Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM IV-DAGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM * SASH IIG'Ti Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6321 to extend the effective date of Date: August 4, 2010 Ordinance No. 6259, the conditional approval of a subarea plan, and Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes for Robertson Properties Group (RPG) Department: Planning and Attachments: Ordinance No. 6321 Budget Impact: None Development Dept. Legal Department memo regarding development agreements Administrative Recommendation: PCD Committee to recommend to the City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 6321. Background Summary: On June 16, 2008 the Auburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 6183 which amended the City's Comprehensive plan (map and text), zoning (map and text) and included the adoption of a sub-area plan related to the development of the Auburn Gateway Project at the Valley 6 Theater site and surrounding properties by Robertson Properties Group (RPG). Subsequently, on December 1, 2008 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6219 extending the effective date of Ordinance No. 6183 until August 31, 2009. Then on August 17, 2009 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6259 extending the effective date until August 31, 2010. Ordinance No. 6321 is a third extension. Robertson Properties Group is working with the City's Planning, Public Works, and Legal Departments in revisions to the development agreement. The City is currently redrafting the development agreement. In addition to the economic conditions, other factors that support the extension include the acquisition in 2007 & 2008 by Robertson Properties Group of 11 acres located west of the Valley 6 Drive In Theater site. An addendum to the previous Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is currently being prepared to address impacts of the development of the additional 11 acres and the project phasing. This environmental analysis includes additional updated traffic studies to address phasing. Also, the city's adoption of new floodplain regulations may affect the proposal. Unless future project is otherwise exempt under the provision of ACC 15.68.130, the project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SERA) and Riparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) and would be required to obtain a City of Auburn Floodplain Development Permit, including the submittal of a habitat impact assessment report. The PCD Committee discussed Ordinance No. 6321 at its July 26, 2010 meeting and requested additional information. The City's Legal Department has drafted a memo to address the Committee's questions about development agreements. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ❑ Building ❑ M&0 ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ❑ Parks ❑ Human Services ❑ Planning & CD ❑ Fire ®Planning ❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works ®Legal ❑ Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ®Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Information Services Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing I l Referred to Until I l Tabled Until I I Councilmember: Norman Staff: Meeting Date: August 9, 2010 Item Number: rr~Y t 4 ~ i ri' rr ~ :'r }1 •~K SAY J l ~ ~ I i y a fir' ti i f.. ~ ~ .i f ~ Sr 'r9 .AS ~1 ORDINANCE N0.6321 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 6259 TO EXTEND THE EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, on June 16, 2008 the Auburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 6183 which amended the City's Comprehensive plan (map and text amendments), zoning (map and text amendments) and included the adoption of a sub-area plan related to the development of the Auburn Gateway Project by Robertson Properties Group (RPG) (the Project Proponents); and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2008 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6219 extending the effective date of Ordinance No. 6183 until August 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2009 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6259 extending the effective date of Ordinance No. 6219 until August 31, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City and the Project Proponents are still negotiating the Development Agreement required by the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, staff recommends extending the deadline by 12 months; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 6259, amending Section 1 of Ordinance No. 6219 and amending Section 13 of Ordinance No. 6183 is amended to read as follows: Ordinance No. 6321 August 4, 2010 Page 1 of 3 Section 13. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law; provided, that this ordinance shall not take effect unless the City and RPG executed a development agreement for the Auburn Gateway Project by A~ ~1 ''~1 ~ August 31, 2011. Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 3. Constitutionality or Invalidity. If any section, subsection clause or phase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, as it is being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, adopted and approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Recordation. Upon the passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5} days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: CITY OF AUBURN Ordinance No. 6321 August 4, 2010 Page 2 of 3 PETER B. LEWIS MAYO R ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: Ordinance No. 6321 August 4, 2010 Page3of3 MEMORANDUM TQ: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FRUM: DANIEL B. HEIR, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: JULY 30, 2010 RE; ISSUES REGARDING COUNCIL QUASI-JUDICIAL RQLE -VESTING Recently, at a Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting, I understand that a question was asked about why or how the City Council is still continuing} to be involved in quasi judicial matters. The question dealt with the RPG Development and a development agreement pursuant to the former Chapter 14.21 of the Auburn City Code ACC}, enacted in 2006 by Ordinance No. 5992, and subsequently repealed in 200$ by Ordinance No. 6817. Even though Chapter 14.21 ACC has now been repealed, certain projects may still be "vested" so that they still operate under the repealed codes. Under the vesting law of the State of Washington, development rights vest at the time a developer files a complete and legally sufficient permit application. RCW 19.27.095 1 Adams v. Thurston County, 70 Wn. App. 471, 855 P.2d 284 X1983}; West Main Associates v. Bellevue, 1 U6 V~n.2d 47, 720 P.2d 782 ~ 1986}; Valley View Industrial Park v. Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621, 733 P.2d 182 X1987}; and Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 81 Wn.2d 141, 913 P.2d 417 ~ 1996}. The date on which development rights vest determines which laws, rules and policies will apply to the development. The development is controlled by the laws in effect at the time of vesting, not laws later enacted. West Main Associates v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d at 50-51; Victoria ~'ower Partnershrp v. Seattle, 49 Wn.2d 755, 761-62, 745 P.2d 1325 (1987}. You should also know that the doctrine of vesting rights, as it applies in the State of Washington, is a minoritp rule in the United States. "Washington's vesting ~ rule runs counter to+- the overwhelming majority rule that `development is not immune from subsequent adopted regulations until a building permit has been obtained and substantial development has occurred on reliance on the permit' l~oble Manor Company, 81 Wn. App. at 144; citing Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wn.2d 864, 868, S72 P,2d 1090 (I984}, quoting Richard L. Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice, Section 2.7 at 40 X1983}), However, the City has already made the determination that RPG has vested under ACC 14.21. During the time that the Chapter 14.21 ACC was in effect, the City received sufficient material applying for that process from RPG regarding its property at the north end of the City, such that RPG would have been permitted, so long as it desires to do so, to develop within the scope of the development agreement under the now repealed Chapter 14.21 ACC. That, of course, mandates that RPG comply with the requirements of ACC 14.21, which they still need to do. ISSUES REGARDING CaUNCILQUASI-1UDICIAL ROLE -VESTING duly 30, 2010 Page 2 RPG could choose to develop pursuant to the current existing codes, but if it RPG's intention to develop pursuant to that earlier code, it would be entitled to do so. However, again, it would need to comply with the requirements that existed in connection with that Chapter, - ~ssurning that RPG intends to pursue development under ACC 14.21, it could seek approval of a development agreement under the process spelled out in the Chapter so long as it meets the requirements that were specified therein. In such a case, the City Council would be the decision making body for approval of the process and approval of the application, as well as, essentially a determination that the criteria that must be met in order for RPG to qualify far the use of this process have likewise been satisfied. The result of this westing} is that RPG "could" utilize the former code sections if it qualifies, and that would keep the City Council involved in making the quasi judicial decisions involved in this development, including whether to enter into a Development Agreement with RPG . The City's insurance authority made a strong case for the City Council to remove itself from quasi-judicial decisions because of cases such as Mission Springs, Inc,, vs. C'iry of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 954 P.2d 250 (1998} ~ where the court found Spokane liable for decisions that were made by the city council that the court later found to be problematic. Additionally, if the city council is not involved in quasi judicial decision-making, councilmembers are more freely able to talk to their constituents as they would then not be subject to the limitations imposed on elected officials who are engaged in quasi judicial decision-making. Even though the City Council is no longer engaging in quasi judicial decision making for such matters that would come before the City now, because of the existing vesting that RPG has under the former process, the City Council would have this matter still before it, as it may have if there were other matters that vested prior to the change in the City Code. Please also be aware that even though the Development Agreement process is no longer available under ACC Chapter 14.21, there is Estill} a statutory process available under Chapter 36.70B RCw, but they are not the same. The Development Agreement under ACC Chapter 14.21 was a replacement approach for former} Planned Unit Developments. The statutory Development Agreement is a mechanism for development utilizing the local government's standards but applies flexibility in such things as duration and phasing, consistent with applicable development regulations of the local government. If there are any questions in these regards, please let me know. Thank you. cc: Department Directors, City Clerk . ~ You may remember the V~CIA concerns about the 14fiission Springs case, where the City councilmembers themselves were found to be personally liable.