Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-03 Special Minutes - Valley View Estates Appeal Public Hearing (Continued)February 3, 1987 7:00 p.m. Councilman McKenna is excused from the meeting to comply with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. City's Presentation 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 reopened the Public Hearing on the appeal on the adequacy of the FEIS for the Valley View Estates Development. Council Members in attendance are: MABEL HARRIS; JOE DUFFIE; WENDY MORGAN, Council President; EDGAR BAUCH; CHARLES SIMPSON; MARILYN STOKNES. There is a Court Reporter in attendance. Attorney Haney clarified the role of hear -say evidence in this hearing. It is admissible. It is the statement of one person testified to by another person and is offered to prove the truth of what the first person said. You may consider it, but there are problems; he cautioned Council to evaluate this type of evidence carefully. Attorney Haney clarified Puget Western's role in these pro- ceedings. They are an interested observer. The EIS deals with their project. It is site specific to their site. They have a real stake in these proceedings. Since staff prepared the EIS, they will take the lead in defending the adequacy of the EIS. If Puget Western wants to make some argument on the issues, they should be allowed to do so. Attorney Haney again explained Council's responsibility in these hearings. The issue is the adequacy of the EIS which was issued January 31, 1986. Council can determine the docu- ment to be inadequate or to determine the document to be ade- quate. The standard to be applied is the Rule of Reason. If the EIS contains a reasonably thorough discussion of a pro- ject's probable significant environmental consequences, the ways in which the consequences can be mitigated and any reasonable alternatives for the project, then the EIS is ade- quate. If it fails to meet this test, it is inadequate. Dennis Robertson distributed an outline of their Monday night testimony to Council. It was labeled Exhibit 23. Mayor Van Dusen announced that the City will have 21 hours for their presentation. The public hearing will then be con- tinued to tomorrow night to hear the rebuttals. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, explained that he was not the responsible official when the EIS was prepared, however, Brad Collins, the responsible official who prepared the EIS is present to testify. He explained that Council is sitting at this session as if they were judges. Section 197 -11, SEPA Guidelines, provides that the decision of the Responsible Official is to be afforded substantial weight. The appellants must overcome this substantial weight. Council should keep in mind that the EIS is a reference document; it is a tool. It is not the final decision; it is only one of the steps. Ultimately, the Building Permit will be issued but only after the Building Official is satisfied that the requirements of the U.B.C. are met. He asked Council if the appellants presented any new adverse significant impacts that were not identified in the EIS. Was there any new infor- mation that would indicate that the EIS missed some signifi- cant environmental impacts. They don't think so. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES Page 2 2/3/87 *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Their presentation will be made by those individuals who pre- pared the EIS. Presentations will be: Brad Collins, Collins Associates -How the EIS was prepared, how air quality was addressed and how zoning pertains to this development. Jim Mac Isaac The TRANSPO Group Transportation. Jack Tuttle, Geoengineers Appendix in the EIS of the Geotechnical Report. Mr. Chabra, Dames and Moore, Consultant, hired by the City to review the draft EIS and help on preparation of the final EIS. Roy Richards, Noise, from Town, Richards Chaudier Engineers. Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila Planning Director Closing Testimony. Brad Collins, 411 1st Ave. So., #660, Seattle, addressed the matter of how the EIS was prepared. At that time he was the Responsible Official. He will also address the role of the final EIS and how to determine if it is adequate. The Valley View Estates project is one of the first done under the new administrative guidelines and scoping requirements under SEPA. City staff worked with the applicant to determine how best to prepare the EIS. The applicant then provided the services of a consultant and that consultant prepared the study and documentation to disclose the significant environ- mental impacts, mitigation measures and reasonable alter- natives to the document. The majority of the draft EIS was prepared by R.W. Thorpe and Associates and Stepan and Associates. Lengthy studies were done on the areas scoped to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Particular attention was paid to stability of the hillside, soils and hydrological studies, noise and traffic impact. After the completion of the draft EIS, the City held a public hearing. Following this hearing and the end of the comment period for the draft EIS, the Responsible Official determined that it was necessary to have some additional independent analysis done in the geotechnical area. Dames and Moore was retained to do this. A consultant was also retained to pre- pare a final EIS to include new information generated by the Dames and Moore Engineers. The final EIS was prepared and circulated for final internal review. It was then published and became the document of record. Based on it, the City was able to proceed. The first action dealt with the Board of Architectural Review. The City paid close attention to the probable adverse impacts which may have significance in the development of this project. Mr. Collins discussed what the final EIS is. It is not the decision document. It provides information necessary to identify the adverse impacts that will be significant and how they might be mitigated. The WAC 197.11.660 identifies what mitigation measures must be based on. Air quality was an issue discussed. The proximity to I -5, 405 and 518 was studied to see if the air quality would be a significant problem to future residents. The information provided by R.W. Thorpe and Associates was reviewed by staff and the information suggested that there was not a signifi- cant adverse impact. The air quality did not exceed the standard set by the State of Washington. Mitigation measures were not required. 3-3-4/9 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES Page 3 :.L 3- 2 7 *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT In regard to land use and zoning, Mr. Collins said a great deal of discussion was held on what limitations there were on the R -1 property. The City determined that parking would not be allowed in the R -1 portion. The EIS does not change this interpretation. The proposal of the applicant did not follow this interpretation. The final EIS was not the decision document; it identified the proposal and what the impacts were. The EIS is not a perfect document; it is intended to be adequate. The rule of reason has been followed very closely on all matters in this document. Mr. Beeler asked Mr. Collins if he finds that the EIS con- tains adequate information for review and decision on a per- mit. Mr. Collins said, yes, it is much more than adequate. The principal authors of the draft EIS were John Potter, R.W. Thorpe and Associates, and Ann Scales, Land Use Consultant and John Mauk, Environmental Planner. RECESS 8:30 8:40 p.m. Mayor Van Dusen called the public hearing back to order. Mr. Mac Isaac, who will testify next was not at last night's meeting so Attorney Haney swore him in. James W. Mac Isaac, 14715 Bel -Red Road, Bellevue, 98007, explained that he is a principal engineer with the TRANSPO Group. The firm specializes in traffic and transportation engineering and planning. They were retained by the appli- cant to perform traffic studies for this project and prepared reports for part of the EIS. In discussing traffic studies, he said in their opinion, from a capacity and operations point of view the streets boarding the site are low volume streets with a lot of excess capacity. The project would increase the traffic by 5% to 10 The overall traffic after the project is constructed is still well under the maximum. This is not the level of traffic that is of concern from an operations point of view, from a neighborhood perspective, it is a significant traffic volume, but operatively, safety wise, it is not a heavy load on the streets. Further, they do not see that there is a safety issue involved on the increase of traffic on Slade way. Parking has been questioned. Mr. Mac Isaac explained that the applicant has proposed to develop 182 parking spaces for 108 dwelling units. Their recommendation is to not assign spaces so that all parkers have access to any space. They recommend that all RV parking be off -site. 1.7 spaces per unit will more than adequately supply the project needs. Exhibit 24 was entered into the record. It is a chart pre- pared by the TRANSPO Group regarding the average daily traf- fic at 160th Street, west of 53rd Avenue. Exhibit 25, for the record, is a single sheet, at the top it reads "88 Percent of Workers Travel to Work in Cars." Mr. Mac Isaac said the major area of concern to them traffic operations wise in the project vicinity is the intersection of 53rd and Klickitat. It has problems now and they will exist whether or not the property is developed. it is not a capacity problem but does have a safety hazard problem. The applicant has agreed to participate in the widening of Klickitat to provide a left turn pocket at the intersection. This is a more than adequate mitigation for that intersection. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES Page 4 :32-2 -g7 *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Exhibit 26 was presented for the record by Mr. Beeler. It is titled Parking Survey and Analysis, prepared for the City of Tukwila by Jongejan /Gerrard /McNeal for the J. B. Wright Corporation. Jack Tuttle, 14221 174th N.E., Redmond, WA, 98052, is with the firm of GeoEngineers. The Valley View Estates is a very interesting and complex project from a geotechnical point of view. The EIS is not a design document; it is a document which sets the ground rules for the project. He cited Appendix A of the FEIS for a review of the history of the site. The site was a borrow area for fill material which was used in the early stages of fill for the Southcenter Shopping area and north end of Andover Industrial Park. In removing the material a slide developed. The initial stabilization measures undertaken by Puget Western included the installa- tion of a number of horizontal drains to relieve the hydrostatic pressure in the lower layer as well as some regrading of the borrow area. Next, the I -5 construction was undertaken, and WSDOT designed and installed the horizontal drain system wall. This wall and drain system was completed in August, 1968. They understand there was movement on the hillside during the 1965 earthquake. Also, there has been some surficial creeping in the R -1 area. There is no evidence of any deep seated slide movement. The deep drain system is an important facet to this project. The wall was designed to hold the hill in place; it also provides a buttress which, in their opinion, stabilizes the hillside to a level of satisfaction for the proposed project providing the items in their report are paid attention to with respect to the drain system. They have also studied the impact of the new building loads on the potential instability of the site. Building loads for this type of construction are not of significant consequence. The maintenance of the system is critical. He offered records from WSDOT on the drain system. Exhibit 27 is the Horizontal Drain and Well System by GeoEngineers, Inc. Exhibit 28 2 sheets Table B -1, Piezometric levels GeoEngineers, Inc. borings, Table B -3, Piezometric levels Group 1 WSDOT Wells Mr. Tuttle explained the information presented on the two exhibits. He said that the drains are functioning as they have been for the past several years. They do not appear to be materially less effective than they were in 1968 when they were installed. He discussed the creep type instability. The storm water detention system is designed to collect and control the exit of storm water from the site. This is most responsive to heavy rainfall. The french drain system goes around the houses and behind retaining walls and is intended to inter- cept seepage which develops through the ground at a much slower pace than runoff from rain fall. Mr. Tuttle continued his presentation discussing the adequacy of the earthquake factors used in their analysis. Councilman Duffie asked if, once they start cutting on the hillside, can they guarantee the hill will never slide? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES Page 5 ,,yt 3 -87 *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Mr. Tuttle explained that they have recommended, in their report, a very stringent set of procedures to be followed in construction to reduce the risk to a minimum. Council President Morgan asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the shallow drainage system. Mr. Tuttle said it would be located on the property and would be maintained by the project owners, in his opinion. Mr. Beeler added that the EIS identifies a couple of alter- natives to handling the storm drainage. This system will be extensively reviewed during the building permit process. Mr. Chabra, Dames and Moore, explained they were retained by the City to evaluate the geotechnical and hydrological aspects of the EIS. There findings can be found on pages 195 -209 by the EIS. Based on their review of the final EIS, they feel comfortable that GeoEngineers have addressed all the issues raised by them. Roy Richards, 2833 27th Ave. West, Seattle, is with the firm of Towne, Richards Chaudier, Noise Engineers. Their study was done in a very unbiased manner. They made every attempt to identify the noise impact associated with this project. The key elements of the noise impact study for this project are: What is the noise exposure; what are the affects of this noise on human health and welfare, and what mitigating measures are available. He referred to page 80 and explained where the noise measurements were made. The site is noisy, from a number of sources. No additional noise measurements would add significantly to the information on the project site. He referred to the EPA guidelines on page 81 and quoted from 2 EPA documents, "Noise Effects Handbook" and "Protective Noise Levels." When the measured noise levels are compared to the EPA guidelines, significant adverse noise impacts exist. The final EIS contains almost two full pages of mitigating measures. (Pages 86 and 87) RECESS: Mayor Van Dusen called the public hearing back to order. 10:20 -10:30 p.m. Mr. Beeler summarized the testimony given by the consultants. He reminded council that Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority reviewed the draft EIS and decided not to comment. From this we conclude that they found it adequate the way it was addressed. The traffic engineer has testified that the streets will handle the increased volume from the project. The WSDOT drain system is one of the most crucial parts of this proposal. It is the number one mitigation measure on the list. The surface drain system is still to be designed. There will be conditions on the building permit on the drainage system. The City has concerns about the WSDOT drainage system and the whole stability of the hillside. The liabilities for the hillside stability rests with Mr. Tuttle, GeoEngineers of record. There may be more studies required for the building permit consideration. The City hired Dames and Moore to provide an independent review as an added level of insurance that Mr. Tuttle's report was accurate. There is still more work being done on the effects of the noise level on the site. There can be mitigation measures for the inside of the buildings that would meet the EPA levels. There are also mitigation measures for the outside recreation areas. As today's Responsible Official, Mr. Beeler, said he finds the EIS adequate. There may be more information necessary when the building permit is reviewed. He concluded that no new information has been provided which indicates that adverse significant impacts were not identified in the EIS. The EIS has identified those impacts. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES Page 6 CONTINUATION 10:50 p.m. *THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Joel Haggard called on Brad Collins, the Responsible Official pursuant to SEPA. He asked him a number of questions per- taining to his position as the Responsible Official and the procedure used in preparing the EIS. Mr. Collins responded. There being no further discussion, Mayor Van Dusen continued the Public Hearing to 7 :00 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday). t .'Van Dusen, Mayor Maxine Anderson, City Clerk