The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2005-11-14 Item 4A - Ordinance - Administrative Appeals Process Regarding Quasi-Judicial Decision Making Processes COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS 7 ITEItINo. O �1 �1 )Yleetzng Date Prepared by 1 Mayor's review I Council revzem cti �h► :l. 11/14/05 PO 908 I ITEM INFORMATION. CAS NUMBER: 05-143 ORIGINAL' AGENDA DATE. NOVEMBER 14, 2005 AGENDA ITENI TITLE Administrative Appeals Process CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Aft Date 11 -14-05 Mtg Date illtg Date ltg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Alltg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD ['Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PIV SPONSOR'S Under this proposed ordinance, ac ;inistrative decisions would be appealed to the City's SUMMARY hearing examiner. Depending on the type of appeal, the examiner will hold a hearing and create the record and make a decision. If it is a closed record hearing, the examiner will review the record and make a decision based on the law as applied to the record developed below. Appeals from the Examiner will go directly to Superior Court. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utihties Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN City Attorney's Office COMMIYrEE CA &P recommended to send to COW for discussion. COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED -0- -0- -0- Fund Source: Comments MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 1 1 MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS I 11 -14 -05 Memorandum to CA &P Cmte. dated 10 -06 -05 Proposed Ordinance 1 CAP Minutes October 11, 2005 1 1 1 CITY OF TUK"VILA lVIElVI 0 RAl~D UIYr TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee . / / _ ~' /1 //;/ Shelley /r~~.4CttYAtiorney ~ . October 6, 2005 FROM: DATE: RE: Administrative Appeals Issue Whether the City sh4)uld streamline the process for appeals of various administrative matters and send more land use matters to the hearing examiner for adjudIcation, Background As you know, the City has recently had several quasi- judIcial proceedmgs that have come before the council. Following the most recent appeal hearing, It was suggested by several council members that we explore the process that we use to adjudicate land use matters. Discussion Attached please find a draft ordinance, which removes the City Council from the quasi-judicial land use appeal process in all but a few CIrcumstances. Under this proposed ordinance, administrative decisions would be appealed to the City's heanng exammer, Depending on the type of appeal, the examiner will hold a hearing and create the record and make a decision, If it is a closed record hearing, the examiner will review the record and make a decision based on the law as applied to the record developed below, Appeals from the examiner will go directly to Superior Court. Most cities have long ago moved to this system ofland use appeals, They have done this for several reasons: (1) the complexity of the issues related to land use continue to increase; (2) the stakes for making errors is higher, with attorney's fees provisions in the Land Use PetitIOn Act as well as damage claims that can arise from making deCiSIons based on impennissible cnteria; and (3) it removes the council from politically awkward or difficult situations, The restrictIOns placed on council members in a quasi-judicial setting cut off contact and communication wIth cItizens This ordinance increases the opportunity for council members to interact with their constItuents on vital land use issues. G:'.City Anomey\Tu.....wila'CAS REPORTS\[nfom",lion ~[emo Re Adminislrative Appeals.dociP/IO/06i05 Options After discussion of this issue last spring with the Finance and Safety Committee, it was recommended that we explore moving the majority ofland use hearings to the examiner. However, the Council certainly has the option of detennining whIch matters it would like to retainjurisdlCtion over and the draft ordinance can ~e modIfied accordmgly. Recommendation Adoption of the ordinance. -2- G:\City Attomey\Tukwila\CAS REPORTS\fnfomJ3tion :-'!emo Re Administrative Appeals.docIP/IOf06/05 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TMC 18.;1.04,010 TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL FROM CERTAIN QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS, 1768 ~2 (PART), 1796 ~3 (PART), 1841 ~2, 1857 ~7, 2005 ~20, 2066 ~2, 2097 ~22, AND 2098 ~4; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to remove itself from certain quasi-judicial processes; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC 18,104.010, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104,010, Classification of Project Permit Applications, is hereby amended, to read as follows: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications A, Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section, Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and/or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. B, Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise as designated by ordinance, Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. TYPE 1 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Development Permit Building Official Sign Permit, except for those sign permits Community Development specifically requiring approval of the Planning Director Commission or denials of sign permits which are appealable Boundary Line Adjustment, including Community Development Lot Consolidation Director Minor Modification to PRD Community Development (TMC 18.46.130) Director Minor modification to BAR approved design Community Development (TMC 18,60,030) Director Any land use permit or approval issued by the As specified by ordinance City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3,4, or 5 decision by this Chapter C.\Documents and Seltings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinances\Quasi-Judicial Decision-Making.doc <:K_PR.hn 11/1()/?M, p~(TP 1 nf4 C. Type 2 decisions are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 2 DECISIONS INITIAL APPEAL BODY TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review Community Development Board of (TMC 18.60,030) Director ' Architectural Review Administrative Planned Short Plat Committee Hearing Residential Development Examiner (TMC 17.08,040) Short Plat Short Plat Committee Hearing (TMC 17,08.060) Examiner Binding Site Improvement Plan Short Plat Committee Hearing (TMC Chap,17,16) Examiner Shoreline Substantial Community Development State Shorelines Development Permit Director Hearings Board (TMC Chapter 18.44) Decision regarding Sensitive Community Development Planning Areas (except Reasonable Use Director Commission Exception) (TMC 18,45 125) Special Permission Parking, Community Development Hearing and Modifications to Certain Director Examiner Parking Standards (TMC 18.56,060 and ,070) Parking standard for use not Community Development Hearing specified Director Examiner (TMC 18.56,100) Code Interpretation Community Development Hearing (TMC 18,90.010) Director Examiner Special Permission Sign, except Community Development Planning "unique sign" (various sections Director Commission of TMC Title 19) Sign Permit Denial Community Development Planning (TMC Chapter 19.12) Director Commission Sign Area Increase Community Development Planning (TMC 19.32,140) Director Commission Placement of Cargo Container Community Develpment Hearing (TMC 18.50,060) Director Examiner Exception from Single-Family Community Development Planning Design Standard Director Commission D Type 3 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing, Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58, C\Documents and Se!tings\AIl Users\Desktop\Kelly\!v1SDATA \Ordinances\Quasi-Judicial Decision-Making.doc SK-PB:ksn 11/1012005 Pa2:e 2 of 4 TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, Hearing Examiner land alteration, sign) Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Hearing Examiner E, Type 4 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an opeI1 record hearing, Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Exan:uner, based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, which are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90,58, TYPE 4 DECISIONS INITIAL TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION APPEAL BODY MAKER (closed record appeal) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Planning State Shorelines (TMC 18.44.050) Commission Hearings Board Reasonable Use Exceptions under Planning Hearing Examiner Sensitive Areas Ordinance Commission (TMC 18.45 115) Public Hearing Design Review Board of Hearing Examiner (TMC Chapter 18,60, 18.56.040 Architectural and Shoreline Master Program) Review Modifications to Certain Parking Planning Hearing Examiner Standards Commission (TMC Chapter 18,56) Conditional Use Permit Planning Hearing Examiner (TMC Chapter 18,64) Commission Unique Signs Planning Hearing Examiner (TMC 19,28,010) Commission Variance from Parking Standards Planning City Council Over 10% (TMC 18,56,140) Commission F, Type 5 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. TYPE 5 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Hearing Examiner (TMC 17,12,020) Subdivision - Final Plat City Council (TMC 17.12.030) Planned Residential Development Hearing Examiner (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Chapter 18,46) Unclassified Use Hearing Examiner (TMC Chapter 18,66) Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay City COlmcil (TMC 18.45,160) C:\Documenls and Settings\All Users\Desktop\Kelly\M5DATA \Ordinances\Quasi'Judicial Decision-Making.doc SK.PB:ksn 11/10/2005 Page 3 of 4 TYPE 5 DECISIONS (continued) TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Rezone City Council (TMC Chapter 18.84) Shoreline Environment Redesignation Hearing Examiner (Shoreline Master Program) Section 2, Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 1768 ~2 (part), 1796 ~3 (part), 1841 ~2, 1857 ~7, 2005920, 2066 ~2, 2097 ~22, and 2098 ~4 are hereby repealed., Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4, Effective Date, This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2005 ATIEST / AUTHENTICATED' Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City CIerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council. Published. Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Office of the City Attorney C\Docurnel1ts al1d Senings\AU Users\Desktop\Kelly\MSDATA \Ordinal1ces\Quasi-Judicial Decision-Making.doc SK-PB:ksn 11/10/2005 Page 4 of 4 Community and Parks Committee October II, 2005 Present: Joe Duffie; Chair; Joan Hernandez, Pam Linder Steve Lancaster, Jack Pace, Ryan Larson, Peter Beckwith, Derek Speck, EVle Boykan, Stacy Hanson, Kevin Fuhrer, Gall Labanara, Lucy Lauterbach; Gordon Thompson , 1. WRIA-9 Salmon Habitat Program Gordon showed a power point program about Kmg County's WRIA 9(\Vater Resource Inventory Area 9) program, It showed the salmon habitat plan overview of what kinds of programs are envisioned for improving habitat, and a ratification plan for adopting the WRIA Plan, a~ well as the local role in implementing the Plan, The area extends from Puget Sound below M~gnolia in the north past Vashon Island and Maury Island in the South, and down the DuwamishlGreen River. Tukwila is in a transition zone where small fish acclimate between fresh and salt water, so it plays an important role in fish survival. Information. -* 2. Administrative Appeals Process Based on discussions at Council some months ago, a draft ordinance had been drafted which removed the City Council from most quasi-judicial decisions, Most administrative appeals that have gone to Council would instead go to a hearing examiner. The ~ast quasi-judicial decision by Council concerned a new development of\Vinners, and an appeal from JoAnn Fabrics about the new building obscuring the view of JoAnn's. Committee members were generally supportive of the changes, but had some hesitation about giving up all the decisions. They agreed to send the ordinance to the COW and then to the Planning CommIssion. Recommend ordinance to CO\-V. -- 3. Resolution Ratifving WillA 9 Habitat Plan The Plan has been put together with the help of IS WRIAjurisdictions, and would lead to protecting habitat for salmon, Though it does not require jurisdictions to do projects, it is a guideline for shoreline development. The Committee requested that this item be brought back for consideration when Council Member Robertson returns. Reschedule. 4. Amendment to \-VRIA-9 \-Vatershed Planning A proposal has been made to extend the current \VRIA-9 Interlocal Agreement for one year. This will allow development of an implementation plan for the recently completed Habitat Plan. This extension will require member cities to again pay a \VRIA fee, though it will be lower than previous years. Tukwlla's portion will be $13,359, and it is in the budget. Recommend interlocal to COW. 5. Zoning Code Updates New language has been added to the zoning code regarding application for rezones. It gives better criteria for making decisions about rezones, and gives the DCD director more weight in making decisions on interpretations, The design review approval standards were also changed. Recommend changes to Planning Commission, then to CO\-V. 6. Relocation Assistance of Tenants In July, 2005 a provision in State law became available to require landlords to relocate tenants who have been displaced due to substandard housing conditions, No relocation is required if the tenant caused the condition by their illegal conduct, if