Resolution 4042 - Laserfiche WebLink

12. The zoning issue was remanded by the City Council to the Hearing Examiner for consideration in conjunction with or prior to his consideration of the SPU permit; 13. Pursuant to Chapter 2.23 EMC, the Hearing Examiner did hold a public hearing; 14. The Hearing Examiner determined that the proposed juvenile facility was a permitted use in the C-2 zone subject to the SPU hearing process; 15. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the zoning issue is appealable to the City Council following the hearing on the SEPA issues of the appeal and the completion of the second phase of the SPU hearing process. Notwithstanding, the Appellant filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision with the City Council. The Appellant contends that its appeal was appropriately and timely filed. The City Council determined that any such appeal would be heard only following completion of the SPU process before the Examiner; 16. The City Council did hold a second public hearing on the SEPA issues of appeal on March 2, 1994; 17. The City Council reviewed the additional information regarding the impacts to the proposed facility and heard statements from the appellants, the applicant, and the City staff regarding the appeal; 18. The City Council determined there was inadequate information to decide the issues on appeal and remanded the MDNS to the Planning Staff to generate additional information regarding the potential impact that the proposed Second Chance facility would have on public safety, public services, social services, neighborhoods, schools, parks and recreational facilities; 19. On June 1, 1994, City Staff presented City Council with a set of questionnaires to be used to develop the additional information City Council was requesting. The appellants objected to the content of the proposed questionnaires and Council members also expressed some concerns about the questionnaires; 20. The City Council directed the Planning Staff to meet with the appellants and applicants to address the issues regarding revisions, modifications and/or additions to the questionnaires which would be used to gather additional information on the impacts of the proposed Second Chance juvenile facility on public safety, public services, social services, neighborhoods, schools and parks; 21. The City Council on August 3, 1994, adopted the resolution remanding the SEPA appeal to Planning Staff to generate additional information (which formalized the direction previously given by Council); and confirmed the revisions agreed to by the applicant/appellants including the changes and the list of facilities to be surveyed and directed staff to proceed with mailing the letters/questionnaires which would generate additional information which Council requested before making a decision on the SEPA appeal; 2