Loading...
2005, 09-13 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 74 meeting Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 13, 2005 City Staff: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Cal Walker, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer "Bing" Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Tom Davis of Young Life /Spokane Valley 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously agreed to approved the agenda as presented. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he attended several open houses in conjunction with solid waste meetings; mentioned that Valleyfest is set for September 24 and there will be a recycling booth at the site; and that during the recent Spokane Regional Transportation Commission meeting, concern was expressed with the issue of the possible repeal of the gas tax. Councilmember Flanigan: stated that he attended several open houses and ribbon cuttings; that he is working with Valleyfest which will be larger this year, and that he spoke with several businesses along the parade route who are excited about the new plans for this year's celebration. Councilmember Denenny: explained that he spoke with several citizens regarding portions of the right -of- way and of which direction to take concerning the continued deliberation of that subject. Deputy Mayor Munson: mentioned the Urban Growth Act situation south of us; that there has been discussion between the County and various cities, that an Ad Hoc Committee met last week to discuss methods of joint planning, and is encouraged that these problems of growth will be addressed and resolved. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended an open house on the issue of the extension of Appleway; she attended a housing meeting with HUD representatives concerning the homeless and people on low incomes; and that she spoke on the Spokane Valley Chamber's radio show regarding the upcoming open house for CenterPlace, and mentioned the September 24 grand opening to be held in conjunction with Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 Valleyfest; and that she attended a meeting with Commissioner Richard and several developers to discuss joint planning regarding transportation and other infrastructure community issues. PUBLIC COMMENTS Annette Halverson, 19124 East 2nd Avenue: she explained that her family and surrounding neighbors of the residence at 19025 East 4 have been unreasonably disturbed by frequent and repetitive noise and dust nuisance from the motorcycle track those neighbors at 19025 E 4 built in their backyard; that she and other neighbors in attendance tonight have taken pictures, that there was a video taken previously and given to Councilmember Schimmels to show the noise issue; that complaints were made last year to Crime Check, that the police came out but nothing was done; they were also told this was a code violation and that this was discussed with code enforcement officers Kelly Sammelli and Chris Berg, but that the neighbors were told that the code enforcement officers do not work on weekends when this noise and dust disturbance generally occurs; and therefore they could not measure the noise. Ms. Halverson said formal complaints were made to the Code Enforcement office; that the neighbors have tried to talk to the residents to no avail. She explained that these occurrences go on throughout the day, and that Chris Berg told her that she could appeal to the Council for assistance. Richard Schatzka, 19108 E 2" distributed pictures taken from his bedroom window over the Labor Day weekend, of unruly people who rode their motorcycles and four - wheelers all day creating large amounts of dust; that those people started a huge fire in a barrel late at night and the Fire Department came out but did nothing; and that he and his neighbors are asking for Council's help as they feel they have done what they can but are getting nowhere. Claire Pennel, 19109 E 4 said he is the next -door neighbor of the motorcycle track; that he spoke to the neighbors who said they don't make any more noise than residents mowing their grass; and he mentioned that there are a couple motorcycle jumps out there and that it is a regular racetrack; and his talks with the neighbors have not resulted in any change. Mike Edwards, 19205 E 4 said that he has been experiencing the problem since they moved in; that it is no longer a quiet neighborhood; he was a complainant and the person was belligerent and told him he could have a motorcycle track in this area; Mr. Edwards wants that to not be allowed; and he doesn't believe a motorcycle track should be allowed in a residential area (showed a map of the area); that he would like the noise ordinance adjusted stronger as it still allows for motorcycles to come in; but that it should be illegal as it disturbs the peace, although the ordinance states the law is there to protect the health, safety, welfare of the public; and that he feels the track should not be allowed in a residential area and the track should be removed. Councilmember Schimmels stated that Code Enforcement has the VCR tape now and he no longer has possession of that tape. Deputy Mayor Munson assured the people that while we are not in a position to make a decision tonight on this matter, that the issue will be given to staff for them to research and come back to Council within the next few weeks to further address the issue. Councilmember DeVleming suggested that Council direct questions to the police chief and city attorney so that they might begin the research of this matter; including how our existing ordinances address this issue and what would need to change to address a particular motorcycle track issue in a residential neighborhood; and does zoning address this; and for the police chief to see what tools he and his staff would need to address this issue on the weekends; and that we try to get this matter back before Council as soon as possible. Councilmember Denenny said that he is aware there has been another community in Washington state that has dealt with the same situation; and staff might research that issue to determine their means of rectifying the matter. Councilmember Taylor added that he would like to see a delineation of what is the responsibility of code enforcement, and what is the responsibility of law enforcement in dealing with the nuisance ordinance. Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 08 -22 -05 7429 -7479 1,482,362.30 08 -26 -05 7480 -7526 114,725.37 GRAND TOTAL 1,597,087.67 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Cable Television Franchise — Morgan Koudelka Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m., and invited comments from Mr. Koudelka. Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained the renewal process, which is regulated by the federal government, and said that this public hearing is part of that process to update Council and the public on the cable franchise process; and also to give the public opportunity to comment on the past performance of Comcast regarding cable service and the future cable needs of the community. Mr. Koudelka gave his PowerPoint presentation, gave a summary of the report of the franchise process, and stated that a full report will be forthcoming He also thanked the Regional Cable Advisory Board and Administrative Intern Joel Whitman for their assistance in this process; and stated that representatives from that Board as well as from Comcast are present to field any questions Council and the public may have. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Mr. Koudelka mentioned that he received three e- mail comments which will be added to the record. After brief council discussion, Mr. Koudelka indicated he will provide Councilmembers with the County's current agreement compared with the City of Spokane's agreement, including what taxes or fees are collected and the differences between those entities' fees and those associated with the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Koudelka mentioned that Spokane is more focused on the PEG channel, and ensures that the public has the opportunity to use the facilities at the Comcast office so the public can produce its own local programming. Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. 2. 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. (Note: Council may entertain a motion to waive reading and approve Consent Agenda.) a. Approval of the Following Vouchers: b. Approval of Payroll of August 31, 2005 of $196,587.74 c. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement for Commute Trip Reduction d. Approval of Resolution 05 -020 Establishing Location for Alcohol Consumption e. Approval of Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2005 f. Approval of Council Study Session Meeting Minutes of August 30, 2005 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed upon to waive the reading and approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. First Reading: Proposed Ordinance 05 -026 Amending Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Marina Sukup /Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, City Attorney Connelly explained that this issue involves a change in the development plan which would remove the requirement that planned unit developments (PUDs) be attached to or direct traffic onto an arterial; that tonight's proposal was for a first reading, that this matter was going in tandem to Council and to the Planning Commission, which is a prerequisite to Council's consideration; that last Thursday the Planning Commission held a public hearing; and that Commission did not make a recommendation but continued the hearing on the matter until a subsequent date. Therefore, Mr. Connelly explained, there is no Planning Commission recommendation before Council, and without such, Council cannot consider the issue on its merits. Mr. Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 Connelly stated that he would not recommend taking any steps which would be irrevocable; and suggested that Council give staff time to review the Planning Commission transcript to determine exactly what the Planning Commission did; and to allow time for the City Attorney to meet with the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission President to discuss options, in an effort to be able to address Council in the prevailing weeks to provide a viable list of options to Council. Mr. Connelly stated that the Planning Commission continued their hearing to October 13, 2005; which then has a subsequent delay for Council; and that issue is one of the topics Mr. Connelly stated he wants to discuss with other staff. In response to a question from Councilmember DeVleming regarding taking action prior to receiving a recommendation from Planning Commission, Mr. Connelly stated that 14.204.60 indicates that Council sets the matter for public hearing upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and until that is done, this body cannot act or it would be violating its land use procedures and any action would be null and void. Councilmember Taylor stated that he would be interested in having a summary report from the transcript; and that he hopes the Planning Commission was made aware that this issue is being delayed in tandem; and he would like to know if the Planning Commission was informed that their delay would result in further delay from the Council; and further that he would not like to see this issue delayed for an additional month. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to move ordinance 05 -026 to a second reading. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution 05 -021 Amending Governance Manual — Councilmember DeVleming It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded to approve Resolution 05 -021 amending the Current Governance Manual. Councilmember DeVleming mentioned that this document is a work in progress, this is the second year to make changes, and he feels further changes will be made in the future as needed; that most of the changes in this document are scrivener's errors, and he mentioned the public comment section as a time to allow comments for anything citizens wish to address other than the action items on the agenda which are clearly marked for public comments. Mayor Wilhite added that during the next few meetings she will preface the comments to make citizens aware of the changes. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Proposed Resolution 05 -022 Adopting National Incident Management System (NIMS) — Cal Walker It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve resolution 05 -022. Chief Walker explained that he reported on this issue at the July 26 council meeting, and explained the background of administering a NIMS, and that it was Council consensus at that meeting to begin that process and return the issue for formal council consideration. He added that the deadline for adoption of the National Incident Management System is September 30, 2005. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: Recent Board of County Commissioners' Decision Expanding Neighboring Urban Growth Area (Joint Planning Agreement or Appeal) — Mike Connelly It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to pursue the action to appeal the decision on the part of the County regarding the Urban Growth Areas and the change from Urban Reserve to low Density Residential in the Urban Growth Boundary. City Attorney Connelly explained that he has not received a response to the proposed Joint Planning Agreement he submitted to the County last Wednesday; that although there is no agreement to present tonight, he and Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 the committee members of the steering committee had a productive meeting at which time the agreement was submitted to that committee; that the issue before Council tonight is whether to file lawsuit; that the notice of publication was July 23, 2005, making the 60 day September 21, 2005; and if Council wants to file, he recommends doing so prior to that date, preferably by the end of the week to ensure all appropriate steps are taken. City Attorney Connelly then explained the consequences of taking either action, and that either action would be acting within the bounds of the law. Mr. Connelly explained that if Council accepts the UGA as is, without an appeal, there would be an urban growth area to the southern boundary of the City limits; that such an area would not be designated a joint planning area but merely an urban growth area; it may have an impact on future annexation; that Spokane County has put the City of Spokane on notice that they consider the urban growth areas that are not joint planning areas; but that the County has not made a similar statement to us. Mr. Connelly said if the Urban Growth Area is in place, there may be a lack of leverage to force a joint planning agreement and he added that the County appears to be pursuing the concept of joint planning in good faith. Attorney Connelly said it could make a difference in our ability to assess compensation or impose financial burdens on developments in the County to compensate us for transportation impacts within our City. Mr. Connelly further explained that we still have the ability to attend the hearing and raise all issues by SEPA or other laws to show that this development would have an impact in our jurisdiction and we wish to ask that the development be conditioned; but we would be doing so without an agreement with the County. He explained that in this case, ours and the County's development standards are similar with the difference being that private roadways be built to public road standards, and that there may be a difference once the PUD ordinance is adopted as to conditions and the mechanisms within that PUD ordinance which might be different from the County, but in all other particulars, the County and our standards are the same as we adopted the County's standards. Mr. Connelly said if we appeal the case and lose, then we would be in the same place as if we had not filed the appeal. If we appeal the case and win, Mr. Connelly said there is a substantial likelihood that this area will be an urban growth area anyway once they go back through the process; and also a substantially likelihood it will be a joint planning area with our City. The possible leverage with negotiation over a joint planning agreement may exist, he said, if Council feels leverage is an issue; development standards is something which you have a greater chance of imposing on an area in the County by agreement through a joint planning agreement, and transportation impacts might be easier addressed if it were done pursuant to an agreement with the County. Another factor to consider, Mr. Connelly explained, is Mr. Dahm has filed an application under the existing law, and if that is a complete application, he would be vested; and regarding his development, it would likely move forward anyway; but it may be considered nonconforming for some time while the jurisdictions fight over the designation. Mr. Connelly said Council may pull the appeal at any time within their discretion, or could enter into an agreement with the County; and that the Growth Management Hearing Board has a statutory limit of 180 days in which to make a decision from the time the petition is filed; that the parties can request and the Board could grant for good cause, a continuation but they try not to as land use decisions are timely. Mr. Connelly said he has received a positive response from the County regarding the concept of joint planning; that the problem everyone faces is we kept tying the concept of joint planning with annexation; and if we can agree to separate those, Mr. Connelly said he feels a joint planning agreement is likely. Mr. Connelly further explained that any joint planning agreement would be binding; it would have the "teeth" council would agree it has, that the proposal sent to the County speaks of notice and involvement so that our City would have more than adequate notice of any application within the affected area; that they would be able to attend pre - development meetings; they would be notified of any environmental actions with enough response time to appeal those; that a second impact deals with traffic impacts and there would be a joint effort between the City and the County to present to the hearing examiner concerning the impact and to seek a solution for that impact, whether SEPA or impact fees. In response Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 to a question from Councilmember Flanigan, Mr. Connelly said he believes that the letter we sent to the County has not yet been brought up on an agenda of theirs. If the development is going to move forward, the point of filing suit would be one of process; and Mr. Connelly said it would end up with an urban growth area that had joint planning that was also designated as a joint planning area if we were successful, as opposed to an urban growth area without joint planning being required; and depending on the scope of the application, Mr. Connelly said there could be other issues to take under consideration, but it is more of a process as opposed to trying to stop specific development; that it would be brought before the Growth Management Hearing Board and not a suit for damages or one filed in Superior Court, but rather an administrative petition. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Meg Arpin, 1117 E 35 Ave, 99203: she stated that she previously delivered two letters to Council and trusts Council has had opportunity to review those letters; that she and Mr. Dahm ask Council not to take action to appeal the County's decision to include this; and that she disagrees with those three things Mr. Connelly said would be seen from entering into an planning agreement; that regarding development standards, that Mr. Connelly indicated that the only difference in those standards is our PUD ordinance; that she agrees with that statement but it should be noted that Mr. Dahm's application is not a PUD but is a straight preliminary plat and those regulations would not be applicable; nor are there any private roads within the development; regarding traffic impact and joint effort, she explained that she disagrees that the City today is a regular member of the public; that they are not; that they are given notice of the application; and are today included in the process of commenting as an effective jurisdiction; and with that in mind when the City goes to the Hearing Examiner asking for conditions of approval based on the environmental documents, the City is not just a member of the public but is an effective agency and jurisdiction. Mr. Arpin said the letters mentioned above contain legal analysis regarding that and she feels the City of Spokane Valley does not have any additional legal authority to request conditions of approval as we entered into an agreement with Spokane County; that if the developer feels the condition asked for is unwarranted or unlawful, the same effect will be had if the hearing examiner agrees with the developer whether the City and the County are unified or separate; that Mr. Dahm's application for a preliminary plat has been deemed complete for a large portion of the area that will be unaffected by this, and there is a portion that has not been submitted but is waiting on TOPO, and that preliminary plat application will also be submitted so there will be no practical affect of an appeal. Regarding filing of an appeal, Ms. Arpin said she asks that Council examine that as there was no attempt by the City to get involved during that two -year period, even though notice was given. She said that no one came to the Board's hearing to oppose this amendment, despite that almost 1,000 notices were sent out; and before the City's expends resources to an appeal which would result in no gain, that Council consider that there has been significant movement on the part of the County, and she requests that Council not take that action. Rich Dahm, office address 12720 E Nora Spokane Valley: stated that he feels that he is being held hostage for what the City feels is a "wake -up call;" he asked when the idea of an interlocal agreement was first conceived; he said he is concerned with waiting while the issues between the City and the County get resolved; that he feels there is a problem between the City of Spokane Valley and the County perhaps stemming from communication problems, but that these problems are affecting him adversely. Deputy Mayor Munson stated that it appears the primary land owner will be able to continue his project regardless of what action Council takes; and he reported the following outcomes from the Ad Hoc Joint Planning Committee and that this will serve as a recommendation to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials, adding that all three County Commissioners are part of that committee: (1) agreement that all growth areas should be joint planning areas; (2) committee should identify areas with no jurisdictional conflict; (3) should identify areas that do have conflicting interests; (4) modeling should be used to identify transportation impacts within UGA; and (5) that interlocal agreements should specify standards and the permitting authority. Deputy Mayor Munson mentioned that there were numerous attempts by the Steering Committee over the last three years to bring the County to negotiate a joint planning Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 agreement, and that all attempts failed; and that he wants to continue the negotiations in a positive manner and does not want to penalize the developer. Councilmember Flanigan expressed his concern with the process; mentioning that there are many other properties still outside the UGA. Councilmember Denenny stated he feels the appeal would be a friendly appeal, and recognizes there has been a great deal of movement, but what we currently have is not functioning. Councilmember DeVleming expressed his concern of submitting an appeal with no "teeth" to it; while Councilmember Taylor expressed that he feels the merit is not there for this particular appeal. After acclamation vote on the motion to pursue the action to appeal the decision on the part of the County regarding the Urban Growth Areas and the change from Urban Reserve to low Density Residential in the Urban Growth Boundary; roll call vote was taken to confirm the vote: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Flanigan and Denenny. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers DeVleming, Schimmels, and Taylor. The motion failed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Mayor Wilhite called for a short recess at 7:40 p.m; and reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment] 7. Website Update — Carolbelle Branch Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned that a steering committee was formed prior to incorporation, which discussed methods of disbursing information to the public about our new City; and that last June, Council approved adding the City position of Public Information Officer, and that Carolbelle Branch will give a presentation to Council concerning one tool used for public information dissemination, the City's website. Ms. Branch then went through her PowerPoint presentation explaining the changes made since the webpage's inception, and the newest changes, and stated that she is open for Council and other's further suggestions for continued refinement of the City's webpage. 8. Outside Agencies Allocation of Funds Discussion — Nina Regor Deputy City Manager Regor explained that this year Council has recommended an increase in total funding allocation from $100,000 to $120,000; that six agencies applied for funding and gave Council a presentation in support of those requests; and that although the proposed 2006 year's budget allocated $69,000 for Economic Development Agencies and $51,000 for social agencies, those figures are merely a base from which Council can delegate the $120,000 funds as it deems appropriate. Council discussed the amounts and proposed using Mayor Wilhite's recommended amounts. Deputy Mayor Munson expressed his desire not to allocate funds for administrative programs, but for programs that would provide assistance to citizens. Councilmember Flanigan proposed that the City's Student Advisory Council (SAC) meet and discuss this issue so that they can advise Council on issues important to youth, and that he would like to combine the allocations into a "youth activities" category, and allow the SAC to recommend what programs might be best suited for those funds. Although there was some discussion of whether Big Brothers /Big Sisters is strictly a youth organization, it was Council consensus to move forward as per Councilmember Flanigan's recommendation; and also Council consensus to allocate funds as per Mayor Wilhite's recommendations. It was noted this issue is scheduled for formal Council consideration at the September 27, 2005 Regular Council meeting. 9. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Policy Issues — Marina Sukup Community Development Director Sukup gave her PowerPoint presentation on the policy issues, asking that Council give her and Attorney Connelly some indications of policy and objective preferences. After the PowerPoint presentation, Attorney Connelly asked Council to consider the issue and give staff ideas of focus; that perhaps this would best be discussed during a future study session, and for Council to think Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 of the issue in terms of what product they want to end up with; what type of development should be promoted in a PUD; where to apply unique standards; a complex or simple process; the types of development to encourage; minimum standards to impose; and how to make it attractive so developers will build what we want in the places we want; to perhaps start with a vision or think of examples for such development such as the Sprague corridor. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, and seconded, to extend the meeting to 9:05 p.m. In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilrnembers Schimmel,, Taylor, Flanigan, and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember DeVleming. Motion passed. Community Development Director Sukup explained that there have only been three new PUD applications in the last twelve months. Mayor Wilhite stated that a study session will be planned to further discuss the PUDs, including looking at new ways for creative development, and to discuss how all issues will fit in with the comprehensive plan. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: Kristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Diana Wilhite, Mayor 04tAki oaKoti, Council Meeting: 09 -13 -05 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 09 -27 -05 NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN ADDRESS TELEPHONE L�,,1 1►.. - la.Ivc,v ►) ti n1ST ctv54 nvi sat/ (c o E 4 S . t� �� ` 027 - 5 C t ` t ( 50() II Ii -J14 4 L H 40 e- - v I �l fikt <.uaL, � vc( o I le I ( � 1Lp A R D L f\ARTNA Sit sr sal t i u ,E V 4 ( k ) M LQ1 re d L 4K rQ R n r L tIS- c( 4 i n 41., — # / 77,1„..., 19109 F_ . ,c} ta' 51.. ka.,.- Var/,' «j 7�O ; 4 ii v- A,i 6A ?.?� - f3 6 10-4 - S875' S 4 •3 y,.t2..- S►n(ceiL fu ►(I 1 —S 1 92obe.'r 'ai- `I9010 1 1/ / A. '''"� /N�. No C ngONAcr I czos E. g24 PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 13, 2110:5 CITIZEN COMMENTS ON ITEMS JVOT INCLUDED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. Please include your name and address for the record. Your time will be limited to three (3) minutes. Morgan Koudelka From: Gisela Dalke Egiselad @icehouse net] Sent: Tuesday. August 23, 2005 9 38 PM To: Morgan Koudelka Subject: Comcast Comments Dear Spokane Valley City Council' Page 1 of 1 Regarding the upcoming public hearing on September 13, 2005. on the status of Comcast service. past, present and future, I would like you to consider my concerns. I have, repeatedly and without any success or indication that anyone at Comcast will actually look into this, requested from Comcast to include Deutsche WeIle TV (also known as DW -tv) in their line -up. First, when 1 contacted Comcast. they just say 'it's not available'. Later I found out that a request can be made for a channel to be considered, however, even there I didn't think my request was being taken senousty There is simply no address to write to. either. Deutsche Welte TV has been around for some time and once in a while CCS shows it when they don't have any regularly scheduled classes It's a delightful, informative and entertaining program Anyone can pull down Deutsche WeIle free of charge as long as it is broadcast at the same time and not recorded to be shown later The programming alternates between German, English and Spanish programming Language changes every hour or every two hours. The first half hour of every hour is news, sports, weather, etc. The second half hour of every hour offers a variety of programs like 'Arts Unlimited', 'Euromaxx', Car Programs, Sport (mostly soccer) programs and updates, Science oriented programs, travels and customs all over the world, etc. etc The programs focus mostly on different European aspects, customs, or areas, however, often other countries are the topic of the day as well and extremely fascinating' I believe Deutsche Welle TV (DW -tv) would be a real valuable addition to Comcast 's Northwest Line -up, and because of the different languages it could even be utilized in schools. Another really good thing about Deutsche Welle TV (DW -tv) here are no commercial interruptions! It is a program that can be enjoyed by many people. and since Telemundo and the Asian channel are already being offered by Comcast in their regular line -up, I believe Deutsche WeIle should be offered as well They said DW -tv is part of their international channel, but I have never been able to see it I believe it's on once a week or so in the middle of the night It should be on all the time, just like Telemundo! The Dish Network offers German programming called 'German TV. and I have considered switching from Comcast to the Dish Network because of that It sounds like a great program, and since my roots are German. it would be wonderful 'German TV is different than Deutsche Welle (DW -tv) though, in that it is all German language and it would be harder for me to watch with friends that don't speak German. Also, there is a cost to German TV while Deutsche WeIle is a free station that can be seen all around the world. Overall, even though Comcast seems more expensive, I have received great service from them all along and I would prefer to stay with them. at least for now The other comment I'd like to add regarding Comcast is the fact that with any line -up I end up with many channels I don't watch and would like to see Comcast working toward making programs available individually or in smaller groupings of channels. I realize that this probably is not possible or feasible at this time but many people I spoke to about this feel the same and it seems that its just a matter of time before programs can be chosen more selectively. Thank you for considenng my comments. We have many Germans and German speaking people here in Spokane and surrounding area. Deutsche WeIle TV would be wunderbarl Sincerely, Gisela Dalke 7703 East Glass Ave Spokane Valley. WA 99212 (509) 922 -7500 (home) (509) 323 -2764 (work) 9/13/2005 Morgan Koudelka From: chuck tner (tner_c@hotmail corn] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 2 39 PM To: Morgan Koudelka Subject: comcast and dw tv 1) Keep the contract as short as possible so that there can be more competition. 2) Find out what comcast can do for disabled and seniors on fixed income - Basic/Basic cable rates are increasing faster than inflation. 3) See if Comcast can carry dw -tv on a separate channel in the basic /basic section. Reason: OW-TV broadcasts in German, Spanish, and English. One gets a different take on the world and can use this also for language skills development. Currently DW -TV is only on CCS channel when CCS is not broadcasting its curriculum. Actually, would like to see many more learning/ informational/ book review programs on basic /basic cable. 4) Have comcast make the small print larger for those of us having difficulty reading the fine print. 5) Call basic /basic something else so that we don't get confused with Basic 6) Since we all contributed to the buiding of the two humoungous stadiums in Seattle, and many of us can't afford to travel there, how can those teams get on basic /basic cable so that we can all enjoy the playoffs, etc. on this side of the state. The carrying of games on basic /basic seems to have decreased in recent years. This gets back to what is Comcast doing for seniors of limited means and ability to get out that aren't able to afford the more expensive cable packages. 7) Why are some channels so snowy? Either carry them or not. Bravo, etc. Channel 2 often has a bar or the people are doubled in golf tournaments, etc. 8) Will someone on the committee please look into Intel's Digital Communities initiative? Someday we should have WT -Max towers in the valley so that everyone can get broadband and digital TV for one low -cost rate. Keep that contract flexible and represent our entire community fairly. 9) In this regard study how Tacoma has dealt with Comcast in being able to get a basic rate for broadband and basic cable service. Keep on your digital toes, city council! Chuck Trier 13812 E 9th City of Spokane Valley - it's perfect! 1 Morgan Koudelka From: BMtnHtgh@aol.com Sent: Fnday, September 09, 2005 11 :56 AM To: Morgan Koudelka Subject: Comcast cable renewal Sept 13, 2005 Please request Comcast to give senior citizens a brake in their outrages pricing. Thank you, Allen K. Bennett 9/13/2005 August 30, 2005 Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County 1116 W. Broadway Spokane, \VA 99260 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley 'NA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhal[Qspokanevalley.org Members of the Board of County Commissioner's of Spokane County: I am providing these comments at the direction of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley. Because this recent matter was passed without sufficient notice to the City of Spokane Valley or without any involvement of the Steering Committee of Elected Officials this necessary planning and coordination was neither initiated nor completed. The City of Spokane Valley has reviewed the Findings of Fact And Decision, In The Matter Of Adopting Specific Amendments To The Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, #5 0649, adopted on July 19th, 2005. The particular portion of that decision impacting the City of Spokane Valley is referenced as No. 03 -CPA -51, Saltese Lake. This area encompasses approximately 419 acres of which 244 acres are currently undeveloped. Unplanned development of the area will have a significant adverse impact on the ability of the City of Spokane Valley to provide transportation services or to ensure compatible zoning and development standards in areas adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley. Concerns about this Comprehensive Plan change were expressed to the County on February 5, 2004 in correspondence to Paul Jensen as Senior Planner by Marina Sukup, the Director of Community Development for the City of Spokane Valley and again on June 30th, 2005 in correspondence to Jim Manson, as Director of the Spokane County • Btuhding and Planning Department from Gregory McCormack, the Planning Manager for the City of Spokane Valley. In both letters the necessity for inter jurisdictional coordination is identified as a critical part of complying with the Growth Management Act as well as ensuring the continued financial security of both the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County. It was also requested that an expansion of the UGA such as this be first reviewed by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials. It is our understanding that the time to challenge this recent action expires on or about the 16th day of September. The City of Spokane Valley has repeatedly expressed its commitment to work with the County on this and a myriad of other issues. We do not wish to enter into a protracted litigation if it can be avoided. Accordingly, we extend to Spokane County an offer to immediately begin negotiating a joint planning agreement, limited to this specific area, as an alternative to litigation. We realize that time is short but feel a good faith effort could result in a preliminary agreement discussing the areas of transportation impacts and development standards prior to the 16th of September. We have instructed our City Manager, Dave Mercier to engage City staff in an effort to complete such an agreement. Hopefully it will set the format for a more comprehensive joint planning agreement addressing all development issues facing the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County, as well as other affected jurisdictions. We await your response. t_ata lu�Qh�t� Mayor Diana Wilhite at the direction of the City Council City of Spokane Valley 2005 bike log beginning April 2005 4/3 3 bikes, 1 un- muffled - very loud 4/10 Started at noon, very, very loud, 5 -6 bikes, big party 4/18 4 bikes, very loud and dusty 5/22 started at 7:50 p.m. so loud my kids could not sleep 5/23 4 big, loud bikes 5/29 4 big, loud bikes all afternoon 6/5 2 loud bikes 6/13 6:00 p.m. 2 big bikes 6/18 2 -3 loud bikes started 8:53 p.m. 7/1 2 loud bikes, 8:10 p.m. 7/10 Huge party- all afternoon lots of bikes, reported by neighbors 7/16 more loud bikes, 3-4, dust and very noisy reported also by neighbors and babysitting family members 9/2 Loud bikes, plus smaller ones, continued into darkness, very loud and dusty 9/3 Brought m Bobcat, dug up yard again, made more tracks, had 4 bikes running all day continued into and past dark plus loud party -very dusty and very loud 9/4 Ran 3 bikes, lots of dust and noise. plus a large 4- wheeled ATV. hn f 2005 bike log beginning April 2005 4/3 3 bikes, 1 un- muffled - very loud 4/10 Started at noon, very, very loud, 5-6 bikes, big party 4/18 4 bikes, very loud and dusty 5122 started at 7:50 p.m. so loud my kids could not sleep 5/23 4 big, loud bikes 5/29 4 big, loud bikes all afternoon 6/5 2 loud bikes 6/13 6:00 p.m. 2 big bikes 6/18 2 -3 loud bikes started 8:53 p.m. 7/1 2 loud bikes, 8:10 p.m. 7/10 Huge party- all afternoon lots of bikes, reported by neighbors 7/16 more loud bikes, 3-4, dust and very noisy reported also by neighbors and babysitting family members 9/2 Loud bikes, plus smaller ones, continued into darkness, very loud and dusty 9/3 Brought in Bobcat, dug up yard again, made more tracks, had 4 bikes running all day continued into and past dark plus loud party-very dusty and very loud 9/4 Ran 3 bikes, lots of dust and noise, plus a large 4- wheeled ATV.