Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-28 Special Minutes7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT Councilmember Excused SPECIAL PRESENTATION CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: PUBLIC HEARING: Becker Trucking Conditional Use Permit REPORTS FEBRUARY 28, 1994 Tukwila City Hall None. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Council Chambers Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY DE RODAS. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE DUE TO MILITARY LEAVE. MOTION CARRIED. Laird Hanson, President Elect, Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce, reviewed the Chamber's Year End Contract Report of 1993. He distributed a copy of the report along with a new Community Map and Profile. Hanson informed the Council that the Chamber will be relocating by the end of the month. The City will be informed of the new location. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT WEEK (MARCH 7, 1994) FOR DECISIONS CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS. MOTION CARRIED. Verbatim transcript distributed on Friday March 4. (copy attached). Mayor Rants reported that the Gateway Committee would like to make a presentation to the Council in March at the last COW of the month.. Councilmember Robertson stated that since this is not a high priority item, he would support such a meeting as long as it doesn't conflict with the more pressing issues that are currently facing the Council. The Mayor replied he would try to schedule at the convenience of the Council. Mayor Rants also commented on a letter he had given to the Council earlier regarding the appointment of Bill Arthur to The Economic Development Advisory Board. After a brief discussion, the Council agreed with the appointment. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD "APPOINTMENTS OF THE MAYOR" TO THE REPORTS SECTION OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MULLET TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF BILL ARTHUR TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (EDAB).* Councilmember Craft commented that items for discussion should always be placed on the agenda. She is not comfortable with taking action on issues that pop up at the spur of the moment, and prefers the Council discontinue this practice. Councilmember Robertson asked for Council input on having a member from the Port of Seattle represented on the EDAB. If not as a member, possibly serving in an advisory capacity. Mayor Rants thought it would be a good idea to invite membership of the Port because of the vast resource of information a political entity such as this could offer to the City. It was the consensus of the Council to deny the notion of having a Port of Seattle Board member participate on the Tukwila Economic Development Advisory Board. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY, HERNANDEZ, TO EXTEND THE MEETING BY TEN (10) MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Hernandez reported the Finance and Safety Committee meeting last week focused on the purchase of 360 natural gas buses by METRO and their plans are to start with the Tukwila METRO bus barn. The Mayor commented that since he serves on the METRO Board, he will keep pertinent information flowing to the Council regarding this issue. Councilmember Mullet reported that the Community Affairs and Parks Committee had discussed among other items, the issue of Child Care in residential neighborhoods. Recommendations were forwarded to staff for review. Mullet also commented that due to the many critical issues facing the Council, a Special COW meeting should be scheduled for Wednesday, March 9 to discuss miscellaneous issues such as committee procedures, retreat follow -up items, etc. Special Meeting February 28, 1994 Page 3 Robertson suggested the Council act on the PRD process as soon as possible so as to avoid any unnecessary dilemmas. Councilmember Craft reported she had received a ticket from the City for excessive false alarms going off in her home. She had no problem with paying the bill; however, her complaint was that she received the bill two (2) months after the fact. The Mayor said he would look into the matter immediately. City Administrator John McFarland reported that the draft ordinance on the Tax General Obligation Bond will come before the Finance and Safety Committee on March 8; on March 9, Moody's Bond Rating Company) will make a site visit to City Hall; March 14, draft ordinance to the COW; March 16, receive rating; March 21, adopt ordinance. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO ADJOURN THE 11:20 .mm MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. 1 y Johi W. Rants, Mayor Celia Square, D iuty City Clerk Verbatim Transcript Conditional Use Permit Becker Trucking Tukwila City Council Special Meeting February 28, 1994 Mavor Rants: This public hearing is a limited public hearing which is quasi-judicial. It will operate under these guidelines so that everyone has fair and equal opportunity to speak. Twenty minutes to the applicant, twenty minutes to Staff, twenty minutes to the appellant. When that is through we will open it up for citizen comments. After citizen comments we will have rebuttal with the applicant first and the appellant second. Am I correct? Linda Cohen: The appellant first and the applicant, Becker, should go last. Rants: I'm sorry, I reversed that. The appellant first and the applicant last. Cohen: The Staff should go in the middle there. Rants: I assume that we're going to swear in everyone that speaks tonight? Cohen: That is correct. Is there going to be a limit on the time for the citizens comments? Rants: Citizen comments are listed as five minutes in our agenda packet. Cohen: Would you like me to swear in everyone who Rants: I would like you to swear in everyone who is going to give testimony this evening. Cohen: Everyone who is going to give testimony please rise and raise your right hand. Do you affirm the facts that your about to give in this manner to be the truth? Rants: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Council? Councilmember Joan Hernandez: I would like to disclose that when I got home Friday night I had a message on my answering service from Jackie Dempere asking me if I had received the packet that she had left in my mailbox. I had called back her answering service to let her know that I had received it. I didn't have a personal conversation with her other than that. Cohen: And the packet was delivered to your home as opposed to City Hall? Hernandez: Right. Cohen: And what was the message that you Hernandez: She had asked if I did receive the packet that she had left at my door. And she wanted me to call back and let her know that I did receive it. So I called back and left a message on her answering service that I had received it. Cohen: Has everyone received the same packet? It should have come to City Hall as opposed to being delivered to Councilmembers homes to make sure that everyone received the same information. Craft: We can only assume it's the same information (unclear) the packet. Ekbere: I'd like to disqualify myself from this public hearing process as a result of my previous commitments to the citizens regarding this effort. I'd like to disqualify myself. Craft: I have a request. The request that I have is that every time that we have a quasi judicial hearing that it be printed on our agenda as quasi-judicial. Rants: Dennis? Councilmember Dennis Robertson: Yea, I'd like to disclose that in the past several weeks I received several phone calls from Jackie Dempere discussing process issues such as the fact that the minutes- -that she received the minutes approximately nine weeks after the public hearing with the Planning Commission and what could she do about that. I suggested that she discuss it with Staff. We didn't talk about anything of any content material at all about the project or the conditional use permit. We merely talked about process issues dealing with her receiving the information from the City. I invited her to work through Staff with those issues, it was not a Council decision. I feel that those discussions in no way would prejudice my decision in this matter. Councilmember Steve Mullet: I would disclose that I had similar conversation with Jackie- with the same results as Dennis. Councilmember Joyce Craft: I would disclose that I had a similar conversation with Jackie. Councilmember Dorothy DeRodas: Well I'll join the crowd. The thing passed to me. Also I received at my home personally from Jackie Dempere, a copy of this memorandum. And I said to her that I cannot discuss this with you, that I understand that she left it with me and that was it. Cohen: Let me say for the record I'm glad that no one discussed substance and it sounds like it's not going to interfere with decisions. Those phone calls are inappropriate and for future quasi-judicial hearings if those phone calls can be terminated immediately and just not even discuss procedural issues. It certainly raises the issue of an appearance of unfairness. But it sounds like everyone declined to discuss substance. Rants: All right then I'm going to open the public hearing. (gavel sounded) Representatives of the appellant. Jackie Dempere: I don't know how to use these, we need some help. Rants: Jackie so there are no confusions would you speak very slowly tonight and use the microphone. Demnere: OK. I'm Jackie Dempere at 4033 S. 128th, Tukwila. There is several citizens here that are signed the appeal before in time and other ones who will applicants earlier. And my understanding was that only the people who signed before the 28th were able to speak tonight. So this has been important to me because if I would have know that I would have been good speakers to talk. I -this is a very important issue and I don't want to mess it up so I put a lot of effort on my brief- what's happened to this -I put a lot of effort on my 2 1 2 x`' brief and I would like you to read it as if I am speaking because you have to give me consideration that my accent and my speak of talking interferes with this process because I have listened to the Planning Commission tapes and there is so much missing that I'm not only from me but from other citizens. I have my daughter going through the tapes, she also says that I'm difficult to understand so I beg you to read my brief, I put quite a bit of effort into it. In lieu of me talking I brought a tape that I need you to take a look at. Rants: Lucy are you going to be the one to start and stop? (Setting up video).... Rants: Use the microphone Jackie. Demnere: This is not professionally done but it is a very short tape. If we put some sound to it -if we start it with sound it's important. (Setting up and viewing video) Demnere: (narrating video) This is Becker. You see at five miles a...5 ton limit in there. The sign it says five ton on the corner. That's the corner of 128th and East. Marginal Way. That's my street, utilities. This is the corner -you can see the lot in there they (unclear). This truck that we see now had come and go several times in a bit of an hour -watch this. You see it almost hit the parked cars in there. The truck is going in the opposite direction of the traffic to get into 128th. I wonder if those cars are parked on the sidewalk or they are parked on the property. Because if they park on their property their street will be even smaller after the sidewalk is on. That's in side of the yard taken from the outside. This hill in front of you is single family zoned. I want to point out that we want people to be able to build homes. It is very important what's happened around the site. And this corner is neighborhood commercial. Neighborhood commercial means you can have residents people leaving also in this so it will be also next to Beckers. This is across the site. Look at this truck, it is blocking the traffic I was told that the other side's worse. The other side of the bridge. The truck is going through the middle of the bridge and is going pretty fast. In order not to hit the bridge they have to go to the middle so they are driving on the opposite lane. I want to enter as exhibit number 13, readings taken of the sound at night. We have one of the appellants who is an expert. He's trained to heavy the equipment and he will talk about it. I just want to enter this as exhibit. OK? Rants: You also need to enter the tape as exhibit one. Demnere: Fourteen. Exhibit number one is the memorandum. That's -I wrote it out on the front of the memoranda. Rants: Exhibit 14 then. Demnere: The tape. Rants: The tape. Demnere: Now, what I wanted to emphasize here is that I make it lengthy but the end of this the core of this package is safety for children and the goals of Tukwila, for the residents of Tukwila. We have a -if you look at the tape, we are surrounded, as the tape shown that is zoned single family. And only the lots bordering E. Marginal Way are shown Neighborhood Commercial. The Tukwila Tomorrow goal is for the Becker site to be Neighborhood Commercial. That means there's going to be people leaving on the side and a commercial. 3 /9 7 So this trucking facility doesn't work with that. I show you the area of the bridge and I want to point out that if you return this site with (unclear) park, you still need to provide safe access to the park. And there is no safe access from this schools to the park or to the community center coming from 42nd. There is no safe access. This is liabilities for the City. Just follow -I say it again, follow this package I (unclear) I know I speak too fast. And I can get some good speakers in today. They say you do it Jackie, just speak slow and it will work. But what I wanted to emphasize now is that we're not talking about and assisting a new permit that has been issued now. I once was today after you have reviewed information to cancel this existing use because you don't have the equipment to monitor violations. You don't have -the ordinance has been decriminalized. I call the police on Thanksgiving myself. The police say they don't have the equipment to measure the noise, they don't have the- they can't even give them a ticket if they find them making this noise. Not only making the noise but working at 3:00 in the morning. So if the City cannot enforce its own laws and it has to be the citizens doing it I think the City should not give a permit. I know that you are going to be thinking about getting sued but think about that if you're not enforcing your own rules and the people are breaking the law, then maybe it should go the other way around. That you should be the one thinking about the citizens rights being denied by allowing this thing to happen. So think about not -my question here is denying, revoking the permit that they are using right now because they are conditional. And we are going to prove tonight that they are not following the rules. And we have had a long ways good will because the property was for sale and but the good will is over. And truck operations, trucks are very expensive they are very efficient to run them is 24 hours. Truck drivers can only drive ten hours by law. They can work 15 hours but they can only drive ten hours. So if I was to be day after day watching Becker to go from 7 to 10 every day he will be out of business because its not efficient to work from 7 to 10 a trucking company. And I wish him luck and I would like to help him out to find a new location. Maybe the City can help out too. But at not the expense of the neighborhood. Rants: Thank you Jackie. Cohen: For clarification for the record, it may be easier to mark Ms. Dempere's entire package as exhibit one and the video as exhibit number two. Rants: Mr. Beeler? You're on. Rick Beeler: Miss Dempere's used I think approximately 15 minutes of her time. I don't know whether she was -I think she mentioned another expert that was going to testify? Demnere: Yes, I forgot. Rants: I assume that you were through. You have, counting five minutes extra for getting the tape going, you have three minutes. Demnere: OK, what I want to make sure is that, OK. Explain, introduce yourself- -I think it's important. We are all trying to work within the system and it's very hard to follow. Bob Bernhardt: Bob Bernhardt, 3418 S. 126th. I took some sound readings of Mr. Becker. It's in this exhibit. One was on a holiday weekend, there was no -the readings were within the city limits, the City of Tukwila's rulings. We have about 1/3 of the sound readings the next day that were over the reading that you were legally having to in your rules and regulations. These readings were taken between 3:45 in the morning and 4:45. They had started before I got there and if that isn't illegal, I don't know what is. I've taken hundreds of readings where I work. I believe these readings are real accurate and I don't know who in your department can analyze them but there's approximately 50 readings here. And I took 4 them within 300 feet of Beckers trucking due east, up where Jackie leaves in the residential area. And some of the readings are low readings because when I pushed my button I couldn't get it stopped soon enough. Some of the sounds I couldn't pick up because I didn't have the instrument in the right position at the right time. Each reading has to be taken separately. There's a copy for each one of you to look at. Rants: Do you have a copy for the City Clerk of those readings? Bernhardt: I have seven copies out there some where. I've done this for Todd Shipyards since 1960. I don't have any qualifications, I learned on my own. (Microphone making loud noise.) Rants: Take your hand off the mic. Thank you. Cohen: What device were you using to measure...? Bernhardt: It's right in the paper that I've got. It's a sound analyzer and the calibrations are good until the end of this year, 1994. Everything's in this right here, yea. Robertson: Who has copies of that? Rants: Jackie just wanted to (unclear Dempere not using the mic.) Rants: Thank you Mr. Bernhardt. That does use the time of the appellant. We will have the Staff report. Robertson: I suggest you give one copy to the applicant. Vern Merrvhew: My name is Vern Merryhew, 4431 S. 148th. I'm here tonight representing the Planning Commission because last year at the time this hearing was held I was the chairman of the Planning Commission at the time. Briefly just summarize what we did, in that hearing then let the Staff finish up here. The hearing was conditional use permit hearing held on November 18th. It was to approve a vacant site as a parking lot for parking of Becker trucking vehicles, trucks, tractors and trailers. The design criteria for a conditional use permit is defined in TMC 1864050 and it's well summarized and attached on one of the reports, staff reports you have. Staff presented information concerning project description, surrounding uses, site conditions, traffic, landscaping, drainage, and fending and lighting. They recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the condition that the performance bond for 150% the cost of landscaping be installed within six months of approval of the site. And that Lynn William Horn and Associates be retained to monitor and approve the placement of the landscaping materials during the installation. That was the complete Staff recommendation. The appellant, Becker Trucking, then discussed the newly proposed access from the parking lot onto East Marginal Way South. Site drainage, noise, neighborhood traffic, lighting, curb stops within the parking lot, fencing, hours of operation, security, landscaping and irrigation. Hours of operation are defined as being limited from 6:OOam to 10:OOpm. And the parking lot gates are to be locked outside of those hours of operation. Testimony was then heard from six citizens, two of those appear on the appeal you have before you. Citizens concerns included the new access from the parking lot on East Marginal Way, neighborhood noise, hours of operation and truck traffic in the residential neighborhoods and fencing and lighting of the site. Then the Commission had further discussion, deliberation and that was focused primarily on the need for some lighting on the site, fencing and locked gates beyond the hours of operation for security and safety purposes and landscaping in accordance with the plans submitted by Lynn William Horn, the landscape architect. And curb stops in the parking lots and access to the parking lots from East Marginal Way and the fact that the City Engineer's recommendation was that this additional driveway would increase the safety. The Planning Commission's task was to decide on a conditional use permit. And a result of that our boundaries are somewhat limited and there is certain decisional criteria we've got to use. This is not a design review or zoning change. The Commission felt that within the limits of their jurisdiction that the proposed parking lot would have a beneficial impact on the neighborhood in lieu of the fact that it's now on a vacant site and allow this vacant site to be used as a parking lot which would remove vehicles from the street and improve the sidewalk areas and improve the safety within the neighborhood there. With that in mind they approved the conditional use permit by a vote of 5 to 1, and with the six conditions that are shown on page two of Attachment A. Most of those conditions are over and above the ones recommended by Staff. Questions? Rants: Any questions? Mullet: Vern one of the things- -can you hear me with this thing down here -the entrance onto East Marginal from the parking lot. There seems to be a lot of confusion in reading the material as to the traffic report didn't recommend it in the first place. I'm assuming that our engineer came up with some first -I couldn't find a lot of comments revolving around that. Merrvhew: There was a lot of discussion during the hearing. I don't believe we had access to the traffic study at the time. But we did have Staff reports and the appellants report both that the City Engineer had recommended that the additional driveway be added. And it would improve the sight distance. We had quite a bit of discussion on it. Mullet: Did you have discussion about the fact that by having the driveway on that side it did leave a short cut capability for kids to cut through there instead of keeping them out? Merrvhew: Yes we discussed that. That was the reason for putting the fencing in. Of course the fencing is only -yea the gates are only closed from 10:00 at night until 6 in the morning. That was discussed. Mullet: If you leave a hole in the fence then it doesn't do any good. OK. Rants: Another question for Vern? Thank you Vern. Denni? Denni Shefrin: Thank you, good evening. My name is Denni Shefrin a planner with the department of community development. What I'd like to do is to point out a couple of items that have been distributed to you. One of which is the decision criteria that the Planning Commission used. The second item is page four of the minutes of the Planning Commission were inadvertently omitted from your packets. We do apologize for that. What I'd like to do very very briefly is go through the background of the project. All of this in essence is covered in the report to you in Attachment A. But generally as you are aware the project that is a parking facility was proposed back in 1989. Part of that proposal included a SEPA checklist. In 1989 in November, a determination of non significance was issued for this project. There were no significant environmental impacts found with the proposal. The Planning Commission approved the project with several conditions again which are identified in your packet. There was however an appeal to that decision to the City Council. The appeal was made by residents that felt that some of the conditions that were recommended by Staff had not been followed through with the Planning Commission. So in essence some of those conditions had been reinstated. What I had -I should back up -one of those conditions involved a that the project after six month period, if some of those 6 conditions hadn't been met the CUP would expire and in essence that is indeed what had happened. So what we have before us this evening is a new conditional use permit application. SEPA checklist wasn't required because under the WAC, Washington Administrative Code, we are allowed to utilize previous documentation's, previous SEPA decisions in reviewing current proposals. If however there was new evidence or new information that would suggest that there was new additional unmitigated impacts, then we require a SEPA checklist. Also I want to point out that the public comment for the SEPA decision has been complied with and in accordance with TMC 21.04.210 and the WAC 197.11.502 sub paragraph 3. Several of the issues that have been identified by the appellants and I've called out seven and I'll go through those, refer back to the original SEPA decision. And again I want to point out that the issuance of the decision of determination of non significance has already been made and there was no comment period. So in essence that decision stands. I'm thinking of -I may have failed to bring to the point that the Planning Commission decision was appealed to the City Council. When this application was submitted back in October of 93, Staff looked at the conditions that were imposed by the Planning Commission and in turn by the City Council back in 1990. Those conditions were considered in the proposal and the applicant has ensured by some of the features incorporated on the proposal -and I can go through those -that issues related to safety, issues related to ingress and egress with respect to traffic, landscaping, pedestrian access, have been addressed. Some of those features have been addressed through conditions that were imposed by the Planning Commission back in November of 93. The issues that relate to the SEPA decision that are called out, and identified in the appeal letter, include again the issuance of determination of non significance of '89, including the failure to prepare a AIS, inadequate disclosure of adverse impacts, inadequate conditions to mitigate adverse impacts including traffic and air quality, cumulative impacts, inadequate conditions -I'm sorry-- including wetland and noise and light, citizen input and again the traffic study. When I finish my presentation both Ron and Ross are available to answer questions with respect to traffic as well as drainage. Issues related to the conditional use permit include again the approval of the CUP as well as design review which was raised in the appeal letter. I want to see if I can't clarify for you the issue of design review. Back in 1989 the site had been used for parking purposes. It was unimproved. Permits had not been approved for that purpose and in essence nobody had enough -the applicant had not gone in and installed landscaping in accordance with codes which were in place at that time. When the permit was revoked the applicant was required to remove those vehicles that were parked on the site without permit approval and with the current proposal it includes new landscaping. So design review back then was triggered because there was a non conforming condition on the site. The landscaping was not there however the site was being used for parking purposes. So now the applicant has made application for new proposal, has the opportunity currently to install landscaping in accordance with the current codes because we are treating the site now as a vacant parcel. With respect to other issues that have been identified in the appeal letter, related to the conditional use permit, there is issue raised with hazardous materials. There has been no demonstration to the City that hazardous materials is part of the proposal. Also with respect to wetland, as well as tree protection provisions that are stated in the interim tree ordinance, there has been no wetland identified on the property. This is based on the sensitive areas regulations and the inventory that was conducted at the time those regulations were formulated. With respect to the interim tree regulations, if there was disturbance on sensitive areas including steep slopes, and there is a steeper portion of the site that I will point out to you, if there was disturbance in those areas that in turn would also trigger the tree regulation. But that is not the case. The applicant is staying outside of that area and instead is actually proposing an erosion control planting so that erosion can be further controlled on the slope portions of the site. I'll just kind of reference you to the maps behind you, the landscape plan is on the top which is colored. Sloped portion is on the southwest portion of the property. Other issues that were called out in the letter of appeal include buffers, surrounding zoning and uses. I should point out that the site is zoned CM, it 7 (q is a transitional zone, it does permit industrial park sorts of uses. It also allows certain uses provided they are approved through a conditional use permit process. And again if you reference the conditional use permit review criteria, the Planning Commission spent lengthy amount of time making sure that not only the project as proposed but the conditions imposed meet that criteria. Other issues relate to pedestrian safety. You will note that part of the proposal includes a sidewalk on the north side of the site, on the south side of 128th. In essence vehicles would be removed from parking on the street. They will be forced to park in the new parking facility as well as provision of additional parking spaces for trucks, trailers and tractors. This in turn will improve the pedestrian access along that street. Citizen input public notice. There was some concern that the noticing for both the Planning Commission and City Council, the provisions of our TMC, haven't been met. I'm going to briefly go through for you what has been done with respect to public noticing. The meeting date for the Planning Commission hearing occurred November 18, 1993. Noticing is required ten days in advance of these hearings. There was a notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet as required by the TMC on November 5th. The notice was also published in the Seattle Times November 5th and again on November 12th 1993. Notice was also provided in the Hazelnut the advance agenda section which is generally found on the back of the Hazelnut. The Hazelnut by the way is distributed on a city wide basis. And it was published and released on November 10th, 1993. For the Planning Commission meeting that occurred January 27th, and by the way this meeting was simply for the purpose of clarifying two of the conditions so that it was a bit easier for the Staff to administer. As a courtesy we notify property owners again within 300 feet on January 21, 1994. And for this hearing, February 28, notice was mailed on February 5, 1994 and by the way those notices went out to appellants and it was mailed certified, return receipt requested so that City staff would have confirmation that notices had indeed been received. Also the notice was published in the Seattle Times again on February 11th and printed in the Hazelnut which was mailed November 11th as well. Some of the items that were identified in letter of appeal were a bit unclear to Staff and I think you'll note that in attachment A in essence something's were not specified particularly with respect to protection of City property. It wasn't clear what was implied by that statement. Also in the appeal there was a statement that suggested the expansion of the CUP occur beyond the proposal and as described in the original application. Again the issues hadn't been specified so Staff was not really certain how to address those particular issues. I want to point out that there are several positive aspects of this project. Again we are obligated to make sure as the Planning Commission is, to direct the applicant to comply with the conditions or the criteria for CUP. In essence that the site, the proposal be as best integrated into the neighborhood as possible given that the site is zoned CM and that a truck terminal is permissible within the zoned category provided a conditional use permit is approved. There is improved pedestrian access because there is a new sidewalk. The site will be lit so that there is security. There will be a fence and gate as well to provide additional security to pedestrians as well as to the site. Site distances will be improved because vehicles will be removed from parking on the street certain distances so that means then that no more will vehicles be permitted to park on the south side of 128th adjacent to the parcel. And again with the new sidewalk that the combination of the two will increase the opportunity for pedestrian access along that street. With the additional landscaping there is a tremendous amount more landscape species that are proposed with this project as compared to what was proposed back in 1990. There is a four foot berm that's proposed a portion of the way on the south side of the property. In essence the berm will allow for elevated landscaping materials to provide additional screening. Their berm will be wrapped around along East Marginal Way so we see that as a real benefit. As I pointed out earlier, there will be erosion control species on the south west corner so that we can make sure that the slope on that portion is maintained. And again the site is to be used predominantly as a parking lot. We do not view that particular use as something that is more intensive. We find that the other mitigating measures with respect to landscaping, again overall improve the visual impact of that area. And that concludes my presentation. Did you have any questions? Rants: Questions of Staff? Joan? Hernandez: I just wanted to clarify. You said that this site does not have an identified wetland on it. Shefrin: That's correct. Hernandez: OK. And were there any changes that occurred from the 1989 approval of the conditional use permit and the November 18th Shefrin: With respect to the proposal, yes. As pointed out earlier, access to the driveway that you see now was not permissible with the first permit. Let me point this out on the map. The driveway location was something that was on the original proposal but it was something that was deemed by the Planning Commission and the Council at that time that should not exist because of access off of East Marginal Way in front here. The reason why it was put back in was is to assist with the maneuvering areas as well as access. The vehicles will come in and use this access way and exit onto East Marginal in this fashion so you are not creating a tremendous amount of congestion at this intersection. So again, we saw that as a benefit. Vegetation again is another thing which differs from the original proposal. Rants: Can we number these exhibits. I'd suggest that the site plan be exhibit four, I don't know what the pictures are. The one that's titled conditional use permit be exhibit five and what's the one up above Denni? Shefrin: We can call that the landscape plan. The colored landscape plan. Rants: Exhibit six then. Mullet: Can somebody go write those numbers on there so we don't forget which ones they are? Rants: Four, Five and Six. Does Council have any questions of other Staff? Mullet: I have another question if we're working this way. Denni on the hazardous materials there was some question -I don't know if I'm getting ahead of rebuttal here but the trucks might have hazardous materials in them when they're parked there. I'm assuming that's covered by some other regulations in the trucking industry. But did you examine that at all when the hazardous Shefrin: Yes we did. And I think the applicant is here to respond to that as well in terms of materials that would be stored. It's my understanding that is regulated at the State level. Mullet: OK. On the follow -up on Joan's question about the sensitive area or the wetlands here, who determined that there were no wetlands? Shefrin: During the development of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance there was a wetlands inventory on a city wide basis. Mullet: Did Gary go down and look at that property? Shefrin: Yes at that time. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: Back to the wetlands issue. When the inventory was done and the SAO specifically says that not all wetlands are included or should be, that it is the responsibility of the property owner to identify all wetlands and streams as on their property. Did Gary go and do a wetland inventory since that applicant has come forward or since the appeal has been filed? Shefrin: No he has not. Robertson: OK. Rants: Dorothy? DeRodas: I have a question on the drainage because undoubtedly when you have a lot of vehicles parked you can have runoff of oil, gas, possibly other corrosive materials. What provisions cover that type of runoff? Shefrin: I think I'd prefer having Ross or Ron respond to that but generally speaking for parking facilities we require oil water separators and that is something the applicant has agreed to. And we are requiring that details on that information be provided when they submit for a utility permit because permits for those -for detention and oil water separations required after this sort of approval. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: Is there any differentiation between parking automobiles, parking trucks and trailers that are empty, parking trailers that are loaded, parking trucks and trailers on this site in the conditional use permit as far as Staff is concerned? Shefrin: No. Robertson: OK. What would stop or change the applicant from or prevent the applicant from eliminating the automobile parking and using it for a truck parking place? Shefrin: Striping. The striping is very specific to the types of vehicles that would be parked. If you look at the parking plan that would be noted. Robertson: That's paint on Shefrin: The applicant has indicated that there is parking provided for seventeen vehicles other than employee vehicles, automobiles. So in essence we're talking about 48 spaces for employee vehicles and 17 spaces for other. Robertson: Does the conditional use permit in itself in any way limit the parking that would be on that property? Shefrin: None other than adding the 17 to the 48 giving a maximum of whatever that ends up to be. That is the maximum permissible on the site. So if they were to convert for example the employee vehicles to parking of other types of vehicles there's still that maximum number. Robertson: The maximum number issue only. Shefrin: Correct. Robertson: Let's talk about what parks there. Is there anything that would stop them from loading or unloading trucks on the site? Loading from one truck to another one or in any way doing anything other than parking? Shefrin: No. Robertson: No? Shefrin: No, as I understand their proposal they can elaborate on that. Robertson: I'm sorry I didn't understand your answer. Shefrin: I don't know if I understand your question, but as I understand the proposal, the predominant use will be for parking facility. There will be instances where they will be loading and unloading tractors and trailers to move on and off those vehicles because there has -to have simply a trailer it has to be attached at some point to a tractor. Robertson: OK, so you're going to drive it in and unhook it. Shefrin: Correct. Robertson: Could there be any loading or unloading of the trailers themselves with the- once the conditional use permit is allowed and we're months later, is there anything in the conditional use permit or the zoning itself that would stop them from loading the trailers from one trailer and putting it on another trailer or doing anything like that? Shefrin: It's my understanding that loading of materials occurs on the north property, not on this parcel. Robertson: Yes that's my understanding too, but that's not my question. Shefrin: They don't have the facilities on the south parcel to do the loading of materials. They would need a dock, they would need other mechanisms in order to facilitate loading of actual material. So it's my understanding that the parking lot is to be used only for again parking purposes. Robertson: OK, but I'll go back, is there anything in the conditional use permit that absolutely limits this to parking and nothing else? Shefrin: Yes. By nature of what the proposed use is. It's a parking facility to park employee vehicles, trucks, tractors and trailers only. It doesn't permit loading or unloading of materials. That's not how it's been advertised it's not been presented in that fashion to the Planning Commission and that in turn what the decision was based on. Robertson: OK, if indeed they started doing that what measures and steps could the City take at that point? Shefrin: We would require that they come back and reapply for conditional use permit because it would change the function of the facility. 11 Robertson: What does that mean? Does that mean we would close up the facility until they came back? Shefrin: That means they can only continue under what was allowed under the original conditional use permit. If they are changing something of that natural then they would be required to return to the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit or amend the existing conditional use permit. Robertson: How would be do that? In real life how would we make that happen? I'm not -I am trying to pin you down, the point down, Jack do you understand the question? Tack Pace: The point would be as Denni said, we're only approving conditional use for parking. If they violate that conditional use you take enforcement action. They then have the option of complying with the conditional use originally approved or coming back to you and amending it. Robertson: OK. Would we actually lock up the site? Pace: Right. If you recall the history, there was parking there. We told them to take their cars off because they didn't get the conditional use. So they could only use -as Denni pointed out, they can only use the site for what you approve it as. Robertson: OK, that's for parking. Would the storage of trailers with material inside them, is that considered part of the parking permit? Pace: That would be part of that. The point you were asking about transferring material, that would not be. As Denni mentioned, with a tractor trailer there, they change trailers with some material in the truck that would be permitted. But not transferring the material inside the truck. Again it's being used for a parking facility only and you're approving that site plan that dictates arrangement of parking for cars and trucks. Robertson: OK, thank you. Pace: Did that answer your question? Robertson: Yes, thank you. Mullet: I would like to say briefly and follow -up on Dennis's statement. I know it may have sounded tedious what he was saying but I was in the transportation industry for twelve years and that is a very common practice to back two trucks up in a parking lot and transfer goods when your dock is full. So it is not something that he was nit picking out. It's very important thing to be considered here and I'm glad it was brought out and put on the table as a point. Rants: Joan? Hernandez: Denni are there any new OSHA rules that affect the lighting or safety factors on this property since 1989? Shefrin: With respect to lighting, that was something actually that the Planning Commission went back and revisited. They are required to light the property but the lighting cannot go beyond the property boundaries. I'm sorry, what was your second point? Hernandez: Are they any new OSHA rules since 1989 that affected the safety factors of the lighting on the property? Shefrin: Not that I'm aware of. Robertson: Under OSHA rules, having seen and visited another trucking site on poverty hill and listened to the noise that is associated with the beepers? Every time they back anything up, are we going to have that same type of noise the beepers on this parking site? I- -there was something referenced in there but it wasn't clear to me which point it was making. Let me come back, does OSHA require the tractors that would be doing the moving bringing in the trailers and out to have that backup beeper every time they backed up? Shefrin: That's something that I believe Mr. Becker can respond to with respect to the amount of noise that would be generated with the facility. Robertson: OK. Thank you Denni. Rants: Any other questions of any other Staff people? This is the time to do it. Mullet: So this is when we should bring questions up on the East Marginal Way exit? Rants: I think we're going to have a presentation aren't we by Shefrin: I'm sorry, I was going to say that both Ron and Ross are available to answer questions on drainage. Rants: All right. There will be questions during the rebuttal. Robertson: Can I ask another question of Staff on zoning? Denni? The hours of operation. Seven days a week from 6 to 10 pm. What determined that? Is that part of our code? Shefrin: No it's not. It was something that was part of the proposal and something that the Planning Commission agreed with. Robertson: So is there anything in our zoning code that would in any way put limits on the hours that (unclear). Shefrin: It's strictly discretionary. Robertson: Thank you. Rants: Mr. Cameron? Staff's time is up but we have been asking questions. Does Council have any questions of Mr. Cameron? Joan? Hernandez: Are vehicles limited to a certain gross weight in this area? Ron Cameron: Yes we have a five ton load limit that was installed west of Becker for the whole Riverton area shortly after the annexation. Some may remember being on transportation committee and having a hearing on that with the committee. Mullet: Is that on East Marginal also? 13 hi 7 Cameron: Not on East Marginal, just in the residential areas. You see the signs all around and we met both with the residents as well as the business community in that neighborhood, Becker, Inco, Sam's Tire, Metro, the other industries there to work out that we just wouldn't put up signs but the businesses would cooperate without the signs being there. That has worked well. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: I have quite a few questions on attachment G. And I regret taking everybody through the questions but because of the quasi-judicial nature of these proceeding we're not allowed to ask Staff how to interpret this. Simply interpretation questions other than in this public hearing, so. If you all don't mind I want to ask some questions because I don't understand this material. Turn to page two of attachment G. For those of you -this is a Becker transfer traffic study prepared by Pat Becker and James A. Mitchell PD. And it says received November 4, 1993, Pac Tech Engineering. If we look at the -I just want to ask some questions about the tables Ron and see if I understand what they mean. The headings aren't explained very well. 1f we look at table one on page two, what this table is telling me, what is ESD, that's Entering Sight Distance. That means if I'm entering the parking lot, this is a required site distance? Cameron: This is for a vehicle east bound on 128th at the stop sign at East Marginal looking left for southbound traffic on East Marginal. For the actual city intersection. Robertson: For a vehicle entering the intersection. Cameron: If you're sitting at the stop sign to turn left and go north or turn right and go south on East Marginal or go kind of on a diagonal across to 128th or 40th across the street. Robertson: So this table shows the actual sight distance for a vehicle either entering the intersection from where it was described or entering the proposed parking lot. Cameron: No, this is the intersection. Robertson: OK. Let's move to the next table then. Cameron: That top line, you'll see in (parenthesis) it says southern intersection? That means it's the one in front of Becker. Robertson: We're on table one now again? Cameron: On table one on the top row. East Marginal Way South and south 128th Street, then in parenthesis, southern intersection that's a staggered intersection so 128th on the south is the one in front of Becker, the one that's on the drawings here. Robertson: OK. If we go to table two, can you explain to me what stopping sight distance means? Cameron: Stopping sight distance is the distance of perception reaction and actual breaking distance for a 35 mph speed limit We're looking at I think it's 250 feet. And you'll see here we have 185 feet. That's for a driver's eye height of 41/4 and an object of 3 1/2 feet. Again basically you're looking- -the main interest that we're looking at is someone at the stop sign at 128th, looking left around that curve and what can they see if they pull out. 14 Robertson: OK. That would have been easier to read if they would have made the tables consistent. Table one they've got north and south and table two they're got south and north. I'm just gripping but -OK this is for any vehicle or would a truck be any different than an automobile? Cameron: This is for standard eye height of 41/4 feet. Robertson: Say that again? Cameron: 41/4 feet for the vehicle approaching on East Marginal, 3 1/2 for the vehicle on 128th. Robertson: OK, so it's the height of the person, the eye Cameron: Where the eye height would be. Robertson: It doesn't matter where the vehicle is other than the eye height. We assume that trucks and cars stop at the same rate? Cameron: Same stopping distance. Robertson: OK. This last paragraph on page three talks about AASHTO, policy on geometric design. Who is AASHTO and why are they referenced here? Cameron: AASHTO is the standard that we use for street design, for both State and local. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Robertson: And it's used by Tukwila State and feds? Cameron: Yes. Robertson: Is this standard reference in our TMC? Cameron: Yes. Robertson: All right, table three on the next page. Here there's a difference between trucks and passenger vehicles. Is that because of the height again? This isn't no longer just stopping, or entering, this is for turning across the intersection? Cameron: Yes. Robertson: OK. What's the difference here between a passenger vehicle and a combination truck. Why are they two different problems? Because of the height of the driver? Cameron: Because of the length and the acceleration characteristics of the two vehicles coming off the stop sign. Robertson: OK. The next table, table four. This is the same kind of thing, this is just a different street right? A different intersection? Cameron: This is from -yes. 15 Robertson: OK. None of these yet cover neither of these tables cover the proposed parking lot though. Cameron: No, neither of these do. They're looking at what the AASHTO geometrics are. Robertson: OK. Table five, required stopping sight distances. Cameron: That's standard AASHTO. Robertson: And does it matter for the vehicle again? Cameron: No. Robertson: So we're sayin that they accelerate at different rates but they don't deaccelerate at different rates? Cameron: Right, we designed to the table five. We look at what factors there are in tables three and four. Part of this traffic study earlier on pointed out we went through the accident analysis and there's been one recorded accident. Mullet: Dennis, can I break in on that table a second? Robertson: Sure. Mullet: What's the speed limit on East Marginal Way? Cameron: 35. Mullet: It references somewhere back here that it's 25. Is that Cameron: That's 128th Street. Mullet: No. There was a reference somewhere in here that East Marginal Way is 25 also. Hernandez: I thought I read that too. (Talking in background.) Rants: And I believe East Marginal Way is 25. Cameron: 25, that's right I think I've had a couple calls on that, that's correct. Mullet: So my question briefly is why did we use 35 in there in that table five instead of 25? Cameron: In the 1988 and 89 study that's what the speed limit was then and it was carried forward. Mullet: That's what it was, it's changed since then. Is it pertinent that we have some new information there? Cameron: No because this is still more conservative. It says that the speed limit at 25 would make stopping sight distances of 200. At 35 which is where it was says there are concerns there to address. And we felt we have addressed them. 16 �a Robertson: OK. Can we go -let me see now if I understand how to use this. If we went back to page two table one, what this tells me is if I took the second row which is called Proposed Driveway Access onto East Marginal Way South, that says if I'm turning north I have a sight distance of 220 feet. If I turn south I have a sight distance, I can see 395 feet. Is that correct? Cameron: From the driveway. Robertson: From the driveway going on to East Marginal? Cameron: That's correct. Robertson: Then if I went Cameron: That's the sight to the north and the sight to the south. Robertson: Yes. If I'm in an automobile Cameron: Regardless of which way you're turning, that's how far you can see if you're at the stop line or at the sidewalk. Robertson: Is this for a automobile or a truck driver? Cameron: That's an automobile driver again. Again that's the standard out of AASHTO. Robertson: OK a truck I presume would be sitting up higher and he could see farther? Cameron: He can see farther and he can be seen from a farther distance. Robertson: Although if the problems due to a curve he can't see any farther because he's higher. If the problems due to a change in elevation then he can see farther. Cameron: Right. Robertson: OK. So now if I wanted to say -OK let's just say I'm sitting in the driveway, the second row and I want to turn north, and it says I can see 220 feet. Now if I went to how would I use -if I was a car coming down the street, I would -if I went to table two then and I looked at the second row, proposed driveway access on East Marginal Way, if I was a car coming -I said I'm turning north right? So that's 220 feet I can see. From a car coming from the traveling south, I would use the top one and I can say I see 230 feet. Right? So it's a safe -I can see the guy coming out and I'd have time to stop. Did I read this table right? Cameron: Essentially. Both of them are less then the 250 feet of the AASHTO for a 35 mph speed limit The difference that we did here between 1988 -89 and 1993 is that we said what is the sight distance at the existing intersection. That's the 178 and the 185. And there you go up or down a couple inches depending on the car or whatever else might be there. You're in the basic same ball park. Rants: You're reading this correctly. Robertson: What if we changed -as Steve just said the speed limit from 35 to 25, since that is the speed limit on East Marginal Way. Then they only have to see 150 feet right? 17 Cameron: That's correct. Robertson: In this case would they be- -would it be no problem right? Rants: You would increase the safety factor. Robertson: OK, let me try something else. Let's go to page five, the top paragraph. That paragraph says that -says and the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way South do not meet the required entering sight distances for either passing vehicles or combination trucks. The intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th street has insufficient stopping sight distance from both directions. Only vehicles traveling north on East Marginal Way have adequate stopping sight distance for the people in the driveway. What it tell me I guess the question I ask -if we have these distances in our and we use this table in our TMC, how can we allow a proposal that we said up front doesn't meet the required minimums? I mean the issue isn't whether it's better than what they're doing now, the question is how can we encourage or allow or improve something- -what happens if there's a car wreck there? They can take this document and show that we didn't' meet the required minimums? Cameron: We have a number of issues there that we would use in response to that. I don't know if you want me to go through all of them tonight. Essentially the choice to us is 128th with sight distances exceeding a 25 mph speed limit but far short of a 35 mph which is probably what the 85 percentile will do. And the information that we would use in torte and design. What we ask Pac Tech or Becker to do when they came in is when they asked about the driveway is what sight distance do we gain and what changes? We couldn't assign a changed traffic volume, how much traffic will change from using the intersection from 170 180 feet sight distance to one that's between -if you use the average say 240. But every vehicle that we pull out of 128th and move to the driveway says 128th is better for a number of reasons. It is a five legged skewed off -set misaligned intersection on a horizontal curve. It does not have very much traffic. There's about 4,000, slightly less than that on East Marginal. There's less than a 1,000 on 128th. So if we pull 100 cars out we move 10% to the driveway that not only has better sight distance, but it also has a slower operating speed because it's less than a block from the all way stop. Your speeds are changing there. So the primary concern that we've had and that's been brought up to us is a southbound East Marginal vehicle coming around the corner onto 128th and the driveway. The worse problem is less worse or better whichever way you want to quantify it. So that's the choice to us. If asked to defend that in court, and I would. Robertson: Let me interrupt for a second. The choices here seem to me -this is where I get confused. One issue I question here is whether there should be an entrance on or off onto East Marginal Way, OK? That's one question and you would balance that versus the issue of the entrances on 128th which is safer or better. However if-- that's one question. The second question is whether there should be a parking lot at all if the access is into and out of it for its intended use don't meet the minimum standards. The question isn't which is the least of two bad questions in my mind, or two bad choices, but the question is if both of them do not meet the minimums, how can we allow it? That's the puzzlement I have from this study. That wasn't very clear. Cameron: No, I understand what you're saying and I don't mean to do any double talk. In the case of the 25 which I'd forgotten earlier but which was part of this, it meets those conditions and that was part of that speed limit change through the whole area. In the case of design looking at it academically, from where it was from the 1989 application and what's the 85 percentile speed, then its borderline. Clearly the driveway... 18 Robertson: Because people don't drive 25 through there, people drive 35. Cameron: If we did a speed check at the driveway it would not be 35 it would be less than that which would make the 230 meet the AASHTO standard. We did not do a speed check at the driveway but I think you can intuitively because of the spacing -it doesn't show there but we're approximately a block from that all way stop. Robertson: The problem I have is what you're saying is if this document was redone for 25 mph instead of the 35 it shows on East Marginal Way, then this project would be OK. Cameron: Probably. Robertson: Probably. But what we have in front of us is a document that says 35 and testimony that indicates that some of the speed is some percent -the speed is 35. I'm just puzzled by all this, I'm not Rants: Shall we move on and take testimony from the applicant? Robertson: I'll come back to it. Rants: We can come back, there will be rebuttal. Thank you Ron. Mr. Mann? ,Tell Mann: Good evening, Jeff Mann with Pac Tech Engineering, 12720 Gateway Drive here in Tukwila. I think you've had a pretty good summary of the conditions on the site. Obviously we're going to improve the site considerably, curb, gutter and sidewalks on 128th, substantial landscaping, paving the site with wheel stop, lighting, fencing, gates, new access point. As we understand it, to improve safety. I think I'd just like to highlight that this parking lot by definition is part of the mitigation for this operation at this location. And all it's facets, it's designed to facilitate the existing operation, 1) by Becker Trucking being able to move trucks to the site they can eliminate a lot of the truck movement on the existing site that occurs during the night because they load trucks and need to move them around to get other trucks to the dock. With this, they can move trucks that are loaded to this site and leave them there and not have to move them again while they are loading other trucks during the evening time. Again a limiting factor on this site is the dock itself. That's where the activity happens, that's the limiting factor in terms of the size of this operation. We also note that this will facilitate movement within this area. The additional access on East Marginal Way would also facilitate movement of trucks with the existing operation. I would like to highlight the substantial landscaping that we have provided on this site. On at least one boundary, the southern boundary we exceed City standards. Due to the existing right of -way landscaping that's in the City right -of -way along East Marginal Way we exceeded along East Marginal Way. We have 15 feet on our property and 22 feet when we combine it with the landscaping that's in the City right -of -way. We've done substantial landscaping. I'd like Lynn Horn, landscape architect who is here tonight to just briefly review with you the landscaping and what it's designed to do on this site. Mr. Horn. Lynn William Horn: Yes, good evening, my name is Lynn William Horn. Registered landscape architect, private practice at 10828 Gravity Lake Drive SW in Tacoma. I would like to use the exhibit and one of your microphones if I could. This landscape plan indicates the location of proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers. It also indicates the locations of existing trees to remain. The darker green circles that are indicated with this color here indicate existing materials which are to remain. The video that you saw as well as the photos indicate the bushing nature and the fullness of the landscaping along East Marginal Way. The pine trees, the cedar trees as well as the juniper ground cover and low shrubs. The 19 existing junipers are intended to remain along the street frontage. That's this aqua color. The landscaping shall be burmed. There's a four foot high mound here which is indicated by cross section B in the upper left hand corner, a 48" high burm. There's a earth mound along East Marginal Way which is indicated by a 36" high burm on section A here. The soils will not penetrate into the root zone area of the trees to keep them from dying. In order to keep the vegetation alive that's existing along the street, this view here, we will not be burming underneath those trees. The idea is to plant trees on top, shrubs on top and ground cover on top of the burms. The trees are proposed in these locations here on four feet on center. We're planting Western Red Cedar, I'm sure most of you know the size and the width that Western Red Cedar achieves. We're also planting in this location here the trees which is the Leyland cypress and the western red cedar both in combination, four foot on center on the highest part of the burm. So these trees are, the day they're being installed, they're indicated on the plant list sheet which actually accompanies this landscape plan. At 10 foot height, these trees are 10 feet tall on a 4' burm and 10 feet tall on a 36" high burm. Again the 4' burm is here, the 36" burm is here. The trees, coupled with the burm height will be 13 feet in the air at this point. The trees coupled with the burm here will be 14 feet along this property line. The trees will go up the slope and they will also be planted along the west property line. The entire site indicated with this lime color here, this lime green, is a ground cover of 50% tam junipers, water requirement type plants, 50% English ivy a erosion control and low water requirement type plant. We're indicated as has been indicated before, we are going to indicate that ground cover planted on these steeper slopes and that would be the ivy plantings not the junipers. The junipers would be used in other locations. I will personally field locate the ground covers and the trees and the shrubs. The applicant has chosen to have me involved in that process and it's also one of your conditions are you heard earlier on. We are using the Portuguese laurel, double viburnum, and pine shrubs as accent plants to help beautify the street frontage areas as well as along 128th Street. We are using a street tree, red maples along the streets, excuse me, along S. 128th Street to beautify the street also. The slopes that are steeper than 2 to 1 will be planted with the use of jute net matting. That's part of the specifications on the spec sheet that accompanies this plan that is in your packet. So jute net matting will help in terms of erosion control. The entire site will be fully irrigated with an irrigation plan. We will provide an irrigation plan for review at the time of building permit application. Any questions? Mullet: On the back side, it would be the west side, does the burm go around there or is that flat? Horn: That side has no burm. The burm begins at this point continues down Mullet: Yea, I understand the burm in the front. What's the property to the west of that? Why didn't we keep a burm on that side? Horn: We felt coupled with the trees as well as the shrubs and existing trees that the buffer was sufficient. The reason for the burm on this side is that we wanted to definitely buffer the street frontage areas for security purposes. Mullet: I'm concerned about the residential area to the west of that and the noise that parking trailers and what not -is there adequate vegetation on that to provide a screen? Horn: The answer in my opinion is yes. The use of the burm on the south and the east is to add to and get more height to the vegetation. We are already using the same 10 foot tall trees on the west property line also. The vegetation screen on the west line will be 10 feet tall versus 13 and 14. Mullet: Well, trailers are 13 foot 6 tall so I assume the trees will grow a little bit. 4 20 Horn: That's the thing with landscaping, it does mature, this stuff will grow, it will only get bigger and bushier. Mullet: But that's all- -are all the plantings on the west side that you're saying will protect the neighborhood on that side are all on this lot. They are not on an adjacent piece of property? Horn: Everything is planted on this property, correct, there is no landscaping being proposed or being planted on any other property than what Mr. Becker owns. Cohen: I'd like the record to reflect that the diagram that this witness has been working off of is exhibit number six. Rants: Are there any questions of Mr. Mann? Craft: I have a question. Rants: Mr. Mann or the landscaper? Craft: Of Mr. Mann. My question is about traffic flow on this lot. Would it be possible for traffic to enter any entrance, is there a flow or -I'm just curious about if there's a plan. Mann: I think I can do that from here. It would be possible for the trucks to use any entrance on the site, to enter or exit from any of these access points. I think we understand that all the traffic from the current operation of Becker Transfer comes out either on their access, on East Marginal Way to the north or comes out here to 128th right now. So their whole operation comes out there right now. If the driveway was not on -the new driveway was not located on there it still. would all come out at a 128th. So the existing operation would still continue to go there. Craft: So what you're saying is the traffic go in to the parking lot from East Marginal Way or it could come out. So it would be possible for a truck to be coming in and going out at the same time? Mann- It's possible. I think that if a truck was coming out mostly likely he would chose the alternative to go to 128th and come in from 128th. Craft: And then my next question is, who -was this something that was directed from the City or was this something that was directed from Becker Trucking to have this entrance on 128th? It seems very stiff rather than -it seems like it's rather hard for a truck to turn there. Mann: OK. The history on this is that we had originally -in the original permit we proposed this access point. We felt like that we had the parking stalls for the trucks pointed that direction, they could pull in from 128th and pull out this exit very easily. At that time we were commissioned to do a traffic study for sight distance on the original permit so it was to come later. This time the City asked us to do the sight distance study right up front. The previous permit, that access was denied, so it was eliminated. At the time we did the sight distance study, it came back and has been testified, it showed that we could get a greater sight distance from this new driveway to enhance safety. We actually submitted the application I think without that point on there assuming that would not be allowed. When we saw that we had additional sight distance they asked us to return it to the design because they felt it would enhance the safety of the site. 21 Mullet: Could I follow -up on that a little bit Mr. Mann? On the way you've laid out the parking on that lot right now, if you were to bring a 40 foot trailer in there and park it would you be able to get it out of there again without going out and without having the East Marginal Way entrance or exit? Considering that the place was full of other trailers, it was not an empty lot. Mann: Right. We think we would, it would not be as easy as if we had this access. We were glad to see it returned. But we feel we could, but we would like to see it in place if possible. Rants: Joan? Hernandez: How many employees come to work at this site? Mann: Total number of employees again, 65 and some of those park on the existing site. The normal count for those cars you see in the street is about 35 cars on the street. Hernandez: And how many trucks are there? How many trucks park there? Mann: The, I better have Mr. Becker answer that question. There are -he has submitted to the City an entire list of equipment for this operation, existing operation. He has currently on active drivers he has 34 active drivers at this time. That's the number of drivers. He's been operating at that level for about 15 years, about 34 to 36 drivers. The equipment of course, the number of trailers of course far exceed that because they're dropping trailers off at clients and then picking them up so they're all over. The equipment list is much greater than 35 drivers but that's the number of drivers that he's had and maintained for a fairly long time. Hernandez: Is he going to testify or should I just keep asking you a few Mann: He will testify and give you that. He has submitted to the City the number of trucks but -the number of equipment does exceed the number of employees. Hernandez: Thank you. Rants: Thank you Mr. Mann. Mann: That was part of questions, if I could just finish a couple of comments. Rants: I don't know how much time we used up on questions with you but you're running short. Mann: I spent about 3 minutes to start, landscape architect spent about 5 so hopefully I have a few minutes left here. I would just like to highlight again on the fact that this is a way to actually mitigate some impacts. Mr. Becker has and he will testify to this, he has done some things that have enhanced the site even since the last hearing we were at. There had been complaints about what we call a yard goat that creates noise at night when we move trailers around the existing site to the north. Mr. Becker since the Planning Commission hearing has purchased a new yard vehicle that is a four cycle, quieter, in order to address some of the concerns to neighbors and residents have had. There used to be a flooding problem on 128th for a number of years. Becker Trucking with their own money and funds cleaned out that line and maintained it. Now we do not see the backup and six to eight inches of water on 128th that used to (unclear) be there. This is a permitted site, a conditional use permitted under the CM zone, it was designated as such in 1989. We've met 22 1 5-1' the criteria of this conditional use permit and the City has found on three different occasions that this site with conditions would not have an adverse impact on surrounding single family neighborhoods. I would note also that the zoning to the south, even though there's a single family home there is commercial. The zoning to the east across East Marginal Way there are three homes there, the zoning is commercial on that property as well. The only property that's single family is the property to the west of the site. I'd like to give a few moments to Mr. Becker. Mr. Becker: Thank you. I'm Roland Becker, 12617 East Marginal Way South. If I may I'd like to go back to Jackie's video. I have some pages out of the Washington State CPO Manual that the drivers are required to read before they take their two hour test before they're issued a drivers license to drive commercial vehicles. Rants: Would you raise the microphone please? Thank you. Becker: Would you like me to repeat that? Rants: Are you asking to go back and replay the video? Becker: I'm sorry? Rants: Are you requesting that we go back and replay Becker: No. This is an exhibit on the ...(talking away from microphone.) Rants: Exhibit seven. Becker: It should be pointed there. What it shows there is a path for tractors... longer vehicles. It also shows proper way of taking turns. See the first is the proper way to turn where you turn out into the other land and come around as you observed in the video, that's the proper way to do it. That's the safest way to do it, that's the way the State wants you to do it. The second way to make those corners as you see in figure 66, that's the wrong way. What happens is when you turn out into the other land you'll have cars behind you that try to pass you on the right. And that's where a lot of the accidents happen. They'll be taking that turn and you'll have cars coming up behind you trying to pass you on the right. So that's the reason for the vehicle swinging wide like that as he was making the turn. She showed the bridge there too. The small site is 13'6 the upper area is 14'6 legal height is 14 feet. We have an extension comprehensive drivers training program for all our drivers, they know about that bridge. So if the trucks you see out of there were not created from Becker, they were created from somebody that had an oversized load. She also mentioned hours of service. I'm proud of our safety record and can do a little bit more. Washington Utilities Transportation Commission has come out and audited our facilities. Not because of our track record, but the previous owners track record. And there's probably about, as I recall 273 trucking companies that are on the Washington Utilities Transportation Commission's safety list, where they actually go out and monitor facilities because of safety problems. We are not on that list. We've got an excellent track record with the commission. Hours of service, she's correct. They can't be behind the wheel more than 10 hours a day. You could work 15 hours a day but only 10 of that can be behind the wheel. What we do is we run 60 hours per work week and we track that. The hours from every driver is entered into the computer and we track it on a six day week, I'm sorry, seven day week. It's 60 hours. The dispatchers get a copy of those service hours, we know how many hours are available for that driver to work that day. Also those same service hours go up on the bulletin board in the drivers lunch room so they can look at those hours and see how many they have available that day. So nobody goes over their legal limit. I think what she was referring to 23 perhaps was because of our long hours, not all of our employees start at the same time. They have different shifts, different starting times. In the video we saw a five ton access limit. I help support on East Marginal Way for heavy traffic. There is no need for heavy trucks to be in the residential areas. There's a five ton weight limit there which allows local access to include Enco, Boeings, Becker. That's only for local access. That's not ?(1061) anything like that for heavier equipment. Like I mentioned before we have pretty intensive drivers training program there. We're pretty proud of our safety record and some issues as far as compliance violations that occur. Once we set it up for company policy what we do is we send out memos in the payroll checks so all the employees are aware of the rules and regulations and what's expected of them. We have on 128th as you come out we have a no right turn sign there. This is our own policy. Drivers are not to go west on that road. If that happens and we find out about it, what we have is we have kind of like a problem solution report, violations if you will. It's like a ticket, anybody can write a ticket. Their peers can write a ticket, a customer can write a ticket by reporting it to us, supervisors can write a ticket. This doesn't mean that the people are innocent or guilty, it's just like a regular traffic ticket. If they're guilty they can sign it, it goes into their personal record and points are accrued. What I'll do is I'll give you a list of these points to show you how it works. And it works real well. Rants: Mr. Becker, up here Mr. Becker. Becker: Oh, I'm sorry. Rants: I'm going to have to ask you to try to come to conclusion now. Becker: OK, what I'd like to do is -if our policies aren't adhered to there can be penalties, there can be points. Drivers signs off the ticket, he automatically gets points. If we wants to appeal that we have drivers representatives that were nominated and elected by the drivers. What we do is we have grievance proceedings and the outcome is based on what was decided during that meeting. It's to the drivers and myself, there's never lager heads, there's always a decision. So if we set up policies for this parking lot they will be adhered to, we have our own internal way of proceeding with proper disciplinary actions if those rules are violated. Rants: All right. I'm going to have to ask you to bring it to a close now. Questions of the Council for Mr. Becker? Becker: One real quick thing Cohen: Sheet should have been marked exhibit number eight and.... Rants: You gentlemen did agree to 20 minutes and it's now 30 minutes. Becker: We were just recently audited by WISHA. And it was shortly after the last hearing. Our mod factor with LNI is very low because of our safety record. But a red flag came up, nobody was able to give me the reason why but that was the outcome from that WISHA. Showing again our safety record and our compliance. Rants: Questions of Mr. Becker? Joan? Hernandez: Mr. Becker, how many trucks did you say you have? Becker: We probably have 18 of the smaller vans, we're in the process of selling some of those. There's about 7 drivers on that. We've got 5 profit vehicles, straight trucks. They're 24 located off premises. They do come in occasionally for PM, maintenance. Those aren't located there they're located off premises. We've got 5 straight trucks that we use for downtown and hard to get areas. The tractors, the big rigs, we've got about 30 of those- we've got 30 tractors. The short boxes we have 20 of. The 45, the long trailers, we have 19 of. And we have three 53 footers that are located off premises. Duffle: How many? Becker: 53 footers, there's three of them. Those are located off premises. And we have flat beds total of 25 flat beds but those are virtually all of those are on construction sites and fab shops. To give you an example, today we only had two in the yard of those flat beds. Hernandez: The reason I ask is that in the appellants document they said that the trailer parking had increased from 17 to 50. And I just needed to know if that was accurate. Becker: I'm sorry in the Hernandez: The appellants document said that trailer parking had increased from 17 to 50. Becker: In this proposal here? That's not true. Hernandez: I was just trying to determine if that was accurate or not. Becker: No its not. Hernandez: OK. What type of cargo do the trucks contain? Becker: We haul freight of all kinds. As far as the hazardous material issue, we don't haul hazardous materials we don't have any accounts that ship hazardous material. We do have an MC 90 insurance forms that insures us for hazardous material, but we don't ship it. This lot here that we're looking at will be virtually for empty trailers, on occasion it will be full trailers where they'll bring in, drop them, and hook them up and bring them into the loading facilities. Hernandez: What would you say is the average weight tonnage of the vehicles, of the trucks? Becker: Some of our short boxes are toned for 56,000 and some of the heavy ones, 80,000. Mullet: 40 ton. Hernandez: OK, thank you. Rants: Any other questions of Mr. Becker? Robertson: Yes. What are your hours of operation of your normal- -what are your normal hours of operation? Becker: Of the north facility the normal operation we have a night crew that loads the trailers and they'll work until it's done. And that can be anywhere from 11:00 to 4 or so in the morning and then another shift comes in, opens up. There are peaks and valley throughout the year. The parking lot was designated, this is basically only to fill those -this is 25 I .7 not a working site, all it is is a parking lot. So there's no reasons for those hours to exceed the ones that we designated between 6 and 10, 10 and 6. Robertson: OK, if I understand what you said, then your north facility, the normal hours of operation 7 days a week may run 24 hours in some cases if you're loading trucks. Becker: Yes. Robertson: Because you start again at 4:00 in the morning? Becker: Yes, somebody comes in and open up at 4. Robertson: OK, in the appellants document they mentioned a site, a temporary site on 131st and 44th Avenue? Do you have another operation? Becker: No, we no longer use that, we were using that on a temporary basis, then we were told we couldn't use that. Robertson: So you're not storing or parking there now? Becker: No. The City said don't use it, so we're not using it. Robertson: Do you have another site with trucks- -you just said earlier about the equipment you had, you mentioned a lot of things are located off premises. What does that mean? Becker: Customer sites. Robertson: Customer sites. Do you have another storage yard or parking lot? Becker: Yes we do it's up on East Marginal Way and its the old strip yard I believe it is. Robertson: The what? Becker: Strip yard, over by Boeing Field. The Boeing Access Road there, on north of there. Mullet: Pretty close to Kenwood trucking down there? Becker: Yes. Robertson: The reason I'm asking that is, one of the things that occurs to me is that if this parking lot is granted, it will allow you to do two things, to move trucks and trailers off of your north site to this parking lot and to move cars off of that site to this parking lot which would then increase the operation on the north site. Is that one of your plans? Becker: No it is not. I know that's been a concern as far as our growth. Let me give you an analogy is you well. We've got a table that sits two people and we've got a lot of paper work that's laying on that table. And what we're doing is we're looking for filing cabinets to put that paper so we can maximize our efficiency. If I wanted to increase the activity, I would have to build a bigger table. And I'm not doing that. That's the north terminal, that's the dock. What we're looking for is a lot of trucks will come in, maybe a quarter couple pallets. What we need to do is we need to get that freight off the trucks and parked over in this other lot. To give you an example, I figured we could pick up maybe 3% of our gross 26 l x revenue by using this site here. And that would be like tripling our revenue without any increase in growth. That's what I'm looking to do. Robertson: Do you have plans at all to park more than 17 trucks or trailers onto this spot? Becker: No, but if I can step up here and clarify Robertson: Please. Becker: Because of the other exhibits, the heavy equipment will come in, we're looking at the heavy equipment will come in here because this is where the parking is for the heavy equipment. The employee parking we're looking at it coming in here, and this is the employee parking. These are for short trailers right here. We've got longer rigs here and as you saw in the video, we'll come around here and they'll pull in here. Some of them may be long trailers and some of them may be sets. What a set is, it's short boxes hooked together, OK? This is what slip hauls in. So it would be nice if we could just pull in and drop those off the street so they can just drop and go. What we'll do is we'll come in with our yard goat and we have the option of going out this way or this way. I'm looking at making this one way this way. Not coming in, because they can come in this way to park the trailers but employee parking and trailers exiting here. Employees coming in here and heavy equipment coming in here. Robertson: Is your yard goat licensed to drive on streets? Becker: We have it insured but it's not toned, it is licensed but it is not toned. Robertson: OK, but it has all the safety equipment lights Becker: It has the lights and one of the questions that was brought up was about beepers, back up -OK we're not required to have those so we don't on our equipment. I know it's good safety but we don't have those on the equipment. So that issue isn't an issue. Robertson: OK, how much on your northern site, how much employee parking do you have on that site there? Becker: About 20. Robertson: About 20. Would you be removing those or keeping those? Becker: I would be keeping those. I use those for the night crew that comes in, for security reasons, we've had a lot of cars broken into along here. So the night crew, I let them park in front there where they can keep an eye on it, it helps. And also it's for the ladies that work there, park out front here because it's well lit. Safety- -they don't like to come across. Robertson: OK, thank you. Rants: Further questions? Joyce? Craft: My question Mr. Becker is, how do you handle calls in your office from residents with complaints? 27 (0 Becker: There's two people that they can talk to. They could talk to the dispatch and it surprises me that any vehicles are back in the residential areas, they shouldn't be. But if there is, if they can give us a vehicle number, if they can give us a time and a day then we can find out who it is. And if they can alert dispatch I'll handle them myself. Craft: Have you kept records say in the last three years do you know how many complaints you've received from residents? Becker: I'd have to look back but we do have all of those violations. We keep them. Craft: I'm just curious if you have just a ball park, do you get lots of calls? Becker: We have receive a notice from a Olson, on a noise issue. I called him and asked him some questions and he didn't have any answers. So I sent the sales department around the neighborhood. And what we did is we found out that the goat, it was a Detroit Diesel you have to wind them up real hard to get them to work for you, and that was the issue. So at that point we decided to sell it and get another goat that would -and that's what we did. Craft: Are you getting residents calling you directly? Your company directly? Becker: No, not that I -no. Craft: So how do you find out about complaints that residents have, through the City? Becker: Yes. But in order for me to be a good neighbor the City doesn't need to get involved. If they call me, I can guarantee it would be taken care of. Rants: Dorothy? DeRodas: Yes, I have a question. Reading through this material I have come across the word referenced to "Swift Now is this a separate operation? Becker: No not really. There was a tire account that was located in this area similar to Michelin. And what had happened is they decided to move out of the State of Washington for economic reasons. What they did is they moved down to Fairfield County California. We scrambled to get that business and Swift was the interline. So originally it was our traffic but we brought it in with our own trucks. Now Swift picks it up and brings it in using their trucks rather than ours. What we do is we break that out and deliver the freight. DeRodas: The rest of Becker Trucks are this distinctive lavender purple combination aren't they? Becker: Yes, yes. Mullet: I have one more Wally. Rants: All right, Steve. Mullet: I'm a little puzzled by the hours the restriction hours from 6am to lOpm on the parking lot but you're going to be working all night long. And how you keep those gates locked and move those empty trailers back and forth still. 28 Becker: Once we get the quick strips, what I mean by that is the trailers that have a small amount of freight on, once we get those stripped off we'll put them in this south yard here parking lot. That should provide us with enough room in the north yard to be able to move around efficiently. In fact probably I would say between 8 and 10:00 we shouldn't have to move anything. Robertson: When did you obtain your new goat? Becker: About three weeks ago. Rants: Any further questions of Mr. Becker? Thank you sir. Ladies and Gentlemen, Council is going to take a short break here before we hear public comment on this. When we return it will be public comment and then rebuttal. Remind the Council not to talk to anybody please. Shirley Robinson: Shirley Robinson, 13422 40th Avenue South. I'd like to touch on one, two, three, four points. First of all I'd like you to consider the fact that East Marginal Way is a gateway every bit as much as Highway 99. I'd like the same consideration for whatever is developed there as new developments on Hwy. 99 would receive. Not only for residents but for people coming through. It's really one of the major accesses to south bound freeway. We should do everything we can to upgrade the situation on East Marginal Way. In addition to that we are becoming more residential in that area. There are four new homes, 150 feet from the corner of 130th and East Marginal Way. Pardon me, four more new homes are to be built immediately south of that on the next acre and of course we have Dujardin, Foster Estates on up the hill just a short distance which will be either 31 or 39 homes, I don't know if that's decided. It brings it close to 50 new rather good size homes in our area. And I think we ought to consider that when we think about increased industrial uses of the East Marginal Way corridor there. Of course being a school teacher I'm concerned about children catching buses with more trucks, more entry ways onto East Marginal Way there are three bus stops very close to Mr. Becker's facility. There are children crossing East Marginal Way to go to the community center. That was a considerable hazard, there have been child injuries there at that cross walk. I'm still puzzled as to why Mr. Becker needs three entrances onto East Marginal Way when he was showing us the traffic flow on the requested new parking area. He showed trucks going out onto 128th. Coming in from the west side and going out 128th. I think of the people who live directly across. Jackie's video you saw the house with the high fence. Those trucks will come out directly in front of that house, and as he described in order to avoid being passed on the right they do swing wide out into that left lane of traffic. That's going to bring them practically up on the front porch of those residents. The house next door won't fair much better. That's something I'd like you to consider. I have been asked to read a letter if I may from a resident on 128th if I may do that? She's not able to be here to read that for herself. Is that all right? Rants: You may if it's within your time limit or you may give it to the clerk which will then be entered into the record. Robinson:I don't know how much time I have left. Rants: One minute. Robinson:One minute, it's a short letter. Rants: OK. 29 0 Robinson:To Tukwila City Council and Mayor, I Celeste Tracey witnessed the Becker semi truck with trailer stop after attempting to drive up the hill of 128th street. The truck was coming from the 42nd Avenue South intersection. I have concerns about trucks using residential streets for quick access in any neighborhood. I give this testimony because I am prevented from testifying in person during your limited public hearing. I am a signer of the Becker appeal that was circulated after the deadline of November 28, 1993. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I have written the above statement and it is true to fact so help me God. Dated the 28th day of February, 1994, Celeste Tracey. Rants: Thank you Shirley. Robinson: May I leave this? Rants: Yes you may. Mr. Kennedy? Brian Kennedy: Brian Kennedy 12802 37th Avenue South. Did you receive a letter, did you get my I sent one letter to the Council that you should have. Let's see, there's a culvert pipe on the proposed site and that's there because it would get wet all the time so I don't know if you call that a wetland or not but if there's anything running off it's going to go into that culvert. I was wondering what sort of protection there is for going into the river? Every once in awhile there's a truck that goes into my neighborhood. I live down on 128th and 37th which is getting into the residential area. And they're not usually Becker trucks, they usually Swift or some other company who's running to Beckers. And I've taken pictures, I don't know where they are, but they do come down there once in awhile. I've called the police several times. Plus I go to work at 3:00 in the morning and there's trucks and trailers being staged out on 128th. Sometimes I have to wait for them, I've called the police on that. And when their parking lot is closed off from 10:00 to 6:00 in the morning and they're still working at night where are they going to stage their trucks? Are they going to have enough room in their lot? For fifteen years I've heard dock plates being dropped, I think that's what the noise is. Several other people hear that too, you hear it all the time, they're just being slammed. In the minutes it says they're 300 feet west from the first house. And I sort of question that. It seems like it might be more like 150 feet to me. And then on my property there's a creek going through it, Robin Spring Brook, I don't know how that would be affected, but it doesn't sound real healthy. Where Jackie showed on her video where 128th goes into East Marginal Way, even myself when I go out there in my car and I want to take a right, you've really got to watch carefully on the left cause they've planted a lot of trees and I don't think you could see 50 feet around that corner. If you're going to pull out there in a semi like it is now, it's real dangerous. The Swift trucks that come in, I'm wondering if those are going to be included in their count? Because I can just see it growing more and more. Thank you. Robertson: Mr. Kennedy, you just mentioned a culvert on the current project site. Could you show me where it is on the map here? Explain further what you're talking about. Kennedy: Let's see, here's 128th, it's right around here. There's a storm water vault I don't know if that a culvert or not. It always used to flood across the street so you couldn't get through there during rainy times. They put this in there... (not using mic)... a lot of room down there...(not using mic)... we're on low ground there and the water surface can't hold all that water so it used to flood down there...(not using mic)...the pipes go, but it's directly north of the lot that's a concern. De Rodas: I have a question. Would you please explain what staging a trailer is? 30 Kennedy: They set the trailer in the street, sometimes they have it off to the side, sometimes they have it between the private property and the driving lane so that you cannot get there (unclear). Sometimes they leave them overnight actually on the side strip. (unclear)... I asked if they could move them, I asked the police to talk to them...(unclear). Rants: We need to have you back to the microphone if they have questions so that it's on the record. Mr. Kennedy. Mullet: Yes I have a question Mr. Kennedy. Throughout this whole discussion there's been talk of what this parking lot would be for. One of the things it would be for is to get these problems that you're talking about off the street. Do you see -are you saying that you don't think this will work or -I mean Kennedy: It will possibly help during the day time until 10:00. When I go to work at 3:00 in the morning, there's trailers out there, cars out there. And if they're not going to be able to use that lot, where are they going to be? I mean from 10 till 6 in the morning are they going to be on the street again? Are they going to park their trailers out in the road? Could there be enough room? I don't know all these answers. I just don't want it to be abused as I feel it has been. Rants: OK, thank you. Kennedy: Thank you. Rants: Kathy Stetson. Kathy Stetson: My name is Kathy Stetson, I live at 13258 40th Avenue South. I'd like to just talk about a couple of things. I was involved in the appeal the last time we did this. The third driveway, or the driveway access onto Marginal has me bothered. As I was going through this material I was completely baffled by the exhibit or attachment G traffic study which came to the conclusion that the site -that the access should not be there. And then in the next that's dated November 4th. November 4th the conclusion is that the recommendation that they not have a driveway access there. Then the next day there's a memo attachment F, there's a memo from Pac Tech saying no we've changed our mind we've come to a diametrically opposite conclusion from the traffic study. I was confused by that. I would -from the way I look at it the site of Becker, his current business to the north is probably inadequate for him to conduct his business in the manner in which he needs to or wants to. And by permitting a conditional use permit to use the site for parking allows him to expand his business essentially although not perhaps officially. The net effect of this is to expand his business. I am concerned about, Mr Mann said that loaded trucks could be parked on site over night. Mr. Becker runs a LTL trucking company, a less than load. They pick up little parcels of packages and bring them in then reorganize them and send them out again. These things can be anything. These things can be fruits and vegetables, these things can be hazardous materials, these things can be gun ammunition, these things can be anything. He can haul anything. He is licensed to -he said he's insured to handle hazardous materials, but he does not. What is to prevent them from parking a truck load of any hazardous material on that site. And what would happen if he was pulling out of this driveway with maybe limited access and there was an accident and he's hauling a load of hazardous materials. These are questions I'd like to put before you and have you guys hash out a little bit. I have I have one more item I'd like to read. Testimony from residents has been concerned of the adverse impacts of noise, pollution and truck traffic that they have experienced first hand. The intent of the CM zoning is to allow uses which are non nuisance oriented and which don't produce excessive noise pollution or odor. Trucks are one of the worst sources of pollution. Landscaping will address the visual impacts and only so long as 31 1�5 the trucks are parked. Once the trucks begin to move between the parking lot on the SW corner and the loading dock on the NW corner the adverse impacts of noise, pollution and traffic are not contained within the borders of the subject property. A plan of the NW corner and more information about the current operation of the terminal would be of use in determining development of the SW corner. If the terminal is the reason for including truck tractor and trailer parking then more information is needed such as noise levels already generated, traffic circulation between the sites and onto East Marginal Way and how much added parking will expand its capacities before the impacts can be known. The tendency has been to address this site as a parking lot and to overlook the nature of the operation. I think you need to look at reality and the reality is that I believe this would constitute a expansion which is of his legal non conforming use right now. Thank you very much. Rants: Thank you Kathy. Is there anyone in the audience that did not sign up on the sign -up sheet which wishes to address the Council? Would you come forward please? Jana Shefler: My names Jana Shefler, I live at 14710 59th Avenue South. Although I used to live in Riverton and I was part of the annexation committee and I participated in the last request for a CUP. My question has to do with the Staff report more than anything else. Which I'm reading for, this one is from this year's or this latest try. "A conditional use permit designed review were both conditionally approved in 1990 it states. "Design review was required then because the site being used was non conforming landscaping But I read the Staff report from the first time it was also required because it was within 300 feet of a residential area. But then the Staff report goes onto say, "design review is not required with this proposal because the site is currently vacant and there is no existing non conforming condition." It says nothing about the fact that there's still a residential area within 300 feet. When we were working with the task force to annex the area of Riverton, there was very obvious problem that there was manufacturing uses right next to single family An amendment was passed in response to the Riverton Task Force on zoning concerns that residents had been heavily impacted by industrial uses in the past. Tukwila's planning staff assured us that the amendment would give residents a form for mitigation adverse impacts regarding future development and a better transition between single family uses and non- residential uses so that the whole neighborhood might prosper. And the section I'm referring to is 18.60.030. The way I understood it, it says when CM development is within 300 feet of residential uses design review is required. So I don't understand what's being said tonight whether the design review was required for this and the conditions were met and the hearings were held or whether they weren't. So it's really a question. Rants: Thank you. Excuse me? (Talking in background.) Rants: Mr. Bernhardt, it's very unusual to allow a second time, but your first time was just within one or two minutes so if you've got something that you need -that is very very quick I will allow it. (Talking in background) Rants: Your time is not up yet, pardon me? It is not up, you have two minutes. Shefler. We were talking about the entry point on East Marginal Way, it was deleted from the first proposal. And this is reading from the Planning Commission, Staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review prepared November 10, 1989. There's a paragraph here it says, "proposed entry point located on East Marginal Way is within 25 feet of a single family residence on the adjacent lot. Staff concludes that noise 32 from the truck engines as they are accelerating into traffic provide an unacceptable level of noise from the occupants and the residents. Therefore we are recommending that the entry point of East Marginal Way be disallowed." I don't know what's changed about that either. Rants: Thank you. We will have rebuttal now. And we will begin with the appellant. We'd like to keep the remarks on rebuttal to ten minutes. Demnere: Do I get the minutes he was over? Rants: Pardon me? Demnere: Do I get the extra minutes that he was over? He was about over ten minutes wasn't he? Rants: No you don't get any additional time, get at it. Demnere: Then let's make sure he doesn't get any more. OK. I think everybody's doing real good job so I feel hope you do understand what is happening here tonight. I would like to mention that go back to what happened -SEPA allows them to use original determination. That's what Mr. Pace says. Allows them, if there has not been any changes on lot. There has been changes on the lot. We know better about what environment does to people. The noise, pollution, this many laws has passed through. I'm a certified fork lift operator and you have to have beepers to back up. The City of Seattle, all the trucks probably Tukwila, they have, you cannot back up you have to have beepers. You cannot back up on a working site unless you have somebody outside watching your back. You have to have a beeper. In the issue of lights, yes you have to have lights. And regarding the stream, these Mr. Becker filled the ravine without a permit. We don't know if he used a ...(unclear)... we don't know if it was done professionally because he didn't have a permit originally and we are just facing violation. If we follow the water that comes to Becker and leaves Becker you will see that at one point that is considered a stream. So I would like the City to consider that. And the City right now I believe, they're all separated we're talking about is the same design as for any parking lot. We're talking about diesels. Diesel is a -it has been proven that it is very bad for the environment and for health. So we're not talking about the same type of discharge as it will a parking lot. These separated -SEPA does not require any special separator. SEPA depends on the City's to increase. Another thing is that we have one and half acres of impervious surface of water. In the storm is going to run into the river, and when it comes into the river it's going to damage the hillside of the river. You know what I mean? There is (unclear) of the side of Becker. And they are also washing of vehicles. I don't know if you have special -if you are checking on that. This is a new -as we know more about the environment there are relations for... to discharge into the river was just down last year. It is very- -there is so many people threatened by violation that they have to go slow. Right now this permit to dump into the river doesn't have any requirements of inspections or anything. Is very- -you'll have to do the work yourself. Mr. Merryhew was saying that the Planning Commission felt that it was better to allow the parking lot so that they won't be parking on the street. So I believe that the Planning Commission is under the understanding that they have to accommodate a violation of parking on the street by giving them something a parking lot that is bad for the neighborhood. And this never work. So we talking about a person permit, who parks on a lot without a permit, who parks on the street without a permit and there is also about the poison, the hazardous waste on the trucks. Every truck drive when they pick up a load, they have to get an MSD Seal. It is a seal that tells you which materials are in the vehicle. And Mr. Becker should have a record of that. I think the City should be responsible enough to get that. And in a single family neighborhood you have some way of checking out. Because the fire department doesn't do that. There's nothing on the permit that requires them not to, as Kathy Stetson brought up. 33 OK, what I would like you to do is think about if one of your homes was next to Becker Trucking. And just picture that before you make a decision. Do I have any time left? Rants: Yes you do. Demnere: We have a letter from the Mayor is lost somewhere. (moved away from mic). Stetson: Can I speak as Jackie? Rants: You may. Stetson: OK, this is a letter dated March 8, 1979 to Mr. Edward Sand, manager Building and Land Development Division of King County regarding a rezone for Ed Becker. Dear Mr. Sand, (its on City of Tukwila letterhead), Dear Mr. Sand, thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the above referenced reclassification proposal. After discussions with your staff it's our understanding that the rezone is necessary for Becker Transfer to expand their operations due to the PUD approved in 1970 for a specific site plan. We have been advised that the anticipated expansion amounts to approximately a 50% increase. As you know, the site of the proposed reclassification request is located in the proposed Riverton Annexation Area presently being considered by the King County Boundary Review Board. Throughout the annexation proceedings before this Tukwila City Council, the discord between the residential district and the encroaching industrial development was sited as a major reason for the annexation petition itself. While the proposed reclassification does not present new development on vacant land but only expansion of existing industrial land use if authorized, the increased trucking activity which may result from expansion quite possibly could contribute to the environmental problems presently impacting the residential area (i.e. increased trucking traffic and noise pollution). Therefore we request the capacity to either table action on the proposed classification or deny it as this time. Should the County approve the proposed reclassification not withstanding our comments, we implore the County to carefully consider and mitigate possible adverse impacts of increased trucking activity on the nearby residential area." This is signed, Edgar Botch. Rants: Thank you Kathy. Stetson: This is the only copy we have but your welcome Rants: You need to give it to the City Clerk and enter it in the record. Cohen: It should be exhibit number ten. Rants: All right, exhibit number ten. Robertson: Do we have copies made then for the Council and applicant? Rants: Thank you very much that moves us to rebuttal by Staff. Rick Beeler: Rick Beeler with the Department of Community Development. I'll be leading off followed by Jack Pace and Denni Shefrin and then I think more from Ron Cameron. I direct your attention to the noise ordinance which is in TMC title 8, and particular 8.22.110 talking about motor vehicle exemptions. In there it states, sound created by motor vehicles are exempt from the maximum permissible sound levels of section 8.22.030 through 8.22.050. Those sections talk about maximum permissible sound levels as received by certain properties one of which is residential properties. The sound study that 3 4 we have here submitted doesn't tell us how those trucks were operating so as near as we can tell from that information, we cannot determine whether or not indeed we have a violation or not. But that at least the motor vehicles are exempt if they are traveling on a public right of -way. Robertson: Are they exempt if they are not on a public right -of -way? Beeler: No they are not. The section goes onto say that they are operated off of public highways, they will be, they have to meet those sound requirements. There are modifications to the sound requirements permissible depending on the types of sound that are omitted. Impulse sound etc. then for duration's of those. Beyond that I'm really stretching my expertise. There's also a requirement in TMC 8.22.060 that regulates the sound decibel readings for vehicles over 10,000 pounds. When they are traveling at 35 mph or less or over 35. And those may that's about all of the sound noise ordinance again that's created earlier in -a long time ago that we have. Shefrin: I want to respond to two issues, the first being the wetland issue. Jack right now is handing out a portion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance map that deals with the site. And the second issue I wish to address has to do with the PAR review criteria. As mentioned earlier in my presentation I indicated that the City had no evidence that there are wetlands on the property. This is noted by the fact that the site is flat and it previously been used as a parking lot. With respect to the Board of Architecture Review, again the BAR design review is not triggered because there's no structure proposed. Let me site that section from the code that I'm reading from. This is chapter 18.60 section 030, scope of authority. As indicated earlier by I believe one of the appellants, the section states that developments less than 10,000 gross square feet of building area in the PO, C1, C2, CP and CM districts except within 300 feet of residential districts are within 200 feet of the Green Duwamish River or that requires shoreline permit are exempt from this section of the code. So in essence Becker is not proposing a structure, therefore there's no structure that's less than or in this case, exceeds any sort of gross square footage therefore it is exempt from design review. And I will not defer to Ron Cameron unless there questions of me, but I'd like him to respond to drainage issues. Rants: Thank you Denni. Cameron: There were some comments on the drainage issue. In 1989 and 90 with the Becker proposal we asked for a easement through their property for drainage from 128th that was flooding. And ensuing periods of time we worked with Becker as they pointed out they found the pipe, cleaned it and that street does not flood. In the case of the parking lot, our conditions are on there that would require detention, treatment, and that design for our approval. We have not got those plans in yet and in all likelihood other developments of this type that we've run through the process recently would be the normal King County detention as well as a coalescing plate separator is what would probably be working there. In the case of the driveway on East Marginal Way, I answered questions earlier. I would like to present some additional information on that. The operation of that parking lot and the way we understood it and I checked with the applicant, is that it would be a northbound left for a semi coming in, leaving the vehicle and later a goat carrying that into the site. If it were at night, it would be a goat carrying the trailer into the parking lot and leaving with a right turn only. It would not be, as I kind of saw what was happening here, of a goat pulling a trailer out of the parking lot onto that driveway down East Marginal Way into 128th. Our understanding in the earlier meetings is that basically for the semi's a northbound left in and a exit to the southbound right out only. Not a -for the semi's or the truck access. For the passenger cars, for the 25 mph again we've gone through that we've met with Pac Tech and we had a couple of meetings and we can see that there are two letters and two 35 considerations there. One's a 25 mph speed limit, one is the passenger and employees. The other is the trucks. In those alternatives we looked at limiting that driveway to a right turn only. In the case of pulling employees and others out of the intersection with the more restrictive sight distance it would be better for the City as well as the employees to have that driveway function that way. So the understanding that we had in working with the applicant is that the truck traffic would be northbound left in as Roland explained with their concerns and how they would enforce that, and southbound through the -a right turn out only for the trucks. For the passenger vehicles, for the employees, you can go either way. They work with the 25 mph speed limit and we had gone through that previously. So there's a series of factors and answering there that may have not been very clear. But that's how we worked it out. The enforcement of the trucks falls back to Becker doing that because if you try to make it a right only it forces the employees back onto 128th and into the intersection. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: Would that be -I didn't see that as a condition of the conditional use permit. Cameron: We didn't write it down because we didn't see a way to do that. Rants: You did not see a way to enforce it you mean? Cameron: To enforce it with the truck traffic. Our understanding on the explanation of how the parking lot would work, trucks coming in would come from the south as has been pointed out from the freeway at Interurban. Pull into the drawing coming off from the bottom and then they'd be pulled in later at night. Someone coming out would be pulled back across the street into that same diagonal. Then they'd pull out going south back to the freeway access to 133rd. That was our understanding with Pac Tech and I don't remember who else in my Staff when we reviewed that. Robertson: My understanding of a conditional use permit though, if it's not specified within the conditions we have no way of enforcing it later, is that correct? Cameron: Right turn- -turn restrictions by the model traffic ordinance fall to the promise of the engineer, the agency engineer. Either the City engineer or the City traffic engineer either way. And the model traffic ordinance calls that out. It may or may not spell out that it takes Mayor or City Council approval to do that. In our past experience working with Mr. Becker on the drainage, several RFA's as he said whenever I have called him we've had response within the next day. Robertson: If the conditional use permit is granted, and the property is sold, the CPU sells with the property as long as the use stays the same? Is that correct? It's similar to a zoning. Cameron: Yea, I'd defer that to DCD on the zoning issues. Pace: So to respond to your specific question, if they continue that conditional use, yes. Robertson: OK, so it's like any other zoning issue. The good will of the -let me finish the good will of the particular property owner isn't at question. What's at question is what you objectively allow, not what the person owning the property at that moment. He agrees to and is subject to. Pace: Maybe clarify what you are doing is improving what the proposal is and what initial conditions you put upon that property. 36 Robertson: That's correct. Pace: It's a combination of what they're proposing and when additional conditions are finally adopted. Robertson: OK, the point I was making is that Ron's statement about how easy it was to work with Mr. Becker. Well true, have rare enough -have nothing to do with the decision to be made here because Mr. Becker moving this to work with the City and the neighborhood does not that question. Rants: Yea, you're right. Cameron: Yea, if you come back to the driveway, and then how do we regulate it? If we wanted to limit it so that no truck can make a southbound right turn in, we don't have a practical way to sign of enforce that. It's really the business that has to do it or in the design itself. The design itself with the stalls angled on a 45 degree says basically they're oriented between the south which is the freeway and the business to the north. And that's how it was explained in terms of operation. So when it was explained about the goat pulling out and going around, I wanted to clarify that. That was not our understanding and we clarified that with the applicant and they agreed. Rants: If there's no more questions, Robertson: I have a question on planning. Rants: All right. I don't care which person -you volunteered huh? Robertson: There's been a lot of discussion given to the way that the parking lot is striped, laying it out. What happens if they chose to park their cars at 90 degree angles to every bit of paint there, the cars and the trucks? There is -it would be my guess that there and it's a guess only -I guess I want you to tell me if I'm correct or wrong- -that there's absolutely no choice the City has on that matter. There's no decision. Is that correct or do they have to park only within the stalls we've painted laid out on that drawing the way its shown? Shefrin: It's assumed that's the pattern that they would follow. Robertson: Assumed isn't the same thing as saying that they lose their conditional use permit if they park otherwise. Shefrin: I think that the point to keep in mind is that they're restricted in terms of numbers of vehicles and types of vehicles that can be parked on the parking lot. But you're correct in that the City would not enforce or monitor the configuration or the way the vehicles were parked on the property. Robertson: Earlier you said that the whole number of vehicles was controlled but not the type of vehicles. So if they chose to park whatever number of trucks and trailers they could get on there and not employees cars, there would be nothing -our conditional use permit would not have, not be able to constrain that. Shefrin: The conditional use permit application restricts numbers of parking spaces. 48 spaces for employee vehicles and 17 for vehicles other than employee vehicles. 37 Robertson: OK, so they could park, what happens if they decide to park 10 employee vehicles and 30 trucks and trailers? Would that be a violation of the conditional use permit? Pace: It depends upon what you -I think the key here is what you approve. And the level of detail. If these are specific concerns and you want no modifications that specific proposal then that would be applied. The level of enforcement that occurs depends upon the specifics of the proposal and specific to the conditions. If it was specifically saying this is configuration we want, this is where we want the trucks and trailers to park and they violate that, we would then have to take enforcement action. But the level of enforcement again, the relationship to the level specitivity of the conditions that are applied upon. What you have before you is the Planning Commission's conditions in that site plan. Robertson: Correct, but this is a du -novo meaning that we can basically examine the whole record and make any modifications that we wish to the thing in whole, is that correct? Cohen: That's correct. Robertson: OK. Pace: Let me clarify, so the enforcement action that Staff would take afterwards depends upon what is finally approved, what the specific issues or conditions. Robertson: Yes, I -yes, OK. Beeler: If I can add -Rick Beeler for the record -part of what your decision will be, whatever it is, is finding adoption of findings of fact and conclusions. As Ron Cameron has indicated the facts as presented to you or how that parking lot's going to work normally how it's stripped, how access is going to work, that will be put into a finding of fact. In any future code enforcement action we will go back to the findings of fact on the conditional use permit that you adopt and enforce accordingly. Rants: Mr. Mann? Mann: Jeff Mann, Pac Tech Engineering. Again as I noted previously this site under the Riverton Annexation was found by the task force and recommended to the City that it would provide a better transition from single family to commercial use. The task force recommended that the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map be amended to reduce the commercial area and designate an area on the west side of East Marginal Way as light industrial. That is referring specifically to the Becker property. And subsequently it was designated light industrial with CM zoning. I think we understand the dock itself, the loading operation is the limiting factor here with Becker Transfer. He has maintained a level of operation with that single dock. If he were to expand his operation to serve more trucks, load more trucks, he would need another dock. The dock is what -the single dock is also driving the need for this parking lot. The fact that he needs to move trucks off the existing site onto this parking lot so that he can better use the existing dock on his site. We would accept conditions that there would be no loading on this site, on the new parking lot. We would accept a condition that there be no truck parking in the employee parking area. We would also accept a condition with regard to the driveway that it be conditioned to a north bound left turn only for trucks. Pursuant to the testimony given, I'm sorry if I confused the issue on that new driveway. But we would accept that condition that it be limited to the northbound left turn only for trucks. We see the benefits for the community and the findings that have been made have supported that that we will get the employee parking off the street, we will improve the operation of the northern site by reducing truck and trailer movements during night time hours, we have substantial landscaping on the site, 38 F 22 feet on three sides of that site. In some areas it exceeds City minimums. It will take the staging off the street. We will meet City standards for drainage and meet those requirements that the City has. Again, this is zoned to accommodate a number of manufacturing uses that can be located on this site. We are locating a parking lot to facilitate an existing operation and we ask for your approval of that use. If I could have Mr. Becker take the remaining few moments. Becker: I apologize if you misunderstood about the goat. I had no intentions of putting the goat out on East Marginal Way. The goat is used to shuttle between the north and south yard through that far west entrance. It was mentioned that the intentions are expansion of internal, that is not so. That Becker's agenda is considerably different then mine. Bigger is not better, efficient is and that's what I'm looking for is an efficient way of running my operation. Right now on the north yard we presently move that equipment two to three times in order to get everything into the dock because the trailers are stacked and they're buried so we have to move them out to get another one in. So the activity should be greatly reduced limiting noise and the level of congestion. The diesels, the tractors, the power units parked in this lot, I'm not saying that it won't happen but my intentions are that the power units will be parked next to the shop. That's in the north yard and that's to maximize the efficiency so the shop can do the preventative maintenance and services that are required on those units. All the drivers are required to do a post trip inspection when they come in so the mechanics can work on that vehicle at night so when they're used the next day they're safe. In order to maximize efficiency those power units have to be parked next to the garage and that's my intention. That's it, thank you. Rants: Thank you Mr. Becker. Thank you. City Council we've heard all the testimony at this point. We can proceed in several ways. You could have a discussion tonight and make a decision, you can keep the public hearing open so that you can ask questions of Staff at another time and make a decision next week or whenever you so decide to do it. Did you have a comment? Oh, I thought Robertson: Wally, I actually have one more question I'd like to ask of the appellants. Rants: Of the appellant? All right. Do you want Mr. Becker or I'm sorry. Robertson: I guess I would ask whoever can best represent the -or answer the question on the wetlands issue. Jackie are you here? Oh, OK. Kathy or whoever, my question is, in the report that you submitted you said that there was a wetland on the proposed site. There is a real question under the -it is apparent that Staff did not do an on -site inspection of that property recently. Now I'm going to request that but that's going to take time and money and trouble. The question I want to ask is do you really believe that there is a wetland there before we Bernhardt: There use to be a wetland under the property. It was never taken proper care of. They ...(unclear)... south parcel. There is a creek running through there Rants: Mr. Bernhardt, you'll have to come to the microphone and identify yourself please because the public hearing is still open. Bernhardt: Bob Bernhardt, 3418 S. 126th. There used to be a wetland in there on the north and the south side. There is still a creek running through the north side. It's a culvert. I don't understand, if you go down past Boeings you will see the leach that comes off of that property when they filled it. I've lived there all my life, I used to catch turtles there. I know it's a wetland, it used to be a wetland. Now it is not -it was filled. 39 S 17, Robertson: OK, let me go back, you said it used to be a wetland on the north and south side of the property. But by north side, do you mean this parking lot Bernhardt: They've already filled it. That used to be a wetland. Robertson: The creek you said is in the north side of the culvert. You mean the north side of the proposed parking lot? Bernhardt: Right, the north side, his present place where he's Robertson: (unclear) Bernhardt: Yes. Mullet: How long ago was that filled? Bernhardt: When they filled it so that he could start his operation down there. Mullet: What year was that? Bernhardt: I don't have the slightest idea any more. I didn't think this was going to last this long. Rants: Thank you Bob. Robertson: Mr. Mann. I'm willing to ask Mr. Mann if you have any questions regarding the wetland or stream issue. Mann: Right I just wanted to clarify those. Robertson: Or clarifications. Mann: Right, that's exactly right. The stream is located adjacent to the existing site on the north. And this site was -they have been operating on this site since 1974. The parking lot site had been filled 10 to 15 years ago well before wetlands regulation as they are today. This site is a fill site, it slopes towards 128th. The drains, there's drainage facilities in there. There's not wetlands on the parking lot. Rants: Thank you. Robertson: Could I ask from Staff for clarification for the same question? Rick? Would you come up to the podium? The map -the position put forward by Staff is that the current map, the inventory does not show wetlands there. However in the SAO itself we admit that all wetlands have not been mapped, and it is the responsibility of the property owner during development if there's any question at all to have basically have the appropriate people come in and do a study. The question I'm trying to determine here is, since we have not walked this site up there at least not since his proposals come forward, is it worth walking the site now to end this question? Beeler: Two part answer. Denni will answer after I do. Normal site visit, the Staff will look for any evidences of a wetland that Gary has trained them to look for. If they see any of those evidences then they will bring Gary in. And walking on this site the Staff didn't find any of those and so they didn't bring Gary in on it. The fact that a wetland existed years ago 40 of course is not covered by the SAO. The fact that the stream is in a culvert now was not considered a stream per the way the SAO came out. Robertson: In the stream that's being discussed there, that's a stream that's not on the proposed parking lot, but on the existing Becker Trucking site, is that true? Beeler: I think I don't know -he mentioned north of what but he didn't say exactly where that culvert is and I was assuming for the -he was referencing where the storm drainage and maybe the old stream were connected. Robertson: OK thank you. Denni are you the Staff member that walked the site then? Shefrin: Yea, I walked the site. I do want to point out too as mentioned earlier the information that was evaluated by Staff when the application first came to us included the previous SEPA determination. And again by reference that was EPIC 2489. There is a section here that speaks to water and I'm going to quote this from the SEPA checklist. "There are no surface water bodies located immediately on or adjacent to the subject site. Duwamish River is located approximately one quarter mile to the northeast of this site." Again, the information contained in this checklist is typically that which we're going to use to evaluate a current proposal and that is what we've done. I agree that we did not have Gary go out and evaluate this project site. However we weren't provided any other information that suggested to us that there was a possible wetland and again we did evaluate the sensitive areas map as well as the inventory. Robertson: Let me ask one more time. You walked the site and based on what Gary has trained you in, you do not feel that there is any evidence of a wetland on the proposed site. Shefrin: As I said, I have walked the site, Gary has not so based on my evaluation that is correct, that I have not seen any evidence. Robertson: Thank you. Rants: Steve? Mullet: I'd like to ask Rick a question on the SEPA issue. It was raised a couple times that no new evidence was brought in of significant changes and what not. What would constitute in this case a significant change? Can you kind of give me an example? Dennis mentioned that you used the old SEPA list and she brought up this one particular thing. I read the old SEPA thing and they said that -they listed recreation as the Rainier Golf and Country Club in the near vicinity, I thought this was -they didn't mention Foster at all which is a lot closer. They didn't mention the community center which is there and some other things. What would constitute in this issue some significant changes that would require a new SEPA? Beeler: One that comes to mind is similarly it would be the -do you remember the old White proposal on the Poverty Hill, at the base of Poverty Hill when we found in the public hearing process that there was some unique fossils there. And we didn't know about those and they -that was unique to all of the west cost it turned out and we didn't know that. That's significant new issue. Or another one might be if Mr. Becker decided to propose a building on the property. That's a significantly different than a parking lot. That would be a change and we would reopen the SEPA for that. Mullet: So the fact that maybe the old SEPA wasn't exactly the greatest document in the world would not necessarily be a reason to have a new one. 41 Beeler: Correct. Rants: How does the Council wish to continue? Hernandez: I'd like to continue to leave the public hearing open so we can ask for other testimony or questions if we need it. Robertson: I agree with Joan. I think what I'd like to do is leave the public hearing open until next week and next week have final discussion or have discussion or determination by the Council. That would give me time to review the material that's been presented and think about it. Would still allow me and the rest of the Council time to ask Staff and the applicants and the appellants questions if we need further clarification next week. But we would only ask -I'm not Rants: I'm not advocating more testimony? Robertson: No more testimony, instead -and no more documents presented by any of the three parties, all that would happen would be we could ask questions of them during the Council meeting. However to add to that I would like to have a brief discussion -on the Council side -I would be curious what the other Council members think are the major issues. And I'd like to list a couple so that perhaps what I see that I'm going to look in next week during this forthcoming week so that we could all have a chance to do the best job possible reviewing this and understand where each other is coming from. Not where each other is coming from as far as a decision but what the possible issues might be. What I want to do is learn from the last few quasi-judicial sessions where I thought that we could have had the benefit of asking questions of Staff, or the applicant, or the appellant if we had kept the meeting open and if we postpone a decision it gives us time to think about it. It's very difficult for me to hear all of this information and then off the top of my head be wise enough to make a decision. I need time to think. Rants: Do we have consensus on the Council for that? To keep the public hearing open, continue it next Monday for discussion and resolution. All right then.... Mullet: I agree. I would have one question now though, and that's whether we need verbatim minutes before the next meeting? Rants: City Clerk 0946 talking in background Rants: By Friday. Robertson: OK, I would prefer that. Mullet: The other question would be, there was a lot of material said verbally tonight, if there are any written comments on that or is that violating what your thoughts was Dennis that we've had enough written comments? Rants: Written comments have been submitted into the record that have come in tonight. The rest of it will be transcribed into verbatim minutes so you will have that anyway. Robertson: I prefer not to get last minute files of new paper Rants: Yes. Council has agreed that they would not take new testimony or new exhibits. Robertson: OK. I'd like to have a very brief discussion on what the Council thinks might be the issues. Is that appropriate? Rants: I think that's appropriate. Robertson: I'd like to point out that the issues I'm willing to raise by no means should imply how or what I might vote or where how I might eventually think is important, it mearly means that after listening to this with very little thought, this is what I think at the moment. Rants: May I make a suggestion that if you're going to put forth some issues you're interested in that you do not take time to dissect them while we're here tonight, that you just take the point and move on. Cohen: I don't know that it's appropriate to go through what you're contemplating before the public hearing, before the quasi-judicial hearing is closed. Robertson: OK. Cohen: It will influence what material you may receive questions if you want more information I think that's fine but to deliberate before it's finished I don't think it is appropriate. Rants: That's what I was thinking about. I can understand the point being made. Steve? Mullet: To deliberate before making a decision is not appropriate? Rants: Before you close the hearing you cannot deliberate. Cohen: To deliberate before you close the hearing. Hernandez: I have a question, I'd like to know if we're prevented from making a site visit? Cohen: If everyone does that all together that's certainly permissible. I'd just make sure that it's structured as far as who is going and it's not being narrated by Robertson: I would like a site visit as we did before on the Foster View, it could be.... Hernandez: I would find that beneficial if the rest of the Councilmembers would. Rants: There is consensus, when would you like to do this? Hernandez: That's the hard part. Can we have Lucy coordinate that for us? Robertson: Cause nobody would be there but the Council and Lucy I presume? Mullet: That kind of precludes discussion tonight. Rants: Yes it does. Mullet: If you want to leave the council hearing open for any last minute questions of Staff next week Robertson: Or anybody else. Mullet: Or anybody else. Rants: It would just be continued until next week, that is correct. I'm trying to find my agenda so I can move on. Robertson: I would like to add one other thing while we're still open Wally, I had requested of Staff a complete copy of the file. I have since received information from them as all Council members have that it is a very large file. So what I'm going to do is go through the basically the list of the material that was suggested on what's in the file and make a mark of what I would like to receive. I would assume at that point then that Staff would copy the material and make copies for all Council since we're not going to receive new testimony I'm not sure why it would be important to make copies for applicant or appellants. That would limit some of copying of material. And I would assume that since everybody else received the same list, if you want to mark something there you would like to receive when Staff looks at that or gets your list turns in, that would assure that whatever any one of use gets, all of us will get. Does that sound fair, appropriate? Cohen: The applicant and the appellant are entitled to whatever you deliberate on so.... Robertson: OK. So they have to make whatever we request they would make copies not only for us but for the applicants and appellants. OK. Public hearing was continued to the March 7, 1994 Regular Council Meeting. END OF VERBATIM I 44