Tacoma City Council Meeting - October 25, 2011

This week’s City Council Meeting was… extensive.  Or at least the portion dedicated to the big box moratorium was; the rest was quite speedy and efficient.  We’ve done our best to condense the debate down, but if you’re really in to public comment and Councilmember questions, this was a good one.

CONSENT AGENDA

RESOLUTIONS

Resolution No. 38351 Sets Thursday, November 17, 2011, at 5:00 p.m., as the date for a hearing before the Hearing Examiner for the reconstruction of 91 sidewalks at various locations throughout the City and assessing the properties directly abutting such sidewalk improvements for all costs associated with the reconstruction; and declaring certain sidewalks unfit or unsafe such that reconstruction is necessary for public safety.

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES

Ordinance No. 28025 Vacates a portion of the alley right-of-way located between South Lawrence and South Alder Streets south of South 45th Street, to create a private drive. (Alder Street Apartments, LLC)

PROCLAMATIONS, RECOGNITIONS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

None tonight.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None yet, but just wait…

REGULAR AGENDA

RESOLUTIONS

Resolution No. 38352 Authorizes the execution of an interest-free loan agreement between Tacoma Rail and the Washington State Department of Transportation for a term of ten years, in the amount of $450,000, to partially finance the replacement of a locomotive with a locomotive that meets or exceeds the United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 2 certified emissions standards.

Resolution No. 38353 Expresses support for Pierce County Proposition No. 1, which would authorize a county-wide, one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax to fund the South Sound 9-1-1 Agency; and urges Tacoma voters to vote “Approved” on Pierce County Proposition No. 1 on the November 8, 2011, General Election ballot, which reads as follows: 

Proposition No. 1 – Sales and Use Tax For Improvements To Pierce County’s 9-1-1 Emergency Communication System The Pierce County Council passed Resolution No. R2011-87 proposing to fund improvements to Pierce County’s 9-1-1 emergency communication system. If passed, Proposition No. 1 would authorize a county-wide, one-tenth of one percent (0.01%) local sales and use tax to fund costs associated with financing, design, acquisition, construction, equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing and re-equipping the county’s 9-1-1 emergency communication system and facilities infrastructure.

Should Proposition No. 1 be:  Approved ___   Rejected ___

At this point Mayor Strickland suspended the rules to allow Kevin Phelps representing Pierce County on behalf of South Sound 911 to speak in “public comment” regarding Prop 1.  Mr. Phelps explained that the proposition creates a regional agency to represent cities, towns and unincorporated areas of Pierce County to manange radio and dispatch system for both fire and police.  If done, it would be the first agency on the west coast to manage fire and police communications and dispatch as seamless system.

Returning to the vote (we know you’re on the edge of your seat)… it was approved.

FINAL READING OF ORDINANCES

Ordinance No. 28022 Authorizes the execution of the First Amended Right of Use Agreement with the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for use of the public right-of-way by the Sound Transit Link Passenger Rail System.

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES

Ordinance No. 28026 Amending Ordinance No. 25869, relating to the Employees Benefits Trust Fund, to designate minimum reserve levels for the Police and Fire Relief & Pension Funds and the Police and Fire Health Care Trust Funds.

At this point (5:22) it was too early for public comment scheduled for 5:30, so in the interest of expediency Mayor Strickland skipped ahead in the agenda.  We’ll see if we can keep up.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

REPORTS BY THE CITY MANAGER

None

COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

Neighborhoods and Housing Committee

Deputy Mayor Walker reported briefly on the recent work of this committee, including a status report on the multi-family property tax exemption program, which reviewed program benefits and costs and the potential for expanding the program.  Upcoming topics will include issues pertaining to affordable housing policy and community development block grant priorities on November 7th.

In other news, the citizens’ forum was rescheduled from Tuesday November 8th to Tuesday November 1st.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Ordinance No. 28027 Adopting findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission to justify modification and retention of the emergency moratorium, adopted by Ordinance No. 28014, on the acceptance of applications for new building or other development permits associated with the establishment, location, or permitting of large retail establishments with a floor area greater than 65,000 square feet within the City.

Brian Boudet provided a little background on where things stand, including the Planning Commission recommendations presented in today’s study session.  According to Mr. Boudet, the Planning Commission concurred with the current moratorium, with three potentially significant modifications:

1. A reduction in geographic scope from city-wide to 8 urban and community mixed-use centers where they feel there is the most concern about this type of development.  Comprehensive plan policies have been established to shift towards more dense, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development of those areas, and the big box format is an obvious concern.
2. A reduction in applicability from existing language that applies to all permitting to only applying to new establishments, “significant modifications” and “significant additions” to existing establishments.  (The Council raised several concerns pertaining to the consequences of this proposed change.)
3. An extension of the timeline from the current 6 months to 12 months._ As Boudet explained, state law allows for a moratorium to be 6 months, with an extension to one year, if a work plan is put in place for how regulations will be developed.  The concern leading to this proposed change was that more time would be needed for additional public outreach and coordination to ensure that the “multitude of issues” are adequately addressed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Mayor Strickland tactfully reminded commenters that this comment session is regarding the moratorium in general, as it would impact all large-scale development, not any one particular proposed store.  Many were unable to control themselves.

Nearly 2 dozen Tacomans came forward to speak their minds about the moratorium, and you can probably guess the general tone of sentiments – not too warm and fuzzy towards big box stores in general, and a certain chain in particular. 

Of the public commenters, only two offered less than full-throated support:  Metropolitan Development Director David Schroedel applauded the Planning Commision recommendations, and raising several questions before the moratorium love-fest really got started.  His suggestions were as follows:  resolve the murkiness of the word “establishment” by using instead “building,” which is a term with a set definition; raise the size limit from 65,000 to 100,000 square feet; and retain the initial 6 month time limit.  Mr. Schroedel also commented that the Chamber still believes that this is an unnecessary regulation in light of existing regulations (i.e. SEPA).  The one other voice challenging the moratorium came from a representative of a masonry organization, reminding the council that some jobs might be threatened by the moratorium or future bans or limitations on development.

Other than that, the rest of the commentary ranged from supportive to downright evangelical in support of the moratorium. 

Among the major themes were serious concerns about the impacts of big box development on the character, livability, safety, and economic viability of a community.  On the economic front, commenters voiced concern for small, local businesses, and subsequently on employment prospects and quality.  The majority spoke in favor of the extension of the moratorium, and keeping it applicable to the entire city.  Many advocated a complete, permanent ban.  Public safety in regard to proximity to hospitals and schools, and concerns over traffic were also voiced. 

Some commenters were more eloquent, asking the Council to protect the “fabric of the community,” and “support economic justice.”  One called this a “defining moment for our city.”  Other comments were more memorable than eloquent, like RR Anderson’s passionate plea, which might be paraphrased as follows:  The 9/11 hijackers liked Walmart, and Neko Case doesn’t, so “for the love of God, please support the moratorium.”

There was a lot of passion in the room.

Council comment was a little scattered, with many questions.  At the end of the day, after some parliamentary procedure table tennis, the council voted 5 to 4 to table the issue until next week’s meeting. 

It sounds like they’ll be doing some digging and some tweaking before they bring it back for another pass next week.  (you may want to brush up on your SEPA knowledge …)

Phew, that’s it for this week.