Loading...
2007, 06-05 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Tuesday,June 5,2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 117`h meeting. Attendance: City Staff: Diana Wilhite,Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Dick Denenny, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Greg McCormick,Planning Manager Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Rich Munson,Councilmember [arrived 7:49] Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Mike Jackson, Parks&Rec Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mary Kate Martin, Building Official Absent: Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Gary Schimmels Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Dave Johnson, United Methodist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmembers Schimmels and Munson. Mayor Wilhite said they may be arriving late and Council will wait until later in the meeting to determine if there is a need to excuse either or both Councilmembers. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda as presented. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember DeVleming: reported that he attended last Saturday's retreat; and again thanked Councilmember Denenny for hosting the meeting. Councilmember Gothmann: said he also attended the retreat; attended a celebration at the Chamber of Commerce; a pool upgrade meeting; a Community Trade and Economic Development meeting; the Board of Health meeting; and announced that the new Weed Sr Seed Director is Gail Kogle. He also mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce is working on review of the CenterPlace Marketing plan so that they can communicate their comments to us about the Plan. Deputy Mayor Taylor: said he had no report but enjoyed the retreat last weekend. Councilmember Denenny: said he attended the Health District meeting where they worked to refine the job description. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that last Saturday's retreat was very informative; and that the weather was good too. She mentioned a conference she attended in Spokane; and she then asked Councilmember Gothmann to read the"National Hunger Awareness Day"proclamation; which proclamation he read. Council Meeting: 06-05-07 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 06-26-07 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Randy Kenworthy, 3021 S Collins, 927-0638, cell 868-8906: said he lives just south of University High School, and the parking problem has become a major issue on their street; not so much because of parking, he explained, but because of the loitering and the trash; and he said there is now no parking on school days between 32nd and 31St on Collins; and he would like to know how to get that extended from 31St to 30th so that they don't have all the cars, loitering and trash going on in front on his house. He said he realizes the parking is public, but at this point the parking is bumper-to-bumper, and averages about 20 cars daily on his street between' 31" and 29th, that it has become the "designated smoking" area for the smoking crowd; and that extending the no parking in front of their house will help ease the problem. Mayor Wilhite said that staff will follow-up on this and get back to him to address his concerns; and that normally he will hear from staff via written correspondence. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2008-2013 Transportation Improvement Plan—Steve Worley Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m. and invited Engineer Worley to explain the proposal. Mr. Worley explained that this is this year's update to the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP); that the plan contains a list of projects recommended; and many projects are from last year's plan which were not completed due to funding issues. Mr. Worley also mentioned that we are still waiting to learn if the FTA 5307 grant applications will be funded through the Spokane Regional Transportation Commission's Call for Projects; and depending on those results, our TIP may change again; that this draft should be considered a work in progress; and that more details will emerge when the consultant gives the final presentation on the street masterplan. The list of projects included in the council packet was also briefly discussed. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: she mentioned coming and going from Sprague to Mission that traffic is a problem, and as Liberty Lake traffic gets funneled down, she suggests we make sure there is a path to allow pedestrians and bicyclists safe negotiation across those streets. Sue Bracken, 18508 E Riverway Avenue: asked if there is a way to see a list of the roads when they have been completed; and Mr. Worley responded that the information will be on the City's website. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment and none was offered. Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. 2. QUASI-JUDICIAL CLOSED RECORD HEARING: Austin Hearing Examiner Appeal — Mike Connelly Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. and invited City Attorney Connelly to explain the procedures. City Attorney Connelly explained the procedures and his memorandum of June 5, 2007; appellant Mary Pollard, speaking for Janice Austin, began her remarks at 6:50 p.m. After hearing arguments and rebuttal, Mayor Wilhite closed the hearing portion at 7:15 p.m. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to schedule the deliberations and decision for the June 19 meeting. A complete transcript of the hearing is attached. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:16 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:29 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following Claim Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 05-07-2007 11683-11726 $1,462,873.65 05-18-2007 11772-11834 $249,993.05 GRAND TOTAL $1,712,866.60 Council Meeting: 06-05-07 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 06-26-07 b. Payroll for Period Ending May 31, 2007: $256,229.39 c. Minutes of May 15, 2007 Council Study Session Meeting d. Minutes of May 22, 2007 Regular Council Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent agenda as presented NEW BUSINESS 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 07-010 Adopting Uniform Development Code (UDC) Title 24— Mary Kate Martin After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded to approve ordinance 07-010 as submitted Ms. Martin commented that as requested by Council, the appendix has been added, and that under section 24.40.020, there was a clause added that the codes as mentioned are adopted "as presently constituted or subsequently amended by the State of Washington." Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. Deputy Mayor Taylor expressed a sense of urgency to get the remainder of the UDC titles as soon as possible in order for Council to have ample time to review the material and deliberate on each title. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that the Planning Commission is aware of the need to meet the deadline, and they have an aggressive meeting schedule to accomplish that goal. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Committee Grant Allocations—Deputy Mayor Taylor Deputy Mayor Taylor explained that the attached materials contain the final recommendation of the Committee. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded, to approve the lodging tax advisory committee's grant allocations as recommended in the attached corrected sheet. There was some discussion about a surplus of funds, and Finance Director Thompson said he estimates a reserve between $100,000 and $200,000; and that another round of applications will be reviewed in the fall at which time we anticipate having approximately $350,000 in funds. It was mentioned that because of the state laws regulating how these funds are to be used, suggestions for advertising to a larger group or other ideas on re-defining how the money can be spent is limited. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he would like to see a full accounting of how effective these applicant's were in increasing tourism; and he asked for accountability guidelines for the larger recipients. Councilmember Gothmann suggested in the future, that Councilmembers are provided with more detail of what funding is being sought from each applicant. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Harry Sladich, Spokane Regional Convention & Visitor's Bureau: said he initially came to say thanks to the advisory board; and to thank Council for the consideration; and stated that they don't take the funds for granted nor ask for more than is needed; and again that he is appreciative of the funding. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview: spoke concerning the Valley float and gave a little history of the use of floats; and suggested if there are extra funds, to help get the float process started. [Councilmember Munson arrived at 7:49 p.m.] Councilmember Denenny added that these funds come from the hoteliers, who asked to be taxed so there would be funds to promote tourism; that this is not a tax like sales or property tax, but a very specific tax brought about at the request of the hoteliers. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed. None. Motion carried 6. Motion Consideration: Memorandum of Understanding for the Judicially Integrated Mental Health Solutions Program—Mayor Wilhite Mayor Wilhite explained that recently a judge was addressing problems with the number of people booked into jail and prison, and felt there might be some alternative ways to take care of problems they Council Meeting: 06-05-07 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 06-26-07 are experiencing in the jails; and that a group got together including our Police Chief, who are working to come up with some solutions; and that this document is an informal document and not a binding agreement and does not commit any individual agency funds, but is an understanding to work to increase public safety through collaboration designed to improve outcomes for individuals with mental illness who come in contact with the criminal justice system. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to authorize the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding for the Judicially Integrated Mental Health Solutions (JIMHS) Program. Chief VanLeuven reiterated that this is an informal agreement to seek alternatives to incarcerating those with mental health issues, and to help those individuals who are incarcerated,to contact other agencies upon the release from jail. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Sue Bracken, 18508 E Riverway Avenue: concerning the park that has been approved in the North Greenacres neighborhood, she wanted to express her gratitude for that park and said that this park means a lot to those who live there. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. Street Vacations Compensation—Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly explained that this topic was discussed in March, at which time he presented a memorandum outlining some legal obligations regarding charging for street vacations; and that there was some council consensus to look at drafting a policy; and that a draft policy is attached as part of this council packet; and said that Council can review and change, and that this can be brought back to Council as a resolution enacting the policy. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he likes the 50% option as it seems most equitable and allows for some compensation for land we are vacating which in the past, we were giving away. There was some question on appraisals and the method used by the County Assessor to arrive at the figure; and Mr. Connelly said he can write the policy in more detail if Council desires; but he suggested using the County auditor's appraisal as the assessed value; but to include a clause that council reserves the right to deviate from this policy upon adoption of written findings. Mr. Connelly said he will further identify the 50% as mentioned in item 1 on the draft policy. Council concurred that Mr. Connelly write this policy as a resolution for further Council consideration. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Schimmels from tonight's meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn to Executive Session not to exceed thirty minutes, for pending litigation, and that no decision is anticipated upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session at 8:40 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. 17:)"t CO. (V \sija..1A ATTEST: ;' Diana Wilhite,Mayor \-Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting: 06-05-07 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 06-26-07 1 June 05,2007 Council Meeting: Quasi-Judicial Closed Record Hearing: 2 Austin Hearing Examiner Appeal 3 4 Mayor Wilhite: Next on our agenda is a quasi-judicial closed record hearing. We have to get our books 5 out, we have books for this. Ok. We officially need to open up our closed hearing record at 6:23. Mr. 6 Connelly,would you please explain the procedures we're to follow for this hearing. 7 8 City Attorney Connelly: Yes, Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This is a little different thing 9 for the council to do then your ordinary course of business. This is a quasi-judicial hearing and it's a 10 closed record hearing. The first part of that means that you're sitting as judges not as legislators; so you 11 need to put your judge's hats on. The second part, the closed record hearing, means that you will hear 12 argument from the appellant and from any party of record that's opposed to the appeal; and then you 13 make your decision based upon the transcript that's before you and the argument that you have heard. 14 The process is relatively straight-forward: you have received the official transcript, those are the big 15 books that are before you; and this is exactly what the Hearing Examiner received when he heard this 16 matter in a full, open public hearing several months ago. After you hear the argument by the appellant 17 and any party of record that's opposed to the appeal, you then determine whether or not the Hearing 18 Examiner decision should be affirmed, should be reversed, or the matter should be remanded to the 19 Hearing Examiner for further study. Those are your three options. There's a couple other rules that you 20 need to keep in mind. The first, and this is contained in the RCA: the decision is presumed to be correct 21 and supported by the law. There is a presumption that the Hearing Examiner knew what he was doing; so 22 to overcome that presumption, there has to be clear evidence in the record, your transcripts, that lead you 23 to that conclusion. To reverse a decision of the Hearing Examiner,you have to find one of several things: 24 You have to find that the Examiner engaged in unlawful procedures; find that the decision was an 25 erroneous interpretation of the law; that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence; that it's a 26 clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts; or that the decision is outside of the Hearing 27 Examiner's authority. Those are the only basses you have for reversing a decision. To remand the matter 28 back to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration,you have to find that there was newly discovered 29 evidence, evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing; which would reasonably have 30 affected the decision. In other words, in your mind, you feel that evidence would have resulted in a 31 different decision by the Hearing Examiner if the Hearing Examiner had heard that information. So those 32 are the ground rules. The process we'll follow is again pretty simple. The appellant, and I believe the 33 appellant is being represented by Mary Pollard tonight; will have a chance to speak for twenty minutes; 34 up to twenty minutes, and I'll be the timer; then if there are any parties of record that are opposed to the Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 1 of 22 35 appeal, then they would have twenty minutes to make their case. The argument by both the appellant and 36 parties opposed to the appeal are not new facts. No one can present new facts, evidence, or documents to 37 you. The transcript are the facts unless this Council rules that supplemental information should be 38 allowed. And that brings us to the last thing, then I'll sit down and we can get started. There has been a 39 request to supplement the record by the appellant Mary Pollard, and I put together a short memo which 40 lays out the rules and identifies the substance of what Ms. Pollard wishes to supplement the record with, 41 for your review, and I'll just summarize it very quickly. Again, the ordinance that governs these 42 proceedings indicates that you may supplement a record, or you may allow the record to be opened up, if 43 it concerns disqualification of the Hearing Examiner for whatever reason; if there are matters that people 44 sought to put in front of the Hearing Examiner and he erroneously excluded those matters; or if there are 45 matters outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner, such as Constitutional issues, issues of bias 46 against you as Councilmembers, or facts or testimony regarding the intent of ordinances that you passed; 47 things that are outside the scope of the Hearing Examiner. You have to find one of those three items or 48 the record cannot be supplemented. There are two documents that Ms. Pollard has submitted and asked to 49 be made a part of the record. The first is a memorandum dated May 14 and it's referenced under big letter 50 A on page two of my memorandum. And, this is essentially an argument that Ms. Pollard makes and it 51 relies upon the record that's before you, the transcript,there's a number of references to things for which 52 there are findings in the record. And I think this memorandum could appropriately be considered a 53 memorandum in support of the appeal pursuant to your rules that allows such a memorandum to be filed; 54 and it was filed timely to conform with those rules. So my recommendation would be that the May 14 55 memorandum be allowed to be submitted as a memorandum in support of her appeal. And it doesn't 56 really contain new facts or evidence; it's purely argument which is appropriate. The second one, large 57 letter B on page two, is a memorandum that contains all kinds of new facts and documents,which she has 58 asked to be submitted and made a part of the record; and I've listed those documents and have given you I 59 think sufficient detail to identify what type of documents are being discussed. The documents concern a 60 decision with respect to the Flora Estates development; which is not before you today; and which was not 61 before the Hearing Examiner at the time of the original hearing; and all of the documents turn on the issue 62 on the manner in which a private road was changed to a public road prior to the final plat process. The 63 record before you discusses this; sets forth the facts that were in existence at the time of the hearing. All 64 of the supplementing documents that are being suggested deal with a development and a decision which 65 was not before the Hearing Examiner and which I do not believe is appropriately before you today. And 66 if you look at those three criteria, disqualification of a Hearing Examiner, information that was offered 67 and rejected by the Hearing Examiner, or matters outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner, none 68 of those criteria are met by these documents. The final applicable provision of these rules, which may Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 2 of 22 69 come up in hearing or be a part of your final decision, deals with newly offered evidence that reasonably 70 could have affected the outcome if the Hearing Examiner had seen it; and for it to have affected the 71 outcome, I think it has to be evidence that was contrary to the Findings of Fact that the Hearing Examiner 72 entered and was truly newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing; and 73 you'd have to make a finding that both those conditions existed before you would remand the matter back 74 to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration. I found nothing in the materials suggested to date that 75 would meet that criteria; the Findings of Fact aren't challenged it's simply questions raised about the 76 manner in which a road changed from private to public in a separate development, which really isn't 77 before you today. Ok. That's the preliminary remarks. I think it would be appropriate to allow the 78 applicant three minutes to explain why she feels the record should be supplemented; and then once you 79 make a decision on that, then we can move to the hearing itself. Any questions about procedure or 80 process? 81 82 Councilmember Gothmann: Yes, Mr. Connelly, I have two questions. One of them, should the, or, is 83 the Council allowed to ask questions or should the Council ask questions of either party. 84 85 City Attorney Connelly: The Council can certainly ask questions to clarify statements made by the 86 parties;what the Council can't do is inquire into factual evidence outside of the record. 87 88 Councilmember Gothmann: OK.Very Good. 89 90 City Attorney Connelly: So if you don't understand what they're saying and ask them to clarify that, 91 that's perfectly appropriate. 92 93 Councilmember Gothmann: OK. 94 95 City Attorney Connelly: If you're saying, well, what about this, could you look this up for me; that's 96 not appropriate,the answer would be to look at the record. 97 98 Councilmember Gothmann: OK. Very Good. Now the second question, I'm asking it for my 99 information, not that I'm biased one way or the other. How are deliberations to take place? Are they 100 public deliberations, are they private? I'm asking for my curiosity. 101 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 3 of 22 102 City Attorney Connelly: The normal course of deliberating when you have an extensive record such as 103 you do now, is to after you've heard argument and the appellant or parties opposed to the appeal have 104 said, look, look at exhibit #77, or look at page #296, this contains very important information that 105 supports my argument. After you hear that argument, you close the hearing, then you set a time for 106 deliberation and decision, you know, a week or two in the future to give you a chance to go back over the 107 books in light of what you've heard; and look at that evidence. At that point in time, you can deliberate 108 openly,just as you're sitting there, and discuss the matter without any input from the public; or you can 109 go into deliberations privately in Executive Session with your attorney, and you can deliberate but not 110 decide in Executive Session, and then come back out and finalize your deliberations and decision. And 111 that's the choice you can make at the time that deliberations are scheduled. 112 113 Councilmember Gothmann: OK. Very good. Thank you. 114 115 Mayor Wilhite: Mr. DeVleming? 116 117 Councilmember DeVlemin2: Mr. Connelly 118 119 Mayor Wilhite: Mr. Connelly,we have another question. 120 121 City Attorney Connelly: Yes. 122 123 Councilmember DeVleming: One quick question, I don't know if you have the answer for this, but on 124 page seven in this section one group, there's a series of pictures; was the Hearing Examiner given color 125 pictures or these same black and white pictures? 126 127 City Attorney.Connelly: The pictures, I've checked are contained in your transcript already in your 128 official transcript; and they're color in your official transcript. So, if you go to the back of your book 129 you'll find those same pictures. 130 131 Mayor Wilhite: They're in the back. 132 133 City Attorney Connelly: So, yeah, I was concerned about that being additional, new evidence attached 134 to the appeal,but they're also contained in the transcript. 135 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 4 of 22 136 Councilmember DeVleming: Color photos, OK. Got it. 137 138 Mayor Wilhite: OK. Does that answer everybody's question? Ok. Thank you Mr. Connelly. Ms. 139 Pollard, acting on behalf of Janice Austin, would you,you have three minutes to explain why you wish to 140 supplement the record. 141 142 City Attorney Connelly: If I can have just one minute to answer a question. 143 144 Mayor Wilhite: OK. 145 146 Mary Pollard: I'm Mary Pollard, and am representing Ms. Janice Austin at her request due to severe 147 health problems. Ms. Austin has brought forth the appeal to protect her investment of 41 years. I am 148 offering proof that supplementing the record provides ample proof that there is legal authority to extend 149 Maxwell Avenue east from Flora Estates. There's no legal authority to do this. We're standing in the 150 dark begging you to turn the light on. The ability to supplement a record is provided for the sake of 151 justice. Justice demands that we don't shut our eyes to things that bring oppression, a tyranny of silence. 152 Valley Coach supports the exposure of the documents we'd like to bring before you. All parties are 153 served by this request. Our first charge is to love our neighbor as ourselves. These are not mere words 154 but are with action and in truth. Unless we passionately care about the people we serve, how can we 155 represent their interest? Hopefully this passion and love for those who have placed their lives in your care 156 will drive your decision, and will resound over the tone of Mike Connelly's voice who seems to think I 157 shouldn't supplement the record. We cannot consider life in a dry test tube of legality. It is unjust to rob 158 one penny of Ms. Austin's last source of savings due to administrative fiat. I am pleading with our City 159 Council to remember that you are charged as our elected peers to represent the people. The City Attorney 160 has many times told me he represents the City. His interest is not justice always but to make sure that 161 there's not legal consequences. While that may be a reality and a very litigious environment, it is not 162 appropriate that he be the gatekeeper of what you are able to see. Who's representing the citizen? Your 163 job is to fairly represent your constituents, Janice Austin, as her elected officials. His very job as City 164 Attorney renders him as not being quite impartial. Her land is her last nest egg. Ms. Austin sold part of 165 her land in late 2005. The buyer provided plans based on oral recommendation she received from 166 Spokane Valley to include a road stub to the south portion of Ms. Austin's remaining property as a 167 condition of the sale. The conditions of Flora Estates, adjacent to her land, as approved by the Hearing 168 Examiner in 2004, determined the decision Ms.Austin made as to the amount of land she sold, placement 169 of sewer stubs and a road to serve the entire acreage including the portion she sold. Those plans were Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 5 of 22 170 adversely changed due to an expansion of authority not allowed by the City Council or by the City Code 171 thereby depriving Ms. Austin of her Constitutional rights to due process and to appeal. The Supreme 172 Court permits supplementation of record when someone's Constitutional rights have been violated 173 according to RCA 36.70C.120. This is a useful standard to apply in your decision. We entreat the City 174 Council to step up to the plate and allow the full story to be divulged. Inaccurate statements by City staff 175 damaged both Ms. Austin and Valley Coach Estates, saddling them with the cost of building Maxwell 176 Avenue, extending east from Flora Estates. This road is unnecessary. Changes to Flora Estates harmed 177 both Ms. Austin and Valley Coach. Errors that cause damage cannot be overlooked. Therefore, we 178 submit that this supplement must be considered. There is not a desire to sue the City of Spokane Valley, 179 but a desire to have justice served. The evidence we'd like to provide would ensure that a fair decision is 180 reached. Ms. Austin risks net loss of property and her potential resale income as her lifetime retirement is 181 proportionately reduced. It places a cloud on her property. Our legal counsel, Dr. Frank Conklin has 182 provided a letter on Ms. Austin's behalf, at my request, advising Spokane Valley of the breach of justice 183 and a trail of arbitrary and capricious decision making that exceeds all laws that limit and shape the 184 planning process. Dr. Conklin has advised that the misconduct we hope to expose has violated federal 185 and state Constitutional rights of Ms. Austin, particularly both substantive and procedural due process, as 186 well as the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. This resulted in the Hearing Examiner being 187 prejudiced to make a decision that was harmful to Ms. Austin. Ms. Janice Austin and Valley Coach 188 Estates have a clearly established and vested right to rely upon the finality of a land use decision of Flora 189 Estates in 2004. Chelan County vs.Nykriem I cited in 2002, we can prove the planning director was time 190 barred from substantial changes since they were beyond the twenty-one day deadline for appeal under 191 LUPA. 192 193 City Attorney Connelly: Ms. Pollard,you're at three minutes. 194 195 Mary Pollard: Oh. Is that it? Ok. Please. 196 197 Mayor Wilhite: Thank you Ms. Pollard. Ok. Is there a representative from Valley Coach who would 198 like to respond to Ms. Pollard's request to supplement the record? You have to decide,which one's going 199 to speak. Ok. Please give your name, address and spell your last name for the record please. 200 201 James McGuffin, 5528 North Mayhem, Spokane Washington: Um, Ms. Pollard's concern about 202 extending Maxwell Road, um, east from Valley Coach, from Flora Estates to Valley Coach into Valley 203 Coach estates, I testified in favor of deleting that to the Hearing Examiner. He did not rule in that favor. Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 6 of 22 204 But I don't think, I agree with her that I don't think it was done properly by the City of Spokane Valley. 205 I think there was some improprieties there, that are in her documentation. And I agree with her on that 206 point and that's her main point on her appeal, is that extension of Maxwell east from Flora Estates. So I 207 think she's done her homework, and from what I've seen, I agree with what she's found out and would 208 appear to be some improprieties. 209 210 Mayor Wilhite: Thank you. Mr. Connelly. 211 212 City Attorney Connelly: Ok, your decision then, is to determine if the argument presented convinces 213 you that there are grounds for disqualification of the Hearing Examiner, or evidence related to that; 214 evidence that was improperly excluded by the Hearing Examiner after being offered, or evidence that was 215 outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. And again the improprieties and the problems with 216 process dealt with the change from a private road to a public road within a separate development, Flora 217 Estates,which was not before the Hearing Examiner and which is not before you today. 218 219 Mayor Wilhite : Thank you. 220 221 Councilmember Denenny: Madam Mayor. May I ask a question? 222 223 Mayor Wilhite: Certainly,Mr.Denenny. 224 225 Councilmember Denenny: Mr. Connelly, if you go back on the record, are we going by the record of 226 February 8 or do we go by the date of March 8 as far as the Hearing Examiner's findings? 227 228 City Attorney Connelly: The record is a record of the hearing of February 8 which resulted in the 229 decision of March 8. 230 231 Councilmember Denenny: Ok, hearing February 8, ok. And the reason I ask is that obviously many of 232 the things in here are after that. 233 234 City Attorney Connelly: Yes. 235 236 Mayor Wilhite: Yes. Mr.DeVleming,question? 237 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 7 of 22 238 Councilmember DeVleming: Yeah, I just want to be clear, right now the decision is whether we're 239 going to allow this May 14 memorandum. 240 241 City Attorney Connelly: No, you have two decisions. One, are you going to allow the May 14 242 memorandum, and I think this clearly falls within the scope of the memorandum in support of the appeal 243 that Ms. Pollard has provided. The second question is are you going to allow a supplementation of the 244 record which includes all of the items listed under B the May 21st memorandum. 245 246 Councilmember DeVleming: Ok, but the A item is the first one we're discussing, correct? 247 248 City Attorney Connelly: Both those are before you right now. 249 250 Mayor Wilhite: Mr. Taylor? 251 252 Deputy Mayor Taylor: Madam Mayor, I move that the correspondence of May 14, 2007 be admitted as 253 a memorandum submitted in support of the appeals as allowed by section(I)(3)(c)of ordinance 05-021. 254 255 Councilmember DeVleming: I second that. 256 257 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. It's been moved and seconded; is there any discussion from the Council. Ok. 258 Hearing none,Ms.Bainbridge do you want to read the motion please? 259 260 City Clerk Bainbridge: Thank you your honor. The motion is that the correspondence of May 14,2007 261 be admitted as a memorandum submitted in support of the appeals as allowed by(I)(3)(c). 262 263 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. All those in favor signify by saying "ay" [voice vote was unanimous]; opposed 264 "nay." [no voice votes] Motion carries. Ok. With regard to item B in the memorandum we received 265 from Mr. Connelly. 266 267 Councilmember Gothmann: Madam Mayor. 268 269 Mayor Wilhite: Mr. Gothmann. 270 271 Councilmember Gothmann: May I speak, and then I'll make the motion? Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 8 of 22 272 273 Mayor Wilhite: OK. 274 275 Councilmember Gothmann: We are bound by the law, and the law says this is a closed record appeal; 276 and closed record appeal means exactly what it says,and it just seems to me that we have no choice but to 277 deny the memorandum of May 21, so therefore, I will move that we deny the Memorandum of May 21S`, 278 2007, the request of the appellant to supplement the record in that the criteria set forth in Ordinance 05- 279 021 is not met. 280 281 Councilmember DeVleming: Excuse me,just a clarification. 282 283 Mayor Wilhite: Second? 284 285 Councilmember DeVleming: We don't need to make a negative motion, correct? 286 287 City Attorney Connelly: Well, the request had been made to supplement, you need to take some action. 288 You can either take that action by having a motion to supplement die, or by making no motion, or by 289 making a motion to not grant that request. Because this is a record hearing, and is subject to appeal, it's 290 sometimes cleaner if you make a specific motion and vote on it so there's no question as to what your 291 intent was. 292 293 Councilmember DeVleming: Right,we just traditionally don't make a negative motion. 294 295 Mayor Wilhite: I know; and that's true. Ok. Do I hear a second? 296 297 Councilmember Denenny: Second. 298 299 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. Discussion from the Council? 300 301 Councilmember Denenny: And to concur with Mr. Gothmann, I note that of the eleven questions in 302 there, five of them are after the hearing. 303 304 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. Hearing nothing; Ms.Bainbridge would you read the motion please? 305 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 9 of 22 306 City Clerk Bainbridge: Thank you your honor. The motion is to deny the May 21st, 2007 memo, the 307 request by the applicant to supplement the record, in that the criteria set forth in Ordinance 05-021 is not 308 met. 309 310 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. All those in favor signify by saying "ay" [voice vote was unanimous]; opposed? 311 [no voice votes] Motion carries. Mr. Connelly, would you like to go over once again the rules for this 312 hearing? 313 314 City Attorney Connelly: Yes. At this point, we go into the meat of the hearing. The appellant will set 315 forth the basis of her appeal and specify what relief she feels that the City Council should grant her. The 316 ordinance says that the Council may affirm or reverse the Examiner's decision; and I think we need to 317 read that as meaning in whole or in part. So if there is a portion of the decision you disagree with, a 318 condition or whatever, then you can respond to that specific one; you don't simply have to deny the 319 project or approve the project. So I think you do have a little discretion there and the appellant may direct 320 you to a specific issue that they want you to look at. 321 322 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. 323 324 City Attorney Connelly: The appellant has twenty minutes. I'll be the timekeeper; and I'll give you five 325 minute's warning. If the appellant wishes to reserve — Mary? — if you wish to reserve any time for 326 rebuttal,then you need to tell us ahead of time. 327 328 Mary Pollard: Can they get up and use their twenty minutes and then use Jan Austin's twenty minutes? 329 330 City Attorney Connelly: The rules contemplate that the appellant, which is you I think or Jan Austin, 331 have twenty minutes. 332 333 Mary Pollard: So they may speak on anything they want on their twenty minutes. 334 335 City Attorney Connelly: In their twenty minutes, they can express their perspective or opinions, but 336 again they can't introduce new facts. 337 338 Mary Pollard. Perfect. 339 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 10 of 22 340 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. Alright. Ms. Pollard, as the appellant, you may begin, and Mr. Connelly will keep 341 track of it. 342 343 Mary Pollard: One more question. 344 345 Mayor Wilhite: Remember if you want to save any time for rebuttal, you need to tell him, and so you 346 can't use your whole twenty minutes in this argument. 347 348 Mary Pollard: Right. 349 350 City Attorney Connelly: Just so it's clear. The appellants get twenty minutes, the opponents get a total 351 of twenty minutes. So if more than one opponent is speaking, the total is twenty minutes. Okay? Both 352 sides get twenty minutes. That's it. Now,do you want to reserve time for rebuttal? 353 354 Mary Pollard: I would if you'd kind of give me an idea when 355 356 City Attorney Connelly: How much time? 357 358 Mary Pollard: Five minutes; at least if I'm close I'll try to wrap it up. I have one more question. The 359 memorandum that was added,they can read that in their deliberations, correct? 360 361 City Attorney Connelly: Yes. 362 363 Mary Pollard: OK. That's very helpful. Thank you very much. Ok. Don't start the clock yet. I want 364 to breathe. (audible exhale). OK. Bing. Honorable Mayor Wilhite and City Councilmen. Ms. Janice 365 Austin is having me stand in on her behalf. The appeal regards a failure of due process that made changes 366 to conditions in Valley Coach Estates. We are asking you to make a portion of this change. We are not 367 against the entire development. We are refuting that we want the road, Maxwell Avenue, to not be 368 extended; and so that is the point that needs to be made tonight. Uh. That's the relief that we are looking 369 for. Ms. Austin protested in her appeal the location the condo duplexes located on Bell; and objects to a 370 planning process that was too narrow. She wasn't appraised of changes so her interests would be 371 considered; so we need to have a more balanced system before final engineering unveils the plan. The 372 future action of Council is we thought Council should make a comprehensive plan amendment that 373 provides opportunities for adjacent properties to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 11 of 22 374 should reduce appeals and give time for solutions avoiding costly delays. Now the primary purpose of 375 the appeal that we're asking you to make a motion, you know, decision on: rescind the decision of 376 extending Maxwell Avenue east from Flora Estates as a public road. Valley Coach Estates supports the 377 road decision to be rescinded. Maxwell Avenue is not needed to meet traffic needs of this development. 378 The City did not make a clear nexus of need to justify the cost of Valley Coach Estates to extend 379 Maxwell. The half road Maxwell Avenue harms Ms. Austin encumbering her with an additional half road 380 needed for their parcels. Unneeded for their parcels. It deprives her of her 41-year investment in her 381 land. Flora Estates Maxwell Avenue was approved as a private road in 2004. Change of Maxwell 382 Avenue was made without legal justification or process to change a private road to public. 383 Administrative changes to Flora Estates violated Ms. Austin's right to due process, causing harm. Action 384 capricious and arbitrary. Flora estates decision was final in 2004. No substantial changes can be made 385 without a public hearing. Hearing Examiner did not consider the unlawful changes to Maxwell Avenue 386 within Flora Estates in his decision. Errors in staff report and testimony. Legal assistance provided by 387 Dr. Frank Conklin cautions that these changes were a violation of Ms. Austin's Constitutional rights both 388 substantive and procedural. Due process has two components: Procedural. Which says a rule or action 389 was properly adopted after proper notice and opportunity to be heard. And substantive, that means the 390 rule or action gives adequate notice of what is intended and is reasonably related to a matter appropriate 391 for government regulation. Pivotal Fact: Valley Coach Estates drafted half of Maxwell Avenue days 392 before hearing due to changes made to Flora Estates. 2004 Flora as it was approved, it is not, it is not to 393 be appealed. It's final and binding. Fact: Substantial changes require a public hearing. Administrative 394 changes comes under due process if they pose harm. Supported by Supreme Court rulings and case law. 395 Changes caused harm to Ms. Austin resulting in this half road, creating a net loss of property. Fact: this 396 meets the definition of violation of Ms.Austin's Constitutional rights and due process was denied causing 397 her harm. Action: Revoke extension of Maxwell Avenue east from Flora Estates. Record of facts: Ms. 398 Austin sold the section of Valley Coach Estates that contains Bell Road. Changes to the preliminary plat 399 are made three days before the public hearing due to changing Maxwell to a public road. City demands 400 changes to both Flora Estates and Valley Coach Estates hearing is delayed from January 25 to February 8. 401 Supporting Evidence: page 309 of record,Nelson Ogren is the engineer of both Flora Estates and Valley 402 Coach Estates. Ms. Harnois states Flora Estates has lot frontage changes as well as the extension of 403 Maxwell Avenue from the adjacent Flora Estates plat. Washington State law demands that final plat 404 approval must be given if they meet the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Final plat approval cannot be 405 utilized as a bargaining chip by City staff to obtain new conditions or to require public gifting of a road 406 outside of a Hearing examiner's decision. This would be exploitation at best or extortion as defined by 407 Webster's dictionary "to wrest from a person by force or any undue or illegal power." Page 312 Valley Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 12 of 22 408 Coach Preliminary plat map prior to January 22nd, shows Maxwell Avenue going west ending at Bell. 409 Page 307, January 24th, the Hearing Examiner e-mails, he cannot take action on the land use application 410 for changes that are not substantial until reviewing agencies have an opportunity to give comments. 411 Changes extend the hearing to February 8d'. Why wasn't a public hearing scheduled for substantial 412 changes to Flora Estates road? He states Valley Coach Estates has extended Sinto, now known as 413 Maxwell Avenue, within the final plat west of Valley Coach Estates. The Hearing Examiner decision did 414 not examine how changes to Flora Estates were made. The narrow scope of Valley Coach Estates caused 415 errors. It was a matter that was outside his focus at this hearing, and the staff hurries to connect roads by 416 changing Maxwell Avenue for a public road in time for the hearing without a new hearing for Flora 417 Estates. The Hearing Examiner knew Maxwell was a private road and was in the process of becoming 418 public. He erred in allowing extending Maxwell to Valley Coach as a result of a substantial change to the 419 binding 2004 decision of Flora Estates. Point of law requires that significant changes trigger a new public 420 hearing. They could not merely circulate the change to agencies. Mr. Dempsey demonstrates this point 421 on record stating, a subdivision could not be changed to a PUD without a new hearing before him. His 422 decision is conclusive and binding unless appealed and is relied upon for compliance by all parties,yet he 423 disregarded Ms. Austin's right to due process. Changes to Flora Estates road appear arbitrary and 424 capricious since they ignore clear principles the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated noting Deschenes v. 425 King County, Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Commission, Chelan County v. Nykriem, 426 Samuel Furniture v. DOE; and Nobel Manor Company v. Pierce County. Lack of public process. No 427 predictable and consistent process used to change conditions of a road, denying Ms. Austin equal 428 protection of the law. Changes to a road designation could be made through only three possible processes: 429 through approval of the Hearing Examiner, approval of City Council, or through provisions provided by 430 ordinance. None of these were utilized. City Ordinance does not provide a separate mechanism to 431 dedicate a private road to public. A uniform policy must be followed so the City's acts are not arbitrary 432 and capricious. The Street Vacation ordinance is the only process the City has provided by ordinance to 433 change a road, City Code 10.05.230. This ordinance guides a process for changes in public roadways, 434 setting a precedent of how procedures should be followed for road changes. It includes a staff report, 435 public input, notification, review by planning commission, recommendation from them and a decision by 436 the City Council. This is the only fair and uniform policy to affect road change within the City code. 437 When could Maxwell Avenue be considered a public road? The County Auditor must record the final 438 plat before changes are legal. Flora Estates was not recorded by the hearing date of February 8th; the 439 Hearing Examiner error in treating Maxwell as a public road by mere inference. Evidence at the time of 440 public hearing, legally Maxwell was not a public road,yet described as such. Examine the record. Final 441 plat map of Flora Estates reveals absence of final recording date. Finding of Fact #35: Mike Dempsey Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 13 of 22 442 states Flora Estates preliminary plat was recently revised to extend Maxwell Avenue to the site from Flora 443 Road, and is expected to become final in the near future. On page 74 Alyssa Wiyrich of Public Works in 444 testimony to the Hearing Examiner, states that Maxwell Avenue extends, indicating Flora Estates, to the 445 boundary and is a public road. We are making a connection between the two plats. She concludes that 446 this requirement is a natural thing Public Works requires when you have the stub of one property line of a 447 public roadway. Page 364 requests the road remain private and also questions due process by stating that 448 the City may not deny any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Page 67 Ms. 449 Harnois told the Hearing Examiner that Flora Estates was mistakenly thought to be a PUD rather than a 450 subdivision. The Hearing Examiner would assume our assertion Maxwell remain private was part of this 451 mistake. Currently subdivisions are built with local access public roads, not private, contributing to the 452 Hearing Examiner's missing the irregularities of Maxwell Avenue. Page 67 Micki Harnois tells the 453 Hearing Examiner that Flora estates was approved as a subdivision and a rezone. Page 38 of the Hearing 454 Examiner decision, Spokane Valley Municipal Code: the decision of the Hearing Examiner is final and 455 conclusive unless appealed within fourteen (14) days of the Examiner's written decision. Public Works 456 erred in stating they were merely continuing a public road that stubs into the next development. There 457 wasn't any legal justification since it was not recorded. The Hearing Examiner's decision for Flora 458 Estates cannot be changed. Substantial changes were made that did not follow a public process for 459 change. No legal evidence of change, it is merely a conceptual mark on a map. Under Administrative 460 Exception, roads cannot be legally changed. That would be a substantial change. Problem: Can staff 461 redefine standards set by the City Council to further extend Maxwell Avenue at non-standard widths? 462 Hearing Examiner states all roads meet public road standards as adopted by Spokane Valley. Number 71 463 City Road Standards specifies a paved width of 30 feet; stating public roads in the preliminary plat will 464 meet such standards. Fact: Internal street Bell, Sharp, Maxwell Avenue east of Bell are conditioned to be 465 built at 30 feet of pavement as local access public roads. Consistent with public roads standards. Page 466 312 Valley Coach Estates preliminary map shows Maxwell Avenue ending into Bell as of October 2006, 467 yet on 313 the plat map shows changes to Maxwell Avenue as a half road connecting to a narrow road 468 within Flora Estates. Valley Coach Estates complied with road changes demands of staff on January 22nd, 469 just days before the hearing. Fact: Maxwell Avenue previously called Sinto Lane, was built within Flora 470 Estates as a private road. The extension of Maxwell Avenue east of Bell Lane will not have 30 feet of 471 pavement. Physically,the roads don't match. Maxwell at Arc begins with 30 feet of asphalt, becomes 28 472 feet and narrows to 24 feet by the time it exits on Flora. This does not meet public road standards. This is 473 a public gifting of funds to accept a road dedication of a non-standard road as public. Unless the City 474 typically accepts upkeep of private roads by any results, it violates due process. Hearing Examiner's road 475 decision does not agree with the facts. Maxwell Avenue extension poses risks to public health, safety and Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 14 of 22 476 welfare. Problem with staff report and staff testimony. The City has the power to condition a 477 development with adequate access, but the City must demonstrate the need is directly related to the traffic 478 generated by that development. The internal streets of Valley Coach Estates satisfied necessary road 479 improvements. The City has not established a clear nexus for needing this road as required by law. Cost 480 of the improvement cannot be justified; it places a disproportionate burden on Ms. Austin. This is 481 stealing from those who have the lease by administrative fiat. This robs her of her rightful use of her 482 property, encumbering her land in all future plans. This road poses future traffic problems as they merge 483 into heavy traffic expected on Flora. Page 55 through 58, the Hearing Examiner relies on the staff as 484 expert witnesses. Staff erred and did not represent Liberty Lake traffic impacts, especially on Flora, one 485 of the only two roads south, despite public concerns of Mr. McGuffin and others, creating more cut 486 through traffic exiting on Flora is irresponsible. Page 20, the 2001 City Standards for Road and Sewer 487 Construction recommend minimizing traffic movements that are through movements while providing 488 access to all parcels. Page 56, the staff denied future connection to Mission from Indiana West coming 489 east from Sullivan, since it's not on the six-year plan. However irresponsible to deny future impacts. The 490 connection to Indiana is on the City's Comprehensive Plan's Arterial Road Plan. Any development built 491 would require connecting these roads. This was a serious omission. Washington Courts have ruled 492 planning should look beyond their jurisdiction for impacts on roads. While connectivity of roads is also 493 encouraged, it is not always appropriate, and the City allows for cul-de-sacs. We contend the expansion 494 of this road does not substantially advance legitimate state interest and as such is a takings. It is not 495 needed to serve either development. Roads were adequate as planned without this narrow road extended. 496 The Appeals court in Miller v. Port Angeles stated the costs of these measures are to be borne by those 497 who create the need. Neither Janice Austin nor Valley Coach needs this road. She should not bear the 498 cost; she has access to Mission; public health safety and welfare are better served without it. Illegal 499 expansion of administrative authority. Shouldn't the City Council decide acceptance of nonstandard 500 roads prior to assuming cost of their maintenance since RCW 35.43.070 mandates that improvements can 501 only be decided by a vote of the City Council? Valley Coach Engineer states Maxwell cannot be 502 constructed to standard, especially since condos are to house RV's and RV's will be using the road. City 503 Code states roads must be safe for their intended use. Staff erred in accepting as a public gift a road that 504 does not meet public road standards in order to continue higher traffic volumes on the same non-standard 505 size road. The City Council is charged with ensuring road development promotes orderly development of 506 the City and serves the best interest of the residents. It is an arbitrary use of public funds to accept a 507 private road without due process. The City must follow the rule of law. Administrative exception is to 508 serve the property owners to allow for potential mistakes. It is not intended to be utilized by the staff for 509 expansion of administrative power. Note Chelan County v Nykreim, 2002, an administrative decision Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 15 of 22 510 that poses damage would require public notice to affected parties so they could appeal,but no such notice 511 was offered. I submit that the applicable laws and regulations do not support the decision. In summary, 512 the decision Ms. Austin seeks is that the council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision requiring 513 extending Maxwell Avenue east of Flora Estates as a half road. The decision is not supported by 514 substantial evidence viewed in light of the entire record. This decision will remedy all violations of due 515 process and her Constitutional rights. Flora Estates decision was final and conclusive. Maxwell Avenue 516 being made public is a violation of Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The Hearing Examiner could not 517 change this plat without making another hearing and ignored substantial changes to Flora Estates in 518 making his decision. Staff improperly influenced the Hearing Examiner's decision governing Valley 519 Coach Estates. Staff's administrative decision was harmful and did not follow a lawful process for road 520 change and influenced decisions in Valley Coach Estates. 521 522 City Attorney Connelly: You're at fifteen minutes Mary. 523 524 Mary Pollard : I'm just about there. The Hearing Examiner's decision was prejudiced by omissions and 525 inaccurate statements that lead to approving the continuance of Maxwell Avenue. The road's decision 526 should be rescinded. The Director acted outside of the laws since the time frame had expired to appeal 527 changes to the Flora Estates in the Hearing Examiner's decision of 2004. City Public Works describes 528 Maxwell Avenue inaccurately since there were no force of law to justify changes to the plat that created 529 Maxwell Avenue as a public road. The Hearing Examiner states the engineer may have broad 530 discretionary powers, but this does not equate to unlawful authority that precludes due process. Due 531 process is a Constitutional right, takes precedent and should guide all legal proceedings, codes and 532 ordinances of the City. These cannot be abridged. This violates RCW 58.17 and RCW 64 and the due 533 process provisions of the State and Federal Constitution. Please consider the gravity of ensuring the right 534 to due process that was denied Ms. Austin. Review the facts and reverse the decision to extend Maxwell 535 Avenue and its infringement on her property and her future. We would ask for a speedy opinion so that 536 you would not hold up Valley Coach Estates as I think they have suffered in this as well. Thank you. 537 538 Mayor Wilhite: Thank you. 539 540 City Attorney Connelly: You have three minutes and 40 seconds remaining for rebuttal. 541 542 Mary Pollard: Do you give oxygen? 543 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 16 of 22 544 Mayor Wilhite: Is there a representative from Valley Coach who wishes to respond? 545 546 James McGuffin: Mayor Wilhite and Councilmembers. I'm going to reiterate what I told in the original 547 hearing, a concern I have for my heart. Indiana just east of Hooters Restaurant is going to be connected in 548 the next few years,to Mission and Flora. It's, I went over there, I drove over there. I stopped at Indiana. 549 I looked and it's almost lined up right now. And, it's not in the five or six year plan and so the City of 550 Spokane Valley said since it's not in our five or six year plan, we don't even look at that. Personally, I 551 don't think that's good planning. It's definitely not long-range planning. Where Maxwell Avenue comes 552 into Flora, is a very very short block from that intersection which in a few short years, I guarantee that 553 property's going to be developed just there to the west of that intersection; and that's going to be a major 554 major four-lane road every direction going into Valley Mall from Liberty Lake, from Greenacres, you 555 know, going straight through. Having this intersection and cars coming out on Maxwell Avenue very 556 close to that major intersection, in a few years is not going to work. That road's going to be built and 557 they're going to put up a stop sign that says oh you can't turn left here because there's going to be too 558 many wrecks or people hurt terribly there trying to dart out between traffic. So from my heart, I don't 559 think this is good. In most cases, having the roads you know, go from one subdivision to the next, in 560 most cases is a great way to go; and I understand the thoughts of the City of Spokane Valley. But it's not 561 good in this situation. So I wholeheartedly agree with Mary and with, it's just my concern that it's not 562 good planning; it's just not going to be good in a very short time period. The other thing I would 563 encourage is, we've been delayed and delayed and delayed on this project as the proponents. Please make 564 a timely decision. Please. 565 566 Mayor Wilhite: Thank you. Ok. 567 568 Dan Wolfe,840 East Briarwood Lane: I would like 569 570 City Attorney Connelly: Ok, before you start, sir,the 571 572 Mayor Wilhite: He's part of Valley Coach rebuttal. 573 574 City Attorney Connelly: Ok,you just need to identify yourself as a party of record 575 576 Dan Wolfe: I would actually like to speak on behalf of the appellant in her remaining minute. 577 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 17 of 22 578 City Attorney Connelly: She has three minutes in rebuttal. You can speak in the rebuttal. 579 580 Dan Wolfe: What I'd like to do, and maybe you can help me out on the correct procedure, is I'd like to 581 offer to the Council newly discovered evidence that wasn't included in the Hearing Examiner's hearing. 582 583 Mayor Wilhite: You cannot. 584 585 City Attorney Connelly: That has to be submitted fourteen days prior to the hearing, and it hasn't been 586 so, it would not be allowed. 587 588 Dan Wolfe: Ok. 589 590 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. Miss Pollard? You have time for rebuttal. Do you wish to use it? 591 592 Mary Pollard: In closing, what I would like to say is that,he was afraid of saying it, but what it is is that 593 Valley Coach Estates, when they build out their half of a road, there's problems. It's not going to be 594 conducive to their RV's,the coaches that are coming through there;that there are design problems with it. 595 And so, this, there's really a reason to reconsider all of this, and you know, obviously he did more finite 596 planning and that's what he's trying to say, but it's still pertinent in all of this I believe. So and the other 597 thing is is that nobody should, when you go to the bank with your decision from the Hearing Examiner, 598 that's how properties make their decisions. That's how you buy more land. That's how you know where 599 the roads are going to run. This was clearly violated, and everyone here is a victim. I mean, we'll all on 600 the same side of the fence here, and so I would really ask the City that you would make a really quick 601 decision on this, and just get rid of that road. It doesn't serve anybody. It's causing dangers to the 602 community; it's a very ill-planned site to bring extra traffic. We only have a couple ways in and out; and 603 so, this,just base, besides the Federal problems of your Constitutional and the state Constitutional rights, 604 and due process, it's far more than that. You know, this isn't a matter of I want my way and you 605 should've given me a chance, but everything that law is predicated on gives an open public process. You 606 guys kill yourselves doing it every single week; and we're saying do the same here. It's very likely an 607 error because of so much stuff and he did not look outside. It really was a matter outside of Flora Estates; 608 and that's why this record should have been supplemented. But nonetheless,you have enough before you 609 to rule to not extend this road. Thank you. 610 611 Mayor Wilhite: Mr. Connelly. Can we ask questions of the, of Ms. Pollard? Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 18 of 22 612 613 City Attorney Connelly: You can ask for her to clarify her statements,yes. 614 615 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. Ms.Pollard. I'd like to ask a clarifying question: we received your appeal decision 616 and you had two points, one was the location of the duplex, and I did not hear you give any information 617 with regard to that, and the other one had to be with the situation with Maxwell; so I just wanted to clarify 618 your first major point that was issued to us. 619 620 Mary Pollard: Well because I'm representing Jan Austin, when she wrote her appeal, she wrote two 621 things down; but actually the relief that she was seeking is truthfully too far in the ballgame to reverse 622 those roads; I mean, truth, when I got down to the bottom of it, because she was really very tearful about 623 the whole thing, is that it's really the principle of the thing that the process didn't allow her to be able to 624 speak to anything. So what, and I tried to ask her what do you want as the outcome,you don't; surely you 625 don't expect them to switch the houses from one side to the other. And what it really was was about 626 process. So I suggested that what we should ask of Council is in the future, you know, make note of this, 627 that in the Comprehensive Plan,that there provides ample opportunity for people to be advised of changes 628 along the way; which you've noted you know, throughout the years, or, probably been a year now; but 629 anyway, that was, seemed like that would provide relief, and that was more of an appeal to the City 630 Council for a future thing; because we are not asking you to change the decision of the Hearing Examiner 631 based on that. 632 633 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. So what,what you're asking for is relief for, of Maxwell Avenue. 634 635 Mary Pollard: Yes, because that would solve you know, the Constitutional problems of her not being 636 given due process you know, all of those things that we stated, and it actually makes restitution to 637 everybody that was involved. That's a very easy thing to do. 638 639 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. Is there anyone else that has any questions? 640 641 Councilmember Gothmann: Not of Ms. Pollard,I might have a question of our Attorney. 642 643 City Attorney Connelly: Ok. Once the presentation is done, you might want to close the hearing 644 portion. 645 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 19 of 22 646 Councilmember Gothmann: Ok 647 648 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. Ok. So then we will close this hearing at 7:15. 649 650 City Attorney Connelly: Ok. The phase you're in now is the deliberation phase. You can deliberate 651 now on the dais, you can go into Executive Session now, or you can set a time for deliberation and 652 decision at a future date. 653 654 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. 655 656 Deputy Mayor Taylor: Madam Mayor. 657 658 Mayor Wilhite: Mr. Taylor. 659 660 Deputy Mayor Taylor: I would move to schedule time for deliberation and decision at our next regular 661 council meeting,which I believe is June 26 662 663 Mayor Wilhite: 19th I believe 664 665 Deputy Mayor Taylor: June 19th, sorry. 666 667 Councilmember DeVleming: Is it June 19th? 668 669 Deputy Mayor Taylor: I thought is was the 26th 670 671 Mayor Wilhite: Is it the 26th? Ms. Bainbridge? 672 673 City Clerk Bainbridge: I wanted to ask Mr. Connelly a question. 674 675 City Attorney Connelly: Sure. 676 677 City Clerk Bainbridge: If they go the 26th is that going to meet the 60 days? 678 679 City Attorney Connelly: I think the matter had to be scheduled within thirty days and it was for hearing Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 20 of 22 680 681 City Clerk Bainbridge: No,I mean the, if you look at the last page of the City Ordinance, number Q 682 683 City Attorney Connelly: Ok. Let me take a look. 684 685 City Clerk Bainbridge: I don't know if that, I just want to make sure that that doesn't mean that 686 deliberation, it just means the closed record appeal hearing? 687 688 City Attorney Connelly: I think that refers to the hearing being concluded as of right now. 689 690 City Clerk Bainbridge: Ok. 691 692 City Attorney Connelly: But I also think the deliberation decision could occur at a regularly scheduled 693 meeting, or it could be scheduled to occur at a study session,that's your choice. 694 695 Deputy Mayor Taylor: Yea. Actually, that'd be the next regular meeting, I'm sorry the next, well, the 696 next scheduled meeting,be it a study session or regular meeting, so the l9th. Yeah. June 19th 697 698 City Attorney Connelly: The 19th? 699 700 Deputy Mayor Taylor: Yeah. 701 702 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. 703 704 City Clerk Bainbridge: Was there a second? 705 706 Mayor Wilhite: Is there a second? 707 708 Councilmember Denenny: Second. 709 710 Mayor Wilhite: Ok, so we have a motion on the floor to schedule for deliberation and decision on June 711 19th. Okay? Hearing no discussion; looks like that'll go for it. Ms. Bainbridge would you just read the 712 motion please? 713 Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 21 of 22 714 City Clerk Bainbridge: The motion is to schedule the deliberation and decision at the June 19th meeting. 715 716 Mayor Wilhite: Ok. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." [voice vote unanimous.] Opposed 717 Nay? [none]. Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to take about a seven minute break, five to seven 718 minutes, and we'll, so we're adjourned for a rest, or a recess. Transcript Appeal Hearing 06-05-07 Austin Page 22 of 22 001Wit.VE,11 ;1' 11(err Wrleit6r" •I 4 I r SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 5, 2007 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO I°HIZEE MINUTES Sign in if you wish to make ublic comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU ADDRESS TILEPHONF_ PLEASE PRINT WILL SPEAK ABOUT • CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 06-05-07 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑old business © new business ❑'public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Grunt Allocations • BACKGROUND: As shown on the attached Committee minutes of May 17, 2007, below are the committee's recommendations for grant alhcations: 0 • • • ORGANIZATION REQUESTED RECOMMENDED GRANT AMOUNT Valley Chamber of Commerce $50,000 $50,000 Convention Visitor's Bureau $78,000 S78,000 Valleyfest—Advertising $5,000 $ 5,000 Valleyfest—Float $ 6,000 $ -0- Inland Dance Association $ 2,535 $ -0- Spokane \Vinery $ 7,500 $ 7,500 • Burke Marketing $147,500 $ -0- Spokane Jr. Soccer Association $17,000# • $30,300 *514,000 to contract for a website; $3,000 for-the response packet. • • • •