I will welcome everybody.

I will call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, February 24th, 2026.

Please join me for a flag salute.

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.

The Assembly of the City and Borough of Sitka would like to respectfully acknowledge the traditional first people of Sheetka.

With gratitude, we proceed on Clinkett Ani.

Sarah Roll Call, please.

Mayor Eisenbeis.

Present.

Mr.

Pike.

Here.

Miss Carlson.

Here.

Ms.

Riley.

Here.

Mr.

Christensen.

Here.

Mr.

Mosier.

Here.

And Mr.

Slain.

Thank you.

Any correspondence or agenda changes this evening?

I see none.

There are no ceremonial matters.

This would bring us to special reports.

Our first scheduled report this evening is Sica Tribe of Alaska Tribal Council, Alena Peterson.

We made it.

All right, we will stand by for her and we'll invite the school board up.

Phil.

I don't want to kind of think he didn't want to represent it.

That's what I was just saying.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, Phil Burdick, SICKA School Board President.

Start with the good news.

Ben and his staff presented to the legislature about the success that that program has been for the last decade plus.

And we just want to give a huge shout out to the community to support that and keeping DYP alive.

It's always a highlight of the year.

And it's the best thing since sliced bread, say students.

Kindergarten sign up is happening, so if you have or know of anyone who uh is kindergarten age, please get them signed up earlier the better, so we know we can firm up our count.

It's always a good thing.

Um the school climate and connectedness survey, which is um what's the word I'm looking for?

Handed out by Alaskan Association of School Boards is sent out.

That survey was sent out to families last week.

Um it's live until March 20th.

So if you have students in the district, I encourage families to fill that out.

Student and staff surveys went out Monday.

Um it's real short.

I took it since I do have a student, uh five or ten minutes, and we use that data to help guide programming, community needs, and overall mental well-being of students, staff, and families.

So we take it very seriously.

Um I'd like to apologize to city staff for the late cancellation of the school visits.

We had some confusion around the purpose and the timing of those visits, and so I want to thank them for their flexibility.

Uh we got our final audit report last week.

Finally, we did have a couple of findings, um, but they were cleaned up and clarified to the board's satisfaction.

Uh, which brings me to the less good news, which is our budget.

Um, due to those audit findings and fixing them so they don't continue to roll over.

Staff turnover and training needs in the business office and an overestimation of student count, and of course, the anticipated cost increases that we've all been feeling, we'll be entering the next fiscal year facing a deficit.

And we don't know what that final number is yet.

We're still finding ways to reduce, including spending freezes and offering a retirement incentive that may shift those numbers to some extent, but it's not the rosy picture that I had painted when I came and talked to you last month.

Um we'll figure out and take responsibility for our actions, but I do want to remind everybody and remember how we got here at all, and that's the fact that the state flat funded education since 2012 and last year's increase was still half of what districts needed to keep up with inflation.

So continue to write and call your legislators and remind them of their constitutionally mandated duty, and we will do all that we can on our end.

Um I wish that I could have had better news, but I did want to let you all know that this is not what we had thought in the beginning.

So I'm sure we'll be chatting.

Uh great, thank you.

If that does require an additional work session, uh reach out and we'll see if we can arrange something.

Moving on under special reports tonight.

Uh assessing Larry, please.

Good evening, assembly and mayor.

Uh Larry Reader, I'm the assessing director.

Uh the assessing department operates with three full-time employees.

We currently have an opening for our appraisal technician position.

So there's myself and Casey Kinslow currently.

We're continuing our reappraisal that we've had.

It's our fifth year of the residential properties in Sitka.

Um we're working, we start in the South End, we're out on HPR.

We still have a couple more weeks.

We might finish, we might lead into a sixth year, but a six-year cycle would be healthy for reappraisal moving forward.

Uh the reappraisal project that brought values closer to the full and true value required by Alaska statutes.

Uh our appraiser, Casey Kinslow continues her outstanding work and growth as a professional property appraiser.

Uh Casey has earned a level two Alaska certification and has worked tirelessly on our reappraisal project.

Her effort and accuracy have been outstanding.

Casey also helps to maintain our daily work, such as handling public inquiries, processing exemption applications, and maintaining our files.

For myself, uh I've been working on reapproising the new construction and also analyzing sales data to determine our annual market trend of real estate.

Uh at this point, it appears the SICA real estate market is still increasing.

We're trying to catch up.

We've done a good job of that getting closer.

That helps us to determine these trends that need to be applied annually.

Uh, they have not over the years.

It's created this situation where we're going out, and it might have been eight, ten years.

And so if we're bringing them to market after eight to ten years here in Sitka, they're seeing big increases.

They don't like it because they know what that means.

It's hard for us to deal with as well.

And it if we do this trending every year, then we go around reappraise, it shouldn't be such a big deal.

And I think that offers a lot better service to the property owners than going around every eight to twelve years and basically hit them with a sledgehammer.

Here you go, double the tax bill right here.

So that should work.

Uh this year, I actually did the trending yesterday, and we uh added three percent to the property values.

Uh it's a conservative trend uh from the data that I crunched.

Uh, but we're gonna do it just to make it part of our process, and we'll see what it looks like next year.

Each each step gets us closer.

Um applying market trends annually will help, like I said, minimize the impact of reappraisal to our property owners.

Uh we will send out our 26 value notices on March 16th.

And as of now, we're a little over halfway through the year, and we used actually 52 percent of our operating budget.

Questions or comments, insults.

So thank you for that.

Um, that's helpful to say.

I know you've been working on that trend, market trends for a while now.

Um, we've been hearing about it at these these quarterly reports.

So is it true to say that that time has come in in those little cards that get mailed out next year?

Property owners will see a three percent increase.

This year, yeah, they'll see a three percent increase this year.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Larry.

Appreciate it.

Yeah, and on uh special continuing on with scheduled special reports, uh Secretary of Alaska Tribal Council, Alena.

Welcome.

Hello, good evening.

My name is Elena Peterson.

I'm the vice chair for the SICA tribe of Alaska, and uh Yadi Kuka, our chairwoman couldn't be here tonight, so I am here in her absence.

Uh I've got a few items just to update at our February 18th tribal council meeting.

The council approved the scholarship ordinance on second reading.

So that goes through three readings.

So there's gonna be one more.

Um, and so that's been getting some edits, and then we also improved enrollment resolutions, our administrative priorities, and our fourth quarter financials.

Uh, we also appointed um some a new person to the Coyani Commission and Natural Resources Committees, and we also approved the invasive plant management plan, um, which I was excited.

I was just in the county uh commission meeting last night, and I'm excited to see that.

So that'll become more public now that that's been approved.

Um the tribal council also considered three uh recommendations and approved them that had to do with some of our capital projects.

So the first one is suspending further design work for the bus maintenance facility at the current proposed site and initiating an evaluation of alternative sites and approaches.

The next one was authorizing staff to expand the architectural design scope for the RPD or the healing house.

This is our resource protection department uh building to include a two-building option.

And then the third was to engage a consultant and an architectural form firm to evaluate the feasibility of rehabilitating or replacing the 456 educational building.

That's 456 Catlian.

Um I also wanted to share about the ATU repatriation.

At oo is our sacred objects, and if you saw in the news or were part of the um uh the CUIK, uh, we at U repatriated some of our ATU and other important cultural items, and this has been a priority for the SICA tribal council.

So we can, as a tribe file repatriation claims under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, also known as NAGPRA, and other similar similar statutes that facilitate the return of items that museums across the country and universities and other uh uh entities are wrongfully possessing.

And so in the past year, STA successfully returned many of these clan objects, home to SICA, including a sculpin hat and a shakiat, which is a headdress.

Uh the sculpin or the bullheadfish is a secondary crest of the Kixadi clan.

Five Cogwantan hats also came back, a wolf helmet, a gnu cat, a noble killer hat, an eagle hat, a shark helmet, and the Kalyan helmet, also known as um Catlan's helmet.

And so STA's goal is to continue bringing similar items back to SICA and their clans and to offer safe storage for objects with the help of a new cultural repository.

This is very exciting.

And um, I also want to flag that the 11th Heritage and Cultural Tourism Conference is coming up.

This will be held here in SICA March 17th through 19th.

The theme this year is catalysts of authenticity and innovation, and uh the event will include opportunities to learn from industry leaders and travel and tourism experts.

Uh, it will also offer technical training, workshops in partnership with local organizations and nonprofits and certifications for participants.

And so you can register now through our website and a couple other upcoming events.

Um STA is offering many events for citizens and the community at large, including the spring equinox celebration on March 13th, a community elder coffee time on March 11th, and family fun game night on March 20th.

And so we hope to see folks there.

And if you want to see all the upcoming events and meetings and things that are happening within the tribe, just visit our calendar of events at our website, sicatribe.org.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, appreciate the report.

Moving on in special reports this evening.

Is there anyone here for government to government, municipal boards, commissions, committees, municipal departments?

We already heard from the school district.

That'll bring us to persons to be heard.

This is public participation for any item off of tonight's agenda, not to exceed three minutes for any individual.

Good evening.

My name is Leah Mason, and I wanted to bring to the assembly and the community's attention some opportunities to um contribute to the sustainability of our community.

One is that I wanted to report that the Sitka Community Garden Association has a couple of plots left.

Um we have managed to recruit more than 30 people to Garden in this first season.

So thank you to everybody who's been involved.

And if people are still interested in gaking on a garden plot, there are still some available.

Secondly, we have some opportunities for citizens of Sitka to acquire heat pumps at some incredibly impressive uh prices due to incentives that are being provided through the heat pump incentive program, accelerating clean energy savings.

There is a no income cap of $4,000 for a heat pump system for any person who uh qualifies.

Um more information will be available on Saturday at the library at 1 p.m.

where Maureen Hanlin will be talking about the program.

For people who are on lower incomes, we may be able to access incentives of between 6,000 and 8,000 five hundred.

So this is an amazing opportunity, and people should take advantage of it.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Richard Ween.

It's been a long time since I've been here, and I've definitely missed you all truly.

I have.

And like the I wasn't planning on coming out, but the like the moth to the flame, I am irresistibly drawn to the persons to be heard.

So I quickly picked some topics which I thought were of interest.

Uh it needs to be interest of everyone, but um I I hope it might be something important for you, especially um with a what has been going on, certainly um around town, and I I won't be uh specifics, but there was a very large study um which showed that uh and you know, a little recreational marijuana is okidoki.

But um, when you start moving into chronics, what they've noticed is a lot of young people are moving into chronic usage of marijuana.

And um it turns out that um, and this has been well known after many, many different uh studies that uh teens are very susceptible uh to um psychiatric psych psychotic disorders, and I think this is very important.

Uh we've opened up our fourth dispensary here on the uh next uh statewide um election.

There may be a referendum for mushrooms, um medicinal, of course.

Um there are just lots of things going on here as it relates to our children, but I don't think we are addressing any of them.

17% of teens, young people are on SSRIs for antidepressants.

And believe it or not, um SSRIs have a high incidence of suicidal ideation.

Suicidal ideation.

And that reminds me of what I've been reading about of the epidemic at Mount Itchcombe.

And uh one of my questions would be um, what is the medicative use at that institution?

It needs to be evaluated and adjusted to develop healthier individuals.

I think just reflexly giving medications to children is what has been the habit here in the United States, and I believe Sitka is no different.

So think of your friends, families, et cetera.

How many of their children are on these psychotropic medications?

So time is the only currency that we spend where we don't know the balance, so please use it wisely.

Thank you.

And don't smoke so much.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly.

I am Rachel Roy, and I'm the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director.

Um I wanted to bring back a topic that we have brought up in other circles and and around this table before.

Um, but it's about accessing and being able to participate in board and commission meetings remotely.

And the um the happened to me this week, but happens to I think a lot of folks is that big important things are discussed and worked on, and that's really the place where a lot of that work can happen and having stakeholders available in the room and also to be able to hear and then also reflect on or watch the meeting after the meeting has taken place would be another way to be able to have just greater transparency, greater opportunity for collaboration and understanding of of what's happening in those rooms.

Um I know that as technology has developed, we have way better ability to do that.

Uh recording our meetings helps with creating the minutes and and those follow-ups.

I know the staff come out with big follow-up lists.

But not sharing those means that maybe that person that didn't have child care, which was my case on Tuesday night, was I weren't able, I wasn't able to be in the room, so I either have to wait until the minutes are out in a month from now, hear it second hand, or be it um have to put in a person like a records uh request, which I know that's on the agenda coming up to be able to have better um access to records, but I just think that that you know, including the Zoom link in the agenda of the meeting that already exists because there's a Zoom link created for um for those meetings on the agenda would mean that um community members, stakeholders, and you know, and citizens would be able to participate um in the boards and commission meetings as they are through this an email to staff.

It's it's a lot of staff time.

I think you can request a link, but then you know what if that staff person doesn't see it and you're missing the meeting.

Um I think uh this would be really I the simplest would be adding that link into the agendas, um, and then you know, if there is a place where uh recordings can be accessed and viewed, it would just be really helpful as we're all trying to work together and um and you know I want I want to be there uh even if I can't be there in person.

Thank you.

Anyone else for persons to be heard?

Any item not on tonight's agenda.

Uh thank you.

Seeing none, that'll bring us to consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of item A, approve the health needs and human services commission 2026 goals.

Second, it's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda.

Is there in public comment?

Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve um the consent agenda consisting of item A, Mr.

Pike.

Yes, Ms.

Carlson?

Yes, Mr.

Celine, yes, Mr.

Mosier, yes, Ms.

Riley, yes, Mr.

Christensen, yes, Mayor Eisenbeis.

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0 on item A.

Uh, thank you.

And before we get into unfinished business this evening, uh, as the Board of Adjustment cannot extend the meeting uh this evening, I would like to make a motion to extend the meeting till 11 o'clock.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to extend the meeting.

Uh Sarah is this a debatable motion?

I'm sorry, I don't remember.

I don't think so, right?

No.

Um Sarah on extending till 11.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Christianson?

Yes.

And Mr.

Steline.

Yes.

The motion to extend the meeting to 11 p.m.

passes 7-0.

Uh, thank you.

That just allows us to continue our business this evening.

Uh, should we be halfway or hopefully more than halfway through our board of adjustment, but uh allows us a little bit of leeway this evening.

Um moving on to unfinished business item B, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2026-03 on second and final reading, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026 mid-year.

Second.

Further assembly deliberation.

Thank you guys for handling it without me.

There was quite a few on there, so appreciate it.

Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-03 on second and final reading.

Mr.

Christianson.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Selene?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Motion passes 70 on item B.

Thank you.

That'll bring us to new businesses evening item C, please.

I move to approve orders 202604 on first reading and pending Title 1 of the Circuit General Code by adding chapter 1.41, Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II enactment.

Second.

Thank you.

Um, John, I understand Melissa is here to give an introduction.

And she remembered the memo from last time.

Right.

Speedy.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly members.

Melissa Lounis, public and government relations director.

So this ordinance replaces the 1996 Americans with Disabilities Acts policy, which functioned as an internal administrative procedure rather than a permanent section of the code.

So this proposed ordinance formally incorporates this ADA Title II compliance into the SICA General Code.

I have to thank the legal department for the writing of it and the heavy lifting.

Title II of the ADA applies to state and local governments.

This ordinance does several things.

It establishes a clear policy of non-discrimination in city programs and services and facilities.

It establishes procedures for filing complaints and requesting for of a fair hearing and requires annual ADA related policies and procedures.

So I appreciate the recognition of a lack of area of code and understand that this will be a work in progress as we go forward.

This is not the final end all be all, and we will continue to improve and get better as uh time goes on.

Anything else?

Sarah All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2026 04 on first reading, Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

And Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Motion passes 70 first reading on item C.

Thank you.

Item D, please.

Move to approve ordinance 2026-05 on first reading, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 2026 body worn cameras.

Second.

Second.

The police chief is here to introduce.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Police Chief Chad Gaydon.

Before I present this to you, I'd like to take a moment just to thank some people who got us this far because without their help, I would not be here before you tonight.

First is Gail Roderick from the Police and Fire Commission, who's been a driver of the body worn camera proposition since the day I got here.

Second is Brooke Volschenck and her entire uh staff at the finance department, especially Tori Stevens, who went through the entire contract for me.

And last is Grant Turner, the IT department head, whose department will actually be paying for these if approved.

So I would like to, like I said, thank all of them.

I am fond of saying in government that the easy answers have all been taken.

Meaning the people that came before us did the easy stuff and left us with the hard decisions, right?

It's not often that you have an opportunity to do something that seems to be unanimously supported by everybody, the officers, the community, everybody.

And that's what I'm bringing you here tonight.

Is this proposition for supplemental funding, which would fund our body worn camera program for this fiscal year?

And in future years, it would go into the IT department's uh budget because essentially what we are buying is software as a service, and they throw in the cameras for free.

So the cost really comes from the licensing and from the um uh software, if you will.

And so for that reason, um I come before you to ask for a supplemental fund of uh supplemental funding amount of 14,736 dollars for this fiscal year.

And as I said, going forward in future years, it would be automatically included in the budget.

This is for a five-year contract.

Uh thank you for the introduction.

If we have further questions, we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Is there any public comment on ordinance 26-05?

Richard Wien.

I hope this is something where it'll be a 7-0.

This is kind of a no-brainer.

In Plato's second book of the Republic, I'm sure everybody has it at their bedside.

There is the concept of the ring of Gaius, which offered instant invisibility to the wearer.

And the question that Plato had asked was will the individual who wears this still remain honest?

Still remain honest if they have the ability to proceed, excuse me, to proceed without someone's knowledge with the gift of invisibility.

And we've seen on both sides of the issue that police worn cameras represent, I think, an important advancement in law enforcement.

And I think that clearly you should vote for it.

And by the way, Plato's conclusion was that if granted invisibility, you would not remain an honest player.

You would not remain an honest individual.

And I think that's why these body worn cameras are or something that can help.

And actually it can help our our uh police officers the most.

Thank you.

Any other public comment on 26-05 assembly deliberation?

JJ?

I've got a question for the police chief.

If you want to come back up, please on you.

You're making your way forward.

Um I'll start talking.

Um, you know, we doesn't seem like you know much money, 14,000.

Uh but the also the impact would be staff time and staff availability.

And um, you know, new technology, um, training comes with that.

Uh, do you guys have capacity?

I wouldn't want to put any burden um on your employees for you know doing something else with their limited time and resources.

Sure, and I appreciate your respect for our limited resources at the time.

Quite frankly, we don't know what we don't know because we are starting this program from scratch.

I do know that the vendor that we have selected acts on has automated redaction.

Obviously, that has to be set up by a person and checked by a person, but it's not like the person is having to go through and redact a face or something out of every frame of a video.

So that will certainly reduce our staff time.

It is being stored in the cloud, so it's not a server that the IT department would have to maintain or replace, et cetera.

So that that's another reason that we went with this company is because we think of all of our options this company reduces our future burden the most.

It is reasonable to expect that the more body worn footage we have, the more public records requests there will be.

Um but I I certainly am just as a citizen, let alone as a police chief.

I think that this is a burden that the department is gonna have to bear to meet the reasonable expectation of the public.

Yes.

Yes, that leads into you know other concerns for other departments as well.

Um do you anticipate or you know, you've been researching this.

You said finance has been really helpful.

Um have you seen a need for other communities um kind of coming up with different ordinances to help guide this process?

That will be our next step.

I didn't want to put the cart before the horse, but I think the next thing to do would be to create a policy.

I guess if there's anything good about us being the last department, not the last, but perhaps one of the last departments in the state, much less the country to do this.

We have thousands of police department policies to review and choose um, so we we're not um forging new ground there, but I very much would be a proponent of whatever policy we create to have that uh open to the public so they have input before the final implementation before the program's in place.

Great.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

You know, you're we look at your org chart every time you come up with the quarterly report, and it it's stretched thin, so I wouldn't want to you know vote for something, even though you brought it forward, um, that that would make things um more challenging for you guys.

So I appreciate that insight.

Thank you.

Anything else for the chief while he's up here, Tor.

Just real quick, that I it you said you researched it fairly well, and I I read my packet over the weekend, and I found out today that this is what the LAPD loses uses the exact same system.

So I assume that it that I don't know if that was a factor, but uh the LAPD no, the Alaska State Troopers, yes.

The do the State Department of Law, yes.

So all of our evidence generated through these body worn cameras will transition seamlessly to the DA's office because it's all the same ecosystem, as well as our new uh video camera or dash cams for our vehicles going forward.

Katie?

I'm just curious, how long do we have to retain these records for?

Do you know?

Is that like a standard from the DA's office or I don't know the answer to that, and that would be something that we're gonna have to work with uh as far as getting into uh municipal code about records and certainly these qualify as records, so we do have a retention schedule we'd have to follow, but I am not an expert on that.

Thank you.

But again, they're stored in the cloud, so it's not like we are using up city resources to store them.

It's just sometimes when you store things in the cloud, they make you pay for the increased levels of cloud service and so everything that is generated by these cameras, we have unlimited storage for.

Okay.

If we start to put other evidence in there, for example, somebody comes to us with something that they got from the ring doorbell, then we might have to start pay for that when we cross the threshold.

But all footage uh generated by these cameras has unlimited storage in the contract.

I don't know what happens if five years from now we change vendors.

Now we may have to download all of that and put it on our servers, but that's for a future chief to worry about.

Oh, it's kind of hard to follow that one up.

Uh so blunt and so true.

Um Chief, I think uh I think I heard you answer my question, um, but it was just around use policy.

Um it sounds like that that policy is going to be be developed next because obviously there's times where these cameras should not be on, i.e.

bathroom breaks.

Um, but I I think for the protection of the public, they they should be on when an officer is out and about.

So uh that's gonna that'll happen in the next steps, and it sounds like you're looking for robust public input on that policy.

Yes, and and the one thing I want to caution people about is there are times when people's right to privacy exceeds the public's right to know.

If we go into somebody's home, does the public have a right to know what you have on your walls?

I don't think so.

And I think Alaska's constitution is a strong protector of that right to privacy.

So that kind of thing.

Certainly, you may have the right to know that we went and contacted this person in their home, but I don't think any of us would want the contents of our home put out there on public video for the world to see.

So it's those kinds of things we're gonna have to address in our policy.

Perfect.

It sounds like you have a great handle on it.

Um, and this is not one that the next chief should deal with because you're starting the process, so you're in it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else for Chief Willie's up here, Kevin?

Oh, I just say thank you.

Uh really appreciate it.

It's a long time coming.

Uh really really appreciate it.

I think the community and uh is very interested in this and appreciative, and I think the officers will appreciate it too.

I think a win-win for everybody.

I agree, and I thank you for your support.

This was one of the four things I really wanted to accomplish in my time here.

And so I am grateful for the opportunity to finally bring it before you appreciate it.

Further assembly deliberation.

Sarah.

I just wanted to invite the community to the um meeting, I believe, next week on March 4th.

Is that correct?

Um you're giving a presentation.

It might just be pertinent.

March 3rd.

In this room at what time?

7 o'clock on um police use of force.

So for folks that are interested in that and the steps that the department is taking to uh communicate and bring awareness to that, I think that's a great tie-in to this ordinance.

Thanks.

Sarah.

Right.

On the motion to approve ordinance 2026-05 on first reading, Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

And Miss Riley, yes.

Motion passes 70 on first reading.

And then a follow-up ordinance item E, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2026 on first reading, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026.

Pub records request software.

Second.

That's been moved and segmented to approve ordinance 26-06.

Uh Sarah, have an introduction on this.

Yes.

Uh so just a couple of months ago, our office submitted a resource proposal request for the FY27 budget to purchase next request, which is an online platform that's designed to manage public records requests.

Um, the resource proposal requests aligns with the strategic plan and was preliminarily approved for inclusion in the draft budget.

But um, the demand for public records requests continues to increase.

Uh so to improve efficiency and to better serve the public, we would like to move forward with implementation now rather than waiting until the new fiscal year.

Uh the timeline for implementation is approximately seven weeks.

Uh the appropriation requests is just under 21,000.

Um it covers implementation costs and then the first two years of service.

Um so with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Holly.

She has um a few day few details to share about our current process and then the software.

You want to mic to do that?

So what we do now with a records request is that we start with a PDF, which is available online or in paper at the clerk's office.

And the requester fills out that request, they submit it to us, we route it, we get the records, and we get that request back to them.

And this process right now is being tracked through emails, a spreadsheet, and sticky notes.

So like Sarah said, that this has been in we've had our increase in rec requests over the years.

And last year we processed over 200.

And so far this year we have had 44 requests received already, and that's more than one per working day.

We're at the 36th working day right now.

So a few key highlights about the software.

Um one is it provides automatic um automated processes.

A lot of the manual steps that we do with the emails, the email confirmations, getting back in touch with the requester and contacting staff for records.

A lot of that would happen automatically.

And all of that creates an audit trail for every single request.

So it's a lot better than the sticky note and Excel spreadsheet situation that we got.

And then for security, that's another question we've had.

Um next request is very secure.

It's specifically used by government offices to handle requests for public records, and it meets security rules that are important for handling sensitive information, very similar to the same type that banks use.

This will definitely help the requester as they're writing their request.

Um knowing how to word a request isn't exactly intuitive, and so it can be frustrating for the requester who's trying to ask for a record without knowing what documents there are, and it actually slows down the request as we communicate with them to try to uh nail down what they're asking for.

So with next requests, we'll have a clear instruction page that helps them provide some tools on how they can write a clear request, getting their records quicker and more efficiently.

And then one thing that's um really neat is um it'll provide pop-up alerts live while they're typing the request in.

Or if there are records that we don't house at the city, um it'll it'll catch that phrase and it'll say, here's a link to go to this is available at a different organization.

You can click here and find it.

Um so it helps them as they're um writing their requests as well, so it can um stirmin them in the correct location.

And lastly, there will still be paper forms available for those who prefer paper, and they would just turn that into us just like we are doing now, and then I'll enter that in next request for them.

Uh thank you.

Is there any public comment on ordinance 26-06?

Good evening, Richard Wien.

I use a lot of databases which um have integrated uh knowledge through many different, I'll say corporate divisions and so forth.

And um the way they've structured it is unified.

Um the databases are unified and they are connected.

And with the help of AI, um they can do um either through prompting or pointed questions, you can easily locate the most amazing information.

So my question to you is where is the city of Sitka in uh in unification of information for the city, and I mean throughout through all the departments and so forth, where you can start utilizing um uh current uh technology where it wouldn't be so onerous to locate documents and uh pull them up, and even better, um, it would be great to offer this to the public because we all talk about transparency where um citizens could uh access in a limited way um a lot of this information and maybe get the answers that they seek through um FOIA Freedom of Information Act.

Thank you.

So I'd like to know where we stand here.

Anyone else on 26-06 assembly deliberation?

Yeah, I very much support this.

Uh anything we can do to help the clerk's office.

Um I think it also is good to realize that the explosion in these requests is it free.

Um I think it also is good to realize that the explosion in these requests isn't free.

I mean it comes, it costs the city money.

And sometimes it and there's so many, it's a significant amount of money.

So anything we can do to reduce that load, we should.

So uh I will be supporting this.

John.

I'd just like to uh to add some information to this.

I think this will be um extremely helpful, especially as Holly said with the uh clarification of what the request that that I I just really want to emphasize that that they spend a lot of time trying to figure out what record the uh the person is actually looking for, and this system will help with that.

And I I also want to talk about um one of my visions has been to uh digitize as many of our records as we can, and I know Sarah and her team have done a great job with that.

It's been uh a challenge getting some, but we're we're moving in that direction.

I I you know we've celebrated that we're out of the storage center over there, and we've got a lot of things um scanned electronically and in laser fee, but um uh still our long-term vision is to get all that stuff centralized and uh open up some sort of portal where people can view information on a limited basis.

Um so re records requests don't have to come in for certain things, but um this system is just one more step to getting to that goal.

Uh Sarah or Clerks or Holly, I guess.

Um of the records requests that comes in, um some of them are, you know, I think it's fairly common for them to take a few hours, but we've also had numerous requests amounting in the tens of hours, correct?

Yeah, we have one right now that'll be about a 50-hour request.

That's not common.

But we do.

And and that doesn't include legal's time redacting it.

Or the clerks.

Yep.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Um so any time that we can take large and even you know, even the smaller ones off of the clerk's plate and automate it, I think is a great thing.

Uh, when we talk about 50 hours plus of staff time on a singular request, um we're we're getting up there on capacity issues for sure.

So uh thank you to the clerk's office for researching and finding this.

I hope it implements as smoothly as we all anticipate.

Uh and if not, I know Grant will be a great resource for you because I'm saying he will right now.

Thank you, Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance twenty twenty-six-06 on first reading, Mr.

Mosher.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

And Miss Carlson.

Yes.

Motion passes seven zero on first reading for item I, or excuse me, item E.

Uh, thank you.

We are a little uh before the hour now, but before we convene as a board of adjustment, I'd like to take a recess uh assembly, please be seated when you're ready to continue with our agenda this evening.

All right, the assembly is seated.

We'll get started in a minute here.

Okay, thank you everybody for joining us tonight for our board of adjustment.

Uh tonight the assembly will be meeting uh as the board of adjustment uh to consider an appeal of the planning commission's denial of a conditional use permit for a public transportation facility at 408 and 410 Oya Way's uh central business district uh filed by Chris McGraw on behalf of Sitka Dock Company LLC.

Um before we begin uh my outline of tonight and and the procedures, uh Deputy Mayor, I would like to disclose uh that my business does rent um a commercial space from Sitka Dock Company LLC.

Uh it's not in the area of this.

Uh I have no financial um benefit or detriment uh based off my decision, and I have no bias on this.

I also do not believe that uh my decision will impact my lease with Sitka Doc Company at all.

Thank you for disclosing that.

I do not find you have a conflict barring the assembly finding different.

Uh thank you for that.

Uh does anybody else have any disclosures on potential quasi uh judicial um or ex parte contact.

Uh thank you all.

Uh so tonight uh as we go forward, uh the assembly will need to uh convene as a board of adjustment.

Uh then we can hear the appeal.

Uh the process for tonight, uh the appellant will begin uh the appeal with their presentation.

Uh they will have 15 minutes to do as such.

Uh staff will then have an opportunity for um their presentation, 15 minutes as well.

And then we'll have uh testimony or comments uh by the public germaine to the matter.

Uh those will be three minutes per individual.

Um it would be helpful in this instance uh for the assembl for the board of adjustment um to when you when you come up and state your name for the record, um please state if if you are a neighbor who received a mailer or if you submitted comments initially to the um planning commission.

Um the assembly has to take those facts into consideration.

Um those who did not um those who did not respond at those two opportunities, um the assembly uh the the board of adjustment will hear the comments, um but we're not allowed to take those comments into consideration in tonight's hearing.

Uh Rachel, do I have that correct?

Did I state that correctly?

Uh that's right, because it's a quasi-judicial proceeding, uh you have to rely on testimony by parties, um, and parties includes people who got mailers and testified at the planning commission level.

Um everyone else is still allowed to express their their free speech rights, but in terms of what you can make a decision based on, it's it's a closed record.

Um and so it's it's what came in at the planning commission level um or or argument from those who got mailers.

Uh great, thank you.

Um you you said that more succinctly than I did.

Um and then after that, uh there will be a sponsor by uh an opportunity for the appellant uh for a rebuttal and or response uh clarifying statements.

That'll be a seven-minute period with the option for them to reserve some time for a closing statement.

Uh staff will have seven minutes for response rebuttal or clarifying statements, and then at that point, if um the appellant does have any closing statement with the remaining time of that seven minutes, they will have that opportunity.

At that point, the evidentiary proceedings shall be closed, and it will come back to us as a board of adjustment to deliberate on the matter beforehand.

Uh questions from us from the assembly who will be the board of adjustment.

And Rachel, did I miss anything on that?

Kevin.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, at some point are we going if we have questions up from the uh to the appellant or the staff, or will we be given a chance to ask those questions?

Yes, during the evidentiary portion, correct, Rachel.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good on your side.

Yes, Mayor.

And then the only thing that I would add to that is that uh tonight we do have Rachel as the Board of Adjustment, the Assembly's attorney representing us.

So if we have procedural questions, we we are able to ask.

A motion to convene as the Board of Adjustment.

I moved to convene as the Board of Adjustment.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

All right.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

We are convened as the Board of Adjustment.

That would start our procedures tonight with the appellants' presentation.

Sick adoption, uh Chris McGraw, you'll have uh 15 minutes once situated for your presentation.

All right, I'm just getting over cold, so bear with me.

My voice is a little bit scratchy.

All right, my name is Chris McGraw.

I'm the general manager for Sitka Dock Company, and we lease property at 408 and 410 Oyo A.

Um, I submitted a conditional use permit application to operate a shuttle drop-off location at this property for passengers arriving from our cruise ship dock.

The new location would allow for a shorter route, reduce the number of buses needed on the road, and reduce congestion in downtown Sitka.

I'm here asking the assembly to reverse the denial, or alternately to remand the matter to the commission with instructions to apply the correct legal criteria.

The standard for reversal is that the commission's findings are not supported by substantial evidence and/or the commission applied improper criteria, and both are true in this case.

Um before I get to the substance of the commission's findings, uh I wanted to point out one threshold problem with the vote of the commission.

Uh before I submitted my conditional use permit application, I consulted with the planning department and they issued a written determination that my use qualified as a public transportation facility under the zoning code, which requires a conditional use permit in the central business district.

Um at the December 17th hearing, one of the planning commissioners quote stated, if you look at the general code land use, public facilities use table.

While a public transportation facility is a conditional use in the CBD, this application is for a private shuttle bus drop-off.

If you look at the application, this is a direct quote on the application.

And not only is it a private shuttle bus drop-off, not a permitted or conditional use in the public facilities use table, it is not a permitted or conditional use in any of the land use tables.

This is what I am basing my vote on.

At the January 21st hearing, where the commissioner reaffirmed this reasoning, stating, quote, they voted to deny because the use was private and therefore did not fit within the zoning code.

Uh the stated reason is outside the five criteria outlined in the code that the planning commission is to determine the conditional use permit from.

So this has legal consequences.

The votes were cast on legally impermissible grounds.

The denial cannot be sustained.

Notably, the commission's findings do not reflect or cure this problem.

The findings attempt to justify the denial on proper criteria, but that doesn't undo the fact that the commissioner voted for an improper reason.

The procedure error alone re warrants reversal and remand of this decision.

All right.

Now on to the uh review of the findings.

So the commission found that my proposal may introduce hazardous conditions at the site, namely unacceptable levels of particulate pollution from busing operations, and it would be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare.

The commission found my proposal may introduce unacceptable levels of particular particulate pollution.

Um I have four issues with that.

First, there's no standard for what is acceptable or unacceptable in the code or in the findings.

So I have no idea what level of pollution I'm supposed to prove that I am above or below.

Second, the only thing in the record on this point is public testimony.

Neighbors' opinion about what they fear or speculate might happen.

This is not evidence of actual pollution levels.

Not a single measurement was taken, not a single study was cited, no air quality data, no emission analysis, no expert opinion.

Neighbor concern is not a substitute for facts, and it cannot support a finding of hazardous pollution levels.

Third, most importantly, the finding is somewhat factually backwards.

My proposal shortens the bus route traveled from the dock to downtown.

Fewer total miles means less total emissions, not more.

The commission made a pollution finding against the proposal that demonstrates reduced pollution compared to the current operations.

And fourth, every bus in my fleet is equipped with a diesel particular filter.

These remove 85 to 90% of the particulate matter from the exhaust.

The buses' particular emissions are on par with natural gas buses, which are recognized as the clean standard for transit.

The next finding that they noted was that Oil Way is a local or minor street, and it's not adequate for my proposal.

The Commission offered no factual basis on why Oyo Way is considered a minor street.

There's no traffic engineering analysis, no site distance study, no crash history, no comparison to defined classification standards.

Oil Way is the same size as all the other streets, city streets that have significantly more traffic than Oyo A does.

I also presented at the Planning Commission in my proposal that Oil Way historically has carried more traffic than what it would carry under my proposed plan.

In 1992, it carried roughly 612 vehicles per day in July, and in 2000, it carried 616 vehicles per day.

And based on the most recent traffic data provided by DOT, including the addition of my buses, would be at about 478 vehicles per day.

So the streets has successfully handled higher volumes than what I proposed.

The Commission identified no special deficiency deficiency, no turning radius problem, no site distance issues, and no drainage and no documented crash patterns.

They just made a conclusion based on their opinion.

The next item is the commission found that the conditions necessary to lessen the impact of my proposal could not be monitored or enforced.

So why does this finding fail?

This finding is purely conclusatory.

It does not explain which conditions cannot be enforced and why.

It does not identify what alternative conditions might work.

It simply asserts unenforceability with no reasoning.

My proposal includes on-site staffing during all operation hours.

I have employees present at the entire time of operations that make my conditions more enforceable than a typical conditional use permit, not less.

Conditional use permits routinely include conditions like noise limits, operating hours, parking requirements, etc.

None of these are easier to monitor than having a person physically on site.

The commission provided no explanation of why my specific conditions were insufficient.

The next finding related to the effects on the character of the surrounding vicinity.

That my plan would shift the area towards seasonal commercial activity.

The Commission applied a residential standard to a CBD zone.

The SICA General Code explicitly states that owners of residential uses in CBD must be aware and accept the impact of commercial uses, including higher levels of noise, traffic, and odor.

The Commission inverted this standard by treating neighbor residential comfort as a trump card over commercial use in a zone specifically designed for concentrated commercial activity.

Neighbor testimony about anticipated impacts is not the same as evidence of actual impacts.

The Commission's findings are built on what residents said they expect would happen, not about any traffic study, air quality measurements, noise assessments, or other objective data.

Speculation and fear about a use are not substantial evidence that the use will harm the character of the area.

On the seasonality, the commission found that a seasonal use would harm the area's year-round mixed use character.

This reasoning is backwards for the CBD in a tourism-dependent community like Sitka.

Downtown Sitka commercial activity is seasonal by nature.

Many CBD businesses are open primarily during the cruise season, a use that brings customers to seasonal businesses entirely consistent with the CBD's established character.

It does not undermine it.

The next finding was that it was that my plan was injurious to adjacent properties.

The Commission found that my proposal would be injurious to adjacent properties because of traffic, noise, odor, and pollution would significantly impact residents' quiet enjoyment privacy and outdoor spaces.

This finding relies on the same public testimony without evidence as the previous finding.

Neighbors describing prescribing what they fear is not a finding of injury.

It's an expression of concern.

The same CDB C B D code provision applies here.

Residential owners in the central business district accept commercial impacts as a condition of choosing to locate in a commercial zone.

Quiet enjoyment and outdoor privacy are not protected from commercial activity in the CBD.

My proposal included eight-foot acoustic fencing, physical barriers, and on-site staffing, mitigation measures specifically designed to protect adjacent properties.

Commission findings do not mention why these measures would not work.

A finding of injury that ignores my proposed protections is not a complete and fair evaluation.

The next finding was that my proposal was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

The commission found that my proposal was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Specifically, it would create open spaces of parking lots, contradicting high density infill goals, and it would promote seasonal use patterns undermining downtown vibrancy.

The finding that my proposal creates open spaces or parking lots is contradicted by the fact my application includes construction of a new multi-use building at 402 Edland Way with a ground floor retail and 20 residential apartments on the upper floors.

This is the exact kind of high density mixed-use infill development the comprehensive plan calls for.

On the vibrancy note and the compact and walkability CBD goal, the commission treats the shuttle drop-off as a threat to vibrancy, but the opposite is true.

A steady, organized flow of visitors delivering directly to the edge of the central business district creates a customer base for surrounding businesses.

The kind of reliable foot traffic is exactly what attracts new investment, new retail, new restaurants, new services to any area.

The Oyo Way site, precisely because it sits at the gateway to CBD, has the potential to catalyst catalyze the kind of ground floor commercial development at infill that the comprehensive plan's vibrancy goals are designed to encourage.

A controlled high volume pedestrian arrival point doesn't undermine a walkable walkable commercial district.

It is an engine that makes one viable.

A comprehensive plan, consistency finding requires considering the plan as a whole, not cherry picking one goal while ignoring the rest.

The last item I want to address is one observation about consistency.

The city designated location for my shuttle drop-off currently is here at Harrigan Centennial.

And it's the identical use I'm proposing on OIOA.

Based on the zoning code, those operations require a CUP just as they do on OIOA.

The Commission cited pollution, pedestrian safety to deny my application.

Those same impacts exist at Centennial Hall and to a greater level with because there's more buses than just my shuttles.

This includes activity from ships tendering to Herric and Sentenni Hall, tour operator activity, plus the many other uses that this facility sees.

I'm not asking for special treatment.

I'm asking to be evaluated on the same standard that the city applies to itself.

So to summarize, the commission's decision has two independent defects.

First, votes were cast on criteria that are not part of the required findings under code.

Second, the findings that were adopted are not supported by substantial evidence or facts on pollution, on street adequacy, and on forcibility.

I prepared my application in good faith.

I followed the process addressing the correct criteria and proposed detailed mitigation measures that were never evaluated.

I'm asking the assembly to give my application the fair consideration.

The planning commission did not.

I ask for you to reverse the denial and approve CUP 25-17 with appropriate conditions, or at a minimum, I ask you to remand to the planning commission with instructions to evaluate the correct five criteria, compare the operations to Harrigan to Centennial Hall operations from a pollution and pedestrian safety aspect, and apply objective, defined standards and give meaningful consideration to the proposal's mitigation measures.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

We will call you back up for your response.

Okay.

Amy, I understand you're here under staff presentation.

Thank you.

All right, good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Assembly members, Amy Ainsley, Planning and Community Development Director.

While I do have my role as staff, my primary role here tonight is to represent the Planning Commission's decision on this case and to defend it from the appeal that has been made.

If there are times where I'm asked for my opinion as staff, I'll do my best to clarify that that's the perspective I'm speaking at, and if at any time it's unclear, please let me know.

Speaking of roles, the role of the planning commission in this case is to you know evaluate the proposal against the evaluation criteria that are listed in code and to make the required findings that are also required in code.

And while we try as the best of our ability to put those things on objective terms, and I think largely the planning commission did that in this case, there are still some things that require objective measurements, such as things like adverse and adversely impacting or affecting the character of the surrounding area.

And so there's has to be some recognition at the start that we do our best to use objective information, but there is some subjective judgment that has to be supported and documented.

So that brings us to the role of the assembly tonight.

Your role as the Board of Adjustment is to decide did the planning commission make a sound decision based on the information that they had.

Did they fairly consider the case and all of the evidence presented to them?

Did staff and the commission follow the required procedures, and did the commission adequately document and support its decision in this permit case?

The planning commission did a very thoughtful and thorough consideration of this application, both through review of the application and its materials.

They specifically conducted a site visit with available commissioners to get a better sense of the area, followed the hearing procedures, took a significant amount of public comment, and also engaged in a really healthy deliberation on the case, as well as postponing the adoption of their findings to make sure that they were thorough and accurately capture the decision.

The required findings for granting a conditional use permit under Secret General Code 2210-160C has a list that was provided to you in your in your memo.

But largely speaking, the planning commission has to find that the granting of the permit will not result in negative impacts, say to public health and safety, the character of the surrounding area, or to other properties, that it's consistent with our comprehensive plan that conditions can be monitored and forced that hazardous conditions will not be introduced to the site and that will uh be supported by and not advertising public facilities and other services, and that the applicant has bears, both bears and has met their burden of proof such that the planning commission can make those findings.

Before going into any of the specific arguments laid out by the appellant, there's three kind of big pr big kind of picture things that I want to lay out in terms of the appeal.

The first is that the appeal does not seem to adequately or accurately represent what the burden of proof is in this case.

When the appellant in this case states that there was not adequate evidence regarding pollution, there was not adequate evidence regarding traffic impacts, the applicant bears the burden of proof to provide those things.

Absence such, the planning commission still made a reasonable decision.

If the applicant would like the opportunity to submit additional applic evidence, they should reapply for the permit.

Second, um, the questions about whether or not the commission adequately considered things like mitigations, compliment comprehensive plan consistency, or other plans.

The written appeal and what you've heard today is largely based on just the findings of fact, which is written to support the planning commission's decision.

It doesn't represent the entire record and everything that they went through and deliberated.

And in reviewing the rest of the record, I think you will find that the planning commission did adequately consider and deliberate on several of those factors.

The last is that the appellant has um kind of inconsistent logic about the scope of review, because in some cases he argues that the scope of the planning commission's review should have been limited just to his site and just to his proposal, and not consider off-site impacts or third-party behaviors.

But in other arguments, says that the planning commission should have broadened its scope to have a more holistic view of the downtown area, system-wide impacts and community conditions.

Um that was that's inconsistent in the application in the appellant's filing.

So let's go through a couple of uh the arguments that have been presented.

Regarding evidence um on bus pollution and sort of lack of an objective standard.

The app one is correct that we don't have a set standard for things like emissions or pollution standards in SICA General Code.

Um, but it's also important to not confuse emissions and pollution.

Those are two different things.

The planning commission's scope was not looking at system-wide or all of downtown's emissions and looking at whether or not there would be more or fewer buses that would result in fewer emissions generally.

They were looking at pollution impacts for sensitive uses that are immediately surrounding in the area.

So again, we have property owners that have a foundation less than a foot from the property line with windows that face a facility that will bust in 100 up to 150 large buses a day.

We have horticulture uses in the area.

We have an office building with fresh air intake that faces this direction.

These are reasonable conclusions that the that the planning commission drew.

And again, the applicant bears the burden of proof to show that this will not be detrimental.

In finding that the proposal may introduce hazardous conditions to the site, it is not their burden, the burden doesn't flip.

The applicant still has the burden to prove that it will not introduce hazardous conditions to to the site.

It doesn't become the planning commission's burden of proof to show that it will.

They had reasonable certainty that those that those were harms that could arise.

On the intent of the central business district, the commission did consider that in its deliberations, and residential uses in the area do have to tolerate higher levels of use and impact from commercial uses.

But that is not necessarily always the that is sorry.

That is part of the reason that we have some uses that are permitted and some uses that are conditional, so that we can weigh these things when there are regularly intensive uses.

And so the residential use in the area was a factor and was a legitimate one.

On the comprehensive plan, again, the applicant, the appellant in this case tries to argue that the commission as a whole did not include other elements of the comprehensive plan that were supported by the proposal, but they did.

That was a part of their deliberations.

They did weigh the multi-story development that was proposed versus the numerous parking lots that would be created by the proposal.

They did also weigh things like community vibrancy and whether or not having a seasonal use and concentrated visitor use in one area met those goals overall.

But on the whole, the negative impacts to the comprehensive plan goals outweighed the positive ones, and that's what's reflected in the findings as is appropriate.

The rest of the record shows that those things were considered and discussed, but ultimately did not weigh out in the appellants' favor.

Similarly, on the argument regarding mitigations, this was discussed by the planning commission.

The commission argued that there are some things that simply couldn't be mitigated as a result of this proposal.

Noise from buses coming and going to the site could not be mitigated by a no-idling policy.

Controlling pedestrian movements with signs might work to some extent, but couldn't control entirely, particularly not for pedestrians returning to the site from other areas of town.

They may not use the defined pedestrian path and would therefore potentially create cut-through traffic scenarios that the code does not want to see.

There's also some things that cannot be mitigated, like the comprehensive plan impacts regarding redevelopment of the area, seasonality, and how that impacts our the vibrancy goals related to the downtown area.

The commission also noted that some of the mitigations that were in place were commendable and were good, but there were some that were not adequate.

There were commissioners that noticed the noticed that the noise attenuation on the site was not adequate and that there were there was probably more that could be done to manage the exhaust and pollution that the was not included as a part of the proposal.

Again, these things were considered and they are a part of the record.

The applicant and appellate in this case also has an argument that there's too much reliance on speculative off-site impacts and other third-party behaviors.

As I started with, this logic is applied inconsistently because in some cases the commission was only supposed to look at the site and the direct actions of the applicant, but by their same logic, in other arguments, they should have expanded the scope of their review.

But overall, the planning commission again has to make findings that the granting of the permit will not result in certain negative impacts.

So downstream effects, knock-on effects or behaviors, whether on the part of the applicant or by others, are relevant factors that the commission would be remiss to not consider in any permit application.

Regarding the street adequacy and historical track traffic volumes, the commission noted that historical volumes were not necessarily that were considered from DOT data are not necessarily like for like because we're talking about large buses transiting the area in concentrated days and hours during the daytime.

This was so this was considered a not like for like comparison.

While there's some argument from the appellant that there that the evidence that they relied on was speculative regarding traffic safety, efficiency, turning radius, site distances, those types of things, it also bears noting that the applicants stated benefits regarding traffic were also speculative on his part.

The applicant bears the burden of proof.

If a traffic study were to be produced that helped to settle those questions, they could have, if those were a part of the record, that certainly would have been relevant, but they were not.

So again, lacking that kind of evidence, the question becomes whether or not the commission made a reasonable decision with the information that was made available to them.

And if the applicant wished to have more information or evidence regarding traffic benefits or detriments, then that should have been included in the record, or they should reapply and include it in such.

Again, this is where some of that inconsistency and logic is, right?

Are we only looking at the site, or are we looking at system wide?

I would say in this case, it is appropriate to look at system-wide impacts, and the planning commission did do so.

There was a lot of comparison about issues that were currently facing in the downtown area, how those might be better or might be worse.

Um, but again, ultimately, based on the required findings that the commission must make, they made the decision to deny the permit.

And on the Harrigan permitting specifically and the applicant's claim about sort of inconsistent treatment under the code, I wanted to note that you know the assembly has the authority to introduce land use regulations, whether through zoning or through other means.

We have in chapter six of the general code a specific section that talks about tour and excursion selling, you know, outfitting and those sorts of activities happening here at Centennial Hall.

I had a little bit of time to do some research on those, but those some of those regulations date back to at least 2003, and at that time that was a revision to a code that was already in place.

I was not able to find as far back as that previous code revision in the time that I had.

But again, these are long-standing legitimate land use regulations that the assembly has of you know of of today and have passed have decided to you know consider these kinds of uses here at Harrigan Centennial Hall, which is why it falls under a different part of the code.

On the last question regarding sort of improper basis of the decision and whether or not this is a public or private facility, and if a commissioner considered this to be you know a private facility and denied the permit on that basis, whether that would be inappropriate.

That was included in your in your packet for reference as well.

Um, and so the basis of the decision made should have been with the sort of settled fact that this was considered a public transportation facility under the zoning code and therefore required a conditional use permit.

I did want to note in the time that I had to review the record, there was one commissioner who made this comment, not two as had been previously stated in some of the appellants' filings.

Um, and Commissioner Alderson did state that that was you know that was a part of her decision.

Um, however, she started her deliberation talking about the reasons why she did not feel it constituted or why the why the permit met the requirements under the code, um, specifically listed some of the items such as the cut-through traffic scenarios from pedestrians that we talked about, um, that Jay about comparing jaywalking probabilities between Harrigan and this facility, the significant noise that would result from the proposal, how it didn't meet the land use objectives of the comprehensive plan or the intent of the central business district.

And so while Commissioner Alderson may have disagreed with my interpretation, and while that may have factored into her decision, that was not the only or primary, necessarily primary basis of the decision.

And when that question was raised again at the January 21st meeting, when we were reviewing the findings, and Commissioner Alderson asked whether or not that was reflected in the findings or why not, and when I explained why, she ultimately agreed that it was irrelevant.

Um the rest of the of the deliberations by Commissioner Alderson as well as the rest of the planning commission were made on the basis of code required evaluation and findings that they had to make.

In terms of outcomes, um, the assembly has the opportunity to approve, deny, or remand this for further proceedings.

I just want to note in the brief time that I have a remand is generally not an opportunity to restart the case or resubmission of evidence.

If there's more evidence to be submitted, the appellant should reapply.

Thank you for your time on this one.

Uh we will invite you back up for a clarifying response after the appellant.

At this time, I'd like to move to testimony or comments uh by the public that are germane to the matter.

Um, as indicated earlier, if you could please state if you are a party to the record uh indicating either that you received a mailer or that you testified uh to the planning commission on the original um conditional use permit hearing.

You will have uh three minutes per individual for this part of the hearing.

Uh right on uh right in front of you on the microphone on the very bottom, there's a button, it'll turn red.

Thank you.

Alrighty.

Fortunately, I haven't been to many of these, but I'm Roy Anderson.

I did get a flyer in the mail because I'm adjacent property owner to the bus depot.

Um a few things I find a little ironic was in Chris's opening uh permit application, he did uh include in there that by movement to the Oya resident would make shorter trips, therefore he could use less buses, and uh it would result in uh less congestion and less emissions, which I find kind of ironic.

He left that word out tonight when he was given his description because that has become a bonus contention.

I that's my own opinion.

Uh I can't quite figure out how using less buses because there'll be shorter runs, will make less exhaust because no matter how many buses you have, you have the same number of people, you can have to make the same number of trips.

I don't care if you have 50 buses, 100 buses.

If you're gonna move a thousand people and you can only hold so many, it's the same amount of trips.

Um as far as the emissions go, he did in his in his permit, and that can be verified, make the comment about emissions.

What does that have to do with anything?

Well, admissions is an important part.

Buses exhaust from the bottom.

I don't know if everybody's aware of that or not, where trucks go out the top.

They're gonna be piped right into the neighbors' homes, into my basement.

Uh that is a big conflict right there.

Um the it was it was common also that the road can handle 150 more vehicle stops.

Well, you know, the truth is that's kind of sugarcoat use the word that you want.

It shouldn't be vehicle stops, it should be bus stops.

What I read and concluded on myself is when vehicles, the word vehicle would be uh to his advantage that was put in when the word buses uh were needed for his advantage, that's when it was concluded.

And now that is my own opinion.

I I don't know what he did, but uh you know you can word things to make things sound the way you want.

Um that's gonna be so you know, he he he writes uh a number of times about the uh congestion.

You don't think congestion in a bigger area is gonna be worse on Oya Street?

It's a hundred and fifty buses back to back coming out, making left turns, people trying to get in.

What if I'm trying to make left of my property and there's buses three deep?

Somebody's gotta go somewhere.

Do I stay there?

Do I get a do I have the police officer give me a ticket?

It's just not feasible.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, then I'm Susan Bronlin, and I did send a letter in and I did speak again at this last um event.

So what I'm finding is there's a lot of use and reuse and switching of use of words.

Um what I have seen are buses.

So now that I'm hearing shuttle service, to me, a shuttle is something that I see go by my doorway every single day, and that is the local buses.

Very small.

To me, that's a shuttle.

And there is a difference between a shuttle service and a bus service.

When I saw the appellant's drawing of what he was proposing, um, I'm not an engineer.

And actually I said that.

I am not an engineer, but I have very, very good spatial arrangement.

And I paste those things out.

And then I thought maybe he might get one bus or two buses through.

What I saw in the drawing was seven buses.

That is not one or two buses going through.

Four were stacked up next to the house that is being occupied by renters.

And then there was one bus coming in, one bus unloading, and four leaving at some point.

I will say that I back what the planning commission decided.

I think this is if if this is going to continue, there's going to be a lot more information needed and gathered before any reasonable or satisfactory decision can be made.

Um as far as the pollutants, yes, there are tons of things to be able to discover on that.

Um the other thing, I just gonna talk off briefly because I was jotting.

I had written something, but I'm not gonna use that.

Um I recently Googled um from Ohaway to Highliner, best quick route, three minutes.

Jaywalking.

That needs to be addressed no matter what.

As somebody who comes out consistently trying to make a left-hand turn from OHA onto Lake Street, I almost bit it again the other day.

It's impossible to see those cars coming off of that traffic light because they're gunning to make the rotary not to congest.

It is a simple thing to watch the traffic.

One of the things I would love to see, I was thinking about it the other day, was to have the appellant take us on a bus ride and make these turns and make these things because I think I'm a visual person and I spatially see things.

I don't believe this will be a good idea.

I understand you may or may not be happy with what is available right now, but saving a block and a half just to create something else.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else uh public comment, Jermaine to the issue.

I was going to be polite.

I thought there were going to be boards all uh running to the market.

Sir, in interest of time, please.

Thank you.

My name is Richard Wien, and I'm here to testify tonight.

Um concerning the appeal of Ohaway uh bus depot.

It is my belief that the planning commission made the correct decision by voting for zero to deny the permitting of the OH OH.

And did you receive a mailer or were you already?

I'm one of the individuals whose opinion doesn't count.

Thank you.

Nothing is uh nothing else is new.

Um I did review the legal memo uh presented by uh Holland and Hart for the appellant, and the only conclusion I can draw was that they loved the smell of diesel in the morning and um rest in peace, Robert Duval.

Um the thing about what happened in our planning department is that their opinion was uh intelligently crafted and uh well and comprehensive.

Uh one of the things because of limited time, we keep talking about uh buses.

Um of the interesting ways to deal with the data is that we hear about 150 buses between 10 and 4.

But it would be interesting, the metric I would like to hear is buses per minute.

If you have 150 buses from 10 to 4, that's uh 2.4, that's that's two point, that's one bus every 2.4 minutes.

And when you deal with it that way, you can just get the sense of congestion on how this is going.

And remember, not only are they coming, uh, but they are going.

He talks about um, for example, uh acoustic um uh barriers in the property, but remember the acoustic barriers also represent a uh barrier to airflow.

So therefore any emissions will be trapped within that uh property, and the only way it'll get out is through the back where the tourists go uh egress or to the uh um out the front.

Uh the important thing here um is that if you go through all of this information, you can find that um a lot of granular analysis was not done by the appellant for obvious reasons.

Two point um four minutes uh um a new bus comes is uh pretty substantial.

But to me, this whole thing didn't make any sense.

The location was not right.

I went out there and I walked it and I took uh film and so forth, and it only made one clear uh sense in that um with the concept that this is phase one, because if you look at have all the buses and then send the the tourists into a gauntlet of uh of narrowness, um it could only be sensical if you deal with the concept of block busting, and that's when that if this is phase one, you create onerous conditions in order to get people to sell out for further development.

John Murray, um I didn't get in a mailer, but I did um orally um give testimony at the planning.

Um the appeal before you uh first off, I want to think that uh I think it was two assembly members that came to the planning commission meeting, and um they heard they heard a lot.

Um the appeal before you seeks to cast doubt supposition and dissuasion against a denial by the planning commission.

I'll offer a few points in my of my opposition to the appeal.

I call it kind of a history.

Um the neighborhood is pretty much the same as it has been since I moved here in 1978 in neighborhood.

Somehow it became CBD.

I suppose it accommodated the few small businesses and rentals.

It remains a quiet mix.

I feel the whole area in question will tilt towards seasonal tourism if allowed.

Um I can buy pollution and noise.

There's something that came up acceptable levels.

I it was like it was if you heard the testimony, you'd understand what acceptable levels are.

Look in the people's eyes and tell me what acceptable levels are.

We're talking about many buses and shuttles in a confined area five months at a time.

By grand's appeal, SICA will end up just as cons congested.

It's just the area of a congestion will move.

The fact with the sh in fact with the shuttles will be double the congestion as they run be to and fro between between Centennial Hall.

Safety and jaywalking, that was a big subject, um, will not be improved.

The same safety issues will take place because the amount of people moving about, the argument is a red herring I feel to distract.

I feel there will be no substantial benefit to pedestrian safety at the new depot.

Point A to point B means jaywalking for some.

And even more congestion at the four-way stop.

The argument before you to grant the appeal is are one-sided.

This is not about growing cruise tourism in Sitka in a responsible way.

Thank you.

Thanks for listening, and I want to thank the planning commission for their work.

Thanks.

My name is Christina Cranston.

I um one of the people that have testified before the Planning Commission multiple times.

I think we kind of got word as some neighbors that this was in the works.

We never heard anything directly.

So we finally took it upon ourselves to go to the commission and bring it up preemptively because we thought, well, this seems like a pretty big deal.

I wonder why we're not hearing about it.

So it has since then that was put on the agenda when the CUP was applied for by Mr.

McGraw.

Um I don't want to uh I I believe the um the young woman who provided all the information that the planning commission had done said it best.

I was um happy to be a part of that process.

I went to every meeting once a month.

I testified pretty much most.

I listened.

Um it's a pretty incredible process.

I was quite grateful to have it because we felt we were feeling pretty helpless as citizens and as residents and homeowners in the area.

Um things we still have to use common sense.

And when I read some of this stuff, a controlled pedestrian pathway from the shuttle drop-off, you know, fencing and landscaping, physical barriers, um, all of those things.

It might work to mitigate some of the issues, and maybe we can corral a whole bunch of human beings all day long every day with some people in uh I don't know, an orange vest or something telling us that we have to go this way to get chan uh channeled through private properties, who I'm assuming are going to benefit into this private businesses that I'm assuming are gonna benefit, to then go out the alleyway at the Bayview, which I understand is uh a fire lane.

So what I heard was the police station and the courthouse expressing concern because of their air intake, and I think that should be taken seriously.

I heard uh that the um fire department was concerned about the increased bus activity, significant increase of being able to get out about the fire lane um behind the Bayview being full of people, that could be a concern.

Um and people may be able to get shuttled out um when they get off the bus.

They are not gonna come back the same way.

We're gonna have people coming from every direction.

We've got the school there.

We and I I also noticed that because we're residential and commercial in our general area in the central business district.

Residential seems to get a pretty bad rep.

Um, but we also operate a business.

My husband's a carver, and a lot of tourists find us there.

They love coming to find him.

Um, and our livelihood would be very negatively impacted.

And I just want to thank you for your time.

Good evening again.

My name is Leah Mason.

I testified at the first of the uh hearings on this matter at the Planning Commission.

Um the comment to the content of that commentary is that we are taking down a perfectly good in-use commercial building of which there is not a great deal available in the CBD, and we're going to turn it into a parking lot that operates for five months of the year, which to me is a very backward step in terms of city planning.

Um so I am in entirely in agreement with the planning um commission and the various departments who looked at this proposal.

Um, and in the planning department's defense, um, they were unwilling to impose the burden of funding a traffic study on the appellant before they had made um their proposal uh to then have the uh proponent come back and say, Well, where's the traffic study?

I agree, where is the traffic study?

The burden is on that particular person, and the same can be said for emissions.

We do have some data thanks to the tribe for around air quality from around these issues, but and that would be somewhat of a baseline, but it's not comprehensive or targeted around particular areas.

It was a volunteer participation.

So I believe that as Dr.

Wayne said, this is phase one of something, it's largely an attempt to gather more retail space and people for those businesses.

Um I don't see these activities as contributing to the long-term uh diversity of business and year-round activity in SIDGA.

I see it as contributing to a reduction in activity in the area.

Um, and I believe that that would be a far better threshold for determining whether this meets the comprehensive plans objectives.

And I am in support of a denial of this.

Good evening, Barbara Bingham.

And I was I testified at the Planning Commission and have had an abiding interest in this issue.

And most of the things every all of my arguments have already been repeated numerous times by others, so I won't I won't go into my word for word.

But the pedestrian congestion at the light funneling uh funneling pedestrians trying to funnel, trying to herd cats onto you know, and into uh into the downtown area is not gonna work, and there will be people everywhere, and jaywalking will be pretty awful.

Um, and the impact on the on the neighborhood, the the tight uh the tight area.

And I just can imagine uh the bus is moving single file into and through the terminal and um uh inching forward one by one, and either the buses have to remain idling as they load and unload or turn their engines off and start them up to move forward multiple times in the queue, which means a strong emissions uh burst at each startup.

So the the uh pollution will be pretty awful there.

Um and as far as I can see, the the proposed plan does little to um uh solve downtown congestion.

Uh and it and in and uh but it will destroy the uh year-round office space uh sorely needed in this town and residential space that um uh exists at this point.

Um an inadequate solution to the frequent seasonal problem of too many visitors visitors at once.

The tourism task force arrived at a figure of 5,000 tourists a day, five to seven thousand as a maximum.

Now we're saying seven thousand is a sweet spot.

Um and uh the pro proposal in front of you uh is an or the Appellance Pro appellance proposal is another attempt to continue to push the limits as far as possible.

So the most important recommendation of the tourism task force in my mind was to conduct a comprehensive economic uh social environ and environmental study into the benefits and detriments of cruise visitation to Sitka.

No such study has yet begun, and we desperately need a long-term vision and management plan for the whole community.

So I strongly urge the assembly to deny this appeal and instead recommend the development of a comprehensive long-term management plan for the city and borough of Sitga, then we may more easily uh be able to determine which future proposals are in our best interest uh and our collective well-being.

Thank you.

Anything further on public testimony on this conditional use permit denial or appeal, excuse me.

It is not, no, there's a button on the bottom.

There you are.

My name's Linda Waller, and I did testify in December.

Um so there are pros to this.

Um we're saving gas, it's a shorter trip.

Um so we will have cleaner air.

We're saving two bus trips, but I don't know if that's for the thousand passenger days or the 7,000 passenger days.

I can't imagine it's the same, but I don't I haven't done the math on that.

Um the cons of which you probably read your packet, and there's many.

The ones that concern me most are the ones that cost the city of Sitka and our taxes and whatever.

Um we spent a lot of time and money, or you spent a lot of time on the building, making it a welcoming place years ago, and the bus flow around the building.

Um it's worked great.

Um, there's just one issue with people jaywalking, and that's not gonna go away.

Um I think that's pretty well worked out.

Um let me see.

The people have talked a lot about the street maintenance and the number of cars.

I don't think it matters how many cars there are.

The buses weigh 40,000 tons.

Just a quick question to my Uncle Google said that they weigh about 40,000 or 40,000 pounds, and um maybe loaded, there's another 10,000 people with pounds for the people.

So I don't think it matters how many vehicles are driving on Oya Way, there's gonna be street maintenance.

And um also Monastery Street, most of Monastery Street doesn't have sidewalks, so eventually we'll have to acknowledge that we need sidewalks there.

And cost of AC for the police department.

They're gonna need a ventilation system of some sort in there.

The biggest issue for the city of Sitka is housing, and that's something we're all actively working on, right?

And that potential is just gone for increasing density down there.

So that's those are all my issues.

Thank you.

I know you guys have spent more than enough time on this.

I really appreciate it.

I'm Tess Hayburn, and I did receive the thing in the mail, and I submitted written testimony for the December 17th meeting.

Um I own and operate cottages on Monastery Street.

My vacation rental business was established over 20 years ago and conforms to the CBD approved uses.

The business is my livelihood, and a bus depot behind my business would affect me adversely.

I have already had two repeat customers say they will not rent if there is a bus depot behind the cottage.

The property and CBD are zero lot line, and the kitchen in one of the cottages is only two feet away from the property line.

Diesel exhaust will be pouring into the cottages.

It is estimated that there will be up to 150 trips to the site in a 12-hour period.

That is approximately 12.5 trips per hour or roughly one bus every five minutes.

Even with no idling, there will be buses running nonstop.

This is no mere transport facility, it is an intensive industrial scale operation.

Um the bus depot will require some shuttle buses to connect or shuttle buses to go to the Centennial Hall.

And from my experience, turning left onto Lake Street is very difficult, even in the winter.

Um I can testify as to how difficult left-hand turns on Lake Street can at what I do in order to access downtown.

I often turn right on to Salmell Creek Road off a monastery, then turn right on Baronoth and then right on Lincoln, just because it's almost impossible to turn left on.

There's a lot right there in that shopping center that I think will be a draw there.

And the new addition is the pot shop, and I um Googled that.

If you Google how to get there, they tell you to jaywalk.

And um like somebody else said, they may get to ultimately embark on their um day in Sidka at the stoplight, but they won't return that way.

And if they end up at the Raptor Center or other points, if they Google how to get back, it'll take them down Monastery Street, which doesn't have a crosswalk.

Anyway, I do support the commission's findings, and I hope that you deny the appeal, and I think a lot of work has been done in to create the centennial building, which is a wonderful place for the tourists to be.

Anyway, thank you for your time.

Uh, one more time.

Right, yep, gotcha.

Uh, my name's Kendall Fulkert.

I've been living in Sitka for about 36 years now.

Been gone, take care of my folks this summer, and I missed out on the letter or chance to testify.

But I just want to offer rather than any new thing, I just want to support some things that people have said and have been brought up that I checked out myself.

Tessa just mentioned Neil Google saying, well, I looked on Google Maps.

Google Maps tells you to go up Monastery Street in every case.

And as a matter of fact, on any of the four corners of Lincoln Street right now, Google Maps puts you up monastery.

In this culture, and I did this myself on Saturday.

In this culture in this day and age, Google Maps is God.

It's like a martial art, and no matter how many signs you put up, they're gonna listen to Google Maps when it says this is the shortest way to get there.

And they're all gonna go up Monastery Street.

They're gonna go.

And that's a whole bunch of jaywalking or entanglement at certain times of day with parents, children, or elementary school.

You know, uh, I checked this out myself.

So that's a major concern for sure.

And uh, I mean you'd need a moat and razor wire to keep people from going up there.

Um the other thing is traffic flow and traffic studies.

We all know what happens at the roundabout between 7:30 and 8 o'clock in the morning on the deadest winter day.

Uh, they back up all the way to Baronoff and all the way to Blacksley.

And imagine at that period when the buses are supposedly going to possibly alternate route, could make a left onto OHA Street at that peak traffic moment.

That's gonna back things up into the roundabout quick, and I just wanted to make that clear.

Uh the average ticket commuter is going to consider themselves lucky day if they only have to stop at you know uh the lakeside parking lot.

It's gonna be uh kind of a mayhem there.

Uh the other thing, you know, that the traffic flow is just obvious.

And then what uh Linda Waller was just saying, yeah, I looked at that too.

And the average coach weight is 40,000 pounds, the passenger weight's gonna be 10, that's 50,000 pound vehicles on that infrastructure area.

And for an example of the importance of individual vehicle weights, consider that the United States interstate system has the best engineered, best built roads in the world.

And the only thing that they are concerned about is individual overweight vehicles, and you know this is true because it's peppered with way stations everywhere you go.

It's so important that you don't put heavy vehicles on the roads that aren't engineered for them.

Uh that they have to check this over and over again and make it enforceable.

And uh OHA and Monastery Street are not 50,000 pound vehicle streets.

Thanks.

Any further uh testimony?

Germaine of the matter.

Once, twice good evening.

My name is Teresa Swanberg.

Um, I just wanted to speak on behalf of someone that was born and raised in Sitka that I agree with the.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but if you could you indicate if you received a mail or oh no, I did not.

I'm speaking as a member of the community.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Sarissa Swanberg, and I want to say that to maintain the character that draw people into Sitka.

I don't agree with uh um proposal as it stands.

I think that more work needs to be done as um the appeal.

I mean, the appellant um could do more to address things such as the pedestrian traffic and pollution as well as trash.

As a citizen of this community, I like to go around and just take a plastic bag and pick up trash.

And I think in a future proposal, it would be important to address that too.

The city might not have enough employees to take care of you know, however, many visitors will receive daily to just continue to um keep our community clean.

I think that would be an important thing to address.

Thanks for your time.

Anything further on testimony or comments.

All right, I will now give uh the appellant a seven minute opportunity for rebuttal response or clarifying statements.

And again, I would uh remind the appellant um that you can reserve time for a closing statement after staff um speaks if you would like to Chris McGraw.

Um so I guess I'd like to start off by uh responding to staff's report.

Um I understand that the code places the burden on the applicant, but that doesn't mean that the commission can make findings that are not supported by evidence and are without reference to any objective standard.

And then tell the applicant that you haven't met your burden, so we're denying your permit.

Uh it's not just a SICA code that applies.

There are also court cases in Alaska, and these decisions require some evidence.

The standard is substantial evidence to uphold a planning commission decision.

So the response from the complaint planning commission staff that the burden is on me so that the commission can say there may be unacceptable pollution without identifying what level of pollution is acceptable.

I don't believe that's the correct legal standard.

The next item, which we just finished up with public testimony, and staff argued that the commission was entitled to rely on public testimony about localized impacts in the absence of objective evidence from the applicant.

So this conflates two different things testimony as a basis for concern and testimony as a substitute for evidence of actual harm.

The commission's findings rest on what the neighbors said they expect would happen.

Predicted odors, anticipated noise, speculated pollution, feared impacts on gardens and outdoor spaces, anticipated harm is not the same as actual harm.

Predictions about what a use might do are not substantial evidence that it will.

Under the substantial evidence standard that governs this appeal, findings must be supported by evidence in the record.

Neighbor speculation, however sincerely held it is, does not constitute substantial evidence.

That hazard condition will actually result.

If it did, any neighbor opposition to any CUP application would be sufficient to deny it, regardless of what the applicant proposed.

And just to use an example of that, is we heard two people say that my buses are gonna weigh 50,000 pounds.

That's false.

So public testimony that has been used as factual evidence in this case is not a basis for denial of my permit.

I would open it back up to staff comments for rebuttal response or clarifying statements and or closing.

Uh you have a seven minutes for that time frame once you're uh situated.

I'm sorry, before my time begins, this might be a question for um the attorney, but are am I able to reserve any of this time for questions that assembly members may have of me or I will be able to call you back up during our evidentiary portion if necessary.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Sorry, find one more note before I oh I got all my papers out of where that was a mistake.

Okay.

All right.

From the um what we've heard and um from the from the appellant's response.

I really want to focus in on the the arguments regarding sort of burden of proof.

Um and again, while I agree with the appellant that CICA general code does not have standards or specifications regarding things like you know, specifically pollution, right?

Um, and that we have to consider whether testimony really counts as evidence, right?

I want to note that in this case, what the planning commission had to weigh was testimony from both the appellant and then from members of the public.

The appellant did not provide the substantial evidence that P speaks to for the Planning Commission to be able to weigh against.

And in particular, we were talking about in this case spec and sensitive uses that are immediately surrounding in the area.

And again, lacking that objective or more substantial evidence that the appellant would like to see and did not provide, testimony provided by members of the public, particularly I'd say those who live immediately adjacent to the site.

We have property owners who have a foundation that's less than one foot from the property line, kitchen windows that are less than five feet away from a property line.

This is evidence that is, I think, reasonable for the planning commission to consider in whether or not there's going to be a negative impact to surrounding property owners.

And also their comfort level with things like home gardening, when again their property is less than one foot away from the proposed use, which is large scale.

Um and so in weighing whether or not there was substantial evidence in this case, it's I think it's certainly arguable that there was not, but the primary conclusion there is that the applicant did not provide that substantial evidence such to weigh against, and the planning commission had to make a reasonable decision with the information that they had based on their lived experience and you know what is reasonable for what a resident would be able to live next to comfortably or not.

Um again, if there is interest in clarifying those points, that could set that goose those things could potentially be sent back for a remand.

But if the applicant would like the opportunity to submit submit more evidence, the answer should be to reapply.

Again, I just want to reiterate as in closing here that the assembly's you know role as the board of adjustment here is to consider whether or not the planning commission made a sound decision.

Not necessarily if we agree with everything that the planning commission decided, but did they make a reasonable decision based on the information that they had in front of them?

Did they fairly consider the case and all of the evidence presented?

Did they follow the required procedures and did they document and support their decision?

I think it's also really important to note that while the decision was unanimous to deny the planning commission and certain, you know, several members noted quote there's a lot of things to like about this proposal.

It was not outright dismissed, it was carefully considered, and there were things about the proposal that were beneficial in the eyes of the commission and things that weren't, and ultimately the negative impacts outweighed, which is what's reflected in the findings of fact that support their decision.

Not that that deliberation didn't take place, not that that conversation didn't happen, not that that weighing didn't happen.

It's ultimately that the negative impacts weighed out.

That doc that decision is clearly documented in the findings of fact and is supported by the record.

Thank you.

Chris McGraw.

Um to follow up a little bit on staff there, um keeps putting back on me that I could come back and provide substantial evidence to show either the pollution issue is not an issue for neighbors or that traffic is not going to be an issue.

But if I come back with a study, there is no level of threshold that I'm doing that the planning commission compare any values I come up with for what is acceptable pollution and what isn't.

So I can provide as much information as I can, but there's still no threshold by which the planning commission will evaluate it.

And they can basically determine if something is detrimental to public health or safety.

I just want to phrase this in a little different way.

At the January 21st meeting, there was another CUP that was on the agenda.

It was for the marijuana dispensary.

My question did they have to submit proof that their facility would not be detrimental to public health and safety?

I mean, there's there's known facts that marijuana can have negative impacts.

And I'm not calling into question whether or not that should or should not have been approved.

So how do I come back and reapply and prove that the same thing with the traffic?

Who's going to determine whether or not that's adequate?

Um, if you look at DOT traffic data from Oyo Way to Baronoff Street.

Go down to Jeff Davis.

That's even more.

What's adequate on those streets?

You know, i there's nothing defined what is adequate and what isn't.

And that's the issue that I have with the planning commission's decision.

Thank you.

However, before we do that, um, I would like to take a recess as it has been a little while since we've had one.

I would remind uh the Board of Adjustment that we are a quasi judicial body right now.

Uh so please don't have any offline conversations uh during this recess.

Thank you.

The Board of Adjustment is seated, so we'll get going in a minute here.

All right, thank you, everybody, for our recess there.

Um, that would move us along in our hearing this evening for uh the Board of Adjustments deliberation.

Uh so we are able to freely deliberate upon the facts that were presented uh in front of us today.

Um, we do have two parts to tonight's deliberation.

Uh, we have one issue that needs to be taken up um fairly quickly, um, and we have other um issues that need to be taken up as the night goes on.

Um, in your in your packet here, um, you'll see that there is uh a decision checklist, um, which part one um the threshold is uh did was the correct legal standard applied.

And this has to do with uh Amy, the planning director's interpretation of public or private transportation facility.

So we do need to determine uh was the correct legal standard applied in this case that it was a public um transportation facility, and that the commissioners voted appropriately.

Once that is done, uh then we can go through the um elements of it in part two uh and go through each of those either line by line, or if the Board of Adjustment agrees with the planning commission or disagrees with the planning commission as a whole, a single motion can be made to uphold those.

However, if there are any disagreements with the planning commission's decision on a line by line item or line by line basis, uh, we will need to go forward uh with each one of those numbers and make a finding uh to either uphold or reverse on each individual one.

Uh, questions about our procedures tonight.

Rachel, did I cover that well?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you for coaching me accurately.

So initi.

I'm just wondering.

When do we get to ask staff?

You said the questions for staff were during the evidentiary portion.

Are we gonna have like a separate time for that and then deliberate, or is that incorporated within our deliberations or incorporated, yes.

So we do need to deal with part one first because if a correct legal standard was not applied, uh this would instantly remand back, uh, making the rest of the work null and void tonight.

So if we could start out with uh the the correct legal standard, please, Tor.

Yeah, I'm part of the later for the rest of it, but I think it meets both the legal and um common sense definition.

Uh something like this is most definitely a large public, it's like a greyhound station.

So uh or a bus, but um and I to me there's no question, but that the correct legal standard was applied.

Uh and everything we've seen from our attorney and everybody else from staff agrees with that.

So I I have no problem at all saying that this the correct legal standard was applied.

Katie um you know I attended all of these meetings, so um have spent a lot of time hearing and that administrative interpretation.

I don't think that anyone was trying to argue um, you know, over the fact that this was a private business that was operating it.

It was that this is the most applicable definition within code, and therefore that is why it is being applied.

And so while I understand where the commissioner was coming from with taking issue with that, it was made very clear how the legal basis for this works is that you know this is the closest uh use available, and that is there there is enough um similarities and overlaps with this use that that is why that was uh the interpretation um that was chosen, and so that legally stands for me.

JG I would think that a reasonable person um would assert that when um the recordings were reviewed by staff from that December 17th meeting, um it was said that it was one up, not the sole reason um act with that clarification on January 21st that that commissioner um did understand and ultimately realized that classification was um was there and you know then voted to adopt those findings, which also shows um that it is in agreement with the overall um understanding and so we're under the correct legal standards here Kevin uh I agree that the commission evaluated the COP under the correct standard and I would further find on this one that uh um even if the the singular commissioner's decision was based off of an incorrect um legal standard that the the three remaining commissioners are still a quorum and would still carry the vote.

Um so even if that vote was null and void um that that would still hold up.

Tim?

I also find it meets a legal standard uh Rachel and or Sarah.

Um do we need a motion on this one, or does that put that one to bed and we move on?

I think it would be cleanest for a complete record to have a motion.

Okay, I would agree.

I move the commission evaluated the planning commission evaluated the CPU under the correct legal standard, secret general code 22.10.160.

Second uh Sarah, a vote on that one, please.

Um all right.

The motion before you is um I move that the commission evaluated the CUP under the correct standard, second general code 2210160 C.

Ms.

Riley, yes.

Mayor Eisenbais, yes.

Ms.

Carlson, yes, Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

Yes.

And Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0.

Great.

Thank you to the board.

Now that brings us to the rest of the elements.

At this point, we can't ask questions of staff.

We can ask questions of our attorney that are of a procedural matter, and we can debate amongst ourselves for any of the how many findings are there?

Five separate findings.

So when we started tonight, I had a sheet of paper to write down anything new I heard.

It's essentially blank.

I mean, I wrote down some thoughts, but I from what we had in our packet and from what I was at well, at least one of the meetings.

Um first part of it.

Um I didn't hear anything new from what was in the record.

Um the I think it goes one thing that should be said is I don't know who of who's gone to more planning commission meetings, me or Katie, but I have found them to be a thoughtful and thorough group.

They don't take their job lightly.

They would work very hard to look at all angles of problems, and whether it's something comparatively minor or something really important big like this, they put the work in, and I believe that they made the right decision overall going down the list.

And it's no surprise from that group.

Um they we've we we've gotten I was gonna say we've made wise the seasons, but I think we've just gotten lucky uh with having a good group there.

And um you know, I think that they explored this thoroughly and came to again what I took a phrase both the legal and common sense solution.

So I think I I would support um just saying we we deny the appeal uh in total.

I know I I personally don't need to go down each each item.

Katie Um can I ask some questions of staff some clarifications?

Um just regarding my understanding is that um the findings were found.

Uh the planning commission found um that the uh permit application did not meet any of them.

They found reason on under each one that uh the the negative consequences um showed.

However, my understanding is that the applicant must satisfy all of them, and even if the planning commission had just found one to be inadequate, that still would have constituted grounds for denial of the application.

Is that true?

That is correct.

That is um that is how um the required findings for conditional use permits, which is 2210 and 160 C reads that you have to make all of the findings.

Or so you that the commission must make all of the findings to grant a permit.

So even if there was one they could not make, then that would still be.

You would conclude that you should deny the permit.

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Um that is all I had.

So uh, you know, I agree with the commission's findings um in full.

They did uh very thorough deliberation.

I believe that was a three and a half hour meeting that night um of listening to public comment and also debating the merits of this proposal.

I do want to say that that occupied a significant amount of time of the the benefits that this would have, um, of you know, the issues with Harrigan Centennial Hall, which we learned about, and um how this would improve upon congestion and movement of people, that was deliberate upon, it was considered, but overall these factors outweighed those benefits, and they were able to make these findings.

Um the ones that are, you know, while I agree with all of them, the ones that are the most um comprehensive or like the most stand out to me were the burden of proof, um, which is on the applicant, and which I do believe that um you know evidence could have been brought forward that even if we don't have an R code there are standards as defined by you know the EPA, other things that could have uh been used to support an argument um that were not included in the application, and then also um the injury to uh adjacent uses in property, the established character of surrounding vicinity.

So, you know, those were two things that it was pretty undeniable that it was going to have um impacts to the established character of the surrounding vicinity with the um comments from the neighborhood about what uh they were going to have to do, how is going to negatively impact business based on you know feedback from um consumers and then also um their ability to enjoy their property?

So my point being that even if you know this body found issue with some of these other findings or didn't think they were comprehensively um debated or or had you know problems with what the planning commission said, the the it has to be all of them, and so even if we just agree with one of the findings, that is enough to deny this permit.

Is that correct again?

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Do we have other questions for Amy as staff while she's in front of us?

Uh Amy, I do have one question for you.

Um the intent of CBD, the zone there.

Is that the intent residential or commercial it's primarily intended for commercial uses, but residential uses are there are there are also provisions for residential use.

Okay, and then uh this might be a question for Rachel as well, but whose rights are primary in a in a CBD zone, residential or commercial?

And is there a hierarchy?

Sure.

I think um I think it is worth noting um as the appellant noted in their in their filing that there the code does provide some guidance on this.

Um there is a footnote to table 2216051, which is the residential land uses table.

And footnote number 11 um speaks to several different um several different zones, but if it's helpful, I can read this out for you.

Uh just uh we'll shorten it and just is there is there a preference between residential and commercial?

Does does one right trump the other?

Rachel?

I think I think it is worth reading it because it's it's a little complex.

It's short.

Um it says many of the permitted and conditional uses in the CBD and and other commercial zones generate traffic, noise, odor, and general impacts to a higher level and greater degree than permitted and conditional uses in residential districts.

Owners of residential uses in the CBD and those other districts must be aware of and accepting of all the permitted uses in these districts.

Um and I would just uh for statutory construction thing there, they have to accept the permitted uses.

So that would mean the things that are available as of right and the things that occur once a conditional use permit has been issued.

Um, but we're at the stage where we're considering whether to permit this use.

Um, and so if we moved forward and did permit it, they don't have a remedy for for those things if they've been carefully considered by the planning commission.

But the planning commission was at the stage of deciding does this proposed conditional use have traffic noise odors, general impacts that we ought to permit or not based on the criteria in the code here.

Okay, thank you.

That is uh clarifying uh Amy.

I didn't want to get you having to read a novel there, but apparently it was not a novel.

Uh, any other questions for Amy as staff while we have her JJ.

I wrote down the phrase and helped me remember where this came from.

Um, may or could introduce hazardous conditions.

Is that code or is that your language or where let me clarify that was in the findings from the commission?

So the required finding that that is um that that's in reference to is that the oh sorry no, I just um because that was the sentence I was using to kind of qualify things um in relation to kind of burden of proof.

Oh, sure.

That was listing about okay.

Yeah, so that was in that was in relation to um required finding C4.

So the the code states that the proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions at the site that cannot be mitigated to protect adjacent properties, the vicinity, and the public health safety and welfare of the community from such hazard.

The commission's findings were that the proposal that the proposal may introduce hazardous conditions to the site.

I think that was helpful for me as the reasonable person, you know, seat that I'm in right now, not necessarily assembly member Carlson was a framework for just a lens on what is or what isn't that burden of proof from the commission side, not necessarily the appellant side.

So I appreciate that clarification.

Anything else for Amy at this point?

Kevin?

Thank you.

So I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this.

By the way, record, I think both parties uh acted in good faith.

I don't think one party or another did not.

Um the the burden of proof is is pretty high to meet that um uh from the appellant.

It's it's a pretty high bar.

Um but I guess I'm just trying to get my mind around um, you know, uh for me, like a reasonable person would believe that the close proximity of the buses to say a residential house and and such would cause um you know unhealthy conditions and things like that.

How but how would what would be a scenario where the appellant could prove that it wouldn't?

Would they have to apply again with a study proving that it didn't it wouldn't, or or how would that work?

So again, there's I think there's for this particular issue, there's there's two options in front of the assembly.

So that would either be to remand this specific item back to the planning commission and in so doing specify um the type of um additional information or specific questions that the planning could commission should consider um and that should also be time-bound as well.

Um but again, given that this is a closed record appeal, and this would be essentially introducing new evidence, that's not necessarily a super clean way of doing it.

So the other the other option then would be um potentially you know, just having the applicant reapply with that additional evidence.

Um was the question more specific about what kind of evidence would have to be submitted in order to well, yeah.

I guess I'm trying to understand um just from a technical standpoint, um, you know, the the commission made the decision based on uh testimony and and the uh the reasonable supposition that it would cause extra uh pollution in my mind and uh traffic and congestions and safety hazards.

Um what would be uh scenario where an appellant could prove that it all those things were not uh the case.

Well, I think the I think the appellant even noted that there are you know that there are other standards, whether whether it's from DEC, I don't know if DOT or anything like that, uh whether that's you know state or federal um or EPA.

There are other there are other agencies that have guidelines, so there you know there could be a there could be a study, there could be an analysis, there could be um essentially kind of for lack of better term, I'm too used to build dealing with buildings and not vehicles, but like spec sheets about what sort of the emissions levels are are and would result.

So there's you know, there's there's probably several ways to go about doing um doing that if there was you know interest in producing that kind of evidence.

So it's not necessarily again because our code doesn't specify that we only accept state DEC level or we only accept EPA level, there would be some flexibility to show that there was if there was a reasonable objective from you know another regulating agency or something like that, that that you know there's I don't see any reason under general code why that couldn't be considered as reasonable evidence.

Okay, I I guess because I'm what I hear I'm hearing is it's the burden of proof is on the appellant to prove that those things wouldn't happen, and his argument is that the commission made that decision without any proof, but again, if I'm understanding correctly, it's the appellants job to provide that proof to to prove that those things would not happen.

Correct.

The the the for conditional use permits, the applicant bears the burden of proof such that the commission can make the required findings.

Okay.

Thank you.

Tim Yeah, to follow up with Kevin's question, I think, because uh this is the you know, the compelling are the compelling statements that I took away from some of this was how how would this happen, right?

Like, is this a 17-step process to find the answer to yes?

I can prove that it didn't, that I'm not causing harm.

Um what what does the appellant need to do?

Because we don't have any standard in our code, right?

So cast about for codes that do exist.

I mean, I guess that's my question.

My question is how that's following Kevin's question.

How do we get, how would someone get to an answer to that question?

And I'm not just speaking about for the appellant, but even the neighborhood, right?

Like an answer for everybody that that this is not going to take place.

And and I maybe you don't have an answer for that right now, but I think that's um, you know, is remanding it back to the planning commission gonna get that answer, or do they have the skill set or a way to come up with that, or are you asking for us to set the standard?

I guess those are the kind of questions that I have about how we get from because this is a potentially unique circumstance that I mean you're used to dealing with buildings, we're not used to this sort of thing.

So, you know, how are we going to get an answer to to that question?

Because I don't want to burden anybody with this process four or five more times as we as someone tries to find an answer uh to continually be pushed back.

I agree the planning commission did their job.

We gave them a job, they did it.

Um but there's a bigger the reason why it's here is because there's a bigger question about what does it take to, and I'm not saying how do we get to yes.

I'm talking about how do we make sure that we protect everybody's interests in the circumstance.

And and at this point, what's come clear is that we don't necessarily have that answer yet.

So how do we make sure that everyone has that answer going forward?

Say on a on a big picture level, if the assembly wanted to clarify those those things and make more clear provisions for um measuring, analyzing, determining pollution levels, then that's something that should you know potentially probably be in code in future if that's you know, if that's a current concern from the assembly that this could happen again, or that there's you know that there's not an objective standard that's that's something down the road that could be that could be fixed in code.

In the meantime, um lacking that in the code, um, I think the the answer would be that the applicant would have to argue that I have found this objective standard, you as the planning commission should accept it, and here is an analysis of my use under that objective standard.

And um, you know, as long as again that whatever is kind of selected by the app by the applicant in that case as an objective standard, again, whether that's EPA or DEC, um you know, there would be some reasonableness testing on the part of the planning commission to see like is that is that a reasonable standard?

Um but I also don't think that that's you know, the we could also assume that the commission wouldn't be reasonable in accepting um those standards from from other agencies.

Is it possible to go find an answer to whether or not they'll accept it prior to the whole application process?

Can in this circumstance can you say will this particular standard match with what the commission would accept?

I mean, is it possible to not go through the entire process but actually get an answer to some of these questions before?

I mean, is that a provision the commission has under its power?

If we're if we're looking for an answer to what are reasonable standards, that's a that's a broad decision that's going to affect the whole community and not this one applicant.

And so the the proper forum for making those determinations is either through the the planning commission's legislative process where they're proposing an ordinance to the assembly, or with two assembly sponsors or the administrator bringing an ordinance, um, because it's it's public facing it's a standard that would apply to the whole community, and then when we're dealing with a particular person's application, um, as Amy said, lacking that political process having happened, the burden in this piece of code is putting it on the applicant to both propose what the standard ought to be and explain why they meet it.

Can I can I add to something quick?

I did want to note that as a as a part of the deliberation, we you know, you know, it's more I think probably more so on the the traffic impacts.

Um yeah, we did talk about at the planning commission level that the the commission could you know postpone a decision with the opportunity for the applicant to get this information and to bring it back.

Um as I advise the planning commission is that if there were if there were other grounds to deny the permit um on say you know some of the things that were kind of coming out in the conversation that would be difficult to get around, like the impacts, you know, the noise impacts, the impacts on the comprehensive plan, uh, those kinds of things that if the permit was going to be denied on that basis, that it wouldn't really be fair or reasonable to ask the applicant to go out and to find these studies or pay for these studies to then bring back if the permit was going to be denied.

Um and so I would think general, I say generally speaking, there is an opportunity for applicants to say to have a conversation with the commission about is this sufficient or not?

Um but if the answer is well, you know, from what we're hearing, we have concerns.

If you wanted to prove otherwise, you could, but we'd still have other concerns that couldn't be met, and therefore the decision was made at that time.

Yeah, just for for Amy, uh yeah.

I mean, so if I understand this correctly, the applicant would need to do a study or revise it on all five criteria, and any one of which is enough to deny the application.

So although I know that the planning commission definitely, like on a subdivision, will come the applicant will come forward with a conceptual idea and saying, okay, we don't want to go any farther if you hate this.

I know that with search that happened with some of the other subdivisions.

So there's nothing to prevent an applicant from coming forward and saying that we're we're looking at this project.

What are your concerns now?

Um, and that that does happen on a regular basis.

But like I said, I I don't want to get too hung up on the pollution one because that's just one of five.

But I think I understand where the question's going is what is the standard?

Is it is the standard detrimental at an immediately dangerous to life and health level, or is it a long-term exposure type level, right?

And so without knowing that this applicant or any future applicant can't come in and say, well, it is or it's not when they don't know that the standard that they need to reach is, right?

And I that's even in one of my notes here is like how do we satisfy ourselves at this point because we don't have that.

So I think it's a longer and more in-depth discussion than here.

Um, and in the past, the system that we have has worked uh until we find that it doesn't with new cases that that pop up.

So this may be something we need to address in the future in order to give our our planning department help.

Question for Amy?

Comment on that topic.

Um, and that's something for the assembly to decide, not the Board of Adjustment to decide.

And we're sitting here as the Board of Adjustment.

Anything else for Amy at this time?

Thank you, Amy.

Appreciate it.

Further consideration by the Board of Adjustment.

Kevin?

Just discussion points.

Um something that uh came up here, and I I agree with you know, uh, I think it was either Tim or Stephen.

Um, you know, we want to be fair to everybody.

We want to try to find a solution that is, you know, make sure everybody's rights are fully exercised.

Um looking at this, something someone just said though, uh, I think it was Amir's um, you know, when we the central business district has certain rights and certain things that are allowed, but a conditional use permit is something extra, an extra thing allowed.

So that's another thing to consider if if this was not if this fit within the bounds of a you know the central business district and this uh conditional use permit was not required, then that would hold position would be mute.

Um so I understand why the conditional use permit requires seemingly a higher bar.

Um I'm just um I I'm a little stuck on the fairness of this last line of uh the questions that we had was with um why or you know the standard what what the standard is because to be fair to the appellant, you know, what how is that person supposed to meet that standard if they don't know what it is?

Um but it's my understanding now if I'm correct, if I'm not incorrect that because we don't have that uh those burden of proofs laid on the uh appellant, and there's no way for that.

Well, there is if the appellant somehow could get studies to prove all those other things if they chose to reapply, I guess that would be a different subject, but I mean it's looking to me like this the the um planning commission's decision should be upheld based on the extremely high bar here.

Um I just uh yeah those are just my thoughts right now at the moment.

Tor?

Is it I think there's still some discussion to be had.

Uh so for me on this one, um I think one of the hardest parts for me is uh not bringing new info into this, correct?

We have to make a judgment based on the facts in front of us.

Uh it was very hard for me not to recognize a hotel and a parking lot right next door to these properties as well.

It was really hard for me not to think about um a uh a garden at our high school um just as close to a road where these buses travel as they are to this facility right now.

So when I'm I'm hearing some of the info coming in, I I'm realizing I have to to keep it maintained to the facts.

Um and with that, I do I do believe that the planning commission um was correct in um the majority of their arguments, right?

Um I do find that on a couple um smaller issues, not the issue as a whole, it almost seemed as if a dual standard was applied.

Um, in one instance, you hear we don't want people walking around, um, but then you also hear that you want to maintain CBD's tight-knit walkability.

Um so I I I found that there were some conflicting arguments in the planning commission's um basis of fact there, which I don't think overruled anything, but I think that each one on their own um warrants a little bit of of consideration.

Um at this point, uh, you know, I because I was looking at the burden of proof initially, and who has to have who has to provide the proof, right?

And that was very clearly indicated to me that the applicant has to.

Um, but it is a hard and high burden of proof standard in this, as we just talked about.

And I also believe that this has a higher level of scrutiny due to the nature um of this application, right?

Um I don't believe that other applications are going to have to find a traffic study or or any in some of the similar things for their conditional use permit um that this one may have to go through.

Um but I do believe here that there is a framework to move forward.

I believe that there are facts that the applicant or the appellant could gather um and then submit along with a new application.

Um I think that if they referenced state and federal standards, um I earlier we talked about um different standards that could possibly be upheld, um, that could satisfy the planning commission in this instance.

Um so I think while the it would appear that the uh denial will continue this evening, um, I believe that there is a framework for the applicant to continue to work forward to this and prove um that there are mitigating efforts that can be had within the conditional use permit.

Um so I I do at this point I will be upholding um the planning commission's decision on all basis JJ, yeah, um I'm just noticing as a reasonable person um from a kind of a zoomed out perspective that a that this one is getting a bit more scrutiny, but I think it's because of its exterior use.

It's all outside, and so how it impacts its neighbors, the adjacent properties, um, that walkable charm is a higher level of uh of concern.

Um most uses conditional use permits that I've seen, um but I've never been liaison to planning um commission, I've never been on the planning commission, um, seem to be most, you know, things that happen within buildings or in rooms of buildings, and it's that exterior presence um which really has made it more challenging to review, but also perhaps not fit as well into what's um scoped in in our code um because of course something outside um on a you know zero zero setback place is going to impact its neighbors, and um that hasn't been said yet, so that was the little bit I wanted to add, but not reiterate too much to keep this moving so um if we deny this uh I guess it's a question for Rachel.

Um will the appellant have the chance to reapply with I mean I don't know if the appellant would want to, these studies are would be pretty comprehensive and very expensive.

I mean, I don't know if the appellant would want to, these studies are would be pretty comprehensive and very expensive.

But would the appellant have a chance to reapply?

I understand again, and Amy can correct me if I'm wrong.

Is that a reapplication needs to be a new application?

It can't be the same one, but I think that the planning commission would allow more evidence to count as a new application.

Okay.

Thank you.

I move to uh deny the appeal in whole.

I need to add more to that.

Second.

Uh Sarah, is that uh detailed enough for you on this motion?

Do we need some clarification on that one?

I I would defer to Rachel.

Uh yeah, if the intent is to deny on all of the findings, um so it would be denying the appeal, upholding the planning commission's findings.

I think that's adequate.

Thank you.

And there was a second.

Yes.

Great, thank you.

Uh Sarah, on the denial of the um appeal.

Right, the motion before you is to uh deny the appeal.

Mr.

Christianson.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Steline.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

And Mayor Eisenbaiss.

Yes.

All right.

The motion to deny the appeal passes.

7-0.

I think you have motion to reconvene as the assembly in regular session.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I thank you.

We are reconvened as the assembly in regular session.

We will take a brief recess and then move on to the rest of our agenda this evening.

All right.

Thank you everybody for uh getting through our board of adjustment item with us.

I do appreciate everyone's uh willingness and help in moving that item forward.

Um it went smoother and uh shorter than I anticipated, which is always a good thing.

So thank thank you again.

Uh that would bring us to persons to be heard this evening.

This is public participation for any item on or off tonight's agenda, not to exceed three minutes for any individual.

Good evening, Richard Wien.

Very interesting uh proceeding uh this evening.

Um I wanted to start at the top, you notice that assessors said that they were going to be doing a three percent on everybody.

Sounds like a good idea.

Has anybody ever heard of the case Schiller index?

I hope so, because that's the national index for res pricing residential homes.

Now they follow the prices, you know, average prices, et cetera.

Now my question is when case Schiller goes up, as it has been recently, and they give us a three percent whack, um, when it goes down, will they reduce it?

And to me that is the question.

And um I think that needs to be kept in mind.

Um, how what is the economic impact of that to sitka?

Um can you calculate what uh three percent um would be uh to the uh value of your home and and what that economic cost is.

I did it for mine, and I invite you to do it for yours.

One of the interesting things which I find um which really shouldn't be, is that I believe there's a solution to every problem, but to the Ohaway um bus depot, the solution is not there.

There is no amount of uh mitigation that uh Mr.

McGraw can do uh which would allow for any reasonable outcome unless it is actually a phased aspect and by a phased aspect is that the first phase is to establish to get it going, and then to in essence do the old-fashioned blockbuster, because this will make the area quite onerous and people will begin to sell and they will redevelop.

So that would be phase two.

And I don't see how this is going to happen or do anything else.

And the fact that you're allowing him to reapply is very interesting.

The other thing is that I've looked up how much it would cost to get exhaust probes for vehicles.

And I found a very nice one for $5,000.

And now if Mr.

Mr.

McGraw wanted to be ahead of this, which he doesn't, because he doesn't want to bring the facts.

So I think a lot of the fault here represented with Mr.

McGraw because he wasn't providing the data.

Thank you.

Anyone else for persons to be heard?

Any item on or off tonight's agenda.

All right, that'll bring us to reports.

Honestly, I didn't think I would get here tonight.

So my report is going to be choppier than uh than it would have been.

Uh two conferences uh that myself and the administrator and then our government affairs director also went to uh Southeast Conference, was just myself and the administrator, and then Alaska Municipal League.

Um I should take a step back.

Melissa did uh uh attend the transportation symposium of Southeast Conference and then uh AML.

Um a really interesting site, and I can forward this to assembly members as well if they want that I learned about is TaxFoundation.org.

Um if you want to know any tax in any municipality, borough, city, county in the United States, this is gonna have that info on it.

Um it was way deeper than I could dig into initially, but if you want to compare our taxable rate to others' taxable rate, all that info is there and compiled for you.

So I think it can be a good basis in the future for us to to look at.

Um let me go to Southeast Conference first.

Uh the biggest takeaway that I got from that is that Lisa Murkowski is not happy at the state for squandering away the $700 million in ferry money that she brought forward to us.

A lot of it was used as revenue replacement and money replacement as opposed to money uh actually designed to improve the ferry system.

Uh furthered by that fact is that in order to run the ferries this year, they're basing their budget off an $80 million grant that they have not yet received.

And we are told that if that $80 million grant does not come through, the ferry will have to see service at times.

Um she in her video address to us was uh not happy about that fact, because I think she had to work very, very hard to get that money and saw what it could do for the region, and it unfortunately did not meet uh the those standards.

It sounds as if this year uh, well, we're in a budget crisis again, right?

We have $80 billion in savings and we're in a budget crisis.

Um broad based taxes are being looked at.

It sounds like the sales tax one as written by the governor is dead on arrival, that that will not be continuing forward.

Um, but there will be some sort of something within the next two years.

Uh, because in the earnings reserve fund, there's only about three billion left, which is only two more years or so of us pulling um from that account before that legislature will have to take action.

Right now they have a little bit of padding, they don't have to.

Uh so with that, sounds like no harbor matching funds uh this year and uh budget cuts are very, very common across cities right now.

I think we're in a fortunate spot where we're still experiencing some growth and some plateau, so we're not in a similar situation to some other municipalities, um, but we um definitely need to pay attention to that.

An interesting thing that I learned, and it sounds as if uh John is already uh working towards this goal, and it it makes sense once it's shown to you.

Uh, but every sale that happens in the municipality uh if within the borough is presumed to be taxable.

Our borough extends uh seaward um out past the Cape a little bit and actually extends uh somewhat into Chatham Strait.

Uh so with that, cruise ships that are in our borough um have not been paying sales tax on those sales.

So they those by code are presumed taxable.

It sounds as if uh John is already working towards that in the state, that goal, an easier way to do this as I wouldn't propose that we can track a ship accurately through Chatham and decide well this hour it was taxable, this hour it was not.

The easy way is to call it Sitka Sound.

When a vessel enters Sitka Sound, uh all sales on board are now taxable.

Uh this is done with great success in Juneau, uh, and they are collecting revenue off of that.

Uh there is a PFAS settlement that I want to bring to attention.

I'll forward some assembly uh board assembly members some info on that.

Um while we are not we have tested and we do not have PFAS in our municipal drinking water.

Um there is a settlement going around, and we are on the secondary list of sites that are presumed to have had, so that potentially leaves us uh available for some settlement funds.

There are outside attorneys that are representing a bunch of other clients nationwide.

I don't have the website for that, but if you just Google PFAS settlement, it's the first one that pops up.

And I'll send you some info from the um attorneys that are representing that.

Uh the final thing on AML.

Uh I know it's been proposed by Tor, I think was the one who started talking about this bringing additional people to AML.

I think that this can have some benefit, right?

If if we just send the mayor and the administrator, a lot of knowledge that is spread is in a very narrow scope and a very narrow area.

And I try and distribute as much as possible, but you lose a lot of the networking, you lose a lot of the relationships, and you lose a lot of things that can move our municipality forward.

So during this budget process, I don't know if it's a consideration of the assembly uh to add meetings for assembly members to travel to, and I don't know what that level would be.

I would suggest that you only um that we look at only the annual and then the winter conference because that is the legislative conference where we could take a contingent up the hill and talk to legislators and representatives.

Um but it I I think it is worth some consideration of the cost benefit analysis there as we go forward in the budget.

Um and then a couple just uh more housekeeping things for me and uh operations of the assembly.

So I want to go back to some some basic operations of us as a body and as an assembly and how we operate.

I'd like to remind us that we only have two employees, right?

We have an attorney and we have an administrator.

Um and those people work for the body.

So they can't we cannot direct the uh attorney or the administrator on our own.

If we're looking for action from them, uh we do need to find a co-sponsor or get the body's consensus in order to get some action through there.

Along with that, um, if you're looking to arrange meetings with staff, which we have the ability to do in code, um please arrange those through John so that he has an idea of what is going on as well, so that we uh we keep our administrator in the loop there.

Um I know that John will do his best effort to make that staff time available to us.

And if he does not, please that bring that back to me because then I have a concern on why we are not getting the staff time that we need.

Um but there are proper channels for this, and I I ask that we as an assembly do utilize those and make sure that we're we're keeping ourselves within our boundaries and we're not making our staff feel uncomfortable by going outside of those boundaries because we know they're gonna jump for us when we show up, right?

So appreciate that.

Sorry for the long-windedness, um, but it has been a while since I've been able to report.

So thank you.

Uh John, administrators report.

Uh Mayor, I appreciate the long-windedness because you pretty much covered everything that I had outlined on my agendas from Southeast Conference and uh and AML.

I I just want to give a really quick perspective on Southeast Conference, and I hope this doesn't come out um the wrong way.

I having attended these over the past few years, the atmosphere seems different.

Um, and the first few years of Southeast Conference, it was very much business focused, and we had a lot of small businesses there, and it was um very much driven towards more innovation and and what can we do and what creative ideas are out there.

Um years it seems to have become more similar to an AML conference, uh, especially this last one.

It seemed like most of the panels that spoke to us were government panels or talking to us on ways to leverage grant funding.

Um, and that's that's great.

I mean, there's a lot of grant funding available right now, so that's very helpful.

But I have seen the the flavor of Southeast Conference change a little bit over the years.

Uh I did not attend the transportation uh summit piece of it.

But one thing that in addition that I'd like to point out, um Milani Shivans gave her uh Southeast Alaska economic updates.

Everybody loves that presentation.

Uh but one tidbit I pulled out of there is 25% of workers uh in Alaska do not live in Alaska, and that is a significant amount of money that is uh earned by folks and then taken out of state.

So that was a that was a pretty amazing number to hear.

Um moving on to AML, just uh pointing out a couple things.

We had uh Mr.

Williams, the chair of the ARM board talk to us about uh PERS and the retirement system and um uh why we're in the position we're in and and what the what the uh returns are that they're looking for.

Uh and then of course uh the legislators got to come out after that and talk about PERS, and it was kind of great seeing the debate between uh different uh different opinions there.

Um you brought up the uh the PFAS class action lawsuit already, uh so we won't hit that one again.

Um on the first day of AML, we did get the opportunity to uh we missed the afternoon meetings, but that's because we had meetings with our delegation, so we were up on the hill meeting with representative Hemschute and uh Senator Steadman both, where we were able to present our legislative priorities and talk through some of the uh concerns for Sitka and then kind of got some guidance from uh Senator Steadman and his staff on uh what we should do for our uh capsus requests, our capital requests.

Uh so those were entered, they were due last Friday.

That is in.

We also have uh CDS request um earmarks for uh Senator Murkowski that are due this Friday, and we'll be taking our legislative priorities and building some requests into there.

Uh the last thing I have, just in the interest of time, uh I signed the contract with uh Southeast Childhood Collective, I think that's what it's called now.

Um they have a listening session this Saturday, February 28th.

Um I think there's a information pamphlet on the back table there.

Uh so if anybody is interested, I I'm sorry I don't have the time available, but I know it is this Saturday.

Um, and if there are questions, you can contact the city and we can put point you in the right direction.

But uh please join that uh so they can gather some information.

Thanks.

Rachel, in an attorney's report.

Uh no report from me, just a reminder that I'll be on vacation uh for March 4th through March 20th, uh going on a birthday trip.

And um I'm gonna be I think nine time zones off.

Um so I'm I'm gonna stay in touch with Mindy to keep the routine work flowing.

Um but my response time might be slow because my clock's gonna be switched.

I'm trying not to work too much, but I'm gonna set an hour my morning, her evening, and and vice versa.

Um so we have an hour on the end of each day where we're we're overlapping, and I can be in touch to keep the stuff flowing that needs to flow and respond to anything urgent that comes up.

Um I will try to attend the March 10th meeting.

I think it's gonna be three in the morning for me, and I might be on a farm.

Um, but I will do my best to make that meeting.

I understand the farm part, but the three in the morning is irrelevant.

Let's do that once uh liaison representatives.

Katie it's important to keep this body apprised of what happens on the planning commission if I learned anything.

So um they they did have a big discussion uh last week on the 18th about cruise ship docks.

Um that is uh discussion that started, I think, when I was on the commission about how to permit them.

Currently, there is no uh process that permits um these docks.

So anyone can bill one by right if they're in the right zone, or um, there's there's nothing differentiating them from other commercial docks.

And so uh the tourism commission um recommended differentiating between cruise ship docks and other docks, um, and that was something that the planning commission had um discussed as well.

And so uh we actually had we had gone through several iterations of talking about what a conditional use permit looks like for that, or if that's a conditional use permit process, or um something different entirely, and we did have um we got to the point of having some draft language presented to us for consideration uh that Amy worked on, and so um I think the the main takeaway there is that it's not a conditional use permit, it will be a cruise ship dock permit, and therefore it will not be in the zoning code where you might expect something like that that permits different activities for different zones.

It's going to live in a different chapter.

Um it's in chapter 20, and it will apply to zoned and unzoned lands, whereas chapter 22, the zoning code only applies to zoned lands.

So there's a lot of areas in our borough that are unzoned.

Um this uh this permitting process would apply to all of those as well, um, is the proposal.

And so they uh talked over a bunch of that.

Um there was also the question of um there was a lot of work that the planning commission has put into determining the criteria over uh what these permits are judged by, right?

So that we can uh we can have that that defined criteria that's gonna really um make it clear to the applicant what standards that are gonna be judged by, which we we saw was important tonight, and um we they also discussed uh this was something that like arose in public comment a lot.

You know, there's been um folks that don't want to see any more cruise ship docks built, and so there's those are two separate questions.

The planning commission decided is like what are the criteria by which we would judge an application and then whether or not we would allow um any applications to go forward.

So I believe like when it comes to the assembly, you know, they have some more work to do.

There might be two different questions over um, you know, the content of the cruise ship dock permit itself and what the criteria are, what the process is, stuff like that, and then also whether or not there should be a moratorium on those.

Um so I'm sure that uh you know Amy will keep keep us informed of when that happens.

The planning commission has more work to do.

I think they discussed um potentially uh you know, requesting a work session or something, but we're we're they're not quite at that point yet, so um more to come, but it was a very interesting discussion, and a lot of thought has gone into that.

Katie, when they when I was still doing it, one of the big questions was what is a cruise ship?

What it was and is when I left it, it was had about a hundred, I think a hundred passengers.

Was that still roughly what they were talking, or did they change that?

Um there were some numbers in there, but they were emphasized to be uh open for debate, but they differentiated between minor and major uh ships.

So that was the important thing, and they were still they needed to figure out what constitutes a minor and what constitutes a major ship or dock.

GG Harbor Commission met February 11th.

Um and they looked at the recommended um from staff increase for more a didn't vote on it, but we still will see a four percent in the packet for Thursday, just based off of um staff, not necessarily recommendation from the commission.

Um something they they did vote on and pass at that meeting um was kind of a review for several months on uh fish box tax, and they would like to see um us adopt a $15 um per box uh tax that's based on inflation over the however many years it's been um set at 10.

Um so if anyone wants to sponsor that with me, um let me know, and we can look at fish box tax.

But that was a recommendation passed at the February meeting of of harbors, and they'll be meeting again on March 11th if anyone wishes to discuss morage rates.

Scotty, the library's like and where it's at right now, staff's helping them out on some technical issues.

And the thing I took away from the tourism committee was Amy and paraphrasing now, but the way I took it was people right now that have the rights with their property to build any dock they want and bringing them in the loop so they could potentially lose the right to build a dock in this whole process.

I thought was pretty key for people to uh talk about all right, thank you, liaison's clerk's report.

Holly, you're on the hook for this one.

Um let's see.

So this year, Holly and I are making an effort to visit each of our boards, commissions, and committees, and provide um a 20 to 30 minute training on uh roles, responsibilities, um, parliamentary procedure.

Um so far we've visited Port and Harbors and Health Needs in March.

We'll be visiting library and historic preservation, I think.

So just a recap of upcoming meetings that you have.

Uh with the focus on enterprise funds.

And then March 10th, you have a regular meeting.

March 24th, another regular meeting, but at five o'clock.

Um prior to the regular meeting, you have a work session with CETA.

And then March 25th, which is a Wednesday, is a special budget meeting, and that's review of the administrator's draft budget for the general fund.

Is that all the meetings?

No worries, we got this.

I'm sure there will be a few more.

Any other reports this evening?

All right.

Um unfortunately, we are not going to adjournment.

Actually, fortunately, I'm excited to review these administrator applications.

Um a motion for executive session, please.

I move to go into executive session to review the applicants applications submitted but for the municipal administrator position under the statutory category of discussing subjects that may be that may tend to prejudice the uh reputation and character of an individual and invite an assistant municipal administrator Joshua Branth over.

In addition, I move to exclude the municipal administrator and municipal attorney.

Second it's been moved and seconded to go into executive session to review these applications.

Is there any public comment on entering executive session?

I see none.

Uh Sarah.

Right.

On the motion to go into executive session, Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbaus?

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

And Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0.

And we'll be meeting in room four, just down the hall on the right.

Thank you.

Assembly, take a break on the way if you need to talk I'm good when everybody are.

All right, we are back recording.

I move to reconvene as an assembly.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

All right.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

We are reconvened as the assembly in regular session.

So the assembly met in executive session to review applications.

We did review some applications.

We will be continuing in our administrator hiring process.

And I'd like to remind everybody that uh the administer the administrator search remains open until filled.

With that, that would bring us to adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

I think we all did it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you, everybody, for your time this evening.

We are adjourned.