Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/1999 Special Business Meeting 483 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON JUNE 1, 1999 SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING 1. The City Council met in session on this date at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington, Mayor John Puccinelli, presiding. Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, John Klingele, Mary Place, and Bernard Sims present on roll call. City Manager Zais, City Attorney Paolella, and City Clerk Roberts were also present. 2. INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE An Invocation was given by Mayor Puccinelli, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Klingele. 3. CLOSED RECORD PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST BY MERCY ENTERPRISES TO REZONE PROPERTY (KNOWN AS RIVERSIDE MALL) IN THE VICINITY OF NORTH 16 AVENUE AND SR 12 This being the time set for the closed - record public meeting, Mayor Puccinelli asked for a summary of the legal procedures for this meeting. PUBLIC MEETING PROCEDURE: 1) CITY ATTORNEY'S STATEMENT OF REQUIRED LEGAL PROCEDURES INCLUDING DISCLOSURE OF EX -PARTE CONTACTS BY COUNCIL City Attorney Paolella summarized the requirements of state and local laws pertaining to the Council's quasi - judicial consideration of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to approve with conditions the Mercy Enterprises' rezone application. He also briefly outlined some of the established guidelines for the closed- record public meeting that will also include consideration of implementing those conditions as outlined in the proposed development agreement. Only information previously presented to the Hearing Examiner during the open- record I/ public hearing can be discussed; no new evidence can be submitted, and any facts presented must be substantiated on the record. Mr. Paolella also explained the time limits set for each speaker and the light system used to time each speaker. Under the auspices of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, all Council members disclosed exparte contact, which consisted of casual inquiries and comments from the public during social situations that were not made to influence their decision, or situations where the Council avoided discussion of the issue 484 JUNE 1, 1999 altogether. Council Members disclosed whether or not campaign contributions from the parties were involved, and City Attorney Paolella inquired whether the audience had any comments on exparte disclosure or wished to refute any conversations with members of the City Council. There was no one wishing to comment, and James Carmody and John Ogden agreed the discussion was complete on exparte contact. 2) MAYOR'S STATEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES Mayor Puccinelli outlined the Council procedures for the meeting and reiterated timeframes set for testimony would be strictly enforced. 3) CITY STAFF'S INTRODUCTION OF APPLICATION AND SUMMARY OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION (20 MINUTES) Mayor Puccinelli opened the closed - record public meeting, and invited staff to begin their presentation. Don Skone, Planning Manager, summarized the Mercy Enterprises' rezone application, submitted in April 1996 to rezone 14 tax parcels comprised of approximately 84 acres. The property is located in the vicinity of 16 Avenue and SR12. The property would be rezoned from M -1, Light Industrial, to LCC, Large Convenience Center, for the purpose of building a regional mall. The mall would be 850,000 square feet with an additional 120,000 square feet of associated office and other retail space totaling 970,000 square feet after total buildout. Mr. Skone noted that a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for this rezone with a concept site plan attached. After being circulated for public comment, the EIS document was finalized in November 1998. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) also includes an extensive traffic analysis. After searching for, and not finding any, alternative sites within the city suitable for a regional mall facility, the rezone application was then forwarded to the Hearing Examiner. Open- record public hearing sessions were held on February 4, 5, and 12, 1999, with the record being closed on March 17, 1999. The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of this rezone, subject to certain conditions and execution of a development agreement to implement those conditions. Mr. Skone read the definitive list of conditions from pages 51 -52 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Those conditions pertain to obtaining a building permit for the facility; installation of traffic signals, and making required street and intersection improvements. Mr. Skone directed attention to the requirement to 2 485 JUNE 1, 1999 signalize 16 Avenue and River Road and reported that the City has collected funds from other developers in the • area, and some design work has been done for that intersection. For the 6 Avenue improvement between the easterly mall entrance and River Road, it was noted that right -of -way acquisition is not an element of this particular improvement. Improvements at this location are to be made within existing right -of -way and street configuration. There was extensive discussion concerning the conditions on the rezone. Council Member Buchanan asked about the bicycle lane that was included in the EIS site plan but not in the general site plan provided in the Council packet. 4) APPLICANT'S OPENING STATEMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES(20 MINUTES) James Carmody, Velikanje, Moore & Shore, P.S., 405 East Lincoln Avenue, representing Kathi Mercy, the Mercy Family, and Mercy Enterprises, presented the applicant's opening statement. After providing a brief historical perspective about the application, Mr. Carmody urged the Council to approve the rezone request. He provided background information about the location of the project site, along with details of the project, including time and money invested by the applicant. He noted that this is the best site for the mall because of its size, easy freeway access, and it not being adjacent to any residential neighborhoods. He also commented that increased economic competition is a separate issue from zoning elements in landuse proceedings. Indicating that the mall would have the potential to capture retail sales leakage, Mr. Carmody pointed out that studies show there is sufficient sales capacity available to support the Riverside Mall. The mall' would also contribute to the sales tax and property tax revenue base for the City of Yakima. Transportation impacts, including traffic capacity for 16 Avenue, have been identified. The applicant will construct substantial street system improvements to North 16 Avenue, River Road, and North 6 Avenue during phase one of the project. The applicant is also willing to pay its proportionate share of concurrent improvements required to mitigate future phases of development after further environmental and traffic reviews are completed. Council Member Place pointed out that the bar graph entitled Projected Retail Sales Taxes Including Riverside Mall shows the current retail tax base of the City is only $4.5, million, instead of more than $10 million. She requested that the figure be verified. Mr. Carmody explained that information was based upon budget 3 486 JUNE 1, 1999 information the City provided. He would research the figure and get back to Council Member Place with an answer. • Council Member Klingele referred to the conservative figures used in the traffic study and asked what is considered to be liberal or moderate, and what is the definition of conservative figures for traffic in this case. Mr. Carmody provided three examples of the conservative element on trip generation and trip counts. He explained that those estimates were figured with the assumption that all adjoining properties were developed to its highest and best use, instead of using the actual capacity of undeveloped land. Mr. Carmody identified two expert witnesses, Mark Jorritsma, Principal for The Perimedes Group, LLC, who provided testimony at the Hearing Examiner's public hearing on economic and market studies, and Kathi Ramm of Ramm & Associates, who was primarily responsible for preparation, coordination, and finalization of the EIS. 5) OPPONENTS' OPENING STATEMENTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES(20 MINUTES) John Ogan, Cockrill, Weaver, & Ogan, P.S., 316 North 3rd Street, representing the Yakima Mall Shopping Center Corporation, emphasized the importance of protecting the downtown business area from loss of business. He pointed out that if this rezone were approved, the impact on the downtown area would be extreme. Mr. Ogan sought to convince the Council that local law supports this protectionism concept in the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, which defines the LCC' zoning district. He feels the proponent needs to prove that there will be no significant detrimental impact on the downtown. Speaking against the writing style that the Hearing Examiner used in his recommendation, Mr. Ogan criticized how the evidence was applied to the law concerning significant detrimental impacts to the Yakima Mall. He feels the Hearing Examiner did not take the opponent's evidence seriously. Mr. Ogan then directed attention to the Hebert Research Study and expressed concern about the 16-18% of those surveyed who said they would never shop at the Yakima Mall again. Another technical issue in dispute is the $193 million in retail sales leakage projected in the Hebert Research Market Study. ECONorthwest projected a zero to $49 million leakage. The Perimedes Group Market Study projects $70 million in retail sales leakage. They additionally report that local retail sales will stay flat, and the growing, affluent population will spend 4 487 JUNE 1, 1999 their money in malls outside the Yakima area. In summary Mr. Ogan argued that the Hebert Research and The Perimedes Group Market Studies are unrealistic, unreasonable and misleading. He also noted that the proposed mall would be much smaller than most people expect, only 467,500 square feet in the first phase. For comparison purposes the Riverside Mall will look just like the Yakima Mall and will be the third mall of this size within a 10 -mile radius. Mr. Ogan feels development of the Riverside Mall is not in the best interest of the City and will disappoint the public. There was considerable discussion about what constitutes retail sales leakage and how mall - type goods are defined. Several members of Council requested clarification of the apparent inflow, that department store sales have recently experienced. There was discussion about the tourism and shopping opportunities in Yakima contributing to that inflow, as well as the different conclusions that each market study provided. Council Member Sims directed attention to the rebuttal about the existing sales tax revenue base discussed earlier in the meeting and asked for further clarification after the recess. . The meeting recessed from 10:50 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 6) EXPERT WITNESSES (10 MINUTES EACH PRESENTATION - LIMIT TO TWO EXPERT WITNESSES EACH) Mr. Ogan did not call any expert witnesses. Mr. Carmody introduced Mark Jorritsma, Principal for The Perimedes Group, LLC, and Kathi Ramm of Ramm & Associates. Mark Jorritsma explained the methodology used to evaluate the amount of available consumer demand and summarized the results of The Perimedes Group, LLC, market analysis showing there is enough demand to support the Riverside Mall. He then provided copies of information previously submitted to the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing. He directed attention to the sales leakage information showing that sufficient sales leakage would be available to support, not only the Riverside Mall, but existing retailers, and retailers that would come on line from now until the project is operational. Mr. Jorritsma reported that competition will still be seen as it currently is, although competition depends on the types of goods and services that will be sold at the Riverside Mall versus what is sold downtown. Four separate market studies were prepared during the pending application process, including The Perimedes Group, LLC; Hebert Research; Hobson Johnson & Associates, and ECONorthwest - all show that retail sales leakage exists. Mr. Jorritsma reported that his company's market study reveals that the Riverside Mall 5 488 JUNE 1, 1999 project will bring an increase in employment; expanded retail choices; curbed retail sales leakage, and additional sales tax and property tax revenue for the City of Yakima. He urged the Council to approve the rezone application. Council Member Sims asked which sales leakage figures would generate enough volume to afford a mall of this size. Mr. Jorritsma estimated about $1.8 million in retail sales tax dollars by the year 2010. Council members asked additional questions concerning the amount of projected retail sales leakage, the disparity among the market study results concerning projected sales tax revenue, and whether Internet sales or catalog sales were included in the market study. Discussion continued about personal income figures in the study as well as how population impacts the amount of - projected revenue. Also considered was whether the issue ' is really a matter of competition or a marketing approach using retail sales and employment multipliers in the equation. Kathi Ramm, with Ramm & Associates, provided a brief synopsis on the extent of her company's experience with all types of development and their roll in preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS identifies the required mitigation measures, and then the decision - makers, using the EIS along with other information, determine any additional mitigation measures required, including project specifications and site plans. In early stages of development the site plan is a conceptual design used to evaluate landuse suitability, determine environmental and project impacts, and identify appropriate mitigation measures. A detailed site plan is developed later and mitigation measures are outlined specifically in a development agreement to comply with all the rules and requirements conditioned to the rezone. Ms. Ramm explained that the preliminary EIS is an objective and impartial tool and a comprehensive peer review disclosure document. The FEIS is used to compare what was done to what was originally planned to determine compliance. Typically projects use the phased approach, and the size of the first phase of the Riverside Mall will be 467,500 square feet. The first phase figures were used as the threshold for road improvements within the first five years of the project to achieve a building permit. Landuse costs and plans for utilities are included under environmental elements.. Mitigation aspects for traffic and transportation improvements are part of a traffic analysis. Noting that this has been an exhaustive process 6 489 JUNE 1, 1999 and has taken three years to complete, Ms. Ramm urged the Council to support the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. She responded to questions from the Council concerning preparation and accuracy of the maps, which were posted in the Council Chambers. The maps included Site Generated Traffic Charts, proposed Mitigation Measures, a map of the study area, and a chart showing the existing volume, existing excess capacity, and new construction capacity for 16 Avenue and River Road. She also noted that all details would be thoroughly reviewed at the appropriate times to ensure a concise and complete compliancy process. Mayor Puccinelli announced that public comments would begin after lunch. The meeting recessed from 11:45 p.m. until 1:15 p.m. 7) PUBLIC COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONE Mayor Puccinelli again briefly reviewed the procedures for the closed - record meeting. He invited citizens who support the rezone request to comment. Jerry Henderson, 309 North 35 Avenue, representing the Westside Merchants Association, agrees with the upgraded infrastructure - improvements required in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. • Dan Arnett, 1111 North First Street, Suite 6, referred to his previous letter, noted as Exhibit 257, and addressed the four traffic issues outlined therein, i.e., the Six - Year TIP projects that have been identified for 16 Avenue that have not been improved. He spoke in support of this rezone because 16 Avenue improvements will be completed and asked when the improvements would be made if this rezone request were not approved. Mr. Arnett feels all businesses, including the residential rental industry, should receive equal treatment. as the downtown area has received. • Bill Hambleton, 615 South 32 Avenue, said he favors the rezone. He referred to pages 43 and 44 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and noted the language about improvement costs on page 46 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that states the improvements are to be made by the developer. Mr. Hambleton then referred to the latecomers' agreement mentioned on page 53 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and in paragraph 2.5 of the development agreement. He asked whether other property in the vicinity of the proposed mall will be encumbered for road improvements, extension of utilities, or other improvements listed in the Hearing Examiner's 7 490 JUNE 1, 1999 recommendation. Mr. Hambleton also asked what the purpose is for the Road Improvement District and/or. latecomers' agreement included in section 2.5 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on page 53. Bill Cook, Director of Community & Economic Development, explained that the latecomers' agreement refers to paying for future development. It also states that the developer will make the improvements. Mr. Hambleton requested that section 4(e) be removed from the Development Agreement. Discussion continued about allocating the responsibilities for later stage development, which will be subject to further environmental review and future review of traffic issues where the developer will assume a proportionate share of those improvements. Stan Shelton, Post Office Box 73, an adjacent property owner, spoke in favor of the rezone. He requested that the development agreement reflect that road improvements begin on the western side of the site. The Council extensively discussed Mr. Shelton's request to identify the location of the proposed road. Mr. Shelton also requested clarification about the latecomers' agreement provision in the development agreement. Bill Cook, Director of Community & Economic Development, further explained that the latecomers' agreement provision deals with future phases of the project. Additional street improvements would be outlined in a separate development agreement after future traffic studies are completed for subsequent phases of the project. James Matzke, 16 Avenue and River Road, from Shirley's Flower Shop, urged the Council to approve the rezone. 8) PUBLIC COMMENTS OPPOSED TO THE REZONE George Pechtel, 116 North Third Avenue, expressed concern about potential damage to the downtown area should Council approve the mall rezone. He referenced Exhibit 254, a list of cities whose downtown areas were devastated and demolished by regional malls, and asked how the City of Yakima would continue to protect the downtown to avoid any impacts to the Yakima Mall. 9) Objections to the Facts Presented at Open- Record Hearing James Carmody and John Ogan had no objections. 8 491 JUNE 1, 1999 10) Closing Statements by Attorneys Mr. Ogan expressed concern about several unknown factors regarding the issue of retail sales leakage and the possibility of substantial impacts that could create a hardship of the downtown area. He doubted the accuracy of the sales leakage amounts projected by the various market studies, and he asked how the Riverside Mall would recapture that sales leakage. He also inquired as to whether the mall would have new stores or if there would be a redistribution of existing stores in the region. Mr. Ogan also asked who the tenants are for the mall. Mr. Carmody noted the long duration of the rezone process and the investment associated with this project. He feels that the real point of contention is economic competition. He urged the Council to approve the rezone request because the current consumer demands in Yakima are not being met. He reported that customers are going to other cities to shop. The Riverside Mall would have the potential to recapture some of the retail sales leakage, and the facility would enhance the revenue base for the City. Mr. Carmody reiterated his earlier comments that the site is perfect for a mall since there are only 26 acres of available LCC zoned property in the City's jurisdiction; the Riverside Mall property is located along a freeway without residential interference. Mr. Carmody pointed out that there are other locations available for a regional mall outside the City limits. There being no one else wishing to comment, Mayor Puccinelli closed the public meeting. 11) CLOSING DELIBERATIONS Following the closure of the public meeting, members of the Council requested direction concerning what criteria has to be met and whether changes to the development agreement would be appropriate. Mr. Zais indicated that it is amendable with what is in the context of the record. Mr. Paolella noted that certain matters could be reviewed and minor changes made then brought forward at a future meeting for consideration. There was a lot of discussion about what constitutes a minor or a major change and what details are necessary at the time the binding site plan is submitted and a permit is issued. Directing attention to page 2 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, Council Member Place asked what constitutes the Study Area. During the discussion that 9 492 JUNE 1, 1999 followed, it was apparent that future phases of development will require another review of the original study area as outlined in the FEIS. If the affect of any new use requires mitigation by improvements not mentioned in the FEIS, then the developer would proportionately share the costs for those improvements. The meeting recessed from 3:05 to 3:19 p.m. Discussion continued surrounding the scope of the supplemental traffic review study area and clarifying the intent of this provision. The development agreement also needs clarification to reflect how the costs of the additional improvements will be paid. It was noted that if the study area were substantially increased, then another public hearing would be necessary. Wayne Kittelson with Kittelson & Associates, the traffic consultant for the City, pointed out that there is a fair amount of traffic going outside the study area; this shows that changing conditions should be monitored as it develops. The scope of the project has changed because development is much less than the 900,000 plus square feet originally indicated. Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney, noted that substantial changes to the development agreement would also require a new public hearing. However, minor changes, with more details to be adjusted, would not warrant a new public hearing. For instance if traffic improvements in the future were not consistent with the development agreement, it would have to come back for another public hearing. Council Member Buchanan feels that proportionately sharing the costs for significant traffic impacts to 16 Avenue would be considered a major change. Mr. Carmody explained that the scope of the supplemental_ traffic review would be the same as the FEIS Study Area. Mr. Ogan questioned whether the word scope, referred to the scope of the study or the scope of the study area. City Attorney Paolella indicated that this ambiguity would be clarified. The scope of the review will be limited to the original study area. City Manager Zais noted that the intent of this issue needs clarification specifically as it relates to beyond the scope of the study area. Discussion continued about this issue. Mr. Ogan noted that his client has been concerned for a long time about future traffic impacts due to mall activity, which could affect areas outside the original study area. Wayne Kittelson provided some suggestions from an operational point of view that has been demonstrated at other locations with the same type of lane configuration design. 10 493 JUNE 1, 1999 He explained that the point they are trying to make is that there is a fair amount of traffic going outside the study area, and as the project develops, conditions should be monitored. Council Member Klingele asked if the street improvements to North 6th Avenue, between River Road and Fruitvale Boulevard, would be done according to City street standards which would include curb, gutter, and street lights. Council Member Place agreed that more specificity is needed for the North 6 Avenue improvements because the pavement is very narrow. Don Skone, Planning Manager, noted that curbs, gutters, and street lighting were agreed to be included in association. with any required roadway improvements, including adequate on -site parking and sidewalks. Mr. Ogan argued that need does not relate to land inventory - it relates to a demonstrated need for a facility in the marketplace. He directed attention to the Terrace Heights project where no development is happening there because a third mall is not needed in this region. He feels the applicant must prove that there will be new - money not money that is changing from one land use action to another. Council Member Place asked whether there would be public streets inside the private development. Mr. Carmody noted that this is a proposal suggested by City staff, and the applicant has no preference. There was also discussion about street access impacts to Tamarack and 16 Avenue. Shelley Willson, Streets & Traffic Operations Manager, provided some background information about this type of intersection and explained the policy concerning public streets inside private development. Directing attention to the installation of traffic signals required at three locations on 16 Avenue, Ms. Willson indicated that they will optimize the traffic situation as best they can. They will do this by synchronizing the signals; however, those signals alone will not mitigate the traffic and suggested that additional lanes westbound toward the mall entrance could be installed. Council Member Klingele objected stating that was not necessary. If the applicant sees it as a necessity, they can do it themselves. Council Member Buchanan indicated that with only 12 -foot wide lanes, more space is necessary for trucks to turn at the intersection of 16 Avenue and River Road. After improvements there needs to be enough space, or a two -lane width, for trucks to make turns. Wayne Kittelson explained how a turn -lane and overlapping green time would help mitigate the traffic demand at the mall entrance. He also provided additional comments about lane configuration 11 4'9 JUNE 1, 1999 design proven to be successful at other locations. As a footnote, City Manager Zais explained that the consultant's recommendation to install traffic signals and to widen lanes on 6 Avenue and at the 16 Avenue and River Road intersection are all based on traffic studies and are consistent with the conditions of the rezone. Mr. Zais also suggested that staff and the attorneys meet to discuss clarification of the development agreement to reflect first -phase development street and intersection improvements. Future phases would be subject to a separate development agreement, which would be drawn up at the appropriate time. 4. OTHER BUSINESS The Council did not discuss any other issues. 5. ADJOURNMENT AT 5:00 P.M. Following discussion to close this meeting and reconvene on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, it was MOVED BY KLINGELE, SECONDED BY BUCHANAN, TO ADJOURN AT 4:34 P.M., TO JUNE 8, 1999, AT 9:00 A.M. FOR CONTINUED DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE. City Manager Zais indicated that, for the record, he would like to include an amendment to the development agreement clarifying the intent of future phases of development. The proposed legislation would be in abeyance. Then, after the vote on June 8 the appropriate legislation would be brought back on June 15 Council Member Sims asked if discussion among Council members and staff would be prohibited. Mr. Paolella explained that the attorneys are accessible and there is no problem unless there is a quorum present, which comes under the Public Meetings Act. However, parties should not contact the Council members. The question was called for a vote on the mo 'on. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Or READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: / JA' 1 CIL MEMBE' DATE .. , / ; ._� ' 7 CO CIL MEMBr R rAT• ATTEST: /9" CITY CLERK JOHN PUCCINELLI, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and videotape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 12