Skip to main content
Loading…
This section is included in your selections.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide an explanation of each of the procedural steps set forth in the process flow charts in RZC 21.76.050, Permit Types and Procedures.

B. Environmental Review Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

1. All applications shall be reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) unless categorically exempt under SEPA. The City’s environmental procedures are set forth in RZC 21.70, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Procedures.

2. Threshold Determinations. The Administrator shall issue the threshold determination after the minimum comment period for the Notice of Application and prior to the decision on the application. The threshold determination shall be mailed and posted in the same manner as the Notice of Application. The threshold determination shall also be sent to agencies with jurisdiction, if any, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. There is a 14-day comment period for certain threshold determinations as provided in WAC 197-11-340. Any comments received shall be addressed in the Technical Committee decision or recommendation on the application, which shall include the final threshold determination (DNS or DS) issued by the Administrator.

3. Optional DNS Process. For projects where there is a reasonable basis for determining that significant adverse impacts are unlikely, a preliminary DNS may be issued with the Notice of Application. The comment period for the DNS and the Notice of Application shall be combined. The Notice of Application shall state that the City expects to issue a DNS for the proposal and that this may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed project. After the close of the comment period, the Technical Committee shall review any comments and issue the final DNS in conjunction with its decision or recommendation on the application.

4. Determination of Significance. If a Determination of Significance (DS) is issued, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required, the EIS will be completed prior to issuance of the Technical Committee/Design Review Board decision or recommendation. If the requirement to prepare an EIS or a Supplemental EIS is appealed by the applicant, that appeal must be resolved prior to issuance of the Technical Committee/Design Review Board decision or recommendation.

C. Neighborhood Meetings.

1. The purpose of neighborhood meetings is to:

a. Provide a forum for interested individuals to meet with the applicant to learn about the proposal and the applicable process early in the review process;

b. Provide an opportunity for meaningful public input;

c. Provide a dialogue between the applicant, citizens, and City whereby issues can be identified and discussed; and

d. Provide an opportunity for applicants to address concerns generated by individuals and incorporate possible changes.

2. Required Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting shall be required for the following:

a. Essential Public Facility.

b. Master Planned Development.

c. Preliminary Plat.

d. Short plats that meet any of the following criteria:

i. propose three or more lots.

ii. have critical areas on-site, or

iii. are forested (75 percent tree canopy).

e. As otherwise required within the RZC.

f. In addition, the Technical Committee may require a neighborhood meeting on any Type III, IV or V application.

3. Where a neighborhood meeting is required, it shall be conducted by the applicant within 45 days of the termination of the Notice of Application comment period. The applicant shall notify the City of the date and time of the meeting. At least one representative from City staff shall be in attendance. The applicant shall mail notice of the neighborhood meeting to the same individuals to whom notice is required for the Notice of Application, a minimum of 21 days in advance of the meeting. The applicant shall provide the City with an affidavit of mailing. The neighborhood meeting shall be required to take place prior to the Technical Committee decision or recommendation. In certain circumstances, the Technical Committee may choose to hold the neighborhood meeting, in which case the City shall mail the notice of neighborhood meeting as described above. A sign-in sheet shall be provided at the meetings, giving attendees the option of establishing themselves as a party of record.

4. Additional Neighborhood Meetings. In order to provide an opportunity for applicants to address concerns generated by interested parties, applicants are encouraged to hold an additional neighborhood meeting (or meetings) to provide interested parties with additional information, proposed changes to plans, or provide further resolution of issues. If the applicant holds additional meetings, there shall be no specific requirements for notice or City attendance. However, the City shall make effort to attend meetings where appropriate and when the applicant has notified the City that additional meetings are taking place. Any persons attending additional neighborhood meetings who have not established themselves as a party of record, and who wish to do so, must contact the City directly.

D. Director Decisions on Type I Reviews.

1. Type I Decision Makers. Decisions on Type I applications are made by the appropriate department director or designee.

2. Decision Criteria. The decision of the department director shall be based on the criteria for the application set forth in this code, or in the applicable uniform or international code in the case of building and fire-related permits. The decision shall include any conditions necessary to ensure consistency with the applicable development regulations. The department director may consult with the Technical Committee, the Design Review Board, or the Landmarks and Heritage Commission on any Type I application, but the final decision-making authority on such applications remains with the department director.

3. Decision. A written record of the director’s decision shall be prepared in each case and may be in the form of a staff report, letter, the permit itself, or other written document indicating approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The decision shall be mailed as provided in RZC 21.76.080.G, Notice of Final Decision. See RZC 21.68.200.C.7.a for decisions on Shoreline Exemptions.

4. Appeal. Type I decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner as provided in RZC 21.76.060.I, Appeals to Hearing Examiner on Type I and II Permits. All decisions are final upon expiration of the appeal period or, if appealed, upon the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s final decision on the appeal. Appeal decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed to the King County Superior Court as provided RZC 21.76.060.M.

E. Technical Committee Decisions on Type II Reviews.

1. Decision. Decisions on Type II applications are made by the Technical Committee. The decision of the Technical Committee shall be based on the criteria for the application set forth in the RZC, and shall include any conditions necessary to ensure consistency with the applicable development regulations.

2. Record. A written record of the Technical Committee’s decision shall be prepared in each case and may be in the form of a staff report, letter, the permit itself, or other written document indicating approval, approval with conditions, or denial. All parties of record shall be notified of the final decision.

3. Design Review Board and Landmarks and Heritage Commission Review. When design review or review of a Certificate of Appropriateness is required, the decision of the Design Review Board or Landmarks and Heritage Commission shall be included with the Technical Committee decision.

4. Appeal. Type II decisions (except shoreline permits) may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner as provided in RZC 21.76.060.I, Appeals to Hearing Examiner on Type I and Type II Permits. All decisions are final upon expiration of the appeal period or, if appealed, upon issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s final decision on the appeal. Appeal decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed to the King County Superior Court as provided in RZC 21.76.060.M.

F. Technical Committee Recommendations on Type III, IV, V and VI Reviews. The Technical Committee shall make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on all Type III and Type IV reviews, a recommendation to the City Council on all Type V Reviews, and a recommendation to the Planning Commission for all Type VI reviews. The Technical Committee’s recommendation shall be based on the decision criteria for the application set forth in the RZC, and shall include any conditions necessary to ensure consistency with the City’s development regulations. Based upon its analysis of the application, the Technical Committee may recommend approval, approval with conditions or with modifications, or denial. A written report of the Technical Committee’s recommendation shall be prepared and transmitted to the Hearing Examiner along with the recommendation of the Design Review Board and/or Landmarks and Heritage Commission where applicable.

G. Design Review Board Determinations on Type II, III, IV and V Reviews. When design review is required by the Design Review Board, the Design Review Board shall consider the application at an open public meeting of the Board in order to determine whether the application complies with Article III, Design Standards. The Design Review Board’s determination shall be given the effect of a final decision on design standard compliance for Type II applications, shall be given the effect of a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on a Type III or Type IV application, and the effect of a recommendation to the City Council on a Type V application. The Design Review Board’s determination shall be included with the written report that contains the Technical Committee recommendation or decision. The Design Review Board’s determination may be appealed in the same manner as the decision of the applicable decision maker on the underlying land use permit.

H. Landmarks and Heritage Commission Determination/Decisions. The Landmarks and Heritage Commission as specified below shall review all applications requiring a Level II or Level III Certificate of Appropriateness and all applications for Historic Landmark Designation.

1. When review of a Level II Certificate is required, the Redmond Landmarks and Heritage Commission shall consider the application at an open public meeting using the review process for the application in RZC 21.76.050.C in order to determine whether the application complies with the criteria set forth in RZC 21.30, Historic and Archeological Resources, and King County Code Chapter 20.62. Based upon its analysis of the application, the Landmarks and Heritage Commission may approve the application, approve it with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The Landmarks and Heritage Commission’s determination shall be included with the written report that contains the Technical Committee recommendation or decision. Conditions based on the Landmarks and Heritage Commission’s determination may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner in the same manner as the Technical Committee decision.

2. When review of a Level II Certificate of Appropriateness requiring a public hearing (see RZC 21.30.050.D.2) or review of a Level III Certificate of Appropriateness is required, the Redmond Landmarks and Heritage Commission shall hold an open record public hearing on the application using a Type III process as provided in RZC 21.76.060.J. The Landmarks and Heritage Commission shall determine whether the application complies with the criteria set forth in RZC 21.30.050.E of the RZC. Based upon its analysis of the application, the Landmarks and Heritage Commission may approve the application, approve it with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Landmarks and Heritage Commission may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal may be further appealed to the King County Superior Court.

3. The King County Landmarks Commission, acting as the Redmond Landmarks and Heritage Commission, shall review and make determinations on all applications for Historic Landmark Designation or removal of a Historic Landmark Designation. When the King County Landmarks Commission reviews a Historic Landmark Designation nomination or the removal of a Historic Landmark Designation, the King County Landmarks Commission will follow the procedures set forth in King County Code Chapter 20.62, including the holding of an open record hearing on the application. Applications shall be decided based on the criteria in King County Code Chapter 20.62. The decision of the King County Landmarks Commission on a Historic Landmark Designation or removal of a Historic Landmark Designation shall be a final decision appealable to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal my be further appealed to the King County Superior Court.

I. Appeals to Hearing Examiner on Type I and Type II Permits.

1. Overview. For Type I and Type II permits, the Hearing Examiner acts as an appellate body, conducting an open record appeal hearing when a decision of a department director (Type I) or the Technical Committee (Type II) is appealed. The Hearing Examiner’s decision on the appeal may be further appealed to the King County Superior Court.1

2. Commencing an Appeal. Type I and II decisions may be appealed as follows:

a. Who May Appeal. Any party of record may appeal the decision.

b. Form of Appeal. A person appealing a Type I or II decision must submit a completed appeal form which sets forth:

i. Facts demonstrating that the person is adversely affected by the decision;

ii. A concise statement identifying each alleged error of fact, law, or procedure, and the manner in which the decision fails to satisfy the applicable decision criteria;

iii. The specific relief requested; and

iv. Any other information reasonably necessary to make a decision on the appeal.

c. Time to Appeal. The written appeal and the appeal fee, if any, must be received by the Redmond City Clerk's Office no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fourteenth day following the date the decision of the Technical Committee/Design Review Board Decision is issued.

d. Shoreline Permit Appeals must be submitted to the Shoreline Hearings Board. See RZC 21.68.200.C.6.b.

3. Hearing Examiner Public Hearing on Appeal. The Hearing Examiner shall conduct an open record hearing on a Type I or Type II appeal. Notice of the hearing shall be given as provided in RZC 21.76.080.H. The appellant, applicant, owner(s) of property subject to the application, and the City shall be designated parties to the appeal. Only designated parties may participate in the appeal hearing by presenting testimony or calling witnesses to present testimony and by providing exhibits. Interested persons, groups, associations, or other entities who have not appealed may participate only if called by one of the parties to present information, provided that the Examiner may allow nonparties to present relevant testimony if allowed under the Examiner’s rules of procedure. The Hearing Examiner shall create a complete record of the public hearing, including all exhibits introduced at the hearing and an electronic sound recording of each hearing.

4. Hearing Examiner Decision on Appeal. Within 10 business days after the close of the record for the Type I or II appeal, the Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision to grant, grant with modifications, or deny the appeal. The decision on appeal shall be mailed to all parties of record. The Hearing Examiner shall accord substantial weight to the decision of the department director (Type I) or Technical Committee (Type II). The Hearing Examiner may grant the appeal or grant the appeal with modifications if the Examiner determines that the appellant has carried the burden of proving that the Type I or II decision is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence or was clearly erroneous.

5. Request for Reconsideration. Any designated party to the appeal who participated in the hearing may file a written request with the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration within 10 business days of the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. The request shall explicitly set forth alleged errors of procedure or fact. The Hearing Examiner shall act within 10 business days after the filing of the request for reconsideration by either denying the request or issuing a revised decision. The decision on the request for reconsideration and/or issuing a revised decision shall be sent to all parties of record.

6. Appeal. A Hearing Examiner Decision on a Type I or Type II appeal may be appealed to the King County Superior Court as provided in RZC 21.76.060.M.

J. Hearing Examiner and Landmarks and Heritage Commission Final Decisions on Type III Reviews.

1. Overview. For Type III reviews, the Hearing Examiner (or the Landmarks and Heritage Commission on Level II Certificates of Appropriateness that require a public hearing under RZC 21.30.050.D.2 and on Level III Certificates of Appropriateness) makes a final decision after receiving the recommendation of the Technical Committee and holding an open record public hearing. The Hearing Examiner’s  decision may be appealed to the King County Superior Court. Landmarks and Heritage Commission's decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner.

2. Public Hearing. The Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission on the applications specified above) shall hold an open record public hearing on all Type III permits. The open record public hearing shall proceed as follows:

a. Notice of the hearing shall be given as provided in RZC 21.76.080.D.

b. Any person may participate in the Hearing Examiner’s (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission’s) public hearing on the Technical Committee’s recommendation by submitting written comments prior to or at the hearing, or by providing oral testimony and exhibits at the hearing.

c. The Administrator shall transmit to the Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) a copy of the department file on the application, including all written comments received prior to the hearing and information reviewed by or relied upon by the Administrator. The file shall also include information to verify that the requirements for notice to the public (Notice of Application and Notice of SEPA Threshold Determination) have been met.

d. The Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) shall create a complete record of the public hearing, including all exhibits introduced at the hearing and an electronic sound recording of each hearing.

3. Authority. The Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) shall approve a project or approve with modifications if the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal complies with the applicable decision criteria of the RZC. The applicant bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the application merits approval or approval with modifications. In all other cases, the Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) shall deny the application.

4. Conditions. The Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) may include conditions to ensure a proposal conforms to the relevant decision criteria.

5. Decision. The Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) shall issue a written report supporting the decision within 10 business days following the close of the record. The report supporting the decision shall be mailed to all parties of record. The report shall contain the following:

a. The decision of the Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission); and

b. Any conditions included as part of the decision; and

c. Findings of fact upon which the decision, including any conditions, was based and the conclusions derived from those facts; and

d. A statement explaining the process to appeal the decision of the Hearing Examiner to the King County Superior Court or in the case of Landmarks and Heritage Commission to the Hearing Examiner.

6. Request for Reconsideration. Any party of record may file a written request with the Hearing Examiner (or Landmarks and Heritage Commission) for reconsideration within 10 business days of the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. The request shall explicitly set forth alleged errors of procedure, law, or fact. No new evidence may be submitted in support of or in opposition to a request for reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner shall act within 10 business days after the filing of the request for reconsideration by either denying the request or issuing a revised decision. The decision on the request for reconsideration and/or the revised decision shall be sent to all parties of record.

7. Appeal. Except for Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, or Shoreline Variances, a Hearing Examiner decision may be appealed to the King County Superior Court. Landmarks and Heritage Commission decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, and Shoreline Variances may be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board as provided for in RZC 21.68.200.C.6.b and RZC 21.68.200.C.6.c.

K. Hearing Examiner Recommendations on Type IV Reviews.

1. Overview. For Type IV reviews, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council after receiving the recommendation of the Technical Committee and holding an open record public hearing. The City Council considers the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation in a closed record proceeding.

2. Hearing Examiner Public Hearing. The Hearing Examiner shall hold an open record public hearing on all Type IV permits. The open record public hearing shall proceed as follows:

a. Notice of the hearing shall be given as provided in RZC 21.76.080.D.

b. Any person may participate in the Hearing Examiner’s public hearing on the Technical Committee’s recommendation by submitting written comments to the Technical Committee prior to the hearing, by submitting written comments at the hearing, or by providing oral testimony and exhibits at the hearing.

c. The Administrator shall transmit to the Hearing Examiner a copy of the department file on the application, including all written comments received prior to the hearing and information reviewed by or relied upon by the Administrator. The file shall also include information to verify that the requirements for notice to the public (Notice of Application and Notice of SEPA Threshold Determination) have been met.

d. The Hearing Examiner shall create a complete record of the public hearing, including all exhibits introduced at the hearing and an electronic sound recording of each hearing.

3. Hearing Examiner Authority. The Hearing Examiner shall make a written recommendation to approve a project or approve with modifications if the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal complies with the applicable decision criteria of the RZC. The applicant bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the application merits approval or approval with modifications. In all other cases, the Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation to deny the application.

4. Conditions. The Hearing Examiner may include conditions in the recommendation to ensure a proposal conforms to the relevant decision criteria.

5. Recommendation. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written report supporting the recommendation within 10 business days following the close of the record. The report shall contain the following:

a. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner; and

b. Any conditions included as part of the recommendation; and

c. Findings of fact upon which the recommendation, including any conditions, was based and the conclusions derived from those facts.

6. Mailing of Recommendation. The office of the Hearing Examiner shall mail the written recommendation, bearing the date it is mailed, to each person included in the parties of record. The Administrator will provide notice of the Council meeting at which the recommendation will be considered to all parties of record.

7. Request for Reconsideration. Any party of record may file a written request with the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration within 10 business days of the date of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. The request shall explicitly set forth alleged errors of procedure, law, or fact. No new evidence may be submitted as part of a request for reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner shall act within 10 business days after the filing of the request for reconsideration by either denying the request or issuing a revised decision. The decision on the request for reconsideration and/or revised decision shall be sent to all parties of record.

8. All Hearing Examiner recommendations on Type IV permits shall be transmitted to the City Council for final action, as provided in RZC 21.76.060.O.

L. Planning Commission Recommendations on Type VI Reviews.

1. Overview. For Type VI proposals, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council after holding at least one open record public hearing. The Planning Commission may also hold one or more study sessions prior to making the recommendation. The City Council considers the Planning Commission’s recommendation and takes final action by ordinance.

2. Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one open record public hearing. The hearing shall proceed as follows:

a. Notice of the public hearing shall be given as provided in RZC 21.76.080.F.

b. Any person may participate in the public hearing by submitting written comment to the applicable department director prior to the hearing or by submitting written or making oral comments to the Planning Commission at the hearing. All written comments received by the applicable department director shall be transmitted to the Planning Commission no later than the date of the public hearing

c. The Administrator shall transmit to the Planning Commission a copy of the department file on the application, including all written comments received prior to the hearing and information reviewed by or relied upon by the Administrator. The file shall also include information to verify that the requirements for notice to the public (Notice of Application, as required; Notice of SEPA Determination) have been met.

d. The Planning Commission shall record and compile written minutes of each hearing.

3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission may recommend that the City Council adopt, or adopt with modifications, a proposal if it complies with the applicable decision criteria in RZC 21.76.070, Land Use Actions and Decision Criteria. In all other cases, the Planning Commission shall recommend denial of the proposal. The Planning Commission’s recommendation shall be in writing and shall contain the following:

a. The recommendation of the Planning Commission; and

b. Any conditions included as part of the recommendation; and

c. Findings of fact upon which the recommendation, including any conditions, was based and the conclusions derived from those facts.

4. Additional Hearing on Modified Proposal. If the Planning Commission recommends a modification which results in a proposal not reasonably foreseeable from the notice provided pursuant to RZC 21.76.080.F, the Planning Commission shall conduct a new public hearing on the proposal as modified. The Planning Commission shall consider the public comments at the hearing in making its final recommendation.

5. A vote to recommend adoption of the proposal or adoption with modification must be by a majority vote of the Planning Commission members present and voting.

6. All Planning Commission recommendations shall be transmitted to the City Council for final action as provided in RZC 21.76.060.Q.

M. Appeals to King County Superior Court on Type I Permit, Type II Permit and/or Type III Landmark Commission Decision Appeal Reviews.

1. Overview. Except for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, all decisions of the Hearing Examiner on Type I permit, Type II permit and/or Type III Landmark Commission decision appeals may be appealed to the King County Superior Court.

2. Commencing an Appeal. Hearing Examiner decisions on Type I permit, Type II permit and/or Type III Landmark Commission decision appeals may be appealed to the King County Superior Court.

3. The Hearing Examiner's decision on an appeal from the Applicable Department or Technical Committee on a Type I permit, Type II permit and/or Type III Landmark Commission decision appeal review is the final decision of the City and (except for Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and Shoreline Variances) may be appealed to the King County Superior Court as provided in RZC 21.76.060.R.

4. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and Shoreline Variances must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. See RZC 21.68.200.C.6.b and 21.68.200.C.6.c.

N. Appeals on Type III Reviews and from King County Landmark Commission Decisions.

1. Overview. Except for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, Shoreline Variances, and King County Landmark Commission decisions, reviews may be appealed to the King County Superior Court. All decisions of the Hearing Examiner may be appealed to the King County Superior Court.

2. Commencing an Appeal. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the final decision of the City and may be appealed to the King County Superior Court by filing a land use petition which meets the requirements set forth in RCW Chapter 36.70C. The petition for review must be filed and served upon all necessary parties as set forth in state law and within the 21-day time period as set forth in RCW 36.70C.040.

3. The decision of the Redmond Landmarks and Heritage Commission or the King County Landmarks Commission listed above in (N)(1) and may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner by filing a land use petition which meets the requirements set forth in RCW 36.70C. The petition for review must be filed and served upon all necessary parties within the 21-day time period.

4. Hearing Examiner decisions on a Type III review or the Redmond Landmarks and Heritage Commission or King Landmarks Commission on those matters specified in subsection (N)(1) is the final decision of the City and may be appealed to the King County Superior Court by filing a land use petition which meets the requirements set forth in RCW Chapter 36.70C. The petition for review must be filed and served upon all necessary parties as set forth in state law withing the 21-day time period as set forth in RCW 36.70C.040.

5. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, and Shoreline Variances must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. See RZC 21.68.200.C.6.b and 21.68.200.C.6.c.

O. City Council Decisions on Type IV Reviews.

1. Overview. The City Council considers all Hearing Examiner recommendations on Type IV permits in a closed record proceeding. Decisions of the City Council on Type IV permits may be appealed to the King County Superior Court as provided in RZC 21.76.060.R.

2. City Council Decision.

a. The Administrator shall transmit to the City Council a copy of the department file on the application, including all written comments received prior to and during the open record hearing and information reviewed by or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner. The file shall also include information to verify that the requirements for notice to the public (Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing, and Notice of SEPA Determination) have been met.

b. The City Council shall conduct a closed record proceeding. Notice of the closed record proceeding shall be provided as outlined within RZC 21.76.080.J, Notice of Closed Record Appeal Proceeding on Type IV and City Council Proceeding on Type VI Reviews. The City Council shall not accept new information, written or oral, on the application, but shall consider the following in deciding upon an application:

i. The complete record developed before the Hearing Examiner; and

ii. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner.

c. The City Council shall either:

i. Approve the application; or

ii. Approve the application with modifications; or

iii. Deny the application, based on findings of fact and conclusions derived from those facts which support the decision of the Council.

d. Form of Decision. All City Council decisions on Type IV reviews shall be in writing. All decisions approving a Type IV application shall require passage of an ordinance. Decisions denying Type IV applications shall not require passage of an ordinance. Decisions on Type IV applications shall include:

i. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council shall include findings of fact and conclusions derived from those facts which support the decision of the Council, including any conditions, in the decision on the application. The City Council may, by reference, adopt some or all of the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner.

ii. Conditions. The City Council may, based on the record, include conditions in any ordinance approving or approving with modifications any conditional use permit, essential public facilities permit, or master planned development application in order to ensure conformance with the approval criteria specified in the code or process under which the application was made. For Zoning Map Amendments that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, conditions of approval shall not be included in the ordinance, but shall be included in a separate development agreement approved concurrently with the ordinance.

iii. Required Vote. The City Council shall adopt an ordinance which approves or approves with modifications the application by a majority vote of the membership of the City Council. Decisions to deny a Type IV application shall require a majority vote of those Council members present and voting.

iv. Notice of Decision. Notice of the City Council Decision shall be provided as outlined within RZC 21.76.080.G, Notice of Final Decision

P. City Council Decisions on Type V Reviews.

1. Overview. For Type V reviews, the City Council makes a final decision after receiving the recommendation of the Technical Committee and the recommendation of the Design Review Board (if required) and after holding an open record public hearing. The City Council’s decision is appealable to the King County Superior Court as provided in RZC 21.76.060.R.

2. City Council Open Record Public Hearing.

a. Notice. Notice of the City Council’s open record public hearing shall be given as provided in RZC 21.76.080.E.

b. Transmittal of File. The Administrator shall transmit to the City Council a copy of the department file on the application, including all written comments received prior to the City Council open record public hearing and information reviewed by or relied upon by the Administrator. The file shall also include information to verify that the requirements for notice to the public (Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing, and Notice of SEPA Determination) have been met.

c. Participation. Any person may participate in the City Council public hearing on the Technical Committee’s recommendation by submitting written comments prior to the hearing or at the hearing by providing oral testimony and exhibits at the hearing. The Council shall create a complete record of the open record public hearing, including all exhibits introduced at the hearing and an electronic sound recording of the hearing.

3. City Council Decision.

a. Options. The City Council shall, at the open record public hearing, consider and take final action on each Type V application. The final action may take place in the same meeting as the public hearing. The City Council shall either:

i. Approve the application; or

ii. Approve the application with modifications or conditions; or

iii. Deny the application.

b. Form of Decision. The City Council’s decision shall be in writing and shall include the following:

i. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council shall include findings of fact and conclusions derived from those facts which support the decision of the Council, including any conditions, in the decision approving the application or approving the application with modifications or conditions. The City Council may by reference adopt some or all of the findings and conclusions of the Technical Committee.

ii. Conditions. The City Council may, based on the record, include conditions in any ordinance approving or approving with modifications an application in order to ensure conformance with the approval criteria specified in the code or process under which the application was made.

iii. Notice of the Decision shall be provided as outlined within RZC Notice of the Decision shall be provided as outlined within RZC 21.76.080.G, Notice of Final Decision.

Q. City Council Decisions on Type VI Reviews.

1. Overview. The City Council shall consider and take action on all Planning Commission recommendations on Type VI reviews. The City Council may take action with or without holding its own public hearing. Any action of the City Council to adopt a Type VI proposal shall be by ordinance.

2. City Council Action.

a. Notice of City Council Proceeding. Notice shall be provided in accordance with RZC 21.76.080.J.

b. Initial Consideration by Council. The City Council shall consider at a public proceeding each recommendation transmitted by the Planning Commission. The Council may take one of the following actions:

i. Adopt an ordinance adopting the recommendation or adopt the recommendation with modifications; or

ii. Adopt a motion denying the proposal; or

iii. Refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings, in which case the City Council shall specify the time within which the Planning Commission shall report back to the City Council with a recommendation; or

iv. Decide to hold its own public hearing to take further public testimony on the proposal or in order to consider making a modification of the proposal that was not within the scope of the alternatives that could be reasonably foreseen from the notice of the Planning Commission public hearing provided under RZC 21.76.080.F.

c. Public Hearing and Decision. If the Council determines to hold its own public hearing, notice shall be provided; and the hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as was provided for the Planning Commission hearing on the proposal. After conducting the public hearing, the City Council shall render a final decision on the proposal as provided in subsection Q.2.b.i or Q.2.b.ii of this section.

R. Appeal of Council and Hearing Examiner Decisions on Types I - V Reviews to Superior Court. The decision of the decision maker listed in RZC 21.76.050.A for Type I - V permits or reviews is the final decision of the City and may be appealed to Superior Court by filing a land use petition which meets the  requirements set forth in RCW Chapter 36.70C. No action to obtain judicial review may be commenced unless all rights of administrative appeal provided by the RZC or state law have been exhausted. Decision types which provide for no administrative appeal (Types III through VI) may be directly appealed to the King County Superior Court. The petition for review must be filed and served upon all necessary parties as set forth in state law and within the 21-day time period as set forth in RCW 36.70C.040.

S. Appeal of Council Decisions on Type VI Reviews to Growth Board. The action of the City Council on a Type VI proposal may be appealed together with any SEPA threshold determination by filing a petition with the Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW 36.70A.290. The petition must be filed within the 60-day time period set forth in RCW 36.70A.290(2).

T. Appeal of Shoreline Master Plan Amendments and Decisions. Appeal of Shoreline Master Plan amendments and decisions must be made to the Shoreline Hearings Board. (Ord. 2652; Ord. 2709; Ord. 2889; Ord. 2924; Ord. 3028)

1 Clerk's  Note:  This scrivener's error was corrected in Ordinance No. 2889.

2 Clerk's  Note:  This scrivener's error was corrected in Ordinance No. 2889.

Effective on: 2/27/2021