Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-16 Regular MinutesNovember 16, 1987 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATION D.A.R.E. Program CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Sister City Visit CONSENT AGENDA OLD BUSINESS Discussion on appeal to BAR approval of 54 -unit apt. complex proposed by Gencor. Sunwood Condo. Assn. appealed BAR deci- sion the SEPA determination of non significance. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience and the Councilmembers in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JOHN M. MCFARLAND. Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Larry Martin (City Attorney), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Jack Pace (Senior Planner), Don Pierce (Police Chief), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). Mayor Van Dusen presented Police Officer Tom Kilburg, the D.A.R.E. officer. Officer Kilburg explained the D.A.R.E. program which is being presented to elementary level students in the schools with a video tape. The program is designed to teach students in the lower grades of school what to do and say when drugs are offered to them. Dan Saul, audience, thanked the City Council for the fine work they did in planning the entertainment and visit of the Sister City. The dedication of the park was impressive. a. Approval of Vouchers Claim Fund Vouchers #32388 Current Fund City Street Arterial Street Water fund Sewer Fund Foster Golf Course Equipment Rental Firemen's Pension #32549 94,318.74 9,944.22 19,687.08 36,320.98 53,571.97 102,120.17 4,387.69 767.02 $323,350.28 b. Accept completion of North Hill Transmission Pipeline. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Larry Martin, City Attorney, stated the appeal by the Sunwood Condominium Association is based on the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) decision and the SEPA determination of non significance. If it is determined an EIS is necessary we will have to go back to the beginning. If it is not required then input on the BAR decision will be taken. Mr. Martin stated the appellant does not have further input. Council President Morgan stated she would like to ask the Planning Director if there has been any resolution or movement toward resolution of the traffic concerns. Planning Director Beeler stated he has additional information he would like to put into the record. It is from the North Hill rezone application file. In the last hearing he talked about the traffic situation and one of the exhibits that he would like to enter into the record is a visual one with the overhead that will show the traffic circulation. Exhibit 7 is an actual copy from the 84 -11 -R North Hill rezone file. Mr. Beeler explained the design and traffic flow as it was shown with the overhead. Exhibit 8 was entered into the record which is a letter from Steven M. Friedman, Gencor Apartments, dated November 12, 1987, TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGUALR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 -unit apt. (Gencor). Appealed by Sun wood Condo. Assn. on BAR decision SEPA det. of non significance. contd. which states their knowledge that traffic is of serious concern to the City Council and they want to alleviate that concern by offering in advance that they are willing to cooperate in the future with the City and adjacent property owners, in efforts to work for joint access or improved access along Southcenter Boulevard. Council President Morgan asked if there has been any rechannelization of the road, such as addition of a lane or redirection of anything that might require additional construction? Mr. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, said there was no additional work in that area. There will be when the driveway is developed to the east. Council President Morgan said ordinarily when there is a major development we ask the developer to share in the cost of changes. Mr.Earnst then is saying this will not require changes in the access, the turning or the signaling. Mr. Ross said there will be no additional work in that area. Mr. Earnst said the Arco Station and Store has not been contacted regarding the road that will go down past their station as it does not involve their property. Mr. Earnst explained how the traffic flow to the east and the west would be managed. Council President Morgan asked for a brief review of the appellant's reasons for appealing. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated briefly the appeal states there has been inadequate consideration given to slopes and stability of the property and view blockage that could occur. Appellant was not making a SEPA appeal when he filed, but he was advised that was what he was doing. Council President Morgan said then his concern was not so much the individual project as it was the collective effect of the planning for vacant property for that particular area. This is something the City needs to consider in its separation. We are looking at whether or not an environmental impact statement should be authorized. Mr. Beeler said he has not seen the necessity of an EIS. Council President Morgan said she would suggest that an environmental issue was raised in the discussions. She said she would question the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of the Council dealing with the issue of traffic. The Council may determine that the questions dealing with traffic have been answered this evening. The issue of traffic was not part of the appellant's concern. City Attorney Martin said it was proper. Council President Morgan said she would ask the question of the Planning Director of alternatives of response other than an EIS, which is a rather thorough document. City Attorney Martin said the motion would be to uphold the threshold determination of the responsible official. There is some analysis included in this. He suggested staff come back with written findings and conclusions and it could be based on both the discussions and findings. Council President Morgan said then the Council has the option of saying they accept the findings and conclusions as presented. The other option is to say that in fact an environmental impact statement is required. I would like information from staff that in substitute of an EIS may deal with a single issue. That was the only issue the Council had consensus on. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said he would have to ask if the Council felt that the access issue was of significant adverse impact. If the Council decided that it was then they would be faced with two alternatives: require an EIS which would identify the significant environmental impact, or issue a mitigating determination of nonsignificance. The first requires an EIS, the second does not. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 -unit apt. (Gencor). Appeal by Sunwood Conco. Assn. on BAR decision SEPA det. of non significance. contd. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD THE NEGATIVE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF THE SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL AND THAT INCLUDES A DIRECTION TO ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE WRITTEN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION. Councilmember Bauch said he disagrees and he felt the reason the Planning Director made this decision was because he was too busy and did not want to take on another EIS. He thought there were considerable impacts and they will be noticed. They said there is plenty of room on Southcenter Boulevard, but down the street we are getting ready to connect Grady Way and we are going to turn all of the traffic going to Seattle onto Southcenter Boulevard instead of by- passing it onto I -405. That impact has to be looked at. It is going to be a freeway on Southcenter Boulevard and we will be putting more traffic onto it. There are impacts to the environment by this project and they should be looked at. Councilmember Simpson said there were restrictions put on another complex that was just as far from the freeway as this one, in fact we even had them close up the garbage dumpsters. None of that will be addressed if we don't have an EIS. We should put mitigation measures on this. ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE, BAUCH, SIMPSON, MCFARLAND VOTE NO; HARRIS, MORGAN, STOKNES VOTING YES. MOTION FAILED, FOUR TO THREE. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT AN EIS BE PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. The City Attorney said the Council seems to focus on the traffic issue and the vote to have an EIS would just trigger the procedure the staff goes through and there are all of the various issues that could possibly be covered. One option that Mr. Beeler mentioned was the mitigated DNS (determination of non significance). It means that where a City is considering requiring an EIS that it tells the developer what he would have to do not have to prepare the whole EIS. In this case, for example, if you were to determine that if a traffic analysis of the traffic flow and operation of those various intersections there would have to be done and reviewed and any conditions placed on the building permit as found necessary. You would get the traffic portion of an EIS. It would then be a traffic study. Councilmember Bauch said he is questioning whether the site is getting too close to the freeway and the noise associated with traffic. Soil stability has not been addressed. Councilmember Harris stated the traffic problem is being looked at and to go through a whole EIS which will not address traffic only is a large request. Tonight when the committee looked at the Planning Department budget we found they will have to have three new people if they have this task. She felt it was an unnecessary expense and it was not that she was for or against developers. Councilmember McFarland said there is the issue of equity. If one developer is required to have an EIS another one should have to also. There is the impact of high density in single family areas. He said he was concerned that this development will be in close proximity to the freeway and the noise of the traffic. Could the Council be provided with a study as to the comparison of this project with Valley View Estates. Larry Martin, City Attorney, said we are looking at the living environment of the residents. It is arguable that the best vehicle to do that would be through information provided as part of either the building permit review or an additional site plan review that might be required to try to focus on that particular issue. It is different than the traditional EIS. Councilmember McFarland said with respect to the issue of traffic he did not feel the situation of 54 units would add a lot of traffic. When Grady Way and Southcenter Boulevard are connected it is going TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 -unit apt. (Gencor). Appeal by Sunwood Condo. Assn. on BAR decision SEPA det. of non significance cont. to be a channel to I -5. It is necessary to see what the realignment will do to the Arco Station, Dennys and City Hall. Council President Morgan said the proximity to the freeway has been an issue of continued development in an area that makes it dense. Were other developers in a proximity to the freeway required to provide an EIS? Councilmember Bauch said the reason the Council could require this now is because it was brought before them. The reason the last three did not require an EIS was because it was not brought before them. The later ones to come in to develop come in and impact the area. Councilmember Harris said the City does not have a road adequacy ordinance. We do not have a vehicle where we can make people add to our streets or mitigate measures. We do not have our streets numbered into A, B, C and D. Until we do that we are certainly in violation in asking people for mitigation for something that we don't have an ordinance for. Council President Morgan stated she would like to reopen some discussion from the audience. City Attorney Martin said the Council could reopen discussion from the audience or ask questions. Council President Morgan said she would like to ask a question of the attorney and planner. She said she failed to see what substitive information that an EIS provides that changes the course of a development. Her opinion is that it is a reference document that is placed on the shelf once it is done. Its adequacy is determined by whether in fact it touches a number of different issues, which to her mind is of no use to anyone. She said SEPA should be restructured at state level so it did something for people and would become what she would call a quasi- consumer protection law. It is not that right now, it is an odd document and she wanted to know what it would do in this case that would create a "quality of life" that everyone wants. Councilmember Simpson asked if it was correct that if an EIS document is brought forward mitigation measures can be placed on it? Larry Martin, City Attorney, said that the substantive part is that once you have the disclosure, you have the impacts laid out in the document. The City has the authority to either condition a project or to deny it based upon those impacts, so if they are in the EIS and you see impacts in traffic or impacts in air pollution the City has the right to put on reasonable conditions that try to lessen those problems. If you don't have an EIS you can't do anything, that isn't true. The City still has authority to regulate under the normal police power through the process, for example in the building permit process or in the architectural review process the board has placed conditions on. The test really is when you are looking at the impacts, when you apply all of the City ordinances and normal processes and you assume they are going to be enforced as they normally are and you look at what the development has built in to try to take care of the problem, like the soils study. Does it still leave you with the probability that there are substantial impacts on the environment, if that is the case then you can require the EIS to get the information necessary to try to deal with those impacts. Here, again, the two things identified that I have heard are the concerts about traffic and one suggestion was is the impact stemming from City plans to reroute traffic or is the impact stemming from this development. If it is the first, impacts from City plans to change traffic then that is something that we need to look at and determine whether we need an EIS. If it is the imiiact from the development then that may warrant an EIS. Likewise, the real tough question is the concerns that people will rent or buy these units and in fact they are going to be miserable because there is so much noise. It is really a health and safety issue for regulation of the occupants. He said he would suggest that another approach is TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 5 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 -unit apt. (Gencor). Appeal by Sunwood Condo. Assn. on BAR decision SEPA det. of non significance contd. 3 7Z, really more appropriate than an EIS. That would be, for example, to inquire of the applicant whether they are willing to have as a condition of any building permits to do a study of the noise levels and if necessary if the building official is not able to determine whether these units are designed properly to take care of that, to submit to the BAR review on that issue to see whether or not these units are designed to take care of the noise. It could be that they would feel that a permit would have to be denied based on the concerns for the health and safety of the occupants, or maybe that would be a condition to have to take care of that problem. But that internal kind of a living condition probably is more appropriate in our permit process than to try and get an EIS. In a strict sense it really is an impact upon the environment, putting up the building or having the occupant there really does not create the noise it is the traffic outside. Councilmember Simpson asked how will he be assured these items are going to be addressed? City Attorney Martin said what he had in mind, and it certainly is up to the Council, is that on the noise issue the Council could in fact go to the mitigated DNS route. The Council would then be directing the SEPA responsible official to advise the applicant that if they are willing to produce the analysis by a qualified sound engineer, I am not sure what the right term would be, whoever the right expert would be, what the noise levels will be in the units as designed. If the building official feels it necessary to get input from BAR, submit to that review, so they can intelligently apply conditions if necessary. The applicant could agree to that of if not then we could go ahead with the EIS. The shortcut to that would be if the applicant would be willing to stipulate tonight to those conditions, then you could on the condition that they do those things uphold the decision that we would not need an EIS. As to the traffic, I think we are on the track on the analysis, who is really generating traffic we are concerned about, is it the 54 -units and the traffic they are generating, if it is then we are looking at an impact that maybe we need a traffic study or an EIS, but if it is really that traffic would not be that substantial when you look at the volumes, and when the alinements are changed. Councilmember Simpson asked about the landscaping plan it shows open space in front of the buildings. According to other projects we have required they shift the building in order to protect the play areas. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated there will be forty -eight 1- bedroom apartments and six 2- bedroom apartments. The tenancy will be different from most apartments, it will be predominantly adult apartments, there will be enclosed decks with rails. What is difficult with this particular project is the noise from I -5 and 405, especially I -405. When the determination of non significance was made he looked at 54 units and most of the apartments are studio apartments. The 54 units would not increase the noise level. One of the uses of SEPA, one of the counter balances we have to use and was part of the framework in reaching the decision of non significance was not only these units but the people who would likely live there would not increase the noise level, but rather the noise is generated by Southcenter Boulevard and the highway and not be the apartments. He did not think there was a significant impact of noise to the extent that it was going to create a problem at this particular development. When we reach a decision on a project we look at that individual project because a condition was imposed on a project elsewhere does not necessarily mean that it would fit on a different project in a different place. They are all looked at on their different merits and evaluated accordingly. Councilmember Bauch said the applicant is not addressing noise until he is forced to consider it. Councilmember McFarland said he would like to know what a mitigated DNS would do in terms of stipulations, in terms of covenants, in terms of requirements we could put on the developer that we would have a reasonable expectation of being met. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 6 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 unit apt. (Gencor). Appeal by Sunwood Condo. Assn. on BAR decision SEPA det. of non significance contd. RECESS 9:10 9:15 P.M. 7 Z City Attorney Martin said the effect of it would be to say if you will agree to abide by these conditions, which the Council would list, then you will not have to do an EIS. He changes his project to incorporate the Council conditions. That is is what the mitigated DNS would do. mitigated Councilmember McFarland said he was looking at the weight of a /DNS as compared to the EIS. City Attorney Martin said the weight of it is, it is a statement to the applicant that says if you will do these things you won't have to do an EIS. If you don't agree with them then the Council will issue a determination that you have to do an EIS. Mayor Van Dusen called for a 5 minute recess. Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order, with Council Members present as previously listed. Cris Crumbaugh, 15215 52nd Avenue South, Tukwila, was sworn in by the City Attorney. He stated he wanted to discuss the procedure. The applicant asked him to be present and talk on the matter. Two concerns, the first relates to equity on the EIS. Each individual project is its own project and each has its own particular circums- tances acid SEPA says that. There are differences between the two areas this is nested within some commercial and apartment areas. The City in its comprehensive planning and zoning reaffirmed that this was an area for multi family developments. Issues on the other hill are different in that regard. The applicant, throughout the process with the City staff, has made their decision making and designing in presenting it in view of the information gained from other projects in the City. That is something I would like to say about SEPA. We can build in this town and we have been a record of concerns in problems and how we have dealt with them and the SEPA process allows the responsible public official to take into account other impact statements that have been done in the City in making the decision. There have been many traffic reports, there was a traffic report done for the office site right below here about two years previous. A lot of reports have been generated in this area. Under SEPA the responsible official can take those into account. The applicant has taken these things into consideration. As a result of what happened on Valley View across the way, they have put in a certain type of windows, they have put in a certain type of insulation, they have designed the project in certain ways. Your system is working in this town and your planning staff is taking into consideration past experiences and is now applying those in the permitting process. They did take a lot of those things that were developed out of past actions into account. From the applicants point of view we do not think an EIS is appropriate. Once a decision is made here then there is the BAR review process where there are other issues to look at, also when the applicant comes back he goes through a whole new process. There is time for the City to look at some of these issues. The applicant is willing to do a noise analysis, if necessary. They have already designed their project taking into account the concerns regarding noise that were addressed by staff in making the determination. As far as mitigation, the applicant is willing to do a study on the noise if that is the concern. On the traffic, he is willing to look at the traffic. The staff took into consideration the reports, their knowledge, the whole background, and determined that with 54 units they would not significantly impact the environment. For an applicant to do an EIS, it is very expensive and long process. These applicants inquired as to the status of this property when they applied and found it was planned for apartments, it was zoned for apartments. Council has a right to look at these things, but staff has been addressing these issues. Councilmember Simpson asked if the apartments would be strictly adult? Steven Friedman, applicant, said they would be mainly studio apartment and a few two bedroom apartments. The two bedroom may have children, there will be six two bedroom apartments. There is a play area. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 7 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 unit apt. (Gencor). Appeal by Sunwood Condo. Assn. on BAR decision SEPA det. of non significance contd. 5 Cris Crumbaugh said the Council does have concerns about apartments on the hillsides. The applicant is willing to mitigate. This should be addressed head -on in a planning process or relook at the regulations governing these things. Rian Thrower,representing Sunwood Condominium Association, said he is beginning to get angry at this process. It seems there are a lot of people here who are determined the Council not deal with these issues here tonight. He said he was contacted by the City Attorney in an effort to get the Sunwood Association to drop their appeal. All of the issues are not germane for Council consideration. There might be another place for the Association to consider this at. They are saying this based on the comments two weeks ago, that what we really wanted to talk about were the bigger issues. The more I see and hear I think the deck is being stacked against the Council. Everybody is saying, "let's make one more decision." My concern is the incremental decision making process that is going on here. One of the Council people raised the question if you don't require it of the first guy do you require it of the second? the third guy? the fourth guy? You finally end up in such a mess you say this is why the process should have begun at day 1. Unfortunately, you have to do that to the last guy here. This appeal was the only way that we as the homeowners of Tukwila get before you people and you are the policy- making people. You have staff people here who are trying to slip one more by us I am talking about policy. Who is going to determine what you want Tukwila to look like? Where does comprehensive planning come in in this process we have here? You are again relying upon the applicant to provide you with an expert who is going to tell you what the sound conditions are going to be like in their units. What do you think that answer will be? They are paying the bills and they are going to get the answer they want. You have raised tonight an issue we had not thought about. As a homeowner in Sunwood I can tell you that freeway noise is a real negative aspect of living on that hill. You have to live on that hill on a rainy night when you hear those tires coming down I -5 or I -405. One of the things that acts as a buffer for that noise is a very large stand of maple trees. This proposal is going to knock all of that buffering down. The noise level may be great in their apartments because they may have triple glazed windows and lots of insulation, but what is going to be the impact of knocking those trees down on the Sunwood complex? You can't put this project in without it having rippling effects on the rest of us. When you put in one bedroom units it will attract one parent low income families. They may be full of kids. As this drags on and on you are getting at the issues. Councilmember Harris asked Mr.Throwerwhat he wants the Council to look at? You said the "big picture." We're looking now at the nitty gritty, we're not looking at the big picture as such. The big picture is already drawn. The zoning is there. Mr. Thrower said in his appeal he pointed out the City has comprehen- sive land use planning and you have zoning that says another thing. What determines the growth, what is setting policy here? If it is the comprehensive land use planning then let's get it in place and let's get the zoning fix and put some teeth into it. You have comprehensive planning that acknowledges that you are trying to discourage growth or development on hillsides, that is in your comprehensive land use planning. It says not to develop on 20% slopes. There are slopes in here in excess of 100 You have objectives and policy in your comprehensive land use policy that you want to maintain the hills in a wooded condition. They are going to knock all of that vegetation off. You talk about recreational space, about tennis courts, swimming pools, permanent facilities as part of the goal in your comprehensive land use policy. In your zoning code it does not require any of that stuff. Who is setting policy? Your zoning is supposedly the teeth behind your comp plan and you have it turned around. You are letting the zoning dictate what is going to be the development and not the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Harris said the zoning dictates where we will have those things. We have a golf course, we have all kinds of open space, tennis courts, etc. In each one of the developments that are multiples a certain amount of open space is required. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 8 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 unit apt. (Gencor). Appeal by Sunwood Condo. Assn. contd. 3 Mr.lhrower said if open space is meant why isn't it said like that? Stop talking about recreational facilities. There are no recreational facilities in that project. What you have is grass. Someone can lay out in the sun. That is not recreational facilities. That requirement has to be fulfilled by the City. If you don't want recreational facilities on these complexes then why don't you take it out of the comprehensive land use plan? I'll be back here in two years or so when we are talking about the next development that will be going in on the border of Sunwood. If you really want to build on that hillside, if you really want to knock down all of those trees, if you want developers to go in there and not put in recreational facilities, say so. Councilmember Harris said the Council can only do and say what the zoning says or else change it. Mr.Thrower said that is his point. I came here and said I wanted to talk about the bigger issue, the bigger issue of what have you got in your comprehensive plan, how does it fit with zoning? I did not want to get into all of these issues with you but you have raised some good issues. This is apparently the way we can get to you and raise the issue of the problems we are having to deal with. This problem is not going away. I will be back if you don't deal with me now. Councilmember Harris said we have to do what we have ordinances for or otherwise those of you who have bought in there will be sued and we will be paying court costs because we have not allowed what is allowed in our zoning. What we can do is put mitigating measures on what we allow there, a quality of life type of project. Mr. Thrower said he hears a lot about this suit issue. Councilmember Harris said it is a threat that hangs over the City's head all of the time. Many of our suits have gone to the Supreme Court and they have said "this is what you must allow." The only way we could change it is by changing the comprehensive plan or the land use. Even if we changed it these people would still be allowed to build there because the land use is such that allows it and also we, under the BAR, could put stipulations on what has to be part of the complex. We do not want any more land zoned as multiple use. What we have we cannot take away without asking for a suit. We would like to listen to things you would like changed. Mr.Throwersaid he too is an elected offical. The City needs comprehensive planning. He said he has attempted to take advantage of the opportunities of getting before the Council to express the concerns of the homeowners. This may not be the best form but it is the form that was provided to him. He said he was concerned about the bigger issues. The people of Sunwood are being affected. It is a question of quality. You are the people who get to make policy. Mayor Van Dusen asked Mr.Thrower if it was his opinion that the appeal was the only way of dealing with the comprehensive plan? Mr.Thrower said he guessed not. If he had come down to the City Hall and had done his homework he could have found a way to get these concerns before the City. This is the mechanism that he knew the most about. About two years ago the Sunwood Association came before the City in connection with Sunwood Phase III. At that time it came to the attention of the Council how little the recreational facilities were being taken care of by the developers. There were promises that in committee some of these issues were going to be looked at. Some teeth was going to be put into the recreation requirement. A telephone call from the City Attorney representing the Planning Commission, I assume the Council, and I don't know who all, stating they had heard my opening remarks two weeks ago that I was interested in talking about the larger issues and that if I could withdraw the appeal maybe there would be some other vehicle for pursuing these issues. I stated we were going to have a board meeting of the Sunwood Association on Sunday and would present it for consideration. I had a call today asking for the decision of the board, and I said TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 9 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Disc. on appeal to BAR approval of 54 unit apt. (Gencor). Appeal by Sunwood Condo. Assn. contd. Ord. #1448 Levying gen. taxes for City for fiscal year Jan. 1, 1988. s7Z the board did not have anything to decide on and I felt that another forum was going to be offered to us to voice our concerns with land use and the issues that have been raised. I was told there were other ways open to get to the Council other than through the appeal process. The City Attorney said the City would rather that the Mayor's office act as an intermediary or third party in bringing this consensus together as to how the homeowners of Sunwood could voice their concerns and how we could get these issues before the Council. Mayor Van Dusen said they just wanted to offer this as a way for the homeowners to present a package to the Council. Mr. Thrower said he understood that position. Council President Morgan stated she would like a historic report on whether or not EIS's have been required on similar projects in the area. She stated she did not want to make a decision on the matter this evening. She would ask the City Attorney if there was a list of the concerns that have been discussed. There is the noise issue and the traffic concerns. The answer to these concerns will determine whether or not an EIS is desired. She said she would ask that the Council not make a decision on the EIS at this time. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated the City is in the budget process and some of these big issues will have to be added if there is an appeal to be added. Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. Councilmember Bauch said he was not interested in a fullblown EIS process. He stated he was interested in some specific issues. We have not heard a report on the soils. The Planning Director says they are adequate. Have we asked anyone else if they are adequate? He stated he was willing to compromise if someone will come up with a list of answers to the concerns. *COUNCILMEMBER BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND (SIMPSON). MOVED BY MCFARLAND, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT A MITIGATED DNS BE REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT THAT WILL ADDRESS SPECIFIC ISSUES OF NOISE LEVELS BOTH WITHIN THE DWELLINGS, OUTSIDE THE DWELLINGS AND THE RECREATION AREAS, TO INCLUDE THE ISSUE OF DEALING WITH MAXIMUM RETENTION OF THE NATURAL VEGETATION AND INCLUSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL VEGETATION OR REASONABLY AND MEANINGFUL MITIGATE NOISE IMPACTS AND VISUAL IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO STIPULATE TO MORE SPECI'.FIC MITIGATING MEASURES IN COOPERATING WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE JOINT ACCESS PROBLEMS. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND ADD THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE APPLICANT ON SOILS STABILITY AND DRAINAGE. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE BAR DECISION TO DECEMBER 7. City Attorney Martin said this information can be taken back to the BAR and they can determine the requirement. *MOTION WITHDRAWN BY COUNCILMEMBER SIMPSON, WITH APPROVAL OF SECOND (DUFFIE). MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Martin read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Wash- ington levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1988, on all property, both real and personal, in said city which is subject to TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 16, 1987 Page 10 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Ord. #1448 Levying gen. taxes for City for fiscal year Jan. 1, 1988 contd. REPORTS Mayor (Interurban Ave.) EXECUTIVE SESSION 10:55 11:30 P.M. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayo ary L. Van Dusen Norma Booher, Recording Secretary taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to carry on the several departments of said City for the ensuing year as required by law by title only. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE #1448 AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Res. 1058 Fixing time for a MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE public hearing on READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. petition for vac. of public R -0 -W City Attorney Martin read a resolution of the City Council of the desc. as portion City of Tukwila, Washington, fixing the time for a public hearing of Nelson P1. E. upon a petition for vacation of certain public right -of -way within of W. Valley Hwy. the City of Tukwila generally described as a portion of Nelson Place East of the West Valley Highway by title only. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, discussed the Interurban Avenue Project and cited elevations showing the existing roadway profile. He explained that the roadway has some uniform dips. Tney cut off some of the high spots with a milling machine but it did not correct some of the low areas. They do not want to cut off any more as there will not be enough roadway material left. Mr. Woods, audience, said the street will be a mess with an overlaid mend. The condition is getting worse. It is 2" lower in front of Councilmember Harris' house. This has been going on for three years. Mayor Van Dusen said the construction on Interurban is on a 3 -year plan. The patch job is all that can be done this time until the whole street can be torn up. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT ADMINISTRATION BRING BACK APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS TO SPEND $6,500 TO TEMPORARILY FIX THE ROAD (INTERURBAN PORTION). MOTION CARRIED. City Council Council President Morgan said a budget hearing would be held on November 30, which is a fifth Monday, to expedite the budget hearings. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND ADULT ENTERTAINMENT SHOPS. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 11:30 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL AD 1 'N. MOTION CARRIED.