The URL can be used to link to this page

2011, 01-18 Study Session Minutes MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington January 18, 2011 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Karen Kendall, Associate Planner Absent: Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. At the request of the Mayor, City Clerk Bainbridge call roll. All Councilmembers were present except Councilmember McCaslin. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from tonight's council meeting. ACTION ITEMS 1. First Readine Proposed Emerizency Ordinance Amendin~~Comprehensive Plan and Map - Karen Kendall After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance the Ordinance to a second reading. Filling in for Planner Kendall, Community Development Director McClung explained that tonight's discussion concerns the proposal that was before the Planning Commission to remove the City Center zoning designation from the Sprague/Appleway Plan and from the Zoning Regulations, and she referenced the area in question as shown on the overhead map; i.e. from Walnut on the west and Bowdish on the east, Main on the north and 4`hAvenue on the South. Ms. McClung said tonight is the first reading of the ordinance to remove the City Center Zone from the Sprague/Appleway Plan and to replace it with a Mixed Use Avenue zone; she explained that this is proposed as two ordinances: one to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Map by deleting the City Center and replacing it with the Mixed Use Avenue designation and declaring an emergency as provided under RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b), and the second ordinance amends the Spokane Valley Development Code to remove all references to City Center and replace them with Mixed Use Avenue. Director McClung said on December 9, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposal and they recommended five to two to disapprove this proposal, and she mentioned the Planning Commission's findings are included in this agenda packet. Director McClung said as council listens to public comment, Council will later be required to make their own Findings for their decision if such decision differs from that of the Planning Commission; and Director McClung offered her help to Council on that issue when they are ready. Mr. Connelly, Attorney with the law firm of Keogen Edwards, said he and members of his office drafted the ordinance before Council tonight, that the ordinance attempted to incorporate the Findings that were part of the record at any of the previous hearings, whether those hearings were before the Planning Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 1 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 Commission or the Council; and said he selected those findings which seemed to support the direction of the council given at the last meeting, and were reflected in the record akeady reviewed. Mr. Connelly said if there are additional findings, it is Council's task to make additions, deletions or changes if Council feels the findings are in enor. Mr. Connelly said he intentionally left blank on page four of the ordinance under item #9, where it states that "The City Council does not accept the fmdings of the Planning Commission for the following reasons" as after tonight's meeting and Council's further direction, he will fill in those findings for the second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Connelly said he would also recommend two changes; the first to add a finding at the beginning to incorporate a11 the "whereas" recitals as findings, and to include a finding that specifies the alternative when discussing the emergency nature of this ordinance, and he mentioned he had not included the date of the alternative process, which would be part of the annual comprehensive plan process, and suggested putting in a date of April or May that it is expected that process would be back before the Council. Mr. Connelly said the difference between the two ordinances are the emergency provisions as the Comprehensive Plan must be adopted as an emergency, and once that is done, the changes to the zoning map will mirror the changed Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Towey invited public comments. 1. Diana Wilhite. PO Box 14932, Spokane Vallev: she asked Council to reconsider throwing out the concept of a city center; she said he heard many members of council say that they were elected on the platform to get rid of the SARP, and said she understands many citizens have concerns with the zoning and regulations in this part, but said she doesn't think "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is the way to go. She said she heard there was a proposal by Councilmember Gothmann to shrink the area that was considered a city center in order to enable a particular property owner to do something, which would have been a business, and said that we like businesses; and said she realizes council doesn't like the restrictive zoning given to the city center, and she stated that perhaps the boundaries were too large. Ms. Wilhite said when community meetings were held, people voiced their opinion that since we are no longer a suburb of the City of Spokane but are a city ourselves, that they wanted to see a center or heart; and she said people said they liked the idea of a city center. Ms. Wilhite said there is a piece of property that can be re-developed in a way that can bring back enthusiasm and excitement to being in Spokane Valley, and said she feels there are ways to do that without getting rid of the City Center. Ms. Wilhite said that from this council's perspective, perhaps the zoning is too restrictive, but she said council can change that; and said to throw out everything without a plan seems like council is not listening to people who testified who said they want something there, and that they want to see some development. She said she realizes the city does not do the development, but there are things the city can do; and said she feels Council should be able to approach a developer, work with them, and help bring forward that vision of a city center, and she reiterated her desire that council reconsider the prospect of making modifications and try to keep alive the vision of the city center; and she encouraged Council to consider how they could make changes that would benefit the businesses and the people of Spokane Valley. 2. Dee Dee Lober¢. 18306 4th Avenue. Suokane Vallev: said she does not agree with the emergency amendment; and asked Council to reconsider this; said after reading about this and all the blockages put in to the emergency and reasons for doing so, she said Council is guilty of adding to it by decreasing property taxes; she said she would like to give back her 2¢ and said she doesn't need 2¢; and said what she wants is a city center, and to have a city; she said she didn't vote for incorporation but once we did become a city, she said she wants a good city and doesn't want Sprague Avenue to be something her grandchildren inherit, and said it is ugly out there and they want it fixed. She said there is compromise; that that is what politics is all about: compromise; and she suggested council do more compromising and less straightforward thinking with blinders on. 3. Chuck Hafner. 2417 South Sunnvbrook Lane, Spokane Vallev: said after receiving many e-mails from citizens of Spokane Valley, he felt it necessary to speak to council on the importance of approving the emergency ordinance which allows mixed-use zoning. He said it seems the rhetoric has become in Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 2 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 some instances very negative, slanderous, uncivil and disappointing; and said he wanted to remind everyone sitting here that the majority of the council are here at the request of the voters of Spokane Valley; and said if they did not want positive change, the voters would have done so at the ballot box. He offered the following concepts for Council's deliberation: the present zoning prohibits business growth, is very restrictive as voiced by many business people, a mixed use zoning enables businesses to grow and to allow the business community to meet the present and future needs of our community, the present city center zoning stymies growth and development, just the reverse of what we want for our city. He said our community wants a thriving business community and we must remember that a vibrant business corridor, Sprague Avenue is the backbone of our success. He said a city hall does not bring business, a correct zoning does. He said a city hall needs to be built in close to CenterPlace, and said we own about 50 acres there. He said it is not fair to business and property owners to be so restrictive by zoning obstacles; and said restrictions can be changed by approving an ordinance that meets our city's present and future needs and said we can do it now. He said that statistical information indicates that one family needs at least seven different services to have a good lifestyle, therefore as a city, we need to provide those services; and said we need the ever-important business climate and appropriate zoning. Mr. Hafner continued by explaining that the rezoning affects in a very positive manner, more than just one piece of property, he said it includes many other businesses; that the business people welcome this change and they too want to be part of our successful growth; he said many builders and developers have done to other municipalities for their needs due to the strictness of our present zoning conditions and also with the difficult-to-obtain building permit; and he said he has asked himself why. Mr. Hafner said this emergency ordinance is not new to council; and in June 2009, a similar ordinance was passed by the city council; he said they passed that to accommodate SARP. Again, he said business people, developers and residents highly recommend the city center zoning be changed to mixed use. Further, Mr. Hafner said he and many others received an e-mail written by Planning Commissioner John Carroll; and Mr. Hafner said he feels that is completely out of order; as a Chair for the Planning Committee it would seem an appropriate civil statement might be in order, but instead said they got one filled with venom, scare tactics and other demeaning verbiage; and said if one feels so adamant regarding what is happening and being no negative, one might consider resigning. 4. John Carroll. 1207 S. Rotchford Drive. Suokane Vallev: he asked Council to reject this emergency amendment to delete the city center designation from the comp plan; he said this emergency action is contrary to the wishes of the citizens of Spokane Valley; he said some councilmembers assert that this emergency action is necessary because a city center is no longer, or citizens are being hurt, or that this action will increase the number of jobs available; but said Council has not offered any evidence or data to support those claims. He said the designated city center came about as a result of more than 80 workshops, neighborhood meetings, studies, surveys, and public hearings held during 2003 through 2009; and said the single outstanding result of those meetings is that the citizens of Spokane Valley want a city center in order to establish an identity for our city; he said the members of this council who contend that the city center is not wanted, have not presented any surveys, polls or data to support their position; nor has any member presented any material or data to bolster the position that the citizens are being hurt by the designated city center. He said the claim is that this emergency ordinance is about jobs hinging on a request from a property owner who has a pending deal to sell a portion of his land located in the designated city center, to a national used car dealer. Mr. Carroll rhetorically asked if another used car dealer will generate jobs; and answered probably not. Mr. Carroll said when council considers there are 53 used car lots up and down Sprague, and 23% are inactive; and said what will likely happen because of the presence of a large used car lot is the redistribution of the market share, which means some of our locally owned businesses will be pushed out of business and their employees will join the ranks of the unemployed. Further, he stated, this council without discussing the Planning Commission findings, is rejecting this recommendation to deny the ordinance; he said the Planning Commission found that the amendment was processed too quickly and without sufficient public input; that there wasn't sufficient statistical information or survey of a community to gage citizen support; and said the city center provides Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 3 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 guidance and stability for future economic development and a city center is necessary for the long term viability of Spokane Valley; and he said it is not in the public interest to move forward without a plan to implement a city center. He said he questions why, and hopes others will question why, this council would consider a single special interest above the interest of the majority of the Spokane [Valley] citizens; and he questioned why this council has disregarded the documented preference of this community, and he questioned why this council is ignoring the recommendations of the city staff and the planning commission; and said the development of a city center will result in hundreds of new jobs and millions of new dollars in our economy. He said our generation won't see the city center, but future generations will. Finally, Mr. Carroll said he questioned why council is willing to trade our city's future for a used car lot. 5. Mike Davidson, Ponderosa Area. Snokane ValleY: said his wife is Marcia Sands, member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Davidson said he hears a lot about the process of the Planning Commission and knows they went through a lot of work on this. He said to see an emergency declaration for a used car lot is ridiculous; he said in the ten years he's been here, that's a vacant lot, and he asked where is the emergency. Mr. Davidson said there are vacant spaces all over and across the auto sales area that could be used for another car lot, yet to move it out of that, again he questioned where the emergency is, and said that is a misuse; he said the Planning Commission went through lots of public comment on designation of areas and said Council can't usurp this by just one meeting; he said this is not right and Council needs to listen to the people of Spokane Valley, and not just one or two constituents; he said he realizes those constituents have a lot of money and vested interest in this area; but said he too has business in this area and feels his word should carry as much weight as someone else's; and again asked council not to do this on an emergency basis. He said if council wants to change something, he suggested Council go through the regular process; that there is a process set up and he suggested council use it and not usurp the people of this valley. 6. Marv Pollard. 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue. Spokane Vallev: she said she heartily supports the emergency ordinance rescinding the city center zoning and designation within the corridor that has held many businesses hostage with an unfounded mandate in these precarious times; she lauded Council's courage to make change that better fits the businesses and economy; and said people voted for a council that care to reconsider the price those impacted have had to bear; and she thanked council for caring. Further she stated that contrary to the rhetoric of some on the planning commission, there was never overwhelming support for a city center by a valid type of survey; she said the first draft of the city's comprehensive plan included alternative ways of planning the city, and said these alternatives were never discussed. She said the city center idea was the only option for discussion; she said her neighborhood carefully read the plan and asked about their actions; she said that Ms. Sukup stated that they were there because planning was required to provide alternatives in the draft, and said that no explanation was given as to why there was no discussion of any other model. She said from the start the city never flushed out any other idea; and said planners showed a full-blown drawing of a visionary city center without any alternatives for comparison; and said the outcome was predetermined. Ms. Pollard said planning staff admitted that council was anxious for the process to end so they could get on with their plans; and said it is indefensible to give credence to a con job that ran its course. She said many in her neighborhood noted the glaring absence of background information in these meetings; she said her neighbor Mrs. White stated it was insulting to garner opinions on complex issues without providing facts as to the harm, who it was going to benefit, what the cost was going to be, and the overall impact of it; and said none of this was ever provided. Ms. Pollard said they brought this up to Ms. Sukup who replied that while true, it wasn't possible in the time frame of ineetings to do this. Ms. Pollard asked who would take comments solicited in a vacuum devoid of facts and figures as a mandate to build on; and said yet she hears ridiculous claims that this was a public mandate, and she said nothing could be further from the truth; she said it was a stacked deck, dog and pony show from the start based on conjecture. Ms. Pollard said the Growth Management Act is blamed for many bad policies this community has had to endure; while GMA requires Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 4 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 cities to plan, it cannot be construed as a mandate to create a monopoly by zoning; and said this violates anti-trust laws that prohibit monopolies and said cities are not exempt from these laws. She said Spokane Valley only has the power given it by state law since we are under Dillon Rule. She said Judge Dillon in 1886 distrusted local government rules to grant them only those powers expressly granted by the state; she said the city center was mandated using legal fiat; and said the record shows that 85% of public comment was against this plan; she said it legally murky as to whether it would pass legal muster if challenged, but said it was passed nonetheless knowing the high cost of litigation would discourage legal challenge. She said businesses can't afford to lose their shirts to oppose the deep legal pockets the city possesses; and said this created undue anguish many citizens have had to endure, facing tremendous losses; and said this bully attitude earned Spokane Valley a reputation as a totalitarian type of government due to its arbitrary practices. Ms. Pollard said it is time to acknowledge these existing uses and people as a vibrant part of our future; she said she is grateful that council is restoring a common sense approach to planning; and added that she is somewhat offended at John Carroll's behavior and public stance as a planning commissioner; and said while he has given up personal time for many years to serve on the planning commission, he cannot continue to be allowed to utilize his position on the planning commission to publicly attack the city council during commission meetings in vitriolic displays of contempt for our elected officials; she said this surly and disrespectful attitude should not be continued because it's likely to damper public testimony. She said he is not an elected official and does not represent the community as he would like to pretend; and said this behavior is unbefitting of any planning commissioner. 7. Arne Woodward. 2511 S. Best Road. Spokane Vallev: he said this ordinance isn't about one single piece of property but is about 225 acres designated as a city center. Mr. Woodward said he heard last week from a gentleman at the council meeting who wanted to refinance and couldn't because of the commercial designation of his residence; and said not only he couldn't get refinanced but if he was to try to sell his house, the new buyers would not be able to get fmancing. He said he's been screaming about this for a year, maybe a little more than a year at different times during these meetings and at planning commission; and said everybody seems to think nonconforming doesn't affect your property, but he said it certainly does and it does in many ways; and it affects real citizens. He said he would contend that those who are as adamant about the city center could probably say he's just as adamant about his vision of the city and the city center, which he said does not include Sprague and University; and said he would contend that when the library failed in 2008 for $33 million to build a new library which was one of the anchors of our city center, that was the first death nail to the city center at University and Sprague; and said he thinks the second nail was probably when they elected the new council here which ran on a"kill SARP' or "get rid of this abusive mandate and regulation" that the SARP put on us. Likewise he said, the vision has not been articulated very well from the council; and said he would agree with a lot of the citizens that perhaps they're not listening; he said there's been a lot of other noise; but said he believes most of the council has the vision whether the city center is at Sprague and University or anywhere else in the city, is a matter of all of us deciding to get behind that and do it. He said he thinks our city is such a beautiful city that it would be a crime not to have the city center or city office buildings over on our 54- acre piece of property called CenterPlace, anchored by two beautiful parks and a campus atmosphere. He said he knows that is not the topic tonight, but contends we need to think about the fact that it doesn't affect just one property, it's a lot of properties and a lot of businesses and the businesses out there are scared and they don't often show up at these meetings because they elect people to come represent them and to look out for their best needs; and he said that's all he's asking Council to do: to look out for the best needs of our businesses and our citizens; and he said he's not sure the city center designation where it's at is the right way. 8. Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprap-ue Avenue. Spokane Vallev: said he thoroughly disagrees with his good friends Mary Pollard and Chuck Hafner, neither of whom have an investment on Sprague; he said he's owned commercial properiy in Dishman since 1950, which is 61 years; and said council needs to talk to the people who have an inveshnent on Sprague Avenue and their ideas on how it affects them; he said Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 5 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 although he is not in the city center zone, he's in the mixed use zone and is just west of the boundary of the city center zone. He said he has some concerns about this council and he read the following: "What is a hypocrite. It is someone who makes statements that they don't really believe, or express attitudes or qualities that they do not posses. Let me explain that. During the 2009 campaign for City Council, several members of this council campaigned on the issue of down zoning of properties along Sprague Avenue by the SARP plan. They claimed that some of the nonconforming uses and the new zoning created a lower value to some or all of the properties on Sprague Avenue. They also claimed they weren't notified of the many meetings that were held and the City was responsible for their not being aware of the change in zoning. Not everyone nor did a majority of the property owners agree with them, but they continued to beat that drum until people began to believe that story. It is the old story that if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to think it's true. Now this council is doing what they criticized the previous council of doing, and with much less public involvement. This council has not made any effort to have public meetings or workshops with the property owners and citizens to discuss the elimination of the city center zone. At the subaxea plan meeting for the city center zone, there were very few concerns expressed over the zoning and those that were, were addressed by the staff very quickly to everyone's satisfaction. No one said the city center should be eliminated. A city center zone carried a premium value on the real estate within that zoning. Over the years, it can do nothing but increase in value as our city grows, and creates an identity for the City of Spokane Valley, which in the Clearwater Report, if you remember that and said I know you've all read it, is the main thing that the citizens of Spokane valley wanted was an identity for their city. Now this council, in complete disregard of the recommendations of the planning commission and without malcing the effort of notifying every one of the over 200 property owners in the city center zoning and telling them of the consequences of their property being downzoned to mixed use, is now proceeding with an emergency ordinance to down zone their property. Is this not the same thing the previous council was criticized for? This is an emergency? Where is the evidence and documentation to show the emergency? The council turned down an alternative that would have allowed a used car lot. Where or who are the developers or businesses that want to expand or build if only this wasn't zoned city center? So now this council wants to down zone over 200 properties without giving those property owners or citizens a chance to discuss the impact at a public workshop. So what is a hypocrite? Someone who says the same thing or takes the same action as others they criticized. The insincerity and self- righteousness of this city council is overwhelming. This council has taken the art of political hypocrisy to the highest level." 9. Marcia Sands, 10618 E. Ferret Drive, Spokane Vallev: she thanked council for all the effort and work put into this; she said when council first started looking at SARP and having meetings to discuss changes and how the people in each zone felt about it, she said she first thought it was a waste of time since that had been done previously; but said there was some good input and she started to think that wasn't such a bad thing and perhaps this is something to think about and look it. But then, she said, council came up with this emergency plan amendment and like so many others, said she doesn't see the emergency and doesn't see why we can't go through the process of doing this the right way and getting input. She said it's great to see so many people here but we live in a city of 90,000 and we need more input and more people to have a say. She said she thinks Mirabeau and CenterPlace are beautiful and they would make great city centers except for the fact that the population is on Sprague, or near and around Sprague; and if you put it way out there; who's going to be there? She said it's not someplace you can walk to from your home; and the idea is to have a dense core and have the density be close in so people can utilize the services that are there. She said it might be a valid thought to changing the size, zoning it a little bit differently and doing some other things, but to change it and especially to change it for just one property owner who had a lot of years to do whatever he wanted to with that property without any zoning, is wrong. She said she thinks this is fiscally irresponsible because you are opening the city up for lawsuits and that's not what council ran on. She asked Council to please consider not doing this emergency amendment now and to go through the proper steps to do it right and everyone work together Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 6 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 collaboratively; and both sides stop the name-calling and work together to make Spokane Valley what it can be. 10. Karla Kaley, KPS Manaeement. 10516 E Main Avenue. Spokane Vallev: she urged council to take the recommendations of the planning commission and suspend council's support of the emergency ordinance; she said it is fiscally irresponsible and is a run around a very important public process that she feels is council's duty to support; she said she believes everyone in this room has the same goal of having a healthy, viable city that meets the goals and quality of life and financial support for all of the members that participate in this community and for the neighboring communities as well. She said that what Council is proposing to do with this emergency ordinance is to eliminate the SARP which is the subarea plan for Sprague/Appleway revitalization, and said the key word is revitalization; and said she has not seen any statistics or data that support an emergency at this point, and said she knows of at least one situation just last week where it would be in the negative if you take away the revitalization plan; there will be persons who are trying to get state and federal support who will not get as many points for their applications and grants because it is no longer a revitalization area; and said all hopes for a city center will disappear along Sprague Avenue, Appleway or University or anywhere because Council has no alternative plan. She said she understands we have a"crown jewel" here with CenterPlace, but CenterPlace is not the center of the city, it is geographically isolated by a freeway and a railroad track, and said from a planning standpoint that means death of most of the businesses and activities on the other side when the physical and financial bulk of the city is on the other side of the tracks or the freeway. Ms. Kaley further stated that it creates a geographic barrier for people who don't drive, and it limits access to those city facilities council is proposing and said she is not saying anything negative about CenterPlace as it is a lovely facility and has its own uses, but a city center is not; and said furthermore that it is not the geographic center of the city. She said if council pursues this avenue, they are leaving the city in a state of vulnerability; they are not offering an alternative plan or any kind of suggestions for quality growth or for attracting businesses to our city. She said the plan was developed by a public process and was drafted by experts in city planning, and asked, "who are we to unravel that?" Further, with considering an emergency ordinance, she said it doesn't appear to be an emergency. She said the plan provides for a city center, and without a city center there is no stability to attract new businesses, without a city center there is less credibility as a city, it's hard to attract new businesses or retain the ones we have, and without ariracting new businesses, it's hard to get more money. She said when we created a new city we created a very fat overhead; and said all the infrastructure of this city requires funding; and if we don't attract new businesses or sustain those businesses we have, they will come back to the troth for more money. She said we'll all part of that and said because we believe in a city, and said she believes in a city, we'll pay our fair share, but the result will be increased taxes. She said we need new businesses or support new economic growth. She challenged this council to show her as a community member what they have done to attract new business, or what they have done for economic growth and development of the City of Spokane Valley. She challenged Council to do what our federal counterparts are doing, which is to get away from the campaign rhetoric and get down to the business of running our city. She said we need to attract new businesses and said she's like to see a business plan for this city, and again asked, what is council going to do? She said it cannot all sit on CenterPlace as CenterPlace can't support a whole city; and said no matter what council has planned there, it won't function as a city center. She said the plan provides for zoning and zoning gives stability for businesses. She said she'd like to propose one more thing, that we support what she recommended previously with the planning commission, which was some kind of public process that would involve stakeholder input from experts in the business community in at least four categories: architecture, signs and setbacks, parking and streets, and economic development so we can make modifications to the existing plan and make sure it does what it is intended to do. 11. Phillip Rudv. 5647 N Fruithill, with a business at 720 N Argonne. Snokane Vallev: he first asked if the motion that Councilmember Schimmels made to advance the ordinance to the second reading, if that second reading that would occur tonight or next week, and Mayor Towey said if approved, it would Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 7 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 be next Tuesday. Dr. Rudy said that six weeks into a six-month option to purchase some property in the downtown Spokane, the seller announced that he was selling it to someone else, the property there was an option; and said the reason he tells council that is his experience with big developers and big purchasers is they probably have a second or an alternate plan in place and if CarMax is of that type, they probably have something in reserve, so if that happens and that comes to light, and you pass your emergency ordinance, the reasons for your emergency will melt like snow in a desert. 12. Sue Scott. 205 S Evergreen Road. Spokane Vallev Ms Scott read the following statement: "It should be remembered that the former council embedded SARP into the comp plan with an ordinance declaring an `economic emergency' just before the November 09 elections. No warnings of potential litigation were given at that time. It was, in fact, recommended as a device allowed by statute, that should be taken advantage of to close any gaps that may exist, a precaution to ensure timely application and compliance with the plan. In short to ensure that SARP remained intact even if the council didn't. It should be noted that the staff recommendation supports the current emergency ordinance. I was fortunate to attend the recent planning commission discussion on this issue. The open hostility and anger, expressed by a faction on the panel over the results of the 2009 election, is not included in their official findings, but does add perspective to their denial. This council has been diligent in responding to the public outcry over the plan. It held the district-by-district meetings that should have been held before adoption: meetings that answered questions and revealed the harmful details of the plan minus the hype. I applaud this council for withstanding bad press and a campaign of innuendo and scorn. In hindsight, before pouring all the time, energy and money into the location, it would have been better had several sites been analyzed in terms of the criteria we now know is needed for a successful city center. Throwing good money after bad will not change the fact that the components for a successful city center do not exist at the U-City site. There's no freeway access, they were unable to negotiate a land purchase, no other civic buildings, a willing developer, things like that. SARP is just too big. It tried to address and fix everything and does nothing well. This council cannot be blamed for trying to stop what could best be described as a "bull in a china shop"; SARP is trampling property rights and goring small businesses and landowners with unwelcome rezoning and nonconformity issues, leaving an expensive trail of mandates, attorney's fees and potential lawsuits in its wake. Above all, putting the city center district at U-city to rest is not about dismantling the city. It's about making smart decisions based on facts that are in the best economic interests of taxpayers and businesses alike. There are better ways to revitalize the corridor and there are better sites for a city center. There is an alternate proposal that takes into consideration what we've learned from the SARP experience. T'he city already owns land at Mirabeau that has far greater potential for success as a city/civic center than the privately owned Sprague site. Its land the city already owns with excellent freeway access. It has existing parks and existing civic buildings. IYs by the river and centennial trail. It's located near existing regional shopping, existing restaurants and existing lodging. Last but not least, it does not require rezoning 100 parcels and creating miles of damaging nonconformity. We don't have the luxury of waiting 20 to 30 years for the potential development of a city center at U- City. Time is of the essence. I urge the council to support this emergency ordinance and allow development that is clearly within the boundaries of what is acceptable on the corridor and could be a real shot in the arm for that area as well as city coffers." 13. Steve Wineger. 10021 E. Knoz, Snokane Valley: he said that it has been stated that you have been less than honest about what you are doing and essentially you are destroying the SARP. He said he was very engaged and alert with the last election and that he remembers specifically that that was the platform that those who were part of the shift change with the council, specifically ran on was to do away with SARP; and said he believes that almost a 60% majority elected those councilmembers who are sitting here, and said there was no mistake that the SARP was the centerpiece of what they ran on. He said he's confused about something: he said there's obviously two sides to this and each side has their rhetoric; but the side that wants the SARP to stay in place and a city center, and they are entitled to that belief even though the majority said we don't agee with that and he said that's the blunt truth; state that if we don't Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 8 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 have city hall as part of our city center there will be no city center. He said professionally he spends his time in the sign and awning business for about 37 years with branches elsewhere, and said his and his sales staff time is spent in two places: the customer and city or county hall for that municipality. He said he's been to every city hall campus and building from Bellevue and Seattle to Butte, and from the Canadian border down to Pendleton, Oregon. He said he has spent hours in city halls and county seats and courthouses; and said what he sees is not much retail going on; and honestly all that goes on at a city hall are people going there to pay parking tickets, utility bills and contractors procuring permits or necessary documentation and businesses licenses and there is the occasional city hall next to a courthouse. He said he would like to draw attention to Spokane County Courthouse next to their building department building; he said there are three restaurants in that vicinity that they have done work for; and said those restaurants have a heck of a time staying open and get very little business from the permit center, from the county building department and several of them close and open with what little business they get from people at the courthouse and the attorneys; and said he doesn't understand why we have this mindset that if we have a city hall that business will thrive because we have a city campus. He said one of the largest campuses in the northwest is Richland and Kennewick, and said there are very few businesses that can survive in those climates; and said people pulling permits and going to trial do not stimulate the business economy. He said you can have a very nice building, and perhaps that is what we have in our head is this building itself will revitalize business; but said that doesn't work either; he said free enterprise revitalizes business and not government buildings. He said he believes that the land that the city presently owns at CenterPlace is our best option; and said anything else we do is going to involve revenue enhancement; and said he would prefer "not to have his intelligence insulted and just say, raise my taxes." He said we have been in a very serious economic downturn for over twenty-four months; said our government's debt is 95.6% of our gross domestic product; and said three years ago it was 36.9; and said that means we are looking at a tax title wave that the only way they can balance the budget is to raise taxes, and said if they raise their income taxes federally to 100%, they could not balance the federal budget; and he asked Council to please prudently think what can we do to not raise taxes in this community for the next two to three years, because that is key to our survival as a city and for any business trying to conduct commerce in this city. 14. Jack Pring. 2915 S. Dishman Mica Road. Spokane Valley: said he wouldn't respect himself if he hadn't stood up to this council, including Councilmember McCaslin who is not here tonight, and said he wishes him well. Mr. Pring said he knows that he is about as much about free enterprise as anybody in this room and said he contributed to everyone of the councilmembers from Councilmember Dempsey on over. Councilmember Dempsey stated that Mr. Pring did not contribute to her. Mr. Pring said that he did so with no strings attached in any way; said he didn't meet Dean Grafos or Susan Scott and they got their zoning changed; he said he had a member of the previous council come up and ta.lk to him and want to get his zoning changed if Mr. Pring would work with him, and Mr. Pring said he won't go that way. Mr. Pring said these folks got theirs changed and they still went with the new program, and he congratulated council and said he respected them for that. Regarding the used car lot, Mr. Pring said there is only one reason they want this used car lot; he said he has done a little business with CarMax when it was under Circuit City, and said they have come to play, that they are a Fortune 500 Company and they contacted Kathy McClung, and Dean Grafos, and they contacted him, but said they can't do any business until they get this zoning right; but said they have come to play; and said if we can do some business, he'd like to help. Mr. Pring said he respected the people up there will make the decision, and as hard as they have worked that he has gotten to know almost every councilmember; and said they are good honest people with integrity, and this business of hypocrisy, the man who spoke about that, I don't believe he really means it from his heart; and he's a good man, and Mr. Pring said he didn't want to say anything bad about him; and he thanked council for all they do. 15. Citv Clerk Bainbridge said she received the following and with the Mavor's permission, read the letter into the record: From H. James Magnuson, Attorney at Law, dated January 17, 2011: "To the Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 9 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 Honorable Mayor Towey and Council: I am writing on behalf of University City, Inc., an owner of real property in the Spokane Valley. I am writing with respect to the City Council's consideration for zoning in the University City Center are. The new zoning adopted should be pre-City Center and pre-Sprague Subarea Plan zoning mixed use. The property needs a flexible, mixed-use commercial zoning to enable redevelopment to increase the tax base and create more jobs. Broad commercial zoning is appropriate and compatible with existing commercial uses, traffic and arterials in the area. As such, I would urge you to adopt a flexible, broad, mixed-use commercial zoning to apply to this area going forward. Thank you for your assistance. H. James Magnuson, Attorney at Law." There were no further public comments and Mayor Towey invited comment from council. Councilmember Gothmann made the following motion as a substitute for the existing motion: "I move that the western boundary of the City Center zone be moved to Balfour on the north side of Sprague and to Dartmouth from Sprague and Appleway; furthermore, that this be done under the emergency provision of the law pursuant to RCW 36 70A.130(2)(b). " Councilmember Gothmann added that the state statute is listed below on his written motion, which was distributed to councilmembers. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Dempsey. Councilmember Gothmann explained that first of all council has to identify the issue; he said on September 7 and September 9, City Hall received two letters, one from the Pring Corporation and one from the Magnuson Corporation. To get an idea of what they were asking for, Councilmember Gothmann read the following excerpt from the Pring Corporation: "Based on that understanding, we hereby request that the City Council take the necessary steps to provide changes to the City Center zone that would accommodate the intended use of subject property one and two for auto- related sales and service development and other commercial uses, all approved under pre-SARP zoning." Councilmember Gothmann said their prime intent was to adopt other auto uses; he said that was followed by a letter two days later from Mr. Magnuson in which it states: "I'm writing in support of the request of the Pring Corporation of September 7, 2010, that the certain property owned by University City, Inc. be returned to pre-SARP zoning via text amendment to the SARP plan." Councilmember Gothmann said the reason this whole issue came to us was initiated by that letter; four days later during a council meeting, Mr. Grafos stated that he was concerned with auto-oriented uses in the city center zone; and Councilmember Gothmann said Councilmember Grafos was rightfully concerned and that Mr. Grafos would like to send the permitted uses to allow vehicle sales and auto-oriented uses in the city center zone, back to the Planning Commission. So the issue, explained Councilmember Gothmann was that Councilmember Grafos wanted to get auto-oriented uses back to the Planning Commission, because he wanted to accommodate these two letters, and said that is a worthy objective to accommodate citizens in their quest to provide businesses. Councilmember Gothxnann said he looked up AutoMaac and they are a good corporation and their earnings continue to rise. Councilmember Gothmann continued by explaining that on October 5, Mr. Connelly prepared an emergency ordinance relative to the City Center only, which went to the Planning Commission which rejected the proposal to eliminate the city center zone, and said the Planning Commission's reason for rejecting the proposal was due to lack of information on two pieces of property. Councilmember Gothxnann said that on January 4 Attorney Connelly noted that changing the size of the zone under an emergency ordinance was less risk to the City than eliminating the zone itself under an emergency zone ordinance. Councilmember Gothmann said he wants to get the job done and does not want this to get challenged and go to the courts; and said after the job is done, council can take up city center in the ordinary course of events in May or so; and said what he is proposing would accommodate the Pring's desires, would accommodate the Magnuson's desires, and accommodate Mr. Grafos' objections as stated in September 2010; and Councilmember Gothxnann encouraged moving this direction to solve the problem instead of taking stances that will end up in court and delay the process and not solve the problem. Councilmember Dempsey said she agrees with Mr. Gothmann and feels this is a good solution where one would not have to take sides, as this provides a solution to the reason this came up to begin with; and said the rest of the city center issue can be taken care of in due course; but this would take care of this now and Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 10 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 would be a beautiful solution for a contentious problems. Councilmember Grafos said he believes the issue is larger than Mr. Pring's property; as what we are talking about is creating a viable area and a viable business environment on our business route, and said changing the size of the city center doesn't help all of those business owners there and it certainly doesn't help us from an economic standpoint; and said he would not support the motion. Councilmember Dempsey said if we could focus on what we were asked to do, and rather than leap out into the whole broader spectrum of solving all the problems, just to focus on this immediate request by two businesses who asked council to make changes so they could have this business, that we would be better off rather than saying that this doesn't solve all our problems, and she said she realizes this doesn't solve all our problems, but it would solve this problem and council could move forward. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we spent approximately one and a half years of editing the SARP plan, and editing these other properties; he said you can go to Argonne and Sprague and something was changed there, and that council changed something at Evergreen and Sprague, and "we did this and we did that, it just never seems to end, and what have we really accomplished in that." He said a lot of people talk about our city center and said he believes that people need to get "city hall" out of the vocabulary when discussing city center because of fmancing, and said maybe ten or even twenty years down the road a city hall could be addressed; he said regarding Mr. Pring and Mr. Magnuson, we have "probably a majority of people here that speak well for U-City; Mr. Magnuson, you're on his side; you don't like what Mr. Pring has; so I say we either do what we intended to do or we fold the tent up," but thirteen months, we've had one building permit off the Sprague Avenue plan, and it's a nasty environment out there, but there should be more to it than that, and said he would not support the amendment. Councilmember Grassel said in looking at the Dartmouth property, it appears to include the Magnuson property, and Councilmember Gothmann said his proposal would place both properties under consideration within the mixed-use zone so auto uses would be allowed. Councilmember Grassel asked if we know what properties are still in the city center zone. Councilmember Gothmann said a partial list, and those council has not heard from, include Harmon Auto Glass, Mike's Donuts, Zips, Sterling Savings, the Castle, Iron Horse, Dr. Ryan's offices, Appleway Florist, and he mentioned approximately twenty businesses; and said there are 200 properties in the area and this is just a small example, and that in any public meeting, council has only heard from three of the 200 property owners, and he asked why would Council want to make decisions for them without sitting down to discuss what they would like to do with their property. Councilmember Grassel said according to Community Development Director McClung when we had meetings, that letters were sent out to all the property owners, but speaking as a business owner, sometimes it is difficult to keep up with your mail; and said she had people tell her they received letters from Spokane Valley with no notice of where it had come from and they almost threw it away thinking it was junk mail; that we had a gentleman here last week who told council he wanted to refmance his home and it was the appraiser who notified him he couldn't because his house was nonconforming because it was in the city center zone; and she said she asked him if he recalled receiving any notice from the city about his zoning, and he told her not that he could recall; regarding zoning and property, until you want to do something with your properiy and then are told you can't do something because you are nonconforming, then it becomes a huge burden; and said she thinks that is evident as council has seen that in a number of the different zones; that council has tried to correct that through some of the code text amendments; and said this gentleman was erroneously told by a staff inember in January that he was still nonconforming, when in fact we had changed the zoning back in November, and said there is even confusion with our staff as to their understanding of what has and has not been corrected; and for those reasons, she said she would not be in favor of this amendment. Councilmember Gothmann said regarding the gentleman who spoke last week concerning his problem in refinancing his home, that he is obviously conforming; and said that the August 19 meeting at which time Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 11 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 we supposedly got all the people in the city center together, the only thing that was on the agenda for that meeting was: what would you like changed. Councilmember Gothmann said there was no agenda that said we would do away with the zoning; but the meeting was more to ask what was wrong with the zone and said we got practically no comments; and the issue of doing away with the zone didn't occur until October when it was suggested by Mr. Connelly in response to council. During that August 19 meeting, Mr. Gothmann said only three property owners of property in that zone spoke: Mr. Magnuson, Mr. Pring, and Karla Kaley. Councilmember Grafos said a letter was sent to all the property owners, and they came in and met and spoke about the restrictions on their properties at the city center; and said Councilmember Gothmann wasn't at that meeting or any zoning meeting, and reiterated that this is not about a single property but about jobs and helping our city grow and said we are in "bad straits right now." He said you can take Jack Pring out of the city center zone, but you would leave all those restrictions on those other property owners, and one example is the core street at University City; he said a lot of people probably don't understand what the core street is, and he explained that the core street under the SARP and the City Center zone, which is the most restrictive of all the zones, is a road that would be built straight through University-City; and once a single building permit was issued for development on this core street, it would stop all expansion in the entire city center zone until all remaining building pads on the core street were developed; and said that was predicated on the fact that they were going to put a new city hall there, and said we don't have the money to do that; and said that leaves about seven new, unfunded east/west streets, twelve new north/south streets, and one hundred percent of those buildings in the city center are nonconforming due to the setbacks for building coverage regulations under the city center zone; we show prelocated streets through about twenty existing buildings, and said there are still thirty property uses that those property owners can't use on their property; he said it is not about Jack Pring and used cars but about helping citizens and creating jobs. Councilmember Dempsey said she thinks we are going back to arguing a point that doesn't need to be argued; that we don't have to argue all of SARP or all of city center, and said it is within Council's responsibilities to alter anything there and that council can change the roads and change the regulations and still keep a city center; but tonight if we make a minor change, then we could do all the rest about city center in due course and have proper public input and there would be no rush. Deputy Mayor Schimxnels said it is interesting to note that we have besides the letter, fifteen people who testified tonight, and we have eight people who supported this ordinance and seven that don't. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Karla Kalev, 10516 East Main Avenue: said she doesn't understand; she said an issue was brought to council for an emergency response based on economic reasons to accommodate a particular use in certain parts of our city; and a very viable, rational, reasonable compromise has been offered twice now to change the scope and the volume, which she feels has been a legitimate criticism of SARP; yet there seems to be a resounding "no, I don't want to talk about it" and she said that tells her there is another agenda here or another reason why this is at the table; and if it's something else we should discuss that. She said if the goal is to get rid of SARP, that's ok, but to what alternative; because that is not what has been proposed and council is going backwards, and said that the purpose of SARP was to help revitalize our city and have quality-controlled growth. Dee Dee Loberg, 1806 4'h, Greenacres: said she likes the idea of the compromise; that compromise gets us further than building walls; she said she thinks some people are afraid to speak; but perhaps a show of hands would show how many want a compromise. Diana Sanderson, 11716 E. 14th Avenue: said she feels the compromise is very helpful as it deals with something they are looking at and the reason why this became a hot button; she said she thinks it is very Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 12 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 sad to rapidly push through something when it can be done in April and May and have more citizen input; she said she was astounded to here this was happening in this manner; and said there was a dislike for some of the ways that this was set into place. Dick Behm, 9405 E. Sprague: he said if council would accept this compromise, the Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA) would assist the council in contacting every property owner within the city center zone, they would probably ask the Chamber of Commerce to help, to make sure those property owners attend a workshop so we can explain what's on the table; and said whichever decision gets made, there would be a better understanding of how the business people in this area feel; and said that City Center Zone is premium zoning and knowing there would be a city center there some time in the future, the value of those properties will keep increasing faster than any other type of zoning. Nathan Dikes. 11214 E. 30t'; said he owns a business at 10410 E 9t'; said his family has had a 61-year old business in Spokane Valley; that he has seen University City grow and decrease; that he fmds this discussion very interesting, and as part of the Spokane Valley Business Association, he's listening from that perspective; that he respects that other business owners have an interest in wanting to develop along Sprague, and it sounds like a good amendment. Diana Wilhite, PO Box 14932, Spokane Va11eX: said she would support this amendment in that it solves the problem concerning restricting the ability of property owners to do something; she said it allows for economic development and allows the rest of the property owners, several of whom she said she has spoken to who could not be here tonight, to talk about the changes that need to be made, and to discuss the city center concept, that perhaps it should be someplace other than U-City, and it would give citizens the ability to come to council, including property owners and those involved concerned about the Sprague/Appleway corridor. Steve Wineger 10021 E. Knox: Spokane Valla: said he understands the compromise, but said that what is happening here is that "we are ruling by the rule of exception; there have been several exceptions made" and he said he believes that for the sake of commerce we have to allow the businesses on the table now for those exceptions to be given; but this band aid will stick until someone else needs financing or wants to sell their building; and said that some of businesses that were mentioned in this corridor and haven't expressed anything yet, he said he knows they are considering that because they are his clients; and said they will run into the same "I need an exception brick wall that the previous people already have and have gotten a pass" and said when you go down that road, it is very slippery the first time you don't grant an exception to someone that asks for it. He said there is a lot of concern about lawsuits; and said the law must be administered fairly and equitably; and said he feels we have to have the exceptions made that have been made obviously or they would not have been made, and said it is a matter of time before someone else comes up to the table and says "Hey, I can't live with this either and I need an exception." There were no further public comments. COITNCIL DISCUSSION: Councilmember Gothmann said he is very careful and does not attend planning commission meetings because it's part of his ethics as he doesn't want to influence what they do; and said he carefully reads the transcripts of the planning commission meeting, including those of the August 18 or 19 meeting; and he said the reason for those meetings was so that staff, who are neutral in the process, could receive comments from the public without any possible influence from councilmembers. Councilmember Gothmann said that "city center" needs to be defined; he said the intent of a city center is to have high density businesses and become a place where people could go for business purposes and recreation purposes; and said that the City itself doesn't have to pay the cost of the development; he said by council vote, core restrictions, easdwest streets, setbacks, prelocated streets through buildings can all be changed; Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 13 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 and said he feels there is a high probability of a lawsuit if council does away with City Center now; said he wants to bring jobs in, and all other things can be argued in time. Councilmember Dempsey suggested council focus on the topic of the emergency ordinance, and said the rest will come back in April or May when Council will have ample opportunity to gather more public input and have further council discussions; she said if council accepts the proposed amendment, this can all be taken care of and the rest can be discussed later, whether we have a city center, or eliminate city center, and added that a city hall has been off the docket for a long time; and that city center is not city hall; and said she would like council to focus on what they are doing here and why and to address the purpose of this emergency ordinance. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked Councilmember Dempsey regarding the language of the motion, that it states that this be done "under the emergency provision of the law pursuant to RCW 36" and said the only things she is doing is changing some properiy lines; but are still supporting the emergency clause. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels there is an emergency; that it exists at the western end of the city center zone; he said there are property owners who want to develop their property and due to economic circumstances and due to things that have changed, they cannot proceed with that development; and added that he sees no proof that such emergency exists in the middle or the eastern end; and said he knows some of the property owners are in favor of leaving it as zoned; and said he has not seen any proof that an emergency exists at the entire zone, and that he has only seen three people who discussed properties within those zones. Councilmember Grafos said if you are going to change half of that zone, you are doing exactly what council has been accused of doing, which is "caving in or changing zoning for specific property owners." He said the argument is not about Mr. Pring's property; but is in the fifteen months this plan has been in effect, there has only been one building permit; and said to leave half of the city center zone doesn't make sense; he said the California consultants, the experts hired in 2004 and paid almost $1 million to, set the essential elements that were needed for the success of a city center, and said these experts indicated those essential elements included "(1) land purchased and construction of a new city hall, estimated at 20-25 million dollars; (2) the site of the city center should contain a city library, (3) the site of a city center should be at a major crossroads with freeway access, (4) the site should contain reta.il buildings with residential space and condominiums above, (5) the site should be home to major anchors tenants." Councilmember Grafos read from his prepared statement: "The essential elements needed to make this plan a reality including an estimated 35-40 million dollars of taxpayer money needed over the next 5-20 years simply does not exist. It didn't then and it certainly does not now. Also, [when you're talking about leaving that as a city enter] no consideration was given to what was already occurring on the north- south streets, especially those fueling the explosive growth in the Centerplace, Mirabeau areas, even before the completion of the 54,000 square foot Centerplace Regional Event Center. As Councilmember Schimmels stated last week, this ordinance [and not Bill's] is about opportunity and jobs for our citizens. Over and over again, we hear the argument by a small vocal business group and some real estate speculators whose properties are located in the U-City area that if we don't designate their properties as the city center, or we don't change the traff'ic direction at U-City for a mere 2-5 million dollars, the City will be lost." Councilmember Dempsey said in response to the comments that nothing had happened under SARP in those fifteen months, she said it was ordinance 09-026, 027, 028 and 029 that moved the effective date of the implementation of the SARP to October 15, 2009; and said the election of the present council was held November 3, which she said was seventeen days, at which point the council that was sitting then knew there was no point in trying to go any further, as this council had been elected on an anti-SARP platform, and therefore nothing would be done; she said it was the first or second meeting that Mr. Grafos in 2010 moved to dismantle the SARP; she said SARP never had a chance, and reiterated that seventeen days is not enough time for any plan to work. Councilmember Grassel said that Councilmember Dempsey Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 14 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 did at one time vote against the SARP, in perhaps 2009, so she's done a 180. Councilmember Dempsey acknowledged that and said her husband has pointed that out to her; but she explained that what she was for from the very beginning was the city center. Mayor Towey reminded council that the discussion is about the amended motion and he asked for further comments. Mayor Towey stressed that this is not about one parcel; he said this is an emergency motion for all of city center; and said he would not be in favor of the amendment. Mayor Towey re-stated the replacement motion: "the western boundary of the City Center aone be moved to Balfour on the north side of Sprague and to Dartmouth from Sprague to Appleway; furthermore, that this is to be done under the emergency provision of the daw pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 as stated below. " Mayor Towey called for the vote, and at Councilmember Dempsey's suggestions, the Clerk conducted a roll call vote: In Favor: Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey. Opposed.• Councilmembers Grafos, Grassel, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Mayor Towey. The amended motion failed. Councilmember Dempsey said she was always for a city center, and was one who responded to the newspaper poll and said she indicated then that she'd like a city center, that we need a heart of the city and someplace to focus on; and said the City Hall, the Library, and the dense business area weren't the focus then to her, but that she was for the heart of the city, and she said it "quite frankly breaks my heart to have this eliminated." Councilmember Grassel said she feels the emergency ordinance does three things: (1) it restores most of the uses and gives developers more options to what types of businesses are allowed in the zone, the zoning includes 56 single family homes, 83 commercial properties, 33 duplex-multi-family properties, and currently 23 vacancies; and said 56 of these properties are single family homes and they have been through a code text amendment and are conforming as of November; (2) it frees up the property for the owners to get funding in order for upcoming spring projects; and said as one who has gone through the process of purchasing land for a business and having a building built, it is a long process; and said if we are looking at any properties being able to enhance their property or for new property coming in, this emergency ordinances gives them the freedom to begin planning and getting their financing lined up; and (3) it restores the district to a commercial zone. She said instead of "Sprague being forced into something it is not, a city center, it allows commercial opportunities to come here and to expand. We can go out and recruit commercial business to locate in the Spokane Valley that currently they would not be allowed to." She said a good example of this might have been Trader Joe's; and she said that a GSI representative told her that the Valley was not an option for Trader Joe's because of some of the zoning difficulties." Further, Councilmember Grassel said that the "emergency ordinance does not remove the option for a city center in another location. It does not mean we are now going to disincorporate the city; and third it does not mean that the council lacks vision. This council has listened to the property owners loud and clear and they do not want this zoning. They are the ones that pay the taxes here; they are the ones that have put their lives on the line to have their business here. So on the contrary, the current zoning is an absolute infringement of property rights, it always has been an infringement of property rights, and as one who attended a number of the zoning meetings prior to the entire SARP being implemented, anybody will tell you over 85% of the people that attended those were adamantly against the zoning in the first place. We can develop Sprague into an attractive commercial zone while proceeding with other economic ideas; some of these would include an urban river trail, the possibility of a sports complex for world-class sports events, and a city center area in Mirabeau Park location where we already own the land. And I would suggest that from day one, the city center designation was putting the cart before the horse. We put it in a survey as an option without any approval of the business owners in that area and then we designated it as the city center zone before purchasing the land." She said she finds that very interesting that we would go about the process in that way, and for those reasons, she thinks the zoning must be taken out of the way so they can go forward with their fmancing. Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 15 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 Councilmember Gothmann said the reason 85% of the people were against SARP was because of the direction of traffic on Sprague/Appleway, which he said is not the issue; as this is a zoning and development regulations issue and had nothing to do with traffic. Councilmember Grassel questioned those facts and she said those comments were not about the one-way vs. two-way but were about zoning through their properties. Mayor Towey noted that Councilmember Gothmann has the floor but Councilmember Grassel stated she would not allow him (Councilmember Gothmann) to make comments that are in error and such should be stated for the record. Councilmember Gothmann said presently, this city has an inadequate number of parks and an inadequate amount of parkland for a city this size; and said however, we have "more commercial space than we can support" and what is being proposed is to take from the scare park space by putting in a city hall there, and said he feels that is not wise. Mayor Towey invited further public comment on the original motion; none was offered, and he opened the floor for council comments. Councilmember Dempsey said city center doesn't mean that the city owns the property; she said she took a ruler and looked at a map of the city of Spokane Valley, and the actual city center of Spokane Valley is just about a block "this direction" over here on Union and Sprague. Councilmember Grafos said we are not talking so much the geographic center of the city but more the center of the community life of this city, and he read the following to address the emergency declaration: "Let's start at the Sept 9, 2009 regular council meeting, where the city council declared an emergency and amended the comprehensive plan saying: `One more basis (reason) to support an (emergency) amendment to the Comp Plan is to ensure timely application and compliance with the Plan and the goals of economic development as it tried to save an area which is underdeveloped, this declaration of emergency would ensure that this happens.' [And then we move to] November 9, 2010 staff report from the community development department to the city council also concludes: `The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application (the emergency ordinance) and applicable approval criteria (recommends) that the Planning Commission (recommended) approval of Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment ECPA-0 1-10'[the ordinance we are talking about tonight]. That same November 9, 2010 staff report concludes: `The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Mixed Use Avenue and a change in the zoning classification to Mixed Use Avenue IS CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies" It is now 15 months and one building permit later in the designated City Center zone, and our city is facing a long-term economic challenge in meeting the needs of our citizens. The need to remove the economic obstacles to development in this area of our City by emergency ordinance is both immediate and necessary. City financial reserves are projected to decline from $24,000,000 in 2010 to $10,500,000 in 2014. Sales tax revenues which account for almost 47% of the revenues to provide essential services to our citizens have decreased over $3,000,000 annually from 2007 and by all indications will continue to decline in 2010 from 2009 levels. This decline in new development has been most severe in the City Center Zone, the most restricted and highly regulated zone in the sub-area plan and the least likely to be successful less than 8 miles from the City center in Spokane, Riverpark Square. This California plan with its hundreds of impediments to reasonable re-development in our city, especially the city center zone has neutralized the greatest strength of this area, a business route with its large parcels of development land, existing multi-use buildings, reasonable zoning restrictions and existing infrastructure and roads making re-development and new development Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 16 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 very attractive in this area as the economy recovers, all in a prime location less than 8 miles from downtown Spokane. One extreme example of this regulation is the "core" street [which we talked about earlier] which relies on substantial unavailable public investrnent and draconian restrictions to succeed. Once a single building permit is issued for development on this magical core street, all business expansion in the entire city center zone would stop until all remaining building pads on the `core' street are developed. [Add to these restrictions, you] add 7 new un-funded pre-located east-west streets, 12 new north-south streets, literally 100% of existing buildings in the city center now non-conforming due to setbacks or building coverage regulations, new roads [that are] designated through 20 existing buildings, nonconforming signs, 40 property uses no longer allowed just for starters and you have set this area up for even slower economic growth. As a real estate broker with involvement in real estate in the Spokane area for over 40 years, I can tell you that going forward in this new economy, with very expensive development standards and restrictions will further restrict re-development in the U-City area. Sprague Avenue is an important BUSINESS ROUTE. It provides opportunity for hundreds of businesses who either cannot afford the high rents at the regional valley shopping center, or whose business activity is not compatible with the regional setting. Examples are medium box retailers like Target, Fred Meyer, ShopCo, or destination businesses like automotive uses, grocery stores, medical, insurance, restaurants, etc. The investments on Sprague Ave were made and continue to be made by primarily small-scale property owners and investors who came forward in ones' and twos' to meet the needs and desires of our local community. The goal of the planning Dept and our city government should not be creating expensive, unrealistic design patterns for development, but in reinforcing commonsense-based regulations allowing reinvestment in our community, keeping structures occupied, expanding the tax base, and creating jobs. The California consultants hired by our city at a cost of almost a million dollars in 2004 reached the following conclusions for essential elements needed for the success of a city center: (1) Land purchased and construction of a new city hall, estimated cost 20-25 million dollars; (2) the site should contain a city library; (3) the site should be at a major crossroads with freeway access; (4) the site should contain retail buildings with residential space and condominiums above; (5) the site should be home to major anchor tenants. The essential elements needed to make this plan a reality including an estimated 35-40 million dollars of taxpayer money needed over the next 5-20 years simply does not exist. It didn't then and it certainly does not now. Also, no consideration was given to what was already occurring on the north-south streets, especially those fueling the explosive growth in the Centerplace, Mirabeau areas, even before the completion of the 54,000 square foot Centerplace Regional Event Center. As Councilman Schimmels stated last week, this emergency ordinance is about opportunity and jobs for our citizens. Over and over again we hear the same argument by a small vocal business group and some real estate speculators whose properties are located in the U-City area that if we don't designate their properties as the city center, or we don't change the traffic direction at U-City for a mere 2-5 million dollars, the city will be lost. THUS, THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL FUTURE CITY CENTER DO NOT EXIST AT UNIVERSITY CITY, A BUSINESS ROUTE. THE COMMUNITY, CNIC, AND ECONOMIC ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR A SUCCESSFUL CITY CENTER DO HOWEVER EXIST TODAY IN THE CENTERPLACE/MIRABEAU PARK AREA: 1. Freeway access from Sullivan, Evergreen and/or Pines road 2. Freeway interchanges 3. Class "A" office buildings 4. A regional shopping center Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 17 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 5. Class "A" hotels and meeting centers 6. An expanding medical district 7. The Industrial Park 8. The Centennial Trail 9. The Senior Center 10. The YMCA 11. Discovery Park and Mirabeau Park 12. The Centerplace Regional Event Center 13. Government buildings, ex. The Dept of Wildlife 14. River views, natural areas and waterfalls (just like the city of Spokane) 15. Vacant development land and walk able landscaped streets 16. Lastly, The City of Spokane Valley already owns 54 acres of land at Centerplace with a number of possible sites for a future city hall - a structure which should be built on land ALREADY OWNED BY THE CITY. The City Council with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should immediately bring forward a motion designating the Centerplace/Mirabeau Park area, bordered by Sullivan Rd. on the east, Pines Rd. on the west, the Spokane River on the north and I-90 on the south as the City Center. [And he mentioned that the parameters of the city center could change.] At the winter council retreat at Centerplace in February, the Public Works director will present to the City Council a list of possible sites at Centerplace for a future city hall. The $477,000 in yearly lease payments for the present city hall building would support debt service on a City Hall building with construction costs around $8,000,000. The Regional Event Center Building completed in 2005 was completed for around $7,000,000. Thank you." Signed: Dean Grafos. Again, he said the elements do not exist at University City for a city center. Councilmember Dempsey again asked where is the emergency? She said all this has been going on for all these years, and she asked why is there an emergency now. Councilmember Grassel said the emergency is that we have property owners who are caught in the middle of being able to do nothing with their property because of the extreme restrictions that are placed, in particular, the City center zone; she said she has gone to a number of ineetings and is amazed at how many people have not actually read what's in the zoning language of the city center zone; and she gave as an example the previous gentleman from the past council meeting who did not know it made his house nonconforming at one time, and said that man's house was nonconforming for a whole year and had his house burned down during that time, he would not have been able to rebuild his house; and she said that is a crisis and she asked why that was even put in the zoning at all; she said we clearly have an emergency and said we have that same problem with our commercial property owners; and said she thinks there is not an understanding of what we are doing to the properties currently and said they aren't able to get anything accomplished because of the zoning. Councilmember Grassel said it is disingenuous to not understand it from the business owner's perspective as it's their land that they purchased and worked their entire life for, and said for many it is their retirement plan, and said to just sit back and say "well, what's the emergency?" - I think we stated it pretty loud and clear: "They can't do anything with their property." Councilmember Dempsey suggested she and Councilmember Grassel have different definitions of "emergency" because an emergency is something that requires immediate action, and this requires action, but said she feels to say it is an emergency is disingenuous. Councilmember Grassel countered by stating: "If you had a property and it burned down and you were not able to rebuild it, that wouldn't bother you, you don't find that to be an emergency at all?" Mayor Towey said he is here due to the will of the people; and that he takes that responsibility very seriously; he said he wanted to address the comment that people haven't been able to have input on the city center question; but said he feels they have; he said in November 2009 there were approximately Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 18 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 89,000 people in the Spokane Valley; and out of those, 47,000 were registered voters; and out of those, 23,000 voted; he said they looked at the city center and they voted; and he said those voters told him that they did not want the city center; and said out of 23,000, 58% said that did not want the city center, which is 13,000 people; and he expressed his appreciation for people giving their opinion; and said that while he listens to those comments, he must go back to those 13,000 who told him that they did not want the city center; and he stressed it is not about one parcel, but is about restricting zoning; and said he will vote for government to get out of the way and let the private sector do what they do best; and said he knows for a fact that there is an emergency as people are strapped and can't do anything. Councilmember Dempsey asked if the November vote was about candidates or about SARP, and asked if there was anything on that vote about City center. Mayor Towey responded that he feels the whole year they campaigned, they campaigned against the city center and SARP. Deputy Mayor Schimmels called for the question. City Manager Jackson interjected by asking Attorney Connelly and Community Development Director McClung whether they feel they have the information needed to put this ordinance together; and Mr. Connelly said he feels the opinions have been clearly expressed on all sides. Vote by acclamation on calling the question, i. e. to stop discussion and vote on the pending motion: In favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Grafos, and Grassel. Opposed.• Councilmember Dempsey. Motion carried and discussion is now stopped. Yote by acclamation on the pending motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey. Motion carried. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 8:10 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 2 First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoniniz Code and Mgp (City Center) - Karen Kendall After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance the ordinance to a second reading. Mr. Connelly explained that this is simply an ordinance implementing the one just advanced to a second reading; that it is identical in impact and simply mirrors the zoning code to the comp plan map, and said this would not be an emergency since it would be consistent with the comp plan which would be amended by the prior ordinance, that this is the motion amending the zoning code. Mayor Towey invited public comments, no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Opposed.• Councilmembers Dempsey and Gothmann. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. West Gateway Project - Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that a few weeks ago Councilmember Grafos asked staff to look at a west gateway project at Thierman and Appleway; he said he spoke with the County Engineer and since this is not a buildable parcel and is so small, the County is willing to transfer it to us without cost, and he asked for council preference on this strip of land. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested staff proceed with the land transfer Mr. Kersten said if we do take it, we should plan to spend some money to get it cleaned up, that currently it is a location for political signs. Councilmember Grassel said she feels it is a great location as an entry to the City of Spokane Valley, and perhaps this would be a good location for a monument sign with the City's logo and a welcome to city of Spokane Valley. Councilmember Grafos said he spoke with Commissioner Richard about the county donating this piece of property, and said he envisioned a low-cost way to enhance that and said he appreciated the preliminary site plan with the landscaping, and that he envisioned bringing water to that area and improve the area with approximately $50,000 rather than $120,000; and Mayor Towey said the issue is whether to accept the land, and council can determine how much to spend later, and said he favors acquiring the parcel. Mr. Kersten asked if there were any objections from council concerning acquiring this parcel, and no Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 19 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 objections were voiced. The topic came up of the request about a year ago to share expenses with Liberty Lake for a sign erected at the opposite side of town, with Liberty Lake on one side of the sign and Spokane Valley on the other, and City Manager Jackson said staff plans to get together with staff from Liberty lake soon, and suggested as we move forward, that we consider a city-wide plan for a city sign, to perhaps include city parks, and to have a uniform plan in place. It was also stated that Thierman isn't the entrance to the City but rather Havana, although it was mentioned that coming from the freeway, this could be considered a main entrance based on number of vehicles passing through. 4. School Zone Flashing Beacons - Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten said that Councilmember Grafos had expressed interest in placing flashing beacons at Bowdish Junior High School just south of 16`h Street; and he went over the history as shown on his Request for Council Action, showing which schools currently have flashers, which were done with the assistance of grants; and he mentioned that the grants only pay for materials, so we would do a combination of match for labor and installation to the total cost of about $18,000; he said he anticipates another funding cycle in 2011 and that they will rank some of the schools listed on his table 3 and work with the school districts; and said that the grants will only be provided to put in flashing beacons at elementary schools. Mr. Kersten said to put any beacons at middle schools, we would have to fund those at 100%; he also said we will be spending some money upgrading the current beacons; that the timing gets changed a little for each year, and staff has to work with that to make sure the beacons come on at the correct time. Councilmember Grafos said he still thinks the middle school is a safety issue and that even though we are at a fmancial struggle, we could get them done one at a time and have all completed in five years; and said he would like to get a consensus to look at funding this with at least getting the beacons installed at the Bowdish Junior High. Councilmember Gothmann asked if stafF could rank the elementary school zones and the middle school zones, and Mr. Kersten said he would rate the elementary schools above all middle schools, and said it is a"given" due to the age of the children. Mayor Towey said then the priority is the elementary schools, and once we solve that, he feels we should look forward to raising it to the middle schools; and Mr. Kersten said it would definitely be a safety improvement if all schools have the flashing beacons, and he encouraged doing elementary first, then middle, then high school; and said there may be some elementary schools that don't have high enough traffic volumes that wouldn't rate high enough to score state-wide, and said we may need to fund some of those; keeping in mind there may be some that don't need them at all; and said staff will rank the schools and bring back that information. 5. Advance Agenda - Ma,vor Towey Mayor Towey confirmed that there will be no Council meeting February 15 as councilmembers will be using that as a travel day to Olympia for the legislative session 6 Information Only: The Response to Public Comments of January 11, 2011 Meeting and Solid Waste Update were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 7. Council Check-in - Maxor Towey Councilmember Grafos said he attended a GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) forum where they discussed transportation, and medical schools, and he mentioned that Fairchild Air Force Base is the number one employer in the county. Mayor Towey acknowledged City staff Mike Basinger who was recognized from the Regional Health District for his work in forming a partnership as part of creating the city's bike and pedestrian program. 8. City Manager Comments - Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson spoke of the letter he and Councilmembers received from Spokane County concerning the regional solid waste summit February 2 and 3, which letter asked council to provide names of those planning to attend, and for any "must haves" to submit prior to the meeting; and Councilmember Gothmann said alternative costs are necessary, as well as what other alternatives are Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 20 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 there, including handling this ourselves. It was also mentioned that many of the main concerns should be addressed during that two-day forum. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately 45 minutes to discuss potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session at approximately 9:07 p.m., at which time it was moved, seconded and unanimously ageed to adjourn. r ~ e'l omas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: istine Bainbridge, ity Clerk Council Study Session Minutes January 18, 2011 Page 21 of 21 Approved by Council: February 8, 2011 ~-ieo - Mayor Towey City Council Members Hvpocrite What is a Hypocrite - It is someone who makes statements that they don't really believe, or express attitudes or qualities that they do not posses. Let me explain - During the 2009 campaign for City Council several members of this Council campaigned on the issue of Down Zoning of properties along Sprague Ave. by the SARP plan. They claimed that some of the non- conforming uses and the new zoning created a lower value to some or all of the properties on Sprague Ave. They also claimed they weren't notified of the many meetings that were held and the City was responsible for their not being aware of the change in zoning. Not everyone nor did a majority of the property owners agree with them, but they continued to beat that drum until people began to believe that story. It is the old story that if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to think that it is true. Now this council is doing what they criticized the previous council of doing and with much less public involment. This council has not made any effort to have public meetings or worlcshops with the property owners and citizens to discuss the elimination of the City Center Zone. At the sub-area plan meeting on the City Center Zone, there were very few concerns expressed over the zoning and those that were, were addressed by the staff very quickly to everyone's satisfaction. No one said the City Center should be eliminated. A City Center Zone carries a Premium Value on the real estate within that zoning. Over the years it can do nothing but increase in value as our city grows, and creates an identity for the City of Spokane Valley. Now this Council, in complete disregard to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and without making the effort of notifying every one of the over 200 property owners in the City Center Zoning and telling them of the consequences of their property being Down Zoned to Mixed Use, is now proceeding with an emergency ordinance to Down Zone their propertv. Is this not the same thing the previous council was criticized for? This is an emergency? Where is the evidence and documentation to show the emergency? The Council turned down an alternative that would have allowed a used car lot. Where or who are the developers or businesses that want to egpand or build if only this wasn't zoned "Citv Center"? . So now this council wants to Down Zone over 200 properties with out giving those property owners a chance to discuss the impact at a public workshop? So what is a Hvnocrite? Someone who savs the same thinQ or takes the same action as others they criticized. The insinceritv and self-righteousness of this Citv Council is overwhelming. This Council has taken the art ofPolitical Hvpocrisv to the hiahest level. Dick Behm 9405 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA. 99206 I ask that you reject this emergenty ordinance to delete the city center designation from the comprehensive plan. This emergency action is contrary to the wishes of the citizens of Spokane Valley. Some of you on this councii assert that this emergency action is necessary because the city center is no longer wanted, or citizens are being hurt or that this action will increase the number of jobs availabie, but you have not offered any evidence or data to support those claims. The designated city center came about as a result of more than 80 worfcshops, neighborhood meetings, studies, surveys and public hearings held during 2003-2009. The single outstanding result of all those activities is that the citizens of Spokane Valley warrt a city center in order ta establish an identity for our city. The members of this council that contend the city cerrter is not wanted have not presented any surveys, polls, studies or arry ather support for their position. Nor has any member presented any material or data to bolster the position that citizens are being hurt by the designated city center. The claim this emergency ordinance is alout jobs hinges on a request from a properly owner who has a pending deal to sell the portian of his land located in the designated city center to a national used car dealer. Will anather used car iot generate jobs, probably not when you consider there are 53 used car lots on Sprague and 26% of them are inactive. What will likely happen, because of the presence of a large used car dealership, is the redistribution of market share, which means some of our locally owned dealers will be forced out of business, other s will lose revenue and their employees will join the ranks of the unemployed. Furthermore this council, without discussing the Planning Commission's findings, is rejecting its recommendation to deny the ordinance. The Planning Commission found, after a public hearing that (1) the amendment was processed too quickly and without sufficient pubtic input, (2) there wasn't sufficient statistical information or survey of the commun'rty to gauge citizen support, (3) the City Center provides guidance and stability for future economic developmerit, (4) that a C'rty Center is necessary for the long term viability of Spokane Valley, and (5) it is not in the public interest to move fonward without a plan to implement a city center. I question why, and I hope others will alsa question why, this cauncil would wnsider a singie special interest above the interests of the majority of Spokane Valley citizens. I question why this council has disregarded the documented preferences of the community. f question why this council is ignoring the recommendatians of its city staff and iYs Planning Commission. The development of a city center will result in hundreds of new jobs and millions of rew dollars in our economy. This generation won't see the city center develop but future generatwns will. Finally, l question why you are willing to trade our city's future, hundreds of jobs, millians in economic development, for a used car lot. John G. Carroll 1207 S. Rotchford Drive Spokane Valley, Wa 99037 Susan Scott, 205 S. Evergreen Rd. 1/18/11 It should be remembered that the former council embedded SARP into the comp plan with an ordinance declaring an "economic emergency" just before the November'09 elections. No warnings of potential litigation were given at that time. It was, in fact, recommended as a device allowed by statute, that should be taken advantage of to close any gaps that may exist; a precaution, to ensure timely application and compliance with the plan. In short, it was to ensure SARP remained intact even if the council didn't. It should be noted that the staff recommendation supports the current emergency ordinance. I was fortunate to attend the recent planning commission discussion on this issue. The open hostility and anger, expressed by a faction on the panel over the results of the 2009 election, is not included in their official findings but does add perspective to their denial. This council has been diligent in responding to the public outcry over the plan. It held the district by district meetings that should have been held before adoption: meetings that answered questions and revealed the harmful details of the plan minus the hype. I applaud this council for withstanding bad press and a campaign of innuendo and scorn. In hind sight, before pouring all the time, energy and money into one location, it would have been better had several sites been analyzed in terms of the criteria we now know is needed for a successful out-come. Throwing good money after bad will not change the fact that the components for a successful city center do not exist at the U-City site. (Freeway access, a land purchase, civic buildings, a willing developer, lodging, not there.) SARP is just too big. It tries to address and fix everything and does nothing well. This council cannot be blamed for trying to stop what could best be described as a"bull in a china shop". SARP is trampling property rights and goring small businesses and landowners with unwelcome rezoning and non- conformity issues, leaving an expensive trail of mandates, attorney's fees and potential lawsuits in its wake. Above all, putting the city center district at U-city to rest is not about dismantling the city. IYs about making smart decisions based on facts that are in the best economic interests of taxpayers and businesses alike. There are better ways to revitalize the corridor and there are better sites for a city center. There is an alternate proposal that takes into consideration what we've learned from the SARP experience. The city already owns land at Mirabeau that has far greater potential for success as a city/civic center than the privately owned Sprague site. Its land the city already owns with excellent freeway access. It has existing parks and existing civic buildings. It's by the river and centennial trail. It's located near existing regional shopping, existing restaurants and existing lodging. Last but not least, it does not require rezoning 1100 parcels and creating miles of damaging non- conformity. We don't have the luxury of waiting 20 to 30 years for the potential development of a city center at U-City. Time is of the essence. I urge the council to support this emergency ordinance and allow development that is clearly within the boundaries of what is acceptable on the corridor and could be a real shot in the arm for that area as well as city coffers. Thank you. JAN. 17, 2011 9:57AM MAGNUSON LAW OFFICES N0. 1475 P. 1 H. eJAMES MH,GNUSON AT70RNEY AT LAW 1250 NORTMWOOD CENTER COVRT POST OFFlCE HOX 2289 GOEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 88 8 1 6-22 9 8 TGLLPMOHq (%06) 666-i696 Fnx(206)666-1700 January 17, 2011 Clerk Christine Bainbridge ° Via Fax (509) 921-1008 City of Spokane Va11ey, 'GVashington 11707 East Spxague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Va11ey, WA 99206 Dear Ms. Bainbridge: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter X wrote to the Mayor. I would appreciate it if you could read this into the record at the City Council meeting on January 18, 2011. Thank you. Very truly yours, H. MAGNUS (Att rney at Law HJrM; slb enc. JAN. 17, 2011 9:58AM MAGNUSON LAW OFFICES N0. 1475 P. 2 H. JAmEs MAGrrvsorr ATTORNEY AT LAW 1250 NORTHWOOD CEN'rEli GOUR'r POST OFFICE 60X 2286 COEUR D'ALENE, 1DAH0 838 1 6-2288 TCLKrnOnq (ROB) 666-1E96 Fnx (209) 666-1700 January 17, 2011 The Hoiioxable Mayor Tom Towey City of Spokane Valley, Washington ' 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokan.e Va11ey, W,R 99206 Dear Mayor Towey: I azn, wziting on behalf of Uaiiversity City, Inc., an owner of real property in the Spokane V'alley. I am writing vvitla respect to the City Council's consideration for zonitng in the University City Center area. The new zoning adopted should be pre-City Center and pre-Sprague Subarea Plan zonuing mixed use_ Th.e propezty needs a flexible, mixed use commercial zoning to enable redcvelopment to increase the tax base and create more jobs. Broad commercial zoning is appropriate and compatible with exasting commezcial uses, traffic and arterials in the azea. As such, X would urge you to adopt a flexible, broad, mixed use commercial zoning to apply to this axea going forward. Thank you for your assistance. V txuly yours, H. J S MAGNUSON Atto ey at Law HJM:sIb cc: Brenda Grassel (position 1) Gary SGhimmels (position 4) pean Grafos (position 2) Bob McCaslin (position 5) Rose Dempsey (position 3) Bill Gothmann (position 6) Mike Jackson (City Manager) Kathy McClung (Community Development Director) Move that: The western boundary of the City Center zone be moved to Balfour on the North side of Sprague and to Dartmouth from Sprague and Appleway; furthermore, that this be done under the emergency provision of the law pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) stated below. (b) Except as otherwise provided in (a) ofthis subsection, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with the growth management hearings board or with the court. f Y7 . / iep aa~~ Mr. Mayor: I would like to make some comments about the emergency ordinance removing the city center designation and zoning restrictions from the University City area. I would also like my comments placed in the public record and I will provide a copy to the Spokesman-Review and the Valley News Herald. TO BEG1N, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION: _.,~Let's start at the Sept. 9, 2009 regular Council meeting, where the City Council declared an emergency and amended the Comprehensive Plan saying: "One more basis (reason) to support an (emergency) amendment to the Comp Plan is to ensure timely application and compliance with the Plan and the goals of economic development as it tries to sa.ve an area which is underdeveloped, this declaration of emergency would ensure tha.t this happens." The November 9, 2010 Staff report from the Community Development Department to the City Council also concludes: "The Planning Division, after review and cansideration of the submitted application (the emergency ordinance) and applicable approval criteria (recommends) that the Planning Commission (recommend) approval of Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment ECPA-01-10." That same November 9, 2010 Staff report concludes: "The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Mixed Use Avenue and a change in the zoning classification to Mixed Use Avenue IS CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies." It is now 15 months and one building permit later in the designated City Center zone, and our city is facing a long-term economic challenge in meeting the needs of our citizens. The need to remove the economic obstacles to development in this area of our City by emergency ordinance is both immediate and necessary. City financial reserves are projected to decline from $24,000,000 in 2010 to $10,500,000 in 2014. Sales tax revenues which account for almost 471/o of the revenues to provide essential services to our citizens have declined over $3,000,000 annually from 2007 and by all indications continued to decline in 2010 from 20091evels. This decline in new development has been most severe in the City Center Zone, the most restricted and highly regulated zone in the sub-azea plan and the least likely to be successful less than S miles from the City center in Spokane, Riverpazk Square. This California plan with its hundreds of impediments to reasonable re-development in our City, especially the City Center Zone has neutralized the greatest strengths of this axea, a business route, with its lazge parcels of development land, existing multi-use buildings, reasonable zoning restrictions, and existing infrastructure and roads making re- development and new development very attractive in this area as the economy recovers, a11 in a prime location less than 8 miles from downtown Spokane. One extreme example of this regulation is the "Core" street which relies on substantial unavailable public investment and draconian restrictions to succeed. Once a single building permit is issued for development on this magical core street, all business expansion in the entire City Center zone would stop until all remaining building pads on the "Core" street are developed. Add 7 new un-funded pre-located east-west streets, 12 new north-south streets, literally 1000/o of existing buildings in the City Center now non-confornung due to setbacks or building coverage regulations, new roads designated through 20 existing buildings, non- conforming signs, 40 property uses no longer allowed just for starters and you have set this area up for even slower economic growth. As a Rea1 Estate Broker, with involvement in Rea1 Estate in the Spokane area for over 40 years I can tell you that going forward in this new economy, with very expensive development standards and restrictions will further restrict re-development in the U-City area. Sprague Avenue is an important BUSINESS ROUTE. It provides opportunity for hundreds of businesses who either cannot afford the high rents at the regional valley shopping center, or whose business activity is not compatible with the regional setting. Examples are medium box retailers like Target, Fred Meyer, ShopCo, or destination businesses like automotive uses, grocery stores, medical, insurance, restaurants, etc. The investments on Sprague Ave were made and continue to be made by primarily sma11- scale property owners and investors who came forward in one's and two's to meet the needs and desires of our local community. . The Goa1 of the Planning Dept. and our city government should not be creating expensive, unrealistic design patterns for development, but in reinforcing commonsense- based regulations allowing reinvestment in our community, keeping structures occupied, expanding the tax base, and crea,ting jobs. The California consultants hired by our City at a cost of almost a million dollars in 2004 reached the following conclusions for essential elements needed for the success of a city center: 1. Land purchase and construction of a new city ha11, estimated cost 20-25 million dollars. 2. The site should contain a City Library. 3. The site should be at a major crossroads with freeway access. 4. The site should contain retail buildings with residential space and condominiums above. 5. The site should be home to major anchor tenants. The essential elements needed to make this plan a reality including an estimaxed 35-40 million dollars of taxpayer money needed over the next 5-20 years simply does not exist. It didn't then, and it certainly does not now. Also, no consideration was given to what was already occurring on the North-South streets, especially those fueling the explosive growth in the Centerplace, Mu-abeau areas, even before the campletion of the 54,000 square foot Centerplace Regional Event Center As Councilman Schimmels stated last week, this ordinance is about opportunity and jobs for our citizens. Over and over again, we hear the argument by a small vocal business group and some real estate speculators whose properties are located in the U-City area that if we don't designate their properties as the city center, or we don't change the traffic direction at U-City for a mere 2-5 million dollars, the City will be lost. THUS, THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL FUTURE CITY CENTER DO NOT EXIST AT UNIVERSITY CITY, A BUSINESS ROUTE. THE COMMUIVITY, CIVIC, AND ECONOMIC ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR A SUCCESSFUL CITY CENTER DO HOWEVER EXIST TODAY IN TIHE CENTERPLACE/MIRABEAU PARK AREA: 1. Freeway access from Sullivan, Evergreen and/or Pines Roads 2. Freeway interchanges 3. Class "A" office buildings 4. A regional shopping center 5. Class "A" hotels and meeting centers 6. An expanding medical district 7. The Industrial Park 8. The Centennial Trail 9. The Senior Center 10. The YMCA 11. Discovery Park and Mirabeau Park 12. The Centerplace Regional Event Center 13. Government buildings, ex. The Dept of Wildlife 14. River views, natural areas and waterfalls (just like the city of Spokane) 15. Vacant development land and walk able landscaped streets 16. Lastly, The City of Spokane Va11ey already owns 54 acres of land at Centerplace with a number of possible sites for a future city hall-a structure which should be built on land ALREADY OWNED BY THE CITY. The City Council with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should immediately bring forward a motion designating the Centerplace/Mirabeau Park area, bordered by Sullivan Rd on the east, Pines Rd on the west, the Spokane River on the north and I-90 on the south as the City Center. At the winter council retreat at Centerplace in February The Public Works director will present to the City Council a list of possible sites at Centerplace for a future city hall. The $477,000 in yearly lease payments for the present city hall building would support debt service on a City Hall building with construction costs around $8,000,000. The Regional Event Center Building completed in 2005 was completed for around $7,000,000. Thank you ~ I -I ~ .~G~,2 i~✓~ ~ ~