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