Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-21 Regular MinutesSeptember 21, 1992 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OFFICIALS APPOINTMENTS OF THE MAYOR Nino Sanchez Richard Schlipp "TTIZENS COMMENTS 'ONSENT AGENDA Res.# 1223 rIrd.# 1633 PUBLIC HEARINGS Center Designations per King County Planning Policies TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 1 0- MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audiencein the Pledge of Allegiance. JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; CHARLES SIMPSON; STEVE LAWRENCE, STEVE MULLET MIKE KENYON, City Attorney; JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; RICK BEELER, DCD Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; REBECCA FOX, Associate Planner; VERNON UMETSU, Associate Planner. Mayor Rants asked Council to concur with his appointments to the Citizen's Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and the Library Advisory Board. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF NINO SANCHEZ TO THE CITIZEN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD SCHLIPP TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. None a. Approval of Minutes: 8/10/92 (Sp. Mtg.) b. Approval of Vouchers: General Fund 190,607.99$ City Street 14,971.54 Arterial Street 301.40 Land Acq., Building, Dev. 1,514.80 General Gov't. Improvements 431.25 Water Fund 30,945.42 Sewer Fund 87,401.58 Water /Sewer Construction 0.00 Foster Golf Course 7,613.25 Surface Water (412) 3,020.76 Equipment Rental 14,095.78 Firemen's Pension 3.585.64 TOTAL $688,603.31 c. A resolution designating the Seattle Times as the City's newspaper of record beginning 10/01/92. d. Approve proposed expenditures for 1993 CDBG funds. e. An ordinance decreasing the Metro rate for October December of 1992. f. Authorize Mayor to execute Commute Trip Reduction Act interlocal agreement with King County. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. DCD Director Rick Beeler explained that although there were three centers listed for centers designation on the agenda, the manufacturing- Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 2 Public Hearing (con't) i 66'3 industrial center south of Southcenter was not being proposed at this time. Reviewing the issues, Beeler explained that per the Growth Management Act, Tukwila and other cities had been tasked with the decision of whether or not to nominate themselves as an urban center or manufacturing/industrial center in support of the King County Policy Plan. Using a zoning map, Beeler pointed out the Boeing/East Marginal Way area as a manufacturing/industrial center. This area encompasses industrial and commercial properties. Boundaries are tentative and can be changed later. To the south of this area is Southcenter, proposed as an urban center. This boundary is also tentative and may be changed later. The vision for Tukwila is one of growth and viable residential neighborhoods supported by healthy business and commercial areas. This vision continues to evolve through the Tukwila Tomorrow process and through the Planning Commission and City Council as the comprehensive plan is updated. The City has until October 1 to enter its nominations for centers. After that time, the County has no obligation to consider our requests. Final approval is up to the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). Beeler indicated the best strategy at this point, given the information available, is to nominate the City as an Urban Center and a Manufacturing/Industrial Center as indicated on the zoning map. Beeler listed the following as issues of concern: 1) difficulty of development in the Southcenter center. Soil conditions are "mush" several feet down. Most of the development over one story is on pilings. Engineers and developers have said that it is technically possible, in an engineering sense, to build high rise buildings at Southcenter; however, pilings are costly; 2) vehicle parking in the centers. This issue is compounded by the language in the policies which do not clearly state that retail parking is not to be subject to patron payment. According to the staff at GMPC, the target for parking fees is actually commuters not retail customers. Beeler suggested that this area be one of the first the GMPC look at for clarification and revision. Another area to be considered is retail parameters of the center, i.e., parking, price point, and goods and services available. A characteristic of the marketing for Southcenter is an ample amount of parking. Beeler noted that regional funding is limited; however, the GMPC policies indicate that the regional funding strategies will be very important to Growth Management. The direction for funding is to the centers in order to make them work. In conclusion, Beeler recommended adoption of the two centers and that Council submit the nomination by October 1 and withdraw at a later time if it is found that the burden imposed by the revised and amended policies in the final King County Policy Plan is too great or contrary to Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. Beeler recommended the nomination be subject to the following conditions: 1) the nomination is conditioned upon the process outlined in the King County ordinance; 2) subject to the City completing an updated Comprehensive Plan; 3) that there is a commitment from Metro to provide the required service for our centers; 4) that there's an adoption of a regional infrastructure financing strategy that supports our centers; 5) that the final list of centers be given voting seats on the Puget Sound Regional Council for land use, transportation, and infrastructure decisions. Councilmember Duffie asked what the current maximum building height was in the Southcenter area. Beeler responded that it is unlimited based upon 1) FAA administrative approval of the height in order to protect the Boeing field flight pattern, and 2) BAR approval for structures over 100 feet. Physically the technology dictates that piling must be used in order to support a significant structure. Most of the development at Southcenter is already built on piling. Councilmember Hernandez asked if the size of Southcenter supported the urban center designation of 1.5 square miles. Beeler responded that Southcenter encompasses approximately 1.5 square miles. It may make sense to enlarge the designated area so that it's boundaries take in a little more than 1.5 square miles. An urban center designation requires that the area must be zoned for 15,000 people. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 3 Public Hearing (con't) 'itizen Comment Councilmember Lawrence asked under what circumstances the City would withdraw its nomination. Beeler responded that the conditions attached to the nomination were proposed in order to 1) preserve the City's options; 2) send a message to the county and the region that these are key issues to Tukwila; and 3) that those are the things we're working towards in the revision process coming up. Beeler added that it was possible during the revision process that some conditions could be dropped or some added. Councilmember Mullet asked how the parking issue would revolve around 15,000 residents living in the CBD urban center. Beeler answered parking garages would be built to compliment the residential high rise buildings. He restated the importance of the Metro commitment here. Mullet asked what Beeler thought the funding priorities would be regarding the center designations. Beeler responded he felt the City would probably not see a significant increase in funding but rather a re- distribution of funding. The known primary recipients will be pri urban centers; however, it's not known which will have priority over the other. Activity centers, office and industrial parks, and other optional designations can be done through the City's comprehensive plan without approval of the GMPC. Regarding the funding for centers, Public Works Director Ross Earnst commented that there is currently an entire list of criteria to be considered. Following review, the criteria is assigned points; the center with the most points, will be considered for funding. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) will administer the priority system for the region for funding. It will be up to the state if in their state funds they push more money into the regions that have growth management plans. Earnst added that it was safe to assume there would be "strings attached" in the form of matching funds required by the local areas for these monies. Earnst corrected Beeler, stating the size of the urban center is limited to 15 miles. There are also controls that require a center to be within .5 mile of a transit facility. Councilmember Robertson asked about the anticipated size of buildings in the urban center if they were designed to house 15,000 and support 15,000 jobs. Earnst responded it was his understanding that the ratio was 3.1. For example, if you had a building lot of 1,000 square feet, you would cover it with a building of 3,000 square feet. Robertson voiced his concern about building heights, explaining that if the City is to meet the density requirements, it will have to build high rises. Regarding the parking restrictions, Councilmember Robertson asked if it was safe to assume that the GMPC policies refer to commuters, not shoppers. Attorney Mike Kenyon responded that he felt the assumption was correct; however, there was currently no definite answer to the question right now. According to the way the county planning policies are currently phrased, the City can make its designation of an urban center, accompany it with our statement of intent and commitment. That statement of intent and commitment can address every problem or concern that any staff, Council, or citizen has. Richard Seraka, representing the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce, read the following statement: "We've crafted a recommendation with considerable deliberation. A number of our city government committee members have discussed the designations with King County, Growth Management staff, property managers and owners in Southcenter, property holders along Duwamish River, and several land use attorneys assigned to track the county -wide planning policies process. Metro was contacted to review the implications on the commute trip legislation as referenced in the policies. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 4 Public Hearing (con't) In addition, several of our Chamber members serve on the Tukwila Tomorrow committee. We have a recommendation, but it should be received with the understanding that there is consensus but not unanimous vote among our membership. There is substantive information missing from the growth management policies, documentation which makes business people very uneasy. The revenue source to support the necessary infrastructure to effect the development of an urban center is not clearly identified. However, the phasing language as well as conditions prescribed within King County Ordinance No.10450 led us to conclude that there will be an opportunity to review the impact of these designation nominations as part of the selection and re- ratification process. As such, we recommend, from Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce to the City of Tukwila, that they support the industrial and manufacturing and urban designations for their north Duwamish -Oxbow corridor and the Southcenter area respectively as set forth in Phase I of King County Ordinance No. 10450 conditioned upon the following: 1) maintain the integrity of single family neighborhoods, 2) King County follows through with their legal /commitment in Ordinance No. 10450 to conduct an SEIS and an FIA analysis in Phase II, and bring their findings back to the City of Tukwila. Finally, number three, finalization of both designations, the industrial /manufacturing and the urban center are subject to ratification by the City of Tukwila." Denny Lensengraf, Vice President of Governmental Affairs Committee, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the viability of commercial and retail activity will hinge on linkage to have effective transportation networks in the region. Referencing an article in the Valley Daily News on September 20th, Lensengraf stated that the vision for the next 20 years is going to carry a big public investment -$8 million dollars. It will buy a $6.2 billion dollar 126 mile rail system which includes a commuter rail line through the Green River Valley, between Tacoma and Seattle, and on an existing railroad tracks that have been there for a number of years. Improvements worth $1.2 billion dollars and new carpool lanes add up to a network. It is important the City recognize the fact that an urban center designation as required by King County Ordinance No. 10450 clearly states that "the County recognizes that additional work is planned to further refine the countywide planning policies with regard to numerous issues including but not limited to urban centers, manufacturing and industrial areas in centers, affordable housing, mobility and transportation, economic development, rural character, provision of urban services including services in potential annexation areas and adjustments to the urban growth area Lensengraf continued that in the urban center designation criteria, under LU30 and LU31, it specifically identifies jurisdictions that have to contain urban centers in conjunction with Metro. They'll identify transit station areas and rights -of -way in their comprehensive plan. Station areas shall be sited so that all portions of the urban center are within walking distance of one half mile of a station. In order to reserve a right -of -way in potential station area for high capacity transit, identified earlier at $8 billion, the transit hubs have to be in the urban center. Lensengraf concluded that if the City of Tukwila does not go for an urban center, it is likely to lose a high capacity rail system. Grant Neiss, Tukwila Tomorrow Committee, presented the committee's position on a re- examination of the urban center issue. He offered the following statement: On August 27, 1992, the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee discussed the issue of nominating Tukwila to be considered for an urban center designation. That is the CBD area that we've discussed. With the information provided by City staff we recommended the City Council submit or consideration. After a concerned councilmember suggested that the committee had not received enough information regarding the issue of urban center designation, we requested and received the King County Growth Management Council's countywide planning policies. In addition, committee members attended a local Chamber of Commerce meeting which gave the issue serious attention and how it would affect Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 5 Public Hearine (con't) Hearing Closed business. And finally, the committee received additional input from both city staff and local residents. On September 18, 1992 the committee held a special meeting to readdress the issue and vote on our recommendation regarding the urban center designation. The result after much discussion was to submit the Tukwila CBD area for consideration by King County as an urban center. The committee also discussed several issues regarding the King County Planning Council's recommendations and would like to suggest the City Council consider addressing the unknowns which have been prevalent throughout everything that's been discussed this evening, and discuss these in the submission process. Number one, the policies do not specifically discuss funding. Our submission for consideration should include contingencies for reviewing funding policies and determining that they are acceptable for both the City administration as well as the residents of Tukwila. Second, if Tukwila is selected as an Urban Center, the City will need to perform an Environmental Impact Study which will determine the feasibility of development. Third, the policies do not adequately define the intent of parking restrictions in that there is no delineation between commuter and shopper. This should be addressed to protect the interest of our businesses who depend on available parking for their customers. Number four, there has been no formal consent by Metro and the Washington State Department of Transportation to the expansion of transit modes such as rail and additional bus service to urban center areas. Therefore, the Urban Center designation must include firm commitments from the agencies which will determine the success of the growth management effort through efficient implementation of a high capacity transit system. Finally, the committee felt that we owe the opportunity to grow responsibly to our citizens. We feel as citizens of Tukwila that the concept is worth additional investigation. and on the basis of the stated intent behind the King County Growth Management Council's recommendation, we should continue in the process toward an urban center system. The public hearing was declared closed at 8:26 p.m. Councilmember Robertson asked if future annexation areas should be included in the boundaries. Mr. Beeler responded that they should be included at this time. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG THAT THE OXBOW AREA BE INCLUDED IN THE MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER DESIGNATION, AND THAT STAFF PREPARE THE NECESSARY RESOLUTION TO PETITION THE GMPC TO SO DESIGNATE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Lawrence questioned whether the "long finger" area designated on the exhibit as part of the manufacturing/industrical center needed to be included. Lawrence voiced his concern that if it remained, it could lead to the disintegration of the surrounding neighborhood in the future. Councilmember Robertson commented that a key factor in an industrial center is adequate transportation in and out of it. The Burlington Northern yard is in this area. Lawrence explained that his concern was that the area was a relatively low density area in terms of employment and wondered whether a designation as a manufacturing center would put undo pressure on the surrounding land uses. He asked staff to look closely at this area before a final decision is made. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE LONG PENINSULA POINTING TO THE SOUTHEAST FROM THE CITY'S INITIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER.* Councilmember Duffie suggested the area be left in until further studies are concluded. Ross Earnst commented that even though the employment count is low in this area the road is heavily traveled by Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 6 Public Hearin (con't) commuters employed by the trucking firms and the Burlington piggy- back yard which operate 24 hours a day. Councilmember Simpson suggested leaving the area as part of the designation and have staff study the cost benefits of doing so. *Roll Call Vote: DUFFIE HERNANDEZ EKBERG ROBERTSON LAWRENCE SIMPSON MULLET *MOTION CARRIED. AREA IS DELETED. NO YES YES YES YES NO NO MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF HWY 99 AND NORTH OF THE HOSPITAL AS SHOWN ON THE ZONING EXHIBIT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION.* Councilmember Robertson indicated the same argument as the peninsula area. *MOTION DEFEATED 4 -3. MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO CONSIDER THE AREA DEFINED IN THE ZONING EXHIBIT AS AN URBAN CENTER.* Councilmember Lawrence voiced his support of the motion but noted his concern about the parking issue. Councilmember Simpson also supported the motion and voiced his concern about keeping a balance between the number of businesses and the number of multi family dwellings in the urban center. Mr. Beeler responded that this could be accomplished using several techniques, such as patterning the comprehensive plan and zoning code revisions for this purpose. Councilmember Robertson spoke against the motion, stating that his long range vision of the area is not 20 story buildings that doubles the population of the City. Mayor Rants commented that the center does fit his vision of how he sees the CBD developing over time. It is the City's responsibility to zone for 20 years down the road even though the future is hard to perceive. Councilmember Mullet commented he feels the City doesn't fit the urban center definition and that it is difficult to envision this city in the future. He stated he would support the motion with the idea that the nomination can be withdrawn. Councilmember Simpson agreed, adding that this designation offers the broadest flexibility at this time. Councilmember Hernandez stated she also had reservations about the designation. In her opinion, 1.5 square miles in a City of only 8.2 total square miles is too much of a burden. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: 1) NO PARKING CHARGES BE IMPOSED ON RETAIL CUSTOMERS OR RESIDENTS OF THE URBAN CENTER; 2) THE CITY BE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE ITS OWN PARAMETERS FOR THE URBAN CENTER BOUNDARIES; 3)THE NOMINATION BE CONDITIONED UPON THE PROCESS OUTLINED IN THE KING COUNTY Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 7 OLD BUSINESS Application for Unclassified Use Permit (Baker Commodities) **MOTION CARRIED. (r) ORDINANCE; 4) THE NOMINATION BE SUBJECT TO THE CITY COMPLETING AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; 5) THAT THERE IS A COMMITMENT FROM METRO TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SERVICE FOR THE CENTERS; 6) THAT THERE'S AN ADOPTION OF A REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING STRATEGY THAT SUPPORTS OUR CENTERS; 7) THAT THE FINAL LIST OF CENTERS BE GIVEN VOTING SEATS ON THE PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL FOR LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE DECISIONS.** *MAIN MOTION CARRIED WITH ROBERTSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, TO HOLD A SPECIAL SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 28 TO CONSIDER THE FINAL RESOLUTION WITH THE MAPS AND AMENDMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Mike Kenyon explained that a letter from Stephanie Arend, attorney for Baker Commodities, was received earlier this week and is technically outside the public hearing record of 9/14/92. A motion is needed to reopen the record to accept her letter and a brief response from Associate Planner Vern Umetsu. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL REOPEN THE RECORD AND ACCEPT INTO THE RECORD THE SEPTEMBER 16 LETTER FROM STEPHANIE AREND, ATTORNEY FOR BAKER COMMODITIES, AND THE RESPONSE FROM STAFF. MOTION CARRIED. Kenyon explained that Arend's letter states her position and her client's position on how the Council ought to consider the various criteria set forth for determining whether to issue an Unclassified Use Permit. Council's position may or may not be similar to Ms. Arend's. Kenyon pointed out that Vernon Umetsu's memo addresses what staff considers factual errors in Ms. Arend's letter regarding non- conforming use status. From a legal standpoint, Baker Commodities is a non conforming use. It is a legal non conforming use because it was in operation as of the adoption date of the Zoning Code in 1982. There are two parts to Council's analyses: 1) analyze the criteria for an Unclassified Use Permit in an up or down vote, and 2) an up or down vote on a non conforming use status and whether this proposal would constitute an enlargement or increase of an otherwise legal non- conforming use. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO CLOSE THE RECORD AFTER ACCEPTING BOTH THE BAKER COMMODITIES LETTER AND THE MEMO FROM VERNON UMETSU DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO DENY THE REQUEST.* In support of the motion Councilmember Robertson stated that he was basing his argument two things. First, although there had been testimony from Baker Commodities that the tanks would in no way contribute to the air pollution or any other problems, he basically did not believe that, adding that he failed to see how any reasonable person could. Robertson continued that as a councilmember three or four years ago, Council listened to the same arguments and allowed the non conforming use. The arguments presented to Council then were that the engineering things that would be done to the plant would prevent the release of obnoxious odors. The second part was, Robertson concluded, that they would operate the plant in such a way that there would be no odors. Robertson pointed out that three or four years ago as was testified by the citizens in the last public hearing Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 8 Public Hearing (con't) In on this topic, that's not what has happened. He stated he didn't know for a fact whether it is the engineering or the operations of the plant, but it is very clear that the end result of this use of that property is a great nuisance to the properties surrounding it. Second, part of the conditions Council must choose is that "basically the proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses In the letter received from the applicant's attorney dated September 16, Ms. Arend states in the second paragraph, point 3, "the proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land use Council has to determine that in order to allow this addition. Ms. Arend's letter further states "the site is zoned M -1, is surrounded by river on three sides, and M -2 zoning on the fourth side That is true but it misses the point. The fact that the river is on three sides is not the issue. What is really the issue is what else is past the river on those three sides. If the river in question was the Columbia River, maybe we wouldn't have a problem. But since it's the Green River, it's a real issue. Robertson stated that if he took a look at that point and went into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there are a series of arguments on page 60 of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy under Chapter 4, Commerce and Industry, Objective 1: "Encourage a smooth and planned growth of the business community. Policy 1: Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services Robertson stated he did not believe that the addition of these tanks or the enlargement of this facility in any way meets that need or that requirement. It is not beneficial to the businesses around it. Robertson noted his own observations and testimony have shown the opposite to be true. Quoting from Policy 2: "Expansion of existing one where this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the public welfare As stated earlier, Robertson pointed out he did not believe the arguments presented by Baker Commodities that the use of any of their facilities would not be detrimental. Robertson stated that the testimony, his own observations, and the public record had shown that the plant is detrimental to the uses around it and the public. There are very obnoxious odors, they do exist and have existed for a long time. Council listened to the arguments three years ago saying that they could be taken care of by the operation and the engineering of the plant. That same argument was presented a few weeks ago. Robertson asked why he would believe it now when he didn't believe it three years ago and practice and the record has shown that not to be true. Quoting Policy 5: "Promote renovation of areas which are not esthetically pleasing Adding tanks certainly does not promote the renovation of an esthetically non pleasing area. It is esthetically non pleasing. On three sides of the business there is a golf course, residential areas there's a tremendous impact. Objective 2: "Provide adequate land and opportunities for industries and warehouse uses Robertson stated he didn't see how this provides anything for warehouse and industrial growth. In fact, it interferes with that. Policy 1: "Discourage the location of hazardous industries or those admitting pollutants in excess of acceptable standards That's another Comprehensive Plan that the increased growth of this or the plant's goes against. Policy 2, page 63: "Encourages uses which are supporter of the industrial and warehouse uses to locate in or near such activities There is nothing in that use that would encourage the other kinds of uses we've tried to encourage in this area. In conclusion, Robertson stated that to grant this request would violate the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and he would vote to turn it down. *MOTION CARRIED. THE REQUEST TO APPROVE AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT IS DENIED UNANIMOUSLY. SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS INCLUDING THE MATERIAL FROM THE STAFF MEMO AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 9 Old Business (con't) Application for Unclassified Use Permit (Baker Commodities) Ord. #1634 Recycling/ Franchise Ord; Ord. #1635 -TMC Revisions 1 0 Attorney Kenyon explained the second issue to be decided was whether or not the addition of these tanks would constitute an enlargement or increase in an existing non conforming use. The standard non conforming use law and the TMC prohibit increases or enlargements in non conforming uses. Councilmember Robertson responded that he felt his argument addressed this issue. Councilmember Duffie agreed. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ADDITION OR ENLARGEMENT OF THE TANKS TO BE AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE EXISTING NON CONFORMING USE.* Councilmember Robertson stated that based on public testimony and experiences, it was clear that the current use was not only non- conforming but produces obnoxious odors. Further, in his opinion, the enlargement of the use with these tanks would increase the non- conforming use and would be counter to the Comprehensive Land Use Policies. Councilmember Lawrence added that the use also violated the TMC. Mike Kenyon clarified that TMC 18.70 prohibits the enlargement or increase of an existing legal non conforming use. *MOTION CARRIED. City Administrator John McFarland gave a brief update of the issue explaining that Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at the 8/24 COW at referred it to the 9/8 Regular meeting. At that time Council directed the staff and the haulers requested the staff review the ordinance further for some possible changes. Rebecca Fox met with the haulers on September 9th and brought their comments and changes to be considered to the 9/15 Utilities Committee meeting. The ordinance being considered at this time includes an intent clause which provides a better perspective of what the City is trying to achieve. The origin of the ordinance lies with RCW 35a.14.900 which requires cities to either buy out or issue at least a five year franchise to solid waste haulers in newly annexed areas. With respect to the pre- annexed areas, the originally incorporated area, the City is free at any time to select a preferred hauler or mode of service delivery. What the City is trying to achieve with this ordinance is that we would not do that until the five year period had passed for the annexation area, thereby having a unified and single approach to consider recycling for the entire City. This is provided for in the intent clause of the ordinance. The hauler's comments have largely been incorporated into the ordinance with one exception. The hauler's had asked for a seven year franchise period. Staff felt that because the City is already two year delinquent in considering this ordinance since the annexations, in effect a seven year period would actually exist. At the end of the five year period, the City can exercise an option. It's not under any particular directive or requirement to make any changes in the program. McFarland explained that the ordinance in the packet had been revised to include the intent clause. Associate Planner Rebecca Fox distributed a copy of the revised ordinance. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Reading from the original ordinance in agenda packet Attorney Kenyon read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, GRANTING EXCLUSIVE AND NON- EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISES TO COMPANIES OPERATING NOW UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF RCW 81.77 AND OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, FOR THE OPERATION OF A GARBAGE, REFUSE, AND RECYCLING COLLECTION AND REMOVAL BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 10 Old Business (con't) Franchise/Recycling Ordinance MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO SUBSTITUTE THE NEW ORDINANCE JUST DISTRIBUTED WHICH CONTAINS A NEW SECTION I FOR THE ORDINANCE IN THE AGENDA PACKET. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Associate Planner Rebecca Fox explained that the hauler's comments had been incorporated in the new ordinance. The City wanted to be sure its intent was very clear in that the City was passing franchises as required by state statute and after that time staff would be free to evaluate service for all of Tukwila. The City currently has the authority to evaluate and make changes to service within the core area of Tukwila. The intent is to keep everything the same until the five year period of the franchise has expired. Additional changes to the ordinance were developed by the haulers and have been reviewed by the Utilities Committee and the city attorney. Attorney Kenyon explained that Council was simultaneously considering an ordinance that amends the TMC. He suggested Council offer the ordinance for consideration at this time. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TMC BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Kenyon read an ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE #1595 AND THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 22 RELATING TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 22.04, ADDING SECTIONS 22.04.040(c)(5) AND 22.04.060(h); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ. Ms. Fox reviewed each change individually. Gary Ewing, SeaTac Disposal, 22010 76th So., Kent, stated that his company had just become aware of the ordinance on September 8th and has attempted to meet with staff and the city attorney to make their position known. Ewing commented that there were still a few outstanding issues which included the 7 year issue and the UTC rate impact upon disenfranchisement. He requested an opportunity to meet with the city attorney to work out these concerns. For clarification, Ms. Fox stated that Mr. Ewing had been present at a meeting following the August 24 council meeting at which this issue was discussed. Jerry Graham, Nick Raffo representative, stated that all his company's concerns had been addressed in the ordinance. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT SECTION 16 FRANCHISE FEE BE AMENDED TO READ "A FEE OF $500 PER YEAR SHALL BE LEVIED Councilmember Hernandez stated that the Utilities Committee discussed the fee issue and suggested that if the fee came up for reconsideration, the Council look at a fee based upon a percentage of the number of customers served by an individual hauler thereby making it more equitable for small haulers. Councilmember Lawrence added that at the present time the City has grant money that covers some of the costs incurred; however, Council may want to reconsider the fees at a later date. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 11 Old Business (con't) Recycling/Franchise Ordinance Res. #1224 Ratifying King County Planning Policies Res. #1225 Approving Establishment of So. King County Area Transportation Board NEW BUSINESS Res.# 1226 Airport Mitigation of Second Runway *MOTION AMENDING SECTION 16 FRANCHISE FEE CARRIED. *MAIN MOTION (SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE) CARRIED. *MAIN MOTION TO AMEND THE TMC CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Kenyon read A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING THE COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ADOPTED BY KING COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. MOVED EKBERG, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT RESOLUTION #1224 BE APPROVED AS READ.* Councilmember Lawrence asked if Council would want to consider adding a condition that states in effect that in the event that any sub policy within the county -wide planning policy is found to be inconsistent with the City of Tukwila Locally Adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies, the City of Tukwila policy will prevail. Attorney Kenyon explained that the policies cannot be ratified with conditions attached; however, if inconsistencies occur later on, the local policies would prevail. Lawrence commented that he felt Council had been rushed into a decision on this issue. *MOTION CARRIED WITH LAWRENCE VOTING NO. MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Kenyon read A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO JOIN WITH KING COUNTY AND OTHER CITIES TO FORM THE SOUTH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION BOARD TO MANAGE MULTI JURISDICTIONAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN THE SOUTH COUNTY REGION. MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 1225 BE APPROVED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Lawrence urged Council's support of the proposed resolution which requests the Port fulfill its obligations from 20 years ago before it begins making new promises for a third runway. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Kenyon read A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, CALLING FOR THE TIMELY COMPLETION OF NOISE MITIGATION OBLIGATIONS PROMISED BY THE PORT OF SEATTLE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SECOND RUNWAY AT SEATTLE TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND REQUESTING THAT THE 1991 NOISE EXPOSURE MAP BE USED TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES OF THE NOISE REMEDY PROGRAM AREA. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 21, 1992 Page 12 New Business (con't) Res. #1226 Airport Mitigation of Second Runway REPORTS Council Staff ADJOURNMENT 10:15 p.m. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 1226 BE APPROVED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Councilmember Lawrence requested copies of the resolution be forwarded to each member of the PSRC, Port of Seattle Commissioners, and each local newspaper. Councilmember Hernandez reported she attended the POW ceremony at Washington Memorial on behalf of the City. Council President Ekberg reported he attended the Steering Committee debate on the comprehensive plan last week. Council Analyst Lucy Lauterbach informed Council that Wednesday, October 14, was available for a special meeting to review the 6 year financial plan. Council agreed to meet on the 14th at 5:30 p.m. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. z() John W. Rants, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk