Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1994 Business Meeting 192 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON MARCH 15, 1994 BUSINESS MEETING 1. ROLL CALL The City Council met in session on this date at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Assistant Mayor Clarence Barnett presiding, Council Members Ernie Berger, Bill Brado, Lynn Buchanan, and Bernard Sims present on roll call. Mayor Pat Berndt and Council Member Henry Beauchamp absent and excused. Assistant City Manager Rice, City Attorney Paolella, and City Clerk Roberts also present. 2. INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Assistant Mayor Barnett. 3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER A. PROCLAMATIONS (IF APPLICABLE) Assistant Mayor Barnett reported that Yakima County has asked for a waiver of the full fee to use the Convention Center for a public hearing on the critical area designation ordinance for Wednesday, March 23, 1994 at 7:00 p.m.. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BERGER, TO APPROVE THE YAKIMA CENTER FEE WAIVER REQUEST. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. Assistant Mayor Barnett referred to a request by the Yakima Greenway to postpone the Greenway SEPA Appeal decision to April 12, 1994. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY BERGER, TO RESCHEDULE THE YAKIMA GREENWAY SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE APPEAL DECISION TO APRIL 12, 1994. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. Assistant Mayor Barnett directed staff to prepare the appropriate notifications. Assistant Mayor Barnett referred to a request for the City Clerk to advertise for community members to serve on the Southeast Community Center Advisory Board. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY BUCHANAN, TO DIRECT THE CITY CLERK 1/ TO APPROPRIATELY ADVERTISE FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. Dawn Carmody, a student at West Valle igh School, was introduced as a LIFT student participating in ay's Council meeting. 193 MARCH .15, 1994 ,,E • Assistant Mayor Barnett announced the Council will adjourn this Council Meeting at 5:00 p.m. because of other commitments. Referencing Agenda Item No. 7, the KPFF Public Hearings, if the Public Hearing is not over, it will be I/ continued to Tuesday, March 29, 1994, at 9:30 a.m. At that point, there would be appropriate notification of the continuance issued by the City. He asked if there was any objection from the parties to that time and date. No one voiced any objection. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Assistant Mayor Barnett referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda, questioning whether there were any additions or deletions from either Council members or citizens present. There being no requests, the City Clerk then read the Consent Agenda items, including resolutions and ordinances by title. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY BUCHANAN, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS READ, BE ADOPTED. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. (Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an asterisk ( *) indicate items on the Consent Agenda handled under_ one motion without further discussion.) *5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1994 BUSINESS MEETING AND DECEMBER 7, 1993 AND MARCH 8, 1994 ADJOURNED MEETINGS The minutes of the February 22, 1994 Business meeting and December 7, 1993 and March 8, 1994 Adjourned meetings, were approved, having been duly certified accurate by two Council members and no one present wishing to have said minutes read publicly. 6. PUBLIC MEETING ON THE 1993 HUD GRANTEE PERFORMANCE REPORT This being the time set for the public meeting, Dixie Kracht, Block Grant Manager, presented a brief overview of the annual performance report required by the federal government concerning the block grant funds the City has received in the 1993 program year. The program year on this document does not reflect any other activities other than the entitlement funds, which should be taken into consideration when reviewing the I/ documentation and the achievements. Primarily, the achievements of this program include the payment of more than $1.2 million and the assistance provided to more than 10,000 people who had concerns, problems, or needs in the housing field, such as Landlord Tenant, Fair Housing, or referrals to public housing of which 63 percent were minority population. Also, there were 29 single family, owner - occupied units repaired within the City of Yakima, all for persons who were below 80 percent median income and of which were 62 percent of minority population. There were 29 elderly units that 2 19 4 MARCH 15, 1994 received health and safety repairs to retain the persons in their homes so they did not have to be displaced, of which 18 percent were minority. There were 21 rental units repaired in the community to put back affordable housing in the community for lower income persons, of which 48 percent were minority. The document is a very complicated document to the extent that it is all government forms. Ms. Kracht referred to the first two pages of the report which summarize the activities of the program and was available to answer any questions or receive public comment concerning the program's performance during the 1993 year. Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for any citizen wishing to comment about this issue. There being no one wishing to speak, the public meeting was closed. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY BUCHANAN, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE REPORT TO HUD. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR KPFF RETAIL CENTER This being the time set for the public hearing, Assistant Mayor Barnett explained the hearing for the KPFF Retail Center will be divided into two entirely separate public hearings. The first public hearing will be for the purpose of considering the SEPA Procedural Appeal. The second public hearing will be for the purpose of considering the land use application for a Retail Center. A. SEPA APPEAL After all Council members declared no exparte contact, Assistant Mayor Barnett provided further explanation concerning the format for the proceedings. He emphasized the importance that the interested parties and persons wishing to testify understand that the first public hearing will be strictly limited to the issue of whether or not the SEPA Responsible Official made a legally correct decision in issuing a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance (MDNS), and thereby not requiring the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). During the SEPA Procedural Appeal Public Hearing, there will be no testimony or evidence allowed about project approval or its merits. The only relevant testimony and allowable evidence is that related to the foreseeable environmental impacts of the I/ proposed center. However, it is proper for testimony to be presented during the SEPA Procedural Hearing regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures, but only in the context of whether or not the MDNS was properly issued. Testimony, comments, and evidence regarding the merits of the proposal will be allowed during the Land Use Application Public Hearing. Because the outcome of the SEPA Procedural 3 195 MARCH Il. 5 , 1994 Appeal has a bearing on whether-the Land Use Application Public Hearing is held, it is conducted first. If Council decides to reverse the MDNS, then the Land Use Application Public Hearing will not be heard. The matter would have to be reconsidered by staff and the Hearing Examiner. I/ Ray Paolella, City Attorney, presented a legal briefing of the issues concerning the two public hearings. He described the very narrow procedural issue of the SEPA Appeal. The MDNS has been appealed by the Yakama Indian Nation and by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The issue to consider is whether or not the SEPA Responsible Official made a correct decision in issuing the MDNS, and thereby not requiring the full EIS. He provided definition of significance as contained in the state regulations under SEPA, and emphasized that an EIS is required if the proposal has a probable significant, adverse environmental impact. Pursuant to state law, a record of the Quasi- Judicial hearing will be made. Mr. Paolella encouraged Council to give particular attention and careful consideration to whether the SEPA Environmental Checklist is adequate and whether the MDNS adequately addresses potentially significant project impacts so that a full EIS is not required. Public testimony should also be limited to those issues on appeal raised by the appellants. However, there will be opportunity provided for public testimony. The only decision to be made in the first hearing is whether to affirm, remand, or reverse the SEPA MDNS. Council should consider all the evidence; however, state law does require that substantial weight be given to Mr. Valenzuela's SEPA determination. The second hearing will include consideration of the 195,000 square foot retail store project and land use application involving three separate issues, the request to rezone approximately 10 acres from Suburban Residential (SR) to Central Business District Support (CBDS), the street vacations of portions of South 15th, 16th and 17th Streets and Riverside Drive, and a Class 2 Review of the Class 1 use in the Greenway Overlay District. Assistant Mayor Barnett further explained how the public hearing would be conducted and what format would be followed, including the swearing in of all persons who wished to 1/ testify, the marking and admission of exhibits as presented to the City Clerk, and presentation of opening and closing statements from the SEPA responsible official, the appellants, and the applicant, as well as opportunity for "public testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council may wish to deliberate in executive session. Assistant Mayor Barnett opened the public hearing and placed all witnesses who will be testifying under oath by swearing them in. At this time, Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for testimony from the SEPA Responsible Official. 4 196 MARCH 15, 1994 Glenn Valenzuela, Director of Community & Economic Development and the City of Yakima SEPA Responsible Official, introduced Joan Davenport, Supervising Planner. He reserved his right to present a closing statement. Ms. Davenport presented an overview of the project, review of what the public record consists of (a copy of these materials is available for public review), and a brief chronology of the SEPA process, including the MDNS and the eight mitigating measures contained in it. She explained it was her intent to limit the substantive discussion about project specific issues. Ms. Davenport indicated she would not attempt to summarize the appeals of the two parties because she anticipated that the appellants would present their own appeals. Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for testimony - from the Washington State Department of Transportation ( WSDOT). Since Richard Larson, WSDOT, was not present earlier, Assistant Mayor Barnett swore him in. Mr. Larson explained their appeal was based on traffic information and how the development would have interfered with the Gateway Project improvements planned in that particular area. However, he retracted their appeal because he believes the Gateway Project will be very critical in the mitigation of all concerns through scheduled improvements in this area. He anticipates a tremendous amount of construction congestion in this area and urged everyone to be patient during the project and to focus on how beneficial it will be when the improvements are completed. In order to clarify the issue, Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Mr. Larson if he was withdrawing the concern that the development not be allowed to open for business prior to the widening of Terrace Heights Drive across the Interstate. Mr. Larson answered yes. City Attorney Paolella asked Mr. Larson if he was withdrawing the January 11, 1994 appeal of the MDNS in its entirety. Mr. Larson answered yes to this question also. Mr. Paolella explained that any SEPA issues raised in the appeal by the WSDOT have been withdrawn and are no longer part of this appeal hearing. However, they would be relevant to the subsequent second hearing on the permit approval. At this time, Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity I/ for the Yakama Indian Nation to speak about their appeal. Bill Beckley, Environmental Scientist for the Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources (YINDNR), read a letter from Carroll Palmer, Director of YINDNR, affirming concerns about the City's insufficient review and mitigation of potential impacts to water quality and habitat affecting the treaty - reserved rights of the Yakama Nation. He explained they had 5 197 MARCH ..1.5., 1994 originally submitted written comments on this proposal during the 15 -day public comment period following the issuance of the MDNS on December 20, 1993. Mr. Beckley then submitted the letter to the City Clerk as Exhibit No. 1. Council Member Berger asked whether the area in question is considered a floodplain. Mr. Beckley replied that it is I/ possible that there is a conditional map revision because Mr. Dunning, of KPFF, informed him there is a letter, but he had not seen it. It possibly might not become an issue depending on how it reads. Council Member Berger commented that the dike has probably mitigated that, and if it is reviewed and isn't a floodplain anymore, he asked if that would solve the issue. Mr. Beckley stated that they feel very strongly that there not be any net loss of flood storage from projects proposed in the floodplain. A letter from Mr. Valenzuela was received by the YINDNR after Exhibit 1 was prepared. The City has shown a willingness to include some of the additional mitigation suggestions. The YIN wanted to make sure those, since they are not part of the MDNS, be included as mitigation measures. Council Member Buchanan questioned just where floodplain exists because the maps provided to him show conflicting information. Mr. Beckley indicated that he believes KPFF has the existing maps and the elevations. Council Member Buchanan stated he will hold his questions until then. Referring to the March 7, 1994 letter from the City to the Indian Nation, Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Mr. Beckley if the provisions of that , letter; are made part of the MDNS, would that be satisfactory to the Nation. Mr. Beckley commented that he was not in any position to make any policy statement for the Nation; however, that is what has been desired in correspondence. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated it appears that the response to the various letters is an attempt to meet the majority of those requirements, although it may not be to every aspect of every point that was raised. For clarification purposes, Council Member Sims asked Mr. Beckley to elaborate further. Mr. Beckley explained that during a meeting with City staff, they had requested additional mitigation measures to protect water quality and fish habitat. He further indicated that staff did listen to their comments and seemed cooperative and willing to work I/ with the YIN, but no formal commitment was made. However, they have been addressed to a significant degree. Assistant Mayor Barnett commented that this issue can be clarified when staff speaks later during the hearing. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked if there was anyone else from the Yakama Indian Nation who wished to speak. There being no one, he requested staff comment about the issue raised concerning critical area designation as defined under the Growth Management Act. City Attorney Paolella explained the City is working on designating critical areas. Both 6 198 MARCH 15, 1994 jurisdictions and the state are technically behind the schedule that the state legislation provides for, but that is commonly understood as long as progress is being made. It has not been viewed from the state standpoint as being a major difficulty. The City of Yakima is not in any different position than many, many other cities and jurisdictions throughout the state. Technical compliance or noncompliance with the Growth Management Act, in and of itself, may not be particularly relevant to the proceeding.. What's relevant to the proceeding is reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts that arise from this proposal and if this proposal is approved how will it affect the environment. Whether a critical area ordinance is adopted or not, is not particularly relevant. After acknowledging positive aspects of recent discussions between the Yakama Indian Nation and the City of Yakima staff, Glenn Valenzuela explained the wetland mitigation issue. The wetland area that was originally lost will be replaced and the applicant has agreed to increase the actual wetland area and will try to keep the same vegetation and wildlife that is currently there. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Mr. Valenzuela whether or not he would recommend the issues referenced in the March 7 letter be added as additional mitigation measures. Mr. Valenzuela indicated its justification and explained how project approval can be conditional upon incorporation of project design outlining wetland mitigation, soil remediation, and stormwater treatment, which would include the City's responsibility to provide and monitor storm drainage. As far as addressing floodplain capacity and the issue of no net loss of flood storage, Mr. Valenzuela explained there is no legislation in place at the City, State, or Federal level requiring zero net loss floodplain. By Washington law, mitigation measures cannot be added without the legal authority to do so. However, pending the outcome of a new floodplain study currently under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it is possible that the area is not in the floodplain any more. After comments from Assistant Mayor Barnett concerning this issue, Mr. Valenzuela indicated the measures outlined in the March 7 letter should be incorporated as additional mitigation measures instead of conditions placed upon project approval. At this time, Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for testimony from the applicant to discuss the appeal as it I/ relates to the Yakama Indian Nation. Jim Towslee, a licensed engineer working with KPFF Consulting Engineers, indicated a lot of the issues raised by the Yakama Indian Nation have been addressed in his February 9 letter to the City of Yakima staff. However, since that letter was written, Mr. Towslee referenced additional information received from the Corps of Engineers and the FEMA agency 199 MARCH 15 1994 concerning the issue of,,the floodplains subsequent to the construction of the dikes because a 1974 map showed the project site in the floodplain. At this time he submitted Exhibit No. 4 to the City Clerk. With the aid of a map representing a draft study of the floodplain area and its dikes prepared by the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Towslee pointed to the project site area and indicated it is completely out of the 100 -year floodplain. FEMA is completing their review of this map. At such time that they approve it, an up -to- date map will be created. Due to this new information the floodplain storage issue is made moot by the more recent study of the floodplain. Concentrating on off -site stormwater quality, Mr. Towslee explained that the existing City storm drain dumps onto the project. site. He explained how the stormwater infiltrates via low areas and that those low areas have been designated wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued the applicant a permit to fill these wetlands. In the context of working with the City in its ultimate stormwater management plan, Mr. Towslee described how they will handle offsite stormwater separately from project stormwater. Under the SEPA MDNS, the City will require the applicant to construct a grassy vegetated swale where stormwater would pass through to an outfall pond at Sarg Hubbard Park. This would follow DOE's guidelines on water quality enhancement whereby the vegetative areas would collect impurities in the stormwater, thus essentially cleansing it. Under the NPDES permitting process, the State Department of Ecology will require the City to handle stormwater quality elements of City generated stormwater. This proposal would address that issue to a large degree. Jack McCullough, an attorney on the project team with KPFF with Wal -Mart, stated they haven't seen any new facts to demonstrate that a mistake was made by staff or any new evidence of any significant impact that has never been studied or any significant impact from the precedent setting nature of this project concerning future growth and development of the project. Referencing the need for a critical area designation ordinance, there is a whole other appeal process available if someone has a complaint about whether a city is complying with the Growth Management Act. I/ There is a hearing board set up at the state level to pursue those kinds of compliance issues. He also described how wetland mitigation, soil remediation, and stormwater treatment issues will be addressed by the applicant. For clarification purposes he also asked if the Hearing Examiner's recommendations were contained in Exhibit No. 3. Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for the Yakama Indian Nation to present any further comments. There were none presented. At this time opportunity was provided for any public testimony concerning the SEPA appeal issues. 8 200 MARCH 15, 1994 There was no one wishing to speak. Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for the applicant, staff, and the appellant to present any closing statements. Hearing none, Assistant Mayor Barnett closed the Public hearing on the SEPA Appeal. He asked Council if they wished to deliberate this issue in open session or executive session. It was the general consensus to deliberate in open session. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY BRADO, THAT WE ACCEPT THE MITIGATED MEASURES OF THE SEPA OFFICIAL AND INCLUDE CONCERNS AS STATED IN THE MARCH 7, 1994 LETTER TO C. PALMER, YAKAMA INDIAN NATION - DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. City Attorney Paolella reiterated Council Member Sims' motion to include the additional mitigation measures. Council. Member Sims explained his conclusion that there isn't anything major that deviates from what is already in the record and the floodplain may be a moot point. If there is no floodplain in this area, there is no net loss so it does mitigate concerns. City Attorney Paolella emphasized Council's authority to decide whether or not to require the applicant to do a full blown Environmental Impact Statement, or to determine if, by adding these additional mitigation measures, there is no significant environmental impact and no need to do an EIS. Council Member Sims stated that he didn't believe an EIS is required. For clarification purposes, Assistant Mayor Barnett stated the intent of the motion on the floor to include the March 7th letter in the MDNS, and that there be no requirement for a full blown EIS. The question was called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. City Attorney Paolella explained the legal effect of Council's action is to add additional mitigation measures to the MDNS and to affirm it. B. LAND USE APPLICATION This being the time set for the public hearing, Assistant Mayor Barnett explained the City Council will consider a land use application by KPFF Consulting Engineers for a Retail Center. Land use issues and the merits of the project will be considered. He asked staff to present an overview of the project. Due to the extremely technical nature of the issues, Joan Davenport requested Council's guidance concerning what direction discussion should follow. Assistant Mayor Barnett requested legal explanation in order to clarify whether major issues -- the Rezone, the Master Application for Class 2 I/ Review for compliance of the project under the Greenway Overlay District and two administrative adjustments for parking standards, and the Street Vacation -- can or cannot be referred back to the Hearing Examiner or whether certain portions might be asked for additional information. City Attorney Paolella explained if Council thought there was a 9 MARCH 1 , 1994 need for more information concerning the Master Application, it technically may be possible under certain circumstances to send it back. However, the Hearing Examiner has merely provided a recommendation; the City Council has to make the final decision on these matters. Assistant Mayor Barnett requested clarification from staff as to whether Council is being asked to approve the final design of the project, which would drastically change some of the planning review as well as the Greenway Review. Joan Davenport directed Council's attention to Page 44 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations, in particular Item 3B that deals with the handling of off -site stormwater. The applicant had written a letter requesting language be added to this condition. The staff recommendation is that it is not necessary because the condition is clear about the City's authority and responsibility for the permits, both in the quality and quantity of water that would be discharged through this system. It is entirely possible that a NPDES discharge permit into the pond at Sarg Hubbard Park would never be necessary. Assistant Mayor Barnett commented that it seems as though the additional sentencing would appear to be related to the timing of those permits and whether or not the City would have to go get that permit from the state. Ms. Davenport indicated the conveyance of the stormwater through the site is necessary to be constructed prior to the development of the pad. In the event that there is a flash flood and a volume of water is carried through this, it is important to make sure no property damage is incurred. Staff also recommends if permits are required they not be attached to the certificate of occupancy, that the swale be constructed prior to construction on this site, and the City be responsible for discharge permits. The Examiner's recommendation is sufficiently clear and broad; it would vest the authority in the City Engineer to determine compliance with that condition. The proposal right now is that this swale be constructed with a pipe system at Riverside, and there be an outfall installed at the park. There could be a similar swale constructed on park property also, but that, too, would be the City's responsibility. Assistant Mayor Barnett indicated it would be best to go through the presentation by staff and then comments from the I/ developer. Concerning building a swale on the park site, Council Member Buchanan asked who would build the swale. Ms. Davenport explained the City would be assuming that responsibility because it owns the Sarg Hubbard Park property and this is City stormwater. The system that runs underneath the freeway and currently discharges onto this site is an old swale system that actually predates 1 -82. This area has always absorbed that stormwater, and with the development at this site, it is clearly necessary that the City do something else 10 202 MARCH 15, 1994 with its stormwater. Perhaps the engineering solution is the construction of an open swale that would allow infiltration. During normal conditions, it would all be absorbed on site. Council Member Buchanan commented that in the public document it states that some of that infiltration site should be protected from the subsoil. He questioned how it could infiltrate if it is already protected from the subsoil. I/ Ms. -Davenport suggested an engineer address that issue. Council - Member Buchanan also asked if there was enough property at ;the .park site not already being developed where this :could t e placed. Ms <. D,avenport indicated there is, and it would Abe ..a very :unusual condition that any water at all would be discharged to the, park site . Since staff :,..is not recommending. .;the additional sentence be added to I tem 3B, Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity for the applicant. to respond. To address Assistant Mayor Barnett's earlier question concerning whether Council is being asked to approve final design of the project, Jack McCullough stated that his letter made more of an impact than it was meant to. We were just trying to do some fine tuning here. There was a concern that came up in the Examiner's hearing concerning the allocation of responsibility to the City for stormwater discharge. However, the issue has been clarified now and we want to make sure that the ability of this project goes forward and is not contingent upon the City's later obtaining of some NPDES permit or whatever legal easements, or anything else that may need to be required to discharge onto that site. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Mr. McCullough if he would agree, under Condition 3B, the additional sentence is not needed. Mr. McCullough indicated the sentence is not needed. However, they would prefer to construct the swale and wetlands system concurrently with, instead of prior to, construction of the building flood pad because it would aid in the timing of the construction process. Jim Towslee expressed concern about existing offsite stormwater being discharged into some lower areas that are not very well protected. He explained their proposal to construct an equivalent storage area for the water to store and infiltrate while the site is graded and the dirt is brought in for the building pad. He explained from an engineering standpoint how the construction could be done concurrently so there is no loss of capacity of the existing system to their proposal I/ to build the conveyance and to open up the area so that storage volume would be there in the event of a flash flood. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked if Council had any comments. He stated he was not sure where we stood on the last sentence of 3B. He thought it was decided the additional sentence was not needed. Mr. McCullough stated that as long as there is an understanding of the timing that Mr. Towslee discussed, he didn't think there is a dispute there. .11 203 MARCH 4a5 1994 Kevin Callow, Engineering Technician with the City of Yakima, referenced the letter from KPFF's legal representative where it appeared they tried to separate out any responsibility they may have for constructing the swale as part of their 1/ project. The Swale is an integral part of the project. In fact, it is a key element at the beginning of the project. There is a potential that the existing culvert crossing I -82 can carry a large amount of floodwater from the downtown region through this site because of cross connections of existing storm system. Yakima does have flash storms of a high intensity; they don't last long, but they do produce a lot of water. In the event,one of those storms were to hit and part of the downtown system were to be blocked, that water would be automatically channeled through this site. For the applicant's protection and for the adjacent property owners' protection, it is felt 'that the majority of this swale, in other words its carrying capacity, be installed prior to construction of the building pad. It can be installed in conjunction with the total site grading. Before the building pad is . actually placed or poured in place, the swale should at least be functional. They will be disturbing the existing wetlands; there will be at that time a loss of volume storage. The swale will compensate for that, and it is important to protect, not only the applicant from any damage that could result, but also properties adjacent to the project site that could suffer from an overflow of floodwaters from an intensity storm. Jim Towslee referred to the rough graded swale as opposed to completed with all the landscaping and other,. activities. Mr. Towslee stated the definition of the building pad, as he understands it, is actually just putting the dirt there, not necessarily building the building itself. He stated his only comment on the City staff recommendation is just that it be the rough grading and the capacity versus completed. Ms. Davenport explained the only issue that there may be some confusion about and really needs some discussion is Item No. 5. She indicated this item could be skipped if the applicant had no questions or comments about Condition 3E and 3F1, which staff is not recommending be amended. Item 3E included some discussion about the signal face on the northern leg be installed at this time. The staff report on Page 2 talks 1/ about the hotel that has been approved on the north side; which•we expect to be built since they filed for plan review. The hotel was required to align their driveway with 17th Street because it would be a very unsafe situation if there was no access to the signal on the north side. One idea that might be acceptable is if the hardware for the north face is purchased and whenever the hotel gets built it could be installed at a later time by the City, but that would be part of the requirement of this development. She did not recommend adding the language that is recommended or suggested by the applicant to the Examiner's Condition 3E. 12 204 MARCH 15, 1994 • Council Member Sims asked when the hotel is slated to be built. Ms. Davenport replied that she would assume in 1994. They have filed for plan review and it is still a valid shoreline permit. It may very well happen before or coincidentally at the same time as Wal -Mart. In response to Council Member Sims' comment:, Ms. Davenport stated the necessity for the traffic signal was occasioned by Wal -Mart and not the hotel. The hotel• has a valid approval. The Council never attached a signal; requirement to the hotel. It is rather;athe Wal-Mart proposals' impact on the arterial that necessitates the signal and not the'hote l. Council Member Si.ms:reiterated that they were specifically speaking about 17th Street. Ms. Davenport stated there is a vacant lot on the north side where the hotel would go; they have been required to align their driveway with 17th Street, and so it is very important that they have access to that signal face. Mr. McCullough explained since the project had not been constructed yet, he originally believed there was no immediate need to provide four faces on the signal. Mr. McCullough suggested one way to deal with it would be to install the four signal faces, but that some provision for a latecomers agreement should be made so there is some fair share paid by the hotel. ,Council Member Berger stated that the argument is that if it was just the hotel, a signal wouldn't be required; whereas the Wal -Mart project does require a signal and there is some question of responsibility. Mr. McCullough stated that they don't disagree with that, but they just have not made an effort to try from a technical point of view to ascertain what some proportionate share should be. The latecomer agreement is one way of dealing with that. Ms. Davenport stated the hotel approval has been given virtually a year ago; the conditions were set in place for the hotel, and she wasn't sure whether conditions can be added as an after - thought. Ms. Davenport indicated the third item is listed on Page 45 of the Examiner's recommendation and that is 3F1. At the time of the hearing it was unclear exactly how much right -of- way existed on 17th Street between Terrace Heights and Chestnut. Two conflicting public record documents indicate the right -of -way to be 55 feet or 60 feet. Since the hearing, the applicant has researched that and determined there is indeed 55 feet of right -of -way. The condition as the Examiner discusses it is there will be three lanes with full improvements on 17th Street including street lights, curbing, sidewalks on both sides and 60 feet of right -of -way. I/ The staff recommendation is that the street improvements be upheld by the Council, as far as the sidewalks on both sides, the street lights, the curbing and the three lanes. The decision about whether to bring 17th Street to 60 feet of right -of -way becomes a policy issue since it is only 55 feet. City collector streets have a standard for 60 feet in right - of -way. The Examiner talks about once the signal has been installed, the street will•start to function like a 13 t . 2®5 MARCH 415:x, 1994 collector, but it has not been, designated an arterial collector under the TIP or by WSDOT; however, in the future it very well may once the signal goes in there. Ms. Davenport pointed out its location on the map and explained that a number of alternative engineering designs 1/ show that the three* lanes of traffic and two sidewalks can be done within 55 feet of right -of -way. It may require a slope easement or some other engineering solution. Again, all the applicant is asking at this point is relief of the sidewalk on the west side because of the grade difference between the street and the somewhat steep surface ground. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked if staff was suggesting that the 60 foot requirement be retained. Ms. Davenport recommended not necessarily sticking to the 60 feet, but sticking with the recommended street improvements, including sidewalks on both sides of the street, because 17th Street will be a heavy pedestrian area. She suggested the engineers determine how to accomplish that because there are a number of engineering solutions, including increasing the right -of -way to 60 feet. Since so many minor details are being discussed, Assistant Mayor Barnett requested a detailed checklist be kept concerning issues Council will need to decide. Council Member Buchanan commented there will not only be heavy pedestrian traffic, but a large amount of vehicles on that three -lane street. Referring to traffic volume, Jack McCullough indicated one of the early site plans was redesigned to allow the street to run through the site and be designated a collector. It was designed to specifically accommodate the anticipated volume of vehicles described by staff and reflected in the traffic study. He expressed concern about having to install the full signal with all four faces because of not being able to condition the hotel. Similarly, the concern is not really about the sidewalk, it is about the additional five feet of right -of -way. The applicant does not have the authority to require the additional five feet to be dedicated by the property owner. In order to avoid having to go into property negotiation over property acquisition and to open the project as rapidly as possible, Mr. McCullough indicated a willingness to work with Mr. Hall to accommodate, within the 55 feet of right -of -way, the full curb /gutter, sidewalk on both sides and three lanes. Bob Hall commented about the issue of the five feet. He explained their organization requested only one sidewalk be installed because there isn't significant foot traffic, and even with the implementation of this retail facility, they don't foresee significant foot traffic in the area. The traffic from the City to the Greenway for recreational purposes is what the traffic is in this area, foot traffic or bicycle traffic, and a crosswalk at the intersection. There 14 • 206 MARCH 15, 1994 is enough room within the 55 feet r.) allow both sidewalks. The infrastructure is in place, all the utilities are in place, and no additional easements to handle electrical or all of the different utilities will be needed. They are in place in the middle of the road. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Mr. Hall whether it is conceivable that the traffic issue may come up later by Superior Asphalt or maybe Central Pre -Mix. If they can't resolve their issue, perhaps they will want to use 17th Street to gain access to Terrace Heights. Mr. -Hall indicated that was possible, but the I/ question now ;concerned a sidewalk and five feet. There is adequate room to handle it if both sidewalks are needed; he reiterated his preference for., one sidewalk. There was additional discussion concerning road width standards of 40 feet, with a 12 -foot middle lane and 14 -foot lanes on the outside curb lanes. Shelley Willson, Supervising Traffic Engineer, explained their consideration included pedestrians and bicycles and that came as part of the SEPA review when the original project was'considered. Council Member Buchanan stated that 14 -foot lanes are great for bicyclists. Kevin Callow indicated,as part of this plan and going through the SEPA Review, the applicant had proposed a sidewalk at one time on both sides. If a sidewalk on both sides is required as part of this hearing, it can very conceivably be constructed within the existing 55 feet and with the existing 40 -foot standard. It may necessitate some kind of retaining wall along one edge of the sidewalk, if the fill slope is that great, in lieu of a slope easement. If the sidewalk on both sides is a requirement as it was proposed, it can be constructed. Ms. Davenport recapped the discussion about Item F1. There was additional discussion concerning amending the wording of the Hearing Examiner's condition as it pertains to the amount of right -of -way to be required. Council Member Buchanan indicated that he would rather have a wide sidewalk on one side rather than two sidewalks, if we're going to stick with 55 feet of right -of -way. Ms. Davenport further referred to Examiner's condition 3F3 on page 45 that also speaks to the improvements of Chalmers and Chestnut Streets. As the applicant noted, one of the major revisions of the site plan was the realignment or extension of Chalmers Street so that it would connect with Chestnut, in I/ order to provide access to the signal. The Examiner structured so there would be some frontage improvements required on Chalmers Street. What the applicant is concerned about is that they don't have control of all of the property here, and in fact, some of these adjoining properties have not dedicated right -of -way onto Chalmers. While they're willing to make improvements on Chalmers itself, they don't want the burden of purchasing the necessary right -of -way, so they have asked for just a simple clarification. Rather than 15 ": u•. .. .. .mac. =: 207 MARCH 145 , 1994 trying to propose - a .clarification, staff would agree that maybe some clarification on that issue might be helpful. Staff would be happy to come up with some language should Council want to do that. 1/ Explaining how he interpreted its meaning, 'Assistant Mayor Barnett questioned the detailed site plan review request, which would include a request for approval of the complete design, thereby needing no more review. By the striking of certain paragraphs of the Hearing Examiner's report and adding the applicant's new paragraph, that would replace review by the planning staff and the street department. There wouldn't be any further review for the issuance of any permits or whatever is required. Ms. Davenport explained there are four conditions in Item No. 4 that the Examiner had spelled out. Three of them have to deal with compliance with the Greenway Overlay District where the Examiner had recommended that the Greenway Board of Directors, and in one case with the landscaping plan and for the swale also, the Department of Ecology be given approval authority over the landscape plan as well as in conjunction with the Planning Department. The first issue is who approves the landscaping plan, whether Council would right now, or as the Examiner has recommended, the Greenway Board of Directors would have some approval authority. Ms. Davenport then referred to the second issue in Condition 3R under the Examiner's Recommendation that a final site plan be prepared. She outlined two issues: Who approves the landscaping plan, and is it part of a detailed site plan that Council has not yet seen, and should Council be given authority to do that right now. She further explained Council would be approving a final site plan with landscaping the vegetation cover for the wetlands, the drainage swale, the exterior building appearance and color, the final site plans, and in accordance with the zoning ordinance, to include floodplain swale drainage stormwater, streets right - of -way, and any items shown on the original site plan and the additions and modifications required by the Hearing Examiner. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated if that's the way it is then we might as well, from his perspective, start thinking about referring it back to staff. Ms. Davenport suggested if 1/ Council is uncomfortable with the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation about vesting some authority for the Greenway Board of Directors to approve some portions of this, the staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner was that the Planning Department be given authority to approve the landscaping plan, and that the Planning Department be given approval of the final site plan. The staff recommendation to Council, which begins at the bottom of Page 3 of the staff report, is if Council is not comfortable with the Examiner's Recommendation, perhaps those four conditions that the Examiner put in there, 3J,K,P, and R, could be substituted 16 208 MARCH 15, 1994 with the staff report recommendations 11 and 12. Council Member Brado commented that this puts a lot of expertise on the Greenway people which probably shouldn't be there. Ms. Davenport stated that from the staff's position, compliance with the Greenway Overlay District is very important and the intent of the district is very important. Jack McCullough clarified the issue by explaining they would I/ like this project processed in the normal, ordinary, everyday course of events the City uses. He stated their view of the matter would be to maintain Condition R, which is the normal final site plan review. He suggested the other three conditions be deleted, but substitute for them the two conditions 11 and 12 from the staff report as staff suggested, which in the ordinary course gives staff the right to review and approve the landscaping plan. Assistant Mayor Barnett indicated he wasn't sure what has to be changed on those items to meet that, and Mr. McCullough stated he thought they are in agreement. There was a considerable amount of discussion concerning the review process as it applies to this project, as well as discussion pertaining to the development's consistency and compatibility with the Greenway Overlay District as incorporated into the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. Additional discussion took place concerning how review has been_done for other developments in the general area in Terrace Heights to include Planning Department recommendation or approval with comments from other agencies, particularly the Greenway Overlay District in this instance. Ms. Davenport referred to the staff report that narrates what could be done to make it acceptable. Council Member Sims suggested the Hearing Examiner's recommendations J, K, and P be replaced with staff recommendations 11 and 12. Ms. Davenport stated 3R would be retained and then read staff recommendations 11 and 12. Ms. Davenport explained the last outstanding issue that was raised by the applicant then relates to Item 3S and the Hearing Examiner included very standard language that says simply all street improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of Yakima. The applicant is asking that should those I/ improvements not all be in place by that time, could they bond for it or some other financial security be posted. She indicated the staff response is that the City routinely does that, and there could be some language added to the recommendation. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Ms. Davenport if she was recommending approval of their recommendation. Ms. Davenport stated that they could write very simple 17 209 MARCH 15, 1994 language to tag to the end of that condition that would allow for a bond or whatever is necessary. Typically those are good for one year so there is some implementation guarantees. 1/ Bill Hammett, Superior Asphalt & Concrete Company, submitted Exhibit No. 2 to the City Clerk. He referred to aerial overhead pictures of the project area. He stated that they are not opposed to the project, but have significant concerns regarding the impact to their truck traffic traveling from their facilities located in the area. He explained they generate from their facility approximately 12 -20 loads an hour within the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days a week. Central Pre -Mix will generate approximately, that same volume. Approximately 80 percent of their volume uses the 18th Street couplet to access the Terrace Heights Way westbound, which he pointed out on the map. Mr. Hammett expressed primary concerns which center around the proposed light at 17th Street. Even in the present situation, problems have been experienced when accessing Terrace Heights westbound. Currently, they have a project in progress hauling material on I -82 from•Beech Street at Resthaven to the north. In the process of hauling that material, it has been necessary to interrupt traffic where their trucks cross at Terrace Heights Way. Mr. Hammett referred to pictures that show the results of interruption by the trucks and how the number of cars back up across the 18th Street access. He then referred to pictures of trucks out onto Terrace Heights going westbound occupying both travel lanes and very nearly traveling into the third lane. Council Member Buchanan asked about the length of trucks. Mr. Hammett stated it is approximately 70 feet. Mr. Hammett suggested, in addition to the light at 17th Street, a traffic light be installed at the 18th Street couplet to affect only the westbound Terrace Heights traffic and the traffic traveling through the couplet. In order for that to work, he suggested synchronizing the signals and he also provided an estimate of costs for the signal work. Mr. Hammett further expressed their other major concern about the route they primarily use involving Chalmers, Riverside, and 18th Street. The present condition of these streets are that they are very narrow, ranging in width from 21 to 25 feet, . but with a very short turning radius. Assistant Mayor Barnett interrupted Mr. I/ Hammett to ask him if what he was alluding to was to request the applicant improve the condition of those streets or just something the City should be considering as far as its normal street program to improve at some future date. Mr. Hammett stated it was up to Council whether the applicant should pay for those improvements. The problem exists right now, but there isn't an additional 7,500 vehicles a day in there at this point in time. As the pictures show, our trucks occupy the full width of all these lanes in order to negotiate those intersections. That problem will be compounded by loading in another 7,500 vehicles per day to create a hazardous 18 210 MARCH 15, 1994 situation and truck traffic will be impeded even further. Mr. Hammett stated that he feels the traffic study is very inadequate and the Hearing Examiner addressed that in his report. There are several references by the Hearing Examiner to the inadequacy of the traffic study in regards to the operations of both Superior Asphalt and Central Pre -Mix. Council Member Buchanan noted that the traffic study was conducted at 5 p.m. in the afternoon in the middle of October after the gravel plant and Superior were both shut down. Mr. Hammett stated that he felt the traffic study did not I/ address their concerns and barely acknowledged the fact that these two operations, Superior Asphalt and Central Pre -Mix, even existed. Another concern Mr. Hammett expressed that is not addressed at all in the Hearing Examiner's report, is the proposed crosswalk on 18th Street. He referred to the considerable amount of discussion at the January 13th hearing, but it does not appear at all in the Hearing Examiner's report. His concern is that if a crosswalk is installed at 18th Street with the big trucks and the rest of the traffic, then a very dangerous traffic situation will be created. A huge truck is not going to stop very fast, and if a young child runs out in the middle of a crosswalk simply because it is a crosswalk, then that is very dangerous. He requested the Council review the following items: (1) The entire traffic study to include a thorough study of the impact of truck traffic of Superior Asphalt and Central Pre - Mix. (2) The feasibility of signalizing the north half of 18th Street couplet in addition to the proposed signal at 17th Street. (3) Review the feasibility for the advisability of street improvements to Chalmers, Riverside, and 18th Street to include improvement of the turning radius at these intersections. (4) Review the advisability of a mid -block crosswalk on 18th Street. In closing, Mr. Hammett stated that they are not opposed to this project, but feel careful consideration should be given to the impact on our operations and the operations of Central Pre -Mix. Both of the operations predate all of the development in this area and both of the operations contribute significantly to the revenue base of this community. Responding to Assistant Mayor Barnett, Mr. Hammett replied the most important thing is the stop light, which would be the first consideration and he asked that they not be denied access to Terrace Heights Way. However, the street improvements are very important also. Council Member Sims asked if Items 3, 4, and 5 were accepted I/ by Council as a mitigated issue included in the final conclusion, would that mitigate Item No. 1 of the recommendation, a traffic study to include a thorough study of the active truck traffic from Superior and Central. Mr. Hammett commented that actually No. 1 is a precursor to 2, 3, and 4. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated that if they had - appealed the additional mitigation about the light, that could have been addressed. We are in a numbers situation 19 1 1 211 MARCH15 , 1994 whereby we have a study delay, ;what should we do with the study when it comes back, how are we going to get the money to improve the road. Council Member Sims stated that was why he asked the question. We've implemented 2, 3, and 4. Council Member Berger asked with respect to Chalmers, if he 1/ was talking about just widening, or reconfiguration, of the turns. Mr. Hammett stated that if the streets could be widened, and the turning radius, so we don't have to occupy the whole roadway in order to turn, then that relieves the congestion. The same thing happens at this corner too. Council Member Brado commented that one of the things that enters his mind is that it looks like the majority of the traffic is going to be generated off of 17th Street into the project. Driving through that area, is questionable how many people would come in off of Chalmers. How much additional traffic created by the project is the question. Council Member Sims commented that the grocery store that is being recommended will bring a lot of residents from that general neighborhood area, down Beech. His concern is whether the Beech underpass is wide enough. It really should be four lanes with some bicycle access there, although it may eventually be included in the 1 -82 enhancement or in this project because that whole area is .going to be further developed. Mr. Hammett agreed and stated people probably will use this route to get to the proposed Wal -Mart, and the same route to exit, especially once Fair Avenue is improved, as being proposed in the Gateway project. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked the applicant whether they would prefer to continue the hearing now or continue it to March 29. It was the general consensus to continue. Mr. McCullough introduced Mark Jacobs, Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc., who did all the traffic study analysis and has been working with Public Works and Planning staff. Mr. Jacobs explained how the traffic study evaluated the impact of signalizing the South 17th Street and Terrace Heights Drive intersection. The study also included the analysis of the level of service indicating very good operations which do not warrant mitigation. He indicated no significant adverse impacts are anticipated due to the 1/ installation of a traffic signal at the 17th Street and Terrace Heights Drive intersection. Council Member Buchanan asked about the impact on traffic when the trucks have to start and stop and how long it takes the truck to get into the traffic. Mr. Jacobs indicated it would take longer for trucks to accelerate up to speed; however, the computer software program used in this analysis takes that information into consideration. Council Member Buchanan commented that practical consideration of the truck drivers, actual acceleration, and site distance problems also need to be included. Council Member Brado asked what time of the day 20 212 MARCH 15, 1994 were the pictures taken, establishing the fact that they were taken between 8 and 10 a.m. Council Member Brado described his perception of the level of service including how the westerly flow of early morning commute traffic would affect the total traffic volume. Mr. Jacobs described the directional split in traffic during the morning and evening hours. Council Member Brado reiterated the concern of the eastbound traffic in getting off the loop and heading west with their trucks. Council Member Sims explained the point that once you stop at 17th Street, traffic is going to back la up probably past the bridge, maybe even back to Keys Road, and then when the traffic starts to flow, trucks will be sitting there, and by the time the traffic passes, there's not going to be time for them to get back out on the street; so from 8 o'clock to 10 o'clock, they're going to be sitting there having a hard time making that grade and getting out onto Terrace Heights Way. He compared situations in other parts of the City similar to this. Mr. Jacobs indicated those concerns relate to the timing of the signal, and during the morning time the signal will give most of its green light time to Terrace Heights Way, and there will not be much side street traffic. Council Member Sims requested the proposed hours of the new grocery store, with Mr. Towslee predicting normal retail hours from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; however, he indicated this is uncertain because that is a future condition. Council Member Buchanan indicated that portions of the traffic study information was unclear. Mr. McCullough stated that they made an effort after the Hearing Examiner's hearing to address the issue and supply more recent informational analysis. He referred to page 36 of the Hearing Examiner's report. A lot of time was spent going over this during that hearing. Basically, there are two streets here, 17th Street, which is going to be more of a retail through street, and 18th Street, which is going to continue to be more of a truck use street. He explained that whether traffic signals are installed at intersections is a technical issue, but when engineers sit down to do this they consistently look at the standards to determine whether a signal is warranted or not. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated the developer would not be interested in having those big trucks go past the new development plus the Greenway Auto Mall. Mr. McCullough stated that he agreed and this issue was discussed at great length, too. One of the things in the revised site plan includes where they've altered the radius curve at the intersection to provide a smoother flow. The long term issue may be one of development of Terrace Heights Drive. He stated they cannot warrant the traffic signal and the $25,000 - $50,000 for a signal is considerably less than most signal costs by several fold. He also stated that they do not feel the obligation to do street improvements on 18th Street or Chalmers to repair an existing condition that was not created by the project. The issue at hand is whether an 21 213 MARCH'15 , 1994 impact has been created by the project. There are always area -wide impacts which are going to occur; however, there will be sales tax dollars from the project and other positive fiscal benefits. Assistant Mayor Barnett pointed out that this Council has required developers to take care of street 1/ systems. Mr. McCullough stated that is what they are doing with 17th Street that goes through the project site. We've not been reluctant to take land out of the project site and dedicate it to public use for City stormwater and streets. However, that is not a responsibility of the project and it doesn't relate to the project impacts. We tried to deal collectively with this area the best way possible. There are no conditions in the Hearings Examiner's report relating to this. Council Member Berger agreed with the idea of the signalization at the overpass where the trucks come back on Terrace Heights, if that were only affecting the westbound traffic, and if it was only triggered on demand, otherwise it would be green all the time. If that road isn't improved and the signalization isn't there, the trucks are going to come down 17th Street because that is the most straight forward, easiest route to take. Council Member Buchanan described the problem he sees with trucks trying to get out onto the highway. It's bad now; it's going to get a lot worse when a signal is installed and when people start coming in from Terrace Heights to the store, that will add an extra problem. Assistant Mayor Barnett continued the hearing until March 29, 1994 at 9:30.a.m. 8. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. 9. CONSIDERATION. OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE STREET REVIEW COMMITTEE Dave Hussell, Streets and Traffic Operations Manager, referred to the report detailing specific recommendations concerning the establishment of a street fund review committee, including individual recommendations. Council Member Brado stated he would like to discuss this issue further before the committee 1/ is selected, and indicated an apparent need to review the operations of the Street Department to compare it to private enterprise for the purpose of possibly streamlining the process. Assistant City Manager Rice explained staff provided these recommendations to aid in the selection and consideration process. Assistant Mayor Barnett suggested that perhaps the Council member portion of the committee should meet and review and bring a recommendation to the full Council. 22 21 4 MARCH 15, 1994 *10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PRIVATE LENDER AGREEMENTS FOR THE MULTI - FAMILY RENTAL REHAB PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. R 94 - 25, A RESOLUTION authorizing the Director of Community and Economic Development of the City of Yakima to enter into an agreement with eight lending institutions of Washington for implementation of a multi- family loan program. *11. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH BIG BEND COLLEGE FOR FIRE FIGHTING TRAINING RESOLUTION NO. R 94 - 26, A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an instructional services contract with Big Bend Community College. *12. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 1994 BUDGET REPORT The February 1994 Budget Report was accepted. 13. OTHER BUSINESS There was discussion concerning the airport tower issue and to encourage and authorize Council Member Buchanan to proceed, including a trip to Washington D.C. or whatever else is necessary, to follow through with it. It was MOVED BY BRADO, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO AUTHORIZE COUNCIL MEMBER BUCHANAN TO PROCEED AS HE SEES FIT TO GET THIS DONE. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. Information Items: Items of information supplied to Council were: Memorandum from Wastewater Superintendent and Pretreatment Specialist regarding Clean Water Act Reauthorization. 3/10/94; Memorandum from Director of Public Works and Refuse and Recycling Manager regarding Route Consolidation and Pilot Yard Waste Program. 3/11/94; Notice of City of Yakima and Washington State Department of Transportation design /access public hearing on I -82 /Yakima Avenue Interchange and Fair Avenue Project. 3/11/94; Monthly Project Progress Report for the Yakima Railroad Area for March 1994; Trolley Ridership Monthly Report for February 1994; Monthly Report of the Chief of Police for February 1994; Agenda for March 21, 1994 COG Executive Committee meeting and minutes of its February 28, 1994 meeting; Agenda for March 17, 1994 City of I/ Yakima Charter Civil Service Commission meeting and minutes of its March 8 and 15, May 6, and July 1 and 16, 1993 minutes; and AWC City News publication; February 1994. 23 215 MARCHy:15 , 1994 14. ADJOURNMENT TO MARCH_. 22, .1994 AT 11:30 A.M. AT THE YAKIMA CENTER FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO ADJOURN AT 4:50 P.M. TO MARCH 22, 1994 AT 11:30 A.M. AT THE YAKIMA CENTER FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY:/ C - C. - 7 `{ COUNCIL MEMBE DATE / 69 COU CIL MEMB R DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK ASSISTANT ' MAYOR Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and video tape of.this meeting are available in the City Clerk's office. 24