Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-17 Regular MinutesJuly 17, 1995 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; PAM CARTER; JIM HAGGERTON. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MULLET. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Mullet arrived late) OFFICIALS JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; MIKE KENYON, Kenyon Sullivan law firm; RHONDA BERRY, Asst. City Administrator; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; KEITH HAINES, Asst. Chief of Police; STEVE LANCASTER, DCD Director; DON WILLIAMS, Parks Recreation Director; JANE CANTU, City Clerk. CITIZEN COMMENTS Jackie Dempere, 4033 S. 128th St., Tukwila, complained that Becker Trucking is parking truck trailers on S. 128th. Dempere said she counted six trailers parked there this evening. She asked to be notified of any changes Becker Trucking may request to their Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Rants asked Assistant Chief Haines to send a patrol to S. 128th and East Marginal Way to investigate. John McFarland was asked to check with DCD on the status of Becker's permit. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Minutes: 5/15/95 b. Approval of Vouchers: Nos. 79738 through 79980 in the amount of $890,818.15. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting July 17, 1995 Page 2 BID AWARD Showalter Sports Field Rehab. Project PUBLIC HEARING Interim Tree Regulations Citizen Comment Ord. #1746 Interim Tree Regulations Renewed Agenda Amended NEW BUSINESS Authorize Contract for Allentown Water Sewer Design Report MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO AWARD A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $209,460 TO TUEFEL NURSERY, INC., FOR THE SHOWALTER SPORTS FIELD REHABILITATION PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants declared the hearing open at 8:20 p.m. Steve Lancaster, DCD Director, explained that the proposed ordinance contains no changes to the interim tree regulations currently in effect. It just extends the effective period for another six month period in anticipation of adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. The Tree Ordinance will be incorporated into the Development Code. Jackie Dempere, 4033 S. 128th St., voiced her support of the ordinance. There being no other public comments, the hearing was closed at 8:23 p.m. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, 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 HERNANDEZ, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1746 AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF NEW BUSINESS. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Robertson announced that the Utilities Committee totally supports the contract with Gray and Osborne. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting July 17, 1995 Page 3 New Business (con't) Allentown Water Sewer Design Contract Ord.# 1747 Regulating Adult Entertainment Cabarets Council Amendments: MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,500 WITH GRAY AND OSBORNE FOR THE ALLENTOWN WATER AND SEWER DESIGN REPORT. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Cohen read AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CH. 5.56, REGULATING ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CABARETS, INCLUDING LICENSE REQUIREMENTS, INTERIOR CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENTS, AND PROVIDING FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1747 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Verbatim transcript attached (24 pages). MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO AMEND SECTION 5.56.060 (a), PAGE 28 (packet), LINE 8, TO READ AS FOLLOWS:...INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE AND CORRECT. MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH HAGGERTON VOTING NO. MOVED BY CARTER, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO AMEND SECTION 5.56.110 (a), LINE 1 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: UPON NOTICE OF NON ISSUANCE. REVOCATION. OR SUSPENSION OF ANY...MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. MOVED BY CARTER, SECONDED BY HAGGERTON, TO AMEND SECTION 5.56.040(a), PAGE 27 (packet), LINE 4, TO READ AS FOLLOWS: IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY OPERATOR, MANAGER, ENTERTAINER OR EMPLOYEE TO KNOWINGLY WORK IN OR ABOUT, OR TO KNOWINGLY PERFORM ANY SERVICE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF AN ADULT Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting July 17, 1995 Page 4 New Business (con't) Ord. Regulating Adult Entertainment Cabarets REPORTS ADJOURNMENT 10:25 p.m. ENTERTAINMENT CABARET, WHEN SUCH CABARET DOES NOT HAVE A CURRENT ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CABARET LICENSE. MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO AMEND SECTION 5.56.0070(a), PAGE 30 (packet), LINE 6, BY INSERTING THE WORD COMPLETE BETWEEN THE WORDS "ANY" AND "APPLICATION MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. *ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED 7 -0. Council discussed the need to determine how residents feel about fireworks in the City. John McFarland suggested using the Hazelnut as a vehicle to a questionnaire out to the public. Those interested in responding could mail their comments back to City Hall postage paid. Council requested the Finance Director present an overview of the preliminary budget and that the information be given to Council two weeks in advance. Date to be determined. Councilmember Mullet reported on an ACC meeting he attended in Normandy Park earlier in the evening. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. \414 4) John/ Rants, Mayor U C 6.., ;L._ Gf r r 3arje E. Cantu, City Clerk Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting July 17, 1995 NEW BUSINESS: An ordinance amending Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 5.56, regulating adult entertainment cabarets. Verbatim Transcript Mayor John Rants: The ordinance that is on the table in front of the Council has taken many months of legal research and police work over an extended period of time. The ordinance is based on addressing over 500 convictions related to criminal activity. This is only one of the areas of concern on Highway 99 and in the overall strategy of cleaning up. In the records I have observed, there are documented cases that prove the need for regulation of these activities. Counselor, if you would read the ordinance by title only. Linda Cohen, City Attorney: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.56, REGULATING ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CABARETS, INCLUDING LICENSE REQUIREMENTS, INTERIOR CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENTS, AND PROVIDING FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION. Dennis Robertson. Councilmember: I MOVE THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AS READ. Joe Duffie. Councilmember: SECOND. Mayor Rants: Moved and seconded to adopt the ordinance as read. Discussion. Council, the attorney for Deja Vu, Mr. Burns, is here and has requested a 10 minute presentation to the Council. If it is your pleasure, you should do that. jack Burns. Deia Vu Attorney: Members of the Council, my name is Jack Burns. Thank you for giving me a few minutes of your time tonight. I am somewhat concerned by the rush to get this ordinance enacted and I am somewhat dismayed that I have not been provided with all the material that has gone into your packets. I was surprised to see tonight a report dated July 10th that, in my view, is revisionist history of the background of adult entertainment in the City of Tukwila in the last few years. I have not been given an opportunity to review that report or the exhibits. I was also dismayed tonight to find out that the City has made available a video tape which may be relevant evidence in this proceeding which was denied me in discovery in criminal proceedings had in the court here, and which the City claimed was protected by the attorney work product or other reasons. But that video was made available to the news media. It seems to me that what is going on here is that the City is taking a gigantic leap forward to pass a regulation which will effectively ban adult entertainment from the City of Tukwila. I think that's your purpose. While the ordinance does not say that, and say that the purpose is otherwise, that the purpose is to protect dance expression, that simply is not the case. This ordinance and its provisions are so onerous, so burdensome, and so intrusive, that the effect will be to drive Deja Vu out of town. Now I suspect that may not be unintended, but there are some things that I think you should consider and I'll bring to your attention, and I would like you to reflect upon. I have asked the city attorney's office -this ordinance is apparently premised on the view that the impact of these regulations on free speech will be minimal or non existent or infinitesimal in terms of 1 ,2:2'7 their impact. I've asked the city attorney for an opportunity to conduct a study at the club which would allow us to measure the impact of the communicative expression on the audiences. And we have hired a fellow named Ed Donnerstein. Some of you may have heard of him. He has testified in front of the US Congress. He and his partner are the foremost researchers in human response to a media of communication, and they're going to conduct a study for us. And it seems to me that, you know, out of common courtesy and decency, you might want to wait until that study comes in, which will only be three or four weeks, to find out if the impact of these regulations is minimal which is the underlying foundation for your ordinance. But, not only was I refused the ability to conduct that study in the City of Tukwila, apparently there's going to be no delay in the enactment of this ordinance which I think is wrong. There are several things with this ordinance, though, that just don't make any sense at all. And I wonder why they're in there. For instance, I believe you have a legitimate right to enforce your laws. And if you have a law that prohibits prostitution, enforce it. Put people in jail. Fine them. Do it. You had 70 convictions. Nobody went to jail. Nobody was fined. The city attorney's office was simply trying to build up a count. They offered those defendants such a sweet deal, they couldn't turn it down. They offered them a $50 fine, a three month deferred sentence, all those convictions on prostitution are going to disappear in a couple of weeks. The cases are going to be dismissed. The same with the dance violations. They'll all disappear. They offered such a sweet deal, they couldn't be turned down. When the police went into the Deja Vu club, they didn't target criminal behavior in general. They targeted certain individuals. They went back and back and back again to the same individuals to build up a body count. They weren't trying to enforce the law or trying to correct anybody's behavior. We were told by the city attorney's office "we aren't interested in changing people's behavior So, at any rate, let me take a look at some of the things in the ordinance that I think just simply don't make any sense. One of the regulations imposes strict liability on managers for the criminal acts of entertainers, patrons, or anyone else in the business. In other words, if it happens, they're liable. They can be fined and their license can be suspended. Now this happens even if they do their job. They are strictly liable for a violation. I presume that the idea of imposing liability on managers is to be sure that they do their job; but this ordinance works as a disincentive because if they do their job and they report a violation and a police officer happens to be there, they're going to be nailed for it. They'll be fined, and their license will be suspended. That simply doesn't make any sense. There's another regulation here that says that the entertainers have to be four feet away from the nearest customer. I don't agree with that. I think it's a violation of speech rights. It doesn't regulate anybody's conduct. It simply regulates the point in space where the dancer can be when she performs. If you don't want her to touch somebody, make it a crime to touch somebody. Right now the ordinance allows entertainers to touch patrons. It just says they can't do it in a way that's intended to sexually arouse. If touching is your concern, make it a crime and enforce it. But what's sillier about this regulation is that you remove the entertainers four feet from the patron, then you say that this can no longer be an adult cabaret or a cabaret where people sit around a table, have a drink, talk, maybe watch the floor show. You have required that there be fixed seating to the floor. In other words, it's got to be nailed or screwed to the floor and has to face the stage. Now, why in God's name do you have that regulation if entertainers are four feet away? What is wrong with people, you, I or anybody sitting around a table facing each other having a soda pop. What's the governmental interest in that regulation. There really isn't any. 2 a2,? Also, there's a regulation that I found silly that says that if you give incomplete information on a license application, you're guilty of a crime. What other ordinance or regulation says if you don't give complete information, you're guilty of a crime? If somebody doesn't give you complete information, deny him a license. You say they can't get a license till they give you the right information or they give you all information you've asked for. But don't make them guilty of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor with a potential $5,000 fine. Where's the sense in that? Every other regulation in this city that deals with licensing does not impose a penalty on anybody for filling out your form incorrectly or leaving a blank line where you wanted some information. There just simply is no substantial or compelling reason to do that here. The evidence that's in your books that apparently you have seen that gave rise to all this concern grew out of an undercover investigation that occurred over a year ago. That undercover investigation was completed sometime in June of 1994. No criminal charges were filed until February of this year. Why the delay? I suggest the delay was timed to make it impossible for those individuals who were charged to defend. Then all these charges were piled up and the prosecutor came in with the sweetest deal. They couldn't afford not to take that deal. They entered Alford pleas where they didn't admit guilt, but they said "I want to take this deal; it's so good I can't pass it up Now, you know, it's been almost a year since that undercover operation came to light at Deja Vu. Apparently, Sgt. McComber, the head of your police vice unit, was in the club on July 14th, just last Friday, between 4 and 5 o'clock. He was in there for an hour talking with the manager and doing an investigation. I have a manager's report of Sgt. McComber coming into the club. Apparently, one of the comments made by Sgt. McComber was that the club has shown improvement from a dancer standpoint. Talking about couch dances. But it's still not perfect. Well, nothing in this world is perfect. But if Sgt. McComber admits candidly to a manager up there that there's been a lot of improvement, and there has, the effect of that undercover operation was to create the response that you wanted. Things changed. And all you have to do is enforce the laws that are in existence now in order to solve this problem. You folks, the City, spent over $12,000 in dancer fees in the four months of that undercover operation. Dancer fees, drinks, and admission charges. You were the best customer of the club. You spent over 587 man hours up there police officer man hours, simply trying to get repeat violations from the same entertainers. The officer went back time after time after time after time to the same girl trying to get her to agree to an act of prostitution. She kept saying "no That isn't in the reports that they've given you, but if you look at the whole record, that's what's happened. I view what you're trying to do as really to drive -and maybe that isn't you, but it's the people who are responsible for drafting this ordinance and these revisions, and giving you only half the story in terms of the report that's been placed before you. It doesn't mention the times that the court has found that the City of Tukwila police have violated the constitutional rights of those entertainers repeatedly and regularly and dismissed charges because of those police violations of constitutional rights. I want to read you something from a book that I ran across, and if it sounds like what you're trying to do, it's probably familiar, and I'll conclude then by telling you where it came from. "Our whole public life today is like a hot house of sexual ideas and stimulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville, and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food particularly for the youth. In shop windows and billboards the vilest means are used to attract the attention of the crowd. Anyone who has not lost the ability to think himself into their soul must realize that this must cause great damage in the youth. This sensual, sultry atmosphere leads to ideas and stimulations at a time when a boy should have no understanding of such things. 3 2.2 The result of this kind of education can be studied in present day youth and is not exactly gratifying. They mature too early and consequently grow old before their time It goes on to say that "if we do not lift the youth out of the morass of their present day environment, they will drown in it. Anyone who refuses to see these things supports them and thereby makes himself an accomplice in the slow prostitution of our future, which, whether we like it or not, lies in the coming generation. The cleansing of our culture must be extended to nearly all fields, theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays, must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea Now, that sounds a lot like what you're trying to do here in my view. This ordinance is designed to cleanse the City of adult entertainment. It's not designed to stop the criminal problems that do exist with touching; otherwise, you'd enforce those laws. Where I was reading came from Adolph Hitler's Mien Kampf. If the shoe fits, wear it. Thank you. Mayor Rants: Counselor, did we wish to we'll proceed then. Assistant Chief Haines? Keith Haines. Asst. Chief of Police: I' d like to begin by explaining that Tukwila's experience with adult entertainment began in 1988 when World Wide Video moved to Tukwila. And I'd like to describe a little bit about that business. First of all, on their business license when they first came into town they mentioned that they were selling adult videos, but there was no mention of the panoram or peep show booths that were located there at their business location. These panoram or peep show booths were booths that showed X -rated adult films. They had doors that were locking from the inside. They also had holes that were drilled in the panels between the booths at about waist height. We found, in the police department, that we were suffering from many, many different lewd acts performed by men that were frequenting the peep show booths. Because of the problems that we uncovered, our city council moved to amend our ordinance. And in that ordinance they revised our standards and changed the premise configuration for those panoram booths. There was a requirement that the doors be removed, that the lighting be increased, no chairs, and that there was a hallway that led directly to a manager there in the facility. That ordinance was challenged by World Wide Video. It was challenged in Superior Court. We prevailed on the part of that challenge that dealt with the panoram booths. And after World Wide Video made those design changes in order to bring themselves into compliance with our new ordinance, we found that the criminal acts involving those peep show booths became virtually non existent. And that extends from 1990 through today. In checking through our police records, we have not arrested anyone out of there in over four years. As I see it, the new ordinance before you tonight uses tools similar to those that successfully regulated peep show booths to stop the frequent criminal activity occurring in our adult entertainment cabarets. When we annexed our stretch of Pacific Highway, we brought in an adult entertainment cabaret by the name of Little Darlins. The business later changed to the name it uses today, Deia Vu. Right at the point that we took over the police services there we made an effort to meet with Deja Vu's attorney, Jack Burns, other management members of the company, along with our city attorney, Mike Kenyon, 4 -2 F20 at the time. We toured the facility. We provided them with copies of our city ordinance on adult entertainment cabarets, and we heard assurances on that date that they'd live within the rules of our ordinance. Very early on after that meeting we began noticing violations and making arrests during undercover checks there at Deja Vu. In February of 1991 we had a very serious incident occur right behind Deja Vu where a murder /suicide occurred involving some employees from Deja Vu. Right after that incident we began to really wonder about the true identity of the owners of that particular business. While we were investigating the murder /suicide, Sgt. Rekow from our police department had contact with a gentleman by the name of Roger Forbes at the Deja Vu site. Mr. Forbes provided a business card to Sgt. Rekow and told him at that point that he was the owner of Deja Vu and was making inquiries about our investigation and why we were making demands on their employees there. We've also seen numerous business license applications list Roger Forbes as the club's owner. These are business license application by employees there at Deja Vu. Yet, a woman named Rhonda McCormack claims today that she is the sole owner of the club. You heard earlier about our operation last year in 1994 that uncovered over 500 violations of the law including over 70 prostitution convictions. I take issue with Mr. Burns that things have improved at Deja Vu. These violations are still going on today. We're still continuing with undercover checks, and we're still uncovering violations of the law. I personally spoke with Sgt. McComber prior to coming up here this evening and he tells me that although he did meet with a manager here this past week at Deja Vu, he made absolutely no reference to the operations being improved there at Deja Vu. As you'll see in a few minutes when you see our video clips and hear from Detective Hayden the type of undercover police work that we've been doing at our adult entertainment cabaret. It's been very difficult. I don't feel good about subjecting our officers to that type of undercover work, and I believe that the new ordinance will make enforcement much easier, much less difficult, on our officers. It will also mean that we'll be able to apply some of the valuable police resource we've been spending there on other important problems here in our city. If we stop the criminal activity in our adult cabaret, we'll be taking an important step to ridding the Pacific Highway corridor of crime. I urge you to adopt this new ordinance. It's fair and the changes are justified by the criminal behavior occurring there. And now I understand that Mayor Rants has a message for us. Mayor Rants: I do that. The information you're going to see -the pictures and the words -are extremely graphic. And I wanted to caution everyone in the audience and on the Council dais that it is going to be graphic so you could make a decision as to whether you wish to sit through it or not. (film set up) Mark Hayden. Detective. Tukwila P.D.: The video that I'm about to show you was done during our investigation which began in February. The three clips that are going to be shown -the first two were conducted within the City of Tukwila. The third one was 5 I conducted by the King County Police Department at a similar club up in north King County. (Film begins) What you're seeing is a typical couch dance up at Deja Vu. There's table dances and couch dances. Couch dances are a little more expensive than table dances, and you get a little different type of dance. Again, the current ordinance stated that there was not to be any touching for the purpose of arousing or exciting the patron's sexual interests. However, you see the dancer here straddling this detective, exposing her genital area and grinding her crouch against my crouch simulating a sexual act. This is done with a patron here to the right on the screen, and the managers as well as other male employees of the club were present. Female employees like waitresses also came into the area and there was never any attempt by either managers or waitresses to stop this sort of activity that was going on. Couch dances on a regular basis which I got going in in an undercover capacity and my partners received, dancers would typically expose their entire breast, typically expose their entire genital region. There were times where their genital region was actually pressed against my face. This also happened to other detectives. One of my partners that also was involved in the investigation actually had a dancer reach down his pants and begin to stroke him. This here (referring to film) is another couch dance. This one and the previous video were done in the north side of the club. It is the darkest portion of the club. The illumination comes from the small light on the table you see in the foreground and lamps which are set in the middle of each couch along each wall. And there is some lighting that comes from a main stage. However, as you get deeper into the club, it becomes a lot darker. Managers still will walk through the area, and it's noted in numerous reports that managers would actually look at us as the dancers were performing, as this dancer is here, and there was no attempt by any manager to have that dancer stop this sort of activity. When we conducted the video investigation, we went in in hour blocks. There were not any dancers that were specifically targeted. These were the dancers that were working at the time. They approached me and asked me if I wished to have a couch dance. What you are seeing is just my response in the affirmative to have a couch dance from one of these dancers. The dances vary in price from at that time was $22 to $32 to $42. When asked which dance is the better dance or what's the difference between the dances, the common response was the most expensive dance at which time the dancer would then- some dancers would expose their entire breast. Other dancers, like this dancer, may reach between her legs and begin to grab and stroke your crouch. Others would show their entire genital region and even press that to your face. You see a female waitress here come into the picture. You'll soon see another waitress come into the picture. This dancer will readjust herself, press her breast to my face while these two waitresses are engaged in conversation and there's no attempt by either employee there to stop this sort of activity. 6 This third video that you're going to see was conducted by the King County Police Department at a cabaret -type club in the north King County area. The difference you're going to see is a little better quality. The lighting in the club is noticeably different. There's lighting up in the seating area. You can see more details in the background. Again, the enhanced lighting makes a big difference in the quality of the different sets of videos that you've seen. This essentially is a side view of what you just witnessed in the other two videos. This dancer here -the individual on the couch is a plain clothes detective. She has now bared her entire breast. Underneath her shirt there is no bra. All she has on her top is her top. This is consistently what we found during our investigation which began in February and this is the type of dancing that still goes on now when we go in to do our periodic spot checks. John McFarland. City Administrator: Detective Hayden, I have a question. Was there any time that you went into the club that you didn't see a criminal violation? Hayden: No. McFarland: Was that similar to the experience of your co- workers? Hayden: Yes, it was. Every time we went in there there was the standards of conduct violation and that went on, for me, every time I went in the club as well as the other two detectives or three detectives that were working on this project which began in February. Duffie: I would like to ask a question now. When you made this video, were they aware of you making these videos? Hayden: No, they were not. Duffie: How did you get a camera in there? Hayden: Actually, I have some friends that work for the King County Police Department Mike Kenyon. City Attorney's Office: Actually, don't describe the camera. It's safe to say ..(unclear).. Hayden: O.K. Mayor Rants: Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think I need any words to support why we should pursue this ordinance. I am scandalized at what I've seen, what happens in our town and on our highway. And as I said, this is a piece, a portion of what we need to address. 7 ?33 Joan Hernandez. Councilmember: I just don't understand considering the number of well documented violations and all this evidence, why we're not just totally going for a banning of the couch dancing entirely since some other jurisdictions have evidently done that. It seems like we're still being rather lenient in allowing them to continue. Linda Cohen. City Attorney: I think this ordinance is addressing the criminal activity that's occurring inside. Certainly, the record is extensive and the video that you saw is just a sampling of what occurs. And those aren't the more flagrant violations that occur inside of the club. The way the ordinance is structured, we have been able to preserve the entertainer's ability to dance legally if that's what they truly desire to do and to cut out any kind of criminal activity inside. We believe that this ordinance will effectively do that. Other cities have outright banned -we believe that this will remedy it and if that's not so, then we can go to the next step and actually enforce a ban as well. Kenyon: Your reaction is certainly understandable and in all candor, it's an idea that we vigorously ...(unclear)....The fact is, however, the cities that have an outright ban will not..(unclear)..performances are standing alone. None of those ordinances have been challenged and you know, and you have told us for years, this truly is constitutionally protected activity and you do have an obligation to try to (unclear) the problems...(unclear). We think moving the couch and table dances that you saw in those videos, into an area in front of the stage, lit from the ambient light from the stage,..(unclear)..will assure managers and officers, and uniformed police officers to view that performance or..(unclear)... Cohen: For the record -Linda Cohen -and I will address the premises configurations inside of the club as the ordinance addresses. Then Mike Kenyon will talk of licensing and the appeal sections. This process has been a long one. It comes to you today as a product of a number of years, as the Mayor pointed out earlier, of police activity as well as legal research. And, as has been pointed out by Chief Haines, the extent and the frequency of the criminal activity inside of the club was absolutely alarming. We knew that there was criminal activity since 1991, and as Detective Hayden said, there has never been an instance where an undercover detective has gone in to that establishment and hasn't witnessed a criminal violation. But the extent of the prostitution truly was alarming to all. There are a few other instances that I'd like to bring to the Council's attention, not for shock value, but just for flavor for what type of activity does go on inside. In your Exhibit #H that you have in your notebooks, page 219, there's evidence in one of the police reports of an entertainer who is vigorously masturbating our fully clothed detective while an employee walks up to the detective and places a Deja Vu magazine on the table in front of him. On page 293 you also have an example. After the dancer has conducted the same type of activity on the detective, she places her breasts in his mouth and exposes her genitals and pulls the detective's hand toward her exposed genitals and actually penetrates herself. The detective quickly pulled away, but this is the type of activity that the entertainers are calling "dancing Also on Exhibit #H, on pages 187 -188 8 there is an instance of an officer who walks into the club and his attention was drawn to the shower stage area and he saw a patron with his pants down around his ankles. A manager was there and made some sort of comment to the dancer. The dancer laughed and she went on into the more public area with that same patron. There are others that are even more graphic than that, but I think that you have the flavor by now. Also, on pages 173 -178 there's an interview with one particular entertainer who talks of a lot of these instances and says that it's quite commonplace. She also speaks of the drug and alcohol use by the entertainers while inside of the club. And she makes a comment that is fairly striking. She says that you can't be a clean dancer and make any money inside of the Deja Vu club. She said you might as well quit. One thing that the 1994 undercover operation revealed as well as the others, since 1991, is that there is a severe need for internal premises configuration changes plus also a need to regulate the behavior of both the managers and the operators. Clearly, as you've seen on the videos and the few examples that I pointed out and the many more in your books that you've reviewed, it shows that employees, managers, waitresses, do nothing about the violations that flagrantly occur in their presence. We believe that this ordinance addresses those problems. Just to highlight some of the premises configurations -in this ordinance there's a performance area. One -on -one dancing, what is referred to a couch dance or a table dance, is still permitted to occur. But this area must be in a clearly marked area, and the ordinance describes that the performance area is to be six feet away from the stage and it is to be the same length and depth of the stage. Since it's six feet away, the ambient light from the stage will help to illuminate that area and also as the seats are facing the stage, it will also help to illuminate that area. Apparently. in order to eliminate any confusion as to what constitutes four feet, the permanently affixed chairs inside of that area will have a two inch strip that will go from underneath the seating outward. The entertainer will not be permitted to come within four feet of that strip. This will eliminate any kind of confusion for both the patron and the entertainer, and they will still be able to express themselves legally. It's a crime to give money to an entertainer, or for an entertainer to accept money from a patron. This was quite important because we found extensive prostitution activity occurring inside. As the money will be directly given to the manager, it impedes the opportunity for entertainers to engage in such activity with the patrons. There also will be two licensed managers on duty at all times, one of them to have an unobstructed view of all of the areas. It will be easier to have that unobstructed view because the interior walls will no longer exist except for the restrooms, changing rooms, and any other room that is not public and necessary for the business operation of the club. It's unfortunate that there's a need for regulation of manager activity, but clearly there is. Mike will address the strict civil liability for the managers as well as the operators. Also, there will be clearly marked on each wall both the entertainment that's provided as well as the fees that are charged. And the Tukwila laws will also be posted on each wall, and that will give an opportunity for patrons to be well aware of what the law in Tukwila is, and it will be a 9 3� clear reminder to each and every manager as well as the entertainer as to what the legal bounds are that they must follow. This also eliminates some of the more private areas so that there's less likelihood for violations. As Chief Haines mentioned earlier, between the premises configuration and the other portions of the ordinance, this allows uniformed police officers to enforce the ordinance. Mike, if you'd like to address the license requirements. Dennis Robertson. Councilmember: I have a couple questions. Mr. Burns in his presentation to us raised several issues I have questions on. One is the impact on free speech. He mentioned that he was commissioning a study on human response. Is there anything in the US constitution or the state constitution that guarantees a dancer a certain audience response? The issue is distance from the dancer to the patron and I guess the implication is that lengthening that distance might somehow impact the response the dancer gets from the audience. But I don't understand how that relates to the free speech issue and the freedom of dancers to do the dance. Is there a relationship that you know of? Cohen: There is none that I know of. Mr. Burns asked that we suspend the laws in Tukwila so that naked women could come down off of the stage and be as close as one foot from the patron, and we declined his invitation. Mr. Burns did make a suggestion about folding in an exception for managers who want to self report. If the Council wishes to do so, we certainly have no objection to that. Robertson: That was the second question. He did talk about liability of the managers being a disincentive; however, it seems from the material that was presented that the managers, at least from what was reported, are not managing the dancers. One of the things we require with the money going directly to the manager and then to the dancer- that gives the manager the ability to truly control what the dancer does and to be knowledgeable of it. So, I would assume that if there were inappropriate behavior on the dancer's part, would choose to fire the dancer or ask them to leave the premises instead of necessarily turning them in to start with if they manage. Is that correct? Is that the intention of the law? Of the changes? Cohen: That is. Robertson: Thank you. Kenyon: That's what we expect to happen. On the other hand, Mr. Burns' point is that, in fact, the ordinance does serve to change management's behavior, and we do have a manager then who would call the Tukwila Police Department and say we're in violation here. Please come up. That's the type of behavior we're trying to encourage and his suggestion that (unclear)..then, to do self report....(unclear)... Cohen: language tonight. And if Council desires to do that, we can easily provide that 10 c23t Pam Carter. Councilmember: I have a question. I don't really understand this one -on -one performance area. The more I read it, the more I get confused as to it starts six feet away from the stage, which way does it go, could you maybe do a diagram up on the chalkboard? I don't care who does it. I just have difficulty picturing that. Kenyon: A performance area is a defined term. It's defined at page 6 of the ordinance. Carter: That didn't help me completely, either. Kenyon: What it says -in general terms (drawing on chalkboard) we'll make the Deja Vu building just a square. This is Pacific Hwy. So. That's north. This is the doorway that faces Military Road back here. There is a stage that for these purposes we'll just say it's 10 foot by 10 foot. It's not; but we'll just say it is for these purposes. The smaller what they call shower stage is back here. That is truly a stage with a shower. One can buy a shower dance where an entertainer will take a shower among other things for the patron there. The rationale behind the performance area is this: the six foot separation -in the premises configuration requirement in Section .090 we require that adult entertainment, which is defined basically as nude entertainment, occur no closer than -it's got to be on a stage, at least 18 inches off the ground and no closer than six feet to a patron. So the performance area has to be six feet away from the stage, and it has to run parallel to, and in front of, the stage and be no deeper than the stage itself. So, essentially what is does is create a mirror image of the stage six feet in front of the stage. If they have two stages, they can have two performances areas. If they add another stage over here, they can have three performance areas. We're not limiting that at all. The key rationale for that is to allow the ambient light that comes off the well lit stage to light up the performance area. It limits the place within the cabaret where one -on -one performances can occur. And we have another requirement in there that at least one of the two licensed managers at all times have a continuous unobstructed view of these performance areas. So the short answer is they're mirror images of the stage themselves that are six feet in front of the stage. That's where the seating for one -on -one performances is required to be and where the performances are required to be performed. The couches and tables you saw in the video now are still allowed throughout the club, but there's no one -on -one performance on those couches and tables anymore and the rationale for that was more than amply demonstrated in that video that you saw. Carter: So there would still seating allowed within that performance area? That's where the seats are attached to the floor and they have a strip of tape that extends... Kenyon: Yes. Carter: Oh, O.K. 11 X237 Cohen: That's right. There's no limit on the number of seats, the number of chairs they could place within that performance area, nor is there a limit on the size of the stage and, consequently, the performance area. Carter: O.K. You see, I had pictured something completely different and I see how your explanation corresponds to the wording. I just couldn't figure it out. Jim Haueerton. Councilmember: I have a question if you're entertaining questions. On page 8 of the ordinance and on page 28 of our packet, Item "e the third item from the top, it said "no person under 18 years of age may obtain a manager's license or entertainer's license My question is, where did the number 18 years come from? I would have thought this occupation might be more like 21 years. Kenyon: The rationale for that is that's it been that way since the ordinance was first adopted in 1988. Haeuerton: Is that a state choice or a state law or anything like that? Kenyon: It's the age of majority, so in the sense of what the City can do, technically it's Council's choice. Whether an age over 18 would stand up to scrutiny, we'd have to research. Haeuerton: O.K. That's good. Robertson: On page 34, under 5.56.120 Violations, dealing with the question about the manager reporting the offense him or herself. Is that where you would propose adding something to the end of that sentence about unless such offense is reported by the manager or reported... Cohen: Yes. Something like "provided, however, that no manager shall be liable for permitting lewd performance when such manager promptly reports any such violations to the Tukwila Police Department. Robertson: I would like to see something like that written up and then we can make it as an amendment. Kenyon: If the Council wants to adopt the language right now, you can just move to amend ...(unclear)... Steve Mullet. Councilmember: In the discussion of that, I'm not real comfortable with giving them an opportunity to self -report once in a while and make everybody think that everything is hunky -dory up there and then basically do business as usual. I just see that as difficult, so I guess I'd like to discuss that type of thing more before we change the ordinance. 12 Kenyon: Assistance Chief Haines, are you aware of any (unclear)..self reporting on crimes... Keith Haines. Asst. Chief of Police: Absolutely none. Kenyon: Perhaps that was Councilmember Mullet's point. Robertson: O.K., I would still think that if the manager wanted to report such a crime, that it would be inappropriate since remember what we're trying to do is stop the illegal activity. We're not trying to punish the managers, the place, or the dancers. We're trying to allow the dancer the freedom of speech, and we're trying to stop the criminal activities. That's what the report says. So, I would think that this would enable managers to stop the criminal activities without being penalized. So, I would think it would be a good amendment in that sense. However, one part does bother me. We require two managers on duty. How would we know which manager is guilty of the violation? When I read 5.56.120 it's not clear. Would it be both managers, the closest manager, the manager that was physically able to stop it when the police officer was there? Kenyon: It could be both based upon the observation of the officer in the club. For example, only one manager has to have this continuous unobstructed view of that person... (unclear)... Robertson: O.K., and since we require them to wear a name tag, we would certainly know which manager was there, right? So there would be no question. Cohen: And the light..(unclear).. Robertson: I understand the point you made, Steve, but I would still propose the amendment. I think it fits a concern that Mr. Burns had, and in my mind it's a legitimate concern. Carter: Thinking about what both of you are saying, in looking at the TMC regarding the panoram, it has something in there that says it's not legal to install a warning device saying OOPS, the cops are coming, everybody cool it. To me, self reporting, you're doing something wrong, I'm going to report you now, could be another type of sounding a warning bell that careful, the cops are coming or the cops are around. We would like everyone to be not breaking the law. That's the ultimate goal here, to have the employees abiding by the law. But the self- reporting to me sounds somewhat similar to that warning buzzer that is prohibited at the panoram. Mayor Rants: It seems to me the years the place has been open they've had the option of self- reporting /self regulating for a long time and could have called the police at any time. That has just been there. Now, I'm going to go on because Joan wanted to ask a question here. And then we'll need to hear from Mr. Kenyon. 13 Hernandez: On that self regulating issue, I just think that they have the opportunity to regulate their business, and they haven't done that. So I guess, what leads you to believe that they would do it now? Robertson: The point is we're writing an ordinance for any and all adult entertainment places we might have in the City, and it still seems that it's not -I realize that the criminal activity at this particular place has led to the requirement for stricter controls in the ordinance. The same as we did in the panoram with the peep booths, so we changed the rules so that we could stop illegal activities, the same things occurring here. And that's the basis for the changes in the ordinance, however, it would fit any and all future businesses. It is clearly not just aimed at Deja Vu. It is aimed at adult entertainment and what it takes to make such a business acceptable in our City. I would still make a motion that we make the amendment that would -I guess I'd have to hear the words exactly again. Mayor Rants: O.K., you've made a motion. Is there- Robertson: Could you read the words again? Cohen: After "Permitting Lewd Performance"-- Kenyon: ...(unclear)...will be added at the end of Section 5.56.120 (a)...(unclear)... Cohen: Provided comma, however comma, that no manager shall be liable for permitting lewd performance when such manager promises to report any such violation to the Tukwila Police Department. Robertson: I move that that amendment be added to the ordinance. Mayor Rants: Allan Ekberg. Mayor Rants: Is there a second? Council President: I'll second it for discussion. Moved and seconded. Is there discussion? Ekberg: What would happen now under this ordinance as we see set before us if self- reporting occurred. Kenyon: It's still within our discretion whether or not to proceed with the required notice. (unclear) Cohen: He certainly would want to make the other manager and operators aware that criminal activity occurred inside. Mayor Rants: Any other questions? Jim. 14 c1a Ha22erton: Point of discussion. Whether it's this business or any other business, in my opinion managers and supervisors are supposed to train their employees on what the rules are. No matter what the business is. So I don't think there would really be a situation that people were trained and oriented properly where there would have to be any reporting done by that manager on duty. I like it the way it is. That's my personal opinion. Mullet: I fully understand what you've alluded to, Dennis, and what you're trying to do. I just have a lot of concerns that it will be misused, because basically, these are people who have misused everything at every opportunity they've had up to now. And I'm just afraid it would be misused again. So, I'm not satisfied with that language to vote on it. I would need even more stringent language which might include something about the timing of when you call it in, so you can't just report it to the officer who walks through the door at the moment as a way to get around this. But I don't know how stringent you could write this in. I also have a vision of a constant stream of phone calls coming which drag our officers there all the time rather than stopping the activity themselves which would be the manager's responsibility, putting it right back on the City to enforce things. I think the intent of this was to get the managers to start enforcing some of this stuff since they're the ones that are responsible for their employees there. So I have a concern from that standpoint, too. I'm just not very comfortable with it. Carter: I'm agreeing with Steve. I'm trying to think of other similar situations where there's a possible illegal activity involved on the part of an employee where a manager or owner could be held responsible. The only one I could come up with would be in the sale of alcohol in a bar if the waiter or waitress sells to someone who is under age let's say. Is the manager at all liable for that? Is that at all similar? Kenyon: It can be a bartender. It can be a ...(unclear)...various classes of liquor license. Carter: Can be held responsible for their employee serving someone under age. Is there a provision then that if the manager reports this, they would not be held responsible for their employee violating the law? Kenyon: I'm not aware of any...(unclear)...As a general matter, if any court were to....(unclear)...criminally and civilly liable for the acts of their agents...(unclear).... Duffie: I know we've been working on this ever since I've been on the Council for the last 15 years. I'm in favor of the ordinance the way it stands and I think we need to adopt the ordinance and proceed. Right now if we allow any other loophole in this, they're going to work it and we'll continue to be here right where we are today. I think we need to adopt it and continue on. 15 02L/ 1 Mullet: To say what Dennis also said, the intent of this ordinance is to stop activity. And to take Pam's scenario which is now what's happening here but similar, you certainly wouldn't, as the owner of that grocery store, you would not call the police and say my employee is selling liquor to people under age. You would stop that employee from selling that liquor and not let that under age person get out of that place. I think we want the managers of these places to do the same thing. To stop the activity immediately and not put that burden back on the police, which would show up long after the activity was done simply because you can't get there at that second. So I'm against allowing that change. Mayor Rants: Anyone else on discussion? (no response) Ekberg: Call for the question. Mayor Rants: A yes vote on this amendment will change the language. A no vote will leave the ordinance as is. All in favor of the amendment say "aye" (Robertson); those opposed (Duffie, Hernandez, Ekberg, Mullet, Carter, Haggerton). Robertson: I don't believe I carried. I have a second license application question before we move on if that's appropriate. On page 28 under License Applications 5.56.060, one of the other points Mr. Burns made was that any incomplete information on a license application was a gross misdemeanor. I believe that this does say that. It says the true operator or his or her agent under penalty of perjury so signed and notarized or certified that all of the operators is defined in TMC 5.56.030 are listed and all of the information provided is true, correct and complete. The question I would ask is is this necessary and why. Kenyon: We had a conversation with ..(unclear)..over the past few weeks on a number of these issues. That's one he raised with us and in fact we accepted his suggestion. We took out a sentence that probably wasn't ..(unclear)..intentions, that ..(unclear)...expressed that failure to ..(unclear).... And Dennis, you're 0 -1 on amendments, but let me give you another one that I suggest here and that is to amend "true, correct, and complete" to simply say "true and correct" and do away with arguing about whether or not it's complete. Robertson: O.K. I'll try anything twice. So then I would make the amendment that we change 5.56.060 in the eighth line to read "information provided is true and correct Ekberg: Second. Mayor Rants: Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? (no response). All in favor of the amendment say "aye Duffie, Hernandez, Ekberg, Robertson, Mullet, Carter); those opposed: (Haggerton). 16 Cohen: We had provided the ordinance to Jack Burns weeks ago and this is just one of the examples of where we have taken..(unclear).. Kenyon: Only today did he call and changed his mind and requested the opportunity to speak. When we asked him a couple of weeks ago whether he wanted to he said no. Cohen: ..(unclear).. Mayor Rants: All the reports into my office indicate that we have been in touch with Mr. Burns for a long time. Carter: On page 34 of our packet, which is page 14 of the ordinance, under 5.56.110 Appeals, subsection (a). I would like to propose that we insert the word "non issuance" in that first line so it reads "upon notice of revocation, non issuance, or suspension of any license under this chapter etc., because further down it says "a timely notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the notice of non issuance, revocation, suspension, or imposition of any penalty So to me this is talking about appealing when your license is suspended, revoked, or not being issued. So it think non issuance should be included on that first line. Cohen: For consistency I would just put it first so it would read "non- issuance, revocation, suspension etc. Carter: I'll move that we insert the word "non- issuance" between "of" and "revocation so it reads: "Upon notice of non issuance, revocation, or suspension of any license etc. Mullet: Second. Mayor Rants: There is a second. Is there discussion? (no response). All in favor say "aye (all); those opposed: (none). Ekberg: I'd like to follow up on what Mr. Burns said specifically about his perception of a rush to get the ordinance enacted. How long has work been conducted on this ordinance? Cohen: The two and one half years that I've been here. Mike? Kenyon: It would be useful I suppose to give a brief run down of our experience specifically with Jack Burns on these issues. I'm not trying to make Jack Burns the issue here. He's been a colleague of mine for many, many years, but in fact, he has been in what is in the daytime our courtroom, and the nighttime our Council chambers, arguing on behalf of Deja Vu entertainers and at times the Deja Vu corporate entity itself since the first enforcement which was around June or July of 1991. We filed cases thereafter. We started in here with a two day motion hearing on the constitutionality of the adult 17 �7 entertainment ordinance that we're proposing to amend tonight. We won in here. He appealed got to the superior court. We won in the superior court and that information is in your notebooks as well. He did not in fact appeal it up to the Court of Appeals. So, our ordinance has been valid after his challenge since day one. He's known since day one that we were continuing to build the record. He's been involved. He's represented literally hundreds of dancers in this courtroom. He has sued the City civilly on a number of occasions. One lawsuit was on behalf of several dancers, a civil lawsuit where the allegations were that police had no right to make a physical arrest up in the club. In fact, they should have just cited these dancers and let them go on their way. We won that on summary judgment. He appealed that to the Court of Appeals and we won in the Court of Appeals. A recent lawsuit that we got earlier this year was when, again as a result of Detective Hayden's undercover work and then some of the others in Special Operations, a number of cases were filed. Mr. Burns' office represented the dancers. They filed- under the rules that apply in this court- -they asked Judge Belur to allow them to file citizens criminal complaints against the officers for essentially doing the officers' jobs. And Judge Belur denied that. So they filed a civil lawsuit, through Jack Burns' law firm, against the City saying it was error for us not to criminally prosecute our own cops for doing their jobs. I'm not exactly a gray hair, but I can tell you in my nearly 10 years of practice, I've never seen an order quite so extraordinary as the Superior Court order that was issued in our favor in that case. In that case Judge Laznik, on the Superior Court bench, makes a specific finding quoting "plaintiffs in this case that was Jack Burns' clients, "plaintiff's position is absurd, frivolous, and an abuse of process used solely as a tactic to impact the related criminal prosecutions against the plaintiffs That's page 597 in your notebooks. I think it's the last page. I say this not necessary to pump up the city attorney, although she's obviously been running the show on these matters, but because it tells you in part what it is that we are dealing with. This is not, as Mr. Burns would have us believe I think, a true first amendment issue. He has been involved since day one in this court with these issues. He's been kept abreast of these issues. He's been provided draft copies of ordinances. He's essentially declined to meaningfully participate until today. When he has given us suggestions, we've incorporated a number of them. So, that's a long way to answer your question, Allan, but there is no question, no question at all, that Jack Burns, and therefore the Deja Vu corporate entities, are well aware of what's going on here and have been since day one. Cohen: In fact, Mike led a meeting early on along with Chief Haines with the folks at Deja Vu trying to get them to comply with the new ordinance. Kenyon: Keith touched on it briefly, but understanding in 1991 that we had a new use in town. We hadn't had any adult entertainment cabarets before. We did try to work with them. We had more than one meeting. I wasn't at all of them. Keith wasn't at all of them, but the Special Operations sergeant at the time was at a number of them. We were at several where we went through what the ordinance meant, how it was going to be enforced, answered their questions, asked if they would want us to provide anything further, and always, always, always the response was you bet, we're glad you want to work with us, it's nice to have the response of City government, that kind of thing. As 18 you can tell from the video tape and the volumes in front of you, those representations of management just were not credible and you don't have a basis, in my judgment, to rely on any contrary representations of management right now. Robertson: One of the other things that Mr. Burns brought up in his presentation was the point that the four foot distance between the dancer, for couch dances, and the patron is not the issue. He said if touching is a problem, make it a crime to touch, but don't deal with the distance issue. Cohen: Clearly it is not a crime to touch someone. That's why a waitress could accidentally touch someone while she was serving them drinks and not be ..(unclear)..That's not the issue and certainly Robertson: I thought the same thing. I don't necessarily want to pass a law that makes it illegal for people to touch one way or the other. The other point that I thought about that was what we're really doing is controlling the distance. We're trying to control the situation. Do we have a right to do that? What do we do similar? Well, we pass laws saying that people have to stop at stoplights. The fact that they stop or not stop at stoplights isn't really the problem. The problem is the car crash or wreck that occurs if they don't on occasion. We could, I suspect, with the point Mr. Burns made, make it illegal for drivers to have car wrecks. But as a society, I think almost everywhere we found it a lot more useful to make it a law that people have to stop at stoplights. Instead of outlawing the wreck, we pass a law saying we're going to control the situation and make it safer. I think most of what's in here is exactly an opportunity to do that. To control the situation, to stop the illegal behavior. And I support that. Mayor: That's what the ordinance is aimed at. Cohen: The rationale to use four feet is to be sure that it's a distance far enough away that an arm cannot reach someone. Clearly, what we're trying to get at is prostitution and touching for arousal. Mullet: I had another question about the lighting, Mike, and I understand your mirror image stages and the ambient lighting from the stage is supposed to light that area. Where in our ordinance do we require the stage to be lit? Kenyon: Actually, there is not a specific the stage must be lit requirement, there's a requirement in a...(unclear).. Mullet: There's a requirement that the public areas must be lit but not that the stage be lit. But is we're saying that one of the things we want is that the private dance area to be lit from the stage, are we missing -if they turn the lights off on the stage, is it still a public area that we have some control over saying it has to have some other kind of lighting on it? 19 Kenyon: That's an excellent point. We talked to building code people. We talked to some electricians. First of all, we have not had any problem in our experience with that club with lighting on the stage. Frankly, that's what brings the patrons in. That's where nude dancing is permitted to occur. So that's well lit. If, however, the club sees fit to try to go behind our backs and reduce or eliminate the lighting on the stage, we'll be right back here in front of you. But we have not had a problem with that yet. We don't have reason to believe that we will have a problem in that respect given the incentive they have as a business entity to keep that stage club there. This is also, we think, the least intrusive means to address the problem that we have identified here. Cohen: There's also a requirement under..(unclear)..that all objects be highly visible. So that's a common sense standard that's equally distributed throughout the club. Hernandez: I' ve noticed that the amendments proposed are directly related to restricting any additional criminal activity, and I' ve noticed you haven't recommended any change in the license fee. The Cabaret license fee of $500 -is that comparable with what other cities charge for a Cabaret license fee? Kenyon: In our informal surveys, we've seen them from $400 to $800. There is a loose requirement that the fee generally translate to our administrative costs of processing. We're comfortable with that as well as with the license fees that pertain to entertainers and managers. Hernandez: And there hasn't been any proposed increase since this business has been annexed to the City of Tukwila? Kenyon: That's correct. Your Honor, if I could add one thing to the record, I think it's a significant item. It tracks what Keith Haines said earlier about Roger Forbes and his position with the company although Mr. Forbes' name has never shown up on a business license application for the club or the cabaret license application for the club. A number of the entertainers have put down his name as the person that they think is the owner. And those documents are in your record as well. There is the Roger Forbes' business card in your record that Asst. Chief Haines talked about. Mr. Forbes himself came out of the club and chewed out Detective Rekow for disrupting business when they'd just had a murder homicide right behind the club involving club employees and entertainers. I have here excerpts of a deposition transcript of Roger Forbes taken by lawyers in Seattle during the wrongful death lawsuit that followed the shooting and the suicide. I also spoke with the attorney who represented one of the victims. Today, she called me to report that the Court of Appeals has reversed the Superior Court. The Superior Court dismissed the Deja Vu corporate entities from that lawsuit. The Court of Appeals reversed that today, reinstated the lawsuit against the Deja Vu on that matter. That's just really a point of interest. I would like to hand the City Clerk these deposition transcripts that I think, not that we had a serious doubt about Mr. Forbes' involvement, but Page 24 of the transcript "question: do you now or did you ever have a consulting contract with the Airport Deja Vu Club? Answer: Yes, I do. Question: Is it an ongoing contract? Answer: Yes, it is." 20 Page 26 of the transcript: "What clubs or entities were managed by Consolidated Bookkeeping That's another entity that Mr. Forbes is involved with and at the point of this deposition was president of Consolidated Bookkeeping. Answer: "Deja Vu Lake City, Deja Vu Everett, Federal Way, and Tacoma, Deja Vu Spokane, Deja Vu Colorado Springs, Acorn Investment. And finally, Howard Blake was one of the shooting victims at the Deja Vu. He was also a Deja Vu Club manager. His manager's license application is in your packet. From Page 34 of the transcript, Question: "I'm asking whether you had any conversations with them (referring to other managers) regarding the hiring or firing of Howard Blake? Answer: As a consultant to the airport club and not as the president of Consolidated, yes, I did. Question: Specifically, what were your conversations with Mr. Macklin? When we first assumed jurisdiction over the area the includes the club, Dino Macklin was their regional manager. What were your conversations with Mr. Macklin regarding the hiring and firing of Howard Blake? Answer: My conversations with Dino regarding Howard Blake? Answer: My conversations with Dino regarding Howard Blake were (quote) "You have evidence that he is dealing drugs in the club to the girls? You are jeopardizing the club's business. Get him out of there if you want to stay in business." In fact, as part of the murder investigation, police seized a safe from Mr. Blake's apartment that contained, I recall, 30 or 40 grams of marijuana. Others at the club had told us we missed a safe full of cocaine by a day or two, but there's no question that that was going on in the club. Roger Forbes some control and authority over the club. I'd like to hand up a copy of..(unclear).. Haggerton: Mr. Mayor, I'll close my part of this by stating for the record that my preference is that minimum age for managers and entertainers be 21 years, but I don't want to make any changes to this that would jeopardize the enforceability of the ordinance. I am in favor of the ordinance. Mayor Rants: Counselor, your opinion on that? Kenyon: I haven't researched it thoroughly, but with all due respect to the Councilmember, I believe we would have trouble upholding 21 as opposed to 18. Haggerton: Yes, and I don't want to change it. That's just my preference. Mayor Rants: You prefer that and it's now on the record, but you won't offer an amendment. All right. The ordinance is on the table. It has been moved and seconded. We've been in discussion, but it is now amended. All in favor of the amended ordinance- Carter: I still have some questions. Are we talking about the amendments or are we talking about the whole thing? Mayor: We're talking about the whole ordinance. 21 Carter: O.K., I have a couple of questions. Now, I want to make sure I understand this. The nude performances are only on the stage. The one -on -one are not nude. Kenyon: Correct. Carter: O.K. And who is the Hearing Examiner? If there was an appeal to a license that was revoked, suspended, non issued. It says a Hearing Examiner. Kenyon: His name is Fred Kauffman. John McFarland, City Administrator: The City contracts with the City of Renton and uses their administrative hearing officer for a number of our civil hearings. We do not use him for criminal hearings. It would be the same person that handles all of our decriminalized hearings. Fred Kauffman, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton. Carter: O.K. On Page 27 of our packet, which is page 7 on the ordinance, 5.56.040 Adult Entertainment Cabaret Licenses. Fees, Terms, Assignments, and Renewals. Section A, under that the second sentence says that it's unlawful for any employee to knowingly work in a cabaret without a cabaret license. I think it's unclear there that we're referring to the cabaret having a cabaret license. It sounds like it's unlawful for someone to work without a cabaret license. And the cabaret license is required of the business. Read that and see if you get the same reading. To knowingly work in or about or to knowingly perform any service directly related to the operation of an adult entertainment cabaret without a current adult entertainment cabaret license. So basically, if you strip down the sentence, it's unlawful for any operator to work without a current cabaret license. Cohen: Would it help to change "current cabaret license" to "when the adult entertainment cabaret license is not current Robertson: Could I suggest a simpler one? If you deleted the word without and replaced it with the phrase "that does not have Carter Yea. That would do it. Mayor: All right. Can we have a motion for that? Robertson: I'll make a motion that on Section 5.56.040 (a), the last sentence, we replace the word without with the phrase "that does not have Carter: I'm still looking at the structure of the sentence. It's unlawful for a person to work that does not have a current entertainment cabaret license. 22 Kenyon: Let me suggest this. On the second to last line of Subsection (a) where it says -ment cabaret. add a comma and then say when such cabaret does not have and strike the word "without Carter: Yes. Mayor Rants: Would you make that motion for an amendment then, Pam? Carter: I MOVE TO AMEND THE SECOND SENTENCE UNDER 5.56.040 (A). IN THE LAST SENTENCE, STRIKE THE WORD WITHOUT AND INSERT WHEN SUCH CABARET DOES NOT HAVE SO THAT THE SENTENCE READS IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY OPERATOR, MANAGER, ENTERTAINER, OR EMPLOYEE TO KNOWINGLY WORK IN OR ABOUT OR TO KNOWINGLY PERFORM ANY SERVICE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CABARET, WHEN SUCH CABARET DOES NOT HAVE A CURRENT ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CABARET LICENSE. Mayor: Is there a second? Haggerton: Second. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye Hernandez, Ekberg, Robertson, Mullet, Carter, Haggerton; those opposed Duffie. Rants: Are we ready to move the amending ordinance? Kenyon: Your honor, I'm going to do this to you one more time. Could I suggest one more technical amendment that is a parallel to one we had earlier. That would be in 5.56.070 (a). The sixth line begins with receipt of any application and I would propose an amendment to add the word complete before the word application so that the sentence would read upon receipt of any complete application for a license, the Clerk shall further issue a temporary license. Mayor Rants: Is the amendment understood? (no response). Robertson: I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE 5.56.070 (a) SIXTH LINE DOWN THE WORD COMPLETE BE INSERTED BETWEEN THE WORDS ANY AND APPLICATION. Ekberg: Second. Mayor Rants: Moved and seconded. Is there discussion? (no response). All those in favor say "aye Unanimous response. The ordinance as amended. All in favor say "aye Unanimous response. Thank you for a great deal of effort over a long, long 23 period of time. Keith would you please tell all of the detectives and all of the people who worked on this project for us that we truly appreciate it and their efforts toward the City. End of verbatim transcript. Prepared by J. Cantu, City Clerk McFarland: 24 250