Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2298 - Affirming the recommendation of the hearing examiner and granting a conditional shoreline substantial development permit to Washington State DepartmenCITY OF MARYSVILLE Marysville,Washington RESOLUTION NO.d-J.<=t?f A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FACILITY ON INTERSTATE 5. WHEREAS,Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)owns and maintains the right-of-way (ROW)of Interstate 5 (I-5)over Ebey Slough from milepost (MP) 198.77 to MP 199.35,in the City of Marysville;and WHEREAS,WSDOT applied for a Conditional Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to install an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS),which includes the installation of condUit,electrical wiring,fiber optic cable,junction boxes,pull boxes,cable vaults,data distribution and transmission equipment,variable message signs,and communication and power conduit systems;and WHEREAS,installation of the ITS within the City of Marysville consists of minor trenching within the existing roadway fill and installation of conduit under the I-5/Ebey Slough Bridge,which is located within the High-Intensity and Urban Conservancy Shoreline EnVironment of the Marysville Shoreline Management Master Program;and WHEREAS,the City of Marysville Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on November 10,2010 and adopted Findings,Conclusions and a Recommendation of APPROVAL of the Conditional Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,subject to one (1) condition reflected in EXHIBIT A attached hereto;and WHEREAS,the City Council held a public meeting on the Conditional Shoreline Substantial Development Permit on December 13,2010 and following review of the record before the Hearing Examiner concurred with the Findings,Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.The Findings,Conclusions and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, reflected in EXHIBIT A attached hereto,with respect to the above-referenced Conditional Shoreline Substantial Development Permit under local file number PA 10026 is hereby adopted by this reference as the decision of the City Council. Section2.The Conditional Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above described property shall be perpetually conditioned upon strict compliance with the condition set forth in the Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner,reflected in EXHIBIT A attached hereto. Section 3.Violation of the condition set forth in the Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner,reflected in EXHIBIT A attached hereto,may result in revocation of the Conditional Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or enforcement action being brought by the City of Marysville. Section 4.This decision shall be final and conclusive with the right of appeal by an aggrieved party to the Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(6). Section 5.The Community Development Director is directed to file this Resolution, the Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner,reflected in EXHIBIT A attached hereto, and all application materials with the Department of Ecology. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this /3 ~day of -"'~=--.:=;:'---'=--__,2010. CITY OF MARYSVILLE By: JON Attest:/J./J By:uvO~ 'i\lCITY CLERK":PJLpu~ Approved at to form:.() By:~K.~ 'GRANT K.WEED,CITY ATTORNEY APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICATION: CITY OF MARYSVillE Hearing Examiner Findings,Conclusions and Recommendation Washington State Department of Transportation Debra Rubin P.O.Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 PA 10026 Interstate 5 over Ebey Slough from MP 198.77 to MP 199.35,in Marysville,WA Approval of a Conditional Shoreline Development Permit to install an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)facility on Interstate 5. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Community Development Department Staff Recommendation:Approve with Condition Hearing Examiner Recommendation:Approve with Condition PUBLIC HEARING After reviewing the official file,which included the Community Development Department Staff Recommendation;and after visiting the site,the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application for a Conditional Shoreline Development Permit.The hearing on the application was opened at 7:00 p.m.,November 10,2010,in the Marysville City Council Chambers,and closed at 7:30 p.m.Participants at the public hearing were Chris Holland representing the City of MarySVille and Debra Rubin representing the Washington State Department of Transportation.A verbatim recording of the hearing and minutes are available upon request from the Community Development Department.A list of exhibits entered into the public record at the hearing and a list of parties of record are attached to this report. HEARING COMMENTS No members of the public attended the hearing.Those in attendance included the applicant- Debra Rubin from the Washington State Department ofTransportation and Chris Holland, Senior Planner with the city of Marysville. Discussion included the following: Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No.:PA 10026 Page 2 Mr.Holland (City of Marysville)reviewed the application submitted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).The proposal would involve trenching and pavement saw cuts to install conduit for an intelligent transportation system (ITS)facility.This work,while within the right-of-way of Interstate S,is also within the Marysville city limits.Under the umbrella ofthe Marysville Shoreline Master Program,the work would be substantially in the High"lntensity Shoreline Environment,but some trenching is likely to be done within the Urban Conservancy Environment.Utilities,such as the proposed ITS installation are permitted uses within the High Intensity Environment and are conditional uses within the Urban Conservancy Environment.Therefore a Conditional Shoreline Development Permit is appropriate and required. Mr.Holland expressed that the significant concern is not with the impacts of the ITS installation to the shoreline environments,but rather with the operation ofthe proposed southbound ramp meter from 4th Street to Interstate 5.4th Street currently experiences significant pm peak hour traffic congestion and operates at Level of Service F.There are currently no planned capacity improvement projects at this intersection.The City of Marysville has requested -as a condition of approval of the Conditional Shoreline Development Permit - a traffic analysis from WSDOT to determine whether significant adverse traffic impacts would result from the operation of the ramp meter.WSDOT is understood to be preparing a traffic analysis,but it has not yet been made available to Marysville officials. A review of the traffic analysis would be the first step taken by Marysville and WSDOT to understand the potential traffic impacts.The city of Marysville has not specifically defined a threshold beyond which the traffic impacts would be deemed unacceptable and would require mitigation.It is expected that Marysville and WDSOT would jointly determine what traffic impact,if any,would trigger mitigation.Without knowing the potential traffic impacts, subsequent action cannot be determined at this time,but mitigation measures could be jointly or separately implemented.Several forms of mitigation may be appropriate to consider, including adjusting the operation of the ramp meter or capacity or operational improvements to key impacted intersections. Ms.Rubin (WSDOT)stated that the requested traffic analysis had been completed and that it will soon be shared with the city of Marysville staff.Ms.Rubin provided assurance that the ramp meter would not be operated until the City and WSDOT are satisfied that the ramp meter can be operated in a manner such that it will not cause significant adverse impact to traffic on Marysville streets.All of the trenching and conduit needed for the ITS facility installation would be installed following Council approval of the Conditional Shoreline Development Permit.Ms.Rubin stated that she was aware of the proposed condition to be applied to the approval ofthe Conditional Shoreline Development Permit,and concurs with its intent. Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No.:PA 10026 Page 3 WRIITEN COMMENTS Written materials were introduced to the record at the public hearing. •Exhibit 18.A revised staff report was submitted at the hearing.The previous version of the staff report (Exhibit 17)was revised to include a request for the analysis of traffic impacts to the BNSF railroad crossings in downtown Marysville,in addition to the traffic impacts on the surface streets. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Having considered the entire record in this matter,the Hearing Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1.The information contained in Section I (Evaluation)and Section II (Findings and Conclusions)of the Community Development Department Staff Recommendation (Exhibit 18)is found to be supported by the evidence presented during the hearing and by this reference is adopted as portion ofthe Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions.A copy of the Staff Recommendation is available from the Marysville Community Development Department. 2.The minutes of the meeting accurately summarize the testimony offered at the hearing and by this reference are entered into the official record. 3.The applicant has provided evidence and has demonstrated that the request meets the criteria for a Conditional Shoreline Development Permit as set forth in the Marysville 2006 Shoreline Master Program,and listed here as follows: (1)That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of the SMA and the policies of the master progrom. (2)That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines. (3)That the proposed use of this site ond design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the areo. (4)That the proposed use will cause no unreasanably adverse effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is to be located. (5)That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. 4.The applicant concurs with the condition for Shoreline Development Permit approval as recommended by City of Marysville Community Development Department staff. Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No.:PA 10026 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions,the Hearing Examiner recommends that the request for a Conditional Shoreline Development Permit be Approved With a Condition.Such recommended condition is intended to satisfy criteria 5 ofthe Conditional Shoreline Development Permit as set forth in the Marysville 2006 Shoreline Master Program.The Hearing Examiner does not recommend any particular threshold for determining the significance of adverse impact nor any specific mitigation measure to address such impact,if any.If this recommended condition is imposed by the Marysville City Council, it would require that Marysville and WSDOT jointly ensure that the public interest does not suffer a substantial detrimental effect from the operation of an ITS facility on Interstate 5,and in particular,the operation of a southbound ramp meter from 4th Street. The staff report identifies potential traffic impacts to streets on the Tulalip Indian Reservation. WSDOT should consider such impacts,however the hearing examiner for the city of MarySVille has no authority to expand the geographic scope of a recommendation for a Conditional Shoreline Development Permit beyond the Marysville city limits. Recommended Condition: 1.WSDOT shall provide a traffic analysis for the proposed ramp metering system to southbound 1-5 from 4 th Street prior to the activation of this ramp meter to ensure that the ramp meter operations will not negatively impact the traffic on the surface streets and the BNSF railroad crossings in downtown Marysville.The city of Marysville shall define a threshold oftraffic impact beyond which potential adverse impacts would be deemed unacceptable and would require mitigation to protect the public interest.Jointly,MarYSVille and WDSOT shall determine what mitigation,if any,should be implemented prior to activating the ramp meter. ./,;.:n (.~\Ke~i~~I:~~I:~l>~J'1?CLR~~ Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No.:PA 10026 Page 5 RECONSIDERATION:(not applicable to a hearing examiner recommendation to the City Council) A party to a public hearing may seek reconsideration only of a final decision by filing a written request for reconsideration with the director within fourteen (14)days ofthe final written decision.The request shall comply with MMC 15.11.020(3).The examiner shall consider the request within seven (7)days of filing the same.The request may be decided without public comment or argument by the party filing the request.Ifthe request is denied,the previous action shall become final.If the request is granted,the hearing examiner may immediately revise and reissue its decision.Reconsideration should be granted only when a legal error has occurred or a material factual issue has been overlooked that would change the previous decision. JUDICIAL APPEAL: (1)Appeals from the final decision of the hearing examiner,or other city board or body involving MMC Titles 15 to 20 and for which all other appeals specifically authorized have been timely exhausted,shall be made to Snohomish County superior court pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act,RCW 36.70C within 21 days ofthe date the decision or action became final,unless another applicable appeal process or time period is established by state law or local ordinance. (2)Notice ofthe appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served as required by law within the applicable time period.This requirement is jurisdictional. (3)The cost of transcribing and preparing all records ordered certified by the court or desired by the appellant for such appeal shall be borne by the appellant.The record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the City or such qualified person as it selects.The appellant shall post with the city clerk prior to the preparation of any records an advance fee deposit in the amount specified by the city clerk.Any overage will be promptly returned to the appellant. Hearing Examiner Recommendation Case No.:PA 10026 Page 6 PAI0026 1-5 ITS Facility Installation EXHIBIT LIST 1.Receipt 2.Master Permit Application 3.Environmental Checklist 4.WSDOT-Cover letter,10.18.10 5.11 x 17 Plan Set 6.24 x 36 Plan Set 7.Determination of Non Significance,09.29.10 8.Attachment A-Shoreline Conditional Use Permit,10.20.10 9.Request for Review Checklist 10.Affidavit of Posting-NOA 11.RFR -Agency comments 12.Affidavit of Posting-NOH 13.Critical Area Study &Habitat Management Plan,Sept.2010 14.WSDOT-Determination of "No Effect"for Federally Listed Species,08.19.10 15.WSDOT-Memo for Record-Review &Exemption Documentation,08.19.10 16.Agency comments 17.Staff Recommendation 18.Revised Staff Recommendation PARTIES of RECORD: Chris Holland City of Marysville Community Development Department 80 Columbia Avenue Marysville,WA 98270 Debra Rubin Washington State Dept.of Transportation P.O.Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710