Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2004 Adjourned Meeting 337 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON' ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OCTOBER 26, 2004 - 5:30 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. YAKIMA CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS lu 1. Roll Call Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Mary Place, Bernard Sims, and Susan Whitman Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Paul McMurray, Assistant City Attorney; Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development; Doug Maples, Code and Planning Manager; Bruce Benson, Supervising Planner; Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner; and City Clerk Roberts. Also present was Ken Harper, consultant attorney. Absent: Council Member Neil McClure (excused) Mayor George acknowledged the presence of City of Union Gap representatives Mayor Aubrey Reeves, Council Member Dan Olson, and City Attorney Phil Lamb. Representatives present from the Air Terminal were: Doug Hahn, Chair, Board member Greg Berndt, and Jerry Kilpatrick, Assistant Airport Manager. John Shambaugh, Senior Planner, attended the meeting representing the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division. 2. Study Session regarding Airport Land Use Compatibility Overlay: Regulatory Land Use Policy / Risk Analysis • Opening Remarks by Bill Cook Bill Cook stated the purpose of the study session is to give an update on the process to re- evaluate the airport safety overlay, looking at proposed land use in the vicinity of the airport. He gave some basic background facts concerning the joint City /County ownership and location of the airport, most of which lies within the City of Yakima boundaries, a portion within Yakima County and in Union Gap. Due to the potential impact to the three jurisdictions, regional planning is necessary. However, the City of Union Gap adopted its own airport overlay ordinance. He reviewed the eight guiding principles for consideration for the new or amended Airport Safety Overlay Ordinance: 1. Outcome of public process to adopt final ordinance (map and text) cannot be predetermined. 2. Final regulations must be based on current and adequate data 3. Final regulations must not be arbitrary or capricious 4. Final regulations must not deprive all use of property 5. Sufficient information regarding potential environmental impacts must be gathered to make an informed threshold design (SEPA) .3 8 .° OCTOBER 26, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING 6. Overlay must be internally consistent with Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (GMA) 7. Overlay must be internally consistent with the Yakima County and Union Gap Comprehensive Plans (GMA) 8. Overlay zone should be the result of a regional cooperative planning process (GMA) These are based on Growth Management Act requirements. Legal cases have upheld a municipality's right to restrict the use of private property; however, the word balance occurs regularly. He spoke of the importance of an airport to the continued success of the local economy. • Staff's Existing Assignment Doug Maples commented that after the June Study Session, staff was directed to work with representatives from Union Gap, the airport, Yakima County, Conference of Governments, State Department of Transportation, and our consultant to design an ordinance based upon the map that was presented by the Air Terminal Board. In addition to the original Airport map, there are two other maps in the Council packet; one shows a smaller designation than the airport proposed (Alternate 2), and Alternate 1 that Jerry Kilpatrick and our consultant designed. • Legal Considerations Ken Harper, consultant attorney for the City of Yakima, shared some legal parameters in designing an airport overlay. State law gives the city the authority to do an ordinance; and the Growth Management Act (GMA) says the City can be protective of the airport, but it has to be balanced with the property owners' rights. One way to achieve the balance is through SEPA, which becomes a public process evaluating the impacts and comments received from the public and agencies, then looking at mitigation. The next significant public process that follows, and runs parallel to SEPA, is the Comprehensive Plan. If we want to restrict development we may have a conflict with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan may be amended, but it has to go through a public process to assure we don't create internal inconsistencies. Nor can the Plan be inconsistent with the Union Gap Comprehensive Plan. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Board reviewed the airport overlay in 2002 and their decision captures what he is trying to communicate on the outcome of the public process: the City made a determination regarding airport overlay ordinance after a lengthy public process and struck a balance on private rights based on the current plan and airport needs and the Board does not find it to be a public arbitrary act. Council Member Place asked if this review could be incorporated as part of the requirement to do a total Comprehensive Plan review for 2006, or is that too late? Mr. Harper responded that the 2006 update of the entire Comprehensive Plan is underway, including a land use inventory. There is an opportunity to combine the land use inventory for airport overlay with what is already going on. A lot of work is going to have to be done for both the proposals and they will look a lot alike. There is an economy of scale to combine them, but if the City received an application for an amendment, we could process it now without waiting for 2006. If a checklist came in 2 .339 OCTOBER 26, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING with a Comprehensive Plan application, it would be checked for consistency and SEPA gives you a way to determine that consistency. He could not give a definitive answer to the question about the length of the process because the SEPA process is not predictable since we don't know what issues would arise. He did state that SEPA recommends that the lead agency not be the same as the applicant. The Airport Board could submit an application rather than the City. There could be one application that the City looks at, but there also needs to be a consolidated pre - application process so there is a common goal and proposal that all three entities agree on. l • Air Terminal Board Comments Doug Hahn, Air Terminal Board Chair, introduced Greg Berndt, the past chairman of the Board. He commented that Union Gap and the County are as equal as the City in this process due to equal impacts. The Airport Board oversees the fiscal responsibility and management of the airport and to protect and ensure viability and growth of the airport. Our mission is simple good interaction between the Board, the City, and the County. The Airport Master Plan shows that.the runway needs to be expanded towards Union Gap and West Valley. The overlay applies to all aspects of the airport. We are looking to ensure the safety and the future of the airport as a viable entity. If you enact something or bring in an overlay that allows improper building of something that is not compatible with the airport, then our airport would be in jeopardy of losing certification, without which we can't have air service. A community without air service is not good. A discussion ensued regarding the airport overlay map attempting to clarify the confusion about its accuracy in comparison to the written text. Mr. Maples stated that he verified this map with the City of Union Gap as being one they used in their SEPA application, but staff will confirm this as being the correct map. Mr. Hahn reported that the Federal Aviation Agency has to also approve the final product. He advised that they received assurance from FAA in June that the plan they submitted for pre - approval would be approved. He cautioned that changes to the plan could possibly negate that approval. The Cities of Union Gap and Yakima and Yakima County need to come up with technical consensus of the overlay and then the Airport Board would take the lead in the application process. • • Washington State Department of Transportation — Aviation Presentation John Shambaugh stated that he and Stan Allison, are present to give pointers on what they encourage jurisdictions to do. He stated that Washington State adopted land use regulations that require the City and County to adopt a comprehensive land use policy around their airport. We put together guidelines regarding land use compatibility that look at four issues: A Noise issues around airports, including adoptions of disclosure requirements A Height regulations - avoid penetration of that because of the danger. Safety Zones — on the map, Zone 3 is identified as the area with the highest potential for accidents. A Zoning — new developments 3 390 OCTOBER 26, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING Stan Allison, Manager of Aviation operations, stated there are several areas that define land use compatibility: height and noise, and safety zones. The Growth Management Act says if you have a public use airport you have to discourage incompatible use adjacent to the airport, but it does not provide a definition for what an incompatible use is. The FAA has reviewed different zoning ordinances for various airports; the grant assurances for airports has very similar language - an airport will take appropriate measures to make land issues by an airport compatible, but doesn't define it either. Height and noise restrictions are not adequate to protect the airport. We asked the national FAA to address these issues. If you go through the public processes and demonstrate that you are trying to protect the airport they will look at it favorably. The flip side is if you draw a circle around the airport, you are restricting economic development around it and they take issue with that, too. • Questions. and Answers Council Member Bonlender asked if the current map takes the runway expansion into consideration. Mr. Maples replied that the current map indicates the runway expansion of around 10,000 feet. The Airport Master Plan has five options and the option selected was to split the expansion between the east and west by approximately 1250 feet. Mr. Hahn stated the 10,000 foot runway would provide an alternate landing site for SeaTac if a plane cannot land there, and a 747 cannot touch • down without a 10,000 foot runway. The advantage for us is that we are paid for the plane to land there. We are also looking at military service; if we were civilian /joint military use we could charge. 3. Audience Comments (6:45 p.m. — 7:00 p.m.) Dale Glaspey, identified himself as a Union Gap City Council Member, but speaking as a private individual about the overlay and restricting development. What are the rules of acceptable risk that the airport follows? He reminded Council that an airplane crashed on 16 Avenue after being allowed to try to make it to our airport. Jim Lewis, Chairman of the Yakima County Commissioners, related a couple of stories that portrayed the importance of an overlay zone. He stated the County is being approached by the Firing Center and other aviation concerns to provide protection against encroachment. The County is supportive of the Airport Board's proposed overlay and the outline of the process that will be followed. Shane Smith, 305 N. 70 Avenue, applauded Council for making this process more formal and public. He urged Council to pay attention to the guidelines to protect the City against liability. Phil Lamb, stated, although he is the attorney for the City of Union Gap, his comments are his own. The airport is a regional asset and we need to protect it. There are different jurisdictions involved, each having the responsibility and authority of protecting their land use zones. We still have a Regional Planning Commission and an urban area zoning ordinance that covers the City of Yakima and the urban area of the unincorporated county. If you are amending the zoning ordinance, you are amending the urban zoning ordinance through the joint process of going before the 4 391 OCTOBER 26, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING Regional Planning Commission and then back to the Joint Board representing the City of Yakima and Yakima County. That should be the process. Because Union Gap is not a party to the urban area zoning ordinance, they have their own Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance, and Planning Commission. Union Gap does have a representative on the Regional Planning Commission. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates by reference the Airport Master Plan. The owners of the airport never adopted the Airport Master Plan, although the Air Terminal Board adopted it. This caused some confusion for the former Hearing Examiner [him]. How do we know what our protection zone will be until we know what the Master Plan is and until the City of Yakima and the County adopt it? He asked why didn't the City and County jointly adopt it? His other concern is best management practices. Based on one line in GMA that says to provide technical assistance to protect airports, DOT staff has administratively established best management practices as guidelines that you must not fall below. He is concerned about a municipality having to follow these best management practices that do not have the sanction of the Legislature yet will establish the municipality's liability. It is one thing to provide technical advice, and another to promulgate rules without even going through the WAC process. They just published this booklet. That step needs to have legislative upholding and funding. Union Gap wants a road from the airport to the Interstate and the FAA has not expressed any heartburn to us about our overlay. We work with airport staff, but Union Gap does not feel this is at the top of our agenda. If you figure out an airport overlay we might tail along with you since we all like uniform plans and ordinances. Our airport overlay zone seems to be working well, so we don't have the same concern as you. Council Member Sims asked Mr. Lamb how he would proceed. Mr. Lamb stated that it is an essential public facility, but Union Gap is not on the same timeframe as the larger jurisdictions for GMA updates. His sense of this process is it gained significant momentum parallel with the Congdon situation and the commitment in the development agreement to attempt to deal with restrictions on uses in the vicinity of the airport. He appreciated the fact that Mr. Harper characterized the airport as the applicant; although the airport might be surprised it is the applicant. He agreed with Mr. Harper regarding advisability of some independence when you are doing your review. He was not sure that Union Gap has a problem that needs to be fixed. He expressed concern about liability issues. You may have changes to the west and north to the runway and we might stay where we are. How to go ahead with the changes is your issue, but he was concerned about the liability concerning best management practices. DOT should be kept to an advisory role. There is no easy answer. We will check with you regarding the discrepancy on the map and written text. • Direction to Staff Bill Cook stated he understands that staff was asked to meet with the airport board, and staff to formalize an application and then submit it for the public process. Mayor George called for a five - minute recess before resuming the meeting to discuss an issue requested by Council Member Place. 5 392 OCTOBER 26, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING 4. Streamlined Sales Tax Council Member Place reported on a recent development regarding the streamline sales tax issue (SST). She explained that those cities that will lose sales tax revenues under the current SST proposal are strategizing on their approach to this issue for the next year's legislative session in Olympia and they have asked for additional assistance from the City of Yakima in the form of both time and money. They have asked for Council Member Place to continue to participate in various planning meetings and meetings with state legislators on this issue and for the City's Finance Director to continue her participation in various meetings and to co- chair and help oversee the work of an outside consultant to review the various legislative options that the group would like to promote with our state legislators. Council Member Place asked Council if they want her and Rita Anson to stay involved in this issue. City Manager Zais reported that they want additional staff time from Rita Anson and possibly another $3,000 contribution. Council Members agreed that Mary Place and Rita Anson (on a limited basis due to her other • commitments) should remain involved in this effort to bring about a solution that would not produce negative revenue impacts to the City. Council Member Place stated she would be meeting with the Department of Revenue to look at their new proposal and find out how it affects us. She stated we should also be prepared to meet with the state legislators if the City is negatively impacted by the proposal. 5. Adjournment Mayor George adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY OUNC EMBE DATE O CO NCIL MEM:' R DATE ATTEST: Zep CITY CLERK PAUL P. GEORG , MAYOR Minutes prepared by Karen Roberts. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office • 6