HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-A-1~ 1 ~ .
CITY OF_ ~
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FGR~I
. VIrA5H1NGTQN
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6321 fv 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 ~Robertsvn Properties
Groin RPG
Department: Planning and Attachments: Ordinance No.~6321 Budget Impact: None ~
Development Dept. Legal Department memo regarding
development agreements
Administrative Recommendation:
Ci Council ado t 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 inclutled 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. 5219 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 ~s 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 extensian include the acquisition in
20018 2008 by Robert_5on Properties Group of 11 acres located west of the Valley 6 Drive In Theater
site. An addendum to the previous Final Environmental Impact Statement LEIS} 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 ~oodplain regulations may affect the proposal. Unless future project is
otherw'lse exempt. under the provision of ACC 15.68.130, the project ~is located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area ~SFHA}and Riparian Habitat Zane ~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 Na. 6321 at its July 26, 2010 meeting and requested additional information.. The City's Legal Department has drafked a memo to address the~Committee's
questions about development agreements.
L0816-4 ~ 03.4.x..25
Revi®wed 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 1Norks ®Legal ❑ Police ❑Planning Comm. ❑ Other ~ ®Public Works ❑ Human Resources
~ ~ ❑ Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Cali for Public Hearing 1 1,,,^
Referred to Until ,_,_I 1;,~ ~ -
Tabled _ ' ~ Until 1 , . , ~ ~ .
Counciirnember: Norman Staff: Sn ~ der.
Meetin Date. Au ~ust 15, 2010 ~ Item Number:l~VlII.A.1
~ ~ MARE THAN YOU IMAGINED
ORDINANCE NO. G321
AN .ORDINANCE ~GF THE CITY COUNCIL O~F THE
CITY ~F AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 6259 ~ TO EXTEND THE
EFFECTIVE DATE
. ~
. WHEREAS, on June ~ 6, 2D08 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.
529 extending the effective date of Ordinance No. 6183 until August 31, 2009;
and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2009 the City ~Coun~cil passed Ordinance Nv.
6259 extending the effective date of Ordinance No. 6219 until August 3~1, 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 FOLLOV~S:
Section Section 1 of Ordinance No. 6259, amending Section 1 of .
Ordinance Na. 6219 and amending Section 13 of Ordinance No. 6183 is ~ .
amended to read as follows:
r w~ w w w~ w w w r r w w w~
Ordnance N~. X321 August 9, 201 ~
Page 1 of 3 ~ ,
5
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 ~ ~ August 31, ZD 11.
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary tv carry out the ~ ~ .
directions of this legislation.
Section 3. Constitutionals or lnvalids~ . ~If any Section, subsection
clause or .phase of this Grdinance 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 Grdinance, as it is being hereby
expressly declared that this Grdinance 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 - asprovided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall
cause this Grdinance to be recorded in the oftrce of the King County Records,
Elections and Licensing Seniices Division.
f ~ Section 5. effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in farce five ~5~ days from, and ~ after its passage, approval and publication, as
,provided bylaw.
Ordinance No. fi321 Augusts, 2v~ o
Page 2 of 3
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:.
~ . ~ APPROVED:
CITY 4F AUBURN ~ ~ -
PETER B. LEVI~IS .
. MAYOR
ATTEST: ~ ~ -
Danielle E. Daskam, ~ - r
City Clerk ~ ~ -
APP VE TQ F~ .
~
Daniel B. Heed,
- ~ pity Attorney
Published:
~ .
ordinance No. fi321
August 9, 241 ~ Page3of3
• i
MEM~IRANDUN~
T~: ~ MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . ,
. . , FRDM: DANIEL B. HEIR, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: , JULY 3D, Z~1D
_ ISSUES RE~AR.DIN~ COUNCIL QUASI-,IC]DICIAL ROLE -'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. .
1~
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 vestin law of the State of VL~ashmgton, development rights vest at the time a g
developer files a complete and legally. sufficient permit applicatidn. RCW 19.27.0951}; Adams
v. Thurston County, 70 fin. App. 4.71, 855 P.Zd 284 X1983}; West ,Main Associates v..Be!levue,
106 V~n.2d 47, 724 P.2d 782 ~198b}; ~Va!!ey View Jndustria! Park v. Redmond, X107 Wn.2d 621,
733 P,2d l 82 ~ 1987}; and Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 81 V~n.2d l 41; 9l 3 , P.2d 41 ? ~ l 996). ~ ,
The date on which development rights vest determines which laws, rules anal policies wi[l apply .
to the development. The development is controlled by the.laws in effect at~ the time of vesting,, ~ .
not haws later enacted. West ~Llain .Associates v. Bellevue, 146 ~Vn.Zd at 54-5 l ; Victoria Power . ~ .
. Partnership v. Seattre, 49 Wn.2d 755, 7b1-62, 745 P.Zd 1328 X1957}. .
You should also know that the doctrine, of vesting rights, as it applies in the State of Washington,
is a minority rule in the United States. "Washington's .vessririg rule runs ~coun~r to~~the
overwhelming n~ajority~ rule that ~ `development is not immune firom subsequent adapted ,
regulations until a building permit has been obtained and substantial development has occurred.
on 'reliance on the permit'." Noble Manor Camparry, 81 Wn. App. at 144; citing Erickson &
Associates, lnc. v. ~IcLerran,123 ~V'n:2d 864, 8b8, 872 P.2d I090 (I984}, quoting Richard' L,
Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Pract~'ce, Section 2.7 at ~4a ~1~983}},
.However, the City has already made the determination that RPG .has vested under ACC 14:21,
Dunng the time that the Chapter 14.E 1 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 sa, to develop within the scope of .the
development agreement under the now repealed Chapter14.21 ACC.. That; of course, mandates .
that RFG comply with the require"menu of ACC 14.21, which they still need to do.
ISSUES REGARDING CaIJNCILQUASI-]UDICIAL RaLE -VESTING
Judy 3~, 2410
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.
-assuming that RPG intends ~to pursue dev~lapment under ACC 14.1, 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 bads .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 1tPG to qualify for the use of this
process have likewise been satisf ed.
The result of this (vesting} 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 t4 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 ~Iissiarr Springs, lr~c., vs. City o,~Spokane,1.34
. 'V~n.2d 94?, g54 P.2d 25.0 (1.998} ~ where the court found Spokane liable for decisions that were
made by the city council that the court lator 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 inquasi-judicial decision-making:
Even. thou h the Ci Council is no Ionger engaging in quasi-judicial decision making for such . g ~
matters that would come before the City now, because of the existing vesting~that RPG has under h
-the former process., the City Council would have this matter still before it, as it may have if there
were other matters that vested prier tv the~~change in the City Code.
Please :also be aware that even thous the Development Agreement process is no longer .
available under ACC Chapter 14.21, there is (still} a statutory process available under Chapter
. 3~.74B RCw, but they are not. the same.. The Development Agreement under ACC Chapter
14,21. was a replacernent approach for (former} Planned UnitDevelopments. The .statutory
Development Agreement is a mechanism for development utilizing ~ the local government's standards but applies flexibility in such . '_ngs as duration and phasing, consistent with applicable
development regulations of the local go err~ment~
if there are any questions in these regards, please let me know. Thank ,you.
cc: Department Directors, City Clerk
~ Yau mazy remember the WCIA concerns about the Mrssron Sprr'ngs case, where the Cary C~uncilmembers
themselves were found to be personally liable.