Recognizing:
A. 
The need to provide an efficient and effective administrative adjudicatory system for acting upon quasi-judicial matters and for review of contested administrative determinations as provided for herein;
B. 
The need to ensure, to the extent possible, that quasi-judicial administrative decisions are made in a fair and impartial manner; and
C. 
The need to ensure that the principles of due process and the appearance of fairness are adhered to in regard to quasi-judicial matters.
The office of the Hearing Examiner is hereby created under the authority provided by Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution and RCW 58.17.330 and RCW 35.63.130 in order to best satisfy these needs. The office shall be independent of City departments, boards and commissions and shall be responsible for impartial administration of administrative hearings in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24)
The Hearing Examiner, Deputy Hearing Examiner, and Hearing Examiners Pro Tempore shall be appointed by the City Manager. From time to time, in addition to part-time Hearing Examiners Pro Tempore, the City Manager may also contract with qualified individuals to serve as Hearing Examiners Pro Tempore for specified hearings. Such individuals shall be compensated for their services on a contractual basis for each hearing in accordance with applicable provisions of the Tacoma Municipal Code governing contracts for professional services.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27)
The Hearing Examiner, Deputy Hearing Examiner, and Hearing Examiners Pro Tempore shall be appointed solely with regard to qualifications for the duties of such office and shall have such training or experience as will qualify the Examiner to conduct administrative quasi-judicial proceedings. The Hearing Examiner, Deputy Hearing Examiner, and Hearing Examiners Pro Tempore shall hold no other classified, appointive, or elected position in City government.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27)
Participants in adjudicative proceedings or hearings have the right, insofar as practicable, to have the Examiner free from bias, prejudice, or interest. Accordingly, an Examiner is subject to disqualification for bias, prejudice or interest or any other cause for which a judge is disqualified.
Any party to an adjudicative proceeding may petition for the disqualification of an Examiner promptly after receipt of notice indicating that the individual will preside or, if later, promptly upon discovery establishing grounds for disqualification. The Examiner for whom the disqualification is requested shall determine whether to grant the petition, stating facts and reasons for the determination.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27)
A. 
The Examiner shall receive and examine relevant information, conduct public hearings, maintain a record thereof, and enter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations to the City Council or other order, as appropriate, in the following matters:
1. 
Applications for rezoning of property (Chapter 13.05; Section 13.06.030[1]);
[1]
Code Reviser’s note: Section 13.06.650 was recodified as Section 13.06.030 per Ord. 28613 Ex. G, passed revised 2019-09-24.
2. 
Formation of Local Improvement Districts (Chapter 10.04);
3. 
Approval of Local Improvement District assessments (Chapter 10.04);
4. 
Dangerous sidewalks proceedings (Chapter 10.18);
5. 
Petitions for street and alley vacations (Chapter 9.22);
6. 
Appeals of administrative determinations to the City Council if delegated under TMC § 1.06.820; and
7. 
Appeals arising under the City’s Code of Ethics as set forth in TMC §§ 1.46.025F and 1.46.040F and G. Hearing Examiner recommendations under this subsection shall be to the person(s) or body responsible for acting on the Hearing Examiner’s order or recommendation.
B. 
In regard to the matters set forth below, the Examiner shall conduct adjudicative proceedings, maintain a record thereof, and enter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final decision or other order, as appropriate:
1. 
Applications for preliminary plat approval for subdivisions exceeding nine lots (Chapter 13.04);
2. 
Appeals from decisions of the Director of Planning and Development Services (Chapters 13.05 and 13.06);
3. 
Appeals from decisions denying a street tree permit pursuant to Chapter 9.20 TMC;
4. 
Appeals from the decisions or order of the Health Officer regarding violations of the Infectious Waste Management Code (Section 5.04.170);
5. 
Appeals from the Health Officer’s denial of a permit to operate a swimming pool under Chapter 5.50 (Section 5.50.030);
6. 
Appeals from denial or revocation of a permit for sidewalk vending (Section 6B.180.120);
7. 
Appeals regarding determinations of unlawful discriminatory practice under the Human Rights Commission chapter (Chapter 1.29);
8. 
Appeals from determinations of the Chief of Police, or his or her designee, regarding Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Dangerous Dogs (Chapter 17.04);
9. 
Appeals arising out of the Tax and License Code (Title 6);
10. 
Appeals arising out of the City Environmental Code, Chapter 13.12 (Sections 13.12.540 and 13.12.820);
11. 
Appeals arising under the City’s commute trip reduction ordinance (Chapter 13.15);
12. 
Actions brought under the City’s Whistle Blower Policy;
13. 
Appeals from the film production coordinator’s decisions regarding productions of motion pictures within the City (Section 11.10.140);
14. 
Appeals from denial of special permits regarding solid waste recycling (Section 12.09.070);
15. 
Matters referred for adjudication by the Civil Service Board under its rules of procedure (Charter Section 6.11(c));
16. 
Appeals arising under the City’s concurrency management ordinance (Chapter 13.16);
17. 
Hearing of violations of the City’s Ethics Code (Chapter 1.46);
18. 
Appeals from the Environmental Services Director’s determination of civil penalties or any other charge, order, requirement, decision, or determination issued by the Director or his or her staff pursuant to the sewage disposal and drainage regulations ordinance (Chapter 12.08);
19. 
Appeals from the Environmental Services Director’s determination of civil penalties for violations of the solid waste ordinance and appeals arising out of the imposition by the Director, or his or her staff, of solid waste utility charges; provided, that the Hearing Examiner shall not adjudicate claims with respect to any rate set by the City Council in a rate ordinance nor hear any challenge to the rate-making process (Chapter 12.09);
20. 
Appeals from the decision of the Community and Economic Development Department Director denying or canceling a final Certificate of Tax Exemption under Tacoma’s Mixed-Use Center Development ordinance (Chapter 13.17);
21. 
Appeals arising from the imposition of charges for service issued by the Department of Public Utilities, as well as those arising from disputes concerning utility service, use of watershed or other Department property, and termination of any use; provided, that the Hearing Examiner shall not adjudicate claims with respect to any rate set by the City Council in a rate ordinance nor hear any challenge to the rate-making process (Chapters 12.06 and 12.10);
22. 
Appeals arising out of the City’s Minimum Building and Structures Code (Chapter 2.01);
23. 
Appeals from sign enforcement (Sections 13.06.520 to 13.06.522);
24. 
Applications for projects that require land use permits from the City of Tacoma as well as from a neighboring jurisdiction transferred to the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner in accordance with Section 13.05.040F;
25. 
Appeals from Chronic Nuisance Code enforcement (Section 8.30A.080);
26. 
Appeals arising from a decision to deny a special street use permit, pursuant to Subtitle 16B;
27. 
Appeals arising from a decision to deny a telecommunications system franchise, pursuant to Subtitle 16B;
28. 
Appeals arising from a decision to deny a telecommunications system license, pursuant to Subtitle 16B;
29. 
Appeals arising from the establishment of a reimbursement assessment area and levying of a reimbursement assessment upon benefited property owners, pursuant to Chapter 35.72 RCW and applicable City ordinances;
30. 
Applications for wetland and stream development permits, wetland and stream assessments, and wetland delineation verifications in conjunction with a preliminary plat approval or reclassification (Chapter 13.11);
31. 
Appeals regarding overpayment of wages (Section 1.12.071);
32. 
Administrative hearings related to the breach or termination of cable television franchises granted, pursuant to Subtitle 16A;
33. 
Applications for Conditional Use Permits (Section 13.06.640);
34. 
Appeals from Poultry and Pigeons enforcement (Section 5.30.040);
35. 
Appeals from determinations related to certification and enforcement of violations for Small Business Enterprise (Chapter 1.07).
36. 
Appeals arising out of the Nuisance Code (Chapter 8.30).
37. 
Appeals arising out of the Public Nuisance Vehicle Code (Chapter 8.23).
38. 
Appeals arising out of the Noise Code (Chapter 8.122).
39. 
Appeals from the decision of the Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding Certificates of Approval (Section 13.05.047G).
40. 
Appeals arising from violations of the Rental Housing Code (Chapter 1.95).
41. 
Appeals arising from orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the City's Building Code (Chapter 2.02), Plumbing Code (Chapter 2.06), Mechanical Code (2.07), and Energy Code (Chapter 2.10).
42. 
Appeals arising from orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Fire Code Official relative to the application and interpretation of the City's Fire Prevention Code (Chapter 3.02).
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 26129 § 2, 1997-09-16; Ord. 26247 § 1, 1998-06-02; Ord. 26381 § 1, 1999-03-16; Ord. 26386 § 5, 1999-03-23; Ord. 26435 § 1, 1999-06-08; Ord. 26485 § 1, 1999-08-03; Ord. 26585 § 1, 2000-03-14; Ord. 26949 § 1, 2002-07-16; Ord. 26955 § 1, 2002-06-04; Ord. 27002 § 1, 2002-11-12; Ord. 27044 § 2, 2003-02-25; Ord. 27129 § 8, 2003-08-05; Ord. 27153 § 2, 2003-10-21; Ord. 27429 § 1, 2005-11-15; Ord. 27431 § 1, 2005-11-15; Ord. 27447 § 1, 2005-12-13; Ord. 27466 § 14, 2006-01-17; Ord. 27504 § 7, 2006-06-27; Ord. 27637 Ex. B, 2007-08-28; Ord. 27844 Ex. A, 2009-11-10; Ord. 27911 Ex. A, 2010-08-03; Ord. 27913 Ex. A, 2010-08-10; Ord. 27936 Ex. A, 2010-10-19; Ord. 28050 Ex. A, 2012-02-14; Ord. 28085 Ex. B, 2012-08-28; Ord. 28109 Ex. C, 2012-12-04; Ord. 28141 Ex. B, 2013-03-26; Ord. 28272 Ex. A, 2014-12-16; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24; Ord. 28492 Ex. A, 2018-02-27; Ord. 28508 § 3, 2018-04-26; Ord. 28559 Ex. B, 2018-11-20; Ord. 28926 Ex. B, 2023-12-12; ratified and reconfirmed by Ord. 28947, 2024-01-16)
Hearings upon original jurisdiction application set forth in subsection A of Section 1.23.050 shall be quasi-judicial in nature, except for subsection A.3, the formation of Local Improvement Districts, which shall be quasi-legislative in nature. The matters set forth in subsection B[1] of the referred–to code section shall be quasi-judicial in nature and shall be conducted de novo unless otherwise required by law.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 27044 § 3, 2003-02-25; Ord. 27129 § 9, 2003-08-05; Ord. 27936 Ex. A, 2010-10-19)
[1]
Code Reviser’s note: Reference to Section 1.23.050B was revised to reflect various amendments to the subsection.
A. 
For those matters set forth in subsection A of Section 1.23.050, except subparagraphs A.3 and A.4 (formation of Local Improvement Districts and approval of Local Improvement assessments), the burden of proof shall be on the applicant or petitioner to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the request is consistent with applicable legal standards.
B. 
For the formation of Local Improvement Districts the Examiner shall, based on the evidence presented by the parties, determine whether the district should be formed based on statutory requirements set forth at RCW 35.43 and adopted City policies. In regard to Local Improvement District assessments, the assessment roll presented by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Public Utilities shall be presumed to be legally correct; and a party contesting a proposed Local Improvement District assessment shall have the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the method of assessment was founded on a “fundamentally wrong basis” and does not properly reflect the special benefits resulting from the improvements constructed.
C. 
For the adjudicatory matters set forth in subsection B of Section 1.23.050, unless otherwise provided by law, the party seeking review has the burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the matter is consistent or inconsistent with applicable legal standards and the lower decision should be reversed or otherwise modified. Evidence that is material and relevant to determination of the matter consistent with the applicable legal requirements, subject to administrative rules of proceedings before the Hearing Examiner, shall be admitted into the record whether or not such evidence had been submitted as a part of the administrative record below.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 26129 § 3, 1997-09-16; Ord. 27936 Ex. A, 2010-10-19; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24)
The Hearing Examiner, at his/her discretion, may conduct a prehearing conference. The purpose of the prehearing conference shall be: (1) to determine the feasibility of settlement of the matter; (2) to obtain agreement as to issues of fact or law and facts to be presented at hearing and the simplification or limitation thereof; (3) to determine the possibility of obtaining admissions of facts and authenticity of documents, which will avoid unnecessary proof at hearing; (4) to determine the admissibility of exhibits; (5) to obtain stipulation as to all or part of the facts in the case; (6) to determine the number of expert and lay witnesses to be called by the parties and their names, when possible; (7) to determine the approximate time necessary for the presentation of the evidence of the respective parties; (8) to establish a hearing schedule; and (9) to obtain all other information which may aid in the prompt disposition of the cases.
The Examiner, following the prehearing conference, shall issue a prehearing order, which shall, unless properly amended, control the further course of proceedings in the matter. Prehearing conferences may be held in person or telephonically, at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24)
When a matter identified in subsection A of Section 1.23.050 has been set for public hearing, the appropriate department of City government shall coordinate and assemble the comments and recommendations of other City departments, other governmental agencies, and utility providers having an interest in the matter, and shall prepare a report summarizing the factors involved and the appropriate departments’ findings and recommendation. At least seven days prior to the scheduled hearing, the report shall be filed with the Examiner and copies thereof shall be mailed to the applicant, in matters involving permit applications, and shall be made available for use by any interested parties at the cost of reproduction.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 28109 Ex. C, 2012-12-04; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24)
All hearings shall be conducted in an orderly manner in accordance with rules adopted by the City Council or as promulgated by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to issue subpoenas compelling the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents and shall, further, have full authority to rule on all procedural matters, objections and motions. For those proceedings conducted pursuant to RCW 34.05, Administrative Procedures Act, all requirements of that Act for the conduct of adjudicative proceedings shall be followed.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 28109 Ex. C, 2012-12-04)
A. 
Subpoenas may be issued by the Hearing Examiner or an attorney of record in a given appeal, and may be served by any person 18 years of age or over, competent to be a witness, but who is not a party to the matter in which the subpoena is issued.
B. 
Each witness subpoenaed by the Hearing Examiner (or attorney of record) as a witness shall be allowed the same fees and mileage as provided by law to be paid witnesses in courts of record in this state.
C. 
If a person fails to obey a subpoena issued by the Hearing Examiner (or attorney of record) in an adjudicative proceeding, or obeys the subpoena but refuses to testify or produce documents when requested concerning a matter under examination, the Hearing Examiner or attorney of record issuing a subpoena may petition the Tacoma Municipal Court for enforcement of the subpoena. The petition shall be accompanied by a copy of the subpoena and proof of service, shall set forth in what specific manner the subpoena has not been complied with, and shall request an order of the court to compel compliance. Upon such petition, the court shall enter an order directing the person to appear before the court at a time and place fixed in the order to show cause why the person has not obeyed the subpoena or has refused to testify or produce documents. A copy of the court’s show cause order shall be served upon the person. If it appears to the court that the subpoena was properly issued, and that the particular questions the person refused to answer or the requests for production of documents were reasonable and relevant, the court shall enter an order that the person appear before the Hearing Examiner at the time and place fixed in the order and testify or produce the required documents, and on failing to obey this order the person shall be dealt with as for contempt of court.
(Ord. 26189 § 1, 1998-01-27; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24)
A. 
Final action by the Hearing Examiner on applications for preliminary plat approval must be taken within 90 days of the filing of a “complete application” (see Section 13.05.010) unless a longer period of time is agreed to by the applicant and the Examiner.
B. 
For land use matters set forth in subsection B of Section 1.23.050 considered on appeal, the Hearing Examiner shall enter findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision or other appropriate order within 120 days of the filing of an appeal, unless a longer period of time is agreed to by the Examiner and the applicant for the permit which is the subject of the appeal proceeding. For time periods for zoning reclassifications, see Section 13.06.030.[1]
[1]
Code Reviser’s note: Section 13.06.650 was recodified as Section 13.06.030 per Ord. 28613 Ex. G, revised per 2019-09-24.
C. 
In the event the Examiner cannot act upon a land use matter within the time limits set forth in subsections A and B of this section, the Examiner shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth reasons the matter cannot be acted upon within the time limitations prescribed and the time estimated to be necessary for completing the Examiner’s recommendation or decision.
D. 
The time limitations set forth herein expressly do not apply to petitions for street vacations or other matters which do not involve applications for land use permits.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 26129 § 4, 1997-09-16; Ord. 26645 § 1, 2000-06-07; Ord. 26843 § 1, 2001-08-21; Ord. 26934 § 1, 2002-03-05; Ord. 28109 Ex. C, 2012-12-04)
Multiple land use applications for the same development project shall be consolidated for review before the Hearing Examiner if one of the permits or approvals required is within the original jurisdiction, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, of the Examiner. Likewise, an environmental appeal brought pursuant to Section 13.12.820 shall be consolidated for purposes of review with the underlying permit matter(s), unless the environmental appeal involves the issuance of a Determination of Significance pursuant to WAC 197-11-360. In the latter event, the environmental appeal may be considered separately from the underlying permit application(s).
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 28109 Ex. C, 2012-12-04; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24)
When acting on any land use matter, the Hearing Examiner may attach or recommend imposition to the City Council in regard to rezoning applications and street vacation petitions any reasonable conditions found necessary to make the project compatible with its environment, to carry out the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including its Shoreline Master Program, or to provide compliance with applicable criteria or standards set forth in the City’s land use regulatory codes. Such conditions may include but are not limited to the:
A. 
Exact location and nature of the development, including additional building and parking area setbacks, screening in the form of landscape berms, landscaping or fencing.
B. 
Mitigating measures, identified in applicable environmental documents, and which are reasonably capable of being accomplished by the project’s sponsor, intended to eliminate or lessen the environmental impact of the development.
C. 
Provisions for low-and moderate-income housing as authorized by state statute.
D. 
Hours of use or operation or type and intensity of activities.
E. 
Sequence in scheduling of development.
F. 
Maintenance of the development.
G. 
Duration of use and subsequent removal of structures.
H. 
Dedication of land or granting of easements for public utilities and other public purposes.
I. 
Construction of or other provisions for public facilities and utilities. In regard to the conditions requiring the dedication of land or granting of easements for public use and the actual construction of or other provisions for public facilities and utilities, the Examiner shall find that the problem to be remedied by the condition arises in whole or significant part from the development under consideration, the condition is reasonable, and is for a legitimate public purpose.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 27079 § 2, 2003-04-29)
Any aggrieved person or entity having standing under the ordinance governing the matter, or as otherwise provided by law, may file a motion with the office of the Hearing Examiner requesting reconsideration of a decision or recommendation entered by the Examiner. A motion for reconsideration must be in writing and must set forth the alleged errors of procedure, fact, or law and must be filed in the Office of the Hearing Examiner within 14 calendar days of the issuance of the Examiner’s decision/recommendation, not counting the day of issuance of the decision/recommendation. If the last day for filing the motion for reconsideration falls on a weekend day or a holiday, the last day for filing shall be the next working day. The requirements set forth herein regarding the time limits for filing of motions for reconsideration and contents of such motions are jurisdictional. Accordingly, motions for reconsideration that are not timely filed with the Office of the Hearing Examiner or do not set forth the alleged errors shall be dismissed by the Examiner. It shall be within the sole discretion of the Examiner to determine whether an opportunity shall be given to other parties for response to a motion for reconsideration. The Examiner, after a review of the matter, shall take such further action as he/she deems appropriate, which may include the issuance of a revised decision/recommendation.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 26645 § 2, 2000-06-27)
Appeal of those matters in which the Hearing Examiner enters a recommendation to the City Council, as set forth in subsection A of Section 1.23.050, shall be made to the City Council within 14 calendar days of the entering of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation and in the manner set forth at Chapter 1.70 of the Tacoma Municipal Code. Only those persons or entities having standing under the ordinance governing the application, or as otherwise provided by law, may appeal the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation to the City Council.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27)
A. 
Appeal of those matters in which the Hearing Examiner enters a final decision as set forth in subsection B of Section 1.23.050, except in regard to applications from preliminary plat approval, may be brought by any party to the adjudicative proceeding which led to the decision entered. In regard to applications for preliminary plat approval, any aggrieved person having standing under the ordinance governing such application, or as otherwise provided by law, may appeal the Examiner’s decision as provided herein.
B. 
Appeals from decisions of the Hearing Examiner in regard to those matters set forth in subsection B of Section 1.23.050 shall be appealable to the Superior Court for the State of Washington; provided, however, that those determinations regarding civil penalties, as set forth in subsections B.18 and B.19, and disputes concerning utility service, as set forth in subsection B.21, shall be appealable to the Tacoma Municipal Court. Any court action to set aside, enjoin, review or otherwise challenge the decision of the Examiner shall be commenced within 21 days of the entering of the decision by the Examiner, unless otherwise provided by statute.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27; Ord. 26291 § 1, 1998-09-15; Ord. 28461 Ex. A, 2017-10-24)
The Hearing Examiner shall retain jurisdiction for cases filed prior to adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter, unless waived by the applicant.
(Ord. 25848 § 1, 1996-02-27)