Loading...
2014, 04-01 Study Session MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington April 1,2014 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Bates, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks &Recreation Director Rod Higgins,Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Ed Pace, Councilmember John Holtman, Community Dev Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Chris Bainbridge, City CIerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. 1.Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety, Safe Routes To School Call for Projects—Steve Worley Engineer Worley explained that this is an opportunity for Council to discuss options for sidewalks and safe routes projects; and said a Call for Projects has been issued for the two separate programs, which he said are state rather than federal funds. Mr. Worley said staff went through the criteria and identified what the grant programs are looking for in terms of awarding the projects; he also noted that in their evaluation, staff looked at various types of information to draft the list of projects, which included the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Program; the School District and School Administrators' `Safe Route to School Plans;' the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Traffic Control for School Areas, and aerial photography as well as actual site visits. Mr. Worley said that there are more projects on the list than what staff would recommend applying for in grants, and he went over the areas for the sidewalks projects and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program projects. Mr. Worley explained each Safe Routes to School Program suggested projects and said that West Valley School District very much favors the Seth Woodard project; that Central Valley School District favors the Opportunity project, and that he is waiting to hear from the School Principal of Progress Elementary to see if they are in full support and could provide the education portion of this project; and said that the Trentwood Project does not have sidewalks from Trent to Wellesley; and staff feels that Evergreen Road would be another opportunity to get kids safely to school. Mr. Worley said the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Projects focus less on schools and more on pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks, and he explained the five projects included on his Request for Council Action form. Mr. Worley said there is about$8 million statewide for both programs, and that the normal project costs between $100,000 and $200,000 depending on the project's scope. Mr. Worley recommended applying for one or two projects in each category, adding that the likelihood of getting funding for all projects is very slim. Council Study Session 04-01-2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council:04-22-2014 Council discussion included mention of the idea of having the schools decide which Safe Routes projects are the most important; and of the process concerning choosing the projects and what the projects might include. Mayor Grafos noted we were not successful in any of our projects last year and asked if we offered a 5% match. Mr. Worley said we did offer a 5% match on all the grants proposed last year and none were funded. It was mentioned that the purpose of tonight's agenda item is to discuss the projects, and that this will be coming back for a motion next week. Councilmenbers appeared to be leaning toward the Seth Woodard and Opportunity Sidewalk projects; and for the Appleway Trail and Indiana Sidewalk Pedestrian and Bicycle projects, with apparent strong consensus to have the Appleway Trail Phase 3 as the top priority. As a side note, Councilmember Hafner said he spoke with STA (Spokane Transit Authority) officials concerning last week's discussion of bus shelters, and was told that STA recommends where to place the five shelters they have remaining; and Councilmember Hafner said he was told there is no sense in us buying them as STA will put in for grants next year and more in subsequent years. 2.Proposed Findings of Fact,Interim Marijuana Regulations—Erik Lamb, Scott Kuhta Deputy City Attorney Lamb and Planning Manager Kuhta briefly went over the history of recreational marijuana and our interim regulations; mentioned last week's public hearing and said we received five written statements, one of which the writer also physically addressed Council; said that after the hearing Council discussed the potential amendments, and based on that discussion, staff has proposed Findings of Fact, which Mr. Lamb said are necessary and justify the adoption of the interim regulations; and address the history of this topic, including buffers and public safety issues; and again said that state law requires us to adopt Findings, and said he would look for consensus to come forward with an ordinance first reading for adoption consideration. Regarding the impact on the buffer to the industrial properties, Mr. Lamb said staff views those as appropriate locations for production and processing; said in addition to what is included in tonight's council packet, that if Council prefers, we would allow indoor only production and limit processing to bagging or packing in the regional commercial and community commercial zones; that if Council did so, the regional commercial and community commercial zones could do without any buffers around the trails. Regarding the retail sales map, Mr. Lamb said nothing has changed and buffers are still in place along Appleway Trail and Centennial Trail. Mr. Lamb also went over the highlights of the production and processing map; and said we want to keep the buffers for the vacant library and school properties,but having a buffer on the south side of Centennial becomes an unwieldy mechanism, and said it appears we could get where we want without that buffer by having the limitations to production and processing in the regional commercial and community commercial zones. Mr. Lamb reminded Council that these are still interim regulations and we would need to go through the process for the final regulations. It was mentioned that we have not had any applicants seeking outdoor growing. Mayor Grafos and Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed to move this forward. Councilmember Wick said that the City of Pullman voiced a concern with outdoor growing as they didn't want seeds spreading and contaminating crops, and he asked about considering indoor only for industrial only land. Mr.Lamb said Council could consider that, but there haven't been any applicants, and we would have to wait until the state opens the process for outdoor growing. Mr. Lamb and Mr.Kuhta mentioned that last week the first license was approved in the City for production and processing. Councilmember Higgins asked if it is possible to get a picture of the seed. There was apparent Council consensus to move this forward. 3. Comprehensive Plan Process Overview—John Hohman, Scott Kuhta,Cary Driskell,Erik Lamb Community Development Director Hohman explained that the annual comp plan amendments are underway and have completed the Planning Commission process. He explained that the purpose of Comprehensive Planning is to give consistency and predictability to developers and citizens; and he briefly went over the legislative findings concerning the Growth Management Act, as well as the Planning Goals associated with that Act. Mr.Hohman stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for local land use decisions and is a policy document and not regulations, but rather provides the foundation for Council Study Session 04-01-2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council:04-22-2014 development regulations; and said having a set of rules will lead to a vibrant community, which in turn will foster further economic growth. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that as we move ahead,he wants us to quit using the word "sprawl" and said that isn't what's happening; he said sprawl occurs when you have growth exceeding something more than we have and lack housing stock; he said he wants to give staff some thoughts about terminology as we re-write the Plan. City Attorney Driskell said there are some legal constraints concerning what we can or can't do; and Mayor Grafos added that although we are "stuck with the RCW's," like the shoreline plan, you can take that verbiage and try to convert the language. Community development Director Hohman added that the Shoreline plan is probably more restrictive, but the Comp Plan permits greater latitude and agreed we want to make it specific to our community; he said we are not in a situation of having any kind of sprawl and said we would not be contributing to any of that; adding that the context of the Planning Goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA)were from 1990 or 1991. Councilmember Pace said he would like the language of our plan to be such that any citizen could read and understand it; and said concerning property rights as noted in slide 7, he suggested it would be good to clarify what that really means, for example, a citizen would have the right to have a floodlight in their yard but not the right to have that light shine in their neighbor's window. Mr. Hohman said staff will do their best to accomplish that. Planning Manager Kuhta picked up the discussion at slide 14 concerning public involvement and the public participation guidelines,which he explained were adopted in about 2004. Mr. Kuhta went over the map showing the yellow areas as UGAs (Urban Growth Area)adopted in 2001, the orange areas as those added to the UGA; said the maps show Spokane Valley in Green,Liberty Lake to the east, and the yellow areas are UGA and if we wanted to annex, he said annexation is only permitted in existing UGAs, or the yellow or orange areas. Mr. Kuhta said we have had no annexations to-date. Director Hohman mentioned that the major update of the comp plan is due by June 30, 2017, and that staff will likely give an administrative report on our existing public involvement process and get Council's feedback; he said the entire process takes about eighteen months and involves extensive community feedback. Mr.Kuhta explained the SEPA(State Environmental Policy Act)requirements and said since we originally adopted the County's environmental analysis, which is now quite old, we will Iikely start on this again from scratch. He said the Planning Commission holds the initial public hearings on the comp plan and often times holds more than one hearing; and in the past, hearings were held in various parts of the community;that after the hearings the Planning Commission makes recommendations to Council. As noted on slide 27,Mr. Holunan explained the options once this major update comes before Council; and said one of our goals dealing with the land use chapter is we want to make sure the content is consistent with the assumptions and goals of today's market, and to make sure we are not missing any opportunities, and said we don't want to limit growth opportunities by limiting zoning potentials. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he wants the maximum amount of freedom and Iiberty through this plan by simplifying as much as we can so it is understood by the populace; he said the more words the more challenges it could face; and that he wants to focus on economic freedom and liberty to keep people coming here; he also said he wants to set some direction and discussion on alternative housing options and what that means to our community, and have a wide, broad spectrum of housing stock that hits all the various economic factions. Councilmember Pace agreed with the idea of keeping it simple and maximizing freedom and liberty, and suggested that when we do this planning to do it using financial management and engineering principles and practices and to put the results that way, like constraints if we have to, on the use of certain areas because of technical and scientific findings about it, and not some of these ideals that you read about. City Attorney Driskell went through the slides dealing with the public hearing/comment section; said that the Planning Commission holds a hearing which becomes part of their consideration in making their recommendation to Council; that Council has then always allowed public comment when it came to the Council Study Session 04-01-2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council:04-22-2014 first and second reading of the associated ordinances; but that the Governance Manual contemplates that Council could have its own public hearing if desired, in addition to allowing public comment at the first and second readings. Mr. Driskell said staff is trying to discern Council's goals in adopting the apparent different processes as noted in the Governance Manual, and said he would like to open this for discussion to hear what Council feels about the public comment/hearing process; and if Council would like to have its own public hearing, and/or just have the public comment at the ordinance readings. Mr. Driskell said hearings are more formal and have a noticing requirement, Several Councihmmbers stated they would prefer Council hold their own public hearing as well as allow for public comment at the ordinance's first and second reading thereby allowing for a maximum opportunity for public input. Councilmember Bates said Commissioners and Councilmembers often hear the complaint that some people didn't receive notice, and he suggested the idea of perhaps changing the 400-foot radius for sending notices, to perhaps 500 feet, Mr. Driskell cautioned Council that the 400 foot area is established in state law, and there has been past discussion that even if that were increased to 500 feet, there will still be some people who live 525 feet away who are not happy about not getting notice, and said it then becomes a difficult threshold to establish, which is why we use the 400-foot requirement as set forth in state law. He mentioned that extending the area also has a financial impact. A question arose about how people are notified for the Planning Commission hearing and Mr. Kuhta said the developer is required to bring in postage-paid envelopes for the city to mail to property owners, said that requirement is according to Code but there is nothing in the Code for such procedure to hold a hearing before Council, and said we would likely be responsible for that cost. City Manager Jackson said this is an economic issue and it does get expensive; he said we could do more newspaper ads, said not everyone needs their own notification letter, but perhaps we could do a better job in notifying citizens; and said this would be the first time doing this with Council; and said it is the hearing process that invokes the public notice requirement. Councilmember Pace agreed with the idea of newspaper ads, but said that circulation isn't all that great and he would encourage us to examine the cost for notifying people within a 500-to 600 foot radius, and cut back somewhere else. Councilmember Hafner added that no matter what is done, there will always be some who said they weren't informed; and Mr. Jackson agreed and said we need to come up with a standard everyone is comfortable with. Mr.Holtman said the on-line portal could also be used as a means of notifying the public. It was determined that for this upcoming process, Council will hold a public hearing and take public comments on any first and second ordinance readings; and later, the process can be discussed, including perhaps a change in the Governance Manual. Councilmember Bates said the Planning Commission hearings have different format and rules and perhaps that should be examined. He also mentioned that during Commission hearings, the Commission opens the public hearing, takes public testimony, then closes the hearing and Commission members discuss the issue, but he noted that at the last Council hearing, the hearing wasn't closed until after Council's discussion. Mr. Jackson said those issues can be discussed at a Governance Committee meeting. Mayor Grafos called a recess at 8:00 p.m.,and reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. 4. Open Public Meetings Act Training—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell went over the basics of the Open Public Meetings Act and included a brief explanation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and examples of quasi-judicial actions. Mr. Jackson added that staff has been working on a matrix to help us determine when a proper notice is required for meetings, and said it is staff's opinion that not every meeting requires the presence of key staff; but there are many instances like the upcoming Brown's Park Meeting, that we do a notice of the meeting, put the notice on our website,and give Council notice. Council Study Session 04-01-2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council:04-22-2014 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about some previous comments given by a woman concerned with public restroom use;Mr. Jackson said an information item was given to Council, and Mr. Driskell said staff also tried to mail a copy of the informational memo to the woman who commented, but the letter came back as not deliverable. Councilmember Wick asked about having something concerning manufactured home owners and referenced the city of Kent's general notice. 6. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos Councilmember Hafner said the recent E.coli (Escherichia coli) outbreak in Millwood triggered a response from the State Health Office and not the Regional Health Department. Mr. Hafner also asked the local Health District if they would elaborate on the process if they were involved in the small animal ordinance recently passed by the City of Spokane, and was told that it has nothing to do with Spokane Regional Health Department as it deals with the City of Spokane. Councilmember Wick mentioned the transportation issue concerning the Barker project; said he drafted a letter for the Mayor to sign and they are trying to get more letters of support; he said anyone who has a different letter of support to please coordinate that with Administrative Assistant Sue Passmore as she has a list of those organizations already reached out to; and he said Ms. Passmore has a copy of the letter if Council is interested. Those comments sparked several other comments concerning informing the Council and of each Councilmember reviewing such a letter prior to it being sent; with Councilmember Bates stating he wasn't informed of this at all. Mr. Jackson said Councilmember Wick has been working with the Mayor and that this is an opportunity to have Council aware; he said past procedures have been to make Council aware of a potential letter of support, and then share the letter, and stressed that this letter has not yet been delivered. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he contacted Representative Kathy McMorris Rodgers' office and gave them a one page synopsis of the project and asked them if they would send a support letter; said he also talked to the Governor's Office today and will be talking to both senators later; said he was just giving them information regarding the TIGER grant. Mr. Jackson said typically, he asks if everyone agrees with the letter, or if any part should be revised, to please let him know. Several Councilmembers said they have no problem in having the letter sent. Mr. Jackson also noted that the Barker Road grade separation is on Council's legislative agenda and is the top priority, There was some discussion about process and Councilmember Wick mentioned he had sent out a letter in the past under his own name, supporting a local high school band and Mayor Grafos said Councilmembers should send letters as individual Councilmembers, and Councilmember Bates said if a letter goes out on City letterhead, Council needs to be aware of it. Again, Mr. Jackson remarked that the current letter has not yet gone out and should have been marked"draft"for Council's review tonight. Mr. Jackson noted that he will be meeting with lobbyist Briahna Taylor and in follow-up to Councilmember Bates' suggestion, will talk about the idea of one or two Councilmembers going to Washington, D.C.to meet with federal legislators. 7. City Manager Comments--Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson had no additional comments. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. • ATTES Dean Grafos,Mayor u Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 04-01-2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council:04-22-2014