City Council adopts liquor regulations

As promised, the Fircrest City Council voted on Tuesday, Dec. 8, to adopt liquor regulations that implement the will of the voters.

Exactly how far we implemented their will is debatable, but it’s a good start.

To recap, 75 percent of Fircrest voters decided on Nov. 3 to end the Prohibition-era ban on serving beer, wine and spirits by the glass in the two business districts on Regents Blvd.

The Fircrest Planning Commission, a volunteer panel of citizens, took the first crack at drafting zoning regulations to implement the new law. The Commission held a public hearing and a public meeting in September and October, respectively. Commissioners heard primarily from residents from the Princeton Street area who are concerned about the impacts of alcohol-serving businesses on their neighborhood. As a result, the Commission drafted the following regulations for consideration by the City Council, which has the final say:

  • The sale, service and consumption of alcohol in the Neighborhood Commercial zone (again, the two shopping areas on Regents) is prohibited after 10 p.m.
  • Any business that obtains a liquor license is prohibited from depositing bottles and other trash in outdoor receptacles between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. (in other words, don’t dump bottles in the Dumpster at night).
  • Sale, service or consumption outdoors is prohibited.
  • Only licenses granted to certain kinds of restaurants are allowed. Taverns, lounges and nightclubs are prohibited.

I’ve heard from a lot more people than the Planning Commissioners, and I felt the Commission’s draft was a bit too restrictive. As the City Council prepared to make its final decision, I drafted an amendment that would make the following changes:

Continue reading

Where we’ve been, and where we’re going

League of Women Voters asks about economic development, open government, building consensus, and more

The League of Women Voters has an extraordinary history — forming in 1920 as advocates were making the final push to ratify the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, finally giving women the right to vote. The nonpartisan League has been providing valuable information to voters ever since.

My opponent Heather and I both filled out the League’s candidate questionnaire. It’s a generic one designed for all cities, but it still shows some big differences between us.

League of Women Voters logo

League of Women Voters

Once again, Heather offers happy thoughts but no actual plans. She also takes a couple of strange, ill-informed shots at me. The League’s candidate guide is available at www.vote411.org. You have to drill in by street address, which is handy because you can see our answers side-by-side. I plugged in the address for City Hall and provide the link here. Or, here’s a link to Heather’s answers, and mine are pasted below.

Continue reading

What’s next on the liquor question (updated 8/29)

As you’ve heard by now, a group of citizens (and Councilmembers Medley and Jolibois) collected 900-plus signatures — enough to place the question of whether to lift the ban on serving alcohol by the glass on the Nov. 3 ballot. It’ll be the first time Fircrest voters have considered the issue since the mid-1970s.

I recounted how we got to this point here. So what’s next? We talked about that at tonight’s City Council meeting.

Supporters and opponents have the opportunity to sign up to write the pro and con statements in the Pierce County Voter Pamphlet. You’ll find info about that here on the Pierce County Auditor’s website. The city won’t get involved in the campaign at all (though elected officials and staff are free to work on it during their personal time).

However, the city does have official action to take. As we’ve stated since the beginning, if voters change the law then we have a responsibility to implement it carefully, particularly out of consideration for residential neighbors in the Regents Blvd area. Those of you’ve who’ve been following this know we’ve promised to address local zoning regulations. That process is gearing up.

I’m the Council’s liaison to the planning staff this year, so after meeting with them yesterday we agreed that we’ll ask the Fircrest Planning Commission to draft zoning regulations at its September meeting. That’s a public meeting. Then the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on those draft regs at its October meeting to get public feedback. (Note: The Planning Commission normally meets on the first Tuesday of every month, so those meetings would likely be Sept.1 and Oct. 6. I’ll post an update when dates are confirmed.) Aug. 15 update: the Sept. 1 and Oct. 6 meeting dates are confirmed.  Aug. 29 update: The Planning Commission has scheduled a special meeting for this topic on Sept. 15.

What do we mean by zoning regulations? The state has different classifications for liquor licenses — for example, taverns and nightclubs have a different license than a restaurant. We can pass an ordinance that restricts the types of licenses that are available.

Other possibilities for consideration include limiting outdoor seating hours and prohibiting bottles and other trash from being dumped after certain hours. I’m certain other restrictions will be discussed as well.

So there should be at least two public meetings of the Planning Commission to discuss implementation before voters decide this issue. I’m sure lots of people will be sharing the dates and agendas once they are set.

The Planning Commission isn’t the only voice. When it comes to policy matters like this, the Planning Commission votes on recommended regs and forwards that to the Council, which by law must have at least two public meetings of its own (presumably in November) before giving final approval. So there will be lots of opportunity for citizens to be heard.

You can decide whether to end the ban on liquor by the glass

One of the most common questions I hear from Fircrest residents involves our city’s partial prohibition on “liquor by the glass.” Specifically, they want more dining options in the area, and they often ask why the City Council doesn’t just change the law so that restaurants can offer a full beverage service with their menus, especially since we are the last city in Washington State to have a “dry” area, according to the Liquor Control Board.

Here’s the short answer: the City Council doesn’t have the authority. No City Council does. A Prohibition-era state law puts that decision solely in the hands of voters.

Given how many people have asked me about this, I looked for an opportunity to start the conversation. I got it on March 12, 2014, when we hosted a “visioning meeting” of the City Council. I’ve seen other city and county councils do these kinds of retreats where, instead of just talking about the day’s business, the elected leaders take the time to look at the big picture and pick some priorities to work on each year, so I suggested we dedicate a special meeting for this purpose. As you’ll see from the minutes, when it was my turn I requested that we start a conversation about the liquor issue. After a really interesting discussion, the Council voted to include that on our priority list.

prohibitionAs many of you now know, Fircrest’s situation is more complicated than most. Our city isn’t totally dry. The areas that were annexed in the 1990s were grandfathered in, meaning they were allowed to keep their liquor licenses. That includes the Fircrest Golf Club and such current businesses as Pint Defiance and Royal Thai Bistro (and the Emerson Courtyard shopping center).

The problem: If voters say no to liquor by the glass (as they did in 1975), those businesses would lose their grandfathered status, their liquor licenses, and their livelihoods. As Councilmembers, we agreed there’s no way we could let that happen.

So Councilmember Jason Medley and I, with the blessing of the full Council, went to Olympia several times during the 2015 session to ask for help. Our legislative delegation from the 28th Legislative District – Sen. Steve O’Ban, Rep. Christine Kilduff, and Rep. Dick Muri – sponsored a law that exempts the annexed areas from the new vote. Thanks to their help, we protected existing businesses along Mildred and Orchard streets from losing their licenses, while giving businesses along Regents Boulevard the opportunity to grow or locate here, with some limitations (more on that in a moment).

Now it’s up to you. Some Fircrest residents and business owners are circulating petitions to place the question of liquor by the drink on the Nov. 3 ballot. They need to turn in ab
out 700 signatures to the Pierce County Auditor’s Office in August, so there’s not much time. They have a campaign Facebook page called the Committee for a 21st Century Fircrest, and they can be reached at 21centuryfircrest@gmail.com. I’m told you’ll find petitions at TWO Cafe, Spring Lake Cafe, Exercise Science Center, Espresso Yourself and Fircrest Pharmacy.

Remember, a no vote maintains the status quo (meaning, no harm to any existing license holder). A yes vote removes the ban on sales by the glass, which enables businesses like Spring Lake Café and T.W.O to expand their offerings, and it removes an obstacle for other dining establishments to consider opening here.wine

Which brings me to this point: Fircrest is a residential, family-friendly community. I can assure you the Council often talks about the charming feeling you get in Fircrest, and our commitment to preserve that. In other words, nightclubs like those on Tacoma’s 6th Avenue would clash with our quiet neighborhoods.

The City Council has asked the Fircrest Planning Commission to develop draft zoning regulations that would limit the types of businesses that could operate here. Each Councilmember is assigned as the liaison to a city department every year, and my assignment this year happens to be the Planning Department. We anticipate the Planning Commission will take this up in September, and then they’d forward a recommendation to the City Council for another round of consideration. We will want to hear from residents on this issue, so I will post an update when the public hearings are scheduled. Aug. 15 update: The Planning Commission is now scheduled to review and discuss a draft recommendation on Sept. 1, and solicit public comment at a meeting on Oct. 6. Both meetings are open to the public. Aug. 29 update: The Planning Commission has scheduled a special meeting for this topic on Sept. 15.

This is a controversial topic for some, especially those who live next to the two commercial areas on Regents. We have to respect their interests. (Who wants to hear the sound of beer bottles being dumped in the garbage recycling bin at midnight?) I believe we can manage this issue like we do other issues – in that neighborly way in which we listen to each other and we look for ways to improve our quality of life while preserving the characteristics that make this such a charming place to live. Do you agree?

***

Aug. 15 clarification: I want to make sure I’m not in any way implying that the full City Council supports lifting the prohibition. The full Council agreed that we should change the state law so that existing businesses in the annexed areas wouldn’t be harmed. At least a couple of members have said that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote to repeal the prohibition.

Mildred St. Update #4: we did it

I’m several weeks late in reporting this, but I should close the loop since the blog leaves it as an open question. The cities of Fircrest and University Place did indeed reach agreement to jointly apply for the federal grant that makes significant improvements to Mildred Street between Regents Boulevard and 19th Street.

As The News Tribune reported, there was “discord.” What can I say? Sometimes democracy ain’t pretty. But the bottom line is we got there – thanks in large part to the willingness of the Eaton family – which owns the vacant 9-acre parcel between Columbia Bank and Sunrise Center. That property represents one of Fircrest’s best hopes for commercial growth that can help stabilize our small city’s budget.

If UP gets the grant, Fircrest’s share is an estimated $87,000. The Eaton family has agreed to pay Fircrest’s share. It’s a smart move on their part: they get road improvements in front of their property that are worth several times more than the investment. The Fircrest City Council approved an agreement with with the Eaton family at tonight’s Council meeting.

Now we wait. We’ll find out this summer if the grant application is successful.

Mildred St. update #3: will we make it?

It’s crunch time. The Fircrest City Council meets Tuesday and is scheduled to make a decision on whether to join the City of University Place in applying for a federal transportation grant to install infrastructure on Mildred Street – a major arterial between our two cities.

The News Tribune’s Christian Hill did a good job of summing up the issues in a story posted online today (and presumably running in Monday’s print edition). Fircrest is hustling to draft an agreement that ensures our city’s interests are addressed during the design and construction process. But as Hill reports, UP says there’s not enough time to reach an agreement, and would we please just sign on the dotted line?

It can’t ever be easy, can it?

Mildred Street update #2

Does anybody know who Mildred Street is named after? Because she’s proving to be troublesome!

We’re making progress, but it’s slower than some of us would like, and it remains to be seen if we’ll resolve some issues before the deadline to apply for the transportation grant. We’re still focused on making it a three-lane road (one lane in each direction, plus a center turn lane), which was the compromise that came up during a recent joint meeting of the Fircrest and University Place city councils. Here are the main questions and concerns voiced by various Fircrest staff and councilmembers at this past Tuesday’s City Council meeting:

University Place did the preliminary design plan without any input from our staff. That’s true. It’s been true since this issue came up in 2010. UP owns the entire roadway, so they didn’t have to approach us (although it would have been the neighborly thing to do). But there’s still plenty of time. The design on the table is preliminary – there is a long way to go, and we could condition our support for the project using what’s known as an Interlocal Agreement (IA) that includes a requirement to include us in the final design. This should be one of the easier issues to resolve, but for some reason it’s not.

UP’s design follows that city’s guidelines, which means the streetlights would be UP’s choice, etc, and we need to make sure our side looks like Fircrest. Again, this could be addressed in an Interlocal Agreement and during final design.

More right-of-way acquisition is necessary on the Fircrest side of the street than the UP side. This is true because UP’s side is against a steep slope and therefore would cost much more to change. That’s always going to be the case due to the topography, so it seems to me we should just accept this issue. And besides, by shifting the project to three lanes instead of five, less right of way is needed.

Would the improvements covered by this project have to be ripped up if the vacant property between Columbia Bank and Sunrise Center sells after the project is constructed? This is a risk to this, but it seems to be small. Construction wouldn’t start for two years, so that’s two years to see who buys it, which provides time to alter the design to accommodate development. The property owner is supportive of this project because he figures improving Mildred Street will lead to a faster sale.

Fircrest can’t afford its share of the cost, which could be as much as $126,000. This is true. But what if a property owner who stands to benefit from this project paid for the city’s share? I don’t know if this will happen, but if it does, then the cost issue would seem to be moot.

University Place still intends to charge traffic impact fees to anyone who puts a sizable development on that vacant property. This is a big sticking point. UP and Fircrest have disagreed for years over whether UP, which owns the entire roadway, has the legal authority to assess fees on a property owner in Fircrest. Fircrest folks say UP’s fees have chased away at least two potential developments on Fircrest’s side of the street. We maintain that one jurisdiction cannot assess a fee to a business inside another jurisdiction (see Nolte v. City of Olympia). That’s not to say UP can’t seek relief for traffic impacts within its borders, but it should do that via other means allowed by state law, not traffic impact fees. Still, UP leaders made it clear this week they will not change their stance. Could this fee issue be negotiated as part of the Interlocal Agreement?

The Fircrest City Council will discuss the Mildred Street project at our study session on Monday, April 16. It’s at the end of a hefty agenda, which includes a first quarter financial report and a report on our fiscal outlook through 2013. Those are not expected to be glowing reports.

We are scheduled to vote on whether to sign onto UP’s project at our April 24 meeting. If you have thoughts about this, now is the time to share them with the City Council and/or staff.

 

Update 1: possible Mildred Street corridor compromise

As I reported earlier, we recently held a special joint meeting of the city councils of Fircrest and University Place. It was a long, but very productive meeting. Seriously – I walked out of there thinking, “Congress could learn something from us.”

I’ll get into details below, but here’s the gist: We made significant progress toward a possible compromise, but the question is whether there’s enough time to agree on numerous details before the grant application deadline, which is May 1.

The councils opened the meeting by agreeing that there was an “elephant in the room” – years of simmering tension between the two cities, and miscommunication and sometimes no communication. UP Mayor Ken Grassi graciously noted that his council has four new members – in effect, he said, it’s like having a new council – and that we should start a new and better relationship.

Then we got into a long discussion about UP’s proposal. UP wants to apply for a competitive federal grant that’s administered by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Lots of other jurisdictions also are applying for these limited grant dollars, so if Fircrest signs on as a co-applicant, then staff believes the grant would almost certainly score high enough to be approved.

One of the biggest concerns among Fircrest councilmembers was the proposal to squeeze two lanes down to one in front of Sunrise Center, and then open up more lanes again at the intersection with 19th Street.

UP City Engineer Jack Ecklund explained that the grant in question is for “non-motorized” transportation projects. It primarily pays for sidewalks, curbs and planting strips. He said we could not use this money to pay for a full lane of travel.

Another major concern on the Fircrest side is the UP proposal would require more space – and there’s no space on the UP (west) side of Mildred. That means we’d have to negotiate with property owners on the Fircrest side, and if that didn’t work, the UP officials said we would have to agree to use the power of eminent domain. I won’t speak for my council colleagues on here very often, but I didn’t hear anyone indicate a willingness to take property for this project.

Then a compromise was floated: what if we took the whole street down to three lanes – a travel lane in each direction and a center turn lane? That’s already the case further down Mildred. And we’ve confirmed that the City of Tacoma is considering doing that on Mildred on the other side of 19th. Continue reading

Fircrest and UP councils to hold joint meeting about Mildred corridor improvements

When it comes to Mildred Street, there are some things that the city councils of Fircrest and University Place agree on: it’s an important arterial for both cities. Its current condition between 19th Street and Regents Boulevard is, well, not exactly welcoming. And updating the street could spur development on both sides, which would benefit the tax bases of both cities.

Here’s what we don’t agree on: what to do about it.

UP is preparing to apply for a $675,000 regional transportation grant to pay for design and right-of-way to improve Mildred from 19th to Regents with sidewalks, curb and gutter, landscaping, streetlights and bike lanes. UP is asking Fircrest to sign on as a project co-sponsor, which boosts the chances of winning the grant. They also want Fircrest to pony up $126,000 to help with the matching grant. (UP would apply for another grant later to pay for most of the $1.7 million cost of construction.)

At first glance, the project sounds great. But as you’ll see, Fircrest officials have had a number of important questions about this project for several years. UP has yet to answer them. That’s why we’re doing something unusual.

The UP and Fircrest city councils will convene a joint meeting on Wednesday, March 14. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. in UP’s Council Chambers, 3715 Bridgeport Way. The only agenda item is to discuss the Mildred corridor project. The meeting is open to the public.

There’s no question that corridor is vital to Fircrest’s future. We must increase our commercial tax base in order to stabilize our city’s budget and maintain a strong level of service to our 6,500 residents.

That said, UP’s proposed design is problematic.  Continue reading