20F.30.15 Types of Review.

20F.30.15-010 Purpose.

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the six levels of land use review. (Ord. 2118)

Land use and development decisions are classified into six processes based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision-maker, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity. (Ord. 2118)

20F.30.15-020 Classification of Permits and Decisions.

(1) Type I Review: Minor Administrative Decisions. A Type I process is an administrative review and decision by the appropriate department or division. Applications reviewed under the Type I process are minor or ministerial administrative decisions and are exempt from certain administrative procedures, such as complete application review and decision timeframes. Decision and appeal authority varies by application and is set forth in RCDG 20F.30.30. The permits and actions reviewed and decided as Type I are listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040.

(2) Type II Review: Administrative, Technical Committee/Design Review Board Decisions/Landmark Commission.

(a) A Type II process is an administrative review and decision by the Technical Committee and, if required, by the Design Review Board or the Landmark Commission. Public notification is provided at the application and decision stages of the review. Appeals of Type II Technical Committee/Design Review Board decisions are made to the Hearing Examiner. The permits and actions reviewed and decided as Type II are listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040.

(b) For properties covered by the interlocal agreement with King County for preservation services, a Type II review will follow procedures in King County Code Chapter 20.62. Appeals are made to the Hearing Examiner.

(3) Type III Review: Hearing Examiner, Quasi-Judicial Decisions. This Type III process is a quasi-judicial review and decision made by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner makes a decision based on a recommendation from the Technical Committee and, if required, the Design Review Board. A public meeting may be held prior to the Technical Committee/Design Review Board recommendation. The Hearing Examiner considers public testimony received at an open record public hearing. Public notification is provided at the application, public hearing and decision stages of application review. The administrative appeal body is the City Council. The permits and actions reviewed and decided as Type III are listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040.

(4) Type IV Review: Hearing Examiner and City Council, Quasi-Judicial Decisions. A Type IV process is a quasi-judicial review and recommendation made by the Hearing Examiner and a decision made by the City Council. The Hearing Examiner considers the recommendation from the Technical Committee and, if required, the Design Review Board, as well as public testimony received at an open record public hearing. The City Council makes a decision based on a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner during a closed record public meeting. Public notification is provided at the application, public hearing, and decision stages of application review. There is no opportunity for an administrative appeal. Appeals of City Council decisions are made to King County Superior Court. The permits and actions reviewed and decided as Type IV are listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040.

(5) Type V Review: City Council, Quasi-Judicial Decisions. A Type V process is a quasi-judicial review and decision made by the City Council. The Technical Committee makes a recommendation to the City Council. Depending on the application, the Technical Committee may conduct a public meeting to obtain public input. The City Council may choose to hold a public hearing on the application prior to making a decision. Public notification is provided at the application, public hearing (if any), and decision stages of application review. There is no opportunity for an administrative appeal. Appeals of City Council decisions are made to King County Superior Court. The permits and actions reviewed and decided as Type V are listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040.

(6) Type VI Review: City Council, Legislative, Nonproject Decisions. A Type VI review is for legislative and/or nonproject decisions made by the City Council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public development and management of public lands. The Planning Commission or Code Rewrite Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission or Code Rewrite Commission will conduct a public hearing to obtain public testimony on the proposed legislation. The City Council may elect to conduct an additional public hearing. The actions reviewed and decided as Type VI are listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040.

(7) Type VII Review: Landmark Commission, Quasi-Judicial Decisions.

(a) Properties Covered by Interlocal Agreement with King County for Preservation Services. A Type VII review is a quasi-judicial review and decision made by the Landmark Commission following procedures in King County Code Chapter 20.62.

(b) All Other Properties. A Type VII review is a quasi-judicial review and decision made by the Landmark Commission. The Landmark Commission makes a decision based on applicable Redmond Community Development Guide (RCDG) regulations and a recommendation from the King County Historic Preservation Officer and/or City preservation staff, and testimony given at the public hearing. A public hearing is held. The Landmark Commission considers public testimony received at an open record public hearing. Public notification is provided at the public hearing and decision stages of application review. The administrative appeal body is the Hearing Examiner. The permits and actions reviewed and decided as Type VII are listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040. (Ord. 2472; Ord. 2164; Ord. 2118)

20F.30.15-030 Permits and Actions Not Listed.

If a permit or land use action is not listed in the table in RCDG 20F.30.15-040, the Administrator shall make the determination as to the appropriate review procedure. (Ord. 2472; Ord. 2118)

20F.30.15-040 Classification of Permits and Decisions – Table.


Type of Review Procedure	TYPE I Administrative, Appropriate Department	TYPE II Administrative, Technical Committee/ Design Review Board/Landmark Commission	TYPE III Quasi-Judicial, Hearing Examiner	TYPE IV Quasi-Judicial, City Council with Hearing Examiner Recommendation	TYPE V Quasi-Judicial, City Council	TYPE VI Legislative, City Council with Planning Commission or Code Rewrite Commission Recommendation	TYPE VII Quasi-Judicial, Landmark Commission
Permits and Land Use Actions	Planning Department Boundary Line Adjustment Certificate of Appropriateness, Level I1 Sign Permit Sign Program Shoreline Exemption Structure Movement Permit (Class I, II, and III only) Telecom. Facility (no ground equipment) Temporary Use (short-term) Tree Removal	Administrative Design Flexibility Administrative Modification Binding Site Plan Certificate of Appropriateness, Level II1 SEPA Review (when not combined with another permit or required for a Type I permit) Shoreline Substantial Development Short Plat Site Plan Entitlement Special Use Telecom. Facility (with ground equipment) Master Planned Development for any of the applicable above2	Preliminary Plat Reasonable Use Exception Shoreline Conditional Use Shoreline Variance Variance Master Planned Development for any of the applicable above2	Concurrency Exemption Conditional Use Public Project Alteration of Wildlife Habitat Areas Development Guide Amendment, Zoning Map (consistent with Comprehensive Plan) Essential Public Facility Master Planned Development for any of the applicable above2	Annexation Final Plat Plat Alteration Plat Vacation Right-of-Way Vacation Sensitive Areas Exception for Streets and/or Utilities Temporary Use (long-term) Master Planned Development for Overlake Village Subarea and for projects greater than 10 acres in Downtown2	Development Guide Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Map and/or Policies Development Guide Amendment, Text Development Guide Amendment, Zoning Map (that requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, that is an area-wide amendment or that is the adoption of a new or substantially revised neighborhood or Citywide Zoning Map) Development Guide Amendment, 2009-2011 Code Rewrite	Historic Landmark Designation1 Certificate of Appropriateness, Level III1

























	Building Division Building Permit Electrical Permit Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit
	Fire Department Fire Protection Permit Hazardous Materials Permit UFC Permit
	Public Works Department Clearing and Grading Permit Extended Public Area Use Permit Flood Zone Permit Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement Hazardous Materials Management Plan Hydrant Permit Performance Standards in Wellhead Protection Zones Right-of-Way Use Permit Sewer Permit Special Event Permit Structure Movement Permit (Class IV only) Water Permit

1 Procedures and hearing body may differ for those properties covered by the King County interlocal agreement for preservation services.

2 Master planned development procedures are explained in RCDG 20F.40.90, Master Planned Development.

(Ord. 2472; Ord. 2447; Ord. 2180; Ord. 2164; Ord. 2160; Ord. 2118)

20F.30.15-050 Determination of Decision-Making and Appeal Authority.

The decision-making authority and appeal authority for permit applications and legislative actions is established in RCDG 20F.30.15-060. A detailed explanation for each review procedure is in RCDG 20F.30.30 through 20F.30.55. (Ord. 2164; Ord. 2118)

20F.30.15-060 Decision-Making and Appeal Authority.


Type of Review	TYPE I Administrative	TYPE II Administrative	TYPE III Quasi-Judicial	TYPE IV Quasi-Judicial	TYPE V Quasi-Judicial	TYPE VI Legislative	TYPE VII Quasi-Judicial
Recommendation By:	–	Project Manager	Technical Committee, Design Review Board (if Design Review required)	Hearing Examiner	Technical Committee, Design Review Board (if Design Review required)	Planning Commission or Code Rewrite Commission	Landmark Commission
Public Hearing Prior to Decision (Open or Closed)	No	No	Yes, Open Record	Yes, Open Record	Optional, Open Record	Yes, Open Record	Yes, Open Record
Decision-Maker	Appropriate Department, see RCDG 20F.30.30-015(2)	Technical Committee, Design Review Board (if Design Review required)	Hearing Examiner	City Council	City Council	City Council	Landmark Commission
Administrative Appeal Body	Depends on permit, see RCDG 20F.30.30-015(2)	Hearing Examiner	City Council	None	None	None	Hearing Examiner
Administrative Appeal Hearing (Open or Closed)	Open Record	Open Record	Closed Record	None	None	None	Closed Record
Closed Record Administrative Appeal Hearing and Appeal Body	Yes, City Council	Yes, City Council	See above	None	None	None	Yes, City Council
Judicial Appeal	Superior Court	Superior Court	Superior Court	Superior Court	Superior Court	Superior Court	Superior Court

(Ord. 2472; Ord. 2164; Ord. 2118)