HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM III Auburn Gateway
~k
crry oF Memorandum
* WASHINGTON
TO: Sue Singer, Deputy Mayor
Rich Wagner, Councilmember
Nancy Backus, Councilmember
Lynn Norman, Councilmember
Bill Peloza, Counciimember
Virginia Haugen, Councilmember
John Partridge, Councilmember
FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director, Planning & Development Department
Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner, Planning & Development Department
CC Mayor Pete Lewis
Dennis Dowdy, P.E., Public Works Director
Dennis Selle, P.E., City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director
Steven Gross, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: August 23, 2011
SUBJECT: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE: Auburn Gateway/Robertson
Properties Group Briefing
At the City Council's August 29, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting, staff from
Planning and Development, Public Works and Legal will provide a briefing on key
elements of the Auburn Gateway/Robertson Properties Group negotiations. For a
number of years, staff has been working with Robertson Properties Group on the
preparation of key studies and has also been negotiating a development agreement.
Staff anticipates bringing the development agreement and a planned action ordinance
to the Planning and Community Development and Public Works Committees and City
Council for discussion and consideration in September/October/November 2011. In
addition, as part of the 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan update, staff will be proposing
amendments before the end of 2011 to the previously adopted Northeast Aubum
Special Plan Area for Planning Commission consideration and possible City Council
action.
To assist the Council in preparing for discussion during the August 29th briefing for
Aubum Gateway staff is attaching the following items:
1. Aubum Gateway Color Project Area Boundaries Map
2. Copy of PowerPoint Presentation
3. Key Elements Relationship Chart for Auburn Gateway
4. Flexibility and Benefits Matrix
5. Aubum Gateway Project Flow Chart (previously provided to the City Council)
6. Summary of a Development Agreement (previously provided to the City Council)
7. Summary of a Planned Action Ordinance (previously provided to the City Council)
Auburn Gateway Project
. ~ . _
I-A _ ~ ~ I~, _ . . .
~
s w
_ . , ~ . . .
. . . . . .
. . ~ _ S ?77TH+ST ~
AN&
.
, .
LLJ
'
A& . . . d~
~ _4 ~ - - -*'p-
. ~
~ „ •
. ~
a9~_N S~ NE • A . " . +
. . t . , .
. : . . 4 . ~ .
~
~ r ~ . . , ~ ~ ~ i
_ .s 'rt t
.
. ,
.
- F--` , •
~~iv'~'~' - ''x '7ti ~:~~~~Jt~r._ . R.. L•~ .
. c6'
' i . ~ s ~1~a •.i~. ~~l,Fh~ r ~ ^~r
f•~ - . ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ;i .~nr~ i ~ i -
I I . lir~~~
. ~
IF = . . . ~ .•,r -~di`k . "
~
~S 28-1TH S71, ,f - r _ • a .Q,.
_ . • ~ f- ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~'►'„F~"r
,
-i~ _ ~t ~ _ ~u~.~.. ; . yr ~
+ . . ~G• ~'Y` _
~
1 ( . ~ ` : ~ ~ L 1~LL1
PrintcdOn:08/24/11
Map ID: 3799 ` . ' ~ .
~ ~i . , "`f - t . a~' ~ ' ♦ I ~ .
4 3 R D C T N E,-
Aubum Gateway Project Boundary T ;
93
Parcels 42ND PL NE
f]
~
C(TY OF *
' ,,AtjBURN
WASH I NGTON
Auburn City Council
Committee of the Whole:
~
Aubum Gatewayl
Robertson Properties Group
Briefing
~
August 29, 2011
~ E
GITY OF
,AtjBURN
WASHINGTON Briefing Purposes
• Review status of negotiations with Robertson
Properties Group (RPG)
• Provide an overview of Development Agreement
(DA), Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), EIS
Addendum & Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area
Update
• Obtain Council feedback, questions and issues in
advance of Council Committees' reviews
BURN*N.1 Cal:, I: 11 I A N `r'( ) l_i ~ P,_1,V_; 1 k L?
~
c;rTV Or
,AtiBURN
WASHi NGTON Auburn Gateway Location
_
60 acres/multiple parcels
i, ~ y •',''e~~
(project boundaries
~
highlighted in red on map)
Boundaries are:
4
S 277tn Street on NORTH
4 ~ ~ - -
~
~ " Auburn Way North on
, ,
. t-- , - , . ,
W EST
Port of Seattle property on
EAST
~ R~•~~ t~.~ 45t" Street N E o n SO UTH
3 . i~ I ~tya,~~ fr..;. . ~
--i AU BU RN JM0a; r: a i i AN ~`c.~~ ~ PMAcJi NID
C[T
AIUBU]RN Y OF ~ *
Brief History of Auburn Gateway
WAs~~~GT°N Planning & Negotiations Efforts
1995 - City updates Comprehensive Plan to establish NE Auburn Special Plan Area
2002 - RPG requests City to begin special area plan and EIS
2003 - City initiates preparation of Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement
2004 - City issues Draft and Final Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statements
2004 - EIS appealed and adequacy upheld
2007-2008 - RPG purchases 11 additional acres west of Theater properties
2008 - City Council approves map and text amendments to Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Code and NE Auburn Special Plan Area document
2008 - RPG and City begin Development Agreement negotiations
2010 to 2011 - City initiates preparation of addendum to Planned Action EIS based
on additional 11 acres purchased by RPG and other changes
2010 to 2011 - RPG updates preliminary draft of site specific Architectural and Site
Design Standards
At.IBURN* M~~I\'E ll IAN `;'(-)L) IMAUXLD
*
FevelopDment . . - - -
Ctrx Oe pp-
AUB F T - • " • • requir
U
• Council • • - • • • •
.
* ~''ASHiCVGTC . . ~ - : . .
Council . . . .
. . . . legally
. .
1 .
P • ` • ' ' ' - -
•
• • • -
Re• e• • analyze
A• o• ' • • Auburn Gateway impacts i • eve • • e
_ _
Council • • • • - alternatives
- • • ~ •
ie • e • multi-use
•d' 0~'
development) ~ ~ ~ A•d' d r
Mitigation ' asure • • ete in Septembe I
2011
♦ -ast Auburn • ' • -
Area
• • ' • ` : - a • •
. !I
Auburn Gateway -
Key Elerrients Relartionship Chart AUBLJRN * n001U'rlIAN YOU N~~IAGINED
k
CfT
AtiBURN Y OF *
Development Agreement -
WAS H i NGTON Key Facts
+
• Current C-4 (Mixed Use Commercial) zoning applied to Auburn Gateway
is conditional - permanent application is contingent on Council approval
of a development ag reement
• To be reviewed under provisions and procedures of Chapter 14.21
(repealed) - project is "vested" under this Chapter
• Council approval of Development Agreement is voluntarv not
mandatorv
• Council consideration is legally deemed a quasi-judicial action
• Council approval must be made upon determination of compliance to
applicable criteria in ACC 14.21.010.A and ACC 14.21.010.13
• Contains procedures for minor and major modifications to project
elements
• Contains procedures for modification of development agreement
• Contains termination for cause provisions
AUBURN* MOR~ ~ITiAN YOU iMACcNLu
CfT
AtjBUR__N"
Y OF WASHINGTON Public Benefits
• Refer to Public Benefits document in meeting packet for more expansive
discussion
• Key Public Benefits of Project include:
- Extension of I Street N E to S 277t" St
- Right-of-way dedication and road widening along S 277t" St
- Higher quality of development through implementation of site-specific
Architectural and Site Design Standards (exceeds current City requirements
for site and building designs)
- Creation of amenities, infrastructure-related efficiencies, & implementation of
Comprehensive Plan
• Redevelopment of underutilized and vacant land, enhancement of
current property values and potential for increased sales tax
revenues - cannot be relied on by City Council for future
decision-making but will have positive benefits as well
~
,
K
crTY or
What the Development
,AitiBURN
Agreement Does.Not Do:
• Obligate current and future City Councils to expenditure of existing or
future funds for street and utility improvements
• Authorize actions or activities that are not consistent with City, state or
federal policies
• Expose City to unreasonable or inappropriate liability/risk
• Provide the City with no recourse to terminate if there is cause
• Waive any development fees
• Provide for automatic waiver of any system development charges or
impact fees - could be potentially available if consistent with City
standards or policies as determined by City Engineer/Public Works
Director
• Reduce or remove any requirements for infrastructure improvements
AU BURN * MORE1-H A N Y,OLJ IMAC; CNE D
*
C«
What the Development
AUBURN Y Oe
WASHINGTON Agreement Does
*
• Ensures a higher quality of development by adopting and
requiring the implementation of site specific Architectural
and Site Design Standards - standards are at a greater
level than required by C-4 zoning designation
• Provides regulatory certainty for longer-term redevelopment
of 60 acres by:
- Establishes 15 -year vesting period
- Maintains currently adopted C-4 land use and zoning regulations in
effect for entire vesting period
- Creates 3 separate vesting periods - Initial Vesting Period, Second
Vesting Period, Third Vesting Period (5-year each)
B U R N * `'.1(. ) I', I- 7 1 1 ~v,! `7 i 1_ I I ' , I I
~
~ITY OF
What the Development
,AijBURN
'W~S HI.N GTC~~
Agreement Does:
- Vesting Periods provide that development regulations other than
land use and zoning in effect on December 31St of the last year of
previous vesting period shall replace previous development
regulations in effect. Effect of this:
• Provides City with ability to maintain code consistency over longer
implementation period
• Provides Developer with development certainty
• Excludes public health, life and safety regulations from vesting
provisions
• Requires minimum bi-annual written reporting by Developer
on project development issues including but not limited to
leasing efforts, construction progress and external agency
permits and approvals
p
7 y II r.p ry G
I Nj;r
CIT
AuBURN Y OF *
~ What the Development
* WASHiNGTON Agreement Does:
• Memorializes existing and available standards and
provisions for provision of transportation and utility
infrastructure
• Memorializes willingness of City and Developer to explore
partnerships for infrastructure development where
appropriate ,
,
• Memorializes future SEPA procedures following significant
efforts on Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
AUBURN * r~~CALTHAN Yc~~~ IMAGINLu
I
*
crTv Or * y
Planned Action
,Ai(jBURN
WAsHINGTON Ordinance - Key Facts
• Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) is direct outcome of Planned Action
EIS work - original and addendum
• City to issue EIS addendum for required public comment period in
September 2011
• Authorized under state SEPA rules
• Primary purpose is to "front load" environmental review process -
avoids multiple and separate environmental reviews by City at time
of project permit applications and reduces permit processing time
• Auburn Gateway's PAD is first time City has used this process
• Ordinance - if approved by City Council - will be incorporated into
Auburn City Code as a chapter
• Ordinance will specify mitigation measures that must be applied to
future development
~IT
Y OF Northeast Auburn Special
AtiBuRN
WASHTNGTON Plan Area Update
*
• Chapter 14 (Comprehensive Plan Map) establishes Northeast Auburn
Special Plan Area boundaries The boundaries were provisionally
revised with the adoption of the Special Area Plan
• Chapter 14 specifies that key issues for this Special Plan Area are:
- I Street NE alignment and design
- Storm drainage and other utility issues
- Land use types and density
- Financing of necessary infrastructure improvements
- Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation proposal
~~?~~'ll'~1g1 I•-.I'f-. . ~ Y'~.'
~
CIT
AtiBURN Y OF ~ Northeast Auburn Special
WAS HINGTON Plan Area Update
• 2008 NE Auburn Special Plan Area was developed to identify "solutions
for limitations that have previously discouraged development in this area
and proposes actions that will both expedite development and protect
against adverse environmental impacts due to development"
• Updates to NE Auburn Special Plan Area include:
- Incorporation of additional 11 acres purchased by RPG
- Changes in surrounding land uses and physical infrastructure
- Findings and mitigation specified in EIS addendum
AUBURI~ * MC) K L rl iA N W-)U iNtiAG I :~E D
~ITY OF ~ •
Proposed Policy
,AtiBURN
WAS H I N GTO N
Consideration Schedule
• 8/16 - Planning Commission first discussion of amendments to NE Auburn
Special Plan Area
• 8/29 - City Council Committee of the Whole
• 9/12 - PCDC review of draft Development Agreement and Planned Action
Ordinance
• 9/19 - PW Committee review of draft Development Agreement and Planned
Action Ordinance
• 9/26 - PCDC continued review of draft Development Agreement and Planned
Action Ordinance
• 10/3 - PW Committee continued review of draft Development Agreement and
Planned Action Ordinance
• 10/4 - Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to NE
Auburn Special Plan Area
• 10/10 - PCDC potential recommendation action for Development Agreement
and Planned Action Ordinance
AUB Li RN* N-10 P , L I 1I A N U e IM A6 « E D
1K
CrTY Or * *
RN Proposed Policy
* WASHINGTON n i rati
Co s de on Schedule
• 10110 - PCDC review of Planning Commission recommendations for
amendments to NE Auburn Special Plan Area
• 10/17 - PW Committee review of Planning Commission recommendations for
amendments to NE Auburn Special Plan Area
• 10/17 - City Council required public hearings on Development Agreement and
Planned Action Ordinance
• 10/24 - PCDC continued review of Planning Commission recommendations for
amendments to NE Auburn Special Plan Area
• 11/3 - PW Committee review of Planning Commission recommendations for
amendments to NE Auburn Special Plan Area
• 11/7 - Request for City Council action on Development Agreement and Planned
Action Ordinance
• 11114 - PCDC potential recommendation action for Planning Commission
recommendations on amendments to NE Auburn Special Plan Area
' BURN * I~ f- i I I,~, N Yc~ 1.. 1 I EI_,
G f T 4r O1 RN Proposed Policy
t WASHINGTON Consideration Schedule
• 11/21 - PW Committee review of PCDC and Planning Commission
recommendations for amendments to NE Auburn Special Plan Area
• 12/5 - Request for City Council action on amendments to NE Auburn Special
Plan Area
AU BU I~
C(Tl~' ~~T' ~ *
, End of Presentation
WAS H I NGTON
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?
Development '
• " • -q •
• • • • • • make
ppermanent 4 • prehensive plan :
zoning
Council • voluntary • •
-d, b e •
•
PPPPlpanned Actio _
PEnvir
•Nct:
FF' • •
A••• • o
q • • analyze •
Ordinance , ~ s • ~ lr.i r sp
Becomes p. • •d• Original • e 114 _-J,
Imp •
• ~ • ' o d• d • b- o •
Measures • 0 2011
Northeast Auburn Special ' -
Special Plan Area .b • p Plan
Plan provisionally .dop - • o 112
Updates ••-r . reflect • r
area : • •
Auburn Gateway -
Key Elements Relationship Chart
Development Agreement Criteria
(Related to Development Agreement Code Section ACC 14.21, repealed)
Context:
Former Chapter 14.21 ACC, Development Agreements (Repealed in 2008 by Ordinance
No. 6817) set out the city's specif c requirements for development agreements. These
requirements are more detailed than the provisions of state law governing development
agreements. Robertson Properties Group (RPG) applied for a development agreement
before the code section was repealed, and the City has worked with them over the years
to bri.ng a proposal that staff could favorably recommend to the City Council.
This code section 14.21.010A states that, [a] development agreement should allow for a
greater flexibility than may be realized by using the existing city standazds. In exchange
for this enhanced flexibility, the City will require a development to be of significantly
higher quality, generate more public benefit, and be a more sensitive proposal than would
have been the case with the use of standard zoning or subdivision procedures.
The following information is provided to demonstrate how the pending application
addresses the criteria for approval.
Page 1
August 24, 2011
Development Agreement Provisions (term sheet)
(Related to Development Agreement Criteria (ACC 14.21, repealed))
Requests for Relief/Flezibilitv
• Vesting. Normally, state and city laws a11ow for a plat to be vested for seven
years to the-development standards in effect the time of approval. The proposed
development agreement provides for an extended vesting period of a total of
fifteen years from execution, broken into three, 5-year periods. This "rolling
vesting" minimizes city risk associated with attempting to forecast impacts over
the 15-year lifetime of the development agreement. The C-4, Mixed Use
Commercial zoning originally, provisionaliy adopted by Ordinance No. 6183 in
2008 will apply for the entire 15-year period. "Footprint design" regulations, such
as city street standard right-of-way widths, will only change at the beginning of
each vesting period. "Technical design" regulations and life-safety regulations,
such as building, fire, mechanical and plumbing codes will be vested to the
standards for each individual pernut applied for.
• Land Use Flezibility The developer has requested the ability to include a
. mixture of office, retail and residential uses for the site development. The
Environmental Impact Statements and related documents have been prepared to
recognize this flexibility in the land use mix and the developer could develop up
to the threshold levels studied. However, regarding residential uses, the
development shall only be allowed on the upper story of multi-stored buildings
except for ancillary interior uses needed to support the residential uses.
• Preferred Land Uses These standards reflect Council's policy guidance
regarding construction of mixed-use developments, prioritization of full-service
restaurants over drive-through resta.urants, and avoidance of stand-alone
automobile repair service and parts businesses.
• Transportation and Utility Infrastructure. City Code authorities require
developers to construct certain transportation and utility infrastructure (such as
half-street improvements, etc.) Under separate State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) authority, other infrastructure improvements may be needed to address
proj ect impacts to serve the new development and the new development may have
a proportional share; but the improvement is needed prior to development. The
Agreement acknowledges that infrastructure that benefits RPG's development
will also benefit other properties in the City. The Agreement provides for the
parties to work cooperatively to phase infiastructure conshuction so that adequate
facilities aze in place for each phase of RPG's project. It also provides that the
City will place a higher priority on I ST NE in the City's Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Page 2
August 24, 2011
• Architectural and Site Design Standards. RPG has requested the City not have
the ability to initiate changes to the Architectural and Site Design Standards once
adopted. Changes to the standards would be initiated by RPG. The Architectural
and Design Standards are expected to be implemented by the development
agreement and for consistency with city code, with a future modification to the
portion of the zoning code that references other city design standards.
• Transportation/LJtility Infrastructure Improvements. At RPG's request the
City has memorialized in Section 9 of the Development Agreement the various
mechanisms available in code and through other avenues currently available to
the city, such as interlocal agreements, impact fees and previous SEPA mitigation
measures, the monies that are available to financially assist infrastructure
improvements needed in the vicinity. RPG asked for these items to be included in
the DA to increase certainty and in order to bring these items forward and make
them part of this voluntary contract (Development Agreement). Where the
mechanisms aze found in code requirements, the referenced code sections would
be part of an attachment to the agreement and thus future changes to these
referenced code sections would be subject to the rolling vesting provisions of the
agreement.
• Flood Storage Capacity. City regulations require developers to constxuct
compensatory flood storage for fill placement in the floodplain that reduces
available storage volume. The Agreement provides that the City will make
available to RPG City-ownedJcontrolled flood storage capacity on the adjacent
Port of Seattle wetland mitigation property when and if the city secures
permission from the Port of Seattle.
. • Ability to Modify the Development Agreement. Acknowledging that market
conditions will likely change over the term of the Agreement, it provides a cleaz
process for possible modifications that balances allowing administrative approval
of changes that have minor effects, while providing a public hearing process for
ma.jor modifications.
• Commitment to Transportation Payback Mechanisms The City has
determined that the below listed projects will create capacity in the City's public
street system and as such commits that the following listed improvements will
~ remain included in the City's list of eligible projects for traffic impact fee credits.
As such, the City will provide a credit for transportation fees attributable to the
Proj ect in conformance with Chapter 19.04 for the following improvements as
listed in the Traffic Impact Fee Program List.
• 49t' Street NE between Auburn Way North and "M" Street NE
•"I" Street NE Between 40'h Street NE and S. 277t' Street (52°a Street NE)
Page 3
August 24, 2011
Public/Communitv Benefits
• Preservation of Natural Amenities. Preservation of desirable site
characteristics such as open spaces and the protection of sensitive
environmental features including steep slopes, mature trees, rivers, creeks,
wetlands, lakes and scenic views. The site in an under developed state currently
~ contains significant amounts of open space, wetlands, drainage courses, some
scattered mature trees (mostly cottonwood and poplar trees) and 100-year
floodplain. In July of 2005 RPG undertook 40,546 square feet of buffer
enhancement through planting 30-foot buffers around one wetland and the on-site
portion of another wetland (SEP04-0034 & GRA04-0018). The on-site portions
of the two wetlands with enhanced buffers aze preserved by recorded conservation
easements. The site also contains portions of at least two other wetlands which
ha.ve not been identified for protection. Futureaiteration of these remaining
wetlands would be in accordance with the city's adopted critical areas regulations
in effect as stated in the vesting proposal. • Pedestrian-Oriented Communities. Use of traffic management and design
techniques to reduce traffic congestion both within and in the vicinity of the
proposed development and to increase the potential use of alternative modes
of travel such as mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A traffic
analysis has been prepared, right-of-way (ROV) is proposed to be dedicated and
improved (either through half street requirements and mitigation measures) to
manage vehicular traffic associated with the project and passing through the
proj ect site. RPG has developed Architectural and Site Design Standards to
promote pedestrian-oriented design for the development. The applicant will be
responsible for continua.tion of trail construction along the south side of S. 277d`
Street along their frontage. A mitigation measure proposed to be included in the
planned action ordinance requires provision of a master plan for pedestrian/non-
motorized circulation for City of Auburn review and approval.
• Land Use Efficiencies. Provide efficient and effective use of land, open space
and public facilities that result in lower development cost and make housing
more affordable. In 2008 by Ordinance No. 6183, the city provisionally
adopted the C4, Mixed Use Commercial zoning that requires residential to be
located on the upper story of multi-storied buildings and thus encouraging
compact development and potentially, affordability. The ability to coordinate
development over approximately 63 acres will facilitate coordination of utility
and road infrastructure improvements that can result in efficiencies and
potentially result in lower development and maintenance costs. In particulaz, the
city will realize substantial dedication of ROW for and construction of I ST NE, a
minor arterial street, to serve as a reliever for Auburn Way N and avoid more
piecemeal dedication and roadway construction.
Page 4
August 24, 2011
• Improved Transitional Areas. Improve the sensitive development of
transitional areas located between different land uses, environmentally
sensitive areas, and along significant corridors within the city. The project's
traffic analysis has lead to identification of a road network benefitting the project,
vicinity and the city through provision of linkages in an area currently
underserved by streets. The identified road network will improve transitions to
adjacent areas.
• Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Provide development that is
consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. With approval
of the development agreement and planned action ordinance and incorporated
elements, the development agreement and project will be consistent with the goals
and policies of tlie city's comprehensive plari (See the Comprehensive P[an
policies attached, excerpted from Comprehensive Plan)
• Enhanced Design Features. Provide building and structural designs that
complement surrounding land uses and their environment. Design standards
should reflect quality site planning, landscaping and building architecture. RPG,
in conjunction with the city, has originated Architectural and Site Design
Standards to apply to the Auburn Gateway project to demonstrate an enhanced
level of design and quality and promote compatibility within the Proj ect
boundaries. The Architectural and Site Design Standards will be made a
requirement of the project through the Development agreement and a code
amendment.
• Creation of Public Amenities. Enhance parks and open spaces consistent
with the comprehensive park plan and non-motorized plan. RPG, in
conjunction with the city, has originated Architectural and Site Design Standards
to apply to the Auburn Gateway project to demonstrate an emphasis on non-
motorized transportation. The applicant will be responsible continuation of trail
construction along the south side of S 277th Street. A mitigation measure
requires provision of a master plan for pedestrian/non-motorized circulation for
City of Auburn review and approval. The plan to be approved by the city will
ensure public amenities consistent with the non-motorized plan.
• Floodplain Storage Compensation. Upon the city's successful securing of rights
from the Port of Seattle for the use of floodplai.n storage in their constructed
wetland mitigation site, the City will make a portion of the floodplain storage
available to RPG for their use. In exchange for provision of this floodplain
stora.ge, RPG will provide compensation to the city in the form of mutually agreed
consideration. Additionally, the developer sha11 pursue the formal recognition
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the placement of fill
and affect on floodplain through the Letter of Map Revision.
Page 5
_ August 24, 2011
• Protection of City Interests.
o RPG has agreed to prepare written progress and status reports to the City
at least twice per yeaz, and to participate in meetings with Council and
staff to report on the proj ect status at least annually. Status information
includes leasing, construction and pemut information.
. o Acknowledging that market conditions will likely change over the term of
the Agreement, it provides a clear process for possible modifications that
balances allowing administrative approval of changes that have minor
effects, while providing a public hearing process for major modifications.
o The Agreement contains a termination provision that requires
permits/approvals must be "substantially underway" prior to the expiration
of the term of the development agreement and does not extend the normal
code required lifetime of the permits/approvals. It also requires RPG to
submit permit/approval applications that aze consistent with this Project as
identified in the Development Agreement (and the design standards).
Page 6
August 24, 2011
Listing of Relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies
Chapter 2, General Approach
GP-6 The growth impacts of major private or public development which place
significant service demands on community facilities, amenities and services,
and impacts on the City's general quality of life shall 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 development shall be encouraged to provide a balance between
regional service demands and impacts placed on the City's quality of life
versus the local benefits derived from such development.
Chapter 3, Land Use 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 offices designed to provide convenient
shopping and other services for neazby residents. Industrial and 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 parking
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 facilitate safe connections within the development, along adjacent
roads adjacent and to adjacent residential developments.
Design guidelines for mixed-use development have been developed. These
guidelines should be reviewed and amended periodically to be consistent with
current planning trends and market demands.
Objective 9.3. To encourage the appropriate use of azeas 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 haffic 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.
Page 7
August 24, 2011
• Protecting existing, viable residential azeas along lesser-traveled arterials, from
commercial development.
Policies:
LU-58 The City shall identify those existing commercial arterials that are appropriate
for continued general (heavy) commercial development, and those arterials
that are appropriate for continued or future limited (i.e. professional office
type) commercia.l development.
LU-59 T'he City sha11 review its standards relating to the number, size and location of
driveways to ensure consistency with goals and policies relating to arterial
commercial development.
LU-60 The City shall encourage the grouping of individual commercial enterprises
along commercial arterials to promote the sharing of pazking 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
clevelopment Extensive screening and landscaping sha11 be used to buffer
general commercial uses from multiple family uses. However, the piacement
of walls and fences and site designs which prevent easy access by bicyclists
and pedestrians should be avoided.
Chabter 4, Housing
HO-26 The City shall develop incentives to develop underutilized parcels into new
uses that allow them to function as pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use -
neighborhoods. Existing uses which aze complementary, economical, and
physically viable shall integrate into the form and function of the
neighborhood.
HO-33 The City will encourage varied and human-scaled building design that
provides a visual interest to pedestrians, compatibility with historic buildings
or other neighborhood structures, and enhances the streetscape.
Chapter 5, Capital Facilities Objective 1.4. To ensure that new development does not out-pace the City's ability to provide
and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to
occur only when and where adequa.te facilities exist or will be provided, and by
encouraging development types and locations which can support the public services they
require.
Policies:
Page 8
August 24, 2011
CF-1 Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of public
facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with
development.
CF-2 Development shall be allowed only when and where such development can be
adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing level of
service elsewhere.
CF-3 If adequate facilities aze currently unavailable and public funds are not committed
to provide such facilities, developers must provide such facilities at their own
expense in order to develop. CF-4 The City should continue to assist through direct participation, LIDs and payback
agreements, to the extent permitted by law, where appropriate and financially
feasible. Where funding is available, the City ma.y participate in developer
initiated facility extensions or improvements, but only to the extent that the
improvements benefit the broader public interest, and are in accord with the
specific policies and recommendations of the appropriate City public facilities
plan.
CF-6 New connections to the City's sanitary sewer, water and/or storm drainage
systems, shall contribute their fair share toward the construction and/or financing
of future or on-going projects to increase the capacity of those systems.
CF-7 The City sha11 encourage and approve development only where adequate public
services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services,
education, parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other
governmental services aze available or will be made available at accepta.ble levels
of service prior to project occupancy or use.
CF-8 Extension of any individual facility, irrespective of mode of fmancing, to serve
new development should be approved only if it is determined that adequate fiscal
capacity exists to support the extension of other needed facilities.
CF-9 Extension of any individual facility, irrespective of mode of fmancing, to serve new development should be approved only if it is determined that adequate fiscal
capacity exists to support cost effective service by a11 on-going public ser'vices
and maintenance of facilities.
Page 9
August 24, 2011
Objective 5.4. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public
services through an effective system of public facilities.
Policies:
CF-10 Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital
Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility
designed to serve at an adequa.te level of service the locations and intensities of
uses specified in this comprehensive plan.
CF-11 No new development shall be permitted unless the facilities specified in each
facility plan are available or can be provided at a level adequate to support the
development. The adequacy of facilities shall be determined by the following:
a. An adopted system plan;
b. Policy guidance as provided in the City Capital Facilities Plan;
c. Appropriate engineering design standards as specified in applicable City
Plans, Codes, and manuals as adopted by the City Council;
d. Environmental review standazds - (adequacy includes the absence of an
unaccepta.ble adverse impact on a public facility system).
e. Case by case evaluation of the impacts of a proposed development on the
public facility systems: first to deternune the minimum a.mount of
facilities necessary to support the development and second to determine a
proportiona.te shaze of the system to be developed or fmancially
guaranteed before approving the development.
CF-12 No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum
of facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a
proportionate share of related system needs.
Cha.pter 7, Transportation
TR-7: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a
series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unaccepta.bly high tra.ffic volumes on any one street. Ample
alternatives should exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials
designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community.
TR-8: Encourage the use of trails and other connections that provide ease of travel
within and between neighborhoods, community activity centers, and transit
services. Development patterns that block direct pedestrian access aze
discouraged. Ample altematives should exist to accommodate non-motorized
transportation on arterials, collectors, and local roads.
Page 10
August 24, 2011
TR-19: New development sha11 not be allowed when the ixnpacts of the new
development on the transportation system degrades the LOS to below the
adopted LOS standard, unless the condition is remedied concurrent with the
development as described in Chapter 2.
TR-20: The term "below level-of-service" shall apply to situations where traffic
ariributed to a development likely results in any of the following.
a. An unacceptable increase in hazard or an unacceptable decrease in
safety on a roadway.
b. An accelerated deterioration of the street pavement condition or the
proposed regular use of a street not designated as a truck route
for truck movements that can reasonably result in accelerated
deterioration of the street pavement.
c. An unacceptable impact on geometric design conditions at an
intersection where two truck routes meet on the City arterial and
collector network.
. d. An increase in congestion which constitutes an unacceptable adverse
environmental impact under the State Environmental Policy
Act.
e. A reduction in any of the three (3) LOS standazds below.
1. Arterial and Collector Corridor LOS: The level-of-service standard for each arterial
and collector corridor is "D", unless otherwise specified in Chapter 2 of this
plan. The City ma.y require a developer to examine a shorter or longer corridor
segment than is specified in Chapter 2, to ensure a project's total LOS impacts
are evalua.ted.
2. Signalized/Roundabout Intersection LOS: The City may require a developer to '
examine individual signalized or roundabout intersections for LOS impacts to
ensure a project's total LOS impacts are evaluated.
3. Unsignalized Intersection LOS: The level-of-service standard for these intersections,
measured as if they were signalized, sha11 be level of service "D". If LOS falls
below the standard, analysis and mitigation ma.y be required in. a manner
commensurate with the associated impacts. This may include, among other
requirements, conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis and installing or
financing a signal or roundabout. TR-22: A.M. level of service may need to be analyzed in situations where specialized
conditions exist that disproportiona.tely impact a.m. traffic.
TR-23: Require developers to construct or finance transportation improvements and/or
implement strategies that mitigate the impacts of new development concurrent
with (within 6 years o fl development, as required by -the Growth Management
Act.
TR-24: New development that lowers a facility's level-of-service standard below the
locally adopted minimum standard shall be denied, as required by the Growth
' Page 11
August 24, 2011
Management Act. Strategies that may allow a development to proceed include,
but aze not limited to:
• Reducing the scope of a project (e.g. platting fewer lots or building less
square footage);
• Building or financing new transportation improvements concurrent with
(within 6 years of) development;
• Phasing/delaying a project;
• Requirixig the development to incorporate Transportation Demand
Management strategies; or
• Lowering level-of-service standards.
TR-25: The denial of development in order to maintain concurrency ma.y be grounds
for declaring an emergency for the purpose of amending the Comprehensive
Plan outside of the annual amendment cycle.
TR-26: Evalua.te city transportation facilities annually to determine compliance with
the adopted level-of-service standards and, as necessary, amend the Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
to remedy identified deficiencies.
TR-28: Require developers to construct transportation systems needed to serve new
developments.
TR-30: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the
development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the
development is served by the proposed transporta.tion improvements. In some
instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if
improvements serve more than adjacent developments.
TR-31: Revenues for street transportation improvements should primarily provide for the orderly development of the City's transportation system in compliance with
the Comprehensive Transporta.tion Plan. The basic criterion for such funding
should be the degree to which that project improves the overall transportation
system and not the benefit that might accrue to individual properties. Where it
is possible to establish a direct relationship between a needed improvement and
a development, the development should be expected to contribute to its
construction.
TR-32: Encourage public/private partnerships for financing transportation projects that
remedy existing and anticipated transportation problems, or that foster
economic growth.
TR-33: Aggressively seek and take advantage of federal, state, local, and private
funding and lending sources that help implement the City's Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
Page 12
August 24, 2011
TR-34: Maintain a traffic impact fee system based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers
(ITE) guidelines, as modified by the City Council, as a means of enabling
development to mitigate appropriately for associated traffic impacts.
TR-35: Reassess the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. if funding for
transportation facilities is insufficient to maintain adopted level-of-service
standards.
TR-36: Enhance the livability of Auburn through a variety of inechanisms, including
the innovative design and construction of roadways, non-motorized facilities,
and associated improvements. Apply design standards that result in attractive
and functional transportation facilities.
TR-61: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and
preserve right-of-way include:
• Requiri.ng dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development;
• Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and
• Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.
TR-62: Preserve and protect existing right-of-way through the issuance of permits such
as ROW Use permits and franchise and public way agreements, by monitoring
and responding to right-of-way encroachments and safety impacts, and by
limiting vacations of public right-of-way.
TR-63: Vacate right-of-way only when it clearly will not be a future need or to support
economic development.
TR-76: These minimum (road functional classification) standards do not limit or
prevent developers from providing facilities that exceed the City's standards.
TR-89: Seek consolidation of access points to state highways, arterials, and collectors.
This will benefit the highway and city street system, reduce interference with
traffic flows on arterials, and discourage through traffic on local streets. To
achieve this level of access control, the City:
• Adopts and supports the State's controlled access policy on all state
highway facilities;
• May acquire access rights along some arferials and collectors;
• Adopts design standards that identify access standazds for each type of functional street classification;
• Encourages consolidation of access in developing commercial and high
density residential areas through shazed use of driveways and local access
streets; and
Page 13
August 24, 2011
e Will establish standards for access management, develop a planning
process to work:.with the community and implement access managemerit.
. . , solutions on arterial corridors. TR-90: Strive to prevent'' negative impacts to existing businesses, 'without '
compromising safety, when implementing access management.
TR-97: New construction should incorporate traffic calming measures, as appropriate. = TR-110 Intersections controlled with rounda.bouts are preferred over signalized- ,
. intersections whenever feasible and appropriate due to the_ benef ts achieved
with roundabouts including reduced , collision ra.tes for vehicles and =
pedestrians, less severe collisions, smootlier traffic slow, reduced vehicle .
emissions and fuel consumption, lower long term maintenance costs. and
improved aesthetics. , .
TR411 Developments required to signalize an intersection as mitigation for a project
may be required. to i_nstall a roundabout instead of a traffic signal. The
feasibility of acquiring the land needed for a roundabout will be considered as
a factor in this requirement.
; TR7112: Implement land use regulations and encourage site, design that promotes non- .
motorized forms of transportation.
TR=113: Include the role of non-motorized transporta.tion in a11 transportation planning, -
- programming, and if suitable, capital improvement projects. ' .
TR=114: Plan for continuous non-motorized circulation :routes within and between
. existing, new _ or redeveloping coinmercial; residential, and industrial .
" developments. Trazisportation planning sha11 seek to a11ow pedestrians and
bicyclists the ability to cross or avoid barriers in a manner that is safe and
convenient.
: TR-119: Develop and maintain the non-motorized system, including -bike routes,
sidewalks, and multi=use path's in a manner that promotes non-motorized travel
as a viable mode of transporta.tion. -
TR-125: The development of facilities supporting non motorized transporta.tion should
be provided as.:a regular element of new construction proj ects. Improvements
shall be secured through the development review process. -
TR-129: Require._developers tb incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development '
and redevelopment iri conformance with tlie Auburn City Code. TR-133: Pedestrian crossings sliall be developed at locations with significant pedestrian
- traffic and designed to match pedestrian desire lines. -
Page 14
August 24, 2011 . , .
TR-137: During the development review process, ensure projects are consistent with the
Non-motorized chapter of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan by requiring
right-of-way dedications and other improvements. as needed to develop the
bicycle network.
TR-138: Focus investments on and aggressively seek funding for the high priority future
bicycle corridors, identified in Figure 3-4.
TR-139: Encourage the inclusion of convenient and secure bicycle storage facilities in
all large public and private developments.
TR-147: Consider both the transit impacts and the opporlunities presented by major
development proposals when reviewing development under the State
Environmental Policy Act.
TR-148: Encourage the inclusion of transit facilities in new development when
appropriate.
TR-151: Identify areas of concentrated transit traffic and impose design and
construction standards that accommodate the unique considerations associated
with bus travel, such as street geometry and pedestrian linkages.
Chapter 8, Economic Development
Obj ective 9.1. Promote a diversified economic base capable of withstanding changes in
interest rates, inflation, tax structure and market conditions.
ED-1 City promotion of new industry sha11 be directed at attracting business that
diversifies the City's tax base, offers secure, quality employment opportunities,
is sensitive to community values and promotes the development of attractive
facilities. ,
ED-6 Revitalize depreciated and/or obsolete commercial and industrial sites through
innovative regulations that redesign the site in accordance with modern design
standards and industriaUcommercial uses.
ED-15 Implement the recommendations of the City's 2005 Economic Development
Strategies brochure.
ED-19 Utilize the future extension of I Street NE as an economic development
opportunity. Development of I Street NE should establish it as stand alone
corridor and not a"back side" to Auburn Way North. Conditional use pemut
applications for commercial uses and nursing homes along this corridor and
whose impacts can be adequately mitigated should be supported.
Page 15
August 24, 2011
Chapter 9, The Environment EN-27 The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological roles that
wetlands play in providing plant and animal habita.t, protecting water quality,
reducing the need for man-made flood and storm draina.ge systems, maintaining
water quality, and in providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural
opportunities. The 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.
EN-33 The City recognizes the important benefits of native vegetation including its role
in attracting na.tive wildlife, preserving the natural hydrology, and maintaining
the natural character of the Pacific Northwest region. Native vegeta.tion can
also reduce the use of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contazninants
that may enter neazby water systems) and reduce watering required of non-
na.tive species (thereby promoting conservation). The City shall encourage the
use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and private development
plans through strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following:
. 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-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.
EN-58 Flood prone properties outside of the floodway may be developable provided
that such development can meet the standards set forth in the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Chapter 11, Parks, Recreation and Open Space
PR-7 The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas having a unique
combination of open space values, including: separation or buffering between .
incompatible land uses; visual delineation of the City or a distinct area or
neighborhood of the City; unusually productive wildlife habita.t; wetlands;
floodwater or stormwater storage; stormwater purification; recreational value;
historic or cultural value; aesthetic value; and educational value.
Page 16
August 24, 2011
Chapter 12, Urban Desiggn-.
UD-1 The City shall encourage development which maintains and improves the
existing aesthetic character of the community. ,
UD-3 Suitable natural and cultural features should be utilized to buffer surrounding
land uses from industiy and commercial uses. -
UD-7 Site design techniques and standards which allow development, but protect
critical areas and other natural features, should be developed and implemented.
Some of these_ techniques include, but are not limited to, planned unit
developments or clustering. When these techniques are used, the development ,
shall be required to be consistent, when appropriate, with development
surrounding the site.
UD-9 The visual impact of large new developments should be a priority consideratiori .
. in their review and approval. . •
UD-10 The City has established design review ofmultiple family dwellings in order to .
maintain this housingoption as a viable altemative neaz single farnily
. neighborhoods. The, design guideliries sfiould be reviewed periodically ' to maintain current planning trends and mazket demands.
UD-26 Development along transit routes should include transit friendly designs within the project area. The Urban Design Plan should include a discussion of transit, .
'bicyclist and pedestriari friendly design. Codes which encourage these types of _
design should be developed and implemented in appropriate areas. Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map _
Heavy Commercial .
. Purpose: To :provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and '
regional need for such services.
. Description; This category is intended to accommodate uses which are oriented to ~
automobiles either as the,mode or target of providing the commercial service: The
category would also accommoda.te a wide range of heavier commercial uses involving -
extensive storage or heavy velucular movement. -
. Compatible Uses: A wide variety of commercial services oriented to automobiles aze .
appropriate within this category, This includes automobile sales and service, drive in ' resta.ura.nt or other drive in. coriimercial business; converiience stores, etc. Since these
uses aze also compatible with heavier commercial uses, lumber yards, sma11 scale
warehousing, contractor yards:and similar heavy commercial uses are appropriate in this .
designation. _
, Page 17
August 24, 2011
Ci-iteria for Designation: This designation should only be applied to areas which. aze
highly accessible to automobiles along major arterials. Generally this .category would
characterize commercial strips. This zone is appropriate for the intersections of heavily
traveled arterials, even if adjacent sites are best suited for another commercial
designation.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas which conflict with single
family residential areas or areas more suited for other uses. Whenever possible this
category should be separated from a11 uses by extensive buffering.
Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by the C-3 Heavy Commercial District.
Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area: This special plan area covers the property east of
Auburn Way North, west of the Crreen River, south of 277th (52nd Street) and north of
approximately 37th Street NE. Several property owners in this area aze interested in
developing a master plan which will address, among other things, the following issues:
1. I Street alignment and design
2. Storm drainage and other utility issues
3. Land use types and density
4. Financing necessary infrastructure improvements
5. The Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation proposal
Criteria for Designation: Additional Special Planning Areas may only be designated
through amendments of the Comprehensive Plan.
Appropriate Implementation: Plan elements establishing City policy regarding the
development of the Special Planning Areas sha11 be adopted by amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan, or shall be adopted concurrent with adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan. Special Planning Area elements shall be implemented in the same manner as other
elements of the Comprehensive Plan; that is, under the City's zoning and subdivision
ordinances, development standards and public facilities programs.
Page 18
August 24, 2011 .
Auburn Gateway Project Flow Chart
1995 comprehen'sive plan identifies NE Auburn Special Planning Area
2002 at the request of Robertson Properties Group (RPG) City begins special area plan
^ 2003 at the.request of Robertson Properties Group (RPG) City begins _
preparation of Planned Action EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)
Determination of Sign ifica n ce/Scop ing
. 2004 Preparation of DEIS
~ ,2004 Preparation of FEIS '
2004 Appeal of EIS filed and Adequacy Upheld by Hearing 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing & Recommendations - ~
. . 2008 Council Approval of Zoning Amendments (map & text), '
Comp Plan Amendment (map & text), and Special Area Plan -
2008 BeAan 5taff Negotiation of Development Agreement
2007-2008 RPG Purchases an.additional 11 acres west of Driye-ln
, 1:
Auburn Gateway Project Flow Chart
July 21, 2011
Page 2
2008-2010 Three Council Extensions of Zoning Amendments (map & text), Comp Plan
Amendment (map & text), and Special Area Plan Adoption
2010 Begin EIS Addendum Preparation and Update of Architectural and Site Design Standards
2010 Prepare Final Drafts of Development Agreement and Planned Action Ordinance
CURRENT DAY ,
Council Extension of Zoning Amendments (map & text), Comp Plan Amendment (map & text), and
Special Area Plan Adoption
F tssue EIS Addendum
Council Action on Development Agreement and Planned Action Ordinance
(Includes: Architectural & Site Design Standards and EIS Addendum Mitigation
Planning Commission Public Hearing on Refinements/Revisions of Zoning Code and Comprehensive
Plan Amendments & Recommendations
Planned Action Project Application Submitted
Summary of a Development Agreement
Development Agreements:
A development agreement is a contract between a local jurisdiction and a property
owner within the jurisdiction. The purpose of the agreement is to specify the standards
and conditions that will govern development of the property. The development
agreement provides assurance to the developer that he/she may proceed to develop
the project subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of approval - the
development will not be subject to subsequent changes in regulations. Development
agreements should also benefit the local jurisdiction. The jurisdiction may include
. conditions (mitigation measures) that must be met to assure that a project at a specific
location does not have unacceptable impacts on neighboring properties or community
infrastructure. The agreement may clarify how the project will be phased, the required
timing of public improvements, the developer's contribution toward funding system-wide
community improvements, and other conditions. The agreement can also facilitate
enforcement of requirements, since it is a contract that details the obligations of the
developer and the local jurisdiction.
Development Agreements as Applied in Auburn:
The Local Project Review Act (Ch. 36.7013, RCV1), enacted by the Washington State
Legislature in 1995, provides specific authority and direction for development
agreements. These agreements are voluntary, but once made, they are binding on the .
parties and their successors. Development standards include permitted uses, densities,
impact fees, and mitigation measures. Local jurisdictions must hold a public hearing
prior to approving a development agreement and may only impose impact fees,
dedications, mitigation measures, and standards as authorized by other laws.
Former Auburn City Code Chapter 14.21 previously set out the City's requirements for
development agreements. Chapter 14.21 was repealed by the Auburn City Council with
the passage of Ordinance No. 6187 in October 2008). Under Washington State's
vesting statue and upheld by the courts in multiple different cases, development
projects may be "vested" under the provisions of adopted municipal code repealed
through legislative ordinance action if it can be determined that a legally valid
development application or action was submitted by a party prior to the repeal or
change in the adopted municipal code. Robertson Properties Group (RPG) applied for a
development agreement before the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 6187. The City with
input and direction from the City Attomey's Office has previously made the
determination that the RPG project is vested under the provisions of Chapter 14.21 and
may seek City Council approval of a development agreement under the procedures
specified in Chapter 14.21 provided it can demonstrate compliance to all applicable
standards and procedures of this Chapter.
Summary of-a Development Agreement
&23-11
Page 1 of 2
, Key Elements of Chapter 44:21:
Auburn City Code 14.21.010.A generally provides that a development agreement
should.allow greater flexibility in, the existing standards of the existing zoning district. In.
exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City will require a development to be of -
significantly higher quality, generate more public benefit; and be a more: sensitive
proposal than would have.been the case with the use of standard zoning or subdivision
, . procedures:
_ Auburn City Code _14.21.01,0.B (Nonresidential or Mixed; Use-Projects) specifes that the
-
city may consider a development agreement for a nonresidential or mixed use project in ,
areas designated for office, commercial, industrial or;institutional use'in~the .
comprehensive plan,.or in a designated special pfan area. In its evaluation of a
proposal, the City shall consider whether a proposal will:
1. - Provide development that is consistent with the goals and policies of the
,
- - comprehensive plan; '
.2.. ' Provide efficient antl effective use of land, open space and public facilities that
result in a.higher quality of development than is required by the standartls of the
aPPlicable zone;
3. - Provide building and site. tlesign that complement surrounding land uses and -
- tfieir environment; and, ,
, 4. Prov'ide for superior protection of critical areas..
Summary of a Development Agreement
.8-23-11 - : - . .
Rage 2 of 2 ,
Summary of a Planned Action Ordinance Introduction to Planned Actions under SEPA:
In 1995, the legislature authorized a new category of project actions under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) called a"planned action" for cities planning under the
Growth Management Act (GMA). The purpose of designating specific types of projects
as planned action projects shifts environmental review of a project from the time a
permit application is made to an earlier phase in the planning process. The intent is to
provide a more streamlined environmental review process at the later project stage by
conducting more detailed environmental analysis at the earlier planning stage.
To be eligible first, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared which
addresses the likely significant adverse environmental impacts of the planned action.
After completing the EIS, the city.designates by ordinance those types of projects to be
considered planned actions, including mitigation measures that will be applied. The
types of project action must be limited to certain types of development or to a specific
geographic area that is less extensive than a city's jurisdictional boundaries.
A PAO is most useful when the project occurs over a limited, defined geographic area;
the project area is relatively homogeneous and impacts can be forecasted; and it is
expected that the project will be implemented in multiple phases over a number of
years.
The basic steps in designating planned action projects are to:
• Prepare an EIS;
• Designate the planned action projects by ordinance; and,
• Review permit applications for projects proposed as consistent with the
designated planned action. Specifically, an environmental checklist application
(SEPA application) must be provided and the city must verify: o The project meets the description of any project(s) designated as a
planned action by ordinance or resolution;
o The probable significant adverse environmental impacts were adequately
addressed in the EIS; and
o The project includes any conditions or mitigation measures outlined in the
ordinance.
If the project does not meet the requirements of the planned action ordinance, or if the
EIS did not adequately address all probable significant adverse environmental impacts,
the project is not a planned action project. In this instance, the City must then make a
threshold determination on the project. The project would go through normal
environmental review as. part of project review. The City may still rely on the
environmental information contained in the EIS and supporting documents in analyzing
the project's environmental impacts and making the threshold determination. If an EIS
Summary of Planned Action Ordinance
8.23.11
Page 1 of 2
or SEIS is found to be necessary for the project, it only needs to address those
environmental impacts not adequately addressed in the previous EIS.
Key Benefits of a Planned Aclaon Ordinance (PAO):
Key benefits of a PAO can include:
• Provides a developer certainty over the potential impacts and corresponding
mitigation measures;
• Requires early on examination of the impacts of subsequent or implementing
projects prior to project permitting through EIS preparation;
• Avoid multiple and separate threshold determinations (decisions) by the City
under SEPA. While normal project review process requires a threshold
determination, a project qualifying as a planned action project does not require a
new threshold determination. If the City reviews the project, verifies that it is
consistent with the planned action project(s) previously designated, and
determines that the impacts are adequately addressed in the EIS on which the
planned action relies, project permit review continues without a threshold
determination.
• Designating planned action projects reduces permit-processing time. There are
no SEPA public notice requirements or procedural administrative appeals at the
project level because a threshold determination or new EIS is not required: The
only notice requirements are those required for the underlying permit.
Contents of the Planned Action Ordinance (PAO):
A planned action ordinance should be as specific as possible, should indicate where in
the EIS or associated planning document the projects' environmental impacts have
been addressed, and should include or reference mitigation measures which will be
required for a project to qualify as a planned action project. For example, the ordinance
should indicate what mitigation has been identified in the EIS or what level of service
has been accepted in the subarea plan for traffic impacts. .
If desired, the city may set a time limit in the ordinance during which the planned action
designation is valid. If a GMA city does set a time limit on the designation, it should
consider how this affects any permits for which there is an expiration date.
Effects of a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO):
If approved by the City Council, a PAO for the Auburn Gateway Project will:
• Adopt the provisions of the Washington Administrative Code related to PAOs;
• Add a new chapter to the zoning portion of the Auburn City Code; and,
• Adopt and incorporate the Northeast Special Area Plan and its related
environmental impact statements. This "locks in" the mitigation measures
required for the project while allowing for changed circumstances.
Summary of Planned Action Ordinance 8.23.11
Page 2 of 2