is big.

Currently, I have 45 cases open. We're about the same across the board. I've had in excess of 100 previously before we got the third officer.

Well, thank you for coming today. Counsel, any questions?

Councilor Arnold?

I'll kick us off. Thank you, Shannon. I really appreciate the presentation and everything in the memo. Some parts of the memo talked about the legal requirements to go through for written notice and posting on the property and things like that. I was thinking through different enforcement cases where we might have, through a business license or something else, email or phone number for somebody. Do you reach out in those ways if we have that information? And one of the situations I was thinking about is our enforcement of short term rentals like Airbnb's, where part of what we did as a policy as a council is we required contact information and a business license.

Yes. So our initial contact is via letter. It's via written. We do ask them to respond to us in e mail, if possible, over a phone call because we can document that conversation. And then when we do begin conversations or we continue conversations via email, we make sure that they understand. Like, if I were to issue a notice for anything, I would send it to them via email, but I would ask them to reply that they accept that or if they would like a hard copy of it. So we do communicate via email, via phone, and then also the letter is our initial contact, though.

Okay. And then on the question of things that might be overlooked on this, there's a couple of things I'd want to drill in on. One is you'll get the fine schedule. We have trees and surface water that were called out. They're on separate fine schedule than the $100 a day or Is there any other parts of the code that have a different fine schedule?

And should there be? So I just want to have some thought about within the team on if there's other areas where $100 a day might not be a disincentive. I know when we've talked about the tree code last at the council, that was something we really didn't want just to be a cost of development that somebody could just absorb the fine. And we want to make sure there's not other areas where we're not keeping up with

that. Dawn, you might know others, but the main one that I know is if work has started without permits, the building official can impose double permit fees. I don't know how that's done across the board. That's not necessarily a code enforcement process. Beyond that, I don't know if anybody else knows of additional fees or fines.

Councilmember Arnold, the only thing I would mention too is that oftentimes code enforcement cases come with restoration as well. Those are typically cases with trees, but also critical areas as well. And then there's probably other instances as well that aren't even critical areas or trees, like if public property is being messed with in some way. So oftentimes the fine is paired with pretty robust restoration requirements as well, which will add to the overall cost of the code compliance issue for specific cases.

Okay.

Yep. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well Shannon, fantastic job. Thank you. I learned so much from the memo and from you here tonight, so thank you for that.

Thank you for proposing these updates. I think they make sense, and as the Mayor said, I think they're definitely addressing some concerns we hear in the public, so I think really well done on that. We don't get you here very often, so I have a few questions So for I sit on the Seattle King County Board of Health, and some of the things we're talking we've been talking about last year and this year is not only food safety code violations, but labor code violations, and we passed some additional policy related to that where when they go forth and have their the smiley face stuff for food safety that we see in food establishments, that they'll soon be rolling out something similar for labor code violations as well with the theory of when there's smoke, there's fire, right? There's oftentimes when there's labor code violations, there's food safety violations as well. And there's some of that that we had discussed that was just too expensive for the county to do at the time, including during the inspection, making sure that labor rights posters were in fact present, right?

So the King County is not going to be currently doing that as part of these inspections. But I'm wondering as part of that conversation that we've been having, kind of what is the role and the relationship between the city and the county on things like this? Like if we get someone reporting something, do we automatically what's the process? Do we automatically communicate that to Seattle King County Public Health? Do we maintain a list of some of the violations and things that are being investigated by the county that's outside of our necessarily our code enforcement but still related, and our public might want kind of a compilation of that information to know what businesses are in violation or not?

With code enforcement, it's hard. We have a lot of case by case things as far as the situations come up. We do work in tandem, though, with King County Public Health on a lot of the things that we experience here. More recently, with a restaurant that had some issues, reached out to King County Public Health and started working with them, only to later find out that our fire department also had some issues, so it was more of a kind of a robust conversation as far as moving that forward. And we do work with King County on several different things as far as rodent infestations other things that happen that way, so we have open communication with them and support them if they want to take the lead and vice versa.

Wonderful, thank you. And then two more quick questions. You mentioned the stop work orders that's oftentimes if there's work currently being conducted and it's not either like not passing inspection or the right permits aren't applied, etcetera. Is that also the same language that we use if there's a business that was told that they are in violation and they need to make some upgrades or some updates and they have failed to do so and they have customers coming in in that space, in that building, would that still be a stop work order that they have and would these penalties therefore, new penalties apply in those situations as well where there are current safety infractions that's not safe for the

Usually with businesses, we would do a cease and desist order, which is very similar, and it's posted on the property, and it basically stops them from working, and it notifies the public because it is posted on the front of the business. It notifies the public basically what's taking place there.

And do we currently have fines for those violations, and do those need to be updated in the same way that these are updated? Should we be looking at that as well?

We do not currently have fines for those.

Would there be similar rationale to do so?

We will.

The cease and desist in addition to the stop work order, similar type of penalty or fine?

Yes, would be the same.

Wonderful, thank you. Question I get a lot from folks in the public about code enforcement is in which situations and how can folks anonymously report potential code violations?

Do you want to take it? I

can take it. Generally we encourage people to not file anonymous complaints, and that's for a variety of reasons. One is that it's really hard impossible to follow-up with them if it's anonymous, and there often is quite a bit of follow-up. Sometimes code enforcement issues happen at certain times of the day. It's hard for us always to get out to the site to verify them, so the follow-up is really important. That said, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for people to file anonymous complaints.

A member of the city council.

A member of the city council can do it, and anybody can do it, actually, even though we don't encourage it, but it is done sometimes, and sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes there's cases that come to mind or like a neighbor dispute where somebody has a legitimate concern that if they file a code enforcement claim, their neighbor is gonna come after them. We do take those cases. Also, there are cases where there are environmental problems happening, right? We will enforce on those as well. Strongly encourage people to provide their name and contact information, but we do proceed with cases that are filed anonymously. You add anything?

Yeah, especially if it involves life, health, safety, or the environment. Those are never turned away from an anonymous.

Thank you. And they can now do so on the R Kirkland app anonymously. Previously, they could not.

They can, yeah.

Thank you. Councillor Pascal?

Yeah. Thank you. I'm, like the others, really pleased that you're here and that we're talking about this. And I know this has been you've been working behind the scenes on these on these things for for quite some time. So I know it's it's really looking at things kinda holistically and kinda trying to address all the different issues that have, you know, cropped up over time. I had a couple questions. One, it sounds like this is going to streamline perhaps your efforts a little bit. Is that is that true? I mean, does it does it create efficiencies and reduce work efforts, or does this increase workload to where we would need additional resources to handle?

No. It's it's the opposite of that. Yeah, we're trying to streamline I mean, the biggest thing for me personally, one of the biggest proposed parts of this is changing from the hearing to an appeal based process, Because if you think about it, when we're doing the hearing process now, we notify them, we start to put our packet together, staff report, which involves myself, my supervisor, any other staff that were involved in that event, the hearing examiner's office, and admin. And so let's say we've put all of that together, they have up until seventy two hours prior to the hearing to come into compliance. So when they do that, then all of that work that we've done is for naught.

Most of these to try and streamline.

A lot

of it is also transparency.

Yeah. And like my colleagues, we don't, I don't know, don't talk about code enforcement much. I mean, we hear about it from the public, and have specific cases that we follow because of outreach from Yeah. Neighborhood folks. But, like, I just had questions too, just like similar to that have been asked. Like, how many caseloads? How has the caseloads been changing year to year? You know, the staffing, the resources, how quickly do we resolve cases? How long do cases stay open typically? I just I don't know if we track any of that. That kind of stuff would be, I don't know, I'd find helpful.

We can pull reports

from angergov.

Yeah, yes. Shannon mentioned, thanks Councilmember Paschal. Shannon mentioned, we can pull reports on that. Some of that information gets reported in our annual code enforcement report as well, and then the other thing we wanna make a plug for, which is coming to council really soon, is our permit dashboard, which encompasses lots of different things, permit timelines, turnaround times, time in the city's hands for permits, but also code enforcement cases, caseloads by per by staff member, caseloads over time as well. So some of that information will be, yeah, publicly accessible on the dashboard also.

Yeah. I think I I think that's great. I I wasn't aware that we do it annually. I'm not that I think that's that's fine. I think I am I more interested in it from kind of a budgetary standpoint? And, you know, we're not changing budget, you know, frequently. So I think an annual update is fine. The last question is is I I'm just gonna use an example because this one kinda sticks out in my head. And I think it was kind of an ongoing issue last summer where getting kinda continual complaints about a business that has had an HVAC system that was somehow broken or something. And it was really loud, and it was right next to an apartment.

And the folks living in apartments, they couldn't sleep. It was really, really impactful. And we were just like, you you gotta be patient. We have to let the code enforcement do its course. We have to go to the hearing exam. We have to do this. You know, and they're just like, yeah, but I can't sleep. So will any of these changes help that kind of situation?

I can take a shot at that, Council Member Pascal. I mean, that is a really complicated case, actually.

Yeah.

I think the time to resolution for that, and that's still an active case, actually, we have a meeting scheduled in a couple weeks to talk to the consultant that did a noise study for that issue. But I think, yeah, the time it's taken to resolve that case is not a function of the process that we have, which I think is adequate for this type of case. It's the nuances of this particular case. This was an issue where we went out to the site multiple times at night, during the day, at lunch time to try to ascertain the violation. They're not exceeding the not to get too technical, but they're not exceeding the decibel thresholds that are in the code, the city's code for when noise is too loud.

Whack.

Yeah. Or the whack as well. They're creating an the folks who lived across the street, across Park Lane, were claiming that the noise was creating a nuisance even though it wasn't exceeding the decibel thresholds in the code and in the WAC. So that's a hard thing to work through in that the code doesn't have specific objective criteria for what constitutes a nuisance noise for the most part. So that's why we commissioned, or the folks who live across the street actually prepared their own noise study, which we reviewed. We have some follow-up questions for, and that's what we're doing in the next couple weeks, talking through that. So I think it's really the sort of the substance of the case, not the process that's taken a while.

Yeah, my question was really man about the process, making sure that if there are changes in the process that we can. It sounds like you've looked into that.

Yeah, so I guess, yeah, and just a follow-up to that, I guess if we conclude that there actually is a violation, that this is nuisance noise that's being created, the new hearing examiner process, the new appeals process will make it easier to bring a complaint and start imposing fines Yep. On the business. So that is a process improvement that will help with this case.

Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you for the presentation. And thank you for all your work on this. I'm not going repeat what was already said. I have sort of three I guess what I was going to I appreciate all the hard work that went into this. I also appreciate that the real focus was on process improvements to improve enforceability.

So I know that this wasn't an opportunity to open up sort of questions of new policy, new ordinances, new types and scope of violations. But I was kind of curious whether there was anything that was just that was left on the cutting room floor right before when it comes to process improvements and enforcement. Was there anything that almost made the cut but didn't quite make the cut? And the noise example that Councilmember Pascal raised that specific case was one of the ones I was wondering about. And by the way, can I just say that I'm on a lot of those communications for that case?

And the number of times that Director Weinstein has actually gone out after hours to try to address that complex is incredibly impressive. And so thank you. Really, customer service for everyone involved above and beyond. So I appreciate that. So that would be an example, like noise.

I saw that noise was a fairly small fraction of the work that our code enforcement does, but it does have these complex cases. So that was one I had on my mind. Another one that just recently arose with a neighbor who has a concern about sort of an ongoing perpetual everyday garage sale at the property next door. That was the kind of thing I thought, I wonder if we have a code on perpetual garage sales. We don't have a limit.

Some cities do, we don't. We have other ways to address the nuisance that might be caused by having a garage sale every day, day after day, next door. I was wondering if anything like that arose. And then there's one other example of something that we've heard a lot about, and that is pollution on the shores of Lake Washington coming from unencapsulated polystyrene dock floats. So those are some of the things that I've heard a lot from residents.

They would like to see us maybe be in a position to take some code enforcement action. They're complex situations, all of them, but I'm wondering if anything in any of those categories or other categories sort of just missed making the cut.

I'll let you answer the phone one.

And for the reason that it might inform some direction that the council might give about future new code.

Okay. So when we started this process, the goal was to stay in our lane as far as 1.12. And so there are several things that we touch that do need to be updated. Noise needs to be updated. Glare is another one that we have a lot of that's really kind of hit and miss. Because we were just focused on this chapter, because it's been so long since there have been updates, we did not tackle anything in the zoning code that is touched by our code, as far as that goes. Do you want to touch base on the phone?

Yeah, Deputy Mayor, the other topics you mentioned, like noise and polystyrene and perpetual garage sales. There's probably like a 100 other examples of that where some strategic code amendments could be helpful in enforcing. These are all really intricate issues, especially noise. Would say noise out of all of those jumps out as a really, really complicated one to address. It's temporal in nature. It changes over time. It's hard to enforce on because it's temporary. There's sort of lots of issues related to noise especially. So I think that all those other topics are worth focusing on at a future date. Right?

I mean, warrant additional attention. The polystyrene thing is something that we have existing code to address right now as an enforcement, with an enforcement mechanism, and then when we get to the Shoreline Master program in 2027, that's a good thing to really sort of drill down into because it's a topic that has come to a lot of folks' attention. But I think, yeah, any one of those is worthy of a, at least the high priority ones are worthy of a focus in the future, but they're, I think, big enough where they're sort of outside of the scope of this project.

And signed.

Okay. We have signed code as well.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you.

And just for the garage, the revolving garage sale, I would encourage anybody that's experiencing that to submit a Q Alert. We've had those before, and we've managed those before with property owners.

Great. Thank you.

City Manager, did you have something you want to add before I call on Councilmember Tim Chisar?

I just wanted to see if you could roll back to the hearing examiner slide about the new process because something was said on what the slides said, don't know if they totally lined up, was my question, which I asked Don to elaborate is, can you assess a fine if the person doesn't appeal to the hearing examiner? So maybe you can speak to that. If they're not complying but they're not appealing, then what happens?

Yeah, if you look in the civil fine table, we would be able to assess daily fines at that point.

It doesn't have to follow the finding. It can be Correct. Done by the

What would happen is that we would go through our process like we do, try to get the property into compliance. If they weren't going to do that, we would issue a notice and order of civil violation, which would give them a final deadline, and it would basically notify them that we're getting ready to impose daily fines on it and that it would eventually or could eventually be posted on title.

And I'd just add that if they choose not to comply, or even if they appeal and a hearing examiner issues a decision on the appeal and they still choose not to comply, we also still have the abatement process available to us, which is being updated as part of this code to make it clear how we can recover costs, city costs.

And it will probably be a larger conversation, too.

If I could just interject on abatement, we could have an entire study session just on abatement. Since I have been here, which is ten years, we have never abated anything on private property. We have come close and threatened and people have come into compliance. We have abated conditions on public property, somebody's storm sewer system overflowing in the city area, things like that. But I am looking into that now.

We can't there's no authority in our code and none in state law that would allow us to enact code that gives anyone at the city authority to go onto private property. So we have to get a court order. We have to go through our hearing examiner process, and then we have to go to Superior Court, get a court order to enter property and conduct the abatement. So we've never had to do that, which is good. We feel like we're getting some cases that are close, so we're having those discussions now. Any

questions on abatement before I alright Councilmember Timchison.

Thank you. The councilmember Black's concern is there a miscellaneous code that limits the number of days a garage sale can continue? Because I would suggest three.

And I

would ask for most miscellaneous code amendment for consideration that limits garage sales to three days if there's nothing that currently regulates this. I'm very familiar with

the Same.

Yeah.

Thanks, Councilmemberton Chisholm. Yeah. That's a good point. There's a lot of gray areas of the code, right, in all sorts of areas. The garage sale is one of those gray areas. It's not something that's explicitly allowed actually in the code. It's not really an allowed use for the most part, but they typically happen in such a temporary nature that they're gone before we would ever enforce on them, so some additional clarity for garage sales could be helpful.

Okay. It's basically a commercial store at some point that just hasn't really been licensed, and I think commercial stores and residential neighborhoods are an issue we may address.

I mean, something like that we could discuss as being a home occupation as well, running a business out of the house in a continual fashion.

I don't think it's desirable, but We

also have a sign code

issue.

We have

a sign code issue on that garage sale also. Celtzer Bierfelco? I was just going

to mention that we did adopt the planning work program that includes residential retail, so that might be a time to look at that and kind of what the definitions are between that versus a garage sale.

Anyone else? Shannon, you brought us in exactly on time. Great job. Thank you so much. Totally planned. This was very interesting. So thank you for that. That concludes our study session for the evening. We will be back at All right. We are back in session following a public defense overview and a discussion of proposed amendments to the code enforcement process.

We have two proclamations this evening. The first one will be National Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, which will be read by Councilmember Black. The second one will be Affordable Housing Week proclamation, which will be read by Shelba Prem. So city manager.

Alright. Thank you, madam mayor, members of the council. So we'll be declaring the month of May as National Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. There are a lot of links and resources to learn more about this in the council memo, and the proclamation has lots of information as well. And this proclamation will be accepted by Judy Shangyong Thanh, who is the president of the Formosan Association of Public Affairs, and her families. We're very excited to have them here today.

Yeah, let me welcome you all. Thank you. It's particularly special for me because I am part of a mixed family that is Taiwanese and European, so thank you. Today, I'm going to read a proclamation of the city of Kirkland, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, May 2026. Whereas Asian American and Pacific Islander, or AAPI, Heritage Month is an annual observation or observance rather to celebrate the contributions that generations of the AAPI community have made to American history, society and culture and whereas more than 17% of Kirkland's residents identify as AAPI, making their presence and influence a vital part of the city's social fabric, economic vitality and community identity.

And whereas Kirkland is home to a diverse population, with around 5,000 people in Kirkland speaking languages other than English, with speakers of many Asian languages, including Chinese, both Mandarin and Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, reflecting a rich cultural heritage that strengthens our community. I can also say, I can prove with my mama that, that includes Taiwanese dialect as well. Whereas the city encourages community members to learn and celebrate AAPI Heritage Month through resources such as the King County Library System's AAPI Book Collections, the Wing Luke Museum in Seattle's Chinatown International District and the Internationalist AAPI Business Guide, and whereas this observance reflects Kirkland's continued commitment to equity, inclusion and belonging and community safety as outlined in Resolutions R5693 and R5434 while affirming the city's stance against anti Asian hate and violence. And whereas the City of Kirkland reaffirms its dedication to fostering a safe, inclusive and welcoming environment where the cultural I didn't think I was going to have trouble getting through this, but I am having trouble getting through this. Everyone, bear with me for just one second And welcoming environment where the cultural heritage of all communities is honored and celebrated.

Now therefore, Mayor Kelly Curtis, on behalf of the Kirkland City Council, proclaims May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in Kirkland, Washington, and encourages the community to uplift Asian American and Pacific Islander voices and reaffirm our shared commitment to building a welcoming community for all.

Okay. Oh, yeah. Can you please? Thank you.

So, yeah, I have my paper here. Oh, thank you. So, major Curtis and all the city directors and city council members and all the friends and neighbors here, good evening. So, name is Shong Yong. Yeah, that's Taiwanese.

Yeah, so I'm really honored to accept this proclamation of AAPI here, AAPI Heritage Month here today. So as the president of Formosan Association for Public Affairs Washington chapter. Thank you for the council, to the city of Kirkland for affirming that our communities are seen and valued here. So I've had the privilege working closely with the Taiwanese American community right here on the East Side. Kirkland is home to one of the largest of those communities.

They can be your colleagues in your tech company, your small business owners, your children's best friend at school or your neighbors at Waneta Beach on the summer weekends. Yes. So tonight's recognition matters to all of them, to all of us across this region who call this place as home. So AAPI Heritage Month celebrates the contributions of all communities under this umbrella, each with their own languages, cultures and histories while still leaving rooms for each to be celebrated on its own. So for Taiwanese Americans, that is Taiwanese American Heritage Week, first proclaimed by President Clinton in 1999, an effort initiated probably by our organization, FABA.

And this May will mark its twenty seventh anniversary. And here in Washington, the city of Seattle and Bellevue has already issued their own Taiwanese American Heritage Week proclamations for us. So our community, this kind of recognition carries a particular weight. Taiwanese Americans have long have to explain like sometimes against the pressure from outside, that we have our own languages, our own history, our own identity, a proclamation that NAMES is a small act with a big meaning. It tells our children, including my own children here today with us, that their identities are real, and that is being seen.

So I really appreciate tonight with the proclamations with really sincere gratitude. And at this the same spirit, FAPA's original request was for a Taiwanese American Heritage Week proclamation. So next May, we respectfully ask the city of Kirkland to join Seattle and Bellevue in programming Taiwanese American Heritage Week. We'll be truly honored to work with you to make that happen. So thank you. Yeah.

All right, Councilmember Primm's gonna come down, City Manager.

I think our special guest is still trying to arrive. But oh, I'm sorry. It's just was okay. I did not see. I was like, out the door. Thank you. Alright. So we'll be proclaiming the month of May excuse me. The week of May 18 to '20 May 18 to May 22 as affordable housing week in Kirkland. And as again, there are some links in our memo and in the proclamation at the where you can learn more. And we're very excited to have receiving the proclamation tonight, the president and CEO, Robin Walls of the King County Housing Authority. So welcome, Robin.

Welcome. Whereas the need for affordable housing across the region and the number of people experiencing homelessness remain at a crisis level, and whereas the city of Kirkland is committed to meaningfully contributing to the development of necessary affordable housing in the region, and whereas the city of Kirkland has advanced the development of affordable housing by working with partner organizations such as the King County Housing Authority, a regional coalition for housing Imagine Housing and other nonprofit housing developers, recognizing that regional and cross organizational collaboration is the most effective way to solve the affordable housing crisis, and whereas the City Of Kirkland continues to implement the 2044 comprehensive plan update, which includes innovative, far reaching policies to promote the development of affordable housing at scale throughout the city along with new state legislation that will expand housing supply and affordability. And whereas on 04/21/2026, the Kirkland City Council adopted the 2026 and '20 through 2028 planning work plan program, advancing many key affordable housing policies. And whereas since 1999, the city of Kirkland has committed over $8,300,000 in general funds to a regional coalition of housing, Arch, supporting the creation of thousands of of units of affordable housing in East King County, and the city will continue to invest substantial funds in the preservation and development of affordable affordable rent rental and homeownership opportunities, and whereas people, organizations, and communities throughout King County are participating in local affordable housing week activities to elevate the critical need to create healthy communities and ample affordable housing, and whereas the city of Kirkland endorses the goals, objectives, and purposes of affordable housing week, and in doing so, affirms the city's commitment to ensuring that all people in Kirkland live with dignity in safe, healthy, and affordable homes.

Now, therefore, mayor Kelly Curtis, on behalf of the city council, proclaims May 18 through the twenty second twenty twenty six as affordable housing week in Kirkland.

I'll just briefly say that on behalf of the King County Housing Authority and the broader group affordable housing providers. I would like to thank the city of Kirkland for being such a strong partner of ours in expanding and developing affordable housing.

Thank you.

All right, we are now moving on to items from the audience This is a time in our meeting when we normally hear from the public. Please limit your remarks to three minutes. We will provide up to forty five minutes for our items from the audience, with no more than six speakers on a subject regardless of the position on the topic. To address the Council during items from the audience, please sign up using the online public comment instruction link or the posted QR code in chambers. Those participating by phone, please dial 9 to be recognized to speak.

Items from the audience is an important part of our business meeting, and we ask that everyone be treated with kindness and respect. Please do not clap or applaud or otherwise openly express your agreement or disagreement with a speaker. When that happens, even when supporting a speaker, it can be disruptive of the meeting and discourage others from sharing a different point of view. We discourage people from using obscenities and making personal attacks against others, and we ask that you direct your comments to counsel, not to staff or audience members. In addition, because they can be disruptive, signs and placards are not allowed in counsel chambers during our meetings regardless of their content.

Kirkland prides itself on being a respectful, welcoming community. We want everyone to feel like they belong in council chambers expressing their viewpoints. City Clerk, who do we have signed up to speak?

Thank you, Mayor. At this point, we have 14 guests wishing to speak, including 2 pennies back to back. We'll take the first three in this order: Joe Kunzler, virtually Stanley Ho, virtually and Charlene McElliot, on-site.

All right. Joe? Joe, go ahead.

Thank you, madam mayor. Joe Kunzler here, regular commenter. I want to address item h five in your consent agenda and your new council rules. I'm going to register my censor of not incorporating rules to directly and address and curtail Alex Ihrman's prolific multiyear hate speech campaign using city government of Kirkland facilities. Passage of the current rules to me is the equivalent of the city council of Kirkland by inaction amplifying legitimizing the government's harmful and false narratives about you, your neighbors, and me questioning why we should prioritize Kirkland and SD free.

But first, I appreciate that finally Kirkland is writing RCW 29 b dot 45 dot zero ten in New York Council procedures to shut down campaigning during public comment. It helps out many complaints to the BDC over the years about this, and I'm happy to see that work bears some fruit. I also second, I appreciate you getting an exclusion policy, but I think it's too little to meet the constant hate campaign we see from one troubled individual. You could adopt the policies of Redmond or Bellevue and put an end to this pretty doggone quickly, but that's my opinion. That that you will limit your comments to city business.

The King County District Court just last December found those policies were a okay. Counselors, in my opinion, you're deciding to try again to pass with the bare minimum. You can't screw proclamations to heal the world. You actually have to take action when a hate monger comes to you. You have you know, I find you see, I think there's a way out of here for all of us with honor.

And as I find it disorderly to hurl hate that has nothing to do with Kirkland City business, and I think that might just sell but Kirkland's civic honor. In conclusion, we are conducting this conversation under the backdrop of Sound Transit Free and the Enterprise Initiative. Sound Transit is about more than a network of public transportation to me. When a station is put down, their means of communities build up and shared values are reinforced, like integrity, love of science, inclusion, ethics, and doing the right thing and standing up for what's right. And I've been at the business end of that sometimes, and I appreciate it.

I need to see some action by the city council to act on those shared values to support me getting you a station before 12 ISSUQUA. So I quote you Joe Biden in conclusion, we have to reject hate in every form because history has taught us again and again anti Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, they're all connected. Hate towards one group left unanswered opens the door for more hate towards more groups more often, readily, end quote. And that's how I feel about the matter, and I hope I was respectful with you. I know some of us share a mutual friend in Redmond who I love very much, and it's Jewish Heritage Month. So thank you for your public service, and my time is up. Thank you.

Thank you, Joe. Next, we have Stanley. Oh, Stanley's virtual also. Right?

Oh, hi. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. Stanley, go ahead.

Yeah. So mayor, council members, nice to meet you again. Stanley Ho, Kirkland resident. And, yeah, thanks for the AAPI Heritage Month proclamation to earlier tonight. As, you know, I'm also a Taiwanese immigrant here in Kirkland.

The city attorney sent a written response at 05:14PM today, sixteen minutes before tonight's council meeting, and provided qualified rather than unqualified responses per my April 28 request. The original response left out the city council, the city clerk, and Sarah Roberts. I have since restored the original thread distribution and requested indexing on the public record for agenda item three a, prosecution services of the April 21 city council meeting. I'm also still awaiting the contracted prosecution services separate set of unqualified responses to April 21 and April 23 question sets. The city's attorney's response confirms that preponderance is the applicable standard for an SOC revocation.

The prosecution service applied beyond a reasonable doubt in its April 2 declination, a different and arguably much higher standard than the one the city attorney has now confirmed on the record. I'm gonna engage with that discrepancy as well as others in writing through the public record this week and the next. The overall cumulative documentary record on contracted prosecution services performance and how the Kirkland institutional handling of this file remains a matter I am also continuing to compile in advance of the overall September evaluation. Thank you.

Thank you, Stanley. Next, we have Charlene.

Good evening. My first time I've attended here.

Charlene, go ahead and lower the microphone so we can hear you.

There you are. There we go. Okay.

Your health is coming. Hold on.

Is that better?

Oh, now they can see me. I was sort of taking comfort in

Oh, here I am.

So, I'm here to talk about the Northeast 85th Street Station. And, I wrote a bunch of things down, but I'm gonna really, condense it more. I think situation here is, Will this area become an inclusive neighborhood or a low density, high cost area? Area, and I had to do a little research on exactly what does low cost and density and all of that means, and, the minimum density ensures that the land will be used efficiently and allows single family homes or townhomes to use a large amount of land. Large amount.

Also, it up it'll get rid of more of the affordability and the stability that having would be lost. They and detached homes and townhomes don't trigger the city's affordable housing requirements. High density buildings do. They include low income, and they also it's no coincidence tonight that there was the affordable housing people here and this admission or this acknowledgment of our diversity in the city of Kirkland. And all of this the 85 thing, would contribute to all that.

It would build it up. Let's see. And the one thing I thought was really cool about it is that it's right by the new big deal transit thing that's happening. And what a wonderful way to have all of us to create some kind of history. This is important.

This is a transit center that's going in that's gonna be there for years. In order to sustain that and to have that area supported with shops and people coming downtown And I think when you have, the right kind of housing, that would promote it. I don't know about you all, but when I'm home, I'm home. And, you know, does it cross my mind to go downtown Kirkland? Not not necessarily, but if you're you know, I think I just forget that part.

So, the high density housing ensures the station becomes lively, and also the low density housing

reduces Charlene, the I'm sorry, but you see that red light?

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much. Next,

we have Joyce Stone, followed by Penny Kahn and Penny Sweet.

Joyce? Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, madam mayor and council. I have never spoken in front of a city council. This is all new for me. Okay.

So let me start off by saying that I'm eleventh generation Floridian, and I moved up here four years ago to be closer to my daughter and her family. Kirkland is a great city and I love it, but I want it to be also a great community for all. I'm talking about that 85th Street station, by the way. Sorry. By building stores on the 1st Level and apartments above, you increase the walkability, the mobility for everyone.

It helps make it an AARP friendly city with green spaces, and you're building a community. People using the station, they're going to shop, work and thrive. If you add townhomes, what is the purpose of the station? They're going to get off and do what? They're not going to increase your traffic.

If you add townhouses, how can you age in place? Townhouses are not conducive to aging in place. I envision this if I lived there in a place where my granddaughter could come over, we could go right out to eat, to play, to shop in the same area. That's my vision, and I hope it's your vision too.

Okay.

You guys are young. I'm not, but you guys are young. So I just want you to think of this and ask yourself, what do you want in your lives as you age? Think about that. You gotta think about that because that anyway. So please continue to give hope and to be the light of our community. Kirkland, thank you for your time.

Thank you, Joyce. Alright, Penny. Penny Kahn, I should be clear on that.

You. I'm Penny Kahn and I'm a longtime resident of Kirkland and a small business owner. And I just wanted to comment on the same thing the eighty fifth project. I think high density housing business and commercial uses would be more appropriate and would utilize transit more than townhomes. Thank you.

Thank you, Penny.

All

right. Next we have our other penny, Penny Sweet.

Penny Sweet followed by Kurt Dressner, Judy Nayan.

My name is Penny Sweet. Good evening, former colleagues and trusted members of our city council. I'm here tonight to speak in support of the city's effort to help in launching a tool library for our city. A tool library is a community based nonprofit resource hub that enables members to borrow tools rather than purchase them, fostering a sharing economy. It reduces financial burdens, alleviates storage constraints for residents, promotes environmental sustainability by decreasing waste, and it fosters social cohesion.

You all know that I have been and continue to be a huge proponent of a tool library. Since leaving council, I have immersed myself in all things sharing programs, reuse events and systems, tool libraries across the Seattle area, in particular, at Shoreline. And the story is a good one. I know I shared the Reconymy's annual financial report with all of you, which clearly shows that Shoreline and North Seattle facilities have demonstrated financial and operational success in a short period of time. We believe we have the with wherewithal, with your resource support and space to meet that goal within even shorter time.

Since 2020 and the pandemic, George Floyd's murder and the racial unrest with the Black Lives Matter movement, our community has continued in an unstable environment. Social unrest, political dissent and disagreement, economic fragility have all buffeted not just Kirkland but the whole of our country, and it continues to this day. Creation of something like a tool library is the kind of thing that could be a real shot in the arm for our community, something that will bring us together in a new way that meets our sustainability objectives and sets us up for reuse success as we plan for the upcoming transfer station replacement. Please move this work forward with your discussion this evening. Also, just as a reminder, we are still in a housing crisis.

As you consider issues around density, as you consider the church facilities, please keep that in mind. I cannot applaud more what the ladies behind me just said. Good to see you all. I'll be watching.

Thanks, Penny. Right, All Kurt Dresner. And now the podium gets lifted. Good

evening, council members. My name is Kurt Dresner, and I'm a resident of the Everest neighborhood. I'm speaking tonight in support of the Tool Library Project. This is a swaging tool. It's for crimping the ends of steel cables. Nine years ago today, I was working on a project to add canvas coverings to my back deck. I bought this at Home Depot for about $50. I used it perfectly it worked perfectly for that one project, and it has been hanging in my garage ever since. Despite what it might look like, this is not the world's smallest pizza cutter. It is a screen roller.

You cannot repair a window screen without one of these. I bought it when my daughter was much younger and damaged the screen in her bedroom. I think I've used it twice. I have countless other one off tools in my garage, that were absolutely required for a single Saturday afternoon, but now simply take up space. Others, like my pressure washer, get used maybe two days per year.

My tools aren't in a landfill, but that is unfortunately the trajectory for so many. The average power drill is used for less than twenty minutes of its entire lifetime. Yet, we manufacture, package, ship and purchase millions of them, only for them to sit idle and eventually end up as waste once the batteries fail or the plastic degrades. Tool libraries don't just save us money on the tools themselves. A year or two ago, my partner's coffee machine stopped working.

It was likely just a blown fuse or a loose connection. If we had a local tool library with a fix at night like the one in Shoreline, she could have gotten access to the expertise needed to open it up. She could have saved $100 on a new machine and given a longer life to an otherwise functional appliance. I am in a position of privilege. I can afford to buy a $50 tool for a one time use, and I have a garage to store it.

My partner can afford to buy a new coffee maker. But for many of our neighbors, that financial barrier is the difference between having the right tool for the job and a repair that is simply out of reach. A tool library ensures that the ability to fix a bike or maintain a home isn't a luxury reserved for those with extra garage space and disposable income. Most importantly to me, tool libraries are community hubs. Through events, classes and volunteering, we create a third place where neighbors actually meet and help one another.

I would have loved some pointers on how to use the screen roller, by the way. I wasted a lot of screen fabric before I got the hang of it. Right now, there are a dozen tool libraries West of Lake Washington, but not one on the East Side. Kirkland has a reputation as a city that leads. We have the chance to bring the first tool library to this side of the lake, a project that will pay social dividends and save our residents many times over what it costs to get started. I urge you to move forward today on the tool library RFP. Let's turn those idle tools into a shared community resource. Thank you.

Thank you. Judy's next.

Judy Nguyen followed by Barbara Chunkel and Louita Hawkinson.

Judy, welcome. Good

evening, mayor and council members. My name is Judy Nguyen and I live in the Fin Hill neighborhood. You've heard tonight why a tool library matters for sustainability, for affordability, and for community. I want to build on that by speaking to what it takes to make one truly successful. So my husband and I have spent the past six years restoring our home ourselves, and for the past two years, I volunteered with the two libraries in Shoreline and Northeast Seattle.

I've seen firsthand how these operate day to day, what drives usage, what builds trust, and what keeps people coming back. I care deeply about community building here in Kirkland. I joined the Totem Lake Run Club when it first started in 2021 and now serve as a captain. My husband and I took city partner dance classes to prepare for our wedding first dance, and I've taken classes at the Kirkland Art Center. Those experiences may seem small, but they're exactly how people build connection, by showing up, learning something new, and getting to know their neighbors.

I was also honored to win Kirkland's twenty twenty four business pitch competition for my startup called Homebody, which focuses on helping homeowners plan projects and build the confidence to take them on. So I think a lot about how people move from intention to action, and that's really the difference between a tool library that exists and one that thrives. Access to tools is necessary, but it's not sufficient. The most successful tool libraries combine strong operations with community engagement. They make borrowing feel approachable.

They provide guidance, not just equipment, and they create an environment where people feel confident tackling projects that they might not have tried otherwise without the knowledge and access provided by a tool library. The encouraging thing is that Kirkland doesn't have to start from scratch. There are many thriving models already working successfully on the West Side and plenty of community interest we've seen. Kirkland already has a strong locally rooted foundation of experience ready to build on too. I ask that the council please move forward with the Kirkland Tool Library RFP, and I encourage you to prioritize operators who bring both hands on experience and a clear plan for long term sustainability, community programming, and inclusive access.

Because if this is set up well from the beginning, this won't just be a place to borrow tools. It'll be a place where people build skills, confidence and connection. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Judy. All right, Barbara.

I'm speaking on the redevelopment of the station area as well. I moved to Kirkland sixty years ago, first to the Rosehill area for five years, and now I've been in Northcork for fifty five. As you can imagine, I've seen a lot of change, and it's hard to see the small town flavor of the city disappear. But the 85th Street corridor has always felt, first and foremost, like a business setting, not suitable for individual houses. I can remember going to, after the races, to Waldo's Tavern. It certainly didn't feel like a neighborhood area for people to live in. Anyway,

I

also walk a lot, including up to Rose Hill, and I'd like to see the area remain inviting to pedestrians. Consequently, it makes most sense to me to have the focus beyond apartment living with friendly small business on the Ground Floor rather than townhouses, which take up so much more space. My hope is that you'll keep this area zoned as an apartment community, which I see as having several advantages. That housing can be suitable for seniors because elevators are much better than stairs. It encourages walkability by allowing for small business and places for people to go.

It allows for more housing units rather than townhouses while, at the same time, reducing dependence on cars because of the option to use our transit options. I love Kirkland and want to keep the character of the city while doing what we can to reduce sprawl. Keeping the station area as a walkable space should encourage a sense of belonging for those who live there.

Thank you. Loida?

Loita followed by Alex Zimmerman and Kim Faust online.

Hi. I'm Louita Hawkinson. I'm a fifty year resident of the Norcirk neighborhood, and I'm gonna quote from the city website. Starting in May, the city of Kirkland will begin updating its 20 mile per hour school speed limit signs. Two new types of signs will be introduced in school zones across Kirkland to make it clearer to drivers that they must slow down while driving in these areas.

The new signs will also make it easier for drivers to know what to do in a given school zone. The two new types of signs are from full time and all day school zone speed limits. Full time school zone signs read speed limit 20 miles per hour indicating that the speed limit of 20 miles per hour is in effect at all times, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, all year long. The other new zone sign reads school speed limit twenty, seven a. M.

To five p. M. School days, meaning the school speed limit is in effect between seven a. M. And five p. M. On any day that the school is in session. Please remember, children may be present around schools in any time of day and any time of the year. Always use extra caution when driving around schools even if the school speed limit isn't in effect. Now that is from the city.

This is from me. If the city realizes that children may be present around schools at any time of day and any time of the year, why is the speed limit not set at 20 miles per hour, period. Drivers will still have to check their speed when near a school zone. They should not be checking the time of day nor remembering the day of the week. Please put a little more thought into these new signs. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next we

have Alex.

My name Alex Zimmerman. I'm president of Stand Up America. I 50 time candidate for election. King country fascist government prosecute me seven times. All cases dismissed. I have from King country government 7,000 trespasses. 7,000. Nobody in America have 7,000 trespasses, but I have. It's good. I love this.

To show what is fascist government dirty, fascist government we have. Yeah. Right now, I want to speak about King Country House and authority. Business, what is I know for forty years is absolutely straight business. What is I? It's not only my opinion, it's a professional opinion. What is how experience with somebody for forty years? They dirty, criminal, and killer. They not only spend million, dozen million, billion dollars for this time to people who don't have document, they kill our generic American citizen. Our old man right now, my income is a side.

You cannot find apartment. I can't. This a problem. So what is I did? I have this Neil Black, you know what this mean, who part of King Country Commissioner. Yeah. And three months ago, I give to him complaint. It's three months ago. This complaint include three question. Nothing answer. Every meeting for three months, I come and talk, where is you give me answer? I don't see answer. Why you cannot do me answer? Where is the problem? We elect him.

You know what this mean? He responsible for this. We his bosses, he work for us. Where is this is when ask employee about answer, question from boss and don't have answer. Why he don't do an answer? Because he not care. He not care. Me or another, he not care because he's belong to organization. What is not only totally corrupt, absolutely criminal. It is my opinion.

So right now, I can't speak to 100,000 people in Kirkland. People in this room can support me in asking about answer? No. Who can doing this here? You see, everybody quiet. I will speak right now to 100,000 people who live in King country. Who can doing this? Nobody. It's a problem, but as we have. This fascism, but it's bring us to total to collapse. We were Trump. We were new American revolutions. Stand up, slave, and happy cow. And guys, stop and steal in American citizen money. When this will be? Thank you very much.

All right. Kim Faust, correct?

Yes. Kim Faust followed by Joan McBride, Susan Davis, and lastly, Liz Hunt. Kim is joining us virtually.

Kim, go ahead.

Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Hello.

This is Kim Faust with Main Street Property Group. I wanted to say thank you to the council for taking the time to carefully consider the amendments to the station area detached housing options. And I think that I would like to support amendment number three. As a developer, you know, parcels are not all able to be redeveloped with apartments or mixed use due to size or other constraints, or assemblage could take a very long time. Amendment three provides a middle ground to see more near term housing and allows a little bit more flexibility that likely would provide the city council with what they want relative to mixed use and apartment buildings, but also generation of housing in the midterm.

Thank you.

Thank you. Joan McBride.

Can I just play with this for a second? Sure.

It's part of your three minutes, though.

Oh, okay. I want it to go up. Where's that button? Oh, no. Which button is up? They all point down. See it. I

see it. Yeah.

Welcome to the new age. Oh, sorry. Okay. Hello, counsel. It's so good to see all of you.

I'm Joan McBride, and I'm here to talk to you tonight about affordable housing on land owned by faith based organizations, a subject that is going to be later on in your agenda, I think, the business section. Now I'm speaking tonight as a resident, as a faith member, but not as member of my church. I'm speaking for myself tonight. Here are some things that I would like to see in this ordinance that you'll be creating or this discussion you'll be having on faith based organizations and their land, very general. So some of the things I'd like to see is complementary uses co located with houses, such as social services included within the land or even a small business.

Maybe some of the faith based organizations would share some of the property or maybe even be in a small part of the actual building or premises. Maximum flexibility, I would love to see that as part of this whole range when we begin talking about faith based lands. Taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves, such as smaller than optimum pieces of property inclusion of near market rate may be included in some of the houses so that we get a mix of economies within those houses of people density bonuses on top of those that will be allowed by state government lower parking demands and creative financing. I found in many years of dealing with and knowing many pastors and and faith leaders in this community, great leaders, great managers, great administrators, big, huge land things. I think they're going to need some professional help, and I'm looking at the great city at Kirkland for all expertise.

Design is important to our town and to the residents of the future housing. I'm thinking of our own velocity at South Kirkland Park And Ride as an example of respectful and uplifting design. Anything that we can do to introduce new affordable housing to Kirkland is laudable. It's critical. And to paraphrase I actually passed my bedtime. To paraphrase, affordable housing on faith based properties helps to bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice. So thank you, I did it.

You, John.

Good to see you all.

Right. Susan Davis? I assume she's virtual. Susan, go ahead.

Hi. Thank you. I'm Susan Davis. I live in North Rosehill neighborhood. I wanted to speak on a few topics. The first one is I want to send, kudos to Daniel Lazo. He helped with the neighborhood safety program, and we were, of course, involved in North Rose Hill. And, I hope that you guys will approve the projects that are listed. And, hopefully, in the future, we could have more funding. This kinda leads to the tool library.

Totally understand the need. It sounds like you have a lot of people, a lot of people that have political clout as well in the community that really want this tool library. If there's genuine interest, I totally understand. I think we should limit it at a 100 k. And if they're gonna be needing any other kind of funding, they need to do the model with where they have a membership fee or they try to get private funding.

Maybe they could use the Kirkland Parks Community Association. But for having city of Kirkland on the the Dole for years to come for the tool library, I do not support that. I personally think we should wait until we actually understand what King County is giving us for the transfer station because as I have seen it, it's not a done deal that we are gonna have to have the new transfer station, but you guys are acting like it is going to be a done deal, which creates even more questions in my mind. Moving on to the stationary plan. I support townhomes on eighty fifth.

I was actively involved. I made much, public comment regarding the eighty fifth stationary plan. When you guys did that analysis, your analysis allowed townhomes on eighty fifth. You even mentioned in the staff memo with preexisting conditions with preexisting analysis done for the stationary plan that recognizes these are transition areas between lower and higher intensities, and you guys even had had that as being an option, townhomes. And I understand some people have commented, they don't live in our neighborhood, that they don't want townhomes there.

I think townhomes between 126 And 1 28th Avenue should happen. You have to understand they are basically, right behind them is single family homes. If you go to the North Side Of 85th, there are some very narrow lots right there. Right behind them is single family homes. If someone built a 65 foot tall apartment building south of these homes, they're gonna see no sunlight. No sunlight. And it's a good thing to do because townhomes mean homeownership. Apartments don't. We have a lot of already existing open commercial space. Just look at Kirkland Urban.

These new spaces, small businesses cannot afford the rent. Susan? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. Yep.

All right. Our last speaker is Liz Hunt. I think this is the second time this has happened to you, so bring us home.

Excellent. Good evening, Mayor and Council members and staff. My name is Liz Hunt, and I'm a resident of Kirkland. I'd like to speak tonight to the consent calendar, the item relating to updating the City Council policies and procedures, specifically Section 8.1, which is the process to choose new members of Kirkland's boards and commissions, which are wonderful features that we have here in Kirkland. Every year, three council members are chosen to serve on a committee to interview candidates for these boards and commissions and to recommend the candidates that should be placed in the free slots on those boards and commissions.

The new process in the packet and to be approved tonight rotates members each year to spread the workaround of serving on that committee. However, the new process isn't as balanced as it should be. And I've mentioned this the previous time that you discussed this. For example, in the first four years of the new process, three people are chosen each year, and position six will serve 3x in the first four years, in years one through three. And that seat is currently held by our wonderful Amy Falcone.

But Position seven is only serving once in those four years, and it's not until year three. Currently, that position is held by our Councilmember Pascal. Also, Positions four and five only serve once in those four years. So for all council members to get their three years serving on the committee, it requires all seven of you council members to sit in those same seats or sit on the council for all seven years so that there's time to rotate everybody through and make sure everybody gets a turn or three turns. So there can be no retirements.

There's three elections during those seven years. There can't be any changes related to elections. So it's a very elegant design, but it requires consistency and stability across seven years on all seven seats. So I'd like to see that be more balanced. And I will also weigh in on the townhomes in the station area. And I feel that having townhomes in some transition areas between especially areas that have single family homes, which could otherwise be butting right up against larger buildings, I think that kind of transition space is worth considering. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Is that it? Yes. Thank you. We are now closing items from the audience. We are going to move on to special presentations. Our special presentation this evening is from the King County Housing Authority with an update from President and CEO, Robin city manager.

Okay. Thank you, madam. Yes. We have our special guest who also accepted our affordable housing proclamation. But Robin Walls, who's the president and CEO of the King County Housing Authority, has been in that role since twenty two thousand and twenty two. And she brings extensive experience with affordable housing and deep expertise in having an housing and urban development programs and federal housing policy, and she's here to give us an update on what's happening with the King County Housing Authority. Thanks.

Good afternoon, city or good evening, I should say, and thank you for inviting me. It is not always easy to be a supporter of affordable housing, and so I appreciate that the City Council has been a consistent supporter of affordable housing. So a little bit of the background on the King County Housing Authority. We were established in 1939 as a municipal corporation. We are governed by a five member board of commissioners.

That also includes a resident commissioner, and we have a resident advisory council. We receive our primary funding from the federal government, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we also have a substantial amount of revenue from tenants. King County Housing Authority has a designation as a moving to work agency. We are an original 39 move into work agency, which has allowed us to have a certain level of flexibility to design innovative programs, some of which we will talk about this evening. Through our affordable housing programs, we like to say every day we are touching at least 24,000 households the city of King County who are residing in some type of housing that we provide.

And this includes over 9,000 of our workforce housing units. We're actually rapidly closing in on 10,000 units. We have a jurisdictional map that shows the presence of King County Housing Authority throughout King County. I will mention that we are literally in every area of the county except that is within our service area. You will notice that the cities of Renton and the cities of Seattle, which have their own housing authorities, are the jurisdictions that are grayed out.

For our federally subsidized programs, our tenant based housing choice voucher program and our public housing program, which we also call subsidized housing, participants pay 31% of their income that they use towards rent and utilities. Currently, we're serving 19,000 families in our federally subsidized programs. The majority of these families, close to 80% of them, are households that have incomes that are less than 30% of the area median income. So these are some of our most economically vulnerable families in the community. With respect to the city of Kirkland, there are currently 2,265 households that are under 30% of AMI, so who would be most eligible for our federally subsidized programs.

Annually, we're providing $21,400,000 in terms of rental assistance. This includes five ninety six tenant based vouchers for families that reside within the city of Kirkland. On our workforce housing side, and this is our largest program for our workforce housing. These units that are owned by King County Housing Authority directly. They are not federally subsidized.

We use a combination of private bonds as well as low income housing tax credits to acquire and rehabilitate these housing. One of our core missions with respect to this portfolio is the preservation of affordable housing. This is housing that would most likely be lost to development and become market rate had it not been acquired by KCHA. KCHA, from the map, has a strong presence on the East Side. Not only do we have a substantial amount of properties in Kirkland, but also as well as in Bellevue, Redmond and Issaquah.

We currently have six properties for seniors and people with disability, manufactured home, and again, our largest portfolio is represented by these 22 workforce housing properties. Within our asset managed properties bond portfolio, our workforce housing, there are seventeen seventy one people that reside in nine sixteen affordable homes. One of the things that we will talk about through this presentation is a couple of our signature properties that we have in Kirkland in this workforce housing portfolio. A little bit about the background also. One of the things that we know is that affordable housing is one of the biggest challenges that we are facing not only locally in a high cost of living area, but also nationally.

And what we've seen locally is a substantial increase in terms of two bedroom units, 26% since 2020, which is really a marker for us in terms of the pandemic and the impact on affordability that started during the pandemic. We have a substantial number of families, three forty one, that are at risk of homelessness or homeless in terms of children who are school age. This is what I like to call a hidden part of our most vulnerable population, where sometimes families are not easily identifiable as being homeless. For some of our signature properties in Kirkland, we have a few that I'm going to highlight: Casa Juanita, Juanita Trace, and then Kirkland Heights, which is our has really led the housing authority in terms of how we think through and continue our core mission of acquiring and redeveloping. Since this is the city of Kirkland, you all know the history of Kirkland Heights, where we acquired this from the Machinist Union and Boeing, and it has really sort of this property has marked KCHA's journey through the way.

One of the things that we decided to do with Kirkland Heights, and it's because it's so important to us since it has a large number of family units, which we really define as three and four bedroom properties, is continuing to build on and expand this property. And so we conducted an extensive rehab. We started with a proof of concept where we took one of the buildings that was originally two story and essentially razed it and built upon it. And once we realized that the proof of concept was successful, we were able to expand that in terms of the actual building construction. And then we also used a complex financing mechanism, which allowed us to create 96 additional units on the third and included two new residential buildings as well as a new community building.

So we have some before and after pictures of Kirkland Heights from when it was a two story walk up to now, where we've increased and raised the roof essentially. The other thing that I will say around Kirkland Heights in terms of the innovative financing is that we just did a bond issuance last summer, and it was the largest single bond issuance of its type that had been issued by JPMorgan Chase for affordable housing. So taking a note in multiple places in terms of how we have really expanded and moved forward with respect to the approach for affordability. We provide, in terms of our wraparound services, because what we recognize in terms of some of the cities, in terms of some of our most vulnerable residents that we service, that we also have to have a variety of supportive housing programs. And so through our resident services, we look at everything from eviction prevention to crisis support.

We also have after school programs, as well as a family self sufficiency program that provides financial coaching and connections with employment. And so we've had a substantial amount of engagement with Kirkland residents there. We have ongoing opportunities for partnerships in ways that we will continue to think through, whether it's for resident referrals, and we're always on the lookout for continuing to be able to expand our approaches for affordable housing. At our core, KCHA remains committed to servicing our most vulnerable residents, and that includes those who are extremely low income as well as our commitment to workforce housing. Briefly and in wrapping up, I will talk about a little bit of our most recent acquisition in

Kirkland,

which was the Emerson Apartments, which KCHA acquired in 2019, and that's dedicated for workforce housing. And then an interesting chart, if you all have a little bit of a chance for a glance, you guys have a big agenda, so you may not want to get to this. But anyways, this shows the difference between our points on affordability, where what market rate rents would be, which would be in the red, and then KCHA rents, and so even for our workforce housing, we are always just doing modest increases, and it's really just enough to cover expenses but also maintain that level of affordability. And so finally, in wrap up, I will just say I again will appreciate the City Council, and I know there's also been work that's been done with our city manager in terms of helping move forward some of the permits from Kirk Triplett for Kirkland Heights, and really appreciate the support for the city of Kirkland. Thank you.

Thank you so much. If you have a minute, Council might have a couple of questions. I just want to tell you how much we value the KCHA properties at Kirkland. And you should be very proud of Kirkland Heights. We cannot wait for the ribbon cutting. It's just an amazing transformation. So thank you so much. Absolutely. Counsel, any questions? All right. We're going to let you go. Thank you so much.

Have a good evening. Thank you.

All right. We are going to move on to the consent calendar. Before I ask for a motion, I'd like to ask Deputy Mayor to present the audit of the counts and highlight the proclamations we have on the consent calendar.

Thank you, Mayor. We had payroll in the amount of 9,191,316.46 and bills in the amount of $7,784,590.04 Tonight, the mayor, on behalf of the City Council, will be issuing two additional proclamations. First, May is proclaimed Jewish American Heritage Month. This observance honors the history, culture, resilience, and achievements of Jewish Americans, recognizing both their profound contributions as well as the anti Semitism, violence, and discrimination Jewish communities have had to endure. Through this proclamation, we have reaffirmed Kirkland's commitment to being a safe, welcoming, inclusive community where hate has no place.

May has also proclaimed Bike Everywhere Month. This proclamation encourages bicycling as a healthy, affordable and environmentally friendly way to travel, recreate and enjoy Kirkland. This proclamation highlights Kirkland's continued investments in bike lanes, greenways, the Cross Kirkland Corridor and programs that make biking easier for all ages and abilities.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

So moved. Second.

It's been moved by Council Member Arnold, second by Deputy Mayor Black. Discussion? There's no ordinance, is there? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

The opposed? Consent calendars prove seven-zero. Thank you, everyone. All right. We are now moving on to our first business item, which is the adoption of the Northeast 85th Street Stationery zoning code amendments. We still need to name this something with the Northeast Street Station area, which was postponed from our last meeting. City manager.

Okay. Thank you, madam mayor. So the bulk of this presentation is gonna be made by our senior planner, Leandra Baker Lewis, and she's gonna be assisted by our planning and building director, Adam Weinstein, and deputy director, Allison Zike. We don't have a detailed presentation since this is sort of in process, but we do have a presentation that covers the amendments that we heard from the council members. So with that, I will turn it over to Leandra.

Thank you.

Thank you, city manager. Good evening, deputy mayor, and council. My name is Leandra, and I'm here tonight to pick up a conversation from your last meeting where we left off discussing the Planning Commission recommendations for the North 85th Street Station Area Activation Zoning Code changes. These changes are reflected in Ordinance 4,936, which you may consider for adoption tonight. I have just seven slides of information for you and then some supplemental slides to help facilitate Council action.

So we'll start off with a review of both the ordinance and recent Council input. I'll quickly walk through just a couple of important zoning related points for the station area intended to help inform your discussions and pause to allow for any questions or further discussion before walking through potential amendments initiated by the council. We are ultimately seeking council action on the ordinance. As a quick review, Ordinance 4,936 seeks to amend sections of the zoning code affecting the station area in three ways: it opens up development agreement possibilities and clarifies applicability of development agreements. It prohibits low density housing types area wide with an exemption for in progress projects intended for and applicable to the Rosehill townhome development project.

And then it extends flexibility in the affordable housing requirements for Pioneer development or developments that occur sooner rather than later. Council's discussion mostly focused on the amendments relating to the prohibition of low density housing types at your last meeting, so staff's input tonight also will focus there. A couple weeks ago, we heard council members coalescing around the idea that whatever rules end up governing the station area should encourage development outcomes that support or are in line with the envisioned station area as it has been adopted through the station area plan, which is a vibrant mixed use environment with plentiful, affordable housing and a mix of both high-tech and family wage jobs all linked by transit. The parts of Ordinance 4,936 that increased flexibility for projects were generally supported, and more limiting provisions that regulate low density housing types came into question, with some council members wondering if this is the best way to regulate a minimum density. Some mentioned that this concept could be appropriate as it would steer development outcomes, preserve capacity, and prevent outcomes similar to what we're seeing at the Rosehill Townhome development, while others expressed thoughts that the prohibition of housing types could create uncertainty and increase the risks for developers that may ultimately stunt development altogether.

A motion was brought forward to remove the amendments related to the prohibited housing types, and a majority of the council was in favor of postponing the consideration of that motion and of the ordinance, time for council to work with staff on solidifying potential amendments. So we have circulated some potential amendments for the council members to consider and have those ready for you later in the presentation. Before continuing with the amendment conversation, we have some zoning related points that we'd like to share just to let you know kind of what's allowed where in the station area, so I'll walk through that with you quickly. So the station area is bisected by Interstate 405, and each side has some distinct provisions. I will note that the station area has an incentive program where projects can gain additional or bonus development allowances in exchange for public benefits.

Added height is one of those main bonuses, and certain districts have a bonus maximum height that is reflected in the code and on the regulating plan. I believe there's physical copies of the regulating plan at your seats for reference. Some of the areas have bonus heights, and some do not. So for purposes of discussion tonight, any reference I make to maximum building height will be considerate of and reflecting the highest allowed height between the base or the bonus height, whichever is larger and whichever applies to the applicable area. So I hope that makes sense, but moving forward, that's what I'll be referencing as the maximum height.

So West Of 405 consists of three districts: the Urban Flex District, which has a 45 foot height maximum. And although the station area code is a form based code, there is a specific provision in the Urban Flex District that prohibits residential uses on the street level floor of any development, which would effectively prohibit townhomes today. The neighborhood mixed use district allows for up to 60 foot buildings in designated areas. And since the form based code mostly focuses on building form rather than allowed uses, frontage types are regulated. Townhomes can theoretically be built in this area today since the frontage types most conducive to townhome style development are allowed here.

So that's our stoop, porch and private yard frontage types. And then in the commercial mixed use district, it's a 60 foot height maximum with no residential uses permitted. And then East Of I-four 05, the regulations are a bit more involved, especially in the neighborhood mixed use district. So in that neighborhood mixed use district reflected in yellow on the screen, there's a range of height allowances, but the maximum tops out at 150 feet along Northeast 85th Street near 120th Avenue Northeast. The frontage types in this area East Of I-four 05 in the neighborhood mixed use zone are more tightly regulated, and the frontage types that typically support townhomes or lower density residential development are not permitted along streets that are designated for more activity, more foot traffic, and more interaction with the public realm.

The commercial mixed use, reflected in red on the screen, allows more intensity east of the highway up to two fifty feet, with residential uses prohibited. And then finally, to the south, the Civic Mixed Use District allows building heights up to 75 feet in the northern half, and it does allow frontages more in line with lower density residential types. And then finally, along the eastern boundary of the station area is the RH-eight zone. As detailed in the staff memo, the RH-eight zone is a zone that is kind of unfriendly to townhome style development, meaning it does have ground floor requirements for commercial uses, and stacked unit development is the allowed permitted use or permitted housing type for properties adjacent to Northeast 85th Street. For the two parcels reflected in that red circle not fronting 85th Street, lower intensity housing types are permitted.

That's what's currently allowed today, just east of the station area. I'll pause there for any questions on the information presented thus far, or we can move into the potential amendments.

Councilor Mayor Arnold.

Thank you, Leandra. We heard public comment earlier tonight talking about some of the smaller lots within the station area. If we were to continue with the Planning Commission's recommendations that would prohibit townhomes on those small lots, what other housing types would be allowed on those smaller lots?

Sure. Good question. So the prohibition of attached dwelling units or townhomes just prohibits units that are attached with a vertical wall with no units above. So in theory, someone could propose a stacked flat or a lower level apartment style building where there's units stacked on top of one another, or they could provide kind of mixed or sorry, mid level stacked flats, things of that nature. But the orientation would be vertical as opposed to horizontal as they are in townhome developments.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All

right, let's go through those amendments. Yes. Okay. Deputy So Mayor?

Well, I had a set I didn't have any questions for staff, but I did have a set of remarks.

We'll get to those.

Okay.

Well, actually, Leandra, how are you planning on doing this?

Yeah, I think that I actually was going to ask so as I mentioned, we sent you some potential amendments. They've been drafted by staff in response to council member interest. There's also a tabled motion that will need to be addressed before proceeding with other possible council actions that was deferred from the last meeting. Mayor Curtis, I think it would I would look to you for guidance on if you would prefer we move through the Council Member amendments one by one as they are moved, or I can review them all at once.

Thank you, and thank you, Deputy Mayor. I do think it would be better if we go through the amendments one at a time instead of responding to them one at a time. So counsel, we're required to address the amendment one that we postponed at our last meeting. But I know that many of you have comments that you would like to share before we start voting on the individual amendments. So I'm going to give you an opportunity to do general comments first, and then we'll begin with Amendment one, and we will go through the amendments as they have been numbered. So who would like to make Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm happy to get us started. Yeah, so when we brought when we took this subject up two weeks ago, I didn't share my thoughts. We moved quickly to a set of or an amendment, and then we ended up postponing the conversation. So I never really had a chance to share with my colleagues sort of what my thinking is about the Planning Commission's proposal recommendation and the Planning Staff's recommendation, so I just want to share that now.

When we honor the Kirkland City leaders who have come before us, what do we often honor? Most often, it's their advanced planning, it's their patience and it's their long range vision. This council has been a part of that long tradition, and I'm pretty proud of that. But it's being challenged right now by a difficult question. And I understand why townhomes are a difficult question.

Townhomes provide ownership, homeownership, and they can be a good fit in many parts of Kirkland. They are also what a lot of builders are telling us right now is their simplest and most viable product. So I'm not opposed to townhomes, but the question before us is not whether townhomes are good or bad. The question is whether new townhomes are right for the stationery. One of the very few places where we planned long range for abundant neighborhood serving retail shops and services near some of our highest concentration of new homes and the kind of redevelopment that can make it public investment, the major public transit investment like BRT Station to 405 succeed?

And so on this specific question that we're confronted with today, I think the answer is no. The reason this is true is because stationary serves a special purpose. When we adopted the stationary plan and leaned into it as one of the core components of our recent comp plan updates, we made a deliberate policy choice backed by many fellow residents who were otherwise skeptical about growth in other areas of Kirkland. We planned for this area to carry a meaningful share of Kirkland's future housing and employment growth because it's located next to an interstate corridor and a major regional transit investment. That's the whole reason the station area and the plan exist.

The plan was not just about housing units in the abstract. It was about creating a walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhood center with enough new residents to support additional transit investments and abundant neighborhood serving retail shops and services. The kind of place does not happen by accident. It takes vision, it takes a plan, and it takes patience, like the kind exhibited by prior councils in Totem Lake. And it depends on achieving enough residential intensity, enough mixed use development, enough street level activity to support the transit and neighborhood serving shops and services we all want.

If we now allow lower intensity housing types to spread throughout the area because of current economic conditions that are out of the city's control, we risk undermining the whole plan. And I don't support proposals that slowly chip away at the plan. This is especially important because the land in Kirkland where this intensity development will work in the near term is limited. Most of the city already allows lower density residential development, and under our middle housing code, townhomes are allowed in many places. That means the stationery serves a unique purpose.

It needs to provide the type of housing that cannot easily be supported elsewhere in Kirkland. I'm particularly concerned about affordable and workforce housing. We all know that of the 13,200 units of housing we're required to plan for, 80% of them or 11,500 of them must be affordable to 50% AMI and below. In a favorably situated city like Kirkland, those affordable homes are not going to be delivered in the form of town townhomes. That doesn't make townhomes bad, but it does mean they're not right for this location, not if we're serious about affordability goals.

I also think we need to be honest about capacity. Once a parcel in the station area redevelops with townhomes, that parcel's higher density housing capacity is effectively taken off the table for a very long time, probably a generation or two. Staff gave us a clear example of this in the memo. The concrescent lighting site that had been counted on for up 600 apartment units now will most likely produce only about 89 townhomes. That's not a small difference.

That's a loss of over 500 units of planned housing on one parcel alone. If that pattern repeats, we'll not simply lose theoretical capacity on a spreadsheet delivered to the Growth Management Policy Board or the Department of Commerce we'll lose real opportunity for people to live near transit, affordable work force housing and the resident base needed to support neighborhood serving shops and services. And eventually, if we can't meet our capacity obligations here in the station area, a future council may have to look elsewhere in Kirkland for capacity we were counting on in the station area, and that's unfair to our community. So I ask, if not here, then where? Some of us may be on this council in the future when we're faced with that exact question, and fellow residents will be right to ask why the city was not more patient and allowed the promise of the station area to be fully realized.

That future council will be asked, Why are you now looking elsewhere neighborhoods to create the density when you squandered the opportunity in the station area? I also want to respond to the concern that prohibiting townhome creates unpredictability. I see that issue differently. After a three year public engagement and planning process, the Council adopted a 2022 plan that envisioned a walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhood center with abundant retail, shop services and housing choices and transit oriented development. Later, we made that plan a core component of our comp plan.

And when we saw that the market was gravitating toward townhomes due to economic forces that are outside our control, instead of the redevelopment pattern we planned, we moved quickly to align the zoning code with the plan. To me, that's not unpredictability. That's called follow through. What creates unpredictability is repeatedly responding to market forces we can't control or reliably predict. The clearest signal we can send is that the station area should develop in a manner consistent with the plan, consistent with your vision.

I also agree that incentives matter, but I don't think this is a choice between so called carrots and sticks. The plan itself was one large carrot of incentives. It created substantial redevelopment capacity, allowed greater height and opened the door to more valuable and more intensive uses. And within that plan, we have additional incentives, including added height allowances in return for such things as neighborhood serving shops and services. So we're not ignoring incentives.

We created the incentives. And I agree with the observation that builders build what pencils out, and that's true even in the face of incentives, as we've seen here in the stationery. But that's not where the analysis ends. There could be more than one project on a parcel that pencils out. What we have learned since adopting the plan is that townhomes pencil out better in the current economic environment, but that does not mean other projects will never pencil out, especially in the long run and especially with all the incentives we've already incorporated into the plan.

So finally, I think we should keep in mind who we're planning for. We're planning not only for today's economic conditions, but for the next generation. We're planning for our teachers, nurses and small business owners and their workers who want to live in the city where they work. We're planning for older residents who want to downsize but also stay in the Kirkland they love. This is another reason townhomes are not the right fit in this specific location.

Townhomes are stairs without elevators, and there are bedrooms and kitchens on different floors. That's housing, certainly, and it's meaningful and it matters, but it excludes too many of those who we are planning for, especially those we are planning for in and near our walkable neighborhood centers. So I'm going to end where I started in a set of remarks. Townhomes are an important part of Kirkland's overall housing mix, but they're not the right housing type for the station area. This area is one of the few places where Kirkland can realistically deliver more housing with abundant neighborhood serving retail, homes accessible to seniors and others with limited mobility, generate meaningful investments in concurrent transportation infrastructure and generate meaningful investments in parks and open space.

If we allow this opportunity to be lost, we're not going to get it back. So for these reasons, I continue to support the prohibition on new townhomes in the station area in the form originally recommended at our last meeting by the planning staff and by the Planning Commission. I hope my colleagues will join me, thereby demonstrating the planning, the patience and the long range vision that we so often celebrate and the leaders who have come before us.

Thank you. Councilmember Prem?

Thank you. I am personally very glad that I got the time to think through the initial proposed ordinances and the proposed amendments. And thank you to Councilmember Tingchism for delaying it a couple weeks because I do think this is a very complex issue to think through. The bottom line is I do support high density housing in the 85th Street Station area because if not, just like Councilmember Black Deputy Mayor Black said, if not in the 85th Street Station area, where? We really do need more housing for our seniors, nurses and teachers and others that work in the area, and townhomes and single family homes do not offer the relatively affordable options we need in Kirkland.

But very importantly, I also want to address some of the thoughts described during our last meeting against having any minimum density requirements in the station area just so that the public understands my thinking process and knows that I thought through all arguments for not having minimum density requirements. There are three specific arguments made that I specifically want to address. Number one was that if we add minimum density requirements, we are creating a barrier to development altogether. I don't agree with this. Minimum density is not a barrier.

It's a safeguard against underbuilding. The argument made during our last meeting assumes developers will naturally build to the highest and best use, but that is not always true in practice. Without minimum density, a developer may choose lower risk, lower density projects like townhomes that are financially viable in the short term but underutilized scarce transient adjacent land. And I want to remind the public, the BRT station is an investment worth $250,000,000 to $300,000,000 It's a massive investment in our neighborhood that is being added to our community, which surrounding properties are extremely valuable in terms of creating a transit oriented neighborhood. If we have townhomes all around the BRT Station, this would be a significant loss in terms of the utility of this infrastructure.

Once townhomes are developed, we essentially lose the ability to develop high density housing for good. It's gone. And I do not think we need to and I do think we need to try to prevent this from happening. So these minimum density requirements, again, act as a floor to prevent permanent underdevelopment in the BRT area, and I think being proactive instead of reactive is incredibly important here. So that's argument number one.

Argument number two I heard was that we should have incentives for builders to develop the kind of homes we want instead of requiring minimum density requirements. We have implemented incentives such as the Pioneer provision and more height if certain requirements are met, but we have had minimum bites at the apple as of yet. Instead, the only project currently further along in the slate in the 85th Street Station area are townhomes. So as we can clearly see, incentives alone often are not enough, and a lot of what gets built really does come down to interest rates and costs of building. But sometimes, it's also just what the builder prefers to build.

Most know that townhomes are a much quicker and safer investment than apartment buildings. With townhomes, you can buy the land, build the townhomes, sell them, and get out. With apartment buildings, you can buy the land. You you have to buy the land, get a construction loan, build the building, make sure enough apartments get rented so that you can get permanent financing, and if you don't, you have to pay the bank the full cost of the complex. So these are risks, and many times, it is just the preference as to what a developer wants to build.

We have an example of this in front of us with the Main Street Builders. They they will they are planning on building townhomes on the East Side Of The BRT but also are considering building apartments on the West Side Of The BRT. The market is not totally stopping them from building apartments in the BRT Station. Again, it's preference. If regulations are set only on today's conditions or purely based off of preferences, we risk the entire vision of the stationery.

Bottom line, a minimum density requirement ensures a baseline level of intensity regardless of market cycles or preferences, whereas incentives depend on developers opting in and may simply be ignored if less dense projects are easier or less risky. Finally, the third argument, that somehow including minimum density requirements creates uncertainties for investors and property owners. There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. A clearly defined minimum density standard can actually increase predictability by removing ambiguity about expectations. When I read, detached and detached dwelling units are not allowed to be built here, it is pretty clear to me what that means.

I look forward to hearing the proposed amendments to see what we can work out to set up the 85th Street Station area for success. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Councilor Mayor Arnold next.

Thank you, Mayor. I really appreciate the chance to hear where everybody is on this in general, given that under for the public, under the Open Public Meetings Act, we haven't had we aren't able to have a discussion among the full council on this. This is very helpful. Some background. As a city, we've spent a multi year effort planning for the 85th Station area.

Why have we done this? Well, given the transit investment that is happening under construction right now that everybody is seeing every day as they go through the 85th Interchange, we have the opportunity to leverage bus rapid transit with more intensive development in the station area, and we spent a lot of time planning for this. This is an area for more multifamily housing, especially for renters with incomes near the median. Townhomes are simply not affordable at median income. Therefore, every time we have a townhome in the stationary, it's a huge missed opportunity and we need to be judicious where they're allowed.

As was mentioned before, Main Street had an option for a property that they own. They could build townhomes under our previously partially vested project or they could choose to develop under our new zoning where we made significant incentives for increased building heights. Incentives alone weren't working because Main Street is pursuing townhomes, so we needed to look at other approaches. And that's why council decided to take action this year to say, how do we prevent these missed opportunities with that townhome development from happening elsewhere? Our actions today will impact neighborhood planning by not meeting the full station development stationary development potential, it puts more pressure on our neighborhood centers to meet our required growth targets.

The difference between the townhomes that Main Street will be building versus potential development on that site is five eleven units that will need to be placed elsewhere in our city. So as we look at these amendments, I'm going to be protective of our vision of the station area, realizing that we need the more intense housing potential to develop, especially closer to the 85th Street Station, where it allows for more trips, allows for transit oriented development with more services nearby and more trips that could be taken by transit. And I'm also going to be looking at wanting to be very protective of 85th and perhaps more open to areas away from 85th and transition zones. Thank you.

Thank you. Katsworth.com.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, agree with pretty much everything that I've heard from my council colleagues tonight. I agree that I would like to see minimum density requirements here, right? And the reason that I agreed to pause it at our last meeting is because what I was hearing from the Planning Commission Chair was that the Planning Commission didn't really have an opportunity to provide thoughtful recommendations to the City Council on how to best achieve that. And it seemed to me like having a very narrow just townhouse prohibition was more reactionary than long term planning and being really thoughtful about it.

And I realized that we don't want to drag this on forever either, right? And so I agree. I would love to see a minimum density requirement here as opposed to just a specific use prohibition. I think that is a better approach, and I think that's a more thoughtful approach. I don't think that's where we're going to land tonight because I think that takes a little bit more time to really get at, you know, as we talk through.

There's reasons why it's more challenging to do a minimum density approach rather than a townhouse prohibition here, right, which is why we talked through perhaps the minimum height density requirement in order to kind of get at that because I think a more thoughtful approach like that actually probably would get us at the minimum, the density that we're looking for in the most dense areas in addition to disallowing townhomes in many of the areas. So I actually think it would take us even a step further towards seeing the long term vision that we all share for the 85th Station area. So I feel like we're moving towards that with some of the proposed amendments tonight where it's a little bit more thoughtful and a little bit more nuanced in understanding the different areas within the station area. I agree this is where we need to have our most just repeating something like my fellow council member said, though, this is where we need to have the highest density because that is what we agreed to in our comprehensive plan, right? And we know that we have an urgent need for affordable housing, and we know that our most affordable housing is going to be our densest housing.

So we need to do something here. I agree. I feel like we're pretty much all, most of us on the same page with what we hope to achieve here and what our long term vision is, And the discussion tonight will really just be about some of the particulars. So thank you. Thank you. Councillor Pascal?

Yes, thank you. Thank you for all the comments tonight, particularly for the public as well that attended earlier. The way that I see this is there's a I feel like there's a little bit of confusion here that somehow we're trying to modify the vision of our stationary plan and I don't see that at all. I see that there's a pretty big agreement on what we want to see for this area. I'm also not I don't I don't feel like anyone's necessarily advocating for townhomes.

I see I look at it more as advocating for removal of of regulatory barriers, for looking at ways to catalyze development near term and long term, looking for ways to realize that vision, that it's not a one size fits all approach, that there's some nuance when you're looking at ways in which to catalyze a certain location. And sometimes we get caught up in the theoretical versus the non theoretical. And so that's something I often try to base myself in. And so the way I do that is I I don't do it in a vacuum. I talk to the people that actually build housing.

Those are our develop that's our development community. And what did we hear from our development community when we asked them about this? They expressed real frustration about mixed signals in the regulatory environment. Now we can talk about townhomes and things all we want. It's really just about how we approach regulations in general.

And so additional regulations can be seen as barriers, it's true, because that's what I've heard from developers and investors and property owners. So I think it would be problematic of me in my position to dismiss people like that, that that build housing for us. And and I'm looking for ways in which to help support that. So I'm going to be I knew my amendment last meeting wasn't going to pass. But what I appreciated from kind of tabling it is this discussion and kind of more thought.

So I think that is beneficial whether or not I'm on the majority side of things tonight I think having this discussion is helpful. I'm going to be looking for a targeted approach tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Tim Chisholm.

Thank you. I originally made this motion to table two weeks ago because too many of my colleagues were conflicted about this issue, and that's not very surprising that many of us would be conflicted about an ordinance which prohibits housing in order to create more housing. It's counterintuitive and some of it may be problematic. The other reason I tabled this discussion was because we have to have a briefing schedule for written amendments with a topic that's this complex and making verbal amendments on a topic that's this complex is not possible to do well. I hope this gave people time to look at this complex issue.

I think we all have the same goal, which is to get more housing. And I have a goal not just to get more housing and catalyze the station area, but also to do it for a generation of young people that need more housing and not have it sit fallow for the next forty years while we try to achieve perfection, which isn't coming. And the perfection is likely not coming because when I served on the Planning Commission between 2017 and 2023, the original vision of the station area included thousands of employees and thousands of office space and thousands of logical tenants to those apartment buildings. Those office buildings never materialized because of COVID and people working from home. And when we originally envisioned the stationary when I was on the planning commission starting in 2019, Zoom had not been invented or maybe nobody I don't know.

But the original vision was to have 5,000 office employees on 85th. That's

not going

to happen. And we have to now hopefully re envision the station area to catalyze it anyway. Many of my colleagues have been conflicted about this, and they're not just my colleagues here on the City Council, they're colleagues that I served with on the Planning Commission. Today, at 10:37 a. M, we received the entire City Council received an email from those chair of the Planning Commission supporting many of these amendments.

And claims that the Planning Commission doesn't support these amendments, I believe is false. The Planning Commission and Planning Commission chair have expressed their support for these amendments, specifically for Amendment three, four and five.

Thank you.

Okay. Leandro, you're so nice for just standing there waiting for us, and I have to take my turn. So thank you, everyone, for your comments. And I do want to thank Councilmember Timchisen for putting this on pause and giving us all time to just do some deep thinking about this. So I appreciate it.

My comments are similar to what you've already heard, but please indulge me. I want to start where Deputy Mayor is, is our responsibility as civic leaders is to remain visionary. And we've always talked about the stationary being a bold vision. And I think it's important as civic leaders that we stay focused rather than reactive. It's who we are as a city, and it's really clear an example I always use is in our budgeting process.