Sequim city councilors will once again discuss whether they’d like certain appeals for building projects to go through a hearing examiner or stay in-house at some capacity for future councilors to consider.
A decision could come at the July 12 city council meeting to let a temporary ordinance sending State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) appeals to the hearing examiner to lapse or become permanent.
Talks stem from last year’s appeals of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s medication-assisted treatment (MAT) facility, now being built off South Ninth Avenue.
While the city’s appointed hearing examiner Phil Olbrechts ultimately approved the project in late 2020, he told stakeholders via email last September he was unable to review the application at first. Olbrechts wrote he didn’t have jurisdiction over consolidated permit hearings, including a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) appeal under the A-2 process, and that a “reviewing court would very likely overturn my final decision and remand the appeal back to the city council to do the entire process over again.”
City staff asked to hold an emergency meeting the night of Sept. 26 to clarify the city’s code so that SEPA determination appeals go to a hearing examiner; in a 4-1 vote, mayor William Armacost voted against and councilor Sarah Kincaid abstained.
Olbrechts’ hearing for the appeals was set for Sept. 28-30, 2020, but canceled; the hearing eventually only considered the tribe’s SEPA appeal of its own project.
Olbrechts ruled on Oct. 8 that other appeals from Save Our Sequim, Jon Gibson, owner of Parkwood Manufactured Housing Community, LLC, and Sequim resident Robert Bilow “lack standing.”
Throughout the application process, appellants said because of the classification process for appeals, city councilors should hear the appeals. However, city staff said the facility is similar to other clinics and medical buildings and is not classified differently, and is under staff review.
Councilors have since extended the interim measure through Aug. 8 that sends all A-1 And A-2 permit appeals to a hearing examiner.
Action
Councilor Keith Larkin told staff at the June 28 meeting he’d like to discuss the interim measure again to review language and potential discrepancies, and to see if councilors can receive updates on appeals particularly ones that may be divisive.
The council voted 6-1 — with Deputy Mayor Tom Ferrell opposed — to bring a discussion back on July 12. Prior to the vote, Ferrell proposed a permanent ordinance, but it was voted down by Armacost, Kincaid, Larkin and councilor Mike Pence.
Pence said councilors want to be informed when an application comes in that staff knows may be controversial.
“All of our staff have been doing this long enough; they can tell what’s controversial and not,” he said.
Interim City Manager Charisse Deschenes said “it’s difficult to say what buildings are going to be controversial.”
City attorney Kristina Nelson-Gross said the MAT was controversial before any appeals came up. She added she appreciated Larkin wanting to be informed, but said, “in essence you’re requiring staff to be a mind reader of the public.
“We can make some educated guesses though,” she said.
Armacost said he was frustrated the application process was not transparent because citizens learned about the clinic through the Peninsula Daily News and “that information would have been valuable to know before it happened.”
“We need to be informed, so we can keep our citizens informed,” he said. “I’m not trying to micro-manage. Most of this is simply straightforward and there’s going to be the obvious red flag when it goes across the table.”
Armacost later added that citizens “had absolutely no voice in the matter (of the A-1, A-2 application/appeals process for the MAT clinic).” He said a hearing examiner could be hired at any time if needed, and that councilors could reinstate that option when necessary. Armacost said he thinks they don’t need a permanent ordinance and that city staff could review it to see how it could be improved.
Pence encouraged city councilors to let the interim measure expire because “council needs to have some say so in how our city is developed.”
He later said he didn’t “want to relinquish council’s control” and he “doesn’t mind a hearing examiner doing all the groundwork but we should bring it back to the city council for a decision.”
While this interim ordinance clarifies SEPA reviews must go to a hearing examiner along with other appeals under a-1, A-2, Nelson-Gross said it could be problematic if the council picks and chooses what appeals it reviews and not.
Barry Berezowsky, Sequim’s director of community development, said developers need certainty.
“Part of the cornerstone is for a developer knowing who is going to make the decision and who is holding the appeal review,” Berezowsky said.
“Staff doesn’t really have a dog in the fight who hears the appeal if there is one. Applicants should have certainty who is the appealing body.”
He added that his decision-making under the A-1, A-2 processes would remain final as long as a hearing examiner is in place, but he and staff believe they wouldn’t bring forward projects that wouldn’t be upheld by a hearing examiner.
Berezowsky cautioned city councilors against being “involved one day and not another day” in the appeals process, saying, “I think it’s the wrong path, but we can go that way if that’s what council wants.”
Councilor Brandon Janisse said one of the city’s issues with development is it plays defense instead of offense by “changing our mistakes after the fact.”
Nelson-Gross said how the city can play offense is through its code scrub, a methodical review of the Sequim Municipal Code.
For more information on the Sequim City Council, visit sequimwa.gov.
