HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM I
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Auburn City Council
Planning and Community Development Department
August 24, 2005
August 29, 2005 City Council Study Session - Annexation Discussion
As background information for the August 29, 2005 City Council discussion on
annexation attached please find the following:
1. A map showing recent annexations or annexations in progress. With respect to
annexations identified on this map, the Evergreen-Tucci annexation (Pierce
County) went into effect August 15, 2005. The Vorozhko annexation was
approved by the City Council on August 15, 2005 and will go into effect
September 1, 2005. The remaining annexations are in various stages of the
annexation process.
2. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Chapter 13 entitled "Development: in the
Unincorporated Areas and Annexation". This chapter provides for City policies
related to annexation and utility provision. Comprehensive Plan Policy CE-3 was
amended as part of the year 2004 comprehensive plan amendment pmcess.
Policy CE-3 provides for annexation as a condition of receiving city utility
services except in certain discrete circumstances or until such time joint planning
with the County is achieved.
Also, with respect to the North Lake Tapps area, Comprehensive Plan Policy CE-
12 within this Chapter encourages Pierce County to permanently designate the
North Lake Tapps area as rural. This policy would need to be amended or
deleted should the city council wish to consider annexation of that area.
3. Memorandum from the City Attorney outlining City Council options with respect to
the annexation process.
.- ~-_._...---._. ,~--_.. -'-----------'''"
CHAPTER 13
DEVELOPMENT IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA.S
AND ANNEXATION
Introduction
Over the years, extensive development has occurred in the unincorporated
areas surrounding Auburn. This trend is likely to continue in the future.
Ultimately, most if not all of these areas will be incorporated into the
Cities of Auburn, Kent or Federal Way in King County, and Sumner in
Pierce County. Discussions between these cities have resulted in the
designation of potential annexation areas (P AAs) or urban services areas
(USAs) for each jurisdiction. PAA's is the term used in King County for
urban growth areas while Urban Services Areas is the term used in Pierce
County. Throughout this document, the terms PAA, USA and UGA
(Urban Growth Area) are used interchangeably. It is anticipated that areas
within each City's PAA/USA will annex to the city at the appropriate time.
Issues and
Background
Annexation and Utility
Service in
Unincorporated
Areas
Annexation is the inclusion of previously unincorporated lands within the
City limits. While development in the unincorporated areas surrounding
the City may have significant impacts on the city itself, including, but not
limited to, traffic, parks, and city utilities, the City has limited wntrol over
the development that takes place in these areas. For these reasons, the City
and its citizens have a vested interest in seeing that the City increases its
ability to control development in these areas through annexation.
C Page 13-11
_______._______n____.____._
---._----------
Chapter 13
When property owners and residents of these unincorporated' areas annex
to the City they gain access to the urban services provided by Auburn such
as increased police and fire protection, building and land use controls and
storm and surface water control. Further, they are fully represented in the
local government that has a direct impact on their daily lives.
The City of Auburn has designated a potential annexation area after
discussions with Federal Way, Kent, Pacific, Sumner and King and Pierce
Counties as shown in Map 3.1. These boundaries were established taking
into consideration a range of issues related to community identification,
logical service area and physical features.
GOAL 5.
CITY EXPANSION AND ANNEXATION
To ensure the orderly development of the City's potential annexation area,
in a manner that ensures adequate and cost-effective provision of required
urban services and facilities, ensures that development is built to City
standards, reduces sprawl, implements the goals, objectives and policies of
the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, and protects designated rural[ areas.
Objective 5.2:
To ensure that all development that occurs within Aubum's Potential
Annexation Area is built in compliance with City codes and standards.
CE-l The City shall actively pursue intergovernmental agre:ements with
King and Pierce Counties to ensure that all development within
Auburn's potential annexation area be built to mutually agreed
upon standards. These agreements should cover a wide range of
areas, including, but not limited to, development standards,
collection of impact fees, annexations, urban service provision and
land use, transportation, parks and capital facilities plalming.
CE-2 The City of Auburn shall encourage the annexation of areas ready
for development due to: location within the Auburn Urban Growth
Area; proximity to the City; existing urban development patterns;
and the City's ability to provide adequate and cost-effective urban
servIces.
CE-3 Until such time a joint planning agreement between the City and
respective county is in effect that provides for development in the
unincorporated Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) to meet City
standards, annexation shall be required as a condition of the City's
provision of sewer and/or water utility service to propt~rties within
the Potential Annexation Area. Exceptions to this involve
requests for water and/or sewer service for the following:
I Page 13-2
'-,-- -'
[ Annexation
a. Single family residences on pre-existing lots;
b. To address a documented imminent health or safety
consideration; or,
c. To development where a water/sewer availability
development agreement has previously been approved with
the city and is still valid; or
d. Public facilities, provided that development of
the public facility is otherwise consistent with an
applicable adopted capital facilities plan.
In situations where an exception applies, the City of Auburn shall
require the property owner to enter into a legally bindiing, non-
remonstrance pre-annexation agreement with the City. The
agreement shall provide for the property owners support for
annexation to the City at such time as the City deems annexation
appropriate. In these instances, the following conditions shall also
apply:
a. The property owner/developer shall agree to comply with
appropriate City development standards and public facility
specifications where such requirements are not supers,eded by
applicable County requirements (in the event of significant
conflict between City and County requirements, the City may
choose to not extend utility service). Any facilities to be
dedicated to the City of Auburn upon completion (e.g. sewer and
water lines and appurtenances) shall be built in accordance with
City design and construction standards; and
b. The property owner/developer shall allow City plan review
prior to construction, and inspection during construction of all
public improvements as they are built, regardless of the ownership
of such improvements, and shall reimburse the City for any
reasonable costs incurred in such plan review and inspection.
This policy shall go into effect January 1, 2005, provid(:d that, the
City will process those water/sewer availability certificate
applications received by December 31, 2004 under the prior policy
that requires a development and pre-annexation agreement.
CE-3A The City shall seek interlocal agreements with the adjacent sewer
purveyors that provide sewer service to developers inside of
Auburn's PAA to obtain an Auburn Pre-Annexation Agreement
prior to issuing a Sewer Certificate of Availability.
C Page 13-31
-."- ---_._---------~~._._~~._.._."----~-- . -------------.--- -
Chapter 13
Objective 5.3:
Objective 5.4:
I Page 13-4
To ensure that any urban service extension is in full compliance with the
City's facility plans, this comprehensive plan and the CounÍ}'\'ide Planning
Policies.
CE-4 The City of Auburn shall not extend or allow the extension or
upsizing of City sanitary sewer or water utility service beyond its
respective approved utility service areas, except through interlocal
agreements with adjacent recognized service providers.
CE-5 City services other than City utilities may be provided beyond the
Potential Annexation Area, by contract, interlocal agreement, or
otherwise, only under the following circumstances:
a. Such services will not be provided at a level or to a
standard that will encourage urban growth beyond the
approved urban growth boundary; or
b. The extension is into an adjacent jurisdiction's officially
designated Potential Annexation Area recognized by the
City as an area appropriate for urban growth.
CE-6 The availability of urban services at levels beyond those which are
minimally required to meet the needs of an area will not presume
or justify approval of a development that is inconsist(mt with this
plan or other adopted land use plans.
CE-7 The City of Auburn shall not extend or allow the extension of City
sewer or water utility service within areas designated as Rural on
the City's Comprehensive Plan Map, or within designated
Agricultural or Forest Resource Lands, except when the extension
is necessary to alleviate an imminent threat to public health, in
which case such extension shall be designed or conditioned to
ensure that it does not promote additional urban development.
To ensure coordination and cooperation between the City of Auburn and
adjacent jurisdictions in implementing mutual goals, objectives and
policies regarding urban growth.
CE-8 The City shall continue to actively participate in and influence the
planning and development activities of adjacent jurisdictions, in
order to promote the interests of the City and its residents.
---... _._----~ -, _.._-----~~--
[ Annexation
CE-9 Auburn's Growth Impact Area is designated by Map 3.1. Growth
and development within these areas has a high potential for
impacting the City and its residents. The City shall se:ek interlocal
agreements with King County, Pierce County and other appropriate
jurisdictions, to provide a meaningful role for the City in the
development of land use and development policy, and in the
review of significant development proposals, within these areas.
CE-lO The City shall oppose, and shall seek adjoining jurisdictions
agreement to prohibit, additional urban development within
Auburn's Potential Annexation Area, unless adequate urban
governmental services (including but not limited to storm and
sanitary sewer systems, water utility systems, adequate streets and
arterials, parks and open spaces, fire and police protection services,
emergency medical services, public schools and public transit
services) are provided concurrent with development. Exceptions to
the requirement for urban sanitary sewer and water utility service
may be permitted pursuant to a Non-remonstrance Agreement
between the City and the property owner and satisfYing the
requirements of the King County Board of Health for property
situated in King County or the Pierce County Board of Health for
Property situated in Pierce County
CE-ll Whenever on site sewage facilities are allowed, they shall be sited,
designed, built and maintained according to guidelines of the King
County Department of Health for property situated in King County
and the Pierce County Department of Health for prop1erty situated
in Pierce County. If built in an area contributory to arlY beneficial
groundwater use, including but not limited to planned or existing
potable water sources or existing fisheries, such fadlities shall
demonstrate compliance with the Washington State Anti-
Degradation Policy (WAC 173-200-030) and implement all
known, available and reasonable methods of control arid treatment
for the reduction or elimination of pollutants.
CE-12 The City of Auburn shall encourage Pierce County to permanently
designate the North Lake Tapps area as rural.
C Page 13-5 I
~_.__.._._-_.. --
Interoffice Memorandum
WASHINGTON
~
To:
From:
Bill Mandeville, Planner
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney ~
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor, Paul Krauss, Planning Director: David Osaki,
Community Development Administrator, Danielle Daskam, Ci~f Clerk
August 4, 2005
Question about Authority of the City Council (or a City Council Committee)
to Approve or Reject an Application for Annexation.
CC:
Date:
Re:
In connection with the question about what authority the City Council (or a City Council
Committee) has to approve or reject an application for annexation, I submit the following:
I firmly subscribed to the proposition that a decision brought to any decision maker (City
Council, City Council Committee, etc.), indicates the authority of that enti1y or body to
make the decision. If that were not the case, it would not be necessary for at matter to be
brought before the body. Even though there are instances when the Jaw says certain
things "must" be done (e.g., Growth Management Ordinances), the what, why's when's
and how's are left to the decision-making body.
As to annexations, even though certain functions are (also) required (çitizen/owner
petitions and boundary review board action), the ultimate decision on annexéltion is a City
Council decision. The owners of the property subject of the proposed or potential
annexation may have the authority to derail an annexation effort (if they have the
percentages etc.), but not withstanding the ability of the property owners to influence the
annexation, the statute gives them only the authority to apply for annexation (or to prevent
the annexation from further consideration) and gives to the City Council the> authority to
accept or reject that application.
Assuming that the City Council is making its decision based upon plausible reasons (so
that a denial of an annexation request could not be said to be arbitrary or ,capricious)1,
then a rejection of an application for annexation by the City Council would be defensible.
1 Cases that speak to "arbitrary or capricious" also talk about '1air and honesf' reasons for decisions.
exercised in "good faith." See e.g., Havens v. C & D Plastics, Inc., 124 Wn.2d 158, 876 P.:2d 435 (1994).
Page 1 012
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
State law also gives great deference to city councils in the adoption of their ordinances.2
In this regard, two statutes that address that authority include RCW 35A.14. '140 and RCW
35A.13.150 which state as follows:
. RCW 35A.14.140 Direct petition method-Qrdinalice providing for ¡~nnexation.
Following the hearing, if the legislative body determines to effect the annexation, they shall
do so by ordinance. Subject to RCW 35.02.170, the ordinance may amrex all or any
portion of the proposed area but may not include in the annexation any property not
described in the petition. Upon passage of the annexation ordinance a certified copy shall
be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county in which the annexed
property is located. [1986 c 234 § 31; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § 16; 1967 ex.s. c 119 §
35A.14.140.]
RCW 35.13.150 Direct petition method-Qrdinance providing for ilnnexation.
Following the hearing. the councilor commission shall determine by ordinance whether annexation
shall be made. Subject to RCW 35.02.170, they may annex all or any portion of tho proposed area
but may not include in the annexation any property not described in the petition. Upon passage of
the ordinance a certified copy shall be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county in
which the annexed property is located. [1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § 9; 1965 c 7 § 35.13.150. Prior: 1957
c 239 § 5; prior: 1945 c 128 § 4, part; Rem. Supp. 1945 § 8908-13, part.]
Again, even though there are other statutes that give control over some aspects of the
annexation to others (the property owners, the boundary review board, etc.), the ultimate
decision on whether or not to actually annex the property must rest with the City Council.
Otherwise, property owners could foist upon unwilling cities property within its corporate
boundaries that it cannot adequately serve.
If you have any questions of me in these regards, or would like greater clarification of any
of the points herein, please let me know.
2 When the validity or constitutionality of a legislative enactment is drawn in question, the, court will not
declare it void unless its invalidity is so apparent as to leave no reasonable doubt upon the subject. Sofie v.
Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636, 689, 771 P.2d 711 (1989). If any state of facts can reasonably be
conceived to uphold the legislation including the classification made therein, the legislation will be upheld.
Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d at 690. See also State ex rei Morgan v. Kinnear, 80 Wn.2d 400, 494 P.2d
1362 (1972), Seattle v. Drew, 70 Wn.2d 705, 432 P.2d 522 (1967), and Spokane v. Douglass, 25 Wn. App
823, 609 P.2d 979 (1980). These presumptions apply to legislative enactments of city councils as well as
they do to those of the State legislature. Seattle v. Drew, (supra); and Everett v. O'Brien, 31 Wn. App. 319,
641 P.2d 714 (1982).
Page2of2
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
CITY OF AUBURN ANNEXATION OVERVIEW
,.j.,.(.,
/ . .'i"'.~."
\,
"
.\~\
'\\
I
,
'I
Î ! . L / r····'. ····1 .... i ['«,,>,'
. \...' 1 I -ì ¡-, '-', ',_"
\ I ',11 I l~ ! 'IF-k !l<~'l ~
' ¡. ¡ " l
il
'~
'.' w
. z
z
«
~
::J
8
w
~
w
D:
ª
~
-
~
.'._---
I
-.--.--....-. ..,,1.
,
! ____7/. . "
ì '.~J t-:--:j
,'-- ( ~7
("
~
.
_ ____~__. u __ _______
.u___._u. ._. _. _--¡-- _ ._
---.-
I
-~
¡
V orozhko Annexation
Vicity Map
-'-
)6,~.;';ì~i...
".
r-
I
I
I
-~.<
;··,·t·
~---_..-
- -- --_._.__..._~
------_._-----_.._----_._-_._---_.~-~_._--
Nichols Annexation Map
{green = annexation area}
j4t~ me~ r 'L ~ ...~.~ r' ']
:s':3.24Ui:ST.
1..1 :''.:j-
I~~' ';,1
D2C,')
(JL"íj2
Ol'l'~)
02/./
0275
0295
CRY of Auburn
J'.,:,<, ,11
C
I
t
Y
o
f
A
u
b
u
r
n
-,-- -
Stipp Annexation Application
~ }.''''¡Ö^~JL7/
..t.~ {'.:..;'\~;(;.Jr " ~, ".,¡,. {<, . r(;;- .r..,
- ---.',~ '~():"l /_""U' . "
,w "7' _______
.,.;. "., ...L, P'~: ':}'....-..:."x;':.''.;., (' '-':6lt!Cl .,: (:,;'~¡'\I; "'\.:<r!'Q '1::1;
=~r..'''' '!...'.i-;j'f.' II) __.oJ'... Ai
R-4 · ¡~.
. ~
f.,: ~;:"~":"V":"1
:1:;, .'M"'x'·
'" .,.".¡..,..,.,
W!'.. ,"',:,1...)..,.........
.5~J.H.5.L. ._....+.
'~~E¡'u{,r'.:l·
If»
îLLJ
:>;
«
r:.
œ~
I
¡
'II
..
:Jo'
t «
~I
Stipp Annexation
'~ÓI
R><4
91&&XjJ.4>
J~""g~WJ
IJ2Ih!?..ooU&
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· E
.::::i
·
:~
.U
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· t)
·
ijì¿6-1~x)¿b~
~--~-~~..'----~_.,~-._.~~_._~,.-
916211Q)3:M)
"44tf~
..~._-
ANX05-0003
CHRIST CHURCH ANNEXATION
.;~..,...,::¡.;...~....,:,
^1';':V ,1"{ LJ{:
2'
J"
..~
... -......-.--- -~... -.,---'
Agenda Subject:
Date:
Shaw Annexation
--="E -'1"YrL.1 --
-' '" .., ... r,'7'. B=:?:_."~".,
-
¿"iJ¡\
I.
(':.) ! '
_I'
~ o;~4
'.
.J
; 91U
/"
./
,~
-
~ ~õí
-
'!\1~¿1
QO.16 !:I 1 E-3 ,
-
l'
... -
Page 2 of 2
, "---.- ---". - ._~---_..~--" '--,