Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-04 Regular MinutesApril 4, 1994 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OFFICIALS APPOINTMENTS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; STEVE MULLET, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; ALLAN EKBERG; JOYCE CRAFT; DOROTHY DeRODAS. JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; JACK PACE, Senior Planner; DIANA PAINTER, Associate Planner; ANN SIEGENTHALER, Associate Planner, LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. Mayor Rants requested Council's concurrence of his appointments to boards and commissions as follows: Planning Commission: Position 1: Vern Meryhew, term expires March 31, 1998 MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO REAPPOINT VERN MERYHEW TO POSITION #1 ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. Position 2: Kathryn Stetson; term expires March 31, 1998 MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO APPOINT KATHRYN STETSON TO POSITION #2 ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED Position 5: George Malina; term expires March 31, 1998 MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY CRAFT TO REAPPOINT GEORGE MALINA TO POSITION #5 ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.. MOTION CARRIED. Park Commission: Position 2: Linda Stanley; term expires December 31, 1997 MOVED BY MULLET, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO APPOINT LINDA STANLEY TO POSITION #2 ON THE PARK COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED Position 4: Hubert Crawley, term expires March 31, 1998 MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO REAPPOINT HERBERT CRAWLEY TO POSITION #4 ON THE PARKS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 1994 Page 2 Annointments (con't) CITIZEN COMMENTS CONSENT AGENDA Res. #1293 Human Services Advisory Board: Position 6: Sarah Skoglund; term expires April 30, 1997 MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO REAPPOINT SARAH SKOGLUND TO POSITION #6 ON THE HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. Position 7: Katy Lynch, term expires April 30, 1997 MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO REAPPOINT KATY LYNCH TO POSITION #7 ON THE HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. Jackie Dempiere, 4033 So. 128th St., informed Council of the difficulties she is experiencing with the installation and positioning of a fire hydrant on her property. Ms. Dempiere said she was told that in order to have the hydrant installed where she wants it on the property rather than across the street, she will also have to have a back flow check valve installed which is very costly. In response, Mayor Rants asked that the fire chief look into the situation and report back to him. Charlie Frame, manager at Baker Commodities, 5795 So. 130th St., announced a community hotline to address occasional odor emissions. The number is 242 -2828 a. Approval of Minutes: 3/7/94; 3/14/94 (Sp. Mtg.); 3/21/94 b. Approval of Vouchers: Nos. 70345 through 70565 in the amount of $284,779.74 c. Authorize Mayor to sign ACC Interlocal Agreement d. Authorize Mayor to accept river lot trade proposal e. A resolution ratifying the SCA's representation on various Metropolitan King County Regional Subcommittees MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.* Councilmember Robertson requested the minutes of March 7, 1994, be removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed under New Business. *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 1994 Page 3 HEARINGS Quasi-judicial: Continuation of limited public hearing on Clarification of Conditions- clarification of conditions of approval Foster View Estates Foster View PRD /Subdivision. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, explained that DCD was requesting the hearing be continued to April 25, 1994. The applicant has agreed to the continuance. Request for Waiver Blue Star Motel MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 25, 1994. MOTION CARRIED Quasijudicial: Deliberations: Request for waiver to Ordinance No. 1685 (moratorium) Blue Star Motel. (See verbatim minutes attached 16 pages) Action taken by Council: Approved the request for waiver with the following conditions: 1. Ensure grounds and public areas are clean and well maintained; 2. Install adequate building exterior and site lighting; 3. Install a surveillance camera in the lobby; 4. Require the manager to live on premises, identify the current manager and provide their work schedule to the Tukwila Police Department if applicable; 5. Install a sign in the lobby stating that management cooperates with City of Tukwila Police in any investigation of the property; 6. Require positive identification of all occupants of a room at time of registration; 7. Photocopy identification at registration and make this available to the Tukwila Police Department at their request; 8. Incorporate exterior open stairwells into the design; 9. Any or all of these conditions may be removed upon written request of the Chief of Police, concurrence of the Mayor, and notification to the Council. Quasijudicial: Deliberations: Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval of the Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. (See verbatim minutes attached 13 pages) Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 1994 Page 4 Hearings (con't) Request for Rezone Southgate Park OLD BUSINESS Accept Utility Easements McLeod Exhibition Cntr. NEW BUSINESS Res. #1294 Setting Hearing Hearing for Street Vacation Request for Maule Ave /S.141 St/ S. 141st Place Res. #1295 Declaring Emergency Riverbank Repairs Action taken by Council: Denied the comprehensive plan designation. Denied the rezone due to criteria for rezone not being met.. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ACCEPT THE UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY FOR McLEOD EXHIBITION CENTER DEVELOPMENT. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City attorney Linda Cohen read A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, FIXING THE TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF PORTIONS OF MAULE AVENUE BETWEEN S. 141ST PLACE AND S. 141ST STREET, S. 141ST STREET BETWEEN INTERURBAN AND MAULE AVENUE, AND FOR S. 141ST PLACE BETWEEN INTERURBAN AND THE LEFT BANK OF THE DUWAMISH RIVER. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.1294 AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Linda Cohen read A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY EXISTS THAT REQUIRES RIVER BANK EROSION REPAIRS AND AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1295 AS READ.* Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 1994 Page 5 New Business (con't) Emergency Repairs to Riverbank Minutes of 3/7/94 Amended REPORTS Council MISCELLANEOUS ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY DELETING THE WORDS MUCH OF IN THE SECOND LINE OF THE 4TH "WHEREAS" CLAUSE. MOTION CARRIED *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. Councilmember Hernandez reported she attended the Human Services Roundtable retreat. The organization is considering restructuring in order to gain more local input. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO AMEND THE MINUTES OF 3/7/94 AS FOLLOWS: UNDER CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THE DVNPC ISSUE, DELETE THE SENTENCE THAT READS "THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL FELT THE DVNPC HAD NOT FOLLOWED PROPER DISCUSSIONAND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES IN THIS MATTER." AND REPLACE IT WITH THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE: "THERE WAS CONCERN ON THE COUNCIL'S PART THAT THE DVNPC HAD NOT FOLLOWED PROPER DISCUSSIONAND PRESENTATION PROCEDURES IN THIS MATTER': MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants asked what direction Council wanted to go with the PRD. Following discussion it was the consensus of the Council to move forward with a review of the entire PRD process rather than to implement an interim zoning ordinance that would be changed at a later date. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY MULLET, THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. W. Rants, Mayor (a)in E. Cantu, City Clerk Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 1994 Verbatim Transcript Deliberations: Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval of the Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. Mayor Rants: Dennis, why don't you give us a process. Councilmember Dennis Robertson: I would suggest a process very similar to the one we just followed where we look at the criteria that was shown to us as the start of the public hearing. O.K., I'd like to suggest a process where we look at the three -we go through and discuss in order the three criteria that were shown us for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the five criteria, the first five, that were appropriate for changes to the rezone. And after we've discussed the issues amongst ourselves -since there was a Planning Commission recommendation, I would also suggest that we briefly discuss that after we go through all other criteria or we could discuss it beforehand, and then put a motion on the table. I would suggest, actually, we start with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Joan Hernandez: You want to refer us to a certain page number, Dennis? Robertson: Yea, the Planning Commission's recommendation.... Hernandez: O.K., here it is. It's on page 2 of Attachment A. Robertson: Attachment A? Hernandez: Maybe not, maybe not. Rants: Attachment A. Yes, it is second page of Attachment A. The Planning Commission recommendation was based on.... Robertson: The adjacent land uses, public testimony, annexation zoning. Their recommendation is Tukwila Tommorow Committee. In reviewing it -also I'd like to point to Section D and point out, I believe that when the Planning Commission made their recommendation and did the review -if you look at Page 12 of Section D, which is the Planning Commission's recommendation, the only discussion I could find in their minutes that dealt with the criteria that we told that we were to use as the basis, and that is the basis for this decision, is in the second paragraph here. It says that Mr. Clark said that the rezone criteria numbers 2 and 6 were not germane to the discussion. It said the commission reviewed comp plan criteria number one and discussed the semantics of unforeseen changes. And the majority of the commission members considered it's down zone in `89 to be a mistake. The reason I'm referencing this is I think in reviewing this to make a recommendation to us, that the Planning Commission erred. They didn't follow the decision criteria, all the way through, and point by point, and their minutes, I believe, uphold what I just said. So I have difficulty in placing a great deal of emphasis on their recommendation at this point in time since it wasn't based on a point by point analysis of the decision criteria and the data that was provided them. Then... Councilmember Joyce Craft: Could I just intermit, I'm sorry, I wanted to and I forgot, I wanted to declare that I got a letter at my house maybe everybody else did Hernandez: Um -huh, I think we all did. 1 L (f) Craft: OK. Mullet: As soon as I read the part that said- -one part- -I threw it aside. And then Dorothy was so nice to see that all of us got another copy of it. Rants: Staff has received that letter also, from a man and a woman from the Sumara Apartments. Robertson: And also, trying to come up with the process and decision criteria if you look at the verbatim transcripts- -now I'm going to go to the old copy that we were given because that's the one I have my notes written on. My review of the changes didn't show them to be significant to what I'm going to discuss. Anyway, on page three at the bottom, there's a couple of quotes I want to reference. This is from Planning Department, Ann Siegenthaler. At the very bottom, the second to the last line Hernandez: Dennis excuse me, are you referring to the Planning Commission minutes of December 8th? Mullet: No, he's referring to our verbatim minutes on the Robertson: On the bottom, the verbatim? OK everybody on the verbatim? On page three? She says one is there are two separate sets of criteria. You're really looking at two separate proposals. And I believe that's correct. I believe we have to analyze the proposed changes to the comprehensive land use plan as shown on that decision criteria first and then we look at again we go through the review of the five decision criteria's that are relevant for the zoning changes. In the last point- -well, not the last, on page four the top of the -the first paragraph, the first sentence, the next point that she makes I think is very important to our decision making. She says the second thing to recall about these criteria is that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the proposal meets the criteria. It's not our responsibility to show where things don't meet the criteria. We equally have to review what the applicant presented. That's basically all I wanted to say about decision making until we start going through the items one by one. Councilmember Allen Ekbere: I would just like to add to that that it's my distinct understanding to how Dennis has portrayed this situation should proceed as well. I also concur with how the Planning Commission did not purse review the three criteria as required for the criteria for zoning and rezoning as well. Rants: You wish to move to the comp plan amendments then? Robertson: I think so, the criteria Rants: "Unforeseen changes and circumstances have occurred in community conditions that justify a comp plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies." Any one wishes to address this one? Robertson: Yea, just a second after I get started here. Mullet: I'll start out while Dennis is finding his stuff there. Rants: All right Steve. 2 Mullet: I don't have the page numbers and what not as I read through the testimony but the jest of it that I dug out was that they perceived these changes that are occurring in the community as being manifested through the growth management plan and several other efforts which are going on in that area to kind of redirect the activity on Hwy. 99. However, all of these plans are in transition especially -and are quite vague and elusive especially the growth management plan. And I would also like to through in that the existing County zoning at the time of the purchase would not have allowed this current proposal either. The fact that the property was changed zoning at the time of annexation I did not consider to be very pertinent to this discussion. So I gave this a maybe on this criteria on whether they convinced me on this or not. Rants: Dennis. Robertson: On section I, attachment I which is the Staff report to the Planning Commission, dated October 20, 1993. On page four of section I I'd like to- -under point 1 it says again, "unforeseen changes in circumstance have occurred in community conditions that justify a comp plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies." Basically what the applicants response was, the Growth Management Act has been enacted. Well I-- Growth Management Act is something new and is a legislative process, however the City is responding to that with a City wide comprehensive land use plan and zoning process, we're partially through. But those are not unexpected unforeseen circumstances. All jurisdictions go through these kinds of things periodically to list the fact that we're going through a new comprehensive planning and zoning exercise as an unexpected, unforeseen occurrence just doesn't make sense. It is an expected thing and it does occur periodically. I have a very hard time believing that the applicant has shown that there's a unforeseen change or circumstance. Hernandez: Dennis, could I make a comment there? I had that highlighted too because the comment made here was that the comprehensive plan was to provide for anticipated growth over the next 20 years. Well that growth also includes housing, so that's relevant here because were asking- -we're being asked to reconsider a rezoning of something that is zoned partially zoned for housing. So I think that -I thought that was significant. Rants: Any one else? Allen? Ekberg: On that same note the applicant does state that the Growth Management Act has been enacted and ifs the City's responsibility of that act to review a comprehensive plan and zoning map. Until that is done the existing plan and policies are in effect, are those that remain in effect until changes have occurred and legislation policies have been set by ordinance and amend what we currently have on the books. So even though there is a Growth Management Act that portrays the outline for plan for future change, future change is not upon us at this point. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: To add to that, on page 19 on the verbatim transcripts, Ann Siegenthaler said in her summation, "regarding the pre annexation zoning process..", this is on the bottom of the page, "there were two public information meetings during the time of the proposed annexation zoning and there were three public hearings. Citizens task force, the Planning Commission and Council all were involved in the process of establishing the pre annexation zoning. And notices of meetings and hearings were sent out to the property owners. So I want to point out that the zoning that occurred during the annexation process was difficult to say that that was unexpected either. The City couldn't have gone through a more 3 elaborate process at that time. I sat on the Council and I remember we went through, at the time of the annexations a great deal of conversation with everybody. Rants: Does anyone else have anything they want to say about Unforeseen Changes in Circumstances? If not we'll move to "Factual Evidence, supports in additional or change public need for the designated property." Hernandez: This is the one that I had a hard time with. I don't really see that much evidence that supports a need for a change in the property designation. Rants: Steve? Mullet: Well I think there is definitely need for a change on that property. Whether it needs to be rezoned is what the question is really about. And I found no factual evidence supporting a rezone to effect that change. I could find no evidence of financial hardship to effect that change or anything else. It wasn't in any of the transcripts that I read. In fact there was very little evidence introduced about financial hardships or that related to this property at all. So basically we have a piece of property that's zoned residential and with a little commercial strip on the highway, and while we have a great deal of public blight going on in that property, for lack of better word, I don't see where that indicates that its not suitable property for residential property. And that's what were being asked to do here, to change it from a residential designation to a commercial designation. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: I agree strongly -if you remember that what's really in question is not a chunk of land that's on Hwy. 99, it's the private property that it borders, on 42nd Avenue. If you go to page 10 of the verbatim transcript, at that point -I'm trying to remember who was speaking- -Roger Blaylock, representing the applicant. On page 18 I'm going to quote some points. Here I believe he was talking about criteria number two as near I can tell. Mullet: Which page are you on, 10? Robertson: 10. It says on the start of the second paragraph there, the long one, it says, "the factual evidence supports the needs evidence supports an addition or change of public need for the property designation." While I've looked at the property very closely and thought you know this is the end of a transitional use and the record shows that this was probably put in in the 1950's. Actually it was probably put in the 1940's when one was going strong. It's old it's tired. If you drop down about three lines, he goes on to say, "while Tukwila is no longer just linked to the State of Washington with its international airport nearby, it's linked farther." Drop down another line and he says, "so a new style was envisioned by Mr. Kim that's actually happening in Asia now....", he goes on to talk about his plans. Drop down even further- -what I'm doing in reading through this is looking for some factual evidence. He goes on to say, "it's a gateway coming in on Pacific Highway south into Tukwila. And this is going to be your new community focus with the center here, with the school, new library, higher density commercial uses around it. You have the new Larry's Market, you have Bartell's, the whole are is going through a dramatic new evolved transition. It's becoming a heart again for the community which is really nice. But we believe that this is the northern focus of that." The point that I'm trying to make is, except for the last little bit there's nothing factual saying that it's old and it's tired is hardly factual evidence supporting additional or public need. That sounds tome more like an opinion than factual evidence. The last part about it becoming a gateway is true, but that's talking about the property on Hwy. 99 not the property 4 bordering 42nd. I failed -in reviewing this material I couldn't find anything that approached factual evidence to convince me that additional change public need was needed. That this met that. Rants: Any one else wishes to address factual evidence? We'll move then to number three. Robertson: Wally, can I go back to one point? On page five of the Staff report, attachment I, dealing with this again it is the Staffs report to the Planning Commission but in this document the Staff is detailing the applicants response to questions. In the third paragraph where they talk about office designation the second sentence says, "as a result there are no nearby office uses in Tukwila to serve the residential neighborhood and businesses on Hwy. 99." Then it goes on to say, "based on these observations it's likely then an office would be an economical viable use that it could serve the public need in the area." I fail to see how office areas on 42nd Avenue, and again looking for factual proof that this would support the public needs, I fail to see how office area on 42nd Avenue would support the residential need there. The residential area Hernandez: I'd like to add something to that on that particular page that I had highlighted too. Under commercial designation it says that it's one of the few large parcels remaining and along Hwy. 99 the site has the potential to attract significant high quality redevelopment. However Tukwila already has many areas designated as commercial development. Rants: All right, we'll move on then. "Proposal has been analyzed for effects on existing comprehensive plan policies." Robertson: If we look at again the Staff report to the Planning Commission, dated October 20th on page six. It shows the applicants response to that question, to this criteria as being, "the policies are under review for amendment consistent with GMA. It's our position to rezone to see to it's consistent with GMA." Again, we've been told that GMA is not the relevant issue. What we're dealing with in this request for a comprehensive land use plan change is to the existing comprehensive land use plan, not GMA. So the applicants response again has nothing to do with the issue of the current comprehensive land use plan. Not with what GMA may come out with. Rants: Any further comments on this proposal number three? Steve? Mullet: I have -well by the applicants own statement in the transcript, they admit that they do not know the use because they do not have a client. And they refer to a chicken and egg kind of thing. So in effect they haven't analyzed what this use would be. That's on page 11 incidentally, the bottom paragraph. And they're actually requesting the zoning change -I don't know whether they're calling it the chicken or the egg but they want one of them first and so the only the only effects that have been analyzed on this property have been from a negative nature and that whatever they do the trailer park will no longer be there so the problems that it brings will no longer be there. Kind of a back door analysis of- -but it doesn't provide an analysis of the future use that they're asking for the rezoning for. Rants: All right. Robertson: Wally, further elaborating on that point that Steve just made, again on page 11 on the verbatim transcripts the applicant himself says, "the request is not an agreement. When the request is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan the applicant shall provide -I think that's, yea this is still Mr. Blaylock, so I'll go back, "the request is not in agreement. When the request is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to City Council's satisfaction that there is 5 additional need for the request land use classification." Here we run into a little bit of a problem because we don't know what the use will be. I will state that very clearly, we don't know what the use will be and that's what Steve was just saying. It's hard to show that -if we don't know what the use is going to be whether or not it meets the criteria. Rants: We'll move to the rezone. "User changing of zoning requested will be in conformity with the adopted comprehensive land use policy and the public interest." Robertson: Well if we go to page nine, again of the Staff report section I. The applicant there under applicant's response says, "a request for rezone is also consistent with goals and objectives Growth Management Act" as we said that's not the issue on the table. The Staffs response is, "proposed new C -2 zoning is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan designation." Unless they requested a change but I think clearly its not -since they have requested a comprehensive land use plan change that would enable the zoning code change- -it's easy to say that the zoning code change is not in conformity with the adopted comprehensive plan use policy plan. Rants: Any one else? Move to item two. "The use or change of zoning requested in the zoning map for the establishment of commercial industrial residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing a proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form." This is where you came with the chicken and the egg. Do you have a form, do you have a use, do you have a plan? Mullet: We had a site plan but all it showed was a buffer and a big blank square empty spot. Rants: You had the site plan here. Mullet: We had this one here which is not Rants: That was listed as an exhibit. Mullet: But was not listed as just an example as what was referred to I believe. Hernandez: I would like to refer to the Staff report to answer that on page 10. And I agree that the applicants request does not include sufficient information to evaluate the relationship of a specific development project in the surrounding area. Robertson: I agree, and referring back to the verbatim transcripts on page 11 when Mr. Blaylock said, "hey we ran into a little bit of a problem because we don't know what the use will be, I will state that very clearly, we don't know what the use will be." How can you without a drawing and an architectural plan for instance, how can you tell where the entrances and exits will be, how big buildings will be, where they fit in. There's no way to even begin to evaluate the impact on surrounding uses. And in this case, surrounding uses are residential at least on three sides. Rants: Further comments? Number three. "When a request is not in agreement with a comp plan the applicants shall provide evidence to City Council satisfaction there is an additional need for the requested land classification." Comments? Hernandez: I just don't see anywhere where we've seen where there is this justification that the criteria asks to be provided. There appears to be ample commercial property on Hwy. 99 that's vacant, some of 6 it. I haven't seen any evidence that there's a shortage of commercial property, or that we really have a demand to create more additional commercial property. Rants: All right. Robertson: OK, again.... Mullet: I would back Joan up on that. Again this -we do have a request for a rezone. It's basically while we do have a particular use at this property which is not attractive in any way shape or form at this point in time, it still does not -it's not enough in itself to say that this should move from residential property to commercial property. Robertson: I agree again. Looking at page 11 at the verbatim transcripts where the applicant themselves say that they don't know what the use will be. How can you build a case that there's initial need for the classification and the use when you don't know exactly what the use is going to be? Back again on page 10 of the Staff report to the Planning Commission, applicants response, "GMA requires cities to plan or provide for expansion within the urban growth areas." Well that doesn't have anything to do with this case. But it goes on to say, "the act has been implemented since the City adopted its current comp plan. It is this applicants understanding that the plan is now under review for modification consistent with legislative mandates of the act." I'm not sure what that means but it says, "the Hwy. 99 corridor is a prime candidate for designation for commercial expansion required by the act. Well first off I don't think the act requires commercial expansion anywhere, not in specific terms. If the act did matter. But even more importantly, the property we're dealing with is no on Hwy. 99, it's on 42nd Avenue, it borders 42nd. So I don't think the applicant demonstrated any additional need for request of land classification. Rants: Item four. Mullet: In my opinion the only changes that have occurred in the neighborhood surrounding this piece of property have been for the betterment of a residential area. We have a brand new high school, we have a brand new library going on, these are all things that benefit residential areas primarily. So again I see no evidence presented that would justify changes the zoning on this piece of property. And it's a different issue than getting rid of the trailers that are there and putting up some decent residential housing. Rants: OK, item Robertson: I also agree and would like to point to page 10 of the Staff report again on the bottom. The applicants response again was the Growth Management Act has been enacted. "The increased demand for city social services e.g. places evidence of a deteriorating neighborhood. This property in its present condition is a major contributing factor to that deterioration. The request of rezone will make it economically feasible to renew the site." Well, I don't think anybody questions the fact that there's demand on services by the current use of that property. But the issue isn't the current use. The issue is the zoning and I agree totally with what Steve said. The Councilmember Mullet, that it's possible to rebuild something other and reuse that current zoning for something other than the trailer park that's there now. Rants: All right. 7 1,40 Craft: Actually I think there were many citizens that spoke out in favor of the rezone. On the Staff report on page 13 under rezone recommendations, actually the Staff had earlier recommended that it be denied, however here on rezone recommendations the Staff did say that if sufficient justification for rezone at a public hearing could be heard that Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission consider alternatives. Part of those alternatives are for office designation along 42nd, C -2 regional commercial designation, the remainder of the site and so on and so forth. It said that if the applicant could justify a commercial designation, Staff recommended further evaluation prior to approval as follows. And there it's recommended as C -2. There were a lot of citizens that actually spoke out in favor of a rezone. Robertson: I think yes, but the basis for the citizens speaking in almost every case was that the current use is onerous and a heavy user of police services and causes fair amount of difficulty of surrounding properties. That's not the zoning's fault, that's the fault of the current use and the way that it's perhaps managed. If you look -again Staff said, if the applicant could provide sufficient justification at the public hearing. On page 12 of the verbatim transcripts again what I'm doing now is looking for justification for a rezone. And on right at the top there where it says 7 -27. "Significant changes have occurred in character conditions in surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise sustain the proposed rezone. This one I can get myself into trouble with the client because I think the use has come to its end, it's age end, it's like a building." He goes on but there's nothing there that factually says anything. It mearly says an opinion that the use has come to its age end like a building. It doesn't say why or what has to occur. There's no argument there there's some opinions. If a -look at the next paragraph. Again it talks about public health and interest. I think some of the discussion is around the issues that we're really not here to discuss which is correct, the concern over policing and everything else. So the applicant himself even says that concern over policing, that those aren't the issues before us. That's not a basis for a decision. Rants: You're moving into criteria number five, where that becomes part of that criteria. "The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety." Mullet: Actually I felt number five was like number six and really didn't belong in there. It's more like what we would consider if we were downzoning a piece of property where we would cause a- -where we would change the property value and impose some hardship on an individual property owner. By actions we took as opposed to by actions he took. Which is what we're dealing with here. Robertson: Again, if you look at page 11 of the Staff report under the applicants response, "a proposed rezone would enable a redevelopment of the site reducing if not entirely eliminating the burden presently imposed in the City's public health and safety services." Well that could still be done under current zoning. It doesn't require- -there are as stated elsewhere here there are two other trailer parks in the City that are successful and are not problems to their neighbors. Do not cause substantial police problems or public safety or health. So if there is a problem there it's with how this one is managed or used or the history of it. But it's not a problem with the zoning. Rants: Any further comments? Hernandez: I agree, it's just not indicated anywhere how C -2 zoning is going to improve the neighborhood- -how it's going to serve the neighborhood. Or how ifs going to be in the best interest of public health and safety. Robertson: I would like to add one summation that we are in the process of going through a very elaborate comprehensive planning land use process and with the zoning process and the applicant 8 )176) certainly can participate in that, there would be plenty of opportunities in the near future for zoning changes. What I didn't see demonstrated in the public record anywhere here either in the material presented to the Planning Commission or material presented to us at the public hearing. Anything that would meet the decision criteria presented for us to -that would enable this comprehensive land use plan change or the zoning change. I have a hard time with the hardship question because I believe there is plenty of opportunity for both of those to occur, in fact we have a process underway right now to do comprehensive planning and zoning. That should terminate by State law within the next year or so. Those changes will be considered anyway as a due process. Rants: The issue before the Council at this point is to either uphold the Planning Commission recommendation, or to grant a rezone and continue with that recommendation. Council's pleasure? Robertson: I think we have a third choice, don't we? Rants: You have a third choice? Let's hear it. Robertson: I don't believe we have -the Planning Commission actually proposed a zoning comprehensive land use plan change. Could I ask the City attorney to reiterate the choices that we have tonight? Linda Cohen: The Planning Commission made a recommendation. It would be helpful to vote on their recommendation but also to go through and have a motion with respect to the comprehensive plan amendment and then a separate motion as to whether or not the rezone criteria were met. So to be safe you can address all three. Robertson: OK, then I would make a motion that we disregard the Planning Commission's recommendation for a comprehensive plan and zoning changes to this site. Mullet: I'll second that for discussion. Robertson: The reason for that is that there is nothing in their record to show that they went through the decision criteria the same way we did and arriving at their recommendation. And without that as a basis I can't find enough -I'm not sure if it's legal or proper to approve of their recommendation. Rants: The motion then is to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation and leave the property Robertson: I don't think we have to overturn, I think it's just disregarded. It's just a recommendation to us, nothing else. Rants: Disregard that recommendation. Mullet: I would like to add one other thing to that and not making -I'm not belittling our Planning Commission in any way shape or form. They labored very hard over this from what we can tell from the minutes, from the decision to do this. In the process of coming up with their decision from the testimony we got they came up with the decision that nobody else seemed to like either. It was not a win situation for any of the parties. At that point that's like the final straw for me to disregard that. Rants: I'm trying to state the motion so that everyone understands what were voting on here. 9 Robertson: OK, can I speak, I guess to the motion? The motion is to disregard the Planning Commission's recommendation. I guess I want to be real clear, I'm not faulting the Planning Commission. We had one real advantage they didn't have, we had their record and their material to review, they didn't have anything before it. It's very easy to sit here and build upon someone else -what someone else has done and critique it. It's a lot of harder when you're doing it the first time through so I'm not faulting them or saying in anyway, we had an advantage that they didn't have. But that still -the issue is that the decision criteria that we have to follow there is no evidence that they followed it as rigorously as we did. Rants: OK. All right, any further comments, discussion? Ekberg: I'll just add to that that Staff members briefed the Planning Commission on what their requirements were for reviewing this comprehensive plan amendment for rezone request. And it's stated on page two of the Planning Commission minutes dated December 8th by Ann Siegenthaler. As we were briefed earlier last week when we heard it a few weeks ago, they were also briefed to what the criteria is. Rants: Joan? Hernandez: Well I would just like to say that I'm not opposed to this site being redeveloped and I think that the exuberance of the Planning Commission probably leaned that way too. They were probably anxious, as anxious as anyone to have to see this site redevelop and thinking that it would be an improvement. But I really don't feel like they followed the criteria and I- -we're told that the criteria must be really met and it fails the test. I agree with Rants: Joe? Councilmember Joe Duffie: Well I kind of go along with the Planning Department and what they had to say on this. You think that this site really needs to be cleaned up. I don't know how we're going to do it unless we rezone it. If the situation we got here now is going to continue to stay in the shape that it in and unless we rezone it for C -2 this site will continue to do this I don't think there's nothing in our ordinance to make us, mandate us to make him clean up this site and we've heard from the neighbors and this site is very unaccepted into the neighbors. Ekberg: Can I have a point of clarification? Is there a motion on the table? Rants: There is. Ekberg: So we should be talking to the motion? Rants: Should be talking to the motion, that is disregarding the Planning Commission's recommendations. Duffie: OK now what is the Planning Commission recommendation then, tell me that. Robertson: To rezone or to do a comprehensive land use plan change and to rezone such that there is a line drawn basically through the center of the property north to south approximately that would change that would add to the commercial designation, the commercial area the area designated commercial. And detract some from the area designated residential on 42nd. 10 Rants: That has a little bit of flavor of the way you feel about it, as opposed to what it says. Mullet: Basically Joe, maintained R -2 on 42nd which is duplex and allowed C -2 on 99 for 270 feet. Ekberg: Just to ensure that point's clarified, it's on page 11 of the December 8th Planning Commission minutes. It states, "Mr. Haggerton moved to amend the comprehensive land use plan for the area under discussion L92 -0022 and L92 -0023 to divide the property approximately in half with the commercial designation adjoining Pacific Highway South and residential along 42nd Avenue South. The first 270 feet adjoining Pac Hwy., Pacific Hwy. South be zoned C -2 and approximately half fronting 42nd Avenue south remain R -2." Mr. Flescher seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved. Rants: The motion on the table though is to disregard the Planning Commission's recommendation. Any further Craft: I'd like to speak against the motion. I think that we do have the minutes from the Planning Commission but we don't have verbatim transcripts. When we look at our minutes there's a lot that's lost and I think there's something that happened at the Planning Commission that isn't part of the written public record. I would really like to uphold the Planning Commission's ruling because I think we would all like to see this area redeveloped. Just wanted to say that. Rants: Any further comments? Ekberg: This proceeding for ourselves, and I'd like the attorney to assist me on this, is this called a de novo proceeding? Cohen: Yes. Ekberg: Yes, and can you explain that once again for us? Cohen: Rather than operating just from the record itself, you also took testimony from the applicant and Staff, you received new evidence, that makes it de novo. Ekberg: All right. The point being that we had our own public hearing on this process and both sides of the party spoke to us about this matter. Mullet: I would just briefly like to address Joyce's concern. In that I specifically asked the applicant if they would be able to respond to that type of a split and they said no. And specifically asked all the residents that testified at the meeting if they could respond to that and they said no. And that's why I said it seemed to be a decision, even though it would move forward towards some kind of redevelopment, maybe it wouldn't because it might not be a workable solution. Rants: All right. All in favor of the motion say aye? (Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, Craft, DeRodas) Those opposed? (Duffle) Well, where do we proceed from here. Robertson: We deal with the comp plan proposed changes and the zoning. Rants: OK. 11 Robertson: OK, well then I'll Rants: Steve you have the microphone there. Mullet: I would make the motion that we disallow the proposal because it does not fit the comp plan criteria. Rants: You're speaking of the comprehensive plan designation? Mullet: Comprehensive plan designation. Under the decision criteria in my opinion possibly the first one might fit but two and three don't and it's my understanding that they have to fit all three. Robertson: I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded to -I almost hate to try and repeat that. Robertson: To deny Rants: To deny the comp plan designation. Hernandez: I would just like to say that we've been told that the burden of proof is on the applicant and I don't feel like that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal meets the criteria. Rants: All right. Robertson: I share Joan's view. Rants: All in favor say aye? (unanimous) Those opposed? (none). OK, that brings us to the zoning designation. 2887 (could not hear comments) Rants: I wouldn't think so. Is there anything else Cohen: You just need to decide whether or not it meets the rezone criteria. That's the last motion. Robertson: We do have to do it. Rants: We do have to vote on it I guess. Ekberg: I'll make a motion to deny the rezone based on criteria of the clients not being met for the comprehensive plan. Rants: Is there a second? Mullet: I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded, discussion. 12 Robertson: I'd like to make a friendly amendment that it not only be based upon criteria one, that the denial also based on criteria's two, three, four and five since again, the burden of proof rests on the applicants parts and they did not prove the criteria format. Rants: Is there a second to that amendment? Robertson: The amendment was to add criteria two, three, four and five. Ekberg: I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye? (Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, Craft, DeRodas) Those opposed? (Duffle) We are back to the original motion, refusal of the zoning designation. Ekberg: I'd like to have the motion read please. Hernandez: Based on the fact that criteria is not being met for a rezone. Ekberg: What the ..(unclear).. says is denial on the rezone based on the comprehensive plan not being met. So when I mean rezone, I mean one through six, one through five. Rants: All in favor say aye? (Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, DeRodas) Those opposed? (Duffle, Craft). Robertson: Wally, I would like to add that I am not opposed -and I think in general the Planning Commission and much of the City would like something being done there. We have a process underway right now and we would add that -I hope that you participate in the comprehensive -in the process we have underway for changing the comprehensive land use plan and the zoning map and that much of the City would like to see a change. This just wasn't appropriate. 3027 (comments from audience unclear) Rants: Mr. Kim, I'm sorry but I don't think it would be in your best interest to do that right now. Old business. END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT FOR SOUTHGATE PARK REQUEST FOR REZONE, APRIL 4, 1994. 13 Southgate Comp Plan /Rezone: Attachments A. Memo to Mayor from Rick Beeler (3/21/94). B. Tukwila decision criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones. C. Diagram of applicant and Planning Commission recommendations. D. Planning Commission hearing minutes (12/8/93). E. Applicant exhibits submitted at Planning Commission hearing (12/8/93). F. Letter from resident (12/2/93) submitted at Planning Commission hearing. G. Tukwila Tomorrow minutes (11/4/93) submitted at Planning Commission hearing. H. Supplement to Staff Report to Planning Commission (12/2/93), with letters from 2 residents. I. Staff Report to Planning Commission 10/20/93, with Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone applications (7/1/93). Letter of comments from citizens in response to original applications (3/20/92); J. Original Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone applications (1/92) (attached for reference only). K. Citizen involvement opportunities. L. Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (10/20/93). (ft Verbatim Transcript Quasijudicial Request for waiver to Ordinance #1679 (Moratorium) Blue Star Motel April 4, 1994 Rants: Public hearing has been closed on this, it is time for Council deliberation. Council may approve the waiver, may approve the waiver with conditions, or may deny the waiver, those are the three issues that we are speaking to this evening. Robertson: Could I suggest a process? There are really four rules that we are given to aid us in deciding this matter. If we were to discuss all four rules in order to the Council before we put a motion on the table, our deliberations might be clearer. Basically the four are 1) intent of the moratorium, 2) interest of the City, 3) circumstances and hardship, 4) caused by and damages from strict adherence to. Duffle: You need to speak up Dennis, I can't hear you. Robertson: I hear me just fine. Mullet: Are those are listed in the pamphlet somewhere Dennis? Hernandez: Yes, page three. It starts on page three. Robertson: I think if we followed that discussion we dealt with the intent of the moratorium and discussed that point on it, we discussed the next one the interest of the City and the third one, circumstances and hardship and the fourth one is damages resulting from strict adherence to the moratorium prior to putting a motion, on the table we'd Have a clear understanding of the Council what we were deciding. Hernandez: I like that approach. Rants: All right, intent of the moratorium. Robertson: Since it was my idea, I'll lead off by saying that the intent of the moratorium itself- well first off the moratorium was to stop the -it was the moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and issuance of new business licenses and building permits for certain uses on Hwy. 99 in this area. And specifically, the next whereas deals with "specific experiences of Tukwila with the motels, hotels, taverns, pool rooms, liquor stores and night clubs located along Hwy. 99 have been counter to neighborhood livability and public health and safety." it seems to me that clearly with the application before us fails the first test which is the intent of the moratorium, it clearly violates the intent of the moratorium. Specifically it is an application for a motel. For building permit for a motel on in the subject area. I don't know what else can be said about that. Rants: Other discussion? Mullet: There is some discussion of whether it a new application. If you want to go on -I'm not sure it's a clear violation, I think it falls within the categories. Whether it's a clear violation or not I'm not so sure that's an issue that gets into vesting and some other things which are still a little uncertain in my mind as to how this particular one was handled. 1 Robertson: Yes, I think that comes up later on in the -this one just says, hey does this come under- in my mind of the moratorium? If we were talking Mullet: Yes, I would agree it comes under the preview of this moratorium. Robertson: It's a motel and it's in the subject area, there's absolutely no question in my mind there. Rants: Joan? Hernandez: Well, the motel, hotel, taverns, pool rooms, liquor stores and night clubs are all included in this moratorium because of the fact that they attract the criminal element that we would like to eliminate. There seems to be a high concentration of these types of businesses on Hwy. 99. The intent of the moratorium was to prevent further proliferation of businesses that create more criminal activity which we don't need. This does fall in that category and in that criteria. Rants: Any one else wish to speak on this Allen? Ekberg: I'll concur with (unclear) the reason we're looking at this moratorium waiver tonight is because this sort of application for business does involve a use which would be prohibited by the moratorium. According to our waiver process we've allowed an opportunity to waive that. As Dennis mentioned, as been concurred what's before us does fall under the guidelines of the moratorium and the waiver process to that moratorium. Rants: Anyone else wish to speak to this? Intent of the moratorium. Should we continue then with the interest of the City? Robertson: Well the Staff report on page five which is item attachment A, Staff report prepared March 21st 1994, lists a couple of points when it talks about the interests of the City. It balances the idea that the proposed motel contributes to the neighborhood, it adds a well designed project of appropriate scale where there is nothing but a vacant lot now. That would be a plus. One the other hand it says, "conversely the use is inconsistent with the City's vision to redevelop this area with neighborhood rather than with a regional orientation." That's the only basic input there. I looked through the rest of the material and couldn't find a whole lot myself different then what the Staff report said there. Rants: Any other discussion on City Interest here? Mullet: I'm not so sure Dennis that the last sentence -I agree with what is said there but I'm not so sure that the last sentence of sticking something with the city's future vision is appropriate. I was trying to refer to the moratorium to see that -I thought the moratorium was because of the crime and what not that went on up there on this type of an activity. Was there something in the moratorium that specifically applied to the City's future vision to redevelop this neighborhood? Robertson: Well in the second "whereas" response to that on the Ordinance 1679 it says, "whereas the previous experience of this City with these land uses the potential enactment with State regulatory legislation and the pending development with the new comprehensive plan and certain implementing zoning regulations by the City require the City thoroughly consider all aspects of zoning and business regulations." It seems to me that that relates to the fact that we are indeed working on a new comprehensive land use plan and zoning map. 2 L Mullet: Right, I'm just not sure that the City's vision has been developed yet. Robertson: It's certainly not complete. Mullet: Right and that's what I was trying to get to. So whether this is a- -we've talked a lot about certain kinds of things going up there, it's always been my feeling that the crime that comes out of certain types of these places was by far more important issue than the type of activity that was -all of that is important to our current vision but the current problem, the thing that made the moratorium an emergency was the criminal type activities that were going on up there. Robertson: That's correct, but also the fourth "whereas it says, "whereas a new comprehensive plan at this time envisions a neighborhood activity area which is substantially different than the current regional retail focus of Hwy. 99 and substantial detriment to this vision would be caused by allowing contrary land uses." I think there's a tie there although I don't think that's as clear a strong point as the other one. Rants: Is there anyone- -Joan? Hernandez: We certainly don't want to discourage economic vitality and development. If this would be something new and it would encourage redevelopment of this particular area so that's a positive. Whether it fits in with the recommended vision with this particular corridor that's the dilemma. So you have to weigh that I guess against what it's going to add. If it's going to add criminal activity or whether it's going to add revitalization or development and it's going to contribute to the tax structure you have to just weigh all these things and decide. It's a tough decision as to the best interests of the City. Rants: Dorothy? DeRodas: I'd like to point out along with your line of thought that this is a business which attracts transients, people who are passing through. But we must consider the welfare of our neighborhoods. The people who live here everyday. Rants: Joyce? Craft: Yes, I would just like to bring up that I kind of was involved when the moratorium was enacted and I would just like to call on the other City Council members why we had a moratorium rather than something else. That was maybe before my time and I don't remember why we used a moratorium as opposed to some other method but we did use the moratorium as a way to kind of stop development while we have a chance to take another look. Rants: The moratorium issue was to do exactly that, to slow things down so you had a chance to look at it carefully. That's why there was a waiver process put in though so that you could look through the issues of each one as they come to you and make a decision that based on the criteria that we looked at this for this week. As I look on page four at policy one it says, "to allow for a diverse mix of uses. Create through public and private recognizable compact pedestrian oriented neighborhoods to redevelop in the area. Change of land use designation from general commercial to mixed use category." It seems to me that by using those, not using the moratorium wording as such that it seems to fit in there. But that's just an opinion that I have right now. Are we ready to move to the next issue, circumstances and hardship? Do you want to go first on this one? 3 Robertson: I want to go back to the last point for just a second. It seems to me that part of the intent of the moratorium was to change an image, the character of a neighborhood. The character of that strip along there is anything but desirable. That part of the City. Everything from rather infamous history of murders, of young prostitutes through a significant drug activity and prostitution and that still continues. By far the largest number of our calls are in that area. The overall intent and long range is to change that whole neighborhood from one with that image, one that yes -and I'm not sure how to say it other than that. So I think we have -when we balance this whole thing we have to remember that the purpose of the moratorium and the reason the Council decided to do a moratorium for that part of the City is that we felt that the appearance, just the overall amount of crime in that area was so great, so much more of a problem anywhere else that we wanted to ensure as we went forward with our comprehensive land use planning effort that indeed we were able when this was all done to substantially change the neighborhood activity -I guess that's the right word in the cynical sense -of that area. That's a difficult thing to exactly say how to do, in the social engineering sense, but we did feel when we wrote the moratorium that having everything from the pool halls, more taverns, and the motels that were regional in nature and that brought in the transients detracted from a positive neighborhood influence. Rants: All right. Circumstances and Hardship. Any one wishes to speak to this? Hernandez: Well obviously we heard testimony last week about the expense that this particular owner has incurred in his development process that's been going on over the last several years. I think that testimony reflected at least between 40,000 and possibly as high as $100,000 with redesign efforts. So that certainly does pose a financial hardship for the developer and for the property owner. Rants: Did we come on down this way then? Is there -Steve did you want to speak to this? Mullet: One of the problems with this whole thing revolving around hardship I guess it's all relative to some degree but this whole process has been a hardship on this group attempting this development. And I don't go back four years because I think they blew their first two chances with this because they basically tried to do what the Staff told them wouldn't work. Even going back two years, they put considerable time and effort into this, the Staff put considerable time and effort into it developing what they thought would be a viable product on this property. And the Staff knowing full well what's going on up there also even without our moratorium was working to develop a viable product. And then it happens that just as everything is coming together for these people, the moratorium slips in there in the interim between their approval and their official approval. Apparently one they could apply for. And these types of things don't seem to be addressable anywhere, this somewhat falling- through- the cracks type of thing has been bothering me greatly on this particular project. I just feel that if there is a hardship possibly it falls within this category but I'm still quite uncertain in some of the other categories that they don't have -that they haven't overcome the obstacles. We can rezone a piece of property, we can put a moratorium on a piece of property, we can not force anybody to buy that piece of property and build what we want there. You can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink. So we also have a balance point here when we deal with these things. Part of the waiver process is to give us a chance to look strongly at a project, it's not a building that brings in problems to the neighborhood, it's how the building is managed, what is done there. I agree that there are certain places up there that are drawing in a crowd that we don't want to see on 99. I'm not sure that this one would not draw in a crowd, it would depend on how it is run. it is very difficult to separate a physical piece of property from how it is used. And I'm not sure that no matter how much we legislate we're going to be able to do that. But I think this definitely falls under a circumstance hardship situation for this waiver that would allow them to at leasc apply in that area. 4 Rants: All right, Dennis? Robertson: I'd like to reference two things, one again the Staff report dated March 21, 1994 on page two which is attachment A. The very first part talks about the history of it and it breaks it down into five parts. Project was first submitted to the City in September of 1990. Staff basically advised the applicant it probably would not be approved. In the spring of 93 the owner dismissed the original project architect and hired Shawn Park of GoldCo Development Inc. to manage the project. GoldCo submitted a new proposal in June of 93. The board reviewed the project that's the Board of Architectural Review -at a public hearing on June 24, 1993 and concurred with Staff that the proposal should be revised again per Staff recommendations. In addition they recommended redesign of the storm water system and the applicant hire a registered architect or engineer to prepare the new proposal. So then there's a new proposal that comes forth after June of 93, that's less than a year ago. Then GoldCo goes on to say they hired a new architect and civil engineer and revised the project. The architect met with City staff on a number of occasions, changes were made they responded to all concerns voiced by City Staff and the BAR. The project was heard again by the BAR on November 18, 1993. OK, the Board approved the project as submitted with one minor condition, so that that point they had a Board of Architectural Review approved project. Then approximately one month and three days later, on December 21st, they were sent a notice on the moratorium that had been adopted on December 6th. So it seems to me that the time period we're dealing with is that time period between the BAR. If I'm going to be real cold and hard and factual about it, the time period is between when the BAR review the proposal November 8th and December 6th when we approved the moratorium. In fact on page eight of the verbatim transcript Mr. Beeler, the Director of DCD said the same thing. Part way through he says, "I'd like to make one point here that's very important to this application. And that is there are two distinct phases of this project of development of the Blue Star Motel. The first phase went on in the Board of Architectural Review process. The process netted a decision by the BAR. As Councilwoman Craft indicated by her question, that review process took several turns and some revisions and that is not altogether uncommon for a BA project redesign." He goes on -and I want to skip a couple sentences to read the next part that says, "the bottom line is that the moratorium is the second phase of development and the hardships, circumstances, etc. the moratorium waiver criteria all relate to that process." So we are really talking about several weeks from the time that the BAR passed it November 18th to the moratorium being enacted in December 6th. He goes on to say, "does not relate to what went on in the BAR process, the hardship associated with this application is that of proceeding past that, past the BAR." Now, after I said all that, I'm going to point out that while I think that's the cold hard facts, I'm not terribly comfortable with that point because the applicant had been going through a process of many years that you pointed out. Now the $40,000 plus that was described here I think basically deals with the time prior to the November 18th. I have a very hard -I don't think there's much at all spent from November 18, 1993 until December 6th of 93 when the moratorium was passed. So I don't think there's a great deal of financial hardship again looking at it from a cold hard fact standpoint. If you say that everything went on before hand doesn't really matter, that's just part of the normal process and that you don't have a project until the BAR approves it. I'm going to shut up at this point. Rants: Allen did you wish to speak to this? Ekberg: I kind of went through some of the same stages as you guys. I looked at our attachments G that had an outline of time line. Specifically on page 6 it talks about November 18th 93 BAR and public hearing was held and concluded with approval of design which the next sentence says he is ready to submit a building permit. The building permit could have been requested or submitted. It goes on to say that the City Council passed our ordinance 1679, it doesn't provide a date, but the ordinance was passed by the Council on December 6, 1993. There was a window of opportunity to 5 submit the application. January 24, 1994 there was a request of waiver ordinance. Although we talked about the November 18th date for the BAR and the December 6th date for the Council passing the ordinance, it's the December 21st date 1993 from another document in here states that a noticed of decision was mailed to the applicant that they could proceed with the next stage of their project development. That notice stated on November 21st was mailed after the waiver, or after the moratorium was put into effect. So Staff actually sent a mixed message. Along that statement of notice of decision to proceed with the next stage of the project for development it would also say hey, by the way, on December 6th the waiver the moratorium was passed which now effects you. That notice of the decision to proceed should have occurred or been processed between the BAR review of November 18th and the Council passing of the ordinance moratorium on December 6th. I'm not sure what the approximately one month delay was. I feel this is relevant to the consideration of the hardship and specifically the circumstances surrounding the hardship. Rants: Any one else? Craft: I went through this same process and I just wanted to speak to the fact that in Tukwila I think there are a lot of buildings that people have great pride in and I think the planning staff feels very good about the process that applicants go through and the kind of design that comes out of that that's a very normal thing. I think the speed at which the applicant goes through the BAR process has to do with how flexible they are to work within the guidelines of the City of Tukwila and the design standards that the city has. So in my mind at least it's very clear to me that the length of time during the BAR process really is not part of our consideration tonight and that the part that we're concerned with would be that part after they got approval to go ahead and they were notified of the moratorium I guess that in the moratorium we do talk about vested rights. "The moratorium created by this ordinance does not apply to properties with vested rights on the date of enactment of this ordinance. Vested rights shall be defined in accordance Anyway it's a fully completed building permit application. I don't know myself clearly if we have that with this applicant. I don t know about that. We don't have a fully completed building permit. That's all I have. DeRodas: I believe as indicated by several Council members before that we have to consider this period between November 21st when final approval came through and when the moratorium came. Now I've got to speak more -or -less from the heart and talk about the people of Tukwila. We had a -I don't recall what it was called but it was a call for businesses and people living on Hwy. 99 to come and the meet and to discuss the future of developments on Hwy. 99. Those people and those businesses as I read the report are looking for developments that are not going to give rise to the continuing of crime police reports. I think our Tukwila neighborhoods are very concerned about anything which could give rise to more problems of community scale. That's my personal feeling. Rants: Moratorium. That brings us then to the fourth issue, Damage Resulting to Strict Adherence To The Robertson: Wally, there seems to be three tests to that proposed by the Staff. One is you look at the damages to the applicant, the damages to the neighborhood, and damages to the City. In a way of thinking of that. Unfortunately I didn't write my reference. If I went back those damages to the applicant clearly if we strictly adhered to the moratorium and we do not allow an exception the applicant cannot file for a building permit for at least six months until the moratorium wares off and a new comp plan things are finished. So the applicant loses at a minimum that amount of time. It is possible that during the time of finishing the comprehensive land use plan and zoning map Rants: Are these microphones working? Mine is working. 6 Robertson: Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? I could tell you all to move closer -ah, no. Anyway, to the applicant I think that there's several issues there. One possibility is that if we strictly adhere to the moratorium the damage is one, at a minimum of delay of filing for a building permit and building something until we complete the comprehensive land use plan. Second part of that is there is the possibility that the new comp plan zoning map will in some way change or prevent the building of this motel. If it changes it to some type of different building, then I assume that there is architectural costs and other costs to the applicant. I think a strict adherence to it will cost the applicant money and time and may possibility prevent the proposed development altogether and require something different. There's just not way of knowing that at this point. Second, damage to the neighborhood is a little bit harder to deal with. As I said earlier it seems to me there's a -and I kind of echo what Dorothy was saying, there's an intention of the part of that neighborhood to change its image from what is a fairly rough retail area, regional retail area to one that is a neighborhood. And a friendly neighborhood for people to walk up and down the streets. But it's really difficult to say that one more motel, especially one that is well designed like this one will actually hurt that. The third part, is to the City. And the motel does contribute to the crime problem. There is a possibility to try and mitigate some of that with conditions although I'm a little bit less of a fan of creating more administrative conditions. That's just more laws that we have to comply but again I think that ones a hard one to define to. Clearly the motels that we have there now and this type of activity have definitely contributed to the crime activity in the area. Rants: Anyone else wish to -Joe? Duffie: OK I would like excuse me -we had public meetings on the moratorium on 99 and the people came out and they spoke and they told us what kind of motel -what they want to see up there. They did not want to see any more motels that anything would bring more problem in that they have up there today. They want to make 99 and they have told us to make 99 a place where they can go, walk the street at night, walk the street period without being harassed, without being propositioned. The situation we have up there things should have gone, the police we have there now that have straightened up a lot of that activity on 99 what they are hoping we can continue and continue to bring decent organization or motels or whatever we're going to put up there to make sure that we don't bring any more the things that we have going on there now that we've tried to get rid of. So I know it's been a hardship on the owners, I know they've been going through a lot to try and get this hotel built or what else they want to put up there, but we as Council have to do, we have to sit here make suggestions that what is the benefit to our City. I think that's what we have to look at. Is this motel that's coming in here, is it going to add to our problem or is it going to defeat our problem? I think we really have to do- -we have to take on the circumstance that what all the Council have said, is this what we want there? Once we put that motel there there is no law -I mean there is no way we can get rid of it. We have to make sure what ever we put there is going to be something there to uphold the City of Tukwila and not to bring shame to what we have up there or what we've had there in the past to the present. So I think it's very important that the Council have deliberate on all these facts. Now what we've decide here to do is I know that they gave us criteria that we would need to put on if this waiver is granted. I just want you'all to understand that what we're doing here today is that moratorium was strictly put there for the purpose of not having people go over there and start building things that we do not want there, that was not going to bring class to 99. That's what we're here for. To make sure we put class on 99 and not just an overnight thing. Rants: Thank you Joe. Joan? 7 Hernandez: Well, back to what we're considering this criteria, Damage Resulting from Strict G( 1) Adherence to the Moratorium, the damage that could result could be that we could continue to have a vacant lot there, that also attracts the criminal element or we could take a gamble that something else might be developed there more envision with what we think would be more infitting with the vision. But we don't know for sure what that would be. It could be another 7 -11, I'm not sure that would be any better than a motel. There seems to be plenty of motels along this particular avenue of Hwy. 99. But it's all very subjective. We don't know. WE don't know whether this motel will be an incentive for some of the other hotels to redevelop and improve themselves. I drove down Hwy. 99 today and noticed several vacancy signs on some of the less desirable motels. Maybe if this brand new motel is built and filled it will provide an incentive for some of the less desirable buildings to revitalize and improve themselves. We don't know. It's all very subjective and we don't know. We can speculate and we can guess but we don't really know. It's all very subjective. Rants: Steve? Mullet: This is a summation that we're doing now? Hernandez: We're on the third criteria. Rants: Now we're on Damage Resulting from the Strict Adherence, we'll come to opinions or options pretty quick. Mullet: I don't know, I just feel that this particular project falls into a lot of cracks and there's a lot of speculation as Joan said it could go this way it could go that way. It could improve the neighborhood, it could be another one that detracts frorr the neighborhood. I think they put a lot of work into this, I don't expect to see much damage from the neighborhood but then I could be wrong too. Rants: Joyce? OK, anyone else wish to speak to this, Dorothy? OK, we'll go down the row then, Craft: I just want to talk about damage. It's really hard to say about damage to the applicant because there is a possibility that this motel could be built and the whole area could be redeveloped into another classification. That is always a possibility that an overall zoning change would happen. So there's always a certain amount of risk as a developer that you take and its quite possible, it is possible, maybe not likely but possible that a change in the zoning would actually make the value of the land worth more. The different type of development so there is the opportunity for rise either way for the developer. As far as risk or damage to the applicant or to the neighborhood or to the City, I have to say that to me the moratorium for whatever reason we put a moratorium in place what we have is a legal instrument and for whatever reason we had that's irrelevant now, we have something in writing that says certain things. I think it's kind of hard for politicians to say yes or no, it's much easier to say well maybe and put a lot of conditions on things. And there's a lot of discussion in 1994 about being politically correct but I think that I would just encourage all of us to remember that even though we are politicians we are sitting here as quasi judicial hearing and we are acting as judges. We really have to go on what is written rather than what we thought or what we remember. So it seems to me that using those guidelines really I don't think we're talking about damage to the applicant, there's the potential of damage to the neighborhood also it might improve. Damage to the City, if we're really trying to redevelop this area a vacant lot is a plus rather than a negative. That's all I have to say. Oh, I do want to say one other thing about the criteria. If I went to a motel that I'd never been to before and I saw all those signs posted I would leave. I wouldn't spend the night there. You face those notices in the lobby wouldn't you be somewhat suspicious? Aren't we kind of encouraging something? Rants: Dorothy? DeRodas: Well briefly I just want to point out one thing that we haven't considered. And that is is there the need for this business? Do we have a need in Tukwila? Obviously our neighborhood hasn't felt that way. I'm trying to speak for the people, that's all I have to say. Rants: All right. Allen? Ekberg: In the overall scheme of things we currently -do you have to have established what our future policy direction is for that highway? I can't see us applying future policy direction to the situation that we have before us, this one particular situation we have before us because of the circumstances surrounding the application, the BAR and things of that nature -I'll talk more about that later. I do feel on a visionary purpose that what we want to do with that area of the Hwy. is not this industry or this potential is not compatible with that. So I'm not going to allow that to get in my way. The facts that we have before us and what's occurred previously to this point of time. I'd like to see it develop into a neighborhood residential area as well. I don't feel an overwhelming compulsion that damage will result with this specific business being placed at this site. If we have a quality hotel going into that location, would that not be a positive feeling on the surrounding neighbors? And that type of businesses that are there. Could there be a leader in the crowd versus one of the followers of the existing establishments? With the design plans that we have before us, it looks like we have a leader in the crowd which could offset the potential concern we have about damages based on future policy that we may set. Rants: I believe the options now for the Council are to approve the waiver, approve the waiver with conditions, or deny the waiver. How do you wish to proceed. Ekberg: I'll make a motion to approve the waiver, pass the amendment with no additional requirements. Rants: There can be no second, I would entertain another motion. Hernandez: All right. I would. I don't feel like this is compatible with the vision of what I would say that the neighborhood wants, but we did establish this moratorium to prevent future development that we thought was incompatible. I do feel like when we did the moratorium we established a waiver process and in that process we tried to be as fair as possxole and to give an opportunity for people to come before us if they felt it was a hardship. This particular applicant did come before us at the time we enacted the moratorium and told us that this would be a hardship. I believe that this might be one of those cases that we could approve with conditions and set the conditions such that would guide the future development of that property so that it would be something acceptable, more acceptable in the neighborhood. And therefore, I would like to move that we do approve it with conditions conditions 1 thru 7 as published in this March 29 memo would be acceptable to me. I would be also willing to consider other conditions in addition to one that I would like to suggest that we add it to this particular list, and I can read it if you'd like -if you think that's necessary. Ekberg: Joan, just for a second could I interject here. Hernandez: Sure, Okay. Thank you. Ekberg: I would suggest possibly approving the waiver with conditions. Hernandez: Okay. 9 c (o(a Ekberg: And get a yes or no vote on that and decide the conditions afterwards. Hernandez: Right. I'll be quiet for now. Rants: There's a motion made to approve the waiver w:.th conditions and is seconded? Ekberg: Yes. Rants: But the conditions are not stated at this point. Ekberg: Yeah. Rants: Alright. Discussion. Question. Dennis? Robertson: In going through the four criteria intent of the moratorium the proposed use clearly violates the intent of the moratorium There's no question about that. We talk about the interests of the city; that's a less clear argument. Circumstances and hardships, again being clearly objective and looking at the fact and taking the input both in writing from the Administration, from the staff, and the verbatim transcript from the public hearing; if the actual hardship only begins after the November 18 date in 1993, then there is in fact a very minor hardship in money and effort invested in this on the part of the applicant. If I go on the fourth point, damages from strict adherence to the moratorium; there's a clear potential...There's a clear damage to the applicant in that if nothing else he gets delayed with other ones possible. I understand what the other council members have said about the impact to the neighborhood and I also understand the city's crime problem. So with that point, I'm speaking against the motion because I think that there has been no... Again, if I take the clear objective look and say that the actual date that the hardship began is November 18, 1993, then I cannot in good conscience think that that's -from November 18, 1993, to December 6 is much of a hardship. That's the problem I have. I can't balance that against it. If I was to go back 2 years or 4 years, then I would have a different view of the hardship. But I think the hardship in that short period of time is not substantial. In the testimony, both in writing and in transcripts is fairly clear that the hardship begins at the November 18 date. So I'm speaking against the motion and that's the basis. Rants: Alright. Is there any further discussion. Mullet: Well, I'd like to speak for the motion because I disagree with Dennis's statement about where the hardship begins. And I don't find any interpretation that says it begins at November 18. Their real work on this process began in the spring of '93 where it went to the BAR with the new outfit; they redesigned it per BAR specifications and it moved forward at that point. Rants: Joan. Hernandez: Okay. I think that not only do we have to think of the hardship that is maybe on the applicant; I think we have to think of the time that our staff has devoted to this. It's gone through our Planning staff; it's gone through our Planning Commission; we've put a great deal of time and effort into this. And I would, since my motion was seconded, Allan with your permission, could I read the conditions because I think they are very important to the vote on this particular issue -which way it goes. Would you agree to that? Ekberg: I don't think so. Hernandez: Well, okay. In speaking in favor of the motion then I would have to say that by putting conditions on this particular development that would require things like the manager to live on -site, surveillance cameras in the lobby, installing proper lighting, and I would like to recommend exterior stairwells things like that that are visible that detract from the criminal element and help it to be monitored by our Police Department.. I think that by imposing conditions like that we have the 10 2 t 6-Cgq; opportunity to do that through this waiver process, and I think that this would improve the likelihood, the less likelihood of a criminal element being established on these premises. I think that is important. Rants: Did you wish to speak, Joyce? Craft: I do wish to speak against the motion. Primarily, I'd just like to say that I think that any ordinance that the City Council passes has quite an effect on many people, and I think ifs very important that a lot of thought and planning go into any ordinance that we pass. And personally I would like to see us pass an ordinance that might stand or not bother passing the ordinance. And I think it's very important to be specific when we word an ordinance and say what we mean. If we didn't mean what we said, then we should have said something else. If we meant to say most motels, not all, ones that meet certain criteria, we should have said those things. I, personally I think it's a waste of our time and taxpayers dollars to write an ordinance and then not stick to it. And as far as I'm concerned we came out with an ordinance that was very specific about a moratorium; then we thought about it and we thought we needed, in fairness, to have a waiver process. And the waiver is actually very specific; it doesn't talk about the type of motel; it talks about who can have a waiver, it talks specifically about vested rights and I'm just questioning -you know- -are we writing an ordinance that we're going to discount in the future. I'm speaking against the motion. Rants: Anyone else? Allan. Ekberg: My concern for the redevelopment of that highway corridor is really important. And I think what we need to do there in the future is to have a vision that we're trying to set forth now through Tukwila Tomorrow through the Highway 99 Committee.. This specific application, or this specific consideration of this property development is something that we knew about while we were looking at developing the moratorium It was on lists of projected developments for the City that we have access to, public information. It's not a surprise that we all of the sudden realize that there's a hotel being developed. That's not a surprise; it shouldn't be a surprise. When we were considering the moratorium, that hotel was taken into consideration. It was our belief that they may have had an opportunity to move forward. That's my recollection; I don't have that as knowledge before me. What I do have as knowledge before me is the BAR date on November 18 and the public hearing that was held that says it was okay to move forward. What I also have in front of me is the December 6 tape where we passed an ordinance, the moratorium on that highway. And what happened after that on December 21 a month after the BAR review, the Planning Department notified the applicant which is found in..(unclear)..of notice of decision to proceed with the next stage of the..(unclear)..development -a month after BAR approval to go forward. So the applicant received that notice and in concert with that notice, the Planning Department notified them of a waiver moratorium was put in place on that highway as well. Therefore, you can't really apply for an application to build. So the Christmas holidays kick in after December 21 and letter goes out and the first part of January develops, and the applicant says now what do I do. Let's talk to staff. The staff says well we have no waiver requirement in our current moratorium. What can we do? Well lets bring to Council a request for a waiver..(unclear)..to the moratorium. We say good and we deliberated that on January 24, and we approved it on January 24. No excuse me, we talked about it on January 24 and on February 7 we passed a moratorium, or the waiver to the moratorium. But also the night that we technically approved the waiver to the ordinance which was the night of January 24, the following day or that same day we received as Attachment C the waiver to our existing moratorium. We received a request for a waiver to our moratorium before we passed the moratorium into the law on February 7. I think these dates lend themselves to the credibility issue with the City and the Council establishing a moratorium without allowing the waiver process to be in place. Creating a waiver process after we found an applicant was caught in the middle, not having a final solution to that. I think the dates lend themselves to the circumstances that surround this type of hardship before us. That's the thing I'm concentrating now on. Cohen: The moratorium was actually in affect at an earlier date. It was later amended to include the waiver, but it was valid as originally passed on Tuesday, it was a January date, then it was a January date. Ekberg: Well I'm looking at Attachment I and help me clarify this please, but it says it's passed by the City Council on February 7, 1994. I quote, Passed by the City Council, the City of Tukwila, Washington at the Regular Meeting on the 7th day of February, 1994. It's my contention that on the 11 It26) 24th of January we talked about it at a COW and gave it approval to go forth to a regular meeting for passage. That's what Attachment I declares. Now, help me out if I'm incorrect on this. So I think we have an applicant caught in the middle of a hardship situation where the intent of the moratorium was not to exclude them. When the moratorium was passed and we found out it did, a waiver process was brought forth to the council for approval for this specific applicant to move forward. By denying this waiver or the request for a waiver, I think we are not following our previous commitments to move forth on this development. Mullet: I agree with you entirely, Allan. The whole circumstances as this has developed, and I've been on the Council since the day one on this from informal comments to the time we actually put something in writing. This particular project was basically vested; +hen suddenly when the moratorium comes in we have a new definition of vesting which was never mentioned before. Then we get a waiver process which was, should have allowed them to continue and now we're finding ways to kill it within the waiver process. And I cannot in conscience vote to disallow this project in any way shape or form. Rants: Joe. Duffie: Okay. I'm sitting here listening to Steve and the rest of the Council. I agree with Steve. We did put this in, the building in..(unclear)..here. The simple reason because we voted to put a moratorium on this and they were caught in the middle here. Other than that I'd like to go along with the citizens say to deny them of this waiver, but if you really look at it, I think we did do one thing of which I'm very sorry we did, we caught them in the middle and so now we need to approve this waiver. And I will go along with the approval of this waiver with the 7 conditions as we stated here. It's not that I want to do it, it's just the idea that we created a problem here on our own and I think we need to try to work our way out of it. And this as far as I'm concerned is that we approve the waiver with the 7 conditions. Robertson: Wally, call for the question. Rants: I call for the question. But I really don't want to cut off discussion if. DeRodas: I'd like to ask for a clarification. I take exception with Mr. Mullet's definition of vested rights, and I'd like to have Ms. Cohen address that. Cohen: Ms. Craft read the definition of vested rights. Spelled out...Attachment I. DeRodas: Well, vested rights shall be defined in accordance with Washington State case law as those properties which have been submitted to the City, a fully completed building permit application which is in compliance with the zoning and land use codes in effect on the effective date of this ordinance. I'm quoting from the ordinance dated 7th of February. Cohen: That's correct. The date of the moratorium. That is the definition of vested rights. It's contained in the ordinance. The moratorium was effective as of, I believe its dated December 6. That's ordinance number 1679 which is attachment H. It was later amended in February to include the waiver provisions. DeRodas: My question then is, are vested rights applicable in this instance? Cohen: No, they are not vested. DeRodas: Okay. Rants: Motion has been called for. Robertson: Wait, Wally I'd like to make a couple statements. One, I disagree strongly with Council Member Ekberg's and Mullet's remembrance of what occurred. The fact that this motel was in the 12 21 to (.21, process of being worked is no different than many other things. At no time when I considered the moratorium and voted on it did I in any way intend it to reflect any application for a particular piece of property. And, where exactly this particular application was in the process at that time we voted on the moratorium, I did not know and I did not care. Call for the question. Rants: Call for the question. I was going to remind you of that... Joan. Hernandez: Well I would just like to say that this is the second moratorium I've been involved in on the Council, and I really don't like moratoriums either. But whenever you have a moratorium, I think it's only fair that you have a waiver process, and we did that. We did that with the sensitive area ordinance when we had a moratorium, and we did it now. And I just think it's only fair. This isn't...I don't like doing this, but I think it's the only fair thing to do. That's why I'm voting for it. Rants: A yes vote. Will approve the waiver with conditions. I would like to do it by roll call please. Clerk. Duffle: Yes. Hernandez: Yes. Mullet: Yes. Robertson: Yes. Ekberg: Yes. Craft: No. DeRodas: No. Rants: Thank you. We have the matter of conditions. Does the Council wish to take that up this evening. Do you wish to put something on the table. Hernandez: I'd like to include the 7 conditions. I'd like to read them if I may. Rants: Fine. Hernandez: And then if you approve those, I'd like to add 1, suggest 1. Number 1, ensure that grounds and public areas are clean and well maintained. Two, install adequate building exterior and site lighting. Three, install a surveillance camera in the lobby. Four, require the manager to live on premises, identify the current manager and provide their work schedule to the Tukwila Police Department if applicable. Five, install a sign in the lobby stating that management cooperates with City of Tukwila Police in any investigation on the property. Six, require positive identification of all occupants of a room at time of registration. Seven, photocopy identification at registration and make this available to the Tukwila Police Department at their request. Rants: And you wish to add eight? Hernandez: And I would like to add eight. That the design incorporate exterior open stairwells. Duffle: Second. Craft: I'd like to remove one item from that. 13 Rants: I have a motion on the table for 8 items at this point. Now do wish to amend that? You may do that. Craft: I'd like to amend it. Rants: And your amendment is what. Craft: I would like to take out the number five, install the sign in the lobby stating... Rants: Item five, you wish to have removed. Is there a second to her, to Joyce's amendment? Ekberg: Second. Rants: It's been moved and seconded. The amendment comes first. Is there any discussion on the amendment of removing the sign from the lobby, item five. Duffie: Well, okay, I would like some information on why do you want item five removed. Craft: Because I believe that...Again, this is just my own experience; if I go into a motel lobby to get a room, and I see a sign like this, then I'm going to think that this is an unsafe place. If I don't care about a sign like that I don't care if it's an unsafe place. To me it just sets the tone for an unsafe place. Rants: Joan. Hernandez: Speaking against the motion, if I was a criminal and I went into a motel and I saw a sign in the lobby that the management cooperates with the Tukwila Police Department, I would run right out the door, so I'm not in favor of removing that myself. Rants: Any further discussion on the amendment? Amendment states to remove item five from the list of conditions. All in favor say aye (Craft); Those oppos:,d (Duffie, Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, DeRodas) Rants: Alright, we're back to the original eight conditions. Ekberg: I'd like to add a motion..(unclear)..to remove item six and item seven from the conditions. Rants: There is a motion to amend to remove items six and seven. I have not heard a second yet. Duffie: I'll second to hear what he wants to say. Rants: You may speak to the motion. Ekberg: I'm speaking regarding items six and seven. Item six says requires positive identification of all occupants of the room at time of registration. From someone who's done business traveling and social traveling, I think if I ever went to a hotel or motel where I had to show them my picture I.D. in order to get a room, I might consider not staying there. The real clincher is item 7 where they take my photo I.D. and they make a photocopy of it, I would definitely not stay there. I think, if we enact six and seven, we'll be turning customers away. Who will they have stay there. Even respectable business people won't stay in a place where their I.D. is required. It's my thought on it. Rants: Any further discussion on item six or seven. Joan. Hernandez: Allan, would you consider separating those. Because I would agree to removing item number seven, but I don't think number six is unreasonable when people might be cashing a check, you have to ask for identification, some type of identification. Ekberg: I'll submit to separating them. Joe, you seconded it...111 retract that motion. Duffie: Yeah, that's fine. Ekberg: Okay, so the motion's been retracted. I'll make a motion to amend the conditions to not include item 7, photocopying identification at registration and making this available to the Tukwila Police Department at their request. Rants: Is there a second on the withdrawal of item 7. Duffie: I'll second it for discussion. Hernandez: I would agree to that. Duffie: The only thing I would say is when these seven were read last week, the owners didn't have any question about it, and if he thinks it's good then why should we different any of it cause he thought it was a good idea. So if that what he likes, then I suggest we leave it in there. That's all I have to say. Ekberg: I appreciate you seconding the motion for discussion. And the discussion I have regarding that, we are setting a precedent here for potential future hotels, and even though this one applicant may be okay with it, is this the policy we want to set for all future hotels on the highway or the central business district or anywhere else in the City. And on that note, I think not. Craft: It seems to me that if we're going to approve this motel, we should...There are many motels that operate on 99 and I don't think it's fair that if we approve this motel we set them apart with all these rules and regulations. I feel that if we're going to approve them, we should just approve them and assume that everything we'll be fine. If the operation does not run well, we always have the opportunity to strengthen controls. I think this is a real hamper; this would hamper the owner from having a good establishment. Rants: The motion is to remove item 7. Dennis. Robertson: I guess I'd like to speak against the motion, and in doing that, I would suggest that we add another amendment and that we allow these conditions to be removed at the...basically by the administration after a reasonable period of time if the administration feels... Rants: Why don't we entertain that as a motion after we've gotten through and not confuse the chairman here. Robertson: No, I wasn't making a motion, I was making an argument saying there's another way to handle this. Rants: Alright. The motion on the table is to amend, by the removal of number 7. All in favor say aye. (no response); Those opposed (unanimous) Rants: Your eight conditions are still in tact. Robertson: Okay, I would make a ninth motion or amendment, not a condition, an amendment to these conditions saying that upon the written request of the chief of police and the concurrence of the mayor, any or all of these conditions can be removed if felt not to be necessary by the city council at a later date. What I'm... Craft: I'll second. Rants: You are...We understand your amendment here, number 9. All conditions, any or all conditions can be removed at a later date with whose approval? Robertson: With yours and the police chief, presented to the city council. 15 Rants: Administratively. Robertson: Administratively, yes administratively. With notification to the Council. Rants: Is that satisfactory...We have an amendment so it's no addition of number 9 to your motion. Did you have a second to your amendment? Craft: Yes, I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. (unanimous respomse); Those opposed (no response) Rants: We now have nine issues on the conditions and the motion is on the table to approve these nine conditions. All in favor say aye (Duffie, Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, DeRodas); Those opposed (Craft). Rants: Alright, the conditions have been approved. END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 16