Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-17 Regular MinutesTUKWILA CITY COUNCIL January 17, 1995 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; JOYCE CRAFT, Council President; STEVE MULLET; DENNIS ROBERTSON; ALLAN EKBERG; DOROTHY DeRODAS. Ekberg Excused MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG. MOTION CARRIED. OFFICIALS JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; RHONDA BERRY, Asst. City Administrator; LYNN DeVOIR, Parks Recreation Superintendent; RON WALDNER, Chief of Police; DARREN WILSON, Code Enforcement Officer; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Code Enforcement APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS OF THE MAYOR Brd. of Adjustment Pos. #1 Arts Commission Pos. #1 Assistant City Administrator Rhonda Berry and Code Enforcement Officer Darren Wilson gave an informational overview of the City's code enforcement program. Mayor Rants read a Proclamation designating the fourth week of January as Cultural Diversity Week. Mayor Rants asked Council to concur with his recommended appointments and /or reappointments to various boards and commissions. The following motions were made: MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO REAPPOINT MABEL HARRIS TO POSITION #1 ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. TERM EXPIRES 12/31/98. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO APPOINT BRIAN KENNEDY TO POSITION #1 ON THE ARTS COMMISSION. TERM EXPIRES 12/31/98. MOTION CARRIED. Sister City Committee MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO J' Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting January 17, 1995 Page 2 Annointments (con't) Pos. #5 Library Advisory Brd. Pos. #1 Library Advisory Brd. Pos. #2 Human Svs. Advisory Brd. Pos. #4 Economic Development Advisory Brd. CITIZENS COMMENTS CONSENT AGENDA 12/19 Minutes Withdrawn REAPPOINT CINDY VICTOR TO POSITION #5 ON THE SISTER CITY COMMITTEE. TERM EXPIRES 12/31/98. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO REAPPOINT RICHARD SIMPSON TO POSITION #1 ON THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD. TERM EXPIRES 12/31/96. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO REAPPOINT DAVID KISTLER TO POSITION #2 ON THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD. TERM EXPIRES 12/31/96. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUNFTE, TO APPOINT KAREN (K.C.) DEVER TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF POSITION #4 ON THE HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD. TERM EXPIRES 4/30/95. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO REAPPOINT THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. TERMS EXPIRE 12/31/96: ♦POSITION #1: BOB HART ♦POSITION #2: SARAH SKOGLUND ♦POSITION #3: JACK FLESHER ♦POSITION #4: DAVE COSTAIN ♦POSITION #5: BETTY GULLY ♦POSITION #6: ELAINE BELLWOOD ♦POSITION #8: DENNIS LENSEGRAV MOTION CARRIED. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th St., displayed sweatshirts the South Central School District is currently selling. a. Approval of Minutes: 11/21/94; 12/5/94; 12/12/94 (Sp. Mtg.); 12/19/94; 1/3/95 b. Approval of Vouchers: Nos.76044 through 76277 in the amount of $1,056,486.36 Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting January 17, 1995 Page 3 Consent Agenda (con't) Discussion of 12/19/94 Minutes (from Consent Agenda) Recess 8:25 p.m. Back to Order 8:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Request for Waiver to Hwy. 99 Moratorium Econolodge Hearing Opened 8:38 p.m. Hearing Closed 9:44 p.m. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.* Councilmember Robertson requested the minutes from 12/19/94 be withdrawn for discussion. *APPROVED AS AMENDED. Councilmember Robertson questioned the wording of a motion he made at the 12/19 meeting which dealt with a 1995 budget issue. Following discussion it was determined that the motion was transcribed verbatim from the tape, and that based on other considerations, the issue could be determined a moot point. Robertson withdrew his opposition. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO APPROVE THE 12/19/94 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants called the meeting back to order with Councilmembers in attendance as listed above. Ouasiiudicial: Request for waiver to Ord. 1721 (moratorium) from Wen -fan Lin and Virginia S. Lin, Econolodge, 4006 S. 139th St. The applicant requests a waiver in order to proceed with design review, environmental review, and permits for construction of an approximately 40 -unit hotel (expansion of the existing facility). See attached verbatim testimony (37 pages). Council Action: •MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO DENY THE WAIVER APPLICATION. MOTION CARRIED 6 -0. •MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO DENY AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting January 17, 19915 Page 4 Public Hearings (con't.) Interim Tree Regulations Ord. #1726 Renewing Interim Tree Regulations Mayor Rants opened the public hearing at 10:47 p.m. Rick Beeler, DCD, explained that the proposed ordinance renews for six months the interim tree regulations that are currently in effect. These regulations are scheduled for consideration in a permanent ordinance with the development regulations pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan. There being no public comments forthcoming, the hearing was closed at 10:49 p.m. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City attorney Cohen read AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM STANDARDS FOR TREE CLEARING AND PLANTING; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 1726 AS READ.* Councilmember Hernandez questioned why the clearing and grading ordinance wouldn't adequately protect the type of vegetation referred to in the interim tree ordinance. Beeler explained that when the clearing and grading ordinance was created there were two processes in place, one for the vegetation itself, and the other for when the land (earth) was affected. There is some overlap between the two categories, but the decision was made to keep the issues separate. The land altering ordinance applies whenever 50 cubic yards of fill is removed regardless of what you do with the trees or vegetation. The interim tree ordinance is for the vegetation. Hernandez voiced her concern that residents are running into difficulties when they attempt to remove trees that they consider "hazardous" from their property. With the current provisions, the owner must apply for a permit and have staff verify that the trees in question are truly hazardous. Councilmember Robertson clarified that Council attempted to constrain the impacts of the ordinance by limiting it to sensitive areas only. Hernandez said she was not sure she would support the final ordinance unless Council addresses some of the areas that are Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting January 17, 1995 Page 5 Public Hearings (con't) Interim Tree Regulations Motion to Extend Meeting 11:00 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Ord. #1727 Establishing Lower Minimum Parking Requirements for City -owned Property making it so difficult for property owners who just want to maintain their property. Councilmember Mullet acknowledged that staff has reviewed the regulations and made recommendations on how to make it a better ordinance. He said he could support renewing the interim ordinance. Councilmember Duffie agreed. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING NOT TO EXCEED 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Cohen read AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TUKWILA ZONING CODE (TITLE 18, TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE) TO ESTABLISH LOWER MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY OWNED OR OPERATED COMMUNITY CENTERS. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1727 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Councilmember DeRodas questioned why the ordinance should address city owned /operated property only. Councilmember Robertson explained that since the City manages the community center, it would be able to regulate events that would not cause overflow parking into the neighborhood. If parking became a problem at a later date, the City could pave the unused portion of the property in order to expand the parking lot. Councilmember Hernandez stated she had a problem with the City making exceptions for itself that are not allowed for a developer. Councilmember Craft agreed, stating she felt the City was setting itself apart from the rest of the world. Councilmember Duffie favored the ordinance given the fact that the City owns the community center and would be able to govern the events scheduled, thereby controlling the crowd and parking needs. Robertson disagreed that the City was being treated differently than commercial property owners. No one commercially operates a community center. The proposed ordinance originally included Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting January 17, 1995 Page 6 Old Business (con't) Ord. #1727 Establishing Minimum Parking Require- ments for City -owned Property Ord. #1728 Allowing Software and Similar Uses in the PO Zone. REPORTS Mayor Motion to Extend Mtg. 11:15 p.m. parking regulations for exhibition halls and other such types of businesses. The uses of a community center differ dramatically from those of an exhibition hall. There is no hard data that says the lower requirements for the community center are inadequate. However, data has shown that some other parking requirements may or may not be inadequate. Councilmember Mullet concurred. ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE HERNANDEZ CRAFT ROBERTSON MULLET YES NO NO YES YES DeRODAS YES *MOTION CARRIES 4 -2 (Ekberg absent) MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED Cohen read AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TUKWILA ZONING CODE (TITLE 18, TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE) TO ALLOW COMPUTER SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND SIMILAR USES AS A PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE P -O ZONE. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT ORDINANCE NO.1728 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants suggested Council keep an eye on HB 1010 which restricts some agencies' rulemaking authority, i.e., Director of Ecology, Director of Dept. of Labor, Director of Dept. Licensing. Rants offered a copy of the information to those who were interested. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting January 17, 1995 Page 7 Renorts (con't)1 Council Staff ADJOURNMENT 11:22 p.m. Councilmember Mullet reported that final rulings on the expert noise panel were presented at today's ACC meeting. The Council Analyst will provide a copy of the official findings to Council. Councilmember DeRodas reported the Duwamish Improvement Club will meet on January 20th. Due to the street construction, the meeting may be moved to the community center. John McFarland reported he would attend an ACC Technical Committee meeting tomorrow to discuss the integration of some of the Cutler Standfield recommendations into the City's comp plan. McFarland briefed Council on a meeting he attended with Burlington Northern. The City will be continuing its dialog with BN on trying to find ways to make the compatibility of what they do down there a little more compatible with the people who live down there. McFarland said further information and recommendations for resolution and /or mitigation of the problem would come to Council in the next few weeks. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. Johr Rants, Mayor Ja e Cantu, City Clerk Public Hearine Quasijudicial: Request for waiver to Ord. 1721 (moratorium) from Wen -fan Lin and Virginia S. Lin. Econolodee. 4006 S. 139th St. Econolodee January 17, 1995 Verbatim Transcript, prepared by Jane Cantu, City Clerk Those Particinatine: Mayor: City Council: Citv Attorney: City Staff: Applicant: Public Testimony: John W. Rants Joyce Craft, Council President; Joe Duffie Joan Hernandez Dennis Robertson Steve Mullet Dorothy DeRodas Linda Cohen Moira Bradshaw, DCD Rick Beeler, DCD Jane Cantu, City Clerk Wen -fan Lin and Virginia S. Lin Dwight McLean, resident Pam Carter, resident Mayor Rants opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Moira Bradshaw. DCD: My name's Moira Bradshaw and I'm an Associate Planner with the Dept. of Community Development. To start off I'd like to enter into the record the packet that you have as Exhibit #1 and then as Exhibit #2 would be the public hearing notice that's in your regular packet. First of all I'd like to go through a quick background for the applicant's property. I think it would be helpful if you turn to Attachment B where they have a vicinity map enclosed on Page 23. The subject site is on 139th, just behind the Derby Tavern which actually fronts on Pacific Highway. If you look on Page 25, in Exhibit #6, you have a photo of their existing adjacent facility which is just to the south of 139th. The applicants purchased the subject site, which is a 1940's 17 -unit motor court in 1979. In 1984 they then purchased a site across 139th to the south and built their approximately 47 units hotel. Then in 1989, they applied to King County, when it was under King County jurisdiction to demolish the existing 17 -unit 1940's facility and construct a larger three story wood frame hotel. The property was annexed shortly thereafter, and it was determined that the building permit was not vested and the applicant was told that they could then apply to the City of Tukwila to construct their desired hotel. They came in for a pre -app and they were given the appropriate codes and procedures and they chose not to continue with their construction process. Then in 1 September of this year the same owner, Mr. and Mrs. Lin, came to the City of Tukwila to apply for a demolition permit for the 17 -unit motel and they were apprised of the moratorium. They then prepared their waiver petition which consists of Attachment B. What I would like to do is go over the moratorium that we have. It was initially passed in 1993 in December. It has been renewed several times. There exists in there a waiver clause for property owners who feel that the moratorium causes an undue hardship with respect financial, personal, or other reasons. In considering the waiver petition, the Council has criteria to consider: the intent of the moratorium, the interests of the City weighed against the interests of the individual, the circumstances and the hardship caused by the moratorium, and the damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. We have included the damages that could result to the City, to the neighborhood, as well as to the applicant. For the intent of the moratorium, it's clear that it's intended to put a hold on development until the draft comprehensive plan becomes final and the City has chosen the policy course that they will pursue for the (Hwy) 99 land use. Currently, there is the intention that in order to improve the livability and the public health and safety for that area, that the City should pursue a neighborhood commercial land use for that area. Motels, hotels, taverns, and pool rooms typically are not considered neighborhood commercial. The point would be to hold on any decision until a final decision by the City Council is made. The interests of the City weighed against the interests of the individual: Again, the interests of the City are to wait on any private decisions of individuals to vest in motels, hotels, liquor stores and taverns until the City has had a chance to debate and deliberate on the final course of action for the (Hwy) 99 land use plan. The interests of the individual have been laid out in the application. The applicant jointly manages the 17 -unit motel, which is a single story separate six unit facility as well as his internally hotel unit which is 47 and they have internal lobbies. Basically, the difference between a motel and a hotel is that motels are accessed separately. All of the rooms are accessed separately from the outside. Hotels, typically, are accessed internally through internal corridors. The applicant has had problems with the clients to whom they rent their facilities and has stated that the existence of the motel has caused a personal hardship not only in having to deal with the people who are attracted to their 17 -unit facility, but also a business hardship in that it jeopardizes the continued operation of the 17 -unit motel, jeopardizes the hospitality ratings that they have from AAA and Mobil. The third criteria would be circumstances and hardships caused by the moratorium. Again, the applicants talk about the personal hardships of abuse from clientele attracted to their facility, the lost opportunity for financing. They talk about the financing that they have been able to achieve to re- develop with a new facility. The ratings for AAA, Mobile, the high cost of operating and maintaining a 50 year old motel that exists, and all of these resulting hardships on the applicant's personal and financial life. There can also be considered circumstances and hardships that the continued operation of the motel has on the neighborhood as well as the City. If both the existing circumstances and if the property were to become a non conforming use per a new comprehensive plan, you would continue to have a substandard motel being operated in the vicinity. The applicant has talked about selling the facility and has mentioned that they have been unsuccessful in attracting a buyer to the facility. And even if the applicant were to sell the facility to someone who would continue to operate the motel as a motel, 2 ig you'd continue to have the undesirable activity that apparently has been attracted and generated by this facility impacting the neighborhood. The fourth criteria would be damage resulting from strict adherence to the moratorium. There's the damage to the applicants, and again, those were the items enumerated before and the circumstances and hardships. The damage to the neighborhood would be that the continuation of an out -of- date, unattractive motel that attracts undesirable activity. The damage to the City with the motel again is the continued out -of -date undesirable activity. The advantage to denying the waiver for the City is that in the long term, presumably, the applicants -if the motel were to become non conforming, the applicant's use would presumably go away faster than if you were to allow the motel to continue or to redevelop into a new facility. You would have a much longer life with a new facility than if you were to keep the existing 1940's motel, allowing it to become a non- conforming use, and to continue indefinitely in the hopes that it would be redeveloped with a new neighborhood commercial use. And so that's in essence what the Council must weigh in making a decision about approving or denying this waiver. The intent of the moratorium, to summarize, was to give the City the opportunity to discuss and debate how to achieve and improve that area's livability and to provide for better compatibility between the commercial businesses and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The intent of the moratorium is to provide you with that time. On the other hand, you have the hardship and circumstances to this particular applicant who has an existing 50 -year old, 1940's facility that is difficult to operate, that is out -of -date, substandard, costly to maintain, and in general a nuisance to the community. They at this point have the financing and would like to proceed with City processes to redevelop that site. And so, the City will have to decide if the opportunity to upgrade that particular facility and that particular neighborhood with a regional retail use, outweighs the cost of a regional retail or service environment that may be contrary to what is eventually adopted by the City in its comprehensive plan and its development regulations. The staff has recommended approval with the conditions identical to the Blue Star (Motel) conditions because we felt that the short term benefits of redevelopment could potentially decrease the amount of criminal activity or undesirable activity and potential redevelopment that could occur surrounding this facility outweighed the long term impact to a plan that could potentially be of a different type of land use, more of a neighborhood commercial land use than a regional retail land use. And so it was looking at those criteria and weighing the costs and benefits, or the advantages and disadvantages of all of the four criteria, that that conclusion was arrived at. So, may I answer any questions? Joan Hernandez. Councilmember: Moira, is this being treated as a new construction permit process or an expansion of the current or existing use? Bradshaw: The application would be for a demolition of the existing site. You cannot -at least that's what they have proposed. If you look in Attachment B, you'll see a site plan and a floor plan of what they had initially proposed in 1989 and it would presumably start off looking like that as well. In my opinion, I don't think that redevelopment of those existing 17 units is feasible given the nature of that existing 3 development. Because of the change in codes that has occurred, there's no way that you could really bring it up to compliance without totally redeveloping the site. Mayor Rants: Joe, then Dennis. .Toe Duffle, Councilmember: O.K., I think you answered part of this since we do have a moratorium up there on (Hwy) 99 and to what I'm looking at and I see that he wants to rebuild this, in order to -the way I'm looking at it -in order for him to rebuild this, he would have to have a complete demolish and start all over. And if we did that, then he wouldn't be in compliance with us, because if we have a moratorium, then that means that we have to lift the moratorium for a special permit for him to do this. Bradshaw: That's what this is all about, yes, sir. Dennis Robertson, Councilmember: I'm a little puzzled. Is the application for 40 units or for 47 units? Bradshaw: 47 units is their existing facility. Robertson: No, 17 is the existing, isn't it? Bradshaw: I'm sorry. This is slightly confusing in that the applicant has two separate sites, and they are across the street from one another. The existing 3 -story hotel is 47 units, and the site for this petition is the 17 -unit facility. They would be expanding, so obviously, they'll be expanding the number of motel units. They'll be changing from a motel operation to a hotel operation and increasing the number of transient units from 17 units to approximately 40. The applicant has not done a site plan for the City of Tukwila, so we don't know exactly what our codes and requirements would allow them to build. They have shown under King County, 40, but that was also 1989 codes. We have storm and surface water requirements. We have a different fire code. We have different landscape requirements, so we can't say exactly how many units they would get on their site. Robertson: The second question -and I think you answered, but I want to be clear. Is this for a hotel or a motel? Bradshaw: The applicant has shown a hotel. Robertson: What's the difference between a hotel and a motel? Bradshaw: A hotel is accessed through one entryway, usually, with rooms opening off internal corridors. Motels are accessed off exterior corridors -their rooms are accessed off exterior corridors. Robertson: Do we have different zoning requirements for hotels and motels? 4 Bradshaw: No, we don't. Robertson: Thank you. Rants: Any further questions of staff? Steve? Steve Mullet. Councilmember: I have to remember what is was now, I was with Dennis' question. Throughout the thing there's a lot of allusion to undesirable activities going on in the existing 17 units. Do we have any police reports that back that up? Bradshaw: The problem that I found is -what I suggest is that you talk with the applicant. One of the things that I found from a staff standpoint is that the 17 -unit 1940's facility is on 139th Street. It has an address off 139th, but the manager's office is on Pacific Highway. And so I was unable, in looking at records, to distinguish between the calls for service as to whether they were do to the 1940's facility versus the 1984 facility. So, you'll have to ask the applicant for their personal experience. Rants: Any further questions? Mullet: I have another one, but I lost my train of thought there. Their asking for a demolition permit which in no way requires that we waive the moratorium. Bradshaw: It's a building permit. Mullet: It's a future thing that what they do after they demolish it that requires a waiver from the moratorium. Bradshaw: We would not accept the demolition permit application, because it's classified as a building application building permit application. Mullet: So, we wouldn't allow them to tear down the old structure either without a waiver. Are we being asked to just give them a waiver to tear the old down, or to build the new hotel? Bradshaw: To do both. Mullet: And they can't be separated? Or they don't want them separated? Bradshaw: I don't know. You'll have to ask the city attorney. Linda Cohen. City Attorney: I don't know if they want it separated. The moratorium is to protect the status quo, so any change would require a waiver. I can't answer for the applicants whether or not it's acceptable for them to tear it down. 5 Mullet: But if he wanted to, we could separate them? Cohen: Sure. Rants: Thank you, Moira. Mr. Lin? Cohen: Maybe at this time anyone that's going to testify we can swear in at this time. Could you raise your right hand, sir? Rants: And the two folks that are going to speak on the public hearing part. Cohen: (to those ready to testify) Do you affirm that the facts you're about to give in this matter to be the truth? (Collective response from applicant and two citizens, "yes Wen -fan Lin. Annlicant: (distributed copies of written remarks). Rants: Mr. Lin, are you reading from this? Lin: Yes, what is your suggestion? I'm open to suggestions. Rants: You are reading verbatim from this? Lin: I intend to. Cohen: This should be marked as Exhibit 3. Lin: Good evening, my name is Wen -Fan Lin and my wife's Virginia Lin, sitting in the back there. We do business at Econolodge, 13910 Pacific Hwy. So., Tukwila, Washington 98168. Tonight I'm hear to make a request to the City Council and the City officers to waive for our development due to the Ordinance 1706 that restricts the newer interest of our old hotel /motel redevelopment. The Ordinance 1706 provides a window for the waivers and I'll mention that there are four items on there. And I'd like to go through each item and just mention a few main points which are not quite covered in the staff report. So I would not duplicate what has been reported. The intent of the moratorium: I fully appreciate -now, I am not against this moratorium. Actually, I visioned this way early before Tukwila has a thought to annex this area. Back in 1979, I purchased a small motel because I worked (unclear), and I saved some money on the side and I think about I should do something to provide my financial security like everybody's been talking about. So I have a nominal amount of money to purchase this rundown hotel. And I make it such that I don't try to run as nearby motel. I checked with local people as shown in my application. I have a van to go to the airport to pick up customers and bypass all the other motel business. And my mission is this: I'm going to make a change, so that I bring the good people to stay. That has been a continual and consistent effort on my part. I know that Tukwila is burdened with criminal activities on Hwy 99 6 and that maybe it was informed that a hotel /motel doing criminal activities. I want to make this very clear. Hotel /motels are also the victims of the criminal activities in the area. Now I cannot guarantee to everybody in this room that there are not illegal activities on the hotel owners' part, because I've heard some rumors. But I can assure you that most of the business owners are honest and try to (unclear), and occasionally they become the victims of the criminal. Sometimes we say that certain type of people are violent in nature, and we're quick to come to that conclusion, that those types of people are bad. But I would just say that most of the people are maybe innocent, and some people are bad, but most majority, the victims are the criminal as well. So, my intent to redevelop this one started in 1987. Then it took a process to talk to a banker and so forth in order to get the financing. In 1989, January, I have all the plans made up and then on the 3rd of January, 1989, I applied to King County. For six months I didn't hear too much from them. Then later on I was informed that Tukwila had annexed the area, so they stopped the processing. In September I finally got the word that they were going to send everything to the City of Tukwila to process. So I came over here to apply for the design review. I was told that I would have to start all over again because everything is so different. I talked to my bank and they're getting tired of this because the financing opportunity is only open for a very narrow window period. It's going to (unclear) for six months or more, so the bank -we started over. An so we got stuck. Not only myself. My family and also (unclear) have to suffer continuously. It's not quite true that I wait 4 or 5 years and then we try to redevelop this one. I've been constantly looking at the paper, talk to my banker to get a second change to redevelop this property. I cannot succeed. Everybody knows that the economy is not great and the financing is not that easy. But this year I was able to get my bank to agree on this. That's why I came in to apply. So I wanted to explain that I didn't wait 4 or 5 years and then come back. It's because the financing is the major factor in the development of a commercial property. Second item, the interest of the City versus the interest of the individual. Because this property is redeveloped then I think this neighborhood will be quite different, and it will be to the interest of the Tukwila city. Although there's one point that the staff mentioned. Tukwila would like to see something different like a neighborhood store. Now I don't know what neighborhood store I could open now. I don't know guns. I cannot open a gun shop and I don't know clothes, I cannot open a clothes shop. And if I develop to bring to somebody to do that kind of business, I will feel guilty. So the only chance that I can do is to continue my dream. O.K., I have a dream. I always dreamed I could someday make this property very nice, and to make it modern for all the business in the neighborhood. And I have dreamed that someday that this neighborhood business will follow me and take me as an example to redevelop this area, to rejuvenate their old buildings, so that our children, myself, our parents, can go walk down Pacific Highway South anytime during the day without being harassed and without having the feeling or a concern of being a victim of a crime. So that is one of our interests. And also, it's in the interest of the management and the business condition. Now, if you turn to the second page, everybody can see the sharp contrast between the current Econolodge building with its interior hallway and the (unclear) access. Third, the (unclear), which is (unclear)..., and the business people. People from the travel agency send to us from Canada to come 7 over here to fly out to the Caribbean and all kinds of places. We have a contract people who we see from time to time. We are not try to serve local people. If there are local people who come to this building, everybody including me and our staff will be around and we are going to take I.D. and also sometimes we just say, get out because we have your name here that you're not welcome to this property. So we are very (unclear) on this one. Now, on the left hand side you see this old building? This is a very insecure setting and vulnerable to all kinds of crime. It simply cannot be continued to operate. The third item, circumstance and the hardship caused by the moratorium. I think the staff have a very detailed account for this item, so I will not (unclear) it here. The last item, damage resulting from the strict adherence to the moratorium. As discussed by the staff, such a site is not marketable. Nobody's going to buy that. I tried to do this for many years. I tried to pass the buck to somebody else out of selfish reasons and for business reasons. It simply won't work. If it doesn't work and we cannot agree to develop, that means my savings in 1979, that were tied to the investment, will be all lost. We cannot choose (unclear) of the past to continue to operate either, because the cost of operation and the hardship and the maintenance is not going to make sense at all. Now, we have a vested right to pursue just as I explained that I didn't wait for five years to come back to redevelop. I have been constantly working until I found out that Second Mortgage Bank (unclear)...agreed that they're going to do the third mortgage -not a second mortgage -a third mortgage, because they saw me here for 10 years that I develop some trust from him. The bank would be willing to put a third mortgage on this one to develop this. So, it's impractical to develop for something else, because the experience plays a very major role on this financing. If I say I want to (unclear) of something, it doesn't work. A second thing is that this lot is tied to Econolodge in one financial deal. It won't be able to separate, to develop for something else. The last time I tried -what I did is, I was successful operating these 17 units (unclear) 80 -90 percent occupancy in the legal renter business. And the bank had to go ahead to (unclear) to make a loan to purchase this new lot and the to construct a new section of the hotel. And now they are willing to lend me the money to do this old section, and this is probably once in a lifetime that I can expect. I cannot expect a (unclear) from the bank who can do this. It's not my relative, not my friends, it's just see me there for 10 years that I can do it. So I have no other option other than this path. If this fails, I don't think I can duplicate this type of deal in the rest of my life. That's all I wanted to say. Rants: Are there any questions of Mr. Lin? Joan? Hernandez: You are the owner and the manager? You work there on the site everyday? Lin: Yes. Hernandez: Do you live on the site? 8 Lin: I'm not, but I'm very close and I'm on -call 24 hours. Hernandez: Are you the property owner of the property on the northwest corner of 139th, right across the street? Lin: Across which street? Hernandez: 139th. Do you own the whole corner or do you just own the property where the motel is? Lin: I own three lot that is housing 17 units, but not the corner lot which is a tavern. Hernandez: You don't own that piece of property? Lin: I have never owned that piece of property. Hernandez: You're not the owner of that piece of property? Lin: No. Hernandez: O.K., thank you. Rants: Any other questions? Steve? Mullet: I understand your frustration with the system and the way it works as opportunities go. Why did you build the new hotel instead of at that point in time, instead of buying that piece of property, tearing down the old one and building there? Lin: It's actually constrained by financing. I cannot take down the motel without paying the mortgage outright. So, only way to do it is that I build credit on this one, 17 units, and I use this credit to say that I can operate. And if I calculate in such a way that I have so many units there, I can open and then after that when this one becomes stabilized, then I can come back to tear this down. Just like you do remodeling of your house or kitchen, you don't tear down everything. You tear one part down at a time and then you move to another part. Mullet: Right. I understand. I guess I want to repeat my question that Moira said I'd have to ask you, and that's do you have specific police problems that you've had in the old unit? Lin: Yes. I have problems, and to be honest here, because the old building is attractive to the criminal activity, and when we say criminal activity, it doesn't mean that the owner of the property is involved in the criminal activity. Like I said earlier, we are the victims of the criminal activity. 9 Mullet: I'm not inferring that you're involved in the criminal activity. Lin: So it's there. It exists. That's why we have to check I.D. and sometimes refuse the people. We have a staff who are very alert. If we see somebody that is not reliable, then we try to encourage them not to stay here, or make another excuse in such a way that we are not going to be shot for discrimination or anything. We just say we need two pieces of I.D. here. We have a sign there. And we have all kinds of ways to weed them out. For example, it's very simple. If the people go into a room and all of a sudden you see the phone start ringing, you know a problem. So we have to get them out. This is all in the like the whole section of the motel. And it's very strange. You say that (unclear) the clientele. Why do this kind of people always want to stay in the slum? They can afford to pay all of the price to stay in the Econolodge, which is about double or triple the price. If (unclear) they can afford to come over here. Normal business people cannot afford, they always ask for corporate discount and Triple A discount or what kind of discount. This type of people they have a lot of money. When they come over with the money, they have $100 bills. However, the pattern is this. Even though they have that much money, they will only stay in the slum. And that's why I have the idea that this is the way to get rid of the criminal activity. Just do away with the old building. Mullet: I'm going to ask this again and try to be very specific this time. How many times have the police come to the old units because of criminal activities? Lin: I would say that we've called the police probably twice a month. Mullet: Twice how many? Lin: Two. Twice a month. And that is pretty heavy to us. And we don't actually do this unless we cannot handle it ourselves, because that would mean a police car sitting in front of our lobby -I mean the canopy area. And we cannot do business in the Econolodge. And that's why one time the Triple A took away our Triple A license because the guy doing the inspection here saw something very undesirable. I finally got it back in the last two years. I'm on Triple A right now. But I could lose that at any time if we operate and continue in this way. Rants: Any more questions? Dennis and then Joe. Robertson: Mr. Lin, on page 7 of Attachment A, the staff report. In the recommendation, staff made six recommendations as conditions for approving your request. The last five recommendations require: positive identification of all occupants of a room, a photocopy picture identification at registration, install a sign in the lobby stating that management cooperates, with City of Tukwila police, five, install a surveillance camera in the lobby, and six, require manager to live on premises. Can you believe that those are necessary and would make a difference in the criminal activity that occurs? 10 Lin: It' a good suggestion overall except one item. Let me say that the keyed access, that's very important, that is what we are doing. That is what we have in the Econolodge. The second one, require positive identification and the photo picture I.D. -this is not very practical. We have a sign sitting there on the counter saying we require two pieces of I.D. and we can enforce that anytime we want. I mean the people can see it. However, we only do this discretionary, because for example, if you go to the Doubletree Inn and you want a room and the clerk looks at you and says o.k., I don't trust you, I want your picture I.D. and to take a copy of it, I think that you will feel not comfortable. We have a lady that turns out to be the minister's wife, and we ask for I.D. because the police say we should ask for I.D. from everybody, she says I've been all over places in the hotel, but this is the first one that's asked for my I.D. And of course, the people who have I.D. always produce I.D. They have nothing to fear; however, it's just that it's a very unpleasant situation. So, I would actually request that we lose this item (unclear)... We always want to make sure we don't take the nonsense type of business. We enforce them to produce I.D. If they have any history, then we will insist on it. If they have the slightest hesitance, that means they probably don't have. Then we insist -I have a lot of people like this that hand over I.D. automatically, and they are very decent people, and we don't have to look into. You have to use experience and so forth. But to take I.D.s for 100 percent of the people in the hotel is going to kill the business in no time. Hernandez: I noticed in reading the material that you gave us that it indicated that your Econolodge was the first property to put in a sidewalk on Pacific Highway South and the only one to build a fountain along the highway. I could see the sidewalk in the picture, but I couldn't tell where the fountain was, and I thought that was a rather novel idea, and just wondered where it was located. Lin: The fountain is next to the sidewalk, possibly about eight feet from the sidewalk and it's next to the bus stop. We have the burden to clean up that area all the time because people who take a bus are not caring about the property or the responsibility. They drink and they get drunk or whatever. They smash the bottle into the fountain or whatever. We have to clean up, but we think that that is our job anyway. But we try to make this place real nice because I do like a fountain. I know that a fountain is necessary and a sidewalk is absolute necessary. Rants: Any further questions of Mr. Lin? Thank you Mr. Lin very much. Mr. McLean? Dwight McLean. (public testimony): My name is Dwight McLean. I reside at 13015 38th Ave. S. I've lived in that home since 1978. Four years ago I completed my masters in business administration. Both my wife and I got our masters degrees in Pullman, Washington, and I came back to Seattle looking for work, and the economy was quite depressed at the time, and so I did connect up with Mr. Lin. Since I've been acquainted with Mr. Lin, the property owner, I've been very impressed with his personal integrity and the way that he does business. I watched Econolodge being built, and as I recall it was a parking lot for R.V.'s or trailers or something, but it was the first sidewalks 11 ,27 put on. I think Larry's Market had the next sidewalk, and they did that a couple years ago. So it was an improvement in the community. Right now I work in sales for Econolodge, and I also work the front desk. We routinely turn down people because we don't feel that they are fit to reside in the -we call it the old section -in the 17 -unit section. We don't invite trouble. We ask for I.D. If we can discern whether these people are potential problem makers, and we don't have cause to say that they are, we will ask for I.D. If we decide that they may possibly be trouble makers and stay in Econolodge, we'll also ask for I.D. So we try to be very selective in the clientele that we have. I guess my main concern about the whole issue is that as a resident of the community, that -the crime. I've spoke here before. My children -our family is a crime victim, a victim of crime. I am paying for this. I will continue to pay for crime for the rest of my life because of my daughter's situation in which she was raped. And so I know first hand what it's all about. And it tears me up to see what's happening. Now we can hire, and the City of Tukwila has hired additional police force, but that's not going to clean up the sections that we want to clean up. Business owners can do this by investing their capital, and they can do that very effectively. I see this as an opportunity for the City of Tukwila and the residents of the area to really clean up at least a portion of the property in that area. That's basically all that I really have to say. Rants: You have a question, Steve? Mullet: Yes. Rants: Dwight? Mullet: You manage the Econolodge, or you work the front desk? McLean: I am part of the management team there. Mullet: I'm not -I don't mean to belittle the point of the police activity, but it keeps getting brought up -the crime in the area and whatnot. And one of the reasons we did this moratorium is because we saw a thing that seemed to attract this. In regards to Mr. Lin's statement that probably twice a month police are at the old unit, what kind of activity do you see at the new unit? McLean: Very, very little. I'm trying to remember of an incident, and offhand I can't remember of an incident coming into Econolodge. It's almost exclusively at those 17 units. I'm sure there has been things that happened, but Mullet: So the related question then in follow up on Dennis' -Mr. Robertson's comment about checking I.D., you say you do it voluntarily, but you still have two instances a month according to Mr. Lin where the volunteer checking apparently isn't doing the job. So it's your contention then that if there was a new building there similar to the Econolodge, that you wouldn't even have the people there? 12 q s McLean: The rate would screen the people out. Now, they'd probably go to the City of Tukwila or the City of SeaTac or maybe up the street, but the rate would screen them out. Mullet: And you don't see combination between the Derby tavern which is sitting there and the type of people that live in the 17 units? McLean: No, I don't think even now I don't believe that the Derby tavern- -the clientele at the Derby tavern, I think, is pretty different that what we have. I've never made that association between the two myself. Joe Duffie, Councilmember: Out of the 17 units how many are occupied at this time? McLean: You know, it's funny. Last year when the economy was low, those units were full throughout the whole winter. I would say right now it's probably 50 percent occupied, maybe 40 percent. And that's probably close to what the industry standard is now, right now at the off season. But the occupancy rate at the 17 -unit has not always followed what the industry rates have been as far as occupancy. Duffie: all right. You say the police are there approximately twice a month. Is that correct? McLean: Possibly, yea. 'Duffle: Which one are you the manager of? Do you manage the 17 unit or do you manage the 40? McLean: We don't have the unlimited resources where we can have a manager at both places, so the management is taken care of at the Econolodge. So they check in to the Econolodge. I mean we handle that at the front desk of Econolodge and then they go across the street to their place that they have rented. Rants: Any further questions? Thanks you, Mr. McLean. Pam Carter? Pam Carter (nubile testimony): Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th St. In looking at this, something that isn't addressed in the staff report is my big concern- -the residential neighborhood. We're talking about the City versus the applicant. Well to me, the City should also be interested in their interests are also the residential neighborhood. Oh, I didn't bring that thing up. I had a quote from some of the stuff put out about the new Comprehensive Plan and it talks about making sure that the retail is compatible with the neighborhood and not out of scale, and especially the neighborhood retail, which is what the designation is proposed for this area. Putting a 30 foot tall wall right next to the neighborhood, which is what the Econolodge is on one side of the street. Putting a 30 foot wall on the other side of the street really doesn't seem to me that it's a compatible 13 blending with the character of the neighborhood. And remember, this property is not on 99. It is off of Hwy. 99. It abuts -the east side is residential. Across the street for part of the lot is residential. So we aren't talking about property directly on the highway. Now, the neighbors aren't fond of the old motel. I don't like it when I see cops have guys spread eagled on the asphalt, and that's not uncommon. But since they talked about the history of the area, I'm going talk about it. It was a vacant lot. Yes, there were tractor trailer rigs parked there before the Econolodge was built. The neighbors didn't want to see the Econolodge built simply because of the reasons you have the moratorium. We didn't want to see a larger problem on the highway. There was enough illegal activity. We didn't need to see a bigger one. We were reassured -of course under King County, most anything went -but the owner said oh, no, nothing illegal will go on. Well we certainly didn't see a decrease in illegal activity until Tukwila annexed and began regularly patrolling the area. But even the Econolodge has had a definite impact on the neighborhood. For instance, the property directly to the east of it, that previous resident was not happy about having this 30 foot wall next to her building with the air conditioners going. And the neighbors don't see the current Econolodge as an asset. They see the weeds out front. It's weeded once a year. They see the trash out front. It is not regularly picked up. The fountain he so proudly mentioned was non operational for quite a long period of time, maybe a year. It serves as a trash collector. They see things like it's a park and fly lot, so this Christmas they were parking cars on the public street. It's a disregard for the neighborhood. Painting a yellow stripe on the curbing outside their door and then pouring a concrete ramp in the gutter. I think those are things that the City's supposed to do. At a public meeting where someone complained about the old motel they had hypodermic needles in their yard that people would throw out the windows of the old motel. The person representing the motel said what can I do? So, the neighborhood isn't any more fond of the new Econolodge as they are from the old one. I'm glad it was mentioned that that site plan was the old site plan for the proposal before the county, because there's a lot of problems with that as far as screening. The damage to the City if you allow this waiver, is the damage to the City's reputation. I think many of us residents can understand why something like the Starlight Motel that was started before the moratorium was in effect, why you have to allow that to go through. But to grant a waiver to something that wasn't when it goes against what will be recommended designation for that, the neighborhood retail, just because the owner says they don't really think they'd like to do that sort of thing- -o.k., give me a waiver -and then the other thing I hear is well, anything is better than that. Is this how we want to do our zoning and our comp plan. Well, we'll make a zoning and a comp plan but if a property owner has something so bad, we'll give them whatever they want, because whatever they want is better than what's there. I really don't think that's the philosophy that should guide this City. He claims hardship. He bought it. He runs it. He says its a hardship. Something doesn't quite compute there. If you do end up approving this, I think it's only fair to include the same conditions that you did for the Starlight Motel. And I'm concerned about the provision for on -site manager. I think that needs to be specifically spelled out. Does that mean on -site on the 99 property, or on -site on the 139th property? Because that's a little ambiguous now as we talk. But I want to remind you, this isn't on the highway. This does abut into a residential neighborhood and does affect us. 14 Rants: Thank you, Pam. Questions from Council? Joe? Duffie: This is for Pam. Related to this motel, where about do you live? Carter: I live right down the street on 139th. Duffie: How long have you been living there? Carter: Oh, let's see -1975- -only 21 years. Mullet: Pam, on the question of the police activity again. Have you ever noticed any in the Econolodge itself as opposed to across the street? Carter: I haven't at the Econolodge to that extent, no. It's more just the general appearance. If I drove up, I would cancel my reservations, because it's not clean and tidy looking on the outside. Mullet: You mean the Econolodge. Carter: The Econolodge. Yea, even the Econolodge. My husband was recently out of town and stayed at an Econolodge and I said oh? I mean that's what's down the street. He says no, it's really nice! You mean that one -it's an Econolodge? Oh. It was a surprise to him because it was different standards. Hernandez: Pam, you mentioned that they also operate a park and fly operation there. Is that in addition to the motel, or is that for patrons of the hotel that are overflowing parking onto the street? Carter: According to their information here and their sign on the street, I guess you can pay $4 a day or whatever and park there and they'll drive you to the airport. So they cram the parking lot full. At least over the holidays it's regularly at the old motel crammed full, and this year they were parking them on the street. Hernandez: Is that a problem all year or just during the holidays? Carter: Mostly, just during the holidays. Duffie: Am I to understand that if you want to go to the airport, you can park in there even though you do not Carter: That's the way I take the sign and what they said here in the packet to be. Just like one of those places down by the post office here on the highway where you can park rather than parking in the airport parking lot. 15 Rants: Thank you. I am going to close the public hearing and you can begin deliberations. Hernandez: Mayor, can we ask a question of the applicant now? Rants: You sure can. Mr. Lin? Hernandez: Mr. Lin, do you also operate a park and fly business separate from the motel or would people that left their car there to go to the airport be patrons of your hotel? Lin: Park and fly is a new business of all the hotels in the area including West Coast, Travelodge, all the hotels on the street all have the same program. And what it does it this -if people stay for one night, they are entitled for one week of free parking. That's what our policy is. Now some hotels might have a more flexible policy. Best Western provides, I understand, it's three weeks of free parking for each night of stay. If people don't stay in the hotel room, they can park in our vacant parking lot for $4 a day. And it's simple because we have not fully utilized our parking lot because the current code requires each hotel room needs one parking stall. And because we derive our business, mostly really from the airport, we pick up customers from the airport. They don't have a car, and our parking lot will be mostly empty when we take the people to the airport. So every hotel business in the area recognize that, so everybody does some type of park and fly. And even though the hotels near the SeaTac airport don't require to have one parking stall for each room, actually, they only require half a parking stall for each room -they still run this type of business because they have so many parking spaces available. Rants: Any other questions? All right. Hernandez: Can I ask a question of Moira before you close? Rants: You sure can. Hernandez: Does the park and ride operation require a separate business license from the hotel? Bradshaw: That's really a question for Jane. Public parking is a permitted use in C -2. I can answer that for you. Jane Cantu. City Clerk: Usually we require separate licenses for two different businesses at one location. unclear Rants: (closes public hearing at 9:44 p.m.) How would Council like to proceed? 16 Robertson: May I suggest a process where we take the basic three questions that are in the moratorium to deal with 1) the intent of the moratorium and whether or not this request conflicts with the intent of the moratorium, 2) we discuss that without taking a position. Second, we discuss the best interests of the City versus the interests of the individual, because that's also in the moratorium under Section 3 under Waiver. Third, then, we look at the circumstances and hardships and damages from strict adherence to the moratorium, those being financial, personal, and other. We discuss all three of those questions in order and then after that, put a motion on the table, discuss the motion, and vote. Rants: It sounds good to me, Dennis. Robertson: Does it sound good to the city attorney? Cohen: It sounds just fine. In the criteria listed they have listed in four, but you've covered all the bases. If you want to condense it into three, that's fine. Robertson: Which one did I miss in the criteria? Cohen: Damage that could result from strict adherence in the moratorium is listed as the fourth one. You combined three and four. Robertson: Oh, o..k. Rants: Intent of the moratorium. Robertson: I'll start with that one because I think that's fairly easy. I'm not sure it's really in question. On the moratorium itself on Attachment C in the fourth "Whereas" it says "Whereas the new comprehensive plan at this time envisions a neighborhood activity area, which is substantially different from the current regional retail focus of Hwy. 99, and substantial detriment to this vision would be caused by allowing contrary land uses I would point out that the handout given out tonight by the applicant on the second page says national franchise service to travelers and business people. I believe that the proposal before us is clearly a national type of enterprise, that it does not fit what we would define as one in a neighborhood. And because of this, this violates the intent of the moratorium. I think that's fairly clear. Rants: O.K., let's begin on the right -hand side with the senior councilman. Do you wish to address that or we'll just move right around the dais here. Joe? Duffle: (indicates no) Rants: O.K., Joan? 17 Hernandez: Yes. The waiver process also is designed as part of the moratorium to protect those who would suffer any undue hardships and process due to the moratorium. And I think that's also the intent of the moratorium is that we can review such applications as this one and weigh them against the best interests of the City and the best interests of the moratorium. So, that's my only comment. Joyce Craft. Council President: Well I guess in thinking about this I'm not sure. I guess maybe I should have asked a question, but I guess I'm not sure about whatever happens, what happens to this motel if this becomes a neighborhood commercial zone? I'm not clear in my mind what happens so something that is a C -2 zone. Rants: Well, it would remain as it is. They wouldn't just go tear it down. Until it wears out is where you'd be. Craft: O.K. Rants: Steve, did you want to talk to this? Mullet: Yea, I guess I would. The intent of the moratorium Dennis is right. We passed this moratorium because of these things that we wanted to put on hold for awhile. We didn't come up with we said we're clearly inviting things we didn't like. I think at the same time we probably recognized that some of them don't invite the things we don't like. And so, I guess I would agree with Mr. Lin in that regard that sometimes the owner is guilty by association because he owns the hotel or whatnot. On the other hand, Joan is absolutely right also that that's why we put the waiver process in so we can look at some of these on an individual basis. So in my feeling that under looking at the intent, I would have to move on to the next one to see if there's enough mitigating circumstances to say that this falls in the waiver category. Whether it's sufficient to get a waiver or not, I'm still vacillating, but I think it moves past the clear intent (unclear) waiver situation. Dorothy DeRodas. Councilmember: It's a very difficult decision because I drove around the property today looking at it. Almost anything would be better than the motel which presently exists -just to outward appearances. But what we would be creating if we make this waiver is just a sugarplum version of the same land use. I find it difficult to make the waiver. Rants: I've listened around, now I'd like to put my two cents in as we go around here just so everyone knows where I am. I agree with Joan. You created waiver, which I am dealing with and you are dealing with, but we did (unclear) by moratorium. But we have a point. Robertson: Could I ask a process question? Rants: A process question. 18 J�/ Robertson: Or a -I always get things in the wrong phraseology. While I am interested in your comments, I'm not sure that without being asked by the council that it is-- what's the word I want Robert's Rules of Order appropriate for you to volunteer them anymore than it would be appropriate for a citizen to volunteer them. I realize you have a different standing, however, we're now in the council discussion part and I want to be very careful and do the proper thing. So I'm just unless a councilmember was to ask you or somebody else, I'm not sure that you can just do it. That's Cohen: I think it's appropriate. I don't have Robert's Rules in front of me, but certainly the Mayor would have to break a tie vote if there were to be Robertson: He would break a tie vote on this issue? Rants: This evening I would, yes. There are six council people here. And if there were a tie, I would break that vote. Duffie: I think he has the right to speak. The only thing I don't think he has the right to speak on is a discussion of his salary. Robertson: I'm not sure that's correct, but o.k., I'll accept that ruling. Rants: Craft: have to say? Rants: Well, we created the moratorium so we could take time to look at the land use on it and at the same time that we looked at it we understood there would be circumstances that we wanted to address or that there were hardships out there, or that there were uses out there that we might possibly look at and determine there could be a waiver for it. So I think as far as the intent of the moratorium and the policies of the moratorium that waiver process is in effect and we are doing the right thing. So I agree with Joan and with Steve on those issues. And that was all that I wanted to say. It was no masterful stroke of political philosophy that was going to happen here. Duffie: Hernandez: Rants: the individual. Well, I will just listen. If there's no need for a tie vote I'd like to hear what you have to say. Could you please tell us what you So are we going to vote on this or are we just- No, we're walking through the criteria. We're on now the best interests of the city weighed against the interests of Robertson: I'd like to speak once more on the intent of the moratorium issue. I'd like to point out that the staff again, there's three sets of questions. The first question is does it violate the intent of the moratorium, because if it doesn't violate the intent of the 19 moratorium, it would seem to me very clear that we wouldn't even deal with the rest of the questions. Because then we would merely say that it doesn't violate the moratorium and go on with it. And on Attachment A, the staff report on page 3, it says under Discussion it says "approving a waiver request that would enable the applicant to demolish 17 units built in the 1940's and construct 40 new units is not consistent with the intent of the moratorium to preclude further hotel development until a final decision on appropriate land uses is made Now I also agree with you that in deciding, I think some of you Steve, for instance -that in deciding that it does violate the intent of the moratorium that naturally leads us into the next question to consider whether or not there should be a waiver. It seems to me that it clearly does violate the intent of the moratorium. And that's why were sitting here on enough said. Mullet: To clarify -I agree with you, Dennis. It does and then it has to me it has extenuating circumstances. Rants: I agreed with that, too. Robertson: Yea, I know. I'm just trying to be Mullet: You just needed to be under the moratorium. Rants: The best interests of the City weighed against the interest of the individual. Does anyone wish to speak to that? Hernandez: Well, I think that we've heard testimony that the construction of this hotel would eliminate a certain amount of the criminal element in the way of clientele that might patronize the 1940's style units, and it might create a higher caliber of clientele that we might welcome into the city. And I think that would be good. That would be an improvement. I guess I'm disappointed to hear that this park and fly business is a separate business that I didn't anticipate being part of this. And I'm sorry to hear that it evidently creates some nuisance in the way of on- street parking. So I think that there are some negative impacts there, and there are some positive impacts. And it is a difficult decision and I think -and my mind isn't made because I'm still weighing through all these pros and cons of these criteria that we have to consider. But I can see some positive aspects of it. And I can see some negative aspects of it. So if we can deal with the negative aspects in a positive way, I think that maybe there's a possibility that we could materialize on some of the benefits. Rants: O.K., anyone on this side over here then? Dennis? Robertson: Well, I think -the question of the best interests of the City versus the best interest of the individual. I want to exclude discussion of question three which is the hardships and circumstance and just talk about best interests. And I think there's a short term versus a long term. The reason that we passed the moratorium is really two -fold in my mind. One is that to do a comp plan and a new zoning map is a fairly long term 20 process. So once you get part way into that process, we did not want to see any changes or vesting of rights in a particular piece of land that might be contrary to not only the comp plan and the zoning map but contrary to public health and safety issues. We clearly have health and safety issues on that highway. We have identified in that area some of those health and safety issues with the types of uses that occur there. So we not only have an expressed community interest at this point in changing the zoning of that property before we have identified safety and health problems with the types of uses. I think this proposed use is one of those types. And I want to be real careful because I'm telling you we're talking in considering a zoning issue here to change the zoning code. We're not here addressing whether or not Mr. Lin, the applicant, is a good business manager, and honorable person, runs a good establishment. I personally don't have any question about that. And that's not the issue. We're dealing with zoning and once we give the zoning, it's there. In this case, once we give the right for a waiver to the moratorium, what we have just vested is a right to build a large hotel there. We should be very careful. We're not giving Mr. Lin the right to build a hotel and run it there forever. We're giving him the right to build a hotel there and anybody run it. It is a zoning question. Because we're not going to tie to that waiver if we approve it the fact that only Mr. Lin can run it, or only at someone of Mr. Lin's character can run it. We don't do that in zoning. So, getting back to the issue of bests interests of the City versus the interest of the individual. The City has said that we're in the process of deciding where a land use should be, and we know in that area, and we know this certain types of uses has caused public health and safety problems. We want to finish our process and make a decision on what the zoning should be. We also know that it's going to take us approximately a year. We just gave very strong direction to the administration to finish this process in a year -and ourselves along with that. So what we're really doing is saying during this one year what Mr. Lin the individual will give up if we deny the waiver is the right to build in one year if it maintains the same zoning in the final comp plan. The City, what it gives up -what it gets if it gives a waiver, is presumably they will tear down the building that's there now and that we will get a building that has somewhat less crime problems. By testimony tonight that's 24. If you say it's a one year period, two per month, we'll have 24 less police calls. So what the City gains is 24 less police calls, but what the City gives up is really the future right to control the use on that particular property. And there's two reasons we might want to control the use on that property as we stated in the moratorium. One is that the community wants to make it a neighborhood and the City may, only may, zone it that way -a neighborhood use. And two, we believe that those types of uses, the uses that go with that type of zoning in that area, has caused public health and safety issues. So, I'm trying (unclear). It seems to me what Mr. Lin gets is one year of time and a guaranteed right to build his building whatever we zone it. What the City gets is perhaps 24 less police calls and that's it. But what the City gives up is the right to determine what goes on that property and what we build is another fairly large for that area hotel in what would otherwise be a neighborhood related area that has residential on at least two sides. I personally find that a poor tradeoff for the City. Now I still want to talk about the third issue which is hardships. But it seems to me the tradeoff -that I disagree with the staff conclusions. I think the tradeoff of 24 less police calls -that we get that -but in the process what we give up is the ability to determine what happens to that 21 area both for zoning and the usage and the right to determine long term criminal and public health and safety issues there. That bothers me and in no way in saying that am I implying that Mr. Lin is a bad property owner or manager. Because we're talking about zoning not Mr. Lin. Rants: All right. Steve? Mullet: The short term versus long term is a difficult problem and Dennis hit on a couple of key issues which are bothering me maybe from a little different angle than he looks at them. But one, on a long term issue we can change the zoning on this property. On the other side of that, we can't make anybody do anything different with the property, so just changing the zoning doesn't change what's going on there now. So in the short term we have an opportunity to get what is going on there now changed and if we make it a long term change still, then the new thing becomes a non conforming use not the old thing as a non conforming use. So there's some give and take there and we'll talk about the hardship later. I'm not arguing with you, Dennis. I don't know what's going on either. I'm just laying out the things that are going through my mind as to how I look at them. I personally don't feel that the new lodge going in over there to replace the 17 units is necessarily going to be a good long range thing there. I guess I'm getting ahead of the game, but mostly because there's some other things going on there that aren't changing just because that one does. I'll pass to Dorothy at this point. Rants: Dorothy? DeRodas: I don't have a comment on this. Rants: All right. Then go with Joe and then Joan. Duffle: I just want to say one thing. I'm sitting here listening before I have to say anything. We also have to look at what the community wants. It seems like right now everybody's focusing on if we build a new motel, we're going to be less 24 police cars. Well, I have a problem with that. If we build one across the street, we still have a problem up on the same street. So how are we going to build a new one and going to lessen the police crime up there, lessen visits by police. I don't think we need to look at that as a criteria, because I think if you have an old dog, you can't teach an new dog new tricks. And the point I'm trying to make here by building a new motel there is not going to solve any of our problems up there. I think the problems are going to continue to be there and not matter how we do unless we do something very different changing that area up there. A motel is not what we need there. Hernandez: This has stimulated a lot of questions that I have that I would like to ask Moira, but I can wait until we've gone through the process. I don't think it would effect any comments right now probably. Rants: Questions of staff are appropriate at any time. 22 Hernandez: Would you like me to ask them now? O.K., Moira? I've got a few questions here that I don't if they pertain to this particular criteria, but they do pertain to the whole issue. What business will neighborhood commercial allow in this area if it was zoned neighborhood commercial? Bradshaw: That will depend upon the decision makers. Hernandez: And that hasn't been developed yet, correct? Bradshaw: That's right. Hernandez: So it's entirely possible that even a neighborhood commercial zone could create a three story concrete wall right next to some residential property, is that correct? Bradshaw: Yes. Hernandez: O.K. Bradshaw: Excuse me. Also, that's a standard. That's not necessarily a use. For instance, a multi family unit in an RMH is four story right now. Our RMH zone, which is a residential zone, is four story and any retail use in a C -2 or a C -1/PO zone. Even a single family has a 30 foot high height limit. Hernandez: Next question. If this waiver was granted, could it be limited to this property owner only or would it be transferable and go with the property? Bradshaw: The waiver would be for this particular petitioner and this particular property. Duffie: Could I ask you one question? Hernandez: I wasn't through yet. Duffie: O.K., I wanted to continue on the question you just asked. Rants: Joe, would you let Joan -if Joan wants to say go, then we'll do that, but- Hernandez: Well, go ahead. Duffie: Well I wanted to just say on the waiver, if we grant him a waiver, now he couldn't the property next month and the waiver go with the property? Is that with the new owner, with each new owner? Bradshaw: I believe it would go with the petitioner and with this property and I guess I would ask the city attorney to confirm or deny. 23 Cohen: If he builds Dennis was right. If he builds the motel and then sells it to someone else, I mean it's still zoned for that particular use. Duffie: That's what I thought. Hernandez: No, to clarify my point is if the waiver is granted and he doesn't build the hotel but he can sell the property, would that allow a motel to be built there even if he wasn't the owner -he was no longer the owner? That was the point I was trying to make. Bradshaw: Again, I'd have to ask the city attorney if the waiver is granted to the petitioner for this particular property which would be my interpretation, but Cohen: At that point it would just be an application and there'd be a number of things that he would need to do to go through that process. Duffie: But it still would go with the property. Hernandez: O.K., my question, to clarify it even further would be if the waiver was granted, could we limit the waiver to this particular property owner only so that it would not be transferable with the property to another owner. Cohen: No. Hernandez: O.K. Rants: Did you have another question, Joan? Hernandez: I do, but I will save it until the end. Rants: All right. Are there any further questions? Craft: I have a question of Moira, too. Moira, is neighborhood commercial- would that be considered a down zone from C -2. Is it C -2 now? Bradshaw: Yes, the property is currently zoned C -2, which is a regional retail in our current zoning code. Right now a comparable zone would be C -1 in our code which is a neighborhood commercial. Cohen: I probably should have clarified or rather if you had questions with a particular project, that you could add certain conditions just as you did in Blue Star, and then at a later time if those conditions are no longer applicable, either staff or the proprietor could come in and say -and ask for those conditions to be removed. 24 Hernandez: No, no. I don't know how I can be much more specific, but I'm saying if this waiver was granted, could it be granted under the condition that the waiver be limited to this property owner only? Cohen: No. That question I answered definitively. I just wanted to add that there are things that you could do to limit the project rather than property owner. Rants: Thank you, Moira. All right, that brings us to number three and number three is Robertson: The way I quoted it was circumstances and hardships and damages from strict adherence to the moratorium. Rants: You wanted to wrap up three and four in one, huh? Robertson: I couldn't find a way in my own mind to separate them in the discussion part anyway. Rants: All right. Circumstances and hardships and damages resulting from strict adherence to the .moratorium. All right. Hernandez: Well, I see them as two separate issues. I don't- Rants: Maybe we should decide if you want to keep them as two separate issues if you see them as two separate issues. Robertson: I willing to make them separate. Hernandez: I can discuss it either way, but I just see them as two separate issues. Rants: All right. If it's all right with the council we'll keep them at- -we'll make them two separate issues. Let's just take the first one then? Robertson: Are we dealing with hardships- Rants: caused by the moratorium. Hernandez: I don't see this as being a hardship other than a personal financial hardship for the owner, which is unfortunate, but I don't see it any other way. Rants: All right. Dennis? Robertson: I agree with Joan. A couple meetings ago we had another person in here, Jackie Dempere, who asked that we look at a different process and grant some zonings on the comp plan ahead of time where there appeared to be no questions to what would 25 ii happen because she was suffering personal financial hardships in waiting throughout the process for a development she has underway. And while we sympathized with her circumstances very much, we also realized we can't change the process. That that's part of the difficulties everybody suffers in going through a new comp plan and zoning process. I think that's true here, also. Also, in looking at hardships, part of it that was listed in the staff report on page 5 and the applicant talked about, the hardships was to the personnel. It says "personnel hardships from abuse from clientele attracted to the 1940's facility In some ways I can accept that, but I also heard that the check -in and management of this particular structure is managed from across the street. So, it seems to me that some of the problems going with this facility with who's there and what they do might be caused by the very way that it's managed. Some of the approaches that staff has recommended -some of the conditions- -could also be applied here if we wanted to -or not if we wanted to- -could be applied to the existing facility if the current management wanted to do that. I'm sympathetic and I certainly, like everybody else, don't believe that the current facility attracts those people, but if it were made more difficult for those people, then perhaps they wouldn't have the same problem and if it was managed differently. But that in itself, that hardship that we see there in itself doesn't seem to be enough, and there's no factual proof or documentation that there's a real danger to the personnel, or at least an unusual danger any more so than you would see in many other types of motel establishments along the highway. So I'm not convinced that that's a compelling enough argument that there's a strong hardship there. Rants: Steve? Mullet: The hardship to me is the question of time. And the question to us is is that sufficient -a sufficient hardship to grant a waiver on our moratorium. I don't feel it is. Rants: O.K., Dorothy? DeRodas: I can't see any hardship here. I saw this place today, and I saw signs on the outside that Cohen: At this point I just need to interject. Councilmembers are permitted to consider only the testimony that was given today, and anything else is And I would just ask whether or not you would be able in your deliberations and in your consideration if you would just be able to consider what has been said and not bring into your decision making process anything that you may have seen today. DeRodas: I think I can fairly do that. Rants: We'll move on then to damage resulting from adherence to the moratorium. The last issue. Is there anyone who would like to address this the first? 26 /7/,z. Duffie: Well, the only thing -I wanted to make mine all at once so I just said, listen, if you want to hear mine all at once, I'll give you to that. I'm going to save mine all at once. If you want it now, I can give it to you now. Rants: No, we'll wait. We're going to be there in just a minute. Any comments then, Joan? Hernandez: Yes. Well, damage that could result if we adhere to the moratorium and don't grant the waiver would be that we would continue to have substandard housing and rental units that would possibly continue to attract police calls to this address, possibly continue to attract hypodermic needles in the parking lot -I don't know. It's hard to say. We could have missed an opportunity to upgrade a substandard area, but the unknown is that we don't know if what was denied what could possibly be built there under neighborhood commercial. And so it's hard to say what damage would result other than we know the criminal element that exists there now and the potential for that we know would continue. Rants: All right. (talking to Craft) You're going to save yours too? Craft: I'm saving mine. Rants: All right. Dennis, it's up to you. Robertson: O.K., well seems to me there's two possible types of damages. One are financial, and the other one, the only one I could identify is the loss of the Triple A rating. Let me deal with the Triple A rating first. In the application from the applicant under business history in the third paragraph it says "one time a Triple A inspector withdrew our Triple A appointment when he saw a guest from the old facility walk into our lobby So, it seems to me the applicant is concerned about losing his Triple A rating. And I assume that that's very important to not be able to keep it. However, the interesting part, the decision to have the applicant for the old property, for the 17 -unit across the street- not the applicant, the guest -from the old one use the new one, Econolodge, as a place to register, is indeed the applicant's business decision because that's a lower cost way to run the business. If the problem is with the appearance and the behavior of those guests, if that's that great a danger, it would seem to me that the applicant can change that by merely doing the registration from across the street. Also, that's questionable. So I find that one a hard one to waiver in favor of the applicant. The second one is financial. One of the -and the biggest there's two parts to the financial question. One part is is indeed the applicant losing money or suffering with the current use of the building. One could agree that the applicant will make more money with a larger more modern facility there. And I think there's been a case for that. However, the applicant is making a return, and the data shows that was $300,000 in 1994. The building itself is appraised at $1,000. Now I'm not into this kind of business, but a $300,000 a year return on a $100,000 piece of property, if that's correct, is ridiculously high. Two people want to deal with that. Moira, did I mis -state something? 27 "7 Bradshaw: I would like to maybe clarify that. The $300,000 was the revenue. It wasn't a net figure. Mullet: Well, while you're up there, Moira, would you tell us what the appraised value really was? Bradshaw: That was correct. $1,000. Mullet: $1,000? For the whole thing? Bradshaw: For the improvements not for the land. Mullet: So all 17 units are only appraised for $1,000? Bradshaw: Yes. Robertson: I would then point to page- Rants: Mr. Lin, did you wish to answer that? Lin: Yes, the $300,000 is off by one digit. Robertson: It was $30,000? Mullet: It seems we have some zeros that aren't floating in the right spots here. Robertson: That's certainly a significant difference. Thank you. Under Section 4, number one, financial hardship, three paragraphs down, the applicant said "due to our successful but rather difficult operations" and then it went on. My understanding -I think that this is a -that the current operations is returning a profit. It certainly is not returning what would be from a new 40+ unit hotel, but it is making money. I have a difficult time with that financial argument. And the second part of that is the ability to secure a loan for the improvement. Now I don't know, and it wasn't explained here clearly, what the conditions and how the applicant was trying to get the money to expand and rebuild this. But I do know that money has always two parts associated with it -the interest you're willing to pay on getting a loan, and how long you want to get the loan for. There's a time element, there's an interest element, and then of course there's the security you want to use. It's my understanding that the applicant would now use the revenues from the 40some unit Econolodge to fund a new development. That sounds like a very good business practice and very reasonable to me. I also find no reason to believe that that wouldn't be true a year from now. So, I don't see again, when we're dealing with do we grant this waiver now or wait for our process to continue. And I can't see that the financial loss to the applicant either in their ability to secure a loan or in the amount of 28 revenues their making on profit of this particular use is so great that it overweighs other considerations. Rants: O.K. Steve? Mullet: I don't really have anything to add to that. Rants: Dorothy? DeRodas: I don't either. Rants: O.K., we've listened to each one of the four issues and we are eventually going to vote. But before we do, we're going to go down there to Councilman Duffie. Duffie: O.K., well I've listened to everyone. I've listened to the opponent pro and for. We didn't actually go into volunteer annexing 99. I think they came to us and we annexed them. We annexed them for one reason, for the reason that we were going to clean up 99. We annexed it. We put on this moratorium so we could take our time to look at and come up with ideas with the business people and the community what would be ideas for Hwy. 99. How do we want our people to live on 99? What do we want on there? Now their looking at a light rail system on 99, and if they put that up, there's going to be a lot of motels and stuff that are going to be torn down, going to be moved out. And I'm looking at this and the community doesn't want any more motels. I'm speaking against this waiver. I do not think that we need it, and I'm sorry, but I think that we have made the decision on things and how we want our city to look. And granting this waiver we'd just double our worries. We'd be eating our own words. We need to stick to what we want and do it as we think we should. And I think if we approve of this waiver, all we're doing is creating more problems for ourselves. And by building a new facility, it's not going to stop any police problem we have up there. I think it will just enhance it. So I'm speaking against the waiver. I do not think we need it. I think we just need to continue what we're doing now and hold onto what we're doing and look at how we want Hwy 99 to look within the next four or five years. This is the future, and we need to stick to our guns now. I'm saying vote against it. Rants: Joan, do you want a summation? Hernandez: I'm not quite ready for that yet, but I would like to ask Moira another question. And that is were all the adjoining property owners notified of the hearing tonight? Bradshaw: I believe Jane just followed her standard procedures. Hernandez: It appeared on our agenda as an agenda item, or Cantu: It was published in the newspaper. 29 Hernandez: But were they mailed notices individually, or it was just by being published in the newspaper? Cantu: It was published in the newspaper and then posted at all the libraries and city hall. Duffie: In other words, it was did what it required. Cantu: It was published and handled as standard procedures. Hernandez: Well, I guess that I'm a little undecided because I feel like if we turn down this waiver that we've missed an opportunity to upgrade a substandard piece of property, but I also would like to have more citizen input from the citizens who actually live there. And I'm not so sure that they're aware that this process was going on. So, I feel in some ways that I'd rather hold a policy decision like this until the comp plan is adopted, but on the other hand, my personal opinion is leading me to believe that this would be an improvement to the neighborhood. So, I'm really at a loss as to how to vote, but I'm not quite sure that I'm convinced that this meets the criteria. So I guess I need some more input from the Council. Rants: All right. Joyce? Craft: I am certainly, personally not in favor of more motels on 99. This one, however, I think is somewhat different in that if I had a choice between a regional motel and a neighborhood commercial type motel, I would certainly hope that all motels would be regional in flavor as the Econolodge is trying to do. The Econolodge is not going to go away. That zoning is grandfathered in. I think that my concern always is what the finished product will be and how it will contribute or detract to the neighborhood. And in the case of this one I really am favoring allowing this to go ahead because I believe that we have a property owner that's trying to do the best thing he can for their property and they've demonstrated at least the desire to personally become involved in the community and try to make it a better place. And I think that at this point, I would be in favor of this. Robertson: Well, I think there were three questions that we had to ask ourselves to follow through. First off, the intent of the moratorium. This clearly violates the intent of the moratorium. That doesn't seem much of a question to anybody. The second one is the best interests of the City versus the interests of the individual. I believe Steve mentioned and other people brought up the short term versus long term. I think that in the short term granting this is probably the best idea. It gets rid of what is a bit of a problem -the existing 17 -unit one. And I can understand why the administration, who was concerned with administration and somewhat the short term, looks at that and why they would like to solve the problem. However, Rants: Excuse me 30 Robertson: It's still my Rants: I don't want to be in this, please. Not at this point. Robertson: I still think from an administrative standpoint and the recommendation from the staff, it's my belief they were looking at the short term interests. From the statement earlier of the Mayor, it was my interpretation that's also what he was looking at. I may have been in error on that point. I'm trying to look at the long term one and the long term one is basically if we allow this waiver, what we have done is grandfather a brand new building in there. The current use, while it's unattractive, is a 1940's vintage building, or set of buildings, with a very, very low value of $1,000. I believe that assessed valuation probably reflects the true value of those improvements -or those buildings. I think that in a fairly short time that will be replaced no matter what happens. Now that short time may be several or more years, but when we change zoning and build things, we're looking at a very long term. So we're looking at a long term policy issue versus a short term interest. I think I would weigh in favor, in this case, of the long term. And I would also like to point out at this point not granting the waiver does not say that this property owner or any other property owner of that particular piece of property will not be able to build a hotel there. We have not at this point yet determined what the zoning or comp plan will be. All we're saying if we turn down the waiver is we are not going to be allowed to be built in the next 12 months. That's it. And I think that's -so that's the short term versus the long term. If we grant it and we presume the applicant does indeed what he's applied for, we have now a brand new 40 unit hotel that will definitely be there for the long term. So in the short term of one year, if we say no for one year, and that's all we're doing in not granting this, it's that we are giving up a very long term. That bothers me. That's the best interests of the City versus the interests of the individual. The third question was hardships and damages -the third and fourth question. I could find no definite hardship that the applicant could not deal with by managing differently, or at least no hardship that was significantly greater than anybody else operating a like facility there. Second, from a financial standpoint, I couldn't really see something that would definitely change the Triple A rating that was being presented in the material other than how they operated. At least there was no definite proof. And that would be a financial loss. As far as losing the right or this particular loan, I believe that money can be borrowed on the market and that there is no reason to why especially if what's securing that loan is the revenues from the Econolodge across the street as, I believe, the applicant indicated. I see no reason why that wouldn't be possible to occur a year from now. So, I'm still back to not being able to -in my view -I cannot justify a waiver. I do believe that Mr. Lin is a good property owner and a hotel renter in the City, but the issue is not Mr. Lin. That's what I keep wanting to point out. The real issue is do we grant a waiver to get rid of this building, the current 17 -units and the short term and give up the right in the process to continue with the comp plan and zoning process we've got in place in the long term. Because that's what this is really all about. And I haven't seen any arguments that could convince me that that's in the best interests of the City to do that or that the applicant is so badly hurt, either financially or hardship -wise that we 31 7 need to do that. I agree with Joe. I think we have to see the process through and then a year from now we will determine what the zoning should be. I would like to point out that if we grant the waiver, as a Council we're going to be in an interesting position a year from now if we try to then rezone this to something lower and make this non conforming. That seems really interesting position to be in. But if we don't grant the waiver and we do zone it to something that will not allow the hotel, I think that -or a motel operation there. If that does happen, and it may or may not, if it does I think it would be fairly soon we would see a change there since this is a very old use -old building. Rants: Steve? Mullet: It's always hard to follow Dennis. He covers so much stuff. I forget what I want to say. I guess it all boils down to me to be the -we started a process and I was one of the ones who was jumping all over the high horse a year ago to get something going on 99 and get a group going and we've done that and we've started down that road. We've got a comp plan that's happening. And I will re- emphasize what Dennis said. The fact that I don't go with this waiver now does not mean that I'm going to change the zoning on that property. That's a whole different discussion that we're going to get into shortly. But we started a process and I don't, unfortunately, see that there's that much hardship on Mr. Lin to wait a little longer to do this. That's where I'm at right now. DeRodas: I'm going to pick that up and say very much the same thing. I do believe we must look at this in the long term and continue to hold to our vision of improvement in general of 99. And I think this would be a throw back. So I will say that I think we should not permit the waiver. Rants: All right. So, it's time for the vote. Robertson: Then I'm ready to make a motion. Rants: All right. Robertson: I would move that we deny the waiver application. Mullet: Second. Rants: It's moved and seconded. Is there further discussion? Mullet: I would like to interject that -and we didn't ask Mr. Lin this specifically, and I'm sorry I didn't when he was testifying, but I would be very willing if he wanted to move ahead and take down the old hotel to split that off and let him go ahead and do that, so he has a piece of empty property, if he was willing to do that. I realize the economics of doing both at once but if he's only getting $30,000 a year off the thing, he may want to go ahead and do it. 32 Rants: Well, I'm not sure that that's a suggestion we want to present from the dais here at this time. Duffie: Yea, I don't think that we need to do that. I think we should continue on. Robertson: I would request a roll call vote. Hernandez: We're not through with discussion, are we? Rants: No, discussion is still open. Duffie: Rick, I would like to ask you just one question. Without tearing down the old structure, would this structure meet earthquake requirements and build on top of it? Rick Beeler, DCD: I don't know, Joe. I haven't seen it. I couldn't answer that. That would take quite an assessment from somebody in architecture. But with a $1,000 value I'm be a little skeptical that it would support much (unclear) on top of the roof. Duffie: O.K., thank you. Hernandez: I would just like to say to Mr. Lin, the applicant, that even if the waiver is denied, he has the opportunity to come back and make a proposal for a rezone request or a proposal for whatever he wants to do at a later time. I think that this would have possibly have been an improvement for this particular area although I was interested in getting more citizen input because I didn't really think the citizens were possibly aware of this proposal. And I appreciate the deliberations that have gone on this evening, because I think there are definitely pros and cons on each side and this is a difficult decision. I was having difficulty determining whether there really was a sense of urgency to make a decision on the waiver process. And frankly, I'm really not convinced that there is a sense of urgency other than a personal financial hardship that might exist. But I'm not convinced that it is that great either. But I really appreciate all of your input and your deliberations, and I can live with whichever way it goes. I think that this might have been an enhancement, and that's why I'm hoping that he would come back at a later time and be given another opportunity to go through whatever process is available to him. But I can also understand that we're in the middle of this process of developing the comprehensive plan and, hopefully, there will be some economic stimulation from that. But I'm also not so sure that neighborhood commercial is going to be an improvement for the residential neighborhood any more than this particular proposal might have been. So, it's a difficult decision. Rants: Any last statements? (no response) Robertson: Call for the question. Rants: A roll call vote. 33 Duffie: Is this a vote to deny? Cantu: Yes, it is. ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE: Yes HERNANDEZ: Yes CRAFT: Yes ROBERTSON: Yes MULLET: Yes DeRODAS: Yes *MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY (6 -0). THE WAIVER IS DENIED. Robertson: Now, this is going to be interesting, but I would like to a motion for reconsideration at the next regular session. If someone would second that, I'll explain it. I'd like to make -since I was on the prevailing side, I can make a motion for reconsideration and I would like to do that, make a motion for reconsideration of this waiver at the next regular session. And I'll explain it. Hernandez: I'll second your motion for discussion purposes. Robertson: O.K. I believe the issues were fairly complex and I would like to see -I would like to have two things happen. One, I would like to have time to think about this and the arguments that were presented in discussions. That would give me time to do that and all of us. Second, I would like to see the staff and the city attorney write out what we have presented as arguments and as the reasons for our decisions and have a chance to look at that and add to it or delete from it in two weeks. I think that would give the applicant a fair hearing in this whole process. It would give us a chance to look at what we voted on and why we voted on it and either add to or delete from that record. So I think it would both be better for the applicant and better for the city whatever the final decision is then. Duffie: Yes, I just want to ask one thing, o.k. I can understand what you're doing, but my problem is if we have more waivers come in, are we going to do the same on all of them? I think what we need to do -what I'm looking at is that either we make the law and stick with our laws or we forget our laws and continue on. The problem that I'm seeing that makes me feel that -I feel right now that you made a decision that you really didn't decide on how you wanted to vote. And I think we need to sit here and make a decision and be firm with ourselves. Instead, we have to make compromises and come back and justify what we did. 34 Hernandez: Call for the question. Rants: Call for the question. All in favor say aye (5),; those opposed (1). Do we need a roll call vote again? Cantu: Yes. ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE: HERNANDEZ: CRAFT: ROBERTSON: MULLET: DeRODAS: Rants: Would you explain now your motion a little more thoroughly so I understand information -wise you want? Robertson: Rants: Rants: It's legal. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes *MOTION CARRIED 5 -1. O.K., well this is a reconsideration. I know. You wanted some staff Robertson: I would expect the City -that we would have the motion to deny before us with the reasons documented as presented, and that we would have that in time to really look at it and re -think it. Rants: Do you want the clerk to go through the tape and Cohen: We can get that transcribed and then the staff could do both findings and conclusions for everyone to review. Rants: All right. I'm just trying to understand the process here for what you folks have to do. O.K. That was passed by the Council. It was a motion passed by the Council, so I Duffle: I would like to check Robert's Rules of Order because I do not think you can do that. Robertson: It's legal, Joe. Reconsideration as long as I was on the prevailing side when we proposed. 35 Duffle: All right. Let's keep going. END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 36