Council MIN 10-27-2003 Special
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting/Public Hearing
Council Chambers - City Hall
October 27, 2003 - 7:00 p.m.
(continued from October 22, 2003)
Minutes
I.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Burbidge called the Federal Way City Council special meeting and continued public hearing to
order at the hour of 7:03 p.m. She explained Council members previously heard argument and public
comment on the appeal challenging Sound Transit's land use application for a Regional Transit Center
in Federal Way's downtown core on October 22, 2003-both argument and public comment were
closed before the end of that special meeting/public hearing.
Mayor Burbidge further reminded all in attendance that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and, as
stated at the earlier hearing on October 22,2003, the City Attorney advises the City Council-not the
City Staff-during this public hearing; therefore, Attorney Pat Richardson would be seated at the dais
as a resource to her regarding procedural matters only. She also advised if Council needs legal advice
during this hearing, they will recess to executive sessiun.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeanne Burbidge, Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan, and
Councilmembers Jack Dovey, Eric Faison, Linda Kachmar and Mike Park. Councilmember Gates
was absent-she recused herself earlier because of a contlict of interest-she is currently a member
of the Sound Transit Board.
City Staff present: City Attorney Pat Richardson, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen,
Senior Planner Lori Michaelson and City Clerk Chris Green.
Counsel for parties present: David Larson for the appellants and Steve Sheehy for the respondent.
II.
PUBLIC HEARING (continued from October 22, 2003)
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Federal Way Transit.Center
. Council Deliberation
· Potential Action
At 7:04 p.m., Mayor Burbidge opened the continued public hearing to consider the appeal of the
Sound Transit Land Use Application, and explained this is a "closed record hearing" -meaning
the Council may consider only the evidence that was before the Hearing Examiner, the briefing
submitted in this appeal, and the arguments and statements presented on October 22, 2003, which
~(Q)~lf
Federal Way City Council Special Meeting/Public Hearing (continued from October 22, 2003)
October 27, 2003 - Page 2 of 4
were within the scope of the record and the issues raised in the notice of appeal. Argument and
public comment has already been closed, so there will be no further comment by the parties or
their representatives during deliberations. A copy of the continued public hearing script for this
quasi-judicial proceeding is marked as Exhibit" A" and attached hereto.
Mayor Burbidge reminded Councilmembers they must disclose any ex parte contacts regarding
Sound Transit's application between adjournment of the special meeting/public hearing on October
22, 2003, to present.
Councilmember Kochmar noted, as she clarified at Wednesday's hearing, she had conversations
with Vicki Youngs and Agnes Govern of Sound Transit before the appeal. There were no
additional exparte contacts disclosed.
David Larson, attorney for the appellant, stated his objection to the City Attorney again being
seated at the dais with Council; he also objected to executive sessions being held during the
previous public hearing on October 22-said both are procedural matters and should be done in
open meeting-Mayor Burbidge stated his objection was noted for the record.
Mayor Burbidge then read the following statement: "The purpose of this hearing is to determine
whether the Hearing Examiner's decision granting Sound Transit's land use application for the
Federal Way Transit Center should be reversed or affirmed. Last Wednesday the Council ruled on
Sound Transit's Motion to Strike Allege Errors; the Appellant agreed that Alleged Error 14 should
be stricken; Respondent Sound Transit withdrew its motion to strike Alleged Error 13; and
Council voted to deny Sound Transit's request to strike Alleged Error 8. Therefore, all the
Appellant's alleged errors are before Council for deliberation, except for Alleged Error 14".
Mayor Burbidge read Alleged Error No.1, as stated in the attachment hereto.
Attorney Larson objected to the Mayor's reading from a staff report vs. the appellant's
memorandum-the Mayor clarified she was reading from the Hearing Examiner's decision, not a
staff report.
Council deliberation followed on Alleged Error No.1.
Mayor Burbidge read Alleged Error No.2 and reminded Council that based on the 1998 and 1999
Comprehensive Plan considerations, the Transit Center site has been selected, with the site located
at the southwest corner of 23rd Ave So and So 316rh St. She also reminded Councilmembers they
are evaluating the Hearing Examiner's record.
Council deliberation followed on Alleged Error No.2.
Mayor Burbidge then read Alleged Error Nos. 3, 4 and 5, followed with a lengthy deliberation by
Councilmembers.
Federal Way City Council Special Meeting/Public Hearing (continuedfrorn October 22, 2003)
October 27, 2003 - Page 3 of 4
At 7:55 p.m., Mayor Burbidge announced an approximate 5-minute executive session as cited on
the agenda, pursuant to RCW 42.30. 140(2)-Appellant's Attorney David Larson objected to the
executive session based on his earlier assertion-City Attorney Pat Richardson noted his objection
for the record. Council returned to chambers at 8:01 p.m., at which time Mayor Burbidge
reconvened the continued special meeting/public hearing.
Mayor Burbidge then continued with reading of Alleged Error Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and lO-each
Alleged Error addressed was followed by Council deliberation.
At the hour of 8:35 p.m., Mayor Burbidge called for a brief lO-minute recess; she reconvened the
special meeting/publie hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor Burbidge continued reading Alleged Error Nos. 11, 12 and 13; Councilmembers continued
deliberating on the remaining Alleged Errors. She remindedCouncil that Alleged Error No. 14
was previously stricken on October 22, 2003.
Mayor Burbidge concluded deliberations by reading the statement on additional arguments as
identified in Exhibit "A".
\
}
As a point of order, Appellant's attorney David Larson asked who prepared the written comments,
and was advised by the Mayor that comments were prepared by the city's legal statf.
Mayor Burbidge then asked Council if they were ready to place a motion on the floor.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER FAISON TO AFFIRM THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
APPROVAL OF SOUND TRANSIT'S LAND USE APPLICATION AND ADOPT THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER PARK. THE MOTION PASSED AS FOLLOWS:
Burbidge yes Faison yes
Gates absent/recused Dovey yes
Kochmar no McColgan yes
Park yes
In conclusion, Mayor Burbidge asked the City Attorney to prepare written findings of fact and
conclusions of law for review and adoption at the regular Council meeting November 18, 2003,
consistent with Council's decision on the record.
III.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ouasi-Judicial Matter/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.140(2)
No additional executive session was necessary.
Federal Way City Council Special Meeting/Public Hearing (continued from October 22, 2003)
October 27, 2003 - Page 4 of 4
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Burbidge then adjourned the special meeting/public hearing at the hour of 9: 14 p.m.
~OL~.g~
N. Christine Green, CMC ' ,
City Clerk
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
FEDERAL WAY TRANSIT CENTER APPEAL
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING-- DELIBERATIONS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2003
Q
" . -
~1(D 7
1611-
cy-
A. Introduction
During special session on October 22,2003, the Council heard argumcnt and public comment
on the appeal challenging Sound Transit's land use application for a Regional Transit Center in
Federal Way's downtown core. Argument and public corrunent were closed before the end ofthat
hearing, and Council continued the special hearing to this evening, October 27, 2003. I would like to
remind you that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. As stated before, the City Attorney advises the
City Council and not the City Staff during this proceeding. She is sitting with City Council as a
resource to me regarding procedural matters only. When Council needs legal advice, we will adjourn
to Executive Session.
I will now open the continued public hearing to consider the appeal of the Sound Transit's
Land Use Application. This is a "closed record hearing," which means that the Council may
consider only the evidence that was before the Hearing Examiner, the briefing submitted in this
appeal, and the arguments and statements prcsented on October 22nd which were within the scope of
the record and the issues raiscd in the notice of appeal. Argument and public conunent has already
been closed, so there will be no further comment by the parties or their representatives during
deliberations.
Ifany Council member has had any ex parte contacts regarding Sound Transit's application
between the adjournment on Wednesday, October 22,2003, and this moment, I would ask you to
place the substance and the identify of the contact on the record.
The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the Hearing Examiner's decision
granting Sound Transit's land use application for the Federal Way Transit Center should be reversed,
or affirmed. Last Wednesday, the Council ruled on Sound Transit's Motion to Strike Alleged Errors.
The Appellant agreed that Alleged Error 14 should be stricken. Respondent Sound Transit
withdrew its motion to strike Alleged Error 13. Council voted to deny Sound Transit's request to
strike alleged error 8. Therefore, the all of Appellant's alleged errors are before the Council for
deliberation, except for Alleged Error 14.
mrnrnIT
It I/~
SUGGESTED CHECKPOINTS FOR DELIBERATION
Alleged Error No. I:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on pages 7-8,
paragraph 6(C)) because, "[t]he Tukwila decision referred to does not control this
matter. "
6(C) - In recognition of the above statutory scheme, the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in Sound Transit v. City of
Tukwila, Case No. 99-3-0003, confirmed that Sound Transit's proposed light
rail system meets the definition of a "regional transportation facility" and is
thus an "essential public facility". The Board limited the City of Tukwila's
discretionary authority to impose reasonable conditions and mitigation
measures as follows:
Cities are not regional decision-making bodies under the GMA and
thus may not make decisions regarding system location or design of
regional essential public facilities; nevertheless, the act does
contemplate a collaborative role for cities in making and
implementing regional decisions. Before a reRional decision is made, a
city may attempt to influence that choice by means such as providinR
information to the rel!ional body, commentinR on the alternatives
under consideration, or expressinl! its location preference in its
comprehensive plan. However, after the rel!ional decision is made, the
city then has a duty to accommodate the essential public facility, and
the exercise of its land use powers may only impose reasonable
conditions and mitigation that will not effectively preclude the
essential public facility by rendering it impracticable.
In the instant case, the city may lobby for Sound Transit to adopt the
city's favored alignment...However, Sound Transit is the authority
vested with the responsibility to make routing and system design
decision for regional light-rail service. . It is Sound Transit that makes
the final decision selectinl! route alil!nment...Once that rel!ional
decision is made, the city has a duty not to preclude the lieht-rail
aliRnment selected by Sound Transit... (emphasis supplied).
In the present, case sound Transit, following consultation and
coordination with the City, has decided to locate a regional transit center at
the southwest corner of 23rd Ave. S. and S. 316th St. The City of Federal Way
must accommodate the proposed essential public facility.
2
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied the standard and
whether you think he's right or wrong to refer to the Tukwila case in the finding based upon the
evidence in the record; mention specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No.2:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision isin error (on pages 8-9,
, paragraph 6(D)) because, "[t]he decision did not include the entire text of the
Comprehensive Plan section sited and failed to consider the amendments to the '
Comprehensive Plan made in 2001 by the City Council which was made part of Exhibit
9." .
"\
i
i
6(D) - In 1998 and 1999 the City amended the Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan to authorize the proposed transit center within the City
Center Plan. The Transit Element of the plan' provides in pertinent pa..t as
follows:
Efficient, convenient and reliable transi~ is important to this Plan's
emphasis to reduce auto dependency through the creation of viable
travel options...A multi-model system which includes transit will bring
commuters and shoppe..s to and from other areas of Fede..al Way and
adjacent communities. A high capacity transit system with a principal
stop in the core area will distribute people regionally and connect to
other bus based t..ansit systems...
The Transit Center is considered by the City as a major anchor to the
urban cente.. designation in the Vision 20/20 Plan adopted by the
PSRC....
Based upon these considerations, the Transit Center site has been
selected. The site is located at the southwest corner of23rd Ave. S. and S.
316th St. (emphasis supplied).
Policies of the comprehensive plan include the following:
CCP29. Participate actively in ..egional efforts to develop a high
capacity transit system to serve the City Cente......
3
CCP31. Establish the most intensive levels oftransit service to the City
Center area.
The comprehensive plan specifically authorizes a transit center at the
location proposed.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied the standard and
whether you think he's right or wrong in his finding regarding the transit element of the
comprehensive plan when the entire plan was not part of the record based upon the evidence in
the record; mention specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No.3:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 11,
paragraph 7(B)) because, "[t]he decision made in the legislative process is not relevant
and the hearing examiner failed to consider the Twin Lakes Park and Ride capacity. The
project does not comply with the transportation goals and policies of the comprehensive
plan. There is no evidence in the record that there are, or will be, significant job
opportunities within walking distance of the transit center that will reduce dependency on
the automobile and improve pedestrian circulation. In. fact, the opposite is true. A giant
park and ride downtown will dog streets with commuters going to other cities, thereby
discouraging nearby office and other business development.
With the above factors in mind, findings are hereby made on the criteria for
evaluating Class I Essential Public Facilities as set forth in Section 22-
946.1(b) FWCC as follows:
7(8) - The second criteria reads:
Relationship of services area to population. The facility should
service a share ofthc Federal Way's population within the City. The
proposed site should also. be in a location that reasonably serves its
overall service area population.
The transit center will accommodate peak period commuters, all-day
regional commuters,and all day local riders, all which will grow in terms of
demand and service. Sound Transit considers it of significant importance to
accommodate connections between local and regional services. Upgrading
service and providing new bus routes will result in higher volumes of transit
4
ride.-s transferring between routes. The site was selected due to its
reasonable accessibility to the populations it is intended to serve, which
includes both local and regional commuters. The proposed location provides
immediate HOV access for regional commuters, and the parking maximizes
the number of HOVs which can use the facility. The project complies with
population projections and transportation goals and policies contained in the
comprehensive plan. These policies direct the highest density development to
the CC-C designation where residents will have significant job opportunities
within walking distance of the transit center, thereby reducing dependency
on the automobile and improving pedestrian circulation. Thus, the transit
center location will ensure efficient service to local commuters as well.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW- SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
, the record to persuade a fair-minded. rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied the standard and
whether you think he's right or wrong in finding that the transit center does serve a share of
Federal Way's population and reasonably serves the overall population based upon the evidence
in the record; mention specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
]
/
Alleged Error NO.4:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 12,
paragraph 7(0)) (portion of decision relating to alternative site selection) as, "[t]he
legislative actions of the City of Fedcral Way do not support the proposed location for a
parking garage as proposed."
With the above factors in mind, findings are hereby made on the criteria for
evaluating Class I Essential Public Facilities as set forth in Section 22-
946.1(b) FWCC as follows:
7(D) - Criteria four reads:
Alternative site selection. The sponsor shall document whether any
alternative sites have been identified that meet the minimum site
requirements of the facility. Where a proposal involves expansion of
an existing site, the documentation should indicate why relocation of
the facility to another site would be infeasible.
Sound Transit explored a significant number of alternatives as
explained in the NEP A EA. The first screening considered 38 combinations
of alternatives and focused on transit/transportation issues, potential
5
environmental impacts, and land use/economic development. Following
review, Sound Transit reduced the 38 original alternatives to ten. The
second screening process consisted of evaluating the ten alternatives in
accordance with 36 elements in four categories, and determining the most
reasonable and feasible alternatives to carry forward in the environmental
documentation process. Sound Transit eventually identified the proposed
location as the preferred alternative for several reasons.
Better traffic and transit operations; large enough site to
accommodate both the transit center and parking structure; short
distance between the facility and the ROV direct access ramp;
location of the site near the geographic center of downtown Federal,
Way; and the overall highest ranking alternative at the conclusion of
the screening.
Furthermore, legislative actions by the Federal Way City Council
support the proposed location of the transit center (comprehensive plan
amendment). Sound Transit has properly evaluated a sufficient number of
sites and therefore satisfies Criteria four.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence. exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied the standard and
whether you think he's right or wrong in finding that comprehensive plan amendment, which is
the legislative action, supports the transit c~nter based upon the evidence in the record; mention
specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No.5:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 13,
paragraph 7(E)) because, "[t]he Park and Ride will not provide a more diverse, multi-
modal transportation system with the city center. The comprehensive plan does not
specify a high capacity transit station at the intersection ofS. 316th and 23rd Ave. S., and,
in fact, it specifies a low rise pedestrian friendly transit center, not a parking garage with
no room for the types of activities envisioned by the comprehensive plan. The location of
the parking garage as proposed will unduly burden the downtown with two very large
park and rides two blocks apart causing multiple entry points for transit related traffic to
the north and south of the 320th."
6
With the above factors in mind, findings are hereby made on the criteria for
evaluating Class I Essential Public Facilities as set forth in Section 22-
946.1(b) FWCC as follows:
7(E) - The fifth criteria reads:
Concentration of essential public facilities. In considering a proposal,
the City shall examine the overall concentration of these facilities
within the City to avoid placing undue burden on anyone
neighborhood.
As previously found, location of the transit center in the City Center
Core complies with the comprehensive plan policies. The plan seeks to
concentrate future growth in the City's core to include new infrastructure.
The transit center will provide a more diverse, multi-model, transportation
system within the City center. The comprehensive plan specifies a high
capacity transit station at the intersection of S. 316tlt St. and 23rd AVe. S. and
also calls for improvements to include direct HOV access to 1-5. The City
presently supports three essential public facilities, all of which are located in
differel,lt geographic areas of the City and none in the City Center Core or in
proximity to the proposed transit center. Approval of the transit facility will
not overly concentrate essential public facilities.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW -SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied the 5th EPF criteria and
whether you think he's right or wrong in finding that the location for the transit center does not
concentrate essential public facilities to place an undue burden on anyone neighborhood. Base
your decision upon the evidence in thE; record; mention specific document titles and exhibit
numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No.6:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 13-14,
paragraph 6(F)) because, "[i]t is undisputed that there has been no public participation in
this application since Sound Transit submitted its application to the city in November
2002. Previous outreach showed overwhelming opposition to the proposed location.
Previous outreach addrcssed hypothetical locations, and did not involve the requirements
ofthc Federal Way Municipal Code to require public input after the application was
made. "
7
{*** JEANNE ~ PLEASE NOTE THAT THE APPEAL REFERS TO THE WRONG
PARAGRAPH NUMBER - SHOULD BE 7(F).***}
With the above factors in mind, findings are hereby made on the criteria for
evaluating Class I Essential Public Facilities as set forth in Section 22-
946.1(b) FWCC as follows:
/\u
~v--- ,0\
vi>
6(F) - Criteria six reads:
)
{U
OJ
Public participation. Sponsors shall conduct local outreach efforts. ? J.
with early notification to. prospective neighbors to inform them about ~~\(\ ),(
the project and to engage local residents in site planning and x. (....
mitigation design prior to the initiation of formal hearings. ('P ~6 r
~~
While residents assert that Sound Transit and the City did not ", 'k. Y
provide adequate notice, especially following submittal of the present rY-
application, the records shows numerous opportunities for citizen
involvement from as early as February 16,1993, when the City Council
invited public comment on regional transportation issues. According to
Attachment 2 to Exhibit 35 the number of notices or opportunities for public
comment included once in 1993; once in 1995; four times in 1996; three times
in 1997; 13 times in "1998; 24 times in 1999; 13 times in 2000; 17 times in
2001; seven times in 2002; and three times in 2003. In addition, between
November 6, 1998, and the present, 23 articles in the news media addressed
the project. The public had notice well in advance of actions by both Sound
Transit and the Federal Way City Council, and had opportunity to comment
at open houses, a design charrette, and environmental assessment and design
hearing, and following the mailing of approximately 10,000 news letters.
Sound Transit and the city conducted outreach efforts and provided
early notification as required by Criteria 6.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied the 6th EPF criteria and
whether you think he's right or wrong in findingl that the Sponsor, Sound Transit, provided early
public outreach regarding site planning and design prior to the H.E. decision on the land use
application. Base your decision upon the evidence in the record; mention specific document
titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
1 The quotation is not in Finding of Facts paragraph 6(F) on pages 13-14.
8
Alleged Error NO.7:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 15,
paragraph 8 (A)) because, "[t]he city did not authorize a Park and Ride ofthe kind and
nature proposed. The 2001 amendments to the comprehensive plan were not considered."
Findings on each Process IV decision criteria as set forth in Section 22-445
FWCC are hereby made as follows:
8(A) - Criteria one reads:
It is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
;i"
f
':i
As previously found, the City Council has specifically authorized a
transit center in the CC-C comprehensive plan designation at the proposed
location. Numerous policies of the comprehensive plan support the project
as shown on Exhibit "0" to the staff report. While some general policies of
. the plan may not be completely consistent with the project, the specific
comprehensive plan criteria addressing the City Center core and transit
center unequivocally support the project. The project also incorporates
quality architectural and site design standards as contemplated by the
comprehensive plan for City Center development. The project also provides
opportunities for future transit oriented development as contemplated by the
NEP A EA and 'the interlocal agreement. Furthermore, staff has testified and
set forth in the staff report that the prilject complies with the comprehensive
plan. Such determination is entitled to substantial deference.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding. .
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied Process IV criteria
Number 1 (consistent with the comprehensive plan) and whether you think he's right or wrong in
finding2 the transit center is consistent with the comprehensive plan based upon the evidence in
the record; mention specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No.8:
Appellapts allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 15,
paragraph 8(B)) because, "(flor all the respons [reasons] previously stated this statement
is in error."
2 The quotation in the alleged error is not in paragraph 8A, pages 14-15 of the Hearing Examiner's decision.
9
Findings on each Process IV decision criteria as set forth in Section 22-445
FWCC are hereby made as follows:
8(8) - Criteria two states:
It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all
other applicable laws.
The project complies with the purpose and intent of the FWCC as
well as with applicable plans and polices at all governmental levels to include
GMA. As previously found, the project complies with all decision criteria for
Class I Essential Public Facilities and the comprehensive plan.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied Process IV criteria
number 2 (consistent with,all applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable laws),
and whether you think he's right or wrong in finding that the transit center is in compliance with
the Federal Way City Code and all other applicable laws. Base your decision upon the evidence
in the record; mention specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No.9:
Appellants allege that hearing examiner's decision is in error (on pages 15-16,
paragraph 8{C)) because, "[t]he addition of transit oriented development will create crime
and vagrancy which is a significant adverse impact. There was no provision for 'design
elements' that would address security. The proposed center will not 'ensure the success
ofthe transit center and the economic vitality of the commercial core.'"
Findings on each Process IV decision criteria as set forth in Section 22-445
FWCC are hereby made as follows:
8(C) - Criteria three reads:
It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
The expansion and improvement of regional transit service from and
to the City of Federal Way will further the public health, safety, and welfare.
The City has made the transit center an intrical component of its City Center
Core. The NEP A EA and FONSI establish the lack of significant, adverse,
and environmental impacts. Sound Transit and the City will address public
10
safety concerns throngh the use of a full time security guard, security
cameras, stairway and other design elements, and customer emergency
stations.
Future transit oriented development opportunities on the site will help
ensure the success of the transit center and the economic vitality of the
commercial core as the comprehensive plan anticipates.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk: on the record about whether you think: the H.E. properly applied Process IV criteria
. Number 3 (consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare), and whether you think. he's
right or wrong in finding3 that the transit center will improve regional transit service and further
the public health, safety and welfare. Base your decision upon the evidence in the record;
mention specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No. 10:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 16,
paragraph 8(0)) because, "[t]he streets are not adequate and the proposed project will
limit chances for future growth. There are insufficient traffic mitigation improvements."
Findings on each Process IV decision criteria as set forth in Section 22-445
FWCC are hereby made as follows:
8(D) - Criteria four reads:
The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are
adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal.
Residents raised significant concerns regarding traffic gridlock
following completion of the transit center, arguing that the park-n-ride will
generate substantial traffic based upon the 1,200 parking spaces. However,
the Transpo Group, a highly qualified, traffic engineering firm, analyzed 25
intersections in the vicinity of the site plus the transit center's access
driveways for both a.m. and p.rn. peak hour movements. The study
determined that with implementation of the mitigating measures, the project
will cause no significant adverse traffic impacts. Examiner Smith and the
Superior Court agreed with the Transpo Group's analysis. Sound Transit
3 The quotation in the alleged error is not in paragraph 8(c) of the Hearing Examiner's decision.
11
will either construct or contribute to significant traffic improvements in the
area. The City, the State Department of Transportation, and the Federal
Highway Administration all accepted Transpo Group's analysis.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly applied Process N criteria
number 4 (streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the
anticipated demand from the proposal), and whether you think he's right or wrong in finding4
that Sound Transit has proposed mitigation that will make the streets and utilities in the area
adequate to serve anticipated demand. Base your decision upon the evidence in the record;
mention specific document titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No. 11:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error < on page 17,
paragraph 9) because, "[t]he findings regarding Citizens for a Vibrant City Center were
not addressed completely, and the hearing examiner cannot simply defer to other bodies
to avoid its duty to address the issues raised by this group."
9 - Citizens for a Vibrate City Center presented a well reasoned alternative
for separating the park-n-ride from the transit center. Such alternative would
continue the transit center at its proposed location, but would restrict its use to
those buses bringing people into the downtown area to work, shop, or play. The
existing park-n-ride would continue to s~rve as such, and regional commuter
express service would be provided thereto from the Twin Lakes park-n-ride and
other under utilized lots. Such would redirect regional commuter traffic from the
downtown area and provide an attractive transit center amenity for those citizens
wishing to use downtown facilities. However, as set for in the NEP A EA, the Project
Management Team (PMT) and the Executive Advisory Committee (EAC) of Sound
Transit developed a list of alternative sites for the transit center which included the
existing Federal Way park-n-ride lot. As set for in the EA:
One of the first decisions made by the PMT at the onset of the first
screening was to combine, 'or cluster, the elements. The PMT
determined that the elements could not be effectively evaluated
individually. At the direction of the PMT, the individual elements
(transit center, park-n-ride facility, and direct access ramps) were
4 The quotation inJhe alleged error is not in paragraph 8 (0) of the Hearing Examiner's decision.
12
clustered or grouped to facilitate evaluation and to ensure that viable
combinations would be evaluated....
As previously found, Sound Transit rejected the park-n-ride lot for the
reasons set forth hereinabove. While reasonable minds may differ, both the city and
the Sound Transit agreed that park-n-ride and transit facility should be combined
and located in the City Center Core. The combined facility satisfies all criteria set
forth in the FWCC as found hereinabove.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly considered the Citizens for
Vibrant City Center alternative, and whether you think he's right or wrong in finding5 that
alternative sites within Federal Way were addressed, and that they were addressed duringthe
NEP A process. Base your decision upon the evidence in the record;' mention specific document
titles and exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No. 12:
Appellants allege -that the hearing examiner's decision is in error (on page 18-19,
paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11) because, "[t]he basis for the conclusion is not supported per
the previous reasons stated for this appeaL"
8 - As proposed, the project is consistent with all decision criteria
applicable to Class I Essential Public Facilities (FWCC Section 22-946[b], "Site
Evaluation Criteria"), based on the analyses contained in the applicant's NEP A EA
and documented in the applicant's response to the decision criteria, which verifies
the need for the facility based on service population, facilities inventory, and
demand; demonstrates a relationship of service area to population based on
population projections and market studies; identifies minimum site specifications _
bbed on demand and service assessments; specifies the proposed location based on
analysis of ten alternative sites; documents a variety of public participation
opportunities through the site selection and planning process; and establishes
appropriate impact mitigation in the environment review process (EA, FONSI) and
in the 2001 Interlocal Agreement. In addition, the city's analysis determined that
there is currently no over concentration of essential public facilities in the City.
5 The quotation in the alleged error is not in paragraph 9 of the Hearing Examiner's decision.
13
9.;.... As proposed, the project is consistent with the Process IV decision criteria
(FWCC Section 22-44S{c)). It is consistent with a range of goals and policies
contained in the 2000 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) which
contemplated the transit center at the proposed location, and connecting the City
Center to a convenient and efficient, multi-modal regional transportation system
that reduces dependency on the single-occupant vehicle and reduces traffic
congestion. The project is also consistent with the purpose and intent to the Federal
Way City Code (FWCC) although such consistency is not a decision criteria for
approval; and is consistent with state, regional, and local transportation plans and
policies; and with the public health, safety, and welfare by implementing an integral
component of the City's vision for the City Center. The streets and utilities in the
area are adequate to serve the anticipated demand for the .proposal and the
proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration.
10 - The project as proposed embodies quality architectural and site
design principles that will ensure compatibility with surrounding areas and reflect
public expectations expressed in a community-based design charrette and is
consistent with the City's comprehensive plan policies contemplating attractive,
quality, urban scale development in the City Center.
.,
}
11. All appropriate public notices as required for the Process IV
application were provided in accordance with the requirements.
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW - PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
After considering all the rdevant evidence in the record, the proposition
propounded by the appellant is more probably true than not true.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E.'s analysis is right or wrong when he
concluded that:
(1) under paragraph 8 the site evaluation criteria under FWCC 22-946(b) was met;
(2) under paragraph 9 the project is consistent with Process N under FWCC 22-445(c);
(3) under paragraph 10 the project is compatible with the City's design criteria and
comprehensive plan for an urban scale development in the City Center;
(4) under paragraph 11 the appropriate notices for Process IV were provided. Base your
decision upon the evidence in the record; mention specific document titles and
exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No. 13:
Appellants allege that the hearing examiner's decision is in error because of, "[a]ll
matters raised in the attached letter from Dan Casey dated June 29, 2003."
Consider the STANDARD OF REVIEW
14
a. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: (for facts)
Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in
the record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the
finding.
.b. PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE (for conclusions)
After considering all the relevant evidence in the record, the propositIon
propounded by the appellant is more probablvtrue than not true.
Talk on the record about whether you think the H.E. properly analyzed the Casey letter,
based upon the letter itself and the evidence in the record; mention specific document titles and
exhibit numbers whenever you can.
Alleged Error No. 14: (Stricken)
Additional Arguments:
Last Wednesday Appellants argued that finding 7G of the Hearing Examiner's decision
was in error. Finding 7G addresses criteria seven - proposed impact mitigation. As I stated in
my introductions, this is a closed record appeal. RCW 36.70R020 defines a closed record appeal
as an appeal to the local government body (the City Council) following an open record hearing
on a project permit application. The appeal is limited to the evidence before the Hearing
Examiner and only appeal argument is allowed.
Federal Way City Code 22-451(c) limits the scope ofthe appeal to the specific errors
raised or factual findings disputed in the letter of appeal. Federal Way City Code 22-447(b) that
the letter of appeal must state the alleged errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision, including
specific factual findings and conclusions disputed.
. Based upon the statute and the Federal Way City Code, I conclude that it'is improper and
beyond the scope of this appeal as the parties developed the record for Council to consider
whether the Hearing Examiner erred in his finding in 7G. Likewise, Appellants' argument that
the Hearing Examiner should have conducted an independent review of the mitigation impacts
and not relied upon the SEP A and NEP A determinations are beyond the scope of this appeal
because it relates to the finding 7G, and because Appellants' did not argue this point before the
Hearing Examiner. My review of the transcript, ordered by Appellants, indicates that Appellants
did not challenge the Hearing Examiner's statement that his analysis was to rely on the SEPA .
and NEFA determinations. Therefore, under RCW 36.708.020, it is improper for Council to
consider it.
15
Do I hear a motion?
[Motion Option 1:] I move to affirm the HearingExaminer's approval of Sound Transit's land use
application and adopt the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions.
(Motion Option 2:] I move to affirm the Hearing Examiner's approval of Sound Transit's land use
application and adopt the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions as modified by council
deliberations.
[Motion Option 3:] I move to reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision and deny Sound Transit's
land use application. [state reason specific findings]
· Having concluded our deliberations, I would ask the City Attorney to prepare written
findings of fact and conclusions oflaw for review and adoption at the regular Council
meeting November 18,2003, consistent with Council's decision on the record.
k:\document\pubhrg\Sound Transit Appeal
16