City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

All right, good evening.

I will now call the Auburn study session meeting for Monday, June 22 2026. To order tonight's study session meeting will be held both person and virtually. And I could you please call roll?

Deputy Mayor Taylor? Here. Councilmember Amherst? Here. Councilmember Baldwin? Here. Councilmember Lott?

Here.

Councilmember Rakes? Here. Councilmember Sturgis? Here. Councilmember Taylor?

Here. All right. Thank you, Hannah. Do we have any agenda modifications?

Yes, we are going to do ordinance number 7024 first and then 7020 second. Fabulous. Thank you.

We have no announcements, reports, or presentation on tonight's agenda, so we're going to move into agenda items for council discussion. So we will start first with ordinance 7024 presented by Director Cowell.

Thank you. And Amber Olds is going to come up and give a presentation on the Astound franchise for you. And Amber is our right-of-way specialist.

Mayor and Council Members. I'm Amber Olds, Right-of-Way Specialist for the Public Works Department. I'm here tonight to discuss Draft Ordinance Number 7024 for Franchise Agreement Number FRN24-0004, First Down Broadband LLC for Wireline Telecommunications. Under Title 20 of the Auburn City Code and consistent with federal and state law, companies that want to locate their communications facilities in the city's public ways are required to obtain a franchise agreement with the city. This down provides telecommunication services that include telecommunications capacity, dark fiber, transmission of voice and data, and other electronic non-switch dedicated and private line services. They also provide high capacity fiber optic transmission services to firms, businesses, and institutions. Their existing facilities were previously authorized in 2015 under franchise agreement number 1451, ordinance number 6555. And then they had an amendment and a renewal in 2019 under ordinance number 6731. That agreement is currently in a month-to-month status. They've applied for a new franchise agreement so that they can continue to operate their existing facilities in the cities right away and serve their customers inside and outside the city. Franchise application was reviewed, found to be complete for the city's code requirements. The proposed agreement is consistent with the city's standard form for this type of service and agreement. The agreement would be valid for a term of 15 years It's a citywide agreement to cover all public ways of the city and future expansion of their facilities future expansion alterations repairs upgrades and construction permit, which is a requirement of the franchise agreement. Bringing this agreement forward to council for review, city staff have verified that it meets the code requirements that council must base your determination on. Public hearing is currently scheduled for the July 6, 2026 council meeting. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Council, any questions for Amber?

I see none. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda is Ordinance 7020, Director Crum.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Council Members. For the record, I am Jason Crum, Director of Community Development. Happy to be here tonight to provide a brief presentation on some proposed co-changes related to non-conforming use and really what that MEANS ESSENTIALLY IS THERE WAS IF A SITUATION TYPICALLY MANIFESTS IN A WAY THAT THERE'S A LEGALLY ESTABLISHED HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED USE ON A PROPERTY AND THEN SOMETHING ABOUT THAT PROPERTY CHANGES MAYBE THE UNDERLYING ZONING CODE OR ALLOWABLE USES OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHANGES SUCH THAT THAT USE IS NO LONGER CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW CODE. A visual example here is on the maps, the one on the left shows light blue, vertically oriented property that was rezoned to red. That indicates a rezone from light industrial to heavy commercial in this case. On the left, the snippet of our allowable uses shows that a heavy contractor, For example, that use is not allowed in commercial, but it is allowed in the original zoning designation of industrial. So in this case, were there to be a heavy contractor on this property, it would be designated as an existing non-conforming use. So the state doesn't really have a lot of prescriptive regulation or guidance regarding these type of circumstances. They really allow the local jurisdiction to govern how to respond when this kind of change occurs. And the city of Auburn has existing nonconforming use code in place. It was largely adopted back in 1987. 40 years ago almost. There have been minor changes, little corrections over time over the years, but real no significant changes in the past several decades. So now is the time for some proposed change. Why now, you may ask? I would say, great question. Here's why. Because it's no surprise to anyone that there have been a lot of recent zoning changes with our periodic comprehensive plan update that went into effect at the beginning of 2025. That included a pretty significant overhaul of our residential and commercial zones. We also last year had the downtown zone update. So the urban center boundary has been expanded. There's a redefinition of districts within that downtown area. So there's been quite a few changes. As part of both of those processes, we did hear from community members who just generally had questions what are the implications of this what does this mean for me my property short term long term how am i going to be impacted by that so really in response to you know those questions from the community but also in an effort to um I guess, be responsible with change, especially when there's been significant change. In working with Mayor Backus and community members and other subject matter experts, our team explored some potential changes to allow for some flexibility, some assurances, and some protection, I think, for existing property owners who may have been impacted by some of those changes. So I'll go through a couple of the more substantial changes here. The first of which is that our existing code specifies that there's certain types of improvements that are allowed for an existing non-conforming use, but there's a limit on the amount that can be invested in improvements for those property owners. So not to exceed 50% of the valuation of the existing structure, so if there's a million dollar building property owner is only able to invest up to five hundred thousand dollars in improvements and that in our current code is for the life of the useful so that is for one thing kind of a challenging enforcement and tracking exercise for city staff It's also, you know potentially a bit limiting for the property owner who may have invested some in their property over time so the proposed code is to still have a Threshold related to the valuation but to look at that kind of a rotating five-year basis so it's less of a less cumbersome for city staff to be able to review like a five-year permit history on what's been done to the building rather than have to kind of figure out over the life of the structure of the use second element of the proposed code changes are the expansion of use so our code currently says that an expansion of use which typically would look like maybe in addition to the footprint of the building they want to increase the size of their operations that is allowed up to 25 percent but that is only authorized through the hearing examiner, through a special exceptions application. There are elements of our code certainly that are approved by the hearing examiner, but there are also AREAS WHERE THERE'S MAYBE A MORE MODERATE PROPOSAL OF CHANGE, LIKE A VARIANCE TO OUR CODE, WHICH IS ALLOWED TO BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY UP TO 10%. SO THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO ALLOW A SMALLER, MORE MODEST EXPANSION UP TO THAT 10% THRESHOLD WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO THE HEARING EXAMINER, WHICH CAN BE A COSTLY AND TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS FOR A PROPERTY OWNER. And then finally, probably the biggest change is related to when a use is discontinued, typically that would be, and we hope it's a business that is doing really well and they're expanding, so they've moved to a new building within city limits, and then they have a property that they're going to lease or turn over to a new buyer. Our code says that has to occur within 180 day window. So they have to marketed, take offers, all within a six-month time frame. Very challenging, especially in the current commercial real estate market that we've seen over the past many years, frankly. And then also with economic uncertainties at the national level and the state level, it's not a seller's market. And this is a pretty cumbersome AND NOT REALLY POSSIBLE FOR A LOT OF PROPERTIES, PARTICULARLY ONES THAT ARE UNIQUE IN NATURE. THERE MIGHT BE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USES THAT MEAN A LOT OF JOBS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE INVESTMENT IN AUBURN THAT POTENTIALLY WE WOULD BE MISSING OUT ON with this kind of limiting period of time. So the proposed code change is to allow up to three years for that, you know, vesting period of that non-conforming use with a potential option for extension. we do want to be, again, kind of responsible and reasonable with these code changes. So whereas our current code has no conditions related to that period of time, we are proposing that there are some conditions to be able to maintain that non-conforming designation. So at a minimum, there can be no open code enforcement violations that aren't being addressed. We expect that the property is maintained in good standing, fits within the character of the neighborhood and surrounding properties, and that we want the property owner to be doing their due diligence in making sure that they're actively marketing the property and considering reasonable market offers. We want to be sensitive to the concern about a potential property owner just sort of waiting out the clock to try to get you know maybe the best offer so these are proposed conditions as part of to allow this expanded period time these conditions also would apply to the three year window not just the extension so if at any point in time during that three year period the property owner is not meeting these conditions the proposed code allows us to you know no longer recognize that nonconforming designation. So these proposed code changes, we worked on them with our Planning Commission. There are a couple of meetings, dates shown here, where there are presentations, a pretty robust discussion. At the June 2nd meeting, there was a public hearing. There were public comments by a couple of individuals who were in support of this code. The Planning Commission, by and large, were supportive of this. unanimously recommended that it be moved forward for consideration by City Council. And so that is why we're here tonight and the recommended next move would be for Council to consider taking action at the July 6th meeting in a couple of weeks through Ordinance 7020.

Thank you, Director Crum. Council, any questions? Council Member Sturgis.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Taylor. I've got a couple questions. One for just my understanding. Do you have any examples of what light industrial would be versus heavy commercial?

So light industrial could be some manufacturing, some food processing could be considered a light industrial. AND THEN HEAVY COMMERCIAL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. I'LL CHECK. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS.

Did you have a question? I do. I have a couple. On the point of the valuation and the 50 percent, I forget which slide that was on.

Four.

On slide four, where it's talking about over the life of the user within a five-year period, do we have anything in the proposed language that allows perhaps exceptions or evaluation if they're renovations related to acts of God. So if there was weather events or flooding or something that would be an improvement or investment that through no fault of the property owner has to be repeated within that five-year period.

Yes, that is in the code. And there is a proposed change there. So the existing code doesn't really make a distinction between the purpose for the improvements uh so if there were you know structural issues to the building that needed to be repaired right now that threshold does apply to the valuation the proposed code is saying that that would be an exception it wouldn't necessarily be counted towards the evaluation so yes uh we think that it offers some the new code offers some more protection or flexibility in case there are issues that are out of the owner's control.

Thank you. So when you said that Slide number seven. So the discontinued use establishment conditions. So if there's no code enforcement violations, they're keeping it in good standing, it's actively at market rate, and you said, well, if they're not complying with this, then can you give me an example of what then could potentially take place?

Yeah, so we would, so at a point in time that the use is discontinued, then the five years would start, or the three years would start, where I would say. If you're getting that use reestablished within a three-year period, the city would allow that through whatever land use designation or permit application that comes in. If during that three-year window, the property owner is not meeting these conditions, we would essentially say that that three year timeline is now expired and any future use of that property has to meet the current zoning and development standards. So essentially the property owner is kind of forfeiting their ability to reestablish that nonconforming use.

Council Member Lott.

Yeah, on the same slide. How do you define good standing, actively marketed and competitive rates? Who judges that?

We would it's so we would ask for some market comparable. So as part of their demonstration that they're doing their due diligence, particularly when they apply for a an extension, we would put the onus on them to demonstrate to us essentially that YOU KNOW, THEY'RE MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT. AND IF NECESSARY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD ENGAGE IN A THIRD-PARTY EVALUATION OF THAT. COULD BE A REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL.

COUNCILMEMBER RAKES. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS. SO IF YOU HAVE AN EMPTY BUILDING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER REFUSES TO DO ANYTHING WITH, AND HE WOULDN'T CARE ABOUT maintaining a good standing. Is there a consequence eventually where we make them do something with their building?

So through the typical code compliance process, if there were concerns about lack of activity or lack of maintenance, we would APPROACH IT THROUGH THAT TYPICAL PROCESS. AND THEN KIND OF TO COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR'S QUESTION EARLIER, IF THERE WAS A QUESTION ALONG THE WAY ABOUT WHETHER AN EXISTING USE THAT WAS NOT CONFORMING COULD BE REESTABLISHED, WE WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME THAT THAT USE WOULD NO LONGER BE ALLOWED. THE PRIOR USE.

COUNCILMEMBER SERGIS. Thank you.

And really quick, just as a precursor, thank you so much, because I know the nonconforming kind of squishiness was needed clarity. And so thank you for the great work and coming back with this. I'm going back to slide seven. And this is just I'm confused on this one is what's the why for why would we a dollar amount that people could spend on improving their moment.

I think that I guess the spirit or the intent of that is to limit the amount that a non-conforming use is expanded or that a property owner is investing in a property that ultimately, you know, whether it's five years, 10 years, 20 years from now, the it's not consistent with the city's vision for how that area will grow and develop in the future. So it's it's typically then it would be inconsistent with our zoning code and our comprehensive plan. So it's sort of a way to PROTECT THAT USE FROM BEING THERE IN PERPETUITY TO SOME DEGREE?

COUNCILMEMBER RAKES. OKAY.

SO BACK AT THE OTHER SIDE. SO IF THE PROPERTY OWNER chooses to never do anything that they're building but leave it empty. What are the recourses?

Is there anything the city can do? There's no, I think this is related to that to some degree. Yeah. Because this is more specific to a use that's no longer allowed. But in general, if you're asking about, there are no provisions in our code currently to compel a property owner to do anything particular with their space. So I don't think there's anything in code that speaks to specifically what you're suggesting or asking about.

Council, any more questions? Council Member Baldwin.

In the code language itself, I don't see it in the slides, but there's a reference to updating the building code, I believe.

Yes.

Can you speak to that at all?

I believe the prior reference was to the uniform building code, which is an antiquated name for the international building codes that are adopted by the state and amended by the city. So it was just updating the reference to the correct code.

Last question. Two-fold. So is there a possibility that the property could go from non-conforming to conforming if they were to make substantial changes? And then with these code changes, do the amendments improve or make any substantial improvements to permit processing times?

Uh, so we're a property owner to become more conforming. Yeah. Yes, that's a possibility. And that's, you know, ideally the direction, you know, you would expect or hope things were going. What

proposed, does that end up impacting processing time at all for permitting?

No, I don't think that necessarily would impact our typical permitting process and approval time.

Council, any more questions? Council Member Baldwin.

Thinking from a residential perspective, because I feel like most of this is probably more likely in a commercial space, but from a residential standpoint, is there anything in particular with our changes that homeowners would need to be aware of if they're in this category?

there there's some additional so there's less restriction on a residential use and if it's not conforming and that's been the case with the current code as well as the proposed there's no real significant changes proposed there really it's more probably that there's four residential property owners as their code gets updated with allowing more density and more opportunities for mixed use. I think it's really more opened up the possibilities for residential property owners. The non-conforming element, there's nothing more restrictive than existing code that's proposed.

Councilmember, anybody else? No? Questions? Councilmember Baldwin.

On that same topic, or to really finish that conversation, is in that space of we've modified our codes to allow for more infill within residential neighborhoods. And so that was where I was looking to confirm is that if there was a residential property that was considered non-conforming from, you know, code standpoint and they wanted to infill by adding an adu or they wanted to you know do more within their plot of land there's nothing that would be prohibitive to that that's my understanding i think that's true okay great council any more questions nope that's it thank you thank you thank you all right

Good point, guys. This is the section on the agenda where council can share topics of interest and or reports on special focus area matters. Reports should be limited to five minutes. We'll start with Councilmember Amer. I have nothing, but I have a question.

I want to know who's going to AWC from council. Okay, good to know.

Thank you, council. Councilmember Sturgis. Nothing to report. Councilmember Lott.

Yeah, I'm going to report something, and this is a pseudo-promotion, which is I spent eight weeks going through the CERT class that the City of Auburn puts on, and that's the emergency responders for your community. And I just wanted to say what an informative, good experience it was. I hope people that are watching this would consider taking it. It's a free class. It's eight weeks. It's one evening a week plus a couple of weekends. And you get a wealth of knowledge from it. And considering we recently had an event here in December, I think it would be a good opportunity for people to go in there and learn a little bit about disaster response in their communities.

who saw your pictures. Very nice. Thank you for doing that. Council Member Baldwin.

Well, my first question is, do you know when the next cohort starts?

That I do not, but we could find out.

All right. My main thing is I'm headed to AWC this week and a birthday shout out to my niece, which I know is a little off book, but it's a study session. But she is five years old today. Happy birthday, Margie. Council Member Rakes.

No reports.

Council Member Taylor.

No reports.

Oh, come on. You go.

You've got a birthday. I'm going to AWC. Well, that's not related to, like. That's okay.

You've got a birthday shout out.

Well, yeah. My granddaughter's having her birthday Saturday. She'll be six. So we're all excited about that. And it's just, yeah. So, yeah. Looking forward to AWC, though. It's been exciting to get back in. Yeah, be with some folks from around the state.

Thank you. My report is very similar to Councilmember Amherst, Sergis, Baldwin, and Taylor's. I will also be at AWC here this week. Very excited about some of the schedules. I'm also excited to get started on Wasalli. So I am in the third cohort for Wasalli this year. Very excited about the leadership. I am teamed up with Councilmember Ed Prince, James Albertson of Renton, and Victoria Schlaf of Maple Valley. So I'm very excited about that. If that's it, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.