HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-2020 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKETPlanning Commission Meeting
November 17, 2020 - 7:00 PM
Special Planning Commission Meeting
AGENDA
I.Virtual Participation Link
A.Virtual Participation Information/Link
The City of Auburn Special Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
November 17, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. will be held virtually and telephonically. To attend the
meeting virtually please clink the link or enter the meeting ID into the Zoom App or call
into the meeting at the phone number listed below.
Per the Governor's Emergency Proclamation 20-28, the City of Auburn is prohibited
from holding an in-person meeting at this time.
Per City of Auburn Resolution No. 5533, the location for the Planning Commission
meetings will be virtual until King County enters into Phase 3 of the Governor's Safe
Start Reopening Plan.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/92305903736
Meeting ID: 923 0590 3736
1 253 215 8782
II.CALL TO ORDER
B.ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
C.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.November 4, 2020 Draft Minutes from the regular Planning Commission Meeting
IV.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.CPA20-0005, 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Specifically, City
Initiated Plan Policy/Text & Map Amendments, consisting of:
P/T #1- Auburn School district 2021-2026 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #2 – Derringer school District 2021-2026 Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #3 – Federal Way School district 2021 Capital Facilities Plan
Page 1 of 47
P /T #4 – Kent S chool District 2020/2021- 2025/2026 C apital F acilities Plan
P /T #5 – C ity of A uburn 2021-2026 Capital Facilities P lan
P /T #6 – Change Volume 5, Transportation E lement (to be incorporated by
reference).
P /T #8 – Volume 1, L and Use Element and Volume 5, Transportation Element
(P lan). Amend comprehensive plan policies related to operations of the Auburn
Municipal Airport.
C P M #1 - Volume 5: Transportation E lement: Several maps f ound throughout
Volume 5 have been updated to ref lect current conditions.
B.C P M #2 ,C PA 20-0001 & R E Z 20-0001 - Request by A uburn School District to change
the designation of K ing Co. P arcel No. 2121059042 totaling approximately 2.19 acres
and located on the north side of A uburn Way S outh approximately 400 f eet west of
Noble C ourt S E f rom "Multiple-F amily Residential" to "I nstitutional" and related rezone
from “R-20, R esidential 20 dwelling units per acre” to “P -1, P ublic Use”.
C .C ontinued Public Hearing for code amendments f or wireless communication faciities,
Z O A 20-0005. Changing Titlle 17, 'L and divisions and adjustments' & T title 18, 'Z oning'
The purpose of the changes are to modernize the code in response to changes in
state & federal regulations
V.C O M M UNI T Y D E V E L O P M E NT RE P O RT
Update on C ommunity Development S ervices activities.
V I .AD J O URNM E NT
The City of Auburn Planning Commissi on i s a seven member advisory body that provides
recommendations to the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land
use plans and related codes such as zoning. Planning Commissi oners are appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council .
Actions taken by the Planning Commi ssion, other than approval s or amendments to the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, are not final decisions; they are in the form of
recommendations to the ci ty council which must ultimately make the final decisi on.
Page 2 of 47
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
November 4, 2020 Draf t Minutes from the regular Planning
Commission Meeting
Date:
November 9, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
November 4, 2020 Draft Minutes for the regular
Planning Commis s ion Meeting
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Planning Commission review and approve the November 4, 2020 regular meeting minutes.
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:November 17, 2020 Item Number:
Page 4 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 2020
Draft MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. via Zoom due to Governor
Inslee’s “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” initiative due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and City
Ordinance No. 5533 which establishes the official meeting place, as virtual.
a.) ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Commissioners present: Chair Judi Roland, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioner Mason,
Commissioner Moutzouris, Commissioner Khanal and Commissioner Stephens.
Staff present: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager; Ingrid Gaub, Public Works
Director; Kendra Comeau, City Attorney; Doug Ruth, Assistant City Attorney; James
Webb, Senior Traffic Engineer; Dustin Lawrence, Senior Planner; Thaniel Gouk, Senior
Planner; Anthony Avery, Senior Planner; Jenn Oliver, Administrative Assistant.
Members of the public present: Virginia Smith; Calvin Smith; Bob Sanders; Greg
Gratias; Alison Moss-Schwabe; Alvin Prakash; Blake Gesik; David Troyer; Doug Bing;
Greg Heath; Jacob Schneider; Jeff Grose; Kim Allen; Meridee Pabst; Peter Fackenthall;
Rick Hathaway; Hans Thygeson
b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 20, 2020 – Special Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Lee moved and Commissioner Khanal seconded to approve the minutes
from the October 20, 2020 meeting as written.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6-0
B. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CPA20-0003 2020 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment – Academy
Special Planning Area Policies. Planning Commission to conduct public
hearing and recommend to City Council approval of the 2020 Privately-Initiated
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Policy/Text Amendments).
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on CPA20-0003 Comp Plan Text
Amendment at 7:21 p.m.
Page 5 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 2
Private Initiated Comprehensive Plan policy/Text Amendments (CPA20-0003)
The Auburn Adventist Academy is making multiple updates to their Adopted Special
Area plan document to better address their current needs and long-term direction of
their campus. Some changes to maps as part of the special area plan cannot be
ruled out, and may be needed. A number of documents are provided to complete
and evaluate the application and are presented into the record. The staff report
(Exhibit 1) references these documents in Finding of Fact and analysis of the
application. A map was provided by Staff to the Commission to show the proposed
location. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Land Use Policy LU-135 and to
the Academy Special Planning Area policies A.1.2 and A.1.8.
The site abuts Auburn Way South, between 32nd Street SE & Academy Drive SE.
While the Academy occupies multiple parcels within this area, the proposed text
amendment is primarily associated with King County Parcel Numbers 2721059117,
2721059090, 2721059055, 2721059086, and 2721059079.
Representatives spoke to the Commission on behalf of The Academy explaining the
growth and development of the Academy. The purpose of the amendments is to
clarify that multi-family uses providing long-term revenue to the Western Conference
of the Seventh Day Adventists supporting its educational mission. This will allow for
the Academy to increase its enrollment and expand programs that are offered. While
the Comprehensive plan amendments are limited to policy changes and do not
represent a specific development proposal, it lays the basis for the future proposal of
396 Multifamily units and 224 senior housing and memory care units to be developed
in phases.
The Commission mentioned reading about the school’s hope to provide career and
technical training to students once the facilities are built. The Commission asked if
this was still the case. Principal Peter Fackenthall from the Academy confirmed that
there is every intention on establishing programs such as a Certified Nursing
Assistant Program (CNA) for students that would work with the future nursing home
facility.
The Commission inquired about the 396 residential units and asked for clarification
on whether is was multi-family or single family residential. The developer confirmed it
is a planned community that will be built in phases and that is designed for work
force development for the students and will be attached housing in the initial phase.
Staff reiterated to the Commission that as permits come in, in the future, additional
traffic studies and environmental reviews with additional public notice will take place.
With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:47 PM.
With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Moutzouris moved and Vice Chair Lee seconded to recommend
Comp Plan Text Amendment CPA20-0003 be moved forward to City Council for
approval.
Approved 6-0
Page 6 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 3
CPA20-0002 & REZ20-0002, 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
& Rezone – Westport Capital Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment &
Rezone. Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and recommend to City
Council approval of the Westport Capital Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
Rezone (zoning map amendment), with conditions.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on Comp Plan Map Amendment CPA20-
0002 and rezone REZ20-0002 at 7:48 p.m.
Private-Initiated Map Amendments:
CPA20-0002: Request by Westport Capital Investments to change the designation of
King County Parcel numbers 0004200024, 0004200022, and 0004200003 totaling
approximately 32.4 acres and located approximately 650 feet east of the intersection
of I Street and 40th Street NE, from "Single Family Residential" to "Multiple-Family
Residential" and an associated rezone from “R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per
acre” to “R-16, Residential”. The requested changes are not directly related to a
project, however, if approved it would allow any use permitted in the R-16
Residential zone. This includes uses such as apartments, assisted living facilities,
mixed-use buildings, and single family houses.
The Commission inquired if this property is owned by one person. Staff confirmed
that it was all owned by Westport Capital Investments. The Planning Commission
asked with all 6 different parcels, would development extend into each parcel. Staff
responded that there are different options to develop that could come in, in the
future. The future development would not rely on existing internal boundaries of the
6 parcels. Staff brought the parcel viewer on the King County Website up on the
screen for everyone to view. I ST and 40th ST NE will connect through.
David Troyer, who represents that applicant Westport Capital Investments,
addressed the Commission with information. He explained, the applicant’s approach
was to get consistency with the zoning and to change it from R-7 Residential to R-16
Residential. One of the challenges to this development is road connections and
compatibility to the north with the subdivision of Monterey Park. There are three
areas where Monterey Park is expected to have transportation connections into this
site. Mr. Troyer pointed out all three locations on the map to the Commission for
clarity. There ultimate goal was to think ahead and plan ahead on what would be
developed there someday with traffic impact in mind.
Jacob Schneider, member of the public and resident of Monterey Park addressed
Staff and the Commission. He inquired on the status of the traffic impacts due to the
changes and the I Street extension. Senior Traffic Engineer James Webb responded
that the preliminary study in support of the rezone assumed some connection to that
neighborhood, and that it would add some traffic to those streets that would come
out at 42nd but the intent was that the 40th street connection would be the primary
connection to the development. Although minor, some traffic would proceed through
the neighborhood, but that would be addressed through the layout of the new
Page 7 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 4
development and how those connections are provided. Given the size of the existing
Monterey Park Development, and the amount of development that would be allowed
to occur on these parcels, there is a need to provide a full public street connection
between the two rather than just an emergency street access that would be gated.
Staff received two comments ahead of the public hearing. Those comments were
provided to the Commissioners in their packets and labeled as exhibits. Staff
discussed the comments that concerned the River Mobile Home Park which is south
of the vacant Auburn School District property concerned about floodplain impacts
and mitigation. The new FEMA maps were updated which change the areas and the
response from Staff was to reiterate to the concerned citizen that City, State, and
Federal Government has strict guidelines in place that would need to be observed
with any future development. Another citizen comment was regarding wetlands and
additional traffic concerns in the area with future development of the site. Staff
confirmed that there were wetlands on-site that had been identified in a wetland
reconnaissance the applicant had done. Staff responded that any development in the
future would be subject to local and state standards relating to wetland and wetland
buffer protections that include protection of wildlife habitat. If there was any
disruption to the wetlands or the buffers, they would appropriately mitigated in
accordance with city standards. Staff also reiterated to the citizen that any future
development of the site would require additional traffic impact studies. The applicant
hired a traffic engineer who worked with the City of Auburn’s Traffic Engineer and
found that there would be traffic impacts and improvements would be required for
future development. What those improvements would be are unknown at this time.
The citizen also questioned the additional housing which is known at Copper Gate
located at the old Valley 6 Drive Ins. Staff responded that one of the proposed
conditions for this development and the multi-family housing was to limit the number
of apartments units to that which were allowed based on the existing R-20 zoning
which is approximately 128 units. Any impacts to schools, parks, utilities, etc., would
be offset by paying impact fees and potential dedication of park land.
The Commission questioned the transition of residential density around the housing
development to the North of the property. What would that normally look like? Staff
responded that one of the proposed staff conditions is that the apartment units can
only be located in the southern half of the site (meaning southern half of all 6
parcels) and the northern half would be the lower density types of residential such as
single family, duplex, fourplex. The goal is to create a transition with the proposed
condition and existing design standards that would provide a sufficient transition
between the existing single-family along with any future development. Staff followed
up on a question that the Planning Commission asked at the last meeting. On the
Adjacent auburn school district property, the district confirmed that what potentially
could be built there is another high school. The timing is not known.
The Planning Commission asked what percent of the development would go to
affordable housing. Mr. Troyer replied that is not classified as low income/affordable
housing.
Page 8 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 5
The Commission commented that I Street NE is heavy with traffic now and with a
new high school potentially being built in the future, it could carry additional traffic. Is
there any thoughts of expanding it to accommodate more traffic. Mr. Webb
responded that at this time, there are no plans to expand I Street NE. As the future
development happens, it will be studied in advance of authorization and reviewed
closely. School traffic would not align with the period of the heaviest traffic on the
corridor. 7-9 am is the AM peak time for traffic where the afternoon peak is typically
4-6 p.m. School drop off is typically in the later morning hours and earlier in the
afternoon hours. The Commission asked when they new high school would be built
and Jeff Grose, Auburn School District, responded that there were no plans as of
right now but they watch the growth carefully to help determine the future projects.
With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 8:30 PM.
With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated.
Vice Chair Lee moved and Commissioner Khanal seconded to recommend Comp
Plan Map Amendment CPM20-0002/REX20-0002 be moved forward to City Council
for approval.
Approved 6-0
B. Zoning Code Amendment for Wireless Communication Facilities.
The purpose of the changes are to modernize the code in response to
changes in federal regulations that affect the permitting of expansion of
existing wireless communication facilities.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on Zoning Code Amendment for Wireless
Communication Facilities at 8:32 p.m.
Commissioner Khanal excused himself from this portion of the meeting due to a
conflict of interest with his employer.
Chair Roland read the following information at the beginning of the Hearing:
In light if the comments received and others that maybe received tonight, staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission close the record for submittal of public
comments but will keep the public hearing open until the planning Commission can
reconvene on November 17, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in order to address modifications to the
ordinance that are a result of public comment that have been received.
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon, presented to the Commission.
The City is systematically initiating changes to various city code sections to
address consistency with changes in federal law requirements and to reflect
changes in wireless communication technology among other changes. Due to the
Page 9 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 6
highly technical and litigious nature of the subject, the City hired a legal consultant
specializing in the subjects of wireless communication and right-of-way (ROW)
permitting and franchises and that is familiar with the results of relevant court
decisions. The City Legal Dept., Public Works Dept., and Community
Development Dept. staff has been working with this consultant over the last year
on drafting code changes.
Based on this code drafting, the City is simultaneously proposing to amend code
sections affecting public ROW franchises, and ROW use permits among others
and these changes are not the subject of Planning Commission consideration
since they primarily address the subject of city rights-of-way (ROW). However, the
city is proposing to amend city code section, Title 17 ‘Land Adjustment and
Divisions’ (the subdivision code) and Title 18 ‘Zoning’ which are subject to review
and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
For context for the Planning Commissioners, what follows is a list of the seven city
code titles that are proposed to be changed simultaneously. It is necessary to
change these simultaneously since there are cross references to definitions that
are found in a different portion of the code. These cross references avoid
duplication and aid future internal consistency of terms and facilities that are
common to ROW and non-ROW locations.
A listing of the Code Titles to be changed and a brief summary of the proposed
changes is provided below:
The following is not subject to Planning Commission Review: (copy not provided) -
• Title 3, REVENUE AND FINANCE
o Chapter 3.42, Cable Television Utility Tax
o Chapter 3.84, Telephone Business
o Chapter 3.88, Utility Services
The key changes to Title 3, are:
Align definitions with those of Title 20 for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Repeal of ACC 3.84.110 as annexation notification is addressed
by applicable state law.
Repeal of ACC 3.88.030 as the provision is outdated and
duplicative of requirements in Title 5.
• Title 5, BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
o Chapter 5.84, Licensing of Telecommunications Carriers, Operators,
Providers, and Other Utilities
The key changes to Title 5, are:
Remove purpose statement of business licensing as it is
duplicative.
Align definitions with those of Title 20 for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Page 10 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 7
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
• Title 12, STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
o Chapter 12.24, Construction Permits
o Chapter 12.32, Sidewalk Obstructions
The key changes to Title 12, are:
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Ensure that any construction work performed under this title is
done per the City’s Engineering Design and Construction
Standards.
• Title 13, WATER, SEWERS AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
o Chapter 13.32A, Underground Wiring
o Chapter 13.36, CATV Systems (Repealed)
o Chapter 13.44, Electrical Franchise (Repealed)
The key changes to Title 13, are:
Align definitions with those of Title 20 for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Ensure that any construction work performed under this title is
done per the City’s Engineering Design and Construction
Standards.
Update requirements, exemptions and process for
undergrounding of utilities, telecommunications and cable.
Repeal of Chapter 13.36 ACC as the provisions are being moved
to Title 20 and updated to reflect current federal requirements.
Repeal of Chapter 13.44 ACC as the provisions are outdated and
addressed under the provisions of Title 20.
• Title 20, FRANCHISES, CABLE FRANCHISES, AND LEASES
o Chapter 20.02, General Provisions
o Chapter 20.04, Utility and Telecommunications Franchises
o Chapter 20.06, Cable Franchise
o Chapter 20.08, Facilities Lease
o Chapter 20.10, Conditions of Public Way Agreements, Franchises and
Facilities Leases (Repealed)
o Chapter 20.12, Open Video Systems (Repealed)
o Chapter 20.14, Small Wireless Facilities
The key changes to Title 20, are:
Align definitions throughout the titles for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Update City Code in conformance with current federal and state
requirements for utilities, telecommunications and cable in the
public ways and on city owned facilities and property.
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Page 11 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 8
Repeal of Chapter 20.10 ACC as the provisions of this chapter
have been updated and moved to Chapter 20.02 ACC.
Repeal of Chapter 20.12 ACC as this chapter was empty.
The following is subject to Planning Commission Review & Recommendation:
(copy provided, see attachments)
• Title 17, LAND ADJUSTMENTS AND DIVISIONS
o Chapter 17.14, IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS – SUBDIVISIONS
o Chapter 17.28, Infrastructure Conduit (Repealed)
The key changes to Title 17, are:
Minor changes to improve clarity and correct references.
Repeal of ACC 17.28 because addressed in ACC 13.32A.
• Title 18, ZONING
o Chapter 18.02, General Provisions
o Chapter 18.04, Definitions
o Chapter 18.07, Residential Zones
o Chapter 18.23, Commercial and Industrial Zones
o Chapter 18.31, Supplemental Development Standards
o Chapter 18.35, Special Purpose Zones
The key changes to Title 18, are:
Changes to be consistent with the requirements of federal
legislation that provide the city must approve additions or
modifications to existing wireless communication facilities that do
not exceed a ”substantial increase” and that the city must approve
within a specified timeframe. This requires new terminology,
procedures, and regulations.
Also changes were made to accommodate the new technology of
“small cell wireless communication” facilities when located on non-
ROW property.
Other minor housekeeping or administrative changes were also
made.
The proposed changes are shown by strikeout (deletions) and underline
(additions) in the city code attached to this report.
The following sections summarize the effect of federal regulations and the key
points affecting City code Titles 17 and 18.
Wireless Antenna Facilities
With the evolving technology and increased usage of wireless devices by the
population, wireless antenna facilities have been given special consideration
by federal regulations. Local jurisdictions across the country need to ensure
that their regulations regarding wireless antenna facility siting are consistent
with section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
Page 12 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 9
2012, as set forth in the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s)
October 2014 Acceleration of Broadband Deployment Order.
Regulating Wireless Antenna Facilities
Local governments can develop ordinances and policies to provide
opportunities for wireless communication facilities (WCF) consistent with the
statutory rights of wireless communication service providers provided by the
federal regulations while also providing for an orderly development of the city
and protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the city’s residents
and property owners. A primary objective of these ordinances is to preserve
the existing visual and aesthetic character of the jurisdiction and its
neighborhoods, and minimize incompatibility, as well as minimizing the noise
impacts generated by these facilities.
The City has regulated WCFs located on public and private property by zoning
regulations since Ordinance No. 5020 in 1997. Most recently the Planning
Commission reviewed changes to these regulations in April 2019 as a result of
the need to address construction of a unique category of wireless
communication by Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network (PSERN) for an
emergency response communications facility. These changes were adopted
by Ordinance No. 6716 in 2019.
Small Cell Communication Technology
In recent years, the dramatic increase in use of wireless devices has triggered
the need for new subcategory of wireless communication facility referred to as
“small cell” technology to increase signal coverage. (The term: “small wireless
facility” is used in the proposed city code changes.) The signal coverage is
increased by use of smaller antennas (less than 3 cubic feet), not mounted as
high, and more closely-spaced. A typical small cell is between 25-45 feet in
height, attaches to existing utility poles or light/traffic pole within the right-of-
way, and requires an aerial or underground line to access power and fiber in
order to transmit cellular phone and data signals. Small cell facilities may also
be installed on public or private property outside of the right-of-way and thus
are also addressed in zoning code changes.
As a result of the increased demand for this technology, there has been a
substantial increase in applications from providers seeking to place small cell
facilities in municipal rights-of-way. In 2018, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) issued a 2-part Declaratory Ruling with the intent to
streamline the deployment of Fourth Generation (4G) and Fifth Generation
(5G) mobile communication system infrastructure.
Regulating Small Cell Technology
To meet rapidly increasing demand for wireless services and encourage
investment in a national infrastructure for 5G, wireless communication
providers must deploy infrastructure at significantly more locations using new,
small cell facilities. This Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order is part
of a national strategy to promote the timely buildout of this new infrastructure
across the country by eliminating regulatory impediments, unnecessarily add
Page 13 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 10
delays and costs to bringing advanced wireless services to the public. The
ruling was effective January 14, 2019.
Title 18, Zoning refers to definition of “small wireless facilities” given in ACC
20.14, but does not contain the definition. To assist the Planning Commission
in having a full understanding, the definition of “small wireless facilities” is
provided here.
ACC 20.14.010, Overview
“For purposes of this chapter, “small wireless facilities” are defined as facilities
that meet the following conditions:
1. The facilities:
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height, including their
antennas as defined in 47 CFR 1.1320(d); or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than
other adjacent structures; or
c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a
height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is
greater; and
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated
antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in 47 CFR
1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure (including the
wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting
associated equipment on the structure) is no more than 28 cubic feet in
volume; and
4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 47, Part 17; and
5. The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR
800.16(x); and
6. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation
in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR 1.1307(b);
and
7. The facilities are currently located or are proposed to be located within the
public right-of-way. For facilities currently located or proposed to be located on
private property, please see Chapter 18.31 ACC. For facilities currently located
or proposed to be located on public property or facilities, please see Chapter
20.08 ACC.“
Some key provisions of the federal legislation:
• Clarify that federal regulations apply to support structures and to transmission
equipment used in connection with any Commission-licensed or authorized
wireless transmission.
• Define "transmission equipment" to encompass antennas and other
equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power
supply cables and backup power equipment.
• Define "tower" to include any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of
Page 14 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 11
supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their
associated facilities.
• Clarify that the term "base station" includes structures other than towers that
support or house an antenna, transceiver, or other associated equipment that
constitutes part of a "base station" at the time the relevant application is filed
with municipal authorities, even if the structure was not built for the sole or
primary purpose of providing such support, but does not include structures
that do not at that time support or house base station components.
• Clarify that a modification "substantially changes" the physical dimensions of
a tower or base station, as measured from the dimensions of the tower or
base station inclusive of any modifications approved prior to the federal
legislation, if it meets a defined set of criteria:
o It increases the height of the tower by more than ten percent or by
more than twenty feet, whichever is greater;
o It involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would
protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more
than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,
whichever is greater;
o For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than
the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology
involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; or, for base stations, it
involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if
there are no preexisting ground cabinets associated with the
structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more
than ten percent larger in height or overall volume than any other
ground cabinets associated with the structure;
o It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site/lease
area, as defined;
o It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support
structure; and
o It does not comply with original approval conditions unrelated to a
“substantial change”.
And thus is determined to be an “eligible facilities request” under the federal
legislation.
• Provide that localities may continue to enforce and condition approval on
compliance with generally applicable building, structural, electrical, and safety
codes and with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to
health and safety.
• Provide the following guidance for reviewing an application under federal
legislation:
o A local government may only require applicants to provide
documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the
“eligible facilities request” meets the requirements;
o Within 60 days from the date of filing, accounting for tolling, a local
government shall approve an application meeting the “eligible facilities
Page 15 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 12
request”;
o The running of the period may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon
notice that an application is incomplete provided in accordance with
the same deadlines, but not by a moratorium; and
o An application meeting the “eligible facilities request”; is deemed
granted if a State or local government fails to act on it within the
requisite time period.
• Clarify that federal legislation applies only to State and local governments
acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities
acting in their proprietary capacities.
• Provide that parties may bring disputes-including disputes related to
application denials and deemed grants-in any court of competent jurisdiction.
• Establish new “presumptively reasonable” permit review timelines (referred to
as shot clocks) applicable to small cell facilities.
• Clarify the use of the term “collocation” in relation to small cell facilities.
• Publishes fee limitation for the use of city-owned infrastructure (such as light
and signal poles).
• Establish guidelines for imposing aesthetic standards that must be:
reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of
infrastructure deployments, objective, and published in advance.
• Interpret the term “effectively prohibit”.
FINDINGS:
1. The City regulates land uses through establishment of zoning districts. The City of
Auburn adopted Ordinance No. 4229 on June 1, 1987 repealing the previous Title 18
and enacting a new Title 18 entitled Zoning, which divides the City into zones
wherein the location, height, use of buildings, land, and zoning development
standards are established, regulated, and restricted in accordance with the
comprehensive plan for the City.
2. The City has been regulating wireless communication facilities for several years,
originally in response to the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. The City of
Auburn adopted Ordinance No. 5020 on September 15, 1997, Ordinance No. 6245
on June 1, 2009, and Ordinance Nos. 6433 and 6434 on November 5, 2012, relating
to the definition, siting and zoning of wireless communication facilities in Title 18,
‘Zoning’.
3. The City has periodically updated its regulations for wireless communication
facilities. The City of Auburn has made updates and amendments as necessary
within Title 17 and Title 18 for the regulation of wireless communication facilities
Page 16 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 13
since the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 4296, 4229; 5020, 6245, 6414, 6433, and
6434.
4. The industry and technology of wireless communication facilities continues to evolve
as does the public’s reliance on this form of communication.
5. Due to evolution of the technology and increasing usage, new applicable federal
regulations have been developed. And due to changes in Federal and State
regulations that govern the regulation of such industries and their presence within the
City, it is necessary to update the Auburn City Code in all titles, chapters and
sections that authorize, regulate, affect or otherwise govern the review, construction,
placement and siting of such tele-communications, cable and other utility facilities on
public or on private property.
6. In reviewing the city code sections by city consultants and city staff, the City also
seeks to clarify and update terms, procedural requirements, and approval processes
for permits, for telecommunications, cable and other utility facilities placed on public
and on private property. Changes are proposed to incorporate federal requirements
into the framework and organization of city code.
7. The proposed amendments and changes to the Auburn City Code that are the
subject of this proposal were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce
for state agency review under RCW 36.70A.106 and WAC 365-196-630. Receipt of
the amendments was acknowledged by the Department of Commerce as received
on October 9, 2020. See Exhibit #6.
8. The proposed amendments to the Auburn City Code are subject to State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS), File No. SEP20-0017, was issued October 19, 2020. The issuance of the
SEPA decision begins a 15-day public comment period which expires November 3.
See Exhibit #4.
9. In response to the public comment period observed under SEPA, the city received
one written comment by the time of preparation of this agenda bill/staff report. The
comment was received October 22, 2020 from Kim Allen, Senior Vice President,
Land Use Entitlements & Strategic Planning, Wireless Policy Group, LLC on behalf
of Verizon Wireless. They indicate they commented on Chapter 20.14, ‘Small
Wireless Facilities within the Public Way’, Title 17, ‘Land Adjustments & Divisions’
and Title 18, ‘Zoning’. These comments are Exhibit #7.
10. The City of Auburn Planning Commission reviewed staff’s recommended changes at
a special meeting on October 20, 2020.
11. ACC 18.68.040, ‘Public hearing notice requirements’, requires notice of a public
hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper, at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing. A combined Notice of public hearing (ZOA20-0005) and
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), (SEP20-0017), was issued October 19,
2020.
Page 17 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 14
12. ACC 18.68.030, ‘(Amendments) Public hearing process’, requires that the Planning
Commission conduct a public hearing on proposed code amendments and make a
recommendation. Then, the city council may affirm, modify, or disaffirm any
recommendation of the planning commission with regard to amendments of the text
of this title.
13. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing during a regular
meeting at 7:00 pm on November 4, 2020.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. As noted above, the city received one written comment by the time of preparation of this
agenda bill/staff report. The comment was received October 22, 2020 from Kim Allen,
Senior Vice President, Land Use Entitlements & Strategic Planning, Wireless Policy Group,
LLC on behalf of Verizon Wireless. These written comments are provided as Exhibit #7.
2. The City really appreciates the time spent by Verizon on review, preparation, and provision
of written comments in time to distribute to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting.
However, this did not afford City staff opportunity to prepare and include responses. The
City staff will proceed to review and evaluate the comments and have follow-up
conversations with the commenter, as warranted.
3. Based on an initial review, staff noted that while the commenter indicates they commented
on Title 17, ‘Land Adjustments & Divisions’, the city did not find comments in this section.
However, this could be due to word processing software that makes it difficult to distinguish
the city’s original strike through and underline changes, and the subsequent changes by
Verizon. The city staff will double check.
4. The following is an attempt to generally categorize/characterize the comments received
based on an initial review:
Nature of comment Reply
Formatting and syntax changes. Staff appreciates calling these out,
however they do not merit review by the
planning commission.
Commenting on pre-existing code
requirements that are not the
subject of changes.
The city will evaluate the comments
and determine if changes are warranted
based on the code intent and the best
interests of the city.
Some comments require further
clarification from Verizon to
understand requested nature of
change, for example, there appear
to be questions about the
prevalence of microcell facilities.
The city will seek clarification with
commenter.
Some comments suggest changes
are warranted based on consistency
with federal law and FCC rulings.
The City will review the federal
requirements to ensure we are working
with the latest, since the rulings
continue to evolve, and to ensure
Page 18 of 47
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Page 15
consistency with those required.
5. Additional comments from wireless carriers/companies may be provided before or at the
public hearing. City staff appreciates receiving these comments from wireless carrier
companies and their investment of time to share their perspective, as ultimately that will
result in a better, more workable set of regulations for the city.
Kim Allen, from Wireless Policy representing Verizon Wireless addressed the Commission and
explained to them that Verizon is working very hard to stay ahead of the demands for wireless
services now and especially during the pandemic. Ms. Allen explained to the Planning
Commission that she was there to help with any questions and that she was looking forward to
working with City Staff.
Meridee Pabst, representing AT&T, addressed the Commission and explained that she was
here to assist with any questions and to show her support to the City code changes to help stay
updated with federal law. She was looking forward to working and meeting with City Staff as
well.
The Planning Commission inquired if the comments on the redlines from the wireless
companies were different or similar? Staff said although, it is hard to answer that question right
now, there were some commonalities and staff is checking on the comments with our wireless
communication consultant to make sure we are thoroughly understand.
With no other public testimony, Chair Roland asked for a motion.
Vice Chair Lee moved and Commissioner Stephens seconded to close the record and to
continue the Public Hearing to the special meeting at 7:00 pm on November 17, 2020.
Approve 6-0
C.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon had nothing further to report to the Commission
on Community Development News at this time but if the Commission had comments or
questions he and Staff were available to answer questions. The Planning Commission
had no questions or comments at this time regarding Community Development Report.
D.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
Page 19 of 47
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
CPA20-0005, 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments
– Specifically, City I nitiated Plan Policy/Text & Map
Amendments, consisting of:
Date:
November 9, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
CPA20-0005 2020 Comp Plan Amendments
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:November 17, 2020 Item Number:PH.1
Page 20 of 47
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
PLANNING COMMISSION
Agenda Subject/Title:
CPA20-0005, 2020 Annual Comprehensive
Plan Amendments – Specifically, City
Initiated Plan Policy/Text & Map
Amendments
Date:
November 17, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and
recommend to City Council approval of the 2020 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments (Policy/Text & Map Amendments).
Background Summary: The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan
in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as
amended. Since then the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. At the
end of 2015, the City adopted a substantially updated Comprehensive Plan in compliance with
state-required periodic updates.
Annual Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated)
and by private parties (private-initiated).
This year the city is initiating:
Seven policy/text amendments
One map amendment
Also, the city received two (2) private-initiated plan map amendments and one (1) private-
initiated policy/text amendment by the submittal deadline which will be presented in separate
staff reports for the hearing.
This staff report and recommendation addresses the City initiated amendments and specifically:
Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 6 and P/T # 8 and
Map (CPM) Amendment # 1.
The remaining three private applications for amendments will be addressed in separately
provided staff reports for the Planning Commission.
In terms of process, the Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public
hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a
recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on
the amendments generally occurs but is not required prior to the end of the year.
Page 21 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 2 of 10
A. Findings
1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for
amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances
as provided for in State law and City Code, comprehensive plan amendments shall be
considered by the city legislative body no more frequently than once per year.
2. The City of Auburn established a June 5, 2020 deadline for the submittal of private initiated
comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the application
submittal deadline was provided on the City’s website, posted, advertised in the Seattle
Times Newspaper, and sent to a compiled notification list on May 4, 2020. The City
received two (2) private initiated map amendments and one (1) private initiated policy/text
amendment by the submittal deadline.
3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four (4) school district Capital Facilities
Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These Capital Facilities Plans, as well
as the City’s Capital Facilities Plan are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the
current Capital Facilities Element (Volume 3), of the 2015 Auburn Comprehensive Plan and
are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments.
4. The environmental review decision under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the
school district capital facilities plans were prepared separately by each school district acting
as their own lead agency, as allowed by State law (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)).
5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the
remaining city initiated amendments, the City Capital Facilities Plan, and the remaining
policy/text and map amendments resulted in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on September 23, 2020 (City
File # SEP20-0018). The comment period will end at 5:00 p.m. October 9, 2020 and the
appeal period will end at 5:00 p.m. October 23, 2020. A copy of the DNS and environmental
checklist application is provided in the working binder behind the “Environmental Review”
tab.
6. Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately-
initiated amendments and the general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as
follows:
“Section 14.22.100
A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given
pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following:
1. For site-specific plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing;
Page 22 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 3 of 10
2. For area-wide plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within the area subject to the proposed amendment;
c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area
subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior
to the date of the public hearing.
B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions
noted above as deemed necessary.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and
forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission
shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those
findings to the city council.
D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written
findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance.
E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning
commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW
36.70A.106.
F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in
accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)”
7. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed
during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then
provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action which generally occurs, but is
not required to, prior to the end of the year.
8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in
this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other
state agencies for the required state review. The Washington State Department of
Commerce acknowledged receipt on September 23, 2020 by Submittal ID: # 2020-S-1827.
No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or
other state agencies as of the writing of this report. A copy of the transmittal and
acknowledgement is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information &
Correspondence” tab.
9. Due to the nature of policy/text changes, and the minimal amount of private-initiated map
amendments, the optional process for holding a public open house as provided for in the
city code, was not conducted.
10. The notice of public hearing was published on September 25, 2020 in the Seattle Times
Newspaper and on the city website which is at least 10 days prior to the Planning
Commission public hearing scheduled for November 17, 2020. A copy of the request to
publish is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information &
Correspondence” tab. Since, there are no city initiated site-specific map changes, only city-
wide map changes, the site-specific noticing by mailing by first class mail to all property
owners of record within a radius of 300 feet was not conducted.
Page 23 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 4 of 10
11. The following report identifies Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) and Map (CPM)
amendments scheduled for the Planning Commission’s November 17, 2020 public hearing
with a staff recommendation.
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA20-0005, City initiated)
P/T #1
Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2020 through 2026 into the
City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the
“Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab.
Discussion
The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2020-2026. The CFP was prepared by the District
staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 22,
2020 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non-
Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District
CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the
school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Auburn School
District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference.
The CFP includes the following:
six–year enrollment projections
Auburn school district level of service standards
An inventory of existing facilities
The district’s overall capacity of the 6-year period
District capital construction Plan
Impact fee calculations
A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the
District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for
single-family dwellings is proposed to be $6,456.31, a decrease of $449.00 and the
requested fee for multiple-family dwellings is $16,325.80, an increase of $1,658.35.
As the district recommended, and the city adopted last year, a discount between
$2,000 and $10,000 per unit has been included in the request based on the number
of bedrooms per unit. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through
subsequent City Council action.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Auburn School District Capital
Facilities Plan 2020 through 2026 to the City Council.
P/T#2
Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2019-2024 into the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp.
Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab.
Page 24 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 5 of 10
Discussion
The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital
Facilities Plan 2021 - 2026. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District
Board of Directors on August 17, 2020. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA
review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District
CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the
school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District
Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference.
The CFP includes the following:
Overview
An inventory of existing facilities
six–year enrollment projections
standard of service
Capacity projects
Finance plan
Impact fee calculations
A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates
the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for
single-family dwellings is proposed to be $7,729, and the requested fee for multiple
family dwellings is $3,514.00. By ordinance No. 2018-88s, Pierce County Council
has “capped” by a “Maximum Fee Obligation” (MFO) which changes annually based
on the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record. The
previous year’s MFO for single family development was $3,216 and the MFO for
multi-family development was $450. The actual impact fees are established by
ordinance through subsequent City Council action.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Dieringer School District Capital
Facilities Plan 2021-2026 to the City Council.
P/T #3
Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2021 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp.
Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab.
Discussion
The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital
Facilities Plan 2021. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School
Board July 28, 2020. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS
prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the
basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The
Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan
into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference.
Page 25 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 6 of 10
The CFP includes the following:
Introduction
Inventory of educational facilities & non-instructional facilities
Needs forecast, existing & new facilities
Six–year finance plan
Maps of district boundaries
Building capacities & portable locations
Student forecast
Capacity summaries
Impact fee calculations
Summary of changes from the year 2018 plan
A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan
indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee
obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $3,243, representing a
decrease of $1,792.00 and the requested fee for multi-family dwellings is
$16,003.00, a decrease of $4,765.00. The actual impact fees are established by
ordinance through subsequent City Council action.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Federal Way School District’s
2021 Capital Facilities Plan to the City Council
P/T #4
Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2020-2021 to 2025-2026 into the
City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the
“Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab.
Discussion
The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2020-2021 to 2025-2026
Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board
on June 24, 2020 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared
by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for
the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning
Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the
City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference.
The CFP includes the following:
Executive Summary
Six-year enrollment projection & history
District standard of service
Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools
Six-year planning & construction plan
Portable classrooms
Projected classroom capacity
Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules
Summary of changes to previous plan
Page 26 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 7 of 10
A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the
District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for
single-family dwellings is proposed to be $5,692.85, representing an increase of
$138.85 and the requested fee for multi-family dwellings is $2,403.63, an increase of
$58.63. Both increases are tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 2.5% for the
Seattle Metropolitan Area in 2020. The actual impact fees are established by
ordinance through subsequent City Council action.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Kent School District Capital
Facilities Plan 2019-2020 to 2025-2026 to the City Council.
P/T #5
Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2021-2026, into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan
Policy/Text Amendments” tab.
Discussion
A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that
a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations
and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and
capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance
capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year
Capital Facilities Plan 2021-2026 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities
element as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan
element. More specifically, RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA requires the following:
“A capital facilities plan element consisting of:
(a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing
the locations and capacities of the capital facilities;
(b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities;
(c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital
facilities;
(d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within
projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for
such purposes; and
(e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls
short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element,
capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities
plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities
shall be included in the capital facilities plan element.”
A capital facility is defined as a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long -
lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes.
Page 27 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 8 of 10
Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways,
sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm
and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection
facilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities.
The City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2021-2026 is proposed to be incorporated
by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (Volume No. 3).
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital
Facilities Plan 2021-2026 to the City Council.
P/T #6
Amend text of Volume 5, Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan. The changes are
shown in strike through and underline in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan
Policy/Text Amendments” tab.
Key Changes/Points:
As part of the 2020 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the city seeks to change the
Comprehensive Plan to update the Transportation Element. The main changes to the
Comprehensive Plan document include:
Update Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) information/project list;
Re-designate multiple capital projects from the TIP (funded) to the Comprehensive
Plan (unfunded) to maintain continuity in the future transportation network conditions.
Update maps as needed to reflect current data and conditions (addressed by
CMP#1, below);
Additional minor changes will relate to grammar, punctuation, choice of words, etc.
In addition to the strike through and underline in the working binder, a memorandum
prepared by Cecile Malik, Senior Transportation Planner, for the Planning Commission is
included in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. The
memorandum explores the summary of text changes.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of policy text amendments to Volume 5,
Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan.
P/T #8
Volume 1, Land Use Element and Volume 5, Transportation Element (Plan). The changes
are shown in strike through and underline in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan
Policy/Text Amendments” tab.
Discussion
Existing comprehensive plan policies do not sufficiently protect the operations of the Auburn
Municipal Airport, and do not provide the City sufficient authority to ensure development
around the airport is coordinated and consistent with the Airport Master Plan. Policies are
currently being evaluated as to whether they:
Page 28 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 9 of 10
Protect the operations of the Auburn Municipal Airport (the “airport”);
Prevent or promote incompatible land uses around the airport;
Ensure that development around the airport is coordinated and consistent with the
Airport Master Plan;
Protect the airport from nonconforming uses and structures that pose a safety
concern to airport operations;
Provide the authority to review the impact of development on air safety;
Are clearly defined and clearly understood, or open to a wide degree of
interpretation; or
Use outdated language
In addition to the strike through and underline in the working binder, a memorandum
prepared by Alexandria D. Teague, Planner II, for the Planning Commission is included in
the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. The
memorandum explores the background and economic impact, external planning
considerations, and city’s authority and conclusion regarding the proposed changes.
The proposed text amendments are intended to create a stronger connection between the
Airport Master Plan and the comprehensive plan, allow for the mitigation of nonconforming
uses, standardizing terminology and improving the clarity of policy language, recognizing the
significance of the airport for economic development, and discouraging the development of
incompatible land uses adjacent to the airport.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of policy text amendments to Volume 1,
“Land Use Element” and Volume 5, “Transportation Element (Plan)” to update text for the
purpose of reinforcing the airport’s importance to the city as an essential facility within the
comprehensive plan.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments (File No. CPA19-0005, City initiated map
changes)
CPM #1
This proposed amendment updates a number of maps found throughout the city’s
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which is adopted by reference in the City of Auburn
Comprehensive Plan. This is consistent and in conjunction with P/T #6. The changes are
shown in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab.
Discussion
(This is the same topic as text amendment P/T #7, but is repeated as a map
amendment since it requires revision to both the text and map of the comprehensive
plan document. See discussion and analysis under text amendment P/T #6.)
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of a map amendment to move thirteen (13)
maps from the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, adopted as a reference to the City of
Page 29 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 10 of 10
Auburn Comprehensive Plan, into a single appendix (B). Additionally, updates to reflect the
most current data as identified in a staff memorandum presented to Planning Commission
on October 6, 2020, and included within the working binder behind the “Comp Plan
Policy/Text Amendments” tab associated with P/T #6.
Page 30 of 47
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
CPM #2 ,CPA20-0001 & REZ20-0001 - Request by Auburn
School District to change the designation of King Co. Parcel
No. 2121059042 totaling approximately 2.19 acres and located
on the north side of Auburn W ay South approximately 400 feet
west of Noble Court SE f rom "Multiple-Family Residential" to
"Institutional" and related rezone from “R-20, Residential 20
dwelling units per acre” to “P-1, Public Use”.
Date:
November 9, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
CPA20-0001, Auburn School Dis trict, Chinook
Elementary Comprehens ive Plan Map
Amendment and Re-Zone
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:November 17, 2020 Item Number:PH.2
Page 31 of 47
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
PLANNING COMMISSION
Agenda Subject/Title:
CPA20-0001, Auburn School District,
Chinook Elementary Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment and Re-Zone
Date:
November 17, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and
recommend to City Council approval of Auburn School District Chinook Elementary
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Re-Zone.
APPLICANTS/OWNERS: Auburn School District No. 408
Attn: Jeff Grose, Executive Director of Capital Projects
915 Fourth St NE
Auburn, WA 98002
AGENT: Shockey Planning Group, Inc.
Attn: Camie Anderson, Senior Associate
2716 Colby Ave
Everett, WA 98201
REQUEST: File No. CPA20-0001 & REZ20-0001:
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation of
one parcel consisting of approximately 2.19 acres from the current
designation of “Multiple Family” to “Institutional” and to re-zone the
site from “R-20, Residential – Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre” to
“P-1 – Public Use”. The Applicant identifies that this is a non-
project action.
LOCATION: The proposal consists of one parcel (King County parcel numbers
212105-9042) on the north side of Auburn Way S and
approximately 400 feet west of Noble Court SE, addressed as 3440
Auburn Way S.
EXISTING ZONING: The zoning classification of the parcel is R-20, Residential –
Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: The Comprehensive Plan designation of this site is Multiple Family.
SEPA STATUS: A application was received on February 5, 2020. A SEPA
Environmental Checklist – Non Project Action, and Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Exhibit and Rezone Exhibit were submitted and Page 32 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 2 of 13
reviewed with the application. A DNS was issued on March 4,
2020, with the appeal period expiring on April 2, 2020.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant, Camie Anderson of Shockey Planning Group, representing Jeff Grose of the
Auburn School District, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment
(File No. CPA20-0001) and a related re-zone (File No. REZ20-0001). More specifically, the
applications request a change in the designation of the parcel consisting of approximately
2.19 acres from the current designation of “Multiple-Family” to “Institutional” and a re-zone
from “R-20 Residential – Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre” to “P-1 – Public Use District”. The
Applicant identifies that this is a non-project action.
2. The Site, comprised of one parcel, is located on the north side of Auburn Way S and
approximately 400 feet west of Noble Court SE, addressed as 3440 Auburn Way S. The
parcel is identified as King County parcel numbers 212105-9042.
3. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application by Auburn School
District for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Re-zone was applied for under City
File No. SEP20-0002 on February 5, 2020. The staff review was completed and a DNS was
issued on March 4, 2020. The appeal period expired on April 2, 2020.
4. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on March 4, 2020, which is at
least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 17,
2020. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-
site and on the city’s webpage.
5. The following report identifies a comprehensive plan map amendment and re-zone
requested by Auburn School District scheduled for the Planning Commission’s November
17, 2020 public hearing with a staff recommendation.
Comprehensive Plan Related Findings
6. The City of Auburn first-adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with
the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended in 1995.
The Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since generally for
housekeeping items and for capital facilities plan coordination.
7. The City of Auburn adopted a substantially revised Comprehensive Plan (including map
amendments) in response to periodic updates required by the Growth Management Act
(GMA) by Ordinance No. 6584 on December 14, 2015.
8. City Code Section 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan” provides the city’s laws for amending the
Comprehensive Plan. Amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and
by private citizens (privately-initiated).
Page 33 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 3 of 13
9. RCW 36.70A.130 (The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for
annual amendments to locally adopted comprehensive plans. Except in limited
circumstances as provided for in State law, Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be
considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year. The
annual limitation and exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060.
10. The City of Auburn established a June 5, 2020 submittal deadline for comprehensive plan
amendments for the year 2020 (map or policy/text amendments). Notice to the public of the
application filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, publication of a legal notice
the Seattle Times Newspaper, and sent to a notification list of potentially interested parties.
11. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan”, outlines the process for submittal
of private initiated amendments and the processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments as
follows:
“Section 14.22.100
A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given
pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following:
1. For site-specific plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing;
2. For area-wide plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within the area subject to the proposed amendment;
c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area
subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior
to the date of the public hearing.
B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions
noted above as deemed necessary.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and
forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission
shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those
findings to the city council.
D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written
findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance.
E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning
commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW
36.70A.106.
F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in
accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)”
Page 34 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 4 of 13
12. Per Chapter 14.22 Auburn City Code (“ACC”), privately-initiated amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan shall have at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission
who then forward on a recommendation to the City Council. City Council consideration and
action on the amendments generally occurs, but is not required, prior to the end of the year.
13. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in
this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce and other state
agencies as required for the 60-day state review. No comments have been received from
the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of
this report.
14. Due to the scope and limited number of privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional
process as provided in the city code for a public open house was not conducted.
Zoning Code Related Findings
1. In June 2018 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6655 which allows the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider associated map changes (for Comp. Plan and
Zoning map amendments), concurrently. This eliminates the need for the Hearing Examiner
to subsequently consider a zoning map amendment public hearing when it is related to a
Comprehensive Plan map amendment.
2. Chapter 18.68 ACC (Zoning) Amendments outlines the process for submittal of privately-
initiated zoning amendments and the general processing. Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b),
when the Planning Commission is considering a re-zone (zoning map amendment) which
requires a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, the public hearings shall be
conducted concurrently and a recommendation on both shall be forwarded to the City
Council.
3. The intent of the P-1 – Public Use Zone is “…intended to provide for the appropriate location
and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public
service needs of the community.” While not explicitly called out in the current
Comprehensive Plan, the P-1 – Public Use Zone is existing in implementation in
surrounding parcels occupied by the Chinook Elementary School. The “Institutional”
Comprehensive Plan designation is the most closely related comprehensive plan
designation to the P-1 – Public Use Zone.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Staff Analysis
1. The Applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on February
05, 2020, before the year 2020 application submittal deadline for comprehensive plan
amendments (June 5, 2020).
2. The property owner is Auburn School District No. 408, represented by Jeff Grose, Executive
Director of Capital Projects. The applicant is Camie Anderson, Senior Associate of Shockey
Planning Group Inc.
Page 35 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 5 of 13
3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application and re-zone application
(File No. REZ20-0001), the Applicant also submitted an environmental checklist application
(File No. SEP20-0002).
4. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the comprehensive
plan map designation of King County parcel number 212105-9042 from the current
designation of “Multiple-Family” to “Institutional”.
5. The Applicant also seeks to change the zoning classification of King County parcel numbers
212105-9042 from “R-20 Residential, Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre” to “P-1, Public Use
District”. The Applicant identifies in the environmental checklist application that this is a non-
project action.
6. As indicated by the Applicant’s narrative statement submitted with the application, the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and related rezoning have been requested for the
purpose of replacing the existing public elementary school to more closely align with district
standards for size and program.
7. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of
the sites and surrounding properties are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
Zoning Classification
Existing Land Use
On-
Site
Multiple-Family
R-20 Residential Twenty
Dwelling Units per Acre
Single-Family Dwelling,
Multiple Family
Dwellings
North “Institutional” P-1, Public Use Elementary School
South “Multiple-Family” R-20 Residential Twenty
Dwelling Units per Acre Multiple-Family
Dwellings
East “Institutional” P-1, Public Use Elementary School
West “Light Commercial” C-1, Light Commercial Retail Commercial
Page 36 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 6 of 13
Vicinity Map with Site outlined.
N
Subject Site
Auburn Way S Noble Court SE Page 37 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 7 of 13
Process and Criteria for Requested Amendment
8. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the designation of
one parcel, King County parcel number 212105-9042. The parcel is located south and west
of the existing Chinook Elementary School site, and will be incorporated into a re-
development of the existing facility. The parcel is approximately 2.19 acres in size. If
approved, the school district will control three contiguous parcels totaling approximately
10.20 acres in size.
The property is roughly the shape of a square of approximately 300 feet deep by 320 feet
wide. The parcel is currently occupied by a single family house and a multi-family structure.
The school district has stated they recently acquired the parcel and have leased the current
uses back to the occupants.
9. The site is bordered to the south by Auburn Way S, which is owned by the Washington
State Department of Transportation, serving as State Route 164, and classified by the City
as a “Principle Arterial” street. The adjacent street is not currently fully developed to the
“Principle Arterial” street standards, as there is not sidewalk or vertical curb abutting the
property.
10. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. Records
indicate the annexation of this and surrounding properties occurred in 1959.
11. The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance, as it
relates to this application:
Volume 1 – Land Use Element
“Public and Institutional Land Use Designations”
“Character Sketch”
“Public and institutional uses will occur in both low and high-density environments. For
passive uses, land and views will be protected; limited access to these areas will be
typical. For more active uses, usability and accessibility will be key features and new
development will be subject to standards reflecting programmed space and
interconnectivity. These spaces will be varied in type, providing service to areas large
and small, urban and more rural in character. Sustainable solutions and innovations that
are responsive to the native ecology will be typical of public and institutional uses.”
“General Policies”
A general policy appropriate to this request is:
“Policy LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while
taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited.”
“Institutional Designation”
“Description”
Page 38 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 8 of 13
“The I zone is intended to provide an area wherein educational, governmental,
theological, recreational, cultural and other public and quasi-public uses may be allowed
to develop. It is further intended these areas be significant in scope which will allow a
combination of uses which may not be permitted outright within other zones. This district
is not intended to include those smaller or singular public uses which are consistent with
and permitted in other zones.”
Designation Criteria
1. Previously developed institutional uses; or
2. Located along major arterial streets;
3. Properties that are buffered from the single-family designation by landscaping,
environmental features, or the Residential Transition designation and buffered from all
other Residential designations; and
4. Meets the development parameters of the Institutional designation.
5. Properties identified in the Airport Master Plan as Landing Field.”
An Institutional-related policy appropriate to this request is:
“Policy LU-102 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the
needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks; city operated
municipal facilities, large churches, and fire stations.”
The Capital Facilities Element also contains objectives and policies relevant to the request,
as follows:
Volume 3 – Capital Facilities Element
“Planning Approach”
“The Capital Facilities planning approach is to manage growth in a manner that
enhances rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively
coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service development and
provision.”
“Objectives and Policies”
“Objective 1.1. Ensure that new development does not outpace the City’s ability to
provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new
development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided,
and by encouraging development types and locations that can support the public
services they require.”
“Policy CF-3. Development shall be allowed only when and where such development
can be adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing the level
of service elsewhere.”
“Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of
public services through an effective system of public facilities.”
Page 39 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 9 of 13
“Policy 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 adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses
specified in this Comprehensive Plan.”
“Objective 1.8. To site public and institutional buildings in accord with their service
function and the needs of the members of the public served by the facility.”
“Policy CF-63. Public and institutional facilities that attract a large number of visitors (City
Hall, museums, libraries, educational facilities, permit and license offices, health and
similar facilities, etc.) should be sited in areas that are accessible (within ¼ mile) by
transit.”
12. The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the
zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are
consistent as required by the following city code provision:
“ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency.
The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within
Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the
comprehensive plan. “
13. The City code provides certain criteria for decision-making for comprehensive plan
amendments as follows:
“ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments.
A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and
public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained
therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed
amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment
rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with
and/or relates to the following decision criteria:
1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives
of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent;
2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased;
3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be
invalid;
4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has
occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the
comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment;
5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the
comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies
for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth
and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.”
Page 40 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 10 of 13
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED – CONCLUSIONS:
The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan
under ACC 18.14.22.110. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis.
1. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goal s
and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent.
Staff analysis: As discussed above, the subject properties are adjacent to an existing
elementary school, multi-family housing, and light commercial properties. The property has
been acquired for the purpose of replacing the existing elementary school, with the intent of
more closely matching the district’s standards for size and program. The site is served by
public infrastructure, including a “principle arterial” street to the south. Due to the adjacent
ownership and redevelopment program identified in the applicant’s application, secondary
access to the redeveloped site is available via Noble Court SE to the east. The proposal to
change the mapped land use designation of the site from “Multiple-Family” to “Institutional”
is supported by numerous Comprehensive Plan policies within both the Land Use Element
and the Capital Facilities Element, as noted above. The proposal to change the land use
designation on the site to institutional will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Since it allows for a public facility to meet the needs of the community, adequate public
facilities will be provided concurrent with the development to serve the future redevelopment
of the site. Public transit is available within ½ mile of the site.
2. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not
diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services.
Staff analysis: The applications for a change in Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning
have been reviewed by Valley Regional Fire Agency and the City Utilities and Traffic
divisions. Based on these reviews, the changes would not adversely affect the provision of
services. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map change by itself, if approved will not
affect the ability to provide adequate services. As typical with development in the city, the
infrastructure improvements needed to support the development would be the responsibility
of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services would be required
to be provided concurrent with the development in order for the project to be authorized.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that approval of the request negatively affects provision of
services. Utility and street frontage improvements would be required to support the
development
Existing services either exists or can be provided to support the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the site’s map designation from “Multiple-Family” to “Institutional”.
3. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan
is based are found to be invalid.
Staff analysis: While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, the zoning
designation of R-20 does not permit educational facilities. Amending the site’s land use
classification to Institutional provides the opportunity to re-zone the site and allow the
replacement of an existing public elementary school. Policy number LU-4 in Volume 1 of the
city’s comprehensive plan states that “Public and institutional uses may be permitted as a
Page 41 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 11 of 13
conditional use if designed in a manner that enhances the residential character of the area.”
The land use designation change and re-zone support the comprehensive plan’s intent to
allow compatible services in and adjacent to residential zones.
4. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in
conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest
amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed
amendment.
Staff analysis: There has been a change in conditions that generates the need for the map
change. At the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, the school district had not
identified nor purchased the land necessary to meet state and district goals for attendance
and facility needs. With the continued population growth and a shortage of suitable sites for
the construction of new facilities, the public benefit of the proposal supports the proposed
change.
5. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of
the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the
Puget Sound Region”.
Staff analysis: The change if approved would continue to be consistent with the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County and
“Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The
proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for institutional development, which
will directly provide services (educational) to the immediate community within an urban area.
6. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use
designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the
following:
a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight;
b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or
compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility
with surrounding properties;
c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation
came into effect.
Staff analysis: The proposed land use designation is compatible with surrounding land uses
per policy LU-4 meeting criteria B, and the residential growth and demand for educational
facilities and availability of land has caused a change in condition that meets criteria C.
RE-ZONE RELATED – CONCLUSIONS:
While the City of Auburn does not have re-zone criteria adopted, the following criteria are
analyzed to ensure that the proposed re-zone is consistent with Washington State case law.
Page 42 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 12 of 13
1. The intent of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan of the City. Is the re-zone
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Staff analysis: As provided at ACC 18.35.020, “Intent of Special Purpose Zones”, the intent of
the “P-1 – Public Use Zone” is: “The P-1 zone is intended to provide for the appropriate location
and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public
service needs of the community.” The P-1 - Public Use Zone is in effect on the adjacent parcels.
While the P-1 – Public Use Zone is no longer an implementing zone within the “Institutional”
Comprehensive Plan designation, the submitted P-1 rezone request meets the intent of
providing a public good while allowing future construction of improvements on a single campus
with uniform zoning.
Provided that the concurrent Comprehensive Plan map amendment is granted, changing the
site’s current “Multiple-Family” designation to “Institutional”, the proposed re-zone from “R-20” to
“P-1” will be consistent with and implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
use of the site as a public school is consistent with the “P-1” Public Use Zone intent statement.
2. The availability of municipal services such as water, sewer, roads, fire and police
protection, which might be required by reason of the proposed re-zone.
Staff analysis: As previously noted in the Comprehensive Plan map amendment analysis,
adequate services will be provided to the site, including water, sewer, roads, and fire and police
protection.
3. The conditions of the area have substantially changed.
Staff analysis: As previously noted in the Comprehensive Plan map amendment analysis, the
conditions of the area have substantially changed since development of the site. Through the
continued urbanization of the surrounding area and a reduction in maximum class size
requirements for elementary schools statewide, it is evident that the conditions of the area have
substantially changed.
4. The proposed re-zone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
morals, and welfare.
Staff analysis: The proposed re-zone from “R-20” to “P-1” bears a substantial relationship to the
public health, safety, morals, and welfare in that it will allow a site to be included with the
existing Chinook Elementary School site, a necessary public facility in need of being
redeveloped to meet current community needs. During the redevelopment of the site, the project
will be required to meet all local zoning, building, and other requirements currently established
by the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the Auburn School District
No. 408 (CPA20-0001) request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the map
designation of one parcel, Parcel No. 212105-9042 from “Multiple-Family” to “Institutional” and
Page 43 of 47
Staff Member: Avery
Date: November 17, 2020
Page 13 of 13
to re-zone the parcel from “R-20, Residential Zone - Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre” to “P-1,
Public Use” zoning district.
EXHIBIT LIST
(For exhibits, please see behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the ‘working binder’.)
Exhibit 1 Staff Report CPA20-0001 & REZ20-0001
Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Proposed Change
Exhibit 3 Zoning Map Amendment – Proposed Change
Exhibit 4 Completed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Re-zone Application forms and
materials including Applicant’s Narrative Statement
Exhibit 5 Completed SEPA Environmental Checklist Application SEP20-0002
Exhibit 6 Combined Notice of Application and Determination of Non-Significance SEP20-0002
Exhibit 7 Dept. of Commerce 60-Day Acknowledgement Letter
Exhibit 8 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 9 Affidavits of Publication, Mailing, and Posting
Page 44 of 47
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Continued Public Hearing for code amendments for wireless
communication faciities, ZOA20-0005. Changing Titlle 17,
'Land divisions and adjustments' & Ttitle 18, 'Zoning'
Date:
November 9, 2020
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
PC Memo regarding Wireles s Code Amendments
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:November 17, 2020 Item Number:PH.3
Page 45 of 47
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Roger Lee, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services, Department of Community Development
Jeff Tate, Director, Department of Community Development
DATE: November 6, 2020
RE: ZOA20-0005, Continued Public Hearing on Proposed Code Amendments related to
Wireless Telecommunications Regulations
Background Summary
The City is systematically initiating changes to various city code sections to address consistency
with changes in state & federal law requirements and to reflect changes in wireless
communication technology among other minor changes. Due to the highly technical and
litigious nature of the subject, the City hired a legal consultant specializing in the subjects of
wireless communication and ROW permitting of franchises and that is familiar with the results
of court decisions. The City Legal Dept., Public Works Dept., and Community Development
Dept. staff has been working with this consultant over the last year on drafting code changes.
Based on this code drafting, the City is simultaneously proposing to amend code sections
affecting public right-of-way franchises, and right-of-way use permits among others and these
changes are not the subject of Planning Commission consideration since they primarily address
the subject of city rights-of-way. However, the city is proposing to amend city code section,
Title 17 ‘Land Adjustment and Divisions’ (the subdivision code) and Title 18 ‘Zoning’ which are
subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
At the Planning Commission’s October 20, 2020 regular meeting, staff introduced, described,
and presented these code changes that were shown in writing by strikeout (deletions) and
underline (additions).
Subsequently, the code changes were scheduled for a public hearing on November 4, 2020.
Prior to this hearing, the City received two sets of comments and associated cover letters from
representatives of wireless carriers, Verizon and AT&T. These cover letters and sets of
markups were e-mailed to the commission members in advance of the public hearing. At the
conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to close the record and
continue the public hearing to their November 17, special meeting.
Page 46 of 47
2
Again, due to the large volume of comments, the highly technical nature of the comments, the
need to research and confer with the city’s consultant and other departments, the city has not
had time to fully consider the significance and evaluate all the comments, the city staff is again
requesting, that the hearing be continued to the December 8, 2020 regular meeting held
virtually starting at 7:00 pm.
Page 47 of 47