City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the November 4, 2025 city council regular hybrid meeting. I'm Mayor Salem Nice. This evening's hybrid city council meeting is being brought to you in person and by Zoom. We're also broadcasting live on the city's YouTube channel. Welcome. Thanks for joining us tonight. Council members, please have your microphones turned on for roll call. City Cler Larson, [snorts] please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Androl here. Council member Becker here. Council member Reynolds is absent. Council member Wer here. Council member Weinberg here. Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb here. And Mayor Nice here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

City clerk, if you can the record that council wer join us remotely. All right. Next, we have pledge of allegiance. If you're in council chambers, please stand, face the flag. If you're on video, please turn off your video so we can see the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, that gets us to approval of tonight's agenda. If there's no questions, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? So moved. Second. Okay. Moved by Council Member Anderall, seconded by Council Weinberg. City Clerk, please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Becker. Hi, Mayor Nice. Hi, Council Member Weinberg. Hi,

Council Member Androl. I, Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb, I. And Council Member Wer. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right, the agenda is approved. That gets us to the city manager report. We welcome city manager Jesse Bond.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I have a very brief uh city manager report this evening. Thank you, Ally, for the screen share. Uh council, quick look ahead at our calendar for the month of November. Your next hybrid meeting is Tuesday, no November 18th. Uh we do have a parks and rec commission meeting this week. Next week, the parks and recck commission and open space conservies trust will hold a joint meeting and the rest of our meetings for the remainder of the 2025 calendar year are updated on our website at the link on the bottom of that slide. Alli's on a mission to get me through this deck quick here. I wanted to provide uh just uh one capital project update. You may recall that uh we have been working on East Mercer Way, the water man repairs down at the south end of the island. Uh we had several water mane breaks occur in August 2025. Uh we replaced over 220 ft of water mane and we are now completing the resurfacing of the roadway. Uh the good news is that that uh lane, the southbound lane you can see there in the picture, is expected to be open open to traffic later this week. Uh it has been closed since August, and we want to thank our community members uh for their flexibility working around this uh pretty incredible repair project. Uh the town center parking facility, just a heads up item. We had the parking facility shut down for about two weeks to allow our contractors to go back in and finish the landscaping. You can see the picture there. We have um plants in place now. The irrigation is in place and the bike lockers, which I think was the last equipment remaining to be installed, has also been um placed. So, the site is back open. And uh thank you again to the community for allowing us

the flexibility to shut down for just a bit and finish up that project. Uh council on your calendar wanted to make you aware that we have set the date uh for the pickle ball court dedication in memory of council Jake council member Jake Jacobson who passed away in March. Um last month you approved a resolution uh naming the pickle ball courts after Jake and we are going to be dedicating them on November 18th at 4:00. So, that'll be just uh prior to your council meeting. I wanted to get the date on your calendars first and we'll be running uh promotions to invite community members to come join us that evening. Also requesting mother nature cooperate uh unlike this past Halloween. All right, next slide, please. Uh final slide this evening. I just wanted to acknowledge uh that we celebrated our 21st 5th anniversary [snorts] with our sister city last week. That's a photo. I think we have a couple council members in there. Mayor Nice. Uh thank you for coming out to celebrate with the students and we are looking forward to another 25 years together. That is all I have this evening, Mr. Mayor. Okay, which gets us to appearances, which is an opportunity for anyone to speak to council on any item except those requiring a public hearing, quasi judicial matters or campaign related matters. Tonight's agenda will include in-person public appearances and remote public appearances via Zoom. Individuals wishing to address the council may do so in person or by Zoom or telephone, provided they've registered with the city clerk by 4 p.m. today. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be called by name. Remarks must be addressed to the council as a whole, not to individual council or staff members. Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks or becomes boisterous, threatening or personally abusive while addressing the city council may be requested to leave the meeting. Please speak audibly. State your name and city of residence for the record. There'll be a timer on the screen. You'll have three minutes to

speak. When your time's ended, I'll thank you and move to the next speaker or item of business. So, city clerk, please call this first speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our first speaker tonight is Kian Bradley. Uh, Mr. Mayor, I don't see Mr. Bradley in the um audience in person or on Zoom. I'll move to the next person. Mr. Bradley, if you're in the meeting as iPhone, if you could rejoin under your name, so we know who you are, that would be great. Our next speaker is Addie Smith. Mr. Mayor, I also do not see Addie Smith in the in-person attendees or in the Zoom um attendees. I'll move to our third speaker. Our third speaker tonight is Dustin Jolly.

Thank you, council, and um thank you for uh letting me submit that request to go ahead and speak tonight um on such a short notice. My name is Dustin Jolly and I'm here to address a systemic failure within the Mercer Island Police Department which I have documented in formal complaints to this council as well as the chief of police. The failure is about an internal longstanding culture of a different kind of policing in which is a pattern of suppressing, minimizing and mclassifying criminal reports to protect the city's reputation over the rights of the victims. My own direct experience is a clear example of this. I filed a formal complaint regarding a documented multi-part felony involving vehicle theft, forgery, and fraudulent transfer of ownership. Despite providing evidence of these felonies on October 27th, I received a call from an unnamed detective from the Mercer Island Police Department. detective who, as I noted in my email, refused to provide his name and willfully obstructed the investigation. First, he made an illegal conclusion um saying that the felony conspiracy was a civil issue and not nor he was qualified to make that um judgement call. Second, he deliberately refused to accept my testimony as evidence of forgery. And finally, he hung up on me. The victim of a crime is a clear act of obstruction. This is not about bad cop or defectto

policy. It's a a matter of enforcement for all citizens. The partis behavior. so deflectant that it is frustrating for me to even get an officer on the line, including your chief of police, in which I had to email nine times to get a response. [sighs] I have zero confidence in MIPD's willingness to investigate this and I'm asking the council to investigate the internal culture of a selective non-inforcement that denies justice to victims of crimes on the island. There are other incidences of the same type of behavior from Mercer Island Police Department, from other citizens on local forums as well. All it takes is a quick Google search to see that there is multitude of complaints from citizens frustrated with the ability not to have criminal charges pressed.

We're going to move to the next speaker. Our next speaker is Jessica Clawson.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, and council members. Happy election day. My name is Jessica Clawson. My address is 673082nd Avenue Southeast. And I am here tonight on behalf of the Strong Jewish Community Center. Um I'm here tonight to speak to item 11 to ask you to reject the substantive comments added by the planning commission to the omnibus ordinance. Amendments 39 and 40 directly affect the JCC and potential future plans. Our property currently spans both commercial office and residential zones with cups allowing shared parking between the JCC and the French American school. If our docketed comp plan amendment and resone are denied, a path could involve developing the CO portion of our property with parking on the RZONE portion similar to what is currently be being proposed under the Herzel plan. These amendments appear to be have been written specifically to prevent that type of potential plan. this type of targeted action should be rejected. Equally concerning is the process by which these amendments appeared. They are nearly identical to docket item code changes proposed by a private citizen. Those proposals bypass the formal docketing process outlined in the code and that lack of transparency undermines public trust and the integrity of the city's policymaking process. Moreover, these amendments fall outside the scope of the omnibus legislation as defined by the city council, which was limited to administrative and state law-driven changes only. If the council believes that the concepts and amendments 39 and 40 ex deserve exploration, there are appropriate channels that you can use. The docketing process that will be coming to you in the next few weeks that would allow for public input, staff analysis, and thoughtful deliberation, not rushed policymaking. or the council could direct staff to study these things on their own. We very much appreciate the council considering the impacts that these amendments will have on the GCC and we respectfully urge the council to

reject the substantive amendments, specifically amendments 39 and 40. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Amy Lavin. Good evening. I'm Amy Lavin. I live at 7835 Southeast 22nd Place here on Mercer Island and I've lived here for 38 years. I serve as the CEO of the Stum Jewish Community Center of Greater Seattle. And as quick background, though I know many of you here know this, I will repeat it just for the record. The Strong JCC strives to be the most open and welcoming community centered Jewish organization in Putit Sound, creating opportunities for profound connection for people of all generations. We reach nearly 30% of Mercer Island households with programs funded through programming fees and private philanthropy. We educate over 200 children at the Jay every day and hundreds more in the summer. We have the daily joy of watching dozens of high schoolers exercise side by side with octogenarians and occasionally even a non-aggenarian. We present dozens of cultural arts programs each year for the broad public and most nights of the week you can watch the bootgy babes kicking up their heels at the Jay. We are full of people living, connecting, and building community. I'm here tonight to also request that the city council votes to accept only the minor comments or amendments and declined to adopt the substantive amendments added by the planning commission. Those substantive amendments appear to have been added late in the process and only seem to apply to two situations on Mercer Island, a Jewish synagogue and a Jewish community center. Today, the SJCC and the French American School of Puet Sound benefit from an efficient shared parking plan which requires the organizations to coordinate programming to meet parking supply. This is smart planning, more environmentally conscious, and reflects efficient land use. It literally minimizes the surface area covered by concrete for parking. Further, the neighbors around the Jay have repeatedly suggested that traffic, parking, and development happen on the north end of the SJCC properties. The proposed substantive amendments would eliminate

some of the best configurations for efficient property design and land use. Ultimately, the substantive amendment updates proposed by the planning commission appear as an effort to thwart the JCC redevelopment plans on Mercer Island, yet were presented to the planning commission under a different guise. The process does not uphold Mercer Island's best processes and does not appear to be in the best interest of the broader community. The Jay faces nearly the exact same aging issues as those experienced at city hall and that are sought to be overcome by Prop 1. And as most know um sorry and is most know here in 2017 the Mercer Island City Council made land use decisions without full consideration of the impacts and like city hall and others on Mercer Island we have struggle struggled to update our facility. The Jay and many other community organizations on the island are suffering from those unintended consequences. Please do not make the same mistake again. Please reject amendments 39 and 40. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. There are no further speakers tonight, Mr. Mayor. Okay, that brings us to the consent agenda, which I'm going to give the city clerk a few moments to get on the screen. The consent agenda contains nine items which are available momentarily there for you to look at. Council, I know you've reviewed these and read your packets. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. So moved. Okay. Moved by council member Becker. Who was the second? I think it was Daniel. You made the motion. Okay. I think Tad was I'll take a second. Okay. Second goes to Weber. Mr. Cler, please call the role.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor, I. Council member Becker, I. Council member Androl. I. Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb. Hi. Council member Wer. Hi. and council member Weinberg. I thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right, consent agenda is approved. Our first item of regular business is AB6791, the BNO tax code amendment ordinance number 25 C23, first reading. And we welcome finance director Matt Morn. Good evening, Mayor Nice, members of the council, and city manager Bon. I'm Matt Mourick, your finance director. Please let me know if you can see my opening slide. Can see you.

All right. I'm going to be brief tonight and cover eight slides regarding background on state required updates to the city's municipal code relating to business and occupation tax classification. Excuse me. As the council is aware, all cities in Washington state that charge a local business and occupation tax must incorporate model ordinance language into their city code. The model ordinance is the standard legal framework used by all cities to ensure that uh BNO tax rules are applied uniformly throughout the state. And so this summer, the Association of Washington Cities organized a work group of tax managers and finance directors to update the model ordinance based solely on new state legislation, Senate Bill 5814. The ordinance uh before you this evening, number 25 C-23, incorporates the model ordinance updates into the city's code, MICC section 4.10.020. This past legislative session, Senate Bill 5814 expanded retail sales tax to a list of services for which uh retail sales tax did not previously apply. As of October 1st of this year, these uh seven kinds of services that are listed on this slide are now charged retail sales tax when they are sold. By way of background, 53 cities in Washington [clears throat] impose a local BNO tax. Many of these cities use a tiered system to apply a BNO tax rate that's based on a business's tax classification. The city of Mercer Island does not do this. The table on this slide provides context into the average BO tax rate neighboring

jurisdictions charge and whether they use a flat or tiered application with Mercer Island highlighted in the yellow row. With the expansion of the retail sales tax, services that are now subject to sales tax now fall into the retailing classification for the purposes of charging a local VNO tax. Typically, there are four main tax classifications for businesses um when charging VNO taxes. However, cities can add additional classifications. The city of Isizqua, for example, charges a different VNO tax rate based on different tax classifications. So for example, information technology services that were previously classified as services and other business activities now are going to fall into that retailing tax classification and they're going to be charged a new rate in the city of Isiqua. The city of Mercer Island applies a flat 10% tax on local gross revenues for all businesses earning more than $150,1 a year. As I mentioned earlier, the city does not use a tiered tax classification system to apply different tax rate based on uh the type of business. So in effect, ordinance number 25-23 updates the tax classification as outlined in the model ordinance as we are required to. It doesn't not increase the city's BO tax rate and it does not expand the tax. As a result result, there are no uh anticipated changes to the city's BNO tax revenues. In terms of next steps, uh the AWC work group is going to continue to meet in 2026 and 2027 to evaluate how these new

BNO tax classifications are going to function in practice. I will return to the council as needed based on any additional revisions to the model ordinance. Once uh council adopts after second reading um the ordinance before you, uh the revisions uh will be put into effect and incorporated in the city code section 41020 um which will become effective January 1st of 2026. uh staff is going to follow up with the AWC and the department of revenue that to confirm that the required updates to the city municipal code are complete. Staff recommends that the city council set ordinance 25-23 for second reading and adoption. With that, I'll stop sharing and pause for questions.

Okay, deputy mayor Rosenbomb. Yeah, thanks M. I'm just curious if this is communicated to people who pay this tax that there's a change but no change. How is that? Can you just talk with I'm just interested.

Yeah. Um, we are required per the model ordinance to update the city code, but because of the the process by which we tax um businesses via our local BNO tac um I do not intend to complicate anything with any additional um notifications um to to the the businesses that pay the local BNO tax here on Mercer Island. So, no plan communications are put in place as of right now. However, if we were to change the tax rate or change the the method in which we applied the tax at that point, I would look to communicate with the business community to make sure that they were well aware of of of the changes. But as of right now, these changes do not impact businesses that are going to be paying this tax.

Great. I I will add that we are communicating with the business community because we are in early next year going to implement using our new ERP software an option for businesses to pay their BNO taxes online. Um this is in municipal finance groundbreaking and we are excited to offer this this easier way to make you know tax payments to to the businesses in in the Mercer Island community. Great. Thanks, Matt. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Council, is there a motion to set ordinance number 25 C-23 for second reading and adoption? So moved. Second.

Okay. Moved by Council Member Weinberg, seconded by Council Member Androl. City Clerk, please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Becker. I. Council member Weinberg. I. Council member Wer. I. Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb. Hi. Mayor Nice. Hi. And Council Member Andro. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right, moving right along. Our next item of regular business is AB682, the omnibus ordinance related to permanent regulations for housing production and permit streamlining, ordinance number 25 C-27, first reading. And we welcome CPD director Jeff Thomas. Thank you, mayor. Good afternoon, council. Uh, just a quick sound check before we start. Can everyone hear me? Okay, sure can.

Excellent. Thank you. Um, Adam is going to run through a short slide deck here that's going to uh recap u this matter for you and present to you uh what the materials are in your packet for this evening. Uh council will recall this uh omnibus ordinance was conceived uh back in June of this year, I believe, as a way to roll a number of uh [clears throat] sets of interim regulations together into permanent regulations that then we would then be able to move on from the interim regulations and uh not have to renew them any further. And it also combined um the work that council did in June related to uh the dissolving of the design commission and we needed to go and make some mechanical changes in the code to uh remove the design commission references and replace them with the hearing examiner uh as directed by the city council back at that time. Um, one more comment I'd like to make before Adam gets rolling here. And this this comment actually applies to this matter as well as the next matter on your agenda this evening. Um, for for both AB6801, which is the temporary use and structures, and then uh this matter, the draft ordinances in your packet, um, they were put together with all the PC recommendations uh that were made and included in the uh change matrices for each item. Those are all in the draft ordinances. So, um, the motions that were included with each agenda bill in your packet this evening, um, unfortunately went a slightly different direction. They were, uh, motions that were additive in nature. So, um, what that means is, uh, we should have been not including the PC recommended changes in the draft ordinances and then the council could have, like with the park zone earlier this year, um, selectively added items from each matrix for each

item and added them to the ordinance to move forward for second reading. Uh, it was a a good question from Marines actually that led us to discovering this. And so what we've done is um we're going to go about things slightly differently here this evening to get to second reading in two weeks. Um in essence, what will happen is um we'll have the council make a main motion uh when you're ready this evening for each item. That main motion would be to just move the ordinance as it's presented in your packet to second reading on November 18th. Uh nothing too unusual about that. And then if there's any subsequent uh motions to be made um to remove any of the PC recommendations from the draft ordinances in your packet, um a council member would then make a motion to remove a specific log number item from the matrix in your packet for this item. Uh for example, it could be remove um PC log number 51s, for example, from the matrix. And then if that motion passed, that item would be removed from the ordinance for second reading. Um once any subsequent motions are made to remove items, council would come back and vote on the main motion as amended if necessary. So hopefully that all makes sense. That is a a way that we've certainly done business in the past and I just wanted to point that out again for both this item and the next item on your agenda. With that, Adam, let's uh turn our attention here to the omnibus ordinance and uh run through the short slide deck for the council tonight.

Thank you, Jeff. Share screen here. So, we already covered that. Um just wanted to go over some quick background. Um, as a reminder, the legislature in recent years has adopted many bills that require our local jurisdictions to amend their development code uh to comply with that statewide legislation. And for many of those bills since 2021, um, the city of Mercer Island has adopted interim ordinances to comply with those changes in the state law. Um the interim ordinances though only temporarily amend the code and must be renewed regularly um until um until they're eventually replaced with uh permanent amendments. So that's really what we're here today. What the task that was assigned was to replace those itum ordinances that related to housing production and permit streamlining with permanent amendments. Um we've we brought forward or we're bringing forward an omnibus ordinance that would do all of that in one fell swoop. Um [snorts] because many of the sections of our code are actually amended by more than one interim ordinance. So by doing this all with a single um with a single action, we can consider all of those interim ordinances together and just amend the code section once rather than open it up a couple of times to address each of the interim ordinances individually. Um this also gives us a chance to look at the sum total of those amendments. Um and then Jeff talked about this briefly, but in July um you approved a scope of work for this project. Um that's what we brought forward to the planning commission and briefed them on um through the process to let them know that this is the scope of work here is really to look at these u making these interim ordinances

permanent. Um particularly those that um apply to housing production and permit streamlining um and that scope of work also uh directed uh completing this by the end of the year. So we're we're on schedule on task here. a quick flyby on the process. I talked a bit in July, the council approved the scope of work. Um on July 23rd, the planning commission was briefed on that scope of work and [clears throat] then also on the compliance topics um that we would address with the ordinance. Then the initial draft of amendments was made available on August 11th um for public review and public comment. Um and that public comment period was open open throughout the uh planning commission um public hearing uh later in September. On September 10th, the planning commission was briefed on that initial draft. Um they were able to ask some questions about that and then they had u nine days to complete their comments uh by September 19th. Then on the 24th, the planning commission held their public hearing. Um it was continued to October 8th. On October 8th, the planning commission concluded their public hearing and made the recommendation that's before you today. Um there are six topics that were will be addressed u by the omnibus legislation. Um and these all relate to permit streamlining and housing production. Um there were some changes in the state law um under Senate Bill 6015 that had to do with residential parking requirements. Um there the state law at House Bill 1293 uh related to the clear and objective design standards. Um Senate Bill 5290 had to do with permit review timelines. Uh House Bill 1998 uh related to co-living housing. Then as Jeff mentioned, we have some amendments in the ordinance that would remove

references to the design commission to reflect that um decision that was made earlier this year. Um and then there were some implementing amendments uh from the comp plan update. So these are all of the um all of the things that were addressing with this one ordinance um related to housing and permits streamlining. Um so the planning commission uh made some proposed amendments um through their comment period and then incorporates incorporated some of those amendments into their recommended draft um that's before you today. Um as we were working through this with the planning commission uh we um divided or the the proposed amendments were divided into minor amendments and substantive amendments. Um the minor amendments are were primarily those that made some kind of uh you know minor change that didn't really change the substance of the regulation. So they didn't um create a new requirement or significantly alter the existing requirements. Um and all of those amendments uh they ended up the minor amendments that they considered at their public hearing all ended up getting incorporated into the draft. Um, and that's the bulk of the amendments that you'll see listed in exhibit three um to the agenda bill. The other category that comments were uh placed in were the substantive amendments. Um, and these are those amendments that would alter the substance of an existing provision or add a new requirement that doesn't currently exist in the code. Um, the planning commission moved forward three of these substantive amendments. They're log numbers 38, 39, and 40 in exhibit

three of the um agenda bill. We'll look at uh those here in the next couple of slides. Um log numbers 38 and 39 um are very similar amendments. Um they relate to the parking variance in the MF, CO, PBZ, and B zones. And the this the amendment here is that um those parking variances where we would allow a variance in parking the the amendment stipulates that those could not would not be allowed on any lot in the single family or R zones. Um, this amendment is optional and it's not nec it's not necessary to maintain uh consistency with the state law um or to make any of our interim regulations permanent. Um, this was a an over and above comment or um amendment that the planning commission added during their process. Um, log comment log number 40 um similarly has to do with parking. Um, this one's specific to the CO, PBZ, and B zones. Um, under the existing code, um, development in those zones is, um, allowed to utilize cooperative parking where it would, uh, use could share parking with an existing use in the zone or with another use in the zone. Um, and again, this is the CO, PBZ, and B zones. Um and the proposed amendment under log 40 would amend this provision to to require that um that cooperative parking could not be placed on or could not take place on any of the single family or our zone lots. Um, again, this this amendment comment log number 40 is

another one that's optional and is not necessarily to not necessary to comply with the state law or um make any of our interim regulations permanent. Um, so it would be um it's uh not required. Uh looking ahead at the schedule and the next steps. Um so we're completing the first reading tonight. if you place this ordinance on a second reading. We're planning on doing that on November 18th, uh with the ordinance becoming effective before the end of the year. Um that concludes my presentation. I do um when we get there, um if if it's helpful, I have those uh amended um motions that Jeff mentioned earlier. I can put those up on the screen if that's helpful. I have a slide with those in there um when we get there.

Okay. Thanks, Adam. Thank you. All right, Jeff, did you have anything further? Um, not specifically. Um I'm not sure if planning chair Thompson is either um on Zoom or [clears throat] but yeah, typically the the planning chair uh is afforded an opportunity to speak briefly um following the staff presentation on PC recommended uh matters on the agenda. Very well. Chair Thompson, would you care to use the mic at the podium? Yeah, that might be.

Thank you. Uh my name is Daniel Thompson. I'm the chair of the planning commission. I would like to uh recognize Adam Zach for the work that he did on this omnibus uh ordinance. It was pretty substantial. But I'd also like to recognize Nazim Nice and Anthony Perez. They're the two architects. And one of the things I learned about having architects on the planning commission is they really do seem to have a a big picture. So although the council eliminated the design commission and we took the design commission out in this omnibus [snorts] ordinance, it really doesn't address the discretion in the code under 1220 and 1293 that we're supposed to get rid of. Um we're supposed to go to a clear and objective code without a lot of discretion. And so, uh, Nazim Nice and Anthony Perez filed over 50 substantive amendments addressing the discretion of the code that they would have liked to have addressed if if we had the time, but now we're being told that it wouldn't come up until 2030. And that's something uh I think is unfortunate. I'd hate for them to leave. Uh, they really had some good visions about getting to an objective code. So, I was hoping that maybe uh down the road, you know, one of the things is sometimes we'll have a two or three hour meeting, but sometimes we'll have a 15minute meeting. Uh I bet you the next meeting is going to be like 15 minutes, which isn't a very good use of the money that's being paid to the planning commission. I'd like to see if we couldn't take some of Nazim and Anthony Perez's proposed amendments um and address them uh throughout, you know, next year if we look like we're going to have a gap because that's kind of uh what we're getting to. Um when we talked about um you know, I I heard Amy and Jessica speak, we saw it differently

at the planning commission. We didn't see we saw this as um eliminating the discretion to re uh reduce uh parking minimums. It was a unanimous vote uh you know by the planning commission on this. Um but what we're trying to say is we have three different code sections. We have the residential that we did in 2017 has virtually no discretion. We have the multif family and we have the commercial. And we're saying that the parking variances in the commercial part of the code should not be able to be used in the residential part of the code. Generally, that's why you have different sections. You know, if I can't go into the commercial code and say I want to have a five-story building on a residential lot. So, that's what we were trying to do there. Um, I think some of the comments like for example, uh, Herzel's vested, uh, they have a vested permit. So I I don't see how that would affect it. Um and when it comes to the JCC, uh their plans are to reszone to commercial. So they would fall into 1904. They they wouldn't have any of this apply to them. So I I just think that uh that got a little confused. We would love to be able to go through the code with Nazim and Anthony and the rest and one by one start getting rid of the discretion. You know, should the code official under, you know, 1293 and 1220 have the discretion or the hearing examiner to renew reduce parking minimums by 25% or even one provision is 100%. I don't think that's the intent of the code. So, that's where we were going at the planning commission. That's why we put those two or three in. Whereas the other 50 substantive amendments that go to the discretion, we agreed to put

those in the parking lot. But if you put it in a parking lot and then you're told uh we won't get to it until 2030 and you know we're going to lose Nazim Nice maybe or Anthony Perez. I you know I don't know that um that's what we want to do. Uh I think that we can address some of these and go through. It'll take some time, but you know, to sit down and say, well, what should the parking minimums be? Uh, we have parking minimums for a reason. What should they be? So, uh, that's that's all the comments I have on that. Uh, again, you know, I thought Adam did a fantastic job and so did um Anthony Perez, uh, and Nazim because I know Nazim worked seven days a week, like 10 hours a day. So, for him to do 40 to 50 substantive amendments was a lot. Thanks. almost as hard as I do. All right, council. Any other questions? All right, any motions? I think we got a motion maker over here. Yeah. I [clears throat] move to remove matrix log numbers 38,3940 as shown in AB6802 exhibit 3 from ordinance number 25 C-27 and direct the city manager to complete a review of parking related standards, agreements, variances, as well as any other forms of relief from parking standards and MIC chapter 19 for the purpose of reporting findings to the city council at a future to be determined time.

Okay, is there a second? Second. All right. Moved by Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb, seconded by Council Member Weinberg. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Would you like the motion put on the screen? Oh, yeah. That'd be great. Did you say do you have the Okay. So, the staff have presented an inefficient model that we have made efficient. Yeah. This is allin-one omnibus motion for an omnibus bill.

Yeah. Okay. So, there it is. Council on the screen and council wer I'm sure you can see that. Perfect. I'll let everybody take a moment to digest that. Any questions on the motion? Speak to the motion. I'll speak to the motion just momentarily. I I I do think that there is um a certain amount of wisdom in doing what Chair Thompson is recommending, which is, you know, we never did go back to the RDS and do the cleanup that was proposed in 2017. And removing the discretion of the design commission and cleaning up the code is, I think, an efficient way of killing two birds with one stone. It meets the state statute and it also gets us back to the code that hasn't been revisited. I think this motion and I appreciate you bringing this forward gives us an opportunity to look at parking and you know why do we have shared parking and collaborative parking and variances to parking when really the problem might just be the parking standards and looking at the standards of the zone. So I think this will go a long way to trying to make things efficient and understandable and putting the pieces where they belong. So I'm going to support the motion. Any other discussion?

Okay, city clerk. Please call the role. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Wer. Hi. Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb. Hi. Council member Weinberg. I. Council member Becker. I. Council member Androl. I. And Mayor Nice. I. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. That motion passes. Our last item of regular business is AB6801. Mr. Mayor. Yep. Can we have a motion to move uh ordinance 25 C-27 for second reading? Hold on. That's in the motion, isn't it? No move. Okay. So, as amended, so it'll be moving the ordinance forward as amended by the last motion, the second reading, I believe.

Okay. Is there a motion to move ordinance number 25 C-27 as amended for second reading and adoption? So moved. Second. Do you care the date? No. All right. Moved by Council Member Wyberg, seconded by Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb. Not seeing any discussion. City clerk, please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member Wer. I. Council member Becker. I. Council member Weinberg. I. Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb. I. Mayor Nice. I. And Council Member Andrew. I. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Back to our last item of regular business, AB6801, permanent regulations for temporary uses and structures, including outdoor dining. Ordinance number 25 C-26, first reading. And we welcome CPD Director Jeff Thomas.

Thank you again, Mayor. Um, joining me for this item is Molly Magcguire. she's on the screen. She will also have a short presentation for the council. Um, not to repeat my comments from the last item in whole, but uh, we will be doing the same methodology that, uh, essentially you just did moments ago. Um, friendly reminder, this item uh, council initially adopted interim regulations for temporary uses and structures in June of 2024. Um, we have renewed uh, those interim regulations once, I believe. uh and this effort here to convert interim regulations to permanent regulations uh is before you here this evening so that we don't have to renew them again preferably. Uh with that Molly will walk you through a brief presentation. I believe Chair Thompson will likely want to speak again and we'll go from there. So with that, Molly, take it away. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So, um, a quick kind of overview of where we are. There's, um, kind of three different versions of the code that we're talking about today. Um, and the process goes all the way back to 2020 with the adoption of interim regulations to allow outdoor dining in response to the CO 19 pandemic. Uh, and these were incorporated in the commerce on public property standards. So at this time there were no regulations for temporary uses and structures on private property. Um and in 2024 uh the annual docket included two items to develop inter or to develop regulations for temporary uses and structures on private property. Um and these were adopted through interim regulations in June of 2024 and they wrapped in those interim regulations for outdoor dining as a temporary use um as well. So now we're at the point where the planning commission has prepared a recommendation for these permanent regulations. The planning commission originally started this work back in February of this year and during this time the interim regulations were renewed like Jeff said for an additional six months. Uh the planning commission held two public meetings and two public hearings on this item and gave the recommendation at the public hearing in September. And these interim regulations are set to expire in December. In the materials for this item, um in exhibit three, uh there's a matrix that identifies the differences between those three different versions of the code. uh the code prior to June of 2024, the code that's in place now with interim regulations, and then the planning commission recommended draft. And staff broke the r the planning commission

recommended changes into two different categories uh resulting in 16 minor amendments and 11 substantive amendments. The minor amendments are those that uh do not include significant policy changes and are narrowly focused on uh wording changes or clarification uh with one change um I believe it's log item 12 uh to in response to the dissolving of the design commission um and the substantive amendments which do significantly change policy direction um from either the code prior to 2024 if it existed or the interim regulations. Um, so I'll briefly go over those significant changes in the next few slides. Um, but again, no action is necessary to approve these changes. And if there is a desire to not move forward with a change, a motion will need to be made um to essentially subtract that change from the permanent regulations that will come back for a second reading. Uh we'll start with the commerce on public property section. The standards in this section are specifically for the use of public sidewalks, streets and rights of way for the exchange of goods and services. So I broken these substantive changes into three topics. Uh the first one is the applicability of these standards where the planning commission recommendation expands this section to the PBZ and CO zones where currently commerce on public property is only allowed within the town center. Um, one important note is that the criteria for approval of a private commerce on public property permit limits uh the commerce activity to public right ofway directly adjacent to the business. So for example, a sidewalk sale in front of a bookstore or similar. Um, because of that criteria, the code exempts summer celebration from the provisions of this section. And the planning commission recommendation expands on this exemption to include the Mercer Highland Farmers Market and any other

events sponsored fully or in part by the city. Uh the second change is for when a permit is required. Um currently a permit is required for all activity on public property and the planning commission recommendation would actually exempt activities that operate for less than seven days over a 90-day period from this permit requirement. Um, these activities would still be subject to all of the criteria for approval for a permit, but compliance uh would not be reviewed through an application. Um, and instead any violations would be caught through the code enforcement process or in person by the city engineer. The planning commission added a provision that clarifies that any permanent approval uh does not constitute a surrender by the city of any property rights to the right ofway and allows the city engineer to require removal of improvements under certain circumstances like emergencies or scheduled maintenance. Um and now moving on to the temporary uses regulations. Um, these regulations apply to temporary uses and structures on private property and again uh did not exist prior to 2024 and are currently in effect under the interim regulations. Um the planning commission draft made several significant changes to these interim regulations uh which were used as the starting point in the process and the first major change has to do with when a permit is required. Uh so the planning commission created kind of uh three categories for activities that are exempt from the permit requirement and those are temporary uses and structures that do comply with underlying development standards and are allowed to operate for no more than 7 days over a 90-day period. Um and then you have temporary uses and structures that do not comply with underlying development standards and those are allowed to operate for no more than 72 hours within

a 60-day period. Um and then the exemptions list uh or goes on to list other activities and establish durations uh for those activities. Um some of those are carried over from the interim regulations and others are added um like the structures used for warship and uh clarifications to the construction related activities in the single family zones. Uh probably the most substantial change between the interim regulations and the planning commission recommendation is the creation of three permit types for different categories of temporary uses. So the interim regulations required a temporary use permit as a type one review for all temporary uses um except those explicitly exempt. And then the planning commission recommendation expands on that to include a temporary use permit which was bumped up to a type two review. uh the creation of a temporary structure deviation as a type three review and the allowance for this deviation to be renewed under a type two review uh type two review um provided uh that certain criteria met um like for example no changes to the plan or structure. I'll give a short summary of these permit types um just to highlight the differences between the type two and three permits specifically. Um the type two permit includes public notification in the weekly permit bulletin. Um and examples of type two permits um kind of include accessory dwelling units, lot revisions, and uh code official design reviews uh for minor exterior modifications um and signs. And a decision for a type two permit is required within 65 days. Uh type three permits require a notice to be mailed uh for both the application and the decision to properties within 300 ft of the subject property. Uh the decision

includes a detailed staff report and examples of these types of permits include uh shoreline substantial development permits, short plats, sea threshold determinations, critical area U2s. Um and these decisions are required within 100 days. So a bit of a difference between those two and that's where the major uh jump is. So um the log 21 addresses criteria for approval. Um under the inter regulations these were kind of broken into two categories. one which applied to all temporary uses and structures and the other for special uses like food trucks and outdoor dining. Um that's where that was incorporated into the draft. Uh the planning commission kind of restructures this and strikes the additional criteria for special uses and instead incorporates them into uh the uh requirements for all temporary uses. So that included uh parking and noise requirements. Um so the most significant change here though is the uh removal of the provision that exempts temporary uses and structures from compliance with the underlying development standards. Um it does provide however a path forward for those uses through the creation of the new temporary structure deviation permit. Um another pretty significant change um is to the time limitations section. uh the table that outlined different durations for certain temporary uses was removed and instead incorporated into the individual uh the provisions for the individual uses. Um or it just applies a blanket 180day limitation to all temporary issues and structures. Uh so the planning commission recommendation removed the option for the 30-day extension. Um, like I said, the removal of the

provision that exempted temporary uses and structures from compliance with the underlying development standards, um, there still needed to be a path forward for those uses that cannot meet those dimensional standards. Uh, because this was kind of the, uh, purpose of the items on the 2024 docket. Um, the planning commission removal creates a new subsection that includes criteria for the approval of a temporary structure deviation. This would allow a temporary structure that provides significant public benefit as outlined in the code to exceed certain dimensional standards by specific thresholds. Um so it requires the use to be allowed in the underlying zone and accessory to the established use and provide a sufficient screening from adjacent residentially zoned properties. And I believe I will pass it over to the U planning commission chair um and then I am available to answer any questions. Um and uh I also have the motions um if we need to throw them back up on the screen.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Molly. Again, for the record, I'm Daniel Thompson, chair of the planning commission. This one is a little different because a lot of times we get stuff from the council or the parks commission and quite a bit of the work has been done. And so this one um is a little bit uh unformed um and it applies to three different types of property. Public in the town center, private town center, and residential. Basically, what we didn't want to do uh is create a burden of a permitting for things like wedding tents or lemonade stands and things like that that people don't get permits now. Um you know, uh it's hard, especially online, to do permits. um especially if you're not a lawyer, you don't have English. So we we wanted to exempt a lot of stuff um because that's what goes on now uh without any problems. And then the problem that we not the problem but the issue that we struggled the most on was uh how to allow non-conforming temporary structures in the R zone while limiting them to ones that really provide a significant public benefit. And that's what we looked at. And so we were working off the uh country club. Uh JB Gibson, who is a commissioner, and Adam and Molly worked on that language, and they did um a very good uh job. Um I don't think it's going to apply in very many areas. So on paper, you might look at it and say, okay, uh the tennis courts are at the country club are like 22,000 square feet of hardscape. You cover them, they become lot coverage, claratory space. you're talking like 40 50,000 gross floor area four feet from the property line. But it was Commissioner Nice who came in and pointed out to us uh it's the fire code that determines this. And it's actually a 50-foot setback. And so the country

club and the horse farm really entered into a beneficial uh agreement that benefits both of them. Uh so they could have that. You know, I could see maybe uh if if the money ever comes around doing this at the high school, you know, the high school tennis courts. You would think that that would be that was actually Mayor Nie who brought that up, but that would be something that you see it. So, it's it's a significant deviation to allow non-conforming structures in the residential zone. They're temporary. there are 180 days, but I think that we tried to do it where um uh people it wouldn't impact the neighborhood and the surrounding residential zones, but it would uh allow uh real significant benefit because uh you know the high school kids and everybody uh really can use those covered tennis courts during the winter. Um and and that's something we want to allow but limit.

Thank you very much. Okay. Council, any questions? Council member Weinberg, I was wondering um uh uh Director Thomas if you could uh share with us uh why the uh 30-day extension for temporary membrane structures exists in the building code standard.

Not quite sure. Can you repeat that please? Yeah, I I was if I was understanding the packet correctly, we were saying that there exists a 30-day extension for temporary membrane structures in the building code standard and that uh striking that would uh essentially have us be different than the building code standard. Did I understand that correctly? The 30-day Molly, I'll let you jump in here. The 30-day extension is in chapter 19 currently in the interim regulations. Okay. So, the we we put it in when we made the temporary.

Yes. Okay. So, when I saw the building code standard, I thought it was talking about the state building code standard. You're saying it's just in the Mercer Island building code standard in the interim regulations passed by city council initially in June of 2024. Correct. Okay. Uh, and so I was wondering why we're choosing to remove the 30-day extension if we was there a reason we had it in there in the first place. So this is a substantive recommendation of the planning commission to remove it. I understand. I'm trying to understand why it was there in the first place before we remove it. Thank you.

The reason why my understanding as to the reason why it was put in in the first place with the initial interim regulations was to provide uh perhaps a transition period so that the temporary use could be um properly disassembled and vacated from a property. And the within the context of that conversation, if I recall correctly, um an a popular example that was used back at that time certainly was the uh the the tennis bubble situation.

Okay. Uh and so does the same reason for creating the 30-day extension still exist that it would need some time to take it down? It just makes the overall timeline shorter for an applicant and a holder of a temporary use and structure permit. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Counol. Yeah. I I guess following up on that, um if we thought it was a good idea to have that, you know, kind of transition period when we enacted the temporary regulations, why do we think it might be a good idea to take it out? Now,

uh I would encourage you to direct that question towards the PC chair. Perhaps he can comment on that further as it is a plan commission amendment that they voted to include in the recommendation to you. Um well the country club says that they can take down and put up their membrane in three days. So 180 days is the definition of temporary. Uh this is a uh pretty significant change where we're allowing non-conforming structures. This is a big structure. Uh we figured that the 180day which is the definition of temporary was fine. uh and they didn't need a full 30-day extension um for that.

That was the reason, you know, just to have a hard line. And I guess we didn't really have what, you know, what would be the permitting process to do the extension. We'd have to come up, you know, uh since we didn't do that. I mean, uh do they uh file a, you know, another permit or amended permit to get that extension? I I don't know how that would work. So, we just went with the 180day. Okay. Thanks. Well, it sounds like it kind of streamlines things and and that the 30 days isn't really necessary or being asked for by anybody. So, I guess I'm fine with that. I do have one other question unless anybody else wants to go.

Um, I was curious about the log item number four. um the temporary uses and structures on public property, no more than seven over a 90 seven calendar days in a 90-day calendar period. What does that mean functionally? I mean, can somebody just drive into a city parking lot and set up a a food truck or a a booth to to vent something for 5 days without even talking to the city about it? Molly,

uh, so those uses would still be subject to the criteria of approval in uh, the commerce on public property section. Um, one of them being that one that I mentioned where the use has or the activity has to take place on the public rightway directly adjacent to the business. Um, so they would still be subject to that criteria for example um among other things like the noise and um lighting and sound. Um, so but it would just be enforced through the code enforcement process instead of checked through a permit application.

Okay. So, so this is um adjacent to private property the the business is so what you said about a sidewalk sale or something like that. Okay, then that's clear for me. I'm fine. Okay. Any other questions? All right. I'm going to get us started with a motion and I'm going to move to remove matrix log items 3 4 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 and 27 as shown in AB 6801 exhibit 3 from ordinance number 25 C-26 and schedule ordinance number 25 C-26 for second reading. Is there a second?

Can you say the ones you [clears throat] want to remove again please? These are all the Yeah, they're all the substantive ones. And I'll tell you why I'm doing that in a second. Three, four, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27. Okay, I'll second.

Okay, so it's moved in second. The reason I want to do that is if anybody wants to add anything substantive in, I'll just ask you to make a motion to put it in. So, we're not hunting around trying to figure out what anybody wants that's from the substantive. What I will say is that the temporary use code has been used by I think four applicants. It's been for bubbles, bubbles over things, pools, tennis courts. Uh this is not a set of code that can't be touched again and it's also a temporary use code. So I would say that you know looking at what we've done there's been something that has not had a whole lot of push back. none that I no substantive push back that I've seen. I would say look at what is substantive that you really like and decide if it's really needed or not or if it could wait. But I'm going to take amendments to the motion if anybody wants to put it in. Did you capture the motion?

Yes, it's on the screen. Let me look at that while. Yeah. So, that looks good to me. Can I just raise one point chair at the podium?

Uh I just want to make sure that the council understands that uh once one of these permits is granted it's good for 20 years. So, the idea that okay, you know, we can come back and revisit the uh temporary use uh permit ordinance, if there's something we don't like or uh it didn't work out because we took some of these uh guardrails out, uh that person is going to have a vested 20-year uh permit.

That's a great point. So, the So, then the country club is vested for 20 years. Is that right, Director Thomas? And if we were to, for example, amend this temporary use code, put in, you know, let's say remove the 30-day one-time extension per year, they would still have their 30-day exemption for the 20-year horizon. Is that right?

That is that is not my understand I'm not sure where the 20-year vesting is coming from. That's that's not in the interim regulations that exist currently to the best of my knowledge. Each year the applicant has to request a permit and each year they'd be subject to the current code. Correct. It's not a 20-year permit. That's there's nothing. Can you confirm that for me?

Yeah, the interim regulations are uh valid for the duration of the temporary use or and would need to be reapplied for every year. The planning commission recommendation did propose a renewal for the temporary structure deviation that uh is over a 20-year period. Um so that they would be able to come in and renew their temporary structure deviation application. Um I think it's four times every five years over that 20-year period. But that is a planning commission recommended change that is not in the interim regulations.

That's a substantive change, right? Correct. That is that 19 [clears throat] log 19? Yes, that is log 19. Okay. Again, any amendments? Anybody want to make any amendments to add substantive items back in? I I might want to. I didn't realize that um these would all be moved to be removed. So I at this point I would say I'm not operating on enough information to it's going to come back at second reading. So right

um as long as you're on the as long as she's on the affirmative side of the motion, she can amend the motion at the second reading. Is that right? Robert's rules. All righty then. Maybe we don't want it on consent when it comes back. Okay. Any any amendments? No. All right. So, not seeing any other discussion. See the clerk, please call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb. Hi. Council member Becker. I. Council member Wer. Hi. Council member Androl. Hi. Council member Weinberg. Hi. And Mayor Nice. I. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. That passes which gets us to other business in the planning schedule and anything say measure bond.

Nothing for me tonight, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Council, there's a motion to excuse council member Reynolds for his absence tonight. So moved. Second. Okay. Moved by council Weinberg, seconded by council member Androl. City clerk, please call the role. Mayor Nice. I. Deputy Mayor Rosenbomb. Hi. Council member Androl. Hi. Council member Weinberg. Hi. Council member Wer. Hi. and council member Becker. I Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Any other absences coming up? Anything to report? Nope. All right. Council member reports. Deputy Mayor Rosam. Another report. I have nothing. Council Wer,

I just want to thank the city for hosting the Halloween gathering in the town center on Friday night. That was awesome despite the rain. So, well done staff and nice work tonight, Molly. Very well, Council Wyber.

Yep. So, on Friday, the 24th of October, the King County City's Climate Coalition, or uh K4C had its annual in-person meeting at King County Headquarters in Seattle. I counted 31 elected officials in attendance, including myself and uh Council Member Wer uh plus an audience of city uh and staff members. Um the House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgib gave a 45minute presentation uh plus Q&A on the state's efforts around clean energy, clean buildings, clean transportation, and clean manufacturing. He also described the impacts of federal actions, both legal and illegal, and how Washington, Oregon, and California are working around the former and fighting the latter in court. We also heard from Matt Stewartvault, I hope I'm pronouncing his name right, of Puet Sound Energy about PSC's efforts towards transitioning to clean energy. Uh they claim to have made a lot of progress, including removing the last of their known to be coal energy or generated energy from their system within a year. They also claim to be building solar and wind farms as fast as the various applicable laws will allow. Uh but the overall demand for power continues to grow faster than PSSE can build power supply. Meeting wrapped up with a panel of three elected officials sharing anecdotes on how they've leveraged K4C to advance climate action in their communities. As one of the panelists, I made a point of trumpeting the excellent work of uh Alana Durugatis uh from Mercur Island um and her colleagues uh and the EXP uh consulting firm who are building an EV charging infrastructure plan uh that other cities can leverage. Also wanted to mention that the next open uh monthly lunch is going to be at 12:00 p.m. on Sunday the 16th of November at Alistister Restaurant. The address of course is 7650 Southoutheast 27th

Street. As always, all are welcome. Uh and uh let me know if you're coming uh so that I can reserve a large enough table. Okay. Council member Adall. I was just going to echo um Wendy's sentiment. The parks and wreck and YFS and uh police and everybody else in attendance at the Halloween celebration um in the cold rain was it was awesome. And I was surprised and pleased about how many people turned out. Notwithstanding the weather, it was a it was a really nice event. Very well. Council member Becker, nothing to report.

Okay. The next regularly scheduled hybrid city council meeting will be on Tuesday, November 18th, beginning at 5:00 PM. Time is now 6:14 p.m. As a reminder, council, please stay seated until city staff has terminated the broadcast. Good evening. Thanks for joining us tonight. Get out there and vote.