HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/2017 Business Meeting162
YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 2017
Gity Hall -- Council Chambers
6 p.m. Business Meeting; 8:30 p.m. Public Hearings -- MINUTES
BUSINESS MEETING
1. Roll Call
Council: Mayor Kathy Coffey, presiding, Assistant Mayor Carmen Mendez, Council Membrs
Maureen Adkison, Holly Cousens, Avina Gutierrez, Dulce Gutierrez and Bill Lover
Staff: City Manager Moore, City Attorney Cutter and City Clerk Claar Tee
2. Pledge ofAllegiance
Mayor Coffey !ed the Piedge ofAUegiance.
3. Interpreter Services
Mayor Coffey introduced Jorge ViUaeenorwho announced interpreter services are available.
4. Open Discussion for the Good of the Order
A. Update on senior staif searches
City Manager Moore provided an update regarding the search for an Assistant City Manager
and Director of Finance and Budget.
B. Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Council Committees
i Consideration of Council Member Dulce Gutierrez's application to WA
State Partnership on Juvenile Justice
MOTION: Mendez moved and Cousens seconded to approve Council Member D.
Gutierrez's application for this committee. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
5. Council Reports
A. Council Partnerships Committee meeting follow-up
1. Discussion of a draft letter to President Trump re: DACA
Mayor Coffey briefly described DACA requirements. Council Member D. Gutierrez thanked the
Mayor for supporting this issue and her wiUingness to support the immigrant community.
Council Member Lover stated he is a strong supporter of DACA and the Bridge Act; however,
he feels this letter should be non-partisan. Council Member Adkison agreed.
MOTION: D. Gutierrez moved and Mendez seconded to accept the Iottor and send to
Page 1 of 6
� ���
� ����
the President. MOTION: A. Gutierrez moved and Cousens seconded to strike
paragraph 1, 2, and 9 and rewrite the letter without them. The motion to amend carried by
a unanimous vote. The motion as amended carried by unanimous vote.
MOTION: D. Gutierrez moved and Coffey seconded to bring this Ietterback to the next
City Council meeting for approval. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
The hollowing community members spoke in support of the letter: Aileen Kane, City resident;
David Morales, City resident who also provided a letter of support from La Casa
Hagar; Kristen Burke, City resident.
2. Discussion of draft letter to U S. Congress members re: H.R. 2997
MOTION: Lover moved and Cousens seconded to approve moving this Ietter forward.
The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
3. Discussion of draft letter re: Historic Preservation Commission request for funding
generated from recorded documents surcharge
MOTION: Adkison moved and Cousens seconded to approve moving this letter
forward. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
B. Discussion regarding neighborhood forums
Council Member D. Gutierrez reported the Public Safety Committee is preparing to host
multiple neighborhood forums on the subject of public safety and encouraged Council members
and community members to request a neighborhood forum. The Committee is planning to
conduct approximately seven neighborhood forums by the end of 2017 (with flexibility to
accommodate or adjust based on the requests made by the public or Council). Recognizing the
budget constraints of the City, the Committee members will actively seek low cost or free
facilities where the forums can be held and will also encourage residents to assist with
promotional efforts.
MOTION: D. Gutierrez moved and Mendez seconded to accept the proposal for
neighborhood forums as presented today and grant the Public Safety Committee
permission to move forward with sog forums and hosting them. The motion
carried by unanimous vote.
C. Accept July 20, 2017, Council Nominating Committee minutes
MOTION: A. Gutierrez moved and Mendez seconded to accept the minutes. The motion
carried by unanimous vote.
6. Consent Agenda
Mayor Coffey referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda, questioning whether there
were any additions or deletions from Council members present. There were no changes. The
City Clerk read the Consent Agenda items, including resolutions and ordinances, by title.
(Items on the Consent Agenda are handled under one motion without further discussion see
motion directly below.)
MOTION: Adkison moved and Mendez seconded to approve the consent agenda. The
A. Approval of the minutes from the July 11, 19 and August 1, 2017, City Council
Page 2 of 6
164
Business meetings, July 25, 2017, City Council Retreat and August 8, 2017,
Special City Council meeting/Partnership Committee meeting
B. Approve payment of disbursements for the period July 1 — 31, 2017
C. 2nd Quarter 2017 Capital Improvement Projects Report
D.
Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police's execution of recurring annual
agreements with the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Administration
RESOLUTION NO. R-2017-099, A RESOLUTION authorizing the Chief of Police's
execution of recurring annual agreements with the United States Department of Justice, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
E.
Resolution authorizing an agreement with HLA Engineering and Land Surveying,
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $123,829 to provide construction administration
concerning Security Gate Improvements at the Yakima Air Terminal -McAllister Field
RESOLUTION NO. R-2017-100, A RESOLUTION authorizing an agreement with HLA
Engineering and Land Surveying, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $123,829.00 to provide
construction administration concerning Security Gate Improvements at the Yakima Air
Terminal -McAllister Field.
7. Public Comment
PUBLIC COMMENTS TAKEN AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING
Teodoro Morales, City resident, shared his concerns about the Roy's Market location for
homeless services and asked Council to vote with their heart and think about the future,
children and the community they represent.
Cassie Collins, City resident, believes the City needs to build better trust between law
enforcement and the community as community members are afraid to contact the police in fear
of being questioned about immigration status.
Susan Soto Palmer, City resident, thanked Council for their support in the Roy's Market
location for the homeless and encouraged Council to work with the Crime Victim Service
Center in conjunction with the upcoming public safety forums.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Closed record hearing to consider an appeal regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision on a
request from Yakima Neighborhood Health Services for a proposal to convert an existing
commercial building into a multi -family residential development
Mayor Coffey called the hearing open, and read the following statement: this is a closed
record hearing, which means that no new evidence can be submitted during this process. The
only evidence that can be discussed is evidence that was put into the record at the Hearing
Examiner's open record hearing on May 1, 2017. The Council will not consider any evidence
other than that that is in the record. The record includes all testimony provided at the Hearing
Examiner's open record hearing, written documents submitted to the Hearing Examiner, and
all public comments. That information was provided to the Council members prior to this
appeal hearing and Council members have had the opportunity to review the record prior to
Page 3 of 6
165
this hearing. This is an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The Council is sittinas
an appellate body,not 8Sfinders Vffact. The issue before the Council is whether the Hearing
Examiner erred in his determination, based on the facts in the record and the Yakima
Municipal Code.
This is a As such the Appearance of Fairness doctrine contro/s.
Council members, please answer affirmatively or negavely to the following questions:
1. Do you have any interest in the property or the app/icat/on, or do you own property
within 300 feet ofthe property subjectto the application?All Council members said no.
2. Do you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the
appea/?All Council members said no.
3. Can you hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner?All Council
members said yes.
4. Have you had any ex parte communications with any appellant (Ms. Scott or anyone
listed in the appellant's submission) or respondent (anyone from Yakima Neighborhood
Health Services or their representatives)? If so, please place on the record the
substance of your communications so that interested parties have the opportunity to
rebut the communications. Council Members Cousens, KXendez, D. Gutierrez and
Adkison stated they have not. Council Member D. Gutierrez stated she had one instance
prior to reviewing the record, when an appellant shared her opinion. Council Member
Lover stated this has been before Council for years and therefore, has talked to most of
the appellants and proponents; however, he will be fair and objective. Mayor Coffey
stated she talked to both appellants and proponents over the years due to Council
business but has not had any recent communications.
Is there anyone who wishes to challenge any Council member's participation in this appeal
on the appearance of fairness ? Rich Hill, legal counsel for YNHS stated they have no
challenge. There were no other comments.
Mayor Coffey reported on how the hearing will be conducted. MOTION: Mendez moved and
0. Gutierrez seconded to allow up to 45 minutes forAppellants'argument, up to 45
minutes for Respondent's argument, and 10 minutes for rebuttal. The motion carried by
unanimous vote.
Joseph Calhoun, Planning Manager, stated this appeaconcerns an application submitted by
YNHS for property located at 201"S. 6th St. in the Small Convenience Center (SCC) zoning
district. The application proposes redevelopment of the existing structure into: 1) Multi -family
development consisting of 5 dwelling units — Class 2 use in SCC; and, 2) Cafe/Deli and
Laundromat — Class 1 use in the SCC. The application also included: 1) an Administrative
Adjustment to the parking standard from 36 to 15 stalls; and, 2) SEPA Environmental Review.
Mr. Calhoun reviewed the timeline and events of the entire process, and reminded Council and
the public that this is a Closed Record appeal, no new evidence can be submitted, and no one
other than the appellants and respondents to the appeal can make arguments at this hearing.
Benine McDonnell, City resident, and appellant, stated the appellants are asking for a reversal
of the Hearing Examiner's decision as they feel the definition of multifamily comes into question
with only five rooms and possibly eight people per room, possibly unrelated. Additionally, they
are concerned with parking since most people would want to park in front of a laundromaor
deli instead of walking even a short distance, and currently, neighboring residents are already
parking on the planting strip because there are no other places to park.
Maud Scott, City resident and appellant, stated she may not have the technical expertise to
Page 4 of 6
� ����
1 ����
delve into the building plans or legal jargon; however, she does have experience with her
neighborhood and has heard a lot of nearby homeowners are ready to sell their houses and
move away. As a property owner, she said it is hard to put your heart and soul into a property
and then the whole climate changes. Unfortunately, they could not hire an attorney to help
them appeal this decision. She noted how difficult it is to picture how YNHS's plan will function
in the neighborhood or how the neighbors will be treated.
Verlynn Best, Chamber of Commerce CEO/President and appellant, implored Council to look
at this closely and the effect it will have on the neighborhood and surrounding businesses.
Rich Hill, legal counsefor Respondent,YNHS.askedCoumci|hnaffinnUhedaosionbvbhe
City of Yakima Planning staff and the Hearing Examiner as the appeal has no merit, no basis in
fact and is unsupported by the lawHe reviewed the facts found by the Hearirig Examiner as
reported in the record, as well as reviewing the PowerPoint by Robert Ferry on the
architecture and programming of the bui|ding, which is also in the record. Mr. Hill reminded
Council that their role was solely to decide whether the Hearing Examiner had properly
interpreted City code and zoning ordinances in ruling that the Roy's pject was in compliance.
He noted the Hearing Examiner essentially wrote that any impact this project may have on the
community would not be any worse than the current impact with homeless individuals living on
nearby streets. He stated the appellants relied on spurious and untruthful stereotypes about
the homeless, which the Council should disregard.
Benine McDonnell, in her rebuttacomments noted they are not attorneys, just citizens who
with common sense have tried to appeal this decision, which is a citywide issue, not just a 300
foot issue. She reported they feel a clean and sober model is what works best in helping
homeless folks since many of them have drug and alcohol issues.
Maud Scott, in her rebuttal comments stated she has been over this ground so many times it is
difficult to separate one hearing from another on this issue. She commented that they have
jor concerns with this pject, which is so close to their families and property.
MOTION: Mendez moved and D. Gutierrez seconded to adjourn tooclosed session
under RCW 42.30.140(2) for deliberation (7:32 p.m.). The motion carried by unanimous
vote.
Mayor Coffey called the meeting back to orde(8:06 p.m.)
Council Member Lover feels the architectural drawing is a distraction and doesn't feelit will
pass muster. Assistant Mayor Mendez raised a point of order stating Council members should
stay on topic. Mayor Coffey stated the point is well taken.
Council Member A. Gutierrez commented that had the discussion been about the concerns of
the neighboring residents, instead of the narrow focus on compliance with City code, the
outcome may have been different. She shared her frustration with comments made by the
respondent about the appellants. Mayor Coffey raised a point of order stating Council
members should refrain from making personal remarks. Council Member A. Gutierrez appealed
the point of order. The point of order was affirmed by a 5-2 vote, with A. Gutierrez and Lover
voting no. After further discussion,
Mayor Coffey closed the hearing.
MOTION: Coffey moved and D. Gutierrez seconded to affirm and adopt the Hearing
Examiners decision. The motion carried by a 4-3 vote, Adkison, A. Gutierrez and Lover voting
Page 5 of 6
1
1
167
no.
9. Other Business
None.
10. Adjournment
MOTION: Mendez moved and D. Gutierrez seconded to adjourn to a Council Study
Session on August 22, 2017, at 10 a.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion carried by
unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
CERTIFICATION
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY
OS -
CaTJNCIL MEMBER DATE
- 5 47
COUNCIL MEMBER DATE
ATTEST:
Page 6 of 6