Loading...
LUTC MINS 06-05-2006G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-05-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee June 5th, 2006 City Hall 5:30 pm City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean McColgan; Mayor Michael Park; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Committee Member Eric Faison; Interim City Manager Derek Matheson; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Street Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee; citizens Evelyn Castellar and Floyd Little. 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:31 pm. Council Member Faison will be late and is excused. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The May 15th 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS Chair Dovey moved to amend the agenda because the person speaking on Item A is not yet present. The LUTC will start with Item B, go to Item C and then return to Item A. A. Violation of Zoning Code Appeal / Hearing Examiner Decision Chair Dovey asked Kathy McClung to read the chronology as it appears in the packet and said that fifteen minutes are allotted to this; there is no time for questions. Evelyn has come to the Council several times and has taken three minutes and has not been able to get enough time to speak to us and this is her opportunity to address the Council. Chair Dovey reminded everybody that this is an opportunity to go over the information and not discuss personnel issues or things like that. Kathy McClung identified herself and title for the record. She began the chronology: In October of 2005 the Community Development department received a citizen complaint that there was some recent paving on the Castellar's property with asphalt. So the Code Compliance officer notified the Castellars of the potential code violation. There were a number of conversations between the owner and the code compliance officer asking for more information and clarification which lead to a meeting in November with the owner and several CD staff and some Public Works staff. The owner had the understanding that a permit was not required to do the paving and the person that had spoken to her indicated that paving under 5000 square feet would not require a surface water drainage review but paving from the property line to the edge of the street would require a Right Of Way (ROW) permit and that there may be other issues that the Community Development department would require. A deadline was given to remove the asphalt and that deadline came and went so the Code Compliance officer issued a Notice of Violations and an Order to Correct. November 28th of 2005 the owners appealed the notice and order and indicated that they would be Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 June 5th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-05-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc out of the country for a couple of months. That absence was accommodated and the hearing was scheduled for March of 2006. Deputy Hearing Examiner Terrence McCarthy was the Hearing Examiner for the Hearing on March 8th. There were different motions and actions that happened after the Hearing which lead to the Hearing Examiner issuing the decision in April of 2006. The Hearing Examiner determined that the City and the Castellar's had reached an agreement concerning the shipping containers on the property and therefore that was not a violation. The act of asphalting the entire property did not trigger the need for a land use modification request and therefore there was no violation and Castellar's subsequently applied for and received a permit to extend their access into the ROW and therefore there was no violation. Chair Dovey thanked Ms. McClung and then invited Mrs. Castellar to the podium. He noted that there was almost a full Council present. Ms. Castellar said she had planned for 15 minutes. Chair Dovey said if she had planned for 15 and he had no objections from the other Council Members he would give her 15. There were no other objections. Ms. Castellar passed a hand-out to the Council Members. Ms. Castellar started by reading a small portion of Federalist Paper # 51, published on Friday, February 8th, 1788 by Hamilton and or Madison. Today you have given me this opportunity to share my story and a grievance. I hope to accomplish the following: a process needs to be in place to prevent citizens from being trapped into meetings that intimidate, disparage, and abuse. Proper notice of such meetings will do much to help avoid the intimidating, disparagement and abuse that I was subject to. I will explain. On November 1 I received a call at 8:25am from the Deputy Director of Community Development. He asked me if I would come and meet him at his office at 2pm. I was asked to go into the large conference room. The following people were present (referring to the names written on the handout) all very important people. I felt very intimidated and I so mentioned. I wanted to know why I was not advised of a formal meeting and why my husband was not invited. The five men moved on, as if I had not spoken. I have the complete written version, which is #1 in your packet so you can read it. The minute I mentioned that I felt uncomfortable the meeting should have ended. Instead I ended up in tears from the vituperations and I was too embarrassed to walk out of the room, having to endure over an hour of badgering and belittling. Meetings that include such high profile public officials, with the powers that they have, should be communicated to the unsuspecting and trusting citizen. Again, a process needs to be in place to prevent citizens from ever being trapped into meetings that intimidate, disparage, and abuse. Second, I propose that this Council take a new look at our City policies to ensure that the use of private property is not needlessly interfered with. My city government should represent me, not rule me. The following is my summary of after we were given permission to put down asphalt or pavement on our property. First (see handout 2) we received notice that we were in a wetland buffer. That was not true. We were told that we had no right to do anything on our property unless the city staff give their approval. I was tricked into a meeting. We received a new notice of violation with six new trumped up charges. At the hearing on March 7th, both the contractor and the previous owner testified that the asphalt was covering old asphalt. [Handout] number 4 is the person who laid the asphalt. You can look at the hearing record and the previous owner testified. Number 5 [holding up the handout] you can see the impervious surface where we asphalted. We've had the property since 1991, right after Federal Way became a city, and nothing's ever grown there so even on cement you have things growing out of it. This was from a year ago [the picture taken]. You can also see the five containers that were there. So, even after having the testimony that it was covering old asphalt, on March 7th the Hearing Officer writes: “There was no testimony that the City told the Castellars that they had to obtain a permit. There was no testimony that the City informed them that it would be impossible for the Castellars to obtain a permit for a vacant lot in a residential area.” On March 8th the Hearing Officer sent letters to the City and to us to leave the record open to see, and these are his words ‘if the City would consider, and use their power’, which they indicated they had used in the past, to correct a wrong when the staff had been involved. Here is the letter [holding it up] keeping the record open so we can get the permits. When I attempted to contact my city representatives I was told I Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 June 5th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-05-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc could not have contact with my representatives and that you were also contacted and could not have contact with me. The City sent me a Land Surface Modification Application. The City Interim Manager chose to support the staff's actions. The fee for the land surface modification is $1,949.50. We were told that we would not be approved for a land surface modification. The attempt to collect the fee came after the testimony by both the contractor and the previous owner that the asphalt covered impervious land and that there was no land surface modification. The Hearing Officer wrote the following, and this is #11 (in the handout) “The City's request that the applicant be required to remove the pavement which they installed, would appear to request that the applicants violate FWCC 21-1 and that it would require clearing and grading of the site in order to remove the top layer of asphalt.” This is the full appeal I am giving you so you can see the Hearing Officer’s full take on what actually happened from his side. I asked the City Council to please take a new look at City policies and pass good laws that will guarantee ‘we the people’ that the use of private property is not ever again interfered with by the heavy handed tactics of a corrupted City staff. Please, Council Members, take up the cause of freedom, the freedom of the private interest of the individual, balanced by a concern and duty over the public rights. My City government represents me, it does not rule me. Finally, and this is the last thing, we have to send a 40’ container to Honduras, not the 20’ one, because we had to send 12 hospital beds, lab equipment, etc., to help build a free hospital closer to our free clinic. We are already putting clothes for another trip to Honduras in the 20’ container that is on the property. Now that we have the asphalt we would like to bring in one or two more containers that have been donated to help us collect items to be sent to Honduras. Under the current city code I am forced to ask permission to bring in a new container to our property. Last year there were five containers on this property; today there are only four. This is property that is on Pacific Highway and leads to the Port of Tacoma where we ship containers to the free clinic and the two hospitals in Honduras. May we, my husband and I, bring containers, chattel and moveable property, to our property to facilitate our charitable efforts in Honduras? I ask this not for me but for a forgotten part of the world, with the highest child death rate in this hemisphere. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the above. Chair Dovey said he appreciates Ms. Castellar for coming forward but said he can’t tell her about the container. There’s a process on how that is done and he is going to have to refer her to the City staff because the City has rules and regulations on how to do that. But he is sure the City will look into it. Ms. Castellar said that she has looked at this and there is nothing that covers a container on their property. There is nothing, and it’s considered chattel but because of the way the City code is structured, if it’s not listed that we can do it, then we can’t. Chair Dovey said he thought Ms. Castellar’s request has been heard and there will probably be some discussion and he is sure she will get an answer if there’s a way to do it or if there’s not a way to do it. Chair Dovey said he wanted to make sure she understand that he appreciated her coming forward; she prepared a lot of time and has given a lot of information and he is thankful that she were able to take time and come forward. Ms. Castellar thanked Chair Dovey. Council Member Kochmar said what she would like to ask is, and she thinks staff might do this is, she thinks the City has an appeal process for a grievance. A grievance appeal process for citizens in our City who feel that they need to have a process. Although this would not come out of Chair Dovey’s committee it would come from the Mayor’s, it would be good to look at different ways citizens at large could have grievances. Council Member Kochmar said that because they do have citizen complaints from time to time there should be some kind of a process, perhaps a policy, that would allow for a grievance process and she does believe staff is going to look at that. Chair Dovey said that is not a bad idea and he appreciates Council Member Kochmar bringing that forward. He thanked people for their time and thanked Ms. Castellar for coming forward. If there are no further comments the Committee will move to item D. The committee did not take action; this was an information-only item. B. 9th Avenue S at S 336th Street Signal Modification / Flashing Yellow Arrow Pilot Project Rick Perez provided the background information on this item. Staff recommends Option 1. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 June 5th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-05-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Council Member Burbidge asked about the time there is a yellow display, whether it’s arrow or a solid circle, will that be changed at all. Will it be the same? Mr. Perez responded that the flashing yellow arrow in this case would be dependent on how long it’s green in the opposite direction. That would not change. You’d be able to make a left turn during the flashing yellow which would be displayed at the same time the opposing through- traffic has a green. Council Member Burbidge said that the studies they’ve done so far indicate there is a result of more safety in using this system then there is in what we have now. Mr. Perez said that’s correct. The Federal Highways Administration has been very carefully been watching because they have to approve every experiment site. They are so confident now that, based on a couple of year’s worth of data, that they have issued an interim approval where they are delegating the authority to experiment to the states. It’s widely expected that this will be adopted as a national standard in the 2008 edition of the manual. Thus far the safety has been as good if not better than conventional protected/permitted left-turn phasing. There was one study in Dallas that even suggested it’s even safer than protected only left-turn phasing because you’re providing people options without some of the other restrictions and confusion inherent in the conventional display. Council Member Burbidge asked if the solid yellow phase would be as long as it is now. Mr. Perez said absolutely. Staff believes that providing the left-turn arrow does make it more intuitive. Chair Dovey asked for confirmation that the County will be less expensive to do this than if we went out to bid? That’s correct, Mr. Perez replied, because for the City to bid it we have to design it. Staff can give a sketch to King County, which was already done to get a cost estimate, and the signal techs know what to do at that point. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the June 20th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. C. Pacific Highway South Left Turn Pockets to S332nd St. and S316th St. Brian Roberts, Streets Systems Engineer, provided the background information on this item. He introduced himself and thanked the Council Members and Committee Members and citizens. He presented the policy question: Should the median on Pacific Highway South be modified to permit north- bound to west-bound left turns at S 332nd Street and should the existing north-bound to west-bound left-turn pocket at S 316th Street be lengthened to increase its storage capacity? When the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II project was originally designed there were no median breaks between signalized intersections. This was true between S 336th St. and S 330th St. In January of 2004 Mr. Kim, a local businessman, submitted a traffic analysis for the Council’s consideration that was in support of a median break at S 333rd St., which the Council ultimately approved. At the same time that this occurred Council also expressed interest in a north-bound left-turn pocket at 332nd St. that would provide enhanced access for the Ernie’s Fuel Stop and for Pacific Coast Ford. This same median break would also facilitate a future East/West connection between Pacific Highway South and 1st Avenue South. Council requested that staff submit a revised channelization plan to the WSDOT and to secure a source of funding to construct this additional left-turn median break. The channelization plan was approved on May 8th of this year. We estimate construction costs for this left-turn pocket at $81,760.00. That includes a 10% City contingency. We estimate $16,000 in design costs for a total project cost of $97,760.00. Staff proposes to pay for this using unexpended funds from the SR99 Phase II project. When the SR Phase I project was designed there was a 210 foot long left-turn storage pocket for the north- bound left-turn (west turn) lane at 316th Street. After SR Phase I construction was completed, the Pavilions II redevelopment was also concluded and as a result of that Pavilions II completion, we’ve experienced an increase in traffic in that general area. Today the left-turn queues routinely back up onto the north-bound through lanes. If any of you have tried to drive through that segment of Pacific Highway you are familiar with that problem. In response to numerous citizen requests staff have looked at the possibility of increasing the length of the left-turn pocket. Staff proposes to extend that pocket so that the taper of the north-bound left turn pocket is immediately backed up against the taper for the south-bound left turn pocket for 318th Street. We would maximize the available space out there so we’re able to increase the storage Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 5 June 5th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-05-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc space from the current 210 feet to 390 feet. We can do this without compromising the length of the left turn pocket to S 318th Street. No channelization plan is required for this revision to Pacific Highway South, as we are only modifying and lengthening an existing feature. Construction costs for this would be $81,480.00. This includes a 10% City contingency. Design costs would be roughly $16,000.00. Total project costs would be $97,480.00 and staff proposes using unexpended funds from the Phase II project to pay for this construction. So as far as options considered, our first option would be to authorize staff to design and bid these two left- turn pocket revisions in the median and to pay for this construction with the unexpended funds from the SR99 Phase II project. The other option is to not authorize staff to proceed and staff would then seek additional direction from the Committee and from the Council. Staff recommends that they be authorized to proceed with the design and bid of both of these left turn pockets and use unexpended funds from SR Phase II to do so. Mr. Roberts finished by asking if there were any questions. Chair Dovey asked for public comment on the Pacific Highway South Left Turn Pockets to S332nd St and S316th St. Floyd Little, Pacific Coast Ford: I purchased Pacific Coast Ford the year the City was incorporated in 1990. We’re celebrating our 16th year as an entity in the City of Federal Way. I am here tonight to support the left turn lane at S 332nd & Pacific Highway. Council Member McColgan asked about the 316th modification. Was Best Buy there before we redid that intersection or was it after Best Buy was put in? Mr. Perez said that Best Buy was in the permitting process at the time that we were under design for SR99 Phase I. Staff actually asked them specifically to look at that aspect: is there adequate queue storage for Phase II of Pavilion Center? The answer provided by their traffic analysis was ‘yes’. The City reviewed it so the responsibility is shared… they made their best guess. The City concurred with that guess. It turned out to be wrong. Council Member McColgan also asked about signalization. Traffic backs up because it takes forever to make that left turn. Have we checked to see if we can fix the problem with the signals? Mr. Perez replied that staff has looked at modifying the signal timing to extend it much further that it currently is, in terms of how long the left turn phase gets a green. That would, unfortunately, adversely affect the signal coordination for south-bound SR99 to a pretty significant extent. That may be a situation where, by certain times of day we may be able to, for instance with this flashing yellow if we decide to implement that elsewhere, certain times of day we may be able to modify that. Right now, City policy is when you have three opposing lanes you have to go to the protected left-turn phasing and that does limit how much green time you can provide for a left-turn movement. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the June 20th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. D. Update on NPDES Phase II Permit Paul Bucich provided the background information on the draft NPDES Phase II Permit, it’s current status and major issues. The Phase II Stormwater Permit generally requires: Public education and outreach; Public involvement and participation; Illicit discharge, detection and elimination; Construction site stormwater runoff and control; Post-construction stormwater management; and Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. Staff has the following major issues with the current draft permit language: re-development requirements, monitoring requirements, use of the 2005 Ecology Manual, annual cost tracking and reporting, effectiveness testing of treatment methods (BMP’s), and fiscal, liability and DOE staffing concerns. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 6 June 5th, 2006 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\06-05-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc Staff has been working with Stormwater staff from other municipalities to review the current draft permit process. The DOE has received thousands of comments. It is their intention to respond to groupings of comments. They are starting on larger stormwater monitoring efforts and are working with the Attorney General’s office on re-development issues. DOE intends to issue the final permit around September. The permit issuance may be delayed if the Legislature is included in the process. Staff has requested a second draft permit to work out existing issues. Federal Way staff will continue to work with DOE and other interested parties through the development of the permit. Staff has strongly asked them to consider issuing a second draft permit. Are there any questions? Council Member McColgan noted that SWM is working with the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), but asked if staff are also working with the Suburban Cities Association and with other King County cities? Mr. Bucich responded that he has not been in contact with the Suburban Cities Association but has been working with other city’s staff. He believes that the AWC has. Chair Dovey asked if the other cities that are going through this process are coming up with the same questions and concerns or is this just Federal Way specific. Mr. Bucich replied that these are all the same issues. Chair Dovey asked that, as it goes through this process, and assuming that these key points that staff are arguing are not changed and are not addressed, what would staff recommend Council do? Mr. Bucich said that he thinks when staff sees what the final permit is going to say the City needs to think about what our options are. Council Member Faison thanked Mr. Bucich for all the hard work he and his staff have put in. He has heard from several people, both on the private side and the public side, and really appreciates the leadership position Mr. Bucich has taken on, not only on this issue but generally in the region. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the June 20th, 2006 City Council Consent agenda. E. Sign Fixture Easement for Old City Hall Ken Miller provided the background information for this item. Council Member McColgan asked if it was the understanding of Financial Services that that sign would remain where it is at. Mr. Miller said that when staff originally went through the sale of the Old City Hall they put some stakes in a line for the ROW but on the very corner, where the sign is, it’s a radius. Staff had not staked the radius where the sign was. So, when Old City Hall was sold staff does not believe that the purchaser realized the sign was in the ROW because staff did not. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the June 20th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be June 19th, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.