Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-13 Special Minutes - Sound Transit Public Hearing TranscriptIN RE SOUND TRANSIT'S APPLICATION FOR: L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit L03 -058 Shoreline Variance L03 -060 Design Review PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, September 13, 2004 7:00 p.m. City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington BYERS ANDERSON, INC. COURT REPORTERS VIDEO 2208 North 30th Street One Union Square Suite 202 600 University Street Tacoma, WA 98403 -3360 Suite 2300 (253) 627 -6401 Seattle, WA 98101 -4128 (206) 340 -1316 Fax: (253) 383 -4884 r X:1 C'�-I C AL.a J. Gayle Hays, RPR, CSR, Reporter (800) 649 -2034 scheduling @byersanderson.com Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 1 1 62 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jim Haggerton, Council President Pam Carter, Councilmember Joe Duffie, Councilmember Dave Fenton, Councilmember Joan Hernandez, Councilmember Pamela Lindner, Councilmember Dennis Robertson, Councilmember 110 Bob Baker, City Clerk 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 2 10 11 MOTIONS 12 MR. ROBERTSON 13 MR. ROBERTSON P 14 MS. LINDNER 15 MS. CARTER 16 MS. LINDNER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 1 QUESTIONS INDEX 2 PAGE NO. 3 MR. DUFFIE 10 4 MS. HERNANDEZ 12 5 MR. HAGGERTON 15 6 MS. CARTER 21 7 MS. LINDNER 24 8 MR. ROBERTSON 32 9 MR. FENTON 43 Sound Transit 9/13/04 44 45 59 64 65 1 Page 4 MAYOR MULLET: Welcome, everybody, to 2 the special meeting of the Tukwila City Council on Monday, 3 September 13, 2004. 4 Would you join me in the Pledge of 5 Allegiance? 6 (Pledge of Allegiance recited) 7 8 MAYOR MULLET: If you will recall, we 9 are here to continue deliberations on L03 -057, the 10 Unclassified Use Permit; LO3 -058, Shoreline Variance; 11 L03 -060, Design Review and the Development and Transit Way 12 Agreement. 13 Last week, we held a public hearing, and everyone who P 14 wanted to speak on this issue was given an opportunity to 15 speak. The public hearing was closed, and now we are in the 16 council deliberations. We started those last week, and we 17 discontinued them at midnight on Tuesday night. It took me 18 all week to get my sleep back, I think. I don't know about 19 the rest of you. 20 But it was a good meeting, and I appreciated the 21 decorum of everybody. It's always nice to have a public 22 hearing on something of this importance and not have anybody 23 ranting and raving, which some cities do have. But Tukwila 24 seems to be fortunate in that people seem to speak 25 rationally and are courteous to each other. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 5 1 The attorney representing us tonight is Shelley t 2 Kerslake, our city attorney, and Shelley will review the 3 legal issues for us now. Shelley? 4 MS. KERSLAKE: Good evening. As the 5 Mayor indicated, this last week we had a public hearing on 6 the issue before you regarding Sound Transit's application. 7 That hearing was closed, and this is now a deliberative 8 process. This is your opportunity to ask staff, as well as 9 the applicant, Sound Transit, any clarifying questions that 10 you may have that came out of the public hearing last week. 11 If staff or Sound Transit staff need to ask any additional 12 people for information to answer your questions, they are 13 free to do that. P 14 We understand that there were some late -filed exhibits 15 that came in the e -mail or mail that came in to the city 16 after the hearing was closed. Those exhibits are not part 17 of the record and should not be considered in deliberations 18 here tonight. They should be held by the city clerk as 19 supplemental documents, but they are not for consideration. 20 I want to just briefly run through with each of you 21 some questions to make sure that we're on the same path that 22 you were on last week when Mr. Kenyon asked you similar 23 questions. 24 Mr. Fenton, maybe we could start with you. At the li 25 public hearing on this matter last week, you told the city 1 attorney at this time that you had no interest in the 2 property that was the subject of this application, and that 3 you did not stand to gain or lose in your decision in this 4 matter, and that you had no ex parte contact regarding the 5 application before you. 6 Is that still the case? 7 MR. FENTON: That is still the case. 8 But I have to admit that, over the weekend, there were a 9 couple of e -mails that came from the city that had a title 10 of Sound Transit on them. I did open the e- mails, but I did 11 not read them, and that's all. 12 MS. KERSLAKE: Did you return those 13 e -mails to the city? IP 14 MR. FENTON: Yes, we did. 15 MS. KERSLAKE: And in light of the 16 disclosure of Councilmember Fenton, does anyone wish to 17 object to Councilmember Fenton's participation in this 18 matter? 19 Seeing none, I'll move to Councilmember Robertson. 20 Councilmember Robertson, at the last meeting, you indicated 21 that you had no interest in the property that was the 22 subject of this application, nor did you stand to gain or 23 lose from your decision in this matter, nor had you had any 24 ex parte contact in this matter. 25 Are those answers still true tonight? Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 6 1 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, except for the 3 were and deleted them. 4 MS. KERSLAKE: Based on the 5 representations made by Councilmember Robertson, does anyone 6 here wish to object to his continuing participation in this 7 matter? 8 Seeing none, I'll move to Councilmember Lindner. 9 Councilmember Lindner, last Monday you answered Mr. Kenyon 10 that you did not have any interest in the property that was 11 the subject of this application, nor did you stand to gain 12 or lose from your decision in this matter, nor had you had 13 any ex parte contact about the subject matter of the subject 14 application. 15 Are those answers still true here tonight? 16 MS. LINDNER: They are still true, and I 17 didn't receive any e -mail. 18 MS. KERSLAKE: That's good. 19 Councilmember Carter, I'll ask you the same question. Last 20 week you indicated that you have no interest in the property 21 that was the subject matter of this application, that you do 22 not stand to gain or lose from your decision in this matter, 23 and you had no substantive ex parte contact about the 24 substance of these applications. 11 25 Are those answers still true here today? Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 7 1 MS. CARTER: Yes, but I would like to 2 mention one thing. As I was filing some papers this 3 weekend, I came across a letter from our Representative 4 Smith that I believe was probably sent to all council 5 members. He didn't indicate a position one way or the other 6 and gave his consent before the public hearing. So all 7 councilmembers, I assume, had received it at one time. And 8 as part of the record, it made such a big impression 9 probably nobody remembers seeing it, because I didn't until 10 I came across it when I went to file it. 11 MS. KERSLAKE: Based on the 12 representations made by Councilmember Lindner, does anyone 13 object to her continued participation in this matter? 14 Seeing none, I move to Council President Haggerton. 15 Last week you stated to Mr. Kenyon that you had no interest 16 in the subject property, that you did not stand to gain or 17 lose by your decision in this matter, nor had you had any ex 18 parte contact surrounding this application. 19 Is that still true here today? 20 MR. HAGGERTON: I have to be clear. I 21 did receive one e -mail from an attorney with an address in 22 Seattle, but the subject of the e -mail said "light rail 23 routing and I immediately deleted the e -mail. 24 MS. KERSLAKE: Based on the 1 1 25 representation by Councilmember Haggerton, does anyone 1 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 8 Page 9 1 object to his continued participation in this matter? 2 Hearing none, Councilmember Hernandez, you told 3 Mr. Kenyon last week you had no interest in the subject 4 property, that you did not stand to gain or lose from your 5 participation in this matter, and that you had no ex parte 6 contact on the subject of this application. 7 Are the answers still true here today? 8 MS. HERNANDEZ: Yes, they are. I did 9 receive the letter from Councilman Smith that Councilman 10 Carter referred to, but I have not received any other e -mail 11 or had any other conversation. 12 MS. KERSLAKE: Based on Councilmember 13 Hernandez's representation here tonight, does anyone object 14 to her continued participation in this matter? 15 Seeing none, Councilmember Duffie, last week you stated 16 you had no interest in the subject property, that you did 17 not stand to gain or lose from your decision here on this 18 matter, and that you had had no ex parte contact regarding 19 this application. 20 Are those answers still true here today? 21 MR. DUFFIE: Yes, it is. I do have 22 e -mail, but I can't tell you what's on it. If it's on my 23 e -mail, it's still there, because I have not had an 24 opportunity to read my e -mail. 1 MS. KERSLAKE: You have not read any Sound Transit 9/13/04 1 e -mail from Sound Transit? 2 MR. DUFFIE: No, I have not. 3 MS. KERSLAKE: With that, that concludes 4 my portion, and I'll turn it over. 5 MAYOR MULLET: Thank you, Shelley. 6 Let's talk a second about procedure here tonight. 7 Council, what I'd like to do is kind of go around the 8 dais and get some general conversation, questions, whatever 9 you might have that needs clarifying, reminding you that we 10 are subject to clarifying type questions of what's in the 11 record already. We can't introduce new information at this 12 point in time. If you have any doubts about whether this is 13 new or just a clarifying question, I would suggest that you It 14 direct questions to staff. They're more familiar probably 15 with the record than any of us, and they'll probably answer 16 as best they can or direct somebody to answer, either the 17 opponent or the proponent of this project. 18 After we've done that, I suggest, we decide if there 19 are any additional mitigation measures that the council 20 wishes or not, that you direct staff to prepare language to 21 come back next week for the final deliberation. If that's 22 agreeable with everybody and I'm seeing head nods here 23 we'll start. 24 So as usual, Joe, we'll start on your end of dais. 25 MR. DUFFIE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 10 Page 11 1 would like to direct my question to our city staff. There 2 was a lot of questions asked among the citizens. I would 3 generally like to ask you, because those questions were 4 directed to you and Sound Transit, have all the answers 5 been answers to the citizens to their satisfaction and to 6 our satisfaction so that we can make a decision on what we 7 have heard and be satisfied with the standard of what the 8 staff has given to us? 9 MR. LANCASTER: Councilman Duffie, with 10 regard to the question, if I understand it, is the 11 information that you've been presented sufficient for you to 12 make your decision? I believe the answer is yes. There's 13 been a lot of analysis, a lot of study of all the issues 14 involved in this project. And I think that the records have 15 been presented to you presenting the information you need to 16 make a decision. 17 You asked if all of the individuals who had questions, 18 if those questions have been answered. And speaking for 19 city staff, we have worked hard to try to answer all of the 20 questions to the best of our ability. I think you'll find 21 in the notebook that you've been provided quite a few 22 letters from residents, of property owners in Tukwila. And 23 I think you'll find there have been responses from the city 24 to virtually all of those letters. 25 MR. DUFFIE: My second part of this Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 12 1 question is now, you're willing to stake your life that what you've said is the honest truth? That's why you're working 3 for the City of Tukwila. 4 MR. LANCASTER: Yes, sir. We have done 5 what we can to provide you with absolutely accurate 6 information to the best of our ability. 7 MS. HERNANDEZ: Several of my questions 8 have been answered by staff to my satisfaction. One of them 9 was a question that I asked last week at the public hearing 10 that was not answered, and that was regarding the shared 11 facility. And in the documents that we were given in the 12 information, that said it is possible that in the future 13 that air rights over the parking lot could be used for 14 compatible development. 15 And Jim Morrow, our public works director, answered my 16 question, and he said he would be willing to be present 17 tonight to answer it for everyone here if they would also 18 like that answer. 19 MR. MORROW: For the record, I'm Jim 20 Morrow, director of public works. 21 The response to that is a technical answer. And by 22 that I mean that the Federal Transit Association had 23 requested continuing authority over all of the property. 24 And this refers to the piece of property known as 25 35th Avenue, I believe it is. It's the street that goes Sound Transit 9/13/04 1 into the park- and -ride lot that exists today. 2 That street will eventually be vacated as part of this 3 project. We will come before the council for your approval. 4 But until that happens, we have to grant to Sound Transit 5 the air rights to build the station and anything else 6 associated with the project over that street. So until we 7 actually get your approval for the vacation, it's granting 8 the air rights to construct over that street. So that's a 9 technical aspect of it. 10 MS. HERNANDEZ: Thank you very much. 11 And I did have another question. On Exhibit 4 that was left 12 on the council dais for us at the last meeting, I'm 13 referring to the letter that was addressed to Nora Gierloff 14 September 7 from James Staudinger, division manager. 15 In that document, there was a colored map of the route. 16 And I found it, first of all, a little difficult to read, 17 because 52nd Avenue South was not identified, and neither 18 was 151st as we got near the curved right -of -way on I -5 up 19 to the 154th station. And some of you may have had that 20 same difficulty. I'm not sure. 21 But I was wondering, it gives a legend, and it shows 22 parcels of green status that are evidently in possession and 23 are unopposed and are in agreement with Sound Transit, and 24 the yellow status parcels indicate condemnation. So I had a 25 question I don't know quite who to address it to Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 13 Page 14 1 regarding Sound Transit staff on this document. 2 If you want to come forward, my question was that on 3 those parcels that are indicated "condemnation filed does 4 that mean that you are not able to reach a settlement with 5 the property owner in that particular case? 6 MR. STAUDINGER: Well, my name is James 7 Staudinger with Sound Transit. 8 What that yellow indicates is that we have begun the 9 condemnation process. During the condemnation process, we 10 asked the property owner for possession in this agreement, 11 some of which we have gotten. And we are also continuing 12 negotiations with them. So even though we are in 13 condemnation status, that doesn't mean we've stopped the 14 negotiations altogether. In fact, most of the property 15 owners have granted a conditional use agreement. 16 MS. HERNANDEZ: Well, what would be 17 helpful for me, and it might be helpful for someone else 18 also, if you could identify the addresses on the parcels 19 that are on 52nd Avenue South, now that I have located that. 20 That route evidently does go right down 52nd Avenue South. 21 There's green parcels and yellow parcels both indicated 22 there, but it's not entirely clear in my mind exactly what 23 the addresses are that relate to those particular parcels. 24 So I was wondering if you could either supply that 25 information, or if you could supply that information to our Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 15 1 director of planning and community development and share 2 that information with me at another time. 3 MR. STAUDINGER: Sure. We can do that. 4 MS. HERNANDEZ: Thank you. 5 MAYOR MULLET: Does anybody else have 6 concern about those addresses tonight? Okay. Is that it, 7 Joan? 8 MS. HERNANDEZ: That's it for me 9 MR. HAGGERTON: One of the notes that I 10 took from the public hearing last week was that the council 11 has the authority to reasonably solve problems that are 12 caused by the light rail project; that we cannot change the 13 siting, but that we can deal with impacts caused by the 14 siting. 15 Is that a true understanding? Is that accurate? 16 MR. LANCASTER: Yes. I believe that's 17 accurate. 18 MR. HAGGERTON: I wrote that nearly 19 verbatim. 20 So the two questions that I have kind of relate to that 21 general scenario right there. And the public testimony that 22 we had last week on the Carosino property on East Marginal, 23 it appears, the way I heard that, I heard two completely 24 different stories, one from the property owner and one from 25 Sound Transit. And how do we resolve that to find out what ! Page 16 1 the accurate story is? What is the correct story on that 2 property? 3 MR. LANCASTER: If you could ask maybe a 4 specific question about areas that you think that are in 5 conflict, we can probably find the right person to ask. 6 MR. HAGGERTON: How far is that going to 7 encroach on private property? Has an offer been made for 8 that private property? Have there been discussions with the 9 property owners? Because the property owners seemed to 10 indicate that there hadn't been much discussion with Sound 11 Transit. 12 And then when Sound Transit was at the podium, I got 13 the impression that there had been discussions. P 14 MR. LANCASTER: I'd like to check first 15 and see if Brian Shelton is in the room. Perhaps, Jim, can 16 you relate you weren't in those meetings, I guess. 17 What I'm trying to get to here is, it's my 18 understanding that there have been meetings with 19 Mr. Carosino, the owner of that property, that Brian Shelton 20 has participated in. But since he's not here, perhaps 21 somebody from Sound Transit can relate those duties back to 22 you. 23 24 again. 25 Originally it was a full take acquisition of the MR. STAUDINGER: James Staudinger here Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 17 1 Carosino property, but currently there's a minor take along the front there. 3 As you can see, it's Bid No. 35. We have made an offer 4 for the revised take which gives us a little bit of fee take 5 and a construction easement, and I believe an aerial 6 easement. 7 We made the offer to the Carosinos, and we've had a 8 number of discussions, at least 18 of them in person, many 9 more by phone. And in fact, last Tuesday, the 7th, a number 10 of us from Sound Transit met with the Carosinos that 11 morning, so we've been in constant contact with them. 12 MR. HAGGERTON: Okay. Thank you very 13 much. That answers that question. P 14 I have one other question in general in the same area, 15 and I mentioned this last week. One area of my concern was 16 there was testimony from some property owners that, 17 according to the way they interpreted the survey charts, 18 that one of the support columns was going to wind up on 19 their private property. And I asked the question, and I 20 think Rod came forward and said they would address that 21 issue, and they could come back with an answer. And when I 22 asked how long would that take, they said about two months. 23 Now, my question is, if it takes two months to really 24 resolve that I don't know. Maybe we resolved it in this 25 past week. I don't know. But if it takes two months to Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 18 1 resolve it, can we actually approve this and move it forward 2 without that being resolved? 3 MR. LANCASTER: Actually, if I could, I 4 would like to have Jim Morrow address that issue for the 5 record. 6 MR. HAGGERTON: Thank you. 7 MR. MORROW: For the record, I'm Jim 8 Morrow, director of public works. 9 That had to do with the location of the right -of -way 10 boundary, as well as the location of the road surface 11 itself, for 52nd Avenue South. Since the public hearing a 12 week ago, there's been a great deal of work done by city 13 staff and Sound Transit staff to verify the exact location 14 in conjunction with what is shown on the plans for 52nd 15 Avenue South, the right -of -way boundary and the road surface 16 within that boundary. 17 I'd like to take a couple minutes of your time to 18 explain just exactly what has been done in the last week and 19 what we have determined. Having reviewed everything, I 20 understand how someone could become confused and question 21 what is being shown on Sound Transit's plans. Normally 22 streets roads, et cetera, are created when property is 23 platted or subdivided. That's not the case for 52nd Avenue 24 South. 1!25 52nd Avenue South was created by a property Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 19 1 condemnation court case associated with the construction of 2 1 -5. And in that court case, that decision, they referred 3 to a WS -DOT plan that gives all of the reference points for 4 the location of 52nd Avenue South. 5 In addition to that, as a property owner, we would 6 expect that the survey of your own property to be accurate. 7 Unfortunately, the survey performed by Mr. Chastain in 1977 8 of the Zaputil property has some errors in it. We find that 9 the dimensions on the east -west access for identifying the 10 property line and the associated 52nd Avenue South is off by 11 four feet. When you add that there are no explanations, no 12 notes of any sort on that survey to explain how it was 13 accomplished, it makes it extremely difficult, if not /14 impossible, to go back and recreate it. But, we, Sound 15 Transit and city staff, didn't stop there. 16 To verify the accuracy of the WS -DOT starting point for 17 52nd Avenue South, four things have been accomplished. They 18 went back "they" being the surveyor for Sound Transit 19 went back and verified the location of the I -5 monuments and 20 reference points used to create 52nd Avenue South. 21 Second, they went and used the monuments associated 22 with the construction of State Route 518. 23 Thirdly, we went and used nonWS -DOT monuments along 24 51st Avenue South. They triangulated all of this. And then 25 to verify all of this information, they went back and looked Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 20 1 at five separate recent surveys of the properties to the 2 south of the Zaputil property. 3 What has been determined is that, with regards to the 4 east -west access, they are within two inches; with regards 5 to the north -south access, they are within nine inches. By 6 any reasonable standard used for surveying, that's known as 7 dead on. 8 Based upon all of this information, I come to several 9 conclusions. One, with regard to 52nd Avenue South, you 10 cannot rely upon as your sole source of information any plat 11 maps associated with properties around that area. Two, I am 12 very satisfied that the location of 52nd Avenue South 13 right -of -way boundaries and the exact road surface is p 14 accurately as shown on Sound Transit plans. 15 MR. HAGGERTON: That's an excellent 16 response to my question. I appreciate all the work you've 17 gone to in one week. That's really good. 18 And then my next question, then I'll turn it over to 19 somebody else my next question you might answer that 20 too there seemed to be a lot of concern last week about 21 the support column that's going to be very near the driveway 22 for the SPEEA building. That might make it difficult for 23 trucks coming and going. 24 Have we looked into that any further, or is that a real 25 concern? Page 21 1 MR. MOORE: Yes, sir. City staff and r 2 Sound Transit staff are working to relocate that to the 3 north such that it would not interfere at all with the 4 driveway location for SPEEA. 5 MR. HAGGERTON: Very good. Thank you. 6 That's all have I right now, Steve. 7 MAYOR MULLET: Pam Carter? 8 MS. CARTER: Okay. There was a lot of 9 concern about noise and vibration, so I'd like to ask staff 10 to double check. Is there anything in the agreement, the 11 permitting as it's currently proposed, that would require 12 Sound Transit to monitor the noise levels or the vibration 13 levels to see that they did not exceed the predictions of /14 their experts? 15 MR. LANCASTER: No, I do not believe 16 there is. 17 MS. CARTER: Okay. And then the 18 nighttime construction I brought up, Sound Transit said they 19 didn't plan to do it. But we know that sometimes things 20 change. Construction schedules get moved around, all sorts 21 of different ways. 22 If they came and wanted to construct at night, what 23 would the city's position be? What would happen? 24 MR. LANCASTER: The only real 25 limitation, I believe, on nighttime construction activity in Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 22 1 Tukwila is our noise ordinance. And what the noise 2 ordinance provides is that daytime construction noise is 3 generally exempt from the standards of the ordinance. That 4 construction, I believe, it's after 7 p.m. excuse me 5 after 10 p.m. in the evening and before 7 a.m. in the 6 morning must meet the noise standards. Typically 7 construction cannot meet those standards, and therefore, if 8 they wanted to work at night on any kind of noisy activity 9 at all, it would have to seek a noise variance. Noise 10 variance applications come from the director of community 11 development to myself for decision under the guidelines of 12 the ordinance. 13 MS. CARTER: And then you, using your P 14 best judgment, decide whether or not to grant that 15 application variance? 16 MR. LANCASTER: That's correct. 17 MS. CARTER: Would it be helpful if 18 council members expressed opinions? 19 MR. LANCASTER: If council members 20 believed that, in this instance, the nighttime noise could 21 be a serious consideration, anything that you might share 22 would certainly go into my thinking and my evaluation of a 23 noise variance application. 24 MS. CARTER: I think it would be a very 25 bad idea in the residential area to allow nighttime Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 23 1 construction. 2 Then I had a question about the parking. I think that 3 everybody concerned did a really good job on the parking 4 agreement we have. And I really like the way it's 5 structured. But one thing it doesn't cover is, if there 6 were to be spillover parking into nearby apartment 7 complexes, there's nothing am I correct in saying that 8 there's nothing in that parking agreement that addresses 9 that possibility? 10 MR. LANCASTER: That's correct. There's 11 nothing in the parking determination that addresses parking 12 on private property, except for Sound Transit property. It 13 directs parking in the Sound Transit lot and in the public /14 rights -of -way. 15 MS. CARTER: So will it be possible to 16 add something to the permitting that addressed that? 17 MR. LANCASTER: Our assessment, when we 18 were going through the parking evaluation, was that private 19 property owners, apartment owners, business owners have a 20 fairly ready control over their own parking lots in terms of 21 the ability to post it and cause vehicles that don't belong 22 there to be towed. 23 Now, obviously that does create somewhat of a burden on 24 those property owners if there is parking that takes place. 25 I think that it would certainly be appropriate for us and Page 24 1 Sound Transit, for the staff and Sound Transit through the 2 outreach programs that are being planned to work with those 3 private property owners to make sure they understand what 4 options are available to them if that problem arises. 5 MS. CARTER: That is what I was getting 6 at, not a requirement of Sound Transit that they monitor 7 that, but that they provided assistance to those private 8 property owners so that they understood their rights and how 9 they could go about enforcing the parking on their own 10 private property. 11 MR. LANCASTER: Honestly, I don't recall 12 whether anything like that is part of their current outreach 13 program or not, but it could be helpful. 1 14 MS. CARTER: Thank you. That's all I've 15 got. 16 MAYOR MULLET: Pam Lindner. 17 MS. LINDNER: Well, I'm looking forward 18 to parking this book somewhere other than my dining room 19 table. And I think there are parts of this that I'm not 20 really happy about, but it's clear that there's nothing I 21 can do about that part. So I've got three things that I 22 would like to bring up that we may be able to do something 23 about. 24 One is kind of following up with what she has, and I 25 would ask help from staff perhaps. We had a couple people Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 25 1 mention last week about the security at the 154th Street 2 station. And it may very well be fine. And with all due 3 respect, I think, to Mr. Lappenmann, King County is not in a 4 very good financial situation right now. If we're relying 5 on King County to do the security, that may not be 6 sufficient. And I was hoping that they could have a 7 mechanism for evaluating the security in a year, in two 8 years; and after we evaluate it that we have a remedy if 9 it's not up to our standards. 10 And I don't know if that's something anybody else is 11 interested in, but this is our only chance to negotiate 12 anything. So I wasn't perfectly happy with just turning it 13 over forever and saying okay, somebody will do security. We 1 14 don't know what level, but somebody will do it. And we 15 would have no way of getting more later. 16 Does that make sense to you? 17 MR. LANCASTER: Yes, it does. I think 18 that the current proposal and in fact, there is a 19 concurrent letter that has been or reached between Sound 20 Transit and the city, the mayor's office, in consultation 21 with the police department that does, at least, part of what 22 I think you're talking about. And this is included 23 MS. LINDNER: G5 maybe? 24 MR. LANCASTER: That's right, G5 of your 25 notebook. 1 security as in the safety of passengers arriving and 2 departing, or security as in relation to a Page 27 3 MS. LINDNER: No, no. I'm thinking of 4 people milling around. I've spent more time than I should, 5 I think, in the Metro tunnel. And anybody who's familiar 6 with that, there are people all the time there are people 7 that would live there if they could. The tunnel closes. 8 And there are no bathrooms there to discourage that. But 9 there are all sorts of people there. And these types of 10 things, I think, could very easily attract people. And 11 attracting people on Highway 99 oftentimes is not the 12 most sometimes there are unsavory characters. I would 13 like to have some sort of precaution. I don't know what 1 14 could happen. I just don't feel comfortable leaving it the 15 way it is now. 16 MR. LANCASTER: I believe that Hamid 17 Qaasin of Sound Transit did testify very late last week 18 it was getting towards the wee hours about some of the 19 attributes of the security plan that's been worked on. 20 Would it be helpful maybe to review some of that information 21 and then have us go back and speak with the chief and 22 MS. LINDNER: You mean about the cameras 23 and things like that? 24 MR. LANCASTER: Right. 25 MS. LINDNER: Well, I actually read Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 28 1 this. But if you want to do that, that's fine. I would be 2 satisfied with taking it to the task force and seeing if the 3 chief is interested, and I would abide by that. 4 MS. CARTER: I believe he explained that 5 they used Wackenhut for the security of their parking lot, 6 and then they have the King County police contract for the 7 Metro. The Metro does that for the train and probably the 8 issues of the station. But that's what Metro currently 9 does, they contract with King County Sheriff's Department 10 for a certain number of hours in the bus tunnel and for a 11 certain number of hours. 12 MS. LINDNER: But are you saying so 13 this hired firm would be the ones responsible for the 154th 14 Street station more so? Because I would like to see a 15 response to that. 16 I also know that, like the Kent park- and -ride, there 17 are frequent car burglaries. And those have the same people 18 watching them. They can't be everywhere all the time so 19 MS. CARTER: Also it's that kind of 20 thing but 21 MS. LINDNER: But that happens every 22 day. It happens. It truly does. 23 Anyway, if you want to look at it in this agreement, 24 other council members are interested in looking at that, 25 that's one. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 29 1 MR. FENTON: Can I say one thing? You 2 brought up a very good point. It just so happens that 3 Wackenhut Security has been in the spotlight recently, 4 because they are also the firm that has been doing the 5 security for our nuclear sites, and the spotlight was not 6 very encouraging. 7 MAYOR MULLET: It wasn't bright? 8 MR. FENTON: It wasn't very bright on 9 the security firms. So I just 10 MS. KERSLAKE: Councilmember, if you 11 could limit your comments to those already in the record. 12 MR. FENTON: I'm sorry. 13 MS. LINDNER: The second thing I had is 1 14 G12. And you'll have to excuse me because mine was a little 15 test. I'm a terrible map reader. I'm no longer a navigator 16 anywhere when the family goes somewhere. 17 But looking at this, in regards to the screening for 18 detention ponds, there is one area that I'm quite familiar 19 with that's going to be a detention pond there. 20 But I can't tell you what "restoration standard trust" 21 is. I don't know what it is. I don't know how much of it. 22 I do know that what exists right there is a very wonderful 23 screening. And I have seen good examples, and I've seen 24 very poor examples of detention ponds. 25 So I am concerned about the quality and quantity of Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 30 1 screening on the detention ponds, particularly when they are 2 adjacent to residential areas. 3 MR. LANCASTER: Not in your notebook, 4 but part of the record and we have the information in our 5 files Sound Transit has provided plans to show what their 6 standard shrub and standard tree consist of. 7 So if you're looking at a pattern on the particular 8 drawing that calls out standard shrub, I can tell you that 9 the mix there is 20 percent salal, 15 percent Oregon grape, 10 15 percent Indian plum, 20 percent snowberry, 20 percent 11 evergreen huckleberry, and 10 percent sword fern. 12 MS. LINDNER: Those are all very, very 13 low. Two or three of those are ground cover. The 14 symphoricarpos may be very airy, light and deciduous, so 15 it's not very much. 16 It also doesn't say how deep it is. Is it two feet of 17 screening or ten feet? So to me, three or four feet of 18 screening of deciduous shrubs is certainly not adequate. 19 And the mahonia, it doesn't say what kind it is, but I would 20 doubt that it's a tall one. Normally it's more like did 21 you say a reference, a mahonia reference? 22 MR. LANCASTER: I don't remember saying 23 that. I've got the common names here. Do you want me to 24 repeat them? 25 MS. LINDNER: Go ahead. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 31 1 MR. LANCASTER: Salal, Oregon grape, 2 Indian plum, snowberry, evergreen huckleberry, sword fern. 3 MS. LINDNER: There are lots of Oregon 4 grape, and I am assuming that is the shorter variety that is 5 the much more common. These are all way too short for 6 screening. And the ones that are not extraordinarily short 7 are deciduous, so that to me just does not provide much 8 screening. 9 And I still would like to know how deep is the 10 screening, because if it is right next to a residential 11 area, I would like it to be adequately screened. 12 MR. LANCASTER: If I can ask for 13 clarification, by "how deep do you mean the 14 MS. LINDNER: Are they six feet of 15 shrubs, two feet of shrubs, ten feet? 16 MS. CARTER: Would you like the 17 shrubbery going as high as the six -foot security fence? 18 MS. LINDNER: Yes. That's the other 19 thing. The security fence, is it like a hurricane fence or 20 a cyclone fence? 21 MS. CARTER: Cyclone fence, black vinyl 22 covered. 23 MS. LINDNER: I think that the 24 vegetation should disguise this. That's my personal 25 opinion. That to me is screening. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 32 1 MAYOR MULLET: Okay. 2 MS. LINDNER: I have one more. You have 3 sound walls in various areas along here. The sound wall was 4 taken out for this stretch of Macadam because it was too 5 expensive. It had to be 7 feet tall, et cetera. The 6 problem that I have with that is, these people are going to 7 be impacted probably more than anybody else in our city. I 8 can only say for our city. I don't know what's happening in 9 other areas. 10 But they're going to have people in their yards 11 literally. And some of them are going to have staging areas 12 right next to them, right on top of them. I don't know how 13 long. Obviously not the whole three years, but for a really 14 long time. And I just can't see how they cannot have a 15 sound wall there. I feel very strongly that they deserve to 16 have that. 17 MAYOR MULLET: Okay. Dennis? 18 MR. ROBERTSON: I agree strongly with 19 Pam on the sound areas. I'll come back to that. 20 I also agree with her concern about security. 21 Approximately 65 percent of the city's budget is fire and 22 police today. That's security. I hope that's not new 23 information in the record. 24 MAYOR MULLET: It is, but I think you 25 got it ignored. Pa 33 1 MR. ROBERTSON: Adding anything new to 2 that, more to that, is a huge concern. We're adding a very 3 large public regional facility, and I'm concerned about what 4 the security costs for us. 5 I understand King County contracts. Is there any way 6 if the the contracts through the private firm and the 7 King County is a basic contract. The amount of coverage is 8 dependent upon the amount of money spent, I'm going to 9 assume. Is there any way we can have an ongoing say in 10 that? Because if they fail, we end up being the direct 11 backup. And again, our city budget can't afford significant 12 more security costs. And this is becoming a world that's 13 very, very security- conscious. 14 So the question is, is there any way we can ensure that 15 enough money is spent on the King County and the private 16 firms so we don't end up being stuck? 17 MR. LANCASTER: I don't know if there's 18 a direct way we can require a certain expenditure be made, 19 or a certain level of security. 20 One of the things that might be reasonable would be to 21 require periodic reporting to our police department of all 22 the incidents as they have occurred, and then some kind of 23 requirement to consult with the police chief or the police 24 and fire chief to see if there are ways to reduce these 25 incidents or prevent them. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 34 1 Beyond that, I'd have to perhaps consult with the 2 police chief and see if he could come up with any ideas or 3 perhaps provide additional information on what exactly his 4 plan is currently, which I'm not that familiar with. 5 MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. I'll come back to 6 that then. Thank you. 7 I have some other questions first. I also would like 8 to say I strongly agree with Pam Lindner's statement Pam 9 Carter's statement on the nighttime construction in 10 residential areas. That would be a significant impact, and 11 it could be avoid, if at all possible, whatever that's 12 worth. 13 I have another kind of a clarifying question. I didn't 14 get a little confused on is mitigation. Listening to the 15 testimony last week and reading through the book and the 16 other material presented, I understand that Sound Transit 17 can, based upon this is what I think is right, so I'll 18 need you to tell me if I'm correct in my understanding 19 can mitigate the impact on the adjacent and surrounding 20 properties by taking action such as building a sound 21 barrier, but they cannot offer mitigation in the form of 22 money for property devaluation. 23 Am I correct in that understanding or 24 MR. LANCASTER: All I can tell you is 25 that is my understanding as well, but I'm not an expert in Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 35 1 this area. My understanding is based upon basically my 2 experience working for the public sector. 3 I don't know if either Sound Transit or the city 4 attorney has any more they can shed on this. 5 MR. ROBERTSON: Would this be a proper 6 request to ask Sound Transit? Is this true and why? 7 MR. LANCASTER: Certainly. 8 MR. ROBERTSON: Okay, good. 9 MR. STAUDINGER: James Staudinger, 10 Sound Transit. 11 With regard to any loss in value due to any additional 12 sounds to the property owners, that's really hard to 13 quantify at this point. And if it does happen, the property 14 owners always have the resource of coming up with their own 15 appraisal and bringing it to Sound Transit for evaluation. 16 If they're not satisfied with that, they can go to court. 17 But we do actually try to work with the property 18 owners. But at this point, it's just almost impossible to 19 determine whether they will, in fact, suffer a monetary lost 20 in value. That's one of the reasons that we do the 21 mitigation, so that there isn't any loss in value. We're 22 talking about a number of ways, whether sound wall or to 23 provide dual pane windows and other soundproofing measures. 24 It's my experience that, in the end, the property owners are 25 usually more satisfied with those sound mitigation items Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 36 1 where they get the properties refitted with windows, new 2 doors, that type of thing, rather than a sound wall. And 3 that's because most of the issues are at night. And when 4 they're home asleep, they're happier if they have the sound 5 mitigation items as part of their house rather than a 6 separate sound wall. 7 MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. Thank you. But 8 back to the basic question then, if I understand what you've 9 said is, it is possible for property owners, if they feel 10 that their property has been devalued for whatever reason, 11 whether it's sound or the physical presence the close 12 physical presence, if indeed they can show that their 13 property has been devalued, then they can come to Sound 14 Transit and present it to you? And if that doesn't work for 15 the loss value, they can seek they can go to court. Is 16 that correct? 17 MR. STAUDINGER: Yes, that's correct. 18 MS. LINDNER: Could I just 19 MR. ROBERTSON: Sure. 20 MS. LINDNER: Once again, you're 21 mentioning the sound package for the homes, which I think is 22 a good idea for anybody in that proximity. But I think it's 23 grossly unfair for these people to have lost any kind of 24 time outdoors, and that is what happens. If you're adding 25 something and they may already live in a noisy place. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 37 1 They do live in a noisy place. But that doesn't mean 2 somebody can add to it. I just I can't imagine being 3 outside with that. And the sound package for the home just 4 doesn't do anything for that. The sound wall would. 5 MR. STAUDINGER: That's true. 6 MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. I have one other 7 question, I think, would be appropriate for Sound Transit. 8 One of the in the testimony last week, one of the 9 citizens said that noise and vibration impacts are not 10 studied for commercial properties because FTA guidelines are 11 not necessary on commercial property, but they were for 12 residential. Would you elaborate on that for us? 13 MR. IRISH: My name is James Irish. 14 I'm the environmental manager for light rail, and I actually 15 spoke to the noise vibration issues last time. 16 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, I remember. 17 MR. IRISH: Could you repeat the 18 question? 19 MR. ROBERTSON: One of the citizens 20 people testified last week said noise and this isn't a 21 quote, this is my notes noise and vibration inputs are 22 not studied because FTA guidelines say they're not necessary 23 on commercial properties, so they're not studied, the 24 commercial property, as they were for residential. Can you 25 elaborate on that? Page 38 1 MR. IRISH: Sure. The FTA criteria and 2 methodology for studying noise impact is set up specifically 3 for transit like light rail. They do not set a level of or 4 a noise impact for commercial like a typical office 5 building. The criteria is set for uses that are sensitive 6 to noise. 7 And the first use is really the primary one is land 8 uses like residential where you have a bedroom where 9 somebody sleeps. That's a primary focus. They have a 10 category for noise sensitive commercial property such as a 11 recording studio or an institution such as a library, but a 12 typical office does not have a threshold. And the reason 13 for is that, as I said last week, the noise levels from a 14 light rail train is the same as a UPS delivery truck, less 15 than a bus or a larger truck. 16 So the criteria is set up this way, because there is no 17 adverse impact that would be associated for a typical office 18 building, because the noise levels from the noise aren't 19 high enough to interfere for people to carry out business in 20 the office building. We did do some analysis of the noise 21 problem in some of the office buildings that people have 22 mentioned. I can talk about that if you like. 23 MR. ROBERTSON: Just one further 24 question then. 25 The fact that it's elevated and closer in some Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 39 1 fairly close physical proximity to an office building, that 2 doesn't make the noise more greater have a greater 3 impact? 4 MR. IRISH: Yes. The closer you are, 5 the louder the noise would be. It depends on the topography 6 and the height of the building. Sometimes an elevated 7 structure is up above the building that would be nearby, and 8 the noise levels would be actually lower because it's up 9 higher. The higher the building like the second and third 10 stories of the building, the elevated guideway will bring it 11 a little bit closer to that building. So it would depend on 12 the situation, the location of the light rail guideway and 13 the building and that relationship. 14 MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you very much. 15 I'd like to talk about trees and shrubs some more. 16 I agree with the concern for the ponds, the detention 17 ponds. But also there were comments made last week about 18 the guideway itself. And I'm a little confused. So I'll 19 ask staff and then perhaps Sound Transit, is the intention 20 to generally clearcut on the guideway and not plant 21 something back? And if so, how big is it? And in some 22 cases, it sounded like trees were being cut down, mature 23 trees. And if there's 40 or 50 feet of space under the 24 guideway, is it possible to plant something? 25 MS. GIERLOFF: For the record, this is Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 40 1 Nora Gierloff. 2 In your Attachment C, there's some selected pages from 3 the site restoration plan, so Sound Transit has proposed 4 some restoration. And the plants proposed for those vary by 5 area depending on what the nature of the area is, whether 6 there are any wetlands or water sources, buffers to be 7 restored, whether it's just ornamental landscaping. 8 MR. ROBERTSON: I share the same problem 9 in trying to review this. I couldn't make anything out of 10 them. Since I wear glasses now, I don't like using 11 magnifying glasses. 12 So I guess I'll ask staff, has our staff been through 13 this? Have we reviewed the plan? Are we comfortable with 14 the restoration under the guideway itself? 15 MR. LANCASTER: We have reviewed the 16 plans. I believe the focus the primary focus of our 17 review has been with regard to sensitive areas in our 18 policies and ordinances that require specific kinds of 19 restoration for mitigation for sensitive areas impact. 20 And Nora, do you have anything to add to that? 21 MS. GIERLOFF: With some additional 22 landscaping along street frontage like street trees that 23 they're supposed to put in, and then basic landscaping. 24 MR. LANCASTER: I might add, there are a 25 number of areas where Sound Transit the plans show they Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 41 1 will be removing vegetation from private property; and that 2 part of the acquisition of rights, if you will, that they 3 have to go through with those private property owners, and I 4 will imagine that restoration of those areas is a subject of 5 those negotiations as well. 6 MS. LINDNER: Could I ask a follow -up 7 question? 8 MR. LANDCASTER: Sure. 9 MS. LINDNER: I'm looking at C. Can you 10 tell me where I can find what the standard tree is, riparian 11 trees? 12 MS. GIERLOFF: I didn't put that in your 13 packet. It is in the larger set of Sound Transit drawings. 14 I can provide that information for council. 15 MS. LINDNER: I would like to see it. 16 MR. HAGGERTON: Nora, why weren't those 17 things included in the book? As thick as the book is, a few 18 more pages, I don't think, will hurt. 19 MS. GIERLOFF: It would have to be my 20 oversight. 21 MR. HAGGERTON: I didn't mean to put you 22 on the spot. I was wondering if there was a reason it 23 wasn't in there. 24 MR. ROBERTSON: Then I have a couple 25 questions left. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 42 1 It's my understanding that, along the route, most of 2 we have noise barriers proposed for residential, some of the 3 residential, and some of the areas it's not. Is there 4 any I couldn't find anything in here looking through it 5 where it differentiated between low density residential and 6 basically multifamily. 7 Is it treated differently at all in the application of 8 noise barriers and sound? 9 MR. LANCASTER: If I understand the 10 question, there are areas along the trackway that are 11 adjacent to multifamily residences that do have sound 12 barriers, and there are areas adjacent to single- family that 13 have sound barriers. There are also areas adjacent to the 14 single- families that do not have sound barriers. Instead 15 the proposal is for the sound insulation. 16 Did I get your question? 17 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, you did. What 18 about commercial property there? Are the sound barriers 19 proposed? For instance, I think there is along 52nd Avenue. 20 MR. LANCASTER: There are sound barriers 21 along 52nd, yes. 22 MR. ROBERTSON: Is the residential 23 property along 52nd Avenue being treated as if it's even 24 though it's in a zone it's zoned commercial, isn't it? 25 MR. LANCASTER: Yes, it's zoned office. 1 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 43 1 MR. ROBERTSON: Office? Is it being 2 treated as residential, or is it being treated as office? 3 MS. GIERLOFF: The use is being 4 mitigated, the fact that there are residential dwellings 5 there. 6 MR. ROBERTSON: So it's the use that's 7 important, not the zoning? 8 MR. LANCASTER: According to the FTA 9 regulations, I believe. 10 MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you. I'm done for 11 the moment. 12 MAYOR MULLET: David? 13 MR. FENTON: Well, Dennis asked some of 14 my questions. 15 But to get back to one of the things that I brought up 16 as far as multifamily properties, there's two properties 17 that I am concerned about. One is Colonial Gardens which 18 currently is on the southeast side of 154th which abuts the 19 Ajax parking lot. I'm assuming you will have major impacts 20 to it, and I can't find anything from them, anything 21 written. And maybe something has been addressed by them? 22 Have you satisfied them? Do you know? 23 MR. LANCASTER: I'm not aware of any 24 correspondence with them, although there may be some I'm 25 just not aware of it. However, there is a sound wall Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 44 1 proposed for essentially the property line between the 2 station site and that apartment complex. 3 MR. FENTON: My other question is, 4 directly across the street, if my memory serves me right, 5 the current Public Storage is going to be taken, and that's 6 going to be made a parking lot. Is that correct? 7 MR. LANCASTER: That's the proposal. 8 MR. FENTON: So there is also a 9 multifamily unit which abuts that Public Storage area right 10 now which will be affected principally by more lighting, 11 things like that, on that piece of property. Has anybody 12 heard anything about that? 13 MS. GIERLOFF: We have gotten no public 14 comment from them. 15 MR. FENTON: Thank you very much. 16 MAYOR MULLET: Any other general 17 comments from council? We have been around once. We 18 covered an awful lot of territory. Any more? Dennis, do 19 you have any more? 20 MR. ROBERTSON: The issue that 21 Councilmember Fenton just mentioned, if there's no public 22 comment or request for a sound wall between that second 23 parking lot and the apartment complex, it just doesn't get 24 built? 25 MR. LANCASTER: Well, we didn't base our Page 45 1 recommendation on that. We based our suggestion that there 2 should be a noise barrier adjacent to the station site 3 primarily on the basis of the increased bus traffic or the 4 bus traffic that will be in and out of that location fairly 5 close to that multifamily residential property. Busses are 6 considerably noisier than private automobiles. 7 On the property to the north of 154, there won't be any 8 bus traffic on that site. We did, however, have some 9 concern with the construction activity that's already going 10 on on that site. I believe the recommendation is for, at 11 least, a temporary noise wall at that location during the 12 construction phase. 13 MAYOR MULLET: Anything else? All 14 right. You've all listened to yourselves talk about a lot 15 of different things. Does anybody have any motions as far 16 as mitigation measures they'd like to see the staff prepare 17 some language for? Dennis, do you want to start? 18 MR. ROBERTSON: I'd like to propose that 19 we direct staff to prepare an additional finding for the 20 Unclassified Use Permit saying that noise barriers are 21 required for all residential property along the light rail 22 path. I can give my reasons now, or did you want us to get 23 a discussion on it first? 24 MAYOR MULLET: Yes. 25 MR. ROBERTSON: I'm making a motion. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 46 1 MAYOR MULLET: So we have a motion 2 that 3 MR. HAGGERTON: Seconded. 4 MAYOR MULLET: and seconded that you 5 require sound barriers at all residential properties. 6 MR. ROBERTSON: along the light rail 7 path. 8 My reasons are, first, 18.66.060, Unclassified Use 9 Permit states as criteria number three, "The proposed use 10 shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, 11 landscaping, yards, and other development regulations that 12 are required in the district it will occupy." 13 The fifth one says, "The proposed development shall, 14 to the maximum extent feasible, to be consistent with and 15 promote the goals, objectives, and policies of the 16 Comprehensive Land Use Plan." 17 The sixth one says, "The proposed unclassified use 18 shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate all 19 significant adverse environmental impacts on public and 20 private properties." 21 In those three things I just read, nowhere in the 22 criteria does it mention "minimum feasible" or "minimum 23 cost" standards, consistency of mitigation. It doesn't use 24 the word "minimal It uses the word "maximum extent 25 feasible Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 47 1 In addition, Goal 7.2 of our Comprehensive Land Use 2 Plan states, "Noise Abatement Residential neighborhoods 3 protected from undue noise impacts, in order to ensure for 4 all residents the continued use, enjoyment and value of 5 their homes, public facilities and recreation, and the 6 outdoors." 7 7.2.1 says, "Prevent community and environmental 8 degradation by limiting noise levels." 9 7.2.2 says, "Discourage noise levels which are 10 incompatible with current and planned land uses and 11 discourage the introduction of new land uses into areas 12 where existing noise levels are incompatible with such land 13 uses." 14 7.2.3, "Discourage noise levels incompatible with 15 residential neighborhoods." 16 Clearly, our Unclassified Use Permit criteria and our 17 Comprehensive Land Use Plan goals are directing us to 18 protect our residential areas to the maximum extent, not to 19 the minimum. The noise analysis that was submitted to us by 20 Sound Transit says that, "The first form of noise mitigation 21 is to reduce noise at the source." And they do that. 22 That's how they grind the wheels and the way they design the 23 cars. And from everything I read, they're doing the best 24 possible job there. 25 But second it says, "For those locations where noise Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 48 1 and impact still exist, sound walls are evaluated as the 2 primary type of mitigation. Sound walls are considered the 3 most accepted noise control measure and are widely used to 4 control noise along the freeway. For those areas where 5 sound walls are not a feasible and reasonable form of noise 6 mitigation, building insulation would be used to mitigate 7 light rails noise impact." 8 Then it goes on to give three reasons why noise walls, 9 while preferable, are not feasible everywhere on this path. 10 One, they said, "The noise walls would have been to be seven 11 feet three inches high above the guided deck and mounted on 12 the elevated structure." That seems to me to be an 13 engineering issue, and it's clearly solvable. It's not 14 infeasible. 15 Second, "The visual impact of the seven -foot three -inch 16 wall would double the height of elevated guideway 17 structure." That's true. But when we had citizens testify 18 last week, they are citizens asking for the noise barriers. 19 None of them said they didn't want them because they would 20 be ugly. So I think I would rather go with the citizens' 21 view on what is appropriate there. 22 Finally, the third reason is the cost, and they go on 23 to say it's basically high. As a public official, I'm 24 certainly concerned about cost, and I think everybody should 25 be. But the long -term cost of creating low value potential Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 49 1 slum areas along that guideway is a lot greater than the r 2 initial capital of noise barriers everywhere. And we have 3 that area zoned in our comp plan and in our zoning map as 4 residential. The ironical areas where the sound barriers 5 are not included is in the low density residential. Yet 6 that's the very area that needs it the most, because part of 7 the purpose of having the low density single- family homes 8 includes the yard. That's what you pay for. I'm not 9 interesting in seeing slums along that whole area. 10 So I find the reasons given for not providing the noise 11 walls to be insufficient and not supported by our 12 Unclassified Use Permit or Comprehensive Land Use Plan, so I 13 would like to direct staff to include that as a requirement. 14 MS. LINDNER: Could I respond to that? 15 MAYOR MULLET: We're speaking to the 16 motion. So Pam 17 MS. LINDNER: We have spent an 18 inordinate amount of time in the last year or so actually 19 not the last year or so, probably the last five years and 20 one of our main goals has to be try to stabilize our school 21 population. We have a huge number of rentals. Whether 22 their homes that are rentals or they're apartments, we like 23 to keep people in the city longer, because the statistics 24 will show that, when they stay here longer, they do better 11 25 in school, people participate in city functions, and overall Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 50 1 it makes a better city. And by offering the sound walls along there, I think they're encouraging home ownership, not rentals. That's 4 another reason. That's a council goal, and it has been for 5 probably for the eight years since I've been on the council. 6 I think that's another real strong 7 MAYOR MULLET: Jim? 8 MR. HAGGERTON: One comment on Dennis' 9 motion is, we put a lot of time and effort into that comp 10 plan and the zone codes. Week after week, we stayed until 11 11:00 as we went through that in 1995 and 1996, in those 12 years. And I think we had in mind what was best for the 13 future of Tukwila because of what we saw at the existing 14 time. 15 And I think that's the way we ought to look at a major 16 project such as Sound Transit's light rail, not what exists 17 there today and say it's too expensive to build a sound wall 18 because there's only one house or two houses, but what could 19 be there in the future. This is a long -term project. And I 20 think we have to do the job right. 21 MAYOR MULLET: Pam Carter. 22 MS. CARTER: I'm going to hook myself in 23 here. Okay. I'm just trying to look through here quickly 24 and make sure I understand we have some areas where the 25 noise and vibration studies shows no impact next to Page 51 1 residential. And then we've got some that show RSIT, and P 2 I'm guessing the RSIT is the sound insulation program. 3 MR. LANCASTER: That's correct. 4 MS. CARTER: So are you proposing that 5 mthe sound walls be everywhere or only where 6 MR. ROBERTSON: Good catch. It should 7 be all noise impacted residential properties. If there's no 8 noise impact, it would be extremely foolish to spend the 9 money. Good catch. 10 MS. CARTER: Because I'm trying to look 11 to see how much of it would be. And it looks like Carosino 12 Farms up there, and then sort of 13 MR. ROBERTSON: to 142nd Avenue. 14 MS. CARTER: the 128th area, which I 15 can't really tell what that unless that's across from 16 Paul and Betty Gooly. Maybe that's it. 17 MS. LINDNER: It's actually a bit 18 further north. 19 MS. CARTER: But that area right there. 20 There's one house there on the corner next to that road that 21 goes under 599, which is now probably 99, or should be. 22 MAYOR MULLET: One of the many numbers 23 listed, I think, as 99. 24 MS. CARTER: And then along where 138th 25 comes in. Sound Transit 9/13/04 2 1 MR. ROBERTSON: Pam? MS. CARTER: I'd sort of like them to Page 52 3 show us, so we have an idea, but it certainly makes sense to 4 me. 5 MR. ROBERTSON: My intention was 6 noise impacted area residential noise impacted area. But 7 not only areas that have a house on, but an undeveloped lot, 8 I want the noise barrier to protect that too, because it's 9 our intention to have something built there. 10 MS. CARTER: So it raises the question, 11 have they monitored empty lots or only where there are 12 structures? 13 MR. ROBERTSON: I guess that's for the 14 staff to work out. 15 MS. CARTER: We want to know if they 16 measured all along, then this will tell us where the walls 17 need to be. And we can, you know staff can look at we 18 can look at these maps, but if they haven't done any 19 measurements on empty lots, there's no structure. 20 MS. LINDNER: If it's an empty lot next 21 to a house that is having an impact, it's pretty easy to 22 tell. 23 MAYOR MULLET: Excuse me, Pam. Steve, 24 do you have an answer to this? 125 MR. LANCASTER: I guess what I would Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 53 1 I would suggest a couple of things. 2 First of all, if the motion is to require noise 3 barriers for all noise impacted residential properties, the 4 first question is that, does that mean residentially 5 zoned and planned and zoned properties? 6 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. 7 MR. LANCASTER: If that's the case 8 just making a note here if that's the case, then my 9 understanding of the effects of that motion would be, if you 10 can look at 11 MR. ROBERTSON: On the map. 12 MR. LANCASTER: Attachment G15. And 13 turn back about four or five pages to the first map. I will 14 just walk through these maps with you and indicate my 15 understanding of the motion. 16 MR. ROBERTSON: Wait a minute. In G14? 17 MR. LANCASTER: G15. 18 MS. LINDNER: G15. 19 MR. LANCASTER: It's the summary of the 20 design noise analysis. Have you found the map? 21 MR. ROBERTSON: Which map are you 22 talking about? 23 MR. LANCASTER: The first one, Figure 6. 24 And you'll notice in the lower left -hand side, R1 and R2. 25 Those are Carosino properties one and two. Those are the Page 54 1 Carosino properties. Those are zoned as industrial. And 3 MR. ROBERTSON: That's correct. 4 MS. LINDNER: You're agreeing to that? 5 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. 6 MR. LANCASTER: If you move to the next 7 page, which is Figure 7, the heavy dashed line towards the 8 bottom of that page is an eight -foot high noise wall. And 9 it mitigates the impacts on R6 and R7. It does not mitigate 10 the impact on R8, and that's supposed to have a residential 11 sound insulation package. 12 MS. LINDNER: What is that zoned? 13 MR. LANCASTER: That is zoned 14 single- family low density. 15 MS. LINDNER: So that would get a sound 16 wall? 17 MR. LANCASTER: Essentially that's what 18 would happen. 19 If you go to the next page, which is Figure 8, we have 20 R9A through R13. There's no noise barrier proposed there. 21 I understand your motion would require a noise barrier along 22 that entire area from R9A through R13. We have looked at 23 the entire alignment through here, and those are the areas 24 that are actually zoned residential that are impacted. 25 There are some other residential along there that are not Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 55 1 impacted because the guideway is in a cut area, and so there's a natural noise barrier, if you will. There are also some areas that are heavily impacted by 4 either wetland or the proposed detention ponds that are LDR, 5 but there's never to be a home there. So what I'm saying 6 is, the areas that I have just gone through, I believe, was 7 the intention of your motion. 8 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. 9 MS. CARTER: Could Nora point to this 10 area on the map? These are the ones that I get real 11 confused, and I can see better on that map. 12 MR. ROBERTSON: If there's going to be a 13 detention pond or it's a wetland, it's totally 14 undevelopable. If I remember right, there's no such thing. 15 MR. LANCASTER: There's probably no such 16 thing. But for all intents and purpose, the likelihood of 17 developing the one that we looked at along here are quite 18 low. 19 MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. Then I would 20 trust your professional opinion there. But yeah, it doesn't 21 make sense to put a barrier where it's not going to protect 22 anything. 23 MS. LINDNER: Could I ask for 24 clarification? I swear, either I'm having dTja vu or not, 25 but I swear I asked this same question a week ago, but I'm Page 56 1 going to ask it again. 2 Can you tell me the cross streets there from the 3 beginning to the end? Because I don't see it. I see 138th, 4 what is it on the far right side? But how far does it go? 5 MS. GIERLOFF: It would be about 142nd 6 if extended, the last property before the wetland. 7 MS. LINDNER: That's the last home 8 before 144th. 9 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. 10 MS. LINDNER: Okay. Thank you. 11 MAYOR MULLET: Is there any more 12 discussion on this motion? 13 MS. CARTER: Those are the last ones. 14 MR. ROBERTSON: I presume there's noise 15 barriers all along the SR -518 part of the route, or there's 16 no noise impact. 17 MR. LANCASTER: If you take a look at 18 MS. LINDNER: Figure 13 shows where it 19 starts. 20 MR. LANCASTER: I'm sorry. Figure 11 21 shows the area of 52nd as having noise walls. Coming around 22 the curve, the noise wall starts just a little bit to the 23 west of 52nd Street. And if you turn the page and it 24 continues all the way up to if you can see the apartment 25 complex there. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 57 1 MR. ROBERTSON: There's no impact along 1 2 R28, so there's no wall there. 3 MR. LANCASTER: Right. R26, R27 and R28 4 have no impacts. Then the noise wall picks up again to 5 protect R29, and all the way up to the boundary of the light 6 rail station. 7 MS. CARTER: That's just east of 52nd? 8 MR. LANCASTER: That's correct. 9 MS. LINDNER: I think it's very 10 interesting having them where we see the sound wall is. 11 Then there's that really long gap where there is no sound 12 wall, and we were told it's not cost effective. 13 /14 15 in other areas. 16 MR. ROBERTSON: That's MS. CARTER: Yet it was cost effective MR. ROBERTSON: But I don't want to 17 MAYOR MULLET: We wouldn't get into the 18 cost effectiveness. 19 MR. HAGGERTON: Steve, is the motion 20 clear enough for what you need to work with? 21 MR. LANCASTER: The motion is clear 22 enough to me. 23 MAYOR MULLET: Okay. 24 MR. HAGGERTON: My second relates to his 25 amended motion to the impact. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 58 1 MAYOR MULLET: Well, remember we're just 2 asking staff to prepare noise. We're not making the exact 3 wording at this point this time or prepare language, not 4 noise. They have been accused of preparing noise before, 5 but this time we'll ask them to prepare language. 6 All in favor say aye. 7 (All say aye) 8 MAYOR MULLET: Any opposed? All right. 9 That's one. Any others? 10 MS. LINDNER: I think I need to wait 11 until I get the information. Or should I make a motion for 12 the screening for the detention pond, because in my mind, it 13 is not adequate, because what they have given are evergreen /14 things that are one or two feet tall, and the rest that are 15 deciduous are three or four feet, and they're airy even when 16 they're fully leaved out. So in my mind that is not a very 17 good screening, and I still don't know how deep it is. 18 MS. CARTER: Why don't you make a motion 19 to provide that they require more adequate screening, and 20 you can use the six -foot fence since is 21 MS. LINDNER: The six -foot 22 MS. CARTER: The six -foot fence 23 year -round or 24 MS. LINDNER: Yeah. It would be 25 year- round. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 59 1 MR. LANCASTER: So in your motion, if 2 you just could basically state the objective you're trying 3 to achieve, what we can do is come back to you with a way of 4 changing that. 5 MS. LINDNER: I would move that we 6 direct staff to come back with a more intense screening for 7 the detention pond so that that will screen up to the 8 six -foot fence all year long, so that you'll have some 9 evergreens material mixed in there with the deciduous. And 10 I don't know how to address the depth of it though. I don't 11 know what's reasonable. 12 MR. LANCASTER: The first clarification, 13 are we talking about all of the detention ponds or /14 MS. LINDNER: I would like to say all 15 the detention ponds that are adjacent to residential areas. 16 MR. LANCASTER: That are visible from 17 residential properties? 18 MS. LINDNER: Yes. Is that okay? Can 19 I 20 MR. ROBERTSON: From the street in 21 residential areas? 22 MR. LANCASTER: From residential streets 23 and properties. 24 MS. LINDNER: That's a pretty sloppy 25 one. Does anybody want to second it? Sound Transit 9/13/04 1 MR. DUFFIE: I'll second it. Page 60 2 3 idea what those ponds look like? Because we all know about 4 the cement bathtub and how it looks. They're not all that 5 ugly. I'm not real clear how these are looking. 6 MR. ROBERTSON: I can't tell from those 7 maps. 8 MS. LINDNER: I can't either. 9 MR. LANCASTER: There are 10 cross sections. 11 MS. LINDNER: I saw the cross sections. 12 MR. LANCASTER: What would help you? 13 MR. ROBERTSON: Do they have a 1 14 photograph or an artist's rendition of what they intend them 15 to look like, you know, the one on 42nd? 16 MR. LANCASTER: I do indeed. It 17 wouldn't look like that. 18 MS. CARTER: Right. 19 MR. ROBERTSON: The citizens don't want 20 that either. 21 MR. LANCASTER: One of the advantages we 22 have here that we didn't have when that project came through 23 is, we have ponds here that are 90 percent designed, and for 24 that project we had about 15 percent designed, something p 25 like that. MS. CARTER: Can you give us a better Sound Transit 9/13/04 1 It's my understanding that at the discussions with 2 3 been expressed that you want 90 percent design, so that we 4 have some assurance of what this is, what you're going to 5 get. 6 MS. LINDNER: We do. 7 MR. LANCASTER: We're pretty confident 8 that's the case here. But if you can't see what it is, then 9 it's going to be difficult for you to know. 10 MS. CARTER: Might there be some 11 photographs of similar ones in other communities? Or is 12 that introduced existing? 13 MS. KERSLAKE: The concern I have with 1 14 that, Councilmember, is that we're now introducing new 15 things in the record that wasn't previously there. So I 16 think the motion is appropriate, and staff can pick up some 17 information to bring back to you, and then you can decide. 18 MS. CARTER: If they can give you a 19 better verbal description, because I think of ponds that are 20 perfectly fine and don't need any screening. They look fine 21 as long as they're adequately maintained, and the shrub 22 brush is removed like it should be, or they don't function 23 properly. But yet there's others that 24 MAYOR MULLET: Jim? 25 MR. HAGGERTON: Staff, we can do more council or council committee with regard to ponds, it has Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 61 1 than just suggest a curfew on late -night construction? 12 3 until we get this one out of the way? MAYOR MULLET: Can we hold that one Page 62 4 MR. HAGGERTON: Sure. 5 MAYOR MULLET: We've got a motion on the 6 table and seconded. Is that enough? Discussion on that? 7 MR. DUFFIE: I think so. 8 MAYOR MULLET: Let's call for the 9 question on that item. All in favor of language to increase 10 the visual screening of detention ponds say aye. 11 (All say aye) 12 MAYOR MULLET: Any opposed? All right. 13 That's number two. Now, Jim, let's jump in. 1 14 MR. LANCASTER: I do remember your 15 question. 16 MR. HAGGERTON: I thought you did. 17 MR. LANCASTER: I think that, since we 18 have a specific ordinance that addressed the issue of 19 nighttime noise, that we probably have to rely on the 20 decision making process for that ordinance instead of 21 prejudging the outcome of a specific application of that 22 code. I wish I had a better answer for you but 23 MR. HAGGERTON: I think you're okay 24 there, because I think in that ordinance we specify hours of 25 construction activity when it comes to nighttime. Sound Transit 9/13/04 t 2 1 MR. LANCASTER: That's correct. MS. CARTER: Jim, tell me if you would Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 63 3 be unhappy if he were to allow nighttime construction in 4 residential areas, and he'll take that into effect if he 5 heard that from five or six or seven different 6 councilmembers. 7 MR. HAGGERTON: That's where I'm going. 8 MR. LANCASTER: I understand. 9 MR. DUFFIE: But I think we have to 10 abide by our noise ordinance. I think that would be great 11 for us. I don't think we need to start adding anything at 12 this point in time. I think we need to wait until we hear a 13 complaint, because our citizens will let us know if there's 14 noise. 15 So I think we just need to abide by our regulations 16 that we have. And let's stick with that. After 10:00, 17 there's no work; and before 7:00, there's no work, period. 18 That's the way it is. 19 MR. LANCASTER: But you do understand 20 that there is the opportunity to apply for a variance? 21 MR. DUFFIE: I know that, but we need to 22 stick to the ordinance we have now. 23 MS. CARTER: Would you oppose the 24 granting of a variance? 1!25 MR. DUFFIE: I think I have to hear the Page 64 1 circumstances before I make a decision. Right now my idea 2 is that at 10:00 you stop, at 7:00 you start, period. 3 MS. CARTER: Okay. 4 MAYOR MULLET: Any other comments on 5 that issue? All right. Put that one to bed for now until 6 someone applies for a variance. Any other issues here? Pam 7 Carter. 8 MS. CARTER: I would like to have the 9 staff put together a provision that would require Sound 10 Transit to monitor the noise and vibration for a period of 11 time and then come up with a way of mitigating it if it 12 exceeds what they expected, because this is all based on 13 engineers' projections based on the circumstances in other I 14 areas. But even with the sound walls, I think it would be a 15 good idea to have some monitoring and then further 16 mitigation, if necessary. 17 MR. ROBERTSON: I'll second that. I'd 18 like to add a friendly amendment, I would say for a period 19 of three years. The reason is, in reading the sound record 20 it so like the tires, the wheels are a big issue, and 21 they wear. And it looks like three years is a reasonable 22 period of time. 23 MS. CARTER: Three years sounds good. 24 MAYOR MULLET: Any other comments on 25 that motion? Sound Transit 9/13/04 1 3 MS. CARTER: It would be noise and MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. Page 65 4 MS. HERNANDEZ: I definitely would 5 support that. From what I read, it appears as though the 6 impact of the noise and vibration may not even be able to be 7 clearly detected until after construction is through. I 8 think that is a very important thing to monitor because, 9 once we approve, I don't know what the other mitigation 10 efforts could be to reduce that impact. 11 MAYOR MULLET: Okay. Any other 12 discussion? 13 we have a motion to have staff prepare language 14 regarding the monitoring of noise and vibration for three 15 years after the beginning of service to double -check what is 16 proposed to be the limits and see if they actually fall 17 within those. All in favor say aye. 18 (All say aye.) 19 MAYOR MULLET: Opposed? Steve, do you 20 have enough on that one? 21 MR. LANCASTER: Yes, I believe so. 22 MAYOR MULLET: All right. Next? 23 MS. LINDNER: I'll probably need some 24 help on this, but I would move that we ask staff to provide 25 us with the mechanism for evaluating the security at the Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 66 1 154th Street station and a process for remedy or mitigation, 2 3 better if needed, for future years. If you can help me say that 4 MS. CARTER: And would that if staff 5 comes back 6 MS. LINDNER: Do I need a second? 7 MS. CARTER: I'll second. Would that, 8 if staff, after talking to our police department say, if 9 they came back with the part of the system security plan 10 that both partners would keep each other updated and would 11 work on those issues, would that take care of that condition 12 in your mind? 13 MS. LINDNER: Well, I would like to hope 14 so. But my experience shows that you can't always trust 15 that that's the case. So depending on what the chief said 16 and what you brought back, I would consider saying, no, we 17 don't need it. Does that make sense? 18 MR. LANCASTER: Well, I think I 19 understand what you're trying to achieve. And if that's the 20 council's consensus, we'll see what we can do between now 21 and next week. 22 MR. ROBERTSON: Some kind of report of 23 ongoing periodic consultation. 24 But one question, why would you limit it to just the 25 station? Why wouldn't you include security for the trains Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 67 1 and the guideway too? If something happens along the 2 guideway itself, we're involved. That's our fire and 3 rescue. And if it's a 4 MS. LINDNER: Well, that would be more 5 complete, and I would accept that as an amendment and a 6 second. 7 MR. ROBERTSON: I think that's Pam. 8 MS. CARTER: Second. I'm trying to 9 think, because I know with the Metro bus system, they have 10 just started getting the city to report to Metro when they 11 have an incident, so Metro knows about it. And so we need 12 that information to go both ways. And I think that it 13 sounds like, under the security plan, they would be talking 14 to each other regularly. And I think part of it, you want 15 us as policy makers to be getting some information. Is that 16 what you want, not just the police department or 17 MS. LINDNER: Well, I don't know. 18 MR. LANCASTER: I would suggest in that 19 regard that, if there's some kind of information feedback 20 built in, that the police chief, police department, would be 21 the primary contact, and then you can always request 22 briefings from the chief. 23 MS. LINDNER: Right. Then how do you 24 determine what an adequate level of security is? If we get 25 X number of calls or Page 68 1 MR. FENTON: I think you've got to leave 2 that to the police chief. 3 MS. LINDNER: You would hope that you 4 would put that in, but I don't know how to do that. 5 MS. CARTER: Can the motion be 6 summarized that we have added to it? I don't know what I 7 said now. 8 MR. LANCASTER: Go ahead. 9 MS. CARTER: No, you go ahead. 10 MR. LANCASTER: What I heard is that 11 you've asked that we provide a mechanism for evaluating 12 security both at the 154th Street station along the 13 guideway, and the process for remedy if any problems should 14 arise. 15 MS. LINDNER: In the future years. 16 MR. ROBERTSON: Two way, both, 17 information goes both ways. 18 MR. LANCASTER: By that you mean 19 information from Sound Transit security to our police 20 department, and then back in term of suggestions or ideas 21 for resolving issues? 22 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. Plus if we have 23 incidents happening on the highway, we should be obviously 24 talking to them. They have a joint responsibility to the 25 people watching those trains to make it a safe facility. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 69 1 MS. CARTER: The thing is, when they 2 break into a park- and -ride lot, they don't call Sound 3 Transit; they call Metro. They call 911, and the local 4 police respond. And that information needs to get back then 5 to the appropriate agencies so that they know there's been 6 100 cars today broken into or two in the last six months. 7 MR. LANCASTER: I understand. 8 MAYOR MULLET: Okay. Motion on the 9 table moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. 10 (All say aye) 11 MAYOR MULLET: Any opposed? All right. 12 Anything else? 13 MR. ROBERTSON: I have one last thing. 14 I'm not sure I want to propose something. 15 Parking at the station, let's assume it's not adequate. 16 The system is wonderfully successful. That's what we all 17 hope. And immediately after we build, we add more parking 18 to it, and that's still not sufficient. During that time 19 period, we're going to have people trying to find places to 20 park. 21 And some of the remedies I saw in the document about 22 creating residential parking zone areas, and things like 23 that, those are fairly unpleasant things to do, and they 24 don't work real well. I know I have friends in Seattle in 25 some areas where those areas create a very big nuisance. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 70 1 On the other hand, I just went to the Puyallup Fair, 2 and they're parking people on the grass, front yards and 3 side lots, and that's probably an appropriate thing to do 4 for an annual event that lasts two weeks. But it's hardly 5 an appropriate thing to do 365 days a year, right? 6 So again, Steve, are you comfortable with the parking 7 agreement that we're not going to end up with a mess around 8 that station? Because it's a long ways to the next station 9 on this system. And if this thing catches on, if they 10 decide to shut down the viaduct in Seattle, it may hit about 11 the same time period as this comes online. 12 MR. LANCASTER: All I can tell you is 13 that we studied this issue very, very hard for an extended 14 period of time. We had a person who I considered to be one 15 of the foremost experts on ridership forecasting in the 16 country working directly for the city. 17 I think we have built in appropriate triggers and 18 protections for the facts as we know them, and I'm 19 comfortable with the decision that was made. It was not 20 appealed. We notified our entire contact list. And so I 21 have to believe there's not a lot of concern out there on 22 this issue based upon the decision that was made. 23 But I certainly can't forecast that something 24 unforeseen may happen that would cause this facility to be 25 in higher demand in ridership than other forecasts suggest Page 71 1 it would be. But you can never be certain about that sort 2 of thing. So the simple answer to your question is, yeah, 3 I'm quite confident. 4 MR. ROBERTSON: Also, do you think that 5 you dealt with the problem of people not wanting to pay for 6 parking at the airport? 7 MR. LANCASTER: Yes, I believe so. 8 There will be adequate provisions so that you wouldn't be 9 able to do that. 10 MR. ROBERTSON: The one I remember 11 seeing was that the fact you had to have a ticket. 12 MR. LANCASTER: You have to have a 13 ticket showing you arrived at this station some way other 14 than by private car. 15 MR. ROBERTSON: I guess a pretty big 16 nuisance if the next closest station is six miles away. 17 Okay. 18 MAYOR MULLET: Steve, would you describe 19 the sequence of the parking requirements, how they're 20 interpreted? 21 MR. LANCASTER: It would be a lot easier 22 if you could refer to the staff report. There's a summary 23 there. And I wouldn't remember all the steps, so maybe Nora 24 can help me find it here. 25 It starts on Page 196 of the staff report. And first Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 72 1 of all, there's a requirement for no fewer than 600 parking 2 spaces at opening of the link station. The parking 3 determination requires measures to prevent persons whose 4 destination is SeaTac Airport from parking at the facility. 5 There's an onsite parking demand monitoring program that has 6 to be developed and approved by the city. There's a 7 requirement to increase the amount of off street parking 8 available if demand warrants it up to a cap of 1,330 spaces; 9 a requirement to reevaluate the parking demand and 10 additional parking, if needed, if the link light rail is 11 extended beyond the initial segment that means into north 12 or south, either way a requirement to monitor on- street 13 parking in the vicinity of the station to determine whether 14 spillover and park- and -ride parking is adversely impacting 15 the area; and a requirement to address significant 16 park- and -ride impacts whether in Tukwila or the City of 17 SeaTac; that appropriate measures be approved by the 18 appropriate deciding body, and that could be either Sea -Tac 19 or Tukwila. 20 MR. DUFFIE: I think it would be 21 important to make sure that we look out for our citizens. 22 We don't want any other incidents like we did when we first 23 started down on Interurban, so we want to make sure that is 24 very well taken care of. If we can enforce these, I think 25 we have a good deal. Sound Transit 9/13/04 25 can and can't do. MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you. Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 73 1 2 MAYOR MULLET: Anybody else? Pam 3 Carter. 4 MS. CARTER: On that parking up to 1,330 5 spaces, that would probably be structured parking? 6 MR. LANCASTER: On that site, that would 7 be the only way provided. 8 MS. CARTER: Frankly, I think the 9 bigger, easier problem to solve is the parking preventing 10 people from parking and going to the airport when you have a 11 bus line. It's going to be more difficult if and when 12 there's light rail there. That will be much more attractive 13 for people, and you wouldn't be able to use that same 14 requirement that you have to have a bus or a ticket, because 15 you will be able to buy a ticket there at that station. 16 MR. LANCASTER: Right. That's one of 17 the reasons that we required that, for any extension, we 18 have to re- evaluate the parking. 19 MS. CARTER: Which was very smart. I 20 think it's a great idea. I just hope Sound Transit, if 21 necessary, will work and assist the apartment owners in the 22 area if they begin having a problem with parking, and 23 educate them on what they may do, because some of our 24 apartment owners are not very knowledgeable about what they Page 74 1 MAYOR MULLET: Okay. Any other motions 2 council wishes to have prepared or have staff prepare? 3 We're satisfied with the Shoreline Variance and Design 4 Review as presented and satisfied with the development of 5 the Transit Way Agreement? Or was that all taken care of at 6 the public hearing? 7 MR. DUFFIE: Right. 8 MAYOR MULLET: All right. Pam Carter. 9 MS. CARTER: I have a question. 10 Can you work like Pam Lindner asked about the 11 security. That, I think, is probably the most difficult to 12 come up with, how we're going to address that. Is it okay 13 for staff here to talk together so that they can see what 14 needs to be done? 15 MS. LINDNER: I think he understands 16 that. 17 MS. CARTER: But we may come back and 18 say the police said they're going to do this, does that meet 19 your requirement, and you want to modify what you're 20 proposing. Or you may not want to modify it. But if that 21 can be worked out ahead of time, that would sure be easier. 22 MR. LANCASTER: Well, we certainly 23 will if we think we need clarification on what the 24 intention was and so forth, we'll ask for that. But in 25 terms of a specific proposal and whether it's adequate, I Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 75 1 think that's a decision the entire council needs to make. 2 So we'll try to work something out. 3 MS. CARTER: If necessary, you could 4 come up with a couple of alternatives. I'm just thinking if 5 things go different than what we expected. 6 MR. LANCASTER: Well, of course, we're 7 hoping that we're going to be able to provide you with 8 enough information, and these conditions that you asked us 9 to come back with will be to your satisfaction by next week. 10 If that's not the case, there's nothing that says you have ii to decide next week. That's our goal, and we're going to do 12 what we can to get there. But if we get it wrong between 13 now and then, then obviously we'll seek a clarification. 14 MAYOR MULLET: Okay. Any other comments 15 before we move on to the next item on the agenda? All 16 right. Let's move on. Again, we want to thank everybody 17 for their time and effort. It's a big issue. We can do 18 that. 19 20 (Proceedings concluded at 8:50 p.m.) 21 22 23 24 25 Sound Transit 9/13/04 5 6 That the foregoing hearing was taken before me and 7 completed on September 13, 2004, and thereafter was transcribed under my direction; that the transcript is a 8 full, true and complete transcription of the testimony of said witness, including all questions, answers, objections, 9 motions and exceptions; 10 That the witnesses, before examination, were duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 11 the truth; 12 That I am not a relative, employee, attorney or council of any party to this action or relative or employee 13 of any such attorney or council and that I am not financially interested in the said action or the outcome 14 thereof; 15 That I am herewith securely sealing the said transcript and promptly delivering the same to the City of 16 Tukwila. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal September 17, 2004. 18 19 20 21 J. Gayle Hays, CCR, RPR, Notary 22 Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 23 Renton. 24 Sound Transit 9/13/04 Page 76 1 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON I, J. Gayle Hays, CCR, RPR, ss CCR 1964, a duly authorized 3 COUNTY OF KING Notary Public in and for the State Of Washington, residing at 4 Renton, do hereby certify: Page 26 1 What it requires or what it admits to is and this is 2 actually ongoing is the development of what they call a 3 system security plan. And this is being developed through a 4 security task force which includes the Tukwila Police 5 Department, as well as King County Metro, King County 6 Sheriff, and police departments from SeaTac, Seattle and the 7 University of Washington. And this assisted security plan 8 will be completed, they expect, this fall, which is 9 obviously sometime before the system begins operation. 10 And it's my understanding that this plan will only go 11 into effect after it's been approved by the Tukwila police 12 chief. So there is an opportunity through that process 13 to if the chief believes it's necessary to include some 14 kind of a monitoring program and recording system. 15 MS. LINDNER: So you're not saying it's 16 already in there, because I can't find it in there and 17 MR. LANCASTER: I don't see it. 18 MS. LINDNER: The fact that they will 19 send two people, two officers to training, to pay for their 20 training, that could mean that they're going to pay for the 21 two hours to teach them on the system, or they could pay for 22 the hourly wage. And it's still weak. 23 So if the task force and the police chief thinks it's 24 something that could be done, I would appreciate it. 25 MS. CARTER: Are you thinking of Sound Transit 9/13/04