AN ORDINANCE relating to planning and permitting; amending Ordinance 1888, Article III, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.01.150, Ordinance 10870, Section 334, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.070, Ordinance 10870, Section 335, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.080, Ordinance 10870, Section 336, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.090, Ordinance 10870, Section 407, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.18.030, Ordinance 10870, Section 536, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.30.080, Ordinance 15606, Section 20, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.30.085, Ordinance 10870, Section 537, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.30.090, Ordinance 10870, Section 547, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.100, Ordinance 10870, Section 548, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.110, Ordinance 10870, Section 549, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.120, Ordinance 17485, Section 43, and K.C.C. 21A.38.260 and Ordinance 13623, Section 37, as amended, and K.C.C. 23.32.010, adding new sections to K.C.C. chapter 21A.06, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 21A.55, adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 6, repealing Ordinance 15974, Section 5, and K.C.C. 21A.06.1427 and pre
Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to motion 2019 367 as amended. By an objection, we'll place all four motions on the consent agenda for Council. And with that, that takes us to the Winery Brewery Distillery, Distillery Ordinance and public comment. Same rules apply for public comment. I will try to stay about three people ahead in calling people to testify. And when it's your turn, if you please step to either one of the two podiums. We I however I take part of that back. I will ask you to try to limit your testimony to one minute. We have at present a page and a half of people signed in to testify. The first three people will be Susan Boundary Sanders, Cliff Otis and Chase Killebrew. Good afternoon, counsel. My name is Susan Bounds Sanders. I am commenting today as a private citizen, not in my capacity as one of the city council members. I'd like to thank Carlton over Ball Dutchie for her striker that made so many improvements toward protection of farmland and rural land in King County. But I am here today to ask for more protection. I want to remind you that I've submitted testimony in the past that there is plenty of room inside of city limits for these quintessentially urban activities of tasting rooms and event centers. There are over a hundred acres in Woodinville and over 1000 acres altogether in the city surrounding the Sammamish Valley. And I want to ask for improvements that I've given on a single page of testimony to you today, because the ordinance still provides for death by a thousand cuts to rural and agricultural land in the Sammamish Valley through and allowing providing an environment for land, speculation, providing loopholes in the code and providing for incremental weakening of the code. Thank you. Hello. Council members. My name's Clifford Rosen with MATTHEWS Winery. Winery's tasting rooms in unincorporated Kent County of Work collaborative with you over the past three years to find a legal pathway that both protects rural agriculture and allows small businesses like ours to flourish, providing jobs and a much needed tax revenue to the county. As a result of reviewing this amended ordinance, we have just a few questions that are left. What's the rationale for the percentage of a tasting room to define the percentage of 15%? It's like going into deeper and saying, your kitchen can only be this size. So it's kind of a ridiculous structure. That index to parking, we would have about 8 to 17 parking spots. Where are we going to park the cars that come for a wine release? There's so much concern about an EIA statement. Why don't we do one? How is the recent hearing examiner's decision for breweries impacting this? Can the state vesting law be preempted for a local vesting ordinance? Can the county require a business license that is tied to alcohol sales legally? We don't think so. So we urge you to take the time to forward legislation that's balanced, fair and balanced. And I think you just need to take a little more time with this one. Thanks. Following Mr. Killebrew will be Laura Cherry Case. Interesting to be. And Craig Peck. Hello, my name is Chase Killebrew. And you're. You're out of order. Please sit down. I'm sorry for the interruption. Hello. My name is Chase Killebrew and I am representing Blue Line and land use planning and consulting until Engineering Consulting firm based in Kirkland. We have written a long letter that is included in your packet for today's meeting, but I would like to highlight a couple of the points. First, the parking maximums that have been proposed lean toward redundancy when the proposed code provisions regulating maximum impervious surface, maximum building size and setbacks plus the county surface water standards should be adequate in prohibiting the negative effects of pollution generating impervious surfaces. However, if a parking maximum is considered necessary to ensure a reduction of the potential effects on water quality and runoff of development, one possible solution of reaching a balance would be to add a condition that allows the parking maximum to be exceeded. If an applicant implements more alleged bbmp stormwater runoff, such as pervious pavers or by retention wells. Second, we ask you consider the Department of Local Services permitting process as this will affect the enforcement of the proposed ordinance, particularly the proposed compliance period. With our extensive knowledge of the deal process, it's pretty lengthy and we know that it will be for these existing facilities coming into compliance. So we appreciate the determination of the Council to guarantee the ordinance can be fairly implemented once approved. Thank you. Hi. My name is Laura Cherry and I'm the owner of Dragon's Head Cider on Passion Island. And I just have a couple of points that I'd like to share with the council today. This ordinance, as written, would have a significant negative impact on the fragile economy on Passion Island. And it's frustrating that all of the time and money is spent by the county on stakeholder analysis did not include a single resident of Ocean Island. So Councilmember McDermott and his staff have reached out to the community, understand, and drafted a carefully worded amendment that would better meet the needs of the island. And it's extremely narrow in its focus, but it resolved the issues created by this ordinance for the fashion community. So I'd like to urge the Council to approve the fashion amendment. My second point is, with respect to the broader ordinance, I'd like to emphasize how important it is that the Council finally take action on this ordinance today . The delays resolving this issue also have severe consequences. As a small business owner, I can't make plans for the future of my business. I can't make additional investments in the growth and expansion of my business. Until you make a decision, we have it. I don't envy you because it's really there's no great answer here and there's no way to keep all the stakeholders happy. But it's time to own the issue and do what you can to resolve it in a timely manner. So to continue to kick the can down the road would only continue to make more issues. But please vote to approve the ordinance today so that we can all start to make plans for the future again. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. So let him refinance us to instead of complete emotionally and physically. Really beginning health care exists to help people in this optimal state of healthy. In 250 the population of the United States you or you say spend any is in demented city in the to rebuilding of healthy can't cause that's how this thing the exception to instead by as you say National Research Council people shouldn't in through under that is to 300 to something should that Americans. Did. To young younger. Thank you. Thank you. Following Mr. Peck will be Carla Da, Eric Gordon and Vince. I'm Ben in. I'm missing something in the photocopy. Good afternoon, friends. My name's Craig Peck. I live in Woodinville. And I urge you to reject the changes to the current law that are essentially an up zone and a repudiation of the compromises that we made decades ago. The Sammamish River Trail is where I walk, stroll with my wife, exercise and dream. And my kids played soccer and baseball in the Sammamish Valley on land protected from commercial development. It would be a permanent loss to King County's residents if you sacrificed or even risked. The current balance of beauty, agriculture and built environment to benefit a handful of illegal business owners. And please don't make it possible to open new bars, liquor stores and event sites. While there are plenty of other legal locations for these kind of businesses in the area. Don't reward land speculation. We spent together millions of dollars buying development rights to the Sunny Image Valley to protect it. And it's not just the agricultural feel of the valley that benefits the current hospitality industry there. People are actually growing food in the valley, and I buy my produce 5 minutes from my house. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am Carla Da with MATTHEWS Winery. Whatever ordinances you decide to put in place will greatly impact the community, our friends and our employees restricting hours or minimizing retail space, which subsequently reduces our parking capacity or strangle our business and many others. The policies you mandate may force us to abandon the incredible property we have developed. For the community to embrace no farm, no flowers, no expansive lawns, for families to play games on or linger on a sunny afternoon. No embracing grazing deer or scurrying covey of quail. Please carefully think this through. Let's work together to design a fair and balanced ordinance. Please look at this situation logically and with a local focus. Please take the time to truly evaluate how your decisions will impact our business as so many others. Please work with us to determine a balanced answer that both preserves the rural character of the area being nurtured in our farm and garden while promoting the destiny of Washington wines. Thank you. Good evening. Counsel. My name is Eric Ohene. I am a farmer in the Sammamish Valley, and I want to thank you for your mention of the Salish tribes here this evening. Mr. McDermott. I am a for profit farmer for salmon. I hope that you all recognize the importance in the open space conservation of habitat, this habitat so close to the city over the three years that I have employed folks in the Valley, people from Fremont, Ballard, Capitol Hill, U District, Renton, Duvall, Lake City, Kenmore, Woodinville, Kirkland, Redmond, Cottage, Lake and West Seattle have found employment or opportunities on my farm and among my neighbors in the valley. The smallest valley is the first opportunity for young and aspiring farmers to immerse themselves in this vocation while remaining near the cultural attractions of the city and support network networks of their families and affordable housing. The violators in the district are taking that housing away by using what were once homes in the valley for themselves. Places that I will not be able to settle if and if I decide to continue farming in the valley. Thank you. Thank you. Vince Followed by Sarah Totally. Kurt Is it fun to make her in? Andrew. Eli. Thank you, Cosman. And my name's Vincent N. I study your ordinance and I have a trouble with a word demonstration. What is the purpose of a demonstration? Demonstration? For the winery. For the. All those things should be already in the. When we do the Woodinville Wine District, there should be already there. Why go to another demonstration project? The second point I have to made is when demonstration completed and occurred and recurrent a five day violator was at were according to the ordinary study is continue to operate so so this ordinance really to me is really not for a study or to a study is really all in for all those illegal violator is a back door for them. The third one I have the problem where there is a code enforcement or according to the code in the meeting I have in the Woodinville and the county. Officers say the code enforcement is not NSA is not in the county code. That was necessary. So how can we know the new ordinance will enforce the code? Thank you. Hello. My name is Sarah Tankersley and I manage Blue Winery on Passion Island. There aren't very many of us here today representing fashion because it's the middle of crush. We're getting our fruit and we're making our product. But this is very important to us because this ordinance affects our island's economy and our businesses. In a. Very real way. Our winery is small. 500 club members. It's cottage industry and has been for almost 20 years. This ordinance would shut us down and it considering. The fact that. This ordinance was made not to regulate fashion but to regulate the sammamish valley, that is just. So difficult. To come to terms with. We are. Councilman McDermott has created an amendment that is coming up for a vote today, and I hope that you will support it. Thank you. Good afternoon. Hi. My name is Kurt Tong, Homemaker and I farm in the Spanish Valley and we are subject to the development above us because all the water from those implements runs down on our farm. And I'm just looking at where this ordinance is written and it sounds like they're going to be able to change a lot of the homes potentially to start having more and more impervious surface. And they say that they're going to manage it where the King County rules, but then they talk about what about the waste? And they said, well, it's not equitable. And one of the questions on the the CPA report that they did, they say this is not applicable, this report is not. And so they didn't fill out any of the stuff so far and explain why or how they're going to manage this. And being a farmer down below are just concerned about the levels of water that are going to come down and make the land even harder to farm. And so I just encourage you guys to rethink this and give the farmers in the Smash Valley a better chance to survive. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Evo will be followed by Rob's Sandra mine. Can I bring I'll bring her and Robin Lao. My name is injury. Thank you, counsel, for having me here to give you a little bit of public insight. I just want to start with one. The Department of Ecology website reads Purpose and Intent Keepers intend to ensure the environmental values are considered during decision making by state and local agencies. When SIPA was adopted, the state lawmakers identified four primary purposes. One declares a state of a policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people in their environment. Two To promote efforts which prevent to prevent or eliminate damage to the environmental and biosphere. Three To stimulate public health and welfare. And for to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems of the natural resources important to Washington and the nation. The SEPA checklist that was performed for this ordinance was filled out and not applicable for every single line item, and it is utterly discouraging to have the county not take action on that. This was authored by county employees itself and it just doesn't make sense that if such a large area of agricultural and agricultural buffer areas, it should be taken into consideration what the environmental impacts are going to be before an ordinance is even proposed. Secondly, I just want to reiterate that there are numerous nonprofit organizations and and ecological conservation groups that are endorsing friends of some limited values version of this striker. And I think that the democratic representation of those organizations far outweighs the representation of the private businesses that are so that are so encouraged by the financial gains of exploitation of land. I thank you for your time, and I encourage you to reconsider moving this ordinance through today. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Rob. So and first of all, I want to thank Councilman Baldacci for the changes we've made. But that being said, I want to make it clear we oppose the Kathy Lambert's proposed amendments that are before you today. We don't we think those are taking us from reverse. Specifically, I want to talk about the fact that the WB definitions now require to take two stages of production for a winery, one of those stages that's fermenting. Unfortunately, this does not stop sham wineries such as MATTHEWS, who have two barrels in their back closet that are fermenting and aging. And that's the only and none of that is that wine is being sold onsite. All the wine is being produced offsite. So there's a loophole there. The current strike does not address this type of sham operation is totally and make it totally illegal. It's just what we really want in this amendment. Lastly, I want to make sure I think down the road in closing, 50 years from now. Are your grandchildren going to thank you for adding a few more wineries or for protecting this valuable resource where they can enjoy God's beauty? Thanks. Canal, Bangor, resident of Kirkland. This ordinance is billed as a proposed compromise, but a compromise is not the right way to protect our farmland. Here in the Sammamish Valley and throughout the county, the wineries and breweries do not seek agricultural production here they want and then develop tasting rooms and event centers, but allowing tasting rooms and events centers on agricultural production areas and the buffer zones will compromise the legitimate use of this farmland for production. It will and has already driven the cost of farmland beyond the means of legitimate agricultural producers. I urge this committee to remove tasting rooms and event centers from the allowed uses of agricultural protection areas, the adjoining environmental buffer zones and rural land. This ordinance and use this ordinance to strengthen the definitions and rules so that the county can effectively enforce our existing rules and regulations. Garden God knows we need to preserve this farmland. Our residents are relying on you, our elected representatives, to do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. Robin will be followed by Tom Quigley, Dominique Jorgensen and Dean Scramble. My name is Robin Lough. I would like to request that this committee focus on untreated sewage. That's what we have. You have a choice. You either have treated sewage through it, through a sewer system, or you have untreated sewage that comes from septic tanks, which is what this entire area uses, that you're that you're you're proposing be turned into a commercial area. Generally, what happens in my own home, I have a 3000 square foot home. I have a thousand gallon septic tank, which is designed in two tanks. It's a modern design. You have wineries that are operating right now that are a two bedroom, one bath manufactured in the 1920s. It is operating as a winery and event center. Call it whatever you want. The issue that you have before you is when that sludge and I know solids come out of that sewer system, go into the drain field, it goes downhill. Just as that farmer said. It will literally pollute farmland. And you have a river. That is that is right there with the salmon swim up. You must have a sewer system or you've ignored untreated sewage in your proposal. My name is Tom Quigley and the President's Moonee Valley Alliance. And I am. Also serving as the current master of this municipality, Grange. I'm here representing both those organizations. A lot of people are asking, why in the world are we here? I am so proud of being a King County. Farmer and on. Farm land. And the reason we should be so proud is that this county has. Been held up for decades. Across this nation as exemplary in our preservation of farmland. And that is because it was visionary thinking that got us there. And as an early stakeholder in this process, nowhere in the process have we committed or challenged each other to get around a table. And focus on visionary. Thinking. We're talking about greed and laziness and other factors that are forcing us to go away from a plan that has worked for decades, that has been exemplary. And to abandon it for. A few violators. Why would we even consider that? So I encourage you to. Take whatever it takes to go back to what we have not even go back just to say what we have works for the majority. It may not be working for a small minority, but it's working and it's been held up nationwide as being an example. Let's keep to it. Thank you. Dominique Torgerson for Horsham Brewery. We need to remember our Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. We are all created equal. But our county does not treat everyone equally. This ordinance proves just that from the increased citation fees, the restriction on business hours on building size when there are already impervious surface limitations for all properties in the unincorporated area. This is not being treated equally in King County. And this ordinance violates our 14th Amendment rights for equal protection and due process. Governments are instituted among men, deriving just powers from the consent of the governed. We do not have our consent for this kerfuffle of an ordinance. Nor has King County properly, properly informed from the consent of the population for the heavily increase zoning regulations that have been passed over the last 30 years. These oppressive restrictions are strangling residents and businesses to death, and we're turning a blind eye to it. Among these, we have unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And what world does King County feel they're honoring this? King County is explicitly derived, deprived us of all these unalienable rights. I ask that either this ordinance is voted down or that we at least grandfather in all the businesses that were issued a state license, as that was the county's opportunity to either deny or authorize that license at that time. According to the state process. Thank you. Dean will be followed by Melissa Earl, Kim Prince and Barbara Lowe. Good afternoon, counsel. Sorry. This always gives me such anxiety. It's. It's our livelihoods that are at risk here. But I'll keep it simple. This room, I measure two. It's 2800 square feet. It's tiny. I mean, yeah, my operation can fit inside this room, and there's still restrictions being added to it. And it's just. It does not make any sense. I mean, there's 2800 square feet in this room, so. Yeah. Every single person in the rural area has an impervious service limitation. So ours is 20%. We can't exceed it. That's the house. That's. I mean, the planter boxes we have or if we have a little pond, birdbath, back deck, whatever. So I don't know. And the other thing is October 3rd of 2018, that's when the hearing examiners report came out. We still don't have our permit. So this is just we need to take more time on this. I mean, to prove that it is an allowed use and we still don't have our permit. There's something going on and we just need more time. So thank you. Hello, counsel. My name is Melissa Earl. I've come to these public testimony since the very beginning, and I'm going to try to sum up some of the key points here. I've had a couple of questions about where in the Growth Management Act do we feel it's violating the Growth Management Act, some of the things that are going on in this new ordinance. And so I wanted to kind of point out the Growth Management Act, adjacent cities and counties through the countywide planning policy process are supposed to be touched base with. So that means that my city that I'm next to Maple Valley, Covington, Kent, all those towns and cities should have been communicated with and their input should have been received in order for my particular business in District five to have been affected so much or I believe I'm District No, I'm in Reagan's district. Wherever Reagan and Dennis district is, I'm going to try and give a personal feel to what it's done for me. This process began for me about three years ago. King County stripped my business license from me and pulled my title based on access. They threatened my family land, my business, my income, and it's still unabated. Unfortunately, the most important of my basic needs were under threat for complying before with whatever I was receiving from them, and it continually changed from the deeper department. So when this process began, I was pregnant with my second child. My story is kind of hard for me to say because it caused a lot of personal stress. I fell ill after the deeper department, threatened my home and threatened my livelihood. It felt like a shakedown. My my doctors told me that the medical decision was they needed to take my baby from me early because I was not well. And the delivery process almost took my son's life and it almost took my own. I don't say this because I want sympathy. I say this because this story of mine is very similar to a lot of the businesses and families that I've heard go through this process. It has caused not only a financial burden, it has caused a physical issue. There are other problems that can be caused by just this process. I don't want to be homeless or without food by the end of this process. We are talking about a homeless crisis in this community right now, and I can see how I was damn near pushed to it. Excuse my language. I'm asking you guys to not pass this right now because I don't feel as though it's addressing a lot of the outcomes, like mine, for example, that I don't feel are warranted. Again, if you guys look at the GMA, you can see that my particular area probably should have been reviewed before I'm being held to some damage standards. Thank you for your time. I know the Stryker is really difficult. I hope we can get through it with a little bit more. Grace. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Prince. Okay. Hello. My name is Barbara Lough. I am a surface water hydrologist and I have written environmental impact reports and statements. So I see this as an issue of need over greed. Our future, our children. You. They all need fresh food from pristine farmland. Our orcas need salmon from the Issaquah Hatchery and from local streams throughout the Puget Sound. If this ordinance is passed, what do you think the vision will be in 20 years? What I see as a hydrologist is a state of pristine farmland. I see a toxic bog. I see a foul canal instead of the Sammamish river, where I saw a fish jump yesterday going up to the hatchery. I hear Cathy Lambert saying the farmland is protected. No, it is protected from development. It is not protected from environmental degradation which will occur if you do commercial development within the rural area. So we opposed any amendments that create loopholes in the current version. We oppose amendments. And remember, Mathews sells wine by the case at Wooden Villa Costco. They are not a small business. We need to protect our resources, our future, our grandchildren, our farmers, our people of King County, natural habitat, salmon and the orcas. Thank you. Hi. My name's Kim Prince, and I live in the farm area in Woodinville. The demonstration overlay rewards five violators under the guise of a demonstration. It can't be a demonstration win once everything's set up and in a few years, you can't take it down. We already have data on what happens when commercial businesses are located in the rural area where commercial infrastructure does not exist, like the sewers, the sidewalks, roadways . We don't need a demonstration and there is no way to pull out of it. At the end of the demonstration period. It contains the demonstration overlay contains 13 parcels extending south well past the last violator. Why is that? Why why the the eight more additional parcels? Because that last parcel is owned by the Lil Greg Lill, who was one of the authors of this whole proposal. Another thing I'd like to bring up is that the farm one in this overlay is a parcel that belongs to RCC and RS. And in the farm there's a. So do they get pulled out of our neighborhood? Do they no longer pay our dues? How can you just include a parcel that is, you know, part of our community? Thank you. Thank you. And I feel out of line in giving people advanced warning. Michelle Granada. Terry Strum. Strum Bear. And Barbara Carlson. Go ahead. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Michelle Granada. I'm a resident of the Valley and I specifically am here to ask you to keep the retail land uses of the code exactly as they're drafted. I'm speaking to you as a resident, a former city planner and a retired real estate attorney. And it is my opinion that that section of the code is clear and unambiguous and unequivocally limits sales to products produced on site. Currently, you have eight businesses in the area in the valley that are operating in violation of this clear code language. This current striker will grandfather these violators and allow others to follow suit. I ask you to keep the current code language as drafted. When I was a city planner, we didn't reward code violators. We enforced the code. And I'm asking you to do the same, to do what is right and not what is expedient. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I stand in strong opposition of the beverage ordinance. This proposal will not balance the needs of farmers, small business and tasting rooms. It will do the opposite to all three parties. It will not bring the outliers into compliance with the zoning code. It threatens farmers and dampens small business by discouraging shoppers who are distressed by the traffic and parking issues. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, sewer is an issue. In conclusion, I also want to mention this the sewer was brought up. This is the Feliciana tasting room, which is a two bedroom house built in the 1920s. It can hold an event by its current permit of up to 200 people. They are on septic. How well do you think that's going to work? The answer is not very well. So in conclusion, this is what we're fighting for. And the judge, the. Sorry. To paraphrase Jeremy Bentham, it is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which is the measure of right and wrong. Thank you. And we've barbara coulson is next followed by Nicholas to demand Montague. I'm sorry. I'll apologize now. I'm Carolyn Tansley and Serena Glover. Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Calhoun. I've been a resident of Woodinville for 50 years, and for 25 years I've owned commercial property in the city of Woodinville Tourist District, released space to six tasting rooms. The majority, the vast majority of the 125 or so tasting rooms in Woodinville are following the rules. And it's extremely unfair to them that the violators are being rewarded for not following the rules. As a commercial property owner, we've had to pay engineering and architectural fees, city permits, mitigation fees paid for sidewalks and street improvements, street lighting, landscaping, paved parking lots, daily sewer. The handful of violators have paid none of those costs, and yet they take advantage of what the legally operating visitors are paid. It's past time for King County to enforce its zoning codes. Thank you. Hi. My name is Nikolaj Walsh. I am in Super Belleville. I'm representing myself and any other volunteer organization. The two main point I'd like to bring to your attention is I love wineries. They're great, but the top priority is protecting the valley, and I would like others who are more. The second part is code enforcement. First, thank you to Councilmember Lambert and Permanent Director Chan, who showed up on 911 and 21 to encourage and explain to us all the code enforcement. But they both acknowledge and recognize that there some deficiency. Right now you are a legislative body, but you also need to exercise oversight. I think you would agree that both sides are saying there's clearly. Lack of funding or staff or regulation or not regulation, but execution and businesses and others should have a framework by which enforcement is consistent. Government needs to be deterministic and fair. It can't be arbitrary. So I would recommend strongly to you make sure that that is properly done, because it's not right now and that's not fair for boat people protecting the farm and also businesses. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. I'm Carolyn Tankersley and I live in Rural King County and I appreciate the work you've done. Although some of the improvements have been presented in the latest Stryker proposal, which look better. I do oppose the amendments, as they've been suggested by Cathy Lambert. The proposals do not go far enough to protect the Sammamish Valley and they actually reward violators. They negatively impact all of rural King County, both inside and outside of currently protected egg and farmland areas. There are farmlands in the rural area that will be lost. Once lost, farm lands are gone forever. Not only will food sources be lost, but as a resident of the rural King County area, the proposed ordinance will also negatively impact the quality of our day to day life, reducing open space, allowing increased retail and event operations, threatening water quality and dramatically increasing traffic on rural roadways. We do not want to see what happened in Kent Valley occur again. Please save our farms and rural King County. Kathy Lambert's proposed amendments must be opposed. Ms. Glover will be followed by Shawn mILLAR, Adelaide Leroy and Michael Tankersley. Hello. I'm Serena Glover, executive director of Friends of Sammamish Valley. The striker opens the Sammamish Valley to retail drinking establishments via dpoy and murky weed definitions. It attempts to mitigate the damage from these commercial businesses operating without proper infrastructure by limiting their activities and parking, retail space and hours. The violators claim they can't work within these restrictions. You've heard this yourselves from them. Add to that a complaint driven code enforcement system, murky code language, de minimis fines and a handful of restrictions which are impossible to uphold in real time with customers on site. This approach, which basically splits the baby by letting commercial development into the Sammamish Valley with some restrictions, will lead to endless code enforcement battles and commercial developers will. When the result is, violators will keep growing. Eight more retail outlets will be allowed, and land price speculation will continue, and the environmental and public health and safety issues will only increase. We will never, never be able to stop this onslaught. The demand to locate beverage retail outlets in King County is huge and growing. You have one chance to get this right. There's no mulligan on development. Clear legislation from the council that locates all retail drinking establishments with no production into the urban area is the only way to protect the Sammamish Valley. If you adopt the striker or any of Sam Lambert's amendments with a split the baby approach, you will lose the Sammamish Valley and that will be your legacy. Thank you for. Hey, everyone, I'm Sean Miller. I am a farmer here in King County. In this valley. I own tuck muck farm. This is my son, Yoshiaki. He supervises the farm most days. We came here to say, just to tell you how important and valuable the Simi Valley and the rural character this valley is for us, both as farmers and as a place to raise my children. Currently, as a full time farmer, I most certainly can't afford childcare. So my baby is at the farm with me every day, as are many of the other farmers, in that ability to have our family close to us in a place where we work side by side with our families is so crucial to us and that is definitely in threat. The current demonstration. One of our brothers said earlier to I have questions about this idea of a demonstration. It's 2019. We know what happens when we develop on the uphill side of rural farmland. That runoff comes down into our farmland, and our farmland is right on Sammamish Valley. This is a semi salmon bearing river that are on the river and we are the final buffer. Our farms are the final sort of environmental protective buffer. So the more that that's encroached upon, the more that threatens, the more water that runs down onto our land and into the river. Definitely on balance is that, you know, pristine sort of nature that we have in this valley. And I just encourage you all to take a step back and vote on what's the most reasonable course of action to protect the valley and to protect the farmers today and not continue to let it be split between somehow farmers and wineries. I think that's sort of been framed in that weird way. And we don't want to be enemies to anyone. We want to cooperate with everyone, so please help us. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to see that the King County Council is not the only place of employment where they take your baby to work. Good job that this is true. And you have my sympathy to having to follow that. Totally good. My name is Adelaide Le Roy. I'm here on behalf of Alcoa Market Garden and my brother Marshall Le Roy, we are a family run, small farm, a regenerative farm in the Sammamish Valley. And Len speculation is killing small farmers. And it doesn't matter that the King County buys up farm land development rights because if in 15 years it is severely degraded and we cannot use that farmland, that is useless to us. I apologize for our friends here from back on island. I understand. And you have my sympathy that this affects your business. And I'm sorry you're lumped in here with us, but we are a business as well. We are working to grow and we cannot grow if we have no land to grow. Wineries, tasting event rooms, they don't need the land. And we do. And we can't have access to that land if we can't purchase it. If we can purchase it because we somehow have $1,000,000 to buy a parcel, it doesn't matter if it's severely degraded past the point of being usable and we want to do U-Pick pumpkins next year. I would like to think that that's a more family friendly event than wandering around on a lawn in a wine tasting room. That's just me. You have legislation in theory to support your farmland by buying the farm land. Great. Your legislation in theory to support your food insecure constituents. We operate at farmers markets and we utilize the WIC program supplying nutrient dense food grown with organic practices to your constituents. And the fact that there are so many people in this room who have shown up and well shown up to just statistically, we don't want this , the people who want this or five businesses who directly receive benefits from it. So I don't understand why we keep pushing the issue. I'm not for this ordinance. Thank you. Michael B, followed by Lamont Alexander. Hello, Michael Tinsley with the Hollywood Hills Association. First, I want to thank Claudia for stepping into this and making some incremental improvements to what was a very sloppy, messy ordinance that you guys were handed last year by the executive. But it did make some incremental improvements, mostly, though, on secondary issues and things that, quite frankly, just followed. The big issues, the primary issues, which are those loopholes that were written in there for what reason? We don't know. I still remain. It has to do with the definitions and that somebody else earlier mentioned. The clear thing in the code now that says only a product made on site can be sold on site. That's fine. It's very clear. And that's been removed and that should be kept. There's a rich legacy or legacy or a culture in our rural areas that extends all the way across us. And this ordinance is going to affect all of our rural areas. So there's been a lot of talk about farmland and appropriately so it is very important and it's very, very at risk with so many pressures on it. But what many people might not understand is that this agricultural community extends into our rural area in general. I have the county's website. It says 51,000 acres in agricultural production in King County. Of that, 14,000 only are actually under protection, which means only 34% of the farmlands are protected, 66% are not protected there in the rural areas. So as this code is written now, is extended to the rural area. It's going to have a massive effect on the whole rural community, which gives a lot of quality of life to not just the rural businesses and the rural citizens, but also to the urban citizens that come out and enjoy this bounty for the very many those it reaches to it. So I urge you to support I would like Mr. McDermott's proposals for Vacation Island. We are against Kathy Lambert's amendments proposed for these existing strike, but really we think this should be revisited altogether. I know we all want to get over this hangover from too much wine talk, but this isn't about wine. This is about land speculation. Thank you. I'm just here to say that our friend Lamar basically couldn't make it because there was no spaces in the parking garage and no place to park. So he couldn't make public comment. Thank you. The last person signed it in writing to testify is Alex Zimmerman. Thank you very much to you. Very good to me. It wasn't my intention. On the occasion of my funeral. Why do you listen to Zimmer? Why are you supporting him? Nice and quiet. Why are you a rabbit? A slave? They destroy not only you. They destroy all America right now. Small businesses go down different between corporation and poor. People got bigger and bigger and bigger. It's America. The Soviet Union, German Nazi. Why are you so quiet? You're frickin idiot. You. You're America. Not who you are. They support Amazon Microsoft Sound Transit never supporter do not united people look statistic matters. Last week I met a couple in Darwin in doubt, arguing that people lose everything right now. Why are we so quiet to them? Why are you like them again? You understand me or not? You were too quiet. I don't see nobody in this place. Stand up and talk cleanses, dirty chant. But. But I'm this crook from this mafia, from James Democratic Vendetta. Stand up. Your time is up. Yeah, exactly. Is there anyone who didn't have a chance to sign in to testify? You're welcome to approach either podium and identify yourself. And I'm sure your comments. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Deepak by barge. I am here on behalf of myself, a 21 year resident of Sammamish Valley, Hollywood Hill, also the president of rest of your homeowners association. It's a 44 home community. And I can tell you that my community, as well as many of my neighbors and neighboring communities, are unanimously against this particular ordinance. We think that it's unnecessary and in fact, does the wrong thing by rewarding a small handful of speculators. We are concerned that maybe this is a Trojan horse that is being set up for abuse of rural, agricultural, land zoning for other areas. And we strongly recommend that you you vote against it. And again, you know, we're all good people here. We've been around for a long time. And, you know, we vote. And, you know, we're going to be watching this very closely. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. My name is Jennifer Drury and I live with my family in the urban part of Woodinville. And so I live on a smaller plot. And I understand that that's part of urban growth. And but I love that I live next to the rural part. And I took my children last week into the farms, and I talked with the farmers and I talked with one of them about regeneration, farming and putting carbon back into the soil. And I think that's something that we need to keep in mind with climate change and what we need to do to bring carbon out of the atmosphere. And that's a very important thing that our local farmers are doing. And I support our local farmers, the farmers market, and I buy from them every week in the summer and I take my children. And so this is why I don't support the proposal. Thank you very much. Hi. My name's Becky. I'm really sick. I have the worst sinus infection in the world, and it really should be working in my business right now. And I've come to every single one of these meetings, usually with a better statement. I wasn't really planning on talking what I which is I want this to stop. Like I can't keep taking time out and coming to these. I mean, I don't live anywhere near here. I live in Woodinville. It takes forever to get here. The parking sucks, as they talked about earlier. I don't get paid to be here either. And I just think that. We can't continue just I've heard the term kicking the can down the road. This has to end at some point, right? Like we got to just make a decision and move on. And I'm just hoping that we can do that today. Please. Oh, and I'm totally against all of this. Anyone else and anyone else to offer testimony. Then we'll close the public hearing. And as we know, the council has been working on this ordinance for more than a year, almost a year and a half. It was first taken up by the Local Services Regional Roads and Bridges Committee. When the committee finished that work, it went to full council and then has been reassigned to the committee of the whole. It is our intention to take up the ordinance and amendments today and to walk us through some of that before us is Erin Adams of our council central staff. Good afternoon. Yes. Let's get organized first. You shoot rubber bands across the room. That was good. Good afternoon, Aaron. Austin's council staff, Christi Craig from the prosecuting attorney's office is with me, as well as Jenny now from central staff. You have a very large staff report packet here. It includes the striking amendment and the and one title amendment, as well as a red light version of the striker and a summary matrix. I wasn't planning to go through the summary matrix again, but I could take questions on it if anybody has any. So we covered it last time. You also have a separate packet on on the dais that has some green and blue shading in a matrix form. You also have the thing that you hold up Consumer Gazette is the public comments that were received since the package was distributed? Yep. So I could brief the line amendments or the members could read them themselves, whatever you prefer. Members would be my suggestion that we have briefed the striking Amendment one and the amendments for the most part, follow amendments that were briefed at our last meeting. I'd suggest we take up the ordinance and brief as we take up each amendment. Can't remember up to now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you mind a question on the. Underlying staff report and. Matrix before we get going with that? Please be appropriate. And and forgive me, this this may not have a simple answer, but I had heard some conflicting information today that got me questioning my understanding. Could you talk. About allowable retail uses under the current. Code in rural agricultural zones? Yes. Is it required to be grown? Are products required to be manufactured or grown on site? So the current allowance for sale of beer and wine goes under liquor stores. The condition for that requires that it be limited to accessory to a winery or brewery. Isn't separate, but that's what it's intended. And limited to sales of products produced on site and incidental items where the majority of sales are generated from products produced on site. With that, I'd entertain a motion. Councilmember Belushi. Mr. Chairman. Move. Ordinance 2018 zero two for 1.2 without recommendation. Council member Belushi is moved that we advance ordinance 2018 241.2 without recommendation Council member Belushi. Move striking amendment as one. Council Member Belushi's move to striking amendment. S1 Do you wish to speak to it before we take amendments to it? I would like to work through amendments and then speak to it, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move Amendment point five. And Councilmember Lambert has moved Amendment 2.5. Council Member Lambert. Thank you. This amendment increases the amount of building space that can be dedicated to testing activities from 15% to 30%. The limitation on testing space was a new concept introduced a couple of weeks ago, and I think the 15% restriction on testing space is a little aggressive for this concept. If we were going to restrict the taste in space, a business can have without a clear understanding of the impact on the ground. And I think we should have a little bit more space than that. I believe the CAP will accomplish my colleague's stated policy goals while protecting against any unintended consequences. So I urge your support. Discussion of Amendment Further discussion of Amendment point five. As a question. Councilmember Belge. Can you speak a little bit to what that means in terms of the square footage limits on building size and then what that would mean for the size of what is this testing and retail areas that the underlying maximum aggregated floor area didn't change. So it's still 1500 for facility ones, which doesn't allow retail space and so doesn't part of this and 3500 for a facility to use in the area and a zone. And then this would be of that square footage maximum 30% could be dedicated to retail and tasting areas. Can somebody do the math and tell me what that I'm trying it myself means doing that right now. Okay. I think what I'm coming up with is wrong. And I've been I've learned never to try to do math live here. Yes, we do. For a 3500 square foot winery. 15% would be 525 square feet. We make sure that that totally live math and at 30%, they'll be 1050 square feet. Okay. For an 8000 square foot winery brewery distillery, that would be 15% would be 1200 square feet and 30% would be 2400 square feet. Thank you. Councilmember De Mirsky Thank you, Mr.. We have representatives from the Executive's office here, and I wonder what their position on this amendment is, and I'll ask the same question as we move through this. Who. Who from the executive division might be willing to take that question? I think she's upstairs. Can. Kelly is upstairs. Miss Wolfe is downstairs. Miss Wolfe is moving. Karen Wolfe with the King County executive's office. We're just looking at this amendment today so we don't have a position on the percentage versus the actual square footage. That's one of the most famous. Sharon, do you have a position on the underlying percentage, the 15% in the striking amendment? We were supportive of the 15% in the striking amendment. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell duty. The 15% was added in the most recent version. I just want to make sure that people understand where this particular issue has been. There was no percentage limitation, if I recall correctly, in the Executive's proposal, square the rest square footage. What worked well was the square. There was no limit. There was no limit. So 15% was something that was introduced only in the most recent striker a few weeks ago. And it was based on, as I understand it, a staff review of some other codes. Is that correct? Can somebody speak to me about what? Because I had one understanding about what the 50% was based on, but today I was told something different. So I just want to be clear what it was based on. We were asked to look into it and so we did a review of a lot of different jurisdictions. Most of them don't have a percentage associated with an accessory use, or if it does, it's specific to a different type of use. We found that 10 to 20% appeared to be reasonable for an accessory to use and had put in 15% as a potential example of use. I thank you. I just wanted to sort of set some backstage for where this came from and why it was part of my most recent proposal amendment. And maybe Councilmember Lambert could speak to why 30% makes more sense than 15%, but just to provide context. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. So as it came over from the executive and as is currently, there is 100% that you can use in your property. So we went from 100% to 15%, which is a huge difference. So one of the things that that triggers is how many parking spaces you can have. And when we looked at the number of parking spaces, it was way too small. And so we looked at what would be a more reasonable amount of parking spaces for that size. Again, as a staff and council member, Balducci said, we have not changed the square footage requirements. We have not changed them. And so and we looked at what the trigger would be for parking, and we wanted to make sure that it was reasonable and not more than is current. In fact, it's not more than its current. So that's where we came up with the 30. So it came up from the executive at 100 and we're talking about 30 so far left. Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a question on facility wise and facility. Are they just tasting rooms in unincorporated areas or would they be tasting rooms that exist in the urban part of like Woodinville and where they have the same kind of limitations? I'm just trying to see if there's any difference. So the facility one's facility to the facility, these are production facilities. They are allowed in several zones, including the commercial zone. Okay. They are allowable. Yes. The requirements for specific production apply like two stages of production. That applies only to the A and ARI zone. Remote tasting rooms as a separate use doesn't require production and that those are proposed to be allowed in the community business, regional business committee, business and regional business zones and then into in one area for in the ARI Zone near Woodinville. Okay. So as a demonstration project. So they are allowed in both the incorporated cities as well as unincorporated areas. They're allowed in the urban. Unincorporated in the. Rural unincorporated, but we don't regulate inside the cities. So other cities have their own rules for wineries, breweries is Hillary. And we're talking about it. We're only talking about it. And rural, unincorporated. Area, rural and urban. But yes, just in urban. But like Skyway that I represent, that's where I am. Thank you for the discussion. Councilmember Lambert to close, if you wish. Thank you. I think that this is a reasonable amount and impacts, as I said, parking, which is an important thing. And so I think this is a reasonable compromise. Thank you. I urge your support. All those in favor of amendment point five. Please signify by saying I. I oppose. Nay, the ayes appear to have it. Division has been called for all those in favor of amendment point five. Please raise your hand. All those opposed. The ayes have it. Point Amendment. Point five is adopted. Councilmember Caldwell's Would you be kind enough on my behalf to move the adoption of the Amendment 1.5, one point to be so moved? Mr. Chair. Thank you. One point to be is before us. As we heard in testimony today, the legislation that was originally drafted by the executive branch and sent to council addresses issues that were identified and extensively study in the Sammamish Valley. The similar issues don't exist on Fashion Island yet. As written, this code would apply indiscriminately to Valentine as well. So I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, which would allow existing businesses only on fashion to be exempted from the minimum size, their arterial access, the setback and the square footage limitations to not impose the least amount. What I might consider this Mama's Valley solutions are the issues that have been identified in Mama's Valley that don't exist on vacation. So I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment for the discussion. Councilmember Gossett. What was the original reason that Bardstown was included? Is it just because it's located? It's considered unincorporated and rural. That it or would that impact that what we're talking about for the Mama's Valley? Yes. The underlying ordinance covers all of unincorporated King County. Okay. Which includes bash on. All right. Thank you. Mm hmm. Seeing no further discussion of those in favor of 1.2 B, please signify by saying I oppose nay. The hosts appear to have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 1.2 B is adopted. Amendment 1.5 B Council Member Col Wells. Would you be kind enough to move adoption? Thank you. 1.58. No, no, he skipped over that. I mean. Are you. I switched him up the other way. Okay. Great. Consistency would be very bad. 1.5 a please council member. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move adoption of amendment 1.5. Okay. Thank you. I'm amendment council member calls has moved. Adoption of amendment 1.5 a to speak to it. This amendment would set the minimum locks area at two acres, allowing up to 7000 square feet of aggregated floor area and exempts them from the size limitations on retail and tasting sites. This is to apply to in the red zone to winery brewery distillery twos for historic properties. Property is exclusively stored property. I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment. I see no discussion. Council up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we know this? This this is not. Based on specific, correct? Or are we aware of a current inventory of historic properties? Yes. Is it just one? Yes. I mean that this would apply to. Yes. Okay. That we know. We know. All right, Mr. Chance, remember. DEMBOSKY So could could somebody explain to. Me the policy rationale for bringing historic works? It feels to me like what we're doing here is looking out for one particular business. What is the policy rationale that this should be of general applicability? I would defer to the sponsor, but I will say that there is code in here now about historic properties, treating them differently in some cases. With the point that Austin's just made about the legislation already addressing historic properties. The the work I barely plan to invest time has a history and part of its history is fruit preserves. And so as we look at wineries and if possible, use for the site, that is the nexus in my bringing the amendment. See no further discussion. All those in favor please signify by saying I oppose nay. The ayes. The ayes have it. Amendment three. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this point, move Amendment three and two speak to it. Councilmember Dunn has moved adoption of Amendment three. Councilmember done very. Well. It's important that we recognize the rural areas of the county are very different in nature than the suburban areas, as we heard today. And they certainly require a different approach in regards to the winery code. I'm offering this amendment in order to differentiate between rural for rural areas and other suburban areas throughout the county, which have different dynamics to account for. I want to recognize that many people who live in the rural parts of the county that it is important to have these types of event spaces available on some occasions. It's my hope we can preserve this aspect of rural character while also safeguarding rural businesses. My amendment is narrowly tailored to allow wineries, breweries, distilleries and tasting rooms on very large properties to host private events as part of their business. It makes sure to include certain conditions are mindful of potential impacts in those areas. Under this amendment, private ends will be allowed if the following conditions are met. The event must be in the rural areas. On the property on which the event is held must be at least eight acres. Buildings used for events must be set back 150 feet from interior property lines in order to further avoid being seen or heard by neighboring properties. The property access must be on a main arterial road. This will avoid impacts to local roads in the rural areas zone and it's consistent with our comprehensive plan policies. In addition, a temporary use permit wouldn't be required as long as the event doesn't include amplified outdoor sound between 8 p.m. and noon the following day . This time restriction is meant to be considered of the potential impact that any noise could have on neighboring properties. The amendment only applies to existing businesses with production liquor licenses from the state. This will allow current businesses to continue events and only on sites that cause no further impacts to local roads, neighbors and the rural area. All of these conditions ensure rural character is preserved and rural residents will stay at places to hold events. This amendment is consistent with our rural economy, strategies and plan, and it provides opportunities for businesses to supplement their income and stay in business. Thank you for your consideration of Amendment three. For the discussion Councilmember Epigraph. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Similar question for staff. How many parcels does this apply to? And we know the ownership. Of the properties that have been identified to have existing production facilities or potentially there's five that are over eight acres. Over. Council member buildings. That would not otherwise be eligible for this use. No, they would ask. The exemption could possibly apply to because they're over eight acres. But they without the exemption, these five properties that you're aware of would not be eligible for this. They would be subject to the limitation of 24 events per year. Okay. That's in the underlying. And with this amendment, what would be the rule about? There would not be a specific limit on events. ATP wouldn't be required unless there was amplification as stated by Councilmember Dunn. Right. Okay. Thank you. Council member up there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And be clear. Under current code, not current proposals. These properties are in the rural agricultural zone and therefore their products would need to be grown on site were it not for us changing the rules. That's correct. 60% would need to be grown in Puget Sound counties. Okay. Under current code. All right. Seen no discussion. Others in favor of Amendment three please signify by saying I oppose. No. A division has been called for. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Well, I. I believe that's five others opposed for the amendment. Kerry's. Count magazines. Help me. You're about to get this one or both. Title. Title, just T2. But do the striker first. We have one as amended before us. Further discussion on this one as amended Councilmember Double duty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to try real hard not to give a final passage kind of speech because there's more process. I want to start by saying I am definitely feeling both people who said, can we get to the end one way or another, whether this passes, whether nothing passes? I think that we have reached the point where we need to move to a decision. Anything that we do with an ordinance, we can change with an ordinance. But I think that just continuing to spin on this topic isn't helping people. A few words. So I think the three principles we all agree on, we agree that we want to preserve and protect the agricultural lands and uses of this county. We agree that rural activities should be appropriate, size and scale and use. We agree that rural owners and and people living in operating in the rural area have property rights and they can operate appropriate businesses and they do in their unincorporated rural areas. And farms are businesses. That was a good point as well as somebody's made. I think what we're disagreeing with is how to balance all these things and sort of what the real on the ground impacts will be of a proposed code. I want to point out that we know what the on the ground impacts are of the current code. You can go out there and see it. Part of the reason that this whole issue was taken up was because of the complaints that were coming into King County from people out in the rural areas about what was going on on the ground. And by the way, also that we were hearing from businesses that they couldn't possibly comply with our code, even if they were trying to comply with our code, because it was impossible to understand. So that was the that was the basis that we began with taking up this code. And when I say we, it started with the county executive. He did do a public process out in the Sammamish Valley, focused in the Sammamish Valley. It's correct that this is a county wide code. I'm glad that the Bastion Island Amendment passed because you brought to our attention something that we were having an unanticipated impact for doing this in the rest of King County. I think that this is better. So thank you for that and for being here today again. But. The challenge we've had and I'm going to read just a little bit, I apologize with your with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, I asked the executive branch to tell us what kinds of problems they were having with enforcement, because I have said many times that we haven't enforced the current code, and that is the problem. So I asked them what is going on? Why isn't the code being enforced? And part of its resources? And I want to say one thing we haven't talked about it here at all is that there is a companion budget proposal which I have brought, and we're going to be taking up the budget, starting in our budget and fiscal management committee tomorrow that will add resources to the Department of Permitting to allow for education and enforcement of the code, because we can't if we adopt the new code and we don't enforce it really right back here again. But let me just say and some of this I'm taking from from things that have been written to me, and I'm happy to share this with people. So some of the things that we have going on here, the current code doesn't address or define processing requirements for winery and adult beverage businesses. In other words, no production is required on site under current code. So folks who say there should be more than one step, two steps, there should be all steps, no steps currently required in order to be legal. If the current code were enforced. Wineries, adult beverage businesses would not be required to conduct any stage of production of their product on site. The state issued liquor licenses without requiring production at the state address for the license. That happens as well. There's no definition of an event in our current code. So what's an event and how do we actually manage events if we don't have a definition of what an event is? Probably the clearest example of inadequacy in the current code is that we don't know how many of them there are or where they're located. If a business is operating as a home, occupation or industry, it doesn't even need a permit. So we don't know where they are. They require a ton of other things, you know, clearing and grading and pervious services and other. But they don't require a use permit under current under current rules. So that's why this new proposal, as it came to us from the executive and still contains today a requirement for a business license and establishing some definitions so that we can identify and regulate businesses. I want to remind everybody that businesses, even if they're allowed under this code, will still be subject to all other portions of county code, including critical areas, building codes, public health codes, which include septic and all of that. I will say that. Yeah. I'm just going to pause there. The current code also doesn't include adequate mitigating provisions for impacts related to traffic, parking, arterial access. Number of guests allowed at events and hours of operation. None of that is in current code. So I believe that this code helps us in the sense that it establishes clear parameters. It allows some businesses to continue, but at a smaller scale. And that's what we're hearing from the businesses, that they will be at a smaller scale. You know, I, I there are and will be businesses in unincorporated King County outside the unincorporated growth boundary. That's just the case. But there should be an appropriate size and scale, and that's what some of the requirements in this code do. I will also say that I believe that a large part of the challenge in the Sammamish Valley is development in the city. The city boundaries are such there that there is a a carve out. And if you were drawing the city boundaries today, I'm not sure you would do this. That allows a large number of wineries, a growing number of wineries. There's a large new development that's in process right now, as my understanding, in the same general area that has all the same impacts of traffic and people drinking and and pervious surfaces and all of it. But it's in the city boundaries just across the street from where we're talking about. So the majority of this activity is out of our control. So we're trying to set reasonable regulations, a reasonable approach. I mean, I would not be in favor of this. I would not have proposed it if I thought it was going to lead to a massive expansion of environmentally damaging activities in this area. I do not believe that. I don't. And I know that you all believe it. And I know you believe it earnestly, but I don't believe it. And so I think this is a very fair and balanced code, and I think we should pass it. But right now, it's being proposed to pass out of this committee without recommendation so that we can get to the next step, which is another 30 day comment period. And so you all you don't have to come down to do it, but you can continue emailing us and you can send me the email that says CPA and all of that. Okay. When you when you pass something that's more restrictive, you don't do an environmental analysis because it's more restrictive. You're doing environmental analysis when it's less restrictive, when you're allowing more impacts. So that's why there was a determination on significance here. Okay, I'm going to stop now. I would urge my colleagues to move to the next step and to just get to a place where we can have an up or down vote at final council. Thank you for the discussion, Councilmember Gossett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask Councilman or about duty a question, if I may. Councilman, a bit about duty to yield to a question. Here at first. Okay. What's your question? Remember Gossett? Yeah. In the book, I was struck by the number of people that said that last speculation is killing farmland and that we are allowing it. But just listening to your explanation a moment ago, you said things like, well, we don't we we don't necessarily have certain kinds of regulations. So someone can start, what, a house or an unincorporated area. Turn it into a tasting room or something. And then that was probably all right. So are you saying that although that might be true globally. We can't necessarily say that every structure out of an unincorporated area that's now facing no more or some other purpose related to distilleries and wineries, it's not explicitly that they went out there completely illegal, and the only reason they're there is because we didn't enforce it left in the U.S.. Mark, you were saying it's much more complicated than that. And I heard a lot of questions in there. Councilmember, you do my very best. Okay. So with regard to the your your frame of speculation, speculation is a huge problem in the Sandwich Valley and probably elsewhere. I'm most familiar with the Spanish Valley in my district. I, as you know, very well represented the city of Bellevue before I came here. And so it was a great surprise to me upon being elected to this position and knowing what I knew from following the issues of the farmland preservation fight of some decades ago, and where and all the different subsequent waves of that soccer fields and everything else we've talked about. I was very surprised when people started coming into my office almost right away and rolling out their their big drawings and saying, This is what I would like to do with the property that I own in the Spanish Valley, Arizona. And I would look at it and I would say, but you can't do that in the Sammamish Valley and you can't build all those homes. You can't build that giant one. You can't but whatever it was that the person was coming. And so I think that the lack of clarity in the code and exacerbated by the fact that this has been pending for so long, I mean, it's been with us for a long time, but it's been an under discussion for years that has contributed to speculation. I think putting this to bed will be the only thing we can do to help start to quell speculation. But truthfully, land values are just up everywhere. So I think the land values will continue to be up. But I think we are feeding speculation by our failure to act and by the lack of clarity in our code in the ag zone. And so that would be my answer to your overall question. When you say is it more complicated about violations of code versus the clarity of the code? I think there is a wide spectrum of what's going on out in the world. I think there are some places where you have or had owners that just didn't follow. The cop knew it, chose not to follow it, and now are like in this position where when we finally get done, there will have to be some enforcement. I know personally of businesses who have tried very, very hard to follow our code. They understood it, they tried to follow it. And they have been actually pointed out of times as good actors and they still can't get themselves permitted. So I think there's a wide range of good, good and bad actors, if you will, out there in the world. I hope that answers your question, Councilman. I thank you. Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, as we've just been talking about code enforcement, and that's come up quite a bit, how to what extent do you believe the language of this striking amendment will take care of this issue? Are we still going to have gray areas? Will people likely still be able to disregard the rules and the codes and are or will there be ample enforcement? And I'm sure so. You don't know all of that yet. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Colwell, I can say that we worked very closely with the Department of Permitting and asked them to review all of our proposals with the lens of can I enforce this? So let's just say, for example, the content product requirement, the 60% of your content has to come from Puget Sound counties. Deeper tells us that that is very hard to enforce because their ability to figure out where the grapes came from that are sitting in the bottles of wine that are on the shelf is limited to none. And so we tried to do things like set numerical targets, certain percentage of floor area to move away from home occupancies where they have to do things like determine does that person who points at that can't actually live here? You know, I mean, we're trying to get away from standards that are very hard to enforce. And we tried to get to standards that were objective and easy to enforce. And we tried to do that in in working with deeper. And my understanding is that they support the standards in this code. Maybe, I don't know, I'd have to ask them if that's a universal thing. But we tried to get to a place where they felt they could enforce the code with appropriate resources, which, as I said , are coming with the budget. It's coming to us as part of our budget deliberations. For the discussion. All those in favor of striking amendment S1 as amended, please signify by saying I. I oppose me. The ayes have it. That that brings us to. Ordinance? I don't know. Time to teach you a title amendment? Yes. Title of the amendment to Councilmember Bell to. Remove teacher. Title amendment two as before. I see no discussion. All those in favor. Please say I oppose nay. The ayes have it. Total Amendment two is adopted. Ordinance 2018 241.2 as amended. Further discussion Council member up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think members probably know this, but I understand the motion is to move it out without recommendation. I just wanted the record to reflect that. My willingness to move it out, to vote yes on moving something forth out recommendation is not indicative of necessarily support the underlying ordinance. Thank you for the discussion. Councilmember Caldwell. Mr. Chair, thank you. I also would like to say the same thing as was just said by Councilmember at the Grove. I have some serious reservations about this, but I'm willing to vote for it, to move it forward so that we can try to protect it. Thank you. Thank you. See? Nothing further. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell. Duchin. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. I. Council Member Basin II. Council Member Cornwall Council Member Lambert Council Member of the Group. Councilmember one Right. Mr. Chair. All right. Mr. Chair, the vote is a nice one. Thank you. By your vote, we have advanced ordinance 2018 241.2, as amended out of committee to full council. There is a required advertised hearing. Possible amendments would be submitted to staff to be part. I'm included as part of that advertising. And so with in the advertising period is 30 days once it starts. So letting you know it will not. The regular course of action for a normal ordinance that doesn't require an advertising period would be for it to become come before a full council a week from this coming Wednesday. That is not the case. It will be more than 30 days from now in order to gather anything that needs to be advertised as part of the public hearing and then have the 30 day advertising period. So with that, Councilmember Lambert. Wanted to know if there's any part of this we should turn back in so we don't keep killing the same trees or different trees. All of this goes out to recycling thing. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you. Thank was. Chair.