HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2009-07-27 Item 2A - Amendments - Additional Housekeeping Code AmendmentsTO:
City of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Par Committee
FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director
Shelley Kerslake, City Atto
DATE: July 23, 2009
SUBJECT: Additional Housekeeping Code Amendments.
ISSUE
Should the following Zoning Code amendments be added to the Housekeeping Code
changes: 1) Amendments to address the recommendations of Washington Cities
Insurance Authority (WCIA); 2) Amendments to clarify the difference between a hotel, a
motel and an extended -stay lodging facility?
BACKGROUND
Staff had previously briefed Community Affairs and Parks Committee on May 11, 2009,
regarding a myriad of housekeeping code amendments. Those amendments were
forwarded over to the Planning Commission to review in detail and make a
recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission was briefed on the proposed
changes and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled on August 27, 2009. Staff would
like to incorporate a couple of other amendments to the list for Planning Commission's
review. The first proposed amendment would address the recommendations of
Washington Cities Insurance Authority. The second one would address the definition of
a hotel, a motel, and an extended -stay lodging facility.
DISCUSSION
I. Code Amendments to address WCIA's recommendations:
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
After the annual review and audit by the Washington Cities Insurance Authority the City
has received the attached letter (Attachment A). This year the audit focused on Land
Use exposures. As part of the audit report, WCIA strongly recommends that the City
use a hearing examiner to the maximum extent allowed by law and that the hearing
examiner's decision be final and appealable directly to superior court. WCIA further
recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council focus on legislative land
use matters such as the shoreline master program, zoning code text amendments, area
wide rezones, and comprehensive plan amendments and leave the quasi judicial
matters to be handled by the City's hearing examiner. The rationale for this
recommendation is sound. In recent years cities have seen an increase in very costly
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
land use litigation. The area of land use has become increasingly technical and
contentious. Moreover, to have the Council continue to sit in a quasi judicial capacity
severely restricts the role of council members. As you know, when sitting in a quasi
judicial capacity the Council is not allowed to engage in any conversation regarding the
application and must restrict its consideration to the evidence presented. Legislators
are elected to represent constituents and many citizens do not understand when they
are told that a councilmember can't consider their concerns. WCIA has called this out
as a source of potential liability.
As a result of WCIA's recommendation staff has proposed several changes to the land
use code dealing with quasi judicial matters and transferring those matters to the
hearing examiner. There are currently five categories of land use processes- Type 1
through Type 5. See attached section of the Zoning Code listing decision makers for the
different categories. Under the existing code Type 4 decisions are generally made by
the Planning Commission and Type 5 decisions are made by the City Council. Also, the
Planning Commission and the City Council is listed as the appeal body for some Type 2
and Type 4 decisions.
In order to address the concerns raised by WCIA there are two policy options for the
Committee to consider.
Option 1: Change the Zoning Code so that all quasi judicial land use decisions are
made by the Hearing Examiner. This would mean all Type 4 and Type 5 decisions
including Design Review and Rezones will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Also, the
appeal body of all administrative decisions would be changed from the Planning
Commission and/or City Council to the Hearing Examiner. Under the current code
Design Review applications are approved by the Board of Architectural Review, which is
comprised of the same members as the Planning Commission.
This option would address WCIA's concerns; however it may create some issues if the
decision makers for the Rezone application and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
are different, since every Rezone application has an associated Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Also, it may not be prudent to have the Hearing Examiner review Design
Review applications.
Option 2: Change the Zoning Code so that a majority of quasi judicial decisions are
made by the Hearing Examiner, however keep the same decision makers for Design
Review, Unclassified Use Permit, Rezone, Subdivision and Unique Signs until such time
that substantive changes are made to the underlying code and the review criteria. The
City is in the process of updating Tukwila Urban Center Plan with specific design
guidelines. Staff is also preparing to start work for the ten year update to the
Comprehensive Plan, which the City is required to update by 2011. As part of this
update the City may want to have the Zoning Map different from the Comprehensive
Plan map, which would separate the quasi judicial rezone process from the
Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Also, Sign Code update is in progress and
the decision makers for unique signs will be decided as part of the Sign Code update
process.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Staff recommends policy option #2.
II. Code amendments to better define a hotel, a motel and an extended -stay lodging
facility.
The International Building Code along with the Washington State Departments of
Revenue and Health and the Washington State Landlord- Tenant Act all define transient
accommodations as less than 30 continuous days. The definition of a hotel and a motel
in Zoning Code needs to clarify that "transient" in the code means "less than 30
continuous days Staff is recommending amending the definitions of a hotel and a
motel in order to make them consistent with the International Building Code (IBC).
Additionally a definition for an extended -stay lodging facility will need to be added to the
Zoning Code.
If an extended -stay lodging facility is separately listed in the Zoning Code then the
regulations for such a facility will need to be addressed in the Zoning Code. Listed
below are some policy options for the Committee to consider regarding regulating an
extended -stay lodging facility:
1. Limit or not limit the stay in an extended -stay lodging facility to 180 days.
2. Allow extended -stay lodging facilities in
a. All zones that allow hotel /motels (RC, RCM, TUC, CLI, LI, HI, MIC /L,
MIC /H, TVS zones)
b. Zones that allow multifamily units above commercial uses (MUO, RCC,
NCC,RCM,TUC,TVS)
c. Zones that allow apartments (HDR and RC zones).
d. Zones that allow apartments and hotel /motels (RC zone).
Staff recommends changing the definition of a hotel and a motel to limit the
accommodation to 30 days, in order to be consistent with International Building Code.
Staff also recommends adding a definition for an extending -stay lodging facility; limiting
the accommodation in an extended -stay to 180 days; and allowing extending -stay
lodging facilities in all zones that allow hotel /motel.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the proposed changes to the Planning Commission for consideration and
review. After Planning Commission review and hearing staff will return to CAP with
Planning Commission's recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Washington Cities Insurance Authority's letter dated May 21, 2009.
B. Existing Zoning Code listing different types of land use decisions and decision
makers.
WA
May 21, 2009
Dear Rhonda:
cities
Insurance Authority
Rhonda Berry
City Administrator
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: 2009 Annual Review Audit
It was a pleasure to meet with you, Shawn and Jack last week to perform the Annual
Review and Audit, in accordance with the terms of the WCIA Membership COMPACT.
I want to thank all of you for setting aside a portion of your day to meet with me.
1 2008 AUDIT RESULTS (In Compliance)
2009 AUDIT RESULTS
MANDATORY REOUIREMENT
ATTACHMENT A
I was happy to verify that the City had no mandatory requirements generated from the
2008 Public Works Audit. Therefore the City is considered to be in compliance with the
terms of the WCIA COMPACT.
As you know, this year's Audit focused on Land Use exposures. The Audit resulted in
one mandatory requirement being generated, which will be monitored for compliance in
2008. Please be aware that failure to comply with the mandatory requirements may result
in a financial penalty.
4.4 Does the City's SEPA checklist require the applicant to swear under penalty of
perjury that all information provided is true and correct?
Although the SEPA guidelines do not require it, WCIA is requiring that its Member
Cities require that checklists submitted by applicants be accompanied by a sworn
statement under penalty of perjury that all information provided in the checklist is true
and correct. Our defense attorney has had at least three cases dismissed on summary
judgment because of the penalty of perjury law. In addition, at trial, he has blown up the
SEPA checklist and was able to use the fact that the applicant lied in misrepresentation
cases. It can also be used as leverage for settlement in mediation. Defense counsel calls
P.O. Box 88030
Tukwila, WA 98138
Phone: 206- 575 -6046
Fax: 206- 575 -7426
Page 2
City of Tukwila
May 21, 2009
the penalty of perjury language the "gold standard You can comply with this
mandatory by adding the words Under penalty of perjury to the signature statement on
the SEPA checklist so that it reads "Under penalty of perjury the above answers are true
and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on
them to make its decision."
INFORMATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1.15 Does the Planning Commission make final, substantive decisions on site specific
permits or approvals?
1.16 Does the Planning Commission act as an administrative appeal body, making
decisions on site specific permits or approvals on appeal from staff or others in the
City?
Currently, Tukwila's Planning Commission is making final decisions on certain types of
permits as well as acting as an administrative appeal body under certain circumstances.
WCIA recommends the Planning Commission be an advisory body that makes
recommendations to the City Council on land use matters. WCIA further recommends the
Planning Commission's role emphasize legislative land use matters of general
applicability, such as the comprehensive plan, shoreline master program, zoning code
text amendments, and area -wide rezones, and that quasi-judicial matters be handled by a
hearing examiner.
1.37 What is the role of the City Council in the Iand use planning and decision
making process?
1.38 Is the Council's role Iimited to adoption of ordinances related to the
comprehensive plan or development regulations?
1.39 Does the Council approve any types of land use permits?
1.40 Does the Council hear any appeals of permit decisions or other land use
approvals made by other agencies of the City?
In our meeting, we discussed the current role of the City Council, which includes many of
the land use decisions as well as appeals from the Planning Commission's decisions.
While the City uses a hearing examiner, there are many land use decisions that the City
Council and Planning Commission are involved in which can lead to an increase in
liability for the City of Tukwila. WCIA recommends that the City use a hearing examiner
to the maximum extent allowed by law and that the hearing examiner's decision be final,
appealable directly to superior court.
Page 3
City of Tukwila
May 21, 2009
1.42 Doe City Council members attend meetings and /or public hearings of the
Planning Commission or other land use advisory committees?
Currently, City Council members are involved in making quasi judicial permit decisions.
WCIA recommends City Council members refrain from attending hearings of its
advisory committees on such matters to avoid any conflicts of interests of possible
violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.
1 PROPERTY AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE PROGRAMS
I provided current copies of your property and auto schedules for review. As we
discussed, there are a few entries on the property schedule that are described as
miscellaneous items that will need to be updated so that we can identify what is being
insured. Also, the values on many of the autos listed on the auto schedule had not been
updated for replacement cost or depreciated for actual cash value and Shelley indicated
that she would work on getting these updated. Please let WCIA Administrative Assistant
Tiffany Woods know if there are any changes you wish to make or the changes can be
made "on line" at the WCIA Web Site.
RISK PROFILE
I was pleased to discuss the Risk Profile which shows the City's losses compared to the
Actuarial Group Averages. Hopefully the material presented was of interest. Again, it is
our hope that this information may assist Members in looking at their specific areas of
loss. If you have any questions regarding this documentation, please be sure to call.
1 COMPACT STATUS TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
The City still needs to meet your First Mandatory Training requirement and your
Attorney Attendance for 2009.
Member Services Manager Patti Crane will be sending out announcements periodically
for all of the various trainings that will be scheduled throughout the year. Please feel free
to call her if you have any questions or wish to schedule additional training.
Page 4
City of Tukwila
May 21, 2009
SUMMARY
This completes the findings of my recent visit. I appreciated the hospitality shown me
while I was there. Please let me know if you have any other risk management concerns or
if I can be of further service.
Debbi Sellers, RPLU
Senior Risk Management Representative
Washington Cities Insurance Authority
206 -575 -6046
cc: City File
Sections:
18.104.010
18.104.020
18.104.030
18.104.040
18.104.050
18.104.060
18.104.070
18.104.080
18.104.090
18.104.100
18.104.110
18.104.120
18.104.130
18.104.140
18.104.150
18.104.160
18.104.170
18.104.180
18.104.190
PERMIT APPLICATION
TYPES AND PROCEDURES
Classification of Project Permit Applications
Consolidation of SEPA Procedures and Appeals
Consolidation of Permit Applications
Relationship to SEPA
Pre application Conferences
Application Requirements
Notice of Complete Application to Applicant
Notice of Application Contents
Notice of Application Procedure
Party of Record
Posted Notice
Mailed Notice
Time Periods for Permit Issuance
Applications Modifications to Proposal
Vesting
Hearing scheduling Notice of Hearing
Notice of Decision
Referral to Other City Departments
Date of Mailing
ATTACHMENT B
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 17.08)
Development Permit
Minor modification to BAR approved
design (TMC 18.60.030)
Minor Modification to PRD
(TMC 18.46.130)
I DECISION MAKER
As specified by
ordinance
Community
Development
Director
Building Official
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
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 18.54)
Wireless Communication Facility,
Minor (TMC 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, Planning Commission, City Council or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State
Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE OF PERMIT
Administrative Design
Review (TMC 18.60.030)
Administrative Planned
Residential Development
(TMC 18.46.110)
Binding Site
Improvement Plan
(TMC Chap.17.16)
Cargo Container
Placement
(TMC 18.50.060)
Code Interpretation
(TMC 18.90.010)
Exception from Single
Family Design Standard
(TMC 18.50.050)
Parking standard for use
not specified
(TMC 18.56.100)
Sensitive Areas
(except Reasonable Use
Exception)
(TMC 18.45)
Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.44)
Short Plat
(TMC 17.12)
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
Community
Development
Director
Short Plat
Committee
Short Plat
Committee
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Short Plat
Committee
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
APPEAL BODY
(open record
appeal)
Board of
Architectural
Review
Hearing
Examiner
Hearing
Examiner
Hearing
Examiner
Hearing
Examiner
City Council
Hearing
Examiner
Planning
Commission
State
Shoreline
Hearings Bd
Hearing
Examiner
Sign Area Increase
(TMC 19.32.140)
Sign Permit Denial
(TMC Chapter 19.12)
Special Permission
Parking, and Modifica-
tions to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC
18.56.065 and .070)
Special Permission Sign,
except "unique sign"
(various sections of TMC
Title 19)
Wireless Communication
Facility, Minor (TMC
18.58)
TYPE OF PERMIT
Resolve uncertain zone district
boundary
Variance (zoning, shoreline,
sidewalk, and alteration, sign)
TYPE OF PERMIT
Conditional Use Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.64)
Modifications to Certain
Parking Standards
(TMC Chapter 18.56)
Public Hearing Design
Review
(TMC Chap. 18.60)
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Hearing
Examiner
Community Planning
Development Commission
Director
Community Hearing
Development Examiner
Director
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 that may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE 3 DECISIONS
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
Planning
Commission
Planning
Commission
Board of
Architectural
Review
I DECISION MAKER
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
4. TYPE 4 DECISIONS are quasi judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or
the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the
Hearing Examiner or the City Council, based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review
or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State
Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
APPEAL BODY
(closed record
appeal)
City Council
Hearing
Examiner
City Council
Reasonable Use Planning City Council
Exceptions under Commission
Sensitive Areas
Ordinance
(TMC 18.45.180)
Shoreline Conditional Planning State
Use Permit Commission Shorelines
(TMC 18.44.050) Hearings
Board
Subdivision Preliminary Planning City Council
Plat Commission
(TMC 17.14.020)
Unique Signs Planning City Council
(TMC 19.28.010) Commission
Variance from Parking Planning Hearing
Standards over 10% Commission Examiner
(TMC 18.56.140)
Wireless Communication Planning City Council
Facility, Major or Waiver Commission
Request
(TMC 18.58)
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
TYPE OF PERMIT 1 DECISION MAKER 1
Planned Residential Development City Council
(PRD), including Major Modifications
(TMC Chap. 18.46)
Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) (City Council
Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay City Council
(TMC 18.45.160)
Shoreline Environment Redesignation City Council
(Shoreline Master Program)
Subdivision Final Plat City Council
(TMC 17.12.030)
Unclassified Use City Council
(TMC Chapter 18.66)
(Ord. 2135 §19 2006; Ord. 2119 §1, 2006)
JP
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and P ks Committee
From: Jack Pace, DCD, Directo
Date: July 23, 2009
Subject: Update on King County Growth Targets
ISSUE
Briefing on new growth targets for King County and the City.
BACKGROUND
Back in March, the CAP was given a briefing on King County growth targets. Every five years,
the state Office of Financial Management (OFM) issues population projections for each county
in the state as a basis for GMA planning. Based on these projections, counties and cities
collaborate in determining local allocations of that growth. The act requires that local growth
numbers be updated at least every ten years. See Attachment A, March 4, 2009 Informational
Memorandum for additional information.
UPDATE OF KING COUNTY GROWTH TARGETS
Page 1 07/22/2009
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Jack Pace, Director
Attachment B, Briefing Paper on Update of King County Growth Targets is an update of staff's
work since March. The results of this process are shown in the attached tables, Proposed
Housing Target Ranges and Proposed Job Target Ranges. The existing targets for the 2001- 2022
planning period will be replaced by the 2006 2031 planning targets.
For the City of Tukwila, the new housing target increased by approximately 1600 housing units
from the 2001 -2022 household growth targets. However, the 2006 Housing Capacity study gives
current zoning capacity of 4311 units. Therefore, as we do the Comprehensive Plan update, we
need to plan for approximately 489 additional housing units. Most, if not all of the additional
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 431 3670 Fax: 2 06- 431 -3665
housing can be planned for in the Tukwila Urban Center, Tukwila Village, and Tukwila
International Station.
The new additional job projections (2006 -2031) range from 14,700 to 16,300 jobs. The
additional jobs can be met in our existing commercial and industrial districts.
NEXT STEPS
As noted in attachment B, no action is required on the targets at this time. The GMPC will be
briefed in July, with a vote for adoption possible at the GMPC's September meeting.
iP
Page 2 07/22/2009