GALT OPENS HEARING: "Housekeeping" issues, i.e., citation of rules, procedures, list of applicable laws, listing of exhibits (Audio File A, 10:25 min., 1.2 mb)

Applicant presentation, David Gibson; traffic issues begin around the four-min. mark; city-provided park acreage (Ex. #19)  inventory mentioned at nine-min. mark. (Audio File B, 10:21 min., 1.2 mb)

City Planner Rick Cisar sworn in; corrects several typos in staff report; otherwise states his approval of all recommendations and conditions of report. (Audio File C 1:37 min.)

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Kay George (Skywall resident and real estate agent, also, with husband Ray George, a former Sultan Planning Commissioner, is a developer in the Sultan area):  Most folks and neighbors she’s spoken to have no real problem with the development, but do have concerns re privacy issues related to Skywall residents’ private park and incursions by the public accessing the river.  Also states that the Ramirez’s 20-or-so homes on sewer would be far more “environmentally-friendly” than 80 septic systems currently on Dyer Road. (Audio file D-1, 3:47 min., 445 kb)

Gerry Gibson (Dyer Road resident who spear-headed a recent petition signed by all but one homeowner on both Dyer and Skywall, for an amendment to have a sewer line and roadway (which would connect Dyer and Skywall areas) from the current Comp Plan, in part because not a single resident in either neighborhood was aware that the City had added those “improvements” to the city’s comp plan.)  He lives 300 yards west of the site, believes the development will have a direct and negative impact on the surrounding community; river at that location is a major salmon-spawning area, concerns for impact public traffic would have, as well as future maintenance by City of the public access area and impact to neighbors who already have problems, plus the lack of public parking for sports/fishing enthusiasts; concurrency issues (mentions City’s actions in annexing the WTP and adding it to park inventory in order to meet parks LOS); flooding area, not conducive to development and contrary to Comp Plan policies.(Galt explains definition of party of record) (Audio File D-2 9:59 min., 1.2 mb)

Robert Keck, Dyer Road resident, comments related to density and increased population. (Audio File D-3, 2:07 min, 249 kb)

Stan Heydrick (submits 3-ring binder to Galt): Comments that the Tulalip Tribes not included on City’s comment solicitation distribution list, despite presence of Type 1 river, and other poor or illegal noticing for development which, once again, leaves the city open to potential future liability; contrary to Comp Plan re channel migration and mitigation; noise and vibration issues mentioned by City (as detailed by Romac) but not flood hazards; Skykomish of statewide significance and concern, staff report mentions salmonids but no ESA issues. (Audio File D-4, 6:03 min., 711 kb)

Ron Gibson, Dyer Road resident (Audio File D-5, 2:126 min., 266 kb)

Al Holdt; emotional statement re thousands of dollars spent trying to protect their private community park; saddened by Dan Ramirez’s actions, as he is a friend. (Audio File D-6, 1:09 min., 137 kb)

Beverly Holdt; told of many previous and ongoing problems with sports enthusiasts/fisherman coming onto Skywall residents' private property, standing in private yards, etc.; mentions that there's no animal control in town (sportsmen with dogs?); no public parking will be provided, so where will these people park, if not in front of their homes on Skywall? (Audio File D-7, 1:40 min., 197 kb)

Kerry Ouraga [pronounced, “or-ee-ah”: Has  lived in Sultan on Dyer for 10 mos., relocated for the “rural” life.  “Hard to believe that someone who’s lived here for 30 years would want to jam 22 houses in here….Find it hard to believe someone could be so greedy.” (Audio File D-8, 3:30 min, 411 kb)

Ray George (former Sultan Planning Commissioner); suggests that the applicant condition to deed parkland to the city might have been a pre-condition of the application to develop. (Audio File D-9, 1:11 min., 141 kb)

GALT’S QUESTIONING OF RICK CISAR BEGINS (lasts for 80 minutes)

Note:  When a “condition” or page number is mentioned in this section, unless a specific consultant report is being discussed, Gal’s references refer to the City’s staff report.

Requests clarification on outdated water/sewer availability letters, states letters expired seven months before application was even filed; Cisar states, “I’ll have to go back and check records.” (Audio E-1, 3:40 min., 432 kb)

Questions Cisar re PUD moratorium re application date 10/7/05, application should never have been filed during moratorium, as stated in ordinance.  Cisar responds that, based on council discussions/decision re PUD moratorium ordinance, developments holding available letters were exempt from moratorium. Galt states no such language was included in the ordinance, and law and court precedence upholds assumption of legislative propriety, i.e., what is stated within ordinance is what rules.  Cisar responds that council’s intent was clear during moratorium discussions. (Audio E-2, 2:30 min., 339 kb)

Galt questions Cisar re Comp Plan and plat’s conformance thereto, related to Dyer/Skywall connections; asks whether anything in the development would conflict with CP, and anything in CP would conflict with development application. (Audio File E-3, 3:45 min., 441 kb)

Concurrency issues; SPD; Cisar’s statement:  We’ll collect fees, place them in a fund until we can finance one PD officer, then do a budget amendment.  (Audio File E-4, 6:55 min., 813 kb)

Questions re Park/open space WTP annexation which city has added to parkland inventory (Audio File E-5, 0:28 min., 57 kb)

Landscaping plans, setbacks/screening (Cisar suggested these could be changed before council approval but following Galt’s decision; re Staff Report, pg. 15, condition Nos. 5 and 7. (Audio File E-6, 1:20 min., 158 kb)

Condition #8, CAO plant monitoring period; city’s intent is to use Graham-Bunting’s recommendation of five years.  Galt’s welcome and comprehensive statement explaining that the city’s recommendations and his (Galt’s) decisions need to be “stand-alone”; i.e., that any future resident or city official could read them and clearly understand their intent and direction. (Audio File E-7, 3:44 min., 439 kb)

Re condition #5 (page 15), monitoring time for developer (should be two years, not three); re Cond. #7 – typo, timeframe to complete L-1, should be upon final plat; Re condition #8, CAO plan and monitoring period as specified by Graham-Bunting, Cisar recommends five years. (Audio File E-8, 4:10 min., 490 kb)

Galt expounds generally upon the use of “shall” v. “should” re subsequent interpretation when recommending conditions (in this instance, the city’s requirement to soundproof seven of the dwelling units closest to Romac is “vague and unachievable,” asks Cisar for comment and states that, as written, it places both the applicant and Romac in a “hopeless position.”  Cisar responds by not answering Galt’s question and is unable to quote an expert or noise consulting resource as the basis for his recommendation for soundproofing the homes; he merely refers to Romac’s letter outlining the future problems due to the proximity of the development.  Cisar then directs Galt to resolve the problem by deleting the offending recommended condition. (Audio File E-9, 4:41 min., 551 kb)

Conditions #28 and 29: Re an eight-foot concrete noise wall between the Twin River community and Romac; Galt shares his knowledge gleened from many years of testimony given by countless acoustical engineers/consultants during his 30-years as a hearing examiner, stating that the recommended placement of the wall by the city was completely untenable (possibly the worst place it could be situated).  Cisar responds by asking that the offending language and condition #26 and #2 be stricken from his own staff report, “…if ‘they’ cannot provide sufficient standards.” (Audio File E-10, 7:16 min., 854 kb)

Page 6, 3^rd Para re rear setback reductions; Cisar recommends to remove lot #22 from ref. in staff report. (Audio file #E-11, 3:24 min., 400 kb.)

Page 7, Sect. 3-A (streams) re “Substantial Development Permit” $$ value trigger. (Approx. five minutes into this file, Galt offers Port of Brownsville v. ??? which was an attempt by a developer to build a shoreline/offshore dock, only a portion of which was affected by this regulation.  The developer’s argument did not “fly,” the judge ruling that if part of the dock was affected, all of it needed to be considered.  Galt questions Cisar re Sultan’s current shoreline regs; Cisar states city is currently being guided under the 1973 County plan, as no other regulations have yet been adopted.  (Audio File E-12, 11:02 min., 1.3 mb)

Page 9, Street design standards (for Skywall); secondary arterials as defined by city’s design standards and need for clarification.  Design standards or PUDs; applicant  asking to modify standards for Skywall drive landscaping. (Audio File E-13, 8:24 min., 1.0 mb)

Re U. S. 2 access by Twin Rivers and Skywall residents; discussion by Galt re westbound and need to use eastern terminus of Cascade View Drive until the Cascade View/SBR/U. S. 2 intersection (Phase 3) is completed. Also, non-motorized access; also questions re “unimproved shoulder.” (Audio File E-14, 5:16 min., 621 kb)

Ex. 16 Wetland Resources Study, pg. 2 – county salmonid rules – Sultan adopted it? (Audio File E-15, 1:16 min., 149 kb)

Ex. 18 – Gibson Traffic Study (pg. 3), Ex. 8 – Foundry Dr./internal plat road intersection problems.  Several Reinart recommendations.  Galt asks Cisar why he/City ignored their own consultant’s recommendations, selecting Geri Reinart’s least-desirable “solution.”  Cisar responds:  I did not ignore them; I selected the last alternative she offered. (Audio File E-16, 3:32 min., 416 kb)

Ex. 3.3, Sheet. Plat map P-3 Erosion, sediment control/stormwater plan: why removal of infiltration trench? It was removed by city engineer, modified to redirect flow to eastern border’s bioswale. (Audio E-17, 1:42 min., 200 kb)

Ex. 5 – Galt question, “Have both recommendations been incorporated into plat?”  Cisar response: Yes.  Galt’s question: How? Cannot find them.  Cisar: Should be under conditions.  Galt also could not find BNSF review/approval. (Audio File E-18, 2:48 min., 330 kb)

Ex. 7 – Galt re Graham-Bunting peer review (third party): Mgt. plans require consult with DWFW.  Has this condition been met? Cisar response:  “I cannot answer that, sir.” (Audio File E-19, 1:29 min., 176 kb)

Ex. 8 – City traffic peer reviewer Geri Reinart disputes Gibson Traffic Consultant’s claim re stop sign at Skywall. Galt asks Cisar how many homes are located on Skywall Drive; Cisar response “I don’t know.”  End of questions to Cisar; Galt orders a break before proceeding with applicant’s rebuttal. (Audio File E-20, 2:41 min., 318 kb)

[Break taken]

APPLICANT’S REBUTTAL:

• Statements regarding:  signs delineating private v. public parks; 5-ft. setbacks; park maintenance issue is a city problem, not a developer’s, due to requirement by the city to make it open space, and the developer cannot control trespassers; an explanation to the question raised by a member of the public why a 2.7 people-per-unit estimate is used to determine population of a s.f. home. (Audio File F-1, 3:16 min., 384 kb)
• Floodplain corresponds to National Flood Plan info. Tribes not on list, as given by city. (applicant asks Rick what agencies are supposed to be copied.  Cisar responds, “We sent it to WSDOT, County PDS, DOE, Corps, DFW and BNSF” (an answer, of course, that sidesteps the question). Mentions funding of Cascade Drive traffic revisions have been taken into account. (Audio File F-2, 3:14 min., 380 kb)
• Ramirez did procure a letter of extension for water/sewer.  Would like confirmation of tree size for Skywall so developer can comply  Re floodway/shorelines, no building is within the area and is above 100-yr flood.  The WDFW consultation required by Graham-Bunting occurred (Wetland Resources?).  Statement that no stop sign exists on Skywall. (Audio File F-3, 3:07 min., 367 kb)

GALT QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT:

• How much time would you need to produce water/sewer extension letters? Gibson (applicant) needs two weeks.  Other documents in question to produce:  Street design issues, setbacks, etc. “I would like to have correct drawings.”  Galt’s response,  “So would I.” (Audio File G, 2:27 min., 288 kb)
• Galt’s detailed statement regarding recent history of various plat applications and pending decisions, when they will be issued, etc.  After extended discussion, Gibson and Galt agree that Galt will issue a decision on Ramirez by Friday, June 30^th. (Audio File H, 7:35 min., 891 kb)

GALT ASKS CITY IF ANY REBUTTAL; Cisar has none (this brief exchange is included in Audio File H, above.)

REBUTTAL BY PUBLIC/CITIZENS

Audio File I, 4:06 min., 482 kb:

• Stan Heydrick: Re WDFW consultation, Cisar had stated he was unaware of any having occurred, yet a letter from WDFW regarding the City’s CAO draft, which Cisar had assured them would be included in file, exists. Re noise levels:  City council needs to be aware of Cisar’s waiving of conditions.
• Gerry Gibson; City needs to consider other owners’ property rights, not only developers; mentions previous poor behavior by fishers and sports enthusiasts.
• Kerry Ouraga re PUD moratorium; if in violation, how can this be approved?  Has been doing “research” and Sultan has a “history” of breaking laws.

Audio File J, 6:17 min., 783 kb:

• Kay George – Re her earlier statements, she was unaware that this proposed development would contain a public park/access.  To answer Galt’s question to Cisar, she stated there are between 20-30 homes on Skywall Drive.
• Jerome Shaw (new  speaker - sworn in) – Confusing discussion between Mr. Shaw and Galt; no one could understand what Mr. Shaw was asking.  But Galt attempted to explain the Dyer-Skywall connection as shown in Sultan’s Comp Plan and the possible ramifications, which is the subject Galt assumed Mr. Shaw was interested in.

Audio File K, 5:30 min., 647 kb

• Robert Keck – Question re landscaping to meet standards for arterial; with new SBR/U.S. 2 intersection changes, he fears Dyer/Skywall connection, if approved and constructed in the future, would offer high-speed and frustrated drivers a “shortcut” by which they could bypass  U.S.2/SBR intersection.  Both Dyer and Skywall areas are quiet, dead-end, safe streets and communities (this would not be in city’s best interests).
• R. Kistenmacher (sworn in) – If  record will be kept open, will other comments be accepted? Galt’s terse response:  No.

Hearing adjourned