HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-2019 04.22-2019 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDACity Council Study Session Finance,
Technology and Economic Dev elopment
Special Focus Area
April 22, 2019 - 5:30 P M
City Hall Council Chambers
A GE NDA
Watch the meeting L I V E !
Watch the meeting video
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
A .Roll Call
I I .A NNO UNC E ME NT S , R E P O RT S , A ND P R E S E NTAT I O NS
A .Racial E quity P resentation (Martinson) (30 Minutes) (5:35 p.m.)
I I I .A G E ND A I T E MS F O R C O UNC I L D I S C US S I O N
A .R P G P roperties - I ntroduction of I nland Construction (Tate) (20 Minutes) (7:15 p.m.)
I nland Construction to inform Council of potential acquisition of R P G property
B .Discuss Draft Ordinance No. 6714 for R O W Vacation #V 2-18 (Gaub) (10 Minutes)
(6:05 p.m.)
C.2020-2025 Transportation I mprovement Program Annual Update (Gaub) (20 Minutes)
(6:15 p.m.)
D.Tenant P rotection L aws and P rograms (Tate) (20 Minutes) (6:35 p.m.)
E .Multifamily Property Programs (Tate) (20 Minutes (6:55 p.m.)
I V.F I NA NC E, T E C HNO L O G Y A ND E C O NO MI C D E V E L O P ME NT D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V.O T HE R D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V I .NE W B US I NE S S
V I I .MAT R I X
A .Matrix
V I I I .A D J O UR NME NT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 1 of 58
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
RPG Properties - Introduction of Inland Construction (Tate) (20
Minutes) (7:15 p.m.)
Date:
April 15, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Inland Construction Concept at
Auburn Gateway
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion and feedback.
Background Summary:
Inland Construction is a Spokane based construction company that specializes in creating
and owning multi-family communities. A sampling of their properties can be viewed at:
http://inlandconstruction.com/
Inland Construction (Inland) is considering acquisition of the former Valley 6 Drive In property
from Robertson Properties Group (RPG) properties. If they acquire the property, Inland has
indicated that they will likely submit a request to amend city code and the existing
Development Agreement (DA) adopted under Resolution No. 4756 (2011) in order to allow
horizontal mixed use (the current DA requires vertical mixed use where the ground floor is
commercial with multi-family residential above).
Inland has indicated that it is their desire to construct a multi-family complex with
approximately 500 dwelling units. This number is consistent with the maximum number of
multi-family units considered in the previously approved sub area plan, Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), and DA. But they have also indicated that there are a number of
circumstances that preclude construction of the previously anticipated 1.6 million square feet
of professional office and/or 720,000 square feet of retail commercial.
Inland has provided the materials to City Council and will be present at the April 22nd study
session to introduce themselves, describe their vision, and to explain the circumstances that
are causing them to request modifications to the DA and city code.
In anticipation of the April 22, 2019 Study Session, staff would like to provide the following
considerations and questions that Council may want to consider presenting to Inland.
Considerations:
DA’s are allowed under State law. The premise behind a DA is to allow a municipality
and a property owner to voluntarily agree to development terms that are outside of
adopted city code requirements. Both parties may have this interest because it allows a
Page 2 of 58
property owner to present a concept that does not fit into adopted city code and it
allows a municipality to require more of a developer than what is established in adopted
city code. In other words, the property owner is provided flexibility in certain specified
standards and the city gets more than what the code requires. It is a negotiated
agreement.
It is anticipated the FEMA will change the regulatory floodplain maps in 2020. The area
of property encumbered by floodplains will increase as a result of the map changes. Of
the approximately 70 acres owned by RPG, currently approximately 35 acres lie within
the floodplain. When the new FEMA maps go into effect, the floodplain will increase by
approximately 15 acres bringing the total area encumbered by floodplains to
approximately 50 acres leaving only about 20 acres of land outside the floodplain.
Development within the floodplain is considerably more difficult and expensive.
Additionally, federal FEMA rules impose a different type of permit application vesting
threshold than City, County or State laws. While City, County and State laws typically
vest a development proposal at the time that a “complete” permit application is
accepted, federal FEMA rules do not vest development activity until a foundation has
been placed in the ground.
Potential Council Questions:
1. Inland has declared its intent to construct 500 multi-family units at this site. This is
generally consistent with what was envisioned in the DA. They seek to develop within
the southern part of the site, with structures outside the anticipated new floodplain on an
expedited schedule. How will you realize the 1.6 million square feet of professional
office and/or the 720,000 square feet of retail commercial?
2. If the residential and commercial are to be phased in, which would go first and how long
is anticipated between the two phases?
3. Why can’t your proposed residential development footprint be altered in order to
accommodate more office or retail development? Why not provide fewer residential
buildings that are taller so that you achieve the 500 units in a smaller footprint?
4. Can a portion or all of the multifamily product be constructed as townhomes or condos
rather than apartments to give more affordable home ownership options in Auburn?
5. If the increase in the floodplain footprint is part of the reason that the commercial
portions are decreasing, why not decrease or eliminate the residential in favor of
commercial?
6. Is it possible to retain the same proportions of site areas devoted to commercial (office
and retail) and residential for the areas of the site that are less influenced by new
floodplain as the development has previously shown?
7. If you can’t realize all of the office and/or retail, why should the City consider modifying
the DA? How does the City benefit from being open to amending the DA? What
community and public infrastructure benefits is the City receiving in exchange?
8. We know that the RPG site has remained vacant for a number of years but we see
vertical mixed use that is working well and/or is presently being built in other nearby
cities. Why won’t it work here?
Page 3 of 58
9. Inland is constructing vertical mixed use in other communities; why can’t you construct
this type of product at this site? Is the city being requested to accept the residential
based on current conditions that do not fully recognize future potential?
10. As a developer devoted primarily to multi-family housing what assurances and
deadlines can you commit to regarding the commercial portion of your concept? When
will you build the commercial product?
11. Will the multi-family housing product be market rate housing?
12. How do the market conditions influencing commercial development that might be cited
by Inland compare to information on market conditions reported in the city’s economic
development studies?
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:DaCorsi Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:April 22, 2019 Item Number:
Page 4 of 58
Building a Livable Community
Auburn Gateway
Page 5 of 58
Building a Livable Community
Auburn Gateway
HISTORY—And a Path Forward
The Auburn Gateway Plan was set forth by a Development Agreement in 2011 that established expecta-
tions by the former developer (and current owner) Auburn Properties, Inc (RPG), a California based real
estate company. The concept was a mixed-use commercial and residential development on 70+ acres of
vacant land east of Auburn Way North between 277th and 45th.
RPG had decided to no longer pursue the development of Auburn Gateway and instead has elected to sell
the property. Inland Group, a multi-family housing developer and general contractor, has entered into an
agreement to purchase the property from RPG.
Based in Spokane, Washington Inland does a significant amount of development along the I-5 corridor. In
order to respond to current market conditions and the constraints of the enlarged flood plain, Inland will
be proposing modifications to the original Development Agreement to provide certainty of development
moving forward.
The community of Auburn has waited a considerable time to see the vision of Auburn Gateway come to
be. Inland is proposing a path forward to develop a vibrant community with a design philosophy rooted in
providing healthy living options to residents and visitors.
Page 6 of 58
Building a Livable Community
Auburn Gateway
THE VISION
Inland intends to maintain the original vision of Auburn Gateway while creating more flexibility and certainty
of development through a modification to the residential component of the plan that allows for a vertical
and horizontal mixed-use configuration. This will allow the ability for the first phase of development – 500
units of housing, to commence by the end of 2019.
A Master Plan designed for:
• Amenity rich living options that are environmentally sustainable and built with healthy living
choices in the community.
• The creation of development ready commercial and retail pads, which will ease the ability of
future commercial developers to build out space.
• A focus on the community by creating amenity space that benefits residents of north Auburn.
• The completion of public infrastructure improvements to provide connectivity to the sur-
rounding community.
Page 7 of 58
Activate the Corners
Provide pedestrian
interest and add
activity.
Access to Trails
Healthy communities reduce the
use of private motor vehicles
and promote other means of
transportation such as bicycling,
walking and public transit.
Showcase Retail Corner
With two important street
frontages, parking will be
internalized on the site.
Open Space
A connection to nature
-- people need nature to
support good mental health
and well-being.
Permeability
Allow the development to
breathe! Integrate into its
surroundings inviting people
in to the community.
Commercial Business Opportunity
Development could provide access
to medical service providers.
Support the overall well-being of the
community.
HEART
The primary gathering space:
A flexible green space to host
community events, foster
connectivity, and provide an
intuitive connection between
residents, retail, commerce and
transit paths.
Auburn Gateway
Building a Livable Community
“What makes a City
Livable?
Simple. Sidewalks,
architecture, affordable
housing, green spaces,
access to food, and
short distances to
daily needs.”
-Hannelore
Sudermann
University of
Washington
Page 8 of 58
Public Amenity
The neighborhood’s Heart, with
a gathering place such as an
outdoor theatre, community
garden, or park space. Centrally
connected to residential
areas with pedestrian paths
to encourage healthy living
activities.
Neighborhood Mixed Use Retail
Commercial uses that serve the local
neighborhood residents for day-
to-day items such as restaurants,
grocery, and personal services.
Neighborhood Open Space
Preserved open space with trails,
natural vegetation, and wetlands.
Retail Commercial
Uses and services that cater to
regional shoppers such as large
retailers, pharmacies, or banks.
Office Mixed Use Commercial
Office and retail with mixed use
housing above ground floor
commercial uses.
Pedestrian Trail System
To encourage healthy lifestyle
choices.
*Currently in FEMA floodplain
Page 9 of 58
Building a Livable Community
Auburn Gateway
THE MARKETPLACE
A retail and commercial destination for north Auburn that could include a mix of uses from neighborhood
scale retail, to medium and big box commercial, as well as office space and medical facilities. Current space
for at least 90,000SF of space with options for more with a FEMA floodplain modification.
Designed for certainty of development for future retail and businesses:
• Inland’s development plan will complete the land-use development process and allow retail and
commercial users to only require a building permit to develop a commercial pad.
• Off-site infrastructure improvements will be completed to attract smaller neighborhood level retail-
ers that do not have the ability to complete large scale development on their own.
• Development ready pads that extend wet and dry utilities to future retail and commercial sites
within the master plan will be completed.
• Integrate pedestrian and transit connectivity between commercial uses and the surrounding neigh-
borhood.
Page 10 of 58
Page 11 of 58
Building a Livable Community
Auburn Gateway
THE RESIDENCES
Copper Gate Apartments will be located on the south portion of the site between 49th and 45th street. It
will consist of 500 units of multi-family housing with a mix of one, two, three- and four-bedroom unit mix,
providing options for larger families in the community.
Designed for affordability and healthy living:
• Certified to Evergreen Sustainable Design Standards, which provides healthy interiors (No-VOC &
formaldehyde free products), and energy efficiency (built 15% more efficient than code with solar
integration).
• Designed to CPTED principles to reduce incidents of crime.
• Two separate Club Houses with a business center, theatre, indoor play ground, fitness center and
sport court (allowing healthy living options year round).
• Outdoor amenities will include covered and secured centralized bike storage, sport courts, play-
grounds, pool, splash pad, trail system and community gardens.
• Utilization of the existing wetlands as a focal point for outdoor recreation and amenity space.
• Resident orientation that will provide information to encourage sustainable and healthy living hab-
its.
Page 12 of 58
1. Apartment Building Footprint
2. Clubhouse
3. Poolside Clubhouse
4. Garage
5. Carport
6. Playground
7. Covered Bike Storage
8. Maintenance Building
9. Pool
10. Splash Pad
11. Sport Court
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1
11 4
444
4
4 4
4
4
4
4
4 4
4
4
55
5
55
66
6
6
7
7
10 9
11
5
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
52
3
1
Page 13 of 58
Building a Livable Community
Auburn Gateway
THE HEART—A new gathering place
Community is at the heart of Auburn Gateway. The history of this site holds a special place for many in the
community. When the Valley 6 Drive-In was in operation it created a destination place for the neighborhood
and many memories for the residents that attended movies. Inland will attempt to capture the nostalgia of
this place in a new way.
Designed for the neighborhood:
• A new outdoor venue for people—not cars—will be created to host summer movie and theatre
events.
• Centrally located at the crossroads of a master planned pedestrian trail system that will provide ac-
cess to the neighborhood.
• Flexible venue space for a possible farmers market or food truck destination.
• Options for healthy living activities and recreation space.
Page 14 of 58
Page 15 of 58
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Discuss Draft Ordinance No. 6714 for ROW Vacation #V2-18
(Gaub) (10 Minutes) (6:05 p.m.)
Date:
April 3, 2019
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance
Exhibits A, B and C
Staff Report
Vicinity Map
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
The property owner of 733 10th Street NE, Steve Margo, has applied to the City for vacation
of right-of-way located north of his property and east of Auburn Way North, shown on Exhibit
“B” and Exhibit “C”. The applicant currently owns adjacent parcels #3339900766 and
3339900761 to the south and is proposing to incorporate the right-of-way into his multifamily
property so that he can continue to utilize it for additional parking, storage and garbage and
recycling pickup for the multifamily buildings.
The right-of-way was originally Quit Claim deeded to the City for Street purposes in 1966 but
has never been opened for street or public use or maintained by the City.
The application has been reviewed by City staff and utility purveyors who have an interest in
this right-of-way. Through this review City staff has determined that the right-of-way is not
necessary to meet the needs of the City and could be vacated.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:April 22, 2019 Item Number:
Page 16 of 58
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6714
ROW Vacation V2-18
March 19, 2019
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 6714
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN WASHINGTON, VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY
NORTH OF 10TH STREET NE AND EAST OF AUBURN WAY
NORTH, WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn, Washington (“City”), received a petition by not less
than two-thirds (2/3) of the owners of property adjacent to right-of-way located north of 733
10th Street NE and east of Auburn Way North, within the City requesting vacation of the
same; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington (“City Council”), has,
reviewed the need for streets and right-of-ways in the vicinity of the right-of-way and
determined that consideration should be given to the vacation of the same; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held in connection with the possible vacation, with
notice having been provided pursuant to statute; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all matters presented at the public
hearing on the proposed vacation, held on the 20th day of May, 2019, at the Auburn City
Council Chambers in Auburn, Washington.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN as a non-codified ordinance as follows:
Section 1. Vacation. That the right of way located north of 733 10th Street NE
and east of Auburn Way North located within the City of Auburn, Washington, legally
described as follows:
Page 17 of 58
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6714
ROW Vacation V2-18
March 19, 2019
Page 2 of 3
The north 30 feet of lots 38, 39 and 40, block 15, C.D. Hillman’s
Auburndale Addition to the City of Seattle, Division No. 2,
According to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 13 of Plats,
Page 92, Records of King County, Washington.
[Also identified as Exhibit A.]
and as shown on the survey, a copy of which is attached, marked Exhibit "B" and Exhibit
“C”, the same is vacated and the property lying in the portion of right-of-way described, shall
inure and belong to those persons entitled to receive the property in accordance with RCW
35.79.040.
Section 2. Constitutionality or Invalidity. If any portion of this Ordinance or
its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance
or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this location.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
five (5) days from and after passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
Section 5. Recordation. The City Clerk is directed to record this Ordinance
with the office of the King County Auditor.
INTRODUCED: _________________
PASSED: ________________________
APPROVED: _____________________
________________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
Page 18 of 58
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6714
ROW Vacation V2-18
March 19, 2019
Page 3 of 3
ATTEST:
__________________________
Shawn Campbell, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Steven L. Gross, City Attorney
PUBLISHED: _______________
Page 19 of 58
Page 20 of 58
Page 21 of 58
Page 22 of 58
1 of 3
4/3/2019
V2-18 Staff Report
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
STAFF REPORT
Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation Number V2-18
Applicant: Steve Margo
Property Location: Right-of-Way located north of 733 10th St NE.
Description of right-of-way:
The ROW proposed for vacation consists of unopened ROW north of 733 10th Street NE
and east of Auburn Way North. The proposed ROW is adjacent to Parcel No.
3339900766 and 3339900761 to the south which are owned by the applicant, Parcel
No. 20100922001 to the north and west which are owned by AutoZone, and Parcel No
3339900754 to the east which is owned by a private citizen. The total proposed ROW
vacation area is approximately 3,600± square feet.
The ROW was originally Quit Claim Deeded to the City of Auburn for street purposes on
May 13, 1966. The ROW has never been opened to the public for street purposes and
it appears that the City has never maintained the area as ROW or for any public use.
See Exhibits “A”,“B”, and “C” for legal description and survey.
Proposal:
The Applicant proposes that the City vacate the above described right-of-way so that
they can continue to utilize it for additional parking, storage and garbage and recycling
pickup area for their multi-family buildings.
Applicable Policies & Regulations:
• RCW’s applicable to this situation - meets requirements of RCW 35.79.
• MUTCD standards - not affected by this proposal.
• City Code or Ordinances - meets requirements of ACC 12.48.
• Comprehensive Plan Policy - not affected.
• City Zoning Code - not affected.
Public Benefit:
• The vacated area may be subject to property taxes.
• The street vacation decreases the Right-of-Way maintenance obligation of the
City.
Page 23 of 58
2 of 3
4/3/2019
V2-18 Staff Report
Discussion:
The vacation application was circulated to Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Comcast,
CenturyLink, and City staff.
1. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) – PSE has no facilities located within the proposed
vacation area and no need for any easement reservation.
2. Comcast – No comments received.
3. Water – Water does not require any easements for the proposed vacation.
4. Sewer – There are no sewer facilities and no objection to the proposed vacation.
5. Storm –Storm has no comments and does not require any easements for the
proposed vacation.
6. Transportation – No comments.
7. Planning – Zoning for the ROW is the same as the applicant parcels so if
approved and if the ROW attaches to the applicant parcels a change to the
zoning maps is not required. Additionally, should the applicant wish to improve
the area in the future they should check with the City first to avoid any potential
code enforcement actions prior to undertaking any modifications.
8. Fire – Fire department turn around for the Pinehurst Manor Apartments must be
maintained if the vacation is approved.
9. Police – No comments.
10. Streets – No comments.
11. Construction –No comments.
12. Innovation and Technology – No comments
Assessed Value:
ACC 12.48.085 states “The city council may require as a condition of the ordinance that
the city be compensated for the vacated right-of-way in an amount which does not
exceed one-half the value of the right-of-way so vacated, except in the event the subject
property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense or have been part of a
dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more, compensation may be required in an
amount equal to the full value of the right-of-way being vacated. The city engineer shall
estimate the value of the right-of-way to be vacated based on the assessed values of
comparable properties in the vicinity. If the value of the right-of-way is determined by
the city engineer to be greater than $2,000, the applicant will be required to provide the
city with an appraisal by an MAI appraiser approved by the city engineer, at the
expense of the applicant. The city reserves the right to have a second appraisal
performed at the city’s expense.”
RCW 35.79.030 states the vacation “shall not become effective until the owners of
property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, shall compensate
such city or town in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of
the area so vacated. If the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-
Page 24 of 58
3 of 3
4/3/2019
V2-18 Staff Report
way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject property or portions thereof were
acquired at public expense, the city or town may require the owners of the property
abutting the street or alley to compensate the city or town in an amount that does not
exceed the full appraised value of the area vacated.”
An appraisal by an MAI appraiser of the subject right-of-way was submitted by the
applicant. The City reviewed and accepted the appraisal.. The appraisal values the
right-of-way at highest and best use of assemblage with abutting parcels at $36,000.00.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the street vacation be granted with no conditions and that
compensation not be required as the right-of-way was acquired through Quit Claim
Deed at no cost to the City and it has never been opened for public or street use or
maintained by the City.
Page 25 of 58
166.7
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Washington_North_FIPS_4601_Feet
Feet166.783.30
1:1,000
Right-of-Way Vacation #V2-18
1in =83 ft
4/1/2019Printed Date:
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
Imagery Date: May 2015
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no
warranty as to its accuracy. Page 26 of 58
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
2020-2025 Transportation Improvement Program Annual
Update (Gaub) (20 Minutes) (6:15 p.m.)
Date:
April 16, 2019
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
2019 TIP Update Preliminary Memo
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is required to be amended annually
as required by RCW 35.77.010. The primary importance of the TIP is that, in most instances,
projects must be included on the TIP to be eligible for state and federal grant programs. The
TIP identifies secured or reasonably expected revenues and expenditures for each of the
projects included in the TIP. Typically, projects listed in the first three years of the document
are shown as having secured funding while projects in years 4, 5, and 6 can be partially or
completely un-funded.
The T I P is a multiyear planning tool and document for the development of transportation
facilities within the C ity and does not represent a financial commitment by the City. Once the
T I P is approved, projects are budgeted and funded through the City’s biennial budget. T he
T I P sets priorities for the acquisition of project f unding and is a prerequisite of most grant
programs. Staf f also uses the T I P to coordinate f uture transportation projects with needed
utility improvements.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:April 22, 2019 Item Number:
Page 27 of 58
Page 1 of 2
Memorandum
To: Mayor Backus and City Council
From: James Webb, Traffic Engineer, PE, PTOE
Date: April 16, 2019
Re: 2020-2025 Transportation Improvement Program – Annual Update
(Preliminary Discussion)
Background Summary
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is required to be amended annually as
required by RCW 35.77.010 by June 30. The primary importance of the TIP is that, in most
instances, projects must be included on the TIP to be eligible for state and federal grant programs.
The TIP identifies secured or reasonably expected revenues and expenditures for each of the
projects included in the TIP. Typically, projects listed in the first three years of the document are
shown as having secured funding while projects in years 4, 5, and 6 can be partially or completely
un-funded.
The TIP is a multiyear planning tool and document for the near term development of transportation
facilities within the City and does not represent a financial commitment by the City. Once the TIP
is approved, projects are budgeted and funded through the City’s biennial budget. The TIP sets
priorities for the acquisition of project funding and is a prerequisite of most grant programs. Staff
also uses the TIP to coordinate future transportation projects with needed utility improvements.
PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TIP
Deletions: The following projects are planned to be removed from the updated TIP:
TIP N-10: A Street SE Pedestrian Crossing Improvements ($5.55M) – The need and
approach for pedestrian connectivity between A Street SE and Skinner Road will be re-
evaluated with the A Street SE corridor study (S-5).
TIP P-3: Arterial Crack Seal ($0.1M) – The scope and funding for this project is being
consolidated with the Arterial Street Preservation Program to provide flexibility in street
preservation approaches (P-1).
TIP P-9: A Street SE Preservation (E Main St to 17th St SE) ($1.74M) – Will be completed
in 2019
Page 28 of 58
Page 2 of 2
TIP S-3: A Street SE/Lakeland Hills Way SE Intersection Study ($0.05M) – The scope of
this project is proposed to be combined with the A Street SE corridor study (S-5).
TIP S-4: Kersey Way SE Corridor Study ($0.02M) – Pedestrian facilities on Kersey Way will
be provided with development activities as they occur. A City project to connect any
remaining gaps may be considered in the future.
Additions: The following projects are proposed to be added to the updated TIP:
TIP R-20: Lea Hill Road Segment 1 (Harvey Rd/M St NE to 105th Pl SE) – the project is
proposed to be split into a Phase A and a Phase B. The scope of Phase A will be to create
a new east/west connection between Garden Avenue and 104th Ave SE and cul-de-sac
Garden Avenue at 8th Street NE.
Other Modifications:
Other changes proposed to be made as part of the annual update are to revise certain project
descriptions, cost estimates, and anticipated funding sources to be more representative of project
scopes and available funding sources.
CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS:
Staff will continue to develop the 2020-2025 TIP update. The Transportation Advisory Board and
City Council comments will be addressed and adoption is anticipated to follow the schedule below.
MARCH 12, 2019: FIRST TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD DISCUSSION
APRIL 22, 2019: FIRST COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MAY 13, 2019: SECOND COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE 3, 2019: RESOLUTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 11, 2019: SECOND TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD DISCUSSION
JUNE 17, 2019: PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION
Page 29 of 58
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Tenant Protection Laws and Programs (Tate) (20 Minutes)
(6:35 p.m.)
Date:
April 15, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Memo to Council - Tenant Protections
Exhibit A - Seattle Jus t Cause Reasons for
Eviction
Exhibit B - NCHH Hous ing Standards Manual
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For Discussion only.
Background Summary:
An overview of tenant protections that are in place in Auburn, options that the City could
consider implementing, and a summary of laws that are in effect in other cities.
Tenants of rental property are afforded a number of basic protections in Washington State
and the City of Auburn. Additionally, there are programs and protections that have been
implemented in other cities within the region that are intended to enhance those basic tenant
protections. The attached memorandum provides an overview of laws and programs that
apply within the City of Auburn as well as laws and programs that have been implemented in
other communities.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Trout-Manuel Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:April 22, 2019 Item Number:
Page 30 of 58
Memorandum
To: City Council Members
From: Jeff Tate, Director of Community Development
CC: Mayor Nancy Backus
Date: April 8, 2019
Re: Tenant and Landlord Protections in Washington State and the City of Auburn
Washington State Tenant and Landlord Protection Laws
Landlord Tenant Act (RCW 59.18)
The Landlord Tenant Act establishes a basic set of statewide laws designed to protect
both tenants and landlords. It sets forth responsibilities of both parties. For landlords, it
establishes timeframes for responding to needed repairs, eviction procedures, right of
entry procedures for gaining access to units, and obligations to maintain buildings and
property. For tenants, it establishes requirements for a tenant to maintain their unit,
dispose of trash, not engage in drug activity, properly utilize building systems, restore
the premises to its initial condition when vacating the unit.
Manufactured Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act (RCW 59.20)
The Manufactured Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act establishes similar landlord and
tenant expectations as the Landlord Tenant Act. Mobile or Manufactured Home Parks
are often structured in a way where the tenant owns the structure and is renting the
space upon which the home is placed. This arrangement demands a different set of
landlord and tenant responsibilities. Landlords are responsible for maintaining common
areas, exterminate pests and rodents, maintain and protect utilities from the point of
connection at the home throughout the rest of the premises, and to maintain roads.
Tenants are responsible for maintaining their home, properly dispose of waste, refrain
from drug use, and to not permit a public nuisance.
As a result of a 1985 decision by the Washington State Supreme Court, the city and state do
not have authority to enforce either of the above laws. Disputes between landlords and
tenants are civil matters. As a result, tenants with lower income or that do not speak English
as their primary language are at a disadvantage to exercise their tenant rights. Challenging
landlords under the Landlord Tenant Act can trigger attorney or court fees or can result in
retaliatory actions by a landlord such as eviction. Additionally, tenants who lack resources
are challenged at finding alternate living arrangements due to the financial burden of moving
and fear of receiving negative background checks provided by the current landlord.
Page 31 of 58
But cities do have the authority to enact regulations and programs designed to better assist
tenants and to reduce the number of instances where property or housing conditions have
deteriorated to a point that leads to recurring tenant complaints.
City of Auburn Tenant Protection Laws
The City of Auburn has already enacted a number of laws and programs that provide benefit
to tenants of rental properties. They are described as follows.
Rental Housing Business License Regulations (ACC 5.22)
All rental housing properties in the City of Auburn are required to hold a Rental Housing
Business License. This program offers tenant protections in the following manner:
• Establishes a mechanism for the City and multifamily property owners to engage
and work on crime prevention strategies and property conditions with the
objective of maintaining safe, clean and quality communities.
• Establishes a mechanism for inspecting rental properties that are not complying
with city laws.
• Establishes an enforcement tool whereby a Rental Housing Business License
can be denied, suspended or revoked due to failures to comply with adopted city
laws.
• Adopts laws that prohibit rental property owners from using source of income as
the sole basis when selecting tenants.
• Authorizes the city to impose transitional costs upon the rental property owner in
the event the city revokes a Rental Housing Business License.
International Property Maintenance Code (ACC 15.06)
The IPMC establishes minimum standards for the condition of exterior properties,
building systems, habitability, and occupancy. Features of this law include:
• Requiring the exterior premises be clean and well maintained.
• Requires properties to be free of rodents and pests.
• Requiring that ventilation systems be operable (something that is important for
reducing moisture, mold and mildew)
• Requiring that windows be operable and screens be maintained.
• Requiring plumbing systems that provide potable and heated water.
• Requiring heating systems that ensure minimum temperature levels be achieved.
• Requiring electrical systems and exterior lighting to function in a safe manner.
• Requiring fire sprinkler and alarms systems to function.
• Requiring buildings, walkways, decks, stairs and other structural components to
be safe and secure.
• Requiring adherence to basic life, safety and health standards.
Public Nuisance Regulations (ACC 8.12)
The City’s public nuisance regulations establish minimum standards for the exterior
maintenance of property. Features of the ordinance include:
Page 32 of 58
• Requiring vegetation be maintained on property in order to ensure that it does
not attract pests or rodents.
• Requiring that buildings be maintained so as not to become a blight.
Mobile Home Closure Regulations (ACC 14.20)
This chapter of city code establishes rules, timelines, and procedures that the owner of a
mobile home park must follow prior to closing the park. Features of this ordinance
include:
• Before a park owner may issue eviction notices to residents the owner must
submit a relocation report to the city.
• The relocation report must provide information related to relocation assistance
offered to all tenants.
• Once the relocation report is approved by the city the owner of the park must
provide at least 12 month notice of the closure to the park tenants.
• The relocation report must be made available to all tenants within 14 days of its
approval.
What are Other Cities Doing?
While Washington State Law precludes local municipalities from implementing approaches
such as rent control (e.g. limiting the ability of a property owner to increase rent by pre-
established amounts), there are actions that other cities have taken to help further protect
tenants; especially tenants that qualify as lower income households. Here is a list of tenant
protections that are not in effect in Auburn, but are in use in other cities:
• Mandatory proactive inspection programs. Many cities have adopted local
mandatory inspection programs utilizing the provisions outlined in RCW 59.18.125.
RCW allows cities to establish mandatory multifamily inspection requirements
subject to specific limitations (i.e. frequency, number of units to be inspected, etc.).
The intent of this program is to ensure that properties do not deteriorate and that
tenants are afforded a baseline expectation for housing condition.
• Longer notification periods for rent increases. Under Washington State Law a
landlord is required to provide at least 30 days notice of a rent increase. Many cities
have adopted local ordinances that require landlords to provide 60 days notice of a
rent increase. This provides a tenant with more time to find a different location to
reside if they are not able to afford the rent increase. Typically, cities attach this
requirement to rent increases that exceed 10% of the existing rent. This means that
a 9% increase in rent only requires a 20 day notification, while an 11% increase
requires a 60 day notification. As rental vacancy rates remain low and property
values increase, it is common for the City of Auburn to hear that a landlord is raising
their rental rates by amounts that exceed 10%.
• Adopting “just cause eviction” regulations. Just cause ordinances require that
landlords evict tenants based on reasonable justification. It is important to note that
these ordinances do not interfere with eviction procedures based upon violations of a
lease agreement; that eviction process is still available to the landlord. Just cause
ordinances typically establish:
Page 33 of 58
1. A longer notification period for landlords to notify a tenant to vacate. Under
Washington State Law a landlord is required to provide a 20 day notification
to vacate. This can cause a hardship on a tenant because they will be
required to locate a new home and absorb moving and move in costs (e.g.
deposit, first month rent, background check fees, etc.). Some cities have
adopted laws that extend the notification period from 20 days to 60 days in
order to provide additional time for the tenant to find a residence and to
determine how they will pay for the costs of moving.
2. Just cause ordinances are designed to protection tenants from retaliatory
decisions of landlords to evict a tenant for submitting a complaint or a request
for repair. Without a just cause ordinance the landlord is free to evict a tenant
whenever they want and without reason. While not every just cause
ordinance outlines reasons that a landlord may evict a tenant, Seattle has
incorporated 18 justified reasons for termination of a month to month tenancy.
The 18 reasons outlined in Seattle City Code are attached as Exhibit A.
• Developing a “tenant relocation assistance” program. In Washington State landlords
are required to pay relocation and rental assistance to tenants forced to relocate
when substandard property becomes condemned. Landlords must pay $2,000 or
three times the monthly rent, whichever is greater, to families forced to move under
these circumstances. If the landlord fails to pay, the city can collect the money from
the landlord with interest and penalties. These laws already exist.
An additional option that local municipalities may consider is designed to protect
tenants forced to move because of building demolition or substantial rehabilitation.
By local ordinance the city is allowed to require property owners to provide
reasonable tenant relocation assistance to low-income tenants (50% AMI or less)
when a building is demolished, substantial rehabilitation is proposed (even if that
rehabilitation is required as a result of a code enforcement action), a change of use
of property (e.g. the property owner obtains a rezone), or if a low-income housing
restriction is removed from a property. Relocation assistance can take into account
moving costs, utility connections and account set up, and an additional/unanticipated
rental and utility costs in the new residence for one year after relocation. To
implement this type of program State law requires that the landlord and city each pay
50% of these costs.
• Adoption of Healthy Housing Standards. The National Center for Healthy Housing
has published a 65 page manual of health housing standards. In lieu of including the
entire manual, Exhibit B is the two page table of contents for the manual which
provides an overview of subject areas that are covered in these model standards.
The standards provide much greater specificity than the IPMC that the City has
already adopted. Because of their specificity, both the tenant and the landlord has a
greater understanding of their responsibilities which helps mitigate arguments down
the road.
An additional feature of this program is that it includes a tool that very clearly
delineates what the tenant is responsible for and what the landlord is responsible to
complete. This clarity is very helpful when the city responds to a complaint because
it is not always apparent who is responsible for the cause of the issue and/or who
should remedy the problem. A good example is mildew. When Code Enforcement
investigates a mold or mildew complaint there are times where it is due to a condition
Page 34 of 58
that the owner is responsible to remedy (e.g. repairing bathrooms that don’t function,
repairing windows that sweat or don’t open, etc.); and there are times when the
tenant has caused the problem – in all likelihood due to something that they are not
aware that they did (e.g. not using bathroom fans, placing furniture up against an
exterior wall that has baseboard heating, etc.).
Page 35 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 36 of 58
Page 37 of 58
Exhibit B
Page 38 of 58
Page 39 of 58
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Multifamily Property Programs (Tate) (20 Minutes (6:55 p.m.)
Date:
April 15, 2019
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Memo to Council - Multifamily Programs
Exhibit A - Auburn City Code Chapter 5.22
Exhibit B - RCW 59.18.125
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For Discussion only.
Background Summary:
An overview of City administered multifamily programs and inspection programs in other
cities.
Multifamily housing programs designed to maintain both exterior and interior conditions vary
greatly throughout Washington State. Cities have the authority to adopt a variety of laws
and/or implement programs where the objective is to establish a minimum set of property
standards as well as housing and living conditions. Attached to this agenda bill is a memo
that provides an overview of programs that are already in place in Auburn as well as programs
that are in place in other cities.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Trout-Manuel Staff:Tate
Meeting Date:April 22, 2019 Item Number:
Page 40 of 58
Memorandum
To: City Council Members
From: Jeff Tate, Director of Community Development
CC: Mayor Nancy Backus
Date: April 8, 2019
Re: Multifamily Property Programs and Inspections
Multifamily Profile of Auburn
In Auburn there are approximately 460 properties that qualify as Multifamily properties.
Multifamily includes communal residence, duplex, triplex, fourplex and larger complexes. The
breakdown of these types of properties are as follows:
• Duplex – 151
• Triplex – 17
• Fourplex – 136
• Apartments – 125
• Communal Residences – 30
The 460 multifamily properties provide approximately 12,000 dwelling units. This represents
approximately 28% of the total number of dwelling units within the City (43,000 dwelling units of
which 31,000 are single family and 12,000 are multifamily)1.
While not multifamily, it is worth noting that there are 552 single family homes that currently hold
a rental housing license. It is likely that there are more single family homes that are being
rented due to the fact that many landlords are not aware of the requirement to obtain a City of
Auburn rental housing license.
Multifamily Programs in Auburn
The City of Auburn has established multiple laws and programs that regulate multifamily
properties and that are designed to establish minimum standards for property maintenance,
housing condition/quality, and that ensure the City is actively engaged with multifamily property
owners and managers. Those laws and programs are as follows:
Rental Housing Licensing
1 Mobile Home Parks may be reflected in either the single family category or the rental category, but not both. This
is because some mobile home parks operate under a model where homes are individually owned and spaces leased,
while other parks have ownership of the individual homes that they then rent to a tenant. Page 41 of 58
In 2002 City Council adopted Chapter 5.22 of the Auburn City Code entitled “Rental Housing
Business License and Strategies.” This code established the requirement for all owners of
rental housing to obtain a rental housing license. The code also establishes a number of
features and requirements (the full text of Chapter 5.22 is attached as Exhibit A):
• ACC 5.22.020 – A fee structure: owners of between 1 and 4 rental dwelling units pay
$53 per year; owners of between 5 and 25 units pay $106 per year; and owners of
more than 25 units pay $212 per year.
• ACC 5.22.030 – The option for the Mayor to create a Rental Housing Advisory
Board. From its inception in 2002 this Board has never been established. Mayor
Backus has asked City staff to work towards establishing this Board in 2019.
• ACC 5.22.040 – Rental housing business license criteria which allows the City to
require property owners to engage with Police and Code Enforcement in order to
develop and implement strategies focused on reducing crime. This section of code
also provides the City with the authority to inspect residential units of rental housing if
the owner fails to meet the criteria established in this section. This section of code
lays out a progressive series of actions that serves as the “playbook” that City staff
utilizes when engaging multifamily property owners.
• ACC 5.22.050 – Rental housing criteria that is intended to preclude discriminatory
practices when screening potential tenants.
• ACC 5.22.060 – License approval and disapproval procedures.
• ACC 5.22.080 – License revocation procedures.
• ACC 5.22.110 – Reimbursement for transitional costs. This section of code requires
the property owner to incur tenant relocation costs in the event that the City closes a
rental housing property due to the failure to comply with criminal codes or any health,
fire, housing or life-safety code.
Auburn Police Department Community Response Team (CRT)
The City of Auburn Police Department CRT Officers have a very strong working
relationship with multifamily property owners and managers. Auburn PD believes that
this relationship is essential to serving positive outcomes at multifamily properties. The
CRT Officers are tasked with engaging owners and managers with the intent of fostering
a good working relationship. While 911 offers a resource that can be used during a
specific event, CRT Officers are able to focus on working through more persistent issues
that may arise on an ongoing basis at a multifamily property. This could pertain to a
specific tenant that is challenging the multifamily property owner and/or multifamily
community, or consultations on how to create a safer multifamily community for the
residents, or simply to put names and faces together.
Safe Auburn For Every Residence (SAFER)
ACC 5.22.040 allows the City to require a property owner or property manager to attend
crime free housing training programs. The City requires all multifamily rental license
holders to attend Multifamily Housing Manager Training. Training is offered 4 times per
year and consists of a full 8 hour session that is hosted by the Auburn Police
Department, City Code Enforcement staff, and representatives of the Valley Regional
Fire Authority. Property owners or managers are required to attend this training in order
to obtain and retain their rental housing license. Property owners/managers
representing just over 425 multi-family properties have completed this training program.
The City has also established the SAFER program. After completing Multifamily
Housing Manager Training, property owners may seek enrollment in the SAFER
program. To be enrolled in the program a property owner allows the City to conduct a Page 42 of 58
full property inspection that includes an evaluation of all structures, stairways,
landscaping, lighting, and a variety of other features. If a property passes all inspection
points it is enrolled in the program. The owner is then provided with the SAFER
certification which they can use in their marketing materials. Additionally, the City
provides the owner with a framed certificate, window clings, pens, a mug, and several
other items that are branded with the SAFER logo.
International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC)
City Council has adopted the IPMC as part of the City’s building code. The IPMC
establishes minimum standards for interior living conditions (plumbing, heating,
ventilation, mold/mildew, moisture, pests) as well as the exterior conditions (landscaping,
structural condition, on-site parking, walkways, and lighting) of a property.
Chapter 1.25 of the Auburn City Code provides City Code Enforcement Officers with the
authority to enforce all elements of the IPMC. Laws established under Chapter 1.25, the
IPMC, and the Rental Housing Business License program work in concert with each
other. When a tenant, neighbor or property owner submits a complaint regarding either
the property or living conditions of a multifamily property, the City will conduct an
inspection of the property or dwelling unit and take appropriate enforcement action as
necessary.
Other Cities
Tukwila
• The City requires a multifamily inspection once every four years.
• For properties that have 4 or fewer dwelling units the property owner may hire a
private inspector or utilize a city inspector. For larger properties, a private inspector
is a requirement.
• The City does not require that a property owner utilize an inspector from a pre-
approved/pre-qualified list. However, the city has established a list of pre-
approved/pre-qualified list that a property owner has the option to utilize in order to
increase greater certainty of qualifications and familiarity with local requirements.
• The City requires that a property owner pass a rental property inspection in order to
obtain their initial rental housing license.
Kent
• Just beginning a rental housing inspection program. As a result of public meetings in
2015/2016 where more than 200 attendees of a series of public meetings expressed
concern over the declining quality and appearance of multifamily properties.
• In 2018 the Kent City Council adopted city code amendments that established a
mandatory multifamily inspection program. Modeling their program after Lakewood
and Bellingham.
• All rental properties must be registered but only multifamily properties must be
inspected.
• They estimate 19,000 dwelling units citywide. Inspections will be conducted by third
party inspectors. The city is not conducting inspections. The city is developing
standards for inspectors to be placed on a “preferred inspector” list. Inspection
required every 3 years.
Page 43 of 58
Lakewood
• Lakewood established the Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) in order to
ensure that residential rental housing meets specific health and safety standards and
to promote compliance with these standards so that the health and safety of tenants
are not jeopardized.
• City employs two multifamily inspectors. Property owners are provided with the
option to either hire a third party inspector or they may utilize city inspection services.
If a third party service is utilized, the private inspector must have passed the City’s
RHSP inspection training course and possess certain credentials.
• Inspection is required every 5 years. Anticipate 3,500 rental dwelling units which
would result in approximately 700 inspections per year. Properties are selected on a
lottery system in order to randomize chosen properties. Inspections are conducted
for both single family and multifamily dwelling units.
• Within a multifamily property complex the number of dwelling units inspected is
based on the categories established in RCW 59.18.125 (for properties with 20 or
fewer dwelling units, no more than 4 units may be inspected; for properties with more
than 20 dwelling units, no more than 20% of units may be inspected). Per the RCW,
a local municipality can inspect more units if the initial inspections reveal compliance
problems.
• The landlord must follow the Landlord Tenant Act when providing notice to individual
tenants that an inspection of an individual unit will be scheduled. Tenants must
comply with the inspection notice by providing access to their unit. Denying access
will result in penalties as outlined in state law.
• Property owners must complete an inspection within 9 months of receiving notice
from the City. Once a property passes inspection the City issues a Certificate of
Compliance that is valid for 5 years.
• Lakewood makes information available to both property owners and tenants.
Lakewood is clear to communicate that tenants are still required to follow steps
outlined in the State’s Landlord Tenant Act or the Manufactured/Mobile Home Tenant
Act if they have concerns over unsafe living conditions.
Bellingham
• The City of Bellingham established a residential rental property program in March
2015. The program applies to single family homes and multifamily properties.
• Bellingham titled their ordinance “Ordinance Protecting Vulnerable Renters”.
Besides establishing a rental property registration and inspection program,
Bellingham also established requirements related to source of income discrimination,
60 day notice requirements of rent increases, and 60 day notice requirements for
notices to vacate.
• Inspections are required every 3 years. Owners have the option to use a City of
Bellingham inspector or a pre-qualified private inspector selected from an approved
private inspector list.
• Landlords are responsible for notifying tenants of individual unit inspections
consistent with Landlord Tenant laws.
Page 44 of 58
Others that have created registration/license and inspection programs
• Mount Vernon
• Mountlake Terrace
• Pasco
• Prosser
• Seattle
• Sunnyside
• Toppenish
State Laws
RCW 35A.82.020 authorizes cities to require business licenses of those who are in the
business of renting residential property. The City of Auburn established a rental housing
business license requirement in 2002.
In 2010 the Washington State Legislature authorized local municipalities to establish
rental inspection programs (RCW 59.18.125). A copy of RCW 59.18.125 is attached as
Exhibit B. The following are highlights of this legislation:
• Cities are allowed to establish a requirement that landlords must provide a
certificate of inspection as a business license condition.
• A city may require inspections no more frequently than once every 3 years.
• If a program is adopted, Landlords are required to provide notification to their
tenants that inspections of individual units may be required.
• For rental properties that have 20 or fewer units, the municipality is precluded
from requiring more than 4 individual unit inspections.
• For rental properties that have 21 or more units, the municipality is precluded
from requiring more than 20% of the individual units inspected, not to exceed 50
units.
• The municipality may demand a greater number of individual units to be
inspected if any of the units fail the initial inspection.
• The program must allow for a property owner to have the option to hire a private
inspector.
Page 45 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 46 of 58
Page 47 of 58
Page 48 of 58
Page 49 of 58
Page 50 of 58
Page 51 of 58
Page 52 of 58
Page 53 of 58
RCW RCW 59.18.12559.18.125
Inspections by local municipalitiesInspections by local municipalities——FrequencyFrequency——Number of rental Number of rental
properties inspectedproperties inspected——NoticeNotice——AppealsAppeals——Penalties.Penalties.
(1) Local municipalities may require that landlords provide a certificate of inspection as(1) Local municipalities may require that landlords provide a certificate of inspection as
a business license condition. A local municipality does not need to have a business license or a business license condition. A local municipality does not need to have a business license or
registration program in order to require that landlords provide a certificate of inspection. A registration program in order to require that landlords provide a certificate of inspection. A
certificate of inspection does not preclude or limit inspections conducted pursuant to the certificate of inspection does not preclude or limit inspections conducted pursuant to the
tenant remedy as provided for in RCW tenant remedy as provided for in RCW 59.18.11559.18.115, at the request or consent of the tenant, or , at the request or consent of the tenant, or
pursuant to a warrant.pursuant to a warrant.
(2) A qualified inspector who is conducting an inspection under this section may only(2) A qualified inspector who is conducting an inspection under this section may only
investigate a rental property as needed to provide a certificate of inspection.investigate a rental property as needed to provide a certificate of inspection.
(3) A local municipality may only require a certificate of inspection on a rental property(3) A local municipality may only require a certificate of inspection on a rental property
once every three years.once every three years.
(4)(a) A rental property that has received a certificate of occupancy within the last four (4)(a) A rental property that has received a certificate of occupancy within the last four
years and has had no code violations reported on the property during that period is exempt years and has had no code violations reported on the property during that period is exempt
from inspection under this section.from inspection under this section.
(b) A rental property inspected by a government agency or other qualified inspector(b) A rental property inspected by a government agency or other qualified inspector
within the previous twenty-four months may provide proof of that inspection which the local within the previous twenty-four months may provide proof of that inspection which the local
municipality may accept in lieu of a certificate of inspection. If any additional inspections of the municipality may accept in lieu of a certificate of inspection. If any additional inspections of the
rental property are conducted, a copy of the findings of these inspections may also be rental property are conducted, a copy of the findings of these inspections may also be
required by the local municipality.required by the local municipality.
(5) A rental property owner may choose to inspect one hundred percent of the units on(5) A rental property owner may choose to inspect one hundred percent of the units on
the rental property and provide only the certificate of inspection for all units to the local the rental property and provide only the certificate of inspection for all units to the local
municipality. However, if a rental property owner chooses to inspect only a sampling of the municipality. However, if a rental property owner chooses to inspect only a sampling of the
units, the owner must send written notice of the inspection to all units at the property. The units, the owner must send written notice of the inspection to all units at the property. The
notice must advise tenants that some of the units at the property will be inspected and that the notice must advise tenants that some of the units at the property will be inspected and that the
tenants whose units need repairs or maintenance should send written notification to the tenants whose units need repairs or maintenance should send written notification to the
landlord as provided in RCW landlord as provided in RCW 59.18.07059.18.070. The notice must also advise tenants that if the . The notice must also advise tenants that if the
landlord fails to adequately respond to the request for repairs or maintenance, the tenants landlord fails to adequately respond to the request for repairs or maintenance, the tenants
may contact local municipality officials. A copy of the notice must be provided to the inspector may contact local municipality officials. A copy of the notice must be provided to the inspector
upon request on the day of inspection.upon request on the day of inspection.
(6)(a) If a rental property has twenty or fewer dwelling units, no more than four dwelling (6)(a) If a rental property has twenty or fewer dwelling units, no more than four dwelling
units at the rental property may be selected by the local municipality to provide a certificate of units at the rental property may be selected by the local municipality to provide a certificate of
inspection as long as the initial inspection reveals that no conditions exist that endanger or inspection as long as the initial inspection reveals that no conditions exist that endanger or
impair the health or safety of a tenant.impair the health or safety of a tenant.
(b) If a rental property has twenty-one or more units, no more than twenty percent of(b) If a rental property has twenty-one or more units, no more than twenty percent of
the units, rounded up to the next whole number, on the rental property, and up to a maximum the units, rounded up to the next whole number, on the rental property, and up to a maximum
of fifty units at any one property, may be selected by the local municipality to provide a of fifty units at any one property, may be selected by the local municipality to provide a
certificate of inspection as long as the initial inspection reveals that no conditions exist that certificate of inspection as long as the initial inspection reveals that no conditions exist that
endanger or impair the health or safety of a tenant.endanger or impair the health or safety of a tenant.
(c) If a rental property is asked to provide a certificate of inspection for a sample of(c) If a rental property is asked to provide a certificate of inspection for a sample of
units on the property and a selected unit fails the initial inspection, the local municipality may units on the property and a selected unit fails the initial inspection, the local municipality may
require up to one hundred percent of the units on the rental property to provide a certificate of require up to one hundred percent of the units on the rental property to provide a certificate of
inspection.inspection.
Page 1 of 2RCW 59.18.125: Inspections by local municipalities—Frequency—Number of rental pro...
2/5/2019https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=59.18.125
Exhibit B
Page 54 of 58
(d) If a rental property has had conditions that endanger or impair the health or safety (d) If a rental property has had conditions that endanger or impair the health or safety
of a tenant reported since the last required inspection, the local municipality may require one of a tenant reported since the last required inspection, the local municipality may require one
hundred percent of the units on the rental property to provide a certificate of inspection.hundred percent of the units on the rental property to provide a certificate of inspection.
(e) If a rental property owner chooses to hire a qualified inspector other than a (e) If a rental property owner chooses to hire a qualified inspector other than a
municipal housing code enforcement officer, and a selected unit of the rental property fails the municipal housing code enforcement officer, and a selected unit of the rental property fails the
initial inspection, both the results of the initial inspection and any certificate of inspection must initial inspection, both the results of the initial inspection and any certificate of inspection must
be provided to the local municipality.be provided to the local municipality.
(7)(a) The landlord shall provide written notification of his or her intent to enter an (7)(a) The landlord shall provide written notification of his or her intent to enter an
individual unit for the purposes of providing a local municipality with a certificate of inspection individual unit for the purposes of providing a local municipality with a certificate of inspection
in accordance with RCW in accordance with RCW 59.18.15059.18.150(6). The written notice must indicate the date and (6). The written notice must indicate the date and
approximate time of the inspection and the company or person performing the inspection, and approximate time of the inspection and the company or person performing the inspection, and
that the tenant has the right to see the inspector's identification before the inspector enters the that the tenant has the right to see the inspector's identification before the inspector enters the
individual unit. A copy of this notice must be provided to the inspector upon request on the day individual unit. A copy of this notice must be provided to the inspector upon request on the day
of inspection.of inspection.
(b) A tenant who continues to deny access to his or her unit is subject to RCW (b) A tenant who continues to deny access to his or her unit is subject to RCW
59.18.15059.18.150(8).(8).
(8) If a rental property owner does not agree with the findings of an inspection (8) If a rental property owner does not agree with the findings of an inspection
performed by a local municipality under this section, the local municipality shall offer an performed by a local municipality under this section, the local municipality shall offer an
appeals process.appeals process.
(9) A penalty for noncompliance under this section may be assessed by a local (9) A penalty for noncompliance under this section may be assessed by a local
municipality. A local municipality may also notify the landlord that until a certificate of municipality. A local municipality may also notify the landlord that until a certificate of
inspection is provided, it is unlawful to rent or to allow a tenant to continue to occupy the inspection is provided, it is unlawful to rent or to allow a tenant to continue to occupy the
dwelling unit.dwelling unit.
(10) Any person who knowingly submits or assists in the submission of a falsified (10) Any person who knowingly submits or assists in the submission of a falsified
certificate of inspection, or knowingly submits falsified information upon which a certificate of certificate of inspection, or knowingly submits falsified information upon which a certificate of
inspection is issued, is, in addition to the penalties provided for in subsection (9) of this inspection is issued, is, in addition to the penalties provided for in subsection (9) of this
section, guilty of a gross misdemeanor and must be punished by a fine of not more than five section, guilty of a gross misdemeanor and must be punished by a fine of not more than five
thousand dollars.thousand dollars.
(11) As of June 10, 2010, a local municipality may not enact an ordinance requiring a (11) As of June 10, 2010, a local municipality may not enact an ordinance requiring a
certificate of inspection unless the ordinance complies with this section. This prohibition does certificate of inspection unless the ordinance complies with this section. This prohibition does
not preclude any amendments made to ordinances adopted before June 10, 2010.not preclude any amendments made to ordinances adopted before June 10, 2010.
[ [ 2010 c 148 § 2.2010 c 148 § 2.]]
Page 2 of 2RCW 59.18.125: Inspections by local municipalities—Frequency—Number of rental pro...
2/5/2019https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=59.18.125
Page 55 of 58
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Matrix
Date:
April 17, 2019
Department:
City Council
Attachments:
Special Focus Area Key
Matrix
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:April 22, 2019 Item Number:
Page 56 of 58
SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS
COMMUNITY WELLNESS
FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY,
& ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLNESS
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
HOMELESSNESS & HOMELESSNESS
PREVENTION
HOUSING QUALITY, AFFORDABILITY
& ATTAINABILITY
HUMAN & SOCIAL SERVICES
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES
COMMUNITY EQUITY
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
FACILITIES
INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY
CITY REAL PROPERTY
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL
UTILITIES
TRANSPORTATION
SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CULTURAL ARTS & PUBLIC ARTS
PLANNING & ZONING
PERMITS & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT
AIRPORT
AIRPORT BUSINESS
POLICE
SCORE JAIL
DISTRICT COURT
PARKS & RECREATION
ANIMAL CONTROL
SOLID WASTE
ENERGENCY PLANNING
MULTIMEDIA
CEMETERY
Councilmember Trout-Manuel, Chair Councilmember Wales, Chair Councilmember DaCorsi, Chair Councilmember Brown, Chair
Councilmember DaCorsi, Vice Chair Councilmember Holman, Vice Chair Councilmember Baggett, Vice Chair Deputy Mayor Peloza, Vice Chair
2019 MEETING DATES 2019 MEETING DATES 2019 MEETING DATES 2019 MEETING DATES
February 11, 2019 February 25, 2019 January 14, 2019 January 28, 2019
April 8, 2019 April 22, 2019 March 11, 2019 March 25, 2019
June 10, 2019 June 24, 2019 May 13, 2019 May 27, 2019
August 12, 2019 August 26, 2019 July 8, 2019 July 22, 2019
October 14, 2019 October 28, 2019 September 9, 2019 September 23, 2019
December 9, 2019 December 23, 2019 November 12, 2019 November 25, 2019
Page 57 of 58
Updated 4-17-2019
NO.TOPIC Chair STAFF LEAD(S)STUDY SESSION REVIEW
DATE(S)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
SUMMARY ACTION DATE
1 Auburn Avenue Theater Chair DaCorsi
Vice Chair Baggett Director Faber TBD
2 Funding Options Chair Wales
Vice Chair Holman Director Coleman Ongoing
3 Emergency Management
Training
Chair Brown
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Peloza
Director Hinman
5/28/2019
COUNCIL MATRIX
Page 58 of 58