Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-01-2003 ITEM VIII-A-7
CITY OF WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject Date: ZOA03-0002 Text changes to Auburn City Code Titles 1, 14, 16,17 and 11/25/2003 18 related to public posting notice requirements. Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Planning Ordinance 5811, amendment exhibit and PCDC Packet from 11-24-03 Administrative Recommendation: City Council to introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 5811. Background Summary: The Planning and Committee Development Committee recommended the approval of the amendments at their November 24, 2003 meeting and forwarded the recommendation and amendments to the City Council with a specific change to require the posting of multiple public notice signs on those sites with more than one street frontage. The new language has been added to the amendment packet, under Auburn City Code 1.27 to address this request. 03.4.2.1.2 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 El 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: Borden Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: December 1, 2003 Item Number: VIII.A.7 AUBURN *MOPE THAN YOU IMAGINED ORDINANCE NO. 5 8 1 1 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington relating to the Auburn City Code, amending Sections 1.27.030, 14.07.040, 14.18.030, 16.06.090, 16.08.050, 17.06.030, 18.64.020, 18.68.040 and 18.70.040 of the Auburn City Code relating to posting public notification for projects requiring a public notice WHEREAS, the City of Auburn strives to encourage public interaction in the development review process through use of extensive notification measures, and WHEREAS, several sections of the Auburn City Code (ACC) address the requirements for public notice to adjacent properties and properties within the vicinity of the underlying proposal; and WHEREAS, the ACC provides that the notice shall include the posting of signs and notices together with direct mailing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City of Auburn Ordinance 5341, the requirement was added that applicants post large public notice signs (large enough to be viewed from the street) on the subject property to provide for uniformity and readability for all land use notices; and WHEREAS, the current requirement to post five notices (8 '/ X 11) can be difficult because there may not always be sufficient available acceptable locations for such postings, and as a result the actual notice to the public could be inadequate; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that signs on large public notice mounting boards provide better public notice 'of pending land use actions than was previously provided by the prior posting requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 1.27.030 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 1.27.030 Definitions. A. Type I Mounting Board. For projects that are on property that is less than 10,000 square feet in area, one Type I mounting board shall be erected on the subject property. Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 1 The size of a Type 1 mounting board is two feet vertical by four feet horizontal. B. Type II Mounting Board. For projects that are on property that is 10,000 square feet to acre in area, one Type II mounting board shall be erected on the subject property. The size of a Type II mounting board is four feet vertical by four feet horizontal. C. Type III Mounting Board. For projects that are on property that is greater than one acre in area and less than ten acres, one Type III mounting board shall be erected on the subject property. The size of a Type III mounting board is four feet vertical by eight feet horizontal. An additional Type !I! mounting board shall be eFeGted fGF eaGh the peF'FneteF of the pFoperty. The planning diFeGGtGF Fnay allow less than the thFee (Ord. 5341 § 1, 2000.) D At a minimum the Planning Director may require the placement of an additional mounting board on each of the project's street. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 14.07.040 is amended to read as follows: 14.07.040 Methods of providing notice. Unless otherwise required in the city's code, the city shall use at a minimum the following methods to give notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction: A. Mailing notice to owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site. B. Post+eg-Requiring the subject property posted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Auburn City Code 1.27 (for site specific applications).f+ve-6igR-sr establish standaFds fGF size, GGIGF, layout, design, weFding and plaGement ef the s+gns/plasaMs. C Publishing in a newspaper of general circulation of the area. GD. Mailing notice of application with information included in this section, to each person who has requested such notice and paid any applicable fee as established by the city. (Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 14.18.030 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 14.18.030 Public hearing. Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 2 A. Upon determination of a complete application for development, other than an individual single-family home, the director shall tentatively set a date for a public hearing to be held before the planning and community development committee. Every hearing held for the purposes of this chapter shall be open to the public, and a record of the hearing shall be kept and made available for public inspection. B. Any notice of public hearing required by this section shall include the hour, date and location of the hearing and a description of the property. The description may be in the form of either a vicinity location sketch or a written description other than a legal description. C. The planning director shall cause notice of the hearing to be given in the following manner: 1. Notice shall be published not less than 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the county where the real property is located; 2. Five publiG RGtiGes shall alse be posted within 300 feet of the prepGsal Requiring the subiect property posted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Auburn City Code 1.27- (Ord. 5306 § 1, 1999; Ord. 4872 § 1, 1996.) SECTION 4. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 16.06.090 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 16.06.090 Public notice. A. Whenever public notice is required under the SEPA rules, the responsible official shall cause notice to be given in the following manner: 1. By posting the subject property in accordance with the applicable provisions of Auburn City Code 1.27(site-specific proposals only); and 2. By publishing R0tiGe in a newspapeF of geReral GirGulation within the G*. B. Additional public notice may be provided for proposals having or potentially having unusually widespread, unique or significant adverse impacts, or for other proposals, at the discretion of the responsible official. C. Where notice is required for a proposed action which has been proposed or initiated by a party other than the city or a city department, the cost of newspaper publication of such notice or notices shall be borne by the city with fees paid by the proponent or applicant. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996.) SECTION 5. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 16.08.050 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 16.08.050 Application — Notices. The director shall give notice of the application by the following meth Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 3 if Ge of 11 prOffliRently OR the in accordance with the applicable provisions of Auburn City Code 14.07.040. The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to present his view to the director with regard to the application may do so in writing to the director, and any person interested in the hearing examiner's action on an application for a permit may submit his views or notify the director of his interest within 30 days of the last date of publication of the notice. Such notification or submission of views to the director shall entitle said persons to a copy of the action taken on the application. (Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4225 § 1, 1987; Ord. 4047 § 73, 1985; 1957 code § 11.94.040 (b).) SECTION 6. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 17.06.030 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 17.06.030 Public hearing. A. Upon receipt of a complete application for preliminary plat approval, the director shall tentatively set a date for a public hearing to be held before the hearing examiner. Every hearing held for the purposes of this chapter shall be open to the public, and a record of the hearing shall be kept and made available for public inspection. A public hearing held under this chapter shall not be continued beyond the originally scheduled date of public hearing unless the applicant consents, in writing, to an extension of the time period allowed for a decision under RCW 58.17.140. B. Any notice of public hearing required by this section shall include the hour and location of the hearing and a description of the property to be subdivided. The description may be in the form of either a vicinity location sketch or a written description other than a legal description. C. Except as provided in RCW 36.7013.110 at a minimum, the planning director shall cause notice of the hearing to be given in the following manner: Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 4 1. Notice shall be published not less than 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the county where the real property whoGh-is-proposed to befor subdivisionded is located; 2. Notice shall be published not less than 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the real property whish -Es -proposed to-befor subdivision deft is located; 3. NGtiGe shall be mailed to the owneF6 of real PFOpeFty, as shown by the FeGGF the GGURty asse669F, IGGated within 300 feet of any peftion of the bouRdaFy of the proposed subdivision; provided, that wheFe the owner ef the real pFopeFty WhiGh proposed te be subdivided owns anetheF paFGel or paFGels of real pFopeFty WhiGh shall also be giveR to owners of reGall pFopeFty IGGated within 300 feet of any peFti posted withiR 300 feet of the pmpa Notice will comply with the applicable provisions of Auburn City Code 14.07.040; 4. Where any boundary of the proposed subdivision lies adjacent to or within one mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town other than the city of Auburn, notice shall be mailed to the appropriate city or town authorities; 5. Where the proposed subdivision adjoins the municipal boundaries of the city of Auburn, notice shall be mailed to the appropriate county officials; 6. Where the proposed subdivision is located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway, notice shall be mailed to the Washington State Department of Transportation; 7. Where the proposed subdivision is located within two miles of a publicly -owned airport, notice shall be mailed to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation. (Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.) SECTION 6. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 18.64.020 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 18.64.020 Process. A. Conditional Use Permits. A request for a conditional use permit shall be heard by the hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.66 ACC. The hearing examiner shall make a recommendation to the city council. B. Administrative Use Permits. An administrative use permit is a process to allow certain uses which require some review in order to properly site them within the zone. It is intended to provide an administrative process to provide an efficient review of uses to ensure the use is compatible and consistent with other existing and permitted uses in Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 5 the zone. This process shall only be used in those zones w#iGh-that specifically allow administrative uses. 1. The planning director shall review and approve all administrative uses. Upon receipt of a proper application the director shall within 15 working days approve or deny the permit. 2. The director's decision shall be forwarded to the applicant_ 3 Public notice in accordance with the provisions of Auburn City Code 14.07.-040 shall be provided. and all nr^r.eFt%ne Fs within 200 feet of the proposed admoRostratWe use. Five publiG n0tiGes shall also be posted within 200 feet of the 34. Any affected party may appeal the planning director's decision to the hearing examiner. An appeal must be filed within 14 days of the date of mailing of the director's decision. Mailing of the notice shall be by certified mail. The appeal shall be scheduled for the next regularly scheduled meeting of the hearing examiner, for which proper public notice can be provided. The city shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven days for administrative use permits that are accompanied by a final mitigated determination of nonsignificance or final EIS. 45. The appeal shall be processed the same as a conditional use permit with the hearing examiner making a recommendation to the city council. (Ord. 4875 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(45), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) SECTION 8. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 18.68.040 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements. A. Text Amendments. 1. Planning Commission. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. B. Zoning Map Amendments. 1. Rezones Initiated by an Applicant Other Than City. a. Hearing Examiner. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publiGateen, in a newspapeF of general GiFGUlation iR the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and in accordance with Auburn City Code 14.07.040. by ^Gsti; r. the R9tiGe an five GGRGPiGUGU6 plaGes withiR 300 feet of the proposed Fezene. The - Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 6 netoGe shall also be mailed to all pmpeFty owners, as shown by the reGords of the GGUnty a6sesSOF, leGated within 200 feet of the proposed . b. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in accordance with Auburn City Code 14.07.040.B.in five is plaG96 within 300 feet of the PFGPesed Fezene. 2. Rezones, Including Areawide Zoning, Initiated by the City. a. Planning Commission. As a minimum, notice of public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Additional mailing or posting of notices may, at the option of the planning commission, be required. b. City Council. As a minimum, notice of public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing. Additional mailing or posting of the notices may, at the option of the city council, be required. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) SECTION 9. AMENDMENT TO CODE SECTION. Section 18.70.040 of the Auburn City Code is amended to read as follows: 18.70.040 Hearing date and notice. When an application addressed to the hearing examiner has been filed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the planning department shall set a date for hearing the same. Notice of such hearing shall_ be given not less than 10 days prior to the date of the he.�rinn , A Be given not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, B. 6ha-sSet forth the time, place and purpose of such hearings and the notifiGation A. Posting not less than five nGtiGes i.n s plaGes within 300 feet ef the pmpeFty submitting the appIiGatia4:i-,L B. Mailing netiGes theFeef to owners of al! lands lying withiR 200 feet from the e)deFaGF boundaFies of the land involved as the names appeaF OR the lateSt Gounty tFeasuFeF!S' Teal estate tax rccorc' , C Be provided in accordance with the requirements of Auburn City Code 14.07.040. G. Publishing an a RewspapeF of geneFal GOFGU!at*-en of the . (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 7 SECTION 10. CONSTITUTIONALITY OR INVALIDITY. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional such invalidity unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of or constitutionality of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, as it is being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed adopted and approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that nay one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 11. IMPLEMENTATION. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: PETE B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam City Clerk City Atto Published: Ordinance No. 5811 November 25, 2003 Page 8 CITY OF AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM WASHINGTON Agenda Subject Date: ZOA03-0002 Text changes to Auburn City Code Titles 1, 14, 16,17 and 11/19/2003 18 related to public posting notice requirements. Department: Planning Attachments: draft Ordinance and exhibit, 6it, PaZ Krauss' memo to BudgetImpact: Planning Commission regarding cost of posting legal notices, Dan Heid's memo to Planning Commission regarding signs attached to utility Yvonne Ward's ores, memo September meeting), comments from oncerned Citizens of Auburn (September meeting) excerpts from minutes of Planning G`ommisslon meetings Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to discuss the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to posting requirements and make a recommendation to City Council. . Background Summary: The City seeks to amend the method that the City provides public notice. Under current requirements, when public notice is required for a SEPA determination or hearing examiner public hearing (or similar process), the following minimum actions are taken: • The notice is published in the South (King) County Journal, • The site is posted with the public notice sign and a placard with the applicable project information, • The City mails the notice to all property owners within 300 -feet of the subject project's property lines, and • The City posts five (5) notices within 300 -feet of the project area. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement to post .the five (5) notices within 300 -feet of the project area. These notices are 8 1/2" by 11" in size and, the great majority of the time, are posted on utility poles. After having required the placement of the large public notice signs (since January 1, 2000) and administering all of the above referenced public notice techniques, adequate public notice can be provided without the posting of the smaller notices within 300 -feet of the project area. Eliminating this notice requirement will save resources, as it takes approximately one to two hours (for each project that requires notice) to adequately prepare and physically post notices in the vicinity of the project. Aesthetic impacts are also eliminated by not providing the notices in the vicinity of the project. 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 ounce mem er: Borden a : rauss Meeting Date: November 24, 2003, 2UU3 I item Number: AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject Date: ' ZOA03-0002 Text changes to Auburn City Code Titles 1, 14, 16,17 and 11/19/2003 18 related to public posting notice requirements. Additional public notice techniques can be performed to ensure those residents living in the area that do not own property are also made aware of a pending action. Such additional techniques include posting public notices on the City's website, extending the'radius of mailing the notices and creating mailing lists based on property address. The Planning Commission held public hearings on the amendments on August 5, 2003 and September 9, 2003. At their meeting on November 5, 2003, the Planning Commission made a recommendation of denial of the proposed amendments. Attached are excerpts from the Planning Commission minutes. PCDC\ZOA03-02 PCDC Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO.XXXX AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington relating to the Auburn City Code, amending the existing provisions for posting public notification for projects requiring a public notice and public comment period. WHEREAS, the City of Auburn strives to encourage public interaction in the development review process through use of extensive notification measures; and, WHEREAS, Auburn City Code Titles 14, 16, 17 and 18 requires public notice to adjacent properties and properties within the vicinity of the underlying proposal; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn provides public notice in accordance with applicable Code requirements which includes the posting of signs and notices complemented by direct mailing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn, in the year 2000, under city Ordinance No. 5341 added the requirement for permit applicants to post a public notice sign (large enough to be viewed from the street) on the subject property to provide for uniformity and readability for all land use notices; and,. WHEREAS, the public notice mounting boards provide adequate public notice of pending land use actions that was not previously provided by the individual posting; and, WHEREAS, the city has the ability to expand the defined area which receives the mailing of the public notice and regularly does so when determined appropriate by staff; and, WHEREAS, the ongoing requirement to post five notices (8 %2" X 11 ") is difficult due to a lack of acceptable locations, does not add to substantive public notice due to their inadequate size, have been superceded by the mandatory use of 4' X 4' and 4' X 8' signs, requires an inordinate amount of staff time to manage and may conflict with legal prohibitions against posting on utility poles, i NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is as follows: To amend Auburn City Code chapters 14.07, 14.18, 16.06, 16.08, 17.06, 18.64, 18.68 and 18.70 related to public notice requirements, asset forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to eliminate the requirement for the posting of five legal notices. SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY OR INVALIDITY. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional such invalidity unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of or constitutionality of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, as it is being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed adopted and approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that nay one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. IMPLEMENTATION. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out.the directions of this legislation. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam City Clerk ATTEST: Daniel B. Heid City Attorney Published: PETE B. LEWIS MAYOR PROPOSED CHANGES PUBLIC NOTICE POSTING REQUIREMENTS (emphasis added for clarity and not a proposed changed) 1.27.030 Definitions. A. Type I Mounting Board. For projects that are on property that is less than 10,000 square feet in area, one Type I mounting board shall be erected on the subject property. The size of a Type I mounting board is two feet vertical by four feet horizontal. B. Type II Mounting Board. For projects that are on property that is 10,000 square feet to acre in area, one Type 11 mounting board shall be erected on the subject property. The size of a Type II mounting board is four feet vertical by four feet horizontal. C. Type III Mounting Board. For projects that are on property that is greater than one acre in area and less than ten acres, one Type III mounting board shall be erected on the subject property. The size of a Type III mounting board is four feet vertical by eight feet horizontal. An additional -Type III mounting board shall be erected for each additional ten acres, or portion thereof. However, no more than three Type III boards shall be required for any size project. The boards shall be proportionately placed around the perimeter of the property. The planning director may allow less than the three boards if the geographical features of the subject property are such that additional boards would not provide additional public notice. (Ord. 5341 § 1, 2000.) 14.07.040 Methods of providing notice Unless otherwise required in the city's code, the city shall use at a minimum the following methods to give notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction: A. Mailing notice to owners of real property within 300 feet of the project site B.Pesto g-Rggyidnq the subiect property be posted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Auburn City Code 1.27 (for site specific Al Ie signs- eF p!aGaFds on the site or an a !GGatien imm adjae,ent to the site. The diFeGtGF shall establish standaFds fQF size, 6918F. C. Publishing in a newspaper of general circulation of the area OD. Mailing notice of application with information included in this section, to each person who has requested such notice and paid any applicable fee as established by the city. (Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) 14.18.030 Public hearing. A. Upon determination of a complete application for development, other than an individual single-family home, the director shall tentatively set a date for a public hearing to be held before the planning and community development committee. Every hearing held for the purposes of this chapter shall be open to the public, and a record of the hearing shall be kept and made available for public. inspection. B. Any notice of public hearing required by this section shall include the hour, date and location of the hearing and a description of the property. The description may be in the form of either a vicinity location sketch or a written description other than a legal description. C. The planning director shall cause notice of the hearing to be given in the following manner: 1. Notice shall be published not less than 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the county where the real property is _ located; 2. Five PIIkI;^ PUNIG RetiGes shall also be posted within 300 feet Gf the prepesai Requiring the subiect property be posted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Auburn City Code 1.27-. (Ord. 5306 § 1, 1999; Ord. 4872 § 1, 1996.) 16.06.090 Public notice. A. Whenever public notice is required under the SEPA rules, the responsible official shall cause notice to be given in the following manner: 1. By posting the subject property in accordance with the applicable Provisions of Auburn City Code 1 27(site-specific proposals only); and 2. By publishing n9tiG newspapeF of geneFal &GUlation within the G*. B. Additional public notice may be provided for proposals having or potentially having unusually widespread, unique or significant adverse impacts, or for other proposals, at the discretion of the responsible official. C. Where notice is required for a proposed action which has been proposed or initiated by a party other than the city or a city department, the cost of newspaper publication of such notice or notices shall be bome by the city with fees paid by the proponent or applicant. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996.) 16.08.050 Application — Notices The director shall give notice of the application by the followiRg Fnethed&-z Of the GityL.- unetiee of „ pi:eminently on thefes€.in accordance with the applicable provisions of Auburn City Code 14.07.040. The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to present his view to the director with regard to the application may do so in writing to the director, and any person interested in the hearing examiner's action on an application for a permit may submit his views or notify the director of his interest within 30 days of the last date of publication of the notice. Such notification or submission of views to the director shall entitle said persons to a copy of the action taken on the application. (Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4225 § 1, 1987; Ord. 4047 § 73, 1985; 1957 code § 11.94.040 (b).) 17.06.030 Public hearing A. Upon receipt of a complete application for preliminaryplat approval, the director shall tentatively set a date for a public hearing to be held before the hearing examiner. Every hearing held for the purposes of this chapter shall be open to the public, and a record of the hearing shall be kept and made available for public inspection. A public hearing held. under this chapter shall not be continued beyond the originally scheduled date of public hearing unless the applicant consents, in writing, to an extension of the time period allowed for a decision under RCW 58.17.140. B. Any notice of public hearing required by this section shall include the hour and location of the hearing and a description of the property to be subdivided. The description may be in the form of either a vicinity location sketch or a written description other than a legal description. C. Except as provided in RCW 36.708.110 at a minimum, the planning director shall cause notice of the hearing to be given in the following manner: 1. Notice shall be published not less than 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the county where the real property w#isb-is'-proposed to-befor subdivisionded is located; 2. Notice shall be published not less than 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the real property wttick+-is proposed to-befor subdivision ded is located; 3. r,eGeFds of the Gounty assesseF, leGated within 300 feet of any peFtien Of the subdivided, notiGe undeF this subseGtion shall also be giveR te 9wneFs-Gf+9ra# pFopeFty IeGated within 300 feet 9f any peFtieA of the beundainie6 9f SUGh adjar,ently leGated -aFgels. Five publiG netires shall also be posted within 3W feet of the pFopesalNotice will comply with the applicable provisions of Auburn City Code Section 14.07.040; 4. Where any boundary of the proposed subdivision lies adjacent to or within one mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town other than the city of Auburn, notice shall be mailed to the appropriate city or town authorities; 5. Where the proposed subdivision adjoins the municipal boundaries of the city of Auburn, notice shall be mailed to the appropriate county officials; 6. Where the proposed subdivision is located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway, notice shall be mailed to the Washington State Department of Transportation; 7. Where the proposed subdivision is located within two miles of a publicly - owned airport, notice shall be mailed to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation. (Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.) 18.64.020 Process: A. Conditional Use Permits. A request for a conditional use permit shall be heard by the hearing examiner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.66 ACC. The hearing examiner shall make a recommendation to the city council. B. Administrative Use Permits. An administrative use permit is a process to allow certain uses which require some review in order to properly site them within the zone. It is intended to provide an administrative process to provide an efficient review of uses to ensure the use is compatible and consistent with other existing and permitted uses in the zone. This process shall only be used in those zones whiGh-that specifically allow administrative uses. 1. The planning director shall review and approve all administrative uses. Upon receipt of a proper application the director shall within 15 working days approve or deny the permit. 2. The director's decision shall be forwarded to the applicant_ 3. Public notice in accordance with the provisions of Auburn City Code Section 14.07.-040 shall be provided. all --FepeFty owne— within 200 feet. Of the PF9posed administFative use. Five publir. RetiGes shall also be posted within 209 feet of the PFOpgsal. 34. Any affected party may appeal the planning director's decision to the hearing examiner. An appeal must be filed within 14 days of the date of mailing of the director's decision. Mailing of the notice shall be by certified mail. The appeal shall be scheduled for the next regularly scheduled meeting of the hearing examiner, for which proper public notice can be provided. The city shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven days for administrative use permits that are accompanied by a final mitigated determination of nonsignificance or final EIS. 45. The appeal shall be processed the same as a conditional use permit with the hearing examiner making a recommendation to the city council. (Ord. 4875 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(45), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements A. Text Amendments. 1. Planning Commission. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. B. Zoning Map Amendments. 1. Rezones Initiated by an Applicant Other Than City. a. Hearing Examiner. Notice of a public hearing shall be given area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and in accordance with Auburn City Code 14.07.040. by pestiFig the FietiGe in five GeFispiraueus plaGes within 300 fee of the pFopesed Fezene. The RetiGe shall also be mailed to all prepefty feet G� the b. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in accordance with Auburn City Code Section 14.07.040.6.' rezefle. 2. Rezones, Including Areawide Zoning, Initiated by the City. a. Planning Commission. As a minimum, notice of public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Additional mailing or posting of notices may, at the option of the planning commission, be required. b. City Council. As a minimum, notice of public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing. Additional mailing or posting of the notices may, at the option of the city council, be required. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.70.040 Hearing date and notice When an application addressed to the hearing examiner has been filed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, the planning department shall set a date for hearing the same. Notice of such hearing shall_ be given R9t less thaR 10 days P�eF to the date of the hear -i A. Be given not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. B. shall r.Set forth the time, place and purpose of such hearing.,. and 6141 be made b- . lo _ - - ■� P. Mailing RetiGes theFeef to owners of all lands lying within 200 feet fFem the nnunty treassuFegs Feal estate tax w d M„ V 1 C. Be provided in accordance with the requirements of Auburn City Code Section 14.07.040. G. Pub!' hingin a n-el""F Of GiFGGUIatiGA of the area. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) CrFY OF Peter B. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Aubum WA 98001-4998 * www.d.aubum.wams * 253-931-3000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 14, 2003 TO: Members of the Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Paul Krauss RE: Costs of Posting Legal Notices At the last Commission meeting, a statement was made to the effect that Staff had previously indicated that posting the five legal notices per site did not result in additional cost to the City. I am not certain where this information came from but in any event, it is incorrect. I went back and reviewed development activity for recent years and applied very conservative numbers for the hours required for each posting and the salary plus benefits of staff involved. The estimated cost ranges from $7,000 to $8,000 each year as shown in the attached table. While not an insignificant sum in its own right, particularly in these times of severe budget restraints, there are related implications as well. At current rates, we will have had to devote 155 hours of staff time, one "man month' to this task. This time could be better spent on reviewing new development proposals, responding to inquiries form the public, working on environmental protection and a myriad other tasks performed by the Planning Department. Devoting this time and funding to posting signage, having little or no public benefit, is particularly wasteful when compared with the public notice signage package already put into place several years ago. Not only are sheets of paper replaced by 4'X 8' signs, but they are installed and paid for entirely at the expense of the developer, not the public. By ordinance, the developer is required to pay a fee to essentially rent the sign and to install it. - Thus, the sign program already instituted by the City provides improved notice, reduces General Fund expenditures, and clears a month of staff time for undertaking more important and pressing tasks. _. . Planning Applications requiring a Public Notice Posting Year 4 year Application 2003** 2002 2001 2000 average SEPA 50 37 48 55 48 Cost per posting (salary& ADM 12 6 9 5 8 benefits) CUP* 10 5 5 6 7 60% @ 26.30 per hour MIS 5 0 5 1 3 40% c@ 33.65 per hour PLT hearin 5 1 2 14 6 2003 2002 2001 2000 $9,064. $4,912. $6,608 $8,187 40 32 .24 .20 REZ hearinq 6 2 7 2 4 SHR hearing 2 0 1 4 2 TMP 2 0 0 1 1 4 year average $7,19 VAR 14 7 5 7 8 3.04 WSC 22 12 15 17 17 Appeals 4 6 1 2 3 Average without 2002 $7,953.2 Totals 155 84 113 140 123 8 * Public Hearing notice posted in addition to Public notices (average between the 6 month and *"' Projected annual total 7 month projection) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) PAUL KRAUSS, being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says: 1. I am the Planning Director for the City of Auburn, Washington. 2. I have held the position of Auburn's Planning Director since March of 1994. Prior to that time I was the Planning Director of Chanhasson, Minnesota for five years and have approximately twenty years of professional experience. I received a Master of Regional Planning degree from Syracuse. University in 1977 and have 'full certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I.C.P.) 3. I have reviewed the City of Auburn's development activity for the past several years and applied conservative numbers for the hours required of each posting including the salary and benefits of staff involved. 4. Based on this review, staff conservatively spends about 155 hours of staff time to this task annually. This equates to approximately $7,000 to $8,000 of staff time per. y ar. /01� PAUL KRAUSS STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this I- day of s T 200,3_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared PAUL KRAUSS to me known to be the Planning Director of the CITY OF AUBURN, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. GIVEN UNDER my hand and official seal the date hereinabove set forth. Q'0 �s'sioy •• e9hh i :o tvOT.� NOTARY PUBLI in and for the State �o . :U - y m Z� of Washington, residing at °�� W r MY COMMISSION expires: l0 -Zf 03 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DANIEL B. HEID, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: SIGNS ATTACHED TO UTILITY POLES DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 With respect to the. question of whether it would be appropriate for the City of Auburn to countenance the. posting of signs and fliers on utility poles, please be advised as follows: There are state statutes that prohibit posting signs on utility poles. If the City of Auburn expressly or implicitly authorized the posting of signs or fliers on utility poles, it could open the door for liability exposure, whether to a passer-by or utility operator (the owner of the pole) if the passer- by is injured because of obstructed vision, or a representative of the utility pole is injured because of the projection of nails or other devices used to attach a sign to a pole, or whomsoever else could be injured in any way related to the posting of signs on a utility pole. Admittedly, the Washington State Court of Appeals declared a Seattle Ordinance that prohibited posting signs on utility poles unconstitutional. However, as best I can tell from a search of the current provisions of the Seattle Municipal Code, there is/still exists language in the Code that prohibits posting signs on utility poles. That language is set forth in SMC 15.48.105, set forth below. That language appears to be the product of a recent Ordinance, adopted in 2002, the same year as the Court of Appeals decision, and it is suspected that this language may have been adopted in response to the Court of Appeals ruling. I should also mention that the Court of Appeals case, Seattle vs. Migbly Movers is currently pending appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court (review has been granted). A copy of the Court of Appeals decision is attached hereto. Accordingly, I must advise against the City of Auburn taking action that could be construed as authorizing something that is still prohibited under State Law. It may be that the Supreme Court will address the State Law in its decision, rather than just the Seattle Ordinance, but unless that happens the State Law is still (currently) operative. STATE LAW 70.54.090 Attachment of objects to utility poles. It shall be unlawful to attach to utility poles any of the following: Advertising signs, posters, vending machines, or any similar object which presents a hazard to, or endangers Ithe lives of, electrical workers. Any attachment to utility poles shall only be made with the permission of the utility involved, and shall be placed not less than twelve feet above the surface of the ground. 70.54.100 Penalty for violation of RCW 70.54.090. Every person violating the provisions of RCW 70.54.090 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. SEATTLE CITY ORDINANCE SMC 15.48.105 Conformance to applicable regulations for posting. r A. Handbills, signs and posters may be affixed to City -owned utility poles, lamp poles and traffic control devices under the control of the Seattle Department of Transportation, except for freestanding stop signs and yield signs, and their posts, in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation pursuant to Chapter 3.02, the Seattle Administrative Code. Those rules shall regulate the time, place and manner of posting so as to advance the public purposes stated above so that (1) members of the public are afforded reasonable access to exercise their free speech rights, including being able to place signs at a height determined by the Director to be reasonable, consistent with other public purposes, which height shall not be greater than twelve (12) feet from the surface of the ground; and (2) handbills, signs, and posters affixed to any City -owned traffic control device, utility pole or lamp post will not unreasonably (a) contribute to a traffic hazard,. (b) contribute to a safety hazard to anyone working on a utility pole, lamp pole or traffic control device; (c) contribute to a risk of fire; (d) contribute to visual blight; or (e) cause damage to City -owned property. B. Pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 23.55, handbills, signs and posters may also be affixed to City -owned poster boards and kiosks that are designated for handbills and signs. C. A public agency may, with permission of the City, post traffic, parking and other regulatory signs on City -owned structures. D. Other than as provided in this section, it is unlawful for anyone to affix any handbill, sign or poster upon a City -owned structure, or any City -owned tree or shrubbery in any public place. City -owned structures include, but are not limited to, bridges and overpasses, monorail supports, retaining walls, fences, street furniture and shelters, and poles and posts not under the control of Seattle Transportation. Wires and appurtenances to any City -owned structure are also a City -owned structure. (Ord. 121038 Section 3,200-2.) Apparently replaces SMC 15.48.100 -unconstitutional per City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc. 112 Wn. App. 904, 51 P.3d 152 (2002) - or at least it was adopted in 2002, ostensibly after Seattle v. Mighty Movers. 51 P.3d 152 (Cite as: 112 Wash.App. 904, 51 Pad 152) Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. The CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. MIGHTY MOVERS, INC., a Washington corporation, Appellant No. 49104-1-L.' Aug. 5, 2002. Corporate advertiser that posted announcements on utility poles brought action challenging city anti - posting ordinance. The Superior Court, King County, Richard F. McDermott, J., granted summary judgment for city. Advertiser appealed. The Court of Appeals, Appelwick, J., held that the portion of ordinance banning posting on poles was overbroad. Reversed West Headnotes L11 Constitutional Law X46(2) 92k46(2 Most Cited Cases In considering a facial challenge to an ordinance on free speech grounds, the facts of the particular case are not essential. West's RCWA Const Art. 1. & 5. 91 Constitutional Law C:;;�47 92k47 Most Cited Cases Constitutional analysis of overbreadth is made upon the language of an ordinance or statute itself. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. § 5. M Constitutional Law ��90(3) 92k90(3) Most Cited Cases A law is overbroad if it sweeps within its prohibitions constitutionally protected free speech activities. West's RCWA Const. Art. L& 5. Page 1 92k82(4) Most Cited Cases Under the Washington Constitution, unlike under the federal constitution, a facial overbreadth challenge to an ordinance does not require a finding that the challenged ordinance reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. & 5. L jS" Constitutional Law X90(3) 9210(3) Most Cited Cases An ordinance is invalid if it includes within its proscriptions protected expression, regardless of whether that overbreadth is substantial, as is required by the First Amendment jurisprudence. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1: West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. & 5. L61 Constitutional Law X90.1(4) 9200.14) Most Cited Cases The government's decision to restrict access to a nonpublic forum need only be reasonable; it need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation. West's RCWA Const Art 1. § 5. L1 Constitutional Law 090.1(4) 92k90.1 4 Most Cited Cases In Constitutional Law 0=91 92k91 Most Cited Cases Public forums are: (1) those places which by long tradition or by goverment fiat have been devoted to assembly and . debate, or (2) channels of communication used by the public at large for assembly and speech, used by certain speakers, or the discussion of certain topics. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. & 5. Li Judgment X181(2) 228k181 2 Most Cited Cases When presented with a mixed question of law and fact, the factual issues can be decided on summary judgment as a matter of law if only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn. L41 Constitutional Law 46��82(4) u Constitutional Law X90.1(4) 92k90.1(4) Most Cited Cases City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc., 112 Wash -App. 904, 51 P.3d 152 (Wash.App. Div. 1 Aug Utility poles adjacent to or between streets and 05, 2002) (NO. 49104-1 -1) Review Granted by City sidewalks were traditional public forum; posting of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc., 148 Wash.2d advertisements and other announcements on poles 1020, 66 P.3d 637 (Wash. Apr 01, 2003) was a decades -old channel of communication. West's Copr. 0 West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 51 P.3d 152 (Cite as:112 Wash.App. 904, 51 Pad 152) RCWA Const. Art. 1. § 5. 1101 Constitutional Law 0 90.1(4) 92k90.1 4 Most Cited Cases Government regulations in public fora are only valid if they are content- neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. & 5. 11 Constitutional Law C=90.1(4) 92k90.1(4) Most Cited Cases Ull Municipal Corporations X718 268k718 Most. Cited Cases City anti -posting ordinance was content -neutral, although public . agencies were allowed to post; a variety of organizations posted on utility poles, and public -agency exception in ordinance was irrelevant to analysis of time, place; and mariner restrictions on free speech. West's RCWA Const. Art 1. § - 5. JU2 Constitutional Law 090.1(4) 9200.10) Most Cited Cases J12j Municipal Corporations 46=;'718 268k718 Most Cited Cases Utility worker safety was not compelling government interest justifying ordinance banning posting of advertisements on utility poles, under free -speech analysis; city posted land use notices and other regulatory notices on poles, and more narrowly drawn ordinance could address safety concerns. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1 & 5. J13j Constitutional Law X90.1(4) 92k90.1 4 Most Cited Cases L1 Municipal Corporations x'718 268018 Most Cited Cases Fire safety was not compelling government interest justifying ordinance that prohibited posting advertisements on utility poles, under free -speech analysis; public agencies were allowed to post notices, and less restrictive ordinance could prolubit posting that lead to layer on layer of paper, without banning all posting. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. & 5. 14 Constitutional Law C '90.1(4) Page 2 92k90.1 4 Most Cited Cases 1141 Municipal Corporations C��718 268018 Most Cited Cases Traffic safety was not a compelling government interest justifying ordinance banning posting of advertisements on utility poles, under free -speech analysis; postings would not obstruct view, and there were many other distractions on public roadways. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1.4 5. IM Constitutional Law 4D=90.1(4) 92k90.1 4 Most Cited Cases JUS Municipal Corporations ��718 268018 Most Cited Cases Aesthetic goal of eliminating visual clutter could not provide compelling government interest justifying ordinance banning posting of advertisements on utility poles, under free -speech analysis; aesthetics was only a significant government interest. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. & 5. IM Constitutional Law 0%x".1(4) 92k90.1 4 Most Cited Cases 16 Municipal Corporations X718 268k718 Most Cited Cases The public did not have ample alternative means of communication equal to that provided by postings on utility poles, although city that .enacted antiposting ordinance urged that members of the public could picket, parade, hand out handbills, or carry signs, and that the city had provided posting kiosks; alternative methods were more time-consuming and more expensive, and only 11 kiosks were provided for the entire city. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. § 5. Statutes X64(1) 36lk64(D Most Cited Cases A law is overbroad in its entirety only if there is no way to sever its unconstitutional applications. West's RCWA Const. Art. 1. & 5. **154*907 Chase Christian Alvord. Tousley Brain Stephens Plic, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Thomas Mark Anthony Castagna, Assistant City Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent. Richard Howard Robblee Rinehart Robblee & Hannah, Kristina Marie Detwiler, Seattle, WA, for Copr. 0 West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 51 P.3d 152 (Cite as: 112 Wash.App. 904, 51 Pad 152) Amicus Curiae IBEW Local 77. Allen Bruce Draher, Paul J. Lawrence Robert J. Dziel Preston Gates and Ellis, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae Joint Artists & Music Promotions. *908 APPELWICK. J. In 1994, the City of Seattle banned the posting of temporary signs on City -owned structures. Mighty Movers contests the constitutionality of the anti - posting ordinance. The central issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that posting on City -owned properties, including -utility poles, is not a traditional public forum. The record below establishes that posting temporary -signs on the portion of poles, within reach of pedestrians, adjacent to streets and sidewalks is a. traditional public forum. The record does not establish a compelling governmental interest to ban posting on these poles. We hold that the anti -posting ordinance is facially overbroad in violation article I. section 5 of the Washington Constitution. We invalidate . that portion of the ordinance affecting traffic devices, utility poles, and lamp posts which are part of the traditional public forum. We therefore reverse. FACTS In 1994, the City of Seattle enacted a series of ordinances including the following: SMC 15.48.100 Unlawful posting of signs. It is unlawful for anyone to affix any handbill, sign, or poster upon any traffic control device, utility Pole, lamp post, City -owned structure, or City - owned tree or shrubbery in any public place, or to affix the same to a wire or appurtenance thereof, except that affixation is authorized on poster boards and kiosks that are designated for handbills and signs.. The provisions of this section shall not apply to traffic, parking and other regulatory signs posted under the auspices of a public agency with the permission of the City. City -owned structures include bridges and overpasses, monorail supports, retaining walls, fences, street furniture and shelters, among other construction. *909 The City designated 11 kiosks for posting throughout the City. SMC 15.48.100. Anyone who violates this ordinance is liable for the cost of removing the sign. SMC 15.48.120. Page 3 By resolution, the City cited three reasons for this ordinance: 1) the safety hazard to utility workers posed by signs attached to utility poles; 2) the public safety hazard posed by signs posted on traffic control devices; and 3) the visual blight and clutter caused by the proliferation of signs on public structures. In violation of the ordinance, Mighty Movers posted numerous signs advertising its service on utility poles throughout the City. The City removed these signs, and on June 8, 1999, it sued Mighty Movers to recover $7,870 in removal costs. Mighty Movers counter -claimed for a declaration that the ordinances violated article I. section 5 of the Washington Constitution, Washington's free speech provision. Mighty Movers also stipulated that [u]nless Seattle Municipal Code Sections 15.48.100-.130 are determined to be unconstitutional, Defendant Mighty Movers, Inc. is responsible to pay Plaintiff The City of **155 Seattle $7,870.00 phis interest at the rate of 12% per annum, reasonable attorney's fees, and legal costs as requested in the Amended Complaint for Monies Due filed by Plaintiff The City of Seattle in this matter. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the City, finding as a matter of law that the utility poles and other City- owned structures were not a public forum. The trial court relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Council of Las Angeles v Taxpayers for Vincent. _466 U.S. 789, 812, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 1984 in holding that "utility poles are not a traditional public forum." The trial court awarded the City $2,500 in attorney fees. Mighty Movers appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court transferred the case to this court on September 5, 2001. *910 ANALYSIS L Standard oJReyiew This court reviews a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Public Disclosure Comm'n 141 Wash.2d 245, 254, 4 P.3d 808 2000. f 11f21 Mighty Movers asserts that the City of Seattle's anti -posting ordinance violates the Washington Constitution. Specifically, it argues that the ordinance is facially overbroad under article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution. In considering a facial challenge to an ordinance on free speech grounds, the facts of the particular case are Copr. 0 West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 51 P.3d 152 (Cite as: 112 Wash,App. 904, 51 P.3d 152) not essential. City ofseattle v. Webster, 115 Wash.2d 635, 640.802 P.2d 1333 (1990). "Constitutional analysis is made upon the language of the ordinance or statute itself." Webster. 115 Wash.2d at 640 802 P.2d 1333. D051DIF051 A law is overbroad if it sweeps within its prohibitions constitutionally protected free speech activities. State v. Williams. 144 Wash.2d 197 206 26 P.3d 890 (2001). Under the Washington Constitution, unlike under the federal constitution, a facial overbreadth challenge does not require a finding that the challenged ordinance reaches a "substantial" amount of constitutionally protected conduct. _O'Day v. King_County 109 Wash.2d 796 803-04, 749 P.2d 142 (1988). "Under Washington law, an ordinance is invalid if it includes within its proscriptions protected expression, regardless of whether that overbreadth is substantial, as is required by the First Amendment jurisprudence." Ci o Seattle v McConahE 86 WashApp 557 569 937 P.2d 1133 (1997): H. Pablic Forum Analysis 10 7 The amount of goverment regulation of speech allowed by the federal and state constitutions depends, in part, on the location and the method used for communicating. The government's ability to regulate. speech in a public forum is much more restricted. The test, however, for *911 regulating speech in a nonpublic forum is less stringent. "The Government's decision to restrict access to a nonpublic forum need only be reasonable; it need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation." Cornelius v. NAACP. 473 U.S. 788 808 105 S.Ct. 3439.87 L.Ed2d 567 (1985). Public forums are (1) those places which by long tradition or by goverment fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, ... or (2) channels of communication used by the public at large for assembly and speech, used by certain speakers, or the discussion of certain topics. City of Seattle v Huff' 111 Wash.2d 923 927 767 P.2d 572 (1989) (citations and internal quotations omitted). The first prong deals specifically with public property and contains two disjunctive categories traditional' public forums and public forums designated as such by the government. Int'1 SOC. for Krishna Consciousness Inc v Lee 505 U.S. 672, 678, 112 S.Ct. 2701 120 L Ed 2d 541 (1992). Mighty Movers does not assert that the City of Seattle has designated any of its City -owned structures as public forums, therefore we do not address whether any such property is a public forum by government fiat. Page 4 **156 A. A Question of Law and Fact [U The central question before us is whether posting on any of the enumerated City -owned properties or structures involves a traditional public forum. The question of whether any posting on City -owned properties in the. City of Seattle is a traditional public forum is a mixed question of law and fact. When presented with a mixed question of law and fact, the factual issues can be decided as a matter of law if only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn. Allen v State. 118 Wash.2d 753.760; 826 P.2d 200 (1992). Such is the case here; and we therefore review the mixed question of law and fact de novo. Adams v. Great American Ins. Co.. 87 WashAW. 883, 886-87, 942 Ptd 1087 (1997) (citing Kelly Kunsch, Standard of Review (State and Federal): A Primer, 18 SEATTLE U. L.REV. 11. 28 (1994)). The *912 location and the use of particular pieces of property over time are factual questions. Whether. the particular use combined with the location constitute a traditional public forum is a legal question. B. The Law: Vincent or Collier Mighty Movers argues that the Washington State Supreme Court in Collier v City of Tacoma 121 Wash.2d 737. 854 i2d 1046 (1993), already decided that a parking strip was a traditional public forum. Some of Mighty Movers signs were on poles within parking strips and therefore, it argues, were within that traditional public forum. Hence, the ordinance is overbroad The City argues that we are bound by the United States Supreme Court's- holding in Vincent. 466 U.S. at 813-15, 104 S:Ct. 2118 that the various public properties covered by the Los Angeles ordinance (on which the City of Seattle's ordinance is based) are not public fora as a matter of law. Hence, the ordinance cannot be overbroad. We begin with an analysis of Vincent. Vincent involved a Los Angeles Municipal Code ordinance which prolubited the posting of signs on City -owned structures. Vincent. 466 U.S. at 793, 104 S.Ct. 2118. An organization supporting an election campaign produced 15 by 44 inch cardboard signs and attached them to utility poles by draping them over the horizontal crosswires which support the poles and stapling the cardboard together at the bottom._ Vincent. 466 U.S. at 792-93, 104 S.Ct. 2118. The organization brought suit against the City for routinely removing their campaign signs. The City's stated interests in enacting the ordinance included promoting the safety of workmen who must scale the utility poles, eliminating traffic hazards, and Copr. ® West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 51 P.3d 152 (Cite as: 112 Wash.App. 904, 51 P.3d 152) improving the appearance of the city. Vincent. 466 U.S. at 794. 104 S.Ct 2118. The United States Supreme Court upheld the ordinance. The Vincent Court rejected Taxpayers argument that the utility pole crosswires should be treated as a public forum. The Court, however, narrowed its holding to the specific parties and record before it. Vincent. 466 U.S. at 803 104 S.Ct. 2118 ("[W]e therefore limit our analysis of the constitutionality of the ordinance to the concrete case before us."). *913 Collier is the only Washington case cited to this court that directly addresses whether a particular piece of property is used as a public forum. Collier involved a Tacoma ordinance that banned political signs posted in parking strips more than 60 days before or more than 7 days after an election. 121 Wash.2d at 743. 854 P.2d 1046 The oilier Court applied the federal forum test in its analysis of article 1. section 5 of the Washington Constitution. but reached the opposite conclusion fiom the Vincent court. It found that such signs in parking strips were a traditional public forum. The Collier Court cites Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 108 S.Ct. 1157 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988), for the proposition that "public streets and sidewalks [are] traditional public forathat 'time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.'" Boos. 485 U.S. at 318. 108 S.Ct. 1157 (quoting Hague v CIO. 307 U.S. 496.515.59 S.Ct. 954.83 L Ed 1423 (1939)). The Washington Supreme Court held "[t]he parking strips in which Collier and his supporters placed his political signs lie between the 'streets and sidewalks' and thus are part of the 'traditional public forum' " Collier. 121 Wash.2d at 747 854 P.2d 1046 **157 We agree with the Collier analysis and rely on its direction in applying the forum analysis under the Washington Constitution. C The Facts W In this case, there is no dispute that Mighty Movers signs were attached to poles adjacent to or between streets and sidewalks. This is the same location addressed in the Collier case. In this case, there is no question the ordinance bans the posting of political speech also banned in the Collier case. The ordinance admittedly goes even farther to ban the posting of all speech, except that which public agencies may post with the City's permission. The factual records at the trial court level in Vincent and Collier. did not establish a traditional. public use of Page 5 the forum being reviewed. Unlike the records in Vincent and. Collien we have *914 before us evidence of the traditional public use by posting in these locations. The record contains a survey of historical photographs prepared at the City's request and produced by the City in discovery. The survey reviews a collection of photographs dating from the 1920s, and concludes that posters or handbills are present on poles in approximately 11 percent of the photographs. A November 24, 1992 letter from then -Seattle City Council President George E. Benson to E. Nicholas Wilson states: "It was prior to the election of 1981 that I mounted a campaign to eliminate bill posting on utility poles. It bothered me greatly that our beautiful city was being desecrated by the posting of unsightly bills." A "Poster Removal Program Survey" was completed by the Seattle Conservation Corps on January 26, 1994. The survey contains multiple photographs from 1993 through 1994 of locations throughout the City of Seattle depicting utility poles covered in hundreds of temporary signs. Even after passing this ordinance banning signs, the City has continued its tradition of posting its own signs on these same poles. Only one factual conclusion can reasonably be drawn from this evidence: posting on some utility poles adjacent to streets and sidewalks is a decades old channel of communication in the City of Seattle sufficient to establish a traditional public forum. The record, however, is insufficient to establish whether posting on any of the other City -owned properties covered by the ordinance are also traditional public fora. As a matter of law and fact, a traditional public forum has been established only for poles adjacent to streets and sidewalks. We therefore confine our further analysis of whether posting on these poles is nonetheless permissible. III. Washington Tlbne, Place and Manner Test 10 Government regulations in public fora are only valid if they are content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Bering v. SHARE, 106 Wash.2d 212, 234, 721 P.2d 918 198 *915 A. Content Neutrality 11 I The City of Seattle's anti -posting ordinance is content neutral on its face and as applied. WNII Mighty Movers, however, argues that the exception in the ordinance for public agency postings creates Copr. ® West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 51 P.3d 152 (Cite as: 112 Wash.App. 904, 51 P.3d 152) subject -matter based speech classifications and, therefore, is not content neutral. However, in Collier. the Court concluded that an ordinance which was viewpoint neutral but subject matter based was nonetheless content neutral for purposes of time, place and manner review. 121 Wash.2d at 753, 854 P.2d 1046. The same is true in this case. FNI. The list of organizations invoiced for Poster and sign removal speaks for itself on this point, A wide assortment of groups and organizations including, among others, the Seattle Police Officers Guild, First Free Methodist Church, numerous weight loss and moving companies, and music. venues were all invoiced for removal costs. B. Compelling Government Interest 121 The legislative record sets forth several reasons why the ordinance is compelling: utility worker safety, fire safety, traffic safety and aesthetics. We analyze them in the context of the poles. Seattle, WA., Ordinance 90047 § 3942 (Mar. 11, 1994). **158 Worker safety concerns focused on the risks to workers climbing wooden poles. Metal poles were not implicated. Postings obscured the cracks in the poles. Thick .layers of paper prevented climbing spikes from anchoring into the poles. Nails used to post signs posed a risk of cuts to workers. The City apparently was not persuaded that a single layer of signs was a compelling interest, since under an exception contained in the ordinance [FN21 it posts land use notices and other regulatory notices of public agencies on poles. No showing appears in the record that thick layers of accumulation or that the use of nails could not be adequately addressed by time, place and manner regulations more narrowly drawn. No evidence compels banning posting *916 of all communication, rather than prohibiting nails as fasteners or prohibiting posting on top -of other posting. FN2. Because we invalidate the proiubition of posting on poles under a traditional public forum analysis, we need not further elaborate on the inappropriateness of the exception to that prohibition for regulatory postings by public agencies. Page 6 [131 Second, fire safety was a concern in the record. The interest in fire safety is certainly important. Again, the ordinance apparently is not concerned with the risk of fires involving paper public agency notice postings, since they are an exception in the ordinance. This fire concern therefore appears to center on the accumulation of layers of postings. Time, place and manner restrictions on postings could clearly prohibit the postings that lead to layer upon layer of paper, without banning all posting. The restriction is not narrowly drawn to meet this compelling government interest. [14J Third, the City cites traffic safety as a basis for the ordinance. The Collier Court did not reject that traffic safety could be a compelling reason to ban political signs in parking strips next to roadways. However, the record did not provide evidentiary support for such a finding. Clearly, signs could be posted in a manner which obstructs the view of traffic signs or the view of traffic itself. Such signs could pose a danger to other traffic or pedestrians. It is difficult to imagine, however, that a poster wrapped around a pole along a busy urban street could obstruct any view. It is also difficult to imagine how such a poster would be more distracting to drivers than the multitude of business signs, billboards, and flashing neon advertisements that invariably surround the poles and that are posted pursuant to City permit or City ordinance. Traffic safety may well become a compelling government interest behind regulation of signs, but the regulation must be narrowly tailored to address only actual safety risks. There is no showing before us that posting of signs on poles has any actual effect on traffic safety or that the ordinance prohibited only those signs having such an effect. 15 Finally, no case cited to the court has found aesthetics a compelling government interest. Metromedia Ina v. City o San Dieg acknowledged aesthetics could be a substantial governmental goal. *917453 U.S. 4904 507-08, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 0981 . Vincent found aesthetics to be a significant government interest. 466 U.S. at 807.104 S.Ct. 2118. Collier found aesthetics a significant, but nota compelling interest. 121 Wash.2d at 758, 854 P.2d 1046. The record before us, like that in Collier. does not allow us to conclude the City was "seriously and comprehensively addressing aesthetic concerns with respect to the environment , Collier. 121 Wash.2d at 758, 854 Ptd 1046. The City has not met its burden of demonstrating a compelling interest based on aesthetic concerns. G Ample Alternative Channels of Communication Copr. 0 West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 51 P.3d 152 (Cite as: 112 Wash.App. 904, 51 P.3d 152) 16 The City argues that there are myriad channels of communication left open by the ordinance, including, "the ability to picket, parade, hand out handbills or carry signs on public property and to post signs and handbills on automobiles and other private property with the permission of the owners." Not only are these methods of communication more time consuming, but they are also more expensive. We do not believe these are adequate alternative means of communication. Posting is " 'essential to the poorly **159 financed causes of [the public].' " Vincent. 466 U.S. at 820 104 S Ct 2118 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (quoting Martin v Struthers 319 U.S 141.146.63 S.Ct. 862.87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943)). The City also argues that under the ordinance, the kiosks provide .an alternative channel to posting on .other City -owned properties. One cannot say with a straight face that the City's installation of 11 kiosks is an adequate replacement in a city of this size for the multitude of poles that have been used for posting. The small number of kiosks is not ample. The City has therefore failed to demonstrate that ample alternative means of communications exist. IV. The Ordinance is overbroad We hold that the portion of a publicly owned pole which is located on or adjacent to a street or sidewalk in the City of Seattle within the reach of pedestrians and which has traditionally been used for posting is a traditional public forum. Because none of the City's cited interests are *918 justified by banning all posting on this portion of publicly owned poles, the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. It therefore sweeps within its grasp, constitutionally protected speech. We hold that the anti -posting ordinance is overbroad and therefore is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. V. Severability Analysis 171 A law is overbroad in its entirety only if there is no way to sever its unconstitutional applications. _State v. Talley 122 Wash.2d 192 210 858 P.2d 217 1993. The ordinance bans posting on "traffic control device [s], utility pole[s][and] lamp post[s]". SMC 15.48.100. Each of these categories includes some poles, which are part of the traditional public forum identified above. Therefore, we invalidate as Unconstitutional the application of the ordinance to the pole portion of the traffic control devices; utility poles and lamp posts. [FN31 We can and do sever these provisions from the balance of the ordinance. Page 7 FN3. We do not preclude the City from enacting time, place and manner restrictions which are appropriate to poles which are part of the traditional public forum we have identified The City may also enact different restrictions, appropriate to signs on poles not part of the traditional public forum. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the City of Seattle and in denying summary judgment for Mighty Movers. We reverse. WE CONCUR: GROSSE and AG1D. JJ. 51 P.3d 152,1.12 Wash.App. 904 Copr. 0 West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Memorandum Prepared by:Yvonne Kinoshita Ward, Auburn Planning Commissioner Date: 09/09/03 Re: Reducing Public Notice of Certain Land Use Actions The staff of the Auburn Planning Department has made a proposal to reduce public notice of certain land use actions. Specifically, staff seeks to eliminate the requirement to post 8 %z by 11 notices around the perimeter of the property subject to land use action. The reduction of public notice of the five signs affects land use actions which require a "conditional use permit." These actions include controversial facilities, such as a sex predator halfway house, adult bookstores and peep shows, group homes, work release programs, taverns, and liquor serving establishments. In addition, there are several environmental uses of which the public will become less aware, including asphalt manufacturers, heavy metal processing, manufacture of ammunition and explosives, refining petroleum metals and ores, solid waste processing facilities, and utility substations. Currently, the ordinance requires specific public notice, including: ➢ A large sign on the front of the property; ➢ Five 8 % by 11 bright colored notices around the perimeter of the property; ➢ a notice in the legal section of the classified ads; ➢ A posting at the Auburn City Hall; and ➢ Mailing to property owners within 300 feet. Staff originally proposed to reduce the size of the large signs and to eliminate the 8 %z by 11 signs that surround the perimeter of a property. The rational proposed by the staff was to save expenses, improve aesthetics, and because of concerns that posting on utility poles was illegal. The issue of utility poles is no longer an issue, because the courts have ruled such restrictions unconstitutional. Therefore, the only stated reasons for eliminating the five notices are a purported $30-50 cost saving per project, and aesthetics. September 9, 2003 At the July 2003 Planning Commission, staff was asked directly for information regarding our purported cost savings and to the impact on aesthetics if they eliminated the perimeter notification. Staff was also asked about the impact on public notice. As it turns out, the cost savings, at best, are merely $30 to $50 per project. Staff testified: COMM. How much will we save, I mean per project? If you have to put up five WARD: signs at one and a half to two hours, what's the overhead for that person to do that? What? $20 an hour, $40 an hour? Planner I think that an hour and a half of typical staff time would be rounded off at Martin: $20 an hour. **** Planner We are talking about an hour and a half to post one of these signs. An hour Martin: and a half is not a whole lot of time. Moreover, staff claimed they could try to fix the problem of reduced pubic notice by increasing the mailing area of notice. However, that at a minimum would cost thirty to fifty dollars itself COMM. You're going to be adding a couple hundred people. In addition to the WARD: property owners so if you only added 100 people that's $37 right there. Does that sound right? Planner If you got 100 people at 37 cents it would be $37. Martin: COMM. Plus the envelopes, and the fliers, and all the process. WARD: Staff eventually indicated there was no real cost savings. As noted by Commissioner Ward: The question I have and you clarified it for me is, what is the reason? The reasons are stated here, which are resources and aesthetics. Yet you do not really know what the resource impact is. You don't what the resource of stopping it. You do not what the resource impact is of expanding the mailings. On the issue of aesthetics, there have been no complaints and there is no rationale on why eliminating the five small notices improves aesthetics. September 9, 2003 Perimeter notices are necessary to notify residents near other parts of the property of a proposed land use action: Planner People take different routes, exactly. So what we have to go under the Martin: assumption on, is that we're going to post the public notice sign, plaster it on the telephone pole that people are going to walk by. *** COMM. I mean it's the people who are on the next street that aren't going to be LARSON: going down my street. COMM. That's right. It happens all the time. It's happened in my neighborhood. WARD: The big sign was facing one street but my area --coming this way and I only knew about if because of those like golden rod, is that the color? What ever the color is. From this side. I never go that back street. And that's where the sign was, because that's the side the house faced. So, it happens all the time. Significant concern to several commissioners was the reduced notice eliminating these signs would create. Staff has admitted that notice will be reduced and that this cannot make up for it: COMM. Well are you saying there is no loss of public notice by eliminating these WARD: five 8 %2 by 11 signs? Planner No. Martin: COMM. Okay. So you are admitting, there will be some loss in public notice by WARD: eliminating these five sings? Planner Not universally, no. Martin: COMM. There will be some, correct? WARD: Planner There is the potential for some. Martin: COMM. Yes. And you have no evidence to suggest we wouldn't lose public 3 September 9, 2003 WARD: notice? Planner No. Martin: COMM. So you are or are not admitting that there will be some loss at some level of WARD: public notice, by eliminating these 8 %2 by 11 signs? Planner There is a potential that some situations might result in a loss of public Martin: hearing by eliminating the 8 %2 by 11 signs. Hence public input is critical to deciding this reduction in notice: COMM. We're taking away a certain awareness within the neighborhood, by DOUGLASS: taking away these signs. I think we are reducing the awareness and the potential participation of the public within the neighborhood by doing this. And I don't see any reason why we are making this reduction. We aren't adding something. We are making a reduction to a process that's been in place quite a while. **** 4 '0 c m D) C Y U d v 0 0 m m c m lD E 0 3 a o c m -rn a w y m d U y E CL v a> c E m 2 'c cc m m C N '1J •7 d � m � w a c rn 3 'Ecu o c U O N orn w C � 7m U '0 m 2 L Y � U 7 2 m N m m E s c L ¢ O •- m c L C C > O @ N D m c -00 O t m m N 0 d Lm N N O L t;5 5 O) E U_U 0 L C O p c .0 .m- a a p > > 0 co Ao c @ a 0' m m c c c o 0 m m n v m m C m m c O m U U N N N C C m m L N m m U N M �-m m m 2 U U 0 7 m 7 2 2 S rr 0 cN 7 m m (n c) N N 1�0 N U c c . °� _ a m d T r _ m m t m m c—t �'aa m Z... C U O 'O ' v '0 -d C N> 'p > 7 7 7 m c O O O o U o a c d c C C N m O w 7 � _ o 111 > vi > ' � ' N N 'O x x Ix x T � y 2D x X X > E O M m U2U X X i c •� Ni I UUm c x .. E JUJU XX X v WLL CD CL zcr c UZA°�oCif--)-CCL: fA U N •� ❑ai N Q 2 O Co 0 N W z o a N N V O N ayi O j �F-LL X If I�U)U- �' E 6cu 0 1 (D �fY cm E 6 C N o j 1 f f 2 U) LL Q� _ I ' i fn C O w f6 w>' ai �3c �I� � ma��m n1= VVW ❑> J U p _oom N ca y ..OL .O m (Drn.,0 (D o 0 c4 C IJ Zi` ❑MF -- Q U �= W= O v Q a Z ¢ E U o v O p O L0 a co E r�,Q c�¢ C O C V to Q 7 7 0 0 m ¢ ¢ Q '0 c m D) C Y U d v 0 0 m m c m lD E 0 3 a o c m -rn a w y m d U y E CL v a> c E m 2 'c cc m m C N '1J •7 d � m � w a c rn 3 'Ecu o c U O N orn w C � 7m U '0 m 2 L Y � U 7 2 m N m m E s c L ¢ O •- m c L C C > O @ N D m c -00 O t m m N 0 d Lm N N O L t;5 5 O) E U_U 0 L C O p c .0 .m- a a p > > 0 co Ao c @ a 0' m m c c c o 0 m m n v m m C m m c O m U U N N N C C m m L N m m U N M �-m m m 2 U U 0 7 m 7 2 2 S rr 0 cN 7 m m (n c) N N 1�0 N U c c . °� _ a m d T r _ m m t m m c—t �'aa m Z... C U O 'O ' v '0 -d C N> 'p > 7 7 7 m c O O O o U o a c d c C C N m O CD co C co ca a E L U 3 0 d c 0 w m m y 0 c 0 .0 CD 76 U O N T N 'a m 'a 0 a 101 f r Nom j ► i � f {X +X ICo D 1 N d -0 I f rn L O i J c a f �E m E 1 i U2U 1! i ic)om c X I .. E c E 0-.2)0 W X X L- U W LL a) 'a a NUZ-°.cm 0� f { U, a� n. U_ 0 a i- N O < I 0 2 0) co w Oi I j N _ v D a)m 0 0 a jx LLX i I (y a'E vi c co[i (n LL Of t X I rn E vi { ixcco I nlW f w z' I { i 0)E 1 I t i Icc�LL� j � N_ 111 I i 1 vi o� ► 104 a N i(D 0 W p i wVw�in� 0 _ N` 0� i `L° E �E `-° cs C y __ f0 �'r` N O j y E N O tD O _U Y IO N U —v- j > V U D__ J_ O O E 0) O C C N E :2 'D -0 7 cx � U) Q m U N d N E U vi v''w ca o N N O �n 0 O c0 to a� CO fl 0) ai N E d j U O N c O w O C O N O 00 O c� 0 C = vOi m d 9 Oj a) O *EfUQQ �Q��azQ vO,Q 3 `wco=m`im a.'0 a� a u alo E a ����-0 m-0 CD co C co ca a E L U 3 0 d c 0 w m m y 0 c 0 .0 CD 76 U O N T N 'a m 'a 0 a 101 cn ƒ7m . � ! § J $ Ix /ƒ7 x x X Ij _ � -� 1k � | | > qkk ! u |q U 3 c E I2[ | � � c|� ui0a0 o x x LL0),0 , _ & LL _ f 2 c |02�=@'X C.)|1--o 0 E o R m0�»0W.32x | Oda - q §coot Ia x | 2 , N�� / | a cu � x | x cLW |r $ cc ' -OD � ' ! Ix /$ LLQ | � � / � . - � 1_0) E I |wmU- ca $ W | �. | § ! CO 2 ' |ƒ C0,6 |� .L- :3 ! ! ! /| f f /! | $ w O �� » m / / o 2 0 ' / @ ' E o © — f —| & / m @� o = � �� LU ��� boom '6c © ±% �o£mmEE fr 0® �2c(n cu �O>I5-1 2 � c m w � � � E�� @ o ma Eco � _ � o � ■ o ■` ° ID ;|«Q�w�O±��EE�=E�2EC.)cq ¢R■a 2,obk|32§23§/\f/%0�/3|30,�C, 222��t¢2=ƒk| _ fuo/,oƒ lw " Co :3 0) !Www w cl (D c -0 co >- LU '" i.� =) 1= C.) 2 ui E WiE 0 > 3: 5.63 U) E.1a)i 0' E a) O'el te > g. z E > E, p = w =3 < 0 � LU D 01 OW 0 0 0 1 " 0, (D D- -j < ix (L z I U_ (D .210 21T- 0) U) 0.2 E ( m E | | a) 0 C) Io co FX U) ' U) a) q co 0 Go c ix E Z) E Lu LM 0 0 -10 rx cc kk 0 0) U) 0) co 0) w U -U U- <|Q > Ix U) w cc 2$$ (D vi S? oi V) 76 16 16 —T —Cl) 75 F - Ol0 0 t't-- 4) o af w 0 of 'Fu CIJ 0)co a: x z a - 2: 6 c� E -11 | < x x x Cf) W it M 3: CE a) 0 0 wee ca 2 -0 01, z 0 0 0 >1 a) cmn -0 '0 co to C 4) 0) :2 cu L -1 0 0 222 D :3 :3 E m vi cu oc W m 0 —0 N E IX =3 a 'U E CD :3 =3 a) M (D W6 2 aLL X o x -E X c CD M Ix CX. :3 1 ,P Fo E o T- , T- -o::r -S ml a: uAD i ce) co :3 0 E CL LL x Ix Ix -fc: i ix a) .2:, lw " Co :3 0) !Www w cl (D c -0 co >- LU '" i.� =) 1= C.) 2 ui E WiE 0 > 3: 5.63 U) E.1a)i 0' E a) O'el te > g. z E > E, p = w =3 < 0 � LU D 01 OW 0 0 0 1 " 0, (D D- -j < ix (L z I U_ (D .210 21T- 0) U) 0.2 E =1 :3 0 0 0 m E a) 0 C) Io FX U) U) a) 0 Go c ix E E Lu LM 0 0 -10 rx cc kk 0 0) U) 0) co 0) w U -U U- <|Q 0' z C) 0 g 0 1 .8 c '--) -a Ix U) w cc 2$$ (D vi S? oi V) 76 16 16 —T —Cl) 75 F - Ol0 0 t't-- 4) o af w 0 of 'Fu a: x z a - 2: 6 c� E -11 | < 2 a) w o - Cf) W it M 3: CE a) 0 0 wee ca 2 -0 01, z 0 0 0 >1 a) cmn -0 '0 co to C 4) 0) :2 cu L -1 0 0 222 D :3 :3 E m vi cu oc W m 0 —0 N E IX =3 a 'U E CD :3 =3 a) M (D W6 2 aLL X o x -E X c CD M a) 'i CX. :3 1 ,P Fo E o T- , T- -o::r -S ml a: uAD i ce) co :3 0 E CL LL x Ix Ix i ix a) .2:, 1 0) . E EES U) i 04 a) U) U- of ix ix o2, W- Fo LCL,, a f Ix I 0) E I cri 9 ca 0 Of U) LL E Ix lw " Co :3 0) !Www w cl (D c -0 co >- LU '" i.� =) 1= C.) 2 ui E WiE 0 > 3: 5.63 U) E.1a)i 0' E a) O'el te > g. z E > E, p = w =3 < 0 � LU D 01 OW 0 0 0 1 " 0, (D D- -j < ix (L z I U_ (D .210 21T- 0) U) 0.2 'IT =1 :3 0 0 0 CL CL a cc kk 0 0) U) 0) co 0) U) w cc 2$$ 76 16 16 —T —Cl) 75 'a '0 � ! | A cc m a) 0 0 wee ca 2 -0 01, 0 0 0 >1 a) cmn -0 '0 co to C 4) 0) :2 cu L -1 0 — =3 222 D :3 :3 E m vi cu oc W m 0 —0 '6 CX, >>, Cc> 6 o Cb M :!R 70 ca WE CL i :3 T 0 =3 a 'U E CD :3 w 0 .- .- Cc = E Q o E Lm- E a) o o x -E o 61 c CD M CX. :3 1 ,P Fo E o T- , T- -o::r -S ml a: uAD E 'IT i .N � ca L o C y y o L '�- m O 0 N a i Z) cu O C E to m y °1 C U C ° � � c m 3 c N ayi m T a E c •� I i I E �q y O. c (D m �- o i ca iN y a c m Em � o X X 0)a, m C c= 3 ° m N � O F- 7H 'O U ym- .L,, CU y vi lT @ mmE m c CL Ly m E -E y m 3 N h 3 j� 3 cu70 W 'ao �+ U �' 'E X -- � m 3 m a) L y E m? 'Da Lm n L m Y > E ca E 3 5 m "' a),6 •m w c 'C t�D C N O m w y c � (m 0 OS 3 m 10 U2U Eva °w O U L U 3 3 O O ° C >+ '� ( -0 O T E o •o mmv mcL Nmo.c X + iN coco b 0'3 E h i o� C O Cc m° N> O m i - m c E'Doc �UUt� c m 3 2 m e c C @ o P Z 3� 3 rn c E o ccu m v m p V U E L _O w- m0 Z- 1 m L ca.m 22 0.c i C E m m c a O y-0 LO -" 'y oL m> cd> t E a - a -0 m a i :s O •� . - c y y E m o I y C d a L O m s O S E U O m L v, m y€ m porno O to .y.. U N 3 m� m m - O tT� O d O E 0 .N Z ._ �' 3 = o `"c ES c, c.. �w E•= o. N o 0 m m o y a, Lm m L all 0 o 4 ?? o 0 c 0 CO c: U 0 L m to m (D co U U T ° y U _r_ r� w O 7> ym c ami U •° -0 ° ami m •p m 'o • m E '> .0 v > > om aal0 c� c 2 i-0aa N � ' co CD m aiU- UF a z�LOOC UZ pa.cc a I � i (� U Q ch j 11 ! O d( ° r Q m N m p N co m��2 a W Z O4?+ N :- c m Of2 atLOf X �+ m N O 'E U-: x X X X i mEa. i c U) ti Mf i 'X I XIX �X N LL of 1 i }x i U) LL M ca I X I X 1 i j( LU p Dicicoo tv r ami of c -> L 5 0) O'OOU �' > i a ia) i $ co >- W F �E L m_p OOC rt+ N L N ° ", w- m N � ylL=ca L O _ to O C [] >_ —� V ZF-��mH�c��a�CE LO M U) E 3 0 axi c' rn CL Ca ., my >a�w-m��C='tn y d � s (� C c QU-Wm0 �y �� > L cO o� E c C o m c o'y E o.: o 5 3 :'(D U On, (JQ�rYO.Z� cu m a° v2�2v2�Z C L o C y y o L '�- m O 0 N a O d U cu O C E to m y °1 C U C ° � � c m 3 c N ayi m cc = y a E c •� ." oioa E �q y O. c (D m �- o c o m Em � o E L m 0)a, m C c= 3 ° m y U F- 7H 'O U ym- .L,, CU y vi lT @ mmE m c CL Ly m E -E y m 3 N h 3 j� 3 cu70 W 'ao �+ U �' 'E a -- � m 3 m a) L y E m? 'Da Lm n L m Y o•- m yE 3 5 m "' a),6 •m w c 'C t�D C N O m w y c � (m 0 OS 3 m 10 Eva °w O U L U 3 3 O O ° C >+ '� 70 3 0 -0 O T E o •o mmv mcL Nmo.c m Ew m 4c�@ QE aciaE tll 0 E h L1 3 Om E v o� C O Cc m° N> O m c c ro - m c E'Doc +U'y 3 m 6 3 m 3 2 m e c C @ o P Z 3� 3 rn c E o ccu m v m p V U 'D 0 '0 L _O w- m0 Z- 1 m L ca.m 22 0.c v E m m C E m m c a O y-0 LO -" 'y oL m> cd> L m a - a -0 m a i :s O •� . - c y y E m o C 0'D y C d a L O m s O S E U O m L v, m y€ m O to .y.. U N 3 m� m m C C .2 m Q, L1. 0_ O tT� O d O E 0 .N Z ._ �' 3 = o `"c ES c, c.. �w E•= o. N o 0 m m o y a, Lm m L all 0 o 4 ?? o 0 c 0 CO c: U 0 L m to m (D co U U T ° y E p C _r_ r� w O 7> ym c ami U •° -0 ° ami m •p m 'o • m E '> .0 v > > om aal0 c� c 2 i-0aa N � ' co CD m I CD CL O d m t 0 m` m m w 0 U 0 O C 0 C •v v m m 0 0 N N m Z. O 0 T f0 O N ti 0 m � r m U w Co 0 o U to �0 _ -D m to -� co N m � w � U D C M co vo t >� 1 w E t t ' � !N N 7 !UU[0 c i 1j � I L w `rnO U U U W a1 L 65 Uz-sv i Ui O x o, p(a i 1 z2y�y a2OMO@ I ul Ol Nlv N cp N j� 'au- u-m I V) 1 O a� C7 =3 LL -0 X �x 4) i i i t i N C co N t! rYc)LLix t i i � U) LL !x `cnc'cu(D ;.fy co U- fY t j 70 {(U� m�`� 00 0 i� E w O U)�- W I p~ (� U W t O m o m o 0 c = ov N m C c -m 3 0 cam- O c v 0) io O p C c m C CO0 N Co i lip>=pJVi�� O m ��� O �N m o v� lm L m rno CD CII vmi m �in0 m O�' p c �`° m� zl—�0mt- ;aU-WO0��co N m cu_.m,0 NMOoOo`mm d N �.�� � 1, O V-O�p �- U�'> o- i O c� O pw�0 m '�a��az,Os 3 in!0 0 �a vO,�a coiifl aoa o� E °fY E E `o 0 I CD CL O d m t 0 m` m m w 0 U 0 O C 0 C •v v m m 0 0 N N m Z. O 0 T f0 O N ti 0 m � r m U w Co 0 o U to �0 _ -D m to -� co N m � w � U D C M co vo w C) C) N In N C f0 L m L-. - a) ' N C y i I N N 'D ,2 = c X t 7 r D) 2D X x ! f T E {U2U X m N �UUm � 3) o W0 0 -j 0 F- U w LLLL Z D) D d Z� cU) cicl X X U _U O• O = O F �fY�0�2caX - Oai�mo xx D oia Qg(DCO0'CIL m j I w w Y- n z o; w W x �m y ch3cu�W LL -0 x X N N �N Ir U) LL W x ! m( 1ixU)LLW x I U) 9 ca a) wU)tio lx i-- ! �I i W o c - c N w j w- ! O ! v rn D I c c N •— co � x m a� is p y t W j= ci U W y N C O O W C y O O O ... m vi "� L y m M () >+ O N l0 'a vi to D) 7— y w c c y �- V i N y ❑>zi—_ J U O j O V C d O y V V D) O i:.O •� w Q> :3.2 O 0� ;QU—w0 5 y a) w 5�� m o� L E c wca ��- � c'� m— � E I J Q� It n. z 9 �•X W G .c a) :° � 2 E to 2 o n� E '6 w co 0 cx. r .cD v) m w C) C) N In N C f0 L m L-. :t-_ ca > =3 M O'D X x x x L x I 1- N x i ix (a E 4x co a) 0 LO r -i T -C) t i IX i x U) i C,4 i00(a i { { x E E pT 0)0 n C) UJI0 LU U - x LL z CD = 0 0 C)ZM=U) CO CL 0 GO) a=- 010 OW colaf of 0 of Z < a) ca 0 co R LLI z 0 E co (D CLLL Ix 0 E cL ca X (D 2, E .9 W 0 !W04 U) LL cu a) cc CO LL W { ' x a) 2, ED E 6 CU a) 0� F5 u- cr- ;x m iW =3 0 Of of :x x uiU) >- ca 0 U) T) (D 4) 0 a) CC4 fm U) ui Lu 0 5 E cu E 0 Q) D a 4- C 0 (woo E m ca CO m 4) 0 4) V) Q) E W ju 0 R -C 0 L _3 F- 0 M p c,- 1 E cI il —0,- -01 V) :3' " cu z iQUF=wm0 C z L — 0 a) = > S a) T 0) 80 E C'4 4? calm C: I > M -6 2 ca cL ml�- m a)l 0 426 -� t� -cl i -;Z 6L 0 FU 00 C) CD 0) C> co co lzt Nt co co c r_ .2 .0 -C 0 =CD M A2 :5 TO -C m co C" z — (D '40) to 0 .0 la - (D Ew S4 (D rn U) CL (D a) 0 cu s S 4) 0 U) a) 0) 0 c E E . 0) (D N cm C13 (a E E E c tOo CD O> 8 > 0 0 0) 0) (D 0 w E 2 2 0 a m 0 0 ca 0 —W V) lu a C'5 :3 :3 70 0 0 0 0 0 aciE E 0 c 0 c = .. :9 0 E as M9 9 a) CD a) a) Z M> 'E r E L!--1 LAND USE ACTIVITIES THAT THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE LESS NOTICE OF UNDER PROP # OA030002 Adult uses: Adult bookstores, adult movie houses, peepshows Animal and food processing Animal auction houses Apartments Arcades Asphalt plants Automobile and truck rental Automobile sales and leasing Automobile service stations Automobile wrecking or salvage Boardinghouses Brewpubs Bulk storage or processing of oil, gas, petroleum, butane, liquid petroleum, gas and similar products Colleges and universities Civic, social and fraternal clubs Commercial horse riding trails Commercial recreation, including animal race tracks Concrete crushing & mixing plants Dance halls Day -cares, preschools, nursery schools Drive-in facilities (banks, restaurants) Drive-in theatres Duplexes Fish hatcheries Foster care homes Government facilities Group resident facilities Heavy equipment sales Heavy metal processing, including blast furnaces, drop forges, and similar heavy metal. operations Heliports Home-based day -cares Hospitals (excluding animal) Household goods storage Light manufacturing Liquor serving establishments Living quarters for employees Manufacture of ammunition and explosives, paving and roofing materials Motels Multiple family dwellings Museums Neighborhood recreational buildings and facilities Nursing homes Off-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities Outside storage or other outside uses Personal service shops Private country clubs and golf courses Processing or pulping of wood or other fibers Professional offices Radio and television marketing towers Refining of materials such as petroleum, metals and ores, fats, oils Religious institutions Restaurants Retail sales of medical products Salvage yards for the storage of metals, paper, glass, rags, building materials, and similar activities. Secure community transition facility (sex predator halfway houses) Semi tractor and trailer sales Shopping centers Solid waste processing facility Taverns Transmitting towers Utility substations Warehouse sales open to the public Work release, pre-release or similar facilities offering alternatives to imprisonment PUBLIC NOTICES — POSTING REQUIREMENTS - ZOA03-0002 (Teat changes to eliminate 5 paper notices within 300 feet of -project site) (Comments from Concerned Citizens of Auburn are in italics) 14.07.040 Method of providing notice. A. Mailing notice to owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site. C. Publishing in a newspaper of general circulation of the area L Large 0Mh Drint to be east, read 2. Accurate description of proposal 3. Layman English not 'legal' jargon D. Mailing notice of application with information included in this section, to each person who has requested such notice and paid any applicable fee as established by the city. (Ord .4835 - 1, 1996.) Explain applicable fee: Who will look up this ordinance? 14.18.030 Public hearing. B. " .... The description may be in the form of eft4w both a vicinity location sketch mM of and a written description other than a legal description. C. 1. Notice shall be published not less than 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation of the area. (note: to be consistant with other references: 14:07.040; 14.18.030-C.1.; 14.18.030-C.1.; 17.06.030-C.1.; 18.68.040-A.& B. = notice could be published in other end of County.) 16.06.090 Public notice. B. Additional public notice may be provided for proposals having or potentially having unusually widespread, unique or significant adverse impacts, or for other proposals, at the discretion of the responsible official. ( Some other safeguard should be provided: The towering height of HRA would have impacted the whole South Auburn area; but the 'responsible official' tried to push HRA through with no public hearings and hied to use other unethical means.) (Possible safeguard... let Planning commission decide?) C. " .... , the cost of newspaper publication of such notice or notices shall be borne by the city with fees paid by the proponent or applicant. (Ord. 4840 —1, 1996.) Why is the city concerned about the cost of posting 5 paper notices? Applicant fees could pay for all notices 17.06.030 Public hearing B. " .... The description maybe in the form of eitheF both a vicinity location sket m� of and a written description other than a legal description. 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements. A. Text Amendments, 1. & 2. " .... posting the notice in three general public locations." How long are notices displayed? Is the public informed of where the 'general public locations' are? Compiled by Marylyn Pederson, 8-28-03 PUBLIC NOTICES — POSTING REQUIREMENTS - ZOA03-0002 (Teat changes to eliminate 5 paper notices within 300 feet of project site) When Howard Road Apartment (HRA) was proposed the notices were mailed late and to only some of the residents within 300 feet of the project site. I called the Planning Department on July 3 regarding that fact and by July 5'h the rest of the neighbors had their notices! Considering the magnitude of the environmental impact the HRA project would have made on our community, such notices should have been mailed to a much greater radius than 300 feet. When CCA members inquired at the Planning Department we were told nothing could be done now, "HRA was a done deal and was going to be built." Because we felt betrayed by the City's legal procedure that is suppose to serve in the tax payers' best interests, we began investigating. The following issues we objected to are outlined below: A. Notices on the City Hall bulletin board 1. Were posted so briefly that one notice was not there within 5 days of the announcement; therefore, we could not read the full text of the proposal. 2. Need standard form for easy identification of project and location. 3. Many citizens, because they work, can't easily get into City Hall to view or pick up notices. B. Posting notices near the site 1. Large sign (mounting board) for HRA faced away from almost all of the residents that would be impacted by that project. 2. One of the signs on the telephone pole adjacent to the IBCA site was the first warning our neighborhood had regarding the proposed monster. 3. Subsequent notices updating additional project activity should be of a different color. Old notices were not removed and we were not aware of updated notices. C. Newspaper notices 1. Obscure legal jargon was difficult to understand and didn't seem to be necessary. 2. Small print is difficult to read. 3. Very misleading and deceptive description were published regarding the HRA project in 2000 and C-1 Amendment in 1992. D. Deadlines — double standard 1. If CCA did not meet deadlines to respond to city proposals or amendments, we would be in default and thereby forfeit our opportunity to respond. 2. When the city planning department missed two deadlines there were no adverse consequences. 3. The CCA sent several documents to the planning department. Our 3, 5, and 11 page documents succinctly expressed our objections to the HRA project! We validated our dispute by quoting the City's own records to document where the C-1 Amendment in 1992 had been misinterpreted. But we did not receive any response from any official regarding our concerns! E. Suggested improvements 1. For newspaper notices: a. Legal disclaimer or explanatory section, that is currently repeated in each notice, could be written once as a sub -section under the Legal Notices heading. b. Accurate and succinct description of proposal without legal jargon. c. Standardized " Legal Notice" format with pertinent information about each project for easy identification of where and what is proposed. d. Map of Auburn area with numbers that refer to numbered proposals in the text which have the specific addresses of each project site. 2. For mailing notices: a.. Large postcard or fold -over one sheet with no envelope. b. Succinct information: where (include map), when (pertinent dates, times), and project proposal. c. Include response format so citizens can conveniently express their concerns and City officials can easily organize and refer to suggestions: Proposal #; mailing address; deadline date; where complete text can be viewed; how complete text can be obtained and cost; citizens concerns; citizens name, address, phone number. 3. Documentation - Record each notification procedure on one sheet for accurate verification that all steps have been completed: when, where, and by whom with actual notice attached. (Variety of notices and recording processes for the C-1 Amendment process in 1992 was a disorganized, jumbled mess!) 4. For Site notices a. Mounting Boards of whatever size still rely on 8.5 x 11 paper to describe proposed project. Meaning, a citizen would probably have to park a car and go over to read the notice. b. Use large lettering to describe category of proposed project (ie., gas station, shopping mall) and include phone number or web site to get more information. Comments from Concerned Citizens of Auburn Compiled by Marylyn Pederson, 8-29-03 Excerpt from the August 5, 2003 Planning Commission meeting: PUBLIC HEARING • ZOA03-0002 - Text Changes to Auburn City Code Titles 14, 16, 17 and 18 related to Public Posting Notice Requirements Community Development Administrator Osaki commented that at the end of the last Planning Commission meeting, staff noted that the Planning Commission would have public hearing and suggested that the Planning Commission itemize the facts and findings into the ultimate record for PCDC and Council. Commissioner Ward says that she was not provided adequate notice about the public hearing tonight. One way to address this is to open the hearing, take any testimony, and continue hearing to September meeting. Commissioner Ward remarked that the Mayor set the public hearing on this matter. She requested advance notice of the public hearing on whether to reduce the notice of land use changes. There was suggestion that the findings be drafted and she talked to the Mayor about this and that the Mayor had said that Planning Commission can continue the hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki advised opening the public hearing and continue it to September, but take any testimony from those in the audience tonight. Following tonight's meeting, it is the obligation of staff to post notice on the Council Chambers door informing the public about the continued meeting. Chairman Ekrem said that unfortunately she was not at the last meeting and has some catch up to do. There appears to be some concern following discussions at the last meeting about not adequate notification of public hearing tonight. She is hearing that Commissioner Ward wanted additional notice. Commissioner Ward said that Mayor set the matter for public hearing, she asked that Planning Commission get advance notice, and let Commission know about this so that she could prepare findings (at Community Development Administrator Osaki's recommendation) for Council to look at. She did not receive adequate notice and did not have time to prepare the findings. The issue is to make sure the public has notice of the proposed change. Everyone agreed, but this fell through the cracks. Commissioner Douglass wanted to confirm that Planning Commission would open public hearing tonight, take testimony, continue public hearing to September meeting. Community Development Administrator Osaki said that in terms of tonight, Planning Commission was informed about notices made, and told about the list prepared of those who received notice. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that notice given on hearing was the statutory notice. More notice was provided for this than for other public hearings. He understands that Planning Commission wants to do more and public notice given fulfills the City's obligation. Commissioner Ward said that staff complied with statutory minimum at the SCTF hearing. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that henceforth, as a public hearing is set for Planning Commission, the procedure will be the same as it has been for this at this point which he elaborated on. Community Development Administrator Osaki wanted to modify Commissioner Douglass's statement for clarification purposes. Planning Commission should open the public hearing, take testimony, between now and the next meeting information will be available on the web with the intent to give Commissioner Ward time to prepare her findings and notify concerned individuals or agencies about the hearing. The City will not prepare an additional mailing. Commissioner Larsen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to move the September 3 Planning Commission meeting to September 9 at the usual time. The motion passed. Chairman Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki advised that this subject has been discussed many times previously. The changes are to certain Titles of Auburn City Code. The intent of the changes are to modify how the City provides public notices. The agenda bill outlines the minimum requirements for public notice. He told what notification is given to the public. Staff is proposing to eliminate the five 8-1/2" x 11" public notices that are attached to utility poles. In 2000, Code amendments were processed to require large land use posting boards for land use actions. Prior to 2000 there were only the five page-size notices posted. The posting of notices is consuming a significant amount of staff time. Staff does not think the five notices promote additional public notice. It is often difficult to post within 300 feet of a project without posting on utility poles. The current sign code does not allow signs on utility poles. In many cases the utility poles are the only place to post within 300 feet. The proposal is to eliminate posting the 8-1/2" x 11" public notices. All other means of public notification will be retained. Commissioner Ward wanted the record to show that procedurally, the Planning Commission voted not to have a public hearing on this change because they did not like change. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss remarked that three to four years ago when the City instituted the ordinance to require signage that is 8 to15 times the size of the 8"x11" notices, Instead of a few notices on utility poles informing public of a project, there is large land use posting sign which contains flyers describing the project in detail. Citizens can see the department phone number from their vehicles and can call the office to obtain additional information. When the new land use posting board regulations were adopted, staff forgot to eliminate the old requirement of the five postings on utility poles which was an oversight. Staff intended to replace an ineffective way to advertise with a more efficient way to advertise. The City spent over $15,000 on the land use posting boards. Chairman Ekrem thinks the proposal is a cultural shift and asked if there has been any thought on posting notices on the City's website. Community Development Administrator Osaki advised that every public hearing whether for Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner or City Council is listed on the first page of the City's website. Commissioner Ward commented that the Planner in charge of the proposal said in effect that there is no way to make up for the loss of notice to the public. There was debate about this and his answers were not satisfactory. She moved to continue the public hearing, get input on language if Planning Commission recommends, rather than do it now. Commissioner Larsen sees the proposal as decreasing five signs. She wants to see five signs on the perimeter of project. Chairman Ekrem.asked if this isn't the intent of the large land use posting sign. People are more likely to see the large land use posting signs. Commissioner Larsen said that in her neighborhood only 12 folks get notification. Not many people have chance to see notice unless it is posted on poles or they are walking through the neighborhood. Commissioner Ward mentioned that she and Commissioner Larsen have had experience of the five signs providing notice to them. There is no credible evidence of why the City is doing the change. Commissioner Larsen asked at last meeting why the change is being proposed. Planning Commission feels that more notice is better. Tod Larsen, 207 N Street SE, inquired which notice is more acceptable and is there any true form of measurement? 2 Commissioner Ward spoke about getting as much notice as possible to citizens. She related earlier very specific examples of how the small notices led to their involvement. The question is, is the City serving the public duty by reducing notice? Multiple forms of notice is the best way. If people hear about it and then do not show up, that is fine; but continue to give as much notice as possible. Chairman Ekrem asked about whether or not it is desirable to add additional language to this proposal for consideration. No one appears interested in adding additional language. Commissioner Chapman proposed adding additional language related to the City's website. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to continue the public hearing to September 9 at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Ward confirmed that she now has received adequate notice of the public hearing on September 9. Excerpt from the September 9, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting PUBLIC HEARING (continued from August 5, 2003) • ZOA03-0002 - Text Changes to Auburn City Code Titles 14, 16, 17 and 18 related to Public Posting Notice Requirements Chair Ekrem reopened the public hearing. City Attorney Heid distributed a memorandum to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ward also distributed documents to the Planning Commission. Planner Martin related the way that the City provides and posts public notices. He reviewed the four bulleted items in the staff report. He described the current method of providing public notice. The proposal tonight is to reduce posting five 8"x11" notices. Ninety-five percent (95%) of the time all public notices were provided on utility poles. City Attorney Heid has advised that this process needs to be discontinued. In January, 2000, amendments to ACC required placement of large land use posting boards. Prior to this, the City only did five page size signs around a neighborhood. There was no indication at the actual site of a project, just in the general location. In 2000, Title 1 was changed to require the installation of the land use posting board at the project site. City monitors the placement of the land use posting signs. Staff is confident that adequate public notice is made by installing the land use posting board and other requirements. For higher profile projects the City often provides additional notification by extending the 300' boundary to 500'. The City's website also carries the notices. City can still provide extended notice which is determined on a case by case basis. The City often extends the mailing radius to ensure that individuals affected by a potential controversial issue are made aware of the project. An example of this is the City notifying adult use businesses that the City is amending adult use provisions. The City is not under any obligation to let the adult use businesses know of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Ward announced that she had the meeting tape from the July meeting transcribed and staff said that staff.at most spends 1.5 hours per project; rounding off costs and did he recall his testimony? Planner Martin indicated he was speculating, but did recall. Commissioner Ward said since July documents have been printed that indicate the $20 per hour is incorrect? Planner Martin commented that Planning and Community Development Director Krauss provided detail information that is in the packet. The $20 was a speculative hourly wage of an employee not under his supervision. Based on the caveats offered at the July meeting the $20 was correct in speculation. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss's comments are more in detail and correct. Commissioner Ward reiterated that it takes 1.5 hours per project and Planner Martin replied that when he goes out to post it takes 1.5 to 2 hours to complete the task. Commissioner Ward commented 20 to 30 hours per person, if changing the specifics she needs to know. Planner Martin said that Planning and Community Development Director Krauss provided additional information related to the cost. He recalls stating in July the speculative $20 amount. Commissioner Ward asked if Planner Martin is talking about $30, $40, $50 per hour. Planner Martin indicated that this is the information provided by Planning and Community Development Director Krauss. Commissioner Ward asked Planner Martin to extrapolate the cost for putting up signs. Planner Martin said that Planning and Community Development Director Krauss estimates the average cost to include benefits for the graphic specialist is $26.31 per hour, for professional staff is $33.65 per hour. The graphic specialist posts 60% of the projects and professional staff posts 40% of the projects when the graphic specialist is out of the office, on vacation, or when additional posting is required. Commissioner Ward said the highest rate of a planner is $33.60 per hour, most postings are two hours or $66/$70 per project. Is there a reason you can't add $66 fee to the project to cover the cost? Planner Martin said that CC has indicated they want to keep fees and costs as low as possible. The City doesn't do cost recovery process. Commissioner Ward inquired about the types of land use affected here, like the conditional use process? Planner Martin said affect any land use action that requires a Notice of Application (NOA), environmental determination, CUP, rezone, preliminary plat, variance, rezone, administrative use permit. The list is not intended to be comprehensive; there may be additional applications that require notice that were not listed. Commissioner Ward mentioned SCTF (Secure Community Transition Facility) which in Auburn must go through the CUP process. If after this process is over, if the State wants more SCTF places, would this proposal eliminate the perimeter signs of that proposed facility? Planner Martin mentioned the minimum requirements as stated earlier. On a project by project basis the City has the ability to provide additional notification. The location of an SCTF would likely fall under radar as an application that warrants additional notification in addition to the minimum requirements. Commissioner Ward commented that initially Planning and Community Development Director Krauss and Planning Department did minimal notification in paper and no one showed up for the public hearing because no one knew about it. Earlier Planner Martin said that notices impact aesthetics, how is aesthetics advanced by eliminating five notices? Planner Martin commented that it would be five less pieces of paper on the utility poles, five less notices torn from the poles and disposed in the street or gutter. Commissioner Ward mentioned that Planning Commission said to look at yard board signs, etc., and look at other options, or types of uses that would have decreased notification, such as heavy metal processing, ammunition manufacturing, dance halls, etc., all these would have reduced notices. Planner Martin said Commissioner Ward appeared to be intensive uses which would require a CUP in some City zones. He cannot speak to every use in every zone which might require a CUP. His response cited his previous response. A CUP requires public notice and he explained what notices are done for a CUP. If these uses require a CUP, then five additional 8"x11" signs would not be placed. Regarding the ammunition manufacturing and explosives, if permitted in the Code, are permitted only through CUP and in the M2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. This district is not conducive to pedestrian traffic. He mentioned a 4'x8' land use posting board along 418t Street SE, that someone in the audience called him about today after she saw a large posting board and asked about the project. The posting board was not near where she lived. Chances are she wouldn't have seen the 8"x1.1" sign, but did see the 4'x8' posting board. City Attorney Heid said this dialogue appears to be between just two people. The questions are valid and are more appropriate as folded into the public hearing. Planning Commission needs to hear from the audience. Commissioner Ward countered that the new information was provided tonight, but not available previously. Chair Ekrem said that Planning Commission has not had a chance to read City Attorney Heid's memorandum related to State requirements about posting on poles which the memorandum says is illegal. City Attorney Heid reiterated that State law prohibits posting flyers on utility poles in a case decided by Washington State Court of Appeals, 4 which was appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court, but not yet decided. Commissioner Ward mentioned that yard signs could be a valid alternative. Seattle has its own utility poles. No one is sure what the Supreme Court will do. There is a difference between the Seattle ordinance and State law which is a separate issue. The use of utility poles without permission is a concern. In response to Commissioner Jones's questions, City Attorney Heid said that the utility -poles don't belong to the City and cannot be used without notice and permission of the pole owner. He is raising the issue about the use of utility poles minus permission. Commissioner Ward inquired if staff has asked permission to use the utility poles. City Attorney Heid replied that the utility companies have expressed that they don't want their poles covered with notices, but this is not in response to a specific request. In response to Commissioner Douglass's questions, City Attorney Heid confirmed that the City does own some light poles, but more available poles are owned by the utility company. Commissioner Douglass referred to page 1 of the draft ordinance and pointed out that the last paragraph mentions 4'x4' signs and 4'x8' signs, but not 4'x2' signs and Planner Martin will make the change. Discussion occurred regarding poles owned by Puget Power and that the City owns some poles and Puget Power owns some poles. Commissioner Jones asked what posting is done for the erection of cell towers. Planner Martin spoke about the permissiveness of cell towers which is based on zoning and type of facility. Tall lattice towers greater than 75' require a CUP process in any zone in which they are permitted. Small antennas such as Type Al is an antenna which is permitted outright in the majority of zones and is permitted outright and requires no land use action or required public notice. This is similar to the same process as a building permit for a deck. Commissioner Chapman wanted to confirm that staff is saying that the new signs are adequate versus five 8"x11" signs around a neighborhood and that large signs are adequate in giving public notice versus the five signs. Planner Martin restated staffs position that adequate public notice can be provided without the letter sized signs. Person might have seen a notice to adjacent property owners, or seen public hearing ad in newspaper, on the web, etc. The City also requires the larger public notice boards to be erected in addition to other posting requirements. Failing to meet the minimum public notice is serious and is costly to the City and the applicant. The City was intially unwilling to turn over a key public notice component to the applicant to do since if is outside of the City's control. The City has monitored the installation of signs since January, 2000. The signs are very often erected in advance of initial public notice; for visual display, It is staffs position that 4'x4', 4'x2' or 4'x8' signs are more visible and likely to be seen versus a 8"x11" piece of paper. The land use sign is posted on the project site. Commissioner Chapman asked about Commissioner Ward's question raised regarding the cost and that the money to be saved by not putting up placard is approximately $7,000-$8,000. Planner Martin said that Planning and Community Development Director Krauss was using an estimated cost of 155 projects requiring posting through an average year. There will probably be approximately 155 projects this year so the estimated hours of 155 hours is pro rated. Frank Rice, 1811 F Street SE #2, expects City government to keep him informed and protect him; does not expect them to get by with minimum requirements. Public notification has concerned him for a long time and he has depended on the newspaper to communicate City activities. It is hard for a citizen to determine what the City is doing. He sees a great number of public notices in the paper. Anything done to reduce notification impacts him. His criticism of posting is the form itself which reads like a code and does not explain what is happening. He can contact the City, but more information on the 8"x11" paper would be appreciated. If this is removed they lose 5 something. He is the trustee for his mother's property and land was developed adjacent to this. In this case, neighbors only saw the 8"x11" notices, but did not see the posting sign. She did not receive a mailed notice and only that caused notification was the 8"x11" piece of paper. Commissioner Peace asked him how he received notice of the meeting. Mr. Rice heard about the issue some time ago and asked Commissioner Ward to let him know when it came before Planning Commission. Wayne Staiger, 33612 36th Avenue SE, is president of the group that is fighting to prevent the sex predator housing on Peasley Canyon. They made 40,000 flyers to bring people to the hearings and he said that you can't have too much notification. He spoke about raising application fees to cover the cost of posting the 8"x11" signs. It costs more to fight versus ongoing legal battle and legal notification is important. Commissioner Peace asked him how he received notice of the meeting. Mr. Staiger said Commissioner Ward told him. Commissioner Ward said that the Planning Commission has never asked people before how they heard about a meeting. Debbie Combs, 1815 L Street SE, thanked Commissioner Ward for the clarification and said she heard about the hearing at the office where she works for the city attorney of Buckley. She is concerned about not getting enough notification on land use action or zoning changes. If any public notice is reduced it doesn't give citizens an opportunity to voice concerns and/or support for projects. Many folks don't use the internet and some don't get newspapers. Any notification is beneficial. She knows staff works hard and they study extensively the items before them, and said that staff should take back the issue and restudy. It's important for the community to know what's going on and for the community to be involved. She doesn't think the current Planning Director would reduce, but down the road there will -be a different Planning Director and a different Planning Commission and who knows what they might do. Shawn Evans, 33915 53rd Avenue South, reads the public notices and doesn't see many flyers. The issue is the five flyers and there are lots of crossed out items and sees that other notification is crossed out. Is more than just the five flyers being eliminated? Her concern is more of accountability. The issue is to find a way to post other than on the poles. The increased fee is a good idea. She urged Planning Commission to read through because more than just the five flyers is being eliminated. Many people aren't on the internet. . Commissioner Peace thinks the public coming to the hearing is good for the Planning Commission and it is nice to see people here. Many times they have public hearing and people aren't here and there appears to be lots of apathy in town. Commissioner Peace asked Planner Martin to address the comment related to additional strikeouts, Planner Martin said the underline and strikeout method is historically the way that codes are written and revised. It is a matter of semmantical choice. The same regulation is printed nine different times in the different chapters such as the environmental chapter which is 16, the plat chapter which is 17, the zoning chapter which is 18 and each one has the same requirements. The code is structured so that it is spelled out each time in each chapter. The semantic choice was to change each one and direct the reader back to chapter 14. This eliminates their specific appearance of the same requirements in chapters 16, 17, and 18. The City is merely consolidating text. Joanne Fonda, 1210 20th Court SE, had a real problem with public notices two years ago related to the bowling alley property project. The only way they knew about the project was from the 8"x11" yellow paper on the pole and then found out exactly what was proposed. The neighbors got together and researched ordinances and minutes to see what they could do and they defeated this measure. They were able to have the ordinance to allow tall buildings stricken from that code and got the property rezoned at the same time. All of this stems from the 8"x11" sheet of paper because no one received anything in the mail. The large board was facing Howard Road; no one goes down on Howard Road. Taking away the posting notices is a mistake. People don't go by the front of a building where the project is or they might get something in the Ce mail or might not. She said that City needs to include a copy of what it is striking out. If strikeout regarding notice must include copy of that particular code. Chair Ekrem asked for clarification to insure that when ordinance is put together that particular statement is clearly attached so person doesn't have to go to another location to find. Planner Martin appreciates the comment. The application of ACC 1.27 are defined on the same page and the other provisions of 1.27 aren't applicable to signs. Mrs. Fonda commented that if it says applicable to ACC 1.27, then 1.27 should be attached so a person doesn't have to run around and find the reference document. She suggested posting large board on all sides of a project, but five signs on poles is best. Cal, 1203 281h Street, reads the 8"x11" notices. The house across the street was making changes and he received notice from the City and reads them. Commissioner Peace asked him which he prefers, the 8x11 notice or the large signs and Cal said that the house across the street had 4x8 feet sign on the M Street side fence. He saw information on today's meeting in the paper. Commissioner Ward said the notice was in the community section of the paper not the public notice area. She asked for the notice to be in the paper. Mary Lynn Pederson, 1917 N Court SE, represents the Concerned Citizens of Auburn (CCA) and she wrote a review of the proposal. She reviewed page 1 of the prepared statement and their comments related to 14.07.040, 14.18.030, 16.06.090, 17.06.030 and 18.68.040. They recommend that the notices be in large print, have accurate description of proposal, and written in layman English not legal jargon. The project description should include both a vicinity location map and written description. Why is the City concerned about the cost when the applicant pays? Mrs. Pederson continued by reading the first and second paragraphs from the second page of her handout. She spoke about the magnitude of the impact of the Howard Road apartment project. The notices should have been mailed to more than just those in the 300 foot radius. She spoke of the need to have a standardized form to easily identify a project, its location, and what information should be on the standard form. She reviewed items A (notices on City Hall bulletin board), B (posting notices near the site), C (newspaper notices), D (deadlines -double standard), and E (suggested improvements) on pages 2 and 3 of her handout. Mrs. Pederson continued by saying that if people don't know of project or don't have time, if the City allows them the courtesy of describing accurately of what is happening in the neighborhood they will respond. When the CAA had a had garage sale the signs were removed. Why is the City policing notices on something they don't own? City should provide more notice. The City should be happy they have the CCA to challenge their actions and proposals. There was no further testimony and the public hearing was closed. Chair Ekrem inquired if the Planning Commission is ready for action or further discussion. Commissioner Jones commented that in hearing testimony she has some feelings about quite a few of the things said. She would like to consider testimony and materials distributed, from City Attorney Heid and CCA, and try to come up with more ways of protecting the public notice process. She wants a chance to review materials distributed tonight. Commissioner Ward agreed with Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward, to postpone Planning Commission deliberations to the October meeting in order to review the materials distributed tonight. Commissioner Ward said that the ideas presented tonight are worth exploring. City Attorney Heid said a motion is on the table and Planning Commission must act on it. Commissioner Ward asked City Attorney Heid if the Planning Commission considers this next month, if Planning Commission has ideas to be considered, and wants to look at ideas presented tonight. City Attorney Heid said Planning Commission will have an opportunity to deliberate. There is a motion on the table, act on that. Chair Ekrem restated the motion. Commissioner Ward said the motion was moved and seconded, and she wanted a point of clarification from City 7 Attorney Heid that if granted, motion to consider information and continue deliberations at the October meeting and City Attorney Heid said yes. The motion passed. Chair Ekrem requested that information from CCA is mailed to the Commission. Commissioner Ward asked to be excused at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Douglass said that from all the discussion it is apparent that Planning Commission wants to increase public awareness of what is going on and agrees that increasing public awareness is a high priority. Chair Ekrem agrees and thinks that Planning Department does go beyond the minimum requirements in notification. She reiterated that the public hearing was closed. Excerpt from the November 7, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting ZOA03-0002 - Text Changes to Auburn City Code Titles 14, 16, 17 and 18 related to Public Posting Notice Requirements (continued from the August and September meetings) Chair Ekrem said that Planning Commission needed to continue deliberations and make a formal recommendation to Council. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Chair Ekrem, to recommend denial of the amendments based on uniform public comment against the proposed changes. The motion passed. Planning Commission requested that the appropriate meeting minutes be forwarded to the Council. E:3