Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-10 Committee of the Whole MinutesJanuary 10, 1994 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATION PROCLAMATION OF THE MAYOR CITIZEN'S COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS Street Vacation 43rd Pl. So. (Fosterview Estates). Public Hrng. opened. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Mullet called the Committee of The Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY De RODAS. JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; LYNN DEVOIR /AL FRANK, Parks Recreation; ROSS EARNST/DOUG MICHEAU, Public Works; RICK BEELER /JACK PACE/REBECCA FOX/GARY SCHULZ, DCD; RON WALDNER/BOB MCQUEEN, Police Department. Al Frank introduced new recreation employee Dan Thurston, Sr. Recreation Programmer. The Council gave him a warm welcome. The Mayor read a proclamation honoring Asst. Chief Bob McQueen upon his retirement from the Tukwila Police Department for 26 years of Service. The Mayor announced that a reception will be held on Friday, January 14, 2:30 p.m. for those interested in wishing McQueen farewell. David A. Morgan, 5190 South 166th, paid high compliments to the City of Tukwila Fire Department for their speedy response to a furnace fire at his home recently. The response time was no more than 4 or five minutes. Ross Eamst explained that this was a Street Vacation for a portion of 43rd Place South (Fosterview Estates). Council President informed the Council that this was a Quasi Judicial Issue, bound by state guidelines. Council President Mullet opened the public hearing at 7:15pm. Ross Eamst, Public Works Director, stated that he had received responses from Utilities, Fire Department, and Recreation. Additionally, responses were received from City Light, U.S. West, and Water District #25. All of which had no comments on the Vacation. The ValVue Sewer District would require an Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes January 10, 19914 Page 2 Public Hearing 43rd Pl. S. (Con't). Opponent: Recess 8:00 8:15 easement as they have a sewer line in that part of the right of way. The Recreation Department has asked for an easement for pedestrian use of the right of way. He presented copies for the City Clerk records. Elizabeth Springer, 13325 Macadam Road South, spoke against the Street Vacation stating that it is public land and we should not let it go lightly. She also stated that Bob and Janelle Scarber shared her views. They feel very strongly about the Council giving away City Land. She thinks that the title to the Land should carry a hold harmless agreement to Tukwila Citizens so that there will be continuing protection from this kind of foolishness. Public Hrn2. closed. The public hearing closed at 7:20 p.m. After a brief discussion, the Council agreed they did not have enough information to make a decision and that they needed ample time to review the information once it's provided. The Council would like to understand the risk assessment associated with the property and what risks the City will assume with accepting that land. Earnst explained that the property is 1,954 sq.ft. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC IN TWO WEEKS (JANUARY 24).* Councilmember Robertson requested a copy of the TMC that deals with this type of exchange and the analysis that shows how the requirements in the TMC are being met by this exchange. The Council agreed to continue the public hearing in two weeks (January 24) to allow time for staff to bring in a report that shows the relative size and value of the parcels; and the risk associated with accepting the land that would be exchanged for it. Mullet stated that the Council might also consider making their decision based on the approval of the final plat, i.e. if the final plat is not approved for this project, the street should not be vacated. Robertson suggested copies of all requested data be made available to those who spoke tonight and all other interested parties. *MOTION CARRIED. Council President called the meeting back to order with those present as noted above. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes January 10, 199(} Page 3 An appeal of the Ping. Comm. decision: Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe). SPECIAL ISSUES Solid Waste Mgmt. Plan. Master Cable TCI Re- franchise Ord. Public Hearing continued to January 31, 1994. Verbatim transcript attached (39 pages). January 31, 1994 Public Hearing date changed administratively to February 7, 1994. '7 Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, DCD, informed the Council that in 1989 Tukwila signed an interlocal agreement with King County which delegates regional solid waste management planning to King County. The 1989 Plan has been revised, and it is now time to adopt the 1992 Plan. She said the Plan reflects the consensus reached with the suburban cities (including Tukwila) and the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee on issues raised during the comment period which ended in June, 1993. The Plan basically recommends ways to achieve a 50% waste reduction and recycling goal by 1995. It also contains recommendations for continuing to upgrade the County's solid waste transfer system. Fox requested Council approval prior to the January 20, 1994 deadline. Council President Mullet asked Fox to elaborate on areas of the Plan which will directly affect the City. Fox explained three (3) points that will directly affect the City: 1) It will give more attention to business recycling which is good for Tukwila because most of the solid waste in Tukwila is from businesses; 2) There will be an increased emphasis on business waste reduction; and 3) The County is going to assist the cities in setting up voluntary guidelines for recycling for businesses and also work with the state to change the regulations which now prohibit cities and counties from contracting directly with recycling haulers for business /commercial recycling. After a brief discussion, the Council agreed to forward the King County Solid Waste Management Plan to the next Regular Council Consent Agenda. Doug Micheau, Public Works Department, explained that a negotiated agreement has been obtained with TCI in the form of two ordinances: A Master Ordinance providing general terms for cable operations in the City; and, a Franchise Ordinance providing specific franchise rights to TCI. Both ordinances have been negotiated with TCI over the past two years to arrive at a final draft with tentative agreement on all terms and provisions. Micheau continued that the current franchise for TCI operations in Tukwila was extended in October of 1993 in order to allow for the conclusion of negotiations. This extension is now expired (12/31/93). The new franchise was negotiated J anuary 10, 1994 Committee of The Whole Meeting An appeal of the Planning Commission Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing Mayor Rants: Next on the agenda is another public hearing. Appealing a Planning Commission decision for the Hillcrest file 93 -01. do we have a presentation first? Linda Cohen: I don't know that I have a presentation, but this as well is a quasi-judicial hearing and it's a du novo hearing so you are hearing all the evidence a new. At this time I'd ask if any of the Council members have had any exparte communications or if there are any appearance of fairness issues they should be disclosing at this time? ,Tovice Craft: I have an appearance of fairness issue, in that I was on the Planning Commission before and heard this issue so I would need to disqualify myself, however I would respectfully request that I be allowed to stay in the room and hear the issue but not sit in my seat. Cohen: I think that's completely appropriate. Councilmember Robertson: I would like to disclose that in the past, prior to my running for election and winning six years ago, that I was one of the leaders of a citizens committee that opposed the Valley View Estates development that is referenced in several different places in the material that's being o presented to us. I do not believe that the issues are the same. Valley View Estates at that time, not nly was it a long time ago, it was a multi family development in a neighborhood that was totally single amily. And the citizens group I lead that was opposed to it was primarily opposed due to the multi amily nature of a development. I do not feel that there is anything there that predisposes any decision t all that I would make regarding this decision tonight, and I do not think that I have any problems at all sitting on this. But I think I should disclose that I was the leader before I ran for office, or one of the leaders in the committee group. Cohen: And this was a different parcel? Robertson: Different parcel. Cohen: And do you have any preconceived biases with respect to this particular property? Robertson: No. Cohen: Is your mind already made up as to how you're going to vote? Robertson: No. Cohen: And do you feel that you'll be able to remain fair and impartial through the course of this hearing? Robertson: Yes. Cohen: And do you feel that you'll be able to listen to all parties and make a decision based on the information that you hear presented to you at this hearing? -iobertson: Yes. Cohen: Are there any other disclosures? G7' 1 L mmittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 2 Rants: Joe. "7 Councilmember,Toe Duffle: Well on the Valley View I was disqualified from the Valley View, but I don't think the Valley View has anything to do with this Hillcrest so, other than that that's the only thing I have to say about that. I have no idea who's leading this or who -and I really don't care who's leading this. That's not my -I will make a decision for the City of Tukwila so I can be fair and I have no partial or how your presenting this case it's not my idea. Cohen: Under the TMC 18.90.020 the City Council shall either affirm, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission. And briefly the Planning Commission was to consider three factors under 18.45.125 of the TMC. And these are things that you need to look at as Council members but you don't need to necessarily confine yourself to these three factors. One, the intent and the purpose of the SAO and under 18.45.010 B1 -9 it sets out a number of factors. Two, technical reports and information considered by the DCD and three, the findings of the DCD director. And these shall be given substantial weight as is accorded by the law. Also I'd remind everyone that the testimony that they're going to give during the course of the public hearing when you open it is going to be under oath so an oath needs to be administered. Councilmember Mullet: Can we set the time limits now or do we do that after we open the public _searing? p ohen: It's appropriate to do it now or after. Now is fine. Mullet: Staff has indicated that 30 minutes would be adequate for them. Mr. Lowe has indicated that he really doesn't know how much time they're going to need. And judging from the stuff they've been handing out I would hesitate to guess. So how do we deal with that. Cohen: Well a reasonable time period so that everyone can make their record needs to be allocated. And the 30 minutes would be inclusive of all or any experts that testify would be adequate or reasonable, then that should be the case for the interested parties. And that would be the case for Planning Commission as well. Perhaps the 30 minutes isn't adequate. Mr. Lowe can probably address that now. Duffle: Please state your name and address. Leroy Lowe: My name is Leroy Lowe. Hive in Bellevue Washington. My address is 15665 SE. 43rd St., Bellevue Washington, 98006. I would only ask that the Council be given a chance and an opportunity to read the information that has been given to them in the rebuttal and any other information that they would deem necessary to inform themselves to become knowledgeable about what the issues are because this is my first presentation to you on this issue. And that's the only thing I would ask. Would you respond? Cohen: The 30 minutes would not include any questions that the Council would have or requests for information so... we: OK, just allow the Council a chance to read the data. Is that a reasonable ohen: Absolutely. And since it 0 L �ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 3 Mullet: Council, do we have any input from.... Robertson: There are two issues right now that have presented. One issue which you raised Steve, is the amount of time that everybody has for the presentation, the pros and cons and interested parties. Then the second issue Mr. Lowe just raised as he -as I understand requested that we read the material. I can't count pages but it appears that you've given us an excess of an inch of written material tonight and I read fairly quickly but I'm unlikely to get through it tonight. Cohen: Well that's submitted into the record and since it's a Committee of the Whole you wouldn't be allowed to enter your findings tonight anyway, so... Robertson: OK. Mullet: So in line with that, is 30 minutes appropriate for your eight people to give a presentation or do you need a little bit more? Lowe: I haven't caucused my experts but I do have eight experts who want to testify. I'm going to give you a qualified they've got a lot of information to impart to you. And one of the things that I wish to point out is that this has been before the City for almost, not quite, but almost four years. 'then: I might suggest at this time Mr. Lowe that you confer with your experts and see exactly how uch time you think would be necessary split between the eight or nine of you to make your record efficient. Lowe: I'm going to suggest, being a prudent man, a prudent man would always ask for more time. That's my -but I will caucus with my experts out in the lobby then get back with you. Would that be appropriate? Robertson: I suggest a three minute recess while we- -while they do that. Mullet: We haven't called the public hearing yet, so I think that's appropriate. Robertson: I move for a three minute recess. Seconded. Lowe: One of my experts has got to be out of here at 8:20. And that is George Lamb. He's not here, he's out on the phone now trying to discover if he needs to leave at 8:20. He is key because he's the lead guy, he's the man that put together all the geotechnical reports that are in this document that's before you. Mullet: Well it's my understanding that there's probably about 30 minutes of testimony before you. And you know.... Cohen: Well whatever period of time that Mr. Lowe has established as a fair amount of time. h 0 I know but if they don't use it it's not -you know. ufe: Just let him go first and we can continue. we: If Mr. Lamb could go first just real quick on George? Duffle. Second. 01 Lommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Ii-iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 4 Cohen: Why don't we see how much time we're talking about then we can.... Lowe: George, I've indicated to the Council and the Mayor that you need to leave here by 8:20. They've allowed us 30 minutes of time. I was going to caucus with all.... Cohen: I believe we will be recessing for this purpose so you can discuss this in private. Mullet: It's been moved and seconded that we recess for three minutes so that Mr. Lowe can confer with his people on a time limit Lowe: OK, thank you very much. Mullet: All in favor? (unanimous response). Mullet: Mr. Lowe do you wish to do ahead? Lowe: Yes, I caucused with my experts and they said that they would like to have 45 minutes, they'd ike to hold out for an hour. If we are going to revisit this entire -and application, to revisit this whole -pisode that has now gone on for almost, not quite four years. That's going to require a great deal of iligence and reading and understanding. I don't know how to resolve it except to say this, that in my 'ew the simple question before the Council is this, did the Planning Commission exceed it's authority by rendering a decision? Mullet: Let us make a decision on the time and then we'll get into the whereas's and where fore's of the issue. Council is there any input? 45 minutes? Robertson: I would, 45 minutes from both the Planning Commission or the Staff? 45 minutes from the proponent which is the property owner, then how long... Mullet: And his expert witnesses, would be included in that 45 minutes. Robertson: How much time would you allow interested parties? Duffle: Ten minutes. Cohen: Those are the interested parties, the Planning Commission, Mr. Lowe and his experts, and the Staff. Each of those three interested parties would be given whatever period of time the 45 minutes collectively to split as they choose. For public citizens I would suggest 5 minutes, if you want to speak on the issue. Robertson: Alright. Mullet: How many citizens do we have that wish to speak on this issue tonight? Raise your hands lease? Six. Cohen: Public citizens generally are not permitted to speak during quasi-judicial hearings but since th is was advertised as a public hearing I would suggest that they be given some opportunity. ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 5 7,ohen: We'll make sure he's accommodated. Robertson: The rule that we have not that we used before that caused some kind of discomfort and actually difficulty on my part as a Councilmember, was allowing them to speak a second time after everybody had spoken. That I didn't find to be a useful way to get information. It was too broken up. What happens if we just give them seven and a half or ten minutes and no second time. Can we do that? Cohen: My suggestion, sure you could do that, my suggestion would be whatever -if you're going to give the 45 minutes to each of the three interested parties that they also be given after everyone speaks, an opportunity for rebuttal and perhaps that time would be 10 minutes. The public citizens that receive the five minutes to speak at the public hearing wouldn't be and in my opinion shouldn't be entitled to rebuttal time. The reason there was a problem the last time with appellants was that they were each interested parties that were speaking, they weren't public citizens making comments. Thus we ran into the problem of needing additional time. Duffle: OK, now can we time that you say 45 minutes, then ten, then five, is that right? Lowe: May I speak? On reconsideration, Mr. Lamb because he has got to be somewhere else, he says cut it to 30 minutes and we'll hurry our testimony. We just need to get Mr. Lamb out of here. Mr. Lamb is a gentleman that is the.... .Owe: He's the geotechnical engineer and he needs to be somewhere else. And so we'd like to get him up here and get his testimony and get him out of here. Mullet: OK, the sooner we quite debating this, the sooner we get going. Duffle: We need to establish the time. Robertson: I would suggest that we give the citizens no greater than ten minutes and not second opportunity and no rebuttal, just so they'll Mullet: Is there consensus on that? Fine. Alright, we will have 30 minutes per side and the Planning Commission will have -will follow with Linda, does the Planning Commission fall within the 30 minutes of the Staff? Cohen: Yes, they do. No they have their own that's correct. They have a different position than the Staff. Mullet: Mr. Lowe's group will get 30 minutes, citizens will get 10 minutes each with no rebuttal. Cohen: I would strongly suggest that since Mr. Lowe said they needed 45 minutes to make his record that he be given 45 minutes to make his record. vlullet: All right. M obertson: OK, let's make it 45 minutes for the first three, 10 minutes no rebuttal, the rebuttals are 15 inutes for the three primary and that we allow Mr. Lowe's geotechnical consultant to go first. o bommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 6 Cohen: How much time for the public citizens? Robertson: Ten minutes each and no rebuttal and no second opportunity. Duffie: Where does this 15 minutes come in here? You said 15. Robertson: OK, well there's -how long -15 minutes for the rebuttal right? Cohen: That was your suggestion, mine was ten. Robertson: I thought you said that's what we -no, how much do you want for rebuttal? Five minutes then? I don't care. Cohen: I think it's more important that the interested that the interested parties have their time to speak rather than the public citizens who aren't as interested parties. So they... Mullet: We limited the citizens to ten minutes, that's it. They get no rebuttal. Now we're talking about the interested party's rebuttal. Cohen: Whatever you find is reasonable. If ten minutes is reasonable that's fine. uffie: There's someone in the audience who would like to make a comment. 1::1 Robertson: He's the Planning Commission, isn't he? Vern Mervhew, 4431 S. 148th, also president of Planning Commission. If it would help your decision process, the Planning Commission would probably not need more than five minutes, OK? Robertson: Let's go back, I'll move that we allow the three principal parties, the Planning Commission, Staff and the proponent, or the property owner, no greater than 45 minutes initially each. That the citizens we allowed a total -no greater than 10 minutes each, that the three primary groups be allowed a 10 minute rebuttal each and there's no rebuttals for the citizens. Ekberg: I second that. Mullet: Is there consensus on that? Joe? Duffle: I guess I was missing -but I didn't hear what you what's this five minutes? Mullet: There is no five minutes.... Duffle: That's what you just say again, OK, just forget it now, I just wanted to make sure we were correct together now. ernandez: Well is there anyone representing the citizens group that doesn't sound very fair to em that they're not getting the rebuttal. ullet: They're not under quasi-judicial. They're not allowed in.... 1 Lommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 7 Hernandez: Alright, all right so you think that's fair? Lawrence: Dorothy? Dorothy De Rodas: That's all right with me. Mullet: OK, Allen? All right. Linda did you get that? Cohen: Yes. Duff le: Hold it, hold it, hold it, because I didn't get it. Let's repeat...I didn't get that. I'm just sorry...you talk about...I'm sure... Mullet: OK, it has been moved... Duffle: I'm just sorry but I didn't understand what we're talking about I'm sure someone out there's in the same boat I'm in. If not I'm sorry, I'm not -let's go shoot. f ullet: I will repeat it. It has been moved that the primary parties get 45 minutes for their r esentation. Interested citizens get ten minutes each with no rebuttal. uffie: OK. Mullet: Primary parties get 10 minutes for rebuttal. Duffle: OK. Mullet: That's it. Duffle: And what about the interested citizens? Rants: They get -no rebuttal, they just get ten minutes each. Duffle: They just get the ten minutes,. Let's go for somebody else.... Rants: Call for the question? Mullet: We can't tonight. Is there consensus on that? (Sneaker did not identify himself): Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? We can't hear you unless you put your mic to your mouth, we can't hear you very well. Mullet: Fine, I'll wear it right here. ram obertson: I would move or suggest for consensus that we allow Mr. Lamb, I believe his name is to go ediately so he can have as much time as possible prior to Staff before he leaves. That was the equest of Mr. Lowe. vlullet: Doesn't that kind of foul up continuity? kobertson: It does but, in the interim -I would like to understand all the arguments. Mr. Lamb is a primary- -I don't want to use the word player -but let's just say source of information on the property owners side. I would like him to have an opportunity to speak before he has to leave. And I think that time can be kept then we start otherwise. Mullet: Is that appropriate Linda? Cohen: You can take a witness out of order if just keep track of the time and then apply that against the 45 minutes. Duffle: Yea that's what I'm saying, they don't get no extra time. Mullet: I think it's appropriate that we begin then, or we're never going to get off the ground here, so with that Mr. Lamb would you come forward and give your testimony. Linda do you have to administer oath to everybody? Cohen: You need to open the public hearing. Mullet: OK, I'm going to open the public hearing and then you will give the oath. Is that right? OK, this public hearing is open and Council will now administer the oath in mass I assume to everybody. Cohen: Right, all who wish to speak during the course of this hearing please stand and raise your fight hand and respond I Do to the following. Do you affirm the facts your about to give in this matter to be the truth? (I Do) ree Lamb: I want to express my appreciation to the Council for going out of order. I very much p it. It's very important to me to do this. I'm George Lamb. My office address is 12016 115th Avenue NE in Kirkland Washington. I'm a geotechnical engineer. My qualifications are in the presentation that you have, including my resume and so forth. I've worked largely for the last 34 years in Puget Sound. I've dealt the literally hundreds of sloping sites in that time. I've--I did the original study for Mr. Lowe on this property. I've done several follow -up studies on the property. I've also attended all the hearings on this matter. The Planning Commission heard my testimony, it heard the testimony of several other witnesses. The Planning Commission meeting lasted until 1:00 in the morning. They discussed each witnesses presentation in some detail. I would commend to the City Council the transcript of the Planning Commission's hearing in that it seemed to me they made an extremely good record for having gone through every single witness and having discussed his input- -his or her input into the question. Now the area of the hillside development has been studied for over thirty years. But as far as I know, every engineering firm that's specializes in geotechnical engineering has looked at this site in one mode or another. It was looked at very heavily by the highway department when the Tukwila interchange was being installed. I was looked at, has been looked at for a whole series of other developments looked at by the City during the earlier situation with Slade Way. In that entire set of documentation no one has said, including the City's consultants, no one has said that the Lowe property is unstable at this time. No one has said that the Lowe property has ever been unstable in historical times. There's been no indication of movement, there's been no sign of movement on the Lowe property. Not just now but in the historical past. Everyone dealing with it, who's reviewed it since this proposal has been put forward, has said that the development of the Lowe property as proposed, will improve the overall stability of the hillside. Therefore it seems to be that the Planning Commission gave careful consideration to all the views that came up, they documented s concern with discussion that's on the record on each of their -each witness that appeared. They iscussed it at length until 1:00 in the morning, they clearly gave substantial weight to the DCD osition. The Lowe property is now and in all historical times has been a stable piece of property. The evelopment of the property will improve the whole hillside. Marginally in some cases, but it will- everything it's going n 7 committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 9 to do is going to improve the quality of that hillside. I see no reason under those circumstances why the City Council should overrule to consider judgment of the Planning Commission in as much as that frankly would reduce the value of an appeal to the Planning Commission to a mere formality. I'm available for questions, and since you've given me a lot of time I'm available for as long as you'd like. Mullet: Are there any questions of this witness? Hernandez: What if we have some later and he's gone? Lamb: Let me address that if I may. Neil Twelker was we were partners years ago, we've worked together a number of times since, he has the report on file in this rebuttal. And I think he'll do -well if anyone could do as well as I can then Neil Twelker can do it. I think he can cover the situation quite well. Mullet:: In the interest of preserving time for your side then, I would say that's probably fine. Thank you. ramb: Thank you very much. I very much appreciate your consideration. vlullet: Jack are you ready to start off now or is-- Rick's going to start off, OK. Rick Beeler: Thank you, Rick Beeler the director of the Department of Community Development. I'm here just to introduce the speakers. We will try to keep our time to within approximately a half hour. But we may in fact run a little over that. My purpose is simply to set the stage this is an usual occurrence for us to appeal a Planning Commission's decision. We're here as appellants which is an usual role for us. Normally we're here defending an appeal. But tonight we're hear as appellants that have made this friendly appeal to the Council of the Planning Commission's decision. Two people will be testifying. Jack Pace, the senior planner who's been the project leader on this development proposal since it's conception, and also we have from Shannon Wilson Dan Clayton representing that firm here to provide the expert testimony. He is also the peer review consultant that we used to evaluate the geotechnical information that was provided by the applicant. So with that I'll have Jack come forward. Tack Pace: Before we start off, I'd like to just highlight some things. In the Staff report we mentioned that at the hearing there be a large cross section. The applicant can covered up, if you look behind you underneath that other drawing, the cross section I guess the applicant wants to.... Lowe: Do you want us to remove that Jack? Pace: I guess wanted to show what was submitted at the Planning Commission meeting. There was some notes that at the Planning Commission meeting because it was so large that we did not include the packet. And underneath is what their submittal is. Do you want it uncovered? :ohen: Can we mark the exhibits to make sure that we know what you're referring to and it ,ecomes part of the record please. 1 k ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes lcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 10 Pace: The drawing on the wall the cross section of attachment A which is referenced in the Staff report and the minutes. The other thing is if you look in the minutes there was a couple of corrections in spelling on deep seated that's the pink copy that's in front of you. The applicant should also have a copy. So I'd just like to give you those corrections. Also in the packet you have, if you look at all the attachments, include in attachments is a copy of the sensitive areas ordinance. To help you there is a clearer copy that is before you that's in your packet a timeline that (transcript unclear) as well as the applicant making their decision. I feel (unclear) potential geological instability, and you can see the highlighted. Turn over (unclear) that you study, and the last page then is field criteria. Prior to the opening meeting (unclear). What I'd like to do is -in my presentation tonight is go over the process, the background and some procedural issues. And Dan Clayton will follow it up with some of the technical issues (unclear). First I'd like to give you some background. Before you tonight is boundary line adjustments. What that is is where you have a existing lots of reference and you change the configuration. Here's existing lot configuration as shown on (unclear) and all this material is in your file this is just a larger version so you can see it a little better. He is proposing to take six lots of record and then propose a short plat with this configuration. Under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, short plats come under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Here are some cross sections with existing slopes, what the slope would look like. Again, this is in your packet but they're smaller scale easier to read. Ghen: Excuse me for interrupting, but each time you refer to something the tape recorder isn't icking it up so you could refer to which attachment it is? Thank you. ace: Attachment number four is the roximi of where this roe is. The p ty property rtY Slade Way is here 160th is next to Silverview. In the response that Staff has given, and will be giving speaks upon this specific proposal and the regulations at this time. It is now looking at the entire site which is this portion (unclear) which you are dealing with (unclear) and wetlands, second they have areas of potential geological instability. Tonight the discussion is fairly narrow. We're not looking at all the issues dealing with this site which is the boundary line, wetlands (unclear). You're also looking at instability issues tonight. If you recall in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, there's four classes of soil or slope instability, one through four. And in the ordinance it talks about class four being where the potential land slide is very high. On this site there is class four slopes. The Ordinance then moves on to say when you have class four slopes you're required to do a detail slope stability analysis. As noted in the opening of the hearing as well as the attachments you were given. The applicant then goes (unclear) these criteria in meeting that. This is the key issue what's being appealed and discussed tonight. Issues such as wetlands and other areas are not appropriate. The hearing is only appropriate on whether the applicant has met this task. Some background on how did we get here. This has been going on for -as the applicant has alluded to in the opening, quite a long time. Well in the ordinance if we look at it, it specifies that Staff has the -the Planning Director has the authority to prepare a peer review. Back in November of 92, peer review was done by Shannon Wilson. In that review they looked at the material that you had as well as the Planning Commission had and provided recommendations representing Staff (unclear). After the completion of the peer review in November, and again if you want to refer to it, it's attachment A, excuse me attachment K in the Staff report and it start on page 142. It then specifies specific recommendations. The applicant had several issues with that and there were several meeting between November of 92 prior to July when the appeal occurred. What we tried to resolve as many issues as we could. It came to a point where we agreed to disagree. er several meetings and that's how we got to the appeal back in July, the Planning Commission ublic hearing in October then the Staff appeal. And as Rick mentioned, this is quite unusual. I think e reason we did this was for a concern of life safety issues, given the history of this (unclear). To review where you are now, it's before you the City 01'1 k mmittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes lcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 11 Council. But keep in mind the broader process. After you make your determination Staff will do a (unclear) on the boundary line adjustment and approve that with other conditions or (unclear) that come out of this meeting and other issues such as (unclear) and so on and so on. Then we have the building permit requirements. The concern that Staff has in trying to deal with these issues is to address all the issues in one concise manner. So we don't say, here's what SAO requires, (unclear) to building permit process. We were trying to ensure that all requirements we have are addressed to the applicant, the site are buildable (unclear) come in for a building permit (unclear) surprises or problems. The end result is then a building permit. The applicant will then, when you look at appeals, and again if you look at the handout that's provided, it's noted that there are three key areas. (unclear) the purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance technical information considered by the director and factual weight. When you look at the ordinance there are three purpose statements that address this. (unclear). Minimize development impacts, prevent erosion and loss of slope and slope stability, protect the public against avoidable losses. Those are some of the key purpose statements when we look at in developing the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Those points need to be addressed. The technical information, I think (unclear) the packet you have there's a lot of technical information. What we looked at when we prepared the peer review, we looked at some past work and some examples of the value (unclear) The materials submitted by the applicant as well as using the expertise of Shannon Wilson. (Unclear) Based upon that the firm has made it's decision. The challenge ,we'll be discussing with you is, when look at the information we have and look at the concerns we have bf this site (unclear) really demonstrate their substantial weight. Given the technical information unclear) of the Ordinance. Now I would like to introduce Dan Clayton from Shannon Wilson unclear) peer review (unclear) key points as a voice of geotechnical then I'll do the follow -up ;onclusions. Dan Clanton: Jack is handing out a copy of the two drawings that you see over behind you in the orange and green and yellow. I'll be referring to those periodically in my presentation. They're essentially the same thing I think except for a couple of numbers on them. I'll point those differences out to you when we get there. my name is Dan Clayton, I'm a geological an engineering geologist registered as a certified engineering geologist and registered geologist in California and Oregon. There was some question at the Planning Commission as to the qualifications of a geologist to be presenting. I would point out that there is no registration in the State of Washington for geologists. Consequently all the work that is presented through my recommendations and my reviews and so forth has to be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer from my firm. I represent Shannon Wilson. There have been a number of engineers who've actually worked in compiling the reviews and recommendations that we've provided. I have been the project manager for this particular effort and did the bulk of the work, and have the greatest familiarity with the overall project. And that's why I'm presenting tonight. As I say I'm an employee of Shannon Wilson here in Seattle. I've been with the Firm for about 20 years of which the last 18 have been in the Puget Sound region doing engineering geological studies. Lots of slope stability analysis types of investigations, geologic investigations on hillsides. With that I think I'll go on to a little bit of history of my involvement in the project. Jack pointed out that Shannon Wilson was retained in September of 92 to conduct peer review of the stability analysis -of the geotechnical investigations that had been done for the Hillcrest development. And at the same time to do some investigations actually review of the same type of information for the ;tability of Slade Way. The review that we did at that time consisted of looking at the work that Mr. iiii had performed through his, through I think two geotechnical investigations of the hillside for crest specifically. It involved about four years of work that Shannon Wilson did in the 1960's frith respect to a large landslide down slope from that. It involved review of any number of reports by ames and Moore and a few other consultants on that same hillside all in the 1960's. A couple of reports that Shannon Wilson mmittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 12 prepared in the 1970's on the same hillside, then a whole series of geological geotechnical investigations that were done for the Valley View estates project in the mid and late 80's. It was quite a large collection of information that was looked at. The review also consisted of a geological recognizance of the hillside which I performed. And we reviewed the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for Tukwila as well as sensitive areas ordinances for other local jurisdictions around here. Just to get a feeling of how other jurisdictions were interpreting these kinds of situations. The results of that review were compiled and presented in a report that we submitted to the City in November of 1992. And that's included in your package as one of the attachments to the Planning Commission document. Basically, from that review, it became clear to us that the areas under the sensitive ordinance would indeed be classified as a class four area potential geological instability. That's a finding that's not been contested. I think everyone's in agreement that the characteristics of the site match the description of a class four area of potential potential geologic instability. The purpose of the Sensitive Area Ordinance of course is to evaluate those types of things. What is required from a hillside or a property that fits into that category is a geotechnical investigation which would include a stability analysis of the property. That's one finding as regards to the SAO, but just from the review itself, and really apart from the SAO, a couple of things became fairly clear to Shannon Wilson as we reviewed. That there are a lot of features on this hillside that suggest instability. Whether or not they're on the specific property or on adjoining properties or on the hillside as a whole. Those technical issues were really not ddressed in the geotechnical reports that were prepared by Cascade Geotechnical, Mr. Lamb's rganization. Rather his studies were really focusing on the shallow foundation conditions that would e required for a normal type of development. very necessary study but it did not make the step of oing to of accomplishing stability analysis. And Mr. Lamb had indicated in his reports that in fact tability analysis would in fact be needed at a later date. So it was really not a question of whether or not they had been done at that time, they had not been done at that time, and it was pretty clear that they needed to be. That was one of the key recommendations in our report that we submitted was that both the shallow and the deep seated stability analysis would need to be performed in order to assess the stability of the project. Within those analysis there are some technical details which maybe we don't need to get bogged down in, but basically you need to look at a piece of property both before and after development so you can understand what kind of changes might occur as a result of the development. And you need to look at both static and dynamic conditions, or with the hill as it sits right now as opposed to the stability of the hill in event of an earthquake where you have a dynamic load occurring on it. So basically the hill is not as stable typically in an earthquake as it would be during static conditions. So we ask that those four types of analysis be performed for both the deep and shallow types of stability analysis. I think I'd like to discuss some of the finding that we saw in our recognizance and our review that lead to that conclusion. With that I think I'll go to the map that we handed out to you as well as the two that are up on the wall. Cohen: Mr. Clayton, if we could just assign Figure 1, 1960 landslide as exhibit number 5 and then the cross section as exhibit number 6 for the record? Clayton: I'll do my best. I apologize for my voice, I too was stricken with the flu. I'll try to (unclear). (Unclear): Plug this in and maybe you can use it. Clayton: OK. Thank you. Well, exhibit number five, also called figure number one in the pictures hat you have, is a plan view of the hillside. I've highlighted a few things on here, specifically a large area surrounded in yellow which represents the extent of the 1960 slide which occurred on the hillside. I Che lime green color is the proposed Hillcrest development site, and an orange zone on exhibit number five is a picture that I'll talk about a little further. On exhibit six, the k mmittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes lcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 13 same colors represent slightly different things. We'll get to that when we talk about that specifically. Of the types of features that we identified both from our review of the various literature as well as from our recognizance, first of all there's a number of springs that issue forth from a fairly steep hillside that runs directly north south through the western part of the property. There is in fact a steep hillside, there is hummocky ground which is really a major contribution to the wetlands that occur on the property. In addition to that there is pistol gripped trees, or trees that have been bent as a result of movement for whatever cause. And then on Slade Way itself, there actually are some areas that have slipped a little bit. There's a number of small scarps down below Slade Way which are fairly recent features, probably within the last five to ten years I would guess. And then fairly significantly I would submit there is a very large land slide that occurred in 1960, directly below the hillside. Another key piece of evidence that we looked at in respect to the hillside was, in addition to the geotechnical investigations that were done to try and stabilize it, and the actual engineering measures that were installed within the hillside was the development of the Valley View Estates development within the middle of that landslide basically and a number of stability analysis that were done on that property. Maybe we'll start with the steep slope. It's been a bit of a disagreement between myself and some of Mr. Lowe's witnesses as to what it is. My interpretation and what we placed in our recommendations and review was that this is an ancient landslide scarp. Ancient meaning it certainly is older than any development we know of on the hillside, it's probably prehistoric, could be several thousands of years eld. That may seem to have no real significance except basically when you have a slippage plane the ikelihood of a continuing weakness is something you need to consider. Once something moves unless t gets cemented up by whatever process it's suspect for being a new focus of movement. I wasn't the Est person to recognize this. To my knowledge, back in the 1960's Shannon Wilson had a number 6f investigations that looked at that particular Hillside. I was in college myself so I was not involved with those. But a number of investigators from Shannon Wilson, from Dames and Moore, from WASHDOT, and I would imagine from a lot of organizations have considered this thing to be ancient landslide scarp. It extends not only across the property, actually tails about in this area, but goes on for another 3,000 feet or so on along to the north around the hillside. I'm sorry we don't have any real way of displaying that to you, but take my word for it, it's a big feature. It's got on the order of 30 to 60 feet of vertical relief on the scarf itself, or on the slope itself if you prefer to remove the interpretation. So basically it's a rather outstanding feature. Within the area below that, Shannon Wilson postulated that somehow related to that were a number of slides that had occurred here and there. In fact there are a number of stability problems that have occurred below this actual scarp. I don't really know whether or not they're related or not, but it actual causes some suspicion I suppose. Three opinions have been offered by Mr. Lowe's consultants on that particular scarp. Mr. Lamb indicated in at least one of his reports, I think the only one in which he mentioned it, that he described it as an ancient landslide scarp. I'm not sure if he was -if he meant that seriously or if he was just writing it. Mr. Breadberg described it I believe as a probably as a old excavation in which land was removed from this particular lot. And then Mr. Twelker in some of the materials that you have, Dr. Twelker excuse me, and in presentation for the Planning Commission, suggested that, 'well it might be an ancient landslide scarp, we don't really know. But if it is an ancient landslide scarp then it's eroded and it's actually migrated backwards on the hillside so it's far behind where it was when it theoretically formed." I personally don't think that's a concern, you can weigh the evidence yourselves, but if in fact that's the case then perhaps the landslide scarp is through the middle of the Hillcrest development, perhaps it's down here someplace. We don't really know. But in order for that to have happened, there's a problem because there's a substantial amount of peets on the development itself. About five feet or o. And peet tends to form in slopes of landslides where you have an accumulation of water and organic material as a result of the disruption of the hillside. Peet also takes a long time to form. And o the long time that Dr. Twelker has used to explain the movement, of this, was actually forming of peet. Directly below where the Robertson: 1.5 for static or for dynamic? lavton: For static. That's a very safe number and we'd all be very happy to find sites with that. p asically what happens when you do soil analysis is you have a number of borings, a number of easurements, you can never have enough. And so you work with a certain amount of Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 14 hillside would have been. So regardless I think the point is about this particular feature is we don't know. No one has gone out and investigated it. I think there's a very strong opinion amongst the geotechnical community that it is an ancient landslide scarp and there is some dissension. But the investigations that were done on the Hillcrest property did not investigate that as a landslide scarp. The borings that were drilled on either side of it made no attempt to make correlation across that feature and we simply don't know what that looks like. If we look now at this other drawing, I have shown actually Neil Twelker has prepared this drawing in the first place and I thank you Neil. I modified it slightly for my own uses, but basically it shows where the green place is, on exhibit six now, is the actual slope that we're talking about, then a dashed line with an orange wedge. That would be a logical projection of the feature if in fact it is a landslide scarp. And if in fact it hasn't moved say from the middle of the development or Slade Way or some place else. Again, there were borings done here, they did not extend far enough to test this hypothesis. The borings up here nor did they test the hypothesis. So it remains simply that, an unknown. Now that's an annoying feature but I think my greatest concern comes from the landslide that occurred below Slade Way in 1960. The landslide occurred as a result of some excavation at the toe of the slope, removing the support and it propagated and was largely caused by a large amount of hydrostatic uplift in the hillside. What that means is there was a fine layer of water which had a lot of pressure on it and was essentially lifting the soils and removing the friction plane that existed on that confining layer. In order to stop this thing from propagating and moving on up the hillside, and it took quite awhile to achieve that, there was a lot of firr ading went on and a lot of drainage went on. Ultimately there was a major system of drains which e shown by these horizontal- -these lines and dots all over the place which essentially are horizontal wells that extend to deep vertical wells on the hillside and intercept them and allow the water to drain b ut of the hillside. As a result of that, this system was able to pull that hydrostatic pressure down of the order of 50 or 60 feet I believe, and relieve that pressure and stabilize the hillside. That work was done by Washington Department of Transportation, now WASHDOT through their geotechnical consultant largely Shannon Wilson on this particular project. It's been 30 years since that was done. The first time it was ever evaluated seriously I believe was as a result of the proposed development down here for the Valley View Estates. At that time geoengineers, Dames and Moore and WASHDOT all did stability analysis on that hillside. They all concluded that the horizontal drain system had deteriorated substantially. The stability of the hillside had concurrently, and as a result, deteriorated substantially and in fact the factors of safety on the hillside were marginal in some people's opinion and totally unacceptable in others. On the handout I have included those factors of safety that they came up with from a cross section here and a cross section here. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I think they ranged from 1.24 to 1.18 for a stable, for a static condition and from about 1.08 to less than 1 for a dynamic condition. Robertson: What's the equation for this factor of safety? Clayton: OK, the factor of safety is essentially a major of resistance versus the driving force. It's a fairly elaborate calculation basically the analyses are done through a computer program. Factoring the parameters of the soil, the stratographic conditions, that is the layers and what their configurations are, and the hydrostatic pressures as well as a few other things. In practice 1.5, greater than 1.5 is a number that most any geotech would accept and find stable. WASHDOT... 0 L ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 15 uncertainty. The less uncertainty you have the more faith you can put in those numbers. So if someone were to come on a hillside and install 100 wells and do this and that and the other thing, they could be very comfortable with a factor of safety that was fairly low. Maybe a 1.3 or so. Whereas if they only have a few points of data and there's some controversy in the data, the 1.5 would try to be the number you would shoot for. Dynamic, this is a short term event, typically only happens during earthquakes so I think a fairly traditional number in dynamic would be a 1.2 would be acceptable. Sometimes a 1.1. And I think Mr. Lowe's consultants have their own opinions of that but they're fairly accepted numbers. The various jurisdictions around Seattle and Bellevue requires a minimum of 1.5 for any development. King County doesn't have a hard and fast rule, but they really like to have more than 1.3 I believe. Some jurisdictions don't use a factor of safety at all, rather they require covenants and insurance and geotechnical stamps and the like. I think that Edmonds is one of those communities that has taken that approach. So there's a lot of different ways this is handled, but as I say a 1.5 would be the kind of number you would strive to get. 1.24, 1.18 are not acceptable as far as WASHDOT is concerned, anything less than I think 1.5 was not acceptable. They would be willing to have a hillside without a development on it that was a 1.35, but as soon as you start adding a human risk, they feel the 1.5 is the type of number they need to see for stability. Well, the point of all that is, is this drainage system is failing. No one has taken a serious effort to improve it. I'm not sure to what extent WASHDOT is maintaining it. I believe they are doing minimal maintenance. But the bottom line is, as of 1989 they hydrostatic pressures were coming up and nobody has made any attempt to see how hose have evolved since that time. The critical sections that were used barely infringe upon the Iillcrest development, I would say that are probably not representative of the Hillcrest development. certainly hope not in terms of developing the property. But our concern is, if you've got this kind of a roblem down here, which is only getting worse and isn't good enough to begin with, we really need to take a careful look at what does that mean with regard to this piece of property. Particularly when you have features such as postulated ancient landslide that extends on up which could allow, mind you on exhibit six, the yellow is the slide goes down to the slide plane that occurred in 1960, and the orange zone down the bottom, is the hypothetical location of the ancient landslide that I have shown you. De Rodas: What's the stability of the soil and this strata, that is the yellow land slide and the ancient, or do you know? Clayton: No, there were a lot of investigations done down here in the yellow zone, a lot of borings down there, a lot of monitoring wells. Then some of them back in 1960 and a bunch of them done with the geotechnical studies that were done for that development down there. Quite a bit of information down the hillside, in fact on this drawing I've plotted a number of triangles which represent locations where monitoring wells were installed. At this point we don't know how many of those monitoring wells were still operational, or what condition they were in or anything of the sort but never the less there are a lot of monitoring wells on the hillside. I should point out that there also is a slope indicator just down gradient from the Hillcrest development that was evaluated by WASHDOT I believe in 1989. And at a depth of 24 feet that particular slope indicator had experienced some movement. Slope indicator is a plastic tube that's basically an old well location. It goes down the well, and it allows an instrument that's varied, it's a tilt meter basically that if it goes through a bend in the casing that didn't used to be there it registers that and gives you a deflection. It tells you basically how much that casing has moved and this particular one has seen some movement down as far as 24 feet. I wouldn't ut a lot of stock in that, except that it happens to be in an area where Slade Way has seen some ovement, where you have this old landslide which encroached as far as Slade Way in the 1960's and a illside that's diminishing in slope stability. With that I think I'll go back to my desk. Now, Mr. Lamb aid that no one has said the site is unstable. That could be construed as a rebuttal except that he also laid it in a number of the Planning Commission and other documents that L ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes illcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 16 he had presented. He also said that -he also recommended in 1990 in his preliminary geotechnical report to Mr. Lowe that he believes the site is stable but there is a number of complicating factors with landslide types of materials down the hillside. A stability analysis would have to encompass not only the site, but also the geomorphic features in the region I believe was roughly the wording. I interpret that to mean that he was saying, gosh we need to look at this entire hillside rather than just the site. The position though that the applicant has taken is that the investigation really only needs to look at the site. In fact, after our recommendations, they did a stability analysis of the site, they did what was called a shallow analysis and a deep analysis. The shallow analysis was just that. For both static and dynamic conditions. And the deep analysis was actually that little sliver that you see on exhibit six in the green. It extended maybe 20 feet or so down into the hillside, but it sure didn't address the concerns that we were raising in terms of the overall stability of the property. Robertson: Can you show where that analysis was from a plan view? Clayton: (walked away from the mic, hard to hear) From a plan view, I believe would be right on top of this slope, from the bottom of the slope, failure of the slope itself. It's a perfectly, legitimate analysis is one that they needed to do in terms of potential failure of that slope. Again of itself, you don't want that slipping into the backyards, crashing into the development which is actually below that. So it's a very legitimate analysis to do, just as the shallow analysis that he did when he was at the site. I 'Appreciate that was done, In fact, he followed through on one of my two recommendations that the hallow analysis be done. But it doesn't address that stability problem. I think from listening to Mr. k.amb and Dr. Twelker that they recognize based on looking at the Planning Commission that Mr. Lamb commended a minute ago, that in fact those are correct and it is my recollection in those instances that they are, I think that they both agree that there is a deep seeded stability analysis down the slope. They seem to conclude that because Slade Way is in between, there's no need to look at it on the property. I don't think that necessarily addresses the safety issue that we're discussing here. Another point of contention Robertson: Does the existence of Slade Way in anyway stabilize the hillside as far as a deep seeded slide is concerned? Clayton: No, Slade Way, on exhibit six, there's really no structure to Slade Way and if in fact this deep seeded problem exists, it's really just the skin of this feature. There's no flow or anything behind it. Robertson: Does Slade Way make the deep seeded problem worse or better or just not impact it? Clayton: In order to do.... Robertson: If a problem exists. Clayton: I'm sorry? Robertson: If a problem exists would it make it better or worse? Clayton: The presence of Slade Way I don't think has any major impact. What we're talking about, in rder to have the hydrostatic uplift that I'm concerned about, if that water has to be effectively eparated from water on the surface. Now Mr. Lamb's consultants have said that, gosh it's leaking water on this property it's going to increase the stability. I too had said that and I think we all agree on Shat, i.e. the shallow stability doesn't address the deep issue. So that's good, L ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes IIillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 17 C;2 we certainly need to enhance the stability in every way possible, but until we have some handle on the potential for that site to drop out from underneath them, I think we've got a risk issue. Ekberg: Mr. Clayton, may I follow up on that? By doing a deep seated slip analysis, what could be determined from that? Clayton: I think the analysis that I would like to see would be more than just a stability analysis. I think we need to evaluate the slippage plan to see if it's there first of all. You would use that information in your analysis. The analysis that I think needs to be done would involve there's a variety of way to approach this, you could first of all go through a thorough review of all the data that's before you, the stability analysis we already talked about. Look at the parameters in the development. Try to apply those further up the hill I don't think here we have enough data to tie into deep seated balances because the deepest borings were about 30 feet. But never the -less with one or more deep borings on this property you might be able to use the existing well system down below and the information that's been generated to capsulate this information justify analysis going all the way up. If that's not the case you find yourself boring some more holes down here. Ultimately you would use that information to come up with a factor of safety for the hillside to determine the risk. You do essentially the same kind of study that was done down below. Using essentially the same procedures. vlullet: Can you do that study without leaving the property in question? The Hillcrest development ite? Can that study... Llavton: Without leaving at all? Mullet: Yes. Clayton: No, I don't think so. That was an issue that was raised in the Planning Commission. They didn't feel that studies should be done beyond the property I believe. Certainly it's a matter of evasive investigation perhaps. It would require a walk around the hillside (unclear) it would require taking measurements in the wells. Is that leaving the property? It requires cleaning up the wells so that they give you the readings. Is that leaving the property? When you start to drill borings I think you're getting pretty definitive, you've really left the property at this point. I would hate to see a geotechnical investigation that only looked at this footprint and ignored things like ancient landslide scarp that goes for 3,000 feet and major landslide (unclear). You have to leave the property to make a fair assessment of what the problem is. I'm probably running rather low on time, is anybody tracking that? Mullet: You have about 15 minutes of your time left. Pace: (speaking away from the mic, hard to hear) I would like to emphasize when you talk about this property we haven't the applicant hasn't (unclear) this property, it's part of a larger plat. As shown on the plan, this is where the potential application, he has an option as part of Puget Western properties to the south. So (unclear) instead of testing is part of a larger piece of property. The second point you have to keep in mind, when Staff does subdivision, short plats and design reviews, we often require information off site. Typically it's for transportation, for example we're doing information on off site on signals, public works, which is storm water, off site impacts drainage. This is o different than us requiring developers, getting information off site on other peoples property. As to ow their development impacts that down hill or off site property. The other point you need to look at hs when we were preparing our recommendations we checked with other jurisdictions that had similar odes Dan checked with King County as L ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 18 well as with geoengineers and reviewed whether we were taking our recommendations (unclear) our standard of code was off base. And what you see before you are the same recommendations that would occur is this were in King County which has similar regulations, or geoengineers would have made the same regulations and they were the ones involved in developing this code. In conclusion I think you have to look before you is that back again to what you as a Council will pass. A Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the criteria it places upon Staff as well as you in making decisions. Those are criteria for the type of information needed. In the final analysis what Staff is trying to do is get adequate information so we can make a reason decision between public safety and the rights of the property owner that develops this property. And what the peer review is telling us on the shallow slide you have enough information to make that decision. On the deep seeded you need more information. To balance those your not creating some adverse impacts. And you then go back to the code criteria for appealing decision. You look at the intent of the ordinance, the purpose statement that are contained there. Technical information, what information that Staff used not only for peer review but looking at other jurisdictions. The substantial weight, I think it was noted earlier that the Planning Commission made for Staff made some major errors that were totally out of base. I think that just by the length of the base that the Planning Commission had to reflect in the minutes showed that was a hard decision that both sides have some good arguments for the position. But for you the Council as well as for the Planning Commission you have to look at these criteria, making your decision and your findings as to how well whether it be the applicant, Staff have addressed these criteria. Our position is hat we need additional information on the deep seeded before we can make those determinations. iven this criteria, we feel that the decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed. Are there `ny questions of planning staff? Hernandez: Jack where do you feel that the deep seated studies should be taken? Where do you feel like the borings should be done? Pace: I think the geotech, Dan do you want to respond to that question? Clayton: I'm sorry where should they be taken? I think ultimately there are a variety of ways to accomplish (unclear). But I guess from my perspective the planning department has.... I would like to see the minimization of the costs. I would like to see (unclear) in which you would do kind of what I was pointing out. You need to go into the old literature and fully evaluate with respect to this zone. You need to look at (unclear) you need to look at wells, the stability analysis, down the hillside, even taking into consideration the possibility of a major landslide crossing the site. Particularly you need to look at the history of the water in the wells. (unclear) in 1960 published a stability analysis. (Unclear) in 1989 saying it was available. What did it mean as a stability analysis? What can you project from that? What would you expect to see now? Probably can't project very well on that other than to say that it might be a little worse. Maybe it's (unclear) you just don't know. So at that point you really need to get into those old wells and make those water level measurements and see how they compare. There are a bunch of them down the hillside, I would hope that you could get to some of them, until someone's tried you really don't know. If they're not available you still need that information and you've got to go down there into a well. They'd have to be deep enough to penetrate down to that confining aquifer probably on the order of a minimum of 50 maybe as much as 100 feet depending on where you are on the hillside. You might expect that as an average (unclear) might be 70 or 80 feet Jeep before you get through. Sample it and you need to obtain geotechnical parameters on it _unclear) you have to have a water level. Now ideally you'd like to have that measured during wet eason when the water levels are most likely to be the highest. In other words, so how much is involved lust depends on how much you can (unclear) from what's already there. You (unclear) try and look at he data then look at the existing wells and evaluate (unclear) you might (committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes -Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 19 come up with an answer, you might come up with an answer you don't like, you might want to keep going and try to evaluate it further. So unfortunately it's an open -ended study. I don't know how to nail it down any better than that other, tell you you can come up with a conclusive result. But I can envision having (unclear) on the hillside wells, if you can't make much use of the data that's already there. '7 Hernandez: Would they all be off site? Clayton: No I think the (unclear) the hillside (unclear) beyond that I it's imperative that we have some (unclear) if it gets down far enough. Right now we don't. I think it's without any question in my mind you end up having to have that. I could be wrong on that. Maybe all that data is very useful. Until somebody can go on that property and look at it you won't know. The property (unclear) some of the wells belong to WASHDOT. WASHDOT has expressed on Valley View that they were not very interested in maintaining the hillside (unclear). I don't know that they're position (unclear). Are there any questions Mullet: I guess not. At this time Vern Meryhew will speak for the Planning Commission. Vern Mervhew: Hi, I'm Vern Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th. I'm also current president of the Planning Commission. I'm here to tell you that I've reviewed the data that the Council has in depth. And find it o be accurate and representative of the Planning Commission's findings. There's some minor adding. ks Jack has pointed out already. I really have no presentation to make other than to be here to ensure Fairness on both sides and respond to any questions the Council, the applicant or anybody else may have. It was a tough decision, but I think we wound up thinking- -what we wound up with was the right one. OK. Mullet: Any questions for Vern? Hernandez: Vern, just refresh my memory, there are seven members on the Planning Commission also? Mervhew: Seven members on the Planning Commission only five present at this particular hearing. Hernandez: And it was a three two vote? Mervhew: Three two vote. Hernandez: Thank you. Mullet: Do you wish to go right onto Mr. Lowe's testimony at this point? Robertson: I'd like a three minute break, I seem to have the same flu that other people have. Mullet: Is there a consensus on the Council to take a five minute break? Seconded. We will recess for five minutes. frlullet: Are we back in order? vIu11et: Yes go ahead. L ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 20 Lowe: I'm going to introduce in the order and my rebuttal which is the one that's the second page and it says design professionals. The first one you heard from was George Lamb. The next individual you'll hear from is Neil Twelker, this gentleman here. But before Neil Twelker goes to the podium may I just do one real quick fast thing. I'd like to give each one of you individually. (talking away from mic) Mullet: Could you for the tape recorder refer to what you're talking what you're showing us. Lowe: This is the landslide that's been shown on these documents. The City issued a building permit for a residence that site right over the top of this particular land slide. And so obviously the issue is if they're so worried about life health safety why would they issue a building permit for a house that sits right over that peninsula. Cohen: Mr. Lowe could you please refer... describe what you're referring to, the document and the page number. It's not so that I can see it, it's so the tape recorder can... Lowe: OK, it's figure one of the, figure one landslide 1960 landslide Hernandez: It's marked as exhibit five. In any case the City issued a building permit for a residence that sits right here. If they are [owe: ally concerned about life and safety why did they issue a building permit for a house that sits right ver that land slide. This area has never been involved. Another thing I'd like to ask is.... Hernandez: Mr. Lowe, what year was that? Lowe: The land slide occurred in 1960. Hernandez: No, the building permit? Lowe: I don't know.... rg5 (Sneaker from audience. did not identify himself): Oh, speaker could you tell us what house he's point at? Lowe: Yes it's right here. It's the house right here. I'm sorry I'm standing in the way, anyway. Are you with me, have I satisfied your inquiry? Thank you. I will now turn this over to Neil Twelker. Neil Twelker: My name is Neil Twelker, I'm a consulting engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering, a branch of civil engineering. My address is 5645 42nd Avenue W., Seattle, 98199. That is also my office address. I'm going to be as brief and pointed as I can in my remarks. The first thing I want to comment on is the feature which Mr. Clayton had identified as an ancient landslide scarp. If you go out there and look at it, it's a steep steep slope consisting of sugar sand, it is at the angle of repose. If you don't know what the angle of repose is, all you have to do is picture yourself in a gravel it with piles of loose sand hanging around. That if you were to try and climb up one you would pull he sand down as fast as you go. You might eventually get to the top but with considerable difficulty. lopes at the angle of repose do not exist readily in nature. They are subject to the attack of all kinds pf things, plants, animals, children, even I myself as I went out there, scampered down the thing and „aused cascades of sand to proceed me. So this is a retreating feature, but retreating egi ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes -lillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing anuary 10, 1994 Page 21 I mean the thing is moving backward up the hill. Now it takes -you just don't ordinarily find things like that in nature. There has to be an explanation for it. And there are two major explanations, one is that it's being undermined by emerging water at the base of the slope. Mr. Clayton has described this thing as 3,000 feet long. Other investigators have described it similarly and have in addition to that mentioned that it has escaping ground water throughout the 3,000 feet. In other words, here is water coming out of the ground right at the base of this slope and any sand that falls down the slope gets carried away by the water. Sure there's a peak there, but the sand can readily be assimilated, scattered about among the peak. Now the other explanation is that it is the head of a major landslide. And that would take us clear back the this one over here. A big landslide coming clear down here. Terminating at 0411 Now the problem that I have with that explanation is two fold. First of all if that orange landslide actually existed at one time, the thing that kicked off the slide in 1960 which by the way I happened to witness right in the earliest moments, I happened to be right on the ground when it started and I saw it develop into a horrible thing over a period of about a year. That slide was kicked off by excavations at the toe of the slope. Now those excavations started something moving and there was already a slide in existence. Why didn't it announced itself right there. Why all the other stuff and this is still an ancient slide dormant for thousands of years as Mr. Clayton said. The other problem I have with that is that the feature that we have interpreted and you can see it right here as the head start of the slide, has been retreating for 2,000 years then why is it still at the head of the slide. If it's retreating it should be way beyond where the slide had started. Head start retreats, slide doesn't follow jt, slide stays back. Now that's just a-- actually kind of a side point that I wanted to get out of the way hefore I get into the real nifty gritty of this dispute. And I'll be very brief about it. The first and most mportant thing here is the position of the Hillcrest property with respect to Slade Way. Mr. Clayton rxhibits a great deal more concern for the Hillcrest property than he does for Slade Way. If the Hillcrest property becomes endangered, really endangered, Slade Way is already gone. It isn't there any more it's history. The people that depend on it for utilities for transportation for emergency vehicles whatever they're out of luck. Is that going to happen? Let's listen to what Mr. Clayton himself has to say about some of these things in his report of November 23rd, 1992 to the City of Tukwila. On page four he says, "the slope below Slade Way has been the subject of intensive geotechnical investigations since 1960 when gravel boro pits were developed at the base of the hill. Excavations of the natural buttress at the toe of the hillside, resulted in a serious of progressive landslides which extended upslope to the approximate location of Slade Way." See figure one. Then he goes on to say down below on this same page, "remedial measures to stabilize the hillside were accomplished by Washington Department of Transportation. These measures consisted of regrading, surface drainage and installing a system of vertical and horizontal drains. These measures mostly accomplished in the fall of 1961, were effected in lowering the artesian pressures and stabilizing the sliding at that time. Additional related geotechnical investigations by Shannon Wilson on behalf of WASHDOT continued through 1968 to stabilize other parts of the hillside further to the north and west of the 1960 landslide. The same general geological conditions that contributed to the 1960 slide also exists in these areas. These slopes were also stabilized by various combinations of vertical and horizontal drains regrading filter pile walls and rock buttresses." So we know the answer, this hillside has been studied and studied and studied. And he says we need but we need more studies, not for Slade Way but for Fillcrest. But when Hillcrest is in danger, Slade Way is already gone. Let's read on -I'm missing reference here -well, he says -well he recommends deep borings. Let me just point out (unclear) are plotted out here. The nearest deep boring that we have. Here is Slade Way, here is the Hillcrest )roperty, here is the steep slope behind (unclear) and here is a boring right across the street. ohen: Mr. Twelker could you refer to the exhibit that you're... 1 elker: I beg your pardon? Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 22 Cohen: Could you refer to the or describe, I believe it's attachment A. Welker: Does this have a number? I don't see it, I'm sorry I don't see a number. Mullet: This was the exhibit used at the Planning Commission. Doug Micheau (Public Works Dent.): It is attachment D. Welker: This boring penetrated into a depth of 200 feet. Now you don't have to be a geologist to ask yourself that if you went across the street onto the Hillcrest property and drilled a hole over here to a depth of 200 feet, would you find something materially different than what you found right over here? After all we're dealing with continuous layers of geology here. And if you find that over here you have sand and gravel and over here you have blue cheese something is so wrong with geology that you couldn't believe it anyway. It has to be -this bore has to be representative of the Hillcrest property. This is one of the most studied hillsides if not the most studied hillside in the entire Puget Sound area. This has been studied and studied and studied by Dames and Moore, by Geoengineers, by Shannon Wilson, by WASHDOT, by Cascade, I don't know how many others. Now on page 15, of Mr. Clayton's report he says, "if slope stability analysis indicate an unacceptably low factor of safety for the proposed Hillcrest development, remedial action...." by the way, he already knows the answer to that. We all r ow the answer to that. The drainage system needs maintenance. It was studied in 1987 and found to e unacceptably low. There isn't any argument about that. The argument is, what do we do with the nswer? If slope stability analysis indicated an unacceptably low factor of safety remedial measures might include rehabilitation and maintenance -might include rehabilitation and maintenance of the WASHDOT drainage system or installation of a new D watering system to achieve draw down of the confined artesian aquifer. In either case, he says such remediation may not be feasible for the proposed Hillcrest development. In other words he says, Mr. Lowe, just go away. Now because no one is going to do that. Four single family residential units everyone can see that. Just say Mr. Lowe takes that suggestion and he does go away and we now have the vacant property up there at Hillcrest, we have all of the neighbors depending on Slade Way for vital services, vital utilities. Now what's going to happen. Well let's see, page 10 of Mr. Clayton's report, with regard to the potential of deep seeded sliding, it is our opinion that the most productive approach that the City can take to improve hillside stability would be to encourage WASHDOT to rehabilitate their hillside drainage system. What? No deep borings? No geotechnical studies? No open -ended studies that he was just describing? Get after WASHDOT. He knows just as well as I know, just as well as you know, that the City of Tukwila is not going to let Slade Way go down the hill and bring catastrophe into the lives of hundreds of people. The City of Tukwila and WASHDOT somehow are going to see this thing through. For the simple reason that the studies have been made decades ago. The answer is known, it has been in effect for 30 years, more than 30 years. WE know the answer, we know what to do, all we have to do is get somebody out there to do it. And if it is done then Slade Way is stable. And if Slade Way is stable, there isn't a threat Df any kind to the Hillcrest property. It's as simple as that, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. I'll take questions. Duffie: I'd like actually a question -I'm a little confused. You say that the head of the slide stayed I want to know, why wouldn't the head follow the rest of the slide, the green portion up there. velker: Yea, let me -what I'm saying is, if the slide had occurred along this green line 2,000 years ago br whatever at one time it was mentioned several thousand years, at any rate long before recorded story. If this slide had occurred and caused this seizure that this is something that is not stable, is etreating uphill and if the slide Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 23 were here, this feature wouldn't be here, it would be way back here. So if the feature is here, and if it were caused by a slide, which I don't believe, I think it's entirely caused by something else, but assuming, purpose of argument, that is was caused by a slide the original header slide would have been down here some place and the actual slide pulling that caused would have been down here. You see because this has to be retreating in the direction of everything else. Duffle: OK thank you. Twelker: Sure. Twelker: Other questions? Robertson: Yes sir, could you -sir, could you identify- -you mentioned that there was a previously a boring was performed on the east side of Slade Way. Could you show me roughly on one of the maps the plan maps where that was and would you reference that one again? Twelker: The borings are shown here Robertson: I don't think he's shown all of them there, at least I didn't get the impression from his previous testimony it had been. Twelker: I can point here with my fingers but my recollection was that that boring was just about in this position here and where it says "direction- slide." Robertson: That's exhibit five I believe? Tvvelker: Yea, that's exhibit five. Where do you see the numbers? Robertson: It's not on there. We need to do that with stickey's or something in the future. Label exhibits so we can keep track. How deep did you say that boring or that well was? Twelker: Over 200 feet or about 200 feet. If drawn to scale, it's what you see on the exhibit that's on the wall here. Robertson: Who performed that? Twelker: I think that was Dames and Moore. Robertson: That was part, back in the 60's? Twelker: Yea. There have been borings made by all kinds of people, all kinds of One geotechnical firm after another has -it's been a growth industry for geotechnical engineers. Robertson: Thank you. kullet: Is that all the questions for Dr. Twelker? Pick Stuth: My name is Dick Stuth. I'm a registered mechanical and civil professional engineer. I would like first to say that I'm humbled and Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 24 thank full to be on the same program with such distinguished people as Dr. Neil Twelker and George Lamb. Dr. Neil Twelker is a doctorate from Harvard. He is probably the foremost soils geotechnical engineer north of the Mississippi or west of the Mississippi. He's a brilliant brilliant geotechnical engineer as is in my opinion George Lamb. I am not a geotechnical engineer. I'm a civil and mechanical. My expertise in this property lies in the area of surface water flow and ground water flow. I understand ground water flow and I understand surface water flow. And I will appeal more to your sensibility and your pedestrian knowledge of the property not to some high flutent scholastic considerations in the way of geotechnical considerations. I think that we must recognize that Leroy Lowe won his appeal and when does this City say "uncle When does the City say yes, how do we get to yes, how do we conquer fear. Look at Dr. Twelker, he's not a young man. And you remember George walking out the door, he wasn't a young man either. Nor am I. And none of us are afraid of that site. Why do you suppose that is? We've had our feet in the mud, we're not afraid. We're not afraid. We're talking about housing for our children, for people, we're talking about developing a real site. This isn't bullshit this is the real world. There is no reason to be afraid. This meeting right here is costing Mr. Lowe thousands of dollars. What's the necessity of that? Answer me please, what's the necessity of that? There is no necessity of that. There are still stops and gaps that he can be stopped at. The City will still have plenty of opportunity to review what will be done on these sites. And what will be done will improve that situation and I'll say to you this, as common sense considerations, the water both surface and ground that is running through that site has run through that site year in and rear out, will continue to run through that site before after whether or not Leroy Lowe does this project. The only difference will be, will we be allowed to control that water to make it go in a fashion that is responsible, that will delay a possible slide, that will divert problems? And I can assure you, if you look at the orange area of that map right there, and consider de- watering above that position, isn't common sense, ground is heavier with water in it than it is when it's dry. We just want to dry up the ground, that's all we want to do. Nothing magical, nothing mystical. You know, that's all. Were bound by laws, we cannot make, we cannot allow more discharge in volume of water. We cannot impact the downstream people, we cannot do that, we will not do that. WE will just control and discharge in rates that are responsible. I guess I just want to repeat that I'm just an old engineer that's had my feet in the mud, I'm confident in this program, I'm confident in Neil, Dr. Neil Twelker, I'm confident in George Lamb, I'm confident that we can reach yes on this situation. And I cannot believe that I'm again here before a group answering the same kind of questions that I answered before and I'm going to send a bill to Leroy Lowe for that. And I feel ashamed of myself to have to send a bill to that to Leroy Lowe and I feel ashamed of the City of Tukwila to force me to send a bill to Leroy Lowe. It shouldn't be that way. Thank you, are there any questions? Duffle: Yes, as a city councilman, I sit here to judge and make decisions for the benefit of the people. How stupid it is makes no difference. Water's my concern on that hill up there. If you're going to stop the water, where will it go and who will it benefit? Stuth: We are not going to stop the water. We're never going to stop the water. We're only going to- -we're only going to delay and divert and direct it in directions that we want it to go. Not in the direction that it is naturally going, but in the directions that we want it to go. That's the difference between good solid engineering and stupidity. We can do that, we can make that water go where we want it to go. We can release peak storms in a rate that's acceptable to the down stream corridor. That's standard engineering, civil engineering technology. That's not difficult. WE can do that. I can't knswer you about deep slope stability. I don t know anything about that. But I can tell you about water flow. I know how water flows through ground. I know how water flows across the ground. I know how re can control it. I can tell you that we can control it. Any other questions? Thank you. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 25 Mullet: You have about 15 minutes left by my calculations. Dennis Jewel: OK, I'll go quick. My name is Dennis Jewel. I'm a consulting geotechnical engineer. You have my resume and educational background up there. My job on this project was probably the best one. My job was to review all the reports by our consultants and by the other consultants and find something wrong with them. And Mr. Lowe hired me for that purpose so that he would stay one step ahead of everybody else. So basically, that's what I did every day. In going through it I get probably a different point of view than some of the other people, because while their saying what's going to be happening, I'm sitting there trying to figure out why it isn't going to happen. And in doing so you do get a pretty good overview of what's going on. I think since I'm going to chew his stuff up I'm probably going to be able to pick on Dan too because I was watching his stuff. The first thing I think I'm going to bring up is that probably the whole issue here is, had the proper stability analysis been done on the site, and I think that's been the whole issue. Cascade geotechnical did a stability analysis on the property and the peer review said that the stability analysis was not thorough enough. So I'm going to take it apart a little bit, I'm going to probably use this drawing over here. If you take the hillside you can probably break the hillside down into three categories. You've got the yellow zone, which was the original landslide, you've got the orange zone which is the potential landslide, hypothetical landslide that nobody really knows about, and then you've got really the green area, and we probably could say we've also got the area which I'll go over and show. I'm displaying figure two here, that has to go in the ecorder. �ohen: That's exhibit number six. Jewel: This is number six? We also have the area here that people really haven't talked about much but this area that comes down, this is Slade Way here. We have a little green area on top which is the steep slope on the back. We've got the area that goes underneath the property here and it's -and listening to the peer review it's been my understanding that they're under the opinion that there is no stability analysis done at that time, or that there were no borings performed in that area. And either they have read all the reports or possibly they just didn't understand them all. Because there's a number of borings within that zone that did a deep stability analysis that covers that orange area. And if you read through the documents which I wouldn't expect you to do tonight, but they're all here. And there was a stability analysis performed. In addition to that, we now -we can look back and we can say let's look at the whole hillside. We have a stability analysis that was run probably eight times in the yellow zone and that area was stabilized. Then we have some additional work which was run in the area of the orange zone which was the Dames and Moore reports which have the deep borings and then we have additional reports that were run once again on this property by Cascade Geotechnical. They all really dove tailed into each other. And all the answers really come down to the same thing, you have a piece of property below this property that had a landslide. The landslide was stabilized. The measures that were put in to stabilize that landslide have gone into disrepair in that they were given a maintenance program and the maintenance program was not followed. As a result of that the area's becoming resaturated and there's some concern that this would be unstable again. All that takes place off of this property and is completely out of the hands of the developer. It's not his property. But before that -if that goes further and it fails, it will take out your street. Now in addition to that it Mil take out your street, which we've already heard the problems that are related to the traffic, but you mill also have to worry because it will also before it takes out this property, it will take out the houses ground it. So we have to look at this to say, if we're going to -if we have a problem we better get to it, Whether the property is developed or not, somebody better do something about it. When this was tsked to the City in some meeting, nobody says anything. When the question came up, what are you Doing about it, you've got a Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 26 report that says do something about it, what are you doing about it? And the answer is, nothing we're just kind of waiting. Well they've already got reports that says Slade Way has some stability problems. There have been a couple reports that there are minor slope problems on Slade Way, things are beginning to happen. So the answer is simple really. You have to stabilize the hill below, following the recommendations that started 30 years ago. Once that's done, Slade Way will be protected, once that's done as you can see from all the reports, this property is stable. And in fact there were deep seated studies that state that. That's it. Questions? Dennis? You? Ekberg: In the handout that we received today, there's some specific pages you point to. Jewel: If you go into the second, I've got so many pages of this stuff I'm not sure how many that I have that you have. If you go back to the Cascade Geotechnical slope stability report, they will talk about the work they've got and they show their borings, they discuss the Dames and Moore borings. You can also go back into the Dames and Moore. If you start by these reports they're probably- they're about eight inches tall. But there's Shannon Wilson reports in the lower area, there's Dames and Moore reports in the orange area, there's Cascade reports in the Hillside property etc. Ekberg: I'm specifically interested in your statement that there was tests done on a deep bore. I anted to find that specifically. ewe1: You want the deep borings which you can see are the Dames and Moore report across the way. We also have borings that Cascade did within the property in their original study. Go to the back of their study you'll find the borings. If you go into their slope stability work, which is their report, March 22, 1993 report, and this is written to Mr. Lowe, and it is a Cascade report, you can read through. That's a fairly short report. They discuss soils conditions. You then have to refer to their original geotechnical report and in that you will find deep borings that go through that upper zone. In addition to the borings, that they talk about when they're working in (unclear), they also have de- watering monitoring pits out there now. They have de- watering and monitoring wells within the site. So it's not as if nothing has been done on that site. I think that's something I wanted to emphasize is that when I listened earlier I got the feeling that some people had the feeling there really wasn't any deep studies on that site. Ekberg_, Well, that's what we've heard also possibly. I'd like to ask if there is a defined definition of the depth of a deep bore? jewel: Well, usually deep -we've got the ones Dames and Moore put in are 200 feet deep. The ones that Cascade put in are I think in the range of 40 feet deep. Now the deep borings usually are going to be anything -we generally refer to borings when we get beyond about 25 feet because we could use any kind of an excavator for that depth. But we move deeper than that. In this case deep borings relates to the potential slide surface. So if we had, in this case we have a slide surface in that zone. If he has bored through that zone, we're not working in the surface of the crust. We're working down in the area which they are showing potential slide. Ekberg: OK thank you. I Robertson: I think the deep borings you mentioned that are performed are an important point. And what I'd appreciate from you is an exact reference that was given either in the area :ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 27 Jewel: There's probably -if you don't have the Dames and Moore report you'll need to get a copy of that too. Robertson: Could you take the time now and before going on or some time in the next day or two and give us Jewel: I will, I'll have Mr. Lowe present you with a whole pile of these. There's a Dames and Moore -they have but you'll probably want to look at the report like the Dames and Moore report that has the borings and because most of what we have here, other than -you know I have a lot of it back at the office, the box is about yea high because it goes back 30 years. Most of the work that you have probably is only the work that was specifically done by Cascade. What you'll need to -and they reference a lot of other reports in their report. They referenced those. What you'll need to do -I'll have Mr. Lowe get you the reports that are referenced in the reports that you have. Robertson: Thank you. Ekberg_ One further follow -up question on that. Based on your information, the reading of those reports, I assume you read them so you knew that there was a deep bore. What would be your postulation for the deep seated slip surface according to a map up here. Where would you think it would lie? Well, I say that I'm not sure that I concur with the orange. We know factually that the yellow exists. We know that the yellow exists. I spent some time mapping the site, I've -the green area -I shouldn't say -the face of the green area which is the steep sand slope. When I first looked at that- the first thing that we look at is the worst side. I say oh, that could be a slip face. But when you look at it I would say my second thought was that it was an excavated area because it really lended itself to an excavated area. And if the area below was semi- cleared, it was taken right down to hard pan, so that was my second thought. That was probably more excavated. I could also follow Dr. Twelker's theory that there was a slide plane. We know that we have -we have evidence -we have evidence of slide activity as far as up in this area. Now these may not even be a single slide plane like this. A slide often will occur small, more shallow hummocky areas. Studies that have been done over the last 30 years, they basically have been defining this area for us. This area here does not show up in that deep boring. I couldn't see anything personally myself that I thought showed a line on that deep boring. These borings over here did not show any distinct change. So I haven't seen anything that really will will show any current activity or anything that will indicate this slide. This slide area I have no question that this is existing. And the activity terminates right about at Slade Way. This is the area that has the drains in it. If the drains were put back in shape, I believe that following all the other reports that were written, I believe that if they put the drains back in shape and follow the -any kind of repair to the drains, that we'd be back to where we were before. We'd have a stable hillside. 30 years of history tells you it must have worked pretty well. It failed, they did a remedial activity, and it stopped. So that tells us a lot. Ekberg_ Thanks. Mullet: You have about ten minutes left. knthonv Breadbere: I'm A.J. Breadberg, I'm a registered soils scientist. I've been involved with this since the inception. I've been at several meetings, and at each meeting I learn more and I think we've made a lot of progress. I see the situation's answered. The first meetings Mr. Lamb did most of the talking and did most of the arguing with Mr. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 28 Clayton. The next meeting at the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Twelker was up here. He gave most of the discourse to Mr. Clayton. And each of the discourse we're learning more and more. Mr. Clayton's asking for more information. Now Mr. Jewel, the latest speaker, all three of the gentlemen engineering geologists, geologic engineers gave the longest discourse and clarified this the most. If I can go back, Mr. Clayton was looking for some more borings. You asked some very good questions of him. What would he like to see, what borings. He said probably four or five borings. The most important boring was right next to Slade Way on Mr. Lowe's property. Do you have this blue book? Page 94. This summarizes the borings. See the 200 foot -also Mr. Clayton said he wanted to see a 200 foot or a 100 or 200 foot deep boring. Take a look at the 200 foot boring located just west of Slade Way on Mr. Lowe's property, that's where it's shown on this map. Seems to me that's what Mr. Clayton's looking for. Robertson: May I ask, which drawing is that? And what boring is that? Which boring is that (unclear). I see the one (unclear) but I don't see (unclear). Robertson: Dennis, Dennis do you know on page 94, Mr. Jewel, page 94 did you look at that? Do you know who's boring that 200 foot one is? jewel: Those borings, the one that I saw the actual report was Dames and Moore report and unclear) Subsequent report (unclear) not talking into mic, could not understand). Unclear): I traced through that record and I'm pretty sure it's Dames and Moore. Robertson: Could I have a reference to that -to the Dames and Moore? (not talking into mic) Breadberg: I think this is the synopsis that Cascade Geotech did. Breadber2: Right, and they put together a number of borings to come up with this information. Jewel: That is the sketch that Dr. Twelker developed for the purpose of the Planning Commission hearing. Breadbere: That's Dr. Twelker's sketch? That's Dr. Twelker's sketch. Robertson: Dr. Twelker, could you please make reference to that drawing, the actual Twelker: I'm not sure if I Robertson: If you don't have it hear we could Twelker: Let me look. (Talking in background. not audible.) Breadberg: OK, for now let's make the assumption that that's accurate information. Shifting gears here, I'd like to clarify the issues for myself, and what the vote is. You people are going to vote tonight, I was sitting in your seats, I don't know what I'd be voting for for sure. When it gets down to it. One pf the Planning Commission members summed it up nicely. If they vote for City staff, Mr. Lowe has to ;o out and dig some holes on his property because he cannot go off his Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 29 property, those holes aren't going to mean anything. The City can't -as I understand it, the City cannot require Mr. Lowe to go off -site and do borings. So City staff wants Mr. Lowe to dig some holes on his property, jump through some hoops and that information will not be conclusive. That's all the vote is tonight, that's the whole argument here. City staff wants him to dig some more holes, Lowe says I don't want to dig them. I've got all these holes dug already, we have all these experts coming in here, and one of the Planning Commission members said, even if he does dig them we can't do them off site so it won't mean anything. And I think that's the issue you're going to vote on tonight. Whether you want Mr. Lowe to go out and dig a couple holes that won't mean anything in the end. Another issue I think we need to get into here, is perhaps his credibility and stamps. About ten years ago when I was younger in this profession I remember I had some older soil scientist I thought were nuts. These guys were around 40 -50 years, they had some views and ideas and I thought they were crazy. Now see I'm getting a little bit older here, the older I get the more I realize they were closer to the truth then what we thought. That's just a little side light, I'm realizing. One of the questions we have tonight is, I guess the question we need to have, have enough studies been done? Can more studies be done? Is Mr. Lowe supposed to do all the studies for this? If what you're voting on is more studies for Mr. Lowe is that study going to be worth anything? I think that's something we're voting on on this. Mr. Clayton brought up a very interesting point when he said, somebody asked him what he's looking for. Someone proposed that if we have a geotechnical problem out here, if this is a slight hazard, some of the ways some municipalities or jurisdictions deal with this is by putting insurance on the properties, notice on Ilhe title. They require a geotechnical stamp on the plans. Mr. Lowe's offering that, he's got geotechnical stamps, he's got three of them lined up here to stamp these plans. I'm a private consultant and I put my neck on the line everyday I step out of the car and look at a piece of property. Mr. Lamb I think we has 30 -40 employees, he probably doesn't go out on site too much any more, he's advanced up, he's managing his lower people. It's lucky that he could be here tonight for Mr. Lowe. Dr. Twelker's built bridges across the Columbia, he's done the geotechnical work, I guess the bridge is still standing. There's a lot of people's lives depend on these gentlemen that are here. And I think I would trust building my house on this property if they said it was safe. Not only that, they're going to put their stamp on it. They are professional engineers. If they stamp something that's not right, they go before the State board and they loose their license. They lose everything they've got. That takes guts to say yes, yes this project's good, I will put my livelihood, I will put everything I own on the fact that this is safe, I can build my house there. We're talking about saying yes here, versus saying no. It's easy to say no and want more studies. In some closure here, before I take any questions, I think we need to just look at the issue and get down to a very basic issue. Before you leave tonight I hope you find out just what you're voting on, what is the bare bones issue here. We have all this information, this got me confused, all the regulations, and the where fore's and have been's and whatever. The way I understand, it's just a matter of digging a couple more bore holes. Thank you. Mullet: In my time keeping, that's the time we allotted for the appellants. I had eight total, I don't now if they had a need to get a couple more people.... (Talking in background. not audible.) Mullet: You do have a rebuttal time coming up so you could get something's in in that. Breadbere: All I was going to do was address the issue of what happens to the citizens who live in that neighborhood. wlullet: Consensus of the Council? [ommittee of The Whole Meetin g Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 30 Ekberg: Steve, did you allocate for the time that Mullet: Yes. Robertson: Were you going to do the rebuttals before you did the citizens comments or afterwards? Ekberg: Citizens comments would be next then rebuttal. And I would also point out that it is my opinion that we're not going to make a decision tonight. This is a Committee Of The Whole meeting and we do not make formal decisions in these meetings, so this public hearing will probably be continued. We have some other information that we've requested and we need to get that while the public hearing is open before we found out that we were no longer allowed it. So it will definitely be continued until we get the information we requested. So at this point it's time for citizens. We don't have -I guess we didn't set up a sign -up list so if you just come up, state your name and be as brief as you can. Remember the issues that we're trying to focus on here and go at it. David Morgan: I got ten minutes? I'll keep it shorter. Well I was here till 1:00 with the Planning Commission.... Mullet: Would you state your name again please for the record on this hearing? vlor awn: David A. Morgan, 5190 S., City of Tukwila, 98188. I was here until 1:00 with the Planning 2ommission. The Planning Commission basically made their decision at the last minute. It was basically a tied vote, it could have went either way. It's my understanding, because of the cost of bureaucracy that the vote was to allow. I am a contractor myself. And I'm building four homes in the City of Tukwila, and I do know when inspectors come they are "god They tell me what to do and I do it. It's my understanding that the crux of all this argument and discussion here is to dig a couple more holes. Yet we can go out and we can spend money for eight professionals to show here in front of you, and argue and maybe it's the principle, versus digging another hole or two. That sort of bothers me a little bit. WASHDOT, in the last two months, on 54th, which runs opposite Slade Way, has been digging holes. Are any of you aware of that? Have you received any information from WASHDOT? Are any of you aware of it? That their boring there? Do you know why? Robertson: I'd heard a reference in the past that there was some work being done for widening the freeway, is that for new lanes? Is that in this area here or is it to the north or what or to the south I mean? Ross Earnst. Public Works Director: I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but they are (unclear, not using mic) southbound.... (Talking in background, not audible) (Unclearl:If I may speak, I (unclear) of that information (unclear). I've requested it 77 are just 99999 on the right side. This is along Slade Way, just where Slade Way turns due south. ?9979797? The work's (unclear) Worm: Shouldn't that input be given to the City of Tukwila? I [Unclear) I would think so (unclear). I [ommittee of The Whole Meetin g Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 31 Mor awn: So in other words to me, the City of Tukwila should not be making any kinds of decisions at this point of time until they receive that information. (Not audible) Morgan: OK, well I'm giving it to the Council. So in other words, are you aware of this? In other words, to me for you all to make any kind of informed intelligent decision you should be receiving this information. You should be requesting it, you should also be aware of it. I've chatted with a couple of individuals that were boring there and the comments they made to me which didn't make any horse sense, but it was awful muddy and the guy said I've never dug into soil like this before. However he came up from California. I'm sure I had one other comment, but I can't think of it right now, so I will relinquish my ten minutes. Thank you very much. Mullet: Thank you. Cal Johnson: Cal Johnson, 5110 S. 163rd Pl., Tukwila. The 163rd Place is the piece of property running east of 51st, paralleling the property of that green zone as you speak up there on that slope. I've lived there since- -moved in there in 1964 and I'm at the lower end of that cul -de -sac, or that street. In '65 there was an earthquake, quite severe as probably most of you remember. Lower edge of my t roperty split about one and one half feet wide open. And all along that whole slope, it was open all he way across. There's been talk about the fact that that ground looks as though it had been "xcavated. I don't believe it. Because when I moved in there there was trees in there growing which weren't very large at that time. They have grown since to a larger diameter, but due to the fact that that ground on the lower edge is nothing but soft muck and clay and whatever, they've been going over one at a time when these wind storms. Because they have no footing proper footing or base. The ground just it just topples and they probably don't have more than a foot of depth the roots. Also, my I have a fence around my property along that side. It about every three to five years, I have to replace sections of fence because it has slid, the posts keep sliding down the hill to the point that I have maybe anywhere from a three to five inch gap between the posts. And so I have to extend the 2x4's and the boards fill in the gaps. That doesn't tell me the ground is very stable due to the fact that that keeps- those posts keep moving down the hill for me. But that's basically all I have to say. The ground as I see it is not that stable, and I'm right on the edge of that danger zone you might say. And the house below me, which many of you know the man, Richard Go who was just moved out. When that house was put in, it was actually put in right across where that gap, the earth quake caused. And when that ground was being excavated for the footing, why water shot out of there like a rocket on day when a bulldozer was putting in for the footing for the fireplace. And all he could do was to excavate deep and fill it with large rocks and continue that on down the slope so the water would run down rather than erupt underneath the home. And he had to put in a pretty big footing for that fireplace. Mullet: Could you point out on our exhibit, on our exhibit 5 up there, could you point out where you Live please? De Rodas That was what I was going to ask too. Fohnson: Well it would be, I'm just right up in this area here. Which is just above that Slade Way. e man indicated something about the other house and I'm sure that's Rich Go's, he was right here. end I'm just right to the next. And I'm right on here on that slope ground that runs across, right across iere. [ommittee of The Whole Meetin g Minutes Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 32 Mullet: Thank you. Keith Baird: My name's Keith Baird, 16405 53rd Pl. S., that's Silverview which is just due south and east just a little bit from the proposed construction site. I'm a general contractor. I built my own property -my own home there. I bought it from Barghausen Consulting (sp There's a lot of water in that area. When I dug for my basement I had an excavation pit 15 feet deep. I had springs in three areas, but they are controllable. Down about two feet from the surface is all blue clay, which is very stable. My pit was open for about two months in the winter. It rained, snowed, froze and I had no erosion at all. Until it was solid enough where I could get the machinery in to backfill. It's temperamental area to work in but it's stable in my opinion. You have to take extra precautions in your footings and in your construction. I've got about 800 feet of drainage that I had to put around my property which when I was open, I called the City Engineer to have him look at the property to assess the springs, and I got no support at all from them. They just said it's ground water, so it was my responsibility as a builder to handle that. I support this area to be developed. I would like to see some more new homes, some nice homes put in that area. I think it would help my property values. As far as the roads and everything being stable around there, that I don't have any knowledge about. There is a ton of water that runs through that property, and runs all the way through that hill. That all just has to be handled. It has to be handled now and if construction is being done. I think if they are allowed to develop that property that that water management will be handled and the City has the control of that o have them handle it properly. So in that respect you'll be a step ahead of the game because right low it's just running into open ditches. So this would give you a chance to manage that water and to !nanage your soils conditions. Thank you. Darlene West: Darlene West, 5212 S. 164th. It seems to me that the big decision here tonight was, is was the planning department right or was the Planning Commission right? Well, everybody here has talked about stability, which is the basic problem of course. But we're not concerned with past stability. The whole project and all the arguments for or against, have to do with the potential stability. Not what's already happened. The City wants a deep seeded borings and the analysis done, and Mr. Lowe doesn't. He says they're not required. The Planning Commission, for rather strange reasons, decided Mr. Lowe was right. In making the argument to agree with Mr. Lowe and disagree with the Cities department of community development, the Planning Commission erred in their reason. And that's what your deciding here tonight. But the deep seeded borings and analysis that the Staff is asking for will come knowledge that is needed to make sure that any structures or change to the land surface will be done safely. The knowledge so gained is needed by the City to make decisions necessary as the project proceeds. Mr. Lowe and his associates also need the information so they can plan how to proceed with the least possible danger. During the Planning Commission meeting, after the public meeting was closed and the Commission began their discussion and decision, reference was made to TMC 1845080 as quoted on page 12 on tonight's agenda. The Commission's decision was made mainly Dr at least it certainly seemed to those of us in the audience, by utilizing the second of the two items. Actually Commission members, speaking as a for Lowe's argument and against Staff's recommendations, became stuck on the first part of that paragraph. Which is, "the area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding property is eliminated." They really didn't like that word eliminated. They Teemed to feel, and indeed said, since no potential impact could be 100% eliminated, the TMC is 1awed. Mr. Lowe should not have to do any further borings or analysis because no matter what the results, there is still no way to eliminate 100% of the risk. I'm not arguing with that. But the pommission said that sometimes you have to take risks and there's no way to avoid risks, Mr. Lowe hould be allowed that risk. I don't agree. It's a false argument. First, if and I say if, the TMC is awed then it should be changed not ignored. And second, this is an either or situation, if the !Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes rillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 33 Planning Commission had utilized more of paragraph one instead of paragraph two, and they had that choice. Both paragraphs are not required to be met, only one or the other. If they had done more with paragraph one, they could have seen the necessity of Staff's request. Paragraph ones says, "there is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development. And quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties." Isn't that what the Staff is asking for? That you do a little more analysis so there is no significant risk? They're not asking you eliminate it 100 that's not what they're asking Mr. Lowe. The department of Community Development was correct in asking for further information and the Planning Commission was wrong in saying that it wasn't necessary. The City has to follow its own rules. And by the way I'm not ashamed of my City, I'm very proud of them because they're a lot more concerned about their citizens then other organizations I can name. Thank you. Richard Steven: Good evening, my name is Richard Steven, 800 Bellevue Way, Suite 400, Bellevue Washington, 98004. I'm an attorney representing two neighboring land owners. Mr. Mrs. Eugene Iverson. They own property which is on 51st. It is immediately up hill from Mr. Lowe's property. Robertson: What are they're names and addresses? Steven: Mr. Mrs. Eugene Iverson. They do not reside on that property. lobertson: What property are they concerned with, the address? Unclear) Exhibit four. Steven: Exhibit four is, it's either 1621 or 16210, it's one of these two properties. And that property is a rental property, they own that, it's not their address. But it's there on 51st. They, Mr. Iverson attended one of the public hearings prior to the Planning Commission, or one of the meeting I should say, and became concerned when it appeared that everyone had agreed that Mr. Lowe's houses would be as- -would be safer then what is existing there. And Mr. Lowe's project would make the entire hillside safer then what is there. It may not make it perfect, but it would at least improve things. They became concerned that this project will disappear because it's become too expensive to pursue. And that a development which would take water off the site and do nothing but improve the area, would in fact not happen. Secondly, there's a concern that if the City decides that this is so unstable, it does effect their property value because they are at the top of that slope. In regards to what was just referred to, and that is the Tukwila Municipal Code, section 18.45080, the two, which is on paragraph twelve, or page twelve. I had argued to the Planning Commission that this is really the applicants choice to prove one of these two things. And the question at a meeting with the planning officials was, well what does the second paragraph mean? What has to be eliminated? And there was some discussion talking to the engineer who drafted that, to find out what exactly has to be eliminated. Our position is that what has to be eliminated is not all potential instability because that in fact could never be done. What has to be eliminated is instability caused by the project. It doesn't make any sense to deny something that is going to improve the area simply because it doesn't improve it perfectly. It makes sense to say what has to be eliminated is potential geologic instability related to the project. And that, apparently everybody at one time had agreed. All the experts seemed to agree that all Mr. Lowe's project will do will make everything, not perfect, but at least everything safer than what exists urrently. I'd also like to say, just for the record, I'm a little concerned because when I saw the original It.,tter appealing the Planning Commission's decision, I assumed that the -what was subject to appeal, what was stated in that letter. And that identified really only one issue, and that is that the Planning Commission had not given substantial weight to the Director of Community ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Merest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 34 Development. And I assumed that would be the only issue that would be discussed. I think it's problematic, just by the length of time we have here to be rehashing absolutely everything, in fact takes away the Planning Commission's job, and rightfully so, that meeting as people have said went on to one in the morning. If they're going to review all of this stuff, and everybody's going to present things there, then appeals should be limited to what is stated in that letter, identifying the appeal. We have arranged for a professional engineer who is has also reviewed those studies, his name is Bob Levinson, and I'll introduce him now. And I don't have anything unless somebody has some question about my interpretation of the code or my clients property. OK, thank you. Bob Levinson: My name's Bob Levinson, office is 1805 136th Place, Bellevue, Washington, 98005. I'm a professional civil engineer, registered in the State of Washington as a civil engineer. I've been practicing in the field of geotechnical engineering for almost 35 years, 20 of it, the last 20 have been in the Puget Sound area. I was brought into this or hired by Mr. Stevens to represent the Iversons and my charge was to evaluate everything, both sides. They came in sort of with an unbiased point of view, and I've gone through these reams of reports, going back to 1960 and my feeling is -my philosophy has been that any site that will be developed can improve the stability of the site. I mean there's no if ands or buts. When you control the ground water, you control the stability of the site because what will cause a slide in most cases except for the 1960 case which was undercut, would be water. And if you can control the ground water and surface water you've gone a long way into controlling the stability of It he site. I've looked and listened, I was here for the Planning Commission meeting, listened to the rguments of both sides and my opinion is that the site, Hillcrest site, should be developed because it protect the interest of the Iversons. In that by stabilizing the Hillcrest site, it will help any sites bove that. The slope stability that was performed by Lamb in conjunction with the other slope stability's that have been done on the site, and I think someone mentioned earlier this is probably the most studied and drilled hillside in Puget Sound and I agree with them, it is. but I feel that the slope stability study that was performed by Lamb, is adequate. It covered the entire site from Slade Way on up to the top. And is represented it. As a sideline, I was involved somewhat it the citizens committee that was formed by the Planning Commission to study the slope ordinance. In fact I gave a presentation to them on slopes in the Puget Sound area. As Mr. Stevens said, you can't eliminate all risk. One of the things I tried to do at that citizens committee, was to get the City of Tukwila to follow the City of Seattle's slope methods, where they instead of going to a 40 -25 -15 slope, would leave it to the engineers. They would pick out some critical areas and then go to- -leave it to the geotechnical engineers to minimize the risks. I don't feel that a deep boring will do anything. It will just be an opening for more arguments. Go through a little on slope stability, right now we all do it by computer. WE put figures that we feel are the parameters of the strength of the soil and we run our computer analysis. Well, like with any computer program, garbage in, garbage out. And I could see arguments and they have developed in what values are you going to input to a slopes stability analysis do come up with their value. So I could see a potential for this thing going on for years. So basically I feel that sufficient study has been done on this site to satisfy the SAO that the Hillcrest will stabilize the slope and in the long run will help the Iverson's property. I think, no matter what happens, Pace: (Unclear) you gave the applicant a set time. You will get a rebuttal, this response is unclear) Mullet: Council? rohen: I would remind the witness too that you're under oath and to say that you were objective, I d ust remind you of that fact. Lowe: I wish to respond to the City Attorney. fr awrence: Yes and please be brief. 1.4owe: Oh, I will. What occurred in a previous public hearings is that, his name is Bob Levinson. [-le indicated that he had been involved with a citizens committee that was reviewing the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. I so I was keenly interested to know what his involvement was and the o mmittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 35 Levinson: Yes, I was hired by Mr. Stevens. Cohen: How did your name and resume get in the packet that Mr. Lowe distributed. How did that happen? Pace: It was part of (unclear) Mr. Lowe's and City Council's records. Levinson: I don't know how it got into it. Steven: Mr. Lowe wanted a copy of his resume. He does not represent Mr. Lowe. Mr. Lowe is not his client. He is my client and I'm representing the Iverson's. But since he did testify at the Planning Commission, he did -we were both there at the Planning Commission before, so he was somebody who testified so Mr. Lowe asked for a copy of his resume. What Mr. Lowe does with that is his business I guess. Cohen: You're also listed as a design professional. Is that by happenstance as well? Levinson: Where am I listed as a design professional? I don't know anything about it. re ohen: For Hillcrest. You're listed as a design professional for Hillcrest. Is that not so? vinson: No, that's not true. I don't know how that, I don't know anything about that. Cohen: Well then perhaps when you're finished Mr. Lowe and answer. Levinson: OK, I don't know anything about that. I've testified at the Planning Commission for Mr. Stevens and that's what I'm doing today. Mullet: We have taken a couple of your minutes for these other questions, but you're just about out of time. You are just about out of time if you could rap it up I'd appreciate it. Levinson: OK, just two points. One, no matter what the outcome of this hearing is, I think it's imperative for the protection of the Iversons that that drainage, the WASHDOT drainage be taken care of either by the City of Tukwila or by requests made to DOT. Because what will happen is this slope failures on the lower slopes, they could work their way up. Another thing that I've got a little peeve about, is Mr. Clayton submitting his report and stamping it with an engineers geologists stamp from the State of Oregon. This is illegal in the State of Washington. I've had to go and take sixteen hours of testing to get my registration in this State and every report I put out has to be signed and also with an expiration date of my license. And I think this has is an illegal act by Shannon Wilson having Mr. Clayton sign that report without an engineers stamp on that. Any questions? I guess not, thank you. L o yy o mmittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 36 nature of his background, so I asked for his resume. The other part of it is that you see we're all, one of the key issues in the appeal by the Planning Commission or by the planning department to the Planning Commission, is that they stated that there was not substantial weight given to the DCD director, the director of community development. Well, if you've got a design professional with all the credentials of the people listed here, that would mean to me at least, if I were listening to all this testimony, that those individuals who were testifying were not only skilled but were educated and had degrees. And so therefore, the Planning Commission did give considerable weight to those design professionals. (Unclear): He is not responding to the question you asked of Mr. Lowe....testimony. Mullet: You were asked to explain why you have him listed as a design professional on your side of the team. Lowe: The reason is, I'm trying to respond to this thing of substantial weight. And I was looking for the people that testified before the Planning Commission that they were, that they were skilled, they were knowledgeable. OK, I'm kind of confused. Mullet: Then can you give us a reference where that listing was made? WE haven't had a chance to ok through it here. o hen: If you pull out your packet that says rebuttal. And it's about the third page in, the Hillcrest b esign Professionals. Duffle: Excuse me sir, my question is, I want to know one thing, is he with you? Lowe: No. Duffle Has he be under, has he been paid as a geotechnical engineer as part of your project? Lowe: Nope. Duffie: On the individual profile, I guess project assignment, says geotechnical engineer principle. I would assume that would mean that he was Mullet: Linda, do you have anything special to say about this? Cohen: I don't think it needs any further comment, it speaks for itself. Mullet: Joe? Duffie: My question is, his testimony, do we rule that out? Cohen: I think that you give it the credibility it deserves and you see fit. Mullet: OK, would the next citizen like to speak now? There are no more? That ends the citizen omment portion, which we allowed because it was advertised as a public hearing. ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing anuary 10, 1994 Page 37 Robertson: We're going to go through a couple rebuttal sessions. I would just like to before we go through that, we had other things on the agenda tonight which were basically points to be discussed with the Council. I would think we could send the Staff members home, because I don't think we're going to get to those other issues, item 7. Cohen: May I make a suggestion in respect to rebuttal? Since you have so much information that needs to be reviewed, it seems that you really won't be able to accomplish the rebuttal until you have an opportunity to review that. It would make sense to have a rebuttal after you have an opportunity to review all the information. Duffie: I would like to discuss, OK..... Mullet: OK, so do we have consensus to continue with rebuttal when we continue the Public Hearing? Duffie: We're not going to continue with rebuttal, we're just going to continue on with the regular meeting. Mullet: We have to stop the public hearing now and continue it and the first item when we Ito econvene the public hearing will be rebuttal. uffie: OK. Robertson: OK, that's fine with me. I was just concerned with the lateness of the hour. Before you close the public hearing we have to continue it to a particular time. What is the agenda look like, in the ensuing weeks? Cohen: Baker is on next week. Robertson: We would want to continue this to a Council of the Whole? Duffle: Yea, make it two weeks. Robertson: Two weeks? Is there anything two weeks from now? Hernandez: Yea, Hwy. 99 moratorium is on the 24th, and we just continued that street....public hearing to the 24th. Mayor John Rants You have a public hearing on the 24th, but I don't think (not audible). Mullet: I don't think it would be lengthy. Robertson I don't think so either. r uffle: OK I would, do you need a movement? No, you just need to continue this. Iernandez: That's the thing on the street vacation. b uffie: That's not going to take that long. ommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes liii crest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing anuary 10, 1994 Page 38 Hernandez: I don't think that will take very long. Mullet: OK, we have consensus that the public hearing be continued two weeks from tonight, what was the date? Hernandez: 24th. Mullet: January 24th, and the first item to be taken up when we continue it will be the rebuttals. Pace: Mr. Chairman? I think we have a problem with our peer review consultant. He doesn't live in the City. There may be a conflict with that date, he can't be here. Duffie: When is this date available that he can be here? What day available can you be here? (Unclear): Monday, supposed to be out of town for two weeks starting next week. So... Mullet: We've set the date Jack, if there's a conflict you can let us know and we can change the date. Is that correct? obertson: How much notice do we have to have to change that date? Would a week be ufficient? Legally? heeler: To change that date you'd have to Duffie: There would have to be notices. Robertson: As you've said it now, there's a lot of interested parties. Well its a continuation of public hearings. Duffie: But he won't be here for two weeks, he be gone for two weeks. Mullet: Jack. Pace: The options you have, you could make next Monday's meeting but for the speakers who can't we can make it for the following Monday after that. Celia Sauare. Denutv City Clerk: There is no meeting on Monday night.... Robertson: But on the Tuesday, on the 18th we've got Baker Commodities and that's likely to go awhile also. Would the 31st be a reasonable time period for you sir? Did not use mic: I have to make some arrangements. Robertson: What about the applicant, the property owner. Mr. Lowe? Steve, I'm sorry. vvlullet: Yes, Mr. Lowe do you have any problem with the date we reconvene this hearing? .owe: No I don't but as you might well imagine, I have to assemble quite a few individuals, but yes I will be here whether we have testimony or not. bommittee of The Whole Meeting Minutes Iillcrest (Leroy Lowe) Public Hearing January 10, 1994 Page 39 Mullet: It appears that the only option we have is to either go with the date we said or put it off two more weeks after that. If we want to continue it on a COW meeting, rather than a regular meeting. I don't know if that's real pertinent. I'm sure the Mayor can take care of this gavel pounding as well as I can. Robertson: Well I think when you, we need Mr. Clayton here, and You cannot be available in two weeks? Clayton: I have to check. Robertson: I would say the 31st myself, unless we set a special meeting for this. But still we'd only be a few days earlier if we did another meeting. Mullet: Well, that's what I was thinking, if we, if two weeks wasn't appropriate, you for sure would be able to be back within four weeks? (Not using mic): Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question, will there be a chance for a rebuttal to the rebuttal? 6 1 7 Mullet: No. The rebuttal will be the last input from both parties. After that it will be the Council ealing with the issues. obertson: But if the public hearing is still open and the Council wants to ask a specific question to a specific consultant, someone who has testified, that's appropriate. Not as a rebuttal, but as a question, is that correct? Mullet: I still need some more help fellas, the 31st of January? Robertson: If he can't be available then you'll have to let us know, we'll change the date. Mullet: OK, the public hearing will be continued until the 31st of January or on the 31st of January. (everyone talldn2 at once) Mullet: OK, enough said? I'm going to hit this thing. (Mullet pounds the gavel.) Robertson: Steve, on the same issue, could I request an executive session on this issue, next meeting? We need to publicize it. I have several legal questions I need to ask. Cohen: There's going to be an executive session on the 17th. Robertson: Isn't that going to be on Baker Commodities. I would also like it to deal with this matter too. I'll tell you tomorrow what I want to talk about. ^ublic Hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. 1