HomeMy WebLinkAboutItems Submitted at the Meeting . . __ _ . ����iv��
'. PCDC�11N4/11 � . Pg.t
- '�:IIIA Ordinance No:6385
'�� �;SuDmitte.dby::ElbatiethC. NQ� �4 1���
, �r CITYOFAUBURN
� . � COMMUNITY co �-�ecE . � LOPMENT
Navember2, 2011
Mayor Peter Lewis and
orncem�eev��aeM qubum Clty CounCil
Exlension 33A0� �
izam seszansc' 25 West Main St�eet
Auburn,WA 98092-3622
(2531 833-9171.Aubum Aubum, WA 98001
(206)464-6133 Eastside
t253)924-0180 Tacoma
Fau:(253)288-3470
Subjecf: Proposed IVlaster Plan Ordinance
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the Gity Council:
Green River Community College would like to express its support for the
Gity's proposed maste�plan ordinance and to recommend your approval.
We have followed the development and review of the ordinance through
the Planning Commis.sion and testified at the public hearing. We feel the
ordinance provides a fair and reasonable process for institutions like 4he
College, as well as other large development projects. It also contains a
good balance between requirements and incentives.
We look forward to undertaking this long-�ange master planning process
for the College campus with the City of Au6um Technical staff, and the
proposed ordinance will provide useful guidelines forour effort.
We would also like to compliment City staff, and the Planning Commission,
for their hard work and thoughtFul consideration of the regulations. We
urge your favorable ac�tion on the ordinance.
Sincerely,
�•nL.•\�
Dr:Eileen E. Ely, President
Green River Community College
cc: Elizabeth Chamberlain
Sam Ball
.. _ PCDC.11/1M11.-.. . pg,3 . . -
� � -�IV.E.�HCSALAUNDRY � �
� � Suhmilted�tiyi�Elizabeth C. �
� .• . . . . . . .
�
�
I I
MEMORANDUM �
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: DANIEL B. H�ID,CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2011 I
.
RE: CITY COUNCIL QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE
The Ciry Council will be'considering action related to a request for an amendment of a contract I
rezone under City Code Chapter 18:36. Ordinance No. 6297 approved by the City Council
indicates that if change(s) is/are less than 10%,they go throngh the PCD Committee aad then to �
the whole City Council for a fina] decision. If the chan�e(s) is/are greater than ]0%, the PCD f
� Committee "shall refeT the change to the Hearing Ezaininer' and the Hearing Examiner's I
recommendation shall go to the Council. �
.
Since the original contract rezone was a:guasi-judicial matter, this amendment is also quasi- i
! judicial. Although there have been several recent memoranda ielated to quasi judicial action, it �
! may aevertheless be helpful for the issues to be addressed to assist the City CounciL ¢
QUASI-NDICIAL ACTION DEFINED �
Court cases have defined-the:a,ctions of a legislative body as quasi judicial when those
actions d'uectly involve the review of specific permit applications. State ex rel. Standard
Mining and Developinent Comparry y. Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 321, 327, 510 P.2d 647 (1973);
Pentagram Corporation v. Sea/tle, 28 Wn. App. 218, 225-227, 622 P.2d 892(1981); and
Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 799, 903 P.2d 986
(1995). 'k
REQUIREMENT FOR PROCEDURAL RULES p�
k
Courts have recognized the need for legislative.bodies to follow identified niles in I
I'
consideririg quasiyudicial.mattets. See, for instance, Naples v. Central Plazg pf Naples, r
Inc., 303 So.2d 423 (F1a. Dist. Ct. App. 1974); Cole v. Gi.ty Council of Wcrynesboro, 218
Va. 827,241 5.E.2d 765 (1978)and Sunderland Fanirly, 127 Wn.2daf 799.
SPECIFIC FIIYDINGS REQUIRED i'
There is authority that indicates the need for written findings. In Sunderland Family, 127 '
Wn.2d at 801, the Court referred to the decision in Pentagram, 28 Wn. App. at 229, �'
providing that since a local legislative body acu in a quasi judicial capacity when
granting or denying special 6se permits, the court held thaf.it mus(enterwritten findings
offactto avoid violating due process:
From a procedural standpoint; it may be sufficient for a ciry council to identify its reasons
in an iniUally rendered verbal decision, but it shobld also have those veibal findings and
conclusions reduced to writin�to meet the requirements identified by tfie courts. �
�;
f�
t'
� - ---- ..
i .
� .
� November I4,2011
S MEMO RE:.C1TY COUNCIL QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE
)
Page 2
i
gAPPLICATION OF OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT
3
, q Although most meetings and hearings in which the City Council is involved_must be open
+ to the publip, pursuant to the state Open Public Meetings Act,there are certain exceplions
that apply. Different than other provisions of Chapter 4230 (the Open Public Meetings i
Act - RCW 4230, including RCW 4230.110 providing for executive sessions RCW
4230.140 provides that`Yhis chapter shall not apply to: ... (2)that portion of a meeting of
a quasi judicia! body which relates to a guasi judicial matter between named paities as
distinguished from a matter having a general effect on the public or on a class or group." i
The City Council, therefore, has the opportunity and right to take advantage of this II
exception to the Open Public Meetings,Act, and may, for instance, deliberate on quasi- i
, judicial matters outside the heazing of the competing parties, and, for that matter may do I
' so unrelated to any regulaz or public—open—City Council meeting. �
! APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS
! In addiGon to the applicable rules that apply to quasi judicial matters, the Appearance of �
' �' Fairness Doctrine applies. Specifically, RCW 4236.010 provides that the"application of
' i the Appearance of Faimess Doctrine to local land use decisions shal] be limited to quasi-
� judicial actions of local decision meking bodies." The Appearance of Faimess Doctrine
was judicially established in Sraith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715,453 P.2d 832.(1969),
to ensure fair hearings by legislative bodies. The Doctrine requires that publichearings
which aze adjudiaatory in nature meet two requirements:, the hearing itself must be �
procedurally fair, Smith at 740, and it must be conducted by impartial decision makers.
Bue11 v. Bremerton, 80 Wn.2d 518,495 P.2d 358 (1972).
i �
� As a result of this doctrine, it may be problematic for councilmembers to talk to a party
inyolved in a quasi judicial matter. A conversation about such quasiyudicial topic could �
give rise to a challenge to the councilmember's continued, fiu�ther participaGon in the �
quasiyudicial hearing., Any such contact or communication would need fo be disolosed �
in advance of any action by the City Co6ncil on the quasi jndicial mafter. Thaf publia f
disclosure of the contact or communication them puts the burden oqpotential challenging [
parties to voice any objection right then and there (right after the disclosure) or such � .
objection is deemed waived. F
WRAP UP �I
In light of the rules that are provided by court decision and sfate statute, the quasi judicial
decisions coming before the City Council should be handled with care to ensare that there j
is an appropriate opportunity for affected parties (the proponent spokesperson arid �
opponent spokesperson) to be heard (at the public hearing), and that any deoision is mad'e �
based upon information received in the quasi-judicial setting, free and cleaz of outside,
undisclosed sources, so that the decision is fair in both substance and appeazance. I:
I:
�
�
� November 14,2011
MEMO RE: CITY COUNCIL QUAS[-]UDICIAL ROLE
Page 3
Additionally, in keeping with the requirement that the hearing shall be based upon the
identified criteria parameters, written fmdings;and conclusions supporting the decision
shall be made following the reaching of that decision.
Because of the voluminous amount of materia] which may be provided in connection
with mariers involving lhese decisions, it may be appropriate for the City Conncil to
recognize the need to take more time to consider and deliberate in reachiqg its decision
on this appeal. It is not uncommon for judges,or, for that matter, for hearing examiriers
to take ma4ters under advisement, giving themselves more time to review lazge files,
consider the factors involved and reach decisions which can be supported by the record.
If there aze any questions in these regards,please let me know. T6ank you.
i
cc: DepartmentDirectors, City Cletk !
I
j
I
I I
I
�
. �
I
�
�
!
�
I
�
{
. Year 2011 Annual Comprehensiye Plan Amendment Summary ; Pcoc�v�4n+ P9z
�� IV.F. 20N Comp Plan AmdL �
� (GPM = Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; P!T = Policy/Text Amendment) �. s�nmmaa uv Je�° _ _ _
'�
� - ---
, , ; , - _ _ _ f
� _ - - — --- - - --- - -- ---
F�laqnin9�
_ � �PMI• ' . � � S�� i Commiat�ibnl � PCD:C3 � Gity�Gounol_I�
TiUe: i �D'escriptloni , iNotes�
#� � Recommendationi 1 Reco11�R2endatjDm Reaotnmendgtlon) ; Actioni
_ — _ � - — ---- -
_ __ - -
CPM Map No:.14:1 Gomprehensive Plan Map 14:1, change from Light Approval Approval There was no public.commeM at the PC hearing. Pianning
#1 ComprehensiVe Industrial to',Public/Quasi-Public designation the Commisslon voted unanimouslyto recommend approval.
Rlan area containing city-owned stormwater and
�compensatory flood storage ponds constructed as
mitigation fo�the:City's S 277t1i ST inadway
Improvement project.
CPM Natural Gas Natural Gas Pipelines, Map 62 Update references Approval App�oval There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
#2 Pipelines, Map and information shown on this map Commission voted unanimously to recommend approvai.
No. 6.2
CPM Map No. 14.1, Change mapped designation of two parcels on the Approval Approyal Applicantseeks ability-for greater range and variety of uses for
#3 Comprehensive east side of A ST SE from Light Commercial to f�ture development and maticetability.
Plan Heavy Commercial
At 11-9-11 hea�ing, Planning Commission inquired about future
development plans; the applicant previously indicated there were
none.
Reccommended At 11-9-11 hearing, Planning Commission recommended that A ST
additional study'of SE between Lakeland HiIIs Boulevard and Lake Tapps Pa�kway SE
A St SE in the future be studied in the future for possible future land use designation
chan es.
CPM Map No. 14.1, Enlarge the special plan areas to inGude 7 Approval with Approval Applicant seeks to encompass property holdings within the special
#4 Comprehensive additional parcels under same ownership. (Add 8 modification to plan area designation.
Plan & Map No parcels with modification) include an additfonal At the 11-9-11 hearin Plannin Commission recommended
14.2 Special Plan parcel No. 9� 9
Areas (See also related Policy/Text Amendment P/T#11) 3221059D31, owned amending to include additionai parcel (see staff recommendation).
by Lisa A&ins, co-
applicant. The �
licant concurs.
_ _ _ -- - - -- -- ---- �- -- --- -- — - - - -
r (
, i Sta[f� Planning� �P�RC' ` f CltyiColl�tioj�
-
iP.IT# Titi�; �D'esaYiptip�i 'Recoi�e��i�o4� � Commis$fon� `. Notes;
Recommendatiom Actiom
: .
' i — - ---_—=- - ' - - --- - — I Recpmmendatiohl i � ' •
_ . _ _ - ,
P/T Aubum Sdfiool Incorporate Aubum School Dis4rictCapital Facilities Approval �Approval The Aubum ScliooPDistrict representative intlicated he could not
#1 �District Capital ' PIan2011 through 2017, adopted May 9, 2011 into attend the planning commission public hearing.due to a conflict.
Facilities Plan the City of Aubum Comprehensive Plan. There was no ublic comment at tFie.PC'hearin The Plannin
(2011 -2017) Commission Goted unanimously to recommend approval. 9
Created: October 20;2011
Revised November 7;2017
' Page 1 of 4
. . .. . . . . _ _ " . . _. . _. . . . _ . . _ . . ' '_ _ _ . . _',_ � -__- r �_ --' ___._ ,' ___ _'_
' . - . ' . ..,. . � � . .,- . . . , . i.. . .�: � � � � . ' . , ' . . '�
� .;. . . '• � : , Pl�nning) - iR,GDC . Gity/�o4ncill _ , . "U
'iPR'#I 'Ti41er � � � �Descnptiom ,Rat�bmmendaGon+ Gbmmissiona . - Nates, � -
� _ _ . . _ > _ ; - ., .. , , � Recommendation!. :A'ciibn� - . _. ,
�
, : Reaomrn�ndaGonr � .
i .,. . . ' . .... '` . ' ' . . ___._._� - -L. _�-_-
PfT DieringerSchool Inwrporate the Dieringer School�DistrictCapital Approval Approval There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
#2 DisVict Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017 adopted July.25,.201.1 as Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.
Facilities Plan part of the Aubum Comprehensive'Plan.
(2012-2017)
_ - - - - —
P!T Federel Way Inwrporate Federel Way:School District Capital Approval Approval Sally:McLean of the Federal Way School District test�ed in support
#3 Capital Facilities Facilities Plan 2012adopted June 14, 2011 by the of adoption at the 10-18-11 Planning Commissionhearing.
Plan (2012) Federal Way School Board into the City Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.
Comprehensive Plan.
P!P Kent School Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Approval Approdal � There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
#4 District Gapital Plan"2011-2012 to 2076-2017 adopted ilune 22, Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.
Facilitles Plan 2011 into the'City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
(2011I2012-
2016/2017)
-
PIT City of Auburn's Incorporate the City of Auburn's 6-year Capital Approval Approval There was no public comment atthe PC hearing, Planning
#5 8-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017, into the City's Commission voted unanimously to rewmmend approval:
Facilities Plan Comprehensive Plan.
2012-2017
P/T ' Incorporate the Revise the separate Comprehensive Transportatlon Approval Approvai Some PC members expressed concern about mulGple parallel bike
#6 work of the Plan to incorporate the work of the Bicycle Task routes, use of sharrows and bike boxes and the need for public
Bicycie Task Force education. Bicycle Task Force Chair, Terry Davis test�ed in
Force support tfie.Comprehensive ptan Amendment. Planning
Commission voted 4lto 2 to recommend.approval.
Pff ReviseiPlan Revise the separate documenY. Comprehensive Approval Approval The 2009;Comprehensive Drainage Plan recognized that additional
#� Project Number Dreinage Plan;(CDP)to RevisePlan Project modeling of the ProjecGNumber 13(A&B), Flooding of$Oth Street
13!(A&B), Number 13;(A88), Flooding of 30th Street NE. NE needed'�tobe conducted to determine the appropriate method
Flooding'of 30th of addressing flooding problems within this'drainage basin: The
SVeet NE. City has:completed the modelingiand has proposed to revise the
Comprehensive following;portions of the pian to include the results and
Drainage Plan recommendation of this modeling effoR
There was no public comment at the PC hearing: Planning
Commission voted unanimousi to recommend a roval.
Created: October 20, 2011
Revlsed November 7, 2011
Revtsed November 14,2011
Page 2 of 4
.
• . � - r— -- -- ---- - -- --- . - . _ ; - . _. _ _ _ , _ _ _ - _
•�� , '; ! �. : . �s�� � ,Piedn�,er. ' , , '
�� � �i - � � . , �, � � ' � PCDC.� �� GityjGo4�e�ll � � .
':PIT#s � Titie� ! D�scr��ifi'on', ( Recoromend`atiam Commiss�oni + Note�,
, , : , �Reao7�tmend�t�o�� �'aeCOmmend'atlonl;� Acfion,., '
PfF Update the Update:the previous cond'Rionally-approved Approval Approval j � Theplan is being:revised'for tfie:following reasons:
�� � Northeast Northeast Aubum/RobeRsodProperties Special ! .. .acquisitiomand'd'evelopment of an additional 11 acres.by RPG
Aubum/Robertso Area�.Plan (Approved!by City Council Ordinance No: �' subsequent'to',the original EIS;
� ' ; mProperfies 6183)-Referenced within Chapter 14, • 'RPG's determinetion'to conductphased projectdevelopment in
SpeciaPArea Compretiensi4e Plan Map two phases that could be developed independently orjointly;
' Plan �
and;
• Changes in intersection signalization,
• Changes in ciry,regulations and development standards
• Changes'in sunounding development.
There was no public comment at the PC.hearing. Planning
Commission voted unanimousl to recommend a roval.
PIf Revise for target Revise for target popuiation numbers&census data Approval Approval There was no public comment at the PC hearing: Planning
#9, P9Pulation -Chapter 3, Land Use; Chapter 4, Housing and Commission:voted unanimously to recommend approval:
Item A numbers'& Chapter:8, Economic Development
ce�sus data
P�. Add section on Add new section on Climate change and Approval Approval In 2010, the City compieted an inventory of both municipal and
Climate.change greenhouse.gas emissions-Chapter 9, communiry gSeenhouse gas emissions using a-2008 base year:
, #9, and.greenhouse _Environment, Objective 18.6- Energy Efficiency � The inventory, entitled"Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the City of
ftem 9as:emissions Aubum;.Washington°, included'base year.estimates of greenhouse
B gas emissions and emissions forecasts•foryears 2015 and 2020.
- There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
Commission voted unanimousl to recommend a roval.
PIT Recognize Recognize Economic Development Strategy Areas- Approval Approval There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
� Economic Chapter 3; Land Use, Chapter 8, Economic Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. All items
Item Development Development, pages, Chapter 14, Comprehensive in P/T#9 were addressed in the samemotion.
� Strategy:Areas Plan Map
PfT Incorporate Comprehensive Plan Appendix B, Reports and Approval Approval There was.no publio commenfat the PC hearing. Planning
� documents into Studies, Incorporete the following documents: Commission.voted unanimously to recommend approval. All items.
Item Comprehensive Downtown Urban Core Task Force Oraft Final in P/T#9 were addressed in the same motion.
p Plan Appendix B, Report&Bicycle Task Force End Report.
Reports and
Studies
-
P/T/ Reference to In Policy LU-15 change the reference to"street Approval Approval There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
#9 "street lights" in lights" in the description of road improvements Commission voted unanimousiy to recommend approval. All items
Item the:Residential within the Residential Conservancy zoning district, in P/T#9 were addressed in the same motion:
E Conservancy Chapter 3, Land Use, Goal 7- Residential
__, zoning district, Development
Created: October 20,2011
Revised November 7, 2011
Reylsed November 14,2011
Page"3 of 4
Planning
p�# Title Descrip8on Reao mendaUon Commission PCDC City Counoil Notes
Reaommendation RecommendaUon Aotion
Pff Clarify term: Clarify the term: "market factor"as used in this Approval Approval There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
� "market factor" Buildable Lands Section, Chapter 3, Land Use, Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. All
Item F as used in this Buildable Lands-Land Supply and Development items in P/T#9 were addressed in the same modon.
Buildable Lands Capacity
Section
P!f Add recognition Add policy statement to recognize support for and Approval Approval There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
#9 of alternatively trensition to altematively powered vehicies Chapter Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. All
Item Powered vehicles 9, Environment, Objective 18.6, E�ergy Efficiency. items in P/T#9 were addressed in the same motlon.
G
P� Emphasize Revise discussion and policies to emphasize Approval Approval There was no public comment at the PC hearing. Planning
#10 manufacturing manufacturing land uses in industrial zones Chapter Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.
land uses in 3, Land Use: Chapter 8, Economic Development;
industrial zones Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map
P� Amend White Amend White River Road and Mount Rainer�sta Approval Approval Revision to the description and purpose of the Stuck River and
#�� River Road and Special Plan Areas, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Mount Rainier Vista Special Plan areas in Chapter 14, Land Use
Mount Rainer Plan Map for future plan preparation Map.
Vista Special (See also related Map Amendment CPM#4) PC recommended At 11-9-11 hearing, Planning Commission recommended
Plan Areas amending the
description and amending the description and purpose of the Stuck River and
purpose of the Stuck Mount Reinier Vista Special Plan areas, Chapter 14, "Land Use
River and Mount Map", as found on page 14-21 to include study the potential of
Rainier Vista Special industrial uses among the other uses of the site in the future.
Plan areas, Chapter "The land uses for the Stuck River Road Special
14, "Land Use Map", to Planning Area will be determined through the subarea
include study of planning process and the City Council's adoption of the
industriai uses. subarea plan. Potential land uses applied through the
subarea planning process could include single-family
residential, multi-family residential, commercial,
institutional, industrial and recrealional."
Created: October 20, 2011
Revised November 7, 2011
Revised November 74, 2011
Page 4 of 4