HomeMy WebLinkAbout6334
, ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 3 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 36.70A OF THE REVISED
CODE OF WASHINGTON
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, on April 17, 1995 the City of Auburn 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 City of Auburn published in the Seattle Times and Auburn
Reporter an advertisement that the City is accepted comprehensive plan amendment
applications and established a deadline for submittal of June 11, 2010; and
VNHEREAS, the City of Auburn received one privately-initiated amendment,
consisting of text amendments (CPA10-0001); and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn initiated one map amendment and seven text
amendments (CPA10-0002); and
1NHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments were processed by
the Planning and Development Department as proposed Year 2010 amendments to the
' City of Aubum Comprehensive Plah; and
Ordinance No. 6334
December 15, 2010
Page 1
WHEREAS, maintaining a current Capital Facilities Plan is required in order to
meefi regulations of the Growth Management Act under RCW 36.70A; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State
Environmental Policy Act; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were transmitted to the Washington
State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services Division and other
State agencies for the 60-day review period in accortlance with RCW 36.70A.106; and
; WHEREAS, after proper notice pubtished in the City's official newspaper at least
. ten (10) days priot to the dafe of hearing, the Auburn Planning Commission on
September 8, 2010 and October 5, 2010 conducted public hearings on the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Auburn City Planning Commission heard
public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and
WHEREAS, thereafter the Auburn City Planning Commission made
recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan
map and #exf amendments; and
WHEREAS, on NoVember 15, 2010 the Public Works Committee of the Auburn
City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2010 the Planning and Community Development
Committee of the Auburn City Council made a recommendation to the City Council; and
Ordinance No. 6334
December 15, 2010
Page 2
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2010, the Auburn City Council considered the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as recommended by the City of Auburn
Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS. FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan city-initiated Map Amendment
(CPA10-0002) is adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file it along with this Ordinance
and keep them available for'public inspection.
Section 2. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA10-0002);,
including Chapter 2, General Approach, Chapter, 3, Land Use, Chapter 9, The
Environment, and Appendix B are adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit ``B"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file them .
along with this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. The full fext of
the Capital Facilities Plans of the City and the four school districts are adopted with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, and' copies of which shall be on file with the Office of the
City Clerk. The City Clerk shall file them along with this Ordinance and keep them
available for public inspection.
Section 3. Application CPA10-0001, Mosbyi Brothers Farms Inc.
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments, requesting the addition of a policy statement:
Ordinance No. 6334
December 15, 2010
Page 3 .
to Chapter 2, General Approach, and modification of three: policies to Chapter 3, Land
Use, is approved_ Council adopts the Planning Commission's recommendation dated
October 5, 2010 and the findings and conclusions outlined in the staff report dated
September 24, 2010. _
~ Section 4. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendments modify the
Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986 by Resolution No. 1703 and adopted
by Ordinance No. 4788 on September 5, 1995.
Section S. The adopted Comprehensive Plan as amended is 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 RCW. 43.21 C.060.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance or any of the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is #or 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 affectthe validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 7. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessa.ry to carry out the directions of this legislation to include
incorporating into one document the adopted Comprehensive Plan map and text
Ordinance No. 6334
December 15, 2010
Page 4
amendments, attached hereto : as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" and preparing and
publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall #ake effect and be in force five
days frorri and after its passage, approyal and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: D~C tQ 2010
PASSED: DEC 2-0 2010
- APPROVED: DEC 2 0 2010
~
~
Peter B. Lewis
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danie e E. Daskam,
City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: niel B. Heid,
City Attorney ~
~
Published:
Ordinance No. 6334 ,
December 15, 2010 .
Page 5
Exhibit A
(Includes a series of color maps updated to include new city limits
due to annexation per Ordinance No. 6261- p/ease see "Comp.
Plan Map Amendments" tab in the workinQ binder)
Ordinance No. 6334 December 15, 2010
Page 6
- ~
~ seattle
-r _
KING COUNTY -
~ h
~ Auburn
- - - - - - .
~ ;i
i
~
i
;
, -
I ~
r
~ ; IlI I
167
v
I AM ,
I
i
~n.
i
_r.
~.~T
ia
,
1'..
1
. -
s i
As` P
~ - ~ ~ w r < .L ;
„
1$ ~ ~ r
! I
l
18
~
<
~
-
i
- - - - -
` - _ MUCKLESHOOT ~
Uj ,C-L
, ,
li I i ~ u HT-
h ~N-
i
f -
~
-
I
' r,' , I U" . tonoL I
oa ~~ss
IN D IAN ~
167 _ ~,Y
i. ~
i: i ~ - ~ TRIBE
, - _
-
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ELNEN-
I,
f ; ! 1
~ , - ~
I, l
p
~ -
~
LAKE
TAPPS
Map 1.1
AO K~~ , Auburn City Limits
City of Auburn `
~
r-'
j Potential Annexation Areas
~
\
~
~
1
1 0
J
/ I~~}` J - • 1 - ~ ~ ,
. ~
-
i
' ,
_
i
,
i-I--F,~./77
il Jl.T;
. ~
.
167 <,x~,~
.
wu .
i
~ - -
~ ~ - - -
,
t I ° ~ t • ' ~ 7-1-~ ( - _ ` ~
F,,.~ ~
n2~J .~--<<,_~ i
~
~ . ) _ I,: •
,
1 r~
- ;
r
- ~ - ~
1
~ ~ ~'r--
~ T
I ~•,wK _r ~Kx
, .L. ,
~
~
~ a 4 CJ' - ♦ ~
Z
,
~
i
~ ~ ~ ~ \ _ ,•~u ~
- - -
i 1 L _
~
I r 1_ ~
♦
1
Ut
~ nl
1
Krq
0
~
xwat I \
~ 1_67
A
,
`ro
. t
.
l~'~' I ~ ~i ~ - ♦
~1~,~ ' ~ ~ ~T~r-~`~ ~ ♦
~I ~ ♦
1~~ ~ _ ♦
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
~ hu ninm'~'
~1 ~%lol - - - - - - - - - - -
~ I
\
r
I '
~ , -
~
i _
~ - - ~ , - - - -
\ 1 i'
LAKE ~
TAPPS v
Ij i
Map 3.1
I r ~ Auburn City Limits
AUBL~RN Potential Annexation Area and J
Growth lmpact Areas ff] Growth Impact Areas
Fj-~ Potential Annexation Areas
u
I -
~
~
- -i i _
- -
,i
.
~
„
~ 16
7 lz i
~7-,,.
1
,
.
. N .
► I _ ~K, ' . ~ m ` ° ~ ` „-I E
,
~
~
t ~ - - - ~ YI .x. - -L-~-~':.=--~rr~onr-•---i . i.._ W~ 'r
„a.,s 18
w.:~l
A~~ - ~T .
\ ti
A
X
f - - 18
~
I ~ r n
T i
,
~ i---------- ~ x i -
.DDLE
j
, x`` E u II I
~
T , i , _
' I I c~ ~wr.~. I
IDDII
167
_ ~ -
1♦ wtl"~ L~ ~
i i' ; I :-y- ~a~ ♦
~
r - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - ~
- - _ ~ - -
1 - -
- _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
~
i - ~
~ -
i
~ I
I ~
LAKE
TAPPS '
r Auburn City Limits
Map 3.2
Potential Annexation Areas
AUBURN
Urban Form UrbanForm
Community
Region
J
~
\
,
, -
-1
- _-r
~ ~ ~ i
~
i .,.:,1 J ~ i www.
8~
4~
r
167
~ camsi ~ ~1,6
rt ~
ryl
~ . . ' ~ .
~ ~ 1 I \
foE
WEST_...
I SPRING
` '
-
.
i ~ n~ _ _ I~~ ~ ~ I J ~ ~ u t .~E~., ~ ~ , ~ I~
1 1 7--7
`
~ ~-i
WELL WELL-
6
WELL i pp
7
`--7
;7 . /I s, - ' - /
~ ~ I
A
A f~ ~
g
~ - i - - - ~ 18r=~
. ~ '
~ - ~ - - -
WELL ~C•
, . ~ .
1 1~ ' I I I
ni I
i
V
E /
~
.i
q - ~
/
- - - -
I .
» o..,~ u
i
~ , WELL l . -
I 77---_.
-LY
~ , ~ , r`~• 3~
~
I
I r
IWELL WELL y M
~ - - - ~ - 3A 38
r,L- COAL
CREEK
SPRINGS
L
167
7 -
I: I
WELL
WELL 5q
. , ~ . 5 y~.u_,~~~ . ~ I ~ ~ ` ` ♦
r--------------------------- ~ - ~
WE
\
~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ♦ f
1 - - ~ ~ ( J ~ .
o
;~~1 I ~ 1 1. yw • i~ i .
\
l{\ - -
1 - - - - I
~
L4KE
TAPPS ~
~ ~ - 1•.
Water Facilities ~ Zone 1(1/2-1 Year Capture)
x Map 3.~ Spring
Au B ~J R N Groundwater Protection Zones Well F7 Zone 2(No Valley Aquitard)
L:1 Zone3(1-lOYearCapture)
Zone 1 (0-1 Year) ~
~J Zone 4(10 Year Capture to City limits)
C3 Zone lA (No Valley Aquitard) ~ Aubum City Limits
Zone 2(1-10 Year) ~ potential Annexatlon Areas
i
I ~ -
~ -
_
r - -
,
i~~~,~~
i--- ,i p
i i -
~ -
u ~ . r
L
. ,
r
1
67
. _ : ~ . il ~ ~oox..x ~ ~ , . ~ ♦ p
roo~ r
.
.
_T
,
E
, .
_
...H~ _ . ~
i1
. ~
ri-~
,
~
. . .
~~l T1H
n
\ r - ,
~Inw: qo,
1 -
. /
/
a
18
C~ j
_
N ~ ~ I
~ i
r
/
~ ,
1 ~ ~rr
~ ~~~o~ o,l ~ _ ~ __.~-•c : -
.
.
.
oo~E
L
~ i
~
i,
a .
r
, . UNE4~p. I .
Kwa~ - - - - - - - - - - - +
~ ~ .
I ~
.
i ~
- - - - i
LAKE ~
TAPPS
\~A ~ ~ ~ ~
I r ~ Auburn City Limits
Map 3.6 r'
AiO B u N
E1 1 U 1 1 IclaV V t IaleaU ~ Enumdaw Plateau A8ricultural District
~ Potential Annexation Areas
~
~
i'~
~ ~..i ■ m
♦ -..s.~-_. _ . __._...$3 M
- ~ - - -
❑
~ ■ ~ 0 a~~o~~~ - - - - N~-,~„ ~
ti 1 u M d,~i:l 0
C 1 iil~ A I r~ ~ ' - ~ ^ - - - - - - -
p li ■ /l x'~ 1
~ p
~
Li ~J ~ _ = A I!
[J
e~ ~ ~ - ~ - _ _ - - - -
II ''I = I _ ~ s ■ i/, I ~ " x~~ ~
~ ♦ ~ ~ ~amd~c _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _
~ ■ I
. .iN~~Y6d'!~ ~ ; Q ■I~ ~ . ~ .
w w.
~ . ~ ■ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ „ ~ ~~Y. ~
- - ~ 167,~
,
'
1~
i ~ i a ~
~
~
uH~
~
O
qU
I ~
. _ . "
~
/
uwo~ ~
~ '~-i ■ ~ i '
~ - ° _ , ` " ~
i < - 18
i
■ ; ~ ~
' ■ I o~ _ I
1 4t ~
1 ~ - - - - - - - - - -
3
`OJVO
~I S o
! ~ ~ ^ , x.~o~ ~ - • ` ~ a'o_ ~
~
~ ~ ~ - ,
~ ~ - - - Li
41 ~---L--'
'
i I ~ , ■ ~
~ ~ ~ _ ■ y
li ■ h ~ ~ ,
e ■ ~
p OM ~ y \
■ I '~j'~ry ~ \
1~ ■ . . no
i~' ■ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ -
r-----------------------------
;
t ~ _ _
t r•~
. ~ ■ ~
~ , _t ■ _ ~
on
~ ° - - - -'I
~
~
.oF
~
caKE
,
v Taaas
i. -
''~Ma p 6.1 115 KV
500 KU
Au*BURN'
Electrical Service Facilities
I ~ Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
~
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
^ - - - - - - - - -
I ~ - I~ ~ i1l
~
I I I 1 1 ~ _~h =
~ 167
w ~
'
r. _
~
J
~
I 1
~
. , ~ I. MJWLC I Y
I' uwo~ • . _ L I ~ / ~
~
.,IL)
18
• ~
r
E
"
i.. . -
_
~ - a ~
18
S
IIA
' _ I I . . . I .
I
( i - - - - - - - i - -'I
Wu lL
~
, .
_
i ~
~ - - - - _
I 1 7 - ~ \ 1
,167; L ~ i
~
' . ► ~
~ F _ _ - _ ~
~ _ ♦
~
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
_ - - - - - - - - - - ~
' C
~'=1
I - - ~
` -
~
1
L4KE
T.4PP5
,
t i I 1 c'~t mE9211 Enumclaw Natural Gas Pipeline
y p ~ M a p 6.2 ~DP Olympic Pipeline
~ ~PugetSound Energy (PSE)
L~
Au
~ ~ Natural Gas Pipelines -WaShingtonNaturalGas
Northwest Pipeline Corporation
US Oil & Refining Pipeline
Aubum City Limitt
~ Potential Annexation Areas
Q
~ p
~ I n \
o
~I ~ - - -
0
A
u
~ -
~,i n
~ j i - ~ _ - ~
y f I
. ~ i
T r - 1 ~ d
.o,
»
~167'
~ -.a.
~ ' ~ . . r~- . . ~ . ~ ~ I ♦
`-T
~ u~po. ` II
~
~ ~ . k scw~
o
' rn II I ~1~ / x ✓ ~ I I I
~ ~ - E
I II un.~u~~-Ixl. t ~vl . ~ J . uw ~ .
. ,1 (
uu I'
~I
~ yw u
18 ~
~ ~ u~~ „w~ ~~r ~
• ~ ii ~ i
~
wnux~ `
* ~ _ c L:_= - 1 ~ - _ ~ _ _
.
,
i
~ / j • i ~ , \ w`~ v--...--~-
~ 4
,
~ rM1i~V C ~
,
~ -
x~oy ~,r
,
• . Ir=`` ~ I ~ - - - - - - - -
. „
~ - ~
- r ~ a - Or 1-. i
) -
QUO
.~x~. . ,
~
~
~
~ 1671 ~
e ~
i _
~f + e \ \
❑
r '
i
r ~I.
,
1" 4 Af ~
- ~
~
,
~ _l:~ r , ,
~
\j~
LAKE
1 ~
`
TAPPS ~
Ma p 6.3 Q Existing Cell Sites Level 3
V~ Telephone Freestanding mm.~ 360 Networks = MCI
Abovenet Qwest
•,.~.'i I 1 t ~ ~
AT&T ~ Sprint
Wireless Facilities Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
~
\
~ \
, -
~ ; ''~s~_ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~
I - - - • _
.
- _ _ _ _ - - - - r;
~ ,~1., ~ 7~ I l I 1 ~ - L
D
I
.
_ .
. 0
~
~
w
. ..w x x . . .
. . • . . . ~ ~
u /
~ I
167
x,ba~
' .
~ . ;
,
a~ ~
i ,
,
roo,
.
~
I .
~
u . uiam ~ e /
. ~..a..~U ~
~
~ _ _f;+ ; ~ ~ ,h,,. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 18
..ff
► no, a ; ~ ` ~ ~
' ~ . •r„~ - - ~b
18
R < :
I `
<
1 ~.-=-~--r,-
, ~
~
- - - - - - - - -
~ ~ ~c ~ •n * I .
~ ~ ` . - "~o~ • ~ .
1
. , n .,s • ;
~~s•ff - - - ~ ~
~ x ~
- - - - ~
I II~ w. •
\
W .
i \ 1
i. ~
~
,
11 1 xo ~~h`
~ i .
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I nr:~
x . - - - - - - - - - - - ~
~
I~ - J i ,k~ `1 I J
~
I
~ - - -
~
,
LAKF
ill r~ ~ V T.4PP5
Au BURN Ma p 6.4 Comcast Cable
Cable Television I ~Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
Ii
~
) .~°~oa- • ~ I -
~
i - - ,
~ - - ~ ^ _ - - -
j
,
r- I
e~~
,
„
i ~
r
I - ~
~
~ I _r j.i I . ; ' ~ ~ ~ i _
,
.
E
_ ' . . . ~ K .
.
n 18
. ~
„
~18
i
~
'
-
~
j
i - ~
~~i~ ~ ~ I - K o~_ •
~
- j r=-- - ~
I h I~ ~ ' ~ I
167; i ~ - - -
1 ~
I _ ~ ~ . . . ~ ♦
11 ~ \ ~w. ` ♦
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
1 ~ ~,~0 1
1 1 ~ LL~
- - - - - - - - - - - I
40
a
l'`
-I
\
- - - - - ~ I
,
LAKE
TAPPS
A`
~ Arterials
Ma ~
AOF""Y, Local
Slreel NetWork Highways
Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
I
e ~
i \
~
r - - - ~ - - - - - - _ _ -
i
- - -
- - - - - - - - -
~o~l
~
~
~ - - - - - - - - 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - - U II
~ ll - -
~ r' - - - - - - - - - y ,
1 ,
--~_=~i=-- 1l ,i' • 7-j , i
~
r 41
167
~f . - ~ - ~ ~ _ .
I r
. .
~
:zq I
, . ~
,
Po
~
~
► 18
~
,l
~ % i • ~ ' ~
\7
2F
n ~ - ~ . . ~ ~
.R ~ .
, i
. ~uxe - ~
. ~ ~ . i ~
~
o.
~
1 ,
I ! ~ x * I .
u.. m%
/ _ q \Fa scwo.
i _
" • ~t
ZZ1. ~
~ . -
-
i
,
i
7
1 s--- ~
~ ~ o ~ ' `
11 j ~ a I ~
i
~
n~+*wr
_ _ - _ _ - - - - _ - ~
"
~ ~f - ~
'1 I ~x. 1
ail 1
- I
~ J
~
~ - LAKE
TAPPS
`t
\
1 _
~
Ma p 7.3 Amtrak/Sounder Commuter Rail
AO Bus Routes
, ~ . Transit Facilities ~11
I ~ Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
~
- _ _
ij-,------.----------;-.,
~o1~ i f~
f
w~a.;~---------
i
~ I
r II - :Ai
, ~ - ~ ♦ , ~:`T ♦
i I - ,
~ I
~r
,
; • , . ~.NEK
~
« .w.
. ~ i. ~ • ~ -i..
„
~ .
,
IV-
18
,
~ - -
l
i , ~ - - -
.
18
,
:
.
j~
i - i
~ , ~ "
r
. . .i r.. . _ .n.,..:..,...,,
_ _ - - - _ _ _ -
` ~ ` .
~
1 - ~ 7 ~
r~ ~
- ~
I _
.
I ~ .
~~167, ~ - - -i - ~ - - - ~
~
~I~_ f I LI 1
~ ~
r -
f \
! - - - - - - - - - - +
!
~
~
, ~
L I r-
~ i
" i
- i
~
- - - i
-
LAKE `
TAPPS
M a p 7.4 City Truck Routes
Au BU RN State Truck Routes
Fre i
gh t RoU les
I' ~ Auburn City Limits
Poteniial Annexation Areas
II /
\
. ~ - - - - 1 - - - - - - - '
_ - - ~l1
- - - - - - - - -
- - ,
I
y w
.
V
;
67
~
,
3 ~w~o
i . r
'T
,
_ I -
I ~ n
a,
r
d 1 ~ tw
r M
~
. ~ _
18
\
i l
-
~ x
~ ~
_ ~
_\1
i ~ - - - - - _ _ - - -
i
~
\
~j I
' r
P
I I~ I .cmoi. - ~
167 L
~
i;
, . ) y`e nl . )
I
I , Y
1 F ~ \
~ ~ ~,,x. _ . ♦
i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wu
f , sn _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
- ~
-A
,
1 I - - - I
~
`
J~^ 1
} 1
``I 1
LAKE
TAPPS '
Ma p 9. 1 r r I Auburn City Limits
Atj'B I~ Potential Annexation Areas
Shoreline Designations
Shoreline Master Program
K Natural
Rural
Urban Conservancy
~ I I, iI
\
- - - - - ti _ - - - - - - _ -
~ N
1 ~ wl
- -
I , I! I I I f pMn q W
.
~ /
~
I I < <
~
.
167;
,
i i - ~ o~ `I ~ ;
I
.
-
„
/ , Ax aE
II (
1Q ~
V ~
~n
1 ~
~ w
~
, I~;_ --=__-i-~ ~ - - - - - - - - -
. ~
~
1$ AX.
' ~i Al ~ G I~\ - i `
GREAT
BLUE
HERON
n
' _ u o>~' ~
P
bX b
_
I~~ ~ III ~ I LJ
\
I,1~ I \ ~ '
GREAT GREEN ~
BLUE BACKED i
HERON ~ HERON ~
i - ,
,167; -
~
AY-
I~ t~ \ ~ , .k. ~ ~ . . I ♦
1 - ♦
r - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
~
i
\ ----i---
~ -
iarcE ~
TAPPS
~
M a p 9.2 I Auburn City Limits
~~/J J
Au T U F-t~,
1~1 1 oW 1 1 i I ifG f~ /11 eaS I I Potential Annexation Areas
% Wildlife Areas
~
Y-----------, ~
T~~~
r
0 -=T- ,
. .
,
i ,
II , 6_._7'~
~
P
A;..
~L~,
~
• , u.
,
I . ~a M
~•e
> r _ -..w,~ - . • - . r' Lr l
,
w. .
l
~
E,
.
r
7- 1
f
,
118
' i M1a
~ i
rr:r
, _s
T
18
~ ~ , - ~ _ ~ _
N. r.:.-
~ i ~ , x~ ' ► C°`
I
I~~''~
i I ~ ~ - ~o~: ~
- r'
9 67. ~ " L
,K ~ •a.
1 I
l~ , ~ ~ ` ~L~~ . - ♦
/ ~ .
,i ; \ ♦
♦
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
- - - - - - - - - - - >
~
.
.
'r
i (~'11~~~~. ~ ►
.o ~
~ - - - - - ~
----i
LAKE TAPPS
\
~
M a p 9. J 'OI Streams
1' ~ Auburn City Limits
Au ) U RN r '
Wetlands/Streams -
~ Potential Annexation Areas j
Wetlands
~
-
;!li -
r------+_-- _ - ~
' - - - - - - - - - ~
1
I - - - . 1
- - ll - - ! - -
~ JI I II ;Jr-i I ~li w - - - - - -
,
I
, I + r - f 7/
I
n~ x (1671 „
' ~ . i . 1 ' ~ ~y ~ . ~ ♦
i .~~gl
: ~
i - M
~ ~ t ~ - ~ ~oc°•
h
,
I
, I . -
q
GII
i
,
~
..~.~u ~
F7"
18
~
~
I ~ rra 18
~ - _ _ ~
~ , I II
~ ~ I, - ~`a, •
l~ \
~ I
~
,
r ~ \
K~oo~
~ N
~
o~
I i~ \
I
,167; L -
1• y ~
I o,
i ~
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
- - - - - - - - - - - +
, I r • ` _ - - -
` I - - _ _ _ _ - - -
I ~
~ . ~ - - -
,1l;.,
1\ ~ ~
LAKF
TAPPS ~
I r ~ Auburn City Limits
1; 40) Map 9.4
AUBURN
Mineral Resource Area ~i MineralResource
Potential Annexation Areas
~
I
' - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - ~
~ -
I - 7),.ir.,
1 ~ _ . - ~ •`;"%d _ .
- - - - - - - - -
_ f
,
. • I
~I J } ~ :
I
~
_ ~.167'
I
~ - ~ -
,
V
r~
.
i ~
~ ' ~ ;
r
; I
II
G ~
I .
~ i
, ~C~
~ .
r
V_'~' 18
,
1~ - ~
-
/4►.
, -
1 8
~
~
~ f~.• _ . . ~ 1_ - ~1 .
oi . ~
~ ' . , ~ ' . .
~ . . . . ~ _.i _ .
~
a..~K
~ . _ _ . . ,
,
,
.
,
~
I ~
~ ~ ~ i . ~ . _ ' j- i ; .
' r
_ s
I I
I ~ I
i .
167;
~
i I ~ ~w. ►
II^V ~ Jr r /~a I \
I•~1 ~',1, . , :::I ♦
'
1~ ~ I -,rz- ' ry ♦
j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t~i,r
1111,` . ; nu ~ . _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - -
~
~
I
`1 r I- -----I-- I
LAKE ~il~ TAPPS \
, .
f4
l
n A ap 9.C Flood Hazard Areas
~4 ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ ►
F l o o d p l a i n & F l o o d H a z a r d A r e a s ~ F E A Z o n e
I' ~ Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
II
\
III \i \
i I~
~ ~I i ~ ~ --~-----i
i i
- _ - _ _ - - -
-
~
t ~
~ ! i
II i T
.
167,
r
i i
v
I
~
, xbo~ I
T
1
- o• ~ 1'r~
P/
~
,
, ~ -
; .
MOa~
~ il ~ t _ I_~ r~_ '
. ,
. r~• , . ~ - ".9. , , . . .
,
i ~ - ti 1•~ k~- e°
_
„
1
18~
~
~
i _ _
- - - _ - -
- -
. ~ ~ I l
Q i
► p _
1O l~ `
~ ~ I .i ~ m~• - _ i-
I r~ . Scr»p~ .
_ _ _ f! µAni. \ ~
.
I I ~
I , rqtY u~~l I
~ ~ AT
~J
.
~
- -
v ~ I ~ u«oo~
~
,
II; ~ - - - - - - - - -
N ,
r
~
_ . 1
~ \ 2
~
L
I • ~~n~ ~ ~
I i ' 4
( 1 ~ ~
r
,
- - - -
~
i
-----i
,
r i V
"
`'X'(%
LAKE
TAPPS
r)
r -
ap Q . 6 L J Auburn City Limits
9.6
Au'-b'LJ IVI
1~~~
Erosion Areas ErosionAreas
i Potentinl Annexation Arcas
i \
~
~ .
,
-~x~~~ ,
I
_ _
; i
~ fl ~ I 1
- _ - _ _ - - _ -
(i
~ „ - - , . . . ~ .
' . -
, I
r I' + 7
~
~
~ r. 167 ,
~
~x. . ~
,
,
,
< -
. ,
, - -
~ tC~qO ~
;
~
t ~ w xK I _ CwnuFLf ( Jl f;
,R
_ ,
► - al , ~ ~
,
;
~
'
II ,1
~
~ i ~i~r- Y~__ _ ~ ~ _ ~L~ ~
~
_ V
T .~c.~ . ~ `
,
~
~
Y ,
,
~„~E ; ~
r _
-IT
~ 167
i
♦
~
57
L--
~ . ~
, .
r - z
I l
. ~
~
~ -
!I
~1
,
LaKe ~
TAPPS
Ma p 9.7 L , Auburn City Limits
AuBURNJ
, . . . . Landsiide Areas LandslideAreas
Potential Annexation Areas
~
/
I - \
~li ~ - - -
. r - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -
A
`
'6 ~
~ ~
7;
r
_ i°
,
L%~„.
; 167
I , L
jr°'k:
:
,
.
_ I
,
~
„
.
1-8,
r . .
► ~ , L " ~ t~~^
~ r r
3
" ~ ~ nurrcrnnr ~ i'~
M ~-I'
-
,
i i
q
U r-_~I
~
,
~
N.
~
Z ~J ~ t
~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ♦
~
t ~
1 I ~ ~ a k;`o~~.~ 1
1 r
~
1 ~
I• ~ ~ ~
~ ►
i.
~
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i
l
~L .I
- - ~ - - - -
_ i
-
10 ~HISTORIC SITE NAME \ 1~lISTATUS 'PAACEL
1 AUBUHN INVCSTMCNT CO- tlUILDiNGIJCV[NNEY COMPANV SmORERMINCD ELIGIBLE BY SI1P0 1811C59051\ '
al1BURN POST OFFICE WASHINGTON NE2ITAGE REGISTCR APID NATIONAL REGISTCR 0489000490 3 InUBURN PIIBLIC LIORAHV WASHINGTON HERITAGC RLGISTEN AND NATIONAL REGiSTER 1775800115 LAKE .
a NLOMEEN. OSCAN HOUSE WASHIWGTON HERITAGE REGISTE0. AND NATIONAL 2EGISTER 5<05100005 - TAAPS
5 KIIIG SOLOMOM MnSONIC I.OOGC NO 60 fIALL ~DESIGNATED LOCnL LAIVDMAIiK 7331400475
6MaRY OLSON FnNM WnSHiNGTOn H6NI7AGE NEGISTER, WASHINGTON HCNITAGE NANN NEGISTEN ANU NATIONq02Cfd➢!59IQd
7 iMARY OLSOw FAHM WaSMiwGTON HERiTAGC REGISTER, wASn'.NG70w HCRiTAGE BARN RCGISTER AN~ rvA7'~ONqGZ~39IL3t1 IMAAV OLSON FAAM WaSHiHCTOH HENiTAGE REG6TEN, WaSn;NGTOrv nENiTnGE BaRn REG6TER AwD nAT!ONqO`10.1m59Im6 , .
A . ~ . ' . .
M a p 10.1 ~ Identified Locations
AuBURN
Historical Resource Inventory I ~AuburnCityLimits
' Potential Annexation Areas
~
t.--=~~-~----------w~~
~
~
~
11 ~ li - - - - - - - -
I ` ' I 1 I
~ , 'I r I
~167;
,
`
:
,
. w.
- '
~
\ , .
. ~
,
, I
18
!
1 ,
t1T-\xln .-LY- .
/i
. - / R
. ~ - ~~-~l- ( ~ A ~ ~ ~ - - . IMU ~J'T , ~ ~
~
i
nRM . C V ♦ ,
\
~ ~i YMN I ~ R1l}Y~ L . \
i . _ 1I I~ Ip Y ' ~J iNll I
~
- - - - - - I
- - -
~ -
` II =
i
. ~
'Ij ,
I. , .
r
- - - _
~ -
- - _ _ _
- - _ - - - ~
4\ .
~
+ ~ I
- ~
~
;
\
LAKE '
TAPPS ~
r-
~ n/~ ap 11.1 Auburn City Limits
D
~AUBURN I' C ~
1 ~r1~5 & Opl.pn .7pace ~ Potential Annexation Areas
Parks
I
~NORTHEAST q
y'AUBURN ^ - - - - - - - -(1
I ~ ~ ` I I
'7 'NORTHEAST
!I j
AUBURN
I ' I ~ - - - - -
~ r
3~ , ~ ,✓/r; J 1 _
~ • "
I q~~u ~y
< I
~ Pp ~
II ~ s
~
-
dR7
~
~
1
I.■_
I
~-ri~
AUBURN~\j
NO RTH
;
;BUSINESS\
~
DISTRICT il
I
L : P rvm , ~ ~
~ J' " ~
-
DOWN I OWN
..a -
n \
,
N
18
,
, - ,
214
„
. I ~
LAKEVIEW ,
`f
_
~
I
~
r , ~ „ ~
RAIL _
_
YARD ~ - \ - - -
-
- -
i
~
! IB~s
acnoE_M v\
11
i
~ - ° STUCK
~ Adopted Special Plan Areas ~ RIVER% i ~
~~.~roo R/ p
ProPosed SPecial Plan Areas
Land Use Designation
~
- Residential Conservency „~e
MOUNT/~
RAINIER
Single-Family Residential VISTA ~f r~A ~
~
,V
ti ~ IAKELAND\ i
Moderate Density Residential HILLSV
~ High Density Residential
- Office Residential N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -
Neighborhood Commercial ~ KEL-AND ~p~ a ~
\HILLSN PIERCE
Light Commerciai ' • ~ ~ SOUTH ~ -
PI P/aA,ERCE ~ L~COUNTY 1 i
I'COUNT~Y LoKELAND IAKELAND°
I. A X\HILLS HILLS
~ Heavy Commercial LAKEL•AND
HILLS'~ SOUTH.~ SOUTH
\
\ \
_ . ~
-
- Downtown SOUTHi -
~ ~i~ _
Light Industrial
~
i Heavy Industrial R ' ~ - - -
\
Public and Quasi-Public
~ 1 r ~ \I\ I
~ I • `11 ~ ~ \ 1 ~ . :I
Open Space
LAKE
\J ' TAPPS \ I
Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
c I I~,~ 0 1~~ ~ ~ . MA P 14.1
ADBURN
WASHINGTON Comprehensive Land Use
,
,,------~-T;~V
~ -NORTHEAST
I;I ~ \AUBURN
i--------i I +_I ``I
NORTHEAST
1- - - ~i AUBURN li i ~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - -
wR~a.
L I li I I r. ~j ~ ~ 1 r
7-T
I
r
'
~w o„ F
d . . ' ~167
wLL • a,x - ,
~
~ . '
u,r
; HE
. . ,
, ~ • = f~ , r
~
J
,
. ~
' J
~ r-~'
- ' ~
II~AUBURN '~T
1 I NORTH ~ -
.
.
\ ~ I: ir wEe~
~ 2.
, M1 il `4~-~~ 8
~
r DOWNTOWN ~
Ni N
- - w M1
~
~ J/~__,
1 1 ~"o•"" i LAKEVIEW - ~
,
~
/
RAIL' uwo~ ~ ~
/ YARD
' r'i
~ ACADEMY
~
STUCK . I
a RIVER ~
ROAD ~ I
,167 1___~ ~
MOUNT ~
RAINIER
i \ VISTA
~\1 L'AKECAND
\ ♦
,
HILLS♦
\ • _ i ~lL.~sJ ~ ~
_ ~
I \
LAKELAND 'ZPAA
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~HILLSNPIERC~~
PAA - ~
~ OUTH
PIERCE -~COUNTY I
`
~-_L
~ ~KELAND CAKELANDy
I'COUNT,Y .
' ' \ ~~HICLS ~ HILLS -
~ y
LAKEL'AND
I,HILLS ~ SOU\ H.`~ SOUTH
~ -
SOUTH{
~
f~
LAKE
TAPPS
A Aap 14.2 ~ Adopted Special Plan Areas
ALi BURN Proposed Special Plan Areas
Special Plan Areas
I r ~ Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
Exhibit B .
(lncludes Chapter 2- Genera/ Approach; Chapter 3- Land Use,
Chapter 9- The Environment, and Appendix 8 of the
Comprehensive P/an - see "Comb. Plan_Policy/Text
Amendments" tab in the working binder ) -
,
- - - -
Ordinance No. 6334
December 15, 2010
Page 7
CHAPTER 2
GENERAL APPROACH TO
PLANNING
Introduction Planning infers the development of a strategy or program to reach a
desired outcome. The nature of planning can vary considerably in focus,
substance and style depending on the type of community or azea being
planned. A framework is provided for these jurisdictions through the
Growth Management Act, the Multi-County Policies and the County-wide
Policies, but the issues facing each jurisdiction are different and each
jurisdiction will address them in its own way. How Auburn addresses
these issues is dependent upon its general approach to planning. The
policies in this section provide the framework for how Auburn will
address future development and growth, work with other jurisdictions
within the region and shape the development and character of the City and
the region.
Issues and
Background
Planning Approach The development of this Comprehensive Plan involves preparing the City
for addressing future development so that the end result moves the City
closer to accomplishing its goals. Several approaches or "styles" of
planning can be used to accomplish this :
1. reactive - accent flexibility in responding to changing conditions
and to individual situations problems and issues as they arise;
2. predictive - anticipate future needs and plan to meet them; or
3. proactive - seek to influence future events to achieve community
obj ectives.
The approach used establishes a key element of the City's basic
philosophy regarding land use management and planning. The proactive
approach blended with the predictive approach will assure that basic
community values and aspirations are reflected in the City's planning
Page 2-1
Amended 2010
- General
Approach
program as the City responds to existing and future pressure for growth
and change.
Growth The City of Auburn faces the potential for significant growth in the
upcoming decades with as many as 6,000 new households and 6,000 new
jobs in the King County portion of the City (based on year 2005 City
limits) to the year 2022 and achieve a population of almost 10,500 people
in the Pierce County portion of the City limits (based on year 2005 City
limits). Much of this growth is due to basic factors beyond the City's
control; however, other aspects of growth can be appropriately managed.
Tlierefore, it will be through the implementation of strong policies that
will enable the City to influence patterns of desired future growth.
GOAL 1. PLANNING APPROACH '
To manage growth iri a manner which enhances,. rather than detracts from
- - community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and '
'intensity with CiTy facilify and service provision and development.
. ,
' -Policies:
GP-1 The City should strive to assure that basic community values and
I aspirations are reflected : in all City plans and programs, while
recognizing the rights ~of individuals to use and develop private
property in a manner that -is consistent with City codes and
regulations.
GP-2 The City should develop its plans and programs after thorough
analysis of community problems, potentials and needs.
GP-3 The Planning Department will develop an annual work program
that includes , work elements directed toward studying basic
community needs, policy development, and code administration.
Objective 1,1 To provide a policy framework to support growth mana.gement.
Policies:
GF-4 The City shall seek to influence.both rates and patterns of future
growth to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in all of its
, land use and facility and service decisions.
GP-5 The City shall resist growth pressures which could adversely affect
community values and amenities,, but will seek and supportdevelopment when it will further the goals of the community.
Page 2-2
Amended 2010
General
" . Approach.
Objective 1.2 ' To establish a procedure to assess the growth impacts of major
~ development proposals:
, . ,
Policies:
GP-6 The growth impacts ofmajor private or public developinent which
- place sigriificant service demands on community facilities,
amenities and services, and impacts on the City's general quality of
: life sliall be carefully: studied under the provisions of SEPA prior
; to development. approval'. Siting of any major development
. ' (including public, facilities such;:as,; but not limited to, solid waste
processing facilities and landfills) shall be carefully and thoroughly
~ evaluated through provisions of SEPA prior to project approval,
`-conditional approval,; or denial. ..Appropriate mitigating measures
to ensure conformance with this Plan shall be required.
GP-7 Regional scale developmerit shall be encouraged to provide a
balance between regional service demand& and impacts placed on
the Gity's quality of life 'versus ttie local benefits derived from such
development.
Obj ective 13. To establish. and support an. effective : regional system of growth
management; "based on an effic'ient system of urban service delivery and
appropriate development ofwiincorporated azeas.
Policies: GP-8 Aubum: designates • 1 Sth :Street NW and 15 Street S W as activity
areas as defined in the King County Countywide Planning Policies.
GP-8A Auburn designates downtown Aubutn, as defined in the Auburn
Downtown Plan, as An..urban center in aceordance with ,the King
Gounty; Countywide Plarining Policies. Auburn's downtown area
is also designated as a Regional Growth Center by Puget Sound
Regional Council.
GP-9 Provision of urban level. services by the City of Auburn or a special
district -should be 'a prerequisite for development within Auburn's
potential anriexation area. Anriexa.tion should be required, as. a
condition of the provision of utility services by the City of Auburn.
Development sHould look to Auburn as the ultimate service
provider. .
Page 2-3,
Amended 2010
General
Approach
GP-10 The cities and counties in the region should coordinate planning
. and infrastructure development to meet regional goals and policies
as outlined in the King and Pierce County Countywid'e'Planning
Policies and in the Multi-county Policies.
`
Pred'actability
and Flezibility: Predictability, in land use regulation 'fosters confidence in land and
improvement investments (both private development and public facilities),
and.can have a positive effect on long term property values. It also fosters
fairness and consistency, and eases.administration. It has the disadvanta.ge
of not dealing well with changing conditions (e.g. new manufacturing
• technologies); - unique . circumstances or. :when someone simply comes
forward with a"better" idea: Flexible regulations can deal with such
. conditions and circumstances, but may require a lazge commitment of
time, expertise and' other resources to manage. Auburn's policy will be
mixed; stressing predictability. in single family neighborhoods, while
allowing flexibility in areas committed to industrial or commercial uses
where performance standards are usually "more important than specific use
restrictions.
GOAL 2. k'LEXIBILITY
To provide predictability in the regulation of land use and development,
- especially where residential uses are affected, but to also provide
" flexibility for development through performance standazds that a11ow
` development to occur while still, protecting and enhancing natural ,
resources and critical lands in overall eompliance with this comprehensive
, plan.
Objective 2. 1. To provide assurance that residential areas will be protected from
intrusions by incompatible land uses.
Policies: GP-11 Ordinance provisions designed to protect residential areas shall
give priority to providing -predictability and stability to the
neighborhood. :
GP-12 Adequate buffering shall be required whenever new commercial ar
. industrial uses abut areas designated for residential uses.
Objective2.2. To provide flexibility for major new commercial or industrial
developments to respond to changing :market conditions without
threatening the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan. Policies:
Page 2-4 i
Amended 2010
General
Approach
GP-13 Ordinances regulating developing commercial or industrial
_ areas should-be based on performance standa:rds which provide
- flexibility _ to respond to market conditions while ensuring
compatibility with . the Comprehensive Plan, and with preserit
and potential adjacent uses.
GP-;14 Review , procedures for all new development should be ,
, integrated or co.ordiria.ted with SEPA as much as possible.
GP-15: In interpreting plan provisions or in considering a plan
amendment, plan designations in the Region Serving Area
. should be treated in a more flexible manner than in the
Community Servirig Area (see Map 3:2:).
Objective 2.3. To provide flexibility.,iri- areas .where a transition from existing uses to
planned uses is.appropriate.
Policies: ,
GF-16 Contract zoning can be used to manage the transition between
' existing uses and future uses. Contract zoning allows new uses
to be conditioried in a manner which controls potential conflicts
d'uring such transition. Contract zoning may be particularly -
' • useful as a timing device to ensure that the necessary public
. facilities aze available to support new development.
Objective 2.4. To provide for the deyelopment of innovative land management
techniques to implement this Comprehensive Plan.
Policies: .
GP-17 Flexible land development,techniques including, but not limited
to,. clustering and planned unit developments (PUDs) for the
development of residential, commercial, and industrial
properties shall be considered: to implement this comprehensive
plan;..
- "GP-18 Flexibility should be provided to encourage compact urban
' -:deyelopment, to protect -.critical areas and resource lands, to
, facilitate the use of transit or non-motorized transportation, and
to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized or deteriorated
property.
- GP-19 Any flexibility should be easy to administer and should provide
the _community with anadequate level of predictability. '
_ . . : page 2-b
Amended 2010
General
. _ APProach
GP-20 Within single family neighborhoods, flexibility should be
- limited to ensure that the neighborhood retains a conventional
single family character.
GP-21 Flexibility to a11ow. the maintenance, expansion, or
redevelopment of historic structures or features should also be
considered. The goal - of this flexibility should be to retain the
historic character of the structure, feature, or property while at
the same time ensuririg protection of the public health and
- safety. ' .
, GP-22 Innovative techniques that lead to the development of
, multifamily housing that is sensitive to the needs of children
and seniors shall be consideied to implement this
comprehensive plan. Techniques that consider recreation,
safety, aesthetic, privacy, and transportation needs should be
. emphasized.
Jurisdictional
Coordination - While most aspects of land use and community development aze managed
locally (by the City), other important aspects of community development
are significantly influenced or eyen controlled by other governmental
~ entities (regional, state, federal; and tribal). It is therefore important that
the City monitor, and, when necessary, influence the decisions of those
governmental bodies. To this end, the City should actively develop
working relationships with these units of government and; whenever
possible, be directly represented in their decision making process.
Aubuav's Regional
Role Auburn has historically been a treated as relatively minor player in the
. Puget Sound region. Its relatively small population and perceived
isolation in South King County led to its being overshadowed in the region -
by the larger and more centrally located cities further north.
Recent years have seen a marked shift in Auburn's role in the region:--A
number of facilities of regional significance have located in the area
including: Green River Community College, Auburn Regional Medical
Center, Auburn Municipal Airport, the SuperMall of the Great Northwest,
the Emerald Downs Racetrack. In addition, Auburn functions as a station on the regional Commuter Rail system. Taken as a whole, these facilities
greatly increase Auburn's significance in the region.
The Ciry of Auburn has chosen to designate its Downtown Area as an
"urban center" as defined by the King County Countywide Planning
Policies. The formal ratification of Auburn's Downtown as an urban
Page 2-6
Amended 2010
- General
J APProach
center occurred in 2004. 15th Street -SW arid 15th Street NW meet the
criteria for, designation- as activity areas under the County wide policies.
. Activity areas will serve as a focus for new transit investments.
As it relates to urbancenters,. the King County Countywide Planning .
Policies (CPP's) envision 'urban : centers as areas of concentrated
employment and housing with direct service by high capacity transit and a
range of land uses such as retail, recreational, public facilities, parks and
open space: Urban centers aze intended fo strengthen existing communities
by promoting housing opportunities close to employment; supporting the
development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles, consunie less land with urban development and maximize
the beneft of public investments in _infrastructure and services. The King
County-CPP's generally defirie., urban: centers as concentrated mixed-use
. areas witli: a maximum size of 960 acres and oriented around a high
capacity transit station.
r
: The urban :center concept is, part of a larger regional growth management strategy. Vision 2040 , envisions a multi-county •(Pierce, Snohomish,
Kitsap and King) growth mariagement strategy comprised of a hierarchy
of "centers" connected by. a inulti-modal transportatiori system. Auburn
has also been recognized as a"Regional Growtli Center" by the Puget
Sound Regional Council, further emphasizing its unportance to the region.
These centers are areas intended to accommodate a significant portion of
additional new development the Puget Sound region:
In May 2001; the City of Auburn City Council adopted the Auburn
Downtown Plan.
Overall, the' Downtown Plan sees `the Auburn Downtown as a central
gathering place for the community. High quality design is expected of all
development including streets, buildirigs.and landscaping. In addition to
general services to draw people fi'om outside of the _ region such as retail
and office uses; the Auburn Downtown is also a principal commercial
center providingjocal goods ;and services to surrounding neighborhoods
and.to residents and employees witlun the:downtown area.
To this end, the Auburri ' Downtown ` Plan specifically addresses the
principles, criteria and incentives required of urban centers pursuant to the
King County Couritywide, Plarining Policies and the Multi-county growth
management strategy: :The urban.centers e"oncept is evolving, and it is in
tlie City's interest to stay engaged in efforts that affect the regional growth
' managemerif strategy.
Page 2-7
- Amended 2010
, General
Approach
GOAL 3. COORDINATION To work together with both localand regional agencies and jurisdictions
to promote coordinated regional . growth; . recognizing Auburn's intended regional role as an urban center, while maintaining local self .
, determination.
Objective 3.1. To ensure that the conce'rns of the City are reflected in the affairs of other
agencies whose decisions and activities - affect the development of the
Auburn community and its environs. "
Policies: , - GP-23 The City.should continue its participation in various State and
- Federal agencies_ and organizations concerned with land use
planning and development and the protection of natural and
.cultural resources and critical areas. .
GP-24 The City should maintain an active role in regional planning
agencies and organizations.
GP-2-5 The City should support interjurisdictional programs to address
- problems or issues that affect the Gity and larger geographic
_ areas. ~
GF-26 "-The City `shall seek:to be involved in county land use planning
. programs. ,
GP-27 The City should seek, where appropriate, to coordinate its
planning with: the Muckleshoot Tribe, King and Pierce -
_ Counties, Federal Way, Kent and otlier adjacent jurisdictions.
Character of the
Community Communities, are often associated with a particular character. This
character should.not only be reflected in the comprehensive plan but the
-plan can also aid in the development or. reinforcement of desirable
characteristics. A distinct character for a commuriity also aids in
establishing the community's identity both to : itself and its region:
Auburn's flavor and values as a family community should be protected and
- enhanced. This should be. the -priority basis of City policy. A community,
however, does not consist solely of residential neighborhoods. A healthy
" community needs expanding employment; convenient shopping areas and
a strong fiscal base to supportthe services needed by growing families.
Conseqiiently, a balanced policy which. appropriately nurtures and
manages all these roles is needed.
Page 2-8
Amended 2010
General
Approach
GOAL:;4. , - COIVIMUNITY CHARAC.TER
' . To maintain and enhance -:AubuYn's character as a family community,
, while managing .potential economic opportunities in a manner that
provides necessary employment.and fiscal support for needed services,
and while recognizing the need to provide human services and
opportunities for housing to a.wide array of household types and sizes.
Objective 4.1. To strike a balance between the need to protect Auburn's
. residential qualities, sustainability in the community and the need to
. ensure an adequate economy for the area.
Policies:
GP 28 Auburn's character as a"family" community will be a priority
considera.tion in the City's land use management decisions.
This priority must be balanced, however, with the following:
a. City policy will address various related community
needs. This includes nurturing and managing the other
roles necessary for maintaining a healthy community,
recognizing the importance of sustainability in the City and
responding to regional needs. Such roles include ensuring
the expansion of employment opportunities, providing a
full range of commercial, retail and service opportunities;
providing recreational and cultural opportunities, mana.ging
traffic, encouraging energy and resource efficiency and
maintaining a balance with the na.tural environment.
b. The, City needs to develop a strong fiscal base to support
the services required for a growing community of maturing
lower and middle income families, while coping with
regional problems.
c. The City should also respond to the needs of a relatively
high share of tlle community's families and single residents
who cannot afford, or do not choose to live in traditional
single family structures.
GP-29 'Witlun areas designated for economic development, the City
sha11 actively promote desired types of development to assure an expanding range of employment opportunities and to build
the City's fiscal base. GP-30 The City should seek to establish and maintain an image
appropriate for the community to assist in most effectively attracting the types of economic activities which best meet the
needs and desires of the community.
' Page 2-9 ~
Amended 2010
, General
. Approach
GP-31 The City should appropriatelv support local businesses . that
enhance the image of . the City ~:through - their contribution : to
- economic vitalrty:- educational, and historic -value of the.
communitv.
.
.
-
.
,
Page 2-10
[Amended 2010
CHAPTER 3
LAND USE
, Introduction Land use planning enables the City of.Auburn to manage its anticipated
growth and development while taking into consideration the specific
community vision and desires. By designa.ting how land can be used,
those considerations necessary for orderly growth including the creation of
jobs, the provision of recreational opportunities, strong and stable
neighborhoods and an efficient transportation system can be pursued.
Au6urn Today
To better understand and evaluate the context for the City's future growth,
it is helpful tn evaluate the City's existing land use and zoning.
Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the zoned acreage within the City of
Auburn and the percentage that acreage represents of the City's overall
land area. Land zoned for residential purposes, especially single family
residential, is clearly predominant and represents about 49 percent (RC,
R1, R5, R7 and R10 zones) of the City's zoned acreage. Of commercial
and industrial zoned land, the M1 (Light Industrial) zone is most
predominant, consisting of 9 percent of the zoned acreage in the city.
Land zoned P1 (Public Use District) is another significant land use zone
consisting of 8.5 percent of the city's zoned acreage.
Page 3-1
Amended 2010
. . . - . 1, - . _ ' _ . • '
. ; L.and Use
Figure 3.1
City of AubuY-a
Acreage of Land by Zoning District
PERCENTAGE
ZONE ACREAGE OF CITY •RC (Residential Conservancy) . 1,481 7.58%
Rl (Residential 1 du/acre) 1,405 7.19%
~ -RS (Residential5 du/acre) 4,281 2192%
R7 (Residential 7 du/acre) 2,076 10.63%
R10, (Residential 10 du/acre) , 244 1.25% '
. ,
. , R20 (Residentia120 du/acre)) . 608 3.13%
. , RMHC (Residential Manufacture(/Mobile . _ ~
Home Units) 455 2.33%
RO (Residential Office) 95 0.496/o
RO-H (Residential Office Hospital) 1.0 0.005%
CN (Neighborhood Commercial) 12 0.06%
C1 (Light Commercial) 302 1.55%
C2 (Central Business District) 33 . 0.17%
DUC (Downtown Urban Center) 135 0.69% C3 (Heavy Commercial) 1,432 7.33%
BP (Business Pazk) 0 . 0.00%
EP (Enviroamental Park) 276 1.41%
M1 (Light Industrial) 1,762 9.02%
M2 (Heavy Industrial) 1,099 5.63%
LF (Landing Field) 112 0.57%
P1 (Public Use District) 1,665 8.47%
I (Institutional) 584 2.99%
U (LTnclassified) 432 2:21 %
PUD (Planned Unit Development) 984 5.04% TV (Terrace View) 59 0:30%
TOTAL 19,533 100%
- Source: City of Auburn. Geographic Information Services (GIS)
T'he above data includes area in the West Hill and Lea Hill annexations.
The small remaining azeas outside of the city limits but within the city's
Potential Annexation Area (PAA) are not included. BLTILDABI.E LANDS - I.AND SUPPY.,Y AND DEVELOPMENT
. CAPACITY
In 1997 the Washington State legislature adopted a Builda.ble Lands .
amendment to the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36 70A.215).
The amendment requires certain Washington State counties and their cities
Page 3-2
Amended 2010
Land Use
. to deternune the amount, of land, suitable for urban development and to
evaluate their capacity_ for growtli based on past development lustory.
Both Pierce and King Counties are subject to the State Buildable Lands
requirement. In addition, both, counties use the Buildable Lands effort to
assist in the allocatiori of population/housing unitlemployment targets to
individual jurisdictions within the respective counties as xequired by the
GMA. The first buildable lands reports were based upon data through
2002; the second reports, published in 2007; are current through 2005.
The Buildable Lands analysis involves the identification of vacant and
. redevelopable land suita.ble for development over the planning horizon,
through 2022.. Land suitability takes into consideiation estimates of how
critical areas, land that might be needed for public purposes (e.g: parks,
storm drainage), and land rieeded for future streets wi1T effect development
of these vacant and redevelopable parcels. It al"so means adjusting the -
amount of vacant and redevelopable land using a market factor to exclude land that is not reasonably expected to become available during the
l planning fiorizon. .
Land Supply and Housing Unit,Capacity :
As indicated above; both King and Pierce Counfies are subject to the Sta.te's Buildable Lands legislatiorn. An~approximation of Auburn'.s
development capacity was made tlirough an analysis of all vacant and
' underutilized land within the.Gity. Vacant land is defined as any parcel
' with no structures. Underutilized or redevelopable land is def ned as a
- ' parcel with potential for infill or redevelopment. -
T'he followirig summarizes the results and conclu'sions of these analyses by
county (King and Pierce). While the objective behind each counties'
'Buildable Lands effort was similar, the approaches were slightly different.
Detailed'information regazding the Buildable Lands analysis may be found
in the individual Buildable Lands reports prepared by the respective
County. ' , . .
2007 King CountyBuildable'Lan'ds Analysis
Figure 3,2 identifies the gross and adjusted net vacant and redevelopable
land by residentialland use type fi'om the Buildable Lands analysis for
King County. Adjusted net acres represent the amount of gross acres
available for development after assumptions about critical areas, future
right of way needs; future land for public uses and the market factor have
been considered. (Note: this analysis was based upon the City limits as of
December 31, 2005 and therefore does not include the recent annexations -
of Lea and West Hills. The 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report did -
Page 3-3
Amended 2010
I
. Land Use
not provide specif c analysis for the large Lea Hill and West Hill PAAs '
that in 2005, were still unincorporated): ~ -
Figure 3.2
Gross and Adjusted Net Acres of Vacant _
~
~ and Redevelopable Land by Residential Zoning Type (King County) '
_ Gross Acres Adjusted
- - Net Acres 1
Single Family 1,3215 $88:2
Vacant
Single Family 603.7 349
Redevelo able Mu1ti-Family/ .37 315 Mixed 'Use
. Vacant.
, 1VIu1ti-Family/ 145.8 107.9
Mixed Use .
Redevelo able TOTAL 2,110 1,377.6
(1) "Adjusted Net Acres" represents land available for deyelopment after
critical areas, anticipated right-of-way and public purposes needs and a market factor
'have 6een taken into account.. ~ (2) "Other" represents mized-use opportunities in certain zones.
After deducting for constraints, future-right-of;way and public purpose
needs, and after applying a,market factor, the Buildable Lands analysis
shows that Auburn has approximately 1,377.5 adjusted net acres of vacant '
and redevelopable residentially zoned land during the planning period
through 2022. As seen in Figure 3.2, the majority of available land for
development is zoned for single-family residential purposes.
1 Based on the residential land supply analysis and historical densities, an
, estimate of housing unit capacity was developed:, Figure 3.3 identifies the
estimated capacity (in housing units) in King County -by the predominant
zoning type. This estimate shows a capacity of approximatel'y 6,525
housing:units in the King County portion.of.the City exists to the year , 2022.
Page 3-4 ;
Amended 2010
Land Use
Figure 3.3
Housing Unit Capacity By Residential Zoning Type (King County)
Capacity
ousin Units
Sin e Famil 3,958
Multi-Family 2,002
Mixed Use 565
TOTAL 6,525
(1) Capacity figures include units in the pipeline.
Employment Capacity (King County)
As part of the King County Buildable Lands analysis, employment
capacity was also estimated. This methodology involved a similar
approach as the residential capacity analysis. The supply of both vacant
and redevelopable commercial and industrial land was determined: As
with residential capacity, net land supply for commercial and industrial
purposes took into consideration critical areas, anticipated future right-of
ways, land for public purposes and applied a market factor to land that
may not be available for development during the planning period.
Estimates of how much commercial and industrial square footage could be
developed on property were calculated. Employment capacity was
developed applying a floor area per employee ratio.
Figure 3.4 identifies the gross and adjusted net vacant and redevelopable
land by commercial and industrial land use from the King County
Buildable Lands analysis. Again, adjusted net acres represents the amount
of gross acres available for development after assumptions about critical
areas constraints, future right of way needs, land for public uses and the
market factor have been considered.
Page 3-5
Amended 2010
. Land Use
Figure 3.4 .
- Gross and Adjusted Net Acres.of Commercial and Industriai
Land Supply (King County)
Gross.Acres Adjusted
Net Acres 1 Commercial 164 - • 136.1
Vacant
Commercial 81.8 66
Redevelo able ~
Industrial Vacant 499.3 3273
Industrial ~ 256.9 176.3
Redevelo able Mixed Use 2 1.6
Vacant '
Mixed Use - 56.4 45.5
- Redevelo able - -
TOTAL 1,060.2 . 753
1. "Adjusted Net Acres": rep;esents land.after critical areas, future anticipated
, streets, land for public purposes and market-factor have been considered.
Figure 3.4 indicates that approximately 1,060 gross acres of vacant and
redevelopable commercial, industrial,and mixed use zoned land exists, with most of this land being industrially zoned. Adjusted for constraints;
future infrastructure needs and a maxket'factor, slig?tlY more than 750 net
-
acres exists.
_ Figuie 3.5 below summarizes employment' capacity developed as part of
the Buildable Lands analysis by land use zone type. It sfiows that tlie City
. of Auburn has employment capacityfor over 17,750 jobs, with a majority of those jobs being on industrially zoned land.
Figure 3.5
` Eanployment Capacity by Zoning Type (King County) ,
Zone T e Em lo ment Ca aci
Commercial 39,559 '
Industrial . 12,053 ;
Mixed Use 736
Other 1 1,410
TOTAL 17,759
(1) "Other" includes estimates of employment associated with pipeline projects
identified at the time of the Buildable Lands analysis.
Pierce County Buildable Lands Analysis
While the overall objective of the Pieree County Buildable Lands analysis
was similaz to King County's, certain elements were done differently., The
Page 3-6 -
Amended 2010
;
. Land Use
: majority of land within the city.limits at the time of the builda.ble lands
' analysis (Year 2005) was pa.rt of the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit
Developmerit (PUD). The majorityof the additional residential vacant . '
land was part of approved preliminary plats. Therefore, estimates of
. , residential:populafion housing uriits were based on planned densities ,
established as part of the PUD approval and a related annexation
agreement with the.developer,'and also took in account the other approved
projects. Estimates of employmenf were based on known employment
areas within the PUD: "
Based on the Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis, it was determined .
that the City of Auburn's population growth to the year 2022 would be 10,500 people. This translates into the need for approximately 1,789
- housirig uriits.
' . The Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis includes a 2022 employment
target of 403 and an employment capacity of 543. This estimate was
based on the likely employment generated by the commercial parcels
located within Lakeland Hills South PUD and other vacant commercial
lands along A St. SE.
• (Specifcs.regarding the Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis may be found in
the "Pierce=Couiity Buildable Larid Reports - A Monitoring and Evaluation
' analysis ofUrban Growth and Development Capacity for.Pierce County and its
Cities and Towns", September 1, 2007.)
Evaluation of Capacitv Against Proiected Growth -Targets
- King Countyand Pierce County both have allocated housing unit and
employment targets to local jurisdictions. The City of Auburn's allocation -J
targets are presented below in Figure 3.8.
. . Figure 3.6
City.of Auburn 2022 Housing UnitLEmployment/Population
. Allocations (King and Pierce counties)
Housing Units Employment Population
Kin Coun 5,534 6,079 N/A
Pierce Coun 1,789 403 10,500
All of the targets assigned to Auburn in King County are within the
development capacity identified in the Buildable Lands analysis. Based
on the Buildable Lands analysis the City had a surplus residential capacity
of about 784 units over its target and a surplus capacity of over 11,680
employees over its target. In Pierce County; there is approximately a 166
residential unit deficit and a 411. employment surplus. Overall, there is
Page 3-7
Amended 2010
Land Use
sufficient residential capacity within the city limits to meet the 2022
growth projections.
` ' . Buildable Lands Analvsis Limitations
- - - - - -
It:is important to note limitations to the Buildable Lands analysis. The
. Buildable Lands analysis is based on, identifying actual densities for a
. five-year period and then applying-these. densities to available land.
Whether or not the densities achieved for the discrete five-year period will
be a true reflection of future densities is one.considera.tion. As land
becomes increasingly scarce and land values rise, there will be a tendency
for land to be more intensely used oyer time with higher densities.
_ Also, how much land could be developed is not a.predictor of whether it
will be developed. Ultimately the market will dictate how much land will
be developed. Attempting to predict the market was beyond the scope of
the Buildable Lands analysis.
Issues and Background
Auburn's Potential
Annezation Area Auburn's Comprehensive Plan contains policies which designate types and
intensities of land uses that will accomplish the City's long range goals.
Since the Plan depicts a long term perspective of the City's, giowth, it is
, appropriate to also include on the Compreliensive Plan map those azeas
which may not currently be within the City limits, but aze planned to be in
the future. These areas aze within the eity's potential aniiexation area
(PAA). (Map I.1). However, due to recent annexations, the amount of land
remaining within the PAA isrelatively sma1L The city provides water and sewer service to many portions of the PAA.
In addition; growth in the PAA can liave significant impacts on other Gity
services.' Hence, it is important for City decision makers to consider the
. growth in these areas as well as within the city limits when makirig
decisions concerning capital projects sueh as water and sewer extensions
and road projects. (For a more thorough discussion of these issues; see
Chapter 13, "~Development in the Unincorporated Areas and Annexation.")
GOAL 5. CITY EXPANSION AND ANNEXATION
To ensure the orderly development and annexation of the City's potential
annexation area in a manner that ensures adequate and cost-effective
provision of required urban services and facilities, reduces sprawl,
implements the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan, and protects designated rural areas.
Page 3-8
Amended 2010
' Land Use
Objective 5.1 Todesignate Auburn's potential, annexation area and to include those areas
on the City's Comprehensiye Plan 1VIap.
Policies: .
. LU-1 Auburn's Potential Annexation Area: is shown on Map 3. L
- Map 3.1 also depicts. Growth Impact Areas. These Growth
Impact Areas :aze ,generally adjacent cities or unincorporated
County lands in which deyelopment that occurs potentially
' . impacts the city of Auburn..
- LU-2 The Auburn City' Council may revise the boundaries of the
- Potential Annexation Area in the future, in response to: '
' . ' a. Amendments to the King .County Urban Crrowth Area as
- specified in the King- County Countywide Policies; .
b. Discussions between:'Auburn and adjacent jurisdictions
; regarding Potential Annexation Area boundaries;
c. Discussions witli- Pieree County concerning the designation
of Potential Arinexation Area boundaries; or d. Changed circumstances relating to population and
employment growth and projections; urban service
- feasibility; or similar factors. -
Urban'Form Elannirig deals with the basic geographic form of the city. Auburn's
existing form separates -ttie city into two parts: a concentration of
, . employment base.on the west.with sufficient existing and potential jobs to
be of regional significance (region serving area), and residential 4and
locally.oriented business uses to the east (coxnmunity serving area). This
existing policy of a"split" form has generally been effective in avoiding
gross land use conflicts between residential uses and more intensive (e.g.
industrial). land uses: This Plan's policies maintain this basic split policy.
"However; Auburn's downtowri area is also treated as a unique (both region
and community-serving) pa.rt of the city's form.
. Another aspect of : a city's form is its -development intensity. Varying
intensities of deyelopment require different configurations of city services
and facilities ~-and create different community impacts. The location of
different'intensities can also assist in establishing the city's chazacter and
identity, and can be instrumental in -furthering other important .goals
~ . (protection of critical areas, protection against natural hazards, etc.).
, Page 3-9
. Amended 2010 ,
. Land Use
Policy established by the 1969: Comprehensive Plan assumed that the city
would.eventually be completely urban in chara.cter and the City's approach
to developing its service delive "ry system was driven by this assumption.
At that time no CiTy policy or program addressed agricultural preservation.
While extensive . areas with rural development require expensive
restructuririg of the City service delivery system, strategic _ long-term
protection of some of these areas can assist in limiting urban sprawl,
maintaining diversity of livirig environments, and profecting important
environinental resources, in particular the City's water source at Coa1
Creek i Springs: This Plan desigriates a limited amount of, Residential
' Conservancy area for'this purpose, which should not significantly affect
the o'verall cost of city services.
GOAI, 6. ~ - URBAN FORM
To establish an orderly urban: form which sepazates uses on the basis of
their functional relationship to the community, and which reinforces the
identity of the community.
.
. . .
Objective 6.1. To physically separate region serving employment centers and other
regiorially oriented land uses from areas that are residential or local in
character. while ensuring that regional fa[cilities strengthen the community
as a whole and enhance downtown Auburn.
Policies:
LU-3 Areas on the valley fl'oor .which are suitable to support large
scale economic development projects should be reserved, for
the most part, for uses which ~support Auburn's role as a
regional employment and commercial center (to be known as
the Region Serving Area See Map 12):
LU-4 • Areas delineated on the Urban. Forin Map (Map 3.2) as'the
Community Serving Area should be reserved for uses which,
~ are local in chazacter or serve local markets.
LU-5 Link together regionally significant land uses such as the
SuperMall, Green River Community College, Boeing, Emerald
Downs, and commercial uses on Auburn Way in a manner that
~ enhances the regional stature of Auburn while providing
. services, employment and tax base for the community.
t Linkages should be designed to enharice Downtown Auburn as ~
the community's focal point. ' Objective 6.2. Maintain downtown as an area that uniquely serves both regional.and
community needs.
Page 3-10
[Amended 2010
. , Land Use .
Policies: . ,
, LU-6 The- downtown urbari eenter sha11. be :the. focal point „ of the
, : - Auburn community. It :should include a mix of uses including,
but not limited to; goyernment and ciyic uses, retail, residential
and services that aze appropriate to fill that'role.
~ LU-6A Focus growth and development in the . Aubum Downtown,
urban ~center to support economic development, complement
_ :transit oriented development direct growth pressures away
from single family residential neighborhoods, and implement
regional growth management strategies. _
.Objective 6.3. To protect community. identity while promoting dieersity and conserving
. rural amenities, by designating rural areas along the city's periphery and in
areas with, signif cant environnierital values.
. Policies: .
LU-7 The - City sha11 support. tlie County agricultural program in
, securing the development riglitsto, strategically located parcels,
especially along the northern. city bouridary and at the start of
the.Upper Green River Va11ey.
LU-8 The ,City should limit accessible City utility systems into the
Upper Green Valley, and: shal.l limit 'density, thus preserving
the character of the area and encouraging continued cultivation
° on these properties. ~
LU-9 The City shall protect 'Coal Creek Springs by: l) limiting
density to less than one residential unit per four acres within
- the area tributary-to the ;Coal Creek Springs Watershed and by
' 2) designating a Special Flanning Area for the Mt. Rainier
Vista site. . . .
LU-10 The City shall support low density County zoning adjacent to
tlie city on the Enumclaw Plateau Agricultural District and will :
not extend City sewer and water facilities into the area if it will'
promote urban development;
, LU-11 The = City sha11 consider the impacts of new development
activities on resources (ineluding agricultural resource lands;
cultural resources, forest resource lands, and mineral resouree
areas (Map 9.4)), the environment and natural resources
Page 3-11 -
Amended 2010
Land Use.
(particularly critical areas, wildlife habitats and water quality)
as part of its environmental review process.
,
Objective 6.4 ~ Maintain low-density "urban; separators" - areas which protect
.
envirorimentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and
between - urban areas, consistent with the King County .Countywide
',Planning Policies.
Policy:. .
' LU-12 : The City shall maintain urban separators in the Lea Hill area as
designated by Kuig. County.
Residential . Development Within most communities, a range of housing densities is allowed to
provide; a variety -of housing opportunities.:- The wider the range,: the .
greater the opportunity for individuals to find housing relative to: their
particular needs, affordability and:preference:' While the City's policy provides for a relatively wide range of residential
derisities, development over the past decade has been heavily concentrated
. toward the middle and upper levels of the range (See discussion in Chapter
. 4; Housing Element).
As land costs have escalated in the region; however, Auburn has remained
relatively affordable to the average fanuly.
This Plan provides that the City should seek to restore the traditional
" character of the community by encouraging preservation and. development
of housing that is suitable to the retention and attraction of families within .
the community. This would be best accomplished by focusing multi- .
. farnily development in the urban center,: protecting the residential -
character of existing single family neighborhoods and promoting the
. deyelopment of new. neighborhoods of single family homes:
, ConsequentlY, residential land use Policies will emP.
hasize the creation and
.
Preservation of single familY neighborhoods, while still encouraging _ th e
,
development'of other housing types for those who need or want them;.
GOAL 7. , . ! RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
.
To emphasize housing development at single family densities, in order to
reestablish a' mix of housing types appropriate for a family oriented
coininunity, while recognizing the need and desire for both lower density
and higher density housing appropriately located to meet the housing
' needs of a11 members of the community. .
Page ~3-12
Amended 2010
Land Use
Objective 7.1. To establish a system of residential densities that accommodates a range
of housing choices appropriate for the city.
Policies:
LU-13 The City should promote the provision, preservation and
maintenance of adequate housing for the city's residents by
encouraging a balanced mix of housing types and values
appropriate to the income levels and lifestyles of area residents.
Auburn has always been willing to accept its "fair share" of
low and moderate cost housing opportunities. However, this
has translated into a great disparity in Puget Sound
communities with cities such as Auburn receiving more of
these types of housing than other comparable communities.
This has had impacts in terms of the costs of ineeting human
service needs as well as some poorly maintained multifamily
properties which have caused a variety of problems. Auburn
will work to insure that housing units are equitably distributed
across the region in terms of both physical location and cost.
LU-14 Residential densities in areas designated "residential
conservancy", which represent areas that have environmental
constraints andor which promote protection of City water
sources, should be no greater than 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres
until such time public facilities are available. Where it is found
through a land use approval process to be suvportive of the
purpose of the "residential conservancy" designation, where it
does not substantially adversely impact the surrounding
residential community and demonstrates compliance to
development standardsspecified in the zoning code,
agricultural uses and limited commercial uses in support of
a.gricultural uses mav be allowed with appropriate
environmental protection.
LU-15 The area designated "residential conservancy" allows for a
lifestyle similar to that of rural areas since the lower density
established protects the critical areas such as the City's Coal
Creek Springs watershed. A rural lifestyle generally includes
allowance of farm animals, streets not urban in character (e.g.
no sidewalks, street lights), and limited agricultural type uses.
The "residential conservancy" also allows appropriate-scale
commercial activity in support of agricultural uses where it is
found through a land use approval process to be supportive of
the purpose of the "residential conservancv" desi an
where it does not substantially adversely impact the
surrounding residential community and demonstrates
Page 3-13
Amended 2010
Land Use
,
- compliance to development standards §pecified in the _zoning
code. ,
. LU-16 Residential densities within designated "urban separators"
should be no greater than 1 dwelling unit per acre. Clustering
of allowed density onto a portion of a site should be favorably
considered. LU-17 Residential derisities in areas, designated for single family
residential use should be no greater than 7 units per net acre.
These areas should be 'served with good transit availability (1 /4
, mile or less to a route with af least half hour service).
. Accessory dwelling units should be pernutted to allow
increased densities. The bulk of the single family residential
community should be developed at a density of between 4 and
7 dwelling units p.er net acre. Increased density is achievable
• through flexible development standards, if certain criteria are ~met, as esta.blished in city code.
LU-18 Residential densities in areas designated for multiple family
development- should not exceed 20 units per net acre. Multiple
family densities should generally decrease with proximity to
single family a"reas. Multiple family densities may exceed 20
. 'units per acre provided they are within walking distance ofl/4
mile from regional transit facilities or are targeted to
populations not_requiring outdoor recreation areas and having
low private automobile. usage (e.g. nursing homes). These
targeted developments should be located in close proximity to
. shopping, medical and public transporta.tion services. (
. Increased density:is achievable through flexible development'
_ standards, if certain criteria are met, as established in city code.
, ' .
ObJ'ective 7.2. To desipate land for the develoPment of new single familY _
homes. '
.
Policies: -
LU-19 In applying the land use designations of the Comprehensive
Plan, first consideration sha11 be given to designating an area
. for single family residential use. ,
LU-20 Most of the undeveloped areas of the Community Serving Area
of the city (see Map 3.2) shall be reserved for single family (
dwellings. The, ability to buffer the area from incompatible
. ,
- land uses and fieavily traveled arterials or highways should be ,
considered in designating currently undeveloped:. areas for . "
future single family use. Such buffering can be accomplished
. Page 3-14
Amended 2010
I
. Land Use
by taking advantage :of topographic variations and other natural
. features; requiring expanded setbacks along arterials, by
orienting lots and , houses away from arterials, by designating,
moderate density multiple family areas as transitional areas,
and by other means.
Objective 73. To promote the development of quality single family neighborhoods
which relate the design and.types of residential areas to important natural
~ . ~ and manmade features.
Policies:
: LU-21 Residential development should be related; to topography,
. circulation; and other amenities, as guided by policies of this
Plan. LU-22 Residential development should be discouraged in poorly
drained areas.
. LU-23 The development of new neighborhoods should be governed by.
.
, development Stanaatas which a11ow some flexibility.
Flexibility should be considered to. encourage compact. urban
' . - development, to provide: protection of critical areas and "
resource lands (includirig,, but not limited to, agricultural
. resource lands, cultural resources, forest resource , lands,
mineral resource areas (Map 9.4) hillsides or.wetlands), and to
facilitate non-motorized transporfatiori: Increased density is -
achievable through flexible development standards, if certain
criteria are met, as established in city code.
LU-24 The development of ~ residential areas should recognize the
importance of community and public facilities in developing a
sense of neighborhood and-community.
LU-25 Residential development of shoreline areas shall be in accord
with the' City's Shoreline Management Program and should
provide for the retention of public access to these areas.
Special care should be taken in the design of residential areas
in shoreline areas to reduce the potential conflict between
residential use and public access:
LU-26 Einphasis shall be placed upon the manner in which the
recreational' needs of the residents shall be met in the approval
of any residential development,
Page 3-15
- Amended 2010
Land Use
LU 27 Any change from the residential conservancy designatibn shall
be to a single family designation. Single family residential
' azeas should also be used to buffer rural areas from other urban
uses.
LU-28 Areas abutting major arterials should be cazefully planned to `
avoid potential conflict between the development of'the a:rterial
and single family uses: Single family uses in such areas should
be platted in a mariner which orients the units away from the
, arterial. Where such orientation is not possible, a transition
- area should be allowed for non-single family uses which
reduce total driveway connections to the arterial. In any case,
~ non-motorized access between residential areas and arferials
should be provided. ` Iriazeas with existirig single family
developments, substantial flexibility can be permitted for street
front buffering.
Objective 7.4. To establish new neighborhoods in a way that will minimize the potential
for intnision of incompatible uses. Policies:
LU-29 Development design should utilize and preserve natural
features, including, but not limited to, topography and stands of
~ trees, to separate incompatible land uses and densities. -
LU-30 Development. design should use open spaces, including parks,
to separate incompatible use's. _
LU-31- Development codes shall be modified to a11ow the City to
require that landscaped bufFers, natural area preservation or
~ other measures aze utilized to separate new residential.
developments from incompatible uses and major streets. These
buffers should permit access between the residential area and
the major street by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Multiple Family ~ - , Housing The escalating gap between the costs of housing and the ability to pay
rental or:mortgage prices has increased the demand for multi-fainily units.
Unfortunately, it is clear that the development of multiple family
dwellings in single family areas has created an adverse reaction. The level
. of conflict between single . family neighborhoods and multiple family dwellings must be reduced. Since much of this reaction is related to the
design of these structures, design standazds could substantially reduce this problem for new construction.
Page 3-16 - ,
Amended 2010
Land Use
Objective 7.5. To meet the need for multiple family dwellings while avoiding conflict
with single family residential areas.
Policies:
LU-32 In considering where future higher density development should
locate, priority shall be given to designated Special Planning
Areas (where such use can be balanced and planned with single
family areas), the Downtoum and areas with high levels of
transit service.
LU-33 Unless required for other purposes, the need for new higher
density developments shall be based on local need for such
units and should not substantially exceed a fair regional share
of such housing.
LU-34 Multiple-family developments should be located functionally
convenient to the necessary supporting facilities including
utilities, arterials, parks, transit service, etc.
LU-35 Design codes and guidelines are developed for multifamily
housing to ensure high quality design and compatibility with
surrounding development. These standards should be reviewed
periodically to remain consistent with planning trends and
market demands.
LU-36 Multiple family dwellings shall not be permitted as a matter of
right in single family residential districts, but should be
permitted only where necessary to remove potential blight, to
buffer single family uses from incompatible uses or activities,
or to allow effective use of vacant azeas. Standards for such
siting should provide for design review to ensure compatibility
and provide that the density of development is consistent with
the density of the adjoining single family uses.
LU-37 Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged as a buffer
between single family areas and more intense uses. Such
buffering is appropriate along arterials where existing platting
prevents effective lot layout for single family units. Also, such
buffering is appropriate between single family areas and
commercial and industrial uses. Where there aze established
single family areas, the design and siting of moderate density
units shall be controlled to reduce potential conflicts and to en-
sure bufFering of uses. Higher density units are not to be
considered such a buffer.
Page 3-17
Amended 2010
Land Use
• LU-38 Higher density developments or, larger scale multiple family
developments should be limifed to residential areas where they
can be developed as a unit with the necessary supporting
facilities. 3uch development shall provide adequate access by
developed arterials with minimal potential to generate traffic -
through single family azeas. Extensive buffering measures
sha11 be required where such areas adjoin single family
residential areas. Care should be exercised to avoid creating
- barriers to pedestrian-and bicycle inovement. Where feasible,
new multiple family development ' should be planned in
conjunction with single family and moderate density
development.
Manufactured
Homes Manufactured homes provide affordable housing to many Auburn
resiiients. In many cases, they provide'the opportunity of home ownership
fo households which cannot afford to purchase more traditional types of
housing. However, ,poorly designed, high density manufactured home
parks can raise the same issues that multiple family developments pose.
Careful design and placement of manufactured housing iri parks especially
with appropriate landscaping, can greatly reduce problems associated with
such development. -
This Plan's policies continue to recognizethe benefits that manufactured
homes can have on housing affordability: Improved codes requiring high
standards for the design and siting of manufactured home parks and units
on individual lots should be implemented.
Objective 7.6 To continue to allow manufactured homes as an affordable form of home
' ownership, provided that such developments are carried out in a rnanner
which supports rather:than detracts from the quality of the community and
adjacent uses.
Policies:
LU-39 The siting of.new manufactured home parks shall be subject to
the same,. policies applicable to high density residential
development. Manufactured home 'park densities should not
exceed 8 units per acre. New mariufactured home parks "shall
be bordered or contained by physical features, or planned and
, designed as part of a larger development incorporating other
Page 3-18
Amended 2010
Land Use
housing types in a manner which limits further manufactured
. home pazk expansion into adjacent areas. : . LU-40 Manufactured homes shall: be permitted on single family lots
provided that they are sited.;and constructed in a manner which_,
would blend with adjacent homes. Manufactured homes must
be new units, meet` minimum dimensional standards (double
wide) and be placed on permanent foundations, consistent with .
State law.
Moderate and High
Income Housing The City wants to increase the amount of housing oriented toward those
. with moderate and high incomes; A jurisdiction typically encourages a
type of development by providing _ incentives which lower the cost of
- , producing that development type;, t.hereby increasing its potential .
. profitability. With the limited financial resources available to
' municipalities it is difficult to; justify financial incentives to increase the
- profita.bility of the production of market rate housing. Further, since the
production of housing for moderate and higher income groups is profitable
. without these incentives, it is not clear that incentives will have the desired
, effect of increasing the number of ho,uses produced. Potential solutions to this issue need to address the demand side of the
. market-rather-tlian the supply.. .The market will provide these types of
housing if there is sufficient -demand for it within the city. Aubum.can
. increase the . demand for housing by those with. moderate and higher
, incomes by improving its -image within the region and making itself
. known as a: desirable place - to live. A comprehensive approaeh to
increasing tlie demand for moderate and high income housing is through
thedmplementation of this comprehensive plan. By building a community
with parks and open spaces; job opporEunities, high environmental quality,
and abundant supportive services including commuter rail, Auburn will
create for itself a more desirable image within the region and therefore a
wider range of income groups will choose to live in Auburn.
Policy:
LU-41 Development regulations should ensure that Auburn obtains its
"fair share" of high end : single family housing. This does not
represent a decrease in Auburn's commitment to maintaining
the majority of its. housing stock as housing affordable to
middle income households.
Neighborhood
, Page 3-19
' Amended 2010
Land Use
Quality Auburn's existing stable ' residential neighborhoods form an important
component of the _ community's character. Maintaining the vitality and
stability of these rieighborhoods is a key goal of this Comprehensive Plan. :
GOAL 8. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY '
-
To maintain and protect all viable' and stable residential neighborhoods.
Objective 8.1 To maintain and enhance a11 viable arid stable residential neighborhoods.
Policies -
LU-42 Regulatory decisions . in all residential neighborhoods shall
- result in maintenance. or eriharicement of the neighborhood's
residential character: a. The -location of' uses other than those pernutted outright
sha11 only be allowed as specified in this comprehensive
- - ` plan and in the zoning code: 'b. Approval of any non-residential land use shall occur only
after a public hearing.process..
- c. The City recognizes the important role that public facilities
'(such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks and elementary
schools) and limited' scale -quasi-public uses (such as
smaller churehes and daycare centers) play in maintaining
viable residential neigtiborhoods. d. Single family detached residential, neighborhoods should be
protected from intrusion by, non-residential or large scale -
multi-family uses. - ,
LU-43 The City shall seek to abate existing incompatible uses in
residential neighborhoods. Mineral extraction operations
within mineral resource areas (1VIap 9.4) operating in ' compliance with the conditions of 'their pernut are not
incompatible uses.
LU-44 Home occupations in residential neighborhoods shall be
permitted only if they! comply with performance standards that
ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses..
LU-45 Limited agricultural uses and commercial uses (such as daycare
, centers) may be permitted as a principal use, but only under
Page:3;20
Amended2010 -
~
, Land Use
appropriate c.onditions, by means of conditional use_ or
administrative use: permits 'when landscaping a.rid design ~
' features can be used to" inirLi„izP iinpacts on surroundirig uses
and the site is:
a. Along the border of residential neighborhoqds; or
In specific areas where site specific conditions may limit
the :use of the site for residential uses; or
c. Along arterials transecting residential neighborhoods.
. LU-46 Development standards and regulations for residential areas -
- should avoid unnecessary .barriers ; to the renovation and
improvement of homes in established neighborhoods built to
previous standards.
, LU-47 '•The City should give special attention to improving the quality
of low income neighborhoods and seek to implement programs
- which. encourage rehabilitation of deteriorating structures and
facilides in such neighborhoods. (Guidance for ttus policy is
provided by the City's annual Block Granf Program Plan.)
" Objective 8.2 ;To provide.for the orderly transition to other uses of older residential areas
that are no longer viable.
Policies: .
LU-48 -The management of areas.in transition from existing residences
to a,,planned non-residential use, should `balance the needs of
existing residents with the need to accommodate new uses.
LU-49 Greater flexibility should be provided for home occupations in
transitional areas. LU-50 ; Whenever, considering ' a conversion - from single < family, to.
another use; the applicant's` burden shall be on demonstrating
~the unsuitability of an'area _for continued single family use.
Commercial
Development Commercial land development provides needed services and jobs to
Auburn.. and regional: residents and visitors. Further, it is, a major
component of Aubiun's tax base through the sales tax and property taxes it
generates.
Page 3-21 .
Amended 2010
. ~
Land Use
- j
There are several different types of commercial land, each providing
_ different types of services and jobs. The discussion and policies that
follow recognize the, importance of each of these types of commercial
development and the important role that they play.
GOAL 9. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
To maintain. and establish a variety of commercial environnients which
provide the full range of commercial services to the community and region
in : a manner which reduces conflicts between . different types of
commercial services and other uses. ~
Neighborhood Commercial
Sma11 commercial centers witluri or adjacent to residential neighborhoods
~ serve a useful function in providing convenient access to neighborhood
residents for their "everyday". or "convenience" shopping needs. These
- centers ! can serve to reduce the number of automobile trips or at least
- shorteri, them by providing -services near one's residence. For
' neighborhood centers to provide these benefits, attention must be paid to
' ensuring adequate access to these centers from the adjacent neighborhood.
. However, these commercial areas can 'also adversely affect a
rieighborhood by generating traffio and land use conflicts. .
Due largely to the extensive commercialization of Auburn Way and the
north/south orientation of the developed portions of Auburn, few
residential neighborhoods within the city lie more than several blocks
from a commercial area. Significant outlying commercial centers have
also 'been developed, so 'that the currently developed residential
neighborhoods are adequately -served. However, future large seale
_ residential developments will create a need for new small-scale
commercial centers. This Plan's policy toward neighborhood.commercial
centers balances needs for shopping convenience with the protection of . residential neighborhoods, and seeks -to limit the development of new
inappropriate commercial strips.
Objective 9.1. To provide for the convenience commercial needs of residential areas,
while protecting existing,and future residential neighborhoods from the
disruptive effects of commercial intrusions.
Policies:
LU-51' Existing neighborhood oriented commercial centers should be
identified and designated. Commercial uses within these
Page 3=22
Amended2010 -
, Land iJse .
centers should be limited .to those having primary market areas
considerably smaller than the entire community. LU-52 Designated neighborhood commercial centers should be
prevented from spreading along the arterials that serve them.
LU-53 A prime consideration in permitting the expansion of existing
neighborliood commercial areas shall be. the ability to
adequately buffer: any, nearby residences from disruptive
impacts: •
• LU-54 In :some: instances of existing neighborhood commercial
_ centers, a trarisition zone of moderate density residential uses`
should be designated between the center and single family
residential areas.
LU-55 New neighborhood commercial centers should be considered
under tfie "$pecial Planning Areas" concept. Such areas should
be carefiilly designed and: integrated into the overall area
' development plan so as. to minimize traffic and land use
conflicts. Commercial uses, should be limited to those having
, primary market areas approximately the size of the special
planning area.
LU-56 Consideration should be given to providing adequate access to
, neighborhood commercial development by non-motorized
. modes such as walking and biking. Barriers to these modes
such as wa11s and fences: should be removed when possible and
- sliall be avoided in new development.
Mized Use Centers ,
Commercial centers at times can through a proper mix of uses be
integrated with. residential components: These mix use centers serve in
providing convenient. services,.. alternative living environments, and
efficient use of both land and infrastructure.
Objective 9.2; , To provide where appropriate mixed 'use of commercial and residential
development desigried to . assure. - compatibility of uses inside the
commercial center and adjacent residential neighborhoods
. Policy:
, LU- 57 Mixed-use developments with both commercial and residential
components are encouraged in Light Commercial centers.
. These developments should include primarily retail stores and
Page 3-23 ,
Amended 2010
l
Land Use
,
offices designed to provide convenient shopping and other ~
services for neazby residents. Industrial arid heavy commercial
: uses should be excluded.
Design features of mixed-use developments should include the
integration of the retail and/or office uses and residential units
within the 'same building or on the same parcel: Ground level
spaces should be built and used predominately to accommodate
retail and office uses. Off-street pazking should be located
behind or to the side of the buildings, or -enclosed within
buildings. Accessible pedestrian connections and bicycle paths
' must be designed to facilita.te safe: connections within the
development,-al ong adjacent roads adjacent and to adjacent
. . residential developments. .
Design guidelines for mixed-use development have been
developed. These guidelines should be reviewed and amerided
.
periodically to :be consistent with current„planning trends and
market demands.
Highway Commercial -
While commercial uses alorig arterials (often called "strip commercial"
- development) provide iinportant services to community residents, the
: proliferationof commercial uses along arterials 'iaises several,land use
planning 'issues. On the negative side, strip commercial development
, . creates traffic flow problems'and conflict with adjacent land uses. Due to
their "linear", nature, commercial strips result in a maximum area of -
contact between commercial uses and other land uses resulting in a high
potential for'land use conflicts. Poor visual character due to excessive
_ signage and architectural styles designed to attract attention instead of
' promoting a sense of community is an additional concern. Pedestrian-
shopping is made difficult, resulting in greater generation of automobile
traffic, and large fields of asphalt parking lots aze needed to accommodate
single purpose vehicle trips. .
D'espite the problems associated with commercial development along '
- arterials, many such locations are often quite unsuitable for other uses, due
to the impacts.associated with heavy ti~c volumes. Also, mariy
commercial uses thrive at such locations due to liigh visibility and.
accessibility. The Plan seeks to manage existing arterial commercial areas
to take advanta.ge of the accessibility they, provide, while minimizing
traffic and land use conflicts and improving their visual . appearance :
through an enhanced design review process and development standards. ,
Page:3-24 Amended 2010
Land Use
Objective 9.3. To encourage the appropriate use of areas adjacent to heavily traveled
arterials while minimizing land use and traffic conflicts by:
• Managing the continued commercial development of existing
commercial arterials in a manner which minimizes traffic and land use
conflicts.
• Conserving residential qualities along heavily traveled arterials which
are not yet commercialized, by restricting commercial development to
types which provide an appropriate buffer.
• Protecting existing, viable residential areas along lesser-traveled
arterials, from commercial development.
Policies:
LU-58 The City shall identify those existing commercial arterials that
aze appropriate for continued general (heavy) commercial
development, and those arterials that are appropriate for
continued or future limited (i.e. professional office type)
commercial development.
' LU-59 The City sha11 review its standa.rds relating to the number, size
and location of driveways to ensure consistency with goals and
policies relating to arterial commercial development.
LU-60 T'he City shall encourage the grouping of individual
commercial enterprises along commercial arterials to promote
the sharing of parking areas, access drives and signs. Such
grouping can be encouraged through land division regulations,
sign regulations and development standards.
LU-61 Moderate density multiple family residential development shall
be used to buffer general (heavy) commercial arterial
development from single family development. Extensive
screening and landscaping shall be used to buffer . general
commercial uses from multiple family uses. However, the
placement of walls and fences and site designs which prevent
easy access by bicyclists and pedestrians should be avoided.
LU-62 Arterials experiencing strong pressure for commercial
development, but not yet committed to general (heavy)
commercial uses, sha11 be designated for mixed light
commercial and moderate density multi-family uses.
Development regulations should encourage the development of
professional office and similar uses and small scale multiple
Page 3-25
Amended 2010
Land Use
family housing, with devel'opment and design standards
carefully drawn to"; ensure preservation of a quality living
environment in adjacent neighborhoods. Development
regulations could also allow other light commercial and higher
density multi-family housing, subject to an extensive public
review, and possibly a design review process.
LU-63 : Residential arterials having good potential for long term
maintenance of a quality, living _ environment should be
protected from the intrusion of commercial uses. In some
instances, these may be appropriate locations for churches and
other religious institutions, or moderate density multiple family
uses.
LU=64 Newly developed arterials shall incorporate design features,
and development of adjacent land shall be managed such that
. creation of new commercial strips is avoided. Land division
regulations shall result in 'single family residences being
- oriented away from the arterial; with access provided by a non-
. arterial'street. _
LU-65 Commercial strip development along Auburn Way South
should be limited to north of the R Street overpass. .:LU-66 : The City should develop design standards and guidelines for
development along arterials to improve their visual appearance.
The Regional SuperMall '
The development of the "SuperMall of the Great Nortlrwest on 155, acres
near the junction of SR167 and ,SR18 in.the 1990's has led to a "destination" mall attracting consumers from long distances.
. During the Mall's development review, a number of issues were raised.'
Included in these issues were the impacts of the SuperMall on Auburn
downtown and the possibility, of commercial. sprawl around the SuperMall that would exacerbateimpacts to the downtown and traffic azound the
;P
Su er1VIa11.
Since that time, several factors have changed. Auburn's downtown, as a
designated urban center, has deyeloped. a more specific vision for the
, community. Also,,it is not expected that the SuperMall will develop to its
maximum square footage and retail commercial uses have become a more
important local government revenue source.
~ Page 3-26
Amended 2010
Land Use
. The City should continue its:commitment to the SuperMall's development _ as a regional attraction; and take advantage of the SuperMall's presence to
complement strategies related to downtown preservation and development.
Objective 9.4. To capture the retail market` of customers visiting the SuperMall and
- strengthen .-•Auburn's ;role as: a major -retail commercial center for the
- . . ' region.
Policies:
LU-67 Support.`commercial- development around the SuperMall that
complements its role as a regional shopping center. LU-68 The City will oppose.the development of a regional shopping
; . center in the unincorporated areas in the vicinity of the city.
LU-69 The Gity. will seek ways to draw customers from the SuperMall
into the, downtown and other areas within the city.
" LU-70 The City shall continue _ to recognize and support the
development of dowritown Auburri as a focal point of the
. Aubum community.
Downtown. ,
Auburn - Downtowns have, historically served , as the business, cultural and
goyemmental focal points of their communities. In many communities .
(like Auburn). this role has been challenged by new shopping patterns..
focused on regional malls and commercial, areas outside of the downtown. Maintaining' a healthy and 'vital downtown Aubum continues to be
important as it is recognized by residents as a focal point of the com-
munity and an important element ofthe City's identity.
In May 2001, the Aubum City Council adopted the Aubum Downtown -
Plan. The Aubum Downtoviwn Plaii ~'is the City's updated strategy to
continue its do,wntown revitalization efforts consistent with State, regional
and local growtli management pYanning concepts and strategies. . The
Aubum Downtown.Plan, and this Plan, provides that Downtown. Aubum
should remairi the commercial; cultural and governmental focal point for
~ the community. Efforts to enhance this function for powntown Aubum
` are strongly;supported. The Aubum Downtown Plan is based on implementing policies and
strategies through partnerships and Innovative techniques. The City, the
downtown business community and members of tlie community at-large
Eage 3-27
` Amended 2010
. Land Use
will need to work closely together to maintain and upgrade the quality of
the downtown working, living and shopping environment. .
Part of the impetus for developing, new strategies to approach dowritown
revitaliza.tion is the developmerit of the' Sound. Transit Commuter Rail
Transit Station. The Auburn Downtown Plan seeks to build on the
excitement . and energy -resulting from public investment in the Transit
Sta.tion and in other public investments such as the Thiid Street Grade
Separation project.
The Auburn Downtown Plan envisions downtown as an urban center.
- Designation as an urban center . was achieved in 2004. Aubum's urban
center: ~ Establishes a 2204cre planning area that is the focus for downtown
redevelopment. .
• Provides incentives for downtown development and redeyelopment
' through policy direction that supports:
, -Elimination of transportation impact fees;
-Elimination of storinwater improvements for
- redevelopment of existing sites -that do not result in an
increase in impervious surface;
' -Lower level of service for transportation facilities; and,
-Reduction in the off=street parking requirements compared
to other areas in the city.
o Encourages non-motorized pedestrian arid bicycle connections and
~ linkages to and within the, urban center area.
s Encourages protectiori of historic assefs and - resources from
redevelopment activities: ' m Identifies potential catalyst projects. and sites to spur development -
activity in the dowritown and better focus redevelopmerit and
marketing efforts. `
Encourages more residential development downtown and also 24- ,
hour type uses and nigYittime activity. • Seeks fo remove undesirable' land uses `and other blighting
influences in the downtown area. s Promotes street improvements and entiancements to improve access
and'the visual qualities of the streetscape. '
' In early 2007, the City established a new zoning district for the majority of
downtown, the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) district. Unlike other
zones, this district allows all types of land uses unless specifically
prohibited. In addition, it regulates the intensity of development by
allowed Floor Area Ra.tio (FAR) and provides incentives for higher
intensity of use. T'he DUC zone also features relaxed parking standarcis '
Page 3-28
Amended 2010
L'and Use '
from those found in other zone districts and by reference, adopted Design
Standards to ensure a high quality of development in the downtown area.
GOAL 10 . . DOWNTOWN .
` To encourage development and redevelopment within Downtown Auburn
which reflects its unique character as the community's historic center, that
is consistent with the Auburn Downtown Plan's vision for powntown
Auburn as an urban center within King, County and the Puget Sound.
region. ,
Objective 10.1 To preserve and enhance the role of downtown Auburn as the focal point
of, the Auburn community for; busine"ss, governmental and cultural
activities: . , Policies:
. , LU-71 For the purpose of.implexrienting the goal and policies for
, downtown Auburn,."dowritown"_ shall generally be considered
that azea bounded on the south by Highway 18; on the east by
~"F" Street; on the riorth by Park Avenue (extended); and on 1he
wesf by the Union Pacific.tracks. (See Map 3.3)
LU-72 Auburn's urban centerLregional growth center boundaries
- ; sha11 be those established as the planning area for tlie Auburn
. Downtown Plan adopted May 2001 (See Map 3.4).
LU-73 Implement the policies and strategies of the Auburn Downtown
' Plan to support development of Aubum's urban center.
LU 74 Encourage the attainment of urban center growth forecasts
through implementation of higher intensity development to
achieve the efficient use of land.
LU 75 Downtown shall continue to be recognized as the business,
governmerital and cultural focal point of the community. A
diversity of uses including~ multifamily residential ` should be
encouraged to maintain~a vibrant, active and competitive center
for the City of Auburn.
LU76 The City should contiriue to support the development and
rehabilita.tion of multiple* family housing in the Doumtown, as
patt of mixed use projects.
LU-77 The City shall maintain an ongoing downtown planning and
action program involving, the downtown business community
Page 3-29 . Amended 2010
Land Use
, - and other interested groups. This activity should be guided by
this Plan and the Auburn Downtown Plan.
LU-78 The City shall continue to give priority consideration to the .
maintenance and improvement of public facilities and services
in the downtown azea.
Downtown Land Uses ,
Objective 10.2 To recognize azeas within the downtown that have identifiable characters
and uses. '
. LU-79 The area north of First- Street Nortli; west of Auburn Avenue,
south of Fifth Street North and east of the Burlington Northem
tracks should be designated, and managed as a medical and
professional services area. New . heavy commercial and
industrial uses should be prohibited and existing ones
amortized. Commercial uses ' supporting medical and
professional uses should receive priority. -LU=80 The area lying generally.east of "D" Street S.E. and south of
Main Street (not incTuding the Main Street frontage) sha11 be
designated for mixed residential and commercial uses.
' LU-81 The azea lyirig generally between Auburn Way North (but not
' • properties. abutting AVVN) arid Auburn High School should be
designated for multiple family residential uses.
LU-82 Automobile oriented uses within the Downtown Urban Center sha11 be developed and located. in accordance with' the policy
direction of the Auburn Dowritown Plan and implementing
DUC, Downtown Urban Center code requirements.
. Downtown Urban Design
Objective 10.2: , To ensure that all new development and redevelopment in the downtown
' reflect the rxnique character of the area:
LU-83 The CitY sha11 develoP Pro ams and ordinances to Preserve
, and protect downtown's historic character. Development cgdes
should be revised as needed to recognize the uriiqueness of , downtown through appropriate performance standards and
design guiclelines. A high level of visual ameriity should be
pursued, and no heavy outdoor uses or outdoor storage should
- be allowed.
Page 3-30
Amended 2010 _
Land Use
LU-84 The downtown area shall :be comprised of a mixture of uses
_ consistent. with the area's role as the focal point of the
. community. These uses shall be primarily "people-oriented" as
opposed. to "automobile-oriented", and shall include
commercial, medical, governmental, professional services,
cultural and residential uses.
, LU-85 Regulations for the retail core of downtown should encourage
retail uses, but should discourage uses which result in a high
proportion of: single use vehicle trips (such as fast food
, restaurants and drive-through windows).
Downtown Transportation
Objective 103: To emphasize pedestrian traffic and transit usage in the downtown.
LU-86 Empliasis should be given to enhanc.ing pedestrian linkages
between the Hospital area, the Main Street retail core, the
- Performing Arts Ceriter, the southwesterri portion of
Downtown, and the parking. area adj acent to Safeway. An
, important element of this emphasis will be to reduce the
pedestrian barrier effect of Aubum Avenue and Auburn Way.
LU-87 The City should build upon past efforts to improve pedestrian
: amenities, through public improvements, sign regulations and
development standards. The maintenance of public and private
improvements should tie given priority commensurate with
downtown's role as the focal point of the community.
° LU-88 T'he City shall work with transit providers to increase the
availability and effectiveness of transit in downtown and
between downtown, other commercial and employment areas,
. residential. areas, and. the region at large.
LU-89 As regional transportation programs such as commuter rail are
. implemented, the City will strive to ensure that the downtown
is a beneficiary. Downtown Parking Objective 10.4: To develop: a parking program.-for the doumtown which recognizes the
area's historic pedestrian character, while providing sufficient parking for
customers of all businesses, residents, and commuteis.
: Page 3-31
Amended 2010 '
_
Land Use
LU-90 A strong Downtown shall be encouraged through improved
parking, circulation, and the grouping of business outlet's _and
~ governmental services. Pazking standards should be developed
which recognize the unique nature of downtown parking
demand. The City should work witli the business community
in public/private partnerships to . develop a coordinated and
- effective approach to : providing adequate parking and
circulation.
LU-91 , A strong Downtown shall be encouraged through improved
:parking, circulatiqn, and groupirig of business outlets and
governmenta.l services. The development of publie-parking
lots to serve the downtowri should be guided by a Downtown
Pazking Plan.
LU-92 The City views adequate parking in the downtown area as a
critical step in implementing the downtown policies and the
rehabilitation policies of this Plan . All business in the
downtown area will be hindered if adequate pazking is not
available. However, parking needs coupled with rehabilitation
needs in the downtown area require special policies:
a. Some flexibility in the general pazking requirements of the
City may be necessary to accommodate reuse of `existing
_ buildings and to aceommodate new development. Such
flexibilify should be directed 'at seeking to pool parking
. resources through :the formation of a Downtown parking
, LID when- such parking cannot be provided by the business _
or through shared parking agreements.
b. Since rigid parking requirement"s wi1T interfere with
redevelopment of downtown, and. the pattern of existing
development restricts the amount of parking available,
public development of parking in the downtown area is
- appropriate. .
c. A comprehensive study of the parking needs of downtown
should be made to deternune the most efficient method of
meeting the unique parking demands of the area.
, d. Parking policy for the downtown needs to balance the
- impact of parking on downtown's pedestrian character,
_ economic development and transit usage.
Downtown Redevelopment
Page 3-32
Amended 2010
Land Use.
Objective 10.5: To work with all interested groups on revitalizing the Downtown area.
LU-93 The City of Auburn should strive to maintain active working _
relationships with, the Auburn - Dowritown Association, the,
. Cha.mber of Commerce and other groups whose goal is -the '
revita,lization of downtown.•. The City will seek to become a
partner with these -and other groups; where feasible, iri
public/private partnerships that,further the goal of downtown
revitalization. LU-94 , The City shall continue to support legislation to improve fiscal ~ 1`everage'in urban rehabilitation programs.
LU-95 The City shall continue to support the-redevelopment efforts of
. the private sector in the downtown area.
Industrial
Development Aubum's industrial land and the development that it supports accounts for
. a significant pereentage of the City's tax base. It also provides a large
al land is
number of jobs to both city, and regional residents.. G.ood industri
.
a limited resource: and should be fully :utilized to :maximize its potential
. benefits: Industrial , development typically utilizes extensive, amounts of
land and is typically. located: nearmajor,transportation facilities. For these
. reasons, industrial::activities are often quite visible. For people traveling
on SR167, industrial development,is the primary view they have of
Auburn.
Streamlined Sales Tax legislation changes the tax structure within the state
and has specific consequences for iridustrial, warehouse and distribution.
cities such as Auburn. In response to the . State's consideration of such
legislation, the Auburn City Counc'il approved Resolution No. 3782 in
November 2U04.
Resolution No...3782 outlines :an-approach and actions the City will take
related to land, use~. planning; zoning and other matfers in the event a
streamlined sales tax proposal or other similar proposals that change the
tax structure are adopted:. Included in this resolution is direction to
consider amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning codes" to
reevaluate the existing industrial land use designations and patterns in the
_ City. -
GOAb, ll.: INDUST1tIAL DEVELOPMENT. .
To provide for, establish and maintain a balance of industrial uses that
respond to local and regional needs and enhance the city's image through
Page 3-33 '
Amended 2010
Land Use
optimal siting and location, taking info cqnsideration tax policy impacts of
streamlined sales tax andlor other similar legislation. '
Type of Industrial Uses
There is a wide vaziety of possible industrial uses that could be sited in
Auburn. As with the mix of residential uses, the mi3c of industry also
affects the image of the city. The regional image of the city is that of an
industrial suburb with an emphasis on heavy indushy. This image is quite
apparent as one traveTs along Highway. 167 where there is an almost
unending view of high-bay warehouse buildings.
Different types of industrial areas should be separated since some types of
; industrial activities conflict with other industrial activities (especially
those of a more desirable character). Such separation should be based
primarily on performance standards.
Location of Industrial Uses `
Before the adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, there had been little
-separation of various types of industrial uses. At the time, there was no .
well understood policy, basis regarding the separation of different types of
industrial uses. arid some.. azeas very suitable for high quality. light
,
industrial. uses were committed to heavier uses: High visibility corridors
' developed with a heavier industrial eharacter and established a heavy
industry image for the city. The Plan provides clear distinction between
different industrial uses. It also reserves azeas for light industrial uses.
Objective l l.l. To create a physical image for the city conducive to attracting ligtit
industry. .
Policies: _
- LU-96.. Highly visible areas which tend to- establish the image of the
city should not be used by heavy industrial uses.
LU=97 The City shall promote high quality development of all light
industrial and warehouse areas: -
LU-98 The City shall aggressively seek to abate all potentially
blighting influences in industrial areas, especially, in areas
visible to regional traffic flows and in areas designated for lighf'
J industrial uses.
Objective 11.2. To establish performance standards appropriate for developing industrial
azeas. - Page 3-34
Amended 2010
~
Land Use
Policies:
LU-99 Compatibility among land uses should be enhanced through
landscaping, building orientation and setbacks, traffic control
and other measures to reduce potential conflicts.
LU-100 All industrial development should incorporate aesthetically
pleasing building and site design. The City shall amend its
codes and performance standards which govern industrial
development to implement this policy.
a. Procedures shall be established to ensure aesthetically
pleasing building and site design in areas designated for
light industrial azeas.
b. Appropriate landscaping and site development standazds
sha11 regulate site development in heavy industrial areas.
c. Unsightly views, such as heavy ma.chinery, service
entrances, storage areas, rooftop equipment, loading docks,
and parking azeas should be screened from view of adjacent
retail, commercial, light industrial and residential areas and
from public streets.
LU-101 Needed rights-of-way, on-site and off-site road improvements,
and utilities should be assured before development occurs.
LU-102 Individual development proj ects shall provide the following
minimal improvements in accordance with established City
standards:
a. Full standard streets and sidewalks in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
b. Adequate off street parking for employees and patrons.
c. Landscaping.
d. Storm drainage.
e. Water.
f. Sanitary sewers.
g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed
streets.
Objective 11.4. To reserve azeas appropriate for industrial development.
Policies:
Page 3-35
Amended 2010
Lena vs;7
LU-103 Any significarit industrial activity shall be limited to the
designated Region Serving Area of the city (see 1Viap 3.2): The
City recognizes that industrial development's place varying demands on the community's quality -of life and service
capabilities. In addition to demonstrating a developments'
` consistency with Plan policies; applicable land use regulations,
and environmental policies, significant industrial development
shall be encouraged to provide, a balance between service
demands and impacts placed on the city's quality of life vs. the
local benefits derived from such development. The extent to
which industrial development is promoted sha11 also. take into
consideration tax policy and tax structure impacts upon the
City.
LU-104 Residential uses in industrial areas shall be allowed in
industrial azeas that have been established to promote a
business park environment that complements environmental
features, and/or if development standards are developed to
promote compatibility between residential and other non-
• residential land uses.
- " LU-105 The grouping of uses which will mutually benefit each other or
- provide needed services will be encouraged.
a. Compatible commercial uses may be permitted in
. designated iridustrial areas.
b. Planned developments (such as "office. pazks") which
provide a mixture of -light - industrial with supporting
_ commercial- uses are encouraged. - "
c. Uses which support industrial and warehouse activities '
- should be located neaz those uses.
LU-106 Development of designated industrial sites shall be consistent
with applicable environmental standards and policies. LU-107 Land made available for industrial development, and uses
' allowed in industrial zones, sliall take into consideration impacts of tax policy and tax structure upon the City of .
Auburn. . Objective 11.4. To reserve and protect areas which are highly suitable for light industrial
development. Policies: .
Page 3-36
Amended 2010
Land Use,
LU-108 Desigriation of light industrial areas shall have priority over
heavier industrial uses:
LU-109 Highly -visible areas (land visible from SR167 or SR18) which
' tend to. establish the image of the city should not be used by heavy:.industrial uses: Rather, efforts should be ma.de to
develop zoning districts that ' complement industrial
development- adjacent to :environmental features such as the "
Auburn Environmental Park:
Objective 11.5. To identify areas appropriate for heavy industrial uses.
' - Policies:
' LU-110- Heavy iridustrial uses shall be separated from lighter industrial,
commercial and residential areas:
- LU-11:1 • The most appropriate areas for heavy industrial uses are in the
central part of the Region Serving Area adjoining the rail lines.
LU-112 Heavy:industrial uses are appropriate in the southem portion of
the Region Serving Area whieh is now developed in large scale
industrial facilities.
` LU-113 Heavy industrial uses sha11 be strictly prohibited from the
, Community Serving Area of Auburn. (see 1VIap 3.2). T'he only
exception to this general policy shall be ttie continued heavy
industrial`use of the area east of "A" Street S.E., as shown by ,
the Comprehensive Plan Map.
Redevelopment . ,
andlnfill A major goal of the Growth Management Act is to reduce=urban sprawl.
One way to minimize sprawl= is to fully develop areas already receiving
urban services ' prior to extending these ` services to additional areas. A
furrher benefit of redevelopment is that it may lead to the removal of
buildings and _uses that detract from an area. Redevelopment cari serve as
a major catalyst in the stabilization and revitalization of areas throughout
. , the city.
GOAL 12. URBAN 12EDEVELOPMENT
To encourage redevelopment of underutilized areas to reduce sprawl. and take full advantage of the City's investment in existing infrastructure. Objective: 12.1 To facilitate infill development. .
. . Page 3-37
Amended 2010
• Land Use
_ Policies: ,
.
LU-114\ Encourage well designed infill and redevelopment projects to
- fully utilize previous investment in ~ existing infrastiiicture in
the single family residential, `moderate density residential, and high density residential: designated areas of tlie City.
LU-115 Reduce the consumption of undeveloped land by facilitating
tlie redevelopment of underutilized land and infill -of vacant
pazcels whenever possible in the single family residential,
moderate density residential, 'ind high density residential
. designated areas of the City.
LU-116 Explore innovafive mechanisms fo encourage the more
: efficient use of land including density bonuses and sale of air
rights.
LU-117 Identify areas for commercial infill development and focus
. street aud - utility ; systems improvements to facilitate their
. development. _
.
Page 3-38 .
Amended 2010
CHAPTER 9
THE ENVIRONMENT,
Introduction
One of the key attractions of Auburn and the Puget Sound Region has
always been the abundant natural resources found throughout the area.
The Green River Va11ey was once a major supplier of agricultural goods
for the region and farming remains in some parts of the valley. Thick
forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitats are found throughout the area. As
the area develops, many of these features, which serve to make the area
attractive in the first place, are being lost. The strong emphasis placed on
the designation and protection of resource lands and critical areas in the
Growth Management Act, the Countywide Policies and this plan reflect
, the important role that these areas play in maintaining the health, safety
and welfare of the area's citizens.
Issues
Environmental
Constraints
and Land Use The City's overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of
environmental information and factors that are important to the
community. This information can be used to decide if, where and how
certain kinds of development and other activities should be allowed.
City policy should recognize the natural constraints placed on
development by such factors as unstable slopes, flooding and wetlands. A
critical environmental concern is the proper management of gravel
extraction. This is an industry which has been active in Auburn for many
years and which remains a viable industry. The City should establish clear
policies to guide the retention of valued aspects of the City's environment,
such as protection of the City's open space and significant wildlife
habitats. The policy should seek to ensure ample opportunity for the
City's residents to' meet their recreational needs. Policies should be
established to protect the public health, safety and quality of life, and to
also protect the area's most unique, sensitive and productive
Page 9-1
Amended 2010
' Environment
environmental resources. New development should be directed toward area's where their adverse impacts can be minimized.
This Plan has increased the specificity of the City's policies relating to use
and protection of the natural environment. It also proyides a set of general
policies which will be used to require the mitigation of significant adverse
impacts. ,
GOAL 18. ENVIRONMENT ANID NATURAL RESOURCES To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment and preserve the
. quality of life, and. to protect the area's most unique; sensitive and
productive natural resources. To encourage riatural resource industries
. within the city to operate in a manner .which enhances; (rather than
detracts from), the orderly development of the City.
Obj ective 18.1. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of surface water,, ground
water; and shoreline resources in the City and Region.
Polieies:
EN-1. The City shall seek to ensure adequate and healthful supplies of 'domestic water by protecting groundwater from degradation, by
providing for surface : water . infiltration, by minimizing or
prohibiting unnecessary withdrawals of groundwater and by -
preventing unintended, groundwater discharges caused by
disturbance of water-bearing geo'logical formations.
EN-2 Stormwater drainage improvement projects that are proposed to
discharge to'groundwater, such as.open water infiltration ponds,
sha11 provide for surface water pretreatment designed to
- standards outlined in the Washington , State Department of
Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the- Puge4 _
, BasiirWestern Washington. Drainage, improvement projeets that
may potentially result in the exchange,of surface and gTOUnd
waters, such as detention ponds, sha11 also incorporate these
standards. .
EN-3 The City shall seek to minimize degradation to surface water
quality and aqua.tic habitat of creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes
and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of
- such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to
preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of such water"s by
requiring the use of current Best Management Practices fo'r
control of stormwater and nonpoint runoff. `
Page 9-2
Amended 2010
. Environment
EN-4 'I'he City will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks,
streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies with the goal
of no degradation of the :water quality or habitat of the receiving
waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the
water quality and habitat of receiving waters.
EN-5 The. City Shoreline Master Program, shall govern the
development of a11 designated Shorelines of the City (Map 9.1).
Lands adjacent to tliese -areas should be managed in a manner
' consistent with that program.
EN=6 Where:;possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a
natural condition, and degraded streambanks should be enhanced
orrestored.
EN-7 Uses along the Crreen and White Rivers should be limited to
residential, agricultural, open space, recreational, mineral
resource extraction and public and quasi-public uses.
Commercial development sha11 only be alTowed on the rivers, if '
such_ development adds new public access to the shoreline area
and is constructed in a manner that will protect the shoreline and
water quality of the rivers through the use of Best Mana.gement
Practices. :
. EN-8 , Storm drainage structures . and . facilities located within the
' shoreline environment; parklands, or public open space shall
incorporate high standards of design to enhance the natural
appearance, protect signif eant cultural resources and appropriate
use of;the site and surrounding area. Any such facilities located
wittiin the shoreline environment shall be consistent with ttie
State Shoreline Mana.gement Act and the. City's Shoreline
Management Program. If accessible to the general public, such
facilities should, whenevei possible, be designed to preclude the
need for security fencing, 'and should use native vegetation and
be properly maintained.
EN-9 The City shall discourage the use of septic tanks except in those
areas' which are designated for -u~~ses -Residential
Conservancv and have suifable soils.
EN-10 The. City's design standards sha11 ensure that the post .
development peak stormwatei ;runoff rates do not exceed the
predevelopment rates.
- EN-11 The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the
City is-of,equivalent quality to the water entering. This will be
Page 9-3
o Amended 2010 .
Environmeat
- accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface
and ground waters through education programs and
implementation and eriforcement of Best Management Practices.
EN-12 The City sha11 continue to work with adjacent jurisdictions to
enhance and protect water quality in the region through
coordinated and consistent programs and regulations.
EN-13 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water
quality as part of , its environmental review process and reguire
any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources
: shall be a priority coneem im such reviews.
EN-14 The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to
enhance and protect water, quality as dicta.ted by the City's Design
and Construction Standards and the Washington State
- Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washin on. In all new development, approved water, quality treatment measures that are
applicable and represent the best available.science or technology ' -
shall be required prior to discharging storm waters into the City
' . . ' : storm drainage system : or -into ` environmentally sensitive areas
(e.g. wetlands, rivers, arid groundwater.)
EN-15 The City recognizes that, new development can have impacts
including, but not limited to, flooding, erosion and decreased '
water quality on downstream communities and natural drainage
courses. The City shal
l continue to actively participate in
developing and. implementing regional water quality planning
and flood hazard reduction efforts within the Green River, Mill
Creek and White River cirainage basins. The findings and
recommendations of these regional efforts, including, but not
limited to, the "Draft" Special. Area Management Plan (SAMP)
for the Mill Creek Basin, tlie "Draft" Mill Creek Flood Control
Plan, the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agree ment, and .
, the Mill Creek Water Quality Management Plan, shall be '
considered by the City as City programs and plans are developed
and updated. .
EN-16 The City recognizes the value and efficiency of utilizing existing-
. , natural systems (e.g., wetlands) for storm water conveyance and
' . - storage. However, these.. na.tural systems can be severely
impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of
contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems for
, storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider the
. potential for adverse impacts through the environmental review
Page 9-4
< Amended 2010
~ Environment
process. Important natural, systems shall. not be used for storm
drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated
_ that adverse impacts can be ~ adequately mitigated to a less than
significarit level EN-17 The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not
, function efficiently unless maintained. The City sha11 strive to
" ensure that :public and private stormwater collection, detention , and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as
, designed. . '
; .
: EN-17AEncourage. the use of low impact development techniques in public and private development proposals in order to minimize
. ' impervious surfaces and improve water quality. ~
Objective 18.2. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of air resources in the
City and Region.
Policies: -
EN-18 The Gity, shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air
quaTity as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and
animal life, prevent injury to.. property, foster the comfort and
- convenience. of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of
~ the natural attractions ofthe area.
' - EN-19 The City wi1T continue to support and rely on the various State,
, Rederal 'and local programs to continue to protect and enhance air
. . quality.
EN-20 The City shall encourage the retention of vegeta.tion and
encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended
particulates.
,
EN-21 The City shall support ari increased role for public transportation
as a means to reduce locally generated air emissions. ~
EN-22 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air
quality ~ as a part of its environmental review process and require
ariy. appropriate mitigating measures.
Objective 18:3. To continue :to enhance and maintain:the quality of land, wildlife and
vegetative resources in the City and region:
Page 9-5
Amended 2010
' Environment
Policies:
EN-23 -~:•The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing
the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and
- groundcover; by promoting the design and development of
- landscaped azeas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and
by protecting and erihancing the quality of aquatic habitat.
EN 24 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
, quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats
-\(Map, 9.2) and vegetative xesources as, a part of its environmental
review process arid require any appropriate mitigating measures.
Such mitigation: may ,involve the retention of significant habitats
and the use of native landscape vegetation.
EN-25 The preferred method of crossing a watercourse that has habitat
suitable for anadromous fish use or that has the potential to be
rehabilitated for fish use in the future is a bridge. The use of
' culverts sha11 be discouraged as a crossirig . method ' for such
watercourses. Culvert systems may be corisidered if streambeds
similar to - na.tural channels can be provided, no loss of
- anadromous fish habitat will occur or the cost of a bridge is
prohibitive as reasonable method of mitigation.
EN-26 The City shall work in collaboration with other agencies, the
development community and other affected or interested parties
to protect identified wildlife. corridors and encourage the
clustering of significant or adjacent resources to maintain
connectivity of these systems.
`
Objective 18:4. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetla.nd
resourees in the City and region.
Policies: .
EN-27 The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological
roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat,
protecting water quality, reducing - the :need for man-made flood
and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in
providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural
opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions in ~
. a11 new devel'opment a nd will also ~ pursue opportunities to -
enhance the existing wetland system'when these multiple benefits
can be achieved. -
Page 9-6
Amended 2010
Environment .
EN 28 The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of
biological and . hydrological --functions and values to the
community depending on the size, complexity and location of the
, indiyidual system, and that the overall degree of funcdons and
values should be considered when reviewing proposals which
impact. wetlands. In a similar manner, the levels of protection
afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its existing furiction
- and values: The City shall continue to promote policies and
practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically
connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and
aquatic habitat.
- EN-29 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
quality of wetland resources as pa.rt of its environmental review
process and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring
, , - measures of important wetland. azeas. Such mitigation may
involve conservation,,enhancernent or restoration or replacement
of important wetlands, and provisions for appropriate buffering.
, The goal of the mitigation should be no net loss of wetland
functions and values. A permanent deed restriction sha11 be
placed .on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure that they
are preseived in perpetuity;
EN-30 Wetlands which are associated with: a river or stream, or provide
~ significant plant and: animal ha.bitat opportunities are recognized
by the City as the most imgortant wetland systems, and sha11
' reeeive the highest degree of protection and mitigation through
, - . conservation, enhancement or relocation measures. Wetlands
which are limited in size; are isolated from major hydrological
. systems or provide limited hydrological or plant and animal
habitat opportunities may be considered by the City for
. development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate
mitigation.
EN-31 Speculative filling of wetlarids shall only be permitted if in
compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill
Creek, when it.is adopted. "
EN-32. It ;isthe' Gity's intent` fo pursue development of_ an azea-wide
.wetlands management progiram for the entire City to esta.blish a
systems approach to wetlands management. The City sha11 work
: with.:adjacent communities. to adopt and implement the. Special
Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin; a draft
. version;of which has been developed with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The purpose of the SAMP is to establish uniform
wetland definitions and methodology throughout the planning
Page 9-7.
, . . - Amended 2010
• ,
Environment
area, to develop a regional consensus and predictability by
identifying important wetlands which must be conserved and less
. .
im orta.nt wetlands which m
aY be cleveloPed. ''he SAMP is
P
intended to ensure a balance of the City's commitment between
environmental and economic development interests. The City
~ shall strive to streamline the permitting process for development
' in the areas covered by the SAMP:
Map93: General Location of Wetlands Map Note: This map provides an `illustration of wetlands located within
Auburn. Prepared on an azea-wide basis, the inventory map provides a
general delineation of known wetlands based on 'the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers definition and the 1989 Fedeial Manual For ldentifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands field methodology. It is important to
- note that this map is only a wetland inventory and not a wetland plan:
. Over. time wetlands develop, expand and,contract im conjunction with
: changing climatic; natural and artificial conditions. . The map does not imply that a parcel covered by a wetland designarion is
fully occupied by wetlands. It is an indicator, however, that an in. depth
wetland delineation is required. - Therefore, future site specific wetland
studies conducted by the property owner will identify the precise location,
delineation and functional characteristics of known wetland areas, and
_ additional wetland areas not previously inventoried. The Auburn Planning
Department has wetland repoits that can provide information regarding
soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife for:these wetlands.
.
Objective 18.5. To recognize the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation• -
and to promote its retention and propagation. Consideration shall be given `
to promoting the use of native vegetation. Policies: EN=33 The City recognizes the important benefits of nafive vegetation
including its role in attracting native wildlife, preserving the.
natural hydrology, and maintaining the natural charactei of the
Pacific Northwest region. . Native vegetation can also reduce the
use of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminants
that may enter neazby water systems) and reduce watering required of non-native species (thereby promoting conservation).
The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an
'
integral part of public and private deveYopment plans through
strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following:
Page 9-8
Amended 2010
Environment
oEncouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes
and in public facilities. -
o Providing greater clarity in development regulations in how .
_native plants can be used:in private development proposals. -
' - o Pursuing opportunities •to educate the public about the
benefits of native plants.
:EN-33A Development: regulations shall;emphasize the use of native plant
materials :that complement the natural character of the Pacific ,
,
Northwest and which are adaptable. to the climatic fiydrological .
chazacteristics of the. region. Regulations should provide
specif city as to native plant types in order to facilitate their use.
EN-34 The' City:shall discourage tlie unnecessary disturbance of natural
. vegetation, in new development.
EN-35 The City sfiall encourage theuse:of water conserving plants in
. landscaping for both public and private projects.
EN-36 The City shall update a.rid,amend its landscapirig ordinances to
. , ensure that sufficient landscaging is a required component of a11
development. Emphasis-should be placed on higher quality and
quantity of landscaping.
EN-37 The Cityshall strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted at ' protecting large stands of trees and significant trees within the
City.
EN-38 T'he City, shall develop a tree planting and maintenance program.
Objective 18.6. To promote energy efficiency and management of resources in the
development and operation of public facilities and services, as well as in
private development.
Policies: , . EN-39 The City shall encourage the use of renewable energy and other
natural resources over non-renewable resources wherever ` practicable and shall. protect.' deposits or supplies of important
non-renewable natural resources from developments or activities
which will preclude their future utiliza.tion.
EN-40 T'he Gity of Auburn Energy Management Plan is hereby
incorporated. as an element, in this Comprehensive Plan.
Page 9-9
Amended 2010
Environment
EN41- T'he City encourages site, design pra.ctices that maximize winter
exposure to solaz radiation.
;
. ,
EN-41.A The Citv° shall' encouragO and promote the use of electric ,
vehicles by supporting a broad range of opnortunities for vehicle
recharge.
.
Objectiye 18.7. Enhance and maintain the, quality of life for the City's inhabitants by
' promoting a healthy `environment and reducing the adverse impact of -
environniental nuisances. ~
Policies: EN=42 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of aiea inhabitants
to the harmful' effects of excess noise. Performance measures for
~ noise impact on surrounding deyelopment should be adopted and
. enforced. . ' _
EN-43 The City sha11 seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants to excessive levels of liglit and ,glare. Performance measures for
light. and glaze exposure to surrounding development should be
, adopted and enforced. .
EN-44 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants .
. from noxious plant species.
~
Objective 18.8. To establish management policies which effectively control the operation
arid location of mineral: extraction in tlie City, in order to reduce the inherent adverse impacts that such activities produce in an urban
environment.
Policies:
EN-45 The cost effective availability of sand and gravel materials is
needed to support the development of freeways, roads, public
works, and private construction. . Mineral extraction may
; therefore be permitted if in accord with these policies.
EN-46 Existing mineral extraction operations (as specifically authorized
- by a City permit to mine) shall be allowed to continue operation for the duration of, and in accord with; their existing pemuts.
EN-47 Mineral extraction operations shall not be considered a pe'rmitted
,
' use in anY zoning district. TheY are to be reviewed as sPecial
uses and shall be conducted only in _accord with the measures -
Page 9-10
Amended 2010'
Environment
needed to mitigate any adverse impact. Permits for the operation
sha11 be denied whenever any impact is deemed 'by the . City
Couricil to be unacceptable or cannot be acceptably mitigated.
. ,
- • EN-48. A final grading,. dra.inage .and erosion control plan shall be
. ' - submitted with every- application.; Conditions of operation shall
" . be spelled out in detail with:, perfor`mance bonds -required. to
. ensure.compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions will be
adequate grourids for. suspension and subsequent termination of
the pemut:
-EN-49 . The burden to demonstrate compliance with these policies and to
demonstrate .the need for a_new permit or, a renewal of a permit
for any mineral extraction operation rests solely_on the opera.tor. _
The burden to operate in cbmpliance with these policies and any permit issued in accord with the same shall also be on, the
operator. _
EN-50 . The Gity shall consider impacts.of mining on groundwater and
surface water quality as well as possible changes in hydrology as a result of the mining during tlie environmental review process
' and require appropriate mitigating measures to prevent water
. ~ quality degradation. .
. EN-51 ~Mineral resource areas or lands are those lands which have high
quality resources that can be commercially mined.for a minimum
of twenfy, years (Map 9.4). Properties around which urban growth
, is occurring should not be considered as rriineral resource areas.
As required by RCW 36:70A.060, the City shall require
notification on all plats, short plats, development permits and
building permits issued for development within 500 feet of these
lands on which a variety of commercial, activities may occur that
aze not compatible with residential development for certain
periods of limited duration. EN-52 Additional mineral extraction operations or major expansion of
existing operations onto adjacent pazcels shall be permitted
within_ mineral resource areas. Impacts of the operations must be studied thoroughly under the proyisions of SEPA, and the City
sha11 : xequire implementa.tion, of all reasonable mitigating :
measures identified in those studies: Permits for the operation .
. . and renewal, of permits for. existing operations sha11 be denied
whenever,any impact cannof be acceptably mitigated.
EN-53 Additional mineral extracfion qperations or expansions of
: existing operations will only be allowed outside of mineral
Page 9-11 •
Amended 2010
' Environmenf
resource areas where it is advisable to modify slope to create
' usable , land (or to provide another public benefit associated with
- the site) and where the community will suffer no substantial short
or long term adverse effect. Impacts of the operations must be
• studied thoroughly under the proyisions of SEPA, and the City
shall ' require implementa.tion of a1T reasonable mitigating
measures identified in those studies. Permits for the operation
and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied
whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated. EN-54 New mineral extraction operations and expansion of existing
. mineral extraction operations will not be permitted in areas
• designated for "open space" uses.
EN-55 The creation of ;usable land consistent with this comprehensive
plan should be the end result of a mineral extraction operatiori.
The amount of material to be removed sha11 be consistent. with
.
, the end use. While this policy sha11 be rigidly applied to
. developed azeas and to all areas outside of mineral resource
'areas, some flexibility . may be appropriate within mineral
resource areas. -
•
EN-56 Aesthetic qualities, erosion control, the effect on community and
the creation of usable land which is consistent with approved
- Washington State Department of Natural Resources and City
Reclamation Plans shall be the. primary considerations in a
_ decision to grant a perrrnut for a new mineral extra.ction operation
' or to exfend the scope of an existing mineral extraction operation
. outside designated mineral resource areas.
GOAL 19. HAZARDS
To minimize the risk from environmental and manmade.hazards to present
and future residents of the community.
Objective 19. i. To reduce potential hazards associated with flood plains without unduly -
restricting the benefits associated with the continued development of the
Lower Green River Valley floor. .
Policies:
EN-57 The City shall seek to protect human health and. safety and to
minimize damage to the property of area inhabitants by
~ minimizing the potential for and extent of flooding or inundation.
Page 9-12
Amended 2010
_
. Environment
EN-58 Flood prone - properties outside of the floodway may be `
, developable, provided that such development can meet the
' standards set forth in the
, NatioriA Elood Insurance Pro-ram.
EN-59 Any subdivision of property within the flood plain sha11 avoid .
. creating lots which would be subject to serious threats to life,
, health and property from floodwaters.
EN-60 Site plan review shall be required.under SEPA for any significant
. (e.g. over the SEPA threshold) development in the flood plain.
Appropriate mitigating measures shall be required whenever
needed to reduce potential hazards.
EN-61 Any development within the. floodway which would reduce the .
capacity of the floodway shall be prohibited.
EN-62 The City sha11 enact ordinances and review development
proposals in a manner wluch restricts and controls the discharge
, of storm water from new development. At a minimum the peak
, discharge rate after deyelopment sha11 not exceed the peak
discharge rate before development.
EN-63 The City's development standards should require control and
management of storm . waters in a manner wtiich minimizes
impacts from flooding.
` , . .
. EN-64.The: City ~ shall consider the : impacts of new development on
frequently flooded areas (Map 9.5) as part of its , environmental
review process and require, any appropriate mitigating measures.
As part of this review process, flood engineering and impact
sfudies may be required., Within EEMA designated 100 year
floodplains, the Citv of_Auburn Regulatory Floodplain, and other
designated frequently flooded areas, such mitigation may include
flood erigineering "studies; the . provision of compensatory flood storage, floodproof ng of structures, elevating of structures; and ,
downstream or upstream improvements.
EN-65 Areas designated as frequently flooded areas should include 100
yeaz future condition.floodplains wlierever future condition flows
have been modeled arid adopted by the City as part of a basin
plan:~
. EN-66 I"and uses and public and quasi-public facilities which would
present special risks,. such as hazardous waste storage facilities, .
: liospitals, schools, nursing homes, and police and fire stations,
. ~
. . Page 9-13
Amended 2010
Environment
should not be constructed: in designated frequently flooded areas
uriless no reasonable alternative is available. If these facilities
are located in designated frequently flooded azeas, these faeilities
and the access routes 'needed for their operatiori, should be built
in a manner that protects public health and safety during at least
the 100 yeaz flood. In addition, special measures should be taken
' to ensure that hazardous or toxic substances aze not released into
flood waters.
~
EN-67 Developers in floodprone areas shall provide geotechnical
information which identifies ' seasonal lugh groundwater
- elevations for a. basis to design stormwater facilities in
conformance with City design criteria.
EN-68 'The Mill Greek Basin Flood Control Plan, when completed, shall
be the basis for the establishment of downstream drainage
' conditions for development in that area. Objective 192. To ensure that development is properly - loeated and constructed with
respect to the limitations of the underlying soils and subsurface drainage.
. Policies:
EN=69 The City sha11 seek to ensure that land not be developed or
otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or
significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide,
subsidence or substantial soil erosion. The City's development
. standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices to
minimize the potential for these problems.
EN-70 Where there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.6),
' grading should lie kept to a, minimum and disturbed yegetation ,
should• be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for
clearing and grading activity.
EN-71 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on
hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage as a part of
~ its environmental review -process and -require any appropriate
mitigating measures.
EN-72 Large scale speculative filling and gra.ding activities not
- associated with'a development proposal shall be discoura.ged as it
reduces a vegetated site's natural; ability to provide erosion
control and biofiltration, absorb storm water, and filter suspended
. Page 9-14
Amended 2010
'
Environment
particulates. In instances: where speculative filling is deemed
appropriate, disturbed vegetation shall be restored as soon as
- possible, and.:appropriate measures to control erosion and
sedimentation until the site is developed shall be required.
EN-73 T'he City, shall consider the impacts of new development on Class
, . I and _ Class ,1III landslide: hazard. azeas (Map 9:7) as part of its
environmental review process and require , any appro ate
pri
- mitigating measures: The impacts of the new development, both
during and after construction, on adjacent properties shall also be
- considered.
. l. . , . . ' . . . . . , , , . . -
; EN-74 Auburn wi11-seek to retain areas with slopes in excess of 40
. percent as primarily open space areas in order to protect aga.inst
_ erosion: and landslide, hazards :and to limit signif cant removal of
- vegetation- to help conserve : Aubum's identity within the
metropolitan: region. Slopes greater than 15 percent with zones of
. emergent water (springs or grourid water. seepages) and all slopes
witli mapable landslide potential identified by a geotechnical
study shall be protected from alteration.
EN-75 T'he City will require tfiat a geotechnical report prepared by a
professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington with
` expertise in geotechnical . engineering be submitted for all
- significant : activities proposed within Class I and Class III
landslide,-hazard areas(1VIap 93). The City shall develop
administrative guidelines which identify the procedures and
information required for the geotechnical reports.
EN-76 New development within Class I and Class III landslide hazard
areas (Map 9.7) shall be designed and located to minimize site
disturbance and removal: of vegetation, and to maintain the
natural topographic character of the site. Clustering of structures,
- miriimizing building footprints; :and retaining trees and other
, natural vegetation, sha11 tie corisidered.
Objective 19.3. , To. reduce :risks associated with the transportation and storage of
hazardous materials. Policies:
EN-77 The City shall seek to minimize'the exposure of azea inhabitants
to the risk of explosion or hazardous emissions, and to require
proposals involving the, potential risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous " substances to include specific measures
which will protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Page 9=15
• Amended 2010
, . , r
i .
Environment
, . EN-78 The risk of hazardous materials, substances and wastes sha11 be
incorporated into the City's emergency management programs.
EN-79 New commercial (other than retail commercial) or industrial uses
' . which involve the transport or storage of hazardous materials,
substances or wastes sha11 only be located in that portion of the
designated Region Serving Area of the City between the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and east of the West Valley
: Highway.
EN-80 Any existing wholesale storage or manufacturing of hazardous
materials, substances or wastes in the designated Community
. Serving: Area of the City, or, . within 2000 feet of a school or
medical facility, shall be considered a non-conforming use and
the City should-assertively seek its removal.
. EN=81 The treatment, storage, processing, handling and disposal of any
hazardous material, substances or wastes sha11 be only in the
' strictest compliance with any applicable local, state or federal
law.
EN=82 The City sha11 consider the impacts posed by new development
on, risks associated with hazardous materials, substances and
wastes as a"part of its environmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures.
EN-83 The Local Hazaazdous Waste Management Plan for Seattle/King ,
County, and the King County Solid Waste Interlocal Resolution
. . No. 90-001, are hereby adopted and incorporated as an element
of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. '
EN=84 The City's surface water, ground .water, sanitary, and storm
drainage systems shall be protected from contamination by
hazardous materials or other contaminants.
~ EN-85 Use or removal of existing underground storage tanks sha11 only:
be done in the strictest compliance with applicable local, state
and federal law.
GOAL20 POLICIES.FOR PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED FISH
. SPECIES
The City recognizes that anadromous Salmonids require clean, cool, well-
oxygenated water in adequate quantity for survival and especially during
Page 9-16
Amended 2010
~ -
Environment
:the critical periods,of rearing and migration both tiefore spawning and
after juveniles emerge. Salmonid eggs are highly affected during
incubation and liatching by water temperature, flow velocity, water quality
and excessive turbidity. Streams composed of complex habitats with a
. high proportion of riffles and pools provide productive spawning habitats,
as well as juvenile rearing areas in eddying and off-channel areas. Objective 20.1 To aid in the protection of listed and candidate endangered fish species.
Policies: .
EN-86 The City, will continue to participate and support the various
. . State, Federal and local programs including Wafer Resource
' Inventory Area (WRIA) No. 9(Green River) and WRIA No. 10
(Wliite-Stuck River) to protect and restore endangered species.
EN-87 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-88 T'he City . shall obtain information during the review of
development proposals, as it relates to the Endangered Species
Act, so that best management practices and best available science
are considered and included in the City's evaluation and
decision-making process.
EN-89 The City sha11 identify the types and qualities of aquatic
_ resources :within its borders and further develop plans and
p`rogram : for the protection and enhancement of these resources
based on their characteristics.
GOAL 21 GENERAL POLICIES.AND REGULATIONS WI'I'HIN AUBURN'S
SHORELINES
The following general policies and regulations apply to all shorelines of
the state that :are located in Auburri, regardless of the specific shoreline
environment designation in any one location.
Objective 21.1 En"sure conservation and restoration within Auburn's shorelines.
Polices:
. Page 9-17
. , Amended 2010
- ~
" Environment
EN-90 Prioritize enhancement andrestoration efforts at public parks and
_ public open space lands. ,
EN-91 , Work with owners of other publicly-owned land to encourage
. restoration and enhancement projects.
. . , ~
EN-92 Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize
restoration opportunities identified in the Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization Report.
`EN-93 Promote vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds
_ and nonnative ;species to avoid adverse impacts to hydrology,
and reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion.
EN-94 Integrate: bioengineering andJor soft engineering approaches into
, local and regional flood control measures, infrastructure; and
related capital improvement projects.
' - EN-95 Develop a program to implement restoration projects, including
funding strategies:
EN-96 Monitor and adaptively manage restoration projects.
EN-97 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County, ~
' Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 and 10 Forums,
. ,
the Muckleshoot Tribe, and other govemmental and non-
goyernmental organizations to explore how local goverriments
. (with their assistance) can best address the needs of preserving .
ecological processes and shoieline functions. •
;EN-98 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County,
. Green River Flood Control Zone District; and the Inter-County
River Improvement Agency to identify and implement flood ~
management strategies that protect existing development and
restores floodplain and channel migration functions.
EN-99 Continue to work with the WRIA 9 and;10 Forums to restore
shoreline habitats and seasonal ranges that support listed
Page 9-18
' Amended 2010
Environment
endangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous
fisheries.
EN-100 Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise
attractive to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into
development projects.
EN-101 Encourage restoration or enhancement of native riparian
vegetation through incentives and non-regulatory programs.
EN-102 Esta.blish public education materials to provide shoreline
landowners technical assistance about the benefits of native
vegetation plantings.
EN-103 Explore opportunities with other educational organizations and
agencies to develop an on-going program of shoreline education
for all ages. EN-104 Identify areas where kiosks and interpretive signs can enhance
the educational experiences of users of shoreline areas.
EN-105 Develop strategies to fund shoreline-related educational and
interpretive projects.
Objective 21.2 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.
Polices:
EN-106 Developments and activities in the City's shoreline should be
planned and designed to retain native vegetation or replace
shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net loss of
the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes
performed by vegetation.
EN-107 Woody debris should be left in river corridors to enhance wildlife
habitat and shoreline ecological functions, except where it
threatens personal safety or critical infrastructure, such as bridge
pilings. In such cases where debris poses a threat, it should be
dislodged, but should not be removed from the river.
Page 9-19
Amended 2010
En"vironment
Objective 213 Environmental Impact Mitigation.
Polices: . .
EN-108 All shoreline use and development should be carried out in a
' manner that avoids and minimizes adverse impacts so that the
resulting ecological conditions do not become worse than the
current condition. This means assuring no net loss of ecological
fiiiictions and processes. and protecting critical areas designated
in Appendix A, Chapter 16.10 "Critical Areas" that are located in.
t11e shoreline: Should a proposed .use and development
, potentially create significant adverse environmental impacts not
otherwise avoided or mitigated by compliance with the master
program, the Director should require mitigation measures to
ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Objective 21.4. Critical Areas. Policies:
EN-109 Provide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline
that is at least equal to that wluch is provided by the City's
critical areas regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth
- Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan..
. EN-110 Allow activities iri critical areas that protect and, where possible, -
restore t.tie ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of ,
the City's shoreline. If conflicts between the S1VIP and the critical . :
area regulations arise, the regulation_s that are most consistent
with the SMA or its WAC provisions will govern.
EN4 11 Preserve, protect, restore and/or mitigate wetl'Einds within and
, associated with the City's shorelines to achieve' no net loss of `
wetland area and wetland functions. -
EN-112 Developments . in shoreline areas that are identifi ed as
geologically hazardous or pose a foreseeable risk to people and
. improvements during the life of the development should not be '
allowed.
Page 9-20
Amended 2010
Environment
Objective 21.5 Publia Access (including views). :
' Policies: '
EN-113 Public access improvements should not result in adverse impacts
to the natural character and quality of the shoreline and
associated wetlands or result in a net ioss of shoreline ecological
. functions. Dev.elopments , and' activities within the shoreline
should not impair or detract from the public's visual or physical'
access to the water.
EN=114 Protection and enhancement of the public's physical and visual
, access to shoreliries should be encouraged.
EN-115 The.amount and diversity of public access to shorelines should be
increased ' consistent with the natural shoieline
character, property rights, and public safety.
. EN-116 Publicly owned shorelines should be limited to: water=dependent or public.:recreation uses, otherwise such shorelines should '
remain protected, undeveloped open space. - EI4-117 Public access should be designed to provide _for public safety.
. ' Public access "facilities should provide auxiliary facilities; sueh as.
parking arid sanitation. facilities, when appropriate, and should be
' designed to be ADA accessible: .
Objective 21.6 . F1oodHazard Reduction.
'Policies: ~
,EN-118 Trie City should manage flood protection through the City's
.
Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan, Comprehensive Plan,
stormwater regulations, and flood hazard area regulations.
,
EN-119 Discourage development within the floodplains associated with
the City's shorelines that would individually or cumulatively
result in an increase to the. risk of flood damage.
Page 9-21
, , Amended 2010
Environment
EN-120 Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures should be-given
.
preference over structural measures. Stcuctural flood hazazd
reduction measures sfiould be avoided whenever possible. When
necessary, they should be accomplished in a maririer that assures
' no net loss of 'ecological function arid_ ecosystem-wide processes.
Non-structural measures include setbacks, land use controls
prohibiting or limiting development in azeas that have-are
- , historically flooded, stormwater mana.gement plans, or
bioengineering measures.
EN-121. Where possible, public access should be integrated into publicly
f nanced flood control and management facilities.
' Objective 21.7 Water Quality, Storm Water and Non-Point Pollution.
Policies: EN-122 The City shoul'd prevent. impacts to water quality and storm water
quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
' functions,-or a significant' impact to aesthetic qualities, or
recreational opportunities.
. EN-123 Storm water management treatment, conveyance, or discharge
_ facilities should be- discouraged in the slioreline jurisdiction,
unless no other feasible alternative is available.
' EN-124 Low impact development techniques that allow for greater ,
amount of storm water to infiltrate 'into the soil sfiould be
; encouraged to reduce storm water run-off.
EN7125 Encourage conservation of existing shoreline vegetation which
provides water quality protection by slowing and filtering storm
- water run-off. Objective 21.8 Educational and Archeological Areas and Historic Sites.
Policies:
`
Page 9-22
Amended 2010
Environment
EN-126 Where possible, Educational and Archeological Areas and
Historic sites in the shoreline should be permanently preserved
for scientific study, education, and public observation.
EN-127 Consideration should be given to the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and Chapter 43.51 RCW to provide for
the protection, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects located or
associated with the shoreline that are significant in American,
Washington and local history, architecture, azcheology or
culture.
EN-128 Where feasible and appropriate, access trails to shorelines should .
incorporate access to educational signage acknowledging
protected, historical, cultural and azcheological sites or azeas in .
the shoreline.
Objective 21.9 Nonconforming Use and Development Standards.
Policies:
EN-129 Legally esta.blished uses and developments that predate the
City's Shoreline Master Program (1973, as amended) should be
allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses provided that
future development or redevelopment does not increase the
degree of nonconformity with this program.
GOAL 22 SHORELINE MODIFICATION
Shoreline modifications are generally related to construction of a physical
element such as a levee, bulkhead, or pier at or near the edge of a river or
extending into the channel. Other modification actions include dredging,
filling, or vegetation clearing. Modifications are usually undertaken in
support of or in preparation for an allowed shoreline use or development.
Objective 22.1 Prohibited Modifications
The following shoreline modifications are prohibiteii in all shoreline
environments unless addressed separately in this shoreline master program
under another use:
1. Breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs:
2. Dune modifications; and
Page 9-23
Amended 2010
° Environment 3. Piers and docks.
Objective 22.2 Dredging Dredge Material Disposal.
' Policies: '
EN-130 Dredging and dredge material disposal should be done in manner
which avoids or, minimizes significant ecological impacts. Where
impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation measures are required that
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
EN-131 Dredge spoil, disposal in water bodies, on shorelands, or wetlands
within a river's 'channel migratiori zone should be discouraged,
except as needed for habitat improvement.
' EN-1321 New development shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if,that
is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance
,
dredging.
Objective 22.3 Piers and Docks. Policies: .
EN-133 The City should discourage the construction of new piers, docks,
or floats in the shoreline jurisdiction along the Green and Wfiite .
, Rivers. - _ ,
.
Objective 224 Shoreline Stabilization (bulkheads and,revetments).
r
Policies: '
.
EN-134 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessita.te new or
increased shoreline_ :stabilization on. the.~same or other affected.
properties where -tliere has been no.. previous need for
stabilization should be discouraged.
EN-135 New shoreline uses and development shotdd be located away
from the shoreline in order to preclude the need for new stabilization structures.
Page 9-24 .
Amended 2010
Environment
EN-136 Structural or "hard" shoreline stabilization techniques and
structures should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that
non-structural or "soft" shoreline protection measures are not
feasible.
EN-137 The cumulative effect of allowing bulkheads or revehnents along
river segments should be evaluated. If it is determined that the
cumulative effects of bulkheads or revetments would have an
adverse effect on shoreline functions or processes, then permits
for them should not be granted.
EN-138 Bulkheads should not be permitted as a solution to geo-physical
problems such as mass slope failure, sloughing, or land slides.
Bulkheads and revetments should only be approved for the
purposes of protecting existing developments by preventing bank
erosion by the rivers.
Objective 2-.422.5 Clearing and Grading.
Policies:
EN-139 Clearing and grading activities should only be allowed in
association with a pernutted shoreline development.
EN-140 Clearing and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum
necessary for the intended development, including residential
development.
Objective 22.6 Fill.
Policies:
EN-141 Fill placed waterward ofthe OHWM should be prohibited and
only allowed to facilitate water dependent uses restoration
projects.
EN-142 Where pertnitted, fill should be the minimum necessary to
provide for the proposed use and should be permitted only when
Page 9-25
Amended 2010
Environment'
tied to a specific development proposal that is permitted by the
_ Shoreline Master Program.
EN-143 The perimeter of fill activities should be designed to avoid or
eliminate erosion and sedimentation impacts, both during initial
fill activities and over time.
Objective 223 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects.
Policies: EN-144 All proposed shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement
projects should assure that the activities associated with each
- - project address legitimate restoration needs and priorities and _ facilitate implementation of the Restoration Plan developed with ' this Shoreline Master Prograrri pursuant to WAC 173-26- -
201 (2)(fl•
I
GOAI..23 SHORELINE USE
Shoreline use activities are developments or activities that exist or are
anticipated to occupy shoreline locations.
Objective 23.1 Prohibited Uses witliin the Shoreline Environment.
.
Policies: EN-145 The following uses should be,prohibited in a11 shoreline _
environments unless addressed separately in *As the Shoreline .
_ Master Program under another use: See Section 1-2 of the
.
Shoreline Master Program for definitions of the following uses:
1. Boat houses;
2. 'Commercial develo' ment,
•
P
3. Foresf practices; and
4. Industrial development;
5. New or expanded mining; and
6. Permanent solid waste storage or transfer
' facilities.
- Page 9-26 '
' Amended 2010
~
Environment
Objective 23.2 Agriculture
Policies:
EN-146 This Program allows for existing, ongoing agricultural activities
while also maintaining shoreline ecological functions and
processes.
EN-147 Agricultural activities that do not meet the definition for existing
and ongoing agricultural activities should not be allowed in the
shoreline.
EN-148 Appropriate fann management techniques and new development
construction should be encouraged to prevent contamination of
nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant, fish,
and animal life from fertilizer, herbicides and pesticide use and
application.
EN-149 A vegetative buffer should be encouraged to be placed and
maintained between agricultural lands and water bodies or
wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and resulting in
sedimentation, enhance water quality, provide shade, reduce
flood hazard, and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
EN-150 Public access to the shoreline should be encouraged where it does
not conflict with agricultural activities.
EN-151 Proposals to convert agricultural uses to other uses should
comply with all policies and regulations established by the
Comprehensive Plan and this Master Program for said uses and
. should not result in a net loss of ecological functions.
Objective 23.3 Aquaculture
Policies:
EN-152 Aquaculture is a water-dependent use, and when consistent with
control of pollution and avoidance of adverse impacts to the
Page 9-27
Amended 2010
Environment
.
environment and preservation of habitat for resident native
species, is an accepted use of the shoreline.
EN-153 Development of aquaculture facilities. and associated activities,
such as hatcheries and fish counting stations should assure no net
loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes. Aquacultural
-'~facilities sliould be designed and, located so as not to spread -
disease to'native aquatic life, establish riew non-native species
which cause significant ecological impacts,'or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
EN-154 Since locations for. aqua.culture activities are somewhat limited
and require specific water quality, temperature, oxygen content,
• and adjacent land use conditions, and because the technology
associated with some forms of aquaculture is still experimental, _
, some latitude should be given when implementing the
regulations of ttiis section; provided that potential impacts on existing uses and shoreline ecological functions and processes
are given due consideration: Experimental aquaculture projects
. should be monitored and adaptively rnanaged to maintain
shoreline ecological functions and'processes. Objective 23.4 Boating Facilities.
Policies:
EN=155 Boating facilities should not be allowed unless:they are
accessible to the general_.public or serve a community.
EN-156 New boat lauriching ramps should be allowed only where they
- are located at sites with suitable envirorimerital conditions,
shoreline configurations, access and neighboring uses.
' EN-157: Development of new or modifications to existing boat launching ;
ramps and associated and accessory uses should not result in a '
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or other significant
adverse impacts.
Objectiye 23.5 In-Stream Structural Use. ~
Policies: EN-158 Approyal of applications for in-stream structures should require
' inclusion of provisions for the protection and preservation of
. Page 9-28 ,
Amended 2010
. Environment
- ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fi_sh passage,
wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydro % geological processes,, and natixral scenic vistas.
EN-159 The location and planning of in-stream structures should give consideration to the full range of public interests, watershed
. functions and processes, and environmental concerns,:with
special emphasis on protecting and restoring priority ha.bitafs and
species.
EN-160 Non-structural and non=regulatory methods to protect, enhance,
and restore shoreline ecological functions and processes and
other shoreline resources should be ericouraged as an alternative
° to structural in-stream structures.
Objective 23.6 Mining. Policies:
E14-161 Limit mining,activities near the shoreline to existing mining uses.
Objective 23.7 Recreation.
Policies: EN-162 Prioritize shoreline recreational development that provides public
access, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the
State over other non water-oriented recreational uses.
, EN463 Shoreline areas with the.potential for providing recreation or
publie access opportunities should be identified for this use and,
wherever possible, acquired;and incorporated into the Public
Park and open space system.
EN=164 Public recreational facilities should be located, designed and
, operated in a manner consistent with the purpose of the
environnient designation' in which they are located and such that
no net loss of shoreline :ecologicalfunctions or ecosystem-wide
processes result. , Page 9-29
Amended 2010
~ Environment
'
EN-165 ' The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning
should be encouraged so as to mutually satisfy needs. Shoreline
recreational developments should be corisistent with the Gity's
Comprehensive Plan and Parks; Recreafion and Open Space Plan. , .
EN-166 Recreational development should not interfere with public use of
navigable waters.
Objective 23.8 Residential Development. %
Policies:
EN-167 New over-water residences, including floating homes, aze not a
_ preferred use and should be prohibited.
.
EN-168 New multiunit residential development and land subdivisions for
more than four parcels should provide community and/or public
access in conformance to the City's public access planriing arid
tlus Shoreline Master Program. Adjoiriing access sha11 be considered in making this determination.
EN-169 Accessory development (to either multiple family or single
family) sfiould be designed and located to blend into the site as
much as possible.
EN-170 New residential development should avoid the need for new ,
shoreline stabiliza.tion or flood fiazard reduction measures that
would cause significant impacts to other properties or publie
improvement's or a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Objective 23.9 Signs.
Policies:
EN-171 Signs should be designed, constructed and placed so that they aze
. compatible with the natural quality of the shoreline environment
and adjacent land and water uses. " Page 9-30
Amended 2010
Environment
Objective 23.10 .Transportation.
, Policies:
EN-172 Plan, locate, design and where appropriate construct, proposed
,
' roads, non-motorized systems and parkuig facilities where routes
. will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shorelirie features, will not result in a net loss of shorelirie
ecological functions or adversely iriipact existing or planned
water-dependent uses: Where other options are available and
`feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within
shoreline jurisdiction.., EN-173 The number of river: crossings should be minimized.
EN-174 Parking:facilities in sfiorelines:are not preferred and shall be " allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use and then
as Temote from the shoreline as possible.
EN-175 Trail and bicycle-systems,should be encouraged along the White .
_ 'and Green Rivers wherever possible. EN-176 Joint use.of transportation corridors within the shoreline
` jurisdiction for roads, utilities, and non-motorized transportation
should be encouraged.
EN-177 New railroad corridors shoul'd be prohibited.
Objective 23.11 Utilities.
Policies:
EN-178 Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net
'loss of shoreline ecological functions, preserve the natural
la.ndscape and vistas, preserve and protecf fish and wildlife
habitat, and minimize conflicts with present arid planned land
and shorelirie uses. "
EN-179 Primary utility production and processing.facilities, such as •
power plants, sewage treatment plants, water reclamation plants,
Page.9-31
. . Amended 2010 `
Environment
or parts of those facilities that are non-water-oriented sliould not
be allowed in shoreline areas. '
EN-180 Utilities should utilize existing transporta.tion and utilities sites,
rights-of-way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of
rights-of=way and corridors should be encouraged.
EN-181, Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as
.
, . power lines, cables, and pipelines; shall be located outside of the
shoreline area where feasible.: Wtiere no other option exists,
utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges.
EN-182 New utilities facilities should be located so as not to require
' extensive shoreline protection structures.
,
EN-183 Where storm water management, conveyance, and discharge
facilities are pernutted in the shoreline, they should be limited to
the'minimum size needed to accomplish their purpose and should
_ be sited and designed in a manner,that avoids; or mitigates
adverse effects to the physical, hydrologic, or ecological functions.
EN-184 Stormwater conveyance facilities should utilize existing '
transportation and utility sites, rights-of-way and comdors,
whenever possible. Joint use of right-of-way and corridors
should be encouraged.
Page 9-32 ~
' Amended 20i0
. CHAPTEla 9
l THE ENVIRON1VIENT
Introduction
,;One of the" key -attractions of Auburn and the Puget Sound Region has
, always been the ~ abundant na.tural, resources found' throughout the area.
The Crreen River Valley was once a major supplier of agricultural goods
, for the region.and farming remains in some . parts of the valley. Thick .
. forests, wetlands, :and wildlife habitats are found throughout the area. As
the area develops, many of these features, which serve to make the area
attractive in the first place, are being lost. The strong emphasis placed on
. the desigriation and protection of resource lands and critical areas in the
Growth 1Vlanagement Act, the Couritywide Policies and this plan reflect
the important role -that these areas play- in maintaining the health, safety
. and welfare of the area's citizens. '
Issues
Environmental
Constraants '
and Land Use The City's overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of
environmental information arid " factors that are important to the
community. This information can be 'used to decide if, where and how
certain kinds of development and other activities should be allowed.
City policy should • recognize ttie , natural constraints placed on
development by such factors as unstable slopes, flooding and wetlands. A
critical environmental concem is the proper management of gravel,
extraction. This is an industry which has been active in Auburn for many
years and which remains a viable industry. The City shoul&establish clear
policies to guide the retention ofvalued aspects of the City's environment,
such as protection of the City's open space and significant wildlife
habitats. T'he policy should seek to ensure ample opportunity. for the
' City's residerits to meet their recreational needs. Policies should be
esta.blished.to'protect the public health; safety and quality of life, and to
also proteet the azea's most unique, sensitive and productive .
Page 9-T .
Amended 2010
Environment
environmental resources. New development should be directed toward
azeas where their adverse impacts can be minimized.
. This Plan has increased the specificity of the City's policies relating to use :
and protection of the natural environment. It.also provides a set of general
policies which will be used to require the mitigation of significant adverse '
impacts. .
GOAL 18. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment and preserve the
quality of life, and to protect the azea's most unique, sensitive and
productive natural resources. To encowage natural resource industries
within the city to : operate in a manner which enhances, (rather than
detracts from), the orderly development of the City.
Objective 18.1. To continue to enllanceand maintain the quality of surface water, grourid
water, and shoreline resources in the City and Region. Policies: EN-1 The City sha11 seek to ensure adequate and healthful supplies of
domestic water by protecting groundwater from degradation, by
providing for surface water infiltration; by minimizing or
prohibiting unnecessary withdrawals of groundwater and by
prevenfing unintended groundwater discharges caused by
disturbance of water-bearing geological formations. ,
EN-2 Stormwater drainage improvement proj ects that are proposed to
discharge to,gioundwater, such as open water infiltration ponds,
shall provide for surface water pretreatment designed to
standards outlined in the Washington State Department of .
Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for
, Basi-n-Western Washin on. -Drainage improvement projects that
,
may potentially result in the exchange of surface and ground
waters, such as detention ponds, shall also incorporate these
. standards.
, EN-3 . The City shall seek to minimize degradation to surface water
; quality and aquatic habitat of creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes .
and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of
such water, bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to
preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of such waters by
requiring the use of current Best Management Practices for control of stormwater and nonpoint runoff.
Page 9-2
Amended 2010
Environment
EN-4 The City will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks,
streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies with the goal
of no degradation of the water quality or habitat of the receiving
waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the
water, quality, and; habitat of receiving waters.
-EN-S ; The City Shoreline Master -Program, shall govern the
development of all designated Shorelines of the City (Map_ 9.1). '
Lands adjacent to these areas should be managed in a manner
, consistent with that program. : .
EN76 , Where possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a
natural condition, and degraded streambanks should be enhanced or restored: ' EN-7 Uses along ,tlie Green and White Rivers should be limited to
. residential, .,agricultural, open space, recreational, mineral
resource extraction and . public and quasi-public uses.
Commercial.development sHall only be allowed on the rivers, if
such development adds new. public access to the shoreline area
and is constructed in a manner that will protect the shoreline and
water quality of the rivers through the use of Best 1Vlanagement
Pra.ctices.
EN-8 Storm drainage structures and facilities 'located within the
shoreline . environment, parklands, or public open space shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the natural
, appearance; protect significant cultural resources and appropriate -
use of the site and surrounding 'area. Any such facilities located
within the- shoreline environment shall be consistent with the
'State. Shoreline Management. Act and the City's Shoreline
Management Program. If accessible to the general public, such
facilities should, whenever possible, be designed to preclude the
need for security fencing, and should use native vegetation and
, be properly maintained.
. EN-9 T'he City :shall discourage the use-of septic tanks except in those
areas . which aze designated. for F•~~ses--Residential Conservancv and have suita.ble soils.
EN-10 The ` City's design standards shall ensure that the post.
developrnent peak storm water runoff rates do not exceed the
.
predevelopment rates. . '
. EN-11 The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the
Gity ;is of equivalent quality to. :the water entering. This will be
Page 9-3
Amended 2010
\
" Environment
accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface
and ground : waters 1 through education programs and
implementation'and eriforcement of Best Management Practices.
. EN-12 The City shall continue to work'with adjacent jurisdictions to ,
enhance and protect water quality in the region through.
coordinated and consistent programs and regulations.
EN-13 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water,
.
quality as part of its environmentai review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on fish resources
shall be a priority concern in such reviews.
EN-14 T'he City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to
enhance and protect water quality as dicta.ted by the City's Design
. and Construction Standards and the Washington State
Department of Ecology.'s Stormwater Management Manual for
Westerri Washin on. In all new
development; approved water quality treatment measures that are
applicable and represent the best available science or technology
~shall be required prior to discharging storm waters into the City
storm drainage system or into environmentally ` sensitive areas
(e.g. wetlands, riveis, and groundwater.)
EN-15 The City recognizes that new development can have impacts
including, but not limited to, flooding, erosion and decreased
water quality on downstkeam communities and natural drainage
- courses: T'he City ` shall continue to actively participate in
developing and implementing regional water quality planning • and flood hazard reduction efforts within tlie Green River, Mill
Creek and White River drainage basins. The findings and .
recommendations of these regional efforts, including, but not
limited to, the "Draft" Special 'Area Management Plan (SAMP)
for the Mill Creek Basin, the "Draft" Mill Creek Flood Control _ Plan, the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement, and
, the Mill Creek Water Quality Management Plan, shall be : considered by the City as City programs and plans aze developed . and updated.
~ EN-16 The City recognizes the value and efficiency of utilizing existing natural systems (e.g., wetlands) for storm water conveyance and
' storage. However, these natural systems can be sever`ely
impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of
contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems for .
storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider the
' potential for adverse impacts through the - environmental review
Page 9-4.
Amended 2010
Environment
process. Important natural systems sha11 not be used for storm
drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated
that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated to a less than
significant level
EN-17 The City recognizes that stormwater treahnent facilities do not
function efficiently unless maintained. The City shall strive to
ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention
and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as
designed.
EN-17A Encourage the use of low impact development techniques in
public and private development proposals in order to minimize
impervious surfaces and improve water quality.
Objective 18.2. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of air resources in the
City and Region.
Policies:
EN-18 The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air
quality as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and
animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and
convenience of azea inhabitants, and facilita.te the enjoyment of
the natural attractions of the area.
EN-19 The City will continue to support and rely on the various State,
Federal and local programs to continue to protect and enhance air
qualit3'•
EN-20 The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and
encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended
particulates.
EN-21 T'he City sha11 support an increased role for public transportation
as a means to reduce locally generated air emissions.
EN-22 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air
quality as a part of its environmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures.
Objective 18.3. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of land, wildlife and
vegetative resources in the City and region.
Page 9-5
Amended 2010
Environmenf
Policies: .
- EN-23 : The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered _
species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing
the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees -and
groundcover; by -promoting the design and development of
landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and
by protecting and enharicing the quality of aquatic habitat.
EN-24 The City shall consider the impacts of new development, on the
quality of land, known or suspeeted fish and wildlife habitats . (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its environmental
• review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures.
Such mitigation may involve the'retention of significant habitats
and the use of na.tive landscape vegetation.
EN=25 The preferred method of crossing a watercourse that has habitat
suitable for anadromous fish use or that has the potential to be
rehabilitated for fish use in the future is a bridge. The use of
culverts sha11 be discouraged as~,a crossing method for such
watercourses. Gulvert systems may be considered if streambeds
similar to natural chanriels can be provided, no loss of
- - anadromous fish habitat will occur or the, cost of a bridge is
, prohibifive as reasonable method of mitigation.
EN-26 The City sha11 work in collaboration with other agencies, the . development community and other affected or interested parties
to protect identified wildlife corriaors and encourage the
clustering of significant or adjacent. resources to rria.intain
connectivity of tllese systems. "
Objective 18.4._: To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetland
resources in the City and region.
. Policies: EN-27 The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological
roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat, -
protecting water guality, reducing the need for man=made flood
and storm drainage systems, ma,intaining water quality, and in
providing recreational, open space, educational 'and cultural
,
opportunities. Trie City will consider these roles and functions in
all new development and will also pursue opportunities , to
enhance the existing wetland system when these multiple benefits
can be achieved.
. Page 9-6
Amended 2010
Environment
EN-28 The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of
biological and hydrological functions and values to the
community depending on the size, complexity and location of the
individual system, and that the overall degree of functions and
values should be considered when reviewing proposals which
impact wetlands. In a similaz manner, the levels of protection
afforded to a wetIand shall be consistent with its existing function
and values. The City shall continue to promote policies and
practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically
connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and
aqua.tic habitat.
EN-29 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review
process and sha11 require appropriate mitigation and monitoring
measures of important wetland areas. Such mitigation may
involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or replacement
of important wetlands, and provisions for appropriate buffering.
The goal of the mitigation should be no net loss of wetland
functions and values. A permanent deed restriction sha11 be
placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure that they
are preserved in perpehuty.
EN-30 Wetlands which are associated with a river• or stream, or provide
significant plant and animal habitat opportunities are recognized
by the City as the most important wetland systems, and shall
receive the highest degree of protection and mitigation through
conservation, enhancement or relocation measures. Wetlands
which are limited in size, are isolated from major hydrological
systems or provide limited hydrological or plant and animal
habitat opportunities may be considered by the City for
development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate
mitigation.
EN-31 Speculative filling of wetlands shall only be permitted if in
compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill
Creek, when it is adopted.
EN-32 It is the City's intent to pursue development of an area.-wide
wetlands management program for the entire City to establish a
systems approach to wetlands management. The City shall work
with adjacent communities to adopt and implement the Special
Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin, a draft
version of which has been developed with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The purpose of the SAMP is to establish uniform
wetland definitions and methodology throughout the planning
Page 9-7
Amended 2010
Environment
-'area, to develop a regional consensus and predicta.bility by
identifying important wetlands which must be conserved and less
importarit wetlands which may be developed. T'he SAMP is
intended to ensure a balance of the City's commitment between
" environmental and.. economic development interests. The City
' shall strive to streamline the permitting process for development
in the areas covered by the SAMP.
Map 9.3: General Location of Wetlands . .
Map Note: This map provides an illustration of wetlands located within '
Auburn. Prepared on an area-wide basis, the inventory. map provides a
geneial delineation of known wetlands based on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers definition and the 1989 Federal Manual For ldentifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands field methodology. It is important to
note that this map is only'a wetland inventory and not a wetlarid plan.
- Over time wetlands develop; expand and contract in conjunction with
changing climatic, natural and artif cial conditions.
The inap does not imply that a parcel -covered by a wetland designation is
fully occupied by wetlands. It is an indicator, however, that an in depth
wetland delineation is required. Therefore, future site specif c wetland
studies conducted by the, property owner will identify the precise location,
delineation and functional characteristics of known wetland areas, and
additional wetland ai~eas ~ not previously inventoried. The Auburn Planning
' Department has wetlarid reports that can provide information regarding
- ~soils, hydrology, vegetation~and wildlife for these wetlands:
Objective 18.5. . ' To recognize the aesthetic, environmental, and use benefits of vegeta,tion
and to promote its retention and propagation. Consideration shall be given .
" to promoting the use of native vegetation.
Policies:
• EN-33 The City recognizes the important benefits of native vegetation
including its, role in attracting native wildlife, preservirig the
natural hydrology, and maintaining the natural character of the,
• Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation can also reduce the .
use of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminarits
that may enter nearby water systems) and reduce watering
. required of non-natiye species (thereby promoting conservation).
The City sha11encourage the.,use of native vegeta.tion as ari
integral part of public and private development plans through
strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following;
Page 9-8
• Amended 2010
Environment
o Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes
and in public facilities.
o Providing greater clarity in development regulations in how
native plants can be used in private development proposals.
o Pursuing opportunities to educate the public about the
benefits of native plants. EN-33A Development regulations shall emphasize the use of native plant
materials that complement the natural chazacter of the Pacific
Northwest and which aze adapta.ble to the climatic hydrological
characteristics of the region. Regulations should provide
specificity as to native plant types in order to facilitate their use.
EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural
vegetation in new development.
' EN-35 The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants in
landscaping for both public and private projects.
EN-36 The City sha11 update and amend its landscaping ordinances to
ensure that sufficient landscaping is a required component of a11
development. Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and
quantity of landscaping.
EN-37 The City sha11 strengthen the tree protection ordina.nce targeted at
protecting large stands of trees and significant trees within the
City.
EN-38 The City shall develop a tree planting and maintenance program.
Objective 18.6. To promote energy efficiency and mana.gement of resources in the
development and operation of public facilities and services, as well as in
private development.
Policies:
EN-39 The City shall encourage the use of renewable energy and other
natural resources over non-renewable resources wherever
practicable and shall protect deposits or supplies of important
non-renewable natural resources from developments or activities
which will preclude their future utilization.
EN-40 The City of Auburn Energy Management Plan is hereby
incorporated as an element in this Comprehensive Plan.
Page 9-9
Amended 2010
• Environment
EN-41 The City encourages site design practices that ma:ximi?e winter
exposure to solar radiation. ,
. ~ EN-41.A _ The Citv _shall _ encourage and promote the use of electric
' vehicles by Mporting,a broad range of opportunities for vehicle
' recharM - ,
Objective 18.7. Enhance and maintain the quality of life for : the City's inhabitants by
promoting a healthy environment and reducing the adverse impact of
environniental nuisances. • Policies:
EN-42 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of azea inhabitants
to the harmful effects of excess noise. Performance measures for '
noise impact on surrounding development should be adopted and
enforced. EN43 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants
I to excessive levels of light, and glare. Performance measures for
' light and glare exposure to surrounding development should be
°adopted'and enforced. EN-44 The City sha11 seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants
from noxious plant species. '
Objective 18.8. To esta.blish management policies which efFectiyely control the operation
and location of mineral extraction . in tlie City, in order to reduce the
inherent , adverse impacts that such activifies produce in an urban
. environment.
, Policies:
BN45 The cost effective availability of sand and gravel materials is
needed to supportthe development of freeways, roads, public
works, and. private construction. Mineral extraction ,may
therefore be permitted if in accord with these policies.
EN-46 Existing mineral extraction operations (as specifically authorized by a City permit to mine) sha11 be . allowed to continue operation
- ' for the duration of, and in accord with, their existing permits.
EN-47 Mineral extraction operations shall not be considered a permitted
use in any zoning district. They aze to be reviewed as special
uses and shall be conducted only in accord with the measures
Page 9-10
Amended 2010
Environment
needed to mitigate any adverse impact. Permits for the operation
shall be denied whenever any impact is deemed by the City
Council to be unacceptable or cannot be acceptably mitigated.
EN48 A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan sha11 be
submitted with every application. Conditions of operation shall
be spelled out in detail with performance bonds required to
ensure compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions will be
adequate grounds for suspension and subsequent termination of
the pernut.
EN-49 The burden to demonstrate compliance with these policies and to
demonstrate the need for a new permit or a renewal of a permit
for any mineral extraction operation rests solely on the operator.
The burden to operate in compliance with these policies and any
permit issued in accord with the same shall also be on the
operator.
EN-50 The City sha11 consider impacts of mining on groundwater and
surface water quality as well as possible changes in hydrology as
a result of the mining during the environmental review process
and require appropriate mitigating measures to prevent water
quality degradation.
EN-51 Mineral resource areas or lands are those lands which have high
quality resources that can be commercially mined for a minimum
of twenty years (Map 9.4). Properties around which urban growth
is occurring should not be considered as mineral resource areas.
As required by RCW 36.70A.060, the City shall require
notification on all plats, short plats, development permits and
building permits issued for development within 500 feet of these
lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development for certain
periods of limited duration.
EN-52 Additional mineral extraction operations or major expansion of
existing operations onto adjacent parcels shall be permitted
within mineral resource areas. Impacts of the operations must be
studied thoroughly under the provisions of SEPA, and the City
shall require implementa.tion of all reasonable mitigating
measures identified in those studies. Permits for the operation
and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied
whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated.
EN-53 Additional mineral extraction operations or expansions of
existing operations will only be allowed outside of mineral
Page 9-11
Amended 2010
' Environment
- resource areas where it is advisable to modify slope to create
- usable land (or to provide another;public benefit associated with
_ tfie site) and where the community will suffer no substantial short
or long term adverse effect. Impacts of the operations must be
studied ~thoroughly under the provisions 'of SEPA, and the City
shall require implementation of a11 reasonable mitigating
measures identified in those studies. Permits for the operation
~ and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied
whenever any'impact cannot be acceptably mitigated.
EN-54 New mineral extraction operations and expansion of existing
mineral extraction operations will not be perinitted in azeas
desigriated for "open space" uses. '
' EN-55. Th'e creation of usable land ' consistent with this comprehensive
plan should be the- end result of~a mineral extraction operation.
The amount of material to ~be removed shall be consistent with
the end use. While this policy shall be rigidly applied to
developed areas and to all areas outside of mineral resource
areas, some flexibility may be appropriate . within ' mineral
resource areas. EN-56 Aesthetic qualities, erosion control, the effect on community and
the creation of usable land which is consistent with approved - Washington State Department of Natu'ral Resources and City
Reclamation- Plans sha11 be the primary considerations in a"
-deci"sion to grant a permit for a riew mineral extraction operation
or to extend the scope of an existing mineral extraction operation
' outside designated mirieral resource areas. _
GOAL 19. ' EIAZARDS :
To min'imize the risk from environmental and manmade hazards fo present
and future residents of the community. , -
Objective 19.1: To reduce potential hazards associated with flood plains without unduly
' restricting `the benefits associated with the continued development of the Lower Green River Valley floor. .
, . Policies: . . .
EN-57 The City- shall seek to protect human health and safety and to
- minimize damage to the property , of area inhabitants by
minimizing the potential for and extent of flooding or inundafion. _
Page 9-12
Amended 2010
• Environment
EN-58 =Elood` prone properties outside of the floodway may be
developable. provided that such development can meet the
standards set forth in the _
- National" Flood-Insurance Prog~ .
EN-59 . Any subdivision of properiy within the flood plain sha11 avoid
creating lots which would be subject to serious threats to life,
health and property from floodwaters.
, EN=60 Site plan review sha11 be required under SEPA for any significant
(e.g. over the SEPA threshold) development in the tood plain.
. Appropriate mitigating measures sha11 be required whenever .
needed to reduce potential hazazds. .
EN-61 Any : development within the floodway which would reduce the
capacity of the floodway shall be prohibited.
, EN-62 The City shall enact ordinances and review development
proposals in a manner which restricts and controls the discharge
of storm water from new development. At a minimum the peak
discharge rate after development sha11 not exceed the peak
, discharge rate before development.
EN-63 The City's development standards should require control and ~
' management of storm waters in a manner which minimizes
impacts from flooding. .
- ' EN-64 The City shall consider the. impacts of new development on
frequently flooded areas (Map 9.5) as part of its environmental
review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures.
As part of this review process, flood engineering and impact
studies may be required. Within FEMA designa.ted 100 year
floodplains, the City of Auburn Regulatorv Floodplain, and other
: designated frequently flooded azeas, such mitigation may include
-flood engineering studies;`the provision of compensatory flood
storage, floodproofing of structures, elevating of structures, and
downstream or upstream improvements.
EN-65 Areas desigriated as frequently flooded areas should include 100
year future condition floodplains wherever future coridition flows
have been modeled and adopted by the City as part of a basin
plari.
EN-66 Land uses and public and . quasi-public facilities which would
present special risks, such as hazardous waste storage facilities,
hospitals, schools, nursing homes, and police and fire stations,
Page 9-13
Amended 2010
~
Environment
should not be constructed in designated frequently flooded areas
. unless no reasonable alternative is available. If these facilities
are located in designated frequently flooded areas, these facilities
and the access routes needed for their operation, should be built
, in a manner that protects public health and safety during at least
~ the 100 year flood. In addition, special measures should be taken
to ensure that hazardous or toxic substances are not released into
flood waters. - EN-67 Developers in floodprone azeas sha11 provide geotechnical ,
- inforrriation which identifies seasonal . high groundwater
elevations for a basis to design stormwater facilities in
r conformance with City design criteria.
EN-68 The Mill Creek Basin Flood Control Plan, when completed, shall
be "the basis for the esta.blishment of downstream drainage
conditions for development in that area.
Objective 19.2. To ensure that development.-is properly lo'cated and constructed with
,
respect to the limitations of the underlying soils and subsurface drainage;
Policies:
EN-69 The City shall seek to ensure that land not be developed or
otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or
significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide,
, subsidence or substantial soil erosion. • The City's development
standards sha11. dictate the use of Best Management Practices to
minimize the potential, for these problems.
EN-70 Where there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.6),
grading should be kept to a minimum and disturbed vegeta.tion
. should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standazds sha11 dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and grading activity. EN-71 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on
hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage as a part of
its environmental :review process and xequire any appropriate
mitigating measures. .
, EN-72 Lazge scale speculative filling and grading activities not
- associated with a development proposal shall be discouraged as it
reduces a vegetated site's natural ability to provide erosion ,
, control. and biofiltration, absorb storm. water, and filter suspended
Page 9-14
Amended 2010
Environment
particulates. In instances where . speculative filling is deemed
appropriate, disturbed vegetation shall be 'restored as soon as
. possible, arid appropriate. measures to control erosion and
sedimeritation uritil the site is developed shall be required.
, EN-73 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on Class
I and Class III landslide hazard, areas (Map 9.7) as partof its
. environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigating measures. The impacts of the new development, both
during and after construction, on, adjacent properties shall also be
considered.
, EN-74 Auburn will seek to retain areas with slopes in excess of 40
percent as primarily open space. areas in order to protect against - erosion and landslide hazazds and fo limit significant removal of
vegetation to help conserve . Eluburn's identity within the
metropolitan region. Slopes greater tHan 15 percent with zones of
" emergent water (springs or ground water seepages) and a11 slopes
with mapable landslide potential= identified by a geotechnical ~
study sliall, be protected from alteration.
EN-75 The City will require that a geotechnical report .prepared by a
. professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington with
expertise in geotechnical engineering be submitted for a11
sigriificant activities proposed within Class I and Class III
iandslide =liazard areas (Map .9:7). The City sha11 develop
administrative guidelines which identify the procedures and
~information required for the geotechnical reports.
EN-76 New development within, Class I and Class III landslide hazard
areas (Map 9.7) shall be designed and located to minimize site
disturbance and removal of vegetation, and to maintain the
natural topographic character of tlie site. Clustering of structures,
minimizing .building footprints,; and retaining trees and other
natural vegetation, shall.be considered.
Objective.19.3. : To reduce risks associated with the transportation and stora.ge of
hazardous materials. ~
Policies:
EN=77 The City sha11 seek to minirinize the exposure of azea inhabitants,
to . the risk of explosion or hazazdous emissions, and to' require
proposals involving the potenfial risk of an explosion or the
. release of hazardous- ;substances to include specific measures
, which will protect the public_health, safety and welfare.
Page 9-15
Amended 2010
Environment
EN-78 The risk of hazardous materials;.substances and wastes sha11 be incorporated into the City's,emergency management programs.
EN-79 New commercial (other than retail commercial) or industrial uses
which involve the transport or storage of hazardous materials,
substances or wastes shall only be located in that portion of the
designated Region Serving `Area of the City between the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and east of the West Valley
, Highway.
EN-80 Any existing wholesale storage or manufacturing of hazardous
materials, substances or wastes in the designated Community
Serving Area of the City, or within 2000 feet of a school or
.'medical facility, shall be considered a non-conforming use and
the Gity should assertively seek its removal..
• EN-81 The treatment; storage, processing, handling and disposal of any
hazardous material, substances or wastes shall be only in the
. strictest compliance with any applicable local, state or federal
law.
BN-82 The City sha11 consider the impacts posed by new development on risks associated with haza.rdous materials, substances and wastes as a part of its environmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures.
EN-83 The 'Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle/King
County, and the King County Solid Waste Interlocal Resolution
, No. 90-001; are hereby adopted and incorporated as an element
- of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
EN-84 The City's surface water, ground water, sanitary, and storm -
. :drainage systems sha11 be protected from contamination by
hazardous materials or other contaminants.
EN=85 Use or removal of existing underground storage tanks shall only
be done in the strictest compliance with applicable local, state
and federal law.
GOAL 20 POLICIES FOR PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED FISH
SPECIES The City recognizes that anadromous Salmonids require clean, cool, well-
oxygenated water in adequate quantity for survival and especially during
Page 9-16
Amended 2010
Environment
the critical periods of rearing and migration both before spawning and
after juveniles emerge. Salmonid eggs are highly affected during
incubation and hatching by water temperature, flow velocity, water quality
and excessive turbidity. Streams composed of complex habitats with a
high proportion of riffles and pools provide productive spawning habitats,
as well as juvenile rearing areas in eddying and off-channel areas.
Objective 20.1 To aid in the protection of listed and candidate endangered fish species.
Policies:
EN-86 The City will continue to participate and support the various
State, Federal and local programs including Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) No. 9(Green River) and WRIA No. 10
(White-Stuck River) to protect and restore endangered species.
EN-87 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 habita.t for restoration of endangered
species.
EN-88 The City shall obtain information during the review of
development proposals, as it relates to the Endangered Species
Act, so that best management practices and best available science
are considered and included in the City's evaluation and
decision-making process.
EN-89 The City shall identify the types and qualities of aquatic
resources within its borders and further develop plans and
program for the protection and enhancement of these resources
based on their characteristics.
GOAL 21 GENERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN AUBURN'S
SHORELINES
The following general policies and regulations apply to all shorelines of
the sta.te that are located in Auburn, regardless of the specific shoreline
environment designation in any one location.
Objective 21.1 Ensure conservation and restoration within Auburn's shorelines.
Polices:
Page 9-17
Amended 2010
Environment
EN-90 Prioritize enhancement and restoration efforts at public pazks and
public open space lands.
EN-91 Work with owners of other publicly-owned land to encourage
. restoration and enhancement projects.
EN-92 Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize
restoration opportunities identified in the Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization Report.
EN-93 Promote vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds
and nonnative species to avoid adverse impacts to hydrology,
and reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion.
EN-94 Integrate bioengineering and/or soft engineering approaches into
local and regional flood control measures, infrastructure, and
related capital improvement projects.
EN-95 Develop a program to implement restoration projects, including
funding strategies.
EN-96 Monitor and ada.PtivelY manage restoration ProJ'ects.
EN-97 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County,
W er
at shed Resource Inventor1' Area (WRIA) 9 and 10 Forums
,
the Muckleshoot Tribe, and other governmental and non-
governmental organizations to explore how local governments
(with their assistance) can best address the needs of preserving
ecological processes and shoreline functions.
EN-98 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County,
Green River Flood Control Zone District, and the Inter-County
River Improvement Agency to identify and implement flood
management strategies that protect existing development and
restores floodplain and channel migration functions.
EN-99 Continue to work with the WRIA 9 and 10 Forums to restore
shoreline habitats and seasonal ranges that support listed
Page 9-18
Amended 2010
Environment
endangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous '
- fisheries.
EN-100 Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise
attractive to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into
, . development projects. .
EN=101 Enc,ourage restoration or enhancement of native riparian
vegetation.through incentives andnon-regulatory programs.
EN-I02 Establish public education materials to provide shoreline
" landowners technical assistance about the benefits of native
vegetation.plantings.
EN-103 Explore opportunities with other educational organizations and
agencies to develop an on-going program of shorelirie education
for a11 ages.
, EN=1,04 Identify areas where kiosks and interpretive signs can enhance
the educational experiences of users of shoreline areas.
EN-105 Develop strategies to fund shoreline-related educational and
_ interpretive projects.
Objective 21.2 Shoreline Vegeta.tion Conservation.
Polices:
EN-106 Developments and activities in the City's shoreline should be
planned and designed to retain native vegetation or replace.
shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net loss of
the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes
performed by vegetation.
EN-107 Wbody debris should be left in river corridors to enhance wildlife
habitat and shoreline ecological ~functions, except where it
threafens personal safety or critical infrastructure, such as bridge
pilings. In such cases :whe"re debris poses a threat,, it should be
dislodged, but should not be removed from the river.
' Page 9-19 . Amended 2010 '
Environment
Objective 21.3 Environmental Impact Mitigation. ,
Polices:
EN-108 All sHoreline use arid development should be carried out in a
manner that avoids and minimizes adverse impacts so that the .
resulting ecological conditions do not become worse than the
' current-condition.,This means assuring no net loss of ecological
functions and piocesses and protecting critical areas designated
in Appendix A, Chapter 16.10 "Critical Areas" that are located in
the shoreline. Should a proposed use and development
potentially create significant adverse environmental impacts not
` otherwise avoided or mitigated tiy compliance with the master
, program, the Director should require mitigation measures to "
ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. . ,
Objective;21.4 Critical Areas.
- Policies: ,
EN-109 Provide a level of protection to critical areas witliin the shoreline
that is at least 'equal to that which is provided by the City's _
critical areas regulations adopted. pursuant to the Growth.
Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan. EN-110 Allow activities in critical azeas that protect and, where possible,
restore tlie ecological "functions and ecosystem-wide processes of
the City's shoreline. If conflicts between ttie SMP and the critical
azea regulations arise, the regulatioris that. are most consistent
with the SMA or its WAC provisions will govern. -
. EN-111 Preserve, protect, restore and/or'mitigate wetlands within and
associated with the City's shorelines to achieve no net loss of
wetland area and wetland functions.
EN,112_. Developments in shoreline . areas . that aze identified as
. geologically hazardous or pose a foreseeable risk to people and -
. improvements during the life of the developrrient should not be
allowed.
Page 9-20 .
, Amended 2010
Environment
Objectiye 21.5 Public Access (including views). .
.
Policies:
EN-113 Public. access improvements should not result in adverse impacts
to the natural character and quality of the shoreline and -
associated wetlands or result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. Developments and activities within the shoreline
, should not impair, or detract from the public's visual or physical :
access to the water. •
EN-114 Protection and enhancement of the public's physical and visual access to shorelines should_be encouraged.
EN-115 The amount and diversity.of public access to shorelines should be
- increased ' consistent with the natural shoreline
character, property rights, and public safety. •
. EN-116 Publicly owned shorelines,should be limited to water-dependent
. or public recreation uses, otherwise such shorelines should
remain protected, undeveloped open space. "
EN-117 Public access should be designed to provide for public safety. `
' Publie access facilities should provide auxiliary facilities, such as
, parking and sanitation facilities, when appropriate, and should be
designed to be ADA accessible: °
Object'ive 21.6 Flood Hazard Reduction. Policies:
EN-118 TheCity should manage flood.: protection through the City's
Comprehensive Stormwater Drairiage Plan, Comprehensive Plan,
stormwater regulatioris, and flood hazard area regulations.
, .
- EN-119 Discourage development within the floodplains_ associated with
the City's "shorelines that would individually or cumulatively
result in an increase to the risk of flood damage.
Page 9-21
Amended 2010
Environment
EN-120 Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures, should be given
preference over structural measures. Structural flood, hazard
'reduction measures should be avoided whenever possible. When '
necessary, they should be accomplished in a manner that assures
no net loss of ecological function and ecosystem-wide processes. ,
' Non-stnictural measures iriclude setbacks, land use controls
- piohibiting or lu'niting development in areas that have-aze
historically flooded; stormwater mariagement plans, or
bioengineering measures. .
EN-121 Where possible; public access : should be infegrated into publicly
financed flood control and management facilities.
Objective 21.7 Water Quality, Storm Water and Non-Point Pollution.
~ Policies:
EN-122 The City should preverit impacts to water quality and storm water
- quantity that would result iri 'a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions; or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or
recreational opportunities. ~ EN-123 Storm water management treatment, conveyance, or discharge facilities should be 'discouraged in the shoreline jurisdietion,
~ unless no other feasible alternative is available.
EN-124 Low impact development techniques that allow for greater,
amount of storm water to infiltrate into the soil should be '
encouraged to reduce storm water run-off. EN-125 Encourage conservation of existing shoreline vegetation whieh
provides water quality protection by slowing and filtering storm .
water run-off.
Objective 21.8 Educational and Archeological Areas and Historic Sites.
Policies: Page 9-22
Amended 2010 '
Environment
EN-126 Where possible, Educational and Archeological Areas and
Historic sites in the shoreline should be permanently preserved
for scientific study, education, and public observation.
EN-127 Consideration should be given to the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and Chapter 43.51 RCW to provide for
the protection, rehabilitation, restora.tion and reconstruction of
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects located or
associated with the shoreline that are significant in American,
Washington and local history, architecture, archeology or
culture.
EN-128 Where feasible and appropriate, access trails to shorelines should
incorporate access to educational signage acknowledging
protected, historical, cultural and archeological sites or areas in
the shoreline.
Objective 21.9 Nonconforming Use and Development Standards.
Policies:
EN-129 Legally established uses and developments that predate the
City's Shoreline Master Program (1973, as amended) should be
allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses provided that
future development or redevelopment does not increase the
degree of nonconformity with this program.
GOAL 22 SHORELINE MODIFICATION
Shoreline modifications are generally related to construction of a physical
element such as a levee, bulkhead, or pier at or near the edge of a river or
extending into the channel. Other modification actions include dredging,
filling, or vegetation clearing. Modifications are usually undertaken in
support of or in preparation for an allowed shoreline use or development.
Objective 22.1 Prohibited Modifications
The following shoreline modifications are prohibited in a11 shoreline
environments unless addressed separately in this shoreline master program
under another use:
1. Breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs:
2. I}une modifications; and
Page 9-23
Amended 2010
- .
Environment .
3. Piers and docks.
Objective 22.2 Dredging Dredge Material Disposal.
Policies:
.
EN-130 Dredging-and dredge. material disposal should be done in mariner
which avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. Where
impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation measures are required that
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. EN=131 Dredge spoil'disposal in water bodies, on shorelands, or wetlands.
„ .
,
within a river's channel migration zone` should be discouraged,
except as rieeded for habita.t improvement.
. EN-132 New development shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if that
is not possible; to minimize the need for new and mainteriance
dredging.
Objective 223 Piers, and Docks.
Policies:
EN-133 The City should discourage the construction of new piers, docks,
or floats in the shoreline jurisdiction alorig the Green and White
Rivers. .
' Objective 22.4 Shoreline Stabilization (bulkheads and revetments). .
Policies:
EN-134 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or
increased shoreline stabilization on -the same or other affeeted'
_ . _ r
properties where there has been no previous need for
- stabilization should be discouraged. EN-135 New.shoreline uses and development.p~hetA be located away from the shoreline in order to preclude the need for new
sta.biliza.tion structures. °
. Page 9-24
_ Amended 2010 '
Environinent
EN-136 Structural, or "hard" shoreline sta,bilization ,tecliniques and
structures should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that
non-structural or "soft" shoreline protection measures are not
, . feasible.
EN-137 The cumulative effect of allowing bulkheads or revetments along
river segments should be evaluated. If it is deternuned that the
cumulative effects of bulkheads or revetments would have an
adverse effect on shoreline functions or, processes, then permits
for them should not be granted.
. EN-138. Bulkheads. should not be :permitted as a solution to geo-physical
problems such as mass slope failure, sloughing, or land slides.
Bulkheads and revetments should only be approved for the
_ purposes of protecting.existing developments by preventing bank
erosion by the rivers.
Objective ~.?422.5 Clearing and Grading.
- ,
~ Policies:
. EN-139 Clearing and grading activities should only be allowed in
~ association.with a permitted shoreline development.
. EN-140 Clearing and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum~ necessary for the intended development, including residential
development. '
Objective 22.6 Fill: Policies:
EN-141 Fill placed waterward of the OHWM should be prolubited and ,
only allowed to facilita.te water dependent uses restoration
projects.
EN-142 Where permitted, fill shouldbe the minimum necessary to
provide for the proposed use and should be permitted only when
' Page 9-25
Amended 2010
I . . . . . . . . . .
Environment
. tied to a specific development proposal that is permitted by the
. , Shoreline Master Program.
EN-143 The perimeter of fill_ activities should be designed to avoid or
eliminate erosion and sedimenta.tion impacts, both during initial
" . fill activities and over time.
Objective 22.7 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement'Projects.
Policies:
EN-144 All proposed shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement
projects should assure that the activities associated with each
project address.legifimate restoration needs arid priorities and
facilita.te implementation of the Restoration Plan developed with
' - this Shoreline Master. Program pursuant to WAC 173-26-
201(2)(f)•
GOAL 23 SHORELINE USE Shoreline use activities are developments or activities that exist or are
anticipated to occupy shoreline loeations. _
Objective 23.1 Prohibited Uses within the Shorelirie Environment. :
Policies:
,
. ,
.
EN-145 The following uses should be prohibited in all shoreline
environments unless addressed separately in #his the Shoreline
Master Pro am under another use: See Section 1=2 of ~
gr the
Shoreline Master Program for definitions of the following uses:,
1. Boat houses;
2. Commercial development;
3. Forest practices; and
4. Industrial development;
5. New or expanded minirig; and
6. Permanent solid waste storage or transfer facilities. -
Page 9-26 ,
' Amended 2010 ~
Environment
. Objective 23.2 Agriculture
Policies:
EN-146 This Program allows for existing, ongoing agricultural activities
while also maintaining shoreline ecological functions and
processes.
EN-147 Agricultural activities that do not meet the definition for existing
and ongoing agricultural. activities should not be allowed in the
shoreline.
EN-148 Appropriate farm management techniques and new development
construction should be encouraged to prevent contamination of
nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant, fish,
and animal life from fertilizer, herbicides and pesticide use and
application.
EN-149 A vegetative buffer should be encouraged to be placed and
maintained between agricultural lands and water bodies or
wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and resulting in
sedimentation, enhance water quality, provide shade, reduce
flood hazard, and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
EN-150 Public access to the shoreline should be encouraged where it does
not conflict with agricultural activities.
EN-151 Proposals to convert agricultural uses to other uses should
comply with a11 policies and regulations established by the
Comprehensive Plan and this Master Program for said uses and
should not result in a net loss of ecological functions.
Objective 23.3 Aquaculture
Policies:
EN-152 Aquaculture is a water-dependent use, and when consistent with
control of pollution and avoidance of adverse impacts to the
Page 9-27
Amended 2010
Environment
erivironment arid preseryation of habita.t for resident native
- species, is an accepted use of the shoreline.
EN-153 Development of aquacul{ure facilities and associated activities,
such as hatcheries and fish counting stations should assure no net
. loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes, Aqua.cultural ,
facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread
disease to native aquatic life, establish new non-native species
which cause significarit ecological impacts, or.significantly
impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
, EN7154 Since locations for aquaculture activities are somewhat limited
and require specif c water quality, temperature, oxygen content,
and adjacent land use conditions; and because the technology
associated with some forms of aquaculture is still experimental,
--some latitude should be given when implementing the
regulations of tliis section, provided that potential impacts on
existing uses,and slioreline ecological functions and processes
are given due consideration. Experimental aquaculture projects
should be monitored and adaptively managed to maintain shoreline ecological functions and processes.
, Objective 23.4 Boating Facilities: Policies:
EN=155 Boating facilities "should not be allowed unless they are
accessible to the general public or serve a community.
EN-156 New boat launching ramps should be allowed only where they ,
aze located at sites with suitable environmental conditions,
_ shoreline configurations, access and neighboring uses.
EN-157 Development of new or modifications_to existing boat launching
ramps and associated and accessory uses should not result in~a .
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or other significant
adverse impacts.
- Objective 23:5 In-Stream Structural Use.
Policies: EN-158 Approval. of applications for in-stream structures should require
inclusion of provisions for the protection and preservation of
_ Page 9-28
Amended 2010
Environment
ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage,
wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydro
geological processes, and natural scenic vistas.
EN-159 The location and planning of in-stream structures should give
consideration to the full range of public interests, watershed
functions and processes, and environmental concerns, with
special emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and
species.
EN-160 Non-structural and non-regulatory methods to protect, enhance,
and restore shoreline ecological functions and processes and
other shoreline resources should be encouraged as an alternative
to structural in-stream structures.
Objective 23.6 Mining.
Policies:
EN-161 Limit mining activities near the shoreline to existing mining uses.
Objective 23.7 Recreation.
Policies:
EN-162 Prioritize shoreline recreational development that provides public
access, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the
State over other non water-oriented recreational uses.
EN463 Shoreline areas with the potential for providing recreation or
public access opportunities should be identified for this use and,
wherever possible, acquired and incorporated into the Public
Park and open space system.
EN-164 Public recreational facilities should be located, designed and
operated in a manner consistent with the purpose of the
environment designation in which they are located and such that
no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or ecosystem-wide
processes result.
Page 9-29
Amended 2010
-
Environment
, .
. EN-165 The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning
- should be encouraged so as to mutually satisfy needs. Shoreline
- recreational developments should be consistent;with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space
:Plan.
EN-166 Recreational development should not interfere with public use of
navigable waters.
Objective 23.8 Residential Development.
• Policies: ' EN-167 New over-water residences, including floating homes, are not a
prefened use and should be prohibited.
EN-168 New multiunit residential development and land subdiyisions for
more than four parcels should provide community and/or public
: access in conformance to the City's public access _planning and
this Shoreline Master Program: Adjoining access shall be
considered in making this determination.
EN-1169 Accessory development (to either multiple family or single
family) should be designed and located to blend into the site as
much as possible.
EN-170 New residential development should avoid the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures that
would cause significant impacts to other properties or public `
- ; improvements or a net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Objective 23.9 Signs.
Policies:
EN=171 Sigris. should be designed, constructed and placed so that they are
compatible with the natural quality of the shoreline environment
and adjacent land and water uses.;
Page 9-30
Amended 2010
Environment
Objective 23.10 Transporta.tion.
Policies:
EN-172 Plan, locate, design and where appropriate construct, proposed
roads, non-motorized systems and parking facilities where routes
will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile
shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned
water-dependent uses. Where other options are available and
feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within
shoreline jurisdiction.
EN-173 The number of river crossings should be minimized.
EN-174 Parking facilities in shorelines are not preferred and shall be
allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use and then
as remote from the shoreline as possible.
EN-175 Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along the White
and Green Rivers wherever possible.
EN-176 Joint use of transportation corridors within the shoreline
jurisdiction for roads, utilities, and non-motorized transportation
should be encouraged.
EN-177 New railroad corridors should be prohibited.
Objective 23.11 Utilities.
Policies:
EN-178 Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions, preserve the natural
landscape and vistas, preserve and protect fish and wildlife
habitat, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land
and shoreline uses.
EN-179 Primary utility production and processing facilities, such as
power plants, sewage treatment plants, water reclamation plants,
Page 9-31
Amended 2010
. , . . , . , . . . . . " / 1 . .
Environment
or parts of those facilities that are non-water-oriented should not be allowed iri sfioreline areas. .
EN7180 Utilities should utilize existing transportation arid utilities sites,
rights-of :way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of
: rights-of-way. and corridors should be encouraged.
EN-181 Transmission facilities for the, conveyance of services, such as
, power lines, cables, and pipelines, sha11 be located outside of the
shoreline area where feasible: Where. no other option exists, _
utilities should'be placed underground or alongside or under
bridges. ;
EN-182 New utilities facilities should be located so as riot to require . extensive shoreline protection structures.'
. _
' EN-183 Where storm water management; conveyance, and discharge
facilities are .permitted in the shoreline; tliey should be limited to
the minimum size :needed to accomplish their purpose a:nd should
be sited and, designed in a manner that avoids, or mitigates
adverse effects to the physical, hydrologic, or ecological functions.
EN-184 Stormwater conveyance facilities should utilize existing
transporfation and utility sites; rights-of-way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of right-of-way and corridors _
should be encouraged.
,
Page 9-32 `
Amended2010 '
APPENDIX B
REPORTS AND STUDIES
Introduction The Comprehensive Plan presents the results of the comprehensive
planning process. A wide variety of other documents have been prepared
or utilized in the process. These other documents contain the background
upon which the policy issues were assessed and the decisions made.
Consequently, while sepazately published, the "Comprehensive Plan"
should be considered the full body of this information. These documents
are all available for review in the Planning Department at Auburn City
Hall, and many of them are also available at the City Library. This section
identifies those documents.
Report to the Mavor on the Status o Planning In Auburn. December 1982:
Upon taking office in 1982, Mayor Roegner requested the Planning
Department to develop a comprehensive review of the status of the City's
Planning Program and its Comprehensive Plan. This report was prepared
by the then new Planning Director and published in December of 1982.
The purpose of this report was to establish a common base of
understanding regarding the role that comprehensive planning should take
in the City. It culminated in a recommendation that the planning program
be completely revised and a new Comprehensive Plan developed. While
the original recommendations have been modified subsequent to the
publishing of the 1982 report, it was this report which began the policy
discussions leading to the development of this Comprehensive Plan.
Population Trends, 1984: This report assessed the overall growth rate of
the community and how it is related to the growth rates in other areas. The
report took a detailed look at the growth pattern in Auburn over the last
decade and compared this pattern to other areas in the Green River Valley,
King County, and the Sta.te. The report concluded that the growth in
Auburn is highly interrelated with the general growth that has occurred
over the decade in the Green River Valley. The consistency of this
interrelationship between the growth patterns of Auburn and the Green
Va11ey as a whole indicates that Aubum will continue to grow at a rate
Page B-1
APPendig B
similar to the overall growth rate of this part of the County. Growth in
Auburn itself has been higher than in most otlier incorporated areas. -
General Population Characteristics 1980, Januarv 1984: This report
" presented an overview of the population chazacteristics of the City of
Aubum. The report explored the population change in more detail than _
the previous report, particularly in terms of change in sex, age, and racial
,
composition. The report also analyzed the composition of the City's
families and the employment patterns of its: residents as well as general
income levels. Finally the,report zeroed in on the characteristics of the
. .
- City's low income population.
Age Group.Analvsis. 1984: This report provides perhaps the most detailed
. exami _nation of some aspects of the City population of any of the Planning
reports. Three major 'demographic phenomena have strongly influenced ~
- , the.sociological character of the community between 1981-1984;.the post-
war -baby boom, the subsequent baby-bust, and the growth of the elderly
. population. This report extensively analyzes the implication of these
~ demographic phenomena on the community and compare these
: demograpliic patterns to other communities. This report noted that since
, different age groups exert different demands for various types of goods and services, these demographic patterns have a profound effect on the
problems and needs of the community. Since age groups are also closely
related to housing and_ employment needs; the relevance of this report to
~ many of the policies of the Plan is very significant. .
• Housing Market Patterns and Characteristics in Auburn. Novemlier 1984:
_ This report re viewed the housing supply of the City'of Auburn arid how it _
has been changing: The .purpose of the reportwas to assess the nature of
the housing supply in order to assist in the development of appropriate land use policy. The report was divided into three sections, tlie first of
which described the supply of various types of housing within the Gity `
itself. The second -section described how the broader Auburn area
community- housing stock compares to the Housing stock of other
_ communities. The third. section described. current construction patterns ` and assessed the proposed housing development plans by the private
sector: : This report provides.the back ground that was used by the planning
process to develop residential policies in this doctunent.
Page B-2 _
,
Reports and
Studies
Population Forecdsts,. Februarv 1985: Any comprehensive planning
process requires an undeistanding of where the community seems to be
headed in the future. This report forecasted the City's population based on
a variety of variables. The report is closely related to the Age Group
Analysis Report and the Housirig Report identified above. The report
concluded that - due to the availability of buildable land and the
development pressure of tlie, last` decade 'there is considerable potential for
a very high -rate of growth in the community. The report also noted that .
the need for school services, aftei a lull that is occurring at the present
time, is expected to resume; ` demand for preschool type services will
increase," the demand for retired age group services will increase; the
impact of 'substantiated grow'th in the young adult population that has
shaped much of the last decade, ` is largely over; the need for new entry '
- type jobs in the labor force sfiouTd subside; and the aging of the labor force
- should result ' in very significant ` increases in family incomes and demand
for jobs appropriate for that age group: An 'appendix to this report
assessed the inte'rrel'ationship between ttie growth forecasted in this report,
and the growth forecasted by the Puget Sound Council of Governments for
\ the region: -
Ezisting Land Use ManagementPolicv. December 1984: This is perhaps
the most significant; of the reporEs for many of the policy issues addressed
by this Plan. It is particularly important in terms of its implication on the
- Compiehensive Plan 1VIap itself. :This report (which is closely related to
~ the original report to, the 1Vlayor) contains a complete analysis of planning
iri :the City and policy . issues which are present in the current policy
framework.. It addressed both very general policy issues as well as site
specific conflicts`in City ordinances.
Land Use and Development Polic~of the.Citv ofAuburn. September 1983:
One of the basic problems identified in the original report to the Mayor
was the problem of the City's land use policy being contained in a wide
varietyof doc.utnents. ' Tfiis report was originally prepared in order to
. assist in identifying those policies. As such, it provides a very useful step
in the planning piocess by ~ combinirig all the key land use policy
statements that liave been adopted by the City in one place. This report
merely compiles atid restates that policy.
Downtown Report, November 1984: One' of the most important concerns
identified early iri the planning process was the problems, needs and
potentials of the City's central business district. Due to this concem a
special committee was foriried, both to address downtown needs
independently of the planning process, and to provide a source of advice to
the plarining process regarding,.tliose needs. As a part of the Committee's
work, the Downtown Report was prepared and issued. T'he report reviews
Page B-3
APPendix B - , .
_ and analyzes the downtown of the City in, orde"r to provide a common
understanding of downtown issues in developing,the Comprehensive Plan,
' The report , reviews types of ,concems that generally present themselves in
. downtown planning and applies those concerris to the current, condition •
. and viability of Auburn's downtown. Related to this report "is a report
which implements some ofthe Committee's proposals for downtown in the form, of off-street parking facilities.
Economic Analvsis. December. of 1985: This xeport presents an economic
base study of the City: This base study is prepared from several different
perspectives. First the report assesses how the people who live in Aubum
gain their livelihood. Second; the report describes the type of-employment
that is available in the City. ,Third, the xeport describes the structure of the
City's business community as .measured by taxable sales activity. Finally
. the report compares the structure of the :City's employment base to tlie
.employment structure of. the surrounding azea. On the basis of this
analysis a projection of future economic, activity can be gained.
Land Use Analvsis. December 1985: This,report analyzes the current use
of the land in the City and how it is changing. It also describes and
assesses change in various regulatory actions related to land use such as
- rezones and platting:
1Vei-ahborhoods Meeting_ Program. August 1985:. This report documents
and summarizes the citizen input that ,was received by the City during its
eight neighborhood meetings. The first part of the report provides an
overview of the neighborhood.meetings taken as a whole, identifying and.
discussing those issues tlzat appeazed to be most important to meeting
participants. The following sections then provide a record of each meeting
including a pazaphrased listing of questions and comments offered by the
participants.
KidsPlan, Julv 1985: This report provides the results of the KidsPlan
program which was conducted during the spring, of 1985. A survey form
, was distributed to school children throughout Auburn in both public and
private elementary schools. Responses were received from 375 children, or
approximately 10% of a11 children attending. school ' within the . City of
Auburn. The su.rvey was intended to obtain information regarding the -
types . of places and aspects .of the community . that are important to
children.
Issues . Papers, om Au-aztst to December- of 1985: The Planning
Commission- and Planning Department prepared a series of issue papers
which identified the various issues which needed to be addressed by the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. These issue papers serve as the baSis
Page B-4
' Reports and
Studies
for the Comprehensive Plan and are derived from the studies and public
participation process described above. Each issue paper includes an
identification of alternative responses to the particular issue, a description
of the issue, the views of the neighborhood groups, the view of the
development community, the results of the studies as they relate to the
issue, a general recommendation by the Planning staff, and recommended
goals, objectives and policies. This report contains a11 twenty-six of those
issue papers.
Environmental Constraints and Opportunities. Januarv 1985: This report
seeks to develop an understanding of the environmental conditions
existing in the City. The report describes and assesses the environmental
conditions related to climate, air quality, geology and soils, hydrology, and
wildlife habitat. The report notes the constraints that are imposed by
environmental conditions on development within the City. It refers to a
series of maps that have been used in the planning process.
OTHER
REPORTS: All the reports described above were prepared by the Planning Department
for the Comprehensive Plan itself. In addition to these studies there are a
series of other reports that have been prepared by or for the City in recent
years, independent of the comprehensive planning process. These reports
nonetheless provided substantial information used in the development of
this plan.
1982 Comprehensive Traffc Plan. Citv of Auburn. Jul lv 982: This report
replaced the original traffic element which was adopted as part of the 1969
Comprehensive Plan. As the traffic element of the Plan, it describes both
the present and anticipated future traffic problems that will be confronting
the community, the goals to be achieved in the management of traffic and
a recommended traffic plan. It also includes policies and
recommendations related to financing the traffic improvements. This
document was adopted formally as an element to the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Auburn Park and Recreation Plan. 1981: This plan assesses the park and
recreation needs of the community and presents a recommended capital
improvement program to develop those facilities. The plan also includes
standards for parks and recreation and recommends methods of financing
facilities. The document also includes recommendations relating to open
space. This plan was formally adopted as an element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Sewerage Pdan. 1982: This plan identifies sanitary
sewerage needs of the community and recommends steps to meet those
needs. It contains stanctards for service which should be applied to new
Page B-5
APPendix B -
, , .
. development. This document is based upon and is considered to be an implementing tool for the 1969 Compreliensive Plan.`
. Comprehensive Water Svstem Plan. June 1983: 3'his plan identifies the
_ water service needs of the community and recommends facilities and
programs to meet those needs. It also contains standards for water service
that should be applied to new developmenf. 'This document is based upon
the 1969 Comprehensive Plan and is considered :to be an implementing
tool far that plan. Communitv Development Block Grant Plan. December 1984: This is an
annual. plan developed ;to guide the administration of the City's Block
Crrant Program:: The Plari ideritifies importarit community needs and seeks
~ to develop a program to address those needs. The plan also identifies and describes low income neighborhoods within the City.
.
-
Auburn Wav South Sanitarv Sewer Studv: ~ This report analyzed the
capacity of sewer service in southwest Auburn and identified significant . ,
deficiencies in tliat serv'ice._
.
Housing Assistance 'Plan. October 1984: This plan is adopted in order to
- guide any decisions~ related to the development of assisted housing in the
'Gity. It specifically 'identifies high priority. . areas for such development.
The plan also presents a comprehensive analysis of housing conditions in
the City and cost of housing for various income groups:
' Fire Services Studv. 1982: This report analyzed fire services needs'in the
communit3' and laid out a Plan of action to meet those needs. Of Particul
ar
' imPortance, this rePort identified standards for fire station location and
' needs. ' eenhouse Gas Inventorv for 'the Citv of Auburn. Wa hineton_ Au~ct
2010:-This report documents tHe results of the first g;reenhouse gas emiss'ions
inventories conducted for the City of Autiurn's municipal operations and the
broader Auburn communitv. The inventories were conducted to provide the
Citv with information to better understand =the nature and sources of
' . municipal and community greenhouse gas emissions, and to develop a
forecast for projected levels of Qreenhouse gas emissions in future vears. The .
inventoa report provides a discussion framework for' setting -greenhouse as
emission 'reduction taigets, recommendations-for strategies to achieve the
targeted emission reductions; and base year emission levels for measuring
progress in meetin t~ he City's g,reenhouse: gas'ernission reduction objectives.
The - report indicates that the Citv's municipal operations generated
approximatelv 10.000: metric tons of carbon. dioxide equivalents (mtCO,e)
and the broader Auburn community generafed just over 840.000 mtCO~e in
base vear 2008. The report projects that municipal and communitv
Page B-6 " .
Reports and
, . Studies
greenhouse gas emission levels will increase approximately 10 percent over
base .year.levels 'by_2015 and approximately 40 percent over base vear levels
bv 2030 unless Auburn.takes sig,nificant actions to reduce its emissions.
ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORTS : In addition fo studies and plans identified above, there ha.ve been a series
of environmerital reports that were used in the development of various
maps and reports identified above. Most of these reports are referenced in
. the Environmental. Constraints and Opportunities" report described above. -
In recent, years several enviionmental impact statements were prepazed and
. were available during the plannirig process as further background
information: These impact sta.tements included: ~
1. Lakeland Hills
, 2. Auburn Downs
3_ Auburn 400
4. Mountain View Terrace .
5. Balgray Holdings
6. Green Meadows
' 7. Academy Area Water System Improvements
~ 8. ` Surface Mining Operations (Lakeview)
9. London Square
10. Mount Rainier Vista -
11. Skyview 12. Proposed Crroundwater Withdrawals (Wells 3 and 4)
13. Stuck River Estates '
, 14. Auburn Way South 3anitary Sewer System.
Page B-7
APPendia B
15. City of Auburn. Final Environmental Impact Statement - City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Staff Draft and Recommendations.
.
,
May 1986. 16. City of Auburn. Fina1 Determination of Non-Siglaificance =
_ Downtown Design Study. April 1990.
17. . City of Auburn. ` Final Determination of Non-Significance -
Comprehensive Storm Draina eg Plan. May 1990.
18. ' City of Auburn. : Final Determination of Non-Significance -
Comprehensive 'Plan _ Amendinents on City Expansion and Urban
. Growth. July 1991, .
19. City of Auburn. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Auburn
North CBD Analvsis. November 1991.
20. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significarice -
Comprehensive Plan Amendments on Sensitive and Critical ,
Lands. January 1992.
Finally,, a series of reports prepared by other agencies were used to assist
in analyzing environmental eonditions:
1. King County, Sensitive Areas Map Folio, March, 1980. ` -
2. . Dames & 1Vloore, Report of Hydrogeologic Investigation, Coa1
-Creek and West Hill Spring S, st~, 1976.
; 3. Pool Engineering, Ground Water Suppl.v Study, September 1982. 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inveritorv ofWetlands Green- „
Duwamish River Vallev, August, 1981.
5. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, SoiT Survev, Kinunty Area,
November 1973.
I, 6. King County, Kin County Wetlands InventorX, January 1983.
7. Crreen River Basin Program, Mill Creek Basin Profile, (n.d.).
,
8. King County, A River of Green, (n.d.). .
Page, B-8
- Reports and
Studies
9. State of Washington Departriient of Natural Resources, Draft
- Aquatic Land Management Plan for the Duwamish/Green River,
December 1981.
10. King County, Saving Fannlands and Open Space, July 1979.
11.. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Wetlands Inventorv, Auburn,
_ Wash., July 1973.
12. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department. Final
,
Environmental Impact Statement: Soos Creek Community Plan
Undate. December 1991. ,
13. King County Pazks, Planning and Resources Department. Final
' Supplemental Environmental _.Impact Sta.tement: Countywide .
Plarining Policies Proposed Amendments. May. 1994. 14. King CountyParks, Planning and Resources Department.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Kinsz Countv
Comprehensive Plan. July 1994. `
: 15. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services.
Proposed Lakeland Hills South Mining and Reclamation Plan and
Planned__Community Development: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. July 21, 1992.
lb. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services.
Comprehensive Plan for Pierce Countv, Washington: Firia1 EIS.
September 20, 1993.
17. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services.
. Final- Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce
Countv, Washin ton. ~ June 1994.
18. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Final Environmental
Impact Statement Vision 2020: Growth Strategy and
Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region.
September 1990.
i Page B-9