Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-13 Special Minutes - Spring Ridge Public Hearing (Continued)May 13, 1985 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE ments. Pond Prop- erty located at Strander B1. APW. S 93 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING M I N U T E S Mayor Van Dusen called the continued Public Hearing to order. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON. City Hall Council Chambers Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Brad Collins (Planning Director), Ross Earnst (City Engineer), James Haney (City Attorney), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Don Pierce (Chief of Police), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). Public Hearing Mayor Van Dusen stated Council Member Harris listened to tapes of continued from meeting held on May 6, 1985 so she would be able to participate 5/6/85 Appeal in this discussion. of Determination of Significance for Mayor Van Dusen stated Exhibit 22, 23 and 24 had been entered in Spring Ridge Invest- the proceedings of the Meeting. Exhibit 22. Letter from Commercial Design Associates (Scott Shanks) dated May 13, 1985 to City of Tukwila; Subj: Correction to SEPA Check List. Exhibit 23. Memorandum to Brad Collins (Planning Director) from Don Pierce (Chief of Police) dated May 10, 1985; Subj: Accident Frequency on Strander Boulevard. Exhibit 24. Letter from Commercial Design Associates to City of Tukwila dated May 13, 1985; Subj: Spring Ridge Property Short Plat First Western Development Proposal. Scott Shanks, Commercial Design Associates, Inc., read his letter to the City dated May 13, 1985 which had been written subsequent to the public hearing held May 6, 1985. They stated they were not prepared to analyze or respond to the findings and conclusions as they were made available to them later in the afternoon of this hearing, but they felt their agreement to make 168th a mitigating measure was not accorded adequate weight in offsetting traffic impacts. Mr. Shanks offered clarifications and revisions to certain of the City's Findings and Conclusions. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Shanks if it were not possible to generally lay out utilities and streets on the property without having specific developments in mind in reference to the entire property? Mr. Shanks said they have not laid out roads and utilties because they have not proposed any development on Lot 2. It is a technical matter but could be done. Councilman Bohrer said they have said a straight alignment of 58th running through the pond is not presupposed. What do they suppose then? Mr. Shanks said they were responding to a transportation improvement plan and in a preliminary meeting with Public Works it was one of the items identified as to which they should respond. Their inclusions of that portion of 58th that runs through this property was included in the hopes that some day it would be continued and connected with 168th when Lot 2 is developed. The reason for location of 58th Street was through analysis of the intersections on Strander. It was determined that location east of the west approach into Southcenter Mall was a better location. He said they have no problem moving it back to location originally anticipated where it could have a straight alignment over the portion of the already filled property on Lot 2 and connect 168th Street without filling in any of the pond. Bruce Smith, current owner of the property, stated last week Ed Schaffnit, economic consultant, addressed the meeting and outlined various companies that have come forth over the years and tried to accommodate the City's wishes in developing the property. It would have been their wish to develop the property as a whole because they have every intention of marketing the property and seeing the whole property developed. They have spent in excess of $60,000 trying to TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING present a development that is acceptable to the City. Developing Spring Ridge Invest- the property in phases seems the most desirable approach. With ments Pond Property mitigating measures they hope to satisfy the Council. They look at contd. the pond as a total development. They cannot lay out roads and utilities on the entire site when they do not know the type of development that will be done on the other portion of the property. Councilman Duffie asked Mr. Smith if he had intentions of filling in the pond at the time he purchased the property. Mr. Smith replied that purchase of the property was as an investor not a developer. Various developers have suggested different types of development. The water is a great amenity to the development of the property. Council Member Morgan asked City Attorney Haney if one way the Council could be involved in a decision was through a PMUD process. Did that have any relationship to doing partial development on a property? City Attorney Haney said when this issue was discussed before regarding this property being considered as a PMUD he indicated to the Council that the City would have to amend its zoning code in order to allow the City to rezone the property to PMUD. The developer could, however, apply for a PMUD development on the property should they desire to do so. The developer did not do that and applied for a short plat. Council Member Morgan asked Mr. Smith if economics were the motive for short platting the property. Mr. Smith replied that was the reason they have looked at it as a phase development. Council Member Morgan asked where access to Lot 2 would be (referring to Exhibit 13). If a road is built along the south end of Lot 1 it will provide access to Lot 2. Mr. Smith replied that is correct. Although the pond may not always be the size it is now, that would determine whether or not the road would furnish access to that property. Council Member Phelps asked if the Council can approve an action that would leave a property without access? Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the Council would not be reviewing the short plat. They are reviewing the environmental review process. If Council believe the access is an environmental issue that is limited that should be a proper environmental issue. You are not approving the short plat in your deliberations. Council Member Phelps said the traffic analysis is part of what the Council is looking at. Jay Derr, attorney for First Western Development, said that part of the access proposed would be the ultimate construction of 168th which would help provide access to the property as well as the portion of Lot 2 currently being accessed by Andover, a good portion on the east side of the pond. Part of the mitigation measures is participation in a 168th LID which then provides and opens up access for the remainder of the property. Council Member Harris asked the size of the pond at this time. Mike Hess said it is approximately 18 acres depending on time of year. Council Member Harris asked Mr. Smith if he was planning to leave the pond the size that it is for later development. Mr. Smith said no, that would be impossible. Council Member Harris asked Mr. Smith for his plans for the other part. Mr. Smith said they want to make sure the first part of the development will blend with the second part. He is not a developer. The economical reality seems to be that there does not seem to be tenants to fill the balance of the property at this time. What will be the pond configuration, where the roads will be is a difficult question to answer when you do not know who the developer will be and what the density will be and what will be the uses. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 3 x/9'5 PUBLIC HEARING Council Member Harris said she read there was going to be a buffer zone Spring Ridge Invest- to go across the property in which case it would divide the property ments Pond Property in two pieces. contd. Mr. Smith said he would visualize it as a landscaping, it would not hide the rest of the development. Councilman Duffie said the pond is approximately 18 acres now and Council wants to leave the pond at least 92 acres, which way would you go? Mr. Smith said the pond would become the focal point of the development and whether it is developed in the center of or in the corner it ultimately depends on the development that the Council would approve. Councilman Duffie asked if the pond can be moved without disturbing the wildlife? Michael Hess, First Western Development, said they are proposing to provide a project now that takes advantage of the economic situation and will be a viable project for today's market. They are also providing and giving the City all of the protection it needs for whatever happens. We would say we are not disturbing wildlife should the pond remain in the north part of the property, the proposed project does not have the impacts on the pond now, but would give the City all of the protection it needs so the future project will be what you want also. Council Member Phelps said Mr. Smith was asking for some direction from City Council. Council had some discussions last year and talked about an overlay zone on the property and in that way Council could get into review of Resolution 736 and work together on that. It did not come about, but that would have been her preference over the subdividion action now being considered. It seems that is the comprehensive way to address the recreation opportunities that are not addressed by the current plan. It is the only opportunity the City is looking at to encourage higher density development in the core of the northwest commercial district. She would like to be able to encourage the highest and best use of that. Mr. Smith said it is his understanding that the PMUD is site specific to a development. If that is the case we come to an ever revolving circle back to the same issues in that we do not have a development on the southern portion and how can we do a PMUD when we do not have that? It comes back to Mr. Bohrer's question as to how to lay out the roads. He said he hoped they are trying to address some of the issues on the southerly portion and put the vehicle in place which may be the PMUD overlay for the southerly portion so when development occurs you are satisfied you can go through the approval process and address all of these things. He said they felt they would impede the saleability and the development by saying where the roads and utilities will be. Council Member Phelps asked the City Attorney if it is appropriate for the Council to view developments which are representative of the pond property proposal on Lot 1 that First Western might have completed? City Attorney Haney said no, that would not be evidence in these proceedings. Council Member Phelps asked for the time line on the Council response and decision on this matter. City Attorney Haney said on a SEPA appeal the Council is required to render a decision within 60 days from date of appeal. The appeal was filed April 24. Councilman Bohrer asked if this is the only potential way of doing phase development that was looked at? Mr. Smith said they looked at the purchase of the whole piece of property by the developer but carrying the balance of the property for the number of years it would take to develop would be prohibi- tive. If it were sold as one parcel it would have to be a phase development. Economics state that. There is no way the City could absorb what may ultimately be three quarters of a million feet TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING of space. The developer will only purchase what they can utilize. Spring Ridge Invest- They will then as owners go out and try to market the balance. ments Pond Property It would cut down on their holding costs. contd. Council Member Harris asked if the short plat they are considering will look like the pictures? Mr. Hess said that is what they intend to do it is the level detail in the planning that they cannot commit to. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Hess, since he has an option on the property from Mr. Smith, if they have options or plans with specific tenants? Mr. Hess said they have four or five specific tenants in mind and some specific tenants in mind for the office building portion. They are in contact with many tenants. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Collins if a PMUD process would have to be site specific. Mr. Collins said it is an option the developer uses to change interior lot lines on his property and it is dependent upon the action of the developer to complete. There is some question in staff minds if the property on Lot 2 were to be subsequently sold to another developer what obligations would be committed to a subsequent developer by the PMUD. The PMUD process does permit various site specific arrangements of property or division of uses on that property. It expects that. Councilman Bohrer asked if the PMUD requires there be a very specific development? Mr. Collins said it can be phased so it is usually accompanied by a very site specific first phase at least. The PMUD process could be very simlar to what is proposed where you have a very specific first phase and a very inexact second phase, but there is some commitment made as to say, pond size or something like that, on Lot 2. Generally speaking, there will be some phase that will be very site specific. The entire project will not necessarily be site specific. Councilman Simpson asked if there would be scheduled changes to go through the PMUD? Mr. Collins said if the PMUD was approved with specific site plans and it was not developed then it would revert back to the previous zoning code. Council Member Morgan said Council is hearing an appeal on the part of the developer and the owner to the official's decision that additional environmental work has to be done. The official's decision was that he declared the application environmentally significant. Because of that there is additional work expected of the developer in meeting those concerns. The developer is appeal- ing the fact that they are required to do an EIS. What would be the difference in doing that process or not doing it? Mr. Collins said an EIS would reveal adverse impacts that would be created by this project and analyze them. It does not make the decision, but it would reveal requirements of the State Environmental. Council Member Morgan asked if an EIS is done which proposed that indeed the adverse impacts can be mitigated, does it include the solutions for the problems if in fact it deals with those sensitive issues. Mr. Collins said it presumably can and there may be issues that are unavoidable and those would be disclosed. For example, it is an unavoidable impact to develop Lot 2 and preserve the pond in the form that it is today. That impact would be disclosed and it would not be mitigated. If there was a mitigating measure to develop Lot 2 through the PMUD process so the pond was preserved in its present form then presumably that would not be an unavoidable adverse impact any more. It would be a mitigated impact that had been disclosed and could be acted upon. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 9 7 May 13, 1985 Page 5 Member PUBLIC HEARING Council Morgan said representatives of the property have said Spring Ridge Invest- they are dealing with this lot and the development of this lot ments Pond Property in itself does not constitute a major adverse effect on the contd, property or the surrounding environment, is that correct? Mr. Collins replied that is the developer's position. Council Person Morgan asked if the object of the short plat is to separate it from the rest of the property. Mr. Collins said the object is to separate one piece of property from the other, in this case Lot 1 and Lot 2 and the review of the staff was looking at the impacts of both Lot 1 and Lot 2 development. Mr. Collins said the difference in opinion lies in that Lot 1 has a specific project proposal that can be identified in greater detail than the conceptual nature of impacts associated with Lot 2. There are certain conceptual impacts associated with Lot 2 such as the access problem or the division of Lot 2 between the west side and east side of the pond, which you do not have to have a proposal to understand there are significant impacts with the access to the different portions of Lot 2. Some understanding of what that means is necessary in the review of the staff in order to make a decision or come to a mitigated DOS on this project. They have indicated they cannot identify impacts of that cumulative nature of the conceptual nature on Lot 2. Staff has not accepted that. Council Person Morgan said if she makes a decision on Lot 1 that it is separate and apart from Lot 2, is there any fallout on Lot 2, can someone argue then later that a precedent was set in making a decision on Lot 1 and argue that in fact an EIS does not need to be done on Lot 2 if it were not required on Lot 1? Mr. Collins said if Lot 1 and 2 had been subdivided at some previous time and only the development of Lot 1 was being investigated and the City was reviewing the associated impact with the development of Lot 1 they would not necessarily review the impacts on Lot 1 as being aprecedent on subsequent impacts that would occur on deve- lopment on Lot 2. They would be treated as two separate proposals. If they were part of a larger proposal, Lots 1 and 2, then they would be associated together. Council Person Morgan said the City is not moving forward on the short plat until they have adequate information about the environ- ment. That is why the Council is here. If Council rendered a decision that it was not environmentally significant, did not require an EIS, if Council agreed with the appeal and allowed the appeal to go through, how would that relate to the City's position on the conceptual connection between the two? How would City deal then with a later one? Is there the possibility of lawyers being able to say that it is not required on the second lot because it was not required on the first one? Mr. Collins said if the City were to issue a mitigated DOS could the City be challenged on that? I believe the answer is yes, it could be. The adequacy of that could be challenged. The second question, if the City issues a mitigated DNS, in the subsequent decision on the short subdivision could the City deny the short subdivision on the basis that it would have an adverse impact, he would have to seek legal opinion on that, but his initial reaction would be probably not. What we are saying is that the significant adverse impacts are adequately mitigated if we issue a mitigated EIS. The action before the Council is the separation of Lot 1 and Lot 2. The subsequent development on Lot 1 is in addition to the initial action which is to subdivide the property. We are looking at the environmental impacts of both of those actions. We have a non project action which is a short subdivision and the associated environmental impacts with that and we have a project action which is the development of Lot 1. The environmental impacts of a project action usually are in greater detail because they are specific physical activities. Council Person Morgan said when the City Council makes the decision to either honor the appeal or deny it, does the Council as part of its role make comments or explanation for the decision, what does the decision include? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 6 o' PUBLIC PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Haney, City Attorney, said Council decision should be backed up Spring Ridge Invest- by Findings and Conclusions. If Council decision is conditioned on ments Pond Property project being modified and mitigate certain impacts, if Council contd. issues a mitigated DOS then you would put in qualifiers, you would definitely want to put in the Findings and Conclusions the findings of fact and the conclusions that you draw from those findings that support the qualifiers, conditions, and decisions that you do make. The decision before the Council is whether or not you believe, based upon the proposal as submitted, that the proposal has significant environmental impacts or adverse environmental impacts which are not mitigated adequately by the proposal itself and which require further environmental analysis. That is the decision that the Responsible Official is taking and that is the decision that has been appealed to the Council. Council Person Morgan asked if qualifiers separate what applies to one and what applies to the other? Mr. Collins said Council can make conditions on both the short subdivision and on the proposed development of Lot 1 in his opinion. For example, Council can impose the responsibility for a 51% petition for benefitting parties to construct South 168th Street on a short subdivision, but they can also impose that on the project they won't issue a building permit until that petition has been submitted and accepted by the City at which point you condition both of them. Council Person Morgan asked if the Council grants the appeal by the use of qualifiers is it possible to not set a precedent for the non project action? City Attorney Haney said Council is being asked as to whether or not the short plat and the development of Lot 1 creates a significant adverse environmental impact. That is an integrated issue and Council needs to consider it as a whole and not separate it. Council President Bauch asked the City Attorney what is the vehicle that carries on these mitigations to future property owners such as the binding to the construction of 168th, the fact that they are going to go into other. How can you bind future property owners because the development has sold part of the lot and because he says he cannot develop it so naturally he is going to sell the other part so someone else can develop it. How do we bind that? City Attorney Haney said covenants would run with the land. Council Person Phelps asked the City Attorney for his position on the mitigated DNS. City Attorney Haney said a mitigated DNS generally is a declaration of nonsignificance based upon specific mitigating measures which are made part of the proposal. If the proposal contains mitigation measures, if the proposal can be modified in such a way as to miti- gate the adverse environmental impact then a mitigated DNS can be issued which in fact binds the project to be constructed in accordance with those particular mitigating measures. Essentially it is taking the project, modifying it, saying this is how the project would be developed and approving the project with the understanding that it would be developed in that manner so it would be environmentally non- significant. Council Person Harris asked what makes this division of property different from the one on the west side of Southcenter Parkway where a portion of it was developed by Wendys. Later a portion was developed by another. What makes this different? Is it because of the pond? Mr. Collins said he was not with the City then but he believed the area referred to does show up as environmentally sensitive areas on the hillside and the declaration relative to rezone of those properties was that those environmentally sensitive areas would remain undeveloped and would not be rezoned to more intensive uses. If the proposal here were to subdivide the property and rezone the southern portion R -1 -7200 to preserve the open space he thought they would be a similar undertaking as this request. 3"/ TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 7 how PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Van Dusen asked /entrances to load and unload the stores would Spring Ridge Invest- be accomplished. ments Pond Property contd. Mr. Hess said they did not have any anchor tenants that would require large deliveries. Most deliveries would be between 8 and 10 a.m. at the the front door. Mayor Van Dusen asked Mr. Hess if it was his intent that there would be no activity of the public around the pond? Mr. Hess replied there would be no activity in this first phase. Future development of Lot 2 would take the pond into consideration. Mayor Van Dusen stated if there are streets, the City requires sidewalks. The City would like to address some of the impacts due to Lot 2. It seems it would be easy to go ahead with an EIS and when a proposal is done on Lot 2 it could be updated. Mr. Hess said they could make condition that there would be no loading docks back there. Pedestrian access could be made available. They can try to create no impacts on the pond. They felt they have answered the critical mitigating items. They have the experts and they have told them what to do. An EIS will not address the traffic impacts any better than they have already done. They can make certain conditions binding on Lot 2 and in that way give the City the protection they need. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there was anyone from the general public who would like to make a comment. Gary Huff, one of the attorneys for Southcenter, 3500 First Interstate Center, Seattle, was sworn in by the City Attorney. He stated they are opposed to piece -meal development and planning of this site without proper study and consideration given to the full range of impacts that are involved and can be mitigated. There are several deficiencies that would not be offset by mitigating measures. The traffic has not been taken care of week day traffic is less than weekend traffic. This analysis has been to only one lot and not to the development of Lot 2. We should look at accumulative impacts. They would like to see a thorough analysis and have all of the impacts identified. Mr. Hess said they are not in agreement with Mr. Huff's remarks. He said they felt they have identified the mitigating impacts and solved them. Police Chief Pierce explained Exhibit 23 which reported on traffic accidents on Strander during the 1984 year. These are reported accidents from State records. It does not include unreported accidents. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said with reference to Scott Shanks comments regarding the 55' building setbacks from the Lot 1 property line and the 15' of undisturbed edge, this would not change any of the findings and conclusions of the staff report. In response to Dennis Neuzil's concerns about the placement of 58th Avenue South and whether or not that is better at a more eastern access, his comment is that would not be without significant adverse impacts on the pond. Once you start changing the traffic analysis we are not sure what that would do to the impacts of traffic versus the impacts on the pond. In response to comments by Rex Van Wormer, the parking surface runoff is a question that would appear to be a nonpoint versus a point source of the water going into the pond. The City concern there is that staff believesit is nonimpact to have no development of property south of the north 12 acres, that would have a significant adverse impact on the land use part of the City as well. The next concern is the statement by Jay Derr that it was approp- riate to wait on Tukwila Pond impacts. It is the City's feelings that it is not appropriate, that there can be general concepts in dealing with such issues as 58th Avenue South location or the accesses for Lot 2 which properly are discussed and have not been. Also, in his testimony and his letter, Exhibit 2, there are inferences about staff opinions and he would like to correct the record that they do not accurately reflect staff opinions as to the basis of the appeal. With reference to testimony by Mr. Hess on May 6, staff did not conclude only hypothetical and, therefore, not useful impact analysis could be done for Tukwila Pond development concepts. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING In reviewing Exhibit 24 which was just received, with reference Spring Ridge Invest- to Dr. Neuzil's LOS revisions that were presented at the May 6 ments Pond Property meeting, the City has not reviewed that analysis so it is hard to contd. come to conclusions about the adequcy of the impact of South 168th on making Strander and Southcenter Parkway reduced from LOS E to LOS D or E but he would say that generally Dr. Neuzil's information has been reliable. Mr. Collins said with reference to statements regarding the City's traffic problems as separated from the projects' traffic problems, the City's problems with traffic may be greater with Lot 2 develop- ment. Staff has not confused those problems with other City traffic problems, it is the responsibility of the applicant to let the City and the public know what those impacts are and it is not a question of confusing the City's impacts with those,of Lot 2. What the applicant has shown, in the opinion of staff, has been the minimum traffic impact that would be created by this project in its first phase and possibly mitigated those minimum impacts. They have not shown other likely traffic impacts that would occur on development of Lot 2. The access of Lot 2 from Andover Park West with the elimination of 58th Avenue South access for Lot 2 to Strander still remains a likely and, therefore, adverse impact on the pond. With reference to the relocation of 58th Avenue South to either the western edge of Lot 2 or its elimination altogether, could address the impacts on the pond but it may also have the problem of changing the traffic analysis as it has been presented and it may also have a negative impact on the other elements of the site plans that have been presented. Other comments were made relative to public access versus pond impacts and the relationship of providing access to the south property line of Lot 1 to the north edge of the pond which would satisfy providing public access but would also have the negative impact of greater pond impacts. It is precisely the EIS that defines these impact trade offs and tries to identify for those who want access what the impacts would be versus those who want preservation. That is one of the purposes of the EIS. In reference to Exhibit 24 this decision on the threshold determination of significance to the environment should not be made on whether you like or dislike this project, but should be made on whether there is a significant impact or there is not. As a Responsible Official, one cannot require an EIS if you do not like a proposal nor not require an EIS if you like the proposal. The decision before the Council is whether there is a significant impact or not. Scott Shanks said they met with Mr. Eichler and discussed the traffic in detail. They are willing to participate in LID's to relieve the problems. The improvements will be of benefit to the entire area. City Attorney Haney instructed the Council as to their procedure in arriving at a decision. Brad Collins, Planning Director, stated his recommendation still stands. Based on testimony and materials presented some of the items would be modified. His general conclusion is that there would be impacts on the pond and there are concerns about the traffic on Lots 1 and 2 that are still significant. Council Member Harris asked Mr. Collins what, in his opinion, would be adequate mitigation. Mr. Collins said he was not sure this project could be mitigated. He said an EIS is appropriate for this property the EIS would identify the impacts. Council Member Phelps asked if a redraft of his recommendations could be made to the Council. Mr. Collins said he could make revised comments. The City is trying to follow the State law. Once the EIS is done the Council can approve, modify or deny the project. By requiring the EIS you are saying you will make sure of the adverse conditions. The applicant says they do not want the EIS because they can modify the mitigating conditions. Staff has tried to be specific on the impacts. The EIS can be do by the applicant's consultant, the City's consultant or by statt. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Van Dusen closed the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Spring Ridge Invest- ments Pond Property contd. RECESS MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING RECESS 9:30 9:37 P.M. FOR FIVE MINUTS. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 P.M. The meeting was called back to order by Mayor Van Dusen, with Council Members present, as previously listed. ,r a o it MOVED BY BAUCH, NO SECOND, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL IN DOCUMENT 1 AND CONCUR WITH HIS DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE WITH THE SPRING RIDGE INVESTMENT PROPOSAL. MOTION FAILED, NO SECOND. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT STAFF UPDATE THE REPORT AND THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THIS PROJECT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT A FUTURE DATE FOR CONSIDERATION. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Mayo f Gary L. Van Dusen Norma Booher, Recording Secretary