Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-25 Special MinutesTUKWILA CITY COUNCIL September 25, 1995 Tukwila City Hall 8:00 p.m. Council Chambers SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting to order. ROLL CALL JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; STEVE MULLET; PAM CARTER. Councilmember excused MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JIM HAGGERTON FROM TONIGHT'S MEETING. OFFICIALS JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; STEVE LANCASTER, DCD Director; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; TOM KEEFE, Fire Chief; RANDY BERG, Public Works Project Manager; DOUG MICHEAU, Public Works Coordinator. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS None. OLD BUSINESS Deliberations: Jackie Dempere's appeal on new fire station C.I.P. Briefing MOTION CARRIED TO DENY THE APPEAL. MOTION CARRIED TO ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT AS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. Verbatim minutes of the Appeal of SEPA, BAR and CUP decisions approving construction of new fire station located at 4202 South 115th Street (Continued from 9/18/95), were distributed to the Council on 10/5/95 (Copy Attached). Alan Doerschel, Finance Director, presented to the Council the Proposed Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Plan (1996 2001). He informed them that on August 28, the Council and Administration met to discuss the Operations and Maintenance aspect of the City's General Fund. It was agreed that there would be no reduction in services to the residential and business customers. He said the demands for basic services represent the City's first priority. A slow down in the economy, resulting in a modest 3 -5% increase in sales tax revenues, coupled with a concurrent decrease of assessed valuation and resulting reduction in property tax revenues, has further reduced our ability to tackle the pressing issues before the City crime, neighborhood Special Meeting Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 2 C.I.P Briefing (Cont'd) enhancements, residential street improvements, water /sewer capital projects, economic development, etc. He said though 1996 appears to be a year in which we can maintain the 3% inflationary increase, the future may not be equally as low. Conditions exist in the elimination of some one time expenses that have held the 1996 Operations and Maintenance growth to a lower than expected rate. Councilmember Duffie: Duffie commented that the City must do something about the Sound System in the Council Chambers. The system as it is makes it virtually impossible for the audience hear. The reception is very poor. Mayor Rants responded that he has already earmarked money in the 1996 Budget to address this issue. REPORTS Mayor Rants reported he had attended a Family Wage Job Forum last week, sponsored by the Metropolitan /King County Council. The discussion focused on tax incentives that have gone wrong in the state. Hernandez reported she had attended the Human Services Round Table meeting last Thursday where they discussed new funding sources for affordable housing. Hernandez and Carter attended a Chamber of Commerce reception for tour guides from Anchorage, Alaska. Carter reported she had also attended the Foster Community Club meeting where Ron Waldner, Police Chief, gave a presentation on policing on Pacific Hwy. South. She also stated that members of the Trailer Park was represented at the meeting; and it appears that a reporter from the Highline Times is going to write an article about the Block Watch group there. McFarland reported on several police related incidents that happened this past weekend, i.e a drive -by shooting, burglary and a DWI. He updated the Council on upcoming Bid Openings: CBD Sidewalk; 51st Avenue South and Macadam Bridges. McFarland also shared photos of a couple of coyotes that had been caught in snare traps in Crystal Springs Park. The snares are usually not harmful to the animals (90% of the animals that are caught in the Special Meeting Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 3 Reports (Cont'd) ADJOURNMENT 10:30 p.m. snares survive) and are set by a professional trapper certified by the state. The trapper is obligated to report to the state the number of animals that are captured and where the release points are. Hernandez shared some concerns of citizens who had complained about the number cars exceeding the speed limit on 160th since the completion of street improvements. The citizens would like to see more police presence in that area. They would also like to see the City's leash laws enforced and something done about sirens of police cars who are in hot pursuit on 144th. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ADJOU'. THE SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. u. &4.h J r 1V. Rants, May Celia Square, Depuf City Clerk Quasijudicial Hearing: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) decisions and the SEPA MDNS dated June 11, 1995, approving the construction of a proposed fire station located at 4202 S. 115th Street. Appellant: Jackie L. Dempere Councilmembers Present: Duffie, Hernandez, Ekberg, Robertson, Mullet, Carter Councilmembers Absent: Haggerton Verbatim Council Deliberations of September 25, 1995 Mayor Rants: I have received a Memorandum of Certification from the City Clerk who has examined the documents of the appellant's memorandum in support of the Notice of Appeal. I would make a motion that we enter this into the records of last week's public hearing. Is there a Second? Hernandez: Second. Rants: It's Moved and Seconded. Is there any discussion? Robertson: Well, wait a minute. Don't we have to make the motion? Rants: No. It's a procedural motion. I can make that. Any further discussion? Rants: All in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO ENTER THE MEMORANDUM OF CERTIFICATION FROM THE CITY CLERK INTO THE RECORDS OF LAST WEEK'S PUBLIC HEARING. Rants: This becomes Exhibit One. And, after all that being said, it's time for Council deliberations on the Appeal. Pam Carter: Don't we need to move to enter the materials that staff presented, officially, for the record.? Rants: I don't know if you do or not, Pam. That was entered at the time of the public hearing. Mr. McFarland. do we need to do that? City Administrator John McFarland I think, to be safe, I would do that. But it was part of the former record when submitted. It's not going to hurt. Carter: I MOVE TO ENTER THE STAFF REPORT AS PART OF THE RECORD.* Duffie: There is one thing I would like to say. Since I was not at the meeting, I will not be participating in tonight's deliberations. Rants: You wish to withdraw because you were not here? Duffie: That's correct. Robertson: I'LL SECOND IT AND ADD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND SAY THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1995, AND THAT'S WITH A COVER LETTER TO MAYOR RANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL; FROM STEVE LANCASTER, DCD DIRECTOR WITH ATTACHMENTS A, B, C, D, E, AND F. Rants: Alright. That's the motion. Would you like to second that? Carter: Yes. Rants: Is there any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, nay. *MOTION CARRIED. Rants: Are there any other pieces of evidence we need to enter. (There were none.) Alright, where would you like to begin tonight? Robertson: As a procedural thing, I would suggest that we go to page 4 of the September 14 Staff Report and use that. It raises seven (7) issues. I think the easiest way of dealing with the actual appeal is to take it issue by issue as outlined in the Staff Report. At least it summarizes the particular issues. Rants: Issue by issue? Carter: I understand why you're saying that, and that's a good idea, but I think we also need to look at, as part of that, the BAR and CUP guidelines because the appellant presented additional information, in written form, to us that isn't included in the Staff Report. Robertson: Okay. But all those guidelines would be, in this case, is a way to analyze the issues and materials presented. But in understanding what the points are if we use the Staff Report- -for instance, Item #1 is: "The inadequate disclosure and lack of disclosure of the adverse impacts associated with the proposal -that was the very first issue raised by the appellant. If we take those one -by -one and see if there's a position on the Council, that would probably be the simplest. Hernandez: Should I assume, then, that you would follow this discussion as the criteria for reviewing? Robertson: We could do that, or the neatest thing to do would be to put a motion on the table. For instance, if we took the first one looking at page 4 -a motion would be: I MAKE A MOTION THAT I FOUND NOTHING IN THE WRITTEN OR VERBAL MATERIAL THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE POINT THAT THERE WAS AN INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE OR LACK OF DISCLOSURE OF THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL. 2 That would be a motion. Rants: And if the Council agrees, then you've set aside the first issue. Robertson: Yes. Then we would discuss it after it was on the table and discuss the issues associated with that particular motion, then take the next one and proceed through it logically. Carter: I would agree doing it that way, but then I would also like to look at not necessarily point by point, but the BAR criteria and the CUP criteria. Robertson: But we look at them in light of the issue then we discuss what's on the table. Okay. So then to start it off, I will make the first motion. The motion is: WE DID NOT FIND ANYTHING IN THE WRITTEN OR VERBAL ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE AND LACK OF DISCLOSURE OF THE ADVERSE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL. Mullet: Seconded. Rants: Moved and Seconded. Is there a discussion? EkBerg: I would like to ask a question of staff, if I may, if this is the time to do that. Robertson: It is. 3 EkBerg: Slopes stability, this could be Gary or whoever might be the person that can represent the Geotechnical Engineers, if they are not here today specifically give me a moment to gather my thoughts about some questions I have written down here. I was curious about, I'm looking at Attachment A, Page 4, 2b -The location of a fire station a site where the access may be cut off and equipment locked in the case of natural disaster -the sentence, in response to that, that reads: "The proposed fire station site is not unusually susceptible to the potential effects of earthquake or other natural disaster." I was wondering what type of soil stability or borings were done to validate that sentence? Randv Berg: My name is Randv Berg. I'm Project Manager for the City of Tukwila and I swore in at the last meeting. Is there a requirement that I Rants: The public hearing is closed. Now it's time for Council questions. Berg: Okay. I would like clarification on what you're asking for and where it is to be found. EkBerg: Randy, can you tell me, please, what provided you the conclusion or the City the conclusion of the geological stability of that site? Berg: We hired a Geotech Engineer to study the stability of the site. He not only addressed the potential for liquifaction on the site, which was our major concern, he also addressed the stability of the adjoining hillside. In the geotech report, he said there was a possibility of debris fall from the hillside and that such a fall could be expected to be contained within 50 feet of the toe of the hill. And the fire station is located more than 50 feet away. What we have located within 50 feet is the access driveway to get in to the station, not to get out of the station. So in no case would it affect the ability of the emergency vehicles to leave the site or to response to an emergency. EkBerg: How would an emergency vehicles leave the site if the hillside slipped in the southerly direction. Berg: If the hillside slipped in the southerly direction in the direction of the river, then they would have to proceed north, along 42nd, much as they would now if they were leaving the existing fire station. And then they would have to cross the 42nd Street bridge and proceed... excuse me, they'd have to proceed south on 42nd, cross the 42nd Street bridge and then north on Interurban, much as they would now. Rants: Okay. Joan. Hernandez: Randy, was there a time that this information contained any documents that was made available to the public at a public hearing? Berg: Which document? Hernandez: The documents that are listed in the environmental checklist, and the geotech report, and the environmental site assessment, and the wetland report summary. Berg: I'm not aware of, at any time, that that information was in a public hearing. Rants: Steve. Lancaster: I can answer that question. Those documents would have been available for the public at the time that the Determination of Non Significance was issued, which was June 11, 1995. Hernandez: So all of this information would have been available, then, to the public, if they would have asked? Lancaster: That's correct. Rants: Dennis. Robertson: I guess, then, that I'm in favor of the motion. I've studied the material, and basically I found that the appellant did not offer substantial evidence to support her assertion that the disclosure of adverse impacts was inadequate. I found nothing in the argument to substantiate the position was inadequate. Rants: Is there any further discussion? (No further discussion..) 4 Rants: Then we will vote on the motion which is to deny Number one #11. Rants: All in favor of that denial, say aye. Those opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ITEM #1 WITH EKBERG VOTING NO. Rants: So we are moving to Number Two #21. Robertson: The second one, the Staff Report reads: "Inadequate conditions and lack of conditions imposed upon the project to mitigate adverse impacts, including but not limited to: a) the failure to require a traffic study where this project will encroach a Scenic Drive Road and protect the safety of Tukwila residents and non residents who use the roadway for work or pleasure." So the motion I would make is that THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON THE PROJECT WERE ADEQUATE TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS, INCLUDING TRAFFIC. Mullet: Second. Rants: Conditions were adequate. Robertson: Yes. First off, as far as traffic is concerned, the existing fire station is only a short distance down the road from the proposed new location. So there didn't seem to me to be any substantial difference in the location as far as traffic is concerned. And nothing I've seen in the study so far, traffic along that road in the eight years I've been on the Council, indicates that that road has any kind of a traffic problem, at all. Rants: Any further discussion? EkBerg: I just wanted to validate the statement within Conditional Use and BAR document on Page 3, Attachment D, that says "the applicant is required, through SEPA conditions, to accommodate the future bicycle path within the development plans for the fire station. My question is how would that be accomplished. 5 EkBerg: I'd like to ask the question regarding how the existing, proposed station location would augment or supplement a non motorized trail access to the property? Berg: First of all, we are applying for fire station here, not a bike trail. And after reading the memorandum of the appeal, it was hard to make that distinction. 42nd, which is used as a driveway to access the station, is a public right -of -way. It could be used as a bike trail or a public right -of -way or improved as a road. If it was, in the future, improved as a road, then it would be a right turn into the fire station from the improved 42nd Street right -of -way. Nothing that we have done has precluded the possibility of a bike trail through the site. I think they will find when it's time to develop the bike trail that the problem will be getting past the wetland in the back of the site, not getting around the fire station. We are basically in favor of a bike trail through the site. But as I said, the problem will arise when they try to get around the wetland, which covers the entire back half of the site. We certainly can find a route for a bike trail passed the site. And if you would like, I'll bring the site plan forward and show you a couple of ways of addressing getting a bike trail passed the station. Berg: Okay, can I bring the site plan forward? EkBerg: I'd like to see it, yes. Berg shows the site plans to all councilmembers and the audience then proceed as follows: we have 115th turning into 42nd here, and the fire station building here. There's a wetland back here; there's a possibility of a bike trail within the 42nd Street right -of -way, which is a 40 foot right -of -way in which we are using approximately half of it with there 20 foot driveway. So, we could either accommodate a bike trail on the surface of the driveway, if that would deem to be appropriate or we would have to build it into the hillside, getting it around the property or getting it around the driveway and we would provide property back here. Again, the hard part for the trail isn't going to be getting passed the fire station. The hard part for a bike trail is going to be getting passed the wetlands in the back of the site. And there isn't anything we can do about that because the wetland is there. This is the wetland boundary. It extends from one end of the site to the other and covers the entire back half of the site. EkBerg: If I can understand, for clarity purposes, two options: one is to potentially use the existing or the proposed driveway as a surface for a potential bike, pedestrian, non motorized vehicle path; the other one would be go further to the west into the hillside. Berg: Right. The other one would require a retaining wall because you would be cutting into the hill. The amount of cut would be approximately the same as the width of the bike trail. If you determined you needed an 8 foot bike trail, you would need an 8 foot retaining wall because the slope at that point is about one to one. EkBerg: One to one relation? Berg: About one to one. EkBerg: Is your first option a legal option? Can a non motorized pedestrian trail be placed on a drive way? Motorized driveway? EkBerg: Well it's not, strictly speaking, a driveway in that it's on a right -of -way. I believe that, possibly, Public Works might be better able to answer the legalities of the use of the use of a public right -of -way. EkBerg: Then I'd like to hear from them. 6 Ross Earnst: I'm Ross Earnst, Director of Public Works. We use our rights -of -way for sidewalks, which are pedestrian facilities. We've also along Interurban, for instance, used our right -of -way for a trail on the golf course, which is right behind the sidewalk. They are separated from the traveled way as far as the street is concerned. This particular site design included building in effect half the street along the right -of -way with a access then a right turn into the site. So should a trail be desired along that right -of -way and we could work the wetland issues, it could be constructed along the right of way. It's nothing to preclude non motorized facilities along a right -of -way. The separation stand point between what's necessary for the fire trucks and the non motorized vehicles is something that will have to be included in the design of the trail at the time we did it. Once we build that trail, in addition to the wetland, we also would end up on private property. So we have several other hurdles in building it through that area. It's desirable from the stand point of missing the East Marginal/Boeing Access Road traffic maze that we have in there. So should that trail become a reality, we would look at how best to fit it in. We did the design on the right -of -way so as not to preclude future trails, if that's what's desired along that right -of -way. Rants: Thank you, Mr. Earnst. Any further questions on Item #2? The motion was that THE CONDITIONS WERE ADEQUATE TO ENSURE SAFETY, and as a result, item #2 would be denied. All in favor of that motion say aye. Those opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ITEM #2. Rants: Item #3. Robertson: Okay. Item #3 reads (that's off of page 5), remember the document was missing that page, we had it given to us. Let me read Item #3 to you. "Inadequate application of the existing Tukwila's Tree Ordinance. Plus cumulative no, I want to go back. I want to talk about 2b. which is really "The location of a fire station in a site where the access may be cut off and equipment locked in the case of natural disaster." The motion that I would make is that the site is adequate and that it access to equipment in the site has been considered let me go back and restate this. THE SITE IS ADEQUATE AND ACCESS TO THIS SITE AND TO EQUIPMENT IN THE CASE OF A NATURAL DISASTER HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED. Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. Discussion? EkBerg: The information I pursued in my first question provided me information for question #2b that we were just talking about so I have no additional questions. Rants: Are there any other questions? Robertson: No. Rants: THE MOTION IS THAT THE SITE IS ADEQUATE AND TO DENY 2B. 7 Robertson: I would like to point out that it is in a earthquake zone area as is the whole City, just about, and the building itself is being designed to stand earthquakes of reasonable magnitude. Rants: All in favor of the motion as stated, say aye. Those opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED WITH EKBERG VOTING NO. Rants: Item #3. Robertson: The third point was: Inadequate application of the existing Tukwila's Tree Ordinance. Plus cumulative adverse impacts on the wetland habitat from excessive noise and 8 light." Okay. THE MOTION THAT I WOULD MAKE HERE IS THAT THE TUKWILA TREE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY APPLIED AND THAT ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE WETLAND HABITAT FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE AND LIGHT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED. Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and Seconded. Discussion? Robertson: Okay. I see nothing in what was presented to lead me to conclude that the Tree Preservation Ordinance wasn't considered and applied correctly. Secondly, as far as excessive noise and light on the wetland, I find it difficult to think of the fire station there as having much impact. Anybody that's been in that area who would look at the noise problem today from the Burlington train yards, I'm not sure you could hear anything going off with the normal stuff going on at the train yards there in that particular site. It is not a quiet site, period. Rants: Any further discussion? Hernandez: A great effort was also made to preserve that giant Sequoia tree that is on the site. And I think that they did make a concerted effort to preserve that and include that in the landscape plan. EkBerg: I'd like to clarify that point by asking the question based on a paragraph or sentence I see on Attachment D, page 4; Attachment E, page 1; and Attachment F, page 2. What it states is that "Geoblock shall be installed for a width of 5 feet and a length of 35 feet under the canopy of the tree." Can you describe for me how far away from the trunk of the tree would that Geoblock be placed? What's the distance between the Geoblock boundary and the tree trunk? Berg: The distance between the Geoblock boundary and the tree trunk is approximately 6 inches. The driveway virtually comes to the base of the tree. EkBerg: What I'm understanding is that you'd have a 15 foot driveway of that 10 feet would be interpreted impervious surface and 5 feet would be Berg: As I understand it, we have a 20 foot driveway; 15 feet of which is impervious asphalt; five feet of which is Geobrick. EkBerg: Okay. Well, I'm trying to understand this picture here, which is right after Attachment E. Maybe the picture isn't eloquently describing the words you just said. So if we could all look at the same picture, we could all get on the same track. Berg: What page is that? EkBerg: The only thing after Attachment E in the handout from the City. Robertson: I think he has the second handout. Do you have this? (Council is reviewing site sketch of existing driveway, Attachment E) Berg: Yes, this is my drawing. It shows, basically, the existing driveway, which is there now as being 15 feet. And it shows an additional 5 feet between the existing driveway and the tree. That 20 feet total width then is just an approximation. It actually measured out with a tape measure just slightly over 20 feet. But for diagrammatic purposes, I drew it to show 5 feet between the driveway and the tree. And that 5 feet is what we were proposing as pervious surface. EkBerg: How wide is that fire vehicle apparatus? Tom Keefe: 9 feet. Robertson: Allan, do you mind if I ask a couple of questions? EkBerg: No. Please do. Robertson: If the tree grows over time, which we all hope, definitely, is there any reason that more of the existing driveway couldn't be removed or replaced with Geoblock to offer Berg: The Geoblock certainly can support the fire engine weight, so I don't see a structural reason why you couldn't do more of the driveway in Geoblock. Of course, as the tree grows, the driveway will correspondingly get smaller. 9 Robertson: First off, what rate does that tree grow? Are we looking at something 20 or 30 or 50 years or 100 years? Berg: I'm not an arborist, but I understand that it's a member of the family of slow growing trees. It's estimated to have been there over 100 years and was estimated to grow 80 inches in diameter. So I don't know how to answer how long it will take for it to grow, but it's our hope that that tree will grow forever. We have hired a landscape architect who was an arborist. He did come to the BAR. He did address this issue. And he was satisfied that what we were doing was the correct solution for saving the tree and using the site. Robertson: Thank you. Rants: Any further questions? EkBerg: For some reason, my impression was that the driveway would have a width of 15 feet. Could someone tell me in the document where I can find it described at 20 feet? Berg: I certainly can tell you in the drawings where it's shown as 20 feet. Pam Carter: I share your confusion. EkBerg: Gary (Gary Schulz), while you're doing that, I'll ask our engineers if we have a 9 foot fire apparatus, why would we need a 20 foot driveway? EkBerg: Thank you, Chief. Rants: Are there any other further question. The motion is that the tree ordinance and flood lands ordinance have been effectively adhered to and to deny Item #3. All in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ITEM #3. Rants: Item #4. EkBerg: Second. Rants: Discussion? 10 Tom Keefe: My name is Tom Keefe. I'm the Fire Chief for the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila has an ordinance that requires a 20 foot ingress driveway to any residence or building that is back from the street for fire apparatus whether it's a fire station or whether it an apartment building. And what we did was attempt to try to live with the ordinance and try to preserve the tree. With the Geoblock and the 15 foot wide (five extra feet), we will use the 15 foot wide impervious surface, normally. But our concern was that if there is any snow on the ground, and we were not able to see the impervious surface, we could bury a 36 or 40 ton truck and probably kill that tree. Robertson: #4 reads: "The loss of five low income housing units and inadequate compensation of its displaced low income tenants." I would make the motion that the housing units and compensation for its loss was adequately considered. Hernandez: Yes. What type of relocation assistance was offered to the tenants that lived on the property? John McFarland. City Administrator: The relocation assistance consisted of up to $2,000 in expenses the City would cover through a grant. Some of those expenses were recoverable. For example, we paid reasonable moving expenses; we provided assistance in finding suitable housing; we paid the damage deposit and security deposit and first month's rent differential, if there was one, for the tenant. This was brought to the Council and approved by Council motion. All of the tenants that availed themselves of this service were able to secure adequate housing. Not all of the tenants did ask for relocation assistance, however. Any Questions? Steve Mullet: How many did, John? McFarland: I believe two (2) of the three households received relocation assistance through the YWCA. Rants: Any further questions? Hernandez: No one ended up being homeless or displaced, they were assisted and relocated, right? McFarland: Correct. important. Given the fact that geologically it sits on a mudflow and liquefaction is a major factor in the construction of a public building, a public safety building, I have to ask the City Council how much extra cost is involved in building on a site with that consideration. And with that consideration in mind, were there not other sites within the area across the river or somewhere within reasonable distance that would serve the neighborhood better, especially in the event of an earthquake. Because the last thing we want to see is a public safety building destroyed in the process and then not being of use to the residents of the neighborhood. Having brought that issue up, I'm also curious to know why the City didn't use the appellant's geological studies that were paid for. Obviously, some thought had gone into the process as to the site itself, its historical relevance, and if you've read the document, it talks about the history of the district, which by the way the City paid for a $50,000 report. Apparently, nobody's read it. So there is some historical evidence there. There is evidence that it is a historical site and it does have a history. These are all considerations and questions that need to be raised here before we go forward with a project like this. What is the City's position on low income housing? Apparently, you're tearing down housing that could be saved. You also had a model from which to make modifications to the neighborhood and perhaps move some of those buildings and save them for the historical reference. But that choice has not been exercised. Instead, we're tearing apart houses that may be saved and could be used for low income residents. I always question when City departments get together and they do studies about the feasibility of a particular project because we all know that they're working for a living, but do they have an agenda. Have they taken the time to give the pluses and the minuses of that particular site so that the public could know that here's what's going to happen: we are going to lose some historical sites; yes, we're building in an area that's geologically risky. So we have to question what if this criteria that he came on doesn't allow us the question whether or not there is an alternative. Apparently, no alternative sites have been discussed in this process. Is that correct? Nobody can answer me. O.K. Well, those were the things I wanted to bring up, because I felt that they hadn't been looked at quite carefully. One thing that I noticed in the report for instance. We were talking about the giant sequoia tree, kind of a rare find here in this area. I'm not an expert on trees, but I do enjoy the greenery here in the area. Based on what I saw in the report, the project would hinder the growth of the tree because of the need for space. Because the trucks are so big and that they would need virtually all the space. And if this tree was allowed to grow, it may grow to be a very large tree and it would not be able to grow under the circumstances of which they propose for laying out concrete for the trucks to be able to turn around. On the development side, the streets in that neighborhood are very narrow. And if you are building that close to the riverbed you will be affected by the things that she talks about in the -and the tides and so forth. And I wondering to what lengths is the City going to spend money to make this site suitable so that the roads don't suffer from the wear and tear that has been suggested here. I haven't heard him dispute the wear and tear issue. I haven't heard him say that no there is no extra cost involved in 7 preparing the site so that it's geologically sound. We have questions. We need answers. Help us. Luis Salas: My name is Luis Salas and I live at 4621 S. 150th Street, close to 42nd. My question here is why are you making this fire station in this corner. Is it because we want to serve the business district, or we want to serve the community? I live right here by this section. I think if we have an emergency, it will take longer for the new station to respond than the old station and we will be at more risk. Also, we know that this is historical land and we have to preserve it. The man who preceded me spoke very clearly. This is something we need to think about before making this decision. We know the traffic will be very heavy in this section of the City. The streets are not strong to handle these big trucks...(unclear)... So my question is we have to think about be careful before we make a decision to build this fire station over there in that corner. I don't think we have enough in this section of the City. I've lived here in Tukwila for the last year and I bought a house two weeks ago. I hope I can have good service for all my neighbors and all people who live in Tukwila. Allan Folmire: Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers my name is Allan Folmire. I live 4120 NE 10th Place in Renton. I am here representing the Renton Non motorized Transportation Advisory Committee. In the process of becoming acquainted with this particular appeal, the appellant asked me, kind of at the last minute, if I could help her to make clear to you people the content of this package. It appears to me that you all have copies of that package and I'm wondering if it's necessary for me to read it here in the meeting this evening. That would be your choice if I could hear from one of you. Mayor Rants: Is there anyone who wishes that read to them? (no response) Mullet: Has this been introduced as evidence in the hearing? Mayor Rants: It has not. Not during this public hearing. It was delivered to us today. It needs to be if it's going to be included in the hearing. Robertson: First of all, I guess I would request that Council turn our copies in to staff, we get them back certified that they are all the same. Having materials delivered to our houses independent of everything puts us in the spot of not knowing for sure who we got them from and whether or not they're the same copies. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. That's one point. So I'd just like to have that done. The second point is no, I'd rather not have it read out loud to me. I will read it after it has been handled in a procedurally correct manner and I'll make notes on it and I'll study it. I would prefer to do that. Mayor Rants: Does the City Council concur that we turn this into the City Clerk for concurrence on all issues? Mullet: hearing. If that's what's required to get it entered as evidence into the 8 Robertson: I think we need to do that. It's quasijudicial. Mayor Rants: Do the rest of you agree? (all agree) Then we will submit it to the City Clerk for confirmation that they all agree and then we will enter it into evidence. Folmire• If I understand then the concurrence is you don't need my assistance to find out what's inside the folder? I don't have a problem with that, I was just clarifying a point. Then I can get back to why I did come. As a representative of the Non Motorized Transportation Committee who borders your fine City, we are interested in the networking capabilities of your fine trails with our trails that we're developing and have in the Renton area. Also as Renton goes to Bellevue and to Kent and to Seattle, and there was an issue involved in this of the possible trail tie between the Allentown area and Airport Way. That was the concern that I was coming to have clarified this evening to present to you a feeling of a need to have that tie, to be able to have that trail going through there. That was really initially why I was coming here this evening. Thank you. Mayor: Anything further from the appellant? Demnere: I have spent many hours working on this paper and I went to Kinko's with the original and I had them copy them for me and punch the holes for me and right there we put them together. They're all identical. The reason I went to the houses is to give you as much time as possible to read them. We went through a process similar three years ago. At that time this was not...(unclear)...about having to take them out. I spent many, many hours and the reason it was not given to you before is because I was waiting for the transcripts from the hearing. They came to me with a notification of the publication of the hearing and I had to get information mailed to me from different agencies to prepare my report. I felt this council would have time to read it not to make any decision. This is a very important report. I spent many hours on it and it's very important to the City of Tukwila. Mayor: Are there any questions from Council of the appellant as we did with staff? (no response from Council). Thank you, Jackie. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this appeal? Mrs. Bernhard first. Public Comment: Anna Bernhard, 14241 59th So., I've been a citizen 32 years here and we've always had our fire stations in the middle of single residences. A few years ago when there was talk of taking away the one up the hill here by the library, there was a tremendous uproar in the neighborhood. People were appalled that it was even discussed. So that was dropped very quickly although it cost a lot of money to have it. It seems to me like the staff and the Planning Department and everybody has done a good job. They've done all the requirements that are necessary to have a station there. I' ve seen the plans, and I think it's beautiful. It will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood there. It's only two blocks away from where there's one now, and I really don't see the problem. We don't need anymore low income housing in Tukwila. We've got plenty of it. 9 Mayor Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in the audience? (no response from audience). Then we will take the rebuttal period and during that time you may speak, Jackie. Lancaster: I'll try quickly to speak to the issues that were raised in the appellant's presentation. First of all on the burden of proof issue, this is a legal proceeding and we have to look at the legal standards under which the proceeding has to be conducted. That's the only reason that I mentioned that. I didn't mean to be upsetting in mentioning that legal standard. In terms of questions about the potential liquefaction, those issues have been addressed in the geotechnical investigation that you have before you. This was an issue raised by Mr. Odem. Mr. Odem also asked about whether there were alternative sites evaluated during this process. In fact, there were. Five alternatives were looked at early on in the site evaluation process. Some were dropped because they were too far from the residential areas that need protection. Some were dropped because they were financially not feasible. Some perhaps a combination of the two. So there were alternatives looked at in this process. With regard to the giant Sequoia, staff spent a lot of time looking at that issue, consulting with a landscape architect. We had a landscape architect on staff at the time who spent a lot of time looking at that issue and came up with what we believe is a good solution. And that will protect that tree. We haven't even heard any allegations that that tree would be killed. Some concern has been addressed by the appellant that its growth might not be as vigorous as it otherwise would be, but we followed the recommendations of the landscape architect that we hired to look at that issue. There's been discussion both in the written information and the testimony about wear and tear on the road. The fire trucks use that road now, and its not going to be a dramatic change in the amount of use the road gets. The trail issue also has been addressed in the staff report. It's acknowledged that a trail could go through this area in the future and it would be accommodated by this plan. So we don't believe that that is an issue with regard to the project. Those are the major questions that I heard asked. If there's something I missed that the Council would like followed up on, either myself or other members of the staff who've worked on this project are here to answer those. Mayor: Thank you, Steve. Rebuttal from the appellant. Odem: I guess finally after hearing his response, I have to ask again about the historical significance of the sites and the buildings thereon. Once again, the City paid a local historian money to find out about the historical significance of that district and yet, in the process of doing this report, none of that was taken into account. And so if the City is interested in preserving its history and making that something that all the citizens can enjoy and benefit from, then we have to ask is there some compromise or is there some way that those historical sites could be preserved properly and still be made a part of the 10 fire station if that's what we're looking at, or is there some other way that we can still accommodate by maybe working on the present site of the fire station which I understand is just two blocks away. Mayor Rants: Thank you. If there are no further comments, I will close the public hearing to testimony, but it will not preclude the Council from asking questions of staff. (Hearing closed at 8:57 p.m.) Robertson: I'd like to deal with a process issue first. I think since there was written materials submitted and most of us have not had a chance to read it or to look at it, it would seem to me appropriate to continue this to the following Regular Council meeting when we can do the deliberations at that time after we've read the material. Hernandez: I'd like to have a copy of that criteria, too. I didn't see that anywhere in our packets here. It was read to us, but it would be nice to have it written so we can establish each criteria as we go through. Carter: It' s been there as part of the staff report on the Conditional Use Permit from the BAR, but I agree with you, having it separate is handy so as we look at both sides we can have that in front of us. Robertson: I'm not sure of the actual proper approach, but I think what I'd like to do is make a motion to continue this, the deliberation portion, which still leaves us in a quasijudicial situation, to continue that to either next week or the week after. It doesn't really matter to me. Rants: I think it would be important to try to continue it next week for what you've asked for, for the amount of material you've asked for. We can give it to you by next week. And there is a timeliness to it. Robertson: Then I'll make a motion to continue the deliberation portion of this meeting for one week. Hernandez: I'll second that. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say "aye Hernandez, Ekberg, Robertson, Mullet, Carter. Those opposed: Haggerton. The motion carried. We will move on to Old Business. Transcribed by: Jane Cantu, City Clerk End of transcript 11