Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2009-12-14 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Distribution: B. Fletcher N. Olivas City of Tukwila V. Griffin B. Giberson I Pace Community Affairs Duffle S. Hart D. Speck K. Hougardy S. Kerslake R. Still I Hernandez K. Stetson B. Arthur Parks Committee D. Robertson G. Labanara C. Parrish O Verna Griffin Chair Mayor Haggerton K. Matej I Eide Griffin, S. Hunstock M. Miotke K. Narog *Joe Duffie N. Gierloff C. O'Flaherty S. Kirby O Kathy Hougardy S. Brown S. Norris AGENDA MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2009, 5:00 PM Conference Room #3 ITEM I RECOMMENDED ACTION Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a. Rental Licensing Update; Jack Pace, Community a. Information Only Pg.1 Development Director b. Noise Ordinance Update; Jack Pace, Community b. Information Only Pg.5 Development Director c. Planning Commission and Board of Architectural c. Forward to 1/11 C.O.W. Pg.7 Review (BAR) Roles and Responsibilities, and 1/14 Regular Meeting. Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney d. A resolution supporting the Tukwila School District's d. Forward to 12/14 Pg.23 Capital Levy for Instructional Technology and C.O.W. and Special Meeting School Improvements, Shawn Hunstock, to follow Finance Director 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS Next Scheduled Meeting: January 2010 The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 for assistance. TO: City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Directo DATE: December 14, 2009 SUBJECT: Rental Housing Licensing and Inspection Jim Haggerton, Mayor ISSUE Should the City require a license and mandatory inspection for all rental dwelling units? BACKGROUND As part of 2008 program goals, the City Council asked that we develop a proposal for a rental housing inspection program. Staff presented an overview of this proposal to Community Affairs and Parks Committee on August 11, 2008. Recent studies confirm that there are more renters than homeowners in Tukwila, more multi family units than single family units, and nearly 40% of renter occupied housing units are rated as "needs maintenance "deteriorated or "dilapidated Code Enforcement staff frequently responds to complaints from tenants regarding conditions inside their rental units. Most of the tenants in substandard housing in Tukwila are non native English speakers, are unaware of their rights as tenants, fear retaliation from the landlord through eviction, or have been unsuccessful in dealing with the landlord to abate violations. The committee requested that we return with a draft ordinance, program details, suggested fee schedule, and an outreach program. Budgetary concerns and other code enforcement activities, have delayed our return until now. Staff wanted to provide you with this update in preparation for the 2010 work plan. DISCUSSION At the meeting on August 11, 2008, Council recommended that staff prepare a plan to: Require all rental dwelling units to obtain an annual business license Implement a periodic inspection of rentals (every 3 -5 years) Inspect 20% of dwelling units in multi family complexes, randomly selected by the City. Inspect 100% of condominium units which are rented Inspect 100% of single family rental dwelling units and accessory units if rented. Establish a fee schedule which would cover the costs of this program 1 2 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Rental Housing Licensing and Inspection briefing December 14, 2009 Page 2 Implementation Schedule and Phased Roll Out: There are approximately 4000 rental dwelling units in the City of Tukwila. Implementing a broad program of licensing and inspections will require that we roll out in phases. Staff is recommending: Establishing a mid -year (July 1 -June 30) license year to lessen conflicts with the City's regular business license schedule. Starting the program mid -2011 or later to provide more time for training, acquisition of software, developing processes and materials, public education, hiring and training staff. Phasing the roll -out over three years: o 2011: 20% of units in multi family complexes (approx. 650 d.u.) o 2012: 20% of duplex, triplex, fourplexes and 100% condos (approx. 250 d.u.) o 2013: 100% of single family and ADU's (approx. 700 d.u.) Issuing "provisional" licenses for the first year of the program, allowing 12 months to obtain satisfactory inspections. Inspection Details: Inspections of a representative sampling of the units on a three year cycle could be accomplished by one inspector. Phasing the roll out over three years will naturally spread out the inspection schedule and give staff the time to "work out the kinks" in our system. Staff recommends: Business licenses be issued annually and require an inspection every three years. Inspect 20% of all multi family units (duplex and larger). Failure of half of these units would require inspection of an additional 20% of the units up to 100% of multi family units. Units to be randomly chosen by the City. Inspect 100% of condos, single family rentals, and ADUs which are rented. Landlord can choose to use city inspectors (no additional fee), or hire private certified inspector meeting certain qualifications. Items to be inspected are given a point value. Violations in excess of a certain number of points constitute a "failure" and the landlord would be given 30 days to make the necessary repairs and call for a re- inspection. Certain inspection items constitute an automatic failure (i.e. no source of heat, no water, lack of emergency egress, etc). If repairs are satisfactory, the license is issued. If the re- inspection again fails, the license will not be issued and the unit would not be available for rent until the repairs are completed and pass inspection. If a failed unit is occupied, the tenant will be required to move. Inspections which are conducted by the City after the initial and one re- inspection would be charged to the landlord at the current inspector hourly rate, one hour minimum. The inspection criterion is based on the requirements of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), the City's adopted housing code. Inspectors will be looking C:lwindata \RentalLicensing 12- 14- 09.doc Community Affairs and Parks Committee Rental Housing Licensing and Inspection briefing December 14, 2009 Page 3 for basic habitability standards to be met: hot and cold water, heat, no obvious leaks, adequate locks, functional smoke detectors, means of egress, functional appliances, adequate ventilation, no obvious structural damage, and other items against a checklist based on the IPMC. Staff will provide the landlord with a list of the items to be inspected, to allow them to prepare for the inspection. Costs: The anticipated cost of this program will include equipment, supplies, and staff for issuing, inspecting and tracking business licenses. Staff will provide cost estimates once all aspects of the program have been decided upon. Fees: The intention of the new program is to be revenue neutral. The total license fee should be proportional to the number of rental dwelling units at the location. Staff suggests that the fees be established at a flat per unit annual rate which includes one initial inspection and one re- inspection, if necessary. Staff also suggests a fee reduction incentive for voluntarily and actively fulfilling the requirements of the City's Crime Free Multi- Housing program. Outreach Program: In order to identify and address concerns of landlords, tenants, advocacy groups, and the general public, staff will conduct an outreach and public education program to give stakeholders an opportunity to review the proposal. We will utilize multiple methods to contact landlords, tenants and other interested parties to ensure that a balanced approach is achieved. After the ordinance is adopted, staff will host additional public meetings aimed at landlords and tenants, with information about the specifics of the law, implementation timeline, costs and fees, and other final details. Enforcement: For this program to be effective there must be consequences for violations. in some cases, units will fail inspections, repairs will not be completed, the business license will not be issued, and tenants, if any, will be required to vacate the unit. Because this will be a business license process, non compliance must follow the business license enforcement process, which does not include "relocation assistance An alternative approach would be to administer the rental housing license through an appendix to the IPMC. In that case, failure of the inspection and failure to correct the deficiencies would mean declaring the unit "unfit for occupancy triggering our Unfit Building process, which leads to relocation assistance. W:ICode Enforce\Code Enforcement Documents\Kathy\Rental Housing Licensing12009 -12 -14 CAP memo.doc 3 4 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Rental Housing Licensing and Inspection briefing December 14, 2009 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff is currently working with AWC on pending legislation for the next session regarding rental housing licensing and inspection programs. If the committee concurs, staff can present an updated overview to the Committee of the Whole in the first or second quarter 2010 pending the results of the legislative decisions. Next Steps: Stakeholder meeting with landlords, tenants and other interested individuals to review proposal and develop ordinance details 2 or 3 quarter. Present draft ordinance to Council 3 quarter 2010 Adoption of ordinance 4th quarter 2010 Target phased implementation of program beginning July 2011. W:\Code EnforcelCode Enforcement Documents\Kathy\Rental Housing Licensing12009 -12 -14 CAP memo.doc TO: City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Jack Pace Irks Committee FROM: DCD Directo irecto� ,l—fir 1 Dave Haynes, Police Ch DATE: November 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Noise Ordinance Briefing ISSUE Should the City update its noise ordinance? BACKGROUND The current noise ordinance was amended in 2002. There are two distinct sections of the noise ordinance, with two different designated administrators. The DCD Director is the administrator of the variance process and the Chief of Police is the administrator for nuisance, public disturbance and vehicle noises. In 2006, the Director of DCD wrote rules for processing noise variance requests as allowed by the Noise code. The City's current noise ordinance is confusing and difficult to enforce. The variance process is lengthy and frequently unnecessary. The rules for processing variance requests need to be revised and codified. There is no record of Department of Ecology approval for the existing noise code. Enforcement of noise regulations for public disturbance noises is difficult or impractical if the use of a noise measuring device is required. DISCUSSION Jim Haggerton, Mayor When considering revisions to the existing code, the first thing staff considered is separate the two sections of the code. By separating the sections, confusion is minimized, and processes and enforcement action are more clearly stated and understood. Variances (administered by DCD Director) There are three issues to be changed regarding variances: 1. The first has to do with how we provide public notice. Currently, every property owner and tenant within 1000' of a noise source receives notice. Properties that are not affected receive notice, (mall tenants for nighttime noise when the stores are closed, for instance). The variance process and notice is required for sounds that we must allow, such as freeway repair performed by WSDOT. In the new code, variances will be available for noise that exceeds permissible levels based on criteria evaluating the impacts and the means of managing the noise. The new code will allow staff to ask for mitigation measures: The new code permits the Director to Director to determine public notice and /or a public meetings are required. 5 6 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Noise Ordinance briefing November 23, 2009 Page 2 2. The second issue involves codifying the procedures for processing variances that were written by the Director in 2006. These procedures, described above, are a supplemental document to the code and have not been codified. 3. The final issue cleans up an error in how our code was written. In our current code, we intended to outright exempt some sounds but a phrasing error only exempts these sounds from being public disturbances, not from exceeding noise levels. For example, construction noises at night were not exempt, including WSDOT repair work on the freeways. The new code exempts construction during the day and, with the simplified variance process, allows staff to ask for mitigation measures prior to approving nighttime construction, including repair or construction on the freeway. Public Disturbances /Nuisances (administered by Chief of Police) Under the current noise code, verifying nuisance or public disturbance noises requires standards that are impractical or difficult to use in the field. 1. Use of a noise meter to measure the decibel levels requires training, meter calibration and calculations to exclude "ambient" noise from the violation noise. Use of a noise meter is impractical and rarely used for public disturbance or nuisance noises. Hiring an outside consultant to conduct the measurements is expensive. 2. If a noise meter is not used, the current code relies on subjective language to prove a violation. interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property without regard to sound level measurement." This standard proves difficult for police officers to enforce, as they are used to dealing with concrete or measurable violations. The proposed changes would establish a standard that is measurable and verifiable in the field without requiring anything more than a tape measure and the ability to hear. The proposed standard defines "plainly audible" as "sound made by a sound producing source that can be heard." "Public disturbance noises" then include "any sound...that is plainly audible 50 feet from the source of the sound..." and also any sound that is "plainly audible inside a dwelling unit" between the hours of 10:00 pm 7:00 am (nighttime). This change should give officers a more concrete measure of when a violation is occurring and reduce of the ambiguity of the current code. RECOMMENDATION Next Step: Draft ordinance will be presented to CAP in February 2010. W;\Code EnforcelCode Enforcement DocumentslKathyWoise OrdinanceWoise cap 2.doc City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Shelley Kerslake, City Attorney DATE: December 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Separate Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review ISSUE Jim Haggerton, Mayor In light of the increased long range planning work load, as well as the significant reduction of quasi-judicial matters being heard by the Planning Commission it may be time to reexamine the role and composition of the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review. BACKGROUND Currently the City's Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Architectural Review (BAR) are composed of the same group of seven volunteers. They meet as the BAR to hear design review applications and until the recent set of code amendments as the PC to hear a variety of quasi-judicial permits such as conditional uses and special permission code exceptions. Due to liability concerns raised by our insurance carrier all except three of the quasi judicial PC decisions were shifted to the Hearing Examiner or DCD Director. The PC also makes recommendations on legislative items such as Zoning Code amendments, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, sub -area plans (such as the Southcenter Plan) and other land use regulations sent to them by the City Council. DCD has an intensive work plan for the next few years that will require continuous PC involvement. DISCUSSION The combination of legislative and quasi judicial actions currently heard by the PC and BAR can lead to confusion about proper procedures and legal requirements. As you know, the quasi judicial role is very different from the policy making role and requires a different approach. Although we have conducted training sessions for the PC members their dual roles can be confusing. This confusion has the potential to lead to expensive appeals. Therefore it seems appropriate to reexamine the role and composition of the PC. While combining the legislative and quasi-judicial functions of this volunteer board was appropriate when Tukwila was smaller and had fewer items under review the legislative workload has grown to often require multiple meetings per month. The backlog of long range items such as the Southcenter Plan, Sign Code Update, and Tree Ordinance as well as the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update would be more efficiently handled by a dedicated long range planning body. Due to the current slowdown in permit volumes the legislative work load has not created delays for design review applicants, however when we return to historical development activity levels it will be very difficult to process both types of actions in a timely manner. 7 8 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 In addition to a long -range planning body, a separate BAR could be created. The BAR would have dedicated seats for local design professionals and developers as well as residents, to ensure that a broad range of viewpoints and experience is brought to the decision making process. Additional training in both design and quasi judicial procedures could be provided to this newly constituted group to ensure that decisions are clearly linked to the review criteria and are defensible if appealed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the functions of the PC and BAR be separated into different bodies that would focus on either legislative or quasi judicial actions. This would relieve some of the overload on the current volunteers as well as allow for more specialization and training. The current members of the PC /BAR would move to one of the new bodies to continue their terms. The remaining seats would be filled through the normal appointment process. Under this scenario the PC would: Serve as the review body for Zoning, Subdivision and Sign Code changes; Serve as the review body for the Comprehensive Plan and sub -area plans; Be comprised of five members, each serving a four -year term, and Meet 1 -4 times per month, depending on workload. Three members of the PC would be at -large Tukwila residents, a fourth member would be a business community representative, and the fifth member would be a resident or business community representative with education or professional experience in city planning, transportation planning, transportation engineering, or environmental engineering As a separate body the BAR would: Serve as the review body for decisions on design review applications and administrative design review appeals; Be comprised of five members each serving a four -year term; and Meet 1 -2 times per month depending on permit volume. Three members of the BAR would be at -large Tukwila residents, and two members would be residents or business community representatives with education or professional experience in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture or land development. To make changes to the City's current PC system will require changes to the Tukwila Municipal Code as well as revised rules of procedure for the two bodies, see attached draft language. The Council is being asked to consider this item at the January 11, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent January 19, 2009 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinances (3) 2010 DCD Work Plan W:12009InfoMemos \PC &BAR CAP.doc ua jr AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPARATING THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FUNCTIONS, AND MODIFYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1802; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the State of Washington has authorized code cities to create a Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.020 provides that a Planning Commission shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, City Council or both, with regard to the orderly and coordinated development of land and building uses of the City and its environs, and shall have such other duties as shall be provided by ordinance; and WHEREAS, in June, 1997 the City adopted Ordinance No. 1802 establishing the Planning Commission membership, duties and authority; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission members and Board of Architectural Review (BAR) are composed of the same group of volunteers; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to separate the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review into different bodies; and WHEREAS, the City's Board of Architectural Review and reviews and approves the design of new development or substantial changes in existing development; and WHEREAS, the number of issues brought to Tukwila's combined Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission and their complexity have risen significantly over the years since it was first established; and WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning Commission would allow the Board of Architectural Review to focus on only quasi judicial actions; and WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning Commission would prevent project review times from being affected by the volume of long range planning efforts and therefore promote quality customer service; and WHEREAS, revisions to Chapter 2.36 of the Tukwila Municipal Code are needed to eliminate references to the Board of Architectural Review; and WHEREAS, a new Chapter of the Tukwila Municipal Code will be created to include rules for a Board of Architectural Review separate from the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2010 the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: C: \Documents and Settings melissa-h Desktop Planning Commission Ord2009.DOC Page 1 of 3 NG:mrh 12/10/2009 9 10 Section 2. Membership. A minimum of si -three (6) Planning Commission members shall reside within the corporate limits of the City of Tukwila on the day of that member's appointment to said position. Members shall be selected from a cross section of the community representing different trades, occupations, activities and geographical areas to provide a balanced community spirit. One (1) member of the Planning Commission may be a business owner, operator or management level employee, or qualified representative, who is not a resident of the City. One member may be a resident or business community member with education or professional experience in city planning. transportation engineering or envirorunental processes. All members shall be of voting age and shall have lived or worked, if a non resident member, in the City for at least one year. Section 3. Powers Duties. The Planning Commission shall advise the Mayor and Council on legislative matters relating to land use, comprehensive planning and zoning. They shall have such other powers and duties as enumerated by ordinance and codified in the Tukwila Municipal Code. Section 4. Terms of Office. The present appointed members of the Planning Commission shall remain in office for the balance of their current terms. Terms of office will be for a period of four years and shall expire at midnight on the date of the completion of the respective terms. When a vacancy occurs, appointment for that position shall be for four years, or the remainder of the unexpired terms, whichever is shorter. Any member may have their term of office extended for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months to complete a special project, when such extension is nominated by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Members who become non residents during their term of office shall remain on the Commission no more than ninety (90) days unless granted a special project extension by the Mayor and City Council. If the-a member who represents the business community is no longer employed within the City, or his or her business relocates out of the City, that member shall remain on the Commission no more than ninety (90) days unless granted a special project extension by the Mayor and City Council. Section 5. Vacancies Removal Selection. Vacancies occurring otherwise than through the expiration of terms shall be filled for the unexpired terms. Members may be removed, after public hearing, by the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Notice of the charge and pendency of the hearing with respect to the removal of a member of the Planning Commission shall be given by mail addressed to the residence of the accused member at least five days before the date of such hearing. The members shall be selected without respect to political affiliations and they shall serve without compensation; provided, however, they may be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred in performing their official duties. Section 6. Organization. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules of procedure that are consistent with state laws. Section 7. Minutes. Minutes of Planning Commission meetings shall be distributed to the City Council not more than ten days after formal approval of such minutes by the Commission. Further, when items are to be discussed by the Council and the Commission minutes are pertinent, those minutes should be supplied to the Council in time to be read before Council consideration. Section 8. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1802 is hereby repealed. Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 10. 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 (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. C: \Documents and Settings \melissa -h Desktop \Planning Commission Ord2009.DOC Page 2 of 3 NG:mrh 12/09/2009 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2010. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: C: \Documents and Settings \melissa -h \Desktop \Planning Commission Ord2009.DOC NG:mrh 12/09/2009 Page 3 of 3 11 12 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, PRESCRIBING ITS, DUTIES, AUTHORITY AND, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City's Board of Architectural Review and reviews and approves the design of new development or substantial changes in existing development; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Board of Architectural Review is to provide review by public officials of land development and building design in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the number of issues brought to Tukwila's combined Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission and their complexity have risen significantly over the years since it was first established; and WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning Commission would allow it to focus on only quasi judicial actions; and WHEREAS, separating Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review from the Planning Commission would prevent project review times from being affected by the volume of long range planning efforts and therefore promote quality customer service; and WHEREAS, a new Chapter of the Tukwila Municipal Code is needed to create rules for a Board of Architectural Review separate from the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2010 the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Created. Pursuant to the authority conferred by Chapter 35A.63.110 there is created a City Board of Architectural Review (BAR), consisting of five (5) members who shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Section 2. Membership. A minimum of three (3) Board of Architectural Review members shall reside within the limits of the City of Tukwila on the day of that member's appointment to said position. Members shall be selected from a cross section of the community representing different trades, occupations, activities and geographical areas to provide a balanced community spirit. Two (2) Board of Architectural Review members may be residents or business community members with education or professional experience in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, or land development. All members shall be of voting age and shall have lived or worked, if a nonresident member, in the City for at least one year. Section 3. Powers Duties. The Board of Architectural Review shall review quasi judicial applications as listed at Tukwila Municipal Code 18.104.10. They shall have such other powers and duties as enumerated by ordinance and codified in the Tukwila Municipal Code. Section 4. Terms of Office. Members shall be appointed to staggered four -year terms that shall expire at midnight on the date of the completion of the respective terms. When a vacancy occurs, appointment for that position shall be for four years, or the remainder of the unexpired terms, whichever is shorter. Any member may have their term of office extended for C: \Documents and Settings \melissa -h Desktop \BAR Ord2009.DOC Page 1 of 2 NG:mrh 12/10/2009 13 14 a period of time not to exceed six (6) months to complete a special project, when such extension is nominated by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Members who become non- residents during their term of office shall remain on the Board no more than ninety (90) days unless granted a special project extension by the Mayor and the City Council. If a member who represents the business community is no longer employed within the City, or his or her business relocated out of the City, that member shall remain on the Board no more than ninety (90) days unless granted a special project extension by the Mayor and the City Council. Section 5. Vacancies Removal Selection. Vacancies occurring otherwise than through the expiration of terms shall be filled for the unexpired terms. Members may be removed, after public hearing, by the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Notice of the charge and pendency of the hearing with respect to the removal of a member of the Board of Architectural Review shall be given by mail addressed to the residence of the accused member at least five days before the date of such hearing. The members shall be selected without respect to political affiliations and they shall serve without compensation; provided, however, they may be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred in performing their official duties. Section 6. Organization. The Board of Architectural Review shall adopt rules of procedure that are consistent with state laws. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance. Section S. 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 (5) 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 2010. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney C:\ Documents and Settings \melissa -h \Desktop \BAR Ord2009.DOC NG:mrh 12/10/2009 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 2 of 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS ORDINANCES AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, "ZONING CODE, DESIGNATING THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AS THE DECISION MAKING BODY FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City of Tukwila lists permit application types and procedures and the City has received recommendations from Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) for amendments regarding decision makers and appeal bodies and the City wishes to update its permit types and procedures based on WCIA's recommendations; and WHEREAS, due to the significant number of projects and complex issues that have come before the City, the City determined that separating the Board of Architectural Review from the Planning Commission would allow the Board of Architectural Review to focus on only quasi judicial actions; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code of the City of Tukwila establishes procedures for design review and the City wishes to update the language to reflect its creation of a Board of Architectural Review separate from the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2009 the Tukwila Planning Commission, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning amending the zoning and subdivision code and adopted a motion recommending the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2010 the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance Amended. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.60.030, is amended to read as follows: 18.60.020 Membership The Board of Architectural Review shall consist of the members appointed by the Tukwila City Council as set forth in TMC 2.37.of the Planning Commission. The officers of the Planning Section 2.. Ordinances Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2251 §73, 2235 §15, 2118 §1, 2005 §17, 1865 §50 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.60.030, are amended to read as follows: 18.60.030 Scope of Authority A. The rules and regulations of the Board of Architectural Review shall be the same as these- stated for-the-Planning Commission in their bylaw per TMC 2.37. B. The DCD Director will review projects meeting the thresholds for administrative design review. The BAR will review all other projects requiring design review approval. The Board and the DCD Director shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny all plans submitted based on a demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter, as judged by the preponderance of evidence standard. C. Design review is required for the following described land use actions: 1. All developments will be subject to design review with the following exceptions: a. Developments exempted in the various districts, C: \Documents and Settings \melissa -h \Desktop \PC BAR Title 18_1.doc SKmrh 12/10/2009 Page 1 of 5 15 16 b. Developments in LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H districts, except when within 300 feet of residential districts or within 200 feet of the Green/ Duwamish River or that require a shoreline permit; 2. Any exterior repair, reconstruction, cosmetic alterations or improvements, if the cost of that work equals or exceeds 10% of the building's assessed valuation (for costs between 10% and 25 the changes will be reviewed administratively); a. for sites whose gross building square footage exceeds 10,000 square feet in MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC and C /LI zoning districts; and b. for any site in the NCC, MUO or RC zoning districts in the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor (see TMC Figure 18 -9); c. for any multi- family structures in MDR and HDR zones. 3. Development applications using the procedures of TMC Section 18.60.060, "Commercial Redevelopment Areas." D. For development in the NCC, RC, and MUO zones within the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor, identified in TMC Figure 18 -9, certain landscaping and setback standards may be waived and conditioned, upon approval of plans by the BAR, in accordance with criteria and guidelines in the Tukwila International Boulevard Design Manual, as amended. Landscaping and setback standards may not be waived on commercial property sides adjacent to residential districts. E. No changes shall be made to approved designs without further BAR or Director approval and consideration of the change in the context of the entire project. Minor amendments to an approved project may be permitted upon request to the Director where they do not substantially change the appearance, intensity or impacts of the project. Major amendments to an approved project will require submittal of a new design review application. A major amendment is a substantial change to elements of the approved plans, including substantially revised building design, alteration of circulation patterns or intensification of development on the site. Section 3. Ordinances Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2251 §75, 2235 §19, 2135 §19 and 2119 §1, as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, are amended to read as follows: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications 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. 1. 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 Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation (TMC Chapter 17.08) Development Permit Minor modification to design review approval (TMC Section 18.60.030) Minor Modification to PRD (TMC Section 18.46.130) Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of sign permits that are appealable Tree Permit (TMC Chapter 18.54) C: \Documents and Settings \melissa -h \Desktop \PC BAR Title 18_1.doc SKmrh 12/10/2009 DECISION MAKER As specified by ordinance Community Development Director I Building Official Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Community Development Director Page 2 of 5 Wireless Communication Facility, Minor Community Development Director (TMC Chapter 18.58) 2. 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, Board of Architectural Review, or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 2 Decisions INITIAL DECISION APPEAL BODY TYPE OF PERMIT MAKER I (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review Community Development Board of Architectural (TMC Section 18.60.030) Director Review Administrative Planned Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Residential Development (TMC Section 18.46.110) Binding Site Improvement Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Plan (TMC Chapter 17.16) Cargo Container Placement Community Development Hearing Examiner (TMC Section 18.50.060) Director Code Interpretation Community Development Hearing Examiner (TMC Section 18.90.010) Director Exception from Single Family Community Development Hearing Examiner Design Standard (TMC Section Director 18.50.050) Modification to Development Community Development Hearing Examiner Standards (TMC Section Director 18.41.100) Parking standard for use not Community Development Hearing Examiner specified (TMC Section Director 18.56.100) Sensitive Areas Community Development Hearing Examiner (except Reasonable Use Director Exception) (TMC Chapter 18.45) Shoreline Substantial Community Development State Shorelines Development Permit (TMC Director Hearings Board Chapter 18.44) Short Plat (TMC Chapter Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner 17.12) Sign Area Increase Community Development Hearing Examiner (TMC Section 19.32.140) Director Sign Permit Denial Community Development Hearing Examiner (TMC Chapter 19.12) Director Special Permission Parking, Community Development Hearing Examiner and Modifications to Certain Director Parking Standards (TMC Sections 18.56.065 and .070) Special Permission Sign, Community Development Hearing Examiner except "unique sign" (various Director sections of TMC Title 19) Wireless Communication Community Development Hearing Examiner Facility, Minor (TMC Chapter Director 18.58) 3. 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 and shoreline conditional uses that may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 3 Decisions TYPE OF PERMIT I DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY I Resolve uncertain zone district boundary I Hearing Examiner Superior Court I C: \Documents and Settings \melissa -h Desktop \PC BAR Title 18_1.doc SK:mrh 12/10/2009 Page 3 of 5 17 18 TYPE OF PERMIT Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Chapter 18.46) I Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section 18.45.160) Shoreline Environment Re- designation (Shoreline Master Program) I Subdivision Final Plat (TMC Section 17.12.030) I Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) TSO Special Permission Use (TMC Section 18.41.060) Conditional Use Permit Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56) Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Section 18.45.180) Variance from Parking Standards over 10% (TMC Section 18.56.140) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC Section 18.44.130 CO-50) Subdivision Preliminary Plat with no associated Design Review application (TMC Section 17.14.020) Wireless Communication Facility, Major or Waiver Request (TMC Chapter 18.58) C: \Documents and Settings \melissa -h Desktop \PC BAR Title 18_1.doc SKmrh 12/10/2009 Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner H.earinir ExanlinerPlanning Commission Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner DECISION MAKER City Council I City Council City Council I City Council City Council Superior Court Superior Court I Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court State Shorelines Hearings Board Superior Court Superior Court 4. Type 4 decisions are quasi judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review -«r- the-1 following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commisfion, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. Type 4 Decisions INITIAL DECISION APPEAL BODY MAKER (closed record appeal) Board of Architectural Hearing Examiner Review Board of Architectural Hearing Examiner ReviewPlanning Conlmi: cion TYPE OF PERMIT Public Hearing Design Review (TMC Chapter 18.60) Subdivision Preliminary Plat with an associated Design Review application (TMC Section 17.14.020) Unique Signs (TMC Section Board of Architectural Hearing Examiner 19.28.010) ReviewPlanning Comnl.i cion 5. 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 APPEAL BODY Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court City Council Superior Court Superior Court I Superior Court Section 4. 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. Page 4 of 5 Section 5. 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 and effect five (5) 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 2010. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney C \Documents and Settings \melissa -h \Desktop \PC BAR Title 18_1.doc SKmrh 12/10/2009 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Page 5 of 5 19 20 November December September October ust oc W orkpl Jul Aug Special PCOi a� June pC� 200 Spec May__ Final Counc review Fe►�r Planning Commission review City Janua Dep Ecology R ev i ew ailment of E ental EIS pla ProleCt date tionslSuPPlern S�11P Update recommendations/Supplemental C a roUSan tlralNora redraf and lement Staff Stake holders E d u cationllmP A doption C C Review RU C Plan h 2010 Staff GYnniNora mission Work throng Planning C Update C ommunity OutreachlStaff Si Code CC adop work plan Staff BrandonINora mend eats n A v O verlay Comp 'Plan sit Oriented D enter a TI anuan Industrial C include b) Manu facturing could F 7 year update-topics lem e-ts -Cap all the elemen Utilities Neighborhoods, Housing Economic Dev etc. Resourc Wing staff eccalP Review Council SNIP action 1 Staff Reb i permit R Work fifer final Coun Permits Sub mitted Ongoing Staff perm p or later a 1TUkVdlla S and OE review time for SNIP) review during D permit intake \Ere 2nd Staff Work Ong oing .r SA O tex aril System Develop a Tracking Staff CarollSa n Mitigatio °f Sen siflve Area Niitig Monitoring n dra b f +rst Qua Slat rWork plan Y Commis Team training reek restoration planning Stream Co gran for Cottage C CA K Staff- Sandra ~Staff work ermit f Unclassified Us P prdioanCe Rewrite CC Hearing Tree Staff Sandra/C er Station rCnllrld Oc tober m ember SePte rkplar► Auk` Special Projects 1N aV June �u� VCS Vie p March April Februa ,aN Committee Transportation Com Development Agreen1ent oiect Implemen W la k and Roll Bike La nes Design Rep Staff MoiralJaimie Village C 'nation Tukwila ielDerek Staff Minn A n en Ration Nosh Minnie Staff- Min_ S ustaina bilitylCO2 Reductio Resource Recycling Cof Green Team Staff Brandon/Rebecca Transit Center Staff Lynn, PW `TUkwila Pond-water p quality design consultation 1 landscap CAP briefing F Prepara esident ►al Infill Standards Staff R Stacy No Curren for W Planning consulting n t agreem CC review petition Ongoing Casca Land Conservancy Staff \Nod( Ongoing Ongoing staff work Enforcement ect�on ode En licensing insp 1 ��ntal Housing late Tr a Sn portationlCAP briefing consultation for Parks Ongoing Riverton mixed us e develop management CC review Grants rants- Rebecca C C a cceptan ce Energy grant-Brandon Recycling g Energ Ongoing staff work R Exp ansion Staff Work WON Co mplete Annexation process TO: FROM: Shawn Hunstock, Interim City Administrator DATE: December 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Tukwila School District Bond Levy ISSUE Representatives from the Tukwila School District have asked for the City's support of its technology levy, to be presented to voters on the February 9, 2010 ballot. BACKGROUND City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee City Council The Tukwila School District commissioned an audit, conducted by the Puget Sound Educational Service District (ESD), of its technology policy, planning, equipment and usage throughout the District. The audit resulted in a number of recommendations by ESD which were evaluated by a District technology study committee comprised of representatives from the community, businesses, parents, school board members, District administration, teachers and other District staff. The committee presented a technology vision statement to the board, which was approved on September 22, 2009. The vision statement includes the following objectives for use of technology throughout the District: Prepare students to successfully compete for jobs in the local and global market place, Use data to support decision making throughout the District to ensure that they are doing what works for their students, Motivate students to learn, More deeply engage the parents and community in the teaching and learning. Specific recommendations from the technology audit include the following: Establish a process of consistent, sustainable and equitable implementation of technology across the District. Upgrade their communications infrastructure to enable their students and staff to take full advantage of the instructional resources available on the internet. Equip their classrooms with modern 21 century technology for teaching and learning. Provide ongoing professional development to their staff members so that they can employ new technology to achieve the greatest benefits for their students. Jim Haggerton, Mayo 23 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Adequately support their technology support department so that the technology is reliable and functional at all times. Provide instruction and instructional support applications to maximize student learning. Greatly increase the access to high quality educational interactions with technology for all their students. DISCUSSION The School District has asked for the City's support of its technology levy. This item will be presented to voters on the February 9, 2010 ballot. The Mayor recommends support of the technology levy ballot measure as it is in the best interests of the residents of Tukwila to improve and maintain the skills that are necessary to compete in the regional and global marketplace. The City's economy relies upon the availability of such highly skilled workers. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to approve the resolution supporting the Tukwila School District's technology levy, to be presented to voters on February 9, 2010. This item is scheduled to be discussed at the December 14, 2009, Community Affairs and Parks committee meeting, and the Committee of the Whole and Special Council meeting the same evening. ATTACHMENT Resolution School Technology Levy Election Information Sheet (TSD) 24 W: 12009InfoMemos \TechnologyLevy.doc A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, SUPPORTING THE TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL LEVY ON THE FEBRUARY 9, 2010 BALLOT. WHEREAS, residents of Tukwila will vote for a technology levy on the February 9, 2010 ballot; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila School District is the only school district in the metropolitan Seattle area that has not approved a bond or levy for technology in its schools; and WHEREAS, Tukwila students are at a disadvantage when they graduate and must compete with graduates of surrounding school districts for advancement in further education and employment; and WHEREAS, technology is an integral part of most post -high- school education, training and jobs; and WHEREAS, computers and technology help motivate students to learn; and WHEREAS, the technology levy will provide computers and technology in all of the schools in the Tukwila School District, as well as infrastructure improvements such as wireless connectivity and staff training; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that technology in education prepares students for further education and jobs in local businesses; and WHEREAS, the opportunity for public statements and comments was afforded by the City Council in accordance with RCW 42.17.130; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Council of the City of Tukwila expresses its support of the Tukwila School District technology levy and urges all voters to support the school technology levy issue on the February 9, 2010 ballot. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Special Meeting thereof this day of 2009. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney W: \Word Processing\Resolutions \Tukwila School District Levy.doc KF:ksn 12/8/2009 Joan Hernandez, Council President Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Resolution Number: Page 1 of 1 25 26 FEBRUARY 9, 2010 SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY LEVY ELECTION INFORMATION SHEET The Tukwila Board of Directors approved a Technology Levy that will be presented to the voters on February 9, 2010. Technology Levy dollars will enable the District to modernize existing school facilities by acquiring and installing instructional technology equipment, infrastructure, and systems to improve student learning and make health, safety and energy efficiency improvements. Funds will support professional development to train teachers to use technology to engage students and, in turn, provide students with tools they need to successfully compete in a challenging world and job market. Because technology is not included in the State's definition of basic education virtually all funds for school technology and training must come from local levies. All school districts in King County except two have passed Technology Levies. This is the first Technology Levy presented to Tukwila voters. This levy addresses four main cost areas: First -rate quality infrastructure to support classrooms (26 21 century classroom hardware and software (38 Instructional Technology Coaches (15 Training (5 Health, safety and energy efficiency improvements. (16 This measure enables the District to go forward with its technology plan which was first submitted to the state in 2007 and to implement recommendations made in a 2009 technology audit of the District by the Puget Sound Educational Service District. The District's fifteen person Technology Advisory Committee recommended a six -year levy collecting an average of $1.05 million dollars per year. Estimated rates and collections are below: Collection Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Approximate Levy Rate /$1,000 Assessed Value $0.44 $0.42 $0.27 $0.26 $0.25 $0.24 Amount $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $896,250 $896,250 $896,250 $896,250 *The first two years include $500,000 for general building maintenance funding related to health, safety and energy efficiency improvements. 1 27 28 Important Note: This is an all mail election. Registered voters will receive a ballot in the mail. All ballots must be returned and postmarked by or before February 9, 2010. Voting places will not be open and voting in person will not be an option. Tax Exemption: Some senior citizens and disabled persons may qualify for exemptions from all or part of this levy. Details and forms are available from: King County Department of Assessments 500 Fourth Avenue Suite ADM -AS -0708 Seattle, WA 98104 TEL: 206 296 -7300 For more information about the Tukwila Technology Levy contact your neighborhood school, or the Tukwila School District Office at 206.901.8000 or at its website www.tukwila.wednet.edu.