Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-23 Committee of the Whole MinutesCALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council President Hernandez called the Tukwila City Council meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Members of Kids Without Borders led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. OFFICIALS Present were Joan Hernandez, Council President, Councilmembers Joe Duffie, Pam Linder, Dennis Robertson, Verna Griffin, Kathy Hougardy, De'Sean Quinn. CITY OFFICIALS Jim Haggerton, Mayor; Rhonda Berry, City Administrator; Bob Giberson, Interim Public Works Director; Gail Labanara, Public Works Analyst; Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director; Jack Pace, Community Development Director; Carol Lumb, Senior Planner; Mary Miotke, Information Technology Director; Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst; Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk. CITIZEN COMMENTS Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting City Hall Council Chambers November 23, 2009 7:00 P.M. MINUTES Katrina Dohn, 14442 46 Avenue South, is a member of Kids Without Borders South. She introduced Son Michael and Judy Pham, the founding Members of Kids Without Borders. Ms. Dohn explained that Kids Without Borders provides new clothes, toys and school supplies from retailers and manufacturers to refugee children and families within the community. The group is working on establishing a permanent clothing bank within the school district. Mayor Haggerton acknowledged City Administrator Rhonda Berry's, 19 years of service to the City, and announced that Ms. Berry has been recruited for a new position within King County. She will be part of the leadership team under the new King County Executive Dow Constantine. Ms. Berry indicated she is excited to be part of the leadership team for King County Executive Dow Constantine. She explained that Fred Jarrett will be the Deputy County Executive, and her new title is Assistant Deputy County Executive for Operations. Mr. Constantine has indicated that suburban cities will play an important part in the changes he has envisioned for King County. Ms. Berry thanked the Council, staff and audience for the opportunities she has had at Tukwila, and looks forward to a continued relationship with her role at King County. Mayor Haggerton announced that Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, has been appointed as Interim City Administrator. PUBLIC HEARING a. An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, increasing the regular property tax level 1% from the previous year, commencing January 1, 2010, on all property, both real and personal, in compliance with RCW 84.55.120. 7:15 p.m. Council President Hernandez opened the Public Hearing. Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, indicated that King County has notified the City the assessed value for the City will decrease approximately 4 The additional 1°/0 levy will increase a property owner's property tax, with an average home value of $250,000.00, $36.69 above the 2009 property tax. There were no public comments. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 11 7:23 p.m. Council President Hernandez closed the Public Hearing. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Tax Levy Items: 1. An ordinance levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2010, on all property, both real and personal. 2. A resolution declaring a finding of substantial need relating to the City of Tukwila property tax levy commencing January 1, 2010. 3. An ordinance increasing the regular property tax levy 1% from the previous year commencing January 1, 2010, on all property, both real and personal. Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting on November 17, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. The increase in the levy rate for 2010 is limited by statute to the lesser of one percent or the change in the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD). Because the IPD for property tax purposes is 0.85 the lesser of these two factors is a negative number. The City Council may, upon a finding of substantial need, levy the full one percent increase in accordance with RCW 84.55.0101. This will insure there is no decrease in the levy for 2010 due to the negative IPD. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE SPECIAL MEETING DIRECTLY FOLLOWING TONIGHT'S COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. After Council discussion, there was Council consensus to amend the agenda to move item j, an ordinance establishing new regulations regarding City cash reserves, after item b. b. A resolution adopting the 2010 -2015 Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting on November 17, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending forwarding to Committee of the Whole for discussion. The resolution will adopt the 2010 -2015 Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program. The Council reviewed the proposed 2010 -2015 CIP at the Budget Workshop on November 5, 2009. The City's Fund Balance Policy states that accumulated totals within the six -year Financial Planning Model may not recede below $3 million. Mr. Hunstock indicated the new cash reserve policy will allow the City to begin to accumulate cash reserves for future use when the City experiences a decline in revenue or has unexpected expenses. Councilmember Quinn explained this new policy demonstrates the Council's commitment to protecting the City's cash reserves and a quality credit rating. Councilmember Robertson indicated he supports the new cash reserve policy. He would like the Council to address the current budget issues within the first six months of 2010. The Council reached consensus to include Option B for Attachment A with the $3 million balance for the 2010 -2015 Financial Planning Model. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. Per agenda amendment, Item J is being considered at this time. j. An ordinance establishing new regulations regarding City cash reserves. This ordinance will add a new section to Tukwila Municipal Code 3.34, providing for adoption by reference of proposed Administrative Policy No. 300.15, Reserve Policy. The policy will provide for cash reserves Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 3 of 11 to address revenue shortfalls and unplanned expenses, and mitigate the risk of loss of uninsured claims against the City. Councilmember Robertson suggested a change in the language of the ordinance at Section 3.34. He would like the last sentence to end with "City Council" and remove the reference to the Finance and Safety Committee. Mr. Hunstock explained that staff is following established policy in the language of the ordinance, and he clarified that changes would be brought to the Council for consideration. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. c. A contract with Phillip Hallstrom PJKH, LLC for the Seattle Southside Visitors' Services Center (SSVS) website re- design in the amount of $52,920.00. Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting on November 17, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. The Seattle Southside's website currently receives an average of 14,346 unique visitors monthly since implementing a new search engine optimization campaign in June 2009. That is up 180% from the same timeframe last year. Redesigning the Seattle Southside website was recommended by the Tukwila, SeaTac, Kent and Des Moines Lodging Tax Advisory Committees. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. d. A contract with Lunar Cow for the Seattle Southside Visitors Services Center (SSVS) vacation planner re- design in the amount of $50,910.00. Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting on November 17, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. The vacation planner is the official visitor guide for Seattle Southside. Lunar Cow will enable SSVS to receive revenue from advertisements in the publication, which will reduce the total costs. The revision will include an online version that will reduce printing costs, create more user tracking methods, and allow tourism business associates to have more of a presence. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. e. An Interlocal Agreement with King County for services provided by the King County Road Services Division. Councilmember Griffin indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on November 16, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. Bob Giberson, Interim Public Works Director, explained this Interlocal Agreement with King County Road Services Division will enable the City to use King County services in the event of an emergency or disaster where cleanup, maintenance, or construction work is necessary. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. f. An ordinance adopting all King County Zoning, Land Use, Shoreline and other development regulations for any work related to the South Park Bridge. Councilmember Griffin indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on November 16, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. This ordinance will adopt all King County development codes for the South Park Bridge Replacement Project. In 2001, King County and the City reached an agreement for the transfer of the South Park Bridge, and section 4 of the Interlocal Agreement requires the City to pass an ordinance that adopts all King County zoning, land use, shoreline and development regulations and fees for the South Park Bridge. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 4 of 11 COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. g. A supplement to Contract #05 -071 with HNTB for the Tukwila Urban Center Access (Klickitat) project in the amount of $147,384.00. Councilmember Quinn indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on November 16, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. The design of the Tukwila Urban Center Access (Klickitat) project has a number of outstanding issues requiring this additional Supplement No. 8 with HNTB. There are extensive coordination and negotiation issues with the Washington State Department of Transportation, as well as issues in obtaining right -of- way. Bob Giberson, Interim Public Works Director, indicated that due to the extremely tight timeline to bring this project to construction in 2010, staff has negotiated the Supplemental Agreement with HNTB. Council is being asked to forward the item to the Special Meeting immediately following the Committee of the Whole this evening. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE SPECIAL MEETING DIRECTLY FOLLOWING TONIGHT'S COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. h. An amendment to Contract #06 -059 with Commercial Development Solutions for 2010 project management services in the amount of $132,000.00. Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting on November 17, 2009. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. This contract amendment is due to the need for concentrated focus on the Tukwila South Development Agreement. The City contracted with Commercial Development Solutions to manage that project. Councilmember Linder explained that although the Council approved the Development Agreement, the milestones require Ms. Verner's expertise with execution and completion. Councilmember Robertson indicated that staff should work with Commercial Development Solutions in the first six months of 2010 to garner the information necessary for staff to complete the Tukwila South Project. He explained that if the City's revenues continue to decline, this contract may need to be reconsidered to reduce expenses. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. i. Shoreline Master Program Ordinances: 1. An ordinance approving and adopting a Shoreline Master Program update for the City of Tukwila to incorporate new State requirements. Jack Pace, Community Development Director, and Carol Lumb, Senior Planner, provided an overview of the ordinances. Ms. Lumb introduced the ordinance to adopt the Shoreline Master Program She said City staff has identified several housekeeping changes to discuss with the Council. a. the term non conforming is to replace preexisting b. An underlined sentence at the top of page 291 of the ordinance packet currently states that maintenance for plantings during the establishment period is required, but it should say recommended. Councilmember Quinn proposed the Council amend section 18.4.4, section 5.1.3, on page 173 of the Council packet, 3 bullet. The changed text would read: "uses that would remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a shoreline dependent use or uses that prevent and /or minimize flood damage." This change would be a link between policy and regulations, and make the ordinance more consistent with Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 5 of 11 existing City code. He also suggested additional language in Section C, Implementation Strategies, such that the bulleted item for increased levee setback includes language calling for flatter, more stable levee slopes. Mr. Quinn also suggested the language under Section 6.11 Public Health, Safety and Welfare, in the Policy 5.11.1, read ...the capacity of the river to provide long -term flood protection, habitat and other benefits and resources.... Councilmember Robertson proposed the Council amend the next page's two implementation strategies. King County's Flood Hazard Management Plan needs to be added. Additionally, he proposed adding language to section 5.4.5 regarding flood control and flood control levees. Councilmember Hougardy inquired as to the next steps for this ordinance. Ms. Lumb replied that depends on what kind of editorial changes the Council is requesting. Councilmember Quinn clarified the suggested changes he has proposed have already been discussed at the Council work sessions. These changes are not substantive and improve code consistency. Council President Hernandez requested clarification relating to the suggested changes and whether they would be identifiable in the December 7th Regular Meeting agenda packet. Ms. Lumb confirmed the suggested changes would be in a strikethrough /underline format. Councilmember Quinn suggested another change, to Section 14.5B, Items 7E and 7F, which discuss non conforming structure renovation conditions. He believes the intent of that section is to offer options and flexibility for properties along the shoreline. He would like to add a sentence to improve that flexibility for certain types of properties to both the SMP Section 14.5B 7e and 7f, as well as the TMC Section 18.44.130 F.2g.5, clarifying as follows: Where an existing building would prevent the re- sloping of the bank to 2.5:1 or 3 :1 as applicable, the applicant must remove invasive vegetation and re- vegetate according to the provision of this chapter. This would not only provide more flexibility, but is also an avenue to invite public participation in any such project. He explained that without the clarifying language, some existing properties could be forced into being demolished because they would not be able to meet the slope requirement. Councilmember Robertson agreed and asked to see the new sentence in print first. Councilmember Hougardy added that some non conforming buildings would not have the option to move further back on the property, and this additional sentence would give them an option. Councilmember Quinn added that it would not only address the non conforming structure, but would trigger re- vegetation at the same time. Councilmember Robertson requested that staff indicate the page number associated with a change on the informational memorandum. Councilmember Hougardy requested clarification relating to Item 6, Single Family Structures, and the new language regarding home additions that are oriented on either side of the house, and the requirement for shoreline mitigation and re- vegetation when those additions are complete. She agreed that blackberry removal and replanting with native vegetation is a great idea. However, maintaining that blackberry control over time is unrealistic. The result is a financial burden on the homeowner without lasting benefit. She is also concerned that due to the way the sentence was added, the public has not been made aware of the addition and has not been given due notice to comment on it. She agreed the City should move toward invasive plant removal and re- vegetation but felt the additional language is incorrect. Councilmember Linder stated it was a tradeoff between the ability to expand a residence on the river, and having the same responsibilities as the businesses along the river to clear and maintain the shoreline. She understands it is not easy to keep blackberries under control, but the business neighbors have the same requirement. She believes this is a teaching opportunity to show the City residents and businesses that everyone must contribute to shoreline maintenance. Councilmember Quinn added that the additional language has been carefully considered and previously discussed. He explained only those homeowners who are electing to expand their residence would be Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 6 of 11 required to meet this new standard. He added the City does not have a predictable, transparent process where City residents and businesses are encouraged to improve the existing conditions. The new language for on -going shoreline maintenance is just one example of that. Councilmember Hougardy believes that businesses have different options than homeowners, when it comes to blackberry control. She asked if the added language provides for the greater good, as opposed to imposing more costs on homeowners with little long -term benefit. She also stated that while others advocated the consistency of this regulation, she sees a great deal of inconsistency, such as buffer distances and access requirements. Councilmember Robertson clarified the new language is for non conforming homes, not all homes. Secondly, the non conforming status will be triggered during additions, not simply because the house exists. Third, the maintenance is only recommended; it is not required. Homeowners are given the encouragement, but if that maintenance is too costly or difficult, they are not forced to do anything expensive or dangerous. He explained that homeowners will not be allowed to let blackberries go in their front yard, and the point of the Shoreline Master Plan is to re- educate people to see the river as an asset, not an inconvenience. Councilmember Griffin agreed and explained this will help the City reach the overall goals for the shoreline. Given that it is recommended and not required, she does not feel it is unduly burdensome. Councilmember Linder added that blackberry control is required elsewhere in the City, and it would be inconsistent to not include control of some kind in the Shoreline Master Plan. The new language encourages residents to accept part of the responsibility for keeping that shoreline tended. Council President Hernandez asked for public comments. Jeff Weber, 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, spoke on behalf of the James Campbell Company and the Bolton property owners. They appreciate the work that has gone into this effort. However, his clients still do not believe the SMP is acceptable for two main reasons. First, the issue of non conforming clauses remains an issue because of the extremely narrow interpretations of current use and subsequent use. The SMP currently would require a conditional use permit for any little change. His clients appreciate that such conditional use permits would not require Department of Ecology review. However, he pointed out that the change does not appear to have been incorporated into the ordinance documentation yet. Furthermore, even without that review requirement, the City's conditional use permit process can be enough to prevent a property from being re- leased. Many of these leases are negotiated quickly, and a conditional use permit would effectively inhibit the negotiations. The only option available to his clients is to get a wide array of conditional use permits in advance, so they have the relevant conditional use permits available prior to negotiations. Even if that strategy worked, it would create a huge workload burden on City staff. He encouraged the Council to review that part of the non conforming code and come up with an alternative. His clients' second issue is regarding the buffer. The Glacier Building is a good example. The levee adjacent to that building was reconstructed about 10 years ago by King County. It will not be rebuilt again within the foreseeable future. Staff indicated they still have concerns about the existing levee profile, even though it was a recent construction. His client hired an engineer to review the levee design. That analysis determined that while the levee profile is slightly different, there is still enough room between the river and the building to put in the profile the City requests. His clients then learned that even if current conditions are acceptable, channel shifts and /or shoreline sloughing could change that in the future. However, his client's engineers found that is not necessarily the case. If a slough occurs, the solution is to fix the slough, which can be done in the existing configuration. Mr. Weber stated his clients have done research and spent a lot of money to show that their particular levee does have solutions to the various issues raised by the City. The stated goals for the Shoreline Master Program are fine. Unfortunately, the plan's detail will result in his client's building being rendered unusable and the property being taken, at the cost of millions of dollars. If that is the likely result, he and Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 7 of 11 his clients believe the City should take the time to look at how these details will play out for specific properties and work with property owners to find a resolution. Robert Thorpe, 702 Second Avenue, Suite 710, Seattle, indicated there are still some issues that need work, particularly the area regarding the buffers and non conforming uses. At some point in the process, staff was told or came to believe these changes would have little to no impact on the appraised values of shoreline properties. He has well documented expertise in real estate appraisal, and he assured the Council these policies would certainly have negative impact on property values. To solidify that statement, he said he has interviewed five different City area bankers with expertise in the region's commercial properties. All agreed the proposed regulations would have a significant impact on property values. Most appraisers working in the current economic and credit conditions said lenders would turn down loans where a conditional use permit was required. If the commercial property values sank, the financial burdens would fall more heavily on the remaining single family and multi family residences. Instead, he suggests alternate language, which would alleviate many of his objections: 1) The Director has the ability to reduce buffers by 35% provided certain standards are met: a. riparian buffer restoration enhancement i. invasive species would be removed ii. native vegetation would be replanted in compliance with vegetation protection standards 2) Install a variety of water quality and pollution prevention features on those properties, which he believes is more important than the buffer. Those features would be protected by a conservation easement and a monitoring program. He agrees with previous speakers that the City Council needs to take the additional time to consider these issues and the impact on City businesses and shoreline property owners. Solutions exist for these problems, and it is easier to fix these issues in advance rather than in hindsight. Lee Michaelis, 705 Second Avenue, Suite 710, Seattle, representing RW Thorpe Associates as well as the Desimone Trust, presented alternative language for the non conforming section of the Shoreline Master Plan. Mr. Michaelis provided a handout to the Council, and he stated that three items warrant mention: 1) The current code lists a home remodel as a trigger for the shoreline improvements. He is very concerned that even an insignificant interior remodeling or signage project would trigger this requirement. He suggested the term be defined to ensure only larger projects are included; otherwise, that stipulation should be removed. 2) The buffer code, which stipulates which section of shoreline must be re- vegetated, makes no allowance for the potentially huge areas covered. Some of the shoreline properties would have many acres fall under this designation. For instance, a property owner with a small building that suffered a fire and needed restoration work would be burdened with the cost of restoring acres of shoreline on their property. 3) The conditional use permit language may not belong in the non conforming structure section. Instead, he suggested they remove it from that section since it is covered elsewhere. Mr. Michaelis hoped the Council and staff would consider these suggestions and include them in future drafts. Mr. Jack McCullough, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220, Seattle, represents La Pianta, LLC. He reminded the Council of current construction of a new levee south of 196 which is being done according to Corps of Engineers standards. La Pianta has accepted responsibility for maintaining that levee as part of their agreement with the City. That construction and maintenance will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, the new Shoreline Master Plan will render that levee immediately non conforming upon its completion. The implications will be that developers cannot build on the backside of these levees without rebuilding the new levees as well as the new off channel habitat area. La Pianta has made a request to staff that the nominal value of that off channel habitat area be recognized, and it be used as a feature to qualify for river buffer reduction. He suggested the City take a small amount of time to resolve the remaining eight or nine issues that he and others have raised. He suggested that staff put together an issues matrix after their deliberations, and bring those issues back in January, discuss those issues, and hold a final public hearing just on Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 8 of 11 those issues. That would set back approval only 6 weeks, but it would allow Council to finish this task with all relevant information in hand. The only reason he has heard to finish deliberations is to meet compliance deadlines for a December 2009 completion. However, he explained the Department of Ecology is required to grant an extension of one year if the jurisdiction is likely to adopt a Shoreline Master Plan within that additional year. He has spoken to Department of Ecology staff, and they have confirmed they will honor that request for an extension. He explained there is no legal requirement to finish this process in December 2009. He reminded the Council this is a 20 -year plan, and they are still debating critical issues with wide ranging implications and unintended consequences. He encouraged them to take that additional time to resolve those issues. Daniel Temkin, 1809 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1002, Seattle, indicated he is the managing member of Amalfi Investments, which owns property at 11231 East Marginal Way South. This property will be significantly impacted if the SMP is adopted as currently written. He wanted to read the most current SMP draft over the weekend in advance of this meeting, but that draft was not posted on the City website until only a few hours ago. Given that he did not have a chance to read that latest draft, he asked the Council to consider the enormity of the impact on the property owners and City from these policies. He encouraged the City to consider the impact of the loss of that revenue from these devalued properties. He agreed that with just a little more time these issues could be resolved. Lara Fowler, 600 University Street, Suite 600, Seattle, representing Baker Commodities, echoed the comments already made. Some of the current draft language will have significant impact on Baker Commodities. She encouraged the Council to allow additional time so all parties can determine how these policies will affect their properties. Her client is in an unusual position since its business does not fit into the normal land use categories within the Tukwila Municipal Code. One section, which was actually moved out of the Master Plan and introduced into the ordinances, was the topic of unclassified uses. That language shift further complicates their analysis of how these changes will affect her client. Another issue that has potential impact is the new definition of floodways, which differ substantially from the high water mark. That high water mark had been the defining feature for land use and a shift to floodway zone usage is substantial. On November 10 there was some discussion about an exemption for floodways in areas with historical flood control structures, yet that is not defined anywhere. She agreed more time would be appropriate and beneficial. Chuck Maduell, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200, Seattle, represents several commercial property lessees along the river, including Innkeepers, the Residence Inn by Marriot, and the Desimone Trust, owner of more than a dozen properties along the river. His clients continue to have serious concerns about the proposed regulations. He wants to focus on the new 100 -foot buffer issue. It would have devastating impacts on his clients and would provide little shoreline benefit or value. As an example, the Residence Inn property is currently an extended hotel with 144 units in 18 buildings, and it was developed under the current Shoreline Master Program so there is a 40 -foot vegetative buffer and no levee, and it was recently remodeled. With the new 100 -foot buffer, 9 of the 18 buildings will be within the buffer and become non- conforming. The new buffer would also make it impossible for the property owner to redevelop the existing property to its current use or to any other commercially viable use. The proposed SMP offers no relief from these requirements. The buffer reduction provisions allow for a 50% reduction if the slope is reconstructed to a 2.5:1 slope. However, the 100% buffer width is based on the area required to provide that re- sloping of the bank. These provisions actually provide very little relief, if any. Staff believes that would result in a reduction of approximately 20 feet but an analysis found an improvement of only 5 to 10 feet, and sometimes not even that much. Even if his clients did not want to redevelop, they could not maintain what they currently have. If his clients cannot redevelop, they should at least be allowed to maintain what they have. The new non conforming use provisions would still require a re -slope if any of those nine buildings within the new buffer are remodeled, and the re -slope would require the demolition of the buildings to be remodeled. So the property owner cannot redevelop, cannot reduce the buffer, and cannot maintain what they have, all because those nine buildings are within the newly- created buffer zone. He explained this loss of property function, value and potential would not result in any meaningful improvement in shoreline protection. The only purpose for the new buffer is to give enough area to re -slope the bank, regardless of whether that re -slope is actually necessary. He would encourage the Council to reconsider these policies which have severe economic implications with marginal benefits. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 9 of 11 Louie Sanft, 6120 52 Avenue South, had previously presented a list of objections to the Shoreline Master Program. 1) He stated the buffer zone increase from 40 feet to 100 feet is a 250% increase. The Department of Ecology only requested that buffer distance; the City is not obligated to use that particular zone width. 2) The non conforming property designation. If a property is currently in conformance, it should continue to be in conformance. The only circumstance that should change that status is if a property owner does something to the property that changes it otherwise. The City should not change the SMP in such a way that any property would go from a conforming to a non- conforming property designation. That is a huge financial issue. 3) He reminded the Council the City has not done any kind of economic impact study on the SMP and affected landowners, residents and businesses. Before the Council makes any kind of decision, he feels it is prudent to do such a study. 4) There has also been no mention of compensation made to property owners, either for loss of income or property value, due to this SMP. Mr. Sanft read a written statement asking how the Council can make a decision without such an economic impact study, particularly given potentially heavy losses, and how the City plans to compensate property owners. He predicted the SMP would ultimately cost property owners hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, he asked if the City has prepared for the high cost of legal fees when these new regulations are challenged in court. 9:50 p.m. Council President Hernandez declared a brief recess. 9:58 p.m. Council President Hernandez reconvened the Committee of the Whole Meeting. Councilmember Duffie asked Mr. Pace to comment on the speaker comments relating to a delay in adopting the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Pace explained the City has received a grant from the state, which stipulates the City be one of the early adopters of their Shoreline Master Program. The question before the Council is whether they have heard anything new during these most recent comments. If the comments received are the same comments the Council has heard during the several public hearings, then the Council must decide whether its policy has changed. He stated no matter how much time the Council has, there would still be a disagreement over the final decisions. Mr. Pace clarified the comments fall into two key categories: 1) those who disagree fundamentally with the buffer requirements and want to leave the buffer as is 2) those who disagree fundamentally with the non conforming designation and want to alter or clarify that issue He believes the second category could be accommodated and those adjustments accomplished. The first category may never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The City has sought to establish more uniform buffers along that shoreline, and those who object may never like any of the City's solutions. Two or three weeks of additional time will not change the City's fundamental position. He has concerns that if the time is extended again, they would only end up exactly where they already are, two or three months down the road. Councilmember Linder said she appreciates the materials presented, and she would like to continue with the review of the ordinances. Additionally, the City Attorney will be available at the next Regular Meeting to answer questions by the Council. Councilmember Robertson agreed with continuing the review of the ordinances. He also stated the Council has had 10 work sessions on this topic, and two public hearings. Next year is not going to be any easier because of the budget review. The Council may not have room in their schedule to extend this. Councilmember Quinn confirmed all the meetings with the various stakeholders have been valuable. He agreed some of the comments are the same as they were two months ago, and others are in direct response to recent changes. While some of those issues have not yet been resolved, the process they have used has been very transparent, and he feels comfortable moving forward knowing there are some unresolved issues. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 10 of 11 2. An ordinance updating Comprehensive Plan policies for areas subject to shoreline jurisdiction to incorporate new State requirements. Ms. Lumb introduced the second ordinance and explained the policy changes outlined by Councilmember Quinn under the first ordinance would be the same for this one as well. 3. An ordinance updating requirements for shoreline regulations to incorporate new State requirements regarding "Shoreline Overlay." Ms. Lumb introduced the third ordinance, which would update the requirements for shoreline regulations and replace the current TMC Section 18.44 regarding the Shoreline Overlay District. The latest draft of that ordinance includes some corrections. Finally, staff wants to propose additional changes, similar to those brought forward by Councilmember Quinn. The first correction is under Public Access to the Shoreline, and merely corrected a typo. The second correction involves a discrepancy between the use of shoreline conditional use permit, versus simply a conditional use permit, so the word shoreline might need to be removed. Additionally, the Council has indicated they want this decision to be a Director's decision rather than a simple conditional use permit. The Council needs to decide whether these two sections should be coordinated, and which approach should be used. Additionally, whichever approach they use in the two ordinance sections needs to be reflected in the SMP as well. Another issue under non conforming structures is the use of the terms altered versus remodel. The building code uses the word altered rather than remodel. Staff proposed the use of the word altered throughout. They could also provide a supplemental definition in a subsequent paragraph within the same section. Ms. Lumb clarified that staff debated where best to put the definition, and their proposed location in Section G was the most clear. Ms. Lumb had one final issue regarding a conditional use permit for time extensions. That may also be more appropriate as a Type 2 Director decision. Councilmember Robertson asked how much time a property owner would save by having the Director make a decision versus applying for the conditional use permit. Jack Pace, Community Development Director, stated if the Director were to make the decisions relating to a conditional use permit, the property owner would save approximately two weeks. He also explained the City could save considerable time and money as well. Councilmember Quinn explained that using the conditional use process may also save the City from some challenges later and give applicants predictability. 4. An ordinance updating definitions for shoreline regulations to incorporate new State requirements. Ms. Lumb introduced the fourth ordinance, which updates definitions in the zoning code. The Council did not have any recommended changes. Council President Hernandez asked if staff will be available to answer questions as they finalize this process. Ms. Lumb indicated staff is continuing to work with all parties to answer any questions and resolve issues or to provide clarifying information. Mr. Pace reminded the Council there may be public hearings through the Department of Ecology even after the Council has made their decision. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes November 23, 2009 Page 11 of 11 REPORTS a. Mayor There was no report. b. City Council Councilmember Robertson requested the Councilmembers provide him with their committee assignment requests by this Friday. Councilmember Griffin reported that information was provided to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee stating the King County Library System (KCLS) has announced the closure of the Tukwila Library. While the decision was difficult, due to the current state of the economy and the operating costs associated with the facility, KCLS could not find another solution. c. Staff There was no report. d. City Attorney The City Attorney's presence is not required at Committee of the Whole meetings. e. Intergovernmental There was no report. ADJOURNMENT 10:50 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HERNANDEZ DECLARED THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE ADJOURNED TO CONVENE A SPECIAL MEETING. 7i v ,'ban Hernandez, Council President v Minutes by Lady of Letters, Inc. reviewed by Melissa Hart, Deputy City Clerk