Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5549 Downtown Plan Final EIS April 2001 City of Auburn Auburn Downtown Plan/ Final EIS Ordinance 5549 Exhibit A (3) April, 2001 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AUBURN DOWNTOWN PLAN Auburn, Washington This Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 43.21 Revised Code of Washington (RCW); Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code (WAC); and Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 16.06, Environmental Review Procedures. City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department 25 West Main Auburn, Washington 98001 April 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................2 FACT SHEET ...........................................................................................3 SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 6 Summary of Proposed Action .....................................................................6 Summary of Alternatives Considered ..........................................................8 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................10 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS ................16 Auburn Downtown Association/Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation King County Department of Transportation, Metro Transit Division Mr. Patrick Mullaney from Foster, Pepper & Shefelman, PLLC, Attorneys at Law DISTRIBUTION LIST .................................................................................27 NOTE: Changes to the integrated Downtown Plan/DEIS that have been made in response to comments are minor and are largely confined to the responses described in WAC 197-11-560(1)(d) and (e). Therefore, in accordance with WAC 197-11-560 (5) the FEIS consists of the integrated Plan/DEIS and an addendum (this document) that includes responses to comments. The FEIS therefore consists of the integrated Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS issued December 7, 2000, except as modified by the revisions identified in this addendum document. 2 Fact Sheet Description of Proposal The proposal is to adopt a Subarea Plan for Downtown Auburn. The Auburn Downtown Plan primarily addresses land use, economic vitality, urban design, stormwater management, historic resources and transportation. This is a non-project action and will result in a subarea plan amendment to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Location of Proposal The proposal encompasses the Downtown Auburn area. The Auburn Downtown Plan study area is generally defined by the boundary of the Union Pacific Railroad and Interurban Trail on the west, State Route 18 on the south, and F Street SE/NE on the east. The northern boundary is defined as 2nd Street NW from the Interurban Trail to D Street NW, 3rd Street SW/SE from D Street NW to Auburn Avenue, and 4th Street from Auburn Avenue to F Street NE. Proponent and Lead Agency City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 (253) 931-3090 Responsible Official Mr. Paul Krauss, AICP, Director, Planning and Community Development Department City of Auburn (253) 931-3090 Contact Person David Osaki, AICP City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 (253) 804-5034 Permits/Licenses/Agreements Required The Auburn Downtown Subarea Plan requires adoption by the City Council. Authors and Principal Contributors The FEIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department. Research, analysis and document preparation on the Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS that has also been incorporated into this document were provided by the following firms: 3 a Arai/Jackson Architects and Planners, Prime Contractor and Principal Authors, Downtown Plan 1601 East John Street Seattle, Washington 98112 (206) 323-8800 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation, Principal Authors, EIS and Transportation Consultant 2003 Western Avenue, Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98121 (206) 448-2123 Community Planning and Research, Visioning 101 Stewart Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 441-7579 Leland Consulting Group, Economics and Implementation 325 Northwest 22nd Portland, Oregon 97210 (503) 222-1600 OTAK, Commuter Rail Station 117 South Main Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98104-2540 (206) 442-1364 Property Counselors, Market Analysis 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 623-1731 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Issue Date December 7, 2000 Final Environmental Impact Statement Issue Date April 19, 2001 Date of Final Action Final adoption of the Auburn Downtown Plan by the Auburn City is anticipated in May or June 2001. 4 Location of Background Data City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington (253) 931-3090 Type and Timing of Subsequent SEPA Documents Generally, there will be two types of subsequent SEPA documents related to this proposal. First, there will be non-project actions involving the preparation of implementing development regulations by the City. Secondly, there will be specific project actions by private individuals and/or public entities. Both non-project and project actions affecting downtown, not otherwise exempt from the provisions of SEPA, will be evaluated under SEPA for their impacts upon the environment. Availability/Cost of Document Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are available at a cost reflecting the actual cost of publication from the City of Auburn City Hall, Planning and Community Development Department, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, Washington. Copies are also available for public inspection at the Auburn City Hall Planning Department and the Auburn Branch of the King County Library System. 5 SUMMARY The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) includes letters received during the SEPA public comment period (December 7, 2000 to February 5, 2001) on the integrated Downtown Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and responds to the comment letters received during that time frame. The DEIS analyzed the probable significant adverse impacts of the Auburn Downtown Plan and identified mitigation measures as warranted. This document serves as an addendum to the integrated Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS. To the extent that the comments received on the Draft EIS resulted in minor changes and technical corrections then this addendum, identifying modifications, along with the Draft EIS, constitute the Final EIS (WAC197-11-560(5)). A. Summary of Proposed Action The proposal is the adoption of a Downtown Auburn Subarea Plan. The Auburn Downtown Plan primarily, though not exclusively, addresses issues such as land use, economic vitality, urban design, stormwater management, historic resources and transportation in the context of promoting Downtown Auburn revitalization and redevelopment. This is a non-project action and will result in a subarea plan amendment to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Downtown Auburn has been the heart of Auburn, both physically and culturally, since the community was founded in 1891. Like many American communities' downtown areas, Auburn's downtown declined in the 1960's and 1970's as the suburbs grew and retail activity went elsewhere. Forces have continued to have a detrimental impact on Auburn including the development of the retail strip along Auburn Way, a decline in the quality of the downtown housing stock, and minimal private investment in quality development or building maintenance. Downtown Auburn merchants have difficulty competing with nationwide and regional trends including automobile oriented "big box" retail developments that have located just outside of the downtown and, more recently, the growth in e-commerce. While this has been going on there are has been significant recent public investment in the downtown. This includes the SR 18/C Street interchange and 3`d Street Grade Separation project which will provide access to downtown over the BSNF tracks, the transit center with commuter rail and local and regional express bus service, and the reconstruction of A Street SW. In the past, streetscape improvements have been made downtown. Given these public investments, which often provide a stimulant for private investment, there is a need to plan for downtown growth and redevelopment. This has created the impetus to prepare this Downtown Auburn Plan. The proposal encompasses the Downtown Auburn area. The Auburn Downtown Plan study area is generally defined by the boundary of the Union Pacific Railroad and 6 Interurban Trail on the west, State Route 18 on the south, and F Street SE/NE on the east. The northern boundary is defined as 2"d Street NW from the Interurban Trail to D Street NW, 3`d Street NW/NE from D Street NW to Auburn Avenue, and 4th Street from Auburn Avenue to F Street NE. The Auburn Downtown Plan was initiated in response to several factors including, but not limited to: ? The existing Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan adopted in 1990 needed to be updated to continue Downtown Revitalization ? The opening of Stampede Pass Rail line raised many concerns over the impacts that such opening would have on the success of Downtown. ? Multiple large projects were proposed for Downtown including transportation projects and the construction of the new multi-modal transit center. ? Private investment in the Downtown has traditionally been scarce. Through the planning process the assets and challenges characteristic of Downtown Auburn were identified. Identified amongst the many assets was the sense of the "Heart of the City" that Main Street engenders, the recent street and streetscape improvements along Main Street, the presence of large employers like the Auburn Regional Medical Center and the City of Auburn, entertainment venues such as the Performing Arts Center and Auburn Avenue Theater and the Transit Center with commuter rail service. Challenges for Downtown Auburn include a retail district interrupted by heavy volume streets and an excessive number of taverns, underutilized and visually unappealing buildings and properties, insufficient reinvestment into downtown businesses and properties for many years, and major streets that do not convey the impression of a downtown. There are also many auto-oriented uses in an area that functions best when it is pedestrian oriented. The Auburn Downtown Plan identifies a multitude of implementation methods. These include proposed projects, revising implementing development regulations and pursuing other programs and strategies that will take steps toward accomplishing the goals for Downtown. Some implementation steps will require coordination and cooperation between the public and private sectors; others will require considerable effort by City staff to accomplish. The capital projects vary widely in their costs, but, overall, substantial funding will be needed to complete all of the projects. The Auburn Downtown Plan does not attempt to resolve funding issues but, rather, sets the tone and approach for subsequent implementing capital facility financing decisions. 7 a Major strategic steps for accomplishing the goals of the Downtown Plan are identified in the Plan. These include: Building out from the center of the downtown; linking the various districts within downtown to one another and improving their own individual identities; making improvements on key streets that might include landscaping, sidewalks, signage, crosswalks and gateways; implementing catalyst projects on key sites that will stimulate further development; improving the quality of development by instituting design standards; and improving the image of downtown as a great place to do business and invest. An extensive list of policies and actions are suggested in the Downtown Plan. Many are related to physical improvements, others suggest new programs or approaches that might include the actions of the private sector. Policies address ways to strengthen the Main Street retail district, diminish blighting influences, intensify land use, and integrate major proposed public facilities into the fabric of downtown. Street, and transportation improvements form a vital component of the policy section, as does a new strategy for combining public and private properties and funding to develop parking facilities in Downtown. A new approach to managing stormwater is also proposed. Other policies propose to expand public art in Downtown, protect residential neighborhoods from commercial uses and other intrusions, preserve and maintain historic properties, and develop architectural design standards based on a set of guidelines presented in the plan. Overall, then, the goal of the Downtown Plan is to strengthen the downtown community, economy and image by building on existing assets, facilitating catalyst projects in key locations and stimulating infill and redevelopment, and constructing high quality infrastructure. B. Summary of Alternatives Considered Two alternatives were considered as part of the environmental review process. These include: 1) The "No Action" alternative; and, 2) the "Downtown Plan" alternative. The following generally summarizes and describes each alternative. "No Action" Alternative The "No Action" alternative is the current comprehensive plan, zoning regulation, other development regulations and downtown revitalization efforts. Under this alternative the existing comprehensive plan designations and zoning will be maintained. The Auburn downtown is primarily, though not exclusively, zoned for commercial use. Certain residential uses are, however, present and allowed in the study area. A few industrial areas exist as well. Main Street continues to be the focal point of Downtown Auburn's retail activity. Single family residential neighborhoods are predominant to the west of the BNSF railroad tracks as well as east of Auburn Way. Medical uses and the hospital are prominent 8 along Auburn Avenue. A new commuter rail station with a transit center is located just south of West Main Street along the BNSF Railroad mainline. The "No Action" alternative is a viable option. The existing comprehensive plan and development regulations, population and employment projections are consistent and compliant with the Growth Management Act (GMA), King County Countywide Planning Policies, and Vision 2020. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan includes downtown plan policies that provide general policy direction for downtown redevelopment. The zoning code provides for uses and development standards in the downtown area, many of which are aimed toward achieving pedestrian friendly building design and orientation. However, under the "No Action" alternative, only a portion of the downtown would maintain C-2 (Central Business District) zoning; much of the downtown planning area would remain zoned C-3 (Heavy Commercial). Efforts at encouraging downtown redevelopment are on-going. This includes the work of organizations such as the Auburn Downtown Association, the City of Auburn and the Chamber of Commerce; however, a comprehensive and detailed strategy is not laid out in adopted planning documents. Those development proposals not exempt under SEPA would continue to be reviewed for environmental impacts on a case by case basis. Applicable transportation and storm water standards would be required of development. "Downtown Plan" Alternative The "Downtown Plan" alternative is reflected in this document. It provides a much stronger level of analysis and focus on Auburn's downtown with the goal of stimulating development and redevelopment more actively than the "No Action" alternative. Through the planning process ideas have been generated that identify impediments and allows for strategic redevelopment efforts. Many ideas that have been verbally discussed over time to improve downtown are now outlined into a cohesive document with estimates of costs and time. Specific redevelopment barriers are identified along with solutions to remove the barriers. Catalyst projects, to spur redevelopment, are identified. In addition, the Downtown Plan has a much stronger emphasis on business financing assistance, public-private partnerships and downtown's visual appearance than the "No Action" alternative. Because of the Downtown Plan's emphasis on revitalization, a higher level of intensity development will likely occur than under the "No Action" alternative. Intensification of land use is a goal of the plan. Buildings are allowed to be taller than in the "No Action" alternative. However, much of the downtown planning area is downzoned from Heavy Commercial (C-3) to Central Business District (C-2) to assure appropriate land uses, namely those pedestrian oriented retail, service and office uses rather than auto oriented, are located downtown. Specific strategies are outlined in the "Downtown Plan" alternative to accomplish redevelopment. More flexibility in addressing certain development requirements, namely in transportation and storm water, are provided. The "Downtown Plan" 9 alternative also places additional emphasis on aesthetics and appearance of the downtown area as both a redevelopment strategy and to mitigate impacts. Stronger code enforcement is promoted to remove nuisances and blighting influences. Sensitivity of new development to historic resources is emphasized as is the role of public art in promoting a more desirable environment for people to work and shop. More pedestrian connections and pedestrian oriented development are foreseen. This will encourage additional pedestrian activity within and outside of the downtown area and will reduce the reliance on vehicular transportation. Bicycle routes and use are also encouraged. Therefore, the "Downtown Plan" alternative sets forth goals and policies that address the issues listed above as well as others that have emerged. C. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures In August 1998, the City of Auburn issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and request for comments on the scope of the EIS. The scoping process included public notification of affected agencies and request for public input on the particular issues that should be addressed in the EIS. The following summarizes impacts/mitigation measures of the two alternatives based on elements of the environment scoped for this proposal. 10 Built Environment r Land Use Impacts "No Action" Alternative "Downtown Plan" Alternative Continued physical deterioration of downtown Development intensity would increase. Redevelopment buildings as there would be less potential for of existing sites and buildings and more reinvestment in redevelopment and/or reinvestment in existing existing uses would occur. Greater pedestrian oriented underdeveloped and underinvested properties. development with more non-motorized linkages. Less emphasis on pedestrian oriented design and Fewer automobile oriented land uses. land uses. New automobile oriented uses could locate in certain locations within the planning area. Mitigation • Design guidelines and standards are to ensure that new higher intensity building design is visually pleasing, particularly to the pedestrian, and is compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses. • Rezone a substantial portion of the planning area from C-3 (Heavy Commercial) to C-2 (Central Business District) to eliminate uses inconsistent with the concept of a pedestrian-oriented downtown. • Encourage parking garages to avoid excessive number of small surface parking lots. • Zoning and design standards requiring significant buffers to protect residential areas from incompatible uses. Aesthetics Impacts "No Action" Alternative "Downtown Plan" Alternative Development would largely retain existing Greater positive change in character/aesthetics through character/aesthetics. Low rise buildings, surface redevelopment. Taller buildings could be developed parking areas, uncoordinated signage, facades, but would be well designed and oriented to the and/or building design would remain. pedestrian. Structured parking would be preferred to surface parking. Public art, streetscape improvements, coordinated signage and fagade improvements would be implemented. Mitigation • Street right-of-way to building height ratios. • Create gateways, landmarks and wayfinding system to encourage pedestrian use, define boundaries. • Underground utilities. • Design standards to improve the aesthetic quality of new buildings. • Code enforcement efforts to remove blighting influences and nuisances that detract from the physical appearance of downtown. • Including public art in all public projects. • Streetscape and landscaping programs that provide more plant materials. 11 Transportation Alternative Traffic Volumes/LOS The existing citywide land use pattern is conducive to transportation trips by automobile. As with the rest of the city, downtown traffic congestion would worsen due to local and regional growth. Traffic congestion would worsen and certain intersections would exceed the City's current LOS standard of "D" over a twenty-year period without improvements. Traffic Volumes/LOS Focusing land uses in the downtown that can more easily be served by transit or avoid multiple vehicle trips would benefit traffic citywide. In the downtown traffic congestion would become worse due increased development. A lower LOS would be acceptable. Additional traffic could pose more conflicts with non- motorized transportation. Transit Demand for transit ridership would be expected to increase over time as Sound Transit adds more commuter rail service and as more development occurs downtown that may require additional transit service. Parking Increased demand for parking. Parking would primarily be provided on surface parking lots resulting in an inefficient use of land downtown Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Transportation projects within the 1998 Non- Motorized Plan would be pursued, however, the 1998 Non-Motorized Plan deferred to the Downtown Plan as the basis for detailed study of non- motorized transportation in the Downtown. Railroad No additional freight or passenger service would occur as a direct result of the "No Action" alternative. Transit Generally the same, although increased density downtown may require local transit agencies to respond to the need for increased bus service at a more rapid pace than under the "No Action" alternative. Parking Increase demand for parking in the downtown area, more so than the "No Action" alternative. Development of parking structures rather than reliance on surface parking. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities More bicycle and pedestrian travel that under the "No Action" alternative due to emphasis on pedestrian connections within the downtown and to surrounding neighborhoods. Railroad Same as "No Action" alternative. 12 Mitigation Traffic Volumes/LOS (primarily automobiles) • Continued implementation of programmed street improvements, including the 3rd Street SW grade separation project to improve safety and access to and from downtown. • Establish a traffic accounting system to evaluate and monitor the progress of development and its consistency with the development densities identified in the Downtown Plan. • Pursue and implement non-motorized transportation strategies to encourage alternatives to automobile use. • Coordinate with transit agencies and request additional transit service or modifications to service levels as needs are identified. Non-motorized • To avoid conflicts with vehicular traffic, assess opportunities to improve bicycle facilities through lane marking and signage systems, especially in conjunction with planned traffic improvements. • Continued implementation of planned pedestrian improvements. Parking • Pursue public/private opportunities to develop parking structures to provide an orderly and adequate parking situation in the downtown for visitors and shoppers. Transit • None, although transit-mainly busses-will also benefit from planned street improvements in the area of downtown that will promote access and facilitate transit circulation/needs. Railroads • Planned improvements including the 3`d Street SW Grade Separation project to allow for increased regional freight mobility by separating train traffic from vehicular traffic. • Pedestrian safety improvements at the West Main Street at-grade crossing will be included as part of the third main line track installation. Noise Impacts "No Action" Alternative "Downtown Plan" Alternative Overall increase in noise could occur associated Greater construction related noise anticipated than with new development/construction and traffic. under the "No Action" alternative. Traffic volumes associated with new development and commercial deliveries are expected to be greater than under the "No Action" alternative. More evening related noise might occur under this alternative due to its emphasis on encouraging nighttime uses and activities. 13 Mitigation Measures • Design new structures to orient away from noise sensitive facilities and uses and also apply appropriate sound mitigating construction standards. Require land use buffers between incompatible uses. • Enforce restrictions on hours of construction activity. • Code enforcement activities in the downtown to address nuisance related noise impacts. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts "No Action" Alternative "Downtown Plan" Alternative No concerted pro-active historic preservation Through design review, redevelopment of existing strategy could lead to premature demolition or buildings and new development would respect and be inappropriate alteration of historic buildings. New compatible with existing Downtown historic resources development could be inconsistent with existing and character. New development would build on, development's historical character. Improvements to rather than detract from, the historic character of the existing buildings or facades would continue without downtown. a review process that ensures consistency with historical character of a building or buildings. Historical quality of buildings would likely deteriorate due to lack of reinvestment in properties. Mitigation measures: • Develop a historic preservation plan for downtown. • Education and the provision of incentives (and removal of disincentives) for the preservation of downtown historic resources. • Design standards intended to protect existing historical structures from incompatible adjacent development, ensure that the historical character of existing historical structures is not compromised by tenant improvements, and that encourage the removal of false facades and the restoration of historical architectural features. 14 Natural Environment Stormwater "No Action" Alternative Existing stormwater requirements would discourage downtown development and redevelopment. Conventional requirements such as bio-swales and open ponding would consume surface land and limit efficient use of land. Existing buildings would be non-conforming with respect to stormwater quality and ouantity standards. Mitigation measures None Air Quality Impacts "No Action" Alternative "Downtown Plan" Alternative Improved stormwater quality since redevelopment c non-conforming development would be encouraged and new development would be made compliant with existing stormwater standards. Chinook salmon, recently listed as threatened, would benefit from improved water quality. "Downtown Plan" Alternative Overall decrease in air quality associated with construction and traffic under this alternative. Greater construction activity and increased traffic would result in a decrease in air quality as well, probably more so than the "No Action" alternative. Mitigation Measures • Implementation and enforcement of existing air quality regulations including: • All point sources of air pollution shall require permits from PSCAA. • PSCAA requires that reasonable measures be taken to avoid dust emissions during construction. Such precautions may include spraying water or chemical suppressants on bare soils during dry windy weather. The City also uses SEPA to implement mitigation techniques (watering) associated with construction and cleaning of vehicles and street cleaning. • EPA and PSCAA requirements address the safe removal and disposal of asbestos containing materials. • Emphasis on landscaping and street trees to filter suspended particulates. • Improve pedestrian and bicycle usage opportunities as an alternative to the automobile. • Street and circulation improvements to reduce congestion. • Strategy to reduce the need for continual circulation by traffic within the downtown to find parking. 15 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE AUBURN DOWNTOWN PLAN DRAFT EIS This section responds to comments received during the 60-day SEPA comment period (December 7, 2000 through February 5, 2001) on the Draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Written comments were received from the following: Letter Received From Date of Letter Co-signed by Robert E. West Jr., President, Auburn Downtown Association; Landon Gibson, III - Chairman of the Board and CEO, February 5, 2001 Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce; Dennis Garre, Chair, Economic Restructuring Committee, Auburn Downtown Association. Mr. Gregory Griffith, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, February 5, 2001 Washington State Office of Community Development. Mr. Gary Kreidt, Senior Environmental Planner, King County January 10, 2001 Department of Transportation, Metro Transit Division. Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, PLLC, Attorneys February 5, 2001 at Law (representing the Safeway Corporation). The Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS was prepared as an integrated GMA/SEPA document. The comments in the above referenced letters focused almost exclusively on policy or descriptive issues within the integrated GMA/SEPA document rather than on the proposal's environmental impacts. Nonetheless, all comments are being responded to in this document. 16 February 5, 2001 B Sanders, Associate Planner City of Auburn, Planning Department 25 W Main Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Auburn Downtown Association and Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce response to a request for comments regarding the Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS As you know the Auburn Downtown Association and Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce have been involved in reviewing the Auburn Downtown Draft Plan/Draft EIS (Plan) throughout the last several months. This joint document from the two organizations represents our initial response to the request for comments as the Plan begins its movement through the adoption process. Our consensus is that the Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS is comprehensive, well thought out and documented. The scope of projects addressed is broad, with few omissions, and a good deal of study has obviously been directed towards potential mitigation of the more troublesome issues. We understand that a great challenge lies ahead in terms of prioritization and funding of the many projects under consideration, and accept our responsibility in helping to guide this prioritization process in a way that takes into consideration the needs and concerns of a disparate group of downtown Auburn stakeholders. We have used Table E: Actions by Task Force Priority on page 163 as a guide to help keep our comments focused and in a framework familiar to all respondents. Policies, Regulations and Programs It is critical to move aggressively forward in the category of Policies, Regulations and Programs. Clear cut Guidelines, Codes, Standards and processes must be established, documented and disseminated to the public ahead of the new development wave. It is critical that an equal degree of effort be put forward in the creation of incentives and removal of disincentives for both new development and redevelopment in our downtown. Through its building department the City should explore development of a rehabilitation code for buildings constructed prior to 1970. The rehabilitation code should strive to maintain the viability of a building within the constraints of its original construction while protecting the safety and well being of the inhabitants. The City should use the rehabilitation codes and capital improvement incentives to promote the improved quality of downtown structures through an active program of owner education. Brochures and other appropriate documentation should be created that will make it known to potential investors that the City has taken substantial steps to make a number of the costly and complex issues surrounding downtown development manageable, particularly in terms of the overall permitting process, street improvements and storm water management. Additionally, the City should continue to explore-and implement-administrative processes that expedite and facilitate approvals and permits for desired redevelopment projects. Page I of 4 ADA/Chamber Initial Response Draft Downtown Plan/EIS Numbers 1, 2 and 3 on our most critical needs list are the JC Penny building, parking structures and Class A office space. These 3 projects belong in column 1, with a 0-3 year projected completion date, as they will serve as major catalyst projects that spark intense economic growth in downtown Auburn. The question came up as to whether or not an opportunity for public/private funding of a parking structure might present itself around the needs of the Truitt Building/Past Time Tavern redevelopment project already underway, the Auburn Regional Medical Center's new 4-5 story building planned for the old Pric Hilton site and the current and future needs of City Hall and a new Public Safety Building for additional parking. (Interestingly enough, although it appears to loom large on the current City and Council agenda, the proposed new Public Safety Building is barely alluded to in the Draft Plan. It has been rumored that the project will come with a 520-30 million price tag, so its lack of prominent inclusion in the Plan has the potential to create some credibility problems early on.) Additional locations and partnerships that might be investigated in terms of a combination Class A office building/parking structure might be Wells Fargo Bank at their current drive through, ltt and Auburn Way. V And the-John Brekka property at 1'.` and_D Street, currently a surface.parking lot. In terms of the JC Penny building, it is now and has been for a number of years the number one blight on our downtown landscape. There is no lack of interest in the building on the part of legitimate buyers with legitimate redevelopment plans for its use. The problem appears to be that there are no codes in place to prevent a speculator with enough money from buying a prominent building in downtown Auburn only to abandon it for an undefined number of years while he or she waits for the market to inflate its value to ]7 some astronomical level. The JC Penny building is not the only building within the Plan's geographic boundary that has sat empty for a number of years. Potential resolutions to this problem, including zoning codes and expanded public/private partnerships with the City, require in-depth exploration and prominent inclusion in the final adopted Plan. Under the Policies, Regulations, Programs category, Fagade Improvement and Local Lender Program(s) r should be moved forward to column I in order to drive and not follow Auburn's redevelopment efforts. As you know the Auburn Downtown Association's Economic Restructuring Committee initiated this process in mid to late 2000, setting up two luncheon meetings with Community Development Officers and decision makers for all but 2 of the largest banks around, both local and regional. Although US Bank was not able to attend either meeting they were contacted and expressed interest in being part of the process. In our follow up conversations with these institutions it was made clear that what is required in order to gamer their support for such a program are well defined plans and clear, in depth definition of the scope of all projects under consideration. However, of equal importance to their evaluation of the merits of creating such a funding program is the identification of all the partners involved in the projects, including what each brings to the table, what role they would play, (i.e., money, project management, management of paperwork), and a willingness to streamline the permitting process and create flexibility of redevelopment codes where appropriate. The ADA and Chamberare ready-to continue spearheading efforts-to create•a fagade improvement and low interest loan and/or revolving fund program. In terms of moving forward, our questions and concerns parallel those of the lending institutions; most specifically, how can we work with the City in facilitating establishment of such a fund in a timely fashion. An infill project at the corner of the Safeway site shows up in the 6-9 year column but in reality probably more appropriately belongs in column 1, 0-3 years. In addition, the Plan's drawing of what that infill d might look like resembles a small retail shopping area. It is our understanding that the Auburn Way 7 Safeway is proposes developing a gas station at that site. Unless resolution of this issue is reached by final adoption of the Plan it would be best not to include any drawings. Based on their priority placement in the 3-6 year column, we have concerns about the S400K allocated to bike paths and/or facilities. This particular project would be more appropriate in the 6-9 year column. To ?O . priority should go to those projects that help make downtown Auburn a great place to live, work, play an critically important, succeed in business. When those projects are completed, and downtown Auburn is Page 2 of 4 ADA/Chamber Initial Response Draft Downtown Plan/EIS vital and prosperous, the addition of bike paths and amenities will be seen as a reflection of that prosperity. Although expansion ofA Street NW and SW is placed in the appropriate column, 0-3 years, the Plan's description of the project focuses on Phase 1, 3rd Street SW to Main Street. We believe that Phase II of the project, continued expansion of A Street north from Main Street to 15'" is a critical component in the revitalization of downtown. Based on the much broader scope of Phase II it warrants expanded coverage in the document in terms of priority and funding. The placement of the Performing Arts Center linkage project in the later stages of the 6-9 year column is appropriate. Again our preference is to see those improvements closest to the center of the Plan's geographical area completed first. Unquestionably the PAC brings positive recognition to our area. The question remains however as to how directly that recognition relates to the revitalization of the downtown core. Many of the elements discussed earlier in this response, i.e. low interest and/or revolving loan funds flexibility of building codes, addition of incentives and removal of disincentives to redevelopment of our older buildings, would create a more direct impetus to increasing after hours activities in downtown. The Auburn Avenue Dinner Theater is an example of entrepreneurial excellence that brings jobs, people, recognition and revenue downtown without additional costs to taxpayers. The projected $500K price tag for PAC linkage appears excessive when compared to the $150K projected for Cross Street improvements. A portion of the $500K might better be applied towards the creation a pedestrian link from Cross Street to Main, particularly if the Cross Street location is developed into a hotel/convention center complex. 4 There are two areas we have red flagged as requiring more study: the Plan's proposed heavy use of trees throughout the downtown area and the omission of any consideration of technological needs and amenities. • Trees Although focus groups are attracted to pictures and drawings of trees, it is unlikely that adequate consideration is given to trees as gifts that keeps on giving. The cost of maintenance-pruning, removal of leaves, ongoing cleanup of clogged drains, repair of root damage to surrounding brick and concrete- -never stops. It is critical that the cost of various types of greenery be fully researched, with q0 comparisons made between initial costs and long term maintenance costs projected out over a 10 to 20 W year period. A Street Tree Plan should be compatible with the Signage Improvement and Assistance Program in so far as trees can grow and not block signs. We would like to see a more conservative mix of shrubs and trees that would serve the same beatification purpose and be more financially viable ove a long period of time. • Technological Amenities Completely omitted from the Draft Downtown Plan is any consideration of technological needs, i.e., fiber optics capabilities or cyber centers, both critically important in terms of a creating desirable Class A office J, space and high tech investment. We think this issue is important enough to wan-ant additional study and significant inclusion in final Plan. A realistic approach must be found that ensures both approval and implementation of the Plan once it is adopted. One possible reality based approach is to compare the level of commitment and expectation projected by the Plan as finally adopted in terms of adherence to and enforcement of all Codes, Guidelines and Standards - for example those involving building, health and safety code enforcement, street, sidewalk and alley maintenance and cleaning and parking enforcement - to the level of commitment now exercised in enforcing current codes in those areas. If there is a reality gap then consideration must be given to lowering expectations, raising performance levels, or scaling back the scope of the plan. We appreciate the document's basic premise "that the Auburn Downtown Plan uses an implementation-based approach that is focused on getting things done," and especially the 32 "Action Steps" contained in the 4G Implementation Strategies, pages 163 to 196..Clearly the execution of these steps will require extensive city sta W time and resources. We encourage the use of any and all resources necessary to accomplish these tasks in the shortest time possible. Page 3 of 4 ADA/Chamber Initial Response Draft Downtown Plan/EIS The emphasis given in the Plan to the importance of building a solid working partnership between the City, the Auburn Downtown Association and the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce will prove to be a critical element in ?? getting thin one. Each of our organizations takes seriously its role in this process and we look forward to a partnership th encourages free flowing communication in terms of seeking. recommendations and input into the decision m g process and the setting of priorities. Sincerely, ~- o" Robert E. West, Jr. President Landon Gibson, III - Chairman of the Board and CEO Auburn,Downto Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce Dennis Garre, Ofiair, Economic Restructuring Committee Auburn Downtown Association Page 4 of 4 ADA/Chwnber Initial Response Draft Downtown Plan/EIS Letter dated February 5, 2001 from Mr. Robert E. West Jr., President, Auburn Downtown Association; Mr. Landon Gibson, III - Chairman of the Board and CEO, Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Dennis Garre, Chair, Economic Restructuring Committee, Auburn Downtown Association. Thank you for your comment. 2. The draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS addresses building code issues for historic/older buildings. Proposed Policy 27-2 (page 110) entitled "Develop New Incentives" calls for the development of incentives and for the elimination of disincentives to encourage the preservation of historic character and significant historic resources and the renovation and occupancy of such buildings. Permit fee reductions, adoption of the State Historic Building Code, and increased zoning code flexibility for historic properties are identified as worthy of consideration. 3. Comment noted. The draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS Downtown Image Program discussion within Section 1.6 (Implementation Strategy) on page 168 is revised as follows (new language; deleted -laRquage), "DOWNTOWN IMAGE PROGRAM This element will propose a multi-pronged Public Relations program which will be used to recruit investment and improve the image of downtown as a place to visit, shop, live and work. A consultant would prepare the program for the city, Chamber and ADA to implement. An image program should use a variety of media to convey information on downtown to interested parties. This might include brochures, web sites, press releases, presentation materials for speaking engagements, and city and downtown gateways. Incentives to developers or property owners to make building improvements or create new, high quality developments should be clearly described. Benefits • Creates positive investment climate... Steps Required 1. Determine roles... 2. Determine funding sources 3. Hire consultant to design program 17 4. Identify development incentives created or encouraged by the Downtown Plan. Select media to relay this information to potential developers and property owners. 5. Implement" With reference to City codes, the draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS Implementation Strategy discussion on "Marketing and Implementation Philosophy" (Section 1.6.1) already identifies the need to amend codes as warranted to promote flexibility in redevelopment efforts. 4. Priorities identified in Table E, Section 1.6.2 (Implementation Actions on page 163) were developed by the Auburn Downtown Task Force and are meant as a recommendation. The prioritized listing does not, nor is it intended to, preclude an earlier implementation of projects identified in later time frames should earlier implementation opportunities present themselves. 5. Parking garages are identified as one element of an overall strategy to address parking needs and encourage downtown redevelopment. Figure 14 (page 191) identifies potential public/private parking garage location sites but, as that text states, the designation does not infer the support of the property owner or the cost-effectiveness of a particular site. To this extent, the draft Auburn Downtown Plan/DEIS does not detail (nor would it given its level of discussion) whether current site-specific projects such as the Auburn Regional Medical Center expansion or the proposed mixed use development project at the former Pastime-Truitt site present opportunities for private-public funding for parking garage structures. 6. Page 192 of the Draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS discusses Class A Office Space. While this section mentions sites such as the west side of Auburn Way South near the intersection with Cross Street as possibly appropriate and easy to access for Class A office space purposes, it also notes that many "other sites" within the downtown core would also be viable Class A Office Development sites. 7. The draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS recognizes that the JC Penney building is a challenge to downtown revitalization. The draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS devotes considerable attention to the site's redevelopment. Part 1.5.1, Main Street Corridor, notes the JC Penney building is a major physical and psychological gap in the retail district and Figure 18 (page 131) identifies the JC Penney site as a catalyst project. Further, the JC Penney property redevelopment is discussed in detail as an implementation measure within Part 1.6 and identified possible techniques to stimulate redevelopment of the building. 8. The priorities identified in Table E (section 1.6.2, page 163) were developed by the Auburn Downtown Task Force. Table E is not intended to preclude the L\ 18 implementation of projects identified in later time frames to an earlier date should the opportunity present itself. 9. The Auburn Downtown Plan concept expressed by the Safeway infill project is that intensification of land uses will improve the appearance and function of Auburn Way. The draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS (page 141) states, "...Potential projects include the addition of a building to the corner of the Safeway parking lot..." (emphasis added). The graphic/language is not intended to preclude other development options at this location that are consistent with this concept. 10. Encouraging bicycle/pedestrian orientation and movement is a key strategy in the draft Auburn Downtown Plan/DEIS. This strategy complements the plan's emphasis on encouraging pedestrian oriented architectural design/development. The West Main Street non-motorized improvements, in particular, will encourage greater non-motorized access and customers into downtown from the Interurban Trail. The project's inclusion in the draft Auburn Downtown Plan/DEIS acknowledges its (non-motorized project improvement's) role in encouraging non-motorized transportation alternatives to and from downtown. Increasing and enhancing non-motorized opportunities to and from areas surrounding downtown is a specified mitigation measure in the DEIS to address motor vehicle related traffic impacts. Further, the draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS proposes to extend the downtown pedestrian-oriented concept and design principles along West Main Street toward the Interurban Trail recognizing, in part, that this is a major gateway into Downtown Auburn. Non-motorized improvements along this street segment are consistent with implementing this Downtown Plan vision. Finally, the funding amount and time frame identified in the draft Auburn Downtown Plan/DEIS for the West Main Street bicycle and pedestrian improvements are consistent with the City's adopted Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. 11. A Street NW/SW is given prominent discussion in the Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS. It is specifically identified as an implementation strategy in Section 1.6. To provide greater emphasis on that portion of the project north of Main Street, additional text has been added to the project's descriptive implementation strategy narrative (page 181) as follows, "A Street NW and SW A Street SW/NW is planned to be improved as a minor arterial in the City of Auburn Transportation Plan, with a new extension between 3`d NW and 14th NE, thus linking downtown with the northern retail area of the City. Extension of A Street NW will provide a much-needed continuous north/south route through downtown and relieve some 19 will be upgraded. The street is narrow in this older neighborhood location and design and reconstruction work should be sensitive to the adjacent properties. IR-add0t;9R, A Street SW will be the front door to the Transit Center... Improvements north of Main Street, the loop portion south of P Street SW, and pedestrian amenities have not yet been funded. The portion of A Street from Main Street to 14th Street NE is included on the 2001-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)." Also, revise the estimated cost text to state, "Estimated Cost Funded, eESept ter A St. SW - construction complete, Main to 3rd Street SW except for landscape and pedestrian amenities - $150,000. A St. NW, West Main to 10th Street NW - $4.2 million" 12. Decisions about future project funding and timing that are not currently programmed in the City's Capital Improvement Program will be subject to evaluation during the City's capital budgeting process. 13. The draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS currently includes policy language relative to trees and compatibility with signage. Proposed Policy SS2.9 (page 123) relating to design guidelines in other commercial/industrial areas notes that there should be the sensitive placement of trees and landscaping to reasonably avoid competition with signage. With respect to the tree maintenance related comments, additional language has been added to the Downtown Tree Planting Program discussion in Section 1.6 (Page 173). "DOWNTOWN TREE PLANTING PROGRAM Street trees are another key element which will improve the overall character of downtown Auburn. A repeating vertical element that helps to define the street, trees also increase property values while adding to the attractiveness of businesses and adding to the overall cohesiveness of the downtown streetscapes. 20 A comprehensive tree planting program should include extensive planning and preparation to minimize long term costs and maintenance and to maximize benefit to the downtown. Specific attention should be given to selecting low-maintenance species; identifying situations where ground covers, vines or shrubs are more appropriate than trees; and using design and construction techniques that provide a healthy environment for root growth, thus reducing the chance for damage to surrounding hard surfaces. Benefits/Problems Solved Coordination A street tree program should be implemented in coordination with the street lighting program, street design standards and streetscape improvements. A street tree program would be implemented over time in coordination with public and private development. Steps Required 1. Research issues of cost and maintenance associated with a street tree program. 2. Identify potential locations for trees and/or other vegetation 4-3. Prepare street tree plan 2- 4. Planning Commission review and recommendations 3, 5. City Council review and adoption 4. 6. Implement in phases over time" 14. The document has been revised in several locations to take note of the Qwest central office facility as a downtown/technological asset for the purposes of attracting Class A office space. Page 34, Section 1.3.2. existing assets has been revised to state, "Just off Main Street, near the core of Downtown, are a number of other assets that will play a key role in Auburn's future....The Transit Center and A Street SW are recent major assets to the core area of downtown. A Street SW, the SR18/C Street Interchange and the 3Id Street Grade Separation project will improve access to downtown and alleviate traffic congestion that results from increased rail activity. Finally, Qwest has a central office facility (where calls are switched) located in downtown Auburn at Second Street SW and Division Street. Certain types of businesses, including Class A Office Space, particularly benefit from access to high speed communications infrastructure frequently associated with these facilities. Generally, closer proximity to a central office facility often means higher quality telecommunication services." 21 In addition, Proposed Policy 4-1 on page 68 has been expanded to include language that the City of Auburn will pursue opportunities to develop high-speed technological communication infrastructure that could support or attract desired businesses to Downtown as follows, "Policy 4-1 Coordinate utilities with development Coordinate water service, sanitary sewer and storm water facilities, electrical and fiber optic facilities with increasing development Downtown. Pursue opportunities to develop technologically advanced high speed communication infrastructure that supports or could attract desired businesses to Downtown Auburn." The discussion on Class A office development also makes reference to use of the Qwest central office as a possible recruitment asset. Page 34, Section 1.3.2, Existing Assets, has been revised to add the following language, "Class A Office Development The Downtown Market Analysis identified demand for Class A office space in downtown. Like the hotel, sites on the west side of Auburn Way near the intersection with Cross Street are appropriate and easy to access. Many other sites within the downtown core would also be'viable Class A Office development sites. Class A office development typically has technological communication needs. As indicated earlier, the presence of the Qwest central office in this area could be used to help market and attract Class A Office development." 15. Comment noted. 16. Comment noted. 17. Comment noted. 22 0 1e m mdy? lase aoy?a STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 420 Golf Club Road SE, Suite 201, Lacey • PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 407-0752 Fax Number (360) 407-6217 February 5, 2001 r .? Ms. B Sanders City of Auburn Planning Department 25 West Main Street: Auburn, Washington 98001 `J In future correspondence please refer to- _.s Log: 020501-22-KI Re: Review Comments on Auburn owntown Plan Dear Ms. Sanders: The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) is in receipt of the Auburn Downtown Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). On behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) I have taken the opportunity to review the Plan and DEIS to assess effects of the document on cultural resources (including archaeological, historic, and traditional cultural places) in the planning area. As a result of my review, I am writing to express support for the Downtown Plan Alternative and implementation of the Plan as it pertains to historic properties. As made clear in the Plan, Downtown represents the "heart" of the community. The goal of revitalization is commendable since a healthy and attractive downtown signals a vibrant and dynamic community. The Downtown Plan for Auburn is also commendable for its attention to preservation of historic resources. The downtown area of any community represents an important concentration of historically and architecturally significant properties. Therefore, a historic preservation component is indispensable in any planning document. My review of the Downtown- Plan for Auburn clearly indicates historic preservation as a key element in the City's revitalization strategy. From this point, I recommend the City's adoption and implementation of the Plan. Implementation should2 n include identified historic preservation tasks. Please feel free to contact OAHP for assistance toward attaining Auburn's historic preservation goals and policies. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Plan and DEIS. Should you have any questions, I may be reached at 360-407-0766 or gregg@cted.wa.gov. GAG Cc: Holly Gadbaw Julie Koler State Historic Preservation Officer Letter dated February 5, 2001 from Mr. Gregory Griffith, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Community Development. Thank you for your comment. As you indicated, historic preservation is a key element of the city's overall downtown revitalization strategy. 2. Your comment recommending adoption and implementation of the plan is noted as well as your agency's offer to provide technical assistance in the future. 23 (i) King County Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division, Design & Construction Section Environmental Planning and Real Estate 201 South Jackson Street, MS KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA' 98104-3856 (206) 6841418 (206) 684-1900 FAX January 10, 2001 Ms. B Sanders, Associate Planner City of Auburn 25 West Main St. Auburn, WA 9 800 1-4998 Auburn Downtown Plan Draft EIS Dear Ms. Sanders: King County Metro Transit Division and Transportation Planning Division staff have reviewed the Auburn Downtown Plan Draft EIS and have the following comments. From a transit service and facilities standpoint, the draft should include more information regarding transits operations, particularly in terms of the downtown streets that would support transit service. Some specific comments are as follows: Page 58 (Improve Key Streets) - This section should be expanded to include an identification or discussion of the key "transit" streets in downtown Auburn. When the new Commuter Rail transit center is ready for use withm the { next several years, it will be necessary to shift some transit service onto difference streets through downtown is y order to access this facility. Key "transit" streets in downtown Auburn would include 2°d St. SW, I" St. NW, and A St. NW & SW. Pages 69 - 73 _(Street Improvement(Transportation Policies) - This section on transportation policies/goals does not include public transit On page 73 there is mention of the new Commuter Rail Transit Center, but no discussion of the transit routings through downtown to access this facility. Perhaps a new policy regarding transit improvements on key streets would be appropriate. (KC Metro staff could provide input to assist in the development of that policy.) Pages 76 - 79 (Sidewalk Corridors) - This description of optimal functions for different sidewalk zones should also mention modifications necessary to accommodate bus zones, which would include adequate width and 3 clearance for accessibility, landing pads, and passenger waiting shelters. (KC Metro staff could provide input tc assist in the development of those recommendations related to bus zones.) Should Auburn staff seek farther information regarding these comments, please contact either Doug Johnson (206-684-1597) or Paul Alexander (206-684-1599). Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, C: Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner MOBILITY FOR THE REGION January 10, 2001. Mr. Gary Kreidt, Senior Environmental Planner, King County Department of Transportation. 1. The Draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS has incorporated additional language identifying 2nd St. SW, 1 st St. NW and A St. NW/SW as key transit streets within part 1.4 Section "C. Improve Key Streets" (page 58-59). The following will be added as a final paragraph to this section on page 59, "Finally, there are also key streets related to transit. The development of the commuter rail station and the rail station's transit center will necessitate shifting some transit service onto different streets through downtown. Key transit streets identified by Metro relating to bus service to the commuter rail station include 2"d Street SW, 1S Street NW and A streets NW/SW." Also, the "Existing Conditions - Transit Facilities and Services" discussion in Section 3.4 (page 251), Transportation, will be revised as follows to reflect these key streets, "The Sound Transit Station has been designed to accommodate both commuter rail and bus service. Once the station is complete, the bus transfer hub will move from 1St and B Street NE to the Sound Transit Station. All routes traveling through or within Auburn will pass through this regional hub to facilitate travel between bus and train. Certain key transit streets Metro has identified resulting from this movement of the bus transfer hub include 2"d Street SW. 1gt Street NW and A Streets NW/SW. Bus service will be coordinated with commuter rail departures and arrivals." 2. The Draft Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS has been modified to include a new proposed policy (proposed Policy 8-3, page 75) addressing the need for street and streetscape standards to consider public transit routes and infrastructure needs of public transit providers. New Policy 8-3 will read as follows, "Policy 8-3 Public Transit Routes and Infrastructure Needs Street and streetscape standards for the Downtown shall take into consideration public transit routes and infrastructure needs of public transit providers." 3. To ensure public transit infrastructure needs are considered when downtown street design standards are developed, the street design standards' elements itemized in Section 1.6, "Implementation Standards", "Downtown Street Design Standards" (page 170), has been revised to include reference to "Public transit infrastructure" as follows, 24 "Downtown street design standards should be revised to ensure that future street improvements, both publicly and privately funded will implement the Downtown Plan and Urban Design Vision. Element of street design standards include: • Sidewalk corridors, including furnishings • Curbs/curb ramps • Driveways • Driveway apron design • Street corner specifications • Public transit infrastructure needs • Other street development standards 25 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC A T T O A x a r s A r L A w Dlreer Ptieee (206) 447-2115 VIA FAcsw LE 253-931-3053 February 5,. 2001 Mr. David Osald Department of Planning/CommunityDevelopment. City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 QUUL` 9 Dlseer F.esfa11e---- (206) 719-2058 - AtULLP?lorrrl.eos Re: Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS comments Dear Davi d: zrTr TnSAo A v a N U a Smife 3400 I write on behalf of our client Safeway. Safeway would like to thank the City SEArTLa W a s b i n g r a e of Auburn for the opportunity to comment on the Auburn Downtown Plan and Draft 1 ' i 1 r a r-1 z9 9 EIS (the ?Iaro. Safeway commends the effort that has gone into the Plan and the vision that Auburn has ser for itself. Tel op `a tl (_0614 4 1-+4ao __ _. Given Safeway's longstanding relationship with the community and presence ?aerinila at its Auburn W?ation-?Safeway was pleased tQlearn thaithe City had tvebrire --- ----- _ _ _ - ------- -- designated its store as a "Key Anchor" in the Plan. The Safeway store was the only W. F O S T E A. C O M Key Anchor designated in the southern downtown area, and it will serve as an 2 amenity for the mixed-usefresidential neighborhood that is proposed immediately west of the store. Also, as pointed out in Draft EIS Appendix Tables III-2 and III-4 , while retail food stores comprise on 0.7% of Aubum's downtown business mix, these stores provide a significant percentage of Aubum's retail sales tax collection. Safeway is working with the City to add a fueling facility to its Auburn Way ANCeOAAC. location. Fueling facilities are a national trend in the grocery industry and are Arertj necessary to serve the needs of Safeway's customers and to remain competitive with other oc ?aa+.Pro gr ery retailers. Oarow - Pages 141 and 193 of the Plan suggest possible infill development of the Sa AlT?a Safeway site. Such development would present a potential conflict with Safeway's 3 ?•rb,?prae desire to add a fueling facility and could impact the Safeway's ability to serve as an SFO RnNa economic anchor for the downtown area. - 0toskiwrr°? s=c=at s • vv ?e.?. • .r? ? lire\?L.I??V? LrL.W.L? IW VUp Mr. Paul Krauss February 5, 2001 Page 2 - - - - ^ Safeway looks forward to working with the City to create an a attractive downtown. area- -- ---- -- - that promotes the goals of the State's Growth Management Act and provides Safeway customers with the services that they require. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan and DraftEIS. Sincerely, Patrick J. ey Cc; Barb Richardson, Safeway 502732]6.01 February 5, 2001 letter from Mr. Patrick Mullaney from Foster, Pepper & Shefelman, PLLC, Attorneys at Law 1. Comment noted. 2. Comment noted. 3. The Auburn Downtown Plan/Draft EIS graphic on page 141 and implementation discussion on page 193 reflect a general plan concept that intensification of land uses along Auburn Way will improve its (Auburn Way's) appearance and function. The text on page 141 that accompanies the graphic states, "Intensifying land uses will also improve the appearance and function of Auburn Way. Potential projects include the addition of a building to the corner of the Safeway parking lot... ". (emphasis added) Thus, a building at this location is identified as a "potential" project. The graphic/language on page 141 and the implementation discussion on page 193 are not intended to preclude the possibility of other land use options at this location consistent with the plan's concept. 26 DISTRIBUTION LIST FEIS (ADDENDUM) COPIES SENT TO The following list identifies those agencies, organization and individuals that have been sent copies of this addendum. Federal Agencies Federal Railroad Administration National Marine Fisheries Service US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 State Agencies Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section (2 copies) Department of Ecology, Growth Management Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Office of Community Development Washington State Department of Transportation Department of Corrections Inter-agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Department of Social and Health Services Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team State Archeology and Historic Preservation Office (Mr. Gregory Griffith) Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Puget Sound Regional Council Sound Transit County Agencies King County Department of Transportation, Metro Transit Division (Mr. Gary Kreidt) Honorable Les Thomas King County Office of Regional Policy and Planning King County Office of Cultural Resources City Agencies Mayor, City of Auburn Chuck Booth 27 Auburn City Council Jeanne Barber Trish Borden Stacey Brothers Pete Lewis Fred Poe Sue Singer Rich Wagner Auburn Planning Commission (7 members) Auburn Downtown Task Force City of Auburn Planning Director City of Auburn Public Works Director City of Auburn Finance Director City of Auburn Parks Director City of Auburn Fire Chief City of Auburn Police Chief City of Auburn City Attorney City of Sumner, Community Development Department Business, Community Organizations, and Interest Groups Auburn Downtown Association Auburn Chamber of Commerce Safeway Corporation Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Foster, Pepper, Shefelman (Representing Safeway Corporation) Private Citizens Jeff Revegno Michelle Chang Amanda E. Vedrich Indian Tribes Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Planning and Public Works Fisheries Cultural Resources Division Tribal Council Media Auburn Reporter South County Journal Schools Auburn School District Libraries King County Library System, Auburn Branch 28 NOTICE OF FEIS AVAILABILITY A notice of issuance and availability of the Auburn Downtown Plan Final EIS has been sent to the following. Federal Agencies Housing and Urban Development State Agencies Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Regional Agencies Pierce Transit Media Daily Journal of Commerce The News Tribune Puget Sound Business Journal Seattle Post-Intelligencer Seattle Times King County King County Executive's Office King County Housing Authority City Agencies City of Algona City of Bonney Lake City of Federal Way City of Kent City of Pacific Schools Kent School District Green River Community College Businesses, Community Organizations and Interest Groups 1000 Friends of Washington Washington Environmental Council Members of Auburn Downtown Association / Business Improvement Area Auburn Regional Medical Center 29 Utilities/Transportation Puget Sound Energy AT&T Broadband (cable) Qwest (Phone) RST 30