HomeMy WebLinkAbout4912 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDINANCE NO. ~_~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TEXT AMENDMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD DECISION IN CASE NO. 95-3-0075C,
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF R.C.W. CHAPTERS 36.70A AND
35A.63 OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; DESIGNATING
THESE AMENDMENTS AS GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISING THE CITY'S
AUTHORITY UNDER THE WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
(SEPA); DIRECTING THAT THIS ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS IT ADOPTS AND APPROVES BE FILED WITH THE AUBURN
CITY CLERK AND BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION.
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopted a
Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. 1703 which includes Map
establishing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designations throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on April 17, 1995 adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply
with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995
reaffirmed that action by Ordinance No. 4788; and
WHEREAS, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
challenged the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan in front of
the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board; and
Ordinance No. 4912
Septc~%bcr 25, 1996
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, the Central Puget Sound Growth
Hearings Board in Case No. 95-3-0075C ruled that
Comprehensive Plan was in compliance with
Management Act, but remanded to the City four
sections of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, Draft Comprehensive Plan text
comply with the Hearings Board decision were
proposed revisions
Plannin9 Department
Auburn Comprehensive
WHEREAS,
as
Plan; and
the Comprehensive
Management
the City's
the Growth
(4) specific
amendments to
prepared by the
to the City of
Plan text amendments were
transmitted to the Auburn City
1996; and
WHEREAS, the
Comprehensive Plan
accordance with
Act; and
WHEREAS, after
official newspaper at
Plannin9 Commission in August,
environmental impacts of the Draft
text amendments were considered in
procedures of the State Environmental Policy
proper notice published in the City's
least ten (10) days prior to the date of
hearing, the Auburn Plannin9 Commission on September 17, 1996,
conducted public hearings on the proposed amendments; and
Ordinance NO. 4912
September 25, 1996
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, at the hearing, the Auburn City Planning
Commission heard public testimony and took evidence and
exhibits into consideration if said proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, thereafter the Auburn City Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Draft Comprehensive Plan text
amendments, after making additional revisions, and transmitted
a copy of its recommendation to the Auburn City Council
through the Mayor, who acknowledged receipt thereof and
directed the Clerk to certify thereon the
WHEREAS,
of the Auburn
recommendations and made
date of receipt; and
the Planning and Community Development Committee
City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's
additional revisions which were
combined with those of the Planning Commission and recommended
approval to the Auburn City Council;
WHEREAS,
Auburn City
and
within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the
Planning Commission recommendation for the
the Auburn City Council, at a public
published in the City's
proposed amendments
meeting, held after proper notice
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of
hearing on October 7, 1996, considered and voted on the
Ordinance No. 4912
September 25, 1996
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
proposed amendments
Commission and
Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
as recommended by the Auburn City Planning
the Planning and Community Development
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
~ The Planning and
Committee's 'Recommended Amendments are
approved and it is herewith directed that
with this Ordinance with the Auburn
available for public inspection.
Community Development
herewith adopted and
they be filed along
City Clerk and be
~ The Comprehensive Plan text amendments modify
the Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986 by
Resolution 1703.
The Comprehensive Plan and amendments is
herewith designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive
authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance
with R.C.W. 43.21C.060.
~ If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the
Ordinance No. 4912
September 25, 1996
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
~ The Mayor is
such administrative procedures
out the directions of this
hereby authorized to implement
as may be necessary to carry
legislation to include
incorporating into one document the adopted Comprehensive Plan
text amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and preparing
and publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan.
~9_C=~Q~_~_~ This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five days from and after its passage, approval, and
publication as provided by law.
Ordinance NO. 4912
September 25, 1996
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
CHARLES A. BOOTH
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Robin Wohlhueter,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael J. Reynolds,
City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
Ordinance No. 4912
September 25, 1996
Page 6
'," ' "~' September 24, 1996
City of Auburn
Planning and Community Development Committee's
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Page 5-15, replace section on Regional Facilities:
Essential Public Facilities
According to the GMA (RCW 36.70A.200),: "Essential public facilities include those
facilities that are typically difficult to site such as airports, state education facilities,
state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid
waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse fhcilities,
mental health facilities and group homes." More generally, essential public facilities
are facilities, conveyances, or sites that meet the following definition: (1) the facility,
conveyance or site is used to provide services to the public; (2) these services are
delivered by government agencies, private or non-profit organizations under contract to
or with substantial funding from government agencies, or private firms or organizations
subject to public service obligations, and (3) the facility or use of the site is necessary
to adequately provide a public service.
The Growth Management Act requires that every comprehensive plan include a process
for siting essential public facilities. No comprehensive plan can preclude the.' siting of
essential public facilities within the community. The Growth Management Act includes
these provisions because siting certain public facilities has become difficult due to the
impacts many of these facilities have on the adjacent community. Many factors
contribute to this problem, including increased demand for facilities to serve a growing
population, increased competition for land as the state becomes more urbanii:ed,
problems with siting processes. By including a process for siting essential facilities in
the Comprehensive Plan, deficiencies in the siting process can be minimized.
This section contains Auburn's process for siting essential public facilities. This is an
interim process as the Growth Management Planning Council, which is made up of
representatives of the cities in King County and the county, will develop a countywide
process for siting essential public facilities. When that process is developed, Auburn
may modify these procedures to reflect the Council's recommendation.
CF-62
Essential Public Facility Siting Process.
1. If the essential public facility largely serves a regional, countywide,
statewide or national need, then the city will consider siting the facility after
the following criteria are met:
a. The proposal is included within an adopted state or regional plan which
was developed through an appropriate public process (including at least
one local public hearing) and has undergone a NEPA and/or SEPA
review;
o
So
City of Auburn Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Pag~ 2.
September 24, ~1996
b. Appropriate alternative sites both in and outside Auburn will have been
considered and evaluated;
c. Impacts of the proposed essential public facility will have to be
identified and an appropriate mitigation plan developed with a
financing strategy using non-local sources;
d. The State or Regional agency which adopted the plan will act as co-
proponent for the proposal as it proceeds through the local permit
process.
Essential public facilities of a i'egional, countywide, statewide or national
nature will be reviewed by the City through the special area plan process.
The boundaries of the Special Area Plan will be set at a scale directly related
to the size and magnitude of the proposal. For facilities of regional, state,
and national need, Auburn staff shall participate in the review process of
part 1 (above), and use the data, analysis and environmental documents
prepared in that process to aid in the City's special area plan review, if
Auburn determines that those documents are adequate. If the facility
requires other development permits, those approvals also shall be considered
within the review process.
The special area plan process to be used for essential public facilities of a
regional, countywide, statewide or national nature shall follow the City's
Comprehensive Plan amendment process which includes multiple
opportunities for public involvement.
An analysis of the facility's impact on City finances shall be undertaken. If
the study shows that locating a facility in a community would result in a
disproportionate financial burden on the City of Auburn, an agreement with
the project's proponents must be executed to mitigate the adverse financial
impact or the approval shall be denied.
If the essential public facility meets largely local needs the facility shall be
considered based upon section (6) below.
6. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate all applications to site
essential public facilities:
a. Whether there is a public need for the facility.
b. The impact of the facility on the surrounding uses and environment, the City
and the region.
c. Whether the design of the facility or the operation of the facility can be
conditioned, or the impacts mitigated, in a similar manner as with a
traditional private development, to make the facility compatible with the
affected area and the environment.
d. Whether a package of incentives can be developed that would make siting
the facility within the community more acceptable.
City of Auburn Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Page 3.
§eptember 24,~ 1996
e. Whether the factors that make the facility difficult to site can be modified to
increase the range of available sites or to minimize impacts on affected areas
and the environment.
f. Whether the proposed essential public facility is consistent with the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
g. Essential public facilities shall comply with any applicable state siting and
permitting requirements(e.g., hazardous waste facilities).
CF-63
The Planning Director shall make a determination as to whether a
development application will result in a significant change of use or a
significant change in the intensity of use of an existing essential public
facility. If the Planning Director determines that the proposed changes are
significant, the proposal will be subject to the essential public facility siting
process as defined in Policy CF-62. If the Planning Director determines
that the proposed changes are insignificant, the application shall be reviewed
through the City's standard development review procedures. The Planning
Director's determination shall be based upon the following:
The proposal's impacts on the surrounding area
The likelihood that there will be future additions, expansions, or further
activity related to or connected with the proposal.
One of the difficulties of siting essential public facilities is that they are not :allowed in
all appropriate areas. To help address this problem, Auburn shall allow essential public
facilities in those zones in which they would be compatible. The types of facilities that
are compatible will vary with the impacts likely from the facility and the zoning
district. In the M-2 Zoning District, many essential public facilities will be compatible
uses and broad use categories allowing such uses should be included in the zone.
CF-64
Essential public facilities shall be allowed in those zoning districts in which
they would be compatible and impacts can be mitigated. In situations where
specific development standards cannot be met, but there is a determination
that the facility can be made compatible, the City Council can waive those
specific standards with the requirement that appropriate mitigation is
provided. The M-2 Zoning District should include broad use categories that
allow all essential public facilities that are difficult to site as permitted or
conditional uses as appropriate.
CF-65
Essential public facilities should be equitably located throughout the City,
county and state. No jurisdiction should absorb a disproportionate share.
CF-6_6-5
Essential public facilities of a regional, countywide, statewide or national
nature o,,~.,:~
............ j ~j ........... ~ ...... to should be res~icted to the Region
City of Auburn Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments, page 4.
September 24, 1996
Serving Area of Auburn. Such facilities should be located in relationship to
transportation facilities in a manner appropriate to their transportation needs.
Extensive buffering from adjacent uses may be required. Facilities which
generate a significant amount of truck traffic should be located on major
arterial streets.
Page 7-13:
Forecast Vo]lllmeS
The traffic forecast is made by a microcomputer-based transportation planning model.
TMODEL2. which is baseduoon. ~'~"'~ ........... ~"~;~ ............. ~ .... ~";~, .....'~' ...... .,o~ ...~ ...~..~..,~...~';~*"':~'~ .'i,
ata tv
~. ........................... on the land use plan and assumptions, as outlined in the
land use element, and on the Comprehensive Plan Map._The model is calibrated to
include existina land uses. including large traffic generators includin~ the Sm>erMall of
City of Auburn Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendraents, Page. 5.
September 24, 1996
thee Great Northwest. the Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Racetrack and the
Muckleshoot Indian Casino. ur:~,^.:~, ;~c ...... ;... :~1...~ ~.~,~. ....... ~,: ....... ~
d
...... ;^. m.,..~ ........ + .... ;'~';" '~'~ City
..... v ........... v ...... ; ........ cf.;..~.~ an~ Areas outside of the current city limits
that are expected to significantly impact the City transportation system ~re ',','ill
included in the model, xxn ........., ....,.:. The model ..,111,
............ ~ .......... enables the City to
conduct detailed traffic forecasts for all arterial streets based upon a number of if-then
development and land use scenarios, r~ ..... ~.~ , ......... +..+: ..... .~ : ...... ~.,.~.~
Estimated traffic counts and the LOS for the arterial links within the City in the year
202__003 are shown in Figure 7.2. The 2020 forecast coincides with "build out" of the
City's comprehensive Plan and meets the GMA's requirement for at least a ten year
traffic forecast. A number of deficiencies are indicated. The City's Capital Facilities
Plan indicates that all of these deficiencies can be improved to acceptable levels by
construction programs, however revisions to this plan may be necessary when the new
Transportation Plan is completed. As future six year transportation improvement plans
are developed, these projects will be further refined and budgeted as necessary. A few
more links may become deficient beyond the planned improvements by the year 20200-3
if regional programs to reduce travel demand are not effective.
Further analysis of these forecasts and trends m-e contained in Chapter II of ~he Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP). As noted, most of the more dramatic traffic increases are caused
by development trends outside the city, especially along the roadways serving the
Enumclaw Plateau. Other areas of major traffic increase include the 'A" Street SE
corridor, M Street SE and along the West Valley Highway. Two areas that will receive
substantial increases in traffic caused by internal development are the southwest area of
the City where the SuperMall will add large traffic volumes, and in the northwest area
where continued development of the industrial area will add large traffic increases.
40 ~ubumWa~South StateRoute18(E-bound)tOS~lStSE 435 1400 32305 0017 ; 1400
38542 088 D
City o£ ~=bu=n, '~:*f£:L= Znginee=ing Seatton Level of Se~ice VS Volume Ca~ci~ Ratio:
LOS VIC LOS ViC
City of Auburn Draft Comprehensive Plan Amenchnents, Page 6.
September 24, t996
Page 7-28:
Intergovernmental Coordination
The Growtb Management Act (RCW 36.700A..070) provides that comprehensive plans
should include a discussion of intergovernmental coordination efforts, including "an
assessment of the impacts of tile transportation plan and land use assumptions on the
transportation systems of a~iacent jurisdictions." Adiacent jurisdictions include fire
cities of Kent, Algona. Pacific and Federal Wax, and King and Pierce Counties.
Auburn's coordination with these bodies was nrhnaril¥ by providine these !iurisdictions
(along with the City of Sunmer, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, METRO. l:'ueet Sound
Reeional Council. Washington State Department of Transvortation and the Regional
Transit Authority) with copies of the Draft Comprehensive Plan amend~nents prior to
adontion. Comments on any aspect of the plan. including the transportation and 1.qntl
use assmnptions were requested. In most instances, their comments were inteerated
into the adopted Plan. The City received written comments from the following
agencies or jurisdictions:
The City of Kent
The' City of Sumner
Pierce County
Washington State Department of Transportation
METRO
The Regional Transit Authority
In ~:eneral, Auburn's transportation plan and land use assumptions as presented had
little impact on these jurisdictions as the land use assumptions contained in the Plan are,
largely unchanged since the 1986 plan. While new development has occurred, Auburn
has always required mitigation to level of service C, a__ more stringent standard than
adjacent jurisdictions.
The City will continue coordination efforts with the South County Area Transportation
Board, Puget Sound Regional Council, Growth Management Planning Council, and
various task forces and committees. Interlocal agreements to resolve differences
between or among jurisdictions may be used, as necessary. Ernphasis on
accommodating through traffic without adversely affecting residential neighborhoods
will be continued through efforts to move the traffic to the regional f~.cilities as
efficiently as possible.
Page 14-14 to 14-15:
Light Industrial
Purpose: To reserve quality industrial lands for activities that implement the City's
economic development policy.
City of Auburn Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments, P~ge 7.
Sel~tember 24, '1996
Description: This category is imended to accommodate a wide range of industrial or
large scale commercial uses. It is distinguished from heavier industrial uses by means
of performance criteria. All significant activities shall take place inside buildings, and
the processing or storage of hazardous materials shall be strictly controlled and
permitted only as an incidental part of another use. The siting and design of industrial
buildings shall be of an 'industrial or business park" character.
Compatible Uses: A wide range of industrial and heavy commercial uses may be
permitted, subject to performance standards. These uses include warehousing and
indoor processing of materials. Uses requiring outside storage and processing shall be
discouraged.
Outside storage shall be permitted only by means of a conditional use permit, provided
that such storage is found to be compatible with the adjacent existing and planned uses
and that such storage would not detract from the potential use of the area for light
industry. In all cases such storage shall be extensively screened. Uses involving
substantial storage or processing of hazardous materials as well as substantial emissions
should not be permitted in these areas. A wide range of commercial activities may be
allowed on a conditional basis provided that such uses support rather than detract from
the indnstrial character of the area.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Auburn Yard located within the Railroad
Special Plan Area is considered a compatible use at its current level of nsage (as of
August 14,1996). It is not bound by the policies concerning outside storage.under the
existing light industrial designation as it was an existing use prior to the dewflopment of
this policy. Should BNSF decide to reactivate its apvlications to upgrade the yard to
intermodal facility, the proposal will be subject to the essential public facility sitinL,
process as defined in Policy CF-62.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to a majority of the
Region Serving Area designated under this Plan. It is particularly appropriate for
industrial land within high visibility corridors. This category should separate heavy
industrial areas from other uses.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Within the Community Serving
Area, this designation should only be applied to sites now developed as light industrial
sites. Industrial sites along rail corridors are generally more appropriate for heavier
industrial uses, unless in high visibility corridors.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the M-1 or
Business Park (BP) zone.
d:\complan\gmhbamen\amendpcd.doc