The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L95-0038 - BRUNOS COMPUTER SUPER STORE - APPEALL95-0038: BRUNOS 0 ANDOVER PK W APPEAL (HEARING EXAM.) a' t A44.4 6.Cd,- -Ld ln&v,�4 �.�., r �r I41.4ku Z�nt� . :jr, onJ r L:1 v v 066L DP� L7 ti t" r 4-le., [•J • A.1 • eta • G,..)c. • iJ s . NOI103NNO0 31IWISOdd ON (b • N3MSNd ON (£ ASnH (2 1IdA 31,1I1 NO do SNdH (T SNONN3 (E(E(E(E(E -3 00/00 1'1fS321 39dd coin) TLtST0709E -*6 X1 ANOW3W 200 'ON 131 NOI1d0 3dAl 31Id 31IA Q3Sti83 (S) 3lIA SNIMO11OA 3H1 Md /QOQ d1IM)1n1 (Wti6S:al 20. 6ti 06 1N0d3N 11fS3N NOISSIWSNd81 ,,. -:. J.:: 3�aa.vtrr.,�.�a�:a�:sirz,:.,,.w� �..w�u;.K; �s�.tw�r,,• '. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor • August 17, 1995 Mr. Bruno Santo Bruno's Computer Super Store 510 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Santo: At the Board of Adjustment hearing held August 8, 1995, you requested to be notified of the disposition of the 21 sign code violations you brought to the City's attention during July of 1994. I have .attached a detailed summary to this letter of those cases indicating when and how each complaint was resolved. Please note that at the time of case resolution, the violation cited in your complaint had been satisfactorily resolved. However, this does not guarantee the business has remained in compliance with the sign code ordinance to date. If you compare your original 21 complaints with the 28.new complaints submitted at the Board of Adjustment hearing on August 8, 1995, you can see there has indeed been a recurrence of violations at several businesses. In response to your request for the status of the 28 new cases you have submitted, we hope to have investigated all complaints, determined their validity, and notified all offending businesses in a first correction notice by the end of August. We will keep you apprised of their disposition throughout their resolution. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Code Enforcement Office at 431 -3682. Sincerely, Rhonda Berry Mayor's Office RAB/bw enclosure (1) cc: 4)C Board of Adjustment y, Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 > • v..e.n:+ :.ri:.:Q: ,44- -) 4, 414 ::twvV4rirzrr Ctwea'S:Ci-C. :iL»i.eSf:vt. STATUS OF ILS, INC. SIGN VIOLATION CASES RFA LOCATION DATE REC'D DATE RESOLVED ACTION TAKEN 94 -124 16830 SC Parkway Bedrooms Unlimited 7/19/94 • 6/9/95 Citation issued; $500 fine assessed; signage removed 94 -125 1004 Andover Park E. Nationwide Furniture 7/19/94 9/30/94 Banner and A -frame signs removed 94 -126 331 Andover Park E. Tempo 20 7/19/94 9/30/94 A -frame sign removed, but exempt due to real estate classification 94 -127 227 Andover Park E. Computer. City 7/19/94 9/20/94 Banner sign removed 94 -128 6305 S. 180th St. Quick Bite 7/19/94 8/11/94 A -frame sign removed 94 -129 5950 S. 180th St. Sansaco Furniture 7/19/94 8/22/94 Banner sign removed 94 -130 6251 S. 180th St. The Off Track 7/19/94 8/19/94 A -frame signs removed from the right -of -way 94 -131 1180 Andover Park W. Home Innovations 7/19/94 11/2/94 One sign grandfathered in; temporary sign permit issued for additional signage 94 -132 16350 West Valley Hwy. Taco Bell 7/19/94 9/14/94 All flag stringers and A -frame signs removed 94 -133 17202 SC Parkway Sound Car & Truck 7/19/94 8/23/94 Special permission arranged through DCD for quarterly blowout sales promos 94 -134 120 Andover Park E. The Paper Zone 7/19/94 8/29/94 Temporary freestanding sign removed 94 -135 16200 West Valley Hwy. Andy's Tukwila Station 7/19/94 8/17/94 Banner sign removed 94 -136 17700 West Valley Hwy. 40 Rentals 7/19/94 8/17/94 Banner sign removed 94 -137 230 Andover Park E. Commiss. Cash & Carry 7/19/94 6/8/95 Banner sign removed 1 STATUS OF ILS, INC. SIGN VIOLATION CASES RFA LOCATION DATE REC'D DATE RESOLVED ACTION TAKEN 94 -138 17500 West Valley Hwy. Learning World 7/19/94 8/11/94 No sales banners present on inspection 94 -139 16700 SC Parkway Toys R Us 7/19/94 8/18/94 Temporary sign permit applied for through DCD 94 -140 17165 SC Parkway Happy Teriyaki . 7/19/94 8/10/94 Banner sign removed 94 -141 17025 SC Parkway Futon of North America 7/19/94 8/10/94 A -frame sign removed 94 -142 16400 SC Parkway Parkway Dental Care 7/19/94 7/19/94 Permanent permit issued for banner on building 94 -143 17900 SC Parkway Clothestime 7/19/94 7/26/94 Temporary sign permit issued 94 -144 16931 SC Parkway Waterbed Center 7/19/94 8/19/94 Permanent wall sign permit issued; lower portion of temporary sign and banner removed 94 -145 17448 SC Parkway House of Clocks 7/19/94 8/10/94 No banner signs present on inspection 94 -146 130 Andover Park E. Puget Sound Blood Ctr. 7/19/94 8/3/94 A -frame sign removed 94 -147 512 Strander Blvd. John's Furniture 7/19/94 7/26/94 Temporary sign permits issued 94 -148 565 Industry Dr. Murphy Beds 7/19/94 8/17/94 A -frame sign removed 94 -149 505 Strander Blvd. Washington Dental Health 7/19/94 7/26/94 Banner sign permits have been issued; banner sign not present on inspection 94 -150 402 Baker Blvd. Consolidated Electrical 7/19/94 8/9/94 Banner sign removed and replaced w /permanent sign 94 -151 325 Tukwila Pkwy. Hair Designers Unitd. 7/19/94 8/9/94 A -frame sign removed 2 z �z w. u6 D JU 0 0': (0 w w z: w w 0;. �a zw 1- a z 1-.. O u): w w, O. Z.. Ili co O.1' z STATUS OF ILS, INC. SIGN VIOLATION CASES RFA LOCATION DATE REC'D DATE RESOLVED ACTION TAKEN 94 -152 301 Baker Blvd. Honda/Acura 7/19/94 8/9/94 Hot air balloon removed; temporary sign permit issued for banner sign 94 -153 1233 Andover Park E. Kits Cameras 7/19/94 9/19/94 A -frame sign removed 94 -154 205 Strander Blvd. Doubletree 7/19/94 7/27/94 Temporary permit issued for signage by DCD City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS August 8, 1995 Members present were Mr. Nesheim, Mrs. Altmayer, and Mrs. Harris. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Smith were excused. Representing staff were Rhonda Berry and Sylvia Schnug. PROJECT: L95 -0038: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision APPELLANT: Kenneth E. Yastic, Bruno's Computer Super Store REQUEST: Appeal of Tukwila Hearing Examiner's Decision of June 20, 1995 LOCATION: 510 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA FINDINGS The Board affirmed the findings of the Hearing Examiner, as follows: 1. The petitioner seeks to reverse a civil citation that carries a penalty of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). The penalty was assessed because the petitioner's business was alleged to be displaying a sign or signs which were in violation of City of Tukwila Municipal Code 19.28.010(8). 2. Several correction letters were issued for noncompliance during the time span of May 1994 to February 1995, resulting in a citation being issued on April 13, 1995 imposing a fine of $500.00, to Bruno's Computer Store at 510 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA 98188. That Citation indicated a right to an appeal within ten (10) days of receipt of the Citation. Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal to the Tukwila Hearing Examiner, which appeal was heard on June 5, 1995 and denied in the Hearing Examiner's Decision of June 20, 1995. Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Adjustment, tolling the running of any penalties. 4. The petitioner does not deny the violation, but claims selective enforcement of the law (TMC) is being practiced by the City and petitioner has been singled out for compliance, while neighboring businesses continue to openly violate the sign code ordinance through their display of illegal A -frame signs and banners. Petitioner states this is in direct violation of the equal protection clause of the United States and the State Constitution. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CONCLUSIONS 1. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the City's determination was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 8.45.060; Administrative Procedures Act in general). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be reversed. The decision by the Hearing Examiner is affirmed. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d, 472, 478 (1966)]. 2 ~` U N 0 U) w w= Hi � tL w O; 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the ? LL reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that = d; a mistake has been committed. _; z�. ww V O fit' 0 1_ The petitioner admits the acts for which the citation was issued. The defense of selective w w enforcement and prosecution cannot be entertained for the issue at hand. 4. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the City's decision was founded on anything but a fair review of the facts as it pertains to the petitioner's situation. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. The petitioner's business has displayed A -frame signs even after repeated warnings over the course of a year to discontinue such practice. The petitioner does not deny such behavior. 7. The petitioner has not demonstrated any reason why the decision should be reversed. The decision of the City must stand. However, the $500 fine shall not be imposed. MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED THAT THE BOARD DENY THE APPEAL OF PETITIONER BRUNO'S COMPUTER SUPER STORE BASED ON THE ABOVE- LISTED CONCLUSIONS, AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, BUT THAT THE $500 FINE NOT BE IMPOSED. MRS. HARRIS SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. (~i City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 8, 1995 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. Members present were Mr. Nesheim, Mrs. Altmayer, and Mrs. Harris. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Smith were excused. Representing staff were Rhonda Berry and Sylvia Schnug. Chairman Nesheim called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Nesheim announced the purpose of the meeting was to hear the appeal of Bruno's Computer Super Store from the Tukwila Hearing Examiner's decision issued June 20, 1995, Case L95 -0038. Rhonda Berry, representative for the City, outlined the case for the Board, explaining that Bruno's Computer Super Store had been found in violation of the City's sign code ordinance by their placement of A -frame signs in the vicinity of their business at 510 Andover Park West. She indicated that after following the normal sequence of correction notices, the City was forced to issue a citation for noncompliance. An appeal was submitted by Bruno's and a subsequent hearing on June 5, 1995 upheld the City's citation. Ms. Berry pointed out that Bruno's representative at the hearing, Kenneth Yastic, did not deny that a violation had, in fact, occurred. However, she added Bruno's did not believe they should be required to comply with the sign code until all other businesses within the City also complied. She requested that, based on the facts of the case, the Board of Adjustment find in the City's favor and uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Chairman Nesheim asked Ms. Berry to specifically outline the code enforcement procedures exercised with Bruno's Computer Super Store. She then explained the issuance of correction notices and time frames for compliance, followed by a formal citation and the subsequent appeal process. She also stated that City code allowed for the confiscation of illegal A -frame signs without notice to the business owner and that this, in fact, had taken place on one occasion with one of Bruno's signs. Mrs. Harris asked if there had been more than one A -frame sign in place on the property and Ms. Berry responded in the affirmative. Barry Hassen, Attorney for ILS, Inc., 11117 NE 2nd, Bellevue, WA, representing Bruno's Computer Super Store, introduced himself and Mr. Bruno Santo, President of ILS, Inc. and manager of Bruno's Computer Super Store in Tukwila. He explained their 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 J Board of Adjustment August 8, 1995 - Page 2 purpose in pursuing the appeal was to see that the City uniformly enforced the sign code for all businesses within the city limits. He stated that there was no dispute that Bruno's signs were in violation. He indicated Mr. Santo had been in business in the city of Tukwila since 1979 and had been operating at the Super Store location for nearly ten years, and had paid approximately $15,000 in city taxes during the 1993 -1994 tax year. He reiterated that they were not here to get the sign code ordinance set aside, that, in fact, Mr. Santo supported the sign code ordinance and simply wanted all merchants to be held to the same standards. Mr. Hassen referred the Board to Page 2, Paragraph 2, of the Hearing Examiner's decision, "the Hearing Officer explained that the question (of equal enforcement) should be taken up with the City" and "his jurisdiction is limited to finding whether Bruno's has violated the sign code." Mr. Hassen stated his client disagreed with that statement; he further pointed out that selective enforcement of the law by any city or governmental agency is violative of the equal protection clause of the United States and the State Constitution. Mr. Hassen indicated that in July of 1994, a total of 21 sign code violations were submitted to the City by Mr. Santo for the 24 -block prime business area where the City seemed to focus enforcement efforts. To date, no feedback had been received related to these complaints. He cited several businesses that perpetually have A -frame signs and illegal banners displayed on their property. He then submitted 28 new complaints of sign code violations similar to the type that Bruno's had been cited for in the past year. He pointed out some of the businesses in the new batch of complaints were also included in the original 21 complaints submitted in July of 1994. He inferred that either no enforcement action had been taken or that what was being done wasn't working. He acknowledged the fact that the Code Enforcement Office was not fully staffed at the present time, but stated that changes needed to be made to ensure uniform enforcement throughout the City. Mr. Hassen requested copies of all written complaints lodged against Mr. Santo's business; he also requested statistics for other sign code complaints lodged against city businesses in addition to the 21 violations submitted by Mr. Santo. He stated that if this case was lost by Mr. Santo, their appeal would carry to the next level and all records pertaining to any sign code violations would be subpoenaed. Mr. Hassen stated the relief sought by Mr. Santo was simply equal enforcement of the law. He further indicated the case was subject to dismissal, not because the violation did not take place, but because of the way the case was enforced. He expressed dismay that the City would not cooperate fully with their efforts to identify additional businesses that were in violation, that Mr. Santo had offered staff and use of vehicles to the Mayor to try to achieve a level of uniformity in the enforcement of the sign code ordinance. Ms. Berry pointed out that banner signs were permitted under certain circumstances if the business owner obtained an appropriate permit. She indicated Mr. Santo had been z w' 2: • .6 .-J 0 O o: No w: W= N w o; IL a, F- _ z 0. no. ;WW. Z LLI • H = • • o F' Z Board of Adjustment August 8, 1995 - Page 3 cited for A -frame signs, not banners. She clarified that John's Furniture had never been given permission to have A -frame signs in place by agreeing to pay any assessed fines, stating that A -frame signs were not allowed at any place of business with the exception of signs pertaining to gas stations and real estate agencies. z tu re 2 She indicated that she had been informed by the Code Enforcement staff person that all v of Mr. Santo's complaints had been investigated and that Mr. Santo had been apprised of co o; their status by telephone. It was her understanding that all of Mr. Santo's questions w W stemming from the original 21 complaints had been answered. co u WO She stated that at this point the City's posture regarding code violations was still reactive, g =` but it was hoped a more proactive approach could be taken in the future. She agreed that � a there was a staffing problem at the present time, explaining that the code enforcement = a officer position was vacant but currently staffed by a full -time interim person. She stated .- W.. the selection process for a full -time permanent person would not be completed until fall. z 1- 0; She agreed that there were glitches in the process and that attempts were continually being z t-. WW made to fine -tune the process to make it as fair and as consistent as possible. 2 m U 0: Ms. Berry went on to point out that the Request for Action (RFA) form was an internal 'o f` form and that an exception had been made last July when Mr. Santo had been given the W W forms to complete himself. She explained the normal process was for complaints to be t- n received either by phone, in writing, or in person at the counter. O;. z. uJ She reiterated for the record that Mr. Santo was not being singled out and that other ; businesses had been sent correction notices and even citations relating to sign code z violations. Mr. Hassen responded to Ms. Berry's comments by handing her the 28 new complaints and requesting that appropriate action be taken on these complaints and that case status be reported back to Mr. Santo. He stated that Ms. Berry had indicated the City did not allow violations to take place, yet there were blatant violations that were present every day. Chairman Nesheim pointed out that what Ms. Berry had really indicated was that the City's stance was reactive and therefore all violations could not be acted upon. Mr. Hassen stated that Mr. Santo would like to see the City become more proactive as well. Mr. Santo responded that the signs and banners all present the same problem in what they do to the City. He indicated that on any given day on a drive through Tukwila, he could find 30 -40 sign code violations. He also stated that at regular places he lunches at, the same banner signs have been in place for the past year. He reiterated his offer to the Mayor of trucks and staff to assist in ridding the City of violating signs. He stated his business had tried to be a valuable member of the business community for some time and felt that the City should spend whatever money it takes to ensure that the sign code ordinance is enforced fairly, equitably and effectively. Board of Adjustment August 8, 1995 - Page 4 Chairman Nesheim requested Sylvia Schnug to assign an exhibit number to each of the 28 complaints and to make them a permanent part of the record. Mrs. Altmayer indicated she was appalled with the number of sign code violations present throughout the city. She stated she fully supported the ordinance and that in the past it used to work to keep the city looking nice and neat. She expressed her opinion that the City is doing a very poor job, or no job at all, in enforcing the sign code today. She clarified the RFA process with Ms. Berry. Ms. Berry indicated that banner signs were allowable with permits and that the permits were renewable. Sylvia Schnug pointed out that they only can be renewed two or three times each year and that each permit costs $25. Mr. Santo stated that he had offered to have his wife write a computer program to track the banner permit expiration dates and had even offered a computer system to facilitate the permit tracking process for the City. Chairman Nesheim asked Mr. Santo if he still believed that he had been singled out because of his Italian heritage and the fact that he was a small business owner in the city. Mr. Santo indicated that he had not received anything from the City to make him think any differently. Mrs. Altmayer pointed out that Mr. Segale was also an Italian American. Mrs. Altmayer asked if it had been verified that all 28 new complaints were valid. Mr. Hassen stated that it hadn't, that the purpose in submitting them was to alert the City of possible violations and also to show the overlap of complaints from the 21 that were filed a year ago. Chairman Nesheim stated the issue at hand was clear in that Bruno's had not denied they were in violation by placement of their A -frame signs. Mrs. Harris agreed that Bruno's was not denying the violation, but they were asking for equal treatment. Chairman Nesheim felt there was a problem if the Board was being asked to excuse what Bruno's did because someone else was doing it as well. Mrs. Harris stated that Bruno's was only asking for all other violators to be treated in the same manner as they had been. Chairman Nesheim indicated that was impossible for the Board to enforce since they were not City employees. Mrs. Altmayer indicated to Mr. Hassen that it was Mr. Santo's place, not the Board's, to inform the City of any deficiencies in the code enforcement process, but that the Board could dismiss the fine portion of the citation. Mr. Hassen agreed. He further indicated that the Board could determine the City acted arbitrarily and capriciously in singling out Mr. Santo and therefore the citation should not be upheld. Mrs. Altmayer expressed her disappointment that the City had not responded to the 21 original complaints. Ms. Berry explained that previously the procedure had been to notify complainants of case status by telephone and that this was documented as having Board of Adjustment August 8, 1995 - Page 5 been done. She stated that the procedures would be modified in the future so that all responses would now be in writing. z Mrs. Harris said the City's enforcement of the sign code ordinance had really slipped in / z past years and it was distressing to drive around and see all of the "tacky" signs. She ILI stated the City needed to clean up its act. .6 v; UO: CO 0. Ms. Berry stated that in addition to becoming more proactive in its response to code ' .u) w violations, one of the City's goals was to review the codes and see what makes sense and N x what doesn't. Mrs. Altmayer indicated she did not want to see banner signs up even if w o; they paid $1000 for a permit. She stated the sign code should be helpful and directional. Mr. Santo said an option for directing people into his parking lot would be to remove one :521-1-1j OL of his building signs and replace it with a $10,000 permanent sign. Ms. Berry explained that no review of the code would take place until a permanent code enforcement officer was hired and that his first priority would be to address all of the backlogged cases. z :z f- Mrs. Altmayer requested that Ms. Berry or her representative research the 21 original w wcomplaints and respond back to Mr. Santo, as well as the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. D 0 Harris further requested that the additional banner complaints be investigated to see which O =ones have permits and which ones don't. All board members agreed they would prefer ~ to see fewer banner sins dis la ed throu hout the ci Ms. Berr assured Mrs. Altma er ; signs P Y g city. Berry Y E- �, that a response could be drafted to Mr. Santo by the 20th of August related to the u. O disposition of the original 21 complaints. :ui N_ . H-_' Mrs. Harris asked if Mr. Santo would remove his A -frame sign if the fine were waived. z ~.. Mr. Santo said he would rather contribute the $500 to the hiring of a person who was extremely organized and effective, who could be utilized in enforcing the sign code ordinance. Chairman Nesheim asked Mr. Santo if he would continue to put out the illegal A -frame signs as long as other city businesses did so. Mr. Santo replied he would stop putting his signs out when the City responded to the 21 complaints. Chairperson Nesheim indicated he did not want the City or the Board to be held as a hostage. Mr. Santo indicated he simply wanted to know if there were three or four businesses of the original 21 who were still in violation of the code at this time and, if so, what type of enforcement process had been enacted upon them. Mr. Hassen requested a time frame from Ms. Berry in responding to the 28 new complaints. Ms. Berry indicated to him that she could not provide him with an exact date by which the complaints would be addressed, that life, safety, and health problems had top priority in code enforcement. Mrs. Altmayer stated that Mr. Santo's compliance with the law should not depend upon a definite date of response on the complaints, that as a good citizen and community • Board of Adjustment August 8, 1995 - Page 6 member, one should comply with the law regardless. She pointed out that even if the $500 fine were waived at this point, if Mr. Santo were to be in violation tomorrow with yet another illegal A -frame sign, a similar fine could be assessed. Mr. Hassen stated that as long as it was apparent something was being done with the 28 new complaints and the disposition was received on the 21 original complaints, he would advise his client not to display the A -frame signs. Mr. Santo expressed his concern that in the past 13 months, the City had been completely ineffective in addressing many of the original sign code violations he had submitted and he questioned how many years it would take the City to address the 28 new violations he had submitted this evening. Ms. Berry pointed out that investigation of a complaint and resolution of it were two very different issues. She once again outlined the length of the code enforcement process and said that some of the 28 complaints would be resolved immediately by the business owners' compliance with the first notice; others would need to be taken all the way through the citation and appeal process. A brief recess was taken from 8:20 p.m. to 8:24 p.m. Mrs. Harris restated Mr. Santo's position that he would not place his A -frame sign out for at least the next 30 days during which time he would await the disposition of the 21 original cases and a status report of the 28 new complaints submitted. Mrs. Altmayer pointed out that if Mr. Santo were to re -erect his signs at any time, he would liable for another fine. Mr. Santo indicated in all likelihood he would not be re- erecting his signs, even if those businesses around him continued to display illegal signage. Chairman Nesheim informed Mr. Santo and Mr. Hassen that they could appeal to the Superior Court within ten days from the date the findings and conclusions from this meeting were adopted. MRS. HARRIS MOVED TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, BUT THAT THE $500 FINE NOT BE IMPOSED. Mrs. Altmayer stated that additional language was needed in the motion indicating what the decision was based on. Discussion ensued. MRS. ALTMAYER MOVED TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, BUT THAT THE $500 FINE NOT BE IMPOSED, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. MRS. HARRIS SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Board of Adjustment August 8, 1995 - Page 7 Mrs. Altmayer stressed the notification process should not fall through the cracks and requested once again that Mr. Santo and the Board of Adjustment receive an update on the 21 original complaints, and that the status of the 28 new complaints be included as an agenda item at the next Board of Adjustment meeting. Chairman Nesheim encouraged Mr. Santo to attend council meetings with any further comments relating to the sign code ordinance. THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS, IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. HARRIS, SECONDED BY MRS. ALTMAYER, THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:34 P.M. Minutes Prepared by: Bev Willison. AFFIDAVIT gNotice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting EBoard of Packet Board of Packet O Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda • Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit Determination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action 0 Of ficial Notice 0 Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 11i. • +D. 7-6 VArh'--Put vow' t ,uu -h4.. :• K- Fluokark_ U4 Name of Project File Number L _( bv) City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Adjustment will be holding a public hearing on August 3, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room #3 at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, to discuss the following: 1. PROJECT: L95-0038: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision APPELLANT: Kenneth E. Yastic, Bruno's Computer Super Store REQUEST: Appeal of the Tukwila Hearing Examiner's decision of June 20, 1995. LOCATION: 510 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case may be obtained at Tukwila City Hall, Code Enforcement Officer's Office, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., 433-1851. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above item. Published: Seattle Times July 21, 1995 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Applicant, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CITY OF TUKWILA FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING OFFICER 6200. SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA. 98188 DEAR MR. KAUFMAN, RWWENNED JUN 2 7 5995 crrY OF .i La art CLERK UPON READING YOUR DECISION OF OUR APPEAL REGARDING THE SIGN .VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA SECTION 19.28.010(8), WE ARE TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THIS DECISION. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO SUBMIT THIS APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SET FORTH IN SECTION 8.45.060(b). WE SHALL AWAIT AN APPEAL DATE FROM YOU AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION THAT WE MAY HAVE TO PRESENT AT THIS APPEAL. cc: WILLIAM B. SANTO, PRESIDENT REPORT AND DECISION PETITIONER: NAME/LOCATION OF BUSINESS: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: HEARING OFFICER CITY OF TUKWILA June 20, 1.995 , u RECE1 f V::.. 2 1 1995 CU (vMR�<<..' 0 EV E LO P M L N 'V WILLIAM B. SANTO, PRESIDENT ILS, INC. KENNETH E. YASTIC, GENERAL MANAGER ILS, INC. IN RE: BRUNO'S COMPUTER SUPER STORE Bruno's Computer 510 Andover Park West Appeal of a Citation for illegal "A- frame" signs. TMC Chapter 19.28.010(8) MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 5, 1995 hearing The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 6, 1995, at 1:28 p.m., in conference room at the City of Tukwila Fire Department Headquarters. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Hearing Officer. The following exhibit was entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: File containing the subject citation and letter of appeal. The Hearing Officer stated that the letter of appeal admits violation of the sign code, then seeks redress for a citation being aimed at Bruno's Computers (Bruno's), claiming that other businesses were not cited for the same violation. KENNETH E. YASTIC, General Manager, ILS, Inc. dba Bruno's Computer Superstore, 510 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA 98188, confirmed that Bruno's does not contest the citation. However, they will comply with the code when everyone else complies. The Hearing Officer asked Mr. Yastic to cite law in support of his argument but Mr. Yastic did not have that information. The Hearing Officer stated that civil citations are an enforcement action that is initiated after a complaint is filed with a city. However, one complaint does not give a city prosecutorial discretion to cite everyone. The Hearing Officer said that since Bruno's has admitted a sign code violation, he does not have the discretion to come to any other decision than the subject civil citation was valid. DARREN WILSON, Code Enforcement Officer, City of Tukwila, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188, explained that the City of Tukwila notices a code violation when a complaint is filed. In this case, a complaint about Bruno's was filed with the city. The city then sent several letters to Bruno's notifying them of the violation. The A -frame signs were removed for a short period of time, and Mr. Santo met with the Mayor to discuss issues relating to identification. Later, the A -frame signs were put back up, so the city began its violation notice process again. Mr. Santo then submitted 30 sign complaints on other businesses so the city investigated every complaint. Some businesses were in violation and others were not. The businesses in violation were issued correction notices and the signs were removed. Mr. Wilson explained that this hearing is taking place because Bruno's put their A -frame signs back up. Mr. Yastic asked if there was a setback from the curb to the property line where an A -frame sign can be placed legally. Mr. Wilson replied that A -frame signs are always prohibited, except if a business is in real estate. s.a WILLIAM B. SANTO, PRESIDENT S, INC. KENNETH E. YASTIC, GENERAL IWtNAGER ILS, INC. IN RE: BRUNO'S COMPUTER SUPER STORE June 20, 1995 Page 2 There are two ways that a sign can be a permanent or temporary fixture. One option is a wall sign. However, Bruno's currently has two wall signs on two different faces of the building. When a business has two wall signs, the option of having a free - standing sign (which in this instance could be located closer to Andover West) is eliminated. Mr. Yastic showed the Hearing Officer recent photographs of signs that he believes are not compliance. After reviewing the pictures, the Hearing Officer rejected the exhibits as irrelevant. He explained that his jurisdiction is limited to reading the sign code and finding violation of that code; or, that there was no violation of the code. The Hearing Officer noted. that he prepared to hear arguments of why Bruno's is not in violation of the code. Mr. Mastic replied that violation is not their issue and asked why other businesses are allowed to have signs up week after week. The Hearing Officer explained that the question should be taken up with city administration, and his jurisdiction is limited to finding whether Bruno's has violated the sign code. The Hearing Officer called for further testimony regarding this matter. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 1:42 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION On June 6, 1995 this matter came before the Hearing Officer for the City of Tukwila, acting under Title 19.36.010, as described under Title 8.45.060. Parties to the proceeding were: The City of Tukwila by its Code Enforcement Officer, Darren Wilson and the petitioner's representative, Kenneth E. Yastic, General Manager for Bruno's Computer Superstore. The matter was originally scheduled for June 5, 1995 but the appellant, William B. Santo, owner of Bruno's Computer Superstore, did not arrive in Seattle in time to attend the hearing. The owner's representative, Mr. Yastic, is the party that submitted the letter of appeal. FINDINGS: 1. The petitioner seeks to reverse a civil citation that carries with it a civil penalty of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), which penalty was assessed because the petitioner's business was alleged to be displaying a sign or signs in violation of City of Tukwila Section' 19.28.010(8): "(8) Portable signs or any sign which is not permanently mounted, including sandwich or "A" board, except as provided in Sections 19.24.050 and 19.32.160 of this code." The exceptions noted (citation omitted) relate to real estate and service station signs and are inapplicable to this situation. Ina letter from the appellant (July 1, 1994, Attachment B) and the representative (April 27, 1995 letter, Attachment B), they admit that the appellant was using the prohibited signs. The defense raised was that other businesses are similarly violating the provisions. They allege selective enforcement and prosecution. The appellant's letter states: "My concern is this: Is the rule only for some people? Why has my business been singled out ?" The representative's letter stated: "It was dully (sic) noted in our previous letter dated July 1, 1994 to Mayor John W. Rants that small businesses are targeted and especially this particular business has been singled out for this violation." Z ".w' 6 JO 00: to � W I ...I F., CO O. Q: w; Z� i- 0 O O N- W' u_ 1—: O'. Z. UN O ~` Z WILLIAM B. SANTO, PRESIDENT ILS, INC. KENNETH E. YASTIC, GENERAL MANAGER ILS, INC. IN RE: BRUNO'S COMPUTER SUPER STORE June 20, 1995 Page 3 3. A letter dated May 12, 1994 noted that a survey of Roffe Inc. c/o Bruno's Computer showed "several "A" frame sandwich -board signs." It noted the property would be reinspected on May 31, 1994. 4. A "CORRECTION NOTICE" dated June 9, 1994 to Bruno's Computer, noted illegal wall signs, pallets were not appropriately concealed or disposed of, and "two illegal A -frame signs that are prohibited." z Q 1- �z ft w:. 5. The Code Enforcement Officer wrote a letter to Sonny Jones, Rolfe Inc. c/o Bruno's Computer. It noted a' that two (2) "A" frame signs were in place approximately 40 yards from the right -of -way. He noted U that such signs are not allowed. This letter was dated February 9, 1995. It noted that the property � CI would be reinspected on February 16, 1995 and that if the code were violated at that time a citation ' (0 w would be issued. .WI 111- co u_ 6. A citation was issued on March 3, 1995. It imposed a penalty of $500.00. It named "Sonny Jones, W 0 Rolfe Inc. c/o Bruno's Computer at 510 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA 98188. (note Rolfe is g spelled with two (2) "ff' in other documents) I.L. ?' 21 a 7. A citation was issued on April 13, 1995. It imposed a penalty of $500.00. It named "Bruno's 1=— _, Computer Store at 510 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA 98188. z 1—: ZO 8. Photos showing "A" frame signs on various dates were entered into the record. w ur n p. 9. The record establishes that the petitioner had posted "A- frame" sandwich type signs along the frontage p N of property generally located at 510 Andover Park West in the City of Tukwila. 0 i- t* w. H V;: O z:. _`- o1- CONCLUSIONS: 1... The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that the City's determination was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 8.45.060; Administrative Procedures Act). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision of the City is affirmed. 2. An arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (.Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). 4. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City's decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the facts as it pertains to the petitioner's situation. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5. The petitioner admits the acts for which the citation was issued. This office cannot entertain the defense suggested by the appellant and his representative. There is no basis to accept a defense of selective enforcement and prosecution. 6. The appellant's business has displayed "A" frame signs even after repeated warnings over the course of a year. The appellant admitted such behavior. .. ,,- ..: +iP'Eic�tier.;c:Mrii;� ".„ aid; �bs�i��kixi� #r�'�'w:rSvbr'2%a"•�C` •+3iii5�bts4�`s.c�i . WILLIAM B. SANTO, PRESIDENT-11,S, INC. KENNETH E. YASTIC, GENERAL ANAGER ILS, INC. IN RE: BRUNO'S COMPUTER SUPER STORE June 20, 1995 Page 4 7. The petitioner has not demonstrated any reason why the decision should be reversed or modified. The decision of the City must stand. DECISION: The appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 20th day of June, 1995. FRED J. FMAN HEARING OFFICER TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of June,1995 to the parties of record: William B. Santo, President Bruno's Computer Superstore 510 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Darren Wilson Code Enforcement Officer City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila WA 98188 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of June, 1995 to the following: John W. Rants, Mayor John McFarland, City Administrator Kenneth E. Yastic General Manager Bruno's Computer Superstore 510 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Linda P. Cohen, City Attorney Board of Adjustment Pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code, Title 8, Section 8.45.060 (h): Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Officer may appeal that decision to the Board of Adjustment by filing with the City Clerk a written notice of appeal, in the same form as set forth in section 8.45.060(b), within seven days after receipt of the decision of the Hearine Officer. A complete copy of the Hearing Officer's written decision and all exhibits accepted by the Hearing Officer shall be transmitted to the Board of Adjustment, and the appeal shall be placed upon the agenda of the Board of Adjustment within 60 days after receipt of the notice of appeal. Written notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given to the appellant(s) at least ten days prior to the date of the Board of Adjustment hearing, by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, by certified mail with return receipt requested, addressed to each appellant at his or her address shown on the notice of appeal.. .The Board of Adjustment shall not be limited to the record considered by the Hearing Officer, and may affirm, deny, or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer. ryt;r;.. • sL4. [Ir11wN 'w.tr';4 r,n�' 1�(.olkidil.c�2 . •z a }mow'. 2 • 0 N (:1 ; ;U) Wz u- .Wo. u. Q - a: z� I- 0•• • Z LH La W W', IL. � z. uuj0. .z