HomeMy WebLinkAbout5082 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. 5 0 8 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PL/kN
TEXT AMENDMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-3-0075C, DATED
JANUARY 6, 1998, 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,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No.
with the Washington State Growth Management Act;
1995 adopted
2635 to comply
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
WHEREAS, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board in Case No. 95-3-0075C ruled that; the City's
Comprehensive Plan was in compliance with the Growth
Ordinance No. 5082
March 24, 1998
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
Management Act, but remanded to the City four (4)
sections of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted amendments to
Board's order; and
WHEREAS, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad again
specific
comply with the
challenged the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 1997, the board issued a Finding
of Non-Compliance and notice of Second Compliance Hearing in
which the Board found the City's Plan to largely' comply with
with the exception of two minor
Essential Public Facility Siting
the Growth Management Act
provisions of the City's
Process; and
WHEREAS, the
Board's order and
comply with the
amendments to be in
and
Santa Fe Railroad
City adopted amendments to
the Board found those
compliance with the Growth Management Act;
WHEREAS, the Burlington Northern
appealed the Hearing's Board decision to King Cou. nty Superior
Court which found that additional revisions to the City's
Essential Public Facility Siting Process were necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board issued an Order of Remand on January 6, 1998;
and
WHEREAS,
comply with the Hearings Board decision were
Draft Comprehensive Plan text amendments to
prepared by the
Ordinance No. 5082
March 24, 1998
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
Planning Department as proposed
Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive
transmitted to the
February, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the
Comprehensive Plan
Auburn City
revisions to the City of
Plan text amendments were
Plannin9 Commission in
environmental
text amendments
accordance with procedures of the State
Act; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of
hearing, the Auburn Plannin9 Commission on March 3, 1998,
conducted public hearings on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, at the hearing, the Auburn City Plannin~
impacts of the Draft
were considered in
Environmental Policy
Commission heard public testimony and took evidence and
exhibits into consideration of said proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, thereafter the Auburn City Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Draft Comprehensive Plan text
amendments, 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
date of receipt; and
of
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee
the Auburn City Council reviewed the Plannin9 Commission's
Ordinanae No. 5082
March 24, 1998
Page 3
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
3
4
5
6
recommendations and recommended approval to the Auburn City
Council; and
WHEREAS, within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the
Auburn City Planning Commission recommendation for the
proposed amendments the Auburn City Council, at a public
meeting, held after proper notice published in the City's
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of
hearing on April 6, 1998, considered and voted on the proposed
amendments as recommended by the Auburn City Planning
Commission and the Planning and Community Development
Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning
Committee's Recommended Amendments,
CITY OF AUBURN,
and Community Development
hereto attached as Exhibit
"A" and made a part hereof as though set forth in full, are
herewith adopted and approved and it is herewith directed that
they be filed along with this Ordinance with the Auburn City
Clerk and be available for public inspection.
Section 2. The Comprehensive Plan text amend[ments modify
the Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986 by
Resolution 1703 and readopted by Ordinance No. 4788 on
September 5,1995.
Ordinance No. 5082
March 24, 1998
Page 4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
Section 3. 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.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the
Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry
the directions of this legislation to include
such
out
incorporating into one document the adopted Comprehensive Plan
text amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and preparing
and publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. 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. 5082
March 24, 1998
Page 5
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
ATTEST:
Danlelle E Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael J. Reynolds,
City Attorney
PUBLISHED: ~-~-~
Ordinance No. 5082
March 24, 1998
Page 6
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
April 6, 1998
APril 6, 1998
April 6, 1998
CHARLES A. BOOTH
MAYOR
Flannin~ ~onlmission
I~cc() In [B ('lid ~2d ?xfllflldlllCll ts
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 facilities, 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 Ivlanagement Act requires that every coraprehensive plan
include a process for siting essential public facilities. No comprehensive
plan can preclude the siting of essential public facilities within the
coro_munity. 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 urbanized, 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.
The City will review proposals through the process outlined in
parts (3) through (aS) below, if the essential public facility
largely serves a regional, countywide, statewide or national
need and is included in a policy sense within an adopted state
or regional plan which meets the following criteria:
Exhibit "A", Ordinance No. 5082
Page 5-1 I
Capital FacilitiesI
a. The state or regional plan was developed through an
appropriate public process (including at least one local
public hearing) and has undergone a NEPA and/or SEPA
review; and:
b. A clear policy stalcmenl supportin~ ~:he type o1' facilitx
proposed Illtlst lie included. Tile plan should also include.
in a polio:' sense, a set of sitin,.2 mtidclines lbr such
facility. Such criteria may include, bttt not be limited
type and sufficiency of transportation access, co-location
requirements, preferred adjacent land uses. and required
public l~cilitics and sc'v cos
If the essential public facility largely serves a regional,
countywide, statewide or national need and is not part of an
adopted state or regional plan, the proponent will be required to
request that the appropriate state or regional plan be amended
to include the proposal meeting the criteria contained in part
(1) above. The proposal will also be reviewed following the
process outlined in parts (3) through (28).
Essential public facilities of a regional, 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, an altcmatixc analysis will bc performed usitm.
but not limited to. tile mliclelirtes described in part I (above).
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 irt 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.
hnpacts of the proposed essential public facility must Dc
identified and an appropriate miti,.z, ation ~Ian developed. The
linancine strateav Ibr thc mitiuation plan shall bo structured so
that the costs of the plan shall be allocated proportionally on a
benefit basis asina, but not limited to. non-local sources of
Funding. ,
Page 5-21
Capital Facilities]
CF-63
45. 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.
~_6. 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 (for
example, in-patient facilities, including substance abuse
facilities, mental health facilities and group homes), the facility
shall be considered based upon section (~) below.
The following criteria shall be used to evaluate all applications
to site essential public facilities:
a. Whether there is a public need for the fhcility.
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 mitigating measures can be
developed that would make siting the facility within the
community more acceptable.
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).
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
Page 5-3 J