Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2005 Business Meeting 11.0 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 19, 2005 - 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL 1. RoII Call Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Dave Edler, Mary Place, Bernard Sims, and Susan Whitman Staff: City Manager Zais, City Attorney Paolella and City Clerk Roberts (until 6 p.m.), Acting City Clerk Watkins (after 6 p.m.) Absent: Council Member Neil McClure (excused) 2. Invocation /Pledge of Allegiance Council Member Bonlender gave an invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Edler. 3. Open Discussion for the Good of The Order /Special Presentations A. Proclamations Yamate High School Hospitality Week Mayor George read a proclamation declaring the week of April 18 -22 as Yamate High School Hospitality Week. Mary Beth Wright was present to accept the proclamation, described the program, and introduced two of the chaperones. B. Appointments to Boards and Commissions Council Member Sims gave a status report on the applications for the Historical Preservation Commission. They are currently scheduling interviews. C. Special Presentations None D. Status report on prior meeting's citizen service request (if any) None 4. Consent Agenda Mayor George referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda, questioning whether there were any additions or deletions from either Council members or citizens present. Item No. 9 was added and Item No. 15 was removed from the Consent Agenda. The City Clerk read the Consent Agenda items, including resolutions and ordinances by title. SIMS MOVED AND BONLENDER SECONDED TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; McClure absent. (Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an asterisk ( *) indicate items on the Consent Agenda handled under one motion without further discussion.) 1 : APRIL 19, 2005 *A. Approval of the minutes of the January 25, 2005 Adjourned meeting and the March 22, 2005 Business meeting The minutes of the January 25, 2005 Adjourned meeting and the March 22, 2005 Business meeting were approved, having been duly certified accurate by two Council members and no one present wishing to have said minutes read publicly. 5. Audience Participation Ralph CaII, 2608 West Chestnut, spoke regarding the Memorial Hospital expansion. He attended the 2006 Comprehensive Plan update in March and was surprised that only Council Member McClure was there and that he hadn't been aware of the specific plans of the hospital. The hospital will be coming to Council to ask to double their size with multi -level garages and numerous professional offices requiring a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Call asked for a moratorium on their Comprehensive Plan amendment application until after the new Comprehensive Plan review is completed. City Manager Zais explained that the hospital has the right to file an application and go through the required steps. Once the scoping process is completed it will be folded into the comments to be considered with the environmental impact statement, a requirement imposed by the City. That will necessitate a public process. It will be reviewed at the regional planning level and then will move forward to the City Council and County Commissioners. He is not sure a moratorium would be permissible and will have to speak with our Legal Department. He assured Mr. Call that there will be an extensive and significant public review process and the concerns of the neighborhood are going to be an important issue that the hospital will have to address at each stage. Mr. Call was also advised that the Council would be given information during the course of the reviews. They usually do not get involved prior to that in order to ensure maintaining an open mind. Ben Fromm, 2016 Swan Avenue, expressed his displeasure that due to the Fruitvale Annexation, the City now handles his refuse collection. He feels this has taken away his freedom of choice as he would rather have Yakima Waste provide the service. He took this opportunity to express his opinions about government impinging on citizens' powers. City Manager Zais and Public Works Director Waarvick explained the public process and negotiations that took place with respect to refuse service in annexed areas. They assured Mr. Fromm that the City's refuse service is an upgrade for the area and that the convenience and additional capacity should help the area's litter issues. Maria Bazan, 801 Ridgeview Avenue in Selah, distributed a letter she wrote requesting Council to consider putting in handball courts in addition to the planned basketball court at Miller Park. Mrs. Bazan is a probation officer and the secretary for YPAL. She also submitted an article on a handball tournament and an e-mail from Officer Ben Hittle. Chris Waarvick, Public Works Director, said they have begun receiving suggestions for the property from the public and are anxious to see if any of them can be incorporated. Currently, Engineering is looking at the area and will be bringing back a contract outlining the demolition. 2 112. APRIL 19, 2005 Maud Scott, Southeast Yakima, advised Council that May 8 kicks off National Historic Preservation month. Betty Lou Brown, Executive Director of the Historic Macon Foundation, and her husband, will be available to make a presentation about their nationally recognized model project and the group's unique method of historic revitalization and impact to the Macon, Georgia community. The Women's Century Club has offered to host an event on the evening of Tuesday, May 24 in the George Donald home at 304 N 2 Street. She asked for Council's consideration to pay a small honorarium for their services and to support this opportunity. Mrs. Scott pointed out the timeliness of this event as the City has recently purchased the George Coson home at South 8 and Walnut and are analyzing what to do with it. She said that in a discussion with Bill Cook following a seminar by Michael Sullivan, his suggestion was that it might be a good candidate for the Macon approach. PUBLIC HEARING 6. Public hearing to consider providing Community Development Block Grant funds to Maytag Services to locate a consumer contact center in the City's Renewal Community area and consideration of Resolution authorizing execution of Economic Development Services Contract with Maytag Company Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development, announced that this public hearing is to consider a proposed performance grant agreement with Maytag Services who desires to locate a consumer contact center in Yakima's renewal community area in the central business district. They have contractually agreed that at the end of the first year they will be providing up to 200 jobs at that location. The annualized payroll and benefits at the end of that year are estimated at $3.9 million. • Mayor George opened the public hearing. Sheila Black, Yakima County Development Association, thanked Council and staff for considering the use of these funds to allow jobs in the downtown area. Most of these jobs will pick up the unemployed from ClientLogic and will help the downtown businesses. Mary McDaniels, 905 Walker Street, spoke in support of the funding and warned Council to be sure there are proper protections in the contract. • Mayor George closed the public hearing The City Clerk read the resolution by title only; SIMS MOVED AND PLACE SECONDED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; McClure absent. RESOLUTION NO. R- 2005 -60, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager of the City of Yakima to execute a CDBG economic development project grant agreement with Maytag Services, a business unit of Maytag Corporation, to assist with the establishment of a consumer contact center operation in the City of Yakima's Renewal Community Area. 3 113: APRIL 19, 2005 CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS 7. Consideration of City Cruising Policy on Yakima Avenue Council Member Bonlender gave background information on this request that has gone through the Yakima Downtown Association, the Westside Merchants Association, and the Chamber of Commerce. They are all in support of lifting the moratorium on cruising Yakima Avenue for two weekends during the summer; the first weekend of summer and the Vintiques weekend. Council Member Place said this is a Public Safety Committee issue and there are currently two groups (the Vintiques and the Lowriders) that are unofficially being allowed to cruise now and they want to be sure everyone is handled the same way. After a spirited discussion that included a number of ideas, BONLENDER MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING LIFTING THE BAN ON CRUISING ON JUNE 17118, 2005 AND AUGUST 5 -6, 2005 FROM 7 -11 P.M. PLACE MOVED AND WHITMAN SECONDED TO AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT REQUESTS COME THROUGH THE YAKIMA DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION FOR APPROVAL RATHER THAN LIMITING IT TO THE TWO WEEKENDS. Further discussion highlighted the fact that this is an idea to get people downtown. The concern is the need for a clearinghouse so the police chief could ensure adequate staffing. George Chappell, Chamber of Commerce President, gave their support and agreed with the request being for just one year to allow the City Council to review its success. At that time they could create an ordinance with more flexibility. Cynthia Martinez, Assistant City Attorney, raised concerns about the idea of handling this by waivers, potentially creating problems with due process. She recommended specific weekends be identified. Council Member Place withdrew her motion and the second was withdrawn. Council Member Bonlender clarified that his motion is TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE LEGISLATION FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL. The question was called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; McClure absent. 8. Report from Council Committee regarding regional animal control policy discussions Council Members Place and Whitman gave a report on activities to date regarding a regional animal control policy. Part of their report consisted of a quiz that showed pictures of dogs and the audience was to determine if each were a breed affected by the City's pit bull ban. The intent of the quiz was to show just how difficult it is to identify a banned pit bull dog. The goal of their meetings with other animal control agencies is not necessarily to consolidate services but at least to make sure we all have similar ordinances. Items reviewed were: • Chipping of dogs • Licensing • The pit bull ban /dangerous dogs • Leash laws and barking 4 1.1.4, APRIL 19, 2005 Council Member Edler commented that it was his understanding that regionalization means we have one particular entity doing the work that we all share. He expressed concern that, in this case, all we've done is increase the work of the involved entities. Council Member Place responded that the first step is one set of rules. It was the consensus of Council to continue working with the different entities on a regional plan. *9. Consideration of Resolution authorizing proposed purchase of land with • Congdon Orchards RESOLUTION NO. R- 2005 -61, A RESOLUTION approving the purchase of Yakima County Assessor's Parcel No. 181334 -22005 located at South 48 Avenue and West Mead Avenue, Yakima, Washington, the legal description of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "A ", from Congdon Orchards, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and directing and authorizing the City Manager of the City of Yakima, or his designee, to execute a Settlement Agreement substantially in the form as attached hereto as Exhibit "B ", and to take any additional actions and to execute any additional documents that may be necessary for or relating to the purchase of said property. 10. Consideration of Resolutions authorizing execution of two Letters of Agreement between the City of Yakima and Fire Public Safety Managers' Guild regarding Battalion Chief positions: A. Letter of Agreement regarding filling Battalion Chief positions when a Battalion Chief takes time off City Manager Zais explained that this is a deferred budget policy issue that came to light while under review by the Budget Strategy Team (BST), and as the result of a vacancy created by a disability situation. They looked into the question of whether or not to eliminate the Battalion Chief (BC) position as a cost savings matter. The issue was studied by administration, the BST, union representatives for the BCs, and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). There have been ongoing negotiations that resulted in this interim agreement (up to end of 2006) that keeps one BC position vacant, assuming a vacancy due to a retirement. This will allow the opportunity of increased training and development of command staff, at the captain level, to serve in an acting BC capacity. The BCs have given up first right of refusal in their agreement that, previously, would have precluded that from happening. There has been substantial progress made with all three groups. They have also endeavored to determine what annualized savings would have occurred if restructuring had been implemented (creating another deputy chief and not filling BC positions in the future). That option is still on the table. The BST has recommended this proposal and in discussions felt it was a good faith step forward resulting in positive savings for the next year- and -a -half while enabling some other things to occur with regionalization. There are two agreements; one with Local 469 and the other with the BCs and Local 469. Fire Chief Mayo summarized that this offer, safety -wise, is the best they can offer and it also saves $120,000. Council Member Place suggested this be revisited in this budget session to make sure we will be within the dollars we say we're going to be. The City Clerk read Resolution A by title only; SIMS MOVED AND WHITMAN SECONDED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; McClure absent. 5 115, APRIL 19, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. R- 2005 -62, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a letter of Agreement between the City of Yakima, the International Association of Firefighters Local 469 representing LEOFF employees, and the Yakima Public Safety Managers Guild regarding the procedure for filling Battalion Chief positions when a Battalion Chief takes time off. B. Letter of Agreement regarding long -term acting Battalion Chief assignments for the 3` Battalion Chief position through 2006 The City Clerk read resolution B) by title only; SIMS MOVED AND WHITMAN SECONDED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; McClure absent. RESOLUTION NO. R- 2005 -63, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a Letter of Agreement between the City of Yakima, the International Association of Firefighters Local 469 representing LEOFF employees, and the Yakima Public Safety Managers Guild regarding long -term acting Battalion Chief assignments for the third Battalion Chief position through 2006. Following a short break, the meeting resumed at 4:18 p.m. 11. Consideration of Proposed Supplementations and Clarifications to the Wastewater Connection Charge Study, Potential Related Revisions to Wastewater Connection Charges, and to Wastewater Service Rates and Charges Max Linden, Wastewater Utility Engineer, gave background information. In 2004 Council was presented with a draft Wastewater Facility Plan that outlined projected costs anticipated over the next 20 years at $86 million. The connection fees and rates pay for a lot of these improvements. He noted that approximately 40% of the costs for improvements to the treatment facility could be attributed to growth. The collection system is about 50% of the costs. Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager, referred to a map showing proposed pipelines that will enable development as it comes. It has been the City's policy to have capacity available so when residential or business customers want service we don't have to turn them away. The rates are constructed under the Council policy of having growth pay for growth. Since that time there has been concern expressed that maybe we should re -look at this policy. There are some options requiring Council direction on whether we want to amend the policy of growth paying for growth to growth pays for most of it but some of the growth gets paid by the rate base. 1. A 50% reduction of the actual collection sub - element of the wastewater connection charge (WCC) for Zone 1 new customers. 2. Adjust the maximum parcel size utilized in calculating WCCs for single dwelling units to 12,000 sq. ft. and, Adjust the maximum parcel size utilized in calculating WCCs for development other than single dwelling units to the greater of 50,000 sq. ft. or 110% of the connected building footprint. 3. Waive the entire WCC for Zone 1 parcels that participate in new LIDs. They would still be responsible for all LID charges. 6 116 APRIL 19, 2005 4. Treat collection systems financed by governmental agencies within certain census tracts on the same basis as a developer extension serving the area for purposes of calculating waivers from a portion of the actual collection sub - element of the WCC. 5. Clarify that the calculation of a WCC for parcels for which the capital cost recovery charge has been paid or that has participated in an LID but has yet to connect to the wastewater system shall be credited with the current value of a single dwelling unit connection 6. In order to maintain revenue, the adoption of the above recommendations will require a 2.5% increase of monthly service charges to all Zone 1 retail customers. Following extensive discussion, Mr. Mayo said they recommend Option 1 as a compromise to the existing charging method for zone 1 (inside the city). Option 2, provided in the Council packet, would cause a higher general rate increase to keep revenue base neutral. City Manager Zais clarified that the action required today is to decide which option and direct that legislation be prepared. A public hearing would then be held in two weeks at which time Council would act on it. Katrina Vickers said she is the person referenced in the discussion that has already paid. They are in the process of building a home and when researching costs she was told they needed to pay $3,681.86 for sewer hookup and $78 for a permit. She called back later and was advised that the department had increased the fee to over $13,000. She was frustrated that they hadn't been advised about the upcoming increase. Mr. Mayo said that with the proposed change the costs would be $5,251.88. This is still a substantial increase but much Tess than $13,000. Larry Lovelace, 806 North 44 Avenue, spoke about a lot he purchased next to where he lives. He said he had been advised that if he had paid his fee prior to December 22, 2004 he would have paid $2,200 but now it is over $11,000. That equates to one third of the value of his lot. He was quite surprised that he was expected to pay that high of a connection charge when the pipe goes across his land already and he just has to do the digging and hook it up. Mr. Mayo explained to Council that under option 1, Mr. Lovelace would pay $6,500. Discussion continued on costs of developing lots, the reason the change is necessary, and current economic growth. PLACE MOVED AND BONLENDER SECONDED TO BRING BACK LEGISLATION FOR OPTION 1, WITH THE SIX LISTED ITEMS INCLUDED, FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 3, 2005. City Manager Zais responded to questions for clarification on the problem and this suggested resolution. We were holding firm to the policy of growth pays for growth and made some adjustments in the fall. We didn't realize the full effects of those adjustments on the individuals at that point. This is a more simplified option that stays fairly true to the original policy. It is still a steep increase but an adjustment we can accommodate and the general rate base would not be heavily impacted. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; McClure absent 7 117 APRIL 19, 2005 *12. Consideration of Resolution authorizing the execution of a grant to People For People from 2005 ONDS non - federal funds to assist with costs associated with the WIN 2 -1 -1 system's local area call center start -up RESOLUTION NO. R- 2005 -64, A RESOLUTION endorsing the creation of the WIN. 2 -1 -1 Information and Referral System and authorizing a grant of $15,000 to People For People to assist with costs associated with the WIN 2 -1 -1 system's local area call center start -up. *13. Consideration of Resolution approving the First Quarter 2005 Claims Report RESOLUTION NO. R- 2005 -65, A RESOLUTION accepting and approving the First Quarter 2005 Claim Report for the City of Yakima. *14. Consideration of Resolution authorizing payment for emergency repairs to a fire - damaged refuse truck without calling for bids RESOLUTION NO. R- 2005 -66, A RESOLUTION ratifying the declaration of an emergency and authorizing the City Manager to pay Western Peterbilt, Inc. for emergency repairs to a fire damaged refuse truck without calling for bids. 15. Accept status report regarding abatement of vacant buildings Joe Caruso, Supervising Code Inspector, gave a summary of the status report supplied in the Council packets. Eleven months have passed since adopting the vacant building abatement ordinance. Initially 168 buildings were identified and a Vacant Building Master List book was established. In September 2004, 28 letters were mailed to property owners explaining the ordinance. A follow -up inspection was conducted in March 2005. Eight structures have been demolished or reoccupied. Of the remaining 20 structures, those that fit the definition as outlined in the new ordinance will be mailed a "final chance" letter. They will have a maximum of thirty days to abate. If the structure is not abated and is declared a public nuisance the City is authorized to abate it and, if necessary demolish it. At the public meeting for these ordinances we have had individual contractors and residents interested in these abandoned properties. We are pursuing that to see if we can get the abandoned buildings back on the tax rolls. SIMS MOVED AND PLACE SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE REPORT. ORDINANCES *16. Consideration of amendment to the Municipal Code to rename the Telecommunications Division to the Community Relations Division and adding Community Relations to the City Administration Department ORDINANCE NO. 2005 -19, AN ORDINANCE relating to administrative organization and department of the City of Yakima; changing the name of the Telecommunications Division to the Community Relations Division; transferring the Telecommunications (Community Relations) Division from under the direction of the Director of Community and Economic Development to under the direction of the Assistant City Manager; and amending sections 1.18.005, 1.18.015, and 1.18.060 of Chapter 1.18 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. 8 118. APRIL 19, 2005 QUASI- JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. Public Hearing to consider the Hearing,Examiner's recommendation to deny a right -of -way vacation for a portion of North 9 Street in the vicinity D Street, requested by Vaughn Bay Construction Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner, advised Council that Petition 04 -10 was heard by the Hearing Examiner at an Open Record Public Hearing on February 25, 2005. On March 25, 2005, the Hearing Examiner rendered his decision to deny the right -of- way vacation. • Mayor George opened the public hearing Paul Page said it was assumed by virtually everyone that this right -of -way had already been vacated. He described it as a small piece of right -of -way that is one of countless access points to the property. It is fifty feet out of alignment with 9 Street to the south. Ninth Street is a designated residential street not wide enough to accommodate the proposed logging truck traffic or potential traffic created by commercial or industrial use. He claimed the denial won't prevent development but it would have allowed for more density between residents and commercial. He clarified that the existing house would be demolished and replaced with multi - family units. The property has been awarded federal tax credits to develop a 26 unit building. Gary Lukehart, owner of property in the area, expressed concern that this would impact access to the former Boise Cascade property. He recommended not vacating that street. Mr. Peters said that at the public hearing Yakima Resources mentioned they felt the need to have secondary access to the property for regular vehicle access so they could sell parts of their property. Lynne Kittelson, 305 North 9 Street, explained the history of the street and expressed concern that it is zoned R -3. Maud Scott said her concern is density in areas where there is a lack of classrooms and traffic. Of course that has nothing to do with what this hearing is about, but she got a chance to speak her mind. She agreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision. • Mayor George closed the public hearing SIMS MOVED AND PLACE SECONDED TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE VACATION REQUEST. The motion carried by a 6 -1 roll call vote; Bonlender voting nay. 18. Public Hearing to consider the appeal filed by Nazir Karmali of a Determination of Significance issued for his proposal to change the Future Land Use Map designation for property located at the southwest corner of North 40th Avenue and Powerhouse Road from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial 9 1 19 APRIL 19, 2005 Ken Harper, Counsel for the City, pointed out that the proceedings are being electronically recorded and requested that the testimony of witnesses be taken under oath. He clarified that all that is pending for this hearing is a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map change, there is no project identified. The City's responsible SEPA official, Bill Cook, issued a Determination of Significance (DS) requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as he felt we did not have enough information to anticipate what kind of project may be coming. The Council members declared no.ex -parte contact. The Acting City Clerk administered an oath to all testifying witnesses. ® Mayor George opened the public hearing James Carmody, attorney representing Mr. Karmali, commented that what is before Council is whether this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, in the absence of a project application and site - specific proposal, is a major action that has a probable significant adverse environmental impact. That is what is necessary to require an EIS. He also objected to Mr. Harper's role as legal counselor and legal advisor on this decision. Mr. Harper countered that city attorneys regularly represent principalities and there is no conflict in the rules of conduct that govern whether he can both advise the city in public on the matter as well as explain the actions of city staff. If necessary, he would have no objection to having the City Attorney, Mr. Paolella, take up the role of advising City Council if it would cure the objection. Bruce Benson, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the situation. This area is designated on Map IX -5 as being High Risk Critical due to over steep slopes. The intersection it is on, North 40 Avenue and Powerhouse Road, is one of the city's busiest. Staff expressed concern about the geological and traffic issues and on June 30, 2004 requested additional information on the geology of the steep slopes and measures that could be taken. On October 29, 2004, a geotechnical report prepared by GN Northern Engineering was submitted, as well as a traffic study on September 9, 2004 prepared by Sunburst Engineering. The City Engineer concluded that, on the whole, it was a well prepared study but did not adequately answer the question about slope stability should the soil become saturated, nor did it contain an adequate risk assessment discussion. The City's Traffic Engineer determined that the traffic study did not adequately present or compare the development impacts that may be expected as a reasonably foreseeable result of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The traffic study, as submitted, presents analysis of a potential convenience store with gas pumps and recommends significant mitigation in order to avoid negative traffic impacts. Consequently, on January 25, 2005, the City's SEPA responsible official issued a Determination of Significance requiring that an EIS be prepared. Mr. Karmali has appealed that determination. Mr. Carmody questioned Mr. Benson. Note: All testimony is recorded and Mr. Harper questioned Mr. Benson. available on tape or cd Mr. Harper introduced Kay Adams, City Engineer. Mr. Adams said he had experience with landslides where 150 houses slid off a hill after a substantial rainfall. After that experience, he always looks at soil issues. It was apparent in the report that the applicant knows the hillside is very steep, up to a 62% slope in some places. • 10 120 APRIL 19, 2005 His concern was there is a layer of very soft, sensitive soils at 20 -25 foot depth. If that soil were to get wet they would turn squishy and could slide. The report acknowledged it but did not say what would be done about it, so he asked Mr. Karmali to put something in writing about it. Mr. Harper offered the Geotechnical Report as Exhibit A. Mayor George accepted the Geotechnical Report at Exhibit A. Mr. Carmody questioned Mr. Adams. Mr. Harper called Joan Davenport, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Harper offered the Sunburst Engineering Report of September 9, 2004 as Exhibit B. Mayor George accepted the Sunburst Engineering Report as Exhibit B. Mrs. Davenport said the traffic study was prepared in the summer of 2004. There was a statement made that says additional traffic is expected as a result of the land use change. There was a meeting in which Mr. Karma li was present as well as the traffic engineer who prepared the study, and Bill Hordan. We responded to their questions and provided information on traffic counts. The meeting was short and specifically related to how a convenience store might be located at this location. The traffic study subsequently prepared was limited in scope to what impacts might be expected on an eight - position gas station and convenience center. The basis for the City's comments is that, although that is the stated intent, it may change. It is possible there could be something more than a convenience store on that acre and we need to assess what the effect would be. The study by Sunburst Engineering does not address the net increase in traffic between low density and the proposed neighborhood commercial designation. Mr. Carmody questioned Mrs. Davenport. Council members questioned the need for all of the exhibits saying some items were premature at the non - project level. Mr. Carmody responded that, in his opinion on an appeal, Council members should have available everything that was part of the decision. Council Member Place asked if Mr. Carmody was asking to not close this appeal hearing and come back at another time to look at more information. Mr. Harper offered the site plan as Exhibit C. Mayor George accepted the site plan as Exhibit C. Mr. Paolella offered a procedure clarification. In light of the questions being raised, Council could request both lawyers and Mr. Cook to submit all the documents and records they think are relevant to the appeal today and take a period of time to review them as well as allowing the attorneys to submit a post hearing brief. The hearing could be continued to allow those things to take place. At that time the hearing could be limited to deliberation. Mr. Harper called Bill Cook as a witness. Bill Cook, Community and Economics Director and SEPA responsible official from the City, summarized that the Council has heard the very same, information he heard and upon which he made his decision to issue a Determination of Significance for this non - project proposal. Council heard about the engineering report and the particular test that was troublesome and raised a red flag for the City Engineer. In a subsequent meeting with the applicant, the City Engineer asked for additional 11 1,21 APRIL 19, 2005 information on how this site would handle stormwater. The engineer responded verbally and Mr. Adams asked for it in writing. He did not receive it. Council also heard from Joan Davenport about information she felt was missing from the traffic study. His decision to issue the DS was primarily based on those two items. The process they followed led him to the conclusion that they did not have sufficient information. Council members have asked whether there will be other opportunities to raise these questions and obtain that information. Wouldn't it be better to understand the issue now and wouldn't it be inappropriate and irresponsible to set the issues aside and wait until we got a design and construction plan review and building permit applications. He emphasized that this is not a question of whether this is a good or bad project as we're not yet sure what the project is. But, we have to be sure that we understand the potential impact and have resolved some of the issues that have already surfaced. The issues have been narrowly defined and we believe some of that information may already be available. It needs to be put on record. Council Member Bonlender asked if the floods of 1996/1997 had any effect on the property. Council Member Edler asked how Mr. Cook would respond to a citizen of Yakima that says nobody else has had to go about it this way; almost without exception it isn't until we get a project specific proposal that we ask for these details. It appears that all of the items could be mitigated at the project level. Mr. Cook responded that this is not a normal site, it is listed as high risk, which is a very limited description requiring special attention. From a traffic standpoint, we would like to know within a wide range of uses what would be the worst case for that intersection. Mr. Harper asked if the Council had been provided a packet of information for the hearing, and upon receiving a positive response asked to have those documents admitted as Exhibit D. Mayor George accepted the hearing packet as Exhibit D. Also discussed were the letters and e-mails Council has received. Mayor George accepted the correspondence received and presented to City Council today as Exhibit E. Discussion ensued between Mr. Carmody and Mr. Harper on what Council had received and had not received prior to the hearing. Mr. Paolelia, City Attorney, suggested that Council members, upon receiving the exhibits, take the time to review and use the information in their deliberation. Mr. Carmody responded that the Council is sitting in an appellate capacity, passing judgment on this appeal, and in the absence of having all the information he could not see how they could make that determination. Mr. Paolelia recommended submission of any and all documents that are thought to be relevant for deliberation to the Council at this time. Mr. Carmody questioned Mr. Cook. Mr. Carmody called Mr. Magsi for questioning. Imran Magsi, 722 North 16 Avenue, Suite 31, Yakima, is the geotechnologist of record who prepared the report for Mr. Karmali on the proposed site. He explained the process they went through to perform the study and the results found. Basically, the slope is stable in its natural state and it was Mr. Magsi's understanding that Mr. Karmali was willing to supply any necessary stabilizing structures. Also discussed was the upper canal and potential mitigation measures if it was felt they were 12 122.. APRIL 19, 2005 necessary. Mr. Magsi answered Council's questions about the slope and his opinion that it is not a hazard in its natural state. Mr. Harper questioned Mr. Magsi. Mr. Carmody gave his closing statements. He pointed out that the City had received a geotechnical analysis of the property. No one has ever been required to do that in Yakima but the applicant made that effort and the report is more than sufficient to evaluate the current condition of the property. It is Council's responsibility to determine that a major action with a significant adverse impact has a reasonable likelihood of occurring to require an environmental impact statement. Mr. Carmody then referred to various documents that had been submitted that support their belief that a development of this type on this surface with projected traffic is fine. Mr. Harper responded that Mr. Carmody had not introduced any exhibits nor evidence with regard to testimony from the traffic engineer. The traffic situation is different here than in other areas because it is jammed up against a hillside. Under SEPA, Mr. Cook's determination is entitled substantial weight. It is not a requirement of the City Council to reweigh the evidence. Mr. Harper referred to Mr. Carmody's inference that this is just a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use change and is not project specific, yet the geotechnical report and the traffic study presented refer to it being a gas station. This matters because it will put people at this location and there is a threat of a slide if there is saturation. Mr. Carmody pointed out the extensive cost of an environmental impact statement and that requiring it is not a good policy for the City of Yakima. He reiterated that no one is shirking their responsibility, especially when considering the efforts the applicant has already made at supplying information. Procedure was discussed. Council reviewed their options of allowing more time for deliberation, receiving attorney briefs, having the two absent Council members review the tape, and whether or not to continue the hearing. Mr. Harper again clarified that the decision before Council is whether or not Mr. Cook made a correct decision in requiring an EIS. Council is to either uphold the decision or reverse it and require a different determination be made. Or, Council may defer the decision by continuing the public hearing in favor of further review and possible consideration by the two other Council members. BONLENDER MOVED AND EDLER SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL. AND REVERSE THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE BY THE SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL. Council Member Bonlender commented that he feels an EIS is an unnecessary additional expense. Council Member Edler said that issues that are of concern to the city would come out in the next step of the development process and to ask someone to do something differently than others, knowing that mitigation will come out in the end, is not good business. Council Member Place noted that she is the Council representative on the critical areas ordinance and this is one of the reasons growth management began. She commented there is more risk to this property than she is comfortable with. Council Member Sims said there could be mitigation of the situation when a specific project is proposed. He questioned what the City's liability would be should we accept the appeal and later the land was to slide and kill people. City Attorney Paolella said there are ways to manage liability risks, indemnification for example. The question 13 12'3 APRIL 19, 2005 was called for a vote on the motion. The motion failed by a -3 roll call vote; • George, Place and Sims voting nay; McClure and Whitman absent. 19. Other Business None • Information Items Items of Information provided to Council were: Flyer on National Day of Prayer ( Thursday, May 5, 2005); April 2005 City of Yakima Issues Brief; Planning Division Assignments Pending as of April 5, 2005; Article from the March 9, 2005 Palm Springs Desert Sun, "The blight of graffiti: The unseen costs "; Article from April 11, 2005 CNN Money, "Tax - friendly places 2005 ", and Article from March 16, 2004 The Associated Press, "Study ANWR oil would have little impact ". 20. Adjournment to April 26, 2005 for Study Session on proposed revisions to the Municipal Code regarding Utility administration and operations PLACE MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ADJOURN TO APRIL 26, 2005 AT 7:30 A.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR A STUDY SESSION. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; McClure and Whitman absent. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY All , i.. • COUNCi ' EMBER DATE / r /.' ../ ' COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: K eut-,..,„„ ,2 ge,--64..,..) (g),u, jr UM/ ITY CLERK PAUL P. GEORGE, , MAYOR _ li d, i/ O4%iJ7AJ ACTING CITY CLERK Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 14