Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-AAGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM A DBURN F b ASI I9 NGTON Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related Date: August 30, 2011 to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) Department: Planning and Attachments: See Exhibit list below. Budget Impact: N/A Development Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed Master Plan Code Amendment and make a recommendation to City Council. Background Summary: Since the annexation of the Lea Hill area in January 2008, the City has been discussing a master plan concept that would be applicable to institutional uses such as a community college and potentially larger scale commercial uses. This conversation has continued with the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) further refining the concept of a master plan process. Initial policy direction was provided by the PCDC to staff. A draft code amendment creating a master plan process was brought before the Planning Commission for discussion at the August 2, 2011 meeting. The amendment outlines the master plan process, applicability, length of the master plan approval, decision criteria, and an incentive based approach. The September 2011 Planning Commission meeting will involve a public hearing on the proposed code amendments for the creation of a new zoning code chapter related a master plans. The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council and will make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed code amendment. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ❑ Building ❑ M&O ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ❑ Parks ❑ Human Services ® Planning & CD ❑ Fire ® Planning ❑ Park Board ❑ Public Works ® Legal ❑ Police ® Planning Comm. ❑ Other ® Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Information Services Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until Tabled Until Councilmember: Staff: Chamberlain Meeting Date: September 2011 Item Number: AUBU * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related Date: August 30, 2011 to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) A. Findings of Fact 1. Title 18 of the Auburn City Code (ACC), includes Chapter 18.68, Amendments, which addresses amendments to Title 18, Zoning. 2. The proposed code amendment creates a new chapter in Title 18 related to a master plan process. The amendment outlines the master plan process, applicability, length of the master plan approval, decision criteria, modifications, and an incentive based approach. 3. The proposed code amendment is supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. 4. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposed amendment creating a master plan process on August 9, 2011. The 15-day comment period ended August 23, 2011 with no comments received. The appeal periods ends on September 6, 2011. As of the writing of this report an appeal has not been filed. 5. One comment has been received related to the proposed code amendment from Richard Weinman, Weinman Consulting LLC, on August 2, 2011. Changes to the proposed code amendment have been made where appropriate. 6. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. An acknowledgement letter was received on August 16, 2011. No comments were received from Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. Initial concepts were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee on March 8, 2010, May 24, 2010, and March 14, 2011 and the Committee provided initial policy feedback to staff. 8. Staff presented the draft code language to the Planning Commission on August 2, 2011. 9. The public hearing notice was published on August 25, 2011 in the Seattle Times at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for September 2011. 10. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Title 18, Zoning, creating a new zoning code chapter related to Master Plans scheduled for the Planning Commission's September 2011 public hearing with a staff recommendation. B. Conclusions 1. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, the following public process is applicable: 18.68.030 Public hearing process Page 2 of 5 Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related Date: August 30, 2011 to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing. 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements A. Text Amendments. 1. Planning Commission. For text amendments that require a public hearing under ACC 18.68.030(A), notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. Comment: The public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for September 2011 meeting the requirement under ACC 18.68.030. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times, the City's official newspaper, on August 25, 2011 at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The public hearing notice was also posted at City Hall (25 West Main Street), the Customer Service Center (One East Main Street), and on the City's website meeting the requirement for posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.68, Amendments, does not have specific decision criteria for text amendments to the zoning title. At a minimum, proposed text amendments are to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040. The proposed code amendment is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies: Objective 1.2 - To establish a procedure to assess the growth impacts of major development proposals. Comment: The proposed master plan code amendment implements this objective by creating a process that looks at large scale institutional and commercial developments holistically to assess the growth impacts of these types of developments. The intent of the master plan code is to provide long term guidance for a large scale development, provides the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of all phases of the a large scale development at one time while allowing an applicant to obtain approval for multi-phases at one time, and provides the opportunity for early public involvement. A master plan process allows the City to evaluate the growth impacts related to traffic, utilities, and other services for a large scale development early in the process and assists in future capital facility planning as well. Policy GP-17: Flexible land development techniques including, but not limited to, clustering and planned unit developments for the development of residential, Page 3 of 5 Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related Date: August 30, 2011 to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) commercial, and industrial properties shall be considered to implement this comprehensive plan. Comment: The proposed master plan process is a flexible development technique by allowing an applicant to gain approvals of a multi-phased project at one time rather than approvals at each phase. By developing a master plan for a large scale /multi-phased development, the City is able to analyze the impacts upfront to transportation and utility infrastructure while the applicant obtains certainty for their proposal. The proposed code amendment establishes a master plan approval timeframe of ten years with potential for a five year extension. This timeframe vests a development proposal to the standards in place at project approval for all phases rather than having the potential of development regulations changing over time impacting subsequent phases of a project unless state or federal mandates change beyond the City's control that require modifications to the master plan. Built into the proposed text amendment are incentives if an applicant chooses to go through a master plan process. An applicant may achieve more density or additional stories if certain development features are incorporated such as low impact development. Policy 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... Comment: The proposed master plan process would be applicable to institutional uses on sites with a minimum of 5 acres, such as Green River Community College, and for commercial uses on sites with a minimum of 10 acres, such as the SuperMall. The master plan process could be useful for institutional uses that need to plan out capital investments over a long period of time as well as larger scale commercial sites that could redevelop in the future. Planning out future improvements/developments over a ten year timeframe allows for a holistic review of the development and how the project could link with significant regional uses within the City. Policy 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. Comment: The proposed code amendment includes an incentive table that allows an applicant to increase density and/or floor area (e. g. additional stories) and increased lot coverage than what is permitted in the underlying zone if low impact development is incorporated into the project. Page 4 of 5 Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related Date: August 30, 2011 to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed master plan text amendment as presented by staff based on the findings of fact and conclusions. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Proposed Master Plan Code Amendment Exhibit 2: Determination of Non-Significance and Affidavit of Publication Exhibit 3: Environmental Checklist Exhibit 4: Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Publication Exhibit 5: Letter to Department of Commerce for 60-day State Review Exhibit 6: Acknowledgment letter from Department of Commerce Exhibit Comment letter from Richard Weinman Page 5 of 5 Exhibit 1 Chapter 18.XX Master Plan Sections: 18.XX.010 Intent 18.XX.020 Applicability 18.XX.030 Approval Process and Effect of Approved Master Plan 18.XX.040 Public Participation 18.XX.050 Decision Criteria 18.XX.060 Components of the Master Plan 18.XX.070 Incentive Based Approach 18.XX.080 Extensions 18.XX.090 Revocations 18.XX.010 Intent. A. This section establishes standards and criteria for the development of a Master Plan. The provisions of this Chapter are voluntary and incentive based. B. The master plan will establish conditions with which all concurrent and subsequent land use approvals implementing the master plan shall comply. The master plan process provides long term guidance for a large area so that the continuity of the overall development is maintained. The process allows for development to occur in phases where coordination of public facilities is needed, when a master plan is needed to determine how best to develop the area, or when a master plan is needed to integrate various uses. C. Recognize the valuable role played by public facilities such as educational and religious institutions as well as large scale commercial development providing the community with needed services. D. Master plan regulations provide the vehicle for large-scale, multi-phased developments by obtaining conceptual approval of several projects at one time and coordinating future provisions of infrastructure capacity. Allows the City to plan for the extension/expansion of public infrastructure in a timely and efficient manner. E. Provides opportunities for adjacent property owners, homeowner associations, and businesses to evaluate the cumulative impacts associated with the full build out of large scale public facilities and commercial developments. Also allows for public input on the design and development standards of these projects to minimize impacts to adjacent properties and protect the character of the surrounding areas. Ensure the large scale public facilities and commercial developments are compatible with community character and values. 18.XX.020 Applicability. A. Institutional Uses such as community colleges, religious institutions, or public/private schools on properties 5 acres or greater may apply for a master plan. Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 1 of 10 Exhibit 1 B. Commercial or mixed-use projects with a phased development over several years on properties 10 acres or greater may apply for a master plan. C. Property included within the master plan shall be under the same ownership or a signed agreement must establish control over multiple ownerships. D. A master plan application may be combined with other applications such as a rezone or preliminary plat. 18.XX.030 Approval Process and Effects of Approved Master Plan. A. The initial approval of a master plan shall be a Type III Decision as Ae provided for in ACC Section 14.03.030. B. The master plan can be approved for a maximum ten years with a review by the City at year five. At year five, the City will review the following: 1. Whether the phasing established under the original master plan still meets the needs of the applicant. 2. Review whether traffic substantially changed within the first five years of the master plan that would warrant additional review C. No later than &six months prior to the end of the fifth year in the master plan, the applicant shall conduct a neighborhood review meeting pursuant to ACC 18.052.130. D. The master plan vests as to the uses and standards contained in the master plan for the period of approval- except development regulations related to public health and safety issues, including but not limited to building codes, fire codes, mechanical codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, and property maintenance codes shall vest upon the City's acceptance of a completed permit application for each specific permit. The City reserves the authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations if, and to the extent required by, a serious threat to the public health and safety, as determined by the City. The City also reserves the authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations, if federal or state laws change requiring new or different standards. E. Subsequent project applications shall be consistent with the master plan. F. The master plan will be treated as a single site for purposes of calculating impact fee credits per Section 19.04.060. 18.XX.040 Public Participation A. The applicant shall conduct at a minimum one neighborhood meeting as provided for in ACC Section 18.02.130 prior to the submittal of a master plan application. B. Public notification shall be provided in accordance with ACC Section 14.07.040 except that notices shall be mailed+ng to property owners shall he within 500 feet of the project site. 18.XX.050 Decision Criteria A. The proposed master plan shall be consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 2 of 10 Exhibit 1 B. The proposed master plan shall comply with all applicable city codes. If the proposal incorporates elements from the incentive based approach outlined in Section 18.XX.060, development standards may be different from that of the underlying zone. C. There shall be sufficient capacity in the public transportation system to support the development of all phases of the master plan either through existing infrastructure,. e* planned and programmed City improvements (included in the CIP) to the transportation network (e.g. concurrency), and additional improvements proposed in the master plan thYe1 gh the imr lementetien ef the master r len D. The master plan shall include provisions for the availability of public services such as transportation, water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, police, fire, and transit. E. The master plan shall show how the proposal protects designated resources such as significant trees and critical areas, if applicable, in compliance with city code. F. All potential off-site impacts such as noise, glare, and traffic shall be identified and mitigated+e-P to the extent practicable to bring the project within adopted City standards. G. The proposed master plan shall be integrated with adjacent land uses through site design, landscaping, parking/traffic management, and multi-modal transportation elements that limit potential conflicts between the proposed use(s) and adjacent uses. 18.XX.060 Components of the Master Plan The applicant shall submit a master plan application with the following components and meeting the requirements on the applicable checklist. The review body may modify the proposal, particularly those portions dealing with development standards and review procedures. The greater the leycelrvraet-ill OR the pplaR, the less phases. A The rnocteF r,1oe shell sh`"e, tThe current and possible future boundaries, including the boundaries of each phase, of the use for the duration of the master plan. B The master plan shell ir,~1i vle eq narrative the addresses the following: 1. The decision criteria outlined in ACC Section 18.XX.050. 2. Description of present uses, affiliated uses, proposed uses, and possible future uses for the project boundaries. 3. Description of present uses and affiliated uses for the adjacent properties. 4. If residential units are proposed then minimum and maximum floor areas, aPA densities, and number of units shall be identified Oed R rnber of i inits 5. If office and/or commercial is proposed then minimum and maximum floor area ratios shall be identified. C He,ni the master elan fi ilfillc level aRd regir Ral (e.g. P 1Yet SG RGI regieR) n ericca s C. A conceptual site plan shall be submitted meeting the requirements of the applicable checklist. D. A conceptual open space/recreation plan showing tree retention and removal, recreation areas if residential units are proposed, and view corridors if applicable. Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Exhibit 1 E Tho ,,,~~+or PlaR May ir,~~i vIo "Proposed standards that will control development of the possible future uses that are in addition to or substitute for the requirements of the underlying zone. The proposed standards will need to include at a minimum: 1. Height 2. Setbacks 3. Floor Area Ratio limits 4. Landscaping requirements 5. Parking requirements 6. Signage View corridors 8. Fagade treatments 9. Other architectural design controls F Tho M.-AS 9F PlaR Shall irGi1 „-o +ho Proposed development phases, probable sequence for proposed developments, estimated dates, and interim uses of the property awaiting development. The plan shall also address any proposed temporary uses or locations of uses during construction periods. G Tho M.-AIMor PlaR Shall it , ~o ilnformation on the following items for each phase: 1. Traffic impact analysis that addresses the requirements outlined in the City's Engineering Design Standards. 2. Non-motorized plan showing pedestrian and bicycle connections before, during, and after implementation of the master plan. 3. Parking study that shows the projected peak parking demand, an analysis of this demand compared to proposed on-site and off-site parking supply, potential impacts to the on-street parking system if applicable, and proposed mitigation measures. 4. Circulation plan for all modes of transportation including the following: a. The planned street system mime shall be compatible with the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Engineering Design Standards. Development ,"'hamthat is proposed in areas of the City wh~that have a planned street system., which is a part of the comprehensive plan or the City's six-year plan, and any other street plan, shall make provisions for such streets and must not cause implementation of such street plans to become unattainable. b. Master Plans wh~that are proposed in areas of the City wh~that have planned routes or facilities for bicycles, equestrian, or other non-motorized transportation mode which +s-are a part of the comprehensive plan or the City's six- year plan, and any other street plan, shall make provisions for such routes and must notes rep vent implementation of such routes to berVeMe i ins++~in~hlo c. When abutting vacant or underdeveloped land, new development shall provide the opportunity for future connection to its interior pathway system through the use of pathway stub-outs, building configuration, armor parking lot layout. The proposed location of future non-motorized and pedestrian connections shall be reviewed in conjunction with applicable development approval. Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 4 of 10 Exhibit 1 d. Developments shall include an integrated non-motorized circulation system that connects buildings, open spaces, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system. e. Pedestrian connections to existing or proposed trails/pedestrian routes on adjacent properties shall be provided unless there are physical constraints such as sensitive areas that preclude the construction of a pedestrian connection. 5. The planned water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems compatible with the City's Comprehensive Utility Plans and in conformance with the City's engineering design standards. The conceptual utility plans shall contain sufficient information to demonstrate that the system layouts and methods of service are feasible. The City may also require additional design information (e.g. a preliminary drainage analysis) prior to approving the conceptual plans. 18.XX.070 Incentive Based Approach Master plans are not a required process for large-scale developments. However, master plans provide the vehicle for large-scale, multi-phased developments to obtain approval of several projects at one time coordinating future provisions of infrastructure, gather early public input, and provide the applicant with a certain level of certainty for a multi-phased project. The following table outlines incentives for establishing a master plan and can be cumulative incentives: Table 18.XX.070.1 Incentives 1. Complete a master plan . Expedited permit review • Parking reductions • Expedited reviews for tenants 2. Minimum of LEED Silver Certification . One additional story beyond the or comparable BuiltGreen certification maximum height for the underlying as determined by the City. zone for 50 percent of the buildings in the development. The applicant may submit for a 50% refund in the building plan review and inspection fees once the minimum certification is achieved. 3. Inclusion of ~^+;tgd accessible public . Reduction in required landscaping open spaces/plazas and/or sustainable . Less inspection/reporting (if landscaping approaches possible) 4. At least X50 % of the off-street . One additional story beyond the parking for the development is located maximum height for the underlying in parking structures, some or all of zone for all buildings in the which may be above-grade as long as development the parking garage does not front a . Residential floor area of up to 4.0 public street. If the parking garage . Reduction in minimum parking does front a public street, then the standard Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 5 of 10 Exhibit 1 following standards apply: a. Include ground level details such as plinths for columns, projecting window sills, kickplates. b. Upper levels screened architecturally with at least two different elements. 5. Use of Low Impact Development Increased lot coverage thaen what permitted in the underlying zoning if open spaces improved with swales, permeable pavement. 18.XX.080 Extensions and Modifications A. An approved master plan may be extended beyond the ten years for a maximum of five additional years provided: if the f^IlGWiRg is si ihmi++°`"' by the applicant: (1) The applicant shall submit a complete €extendion request to the city for review be submitted not later than one year prior to the ten year expiration date. (2) The applicant shall demonstrate additional time frame is needed to complete the phasing of the original approved master plan.T"° app4 °r,+ ^r~°r, eXplr Rati^n ^f Why ma'r' °v+°Asi^r' is peed-ed. (3) The applicant shall demonstrate that there will not be any additional impacts created by extending the time frame.Gity shall ^r,'„ appF^„^ -;;A extenssieR Of the e m°°+s the f^IIGWOR^ nri+°ri°- (e) appFGVe d mas+°r P'aR (b) ExteA -ed imr»n+s aFe Mitigated f^r B. An approved master plan may be modified as follows: (1) A minor amendment to an approved master plan may be applied for as a miscellaneous administrative decision processed as a Type 1 decision pursuant to ACC 14.03.010. A minor amendment is defined as not adding more than 20 percent to the gross square footage of the master plan. Minor adjustments shall be reviewed for consistency with this chapter and the regulations of this title, as well as the following criteria: 1. The adjustment maintains the design intent or purpose of the original approval; and 2. The adjustment maintains the quality of design or product established by the original approval; and 3. The adjustment does not cause a significant environmental or land use impact on or beyond the site; and 4. The adjustment is not precluded by the terms of this title or by state law from being decided administratively; and Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 6 of 10 Exhibit 1 5. Circumstances render it impractical, unfeasible, or detrimental to the public interest to accomplish the subject condition or requirement of the master plan approval. (2) Major amendments are those that, when determined by the planning director, substantially change the basic design, layout, open space or other requirements of the plat. When the planning director determines a change constitutes a major adjustment, a new application for a master plan is required and shall be processed as a new and separate application. 18.XX.090 Revocations A. The planning director or designee may revoke or suspend any permit granted under the chapter if any of the following conditions is found to exist: 1A. Fraud in obtaining the permit; 29. Concealment or misrepresentation of any material fact on the application or on any subsequent applications or reports; 34;. The operation is found to be in violation of the approved plans, conditions of approvals, or the terms of the permit and the owner has failed to correct the violation after proper notice thereof. B. The planning director's or designee's decision can be appealed pursuant to Section 14.13.010 and 18.70.050. Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Exhibit 1 Amend the following code chapter: Chapter 14.03 TYPES OF PROJECT PERMIT DECISIONS Sections: 14.03.001 Generally. 14.03.010 Type I decisions. 14.03.020 Type II decisions. 14.03.030 Type III decisions. 14.03.040 Type IV decisions. 14.03.050 Type V decisions. 14.03.060 Legislative nonproject decisions. 14.03.001 Generally. Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on whether a director, the hearing examiner or the city council makes the decision and the process by which that decision is made. (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) 14.03.010 Type I decisions. Type I decisions are administrative decisions made by the city which are not subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) codified at Chapter 43.21 C RCW. Type I decisions include, but are not limited to, the following project applications: A. Building permit; B. Plumbing permit; C. Mechanical permit; D. Utility permit; E. Special permit; F. Excavation permit; G. Land clearing permit; H. Grading permit; 1. Floodplain development permit; J. Public facility extension agreement; K. Right-of-way use permit; L. Lot line adjustment; M. Home occupation permit; N. Temporary use permit (administrative); 0. Administrative use permit; P. Short subdivision (plat); Q. Mobile home closure plans R. Extensions or minor amendment to an approved master plan. Ord. 5746 § 27 2003; Ord. 4835 § 17 1996.) (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Exhibit 1 14.03.020 Type II decisions. Type II decisions are administrative decisions made by the city which include threshold determinations under SEPA. Type II decisions include, but are not limited to, the following project applications: A. Building permit; B. Grading permit; C. Land clearing permit; D. Public facility extension agreement; E. Administrative use permit; F. Short subdivision (plat); G. Floodplain development permit. (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) 14.03.030 Type III decisions. Type III decisions are quasi-judicial final decisions made by the hearing examiner following a recommendation by staff. Type III decisions include, but are not limited to, the following project applications: A. Temporary use permit; B. Substantial shoreline development permit; C. Variance; D. Special exceptions; E. Special home occupation permit; F. Preliminary plat; G H 1. Conditional use permit; Surface mining permit, Master Plan. (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6184 § 3, 2008; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) 14.03.040 Type IV decisions. Type IV decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the city council following a recommendation by the hearing examiner. Type IV decisions include, but are not limited to, the following project applications: Rezone (site-specific). (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6184 § 4, 2008; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) 14.03.050 Type V decisions. Type V decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the city council following a recommendation by staff. Type V decisions include, but are not limited to, the following project applications: Final plat. (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6184 § 5, 2008; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) 14.03.060 Legislative nonproject decisions. Legislative nonproject decisions made by the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations are not classified as a "type" of project permit decision. Legislative nonproject decisions include, but are not limited to, the following legislative actions: Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Exhibit 1 A. Amendments to the text and map of the comprehensive plan or development regulations. B. Amendments to the zoning map (rezones) on a city-wide or area-wide basis. (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) Draft Master Plan Code Version 3 to Planning Commission August 30, 2011 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT Z CITY OF Peter B. Lewis, Mciyor AtiBURN WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000 *MEMORANDUM* TO: Interested Parties PROM: Elizabeth Chamberlain AICP, Planning Manager Planning and Development Department DATE: August 9, 2011 RE: Notice of Determination of Non-Significance for the Amendment to Auburn City Code creating a new chapter within Title 18, Zoning, related to a Master Plan process. Current Pile Nos. ZOA11- and SEP11-0015 Please find enclosed a copy of the proposed determination of non-significance in accordance with 197-11340(2) for the above referenced project. Also included are the following: 1. Environmental Checklist 2. Proposed Code Amendment to Auburn City Code, Title 18 Zoning, related to a Master Plan process. If you have any questions regarding this process or would like to receive additional documentation on the proposed amendments, please contact Elizabeth Chamberlain AICP, Planning Manager at echamberlain@auburnwa.gov or at 253-931-3092. AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED CIT Peter B. Lewis, Mayor A101BURN Y OF WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwo.gov * 253-931-3000 Determination of Non-Significance SEP11-0015 and ZOA11-0005 Description of Proposal: Amendment to Auburn City Code Title 18, Zoning, creating a new chapter related to a Master Plan process. Proponent: Elizabeth Chamberlain AICP, Planning Manager City of Auburn Planning and Development Department Location: , City wide Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued below. Comments must be submitted by 5:30 p.m. on August 23, 2011. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m, on September B, 2011. Responsible Official: Position[Title: Address: Kevin H. Snyder AICP Planning and Development Director 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 253-931-3090 Date Issued: August 9, 2011 Signature: Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal will be required to meet all applicable regulations. AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU INtAGINED sm Canto givae's sealetimes.com ,f PO Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111 AUBURN CITY OF-FINANCE DEPT ATTN CITY CLERK 25 WEST MAIN CVE® AUG 15 2011 AUBURN, WA 98001 Re: Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad 798912200 Affidavit of Publication 41 36838 1 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON Counties of King and Snohomish The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of The Seattle Times Company, homish and daily in Washing publisher State on. TThe Seattle Times of eneral rculation he Seattle 7 mes has been approved as allegall newspaper Kingy o dersoof he Superior Court of of Washingto King and Snohomish Counties. The notice, in the exact form annexed, was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period. M. ilyn p 'ed'o Signature All ae&j of Washington, residing at Seattle McKenna, c'~.t~e Sea~tte c`~imes Re Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad TEXT: City of Auburn Determination of Non-Significance APPLICATION REQUESTED: Amendment to Auburn City Code Title 18, Zoning, creating a new chapter related to a Master Plan process APPLICATION NUMBER: S£P11-0015 and ZOA11-0005 APPLICANT NAME: Elizabeth Chamberlain AICP, Planning Manager City of Auburn Planning and Development Department PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide The lead agency for this proposal has determined that It does not have probable significant adverse Impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under ROW 43.210.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of acompleted environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This Information Is available to the public on request. Seattle$1A es-com Ad # 798912200 and request a copy of decisions once made. A party of record may appeal the City's determination by filing an appeal application with the Auburn City Clerk within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 P.M. on September B, 2011. Published In the Seattle Times on August 9, 2011 This DNS is issued under 197- 11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued below. Comments must be In writing and submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 2011. Questions and comments may be submitted to Elizabeth chamberlain, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Department, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001- 4998 or via email at echamberlain®auburntiva.gov. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall Include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, If relevant i ~r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST r1. Name of proposed: project, if apolleable: Master Plan Code Amendment 2. {Name of Applicant: City of Auburn r 3. Address and phone number of appli'ant and contact person: Applicant: Planning and Development Department 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Plo(hnirig_ Manager (253) 931-3092 4. Date checklist prepared: August 5, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Environmental Review-August 2011 Planning Commission Public Hearing September 2011 City Council Review - October 2011 City Council Action - November 2011 Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO DE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed code amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and will forward a recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not hold a public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, or not adopting the amendments. Although not an approval or permit, the proposed zoning text amendments are also subject to the 60-day State Agency review process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You need not repeat those answers on this page. The proposal creates a new Auburn City Code Chapters within Title 18, Zoning, related to a master plan process. The intent of the proposed new master plan code is to recognize the valuable role played by public facilities such as and educational institutions, provide regulations for large-scale and multi-phased developments, provide for early public input on large scale projects, and allow the City to plan for the extension/expansion of public infrastructure in a timely and efficient manner. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed code amendment would be applicable to institutional uses such as public/private schools, religious institutions, and community colleges and large-scale commercial uses. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: Earth: A. General description of the site (circle one): plat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Page 2 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The City of Auburn is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep hillsides that plateau. D. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The slope of the valley walls in the city varies, but some slopes associated with the valley walls reach 100%. Most sites on the valley floor have limited slopes. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the Oridia, Renton, Snohomish and Briscott series. These soils are fairly poorly drained and formed in the alluvium (river sediments) associated with the White and Green rivers. These are considered good agricultural soils, though in many areas, are not well-drained. There is no designated prime farmland within the City of Auburn. The soils in the uplands are predominantly of the Alderwood series. These soils drain moderately well and are typically located on slopes ranging from 0 - 70%. D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Many factors affect slope stability including soil type, parent material, slope and drainage. These factors can be further affected by human intervention such as slope alteration, and vegetation removal. The city has identified categories of geologic hazard areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion and landslide hazard areas are provided as Maps 9.6 and 9.7, respectively in the City's Comprehensive Plan. E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. The proposed amendments are non-project actions, so no site alteration, construction, or earthwork is proposed. F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Non-project action. G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. The action does not involve site specific development proposals H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. This is a non-project action so no site specific erosion control is proposed. However, the existing comprehensive plan includes numerous policies to reduce or control erosion through the use of best management practices, landscaping requirements, limitations on alteration of steep slopes and other critical areas protections. Impacts to earth will be Page 3 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT identified and, if necessary, mitigated during the development review process as specific development proposals are made that might be associated with these plan amendments. The city also has design and construction standards that address erosion control measures. 2. Air: A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? if any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know. Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. 3. Water: A. Surface: 'I) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River,, Mill Creek, Bowman Creek, and White Lake. The City has conducted an inventory of wetlands within the city limits. These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. This is non-project action. Page 4 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is non-project action. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Proposal is non-project action. However, several areas within Auburn lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Green or White River and Mill Creek. These areas as well as frequently flooded areas as defined by the City of Auburn Public Works Department are shown on Map 9.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Proposal is a non-project action. E. Ground: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is non-project action. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. Not applicable. This is non-project action. C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known), Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is non-project action. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is non-project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is non-project action. Page 6 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) 4. Plants: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. X shrubs. X grass. X pasture. x crop or grain. X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, x other. water plants: water lily, eelgrass, miifoii, other. X other types of vegetation. X B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. This is non-project action. However, in general urban development results in the removal or alteration of many types of vegetation. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None that are known. D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. This is non-project action. 5. Animals: A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc. Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: urban animals such as dogs, cats, squirrels, rodents, opossums, raccoons, etc. are also present in the city. B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are nesting/breeding sites of bald eagles, great blue herons and green back heron within Auburn as shown on Map 9.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the Aleutian Canadian Goose have been seen in the Auburn area. Chinook salmon are currently listed as a threatened species by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bull trout are also listed. Chinook salmon are known to use the Green and White Rivers. Page 6 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. This is non-project action. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. D. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Environmental Health: A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. D. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. Page 7 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED Ii3Y APPLICANT 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The City and PAA contain a variety of land uses including residential, industrial, commercial, open space, and public land uses. The proposed code amendment would be applicable to uses allowed in the Institutional, Public, Light Commercial, Heavy Commercial, and Downtown Urban Center zones. B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Much of the Green River Valley and the City of Auburn were used for agriculture at some time in the past. Over the last several decades, rapid growth in the area resulted 'in much of the agricultural land converting to urban uses. No land within the city is designated as agricultural, though some parcels continue as that type of use. C. Describe any structures on the site: Structures within the City range from small single family detached homes to large industrial and warehousing facilities. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. P. What is the current zoning classification of the site? City zoning districts include: RR (Rural Residential); R-1 (1 du/acre) R-5 (5 du/acre); R-7 du/acre); R-10 (10 du/acre), R-20 (20 du/acre); RMHP (Residential Manufactured Home District); RO (Residential Office); RO-H (Residential Office-Hospital); CN (Neighborhood Commercial); DUC (Downtown Urban Center); C1 (Light Commercial); C2 (Central Business District); C3 (Heavy Commercial); M1 (Light Industrial); M2 (Heavy Industrial); BP (Business Park); LF (Airport Landing Field); P1 (Public Use); UNC (Unclassified Use); I (Institutional Use); LH (Lea Hill). The proposed code amendment would affect properties zoned I, P-1, C-3, C-1, and DUC F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Page 8 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A Comprehensive Plan map of the City is contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan and includes 13 different plan designations. G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Portions of the City along the Green and White Rivers fall under the Shoreline Master Program. A map of the shoreline designations for those areas is Map 9.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts that are applicable to this proposed code amendment doe fall within the City's Shoreline Management area. H. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, areas of the City do have sensitive areas and the regulation and protection of sensitive areas are addressed through the City's critical areas ordinance. 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. This is a non-project action and no specific development is proposed. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: This proposal is to create a new chapter in Title 18, Zoning, of the Auburn City Code as described in response to the environmental checklist application questions A.11 above. The public hearing and review process that occurs as part of the code amendment process will be used to help evaluate whether a particular proposal is consistent with existing plans. Also, the proposed amendments are circulated to State agencies for a State Agency review process in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106. 9. Housing: A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. Page 9 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) . TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. 10. Aesthetics: A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. 11. Light and Glare: A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. 12. Recreation: A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and recreational facilities. Map 111 of the City's Comprehensive Plan shows the location of these facilities. Page 10 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe: Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. However as a matter of information, in Auburn, the Blomeen House located at 324 B Street NE is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Carnegie Library Building at 306 Auburn Avenue (currently Auburn Dance and Music Center) and the Auburn Post Office (currently Seattle-King County Health Department) at 20 Auburn Avenue NE are local and county landmarks. The Olson Farm, located at 28728 Green River Road South, was designated as King County Landmark in 2000 and the Masonic Temple Building at the southeast corner of Auburn Way South and East Main Street was designated as a King County Historical Landmark in 2002. B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Several Indian campsites have been identified along the Green and White rivers in the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in preliminary work for the Army Corps of Engineers' Special Area Management Plan. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. 14. Transportation: A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Figure 2-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the City's current and future classified street system. B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable, non-project action. However, Figure 4-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes within the City. Also, a commuter rail station exists along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way just south of West Main Street and east of C Street SW. Page 11 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private): Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action. E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe: There is no water transportation in the Auburn area other than for recreational uses. The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time, local freight service is available. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both operate freight lines within Auburn. Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop here. The Auburn Airport is located north of 15th Street NE. F. Flow many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable. Non-project action. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. Non-project action. 15. Public Services: A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: Not applicable. Non-project action. B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any: The comprehensive plan contains policies that seek to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also, Auburn reviews under SEPA, the impacts of significant development on these public services. Mitigation measures are required to reduce significant adverse impacts. 16. Utilities: A. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricit natural as water, refuse service telephone, sanitary sewer, sother - Cable N. Page 12 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn. B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed: This is a non-project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a utilities element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision. Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. A new Comprehensive Water Plan and new Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the City in 2009. A new Comprehensive Drainage Plan was adopted in 2009. A new six year Capital Facilities Plan was adopted in 2010 (2011-2016). These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. OWNER/AGENT SIGNATURE: DATE SUBMITTED: August 6 2011 Page 13 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL. SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal that would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Taken as a whole, there should be a minimal change in discharging to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise. While the proposed code amendment could apply to undeveloped property, most likely a master plan would be applicable for existing developed properties that would undergo redevelopment. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on reducing the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of emissions to the air. Policies in the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams, as the policies assist the City in addressing adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from runoff since native plantings may require less pesticide use. An environmental review of all non-exempt (from SEPA) development will be conducted to evaluate and mitigate impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic substances. Evaluation of the site specific proposals will be based on the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance, shoreline master program regulations, and the Design and Construction Manuals, also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This proposal will create a new chapter within Title 18, Zoning, of the Auburn City Code. The proposed master plan code includes incentives for green building and low impact development. It is unlikely the proposed code amendment will have any adverse effect on plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. An environmental review under Page 14 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT SEPA of all non-exempt development is conducted to measure impacts. Evaluation based on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case-by-case basis. Policies within the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage native vegetation be used and/or retained. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the policies assist the city in addressing adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat since native plantings may require less pesticide use. City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and the shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Future development will use natural gas and electricity and could result in increased automobile uses. However, there does not appear to be any significant adverse increases in the use of energy of natural resources resulting from the amendments being proposed to the existing comprehensive plan over what might occur under existing plan designations. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None specifically, as this is a non-project action. However, in addition to the provisions of the Auburn Energy Management Plan (adopted in 1986), which encourages energy conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, the comprehensive plan places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such as transit, walking, and biking. An environmental review under SEPA of all significant development will be conducted to measure the project impacts. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Taken as a whole, there should not be any change in impacts from existing regulations on environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for government protection. Regulations are in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas regardless of the use of the land or these proposed code amendments. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The comprehensive plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance, seek to protect environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard areas, floodplain, wildlife habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts of development on them. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the implementation of innovative land management techniques to protect these resources. An environmental review under SEPA for all non-exempt development will be conducted to evaluate impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Page 15 of 16 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Amendments can only be approved if it can be assured that future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related regulations. Those proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other existing plans will not be approved. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations, such as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land and shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An environmental review under SEPA of all development that is non-exempt will also be conducted to evaluate a proposal's land use and environmental impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed amendment could lead towards development that may increase demands on public services, the transportation network, and utilities. The proposed code amendment envisions that the impacts associated with a master plan development would be addressed early in the process to allow a holistic review of each development phase and early public input. The City has adopted a traffic impact fee structure to address impacts to the transportation network. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The Auburn Comprehensive Plan presently incorporates the 2011.2016 Capital Facilities Plan updated, which seeks to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan updates were adopted by the city in 2009. The Comprehensive Drainage Plan update was also adopted in 2009. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan was adopted in 2005 with updates during the 2006 and 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. These plans help ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not appear to present any conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements. Page 16 of 16 EXHIBIT 4- CITY or * Peter R. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000 Notice of Public Dearing Notice Published: August 25, 2011 The Planning Commission of the City of Auburn, Washington, will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, September 2011 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall located at 25 West Main Street on the following: Case Number ZOA11-0005: Amendment to Auburn City Code The proposal amends the Auburn City Code Chapters creating a new chapter in Title 18, Zoning, related to master plans. The proposed text amendment creates a master plan process for institutional uses on sites with a minimum of 5 acres and commercial uses on sites with a minimum of 10 acres. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be submitted up until and at the public hearing to Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Department, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4988. If you have further comments or questions, please contact Elizabeth Chamberlain at echamberlain aubuwa. ov or at (253) 931-3092. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU PvtAGINED REQUEST TO PUBLISH Please publish the following Notice of Public Hearing in the Seattle Times on August 9, 2011 Sill the City of Auburn: City of Auburn ATT: City Clerk 25 West Main Auburn, WA. 98001 An "Affidavit of Publication" is requested for this billing. Thank you. Please publish below the line only. City of Auburn Determination of Non-Significance APPLICATION REQUESTED: Amendment to Auburn City Code Title 18, Zoning, creating a new chapter related to a Master Plan process APPLICATION NUMBER: SEP11-0015 and ZOA11-0005 APPLICANT NAME: Elizabeth Chamberlain AICP, Planning Manager City of Auburn Planning and Development Department PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date issued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 p.m, on August 23, 2011. Questions and comments may be submitted to Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Department, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 or via email at echamberlain@auburnwa.gov. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant and request a copy of decisions once made. A party of record may appeal the City's determination by filing an appeal application with the Auburn City Clerk within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on September 6, 2011. Published in the Seattle Times on August 9, 2011 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF LEGAL NOTICE BY STAFF Application No.. ZOA11-0005 Applicant: City of Auburn Location: City wide Date of Public Hearing: September 2011 I certify that on August 24, 2011 1 did affix a Notice of Public Hearing for the above referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 18.68.040 at three general public locations including Auburn City Hall, Auburn Customer Service Center, and the City's website. This notice was posted at least 10 days prior to the date of public hearing noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Elizabeth Chamberlain Name (please print or type) Pign~ t re ~ -2-4-[[ Date 0 iro 0 scattte seattletimesacor>lna ' PO Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111 AUBURN CITY OF-FINANCE DEPT > ATTN CITY CLERK 25 WEST MAIN AUBURN, WA 98001 Re: Advertiser Account 430785204 Ad 799217300 Affidavit of Publication 41 38464 1 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON Counties of King and Snohomish The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of The Seattle Times Company, publisher of The Seattle Times of general circulation published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of Washington, The Seattle Times has been approved as a legal newspaper by orders of the Superior Court of King and Snohomish Counties, The notice, in the exact form annexed, was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period. 91rilyn Chavez Signature 'VI Y J S a 5 aO 1 { P cribed and sworn to before me on LA (DATE) LGw u 2 E~1 !r ttr~ x..92-~ RY SIGNATURE} ary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle 2C~jeSea~ttec'~€mes seatt etimes.com Re Advertiser Account #30785204 Ad # 799217300 Ad TEXT:CITY OF AUBURN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Commission of the City of Auburn, Washington, will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, September 2011 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall located at 25 West Main Street on the following: Case Number ZOA11.0005: Amendment to Auburn City Code The proposal amends the Auburn City Code Chapters creating a new chapter in Title 18, zoning, related to master plans. The proposed text amendment creates a master plan process for institutional uses on sites with a minimum of 5 acres and commercial uses on sites with a minimum of 10 acres. or equipment needed. Each request will be considered Individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial abl Illy of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 25 WEST MAIN STREET, AUBURN, WA 98001 (253) 931-3090, Contact: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street. The public Is Invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be submitted up until and at the public hearing to Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Department, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001.4988. If you have further comments or questions, please contact Elizabeth Chamberlain at echamberiain@aubuwa.gov or at (253) 931-3092. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of service < EXHIBIT CITY OF ADBURN Peter B. L®wis, May©r * WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.auburnwa.gov * 253-931-3000 August 8, 2011 Department of Commerce Growth Management Services Attn: Review Team 1011 Plum Street SP PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Re: City of Auburn Amendment to Auburn City Code Title 18, Zoning, creating a new chapter related to the development of a Master Plan process - 60 Day State Review To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed please find two sets of the City of Auburn's proposed code amendment to Title 18, Zoning, creating a new chapter related to the development of a Master Plan process for the purpose of State Agency. review per RCW 36.70A.106. Included with this letter are the environmental documents (checklist and determination), Public Testimony will be taken on this item until City Council action on the proposed code amendment which will most likely take place November 2011. A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, September 2011 at 7:00 p.m. Thank you for your office's assistance. Please contact me at 253-931-3092 or by email at echamberlain auburnwa. ov should you have any questions or require clarification. Sincerely, Eliza eth Chamberlain, AICP Planning Manager enclosure AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED EXHIBIT STATE OF WASH114GTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Pion] Street SE . Pa Box 42525 a olyrtrpra, waslringion 98544-2525 o (380) 725.4000 s'1VWIX011111l erc e, wa.0vv August 16, 2011 Elizabeth Chamberlain Senior Planner City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 Dear Ms. Chamberlain: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Auburn - Proposed amendment to the Auburn City Code Title 18, Zoning, creating a new chapter related to the development of a master plan process. Those materials were received on August 16, 2011 and processed with the Material ID # 17270. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106. If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment, then final adoption may occur no earlier than sixty days following the date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption. If you have any questions, please call me at 360.725.3056. Sincerely, Zfitda 4Uqjf f" Ike Nwankwo Technical & Financial Assistance Manager Growth Management Services EXHIBIT Elizabeth Chamberlain From: Richard Weinman IRichardw-Ilc@comcast. netl Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:8 AM To: Elizabeth Chamberlain Cc: Kevin Snyder Subject: Master Plan Process Hi Elizabeth I reviewed the draft master plan regulations and wanted to share a few comments. I'm not sure if tonight's PC meeting is a workshop or a hearing and if there will be an opportunity for comment, but I didn't want you to be surprised by anything I might say. Overall I think it's an excellent job: it's consistent with the City Council's direction and a good synthesis of processes being used around the region. Here are my specific cornments. intent. Paragraph D, 2'd line. I think this is intended to mean "conceptual approval of several projects", since no actual development approval is given at this point. Applicability. Suggest retitling this section "Eligibility." A couple of questions raised by this section are: (1) do eligible projects need to have particular zoning designations (e.g. institutional) in place when they apply for master plan approval; and (2) can master plan approval be combined with other approvals (e.g., a rezone or plat) or are they sequential? Decision Criteria. Generally, I think the criteria are right on. Suggest a couple of clarifications: (1) In paragraph C, sufficient transportation capacity should be determined based on existing infrastructure, planned and programmed city improvements included in the CIP , and additional improvements proposed in the master plan. (2) In paragraph F, it is not clear what "mitigation to the extent practicable' means in the situation where there is an adopted standard, such as for noise. Is this intended to mead mitigation beyond adopted standards? Incentive Based A roach. No. 3: It's not clear what the phrase "activated public open spaces/plazas" means. No. 5: How much increased lot coverage can be obtained, or do you want to leave this open-ended? 14.04.0 10 Type I Decisions. Add "minor amendment to an approved master plan". Effects of Approved Master Plan. Finally, I would suggest adding a section to the ordinance that specifies the effects of an approved master plan which I think are as follows: (1) vests the master plan as to uses and standards contained in the master plan for the period of approval; (2) subsequent project applications must be consistent with the master plan; (3) implementing projects require review and approval based on the underlying permit, whatever that is. This includes procedures modified by plaster plan approval, e.g., an AUP might no longer be required for educational uses in the I zone ; and (4) the master plan will be treated as a single "site" for purposes of calculating impact fee credits per AMC 19.04.060. In regard to the latter, the City currently attaches any credit to an individual site, and I don't think makes sense in a master plan context. It should not be that difficult administratively to track credits for the overall master plan. Good job. Richard Weinman Consulting LLC 206.295.0783