HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-1996 Special Council Mtg CITY OF AUBURN
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
February 12, 1996
The City Council Study Session convened at 5:30 PM in the Council Work Area
located in the Mayor's Office. Those in attendance included Mayor Charles A.
Booth and Councilmembers as follows: Jeanne Barber, Fred Poe, Gene Cerino,
Rich Wagner, Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Stacey Brothers. Staff members in
attendance were Planning & Community Development Director Paul Krauss,
Associate Planner Jeff Dixon, Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued,
Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator Lisa Clausen, Assistant City Attorney Judy
Ausman, City Attorney Mike Reynolds, Public Works Director Frank Currie,
Senior Engineer Dennis Selle, City Engineer Dennis Dowdy, and City Clerk
Robin Wohlhueter.
I. Introduction
Planning & Community Development Director Krauss provided a brief
introduction to Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724 (ESHB 1724) which
implements regulatory reform to integrate growth management planning
and environmental review and to include a process for applicants and
citizens. Mr. Krauss noted the code amendments required to meet the
March 31, 1996 deadline are not as major as originally thought. He
highlighted the intent of ESHB 1724.
II. Overview of ESHB 1724 Regulatory Reform
Lisa Clausen discussed the proposed local permit process that will be
codified as Title 14 of the Auburn City Code. Enacting this legislation
requires integration of SEPA and the Growth Management Act (GMA)
which will characterize the standards for development. Elements of the
ESHB 1724 include the Growth Management Act, State Environmental
Policy (SEPA), Shoreline Management Act (SMA), Regulation Reform,
and Judicial Appeal.
Referring to handouts, Ms. Clausen, noted that Section 406 of ESHB
1724 requires the City to provide by ordinance or resolution for review of
project permit application and environmental review process and provide
for no more than one open record hearing. The completion of a project
permit application is 120 days once the applicant is notified the application
is complete. Ms. Clausen noted there are exclusions that can stop the
120 day clock such as an EIS for which the City has discretion.
Notification to the developer is required on any changes.
Page No. 1
City Council Study Session
February 12, 1996
III. Draft Ordinance to Implement Regulatory Reform
Judy Ausman directed attention the Preliminary Work Draft of Exhibit "A"
to Title 14, Project Review. She summarized the intent of the procedures
to environmental review process with procedures for review of a project
permit decision. Ms. Ausman stated once a permit application is received
the City will respond to the applicant as to whether or not the application is
complete. Once the application has been determined to be complete the
City responds within 14 days with notice of the application that includes a
public comment period. Should there be additional information required
by the City, the code provides room to wait until the additional information
is received by the applicant. If the additional information is not received is
not received within 60 days of the notice to the applicant the application
will be considered withdrawn.
Judy Ausman discussed the proposed requirements of the Notice of
Application, the method of notice, integration of permit procedures with
environmental review procedures, and determination of consistency,
hearings. Except for the appeal under SEPA, the City will provide for no
more than one open record hearing and one closed record hearing. The
City may combine any hearing on a project permit that may be held by
other jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction would apply their own rules with
regard to the joint notice of hearing.
A question was raised with regard to a closed record appeal on a
recommendation issued by the hearing examiner. Mr. Rued explained the
City's current process on a Hearing Examiner decision appeal where new
information is permitted. He stated the proposed legislation would limit
submittal of any additional information not heard in the open record
hearing into the record with regard to the project. However, comments or
questions with regard to the record are permitted.
Ms. Ausman ~nalized her comments by directing attention to section
14.11, Notice of Decision, 14.12, Optional Consolidated Project Permit
Review Process where the applicant has an option of asking for review of
two or more project permits relating to a proposed project action, 14.13,
Appeals, and 14.14, Exclusions.
Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued presented an overview of
proposed procedures for implementation of ESHB 1724. The proposed
ordinance requires the project application to be complete that may include
the environmental checklist. There is a specific amount of time where the
city will make a determination as to the completeness of the application.
City Council Study Session
February 12, 1996
In the proposed ordinance the application is considered withdrawn if the
applicant does not respond within 60-days of notice to submit additional
information. Mr. Rued stated the applicant and City can agree on longer
period of time if needed.
Mr. Rued stated staff is working with the Planning Commission on
amendments to Title 16. Mr. Rued discussed the appeals process and
presented an example timeline showing 120 days as a typical permit
application process. If the Council held a closed record hearing there
would be an added to the permit process. Mr. Rued reported from 1990
through 1995 the Hearing Examiner reviewed 175 applications of which
24 applications came before the City Council.
IV. Questions and Answers
Discussion centered around proposed code amendments for
Environmental Review Procedures, Shoreline Development Permits,
Preliminary Plat, Short Subdivisions, and other amendments that are a
result of regulatory reform.
The study session adjourned at 7:15 PM.
Charles A. Booth, Mayor Robin Wohlhueter, City Clerk
96M2-12