City Council Study Session Agenda Puyallup City Council Chambers 333 S Meridian, Puyallup Tuesday, May 8, :30 PM

Transcription

1 City Concil Stdy Session Agenda Pyallp City Concil Chambers 333 S Meridian, Pyallp Tesday, May 8, :30 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 1. AGENDA ITEMS 1.a Single-Family Residential Rental Policy Gidance Staff memo - Residential rentals 1.b Homeless-Serving Zoning Standards Staff memo - Homeless-Serving Zoning Standards Staff memo - Homeless-Serving Zoning Standards Homeless-Serving Zoning Map - Option A Homeless-Serving Zoning Map - Option B Homeless-Serving Zoning Map - Option C Homeless -Serving Zoning Map - Option B1 Zoning standards table - Homeless-Serving Uses MRSC Article - Qasi-jdicial hearings CITIZEN COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The City Concil Chambers is wheelchair accessible. Those needing assistance with hearing devices shold contact the City Clerk's Office ( ) the Friday preceding the meeting. 1

2 City Concil Agenda Item Report Sbmitted by: Tom Utterback Sbmitting Department: Development Services Meeting Date: 5/08/2018 Sbject: Single-Family Residential Rental Policy Gidance Presenter: Tom Utterback Recommendation: Consider and provide policy direction to staff related to residential rental topics. Backgrond: City staff is seeking policy direction from City Concil on two isse areas related to the renting of single-family residences: - High-occpancy single-family residential rentals; and - Short-term single-family residential rentals The attached staff memo provides some additional information on this topic. On May 8th, staff will present a more comprehensive presentation and respond to Concilmember inpt. Concil Direction: Fiscal Impacts: ATTACHMENTS Staff memo - Residential rentals 2

3 CITY OF PUYALLUP Development Services Department Pyallp City Hall 333 S. Meridian Pyallp WA TO: FROM: City Concil Development Services staff DATE: April 25, 2018 RE: Residential Rentals - City Concil stdy session of 5/8/18 There are over 16,000 residential nits, citywide, in Pyallp. According to Censs data, approximately 53% of these nits are owner-occpied, with the 47% balance being renteroccpied. Rentals are not limited to mlti-family nits (e.g. apartments); we estimate that well over 1000 single-family residences (SFRs) in the City are crrently being rented. Recently, two land se policy isses contine to arise regarding SFR rental properties which we feel warrant specific land se direction. At yor May 8 th stdy session, staff will be presenting information to City Concil on this topic and reqesting frther Concil inpt as to whether any corresponding changes to City standards are warranted. These items are: 1. Addressing high-occpancy SFR rentals: The City occasionally receives complaints abot SFRs which are being rented to a grop of adlts, sally with mltiple vehicles. These complaints often center on parking impacts, as well as noise and general activity levels. Crrently, so long as the City code definition of family is being met, which limits hoseholds to no more than six nrelated individals, only basic nisance and/or street parking codes typically apply in enforcing sch sitations. On May 8 th, staff will review possible frther measres to address these sitations. 2. Short-term SFR rentals: The City zoning code has specific standards for traditional Bed & Breakfasts (BnBs), which among other things - reqires proprietor occpancy. The zoning code, however, is silent as to other types of short-term SFR rentals which may not involve owner occpancy (e.g. AirBnB s). This has led to difficlty in responding to citizen inqiries to the City abot AirBnBs and similar short-term rentals. On May 8 th, staff will review possible zoning approaches for short-term rentals, for City Concil inpt. Staff will make a stdy session presentation, on May 8 th, regarding these topics. 3

4 City Concil Agenda Item Report Sbmitted by: Tom Utterback Sbmitting Department: Development Services Meeting Date: 5/08/2018 Sbject: Homeless-Serving Zoning Standards Presenter: Tom Utterback, Development Services Director Recommendation: Provide direction on homeless-serving zoning options Backgrond: At prior meetings, City Concil has reviewed and discssed the topic of homeless-serving zoning standards. The last sbstantive discssion was at the 1/23/18 Concil meeting; for frther backgrond, the staff report for that session is attached. On 1/23/18, City Concil took no action, bt provided staff some limited direction on certain items. At the sbseqent 2/13/18 meeting, Concil voted to again extend a moratorim on homeless-serving ses; that moratorim now lasts ntil 8/12/18. As otlined in the attached staff memo, Concil comments on 1/23/18 centered on three topics, which are frther addressed in attached material to this agenda packet: - Proposed zoning maps/text: The three map scenarios presented on 1/23/18 (Options A, B & C) are attached. In addition, staff has prodced two additional maps (B1 & B2), given inpt received on 1/23/18. - Related zoning standards in other area jrisdictions: In response to a Concil qestion on 1/23/18, a table is attached smmarizing how other Pierce Conty jrisdiction codes address homeless-serving land ses. - Hearing Examiner vs. City Concil land se decision-making: in response to a Concil inqiry on 1/23/18, an article is attached (from Mnicipal Research & Services Center) smmarizing the basis for Hearing Examiner review of land se cases vs. City Concils. On 5/8/18, staff is reqesting frther City Concil direction on this topic, with the intent of conclding this deliberation prior to the end of the crrent moratorim. Concil Direction: Provide direction on homeless-serving zoning options Fiscal Impacts: ATTACHMENTS Staff memo - Homeless-Serving Zoning Standards

5 Staff memo - Homeless-Serving Zoning Standards Homeless-Serving Zoning Map - Option A Homeless-Serving Zoning Map - Option B Homeless-Serving Zoning Map - Option C Homeless -Serving Zoning Map - Option B1 Zoning standards table - Homeless-Serving Uses MRSC Article - Qasi-jdicial hearings 5

6 CITY OF PUYALLUP Development Services Department Pyallp City Hall 333 S. Meridian Pyallp WA TO: FROM: City Concil Development Services staff DATE: April 25, 2018 RE: Homeless-Serving zoning - City Concil stdy session of 5/8/18 At yor May 8 th stdy session, City Concil will re-visit the topic of homeless-serving zoning standards (i.e. daytime drop-in centers and overnight shelters). This follows-p prior Concil stdy sessions on this matter. The intent of this stdy session is to provide pdated information to City Concil, based pon yor prior inpt, and to receive frther City Concil direction. The attached staff memo, from the earlier 1/23/18 Concil session on this topic, provides mch more backgrond on this sbject. At that time, Concilmembers (CMs) provided the following general inpt to staff, which will be the basis for the stdy session presentation on 5/8/18: 1. Proposed zoning maps/text: On 1/23/18, staff presented three alternate zoning maps (labelled A, B, & C) for the allowable siting of these homeless-serving ses. Those maps, which are also attached to this packet, had been crafted given Concil inpt at a prior session. Some feedback was provided on those maps. Two CMs favored Map A; one asked to see Map B with larger (1000 ) bffers. Attached is a new forth option (Map B1) showing that 1000 radis, which greatly redces the total area for sch ses. 2. Review of other jrisdiction standards: On 1/23/18, there was also a qestion raised abot how other jrisdictions, particlarly in Pierce Conty, were addressing these homeless-serving ses in their respective zoning standards. Staff has since done frther research on that qestion, which is smmarized in an attached table. 3. Hearing Examiner vs. City Concil review: On 1/23/18, a qestion was also raised abot potential Concil review of qasi-jdicial decisions for these types of land ses. At that time, staff smmarized the City Hearing Examiner s role in reviewing all types of qasijdicial land se matters. Attached is an article, from Mnicipal Research & Services Center, which emphasizes how the Examiner is the appropriate reviewer of those cases. On 2/13/18, City Concil extended the moratorim on these land ses (to 8/12/18), reqesting that it not be extended again. Staff is reqesting Concil direction on these draft standards so that if reqested - we may retrn in Jne for yor action prior to the moratorim s end. 6

7 CITY OF PUYALLUP Development Services Department Pyallp City Hall 333 S. Meridian Pyallp WA TO: FROM: City Concil Development Services staff DATE: Janary 16, 2018 RE: Homeless-Serving zoning - City Concil meeting of 1/23/18 On Janary 23rd, staff will make an pdated presentation to City Concil on homelessserving zoning (i.e. daytime drop-in centers and overnight shelters). This follows-p two 2017 Concil stdy sessions briefings on this topic, which were done at City Concil direction following earlier approval/extensions of a temporary moratorim on sch land ses. The crrent moratorim extension is de to expire as of 2/18/18. This staff memo provides pdated zoning map options (attached). For Janary 23rd, staff is reqesting that Concil provide frther direction on the following alternative corses of action: - Provide staff specific direction on a preferred zoning map/text package for these types of land ses, which wold then be broght back for ordinance action in Febrary, prior to the crrent moratorim expiration; or - Prse a longer-term approach to this isse, nder which the moratorim wold likely expire on 2/18/18. (NOTE: staff does not advise a frther extension of this moratorim) BACKGROUND Moratorim: In , City Concil took actions related to homeless-serving land ses : - On 3/22/16, Concil approved Ordinance #3109 (attached), which imposed a 180-day moratorim on any City land se permits/approvals for ses and activities associated with emergency shelters, drop-in centers, and similar ses that provide social services to persons that are homeless in all zones located in the City of Pyallp. - On 4/5/16, Concil approved Ord. #3110, amending PMC Sec to add a new category to the City s Significant Impact Bsiness License (SIBL) process, addressing a bsiness that provides social services or hosing to persons that are or were homeless inclding, bt not limited to, drop-in centers. 1 7

8 - On 9/13/16, 3/7/17 and 8/22/17, City Concil held pblic hearings and approved ordinances which extended the above-cited moratorim for additional 180-day periods. The crrent moratorim period will expire on 2/18/18. The Findings of Fact nder Ordinances #3109 specifically state City Concil s intent to review land se codes to determine if changes are warranted to better address those homeless-serving land ses as referenced in the moratorim ordinance (i.e. ses and activities associated with emergency shelters, drop-in centers, and similar ses that provide social services to persons that are homeless in all zones in the City ). Planning Commission review: Given the above-cited Concil direction, the Planning Commission reviewed and discssed this topic in early 17, focsing their review pon two ses: homeless-serving daytime drop-in centers and homeless-serving overnight shelters. Following a pblic hearing in Jne, 2017, the Commission forwarding zoning text/map recommendations to City Concil. These recommendations consisted of mltiple draft zoning text amendments: - Proposed definitions for these ses - Procedral standards (i.e. zone districts in which these wold be permitted and nder a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)) - Site standards, inclding bffers from varios sensitive ses (i.e. schools, pblic parks, pblic library, day cares/preschools, senior care facility, residential zones). Jly 18, 2017 City Concil: On Jly 18 th, City Concil heard an initial staff presentation regarding the above-cited Planning Commission and staff work on "homeless-serving zoning standards. Optional bffer maps were presented depicting areas in which these ses cold potentially be sited given Commission recommendations on allowable zone districts and sensitive se bffer options. At that time, staff received general feedback from Concilmembers (CMs), which is otlined here: - A majority of CM s spported having some on-point zoning standards in place to address how/where these homeless-serving ses are permitted verss maintaining a case-by-case se determination approach. - CM s spported reqiring a CUPs for any proposed drop-in center or overnight shelter se. - Mltiple CM s expressed concern abot the downtown "CBD" zone districts being listed as potentially allowable for these homeless-serving ses, expressing that the downtown shold not be considered an appropriate location. - There was general acceptance of the sensitive ses list as recommended, thogh a few CM s spported adding the Riverwalk Trail to that list. Agst 29, 2017 City Concil: On Agst 29 th, staff retrned to City Concil, presenting some additional zoning standards and bffer map options based pon Concil feedback from Jly 18 th. At that time, staff received frther inpt from CMs, as follows: - In-lie of solely sing zones and bffers solely to determine appropriate areas, several CM s endorsed an alternative overlay approach which wold focs on indstrial areas north of the River and possibly other dense commercial portions otside of downtown. 2 8

9 - CM s contined to be spportive of applying the CUP and SIBL processes for these ses in addition to zoning standards. Material for Janary 23, 2018 City Concil meeting: Given City Concil direction to date, staff is presenting the following potential zoning standards on 1/23/18: Draft Zoning Maps (attached pdated for 1/23/18 meeting): Option A: North Pyallp overlay approach. Incldes Light Manfactring (ML) and General Commercial (CG)-zoned parcels north of the Pyallp River, with a 250 bffer from the Pyallp Recreation Center property and any nearby residentially-zoned property. Total available parcels, Citywide, nder this scenario: 57/Total available acres: 397 Option B: ML-zone emphasis. Incldes all ML-zoned parcels Citywide, with a 100 bffer from all previosly-identified sensitive ses (i.e. schools, pblic parks, library child care facilities, senior care facilities, residentially-zoned parcels). Total available parcels, Citywide, nder this scenario: 137/Total available acres: 606 Option C: ML-C zone emphasis. Incldes all ML, CG & CB (Bsiness Commercial)-zoned parcels Citywide, with a 250 bffer from all sensitive ses excepting a 100 bffer from residentially-zoned parcels. Total available parcels, Citywide: 372/Total available acres: 702 Draft Zoning text (attached, excerpt from 7/18/17 Concil meeting staff report): As noted above, staff presented draft zoning text standards for homeless-serving drop-in centers and overnight shelters at the Jly 18 th and Agst 29 th Concil meetings. As smmarized in the attached excerpt, these standards had been reviewed by the Planning Commission, as follows: a. Use definitions for drop-in centers and overnight shelters, neither of which crrently have applicable definitions in Pyallp s zoning code. Concil inpt to date has been spportive of these proposed definitions. b. Allowable zone districts based pon Planning Commission recommendations, which is expected to be modified by sbseqent City Concil direction. c. Permit procedres, endorsing se of a CUP and the SIBL process. Concil inpt to date has been spportive of these proposed procedres. d. Site standards, which address proximity to transit, adeqacy of on-site parking and conformance to crime prevention measres for any applicable site. Concil inpt to date has been spportive of these proposed site standards. e. Sensitive se bffers, which are also being modified by sbseqent Concil direction. If City Concil direction, on 1/23/18, is to proceed with new zoning standards prior to the moratorim expiration, staff will incorporate that specific City Concil inpt into an ordinance and retrn for near-term Concil action. 3 9

10 66TH AVE 167 STEWART AVE E S WOODLAND WOODLAND AVE E 90TH ST E 70TH AVE E PIONEER WAY E NORTH LEVEE RD E 26TH ST NW 84TH ST E 76TH AVE E FRUITLAND AVE E FREEMAN RD E VALLEY AVE E W STEWART W PIONEER VALLEY AVE NW?@ 161 N LEVEE RD S MERIDIAN CHRISELLA RD E VALLEY AVE NE?@ 167 N MERIDIAN 2ND ST NE 3RD ST SE 5TH ST NE E PIONEER MILWAUKEE AVE E 114TH AVE E BENSTON DR E Potential Homeless Drop-in Center / Overnight Shelter Siting Analysis Option A VALLEY AVE E E MAIN 122ND AVE E 48TH ST E HOUSTON RD E VALLEY AVE E E PIONEER?@ 410 WEST VALLEY HWY E?@ 167 TRAFFIC AVE 8TH AVE SE FRYAR AVE 142ND AVE E PUYALLUP ST MAIN ST?@ TH ST E PIONEER WAY E VALLEY AVE 96TH ST E 23RD AVE SE 104TH ST E?@ 512 S FRUITLAND?@ ST AVE SW 9TH ST SW?@ TH AVE SE SHAW RD 112TH ST E 39TH AVE SW 39TH AVE SE 78TH AVE E 86TH AVE E 94TH AVE E 116TH ST E 118TH ST E 43RD AVE SE 110TH AVE E 122ND ST E SHAW RD E MILITARY RD E MILITARY RD E Cityof Pya lp IT Depa rtm ent for th epla nning Div ision Da te:ja na ry16, Miles 8 CG Legend -Genera lcom m ercia l ML-Lim itedma nfa ctring Area s a v a ila blefor Da ytim edrop-incenters a nd/or Ov ernig h tsh elters.alml/cg Zonedproperties North of th epya llp Riv er less 250'bffer from th e Recrea tioncenter a ndresidentia lyzonedproperties. Bs Rotes CityLim its Pa rcels Roa ds T h em a p fea tres a rea pproxim a tea nda reintendedonlytoprov idea nindica tionof sa id fea tre.additiona la rea s th a th a v enotbeenm a ppedm a ybepresent.t h is is nota srv ey. Orth oph otos a ndoth er da ta m a ynota lig n.t h econtya ndcityof Pya lp a ssm es nolia bility for v a ria tions a scerta inedbya cta lsrv ey.alldat AISEXPRESSLYPROVIDED ASIS AND WIT HALLFAULT S.T h econtya ndcityof Pya lp m a kes nowa rra ntyof fitness for a pa rticla r Prpose. Docment Path: H:\jray\planning\TCU_HomelessAnalysis \October2017_Revisions\ML_CG_Option1.mxd; PDF: Janary2018_Revisions\Option A 10

11 66TH AVE 167 STEWART AVE E S WOODLAND WOODLAND AVE E 90TH ST E 70TH AVE E PIONEER WAY E NORTH LEVEE RD E 26TH ST NW 84TH ST E 76TH AVE E FRUITLAND AVE E FREEMAN RD E VALLEY AVE E W STEWART W PIONEER VALLEY AVE NW?@ 161 N LEVEE RD S MERIDIAN CHRISELLA RD E VALLEY AVE NE?@ 167 N MERIDIAN 2ND ST NE 3RD ST SE 5TH ST NE E PIONEER MILWAUKEE AVE E 114TH AVE E BENSTON DR E Potential Homeless Drop-in Center / Overnight Shelter Siting Analysis Option B VALLEY AVE E E MAIN 122ND AVE E 48TH ST E HOUSTON RD E VALLEY AVE E E PIONEER?@ 410 WEST VALLEY HWY E?@ 167 TRAFFIC AVE 8TH AVE SE FRYAR AVE 142ND AVE E PUYALLUP ST MAIN ST?@ TH ST E PIONEER WAY E VALLEY AVE 96TH ST E 23RD AVE SE 104TH ST E?@ 512 S FRUITLAND?@ ST AVE SW 9TH ST SW?@ TH AVE SE SHAW RD 112TH ST E 39TH AVE SW 39TH AVE SE 78TH AVE E 86TH AVE E 94TH AVE E 116TH ST E 118TH ST E 43RD AVE SE 110TH AVE E 122ND ST E SHAW RD E MILITARY RD E MILITARY RD E CityofPyallp ITDepartm ent forth eplanningdivision Date:Janary16, Miles 8 ML-Lim Legend itedmanfac tring Areas availablefordaytim edrop-in Centers and/or Overnigh tsh elters.all MLzonedproperties Citywide less 100'bferfrom identifiedsensitiveses -Pblic / PrivateSc h ools,ch ildcarecenters,seniorcarefac ilities, Library,Pblic Park s,andresidentiallyzonedparc els. Bs Rotes CityLim its Parc els Roads Th em apfeatres areapprox im ateandareintendedonlyto providean indic ation ofsaid featre.additional areas th ath avenotbeen m appedm aybepresent.th is is notasrvey. Orth oph otos andoth erdatam aynotalign.th econtyandcityofpyallpassm es no liability forvariations asc ertainedbyac tal srvey.alldataisexpresslyprov IDED ASIS AND WITHALLFAULTS.Th econtyandcityofpyallpm ak es no warantyoffitness fora partic larprpose. Docment Path: H:\jray\planning\TCU_HomelessAnalysis \October2017_Revisions\ML_Option3_revised.mxd: PDF: Janary2018_Revisions_B 11

12 66TH AVE 167 STEWART AVE E S WOODLAND WOODLAND AVE E 90TH ST E 70TH AVE E PIONEER WAY E NORTH LEVEE RD E 26TH ST NW 84TH ST E 76TH AVE E FRUITLAND AVE E FREEMAN RD E VALLEY AVE E W STEWART W PIONEER VALLEY AVE NW?@ 161 N LEVEE RD S MERIDIAN CHRISELLA RD E VALLEY AVE NE?@ 167 N MERIDIAN 2ND ST NE 3RD ST SE 5TH ST NE E PIONEER MILWAUKEE AVE E 114TH AVE E BENSTON DR E Potential Homeless Drop-in Center / Overnight Shelter Siting Analysis Option C VALLEY AVE E E MAIN 122ND AVE E 48TH ST E HOUSTON RD E VALLEY AVE E E PIONEER?@ 410 WEST VALLEY HWY E?@ 167 TRAFFIC AVE 8TH AVE SE FRYAR AVE 142ND AVE E PUYALLUP ST MAIN ST?@ TH ST E PIONEER WAY E VALLEY AVE 96TH ST E 23RD AVE SE 104TH ST E?@ 512 S FRUITLAND?@ ST AVE SW 9TH ST SW?@ TH AVE SE SHAW RD 112TH ST E 39TH AVE SW 39TH AVE SE 78TH AVE E 86TH AVE E 94TH AVE E 116TH ST E 118TH ST E 43RD AVE SE 110TH AVE E 122ND ST E SHAW RD E MILITARY RD E MILITARY RD E Legend CityofPyalp ITDepartm ent for th eplanning Division Date:Janary16, Miles 8 Th em apfeatres areapproxim ateandareintendedonlytoprovidean indication ofsaid featre.additionalareas th ath avenotb een m appedm ayb epresent.th is is notasrvey. Orth oph otos andoth er datam aynotalig n.th econtyandcityofpyalpassm es noliab ility for variations ascertainedb yactalsrvey.alldataisexpresslyprovided ASIS AND WITHALLFAU LTS.Th econtyandcityofpyalpm ak es now arrantyoffitness for a particlar Prpose. CB-Com m nitybsiness CG -GeneralCom m ercial ML-Lim itedmanfactring Areas availab lefor Daytim edrop-in Centers and/or Overnig h tsh elters.alml,cg andcbzonedproperties City w ideless a250'b fer from identifiedsensitiveses -Pb lic/ PrivateSch ools,ch ildcarecenters,senior CareFacilities, Lib rary,andpb licpark s,anda100'b fer from Residentially ZonedParcels. Bs Rotes CityLim its Parcels Roads Docment Path: H:\jray\planning\TCU_HomelessAnalysis \October2017_Revisions\ML_CG_CB_Option5_revised.mxd: PDF: \Janary2018_Revisions\NK_CG_CB_Option_C 12

13 E W PIONEER 167 PUYALLUP ST E VAL L HOUS TON R D VE VE EY A V E F RY AR A EY A 410 E BENSTON DR 410 E MAIN 3RD ST SE E PIONEER E PI D AV TLAN FRUI S MERIDIAN MAIN ST AV VAL L TR AF FI C EE AV EE 5TH ST NE N MERIDIAN 2ND ST NE 167 VE NE MILW AUK 26TH ST NW TEW YE N LEVEE RD WS 142ND AVE E 122ND AVE E 114TH AVE E FREEMAN RD E RD VALLEY A 72ND ST E WOODLAND AVE E S WOODLAND A ER DE E 84TH ST E HW WEST VALLEY LL AVE 48TH ST E NW ART E Potential Homeless Daytime Drop-In Center + Overnight Shelter Siting Analysis Option B1 E EVE 76TH AVE E 66TH AVE E STE W 161 AV NO RTH Y LE 167 VE L LE YA SE RI CH 70TH AVE E VA L ONE ER 8TH AV E SE 80TH ST E PIONEER WAY E EE 96TH ST E RD SHAW 39TH AVE SW 86TH AVE E 78TH AVE E 112TH ST E TH AVE SE 39TH AVE SE 116TH ST E 43RD AVE SE 118TH ST City ofpy allp PlanningDivision Date:4/ 25/ TH ST E MILITARY RD E SHAW RD E TH 9TH ST SW 31ST AVE SW 94TH AVE E FRUITLAND AVE ES FRUITLAND 104TH ST E 23RD AVE SE 122ND ST 162 Legend ML-Lim ited Manf actr ing Ar eas availablef orday tim edr opin Center s and / or Over night Shelter s.all ML zoned pr oper ties City w id eless 1000' bf f erf r om id entif ied sensitiveses - Pblic / Pr ivate Sc hools, Child Car e Center s, SeniorCar efac ilites,libr ar ies,pblicpar k s,and Resid entially Zoned Par cels. Bs Rotes City Lim its Par c els Road s Miles Them ap f eatr es ar eappr ox im ateand ar eintend ed only to pr ov id ean ind ic ation ofsaid f eatr e.ad d itional ar eas thathav enotbeen m apped m ay bepr esent.this is notasr v ey. Or thophotos and otherd atam ay notalign.theconty and City ofpy allp assm es no liability f orv ar iations asc er tained by ac tal sr v ey.alldatai SEXPRESSLYPROVI DED ASI S AND W I THALLFAULTS.TheConty and City ofpy allp m ak es no w ar r anty off itness f ora par tic larpr pose. Docment Path: H:\rbrown4\Reqests\Homeless\Homeless_OvernightDropInShelterB1.mxd 13

14 Zoning Reglations - Homeless-Serving Uses April 25, 2018 Jrisdiction Daytime drop-in centers Overnight Shelters Temporary Encampments University Place N/A N/A Fife N/A N/A Chapter Temporary Tent Encampments - Permit reqired, mltiple reqirements, can be approved for a period of no more than 90 days, and only once a year at the same site. Chapter Temporary Homeless Encampments - Permit and noticing to the pblic reqired, mltiple standards and review criteria, no more than one encampment allowed in the city at one time. Tacoma N/A N/A Chapter Temporary Use - Permit reqired, maximm dration 185 days (exceptions may apply), no more than 100 residents at a time. City of Smner N/A N/A Chapter Temporary homeless encampment se permit - shall operate for no more than 4 consective calendar months, and only one site allowed in the city at at time. Fairly restrictive permit process reqirements. Pierce Conty N/A N/A N/A City of Gig Harbor N/A N/A N/A Orting N/A N/A N/A Lakewood N/A N/A N/A DPont N/A N/A N/A Edgewood N/A N/A N/A Bonney Lake N/A N/A N/A 14

15 Shold Legislative Bodies Condct Qasi-Jdicial Hearings? Can yo be a legislator and a jdge at the same time? Any high school civics stdent can correctly answer this qestion with respect to the federal and state governments. The answer is an neqivocal no becase of the separation of powers doctrine - one of the key principles contained in both the federal and state constittions. The response to this isse at the local government level, however, has historically been different, particlarly with respect to the land se permit review process. People are elected to Congress or the Washington State Legislatre to be lawmakers. They make the law by adopting legislation. The administration and enforcement of laws adopted by those legislators is the responsibility of the exective branch. The jdicial branch of government plays a very different role - it applies the meaning of the law to cases broght before it. Adjdication reqires reviewing evidence and argments and applying the law to the facts of the case to determine the otcome. In contrast to the legislative and exective branches, which are nqestionably political bodies, the jdicial branch at both the federal and state level was designed to be apolitical rendering jdgments based on facts and law, not on poplar opinion or campaign promises. This separation of powers has been less absolte at the local government level in Washington. Since statehood, local governments have mirrored the distinct roles and fnctions of the legislative branch (e.g., city, town, and conty concils) and the exective branch (e.g., elected mayors). However, ntil the 1970 s, concils in all Washington cities also played a qasi-jdicial role with respect to certain land se permits. They were responsible not only for adopting local zoning laws, bt sitting in jdgment on appeals when zoning permits were approved or denied by an administrator, a board of adjstment, or a hearing examiner. Any party dissatisfied with the concil s decision on sch appeals may appeal to sperior cort. A sperior or appellate cort may overtrn a concil s decision, bt significantly, depending on the circmstances, may also impose financial jdgments against the city. Since the 1970s, many conties and cities have moved away from the qasi-jdicial role. This movement began with the adoption by local governments of the hearing examiner system to condct pblic hearings on many qasi-jdicial land se permits, bilding a record, and adopting conclsions of law to spport the decision. Hearing examiners are hired becase of their backgrond in land se law and most are lawyers. Their professional training enables them to avoid procedral or other errors that wold ndermine the legal sfficiency of the permit review and decision. As non-elected officials, hearing examiners are inslated from political pressres and are relied pon to render objective and impartial decisions. 15

16 Many cities in the state now se hearing examiners to condct at least some qasijdicial pblic hearings. While concil action is reqired on rezones, the law gives concils the option to assign to their hearing examiners athority to make final decisions on other types of qasi-jdicial permits. Examples of sch permits are conditional se permits, variances, planned nit developments, design review approvals, site plan approvals, and short sbdivisions. Over the past decade, many city concils have removed themselves from final approvals and appeals of these types of qasi-jdicial decisions, delegating that responsibility to their hearing examiners. This means that any appeals of a hearing examiner s decision are taken directly to sperior cort rather than to the concil. Why have those cities, inclding Covington, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Shoreline, and Edmonds, taken this step? Why shold yor concil consider following their lead? There are many reasons, bt here are the top three: 1. One major concern is the financial risk of having lay elected officials with no training or backgrond in the law attempting to, in effect, practice law. That is why the Washington Cities Insrance Athority, the risk pool for many cities in the state, strongly encorages concils to divest themselves as mch as possible of the qasijdicial role. There are a nmber of procedral pitfalls that cold expose the city treasry to mlti-million dollar jdgments. Even the most intelligent, best-intentioned, and detail-oriented people make mistakes. The risk of sch mistakes is amplified at least seven-fold when seven non-legally trained concil members are involved, rather than a single legally-trained hearing examiner. When sitting as a qasi-jdicial body, some city concils condct not only the hearing bt also their deliberations in open session. Some do so in an effort to make the process more transparent, bt this practice also increases the srface area for a procedral misstep to occr. A too freqent error is allowing a member of the pblic to make comment otside the record, after it is closed. Sometimes concil members feel compelled to make off-the-cff remarks in an attempt to mollify nhappy citizens, a practice which is fraght with risk. A hearing examiner listens to pblic comments at the hearing and may ask qestions of clarification, bt her/his deliberation is an internal mental process it occrs after the hearing is over, not while it is still in session. 2. Qasi-jdicial cases can be extremely time intensive. The record and written and oral argment can consme many hors of time to be sfficiently reviewed, debated, and discssed. This is typical even for project permits that are fairly small in scope, sch as a for-lot short plat or a variance for an individal hose. City concils have many demands on their agenda time inclding isses with far greater impact on the well-being of the entire commnity. Only the elected concil can adopt city bdgets, ordinances and programs, and provide overall policy direction to the many fnctions of the city organization. They cannot delegate those responsibilities to others. With the exception of rezones, concils can delegate the qasi-jdicial role. 16

17 3. The qasi-jdicial role freqently places city concil members in an ntenable lose-lose predicament. Elected officials can be caght between the need to be responsive to the desires of their constitents and their dty to be responsible to the clear legal criteria governing the permit decision before them. For example, elected officials involved in a qasi-jdicial hearing may not engage in ex parte discssions with commnity members abot the pros and cons of that case, which can be frstrating for both parties. Doing the right thing by the legal criteria for a decision may reslt in a political cost at the next election, while departing from the legal framework in order to satisfy constitents rns the risk of a potentially catastrophic hit on the city treasry. The reasons for concils to remove themselves from the qasi-jdicial role are many and compelling. This does not mean that they can no longer be responsive to the needs of their commnities and citizens. Indeed, it shold be remembered that every qasijdicial decision is governed by the applicable land se policies and code standards that are adopted by the city concil! To that end, a concil s time and attention to land se matters is best invested in adopting clear and effective policies and codes that govern all permits, inclding qasijdicial ones. Several cities also reqire an annal report from their staff and hearing examiners smmarizing the natre, freqency, and disposition of qasi-jdicial permits. Sch ongoing monitoring enables them to identify land se policies or standards that shold potentially be revised. By playing this legislative role, a role for which they are niqely sited and which only they can play, a city concil can more effectively provide needed direction to the development of their commnity withot exposing the city to needless financial risk. Abot Joseph W. Tovar Joseph W. Tovar writes for MRSC as a Planning Advisor. Joseph W. Tovar, FAICP, helps commnities create visions of their preferred ftres, and how to implement them throgh plans, codes, projects, strategies and organizational training. He has served as planning director for the cities of Shoreline, Kirkland and Covington and as Chair of the Growth Management Hearings Board. Now in private practice, Mr. Tovar has provided consltant services to private clients as well as Snohomish and Kitsap conties, the cities of Everett, Lacey, Kirkland, and SeaTac, as well as the Association of Washington Cities. He is a Fellow of the American Institte of Certified Planners and an Affiliate Associate Professor at the University of Washington. He has taght land se decision-making and city planning best practices to adiences of planning commissioners, elected officials, planning directors and gradate stdents. More information is posted online at He can be reached at joe@tovarplanning.com. The views expressed in Advisor colmns represent the opinions of the athor and do not necessarily reflect those of MRSC. 17

18 Comments 5 comments on Shold Legislative Bodies Condct Qasi-Jdicial Hearings? "David offers a good sggestion - althogh RCW reqires final plat approval to be done by the legislative body, the natre of that final review is more ministerial in natre than legislative or even qasi-jdicial. It is basically a 'check the box' exercise to make sre that all the conditions imposed on the preliminary plat (e.g., installation or bonding of improvements, etc.) have been satisfied. It cold be as mechanical a review as the staff review of a bilding permit. Sch reform wold save time and money (delayed processing has a cost) for the applicant, staff and the legislative body." Joe Tovar on Sep 22, :57 PM "Joe - it wold be helpfl to get the Legislatre to remove the reqirement in RCW that final plats be approved by the concil. the preliminary decision is made by the Hearing Examiner, and then we contine to ask or legislative bodies to approve the final plat. A simple amendment wold fix this conflict." David Stalheim on Sep 16, :41 PM "Very thoghtfl piece. It raises, in my mind, a "flip-side" qestion of whether the jdges on the State Spreme Cort shold engage in qasi-legislative activities sch as rle-making for the state cort system. Perhaps cort rles shold be adopted by a concil or commission comprised of jdges from all levels, legislators, lawyers and lay people. Then the members of a specific cort, like the State Spreme Cort, wold not have to be in the rle-making bsiness, a legislative task that they are not necessarily sited for--this is similar to Joe's point that city concilmembers might not be sited for acting like jdges." Hgh Spitzer on Sep 6, :24 PM "Crystal-clear and compelling! Thanks for this fine post, Joe." Ann Macfarlane on Ag 31, :05 PM "Many city concils are not comfortable allowing the hearing examiner to make the final decision on a land se case. However, those city concils shold be aware that if they believe that the hearing examiner's decision is not spported by sbstantial evidence (as reqired by LUPA in RCW 36.70C.130), they can appeal that decision to sperior cort nder LUPA. As long as the city concil doesn't reqest a stay of the decision, sch an appeal shold not sbject the city to a damages claim. See, Hnt Skansie Land v. City of Gig Harbor, U.S. Dist. Cort, W.D. Wash , 2010 WL Be sre that yo have a permit processing chapter which addresses appeals by identifying the city concil as a "aggrieved party," to eliminate nnecessary disptes. later on standing isses." 18