HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2012 PC 11.7.12 Packet
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to the
Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as zoning.
Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to the
City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 7, 2012
SPECIAL WORK SESSION AND MEETING AGENDA
SPECIAL WORK SESSION – 6:30 - 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
I. 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (Dixon)
Staff Planner: Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner
Summary: Review and discuss the 2012 annual comprehensive plan amendments
(Group 2).
II. Code Update Project, Phase 2 Group 2 - Amendments to Title 18 - Zoning, of the
Auburn City Code* (Hearing Examiner Chapter)
Staff Planner: Stuart Wagner, Senior Planner
Summary: Review and discuss the relocation and amended sections of the Hearing
Examiner Chapter.
III. ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 16, 2012
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comment from the audience on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or public
hearing.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Update on Planning and Development Department activities.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (Dixon)
Summary: Review and discuss the 2012 annual comprehensive plan amendments
(Group 2).
B. Code Update Project, Phase 2 Group 2 - Amendments to Title 18 - Zoning, of the
Auburn City Code* (Wagner)
Summary: Review and discuss the relocation and amended sections of the Hearing
Examiner Chapter from Title 18 to Title 2 of the Auburn City Code.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Memorandum
To: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Kevin Chapman, Vice Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
From: Stuart Wagner, AICP, Planner
Planning and Development Department
CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Planning and Development Director
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager
Date: October 29, 2012
Re: Special Meeting - Code Update Project – Phase II– 2nd Grouping
First review of the Hearing Examiner Chapter
Background
On October 2, 2012 staff presented the Code Update Project Phase 2, Group 2 zoning code
amendments to the Planning Commission. At that meeting the Planning Commission went over
new definitions and Chapters that would be added to Title 18 – Zoning of the Auburn City Code
and recommended approval of the code amendments to the City Council. However, the
proposed amendments to the Hearing Examiner Chapter (18.66 ACC) were not at a point to
move forward.
Staff has since worked with the City’s legal department and the current Hearing Examiner on
relocating the Hearing Examiner Chapter out of Title 18 – Zoning and into Title 2 –
Administrative and Personnel as well as further revisions within the Chapter.
Discussion
The role of the Hearing Examiner, as codified in Auburn City Code (ACC), goes beyond land
use matters. The Hearing Examiner is also the appeal body on many contested administrative
decisions such as utility billing disputes, dangerous dog determinations, or building and code
violations but Chapter 18.66 ACC – Hearing Examiner is only written for the purposes of land
use matters. As such, the Hearing Examiner Chapter is better suited in Title 2 – Administrative
and Personnel where other positions, boards, committees, and commissions are listed.
In addition to relocating the Hearing Examiner Chapter to Title 2, staff in consultation with the
legal department and current Hearing Examiner amended the Chapter in several places. The
following is a summary of those changes:
• The Hearing Examiner as the appeal body to administrative decisions is referenced
throughout the code. In order to bring clarity and ease of use to the code, staff has
added a new “areas of jurisdiction” section that shows everything the Hearing Examiner
is responsible for.
• The current code has the planning department as the department that receives all
applications and appeals. It also lists the planning department in charge of writing
reports that summarize the issues involved. The code has been modified to read
“responsible parties” instead of the planning department because land use matters are
not the only cases the Hearing Examiner reviews.
• Most jurisdictions have a “burden of proof” section in their code. Staff has added this
section to the Hearing Examiner Chapter to indicate which party (applicant/appellant or
City) is responsible for proving their case.
• The current code only gives the Hearing Examiner 10 calendar days to provide a written
decision. The code has been modified to 10 working days, thereby giving the examiner
additional time to write his decision. This new timeline also matches state law (RCW
35.63.170)
• Chapter 18.66 ACC is referenced throughout the Auburn Municipal Code. All references
have been changed to Chapter 2.46 ACC.
Conclusion
In anticipation of the Planning Commission conducting a public hearing on the proposed zoning
code text amendments, staff would like to take this opportunity to discuss the proposed code
changes.
1. Does the Planning Commission have additional questions or comments about the relocation
or new code sections being proposed?
Enclosure 1: Auburn City Code Chapter 2.46 – Hearing Examiner (revised and relocated)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 1 of 17
October 29, 2012
Chapter 2.4618.66
HEARING EXAMINER
Sections:
2.4618.66.010 Title.
2.4618.66.020 General objectives.
2.4618.66.030 Creation of the hearing examiner.
2.46.035 Powers and areas of jurisdiction
2.4618.66.040 Appointment and term.
2.4618.66.050 Removal.
2.4618.66.060 Qualifications.
2.4618.66.070 Examiner pro tempore – Duties.
2.4618.66.080 Hearing examiner – Conflict of interest.
2.4618.66.090 Freedom from improper influence.
18.66.100 Duties of the examiner – Applications and decisions.
2.4618.66.100110 Applications.
2.4618.66.110120 Report by planning department.
2.46.120 Burden of Proof
2.4618.66.130 Public hearing.
2.4618.66.140 Examiner’s decision and recommendations – Findings required.
2.4618.66.150 Request for reconsideration.
2.4618.66.160 Appeal of final decisions.
2.4618.66.170 Hearing examiner’s recommendation.
2.4618.66.180 Council action.
2.4618.66.190 Review of chapter by council.
2.4618.66.010 Title.
This chapter shall be hereafter known as the “hearing examiner” chapter and may be cited as such and
will be hereinafter referred to as “this chapter”. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.020 General objectives.
It is the general objective of this chapter to:
A. Provide a single, efficient, integrated, land use regulatory decision-making process and public
hearing system;
B. Render land use regulatory decisions and recommendations to the city council;
C. Provide a greater degree of due process in land use regulatory decision-making and public
hearings;
D. Separate land use policy formulation from land use policy administration processes. (Ord. 4840 §
1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
E. Provide an efficient and effective administrative adjudicatory system for review of contested
administrative determinations.
2.4618.66.030 Creation of the hearing examiner.
The office of the hearing examiner, hereinafter referred to as "examiner," is hereby created. The examiner
shall interpret, review, and implement land use regulations as provided in this title and other ordinances,
issues and matters as assigned, delegated and/or referred to the examiner. The term examiner shall
likewise include the examiner pro tem. (Ord. 6185 § 8, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.46.035 Powers and Areas of Jurisdiction.
The Hearing Examiner shall have the power to receive and examine available information, conduct public
hearings, prepare a record thereof and enter findings of fact, conclusions based upon those facts and
enter decisions as provided by ordinance. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Auburn Municipal
Code, the Hearing Examiner’s areas of jurisdiction shall include those matters contained in this chapter.
A. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on the following matters shall be final:
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 2 of 17
October 29, 2012
1. Appeals of assessed civil penalties (ACC 1.25.065 (E))1
2. Appeals regarding the city’s decision on refunds from the construction sales tax exemption
(ACC 3.60.036 (F))
3. Appeals from the planning director’s denial of an application for a multi-family tax exemption
(MFTE) (ACC 3.94.070 (F))
4. Appeals from the planning director’s denial of an extension of a conditional certificate for
MFTE ACC 3.94.090 (B))
5. Appeals of a dangerous dog determination (ACC 6.35.020 (D))
6. Appeals of a decision by the planning director regarding expansion of hours for construction
noise (ACC 8.28.010 (B)(8)(d))
7. Appeals of a decision by the city engineer regarding construction permits (ACC 12.24.090
(C))
1.8. Appeals of a decision by the city engineer regarding undergrounding of utilities (ACC
13.32A.130 (D)
2.9. Appeals of decisions by the building official or fire code official regarding building and code
violations (ACC 15.07.130)2
10. Applications for a shoreline conditional use permit (ACC 16.08.054), (note that by statutes,
the State Department of Ecology has final approval authority)
B. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on the following matters shall be final unless such decision
is appealed to the City Council as provided in this chapter:
1. Appeals from denial, civil penalty suspension or revocation of a business license (ACC
5.15.070)
2. Appeals from denial of a rental housing business license (ACC 5.22.060 (D))
3. Appeals from revocation or notice of intent to revoke a rental housing business license (ACC
5.22.080 (B))
C. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on the following matters shall be the final administrative
decision of the City:
1. Appeals from the planning director’s denial of a final certificate for Multifamily Property Tax
Exemption MFTE (ACC 3.94.100 (B))
2. Appeals from the planning director’s cancellation of a tax exemption for MFTE (ACC 3.94.120
(C))
3. Appeals of a decision by the public works director regarding commute trip reductions (ACC
10.02.130
4. Appeals from denial of an adult entertainment establishment license, issuance or renewal
(ACC 5.30.070)
5. Appeals of a decision by the public works director regarding required public improvements
(ACC 12.64A.060)
6. Appeals of a decision by the public works director regarding system development charges
(ACC 13.41.070)
7. Hear and resolve tenant complaints against landlords regarding utility billing practices (3rd
party billing) (ACC 13.52.050)
8. Appeals of a decision by the planning director on a relocation report and plan related to the
closure of a mobile home park (ACC 14.20.110)
9. Appeals of a decision by the floodplain administrator on floodplain development permits (ACC
15.68.125)
1 The appeal shall be processed and the hearing conducted according to the provisions of ACC 15.07.130
2 The appeal shall be processed and the hearing conducted according to the provisions of ACC 15.07.130
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 3 of 17
October 29, 2012
10. Appeals of a decision by the landmarks and heritage commission on historical designations
(ACC 15.76.040)
11. Appeals of a decision by the SEPA responsible official on threshold determinations (ACC
16.06.250) – public hearing needed
12. Appeals from Critical Area Review decisions (ACC 16.10.140)
13. Applications for a reasonable use exception due to critical area regulations (ACC 16.10.150)
14. Applications for a buffer width variance of critical areas regulations which exceeds 10 percent
of a quantifiable standard. (ACC 16.10.160)
15. Applications for a public agency special exception to critical area regulations (ACC
16.10.170)
16. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding boundary line adjustments (ACC
17.06.030)
17. Applications for a preliminary plat (ACC 17.10.050)
18. Applications for modification of standards and specifications related to a preliminary plat
(ACC 17.18.010)
19. Applications for alteration of any subdivision (ACC 17.20.030)
20. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding site plan approval of a business
park (ACC 18.36.020 (B))
21. Applications for a special home occupation permit (ACC 18.60.040A)
22. Applications for a surface mining permit (ACC 18.62.030)
23. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding administrative use permits (ACC
18.64.020(A))
24. Applications for a conditional use permit (ACC 18.64.020 (B))
25. Applications for a variance (ACC 18.70.010)
26. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding administrative variances (ACC
18.70.015)
27. Applications for a special exception (ACC 18.70.020)
28. Applications for a variance in the regulatory floodplain (ACC 18.70.025)
29. Appeals from any administrative decision under Title 18 – Zoning (ACC 18.70.050)
30. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding fire impact fees (ACC 19.06.080)
31. Appeals from a decision of the parks director regarding park impact fees (ACC 19.08.040)
D. On the following matters, the Hearing Examiner shall enter findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendations to the City Council:
1. Applications for vacating a subdivision or portion of a subdivision, or any land dedicated for
public use, except rights-of-way associated with public streets (ACC 17.22.030)
2. Application for a business park (conceptual approval) (ACC 18.36.020 (A))
3. Applications for a rezone (zoning map amendment) initiated by an applicant other then the
city (ACC 18.68.030).
4. Applications for major amendments to the Lakeland Hills PUD (ACC 18.76.130)
2.4618.66.040 Appointment and term.
The hearing examiner shall be appointed by the mayor and subject to confirmation by the Auburn city
council. In the event that the appointed examiner is unable to perform the duties of office for whatever
reason, or in the event of a vacancy in office, the mayor shall appoint an examiner pro tem who shall
have the authorities herein provided. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.050 Removal.
The examiner or the examiner pro tem may be removed from office at any time by the mayor. (Ord. 4840
§ 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.060 Qualifications.
The examiner and the examiner pro tem shall be appointed solely with regard to their qualifications for the
duties of the office which shall include, but not be limited to, appropriate educational experience such as
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 4 of 17
October 29, 2012
in urban planning, land use law and public administration. Wherever feasible, the mayor shall endeavor to
appoint qualified candidates who reside in the Auburn area. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.070 Examiner pro tempore – Duties.
The examiner pro tem, in the event of the absence or inability of the examiner to act, shall have all the
duties and powers of the examiner. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
shall have the power to perform the duties of the hearing examiner whenever the hearing examiner is
absent, has a conflict of interest, or otherwise so requests.
The qualifications for hearing examiner pro tem are the same as for the hearing examiner.
2.4618.66.080 Hearing examiner – Conflict of interest.
The examiner shall not conduct or participate in any hearing or decision in which the examiner has a
direct or indirect personal interest which might exert such influence upon the examiner that might interfere
with his decision-making process. Any actual or potential conflict of interest shall be disclosed by the
hearing examiner to the parties immediately upon discovery of such conflict.
Participants in the land use regulatory process appearing before the Hearing Examiner have the right,
insofar as possible, to have the examiner free from personal interest or prehearing contracts on land use
regulatory matters considered by him or her. It is recognized that there is a countervailing public right to
free access to public officials on any matter. If such personal or prehearing interest contact impairs the
examiner’s ability to act on the matter, the hearing examiner shall state and shall abstain therefrom to the
end that the proceeding is fair and has the appearance of fairness, unless all parties agree in writing to
have the matter heard by said examiner. If all parties do not agree and the hearing examiner must
abstain, the mayor shall be notified and the mayor shall appoint a hearing examiner shall assign the
matter to a hearing examiner pro tem to sit in the hearing examiner’s stead. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord.
4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.090 Freedom from improper influence.
No council member, city official, or any other person shall attempt to interfere with, or improperly influence
the examiner or examiner pro tempore in the performance of his designated duties. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.66.100 Duties of the examiner – Applications and decisions.
For cases and actions as prescribed by ordinance, the examiner shall receive and examine available
information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record thereof, and enter findings of fact, conclusions
based upon those facts, and a decision. As provided by ordinance, such decision may be a
recommendation or a final action subject to appeal as provided by ordinance. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord.
4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.100110 Applications and appeals.
Applications and appeals requiring a determination by the hearing examiner shall be filed with the
department that has responsibility for the ordinance that is the subject ot the application or
appeal.planning department
A. Within 28 days of receipt of an application the planning department shall determine whether the
application is complete. If complete, the application shall be accepted. If not complete, the planning
department shall request that the applicant provide additional information as necessary to complete the
application. Where applicable, this process shall meet the requirements for completion as set forth in
ACC Title 14.
B. The applicant shall be advised of the date of acceptance of the application and of the
environmental determination, if one is made. The applicant shall be advised of the date of any public
hearing at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. If pursuant to ACC Title 14, an open record
predecision hearing is required and the threshold determination requires public notice pursuant to
Chapter 16.06 ACC, then the threshold determination shall be issued at least 15 days prior to the open
record predecision hearing. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 5 of 17
October 29, 2012
A. Applications requiring a hearing examiner decision shall be scheduled for hearing promptly upon
notification by the that the application is complete and ready for scheduling.
B. Promptly following receipt of a timely appeal, the hearing examiner shall schedule a hearing
consistent with the requirements of the applicable ordinance(s) and these rules.
2.4618.66.110120 Report by planning department.
When a matter identified in section 2.46.035 has been set for public hearing, the responsible department
When such application has been set for public hearing, if required, the planning department shall
coordinate and assemble the comments and recommendations of other city departments and other
governmental agencies having an interest in the subject application and shall prepare a report
summarizing the issues involved, and the responsible department’s findings and recommendation.
planning department findings of fact, recommended conditions and/or recommended action. This report
shall be transmitted to the examiner at least four calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing. Copies of
this report shall be mailed to the applicant prior to the hearing and shall be made available to the public
for the cost of reproduction prior to the scheduled hearing. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.46.120 Burden of proof.
Unless otherwise provided for in the Auburn City Code, the burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner
shall be as follows:
A. Appeal hearings:
The applicant/appellant shall have the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, as to
material factual issues except where applicable City code provisions or state law provide otherwise.
B. Land use application hearings:
For an application to be approved, a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing must
support the conclusion that the application meets the legal decision criteria that apply.
C. Code enforcement hearings:
The City shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a code violation
has occurred and that the proposed corrective action is reasonable.
2.4618.66.130 Public hearing.
A. Before rendering a decision or recommendation on any application for which a public hearing is
required, the examiner shall hold a public hearing thereon. Unless otherwise required by the Auburn City
Code, all hearings conducted by the examiner shall be open record hearings. Notice of the place and time
of the public hearing shall be given as provided in the ordinance governing the application. If none is
specifically set forth, the following notice requirements shall be followed:
1. Be given not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing;
2. Set forth the time, place and purpose of such hearing;
1.3. Be provided in accordance with the requirements of ACC 14.07.040. (Ord. 5811 § 9, 2003; Ord.
4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) such notice shall be given in accordance with ACC
18.70.040
B. The examiner shall have the power to prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct of hearings
under this chapter subject to review by the city council and to administer oaths and preserve order.
C. At the close of the testimony the examiner may close the public hearing, continue the hearing to a
time and date certain, or close the public hearing pending the submission of additional information on or
before a date certain.
D. Until a final action on the application is taken, the examiner may dismiss the application for failure
to diligently pursue the application after notice is given to all parties of record.
E. If a project consists of different actions which require separate hearings to be held for each
action, one consolidated hearing shall be held as required by ACC Title 14. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord.
4229 § 2, 1987.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 6 of 17
October 29, 2012
2.4618.66.140 Examiner’s decision and recommendations – Findings required.
A. Unless the time is extended pursuant to this section, within 10 calendar working days of the
conclusion of a hearing, or the date set for submission of additional information pursuant to this chapter,
the examiner shall render a written decision, including findings from the record and conclusions
therefrom, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant
and other parties of record in the case who have requested notice of the decision at the public hearing.
The person mailing the decision shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and the affidavit
shall become a part of the record of the proceeding. In the case of applications requiring city council
approval, the examiner shall transmit his decision to the city council.
B. In extraordinary cases, the time period for filing of the recommendation or the decision of the
examiner may be extended for not more than 20 calendar working days after the conclusion of the
hearing if the examiner finds that the amount and the nature of the evidence to be considered, or receipt
of additional information which cannot be made available within the normal decision period, requires the
extension. Notice of the extension, stating the reasons therefore, shall be sent to all parties of record in
the manner set forth in this section for notification of the examiner’s decision.
When acting on land use matters:
C. Conditions. The examiner’s recommendation or decision may be to grant or deny the application,
or the examiner may require of the applicant such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the
examiner finds necessary to make the application compatible with the environment and carry out the
goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, this title, the land division ordinance, other codes and
ordinances of the city of Auburn, and the approved preliminary plat, if applicable. Conditions,
modifications and restrictions which may be imposed shall be founded in the body of legislation approved
by the city council. Performance bonds may be required to insure compliance with the conditions,
modifications and restrictions.
D. Termination of Decision. The city declares that circumstances surrounding land use decisions
change rapidly over a period of time. In order to assure the compatibility of a decision with current needs
and concerns, any such decision shall be limited in duration, unless the action or improvements
authorized by the decision is implemented promptly. Any application, except a rezone, approved pursuant
to this chapter shall be implemented within two years of such approval unless other time limits are
prescribed elsewhere. Any application which is not so implemented shall terminate at the conclusion of
that period of time and become null and void. The examiner may grant one extension of time for a
maximum of one year for good cause shown. The burden of justification shall rest with the applicant. For
large-scale or phased projects the examiner may at the time of approval or recommendation set forth time
limits for expiration which exceed those prescribed in this section for such extended time limits as are
justified by the record of the action. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.150 Request for reconsideration.
The planning responsible director or an interested party affected by the final decision or recommendation
of the examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based that recommendation or decision on an
erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, or error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which
could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the
examiner within seven calendar days after the written decision of the examiner has been rendered. The
request for reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the
examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the examiner deems proper. The
examiner may request further information argument which shall be provided within 10 calendar days of
the examiner’s request. The examiner’s written decision on the request for consideration shall be
transmitted to all parties of record within 10 calendar working days of receipt of the request for
reconsideration or receipt of the additional information argument requested, whichever is later. The date
of the hearing examiner’s final decision for appeal purposes shall be construed as the date of the hearing
examiner’s decision on the reconsideration request. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 7 of 17
October 29, 2012
2.4618.66.160 Appeal of final decisions.
The planning responsible director or any interested party affected by the examiner's written final decision
may appeal the decision to superior court of the county in which the project is located. (Ord. 6185 § 7,
2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.170 Hearing examiner’s recommendation.
A. For actions requiring the hearing examiner’s recommendation as provided by ordinance, the
examiner’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council within 10 calendar working days of the
examiner’s decision. The recommendation shall be placed on the next agenda of the city council. The city
council upon its review of the record may:
1. Affirm the recommendation;
2. Remand the recommendation to the hearing examiner;
3. Schedule a closed record public hearing before the city council.
B. Any aggrieved person may request the city council to conduct its own closed record hearing.
Upon its own closed record hearing the city council may affirm, reject, modify the hearing examiner’s
recommendation or take whatever action it deems appropriate pursuant to law. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.180 Council action.
Any application requiring action by the city council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise
required by law. When taking any such final action, the council shall make and enter findings of fact from
the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action. Unless otherwise specified, the city council
shall be presumed to have adopted the hearing examiner’s findings and conclusions.
A. All applications requiring council action shall be placed on the council’s agenda for consideration.
B. The action of the council approving, modifying or rejecting the hearing examiner’s decision or
recommendation shall be final and conclusive, subject to any writ of review pursuant to law. (Ord. 4840 §
1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.190 Review of chapter by council.
The city council may on an annual basis review the content and effect of this chapter on the city of
Auburn and its citizens. The method of review may include a public hearing open to all interested citizens.
The council after review and consideration shall at that time decide to modify, repeal, or retain all of or
part of this chapter. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
OTHER CODE SECTIONS
Chapter 3.60
SALES OR USE TAX
3.60.036 Construction sales tax exemption.
verification by the city. If the city verifies eligibility, it shall remit eligible taxes paid to the purchaser.
F. Appeals. Any applicant aggrieved by an action of the city concerning eligibility or computation of
remittance under this section may file a written appeal to the city's hearing examiner in accordance with
Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC within 14 calendar days of receipt of the city's decision. The hearing examiner is
specifically authorized to hear and decide such appeals and the decision of the hearing examiner shall be
the final action of the city. (Ord. 6376 § 2, 2011.)
Chapter 3.94
MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
3.94.090 Extension of conditional certificate – Required findings – Denial – Appeal.
B. If an extension is denied, the director shall state in writing the reason for denial and shall send
notice to the owner’s last known address within 10 working days of the denial. An owner may appeal the
denial of an extension to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 14
calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 8 of 17
October 29, 2012
follow the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The hearing examiner’s decision shall be the final
decision of the city and is not subject to further appeal. (Ord. 5779 § 1, 2003.)
3.94.100 Final certificate – Application – Issuance – Denial – Appeal.
G. The owner may appeal the director’s decision to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal
with the city clerk within 14 calendar days after the issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before
the hearing examiner shall follow the provisions for appeal contained in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The
owner may appeal the hearing examiner’s decision to the King County superior court according to the
procedures contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within 30
days of notification by the city to the owner of the decision. (Ord. 5779 § 1, 2003.)
3.94.120 Cancellation of tax exemption – Appeal.
C. Upon determining that a tax exemption shall be cancelled, the director shall notify the property
owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. The property owner may appeal the determination by
filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 30 calendar days after issuance of the decision by the
director, specifying the factual and legal basis for the appeal. The appeal before the hearing examiner
shall follow the procedures set forth in ACC 2.4618.66.09110 through 2.4618.66.1560. At the appeal
hearing, all affected parties may be heard and all competent evidence received. The hearing examiner
shall affirm, modify, or repeal the decision to cancel the exemption based on the evidence received. The
hearing examiner shall give substantial weight to the director’s decision to cancel the exemption, and the
burden of proof and the burden of overcoming the weight accorded to the director’s decision shall be
upon the appellant. An aggrieved party may appeal the hearing examiner’s decision to the King County
superior court in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in
RCW 84.14.110(2), within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner. (Ord. 5779 § 1,
2003.)
Chapter 10.02
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLAN
10.02.120 Appeals.
A. Employers may file a written appeal of final administrative decisions regarding the following
actions:
1. Rejection of an employer's proposed CTR program.
2. Denial of an employer's request for a waiver or modification of any of the requirements under this
chapter or a modification of the employer's CTR program.
B. Appeals of the public works director's determinations made pursuant to this chapter must be filed
with the city's public works department within 20 days after the final administrative decision is issued.
Appeals shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
Determinations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was consistent with
applicable state law and the guidelines of the State Task Force. The hearing examiner's determination
shall be final unless appealed to the superior court of the county in which the employer's primary
offices/facilities are located within the city of Auburn in accordance with the procedures in RCW
34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and with the appeal being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after
issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner. (Ord. 6218 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6182 § 1, 2008; Ord. 5246 §
1 (Exh. A), 1999; Ord. 4602 § 2, 1993.)
Chapter 12.24
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
12.24.090 Contest of city engineer’s decision.
Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a construction permit pursuant to this chapter shall
have the right of review by the public works director as follows:
A. All complaints filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the public works director
within 10 working days of the date of the decision being contested;
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 9 of 17
October 29, 2012
B. All complaints filed pursuant to this section shall specify the error of law or fact, or new evidence
which could not have been reasonably available at the time of the city engineer’s decision, which shall
constitute the basis of the complaint;
C. Upon receipt of a timely written notice of complaint, the public works director shall review the
materials submitted and determine whether to uphold or modify the city engineer’s decision. If in the
public works director’s judgment, the city engineer’s decision should be amended in favor of resolving the
complaint, he or she shall so direct the same. If the director upholds the city engineer’s decision, he or
she shall prepare a written staff paper detailing the rationale of the city engineer’s decision and findings of
fact for conduct of a hearing by the hearing examiner;
D. The public works director shall schedule the hearing before the hearing examiner in accordance
with ACC 1.25.090 and Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC and notify the contesting party of the scheduled hearing
in accordance with ACC 18.70.040. (Ord. 5677 § 4, 2002; Ord. 5042 § 1 (Exh. C), 1998.)
Chapter 12.64A
REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
12.64A.060 Appeal and enforcement.
A. Appeals of determinations by the city engineer made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with
the city's public works director within 20 working days after the final city engineer decision is issued. The
public works director shall have 15 working days to review the appeal, decide whether to uphold of modify
the city engineer's decision, and notify the applicant of such decision.
B. Appeals of decisions of the public works director made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with
the public works department within 20 working days after the date of the notice of the public works
director's decision. Appeals shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66
ACC. Decisions of the hearing examiner shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was
consistent with applicable state law and city codes. The hearing examiner's determination shall be final
unless appealed as provided herein.
C. Appeals of decisions of the hearing examiner under this chapter shall be final unless appealed to
the superior court of the county in which the proposed public improvements are located within the city of
Auburn, which appeals shall be in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598;
provided, that the notice of appeal of the hearing examiner's decision shall be filed with the city clerk
within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner.
D. When appealing a determination under this chapter, at any stage of appeal, the
applicant/appellant must indicate if the appeal pertains to:
1. The determination of the required improvements in the public right-of-way;
2. The determination to require or deny a deferral of said improvements; and/or
3. The determination to require the payment of a fee in lieu for a deferral instead of an executed and
recorded agreement.
E. The associated building, grading or special permit shall not be issued until all appeals are
concluded. (Ord. 6182 § 2, 2008; Ord. 6083 § 2, 2007.)
Chapter 13.32A
UNDERGROUND WIRING
13.32A.130 City project process and requirements.
D. Appeal Procedures.
1. A property owner may object to the disconnection and removal of an aerial service connection by
filing a written objection thereto with the city clerk within 30 calendar days after the date of the mailing of
the notice set forth in subsection A of this section. Failure to object within such time will constitute a
waiver of the owner's right thereafter to object to such disconnection and removal.
2. Upon the timely filing by the owner of an objection, the owner shall have the right to file an appeal
of the city engineer's directive, which shall be heard by the city of Auburn hearing examiner.
3. All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the public works director
within 10 working days of the filing date of the owner's written objection and shall specify the error of law
or fact, or new evidence which could not have been reasonably available at the time of the city engineer's
decision, which shall constitute the basis of the complaint.
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 10 of 17
October 29, 2012
4. Upon receipt of a timely written appeal, the public works director shall review the materials
submitted and prepare a written staff report detailing the rationale of the city engineer's directive and
findings of fact for the hearing examiner.
5. The public works director shall schedule the hearing in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC
and notify the contesting party of the scheduled hearing. (Ord. 6238 § 2, 2009.)
Chapter 13.41
UTILITY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
13.41.070 Appeals.
Appeals of the public works director's determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the
public works department and shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66
ACC. Determinations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was consistent
with applicable state law and city codes. The hearing examiner's determination shall be final unless
appealed to the superior court of the county in which the property subject to the utility system
development charges is located within the city of Auburn, in accordance with the procedures in RCW
34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and with the appeal being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after
issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner. (Ord. 6391 § 1, 2011; Ord. 6341 § 1, 2011; Ord. 6182 §
3, 2008; Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 7, 1980.)
Chapter 15.76
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
15.76.040 Appeal procedure.
A. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the commission designating or rejecting a nomination for
designation of a landmark or issuing or denying a certificate of appropriateness may, within 35 calendar
days of mailing notice of such designation or rejection of nomination, or of such issuance or denial or
approval of a certificate of appropriateness, appeal such decision in writing to the hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The written notice of appeal shall be filed with the planning director
and shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal, supporting documents,
and argument.
B. If, after examination of the written appeal and the record, the examiner determines that:
1. An error in fact may exist in the record, it shall remand the proceeding to the commission for
reconsideration or, if the council determines that:
2. The decision of the commission is based on an error in judgment or conclusion, it may modify or
reverse the decision of the commission.
C. The examiner’s decision shall be based solely upon the record; provided, that the examiner may
at his or her discretion publicly request additional information of the appellant, the commission or the
planning director.
D. The examiner shall take final action on any appeal from a decision of the commission by entering
written findings of fact and conclusions of law from the record and reasons therefrom which support its
action. The examiner may adopt all or portions of the commission’s findings and conclusions.
E. The decision of the examiner is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to ACC 18.66.160. An
appeal may also be filed by the King County landmarks and heritage commission to the planning director,
who will forward the appeal to the city council.
F. The action of the city council sustaining, reversing, modifying or remanding a decision of the
examiner shall be final unless within twenty calendar days from the date of the action an aggrieved
person obtains a writ of certiorari from the superior court of King or Pierce County, state of Washington,
for the purpose of review of the action taken. (Ord. 5212 § 1 (Exh. M), 1999; Ord. 4733 § 2, 1995.)
Chapter 16.06
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES
16.06.330 Council review – Limitations for appeals.
A. The decision of the hearing examiner on a threshold determination appeal may be appealed to
the superior court in the county in which the subject property is located, which appeal shall be in
accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.21C.060 and 43.21C.075. Any such appeal allowed by RCW
43.21C.060 and 43.21C.075 must be brought within the time limits specified in ACC 2.4618.66.1560.
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 11 of 17
October 29, 2012
Chapter 16.08
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERMITTING PROCEDURES
16.08.080 Application – Hearing – Required.
A. The hearing examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a shoreline
substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance on shorelines
within the city. The public hearing shall be held not less than 30 days following the final publication of the
notice required by ACC 16.08.050.
B. The notice and conduct of the public hearing shall be in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
(Ord. 6235 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6095 § 1, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4225 § 1, 1987; 1957 code §
11.94.050(a).)
Chapter 16.10
CRITICAL AREAS
16.10.140 Procedural provisions.
A. Interpretation and Conflicts. The director shall have the authority to administer the provisions of
this chapter, to make determinations with regard to the applicability of the regulations, to interpret the
intent of unclear provisions, to require additional information, to determine the level of detail and
appropriate methodologies for critical area reports and studies, to prepare application forms and
informational materials as required, and to promulgate procedures and rules for unique circumstances not
anticipated within standards and procedures contained in this section. Administrative interpretations may
be appealed to the hearing examiner as prescribed in ACC 18.70.050.
B. Penalties and Enforcement. Compliance with these regulations and penalties for their violation
shall be enforced pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.25 ACC.
C. Appeals from Critical Area Review Decisions. Appeals of critical area review decisions shall be
governed by the procedures set forth in ACC 18.70.050. (Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
16.10.150 Reasonable use provision.
A. The standards and requirements of these regulations are not intended, and shall not be
construed or applied in a manner, to deny all reasonable use of private property. If an applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the hearing examiner that strict application of these standards would
deny all reasonable use of a property, development may be permitted subject to appropriate conditions.
B. Applications for a reasonable use exception shall be processed as a Type III decision, pursuant
to ACC 14.03.030 and Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
C. An applicant for relief from strict application of these standards shall demonstrate that all of the
following criteria are met:
1. No reasonable use with less impact on the critical area and its buffer is possible.
There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activities proposed, considering possible
changes in site layout, reductions in density and similar factors, that would allow a reasonable and
economically viable use with fewer adverse impacts;
2. The proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the minimum possible impacts to affected
critical areas;
3. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or assured;
4. The inability to derive reasonable use is not the result of the applicant's actions or that of a
previous property owner, such as by segregating or dividing the property and creating an undevelopable
condition; and
5. The applicant shall demonstrate that the use would not cause a hazard to life, health or property.
D. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to provide evidence in support of the application
and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made.
E. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for any other permit or
approval otherwise required for a proposal by applicable city codes.
F. Except when application of this title would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who
seeks an exception from the regulations of the title shall pursue a variance as provided in ACC 16.10.160.
(Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 12 of 17
October 29, 2012
16.10.160 Variances.
Applications for variances to the strict application of the terms of this chapter to a property may be
submitted to the city. Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, may
be granted by the director as a Type II decision as defined by Chapter 14.03 ACC. Variances requests
which exceed 10 percent may be granted by the hearing examiner as a Type III decision, pursuant to
ACC 14.03.030 and Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. Approval of variances from the strict application of the
critical area requirements shall conform to the following criteria:
A. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which makes
it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section;
B. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access;
C. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the
proposal does not create or increase a risk to the public health, safety and general welfare, or to public or
private property;
D. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining;
E. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized; and
F. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the actions of
the applicant or previous owner. (Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
16.10.170 Special exception for public agencies and utilities.
A. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or
public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this section.
B. Exception Request and Review Process. An application for a public agency and utility exception
shall be made to the city and shall include a critical area identification form; critical area report, including
mitigation plan, if necessary; and any other related project documents such as permit applications to
other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW). The director shall prepare a recommendation to the
hearing examiner based on review of the submitted information, a site inspection, and the proposal's
ability to comply with public agency and utility exception review criteria in subsection D of this section.
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The hearing examiner shall review the application and director's
recommendation, and conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the
proposal's ability to comply with all of the public agency and utility exception criteria in subsection D of
this section.
D. Public Agency and Utility Review Criteria. The criteria for review and approval of public agency
and utility exceptions follow:
1. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on critical
areas;
2. The application of this chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to
the public;
3. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or
off the development proposal site;
4. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values
consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
E. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support
of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the
application. (Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
Chapter 17.06
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
17.06.030 Administrative review.
A boundary line adjustment shall be reviewed in accordance with ACC Title 14 as a Type I decision.
A. The planning director shall forward copies of the proposed boundary line adjustment plan to the
building official, public works department and fire authority, who shall review the plan and submit
comments to the planning director.
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 13 of 17
October 29, 2012
B. Following receipt of the comments of those consulted under subsection A of this section, the
planning director shall approve or deny the requested boundary line adjustment. Following a decision, the
director shall notify the applicant to file a final Mylar drawing for signatures. The Mylar shall be transmitted
to the appropriate county office for recording. The boundary line adjustment must be recorded within 30
days or the boundary line adjustment shall be null and void. A recorded Mylar copy shall be provided to
the city.
C. An aggrieved person may appeal the director's decision on a boundary line adjustment, within 14
days of mailing the director's decision, to the hearing examiner, in accordance with procedures prescribed
in ACC 18.70.050(B) through (E). The hearing examiner's decision shall be final unless appealed to
superior court as prescribed in ACC 2.4618.66.1560. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 14, 2008; Ord.
6061 § 5, 2006; Ord. 6006 § 4, 2006; Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.
Formerly 17.16.030)
Chapter 17.10
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONS
17.10.050 Hearing examiner review of preliminary plats.
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC, the hearing examiner shall within 14
calendar days of the closure of the public hearing approve, deny, or approve with conditions the
preliminary plat. The hearing examiner shall not recommend approval of the preliminary plat unless he
finds the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the findings of fact as outlined in ACC 17.10.070.
B. Pursuant to the provisions of ACC 2.4618.66.150, the planning director or any interested party
affected by the recommendation of the examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based that
recommendation on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of
new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for
review by the examiner within seven calendar days after the written decision of the examiner has been
rendered. The request for reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant,
and the examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the examiner deems proper. The
examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 14 calendar days of the
examiner's request. The examiner's written decision on the request for consideration shall be transmitted
to all parties of record within 14 calendar days of receipt of the request for reconsideration or receipt of
the additional information requested, whichever is later. (Ord. 6418 § 6, 2012; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord.
6186 § 4, 2008; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.050.)
Chapter 17.20
SUBDIVISION ALTERATIONS
17.20.030 Public hearing.
The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 2.4618.66.1230 on the application
for an alteration and may approve or deny the application for alteration of the subdivision after
determining the public use and interest to be served by the alteration of the subdivision. (Ord. 6239 § 1,
2009; Ord. 6186 § 17, 2008; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.22.030.)
Chapter 17.22
SUBDIVISION VACATIONS
17.22.030 Public hearing.
The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 2.4618.66.1230 on the application
for a vacation and may recommend to the council to approve or deny the application for vacation of the
subdivision after determining the public use and interest to be served by the vacation of the subdivision.
The council shall adopt by ordinance any approval of a vacation pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 6239 § 1,
2009; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.20.030.)
Chapter 19.06
FIRE IMPACT FEE
19.06.080 Appeals.
A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a
building permit. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 14 of 17
October 29, 2012
made by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal submitted
under protest shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have been paid. Alternatively,
any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the fees,
providing the applicant is willing to provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee amount in
accordance with the requirements of ACC 17.14.010(A) prior to issuance of the building permit.
Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the
fees, provided the applicant is willing to postpone issuance of the building permit until after the appeal
process when the revised final fee is known.
B. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given
development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision with respect to the
independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant
to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner.
C. Appeals shall be taken within 10 days of the director's issuance of a written determination by filing
with the office of the hearing examiner a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof and depositing
the necessary fee, which is set forth in the existing fee schedules for appeals of administrative decisions.
The director shall transmit to the office of the hearing examiner all papers constituting the record for the
determination, including, where appropriate, the independent fee calculation.
D. The hearing examiner shall fix a time for the hearing of the appeal, give notice to the parties in
interest, and decide the same as provided in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. At the hearing, any party may
appear in person or by agent or attorney.
E. The hearing examiner is authorized to make findings of fact regarding the applicability of the
impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or amount of the credit, or the accuracy or
applicability of an independent fee calculation. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final, except
as provided in subsection (G) of this section.
F. The hearing examiner may, so long as such action is in conformance with the provisions of this
chapter, reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the determinations of the director with
respect to the amount of the impact fees imposed or the credit awarded upon a determination that it is
proper to do so based on principles of fairness, and may make such order, requirements, decision or
determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have the powers which have been granted to
the director by this chapter.
G. Any feepayer aggrieved by any decision of the office of the hearing examiner may appeal the
hearing examiner's final decision as provided in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977
§ 1, 2005.)
Chapter 18.46A TEMPORARY USES
18.46A.040 Appeals of decisions.
Appeals of administrative decisions issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be made to the city
of Auburn hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC, as amended.
Appeals of the hearing examiner decision may be appealed in accordance with applicable provisions of
Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6268 § 2, 2009.)
Chapter 18.49 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
18.49.090 Appeals.
Appeals of administrative decisions regarding eligibility for flexible development shall be made to the
hearing examiner as outlined in Chapters 2.4618.66 and 18.70 ACC. (Ord. 6245 § 19, 2009.)
Chapter 18.62 SURFACE MINING
18.62.030 Permit.
Any surface m ining of material shall only be allowed after a surface mining operations permit has been
issued, after a public hearing. A request for a surface mining operations permit shall be heard by the
hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The hearing examiner's
approval of the permit may require mitigating conditions of approval as well as financial guarantees to
ensure compliance with the permit and the provisions of this chapter. The hearing examiner's
determination shall be final unless appealed to the superior court in which the subject property is located,
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 15 of 17
October 29, 2012
and which appeal shall be in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and
with the appeal being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing
examiner. Determinations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was
consistent with applicable state law and city codes.
18.62.080 Years of operation.
A. At the initial approval of an operations permit a master permit will be given for the lifetime of the
mineral resource at the mining site. These mines must be located within the city’s comprehensive plan
designated mineral resource areas. Mines located outside the city’s comprehensive plan designated
mineral resource areas may be granted a permit for up to 10 years and may be renewed but will be
treated as a new application.
B. Operations under a master permit must be reviewed by the planning director at the end of each
subsequent 10 years. The operator of the mine must submit to the planning director, at least six months
prior to the end of each 10-year period, evidence that the mining operation is in compliance with the
conditions of the master permit and the standards contained within this chapter. This evidence shall
include the submittal of the existing topography in a computer disk form that is compatible with the city’s
system. The operator shall also provide an estimate of the amount of material that has been removed, an
estimate of when mining is to be complete, identification of any areas where mining has been completed
and whether restoration has begun or is anticipated to begin.
C. The master permit shall remain in effect if it is found the operations are in compliance with the
conditions of the master permit, the standards contained within this chapter, and there have been no
significant adverse impacts that have occurred that were not previously identified and effectively
mitigated.
D. If the planning director determines that operations are not in compliance with the conditions of the
master permit or the standards contained within this chapter, or that significant adverse impacts have
resulted from the operation and have not been mitigated, then the planning director shall so advise the
mining operator in writing within 90 days from receipt of the materials provided by the mining operator
under subsection B of this section. If the planning director determines that operations are not in
compliance with the conditions of the master permit, the planning director shall advise the mining operator
of any noncompliance and proposed corrections/revisions, including a time frame during which such
corrections/revisions are to be made. If significant adverse impacts have occurred that were not
previously identified and mitigated, the planning director shall advise the mining operator of any required
corrections/revisions to the master permit to include such mitigation. If new operation standards have
been adopted pursuant to this chapter the planning director shall advise the mining operator of any
required revisions to the master permit to reflect the new standards, if determined applicable and practical
by the planning director.
The mining operator shall have 90 days from receipt of the planning director’s notice under this
subsection to make the required corrections/revisions or to appeal the planning director’s decision to the
hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The hearing examiner may affirm, modify, or
disaffirm the planning director’s determination. If the mining operator does not appeal the planning
director’s determination then the mining operator shall make the corrections/revisions proposed by the
planning director and the master permit shall be modified to incorporate the revisions/corrections. If the
mining operator does not make the corrections/revisions as required by the city then the building official
shall proceed with enforcement action under Chapter 1.25 ACC.
E. If permits for mines located outside the city’s comprehensive plan designated mineral resource
area are not renewed then the surface mining operations shall cease and the mine reclaimed pursuant to
the requirements of Chapter 78.44 RCW . (Ord. 5060 § 1, 1998.)
Chapter 18.64 ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.64.020 Process.
A. Administrative Use Permits. An application for an administrative use permit shall be reviewed in
accordance with ACC Title 14 as a Type II decision, subject to the additional provisions of this section.
The planning director or designee shall make the final decision unless the application is forwarded to the
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 16 of 17
October 29, 2012
hearing examiner pursuant to subsection (A)(2) of this section, in which case the hearing examiner will
make the final decision.
1. Additional Public Notice Requirements. Administrative use permits for uses in the following zones
shall be subject to the additional public notice requirements in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this
section: R-C residential conservancy zone, C-N neighborhood shopping district, C-1 light commercial
district, C-2 neighborhood business district, C-3 heavy commercial district, M-1 light manufacturing
district, M-2 heavy manufacturing district, BP business park district:
a. The mailing radius requirement of ACC 14.07.040(A) shall be increased to 500 feet; and
b. In addition to the methods of providing notice required by ACC 14.07.040, public notice shall be
posted on the city's website.
2. Following the public comment period provided for in ACC Title 14, the planning director or
designee shall:
a. Review the information in the record and render a decision pursuant to the procedural
requirements of ACC Title 14; or
b. Within 10 days following the close of the public comment period, forward the application to the
hearing examiner for a public hearing and final decision in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC if the
planning director or designee determines that one or more of the following exists:
i. Public comments indicate a substantial degree of concern, controversy, or opposition to the
proposal; or
ii. A public hearing is necessary to address issues of vague, conflicting, or inadequate information;
or
iii. The application raises a sensitive or controversial public policy issue; or
iv. A public hearing might clarify issues involved in the permit decision.
c. When a public hearing before the hearing examiner is deemed necessary by the planning director
or designee:
i. The city shall provide written notice to the applicant within 10 days following the closing of the
public comment period that the application is being forwarded to the hearing examiner for public hearing
and decision pursuant to the procedural requirements of this chapter. The notice shall specify the reason
the application is being forwarded to the hearing examiner;
ii. Processing of the application shall not proceed until any supplemental permit review fees set forth
in the city of Auburn fee schedule are received; and
iii. The application shall be deemed withdrawn if the supplemental fees are not received within 30
days of the applicant notification by the city.
18.64.055 Appeals.
A. Administrative Use Permits. Any affected party may appeal the planning director's final decision
to the hearing examiner as provided for in Chapters 14.13 and 18.70 ACC. If the planning director
forwards an application to the hearing examiner for a public hearing and decision pursuant to ACC
18.64.020(A)(2)(b), a request for reconsideration and/or appeal of the hearing examiner's final decision
may be submitted as provided for in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The planning director's decision to forward
an application to the hearing examiner for public hearing and decision may not be appealed.
B. Conditional Use Permits. Any affected party may submit a request for reconsideration and/or
appeal the hearing examiner's final decision as provided for in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6269 § 22,
2009.)
Chapter 18.68 AMENDMENTS
18.68.030 Public hearing process.
A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the
planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all amendments to this title. The
planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council who may or may not conduct a
public hearing.
B. Zoning Map Amendments.
1. Rezones Initiated by an Applicant Other Than City. All applications for a rezone shall be reviewed
by the planning director prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. After review of the application, the
director shall determine which of the following two processes should occur to properly hear the rezone:
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 17 of 17
October 29, 2012
a. If the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the hearing examiner shall conduct
a public hearing on the rezone and make a recommendation to the city council pursuant to ACC
2.4618.66.1670;
b. If the rezone is in conflict with the comprehensive plan, or there are no policies that relate to the
rezone, or the policies are not complete, then a comprehensive plan amendment must be approved by
the city council prior to the rezone being scheduled for a public hearing in front of the hearing examiner.
The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment and
make a recommendation to the city council.
2. Areawide Zoning and Rezoning, Initiated by the City. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. If applicable, a comprehensive plan
amendment may also be processed.
C. City Council Decision. The city council may affirm, modify or disaffirm any recommendation of the
planning commission or hearing examiner with regard to amendments of the text or map of this title. (Ord.
6198 § 4, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Chapter 18.70 VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
18.70.050 Administrative appeals.
Appeals from any administrative decision made under this title may be appealed to the hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
A. Any person wishing to appeal an administrative decision shall first render in writing a request for
an administrative decision from the appropriate city official. The city official shall issue in writing a decision
within five working days of the written request.
B. If the requester seeks to appeal that decision to the hearing examiner, any such appeal shall be
filed with the planning director within 14 days of mailing the city’s written decision. The city shall extend
the appeal period for an additional seven days for appeals that are accompanied by a final mitigated
determination of nonsignificance or final EIS.
C. The planning director shall notify any other city official that may be affected by the appeal.
D. The appeal shall then be processed in the same manner as any other application for a hearing
examiner decision pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
E. The examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 18.70.040 and consider any facts
pertinent to the appeal. The examiner may affirm the decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse
the decision if the decision is:
1. In violation of constitutional provisions;
2. In excess of the authority of the official;
3. Made upon an unlawful procedure;
4. Affected by other error of law;
5. Clearly erroneous; or
6. Arbitrary or capricious. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.70.060 Appeal of hearing examiner's decision.
The hearing examiner's decisions may be appealed to superior court in the manner prescribed by
Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6185 § 10, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Chapter 18.76 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) – LAKELAND HILLS SOUTH
18.76.130 Hearing examiner review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC the hearing examiner shall conduct a public
hearing on all requests for a major amendment to a PUD. The examiner’s decision shall be in the form of
a recommendation to the city council. (Ord. 5092 § 1, 1998.)
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2012
SPECIAL WORK SESSION AND
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL WORK SESSION
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roland called the special work session to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Council
Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn,
WA. Commission Members present were: Chair Roland, Vice-Chair Kevin Chapman,
Commissioner Baggett, Commissioner Copple, Commissioner Trout, Commission
Mason, and Commissioner Peace. Commissioner Ramey is excused.
Staff present included: Principal Planner Jeff Dixon and Planning Secretary Tina Kriss.
II. 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon reviewed the additions to the 2012 Annual Comprehensive
Plan Amendments working binder provided to Commission members.
Commission and staff discussed the proposed 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Schedule, the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Group 1, and the topics
scheduled to go before Commission as Group 2 at the next public hearing.
Principal Planner Dixon reviewed the Federal Way Public School District’s letter for
proposed amendment No. P/T #3.
Commission and staff discussed the City’s Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018 updates.
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission for this
Special Work Session, Chair Roland adjourned the special work session at 6:57 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING
IV. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roland called the special work session to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council
Chambers located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn,
WA. Commission Members present were: Chair Roland, Vice-Chair Kevin Chapman,
Commissioner Baggett, Commissioner Trout, Commissioner Copple, Commission
Mason, and Commissioner Peace. Commissioner Ramey is excused.
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Principal Planner Jeff
Dixon, and Planning Secretary Tina Kriss.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2012
Page 2
Members of the audience present: Michael Newman of the Auburn School District, Judy
Neumeier-Martinson of the Dieringer School District, and Gwenn Escher-Derdowski of
the Kent School District.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 2, 2012, 2012
Commissioner Chapman moved and Commissioner Copple seconded to approve the
minutes from the September 5, 2012 meeting as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or
public hearing.
VII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Chair Roland read the proclamation Mayor Lewis’s presented at the October 1,
2012 City Council meeting proclaiming the month of October, 2012 as “Planning
and Community Development Month”.
Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain thanked the Planning Commission for
their dedication and service as members of the Planning Commission.
Planning Manager Chamberlain stated the 7 Downtown Sculpture Gallery pedestal
bases are almost complete. Installation of the art pieces will begin next week.
The current art selections will remain for a year before beginning the next round of
artist selection and sculptures.
The City of Auburn is considering expanding the TV 21 offering (Cable Channel 21
is the City of Auburn’s cable television channel dedicated to government
programing). One of the additions to consider would be adding the Planning
Commission meetings (recorded and then televised). Staff will ask the Planning
Commission for feedback at the next meeting.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments*
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon reviewed the background of the Comprehensive Plan of
the City of Auburn. The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive
Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)
requirements, as amended. Since then the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been
amended annually. Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of
Auburn (city-initiated) and by private citizens (privately-initiated). This year the City is
initiating two map amendments and seven policy and text amendments. In addition,
the City received three privately-initiated map amendments and no privately–initiated
policy/text amendments. The privately-initiated amendments will be addressed under
separate staff reports. One of the city-initiated policy/text amendments and the
related city-initiated map amendment will also be considered separately at a future
Planning Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2012
Page 3
Principal Planner Dixon brought forward the following amendments for Public
Hearing:
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments
P/T #1
Incorporate Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012 through 2018,
adopted by School Board May 29, 2012 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon stated the Auburn School District has provided the City
with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2012-2018. The
CFP was adopted by the Auburn School District School Board on May 29, 2012 and
has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non Significance
(DNS). Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the
City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district.
After discussion Chair Roland opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. to receive
comments on P/T #1.
Michael Newman, Deputy Superintendent for Auburn School District; 915 4th St. NE.
Mr. Newman discussed the various projections included within the 6 year window for
the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan. A review of the Auburn School
District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change
in the fee obligations. The fee for single-family dwellings is proposed to be
$5,511.69, a decrease of $45.61 and for multiple-family dwellings the requested fee
is $3,380.26, an increase of $1,075.04. The actual impact fee that is assessed is set
by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Copple seconded to recommend
inclusion of P/T #1 into the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
P/T#2
Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018 adopted
March 26, 2012 by the School Board as part of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital
Facilities Plan 2013 - 2018. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District
Board of Directors on March 26, 2012. The Planning Commission action is
incorporation of the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates
the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The CFP shows a net fee
obligation for single-family dwellings of $5,322.00 and a negative net fee obligation of
$1,684.00 for multiple family dwellings. The fee for single-family dwellings is
proposed to be $5,322.00, an increase of $1,822.00 and a fee of $0 for multiple-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2012
Page 4
family residential. The actual impact fee assessed is set by separate ordinance by
the Auburn City Council.
After discussion Chair Roland opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. to receive
comments about P/T #2.
With no public present for testimony on the proposed amendments to P/T#2
Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Commission, staff, and Judy Niemeyer-Martinson discussed the calculations and
methodology in calculating the capital facilities plan for the rate for the Dieringer
School District.
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Baggett seconded to recommend
inclusion of P/T #2 into the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
P/T #3
Incorporate Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013 adopted June
12, 2012 by the School Board into the City Comprehensive Plan.
Principal Planner Dixon reviewed the letter directed to the Auburn Planning
Commission dated October 12, 2012 from the Federal Way School District in support
of their Capital Facilities Plan (distributed to the Commissioners).
Principal Planner Dixon stated the Federal Way School District has provided the City
with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (2013). The CFP was adopted by the
Federal Way School District School Board on June 12, 2012. The CFP has been
subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. The Planning Commission action is
incorporation of the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan
indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee
obligation for single-family dwellings is $4,014.00, representing no change and for
multi-family dwellings is $1,381, an increase of $128.00. The actual impact fee
assessed is set by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
With no public present for testimony on the proposed amendments to P/T #3 Chair
Roland opened and closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Mason seconded to recommend
inclusion of P/T #3 into the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
P/T #4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2012
Page 5
Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2013 to 2017-2018
adopted June 27, 2012 by the School Board into the City of Auburn Comprehensive
Plan.
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon stated the Kent School District has provided its annually
updated 2012-2013 to 2017-2018 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by
the Kent School District School Board on June 27, 2012 and has been subject to
separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non Significance (DNS). The
Planning Commission action is incorporation of the School District Capital Facilities
Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
After discussion Chair Roland opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. to receive
comments about P/T #4.
Gwenn-Escher-Derdowski of the Kent School District, 12033 SE 256th St., Kent, WA
98030. Kent School District is about the 4th largest school district of the state.
The Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the net fee
obligation for single family dwellings of $5,486.00, representing no change, and for
multi-family dwellings a fee of $3,378.00, also representing no change. The actual
impact fee that is assessed is set by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
After hearing public testimony on the proposed amendment P/T #4 Chair Roland
closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Copple seconded to recommend
inclusion of P/T #4 into the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
CPM #5
Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018, into the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA
requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities
(showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital
facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and
a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of
funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2013-
2018 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Principal Planner Dixon reviewed the amendments to CPM #5.
With no public present for comment Chair Roland opened and closed the public
hearing at 8:07 p.m. on CPM #5.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2012
Page 6
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Baggett seconded to recommend
inclusion of CPM #5 into the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
CPM #6
Revise portions of two chapters of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Principal Planner Dixon stated the Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a separate
document that is incorporated by reference into and therefore is part of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Commission and staff reviewed the changes recommended to
the Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
Revise Chapter 2 – ‘The Street System’
• Revise (eliminate and replace) Table 2-3 ‘Future Roadway Capacity
Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates’
• Revise text pages 2-14 thru 2-15 to be consistent with updated Table
2-3.
• Revise Figure 2-6 ‘Roadway Improvements Alternatives’ to be
consistent with updated Table 2-3.
Revise Chapter 5 – ‘Policies’
• Update policies: TR-19, TR-20 & TR-21 related to Level of Service,
TR-23 related to concurrency, TR-28 related to finance, TR-59 related
to parking and TR-163 related to transit.
Commission and staff discussed TR-59 related to parking for subdivisions (new) and
how the cost is dispersed.
With no public present for testimony Chair Roland opened and closed the public
hearing at 8:22 p.m.
Commissioner Peace moved and Commissioner Mason seconded to recommend
inclusion of CPM #6, Chapter 2 and Chapter 5, into the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
CPM #1 – Comprehensive Plan – Revise “Electrical Service Map” No. 6.1
Revise Map No. 6.1, ‘Electrical Service Facilities” to update the information regarding
the capacity and location of major electrical transmission lines throughout the city.
Principal Planner Dixon stated the reference map: “Electrical Service Facilities”, Map
No 6.1 in the back of the Comprehensive Plan document and referenced within
Chapter 6, “Private Utilities” is being updated to reflect more accurate information on
the location of major aerial electrical transmission lines within the city limits.
Commission and staff discussed various terminologies within the CPM #1.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2012
Page 7
With no public present for testimony Chair Roland opened and closed the public
testimony at 8:29 p.m.
Commissioner Baggett moved and Commissioner Copple seconded to recommend
inclusion of CPM #1, into the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
Principal Planner Dixon announced the next Planning Commission meeting will be
held Wednesday, November 7, 2012. The work session will begin at 6:30 p.m. with
the regular meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Page 1 of 14
Agenda Subject CPA12-0002, River Mobile Home Park -
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: CPM #2 - See
separate section within
Comprehensive Plan binder
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and
recommend to City Council approval of the River Mobile Home Park Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment.
Background Summary:
AGENT: K. Michael McDowell, Principal
Confluence Environmental Company
146 North Canal Street #111
Seattle, WA 98103
APPLICANT/OWNER: Dean Moser, Managing Director (River Mobile Home Park)
HCA Management
7250 Redwood Boulevard #350
Novato, CA 94945
REQUEST: File No. CPA12-0002:
CPM #2, Amendment to Map No. 14.1 – River Mobile Home Park to change the
comprehensive plan designation from 'Public and Quasi-Public ' to 'Moderate
Density Residential' of approximately 6.36 acres of adjacent property, Parcel
#0004000098.
LOCATION: The northern approximately 6.36-acres of Parcel #0004000098. Site is located
south of the mobile home park at 3611 “I” ST NE within NE quarter of Section 6,
T 21 North, R 5 East, W.M.
EXISTING ZONING: P1, Public Use District
EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Public/Quasi-Public
SEPA STATUS: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under city file SEP12-
0016 on August 29, 2012. The comment period ended September 12, 2012 and
the appeal period ended September 26, 2012.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Services Finance Parks Human Services Planning & D Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Page 2 of 14
Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Dixon
Meeting Date: October 16, 2012 Item Number:
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 3 of 14
A. Findings
1. The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to
the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. The
Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since.
2. Comprehensive Plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and
by private citizens (privately-initiated). The City received three privately initiated
Comprehensive Plan map amendments by the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012.
3. This staff report and recommendation addresses Comprehensive Plan map amendment
CPM #2, requested by the River Mobile Home Park (HCA Management). The other private
initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment applications are addressed in separate staff
reports.
4. Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process
before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to
the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments
will occur prior to the end of this year.
5. RCW 36.70A.130 (The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for
amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances
provided for in State law, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city
or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year. The annual limitation and
exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060.
6. The City of Auburn established a June 8, 2012 deadline for the submittal of privately-
initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text amendments). Notice to the
public of the filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, the Seattle Times, and sent
to a compiled notification list. The City received three privately initiated comprehensive plan
map amendments.
7. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), was issued for the River Mobile Home
Park (HCA Management) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and rezone under City File
No. SEP12-0016 on August 29, 2012. The comment period ended September 12, 2012 and
the appeal period ended September 26, 2012. As of the writing of this report no comments
were received or appeals filed in response to the issuance of the environmental review
decision.
8. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of private initiated
amendments and the processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows:
“Section 14.22.100
A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given
pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following:
1. For site-specific plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less
than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 4 of 14
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less
than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing;
2. For area-wide plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less
than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within the area subject to the proposed amendment;
c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area
subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to
the date of the public hearing.
B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions
noted above as deemed necessary.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and
forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall
adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the
city council.
D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written
findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance.
E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning
commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW
36.70A.106.
F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance
with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in
this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce, formerly the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and other state
agencies as required for the 60-day state review as a SEPA decision on August 29, 2012
and as separate submittal on September 10, 2012. The Washington State Office of
Commerce acknowledged receipt by letter dated September 11, 2012. No comments have
been received from Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report.
10. Due to the nature of the city-initiated map amendments and the scope and limited number of
privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional process as provided in the city code for a
public open house was not conducted.
11. The public hearing notice was published on October 26, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2012.
12. Public notice was also provided to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and
the property was posted with a land use notice board that included the SEPA determination.
13. The following report identifies comprehensive plan map amendment, CPM #2, scheduled for
the Planning Commission’s November 7, 2012 public hearing with a staff recommendation.
CPM #2 – Staff Analysis
1. The applicant submitted a comprehensive plan map amendment application on June 8,
2012 by the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012. The comprehensive plan map amendment
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 5 of 14
application seeks to change the mapped land use designation for the northern
approximately 6.36-acre portion of a parcel shown on Map No 14.1, titled Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The application was submitted by K. Michael McDowell, Principal, of Confluence
Environmental Company on behalf of Dean Moser, Managing Director, HCA Management,
Applicant and property owner.
3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the
River Mobile Home Park (HCA Management) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
rezone under City File No. SEP12-0016 on August 29, 2012. No comments were received
or appeals filed.
4. The application seeks to change the comprehensive plan land use designation for the
northern 6.36 acres of a parcel (Parcel # 0004000098) located west of the Green River from
'Public/Quasi-Public' to 'Moderate Density Residential'. The subject property is located east
of the 3400 block of I Street NE and directly south of the River Mobile Home Park which is
addressed as 3611 I Street NE (Parcel # 0621059002).
5. The portion of the parcel requested for change is undeveloped. The balance of the parcel is
undeveloped, except for the overhead electrical transmission lines on lattice towers
(Bonneville Power Administration), an underground water transmission pipeline (Tacoma
Pipeline No. 5) and storm drainage ponds and wetlands.
6. The site does not border public streets.
7. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed
to City in 1959 by Ordinance No. 1300.
8. The subject property had a “single family residential’ comprehensive plan designation and
was zoned R2, Single Family Residential since at least 1987. The designation was changed
to “Public Quasi-Public” and the zoning changed to P1, Public Use after the city’s acquisition
of the parcel in 1995 for potential use for regional storm water treatment and storage
purposes. Subsequent, changes in drainage standards and more specific storm drainage
modeling by the city indicated that the entirety of the parcel was no longer needed. An
update to the City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan was processed as a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment last year based on this storm drainage modeling of this drainage basin
(CPA11-0003 –P/T#7).
9. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested by the
Applicant for the purpose of changing the land use designation. The change is to facilitate
future development of replacement mobile home spaces and the park’s recreational vehicle
parking that will be displaced by King County Reddington Levee Extension and Setback
Project. The King County Flood Control District is acquiring the east end of the mobile
home park (closest to the Green River) in order to relocate the levee further west and away
from the River and allow additional flood capacity and river migration area.
10. The following explaination of the King County Reddington Levee Extension and Setback
Project is excerpted from their website:
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 6 of 14
(http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wlr/sections-programs/river- floodplain-
section/capital-projects/reddington-levee-setback-and-extension.aspx)
The project
The Reddington Levee Setback and Extension Project, as a component of King County’s
Green River levee system, is part of a larger overall flood management strategy for the
entire Green River. This project will set back and extend the Reddington Levee along the
left (west) bank of the Green River through a portion of the City of Auburn from Brannan
Park (26th Street Northeast) north to 43rd Street Northeast.
Problem addressed
The project will result in a wider corridor for moving flood flows, and a wider riparian
corridor with enhanced ecological benefits. It will greatly reduce flood risk to residents,
businesses and infrastructure within the City of Auburn and the Green River Valley.
Once the new setback levee is constructed and the existing levee removed, the river
channel will be free to migrate laterally and form new channel patterns in this area.
The project includes approximately 6,600 linear feet (LF) of setback levee. The southern
end of the project includes removing existing rock armoring and the existing levee prism
that is currently sitting along the river’s edge. The northern end of the project will extend
the levee north to 43rd Street Northeast.
Project goals
The Green River basin is located in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9. The
WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan identifies actions for the recovery of endangered salmon in
the Green River, including specific project recommendations. The plan calls for side
channel rehabilitation within the Reddington Levee Setback and Extension project plan
area (Project LG-1). The proposed Reddington project not only accomplishes the side
channel reconnection goal, it also removes channel armoring, incorporates engineered
log structures and riparian revegetation, and avoids the use of tidegates thereby allowing
access for juvenile and adult salmonids.
• The Reddington Levee Setback and Extension Project goals are to:
• Reduce flood risks to residents of Auburn and the Green River Valley by:
• Replacing levees that do not meet modern structural design standards and have
a history of seepage problems
• Extending the levee system where no levee currently exists along roughly a mile
of river bank from just north of the River Mobile Home Park to 43rd Street
Northeast
• Setting back levees to reduce their susceptibility to scour, the forceful removal
and translocation of sediment by heavy water flows
• Increasing the flow containment capacity of the levee system beyond 12,000
cubic feet per second
• Improve natural river functions to improve habitat by:
• Setting back levees to allow for more channel movement within the project area
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 7 of 14
• Allowing the river to meander, scour and develop a more complex ecosystem,
which includes formation of rearing habitat for juvenile salmon
• Providing floodplain refuge for fish to avoid high flow velocities
• Protecting existing vegetation and restoring a corridor of native vegetation to
increase shoreline and channel shading, support the riparian food web, and
improve fish and wildlife habitat adjacent to and within the river channel
Project time line
The project is planned for construction in 2013 and will cover approximately
6,600 feet of levee.
11. The King County Flood Control District will financially compensate the mobile park owner
and the mobile park residents for the acquisition and displacement consistent with
applicable state and federal laws. As a separate action from the County’s project, the
mobile park owner seeks to replace the approximately 16 mobile home spaces and the
park’s recreational vehicle parking area that will be displaced.
12. Nearly simultaneously with the requested change in comprehensive plan and zoning
designations, the mobile home park owner is negotiating with the City for acquisition of a
portion of this city-owned parcel. Upon successful conclusion of negotiations, a Boundary
Line Adjustment or other method will be required to combine the area of acquisition (the
approximately 6.36 acres) with the existing mobile home park.
13. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site
and surrounding properties are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use
Site
Public and Quasi-Public
P1, Public Use Vacant
North Moderate Density Residential
RMHC, Residential Manufactured Home Community
Mobile home park
South Public and Quasi-Public
P1, Public Use Vacant except for overhead electrical transmission lines on lattice towers, an underground water transmission pipeline and storm drainage ponds and wetlands East Open Space P1, Public Use Green River
West High Density Residential
R20, 20 dwelling units per acre
Multiple family residential
and I Street NE
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 8 of 14
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 9 of 14
14. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the future
zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
consistent as required by the following city code section:
“ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency.
The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within
Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the
comprehensive plan. “
15. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for Comprehensive Plan amendments
as follows:
“ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant
study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies
contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a
proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed
amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request
complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria:
1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or
increased;
3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to
be invalid;
4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or
circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the
specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment;
5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists
between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide
planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision
2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.”
16. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals
and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The
Comprehensive Plan contains policy guidance that relate to this application. Chapter 14,
Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-5 provides the following purpose and
description of the ‘Moderate Density Residential’ Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Moderate Density
Purpose: To provide a transition between single family residential areas and other
more intensive designations, as well as other activities which reduce the suitability of
potential residential areas for single family uses (such as high traffic volumes). In so
doing, this designation will offer opportunities for housing types which balance residential
amenities with the need to provide economical housing choice, in a manner consistent
with conserving the character of adjacent single family areas.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 10 of 14
Description: Moderate density residential areas are planned to accommodate
moderate densities of varying residential dwelling types. Appropriate densities in these
areas shall range from 8 to 10 units net per acre and potentially 16 units per net acre,
where properties have frontage on an arterial or residential collector. Dwelling types
would generally range from single family units to multiple-family dwellings, with larger
structures allowed (at the same overall density) where offsetting community benefits can
be identified. Structures designed to be occupied by owner-managers shall be
encouraged within this designation.
Compatible Uses: Public and quasi-public uses that have land use impacts similar to
moderate to high density residential uses are appropriate within this category. Also, uses
which require access to traffic (such as schools and churches) are appropriate for these
areas. Carefully developed low intensity office, or residentially related commercial uses
(such as day care centers) can be compatible if developed properly. This designation
can include manufactured home parks.
Criteria for Designation: Areas particularly appropriate for such designation are:
1. Areas between single family residential uses and all other uses.
2. Areas adjacent to, or close to arterials designated in the transportation element.
3. Existing manufactured home parks.
4. Areas sandwiched between higher intensity uses, but not directly served by an
arterial.
5. Urban infill areas not appropriate for single family uses but also not capable of
supporting higher density uses.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas to generally be avoided
by moderate density residential designations include:
1. Areas surrounded by lower density uses.
2. Areas more appropriate for commercial or higher density uses due to traffic or
extensively developed public facilities.
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area designated by this Plan (except as
otherwise provided by the Plan).
4. Any areas not planned to be served by water and sewer systems.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by three zones:
1) R-10: Permits 10 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows single family
dwellings and duplexes as permitted uses. Multiple-family dwellings, some residential
supporting uses, and professional offices as part of a mixed-use development may be
permitted as conditional uses.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 11 of 14
2) R-16: Permits 16 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning allows for a variety of
housing types, include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-
use development.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of
manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density
is 10 dwelling units per net acre.”
17. For comparison, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-8 provides the
following purpose and description of the ‘Public and Quasi-Public’ Comprehensive Plan
designation:
“Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public and quasi-
public services to the community.
Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for public or quasi-
public uses of a developed character. It is intended to include those of a significant
extent, and not those smaller public uses which are consistent with and may be included
in another designation. Public uses of an industrial character, such as the General
Services Administration, are included in the industrial designation. Streets, utilities and
other public activities supporting other uses are not considered separate uses and are
not so mapped. This designation includes large churches, private schools and similar
uses of a quasi-public character. Developed parks are also designated under this
category.
Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another category should
not be designated under this category, irrespective of ownership. Industrial and
commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by educational institutions for
vocational educational purposes may be classified as a public use and permitted on a
conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: Designation of these areas should be consistent with the
character of adjacent uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation will generally be implemented by three
zones:
1) P-1 (Public Use) District provides for the location and development of public uses
that serve the cultural, educational, recreational and public service needs of the
community.
2) I (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools and
typically allows a much broader list of uses.
3) LF (Landing Field) District provides for the operation and management of the Auburn
Municipal Airport.”
Since the entirety of the City-owned property is no longer needed for the city–wide purpose of
storm drainage management and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan has been revised
accordingly, it is not appropriate for the entire property to continue to reflect a “Public Quasi-
Public” Comprehensive Plan designation. Instead, it is appropriate to change the designation of
a portion of the site to a designation in order to return the property to a use which allows
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 12 of 14
replacement of the mobile home park that is being displaced by the community-serving flood
protection project, in response to this application.
18. Also, in Chapter 3, Land Use, the Comprehensive Plan document provides various policies
which promote additional residential development in order to meet community and growth
management goals. The following polices support residential development:
“LU-13 The City should promote the provision, preservation and maintenance of
adequate housing for the city's residents by encouraging a balanced mix of housing
types and values appropriate to the income levels and lifestyles of area residents.
Auburn has always been willing to accept its "fair share" of low and moderate cost
housing opportunities. However, this has translated into a great disparity in Puget Sound
communities with cities such as Auburn receiving more of these types of housing than
other comparable communities. This has had impacts in terms of the costs of meeting
human service needs as well as some poorly maintained multifamily properties which
have caused a variety of problems. Auburn will work to insure that housing units are
equitably distributed across the region in terms of both physical location and cost.”
“LU-24 The development of residential areas should recognize the importance of
community and public facilities in developing a sense of neighborhood and community.”
“LU-37 Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged as a buffer between
single family areas and more intense uses. Such buffering is appropriate along arterials
where existing platting prevents effective lot layout for single family units. Also, such
buffering is appropriate between single family areas and commercial and industrial uses.
Where there are established single family areas, the design and siting of moderate
density units shall be controlled to reduce potential conflicts and to ensure buffering of
uses. Higher density units are not to be considered such a buffer.”
The city-owned property requested for change does not border a public street and is bordered
by overhead electrical lines and underground water lines. Thus, the existing configuration does
not lend itself to a wide variety of uses, but is suitable for replacement of housing stock that is
being lost to the levee setback and extension project. The replacement of the mobile homes is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan polices of supporting diversity and preservation of
housing and maintaining neighborhoods.
19. In addition Chapter 3, Land Use, recognizes the value of manufactured home and mobile
home parks. The Plan recognizes that mobile home parks serve a community purpose of
filling a need for affordable housing. The section entitled “manufactured homes” identifies
these specific areas and specifically recognizes and addresses the need within the city as
follows:
“Manufactured
Homes Manufactured homes provide affordable housing to many Auburn
residents. In many cases, they provide the opportunity of home ownership to
households which cannot afford to purchase more traditional types of housing.
However, poorly designed, high density manufactured home parks can raise the same
issues that multiple family developments pose. Careful design and placement of
manufactured housing in parks especially with appropriate landscaping, can greatly
reduce problems associated with such development.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 13 of 14
This Plan's policies continue to recognize the benefits that manufactured homes can
have on housing affordability. Improved codes requiring high standards for the design
and siting of manufactured home parks and units on individual lots should be
implemented.
Objective 7.6 To continue to allow manufactured homes as an affordable form of home
ownership, provided that such developments are carried out in a manner which supports
rather than detracts from the quality of the community and adjacent uses.
Policies:
LU-39 The siting of new manufactured home parks shall be subject to the same policies
applicable to high density residential development. Manufactured home park densities
should not exceed 8 units per acre. New manufactured home parks shall be bordered or
contained by physical features, or planned and designed as part of a larger development
incorporating other housing types in a manner which limits further manufactured home
park expansion into adjacent areas.”
The request allows the continuation of manufactured homes as a more affordable form of
home ownership.
20. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not
diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposed change by
itself, if approved will not affect the ability to provide adequate services. Under the current
conditions, as with many properties in the city, the infrastructure improvements would be the
responsibility of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services are
required to be provided in order for the development to be authorized so it is not anticipated
that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services.
The property was previously designated for residential development prior to 1995 and thus it
is foreseeable that a change in the designation of a portion of the site can be adequately
served by adequate services.
21. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid. As previously discussed above, since the entirety of the
City-owned property is no longer needed for the community–wide purpose of storm drainage
management and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan has been revised accordingly, it is not
appropriate for the entire property to continue to reflect the “Public and Quasi-Public”
Comprehensive Plan designation. Instead, it is appropriate to change the designation of a
portion of the site to a designation in order to return the property to a use which allows
replacement of the mobile home park that is being displaced by the community-serving flood
protection project.
22. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in
conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest
amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment. Again, the property is no longer needed for the community–wide purpose of
storm drainage management and the Comprehensive Drainage Plan has been revised
accordingly thus, it is not appropriate for the entire property to continue to reflect a “Public
and Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan designation. The City’s recent storm drainage
modeling, the corresponding change in City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan to recognize
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0002 River Mobile Home Park
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Page 14 of 14
this modeling and the King County Flood Control District Reddington Levee Setback and
Extension Project all represent changed circumstances that dictate a need for the proposed
Comprehensive Plan map amendment.
23. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of
the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region”. The change if approved would continue to be consistent with the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County
and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The
proposal is consistent because it preserves and replaces existing residential development.
24. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use
designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the
following:
a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an
oversight;
b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar
or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure
compatibility with surrounding properties;
c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use
designation came into effect. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
The same land use designation as proposed occurs on adjacent properties and thus meets item
b.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the River Mobile Home Park
request (HCA Management) for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Page 1 of 15
Agenda Subject CPA12-0004, Auburn School District
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: CPM #4 - See
separate section in Comp. Plan
binder
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and
recommend to City Council approval of the Auburn School District Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment.
AGENT: Camie Anderson, Senior Associate
Shockey Planning Group, Inc.
2716 Colby Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeffrey L. Grose, Executive Director of Capital Projects
Auburn School District No. 408
915 Fourth Street NE
Auburn, WA 98002
REQUEST: File No. CPA12-0004, CPM #4 Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 - Auburn
School District to change the comprehensive plan designation of two parcels
totaling approximately 0.63 acres located SE of the Auburn High School from
‘Office Residential’ to ‘Public and Quasi-Public’ and to change 12 parcels totaling
approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the high school from "High Density
Residential" to "Public and Quasi-Public"
LOCATION: The address of the high school is 800 4th Street NE. The request involves two
physically separate locations; two parcels located SE of the high school and
twelve parcels located NW of the high school.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Services Finance Parks Human Services Planning & D Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Dixon
Meeting Date: November 7, 2012 Item Number:
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
LOCATION
ADDRESSES &
PARCELS: The addresses of the southeast (SE) corner parcels are:
6858700005 - 803 E MAIN ST
6858700015 - 815 E MAIN ST
The addresses of the Northwest (NW) corner parcels are:
4184400145 - 502 3RD ST NE
4184400150 - Not available (vacant)
4184400155 - Not available (vacant)
4184400160 - 512 3RD ST NE
4184400170 - Not available (vacant)
4184400185 - Not available (vacant)
4184400195 - 523 2ND ST NE
4184400200 - Not available (vacant)
4184400205 - 513 2ND ST NE
4184400215 - 505 2ND ST NE
4184400220 - 206 E ST NE
EXISTING ZONING: SE corner – two parcels totaling 0.63 acres zoned RO, Residential Office
NW corner – twelve parcels totaling 1.74 acres zoned R2O, Residential
EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: SE corner – two parcels totaling 0.63 acres designated ‘Residential Office’
NW corner – twelve parcels totaling 1.74 acres designated High Density
Residential’
SEPA STATUS: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under city file SEP12-
0021 on September 4, 2012. The comment period ended September 18, 2012
and the appeal period ended October 2, 2012.
A. Findings
1. The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to
the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. The
Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since.
2. Comprehensive Plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and
by private citizens (privately-initiated). The City received three privately initiated
Comprehensive Plan map amendment by the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012. The
application received from the Auburn School District is processed as a privately-initiated
application.
3. This staff report and recommendation addresses Comprehensive Plan map amendment
CPM #4, Auburn School District. The other private initiated Comprehensive Plan
amendment applications are addressed in separate staff reports.
4. Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process
before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to
the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments
will occur prior to the end of this year.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
5. RCW 36.70A.130 (The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for
amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances
provided for in State law, Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be considered by the city
or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year. The annual limitation and
exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060.
6. The City of Auburn established a June 8, 2012 deadline for the submittal of privately-
initiated Comprehensive Plan applications (map or policy/text amendments). Notice to the
public of the filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, the Seattle Times, and sent
to a compiled notification list. The City received three privately initiated comprehensive plan
map amendments.
7. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), was issued for the Auburn School District
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone under City File No. SEP12-0021 on
September 4, 2012. The comment period ended September 18, 2012 and the appeal period
ended October 2, 2012. As of the writing of this report, no comment letters were received in
response to the issuance of the environmental review decision.
8. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of private initiated
amendments and the processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows:
”Section 14.22.100
A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given
pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following:
1. For site-specific plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing;
2. For area-wide plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within the area subject to the proposed amendment;
c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area
subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior
to the date of the public hearing.
B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions
noted above as deemed necessary.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and
forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission
shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those
findings to the city council.
D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written
findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning
commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW
36.70A.106.
F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in
accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in
this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce, formerly the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and other state
agencies as required for the 60-day state review on August 29, 2012. The Washington
State Office of Commerce acknowledged receipt by letter dated September 11, 2012. No
other comments have been received from Commerce or other state agencies as of the
writing of this report.
10. Due to the nature of the city-initiated map amendments and the scope and limited number of
privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional process as provided in the city code for a
public open house was not conducted.
11. The public hearing notice was published on October 26, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2012.
12. The following report identifies comprehensive plan map amendment, CPM #4, scheduled for
the Planning Commission’s November 7, 2012 public hearing with a staff recommendation.
CPM #4 – Staff Analysis
1. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application was accepted on June 8, 2012 by
the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012.
2. The application was submitted by Camie Anderson, Senior Associate, Shockey Planning
Group on behalf of Jeffery Grose, Executive Director of Capital Projects, Auburn School
District, Applicant.
3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application.
4. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application seeks to change the comprehensive
plan designation of two (2) parcels totaling approximately 0.63 acres located SE of the
Auburn High School from ‘Office Residential’ to ‘Public/Quasi-Public’ and to change twelve
(12) parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the high school from "High
Density Residential" to "Public/Quasi-Public". The sites are SE and NW of the high school
addressed as 800 4th ST NE, Auburn.
5. As indicated by the Applicant’s narrative submitted with the application, the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested for the purpose of changing the
land use designation of the property to ensure the ability for future redevelopment. The
comprehensive plan map amendments and rezones are requested for the purpose of
facilitating the ‘Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project’. The
following information on the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project
originates from the School District website:
http://ahsproject.auburn.wednet.edu/ahsproject/Info/
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
“Project Information
Introduction:
• Auburn High School was built in 1950 and expanded five times since then.
• The school provides excellent programs and extensive community facilities but
does so in an aging building that is no longer cost-effective to operate and
maintain.
• To address this situation, Auburn School District is working on the design of a
modernized and reconstructed facility at Auburn High School.
Project History:
• In 2005, an Auburn School District Citizen’s Ad Hoc Committee recommended
the school district replace any building if the cost to modernize the facility
exceeds 70% of the cost of a new building.
• In 2008, Auburn School District completed an in-depth assessment of all of its
buildings and found that Auburn High School:
fails to meet many of the school district’s facility standards,
is beyond its economic life span and not cost-effective to remodel, and
should be replaced because the cost to remodel the school exceeds 70%
of the cost of a new building.
Project Design:
• The modernized and reconstructed school will be built at its current location
between East Main Street and 4th Street NE.
• The project will replace all of the buildings on campus except for the PAC
(Performing Arts Center) and Auto Shop.
• The PAC, Auto Shop and grounds will be modernized.
• The new facility will be similar in size and student capacity to the current school.
• The building will be brick, with a classic and timeless appearance.
• The construction work will be phased so students can safely remain on campus
during the construction project.
Important Design Features:
• A new and prominent front entry on East Main Street.
• Direct access to and easily visibility of the PAC and Main Gym from 4th Street
NE.
• Expansion of on-site parking stalls from 315 to over 600.
• Large parking lot adjacent to the Main Gym, PAC and Auburn Pool directly
across the street from Auburn Memorial Stadium.
• Off-street bus loading area.
• New synthetic turf baseball and softball fields.
• All buildings under one roof.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
• Improved energy efficiency.
• New classroom and building technology.
• A large student commons.
• Modernized PAC with a new front entry plaza and drop-off area, new lobby and
delivery area, new theater seats, upgraded lighting and sound systems, improved
access for the disabled, seismic upgrades, and more restrooms.
Project Schedule:
• A bond issue will be submitted to the voters on November 6, 2012 to provide
funding for the project.
• If a bond issue passes in November 2012, construction will start in 2013 and be
completed in phases with the last phase finished in 2016.”
6. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site
and surrounding properties are as follows:
Current
Comprehensive Plan
Current
Zoning
Current
Land Use
Site
Location
Parcels SE of
High School
Parcels NW
of High
School
Parcels
SE of
High
School
Parcels
NW of
High
School
Parcels SE
of
High School
Parcels NW of
High School
On-site
Office
Residential
High Density
Residential
RO,
Residential
Office
R20,
20 d.u. per
acre
Professional
and medical
offices
School
Facilities,
Single Family &
Muliple Family
Residences, &
Vacant
North
Public/ Quasi-
Public
Public/
Quasi-Public
I,
Institutional
I,
Institutional High School
School District
Swimming Pool,
Parking Lot &
Uses
South
Office
Residential
Public/
Quasi-Public
RO,
Residential
Office
I,
Institutional
Professional
offices &
Single
Family
Residences
Elementary
School
East
Office
Residential
Public/
Quasi-Public
RO,
Residential
Office
I,
Institutional
Professional
offices and
Commercial
High School
West
Public/ Quasi-
Public
High Density
Residential
I,
Institutional
R20,
20 d.u. per
acre
High School
Single Family &
Muliple Family
Residences &
Professional
Offices
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Comprehensive Plan Designations
7. The request seeks to change the designation of 14 parcels; 2 parcels totaling 0.63 acres
located SE of the Auburn High School and 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres
located NW of the high school. The parcels requested for change are each rectangular in
shape and have been previously platted.
8. The two parcels totaling 0.63 acres located SE of the Auburn High School are bordered to
the south by developed East Main Street designated by the City as a ‘Minor Arterial’ street
within a 60- foot right-of-way. The 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
of the high school, considered together border the developed right-of-way of E Street NE
designated as a ‘Local Residential’ street within a 60-foot right-of-way.
9. NW of the high school, the one-block length of public alley between the 12 parcels,
(extending east from E Street NE approximately midway between 2nd and 3rd Street NE) and
the one block portion of 2nd street NE located south of the 12 parcels have been requested
by the School District to be vacated. (City File # V1-12). The vacation process is currently
pending and a City Council decision is expected in December 2012.
10. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn and is within the
original incorporated boundary of the City (circa 1890).
11. The 2 parcels totaling 0.63 acres located SE of the Auburn High School have had a
“Residential Office” comprehensive plan designation and were zoned RO, Residential Office
since 1987.
12. The 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the school have a “High
Density Residential’ comprehensive plan designation and were zoned R4, Multiple Family
Residential (and subsequently amended to R20, 20 dwelling units per acre) since 1987.
13. The 2 parcels totaling 0.63 acres located SE of the Auburn High School contain an existing
professional office and a medical office. The District has acquired the property or is in the
process of acquiring and has secured the property owner’s permission to file this
application.
14. The 12 parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the school, are either
vacant or contain a single family or multiple family residence. The District has acquired the
property or is in the process of acquiring and has secured the property owner’s permission
to file applications with the City.
15. The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the
future zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
consistent as required by the following city code section:
“ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency.
The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within
Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the
comprehensive plan. “
16. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan amendments as
follows:
“ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and
public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall
be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the
burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must
demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision
criteria:
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or
increased;
3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to
be invalid;
4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or
circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the
specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment;
5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists
between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide
planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision
2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.”
17. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals
and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The
Comprehensive Plan contains the following policy guidance that relate to this application.
Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-8 provides the following purpose
and description of the ‘Public and Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Public and Quasi-Public
Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public and
quasi-public services to the community.
Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for public
or quasi-public uses of a developed character. It is intended to include those of a
significant extent, and not those smaller public uses which are consistent with
and may be included in another designation. Public uses of an industrial
character, such as the General Services Administration, are included in the
industrial designation. Streets, utilities and other public activities supporting
other uses are not considered separate uses and are not so mapped. This
designation includes large churches, private schools and similar uses of a quasi-
public character. Developed parks are also designated under this category.
Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another category
should not be designated under this category, irrespective of ownership.
Industrial and commercial uses which are affiliated with and managed by
educational institutions for vocational educational purposes may be classified as
a public use and permitted on a conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: Designation of these areas should be consistent with
the character of adjacent uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation will generally be implemented
by three zones:
1) P-1 (Public Use) District provides for the location and development of
public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational and public
service needs of the community.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
2) I (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools
and typically allows a much broader list of uses.
3) LF (Landing Field) District provides for the operation and management of
the Auburn Municipal Airport.
The designation can also be implemented as a conditional use under various
zones. Approval of these types of uses (and open space uses), not individually
designated on the Plan Map, under a conditional use permit or rezone consistent
with or related to adjacent zoning, shall not be considered inconsistent with the
designations under this Plan.” (Emphasis added)
The request to change the designation of the 14 parcels to “Public and Quasi-Public” is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is adjacent to other parcels already
designated for and/or developed with public school facilities. It is adjacent to the
approximately 28-acre property (parcel # 1821059082) containing the Auburn High School
and Performing Arts Center (PAC) and the 4.3-acre parcel (Parcel # 1821059060)
containing the Washington Elementary School. So the request seeks to expand the existing
area designated “Public and Quasi-Public” to achieve a “significant extent” of an already
“developed character” for quasi-public use.
For comparison, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-3 provides the
following purpose and description of the ‘High Density Residential’ Comprehensive Plan
designation:
“High Density Residential
Purpose: To provide an opportunity for the location of the most economical forms of
housing in areas appropriately situated for such uses under the policies of this Plan.
Description: This category shall be applied to those areas which are either now
developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings. Densities may range from 16 to
20 units per acre. Dwelling types may range from single family units to apartment
complexes, and may include manufactured home parks when located adjacent to major
arterial streets. Adequate on-site open space areas should be provided for all multi-
family developments. Densities exceeding 20 units per acre and special development
standards may be authorized for senior housing projects, within the Downtown area and
within 1/4 mile of regional transit service.
Compatible Uses: Compatible uses are similar to those identified under the other
residential categories, except higher intensities of use may be appropriate. Public uses
and open spaces which tend to visually relieve the high density character of these areas
should be encouraged.
Criteria for Designation: In addition to areas already developed to this density, this
designation should be applied only to areas which have or may be most efficiently
served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities. Of particular
concern is the provision of adequate traffic circulation, and this category shall only be
applied to areas with developed arterial access. Other siting concerns may include
access to commercial services and open space amenities. This category may also be
applied to areas which are threatened with deterioration and multiple family dwellings
offer the potential for rehabilitation.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas not appropriate for this
zone include areas surrounded, without physical separation, by lower intensity uses.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by the following
zones:
1) R-16: Permits 16 units per net acre. The zoning allows for a variety of housing
types include single family, duplexes, and multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use
development.
2) R-20: Permits 20 units per net acre and multiple-family residential and mixed-use
development. Residential supporting uses and some professional offices are permitted
as conditional uses.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the development of
manufactured home parks on property that is at least 5 acres in size. The base density
is 10 dwelling units per net acre.”
The current designation of the 12 parcels located NW of the high school is ‘High Density
Residential’ and the properties are vacant or developed with single family or multiple family
residential structures. The designation is part of a larger “strip” or “band” with the same land
use designation. This band provides an appropriate location for more economic housing
located between commercially developed areas and public use. The request to change does
not adversely affect the integrity of the remaining area of “High Density Residential”.
For comparison, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, starting at page 14-13 provides the
following purpose and description of the ‘Residential-Office” Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Office-Residential
Purpose: To reserve areas to accommodate professional offices for expanding medical
and business services, while providing a transition between residential uses and more
intensive uses and activities.
Description: This category is a restricted commercial designation reserved only for
certain types of activities. As a growing medical center, areas need to be reserved to
accommodate growth in this sector, which is largely expressed in the form of
professional offices. This category also assures space to accommodate the rapid
growth that is occurring in business services and other service oriented activities. Such
uses also provide a means for an appropriate transition for areas originally developed as
a residential area but now not appropriate for that type of use.
Compatible Uses: To be fully effective as a transition or a buffer, residential uses
should be permitted on a conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: As a transition this designation can serve as an appropriate
buffer between heavily traveled arterials and established single family areas. It would be
particularly appropriate in areas where large traffic volumes have affected an established
residential area. It can be applied where amenity values mitigate against heavy
commercial uses along major arterials. This designation should also be used to
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
accommodate the expansion of medical services in the area around Auburn Regional
Medical Center.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This zone is intended for
particular applications as described. It generally should not be applied on a large scale
basis.
Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by two zones:
1) RO - Residential Office District which is intended to primarily accommodate
business and professional offices where they are compatible with residential uses.
2) RO-H Residential Office-Hospital District is to be used exclusively for the area
around Auburn Regional Medical Center.”
The current designation of the 2 parcels located SE of the high school is “Residential-Office”
and the properties are developed with small professional office uses. The designation is part of
a larger “strip” or “band” with the same “Residential-Office” designation that provides an
appropriate location as a transition from the high school property and arterial street of East Main
Street to nearby single family areas, to the south. The request to change these 2 parcels does
not affect the adversely integrity of the remaining area of “Residential Office” since the
designation remains on the south side of East Main Street to serve as a transition to single
family areas located to the south.
18. Also, in Chapter 3, Land Use, and Chapter 5, Capital Facilities, the Comprehensive Plan
document provides various policies which relate to this request. Several policies promote
additional residential development in order to meet community and growth management
goals. The following excerpted policies relate to this requested change to “Public and
Quasi-Public”:
“Chapter 3, Land Use
Objective 8.1 To maintain and enhance all viable and stable residential neighborhoods.
Policies
LU-42 Regulatory decisions in all residential neighborhoods shall result in maintenance
or enhancement of the neighborhood’s residential character.
a. The location of uses other than those permitted outright shall only be allowed as
specified in this comprehensive plan and in the zoning code.
b. Approval of any non-residential land use shall occur only after a public hearing
process.
c. The City recognizes the important role that public facilities (such as sidewalks,
neighborhood parks and elementary schools) and limited scale quasi-public uses (such
as smaller churches and daycare centers) play in maintaining viable residential
neighborhoods (emphasis added).
d. Single family detached residential neighborhoods should be protected from
intrusion by non-residential or large scale multi-family uses.”
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
As a “public facility” in this context, this policy statement of the comprehensive plan recognizes
the important role that public facilities or quasi-public facilities such as schools contribute to
residential neighborhoods. The proposal to expand the existing designation of “Public and
Quasi-Public” to facilitate redevelopment of the high school is consistent with this policy. The
neighborhood already contains properties with the “Public and Quasi-Public” designation; it is
not a new land use for the vicinity.
”Chapter 5 Capital Facilities
GOAL 14. PUBLIC BUILDINGS
To maximize public access and provide for the appropriate location and development of
public and quasi-public facilities that serve the cultural, educational, recreational,
religious and public service needs of the community and the region.
Objective 14.1. To site public buildings in accord with their service function and the
needs of the members of the public served by the facility.
Policies:
CF-63 Public and quasi-public facilities which attract a large number of visitors (City
Hall, museums, libraries, educational, permit or license offices, and health or similar
facilities, etc.) should be sited in areas which are accessible (within 1/4 mile) by transit.
CF-65 The location of religious institutions, private schools, community centers, parks
and similar public or quasi-public facilities shall be related to the size of the facility and
the area served. City-wide facilities should be sited in visible and accessible locations.
CF-66 Small public or quasi-public facilities intended to serve one or two residential
neighborhoods may be located within a neighborhood. Larger public or quasi-public
facilities intended to serve mainly Auburn residents or businesses shall be located along
major arterial roads within the Community Serving Area of Auburn, however, elementary
schools should be given flexibility to locate along smaller roads. Buffering from adjacent
land uses may be required.
The request to change the designation to “Public and Quasi-Public” is consistent with these
policies since the property is close to transit, related to the surrounding area served and located
along an arterial street (East Main Street) to be sufficiently publicly accessible. The change is
for redevelopment of the high school which is within a ¼ mile of transit. The location is within ¼
mile of bus lines and bus stops along Auburn Way North (Northbound stop at 4th ST NE &
Auburn WY N – Serving Routes 152, 180, 910, & 919)(Southbound stops at 2nd ST NE &
Auburn WY N and 5th ST NE & Auburn WY N – Serving Routes 152, 180, 910, & 919)
according to website information.
http://tripplanner.kingcounty.gov/cgi-bin/stop_info.pl?Id=4617&resptype=U
The requested change is to facilitate redevelopment of the high school and build upon the
significant existing capital investment in the site. Redevelopment of the site capitalizes on the
existing location that is appropriate and accessible and serves the student population and
community. The high school and performing arts center are bordered by an arterial street (East
Main St) and a non-residential collector (4th Street NE). In fact the project will be provide “A new
and prominent front entry on East Main Street”, the arterial classified street.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Also, the requested change assists the Comprehensive Plan in remaining internally consistent
since the amendments are consistent with the School District’s proposed Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP). The School District’s Capital Facilities Plan is currently being processed as a text
amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan (Reference P/T# 1, CPA12-0001). It is proposed
to be incorporated by reference in Chapter 5, Capital Facilities.
19. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not
diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. The proposed application
for a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning has been reviewed by the Fire
Agency and the City’s Utilities and Traffic divisions. Based on these reviews, the change
would not adversely affect the provision of services.
The proposal is a non-project action; the proposed application is for a change in the
comprehensive plan designation and zoning. The proposed “project action” for physical
redevelopment of the high school is the subject of a separate environmental review.
The proposed change by itself, if approved will not affect the ability to provide adequate
services. As typical with development in the City, the infrastructure improvements needed to
serve the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time of
development, adequate services are required to be provided concurrent with the
development in order for the project to be authorized. So, it is not anticipated that approval
of the request negatively affects provision of services.
20. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid. While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not
invalid, a change to the mapped configuration of the land use designations of this request is
logical (a change to Map No. 14.1). The 12 parcels located NW of the high school are
currently surrounded by the “Public and Quasi-Public” designation on 3 sides; the properties
to the SE are bordered on 2 sides. The proposed change expands the existing area of the
“Public and Quasi-Public” designation and squares up the existing boundaries; it eliminates
protrusions and “bump-ins” to provide a more uniform boundary. The change also reduces
instances of property designated for other uses immediately abutting the “Public and Quasi-
Public” designation and thereby reduces potential conflicts and provides more logical
boundaries as they are proposed to be separated by public rights-of-way.
21. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in
conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest
amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment. Changes since the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan is that the
Auburn School District has conducted additional planning for redevelopment of the high
school and determined that “In order to accommodate the district’s current educational
specification and standards, an increase in the areas of the site is necessary.” (See the
memo from the Auburn School District dated October 24, 2012) Another change is that the
school district has acquired or is in the process of acquiring properties abutting the existing
high school parcel. At the writing of this report, the District owned 11 of the 14 parcels and
had permission to file city applications on the remaining 3 parcels that are in the process of
being acquired.
22. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (GMA)(RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0004 Auburn School District Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment
Date: October 8, 2012
Policies of the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy
for the Puget Sound Region”. The change if approved would continue to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King
County and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”.
The proposal is consistent because enhances the general goal of providing public facilities
concurrently with the needs of education and residential development.
23. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use
designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the
following:
a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an
oversight;
b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar
or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure
compatibility with surrounding properties;
c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use
designation came into effect. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
The same land use designation as proposed occurs on adjacent properties and thus meets
item b.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Auburn School District
request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Page 1 of 8
Agenda Subject
CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – City Initiated
Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments – Group 2
Date:
October 29, 2011
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See separate Working
binder
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to recommend to City Council approval of
2012 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments related to Economic Development Strategy Areas.
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually.
Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private
citizens (privately-initiated). This year the city is initiating two map amendments and more than seven
policy and text amendments. In addition, this year the city received three privately-initiated plan map
amendments and no privately–initiated policy/text amendments. The privately-initiated amendments will
be addressed under separate staff reports.
This staff report and recommendation addresses:
• City initiated Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendment CPM #5 and
• City initiated Policy/Text (P/T) Amendment P/T #7, both identified as File # CPA12-0001.
Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of
Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action.
City Council consideration and action on the amendments will occur prior to the end of this year.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Services Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & Dev. Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Dixon
Meeting Date: November 7, 2012 Item Number:
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text
Amendments - Group 2
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 2 of 8
A. Findings
1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for
amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances
provided for in State law, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city
or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year.
2. The City of Auburn established a June 8, 2012 deadline for the submittal of privately-
initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the
filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, the Seattle Times, and sent to a compiled
notification list in early May 2012. The City received three privately-initiated plan map
amendments by the submittal deadline.
3. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), was issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments under City file # SEP12-0023 on September 10, 2012. The comment period
ended September 24, 2012, and the appeal period ended October 8, 2012. As of the writing
of this report, no comments were received or appeals filed in response to the issuance of
the environmental review decision.
4. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of amendments and the
general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows:
“Section 14.22.100
A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given
pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following:
1. For site-specific plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing;
2. For area-wide plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within the area subject to the proposed amendment;
c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area
subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior
to the date of the public hearing.
B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions
noted above as deemed necessary.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and
forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission
shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those
findings to the city council.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text
Amendments - Group 2
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 3 of 8
D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written
findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance.
E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning
commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW
36.70A.106.
F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in
accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)”
5. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in
this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce, formerly the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and then transmitted
other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. The proposed comprehensive
plan amendments were transmitted by separate letter on September 10, 2012. The
Washington State Office of Commerce acknowledged receipt of the amendments by letter
dated September 11, 2012. No comments have been received from Commerce or other
state agencies as of the writing of this report.
6. Due to the nature of the city-initiated map amendments and the city-initiated policy/text
changes and the scope and limited number of privately-initiated map amendments, the
optional process of a public open house as provided in city code was not conducted.
7. The public hearing notice was published on October 26, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2012.
8. The following report identifies Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and Policy/Text (P/T)
amendments scheduled for the Planning Commission’s November 7, 2012 public hearing
with a staff recommendation.
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments
P/T #7 - Comprehensive Plan
Revise narrative within Chapter 14 – ‘The Comprehensive Plan Map’ related to economic
development strategies areas based on City Council discussions to-date.
• Revise pages 14-25 through 14-27 to incorporate advancement of
economic development strategy areas.
• Add three policies related economic development strategy areas and
‘manufacturing villages’
• Revise Policy III.J. related to the discussion of “Problem Areas” and
subcategory, “West Auburn” to clarify “Local Serving” and “Region
Serving”. See page 14-28.
Discussion
In 2005 an Economic Development Strategies document was developed that includes strategies
and actions needed to affect necessary change for specific target areas within the city. As
adopted by Resolution No. 3944 in 2005 (See Resolution No 3944 in Working Binder), the
Economic Development Strategies document identifies six strategy areas. These economic
development strategy areas are targeted for population and employment growth.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text
Amendments - Group 2
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 4 of 8
In 2010, the City Council identified two additional economic development strategy areas and
solidified the idea of expanding elements of the Urban Center designation--greater residential
population density (i.e. mixed use), clustered non-residential uses (offices, retail, services),
increased employment and multi-modal transportation (i.e. walking, transit, and bicycling)--to
these economic development strategy areas as key economic development nodes in the City.
The planning horizon for the economic development strategy areas focused on the City’s 20-
year (2031) growth target.
With the City Council’s Economic Development Retreat in May 2012, the Council’s Planning and
Community Development Committee meeting on September 10, 2012 and the Council’s
Committee of the Whole meeting on October 29, 2012, the population and employment growth
purpose of the eight Economic Development Strategy Areas was further articulated. A new
Economic Development Strategy Area proposed to be added (bringing the total to nine), revised
50-year planning horizon and modified boundaries were used to correlate the Economic
Development Strategy Areas (EDSA) with priority business sectors as follows:
• Auburn Environmental Park and “Green Zone” (the zoning designation surrounding
and supportive of the Environmental Park District):
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention);
o Ecosystem management (“green engineering”);
o Education;
o Bio-research facilities; and
o “Manufacturing Village” – mixed uses consisting of manufacturing,
commercial and multiple family residential
• Urban Center
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention);
o Entertainment;
o High density housing; and
o Ecosystem management (“Green Engineering”);
• Auburn Way North Corridor (Generally, paralleling the street between 15th ST NE to
S 277th ST and C ST NW to I ST NE)
o Mixed-use of commercial and multiple family residential (retail emphasis);
and
o Entertainment
• Auburn Way South Corridor (Generally, paralleling the street from SR 18 south to
Riverwalk DR SW)
o Healthcare research (provision and prevention);
o Ecosystem management (“Green Engineering”);
o Education;
o Bio-research facilities; and
o Aerospace
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text
Amendments - Group 2
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 5 of 8
• 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway (Generally, SR 18 to Boundary
Boulevard SW and West VLY HWY to C ST SW)
o Mixed-use of commercial and multiple family residential (retail emphasis)
• A Street SE Corridor (Generally, SR 18 to 41st ST SE and C ST SW to D ST SE)
o Multiple Family Residential
• SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE Corridor (Generally, SE 310th ST to SE 314th ST
and 121st PL SE to 129th AVE SE)
o Retail Services
• M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South
o Mixed-use of commercial and multiple family residential (retail and service
emphasis)
• Northwest Auburn Area (Generally, between S. 277th ST and 30th ST NW and west
of Auburn WY N Corridor Area to SR 167)
o “Manufacturing Village” – mixed uses consisting of manufacturing,
commercial and multiple family residential
The proposed changes can be summarized as follows:
• Documenting the additional work of the City Council at PCDC and COW
• Recognizing the additional EDSA, termed the “Northwest Auburn Area”
• Add Policy III.D – specifying the goal of EDSA’s
• Add Policy III.E – city’s commitment to EDSA’s
• Add Policy III.F – relation of the EDSA’s to “Manufacturing Villages”’ and to the
“Innovative Partnership Zone” (IPZ).
Manufacturing Village Concept
The concept of a “Manufacturing Village” is a 21st Century re-imagination of historic
development pattern that contains residences in conjunction with commercial uses or industry.
The re-imagined concept focuses on a mixed use center that provides a combination of housing
and manufacturing/industrial uses was discussed at the May 2012 economic development City
Council retreat. The concept as discussed is to provide comprehensive plan policies and
subsequently, zoning regulations that provide incentives to encourage dwellings and
employment in close proximity to one another. The concept was discussed specifically in
relation to the Environmental Park zoning district (referred to as the “Green Zone” – the zoning
district adjacent to and supportive of the natural resources park). However, the concept of the
manufacturing village may also be applied to other Economic Development Strategy Areas.
The City Council has generally been receptive to making additional changes to the
comprehensive plan designation and the Environmental Park zoning district to promote a
location supportive of small to medium scale, environmentally friendly manufacturing uses that
would be conducive to a location proximate to multiple family housing. The manufacturing uses
are envisioned to be generally smaller-scale and non-nuisance type businesses.
The purpose of the proposed comprehensive plan policy/text amendments is to document and
specify the evolving discussions of the City Council on this new initiative and to provide a policy
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text
Amendments - Group 2
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 6 of 8
framework within this year’s comprehensive plan amendment process that “set the stage” for
future comprehensive plan and zoning regulation changes. Therefore, the purpose of the
change is to provide a policy foundation as a starting point for future planning actions.
Innovative Partnership Zone
The “Innovation Partnership Zone” (IPZ) is a unique economic development effort that partners
research, workforce training, and private sector participation in close geographic proximity to
promote collaboration in a research based effort that will lead to new technologies, marketable
products, company formation, and job creation. Created by the State Legislature in 2007 and
assigned to the State Department of Commerce, the zones are administered by the City
pursuant to a comprehensive business plan.
1. Mission:
The mission of Auburn's Innovative Partnership Zone to support a vibrant, vital economy for the
City of Auburn, our local region and the State of Washington. Encouraging the adaption of
warehouse districts to mixed use, market-affordable technology clusters and facilitating
collaborative partnering among private sector employers, research partners, and programmed
workforce development, the IPZ will implement a multi-phased plan across a variety of business
sectors beginning with Ecosystems and Rainwater Management. These collaborative clusters
will realize new businesses and products; expand our existing knowledge based middle-wage
jobs while creating new higher-paying employment opportunities for the citizens of our City.
Through new partnerships and the clustering of entrepreneurs, ideas will flourish, manufacturing
efficiencies will be developed and our diverse business community will expand, creating
investment opportunities, new technologies and the general growth of our economy.
2. Goals:
The focal point the State's overall IPZ program is as a resource development tool for general
economic development within this zone, the City of Auburn and throughout the State of
Washington. Specifically for the City of Auburn our primary goal is job creation for our citizens
and the general economic development of our City as a regional center for business enterprise
and technology.
Historically, Auburn has developed as a manufacturing center and as a hub for
supply/distribution warehouse space. Some of this IPZ's existing businesses and clusters
surround advanced technology/high-wage employment manufacturing; the greater percentage
of Auburn industry is made up of solid, well established manufacturing clusters employing a
significant number of knowledge-based middle-wage workers.
A certain goal of this Innovation Partnership Zone is to capitalize on our diverse manufacturing
technology clusters and through the introduction of research partnering, encourage their
expansion and development; another goal will be to maximize efficiencies within our supply
chain warehousing/distribution industries; and a third and critically important goal will be to
persuade our Auburn property owners to encourage the conversion of warehouse inventory to
new market-affordable, mid to high-wage employment technology clusters.
In addition, our overall goals also emphasize the creation of marketable products, business
retention and expansion, the formation of new business partnerships (including the
diversification of manufactures across traditional business lines) and the creation of new
technological advances.
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text
Amendments - Group 2
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 7 of 8
3. Leadership/Governance:
The IPZ Administrator shall be the Economic Development Manager for the City of Auburn. As
administrator he/she will be responsible for day-to-day implementation of this business plan
including its Mission, Goals, as well as the general overall success of the IPZ program. The
Administrator shall work with the Management Team to promote the economic sustainability of
the IPZ and its partners. Further, the Administrator shall actively work to assist existing business
organizations within the zone, introduce new partnerships, encourage creativity and fresh ideas,
and to promote Auburn as a destination for new businesses and clusters.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Housekeeping Item of Clarification
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff was asked to clarify the meaning of existing
text in the Comprehensive Plan. Two changes are suggested as a result. First, to revise Policy
III.J. on page 14-28 to renumber the policy as “Policy III.I” since there are already two policies
with the same letter designation: “J”. And second, to revise this policy related to the discussion
of “Problem Areas” and subcategory, “W est Auburn” to clarify “Local Serving” and “‘Region
Serving”. Quotation marks are proposed to be added to signify that the terms have a special
sense or specific meaning, described elsewhere in the Plan.
These terms are further explained in the context of the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, “Land
Use” where it says:
“Urban Form Planning deals with the basic geographic form of the city.
Auburn's existing form separates the city into two parts: a concentration of
employment base on the west with sufficient existing and potential jobs to be of
regional significance (region serving area), and residential and locally oriented
business uses to the east (community serving area). This existing policy of a
"split" form has generally been effective in avoiding gross land use conflicts
between residential uses and more intensive (e.g. industrial) land uses. This
Plan's policies maintain this basic split policy. However, Auburn's downtown
area is also treated as a unique (both region and community-serving) part of the
city's form.”
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
CPM #5
Add new Map No. 14.3, ‘Economic Development Strategy Areas” as a reference map at the
back of the city’s Comprehensive Plan to show the nine areas that have been identified and
discussed by the City Council.
Discussion
The reference Map No. 14.3, ‘Economic Development Strategy Areas” proposed for inclusion in
the back of the Comprehensive Plan document and referenced within Chapter 14, “The
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text
Amendments - Group 2
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 8 of 8
Comprehensive Plan Map” is being added. This map is new to the Plan and wasn’t previously
part of the document but is proposed to be added for ease of communicating and understanding
the location of the Economic Development Strategy Areas.
The location of the economic development strategy areas are depicted generally based on the
City council discussions and the precise boundaries will be established through subsequent
planning actions. The map includes this as a notation.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Proposed code amendments to the Auburn City Code
related to the Hearing Examiner (Code Update Project – Phase 2 -
Group 2).
Date: October 29, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See Exhibit list below. Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendments and make a recommendation to City Council.
Background Summary:
The Code Update Project began in September 2008 and is progressing in two phases. Phase 1,
completed in June of 2009, updated the City’s residential-related zoning districts (Title 18 ACC) and
subdivision code (Title 17 ACC). Phase 2 updates the City’s non-residential related zoning districts (Title
18 ACC) and should be completed by December of 2012.
The proposed amendments (Phase 2, Group 2 – Hearing Examiner Chapter) will affect the current city
code as follows:
• Relocates the Hearing Examiner Chapter out of Title 18 – Zoning and into Title 2 – Administration and
Personnel.
• Amends the Hearing Examiner Chapter by clarifying the powers of the hearing examiner and what
applications and appeals he or she is responsible for. A burden of proof section is also being added.
• Amends the timelines in which decisions by the hearing examiner are given.
• Changes all Hearing Examiner references in the code from Chapter 18.66 ACC to Chapter 2.46 ACC
The November 7, 2012 Planning Commission meeting will involve a public hearing on the proposed code
amendments. The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council and will make a recommendation
to the City Council on the proposed code amendment.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Wagner
Meeting Date: November 7, 2012 Item Number:
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 – Group 2 (ZOA12-0007)
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 2 of 5
A. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT:
City of Auburn Planning and Development Department, Kevin H. Snyder, AICP, Director
B. RESPONSIBLE STAFF:
Stuart Wagner, AICP Senior Planner, City of Auburn Planning and Development Department
C. AREA OF IMPACT:
Citywide
D. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
November 7, 2012
E. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION DATE:
Currently scheduled for December 3, 2012
F. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Title 18 of the Auburn City Code (ACC), includes Chapter 18.68, Amendments, which
addresses amendments to Title 18, Zoning.
2. The proposed code amendment relocates Chapter 18.66 – Hearing Examiner to Title 2 –
Adminstrative and Personnel and also amends the Chapter in several places to clarify the
powers of the hearing examiner, what he or she is responsible for as well as amend the
timelines in which written decisions by the hearing examiner are given.
3. The proposed code amendment is supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as
discussed under the conclusions’ section of this report.
4. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the City initiated Code Amendments on
July 16, 2012 under city file SEP12-0022. The Determination of Non-Significance was
published in the July 16, 2012 edition of the Seattle Times. No comments were received from
the commenting agencies or appeals filed.
5. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this
agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth
Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. An
acknowledgement letter was received on July 23, 2012. No comments were received from
Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report.
6. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed work study session at the regular
meeting on November 7, 2012 ahead of the public hearing to review and discuss with staff
potential code amendment issues and ideas.
7. The public hearing notice was published on October 26, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2012.
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 – Group 2 (ZOA12-0007)
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 3 of 5
8. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to the Auburn City Code
scheduled for the Planning Commission’s November 7, 2012 public hearing with a staff
recommendation.
G. CONCLUSIONS:
1. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, the following public
process is applicable:
18.68.030 Public hearing process
A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural
amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all
amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city
council who may or may not conduct a public hearing.
18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements
A. Text Amendments.
1. Planning Commission. For text amendments that require a public hearing under ACC
18.68.030(A), notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of
general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the
notice in three general public locations.
2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of
general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three
general public locations.
Comment:
The public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for November 7, 2012
meeting the requirement under ACC 18.68.030. The public hearing notice was published in
the Seattle Times, the City’s official newspaper, on October 26, 2012 at least 10 days prior to
the public hearing. The public hearing notice was also posted at City Hall (25 West Main
Street), the Customer Service Center (One East Main Street), and the City’s Senior Activity
Center meeting the requirement for posting the notice in three general public locations.
2. The proposed code amendments are intended to reorganize and update regulations and
standards to create a more logical flow in the regulation of land uses and to appropriately
reflect changes in state law.
3. The proposed code amendments do not require any changes to the City’s current critical
area regulations contained in ACC 16.10 (Critical Areas).
4. The proposed code amendments will support current and future land and shoreline uses that
are consistent with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan and current Shoreline Master
Program. Staff has not proposed substantive or non-substantive amendments to the Auburn
City Code that would be deemed inconsistent with the City’s adopted plans and policies.
5. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.68, Amendments, does not have specific decision criteria for
text amendments to the zoning title. At a minimum, proposed text amendments are to be
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040. The proposed
code amendment is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies:
CITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 – Group 2 (ZOA12-0007)
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 4 of 5
These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan as
follows:
GOAL 1 - PLANNING APPROACH
To manage growth in a manner which enhances, rather than detracts from community quality
and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service
provision and development.
Policies:
GP-2 The City should develop its plans and programs after thorough analysis of
community problems, potentials and needs.
GP-3 The Planning Department will develop an annual work program that includes work
elements directed toward studying basic community needs, policy development, and code
administration
Comment:
The proposed code amendments to the Hearing Examiner Chapter remedies inconsistences
in current city code and meets a community need by promoting efficiencies in code and
administrative processes. Further, the Planning Department has set up an annual program
where staff documents potential amendments to the municipal code that have identified
through use of the code on project applications, results of customer inquiries, or to address
changes at the state level.
CHAPTER 2 - GENERAL APPROACH TO PLANNING (excerpt)
…this Comprehensive Plan involves preparing the City for addressing future development so
that the end result moves the City closer to accomplishing its goals. Several approaches or
"styles" of planning can be used to accomplish this :
1. reactive - accent flexibility in responding to changing conditions and to individual
situations problems and issues as they arise;
2. predictive - anticipate future needs and plan to meet them; or
3. proactive - seek to influence future events to achieve community objectives.
The approach used establishes a key element of the City's basic philosophy regarding land
use management and planning. The proactive approach blended with the predictive
approach will assure that basic community values and aspirations are reflected in the City's
planning.
Comment:
The planning department is taking the “proactive” approach identified in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan with the code amendments that are proposed to the Hearing Examiner
Chapter. The changes will ensure ease of use and administration of processing future land
use application and administrative appeals.
Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed zoning code
text amendment as presented by staff based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related
to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 – Group 2 (ZOA12-0007)
Date: October 29, 2012
Page 5 of 5
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Staff Report
Exhibit 2: Auburn City Code Chapter 2.46 – Hearing Examiner (revised and relocated)
Exhibit 3: Determination of Non-Significance and Affidavit of Publication
Exhibit 4: Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 5: Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Publication
Exhibit 6: Letter to Department of Commerce for 60-day State Review
Exhibit 7: Acknowledgment letter from Department of Commerce
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 1 of 17
October 29, 2012
Chapter 2.4618.66
HEARING EXAMINER
Sections:
2.4618.66.010 Title.
2.4618.66.020 General objectives.
2.4618.66.030 Creation of the hearing examiner.
2.46.035 Powers and areas of jurisdiction
2.4618.66.040 Appointment and term.
2.4618.66.050 Removal.
2.4618.66.060 Qualifications.
2.4618.66.070 Examiner pro tempore – Duties.
2.4618.66.080 Hearing examiner – Conflict of interest.
2.4618.66.090 Freedom from improper influence.
18.66.100 Duties of the examiner – Applications and decisions.
2.4618.66.100110 Applications.
2.4618.66.110120 Report by planning department.
2.46.120 Burden of Proof
2.4618.66.130 Public hearing.
2.4618.66.140 Examiner’s decision and recommendations – Findings required.
2.4618.66.150 Request for reconsideration.
2.4618.66.160 Appeal of final decisions.
2.4618.66.170 Hearing examiner’s recommendation.
2.4618.66.180 Council action.
2.4618.66.190 Review of chapter by council.
2.4618.66.010 Title.
This chapter shall be hereafter known as the “hearing examiner” chapter and may be cited as such and
will be hereinafter referred to as “this chapter”. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.020 General objectives.
It is the general objective of this chapter to:
A. Provide a single, efficient, integrated, land use regulatory decision-making process and public
hearing system;
B. Render land use regulatory decisions and recommendations to the city council;
C. Provide a greater degree of due process in land use regulatory decision-making and public
hearings;
D. Separate land use policy formulation from land use policy administration processes. (Ord. 4840 §
1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
E. Provide an efficient and effective administrative adjudicatory system for review of contested
administrative determinations.
2.4618.66.030 Creation of the hearing examiner.
The office of the hearing examiner, hereinafter referred to as "examiner," is hereby created. The examiner
shall interpret, review, and implement land use regulations as provided in this title and other ordinances,
issues and matters as assigned, delegated and/or referred to the examiner. The term examiner shall
likewise include the examiner pro tem. (Ord. 6185 § 8, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.46.035 Powers and Areas of Jurisdiction.
The Hearing Examiner shall have the power to receive and examine available information, conduct public
hearings, prepare a record thereof and enter findings of fact, conclusions based upon those facts and
enter decisions as provided by ordinance. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Auburn Municipal
Code, the Hearing Examiner’s areas of jurisdiction shall include those matters contained in this chapter.
A. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on the following matters shall be final:
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 2 of 17
October 29, 2012
1. Appeals of assessed civil penalties (ACC 1.25.065 (E))1
2. Appeals regarding the city’s decision on refunds from the construction sales tax exemption
(ACC 3.60.036 (F))
3. Appeals from the planning director’s denial of an application for a multi-family tax exemption
(MFTE) (ACC 3.94.070 (F))
4. Appeals from the planning director’s denial of an extension of a conditional certificate for
MFTE ACC 3.94.090 (B))
5. Appeals of a dangerous dog determination (ACC 6.35.020 (D))
6. Appeals of a decision by the planning director regarding expansion of hours for construction
noise (ACC 8.28.010 (B)(8)(d))
7. Appeals of a decision by the city engineer regarding construction permits (ACC 12.24.090
(C))
1.8. Appeals of a decision by the city engineer regarding undergrounding of utilities (ACC
13.32A.130 (D)
2.9. Appeals of decisions by the building official or fire code official regarding building and code
violations (ACC 15.07.130)2
10. Applications for a shoreline conditional use permit (ACC 16.08.054), (note that by statutes,
the State Department of Ecology has final approval authority)
B. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on the following matters shall be final unless such decision
is appealed to the City Council as provided in this chapter:
1. Appeals from denial, civil penalty suspension or revocation of a business license (ACC
5.15.070)
2. Appeals from denial of a rental housing business license (ACC 5.22.060 (D))
3. Appeals from revocation or notice of intent to revoke a rental housing business license (ACC
5.22.080 (B))
C. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on the following matters shall be the final administrative
decision of the City:
1. Appeals from the planning director’s denial of a final certificate for Multifamily Property Tax
Exemption MFTE (ACC 3.94.100 (B))
2. Appeals from the planning director’s cancellation of a tax exemption for MFTE (ACC 3.94.120
(C))
3. Appeals of a decision by the public works director regarding commute trip reductions (ACC
10.02.130
4. Appeals from denial of an adult entertainment establishment license, issuance or renewal
(ACC 5.30.070)
5. Appeals of a decision by the public works director regarding required public improvements
(ACC 12.64A.060)
6. Appeals of a decision by the public works director regarding system development charges
(ACC 13.41.070)
7. Hear and resolve tenant complaints against landlords regarding utility billing practices (3rd
party billing) (ACC 13.52.050)
8. Appeals of a decision by the planning director on a relocation report and plan related to the
closure of a mobile home park (ACC 14.20.110)
9. Appeals of a decision by the floodplain administrator on floodplain development permits (ACC
15.68.125)
1 The appeal shall be processed and the hearing conducted according to the provisions of ACC 15.07.130
2 The appeal shall be processed and the hearing conducted according to the provisions of ACC 15.07.130
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 3 of 17
October 29, 2012
10. Appeals of a decision by the landmarks and heritage commission on historical designations
(ACC 15.76.040)
11. Appeals of a decision by the SEPA responsible official on threshold determinations (ACC
16.06.250) – public hearing needed
12. Appeals from Critical Area Review decisions (ACC 16.10.140)
13. Applications for a reasonable use exception due to critical area regulations (ACC 16.10.150)
14. Applications for a buffer width variance of critical areas regulations which exceeds 10 percent
of a quantifiable standard. (ACC 16.10.160)
15. Applications for a public agency special exception to critical area regulations (ACC
16.10.170)
16. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding boundary line adjustments (ACC
17.06.030)
17. Applications for a preliminary plat (ACC 17.10.050)
18. Applications for modification of standards and specifications related to a preliminary plat
(ACC 17.18.010)
19. Applications for alteration of any subdivision (ACC 17.20.030)
20. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding site plan approval of a business
park (ACC 18.36.020 (B))
21. Applications for a special home occupation permit (ACC 18.60.040A)
22. Applications for a surface mining permit (ACC 18.62.030)
23. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding administrative use permits (ACC
18.64.020(A))
24. Applications for a conditional use permit (ACC 18.64.020 (B))
25. Applications for a variance (ACC 18.70.010)
26. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding administrative variances (ACC
18.70.015)
27. Applications for a special exception (ACC 18.70.020)
28. Applications for a variance in the regulatory floodplain (ACC 18.70.025)
29. Appeals from any administrative decision under Title 18 – Zoning (ACC 18.70.050)
30. Appeals from a decision of the planning director regarding fire impact fees (ACC 19.06.080)
31. Appeals from a decision of the parks director regarding park impact fees (ACC 19.08.040)
D. On the following matters, the Hearing Examiner shall enter findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendations to the City Council:
1. Applications for vacating a subdivision or portion of a subdivision, or any land dedicated for
public use, except rights-of-way associated with public streets (ACC 17.22.030)
2. Application for a business park (conceptual approval) (ACC 18.36.020 (A))
3. Applications for a rezone (zoning map amendment) initiated by an applicant other then the
city (ACC 18.68.030).
4. Applications for major amendments to the Lakeland Hills PUD (ACC 18.76.130)
2.4618.66.040 Appointment and term.
The hearing examiner shall be appointed by the mayor and subject to confirmation by the Auburn city
council. In the event that the appointed examiner is unable to perform the duties of office for whatever
reason, or in the event of a vacancy in office, the mayor shall appoint an examiner pro tem who shall
have the authorities herein provided. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.050 Removal.
The examiner or the examiner pro tem may be removed from office at any time by the mayor. (Ord. 4840
§ 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.060 Qualifications.
The examiner and the examiner pro tem shall be appointed solely with regard to their qualifications for the
duties of the office which shall include, but not be limited to, appropriate educational experience such as
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 4 of 17
October 29, 2012
in urban planning, land use law and public administration. Wherever feasible, the mayor shall endeavor to
appoint qualified candidates who reside in the Auburn area. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.070 Examiner pro tempore – Duties.
The examiner pro tem, in the event of the absence or inability of the examiner to act, shall have all the
duties and powers of the examiner. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
shall have the power to perform the duties of the hearing examiner whenever the hearing examiner is
absent, has a conflict of interest, or otherwise so requests.
The qualifications for hearing examiner pro tem are the same as for the hearing examiner.
2.4618.66.080 Hearing examiner – Conflict of interest.
The examiner shall not conduct or participate in any hearing or decision in which the examiner has a
direct or indirect personal interest which might exert such influence upon the examiner that might interfere
with his decision-making process. Any actual or potential conflict of interest shall be disclosed by the
hearing examiner to the parties immediately upon discovery of such conflict.
Participants in the land use regulatory process appearing before the Hearing Examiner have the right,
insofar as possible, to have the examiner free from personal interest or prehearing contracts on land use
regulatory matters considered by him or her. It is recognized that there is a countervailing public right to
free access to public officials on any matter. If such personal or prehearing interest contact impairs the
examiner’s ability to act on the matter, the hearing examiner shall state and shall abstain therefrom to the
end that the proceeding is fair and has the appearance of fairness, unless all parties agree in writing to
have the matter heard by said examiner. If all parties do not agree and the hearing examiner must
abstain, the mayor shall be notified and the mayor shall appoint a hearing examiner shall assign the
matter to a hearing examiner pro tem to sit in the hearing examiner’s stead. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord.
4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.090 Freedom from improper influence.
No council member, city official, or any other person shall attempt to interfere with, or improperly influence
the examiner or examiner pro tempore in the performance of his designated duties. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.66.100 Duties of the examiner – Applications and decisions.
For cases and actions as prescribed by ordinance, the examiner shall receive and examine available
information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record thereof, and enter findings of fact, conclusions
based upon those facts, and a decision. As provided by ordinance, such decision may be a
recommendation or a final action subject to appeal as provided by ordinance. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord.
4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.100110 Applications and appeals.
Applications and appeals requiring a determination by the hearing examiner shall be filed with the
department that has responsibility for the ordinance that is the subject ot the application or
appeal.planning department
A. Within 28 days of receipt of an application the planning department shall determine whether the
application is complete. If complete, the application shall be accepted. If not complete, the planning
department shall request that the applicant provide additional information as necessary to complete the
application. Where applicable, this process shall meet the requirements for completion as set forth in
ACC Title 14.
B. The applicant shall be advised of the date of acceptance of the application and of the
environmental determination, if one is made. The applicant shall be advised of the date of any public
hearing at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. If pursuant to ACC Title 14, an open record
predecision hearing is required and the threshold determination requires public notice pursuant to
Chapter 16.06 ACC, then the threshold determination shall be issued at least 15 days prior to the open
record predecision hearing. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 5 of 17
October 29, 2012
A. Applications requiring a hearing examiner decision shall be scheduled for hearing promptly upon
notification by the that the application is complete and ready for scheduling.
B. Promptly following receipt of a timely appeal, the hearing examiner shall schedule a hearing
consistent with the requirements of the applicable ordinance(s) and these rules.
2.4618.66.110120 Report by planning department.
When a matter identified in section 2.46.035 has been set for public hearing, the responsible department
When such application has been set for public hearing, if required, the planning department shall
coordinate and assemble the comments and recommendations of other city departments and other
governmental agencies having an interest in the subject application and shall prepare a report
summarizing the issues involved, and the responsible department’s findings and recommendation.
planning department findings of fact, recommended conditions and/or recommended action. This report
shall be transmitted to the examiner at least four calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing. Copies of
this report shall be mailed to the applicant prior to the hearing and shall be made available to the public
for the cost of reproduction prior to the scheduled hearing. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.46.120 Burden of proof.
Unless otherwise provided for in the Auburn City Code, the burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner
shall be as follows:
A. Appeal hearings:
The applicant/appellant shall have the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, as to
material factual issues except where applicable City code provisions or state law provide otherwise.
B. Land use application hearings:
For an application to be approved, a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing must
support the conclusion that the application meets the legal decision criteria that apply.
C. Code enforcement hearings:
The City shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a code violation
has occurred and that the proposed corrective action is reasonable.
2.4618.66.130 Public hearing.
A. Before rendering a decision or recommendation on any application for which a public hearing is
required, the examiner shall hold a public hearing thereon. Unless otherwise required by the Auburn City
Code, all hearings conducted by the examiner shall be open record hearings. Notice of the place and time
of the public hearing shall be given as provided in the ordinance governing the application. If none is
specifically set forth, the following notice requirements shall be followed:
1. Be given not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing;
2. Set forth the time, place and purpose of such hearing;
1.3. Be provided in accordance with the requirements of ACC 14.07.040. (Ord. 5811 § 9, 2003; Ord.
4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) such notice shall be given in accordance with ACC
18.70.040
B. The examiner shall have the power to prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct of hearings
under this chapter subject to review by the city council and to administer oaths and preserve order.
C. At the close of the testimony the examiner may close the public hearing, continue the hearing to a
time and date certain, or close the public hearing pending the submission of additional information on or
before a date certain.
D. Until a final action on the application is taken, the examiner may dismiss the application for failure
to diligently pursue the application after notice is given to all parties of record.
E. If a project consists of different actions which require separate hearings to be held for each
action, one consolidated hearing shall be held as required by ACC Title 14. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord.
4229 § 2, 1987.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 6 of 17
October 29, 2012
2.4618.66.140 Examiner’s decision and recommendations – Findings required.
A. Unless the time is extended pursuant to this section, within 10 calendar working days of the
conclusion of a hearing, or the date set for submission of additional information pursuant to this chapter,
the examiner shall render a written decision, including findings from the record and conclusions
therefrom, and shall transmit a copy of such decision by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the applicant
and other parties of record in the case who have requested notice of the decision at the public hearing.
The person mailing the decision shall prepare an affidavit of mailing, in standard form, and the affidavit
shall become a part of the record of the proceeding. In the case of applications requiring city council
approval, the examiner shall transmit his decision to the city council.
B. In extraordinary cases, the time period for filing of the recommendation or the decision of the
examiner may be extended for not more than 20 calendar working days after the conclusion of the
hearing if the examiner finds that the amount and the nature of the evidence to be considered, or receipt
of additional information which cannot be made available within the normal decision period, requires the
extension. Notice of the extension, stating the reasons therefore, shall be sent to all parties of record in
the manner set forth in this section for notification of the examiner’s decision.
When acting on land use matters:
C. Conditions. The examiner’s recommendation or decision may be to grant or deny the application,
or the examiner may require of the applicant such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the
examiner finds necessary to make the application compatible with the environment and carry out the
goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, this title, the land division ordinance, other codes and
ordinances of the city of Auburn, and the approved preliminary plat, if applicable. Conditions,
modifications and restrictions which may be imposed shall be founded in the body of legislation approved
by the city council. Performance bonds may be required to insure compliance with the conditions,
modifications and restrictions.
D. Termination of Decision. The city declares that circumstances surrounding land use decisions
change rapidly over a period of time. In order to assure the compatibility of a decision with current needs
and concerns, any such decision shall be limited in duration, unless the action or improvements
authorized by the decision is implemented promptly. Any application, except a rezone, approved pursuant
to this chapter shall be implemented within two years of such approval unless other time limits are
prescribed elsewhere. Any application which is not so implemented shall terminate at the conclusion of
that period of time and become null and void. The examiner may grant one extension of time for a
maximum of one year for good cause shown. The burden of justification shall rest with the applicant. For
large-scale or phased projects the examiner may at the time of approval or recommendation set forth time
limits for expiration which exceed those prescribed in this section for such extended time limits as are
justified by the record of the action. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.150 Request for reconsideration.
The planning responsible director or an interested party affected by the final decision or recommendation
of the examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based that recommendation or decision on an
erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, or error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which
could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the
examiner within seven calendar days after the written decision of the examiner has been rendered. The
request for reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the
examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the examiner deems proper. The
examiner may request further information argument which shall be provided within 10 calendar days of
the examiner’s request. The examiner’s written decision on the request for consideration shall be
transmitted to all parties of record within 10 calendar working days of receipt of the request for
reconsideration or receipt of the additional information argument requested, whichever is later. The date
of the hearing examiner’s final decision for appeal purposes shall be construed as the date of the hearing
examiner’s decision on the reconsideration request. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 7 of 17
October 29, 2012
2.4618.66.160 Appeal of final decisions.
The planning responsible director or any interested party affected by the examiner's written final decision
may appeal the decision to superior court of the county in which the project is located. (Ord. 6185 § 7,
2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.170 Hearing examiner’s recommendation.
A. For actions requiring the hearing examiner’s recommendation as provided by ordinance, the
examiner’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council within 10 calendar working days of the
examiner’s decision. The recommendation shall be placed on the next agenda of the city council. The city
council upon its review of the record may:
1. Affirm the recommendation;
2. Remand the recommendation to the hearing examiner;
3. Schedule a closed record public hearing before the city council.
B. Any aggrieved person may request the city council to conduct its own closed record hearing.
Upon its own closed record hearing the city council may affirm, reject, modify the hearing examiner’s
recommendation or take whatever action it deems appropriate pursuant to law. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.180 Council action.
Any application requiring action by the city council shall be evidenced by minute entry unless otherwise
required by law. When taking any such final action, the council shall make and enter findings of fact from
the record and conclusions therefrom which support its action. Unless otherwise specified, the city council
shall be presumed to have adopted the hearing examiner’s findings and conclusions.
A. All applications requiring council action shall be placed on the council’s agenda for consideration.
B. The action of the council approving, modifying or rejecting the hearing examiner’s decision or
recommendation shall be final and conclusive, subject to any writ of review pursuant to law. (Ord. 4840 §
1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
2.4618.66.190 Review of chapter by council.
The city council may on an annual basis review the content and effect of this chapter on the city of
Auburn and its citizens. The method of review may include a public hearing open to all interested citizens.
The council after review and consideration shall at that time decide to modify, repeal, or retain all of or
part of this chapter. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
OTHER CODE SECTIONS
Chapter 3.60
SALES OR USE TAX
3.60.036 Construction sales tax exemption.
verification by the city. If the city verifies eligibility, it shall remit eligible taxes paid to the purchaser.
F. Appeals. Any applicant aggrieved by an action of the city concerning eligibility or computation of
remittance under this section may file a written appeal to the city's hearing examiner in accordance with
Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC within 14 calendar days of receipt of the city's decision. The hearing examiner is
specifically authorized to hear and decide such appeals and the decision of the hearing examiner shall be
the final action of the city. (Ord. 6376 § 2, 2011.)
Chapter 3.94
MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
3.94.090 Extension of conditional certificate – Required findings – Denial – Appeal.
B. If an extension is denied, the director shall state in writing the reason for denial and shall send
notice to the owner’s last known address within 10 working days of the denial. An owner may appeal the
denial of an extension to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 14
calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 8 of 17
October 29, 2012
follow the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The hearing examiner’s decision shall be the final
decision of the city and is not subject to further appeal. (Ord. 5779 § 1, 2003.)
3.94.100 Final certificate – Application – Issuance – Denial – Appeal.
G. The owner may appeal the director’s decision to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal
with the city clerk within 14 calendar days after the issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before
the hearing examiner shall follow the provisions for appeal contained in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The
owner may appeal the hearing examiner’s decision to the King County superior court according to the
procedures contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within 30
days of notification by the city to the owner of the decision. (Ord. 5779 § 1, 2003.)
3.94.120 Cancellation of tax exemption – Appeal.
C. Upon determining that a tax exemption shall be cancelled, the director shall notify the property
owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. The property owner may appeal the determination by
filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 30 calendar days after issuance of the decision by the
director, specifying the factual and legal basis for the appeal. The appeal before the hearing examiner
shall follow the procedures set forth in ACC 2.4618.66.09110 through 2.4618.66.1560. At the appeal
hearing, all affected parties may be heard and all competent evidence received. The hearing examiner
shall affirm, modify, or repeal the decision to cancel the exemption based on the evidence received. The
hearing examiner shall give substantial weight to the director’s decision to cancel the exemption, and the
burden of proof and the burden of overcoming the weight accorded to the director’s decision shall be
upon the appellant. An aggrieved party may appeal the hearing examiner’s decision to the King County
superior court in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in
RCW 84.14.110(2), within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner. (Ord. 5779 § 1,
2003.)
Chapter 10.02
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) PLAN
10.02.120 Appeals.
A. Employers may file a written appeal of final administrative decisions regarding the following
actions:
1. Rejection of an employer's proposed CTR program.
2. Denial of an employer's request for a waiver or modification of any of the requirements under this
chapter or a modification of the employer's CTR program.
B. Appeals of the public works director's determinations made pursuant to this chapter must be filed
with the city's public works department within 20 days after the final administrative decision is issued.
Appeals shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
Determinations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was consistent with
applicable state law and the guidelines of the State Task Force. The hearing examiner's determination
shall be final unless appealed to the superior court of the county in which the employer's primary
offices/facilities are located within the city of Auburn in accordance with the procedures in RCW
34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and with the appeal being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after
issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner. (Ord. 6218 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6182 § 1, 2008; Ord. 5246 §
1 (Exh. A), 1999; Ord. 4602 § 2, 1993.)
Chapter 12.24
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
12.24.090 Contest of city engineer’s decision.
Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a construction permit pursuant to this chapter shall
have the right of review by the public works director as follows:
A. All complaints filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the public works director
within 10 working days of the date of the decision being contested;
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 9 of 17
October 29, 2012
B. All complaints filed pursuant to this section shall specify the error of law or fact, or new evidence
which could not have been reasonably available at the time of the city engineer’s decision, which shall
constitute the basis of the complaint;
C. Upon receipt of a timely written notice of complaint, the public works director shall review the
materials submitted and determine whether to uphold or modify the city engineer’s decision. If in the
public works director’s judgment, the city engineer’s decision should be amended in favor of resolving the
complaint, he or she shall so direct the same. If the director upholds the city engineer’s decision, he or
she shall prepare a written staff paper detailing the rationale of the city engineer’s decision and findings of
fact for conduct of a hearing by the hearing examiner;
D. The public works director shall schedule the hearing before the hearing examiner in accordance
with ACC 1.25.090 and Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC and notify the contesting party of the scheduled hearing
in accordance with ACC 18.70.040. (Ord. 5677 § 4, 2002; Ord. 5042 § 1 (Exh. C), 1998.)
Chapter 12.64A
REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
12.64A.060 Appeal and enforcement.
A. Appeals of determinations by the city engineer made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with
the city's public works director within 20 working days after the final city engineer decision is issued. The
public works director shall have 15 working days to review the appeal, decide whether to uphold of modify
the city engineer's decision, and notify the applicant of such decision.
B. Appeals of decisions of the public works director made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with
the public works department within 20 working days after the date of the notice of the public works
director's decision. Appeals shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66
ACC. Decisions of the hearing examiner shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was
consistent with applicable state law and city codes. The hearing examiner's determination shall be final
unless appealed as provided herein.
C. Appeals of decisions of the hearing examiner under this chapter shall be final unless appealed to
the superior court of the county in which the proposed public improvements are located within the city of
Auburn, which appeals shall be in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598;
provided, that the notice of appeal of the hearing examiner's decision shall be filed with the city clerk
within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner.
D. When appealing a determination under this chapter, at any stage of appeal, the
applicant/appellant must indicate if the appeal pertains to:
1. The determination of the required improvements in the public right-of-way;
2. The determination to require or deny a deferral of said improvements; and/or
3. The determination to require the payment of a fee in lieu for a deferral instead of an executed and
recorded agreement.
E. The associated building, grading or special permit shall not be issued until all appeals are
concluded. (Ord. 6182 § 2, 2008; Ord. 6083 § 2, 2007.)
Chapter 13.32A
UNDERGROUND WIRING
13.32A.130 City project process and requirements.
D. Appeal Procedures.
1. A property owner may object to the disconnection and removal of an aerial service connection by
filing a written objection thereto with the city clerk within 30 calendar days after the date of the mailing of
the notice set forth in subsection A of this section. Failure to object within such time will constitute a
waiver of the owner's right thereafter to object to such disconnection and removal.
2. Upon the timely filing by the owner of an objection, the owner shall have the right to file an appeal
of the city engineer's directive, which shall be heard by the city of Auburn hearing examiner.
3. All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the public works director
within 10 working days of the filing date of the owner's written objection and shall specify the error of law
or fact, or new evidence which could not have been reasonably available at the time of the city engineer's
decision, which shall constitute the basis of the complaint.
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 10 of 17
October 29, 2012
4. Upon receipt of a timely written appeal, the public works director shall review the materials
submitted and prepare a written staff report detailing the rationale of the city engineer's directive and
findings of fact for the hearing examiner.
5. The public works director shall schedule the hearing in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC
and notify the contesting party of the scheduled hearing. (Ord. 6238 § 2, 2009.)
Chapter 13.41
UTILITY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
13.41.070 Appeals.
Appeals of the public works director's determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the
public works department and shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66
ACC. Determinations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was consistent
with applicable state law and city codes. The hearing examiner's determination shall be final unless
appealed to the superior court of the county in which the property subject to the utility system
development charges is located within the city of Auburn, in accordance with the procedures in RCW
34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and with the appeal being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after
issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner. (Ord. 6391 § 1, 2011; Ord. 6341 § 1, 2011; Ord. 6182 §
3, 2008; Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 7, 1980.)
Chapter 15.76
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
15.76.040 Appeal procedure.
A. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the commission designating or rejecting a nomination for
designation of a landmark or issuing or denying a certificate of appropriateness may, within 35 calendar
days of mailing notice of such designation or rejection of nomination, or of such issuance or denial or
approval of a certificate of appropriateness, appeal such decision in writing to the hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The written notice of appeal shall be filed with the planning director
and shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal, supporting documents,
and argument.
B. If, after examination of the written appeal and the record, the examiner determines that:
1. An error in fact may exist in the record, it shall remand the proceeding to the commission for
reconsideration or, if the council determines that:
2. The decision of the commission is based on an error in judgment or conclusion, it may modify or
reverse the decision of the commission.
C. The examiner’s decision shall be based solely upon the record; provided, that the examiner may
at his or her discretion publicly request additional information of the appellant, the commission or the
planning director.
D. The examiner shall take final action on any appeal from a decision of the commission by entering
written findings of fact and conclusions of law from the record and reasons therefrom which support its
action. The examiner may adopt all or portions of the commission’s findings and conclusions.
E. The decision of the examiner is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to ACC 18.66.160. An
appeal may also be filed by the King County landmarks and heritage commission to the planning director,
who will forward the appeal to the city council.
F. The action of the city council sustaining, reversing, modifying or remanding a decision of the
examiner shall be final unless within twenty calendar days from the date of the action an aggrieved
person obtains a writ of certiorari from the superior court of King or Pierce County, state of Washington,
for the purpose of review of the action taken. (Ord. 5212 § 1 (Exh. M), 1999; Ord. 4733 § 2, 1995.)
Chapter 16.06
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES
16.06.330 Council review – Limitations for appeals.
A. The decision of the hearing examiner on a threshold determination appeal may be appealed to
the superior court in the county in which the subject property is located, which appeal shall be in
accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.21C.060 and 43.21C.075. Any such appeal allowed by RCW
43.21C.060 and 43.21C.075 must be brought within the time limits specified in ACC 2.4618.66.1560.
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 11 of 17
October 29, 2012
Chapter 16.08
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERMITTING PROCEDURES
16.08.080 Application – Hearing – Required.
A. The hearing examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a shoreline
substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance on shorelines
within the city. The public hearing shall be held not less than 30 days following the final publication of the
notice required by ACC 16.08.050.
B. The notice and conduct of the public hearing shall be in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
(Ord. 6235 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6095 § 1, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4225 § 1, 1987; 1957 code §
11.94.050(a).)
Chapter 16.10
CRITICAL AREAS
16.10.140 Procedural provisions.
A. Interpretation and Conflicts. The director shall have the authority to administer the provisions of
this chapter, to make determinations with regard to the applicability of the regulations, to interpret the
intent of unclear provisions, to require additional information, to determine the level of detail and
appropriate methodologies for critical area reports and studies, to prepare application forms and
informational materials as required, and to promulgate procedures and rules for unique circumstances not
anticipated within standards and procedures contained in this section. Administrative interpretations may
be appealed to the hearing examiner as prescribed in ACC 18.70.050.
B. Penalties and Enforcement. Compliance with these regulations and penalties for their violation
shall be enforced pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.25 ACC.
C. Appeals from Critical Area Review Decisions. Appeals of critical area review decisions shall be
governed by the procedures set forth in ACC 18.70.050. (Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
16.10.150 Reasonable use provision.
A. The standards and requirements of these regulations are not intended, and shall not be
construed or applied in a manner, to deny all reasonable use of private property. If an applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the hearing examiner that strict application of these standards would
deny all reasonable use of a property, development may be permitted subject to appropriate conditions.
B. Applications for a reasonable use exception shall be processed as a Type III decision, pursuant
to ACC 14.03.030 and Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
C. An applicant for relief from strict application of these standards shall demonstrate that all of the
following criteria are met:
1. No reasonable use with less impact on the critical area and its buffer is possible.
There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activities proposed, considering possible
changes in site layout, reductions in density and similar factors, that would allow a reasonable and
economically viable use with fewer adverse impacts;
2. The proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the minimum possible impacts to affected
critical areas;
3. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or assured;
4. The inability to derive reasonable use is not the result of the applicant's actions or that of a
previous property owner, such as by segregating or dividing the property and creating an undevelopable
condition; and
5. The applicant shall demonstrate that the use would not cause a hazard to life, health or property.
D. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to provide evidence in support of the application
and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made.
E. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for any other permit or
approval otherwise required for a proposal by applicable city codes.
F. Except when application of this title would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who
seeks an exception from the regulations of the title shall pursue a variance as provided in ACC 16.10.160.
(Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 12 of 17
October 29, 2012
16.10.160 Variances.
Applications for variances to the strict application of the terms of this chapter to a property may be
submitted to the city. Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, may
be granted by the director as a Type II decision as defined by Chapter 14.03 ACC. Variances requests
which exceed 10 percent may be granted by the hearing examiner as a Type III decision, pursuant to
ACC 14.03.030 and Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. Approval of variances from the strict application of the
critical area requirements shall conform to the following criteria:
A. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which makes
it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section;
B. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access;
C. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the
proposal does not create or increase a risk to the public health, safety and general welfare, or to public or
private property;
D. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining;
E. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized; and
F. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the actions of
the applicant or previous owner. (Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
16.10.170 Special exception for public agencies and utilities.
A. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or
public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this section.
B. Exception Request and Review Process. An application for a public agency and utility exception
shall be made to the city and shall include a critical area identification form; critical area report, including
mitigation plan, if necessary; and any other related project documents such as permit applications to
other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW). The director shall prepare a recommendation to the
hearing examiner based on review of the submitted information, a site inspection, and the proposal's
ability to comply with public agency and utility exception review criteria in subsection D of this section.
C. Hearing Examiner Review. The hearing examiner shall review the application and director's
recommendation, and conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the
proposal's ability to comply with all of the public agency and utility exception criteria in subsection D of
this section.
D. Public Agency and Utility Review Criteria. The criteria for review and approval of public agency
and utility exceptions follow:
1. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on critical
areas;
2. The application of this chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to
the public;
3. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or
off the development proposal site;
4. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values
consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
E. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support
of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the
application. (Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.)
Chapter 17.06
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS
17.06.030 Administrative review.
A boundary line adjustment shall be reviewed in accordance with ACC Title 14 as a Type I decision.
A. The planning director shall forward copies of the proposed boundary line adjustment plan to the
building official, public works department and fire authority, who shall review the plan and submit
comments to the planning director.
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 13 of 17
October 29, 2012
B. Following receipt of the comments of those consulted under subsection A of this section, the
planning director shall approve or deny the requested boundary line adjustment. Following a decision, the
director shall notify the applicant to file a final Mylar drawing for signatures. The Mylar shall be transmitted
to the appropriate county office for recording. The boundary line adjustment must be recorded within 30
days or the boundary line adjustment shall be null and void. A recorded Mylar copy shall be provided to
the city.
C. An aggrieved person may appeal the director's decision on a boundary line adjustment, within 14
days of mailing the director's decision, to the hearing examiner, in accordance with procedures prescribed
in ACC 18.70.050(B) through (E). The hearing examiner's decision shall be final unless appealed to
superior court as prescribed in ACC 2.4618.66.1560. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 14, 2008; Ord.
6061 § 5, 2006; Ord. 6006 § 4, 2006; Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.
Formerly 17.16.030)
Chapter 17.10
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONS
17.10.050 Hearing examiner review of preliminary plats.
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC, the hearing examiner shall within 14
calendar days of the closure of the public hearing approve, deny, or approve with conditions the
preliminary plat. The hearing examiner shall not recommend approval of the preliminary plat unless he
finds the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the findings of fact as outlined in ACC 17.10.070.
B. Pursuant to the provisions of ACC 2.4618.66.150, the planning director or any interested party
affected by the recommendation of the examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based that
recommendation on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of
new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for
review by the examiner within seven calendar days after the written decision of the examiner has been
rendered. The request for reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant,
and the examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the examiner deems proper. The
examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 14 calendar days of the
examiner's request. The examiner's written decision on the request for consideration shall be transmitted
to all parties of record within 14 calendar days of receipt of the request for reconsideration or receipt of
the additional information requested, whichever is later. (Ord. 6418 § 6, 2012; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord.
6186 § 4, 2008; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.050.)
Chapter 17.20
SUBDIVISION ALTERATIONS
17.20.030 Public hearing.
The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 2.4618.66.1230 on the application
for an alteration and may approve or deny the application for alteration of the subdivision after
determining the public use and interest to be served by the alteration of the subdivision. (Ord. 6239 § 1,
2009; Ord. 6186 § 17, 2008; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.22.030.)
Chapter 17.22
SUBDIVISION VACATIONS
17.22.030 Public hearing.
The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 2.4618.66.1230 on the application
for a vacation and may recommend to the council to approve or deny the application for vacation of the
subdivision after determining the public use and interest to be served by the vacation of the subdivision.
The council shall adopt by ordinance any approval of a vacation pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 6239 § 1,
2009; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.20.030.)
Chapter 19.06
FIRE IMPACT FEE
19.06.080 Appeals.
A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a
building permit. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 14 of 17
October 29, 2012
made by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal submitted
under protest shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have been paid. Alternatively,
any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the fees,
providing the applicant is willing to provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee amount in
accordance with the requirements of ACC 17.14.010(A) prior to issuance of the building permit.
Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the
fees, provided the applicant is willing to postpone issuance of the building permit until after the appeal
process when the revised final fee is known.
B. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given
development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision with respect to the
independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant
to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner.
C. Appeals shall be taken within 10 days of the director's issuance of a written determination by filing
with the office of the hearing examiner a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof and depositing
the necessary fee, which is set forth in the existing fee schedules for appeals of administrative decisions.
The director shall transmit to the office of the hearing examiner all papers constituting the record for the
determination, including, where appropriate, the independent fee calculation.
D. The hearing examiner shall fix a time for the hearing of the appeal, give notice to the parties in
interest, and decide the same as provided in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. At the hearing, any party may
appear in person or by agent or attorney.
E. The hearing examiner is authorized to make findings of fact regarding the applicability of the
impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or amount of the credit, or the accuracy or
applicability of an independent fee calculation. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final, except
as provided in subsection (G) of this section.
F. The hearing examiner may, so long as such action is in conformance with the provisions of this
chapter, reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the determinations of the director with
respect to the amount of the impact fees imposed or the credit awarded upon a determination that it is
proper to do so based on principles of fairness, and may make such order, requirements, decision or
determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have the powers which have been granted to
the director by this chapter.
G. Any feepayer aggrieved by any decision of the office of the hearing examiner may appeal the
hearing examiner's final decision as provided in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977
§ 1, 2005.)
Chapter 18.46A TEMPORARY USES
18.46A.040 Appeals of decisions.
Appeals of administrative decisions issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be made to the city
of Auburn hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC, as amended.
Appeals of the hearing examiner decision may be appealed in accordance with applicable provisions of
Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6268 § 2, 2009.)
Chapter 18.49 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
18.49.090 Appeals.
Appeals of administrative decisions regarding eligibility for flexible development shall be made to the
hearing examiner as outlined in Chapters 2.4618.66 and 18.70 ACC. (Ord. 6245 § 19, 2009.)
Chapter 18.62 SURFACE MINING
18.62.030 Permit.
Any surface m ining of material shall only be allowed after a surface mining operations permit has been
issued, after a public hearing. A request for a surface mining operations permit shall be heard by the
hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The hearing examiner's
approval of the permit may require mitigating conditions of approval as well as financial guarantees to
ensure compliance with the permit and the provisions of this chapter. The hearing examiner's
determination shall be final unless appealed to the superior court in which the subject property is located,
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 15 of 17
October 29, 2012
and which appeal shall be in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and
with the appeal being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing
examiner. Determinations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was
consistent with applicable state law and city codes.
18.62.080 Years of operation.
A. At the initial approval of an operations permit a master permit will be given for the lifetime of the
mineral resource at the mining site. These mines must be located within the city’s comprehensive plan
designated mineral resource areas. Mines located outside the city’s comprehensive plan designated
mineral resource areas may be granted a permit for up to 10 years and may be renewed but will be
treated as a new application.
B. Operations under a master permit must be reviewed by the planning director at the end of each
subsequent 10 years. The operator of the mine must submit to the planning director, at least six months
prior to the end of each 10-year period, evidence that the mining operation is in compliance with the
conditions of the master permit and the standards contained within this chapter. This evidence shall
include the submittal of the existing topography in a computer disk form that is compatible with the city’s
system. The operator shall also provide an estimate of the amount of material that has been removed, an
estimate of when mining is to be complete, identification of any areas where mining has been completed
and whether restoration has begun or is anticipated to begin.
C. The master permit shall remain in effect if it is found the operations are in compliance with the
conditions of the master permit, the standards contained within this chapter, and there have been no
significant adverse impacts that have occurred that were not previously identified and effectively
mitigated.
D. If the planning director determines that operations are not in compliance with the conditions of the
master permit or the standards contained within this chapter, or that significant adverse impacts have
resulted from the operation and have not been mitigated, then the planning director shall so advise the
mining operator in writing within 90 days from receipt of the materials provided by the mining operator
under subsection B of this section. If the planning director determines that operations are not in
compliance with the conditions of the master permit, the planning director shall advise the mining operator
of any noncompliance and proposed corrections/revisions, including a time frame during which such
corrections/revisions are to be made. If significant adverse impacts have occurred that were not
previously identified and mitigated, the planning director shall advise the mining operator of any required
corrections/revisions to the master permit to include such mitigation. If new operation standards have
been adopted pursuant to this chapter the planning director shall advise the mining operator of any
required revisions to the master permit to reflect the new standards, if determined applicable and practical
by the planning director.
The mining operator shall have 90 days from receipt of the planning director’s notice under this
subsection to make the required corrections/revisions or to appeal the planning director’s decision to the
hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The hearing examiner may affirm, modify, or
disaffirm the planning director’s determination. If the mining operator does not appeal the planning
director’s determination then the mining operator shall make the corrections/revisions proposed by the
planning director and the master permit shall be modified to incorporate the revisions/corrections. If the
mining operator does not make the corrections/revisions as required by the city then the building official
shall proceed with enforcement action under Chapter 1.25 ACC.
E. If permits for mines located outside the city’s comprehensive plan designated mineral resource
area are not renewed then the surface mining operations shall cease and the mine reclaimed pursuant to
the requirements of Chapter 78.44 RCW . (Ord. 5060 § 1, 1998.)
Chapter 18.64 ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.64.020 Process.
A. Administrative Use Permits. An application for an administrative use permit shall be reviewed in
accordance with ACC Title 14 as a Type II decision, subject to the additional provisions of this section.
The planning director or designee shall make the final decision unless the application is forwarded to the
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 16 of 17
October 29, 2012
hearing examiner pursuant to subsection (A)(2) of this section, in which case the hearing examiner will
make the final decision.
1. Additional Public Notice Requirements. Administrative use permits for uses in the following zones
shall be subject to the additional public notice requirements in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this
section: R-C residential conservancy zone, C-N neighborhood shopping district, C-1 light commercial
district, C-2 neighborhood business district, C-3 heavy commercial district, M-1 light manufacturing
district, M-2 heavy manufacturing district, BP business park district:
a. The mailing radius requirement of ACC 14.07.040(A) shall be increased to 500 feet; and
b. In addition to the methods of providing notice required by ACC 14.07.040, public notice shall be
posted on the city's website.
2. Following the public comment period provided for in ACC Title 14, the planning director or
designee shall:
a. Review the information in the record and render a decision pursuant to the procedural
requirements of ACC Title 14; or
b. Within 10 days following the close of the public comment period, forward the application to the
hearing examiner for a public hearing and final decision in accordance with Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC if the
planning director or designee determines that one or more of the following exists:
i. Public comments indicate a substantial degree of concern, controversy, or opposition to the
proposal; or
ii. A public hearing is necessary to address issues of vague, conflicting, or inadequate information;
or
iii. The application raises a sensitive or controversial public policy issue; or
iv. A public hearing might clarify issues involved in the permit decision.
c. When a public hearing before the hearing examiner is deemed necessary by the planning director
or designee:
i. The city shall provide written notice to the applicant within 10 days following the closing of the
public comment period that the application is being forwarded to the hearing examiner for public hearing
and decision pursuant to the procedural requirements of this chapter. The notice shall specify the reason
the application is being forwarded to the hearing examiner;
ii. Processing of the application shall not proceed until any supplemental permit review fees set forth
in the city of Auburn fee schedule are received; and
iii. The application shall be deemed withdrawn if the supplemental fees are not received within 30
days of the applicant notification by the city.
18.64.055 Appeals.
A. Administrative Use Permits. Any affected party may appeal the planning director's final decision
to the hearing examiner as provided for in Chapters 14.13 and 18.70 ACC. If the planning director
forwards an application to the hearing examiner for a public hearing and decision pursuant to ACC
18.64.020(A)(2)(b), a request for reconsideration and/or appeal of the hearing examiner's final decision
may be submitted as provided for in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. The planning director's decision to forward
an application to the hearing examiner for public hearing and decision may not be appealed.
B. Conditional Use Permits. Any affected party may submit a request for reconsideration and/or
appeal the hearing examiner's final decision as provided for in Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6269 § 22,
2009.)
Chapter 18.68 AMENDMENTS
18.68.030 Public hearing process.
A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the
planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all amendments to this title. The
planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council who may or may not conduct a
public hearing.
B. Zoning Map Amendments.
1. Rezones Initiated by an Applicant Other Than City. All applications for a rezone shall be reviewed
by the planning director prior to the scheduling of a public hearing. After review of the application, the
director shall determine which of the following two processes should occur to properly hear the rezone:
Ordinance No. XXXX- DRAFT Page 17 of 17
October 29, 2012
a. If the rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the hearing examiner shall conduct
a public hearing on the rezone and make a recommendation to the city council pursuant to ACC
2.4618.66.1670;
b. If the rezone is in conflict with the comprehensive plan, or there are no policies that relate to the
rezone, or the policies are not complete, then a comprehensive plan amendment must be approved by
the city council prior to the rezone being scheduled for a public hearing in front of the hearing examiner.
The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment and
make a recommendation to the city council.
2. Areawide Zoning and Rezoning, Initiated by the City. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. If applicable, a comprehensive plan
amendment may also be processed.
C. City Council Decision. The city council may affirm, modify or disaffirm any recommendation of the
planning commission or hearing examiner with regard to amendments of the text or map of this title. (Ord.
6198 § 4, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Chapter 18.70 VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
18.70.050 Administrative appeals.
Appeals from any administrative decision made under this title may be appealed to the hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
A. Any person wishing to appeal an administrative decision shall first render in writing a request for
an administrative decision from the appropriate city official. The city official shall issue in writing a decision
within five working days of the written request.
B. If the requester seeks to appeal that decision to the hearing examiner, any such appeal shall be
filed with the planning director within 14 days of mailing the city’s written decision. The city shall extend
the appeal period for an additional seven days for appeals that are accompanied by a final mitigated
determination of nonsignificance or final EIS.
C. The planning director shall notify any other city official that may be affected by the appeal.
D. The appeal shall then be processed in the same manner as any other application for a hearing
examiner decision pursuant to Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
E. The examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 18.70.040 and consider any facts
pertinent to the appeal. The examiner may affirm the decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse
the decision if the decision is:
1. In violation of constitutional provisions;
2. In excess of the authority of the official;
3. Made upon an unlawful procedure;
4. Affected by other error of law;
5. Clearly erroneous; or
6. Arbitrary or capricious. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.70.060 Appeal of hearing examiner's decision.
The hearing examiner's decisions may be appealed to superior court in the manner prescribed by
Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC. (Ord. 6185 § 10, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Chapter 18.76 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) – LAKELAND HILLS SOUTH
18.76.130 Hearing examiner review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC the hearing examiner shall conduct a public
hearing on all requests for a major amendment to a PUD. The examiner’s decision shall be in the form of
a recommendation to the city council. (Ord. 5092 § 1, 1998.)
Notification for 60-Day Review
of Development Regulation Amendment
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the following hereby provides 60-day notice of intent to adopt the following
development regulation amendments.
Jurisdiction Name:
City of Auburn
Address: 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Date: July 17, 2012
Contact Name for Ordinance: Stuart Wagner, Planner
Phone Number: (253) 804-5031
Fax Number: (253) 804-3114
E-Mail Address: swagner@auburnwa.gov
Brief Description of the
Proposed Development
Regulation Amendment:
Check the box if this is
Supplemental Material for an existing
amendment already submitted to
CTED. Please also provide the date
submitted and/or CTED Material ID
number.
Group 2 of Phase 2 Code Amendments to Title 18 -
Zoning, of the Auburn City Code.
The Code Update Project began in September 2008 and is
progressing in two phases. Phase 1, completed in June of
2009, updated the City’s residential-related zoning districts
(Title 18 ACC) and subdivision code (Title 17 ACC). Phase 2
updates the City’s non-residential related zones (Title 18
ACC). The proposal under Phase 2 - Grouping 2 will add
new definitions, consolidate many chapters that currently
regulate the City’s non-residential zones (uses and
development standards), creates a new Chapter containing
standards for specific land uses and moves the Hearing
Examiner chapter out of Title 18 - Zoning and into Title 2 –
Administration and Personnel.
Planned Public Hearing Date: August 21, 2012
Planned Date of Adoption: September, 2012
Please Attach a Draft of the
Proposed Amendment. See Attachments
Dear Mr. Wagner:
Planner
City of Auburn Planning Department
25 W Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as
required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural
requirement.
July 23, 2012
Stuart Wagner
City of Auburn - Proposed code updates, including new definitions, consolidated chapters that
regulate the City’s non-residential zones (uses and development standards), creates a new Chapter
containing standards for specific land uses, etc. (Group 2, Phase 2 updates). These materials were
received on July 17, 2012 and processed with the Material ID # 18271.
We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies.
If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you
have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106.
If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment, then final adoption may occur no earlier than sixty
days following the date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment
to Commerce within ten days of adoption.
If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov,
or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048.
Sincerely,
Review Team
Growth Management Services