AUDIO & AGENDA DOCUMENTS:
Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007- Joint Council and Plng. Board Meeting

(photos of 10/25/07 meeting)

NOTES on our recording and digital audiO.
Click here if you would like to receive G.R.I.T.'S updates via Email

 

 

G.R.I.T.
Home

Agenda Packets & Minutes for this, and previous meetings

For more info on meetings and hearings, visit our TRANSCRIPTION page

AUDIO of previous meetings

Reid Shockey's Slide Show presented at this meeting

PHOTOS of this meeting

CITY OF SULTAN
SPECIAL JOINT COUNCIL &PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Sultan High School Commons
October 25, 2007

(All agenda documents in a single pdf)

7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER - Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call - Audio File A, 1:09 min., 205 KB

PRESENTATION: Friends of the Library Week Proclamation - Audio File B, 6:06 min.,1.1 mb

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:

COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

Champeaux, Wiediger, Slawson and Seehuus, basically, "Thanks for coming"; also brief comment by K. Blair and J. Flower (Audio File D, 4:43 min., 832)

STAFF REPORTS - Written Reports Submitted (As of 7:20 a.m., Tuesday, Oct. 23rd, no reports were posted on city's council agenda webpage prior to the meeting, nor as of 5:00 PM Tuesday, Oct. 30th when this page was completed. G.R.I.T. believes these written staff reports need to be linked to this item on the city's agenda.)

CONSENT AGENDA: The following items are incorporated into the consent agenda and approved by a single motion of the Council. (Audio File E - approval of agenda, 27 seconds, 81 kb)

1. Approval of Vouchers (173 kb pdf document)
2. Set Public Meeting on Greens Appeal (319 kb pdf document) ALSO: ATTACHMENT A - deep background Info
3. Proclamation for Friends of the Libaray Week (146 kb pdf document)
4. Change November Meeting Date (25 kb pdf document)
5. Excused Absence of Councilmember Boyd and Champeaux - October 18, 2007 (19 kb pdf document)
6. Donation of Holiday Tree to the Sky Valley Chamber (3.1 kb pdf document)


ACTION ITEMS: No action items for this meeting

DISCUSSION AGENDA - 3.1 mb, 70-page pdf document & Slide Show presented by Reid Shockey (183 kb pdf), Consultant for Sultan's Comprehensive Plan Update

  • Rick Cisar's Introduction (Audio file G-1, 3:31 min., 621 kb)
  • Reid Shockey's Comments, Part 1 (Audio File G-2, 3.0 mb ) - Basics re how to reduce Levels of Service (LOS) for police staffing, future park acreage needed, and reducing Sultan's traffic congestion from a LOS "B" (mostly free-flowing) to a LOS "D" (For definitions of the national levels of service, from A to F, click here.)
  • Comments by Eric Irelan from Perteet, Inc.,Sultan's Transportation Consultant (Audio File G-3, 6:06 min., 1.1 mb) - Reducing Sultan's levels of service
  • Reid Shockey Comments, Part 2 - Continues with discussion and explanation of levels of service for parks, etc. (Audio File G-4 7:10 min., 1.2 mb)

Council Comments & Questions:

Kristina Blair Questions Cisar re the 42.6 acres per 1,000 in population factored into 2004 Plan, which contained ALL city-owned property, such as the Public Works yard, the library, schools, etc. Asked whether the new 1.5 acres per 1,000 population being recommended still includes those properties and facilities? Rick Cisar responds. C/M Bruce Champeaux comments re other cities' LOS for police and parks. (Audio File G-5, 7:21 min., 1.3 mb)

Planning Board Members' comments:

Plng. Board Chairman Kurt Latimore addresses assembly (Audio File G-6, 4:01 min. 708 kb)

Comments by other PB members: (Audio File G-7, 3:19 min., 586 kb)

    • Charles Van Pelt re police LOS
    • Sarah Davenport-Smith - Re other criterion for level of standard measurement
    • Jeff Cofer - feels removing LOS for police wise move; otherwise it sets up possible "recipe for failure." Also offers explanation for LOS "D".
      • Note: The audio quality of Sarah's and Jeff's comments was poor. Therefore, in addition to the above audio file that contains their comments, we have also posted the audio of their comments recorded by a second recorder located closer to their side of the room: Audio File G-8, 2:26 min., 430 kb.

Additional comments, questions from Council (Audio File G-9, 6:34 min., 1.2 mb)

PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE CP UPDATE:

CLOSING COMMENTS BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS (P. B. Member Charles Van Pelt and C/M Steve Slawson) - Audio File I, 3:27 min., 610 kb)

Public portion of the meeting adjourned at 9:14 PM (There was an executive Session re Potential Land acquisition and Personnel)

Definition of Levels of Service for roadways:

The transportation LOS system uses the letters A through F, with A being best and F being worst. LOS A is the best, described as conditions where traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and all motorists have complete mobility between lanes. LOS A occurs late at night in urban areas, frequently in rural areas, and generally in car advertisements.

B is slightly more congested, with some impingement of maneuverability; two motorists might be forced to drive side by side, limiting lane changes. LOS B does not reduce speed from LOS A.

LOS C has more congestion than B, where ability to pass or change lanes is not always assured. LOS C is the target for urban highways in many places. At LOS C most experienced drivers are comfortable, roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity, and posted speed is maintained.

LOS D is perhaps the level of service of a busy shopping corridor in the middle of a weekday, or a functional urban highway during commuting hours: speeds are somewhat reduced, motorists are hemmed in by other cars and trucks. In busier urban areas this level of service is sometimes the goal for peak hours, as attaining LOS C would require a prohibitive cost in bypass roads and lane additions.

LOS E is a marginal service state. Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly, but rarely reaches the posted limit. On highways this is consistent with a road over its designed capacity.

LOS F is the lowest measurement of efficiency for a road's performance. Flow is forced; every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent drops in speed to nearly zero mph. Technically, a road in a constant traffic jam would be below LOS F. This is because LOS does not describe an instant state, but rather an average or typical service. For example, a highway might operate at LOS D for the AM peak hour, but have traffic consistent with LOS C some days, LOS E or F others, and come to a halt once every few weeks. However, LOS F describes a road for which the travel time cannot be predicted.

  
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) citation
Referenced by Steve Fox in his public comments (WAC 365-195-600 - Public participation):

(l) Requirements. Each county and city planning under the act shall establish procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. Errors in exact compliance with the established procedures shall not render the comprehensive plan or development regulations invalid if the spirit of the procedures is observed.

(2) Recommendations for meeting requirements. The recommendations made in this subsection are intended as a list of possible choices, but it is recognized that meaningful public participation can be accomplished without using all of the suggestions made here or by adopting other methods.

(a) Public involvement in plan and regulation development.

(i) In designing its public participation program, each planning jurisdiction should endeavor to involve the broadest cross-section of the community, so that groups not previously involved in planning become involved. The programs should include efforts to explain that citizen input is an essential part of the planning process and provide a framework for advising citizens about timelines for steps in the process and when citizen input will be sought.

(ii) Visioning. The public should be involved at the earliest possible time in the process of comprehensive planning under the act. This should begin with a visioning process in which the public is invited to participate in a broad definition of the kind of future to be sought for the community. The results of this process should then be incorporated into the plan features, including, but not limited to, locally adopted levels of service and densities selected for commercial, industrial, and residential development.

(iii) Planning commission. In the process of plan development, full use should be made of the planning commission as a liaison with the public.

(iv) Public meetings on draft plan. Once the plan is completed in draft form, or as parts of it are drafted, a series of public meetings or workshops should be held at various locations throughout the jurisdiction to obtain public reaction and suggestions.

(v) Public hearings. When the final draft of the plan has been completed, at least one public hearing should be held prior to the presentation of the final draft to the legislative authority of the jurisdiction adopting it. When the plan is proposed for adoption, the legislative authority should conduct another public hearing prior to voting on adoption.

(vi) Written comment. At each stage of the process when public input is sought, opportunity should be provided to make written comment.

(vii) Communication programs and information services. Each jurisdiction should make every effort to collect and disseminate public information explaining the act and the process involved in complying with it. In addition, locally relevant information packets and brochures should be developed and disseminated. Planners should actively seek to appear before community groups to explain the act and the plan development process.

(viii) Proposals and alternatives. Whenever public input is sought on proposals and alternatives, the relevant drafts should be reproduced and made available to interested persons.

(ix) Notice. Notice of all events at which public input is sought should be broadly disseminated in advance through all available means, including flyers and press releases to print and broadcast media. Notice should be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least one week in advance of any public hearing. When appropriate, notices should announce the availability of relevant draft documents on request.

(x) All meetings and hearings to which the public is invited should be free and open. At hearings all persons desiring to speak should be allowed to do so, consistent with time constraints.

(xi) Consideration of and response to public comments. All comments and recommendations of the public should be reviewed. Adequate time should be provided between the time of any public hearing and the date of adoption of all or any part of the comprehensive plan to evaluate and respond to public comments. The proceedings and all public hearings should be recorded. A summary of public comments and an explanation of what action was taken in response to them should be made in writing and included in the record of adoption of the plan.

(xii) Every effort should be made to incorporate public involvement efforts into the SEPA process.

(xiii) Except for the visioning effort, the same steps should precede the adoption of development regulations as was used for the comprehensive plan.

(b) Continuous public involvement. The planning commission should monitor development of both the plan and the development regulations. After these are adopted, the commission should monitor compliance. The commission should report to the city or county at least annually on possible amendments to the plan or development regulations. In addition at least annually, the commission should convene a public meeting to provide information on how implementation is progressing and to receive public input on changes that may be needed. When any amendments are proposed for adoption, the same public hearing procedure should be followed as attended initial adoption.

  

NOTES ON OUR DIGITAL RECORDING AND FILES:

  • This audio is accurate and complete. However, we urge that people contact the City directly to obtain the final agenda, and certified minutes, ordinances, resolutions or other documents: City Clerk Laura Koenig 360-793-2231. If you receive the automated message, you can bypass it and go directly to her voicemail by pressing "2" and then the pound (#) sign.
  • As of the October 26, 2006 council meeting, the city began recording meetings using a Morantz MP3 digital recorder, which records directly from the microphones to the recorder, thus, it is clearer than the audio we present here, which is captured from the room's ambient sound with a microphone located near the podium. If you wish to secure a copy of the City's audio, contact Clerk Laura Koenig.
  • All of our digital audio files are in MP3 format, playable on Windows Mediaplayer or other MP3-compatible digital device