Tacoma’s temporary ban on new big-box stores will continue, but the controversial Walmart proposal that sparked the moratorium in the first place will no longer be affected by it.
Instead, under an amended version of the box-store moratorium approved by the City Council’s 6-3 vote Tuesday, the Walmart Supercenter planned for the sprawling Elks property in Central Tacoma can move ahead through the city’s development process.
Several council members said Tuesday that while they didn’t necessarily like it, the city’s hands were effectively tied. The Walmart application already had been deemed complete and was “vested” when the council’s original moratorium kicked in Sept. 1, they said. That meant the development was destined to happen, moratorium or not.
“Yeah, a lot of us are frustrated,” Councilman David Boe told a crowd that showed up at Tuesday’s meeting to denounce the planned Walmart. “It’s not unique to the audience; this is a frustrating situation.”
Still, Boe said, the city’s land-use code, which the moratorium seeks to allow the time to review and update, is legally bound to be “company blind” and apply fairly to all applicants.
“I know a lot of people don’t want to hear that,” said Boe, who helped draft the amended moratorium. “… But I think this is fair and looks at our code objectively.”
Some opponents of the measure said they appreciated the council’s efforts but vowed to continue to fight the project. They’ll key on state environmental policy act requirements, they said.
“We’ll try to fight it that way,” said Tricia DeOme, president of the Central Neighborhood Council. “I know (council members are) scared of lawsuits and there weren’t the votes, so there was no reason for us to fight them about this.’
The measure adopted Tuesday will continue a temporary citywide ban on new large retail establishments exceeding 65,000 square feet – plus substantial alterations to existing ones – through Feb. 29. The time-out will allow the city to continue reviewing and updating its land-use code to better regulate large retail developments and minimize their potential impacts to neighborhoods.
But a new amendment also specifically stated the moratorium won’t apply to “boundary line adjustments” – the sticking point in the current Walmart application.
On Aug. 30, after fearing developers were stealthily planning a Walmart on the 18-acre Tacoma Elks property at South 23rd Street and Union Avenue, the council voted 7-0 to adopt its original emergency six-month big-box moratorium. But that measure didn’t take effect until the ordinance’s publication in the Tacoma Daily Index on Sept. 1.
On the day in between, architects for Walmart’s developer, JLO Washington Enterprises, submitted detailed building applications for the 154,000-square-foot Walmart planned to be opened 24 hours a day.
The city later deemed the application was complete, but contended a boundary-line adjustment application also was required to proceed. The city then put the project “on hold,” saying it couldn’t accept the application due to the moratorium.
The developer since has appealed the matter to the city’s hearing examiner and informed the city that denial of the project could amount to a $5 million damages claim, City Attorney Elizabeth Pauli said Tuesday.
Several council members noted Tuesday that the public will have other opportunities during the development process to weigh in on the Walmart application.
Members Jake Fey and Ryan Mello also blamed what they called an outdated clause in city charter that delayed the original ban from taking effect until public notification occurred two days later.
“I would like to close this loophole now,” Fey told Interim Manager Rey Arellano.
Mayor Marilyn Strickland also defended the council’s original moratorium – and other recent ones adopted by the council – saying all were necessary to create better land-use regulations.
“At the end of the day, we’re going to have a better code that will help us prepare for that future,” she said. “And that’s what this will do.”
Members Joe Lonergan, Lauren Walker and Spiro Manthou voted against the amended moratorium. Lonergan, who was absent for the first vote, said the council misapplied the temporary ban from the get-go by using it to target one business.
“We wanted to change the rules overnight,” he said.
Lewis Kamb: 253-597-8542
lewis.kamb@thenewstribune.com
Twitter: @lkamb
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.