Journal of Proceedings Missoula City Council Meeting

August 24, 2020, 6:00 pm To register to attend and/or comment: https://ci-missoula-mt.zoom.us/calendar/list For agenda and related documents: www.ci.missoula.mt.us/webcasts Webstream live or on demand at: www.ci.missoula.us/webcasts Watch live on Spectrum Cable Channel 190

Members Present: Stacie Anderson, Mirtha Becerra, John P. Contos, Heather Harp, Jordan Hess, Gwen Jones, Julie Merritt, Jesse Ramos, Amber Sherrill, Sandra Vasecka, Bryan von Lossberg, Heidi West

Administration Present: Mayor John Engen, Dale Bickell, Chief Administrative Officer, Jim Nugent, City Attorney, Marty Rehbein

Administration Absent: Ginny Merriam, Communications Director

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Missoula City Council was called to order by Mayor John Engen at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at 140 West Pine Street 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 2.1 Minutes from the August 17, 2020 meeting will be available at a later date 3. SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS 3.1 Committee schedule for the week of August 24, 2020 Land Use & Planning Committee, August 26, 8:55 – 11:00 a.m. Public Works Committee, August 26, 11:20 – 11:30 a.m. Parks & Conservation Committee, August 26, 11:50 a.m. – Noon Public Safety & Health Committee, August 26, 12:25 – 1:10 p.m. Administration & Finance Committee, August 26, 1:30 – 1:50 p.m. Budget Committee of the Whole, August 26, 2:00 – 5:00 p.m. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT Matts Larson thanked Mayor Engen for meeting with him this morning over Zoom to chat about what’s going on in Missoula and about the budget. In regards to the context slide of this meeting, we need a Static ID Number and a Static Telephone Number in order to expect the public to be able to utilize their ability to participate in these meetings. It would also help if we did a link for some of those huge links that people have to type in by hand. This is common sense, best practice, for this type of meeting if you wish to truly engage with the public. The Missoulian article on Saturday about Mr. Stevens’s interactions with MPD is indicative of a greater pattern of withholding public information and not filling out or not making reports allowed to the public or even to a defense attorney, in this case. He thanked Judge Leslie Halligan for throwing out the charges. We need to take heed of this and look at what’s going on at MPD. He’s made the Mayor aware of all four incidences in his own personal friend group involving negative interactions with MPD and he will be following up on those. This involves the same City Attorney’s office that has yet to produce one of his information requests, no matter how easy they are or how difficult. He’s been assured by the Mayor that they will be provided. He is skeptical that that will be done in a timely enough manner to allow him to meaningfully comment on the budget because a lot of these things are relevant to the budget. He compelled Mirtha Becerra to spend some time with her new grants and focus on MPD because there’s obviously some issues here. The person that overreacted during the Stevens’s case was a corporal, a person very high up in the ranks who should know much better than to kick someone in the groin when they react. The conduct is unacceptable that appears to be going on here. We need to address that in this community. We don’t need more SWAT vans or riot helmets. We need mental health, substance abuse treatment, affordable housing and social services. We do not need people with guns who, even at the higher levels, don’t have the wherewithal to deal with someone who throws a wallet at them at a lighter. That deserves being pushed to the ground, handcuffed and kicked in the groin? It’s despicable. He wants to shame anyone who thinks otherwise. It’s something he’s been drawing to awareness for weeks now and he’s gotten nothing but blow-back and being blocked off from every source of data in the City. He is agitated and deserves better results as do the public. Donald Iarussi said he’s 66 years old and retired. He doesn’t like sitting home so he does some Ubering and enjoys time doing that. He was at a stoplight on Russell and was going to the Food Bank and his GPS told him he needed to make a right turn but he had to make a left turn in order to get to the Good Food Store. He was stopped at a light with three cars in front of him and was glancing at a map on his phone. The police gave him a ticket because he said he was talking on his phone when he was getting info from On Star. He sees cops talking on their phone all the time and they gave him a ticket while he’s doing a public service. September 29th he’ll do his 7 hours of public service. He asked the officer if he could go to the Food Bank or a shelter and was told no, he had to come in to see them first which he thinks is silly. Josh Decker said he wanted to reiterate comments that he’s made in the past about reinvesting in our city when appropriating money for the budget, he’d like it to be reinvested in social services, mental health services and similar ideas along those lines. He would like the roughly $600,000 that’s slated to be appropriated to the police to be redirected towards those venerable efforts. Earlier this week we witnessed Austin, Texas, the 11th largest city in America, cut their police budget by about one-third, some $100 million cut from that budget or more. We are no Austin, Texas but certainly there are things that we want to be and a lot of them that we don’t. But these are examples that we can follow in the nationwide community at large. Right now, as a citizen of Missoula, he’s loathed to call the police for any reason because in doing so he thinks that there is a good chance that if he were to call the police for some minor complaint, that he would be sentencing one of his neighbors to death or sidewalk justice. This is something we see around the country and it’s only a matter of time before we see it here if we don’t do something about it. City Clerk Rehbein said we are experiencing terrible internet connectivity issues here in Council Chambers and the Zoom connection that MCAT takes the feed off of did not have video through the entire last presenter’s conversation. We heard his audio but now the connection has come back on, on the channel, on the computer that we stream the meeting through MCAT. We’re struggling and sent a message to IT and waiting to hear from them. Mayor Engen said, I’m sorry we’re continuing to wrestle with technology here a little bit, folks. 5. CONSENT AGENDA AYES: (12): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Contos, Alderperson Harp, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West Vote result: Approved (12 to 0)

5.3 Title 12 Updates [First reading and preliminary adoption] Set a public hearing on October 5, 2020, and preliminarily adopt an ordinance amending Missoula Municipal Code Title 12, entitled “Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places” to create new Chapters 12.02 entitled “Definitions”, 12.10 entitled “Right-of-Way Improvements”, and 12.17 entitled “Parking Facilities”, to amend Chapter 12.28 entitled “Obstructions” to update standards relating to sight visibility triangles, and to repeal Chapters 12.12 entitled “Curbs, Sidewalks and Improvements” and 12.22 entitled “Parking Facilities”. Vote result: Approved

5.5 3270 and 3770 Mullan Rd. – Mullan Crossing Annexation Set a public hearing for September 14, 2020 and adopt a resolution of intention to annex and incorporate within the boundaries of the City of Missoula two certain parcels of land described as Tract 1 of Halling Farms and a tract of land described in Book 128 of Micro Records at Page 461 and shown on Exhibit A, located in Section 18, Township 13 North, Range 19 West, P.M.M., and zone the property C1-3 Neighborhood Commercial, based on the findings of fact in the staff report, subject to the recommended conditions of annexation approval. Vote result: Approved

5.1 Claims - August 25, 2020 Approve claims in the amount of $1,317,040.78 for checks dated August 25, 2020. AYES: (9): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Harp, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West NAYS: (3): Alderperson Contos, Alderperson Ramos, and Alderperson Vasecka Vote result: Approved (9 to 3)

5.2 Amendment No. 1 with WGM Group Inc. for the Water Rights Consulting Services Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1 with WGM Group Inc. for providing additional services under the Water Rights Consulting Services Professional Services Agreement for a cost not to exceed $10,800.00. AYES: (11): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Contos, Alderperson Harp, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West ABSTAIN: (1): Alderperson Merritt Vote result: Approved (11 to 0)

5.4 Annexation of Tracts 1 and 2 of COS No. 5963 – Heron’s Landing Subdivision Set a public hearing on September 14, 2020 and adopt a resolution of intention to annex and incorporate within the boundaries of the city of Missoula, Montana a certain parcel of land described as Tracts 1 and 2 of COS No. 5963 in the SE 1/4 of Section 12 and the N 1/2 of Section 13, Township 13 North, Range 20 West, P.M.M. and zone the property RT5.4 Residential in the city, based on the findings of fact in the staff report, subject to the recommended conditions of annexation approval. AYES: (11): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Contos, Alderperson Harp, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West ABSTAIN: (1): Alderperson Merritt Vote result: Approved (11 to 0) Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Rehbein. Questions or comments from Councilmembers? I have Mr. Ramos. Alderperson Ramos said, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can you please divide the question so I can vote on items 5.1 separately due to the Boone Karlberg legal fees? Mayor Engen said, yes. And, Ms. Merritt? Alderperson Merritt said, I would just like to note for the record that I will be abstaining from voting on items 5.2 and 5.4. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Merritt. And anyone in the audience wish to comment? Mr. Larson? Matts Larson said, yes, hello. I’d also like to object to the Boone Karlberg charges. Again, I’m forgetting how many days ago it was now, but I think it’s like close to like two weeks ago I requested this information from the Finance Department themselves. There was a very nice woman by the name of Ashley MacDonald who helped me and told me that they had checks, all I’m asking for is checks, not the invoices just the dates, the money and who it’s written to from public accounts, and she says that they have them until 2013, and so I requested in the official manner. After, she was told…she told me that she could not send these to me directly and assured me it’s all public information. So, I’ve yet to receive those again from the City Attorney. I’ve spoken with the Mayor today. I don’t expect direct action like immediately but, I mean, it was like, click, boom, send type of scenario as far as Ashley MacDonald herself explained it to me. And it gets a little weirder because, I don’t know, I mean, I haven’t received any information from the City. And if you look at the invoices this week, Ashley MacDonald is reimbursed for what is called at-home remote software. So, it appears to me as though the City is like seeking retribution on Ashley MacDonald for being the point who’s pointed out so awesomely and so helpful, in such a helpful manner, where this data exists, whom has it and how easily it is to be distributed, yet I have yet to receive that or any of my other requests from the City, either the Clerk or the City Attorney. When I go to the County, again, I usually get stuff in two days or even the same day. So, again, I’d like to object on that. I’d like to also point out the weird reimbursement for Ashley MacDonald. I mean, maybe you guys are, you know, maybe there’s a story to that but or a reason… Mayor Engen said, yeah, Mr. Larson, here’s the story to it. Ms. MacDonald is working from home because we’re in a pandemic and we are reimbursing here for the software she needs to be able to work from home. Matts Larson said, right. Well, when I called her, she was in the office, the Finance office, so I just find it a little weird. Just like when I requested Chief Shite’s background check and he is reimbursed the next week for his legal equivalency test. It’s just odd. It’s just, I don’t know, I can’t explain it. I’m sorry, like it doesn’t matter how easy my request is or how hard it is, there’s no update and there’s no information, so that’s where I’m at with that. As far as the budget is concerned, I’ve done two formal complaints against the Communications Department for the management by their own protocol at Engagemissoula.com… Mayor Engen said, so, we’ll be talking about the budget later and you’re at three minutes, Mr. Larson. On the consent agenda, I have Ms. Romero. Ms. Romero? And, Ms. Romero. Alright, if that’s the case, we have no other takers on the consent agenda so we will have a roll call vote on item 1. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with 9 Ayes, 3 Nays Mayor Engen said, and claims are approved and, on the remainder, please, Ms. Rehbein. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with 12 Ayes Mayor Engen said, and the remainder of the consent agenda is approved. 6. COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF, AGENCIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AUTHORITIES AND THE COMMUNITY FORUM - None 7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 7.1 Proclamation - Suicide Prevention Week Mayor Engen proclaimed September 6 through September 12, 2020 as Suicide Prevention Week. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 Rezone 508 S 3rd St W to Apply Adaptive Reuse (AR) Overlay This public hearing will be held open for final consideration during the September 2, 2020 Special City Council meeting Emily Gluckin, Planner with Development Services, said, I’ve been a planner here for about a year. Tonight I will be presenting the request from Jesse Dodson of University Avenue Developers LLC to rezone the property located at 508 South Third Street West to apply the Adaptive Reuse Overlay on top of the current zoning. The subject property is located in the Riverfront Neighborhood, south of downtown Missoula and is within City Council Ward 3 in the McCormick Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The parcel is located on South Third Street West near Orange Street. It is approximately 6,490 square feet and currently contains a 16-unit multi-dwelling building and the property has frontage on South Third Street West and abuts an alley. The Our Missoula 2035 City Growth Policy recommends a land use designation of Neighborhood Mixed Use which encourages a mix of neighborhoods serving commercial uses and medium high residential density. The Growth Policy indicates that B1-1 Neighborhood Business, B2-1 Community Business, B2-2 Community Business and M1R2 Limited Industrial Residential zoning districts aligned with the neighborhood mixed use land designation. Each of these zoning districts permit a residential density of up to 43 dwelling units per acre which is the same density allowed by the current underlying zoning of the property. The livability section of the City Growth Policy outlines goals and objectives for historic preservation. These include encouraging the preservation of historic buildings, encouraging development that maintains or enhances the character of the community and supporting sustainable development practices through historic preservation. The City Growth Policy also promotes a Focus Inward development approach that encourages new growth in the direction of existing infrastructure, neighborhood and public services. This can be done through infill, increased density and Adaptive Reuse projects. This approach is also in support of meeting the policy’s goals to provide a sufficient supply of housing for a growing population within the city. The current zoning of the parcel is C1-4 Neighborhood Commercial and it is within the Design Excellence Corridor topology to overlay districts. The C1-4 district requires a minimum of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit per parcel or on a parcel. The surrounding area contains a mix of C1-4, B2- 2 Community Business and RT2.7 Residential, 2.7, two-unit or townhouse zoning districts. Following the application of the Adaptive Reuse Overlay the current zoning would remain the same with the addition of the AR Overlay on top. Properties in the surrounding area contain a combination of commercial uses, single and multi-dwelling residential uses and governmental services. The subject property currently contains a 16-unit multi-dwelling building that faces South Third Street West. The building has a parking area to the east side and to the rear of the building and has access from the alley. There are currently three parking spaces on-site and 14 parking spaces provided in a parking lot shared with the adjacent office building through a shared parking easement and this creates a total of 17 parking spaces for the development. According to a historical survey of the site, the existing building was constructed in 1909 and was used as an apartment building until the Thornton Hospital was established in 1917 and that is the map that is shown in this slide. After the founding doctors of the hospital relocated to what would become the Community Medical Center, the building was once again used as an apartment building and that use has been continued ever since. This survey determines that the historical integrity of the building has been retained due to the survival of the original design and materials, the continuity of setting and location and the building’s representation of early Missoula architecture. Therefore, the survey concludes that it would be a contributing element in the McCormick Historic District. Earlier this year, in January, 2020, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a motion to add the buildings to Missoula’s inventory of historic resources and designated as a contributing building to the McCormick Historic District. These characteristics allowed the building to be designated as what is known as a historically significant building. The applicant is requesting to apply the Adaptive Reuse Overlay which is intended to facilitate the adaptation and continuing use of these historically significant buildings in the community. The AR District may only be applied to a parcel that contains an existing building which meets the definition of historically significant building and must be for an Adapter Reuse purpose. The Historic Preservation Commission determined that the parcel qualifies for the AR District based on the factors discussed in the previous slide. Therefore…sorry, lost my place and also based on the project’s conformance would be objectives of the overlay. These objectives include Adaptive Reuse of historic buildings, supporting goals, this would be goals for historic preservation and environmental sustainability and economic and community development , valuing historically significant buildings, allowing the conversion of existing building uses into new uses that maintain community character and extend the life of the building, reducing hazards and costs associated with new construction and enhancing economic growth. The applicant makes this request in anticipation of increasing the density of the multi-dwelling building from its current 16 units to 22 dwelling units, through an interior renovation of the building. Properties where the Adaptive Reuse Overlay is applied may exceed the maximum density established by the underlying zoning district for the parcel as long as the added density is allowable by building code. Parking is the factor that is considered with the request to apply the Adaptive Reuse Overlay and with a request for increased density. This table compares the calculations for required parking between the current and proposed scenarios. Title 20 requires one parking space per each dwelling unit under 850 square feet so at 16 units, 16 parking spaces is the current parking requirement which would increase to 22 spaces with 22 units. As I mentioned earlier, 17 parking spaces are currently provided on site and will remain in the proposed scenario. The project is eligible for two parking reductions through incentive and zoning code. The first parking reduction is for transit served locations within the Design Excellence Overlay. This reduction allows the off-street parking requirement to be reduced by 15% if the project is within 1,250 feet of a transit stop with adequate level of services. This property is within a block of a Mountain Line bus stop for Route 7, therefore, it’s eligible for this reduction and through this reduction. And through this reduction the parking requirement can be reduced by three spaces or 15% of 22. The second reduction available is for landmarks and historic districts, this is through Title 20, that allows the Zoning Officer and the Historic Preservation Officer to approve exceptions and waivers to off-street parking requirements for contributing buildings in National Registry in Historic Districts. The Historic Preservation Officer has indicated that they will approve a parking waiver for this project. Title 20 requires that existing developments address only new parking requirements rather than rectify current parking that is lawfully existing but may not meet today’s zoning standards. In this case, with the application of the parking reduction, the total parking requirement is equal to the amount of parking currently provided, therefore, requirements for new parking are not triggered through new zoning. Staff examined this application using the review criteria for rezone requests and found that, first, the rezoning implements the Focus Inward, historic preservation and housing goals of the City Growth Policy. Second, that the rezoning facility see adequate provision of public services including transportation, water, schools, parks and other public requirements. This is because the area is inside the urban growth area, this sewer service area and is currently served by water, sewer, motorized and non-motorized infrastructure. Third, the rezoning promotes compatible urban growth by creating urban infill without adding stress to existing infrastructure and facilities. It promotes the continued preservation, maintenance and general welfare of the historic building and it is contextually appropriate given the similar uses and similar building types in the area. Fourth, the rezoning will promote public health, public safety and general welfare by retaining residential uses in an area with access to sewer, public water, emergency services, streets, bike lanes and other urban services. And, finally, the rezoning gives a reasonable consideration to the character of the district. A public hearing was held on August 4th with the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board. Planning Board voted 8 ayes and zero nays in favor of the recommended motion to approve the adoption of an ordinance to rezone 508 South Third Street West to apply the AR Overlay. During the hearing, the Board discussed concerns that were raised in a public comment regarding increased parking demand tied to an increase in density as well as the limitations on hours of use for the existing shared parking easement which is limited to parking outside of business hours. Several Board members expressed this project is a representation of the intent of the Adaptive Reuse Overlay to promote historic preservation and create housing through Adaptive Reuse. The rezone request was presented as an informational item at the Land Use and Planning Committee meeting last week on August 19th. During the meeting, more information was requested on the two following items. The first was highlighting how the rezone request relates to the Zero by 50 Zero Waste Goals of the City. It is discussed within the Zero by 50 Plan that construction and demolition debris accounts for two-thirds of all discarded materials within the U.S. This planning encourages methods including deconstruction, reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris. So, I want to highlight that the proposal to reuse an existing building aligns with these goals to do decrease of waste and development and work with the existing materials and existing building shows the building that’s already there. The second information, a piece of information requested was regarding impact fees for the project and staff confirmed that impact fees will not increase for density added through an interior remodeling because the footprint is not expanding. Based on the findings presented today, staff recommends approval of the rezone request to apply the AR Overlay with the following motion for final consideration. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Gluckin. And I will open the public hearing. Anyone care to comment on this item? The public hearing will remain open until Council takes final action at its next regular meeting. And I see no public comment. Oh, I’m sorry. I have one. Mr. Iarussi Donald Iarussi said, hi. I’ll try to be quick because I have to go to watch the Republic Convention. And He’s a Bronx born brown person which is a minority in Missoula and I’m also a Republican now that I’ve left the Democrat plantation. But, I just don’t know this would even benefit Missoula. It’ll just add more traffic. It’ll add more pollution, more water usage and at the same time you have so many roads that are not plowed and so many roads that haven’t been tarred over even though the President has given Montana a substantial amount of money which has been misused by the Governor who runs the state horribly. But, I don’t see how any of the things you are doing would make minorities want to move here, especially conservative minorities when there’s nothing…there’s an all-white City Council, a white Mayor, an all-white police department and nothing in the city that would be exciting or enticing for a person of color. I’m here because I married someone from here but I’m originally from the South Bronx and I’ve seen a lot of things you’re talking about, I’m an older person, put into play and it just creates…what you’re doing is you’re building more places and more price increase, more corruption. It just creates more traffic. You can’t even move on Reserve. Being an Uber driver and retired, I have to be spending like… an inordinate amount of time on Reserve also and you’re…and people are going to be living down in the bus zone. Why the heck do you need additional parking spaces or why can’t they just park on the street and pay? It just doesn’t make any sense. I mean, you’re trying to limit your carbon footprint and then you’re giving us a new downtown area. I’m puzzled how you call yourself a liberal city and a progressive city because I’m seeing nothing progressive about the city that is being done to promote housing for the homeless, promote housing for minorities and creating a city that’s conducive to everybody living in. And I don’t see how this would benefit…it would just be another high-priced apartment complex. It’s overrated like most of the so-called housing that already exists here. And, anyway, maybe you need to spend more time educating people also on how to treat older people of color who lives in your city, especially if they wear a Trump hat and maybe treat them with better respect and maybe looking at an overall picture. And as far as Bronx born person like I am, you talked about that earlier and I’ll be quick there is no way limiting guns in any way will create less suicides because, you know, that’s worked so well in Missoula for like drug control. Can’t find drugs anywhere in Missoula and they’re illegal. Why’s that? Mayor Engen said, you’re drifting considerably off the topic of the rezoning, Mr. Iarussi. Donald Iarussi said, no, it’s all related actually it is all related and it’s doing nothing to benefit minorities and other people in the city. It’s not benefitting…16 apartments does not benefit homeless people or benefiting middle class people or senior citizens that worked their whole lives. It’s only going to benefit the owner. Anyway, thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you, sir. I see no additional…oh, I do, sorry. So, no additional public comments so I will close the public hearing. Are there questions from Council? Mr. Hess? Alderperson Hess said, Mayor, I just wanted to clarify the schedule. So, my understanding is that the public hearing remains open and that…but rather than taking this up at our next regularly scheduled meeting on September 14th, this will before Council for final action at our special meeting added on September 2nd and I just had miscommunicated that during the LUP meeting so I wanted to bring that up tonight. Mayor Engen said, thank you for that clarification, Mr. Hess. Any other questions or comments from Councilmembers? Alright, seeing none, ladies and gentlemen, without objection, we have an item for final consideration this evening that should be pretty simple and if we can take care of that, it would allow a couple of staff members to wrap up so again, without objection, I’d like to move to that item and then we’ll get back into the public hearing schedule. And that item for final consideration is an ordinance amending Municipal Code and a resolution amending the Utility Rate Schedule and a motion from Public Works. Ms. Becerra, if you’re there, would be in order. 9. FINAL CONSIDERATION 9.1 An Ordinance Amending MMC Chapter 13.17 and a Resolution Amending the Utility Rate Schedule. Moved by: Alderperson Becerra [Second and final reading] Adopt an ordinance amending MMC Chapter 13.17 entitled “Water Line Loan Program” by amending Section 13.17.050 to state “Utility Rate Schedule” instead of “Missoula Water Division (MWD) Rate Schedule” and “loan processing fee” instead of “administrative fee” AYES: (12): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Contos, Alderperson Harp, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West Vote result: Approved (12 to 0)

Moved by: Alderperson Becerra Adopt a resolution of the Missoula City Council amending the Utility Rate Schedule to include the loan processing fee for the Water Line Loan Program. AYES: (12): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Contos, Alderperson Harp, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West Vote result: Approved (12 to 0) Alderperson Becerra said, I am here. I need just one second to find my place. Mayor Engen said, no problem at all. I threw a wrench in the works. My apologies. Alderperson Becerra said, it’s all good. Okay. I recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance amending MMC Chapter 13.27 entitled “Water Line Loan Program” by amending Section 13.17.050 to state “Utility Rate Schedule” instead of “Missoula Water Division (MWD) Rate Schedule” and “loan processing fee” instead of “administrative fee.” Mayor Engen said, with the one correction that that’s Chapter 13.17, that motion is in order. Alderperson Becerra said, correct. Mayor Engen said, is there discussion on the motion? Ms. Vasecka. Alderperson Vasecka said, thank you. I clarified this last week and I just wanted to clarify it for all of our audience tonight. This is not adding any new fees. This is not amending any fees. This is purely just language changing and, therefore, I will be supporting the motion. Mayor Engen said, any further discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Rehbein, we’ll have a roll call vote. Upon a roll call vote the ordinance passed with 12 Ayes Mayor Engen said, and the motion is approved. And Ms. Becerra? Alderperson Becerra said, so, I’m losing all my screens here. Okay, I recommend the City Council approve…adopt a resolution of the Missoula City Council amending the Utility Rate Schedule to include the loan processing fee for the Water Line Loan Program. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Becerra. That motion is in order. Is there discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we have had a public hearing. We’ll have a roll call vote. Ms. Rehbein? We have appeared to have lost Ms. Rehbein. City Clerk Rehbein said, actually I’m still here. I just…the computer that hosts your meeting for MCAT needs Escribe. Just came back on line. Mayor Engen said, okay. City Clerk Rehbein said, if you’ll tell me where we’re at. Are we at the resolution to adopt the motion…to adopt the resolution related to the Utility Rate Schedule? Mayor Engen said, the water line resolution. City Clerk Rehbein said, yes. Mayor Engen said, yup. City Clerk Rehbein said, I think we left off at Harp. Mayor Engen said, we didn’t leave off anywhere. We didn’t get anyone, Marty. You need to start over. City Clerk Rehbein said, okay. I mean, we left off the last roll…we start this next round with Harp. Mayor Engen said, oh, I see, okay. City Clerk Rehbein said, I started the last round with Contos.

Mayor Engen said, Ms. Rehbein? Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for these technical difficulties. We’ve worked a lot of the bugs out but lack of bandwidth is a brand new one. Alright, Ms. Rehbein, you back? City Clerk Rehbein said, I am back. I’m going to move to one Zoom session for this meeting and see if this helps me. So, folks watching on Escribe and MCAT, the screen might not be as pretty but, hopefully, we’ll have everybody on it. Mayor Engen said, Ms. Rehbein, would you just confirm the vote on the resolution please?

Upon a roll call vote the resolution passed with 12 Ayes

Mayor Engen said, alright, we will be back in order. Thank you, folks, for indulging me in that reordering. We’ll be back in order with our second public hearing of the evening. This is on an application to rezone 2920 Expo Parkway and Mr. DeGrandpre has our staff report this evening. 8.2 Rezone - 2920 Expo Parkway - Grant Creek Village This item will be returned to the Land Use and Planning committee on September 2, 2020 for additional discussion, and this public hearing will be held open for final consideration during the September 14, 2020 City Council meeting. Dave DeGrandpre, Development Services, said, I’m going to go ahead and pull up a PowerPoint presentation. Okay. The application before us has been put forth by KJA Development and is represented by Mike Morgan of Hoffman & Morgan Associates. And the application is a request to rezone 2920 Expo Parkway R5.4 Residential, RM1-35 Multi-Dwelling, B2-2 Community Business and C1-4 Neighborhood Commercial to RM1-5 Multi-Dwelling. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the property. It’s located just north of the Interstate 90 Interchange with Grant Creek Road. To the west side of the property is a steeper hillside. You can see it. There’s an irrigation ditch running roughly northeast southwest toward the west side of the property and it cuts around to the north just south of the residential development near the northern boundary. There are two parcels, the north parcel and a south parcel. Total acreage is about 44 acres. The property has been used historically for a gravel pit. And the property is accessed from two points, from Expo Parkway, the road along the southbound area and also to Stonebridge Road. The vicinity of the property to the west mentioned there’s a steeper hillside. It’s undeveloped. To the north is a single-family residential-type development. To the east is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation headquarters and warehouse. To the southeast are multi, smaller scale condominium development and to the south are restaurants and a few hotels and a couple of naked commercial properties. The property curiously has five different zoning districts on it right now. There’s the R5.4, RM135, and B2-2…I guess it’s four zoning districts, sorry and C1-4. So, the way that Title 20 works in Missoula the…when a property is “split” zoned, in other words when there’s more than one zoning designation on it, the more restrictive the zoning applies to that property. So, on the northern property you can see that there’s R5.4. At the very north RM135, toward the center in that beige color and toward the south and southwest there’s a…it’s the pinkish color C1-4. It’s a commercial district. And so, the more restrictive of that is the R5.4. Similarly, on the south parcel there are a few different zoning districts and the RM1-35 is a residential, multi-family district applies to that parcel. The north parcel with R5.4…R5.4 is a single-family residential type district. It’s urban scale. It has the minimum parcel size of 5,400 square feet and maximum height of 35 feet. The most important thing, I think, for your consideration at this time is again on the north parcel, the bottom, after all is said and done, you know, there’s…because there’s a steep portion of hillside on the property, up to 155 single- dwelling units could potentially be built on that property. Now, that’s not to say they actually could. A portion of the property is undevelopable because of the steeper slopes but the zoning would allow up to 155 single-dwelling units. The south parcel, the most restrictive parcel…sorry, the most restrictive zoning is RM135. That’s a multi-family type district. It allows single dwellings, duplexes, actually all of the housing types under the menu in Title 20 are allowed on this property. The minimum parcel area is 3,000 square feet. The minimum area per unit, in other words, there are apartments built, the minimum area for apartment building is 1,000 square feet and the maximum height is 35 feet. When all is said and done, taking into consideration hillside development standards and density reduction that Title 20 affords or acquires, up to 339 dwelling units could potentially be built on that southern parcel. The developer is requesting, as I mentioned, RM1-45. The parameters here…the requirements are the exact same as the RM1-35 district that applies to the southern parcel with exception of the maximum height. The real difference is, the developer is proceeding to put a maximum height of 45 feet for extra purchase. So, again, the most important number here probably for your consideration is at the very bottom. So, the number of units that could potentially be built on the properties if the zoning RM1-45 is approved, is up to 11,085. However, that’s really an exaggeration. Those are raw numbers. What you have to do is, you know, the zoning required a certain amount for circulation. In other words, for drive- bys. A certain amount of area for parking. A certain amount of area for…it’s not a park necessarily, but it’s called activity area in the zone. There’s landscaping and setback requirements, etc. So, I don’t know exactly what the true developable number of units would be on the property but I’d say it’s considerably less than 11,085 on there. But it just gives you some ballpark numbers. So, back to this slide, without the rezone, you know, a maximum of under 500 units, 494 units could be built on the property under today’s current zoning. Again, if everything works out right and then under the proposed zoning a maximum of 11,085 could be built. Again, those are raw numbers. Probably not totally realistic but anyway you get the idea of what’s being requested. So, when we review a zoning request, one of the first things we look at is the Growth Policy or, sorry, a rezoning request. And so, Growth Policy provides some general land use designations. This is the future land use map. And so, a Growth Policy, as you probably know, is a long-range plan. It provides a guide for future developments, future land use change but also addresses a whole lot of other issues. It addresses things like livability in a community. Things like housing units. Things like economic development and activity. Lots of different parameters. Lots of different things. In my view, one of the most important pieces is its future land use map because it kind of distills down all of the different goals, all of the different policies, all of the different objectives on a spatial scale. It puts it on a map. And so, you can see that this property here…again it’s 44 acres in size and 87% of it is designated on your Growth Policy future land use map as residential high-density development. So, that’s a designation that it seeks to encourage high density development in this location at a scale of roughly…I think 24 to 34 dwelling units per acre if I’m not mistaken. It’s greater than 24 dwelling units per acre. And that’s the greenish…dark greenish color. You can also see that there’s another land use designation on the property that’s called Regional Commercial and Services and that is a designation…again, it’s a general designation that encourages larger scale type commercial development that might acquire a lot of vehicle trips. Things like, or require a lot of outdoor storage space or significant land area. Things like hotels. Things like warehouses or automobile dealers, equipment service places, things like that. So, there are two different zoning designations on the property. But the residential high designation …residential high covers 87% of it. Regional Commercial and Services designation in pink also allows not only commercial but also residential development on the properties. And allows a similar density…actually the exact same density up to 34 units…greater than 24 units per acre within the implementing district. And so, when the Growth Policy start those general land use categories, then we zoom in a little bit. So, what source of…if we, you know, with the Growth Policy is a vision, this is kind of where the rubber hits the road. These are the zoning districts that apply those particular designations and you can see in the left column that the residential high- density designation, the implementing zoning districts or the zoning districts that were applied to that designation are all multi-family, all multi-dwelling. The RM135, the RM145, which they’re asking for, RM1-5 and also RM0.5. On that big corner of the map I just showed you, regional commercial and services designation, there are also four different implementing districts…the top three with the red asterisks also allow…they’re commercial and industrial districts but they also allow residential development up to 43 dwelling units per acre. Growth policy compliance. So, this is one of the primary criteria for reviewing zone changes and in the valuation, you know, staff looked pretty closely at this, whether the project complied or does not comply with the Growth Policy. And, honestly, you know, I’m going to continue if that’s okay on the Council. Does that sound good, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Engen said, Dave, let me check with Marty here real quick. Marty, the recording stopped? City Clerk Rehbein said, that’s Zoom recording. I still have MCAT here. What I’m hoping is that if I can stop some of the streaming that’s going on, the meeting will stop cutting out for our Escribe and our users who are watching on MCAT. So, I’m trying to eliminate some of the bandwidth problems I think I might be having. Mayor Engen said, okay, thank you. Great. Mr. DeGrandpre, please go right ahead. Dave DeGrandpre, Development Services, said, thank you. So, we looked very closely at whether this project, whether this zoning proposal complies or does not comply with the Growth Policy. And I think the legal standard is whether it substantially complies. No proposal, no project, very few at least are going to comply 100%. They’re not going to comply with every single goal, every single policy, every single objective. But on balance, after considering this I think pretty closely, staff found that the proposal does substantially comply for the following reasons. 87% of the property is designated residential high density greater than 24 units per acre. RM1-45, as I showed you just a minute ago, is an implementing district, the residential high-density designation. In the regional and commercial services, future land use map area, the pink area that I showed you, the residential density in this area is the same as the area in RM1.5. The Growth Policy has a Focus Inward approach and that encourages development in the city center but also encourages development on city services. And so, in working with the City’s water providers, sewer providers, fire, police and others, other City officials working with MDT, etc., you know, we found that the city can be served by adequate public facilities. It certainly supports the housing goals that the City has laid out in several policy documents. On the other hand, you know, some services and facilities do not exist today and this was one of the things that the Planning Board struggled with a little bit, you know. Currently, the level of service for parks, for trails, transit is not there, there isn’t really neighborhood commercial. There’s some commercial, you know, there’s some restaurants in the area. There’s a convenience store and I think the developer may have some plans for commercial but some of these services aren’t there today and so I think the planning board struggled with that a little bit. And then finally, one of the main issues that I’ve heard from members of the public and, by the way, as you all know, we’ve had lots and lots and lots of public comments and we will be hearing from the public tonight, you know. One of the main items that we heard a lot about is traffic congestion. And a couple of notes on that would be Montana Department of Transportation is installing a new right, southbound turning land onto Interstate 90 so it would be in the west on Interstate 90. And then they’re also installing a new southbound lane straight through under the overpass on Reserve. So, right now traffic congestion is pretty darn great if you’re headed southbound. People often wait more than one light signal, two, three light signals depending on the time of day and traffic conditions. So, MDT is expanding the capacity and so that should alleviate to some degree but moreover as building permit applications come in, the developer can be required under Title 20 and Title 12 to require the developer to make transportation improvements and those improvements can be made to…they can be required to install a bus stop, for example. They can be required to install turning lanes if necessary or widen traffic lanes. They can be required to improve non-motorized transportation facilities. So, all those things are in effect. And so, at the end of the day, Development Services staff found of this rezoning substantially complies with the Growth Policy. That isn’t the only criteria that we have to evaluate a zoning change design. We also have the effect on public services and transportation. We mentioned that the project can be served by City Water, sewer. We have affirmative responses from the Fire Department, etc. We had close consultation with the urban…I’m sorry, Missoula Metropolitan Planning Organization, transportation planners, parks and trails. And, again, not all the public services, not all the public facilities are available at this time but can be…they’re planned for, in my view, can be improved over time. Does the proposal promote compatible, urban growth? Well, you know, this is kind of a judgment call. To the south though is highway-oriented tourists-oriented, commercial development. Hotels, restaurants, etc. There are a couple of other parcels located directly to the south that are zoned for lots of different types of commercial land uses. So, to the east is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and condos to the north, single-family residential development. I think that this area would provide kind of a transition between the highway-oriented commercial to the south and single-family residential to the north so I believe that it does provide compatible urban growth. Businesses promote public health and safety. Again, the project can be served by city water, city sewer, fire, police, etc., transportation services. The Montana Department of Transportation, you know, when looking at this application we look very closely at traffic impacts, specifically reached out to MDT on a couple of occasions and asked quite pointedly would this proposal result in a threat to traffic…public health and safety through traffic impacts? Auto congestion and things like that. And MDT, Glenn Cameron, specifically stated that the existing facilities can safely serve the anticipated traffic movements. Would this promote…or take into consideration the district character and suitability of uses. I talked a about that a little bit with regard to compatible to urban growth but I think your Growth Policy really does that. I think that’s what it’s…what the future land use map is all about. It evaluates all the different goals and policies that you have and puts desired types of growth on a map so I think that map kind of…it says a lot. It says that the district character and the suitability, that this property is suitable for high density residential development. Does this correct an error…would this correct an error/inconsistency or meet a challenge in changing conditions? It certainly would be…this zone change would not correct an error inconsistency. I think you can argue though that would be a challenge of changing conditions and that challenge is affordable housing, attainable housing. To be clear, we’re not talking about subsidized housing units. What we’re talking about is a substantial number of potential developers talked about 950 dwelling units of fair market rate, single, one-bedroom and two-bedroom and three-bedroom type of units. So, it would certainly provide some housing and that’s a real challenge in the city of Missoula as we all know. And then is it in the best interest of the City as a whole? Again, that’s quite debatable, you know. These are pretty subjective criteria but again looking at the Growth Policy and that’s where I have to go because that’s the plan. That’s the plan and I wasn’t here when that plan was developed but many of you were and it was determined that high density residential development is the most appropriate land use for this area. And so, I think, I guess based on that, it is in the best interest of the city as a whole. Only a few more slides. Staff recommended to approve the zoning and the adoption of the ordinance to rezone the property to RM145. However, the Planning Board chose a different path. On, I believe it was on August 5th, the Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended 7 to 2 essentially to deny or recommended to deny the proposed zoning. There was lots of great discussion here. Planning Board really did a super job. They thought about it. They listened to the public. They did their homework. They read the public comments and they really had a great discussion about different pros and cons, you know. On the one hand, it’s a form of a gravel pit. It’s not as though it’s prime farmland. It’s not greenfield development. It’s near services right next to Interstate 90. It would help to meet the city’s housing goals and things like transportation, impacts, levels of service for parks, for trails, they can be addressed over time. But on the other hand, adequate facilities…and this was a real interesting discussion about whether the facilities should be there today, before the rezoning occurs or whether they can be phased in but I think there was concern that the facilities and services are not adequate today and so Planning Board was very reticent to recommend approval. They also felt that existing zoning allows for significant development of the site today. They were concerned, at least some members were concerned about the single occupancy vehicle trips and emissions and meeting the City’s transportation modal slips. Also, there was mention of Grant Creek water quality concerns, potential impacts and also the impacts to wildlife movement. One of the peculiarities of Montana zoning law is that when a rezoning application is made, if protests and petitions are signed by owners, 25% or more of the property within 150 feet of the property, at least two-thirds of the present and voting members of Council are needed to approve a zoning change. In this case, we received protests from 31.5% of those landowners and unit owners within 150 feet of the property so that triggers a requirement for a super- majority. In other words, 66% of voting members of Council would be required to approve this request. And then just a quick follow-up with slides. We discussed this at the Land Use and Planning Committee meeting last Wednesday, the 19th. Lots of comments have come in through Engage Missoula. I think there were over 40 comments right now so I encourage you take a look at those. One of the concerns mentioned, of course, is fire, fire safety whether essentially there was a bottleneck at Grant Creek, at the Grant Creek Road, Interstate 90 intersection. There’s an email that you have under Engage Missoula, documents and conversation between Mike Morgan who represents the developer and also Adam Sabastian with City Fire and I guess you can take a look at it for yourself but I’d remind you that Adam Sabastian did not find that there was a major issue regarding servicing the property for fire protection or also traffic issues in the event of an emergency. I did make a request for comment from the DNRC, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. There’s been a lot of input regarding wildland fire and how that might impact not just this property but really I think in the event of an emergency, a fire of the drainage, and I haven’t received any comment yet but I’ll keep you appraised of that as this moves forward. Another item that we’ve talked about and the public has engaged in and one of the Councilors on Wednesday had a question about was, you know, how would this impact the population of the Grant Creek drainage? So, Eric Anderson, GIS Analyst for the City of Missoula, I asked him to look at the number of address points in the drainage and he said right now there are 772 residential address points and 5 commercial address points. And then another item, and this is the last slide, and we can move on with the public hearing, that came up was, you know, there’s the Grant Creek Neighborhood Plan from 1980 that recommends a different development density. It has a different map than the Growth Policy. And so, there’s a question about the relationship between neighborhood plans and the Growth Policy. And so, tonight before the hearing I was looking at that and here’s a couple of quotes from page 142. It says, and it’s important to recognize and respect existing neighborhood plans while planning a community vision for the next 20 years. It’s also important that the vision not be limited by the specificity of older neighborhood plans and they no longer fully reflect existing conditions or the goals of a neighborhood today. The Our Missoula Growth Policy is the over-arching guide or community planning and policy direction in the city. And it says existing neighborhood plans provide additional detail while remaining generally consistent with the Growth Policy. So, that concludes my long-winded presentation. I thank you for your attention. I’m happy to answer any questions and be a resource for you as the night goes on. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. DeGrandpre. And on behalf of the applicant, is that Mr. Morgan this evening? Mike Morgan said, go ahead, Ken. Ken’s going to start off and then we’ll give you some presentation please. Mayor Engen said, okay. Mr. Ault? Ken Ault said, thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. My team here, I’d like to introduce them: Mike Morgan from Hoffmann and Morgan Associates, Coby Swartz with Woith Engineering and Spencer Woith. We’ve got a traffic specialist, Bob Avelin that will be joining us to go over the traffic portion of this. So, I’ve asked Mike to do our presentation and go ahead. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you. Mr. Morgan? Mike Morgan said, thank you. Yes, my name is Mike Morgan. I’m the principal architect at the Hoffman Morgan Associates. We’ve been doing business in Missoula for…since the ‘80s and represent the applicant, Ken Ault here for the rezone to R135. First, I just want to start off by just thanking you all so much, your commitment and I understand how much you constantly do for these intense and sometimes contentious situations on these kinds of hearings and all for the greater good of our city. And it goes late into the nights and you have to maintain a focus and face a lot of stressful situations and try to make good, you know, good and wise decisions and I respect each and every one of you for that and I just want to thank you very much for that. I, also, feel it’s important to…for you to know that I take my responsibility as an architect in the city very seriously and I know all the team that is with us here do the same. And there’s…we’ve had thousands of units and projects, multi-family, over the years and, you know, I’ve countlessly given my clients answers they don’t always want to hear but it’s for the greater good of our city and I just…I’m saying that because I just…I want you all to know that what you hear tonight is in that kind of spirit. And I ask that, you know, we just were given that same respect back. I’ve heard a lot of statements and claims from opposition that some of it I find a bit belittling and challenging the character and expertise of our team and I just hope you’re aware when that happens and we just stick to the facts and, you know, that’s what’s important here to the best of our city. And then I…but I, also, appreciate those concerns and questions that everybody has and, you know, it gets emotional and everybody deserves to be heard, raise their concerns and we’ve given a good effort to meet with the Neighborhood Council. We’ve met with them twice during this time and we listened. And then we met with the Planning Board. We stayed pretty quiet during that hearing. We just sat back and we let everybody make their statements and again raise their concerns. Then we attended the Land Use and Planning Committee. We committed to our time limit. We tried to give all the information we could. It was really hard to get the information out but we respected that time. I don’t believe that other parties respected that time and it really dominated the conversation so I’m asking you to give us some time tonight. I’m asking that tonight we can be heard and voiced up on how we see this project and this rezone for RM145. A lot of important detail to share and we’re going to have to pay a lot of attention to a lot of close detail and we’re going to do our best to try and keep that clear for you. I appreciate some…a compliment by Mr. Nielsen who is an attorney that represents Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation where he said the burden is on the applicant to prove under substantial compliance and I do appreciate that clarity and he’s right. That’s what we’re going to do tonight. We’re going to prove to you and arguably that this meets substantial compliance and RM145 is absolutely the right zoning for this property. It’s going to take some time, like I said, and we’re going to go through it by listing details. And I expect to hear opposition again using some same arguments we’ve heard before and we’re going to listen and then I hope that if we need to reply that you give us the opportunity to reply on some of those comments. Yeah, we’re going to carefully note those comments and we’ll reply. And where those…when there are comments that are unfounded, they’re claims and they’re false, I ask that we recognize that and we disqualify those comments. If they’re factual, then they deserve to be considered. So, first I’m going to walk you through what we…how we started on this, the planning process and at the same time I’m going to address some key issues that you’re supposed to consider whether or not to approve the rezone application. So, in early 2019, Mr. Ault found this property and came to us and asked to do some feasibility studies on what’s possible for this property and what might be approved by the City. So, we started…we went right to the Growth Policy because the Growth Policy is our guide for our growth to 2035. We all know this policy was created from extraordinary public outreach and public participation, and this ensures for us all that our growth is driven, our community’s vision and our public majority input. This is a very powerful comprehensive plan, a great, very powerful comprehensive planning for the greater good of our city as a whole. More powerful and more specialized than I think any of us here tonight really have the ability to equal. So, we looked at the land use map and that’s what you have pulled up here now. And the Growth Policy clearly directs this location as a transitional use and high intensity commercial to high density residential. All of the land along Expo Parkway is designated as regional commercial or suggests commercial and high-density residential uses. On the southern portion of the property is a sign, regional commercial and on the northern portion of the property the majority of the property is the dark green color, that’s high-density residential. So, that was our first step. Then we went to the rezone map, excuse me, we went to the zoning map and this is a little bit busy. It follows the Growth Policy actually quite well, overall, except for one thing, it has conflict with zoning. I assume that this zoning was laid over this land before current zoning was in place. If it were established with current zoning, we wouldn’t be seeing what we’re seeing today as it’s got a lot of split zones across it that’s not allowed. So, there’s some work here to fix up some past best intentions that has created some issues to be fixed to meet any kind of compliance with zoning. So, this is a pretty common occurrence because land’s been developed and subdivided long before our current zoning came into place so it’s common. It’s no big deal. We’ve done it a lot. It’s just…you just got to fix some things. So, what the solution from Title 20 is when you have this kind of a situation is, is with the split zoning circumstance and to fix it, you ask for a rezone. So, it’s on…so, if the land has one zone on that piece of property and one zone only and that’s why we’re here right now. Title 20 requirements for rezoning are pretty simple. You select the best zone and best meets the intent of the Growth Policy. Pretty simple. You just have to become familiar with the Growth Policy and let it guide you to the obvious choice. Then you meet with the development…you meet with Development Services, the senior planner, and that person helps confirm what that selection should be. So, that’s what we did. We met with Mr. DeGrandpre, confirm that RM145 aligns as best with regional commercial and high density residential at this location. RM145 is a sidestep solution. We’re not looking to seek any special exceptions or extra… special circumstances. It’s really a sidestep solution. So, if I quickly just go and analyze each of these zones, the southern part, like I say, it’s C1-4 and that’s perfect alignment with what the Growth Policy says. The Growth Policy says regional commercial and C1-4 is an obvious choice. There’s a small portion to the east, southeast corner, that’s B2-2 and that’s more of a business zone and it also allows residence and residential, and a 55-foot height limit and it’s spilling over from the Cottonwood Condos to the east. The majority of the property is RM135, high- density residential with 35-foot height on it. And to the north portion of the site is R5.4. R5.4 is a single- family duplex, low-density zone. It doesn’t come into alignment whatsoever with what the Growth Policy says. Growth Policy says here high-density residential. So, we throw that one out. That’s what we’re doing. We’re throwing it out because it doesn’t meet the intended regional…I’m sorry, it doesn’t meet the intent of the Growth Policy so we throw it out. B2-2, it could be a good zone but there’s a very small amount of it on this property, therefore, you throw that one out also. C1-4 could be a good solution but C1-4, there’s one thing about C1-4 and that is it’s got 110-foot height limit. That’s not too bad probably for the southern portion of the Expo. The northern portion, 110 feet, I think we can do better than that. I think there’s a better answer than 110 feet building there. So, our high-density residential is the right zone, obviously at 2920 Expo. It best suits the transition from high-intensity commercial to high-density residential. That’s exactly what the Growth Policy states. Then I’m going to go into…not only go into some other boxes that we need to address and show how it checks those boxes off. It’s infrastructure. Let’s do that first. There’s a lot of things in infrastructure so this is a big subject, lots topics. So, first of all, utilities, we have Woith Engineering working with us and this has all been confirmed. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail on utilities but they’re all in place. Infrastructure is all there. It’s been previously planned for, it’s been previously invested in and there’s no additional infrastructure in utilities necessary. It’s ready to go right now. Then fire and police. This is an email from Adam Sabastian with Fire and I’ll read a little bit of this. Before I do, Police had no issue, no comment. If there was issue from Police, we’d see their comment and I’m sure there is no issue, therefore, no comment. Fire, you know I just felt it important to reach out to Adam again and make sure if he has any comments to tell you. He originally commented and I sought a little bit of clarity from him. If I read down Item 1 through 4, I summarized the conversation I had with him and I asked him to confirm if this is true, I wanted to make sure that what I am saying is correct and not giving any bias or anything and just straight facts from Mr. Sebastian. And so, he explained in more detail that construction and design provisions with the International Fire Code applies to this rezoning request and let’s see what it says here. Not limited to fire apparatus. I’m sorry, maybe I’ll read that again. “Construction and design provision of the IFC which requires as a rezoning request include but are not limited to fire apparatus, access roads, water supply for fire protection, multiple family and residential developments having more than 200 dwelling units. The IFC provision will be addressing…will be addressed during fire review and snow plans during the effected request”. So, he clarified what are fire apparatus roads. That means routes from the station to the location that there’s no issue. They’re relatively fine. There’s nothing to be concerned about safety and fire. He said that when there’s over 200 units, you need two points of access and this property actually has three points of access with two roads, Expo Parkway and Stone Bridge. So, then he says that during building permit application that he looked at the…he already looked at a building permit application of this property and that he reviewed the full development as well in its entirety and he looked at the routes, the emergency vehicle routes, and he went into detail with them about that and he saw clearly that solid compliance and no issues with emergency vehicles. Water is supplied and it’s all there. Hydrants in place. Nothing to be concerned about there. So, I asked him also if he could touch on emergency evacuations strategies since this has been a hot topic. It’s really not his specific area to address but he’s involved in wildfires, of course, so I asked him and he referred me to Adriane Beck but he also said that, you know, that the County Emergency Management has a plan in place throughout the city. And when something like that occurs, they bring in incident commanders, the traffic signals are overridden. There’s police officers there and they flush out as necessary and as quickly as possible. So, we’re going to go into that detail more with Bob and…but fire and police, no issues. Public transit. Currently, there isn’t public transit to this location. This is a…we talked with Dan Stone, a transit planner, and got a little bit more input from him. The route is in place and planned for. You can see that at the top of this map. And that shows what it is. It comes in place when there’s enough tax base and enough population to pay for the service really. Right? And, so far, much of Grant Creek isn’t in that tax fund, and without the populations to support it. But they also say somewhere in this email, where is it guys, it talks about that when there is…when growth does occur and the population does come, then this area is planned for transit to come when there is enough population base to demand it. Mr. Ault has already become part of the tax district here and got some pretty good taxes to help pay for that fund to bring. And then really, we have to leave it up to them to decide when they’re going to bring buses in. Meanwhile, Mr. Ault’s got a traffic or a bus stop plan, kiosk in location, it’s on the bottom of that left corner of this drawing here for school buses and as well as transit when the time comes for to the location. So, there’s going to be some minor comments, I’m sure, but let’s again not get distracted about false accusations and let’s just please stay to the truth and claims and, you know, the accuracy of the facts about traffic. And, again, we have Bob from traffic with a whole lot more. This is just a map from MDT that demonstrates that a pretty sizeable improvement is going to occur at this location at the intersection of Expo and the on-ramp and the off-ramp and the freeway here, additional lands and turn lanes and Bob is going to really represent to you the difference that this makes and how traffic will flow freely through here. And that’s about all I’m going to say right now. I’ll leave that to Bob. He’s the expert in traffic not me. Schools. Ken met with Hellgate Schools and this is in a letter…let’s see, where is this? Doug, yeah, Doug correct? Ken Ault said, yeah, he’s the Superintendent. Mike Morgan said, Superintendent? Ken Ault said, yup at Hellgate Elementary. Mike Morgan said, at Hellgate Elementary. And he’s saying that they can immediately accept…there are 270 students and they have room for expansion. As the city grows, they can accommodate that expansion. He goes into more detail here. I won’t take too much time but the bottom line is there’s plenty of room for students and we’d be proud to say that our families that would be living in this community, we can say you have the best…one of the best school districts in the state and they’re open arms and ready to accept your kids. And trails, it’s taken from the City trail map. There’s been some conversation early in this process about claims that there isn’t a trail. Connection to the city, well, certainly is. I think that’s been clarified and straightened out. Grant Creek Trail goes to Upper Grant Creek, continues into Reserve uninterrupted and down into…down south along Reserve and disperses throughout the city in our trail systems. There’s some areas along the Cottonwood Condos that aren’t as wide as the rest of the trails and to standard. There’s some improvement needed there. But for this development, there’s two points of access again. If you’re going south, you can take Expo, you’re going to hit that trail and it’s completely to standards. If you’re going north, you take Stonebridge…and take Stonebridge and then you hit the trail there, will be improved as well. There’s no issue with trails. It’s a great system. It’s not being utilized enough on Grant Creek and it’s beautiful and looking forward to people being able to use that area. And then, so haven’t proposed or I haven’t said what the proposed land use is yet because this is the system, you know, we go through first and planning before we really determine what the best land use is. We go through these steps and then we decide what’s the best land use? First of all, again, we will follow the Growth Policy and let it tell us what the best land use is for this area, but it gives you options. And I’m going to just say here, this is a good time to say it, that the Growth Policy guides us to select land uses that can sustain resilient, livable communities. Diverse types land use in different levels of intensity and this is the foundation for economic vitality, self- sustained, affordable housing, efficient transportation, healthy environments and happiness for everyone. This is our guide for proper land use. So, it really wasn’t hard for us to find out what the city needs the most. These are a couple of articles from recent news agencies in town and the City’s struggle with rental units. It’s basically the fault, the City’s fault, that there’s virtually no units available and that’s what I call a crisis and it needs seriously addressed. And so, we’re able to say that immediately all infrastructure in place, this land is ready for multi-family to serve those needs of the city. This is another article recently released. The vacancy rate of the city right now is about 1-1/2%. Very unhealthy, an unhealthy vacancy rate that I understand being healthy which means sustainable, competitive and affordable rents. These are around 8%. I haven’t seen that in the city for quite some time. We’re a long way off at that percent and we’re got to do something and we’ve got to do it as soon as we can. So, the needs are rental housing big time. In the Grant Creek area, right now has practically no inventory of rentals. The Growth Policy calls for high-density residential at this very location. All infrastructure is in place. There’s no issues of concern which has been reviewed and confirmed by each individual city agency and our leading directors of those agencies. So, a half percent vacancy rate…I know from other agencies in the city that we need 9,000 more units in the next 15 years. This land again is ready to help contribute toward that in Grant Creek, I think is…I think probably is a majority of the residency. We’ve heard a certain number of people that are in opposition. That number is a minority number and I believe that a lot of the Grant Creek residents probably as well of their support of doing the responsible thing and adding their share of the majority of the city. Rezoning. Now, let’s get into rezoning. The site currently, like I said, has four different zones. It follows the Growth Policy pretty well. And if we could, we’d follow that zoning just like it is right now but we can’t because split zoning isn’t allowed. So, we considered BLR, boundary line relocation. Could we do that to try to fix the zoning? And really the answer is pretty obvious. No matter where we move a property line, this property consists of two lots. No matter where we move it we still face the split zone and we’re not allowed to create a non-compliant circumstance and that’s what it would be so a little bit of property line doesn’t get us there. But what the alternative is at the city is this, and it’s a good one, is a rezone. So, this sense that we must follow the most restrictive zone on the lot if we don’t do a rezone and if we do that, that means on the southern lot, which is the property line is in line with the northernmost property in that B2-2 line. If we did that, we’d have to face the most restrictive zone that’s placed on that lot, which is a small portion of RM135. You know, that’s pretty good. It doesn’t really meet the regional plan perfectly, so that south lot would be C1-4 and that’s the wise choice for that southern lot if that’s, you know, the only thing to consider. Then on the northern lot it would force us to follow R5.4 which is a low-density residential use. It doesn’t conflict with the Growth Policy, if you go back to the Growth Policy again. Nowhere on this property does it say low-density residential, and that’s the yellow color. And to the north of this property low-density residential begins at the Prospect Subdivision. It makes sense there but not here. High-density residential is obviously for use and not low density. So, it’s creating a problem with the Growth Policy. So, let’s go through a rezone instead because it doesn’t make sense to follow the zoning the way it is not following the intent, we’re not taking…we’re not utilizing this land to its fullest potential. It’s a bad idea. It doesn’t work. It just happens to be that this zoning was placed a long time ago with different kind of zoning in place then. Maybe it made sense then when we didn’t have hillside density reductions and split zoning circumstances but now we do and so we have a different zoning and ordinance now and so we need to just make some small adjustments to where now we can follow the intend of the Growth Policy as well as meet compliance with the RM1…oh, excuse me, with the zoning barns in place. So, let’s do a rezone. There is a perfectly reasonable option that Title 20 has in place for that called the rezone, like I just said. In this case, this is the obvious answer. The rezone is a little misleading. We’re not really rezoning; we’re cleaning up the zoning and fixing a split zone circumstances that we’re in the middle of right now. And we’re going to put it in perfect balance with what the Growth Policy directs us to. It’s a very minor deal really and the answer is so ridiculously obvious what that zone should be so let’s proceed with some basic common sense here on what that zone should be and I’m going to walk you through that now. Mayor Engen said, so, Mr. Morgan, I’m going to ask you to walk us through it quickly. Mike Morgan said, okay. I respect that. It’s going to take me a little time. Like they say, we need some time to go through this so please forgive us if we need more time, if we need it please. So, the front lot, the Growth Policy says regional commercial C1-4 is on most of that land. So, two small portions like we already went through doesn’t make sense C1-4, okay, could be a good answer, C1-4 across this whole property but probably not the right answer because it’s got a 110-foot height limit. It doesn’t make sense really. There’s a better answer on that than that. RM135 is a zone that’s high-density residential. It’s a good zone but it’s intended for, and this is…I’m referring to the zoning ordinance here. I’m not making this up but okay, but RM135 is intended for infill, smaller lot locations where there are concerns about blocking someone’s sun and views. That’s a good reason to have RM135. But here we don’t have that concern. We’re over 100 feet from any other views on another lot. To the east there’s some garages along that east property line but it’s over 60 feet from our developable area. And so, to the east further north, is other uses that just don’t need for it to be RM135. They’re 200 feet apart. There’s no issues with views or sun orientation. RM145 is the best zone because RM145…what it’s intended for it is it allows you to have more open area. And RM135 you’re going to have another 25-30% more land area sticking out by building footprint. RM145 allows you 45 feet to the…35 feet and you get an extra story. We have more or less room open for land. So, that’s why it’s never a good reason why it’s the best zone. So it’s the best lateral step really is if you go RM145. It matches the Growth Policy and it’s…there’s no extra exceptions that we’re seeing. Now let’s consider what’s best for the immediate surrounding context. Okay, I’m just going to show you a couple of pictures here. C1-4 is 110-foot height and like I said not the best choice. So, B2 has got a 50-foot height limit. 50 is alright but we don’t need to go 50 feet. Let’s assure neighbors that we’re not going to go 50 feet tall. RM135 is a good density but it’s going to take up too much land. It’s not that we’re going to kill the opportunity for open space and amenities that we’ve not always had in RM145. A huge difference between those two what you get out of that. So, now let’s go into…what happens if we don’t go RM135 real quick? If we don’t go into RM145, the southern zone…the southern boundary is a C14 zone all day long, that’s for sure. C14, it’s 110-foot height limit and it allows 339 units as it stands. At 339 units how do you get down that piece of land? It’s not that big. You go up and we’d have to go up eight stories to get that number. And I don’t personally think that’s a good choice but if that’s where their direction is to go, then that’s what it’ll do. It’ll get 339 units on that lot, 200 units or son on the rear lot with a lot of parking and some single-family residential units for rent. Not for sale because this is a subdivided parcel. It’d be for rent. So, RM145 is by far the best zone. Its primary question that needs to be answered please to consider that why it’s the best zone. Missoula is an active, outdoor-oriented community. Pets are a commonality. Very few apartment projects that are RM135, especially they just don’t offer that kind of lifestyle. There’s just not enough land left, so, if you do that, are we at 34, you’re not going to have enough land left but when you go RM145, you get a lot of land left. And this is just a superimposed site concept with surrounding properties and just to give you some scale of what kind of open space we’re talking about here and then also to the west there’s a lot of open space with benches, topographic benches for areas, for dog runs that can control fenced areas for safety and allows for circuit training, club houses and pols and gymnasiums and parks. Right in the center you see a big square; that’s a park. That’s 150 by 450-foot sized park area. That’s larger than what you see to the east of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation over there. It’s a big piece of ground that’s allowed. So, RM135 you’re not going to get that. Around all of the buildings are over 40 feet of frontage of greenery. With RM135 it’s going to be about five feet. So, it’s such a huge difference when you do RM145 and what you get out of that, especially on this kind of piece of property it’s so great. There will be so many amenities that we’ve never seen before on this kind of property. So, this makes for a really good model for how to grow in the city and meet the new kind of needs that…large amounts of multi-family that we need. This is a small contribution toward that need in a perfect location. So, I’m going to do…what I’m going to try to do here is save time and then I’m going to demonstrate some agency comment and at the same time it’s addressing concerns we’ve heard from opposing parties to try to just…we’re listening and we’re addressing those concerns. That’s what we’re doing. And I want everybody to know that we’re addressing those concerns. It’s obvious that this application meets substantial compliance when you see every agency raising no issues. First of all, that means good planning has been put in place and already established and there’s really no more planning necessary when it comes to overall city planning. It’s already been done. It’s already ready for this property to be developed. And I don’t usually take the time to do this but there’s been some pretty good organized opposition so I think I just…I have to do it for you so you…so, to clarify for you what’s the truth, the facts and what isn’t. We met with, like I say, Neighborhood Council. The concern mainly was traffic and Bobs going to address traffic flowing. I’m going to refer now to the petition just a little bit. The opposition, the opposing petition and bring up some points and at the same time I’m going to refer just to some agency comments. So, the petition says that they support the existing zoning of 158 units, single-family on the north parcel and 34…244 multi-family units on the south part of the parcel. And the claim is that the current zoning fit the character of the existing neighborhood to single-dwellings and multi-dwelling homes, commercial buildings no taller than three stories. And they’re all set with a large expanse of trees. The truth is it’s just not accurate. In the surrounding area it’s C14 zone, high-density, high intensity commercial use with buildings up to 50 feet tall, no landscaping to speak of because landscaping isn’t required in that kind of use. Maximum three stories. It’s not true. You can go 110 feet tall. These are all far more than three stories tall. You know, the building is set among the trees and the grass. No, it doesn’t. So, you’ve just got enough land left to do better than that with RM135. This is an example of what RM31…135 gets you. It’s the same density, 1,000 square feet of land area per unit. They are required to have 40 by 40 activity areas and you get barely that. We meet zoning. We’ve done all these projects that you see in front of you right now. It’s tough to get open space. Where does a dog go to relieve itself and at the same time my kids are trying to play. Just, you know, it serves a function and it serves successfully but in this location we can do a whole lot better than that. So, the with condos and B2 zone and the height limit there is 50 feet so that’s what’s allowed there so three stories doesn’t play in…it’s not what’s allowed, it’s not what’s suggested. It’s much more than that and we need to utilize that the best we can. And then their claim is there’s 502 additional units to serve the city’s needs for planned and diverse growth. I didn’t see any documentation that proves that except that claim. I think we should rely on our experts and our leaders here in the city and let them tell us what’s appropriate growth and the Growth Policy is our resource for that. And then a mixture of single-family dwellings and duplexes, it says right also the first growth. There’s a lot of that Grant Creek already…it’s a good…it’s really nice. It’s a good solution and that’s already there. What isn’t there is rentals and this property is obviously the best place meant for rentals. So, zoning would allow 1,195 units in this RM145 zone but after parking and landscaping area and recreation area and 100-foot wide Yellowstone pipeline and hillside reductions and public utility easements, 950 units are really about what’s allowed, not 1,195. Yeah, the zoning density says it’s that but you can’t get that because of other zoning ordinances in place. So, then public health and safety, this concern about it, increased traffic and delayed stop lights and accidents. The traffic impact study that Bob’s going to give you proves there’s no issue with this increase in traffic from this development because of the improvements being put in place right now by MDT. One other thing put in place, to be put in place because that’s what MDT has been planning for, for years there and the time has come where there’s more need absolutely and without question it’s time. It’s going in and now these problems are going to be solved and not because I’m saying so but because the proper agencies properly planned for this and they say so, and Bob is going to prove that to you here shortly. Air pollution. There’s no comments from the Health Department so I understand that concern but this is a concern that obviously isn’t an issue to the Health Department. And Grant Creek emergency evacuation during wildfire, a big concern that people have raised. Only one way in and out of Grant Creek. We met again with Adriane Beck with Missoula Community Emergency…Missoula County Emergency Management and she’s awful calm about it. She’s not concerned. There’s a…incident commanders get put in place like they say, emergency evacuation happens. The fact is too, and Bob’s going to point this out some more, that Expo Parkway and this development doesn’t contribute to this concern about one way in and one way out at Grant Creek. It’s a concern that needs addressed but that’s another time on another matter, not for a rezone application for 2920 Expo Parkway. There’s concern…they claim that there’s no separate trail connections to the city. We have already proven that that’s not a concern. There’s trails in place and easy to get to on a low traffic street to get to it. It’s common all over the city. Not every lot can have a trail right on it but it’s awful close here and not a concern. Mayor Engen said, Mr. Morgan, we’re kind of starting to repeat ourselves here a little bit so… Mike Morgan said, alright, thank you. I’ll do my best. I’m not the greatest public speaker but I’m giving a try. Okay, thank you. A claim that there’s over 2,000 parking spaces on the property and actually…the other slide, what is that, 44 or so? The actual count is 1,200 but we’re really not talking about a design right now and a site design but our concept right now is 1,200 parking spaces. We don’t need 2,000. Another concern is…there at 45…there’s no parks in Grant Creek. That’s true. There’s hardly any…that’s with previous, you know, family residential and two-story condos got you in Missoula. It’s not the case anymore. I think there’s been a lot of improvement in our planning process since then that this is the park to have, about 45 by 50 it looks to me like. This isn’t going to be a concern on this property once it’s RM145 because of all the open space can be available right in the center. As I said before, this is zoomed in, a huge lot of park in the center and the same size as east of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to give you an example. There’s a bench to the left, like I said. There’s grass everywhere. There’s club houses. There’s gymnasiums. Plenty of parks on site where you do not have to get in the car and go somewhere for a park or go to get in the car and you go somewhere to take your dog for a walk or a run. It’s available on-site. Say that there’s no complete streets and development of public streets. True. This doesn’t need to go to the subdivision so there’s no right-of-way necessary but all the roadways in this meet all the City’s standards and emergency vehicle maneuvering requirements that we’ve already reviewed and no issue. A claim that it’s out of character for four-story apartments in this area, set among…in previous parking services with limited trees and grass. Well, I think you can see here, I’ve already said that’s just not true. Lots of trees and lots of grass. Not a bunch of parking. This has got a lot of opportunity for landscaped boulevards on all of the parking and driving lanes. It’s just exaggerated. That’s all and I understand why they’re doing it but it just not true. It wouldn’t allow opportunities for homeownership. I already said that. That’s true. That’s already available in Grant Creek. What’s not available is rentals. The media wide effects now. I want to get right into that one. Further traffic congestion and safety concerns is what’s been raised as a concern along the Reserve Street corridor. Yes, Reserve is busy and I don’t know what that has to do with this development but, yeah, Reserve is busy. Crowding at Hellgate Elementary, not true. 270 units…270 students are allowed. And then concern a about higher taxes to accommodate needs for the more services. I’m not sure what that means. I know that this is going to be a fund that’s going to raise taxes, funds from the city. In the gray amount of this project and it will allow budgets for other improvements that’s not necessary. I’m almost there. So, emergency evacuation. One way in and one way out, we already went over. You know, concern for kids. There’s plenty of yards and parks on-site. No need for cars to go somewhere else. It’s pretty clear that some opposing individuals are, a minority, concerned. They just don’t want multi-family, it sounds like they want single-family and this isn’t the place for single-family. So, I think that I invite those that remain aren’t protesting really welcome this and be in support of a responsible thing to do and to really offer a beautiful opportunity for everybody that deserves to live in a wonderful living environment, whether you live or you rent. When this comes to Grant Creek, now you have both options for everybody. It’s really about all I have to say. I’ll let Bob take over if you would please let him give his presentation. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, so, I need this…I need the traffic presentation to be brief. We’ve got more public hearings tonight. I want the public to have an opportunity to comment this evening so keep it concise for me please. Bob Avelin said, I will try to be as concise as I can and try to run through the high points that Mike kind of alluded to. But, I guess, I’ll introduce myself. My name is Bob Avelin. I operate Avelin Traffic Services out of Helena. I’ve been doing this…it’s my own company about 15 years now. Actually started…started doing traffic prediction work actually in Missoula back in 1996 for the 1996 Missoula Transportation Plan and I’ve been doing transportation planning ever since then. But, I guess, yeah…the developing…doing this for about 25 years now and I’ve run simulations and traffic analysis and intersection analysis at thousands of intersections, and this is another one of the interesting projects that I get to be involved in. What I would like to do though, just to start off here, is to talk a little bit about the information that went into the transportation planning for this project. And, obviously, transportation is a big concern for the project. There were a lot of comments. A lot of the comments are actually quite valid. There is a traffic problem in that canyon right now. And when I just first exploring the project and talking with these guys and actually in the original transportation study they put together, it initially, back last year, I basically told them they can’t develop the whole property if there are not improvements along Grant Creek Road. You know, thankfully, that was the plan from MDT. They’ve been working on the plan for those improvements for quite some time, adding a bunch of lanes. It’s going to dramatically change the transportation scenario coming out of Grant Creek. And what I’d like to do if I can have an animated simulation that shows the current conditions and what’s going to happen with the MDT project and with the added units from this project. Hopefully, this will come up. Can everybody see that one? Mayor Engen said, we can. Bob Avelin said, okay, great. Excellent. So, this a simulation that we have done using the traffic model that was prepared for the Reserve Street corridor. And one of the things I want to point out to this, that’s quite relevant here, is that this transportation model that I used for this project was not something that I even put together. This is the transportation model that MDT put together, I think in 2018, and it’s the transportation model that’s currently operating every single traffic signal along the Reserve Street corridor. I do a lot of work with MDT. We’ve coordinated a lot of different projects. When I told them I was working on this one day and just offered to give me their traffic model for the entire corridor so that the stuff that I was doing would remain consistent with the MDT planning processes. So, there’s very little in this model that is actually my information. All the signals were already in there, all the lanes. All I really had to do was add the additional traffic from Expo Parkway from the project and from Stonebridge. So, I’ll try to just turn this simulation off. This is an eight-speed simulation of the a.m. traffic periods, from traffic coming out of Grant Creek if the traffic signal’s here. The I-90 West Branch, the, I guess, the northern side of the interchange there and this is joined, what’s currently happening with the present conditions, present lanes, present traffic. Okay, I’ll take off here. I can see, you know, one of the issues with this traffic signal is that it runs a split phase timing so you run one side, run another side and run the other side and ends up having to run a very long cycling. And what it means is that you don’t have enough time to get a lot of the traffic through and that’s…I’ll just pause it really quick…and that’s what’s happening is that you get to the southbound traffic going but you run out of time at the traffic signal and just the way these are operating that they’re given as little time to that side as they can just because that’s how MDT does these things and it makes people wait through two, three signal phases to get through and that’s what this simulation shows. It runs through…you get some traffic leaving, you get almost everybody gone, traffic light turns red and every way stops again. Everyone sees it. So, this is what’s going to happen here, actually starting this fall, MDT is going to go out there and add additional lanes here to the project to improve the situation. So, this is what it’s going to look like with the current conditions with the new traffic lanes that MDT is developing. Everything else is the same. Same signal timings. Everything. But what you see is that with the additional lanes, you’re basically…you’re more than doubling your southbound capacity coming out of the intersection. It just makes everything operate vastly better. You know, instead of cars backing up all the way, you know, past the Starbuck’s, almost to Expo Parkway, and now all of a sudden, they’re backing up a couple of hundred feet. You’re getting a stack of four or five cars. Every time the signal changes, all the cars clear, there’s basically no traffic concerns here at this point with those changes at the intersection. So, if we look at it again, this is the same conditions again except that this has the added traffic from the full development of the project Expo Parkway or the Grant Creek village I mean. This is all 950 units fully developed as was envisioned. You know, I think there was some comment this is probably higher than what’s actually going to happen. We wanted to make sure we were being very conservative in our estimates here and how this operates. So, if we run it again, the same situation, same signal timings, same lane configurations. Now we have the cars coming out here on Expo Parkway. It backs up more but based on the simulation, you know, the cars never even back up to the Starbuck’s. They go back there, you know, 300 feet and that’s about it. That’s about all the queueing you’re ever going to see there with this entire project at full development in the morning peak conditions operating on that road. So, we’ll like this guy end up here. You know, we can go through a lot of traffic numbers. I can…you know, I know we’re kind of pressed for time here so I’m going to try to be as brief as I can. If I can stop streaming here for a moment and share another screen. This one…okay, so, you know, that’s the simulation. That’s what you see, you know. Let’s put some actual numbers to that to see what the effects of this whole project is. Right now, that intersection is working really badly. And, you know, based on some comments from the City, we even stopped analyzing it because everyone agreed it just doesn’t work so we might as well talk about what it’s going to be like here in the future and in the very short order with the MDT project. With the MDT improvements on that intersection, it’s going to vastly improve it. We’re going to go to the level of service there instantly for pretty much all times a day. The delay is going to be massively reduced. You know, if we go through the different fielding scenarios, looking at that…particularly that interchange there, the westbound ramps and if you add all of the additional traffic from all 950 units, looking at the different phases, you go from an average intersection delay of 25.1 seconds up to 27.3 seconds. There is a crossover of the level of service there. You actually end up at the level of service C and D that’s…at those times but we honestly looking at with the entire build of the property, we’re adding two seconds of additional delay on that intersection. And it’s…the additional capacity that we’re getting out there this is absolutely needed and is something that’s going to be a…it’s…I think it’s going to surprise people how much better that actually is going to work and how much more capacity we have for projects like this. Another, just covering some quick numbers I’ll run through again, it’s kind of the same idea here. You know, if we look at the equal queueing analysis and that’s where everyone is kind of complaining about everyone…the equals are queuing way past the Starbuck’s all the way up to Expo Parkway, and I agree. I thought in the model and simulation completely agreed with that and right now we’re running with morning peak hours and morning, you know, up to 500 feet of queueing from that interchange going up north into the canyon. Once we put the new lanes new, that, you know, drops down to 250 feet. That’s about, you know, 4 or five cars and that’s about your maximum queue you’re ever going to see there with those improvements. If we add on the additional traffic from the full-build of the project, that’s queueing goes from 225 feet up to 283 feet. Though it’s not even hitting the intersection to Starbuck’s and that’s about as much as your community is you’re ever going to see there with that additional capacity at that signalized intersection right there. And so that’s, you know, that’s probably the highlights of the traffic impact study. I’m sure we can talk a lot more about it if you want, crunching the numbers, but based on my review of it, based on the City when then looked at it, you know, they had another third party come in and do two different reviews of the traffic impact study. From that, we made a couple of tweaks to it and changed a couple of things but it essentially it said, you know, the same…provided the same answers every time, that this intersection is going to work vastly better once these MDT improvements get implemented here, basically at the end of the year. One more thing I will talk about just really briefly because it did come up a lot and it’s another request about traffic and transportation and traffic planning, is the fact that Grant Creek currently does only have one access in and out and that is…it’s certainly a non-ideal situation. Any time you have a road that can only be accessed for an area, a large area like this, and you can only access from one location, you know, that’s the concern and it’s been discussed for years. How you can possibly make a connection somewhere else to get other people out to it without going underneath the I-90 right there. And that’s a great topic to discuss. We can talk about it here a little bit but I think, you know, my view on this…on having a second connection there is that this is a discussion that we’re going to want to be having no matter what happens at this site. Whether or not this is zoned, you know, for…you know, full build-out of this project or whether the current zoning remains, this question is exactly the same to me. It’s either, you know, it would be nice to have a second connection and we should probably work on that and whether or not that has a lot of relevance to this specific project. I mean, I guess I personally don’t really see that. You know, that’s something we should be working towards as a community goal, you know, for this area no matter what happens. It’s not something that goes away if all of a sudden that we only get 500 units on this property as opposed to 950 or whatever it ends up being. It’s something that still needs to be discussed and looked at but as far as how it operates, based on the numbers, things don’t really change with the added traffic and the need for the second entrance still exists. So, that’s something that should probably be discussed but I think it would be better discussed not as a topic necessarily associated with this specific project. And I think those are the primary highlights I wanted to talk about, you know. There’s a lot more that we can discuss. I feel there’s going to be a lot of questions so I guess if you guys have any specific questions right now, I’m quite happy to answer them, otherwise I hope I can address any public comments that are directly associated with traffic as we go forward. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. Avelin. So, as we move forward here, a couple of notes. One is that I know there’s a desire to continue committee discussion and, Mr. Hess, are planning on that for Wednesday of this week? Alderperson Hess said, yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I am not planning on that on August 26th. What I am planning is for another informational session on September 2nd and…but that process there is that that’s another opportunity for Councilmembers to really dig in on questions based on content that came up last week or tonight and those answers would then be available in time for our decision on September 14th. Mayor Engen said, okay. So, the public hearing will remain open through all of that. Just wanted to let folks who are…who have been patient this evening know that if they elect to leave the meeting, they will still have opportunity for comment in a wide variety of ways. And in the age of COVID, things are strange. This is the more…one of the more controversial land use issues that we’ve dealt with of late and it’s the only one we’ve dealt with in the pandemic and in virtual environment so I’m allowing some flexibility and we’re doing some of this on the fly. I have offered to have a neighborhood, which has coalesced here, with regard to this project, those folks have a presentation and I’m happy to have that this evening but that presentation doesn’t mean that there won’t be additional opportunity for comment. We are not going to do a bunch of rebuttals tonight. There will be additional opportunity for that in committee and there will certainly be opportunity for Council questions but again I think committee is going to be the most appropriate venue for that as we approach our, what will likely be three hours here, before too long. So, with that, Ms. Sipe, I believe, is up and ready to offer a presentation on behalf of the neighborhood. Karen Sipe said, thank you, Mayor. I’m going to hear the stream. My name is Karen Sipe, just a quick introduction. I’ve lived in Missoula and Grant Creek for 17 years and I have been a full-time volunteer for the City of Missoula for over 13 years. Since Mr. Avelin ended on the traffic study, I would like to share real quick a video that I have and can everyone see what looks like traffic? Mayor Engen said, we can, Karen, yeah. Karen Sipe said, fine. This happened August 15th at 10:55 in the morning. [video shown] As you can see, Expo Parkway is completely filled all the way. And Grant Creek Road is completely filled up to Stonebridge Road. I will stop sharing that and I will now share our presentation for this evening. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to present our support of development in the existing zoning and our opposition to the rezone application. I’d like to take you to a 30,000-foot view of the proposed rezone location which does not lie within the city core, as staff has previously stated. Grant Creek is a tributary of and ultimately impacts the health of the Clark Fork River. On page 86 of the Growth Policy it states developer river corridor plan to address and balance development, recreation, environmental considerations of the community aesthetics. Grant Creek has been designated as impaired by the Montana DEQ and the Fish, Wildlife and Parks. It has been impacted by previous development downstream and reparation of Grant creek was an integral part of receiving the BUILD grant. It is now looking for additional funding to make it right. The Grant Creek neighborhood lies within the wildland urban interface or WUI which means wildlife and wildfires. Grant Creek is unusual in that it has only one ingress and egress. That means there’s only one way in and one way out for residents and responders during an emergency like a gas line break, as one happened a few weeks ago or a wildfire. We would like to give you a quick overview of the current daily and seasonal population of Grant Creek north of I- 90. Currently, there’s 635 multi and single-family residences. The existing zoning, which we support, almost doubled our current population situation and would provide for a mix of 502 more multi and single-family residences. The proposed rezone would allow for up to 1,195 of only multi-family units while tripling our population. In addition, the I-90, North Reserve, Grant Creek Road Interchange serves as a gateway, welcoming visitors and employees year-round. In addition to the food and fuel services, we have four hotels with 374 rooms and their associated vehicles. There’s also room for three more hotels and up to 200 to 300 more rooms and vehicles. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation welcomes 60,000 guests a year plus school buses almost every day through April and May. Up to 400 vehicles a day travel to Snow Bowl with another 50 to 100 parking in the lower lot, across from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. We would like to show you the parcel that’s under consideration. This image is from Montana cadastral. You can see the southern parcel highlighted in blue in the northern parcel directly above it. The developer has repeatedly state that the property has 44 acres, which it does… Alderperson Hess said, I’m sorry to interrupt. The presentation is not coming through for me and I just wanted to see if that’s just on my end or if maybe it’s not shared. Karen Sipe said, I am glad you said that, Jordan. Is it being shared for everyone or is Jordan… Alderperson Merritt said no. Karen Sipe said, thanks, Jordan. Trying to get a word in, didn’t you, Jordan? Alderperson Hess said, yeah, that’s coming through now. Thanks. Karen Sipe said, alright. How’s that? Thank you, Jordan, I really appreciate it. The two parcels actually contain only 28 developable acres because of the steep slope to the west. With the potential rezone, only these 20 acres could be developed. The southern parcel can be developed to high density is actually is actually now being developed to high density just within the 35-foot height. These parcels share Expo Parkway with three existing hotels and one restaurant. Eventually, these new residents will be potentially sharing Expo Parkway with six hotels. These parcels lie directly west of the Cottonwoods Development and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and will share Stonebridge Road. The rezone area lies directly south of the Old Quarry Road neighborhood of modest, single-family homes that are one story or split level. Our support for the rezoning and for the development. We would like to make it very clear that we feel a shared responsibility to provide housing equitably according to Grant Creek’s unique site constraints. We recognize Missoula’s need for rental homes and want to provide our new neighbors with a neighborhood setting that is sustainable, complementary and cohesive. We support smart growth concepts like mixed housing types and mixed-use development. The density of the current zoning, while almost doubling Grant Creek’s population, takes into account some of the site and transportation limitations. These…the existing rezoning was through a rigorous public process and enjoys strong community support. New zoning deserves the same. The Grant Creek Area Plan is a living active document and an amendment to the current Growth Policy and as such should be considered when making decisions regarding zoning. We would like to ask why can’t this property be developed according to the current zoning that is supported by the Growth Policy and the neighborhood? Now, I’d like to move on to show you the specific numbers according to our existing zoning. Our existing zoning actually is high-density and medium high density. The southern parcel that is currently being developed at this moment is being developed to 43 units an acre, the maximum amount of high density that is available. The northern parcel, the existing zoning that is allowed for that northern parcel allows 12 units an acre. That is medium to high density. That means that one unit in this area would have 3,630 square feet. That is a small lot single dwelling. Small lot single-dwellings equal potential affordable housing. If we would like to compare this to Villagio development, which it has been brought up, Villagio has 200 units on 19 acres. That is 10 units an acre and that’s medium density. They have multi exits. They have a planned development and it is affordable housing. Now moving onto our petition. Friends of Grant Creek mailed out petitions supporting development in the current zoning and opposing the rezone application. We have a 45% return with over half of those making written comments. These petitions have been submitted and are part of your meeting packet and as you may have already seen the neighborhood overwhelmingly supports development and the existing zoning. But they also oppose the high density rezone application. We also provided those outside Grant Creek to weigh in through petitions and received 74 unique signatures from other neighborhoods. There’s also been a formal petition protest and, as Dave DeGrandpre mentioned, we have 31% of the required property owners within 150 feet of the rezone area. They have signed, requiring two-thirds of the City Council vote for approval. We will review the rezone application using the same review criteria you are used to for Title 20 and we are looking at the rezone application itself, not the proposed development per se. The City Growth Policy adopted in 2015 is Missoula’s guiding document for growth and development. It is divided in the following categories: safety and wellness, livability, economic health, housing, community design and environmental quality. Friends of Grant Creek feel that the current residential zoning is much more in line with our Growth Policy’s goals and objectives than the proposed rezone. Another plan applicable to this application is the Grant Creek Area Plan from 1980, an amendment to our Growth…our City Growth Policy. Regardless of age of plan. Some neighborhoods are still invested in and rely on their plans for guidance and continue to work on implementation as we have. In all cases, the land use recommendations from the Growth Policy and associated neighborhood plan should be reviewed in conjunction with the goals, objectives and actions of the Growth Policy. We will highlight a few specific Growth Policy goals that are not fully covered in the other review criteria. This is the future land use designation map. As you’ve seen, this map on page 128 of 343 pages of a document does designate this area for high density development. However, there is not only fine text on the map itself but also accompanying explanation on page 114 explaining that these designations are approximation and must be considered in conjunction with all of the other Growth Policy goals and site specific conditions. The recommendations from Development Services and the Office of Community Development staff may take these other factors into consideration but they do not give them any weight in comparison to this map of approximate designations. We would like to ask why staff weighed the density more than all other factors combined for recommendation when the map itself and the Growth Policy states that all other factors must be considered as well? Yes? Alderperson Anderson said, I’m sorry, Karen, I don’t mean to interrupt. Mr. Mayor and Marty, I do think we have some technical difficulties happening. We’ve lost the video for most all Councilmembers. City Clerk Rehbein said, I shut it off because we are having so many bandwidth problems here in the Council Chambers that the viewing audience is, on eScribe and YouTube, is constantly not, and MCAT is not getting a lot of the meeting so while Ms. Sipe is giving her presentation, you aren’t on the screen anyway, so I shut off the video to, hopefully, reduce the bandwidth. I’ll turn your videos back on when it comes time for questions, maybe as the Mayor calls on you in order to facilitate our audience being able to watch the meeting. Alderperson Anderson said, thank you so much. I appreciate the explanation. Karen Sipe said, are we fine then? Mayor Engen said, go right ahead. Karen Sipe said, alright, I’m going to keep going. Okay. So, I’m going to refer now to the Missoula Housing Report. The argument has been made that more apartment units mean more competition or simply through market saturation. That will then drive rental prices down. Missoula has been adding thousands of apartments units over the past decade. Why then hasn’t this proven to be true? According to the 2020 Missoula Housing Report, rental and home prices have only increased. Rent prices increased in every single category in 2019. It appears the new inventory of rental housing coming into the market have a base rental price above Missoula’s historic prices. According to the 2020 Missoula Housing Report, there’s currently a vacancy rate of 5.1% for multiplex rentals like the apartments the rezoning will allow which means that Missoula actually has a good supply of this type of rental. I would like to take a moment at this time to interject the fact that we all realize that during the pandemic, our housing situation is absolutely crazy. We have a very low rental population at this moment or availability at this moment because we have a 50% rate, occupancy rate, at our dorms at the University. Many parents do not want their children or students at the dorm. They’re renting apartments that never would have been rented before. We have people from all over the country coming into our city because we have such a low virus rate and they are making these rentals. So, we are looking at the cumulative report from the Missoula Organization of Realtors. Likely, thanks to the recent additions of newly constructed multi-family units, the vacancy rates did increase for all multiplex rental types in 2019 with an annual vacancy rate of 5.1%, which is considered a good rental supply. Houses and duplexes had much lower vacancy rates of 2% or less. There is little new construction of homes and duplexes for the rental market. We would like to ask why the Office of Housing and Community Development staff is recommending approval of the very type of zoning and housing we do not need and why staff is not supporting the existing zoning that does provide that type of housing? The first Growth Policy category we’d like to highlight is livability. We feel the proposed rezone does not address any of these livability factors, a walkable neighborhood with clean air and water, lowering the combined cost of housing in neighborhoods. This is market rate housing requiring the use of automobiles, easy access to services and employment, not only to avoid traffic congestion but to provide safe, reliable transportation options and to involve the community into development decisions. We would like to ask why neither City staff nor the developer engaged the community regarding such an important and impactable decision. For economic health, the City Growth Policy calls for workforce housing with a caveat that housing does not require the use of automobiles. The Grant Creek neighborhood is a vehicle-dependent area. For many reasons, the City Growth Policy supports Focus Inward concepts in development. We understand that does not mean all growth is centered around downtown. What we do understand is that it means development should center around services and amenities and employment, being near public transportation and have multi-modal transportation options, all of which Grant Creek lacks. This rezone does not support economic health as detailed in the Growth Policy and we would like to ask staff how they could recommend high density housing in a vehicle-dependent area when many City policies and plans call for fewer vehicles on the road. Finally, specific to the Growth Policy is housing. We feel the rezone does not meet the requirements that the Growth Policy calls for other than meeting a density approximation on the future land use designation map. Both the Growth Policy and Housing Policy call for affordable rentals in homes. The rezone will provide market rate apartments only. We are all affected by the rising cost of living in Missoula. The Growth Policy calls for housing that actually decreases residences cost of living besides rental costs. With the rezone, commute times for everyone will be longer. There is no public transportation and none planned in the foreseeable future. There’s no multi-modal transportation options available. There is a dependence on vehicles and it is located away from services and employment. The proposed rezone will only increase resident cost of living and does not support the Growth Policy. We would like to ask how the Office of Housing and Community Development can recommend approval of a rezone that would only increase residents’ cost of living when the A Place to Call Home policy specifically emphasizes the importance of affordability throughout. The rezone is not designed to secure from safety…safety from fire and other dangers. As mentioned earlier, Grant Creek has a single ingress and egress. Tripling the population at the mouth of a canyon with one way in and only one way out puts stress on emergency services. Grant Creek Road has minimal to no shoulder making access and evacuation during an emergency tenuous. The developer has asked what infrastructure are we missing. We are missing a second way out of the Grant Creek valley. The wild land urban interface or WUI was mentioned earlier. This rezone is part of and directly impacts the residents and neighborhoods that are within the WUI. Residents have been warned for years by all fire agencies that a major wildfire in the Grant Creek drainage is not an if but a when. Many residents have been mediating their properties in preparation. This photo shows what happens during the wildfire event up here. In 2016, Northwestern Energy lines started a small blaze and immediately Grant Creek Road was lined with onlookers congesting the ingress for emergency vehicles and the egress for evacuating neighbors. Tripling the Grant Creek population at the mouth of the canyon will, with only one way in and one way out, will only exacerbate these issues. Many valley residents live in the County and are served by the Office of Emergency Management, Missoula Rural Fire and the DNRC through an interlocal agreement. Wildfire within the WUI is very likely followed by widespread evacuation and traffic congestion, competing with emergency vehicle access. We would like to ask if these agencies were asked to review and comment and if not, why not? Shouldn’t those agencies have been requested to provide in-depth analysis and comment on the likely effects of a high-density rezone? The rezone does not promote public health, public safety nor general welfare. I believe vehicles will only add to Missoula’s air pollution. They will also leave pollutants on surfaces that will be washed into the Grant Creek. The impact of more than 10,000 additional vehicle roundtrips a day to an already congested situation will make it difficult for emergency services to reach their destination in a timely manner. Grant Creek is fortunate to have a three-mile recreational trail and we welcome many more people to use it. However, there is no community public park or playground within a mile. With existing traffic, it is unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists beyond the Grant Creek trail to access any services or amenities. The rezone offers no bus pullout or turnaround, already a dangerous situation with vehicles passing loading buses. And all of these factors contribute to the general welfare which is not being met by the rezone. Adequate transportation infrastructure is not being provided for this rezone. Missoula already feels the effects of Grant Creek traffic congestion north of I-90 on Reserve, south of I-90, our workforce, our visitors and neighbors alike. The MDT update that the Grant Creek I-90 Interchange happening this summer is welcomed and appreciated but was requested over 20 years ago to meet the needs of the current population and the Grant Creek Plan. This update will help to somewhat alleviate the current traffic congestion problems, however, tripling the area’s population at the source of the congestion will only exacerbate the current traffic congestion problem not to mention with an additional three hotel sites. That safe transit can be cured with building permits but we do not feel that that is true nor feasible. We have heard from parents’ concern about overcrowding at schools, while staff made the recommendation without comment from the school district. The parents would like to hear directly from the school districts regarding capacity. As previously mentioned, the city trail system is not connected to safe…for safe community or any non-motorized travel and the rezone does not provide for a public community park. Once again, the developers asked what infrastructure is missing: a second way out. We believe the high-density rezone will not provide adequate light and air for the surrounding developments and neighbors. We still believe this even after the developer addressed this. The rezone’s four-story buildings will abut, tower over and shade the one-story split-level homes on Old Quarry Road. The two-story Cottonwood neighbors and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The associated resident vehicles will certainly contribute to our poor air quality. The high-density rezone does not consider its effects on motorized nor non-motorized transportation systems. With an additional 10,000 vehicle trips a day the rezone would exacerbate traffic congestion, affecting emergency services, visitors, workforce and residents. This is not only a situation of convenient, this is about our safety. The rezone application did not consider the impact of seasonal traffic flows in the area as well. There are four hotels with 347 vehicles, Snowbowl with 250 vehicles to 400 daily and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 60,000 vehicles a year. Non-motorized transportation was not considered as well. There is no safe trail connection and the area is not in the city core; it is actually 2-1/2 miles from it. The only bike lane connecting the neighborhood to services is by North Reserve and most cyclists refuse to use it because Reserve Street is the busiest and has the most dangerous intersections in all of Montana. Here are a few pictures of those most dangerous intersections. The Long Range Transportation Plan shows that emergency response time beyond the mouth of Grant Creek has extend past their four-minute goal. City Fire did not comment on the additional traffic affecting response time and City Police stated that once the units are filled, there may be an increase in call to volumes that then will need to be addressed. We would like to ask if these agencies were made aware that when the rezone development is at capacity, there will be 10,000 additional round-trips moving through the I- 90/Reserve/Grant Creek Interchange. Will the City need a new substation? This slide shows how many trips an average household makes a day according to the 2017 National Household Travel Survey. As you can see the number of trips from just this level of high density rezone would actually surpass the number of current residents and current zoning combined trips. Again, these numbers only represent residents. We also welcome many visitors year-round. I would like…I would have liked to have brought my colleague R.T. Cox in here to explain our traffic analysis but I would like to say is that Mr. Avelin’s traffic model shows that there were…was one vehicle exiting Expo Parkway when, as you saw in the video that I introduced to this presentation tonight, Expo Parkway was completely backed up with vehicles. Mr. Avelin’s study was taken in March during our pandemic, during a time when we weren’t experiencing our high traffic volume and our regular seasonal traffic. This is an example of actually where the MDT update is going to be. And if you notice on the, if you can see my cursor, this is the entrance that you would into Starbuck’s and so the…and this is where the creek is. So, the extension of the right-hand turn lane and the additional lane, and absolutely appreciated by the current residents in the Grant Creek, we are very appreciative of what MDT is doing for us at this time. However, once this pinch goes down, we have a single or a two-lane road just beyond this area at a pinch light…point at our bottleneck at the bottom of the hill. The surrounding densities were clearly not considered for this rezone. As you can see, the surrounding densities, Old Quarry neighborhood, they vary from 18 units to 17. The rezone density would be 2-1/2 to 5 times greater than the immediate residential developments and would represent 60% of the total residents of the valley. The current zoning is much more compatible with its neighbors at a variation of the high-density at the south, at 30…43 units an acre and the north parcel at 12 units an acre. The rezone application does not consider the surrounding character and uses. The rezone only provides one type of market rate, rental only, housing. The surrounding development uses are wide range from single-family to multi-family homes to commercial. Also offered are rentals and homeownership in neighborhood settings. The current zoning is in line with its surroundings and the Grant Creek Area Plan so we ask why can’t the property be developed according to this current zoning? The reason the application did not address rezone review criteria 2 and 3 was the proposed zoning amendment cracks and errors or inconsistency in the zoning ordinance or meets the challenge of its changing positions, and whether the proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of the city as a whole. We do not feel the rezone application meets either of these criteria. We believe we have established that the zoning does not substantially adhere to the Growth Plan and, in particular, does not adhere to the most important consideration, safety and livability. The staff recommendation promotes density at all costs. With a 7 to 2 vote to recommend denial of the rezone, the Planning Board made it clear that they did not agree with staff. And even though the burden of proof for rezoning is supposed to be placed with the developer and staff it took community members to provide the proof that it does not work. We are welcoming zoning with 502 residences which almost doubles the population and we’ll certainly have an impact on our traffic. However, it would also provide a variety of housing types with walkable neighborhoods and complete streets, rental units and the opportunity for homeownership, mixed use development and a more rigorous subdivision review process. It would adhere to the Grant Creek Area Plan which is an amendment to our City Growth Policy. We are asking for smart growth and for neighborhood involvement in the planning process for the best interest of the City and its residents. Once again, we ask why can’t these parcels be developed according to the current zoning, which is supported by the Growth Policy and to the neighborhood and it provides the exact type of rental housing that Missoula needs? Thank you so much for the opportunity. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Sipe. And the public hearing is open. I have three folks lined up, now four folks lined up and I will take you in the order that you’re appearing. I would ask that you try to keep your comments to three minutes please. And, sorry, I’ve got a few challenges here with technology. City Clerk Rehbein said, Mayor Engen, Jennifer Worrell first in line. Mayor Engen said, thank you. Ms. Worrell? Jennifer Worrell said, hi, thank you. And I’ll try to keep this brief. I know this has been a long meeting and I appreciate you guys staying up. I just wanted to voice my opinion in favor of this development. I personally live in Ward 6 which has traditionally been very affordable and my neighbors are absolutely getting squeezed out by large condos being built and housing prices going up. There’s very little affordability in this neighborhood anymore, and anything that we can do is going to be helpful. Your average Missoulian is really struggling with trying to find affordable housing. And, you know, aside from any budget concerns that could help alleviate that, I think this would be a big step in that right direction. And, you know, I hate to say this but I just feel that a lot of the objection to this development just reeks of not-in-my-backyard classifists. And we need to take care of Missoulians and we need to take care of each other. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you. And I have a caller with the last four digits of phone number 0720. City Clerk Rehbein said, hey, Gloria Langstaff, that’s you. You’re on the air. Mayor Engen said, hello, Ms. Langstaff? Gloria Langstaff said, can you hear me? Mayor Engen said, we can, thank you. Gloria Langstaff said, oh, good. Alright. This is Gloria Longstaff. I live in the county near the top of Grant Creek. A neighbor of mine is in his 90s with limited technical abilities has asked me to keep in touch with him about this rezoning request and its effect on traffic and safety. He was a city fireman in Chicago or somewhere back east. He is a World War II honored vet. When he learned about the lack of emergency planning at the Grant Creek Road and North Reserve intersection, he said, doesn’t my life have any value? Please deny the rezoning request until there are safety measures in place for all Grant Creek residents. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you. Mr. Bell? David Bell said, good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers. Thank you and really appreciate the opportunity to speak after a long evening of presentations. I run a company called ALPS and the number one concern cited in an employee survey recently was affordable housing in Missoula. I support the density plan when it’s done responsibly and the presentation from the Friends of Grant Creek supports the existing zoning and opposes the rezoning. I just submit to members of the Council that really the right thing to do to the extent that it would be possible would be to approve the existing zoning subject to proper egress for emergency evacuation which just does not exist. Approving the existing zoning even is like driving an Uber car into the lake, as one of the Uber drivers did, because Google Maps told he it was okay. Even when the document in front of us says we can do it, sometimes we just need to apply a level of common sense to encourage it otherwise. When I listened to Mr. Morgan’s presentation and him say that the one way in, one way out is another issue for another time, you know, I wonder if he boarded up all the windows and doors in his house, besides the front door, put a hundred people in his living room and then yelled “Fire” if he would feel the same way. Ingress, egress is a big deal. The traffic backup is real and the Planning Board felt that the presentation by the developer was unconvincing. I would just encourage members of Council over the course of the time that this remains open to come see it for yourself. Don’t believe me or the presentations. I think what you’ll see is that even in its current state there is a major concern. It’s not so much as an inconvenience as it is a danger and totally fix that. It’s just simply not safe to put this addition of addresses in our neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity. Mayor Engen said, thank you, sir. Mr. Parker? Grant Parker said, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, can you hear me now? Mayor Engen said, we can. Grant Parker said, alright. I will be very brief. We have other opportunities to comment later on but those of you who were at the Land Use and Planning Committee meeting last week heard me take issue with Dave DeGrandpre’s comment that the proposed rezone wouldn’t have an impact on the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. By the way, I’m General Counsel with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, as I previously stated. I will give Mr. DeGrandpre credit and thank him for calling me on the 19th and saying he’s interested in understanding how this project might impact RMEF and he stated in the message he left me that you are right, I don’t really get it. Then Mr. DeGrandpre did come out and again, thank you very much for doing that. My concern is that the obligation is for the zoning officer and the Planning Board and the City Council to, under Municipal Code #20.85.040(g)(i) that required to look at whether the zoning conserves the value of buildings and encourages the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Mr. DeGrandpre acknowledged, while he came out and visited, that I know this would be…result in increased costs and increased impacts on the Elk Foundation. That was nice to hear that. My concern is that it was not addressed in the staff report. It was not addressed in the zoning application and both of them are deficient and the zoning request should be denied. Thank you very much. Mayor Engen said, thank you, sir. And Aaron Nielson. Aaron Nielson said, good evening, everybody. I’ll keep this short. I’m an attorney at Christian, Samson and Baskett. I am the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s outside counsel on this matter. This is not, as the applicant stated tonight, that the ridiculously obvious rezone should be approved. It’s been demonstrated by numerous public comments and protests petitions and by the extent of the public’s attendance and participation in this meeting and the prior two meetings that they care about this and all of them bring up very valid points. The Elk Foundation has submitted a protest petition which is included in the materials. I’m not going to go over that and I would just encourage you all to review it. A high-level density isn’t the end of the story. It’s not the end all and be all. And unlike, what Mr. Morgan said tonight, the Missoula Zoning Code in Section 20.85.030 that establishes the legal standard that’s not…it doesn’t bring up substantial compliance. Its exact wording is that the burden’s on the applicant to show that an application complies with all, not some, of the applicable review criteria. It’s been the Elk Foundation position all along that that burden hasn’t been met. The burden is not on the Friends of Grant Creek, on the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or the hundreds of Grant Creek residents to prove otherwise. It’s the Elk Foundation’s, that because the burden hasn’t been met, the rezone should be denied. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you. And Andi Hoelzel. Andi Hoelzel said, hi there. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Andi Hoelzel, Ward 2. I just wanted to take this opportunity to highlight once again that oftentimes when development comes and front of City Council and that development is proposed in where traditionally neighborhoods of very privileged, wealthy white folks, the engagement is very different and it often comes…it does often come across as NIMBY’s. But at the same time, I’d like to say unfortunately that because the City of Missoula does not have inclusionary zoning, which I know, Mr. Mayor, you have alluded to more recently after previous issues similar to this one have come forwarded, that you would be interested in at least entertaining the idea but because we don’t, we actually have no control over how much of this new housing stock is truly affordable. So, again, and the increase in housing stock is great when we need it but what we really need is an increase in affordable housing stock and that is not what we have and it does not appear to be what this project provides. In addition to that, I wanted just to make comment and am hoping that at some point Council will clarify, I have never seen a neighborhood get the opportunity to provide such a lengthy presentation when development proposals are on the table. If that is something that is, in fact, available to all neighborhoods, it would behoove the Council to make that clear. It seems to me that that happened today in part because it is Grant Creek and because the presenter has relationship with the City. So, if that is an option, I would love for that to be made more clear. I know there are other neighborhoods who would love to be able to present for themselves as well. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, and Mr. Lindler. Bert Lindler said, good evening. This is Bert Lindler. I am a resident of Grant Creek and I want everyone at this meeting to understand that we want for all neighborhoods what we’re seeking for Grant Creek. What we’re seeking is development that fits the needs of the city and development that fits the need of the new neighbors and development that’s going to work with the existing neighborhood. If you had attended the Plan Use…Land Use and Planning Committee meeting last Wednesday, you would have heard Mr. Ault say, very clearly, very strongly, that he will not be providing affordable housing in these apartments. He will provide market rate housing. There will be no “affordable” housing. Furthermore, these apartments are not going to be located where people can walk to work. They’re going to be located where there is no transit, where there are very few opportunities to work, where there’s no opportunity to go to church, where there’s no opportunity to walk to school, where there’s no opportunity to walk to a city park, where there’s no opportunity to take a bicycle to the City’s bicycle system without going under a bridge in a very narrow lane beside Reserve Street traffic. So, I encourage all residents of Missoula to work hard to see that the City’s Growth Plan, which provides for putting growth where the services are provided is followed. And in this case, the existing zoning does that; the proposed rezoning does not. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you. And Peggy Walker. Peggy Walker said, I’m a resident of Grant Creek and a member of the Board of Directors of the Grant Creek Homeowners Association. And I would just like to respond to something addressed by the developers when they said that they’re meeting all of the neighborhood’s…addressing all of the neighbors’ concerns and that they believe that there’s, frankly, much less opposition to this development and rezoning issue than it would seem and that probably there are more neighbors who simply haven’t come forward that actually support the project. As a resident and member of the HOA Board of Directors and a person who walks frequently in the neighborhood, I can tell you there is very consistent opposition to this party and great concern about the fact that the developers have consistently minimized our concerns in a way that we think is inappropriate and isn’t necessary. When Mr. Ault, at a recent meeting, opened his presentation by saying that we know you have concerns with parking but let’s set that aside for now and we’d like to know what else you don’t like. And as speakers proceeded to say, residents of Grant Creek proceeded to say what they didn’t like. The developers responded by consistently minimizing our concerns and proceeding to talk up what they like about their project which appears to be lots of parking and dog walks. So, while we’re very much in favor of and approve the current zoning, I can tell you that without exception I have not met anyone in my HOA, although I will promise you that I haven’t talked to everybody, who favors this because it just isn’t a good fit for this site now with the current lack of amenities and services. Mayor Engen said, okay, thank you. Peggy Walker said, and thank you. Mayor Engen said, and Mr. Larson. Matts Larson said, yes, I’m sorry, hold on. I have to park here. I’m just driving. I’d like…my heart goes out to all the past commentators and the general counsel for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation because I basically think that they’re are about to experience what we also experience in the University District with the creation of 48 condos on a place where the footprint was essentially handed to…from the City to the developer in the form of a right-of-way where 27 units were allowed to be built on this thing and under the current zoning but under the plan, the Downtown Plan, they were allowed to make it urban core at 4th and Ronald. Complete disregard to traffic. Complete disregard to safety of the high school children who use that corridor every day, and that’s what’s going to happen in Grant Creek as well. And it’s just a boondoggle that the City has created and the County as well by overregulating development and then earmarking super high-end development and dropping 200 units of “affordable housing” based off of $19 an hour wages that no one here actually makes. It’s quite saddening and, like I said, my heart goes out to the residents. I’m going to give them more time. I’m going to relinquish the rest of my time to them. Please allow them to comment and please hear their comments because I think it’s disgusting what you’re doing to the city. Mayor Engen said, and I have no one else in the public hearing. So, with that, the public hearing will remain open. Mr. Hess will have this in committee in a couple of weeks and we will continue the conversation. I appreciate everyone’s patience this evening through technical difficulties and some changes in the way we do business, a little bit complicated. Are there questions or comments from Councilmembers? Mr. Hess? Alderperson Hess said, thanks, Mayor. I’d just like to encourage members of the Council to forward me any comments or questions…not comments but questions rather that they may have, whether it’s a question for staff or for a member of the applicant team or anyone else. And I can coordinate getting those answered in time for our September 2nd meeting. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. Hess. With that, we will move onto the continuation of our public hearing on the fiscal year ’21 budget for the City of Missoula and I believe Ms. Griffing or Mr. Bickell have a couple of quick updates for you. Dale or Leigh? 8.3 Fiscal Year 2021 Budget This public hearing will be held open through the August 31, 2020 Special City Council meeting. City Council is slated to make a final decision on the budget and all related matters at that meeting (8/31/2020 Leigh Griffing said, I just want to let folks know that this coming Wednesday is the last Budget Committee of the Whole meeting that we have scheduled for the budget and we are going to receive presentations from the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, the Parking Commission. We will also be presenting a revenue analysis and a budget summation. And the final public hearing for the budget will be held next Monday, August 31st. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Griffing. Mr. Bickell, anything you wanted to add? Dale Bickell said, I wanted to mention that the Finance Office updated the new requests document and it should be updated on the website as of dated today. Some of the items that have been updated is after the deliberations related to the CIP, was the major changes include adding the police and vehicle request to the CIP and those would be added for our FY ’22 Finance Program and also the addition of the dump truck request from Cemetery that is out of their Capital Improvement Funds. And there were some other smaller requests in there. Certain COVID reimbursements that are being expected to be paid from the CARES Act are also included in there. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Mr. Bickell. And the public hearing is open but I don’t see anyone queued up. Oh, Mr. Larson and Ms. Hoelzel. Sorry, I just need to master the technology myself here for a minute. Ms. Hoelzel? Andi Hoelzel said, hi there, thank you. Andi Hoelzel again, Ward 2. I just…I wasn’t at the Budget Committee of the Whole last week and so just wanted to speak specifically to the request from the Municipal Court for $25,000 to basically send people to collections for unpaid fees and fines. And this is one of the issues that has been broadly researched and brought before anyone interested in changing our criminal justice system but these are things that criminalize poverty, pushing fines and fees being used to supply the City with income is a problem in and of itself. But then when we do that to folks who often are unable to pay, it results in losing driver’s license, ultimately at least, to an inability to secure their basic needs, like housing and transportation and food, etc. I have numerous friends who have been involved in the court system for what might be very, very minor things but as fees build up and you’re living in poverty and then you go to jail because you’re not paying your fees, and then you lose your job because you went to jail because you couldn’t pay your fees and then you go to collections and then you can’t secure housing…secure rent, secure a car or secure anything else, it really, really makes it impossible for people to get on their feet and build a life, especially in a city that is already so difficult to be able to afford to live in. So, I would request that the City deny the Municipal Court budget proposal for that money to be able to send people to collections and get their affairs in order as far as their technology and their invoicing system. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Hoelzel. Emily Withnall. Emily Withnall said, hi, I’m Emily Withnall from Ward 1. I am calling to urge the Council to not allocate the additional $633,000 for the police force. I’ve had a number of experiences with the police force and I just think that, like so many other callers, that money would be better spent for the Mobile Response Team Housing Trust Fund, more capacity at the YWCA for domestic violence survivors. As many of you may know, domestic violence is rising during the pandemic and there are certain parameters around who’s allowed in…who qualifies and I know the YWCA Shelter is always full and often doesn’t have enough resources to offer everyone that needs it. So, those are the kinds of things I would like to see the City Council prioritize over helmets and showers for police officers. In addition, I volunteered at the Missoula County Jail for two years teaching poetry on the women’s side and saw a disproportionate number of Native women represented there. And I know the ACLU has put out numbers about the disproportionate representation of Natives in the jail as well. I have talked to police officers about this. I have heard denials every time about racial profiling but there’s no way that there cannot be racial profiling if there’s such a high proportion of Native people in the jail. I know that the new Police Chief is talking about training. At one point, a couple of years back, I was all for training. I thought that was a quick fix. I don’t think it is. I have since read studies that show that training is not effective. I don’t think that people are going to learn how to respond appropriately to domestic violence victims or not do racial profiling in a couple of afternoons during a training and, in fact, there are studies that also show that sometimes those trainings can backfire. And, finally, the last thing I’ll say is that when you militarize the police, they want to use their gear and they respond and treat the public as, basically, criminals even if it is something as minor as urinating in public because you don’t have anywhere to live. So, I know the police try to not do that as much but I know that they also do and so I just would ask the City Council to prioritize…show the people who live in Missoula where your priorities lie because almost a third of your budget goes to the police. It doesn’t look like you’re prioritizing domestic violence victims and Native people and other people who are often criminalized by the police. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Withnall. Vincent Benlach. Vincent Benlach said, hello, can you hear me? Mayor Engen said, we can. Vincent Benlach said, first, I just wanted to reiterate my support for the statement that Mr. Decker had made earlier and that Ms. Withnall and Ms. Hoelzel had just made. I’m another concerned citizen who would like to see the funding that’s currently being allocated to the police allocated elsewhere. I have a background in working in the civil justice system in Missoula. I was an AmeriCorps member at the Missoula County Self-Help Law Center and I …[off microphone} Mayor Engen said, sorry, Mr. Benlach, we lost you. Vincent Benlach said, [inaudible]…am I back? Mayor Engen said, yeah, we’ve got a rough connection but please go ahead. Vincent Benlach said, basically, I just wanted to say that given my experience at the Missoula County Self-Help Law Center, I’ve seen all of the things that other community members have brought up take place. I’ve seen domestic violence victims who have not been helped by the police or have been actively impeded from getting justice, safety or distance from their situations, you know. I’ve seen people who have been thrown out on the street. I remember working with a nurse who was a local community nurse who had to sleep in her car due to the debt and stress that was occurring to her during one of her family law cases that we helped with. I just…there are countless examples I can think of people in this community who could be helped by that money and as everybody else says and kind of laid out, there are so many other things that that funding could do that would make an immediate and tangible impact in somebody’s life, more so than giving the police upgraded, you know, upgraded facilities or training or new vehicles or whatever. Those things, while they’re very small, either very small or very negative impact on the rest of our community. In addition, the Mobile Response Teams in addition to mental health assistance, we can also create something like a civil Gideon program which is something that’s been experimented with in other cities to provide people in our civil justice system legal assistance with their housing expenses, with their landlord/tenant law cases, with their justice court cases. There’s so many other things that this money could do instead of going into refining a police force that’s already overfunded relative to our population and relative to our crime rate. And I just feel like suggestions on the table, I would like you guys to understand that in choosing none of them, you are making a very direct statement against this community and a very direct moral statement against any of these other causes that would justifiably and deservedly need that funding. And it’s not only not choosing to fund those things, it’s actively taking away support from them. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you, sir. And Kathryn Hartfield. Kathryn Hartfield said, hello. I’m just strongly urging you to redirect the resolution increasing fees to the Police Department to funding mental and physical health care, housing, transportation and child care, schools, or any other kinds of social services. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you. And Mr. Larson. Matts Larson said, yes. I’d like to urge the City Council and the Mayor and whomever is in charge of the finance, to also release the itemized core costs for each department. We’re just seeing the top layer bloat. A lot of the stuff I’ve pointed out has magically disappeared, like the one-ton dump truck for $70,000 for the Cemetery Department. And like the IT job that was double the national salary wage at the health…for help-desk technicians. We don’t need to send people to collections at Municipal Court. That has to do with levying bureaus and collection agencies. CBS, the local collection agency, is owned by the Koch family and the levying bureau that they use is owned by another Koch family member. This is messed up because the court loses control of how these fines are garnished from wages and checks and will affect people’s lives, low-income, poor people. Stop policing the poor. Stop writing open container tickets for homeless people. It’s just common-sense stuff here that we’re losing grip on. There is racial profiling actively going on as far as I can tell because I’ve been shut out of all data from all departments that I’ve requested. And it’s shown to us that the City Attorney is withholding stuff, withholding use of force reports on the…it’s referenced in Saturday Missoulian articles. There’s deeply troubling things afoot and the community is also telling you this. Even if there weren’t to not concentrate your funding on the police. Concentrate it on something that will affect people’s lives please. This is the last time I can, you know, this is pretty much the last week anybody can comment on this. All I’ve heard is defund, reallocate and rethink this budget but we don’t even know what the core costs are for each department. Have a nice night. Bye. Mayor Engen said, thank you, sir. I see no one else in the queue. The public hearing will remain open. As we move forward, we’ll move on from the public hearing portion of our agenda to comments from the Mayor. City Clerk Rehbein said, Mayor Engen, I think we have one more public hearing. It’s mine. Mayor Engen said, you what? City Clerk Rehbein said, we have one more public hearing on the Street Lighting. Mayor Engen said, oh, I’m sorry. I missed that. Go right ahead with your staff report, Ms. Rehbein. 8.4 Resolution levying assessments for Street Lighting Districts for fiscal year 2021 Moved by: Alderperson Jones Adopt a resolution of the Missoula City Council levying and assessing a special assessment and tax on the lots, pieces and parcels of land situated within all special lighting districts of the City of Missoula, Montana, in the amount of $368,470.87 to defray the cost of street lighting in special lighting districts during the fiscal year 2021. AYES: (9): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Harp, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West NAYS: (3): Alderperson Contos, Alderperson Ramos, and Alderperson Vasecka Vote result: Approved (9 to 3) City Clerk Rehbein said, I’m going to be super brief because I don’t know how well connected I’m going to stay to this meeting. So, we are doing the annual Street Lighting assessments this evening. We are, in short, proposing a 1.8% increase in the districts across the city. Total assessments this year will be $368,470.87. We are predicting that Northwestern Energy will increase rates by 3%. The City’s Road District supports this district by paying 10% of the cost of lighting in the district so that reduces the assessment. There is an administrative fee of 3%. The way we were adding that 1.8% increase is last year our estimate was a little bit higher than our bill and so the resulting fund balance offsets the increases that we were projecting here next year. I’m available if folks have questions. We’re asking Council to vote on this item tonight because of a statutory requirement that it be approved this evening. Thank you. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Rehbein, and my apologies. I was remiss. With that, I will open the public hearing. Anyone interested in commenting on the Lighting District? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Are there questions from Councilmembers? I see none. In that case, I would entertain a motion, Ms. Jones. Alderperson Jones said, happy to make the motion. I move that we adopt a resolution of the Missoula City Council levying and assessing a special assessment and tax on the lots, pieces and parcels of land situated within all special lighting districts of the City of Missoula, Montana, in the, hang on…got a message to start my video…there we go…within all special lighting districts of the City of Missoula, Montana, in the amount of $368,470.87 to defray the cost of street lighting in special lighting districts during the fiscal year 2021. Mayor Engen said, thank you, Ms. Jones. That motion is in order. Is there discussion on the motion? Ms. Vasecka? Alderperson Vasecka said, thank you. Especially during this time of COVID where a lot of folks are very tight with their budgets, I do not support this additional tax at this time so I will not be supporting this motion. Mayor Engen said, further discussion? Seeing none, we’ll have a roll call vote. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed 9 Ayes, 3 Nays Mayor Engen said, and the resolution is approved. 10. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR - None 11. GENERAL COMMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL Alderperson Jones said all our schools in town are opening up this week. There’s a portion of kids staying home to just do school online and there’s a significant portion that will be attending on a part- time basis along with online. Everybody in the community should continue to stay socially distant and keep this virus under control so that the schools can stay open with those kids in person on this hybrid schedule. Alderperson Anderson invited the public to join Public Safety & Health Committee Wednesday from 12:25 to 1:10 p.m. They will be hearing a presentation from Christian Jordan on the Mobile Crisis Unit. There’s been a lot of community interest in this and a lot of discussion, emails and this will be an incredibly illuminating presentation about all the various funding sources, what the model is, what the plan is. Alderperson Becerra reminded everyone that it is required now to wear a mask. It’s not just to protect ourselves but others in our community. It’s important that all of us as residents, city staff and this call goes out particular to our police officers who she’s seen way too many of them not wearing a mask and we all need to do what we can. We’re all in this together and that’s the only way we’re going to see any progress. 12. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12.1 Administration and Finance committee (AF) report 12.2 Budget Committee of the Whole (BCOW) committee report 12.2.1 August 19, 2020 Budget Committee of the Whole report 12.3 Committee of the Whole (COW) committee report 12.4 Land Use and Planning Appointments (LUPA) Subcommittee report 12.5 Land Use and Planning (LUP) committee report 12.5.1 August 19, 2020 8:20am Land Use and Planning report 12.5.2 August 19, 2020 12:20pm Land Use and Planning report 12.6 Parks and Conservation (PC) committee report 12.7 Public Safety and Health (PSH) committee report 12.8 Public Works (PW) committee report 12.8.1 August 19, 2020 Public Works report 12.8.2 August 12, 2020 Public Works report 13. NEW BUSINESS - None 14. ITEMS TO BE REFERRED 14.1 Administration and Finance committee referrals 14.1.1 National Institute of Health Grant Exhibit Fabrication Agreement 14.1.2 University of Montana Amendment to Service Agreement 14.1.3 Resolution levying assessments for hazardous vegetation for fiscal year 2021 14.1.4 Sidewalk Snow Removal Assessments for fiscal year 2021 14.2 Budget Committee of the Whole referrals 14.3 Committee of the Whole referrals 14.4 Land Use and Planning Appointments Subcommittee referrals 14.5 Land Use and Planning committee referrals 14.5.1 Re-appointment to the City Board of Adjustment 14.6 Parks and Conservation committee referrals 14.6.1 Purchase Poligon Park Shelters 14.7 Public Safety and Health committee referrals 14.7.1 Update on the Mobile Crisis Unit 14.8 Public Works committee referrals 14.8.1 Street Name Change – Private Drive to Collective Way 15. MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONS, REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 15.1 Administratively approved agreement report 16. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.