City Council - Regular Meeting

54321.

Good evening, and welcome to the Tuesday, 02/24/2026 regular business meeting of the Olympia City Council. For the record, we have a quorum with all council members present tonight. So before we adopt the agenda, I do have a statement here that I wish to read, regarding, the rally that is, taking place, just outside. So there was a call that went out to the community for individuals to be here tonight to comment to us on flock cameras. We always wanna encourage community members to give public comments on the issues that are important to them.

However, I do want to take a moment to reiterate several facts about FLAC camera our FLAC camera program before we continue with tonight's public comment. So late last year, we heard from community members about strong concerns with FLAC and a call to shut it down. We heard fears and anger about the federal government using data in other communities for purposes of immigration enforcement, data security, and overall privacy concerns, and the expanding use of advanced license plate reader, or ALPR, which it will be referred to from here on out, and other similar technologies. We, as a city, responded to those concerns. The FLAC camera program has been suspended since December.

All camera equipment has been removed, and the current contract with FLAC will not be renewed. All data outside the thirty day retention window or which is required for local law enforcement investigation purposes has been deleted. We remain committed to providing opportunities for transparent processes with public input before any future movement towards public safety technology solutions. We have also taken action to help community members feel safer and more empowered in response to ICE activities. We are upholding our sanctuary city commitments, educating community members by making available Know Your Rights cards, issuing a mayor's statement, convening elected officials from the region to talk about safety planning, and providing opportunities for community members to take part in or help co host Know Your Rights trainings.

Tonight, council will also take formal action on two items that demonstrate our sanctuary city values and commitment. The first is the approval of a resolution calling for the end of dangerous immigration enforcement tactics by ICE in US Customs and Border Protection, using protection of constitutional rights urging protection, excuse me, of constitutional rights and requiring guardrails on Department of Homeland Security funding. The second is an update on the Olympia Municipal Code that prohibits the use of city owned or controlled property for civil immigration enforcement activities or operations by federal agents. We acted in response to community concerns about suspending FLAC, and we will continue to act in response to our community's concerns about actions by the federal government, specifically the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Custom Enforcement. Earning and maintaining public trust is critical to this council, city leadership, and the Olympia Police Department.

So, with that, I do believe we will hear more from our community members during our public comment segment of the meeting. But for now, we will continue with the rest of the agenda, and I need a motion to adopt tonight's agenda.

Move to adopt the agenda. Second.

All those in favor of adopting the agenda as published signify by saying aye.

Aye.

We have an agenda. So our first item tonight is special recognition, which is a poetry reading from the City Of Olympia's poet laureate, Ocean, who is here with us tonight. So, I'd like to welcome up Stephanie Johnson, who is our arts program manager to Hi, Stephanie.

Hi. Thank you. Mayor Paine and members of council, I am Stephanie Johnson with City of Olympia Parks, Arts and Recreation, and I'm here tonight with our poet laureate for 2025 to 2027, Ocean. And part of the work of Olympia's poet laureate is to present a poem at a city council meeting near the beginning of each year. And the goals of the poet laureate program are to promote promote poetry as an art form, expand access to the literary arts, connect the community to poetry, promote poetry as a community voice that contributes to a sense of place, and to address the topic of the poet laureate appointment, which is to utilize the power of poetry and language to contribute to thoughtful response and centering around the concept of resilience.

Hi, Ocean. It's good to see you.

Hi. Thanks, Tom. Old tree, breathe with me. O bright child, placenta dug under crumb to feed this seedling. Ye coast pines swung and broken, clawing cliffside over glitter seas blighting brine.

Where under slither tendril through my father's ashes and arch in springtime reverie or swing in shore gales cackling up through brittling air, strain branches, strain arms. In the space lintelled between finger and twig snag wisps of revenants, we breathe each other, have ever breathed through alveoli and stomata, leaves and skin coevolved to vein the star. We oxygen breathers, we external lungs of our ancient kin, you one legged gods who rise over us, strong of phloem and bast, whose sleep bowed in hibernal ice only to erupt again in seas of verdant foliage, Your cycle of rebirth modeled for us religion. All mothers coil back to you. We peel over skin your bark.

Sun flare in leaf and palm unfurl to receive star heat. Red wing flood in pilgrimage, starling and flutter hawk. Chlorophyll boiling in the mammals' loins to make life from drops of sun. All it is is oxygen, mother molded matrices and whirling helices, mammals but a side roll in the drama beyond our reckoning. You old ones sing your story, brushing canopy against canopy.

Trail, we ghosts, mother. I raise my eye waters glimmering on the sky. Old tree, breathe with me. We're here a while yet.

Just a moment, Ocean. Just a moment. Thank you so much. That was beautiful. But I I would love to hear more about, what inspired you to write it or you know, I see that it's from 2025 to 2027. So when exactly did you write it?

This is this is my latest poem, and, I was working on it for, my friend puts out a a magazine for Severed Branches Press who's here tonight, and he invited poems around sacred trees. And so I was working on this theme of how we humans and trees I mean, the animals and the plants breathe together, and how ancient that story is. So that's was my theme and the sort of, resilience of our relationship with the plant beings. Yeah. Thanks for asking.

Yeah. Beautiful. Well, thank you so much for sharing it with us. And this is the first of of several that in the future during your term that you'll be back here to read and well, other than when you first were appointed, obviously, but the first for this year. Are there any other comments from council? Yes. Councilmember Gilman.

Thank you, Ocean. I wonder if you or Stephanie might describe what kinds of opportunities there are for people in the community to interact with you as poet laureate in this year.

I could say that coming up in the spring that we have an in person poetry workshop planned and a a poetry reading plan that's open to the public also, including an open mic. So folks could come to that if you want to write, and you can also come to that if you want to listen and you want to per per chance share your work. That'll be at the Olympia Center and Traditions on the same day, but I'd have to look up what day it is because I can't think of it off the top of my head. But that's in April. That might be a a wonderful first place for folks to meet. Yeah.

Thank you for that question. Any additional comments? Well, thank you so much again for sharing it with us, and I'll just quickly say that I'm gonna admit to you that I highlighted at least 12 words that are not part of my vocabulary, so this poem is also very educational for me to do my homework and find out what they mean.

Good. Thank you.

Thanks, Ocean.

Alright.

So, that concludes our special recognition portion of our agenda for tonight, and we are gonna move on to public comment. And I am going to turn it over to the mayor pro tem.

Alright. So for, any of you that are new to public comment, each public commenter gets two minutes. We have quite a few public commenters signed up, and so if it does exceed thirty minutes total of public comment time, please know that we will pick up and continue public comment after, all of the business meeting items. And so we will return to public comment, if it doesn't make it within the thirty minutes. Because we have so many signed up, we are gonna prioritize, the folks that came to speak on topics that we're covering tonight, both in person and online, and then and then, we'll, pick it up with everyone else.

So with that, I will call forward a few different names or a few names so you can sort of know when you're in queue, to stand up at the podium here. Once you start speaking, the two minute timer right over here will, begin counting down to your time. It'll give you a little notice, where it'll turn yellow in the lights before you to tell you that you have thirty minutes or sorry. Thirty not thirty minutes. You have thirty seconds.

You have thirty seconds, so that just tells you to wrap up your time. And if you hear me say thank you, that's my way of trying to politely wrap you up so that we can get to the next person. And with that, if your time elapses of two minutes, you can, feel free to submit your comments, through email. You know, mayor, we don't typically take Q and A during this time, but we have a community member with their hand raised. So do you mind if I okay. Go ahead.

I'm hoping that you'll let me speak because I have a disability. I cannot be out driving at night, and I can only tolerate, artificial lights for a short time. So I'm hoping that you'll just let me speak. I'm the first one in. I'll make it quick.

Are you Kristen?

I am.

Okay. Thank you for that. Got it. Thanks for sharing. Was that everything? Okay. Alright. So without further ado, we'll get started. So we do have Kristen first. Yes. And then we have, Edith Hulett, followed by Rick Bird. And when you do come up, please state your first and last name for the record.

Yeah. My name is Christina Townsend. 2141 Grove Road. I am also part of the Soft Lights Foundation because I now have a new fun brain injury from LED streetlights. Don't worry. They're not from yours. But I'm here to raise awareness on your light pollution has gotten pretty severe. You guys have an amazing light policy. Unfortunately, nobody is following it, and nobody is enforcing it. This is the Bordell Scale.

Few years back, you were back in here, which is still bad, but you now are here. And, unfortunately, no one got the memo on LED lights, and there's absolutely no safety, no regulation, and no standards for LEDs. What we now know is LED lights are linked to everything. And I'm sorry. I'm gonna, like, start your meeting off with some depressing news. Good news is it's easy fixable. But, these lights now, living under these lights, so

you guys

see, increases everybody's risk of cancer by thirty to sixty percent. Let me let that sink in, thirty to sixty percent. But now we know in the last year, there's so much research over 20,000 research articles now coming out flooding on the impacts of LED lights, especially the blue, the flicker, and the strobing. So now we know that these also increase cardiac risk by fifty four percent and stroke risk by fifty four percent, increase cardiac death by twenty eight percent, and the main damage happens between the hours of 11:30 and 05:30 at night. We have some serious things to go on.

Here's your main culprit. So here's what a a house should look like or a business should look like when they're closed. Unfortunately, this is what's happening where people are putting out these high intensity LED lights that cause permanent eye damage, by the way. You can't test these on humans because they cause damage. So here's what they're looking at. This is this is not good. This is good. We need the dark sky. UV the LED blue light immediately impacts the macular. It is increasing macular. Alzheimer's, dementia, permanent working memory in children where they're getting exposed to all these bright lights that are in schools, that are on the side of the road, we need to correct this really fast. But I'm gonna give you a quick little history. So LED lights

Christina?

Am I done?

Yes. Although, if you would like to leave any of that information with us, we can look at it. And if you had further comments, please feel free to email us.

I will. Is there possibly a time that I can actually schedule to do a better presentation for the

council? Is that allowable?

I'm going to ask staff to follow-up with you and also retrieve the documents from you. I want to you'll get the answer to your question. Yeah. You. Okay. Next we have, Edith Hulett.

My name is Edith Hulett. I live on Woodard Green Drive. On the north side of that street is Huntington Apartment Complex. It's a very big apartment complex. On the south is Sequoia Assisted Living, and at the end of the street and across Lily Road is Kaiser Hospital.

And so we do get a lot of traffic there. My problem is this street is a very, very long block that's by the apartments in assisted living and then a short block where there's 26 houses. People have figured out that they can park their car there and just leave it. It's a safe place. Occasionally, one gets towed away, but not often enough.

The vehicles make it impossible to pass someone. You have to wait until the car goes by, and then you can it it's not a two lane anymore. It's a one lane. I've been informed that the residents of apartment complex have filed some kind of paperwork to have something done about these abandoned vehicles, but nothing has happened. And so I understand they're allowed to be there three days, seventy two hours, and then they have to be moved.

I have pictures of some that have been there since 2022, and I I would like to leave them with someone who would be able to give it to whoever the person is who would take care of this. Okay? That that's about it. Thank you.

Thank you, Edith. We have staff coming up now that'll follow-up with you and take your documents. With that, we have Rick Bird followed by, Jessa Davis, followed by Roslyn Erwine.

Council members, my name is Rick Byrd. I've lived in Olympia since 1973, a longtime teacher and administrator with the Olympia School District. Currently, my wife and I live at Briggs East in the 55 Plus Silverleaf Apartments for old folks. And one of the main reasons that we moved there was the whole concept about the about the village, the the Briggs Village. We wanna be able to walk to a grocery store.

We wanna walk to the YMCA. It's part of our understanding about how to age in a way that works. And so, as you are considering the the changes that have been proposed for the Briggs Village, we ask you to to to be very aware of the motivation of people like us and others that have bought property in the village community to have that walkable community and to have the services that we need. If that means reducing the size of the grocery store to 9,200 square feet in order to attract to make make that happen, then I'm all for that. But as long as the grocery store is big enough for fresh fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, the kinds of things that you need, the healthy kind of foods that you need.

I encourage you to make sure that that happens. Thank you.

Thank you. For those of you that are hoping for a response from counsel, you may you may very well get one at the end of the thirty minutes. There will be a time for counsel to respond if they choose to do so. But we are listening. So, oh, I think we have our next person.

Hello, everyone. Thanks. My name is Jessa Davis. My pronouns are sheher, and I'm the executive director of the Seattle Coalition for Family and Relationship Equity. Just wanted to come up today to say thank you for the hard work and effort that you've been putting into two bills that are before council tonight.

And, you know, as a former Olympia resident, someone who lived on the West Side here and still has a lot of connections in this community and comes here for work a lot, I just wanted to underscore the importance that bills like these protecting people's family and relationship status will have, for those of us who live and work here, even if we don't live here. Right? So, the Organization for Polyamory and Ethical Lommonogamy, gives us some data that shows that social stigma is one of the greatest barriers that people who are polyamorous face in society. And nondiscrimination efforts like these bills will help people begin to live authentically and openly. And, so I'm excited for how creating this space in the public sphere to change the tone of the conversation will allow people to come out of the closet, speak up, and begin to chip away at that stigma.

Right? So the the law the changes we're making in the law tonight, hopefully, are going to build towards a movement of acceptance. And I'm excited to see that Olympia is moving forward with increasing its status as a welcoming city. So thank you very much. I'm done early, which I was afraid I wouldn't be. So thank you.

Yes. Well done. Next, we have, Rosalyn Erlewine. And if I do mispronounce your name, please do correct it for the record. And followed by Brian Fowler, followed by Linda Shotwell.

Alright. My name is Rosalyn Erlewein. I'm speaking on the issue of family and relationship structure. My daughter has three parents. When she was just two days old, her midwife came for her checkup and found that her heart was beating at about half the pace that it should have been.

We rushed her to the ER where she was taken into the back with her biological mom. When we checked in, the person at the front desk asked who we were to the patient. One of us hesitated, and then we said, mom, other mom, and dad. In that moment, we feared that the person sitting across from us might say, well, only two parents can go back with the child, with the patient, or that there may be other questions that would keep us from our baby for any longer. The person across from us gave us a searching look, and then to our relief, we were allowed to go back with her.

No parent should ever have to fear being kept from their child because of their relationship or family structure. No child should ever be separated from their parent because of their family structure, not even for a moment. Thank you for recognizing the need to pass protections for people with different relationship structures. Our daughter is two years old now and is happy and healthy and thriving. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, we have Brian Fowler.

Good evening. I'm Brian Fowler with the Briggs Valley Community Group. I'm here to speak about the minimum grocery store size for urban villages like Briggs. The Planning Commission recommended a 12,000 square foot minimum for the grocery. The ordinance before you now provides for a minimum of only 9,200 square feet.

Well, you might say 9,200 square feet is only a minimum, and that won't prevent a bigger store if, say, a bigger grocery comes along. The problem is that grocery stores pay lower rents. And if the minimum stays at 9,200, the developer will build exactly that to maximize profits. He'll build a Shell store at 9,200 square feet that locks out any chance of a larger store that would better serve the community grocery needs. We're offering a compromise amendment to the ordinance.

Set the minimum at 12,000 square feet, as the Planning Commission recommended, but allow the develop developer to build down to 9,200 feet if he actually has a grocery operator under contract. We've been waiting for it. This protects what we call the Goldilocks Zone, the stores between 9,212 square feet. These are the proven successful neighborhood grocers, H and L Produce Lakewood, Tacoma Boys in Tacoma and Puyallup, Harbor Greens and Gig Harbor in Spokane, and the Olympia Food Co op's planned 10,000 square foot store. These stores are big enough to meet a lot of grocery needs and be successful.

In in summary oh, I still have time. Oh, I was rushing. Okay. In summary, our copper compromise hits another Goldilocks zone. It better protects the community's needs, and it still gives the developer flexibility. It's a fair and reasonable path forward. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Linda Shotwell, followed by Tyson Holman and David Carlson.

Well, you just said my name, but I'll say it again anyway. Hello. I'm Linda Shotwell, and I'm a resident at, cooperative village at South Sound. It's just Kitty corner from Briggs Y. And besides everything that Brian just said very well, I'm here to just respectfully ask that you consider honoring the Briggs Master Plan, which included a full service grocery store.

And I would like to say that a full service grocery store will offer us life sustaining healthy food choices. And a smaller store can't always do that, especially when it comes to quality fresh fruit and produce. So thank you very much for listening, and I appreciate it. And you could have more time, Brian, or wherever you want.

Thank you, Linda. It doesn't work that way, but I appreciate you. I know. Did I sound like a killjoy? Thank you, Linda. Alright. Tyson Holman?

Okay. Hello. I am Tyson Holman, and I'm with the Seattle Coalition for Family and Relationship Equity. And I'm really stoked to be here tonight. I drove all the way from Seattle, and I came here to thank each and every one of you for passing protections for diverse family structures. I think it's really important for me personally. I'm a polyamorous and queer man, and I know firsthand what it's like to have to face discrimination and have to edit myself to prevent that from happening. I've gotten to public with people that I love and have to pretend like that love doesn't exist. I've gotten really, really good at using the word partner as broadly and generally as possible to make sure people don't realize that I have more than one. And this isn't just me.

This is something that we all have to deal with, this editing of ourselves to avoid discrimination. Some of us, when talking to a landlord, we have to say roommate, when really we mean family. Some of us, when introducing a partner to a coworker, worker, we say just a friend when really we mean partner. And I think one of the most tragic things that we have to deal with is some of us have to choose which partners are visible and public and which remain hidden. And I can tell you, I have been the hidden partner.

And it is a painful thing to go out into this world and feel like the way that I love isn't real or doesn't exist. And it makes me question myself sometimes. And so the protections that you're putting forth for the city of Olympia are going to really dramatically help people like me. And I really generally hope that the city of Seattle is able to follow your leadership and implement similar protections. Again, thank you.

Thank you. David Carlson followed by Debbie Carter and Tom Culhane.

Good evening, friends. My name is Dave Carlson. I'm the legislative campaign coordinator for Open. That's the organization for polyamory and ethical nonmigamy. Really, I'm just up here because I I I gotta say thank you. I've been doing this job for over a year and talking to city council members across the country. Y'all show real leadership. This is impressive. We were able to have a conversation. You understood the need for your community, for the people that love in your community, and you took you took it up. You didn't ask you asked real questions. You had concerns, and you moved forward. You didn't you didn't make up issues. I've seen that. You didn't slow roll it.

You saw the need, you took you took action. So, really, I'm I'm just here to say thank you.

Thank you. Debbie, go ahead.

Council members. My name is Debbie Carter, and this is actually my first time at a city council meeting, so fun. I am a resident of Silverleaf Apartments, and I am actually my apartment faces out to the Briggs YMCA, Briggs Tap Room, and the most amazing ice cream shop ever, Humble Cow. I'm here today because I'm concerned about the, changes that are being spoken to about the rezoning. Already just from my apartment building looking out I can see where parking has become an issue without anything even being built in those green spaces.

Also I'm concerned about the amount of traffic that additional housing units in that area would bring. It's really hard people will come over and actually park over in our open parking area across from Humbo Cow, and they are trying to get over across the street. I'm concerned with little kids that are out there. We actually almost witnessed a little kid being hit, trying to cross the street. And so it's just my concern about putting, more housing in there, the parking.

And also, I'm kind of concerned about infrastructure, also if it will support the additional, units in there. Last summer, we had about four power outages because of power surges, and I'm not sure if that has been corrected. And then, yeah, like I said, I'm just concerned about having more housing units put in there. Thank you.

Thank you. Tom, you're up next, followed by Ribbon Beagle. And then, just for a heads up for staff, and then we're gonna, move to virtual.

Hi. My name is Tom Culhane. I live near Olympia High School and am an active member of Briggs YMCA. I oppose amending the zoning requirement to increase the number of residential units and decrease the required commercial space in urban villages, including Briggs. The existing requirements took into consideration plans to decrease traffic and support a walkable community.

They include a strategic mix of residential and commercial space and shared parking plans for commercial properties. To change the zoning now, at the request of the developer, mister Gill, after he provided virtually no evidence of a meaningful effort to recruit a full service grocer, would be wrong. In public meetings, mister Gill has mentioned only a single contact with spuds, and that contact was never pursued. Obviously, it's more lucrative for mister Gill if the grocery requirement is reduced and he's allowed to lease the space to hire rent tenants. However, the council is supposed to be acting on behalf of the community and not just one individual.

Briggs is a great location for a grocery store for our region. The demand exists, The community exists there. The walkable design exists. What's missing is a developer willing to pursue the grocery store that city planned for and the residents were promised. For these reasons, I asked the council to uphold the original zoning requirements requiring a grocery size that actually meets the community needs. Thank you.

Thank you. Ruben Beagle?

Good evening, city council, and thank you for your time today. I'll try to be brief. My name is Ruben Beagle, and I am a member of the Olympia Democratic Social ists of America. I would like to start by thanking you and your efforts around the additions and amendments to city code in regards to family and relationship structure. I am a polyamorous woman, and conversations are about and my partner is always the ones I'm open about and the ones I'm not open about.

So I appreciate city council's quick and immediate action once this ordinance was suggested to council. I understand that city councilors are asked to learn about a lot, even in topics where they have no understanding in. Especially in these uncertain times of safety within our sanctuary cities, it is important that ordinance like these are simple and easy to do in your own words. These are protections that will add another layer of to the legal lifelines of safety for our communities wholly in intent, whether it be immigrant families huddling together and hiding from ICE. We'll get back to that.

Legally documented or not, to queer families who have been promised the freedom to be who they wish to be and to live how they wish to love, only to be let down time and time again. And even, yes, your mother-in-law that is on the mortgage who lives downstairs on the 1st Floor because it's cheaper than the apartment or a nursing home. Sorry, Robert. Me and my comrades may find disagreements with the city council and business owning class cooperation success to assign me proposition one, but ordinances like this are how we show that we as a chapter are committed to assisting in the defense of everyone in Olympia regardless of those disagreements. It is also within the same breath that I must ask the city council to take another look in regards to the resolution and regards to CBP and ICE.

ICE has blown open the door quite literally to the conversation around immigration, robbing due process and civil liberties from people regardless if they are an American citizen or The only difference between a little immigrant and an illegal one is paperwork. Reforming ICE is a conservative position. Abolishing ICE is the moderate position. We need to stand up for our neighbors and the most marginalized, and any nonviolent means should be possible. Possible. And the second to last line of defense should be the Olympia Police Department to uphold our sanctuary policies and laws and punish anyone who wishes to harm our neighbors, foreign and domestic. Any organization that is also colluded with ICE should be held accountable as well. Thank you again for your time. I appreciate it. That's all I can ask for.

Thank you, Ruben. We'll go ahead and move to online public comment. First, we have Andrew Peterson.

Yes. Hi. Thank you, council members, for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Andrew Peterson. My family and I have lived in Briggs Village for more than a decade.

We bought here for the dream of a walkable neighborhood with good parks for the kids and easy access to fitness shops and a grocery store. So I support the proposals suggested earlier by Brian Fowler. I understand mister Gill's desire to build more apartments, and we're willing to compromise some of our dream because Olympia needs more housing. Against our best interest, we even compromise on the original grocery store size because we just want something built that's large enough for us to buy the ingredients we need to make a healthy meal for our families. We have not, however, seen any willingness for mister Gill to compromise.

In fact, he spends a lot of money to not compromise. His high price attorney pushes his rejected proposals forward, and planning commission recommendations get ignored. He bought a market study that doesn't hold up to any serious review to try and trick us into believing his proposals are justified. His potential business partners and their interest groups write letters of support claiming there's no commercial demand and that we shouldn't trust our lying eyes, the people lined up for ice cream and crowd tables for beer and pizzas on weekdays in the middle of winter. If his claims were true, he could have saved all those lawyer fees and just shown us evidence he's been trying to actually sell the commercial space.

He could've shown us the listings. He could've shown us phone calls or emails. In the full twelve months we've been going through this, he showed us nothing. We've even looked for the evidence, and we found nothing. And I'm mad because I don't like being lied to. But if the city council allows it to not count the entire Briggs property in determining commercial space or allows him to build multiple tiny food stores, I'll just be sad. I'll be sad for me, my family, and my neighbors because the dream that we brought brought into got sold from beneath us to an out of town developer with deep pockets who waved his money around and got his way. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Franklin Wilson. Is Franklin with us? Oh, okay.

Can you hear me now?

We can. You sound great. Go ahead.

Oh, that's great. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My wife and I have lived in Briggs Village since, what, May 2019, and we opposed the proposed alterations in the city's zoning codes in relation to Briggs Village. We believe the zoning regulations adopted at the outset of Briggs Village constitute a moral, if not a legal, contract with the citizens who have purchased or rent homes and apartments in Briggs Village. Further, we believe that capitulating to the demands of the developer before the original descriptions of Briggs Village have been given opportunity to work constitutes a breach of trust between the city and residents who live in Briggs Village as I think others have indicated so well this evening.

Finally, we believe that any current or future alterations to the original Briggs plan should be made contingent on the developer first, a, providing a Briggs 12,000 square foot or larger village grocery store, and b, working out appropriate arrangements for the maintenance and management of the planned commercial areas of Briggs Village, including the regular removal of trash and the pruning of trees in the village commercial center and along the streets. I mean, the landscaping is minimally done in this village and especially along the streets. The trees are in terrible shape. And finally, c, working out appropriate arrangements for the management and maintenance of trees and sidewalks in the Briggs Village neighborhood. These things should be done prior to any alterations to the original Briggs Village plan that was and and it seems to us that the city should support the residents primarily.

And development, yes, but when when the development sticks to the plan as purchased or sold. So thank you for your time. Appreciate it very much.

Thank you. Next, we have, Eka Peterman followed by Betty Bailey.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm also commenting on the Briggs Village development. It's where I live. And I support a minimum 12,000 square foot grocery store and using the entire property to determine the minimum commercial space. It's been thirteen years since I moved here primarily because of the grocery store and the walkable community concept. It seems like a pretty natural and organic idea, but people who don't live here are making life impacting decisions about us. So I support whatever my neighbors are supporting in this because it's been too long. And I'd like to see the council support the residents here rather again than an outside individual. So thank you very much for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. Alright. So we have, Betty Bailey, and then we'll, finish this round of public comment with Heather Burgess.

Thank you. I'm Betty Bailey. I live adjacent to Briggs Village or, yes, at the Village Co op of South Sound. And I have written testimony before you, but I do wish to speak briefly. There are hundreds, likely thousands of neighbors and interested parties who want this grocery store and other commercial tenants in the Briggs Village.

And we also want a win win solution. As Andrew mentioned, we've sometimes compromised what our original goal was mainly because we do want this grocery so badly. So we do wanna win for the developer, otherwise, obviously, he won't do the work, and we want a win for the community. So high density. Okay.

Well, we're fine with that if parking is addressed, and that is a win for the developer. Adding another floor to the apartment buildings, well, okay. Again, if the parking's handled, and that is a win for the developer. Really, the only way to have a win for our community is to put in that grocery store. And I love what Brian Fowler said about the 12,000 square foot requirement flexing down to the 9,200 if the grocer was identified and signed into a lease.

Right? So please give us a win win solution. The neighbors are counting on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. So our final public commenter. Thank you. Heather Burgess.

Good evening, members of city council. This is Heather Burgess of the law firm of Dixon Frohlich Phillips Burgess. I represent Briggs RE Development and its principal Gordie Gordie Gill, who owns the undeveloped property being addressed this evening as part of the OMC 18 o five amendments. I submitted a detailed comment to you on 02/17/2026 and another one earlier today regarding applicants requested amendments to the proposal. I appreciate you considering those requests.

I wanted to make two brief additional points. First, to draw the council's attention to written comments that you received from Kathy McCormick. Miss McCormick was a city planner at the time the original urban village code was written and also actively participated in the 2013 master plan amendment process, which is addressed in some detail in your staff report. She's pointed out that changes that occurred to reduce housing density elsewhere in the city over the last twenty years, such as the down zoning of LVA Park, have contributed to the lack of commercial demand at Briggs Village that was expected by the original plan and that were built into the assumptions underneath it. So that's consistent with the results of the CIAM AI market study.

Increasing residential density and rightsizing the retail component, including the grocery store, is necessary to achieve the vision that miss McCormick and others had in creating the urban village concept and that the neighbors and residents there deserve and want to see. Finally, I just wanna address briefly. There are many comments in the record from the y and its members about parking. Although the applicant has disagreed and made that clear to city staff that about its legal duties to provide the y with free parking, he is committed to working cooperatively with the y and with the city to resolve those issues as needed in conjunction with the master plan amendment, which is the next step in the process. We'd urge the council to please consider allowing the smaller demising grocery stores as a way to bring groceries to the village, and, again, greatly appreciate your time and consideration and the staff's work on this extended process.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. At this time, we're gonna conclude this portion of public comment. And I recognize that we have a number of in person and online public commenters that are been waiting to speak. And I we just appreciate your patience so much. And we will pick it up after we conclude business items. For what it's worth, many people are here to speak about Briggs Urban Village. And I hope you will stick around to listen to those business items as they come up and council discuss them. But for now, I'll just turn it back to the mayor.

Thank you, mayor Pro Tem. And just for the folks that are either in person or online, actually, if you're looking at your agenda, we'll return to public comment after item six d on your agenda. So stay tuned. Alright. So we're gonna move on to adoption of the consent calendar. I am tracking that we are going to pull items for g and for h. Are there any, additional requests for pulls for questions or comments on the consent calendar? Alright. Seeing none. So, at this time, I will pull them after I get a second.

So is there a motion to adopt tonight's consent calendar?

So moved.

Second.

Alright. We have a motion in the second, and we're gonna begin with item four g, which is the approval of a resolution calling for an end to dangerous immigration enforcement tactics by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and US Customs Border Protection, urging protection of constitutional rights and requiring meaningful guardrails on Department of Homeland Security funding. And this resolution is spearheaded by council member Gilman who has comments and has requested support.

Thank you. I'm I'm really pleased that we can bring this this resolution. We're bringing it at the same time as, many cities across The United States are are bringing very similar language, and it's it's to help bolster our members of congress who are willing to call to put guardrails contingent on any any additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security to to stop the ridiculous, cruel, dangerous tactics and and and actions that immigration is taking right now. So I I I just I also wanted to shout out that council member Theresa Mosqueda from King County Council reached out to us and helped have a me a discussion with staff from King County about both this measure and and the four h, how they're going about prohibiting ICE from staging on on public property. So that I just I I I very much appreciate that we're bringing this forward.

Thank

you, council member Gilman. Are there any additional questions or comments? Alright. I just wanna say thank you to council member Gilman, again, for your work in spearheading this and arranging the meeting with council member Musqueda and her staff. This is important because, you know, it's the resolution is about stating our position, frankly, as as a local government, one of several across this country who disagree with the way that our federal agencies are handling the current enforcement of our immigration policies at the moment.

And and this resolution will also be shared with our congressional delegation as well to let them know our position and that we're one of many cities that are lending our voice to this conversation. And so I thank you for that. Alright. So that's item four g. And then for item four h, we have the approval of an ordinance enacting Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 12.75, which is prohibiting the use of city owned or controlled property for civil immigration enforcement activities or operations by federal agents, declaring an emergency and establishing an effective date first and final reading.

And just a few weeks ago, I made a request to the city manager that we explore the concept of prohibiting ICE or any other federal agency from using city property for any of their purposes of enforcing their immigration policies. That includes their personnel, their equipment, whatever. And so this gives us a mechanism to put this into our code and to enforce that code. And, frankly, what's important is that we have a mechanism to challenge this should this become a problem in the future. And so I will just be transparent about the fact that this does not mean that it cannot occur, and I wanna be clear about that.

But it does give us some ability to to push back against it and hopefully prevail if we need if we need to do that and if it comes to that. And so, hence, the reason for making sure that we adopt this into our code as something that we feel, very strongly about. And so, I understand that this is, not something that everyone in our community is happy about, but by majority, our community is a welcoming city, and we welcome people from all different backgrounds. And this is one of very few ways that local governments have, to to try to have some kind of control of what's happening across communities across the country. And so we are happy to take this up, to do all that we can as we promised our community members that we would.

Alright. So, we have a motion in a second, to adopt tonight's consent calendar. Actually, before I do that, I also wanna take the time to thank staff, for acting so quickly, and for doing the work, particularly our legal department, to prepare this for us to act on tonight. So thank you for your work. Much appreciated. Alright. So we have that motion in a second. All those in favor of adopting tonight's consent calendar, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Consent calendar is adopted. So that takes us to our first business item, which is item six a, which is the approval of an ordinance amending the Olympia Municipal Code related to development standards for urban villages. And we have Jackson Ewing, who is our senior planning planner for community planning and development, who is presenting tonight. Hi, Jackson. Good evening. Thank you.

Just give me bear with me a moment while I get set up. Thank you, mayor Payne, and and thank you, council. My name is Jackson Ewing, senior planner with the community economic development department. And I'm here to, discuss amendments proposed amendments to development standards regarding urban villages being OMC 18 o five. And I guess I'll I'll start.

There's a lot of names up here on the on my presentation. I have, myself, Nicole Floyd, planning planning director, Janik Machado, economic development director, and Tim Smith, the CPED director here as well with me to answer any questions and if we need to get into some depth on this project. So I'll start with some history of Olympia centers in the village approach. This kinda came to light through the 1995 comprehensive plan update looking out into the next twenty years We recently just adopted a new comprehensive plan looking out into '45. The key there there's four there's four types of villages within the city of Olympia that the code would allow creation of.

That would be a neighborhood center. It's a very small retail district. Neighborhood village, which is a slightly larger with more of a retail core. An urban village, which is intended to be the largest of the mixed use village, and then the community oriented shopping center, which generally doesn't have any residential components. So we're talking about the largest of our urban villages.

And the comprehensive plan really points to the reasons why these are important. To provide a mix of housing types, village green, that's the central draw to the urban village, a balance of retail, office, residential and recreation, and open space that's all usable by the the community members that live in that space. And their intent this urban village is intended to serve a a number of multiple or a number of nearby neighborhoods. Neighborhoods. So you think that it's not just a draw for the the the folks that live in the village, but that folks living nearby the village would also be drawn for for the retail services and recreation opportunities, parks or open space where events might be taking place.

So talking about the zoning code amendment evaluation process, really looking at furthering the goals of the comprehensive plan, looking at urban villages as walking mixed use regional commercial centers, Learning from the past, in 1995, the assumption was that commercial was the main economic driver, and we are really in a different place than we were back in the mid-90s. Most development was commercial focused at that time. That was where the profit was. We couldn't predict COVID and basically the Thurston County Economic Development Council data indicate that there's an increase in commercial demand, but not office space demand. And we're looking to allow the the amendment zoning code amendment evaluation process was looking to allow for adaptability and to really avoid over detailed requirements.

The the code that sets up villages, urban villages is incredibly detailed, and staff supports some some clear clean requirements that have direct tiebacks to their purposes. So now I'm talking about the Briggs Urban Village. It's important because in the city of Olympia, the Briggs Urban Village is the only urban village of its type approved under OMC 18 o five. There are neighborhood centers and and other types of villages approved under 18 o five. But when we're talking about an urban village, Briggs Urban Village is the the one that has been developed in the city of Olympia with with no others of its type.

The Briggs Urban Village is a 137 acres. 75 of that is open space. There's lots of kettles and park space that both are protected for critical area purposes as well as dedicated for folks to enjoy. This area was annexed back in 1999. Between ninety seven and two thousand three was when, the city went through its its plan to to adopt these urban village code requirements.

And like I said, it's the one of its it's the only one of its kind. And so this is an important slide, getting into the differences between the zoning code amendments and master plan amendments. I think there's been a lot of public comment about a number of different things, but this slide really clarifies what we're looking at tonight and what will be on our plate as we move into the future looking at any potential changes to the adopted Briggs master plan. So the zoning code is what establishes the master plan. The master plan takes that zoning code and and applies it to the site.

And so what we're talking about tonight is the actual zoning code that that establishes these village villages. Density, the grocery size, the range of allowable commercial space and height are things that are applicable to the zoning code amendments. Things like the number of residential units, how the the village is laid out, where where grocery might be, parking requirements, things like that are all will all be looked at in-depth if a amendment to the Briggs master plan is is brought forward. Any changes that are that are decided on tonight would not affect the current adopted Briggs urban village in the plan. That would require separate separate public process that we'll talk about in a little bit.

Okay.

So this this this project has been before Planning Commission as well as the City Council Land Use and Environment Committee. And the recommended zoning changes that came from those public processes were reducing the required commercial space in the village, removing office space requirements as well, increasing the allowed percentage of multifamily and reducing the required percentage of single family homes allowed in urban villages, eliminating the maximum square a maximum number of stories for mixed use mixed use buildings facing the town square, maintaining the requirement for a grocery store, and setting a minimum of 9,200 square feet. The current zoning code does not set a minimum for the grocery store. It is a a range of zero to 50,000 square feet with the caveat that one that a grocer must be, provided in an urban village. And so this is actually, the 9,200 would set set that minimum threshold of of of the expectation for for the amendment the the amended plan.

And, an additional thing is that there's a a new threshold being set for the timing of development of the Village Green or Plaza. Currently, the code, requires that that that space be developed when 50% of the commercial space has been built out in the urban village. As we know, the the development has been relatively slow out there, and we're we're nowhere close to the the that 50% number to establish that that village green. But these changes aim to well, the code would require the next residential project, any residential units being constructed in the mixed use core to, require that establishment of the village green. And this really, breaks down, throughout the ordinance where changes are happening.

And so you can see on the screen what is adopted and what is proposed. And so I'll just walk through them real quick. A day care currently is required in urban villages and being is is being proposed to being allowed as a permitted use. The amount of commercial space removing the tie between residential units and providing a certain amount of commercial space moving towards a range that still meets the general intent of what was expected for commercial through this or through the original master plan approval and would would hopefully allow a flexibility in in what that commercial would look like. There you're not locked into 500.

You you can you could really choose that that range per acre to provide. Single family, multi family, I won't get into that. The numbers are pretty straightforward. But the height of mixed using mixed use buildings fronting the town square, going from three stories to four, allowing for more units above areas where there would be required commercial space on the Ground Floor, and removing maxed housing densities, removing that limit to allow as many housing units as the village could support. The next is that phasing.

You can see as it was adopted before, it used to say before 50% of the required commercial space is under construction. The proposed is at the time residential development occurs in the village core. And then, the grocery store requirements. What is adopted is that the grocery store is required in urban villages, no minimum, with a maximum of 50,000. The proposed code amendments would still require the grocery store and set a minimum of 9,200 square feet with a maximum of 50,000.

So what really guided staff's review of this before it ever got to planning commission, I'm working through with the applicant to to get a a package that that could be considered by planning commission, was really looking at the comprehensive plan for for the support and and and where where we needed to move with with this project. And and really the these these goals from the comprehensive plan really supported take looking at these amendments and looking at ways that we could decrease or increase residential units while being flexible towards the retail and office space side of things, recognizing that over the past twenty plus years since the adoption of the Briggs Master Plan that that things have changed and market conditions have changed as well. And so I I want to point out that the bottom the bottom goal require village integrity, but providing provide flexibility for developers to respond to market conditions. And I think that as staff took this project on and took it through the process, that was a really important thing is to look at really maintaining the integrity of the village, but also allowing for potential change that we don't have to stay locked into exactly what was proposed in the past or approved in the past.

So public comments. There were a lot of public comments received throughout the process, a lot of community input and throughout Planning Commission and and public comments received up until this evening. Those those public comments were mainly around grocery size and making sure that the grocery size was big enough to support basic food needs. Not a convenience store was was really what we heard. Not allowing the applicant or city to abandon the intent of the urban village and focusing on basically the expectation of a walkable community that that people can can get to services easy and don't need to get in their car and and drive to Safeway.

And the other one is parking is recognized as a major concern as related to the YMCA at Briggs. And I'll just say that we recognize that concern and that We will be doing a deep dive into that and ensuring that the YMCA is provided with the adequate parking through that master plan amendment if it does move forward. I did want to address some comments that were submitted by the applicant because they seemed relevant. After the Land Use and Environment Committee meeting, the applicant had looked at putting together, you know, marked plans to see how what what the future would look like and and how the fourth story buildings would work. And it was identified that design standards in Briggs Village would would not allow the fourth story to be built because of requirements for really tall ceilings on the 1st Floor, high gloss windows throughout areas in Briggs for the commercial part of the requirement.

And and so the applicant had reached out and said that, you know, the they wouldn't be able to get the fourth story with the current 45 feet height limit, and that 50 feet would be needed to achieve those four stories. As as you've probably read, the applicant also has provided information about the challenges around the grocery store requirements in the village. And at this point, I think I will, open open it up to questions. I thank I thank you all for being here, and I'm excited to field questions. I have a a group of my coworkers available as well.

This was definitely a team effort that, was worked on by a number of folks and, over the course of a a number of years. So, I'll open open the floor to any questions. Thank you.

Yeah. Well, thank you so much, Jackson, for the presentation and for your work on this. Thank you. Yes. Councilmember Madron.

Yeah. Thank you. I wanted to share just the conversation that happened in land use committee to bring it to where it is today. And I also have some follow-up questions for staff just because of some of the conversations we had there and some of the ongoing work that's happened on it since then. You know?

And I think one of the primary issues on this concept of an urban village is very similar to a lot of the conversations we've had around neighborhood centers before, where we have an idea of what we want to have, where we want to have it, what it should look like, and then nobody comes along and builds it, nobody opens the business. And, you know, it's one of those it's it's one of those situations where we could have the best vision in the world for something, but we ultimately, we can't force develop we can't force a business to open. And so some of the concept around this is that, you know, if we're able to achieve more housing in that area, commercial becomes more viable, including a grocery store. And so so that that's that that that's kind of the premise of some of the conversation that we had in the land use committee. I also wanted to follow-up with Jackson and your team there with some of the questions that have come up.

You know, one of our public commenters spoke about maintenance issues. We talked about this a little bit in the Land Use Committee expressing some frustration, actually with the the lack of maintenance that is required in the private area. So I'm wondering if you could share a little bit about that to bring the council up to speed and, you know, what are the levers that we can pull to address maintenance issues?

Thank you, council member. I will actually call on Tim Smith to speak to those issues. I think it's more of

a

collaborative approach from our department. Yeah.

Good evening. Tim Smith, community planning and economic development director here at the city of Olympia. And, I assume you're talking about maintenance of public infra or private infrastructure such as roads, street trees, lighting

Sidewalks. Sidewalks. The beads growing, the trees, all of that.

Yeah. Right. Right. So those were installed by the developers some years ago in anticipation of the commercial core developing, and so that hasn't happened. And over time, we've seen some deterioration of those facilities. What staff generally does every few years is that, our department reaches out to public works, and they do an inventory of the facilities looking primarily at life safety issues first. And so an example, you know, if they're striping that's missing, signage that's gone, that'd the thing. That's a top priority. We develop the list, and then we coordinate with the, with the owner, in cooperation to to get a plan for improving those or making the necessary maintenance items, move forward and and improve. And so it's it's a collaborative effort.

We don't like to go down the code of code enforcement unless there's resistance. Typically, the, the owner, is cooperative and and does make those, but it is time to do that again. And so we can start that process.

Okay. Great. I appreciate, us being proactive on that because I I've been in that area recently, and I'm like, yeah. This is very problematic to have. You know? The the the infrastructure itself will degrade over time without that maintenance. And I I one of the things I'm hearing and what you're saying is that there's a belief that if the if we can get the full development of the commercial and housing in there, then that would naturally occur and more frequent maintenance. However, it is a current responsibility that it does need to happen on a regular basis. So okay. That's all I had on that.

Just wanted to make sure since especially since it came up in public comment. Also, the 9,200 square feet for a grocery store, it's not a number that was invented by the land use committee. My understanding is that our economic development director read through the market study, and I see her coming up right now. She probably knew I was gonna ask this question. So I just want to get some perspective. That was the number that was recommended to us by staff in terms of what was feasible, realistic in terms of a grocery store size. So, if you could just speak to that 9,200 square feet number and where that comes from.

Sure. So I believe the staff and land use environment committee recommendation is a data driven recommendation that comes from the market analysis. And this recommendation matches the minimum size to demonstrated supportable square footage. Footage. And so the study identifies nine to 200 square feet as the maximum potential size based on demand.

And so this avoids exceeding quantified demand, preserves flexibility, and reduces risk of long term vacancy. I think the risk of vacancy exists at any minimum size, but the recommendation is based on the data provided and aims to decrease the chance of a vacant development. The 12,000 square foot minimum that was mentioned exceeds the upper bound of what was supported by the data and the analysis.

Okay. Great. Thank you. And I also understand that, you know, one one of the things that Jackson shared is, like, markets have changed over time. It used to be that commercial was very strong. Now housing is more strong. But I also understand that one of the changes that have happened in this nearby area since the envisioning of Briggs that maybe has changed this equation is when the city decided to preserve LBA Woods. So there was going to be significant housing over in that area, and now it's preserved as a park. So that's also part of the equation of how the market has changed around over this over time.

So my understanding, looking at the market study that was conducted in 2023, they looked at existing conditions, and that is how they quantified demand.

Okay.

Great. Thank you. And just for a little bit more context, one of the things I understood from the planning commission because they are because there is no minimum size for a grocery store at this point. And one of the things the Planning Commission was, I think, rightfully concerned about was getting a mini mart instead of a grocery store, mini mart being probably 3,000 square feet or less. So that's why the conversation even came up at all. I believe it came from the planning commission to establish a minimum size. And just for some context, I just did some quick googling on this. So, like, you know, Spud's, the larger size store is 4,400 square feet. Westside Pooh Co op, five five thousand Eastside, 7,500. So just to contextualize some things.

I think on the land use committee, of the things we talked about is really wanting to make sure that you all get a grocery store and not wanting to take away so much flexibility that it doesn't happen at all. So that's some of the context there. I did hear one of the decisions that was made on the Land Use Committee was to not allow the separation of that into multiple businesses. And that was very intentional. We wanted there to be a grocery store where you can get every single ingredient you need to make a meal, not have to go to one store because it's a butcher and one store because it sells cheese, and then, you know, you get to the end of it and you don't even have all the ingredients.

So that was intentional. So I do hear that Ms. Burgess is requesting that amendment, and I wouldn't support that myself. I think I have one final question for you, Jackson, and that is Ms. Burgess asked about adjusting the maximum building height to 50 feet from 45 so that they can actually accommodate four stories. Previously, the number was 55 feet when it came to Land Use Committee, but it sounds like 50 feet is now feasible. From from and we asked this question at land use at the time, but has your perspective changed on that at all? Do you think that 45 feet is enough? Or should we tonight consider boosting that up to 50 so they actually are able to achieve four stories?

Thank you for that question. It's it it does seem important. The documents I have reviewed seem to show that four stories would be extremely difficult to achieve based on the design standards at the 45 feet 45 foot height and that 50 feet does seem appropriate if we want to achieve the the fourth story.

Okay. So an an additional thing for us to consider tonight, this is new information since the land use committee last talked about it, is we may consider an amendment to raise that commercial area up to 50 feet so that they can actually achieve the four stories that is part of the recommended change. So I know I talked earlier about people talking a lot in council meetings, but I actually did have a lot to say on this one, and I'm done now.

It wasn't too bad at all. Alright. Yes. Council member Green followed by council member Barron.

Thank you, Mayor Payne. Council Member Madron, thank you for that background. You answered a couple of my questions. I will say I I would be you know, I I appreciate the process that Planning Commission and that land use went through. The multiple tenant option to me is appealing only because, like for myself, I live in a neighborhood where there is a bakery and there is a butcher and there you know, and so I I feel like there are models or even if you think about when you go to a farmer's market, right, you don't go to one stall to find everything.

And so when I think about the ideal of getting some commercial development and getting some food in there, I feel like that's one of those flexibility pieces. But I, you know, I recognize the the concern on the other end as well. So I just would say I would be supportive of reconsidering that amendment, but there it is. But I have a question for Jenica. So we heard some people tonight and we've seen some written public comment and just as a matter of practice, would you help me understand if someone is developing any type of reach and so I'm thinking even of like Craft District or you know, if you are a developer, is it typically is it typical that that developer needs to recruit tenants, retail, that sort of thing?

Or if the if the design and the location and the everything is right, are retailers regularly sort of seeking out those opportunities?

I guess I'd be hesitant to comment on what typically happens because it can look different for different developments. And so I don't know that I would feel comfortable saying this is the way something should proceed in that area.

Okay. Then you're probably not gonna answer this question, but I'll just say it because where where my brain is is with no retailer coming in in thirty years, I just question, is it a combination of both of that? It feels like if that was an attractive space, an attractive design, an attractive whatever that would have happened, or does that just never happen if if if a a realtor or a developer or somebody isn't actively sort of selling that location?

I think I have not had enough time meeting with the developer or chatting to really understand more of the historical context of what has or hasn't taken place in terms of marketing or conversations with potential tenants. So And that's fine. I wanna be clear. Like, this I'm

not necessarily asking specifically about this developer, and I don't feel like anybody has to, like, give evidence of it. I I just was curious if, in general, sort of how that that market works. So if I'm a If I'm a specialty grocery store, am I out looking for the next opportunity if I'm ready to grow? Or am I waiting for somebody to come to me and say, hey, we've got

this awesome spot? I've seen it happen both ways.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Barrett.

Thank you. Jenica, I have a question too. It's regarding the the market study. It's my understanding that the that study was that the data used was several years old as far as population and whatnot. And so it doesn't include the 900 people that are anticipated moving into Briggs Village when it's built out? There

was additional comments submitted by CAI who noted that there had been no material change in the number of households close to Briggs Village or the numb number of households or the competitive supply in the area to warrant additional technical analysis, and so no additional technical analysis

was

provided.

It's my understanding that actually 400 more residents have moved in in the last two years in the general region of Briggs, new developments and whatnot, particularly kind of on the county side. So I I I that so the certainly didn't include the the 900 people that are anticipated once it's built out. Correct?

I mean, my recommendation and staff recommendation is based on the hard data that was provided to us in the market study.

Yeah. But I'm I'm just questioning the market study and the and the facts therein. So the market study didn't include the population of what Briggs would be when it's totally built out. That that's all. So the people who would be moving in would, of course, be accommodated. I I guess that's all I have. I just want wanted to make that point. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilmember Gilman.

Thank you. I've got a couple questions and a little bit of a rant. So I I realized we're not deal that the parking is really gonna be reflected in the master plan, but here's my question about parking. We've reduced across the city the parking requirements for multifamily. So would those reduced parking requirements apply to the the next round of multifamily units being built in the village?

That is correct. They the the currently adopted parking standards would apply to a current project right now or a a future project in, the the village. There aren't separate there aren't the ability to have separate parking standards in the village compared to areas outside.

I just wanted to check my understanding. That means there's there's two sort of compounding factors. One is we're going to allowing increased density in this area. And then since the plan was adopted, the city has reduced the parking requirements for multifamily, which means that the the artist's renderings, the sketches in the master plan won't reflect the kind of parking that would actually be required.

That is a correct assumption. The one thing that I would say regarding, I guess, the YMCA concern is that that was the YMCA's approval when they went through the expansion had a specific requirement to provide provide parking spaces off-site. And they are still in the process of of working through how that would will look as as the rest of the commercial core at Briggs is developed. So there's there's more to that story but that that's that's

where I Thank you, Jackson. So I I'm just trying to picture we're relying on the on the street parking, is currently used by the retail. There is retail there now. And that retail uses the along the street parking. And at this point in history, we haven't really pivoted to walking everywhere we go.

People tend to get their ice cream cone via single occupancy vehicles. It's just it's just the reality right now. So apartment dwellers also haven't gone down to point six of a car per unit, and so they're parking along the streets surrounding our apartment complexes. So I'm just I'm just I'm thinking out loud about that pressure for a minute, which to my mind means these changes do impact parking even though we're going to address it more specifically if there are master plan amendments that that come after this. So I that's the first thing.

The other one is I wanna clarify because I'm this this 9,212,000, there's two different ways to think about commercial space. One is for construction, what the shell and core, the the empty space on the 1st Floor of the building, how much square footage do we ask them to build to be ready for commercial utilization? And then the other one is, what is the minimum amount of a of a a lease, a grocery store lease that might get built out within that space? So when we're talking about 9,200 feet, would that likely be the size of the commercial shell and core that would be built so that that would effectively be an upper limit on what a grocery store could be?

That that's a great question. I would say there's a lot of flexibility in that. The layout the layout of how the village might look through a master plan amendment will have to show show those commercial spaces where they'd be located up to their required minimum square footage. Oftentimes, we see kind of a minimum and then a maximum provided in in these type of plans to give a a scale of feasibility that both ranges could work based on how the buildings parking areas and everything is being laid out. And so I don't have a, I guess, a clear answer other than to provide that that background information that it it could go both ways.

So that gives me interest in the the comments we've had about the 12,000 number perhaps being appropriate for how much space is left for a potential retail or grocery use within the 1st Floor of this this next large building. And then it's a separate discussion about what in the master plan would be a minimum size of grocery tenant within that space. So I'm I just I just wanna make sure that we don't limit, you know, size it all down. So we limit the the commercial build out initially, the the open space that's not residential on the 1st Floor, and then that further limits who might come do grocery.

That's a good point.

Yeah. Thank you. So that that's that's on my mind. That that makes me interest. And I I just I can't help but question from my experience, the saying that commercial was the driver in 1995, and today it's residential.

My experience living through that urban village in DuPont and that that that whole it's kind of a fad in planning was that it was planners having a vision of walkable village type street and alley kinds of centers that we might master plan, which we're we're calling the master plan villages, and that it wasn't so much that there was a huge demand for small grocery stores and we were gonna accommodate that. It was our trying to insist, actually, over neighborhood opposition thirty years ago, that this master plan was a better vision for the future. And my experience, at least in Western Washington, was that the struggle to get the grocery store was the same in both urban in in Downtown Seattle and Downtown Tacoma as well as in these these planned community master planned communities. It just wasn't easy for anybody to find a a grocery store that was gonna come into a neighborhood and and plunk down. So I I just wanna acknowledge that that that's my experience of of that that history.

But I I believe that the the people who bought homes and who and who bought businesses within Briggs Village in these intervening thirty years bought it with an understanding of the master plan and the vision and the promise of a grocery store. And and then I I would just close by saying, I also believe that the current owner purchased the the Briggs Village project with the understanding that it was master planned, that it was guided by these documents, and that these documents included the requirement to make provision for a grocer. So I just that's anyhow, that's my and I was way over in the West Side, not in the Southeast. So I didn't have a front row seat to all this, but I I watched pretty closely. And I so I'm I'm anyhow, I'm I'm glad that we're considering I I think this is it's a it's a reasonable move.

I I do appreciate both the the proposal to consider including the total area and not just the buildable area, and also this this idea of a larger shell and core to make sure that there's room when when a a tenant is located. So that's I appreciate the time. Thank you.

Thank you, council member Gilman. Yes. Council member Merritt.

Mister mayor, I I'm not sure that this is the correct form, and so I'll have to defer to the city manager and the the attorney. But I do have a couple of amendments I want to have want the council to consider that I've circulated. And

Sure.

Is it appropriate for me to make that motion now, or should I I just wanna make sure we we follow the right decorum.

Sure. One moment, council member Barrett. I have a couple questions, and and then we'll get to that. Are there but before I go, is does anybody else have any additional questions? Okay. Alright. Jackson, the development agreement caps the number of units at 810 currently. So what what would be the the new threshold or maximum at the at that point if if we don't have 810?

Yeah. So the the land area would actually be the driving factor. Removing the density, fitting fitting in units around those services above those services is the goal. And, basically, that that cap was based on a lot of community community concern over the amount of residents moving into the area and concern over the adoption of the Briggs master plan. And my understanding that the 08/2010 was to not go too far, and it also tied directly back to the amount of required office and commercial that would have been that's that was required per the current code.

And so there wouldn't the only thing restricting would be development standards, setbacks, height limits, and then what else is required in the village. So those commercial spaces would need to be accounted for, but the rest could be developed in a configuration of different housing types.

Okay. I'm I'm asking this question in part because of the the conversation that council member Gilman just mentioned a moment ago around parking, and that was going to be my point as well or my question as well is is that so if we're not sure of what the new maximum threshold is and any action we take tonight would, in fact, affect the master planning process. So I I I'm trying to understand, like, if we don't understand what that maximum is, that would have implications on the parking concerns. Correct? So I I feel like there's a little bit of a a potential consequence as a result of that.

And so I'm just trying to understand because I I hear the the community members that are here frankly, the the concern is congestion. Right? And and and, unfortunately, for the people who are living there also having difficulty finding parking. And then you have to think about the people who are living there when they have guests in their homes and they also have visitors and they need to park. And so I I'm struggling a little bit with this concern around the parking and not having an understanding of the the maximum number of units, that would be developed. Councilmember Vanderpool?

Yeah. I mean, it's it's I have a lot of thoughts about urban villages, and we've talked a little bit around it. And I I had a bunch of notes here, but then my two councilmates said everything I was going to say, which is awesome. But then you you talked about the the issues of congestion and transportation issues around around the breaks. Know, one of the things about cities and planning and in places like downtowns and urban densities areas is that there's this tipping point where you have to hit a certain amount of units per acre housing, 20 ish, before you start seeing people walking more than driving.

And it's one of those little growing pains that we experience, right, where we wanted to have the density for walkability, but you also have people surrounding it in low density housing, right, which is the issue we're dealing with, to understand the fact that even if you make it density inside, you still have people that live a quarter mile away, and the bus route doesn't go quite there. And so that's the that's I think that's the most complicated part of this. And I'm glad you're bringing that up because I I don't want us to overbuild parking, and then there'd be no space for housing. And you don't want to underbuild how underbuild parking before you transition to walkability. And so I think that's one of the I think that's that's one of the most difficult things.

And and I wanna I wanna express that when we're talking about minimums, and this is I just wanna talk to this for a second, because there's always confusion about what parking minimums are. Parking minimums are the minimum that a city requires a developer. They're not the amount the developer will build. Right? And I always want to express that. The other side of this is the city of Olympia had reduced parking minimums for housing, but not for commercial. We haven't touched that yet. As far as I know, we have not. And so that's the other part of it. Right?

Because this is mixed use, the commercial part of it will have some layer of requirement on parking. Right? I see Tim Smith standing up and walking over to maybe. I don't know. But that's kind of the thing that I that is the trickiest part of it, is we don't really want to overdo it. We also don't want to underdo it. Right? And I hear the stress that folks have over this, because they want to be able to get to that service, but they want to get to walkability one day. Right? And so we have to think about the future while also thinking about where we are. And I I kinda wanted to, while you're talking about that, kinda speak to that that weird transition to get there. Right? Just some thoughts I was having on.

Just to add a couple more points. So the master planning process is good. I need to look at parking and how we can provide parking for the area, including the issue with the the YMCA. I will say that we're talking a lot about increasing residential, increasing parking. If you remember, we're also decreasing commercial, decreasing retail in this situation too. So it's not necessarily a net gain or loss. We don't know the exact number, but retail is a huge traffic generator, and we are reducing that amount. We're increasing residential. So I can't sit here and say that it's gonna be a big impact. I do know that it's something which typically would be worked out through the master plan process.

Hi.

Hello. I'm Nicole Floyd. I'm the Director of Planning, and I happen to know that the applicant had sort of envisioned about 1,400 units. And I think that's a relatively safe number. So they would go from eight ten to about 1,400. That's obviously not been calculated for parking and and all of the different things, but I thought that was relevant.

Thank you, Nicole. That's helpful.

Okay.

Any additional discussion on that? Yes. Councilmember Vanderpool.

Nicole, I don't know if you wanted to speak to this a little, but I'm I'll be for for the public, when we when it comes to parking and when it gets to the hearings examiner part, could you express what what comes out of that? Because sometimes a hearing examiner decides some of that. There's some not decides, but some of that is interpreted. Right?

Well, so when we get to the master plan, it will go through a bit of a road show. Mostly it's going to go to the design review board to make sure that the design standards that they propose are consistent with the vision and values of the comprehensive plan. Then the packet of things will go to the hearing examiner, And that's more of a technical review to make sure that it does as a whole, the whole master plan meets the standards. It's not every single building precisely. We don't know how big each building is going to be, so we won't know precisely how many parking spaces each building will have to have.

But we have a good idea. So what typically happens is that the applicant would propose some sketches of what's possible. That's typically what manages or gets into the master plan. And that's why you see, for example, in the master plan currently it shows about a 30,000 square foot grocery store. Well, the minimum is zero and the maximum is 60. They picked. They picked something and they said, well, here 's how we could accommodate that. It fits on the site. There's enough parking. So that's the review that would happen at the hearing examiner level is does it all conceptually fit within the ranges of what's available.

And to, they would have to show how all of the parking for commercial and residential could fit. But they wouldn't have to pick precisely how big each building was going to be or exactly how the parking lot would be laid out. And then it comes to city council after that.

Thank you.

Alright. So I'm hearing a couple of things that I just kinda just wanna quickly recap. I'm hearing about the additional five feet or the the 50 feet in height for the commercial space for the 4th Floor, that there's some interest in making that amendment or adjustment. Also, councilmember Gilman's point about incorporating the total area, not just the the building area. And still some concerns around parking minimums for me.

I I I wanna make sure that we're not creating a problem that a future council is gonna have to address later. And council member Vanderpool, you were kinda speaking to the complexities of trying to weigh that. And I also hear the recommendations from the planning commission and the land use and environment Committee's recommendation as well. I would love to just hear more about, when we get to the master planning process, how can we ensure that we're not gonna create this problem that we're talking about right now, which is just this jam of congestion for this area and not enough spaces? How can we make sure that that that is part of the dialogue around master planning?

Thank you, Mary Payne. I'll do my best to answer that, but I think it really come. So as Nicole described, we'd look at a general layout. But when an individual project comes in, each so even though there's a a master plan approved for Briggs Village, each one of those projects that then gets built comes in for land use review. And depending on the size of the project, that might trigger traffic impact analysis, which might would would potentially look at adding street lights or other crossings or speaking generally for any project.

But each each project that so master plan gets amended. When each project comes in after that, they would be reviewed for how many units, how much square footage of commercial. And then they would need to before before the city was able to recommend approval of of of such project, they would need to show how they're meeting our adopted range of parking standards. And so the master plan is this overarching document. But then when we get down to each individual project level, those projects would also be reviewed and scrutinized by the code and ensured that each project being built out has the space to provide what our code requires for both commercial and residential.

So it is hard to speak to the Briggs master plan at large. But it it really often comes out on a on a project by project basis of whether or not we need that traffic impact analysis, whether we need to figure out, is this an unusual use that's gonna draw a lot more people to the area? That's the time where we city staff requires traffic engineer to get involved to provide studies of that type of use and what expected peak trips would be, things like that. And so I I understand definitely the community's concern. And I and I think I think that the other piece is just that that that YMCA parking agreement and and the fact that they they do not have the parking that that they were approved under land use for.

And and that that hopefully, as we move into the future, that that that will be resolved and and alleviate a lot of the problems with the existing conditions, knowing that there's a lot of commercial spaces and parking that has yet to be developed.

I think the other piece thatyou're talking about this really meaty thing of like, how how do we best use the land and what is an urban village? And I think looking back to the comprehensive plan might bring some value because it's a helpful guidance document about what what is the vision for this area. And when you look at what an urban village is supposed to be, it's a lot more like downtown than it is like other places. And I think it's fair to say that downtown doesn't have enough parking. And I think that's by design.

And so when you think about what was the vision in 'three and then in 2016, I think you might find that it looks more like Ballard or the U District or some of these places where you do have to kind of build it and then walkability happens because driving is inconvenient. And so that's, I think, part of what's built into our comprehensive plan, is this idea of really putting more into our multimodal transportation methods. It's why parking was reduced for multifamily, in part because I think council was weighing whether we wanted more housing or more parking. When land is short supply, you don't really get both. And that's a heavy thing to evaluate, especially on this scale.

But in this moment, there's also a significant reduction in area that's going to be spent on commercial, which does tend to have higher parking volumes and parking counts. So I think all of that ties together to more philosophical point of it's a hard decision for counsel to evaluate.

Thank you, Nicole. Thank you both, actually. Jackson and I appreciate the mention of the traffic impact analysis on a project by project basis. I think that's helpful in terms of me understanding. Nicole, I yeah. You're talking about growing pains. So yeah. That's a tough one. Alright. Yes. Council member Vanderpool.

Not to belittle this and make it any longer than it already is, but I I have a couple when we're talking about traffic analysis, the thing that came to my mind, the other part of this, is the investment in the multimodal protected bike lanes, all of that. Because one of the concerns I hear from folks in and around Briggs is also the safety problems with Yom Highway and high speeds and other issues like that. That didn't get brought up tonight, but that is a part of it. Right? With higher amounts of vehicle traffic, there's a safety concern.

Well, there was a few comments about that, people crossing the street with kids. And so I I don't we don't have anyone from public works here, but I'm very curious about if there were any conversations with the developer about impacts and and investments for the developer in that safety in that quarter around safety, if there was any conversations about including investments to make the traffic slower and safer for people who live through there? Because that is a major concern. And with more vehicles, that could potentially cause more problems.

Councilmember Vanderpool, I I'd say I I can't really fully speak to that. There haven't really been those discussions. Often, discussions come down more from city engineering staff and through hearing examiner decisions or land use decisions of conditions that are put on projects. And I in my position right now, I I I couldn't speak to exact we haven't had those conversations with the developer and that those would those would generally come down from our city, engineering public works department.

Yeah.

Yeah. It's it's really a timing issue. I mean, typically, for zoning code amendments, we don't get into those types of conversations. At the master plan stage or project stage, certainly, that's a big issue. So, tends to question no. That conversation hasn't happened, but it's forthcoming in the future.

So if it when it comes back to the hair exam, there may be an opportunity to have a conversation about this? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to that.

Mayor Pro Tem Nguyen.

Yeah. It kinda sounded like we were a little bit wrapping up here, so I just wanted to share with my colleagues that I would be interested and supportive of, having that, 9,200 square feet be stay at 9,200 square feet, but have the flexibility of separating it into multiple food specific, different sizes, I suppose. So just having the flexibility for that, but keeping it to be food. So I'm not sure if there's more discussion on that.

Yes. Councilmember Madron.

Yeah. I just wanted to since I'm hearing different opinions on different pieces of this, I wanted to just kind of recommend that maybe there's a motion for the you know, what's articulated there, and then we consider amendment by amendment. And people can introduce amendments as they are interested. We discuss them separately. We learn about impacts from staff potential impacts from staff and then vote on the amendment separately.

Yep. You beat me to the punch. So that was gonna be the next thing that I mentioned. So I know we have a couple different opinions here on the and we have a potential potentially different motions. So if one passes, then we can't entertain the other proposal.

So my suggestion would be for us to speak to what exactly it is that we're supporting. And if there is a motion that is made, then we will vote on that motion. If it fails, then we will move on to the other motion. But if we take up one and speak to it right away and then it passes, then we can't consider the other motion. Does that make sense? And so we need to be able to speak to each of them. Yes?

I was thinking you're thinking that if an amendment comes forward and fails, then a different amendment couldn't be considered, or?

No, not amendment by amendment specifically. But we have a proposal for a potential amendment here to be added with the motion. What I'm saying is that if we put a motion on the floor and there is an alternative motion to be proposed later, if we then vote on that motion, we can't go back to the other.

I see what you're saying. Yeah. I think we what we could do is make the original motion and then introduce amendments through that process one at a time. And then and then we and then we get you know, can alter the the original motion as we go through the process.

Sure. Sure. Yes. Thank you. Yes. City manager, Bernie.

I'm just hearing the discussion and conferring with the city attorney. And just to counsel Member Madrone's proposal, what you could do is make the motion that is the land use committee's recommendation, make a motion and a second. Right? Once it's seconded, Mayor, you don't have to call for a vote. You could continue the discussion. There could be an amendment proposal that's made. If that amendment proposal is seconded, you could have discussion, and then you can have a vote just on the amendment only. If that amendment vote fails, then it's not considered in the original motion. And so we could help you over here keep track of what's proposed and what amendments come forward and help you wrap this up at the end

as Okay. Of

So if the amendment vote fails, it's not considered that we are adopting the whole thing.

It just means it just means that the original motion stays as is minus any proposed amendment if it doesn't succeed.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I'm trying to keep I'm trying to keep these guys from attacking me later if we if we get it right. Okay. Alright. So, we will go ahead and do that then. So is there a motion, to, for the land use and environment committee's recommendation?

You you looked at me, so I will go ahead and move to approve an ordinance amending OMC chapter 18 o five related to urban villages.

Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. And so is there any discussion further discussion?

Mister Mayor, I'd I would like to make a motion to amend the recommendation by the land use committee. And I've handed out my the substance of my motion. If I get shall I just speak to them a bit? Thank you. I have two I'd like to move them both as one amendment. Just shall I bust those in half? Okay. Well, I have two. Okay. The the first amendment addresses the number of square feet of commercial space and how it's calculated.

And it's not it's not inconsistent with the report that was given, but it kind of locks in the report we I feel was somewhat vague and it just locks in the the the point that it's designed to make sure that the open space is included in the formula of how to determine the required number of square feet for commercial space allowed. It's just saying, let's be clear that the critical areas in the open space are a a part of that calculation that it eliminates any vagary. And it's consistent, I think, with what with what you presented.

Correct.

Yeah. Yeah.

That's right. So that would be my first amendment. And and that deals with the total number of of of commercial space totally at at Briggs, which, by the way, you know, there's been a lot of moaning about the, oh, the the fail failed businesses and whatnot, but actually, the businesses are booming at Briggs. You know? I it it so I believe if we can add commercial space, we will have a robust we will have a robust business area that will add to the city's coffers through tax revenue, frankly.

Yes. Councilmember Madrone followed by councilmember Gilman.

Yeah. Councilmember Barron, I'm wondering if you could just move to amend and just read it off to open up an official motion. Sure.

Thank you.

And then someone could second, and then we can discuss. We can ask questions of staff, etcetera.

I okay. I thank you very much, councilman. I I move to amend o m c fifth 18 o five zero five table five point o two, the amount of commercial space district row, a minimum or maximum total amount of commercial floor space column urban village to read as follows: minimum 500 square feet per acre of the entire village. The entire is really the the amendment, and maximum 1,300 square feet per acre of the entire village. So it's really adding just the word entire. Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second on that first amendment. And council member Madron, you have the floor.

With discussion open. I and I believe you just asked our staff this question, but I just wanna be clear. You know, is what you said that this change really has no impact? Or what what is the impact of making this change? Let me just make that clear. Yeah. What what does this do for us?

Well, that's a great question. So we do have a lot of different ways that we calculate, look at total properties, and determine different things like density. We do pull out critical areas and things like that. The code is generally silent on on how we would calculate the total acreage. And so in that case, we would look at the entire site.

However, I don't see any anything wrong with adding that language for clarity. There are a lot of different density calculations that we have that are in a different part of our code that that do speak about excluding a lot of different certain areas from that calculation. And I guess there could be an argument made that that's how that's how you should you could look at this. But that's that's just off the cuff, I guess.

So so by adding the word entire, it just clarifies that that is the way that that that is the method that we would use, and it's probably what we would have done anyway. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

It's what we would have done anyway, but it would provide additional clarity.

Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm supportive.

Alright. Thank you. Additional discussions on that amendment? Alright. Okay. And so you made the motion on that first one. So

Mhmm. Robert seconded.

Yes. Okay. Mayor Brotem is making her way back. Alright. So there's been a motion and a second on that First Amendment, that one there on the top. So all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Alright. And now for your second.

Thank you, miss Rand. This amendment amends the approach to the size of the supermarket. And, essentially, what it says is if the if well, let me let me just read the amendment, and then we'll I'll discuss it a a bit. I I'd like to amend o m c 18 o five point o six v to read as follows. Urban village and and community oriented shopping center district requirements, the the minimum grocery store size is 12,000 instead of 9,200 square feet with a maximum size of 50,000 square feet of gross floor area provided this is a new language provided if a grocer has committed by contract to lease or buy a grocery space of at least 9,200 square feet, such store may be permitted and constructed notwithstanding the 12,000 square feet minimum.

And the reason for this is a we can talk about all kinds of grocery store models that that but the the popular models for a midsize store is more in the 10 to 11,000, 12,000 square foot square foot range. It is true. There are stores all all different sizes. We're not saying that the the developer can't have a 9,200 square foot store, but he must have a store under contract if he wants to go down that. Otherwise, it it needs to be larger.

So it just allows a greater flexibility. I I think there's a great fear that if we were to just say 9,200 square feet, there's an argument against just locking in that number. And and this is the argument that the developer would probably then build a 9,200 square square foot shell, and that he'd say that's going to be the the supermarket, and that that would be that, precluding the opportunity for many grocery retailers that might be very interested in the Briggs space. So in our in in my view, it expands the opportunities for different retailers moving in, and that's why it's a good amendment.

Alright. Thank you. Is there a second on that motion?

Second. Alright.

We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Councilmember Gellman.

Here's here's the the scenario that makes me supportive of of this amendment, and that's that first, you've got our our requirements and our guidelines requiring what gets built when a mixed use, a commercial and residential building is put up. And I wanna ensure that there's an adequate size area that's that's built for commercial use on that 1st Floor. Because while the master plan requires a grocer, there's no way to guarantee that a particular grocer who might come in is gonna stay for the rest of time. And so for as long and I actually, I I guess the rest I think it's a fifty year agreement. There's there's some time on the master agreement, isn't there?

I do not have that information readily available.

That's fine. So it might not be for eternity. But nonetheless, a grocer could come in and leave, and we would still have the another the desire for another grocer to come in and for it to be at least 9,200 square feet. But but it's two separate discussions, what kind of a grocer and what rules we put on them, and and what kind of a commercial space we insist they leave on the Ground Floor of a of a mixed use building to allow for a a grocer to come in. So that's that's why I I think that this language would help.

Thank you. Councilmember Green followed by Councilmember Madron.

Yeah, thank you for that Councilmember Gillman. I'm not in favor of this amendment for really one big reason. And I know there's a lot of disagreement about the data that was used in the market study and in the assessment. But there was something that jumped out in that study to me that had nothing to do with that data and that was the reality that the way Briggs is currently constructed and will continue to be constructed, any business that goes in any retail inclusive of a grocer, is gonna be, you know, by design in the in the middle of the village in the core. And the busy thoroughfare there is Yelm Highway.

So that any grocer there will not be pulling in business that's on its way to somewhere else. Or, you know, I'm on my way to Safeway, oh, I see that there's a a whatever right here and I'm gonna pull over. The audience or the customer base is truly the people living in the community, which again is totally the intent and people who go to that community, you know, intentionally. Right? I'm I'm going to the YMCA.

I'm going to the dentist. I'm like that like that is the audience. And so I feel like the higher we set that minimum, the higher the likelihood that no one will do it because the bigger you get in square footage and the more you recognize it. And and I recognize that that the the population there will be bigger than what it is now. Again, that like, that's all totally the point, but I just really worry that making this minimum bigger and envisioning, you know, original plan envisioned a certain size grocery store and it's thirty years later and it hasn't come and I just feel like what I hear is interest in moving this forward and I just feel like this is setting it up for another long stretch of, you know, the reality of free market.

And Councilmember Madrone, you mentioned this earlier is that we can't dictate a business to open if it's not going to be profitable, right? We live in a capitalist society and people feel all kinds of ways about that and that's okay. But the reality is if I can't make a profit in 12,000 square feet based on the number of people that will be shopping at my store, it's just no amount of municipal code in the world is going to change that reality for me. So for me, I'm not in favor of of that. And and and to, you know, Jackson, you mentioned earlier that one of the the goals you had was to, avoid overly detailed requirements.

And I will admit, and I I think I asked you about this once, Councilmember Barron. It took me forever to understand the language in this. I was like, is the minimum 12, or is it 9,200? And I don't understand why we're saying 12, but not really 12. And so I do understand it now, but I don't feel like it's it's clear. I don't feel like it's a strong amendment.

Alright. Council member Madrone followed by mayor pro tem Nguyen.

I'm I'm laughing a little bit because it's actually not clear to me because and so, Jackson, I'll ask you to clarify, but let let I'll just show you my my plain interpretation not being a planner or a developer. I read that to say that the minimum is 12,000 unless somebody has a contract in hand saying, I will open a grocery store, but it'll be 9,200 square feet. And at that point, it could be constructed at 9,200 square feet.

That is my exact reading of the code as well.

Okay. So it actually doesn't get to the goal that council member Gilman was just stating in terms of having a larger building that could be grown into.

Correct.

Okay. So I don't see this amendment as reaching the goal that I heard articulated. And so in for that reason, I I don't support it.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Nguyen.

Jackson, you're a champ.

Thank you.

So are all the public commenters that are waiting to speak. I absolutely support sort of keeping our promise, if you will, or I guess councils before us, of the vision of Briggs and and having fresh food available. Right? And so we've we've been hearing that tonight. I don't think that this amendment will help make that a reality.

I for the reasons that council member Green said about, just, you know, if they would get enough visibility and traffic. Also, on Yelm Highway, there are at least two major grocers, I think, big box store grocers that have been there for some time now. And I question if another grocery or grocer is gonna wanna compete with that. I also think of when people talk about neighborhood centers and, you know, they light up when they talk about places like the co op. They talk about spuds, you know, smaller, large spuds.

And even people still talk about the Little General that used to be in downtown. I think about the I think making it larger is I think it's a dated idea. I think that we're seeing smaller footprints for restaurants, for for grocery, for other service deliveries. And I don't wanna get locked into into our idea of what, you know, what a grocery store needs to be like. I think, just being really focused on will there be fresh food available?

Now will there be, things that are, not the sort of typical convenience stores? But if we could get a convenience store like the ones that they have in Japan, I'm all for it. Okay? Though, yeah, I I just I just don't see that, this one adding value. I think that it would work against us. I think it comes with great intentions. I worry about the impact. Also, perhaps this is another amendment, a separate amendment, mayor, but I am not only in favor of keeping it 9,200, but also with the flexibility of separating it out potentially.

Yeah. So hold on to that, because should this amendment fail, you'll need to make a propose an alternative. Alright. Councilmember Vanderpool followed by councilmember Maduro.

I wanna clear I wanna ask a staff the a clear clarifying question about what councilmember Madron said about if I'm if you're in the and you're if you're a developer and you're trying to build the ground floor of a mixed use development, right, and and they re and you read this and they says, you know, I wanna build the building, and then I wanna attract it. Do do developers usually attract the the tenants first, or do they build it first? What is usually the the place of thought that people go through when they go through this? Because that's that's kind of the the crux of the question I'm hearing from my council mates is, like, is would it would would the developer build it and then and then something would happen, or would it or would they attract like, because that's what this provided statement is really about, the crux of, is would would the develop do developers usually just build a space? Like, we see it in downtown, all over the place where we like, just over here, there's there's a on state, there's a some vacant spaces.

Right? Some of them are starting to come in. So my question is, does this that's the provided question, right? If they're going to develop a mixed use development with so many feet up and have this many units, aren't they going to have to build the whole bottom first anyway? Or would the provided limit that? I'm just curious.

Thank you, councilmember Vanderpool. I would say, going back to Jennica's comments, that it it does kinda go both ways. But I would agree this this amendment would require that larger space to be built out if they didn't have if they didn't have a tenant. And so it I I don't think there's a one size fits all approach to to how businesses seek out tenant spaces. I think that it all kinda is dependent on exactly their story. I'll leave it at that.

Can I can I clarify a question? Maybe Tim can answer it. But let's say the developer builds the whole space, and then they look at this provided, and they put up walls that meet that provided. Right? They have a huge floor, wide floor, and then they subdivide it to the 9,200, and it says the and based on the provided. Would the develop would a developer do that? Or is that something that doesn't make any sense because utility and other things?

I I would say that would be difficult to I mean, they could partition it off and and create that that smaller 9,200 square foot space, but that doesn't I I think they'd they'd be renting likely the whole space unless they broke out these really small micro commercial spaces to be used for something else in that building. But I think I have Tim behind me that might wanna speak to it.

Okay. Thank you.

My response would be is based on what the market is. I mean, downtown, you're seeing very hot residential development market, not so much for gone for retail. And so what's happening is that they're building shelf space for the commercial, so for future tenant use. And then the residential goes, and it gets immediately rented out. Probably the same thing within Briggs unless there's a huge market change. It's likely to be a mixed use building with a shell for the commercial and then the residential on top. And so whether or not it's to partition out, that, again, depends on the market as well. Sometimes it's it'll work. Sometimes it doesn't. And so it's this kind of a vague answer, but that's really what we're seeing.

Would the language as it is limit someone from subdividing? I guess that's another way to ask it.

They could subdivide it, but unless the council give direction, you could partition off into this into different spaces. It would have to be used for something besides commercial. Okay.

Thank you.

Or at least this

is a store. It could be something else, an an office or some other type of thing.

Okay. So there's nothing in there that would limit them from doing that? No. Just cost. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Councilmember Maderon.

Don't worry. This one's not a question for you, Jackson. I just I just wanna remind us all that currently, the minimum is zero. So we are establishing a minimum through this conversation. And I also want you know, as we've been talking about, like, you know, will they build it first?

Will they build it after someone's, you know, secured? You know, that we can't really speculate about the future. And I think we see some examples downtown where we do require commercial to be built with housing, and and some of it gets filled and some of it stays vacant. So I think that's something that we need to keep in our minds. You know, what we end up requiring something to be built that remains vacant, is that of service to the community? So just wanna put that out there.

Alright. So we have a motion and a second on this amendment. So I'm gonna go ahead and take that, take that vote unless there are is any further discussion, and I'm not seeing any. Okay. So all those in favor of adopting the amendment as proposed signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay.

Nay.

Nay.

Amendment fails. So yes. Councilmember Green.

I'd like to make a new amendment. Sure. And I unfortunately don't have the exact language, so I'm not sure the best process. City manager, do you have a recommendation?

I I think you're gonna make an a motion to amend to allow the space to be subdivided into smaller spaces. Is that the one you're speaking of?

Correct. So when I when I'm looking at this language in b that that we're seeing here, but negating the 12,000, rather than saying grocery store, saying grocery square footage that could be comprised of multiple grocery tenants.

I'm gonna look at Tim and Nicole and Jackson, but I think we could probably work with the intent if you made that motion in that way, and then we could construct the language as it comes back to you on second reading to match what you're asking.

There was some language that came to the land use committee, and we changed it. Do you have that in front of you, Jackson?

I was looking for it.

I could not find it in the packet.

I do not have it right in front of me, but it was it was very much along the lines of what you just spoke to being able to take that take that 9,200 and break it into things that would fall under the food store definition, which is where the grocery store lives. And that would be something some business that primarily sells some some food product. And that that could be a bakery. That could be a butcher shop. Those are an ice cream or not an ice cream. It has to be for not not retail not a not a restaurant, but something you would you would buy buy food, leave it, So prepare

it at that is my motion to amend this to make 9,200 the required square footage for grocery, but achievable through multiple businesses that meet the food store definition or tenants.

Yeah. Multiple tenant space, probably.

Alright. Is there a second on that motion?

Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Council member Madron.

I was just trying to frantically find the language in Legistar. I just wanna make sure that what we what I think what your intent is I'm still unsupportive. I'm gonna vote against it, just to be transparent. But I just wanna make sure that that we're still talking about food stores, and I I think that was the language that came to lane you. So it can't be broken up for any kind of retail. Okay. That's all. Alright.

Thank you. Council member Gilman.

Boy, that's an example of I'm from the government, and I'm here to help. That's pretty nice. Pretty nice. So so I'm speaking against this this motion. And in in my perspective, the deal that was made to approve the the Briggs urban village in 2006 was that the neighbors agreed to have dense multifamily in an area that was primarily single family houses in exchange for also having a retail center that had at its core a grocery store.

That grocery store has been that was the that was the center of the end of the debate, however many years ago that was, twenty years ago. And and and it's been the center of the last year of conversation around this. So for me, a single grocery store was the deal, and it was the deal, as I said earlier, when this current property owner purchased the property. They bought it with this master agreement, this this master plan for the village in place. So I I would prefer that we left it as a single grocery store.

Thank you. Council member Madron.

Yes. First off, I found the language. And so I just so we're all on the same page. After a floor area, the language was grocery or food stores can be separated into multiple tenant spaces. That's what it says.

I'm on team Gilman on this one. I the discussion that we had in the land use committee is we want the folks at Briggs Village to be who live in that area to be able to walk over to a store and get everything they need to make a meal. They are not guaranteed to be able to do that under this kind of scenario. So that I think I think what council member Gilman was speaking to in terms of, you know, what we've heard from the community on this and what they bought into as being a part of that community. That's what we've been trying that was what we wrestled with the land use committee even talking about what's the right square footage to make sure that we get a grocery store, to not to have enough flexibility.

I think once you start allowing that to be separated into separate tenant spaces for different types of food stores, you you we you've lost the intent there.

Alright, yes. Councilmember Greene.

Yeah. You know, I completely appreciate the sentiment and and again, I know you all had robust discussion about this. I think just one additional comment on where my lens is with this is that, know, and we've heard it from several people tonight is that small retail there is working, right? The ice cream parlor is busy, the tap house is busy and so in my mind giving some flexibility to this just increases the opportunity again that someone's going to see that as an opportunity of you know a smaller square footage which is a little less expensive to lease, less expensive to operate, just may be more appealing. So my intent is really around, it feels like more of an opportunity to get there, but I recognize that you know at the end of the day, you know, if it's not the exact perfect mix of tenants, you know, you again, you don't meet that.

So that was just a piece of where I was coming from is is the smaller footprints are working out there. So it feels like the ability to build onto those to achieve a goal. Yeah.

Alright. Councilmember Gilman followed by councilmember Behrendt.

So I I just wanna check my understanding that the the grocery store we're we're talking about sort of the requirement for the grocery store, some parameters around it, but we're not talking about the total commercial space. So there are several retail and office spaces now. There are some parcels along is that Henderson? Yeah. Along Henderson that there are folks have expressed interest in having additional retail and commercial.

So something I don't know is if you took that minimum 500 square feet for the entire village, how much more retail that might be other small shops? What what what's what's the the net between 10,000 square feet of grocery store and the the amount that's built and then the amount that's required under the the urban village plan?

Great question. And I do have a few numbers prepared to speak to that. Currently, doing some math or looking at the assessors' records, there's about 14,000 square feet of commercial retail that counts the coffee stand, the ice cream parlor, and the dentistry with Briggs Tap House, all those different spaces. The code, based on the math, it would require approximately $68,000 of commercial as a minimum based on these proposed amendments. And so doing some quick math, you're you're left with, you know, over 40,000 after subtracting out the required grocery and what's existing.

Thank you, Jackson. So this this could be really good news. This might mean that we could hold on to the grocery store requirement, and there could still be room for oodles of small food shops.

Not oodles. Parking. Remember. Alright.

Alright.

Council member Barron.

Thank you. I I just I I just wanna voice my opposition to this. We we we don't want a wine shop, a deli, a a vinegar store, a cheese shop, you know, next to each other. We we want a supermarket where there is fresh food and baked goods and meat and the whole kit and caboodle. And I I don't think that busting up the space really serves the needs of the community and and just leave it at that.

Councilmember Vanderpool.

I'm against this, but I also wanna express the an understanding of why because, you know, And I and I I I wanna express this because we really don't see the problem with urban villages and the problem with this type of development and it was kind of expressed this little earlier. And I had it in my thoughts earlier, but we kinda moved past that. But the problem with an urban village and the problem with where we are in having this conversation, I'm I'm just kinda deeply looking into this, is to get to to get to a walkable mixed use place like a downtown and other places, usually, you don't have this type of granular prescriptive code amendments and stuff. But for me, it's it's, you know, I I'm just I'm glad that we're having these conversations because we want to get there. We wanna get to that that use, and I appreciate the amendment to to to consider what do we do if we split it up.

We do this and that. But, ultimately, I can't wait until and I'm saying this I'm probably gonna say this later. I can't wait till we don't have to do this type of planning for a while or or maybe never again because I'm such a fan of flexibility in zoning. And so this is kind of navigating through this. I wouldn't say I appreciate the amendment even though I'm voting against it because I'm I I understand the the need to try to get to the thing.

And it's really difficult because cities don't build things, but we have to, like, navigate prior code from years ago to get to the thing because half of it's already built, and there's only one developer on, like, a downtown where you have multiple parcels, right, all over the place, but that aren't owned by one person. And so I wanna say I appreciate that even though I'm gonna vote against it. Thank you. Thank

you. We are about two and a half hours in, and we still have three other business items. So I just wanna mention that, for us to make that mental note, although this is an important conversation. And we also have public commenters here as well. Mayor pro tem Nguyen?

It's just my final effort to say that I don't think that the 9,200 square square footage is is and be it being only a single grocery location, I don't think it's the only way to have a store where people can go and, you know, use it as a grocery store, not just a place to buy one thing. There can we've seen smaller models succeed, in in our city. And also just for me, I don't go to any grocery store and find all of my ingredients. I have different ingredients in different places. I won't say who but some people got bad produce, okay?

I buy it and then in two days it's going brown, okay? And so I've marked them in my mind as great for bread, bad for produce, you know, and there's a little laughter, maybe because people can relate to that, you know, maybe one day I want to be making Asian food, one day I'm going to be Asian American food, you know, I'm going to need different ingredients. And I also, I get that this is about walkability, but I just and I would love for it to be a a grocery store that's local. I really, really would. I think that, it I think it would be hard to have a local grocer that's 9,200 square foot, or feet.

And then I and then I also think about, like, okay. Well, are we just, you know, holding out hope that there's gonna be a big chain grocery store that comes in? I'm not sure if they will because not too far away, there's some big chain grocery stores. So I I don't, again, wanna, you know, abandon the the, notion of having, a Briggs village that is an urban village that has food that people can walk to. And also, we had heard from one of our planners that it's gonna look a little bit more like downtown.

In a good way, hopefully, you know, that's a smaller footprint. People getting their their produce, it's changed. People sign up for a community shared or community supported agriculture. They'll go and get their pickup of fresh produce somewhere nearby. They'll even there's all of these I don't want to advertise for them.

I feel like they're already on my algorithm. But there's all of these, like, food boxes that require no or little prep that get shipped to your door, and and people people do that now. And so I just I just feel like why are we I think with good intention, but why are we boxing in what a grocery store needs to look like? You know, I I think it's overcomplicating it to an extent. Why and and if they get a a single one, great.

If they can do it with multiple, great. At the end of the day, don't we wanna just get fresh food to people? So that's not a question, Jackson. Okay. I I do wonder, though, if there is a way I know we're already long on this, but I wonder if there's a way that they could break it up, perhaps, because it kind of seems like this motion is failing even by some that race to second it.

Though I wonder if there's something that we can put in about, you know, if you you can break it up, if you get a grocery store, with all the traditional things that we think of a grocery store that's smaller than 9,200 square foot, and then you can do something else with the rest. Yeah. Other food things. But it just also, why are we acting like we don't go bananas when there's a new bakery in town? When there's a new taco shop in town? I guess we're not going for a restaurant here, but when there's a new cheese shop. You know, I mean, this town loves it. If you look at the Best of Olympia page, people are freaking out over shops that only sell one thing. So I suppose I rest my case.

Alright. So we have a motion and a second on the floor for the previously proposed amendment. So we're gonna go ahead and take that vote now if there's no further discussion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

Nay. Motion fails. Okay. So that takes us yes. Alright. Council member Madrone followed by council member Vanderpool.

I do have one more amendment. Okay. I move that we adjust the maximum building height for mixed use buildings facing the town square to 50 feet from 45.

Second. That's right. Any discussion on this? Alright. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright.

Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Alright. So that takes us back to adoption of this entire, slate. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Nguyen.

Okay. This is my last last try. So I just I just don't wanna ignore the market data and, the organizations that, you know, do economic development that have reached out to us. So with that, I would just say in my own words, I would like to amend that we do have the minimum at 9,200 square feet for a grocer and, we would be considerate of breaking up to smaller food stores, if, there can be a main sort of grocer with, I guess, the typical grocery items that are smaller.

And that's your motion. Okay. So I guess I wanna check-in. Is is that specific enough to capture the intent?

I mean, seeing head nods from staff, we generally are in agreement that we understand what the motion is if it's made.

Second.

Alright. We have a motion in a second. Yes. Council member Barron.

I'd like to ask the staff what the motion was then.

I'll try since I put Jackson in this box. What I heard was that you could subdivide the 9,200 square feet if you have a main tenant that is a a grocer that's kind of a one stop grocer, and you could you could still have some smaller tenants that do other things. That's what I heard.

That's what I heard as well.

Yes. Thank you, Jay. Councilmember Madron.

Yeah. I'm also not gonna support this one. You know, we set the 9,200 square feet based on the data driven recommendation from staff. And at this point, I just kinda wanna get on with it.

Alright. We have a motion in a second on that. Mayor Pro Tem, would you like to proceed on a vote?

Yeah. I like to do things all the way.

Okay. Mhmm. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Nay. O. Okay. Motion fails. Alright. So that takes us back to adoption of the the whole thing, which we made the original motion for to move to approve the ordinance amending OMC chapter 18.05 related to urban villages with all of the approved amendments signify by saying aye.

Aye. One

moment. Looks like we have a question. Before I vote, I

would love to hear what I believe there's two that were approved.

You give

us three? So could you give me a quick recap?

Or two. Two. Two. Sorry.

Jackson, you got it?

I'm gonna rely on you over there, Jay. Thank you.

Okay. So the first one is and I need I need that sheet back that I gave to Susan. Oh, sorry. The first one is number one above on the amendments to table 5.02. So that was the amendment was supported. The second was the change to 50 feet for building height. And the third nope, that's it. That's it. That's the second. That's the two.

Uh-huh. You. Okay. So we're going to return to that vote. So all those in favor of the motion to amend OMC chapter 18.05 related to urban villages with all of the approved amendments by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Jackson, you are a trooper.

Yeah. Yeah. I wish I could walk away, but I have another presentation again.

You can't go anywhere.

Yeah. Alright. So next item on our agenda is item six b, which is the approval of a resolution authorizing an agreement to terminate the Briggs urban village development agreement. We have Jackson Ewing, our Senior Planner presenting on this item as well.

Thank you, Mayor Payne. I'll hopefully keep this one a little shorter than the last presentation. So we're this item today is regarding, the Briggs Urban Village development agreement termination. And, my name is Jackson Ewing, and I'm a senior planner here with Community Planning and Economic Development. And we're talking about Briggs Urban Village.

I won't go through the stats, but, we'll get us cited here. The development agreement, what's important about it? The applicant an applicant has requested to terminate this development agreement, associated with Briggs Village. And the key, points of this are that the agreement occurred before the adoption of the Briggs Village. The agreement caps the number of residential units at 810, including ADUs, and that other elements of the agreement created the zoning or created zoning standards, and the city has since adopted a zoning zoning code chapter for urban villages in the OMC, which you just voted to amend during your last action.

The benefits of terminating this agreement, it would allow an increase in housing density to support the commercial space, including a grocer. It supports furthering residential development in the village, including accessory dwelling units. Currently, someone came in and wanted to permit an accessory dwelling unit in a subdivision that's part of Briggs master plan, they would not be able to based on the code length or the current agreement. It supports development where infrastructure is in place furthering our climate goals. City Council has basically two options today, either to approve to terminate the development agreement or retaining the development agreement.

I didn't have this in the slide, but if it would take both parties wanting to renegotiate to to to come up with something new. And so, just as a note, terminating the agreement is necessary for the applicant to increase the number of residential dwelling units, provided by the requested code amendments that you just, that you just heard. And I will stop there, and open it up for any questions. I can go back, to probably the third slide if if you'd like to see that again. Thank you.

Councilmember Gilman followed by councilmember Vanderpolt.

Jackson, I just I wanna check my my understanding. I there's sort of an affirmative argument for terminating this agreement that many of the the items that were described in in this agreement are now incorporated into our urban village chapter within our codes so that so that we we don't require a separate agreement here. Is that

That is correct. The agreement took place in a time where those codes were being developed, and there was a partner in the community that was interested in in in in going down that that path.

Good. So this this is the development agreement. We still have the master agreement that we discussed in the previous item. The master agreement's intact. This development agreement would essentially be folded into the urban village zoning codes.

That's correct. The the only thing that really staff was able to find applicable from this agreement that's left over is is the unit cap. All of the other items that were spelled out in that have been either executed or code has been adopted.

Thank you. I have a premonition. This won't go more quickly than the last item.

You said an agree you mentioned briefly that after this, there'll be an agreement amongst both parties. Could you just generally for the public quickly express what that is after this is after this?

I apologize for that confusion. I I I meant to say that amending this development agreement when I was going over council's options, that amending it would not be an option unless both both the applicant and city council were agreeable to the terms. Thank you.

Alright. I see councilmember Barrett.

Yeah. I I just had a question. Supporting development where infrastructure is in place of furthering climate goals, that that could be a thousand different things. Could you flesh that out a little bit?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. That's that's kind of a high level one, but I'm I'm I'm prepared to answer that to tonight. Really, we look at cities like Olympia as the takers of density. We're mandated by the Growth Management Act to protect rural areas within counties and natural resource areas.

And that a city that has sewer and water and infrastructure in the streets, the streets are already there. Those are prime opportunities to support our housing and climate goals because we are not, say, a a new long a new large lot subdivision of of five acre parcels out out in a a forest a forest land area. That's that's my best example.

Councilmember Madron.

I'd to go ahead and just make a motion here. I move to approve a resolution authorizing an agreement to terminate the Briggs Urban Village development agreement.

Second. Alright. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Councilmember Madron.

Just wanna quickly again thank Jackson and team. This has been a significant amount of work to get it this far, and I know you're not done yet, but, just wanna offer my gratitude.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Alright. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. And you're free now.

Sure. Any anyone else need a a little bit of a break? So let's go ahead and take a five minute recess. Alright. We're gonna come on back.

Just wanna thank the council for that robust discussion on our last two agenda items. And I also wanna thank the council members who did quite a bit of engagement with many of the community members in previous months on that particular issue. I know that there were a few of us that that met with folks in in that area. So thank you for doing that and bringing representing those voices back here at council. Thank you.

All right. So we're going to move on to agenda item 6c, which is the approval of an ordinance amending Olympia Municipal Code chapter 5.8 on unfair housing Practices Related to Diverse Family Structures. And this presentation, I believe, will roll right into our next agenda item, which is 6D, which is the approval of an ordinance enacting Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 7.01, the Olympia Code against discrimination. So we will, present, and but we will act on these two items, separately even though they will be presented together. So now I'm gonna turn it over to city manager Jay Birney.

Thank you, mister mayor. Council members, for the record, Jay Bernie, city manager. In front of you this evening for your consideration are two ordinance updates that address the request outlined in the referral around diverse family structures.

As the mayor said, I'm going to take on 6C and 6D as just one presentation. I'm going to serve them both up to you. There will be two separate motions at the end. Just looking back at the referral, the diverse family structures referral was introduced by Councilmember Vanderpool at the January 13 council meeting, supported by Mayor Payne and Pro Tem Hwen, passed by the full council to explore the issue. The problems outlined in the referral included diverse families face systemic barriers in housing, health care, education, and services.

The diverse family definition is around single parent, multigenerational, blended, chosen, non monogamous family structures. The existing policies often assume dual income or nuclear households creating inequities. The request of proposal was to add family or relationship structure as a protected category in city code to cover multi parent, blended, multi generational, chosen, non monogamous, and single parent by choice households, and that you ask the city attorney to draft this based on the model legislation. In terms of equity imp excuse me. And that enforcement be done through civil action.

And that in terms of an equity impact, this work supports inclusion, reduces discrimination, affirms nontraditional families in our community, and it also advances Olympia's sanctuary city and civil rights commitments. So in looking at the referral, the city attorney is proposing adding a new OMC chapter and amending another to address the items requested in the referral. The new OMC proposed is Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 7.01. This new chapter would establish comprehensive protections against unlawful discrimination in Olympia, closing any gaps. It is a comprehensive policy declaration of the city of Olympia against discrimination.

And also expands protections and coverage discrimination that includes familial status and family relationship structures. And one thing I want to point out here we have some late breaking news, a late breaking email that as we drafted this ordinance 7.01, we added family and relationship structures, families with children, and familial status in 7.01.01.0. But we also needed to add it in the same definition in 0.04. And it was just a drafting mistake. So I'm going to ask you tonight, if you support this, to make your motion, as amended, to update 7.04.

And we'll make sure we make that change when it comes back to you on second reading. So that's what's in front of you there. Also as proposed is an amendment to Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 5.8, Unfair Housing Practice. This amendment specifically adds protections for traditional and nontraditional family structures and consensual relationship structures. It also adds new and clarified definitions.

And as I mentioned, both the new OMC and the amended OMC provide civil enforcement remedies for any violations, which means the city is not the enforcement mechanism for complaints against the ordinance. This provides a civil remedy for folks in court. Staff believes that approval of both the new OMC and the amended OMC meet the intent of what was requested in the referral and provide the required protections. With that, happy to take any questions or approval of the two motions on the screen. I would just add, I think you have a a much shorter motion on your motion sheet, in front of you.

If you wanna make that motion rather than the one that's here, I just ask if you make the motion around OMC chapter seven point o one, you make it as amended to o point o four o. That's it for me.

Thank you, city manager Bernie. Can you say that chapter one more time? Chapter

7.01, make an amendment to section point zero four zero to match the definitions that are included in 7.01.10.

Okay. It's late as amended. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Alright. So I'm gonna turn it over to, the prime sponsor of the referral that brought forward our first item on this topic, council member Vanderpool.

I'm just gonna speak to both because that's the intent. You know, I I had written something down, but then I also wrote a little bit more afterwards because of folks who came and commented. Because the folks in the community, you're the reason for this change. It's your lived experience. It's it's you coming to us and expressing their any concern your concerns, your experiences that you that you feel that you've had in the community of discrimination.

Because I may not always experience it, but I wanna listen to what folks in the community are are living through and be there for you. Because this policy is because folks came to us. And I think that I want to express that. I got thanked for this, and we got thanked for this, but it's ultimately because folks in the community are willing to come forward and talk with us about this that makes the real difference. I gonna speak a little bit to the history and a little bit where this comes from, and and then we'll hopefully have a motion.

So over a year ago, we had folks in the committee reach out and ask the council to create a sanctuary city status for LGBTQ IA2S plus folks in the community. Since then, we've had an opportunity to talk with folks who are experiencing dis discrimination who identify as part of this community. Out of those conversations came an idea of strengthening our sanctuary city status with city code through civil protections. Several groups talked I've talked about talked with on the concept of civil protection related to family structures, specifically diverse family structures, including chosen, non monogamous, blended, multigenerational, single parent, and polyamory. With the help of the folks at Open and the local DSA group, socialist, feminist, queer working group, and many individuals who I've spoken with who experience systemic and culture dis discrimination each and every day were able to create a referral with the intent of creating more civil protections, Proving that government can help folks when when the federal government is acting to harm civil liberties is very important that local, county, city, county, states continue to push for more protections.

I lastly wanna reflect on some feedback that I've had from some folks in the community who may not understand why we're doing this. I had some folks tell me they'd rather have me focus on housing or transportation policies. That is something that doesn't solve the real the traditional role of local government. My answer is yes and then some. Housing affordability, social housing, public transportation, street safety, urbanism, the affordability crisis, and work for working class folks are all issues that I fight for and I push for.

They are things that are dear to my heart, but so are the people in our community. I have a responsibility to to protections, whether whether it be civil or bicycle infrastructure, because ultimately, we wanna have a community where people feel accepted and and loved and welcomed. And so this is this is just this is I'm very proud of this work. I'm I'm proud of my councilmates for supporting me on this, and I'm proud of my community for coming and asking for these protections. Thank you.

Thank you, councilmember Vanderpool. Any additional comments? Mayor pro tem Nguyen?

Yeah. I think councilmember Vanderpool covered it well. I just wanna lift up, really, your last word of protections. A lot of times when, folks well, I suppose this is not gonna sound good. But, a lot of times when folks I hear about council mates wanting to pass something or say something that says we're welcoming to so and so, not necessarily diverse family structures, just in general, like the LGBT plus sanctuary city, to me, I was a no on that unless it had specific things that we would do, unless it had something that people can hold on to, and and it had teeth to it.

And so when this came across, I was the same way. I was like, well, are we just saying, you know, is it a symbolic thing, or is it gonna be something that holds weight? Right? Is there really gonna be a protection there? And so I just I think that probably the folks that are coming to advocate for it know enough about it.

But I think it is a big deal to not just pass a proclamation or say a statement to say that you care about x types of community members and you're broadly welcoming, but to actually go and to do things like this and to change code, that is something to get behind. Because unfortunately not to be a downer but unfortunately, folks that want to judge or want to discriminate probably are going to do it anyway to some extent. And so to have a protection was was something that was really important to me was important to us. So just wanted to lift that up.

Thank you, mayor Pro Tem. Additional comments? Thank you, council member Vanderpool, for bringing this forward. I, was happy to sign on to this as a as a cosponsor, specifically because, you know, I'm all for the expansion of rights and civil liberties. And as a openly gay man, I can think about all the times when people said that, you know, anything that states or local governments were doing in the space of trying to legitimize those relationships was something that was we should not be doing.

And that was due to a lot of fear about the change and not understanding same sex relationships. Right now, we see that happening with the transgender community. People do not understand. And so we see a lot of, frankly, brutal and archaic proposals coming forward to weaponize, specifically, our transgender community members. And so, for me, this is recognizing the fact that people who are in different kinds of families already live in our community, already have come forward, but some are not.

And so I do wanna just point out the fact that we are talking about diverse family structures as a big umbrella. Polyamory and nonmonogamy is a part of that who certainly face the utmost discrimination in the context of talking about diverse family structures. But I do also just wanna point out that it is an umbrella intentionally. And if you think about what we're doing here, there are not many people who actually are part of a traditional family in the sense that your parents are married, not divorced, all the children are from the same, and on and on all the way back, you will find that that is not very many of us. Most of us do have some sort of nontraditional structure to our families.

And so what we're doing here tonight actually impacts people that you probably know. And it also affects people that are hiding, as we just heard earlier, or or not coming out about who they truly are. And so the chances are you have those people in your life too, and they already live here. And so, I couldn't be more proud to be part of this body that's taking this action. I do believe this would mean that we're the first city in our state to do this, similar to what we did with LGBTQ two s plus sanctuary city resolution that we passed.

So it'd be a similar thing here. And so I'm certainly supportive of our efforts to to do this tonight. And then, also, I do want to mention something that I noticed. Sorry, I forgot that I had written this down in my notes, in my staff report packet, on item six d on the code against discrimination. And the reason I wanted this is because the first item, six c, addresses unfair housing practices, and that's extreme extremely limited.

We wanna we wanna outlaw discrimination across the board. So it's important to have a discrimination code. And so in the first section here of seven point zero one point zero one zero, which is what I believe you mentioned earlier referred to as the declaration of policy, It says the op equal opportunity to all persons residing in the city of Olympia. I'm wondering if we could have something to the effect of all persons residing and or employed or visiting in the city of Olympia. Is that okay.

It's a little technical change, but I think it I got it. Needs to be there. Okay. Alright. So I'm getting head nods on that. And so other than that, I just thank everybody for for being supportive of this action and ready to take this historic vote when you all are. Councilmember Vanderpool, you have the motion. Yeah. Thank you.

I would like to move to approve an ordinance amending the lit Olympia Municipal Code chapter 5.8, unfair housing practices related to diverse family structures.

Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

Okay. And we have, the next, motion, item six d, and that is coming from, mayor pro tem Nguyen.

I move to approve on first reading and forward to second reading an ordinance enacting new Olympia Municipal Code chapter seven point o one and seven point zero one point zero four.

No. You're good. You can just say 7.01 as amended, and we got you.

Let's do it again. I move to approve on first reading and forward to second reading an ordinance enacting new Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 7.01 as amended, Olympia Code Against Discrimination.

Second. Alright. Just really quickly, the important thing on this item as well is that it also codifies all of the other protected areas, where discrimination is forbidden according to state law. And then we're also adding this additional category as well for diverse family structures and relationships. So, that's important because this action actually, caused us to have a whole discrimination code and to codify what's already protected by state law as well.

So, yes, councilmember Vanderpool. I wanna thank staff for thinking to work on this, to thinking about doing a whole new chapter in the city code. And that's that's I think this is this is this is important for what it does for folks in our community, but it's also important because it could be added onto. Right? This is a place where, in the future of Social Justice and Equity Commission or any folks want to add onto this and add more, freedoms, rights, civil liberties, however you wanna say it, onto what we have in the code, it can be put in there. And I think that that's valuable.

And I just wanna give some gratitude to the city attorney on that one for, helping us get there.

Thank you, Mark.

Yes. Thank you. Alright. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much, city manager Bernie and staff. Again, our legal department, you are killing it, as we say, tonight.

So thank you for all of your work. And I wanna thank all of our community members who came out in support of this. Your presence is certainly important. I I know people were sort of questioning, like, is this something that people are actually asking for, or what what where is this coming from? And so your presence is actually, very important, and I hope, it's a win for you and yours tonight, and it's a pleasure to see you.

So congratulations. Alright. So, that concludes our business items for tonight, and we're gonna move on, and return to our public comment section, that we had our quite extensive list earlier. So there isn't a timer on this one except you do have two minutes for your comments, but we're not gonna cap it. Our business is done, so we will keep moving through our list until we're complete. So mayor pro tem.

Alright. So we'll start with in person public comment and see if there is any remaining public commenters. So start with Isaac Wagnets. Okay. Moving on to Lynn Walton.

Moving on to Liberty Evans Agnew. Nova Stewart.

Hi. I came to speak about the flat cameras. I wanted to start by saying that I was really impressed and happy about, how quickly the city council moved to, get the contract suspended, last year. And I just wanted to emphasize a few points. One is that, I would really hope that we don't have any intention of replacing Flock with another ALPR vendor.

I think that, like, ALPRs in general are a technology that we shouldn't really be, moving into. And I would also, encourage the city councils to consider banning or regulating private deployment of FLoC and other ALPR vendors. Even though we don't have public FLoC cameras, there are still private deployments of them at, like, Home Depot and grocery stores and things like that. And finally, I think, considering regulation of Ring cameras and other automated facial recognition systems that are in use, would be good. So thank you.

Thank you. And, thank you for your patience. Moving on to Tracy Hortman. David Webb, the mic is yours.

K. David Webb, City of Olympia. First and foremost, thank you for committing not to renew your contract with FLAC and standing against ICE with your at risk communities. I do wanna address that when a crowd shows up, they just want to believe you'll do the right thing. But historically, public pressure seems to be the only way good things have happened.

I do say seems because that is how it seems, and I understand that may not be how it seems from your guys' view, but that crowd is outside because they feel like if they're not there you won't do the right thing. If you're anti fascist, which you do seem to be, you don't need to be so defensive. I see that you're trying to ensure Olympia protects its people and on the right side of history and I do appreciate it. So thank you very, very, very much for recognizing non traditional relationships. I am a polyamorous man, and the way you handled this matter is great. I wish this body handled more like it without the doublespeak. Thank you, too, Mr. Manager. I appreciate how

this was put

together. Notably, this does seem to be one of the indicators of a progressive city. I'm proud of Summerville, Massachusetts, where I'm from not Summerville, but Massachusetts and this is a reason to be proud of Olympia. That being said, this police department is not. Sure, maybe it's less oppressive than Tacoma or Spokane, but if your goal is less oppressive, you're still on the wrong side of history.

I'm talking about this because I was unlawfully arrested December 9, and then a few days later, only an hour after first talking about that experience at the stand to this body, threatened with arrest for constitutionally protected speech by the OPD. I recognize that a city manager needs to support his departments, but it seems there's a glaring lack of accountability here. Olympia has an independent auditor, but all they appear to do is make sure that OPD followed their policies and procedures. There is no part of any investigation, as far as I can tell, that questions whether or not the police's policies and procedures are systematically harmful and should be changed, simply even if simply if those policies were followed. The city contracting with the OIG group is so the city can pretend to have a semblance of oversight instead of actual accountability for its department's ongoing harm.

I'd had to just ask Chief Parker if there was an outstanding probable cause for me. And I don't even know what that really means, but because I was arrested without a lawful process being completed, I have no reason to know if I can be arrested at any time walking down the street going forward. Obviously, this is harmful, it's anxiety inducing, and kind of scary. I'm certain I'm not the only one this has happened to because when people do shit like this to me, they typically are doing it much, much, much, much more to people who aren't Thank white

you, David.

I hope the city can hold its place accountable. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for your patience. Jeff Thomas, you seem to have an advocate on council here.