HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-1997eL
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25, 1997
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held August
25, 1997 in the Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Jeanne Barber, and Rich Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Dick Deal, JeffDixon, Bill Mandeville, Bob Sokol, and
Jennifer Francis
ALSO PRESENT: Tom Mueller, Corps of Engineers; Patricia Graesser, Corps of Engineers;
Jonathan Smith, Corps of Engineers; Bill Stevens, Landmark; Ernie Patty, Andover Co.; Gary
Volchok; Len Elliot; Will Calhoun; Bruce Harpham; Peter Frame; Santiago Mercade; David
Halinen; Mara Locken; Clinton Tullis; and John Raeder
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. WSC0026-97 - Finkbeiner Development (continued from August 11, 1997)
Chairman Borden opened the public heating.
Senior Planner Sokol presented the staff report. The applicant has requested a sewer
availability certificate and approval of a development agreement for the Martenson Plat
located at 124th Ave SE & SE 295th. The request is consistent with Policy CE-3. Mr.
Sokol briefly reviewed the findings of fact. He explained the staff recommends an
addition to the standard development agreement be added regarding the section on Parks.
Mr. Sokol stated it would allow the Bonneville Power easement to be dedicated to the
City or the County. The changes would also require the owner to pay for site planning
and/or make improvements to the dedicated easement property equal in dollar value to
five percent of the King County assessed value as undeveloped land. Mr. Sokol also
explained the lighting within the Bonneville Power easement must be sited and designed
to minimize light and glare on adjacent residential properties and also provide for the
safety of park users. Staff recommends approval of the development agreement.
Councilmember Wagner asked about the five percent figure, whether other jurisdictions
use the same figure, and whether the number is determined upon developed or
undeveloped land. Mr. Sokol explained other jurisdictions use a similar process and Mr.
Sokol said he would confirm with other jurisdictions the figure used is on undeveloped
land. Mr. Deal explained the land will be used as a linear park and can be developed with
soft and hard surface trails. Chairman Borden asked how this relates to concurrency. Mr.
Sokol stated he will bring this information to the next Planning and Community
Development Committee Meeting scheduled for September 8th.
There was no public testimony. Councilmember Barber made a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Wagner to closed the public heating. Chairman Borden concurred.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25. 1997
This item will be scheduled again on the September 8, 1997 Planning and Community
Development Committee agenda.
2. Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
Chairman Borden introduced the Councilmembers and the Mayor, and then introduced
Tom Mueller with the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Mueller introduced Patricia Graesser and Jonathan Smith, both with the Corps of
Engineers. Mr. Smith began the presentation by giving an overview of SAMP, how it
was developed and why they are recommending Alternative #8. He explained SAMP is a
plan for the future of 2,400 acres of streams and wetlands. The central focus of SAMP is
on 900 acres of "unprotected" valley wetlands. Mr. Smith explained where the Mill
Creek SAMP is located and the wetland restoration plan. Mr. Smith stated SAMP was
developed to protect higher quality wetlands, protect wetlands with high restoration
potential and develop lower quality wetlands. He explained the reason alternative #8 was
recommended was that it is among the top 3 alternatives for wetland restoration, it does
the best job of financing the most wetland restoration and it maximizes the developable
acreage consistent with wetland protection objectives.
Mr. Smith said the next steps in the SAMP process is to consider public comments,
finalize SAMP, have cities, county, and agencies sign a memorandum of understanding,
then receive a permit from the Department of Army once approved by the District
Engineer. This should be completed by late 1998. The next step in the process is to
amend comprehensive plans and ordinances and establish mitigation banks. Chairman
Borden asked whether there will be another time for public comment after this evening.
Mr. Sokol explained there will be another hearing at a City Council meeting.
Chairman Borden opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
Bill Stevens, Bellevue, WA
Mr. Stevens with Landmark, Inc. who represents three property owners in Auburn,
[Bristo Properties, Gentra, and Auburn Properties (Valley Drive In)]. They are requesting
that the Corps of Engineers and the City of Auburn correct the proposed SAMP mapping.
The corrections he is requesting are located at 4C, 2YY, and 4d. He stated these wetlands
are located within the area designated by the Auburn Comprehensive Plan as Northeast
Auburn Special Planning Area. Wetland 4C and 2YY are designated to be "Restored
Wetland" and 4D is shown as "Developable Wetland". Their request is that the Wetlands
4C and 2YY be changed to "Developable Wetlands" and that 4D be changed to "Restored
Wetland". Mr. Stevens stated the following reasons for this change: 1. Staff has been
working with the property owners to form an LID for improvements south of 277th. The
areas have been designated as Special Planning Areas and since last year have been
considered as wetlands that will be filled and replaced with suitable wetlands. 2, The
Port of Seattle has acquired 69 acres of land in this planning area. As part of the
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25. 1997
mitigation for filling 10 acres of wetlands for the third runway, the Port is going to
construct a 30 acre wetland with a 10 acre buffer on this parcel. The Port plans to
preserve this wetland shown on the SAMP map as 4D. 3. The Flood Control Overlay
map shows 4C as a "local detention facility is planned for the north Auburn Area and it
will encompass much of this wetland. The detention facility referred to is planned to be a
"regional" storm water facility for treatment and storage of runoff from a 450 acre area of
north Auburn in compliance with the City Storm Water Comprehensive Plan. The
location of the storage and treatment ponds and the open channels to convey storm runoff
to it will require the filling of much of wetland 4C. 4. These wetlands are a great
distance away form Mill Creek. 5. There was not a consensus on how to treat these
particular wetlands and could be changed in the future if logical and reasonable issues
were raised. 6. Wetland 4C and 2YY were considered "Low" on the survey rating for
restoration potential.
Mr. Stevens stated he is also concerned with the length and the cost of the process. Mr.
Stevens said they are very much in favor of the SAMP.
Ernie Patty, Ellensburg, WA
Mr. Patty stated he is a land owner and building owner. Mr. Patty stated he was part of
the Citizens Advisory Committee from the very beginning in January of 1992. He stated
the SAMP is meaningless. He stated he has concerns with how different types of
wetlands on property were determined. He stated they were surveyed by windshield.
They looked at vegetation and running water. He feels wetlands are necessary. In 1995
he wrote to the SAMP committee asking for his name to be taken off the list, because he
didn't believe in what they were doing. He stated that in the SAMP document it says
they don't know how they're going to fund the project. He asked the committee to take
an objective look at the SAMP.
Ralph Mason, Enumclaw, WA
Mr. Mason stated he is a property owner in the City of Auburn. He wrote a letter to the
Corps of Engineers a week and a half ago. He stated he referenced the Mill Creek SAMP
plan. After reviewing the principle goals of the SAMP he believes it is essential to
include the State of Washington Attorney General recommended process for evaluation
of proposed regulatory or administrative actions to avoid unconstitutional taking of
private property, as provided for in RCW 36.78.370. He asked the committee and the
Corps, if this recommended process for unconstitutional taking of property be
incorporated into the SAMP. He requested the committee to review this and he would
like an answer from the Corps.
Peter Frame, Kirkland, WA
Mr. Frame stated he represents a major property owner. He stated he agrees with Bill
Stevens that SAMP needs to a better job of better identifying the wetlands. He said the
maps don't really represent anything other than an indication of a process. He feels
nobody really has any idea where the wetlands are and that needs to be step one. His
property owners feel they have a good idea where their wetlands are because they had a
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25, 1997
certified wetland specialist come out to the property. They know where the wetlands are
and what the quality is, and they are low quality wetlands. He said it is a wetland that
need not be restored since 277th is going to cross right over the top of it. Mr. Frame
addressed other members of the audience and stated wetlands have already been taken
and there is no need to debate when they will be taken or should they be taken by the
SAMP or is it constitutional. They are gone, the Corps of Engineers under the Clean
Water Act has taken them and it's just a matter of identifying them. He stated we need to
find a balance point to save the real wetlands. Mr. Frame does agree there is a need for
this type of plan.
Len Elliot, Auburn, WA
Mr. Elliot stated he has lived in Auburn for 29 years. He explained he was on the SAMP
Citizens Advisory Committee. He said it was formed to come to some sort of a
compromise recognizing wetlands had to be saved. He stated it was two very hard years,
they met twice a month, for several hours on their own time. He said he has no financial
interest in this process. He feels they came to a very good agreement. He said it allowed
certain lands to be developed with appropriate mitigation and others are vital wetlands.
He is very confident in the work of the committee. He is pleased with the restoration plan
which will indicate to property owners developable wetlands. He urges the committee to
approve this plan. He said alternative #8 was not his first choice.
Gary Volchok, Seattle WA
Stated he works for CB Commercial and specializes in industrial land. He stated was
issued one of the 6 wetland permits issued by the State of Washington. Mr. Volchok
explained it took him 8 years to receive this permit. He stated it took $300,000 to get the
permit. Mr. Volchok said he reviewed the SAMP documents and the economics of the
SAMP do not work. He distributed a handout labeled Financial Analysis for a User (See
attached). Mr. Volchok went through all six steps and included an example and
explained how he came up with the figures.
Mr. Volchok stated by the end of 1998 it will not be possible to build a 200,000 s.f.
industrial building in King County, because you won't find a 10 acre parcel to build on.
He said no one will spend money to develop because it is too expensive. He stated we
are losing 30,000 jobs due to wetlands that could be created that are now not being able to
be created because of all the wetland. He said this is causing others to look elsewhere
than Auburn to create jobs.
Will Calhoun, Kent, WA
Mr. Calhoun stated he is a retired building contractor and owns land in Auburn and
buildings in Auburn. In 1989, Mr. Calhoun purchased 26 acres of platted land to develop
located on the West Valley Highway. He stated he built a 60,000 s.f. building on one
parcel and paid LID charges and taxes. He stated the Mill Creek flows through the
eastern part of their property and caused a wetland, at one time this was limited to
approximately 1/3 of the property. Mr. Calhoun said time has converted the remainder of
the property into so called wetlands. The once developable portion of the property has
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25, 1997
become wetlands by their definition due to added outflow of the storm sewer water line
as well. The infrastructure system design was approved by the City of Auburn as part of
the overall development plan for the LID for the entire area. On several occasions they
have brought a plan to the city showing and alternative. But the city has turned down the
proposal due to the Corps jurisdiction over the land. He stated if these were natural
wetlands he could understand but he feels they were man made due to stormwater runoff
and it seems a bit much for one property owner to bear the burden. He said he wants to
work with the Corps and the City to create win/win situation, but they have not received
any encouragement from their efforts. If a reasonable solution cannot be worked out,
they will have no alternative but to seek damages through the court system.
Clinton Tullis, Renton
Mr. Tullis stated he owns property near 277th. He stated his real estate office was located
there for 20 years. He explained for 32 years he was a farmer and he knows what
wetlands are. Mr. Tullis explained his knowledge of farming. Mr. Tullis said he had
spoken with someone with the Corps of Engineers approximately six years ago regarding
wetlands. He explained how the water runs off his property and what causes sour lands.
He stated the river used to flood and give the land more nutrients. He stated he likes that
the SAMP states it will refurbish the water. He said his land is not wet. He believes they
have not taken soil samples.
Bruce Harpham, Federal Way.
Mr. Harpham stated he has been a resident of South King County for 30 years. He said
we should look at the functions and values of wetlands. He stated there were streams that
used to be year around, with salmon runs. He said the streams and fish are gone because
the wetlands have been destroyed. He feels the future should be able to enjoy a healthy
environment. He stated there is damage that is done and the clock cannot be turned back.
He said development is necessary, but develop in a smart way. He stated he lives here
because of the environment. He would like to work together to solve some of the
problems. He feels we should allow development and save some of the resources. He
said he feels SAMP is an important way of working together and learn from our mistakes.
He said he prefers Alternative #5 but was willing to live with Alternative #8.
Mike Kohr, Aubum, WA
Mr. Kohr stated he feels no one is against wetlands, but he feels owners should be
compensated. He stated he can't believe anyone is for the SAMP at all. He feels the
owners of property prior to 1985 should be given some exemption and consideration. He
said he would like to see a statement in the SAMP for owners of property before this
time.
Santiago Mercade, Kent, WA
Mr. Mercade said he considers himself very environmental. He stated he feels that
people that own land right now are not being taken into consideration. He stated he
looked through the SAMP document for information regarding compensation. He feels
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25, 1997
there is not a real proposal to provide compensation. He states he cannot sell the land
because of wetlands. He feels the Corps of Engineers doesn't know where the wetlands
are located. He stated people who owned the land before wetlands should be
compensated accordingly.
Ralph Mason
Mr. Mason asked whether the property owner will be compensated for the property that is
considered a wetland. He stated if wetlands are a necessity then let's have them but don't
penalize the people who own the land. Will the property owner be compensated?
Chairman Borden asked Mr. Smith to address the issue of compensation. Mr. Smith said
the property owners will be compensated but it is not clear how much. Mr. Mason asked
for the committee to consider whether the SAMP provide compensation to property
owners without any conditions.
David Halinen, Bellevue, WA
Mr. Halinen represents Gary Merlino a property owner along Mill Creek. The property
was purchased in the 1970's. He said there were no concerns expressed in the 1970's
regarding wetlands when the property was purchase. Mr. Halinen stated he feels that if
the numbers were different it might be something the property owners would consider.
Mr. Halinen stated the SAMP doesn't work at all. He stated it is unfair that a small
number of property owners are being asked to bear the financial burden. He said we
don't think the SAMP has accomplished what we hoped it would. He feels the SAMP is
a very expensive mitigation program.
Mara Locken, Kent, WA
Ms. Locken stated she has lived in the Kent/Auburn Valley all her life. She said her
parents purchased a 10 acre farm in 1969. They bought it as an investment. She
explained that she bought the property and took over payments. She said the property is
zoned as a mitigated. She stated it is going to be so expensive that no one will be able to
buy the property and she'll be stuck with discounted property that's been labeled as
wetlands. She explained she fought her property taxes because of the wetlands. She said
she would like to know how her property was determined as wetlands. She stated the
property used to be farm land and because of other development the runoff goes onto her
land.
Mr. Volchok stated the best way to save wetlands is to get the City and Corps to do
wetland mitigation banking and that is the only way it will work financially.
Mr. Tullis said the Corps has kept him informed.
Mr. Frame asked if Mr. Smith could comment on the compensatory ratio? Does the ratio
vary. Mr. Smith stated the ratio is consistent throughout the basin and it is an average
ratio. Mr. Frame suggested if there were 7 acres of developable land and 3 acres are
wetlands there should be a different ratio for low quality and high quality wetlands.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25. 1997
Mr. Stevens explained the three types of wetlands and ratios.
Mr. Patty asked how did you come up with the functions and values assessments.
Mr. Smith stated the explanation would require more preparation and graphics.
Mr. Mueller explained the delineation manual is determined at the time of approval.
Ms. Locken asked when someone wants to develop buildable wetlands and they have to
buy mitigated property to develop does that property have to be within the boundaries of
where they are going to develop. Mr. Smith explain the idea with SAMP was that the
mitigation site would be somewhere within the Mill Creek Basin, but it doesn't have to
be, but if you want to get quick and easy approval under the SAMP that is what would be
set up. It does not preclude you from trying to put the mitigation somewhere else but you
would have to apply for an individual permit through the regular permit process.
Chairman Borden closed public hearing at 9:32 p.m.
Five minute break.
3. Neighborhood Family Center Contract
Mr. Mandeville presented information on the Neighborhood Family Center contract. He
asked to postpone Council action until September 15th and explained why the delay was
needed. Mr. Mandeville presented the ordinance showing the appropriations to partners
and revisions to the contract document. He stated the international festival was
successful, there were approximately 50 people in attendance. Mr. Mandeville said there
is a need in the community for training on looking for a-job and writing a resume. He
explained activities to focus on that need. He said there will also be conflict resolution
service leaming workshops and other crime prevention programs.
Chairman Borden asked how the City knows what the neighborhoods want. Mr.
Mandeville explained staff is in contact with people in the neighborhood at different
events, and other agencies in the area are helpful in giving information.
This item will be on the Planning and Community Development Committee agenda for
September 8, 1997.
4. Resolution 2870 - DSHS Basic Contract
Mr. Deal presented information on the DSHS Basic Contract. He explained between ten
and fifteen people benefit from the contract and the City is not charged a fee.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AUGUST 25, 1997
Councilmember Wagner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Barber to approve
the DSHS Basic Contract. Chairman Borden concurred.
Presentation on Draft Interlocal Agreement with Port of Seattle on "I" Street Wetland
Mitigation
Mr. Krauss presented information on the Draft Interlocal Agreement with the Port of
Seattle on 'T' Street Wetland Mitigation. Mr. Krauss explained staff has been in
discussions with the Port of Seattle over their proposal to locate a wetland mitigation site
for the "third runway" in Auburn.
The Port of Seattle committed to the Auburn site in their EIS. The City believes the
mitigation should have been located elsewhere in a rural area rather than on prime land
for development. Mr. Krauss stated the agreement would accomplish the Port to pay its
fair share of development costs through cash and land dedications. The value of cash and
land being offered by the Port is approximately $1.2 million. The Port will design their
project to become part of the Green River floodplain which will allow the development of
other sites in the area that are currently impacted and new floodplain mapping will be at
the Port's expense. Any and all litigation made against this agreement and any
subsequent rezones or permits the Port will hold the City harmless.
Mr. Krauss explained the City will agree to change the zoning ordinance to allow wetland
mitigation and City approval of required permits and successful completion of appeal
periods is required to achieve full pay out. Mr. Krauss stated the agreement is LID
neutral. The Port of Seattle is in negotiations with King County regarding land for a trail
corridor. King County is prepared to develop the trail and armor the creek.
o
Lea Hill Park
Mr. Deal presented information regarding the Lea Hill Park. He explained Green River
Community College is presently using the park Monday through Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. Green River Community College has been using the park for many years for a
variety of functions and they would like to have ownership of the park. Mr. Deal stated
this issue is between GRCC and King County as the park is outside current City limits
and would like to revisit the issue when the property is annexed into the City.
With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjoumed at
10:13 p.m.
PAGE 8