00643 (2)1
S�. t't� lip '� 1 . .. .. - � .v • .r � . ... - � .. .. .. - . -:.. i
Mr. James Driscoll
'September 8, 198
Pape 4 . _ '•^
F
were met; I do. not bul.ieve t.hc file on 11RD , -7.7 reflects such
compliance. The letter from the Planning Department to the
proponent dated August 15, 1978 similar:l.v reflects that final
approval, must be obtained within one year from the date of
preliminary approval. Those time limitswere certainly not met.
Rather than request final approval of PRD 4-77. the proponent
chose to submit a new development plan (PRU 2-78). From that
point on, PRD 4-77 was often referred to as Phase I and PRD 2-78
as Phase II of a single, integrated plan. The records certainly
reflect abanconment of PRl) 4-77 in favor of the larger development
which included this same area. Not only did the subsequent
plan constitute an election and commitmentbut to a single PRD' the
various modifications were required and agreed to affecting,
entire development. The propo.11ecit now seems to be abandoning
that plan which the Council approved on August i, 1978. This
represents an excellent example of piecemeal zoning and shows
just how the piecemealing process can be used to get something
passed that might not otherwise be approved.
This project also seems to have been abandoned by virtue of a
Kinderfather, has indicated -that site
change in ownership. Mr.
'in 19.T5:and in December, 19es, iftins
development was approved
unclear who may have owned the property at those times,
fact such approval was given. According to the PRD file, the
applicant for this project on November 23, 1977 was Parkside
Development of Mercer Island. The principal proponent at that
time appears to have bean Mr. Thomas Arc.hey. It is unclear
when ownership changed hands. The nexy applicant was Sierra
West Construction Co. of Tukwila. In their letter of December.3,
1980, they implied that economic circumstances are forcing them
out of business locally. They were replaced by Reid Properties
Ltd. of Vancouver B.C., which may have beenarelated company.
The quitclaim deed of July, 1.979 was issued by Sandy Sierra
Nevada Inc. a California -corporation. We are now informed that
the owner is Gordon -Washington, Inc. of Vancouver B.C.. Ownership
r; uestion whether the PRD
is certainly a relevant factor. I Q
ordinances were intended to authorize indefinite grandfathering
€ or bootstrap.'ping of applicants based upon plans submitted by prior
owners. Given this history of change in ownership, it does not
seem fair to blame the residents of.the area f,or the developer's
,
failure to complete the project.on time.
OMMISSIONS, OVERSIGHTS AND FALSE PROMISES:
Throughout these proce�!d.iw,ls, various representations have been
made by the proponents . One has. to assume that those statements
and promises contribut:c.d to the City'.'; decision to approve
his
project. Some of those! promises have been illusory and some of
the representations have been deceptive.
First was the assertion that this area was suitable for development
and would have no environmental impact.., 1,111s was followed by a
moratorium on construction in the areas immedi.ate.ly adjacent to
................. ....tit•........,.
ma