City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Good evening and welcome to the April 21st, 2026 city council regular hybrid meeting. I'm Mayor Dave Rosenbomb. Tonight's hybrid city council meeting is being brought to you in person and by Zoom. We're also broadcasting in the city's YouTube channel and MITV channel 21. Welcome to all and thank you for joining us today. Council members, please have your microphones turned on for the roll call. City clerk Andrew Larson, please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Androl here. Council member Sheay here. Council member Reynolds here. Council member Wer here. Council member Weinberg here. Deputy Mayor Becker here. And Mayor Rosenbomb here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. There's a quorum present. Um, and everyone is in everyone is here in person. Uh, next we have the pledge of allegiance. council. If you have joined us in city council, which chambers or has, please stand and face the flag, please join us in saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we now move to the approval of today's agenda. If there are no questions, may I have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved.

Second. There's a motion by Council Member Andrew and second by Council Weinberg. City clerk, please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Wer, I. Council member Sheay, I. Council member Reynolds, I. Mayor Rosenbomb, I. Deputy Mayor Becker, I. Council member Andraw. And council member Weinberg, I. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. The motion passes and the agenda is approved. Next on the agenda, we have the city manager report and welcome city manager Jesse Bond. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I will ask Casey to Why do we have an echo?

All right. I do not have a screen share. Ally, would you Oh, there we go. All right. Sorry for that delay. Here we go. It's Tuesday, April 21st. Quick look at Oh my goodness. All right. There we go. Zoom's giving me all sorts of popups here. Quick look at our meeting calendar. Uh your next meeting is Tuesday, May 5th. Uh council, you'll note as I uh show you these slides, we are anticipating uh a number of successive planning commission meetings coming up. That's related to your work on the growth management hearing board order. So I've put those on the screen here. Uh the next parks and recreation commission meeting is May 7th, although I am hearing that might be cancelled. And then the utility board will also be meeting on May 12th. Uh all of our meetings are posted to the website and it's at the link in the bottom of the slide there. Okay, a couple updates for you kind of in a couple different directions. First is a reminder that our annual recruitment for board and commission seats is open. It is open through May 8th. We have quite a number of seats to fill. Three on the arts council, two on the open space trust, two on the parks and recck commission, and two on the utility board. I don't have the rosters in front of me, but I know the parks and recck commission has two folks leaving that have uh are term limited. So, we're hoping to attract a lot of uh qualified candidates. If you could uh help put the word out to uh folks you know in the community, that would be much appreciated. Uh we are anticipating coming to you on May 19th to uh make those appointments uh and then they would start their positions June 1st. Uh Andrew will be using the weekly email to keep you posted on how the recruitment's going. All right, switching gears here. A capital project update. Uh this is the 80th Avenue Southeast improvement project where

we've done a pretty considerable amount of work replacing sidewalk trees and lighting. This is on the east side of 80th. You might recall it had a sidewalk that was uh not in good shape. So last week uh we excavated for handrail foundations. We're doing some final work this week and we are getting uh close to the finish line. Just a reminder, we started working on this uh capital project in the spring of 2024. So, almost done. We might even go cut a ribbon when we're done. That this was a pretty major project. Uh nice job to the capital project team. Uh speaking of improvements, this is called the 2024 water system improvement project, but it's actually much bigger than that. It replaces over 6,000 linear feet of undersized and aging cast iron water manes. You know, we've been working on this um for quite a while. This project began in 2024 with uh contractor work starting in 2025. Just wanted to let you know that last week the contractor completed asphalt grinding and began paving overlays on Holly Lane to West Mercer Way and Southeast 42nd Street to Boulevard Place. So, this project is uh looking like it will be done in July. So, lots of really important projects um nearing the finish line. We just wanted to give you an update. Next project. All right. Different uh different update here. This is operational. Uh we have had some pretty incredible storms over the last 12 months. And one of uh the things we get to deal with in partnership with others is helping remove all the debris from Lake Washington that is turning up on Mercer Island shorelines. Uh thankfully we have a partner in doing this work. The US Army Corps of Engineers uh has partnered with us which is significantly accelerating the

cleanup efforts and also reducing our costs. Approximately um 50% of Mercer Island and partner shorelines have been cleared. Remember because we provide marine patrol services to other cities, we are also taking care of those shorelines. Um unfortunately we have had some rainy rain events. So the se Cedar River uh rising its banks is uh creating some additional um river debris flow into Lake Washington. But what's what's been good there's a lot of awareness of this problem. So there's been some work done now to stop uh those big logs and stumps from entering Lake Washington. Uh we may be getting some funding reimbured from the federal government for this work. I don't want to count our chickens before they hatch, but there was some good news on that front recently. So, I really just wanted to show this slide to make sure you're aware of this other part of our job. Um, this has become a pretty big cost and problem for us. So, we're probably also going to have to talk to our partners that we provide marine patrol services for and make sure we're all contributing to the expense. All right, next slide, please. Uh, we do have uh an event this Saturday. This is our annual um drug takeback day in partnership with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA. We will be at uh I didn't do anything. Okay. Uh we will be at uh city hall, former city hall loading dock on Saturday from 10 to 2. Our police will be there to collect unwanted and expired um medications, tablets, capsules, patches, and other solid forms of prescription drugs. Uh these have been really successful events when we've hosted them. So, we are continuing to do that. I want to say thank you to the police department for making sure even without a functioning city hall that we can

still offer this program. All right. And one more event just to put on your radar. This is a community baby shower. I think this is the second time we've done this. Recreation staff are partnering with Nancy Stewart, who's been a good friend to uh the city for many years, and our parks and recreation department uh for a communitywide baby shower for expected parents. So, Saturday, May 3rd from 1 to 3 here at the community center. Uh just an opportunity to support uh families that are expecting a little one and uh gift bags, refreshments, prizes, all sorts of fun things. And so we wanted to make sure you knew about uh that program and thank Nancy Stewart for her um great partnership. Some good news. Hey, it's spring. Although the clouds rolled in today, uh the parks and recck team wanted uh me to let you know that the pea patch is open and we welcomed nine new gardeners, which is really exciting because we have a very long wait list. Uh so every year we get somebody new into the pea patch. Uh that is great for them. So we are at full capacity now with 65 community members gardening in our pea patch which is just up the hill from where we're sitting right now at our u meeting tonight. And uh we encourage you to take a moment and go visit the gardeners. And I think that might be my last slide for tonight. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh our next item in business appearances is the opportunity for anyone to speak to the city council on any item except items requiring a public hearing or any quasi judicial matters or campaign related related matters. City clerk, is there anyone who has signed up for appearances that wishes to address the council? Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Tonight's agenda will include inerson public appearances or remote public appearances via Zoom. Individuals wishing to address the council may do so in person or by Zoom, provided they register with the city clerk by 4 p.m. today. When it is your turn to speak, you'll be called by name. Remarks must be addressed to the council as a whole and not to individual council or staff members. Any person making personal impermanent or slanderous remarks or it becomes boisterous, threatening or personally abusive while addressing the city council may be requested to leave the meeting. Please speak audibly and state your name and city of residence for the record. There will be a timer on the screen. You'll have three minutes to speak. When your time is ended, your microphone and video will be turned off. I'll thank you for your comments and move to the next speaker or item of business. Staff, please promote the first speaker.

Our first speaker tonight is Addie Smith. Hello, my name is Addie Smith. Today is April 21st, 2026. I'm speaking before the Mercer Island City Council. For the past seven years, members of this city council, including former mayors Selene Nice and Vincent Wong, have knowingly and willfully suppressed hate crimes that happened to my daughter and I. These members have willfully allowed their police officers to go unpunished for refusing to write police reports for hate crimes that happened to my daughter and I. These members have willfully allowed their police officers to submit fraudulent police reports alleging crimes committed when actually I was defending myself in repeated hate crime attacks. These city council members violated their own terms stipulated in building contracts for apartment communities built on the island. These city council members allowed Judge Jeff Gregory to commit perjury while sitting on the bench. These city council members have allowed their prosecutor to wrongfully and with malice prosecute me for defending myself in hate crimes. For the past seven years, these city council members have ruined my employment opportunities, business opportunities, and opportunities to improve my life and my family's life. These city council members have intentionally ruined home ownership opportunities, and career opportunities. They've sat quietly and done nothing. They've written fake proclamations. I've actually watched a video of me defending myself in one of the hate crime attacks. Surprise, surprise. The video doesn't start from the beginning. The video conveniently starts when I am defending myself from someone who had a gun. I also listened to the police officer's dash cam video

wherein one police officer can be heard asking, "Who do we arrest?" Three of the police officers who were party to arresting me were also the same officers who refused to write police reports. One of the police officers jokingly asked me if I wanted to go to the hospital or straight to jail because I was under arrest. The white woman with a gun who had repeatedly stalked my daughter and I whom had repeatedly attacked and threatened me was being coddled and held and spoken too gently by the Mercy Island police. the white woman with the gun who had just attacked me and then created tears to tell 911 quote unquote she used to be the manager here but they won't get rid of her. So she helped them quote unquote get rid of me. I was the one with the career. I was the one responsible for the operations of the $100 million property. I was the one earning a salary. But because I refuse to violate local, state, and federal law for a racist white woman, the city of Mercer Island had to teach me a lesson. A lesson they're still trying to teach me about racism and hate. What I've learned is that the racists, the silent racists, are more deadly than the loud ones. The former police chief sent me an email in October, two months before I had to defend my life, saying, quote unquote, "I am hopeful things will settle down for you soon. It's been more than seven years. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next speaker tonight is Connor Hansen.

Uh, can you hear me? Yeah.

Uh, hello. Good afternoon everybody. My name is Connor Hansen. I'm uh with SRM Development. We're the owner of Tabet uh Village. Um but I'm here to speak on the AMIs that will be I think discussed further in your agenda today. I'm here to advocate for a a higher AMI threshold for the performance or fianl. Um uh I have a project in downtown Belleview that was actually um restricted to folks earning up to 100% of the area median income. I presented to the Mercer Island School District or school board I should say uh to let the teachers know about this opportunity and a lot of them felt that that housing was a little too expensive and were more attracted to the 80% EMI housing range whereas the 50% doesn't really capture a lot of the teachers that earn those salaries. Um so th that is really the hardest type of housing to create. I would also suggest that what Belleview and Seattle have done closer to that 80% AMI mark um has been successful. Although with Seattle, you might be seeing in the news right now that even some of those um performance requirements are inhibiting development, whereas in Belleview, things are are moving ahead um strong. So, uh, happy to sidebar with any of you at another time if you'd like to further discuss this, but, um, just wanted to state that we're in favor of 80% AMI, uh, in uh, instead of 50%. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no further speakers this evening, Mr. Mayor. Great. We will now move on to next business, approval of the consent agenda. City clerk, please put the consent agenda on the screen. Thank you. The consent agenda contains seven items which are available on the screen in the agenda packet for review. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. Second. Moved by Council Member Weineberg and second by Council Reynolds. Any comments? Please call the RO. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Wer. I. Council member Sheay. I, Council Member Reynolds,

I, Mayor Rosenbomb, I, Deputy Mayor Becker, I, Council Member Androl, I, and Council Member Weinberg. I, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you. The motion passes. The city council will now go into executive session for approximately 60 minutes to discuss with legal counsel pending or potential litigation pursuant to RCW42.30.110 30.110 1.1I and to consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase. Public knowledge regarding such consideration would likely cause increased price pursuant to RCW42301B. The city council will be in recess from 517 until 523. The city council will convene the executive session at 523.

Mayor Mayor Rosenbomb. Uh, that's the incorrect um RC RCW. Okay. Um, give me one second here. Okay. It's just this is an executive. It's just pending our potential litigation. Did you read that? Pending or potential litigation pursuant to RCW423110 I.

All right. Let me start again. The city council will go will now go to executive session for approximately 60 minutes to discuss with legal counsel pending a potential litigation pursuing RCW4230 1101 I the city council be in recess from 517 until 523 no 520 518 until 523 the city council will con excuse me the city council will be in the executive session Recess. You were correct. The recess will be for 5 minutes and then the city council will be in executive session from 5:23 until 6:23. Exactly. Okay. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for your patience. City Council will continue in executive session for an additional 30 minutes until 6:53 p.m. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for your patience. City Council will continue in executive session for an additional 15 minutes until 7:08 p.m. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for your patience. City Council adjourned the executive session at 7:08 p.m. and will be in recess until 7:13 p.m. Thank you.

Thank you. The city council was was in executive session from 5:23 p.m. until 7:11 p.m. Our first item of regular business is AB6908 revised 2026 fee schedule adoption resolution number 1693. Welcome managing analyst Amelia Chaden. There we go. Okay. Good evening, council. Amelia Chaden, management analyst. I will be walking us through tonight's presentation on the revised 2026 fee schedule adoption. I will start with some background, then walk through the revisions to the fee schedule, including special event pricing for parking and the parks and recreation fees. I will finish us off with next steps. Starting with some short history, the fee schedule first came about in 2022. The fee schedule is a document that lists all of the city fees in one place, making it easier for the public to access. City Council adopted an ordinance in May 2025 that established that all parking fees would be set by resolution in the fee schedule. The fee schedules adopted each fall for the following year and as such the 2026 fee schedule was adopted in November of last year. Briefly touching on a few parking locations, the Town Center parking area is available for all day parking for a paid fee. This parking area is just north of Town Center and has seen an increase in usage since the opening of the Sound Transit light rail station. The Mercer Island Park and Ride has 447 stalls available for free for first come, first serve parking. Staff have conducted occupancy counts of the park

and ride most recently during the first week of this month. And the occupancy counts showed that the parking ride was fully occupied at noon with the only spaces available being motorcycle or accessible parking spaces. The community center has 220 parking spaces. These spaces are usually only used by people or participants of the community center the and city vehicles. However, during large events like summer celebration or seafare weekend, the community center sells special event parking passes to community members. Speaking of special events, staff have begun preparations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. These preparations have included a review of existing policies for large regional events, which in this review, staff found that the city would benefit from establishing special event pricing for parking in the city's fee schedule. Special event pricing will allow staff to implement strategies that will take pressure off of the city's parking supply on match days during the World Cup. Switching gears ever so slightly and not wasting an opportunity to be efficient, staff are also using this agenda item to add a proposed change to the parks and recreation fees, which I will discuss later on in this presentation. Staff looked at pricing structures for regional events to create the proposal before you today. During large events, the parking garages around the Northgate light rail station charge between 15 and $25. While near Climate Pledge, the average rate for event parking is around $32. I never thought I would bring up Taylor Swift during a council meeting, but during her 2023 concert, the re reservable spots near Lumen Field, what will become Seattle Stadium during the FIFA World Cup, started at $65 with some locations charging more than $100 for a parking space.

This brings us to the promised parks and recreation fees. Consistent with city policy, staff have worked to increase facility rentals to generate additional revenue and support other programming. Staff have seen strong results from promotions and seasonal specials at the community center and athletic fields. An example being the winter web special, which gave a small discount to people booking online, effectively doubling the synthetic turf reservations compared to the prior year. To reiterate, council, the proposed changes to the parks and recreation fees are meant to maximize facility use, access, and revenue potential. Resolution number 1693 presented before you tonight includes the following staff recommendations. First, add pricing for special event parking. Second, set a maximum a maximum event parking rate of $100 at the town center parking area and the community center. And finally, amend the parks and recreation fees to allow fees to be reduced through promotional and seasonal reductions. Adding special event parking or special event pricing for parking will expand the city's parking supply during larger regional events this year and forthcoming. Staff have recommended setting a maximum fee rather than a static fee to adjust the pricing for parking based on demand and popularity. Finally, promotional and seasonal reductions for parks and recreation fees will help increase usage and res revenue during the off- peak seasons. On screen, you can see the proposed changes to the parking fees for the town center parking area. Little bit harder than I thought it was going to be to see, but it's at the bottom in blue and underlined. And then here we can see the changes to the parks and recreation fees. First noting the addition of the promotional and seasonal fee reductions at the top

and then the special event parking for the community center at the bottom. Should council approve resolution number 1693, staff will post the revised fee schedule on the website and the revised version will become effective May 1st. Staff will then use the pricing structure determined by council to determine the rates for upcoming regional events. To round out this conversation, staff will return in May to present an update on the city's planning for the FIFA World Cup. This update will be multiaceted and touch on communications, traffic, and safety, as well as the parking management plan. Staff anticipate that as part of the parking management plan, the community center lot will be open to Mercer Island residents to park all day for free and also offer paid parking opportunities for non-residents. More information to come here in May. With that, I will turn it over to you for any questions, comments, concerns.

Council Shay. Um, yes. So, um, for special events, how about events like the MIFS breakfast of champions or the Chinese Association Luna New Year events? Does that count as special events? Uh, thank you. Uh, Ryan Daly, uh, interim parks, recreation, and facilities director. uh we wouldn't be charging for events that are happening in this facility. So um one of the bigger perks that we offer as a as an incentive for people to rent here or utilize this facility is that we have free parking currently. So that's not something we would anticipate. It would be uh events that are happening outside of this facility.

And just to add further, Robbie Cunningham Adams, a management analyst. Uh in the fee schedule, you'll see a little asterisk. It says special events as determined by the city manager or designate. And so, you know, we would have the ability to we would determine which ones would kind of fit this category and would um then be we could choose to do special event parking, but as you know, Ryan just said, those two examples would not fit under it likely. Wicker, how do you imagine enforcement working

for FIFA World Cup? for parking in special events. Like if we do half of this parking lot and then take I don't know Venmo or something or cash like how's it going to work? Do you want me to go? Um, for special event parking, it would likely be through some kind of permit basis where as people are walking in, we would be verifying their for World Cup in specifically, it would be verifying their residency and then they would have like a hanger or a tag um that they would be hanging up in their windshield or on their dash. So, plan ahead. Not just driving up,

not just driving up. Yeah, you would be able to to verify residency or pay if you're if you drive up. Um but it it would still be better to plan ahead. Got it. Thanks

that that a little further, Wendy. Um we're going to our police department's been pretty busy during World Cup match days and our you'll hear more during our May meeting, but the intent here is to have um at this facility on match days there's not going to be regular programming. So you can't rent a space on those days. And so we have a little bit of capacity with our parks and recre staff. Thanks, Ryan. Uh so that team's going to be kind of running, bringing people in, taking payment with our existing software, kind of managing that and forcing that. Uh and that will hopefully help free up PD to have capacity where they'll be needed elsewhere, I imagine. Nice. Thank you. And that'll be similar to um summer celebration fireworks night, right?

Correct. Um, Brian, what percentage of people are booking facility rentals and field rentals online versus I'm assuming phone?

Excellent question. Uh, so for facility rentals, uh, for, let's say, athletic fields, um, gosh, it's getting pretty close to 50/50 between, uh, our reservation process where you submit the request you might have and then going online. Uh that's drastically different than it was gosh four years ago. We were somewhere in the neighborhood. Well, it was 100% of the users were coming through us or talking in person with somebody. Uh so being able to utilize the online system, huge savings in staff time, uh or our ability to accommodate more users. I shouldn't say that we're seeing a savings in staff time because we're we're accommodating so many more uh users at this point. And that's all self-s served, I'm assuming.

Yes. Yes. Steeron.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just want to put kind of a a big umbrella over this council. I'll remind you that the authority we have to set fees is derived by the fee schedule. And so you set the policy like up to $100. We operationalize that and determine when we might need to deploy that. Um the World Cup is obviously here almost and this is this kind of had us rushing to you to get this policy change made. Um but we will certainly evaluate when there will be other times due to the light rail opening that we might need to deploy or want to deploy paid parking. So we have an asset here. Uh we think people once they figure it out will start parking here anyway. Um so we thank you for for supporting this policy change. Um, the other thing and and the attorney brought this up is uh the discounts and deals that we offer on the the short notice rentals to fill capacity. You have to give us that policy authority, too. And we didn't have that clearly written here. So, I think this is all really good business work that we're doing as a city. Um, and I just want to thank the staff for for getting this all together, but I wanted to give you that kind of high umbrella flyover. Um, so that's all I have. Thanks,

Council Shay. So, just want to clarify um like for summer celebrations, it's outside of the community center and if a resident want to park, do they have to pay? Uh at this point, the way we've been operating through the past is we do charge everybody um the same amount to park at the community center. Uh this facility goes offline during that weekend. So, it is a way to recoup revenue um from from a loss during that weekend. So, a resident would pay the same amount as someone coming off the island. Yes. Okay. And that's what's been happening. That's that's been current practice. Yes. That helps to recoup the cost of summer celebration, too.

Correct. Yes. It's about $6,000 for that weekend. Okay. Uh, Council Shay, is that an old hand? Okay. Um, any other questions? If not, please call the RO. Was there a motion made? Oh, sorry. Council, is there a motion to approve resolution number 1693 adopting the revised 2026 fee schedule effective May 1st, 2026? So moved. Second. Was moved by Council Andrew and second by Deputy Mayor Becker. So the clerk, please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Reynolds, I. Mayor Rosenbomb, I. Council member Sheay, I. Council member Andro, I. Council member Wer, I. Council member Weinberg, I. and Deputy Mayor Becker. I

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Motion passes 70. Um, do we need a minute here just to else is going down there.

Okay. Uh, next item of business is AB6909 GMA compliance policy direction on development code amendments. So, we welcome CPD director Jeff Thomas. Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council. For the record, uh, Jeff Thomas with CPD. Joining me is uh Adam Zach to my left and uh Allison Van Gorp, two to my left. We've got two items for you tonight. This is the first of two. Um Adam's going to walk you through a short presentation that summarizes agenda bill 6909 and we are looking for a few points of direction from the council tonight so we can um continue to work on GMA compliance efforts. With that, Adam, go ahead.

Great. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff. Let me share my screen. Okay, so agenda bill 6909 um covers some policy direction on development code amendments as part of our GMA compliance effort um and comprehensive plan update. Um, we're here tonight to get your direction on three policy questions. Uh, what rate uh and affordability level should be required by uh proposed inclusionary zoning? I mean, that's covered in a policy brief in exhibit one of the um agenda bill. The second question is, should adult entertainment and warehousing be allowed um land uses within the new TC8 sub area? Um, and that's covered in a policy brief in exhibit two of the agenda bill. And then the third question is, should the town center design standards that affect floor area ratio be reviewed during phase one or phase two of the station sub area plan? Um, and that's in exhibit three. Um all three of these points of direction will help guide our efforts to um prepare development code amendments that we'll be bringing back um or bringing forward for consideration during the comprehensive plan um update to comply with the hearings board um decision the GMA. Um the first of those issues is the inclusionary zoning. Um we this is a type of zoning that establishes a mandatory percentage of affordable units um in new developments and there's two key variables in inclusionary zoning. The percent of units required and the affordability level at which they're required to be provided. Um and this is one of the pieces that's needed to demonstrate our compliance with the hearings board order and be making those

adequate provisions that we're required to make. Um the inclusionary res uh the inclusionary zoning relates to the fee and loo um program that we we've talked about in the past. Um essentially the market does not produce um units at that 0 to 30% AMI range. So combining this inclusionary zoning and the fee and loo um program could help close some of that 0 to 30% um unit gap that we've identified um and provide some of the funding for those uh more affordable units. And we found in our study um of this issue that requiring about 10 requiring 10% of units to be affordable um can help improve project feasibility which in turn can help kind of produce those 0 to 30% or help fund those 0 to 30% AMI units because of that relationship between inclusionary zoning and uh fee and l program. Um there were there are two alternatives that are presented in the policy brief uh with the agenda bill. Um alternative A would set the inclusionary zoning requirement at 10% of units at 50% of the AMI. Um that policy brief also uh considered alternative B which would set the requirement at 15% of the units at 50% AMI. And the staff recommendation is um alternative A which would set that 10% requirement um because it helps um support the feas project feasibility um and would further some of our housing goals and really connect with that fee and LU um outcomes and those uh a more in-depth discussion of that is really provided in the in the policy brief. Let's see here. I think I actually

covered most of this slide. Um, so that's the the field or sorry that's the inclusionary zoning um policy question. We'll return to that kind of here at the end. We have three recommended motions in the agenda bill. Um, any questions on the inclusionary requirement before I keep council sitting here. Um, one of our big troubles is getting housing built at the 30 to 50% line. We can, we think this policy will help a lot with 50 to 80 from what I understand. What would stop us, if anything, from drawing a line and saying 10% affordable at 49 rather than 50. It seems like it would only affect the builders the smallest possible amount. you know, a tiny tiny amount, especially if we made it 49.9, but then whatever they did build would come into the 30 to 50% range, right? Rather than the 50 to 80. So, wouldn't that work to our advantage with relatively little cost to the builder?

What's that? The line is already drawn above 50%. So, this is already in that 30 to 50% bucket. Oh, okay. So, because it's greater than 50 to 80. Okay. Correct. Yes. Okay. I I missed that. Thank you. So, you did the smart thing. Well done. I'm not shouldn't be surprised. I think it was I think it was done for us, but we'll take the credit. Okay. Council Wineberg.

Uh, yeah. So, the uh proposal here that it be 10% of units to 50% AMI. Is it for uh all of the proposed uh zones in Town Center that uh and is all of Town Center currently uh the the numbers that we're uh that we're calculating is assuming an eightstory uh uh re uh uh zone or height allowance in that zone.

So there's two questions there. So yes, it would apply in the town center and the area that would be increased to a maximum sixstory building height surrounding the town center, those multif family zones adjacent to. So this this inclusionary zoning requirement would be all of that area getting upzoned. Okay. And a follow-up question, unless there are others that wanted to uh go ahead question. Um so the town center on the south side um is adjacent to a neighborhood that has a 30 foot um maximum height. Is that correct?

And so this would essentially have an eighttory block that is then adjacent to one that is uh that is only two stories or or 30 feet in height. Right. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And the other sides of town center is where that phase two area is. And that's the area that we're thinking currently would be in the in the sixtory range, but that's kind of to be discussed uh in the in phase two. Right. Right. So the the entire phase 2 area the exact like what will be allowed in there is going to be a discussion at a later date. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh any other questions?

All right. We'll keep rolling. Um, so the next issue that we wanted to look at with you are the zoning amendments. Um, and we need some direction on the allowed uses in the town center. Um, so back in, um, earlier in this process, uh, we received direction to increase the building height to a maximum of eight stories in the town center and six stories in the surrounding multif family zones. And what that would do is essentially transition the town center from what what are six sub areas to to essentially two, a TC8 and a TCMF6. And in order to do that, we need to resolve the land use tables um that basically define what land uses are allowed in those sub areas. Um, in general, it's fairly simple to consolidate these down, but there were two uses that had were allowed in some sub areas and prohibited in others. And those two uses are adult entertainment and warehousing. Um, and so we need direction from the council on whether those should generally be allowed or prohibited in the resulting TC8 and TCMF6 sub areas. Um,

did you want to I'll go ahead and finish.

Okay. Um, so there were two two alternatives presented in the agenda bill. Alternative A would allow adult entertainment and warehousing by a conditional use permit in the TC8 sub area. Alternative B would prohibit adult entertainment and warehousing in the TC8 sub area. Um, I would put an asterisk on there. we need to do some additional analysis about um limiting adult entertainment as a use um whether or not we can prohibit it entirely. Um so there will be some additional analysis that comes with that um if we get your direction that way. The staff recommendation is alternative B um and that can help resolve some of the um compatibility between the residential uses that we're planning for TC8 and TCMF6 um and the the uses considered here warehousing adult entertainment.

Yeah. So that's a little bit different what Adam just said from what was presented in your agenda bill as the conversation has continued with our our city attorney's office here in the days since the packet went out. Um the punch line is we are going to have to find a home somewhere for adult entertainment likely by cup like it's uh permitted now. But it doesn't have to be the entire town center TCA. it can be some sort of subset which is what Adam referred to that we're going to work on. Um so we're going to work on that and we'll be back to you with more information here in short order. Can you explain a little more why why do we have to find first amendment issues?

Okay, Council Reynolds, um what can you tell me about current use? So, I'm assuming there's no adult entertainment in Town Center. Uh, is there any warehousing? Uh, there is not a like pure self storage or warehousing uh use there. Um, okay. Now, we do have some of that at the the South End business district, but that's completely unaffected by this. Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.

All right. We'll keep rolling. We're very efficient tonight. Um the next issue we need council direction on are the design standards. Um there are three design standards currently in our code um that can reduce the achievable floor area ratio or F. Um floor area ratio is going to be particularly important as we start to look at phase two of the station sub area plan in the future. Um, these three standards, the average daylight plane, the major site features, and major facade modulation, all three of those affect how big buildings can be essentially in the town center. Um and at this at this juncture we can um or you can decide whether to remove these three standards um during phase one um and kind of get uh get them take them off the books now or we can review them during phase two um and review them for their effects on um the overall F that can be achieved and how we might um want to modulate F throughout the whole station area, that larger station area in the phase two. Um, again, the average daylight plane is essentially an upper story step back. So, as buildings get taller in town center, they're also required to step further back um on the upper stories of the building um creating um essentially um like a terrace um approach to those upper stories. Um the major site features requires either a through block connection or a public open space in major new construction in the town center. And then major facade modulation requires the um building articulation. So ste stepping forward and stepping back along the longer street front edges of um large buildings. And as I mentioned all three of these u more or

less reduce the total amount of floor area ratio um possible in new construction. Um and thus they they will require some amount of study uh when we get to um looking at floor area ratios in um the station uh sub area in the future. There were two I mentioned there's two st uh alternatives considered in the agenda bill. The first would be to just remove those. We could we could strike those during phase one now or we can keep the standards now and then review them ver during phase two. And this will give us an opportunity to as we're um as we're developing standards for the larger station area, we can take into account how floor area ratio might be average throughout the um throughout the station area. And so our recommendation is alternative B to retain those standards for now um and include a policy in the comp plan that we're going to evaluate these during phase two of the station sub area. Um Council Reynolds, do you have questions?

I want to follow up on a question I asked in advance of the meeting, so I'm not sure I fully understood the answer. What I had initially been thinking was that in Town Center, this modulation issue doesn't really cause any problems because you're going to easily get to 3.5 if you allow an eight-story building. But I want to make sure I think your answer is telling me that it does matter because this might allow us to not achieve the the the effective far we get might be five or six now even on an eight-story building because of this rule which means outside of town center we'll have to allow more height in order to get to the 3.5 overall. Is that the issue?

It could. Yeah. So the during phase two, we'll need to look at some alternatives of how you can achieve an average F throughout the entire station area. And so if we have regulations that limit F in the town center, that might then require us to go include larger FS outside of the town center. And this daylight planing as an example, you're not going to get a FAR of eight. It would be impossible. Right. It's going to be something lower. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Okay. Keep going.

Great. Um well, that pretty much concludes it. There are three motions um included in the agenda bill. I can leave them up on the screen here or um yeah, take any other questions. Okay. Uh Council Wyber, I don't have a question, but I have a motion when you're ready. Okay. Let's see. Does anybody have any questions before we move on to our motion making? Uh, okay. Go ahead.

Yeah. Uh, so I moved to direct staff to set the inclusionary zoning requirements such that 50% AMI affordable units comprise at least 15% of units at the TC8 sub area and at least 10% of the units in the other town center sub areas. when drafting code amendments to comply with the growth management hearing board order. Second. Okay. Um Council Robert, do you want to speak to your amendment? Sure. Um so your motion?

Yeah. Yeah, sure. So, uh the the current proposal which um in we're uh simplifying uh town center to have uh uh two sub areas uh in or in the station area that had the eight stories uh and the six stories. uh makes for a rather abrupt urban edge especially on the south edge uh but also on the other uh edges of uh the stationary uh and I was mentioning that earlier in the uh my question about uh the maximum height in the neighboring uh uh neighborhoods is 30 ft um and which is uh a six-story building is more than twice that um and an eight-story building is yet more um and so uh we should strive to have a more gradual height transition position uh around the edges of the area. Um and having uh uh as having the edge of the station area be lower if we were to eventually do that would significantly reduce the amount of overall affordable units. I'm suggesting that we increase uh the suggestion from 10% to 15% for the TC8 ones so that we have uh to compensate for the eventual reduction uh by having a lower uh area around the edges if that makes sense.

Uh council member WAR is your hand up. Can can we see what he said in writing or can you say it again so I can take note of it? It's 15% and what in the next? Uh yeah, so I uh it's the one I sent uh to the uh council and the uh uh clerk last night. So we can bring that up on the screen. 10% the other. All right. So can I have a question? Go for it. Yeah, go for it. So Mr. Thomas, what would that do to all the planning and work that we've been working on for months to have two separate? Yeah. Um,

it it feels complicated and confusing, not just for me, but for any developer or housing consortium mission base to try to do this work. This actually matches what Kirkland does. Kirkland's not us. I understand, but it's not confusing to them. So, Sorry, this is a question for Mr. Thomas. Yeah, I apolog you're you're asking to raise

the inclusionary rate from 10 to 15 in TCA, correct? and leave it at 10 in the essentially the TC6 areas. Yes. Is the proposal. Okay.

And can you just for my education perhaps just explain then you mentioned though that will what what is the impact that you're drawing to the design standards that you mentioned? Um the intent is to increase the total number of affordable units in the TC8 area so that if we reduce uh height around the edges that will uh net out at the the same area that we're that we're trying to uh accomplish in order to uh be compliant with the growth management hearing board order.

Okay. So, we would still have under your under your proposed motion, we would still have the TC8 area go right to the south end of the current town center boundary. I would like to create enough additional uh affordable housing that we would have at least the capability to consider having a lower um uh area that is between TC8 and that southern uh or the neighborhood that's on the south property or south boundary of it. Okay. Um so I mayor I think we have our um our consultants community attributes are actually on the call. are on the Zoom call here. If we could have um

Elliot Elliot and Michaela promoted, that'd be great. There's Michaela. Um Michaela, were you able to hear Council Member Weineberg's motion? It's there on the screen as well.

Yeah. And um perhaps you and Elliott could speak to um the ramifications of maintaining I guess that 15% that currently exists or raising it from the proposal of 10 to 15% in the TC8 sub area and just speak to the council uh about that and how that ties to the analysis that community attributes has done for the city uh on this matter. better.

Sure. Um I think Elliot might be better positioned to talk because I think that the main question here is going to be how does that change feasibility and how does that result in um actual on-site affordable housing performance compared to use of the inloo fee program? Um, I will say that 15% is at the sort of maximum end of what you can do based on the Nexus study. Um, but it's within within that range uh shown in the feasibility study, excuse me, in the Nexus study. And I'll let Elliot weigh in on the feasibility side. Well, we haven't done feasibility analysis specifically for that 15% set aside by which I mean uh we have not run a proform model to look at how it changes the rate of return that could be expected on a given development project. What we have done is a comparative assessment with other jurisdictions in your market area. And I think that the likely effect of going to 15% as opposed to 10% is that you would increase the incentive for any developer interested in providing housing in Mercer Island to pay the fee in Lou as opposed to actually providing the affordable units on site. I think that 15% as Michaela said is at the upper end of what would be allowable based on the nexus study. It's also relatively high in comparison to other jurisdictions in which similar rents can be achieved. And so from an economic standpoint, I think that most developers looking at such a requirement would run the numbers, see what makes sense from a financial feasibility perspective for their particular project and at least directionally uh increasing

that set aside at 50% of AMI is going to make that fee loo comparatively more attractive. So essentially, we'd not be building it. We'd be consolidating that for development elsewhere for that lower income bracket.

Well, I want to be clear, the development wouldn't necessarily be elsewhere in order to maintain compliance. Even those units that get paid for through the fee and loo dollars would need to be located within Mercer Island. So, uh, they would hit a different income band because you'd be targeting the 0 to 30% of AMI with those fee and L dollars, but it would be critical from a compliance standpoint that those units still be located within city okay question.

Uh, let's go. We'll come back to you. Uh, council member, I believe, is next. Um so initially you know we were at 10% affordability um and then we increased that to 15% and um that was a comprehensive plan that got appealed. Um so now it seems like we're trying to go back to the 10%. And I think you know the 15% um you're pushing that affordability requirement to some of the most stringent in the state and in fact um making it more infeasible to build and there are studies um nationwide that at 20% they basically call it the kill pill like the project won't even get done um and I I believe that that's one of the reasons one of the main reasons that our comprehensive plan was appealed because we had increased that to 15%. Um, so you know, is is that your is that your understanding of why you would go back to the 10%.

Well, the So, I I think there's a variety of reasons that we won't get into here about our comprehensive plan status in the growth board order. Um the 10% recommendation was based on the analysis that was completed by community attributes and I think Elliot just explained some of that there moments ago. Um we're we're trying to get a system that works cohesively together, right? because this is a this is a multi-pronged approach by trying to produce affordable units on the ground and also uh generate fee in le of to help support our other affordable housing needs that the market uh just won't produce on its own. So a blended approach perhaps is a good way of thinking of it. Councelor Reynolds,

I'm still noodling on this, deciding how I feel, but the uh um what what's making me lean towards supporting this is that uh the comment one of the consultants made, it makes the fee and load program much more attractive uh because it's the more housing unit, an extra 5% that you don't have to build. But to me that suggests that we could charge more for the fee and loo program than we otherwise would be able to because it's compared to the alternative it's even more advantageous and if we can charge more for that fee and loop program then we can do more to address the 0 to 30% band which is what what I would like to see. So I'm I'm inclined to support this.

Is it possible to put up the map so we can take a look at this from a different angle? Council Wer, do you want to ask your question? Um, yeah. So Jeff, can you talk a little bit about how how administratively uh cumbersome or easy this would be to do to have two different sets of requirements for two different development types? Like how would that work staff-wise? And

operationally, I'm not sure that's necessarily a problem. We've we've got two under this motion. There's two clearly delineated areas, right? One would be a TC6, the other would be a TC8 um of future zones. And um one requirement applies to one area, one requirement applies to another area. So if we had more fee in L to develop elsewhere, the implication is where would that be done? If it's incentivizing more fi how does that what's the domino effect of that?

Well the the fianl dollars generated can be used in a variety of ways constellation. Yeah.

So I mean it's it's really going to the usage of fianl dollars are it's going to have to be I'm envisioning it at least as being case by case or selective. It's going to depend on uh different uh partners, different funding opportunities, and how different pieces come together at a certain site for the opportunity to to utilize those dollars. So, it's it's really going to I I don't think there's any there's no set way on Mercer Island that these fees will only be used for X in cases. we could have, you know, the first three or four opportunities out of the gate could all entirely be differently in terms of the proposal, how it's structured, where it's being funded from, um, who the partners are potentially going to be. But if you had 10% on TC8, it's likely to get built,

more likely to get built. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'll go back to Elliot and his comments. That was with the different variables the way that CI our consultant looked at them. We landed on the 10% at 50% AMI and you get it sooner because it's done with the development not put in a fee and loo program to wait. Right. Right.

I would add that's entirely possible. But another reason to consider the 10 instead of the 15 even if the 15 would generate marginally more fee and loo dollars or probabilistically make fee and loo the more likely decision for an individual developer is that you don't want to create a disincentive for folks to invest in Mercer Island altogether. And so if your requirements are dramatically out of step uh with the requirements seen throughout the region again where competitive rents can be achieved other arch cities for example then there is a risk that you could be turning folks away from investing in Mercer Island altogether. And so I think the comparative analysis that Michaela leed did look at those other jurisdictions and concluded that that 10% requirement was more in line with some of those other jurisdictions such that it wouldn't be putting Mercer Island at a disadvantage from a competitive perspective for investment regionally.

Uh Council Weinberg, now we have the map up. Could you could you kind of take us through a little bit more what your what your vision is here?

Sure. Uh so the red section in the middle uh is the area that is being proposed to be TCA. Is that correct? Um and the green uh kind of the darker or medium I should say green sections are MF2s uh that are around it are the areas you guys are were contemplating being uh the sixtory right. Uh so if we look at the southernmost boundary of this uh where there's an R8.4 4 uh neighborhood. Uh uh there's actually two of them with a um an R9.6 kind of noodle up in the middle there. Um that southern boundary uh would

Sorry, my bad. I touched a screen.

But yeah, essentially that uh uh that boundary uh would be going from six stories down to two stories. Um essentially there's six stories on one side of the street and two stories on the other side of the street. Um and uh if there's any place where there is uh red uh touching uh purple which I don't think there is that would be 8 to2 but it looks like there's you know 6 to2 there. Um and then on the right boundary uh where the or meaning the east side uh of the eastern most MF2 zone uh that's six stories and then the pink uh area to the right of it is two stories. So that would be another kind of abrupt edge. And the same thing happens over on on the west uh side where the uh MF2 is up against a uh our 9.6.

So your vision would be to to scale down from six or what is the to have some something in between six and two at the edges. Um, and I'm not proposing that we try to uh work out the details in a council meeting, but I'm trying to create more affordable housing option or more numbers of affordable housing in the plans so that we have the capability to uh have uh a ramp down at the edges. Okay. So, your amendment is to get in hopes of a step down in a future date.

Correct. So, I think it's it's worth just pointing out just so everyone's understanding on the the east and west sides of the current talent center area where those MF2 zones are the lighter blue colors. Mhm. Maybe you can help me out with this, Adam. Those are going up the grade.

Yes. to kind of the the top of the bowl of sorts or I guess on each side right on the south side of the town center and it's hard to tell because our our caption is is kind of covering up that zoning at the the south um the southern end of the town center but just in looking at Adam's screen here. So there's one two three four four R.84 84 parcels. It looks like

that would be directly adjacent to a future TC6 area. And then that rest of that southern part of the town center area, there's the park which is zoned public institution. Um or is is that right? It's park. It's parked. Now, this is an old map, but so there's a park there. There's the park that's buffering between the town center area, whether it's TC6 or TC8, and the R8.4, which is south of the park. Mhm. Okay. Uh, Council Wer

Okay. Uh, Council Shay. Um, so I I think I understand, Council Member Weineberg, uh, why you're proposing this 15%, but I'm just really worried about complying with this growth management hearings board because we had it at 15% and they shot it down and saying it's too stringent. Um, so the thing I'm most worried about is that they're going to come back and say, "Well, you guys um have not changed this 15% back to the 10%." And um if we're not compliant, then we could have state grants pulled from us, we could um have city revenues withheld by the state. So that's my main focus is to um get into compliance by July 31st. Um, and if you're increasing it to 15%, that's just going to decrease the feasibility of a developer saying that this is financially viable for them.

Manager Bond. Yeah, I just want to clarify something. Um, council member Shay, the growth management hearing board order was not based on that AMI threshold. That that was not part of the order. But the point you're making about make we have to make progress, right? That's what the state said is you have to go do all these things and you have to make progress on affordable housing. So I think the policy issue you're raising is valid. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that that that specific item was not part of the order, but I do share your concern. Thank you. Uh Cander.

Yeah. Thanks. Um, so is is there a way if we increased it to 15% in TC8, um, that a developer can kind of split the baby and say, "I only really want to build 10% and I will buy the other 5%." Away. The fee and Lou can be structured that way for sure. Okay. And and is that true even in the 10% like I I only want to build 5% and I I'll pay you I'll pay you half the fee in Lou and I'll build half of the mandated require unit. So it's not an all or nothing. Correct.

Correct. Yeah. The way we're planning to draft this amendment would allow the developer to choose. They could use VML for the full requirement or any portion of it. That would be up to them to determine. Thank you. I I don't know that it affects how I feel about the 15%, but I I did want to know that. Okay. Uh, city manager Bond, is that an old hand? Old hand. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Uh, Andrew, you want to call the role, please? Yes. Give one second. Deputy Mayor Becker. Nay. Mayor Rosenbomb. No. Council member Androl,

no. Council member Weinberg, I. Council member Reynolds, I. Council member Wer, nay. And council member Sheay, nay. Motion fails two to five. Okay, thank you. Uh, does anybody else have a motion they'd like to make? Council Wer. Uh, I direct staff to set the inclusionary zoning requirements at 10% of units to be affordable at 50% AMI when drafting code amendments to comply with the GMHB order. Second move by council member Wer and second by council member Anderall. Council member Wer, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I think we've done a lot of work on this and I think council member Sheay is spot on and that we want to uh be able to show progress here eventually and I think uh having this 10% will actually get some development here and help us get some affordable housing units. Okay, anybody else? Okay, please call the RO. Mr. Mayor, Council Member, Council Member Weinberg, I. Council member Reynolds, I, Mayor Rosenbomb, I, Council Member Sheay, I, Deputy Mayor Becker, I. Council member Androl, I. And Council Member Wer, I. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, thank you. Motion passes seven to nothing. Uh, next, is there a motion to direct staff to prohibit adult entertainment? And where? Actually, I'm sorry. Can you please put the the recommended motion here back on the screen? I think I have an old version. I think that's old. The the version in the AB hasn't been I I don't have a newer version of that. Uh is there a motion to direct staff to prohibit adult entertainment warehousing in the TC8 sub area when drafting code amendments to comply with the GMHB order? So moved. Second. Moved by Council Member Weinberg and second by Council Anderall. Any any comments? Okay. Please call the RO. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Reynolds. M. Sorry. I just want to make sure I heard this correctly. You were proposing a prohibition, I believe, in in this amendment, which was contrary to the staff recommendation. Is that correct? Well, we'll need to we're going to need to evaluate that pre prohibition and look at where whether we could prohibit it throughout the entire town center. So, so there will be room to come back. If you've determined you can't do that, we'll have a a second bite of the apple to make this legal. Yeah. Correct. Okay. I don't I don't want to end up in court on first amendment grounds if we can avoid that. Council member not amending anything tonight, so we're good.

Council member Reynolds, for the record, um for the purpose of this exercise that you're doing right now, um the motion that uh you're about to vote on is perfectly fine. It's not uh creating any legal risk as of right now because as of right now, nothing's being changed. Thank you. It's just a recommendation for a study. Uh, Council Shay, could you just could you just put the motion up so I can be sure I know know exactly what we're voting for? Is it is it the direct staff to prohibit the adult entertainment and warehousing and TC8? Yes, correct. When when drafting code amendments

Okay. Okay. Uh, please call the role.

Council member Wer. Hi, Deputy Mayor Becker. I, Council Member Weineberg, I, Council Member Reynolds, I, Council Member Sheay, I, Council Member Andro, I, and Mayor Rosenbomb. I, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you. Motion passes 70. Lastly, is there a motion to direct staff to include policy direction in the station sub area plan to review the requirement for average daylight plane, major site features, and major facade modulation during station subarial plan phase number two? So moved. Second. It's moved by council member Weinberg and second by council Reynolds. Please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Rosenbomb, I. Council member Sheay, I. Council member Wer, I. Council member Andro, I. Council member Weinberg,

I. Deputy Mayor Becker, I. And council member Reynolds, I. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. Thank you. Motion passes 70. Our next item of business is AB6911, GMA Compliance Legislative Review Process. We welcome CPD director Jud Thomas. Thank you, mayor. Um Allison's going to walk you through three or four slides to summarize this agenda bill for the council and then we'll turn it back over to you. Thank you, Jeff. All right, this will be brief. Um this item is related to setting the legislative review schedule for the planning commission. Um a full schedule was included in exhibit one in your packet. I've summarized it here on the slide. We are planning for seven planning commission meetings to complete the review of the station sub area plan, amendments to the comprehensive plan, and amendments to the development code related to GMA compliance. Um, the planning commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on these items on June 3rd and finalize their recommendation on June 10th, which would then be presented to the city council at the regular June 16th meeting. Um, yeah, as I said, this planning commission review would span from April 29th to June 10th. It would come back to the council then on June 16th for you to complete your review by the July 21st meeting, just in time for the final deadline for compliance of July 31st, 2026. And our recommendation is here on the screen. Um, we're just asking the council to approve this schedule and direct the planning commission to begin the legislative review. Any questions? Okay. Council, is there a motion to

C Reynolds? I just had my hand up to move to approve. Then go for it. I would would move to approve the planning commission legislative review schedule in exhibit one and direct staff to initiate planning commission review of the proposed GMA compliance amendments to the comprehensive plan development code in the new station sub area plan. Second. Okay. It was moved by council Reynolds and second by council Weinberg. Uh councelor Reynolds, would you like to speak to your motion? I think it's an easy one. No need. Okay. Um, I would like if this if this does pass, I would like to thank the planning commission for their uh expeditious and thoughtful uh work balancing pace uh and precision. Uh, please call the role.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Weinberg, I. Council member Androl, I. Deputy Mayor Becker, I. Council member Wer, I. Council member Sheay, I. Council member Reynolds, I. and Mayor Rosenbal. I thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you. Motion passes seven nothing. We now move to other business in the planning schedule. And we welcome city manager Jesse Bond. Uh council, just one reminder, we added a special meeting next week, Tuesday, at 5:30 p.m. And that's been added to your calendars. And that's all I have tonight.

Okay. Uh council, are there any upcoming council member absences report? Okay, council reports. Deputy Mayor Becker. Um, yeah, I do actually have a short report tonight. I recently attended two Arch events. First, uh, I was at the inaugural Arch Council of Elected Officials meeting, which is a pilot effort convening elected officials from across the Arch membership. I'm Mercer Island's delegate among the 12 East King County jurisdictions represented. The meeting included education on the ways we're already working together through ARCH, an overview of affordable housing tools available at the local level, and a discussion of housing legislation and funding from the legislative session. We also heard a success story from Kirkland Mayor Curtis, who shared the transformation of their Totem Lake neighborhood, which includes significant affordable housing. This pilot Council of Electeds has three additional scheduled meetings this year and will cover more education topics, plus discussion around public policies and finally helping to shape housing priorities for Arch's 2027 legislative agenda. I also attended in a separate week the Arch Investments Celebration, which highlighted the various East King County projects funded in 2025, which were the ones we approved in our February 3rd meeting. Council member Sheay and I joined a hundred or so stakeholders from around the region to hear from a variety of speakers and panels that discussed the progress and impacts of these projects. On a totally different note, I continue meeting monthly with MSWAC, the county's solid waste advisory committee. Garbage rates are proposed to increase 8.5% with similar increases expected through at least 2032. Not surprisingly, many cities have expressed concerns about this. Um, it's notable that even with these increases, they are not able to put any money towards an emergency reserve fund because that would require even larger increases and they've made the decision to limit further increases rather than building up the reserve. That's what I have.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member White. Um, yes. In addition to the many cool events we have going on, I want to shout out to Alana Deatus on the Energy Smart East Side. We have a meeting at this community and event center on Thursday at 5:30 to 6:30 to learn all about heat pumps. I love heat pumps. So, shout out to Alana for good work and collaboration with our pals on the east side. Councilor Weinberg.

Uh, yeah. So, on April 10th, I attended the monthly meeting of the East Side Transportation Partnership. Uh, Sound Transit gave us a tally from the uh March 28th opening day from the Cross Lake uh connection. Uh, and the light rail lines uh clocked 205,000 passenger trips that day, which uh so far the only other day that Sound Transit uh has exceeded that volume was on Seahawk Super Bowl victory day with 220,000. I have uh personally commuted to work downtown 14 times now on the light rail since it opened. It's convenient, it's fast, it's spacious, and it's fun. A subcommittee of the uh East Side Transportation Partnership has also drafted up a letter of support for Sound Transit prioritizing the four-line project connecting is aquatic Kirkland through downtown Bellev. We'll be including that letter in the May 4th uh or the next uh May um council agenda meeting so that uh Mercer Island City Council can consider endorsing it. My next open lunch is going to be at or brunch is going to be at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 16th at Crawlspace. The address is 304178th Avenue Southeast. As always, all are welcome. It's an open agenda. All I ask is that everyone show their respects to the chef by ordering some food and beverage and let me know if you're coming so I can reserve a large enough table.

Uh, Council Reynolds.

Yeah, a couple of quick things. Um, one, I'm hosting a table at the Alliance for Gun Responsibility lunchon next week on Monday. Still have a couple spots uh left at my table. If anybody here or elsewhere in the community would like to join me, please let me know. Uh, tomorrow is my deadline to submit my list of names. Um, second thing was if you haven't read it already, I would encourage the council members to read an email that came in uh to the council box a few days ago uh talking about an article in the urbanist with some ideas on how to dramatically reduce the cost of of Sound Transit 3 and 4. I found it a a fascinating article and I'm not qualified to judge how realistic the ideas were, but they seem to have a lot of promise to me. It was a very interesting read.

Okay. Uh, council and nothing to report. Council Shay.

Yes. So, um, I'm the alternate um, council liaison for the Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee and, um, council member Waker um, gave me the opportunity to attend the meeting on April 8th. So, um, just want to also update our community and our council members about some issues happening there. So, the King County Transportation District is considering a 0.1% countywide sales tax to fund unincorporated roads. The Sound Cities Association neither opposes nor supports this new tax if the tax passes. SCA thinks that it will best support the region with a 25% pass through to cities and city involvement in decision making. So, seven of nine King County Transportation District board members voted in favor of at least some city pass through including our representative Claudia Balduchi representing district 6. And um KCTD is likely to vote on an updated proposal in May. Um the other issue that um council member Waker mentioned at the last meeting was the wastewater treatment division is proposing a 12.75% monthly sewer rate increase and that's forecasted to continue rising by double digit percentages through 2032 and even resulting in monthly sewer rate doubling by 2032 and tripling by 2042. So SCA members have consistently expressed concern about this compounding impact of those sharp increases across utilities for rateayer affordability. And um the SCA is working on a rate

response letter. And um in this first draft um we made the language you know a bit more incinary going from concern to being alarmed at this higher at this higher increase. So that's um more more about that coming up at the next meeting for SCA pick public issues committee and I also attended the SCA regional transit committee um meeting this morning and the talk was all about FIFA. So yes, it is a chance for our um cities and our regions to showcase, you know, our cities to the entire world on a global level, but at the same time, it comes with it complexities as far as regional mobility and just people trying to get to work. Um so they recommend, you know, if you're going to go to a game, don't drive there. There's very very limited parking. Um so take the public transit. And I just want to give you the local match dates. So if you are planning to go, you know, plan ahead and if you don't watch these games, just stay at home. So it's June 15th, June 19th is a US versus Australia game. Um June 24th, June 26th, July 1st, and July 6th. So on FIFA.com, you'll see the full match schedule. Um yeah, so that should be an interesting time for our region along with all of our Fourth of July celebrations. I'm also the um liaison to our arts council and um the staff made a presentation on the standing strong veterans pragola at the Mercerale Park and voted to recommend the arts council voted to recommend staff include the um pragola improvements in the 2728 bianual operating budget which means repainting costs, procurement and installation of the US space force plaque. Um yes. So next thing uh my next community gathering will be about the arts. So um Ann Ritzay from myvall Jonathan

Harrington from the arts council and I um are gathering together arts leaders and arts advocates in our community on Wednesday, April 29th at 6 p.m. at the Rock. If you'd like to join um please contact me or Ann or Jonathan. And um I'm also doing a ride the light rail with me. Um, so we're meeting on Thursday, May 7th at the light rail station on 80th. So meeting at 11:15. We're going to take um the light rail to Pike Place Market and then when we come back, we're going to tour our town center um and support our local businesses. If you'd like to join, please RSVP julie.sher island.gov. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh the city council will now go into executive session of approximately 45 minutes to consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would likely would cause a likelihood of increased price pursuant to RCW42301B. The city council will be in recess from 8:22 until 8:27 p.m. The city will convene the executive session at 8:27. 8 8:27 uh until uh 9 9:15 p.m. Okay. Actually, it's 9:12.

Good evening. Thank you for your patience. City Council will continue an executive session for an additional 5 minutes until 9:31 p.m. Or no, I'm my apologies. Until 9:21 p.m. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for your patience. A correction to the ex executive executive session extension. City council will continue in executive session for an additional 10 minutes until 9:26 p.m. Thank you.

Oh, yeah. Would you like them scanned and then sent to you so you can send them off? Uh, yeah, that's fine. Okay.

The city council was in executive session from 8:31 until 9:26. The next regularly scheduled hybrid city council meeting will be on Tuesday, May 5th, beginning at 5:00 p.m. The time is now 9:26 p.m. As a reminder to the council, please stay seated until the city staff has terminated the broadcast. Good evening and thank you for joining us.