Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-12 Special Minutes - Valley View Estates Appeal Public Hearing (Continued)February 12, 1987 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing continued from 2/4/87 Council Members Present Officials Councilman McKenna is excused from the meeting to comply with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. 7:20 7:35 p.m. COUNCIL Deliberation on the adequacy of the EIS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED M I N U T E S THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Van Dusen called the Public Hearing, continued from February 4, 1987, to order. MABEL J. HARRIS; JOE H. DUFFIE; WENDY A. MORGAN, Council President; EDGAR D. BAUCH; CHARLES E. SIMPSON; MARILYN G. STOKNES. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney; RICK BEELER, Planning Director; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. There is a Court Reporter in attendance to record a verbatim record of the meeting. Attorney Haney commented that tonight Council is to consider the testimony they have heard. If they find, on any par- ticular issue, that the EIS fails to identify a significant probably adverse environmental impact or that it fails to deal in a reasonable manner with mitigation measures or with alternatives, they would find the EIS to be inadequate. If they find that it reasonably discusses and discloses, they will find it adequate. He reviewed the questions raised by Councilman Bauch at the end of the last meeting. The questions concerning the potential liability to the City in connection with the issuance of this permit or the enforce- ment of permit conditions should be discussed in an executive session. It is not a matter to be considered in the adequacy of the EIS. Question 1 is, whether staff, in future con- sideration of this project, could take into account the material presented in the EIS appeal. The answer is that if the material relates to environmental issues and, as long as the impact to which that information relates has been iden- tified in the EIS, staff can go ahead and consider it. Question 2 is whether the City Council could consider the record made in the EIS appeal when considering the appeal of the BAR decision. The answer is that the W.A.C. regulations and the statute on appeals of EIS issues provides that that appeal is to be consolidated with the agency's substantive decision on the proposal. Council has heard the EIS appeal first so they can make a decision on it and see if they will then move on to the BAR issues. Council can take into account the record of the EIS appeal to the extent that it bears on the BAR criteria and on the issues raised by the appellants in the BAR appeals. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO HEAR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO COUNCILMAN BAUCH'S QUESTIONS ON LIABILITY. MOTION CARRIED. (15 minute recess was taken for the executive session) Mayor Van Dusen called the public hearing back to order. Mayor Van Dusen stated that all the testimony, rebuttals and closings have been given by the appellants and the City. The testimony portion of the public hearing has been closed. Land Use and Air Pollution: Council Member Harris felt the proper use of the R -1 zone is for single family homes so a place for children to play would be a proper use. The use for a driveway in the R -1 zone is TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL February 12, 1987 Page 2 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT questionable. The City was involved in a lawsuit at one time when R -1 zoned property was used for access to an apartment complex. The Court ruled that driveway use was permitted. Attorney Haney stated that the question of whether or not the project violates the zoning code is not a question of ade- quacy of the EIS. Staff made an administrative interpreta- tion when the project first came in. They felt the children's play area in the R -1 zone was similar to an allowed use of public playground or park. They are still looking into this. The City will not approve a project that is improperly in the R -1 zone. Council President Morgan pointed out two issues she had discussed with the City Attorney. Does the EIS, by its design, address only those issues which are related to the construction of the buildings or is it a long term statement. The answer was that it is a statement of the impact of the buildings over the long haul. Are we concerned with the environmental impacts, not only that the building of this project creates and the number of people it will bring to that site creates on the environment surrounding it? The answer is yes. We are also concerned with the effects of the environment on the people who live there. She has used both of these measurements in her assessment of statements made by the appellants and in reading the EIS. She agreed with Mr. Crain that the 1975 data on air pollution in the EIS is outdated; a more recent study would be helpful. Second, she noted much of the information provided about air quality related to the effects of the complex upon the surrounding area. When she tried to look at it in reverse, there was information lacking. Council Member Harris noted that the state no longer monitors the air; unless they do, there is no other way. This was disclosed adequately. If the increase of traffic is adverse to this project, it is adverse to the whole area. Council President Morgan felt the EIS did not actually miti- gate the issues of multi family development being built on the boarder of single family homes. She felt the EIS needed to talk more about precedents. The EIS does not disclose what the development is- -needs to be much clearer about this and about the precedents issue. Council Member Harris quoted from Page 91 and said it is very clear. She may not like having this development there, but it has been fully disclosed. Another Council could come along and, under pressure, change the zoning. It is disclosed. Councilman Simpson agreed. It is a political decision that could happen twenty years from now. We have no guarantees what will happen a year from now. Attorney Haney commented that whether or not the ownership is by one individual or by a number of individuals in a con- dominium association is not necessarily an environmental impact unless you can find from the evidence presented to you that there will be some effect on the elements set forth in the EIS. Some place further down the line the actual use might be specified and that new information may create an environmental impact. There could be a supplemental EIS required at that time or an addendum. -5 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL February 12, 1987 Page 3 Parking and Transportation: THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Member Stoknes said that she agreed with what the appellants said, but it seems that the EIS has dealt with the issue of traffic and parking adequately. Council Member Harris has trouble believing that 12 parking spaces are adequate, however, the information furnished on the parking spaces in other complexes in the City indicates that this is adequate. Councilman Bauch noted that the exhibit does not show how many cars are parking on the street. Councilman Simpson noted what Council is dealing with is a plan that comes under the parking requirements of the old code, 12 parking spaces. This is what we have to deal with. Council President Morgan, during previous testimony, had asked if they questioned the tenants of the buildings about the parking, and she was told they talked to management. She felt you get a different answer depending on who you talk to. She found the parking issue lacking. Council President Morgan said her objections to the on -site parking is to encourage the increase in stalls per unit to prevent off -site parking. Councilman Bauch noted that you have to recognize that this EIS was overseen by the Planning Staff. The Planning Staff knows what any development has to do as far as widening the street, sidewalks, etc. The appellants did talk about the street being narrow, but they did fail to address the development that will have to take place, not as a mitigation measure, but as a development measure. This is the place where they address the traffic light at Klickitat. Participation in the light is mentioned in the EIS. RECESS Mayor Van Dusen called the public hearing back to order. 8:35 8:45 p.m. Sidewalks (So. 160th): Councilman Simpson said he has no problem with the EIS as stated. There are other rules and regulations that govern this. It adequately addressed the permit procedure. As far as hillsliding, it was adequately addressed by two geologists. Council Member Harris said that the mitigating measures did say that by City ordinance, sidewalks will be required along the site; roadway shoulders will be widened, and a gravel path or sidewalk could be provided on the east side. It has been addressed. Council President Morgan felt the EIS did not deal adequately with pedestrians walking from this project to Southcenter. We have not made provisions in the planning for sidewalks along Klickitat going to Southcenter. We have stops that go down to a shoulder, but this complex will add 100 or more people who may choose to walk. The EIS makes no safety pro- visions for pedestrians walking to Southcenter. Council Member Harris said the EIS, if it is an adverse effect, would have to give the mitigating measures, and she questioned whether the project should pay for sidewalks to Southcenter. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL February 12, 1987 Page 4 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Noise: Council had no comment on the issue of noise. Engineering Aspects: Councilman Duffie expressed concern about the process for the development. Will there be an inspector on the job? Will they be allowed to work at night? Will they be allowed to go in and cut all the trees down? Mayor Van Dusen said it is impossible to keep an inspector on the job 24 hours a day. Councilman Duffie further expressed concern over the drain system. It needs control. How do we relieve the City from not being responsible. Mayor Van Dusen said that many conditions will have to be on the permit for the project. Councilman Duffie said he has noticed the street in that area is already shifting; it has been patched all the way across the street. He does not believe this was addressed ade- quately in the EIS. Attorney Haney explained that Council should look at this as the Building Official in deciding what conditions might be placed on the project. Would the EIS give you enough infor- mation so you could have an idea of what the project impacts were in that area or what mitigation measures you had to choose from. If you can say, yes, to this, then you should say the EIS is adequate. Councilman Bauch said he can appreciate the concerns the appellants have in this matter. We have been told that the Final Environmental Impact Statement is not the final deci- sion document, but we have been told that before. We have talked about air pollution and noise and there is nothing we can do about them. It is hard to separate the surrounding effects from that which the site will create. If we said this was a serious problem in this case, we would have to stop all development. Soils is another matter; it concerns me. On Page 145 of the appendix in a letter from the Corps of Engineers, they question whether or not it is advisable to develop homesites on this landslide -prone site. In Exhibit 21 the Office of the Attorney General noted the unstable area and any development on the hillside must be at the appli- cant's own risk. Insurance companies won't insure for earth- quakes. The concerns on the R -1 area have been answered by the City Attorney. This is on -going and does not have to be addressed in the EIS. It just has to be done correctly. It is good that it has been brought out. The noise, traffic, and air pollution are all impacts of the location. The loca- tion is driven by the market place. The applicant feels they are going to be able to sell or rent these units. If we make even the smallest change in the EIS, it has to go back to the Planning Commission for another hearing. I don't think the items that have been discussed here would change the decision of the BAR. We still have the appeal on the decision of the Board of Architectural Review before it goes through the building permit process where additional screening will be done. This matter will not be settled by adding a couple of more appendixes to the EIS or by adding more traffic data. It will be determined at the BAR hearing. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL February 12, 1987 Page 5 MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS ADEQUATE. MOTION CARRIED WITH MORGAN AND DUFFIE VOTING NO. Mayor Van Dusen stated that Council finds the EIS to be ade- quate, and he closed the Public Hearing. Attorney Haney offered that he will now prepare Findings and conclusions based upon Council's deliberations. Public Hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m. 'Gary(.e. Van Dusen, Mayor THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT „pc{---- Maxine Anderson, City Clerk