HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-2012 Agenda Packet
Planning and Community Development
December 10, 2012 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - November 26, 2012* (Snyder)
III.ACTION
A. Ordinance No. 6442* (Wagner)
Request Committee motion action to recommend to full City Council approval of
Ordinance No. 6442.
B. Ordinance No. 6440 - 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (Dixon)
Request for Committee motion action to recommend to full City Council approval of
Ordinance No. 6440.
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Resolution No. 4881* (Mund)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the
renewal of PWA 99-02 and amending the terms of the agreement between the Olympic
Pipeline Company and the City of Auburn.
B. Ordinance No. 6445 - School Impact Fees* (Dixon)
Request for Committee review and discussion of the proposed 2013 school impact fees
for Auburn School District, Dieringer School District, Federal Way School District and
Kent School District.
C. Review Arterial Street Needs* (Dowdy)
D. Director's Report (Snyder)
E. PCDC Matrix* (Snyder)
V.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review at the
City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Minutes - November 26, 2012
Date:
November 29, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
November 26, 2012 draft minutes
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
See attached minutes.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:CA.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.B Page 2 of 159
Planning and Community
Development
November 26, 2012 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Partridge called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. in Annex
Conference Room 2 located on the second floor of One Main Professional
Plaza, One East Main Street, Auburn, Washington.
A. Roll Call
Vice-Chair Partridge and Member John Holman were present. Chair
Backus was excused. Also present were Mayor Pete Lewis; Planning
and Development Director Kevin Snyder; Finance Director Shelley
Coleman; Arts, Parks and Recreation Director Daryl Faber; Senior
Planner Stuart Wagner; Economic Development Manager Doug Lein;
Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain; Principal Planner Jeff
Dixon; Arts & Events Manager Julie Brewer, Arts Coordinator Maija
McKnight, Theater Operations Coordinator Jim Kleinbeck; and
Planning Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the Audience present: Scott Pondeleck, Councilmember
Wagner, Auburn Arts Commission members DeNae McGee, Greg
Watson (Chair), Heidi Harris, and Patricia Judd.
B. Announcements
C. Agenda Modifications
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - November 13, 2012 (Snyder)
Member Holman moved and Vice-Chair seconded to approve the
November 13, 2012 minutes as written.
Motion Carried Unanimously. 2-0
III. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Ordinance No. 6421 (Coleman)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington,
amending Ordinance No. 6339, the 2011-2012 Biennial Budget
Ordinance as amended by Ordinance No. 6351, Ordinance No. 6352,
Ordinance No. 6362, Ordinance No. 6370, Ordinance No. 6378,
Page 1 of 5
CA.B Page 3 of 159
Ordinance No. 6379, Ordinance No. 6400, and Ordinance No. 6410,
authorizing amendment to the City of Auburn 2011-2012 Budget as set
forth in schedule "A" and schedule "B".
Finance Director Shelley Coleman reviewed Ordinance No. 6421,
2011 - 2012 Biennium Budget Amendment No. 9 with Committee. This
amendment will clean up items at the end of this biennium. Finance
Director Coleman provided an overview of revenue and expenditure
items from Schedule “A” and Schedule “B”.
There were no questions from the Committee; Committee was
supportive of Ordinance No. 6421.
B. Financial Options Available to the City of Auburn (Coleman)
The Finance Department will present additional revenue options for
Council discussion and consideration.
Finance Director Coleman provided the Committee with a handout; the
2012 AWC Tax and User Fee Survey showing Municipal Business
Regulatory Taxes, number of employee fees (head tax), and square
footage tax for King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties.
Committee and staff reviewed the Cities of Bellevue's and Kent’s taxes
and fees and how they were calculated.
Committee and staff discussed the four sectors the City can charge a
square footage fee to and a combination of options that could be
implemented.
Committee discussed the difference between the Business Regulatory
Fees and a B&O Tax. Mayor Lewis pointed out that the Municipal
Services Committee requested staff look at a 1% increase on utilities,
taking cable to the maximum 6%, and charging a $20.00 annual car
tab fee to raise additional funds. Mayor Lewis stated Director Coleman
will provide each Councilmember with the totals these increases could
generate after the data is calculated.
Committee and staff discussed the cost of administrating a B&O tax
and other business regulatory fees; Committee concurred the
administrative fees for a B&O tax would be more costly.
Committee and staff discussed the current condition of the arterial
streets and the preservation needed due to their deteriorated
state. Mayor Lewis pointed out that preservation of the arterials would
cost less than rebuilding the roadways. Public Works Director Dowdy
reviewed the Arterial/Collector Street Funding scenarios chart.
Currently the City dedicates 1.5M for the preservation of the arterial
and collector streets annually. At the current rate of funding
Page 2 of 5
CA.B Page 4 of 159
deterioration of the roads is occurring faster than repairs can be made;
within five years the average system pavement condition index (PCI)
will be down to 35 if more investment is not done (staff would like the
PCI to be at 70 within 20 years). The investment curve needs to be
increased in order to stabilize the arterial roads. The current annual
investment is $1.5M; staff is requesting a target of 20 years at 6.2M
per year to bring the PCI to 70.
Committee and staff discussed which of the scenarios are
Councilmatic and which require voter approval. A tab fee greater
than $20.00 and Metropolitan Park District require a voter approval; all
other financial options are Councilmatic.
Vice-Chair Partridge suggested the Committee should review the
options provided and put together recommendations or questions for
staff on how to best get to the goal of $5.M in funding.
C. COA Code Update Project, Phase 2 Group 2 - Amendments to Auburn
City Code (Hearing Examiner Chapter) (Wagner)
Senior Planner Stuart Wagner reviewed the Phase 2 Group 2 City of
Auburn Code proposed code updates related to the Hearing
Examiner. 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 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. Committee and staff
reviewed other changes to the chapter recommended by the City's
Legal Department and Hearing Examiner.
Committee was supportive of these changes.
Senior Planner Wagner stated this item will be brought back in
ordinance form for action before going to City Council.
D. 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Dixon)
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon provided an overview of the proposed
annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Planning Commission
recommendations, and the one remaining private map amendment
from the November 20, 2012 hearing (Item CPM #3 (File No. CPA12-
0003).
Committee and staff discussed the Scrivener’s error that was made in
Page 3 of 5
CA.B Page 5 of 159
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #5, CPA07-0002 and City
Ordinance No. 6138 from 2007. The application that was recently
submitted (CPM #3, File No. CPA12-0003) does not involve the
properties that contain the error in its designation, it is adjacent.
Committee discussed the Planning Commission’s recommendations of
denial of CPM #3, File No. CPA12-0003. Principal Planner Dixon
pointed out that reasons for denial from the Planning Commission was
the concern that if the change was made (on this application) from
‘single family residential’ to ‘high density residential’ a continual creep
of property designation may continue to be approved due to the
precedence set in this case. The Planning Commission also cited a
concern of an increase of traffic if approved.
E. Director's Report (Snyder)
There was no director's report.
F. PCDC Matrix (Snyder)
Committee and staff reviewed the matrix. There were no changes or
additions requested.
G. Presentation - Art's Commission Annual Report (Brewer/McKnight)
Arts & Events Manager Julie Brewer and Arts Coordinator Maija
McKnight provided an update on the activities of the Auburn Arts
Commission. The Arts Commission is a 12 member advisory board
working to advance the arts in Auburn with the goal of integrating the
arts into all aspects of community life. Staff highlighted several
programs: performing arts, visual arts, literary arts, and public art.
The show revenue from the September 2011 – July 2012 season was
$104,000.00 serving a total audience of 10,398. The Arts Commission
continues to work cross departmentally to assist with projects and
events.
The Arts Commission continues work to advocate and support local
artists and art organizations expanding many of the current programs
in 2012. This year the Auburn Storefront, Pianos on Parade, Outdoor
Sculpture Gallery, and the Temporary Art Installation programs were a
big success.
Community programming related to Pride and Prejudice will take place
in 2013 and the Art’s Commission will continue preplanning for the
2014 performing arts season with the Performing Arts Center
construction closure. The 1% art ordinance will be refined this year
and a brochure to encourage private development of public artwork
will be created. Arts & Events Manager Julie Brewer reviewed Arts
Page 4 of 5
CA.B Page 6 of 159
funding and grant awards.
Committee thanked the Arts Commission and staff for their dedication
and efforts to expand and advance the arts, arts education, and public
art interaction within the community.
Arts & Evens Manager Julie Brewer invited everyone to the Auburn
Avenue Theater at 7:00 p.m. this evening for the Auburn Sculpture
Gallery’s opening dedication and reception.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and
Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:31
p.m.
DATED THIS _____ day of _____________, 2012.
______________________________
Nancy Backus - Chair
______________________________
Tina Kriss - Planning Secretary
Page 5 of 5
CA.B Page 7 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6442
Date:
November 29, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6442
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend the City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 6442.
Background Summary:
The proposed amendments (Phase 2, Group 2 - Hearing Examiner Chapter) is a staff initiated
amemdment that 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
On October 2, 2012 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code
amendments. At the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission made a motion
recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the proposed code amendments as
recommended by staff. Since the public hearing, the code amendments have been reviewed by
the Planning and Community Development Committee. The Committee did not have any
comments on the amendments presented at its November 26, 2012 regular meeting.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Planning, Legal, Planning Commission
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Wagner
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:ACT.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.A Page 8 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 1 of 30
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 4 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTIONS
3.60.036, 3.94.090, 3.94.100, 3.94.120, 10.02.120,
12.24.090, 12.64A.060, 13.32A.130, 13.41.070, 15.76.040,
16.06.330, 16.08.080, 16.10.150, 16.10.160, 16.10.170,
17.06.030, 17.10.050, 17.20.030, 17.22.030, 18.46A.040,
18.49.090, 18.62.030, 18.62.080, 18.64.020, 18.64.055,
18.68.030, 18.70.050, 18.70.060, 18.76.130 AND 19.06.080
OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE; AND AMENDING AND
RELOCATING CHAPTER 18.64 TO A NEW CHAPTER,
2.46 TO THE AUBURN CITY CODE; ALL RELATING TO
THE OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code
are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development needs and
standards of the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning code amendments recodifies Chapter 18.66 –
Hearing Examiner, moving it from Title 18 – Zoning and into Title 2 – Administrative and
Personnel. It 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 amending the timelines in
which written decisions by the hearing examiner are given.; and
WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Auburn Planning Commission
held a public hearing on November 7, 2012, on the proposed code amendments
regarding the Hearing Examiner; and
WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the
public hearing, on November 7, 2012, the Planning Commission made its
recommendations for code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and
ACT.A Page 9 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 2 of 30
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning
Commission recommendations; and
WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in
accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a
final determination of non-significance (DNS) issued July 16, 2012; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code
amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth
Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state
review; and
WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments
have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments improve the
readability and use of the City Code and improves the City’s development review
process.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Section 3.60.036 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
3.60.036 Construction sales tax exemption.
A. 1. The following purchasers in the eligible target business class who have paid the tax
imposed by this chapter on construction materials, fixed equipment, or machinery installation, or
on sales of or charges made for labor and services rendered in respect to such construction or
installation of such machinery or equipment, are eligible for an exemption as provided for in this
section: for property zoned downtown urban center (DUC), C-3 (heavy commercial district), and
C-4 (mixed-use commercial), purchases directly related to the construction of new commercial
buildings or redevelopment of existing vacant buildings 25,000 square feet or greater or
ACT.A Page 10 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 3 of 30
expansion of existing commercial buildings that creates new or expanded building floor area
that generates sales tax revenue.
2. For property zoned downtown urban center (DUC), purchases directly related to the
construction of new commercial buildings less than 25,000 square feet, or redevelopment of
existing buildings less than 25,000 square feet, where the cost of the improvement is at least 25
percent of the current assessed value of the improvements on the property pursuant to the
assessment records of King or Pierce County, as applicable.
3. For property zoned M-1 (light industrial district), M-2 (heavy industrial district) and EP
(environmental park district), purchases directly related to the construction of new commercial
buildings, redevelopment of existing buildings that result in a change of occupancy from
warehouse use to manufacturing use, or redevelopment of existing buildings where the cost of
the improvement is at least 25 percent of the current assessed value of the improvements on
the property pursuant to the assessment records of King or Pierce County, as applicable.
B. Beginning on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section through a date
four years after the effective date, a purchaser is eligible for an exemption specified under this
section from the local sales and use tax paid under this chapter, as authorized under RCW
82.14.030(2), up to a maximum of 20 percent of taxes imposed and paid to the city of Auburn
not to exceed $100,000. The purchaser is eligible for an exemption under this section in the
form of a refund.
C. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
1. "Change of occupancy" means a change of the purpose for which a building is used
or intended to be used. The term shall also include the building or portion thereof in which such
change of occupancy is made. Change of occupancy is not intended to include change of
tenants or proprietors.
2. "Commercial building" means a structure that has, as its primary purpose, a
commercial use as that term is defined in ACC 18.04.240.
3. "Expansion" means to add to the floor area of a building.
4. "Purchaser" means a person or entity that is the recipient of a good or service.
D. Eligible Target Business Classes.
1. The construction sales tax exemption specified in subsection (A)(1) of this section
shall only apply to those businesses engaged in normal business activities under the following
classifications of businesses occurring within the specified zoning designations:
a. General Merchandise, Warehouse Club, SuperCenter – Sales Tax Classification
Code 45291;
b. Building Materials and Garden Home Center – Sales Tax Classification Code
44411;
c. Electronics and Appliances – Sales Tax Classification Code 44311;
d. Full Service Restaurants – Sales Tax Classification Code 722110;
e. New and Used Automobile and Light Utility Truck Dealers – Sales Tax
Classification Code 44110;
f. Bowling Centers – Sales Tax Classification Code 713950;
g. Motion Picture Theaters (excluding drive-in theaters) – Sales Tax Classification
Code 512131; and
h. Hotels – Sales Tax Classification Code 72110.
2. The construction sales tax exemptions specified in subsections (A)(2) and (3) of this
section shall apply to all businesses located in the DUC, EP, M-1, and M-2 zoning districts as
set forth in those subsections.
E. Application for Refund.
ACT.A Page 11 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 4 of 30
1. A purchaser claiming an exemption and applying for a refund under this section must
pay the tax imposed by ACC 3.60.020. The purchaser may then apply to the city for a refund in
a form and manner prescribed by the city and shall submit information that the city deems
adequate to justify the exemption, including but not limited to:
a. Identification of the vendor/contractor;
b. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code under which the tax
was reported;
c. Name and Unified Business Identifier (UBI) number of the vendor/contractor on
the Combined Excise Tax Return filed with the state of Washington; and
d. Detailed information supporting the amounts reported under the State Use and
Sales Tax section of the above report for Location Codes 1702 and 2724.
2. A purchaser may not apply for a refund under this section more frequently than once
per quarter. The purchaser must specify the amount of exempted tax claimed and the qualifying
purchases for which the exemption is claimed. The purchaser must retain all records provided to
the city in making its claim.
3. The city shall determine eligibility under this section based on the information
provided by the purchaser, which is subject to audit 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.)
Section 2. Amendment to City Code. That Section 3.94.090 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
3.94.090 Extension of conditional certificate – Required findings – Denial – Appeal.
A. The conditional certificate may be extended by the director for a period not to exceed 24
consecutive months. The owner shall submit a written request stating the grounds for the
extension together with a fee of $500.00 for the city’s administrative cost to process the request.
The director may grant an extension if the director finds that:
1. The anticipated failure to complete construction within the required time period is due
to circumstances beyond the control of the owner; and
2. The owner has been acting, and could reasonably be expected to continue to act, in
good faith and with due diligence; and
3. All the conditions of the original contract between the owner and the city will be
satisfied upon completion of the project.
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 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.)
ACT.A Page 12 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 5 of 30
Section 3. Amendment to City Code. That Section 3.94.100 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
3.94.100 Final certificate – Application – Issuance – Denial – Appeal.
A. Upon completion of the construction as provided in the contract between the owner and
the city, and upon issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, or a permanent certificate
of occupancy if no temporary certificate is issued, the owner may request a final certificate of tax
exemption. The owner shall file with the director such information as the director may deem
necessary or useful to evaluate eligibility for the final certificate, which shall at a minimum
include:
1. An audited statement of expenditures made with respect to each multifamily housing
unit and the total expenditures made with respect to the entire property, including total project
costs, which statement shall be approved by the city of Auburn finance director.
2. A description of the completed work and a statement of qualification for the
exemption.
3. A statement that the work was completed within the required three-year period or
any approved extension; and
B. At the time of application for final certificate under this section the owner shall pay to the
city a fee of $50.00 to cover the city’s administrative costs.
C. Within 30 calendar days of receipt of all materials required for a final certificate, the
director shall determine whether the completed work is consistent with the contract between the
city and owner, whether all or a portion of the completed work is qualified for exemption under
this chapter and, if so, which specific improvements satisfy the requirements of this chapter.
D. If the director determines that the project has been completed in accordance with the
contract between the owner and the city and the requirements of this chapter, the city shall file a
final certificate of tax exemption with the assessor within 10 calendar days of the expiration of
the 30-calendar-day period provided under subsection C of this section.
E. The director is authorized to cause to be recorded or to require the owner or owners to
record in the real property records of the appropriate office of the county in which the property is
located, the contract with the city required under ACC 3.94.050, or such other document(s) as
will identify such terms and conditions of eligibility for exemption under this chapter as the
director deems appropriate for recording.
F. The director shall notify the owner in writing that the city will not file a final certificate if
the director determines that the project was not completed within the required three-year period
or any approved extension, or was not completed in accordance with the contract between the
owner and the city and the requirements of this chapter, or the owner’s property is otherwise not
qualified for the limited exemption under this chapter.
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.)
ACT.A Page 13 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 6 of 30
Section 4. Amendment to City Code. That Section 3.94.120 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
3.94.120 Cancellation of tax exemption – Appeal.
A. If at any time the director determines that the property no longer complies with the terms
of the contract or with the requirements of this chapter, or the use of the property for any reason
no longer qualifies for the tax exemption, the tax exemption shall be cancelled and additional
taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to state law.
B. If the owner intends to convert the multifamily housing to another use the owner must
notify the director and the King County assessor within 60 days of the change in use. Upon such
change in use, the tax exemption shall be cancelled and additional taxes, interest and penalties
imposed pursuant to state law.
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
2.4618.66.1100 through 2.4618.66.160. 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.)
Section 5. Amendment to City Code. That Section 10.02.120 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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
ACT.A Page 14 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 7 of 30
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.)
Section 6. Amendment to City Code. That Section 12.24.090 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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;
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.)
Section 7. Amendment to City Code. That Section 12.64A.060 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.
ACT.A Page 15 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 8 of 30
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.)
Section 8. Amendment to City Code. That Section 13.32A.130 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
13.32A.130 City project process and requirements.
A. City Responsibilities.
1. When service from underground electric and telecommunication utility facilities
becomes available in all or part of a conversion area, the city engineer shall issue a directive to
the owners of all structures or improvements with service connections to the existing or
temporary overhead utility facilities in the area by means of mailing a certified notice stating that:
a. Service from the underground utility facilities is available;
b. To facilitate completion of the city's project, all electric and telecommunication
service connections from the existing aerial utility facilities within the area to any structure or
improvement must be decommissioned, disconnected and removed within 90 calendar days
after the date of mailing;
c. Should such owner fail to complete conversion of such service connections from
the aerial system to the underground system within 90 calendar days after the date of mailing,
the city will order the electric and telecommunication utilities to disconnect and remove the
service connections;
d. The owner may object to the disconnection and removal of the service lines as
provided in subsection D of this section.
2. Time in consummating such connection and disconnection of aerial services is of the
essence and such notice to the property owner or occupant of the affected premises may be
mailed.
B. Property Owner's Responsibilities.
1. Such conversion of the service connection, including installation of any underground
service connections, shall be completed within 90 calendar days of the city's mailing set forth in
subsection A of this section and RCW 35.96.050 that service from the underground utility
facilities is available.
2. Property owners wishing to discontinue utility service shall provide written notice of
that intent to the city engineer within 30 calendar days of receipt of the city engineer's notice
that the underground system is available for service.
ACT.A Page 16 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 9 of 30
3. If the owner of any structure or improvement with a service connection to an existing
aerial electric and/or telecommunication utility facility within a conversion area fails to convert
the service connection from aerial to underground service within 90 calendar days after the date
of the mailing of the notice set forth in subsection A of this section, the city engineer shall order
the electric and/or telecommunication utilities to disconnect and remove all such service
connection; provided, that if the owner has filed written objections to such disconnection and
removal with the city clerk within 30 calendar days after the mailing, then the city shall not order
such disconnection and removal until after the appeal hearing on such objections.
C. Financial Responsibilities.
1. For city projects, the cost of relocating existing utility aerial distribution facilities shall
be borne by the serving utility and the city in accordance with the filed tariffs or franchise
agreement. In absence of a filed tariff or franchise agreement, the cost of the relocation of
existing aerial distribution facilities shall be borne by the serving utility.
2. For city projects, the undergrounding of the service connections for real property
served by the aerial electric or telecommunication utility facilities that are being relocated
underground shall be at the owner(s)'s expense, including:
a. Decommission, disconnect, and remove the service connections from those
utility facilities to any structures or improvements located on the property.
b. Either install underground service connections to those structures/improvements
on the property or, upon approval of the city engineer, discontinue utility service to one or more
of the structures/improvements on the property.
3. All such conversion of utility facilities to underground facilities may be undertaken by
local improvement district or as otherwise permitted by law and as further authorized by RCW
35.96.030 and 35.96.040.
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.
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.)
Section 9. Amendment to City Code. That Section 13.41.070 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
ACT.A Page 17 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 10 of 30
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.)
Section 10. Amendment to City Code. That Section 15.76.040 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
ACT.A Page 18 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 11 of 30
Section 11. Amendment to City Code. That Section 16.06.330 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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 2.4618.66.160.
B. Such council review shall be conducted on the record compiled by the hearing examiner,
consistent with other applicable law. (Ord. 6186 § 2, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996.)
Section 12. Amendment to City Code. That Section 16.08.080 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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).)
Section 13. Amendment to City Code. That Section 16.10.150 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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;
ACT.A Page 19 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 12 of 30
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.)
Section 14. Amendment to City Code. That Section 16.10.160 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
Section 15. Amendment to City Code. That Section 16.10.170 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
ACT.A Page 20 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 13 of 30
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.)
Section 16. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.06.030 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.
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 adj ustment. 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.
ACT.A Page 21 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 14 of 30
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 2.4618.66.160. (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)
Section 17. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.10.050 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
Section 18. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.20.030 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
17.20.030 Public hearing.
The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 2.4618.66.130 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.)
ACT.A Page 22 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 15 of 30
Section 19. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.22.030 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
17.22.030 Public hearing.
The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to ACC 2.4618.66.130 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.)
Section 20. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.46A.040 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
Section 21. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.49.090 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
Section 22. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.62.030 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
18.62.030 Permit.
Any surface mining 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
ACT.A Page 23 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 16 of 30
court in which the subject property is located, 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.
Section 23. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.62.080 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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
ACT.A Page 24 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 17 of 30
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.)
Section 24. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.64.020 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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 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:
ACT.A Page 25 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 18 of 30
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.
B. Conditional Use Permits. An application for a conditional use permit shall be reviewed in
accordance with ACC Title 14 as a Type III decision. A request for a conditional use permit shall
be heard by the hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2.4618.66 ACC.
The hearing examiner shall make the final decision.
C. When a proposal includes more than one element that require administrative use and/or
conditional use approval, the following review processes shall apply:
1. For proposals with multiple administrative use elements, a single administrative use
permit application will be required; provided, that findings of fact pursuant to ACC 18.64.040 are
made for each element.
2. For proposals with administrative and conditional use elements, a single conditional
use permit application will be required; provided, that findings of fact pursuant to ACC 18.64.040
are made for each element. (Ord. 6269 § 22, 2009; Ord. 6185 § 5, 2008; Ord. 5811 § 6, 2003;
Ord. 4875 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(45), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Section 25. Amendment to City Code. That the Section 18.64.055 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
Section 26. Amendment to City Code. That the code section reference in
Section 18.68.030 of the Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as
follows:
ACT.A Page 26 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 19 of 30
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:
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 2.4618.66.170;
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.)
Section 27. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.70.050 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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:
ACT.A Page 27 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 20 of 30
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.)
Section 28. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.70.060 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
Section 29. Amendment to City Code. That Section 18.76.130 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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.)
Section 30. Amendment to City Code. That Section 19.06.080 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same amended to read as follows:
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 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.
ACT.A Page 28 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 21 of 30
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.)
Section 31. Relocation and Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 18.66 is
amended and recodified as a New Chapter, 2.46 of the Auburn City Code to read as
follows:
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.
ACT.A Page 29 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 22 of 30
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:
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))
1 The appeal shall be processed and the hearing conducted according to the provisions of ACC 15.07.130
ACT.A Page 30 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 23 of 30
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)
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)
2 The appeal shall be processed and the hearing conducted according to the provisions of ACC 15.07.130
ACT.A Page 31 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 24 of 30
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.)
ACT.A Page 32 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 25 of 30
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 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
ACT.A Page 33 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 26 of 30
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.)
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
ACT.A Page 34 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 27 of 30
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.)
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
ACT.A Page 35 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 28 of 30
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.)
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.
ACT.A Page 36 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 29 of 30
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.)
Section 32. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 33. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 37. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
APPROVED: ____________________
ACT.A Page 37 of 159
--------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6442
November 29, 2012
Page 30 of 30
CITY OF AUBURN
______________________________
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Published: _________________
ACT.A Page 38 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6440 - 2012 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Date:
November 29, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Agenda Bill
Ordinance No. 6440
2012 Summary Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend the City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 6440
Background Summary:
See attached agenda bill.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Planning And Community Development, Public Works Other: Legal
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:ACT.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.D Page 39 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Page 1 of 49
Agenda Subject
CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004,
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See separate working
binder
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: The Planning and Community Development Committee to
recommend approval of Ordinance No. 6440 to the City Council
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 seven policy and/or
text amendments. In addition, this year the city received three privately-initiated plan map amendment
applications.
This staff report and its recommendations address all of the amendments:
• Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments CPM # 1 & CPM #5 (City initiated)
• Comprehensive Plan Map CPM #2, CPM #3 & CPM #4 (privately initiated - each separately)
• Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 7. (city initiated)
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 is targeted for near 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: Backus Staff: Snyder
Meeting Date: December 10, 2012 Item Number:
ACT.D Page 40 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 2 of 49
At its October 16, 2012 public hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the following
(Group #1):
A. Policy/Text Amendments
P/T #1 – Auburn School District 2012-2018 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018
P/T #3 – Federal Way School District 2013 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #4 – Kent School District 2012/2013 – 2017/2018 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #5 – City of Auburn 2013-2018 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #6 - 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.
B. Map Amendments
CPM #1 – Comprehensive Plan – Revise Electrical Service Facilities Map No.
6.1
At its November 7, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the following
(Group #2):
A. Policy/Text Amendments
P/T #7 - Comprehensive Plan
Revise Chapter 14 – “Comprehensive Plan Map” related to economic
development strategies areas
• Revise pages 14-25 through 14-28 to incorporate
advancement of economic development strategy areas.
• Related changes to articulate “Manufacturing Villages” &
“Innovation Partnership Zones (IPZ)”
• Add reference to Map No. 14.3, “Economic Development
Strategy Areas”
• Revise Policy III.J related to “Problem Areas” and “West
Auburn” to clarify meaning of “Local Serving” and “Region
Serving”.
B. Map Amendments
CPM #2 (File # CPA12-0002)
Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 – River Mobile Home Park (HCA
Management) to change the comprehensive plan designation from “Public/Quasi-
Public” to “Moderate Density Residential” of approx. 6.36 acres of adjacent
property Parcel # 0004000098. The mobile park is located at 3611 “I” ST NE.
CPM #4 (File # CPA12-0004)
Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 – Auburn School District to change the
comprehensive plan designation of 14 parcels; two parcels totaling 0.63 acres
ACT.D Page 41 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 3 of 49
located SE of the Auburn High School from “Office Residential” to “Public/Quasi-
Public” and to change 12 parcels totaling 1.74 acres located NW of the school
from "High Density Residential" to "Public/Quasi-Public". The school is located at
800 4th ST NE.
CPM #5 Add new map No 14.3, “Economic Development Strategy Areas”
At its November 20, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the following
(Group #3):
A. Policy/Text Amendments
(None)
B. Map Amendments
CPM #3 (File # CPA12-0003)
Map amendment to Map No. 14.1 – Locke Property to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation from “Single Family Residential” to “High
Density Residential” for a 1.88-acre parcel #0921059132. The parcel is located
at 12130 SE 310th ST.
The Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendation to the City Council on all plan
map and policy/text Amendments. City Council consideration and action on the amendments is
limited to once a year, except in certain specific instances, and generally occurs around the end
of this year.
The 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were reviewed by the Planning and Community
Development Committee of the City Council on June 25, 2012, September 10, 2012 and
November 13, 2012, and will be again be reviewed at the committee’s December 10, 2012
meeting for a recommendation to the City Council.
The Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the amendments and the Planning
Commission recommendations at their December 3, 2012 meeting. The Finance Committee of
the City Council reviewed the amendments and the Planning Commission recommendations at
their December 3, 2012 meeting. Ordinance No. 6440 is proposed for action at the December
17, 2012 City Council meeting.
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. The City received three privately-initiated plan map amendment applications
by the submittal deadline.
3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four school district capital facilities plans
whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These capital facilities plans, as well as the
ACT.D Page 42 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 4 of 49
City’s Capital Facilities Plan are referenced in Chapter 5, Capital Facilities, of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments.
4. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments on September 10, 2012 under City file No. SEP12-0023. The comment period
ended September 24, 2012 and the appeal period ended October 8, 2012. No comments
were received or appeals filed.
5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), issued for the River Mobile Home Park (HCA
Management) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and rezone on August 29, 2012 under
City File No. SEP12-0016. The comment period ended September 12, 2012 and the appeal
period ended September 26, 2012. No comments were received or appeals filed.
6. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), issued for the Locke Property Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment and Rezone on August 29, 2012 under City File No. SEP12-0017.
The comment period ended September 12, 2012 and the appeal period ended September
26, 2012. One comment letter was received after the close of the public comment period in
response to the issuance of this environmental review decision.
7. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), resulted in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), issued for the Auburn School District
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone on September 4, 2012 under City File
No. SEP12-0021. The comment period ended September 18, 2012 and the appeal period
ended October 2, 2012. No comments were received or appeals filed.
8. The Auburn School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2012 - 2018
Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan May 8, 2012; the Dieringer School District
issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the 2013-2018 Dieringer School District
Capital Facilities Plan March 12, 2012; the Federal Way School District issued a
Determination of Non-Significance for the 2013 Federal Way School District Capital
Facilities Plan May 11, 2012; and the Kent School District issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the 2012-2013 through 2017-2018 Kent School District Capital Facilities
Plan May 29, 2012.
9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments were sent to
the Washington State Office of Commerce on September 10, 2012, 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. 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.
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.
ACT.D Page 43 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 5 of 49
11. Public notice via publication within the official newspaper as required by ACC 14.22.100 was
accomplished. The public hearing notice was published on October 5, 2012 in the Seattle
Times newspaper at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing
scheduled for October 16, 2012. The public hearing notice was published on October 26,
2012 in the Seattle Times newspaper at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission
public hearing scheduled for November 7, 2012. The public hearing notice was published
on November 9, 2012 in the Seattle Times newspaper at least 10-days prior to the Planning
Commission public hearing scheduled for November 20, 2012.
12. Public notice via mailing as required by ACC 14.22.100 for site-specific map amendments
was accomplished. A public notice was mailed 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. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately-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.
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.)”
ACT.D Page 44 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 6 of 49
14. The annual comprehensive plan amendments were previously discussed with the Planning
and Community Development Committee of the City Council on June 25, 2012 at which time
the draft docket and draft schedule were reviewed. Also, a reporting of the status of Annual
Comprehensive Plan Amendments processing occurred at the September 10, 2012 and
November 13, 2012 regular meetings.
15. On November 26, 2012, the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City
Council reviewed, and again on December 10, 2012 will review the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
16. On December 3, 2012 the Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the 2012
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
17. On December 3, 2012 the Finance Committee of the City Council reviewed the 2012
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
18. The following report identifies the full docket of the Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and
Policy/Text (P/T) amendments that were heard by the Planning Commission at their October
16, 2012, November 7, 2012 and November 20, 2012 public hearings along with the original
staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and the subsequent Planning
Commission recommendation.
---------------- OCTOBER 16, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING -----------------
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments
CPM #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.
Discussion
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. This map only shows main electrical transmission lines and not local service lines
and only shows existing lines and not future lines. Puget Sound Energy was consulted for
information on the location of their major transmission lines within the City and the map was
revised in response to this information. Puget Sound Energy requested that in the future, the
map could be revised to indicate planned future electrical facilities. The City will consider
showing planned facilities with future updates to this map and the maps of other private utilities
so that similar information is provided on all private utility maps within the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
ACT.D Page 45 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 7 of 49
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.
Discussion
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.
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.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
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.
Discussion
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 CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a 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.
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-family residential. The actual impact fee assessed is set
by separate ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
ACT.D Page 46 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 8 of 49
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.
Discussion
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. 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.
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.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
P/T #4
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.
Discussion
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). 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.
A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not
requesting a change in the fees. The 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.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
CPM #5
Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2013-2018, into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
ACT.D Page 47 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 9 of 49
Discussion
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 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.
Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan
element. RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA states the following:
A capital facilities plan element consisting of:
(a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the
locations and capacities of the capital facilities;
(b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities;
(c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
(d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding
capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and
(e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan
element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and
consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan
element.
A capital facility is a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long-lasting major
asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital facilities include,
but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting
systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and
recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital facilities include
necessary ancillary and support facilities.
The memo from the Finance Department contained in the working notebook identifies the major
changes in the CFP from last year. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan
2013-2018 is incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, “Capital
Facilities”.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
NOTE: Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, it was identified that pages
175 and 176 of the City Capital Facilities Plan need to be modified to shift $129,000 from one
fund of the City Hall project to another. More specifically, to change the 2012 year end estimate
the capital improvement fund: “City Hall HVAC System Upgrade” (CP0716) (decreased) to “City
Hall Remodel, Phase 1” (CP1009) (increased). This change is reflected in the working binder.
ACT.D Page 48 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 10 of 49
CPM #6
Revise portions of two chapters of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Discussion
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a separate document that is incorporated by
reference into and therefore is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In Chapter 2, “The Street
System” the document contains Table 2-3 and corresponding narrative discussion and map
(Figure 2-6) of city roadway capacity improvement projects and their associated cost estimates.
As projects are completed and priorities change based on available funding sources, the project
listing needs to be updated to be accurate. This requires changes to the table, narrative and the
map. For legibility, the existing Table 2-3 is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with a new
Table 2-3 rather than attempting to show strike through and underline changes. More
specifically, the changes include:
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.
Chapter 5, “Policies”, contains a number of policy statements that are used by the city to guide
private and public transportation-related projects. Opportunities for refinement, improvement
and clarification of the policies are recognized as these policies are used. Also, the policies
need to evolve and change in response to changing circumstances. Three policy changes are
proposed related to the level of service, other policies are proposed to change related to
concurrency (ensuring that road level of service keeps pace with demand for roadway capacity),
finance, parking and transit. The changes are shown with strike through and underline. More
specifically, the changes include:
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.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
NOTE: At the December 3, 2012 Public Works Committee review of the Comprehensive Plan
amendments, the Committee requested that the word: “all” be removed from Policy TR-28, on
page 5-5. With this change, the policy would read:”TR-28: Require developments or
redevelopments to construct all transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new
developments.” This change is reflected in the working binder.
---------------- NOVEMBER 7, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING -----------------
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments
ACT.D Page 49 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 11 of 49
P/T #7
Revise narrative within Chapter 14 – “The Comprehensive Plan Map” related to economic
development strategy areas based on City Council discussions to-date.
• Revise pages 14-25 through 14-28 to incorporate advancement of economic
development strategy areas.
• Add three policies related economic development strategy areas and
‘manufacturing villages’ and innovative partnership zones (IPZ).
• 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.
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
ACT.D Page 50 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 12 of 49
• 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
• 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 meetings
• 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.
ACT.D Page 51 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 13 of 49
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
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 “Innovative 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.
ACT.D Page 52 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 14 of 49
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.
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.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended 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, “West 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.”
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
ACT.D Page 53 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 15 of 49
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
Comprehensive Plan Map” is being added. This map is new to the Plan and 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 fact as a notation.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
CPM #2 – CPA12-0002, River Mobile Home Park map amendment
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
application seeks to change the mapped land use designation 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 approximately 6.36 acres of a parcel (Parcel # 0004000098) located west of the
Green River from “Public and 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.
ACT.D Page 54 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 16 of 49
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 full amount 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 explanation of the King County Reddington Levee Extension and Setback
Project is excerpted from their website:
(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
ACT.D Page 55 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 17 of 49
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
• 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 apply to the city to replace the approximately 16 mobile home
spaces and the park’s recreational vehicle parking area that will be displaced.
12. Concurrently 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.
ACT.D Page 56 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 18 of 49
13. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site
and surrounding properties are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Zoning Classification
Current 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
ACT.D Page 57 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 19 of 49
ACT.D Page 58 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 20 of 49
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.
ACT.D Page 59 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 21 of 49
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.
ACT.D Page 60 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 22 of 49
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 full extent 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 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
ACT.D Page 61 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 23 of 49
allows replacement of the mobile home park units 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 selected polices support the 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 subsection entitled “manufactured homes”
identifies these specific areas and 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.
ACT.D Page 62 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 24 of 49
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 units 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
ACT.D Page 63 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 25 of 49
modeling, the corresponding change in City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan to recognize
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 to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
CPM #4 – Auburn School District map amendment
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 and Quasi-Public” and to change
twelve (12) parcels totaling approximately 1.74 acres located NW of the high school from
ACT.D Page 64 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 26 of 49
"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/
“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.
ACT.D Page 65 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 27 of 49
• 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.
• 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.”
ACT.D Page 66 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 28 of 49
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 &
Multiple 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 &
Multiple Family
Residences &
Professional
Offices
ACT.D Page 67 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 29 of 49
ACT.D Page 68 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 30 of 49
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
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. 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.
12. 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. 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.
13. 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. “
14. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan amendments as
follows:
ACT.D Page 69 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 31 of 49
“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.”
15. 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.
ACT.D Page 70 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 32 of 49
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.
4) I (Institutional Use) District provides for similar uses, but includes schools
and typically allows a much broader list of uses.
5) 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.
ACT.D Page 71 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 33 of 49
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.
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 “Office-Residential” 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
ACT.D Page 72 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 34 of 49
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
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 “Office-Residential”
and the properties are developed with small professional office uses. The designation is part of
a larger “strip” or “band” with the same “Office-Residential” 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 “Office-Residential” area 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.
16. 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.
ACT.D Page 73 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 35 of 49
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.
d. Single family detached residential neighborhoods should be protected from
intrusion by non-residential or large scale multi-family uses.” (Emphasis added)
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
ACT.D Page 74 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 36 of 49
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.
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.
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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
ACT.D Page 75 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 37 of 49
19. 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 last verification, 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.
20. 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
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.
21. 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:
d. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an
oversight;
e. 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;
f. 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 to recommend approval to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council
---------------- NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ---------------
CPM #3 – Locke Property map amendment
1. The applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on June 8,
2012 by the submittal deadline of June 8, 2012.
ACT.D Page 76 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 38 of 49
2. The application was submitted by Eli Berman, Agent, Skyline Properties on behalf of William
and Amy Locke, Applicants.
3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued
for the Locke Property Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone under City File
No. SEP12-0017 on August 29, 2012. One comment letter was received in response to the
issuance of the environmental review decision after the close of the public comment period.
4. The Comprehensive Plan map amendment application seeks to change the mapped land
use designation for a single approximately 1.88-acre parcel from 'Single Family Residential'
to 'High Density Residential' (Parcel # 0921059132) located at 12130 SE 310th Street.
5. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site
and surrounding properties are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Zoning Classification
Existing Land Use
Site
Single Family
Residential
R5, Residential 5
dwelling units per
acre
Single family house
North
High Density
Residential
R20, Residential 20
dwelling units per
acre
Multiple family residential
South
High Density
Residential
R20, Residential 20
dwelling units per
acre
Across SE 310th Street,
multiple family and single
family residential
East
Single Family
Residential (Scrivener’s error should be High Density Residential in part )
R5, Residential 5
dwelling units per
acre and R20,
Residential 20
dwelling units per
acre
Single family and multiple
family residential
West
High Density and
Single Family
Residential (Scrivener’s error should be Single Family Residential in part)
R5, Residential 5
dwelling units to the
acre
Single Family Residential
ACT.D Page 77 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 39 of 49
ACT.D Page 78 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 40 of 49
6. The approximately 1.88-acre parcel requested for change is rectangular measuring
approximately 164 feet east to west and 497 feet north to south. The site is developed with
a single family house in the south central portion of the site.
7. The site is bordered to the south by partially developed SE 310th Street, which is designated
as a “Local Residential Street”. The “Local Residential Street” standard prescribes a 28-foot
wide roadway within a 50-foot right-of-way.
8. According to the site plan accompanying the application, the southern 30 feet of the property
is encumbered by an easement for access and utility (gas pipeline) purposes. The map also
shows a 100-foot protective well radius centered near the house.
9. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed
to the City in 2007 (effective January 1, 2008) by Ordinance No. 6121.
10. The subject property had a “Single Family Residential” comprehensive plan designation
established by Ordinance No. 6138 in 2007. The site has been zoned R2, Single Family
Residential since the time of its annexation into the city in 2007. Subsequently, in 2009, the
residential zoning designation was renamed R5, Residential, 5 dwelling units per acre.
11. The property occurs at an elevation of 443 feet and is relatively flat with a slight downward
slope to the west.
12. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation report, “Locke Property, Auburn WA, Critical
Areas Investigation Letter Report” prepared by Talasaea Consultants Inc. June 7, 2012.
The report indicates that Wetland A, 107 square feet in size, is located in the northwest
corner of the property. The Cowardian Classification of the wetland is Palustine,
Consolidated bottom, Saturated (PUBB). Wetland A is characterized by a shallow, closed
depression with no apparent inlet or outlet. According to the report, the wetland would likely
collect precipitation and shallow groundwater during the wet season. The report indicates
that the wetland would be classified as a Category IV W etland with 25 to 30 foot buffers
based on the city’s critical area regulations. Also according to the report there are some
unconfirmed indications this wetland may be man-made. The wetland provides limited
functions based on the small size.
13. As indicated in the narrative submitted by the Applicant, 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 applicant
indicates there currently are no plans for redevelopment of the site.
14. 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. “
ACT.D Page 79 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 41 of 49
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 14-6 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.
ACT.D Page 80 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 42 of 49
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.
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.” (Emphasis added)
The vicinity is characterized by suburban development. The property is adjacent to other
properties to the north and east already developed with multiple-family residential.
However, the properties bordering to the west, as well as others in the vicinity, are
developed with single family residences. To the south, the property has 164 feet of frontage
and access to SE 310th ST. The change is not consistent with this stated description of the
High Density Residential designation, since the property is not currently developed as “High
Density Residential” and has not been “reserved for multiple family dwellings”.
The site and adjacent contiguous parcels are not at a location that is currently “… efficiently
served with high capacity and high quality public services and facilities”. The street
bordering the property does not contain the full amount of right-of-way and is not fully
developed. The street is classified as a “Local Residential Street” which typically requires
28 feet of pavement within a 50-foot right-of-way. The right-of-way bordering this site is
currently 30 feet and additional dedication and road improvements would be required from
this property at time of development. Additional right-of-way dedication is also need from
other off-site properties located to the west and to the east to complete the full width of right-
of-way to city standards. The roadway is fully improved to the east and only partially or
minimally improved to the west. Additional roadway improvements are needed in the future
off-site to the west. The site is not adjacent to a developed arterial as stated is a criteria for
the “High Density Residential” designation. The closest arterial is 124th ST SE (north-south)
which is approx. 525 feet to the east. The site is not currently efficiently served with high
capacity and high quality public services and facilities.
ACT.D Page 81 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 43 of 49
There is a 12-inch water and sewer lines within the street paralleling the property frontage.
There is a stub of a 12 inch storm line at the SW corner of the site. City utilities appear
sufficient.
The site is about 2.5 blocks from the intersection of SE 312th Street and 124th Street SE.
which is a small node of light commercial zoning on Lea Hill. The developed commercial
provides a very limited range of commercial services. Also, SE 312th St is designated as a
minor arterial in the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan and serves as an east-west
arterial between state Routes 18 and 167.
For contrast and comparison, Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, starting at page 14-3
provides the following purpose and description of the current ‘Single Family Residential”
Comprehensive Plan designation:
“Single Family Residential
Purpose: To designate and protect areas for predominantly single family dwellings.
Description: This category includes those areas reserved primarily for single family
dwellings. Implementing regulations should provide for an appropriate range of lot sizes,
clustered and mixed housing types as part of a planned development.
Compatible Uses: Single family residences and uses that serve or support residential
development, such as schools, daycare centers, churches and parks shall be considered
appropriate and may be permitted on a conditional basis. Other public buildings and
semi-public uses may be permitted if designed and laid out in a manner which enhances
rather than detracts from the residential character of the area. In siting such uses,
however, special care shall be given to ensuring adequate parking, landscaping, and
traffic circulation with a minimum of conflict with residential uses. Uses which generate
significant traffic (such as large churches) should only locate on developed arterials in
areas zoned for institutional uses.
Intrusion of industrial uses into any of these single family areas shall be prohibited. Only
very limited commercial uses such as home occupations or strictly limited appropriate
conditional uses can be allowed.
Planned developments should be favorably considered in these designations in order to
allow optimal flexibility. In providing such flexibility, the emphasis should be on small
alley-loaded lot single family development, limited low density multifamily housing and a
mixture of types, and design diversity should be sought. Except where conditional use
permits have been previously granted, alternate structure types should not exceed more
than 40 percent of the units, and alternative structures should in most cases contain no
more than four dwelling units each. However, where substantial offsetting community
benefits can be identified, such alternative structures may be allowed to contain more
than three units each.
Criteria for Designation: Areas suitable for this designation include those areas
designated in goals and policies of this Plan as single family areas. Consistent with
those policies, areas within the Community Serving Area of the City suitable for this
category should be reserved for these uses. This designation should also be applied to
areas adjacent to lower density residential plan designations.
ACT.D Page 82 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 44 of 49
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation would not be
generally appropriate (although exceptions may exist) in the following areas:
1. Areas with high volumes of through traffic.
2. Areas developed in or more appropriate under the Plan policies for
another use.
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area of the City.
Appropriate Implementation: Three zones may be used to implement this category:
1) R-1: Permits one dwelling unit per net acre. This zone is primarily applied to
areas designated as urban separators under the King County Countywide Planning
Policies where rezones from existing densities (typically one unit per acre) are not
allowed for a 20 year period and/or to areas with significant environmental constraints. It
may also be applied in limited instances to areas where greater densities are limited by
environmental constraints.
2) R-5: Permits 4-5 dwelling units per net acre. This zone is intended to create a
living environment of optimum standards for single family dwellings. Duplexes are
conditionally permitted subject to meeting infill residential design standards. It is
intended to be applied to the relatively undeveloped portions of the City, areas where
existing development patterns are consistent with the density and upland areas where
greater densities would strain the transportation system.
3) R-7: Permits 5-7 dwelling units per net acre. This zone provides for relatively
small lot sizes. It may be applied to the older neighborhoods of the City and reflects the
typically smaller lot sizes found there. Application of this zone should be considered for
areas considered appropriate for a mix of housing types, particularly in some of the
Special Planning Areas as discussed below.” (Emphasis added)
The property is currently developed with one house on approx. 1.88 acres and bordered on
two sides (north and east) by properties that are already developed with multiple-family
residential. The bordering properties developed as multiple-family were either completed or
the development was authorized while located in King County prior to annexation to the City
of Auburn.
The intent of the “Single Family Residential” comprehensive plan designation is provide
areas devoted primarily to single family residences and to protect these areas from
incompatible uses. The site is located within the “Community Serving” area described in
Chapter 3, “Land Use” and shown on Map # 3.2 “Urban Form”. The description of this
designation suggests community serving areas are appropriate primarily for reservation as
“Single Family Residential”. The “Single Family Residential” is implemented by the R1, R5,
and R7 zoning districts. The current zoning of this site is R5, Residential, 5 dwelling units
per acre, which would allow redevelopment of up to approximately 13 detached dwelling
units; each on their own individual lot.
ACT.D Page 83 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 45 of 49
In Chapter 3, “Land Use”, the Comprehensive Plan document provides guidance which
promotes single family residential development in order to meet community and growth
management goals. Starting at page 13-12 under the Section: “Residential Development”
the plan emphasizes single family residential over other forms of residential development.
The following excerpt explains this guidance.
“Within most communities, a range of housing densities is allowed to provide a variety of
housing opportunities. The wider the range, the greater the opportunity for individuals to
find housing relative to their particular needs, affordability and preference.
While the City's policy provides for a relatively wide range of residential densities,
development over the past decade has been heavily concentrated toward the middle
and upper levels of the range (See discussion in Chapter 4, Housing Element).
As land costs have escalated in the region, however, Auburn has remained relatively
affordable to the average family.
This Plan provides that the City should seek to restore the traditional character of the
community by encouraging preservation and development of housing that is suitable to
the retention and attraction of families within the community. This would be best
accomplished by focusing multi-family development in the urban center, protecting the
residential character of existing single family neighborhoods and promoting the
development of new neighborhoods of single family homes. Consequently, residential
land use policies will emphasize the creation and preservation of single family
neighborhoods, while still encouraging the development of other housing types for those
who need or want them.” (Emphasis added)
The requested change is in opposition to the promoting single family neighborhoods since it
increases area designated for multiple-family and decreases area for single-family
residential development. The change is also contrary to the Plan’s intent to protect existing
single family neighborhoods and promote development of new single family neighborhoods.
Also, in Chapter 3, “Land Use”, the Comprehensive Plan document provides specific goals,
objectives, and policies that relate to the requested change.
“Goal 7 – Residential Development
To emphasize housing development at single family densities, in order to reestablish a
mix of housing types appropriate for a family oriented community, while recognizing the
need and desire for both lower density and higher density housing appropriately located
to meet the housing needs of all members of the community.
Objective 7.2. To designate land for the development of new single family homes.
LU-19 In applying the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, first
consideration shall be given to designating an area for single family residential
use.
LU-20 Most of the undeveloped areas of the Community Serving Area of the city
(see Map 3.2) shall be reserved for single family dwellings. The ability to buffer
ACT.D Page 84 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 46 of 49
the area from incompatible land uses and heavily traveled arterials or highways
should be considered in designating currently undeveloped areas for future
single family use. Such buffering can be accomplished by taking advantage of
topographic variations and other natural features, requiring expanded setbacks
along arterials, by orienting lots and houses away from arterials, by designating
moderate density multiple family areas as transitional areas, and by other means.
Objective 7.3. To promote the development of quality single family neighborhoods which
relate the design and types of residential areas to important natural and manmade
features.
LU-24 The development of residential areas should recognize the importance of
community and public facilities in developing a sense of neighborhood and
community.
Objective 7.5. To meet the need for multiple family dwellings while avoiding conflict with
single family residential areas.
LU-34 Multiple-family developments should be located functionally convenient to
the necessary supporting facilities including utilities, arterials, parks, transit
service, etc.
LU-36 Multiple family dwellings shall not be permitted as a matter of right in
single family residential districts, but should be permitted only where necessary
to remove potential blight, to buffer single family uses from incompatible uses or
activities, or to allow effective use of vacant areas. Standards for such siting
should provide for design review to ensure compatibility and provide that the
density of development is consistent with the density of the adjoining single
family uses.
LU-38 Higher density developments or larger scale multiple family developments
should be limited to residential areas where they can be developed as a unit with
the necessary supporting facilities. Such development shall provide adequate
access by developed arterials with minimal potential to generate traffic through
single family areas. Extensive buffering measures shall be required where such
areas adjoin single family residential areas. Care should be exercised to avoid
creating barriers to pedestrian and bicycle movement. Where feasible, new
multiple family development should be planned in conjunction with single family
and moderate density development.” (Emphasis added)
The residential land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the establishment
and preservation of single family neighborhoods. The Plan prioritizes single family
residential land uses. The proposed change to “High Density Residential” is not consistent
with the Goal 7 and its objectives and policies of the Plan. The change does not prioritize
single family uses. Instead, the change would result in a sharp contrast in density (from 5 to
20 units per acre) adjacent to one another that would promote incompatibilities, for example,
a 35-foot maximum building height is allowed in the R5 zone while a 50-foot building height
is allowed in the R20 zone. Also, the requested change does not allow for any buffering or
transition in land use as promoted by the Plan.
ACT.D Page 85 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 47 of 49
Also, within Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, at page 14-26, this geographic area of
the City, the Lea Hill Area, is specifically recognized as a “Problem Area related to its
Existing Land Uses”. The following Plan excerpt explains the problem related to existing
uses.
“Lea Hill Area
Area: Area annexed on January 1, 2008.
Problem: The City has been concerned for years that the rapid growth taking
place within the Lea Hill PAA will overwhelm city streets. Through annexation the
City can better manage the amount and type of growth in this area and help
ensure that appropriate infrastructure to support development is provided
concurrent with that development.
The Auburn City Council envisions retaining the predominantly single-family
character of the Lea Hill area rather than allow the trend of rapidly developing
multi-family projects to continue. The City's codes will help ensure that the
neighborhood character, traffic and environmentally sensitive features are
protected and/or managed.” (Emphasis added)
Prior to annexation, the Lea Hill Area was characterized by rapid change from a more rural
type character to a suburban character. The goal of the City Council and the resident’s
support for the City’s successful annexation vote for incorporation at the time was the
focused on controlling the rapid growth of multiple family development. As a result, the
“problem” identified within the Plan is to address the ability to ensure that infrastructure
needed to support development is provided concurrently with the development, especially
transportation infrastructure as rural roads were increasingly carrying traffic loads. The Plan
also recognizes the “problem” of potential land use conflicts resulting from multiple family
development bordering single family development. Another “problem” is ensuring that the
existing single family neighborhood character is maintained. The requested change to “High
Density Residential” is not consistent with the Plan’s guidance of retaining the predominantly
single-family character of the Lea Hill area.
The goal of the mapped pattern of the parcels with the High Density Residential designation
within Lea Hill was based on existing or authorized development at the time of annexation in
2008.
17. 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 Fire
Agency and Utilities and Traffic divisions of the City. Based in these reviews, the change
would not adversely affect the provision of services.
A further explanation of the request’s relation to the transportation system is provided since
the Plan calls out circulation as a primary concern. The proposal is a non-project action; the
applicant indicates there is no plan for construction or development of the property in the
near future. The property has 164 feet of frontage onto SE 310th St. Per the City of Auburn
Design Standards, based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) (manual) the potential
theoretical maximum of 37 dwelling units of multiple-family residential that could be
developed would generate 0.62 trips per unit for a total of 23 PM peak trips. Per City Public
Works Design Standards, the City may require a traffic study if there is a likelihood that a
ACT.D Page 86 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 48 of 49
site will general more than 30 PM peak hour trips. This threshold is typically used for
evaluating comprehensive plan and zoning designation changes. The triggers for the
preparation of traffic analysis are not met.
SE 310th Street is currently barricaded to the west and traffic from the area enters the
arterial road system via the intersection of SE 310th Street a local residential street and
124th Ave SE a minor arterial road. This intersection is a stop controlled (unsignalized)
intersection located within the school zone of Lea Hill Elementary School of Auburn School
District # 408. The City does not have Level of Service data for the intersection.
The City’s primary methodology for rating transportation Level of Service is “Corridor Level
of Service” a tool which rates the level of service (LOS) of a section of road comprising a
number of intersections. Per the City Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 124th Ave SE is
currently rated as LOS C for its corridor LOS, meeting the city’s level of service standard of
LOS D. The City also maintains an intersection level of Service Standard. The nearest
arterial/arterial intersection to the proposed development area is the intersection of 124th
Ave SE and SE 312th Street. A recent development study yielded the finding that the
intersection met LOS Standard D in the PM peak hour but failed to meet LOS Standard D in
the AM peak hour (operating at LOS E). However, with the implementation of City of
Auburn Transportation Improvement Project # 41 which is currently planned to add lanes to
the intersection and which is scheduled to be completed in 2016, the intersection LOS
operation will be improved to LOS C meeting standards.
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
support the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time
of development, adequate services would be 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.
18. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid.
The City continues to promote single family development, to seek to ensure that
infrastructure is provided concurrent with development and to ensure that the single family
residential character of the Lea Hill area is maintained.
Due to the small amount of wetlands identified on the site, the existence of the wetland itself
doesn’t represent a change in circumstance that negatively affects the assumptions about
the ability to redevelop the site. The impacts to wetlands and the provision of buffers would
be addressed at the time of a project action (a redevelopment proposal). The current
comprehensive plan amendment and rezone is a non-project action.
19. 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. There is no change or lack of change that generates the need for approval of
the requested map amendment. The City continues to promote single family development,
to seek to ensure that infrastructure is provided concurrent with development, and to ensure
that the single family residential character of the area is maintained and protected.
ACT.D Page 87 of 159
Agenda Subject: CPA12-0001, CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003, & CPA12-0004 -
2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and
Policy/Text Amendments
Date: December 4, 2012
Page 49 of 49
20. 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 or denied 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 provides land suitable for residential development.
21. 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:
g. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an
oversight;
h. 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;
i. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use
designation came into effect. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)
City code section 14.22.110, “Decision criteria for plan amendments” indicates 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 criteria. The Applicant has
not demonstrated that there was an error or oversight to the current designation, that there
are conditions ensuring compatibility of land uses, or that there are change in conditions
since the original designation came into effect. However, the site is adjacent to other
property of the same “High Density Residential” Comprehensive Plan designation.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend denial to the City Council
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended denial to the City Council
ACT.D Page 88 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. 6440
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING;
ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND TEXT
AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
RCW CHAPTER 36.70A
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn, on August 18, 1986, adopted a
Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. 1703 which includes a Map establishing the
location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995, the City of Auburn adopted Comprehensive
Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply with the Washington State
Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995, reaffirmed that action
by Ordinance No. 4788; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn published in the Seattle Times and Auburn
Reporter an advertisement that the City was accepting comprehensive plan
amendment applications and established a deadline for submittal of June 8, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received three privately-initiated amendment
map amendments (File Nos. CPA12-0002, CPA12-0003 & CPA12-004); and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn initiated two map amendments and seven text
amendments (File No. CPA12-0001); and
ACT.D Page 89 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 2
WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments were processed
by the Planning and Development Department as proposed Year 2012 amendments
to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, maintaining a current Capital Facilities Plan is required in order to
meet regulations of the Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Year 2012 Comprehensive Plan
amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State
Environmental Policy Act; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were transmitted to the Washington
State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services Division and other
State agencies for the 60-day review period in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106;
and
WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City’s official newspaper at
least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the Auburn Planning Commission on
October 16, 2012, November 7, 2012, and November 20, 2012, conducted public
hearings on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Auburn City Planning Commission heard
public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and
WHEREAS, thereafter the Auburn City Planning Commission made
recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Year 2012 Comprehensive
Plan map and text amendments; and
ACT.D Page 90 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 3
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2012, the Planning and Community
Development Committee of the Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2012, the Public Works Committee of the
Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2012, the Finance Committee of the Auburn City
Council reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2012, the Planning and Community
Development Committee of the Auburn City Council made a recommendation to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012, the Auburn City Council considered the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as recommended by the City of Auburn
Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The 2012 Comprehensive Plan city-initiated Map Amendments
(CPA12-0001) are adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibits “A” and “B” as
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file
Exhibits “A” and “B” along with this Ordinance and keep them available for public
inspection.
Section 2. The 2012 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA12-
0001), including the amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive
ACT.D Page 91 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 4
Transportation Plan (Chapters 2, “The Street System” and Chapter 5, “Policies”), and
various amendments to Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map” of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan are adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit “C” attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file them along with
this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. The full text of the
Capital Facilities Plan of the City and the four school district’s Capital Facilities Plans
are adopted with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, copies of which shall be on file with
the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall file them along with this Ordinance
and keep them available for public inspection. Council adopts both the Planning
Commission’s recommendations, dated October 16, 2012, as amended by the Public
Works on December 3, 2012, the Planning Commission’s recommendations, dated
November 7, 2012, and the findings and conclusions outlined in the December 4,
2012, staff report, attached as Exhibit “D”.
Section 3. Application CPA12-0002, River Mobile Home Park and HCA
Management Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use
designation change from “Public and Quasi-Public” to “Moderate Density Residential”
for a portion of the property identified by parcel number 0004000098 is approved as
set forth in Exhibit “E” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Council
adopts both the Planning Commission’s November 7, 2012 recommendations, and
the findings and conclusions outlined in the December 4, 2012, staff report, both
attached as Exhibit “D”.
ACT.D Page 92 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 5
Section 4. Application CPA12-0003, William and Amy Locke Property
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use designation change
from “Single Family Residential” to “High Density Residential” for a property identified
by parcel number 0921059132 is denied as set forth in Exhibit “F” attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference. Council adopts the Planning Commission’s
November 20, 2012 recommendation and the findings and conclusions outlined in
the December 4, 2012, staff report, both attached as Exhibit “D”. No change in the
Comprehensive Plan results from this request.
Section 5. Application CPA12-0004, Auburn School District No. 408
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land use designation change
from “Office Residential” to “Public and Quasi-Public” for two properties identified by
parcel numbers: 6858700005 and 6858700015 and requesting a land use
designation change from “High Density Residential” to “Public and Quasi-Public” for
twelve properties identified by parcel numbers: 4184400145, 4184400150,
4184400155, 4184400160, 4184400170, 4184400180, 4184400185, 4184400195,
4184400200, 4184400205, 4184400215, and 4184400220 is approved as set forth
in Exhibit “G” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Council adopts
the Planning Commission’s November 7, 2012, recommendations and the findings
and conclusions outlined in the December 4, 2012, staff report, both attached as
Exhibit “D”.
ACT.D Page 93 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 6
Section 6. The 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendments modify the
Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986, by Resolution No. 1703 and
adopted by Ordinance No. 4788 on September 5, 1995.
Section 7. The adopted Comprehensive Plan as amended is designated as a
basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible environmental official in
accordance with RCW. 43.21C.060.
Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this Ordinance or any of the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 9. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation to
include incorporating into one document the adopted Comprehensive Plan map and
text amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Exhibit “B”, Exhibit “C”, Exhibit “D”
Exhibit “E”, and Exhibit “G” preparing and publishing the amended Comprehensive
Plan.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
ACT.D Page 94 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 7
Peter B. Lewis
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
Published: _____________________
ACT.D Page 95 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 8
Exhibit A
Colored Map No 6.1, “Electrical Service Facilities” with updated
references and information.
(Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder)
ACT.D Page 96 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 9
Exhibit B
New Colored Map No 14.3, “Economic Development Strategy
Areas” with references and information.
(Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder)
ACT.D Page 97 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 10
Exhibit C
The Auburn, Dieringer, Federal Way and Kent School District
Capital Facilities Plans,
City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan,
Amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive
Transportation Plan,
* Chapters 2, “The Street System” and
* Chapter 5, “Policies”
and various amendments to the Auburn Comprehensive Plan
including:
* Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”
(See “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab in the working binder )
ACT.D Page 98 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 11
Exhibit D
Agenda bill/staff report dated December 4, 2012,
ACT.D Page 99 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 12
Exhibit E
Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14.1, “Comprehensive
Plan”, showing the change from “Public and Quasi-Public” to
“Moderate Density Residential” for property identified by parcel
number 0004000098 for River Mobile Home Park (HCA
Management).
(Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder)
ACT.D Page 100 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 13
Exhibit F
Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14.1, “Comprehensive
Plan”, showing a change from “Single Family Residential” to
“High Density Residential” for property identified by parcel
number 0921059132 for William and Amy Locke.
(Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder)
ACT.D Page 101 of 159
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 6440
December 4, 2012
Page 14
Exhibit G
Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14.1, “Comprehensive
Plan”, showing the change from “Office Residential” to “Public
and Quasi-Public” for properties identified by the following two
parcel numbers: 6858700005 and 6858700015 and a change
from “High Density Residential” to “Public and Quasi-Public” for
properties identified by the following twelve parcel numbers:
4184400145, 4184400150, 4184400155, 4184400160,
4184400170, 4184400180, 4184400185, 4184400195,
4184400200, 4184400205, 4184400215, and 4184400220 for
the Auburn School District No. 408.
(Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder)
ACT.D Page 102 of 159
Year 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) Summary
(CPM = Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; P/T = Policy/Text Amendment)
Created: September 9, 2012
Revised December 4, 2012
Page 1 of 3
CPA
# Title Description Staff
Recommendation
Planning
Commission
Recommendation
PCDC
Recommendation
City Council
Action Notes
CPM
# 1
Map No. 6.1
Comprehensive
Plan
File No. CPA12-0001, Comprehensive Plan –
Revise Electrical Service Facilities Map No. 6.1
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on October 17, 2012. No public testimony.
CPM
#2
Map No. 14.1,
Comprehensive
Plan
File No. CPA12-0002, Amend Comprehensive Plan
Map No. 14.1 – River Mobile Home Park (HCA
Management) request to change the comprehensive
plan designation from “Public/Quasi-Public” to
“Moderate Density Residential” and rezone from
“P1, Public Use” to “RMHC, Residential Mobile
Home Community” approx.6.36 acres of adjacent
property for replacement of mobile home spaces
and associated recreational vehicle parking
displaced by King Co. Reddington Levee Extension
and Setback Project. Mobile Park address is 3611
“I” ST NE.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on November 7, 2012. Dan Delue, Attorney
for the Applicant testified in favor of the request.
CPM
#3
Map No. 14.1,
Comprehensive
Plan
File No. CPA12-0003, Amend Comprehensive Plan
Map No. 14.1 – Locke Property request to change
the Comprehensive Plan designation from “Single
Family Residential” to “High Density Residential”
and rezone from “‘R5, Residential”’ to “R20,
Residential” a 1.88-acre parcel. The property
address is 12130 SE 310th ST.
Denial Denial PC Hearing conducted on November 20, 2012. Rich Hill Attorney
for the Applicant (also see memo in working binder) and Eli
Berman, Agent for the Applicant testified for approval of the
request. Randy Smythe and Kristy Byarlay, two neighbors, spoke
against approval of the proposal. PC went into closed deliberation
session and upon returning voted 6 to 1 to go with the staff
recommendation and recommend denial of the request. In
response to a question, the Planning Commission cited concerns
about creep of designation and about traffic as main factors.
CPM
# 4
Map No. 14.1,
Comprehensive
Plan
File No. CPA12-0004, Amend Comprehensive Plan
Map No. 14.1 - Auburn School request to change
the comprehensive plan designation of 14 parcels;
two parcels totaling 0.63 acres located SE of the
Auburn High School from “Office Residential” to
“Public/Quasi-Public” and rezone from “RO,
Residential Office” to “‘I, Institutional”’ and change
12 parcels totaling 1.74 acres located NW of the
school from "High Density Residential" to
"Public/Quasi-Public" and rezone from “R2O,
Residential” to “I, Institutional” in anticipation of a
future high school redevelopment. The school
address is 800 4th ST NE.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on November 7, 2012. Jeff Grose,
Executive Director of Capital Projects, Auburn School District,
testified in favor of the request.
CPM
# 5
Map No 14.3
Comprehensive
Plan
File No CPA12-0001, Add new Comprehensive Plan
map to show Economic Development Strategy
Areas.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on November 7, 2012. No public testimony.
ACT.D Page 103 of 159
Created: September 9, 2012
Revised December 4, 2012 Page 2 of 3
P/T # Title Description Staff
Recommendation
Planning
Commission
Recommendation
PCDC
Recommendation
City Council
Action Notes
P/T
#1
Auburn School
District Capital
Facilities Plan
(2012 – 2018)
Incorporate Auburn School District 2012-2018
Capital Facilities Plan, as part of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on October 17, 2012. Mike Newman,
Ddeputy Superintendant, Auburn School District, testified in favor
of the request.
P/T
#2
Dieringer School
District Capital
Facilities Plan
(2013 – 2018)
Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital
Facilities Plan 2013-2018 as part of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on October 17, 2012. Judy Martinson,
Superintendant, Dieringer School District, testified in favor of the
request.
P/T
#3
Federal Way
Capital Facilities
Plan (2013 –
2018)
Incorporate Federal Way School District 2013
Capital Facilities Plan, as part of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on October 17, 2012. Due to conflict with
other City’s meetings, Sally McLean, Assistant Superintendant for
Business Services, and Tanya Nascimento, Enrollment and
Demographic Analyst, Federal Way School District, submitted a
letter in favor of the request.
P/T
#4
Kent School
District Capital
Facilities Plan
(2011/2012 –
2016/2017)
Incorporate Kent School District 2012/2013 –
2017/2018 Capital Facilities Plan, as part of the
Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on October 17, 2012. Gwenn Escher-
Derdowski, Enrollment and Planning Administrator, Kent School
District, testified in favor of the request.
P/T
#5
City of Auburn’s
6-year Capital
Facilities Plan
2013-2018
Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital
Facilities Plan 2013-2018, into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on October 17, 2012. No public testimony.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s recommendation, it was
identified that pages 175 and 176 of the City Capital Facilities Plan
need to be modified to shift $129,000 from one fund of the City Hall
project to another. More specifically, to change the 2012 year end
estimate the capital improvement fund: “City Hall HVAC System
Upgrade” (CP0716) (decreased) to “City Hall Remodel, Phase 1”
(CP1009) (increased). This change is reflected in the working
binder.
ACT.D Page 104 of 159
Created: September 9, 2012
Revised December 4, 2012 Page 3 of 3
P/T # Title Description
Staff
Recommendation
Planning
Commission
Recommendation PCDC
Recommendation
City Council
Action Notes
P/T
#6
Revise Chapters
2 and 5 of the
City’s
Comprehensive
Transportation
Plan
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.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on October 17, 2012. No public testimony.
The 12-3-12 Public Works Committee discussion noted that in
revision of Policy TR-28, page 5-5, of Chapter 5 of the
Transportation Plan the word: “all” should be removed to avoid
overstatement and confusion. This change is reflected in the
working binder.
The Committee also noted several areas in Chapters 2 & 5,
unrelated to the current changes, that should be evaluated for
change in the future update of the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan to be started in 2013.
P/T
#7
Revise Chapter
14 of the
Comprehensive
Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Revise Chapter 14 – ‘Comprehensive Plan Map’
related to economic development strategies areas
Revise pages 14-25 through 14-28 to incorporate
advancement of economic development strategy
areas.
Add three policies related changes to economic
development strategy areas and to articulate
relationship to “manufacturing villages” and
Innovative Partnership Zones (IPZ)
Add reference to Map No. 14.3, “Economic
Development Strategy Areas”.
Revise Policy III.J. related to “Problem Areas” and
“West Auburn” to clarify “Local Serving” and “Region
Serving”.
Approval Approval PC Hearing conducted on November 7, 2012. No public testimony.
ACT.D Page 105 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4881
Date:
November 27, 2012
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4881
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4298
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Olympic Pipe Line Company has applied for renewal of their current Public Way
Agreement No 99-02 which was authorized by Resolution No. 4298 (please see attached
document) and is set to expire on February 26, 2013. This agreement is for an existing
14 inch diameter pipeline used for the interstate transportation of petroleum products
located in the right-of-way at the locations specified in Exhibit A of Resolution No 4298.
This pipeline does not serve any customers inside of the city limits nor does the applicant
currently have any plans to offer service inside the city limits. A Public Way Agreement is
required when a commercial utility desires to occupy specific space in the City's right-of-
way for the sole purpose of providing commercial utility services to areas outside the
City.
The current Public Way Agreement was reviewed by city staff and the applicant and it
was determined that the agreement still meets the needs of the City and the applicant
with only minor amendments to the agreement to reflect renewal.
Resolution No. 4881 amends the current agreement to reflect these changes and
authorizes Olympic Pipe Line Company's pipeline facilities to remain in the right-of-way
for an additional five year term per the conditions set forth in PWA 99-02 upon filing with
the City Clerk a Statement of Acceptance which is marked "Exhibit A".
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development, Public Works
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Mund
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 106 of 159
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 107 of 159
Resolution No. 4881
PWA 12-36
November 13, 2012
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 4881
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
RENEWAL OF PWA 99-02 AND AMENDING THE TERMS
OF THE AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, Olympic Pipeline Company has applied to the City for
renewal of PWA 99-02, which was authorized by Resolution No. 4298, and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Grantee’s renewal application and
determined that renewal of the Public Way Agreement authorized by Resolution
No. 4881 with minor amendments is in the best interest of the City and the
citizens of Auburn.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The City approves Grantee’s application for the first renewal
with the amendments and under the conditions set forth in this Resolution.
Section 2. Section 3, “Terms of Agreement” of Resolution No. 4298
is amended to read as follows;
A. This Public Way Agreement shall run for an additional five
year period from the date of execution specified in Section 5.
Section 3. Acceptance of Amendments
A. This Amendment and any rights granted hereunder shall
not become effective for any purpose unless and until Grantee files with
DI.A Page 108 of 159
Resolution No. 4881
PWA 12-36
November 13, 2012
Page 2 of 3
the City Clerk the Statement of Acceptance, attached hereto as Exhibit
“A”, and incorporated by reference. The date that such Statement of
Acceptance is filed with the City Clerk shall be the effective date of the
renewal, which the City has assigned “PWA 12-36”.
B. Should the Grantee fail to file the Statement of Acceptance
with the City Clerk within 30 days after the effective Date of the
ordinance approving the Amendatory Renewal, said renewal and
corresponding agreement will automatically terminate and shall be null
and void.
Section 4. Implementation The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out
the directions of this legislation.
Section 5. Severability The provisions of this resolution are
declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of
the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity
of the remainder of this resolution, or the validity of its application to other
persons or circumstances.
Section 6. Effective date This Resolution shall be in full force
and effect upon passage and signatures hereon.
DI.A Page 109 of 159
Resolution No. 4881
PWA 12-36
November 13, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Dated and Signed this _____ day of ____________, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
________________________________
Peter B. Lewis
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Danielle Daskam
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel B. Heid
City Attorney
DI.A Page 110 of 159
------------------------------
Resolution No 4881
November 13, 2012
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT “A”
STATEMENT OF ACCEPTANCE
Olympic Pipe Line Company, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby accepts and
agrees to be bound by all terms, conditions and provisions of the Public Way
Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
[Grantee]
By: Date:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF _______________________)
)ss.
COUNTY OF ______________________)
On this ____ day of _______________, 2012, before me the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of _____________________, duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared, ______________________ of ________________________, the
company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said company, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she is authorized to execute
said instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal on
the date hereinabove set forth.
Signature
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
___________, residing at
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
DI.A Page 111 of 159
RESOLUTIONN04298ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFAUBURNWASHINGTONAUTHORIZINGTHEMAYORANDCITYCLERKTOEXECUTEAPUBLICWAYAGREEMENTBETWEENTHECITYOFAUBURNANDOLYMPICPIPELINECOMPANYINCWHEREASOlympicPipeLineCompanyInchasappliedtotheCityforanonexclusivePublicWayAgreementfortherightofentryuseandoccupationofcertainpublicrightsofwaywithintheCityofAuburnexpresslytoinstallconstructerectoperatemaintainrepairrelocateandremoveitsfacilitiesinonuponalongandoracrossthoserightsofwayandWHEREASonFebruary42008theAuburnCityCouncilconductedapublichearingtotakepubliccommentsonOlympicPipeLineCompanysapplicationandWHEREAStheCityhasreviewedOlympicPipeLineCompanysapplicationandtheinformationreceivedatthepublichearingandhasdeterminedthatthelocationofOlympicPipeLineCompanysfacilitieswithintherequestedrightsofwayisinthebestinterestoftheCityandthecitizensofAuburnNOWTHEREFORETHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFAUBURNKINGCOUNTYWASHINGTONHEREBYRESOLVESasfollowsResolutionNo4298January82008Page1of3
DI.A Page 112 of 159
Section1TheMayoroftheCityofAuburnandtheAuburnCityClerkareherebyauthorizedtoexecuteaPublicWayAgreementbetweentheCityofAuburnandOlympicPipeLineCompanyIncwhichagreementshallbeinsubstantialconformitywiththeAgreementacopyofwhichisattachedheretomarkedasExhibitAandincorporatedhereinbythisreferenceSection2TheMayorisherebyauthorizedtoimplementsuchadministrativeproceduresasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthedirectivesofthislegislationSection3ThisresolutionshallbeinfullforceandeffectuponpassageandsignatureshereonDatedandSignedthisdayof2008CTTVOAUBURIVPETERLEWISMAYORATTESTDielleEDaskamCityClerkResolutionNo4298January82008Page2of3
DI.A Page 113 of 159
ResolutionNo4298January82008Page3of3
DI.A Page 114 of 159
CITYOFAUBURNPUBLICWAYAGREEMENTWITHOLYMPICPIPELINECOMPANYThisPublicWayAgreementisenteredintobyandbetweentheCityofAuburnWashingtonamunicipalcorporationCityandOlympicPipeLineCompanyaDelawarecorporationGranteeWHEREASGranteehasappliedtotheCityforanonexclusivePublicWayAgreementfortherightofentryuseandoccupationofcertainpublicrightsofwaywithintheCityofAuburnexpresslytoinstallconstructerectoperatemaintainrepairrelocateandremoveitsfacilitiesinonuponalongandoracrossthoserightsofwayandWHEREAStheCityhasreviewedtheGranteesapplicationanddeterminedthatthelocationofGranteesfacilitieswithintherequestedrightsofwayisinthebestinterestoftheCityandthecitizensofAuburnNOWTHEREFOREinconsiderationofthemutualbenefitsandconditionssetforthbelowthepartiesheretoagreeasfollowsSection1NoticeAWrittennoticestothepartiesshallbesentbycertifiedmailtothefollowingaddressesunlessadifferentaddressshallbedesignatedinwritinganddeliveredtotheotherpartyCityRightofWayManagerCityofAuburn25WestMainStreetAuburnWA980014998Telephone2539313010Fax2539313048withacopytoCityClerkCityofAuburn25WestMainStreetAuburnWA980014998GranteeOlympicPipeLineCompanyAttentionRightofWayDepartment2319LindAvenueRentonWA98055VersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage1
DI.A Page 115 of 159
BAnychangestotheabovestatedGranteeinformationshallbesenttotheCitysRightofWayManagerwithcopiestotheCityClerkreferencingthetitleofthisagreementCTheabovestatedGranteevoiceandfaxtelephonenumbersshallbestaffedatleastduringnormalbusinesshoursof8AMto5PMPacificStandardtimeSection2GrantofRighttoUsePublicWayASubjecttothetermsandconditionsstatedhereintheCitygrantstotheGranteegeneralpermissiontoenteruseandoccupytherightsofwayandotherCityownedpropertyspecifiedinExhibitAattachedheretoandincorporatedbyreferencethePublicWayBTheGranteeisauthorizedtoinstallremoveconstructerectoperatemaintainrelocateandrepairthefacilitiesspecifiedinExhibitBattachedheretoandincorporatedbyreferenceandallnecessaryappurtenancestheretoGranteeFacilitiesforprovisionoftheservicesspecifiedinExhibitBGranteeServicesinalongunderandacrossthePublicWayforthesolepurposeofprovidingGranteeServicestopersonsorareasoutsidetheCityCThisPublicWayAgreementdoesnotauthorizetheuseofthePublicWayforanyfacilitiesorservicesotherthanGranteeFacilitiesandGranteeServicesanditextendsnorightsorprivilegerelativetoanyfacilitiesorservicesofanytypeincludingGranteeFacilitiesandGranteeServiceselsewherewithintheCityDThisPublicWayAgreementisnonexclusiveanddoesnotprohibittheCityfromenteringintootheragreementsincludingPublicWayAgreementsimpactingthePublicWayunlesstheCitydeterminesthatenteringintosuchagreementsinterfereswithGranteesrightsetforthhereinEExceptasexplicitlysetforthhereinthisPublicWayAgreementdoesnotwaiveanyrightsthattheCityhasormayhereafteracquirewithrespecttothePublicWayoranyotherCityroadsrightsofwaypropertyoranyportionsthereofThisPublicWayAgreementshallbesubjecttothepowerofeminentdomainFTheCityreservestherighttochangeregraderelocateabandonorvacatethePublicWayIfatanytimeduringthetermofthisPublicWayAgreementtheCityvacatesanyportionofthePublicWaytheCityshallreserveaneasementforpublicutilitieswithinthatvacatedportionpursuanttoRCW3579030withinwhichtheGranteemaycontinuetooperatetheGranteeVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage2
DI.A Page 116 of 159
FacilitiesunderthetermsofthisPublicWayAgreementfortheremainingperiodsetforthunderSection3GTheGranteeagreesthatitsuseofPublicWayshallatalltimesbesubordinatedtoandsubjecttotheCityandthepublicsneedformunicipalinfrastructuretravelandaccesstothePublicWayexceptasmaybeotherwiserequiredbylawHShouldtheGranteeseektousethePublicWaytoprovideservicesincludingGranteeServicestoCityresidentsorbusinessestheGranteeshallapplyforobtainandcomplywiththetermsofaCityfranchiseagreementforsuchuseSection3TermofAgreementThisPublicWayAgreementshallrunforaperiodoffive5yearsfromthedateofexecutionspecifiedinSection5Section4DefinitionsForthepurposeofthisagreementACCmeanstheAuburnCityCodeConstructorConstructionmeansremovingreplacingandrepairingexistingpipelinesandorFacilitiesandmayincludebutisnotlimitedtodiggingandorexcavatingforthepurposesofremovingreplacingandrepairingexistingpipelinesandorFacilitiesEmergencymeansaconditionofimminentdangertothehealthsafetyandwelfareofPersonsorpropertylocatedwithintheCityincludingwithoutlimitationdamagetoPersonsorpropertyfromnaturalconsequencessuchasstormsearthquakesriotsactsofterrorismorwarsEnvironmentalLawsmeanstheResourceConservationandRecoveryAct42USC6901etseqtheComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponseCompensationandLiabilityAct42USC9601etseqtheHazardousMaterialsTransportationAct49USC1801etseqtheFederalWaterPollutionControlAct33USC1257etseqtheCleanAirAct42USC7401etseqtheToxicSubstancesControlAct15USC2601etseqtheFederalInsecticideFungicideandRodenticideAct7USC136etseqtheOccupationalSafetyandHealthAct29USC651etseqtheWashingtonHazardousWasteManagementActChapter70105RCWandtheWashingtonModelToxicsControlActChapter70105DRCWallasamendedfromtimetotimeandanyothervalidandapplicablefederalstateorlocalstatutecodeorVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage3
DI.A Page 117 of 159
ordinanceorvalidandapplicablefederalorstateadministrativeruleregulationordinanceorderdecreeorothervalidandapplicablegovernmentalauthorityasnoworatanytimehereafterineffectpertainingtotheprotectionofhumanhealthortheenvironmentHazardousSubstancemeansanyhazardoustoxicordangeroussubstancematerialwastepollutantorcontaminantincludingallsubstancesdesignatedundertheResourceConservationandRecoveryAct42USC6901etseqtheComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponseCompensationandLiabilityAct42USC9601etseqtheHazardousMaterialsTransportationAct49USC1801etseqtheFederalWaterPollutionControlAct33USC1257etseqtheCleanAirAct42USC7401etseqtheToxicSubstancesControlAct15USC2601etseqtheFederalInsecticideFungicideRodenticideAct7USC136etseqtheWashingtonHazardousWastemanagementActChapter70105RCWandtheWashingtonModelToxicsControlActChapter70105DRCWallasamendedfromtimetotimeandanyotherfederalstateorlocalstatutecodeorordinanceorlawfulruleregulationorderdecreeorothergovernmentalauthorityasnoworatanytimehereafterineffectThetermshallspecificallyincludePetroleumandPetroleumProductsThetermshallalsobeinterpretedtoincludeanysubstancewhichafterreleaseintotheenvironmentwillormayreasonablybeanticipatedtocausedeathdiseasebehaviorabnormalitiescancerorgeneticabnormalitiesMaintenanceorMaintainshallmeanexaminingtestinginspectingrepairingmaintainingandreplacingtheexistingGranteeFacilitiesoranypartthereofasrequiredandnecessaryforsafeoperationPetroleumorPetroleumProductsshallincludebutisnotlimitedtomotorgasolinedieselfuelandaviationjetfuelandshallexcludenaturalgasRelocationmeanspermanentmovementofGranteefacilitiesrequiredbytheCityandnottemporaryorincidentalmovementofsuchfacilitiesorotherrevisionsGranteewouldaccomplishandchargetothirdpartieswithoutregardtomunicipalrequestRightsofWaymeansthesurfaceandthespaceaboveandbelowstreetsroadwayshighwaysavenuescourtslanesalleyssidewalkseasementsrightsofwaysandsimilarpublicpropertiesandareasSection5AcceptanceofPublicWayAgreementAThisPublicWayAgreementandanyrightsgrantedhereundershallnotbecomeeffectiveforanypurposeunlessanduntilGranteefileswiththeCityClerk1theStatementofAcceptanceattachedheretoasExhibitCandincorporatedbyreference2allverificationsofinsurancecoveragespecifiedVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage4
DI.A Page 118 of 159
underSection15and3thefinancialguaranteesspecifiedinSection16collectivelyPublicWayAcceptanceThedatethatsuchPublicWayAcceptanceisfiledwiththeCityClerkshallbetheeffectivedateofthisPublicWayAgreementBShouldtheGranteefailtofilethePublicWayAcceptancewiththeCityClerkwithin30daysaftertheeffectivedateoftheresolutionapprovingthePublicWayAgreementsaidagreementwillautomaticallyterminateandshallbenullandvoidCTheGranteeacknowledgesandwarrantsbyacceptanceoftherightsandprivilegesgrantedhereinthatithascarefullyreadandfullycomprehendsthetermsandconditionsofthisPublicWayAgreementandiswillingtoanddoesacceptallreasonablerisksofthemeaningoftheprovisionstermsandconditionshereinTheGranteefurtheracknowledgesandstatesthatithasfullystudiedandconsideredtherequirementsandprovisionsofthisPublicWayAgreementandbelievesthatthesameareconsistentwithalllocalstateandfederallawsandregulationscurrentlyineffectincludingtheFederalPipelineSafetyAct49USC60101etseqandthePipelineSafetyCodeofFederalRegulationsTitle49CFRPart186199IfinthefuturetheGranteebecomesawarethataprovisionofthisPublicWayAgreementmaybeunlawfulorinvaliditwillnotusesuchpotentialinvaliditytounilaterallyignoreoravoidsuchprovisionInsteadtheGranteewillpromptlyadvisetheCityofthepotentialinvalidityorillegalityandthepartieswillmeetwithinthirty30daysandendeavorjointlytocuretheinvalidityorillegalitySection6ConstructionandMaintenanceATheGranteeshallapplyforobtainandcomplywiththetermsofallpermitsrequiredunderACCChapter1224foranyworkdoneuponGranteeFacilitiesGranteeshallcomplywithallapplicableCityStateandFederalcodesrulesregulationsandordersinundertakingsuchworkwhichshallbedoneinathoroughandproficientmannerBGranteeagreestocoordinateitsactivitieswiththeCityandallotherutilitieslocatedwithinthePublicWayCTheCityexpresslyreservestherighttoexerciseitspolicepowerstoregulatethemannerinwhichGranteemayperformexcavationorotherworkwithinthePublicWayandmayfromtimetotimepursuanttotheapplicablesectionsofthisPublicWayAgreementrequiretheremovalrelocationandorreplacementthereofinthepublicinterestandsafetyattheexpenseoftheGranteeprovidedsuchexerciseshallnotbeinconflictwithFederalregulations49CFRPart195VersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage5
DI.A Page 119 of 159
DBeforecommencinganyworkwithinthePublicWaytheGranteeshallcomplywiththeOneNumberLocatorprovisionsofRCWChapter19122toidentifyexistingutilityinfrastructureEWithinthirty30daysofcompletinganyworkwithinthePublicWaytheGranteeshallprovideupdatedandcorrectedasbuiltdrawingsandasurveyshowingthelocationdepthandothercharacteristicsoftheGranteeFacilitieswithinthePublicWayAgreementAreaFNothinginthisPublicWayAgreementshallbedeemedtoimposeanydutyorobligationupontheCitytodeterminetheadequacyorsufficiencyofGranteesplansanddesignsortoascertainwhetherGranteesproposedoractualconstructiontestingmaintenancerepairsreplacementorremovalisadequateorsufficientorinconformancewiththeplansandspecificationsreviewedbytheCitySection7RepairandEmergencyWorkAIntheeventofanemergencytheGranteemaycommencesuchrepairandemergencyresponseworkasrequiredunderthecircumstancesprovidedthattheGranteeshallimmediatelynotifytheValleyRegionalFireAuthorityofthesituationbymeansofacalltothe911dispatchsystemGranteeshallalsonotifytheCityRightofWayManagerinwritingaspromptlyaspossiblebeforesuchrepairoremergencyworkcommencesorassoonthereafteraspossibleifadvancenoticeisnotpracticableTheCitymayactatanytimewithoutpriorwrittennoticeinthecaseofemergencybutshallnotifytheGranteeaspromptlyaspossibleunderthecircumstancesBGranteeagreestoprovidetheValleyRegionalFireAuthorityandtheCityOfficeofEmergencyManagementonrequestinformationregardingGranteesFacilitiesandEmergencyResponsePlanningSection8DamagestoCityandThirdPartyPropertyGranteeagreesthatshouldanyofitsactionsunderthisPublicWayAgreementimpairsordamagesanyCitypropertysurveymonumentorpropertyownedbyathirdpartyGranteewillrestoreatitsowncostandexpensesaidpropertytoasafeconditionSuchrepairworkshallbepromptlyperformedandcompletedtothesatisfactionoftheCityEngineerSection9LocationPreferenceAAnystructureequipmentappurtenanceortangiblepropertyofaprivatelyownedutilityotherthantheGranteeswhichwasinstalledconstructedcompletedorinplacepriorintimetoGranteesapplicationforapermittoconstructVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage6
DI.A Page 120 of 159
orrepairGranteeFacilitiesunderthisPublicWayAgreementshallhavepreferenceastopositioningandlocationwithrespecttotheGranteeFacilitiesHowevertotheextentthattheGranteeFacilitiesarecompletedandinstalledpriortoneworadditionalstructuresequipmentappurtenancesortangiblepropertyofanearlierprivatelyownedutilitybeinginstalledorcompletedthentheGranteeFacilitiesshallhavepriorityTheserulesgoverningpreferenceshallcontinueintheeventofthenecessityofrelocatingorchangingthegradeofanysuchCityroadorrightofwayArelocatingutilityshallnotnecessitatetherelocationofanotherutilitythatotherwisewouldnotrequirerelocationThisSectionshallnotapplytoanyCityfacilitiesorutilitiesthatmayinthefuturerequiretherelocationofGranteeFacilitiesSuchrelocationsshallbegovernedbySection11BGranteeshalllocateitspipelineinaccordancewithfederalpipelineregulationsandshallmaintainspacingfromwaterpipesandotherutilitiesasrequiredunder49CFR195250Section10GranteeInformationAGranteeagreestosupplyatnocosttotheCityreasonableinformationregardingthelocationandgeneraldescriptionofGranteesFacilitieswithintheCitytotheDirectorofPublicWorksorRightofWayManagerSaidinformationshallincludeataminimumasbuiltdrawingsofGranteeFacilitiesinstallationinventoryandmapsandplansshowingthelocationofexistingorplannedfacilitieswithintheCitySaidinformationmayberequestedeitherinhardcopyandorelectronicformatcompatiblewiththeCitysdatabasesystemasnoworhereinafterexistingincludingtheCitysgeographicinformationServiceGISdatabaseGranteeshallkeeptheRightofWayManagerinformedofitslongrangeplansforcoordinationwiththeCityslongrangeplansBThepartiesunderstandthatWashingtonlawlimitstheabilityoftheCitytoshieldfrompublicdisclosureanyinformationgiventotheCityAccordinglythepartiesagreetoworktogethertoavoiddisclosuresofinformationwhichwouldresultineconomiclossordamagetoGranteebecauseofmandatorydisclosurerequirementstothirdpersonsTheCityshallgiveGranteereasonablenoticeofpublicrecordsrequestsforGranteedocumentsandGranteeshallindemnifyandholdharmlesstheCityforanylossorliabilityforcostsforattorneysfeesbecauseofnondisclosuresrequestedbyGranteeorenjoinedbyacourtpursuanttoamotionbroughtbytheGranteeunderWashingtonsopenpublicrecordslawSection11RelocationofGranteeFacilitiesAExceptasotherwisesorequiredbylawGranteeagreestorelocateremoveorrerouteitsfacilitiesatitssoleexpenseandliabilityandatnoexpenseorliabilitytotheCityorasfurtherprovidedbyTitle20ACCasorderedVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage7
DI.A Page 121 of 159
bytheCityEngineeranduponthreehundredsixty360dayswrittennoticefromtheCityPursuanttotheprovisionsofSection14GranteeagreestoprotectandsaveharmlesstheCityfromanycustomerorthirdpartyclaimsforserviceinterruptionorotherlossesinconnectionwithanysuchchangerelocationabandonmentorvacationofthePubicWayBIntheeventthatthePublicWayshallbecomeaPrimaryStateHighwayasprovidedbylawtheStateDepartmentofTransportationmayordertheGranteetoperformorundertakeatitssoleexpensechangestothelocationofGranteeFacilitiessothatthesameshallnotinterferewithsuchstatehighwayandsothatsuchfacilitiesshallconformtosuchnewgradesorroutesasmaybeestablishedCIfareadjustmentorrelocationoftheGranteeFacilitiesisnecessitatedbyarequestfromapartyotherthantheCitythatpartyshallpaytheGranteetheactualcoststhereofHoweverintheeventtheCityreasonablydeterminesandnotifiestheGranteethattheprimarypurposeforrequiringsuchchangestoorrelocationoftheGranteesfacilitiesbyathirdpartyistocauseorfacilitatetheconstructionofanImprovementProjectconsistentwiththeCityCapitalInvestmentPlanTransportationImprovementProgramortheTransportationFacilitiesProgramorothersimilarplanthentheGranteeshallchangeorotherwiserelocateitsFacilitiesatGranteessolecostexpenseandriskSection12AbandonmentandorRemovalofGranteeFacilitiesAWithinonehundredandeighty180daysofGranteespermanentcessationofuseoftheGranteeFacilitiesoranyportionthereoftheGranteeshallattheCitysdiscretioneitherabandoninplaceorremovetheaffectedfacilitiesBIntheeventoftheabandonmentrelocationorremovalofalloraportionofthepipelinesorFacilitiesGranteeshallatitsowncostrestorethePublicWaytoasgoodorbetterconditionasitwasinbeforetheworkbeganCIftheCityandtheGranteeagreethatalloraportionoftheGranteeFacilitiesshouldbeabandonedinplacetheGranteemaypurgeitsFacilitiesandabandontheminplaceDGranteeshallberesponsibleforthepreparationandcostofanyenvironmentalreviewrequiredfortheabandonmentrelocationorremovalofGranteeFacilitiesTheCitysconsenttotheabandonmentofGranteeFacilitiesinplaceshallnotrelievetheGranteeoftheobligationandcoststoremoveortoaltersuchFacilitiesinthefutureintheeventtheCityorothergovernmentalentitywithauthorityovertheGranteeFacilitiesreasonablydeterminesthatVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage8
DI.A Page 122 of 159
removaloralterationsisnecessaryoradvisableforthehealthandsafetyofthepublicEThepartiesexpresslyagreethatthisSectionshallsurvivetheexpirationrevocationorterminationofthisPublicWayAgreementSection13UndergroundingThisSectionintentionallyleftblankSection14IndemnificationandHoldHarmlessATheGranteeshalldefendindemnifyandholdtheCityanditsofficersofficialsagentsemployeesandvolunteersharmlessfromanyandallcostsclaimsinjuriesdamageslossessuitsorliabilitiesofanynatureincludingattorneysfeesarisingoutoforinconnectionwiththeGranteesperformanceunderthisPublicWayAgreementexcepttotheextentsuchcostsclaimsinjuriesdamageslossessuitsorliabilitiesarecausedbythenegligenceoftheCityBTheGranteeshallholdtheCityharmlessfromanyliabilityarisingoutoforinconnectionwithanydamageorlosstotheGranteeFacilitiescausedbymaintenanceandorconstructionworkperformedbyoronbehalfoftheCitywithinthePublicWayoranyotherCityroadrightofwayorotherpropertyexcepttotheextentanysuchdamageorlossisdirectlycausedbythenegligenceoftheCityoritsagentperformingsuchworkCTheindemnificationsetforthinSection14AshallincludecostsclaimsinjuriesdamageslossessuitsorliabilitiesarisingfromaGranteesviolationofanyEnvironmentalLawsapplicabletotheFacilitiesorbfromanyreleaseofaHazardousSubstanceonorfromtheFacilitiesThisindemnityincludesbutisnotlimitedtoaliabilityforagovernmentalagencyscostsofremovalorremedialactionforHazardousSubstancesbdamagestonaturalresourcescausedbyHazardousSubstancesincludingthereasonablecostsofassessingsuchdamagescliabilityforanyotherpersonscostsofrespondingtoHazardousSubstancesanddliabilityforanycostsofinvestigationabatementcorrectioncleanupfinespenaltiesorotherdamagesarisingunderanyEnvironmentalLawsandeliabilityforpersonalinjurypropertydamageoreconomiclossarisingunderanystatutoryorcommonlawtheoryDTheGranteeacknowledgesthatneithertheCitynoranyotherpublicagencywithresponsibilityforfirefightingemergencyrescuepublicsafetyorsimilardutieswithintheCityhasthecapabilitytoprovidetrenchclosetrenchorconfinedspacerescueTheGranteeanditsagentsassignssuccessorsorcontractorsshallmakesucharrangementsasGranteedeemsfitfortheprovisionofsuchservicesTheGranteeshallholdtheCityharmlessfromanyVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage9
DI.A Page 123 of 159
liabilityarisingoutoforinconnectionwithanydamageorlosstotheGranteefortheCitysfailureorinabilitytoprovidesuchservicesandpursuanttothetermsofSection14AtheGranteeshallindemnifytheCityagainstanyandallthirdpartycostsclaimsinjuriesdamageslossessuitsorliabilitiesbasedontheCitysfailureorinabilitytoprovidesuchservicesEShouldacourtofcompetentjurisdictiondeterminethatthisAgreementissubjecttoRCW424115thenintheeventofliabilityfordamagesarisingoutofbodilyinjurytopersonsordamagestopropertycausedbyorresultingfromtheconcurrentnegligenceoftheGranteeandtheCityitsofficersofficialsemployeesandvolunteerstheGranteesliabilityhereundershallbeonlytotheextentoftheGranteesnegligenceItisfurtherspecificallyandexpresslyunderstoodthattheindemnificationprovidedhereinconstitutestheCitysandGranteeswaiversofimmunityunderIndustrialInsuranceTitle51RCWsolelyforthepurposesoftheindemnificationssetforthinthisSection14ThiswaiverhasbeenmutuallynegotiatedbythepartiesTheprovisionsofthissectionshallsurvivetheexpirationorterminationofthisAgreementFAcceptancebytheCityofanyworkperformedbytheGranteeshallnotbegroundsforavoidanceofthissectionSection15InsuranceATheGranteeshallprocureandmaintainforthedurationoftheAgreementinsuranceagainstclaimsforinjuriestopersonsordamagetopropertywhichmayarisefromorinconnectionwiththeperformanceoftheworkhereunderbytheConsultantitsagentsrepresentativesoremployeesintheamountsandtypessetforthbelow1AutomobileLiabilityinsurancecoveringallownednonownedhiredandleasedvehicleswithaminimumcombinedsinglelimitforbodilyinjuryandpropertydamageof2000000peraccidentCoverageshallbewrittenonInsuranceServicesOfficeISOformCA0001orasubstituteformprovidingequivalentliabilitycoverageIfnecessarythepolicyshallbeendorsedtoprovidecontractualliabilitycoverage2CommercialGeneralLiabilityinsurancewithlimitsnolessthan100000000eachoccurrence100000000generalaggregateanda2000000productscompletedoperationsaggregatelimitCoverageshallbewrittenonISOoccurrenceformCG0001orequivalentandshallcoverliabilityarisingfrompremisesoperationsindependentcontractorsproductscompletedoperationsandpersonalinjuryandadvertisinginjuryandliabilityassumedunderaninsuredcontractAggregatelimitof100000000canbesatisfiedbyExcessLiabilityThereshallbenoendorsementormodificationoftheCommercialGeneralLiabilityinsuranceforliabilityarisingfromexplosioncollapseorVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage10
DI.A Page 124 of 159
undergroundpropertydamageTheCityshallbenamedasanadditionalinsuredundertheGranteesCommercialGeneralLiabilityinsurancepolicywithrespecttotheworkperformedunderthisPublicWayAgreementusingISOAdditionalInsuredEndorsementCG20101001andAdditionalInsuredCompletedOperationsendorsementCG20373WorkersCompensationcoverageasrequiredbytheIndustrialInsurancelawsoftheStateofWashingtonEmployersLiability2000000peroccurrenceStopGapLiabilityincludedinEmployersLiabilityBTheinsurancepoliciesaretocontainorbeendorsedtocontainthefollowingprovisionsforAutomobileLiabilityandCommercialGeneralLiabilityinsurance1TheGranteesinsurancecoverageshallbeprimaryinsuranceasrespectstheCityAnyinsuranceselfinsuranceorinsurancepoolcoveragemaintainedbytheCityshallbeinexcessoftheGranteesinsuranceandshallnotcontributewithit2TheGranteesinsuranceshallbeendorsedtostatethatcoverageshallnotbecancelledbyeitherpartyexceptafterthirty30dayspriorwrittennoticehasbeengiventotheCityCAcceptabilityofInsurersInsuranceistobeplacedwithinsurerswithacurrentAMBestratingofnotlessthanAVIIorequivalentDVerificationofCoverageGranteeshallfurnishtheCitywithoriginalcertificatesandacopyofamendatoryendorsementsincludingbutnotnecessarilylimitedtotheadditionalinsuredendorsementorequivalentevidencingtheinsurancerequirementsoftheConsultantbeforecommencementoftheworkEAnydeductiblesshallbethesoleresponsibilityoftheGranteeTheinsurancecertificaterequiredbythisSectionshallcontainaclausestatingthatcoverageshallapplyseparatelytoeachinsuredagainstwhomclaimismadeorsuitisbroughtexceptwithrespecttotheaggregatelimitsoftheinsurersliabilityFGranteesmaintenanceofinsuranceasrequiredbythisAgreementshallnotbeconstruedtolimittheliabilityofGranteetothecoverageprovidedbysuchinsuranceorotherwiselimittheCitysrecoursetoanyremedytowhichtheCityisotherwiseentitledatlaworinequityGSection14IndemnificationandHoldHarmlessandthisSection15InsuranceshallsurvivetheterminationofthisAgreementandshallcontinueVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage11
DI.A Page 125 of 159
foraslongasGranteeFacilitiesremainoperatinginthePublicWayoruntilanewPublicWayAgreementsupersedesthisAgreementSection16PerformanceSecurityPursuanttoACCChapter2010theGranteeshallprovidetheCitywithasecuritybondasspecifiedinACCSection2010250inaformandsubstanceacceptabletotheCitysecuringtheGranteesfaithfulcompliancewiththetermsofthisPublicWayAgreementSuchguaranteesshallbeintheamountoffiftythousanddollars5000000Section17SuccessorsandAssigneesAAlltheprovisionsconditionsregulationsandrequirementshereincontainedshallbebindinguponthesuccessorsassignsofandindependentcontractorsoftheGranteeandallrightsandprivilegesaswellasallobligationsandliabilitiesoftheGranteeshallinuretoitssuccessorsassigneesandcontractorsequallyasiftheywerespecificallymentionedhereinwherevertheGranteeismentionedBThispublicwayagreementshallnotbeleasedassignedorotherwisealienatedwithouttheexpressconsentoftheCitybyresolutionwhichapprovalshallnotbeunreasonablywithheldCGranteeandanyproposedassigneeortransfereeshallprovideandcertifythefollowingtotheCitynotlessthan120dayspriortotheproposeddateoftransferaCompleteinformationsettingforththenaturetermandconditionsoftheproposedassignmentortransferbAllinformationrequiredbytheCityofanapplicantforaPublicWayAgreementwithrespecttotheproposedassigneeortransfereeandcAnapplicationfeewhichshallbesetbytheCityplusanyothercostsactuallyandreasonablyincurredbytheCityinprocessingandinvestigatingtheproposedassignmentortransferSection18DisputeResolutionAIntheeventofadisputebetweentheCityandtheGranteearisingbyreasonofthisAgreementthedisputeshallfirstbereferredtotheoperationalofficersorrepresentativesdesignatedbyGrantorandGranteetohaveoversightovertheadministrationofthisAgreementTheofficersorrepresentativesshallmeetwithinfifteen15calendardaysofeitherpartysrequestforameetingwhicheverrequestisfirstandthepartiesshallmakeagoodfaithefforttoachievearesolutionofthedisputeBIfthepartiesfailtoachievearesolutionofthedisputeinthismannereitherpartymaythenpursueanyavailablejudicialremediesThisVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage12
DI.A Page 126 of 159
PublicWayAgreementshallbegovernedbyandconstruedinaccordancewiththelawsoftheStateofWashingtonIntheeventanysuitarbitrationorotherproceedingisinstitutedtoenforceanytermofthisAgreementthepartiesspecificallyunderstandandagreethatvenueshallbeexclusivelyinKingCountyWashingtonTheprevailingpartyinanysuchactionshallbeentitledtoitsattorneysfeesandcostsofsuitwhichshallbefixedbythejudgehearingthecaseandsuchfeesshallbeincludedinthejudgmentSection19EnforcementandRemediesAIftheGranteeshallwillfullyviolateorfailtocomplywithanyoftheprovisionsofthisPublicWayAgreementthroughwillfulintentorgrossnegligenceorshoulditfailtoheedorcomplywithanynoticegiventoGranteeundertheprovisionsofthisagreementtheCitymayatitsdiscretionprovideGranteewithwrittennoticetocurethebreachwithinthirty30daysofnotificationIftheCitydeterminesthebreachcannotbecuredwithinthirtydaystheCitymayspecifyalongercureperiodandconditiontheextensionoftimeonGranteessubmittalofaplantocurethebreachwithinthespecifiedperiodcommencementofworkwithintheoriginalthirtydaycureperiodanddiligentprosecutionoftheworktocompletionIfthebreachisnotcuredwithinthespecifiedtimeortheGranteedoesnotcomplywiththespecifiedconditionstheGranteeanditssuccessorsorassigneesshallforfeitallrightsconferredhereunderandthePublicWayAgreementmayberevokedorannulledbytheCitywithnofurthernotificationBShouldtheCitydeterminethatGranteeisactingbeyondthescopeofpermissiongrantedhereinforGranteeFacilitiesandGranteeServicestheCityreservestherighttocancelthisPublicWayAgreementuponthirtydays30writtennoticetoGranteeandrequiretheGranteetoapplyforobtainandcomplywithallapplicableCitypermitsfranchisesorotherCitypermissionsforsuchactionsandiftheGranteesactionsarenotallowedundertheAuburnCityCodetocompelGranteetoceasesuchactionsSection20CompliancewithLawsandRegulationsAThisPublicWayAgreementissubjecttoandtheGranteeshallcomplywithallapplicablefederalandstateorCitylawsregulationsandpoliciesincludingallapplicableelementsoftheCityscomprehensiveplaninconformancewithfederallawsandregulationsaffectingperformanceunderthisPublicWayAgreementFurthermorenotwithstandinganyothertermsofthisagreementappearingtothecontrarytheGranteeshallbesubjecttothepolicepoweroftheCitytoadoptandenforcegeneralordinancesnecessarytoprotectthesafetyandwelfareofthegeneralpublicinrelationtotherightsgrantedinthePublicWayprovidedthatsaidordinancesarenotinconflictwithfederalpipelinesafetyregulationsVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage13
DI.A Page 127 of 159
BTheCityreservestherightatanytimetoamendthisPublicWayAgreementtoconformtoanyhereafterenactedamendedoradoptedmandatoryfederalorstatestatuteorregulationrelatingtothepublichealthsafetyandwelfareorrelatingtoroadwayregulationoraCityOrdinanceenactedpursuanttosuchfederalorstatestatuteorregulationuponprovidingGranteewiththirty30dayswrittennoticeofitsactionsettingforththefulltextoftheamendmentandidentifyingthestatuteregulationorordinancerequiringtheamendmentSaidamendmentshallbecomeautomaticallyeffectiveuponexpirationofthenoticeperiodunlessbeforeexpirationofthatperiodtheGranteemakesawrittencallfornegotiationsoverthetermsoftheamendmentIfthepartiesdonotreachagreementastothetermsoftheamendmentwithinthirty30daysoftheinitialnoticetheCitymayenacttheproposedamendmentbyincorporatingtheGranteesconcernstothemaximumextenttheCitydeemspossibleCTheCitymayterminatethisPublicWayAgreementuponthirty30dayswrittennoticetotheGranteeiftheGranteefailstocomplywithsuchamendmentormodificationSection21LicenseTaxandOtherChargesThisPublicWayAgreementshallnotexempttheGranteefromanyfuturelicensetaxorchargewhichtheCitymayhereinafteradoptpursuanttoauthoritygrantedtoitunderstateorfederallawforrevenueorasreimbursementforuseandoccupancyofpublicwaysSection22ConsequentialDamagesLimitationNotwithstandinganyotherprovisionofthisAgreementinnoeventshalleitherpartybeliableforanyspecialincidentalindirectpunitiverelianceconsequentialorsimilardamagesSection23SeverabilityIfanyportionofthisPublicWayAgreementisdeemedinvalidtheremainderportionsshallremainineffectSection24TitlesThesectiontitlesusedhereinareforreferenceonlyandshouldnotbeusedforthepurposeofinterpretingthisPublicWayAgreementVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage14
DI.A Page 128 of 159
DATEDandSIGNEDthisdayofte20CITYOFAUBURN4rPETERBLEWISMAYORATTESTi1DaelleEDaskamCityClerkVersionDate2408PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage15APPROVEDASTOFORM
DI.A Page 129 of 159
NESYO100Fwltb0FMNRHLPNOPARGELLegendHandvalveIntersectionPointMainlinepipelinetSchoolNRoadHydroCitynameMilepostsIndianReservBdryCWashOreParcelAuburnboundary130MilePostj124V
DI.A Page 130 of 159
EXHIBITBA14inchdiameterpipelinefortheinterstatetransportationofpetroleumproductsNolocalserviceisprovidedThepipelinelocationisshowninExhibitA
DI.A Page 131 of 159
EXHIBITCSTATEMENTOFACCEPTANCEOlympicPipeLineCompanyforitselfitssuccessorsandassignsherebyacceptsandagreestobeboundbyalllawfultermsconditionsandprovisionsofthePublicWayAgreementattachedheretoandincorporatedhereinbythisreferenceOLYMPICPIPELINECOMPANY1rByCcetDateNamenctlTitlestSTATEOFssCOUNTYOFcOnthisdayofrfrtCrG2008beforemetheundersignedaNotaryPublicinandfortheStateofifidulycommissionedandswornpersonallyappearedfr1crofOlympicPipeLineCompanythecompanythatexecutedthewithinandforgoinginstrumentandacknowledgedthesaidinstrumenttobethefreeandvoluntaryactanddeedofsaidcompanyfortheusesandpurposesthereinmentionedandonoathstatedthathesheisauthorizedtoexecutesaidinstrumentINWITNESSWHEREOFIhavehereuntosetmyhandandaffixedmyofficialsealonthedatehereinabovesetforthSignatureaoTomNOTARYPUBLICinandfortheStateofaaczresidingatttfitCViciFaMYCMMISSINEXPIREStVersionDate11082007PUBLICWAYAGREEMENTPage16
DI.A Page 132 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6445 - School Impact Fees
Date:
November 29, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Agenda Bill
Ordinance No. 6445
Table Comparison Chart
Pierce County Ordinance No. 2012-71
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached agenda bill.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning Commission, Planning, Legal
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 133 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0009; Ordinance No. 6445 related to revision
of school district impact fees
Date:
November 26, 2012
Department:
Planning & Development Dept.
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6445
Table Comparison of Impact Fee
Proposal
Pierce County Ordinance No. 2012-
71
Budget Impact:
$
Administrative Recommendation:
Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend to City Council to introduce and adopt
Ordinance No. 6445.
Background Summary:
Title 19 (Impact Fees) of the Auburn City Code contains standards and regulations pertaining to the
imposition of impact fees in the City of Auburn. Chapter 19.02 (School Impact Fees) addresses the
establishment, calculation, collection and amendment of school impact fees within the municipal
boundaries of the City of Auburn. The city originally established school impact fees in 1998 by Ordinance
No. 5078. Four school districts occur within the City limits.
Pursuant to Section 19.02.060 (Annual Council Review) of the Auburn City Code, on at least an annual
basis, the Auburn City Council shall review the information submitted by the Districts pursuant to ACC
19.02.050. The review shall be in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element of the
city's comprehensive plan. The City Council may also at this time determine if an adjustment to the
amount of the impact fees is necessary.
The City of Auburn annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process for 2012 included requests for City
approval of the Capital Facilities Plans of the four districts as follows:
* 2012 - 2018 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan;
* 2013-2018 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan;
* 2013 Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan; and
* 2012-2013 through 2017-2018 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan.
These requests were submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.02.050 (Submission of
District Capital Facilities Plan and Data) of the Auburn City Code.
The School Districts’ Capital Facilities Plans are contained in the working notebooks (three ring binder)
for the 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, previously distributed to the City Council.
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
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Backus Staff: Snyder
Meeting Date: December 3, 2012 Item Number:
DI.B Page 134 of 159
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6445
Date: November 26, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Definition
The city’s code section 19.02 contains the city’s regulations governing school impact fees. It provides the
following definition:
"Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development
approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve new growth and development that is reasonably
related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a
proportionate share of the cost of the school facilities, and that is used for such facilities that
reasonably benefit the new development.
Related Authority
Other key points of the city’s regulations include:
The impact fee shall be based on a capital facilities plan adopted by the district and
incorporated by reference by the city as part of the capital facilities element of the city's
comprehensive plan (Chapter 5), adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, for the purpose of
establishing the fee program.
Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and multifamily types of dwelling units, and
separate student generation rates must be determined by the district for each type of dwelling
unit.
The fee shall be calculated on a district-wide basis using the appropriate factors and data
supplied by the district. The fee calculations shall also be made on a district-wide basis to assure
maximum utilization of all available school facilities in the district which meet district standards.
As a condition of the city's authorization and adoption of a school impact fee ordinance, the city
and the applicable district shall enter into an interlocal agreement governing the operation of the
school impact fee program, and describing the relationship and liabilities of the parties. The
agreement must provide that the district shall hold the city harmless for all damages.
On an annual basis (by July 1st or on a date agreed to by district and the city and stipulated in
the interlocal agreement), any district for which the city is collecting impact fees shall submit the
Capital facilities plan and supporting information to the city.
Applicants for single-family and multifamily residential building permits shall pay the total
amount of the impact fees assessed before the building permit is issued, using the impact fee
schedules in effect, unless the fee has been deferred pursuant to City Ordinance No. 6341.
The impact fee calculation shall be based upon the formula set forth in ACC 19.02.110, “Impact
fee formula”. The formula is the city's determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the
costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to be funded
by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Based on this formula, the
“Fee Obligation” is the “Total Unfunded Need” x 50% = Fee Calculation.
The Capital Facilities Plans approved by the school boards contain proposed school impact fees for each
of the Districts. The requests for adjustment of the school impact fees are required to be submitted
concurrent with the submittal of the Capital Facilities Plans prior to July 1 of each year. All the requests
for fee adjustments were received prior to the July 1st deadline.
DI.B Page 135 of 159
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6445
Date: November 26, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Council Review and Decision
The setting of the actual fees occurs through separate Council action amending Chapter 19.02 of the
Auburn City Code. Section 19.02.060, “Annual Council Review” specifies the following:
On at least an annual basis, the city council shall review the information submitted by the district
pursuant to ACC 19.02.050. The review shall be in conjunction with any update of the capital
facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. The city council may also at this time
determine if an adjustment to the amount of the impact fees is necessary; provided, that any
school impact fee adjustment that would increase the school impact fee shall require the
submittal of a written request for the adjustment by the applicable school district concurrent with
the submittal of the annual capital facilities plan pursuant to ACC 19.02.050. In making its
decision to adjust impact fees, the city council will take into consideration the quality and
completeness of the information provided in the applicable school district capital facilities plan
and may decide to enact a fee less than the amount supported by the capital facilities plan.
Section 19.02.060 establishes that the Auburn City Council is not obligated to accept the fees proposed
by the School Districts within their submitted Capital Facilities Plans and may establish fees that the
Council determines are more appropriate and consistent with the public’s interest in reasonably mitigating
school impacts within the affected portion of the City.
The Dieringer School District submitted a proposed fee calculation of $5,322.00 based on their Capital
Facilities Plan. Related to this, the Pierce County Council by Ordinance No. 2012-71 adopted October
17, 2012 and effective January 1, 2013, established a school impact fee for the Dieringer School District
of $3,005.00 (The Dieringer School District is the only school district common to both the City of Auburn
and Pierce County). The staff recommendation is to establish a fee within Auburn for the Dieringer
School district that is the same as Pierce County’s fee since it is more appropriate and consistent with the
public’s interest in reasonably mitigating school impacts within the affected portion of the City. The draft
Ordinance No. 6445 has been prepared to reflect a school impact fee that is the same as Pierce County’s
school impact fee and not what the District has requested.
DI.B Page 136 of 159
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6445
November 28, 2012
Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 4 5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON AMENDING SECTIONS
19.02.115, 19.02.120, 19.02.130 AND 19.02.140 OF THE
AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO SCHOOL IMPACTS
FEES
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has adopted a school impact fee ordinance and
collects school impact fees on behalf of certain school districts located or located in part
within the City of Auburn; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn School District, Dieringer School District, Federal Way
School District, and the Kent School District, each being located in part within the City of
Auburn, have provided the City of Auburn with updated capital facilities plans to be
considered during the City’s 2012 annual comprehensive plan amendment process that
addresses among other things, the appropriate school impact fee for single family
residential dwellings and multi- family residential dwellings for each district; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn School District issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the 2012 - 2018 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan May 8,
2012; the Dieringer School District issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the
2013-2018 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan March 12, 2012; the Federal
Way School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2013 Federal
Way School District Capital Facilities Plan May 11, 2012; and the Kent School District
issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2012-2013 through 2017-2018 Kent
School District Capital Facilities Plan May 29, 2012; and
DI.B Page 137 of 159
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6445
November 28, 2012
Page 2 of 7
WHEREAS the City of Auburn issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
on September 10, 2012 for the City of Auburn Year 2012 city-initiated comprehensive
plan map and text amendments (File No. SEP12-0023) that incorporated by reference
the previous threshold determinations by the Auburn School, Dieringer School District,
Federal Way School District and the Kent School District, and
WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City’s official newspaper at least
ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the Auburn Planning Commission on October
16, 2012 conducted public hearings on the proposed Auburn School District 2012-2018
Capital Facilities Plan, the proposed Dieringer School District 2013 - 2018 Capital
Facilities Plan; the proposed Federal Way School District 2013 Capital Facilities Plan;
and for the proposed Kent School District 2012-2013 through 2017-2018 Capital
Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing on October 16, 2012,
and subsequent deliberations, the Auburn Planning Commission, following individual
positive motions, made separate recommendations to the Auburn City Council on the
approval of the Auburn School District 2012-2018 Capital Facilities Plan, the Dieringer
School District 2013 - 2018 Capital Facilities Plan; the Federal Way School District 2013
Capital Facilities Plan; and for the Kent School District 2012-2013 through 2017-2018
Capital Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council considered the recommendations of the
Auburn Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 17, 2012,
and a positive motion approved the Auburn School District 2012-2018 Capital Facilities
DI.B Page 138 of 159
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6445
November 28, 2012
Page 3 of 7
Plan, the Dieringer School District 2013 - 2018 Capital Facilities Plan; the Federal Way
School District 2013 Capital Facilities Plan; and the Kent School District 2012-2013
through 2017-2018 Capital Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012 the Public Works Committee of the Auburn
City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting reviewed the Planning Commission’s
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012 the Finance Committee of the Auburn City
Council at a regularly scheduled meeting reviewed the Planning Commission’s
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2012 the Planning and Community Development
Committee of the Auburn City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting recommended
to the Auburn City Council the approval of amendments to Title 19 (Impact Fees) and
more specifically, Chapter 19.02 (School Impact Fees) pertaining to school impact fees
for single family residential dwelling units and multi-family dwelling units to be applied in
the City of Auburn for the Auburn School District; Dieringer School District, Federal Way
School District, and the Kent School District; respectively, based on the aforementioned
capital facilities plans for each of these districts; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Code provides for adjustments to school impacts
fees based on a review of the capital facilities plans for the districts; and
WHEREAS, Section 19.02.060 (Annual Council Review) of the Auburn City Code
specifies that the Auburn City Council will in making its decision to adjust impact fees
take into consideration the quality and completeness of the information provided in the
DI.B Page 139 of 159
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6445
November 28, 2012
Page 4 of 7
applicable school district capital facilities plan and may decide to enact a fee less than
the amount supported by the capital facilities plan; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012, the Auburn City Council considered the
recommendation of the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City
Council at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendment to the City Code. Section 19.02.115 of the Auburn City
Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
19.02.115 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Dieringer School
District.
The impact fee calculation and schedule below is based upon a review of
the impact fee calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily
residences set forth in the most recent version of the Dieringer School
District Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an
element of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the
determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public
school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to
be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC
19.02.020.
Effective January 1, 2012 2013, or the effective date of this ordinance
whichever is later, the school impact fee shall be as follows:
Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $3,500.00$3,005.00
Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $0.00
(Ord. 6393 § 1, 2011; Ord. 6341 § 2, 2011; Ord. 6340 § 1, 2010; Ord.
6279 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 1, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 1, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 1,
2006; Ord. 5950 § 2, 2005.)
DI.B Page 140 of 159
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6445
November 28, 2012
Page 5 of 7
Section 2. Amendment to the City Code. Section 19.02.120 of the Auburn City
Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
19.02.120 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Auburn School
District.
The impact fee calculation and schedule is based upon a review of the
impact fee calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily
residences set forth in the most recent version of the Auburn School
District’s Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an
element of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the
determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public
school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to
be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC
19.02.020.
Effective January 1, 2012 2013, or the effective date of this ordinance
whichever is later, the school impact fee shall be as follows:
Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $5,486.00$5,511.69
Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $2,305.22$3,380.26
(Ord. 6393 § 2, 2011; Ord. 6341 § 2, 2011; Ord. 6340 § 2, 2010; Ord.
6279 § 2, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 2, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 2, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 2,
2006; Ord. 5950 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5793 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5232 § 1, 1999.)
Section 3. Amendment to the City Code. Section 19.02.130 is hereby amended
as follows.
19.02.130 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Kent School
District.
The impact fee calculation and schedule is based upon a review of the
impact fee and calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily
residences set forth in the most recent version of the Kent School District’s
Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an element of
the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of
the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital
facilities needed to serve new growth and development to be funded by
school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020.
DI.B Page 141 of 159
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6445
November 28, 2012
Page 6 of 7
Effective January 1, 2012 2013, or the effective date of this ordinance
whichever is later, the school impact fee shall be as follows:
Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $5,486.00
Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $3,378.00
Ord. 6393 § 3, 2011; Ord. 6341 § 2, 2011; Ord. 6340 § 3, 2010; Ord. 6279
§ 3, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 3, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 3, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 3, 2006;
Ord. 5950 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5233 § 1, 1999.)
Section 4. Amendment to the City Code. Section 19.02.140 of the Auburn City
Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
19.02.140 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Federal Way
School District.
The impact fee calculation and schedule is based upon a review of the
impact fee and calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily
residences set forth in the most recent version of the Federal Way School
District’s Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an
element of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the
determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public
school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to
be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC
19.02.020.
Effective January 1, 2012 2013, or the effective date of this ordinance
whichever is later, the school impact fee shall be as follows:
Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $4,014.00
Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $1,253.00$1,381.00
(Ord. 6393 § 4, 2011; Ord. 6341 § 2, 2011; Ord. 6340 § 4, 2010; Ord.
6279 § 4, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 4, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 4, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 4,
2006; Ord. 6042 § 1, 2006.)
Section 5. Constitutionality and Invalidity. If any section, subsection sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held invalid or
DI.B Page 142 of 159
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ordinance No. 6445
November 28, 2012
Page 7 of 7
unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: ________________________
PASSED: ________________________
APPROVED: ________________________
_____________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
DI.B Page 143 of 159
School Impact Fee Proposal
(Effective Year 2013)
Per Adopted Ordinance No. 6393
School
District Multiple Family Single Family
Past 2012
fee, Per
ACC 19.02
& Ord
6393
CFP says: Requested
Amount
Change Past 2012
fee, Per
ACC 19.02
& Ord
6393
CFP says: Requested
Amount
Change
Auburn $2,305.22 $3,380.26
page 28
$3,380.26
Increase
of
$1,075.0
4
$5,486.00 $5,511.69
page 28
$5,511.69 Decrease
of
$45.61
Dieringer $0.00 ($1,684.00)
Page 14
$0.00 No
Change
$3,500.00 $5,322.00
Page 14
$5,322.00 Increase
of
$1,822.00
Federal
Way
$1,253.00
$1,381.00
page 26 &
28
$1,381.00
Increase
of
$128.00
$4,014.00 $4,014.00
Page 26 &
28
$4,014.00 No
Change
Kent $3,378.00 $3,378.00
Page 29 &
30
$3,378.00 No
Change
$5,486.00 $5,486.00
Page 28 &
30
$5,486.00 No
Change
CFP = (School District) Capital Facilities Plan
DI.B Page 144 of 159
DI.B Page 145 of 159
DI.B Page 146 of 159
DI.B Page 147 of 159
DI.B Page 148 of 159
DI.B Page 149 of 159
DI.B Page 150 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Review Arterial Street Needs
Date:
December 4, 2012
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Memo
Map 1
Map 2
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memo.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Planning And Community Development
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dowdy
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 151 of 159
Page 1 of 1
Memorandum
Date: December 4, 2012
To: Pete Lewis, Mayor
Planning and Community Development Committee Members
From: Pablo Para, Transportation Manager
CC: Dennis Dowdy, Public Works Director
Dennis Selle, City Engineer
Ingrid Gaub, Assistant City Engineer
Re: Review Arterial Street Needs (Discussion Item for the December 10th PCDC
Meeting)
The attached maps are scheduled to be discussed at the December 10th Planning and
Community Development Committee meeting. These maps are exactly the same as
the maps passed out at the November 19th Public Works Committee meeting only
mileage and cost information is now included.
DI.C Page 152 of 159
DI.C Page 153 of 159
DI.C Page 154 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Director's Report
Date:
November 29, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
No Attachments Available
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For information only.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 155 of 159
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
PCDC Matrix
Date:
November 29, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
PCDC Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For information only, see attached matrix.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 10, 2012 Item Number:DI.E
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E Page 156 of 159
PC
D
C
W
o
r
k
P
l
a
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
–
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
Pl
e
a
s
e
N
o
t
e
:
N
e
w
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
u
n
d
e
r
l
i
n
e
d
,
d
e
l
e
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
mo
v
e
d
,
r
e
t
r
e
a
t
i
t
e
m
s
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
LA
N
D
U
S
E
C
O
D
E
S
/
P
O
L
I
C
I
E
S
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
1
•
M
u
c
k
l
e
s
h
o
o
t
T
r
i
b
e
TB
D
S
n
y
d
e
r
St
a
f
f
t
o
s
t
a
y
i
n
t
o
u
c
h
w
i
t
h
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
t
.
a
n
d
k
e
e
p
coordination &
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
n
w
i
t
h
T
r
i
b
e
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
m
e
t
w
i
t
h
t
he Muckleshoot Tribe
Ma
r
c
h
2
6
,
2
0
1
2
.
2
Co
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
W
o
r
k
•
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
–
Gr
o
u
p
2
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
W
a
g
n
e
r
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
,
G
r
o
u
p
2
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
w
e
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
P
l
anning Commission for
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
n
1
0
/
0
2
/
1
2
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
ved by City Council on
11
/
5
/
1
2
.
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
C
o
d
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
w
e
n
t
t
o
P
l
a
nning Commission public
he
a
r
i
n
g
o
n
1
1
/
7
/
1
2
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
o
n
1
2
/3/12.
•
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
20
1
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
la
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
•
C
o
t
t
a
g
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
20
1
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
la
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
•
C
e
l
l
T
o
w
e
r
s
TB
D
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
P
C
D
C
o
n
9
/
1
0
/
1
2
a
n
d
c
o
d
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
a
t
P
lanning Commission on
10
/
2
/
1
2
.
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
r
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
th more information to
di
s
c
u
s
s
o
n
c
e
l
l
t
o
w
e
r
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
o
d
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
•
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
20
1
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
C
o
d
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
a
s
e
d on Council retreat direction.
•
A
g
r
i
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
TB
D
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
b
a
c
k
o
n
c
e
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
h
a
s reviewed and made their
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
3
Ur
b
a
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
•
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
20
1
3
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
.
•
T
A
D
A
TB
D
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
A
f
u
t
u
r
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
T
h
e
A
u
b
u
r
n
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n will be scheduled at a
la
t
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
•
A
m
t
r
a
k
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
Ma
y
o
r
L
e
w
i
s
/
Sn
y
d
e
r
Ci
t
y
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
p
s
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
u
dy by Amtrak.
DI.E Page 157 of 159
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
Page 2
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
•
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Ea
r
l
y
20
1
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
u
r
v
e
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
and data compilation
be
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
.
S
t
a
f
f
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
T
a
b
l
e
o
f
Contents with Committee on
10
/
0
8
/
1
2
.
4
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
20
1
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
w
i
l
l
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
e
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
b
r
i
ng back to Committee.
5
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
A
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
/
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
/
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
20
1
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Co
d
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
o
uncil retreat direction.
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
6
A
u
b
u
r
n
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
St
a
f
f
i
s
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
W
S
D
O
T
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
a
c
q
u
i
s
ition opportunities.
PA
R
K
S
,
A
R
T
S
&
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
9
L
e
a
H
i
l
l
/
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
C
P
a
r
k
T
B
D
F
a
b
e
r
Un
d
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
ed to be completed in
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
ay. Park to open in
Ju
n
e
o
f
2
0
1
3
.
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
10
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
TB
D
Hu
r
s
h
PC
D
C
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
t
a
f
u
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
;
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
to be scheduled.
11
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
H
u
r
s
h
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
p
r
o
v
id
e
d
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
o
r
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
12
Un
i
f
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
ce
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
TB
D
H
u
r
s
h
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
g
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
.
BO
A
R
D
S
,
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
&
H
E
A
R
I
N
G
E
X
A
M
I
N
E
R
13
A
r
t
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
F
a
b
e
r
J
o
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
h
e
ld
o
n
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
14
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
H
u
r
s
h
J
o
i
n
t
m
ee
t
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
9
/
2
4
/
1
2
.
15
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
D
i
x
o
n
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
2
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
n
n
u
al briefing with the
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
DI.E Page 158 of 159
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
1
2
Page 3
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
16
P
a
r
k
s
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
B
o
a
r
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
3
F
a
b
e
r
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
6
/
1
1
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
17
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Jo
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
J
u
l
y
2
3
,
2
0
1
2
.
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
w
i
l
l
h
old a joint meeting every six
mo
n
t
h
s
w
i
t
h
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
18
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
s
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
Th
o
r
d
a
r
s
o
n
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
5
/
2
3
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
19
U
r
b
a
n
T
r
e
e
B
o
a
r
d
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
F
a
b
e
r
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
cc
u
r
r
e
d
1
0
/
2
2
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
CA
P
I
T
A
L
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
(
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
)
20
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Sc
o
p
e
:
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
th
e
i
n
t
e
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
la
n
d
u
s
e
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
P
a
r
a
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
Council in 2009.
Up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
plan update process.
21
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
Sc
o
p
e
:
6
-
y
e
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
i
s
up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
20
1
3
Pa
r
a
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Program (TIP) has been
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
C
D
C
.
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
t
o
o
k
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
the 2013-2018
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
a
t
t
h
e
9
/
1
7/12 City Council meeting.
22
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
(
C
I
P
)
Sc
o
p
e
:
6
-
y
e
a
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
fo
r
s
e
w
e
r
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
an
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
Up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
plan update process.
Pu
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
O
ctober 16th, November
7th
,
2
0
1
2
.
P
C
D
C
r
e
v
i
e
w
1
2
/
1
0
/
1
2
.
OT
H
E
R
23
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
M
a
y
o
r
F
u
t
ur
e
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
s
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
DI.E Page 159 of 159