The URL can be used to link to this page

2011, 01-25 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meetings Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, January 25, 2011 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Citv Staff.• Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Absent: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Councilmember Gothmann gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present except Councilmember McCaslin. It was then moved by Councilmember Grassel, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he attended the Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA) Meeting where SVBA expressed concern for the City Center, and where City Planning Manager Kuhta gave a presentation regarding the Site Selector; attended the Business and Education Committee of the Chamber of Commerce held at East Valley School District where Mr. Doug Tweedy, Spokane Economist far Labor and Market Analysis Branch of the Washington Employment Security Department spoke concerning the labor market in Spokane County; went to a Housing Community Development Advisory Committee where they determined initial allocation of funds for various development projects, and he said the final distribution will be handled by the County Commissioners; attended a meeting of Financial Access, which is a branch of SNAP, at which meeting they reviewed the rules for granting loans; went to the City Forum where Mr. Dick Denenny reviewed the TMDL (total maximum daily load) river effort and where they heard a report on the history and goals for the river; went to a Board of Health Executive Meeting where they discussed fees for special food events, and said this group will be planning a trip to Olympia for the purpose of lobbying and that he will likely be traveling with that group to Olympia; he attended an area meeting concerning safety and fear which was a result of the bomb found in Spokane during the Martin Luther King, Jr. march/parade; went to the Chamber Gala were Mr. Dick Denenny received the Harry Nelson Citizen of the Year award, and where Mr. Dick Behm was awarded Chamber Member Volunteer of the Year; went to a 911 Board meeting, and he said there is $3 million per year that Council Regulaz Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 1 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 the Governor has proposed taking away from the 911 funds to go to disaster relief funds, and said by taking these funds out, the enhanced 911 is delayed several years. Councilmember Grafos: said he attended the Chamber of Commerce Annual Awards Banquet where they Honored Mr. Dick Behm and Mr. Dick Denenny; said he went to the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting where they discussed trip reductions including trips to be eliminated within Spokane Valley, such as several "loops" around the Industrial Park, and the YMCA loop; and he encouraged people to voice their transit concerns to the STA. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: concerning the STA service, said they plan to also eliminate the stop at the Mall and said that the actual changes are still being discussed; said he also attended the Spokane Regional Transportation Council meeting which addressed funding issues for roads, street, and sidewalks; and he reported that Councilmember McCaslin had his right leg amputated last week and is doing reasonably well but said it is tentative, as "one day he feels reasonably good and the next day he doesn't." Councilmember Grassel: reported that she attended the Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB) Board Meeting where Kevin Twohig of the Public Facilities District, showed depictions of the downtown Convention Center's plans for expansion and that they will propose a ballot bond in 2012 for that expansion; she said new CVB Board members were also introduced, one of whom was Eldonna Shaw of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce; that she attended the Spokane River TMDL Forum and said that Mr. Denenny gave a thorough history of that process; that she attended the Spokane Valley Chamber Gala and she extended congratulations to the Wilhites for their involvement organizing that event. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey stated that he attended the SRTC open house at Riverpark Square; he attended the Advisory Committee Shoreline Masterplan meeting at CenterPlace where property owners, businesses and neighbors were in attendance to advise on the policies and guidelines; said he and Deputy Mayor Schimmels met with Cheney Mayor Trulove on items of common interest; he met with the Sheriff yesterday to discuss the upcoming public safety district legislative items that will be before the legislators, in particular House Bi112012 and Senate Bill 5155; said he also attended the Greater Spokane, Inc. meeting yesterday where they discussed their legislative priorities; and he said in regard to Ms. Rose Dempsey who resigned her council position as of last Friday, that he will miss her and he said we need people like her, dedicated, committed to council and to the city, and passionate for this city. Mayor Towey also extended congratulations to Mr. Dick Behm for receiving the Chamber's Volunteer of the Year award. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Nancy Holmes from Avista, 1411 E. Mission: she said that tonight she represents the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce and she thanked those members of council who attended the Gaga. Ms. Holmes said as Chair of the Government Affairs Committee, she presented a letter for council's consideration regarding the Regional Transportation Benefit District, and said the Board passed the following motion: "The Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce recommends to the City of Spokane Valley and to the City of Liberty Lake that they pass a resolution supporting the formation of a County-wide Transportation Benefit District. We also recommend that these cities adopt an interlocal agreement for establishment of a county-wide Transportation Benefit District as provided for in Chapter 36.3.RCW." She said she realizes council has done some work on this tough issue, but they believe the benefits for this region are great and all jurisdictions are facing transportation funding gaps; and she recommended both cities and the Chamber getting together to figure out how to make that happen. J F Goffinet 5010 Model Court Spokane Valley WA 99206: he had copies of his letter distributed to councilmembers, and he read parts of that letter explaining his request to have a veterans' memorial of some type, installed on the vacant property recently mentioned as being given to this city from the County, a triangular shaped piece of property not far from the Display House; and said it was Mr. Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 2 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 Gothmann who brought his triangular-shaped piece of properly to his attention. Councilmember Gothmann added that Mr. Goffinet is Chapter Chair of the NCOA out of Veradale, Wa. Nancy Nishimura 15103 East Valleyway, Veradale: said she would like to propose an idea that came to her because of the recent sad event at the Plant Farm located in Spokane Valley; she said the police officer involved in that wasn't aware of who the business owner was or what he looked like; and she suggested that since all police cars have computers in their vehicles, there should be a database of pictures of all business owners in Spokane Valley; she said perhaps the SCOPE Volunteers could use a digital camera and take the pictures of the business owners; and said if this had been in place, the officers would have seen what Mr. Creech looked like and perhaps that incident could have been avoided; and she added that this would not be costly since the computers are already in place; and said that photos could be taken when businesses renew their business licenses. Alan Hinkle 11916 E Sprague Avenue: said he was a neighbor of Scott Creech for about five years and lived across from the Plant Farm; said his son and Mr. Creech's son played high school basketball together; he said that Mr. Creech over a two-year period, was contacting and apprehending people at a rate of about one per month; and said what should have happened, if according to the newspaper someone called and said increased police presence was needed, they didn't go to those people's residence but instead went to the Plant Farm; and said if they had seen that Mr. Creech had apprehended people in the past, this would never have happened; but to pull up in an unmarked car is an accident waiting to happen; and said he hopes the Sheriff will change the policy about allowing planned vacation during an experience such as this; and suggested policies and procedures need to be changed so this doesn't happen in the future. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT O1/O5/2011 21847-21866; 104110018, 1230100019 $1,577,718.93 O1/06/2011 21867-21878 $466,804.80 O1/07/2011 3408, 3409, 3411, 3412, 3420, 21846, $220,456.30 21879-21883 O1/14/2011 5201 (2010 Parks & Rec Refund $500.00 O1/14/2011 21884-21923 (2010 ex enses) $93,951.76 GRAND TOTAL $2,359,431.79 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending January 15, 2011: $249,309.82 c. Approval of City Council Formal Format Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2011 Towey mentioned the voucher list date should be 0 1/14/2011 instead of 04/14/2011. Mayar Towey noted the typographical error on the last voucher last date, which should have read [January 14, 20111. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2 Second Readin PrOposed Emergency Ordinance 11-001 Amending Comprehensive Plan and Map (City Center - Kathy McClung After CiTy Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the ordinance. Community Development Director McClung explained that the property referred to is within the Sprague/Appleway Plan currently designed as "city center" which is generally located between Walnut on the west, Bowdish on the east, Main on the north, and 4`h on the south; that this is the second reading of the ordinance, and this ordinance is to delete the "city center" Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 3 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 zoning from the comprehensive plan and map and replace it with "mixed use center" designation, and declare an emergency, which is provided under state statutes; she said the ordinance has been revised from the first reading to incorporate comments received from council at the last meeting. Mayor Towey invited public comment. 1. Chris Pierce. 404 N Farr Road: first he expressed thanks to Council for all the memorials for former Mayor Rich Munson, said he went through high school with Mr. Munson's son, and Mr. Munson was his scout leader; he said at the memorial held at CenterPlace, Mr. Pierce was speaking with Mr. Munson's son and they reminisced about a boy scout outing in that field before the Mall was established, and before CenterPlace was thought about, that there was nothing between the river and the freeway; and said when he read in the newspaper that Councilmember Grafos said that is the city center; he said he lives a few blocks from the City Center, that this is the city center and we need a comprehensive plan just to get some kind of development there; he said perhaps for financial reasons a city hall should be at CenterPlace, but said he doesn't believe that is the city center; and he asked Council not to get rid of the city center as we need something; and said he realizes this is also up to the building community as well. 2 Dee Dee Loberg 18306 4`i' Avenue: said her last appearance was driven by emotion, and said she would now like to address her actual concerns about this ordinance, and she made the following comments on the Facts and Findings: (1) said she agrees with that; (2) agrees nothing has changed since the inception of the emergency ordinance provided November 3, 2010; (3) agrees there are no significant environmental impacts; (4) agrees the City intended to construct a city hall and make aesthetic and street improvements, and unti12011, had a fund balance in the civil capital project line item of over $5 million; (5) regarding the failed library bond issue, she said she feels this bond issue was highjacked by the rhetoric surrounding the couplet and doesn't reflect the true wishes of the citizens; (6) regarding the revenue forecast deteriorating, she said this council rolled back the property taxes that provided for the $100,000 decrease; (7) regarding provide development, major commercial investments and ending negotiations on land purchase and adoption of the 2011 budget and funds availability for construction of a city hall - she said she agrees major commercial investments are in financial difficulty, but said so is everyone else and have been since 2009; and said she feels the redistribution of the civil capital project funds in the 2011 budgets of street maintenance and curb-to-curb paving projects has contributed, and that the motion to end negotiations has contributed, all of which she said are directly tied to city council actions; (8) regarding the potential development that could occur in the city center and that currently is precluded by the current designation, she said there has always existed the potential of development way before the adoption of SARP and it did not occur, but said stating that such "could occur" does not constitute an emergency; (9) regarding the comprehensive plan annual process would delay any changes, she said she feels this council is contributing to any delays to potential development by their current and previous action; (10) regarding public testimony and investment opportunities, she said it is interesting that the future meeting dates are cited for public input and that no mention is made of the comments against this ardinance; and said this to her is inaccurate and an unfair representation of the situation and is disingenuous concerning the public process, she said the reasons for lack of development are speculative and does not prove an emergency exists within the city center concept; (11) regarding council engaging in the public process to ensure citizen participation, she said this finding is misleading as to supporting the RCW's intent, and said when this ardinance debuted, it contained future meeting dates to support it; (12) as to the city council not accepting the Findings of the Planning Commission (a) that "the public has had an opportunity to be heard," is a misleading finding as the findings were published prior to the third and fourth meetings cited; and that "economic development has not occurred due to the restrictions currently in place" that it is not the current restrictions on the city center designation that have contributed to the lack of development potential, but the overall economic situation coupled with the current council's determination to eliminate the SARP; (b) "the city council is not abandoning the concept of a future city center and is actively exploring alternatives to this site" that in the survey about where it should be located as noted in the Clearwater Report, 73% preferred U-City while only 4% supported Mirabeau; and (c) that the "City Council finds that the economic threat is immediate and a result of the restrictive Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 4 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 development standards imposed" is an opinion by the current council and said she does not believe it has been fully vetted by all business owners in the designated area; and (13) she said is a basic summary of the information provided above designed to support the emergency ordinance. Ms. Loberg said with 84,000 adults living in our city, she feels the at-large representation promised upon installation of office seems to have disintegrated to special interest representation; and said she feels council is not responding to those citizens who are not in favor of scraping a city center along Sprague; she said councilmembers constantly cite that this will affect more than just a few business owners, and she asked who else is in favor of this other than the special interest; and asked who could possibly want more car lots and convenience stores; she said we have miles of that already; and said she believes council has not offered enough concrete facts and findings to support an emergency; she said: "Face it. Sprague Avenue has been in decline for the past decade and a half; SARP was created to enhance the aesthesis of the corridor, to provide for a city center vision, and to address the issues of too much commercial property; and it also helped to address urban sprawl by allowing for denser citizen population." She said this council has disregarded the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the caution from the City's attorney as to process potentially setting our city up for litigation in addition to wasting all of the money that went into this; and said she finds this to be fiscally irresponsible; and feels that we do not have at-large representation and the current council doesn't really listen and consider any dissent on the issue; and that we don't currently have a political process that takes into account all the different views and opinions. 3 Mary Pollard 17216 East Baldwin Avenue: Ms. Pollard read the following statement: "Dear Honorable Mayor Towey and Council Members, I heartily support releasing these properties from this Zoning. That's the only ethical thing to do. Let's remember we are not discussing parkland. These are not public properties but privately owned. There is no moral high ground to covet and speculate with what doesn't belong to you. The phony emergency ordinance that enacted this mess you are addressing tonight was clearly an abuse of legislative authority when they realized they would lose their Council seats in the election. Let's remember that Constitutional free speech was threatened over objections to the City Center. The Planning Commission had two that voted against Mr. Carroll's assertions. The Library, the first anchor of the City Center was part of why it failed and thousands more signed for Disincorporation than voted the City into existence, dissatisfied with the City's totalitarian mode of operation, beyond anyone's financial resources to oppose. Our elected City Council is charged with protecting our constitutional rights and personal liberties. That is exactly what you are doing tonight. This emergency ordinance is needed to end a cruel game of lifeboat that this zoning put into practice without any life preserver. The findings and facts for rescinding this ordinance are indisputable. If business is not generating tax then essential services will have to be paid by taxing us more directly. We can't afford another tax. The devil is always in the details that show the zoning cannot ensure economic sustainability. It stifles with too many demands that crimps any notions of expansion. City Center could be called "Bigfoot" considering how it stomped its way over 200 acres of private property. These owners, saddled as nonconforming uses, won't be running with the wolves because of the high cost of staying in the race. Hard work and a promise of success is always a gamble. The amount of those wagers should be voluntary without reinventing the rules once the money laid down. Who cares about a City identity when most struggle to keep the identity of their name with their address? When we suspend people's properiy rights - That's tyranny? I can't believe I have to say these things - What Country is this? Did we forget our pledge to liberty and justice for all. The opportunity for an investor to independently transform this area has not been removed. It's the bully stick of this zoning that must be abandoned. The pro-growth gamble that sent this nation into a tailspin was a result of bad public enabling policies. People hardly put stock in elections much less a Mr. Noodle chart of sticky dots from public meetings. These weren't ballots and who's the keeper of the dots anyway? No growth, no new money, no bankers or takers. Revenues dropping like a rock. What's in your pocket? My family personally experienced the betrayal of bad planning. No one should have to settle with loss. Plans already paid for, wrenched out of your hands. It is absolutely demoralizing to treat owners as if they don't exist. Who can be so selfish as to crow, "It's good for me!" Only God can create life out of death. Hypocrisy is agreeing to destroy others to achieve some advantage and call it good. A greed for more that manipulates the lives Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 5 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 of others is indefensible. Our first duty is to love our neighbors as ourselves. What is an acceptable number to harm? Most businesses and home owners have their assets tied up in their property. Just because someone may own more than we do, doesn't entitle us to legislate being a community of pickpockets. That is class envy. They have no wiggle room. Their wallets aren't bulging. It doesn't belong to us. I challenge us as a community to stand and support our City Council . The anchor of the City Center lies in the hearts of all of us to choose to love, to temper ambition with thankfulness for what we already possess. Everything we want will come if we manifest justice, a commitment to help those that struggle, if we manifest tolerance that has room for every dream. Our life's achievement on a spreadsheet will be forgotten but the legacy that chooses love over ambition is the only civic lesson that will survive. The emergency before us is resolving to pull down the walls that divide us and look at policies through the lens of compassion and mercy. Spokane Valley's first task is to build a City Center of relationships that recognize unquestioningly who is our neighbor." 4 Nick Avariotes 11813 E Broadwav: said regarding the city center, he had an old newspaper from way back, and said it is obvious where the center should be; and said to go out to Mirabeau's "got to be unbelievably crazy" and that the city center should be in the center. 5 Erica Johnson 1406 S Progress Road; she thanked council for looking at this issue and said she felt her voice didn't matter with last council; and that it left a lot of people and business owners feeling like that. 6. Steve Neill. 10820 East 18`t' Avenue: thanked council for doing the will of the voters by ending SARP; said it took courage; and he then gave numerous World War II statistics on the number of planes manufactured, how much merchant tonnage was produced, number of destroyers, and trucks and of what the gross domestic product was then and how the United States overwhelmed the opposing countries with war material; then he gave more statistics on the number of factories the U.S. has lost since 2001, and spoke of corporations overseas expanding while U.S. plants close; he spoke of the number of manufacturing jobs lost by the U.S. over the years; and said we are losing our ability to remain a free nation by treating manufacturing as a"red-headed stepchild" and he mentioned other state's statistics regarding loss of manufacturing plants, and said we have so many things to offer companies, such as universities, reasonably-priced land and outdoor activities which should make Spokane Valley a "destination location;" and he challenged Council to examine how to create jobs to attract manufacturing to this area and encourage other plants to expand their operations here; and said that SARP offered "cutesy boutiques and coffee shops which have extremely limited economical impact at a huge cost to the taxpayers" and said if we want state of the arts schools and well-maintained roads, then we should be creating a manufacturing friendly zone. 7 Dwight Hume 9101 N Mountain View Lane: said he is here on behalf of his client Harlan Douglass who has seventeen properties within the entire SARP/Subarea plan, some of which are within city center, and some of which would benefit from the elimination of the city center designation; and said he and his client go on record in submitting his January 25, 2011 letter, in supporting Council's intent to declare an emergency and the elimination of the city center. He said he attended the series of ineetings through last summer, fall and winter concerning SARP; and it was his observation that there is a polarity of opinion regarding supporting or not supporting SARP; but in this particular last action where council has taken a step to say that they want a process started to consider the emergency of the elimination of the city center; he said that he went to the Planning Commission and he attended that meeting, and said it was interesting that the findings of the Planning Commission weighed against the actual testimony at the hearing as they are completely foreign to each other; and said that the proposed findings that staff recommended to Council were entirely consistent with Council's request and said he did not find or recall any public testimony that should have caused the Planning Commission to write the findings that they did. Mr. Hume said that his letter tonight spells out with the attachment of the Planning Commission's findings, a rebuttal of those points and said he hopes it will be considered of substance to strengthen Council's position especially if for some reason, a lawsuit gets filed as a result of council's actions tonight, which he Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 6 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 said was alluded to last week. Mr. Hume said as a professional planner, he thinks the findings written by the Planning Commission were just "borderline capricious and arbitrary" and he asked council to please consider his points and if necessary include his points in Council's findings. 8. Diane Johnson, 17112 E Baldwin: she thanked council for looking at this issue and said she supports reversing that zoning; she said it saddles businesses and homes with an onerous zone and said having it removed will make them more productive and when businesses are more productive, it will benefit our city; and said that she hopes council, if they do consider a city center wherever it might be located, would be fiscally sound as the other was horribly expensive. 9 Peggy Doering 11522 E Sunview Circle, Spokane Vallev: she read the following statement: "As a private citizen I am before you tonight to discuss the proposed Emergency Ordinance Zoning change. I have been attending the City Council meetings and listening to the review process. I have three concerns regarding this emergency amendment that I would like to share with you. The first concern is the language itsel£ When I think of an emergency, I think of a public safety concern, something that is an immediate danger to the citizens of the valley. This zone change has nothing to do with public safety, fire or police, natural disaster or lack of access by the citizens to an area that has been a common use area. As a City council, I would think that this would be difficult to justify this zoning change as an emergency. I do believe that Councilman Schimmels was correct when he gave the "emergency" another name which was "opportunity." This is an opportunity for two individuals to transfer property with a zone change that would be favorable to a potential business which has been identified as a used car lot. This is what has precipitated this emergency zone ordinance. This is not an emergency for the public good/public interests which the City Council should keep as its first concern. Mr. Pring, came before you last week to assure you that there were no strings attached between the council and himsel£ Apparently, he has contributed to some of the council members' political campaigns. This was said with a friendly exchange between the City Council and Mr. Pring. Now this places another burden on the Council. This is my second concern which is the appearance of fairness. The City Council in their governance manual does have a Section named Appearance of Fairness Doctrine which shall apply to those actions of the Council which are quasi judicial in nature. So, does this apply in this case? I'm not sure. Even if it does not apply to this proposed emergency ordinance before you, I think that fairness question has arisen in my mind. So sometimes we need to step back from a situation and have it reviewed through an objective lens and determine what appears to be fair to all average persons in the Spokane Valley. The third concern is that many of us in this room have participated in the workshops, the focus groups and given testimony to the planning commission, and the past council and this council to develop this SARP plan over many years. I understand that it was going to be reviewed later this spring with the comprehensive plan amendments, so why declare an emergency? That's the crux to this whole problem I'm having. So, all this time invested by city staff, architects, business owners, engineers, STA, both city and county transportation departments, outside consultants such as EcoNorthwest will be tossed into the dead file because of an emergency request of two business owners for a possible used car lot. Those are my three concerns tonight." 10 Nanc_y Nishimura Green Thumb Nursery business address 16816 East Spra~ue: said she came tonight because she received a notice from the Chamber of Commerce explaining that this is an opportunity for business owners to speak about something that will affect us; she said she's not sure what constitutes an emergency; said she spoke against SARP numerous times in the past; and said she's not even sure if she's conforming or non-conforming; that her father has owned the property since the 1950's, and said in the interest of fairness, they have longevity, and that if this emergency is a way to help change the SARP plan or throw it out, that she supports that; she said she heard from the former mayor and some past councilmembers that there is a glut of retail on Sprague, and said she doesn't understand what that means or why it would be said, or how that is that fair; she said thinking of all the hours and years her family has put into their business, she doesn't appreciate having the nonconforming designation put on that property and said that she is not alone, and that is what is contributing to the demise of the properties; she said on Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 7 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 the night the SARP was passed, she heard a comment that there was a glut of retail east of University; and she said east of University is where all the development is, and said she is also against the one-way couplet because west of that is preriy much dead and is very distressing to drive down there; and said if we want to have a city center we need to have a city, and said we need to feel we are unified; and said if businesses are killed and the businesses' hard work is not appreciated, they feel disenfranchised; and said she never had a reason why one would be grandfathered in, and said that isn't good enough as if she wants to sell that property, she doesn't want that designation; and again said she doesn't like the designation of nonconforming, or to be written off as a glut; and she asked what are the factors contributing to not making a city center not economically viable on the western part of Sprague from University; she said she knows there was a study and she attended one of the workshops; and the Gonzaga business students presented information that having that one-way couplet contributed to the demise of the businesses as there are fewer people passing by; and said it is sort of a joke; why do we have that big wide street with no cars on it numerous different times of the day; and she asked where is the center of the city, and said if it is a matter of needing a bigger building, that a big building already exists at Mirabeau with ample parking; and said council should consider that business district in order to have a city. 11. Rustin Hall. 10520 E Holman Road: said he is a co-owner of a regional architectural firm, past chair of the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, and is starting his second year as a Planning Commissioner; and said he speaks tonight as a concerned citizen and not representing any of those entities; and is here to advocate an additional piece of due diligence that he strongly recommends Council take on; he said he believes community leaders need to recognize when looking at such entities as the Spokane Valley Business Association, the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, Planning Commission, City Council, that "we have way more common ground than dissenting opinions and we are all after basically the same things for our city, prosperity and maintaining our quality of life" and said how one chooses to go about it is the difference; he said common ground can be built by better communications and finding the compromise that is needed; and that the entire community needs to be listened to above any other interests; and to do that, he suggested having a statistically valid survey conducted; he said surveys only have a useful life of a few years; he said a statistically valid survey will give scientific valid proof that will eliminate speculations of what Spokane valley citizens want or don't want; that when conducted by a professional research agency, there will be 95% accuracy of what the citizens want; and said all that information can then be broken down by certain demographics such as location or zip code, or businesses owners, etc., and that it gives Council power since knowledge is power and said it could validate exactly what this Council is talking about tonight, or it could offer some other ideas, and said until that is done, he believes we are working on speculation. Mr. Hall said such survey would also afford positive press and get the zoning settled and find stability; and said some examples of survey questions could be, is there interest in having a city center, and based upon the cost, are citizens willing to pay for it; do they have a preferred location and then give suggested locations; and also give information on timing. He said he is not one to have the current economy scare him away from a future plan; he said such survey would cost approximately $18,000, and said he spoke to a local survey firm that works nationally, and that it would take about six weeks to accomplish; and he mentioned the City of Kennewick, the Parks and Recreation Bond for the City of Spokane, and the YMCA here in Spokane Valley as example surveys; and said this is far too important for speculation. 12. Cassandra Tiesma 105 N Skipworth: said in response to the last speaker, what she heard was about a facility but that tonight's issue is not about a facility but is about zoning imposed upon property owners; and said the idea for a scientific study is a good idea but it's too bad it wasn't done before the zoning was changed; she said she wasn't asked if they wanted their zoning changed; said this isn't something that everyone needs to know or be questioned about, as it affects all the properties within that area, and said they are the ones objecting to the bad zoning imposed on these properties; and said she feels the previous comments were not relevant to tonight's agenda, and said she supports revoking the zoning that was put in without her consent or notification. Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 8 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 13. Dan Allison. N 1203 Warren Road: said the man who spoke about a survey for $18,000; he said we have a new council that told citizens what they were going to do and they have been doing it by dismantling the SARP, that the voters voted for that; he said they voted in favor of these council people to tear SARP down; and said we have people out here who must not have listened to that vote, and said he thinks it was a 60% or somewhere close, of 23,000 voters; and said the survey that Mr. Hall talks about would have 500 people phone-called; said he has lived here all his life and has voted every time, that he voted for these councilmembers; and said contrary to what a former councilperson said, he feels the steamroller needs to get moving so we can get this SARP thing done, we can get some businesses going and some tax dollars so the citizens don't have to keep watching taxes go up, and said he hopes council gets this done tonight. 14. Allen Hinkle, 11916 E Spra ue: said when the previous council "did the SARP thing" he attended consecutive meetings for eight months; said he kept some statistics and said a high 80% of the people did not want the SARP ar what it was doing, and said they didn't find out about it until late; and said a lot were not invited to the stakeholders meetings; and this zoning created a"zoning czar" and properties that were commercial in the zoning were turned into residential, so then if the city wants to by imminent domain take these properties, then they'd only have to pay residential fees instead of the commercial value; and said it was a very messy situation; he said Ian Robertson was the chairman of the Planning Commission who was hand-picked, and said there was no way in "God's green earth that he could honestly make the recommendation to the previous city council, and tell them, oh, yeah, this is what the citizens want. I'll tell you what happened in this room right here off in the corner, people would come in with their attorneys and their plans, and they were really objecting to it; the Planning Commission, and they were ushered over in a corner and say shh, shh, shh, we're going to cut you a deal; we're going to cut you a deal, and this went on month after month and any of you that were here saw it." He said this is a real sorry process and not the way it should have been; and said "he [Ian Robertson] was hand-picked by the previous mayor of the previous city council and this is what happened and this is how it went down; and then it gets down here to where the rubber meets the road and we see oh, this is not good, I just lost all my property rights and worse yet, I lost the value of my property, and as people said, this property has been in their family for generations; and so we witnessed this; and then there was a vacancy on the city council and surprise, surprise, Ian Robertson was picked to fill that, but he had to stand for election and he was thankfully not re-elected. I have nothing against him except the lack of honesty of all those meetings and then coming to the previous city council and saying, oh yeah, this is what the people want. It's not what the people want and a high 80% said no, and they said it a lot stronger than just no. For what this city council is doing to undo this mess, sure there was a lot of money spent, but there was a lot of money wasted and said he's written articles in the paper and testified here, we don't want a Three-Sisters Oregon, or a Leavenworth, Washington; this is Spokane Valley." He said he's been on Sprague Avenue for 43 years; there's been criminal activity, been death, drugs, he watched businesses come and go on either side of his practice just across the street from here; and said you could question why the businesses close; but said it could have been a lot of things such as illness or death; and if you want to get it going, you get the zone changed and get it back to where it was; and he mentioned a new building close to Dick Behm's business, the expansion on the Rosauer's property, Winco and all the businesses on the couplet on Appleway, and said there's millions of dollars worth of new business, and said we heard all this testimony over the last several years that no one would build there, it's going to the "rats and nobody could make a buck on it" and said that just isn't so; and he applauded this council. 15. Gordon Curry, 1423 Trent: said he doesn't think this meeting would have been necessary if the proper zoning would have been left the way it was several years ago, so the businesses could do as they wanted to, and if not the correct zoning, they could go in and possibly get it changed; and said he doesn't think it is fair to be beating on one man who has property who has a company that wants to come in and create several jobs, probably 100 jobs or better, whether it's a used car lot or whatever business so long as it is legitimate; and said that Mr. Gothmann has some opinions on some businesses, but said if it is a legitimate business it's a good business and said we should not have to put him through the ringer two or Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 9 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 three hits and keep worrying him about whether he can do it or not; and said he applauds Council for trying to get this straightened out and that he doesn't think this thing should have ever had to have been here. 16 As read by Clerk Bainbridge from James Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin: From James Pollard: "Mayor Towey and members of the Council. I attended most public meetings following the city's incorporation. I don't remember things as they are being portrayed by current supporters of the SARP. I do remember two things very clearly. The last time I spoke before the former City Council I expressed concern over their wanting to spend several hundred thousand dollars for architectural concepts of a new city hall while so many community needs were not being met. They spent the money. I then remember voting, with thousands of other citizens, for positive change. We voted in councilmembers whom we believed would serve the citizens. Council members who would actually consider the negative impacts from restrictive zoning on Sprague Avenue. Council members who would ask why our city would incur endless debt from leasing land for our city center, when the city already owns property at a much more appealing site. I support this emergency ordinance. Thank you. James J. Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue." 17 As read by Citv Clerk Bainbridge: from Susan Scott, 205 Evergreen Road:"Dear Mayor Towey and Council. As children we were always warned never to take candy from a stranger. As adults we would be well warned to never accept revitalization from a bureaucracy. Revitalization was used as the bait to lure the unsuspecting into initially supporting a plan that would ultimately steal property rights, encumber growth, threaten investment and collapse retirement plans. One of the more obnoxious goals of the SARP has been the introduction of the new form based code style of zoning. Cities across the county are battling the negative effects of this dangerous planning fad most often sold under the guise of revitalization. Existing landowners and businesses are being pushed out to make way for the new and improved, classier, high end development designed more for municipal bragging rights than actual revitalization. Check out the fate of the Burien City Center project on the west side of our state. Under this ordinance the city center district will be returned to mixed use, a designation it had under the painstakingly constructed 2007 comprehensive plan. The very same 2007 comp plan zoning that addressed the issue of "too much retail," a by-product of the zoning inherited from the county when the city incorporated. The kicker is that the brand new `07 comp plan zoning was never allowed an opportunity to solve any of the problems on the corridar. A dubious "overwhelming mandate" for a city center was immediately inserted as an excuse to launch the SARP. The need for SARP was further overstated by predicating it on the discarded county zoning instead of the city's new and improved comp plan zoning. Heavy handed top down mandates and restrictions are prone to failure. Lift the burden of the restrictions for the entire city center district. I urge you to support this emergency ordinance and thank you for your courage in honoring campaign promises and forging ahead with a vision that recognizes valley culture and free markets. Thank you. Susan Scott, 205 Evergreen Rd." 18. Craig Eggleston, 11810 East 18`h Avenue: stated that he has been in Spokane Valley over 40 years, and said he was a member of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for three years, and he heard many hours of testimony from his neighbors; and said while council has listened to many, they need to also listen to the citizens who live here; he said a survey was mentioned; and he explained that in 2004 a "Community Preference Survey" far the city of Spokane Valley was conducted by a local research firm, Clearwater. He said the survey was conducted from March 18, to April 7, 2004, which he said is only thirty months after September 11, and that this survey indicates one of the biggest concerns of the residents was the economy; he said there was a huge financial crash after 9/11 and businesses came to a halt; and said the executive summary points out that the majority respondents, 83% thought Spokane Valley was headed in the right direction. He read: "Concerns about the economy and planning related matters were among the top issues respondents identified as facing the city." He said "62% of respondents indicated that having a recognizable downtown or city center was important to the future of Spokane Valley." He said these are not developers, these are your neighbors; and said regarding who goes to these businesses, he said the customers are those who live here in the valley. He said that 74% Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 10 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 said that public money to develop a city center was appropriate, and only 2% strongly opposed the use of public money to create a city center. Mr. Eggleston asked Council if they were listening to the 2% or the 74%. He said that over half of the respondents felt that the University Center area would be the most ideal location for the Spokane Valley City Center; taking further data from the survey, he said that 74% of the people of Spokane Valley do not believe that Spokane Valley has a community identiTy, and that having an identity was important to the future success of the Spokane Valley, and said that 76% indicated that. He further explained that the survey explains that other locations were sought out at this time; Mirabeau Point, only 18% of the people felt it was an appropriate location. He said when he asked the people who testified at the Planning Commission during his tenure, as well as a life-long resident of Spokane Valley, he said they don't want a city center on the river; that they would rather have that as pristine or public parks as much as possible, and said moving it there is not what the people want; and said he can vouch for three years of hearing testimony. He said 52% of the people wanted the city center located at U-City. Regarding commute time, he said less than 50% had a commute less than fifteen minutes; 32% had a commute less than fifteen to thirty minutes, and only seven or eight percent had a commute of thirty minutes or more; and said the way the Spokane design was created was from the people in Olympia wanting to get people downtown before the Spokane Valley was created; they wanted to get people downtown to work downtown, and said that is not the case now as we have our own city; the decision to incorporate was well established, and the majority of the Spokane valley residents work and do their business out here in the Valley; and said it is the customers of these businesses that Council should be listening to; and said if the city center is not identified, businesses will be pushed out onto Pines, McDonald, Evergreen, Sullivan based on testimony he has heard from independent reports and findings from experts in these areas. He said the public wants a community center to give us an identity; he said SARP needs adjustment but throwing it out is like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and is irresponsible. He said throughout all the testimony he heard, he has not heard about offering any of the businesses tax breaks or tax incentives, which is something which can be addressed. Mr. Eggleston also said he is personally offended by the comments made concerning Ian Robertson, who was awarded the Citizen of the Year and who is a pastor; and he asked Council to take that into consideration of those making those types of comments about a person's character, or smearing a good man's name. He asked council to throw out the ordinance as this is not an emergency, and said there are a lot of questions regarding the motives of why this is taking place, as it seems to be more in the interest of developers and not the people of Spokane Valley. 19 Karla Kaley, business address 10516 E Main: she urged Council to stop and not approve this emergency ordinance; said she has been before council and the planning commission previously, and by reference is including all those other statements, and said further, if Council kills the revitalization plan, which is the only plan we have for a city center, that council won't have another shot at a city center; she said she realizes the city center is not the same as locating the city hall; but a city center is the heart, vital place, identity and focus people understand and believe in when they think of the city; and said without a city center, there is no identity. She said the area is ripe for revitalization, identity and growth; that all statistics show we are growing and are ripe for new money and new development; and if we stick to a plan with vision and direction, we "get to play with the big kids" the Fortune 500 companies that she said she thinks would like to relocate here; and she asked why are we going backwards. She said that she didn't get it before, but thinks she gets it now: it's because council has a different plan; she said that is a plan that concerns her as it doesn't appear to include quality growth and development of 1,118 individually privately held properties that front or are along the Sprague/Appleway Corridor; she said she believes council wants to leave it with what we have, with what the free market has already given us, which is the mixed use zoning which she said "lead to the declining, visually unappealing properties lining our city's backbone" and said it is the geographic center of our city. She said it appears council doesn't want us to benefit from good planning, and she offered comments made from Mr. Grafos that were in the October 30, 2010 in the Spokesman Review: "Sprague Avenue is a business route for new and existing businesses of all types it provides opportunity for hundreds of small businesses who can't afford the high prices and rents of other areas." Ms. Kaley said she feels we have just been called the Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 11 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 low-rent district; and said without the protection and direction of good planning, the low-rent district is not far from the red-light district, which she said she is concerned about. She said there are major portions of the SARP that could be revisited and parts she doesn't like, but now we are looking at no plan; and said this is not an emergency or about auto-related issues or they would have scooped up and supported any one of the two-times before modified ordinance proposed by Mr. Bill Gothmann. She said further she has grave concerns this is about other motivations; about wanting new, about building at CenterPlace, and said she is concerned about building on some of the most important, valuable open space we have; others protect their open space and we propose to build on it, right by the river; she said when everyone else in the United States are tightening their belts and revising their values, re-modeling and re-building their houses instead of buying new, someone is proposing to build new. She said this is about being potentially second class and not being worthy of good planning. "Imagine" she said, "if this is what your city council is really feeling and saying, can you imagine that this is what they're projecting in business meetings where people want to come and relocate, or maybe have a business here and the Sprague/Appleway Corridor is low rent." She said that has to be damaging business potential; and said she respects council, but is concerned their actions are reckless, irresponsible and that they are setting the city up far failure as they further de-evaluate the properties in that area already struggling. She said a city center designation is usually a higher classification and you get more money for your property when located in a city center; and she urged council to get more information and said she doesn't think this is what the citizens want. 20. John Carroll, 1207 S Rotchford Drive: Regarding the comments concerning Ian Robertson, Mr. Carroll said he sat with Mr. Robertson on the Planning Commission for many years, and Ian "bent over backwards to listen to everybody " and made sure their voices were heard fairly and included in the discussions. Mr. Carroll said that last week Mr. Grafos said that many of the elements of the ciTy center weren't present, and Mr. Carroll said he agreed with that as if they were present, we wouldn't be having this debate; he said the city center to which he refers doesn't include a city hall or a courthouse or a library, but one which is dense retail, vertically and harizontally, and includes lots of retail and specialty shops of all types, professional offices, dining options from fast food to fine dining, entertainment venues such as movies and theaters and clubs, is pedestrian friendly with small blocks and lots of streets and cross streets and wide sidewalks, and includes public transportation and centralized parking; he said these city centers would be sought out by our residents for special nights out, by visitors for dining experience or entertainment, and said that is what a city center is all about. He said our designated city center is a plan to develop these features and elements and this plan is for the future and for future generations to build on; it includes development standards which can change often, but is a plan which can grow and develop our city as the people want; it gives developers a choice. He said currently the designated city center is about 184 acres; there are 284 acres of mixed use commercial that council wants to roll that back into; and said if there's nothing going on in that zone, why would council want to downzone the city center back into that area; he said the designated city center won't impact this generation but would impact future generations; and said that city center holds the promise of hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars added to our local economy; and said the responsibility that Council has is for all the citizens of this city; and said the population that voted for this council is only 15% of the population, and said council didn't mention the 14% or 12,000 that voted against this council; he said while not a big difference, the important thing is the 40,000 who didn't vote, and many of those who didn't vote because they are not old enough, but they are the ones who would enjoy our city center; and said the primary question is, what do we want to leave for future generations; and said Council is turning down opportunities and a future, for a job at a used car lot. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:50 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Towey invited further public comments; and no other comments were offered. Mayor Towey said he appreciates all the comments tonight and appreciates people getting involved as that is so important. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we had an educated, knowledgeable person a few minutes ago who recited Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 12 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 a litany of business types, and Deputy Mayor Schimmels said at least two-thirds of those are not allowed in that existing city center, said he could be wrong but said he doesn't think so; and added that when he "saw the library vote go down, amongst a few other things, irregardless of what you see on the surveys, and I like the surveys to a point and I respect them to a point, but I could see the downfall with the public by not supporting the library; I have never been in favor of putting a city hall there, but a library is another story, and I believe that started the downhill slide." Councilmember Gothmann said these are difficult issues, and the whole thing starts with the premise of should we have zoning at all, and said if we didn't have zoning we wouldn't have this problem and anyone could build anything anywhere they wanted; and once the city has the autharity to zone, some of the private sector investment is taken away, and when that transfers from the private to the public sector, the public sector realizes they are put in a position of becoming a supplier of zones; and he gave as an example the issue of determining how much residential, commercial, or industrial zones to supply; he said he heard some say to let the free enterprise system handle it, but said the problem is we have taken that away when the city went to zoning. Further, Councilmember Gothmann said "there has been a proposal before us now to do away with the city center zone and to do it with an emergency ordinance; and so I asked myself what are the gains. One of the gains are uses for U-City. There's been a lot of talk about additional uses, first of all there's something like 84 uses common between city center and the mixed use zones, there are an additional, depending on how you count, 30 or 35 zones that are different, there are things that you cannot do in city center that you can do in mixed use" and he read several of those types of uses such as light assembly, carpenter shop, machine shop, medicaUdental manufacturer, sign painting, outdoor storage; and auto-related uses such as auto sales, painting, parts, carwash, fueling station and show room; and "in addition to that, there's housing that now if we do away with city center, these will be allowed in city center, and under city center zoning they wouldn't: assisted living, bed and breakfast, child care greater than thirteen children, duplex, single family," and said regarding single family, that ordinance that passed sometime ago by the council put single family homes in our entire city in commercial spaces are now considered conforming uses. He said "how about other uses in city center, would you like a kennel in city center, is that appropriate, how about a greenhouse in city center, and keep in mind city center is supposed to be a place, where Mr. Carroll did an outstanding job of describing what it is, it is a high density place for high density businesses." Councilmember Gothmann said of the 25 to 35 uses, there are some that should be permitted in city center, but those are the uses we are talking about tonight; so you gain those things; and if we pass this ordinance you gain jobs if CarMax settles here; and said one of the losses would be cross-streets, and another loss would be an opportunity for a city center in the center of the city, which is a possible loss of business, reputation, and future loss of jobs. He said the "$42 million mandate" will not change, he said it was really $35 million, and of that it will still cost $26 million to extend Appleway and still cost $9 million to refurbish Sprague; and said the $42 million people were worried about causing an increase in taxes, he said all of that money comes from grants or Real Estate Excise Tax, and none of it would come from properiy tax; and regarding cross- streets, he said developers pay for their own streets; he said we are still paying $450,000 annually for the lease of the current city hall, and said or we could take that money and apply it to a purchase. City Councilmember Gothmann said contrary to what has been mentioned in the past, SARP was not adopted by an emergency ordinance; that Ordinance 09-012, which adopted the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan was adopted June 16, 2009; that there may have been some emergency ordinance passed later to "make it work" and said there were more than 70 meetings to adopt the plan, and this is the third meeting to do away with city center; he said it was stated that we were going to lease space for a city hall, and said that is incorrect; and said there was $5.2 million in the bank to purchase land at U-City; and there was an agreement to work toward an agreement signed by both parties for the purchase of land in that area; he said he feels there is an emergency in the western part of this zone, but not an emergency to adopt all these things in the other part, and said he cannot support an emergency ordinance and feels it should be done in proper course when the issue comes up in three or four months. Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 13 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 Councilmember Grafos commented that there are businesses that are affected by the SARP; in the study that Mr. Eggleston referred to, there were "177 respondents" but stated that the businesses he is concerned about include nonconforming businesses such as McDonald's, Rosauer's, Firestone, Les Schwab, A-Z Rentals; and said the main thing is that the only way this plan would work is to restrict properiy rights of all the properties through zoning on the entire corridor, and said that is exactly what's happened; he said Ms. Karla Kaley said "it was all about the money and increasing the value of their property" and that is correct, he said it does, and the way you do that is you restrict the zoning uses of all those properties up and down the corridor; he said in the Comprehensive Plan it states "the property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions pursuant to state and federal law" and said he believes that this zoning plan and the SARP restricts those property rights, and will vote for the ordinance. Councilmember Grassel stated that the emergency zone change is not for one individual property owner or for another car lot, and is not payback for an individual for the campaign, that all those who ran in the campaign last year put their own individual money in the campaign and went out to raise funds; she said there are 83 commercial, 56 residential, 23 vacancies, and 33 multi-family duplex properties in the city center zone; and said again this is not being done for one or two property owners; she said while mixed use designation allows car lots, there are a number of development opportunities currently not allowed under city center zoning; and said each of the seven zone designations has had a meeting through the summer and fall of 2010 to address issues and questions, including the city center property owners, and at that city center meeting, the owners or property owner representatives asked for the zoning to be changed; and said not only has council received testimony since last October, but has received private e-mails for and against, heard from a number of citizens and said council appreciates all the input both for and against; and said at the end of the day, this is about property rights, and to hold the property owners hostage through this zoning is not only unfair but is a taking of property much like imminent domain, but without the benefits of receiving just compensation; and said if Council wanted a city center, they would have gone through the proper process; and she said the Convention and Visitor's Bureau will present a design to the voters, tell them how much it will cost, they'll work with the business owners in that location, and then take the issue to the voters; but said here in Spokane Valley, we designated a location without the funding provided to purchase or create the infrastructure, and said even in the survey, it was asked if people wanted the city center at University City, but what was not in the survey was mention that the zoning would include residential homes from Main to Fourth, whereas she said most people thought of that area as the old University Shopping Center; and said there was some deception in the survey given to the community; she said she has no problem in conducting another survey, but said she will make "darn sure that the citizens she represents understand what it is that they are being asked on the survey, clearly with the numbers provided." Councilmember Grassel said as a business owner, she would ask everyone to consider the harm that has been done to these property owners, and to recognize that we have other options to enhance the city without trampling on the rights of any of our citizens; and said therefore her conscience will not allow her to go forward with the zoning, and will therefore support the ordinance because the property owners in the city center zone take priority over any other comments. Mr. Craig Eggleston stated he had a point of information, and Mayor Towey recognized Mr. Eggleston. Craig Eggleston said Councilmember Grafos referred to that survey and said there were only 174 respondents to that survey, but that is incorrect, and said over hundreds of people responded to that survey. Councilmember Grafos said he believed it was 400 in the survey, but only 177 came back and said "it's right here in the comprehensive plan." Mr. Eggleston said "it's also right here and I'm looking at it" and he said Mr. Grafos is incorrect. Councilmember Gothmann said the survey was done by telephone not by mail, and there were 400 respondents; and regarding the restriction of property rights, zoning itself is a restriction of property rights, which dictates what property owners can and cannot do; but the question is, how restrictive should those be; and he said that is a legitimate question; and said he would agree there are certain uses he'd like to see changed in city center, such as grocery stores and drive-ins, and said those changes can be made by a code text amendment. Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 14 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 Vote by Acclamation to approve the ordinance: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Opposed.• Councilmember Gothmann. Motion carried. 3 Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-002 Amending Zoning Code and Map (Citv Center - Kathy McClun~ After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the ordinance. Community Development Director McClung said this is the corresponding change to zoning that relates to the ordinance just passed that changed the comp plan and map. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation to approve the ordinance: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmember Gothmann. Motion carried. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; none were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. Solid Waste Update - Neil Kersten/Deputy Mayor Schimmels Public Works Director Kersten said tonight's report is a precursor to next week's February 2 and 3 Solid Waste Summit, and he gave an overview of that agenda, and said the primary aspect of discussion will be regional governance; and he briefly discussed some of the background documents. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System was formed in 1988; the original entities were the City of Spokane and Spokane County; later in 1989 interlocal agreements were sent out to nine entities including Fairchild AFB; that in 2003 Liberiy Lake and Spokane Valley each signed an interlocal giving a total of fourteen entities; he said the Waste-to-Energy Plant was built about twenty years ago and the bonds will be retired this year; that two committees were established, the SWAC or Solid Waste Advisory Committee mandated by state law with a Board that answers to Spokane County; and there is also a Spokane Regional Solid Waste Liaison Board which advises the City of Spokane; and said the City of Spokane cannot raise the tipping fees or spend more than $1 million on an aggregate amount and other things that must be ratified by Spokane County, which comes through the boards. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said in 2011 our city and the City of Liberty Lake's Interlocals will expire unless there are outstanding bonds; three more entities' interlocals will expire in 2015 and three more in 2016; and added that the City of Spokane Valley also has an agreement with Sunshine Disposal for commercial refuse services, and with Waste Management for commercial services and residential garbage. Further, he explained that we just tried to complete since 2007 a comprehensive plan that must be formulated every five years which has taken us from May 2009 through January 2011 and said we are still lacking one signature; so therefore the Department of Ecology cannot review this plan and accept that; and said the only good is, our five-year date starts maybe this or next month. He explained that we have a big decision, that Wheelbrator, who under contract manages and takes care of the burner, that contract expires this November, so the City of Spokane is after all the members at this point to add a three-year extension that would somewhat meld into the expiration of the 2014-2015 and so forth; and said there are some technical language problems in the original contract, it entails $18 million to do some repairs, and one could look at this and say "Well, what are we doing here just to appease the contractor out there, but there might be a little of that, but really it is expected maintenance that will just be condensed into a shorter timeframe." He said all entities within the County have been invited to next week's summit and he encouraged Councilmembers to review the Briefing Book and to bring that to the Summit. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said "the aim regarding governance is to possibly include all cities within the County in having a say with the City of Spokane rather than the City of Spokane dictating to us, it might not be bad but it really isn't good or great" and said we help pay the bills and we need to give input, and said he feels progress has been made in that all members are coming together to discuss the issue. Deputy Mayor Schimmels also stated that if the City of Spokane would go out and buy the $18 million in bonds within the next ninety days, which he said he is sure they will, then that will extend our contract out possibly Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 15 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 another ten years; and said the basic thought is when these Interlocals are extended, they would all go out at the same time with the same cutoff of twenty years. City Manager Jackson said our legal department has an opinion in terms of whether we would be bound to the contract if bonds were issued, and said our contract does expire in November of this year, and said these are the important issues Council will need to consider, and said there are a myriad of legal matters dealing with the contract, but now it is up to our City if we want to continue being part of the regional system, which is the first and basic question: are all the partners willing to work toward a regional solution; and as you read through the material you will see ideas posed by the City and the County that appear to be incompatible; and said this will not be a simple matter to reach agreement, that the matter is very complex and we will continue to work with our legal counsel and may even engage additional counsel; and he said staff will prepare a notebook to contain the materials on this subject, so council and appropriate staff will have that readily accessible for the February 2-3 summit. At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed, to extend the meeting another thirty minutes. 5. Procedure for Filling Council Vacancy - Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said the proposed procedure is similar to the process followed in 2009 when we experienced a council vacancy, and that process worked well. After briefly going over the procedure, there were no objections to bring this issue back next week for a motion consideration to formally consider approving the process. 6. Advance Agenda - Mayor ToweX Councilmember Gothmann said he appreciated Rose Dempsey's service, that she brought a human-ness to council especially in dealing with people with disabilities, she was a good listener, polite, and he wanted to publicly thank her for her service. INFORMATION ONLY: The STEP Paveback, Fire Department Quarterly Report, and Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m. ATTEST: - Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 16 of 16 Approved by Council: 02-08-2011 GENERAL PUBLIC C OMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 25, 2011 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please si n in if ou wish to make ublic comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS ABOUT N ~ ~ 4-1 0 ~ Y~^C S & r ,),A aL T-e 0 S U-7 . S rR i,c~ ' c,~Z _ 5 F: , • ~ ~'1 i%- ~~i v ec.' 1' ~ C~%t ~ ? ~ y ~ ✓ { ~j Z cS v'~ ~ ~ 4. z , <~3- l_, ~ C-~~ ~ GREATER SPOKANE VJULLY CHAMBER- lto_j~ O F C O M M E R C E / ~~f'ctrr: [?rmun Smiih. Chaimun of t6r Board. DC'b°gi°ee^ lanuary 25, 2011 Faa,nna si,,.,. Presidcnl & CGO tiansyllulmzs,Chainnanlilrn Spokane Valley City Council ^°~~~a Uliliti" 11707 E. Sprague Avenue va'.>'°a>da.'rt's°'ri. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 SpiAane Teachtn Credit Union Lee Ca K,n, secmt1ry. Miralxau Park Hutel Greater Spokane Valley Chamber eoard Action re: Regional Transportation Beneft District Kcvin Rasler. Vice Chair, Inland Gmpirr Palvr Co. Snwtl~•,RU~~lfs~~~~.vic~• c~~:~,r. MayorTowey and City Council Members: I'ashion Carpcis RanJyNuhlr.McmbcrAtLargc, Vld ItS GOVerlllTllllt Affalr$ COIT11Tllttee, the Valley Chamber Board at its December meeting Tlximas, Dean & NosAins Dr. Philip Rudy, UDS adopted a motion as follows: , Past Chairman nf thc (ioard Drrcc.<orr: "The Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce recommends to the City of Spokane R:ury Rakrr, Rakzr Cnnslruclion Valley and to the City of Liberty Lake that they pass a resolution supporting the formation of Dcnnis Barts a County-wide Transportation Benefit District. We also recommend that these cities adopt an , Valley Hnspiml R Medical Cemer Interlocal Agreement for Establishment of a County-wide Transportation Benefit District as B«ngeek provided forin Chapter36.3 RCW.° Mnumain Wesl Hank Dick 6nntley. KXLY Radiu (iruup We believe the formation of a Regional Transportation Benefit District (TBD) would help fill R,~n3 B cnris cla.► current funding gaps associated with our region's existing transportation infrastructure as cl:vk•STiiLR.Au<<,mo~ive well as future transportation improvements. According to a recent Spokesman Review Jit°'}ai'eY article, declining gasoline sales, along with increasingly demanding state and federal policies Rus:mcrs Supxnnarkrts. Inc. %liY.e Dale>si,PrcstntalionSolutiuu, regulating distribution oftransportation dollars, are making it more difficult than ever for lolmGuarixo.MDlMarketing jurisdictions to fund transportation maintenance and that a regional approach and ,o„n,,>hnson consensus may help sustain higher levels of funding in the future. And perhaps most I.ilxnylaAeSpla,h importantly, the TBD would raise dollars to be used only on local projects as opposed to "i"zK'°g.s'°°z'»°r"Kra">- raising the state gas tax to be shared throughout the state. Shawn Lindhnrst. ADM Milling Company. c-inara sniela., During countless trips to Washington D.C. and Olympia, our region's delegation has been Grap6ic8usintssSysttni, told repeatedly that federal funding would be awarded to communities where regionalism is viana wimi«, the top priority. It is vital to continue to work as one region. Safeguard Business S}'srem, s `Qfjr Thank you for your consideration. F,'Wunna Shau, ('CP;, MA. IObL Ch:Hti Prtsidrm & CLiO John Petlerson, MHA. MIM, IOM Sincerely, Direstnr of Bosincss Drvclupnxnt Sut Ruhnak Offiee Manaecr AnitaCramrr NdC1Cy HOlI71e5 Lxecuriw n.5i.umi Chair, Government Affairs Committee Jeun FIotiJ ArcounLmt, patt-timz 9507 E Sprague • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 •(509) 924-4994 • Fvc (509) 924-4992 www.spokanevalleychamber.org • info@spokanevalleychamber.org 4~~M~ssmx~ oF NCOA Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America Lilac City Chapter #1116 • P.O. Box 93 • Veradale, WA 99037 20 January, 2011 Members of the City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprayue Ave. City of Spokane Valley, WA 99206 For Council MPQting of 25 Jan 1-1- Dear Council Members: For many years, I have been looking at a vacant property I've considered to be ideal for a city park. The size of the property is that of a city block and in addition to being a city park, it could accornodate signage other attracrive feature - welcoming travelers exiting off I-90. But more than being just a park, this site could easily accommodate a veterans' memo- rial dedicated to those of the City of Spokane Valley who have served', are serving, and who will serve in the defense of our country. As I envisioned a mountain of cost-related issues to overcome, I've been he- sitant to advance this issue to more than just an idea. However, it was by coincidence that I had occassion to meet Councilman GOTHMANN on an unrelated matter, and I seized the opportunity to broach this issue ofp/veterans' mem6- rial. It was Mr. GOTHMANN who made me aware of a'triangular-sraped' pro- perty that Spokane County had recen.tly 'given' to the City, and the City-;has no plans for this property other than to possibly place welcome siynage on it. I had always assumed that this gifted property is part of the property upon which sits Display House. And while I agree that this property is ideally situated for some type of welcome feature, I also4otential for my proposal of a veterans' memorial of some kind_. _ Use of this property would lagely eliminate those cost-related concerns which have held me from advancing this issue. I appear before you this evening to ask that you consider incorporating my proposal into your use of this properk-` ty. Sincer.ely, I am willing to serve onecommittee the pur- ~ pose of which would br to determine such is- ~ sues as feasibility, cost, design, etc, and ;._F.'Goftr*net to regort to tYle Council as directed. Chapter Chairman Chartered by the United States Congress D J HUME Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 509-435-3108 (V) 509-467-0229 (F) 1-25-11 Spokane Valley City Council E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ref: City Center emergency resolution and map change Mayor, members of the Council: I represent Harlan Douglass, who owns 17 parcels within the entire SARP Overlay with several parcels within the Gity Center designation. We wish to go on record in support of the Council's action to declare an emergency and thus remove the City Center designation immediately from the plan and replace with Mixed Use Avenue. Furthermare, upon review of the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations, we find their facts totally in error and unsupportive of their conclusion for the following reasons: 1) Contrary to the Planning Commission's findings; there does not need to be a City Center designation to create a core grouping of governmental services. One need only observe the fact that all existing services emerged without SARP overlay zoning and EPF provisions of the zone code transcend the land use plan dictates of aoning, thus allowing a city center for governmental services just about anywhere. 2) The Comprehensive Plan leaves in place adequate goals and policies concerning the creation of a city center of services even without SARP. Note that these goals and policies were adopted in advance of SARP, so SARP is not essential to the implementation of city services nor does the elimination of the City Center designation adversely impact the comprehensive plan. 3) The Planning Commission wants to ignore the substantial change of conditions (economic recession) and let time prove the value of the City Center element. We believe the City and all tax payers of this town are at risk to fiscaf obligations that cannot be futfilled; namely the construction of City Hall at this location and to these performance standards during this inopportune time of a recession that has no solid indications of ending anytime soon. 4) The Planning Commission is in error in finding that there is no mapping error. In fact there is a mapping error when you consider the current lack of economic support for its implementation. The corrtext of its creation was pre-recession when business was booming and tax revenues were aplenty. 5) There does not need to be an identifiable deficiency in the comprehensive plan in order to approve an "emergency" action of the Council. In fact the removal of City Center just takes us back to square one of the adoptian of the comprehensive plan before any City Center location was identfied. 6} The Planning Commission found that the City Center zone was compatible and did not impact adjoining zones. When in fact the real issue is: will the Mixed Use Avenue zone be compatible with adjacent zones and the answer is yes because the adjacent zones are Mixed Use or Community Boulevard which coexist side by side already. 7) The Planning Commission finds that the elimination of the City Center designation will pre-empt the selection of a future site in this vicinity because car sales will be allowed in the new Mixed Use category. The PC overiooks the fact that used car lots come and go monthly and are one of the teast impacts to alternate new uses due to the lack of significant improvements for car sales. On the other hand a quality new car dealership does contain significant improvements but it also provides substantially more revenues to the city than most other commercial uses. 8) The Planning Commission believes that the elimination of the City Center gives no basis or guidance for economic devefopment. If that were the case, why did the Planning Commission and former Council adopt the comprehensive plan with its set vf goals and policies for city center? 9) To the best of my recollection, there was no public testimony that would have generated the Planning Commission Findings of Fact, which begs the question, when and where did these thoughts come from? They certainly weren't "found" at their hearing. Based upon the above, the Planning Commission fails to produce a single valid fact against the emergency resolu#ion and therefore erred in their conclusion that the proposed amendment is not in the interest of the citizens of the Spokane Valley, and inconsistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 2 It is seldom the case where Courtcil directs the Planning staff and Commission to facilitate their legislative will and action. Staff has done their best to accommodate this Council driven request and in contrast, the Planning Commission has ignored their appointed duty to be facilitators of the Council as required by SVMC 18.10.050 (i) namely to perForm such other duties or powers as may be corrferred by ordinance, resolution or motion of the Citx Council, {emphasis mine}. Such disrespectFul action and disregard for their proscribed duties should not go unnoticed. This legislative body has every right to overturn the Planning Commission's erroneous findings and recommendations. I trust this provides some valid counter-points to ponder if you do so. Finally, the public outcry and testimony at this hearing by and large will miss the point at hand, namely the emergency that confronts this City if something isn't done to usurp the eminent obligation for fiscal expenditures when it is no longer timely or prudent to do so. Most of the testimany will be about the one,way couplet issue or the need to give SARP a chance. That debate is forthcoming in the annual amendment cycle. This is not about SARP, iYs about fiscal responsibility and we commend your wisdom and boldness to recognize a sleeping giant when you see one. Vght Ily submi ed, ume Land Use Planning Services Copy: Harlan Douglass Enclosure: PC Findings and Recommendations 3 I. Grafos is correct - Many of the elements for city center are not present A. A city center is a small urban area dense, vertically and horizontally with: 1. Retail shops of all kinds 2. Specialty shops 3. Business activities 4. Professional offices 5. Dinning, fast food to fine dining 6. Entertainment venues: movies, clubs, theaters, B. Pedestrian Friendly 1. Small Blocks - Streets and cross streets 2. Wide Sidewalks 3. Public transportation 4. Centralized parking C. City Centers are sought out by visitors 1. Unique shopping experience 2. Unique dining experience 3. Unique entertainment experience 4. Usually not seeking a city hall or courthouse. II. Our designated City Center is a plan to develop those elements. A. The plan is the basis for future generations to build on. 1. Development standards 2. Necessary streets and cross streets 3. Give developers a choice i. 246 acres of mixed use avenue ii. 185 acres of city center iii. Development at bargain basement prices. III. The designated City Center may not have much impact now but can mean many opportunities for future generations. B. The city center holds the promise of hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars to the local economy. C. Many of us won't see the city we are planning. D. Responsibility to look out for all citizens, now and future 1. 13000 votes against 15 % of current citizens 2. 12000 votes for 14% of current citizens 3. More importantly the significant number of the citizens who are too young to vote or not even born yet who will be affected by the presence or absence of a city center. 3. The primary question is what we want to leave for the generations that follow. IV. Summary D. High School Story E. Eliminating the designated City Center will destroy opportunities, will destroy choices for our future generations; Chris Bainbridge From: Lark, Inc. [info@larkdock.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:52 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: Public Comment for this evening. Chris, I am unable to attencl the city coullcil meeting tl-iis evening. titiTOtrld you please read the followulg inta the record during the public comment on the Elnergellcy Ordh-iance regarding elinlu-iation of the city center district in the siibarea plan? (I tried to keep it sllort.) 'T'han.k you. so mu.ch, Susan Scott Dear Mayor Towey and Council, As chiidren we were always warned never to take candy from a stranger. As adults we would be well warned to never accept revitalization from a bureaucracy. Revitalization was used as the bait to lure the unsuspecting into initially supporting a plan that would ultimately steal property rights, encumber growth, threaten investment and collapse retirement plans. One of the more obnoxious goals of the SARP has been the introduction of the new form based code style of zoning. Cities across the county are battling the negative effects of this dangerous planning fad most often sold under the guise of revitalization. Existing landowners and businesses are being pushed out to make way for the new and improved, classier, high end development designed more for municipal bragging rights than actual revitalization. Check out the fate of the Burien City Center project on the west side of our state. Under this ordinance the city center district will be returned to mixed use, a designation it had under the painstakingly constructed 2007 comprehensive plan. The very same 2007 comp plan zoning that addressed the issue of "too much retail a by-product of the zoning inherited from the county when the city incorporated. The kicker is that the brand new '07 comp plan zoning was never allowed an opportunity to solve any of the problems on the corridor. A dubious "overwhelming mandate" for a city center was immediately inserted as an excuse to launch the SARP. The need for SARP was further overstated by predicating it on the discarded county zoning instead of the city's new and improved comp plan zoning. Heavy handed top down mandates and restrictions are prone to failure. Lift the burden of the restrictions for the entire city center district. I urge you to support this emergency ordinance and thank you for your courage in honoring campaign promises and forging ahead with a vision that recognizes valley culture and free markets. Thank you. Susan Scott i 205 Evergreen Rd. 2 January 25, 2011 Mayor Towey and members of the Council, I attended most public meetings following the city's incorporation. I don't remember things as they are being portrayed by current supporters of the SARP. I do remember two things very clearly. The last time I spoke before the former City council I expressed concern over their wanting to spend several hundred thousand dollars for architectural concepts of a new City Hall while so many community needs were not being met. They spent the money. I then remember voting, with thousands of other citizens, for positive change. We voted in council members whom we believed would serve the citizens. Council members who would actually consider the negative impacts from restrictive zoning on Sprauge Avenue. Council members who would ask why our City would incur endless debt from leasing land for our City Center, when the City already owns property at a much more appealing site. I support this emergency ordinance. Thank You, James F. Pollard 17216 E. Baldwin Ave Spokane Valley, Wa. 99016 (509) 926-8899 Chris Bainbridge From: Mary Pollard [marjam17216@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:16 PM To: Chris Bainbridge; Dean Grafos; Tom Towey; Brenda Grassel; Bill Gothmann; Gary Schimmels; Bob McCaslin; marjam17216@msn.com Subject: City Center final jan 2011..doc Official public comment January 25, 2011 Official Public Comment Regarding the Emergency Ordinance to Amend the Comp Plan Map Dear Honorable Mayor Towey and Council Members, I heartily support releasing these properties from this Zoning. That's the only ethical thing to do. Let's remember we are not discussing park land. These are not public properties but privately owned. There is no moral high ground to covet and speculate with what doesn't belong to you. The phony emergency ordinance that enacted this mess you are addressing tonight was clearly an abuse of legislative authority when they realized they would lose their Council seats in the election. Let's remember that Constitutional free speech was threatened over objections to the City Center. The Planning Commission had two that voted against Mr. Carroll's assertions. The Library, the first anchor of the City Center was part of why it failed and thousands more signed for Disincorporation than voted the City into existence, dissatisfied with the City's totalitarian mode of operation, beyond anyone's financial resources to oppose. Our elected City Council is charged with protecting our constitutional rights and personal liberties. That is exactly what you are doing tonight. This emergency ordinance is needed to end a cruel game of lifeboat that this zoning put into practice without any life preserver. The findings and facts for rescinding this ordinance are indisputable. If business is not generating tax then essential services will have to be paid by taxing us more directly. We can't afford another tax. The devil is always in the details that show the zoning cannot ensure economic sustainability. It stifles with too many demands that crimps any notions of expansion. City Center could be called "Bigfoot" considering how it stomped its way over 200 acres of private property. These owners, saddled as nonconforming uses, won't be running with the wolves because of the high cost of staying in the race. Hard work and a promise of success is always a gamble. The amount of those wagers should be voluntary without reinventing the rules once the money laid down. Who cares about a City identity when most struggle to keep the identity of their name with their address? 1 When we suspend people's property rights - That's tyranny? I can't believe I have to say these things - What Country is this? Did we forget our pledge to liberty and justice for all. The opportunity for an investor to independently transform this area has not been removed. It's the bully stick of this zoning that must be abandoned. The pro-growth gamble that sent this nation into a tailspin was a result of bad public enabling policies. People hardly put stock in elections much less a Mr. Noodle chart of sticky dots from public meetings. These weren't ballots and who's the keeper of the dots anyway? No growth, no new money, no bankers or takers. Revenues dropping like a rock. What's in your pocket? My family personally experienced the betrayal of bad planning. No one should have to settle with loss. Plans already paid for, wrenched out of your hands. It is absolutely demoralizing to treat owners as if they don't exist. Who can be so selfish as to crow, "It's good for me!" Only God can create life out of death. Hypocrisy is agreeing to destroy others to achieve some advantage and call it good. A greed for more that manipulates the lives of others is indefensible. Our first duty is to love our neighbors as ourselves. What is an acceptable number to harm? Most businesses and home owners have their assets tied up in their property. Just because someone may own more than we do, doesn't entitle us to legislate being a community of pickpockets. That is class envy. They have no wiggle room. Their wallets aren't bulging. It doesn't belong to us. I challenge us as a community to stand and support our City Council . The anchor of the City Center lies in the hearts of all of us to choose to love, to temper ambition with thankfulness for what we already possess. Everything we want will come if we manifest justice a commitment to help those that struggle, if we manifest tolerance that has room for every dream. Our life's achievement on a spreadsheet will be forgotten but the legacy that chooses love over ambition is the only civic lesson will survive. The emergency before us is resolving to pull down the walls that divide us and look at policies through the lens of compassion and mercy. Spokane Valley first task is to build a City Center of relationships that recognize unquestioningly who is our neighbor. Mary Pollard 17216 E Baldwin Ave. Spokane Valley WA 99016 2 Spokane Valley City Council January 25, 2011 Comments My name is Peggy Doering at 11522 E. Sunview Circle.Spokane Valley. As a private citizen I am before you tonight to discuss the proposed Emergency Ordinance Zoning change. I have been attending the City Council meetings and listening to the review process. I have three concerns regarding this emergency amendment that I would like to share with you. The first concern is the language itsel£ When I think of an emergency, I think of a public safety concern, something that is an immediate danger to the citizens of the valley. This zone change has nothing to do with public safety, fire or police, natural disaster or lack of access by the citizens to an area that has been a common use area. As a City Council, I would think that this would be difficult to justify this zoning change as an emergency. I do believe that Councilman Schimmels was correct when he gave the "emergency" another name which was "opportunity". This is an opportunity for two individuals to transfer property with a zone change that would be favorable to a potential business which has been identified as a used car lot. This is not an emergency for the public good/public interests which the City Council should keep as its first concern. Mr. Pring, came before you last week, to assure you that there were no strings attached between the council and himself. Apparently, he has contributed to some of the council members' political campaigns. This was said with a friendly exchange between the City Council and Mr. Pring. This does place another burden of the Council. This is my second concern which is the appearance of fairness. The City Council in their governance manual does have a Section named Appearance of Fairness Doctrine which shall apply to those actions of the Council which are quasi judicial in nature. So, does this apply in this case? Even if it does not apply, to this proposed emergency ordinance before you, I think that fairness question has arisen in my mind. So, sometimes, we need to step back from a situation and have it reviewed through an objective lens and determine what appears to be fair to all average persons in the Spokane V alley. The third concern is that many of us in this room have participated in workshops, focus groups and given testimony to the planning commission, council to develop this SARP plan over a several years. I understand that it is going to be reviewed later this spring with the comprehensive plan amendments. Why declare an emergency? So, all this time invested by city staff, architects, business owners, engineers, STA, both city and county transportation departments, outside consultants such as ECoNorthwest will be tossed into the dead file because of an emergency request of two business owners who want a used car lot.. Those are my three concerns tonight. f /24/2U l 1 Ii3terc;sts of Spakar►e Caunty Regarding the Regional Solid Waste System Summit l. The altitnate boal of the Soard ofCounty Cominissioners is to provide tlie county rate payer a Sofici Waste Management System that is efftcient, etfective, environtnentally responsible and at the ieast possible cost to the rate payers. 2. Tlie Rebiotial Solid Waste System ("System") witl become an independent entity; Spokane County's preference is for a nornpratit corporation. It is anticipated that a new intertocal agreement will be prepared between the participants in the new System. 3. The System will be boverned by a Board of Directors that uniformly represents the iiiterests of ail participants in the System. 4. Decisions regarciing System policies and management will be made by the Board of Directors using a weighted voting structure that equitably represents the interests of all participants in the System 5, Tlie system will be financially independent from other municipal agencies in Spokane County. 6. System Employees and the System Director will report tQ the Board of Directors for the System. 7. Revenues will be derived from the System to adequately finance on-going cfosure ~ costs, for regional landfills. ' 8. The new interlocat agreement will assign the ownership of the Waste to Energy Facility, transfer stations in the Spokane Valley and at Colbert, as well as other equipment and assets. The assignment of ownership will be based in part an the participant's share of capacity in the system, as well as the participant's praportional share of past revenues used to pay for the facilities and assets. 9. A Spokane County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), as authorized under RCW 70.95.165, wi11 participate and assist in development of programs and policies in an advisory rote tv the Board of Directors for the new System, 10. The new interlocal agreement will address the ownership of the Waste to Energy Facility, transfer stations in the Spokane Vatley and at Colbert, as well as other equipment and assets. 11. A Spokane County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), as authorized under RCW 70.95.165, will participate and assist in development of programs and policies in an advisory role to the Board of Directars for #he new System. C 0 ~ ~ U m ~ C ~ oE a• ~ U c mc ~ ~ u aa UJ . ~ ~ . , r ~ o ~ O Y N cn s Er L 01 y~ N a C . QL cc •QL m 9t Un ` Q N / ~ u L•OrA `v ~ _ . . ~ ~ ~r/ / L - 0 m . oE ~ ~E co • ~ U C E E 9 ua"i iL 0 0 Z S S o S S o S o 0 - f~0 V N O 0~0 (~D V N ~ ~ tfl tfl Efl EA N► EA fA fA r I ~ ~ ~ +-----I-----'---~----'-----~ I I w J I ' Jl i a~ I a O vmi tn 9 L_ ~ ~ ~ M = a Y C, ~ ,a£_+ in 3 II. V! M ni 3 + a~ i ~ a I 9 e~ E ; > i U ~ + M 1 - -q g C 00 I G ~ ~ \ N~ I .9 v K~ a 4 ` M iA y ~ ~ U m - - - - - 1 I c ~ N ~ ~s ~ ti ( ` ~ ~ ,c N 9 , N o I ~ u~1 M I ~ LL ~J tA ~ ~ LL~Sr C O ` } I • ~ C ~ : L ! 9 s Al ~ ~ ~n = m z LL o a o~n ao ~ c n G'`~' oo --r N N tko i , c r, + ~ II,/~^ u x v I y+"'n I Y~ ~ o' J I / ~ I I ° V). I i ~o Ln I s f ~ in t E ti~y~~ I C t p I Y tcoh I O ~ ' 00 + u. N a ~ ° : o I N ~ m o I I I I ~ u~ z - - I - ~ - _ _ _ _ ~ i 3 N I~ + C H --F t ~ M ~ '...;7a~~~ . I., I I ~ m in + ~ - -r 1 o ~ I mo 00 t ~_o ~ 0 I Kn t~ 00 I 1.~_ L y ~~c~ ~ N ~ I oC + I + ~t I • NLn N _ ~ N ~ 3 o E ` cn o T~ N ~~.~-r :ooa ~ v ~ , ~ o - ~ I l7 S ~ . I a lC0 ~ T q / ~ I ~ ~ ` r` ~ W ~--_~V' r~ ~ - RCW 42.12.030: Term of person elected to fill vacancy. Page 1 of 1 _ ~ r{7 ..r . WASHINGTON t~ s. ch I Help Inside the Legislature RCWs > Title 42 > Chapter 42.12 > Section 42.12.030 # Find Your Legislator 42.12.020 « 42.12.030» 42.12.040 • Visiting the Legislature • Agendas, Schedules and RCW 42.12.030 Calendars Term of person elected to fill vacancy. * Bill Information * Laws and Agency Rules • Legislative Committees Whenever any officer resigns his office before the expiration of his term, or the office • Legislative Agencies becomes vacant from any other cause, and at a subsequent special election such vacancy is filled, the person so elected to fill such vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the • Legislative Information unexpired term. Center • E-mail Notifications [1981 c 180 § 5; Coda 1881 § 3066; 1866 p 30 § 6; RRS § 9951.] (Listserv) Notes: ~ Civic Education Severability --1981 c 180: See note following RCW 42.12.040. ~ History of the State Legislature Outside the Legislature * Congress - the Other Washington ~ TVW ~ Washington Courts ~ OFM Fiscal Note Website Access A&Washingtonm . QMeul 51av G_va-nrt.rnl'RS1'a i.h moc rx ~ .t~arJ ` http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.12.030 1/25/2011 RCW 42.12.070: Filling nonpartisan vacancies. Page 1 of 2 _ ASHINGTON , s ch ~ Help RCWs > Title 42 > Chapter 42.12 > Section 42.12.070 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator 42.12.040 « 42.12.070 » End of Chapter * Visiting the Legislature ~ Agendas, Schedules and RCW 42.12.070 Calendars Filling nonpartisan vacancies. * Bill Information * Laws and Agency Rules ~ Legislative Committees A vacancy on an elected nonpartisan governing body of a special purpose district where ~ Legislative Agencies property ownership is not a qualification to vote, a town, or a city other than a first-class city or a charter code city, shall be filled as follows unless the provisions of law relating to the ~ Legislative Information special district, town, or city provide otherwise: Center ~ E-mail Notifications (1) Where one position is vacant, the remaining members of the governing body shall (Listserv) appoint a qualified person to fill the vacant position. * Civic Education ~ History of the State (2) Where two or more positions are vacant and two or more members of the governing Legislature body remain in office, the remaining members of the governing body shall appoint a qualified person to fill one of the vacant positions, the remaining members of the governing body and Outside the Legislature the newly appointed person shall appoint another qualified person to fill another vacant position, and so on until each of the vacant positions is filled with each of the new appointees * Congress - the Other participating in each appointment that is made after his or her appointment. Washington * TVW (3) If less than two members of a governing body remain in office, the county legislative * Washington Courts authority of the county in which all or the largest geographic portion of the city, town, or * OFM Fiscal Note Website special district is located shall appoint a qualified person or persons to the governing body until the governing body has two members. Access AIIIWVlrashingtono (4) If a governing body fails to appoint a qualified person to fill a vacancy within ninety OY,~elal5ln•a ~.:vannenl AS~:n days of the occurrence of the vacancy, the authority of the governing body to fill the vacancy shall cease and the county legislative authority of the county in which all or the largest geographic portion of the city, town, or special district is located shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy. ,rA 0~~~~1w lhmairac} (5) If the county legislative authority of the county fails to appoint a qualified person within one hundred eighty days of the occurrence of the vacancy, the county legislative authority or the remaining members of the governing body of the city, town, or special district may petition the governor to appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy. The governor may appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy after being petitioned if at the time the governor fills the vacancy the county legislative authority has not appointed a qualified person to fill the vacancy. (6) As provided in "RCW 29.15.190 and 29.21.410, each person who is appointed shall serve until a qualified person is elected at the next election at which a member of the governing body normally would be elected that occurs twenty-eight or more days after the occurrence of the vacancy. If needed, special filing periods shall be authorized as provided in "RCW 29.15.170 and 29.15.180 for qualified persons to file for the vacant office. A primary shall be held to nominate candidates if sufficient time exists to hold a primary and more than two candidates file for the vacant office. Otherwise, a primary shall not be held and the person receiving the greatest number of votes shall be elected. The person elected shall take office immediately and serve the remainder of the unexpired term. If an election for the position that became vacant would otherwise have been held at this general election date, only one election to fill the position shall be held and the person elected to fill the succeeding term for that position shall take office immediately when qualified as defined in ''RCW 29.01.135 and shall service both the remainder of the unexpired term and the succeeding term. [1994 c 223 § 1.] http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.12.070 1/25/2011