HomeMy WebLinkAbout5253 ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 5 3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING EMERGENCY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS 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 THE 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 a 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 Amendment 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, RCW 36.70A. 130 states that "a city may adopt... revisions to
its comprehensive plan. ..whenever an emergency exists"; and
Ordinance No. 5253
June 16, 1999
Page ]
WHEREAS, the Planning Director and the City Attorney have determined
that the rapid increases in traffic due to growth outside the City that threaten the
City's ability to meet its growth targets established in the King County
Countywide Planning Policies and the need to develop an initial response to the
Endangered Species Act constitute such an emergency; and
WHEREAS, the proposed emergency Comprehensive Plan Map and
Text Amendments were transmitted to the Auburn City Planning Commission in
June, 1999; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper
at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the Auburn Planning
Commission of June 8, 1999, conducted public hearings on the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, at the hearing, the Auburn City Planning Commission heard
public testimony on the 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; and
Ordinance No. 5253
June 16, 1999
Page 2
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
June 21,1999, considered and voted on the proposed amendments as
recommended the Auburn City Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Emergency Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments,
attached as Exhibit "A", and based upon traffic impact studies required by
SEPA, any development that impacts the 41st Street SE and "A" Street SE
intersection shall Day its pro rata share of the intersection improvements at the
intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and the East Valley Highway and the City of
Auburn will collect any such fees for the exclusive purpose of sharing the total
costs of these intersection improvements with the City of Pacific, 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 Emergency Comprehensive Plan amendments modify
the Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986 by Resolution 1703 and
adopted by Ordinance No. 4788 on September 5, 1995.
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.
Ordinance No. 5253
June 16, 1999
Page 3
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 such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of
this legislation to include incorporating into one document the adopted
Emergency 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
INTRODUCED: June 21, 1999
PASSED: Junc 21, 19-99
AR"ROVED: Vetoed July 1, 1999
CHARLES A. BOOTH
RECX~SIDERE~ AND PASSED: July 6, 1999 MAYOR
Ordinance No. 5253
June 16, 1999
Page 4
Attest:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael J. Reynolds,
City Attorney
PUBLISHED: ~//~ <~
Ordinance No. 5253
June 16, 1999
Page 5
Transportationl
Threshold or
Standard It is necessary to define a LOS standard for transportation facilities to
enforce the concurrency requirements of this Comprehensive Plan. If
development results in a given facility's service falling below a deftfled
LOS standard, concurrency requires that the development causing the
deficiency be revised or that the permit for that development be denied.
Auburn defines below LOS as: an unacceptable increase in hazard or
safety on a roadway; an increase in congestion which constitutes an
unacceptable, adverse environmental impact under the State
Environmental Policy Act; a significant reduction in any of the four level
of service criteria as defined within the policies below.
Objective 16.5. To ensure that new development does not degrade transportation facilities
to below LOS standards.
TR-17 New development shall not be allowed if an LOS is below the
LOS standard before development or when the impacts of the
:' : : : -:-'. -::'::::' - ':- new development on the transportation system degrades the LOS :-:::: '
to below the LOS standard, unless the condition is remedied
concurrent with the development as described in Chapter Six of
the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
TR- 18 The term "below the level of service standard" shall apply to situations
where traffic attributed to a development results in any of the following:
a. An unacceptable increase in hazard or safety on a roadway.
b. An increase in congestion which constitutes an unacceptable
adverse environmental impact under the State Environmental
Policy Act.
c. A reduction of any of the three levels of service below the
following level of service standards:
1. Arterial Corridor LOS: The Level of Service
standard for each arterial corridor is "D" .
2.a. Signalized Intersection LOS: The level of service
standard for signalized intersections is LOS "D" ,
except for those intersections currently below LOS
"D" per Figure 7.1 a where their existing LOS as
shown in Figure 7.1 is the adopted standard. For
the following intersections, the LOS standard is also
-' listed below:
] A St./41" St. SE LOS E LOS F
Auburn Way S/M St. SE LOS F (75 sec of delay)
Auburn Way S/6th St. SE LOS F (75 sees of delay)
Auburn Way N/15th St. NE LOS E
Harvey Rd. NE/8'h St. NE LOS F (120 sees &delay)
W. Valley Hwy/Peasley Cyn Rd LOS E
Page 7-13
CHAPTER - I Transportation Goals & Policies
corresponding Levels of Service are XV. 8th Street NE: Harvey Rd./"M"
presented in Table 1,1, Street to Auburn Way North
I_ Auburn Way North: 15th Street NE
to northern City limits Intersection LOS
I1__, Auburn Way North/South: 4th Signalized Intersections:
Street SE to 15th Street NE The City's signalized
intersection LOS is "D", except
II1~ Auburn Way South: SR18 to "M" for those intersections
Street SE currontly below LOS "D" per
Table 1.2. In addition, if an
IV. Auburn Way South: Howard intersection is listed in
Road to Dogwood Table 1.2 A its LOS
Standard is shown in that
V~ "M" Street/Harvey: Auburn Way table. whorc thoir cxisting_
North to East Main LOS at thc timc of thc
adoption of thic plan ic thc
VI. "M" Street/Harvey: East Main adoptod standard.
:i~ -' :::'-- Auburn Way North :::: -:: -- - :-!.:::::. -.!i!:: :-..
Unsignalized Intersections:
VII. South 277th Street: Auburn Way The unsignalized intersection
North to West Valley Highway LOS standard shall be LOS
"D", calculated as if the
VIII. 37th Street NE: West Valley intersection was signalized. A
Highway to Auburn Way North traffic signal warrant analysis
will be conducted, as needed,
IX. 15th Street NW: West Valley to determine if a signal should
Highway to Auburn Way North be installed. Table 1.2. shows
existing LOS for signalized &
X_ Auburn Avenue/"A" Street:Auburn major unsignalized
Avenue to southern City limit intersections in Auburn.
XI. Main Street: West Valley
Highway to "R" Street Arterial Link (Capacity) LOS
XII. 15th Street SW: West Valley Road capacity is a function of the
Highway to "C" Street SW design of the roadway, particularly
the number of lanes. The arterial
XIII. "C" Street SW: Ellingson to 15th link (Capacity) LOS will be calculated
Street NW by considering the volume-to-
capacity ratio for each arterial link. It
XIV. West Valley Highway:Northern may be measured in terms of
City limits to southern City limits average daily traffic or peak hour
traffic or other such measures as
Auburn Transportation Plan Page 1.9
CHAPTER - I Transportation Goals & Policies
b. A reduction in any of three LOS All roads within Auburn are classified
standards as follows: according to their "functional
classification". These classifications
1. Arterial Corridor LOS: The describe the character of service that
Level of Service standard for a road is intended to provide, as well
each arterial corridor is "D". as establish minimum design
standards to meet the expected
2.a. Signalized Intersection LOS: performance standards. Roadways
The level of c, ervic, c standard forwithin the Auburn Urban Growth
signalized intcrsoctions is LOS Area will be designated consistent
"D". cxoc, pt for c, crtain with the 1994 edition of "A Policy on
intcrsoctions below LOS D. Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets" Published by the American
The City's signalized Association of State Highway and
intersection LOS is "D", except Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
for those intersections below the guidelines of the Washington
LOS "D" per Table 1.2. In State Department of Transportatie+q ·
addition, if an intersection is as mandated by RCW 47.05.021,
listed in Table 1.2 A its LOS and King County. Roadway
Standard is shown in that classifications in Auburn are:
':" :: :table.
· Arterial Streets
2.b. Unsignalized Intersection Principal Arterial
LOS: The level of service Minor Arterial
standard for these intersections, Collector Arterial
measured as if it were signalized,
shall be level of service "D". A · Rural Roads
traffic signal warrant analysis will Rural Collectors
be conducted, as necessary, to Rural Residential
determine if a signal should be
installed. ° Local Streets
Local Residential
3. Roadway Link (Capacity) LOS: Local Non-Residential
The arterial link (capacity) LOS
standard for each arterial link is
LOS "D", except for collector Objective:
residential arterials. The link To provide an integrated
LOS standards for collector street network of appropriate
residential arterials is "C". classes of streets designed to
facilitate different types of
traffic flows and access needs.
Functional Classification
TR3. Policies:
Auburn Transportation Plan Page 1.13
LEVEL OF SERVICE
· A ~ COMPREHENSIVE
· B TRANSPORTATION 'PLAN
n~E 2.7
,_ IJ
· E SmNxUZ~.D m'rm{sEcTxoN
Proposed City Comprehensive Plan Policies
which can be used for Protection of Endangered Species
ENo29 The City will continue to participate and support the various State, Federal and local programs
including the Tri-County Endangered Species Act Response and the Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) No. 9 (Green River) and Water Resource Inventory Area (White-Stuck
River) to protect and restore endangered species.
ENo30 The City shall seek to minimize surface water quality and aquatic habitat degradation of
creeks. streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the
suitability of such water bodies as habitat for restoration of endangered species.
EN-31 The City shall adopt regulations and review development proposals in a manner which
employs best management practices and best available science as these become available
from Endangered Species Act (ESA) response efforts. ~
PC\CPA1-99EX
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 1, 1999
JIlL
TO: Council members ' I 1999
FROM: Mayor Sooth CITY CL RK8 OFFICE
SUBJECT: Ordinance # 5253
Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.1301 hereby veto ordinance # 5253. I have asked the City
Clerk to place the ordinance on the agenda of the July 6, 1999 council meeting for
reconsideration of the ordinance. My objection to the ordinance is that it
essentially establishes an impact fee schedule without complying with the
requirements of RCW 82.02.050(3) which is the state law governing the
establishment of impact fees.
In addition, mitigation fees, pursuant to WAC 197-11-660, can only be exacted
through the use of SEPA if the city has adopted policies that support the exaction,
the exaction is directly related to the impact of the development, and the
development is only required to pay its proportionate share of its impact. In my
opinion the fees established by ordinance # 5253 do not meet these tests.
I would offer as an alternative, to the fees the council proposed as part of he
emergency comprehensive plan amendments, the following policy be adopted as
part of the comprehensive plan.
"Based upon traffic impact studies required by SEPA, any
development that impacts the 41 st St. SE and "A" ST. SE intersection
shall pay its pro rata share of intersection improvements at the
intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and the East Valley Highway. The
City of Auburn will collect any such fees for the exclusive purpose of
sharing the total costs of these intersection improvements with the
City of Pacific."