Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-18 Regular MinutesSeptember 18, 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 ABSENT JOE DUFFIE Duffie Excused OFFICIALS CITIZEN COMMENTS CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; STEVE MULLET; PAM CARTER; JIM HAGGERTON. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE. MOTION CARRIED. JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; RANDY BERG, Public Works ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; LIBBY HUDSON, DCD Intern; TOM KEEFE, Fire Chief; STEVE LANCASTER, DCD Director; DON WILLIAMS, Parks Recreation Director; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; JANE CANTU, City Clerk. None a. Approval of Minutes: 9/11/95 (Sp. Mtg.) b. Approval of Vouchers: Nos.80918 through 80921 in the amount of $699,834.37 c. Authorize Mayor to accept right -of -way (Strander), vacation of bus stop shelter easement (Andover Park West near Baker), and 26 easement donations for CBD Sidewalk and Tree Improvement Project. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Quasijudicial: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) decisions and the SEPA MDNS dated June 11, 1995, approving the construction of a proposed fire Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 18, 1995 Page 2 Public Hearing (con't) OLD BUSINESS Approve Reallocation of 1995 CDBG Funds Approve 1996 CDBG Funding Allocations NEW BUSINESS Award Contract for Interurban Trail Bridge PS &E REPORTS Council Staff station located at 4202 S. 115th St. Appellant: Jackie L. Dempere Council Action: Staff requests denial of all three appeal issues. Testimony taken at public hearing. Deliberations continued to September 25, 1995. See verbatim minutes attached. (11 pages). MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO APPROVE THE REALLOCATION OF $10,000 OF 1995 CDBG FUNDS FROM THE UTILITY CONNECTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO THE 1995 HOUSING REPAIR PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY HAGGERTON, TO APPROVE ALLOCATIONS OF CDBG FUNDS FOR 1996. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY MULLET, SECONDED BY CARTER, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,139 FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL BRIDGE (Green River)PS &E. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Carter announced following events: 1) Foster Community Club meeting, Wednesday, September 20th, Foster library, 2) Candidates Night, October 18th, Foster High School, 3) Friends of the Library Book Sale, October 5 6. John McFarland reminded Council of the ACC Executive meeting, Wednesday, September 20th, at noon. On Tuesday, September 19th, McFarland will attend the Strategic Planning and Noise Advisory Group meeting at the King County Airport. Also, the Police storefront on Highway 99 will be ready for occupancy on Monday, September 25th. Improvements will be made to the building on an ongoing basis. Volunteers will help staff the building. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 18, 1995 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE MEETING BE 9:26 p.m. ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED John 'W. Rants, Mayor ,ra4 E. Cantu, City Clerk Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting September 18, 1995 Ouasiiudicial Hearing: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) decisions and the SEPA MDNS dated June 11, 1995, approving the construction of a proposed fire station located at 4202 S. 115th Street. Appellant: Jackie L. Dempere Councilmembers Present: Joan Hernandez, Allan Ekberg, Dennis Robertson, Steve Mullet, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton Councilmembers Absent: Joe Duffie Officials Present: Mayor Rants; John McFarland, City Administrator; Linda Cohen, City Attorney; Randy Berg, Project Coordinator; Ross Earnst, Public Works Director; Libby Hudson, DCD Intern; Tom Keefe, Fire Chief; Steve Lancaster, DCD Director; Don Williams, Parks Recreation Director; Lucy Lauterbach, Council Analyst; Jane Cantu, City Clerk Verbatim Transcript Steve Lancaster. DCD Director: Thank you, your Honor. This is the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission, Board of Architectural Review, and Director of the Department of Community Development on those decisions relating to Fire Station #53. Those decisions are SEPA, Determination of Non Significance, File No. E95 -0016. The appeal of the Board of Architectural Review design approval, File No. L95 -0030; and a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission, File No. L95 -0031. In the letter of appeal submitted by Ms. Dempere there was also notice of the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit and potential appeal of that permit. Appeals of Shorelines Substantial Development Permits must go to the Shoreline Hearing Board. The City Council does not have authority under the statutes and under the codes that we work under to hear that appeal. So tonight we will be discussing the three appeals: the SEPA appeal, the BAR design approval appeal, and the appeal of the Conditional Use Permit. A little bit of background. On June 11 of this year I did, as the Director of Community Development for the City and as the City's SEPA Responsible Official, issue a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) for the proposal to build a new fire station. This mitigated DNS included five conditions and they are related in the staff report you have before you in the memorandum. Subsequent actions on this application for the fire station approval occurred on July 27th of this year when the Planning Commission 1 approved the Conditional Use Permit and sitting as the Board of Architectural Review also approved conditionally the project design for the proposed fire station. Again, there were conditions on the BAR approval and these four conditions also are related in the staff report that's in front of you. These issues were appealed by Jackie Dempere on August 7, 1995 and the City Council's responsibility in hearing this case is to consider the record on the testimony that you have before you tonight and then affirm these decisions, deny them, or modify the decisions that are being appealed to you. In doing so, it's important to consider the criteria under which these decisions were made. I want to particularly draw your attention to the criteria that the Board of Architectural Review was required to, by ordinance, look at when it reviewed and passed judgment on the applications. These criteria are included in Chapter 18.60 of the Tukwila Municipal Code and specifically in 18.60.050. I'd like to just briefly state the criteria that the Board of Architectural Review is required to look at. First,. is the relationship of the structure to the site. Second, is the relationship of the structure and site to the adjoining area. Third is landscaping and site treatment; fourth is building design; fifth is miscellaneous structures and street furniture. In looking at their decision on the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission is required to look at five criteria that are included in Chapter 18.64 of the Municipal Code specifically Section 18.64.050. I'd like to recite these criteria as well. Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria in granting a Conditional Use Permit. 1) The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated; 2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy; 3) The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building, and site design; 4) The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan; 5) All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. Now I state these criteria, both the BAR and Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit criteria, to you because those are the same criteria you need to be looking at in reviewing their decision. So it's very important we set the context for the appeal that's before you. I'd like to go through first the environmental issues under the SEPA appeal and then the issues under the BAR approval and the CUP approval with you. First of all, the appellant has alleged there has been inadequate disclosure and lack of disclosure of the adverse impacts associated with the proposal. However, reviewing the record and the information we've submitted to the City Council should clearly demonstrate to you that the potential for adverse environmental impacts was thoroughly disclosed and evaluated through preparation and critical review of a number of documents. First of all- -and these are all included in Appendix G- -first of all an environmental checklist was prepared that's dated 2 May 1, 1995. There were two geotechnical reports done, a preliminary report and then a follow -up report. There was a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the property. There was a wetland's summary report. The wetland was delineated and evaluated. There was a staff review of the environmental checklist and all this other information on a step by step detailed basis, and that was stated June 30, 1995. You have a copy of that. Finally, all of this analysis culminated in the issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance dated July 6, 1995. All of this information was made available to City staff and specifically to myself as the City's Responsible Official under SEPA. We also sought the review of this information from other departments and considered the comments that we received before issuing that determination. In reviewing all this information, I need to emphasize that the state law as well as Tukwila Municipal Code establishes criteria for reviewing the decision of the City's Responsible Official in making a determination of non significance. State law clearly requires that such determinations shall be entitled to substantial weight. This creates a very heavy burden of proof on an appellant in demonstrating that environmental considerations were not done or environmental factors were not considered in making the decision. We believe that the record clearly shows a thorough disclosure and evaluation of the impacts and believe that this portion of the appeal should be denied. In reviewing the other issues that came up in the appeal, we received from the appellant this afternoon a briefing paper so to speak, and there were several specific issues raised that the appellant has concluded were omissions or misrepresentations that rendered the environmental checklist void and unreliable. First of all I need to point out that the environmental checklist is just one part of the documents that we review. I've listed those others. In reviewing the environmental checklist we did address all of the issues that were mentioned here. Steep slopes. The proposed development does not directly affect the steep slopes involved. Same thing with what's mentioned in this information from the appellant as unusual rock formations. The proposed development does not directly affect those. With regard to earthquake potential, the geotechnical evaluations address that potential specifically and make recommendations on how to make sure this is a safe facility. There's indication in the information supplied by the appellant that there may be Indian artifacts in the area. We are aware of no evidence that there is. We circulated the Determination of Non Significance to both the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Duwamish and received no comments to the contrary back from those groups. Also, the mention of historical and cultural artifacts or resources that might be on the site, no such resources have been officially designated on this site. The DNS recognizes that. Finally, it's represented by the appellant that there was no analysis of a designated bike or pedestrian trail path, but the proposed development does accommodate the proposed path through this area. So, we feel quite confident that the environmental review was thorough and that the DNS was appropriate. The appellant has also raised the issue of traffic. This issue was discussed in the report to the Planning Commission for the conditional use permit under Criteria "C" in that staff report. That staff report is included in your packet. There's 3 mention in the appellant's filing of So. 115th Street as a scenic drive or road and the impacts this might have on that. It has not formally been designated to our knowledge as a scenic drive or road so it has no impact there. The appellant is indicating that this could be a hazardous site due to earthquake and other matters. Again, the geotechnical analysis addresses that issue and the buildings are being designed to be safe in any kind of emergency situation. The appellant has alleged that we have inadequately applied the existing Tukwila Tree Ordinance. In reviewing the site plan it's clear that the proposed project meets the requirements of the tree ordinance in the sensitive area overlay. The ordinance does allow for the 20 percent canopy coverage method which has been applied in this situation. The final determination of whether this property complies with the tree ordinance has to be made through the issuance of a tree permit which has not yet been done. It will be done as a matter of course during the review and permitting for this project. Concern is expressed by the appellant of low income housing. There's no specific criteria in either the conditional use permit criteria or the Board of Architectural Review criteria that they must look at that directly addresses this issue. Even though the conditional use permit and BAR approval are not required to address this issue, the City did offer financial assistance for relocation of these residents. The appellant argues also that the property shouldn't be zoned CM or may be zoned something else in the future on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan being developed, etc. It is very important to recognize that when a development is proposed, the zoning that's in place at that time has to be considered, and possibilities of future changes to that zoning can't be the determining factor in terms of whether a project is approved or not by the Planning Commission or BAR. There's discussion in the appellant's case about the impossibility of providing proper buffers of surrounding single family homes from a fire station activity. I need to make the point that even if this were a single family zone, a fire station can be allowed through the conditional use permit process. The Planning Commission BAR did look at issues of buffering this project from adjacent areas. Many of the existing trees on the site are going to be retained and there will be additional trees planted. The BAR did discuss this and consider this under Criteria #3 in their report. After considering all these issues, the Board of Architectural Review determined that it met the criteria, and the Planning Commission determined that the proposal met the criteria for the conditional use permit. Taking all of this information together, I think it's important to know that different people coming from different perspectives may end up with different decisions on a specific point. The thing that has to be considered is whether or not the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review and the SEPA Responsible Official with the information reasonably available made a decision that can be supported by the facts. In this case, I think it's very clear that in all three cases the answer is yes. In conclusion, it is clear from our perspective that the record demonstrates that the potential environmental impacts of this project have been considered and the documents show that. The record of the Board of Architectural Design's decision clearly demonstrates that the Board properly applied the criteria that they are required by code to 4 apply, and the record of the conditional use permit demonstrates that the Planning Commission applied the decision criteria applicable to conditional use permits. In light of that, it is our strong recommendation that the City Council support the BAR's architectural review decision, support the Planning Commission's Conditional Use Permit decision, and support the DCD Director Responsible Official's issuance of the Determination of Non Significance, and deny all three of the appeals that are before you tonight. I will be available to answer questions at whatever point in time the Council deems appropriate. Mayor Rants: Does Council have questions of staff at this point? Mullet: I have one. Steve, one issue that was brought up was the impervious surface created by the fire station. Do you have any information on the houses that were there and how much impervious surface they had in their driveways and roof tops, etc.? Lancaster: It would essentially be the roof areas of those dwellings. The gravel drives would be somewhat impervious as they're compacted and so forth. I don't have the specific numbers, but there would be an increase in impervious surface with the fire station with the parking and so forth over the existing conditions. Mullet: It's my understanding that the buildings are no longer there. Is that correct? Lancaster: The buildings are still there. They have not been demolished. Mullet: Is there any information on how the water was handled that was running off those roofs and on the existing buildings? Lancaster: The current runoff? I don't have that information. There may be others here who would be available tonight to testify who do. Regardless of how the existing runoff is handled any of the new impervious surfaces will have to be handled according to City code in terms of retention, treatment, and discharge. Mayor Rants: Thank you, Steve. The appellant may speak now. Jackie Demnere. Appellant: I didn't want to be here today and three members of the Council know that I called you and told you please do not buy this site. And you bought the site and I have the feeling that you didn't really realize what happened. I have spent since 1990 working to preserve this site. I have a lot of hours of my life and I learned to lose and to win and to be happy. Sometimes I was very happy. We were going to get funding, we were going to build this, we would fund different ways. It's been a long process. I didn't want to have multiple funding for that site. I had to leave the group when I couldn't agree. We didn't have enough votes because I will not change. I left the group and I thought something would happen, but I didn't expect that through my intervention I was going even do worse to Allentown than if I had stayed out of it, 5 because I'm the one who put these people together. I brought attention to that site. And who got the owners of the property to believe that we would buy the property and they waited and waited and waited until the point where one of the owners couldn't handle any more and sold. Originally, there were two partners, and when one of the partners died, the partner who was left couldn't get a loan with the new owners. You've known me for several years here in Tukwila and I had lost my house. I had lost everything in 1988 in an arson fire. I hate to be here fighting against the fire department, because the fire department came and went into my house where it was unsafe and took my momentos that were burned and took them out of my house. I do not want to go against the fire department, and you put me in this situation and I'm very upset. I also lost my house and I couldn't find a place to rent. I saw many houses being demolished and houses that I could have moved to my property and the process and the bureaucracy. I learned so much about it that when I came to Tukwila and I was a citizen of Tukwila, I wanted to contribute my knowledge and I wanted to start a preservation group and I wanted to save the houses in Tukwila. I gave an example. I moved a house that everybody thought it was garbage. People have called the Mayor asking him why is he bringing this eyesore to this site. And people are now stopping and telling me how good the house looks. They couldn't visualize the house after it was fixed. I'm trying to preach by example. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and I'm doing it. And I would like to just say I'm spending hours that I could be looking for work, taking care of my business, doing research, and when I hear here the heavy burden of proof is on the appellant, I'm angry. Because this City should be doing the work that I'm doing. It is unfair, it is an embarrassment to me that we went through that. I informed you four years ago about not demolishing the homes that the City had bought with Open Space money. Offer them to the public. You have this huge package of legalese that people had to go through. I told you this is the City of Seattle contract. A page and a half and half the page was directions. You demolish the homes, you spend $60,000 on one home. And now you're going to go through the same thing. And this time you're demolishing homes that were built with love, they have character. They can be fixed. The City of Tukwila could be getting federal funds. We have enough people. We have 15,000 people. We can get federal funds to preserve our funds, but still we are taking more and more single homes. I don't understand why we have to build a fire station only on that site. You may legally say that I have the burden of proof, but morally, it is the City who has the burden of proof. It is the staff who has to do the job. On my property I pay the taxes, I improve it. I'm contributing. I'm not supposed to be also doing your job. Now, I'm going to have other people reading through this so you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm sorry I didn't have this into you soon, but I've been working around the clock. Mel Odem: My name is Mel Odem. I am here on behalf of the appellant. I live at 12251 Des Moines Memorial Drive. We're in the unincorporated part of King County that the City Council and other members have been courting to join your fair city. So I thought I'd come and be part of the process and get a sense of how things work. As I read this document, several questions come to mind that I' d like to pose directly to you if I may so that we can get some understanding as to why the City feels this site is so 6 Rants: Next. 11 Robertson: I'd like to point out that the loss of any housing, especially low income housing, is regrettable. Location of a fire station that's still in the residential areas is very important and there weren't very many sites to choose from. We looked at four or five sites and spent a great deal of time discussing it, the Administration and the Council, some of which was in Executive Session because of the contractual nature of that type of activity. And there were no real alternatives to this site. In this case we traded off by the City purchasing this land we guaranteed that the wetland behind the fire station would be preserved. It could be a park area. We guaranteed that the fire station would stay in the neighborhood, which was a goal of the neighborhood. And we did it at a reasonable cost for the City, which benefits the citizens. I think that counter balances the loss of the low income housing. The other point I would make is that Tukwila has significantly more low income housing than any other community in King County. If one wanted to discuss the lack of low income housing with cities, I would suggest that Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond, almost any City you could think of would be a place to start and ask them to do a fourth of what we do would be a starting place. I'm not using that as an argument for reducing low income housing, I'm merely pointing out that we do have a great deal and we've gone to great extents to preserve it. I don't find the argument substantial here. Rants: The motion was that housing and compensation has been adequate and the transfer has been adequate and to deny Item #4. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ITEM #4. Rants: Item #5. Robertson: Item #5 reads: "Disregard for previous citizen input and of the recommendation for single family zoning of the Tukwila Tomorrow Citizens Committee and Planning Commission for the property." I make the motion that the City adequately considered citizens' input including Tukwila Tomorrow and the Planning Commission in the zoning of the property and the use of the property. Rants: Is there a second? Mullet: Second. Rants: It's been moved and seconded. Is there a discussion? Robertson: The property is not currently zoned Single Family. It would be conjecture to guess what it actually would be zoned in the new Comp Plan if it hadn't been purchased for a fire station. However, the City Council is under no legal responsibility. In fact, it definitely has a responsibility to consider things such as Tukwila Tomorrow, Citizens' Committee and the Planning Commission. But sitting up here on the Council, we have to make our own decisions about the use of property. That's merely information recommendations and they're frequently disregarded. In fact, often Tukwila Tomorrow and the Planning Commission would have disagreed and did disagree in the Comp planning process we've gone through on particular recommendations. If we were to be faulted for not going with their recommendations each time we'd be caught in a "catch 22" when they don't agree. Fact of the matter is, there is no legal responsibility to follow their recommendations. If there were, they wouldn't be recommendations. Rants: Any further discussion? Hernandez: I would just like to point out that this property was zoned Commercial Manufacturing and could have been developed at a much higher intense use adjacent to a residential area prior to this proposal being made. EkBerg: It would not have mattered what the zoning was. Whatever the zoning was, a fire station could be placed on land in the City under the Conditional Use permit process. So I don't think the zoning of the land is the issue. Rants: The motion was that Mullet: Before you do that, Wally for the record, John, did we have some public input from the didn't we go down to Allentown and have some meetings on this with some informational meeting on this 12 McFarland: I met with the Allentown correction, the Duwamish Improvement Club on two occasions and discussed this. We also had an open house when we presented the conceptual design, discussed the location and the design at that time so there were opportunities for public review and public input. There may have been some additional points also during the BAR review. There was a public hearing at that time, too. So there was a number of opportunities for public input. Rants: The motion is that there has been adequate public review and to deny Item #5. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ITEM 5. Rants: #6. Robertson: #6 reads: "The lack of protection of architectural and historical significant buildings of a neighborhood as mandated by the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines." The motion I would make is that the architectural and historical significance of the buildings on the site were adequately considered. Rants: Is there a second? Mullet: Seconded. Rants: Moved and seconded. Is there discussion? (No discussion.) The motion is that architectural significance was considered and to deny #6. Hernandez: I would just like to find out that in the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit, they did recommend that the Arts Commission design and locate a commemorative sign of the historical significance of the area. 13 Rants: On the fire station site. That's correct. Okay the motion has been read so I'll not read it again. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ITEM #6. Rants: #7. Robertson: #7 reads: "The impossibility of providing proper buffers of surrounding single family homes from a fire station activity." The motion would be that proper buffers for the surrounding single- family homes are provided in the site design. Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. Is there a discussion? Robertson: The existing fire station has far less buffers than the plan. We looked at trying to deal with that site and do something with it, there was no way to do near as much there as we did on the plan site. If nothing, moving it from it's existing location to this site actually provides more of a buffer, more protection than the existing site did. Carter: It seems if fire stations were totally incompatible with residential neighborhoods, they would not be permitted as a Conditional Use in residential neighborhoods. I think people want fire stations in the neighborhoods so the fire trucks are near. I believe on the old Tukwila hill, when there was the thought of closing down a fire station, people strongly objected because they wanted a fire station extremely close. Robertson: Very mild statement. Rants: Any further discussion? The motion is that proper buffers are provided and to deny Item #7. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY ITEM 7. Rants: Do you have any other items? Robertson: No. Rants: Those are the ones that were listed. In effect, we have denied the appeal. But I think we do need a formal motion to do that. Robertson: I make a motion that we request DCD and The City Attorney to prepare a final of Findings of Facts and Conclusions based upon the decisions made tonight and the materials presented. Rants: If I may, the City Attorney has recommended that we adopt the Staff Report as the Findings and Conclusions. Robertson: Okay. Carter: I would go along with that because it does include the, for instance statement of BAR design approval clearly demonstrates the BAR was properly applied the decision criteria applicable to the design approval for the proposed fire station and similar wording for the Conditional Use Permit. Rants: Before we get to Findings and Conclusions, we need a formal motion to deny the appeal. ROBERTSON: I MOVE THAT THE CITY DENY THE APPEAL BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN BOTH THE TWO STAFF REPORTS, THE VERBAL AND THE ORAL PRESENTATION FROM THE APPELLANT. MULLET: SECOND. Rants: Moved and Seconded. Is there any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF SEPA, BAR AND CUP DECISIONS APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIRE STATION LOCATED AT 4202 SOUTH 115TH STREET. Rants: The appeal is denied. Now is the Findings and Conclusions. As I said, the recommendation is to adopt the Staff Report as the Findings and Conclusions. MULLET: I MOVED THAT WE ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT AS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. ROBERTSON: SECOND. Rants: It has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? (No discussion) Rants: All in favor say aye. Those opposed, nay. MOTION CARRIED TO ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT AS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. EkBerg: For the record, I would like to say that I was not in complete agreement with all of the findings. That's all that need to be said. END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT. ed by: Celia Square, De y City Clerk 14