Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-14 Special MinutesCALL TO ORDER Mayor Haggerton called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 8:00 p.m., directly following the Committee of the Whole meeting. ROLL CALL Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, called the roll of the Council. Present were: Councilmembers Joe Duffie, Joan Hernandez, Pam Linder, Dennis Robertson, Verna Griffin, Kathy Hougardy, De'Sean Quinn. CITY OFFICIALS Tukwila City Council City Hall Council Chambers MINUTES Shawn Hunstock, Interim City Administrator; Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney; Bob Sterbank, Assistant City Attorney; Bob Giberson, Public Works Director; Hillman Mitchell, Emergency Management Coordinator; Jack Pace, Community Development Director; Nora Gierloff, Community Development Deputy Director; Carol Lumb, Senior Planner; Mary Miotke, Information Technology Director; Lisa Verner, Project Manager; Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst; Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Vouchers #350630 350634 in the amount of $1,825,895.66. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. A resolution expressing appreciation to Pam Linder for her years of service as a Councilmember. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING SINCERE GRATITUDE TO PAMELA LINDER FOR HER SERVICE AS A COUNCILMEMBER. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed resolution by title only. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1704. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, LEVYING THE GENERAL TAXES FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA IN KING COUNTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2010, ON ALL PROPERTY, BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, IN SAID CITY, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO CARRY ON THE SERVICES OF THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF SAID CITY FOR THE ENSUING YEAR, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Special Meeting December 14, 2009 MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY GRIFFIN THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. The Councilmembers and the Mayor individually thanked Ms. Linder for her service. b. An ordinance levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2010, on all property, both real and personal. Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 2 of 13 MOVED BY LINDER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed ordinance by title only. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY LINDER THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0 TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2267. c. An ordinance finalizing the Tukwila South annexation. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 259 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT PROPERTY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY LINDER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed ordinance by title only. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0 TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2268. d. A resolution supporting the Tukwila School District's capital levy for instructional technology and school improvements. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, SUPPORTING THE TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL LEVY ON THE FEBRUARY 9, 2010 BALLOT. MOVED BY GRIFFIN, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed resolution by title only. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1705. e. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Ordinances: 1. An ordinance approving and adopting a Shoreline Master Program update for the City of Tukwila to incorporate new State regulations. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AND ADOPTING A SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA TO INCORPORATE NEW STATE REQUIREMENTS; REPEALING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 5 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ADOPTED IN SECTION 1.A OF ORDINANCE NO. 1757; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY LINDER, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed ordinance by title only. Mayor Haggerton called for public comments. Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 3 of 13 Jeff Weber, 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, is representing the James Campbell Company. He indicated his client requests the Council not adopt the Shoreline Master Program ordinances this evening. Mr. Weber explained there are some issues within the SMP that could be resolved with additional review and discussion between staff and property owners. Mr. Weber stated the main concern for his clients is the permit requirement for changing between the non conforming uses section. Due to the narrowness of the use category, any change in tenant will require a non conforming use permit. Any permit requirement for a change in tenant is not practical in a commercial environment. The process that has been proposed is the Type 2 decision with a public notice period. Mr. Weber explained the Type 2 decision, including application submission and City review, could take considerably more time than the negotiations relating to a lease of space, which could cause tenants to look elsewhere. If prospective tenants choose to overlook Tukwila, his client's buildings would be rendered un- leasable. Mr. Weber asked about the rationale used by staff to make the change of building uses that are partially located within the buffer so difficult for property owners. Staff has explained the buildings within the buffer are going to interfere with the maintenance and reconstruction of the levees. Mr. Weber indicated his client feels the City does not understand the complexities relating to the non conforming issue. The very broad generalities viewed by the City do not reflect the actual conditions along the river. They have provided numerous expert reports that clearly states there are substantial buildings along the river within the buffer that would not interfere with reconstruction of the levee. He explained they would be willing to discuss additional technical issues with staff to resolve the matter without violating the goal of the City relating to adoption of the SMP. Catherine Desjardin, 3826 S. 116 Street, indicated she is a concerned resident. She explained the proposed Shoreline Master Program is very restrictive for property owners and will limit the use she would have of her property. She explained the City of Bellevue specifically identifies the protection of property owners and their rights, and she inquired about why the proposed SMP for Tukwila is so restrictive. Ms. Desjardin expressed support for additional review. Linda Desimone, 7902 Eastside Drive NE, Tacoma, explained she is a trustee of property that is affected by the proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Program. She has reviewed the proposed SMP revisions and feels the suggested changes are very limiting and would restrict the allowed uses of the property the Desimone family has owned in the area for 90 years. Ms. Desimone requested that the Council listen to the experts and allow additional time for review. She explained the proposed SMP, as written, will have severe finance ramifications for the area's property owners. Chuck Maduell, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, indicated he represents the Desimone Trust, The Innkeepers and other property owners. He explained his clients are not requesting the buffer width be reduced. They are requesting the Council allow them to demonstrate that a reduced buffer would fully address the City's justification for the proposed buffer width. Mr. Maduell explained staff has proposed a buffer width that would provide a 2.5:1 stable slope, plus 20 feet. The proposed amendment allows for the 2.5:1 slope with the 20 feet. However; the buffer width has been based on scientific justification. He indicated a property owner would be required to submit a report from a geotechnical engineer or other qualified professional concluding that there is sufficient area for a 2.5:1 slope, and that the reduced buffer will not have an impact on the stability of the riverbank. He also discussed the proposed language relating to modifications on a non conforming structure and the vegetated buffer. Many jurisdictions and King County will allow a property owner to keep an existing structure that is non conforming if the modifications do not increase the degree of non conformity and their proposed amendment includes language that would limit the value of the modifications. He also explained that re- vegetation requirements from one non conforming use to another should be proportional, such as the current requirement of a shoreline enhancement to off -set the impact of the change of use for the property. Mr. Maduell explained the requested changes are reasonable, and he requested the Council revisit the buffer width in the SMP and delay approval of the Shoreline Master Program ordinances. Robert W. Thorpe, 705 Second Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, is representing the Desimone Trust. He indicated several property owners have expressed a concern for the proposed draft of the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Thorpe explained the proposed SMP does not pass the reasonable test. He explained the proposed amendments presented this evening were created from information gathered from previous meetings and work sessions and language that was thought to be approved by the Council. Mr. Thorpe provided an example relating the costs associated with correcting 45,000 square feet of a Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 4 of 13 building that would be considered non conforming. If the SMP is adopted, the property owner would have to vegetate approximately 300,000 square feet of bank, with a total cost to the property owner of over $1. million dollars. The three amendments provided to the Council address the major concerns by all the stakeholders and they are a compromise to the staff language. If the Council adopts the suggested language, the City would have willing property owners to work on improving the riverbank, rather than those unhappy property owners who are not willing to work toward improvements. Richard Desimone, 7902 Eastside Drive NE, Tacoma, is a trustee for family property located in Tukwila that will be affected by the proposed Shoreline Master Program. He indicated the proposed bank 2.5:1 re- sloping requirement as drafted is a model of unintended consequences. He has worked with various State and County agencies, and the proposed sloping requirements cannot be met. In order for property owners to perform the required re- sloping, they would be required to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and Tribal Councils. He explained that re- sloping is not usually completed by property owners, but by federal, state or county agencies under the guidance of the Army Corps of Engineers. He explained that King County has indicated they will spend $2 million dollars to re -slope approximately 1,000 linear feet of riverbank in the south end of Tukwila. Mr. Desimone explained that placing the financial burden on property owners would hurt the property owners and the City with reduced tax collection. He asked the Council to consider the proposed changes that would improve the SMP. Lara Fowler, 600 University Street, Suite 2100, Seattle, is representing Baker Commodities. She explained that Baker Commodities remains concerned about the definition of the shoreline jurisdiction. Ms. Fowler explained the proposed Shoreline Master Program includes a definition of Shoreline Jurisdiction that includes "the channel of the Green /Duwamish River, its banks, the upland area, which extends from the ordinary high water mark landward for 200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its floodplain." In speaking with staff, there is conflicting information that is being presented relating to the ordinary high water mark and the floodway. Ms. Fowler presented a suggested language change that would provide greater clarity relating to the exemption for floodways and the definition of a flood control device. The proposed language would read: "for the purpose of determining shoreline jurisdiction the floodway shall not include those lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices such as levees and dams and therefore have not been subject to flood with reasonable regularity." Ms. Fowler explained the greater issues are the unintended consequences that would affect property owners. She thanked the Council and staff for the work associated with the Shoreline Master Program. Jack McCullough, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220, Seattle, is representing La Pianta, LLC. He indicated that at the December 7, 2009 Council meeting, Councilmember Hougardy provided suggested language changes to TMC 18.44.070 E 10, relating to levees. He explained he would like to provide clarification to the information that was previously presented. Mr. McCullough explained the Army Corps of Engineers is the only agency that is best qualified to certify the effectiveness of a levee. The proposed re -slope of 2.5:1 for the levees could possibly increase the river capacity. However; the levees are designed to accommodate the 100 -year flood. The City should not try and overdesign the levees for an imaginary flood. The amendment would also provide an easement to the City that would grant sufficient area to modify an existing levee as needed. He indicated that La Pianta endorses the proposed amendments and asked the Council to consider the information presented. Louie Sanft, 6120 52 Avenue South, Seattle, represents his family, which currently owns approximately 1,600 feet of property along the river. He explained as a property owner he feels there still are issues that need to be reviewed and corrected before the Council can adopt the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Sanft stated the size of the proposed setback is too large. The current setback is 10 feet, which has worked well for many years with no negative effects to the environment. By increasing the setback to 100 feet, the City would be taking an additional 60 feet of their land, an increase of 250 percent, which he feels is unreasonable. He stated the SMP references a 50 -foot setback in residential areas, and he feels that is satisfactory for residential property owners. That is the setback all property owners should have. Mr. Sanft clarified the City received a grant from the Department of Ecology (DOE) to update the Shoreline Master Program. He explained the DOE does not have a requirement for the proposed 100 -foot setback. The Council should not feel obligated to pass the SMP this evening. Councilmember Linder requested clarification from staff relating to the options available to property owners with non conforming structures, as they relate to the permit process. Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 5 of 13 Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, explained staff initially proposed a Conditional Use Permit, and at the Council's direction changed that decision to a Type 2 permit with a public notice. The final option would be to have the non conforming structures be changed to a Director decision. However, Ms. Lumb clarified that would be a policy decision to be made by the Council. Bob Sterbank, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that should the Council keep the existing language, a property owner would have an additional option to reconstruct the levee and then move the building to a new location on the property to be in compliance. Councilmember Quinn explained the Council has worked on this issue many times and the original comments the Council received indicated the staff recommendation did not provide any flexibility for the property owners. The change to a Type 2 decision does provide the flexibility that the property owners requested. Councilmember Robertson explained the issues relating to the Shoreline Master Program will not stop with the adoption of the ordinances. Once the Council approves the SMP, it will move on to the Department of Ecology, and they, too, will hold public hearings on the issue. Mr. Robertson clarified that public safety is the main concern for the Council, and the proposed SMP will provide that desired safety. Councilmember Hougardy expressed concern relating to the Councilmember's statements regarding public safety and the SMP. The SMP does not aid in public safety nor is public safety the main concern of the program. She explained that if the area were to flood, the water would flood over the riverbanks and the flooding is a separate issue from the SMP. Councilmember Duffie explained he has been presented with a lot of new information, and he is not ready to make a decision or to vote on this issue this evening. Bob Sterbank, City Attorney, explained to the Council the ordinance being discussed does not contain any of the suggested changes distributed at this meeting. If the Council would like to amend the ordinance, it would need to be on the table for discussion. Mr. Sterbank suggested the Council review the three proposed amendments. If the Council would like to add any of the proposed amendments, they could amend the original motion to include the amendments. He explained the Council could discuss any policy decisions at the time the amendment is discussed. Councilmember Quinn indicated he would like to address each proposed amendment one at a time. Councilmember Hougardy supports the proposed discussion process, and she would like to address the comments speaker by speaker. Councilmember Linder clarified that none of the Councilmembers have provided any suggested changes to staff for the first ordinance. She also noted there appeared to be four members of the Council who were ready to vote on the issue. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE AMENDED IN SECTION 18.44.130 (E)(1)(e); NON CONFORMING USES, SPECIFICALLY IN 1.E.6. TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:* "6) The applicant restores and /or enhances the entire shoreline buffer, including but not limited to, paved areas no longer in use on the property, to offset the impact of the change of use per the vegetation management standards of this chaptcr program. The amount of buffer to be restored and /or enhanced will be determined based on the percentage of existing building used by the nonconforming use. Depending on the size of the area to be restored and /or enhanced, the Director may require targeted plantings rather than a linear planting arrangement. The vegetation management standards of this program shall be used for guidance on anv restoration /enhancement. This may include the restoration of paved areas to vegetated area if no longer in use." Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 6 of 13 *ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE YES LINDER NO HERNANDEZ YES ROBERTSON NO GRIFFIN NO HOUGARDY YES QUINN NO MOTION FAILED 3 -4. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE AMENDED IN SECTION 18.44.130 (E)(2)(a) AND (g); NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE PROVISIONS, SPECIFICALLY IN PARAGRAPH 2.a. TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: "Such structures may be repaired, maintained, upgraded and altered provided that (1) the structure may not be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of nonconformity or increases its impacts to the functions and values of the shoreline environment, and (2) the cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50 of the value of the building or structure based upon its most recent assessment. or appraisal. unless the amount over fifty percent (50 is used to make the building or structure more conforming. or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority." AND, DELETION OF THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:* g. Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, cxisting structures that do not meet the requirements of the SMP may be altered or partially reconstructed provided that: the lot; 2) The new construction does not further intrude into or advcrcety-im-paet the required buffer; ccccry to achieve the intended functional purpose; /l) The reconstruction will not cr ate adverse impacts to she-reline ceelegical functions and /or processes; 5) For properties in non leveed portions of the river, the applicant re slopes the bank to u 2.5:1-er longer in use on the property. Where an existing building would prevent the re eloping of the bank tc 2.5:1 or 3:1 as applicable, the applicant must rc elope to the extent possible, remove invasive vegetation and rc vegetate according to the provisions of this chapter. For properties behind levees that do not meet the minimum profile, rectors and /or enhance the remaining buffer permitted by the COE; and 6) The property owner applies for and is portion of thc structure. 3. For thc purposes of this section, altered or partially reconstructed is defined as work that does not MOVED BY GRIFFIN, SECONDED BY QUINN TO AMEND THE MOTION, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO SECTION 18.44.130(E)(2)(a): "IN ANY THREE YEAR PERIOD," AND REMOVE THE WORD APPRAISAL. THE SECTION WILL READ AS: Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 7 of 13 a. Such structures may be repaired, maintained, upgraded and altered provided that (1) the structure may not be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of non conformity or increases its impacts to the functions and values of the shoreline environment and (2) the cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50 of the value of the building or structure in anv three (3) year period based upon its most recent assessment, er- appr-aisal, unless the amount over fifty percent (50 is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Councilmember Linder requested clarification about the 50% of the value within a three year period. She asked if an owner could make changes every three years on a non conforming a structure. Ms. Lumb explained that the addition of the three year time period will provide a definitive time for any improvements. She also explained the provision also addresses a concern by Innkeepers. The property owners will be able to make alterations or perform maintenance so they can continue with the status of a hotel. Mr. Sterbank explained that the rationale for the three year period allows property owners to perform basic remodels. *MOTION CARRIED 7 0. (for motion on bottom of page 6) Councilmember Robertson requested clarification from staff relating to the deletion of items g. 1 -4. Ms. Lumb explained the deletion of the language from items g1 -4 simplifies the process. The amendment provides limited improvements to a building in a three year period, therefore Section g, would not be required. Mr. Sterbank clarified the proposed amended language does include reference to items g2 and g4. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION g1 -g4. Motion dies due to lack of a second. Ms. Lumb clarified that an error occurred in the text of the amendment such that required language from the Tukwila Municipal Code was not included in section 2(a), relating to Baker Commodities. She explained the reference to TMC Section 18.66.120 should be reflected in the new section 2(a) for the City to be in compliance with a court ruling. MOVED BY QUINN, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THE PROPOSED ATTACHMENT A TO THE ORDINANCE BE AMENDED IN SECTION 18.44.130 (E)(2)(a); TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: "UNLESS TMC SECTION 18.66.120 APPLIES." MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Mr. Sterbank inquired if the Council agreed to allow staff to make the same changes that have passed in the parallel ordinances. The Council agreed that all approved changes be made in all the respective ordinances. Mayor Haggerton called for the vote on the original motion. *MOTION CARRIED 7 -0 TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. (for motion on page 6) MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY HOUGARDY TO CREATE AN ALTERNATE BUFFER REDUCTION PROCESS FOR NON LEVEED PROPERTIES IN THE URBAN CONSERVANCY AND HIGH INTENSITY SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS, REFERENCED IN ATTACHMENT A OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, TO BE AMENDED IN SECTION 7.7.C., NON LEVEED PROPERTIES, AND SECTION 7.8.B., THE 100 FOOT BUFFER WIDTH, AND TO AMEND TMC SECTIONS 18.44.050.D AND 18.44.060.D TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:* Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 8 of 13 "Buffer widths for non leveed properties within the Urban Conservancy Environment mav be reduced bv the Director of Community Development or his /her designee bv uD to 50% if an applicant demonstrates that a reduction (1) will provide enough area to achieve a 2.5:1 slope plus 20 feet from the top of the slope: and (2) will not result in any adverse impact to the river or remaining buffer, following reduction. To demonstrate that reduced buffer will provide enough area to achieve a 2.5:1 slope plus 20 feet and that no adverse impacts will result from the proposed buffer reduction, the property owner must submit a report from a oeotechnical engineer or other qualified professional concluding that there is sufficient area for a 2.5:1 slope. that the reduced buffer will have no impact to the stability of the riverbank, and that no flood hazard or other life /safetv issues will result from the buffer reduction. Further, if an existing buffer is vegetated, a buffer enhancement plan shall be reauired to demonstrate how the function and values of the buffer and river will be improved. If the existing buffer has been disturbed and /or is not vegetated. an enhancement plan shall be required that identifies measures to enhance the buffer functions and values. Enhancement plans are subiect to approval bv the Director of Community Development. In reviewing the enhancement plan, the Director will review whether the Dlan has implemented two or more of the measures from sections A, B. and /or C. This section is not intended to require a property owner to implement measures from each of sections A. B, and C below. A. Riparian Buffer Restoration and /or Enhancement 1. Invasive species are to be removed bv hand where appropriate; small wheeled tractors mav be used in large areas where no structures are located. 2. Existing riverbank and new buffer areas should be planted with native vegetation that represents both woody (trees and shrubs) and herbaceous species. 3. Trees shall be planted at spacing adequate to establish canopy and dependant on existing site conditions. 4. All planting shall be in compliance with Section 9.10, Vegetation Protection and Landscaping. B. Water Quality and Pollutant Removal (Stormwater Runoff) Councilmember Hougardy spoke in favor of the motion. She stated this language would favor the idea of proactive development along the riverbank. Councilmember Robertson spoke against the amendment explaining the suggested language would weaken the integrity of the Shoreline Master Program. Bob Sterbank, Assistant City Attorney, clarified the language would allow one property owner to have an advisory determination as to where the buffer would be located on one specific parcel. Councilmember Quinn spoke against the motion. He explained he feels the amendment would undermine the goal of the Council and the entire Shoreline Master Program. Councilmember Griffin spoke against the motion and explained that public safety is one of the main reasons the City is amending the Shoreline Master Program. She stated that she appreciated the time and information that was provided by the property owners. *ROLL CALL VOTE: (for motion on page 7) DUFFIE —YES LINDER NO HERNANDEZ YES ROBERTSON NO GRIFFIN NO HOUGARDY YES QUINN NO MOTION FAILED 3 -4. MOVED BY HOUGARDY, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO TMC SECTION 18.44.070.E.10 TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:* Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 9 of 13 10. New, existing, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures may deviate from the minimum levee profile only as follows: New Item b as follows: b. A levee that meets the design requirements of the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. or the provision of easements to the City granting sufficient area to modify an existing levee to meet the design requirements of the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan, plus an additional two feet shall satisfy the requirements of this chapter regarding minimum levee p rofile. provided that in either case the levee crown shall be at least 18 feet in width. Councilmember Hougardy spoke in favor of the motion. She reminded the Council that King County Councilmember Julia Patterson supports the amendment. Ms. Hougardy explained the Army Corps of Engineers have the most knowledgeable experts and their levee design should be adequate. She stated that if the Howard Hanson Dam should fail, the river will flood the area regardless of the height and slope of the riverbank. Councilmember Robertson spoke against the motion and clarified two of the previous statements relating to safety issues and that the Army Corps of Engineers is satisfied with a 2:1 slope. He clarified that a 2:1 slope is the minimum requirement by the Corps of Engineers. Secondly, the levee bench would provide access for maintenance of the levee and access in an emergency. Mr. Robertson explained the proposed amendment only applies to property that is owned by La Pianta, LLC. Councilmember Linder spoke against the motion. She reminded the Council that during the negotiations for the Tukwila South Development Agreement, all parties were aware the City would allow a minimum 2.5:1 slope. Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, confirmed that all parties were aware of the 2.5:1 slope. Councilmember Quinn requested staff explain the decision relating to the 2.5:1 slope ratio and who is responsible for maintenance of the levees. Bob Giberson, Public Works Director, indicated the Army Corps of Engineers requested that Tukwila be local sponsor of levee improvements, with a 2.5:1 ratio with a 12 -foot crown. The Corps of Engineers has increased the requirements for the City as the local sponsor relating to levee improvements. He also explained the City and King County Flood Control District are responsible for the maintenance and reconstruction of the levees as needed. Lisa Verner, Project Manager, clarified that a clause in the Tukwila South Development Agreement states that La Pianta will perform the maintenance of the new Tukwila South Levee on the La Pianta property if an agreement with King County Flood Control District cannot be negotiated. Mr. Sterbank clarified there are several mitigating factors relating to the minimum slope of 2.5:1. Council President Hernandez inquired if the City is the only municipality requiring the 2.5:1 slope. Ms. Lumb indicated the City of Kent also has the 2.5:1 slope requirement. Councilmember Robertson indicated section 5.9.10 of the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan states that "initial levee stability studies performed at four locations of the lower Green River indicate that the existing levees fail to provide the minimum factors of safety against potential structural levee failures, based on published federal guidelines. In order to correct the structural deficiencies of the levee system in this reach, the slope geometry of the levees must be modified. The most straightforward remedy is to set the levee fill back away from the top of the riverbank to create an overall levee slope of 2.5:1." Bob Sterbank, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan utilizes a profile that is identical to the City's. The issue relating to the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan is located in the language in the ordinance adopting the plan. The ordinance contained language that allowed La Pianta a different requirement than everyone else covered by the Flood Hazard Plan. Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14. 2009 Page 10 of 13 *ROLL CALL VOTE: (for motion on page 8) DUFFIE —YES LINDER NO HERNANDEZ YES ROBERTSON NO GRIFFIN NO HOUGARDY YES QUINN NO MOTION FAILED 3 -4. Councilmember Hougardy requested clarification relating to the previous statements about public safety and how they relate to the Shoreline Master Program. Ms. Lumb clarified that the Shoreline Master Program does not specifically discuss public safety. Rather, the SMP includes Council requested policy language relating to preventing and minimizing flood damage and providing for life safety issues. Mr. Sterbank explained that flood protection and flood damage avoidance is the express purpose of the Shoreline Management Act statue. The requirement for adequate room to allow for flood protection is derived from the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology. MOVED BY LINDER, SECONDED BY QUINN, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, WITH AMENDMENTS, BE ADOPTED AS READ. ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE —NO LINDER YES HERNANDEZ NO ROBERTSON YES GRIFFIN YES HOUGARDY NO QUINN YES MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2269. 2. An ordinance updating the shoreline element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate policies that reflect new State requirements for areas subject to shoreline jurisdiction. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, UPDATING THE SHORELINE ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO INCORPORATE POLICIES THAT REFLECT NEW STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR AREAS SUBJECT TO SHORELINE JURISDICTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY GRIFFIN, SECONDED BY LINDER THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed ordinance by title only. MOVED BY LINDER, SECONDED BY QUINN THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ. Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 11 of 13 ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE —NO LINDER YES HERNANDEZ —NO ROBERTSON YES GRIFFIN YES HOUGARDY NO QUINN YES MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2270. 3. An ordinance updating requirements for shoreline regulations to incorporate new State requirements regarding "Shoreline Overlay." AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, UPDATING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORELINE REGULATIONS TO INCORPORATE NEW STATE REQUIREMENTS; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 1796 §3 (PART), 1775 §2, AND 1758 §1 (PART), AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.44, "SHORELINE OVERLAY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY GRIFFIN, SECONDED BY QUINN THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed ordinance by title only. MOVED BY LINDER, SECONDED BY GRIFFIN THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ. ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE —NO LINDER YES HERNANDEZ —NO ROBERTSON YES GRIFFIN YES HOUGARDY NO QUINN YES MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2271. 4. An ordinance updating definitions for shoreline regulations to incorporate new State requirements. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, UPDATING DEFINITIONS FOR SHORELINE REGULATIONS TO INCORPORATE NEW STATE REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1758 §1 (PART); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY QUINN, SECONDED BY GRIFFIN THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk, read the proposed ordinance by title only. MOVED BY QUINN, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ. Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Page 12 of 13 ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE —NO LINDER YES HERNANDEZ —NO ROBERTSON YES GRIFFIN YES HOUGARDY NO QUINN YES MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 2272. REPORTS: Mayor Haggerton stated he is hoping to make an announcement relating to a new City Administrator on December 15, 2009. Council Due to the lateness of the hour the Council dispensed with reports. Staff Shawn Hunstock, Interim City Administrator, explained staff has completed the winter snow and ice removal plan for the City. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Robertson explained to the Council the recent budget reductions have reduced the Council travel budget, decreasing funding available for travel to the legislative sessions. He asked if there was Council consensus to allow himself and the Council Analyst to work on a proposed conference attendance schedule for the 2010 sessions. Council consensus existed to have Councilmember Robertson and the Council Analyst review all options relating to travel for upcoming legislative sessions for the Council. Mayor Haggerton reported that staff has received the Foster Point analysis relating to possible flooding and asked Hillman Mitchell to present the findings to the Council. Hillman Mitchell, Emergency Management Coordinator, explained that staff has received the preliminary analysis from HWA Geosciences regarding the conditions of the soil in the Foster Point neighborhood. The results indicate the soil in the Foster Point area is loose, comprised of sand and silt. As the river rises, the water table could also rise and water could infiltrate into the neighborhood area. He explained the results show that placing SuperSacks around the perimeter of the area would not necessarily prevent the water from entering the area. The addition of flood mitigation devices could exacerbate the problem, and the devices could retain the water in the neighborhood. Councilmember Duffie inquired about how the City will notify the residents of the Foster Point area of the results. Councilmember Linder asked that the Administration send a letter to the residents of the Foster Point area outlining the recent developments as they relate to flood mitigation devices. Mr. Hunstock explained there are two options for the Council to consider. The first would be that the City would not install the SuperSacks or, secondly, the City could offer sand and bags to all of the residents. Councilmember Robertson suggested that in addition to the letter to be sent by the Mayor, staff should go door -to -door and strongly suggest the homeowners take advantage of the flood insurance program. Tukwila City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 14, 2009 Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney, explained the City can mail a letter to the Foster Point area residents and provide the contact information relating to the FEMA flood insurance program. Mr. Mitchell explained the Army Corps of Engineers routinely provides residents training on filling and placement of sandbags. He has contacted the Army Corps of Engineers and asked them to conduct a workshop on proper sandbag preparation for Tukwila residents. The Council agreed with the staff recommendations relating to mailing a letter to the Foster Point area residents. ADJOURNMENT 10:46 P.M. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY LINDER THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 1/19/2010 Page 13 01 13