Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-02 Regular MinutesFebruary 2, 1987 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Dogs running at large CONSENT AGENDA Res. #1033 Res. #1034 Authorize Mayor to execute a letter intent for King Co. concerning solid waste 7:07 p.m. Request for Executive Session TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting M I N U T E S Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Wendy Morgan, Council President, called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order in the absence of Mayor Van Dusen. She led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS; JOE H. DUFFIE; WENDY A. MORGAN, Council President; EDGAR D. BAUCH; CHARLES E. SIMPSON; MARILYN G. STOKNES; JAMES J. MCKENNA. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; RICK BEELER, Planning Director. Dwayne Traynor, 14910 58th Ave. So., commented on the signs posted throughout the City that say "Leash Law strictly enforced." Either enforce the law or take down the signs. Large animals are running all over the City. They are not licensed and are not being picked up. There are six dogs with no licenses running within a two block area. Enforce the laws. a. Approval of Minutes: January 19, 1987 b. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #28942 #29109 Current Fund City Street Arterial Street Fire Equip. Cum. Reserve Water Fund Sewer Fund Water /Sewer Construction Foster Golf Course Equipment Rental Firemen's Pension 47,324.36 857.70 709.39 2,081.94 5,857.61 2,239.55 35,346.56 334.11 1,440.27 24.00 96,215.49 c. A resolution of the City of Tukwila, Wash., accepting the turnover of a water line constructed by N.C. Machinery on the West Valley Highway. d. A resolution of the City of Tukwila, Wash., approving an easement agreement for water, sewer and recreational trail purposes between the City of Tukwila and VIP's Restaurants, Inc. and authorizing the Mayor to execute such easement agreement. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE MODEL LETTER FROM SUBURBAN CITIES REGARDING INTENT TO NEGOTIATE WITH KING COUNTY FOR THE HANDLING OF SOLID WASTE FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR VAN DUSEN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING. Mayor Van Dusen requested a 5 minute Executive Session at the end of the meeting to discuss the Police Clerks Lawsuit. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 2, 1987 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Appeals on the adequacy of the FEIS for the Valley View Estates Dev. Excuse Councilman McKenna from Hearings. *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT* Mayor Van Dusen declared the Public Hearing open on the appeals to the adequacy of the final EIS for the Valley View Estates Development. There is a Court Reporter in attendance to make a verbatim record of the hearing. Reporter is Brian Moll, Columbia Reporting, 655 Central Building, Seattle, 98104. The final EIS was issued on 1/31/86 by the City's SEPA Responsible Official, Brad Collins. Four appeals were received on the adequacy of the EIS Richard Goe, Dennis Robertson, Dharlene West, and David Morgan. Testimony during the hearing is limited to those people who have appealed or any witnesses they might like to call, City staff and any witnesses they might like to call. Testimony is limited to issues raised in the appeals. Each side will be allotted one hour and fifteen minutes to give their presentation. Tuesday night will be the rebuttals which will be one hour for each side. The burden of proof is on the appellants. Council is the decision maker in the adequacy of the final EIS. They are the judges in this appeal; the Mayor chairs the meeting, rules on objections as to evidence and votes only if there is a tie vote. The appellants will present evidence to support their appeals and staff will respond to the appellants and present evidence as to the adequacy of the EIS. Puget Western is only the interested observer in this hearing. The Public Hearing format is as follows: a. Opening b. City Attorney's Briefing c. City Staff Overview d. Appellant presentation 1* hours e. City presentation 1* hours Tuesday night: a. Rebuttal by appellant 1 hour b. Rebuttal by City 1 hour c. Closing James Haney, City Attorney, explained that, prior to the testimony, it is necessary to determine whether any Council Member has a conflict of interest or an appearance of fair- ness problem. Councilman McKenna has a problem. He sat as a member of the Board of Architectural Review on this matter when the decision was made by that body in May, 1986. The decision of the Board of Architectural Review is final, appealable to the City Council. If Councilman McKenna steps down, he will not participate and should leave the room. Attorney Haney reviewed the Appearance of Fairness questions with the City Council to determine if there were any grounds or whether anyone wished to challenge any member for an Appearance of Fairness violation. Each Council Member responded to the questions. Attorney Haney stated that any party to the proceedings has the right to challenge any member of the Council on the basis of Appearance of Fairness. The doctrine says that hearings before a City Council in a Quasi- Judicial setting must not only be fair but must also appear fair. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 2, 1987 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING Appeals on the adequacy of the FEIS for the Valley View Estates Dev. (cont.) Councilman McKenna steps down. _.5 *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT* Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges to the Appearance of Fairness. Joel Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said that, upon complete disclosure of the Council Members, they have no basis, at this time, for claiming an appearance of fairness problem with respect to any of the Council Members. There was no further responses to the question of challenge. Councilman McKenna said there is no question where he is con- cerned on the appearance of fairness so he is stepping down and will leave the Council Chambers. Attorney Haney said that without a challenge being raised, all challenges on the appearance of fairness are waived and Council may sit to consider the EIS appeals. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, entered the following list of exhibits into the record: 1. Council Agenda Synopsis 2. Issue for the Council Background 3. Alternative City Council Action 4. Environmental Impact Statement Information 5. Summary of Appeal Issues 6. Decision Outline 7. Staff Report 8. Appeal Documents Dennis Robertson letter dated February 14, 1986 9. Appeal Documents Dennis Robertson letter dated May 27, 1986 10. Appeal Documents David Nadine Morgan letter dated February 18, 1986 11. Appeal Documents David Nadine Morgan letter dated May 29, 1986 12. Appeal Documents Dharlene West letter dated May 29, 1986 13. Appeal Documents Richard Goe letter dated February 14, 1986 14. Appeal Documents Richard Goe letter dated June 1, 1986 15. Appeal Documents George A. Kresovich letter dated May 29, 1986. 16. Environmental Impact Statement 17. Memorandum dated 01/26/87 from Jim Haney, City Attorney, to Mayor Van Dusen and Council Members 18. Prehearing Brief dated 02/02/87 from Joel Haggard, Attorney, for the applicant, Puget Western Attorney Haney explained that Exhibit 18 is a legal memoran- dum from Mr. Haggard indicating the applicant's response to what he believes to be the issues in this appeal. Council President Morgan requested, as a matter of procedure, that this document be distributed after the appellant's testimony is finished. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Ave. So., appellants, commented they have not had a chance to study Mr. Haggard's documents. The City has to determine that the material is limited to appellant's testimony; there should be no new issues. They oppose the document being submitted at this time. The exhibit was marked #18, but not distributed to Council. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 2, 1987 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING Appeals on the adequacy of the FEIS for the Valley View Estates Dev. (cont.) Appellant's Testimony *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT* The Tukwila Municipal Code requires that all testimony in these proceedings must be under oath. Attorney Haney asked all those who are testifying this evening to rise, raise their right hand and respond to the oath. Attorney Haney incorporated the information given by Mr. Beeler up to this point under the oath. Dick Goe, 5112 So. 163rd Pl., Tukwila, addressed the Council. They are here this evening to talk about the adequacy of the final Environmental Impact Statement issued by the City Planning Staff on the matter of the Valley View Estates pro- ject. He pointed out that the community has had a vital interest in this and adjacent property over the years. This piece of property was acquired by Puget Western as the result of a landslide resulting from a borrow pit at the toe of the hill on which this property is located. At the time this property was acquired, it was a fairly peaceful section of the hill that had an encroaching residential area coming down the hill to it. There was no freeway. There was no Southcenter, however, the borrow pit was created to start the land fill for the Southcenter project. The City has bene- fited greatly by this development. When Washington State Department of Transportation undertook the development of the I -5 and 518 corridors, they found massive engineering problems in stabilizing the hillside. Once the corridors were developed, other problems were created. They are going to address some of the problems that are environnmentally detrimental to the neighborhood. These problems were brought up at the public hearings when the draft EIS was issued. It has been a problem for the com- munity to keep the City on its toes in dealing with matters of finite interest in these delicate environmental matters. They were extremely disappointed when the final EIS was issued and matters of great concern were not addressed ade- quately or discussed completely or mitigations even considered for them. Over the years they have consulted with attor- neys, engineers and technicians who are experts in their field and again have experts available. Council is sitting in judgment on whether or not the environmental impacts were reasonably disclosed and reasonably discussed. The appellants are going to point out that some of the environ- mental concerns have not been adequately disclosed nor ade- quately discussed. Basically, the draft EIS was prepared by the applicant under the SEPA Guidelines and directions of the Planning Director who was the Responsible Official. The Planning Director, after holding a public hearing determined the draft EIS was inadequate and took it under the City's supervision. More information was added and areas were bolstered and the final EIS was issued. It was not done quickly nor haphazardly. It is a responsible document that overlooks some issues. It is their position to present the areas they feel inadequate, show Council why, present the information given them by the consultants they have contacted and ask Council to direct the Planning Director to select qualified people in the fields of their concerns to give independent qualified techinical information which is unbiased by the applicant or the appellant. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 2, 1987 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING Appeals on the adequacy of the FEIS for the Valley View Estates Dev. (cont.) 1. Land Use and Air Pollution 2. Parking and Transportation 3. Sidewalks (So. 160th) 4. Noise 5. Engineering Aspects *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT* Mr. Goe explained that tonight they are going to deal with: The site is located in the northeast corner of Slade Way and 53rd Ave. So., west of Klickitat Drive. Bob Craine, 5105 So. 163rd P1., dealt with the land use impacts and air pollution aspects of this project. He referred to specific pages in the FEIS and explained why they are incorrect or inadequate. He cited page 89, paragraph 4 and explained that the plans to develop the R -1 area into the children's play area, parking and access facilities is a violation of the zoning codes and is being protested. He submitted a copy of a letter from Dennis L. Robertson to Rick Beeler dated February 2, 1987, as Exhibit #19 and quoted from the letter. Mr. Craine discussed several items from pages 91 and 92 of the FEIS. He stated that on page 92, it merely states that the site plan provides a landscaped buffer along the western edge." The requirement for the extent of the buffer is described. Mr. Craine presented Exhibit #20. It is a series of photo- graphs taken from the area of the post office in Southcenter and shows the hillside as it is today. He placed a trans- parency over the photo to illustrate how the apartments would look from the valley floor. The visual impact is signifi- cant. The structures, while qualifying as 3 story units, will appear to be visually 5 story units from the south, east, and north. In addressing air quality, from pages 62 -65, Mr. Craine said the air quality impacts and mitiga- tions in the FEIS are based on outdated and inappropriate studies. Mr. Goe reminded Council that this development falls under the old zoning code and under new SEPA guideline procedures. He reviewed Mr. Craine's presentation on land use and air pollution. a. There is improper use of R -1 zoning b. Multi family precedence c. Have to have mitigations from non conforming use d. Need to address the lawsuit bonds e. Air quality data report is outdated The only way to deal with this is by further investigation on the part of the City. David Morgan, 5190 So. 166th, presented information on parking and transportation issues on and around the site. He cited particular pages from the EIS and explained why parking and street issues have not been properly addressed. The FEIS says that 1.5 parking spaces per unit plus 2.0 overflow spaces are to be provided. This meets the Tukwila Building Code established 12/21/70. The new code requires two parking spaces per unit. Some of the traffic volumes used on page 98 are from data established in 1983 -it was not current enough and should be updated. He concluded that the City should exercise vision and foresight, not depend on out of date data and codes. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 2, 1987 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING Appeals on the adequacy of the FEIS for the Valley View Estates Dev. (cont.) *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT* Mr. Goe reviewed Mr. Morgan's presentation on parking and transportation. a. The old code does not meet the necessity of on -site parking needs. b. How do you deal with off -site parking. c. Traffic volume data is outdated. d. Improvements are needed to Slade Way and 54th Ave. So. Additional current studies are required on these issues. Dick Goe discussed the problems with So. 160th. The street runs east, west and meets the property site about mid -way. Environmentally, there is the matter of safety and welfare of the people living here, particularly the children. Potential mitigations are to widen the streets and provide walkways. The City needs engineering studies, but mostly good common sense about what is reasonable to have a person travel on. We need some consideration to this transportation corridor. Dharlene West, 5212 So. 164th, noted that the FEIS discloses the excessive noise levels in regard to the exterior recreation levels but does not adequately discuss the reasonable mitigations. Mrs. West read from pages 22 and 24 and quoted more information from pages 79, 80, 82 -88, 132, 133, 136 and 137. Not mentioned in this FEIS are some of the other effects of high noise levels. Placing the children's play area behind the buildings will only reduce the Ldn from over 70 dBA to over 67 dBA. This constitutes a clear safety factor which has not been disclosed as such or discussed at all. It was concluded that an independent miti- gation analysis is required. Mr. Goe said there are reference sources which provided information to submit to Council to help you make the deci- sion that what you really need to do is get an independent analysis of the noise and what is required to mitigate noise in the exterior recreation area for adults, children's play area, mitigations for the interior noise in the apartments. In the design proposed by the applicant, those walls facing east are proposed to have exterior decks. The exterior deck use submits the occupant to the same noise levels as the exterior recreation area. It is important to understand that the health hazards from noise are not unlike the health hazards from smoking. We are still learning about them. Dennis Robertson spoke on the engineering aspects of this site. He believes that the FEIS is flawed in three critical areas -in the Earth, Geology and Soils sections. He quoted from the EIS, page 145, letter from the Corp of Engineers, and read from the top of page 57 concerning slope instability which could affect the property. Mr. Robertson referred to page 200 about the WSDOT drainage system. It appears an appropriate design for a highway system; it may not afford the higher level of protection against instability that would potentially be associated with a housing development on a potentially unstable hillside. Mr. Robertson submitted a letter dated August 23, 1985, to Joel Haggard from William G. Boland, Assistant Attorney General as Exhibit 21. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 2, 1987 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING Appeals on the FEIS for the Valley View Estates Dev. (cont.) *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT* Page 57 concerned the mechanism of shallow, seated movements. Mr. Robertson questioned the lack of a pre- funded plan to ensure adequate monitoring and maintenance of the drainage facilities. Page 54 deals with the evaluation of earthquake conditions, and he submitted Exhibit 22, Seismic Risk Map for Puget Sound, Washington, sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey. He concluded that it is possible that a very serious error is being made. The only choice that Council has is to hire an independent expert to evaluate these issues. Attorney Haney asked Council to keep in mind that there is no authentication to the documents being submitted as exhibits. Mr. Goe reminded Council that if they did not bring up something tonight, it doesn't mean that it isn't a matter of concern. It is that, in contacting the experts, it did not become a major issue. For Council in their deliberations and in dealing with staff, they are a necessary part of your concerns. Mr. Goe reviewed Mr. Robertson's report. The WSDOT system is designed for WSDOT, not for anything else. Dependent upon the WSDOT system is a problem between the applicant and WSDOT if this project goes forward. The guarantee must be in place before anything can happen. It is important for Council to ensure that the analysis of these things is properly done. The maintenance plan for the surface drain systems is something that has to be dealt with and has not been. The earthquake analysis is a matter of very important concern. It is essential that Council direct staff to come up with a seismologist analysis. Mr. Goe reminded Council they were dealing with: Land Use and Air Pollution Parking and Transportation Sidewalks (So. 160th) Noise Engineering Aspects He reviewed each of the items discussed by his panel members. During their presentation, they have been dealing with the areas in the EIS that were not reasonably disclosed and not reasonably discussed. Since they are not experts in these fields, it is important for Council to direct staff to deal with these issues by obtaining further analysis and further studies so that the environmental impact is adequately assessed and that the mitigations that are required are ade- quate and reasonable. The issues that have been brought to your attention have considerable impact for the City and its citizens in the future if this project goes in and these pro- blems are not addressed. He requested Council give it their full attention and support. Attorney Haney cautioned Council about relying on hear -say evidence. Joel Haggard, representing Puget Western, the owner of the property and applicant, said his clients have a real stake in these proceedings. They are not disinterested and are not going to sit back and not have their experts available to answer questions. As the attorney for the applicant, they have prepared a Prehearing Brief to acquaint Council with their viewpoint as to what the legal issue is. The issue is as a matter of law, is the FEIS adequate. That is all. The brief is offered for your advice and your information. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 2, 1987 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNMENT 11:05 p.m. Mayor Van Dusen recessed the hearing to 7:00 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday) night. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE POLICE CLERK'S LAWSUIT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AND BACK INTO THE REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT FILED BY THE POLICE CLERKS AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Gar Tan Dusen, Mayor M Anderson, City Clerk