HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-B
*
ACIrTFY OF *
W16 Memorandum
WASHINGTON To: Planning Commissioners
From: Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner
CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Planning and Development Director
. Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager
Date: August 18, 2011
Re: 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Work Session Group 1
BACKGROUND
Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan. The City processes both, city -
initiated amendments and private-initiated amendments. Private-initiated
Comprehensive Plan amendment applications (text or map) were accepted by the City of
Aubum until Friday, June 10, 2011. In response to the public notification of the time
period for applications, the City received two private - initiated comprehensive plan
amendments; one combined text & map amendment and one map amendment. The
dodcet was reviewed by the Ciiy Council's Planning and Community Development
Committee at their June 27, 2011 meeting and introduced and briefly discussed by the
Planning Commission at their July 6, 2011 meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the August 23, 2011 Planning Commission meeting staif would like to review and
discuss the following first group of annual comprehensive plan amendments:
Group 1- Comprehensive Plan Amendments (policy/text & map)
Policy/Text Changes
P!T #1 - Aubum School District Capital Facilities Plan
P!T #2 - Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan P/T #3 - Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan
P/T #4 - Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 1 of 3
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
P!T #7 - Comprehensive Drainaqe Plan (CDP) - Revise Plan Project Number 13
(A&B), Fiooding of 30th Street NE.
Executive Summary, Table ES-2, pg ES-9;
Chapter 6, Capital Improvements, pg 6-19 thru 6-20;
Chapter 7, Implementation Plan, pg 7-2 thru 7-4 & Implementation Plan Timeline;
& Chapter 8, Financial Plan, pg 8-7 thru 8-9,
Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan revisions
P/T #9 - Various
Revise for more recent population target numbers & census data
Chapter 3, Land Use, pg 3-7 thru 3-8;
Chapter 4, Housing, pg 4-3 thru 47; &
Chapter 8, Economic Development, pg 8-2 thru 8-3
Add new Qoal, objective & policies (new section) on climate change and
qreenhouse qas emissions. Move Objective 18.2 on air qualitv to this new section.
Chapter 9, Environment, pg 9-5, pg 9-34 thru 9-36
Amend discussion to recognize the eight economic development strategy areas
Chapter 3, Land Use, pg 3-25 thru 3-31;
Chapter 8, Economic Development, pg 8-5 thru 8-8; &
Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, pg 14-25 thru 14-28
Clarifv the term:"market factor" as used in this Buildable Lands Section
Chapter 3, Land Use, Buildable Lands - Land Supply and Development Capacity,
pg 3-3
In Policy LU-15 chanqe reference to "street lights" in the description of road
improvements within the Residential Conservancy zonin4 district to recognize that
it is only required at irrtersections.
Chapter 3, Land Use, Goal 7- Residential Development, pg 3-14
Revise policv EN-41 A to recognize support for and transftion to altemativel
powered vehicles
Chapter 9, Environment, Objective 18.6 - Energy Efficiency, pg 9-11
Prepare Stuck River Road and Mount Rainer Vista Special Plan Areas. Update
guidance of future sub-area plan process
Chapter 14, Land Use Map, pg 14-20 thru 14-22 (See also related map
amendment) .
Page 2 of 3
I AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAG W ED
Map Changes
CPM #1 - Comprehensive P_lan Map 14.1 - Change from Light Industrial to Public / Quasi -Public designat'ion the a'rea containing cityowned stormwater and
- compensatory flootl storage ponds that were constructed as mitigation for the
South 277th ST roadway improvement project. ~
_ CPM42 - Gas Pipelines, Map 6.2 - Update references and information shown on
this map. .
CPM #3 CPA11-0001 Comprehensive Plan Map 14.1 - Change mapped
designation of finro parcel& on the east side of A ST SE from Lighf Commercial to
' Heavy Commercial:
Page 3 of 3
AUBITRN * MORE.THAN YOU IMAGINED
`~-4,~ Auburn School District No. 408
. . . 4 4 i
~Aw~ CAPITAL FACILITIES
~
~
~ PL'AN
.
2011 through 2017
~
Po r ~ T?
, d 1 ~r ¢ ~ ~ ~ .~yk'^'~ ~ ~*a~ • . R; `.«~a,~'~„ ~!u'°' y~~l.
s' . ~8`"4~'" ' -'~~r ~ ~ ~~r~ 4" y, *40~' ;
~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ a
N
~ Irl ITT It ~ ~ ~4 ~*t fi~~e • ,~~~v~U~ "'„"P" ~ ~ ~C R r.r..W •
r i
t
w
. «
. ~ ml~
a .
.,A .~r.. .
Al
~ Y*~++~n
F°-' . . ~ ~'9~.•*~ 1'~~~ ~ ~a~
. „
~
Acloptecl by the Avburn School D'astrict Board of D6rectors
May 9, 20'01
_ BI.~R
V ~ IV
P►
_ SCHAOL"DISTRICT ENGAGE ~ EDUCATE • EMPOWER
915 Fourth Street NE
Aubum, Washington 98002
(253) 931-4900
Serving Stu.denfs in:
Unincorporated King Gounty
City of Aubum
City of Algona
City of Kent -
' City ofPacific
City of Black Diamond
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Carol Helgerson -
Lisa Conners
Craig Schumaker '
Ray Vefi k .
, Janice Nelson
Dr. Dennis Kip Herren, Superintendent
- Table of Contents
Section I Executive Summary Page 1
Section II Enrollment Projections Page 6
Section III Standard of Service Page 8
Section IV Inventory of Facilities Page 15
Section V Pupil Capacity Page 18
Section VI Capital Construction Plan Page 21
Section VII Impact Fees Page 25
Section VIII Appendices Page 29
Appendix A:1 = Student Enrollment Projections Page 30
Appendix A.2 = Capital Facilities Plan Projections Page 44-
Appendix A,3 - Student Generation $urvey Page 49
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2011 through 2017
Section I
Executive Summary
.
Aubum School District No. 408
' CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
1. Executive Summary
~
This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Aubum,.School District
(the "District") as the District's principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements
of Washington's Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities
served by the District. This plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2011.
This Plan is consistenf with prior long-term capitaLfacilities plans adopted by the District.
However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District's needs. The District
may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capifal Facilities Plans consistent with Board
Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period; other factors and
trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six-YearGapital Facilities Plan.
To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the
City of Auburn and City of Kent; the King County Council, the City of Aubum and the City of Kent
will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction's respective comprehensive plan. To
enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona, Pacific and Black Diamond, these
municipalities must also adoptthis Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances..
Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, the Plan
will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly.
The Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to ascertain the District's current
and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square
footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account foe the local program needs of
the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the
District to define its standard of service based on the District's specific needs. In general, the
District's cuRent standard provides that class size forgrades K-2 should not exceed 25 students;
class size for grades 3-4 should not exceed 27 students; class size for grade 5 should not exceed
30 students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 26.5 students per
classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas
restricted to lesser numbers. (See Section III for more specific information.)
The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the
existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District's 2010-11 capacity
was 13,725 whereas Full Time Equivalent ("FTE°) enrollment for this same period was 13,812.45
(includes Full Day Kindergarten). The actual numberofindividual students was 14,482 as of
October 1, 2010. (See Section V for more specific information.)
The capital construction plan shown, in Section VI addresses the additions and proposed
modernization to the District's existing facilities. This provided for a new high school approved by
the voters.in February 2003 and opened in September 2005; and the addition of finro new
elementary schools approved tiy the vofers in February 2005; with Lakeland Hills Elementary
opening in the Fall of 2006 and Arthur Jacobsen Elementary opening in the Fall of 2007. The
plan includes the construction of a new middle school and a new elementary school, as well as
the acquisition of future school sites to accommodate growth. The new facilities are required to
meet the projected student population increase to be generated from the large development
areas within the Auburn School District. Three areas that have significant impact on the school
2
district are the Lakeland South, the Lea Hill, and the northAuburn valley areas of the district.
There are other pockets of development that impact the District as well: The City of Kent has an
area of approximately 158 acres that was sold to developers in 2004. The economic downtum
has slowed development in these areas.
The district completed a comprehensive review of all district facilities and in October2008 a
Steering.Gommittee made recommendations to the board for capital improvements fo existing
facilities and replacement of seven schools over the next ten years: Tfiese recommendations led
- to a capital improvements levy and a bond issue that was placed on the ballot in March 2009.
Both ballot measures were not successful in March. The board determined to re-run only the
. capital improvements levy in November 2009, which the voters approved.
The School Impact Fee Ordinances. adopted by King County, the Cify of Aubum and the Gity of
Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impact
incurred by a District experiencing:grovuth and development. Section'Vll sets forth the proposed
school impact feesforsingle fam_ily and m_ulti-family dwelling unifs. The student generation
factors have.been generated using the students who actually attend school. in the Aubum $chool
District from single family and multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. The
` method of collecting the data is with the vse of GIS mapping software, dafa from King County and
Pierce County. GIS; and to integrate the mapping with student dafa from the districf's student data
system: This method gives the District actual student generafion numbers for each grade span
for identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3.
•
~
3
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
EXECUTIVE SIJMMARY
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CHANGES FROM 2010 TO 2011
Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the2010 Capital
facilities Plan that are a part of the 2011 Plan. The changes are noted by Section
for ease of reference.
Section 1
Executive Summary
•
A. Updated to reflect new information within the Plan.
B. Summary level list of changes from previous year.
Section U
Enrollmenfi Projections
Updated projections. See Appendices A.1 & A.2.
Section 111
Standard of Service .
A. Increase of 1 adaptive behayior classroom at high school level
B. Reduction of 1 adaptive behavior room at elementary level
Section IV Inventory of Facilities
No change from 2010-11 to 2011-12. -
Section V
Pupil Capacity
No change from 2010-11 to 2011=12:
4
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section VII
Impact Fees CHANGES TO /MPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2010 to 2011
GPF CPF
DATA ELEMENTS 2010 2011 EXPLANATION
Student Generation Factors
Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621,
Elementary 0.3080 0.3130 Student Generation Factors are calculated
Mid School 0.1470 . 0.1540 by the school district based on district
Sr. High 0.1770 0.1650, records of ayerage.actual student generation
Multi-Family rates for new developments constructed
Elementary 0.0860 0.1240 overthe last five years.
Mid School 0.0380 0.0560
Sr. High 0.0310 0.5190
School Construction Costs
Elementary $21,750,000 $21,750,000
Middle School $42,500,000 $42,500,000
Site Acquisition Costs
- Cost per acte $290,381 $290,381 Updated estimates on land costs
Area Cost Allowance Boeckn index $180.17 $180.17 Updated to projected SPI schedule.
Match % - State 60.23% 58.67% Updated to current SPI schedule.
Match District 39.77% 41.33% Computed
District Average AV
Single Family $254,009 $248,795 Updated from`March 2011 King County
Dept of Assessments data. .
Multi-Family $76,573 $67,821 Updated from March 2011 King Gounty
Dept of Assessments data using weighteci •
average.
Debt Serv Tax Rate $0.82 $0.93 Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Int Rate 4.33% 4.91 % Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-11)
Section VIII
Appendices
Appendix A.1 - Updated enrollmentprojections from October 1, 2010 "
' Appendix"A,2 - Updated enrollment projections with anticipated buildout schedule..
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey March 2011
5
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2011 through 2017
Section II
Enrollment Projections
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
The Au6urn School District uses a modified cohort survival model to project fufure enrollment for all
ofthe District's operations. Table 11.1.is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in
Appendix A.2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections". This Table sliows the.
anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous 6 year history of the District under the
assumptions set forth in the eomprehensive projections, Appendix A.1, and the projection for addifional
students generated from,new developments in the district as shown in Appendix A.2.
TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT
11.1 PROJECTIONS March 2010 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
GRADE Actual Projected Pro ected Pro ected Projected Projected Pro'ected
KDG 1010 1027 1047 1069 1095 1123 1148
1 1066 1056 1077 1099 1125 1153 1179
2 1016 1081 1074 1095 1122 1150 1176
3 1013 1038 1105 1100 1127 1155 1180
4 1024 1055 1082 1152 1152 1180 1206 5' 1079 1049 1083 1113 1187 1189 1215
K- 5 6208 6305 6468. 6627 6809 6949 7104
6 1041 1086 . 1059 1094 1129 1204 1203 .
7 1060 1065 1113 1088. 1128 1164 1238
8. 1112 1080 1088 1138 1118 1160: 1194
6-8 3213 3231 3260 3320 3375. 3529 3635
9_ 1221 1336 1310 1322 1380 1366 1409
10 1238 1237 1356 1332 1351 1411 1394
11 1258 1209 1212. 1333 1314 1334 1391
12 1344 1267 1222 1226 1353 1336 1352
9-12 5061 . 5050 5100 5213 5398 5446 5546
TOTALS .14,482 14,586 14,828 15,160 15,582 15,924 _ 16;286_.
GRADES_K42 Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Pro'ected
K-5 w/K @ 1/2 ' 5703 5792 5945 6093 6261 6388 6530
6-8 3213 3231 3260 3320 3375 3529 3635
9-12 5061 5050 5100 5213 5398 5446 5546
K-12 w/K_ 1/2 13,977 _ 14,072 14,304 14,626 1_5,034 15,362 15,711
Note: The district is cucrentty operating Full Day Kindergarten in eight schools and includes two stafe
funded Full Day Kindergartens at two additional elementary schools. 7
Aubum School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2011 through 2017
Section III
Standard of Service
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
STANDARD OF SERVICE
The Schoo/ Impacf Fee Ordinances.adopted by King County, the City of Aubum and the Cify of Kent indicate
thaf each schoo/ district musf establish a"Standard of Service" in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house
its projected sfudent populafion. The Superintendent of Public Mstruction estab/ishes square footage :
"capacify" guidelines for computing sfate funding support. The fundamenfa/ purpose of the SPI guidelines
is to provide a vehic/e to equitab/y distribute stafe matching funds for schoo/ construcfion projects. By defau/t
fhese guidelines have been used to benchmark the districYs capacity to house its student populafion. The SPI
guidelines do not make adequate provision for /oca/ districf program needs; facility configurations, emerging
educa#iona/ reform, or the dynamics of each student's educationa/ program. The Aubum Schoo/ Districf Standard
of Service addresses those /ocaf considerations that require space in excess of the SPI guidelines. Tfie effecf
on the space requiremenfs for both perrnanent and re/ocatab/e facilities is shown below for each grade articu/ation
pattem. Gonditions that may resu/t in pofentia/ space needs are provided for information purposes without
accompanying computations.
OVERVIEW
The Aubum School District operates fourteen elementary schools housing 6,208 students in grades
K:through 5. - For Kindergarten students; 665 of the 1,010 attend 1/2 days throughout the year and 51198 students,
grades 1 through 5, plus 345 kindergartners, attend on a full day basis. When converted to full time
equiyalents, the K-5 enrollment is 5,797. The four middle schools house 3,213 students in grades 6 through 8.
The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one altemative high school, housing 5,061
students in grades 9 through 12.
CLASS S/ZE
TFie number of pupils per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the
student Population. Specialists create additional space needs. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space.
The current pupiVteacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 26.5 students per
teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 26.5 students per room at grades
K- 5. At grades 6- 12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room. The SPI space allocation for each grade
articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Aubum School District Standard of Service,
determines the District's capacity to house projected pupil populations. These reductions are shown
below by grade articulation level.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARN/NG FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Auburn School District operates a structured leaming program for students with moderate to severe,
disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses ten classrooms to provide for 105 students.
The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No loss of
capacity is exPected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to
total elementary population.
ADAPTIVE BEHAV/OR
The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior
disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses two classrooms to provide for 15 students.
, The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space allocations by two classrooms.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 26.5 each = (27)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacfty Loss (27)
9
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
STANDARD OF SERVICE
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
THe Aubum School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for
special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disapilities. Fourteen standard
classrooms are required to house this program. The housing requirements forthis program exceed
the SPI space guidelines by seven standard classrooms. The loss of capacity is expected as growth
in prbgram is larger than the total elementary population.
Loss ofi Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 26.5 each = (186)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (186)
NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM
The Aubum School Districf operates one'resource room to support the education of Native American
students at the elementary level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students.
Loss ofi Permanenf Capacity 1 room @ 26.5 each = (27)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Totaf Capacity Loss (27)
HEAD START ,
The Aubum School District operates a Mead Start program for approximately 120 youngsters in six
sections of 1/2 day in length. The program is housed at three elementary schools and utilizes -
three standard elementary classrooms and auxitiary office spaces. The housing requirements
for this program are nof provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Gapacity`3 rooms @ 26.5 each = (80)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (80)
EARLY CHILDHOOD SPEC/AL EDUCATION The Aubum School District operates a pre-school pragram for young children with disabilities below
age five. This program is housed at seven different elementary schools and currently uses ten standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI
space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Gapacity 10 rooms @ 26.5 each = (265)
Loss ofTemporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (265)
READ/NG LABS
The Aubum School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional
language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in
each elementary school. Four elementary.schools do not have non-sfandard rooms available, thus
they are housed in a- standard classroom. The housing requirements.for this program are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines:
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 26.5 each = (106)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (106)
10
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
STANDARD OF SERVICE
MUS/C ROOMS
The district elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each
elementary school for music instn.iction. The housing requirements are not provided for -
in the SPl spac.e guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (371)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM
The Aubum School District operates a pullout program atthe elementary schoolJevel for students
learning English as a second language. This program requires fourteen standard classrooms that are nof _
provided for in the SPI space guidelines. :
Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (371)
SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM
The Aubum School District prov.ides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly impacted
elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade level and do notreceive other services.. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are
not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 26.5 each = (212)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (212)
ELEMENTARY LEARN/NG SPEC/AUST PROGRAM
The Aubum School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for .
first and second graders. This program model has been created from the I-728 funds and currently
has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into
designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fourteen elementary schools.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 26.5 each = (371)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (371) -
FULL DAY K/NDERGARTEN
The Auburn School District provides Fu11-Day Kindergarten programs to increase academic skills for
kindergarten students. This program model has been created from tuition, ARRA funds and currently
there are two schools receiving state funding for 2010-11 school year. The district is utilizing fourteen
classrooms at eight of the fourteen elementary schools. Housing requirements exceed the OSRI space guidelines for this program by seven classrooms.
Loss of Rermanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 26.5 each = (186)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (186)
11
Aubum School Distrid No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES. PLAN 2011 through 2017
STANDARD OF SERVICE
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
SPEC/AL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Aubum School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school IeveL
This is to accommodate special education.students needing remedial instruction to address their specific - "
disabilities. Eleven classrooms are required.at the middle school leyel to provide for approximately 350 students. ,
The housing requirements for this program:are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
ADAPT/VE BEHAVIOR SPEC/AL EDUCATION
The Aubum School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior
diabilities. The program is housed at one of the midc]le schools and uses one classroom. The housing
requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations.
STRUCTURED LEARN/NG CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY D/SABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION
The Aubum School District operates four strvctured leaming classrooms at the middle school level for
, students with moderate to severe disabilities and one developmentally disabled classroom for students with
profound disabilities. Two of the four classrooms for this program are provided for in the SPI space allocations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 26.5 each = (53)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @26.5 each 0
Total Capacity Loss (53)
M/DDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS _
The Aubum School District operates a minimum of one computer lab at each middle school. This program
ut"ilizes a stancJatd classroom per middle school. The housing requirements for this program
are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 eacti = 0
Total Capacity Loss (120)
ENGL►SH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Aubum School Disfict operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students
leaming English as a second language. `This program requires four standar'd classrooms fhat are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 30 each = (120) -
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (120)
ROOM UTIL/ZATION
The Aubum :School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes
elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate.special interest activities are
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 956% utilization of all available
teaching stations. SPI Report;#3 dated 11/23/10 identifies 148 teaching stations available in the
mid-level facilities. The utilization pattem results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each = (240)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity lo"ss . (240)
12
Aubum School Distrid No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011.through 2017
STANDARD OF SERVICE
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
SENIOR HIGH COMPUTER LABS Tfie Aubum School District operates two.computer latis at each of the senior high schools. This
program utilizes iwo standard classrooms at comprehensive high schools and one at West Aubum.
The housing requirements forthis program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 7 rooms @ 30 each = (210) _
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (210)
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
The Aubum School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for students
leaming English as a second language. This program requires three standard classrooms that are not
provided for in the SPI space guidelines. .
Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 rooms @ 30 each = (90)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (90)
ADAPTIVE BEHAV/OR SPEC/AL EDUCATION
The Aubum School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior
diabilities: .T,he program is housed at one of the high schools and uses one classroom. The housing.
requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space allocations.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 30 each = (30)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (30)
STRUCTURED LEARN/NG CENTER PROGRAM
The Aubum $chool District operates six stru'ctyred leaming center classrooms for students with
moderate tb severe.disabilities. This program requires finro standard classrooms that are not provided
for in the SPI space guidelines.
Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 30 each = (60)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (60)
SPEC/AL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS
The Aubum School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special
education students requiring instruction to address their specific leaming disabilities. The cuRent
high school program reguires eleven classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of '
the students. The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the eleven teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each = (300)
, Loss of Temporary Capacify 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (300)
13
Aubum 8chool Distrid No. 408 .
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
' 2011 through 2017
STANDARD OF SERVICE
PERFORM/NG ARTS CENTERS
Aubum Wigh School includes 25,000 square feet. used exclusiyely for a Performing Arts Center. The
SPI Inventgry includes tfiis space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was
not intended for nor is it usable for classroom instruction. It was constnacted to provide a
community center for fhe performing arts. Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet
computes to 208 unhoused students or 8.33 classrooms.
Loss of Permanenf Capacity 8.33 rooms @ 30 each = (250)
ROOM UTIL►ZATION
The Aubum School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous
elective qpfions in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are
not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available
teaching stations. Tfiere are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization
pattem results in a loss of approximately 10teaching stations. '
Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 30 each = (300)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0
Total Capacity Loss (300)
STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED: TOTALS
ELEMENTARY
Loss of Permanent Capacity = (2,200)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss (2,200)
MIDDLE SCHOOL ,
Loss of Permanent Capacity = (533)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss (533)
SENIOR HIGH
, Loss of Permanent Capacity = (1,240)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total CaPacity Loss (1,240)
TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity = (3,972)
Loss of Temporary Capacity 0
Total Capacity Loss. (3,972)
14
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2011 through 2017
Section IV
Inventory of Facilities
. .
' Aubum Schoot District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
INVENTORY OF FACIL(TIES
Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI rated capacities.
Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable unit.by school. The district uses relocatable
facilities to:
1: provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school
populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting.
2: make space available for changing program requirements and offerings detemuned by unique student
needs, and
3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be fmanced and constructed.
Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing
physical glants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of
sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding relocatable classrooms.
Table Permanent Faciliries District School Facilities
N.1 @ OSPI Raxed Capacity
(November 2010)
Buildin Ca aci Acres Address
Elementa Schools
`._Washin n Elementary 486 5.40 20 E Street Northeast, Aubuin WA; 98002
-
Terminal Paik Elementary 408 6.70 1101 D Street Southeast, Auburn WA, 98002_,
Dick Scobee Elementary 477 10.50 1031 14th Street Northeast, Aubum WA, 98002
Pioneer Elementary 441 830 23011 M Street Southeast, Aubuin WA,`98002
• -Cliinook Elementazy 440 . 8.75 3502 Aubum Wa South Aubum WA, 98092
Lea Hill Elementary 450. 10.00 30908 124th Avenue Southeast, Aubum WA, 98092
Gildo Re Eltmentary 551 10.00 1005 37th Street Southeast, Aubum WA, 98002
Ever en Hei fs Elem. 456 . 8.09 5602 South 316th, Auburn WA; 98001 -Alpac-Elementary 497 10.60 310 Milwaukee Boulevazd North, Pacific WA, 98047
.Lake View Elementary 559 16.40 16401 Southeast 318th Street, Auburn W.A,98092
' Hazelwood Elementary 580_ _ 12.67 11815 Southeast 304th Street, Aubum WA, 98092
Ilalko Elemen i 585 12.00 301 Oravefz Place Southeast, Aubum WA, 98092
L,akeland Hills gleinentary 594 12.00 1020. EvsEv een Wa SE, Auburn'WA, 98092 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 614 10.00 29205 132 Street SE, Aubum WA, 98092
ELEM CAPACITY 7,138
-Middle Schools . Cascade Middle School 829_ :1730 1015 24th $ireet Northeast, Aubum WA,98002
Ol ic Middle School 921 17.40, 1825 K Street Southeast, Aubum WA; 98002
-Rainier Middle School 843 26.33 30620 116th Avenue Southeast, Auburn WA,,98092
Mt. Baker Middle School 837 30.88 620 37th Street Southeast Aubum WA 98002
MS CAPACITY 3,430 Senior Hi h Schools West Aubum Hi School 233 5.10 401 West 1Vlain Street, Aubum WA, 98001
Aubum Senior Hi 2,101 18:60 800 Fourth Street.Northeas Aubum WA, 98002
Aubum Riverside HS 1,387 ' 33.00 501 Oravetz Road, Aubum WA 98092
Aubum Mountainview HS 1,443 40.00 28900 124 Ave SE, Aubum WA, 98092
SH CAPACITY 5,164
TOTAL CAPACITY 15,732
16
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2010 through 2017
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
TABLE TEMPORARY/RELOCATABLE
IV.2 FACILITIES 1NVENTORY
March 2011
Elementa Locafion 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminal Park 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Dick Scobee 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Pioneer 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Chinook 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Lea Hill 5 5 5 2 2 ~2 2
Gildo Rey 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Evergreen Heights 0 0 0 2 2 2 2
Alpac 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Lake V'iew 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hazelwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ilalko 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Lakeland Hills Elementary 2 2 2 4 4. 44
,
Arthur Jaco6sen Elementa 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0
TOTAL;UNITS 32 32 32 33 33 .'33 33
TOTAL CAPACITY 848 848 848 875 875 875 875
Middle_School Location' - 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Cascade 0 0_ 0 0 2 2 2
Olympic 0 0 0 0 2 2 2
Rainier 5 5 5 7 7 8 8
. Mt. Baker: 8 8 8 8 8 . 8 8
TOTAL UNITS 13 13 13 15 19 20 20
- TOTAL GAPACITY 390 390 390 450 570 600 ' 600
Sr. Hi h School_Location . 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 2015-16 ` 2016-17 .
West Aubum0 0 0 0 1 1 -1
Auburn High School 12 12 12 12. 12 ' 12 12
Aubum High School -'TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Auburn Riverside 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Aubum Mountainview 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0
TOTAL UNITS 26 26 26 26 27 27 27
TOTAL CAPACITY 780 780 780 780 810 810 810
*TAP -Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs.
. COMBINED TOTAL UNITS : 71 71 71 74 79 80 ' 80 .
COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,018 2,018 2,018 2,105 2,255 . 2,285 2,285
17
Auburn School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2011 through 2017
Section V
Pupil Capacity
Aubum School District No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
PUPIL CAPACITY
While the Aubum School District uses the SPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from
which to determine space needs, the DistricYs educational program requires more space than that
proyided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numbers of pupils in _
Section III, Standard of Service. The DistricYs capacity is adjusted to reflect the need foradditional
sPace to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new unfunded •facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments' is shown on Line B in Tables V.1 and V2 below.
Table V.1 shows the Distict's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these: units,
Table V.1
Capacity
WITH relocatables 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532
A,1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 585
1/ A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800
B. Capacity Adjustments 1,954 1,954 1,954 1,868 1,718 1,688 1,688
C. Net Capacity 13,778 13,778 13,778 13,864 14,014 14,844 15,429
D. ASD Enrollment 14,482 14,586 14,828 15,160 15,582 15,924 16,286
3/ E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (704) (808) (1,050) (1,296) (1,568) (1,080) (857)
CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS
Include Relocatable 2,018 2,018 2,018 2,105 21255 - 2,285 2,285
2/ Exclude SOS (pg 14 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972
Total Adjustments (1,954) (9,954) (1,954) (1,868) (1,718) (1,688) (1,688)
Table V.2
Capacity
WITHOUT relocatables 2010-11 2011=12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 2015-16 ~ 2016-.17
A. SPI Capacity 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532
A.1 SPI Capacity-New Elem 585
1/ A.2 SPI Capacity- New MS 800
B. Capacity Adjustments 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,972
C. Net Capacity 11,760 11,760 11,760 11,760 11,760 12,560- 131145
D. ASD Enrollment 14,482 14,586 14,828 15,160 15,582 15,924 16,286
3l E. ASD Surplus/Deficit (2,722) (2,826) (3,068) (3,400) (3,822) (3,364) (3,141)
CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS
2/ Exclude SOS (pg 14 3,972 3,972 3,972 3,9Z2 3,972 3,972 3,972
Total Adjustments (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) (3,972) ' (3,972) (3,972) (3,972)
1/ New facilities shown in 2015-16 and 2016-17 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan.
21 The Standard of Service represents 25.38% of SPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard
of Service computations are decreased to 23.35% of SPI capacity.
3/ Students beyond the capacity are accomodated in other spaces (commons, library, theater, shared teaching space).
19
Aubum School DisVid No. 408'
CAPITAL FACIGTIES PLAN
- 2011 through 2017
PERMANENT FACILITIES PUPIL CAPACITY
- @ SPI Rated Capacity
March 2011
A. Etementa Schools
Buildin 2010-11 2011-12 201213 2013-14 201415. 2015-16 2016-17
Washington 486 486 486 486 486 486 486
TerminalPark 408 408 408 408 408 408 408
Dick Scobee 477 477 477 477 477 477 477
Pioneer 441 441 441 441 441 441 441
Chinook 440 . 440 440 440 440 440 440
Lea Hill 450 450 450 450 450 450 450
Gildo Rey 551 551 551 551 551 551. 551
Evergreen Heights 456 456 456 456 -456 456 456
Alpac 497 497 497 497 497 497 497
Lake Vew 559 559 559 559 559 559 559
Hazelwood 580 580 580 580 580 580 580
Ilalko _ 585 585 585.. 585 585 , 585 585
Lakeland Hills 594 594 594 594 594 594 594
ArthurJacobsen 614 614 614 614 614 614 614
Elementa #15 585
ELEM CAPACITY 7,138 7,138 7,138 . 7,138 7;138 7,138 7,723
: B. Middle 8chools '
Buildin 2010-11 2011-12 2012=13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Cascade 829 829 829 829 829 829 829
Olympic 921 921 921 921 921 921 921
Rainier 843 843 843 843 843 843 843
Mt.Baker 837 837 837 837 837 837 837
Middle School #5 800 800
MS CAPACITY 3,430 3,430 3,430 . 3,430 3,430 4,230 4,230
C. Senior Hi h Schools
Buildin 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015=16 2016-17
West Aubum 233 233 233 233 233 233 233
Aubum 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101 2,101
Aubum Riverside 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387 1,387
Aubum Mountainview 1,443 1,443 1,443_ 1,443 1,443 1,443 1,443
SH GAPACITY 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164 5,164
COMBINED CAPACITY 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 15,732 16,532 17,117
20
Aubum School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2011 through 2017
Section VI
Capital Construction Plan
Aubum School Distrid No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
The formal process used by the Board to address current and futuce facility needs began in
1974 with the formation of a community wide citizens committee: The result of this committee's
work was published in the document titled 'Guidelines for Development.' In 1985 the Board
formed a second Ad Hoc citizens committee to pick up from the work ofi the first and address the
needs of the District for subsequent years. The work of this co"mmittee was published in the
document titled 'Directions for the Nineties.' In 1995 the Board commissioned a third Ad Hoc
citizens committee to make recommendations for improvements to the District's programs and
physical facilities. The committee recommendations are published in the document titled
Education Into The Twenty-First Century A Community Mvolved.'
The 1995 Ad Hoc committee:recommended the Districtdevelop plans forthe implementation,
funding; and deployment of fechnology throughout the District's programs. The 1996 Bond
proposition provided funding to enhance the capacity ofieachfacility to accommodate
technological applications. The 1998 Capital Levy provided funding to further deploy technology
at a Jevel sufficient to support program requirements. in every classroom and department. In
2005 a replacement #echnology.levy was approved to continue to support technology across all
, facets of the District's teaching, leaming and operations.
, In addition to the technology needs of the District, the Ad Hoc committee recognized the District
must prepare for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District
must pursue an appropriate high school site as soon as possible." The Ad Hoc
recommendation included commentary that the financing should be timed to maintain consistent
rates of assessment.
A proposition was approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that provided $8,000,000 over six
years to address some of the technology needs of the District; and $5,000,000 to provide funds
to acquire school sifes.
During the 1997-98 school year, a Joint District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by
the Aubum and Dieringer School Boards to make recommenciations on how best to serve the
school population from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South.
Lakeland South at that time was immediately adjacent to the southem boundary of the Aubum
School District. On June 16, 1998 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a •
joint meeting of the Aubum and Dieringer Boards of Directors. On June 22, 1998 the Aubum
School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of
the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On
June 23, 1998 the Dieringer School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 24-97-98
aufhorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad
Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from
Dieringer to Auburn containing most of`the Lakeland South development and certain other
undeveloped properties. Development in this area is progressing at an aggressive rate.
In April of 2002, the Board formed a fifth citizen's Ad Hoc committee to address the following
finro items and make recommendations to the board in the Fall of 2002:.
a. A review of the conclusion and tecommendafions of 4985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Committees
relafed to accommodating high school enrollment growth. This included the review of
possible financing plans .for new facilities. .
b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the
next 10 years if a new senior high school is not built.
22
Aubum School Distrid No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
This committee recommended the board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth `time in
February:2003. The February election approved the new high school at 68.71 % yes votes. The
school opened in the Fall of 2005.
In the Fall of 2003 the school board directed the administration to begin the planning and design
for Elementary#13 and Elementary #14. In the :Fall of 2004, the Aubum School Board.passed
Resolution No. 1054 to place two elementary schools on the ballot in February 2005. The .
voters approved the ballot measure in February of 2005 at 64.72%. Lakeland Hills Elementary
(Elementary#13) opened in the Fall of 2006. Arthur Jacobsen Elementary (Elementary #14) is
located in tfie Lea Hill area on a 10 acre site and opened in the Fall of 2007. These finro
elemenfary schools were built to accommodate the housing growth in Lakeland Hills and Lea
Hill areas of the school district. '
In the 2004-05 school year, the Board convened a sixth Citizen's Ad Hoc committee to again
study and make recommendations about the future impacts in the District. One of the areas of
sfudy was the need for New Facilities and Modemization. The committee made a numbet of
recommendations including school size, the need for a new middle school, and to begin a
capital improvements program to modemize or replace facilities based upon criterion. During the 2005-06 school year, a Joint, District Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by
the Auburn and Kent School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school
population that will come from an area that includes a number of projected developments in the
north Aubum valley. On May 17, 2006 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at
a joint meeting of the Aubum and Kent Boards of Directors. On June 14, 2006 the Kent School
Board adopted Resolution No. 1225 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the
boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On
June 26, 2006 the Aubum Schbol Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 1073 authorizing
the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc
Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from the Kent
School District to the Auburn School District effective September 29, 2006.
In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made
recommendations to the school board regarding the capital improvements program to
modemize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee:
These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the school board placing a school
improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not
approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools.
The board decided to place only a six-year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of`2009,
which passed at 55.17%.- The levy will fund $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24
sites over the next seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools.has
started with educational specifications and schematic design process beginning in 2010. A
future bond issue will be necessary to fund these projects.
The Speeial Education Transition Facility opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed
for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old. The school district acquired a site for a future middle school in 2009 and will need to consider
possibilities for a site for elementary school #15.
23
Aubum School Distrid No. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 through 2017
. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION:PLAN
- The District is projecting 1800 additional students within the six year period including the
, Lakeland, Lea Hill, and north Aubum valley areas. This increase in studenf population will
reguire the acquisition of new middle school and new elemenfary school sites and construction
of a middle school and elementary school during the six year window.
Based upon the District's capacity data and enrollment'projections, as well as the student
generation data included in Appenciix A.3, the District has determined that approximately eighty-
six percent of the capacity improyements are necessary to serve the students generated from
new!development, with the remaining additional capacity required to addr,ess existing need.
The table below illustrates the current capital.construction plan for the next six years. The exact
timelines are wholly d'ependent on the rate of growth in the: school age population and passage
of bond issues.and/or capital improvement levies.
207.1-17 Capital Construction Plan
March2011 - ~ , Frojected Fund Project Timelines
Pro ect Funded Cost Source 10-11 . 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17
All Fac'ilifie"s - 2006
Technology Yes $12,000,000 6 Year XX XX
_ Modernization Cap Levy -
Portables- Yes $1,200,000 Impact xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
Fees
Property'Purcliase Impact
New Elementary No $3,500,000 Fees XX XX XX XX
MultiPleFacility. Capital
Yes $46,400,000 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
1/ Irn roVemenfs ' Levy
Bond XX XX XX
1/ Middle School #5 No $42,500,000 Impact Fee plan const open
- Bond XX XX XX
1/ Elementa #15 No $21,750,000 Impad Fee ' plan const open
Replacement of
three aging No $239,000,000 Bond Issue XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
1/ schools
1/ These funds may be secured through local bond issues, sale of real property, impact fees, and state matching funds.
The District currenUy is not eligible for state assistance at the elemerrtary school level for new construction. The district is eligible for
state matching funds for modemization.
24
Aubum School District No. 408
Capital Facilities Plan
2011 through 2017
Section VII
Impact Fees
Aubum±Schoo,oi§trict No: 408'
_ CAPITAL: FACILITIES PLAN
201 T through.2017
, IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION,(Spring 2011)
Middle Scho6145.within 6 yearperiod
Elementary #15 within 6 year period
l. SITE COST PER RESIDENCE
Formula: ((Acresx Cost per Acre)/Facilit Size x Student Factor
Site Costl Facility Student Generation Factor Cost/ CosU
Acreage Acre Capacit Sin le Family Multi Family Single Famil Multi Famil
Elem. (K - 5) 12 $0 550 0.3130 0.1240 $0.00 $0.00
Middle Sch (6 - 8 , 25 $0 800 0.1540 0.0560 $0.00 $0.00
Sr High 9- 12 40 $0 1500 0.1650 0.0519 $0.00 $0.00
$0:00 ' $0,00
ll. PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCT/ON COST PER RESIDENCE
Formula: ((Facili Cost/Facili Size x Student Factor x Permanent to Total Square Footage Fercenta e
Facility Facility % Perm Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost! Cost/
Single Femil Cost' Size Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Famil Sin le Famil . Multi Femil
Elem (K - 5) $21,750,000 550 0.9652 0.3130 0.1240 $11,946.60 $4,732.84
Mid Sch (6 - 8) $42,500,000 800 0.9652 0.1540 0.0560 $7,896.29 $2,871.38
Sr Hi h 9- 12 $0 1500 0.9652 0.1650 0.0519 $0.00 $0.00
' $18,842.89 $7;80422>
111. TEMPORARY FACILITY CONSTRUCT/ON COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facili Cost/Faclti Size x Student Factor x Tem ora to Total S uare Footage'Ratio
Facility Facility % Temp Sq Ftl Student Generation Factor ' Cost/ Cost/ -
Single Famil . Cost ' Size Total S Ft Single Famil Multi'Famil Sin Ie Famil Multi Famil
Elem (K - 5) $130,000 26.5 0.0348 0.3130 0.1240 $53.48 $21.19
Mid Sch (6 - 8) $130,000 30 0.0348 0.1540 0.0560 . $23.24 $8.45
Sr High 9- 12) $0 30 0.0348 0.1650 0.0519 $0.00 $0.00
$76:72 $29.64
IV. STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE
Formula: (Boeckh Index x SPl Footage x District Match x Student Factor)
Boeckh SPI District Student Generation Factor Cost/ CosU
Index Footage Match Single Famil Multi Famil Sin le Famil Multi Famil
Elem (K - 5) $180.17 90 58.67°/a 0.3130 0.1240 $2,977.73 $1,179.68
Mid Sch (6 - 8) $180,17 108 58.67% 0.1540 0.0560 $1;758.10 $639.31
Sr High 9- 12 $180.17 • 130 58.87% 0.1650 0.0519 $2,267.39 $713.20
. $7,"003:22 $2,332.19
26
Aubum School'District No: 408
CAPITALFACILITIES'PLAN ; 2014 through2017
V. TAX CREDIT PER RESIDENCE
, Formula: Expressed as+the:present,value otan annuity
TC = PV(interest;rate,discount period;average assd value-x tax rate)
A4e:Resid Cum Dbt Serv Bnd'Byr Indx Number of Tax CrediT Tax Credit
Assd-Value Tax Rate . Ann Int Rate Years Single Famil Multi Famil :
Single Family $248,765 $0.93 4:91% 10 $1,801:79
Multi Famil $67,821 $0.93 4.91% 10 $49.1:22 .
Vl. DEVECOPER PROVIDED FACILITY CREDIT .
Formula: (Value of Site or FacilitylNumber of dwelling units)
Value No. of Units Facil Credit
Single Family $0.00 1 $0.00: •
Multi Family $0.00 1 $0:00::
, FEE PER UNIT IMPACT FEES,
RECAP Single Multi
SUMMARY Famil Fainily
Site Costs $0:00 $0.00
Permanent Facility Const Costs $19,842.89 $7,604.22
Temporary Facility Costs $76.72 $29.64
Stete Match,Credit ($7;003:22) ($2,532.19)
Tax'Credit - $1;801.79) $491.22
FEE (No Discount) $11,114:60 $4,610.44
FEE (50%,Discount) $5;557.30 $2,305.22 `
Facili : Credit $0:00 $0.00
Net Fee Obligatlon 45,557.30: . "$2;308.22.`
Auburn Schoovuistrictft. 408
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011t rou h 2017
SINGLE FAMIL'Y : MULTI F,AMILY
IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Elem
Mi&Sch i SrHigh Elem• Mid Sch Sr High
K-5 ' 6-:8 9-12 K-5 6-8 9-12
Student Factor Single Family - Aubum actual count (3/10) 0.313 0:154 0:165 0.124 0.056 0.052
New Fac Capacity 550 800 1500 550 800 1500
New Facility Cost Elementary Cost Estimates Feb 2008 $21,750,000 $42,500,000 $21,750,000 $42,500,000
Middle School Cost Estimate Feb 2008 Temp Rm Capacity ASD District Standard of Service. 26.5 30 30 26.5 30 30
GradesK-5@26:5and6-12@30.
_ Temp Facility Cost Relocatables, including site work, set up, and fumishing $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000
Site Acreage ASD District Standard or SPI Minimum 12 25 40 12 25 40
Site CosUAcre See,6elow ' $326;827 $328,827 $326,827 $326;827 $326,827 $326;827
Perm Sq'Footage SPI Rpt #3 dated!Nok 23, 2010 1,710,833 1,710,833 1;710,833 1,710,833 1,710;833 1,710,833
Temp Sq Foofage , 70 portables at132 sq. ft.;each + TAP 3500 61,740 61,740 61,740 61,740 61',740; 61,740
Total Sq Footage Sum of Permanent end Temporary above 1,772,573 1,772,573 1,772,573 1,772,573 1,772,573 1,772,573
Perm Facilities Pennanent Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 96:52% 96.52°k 96.52°h 96:52% 96.52°k 96:52%
Temp Facilities Temporary Sq. Footage divided by Total Sq. Footage 3.48°k 3.48% 3.48% 3.48% 3.48% 3.48%
SPI Sq FUStudent From SPI Regulations 90 108 130 90 108 130
Boeckh Index 1 From SPI schedule for March 2011 $180.17 $180.17 $180.17 $180.17 $180.17 $180.17
Match % - State F.rom SPI Webpage March 2011 58:67% 58.67°/a 58.67% 58:67% 58.67% 58:67%
Match °k - District Computed 41.33% 41.33% 41:33% 41:33% . 41.33°k 41:33%
Dist Aver AV King County Department of Assessments March 2011 $248,765 $248,765 $248,765 $67,821 ' $67,821 $67,821
(multi family wefghted averege (ncludes condos)
Debt Serv Tax Rate CuRent Fiscal Year $0:93 $0.93 $0.93 $0.93 $0.93 $0.93
G. O Bond Int Rate Current Rate -(Bond Buyer 20 Index March 2011) 4.91% 4.91% 4.91% 4.91% 4:91% 4;91%
Slte Cosf Pr.o ectfons
Recent Property Purchase Purchase Purchese Adjusted Projected Mnual Sites Latest Date Projected
Acquisitions Acreage Year Price CosUAcre Present Da Inflation Factor ' Required of Acquisition Cost/Acre
Lakeland 12.00 2002 $2,701,043 $225,087 $310,687
Labrador 35.00 2008 $7,601,799 $217,194 $223,710
Lakeland East 27.00 2009 $9,092,160 $336,747 $336,747
Total 74.00 $19,395,002 $262,095 $290,381 3.00% Elementa 2014 $326,827
28
Auburn School District No. 408
CaPital Facilities Plan
.
2011 through 2017
Section VIII
Appendix
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections
Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections
Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey
Appendix A.1 - Student Enrolimenf Projections
Auburn School District #408
Student Enrollment Projections
October 2010 ' .
Introduction
The.pro;jective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a basis for
forecasting the future. In addition, the `projector' must make certain assumptions about the operant
variables within the data being used. These assumptions are "judgmental" by definifion: Forecasting
can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future, or from tlie lmown
to the unknown. The attached tabular da.ta reviews the history of student enrollment, sets out some
quantitative assumptions, and providesprojections based on these numerical factors.
The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic,.
and political factors that aze present in any demographic analysis and projection. The logic emtiraces
the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today, and will
be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singulaz factors by averaging data over tlurteen
years and six years respecrively. The results provide a trend, which reflects a long (13-year) and a short
, (6-year) base from which to extrapolate.
Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used. The first uses the
average increase or decrease over the past 13 and 6-year time frame and adds it to each succeeding
year. The second derives what the average percentage Aubum kindergartners have been of live births
in King County for the past 5 years and uses this to project the subsequent four yeazs.
The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact.
This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic
being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and
credibility of the projections derived by these techniques.
Tables
Tabl"e 1- Thirteen Year Historv of October 1 Enrollments - page 3
The data shown in this table is the baseline information used to project future enrollment. This data
shows the past record of enrollment in the district on October 1 of each year.
Table 2- Historical Factors Used in Proiections - page 4
This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors have been
used in the subsequent projections. The three factors are:
1. Factor l- Average Pupil Change Between Grade Levels
This factor is sometimes referred to as the "holding power" or "cohort survival:" It is a
measure of the number of pupils gained or lost as they move from one grade level to the
next.
2. Factor 2- Average Pupil Change by Grade Y.evel
This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6-year period.
3. Factor 3- Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollment as a FuncNon of King.
Connty Live Births. . This factor calculates what percent each kindergarten class was of the King County live
births in the 5 previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the .
kindergarten pupils expected for the next 4 years.
1
Table 3- Projection Models - pages 5-13
This set of tables utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several projections. The
models aze explained briefly below.
o Table 3.13 (pg 5) - shows a projection based on the 13-year average gain in kindergarten
(Factor 2) and the 13-year average change between grade levels (Factor 1). The data.is
shown for the district as a whole.
❑ Table 3.6 (pg 5) - shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13 except it
shortens the historical to only the most recent 6 years.
❑ Table 3.13A and 3.6A (pg 6) - uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is substituted
for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived from the:King County live births instead
of the average gain.
o Tables 3E.13, 3E,6; 3E.13A, 3E.6A (pg 7) = breaks but the K-5 grades from the district projection. Su.mma.ry level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade
articularion. ❑ Tables 3MS.13, 3MS.6, 3MS.13A, 3MS.6A (pg 8) - breaks out the 6-8 grades from the
district projection. Summary level data is p"rovided for percentage gain and pupil gain by
grade articulation. -
❑ Tables 3SH.13, 3SH.6, 3SH.13A, 3SH.6A (pg 9) - breaks out the 9-12 grades from the '
district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by
grade articulation.
o' Table 4(pg 10) - Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease of
comparison.
❑ Table 5(pgs 11713) -shows how well each projection model performed when compared
with actua.l enrollments: Data is provided in both number and percent formats for the :
past 13 years.
Summarv
This yeu we fiad a second consecutive year of unprecedented decline. in student enrollment of 107
students. The loss of those students changes our historical average gain in-students. Over the past 6
years the gain is now .97% annually down from 1.53%; that equates to 135 students down from 213
in prior projections. Over the past 13 yeazs the average gain has dropped from 1.41% to .92% and
equates to 122 students annually down from 189 students.
Using the cohort survival models, the data below is a suxnmary of the range of variation between the
four models. This data can be u. sed for planning for future needs of the district.
The models show changes in the next s.ix yeazs:
■ Elementary level shows increase ranging from 449 to 545. (page 7)
~ Middle School level shows increase ranging from 190 to 211. (page 8) '
■ High School level shows increases ranging from 32 to 104. (page 9)
The models show~these changes looking forward thirteen years;
■ Elementary level shows increase ranging from 911 to 1091. (page 7)
■ Middle School level shows increase ranging from 414 to 498. (page 8)
■ High School level shows increase ranging from 485 to 531. (page 9)
This data does not factor new developments that are currently under construcrion or in the planning
stages.
2
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2010
TABLE Thirteen Year History of October 1 Enrollments(Rev 10/10)
1 Actual
GRADE 98/99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
KDG 854 849 972 846 905 922 892 955 i 941 996 998 1032 1010
1 995 943 905 968 900 982 980 983 ; 1012 995 1015 1033 1086
2 1023 1015 914 949 961 909 992 983 ; 1002 1019 1024 998 1016
3 1009 1054 1031 986 940 996 918 1002 ` 1031 887 1048 993 1013
4 974 1012 1071 1077 973 947 1016 939 ; 1049 1057 1044 1073 1024
5 982 983 1011 1108 1062 1018 857 1065 ~ 998 1078 1089 1030 1079
6 962 981 998 1028 1104 1111 1020 1004 f 1058 1007 1098 1040 1041
7 939 1015 979 1017 1021 1131 1124 1028 i 1014 1057 1034 1125 1080
8 959 974 1003 1004 1026 1052 1130 1137 I 1072 1033 1076 1031 1112
9 1156 1202 1222 1405 1441 1473 1461 1379 ' 1372 1337 1258 1244 1221
10 1165 1132 1157 1073 1234 1249 1261 1383 i 1400 1368 1341 1277 1238
11 1007 1036 1067 1090 927 1010 1055 1182 ; 1322 1352 1350 1303 1258
12 917 855 865 930 933 902 888 1088 ~ 1147 1263 1352 1410 1344
TOTALS 12942 13051 13135 13461 13427 13702 13672 14088 14418 14559 14703 14589 14482
Percent of Galn 0.84% 0.64°h 2.48% (0.25)% 2.05% (0.22)% 3.04% 2.34% 0.98% 0.98% (0.78)% (0.73)%
Pupil Gain 109 84 326 34 275 30 418 " 330 141 144 114 107
Average % Gein for 1st 6 years. 0.92% Average % Gain for last 6 years 0.97%
Avera e Pu I Gain for 1 at 6 years. 122 Avera e Pu 11 Gain for last 6 ears 135
Average % Galn for 13 years. 0.95°k
Avera e Pu I C3ain for 13 ears. 128
TABLE •
1A Grade Grou Combinations
KDG 854 849 912 846 905 922 892 955 941 996 998 1032 i 1010
K,1,2 2872 2807 2731 2763 2766 2613 2844 2881 2955 3010 3037 3063 : 3092
K-5 5837 5856 5844 5914 5741 5774 5735 5887 6033 6142 6198 6159 ; 8208
K-6 6799 6837 6842 6942 6845 6885 6755 6891 7091 7149 7294 7199 ~ 7249
i
1-3 3027 3012 2850 2883 2801 2887 2870 2928 3045 3011 3087 3024 ~ 3095
1-5 4983 5007 4932 5068 4836 4852 4843 4932 5092 5146 5200 5127 ~ 5198
1-6 5945 5988 5930 6096 5940 5963 5863 5936 6150 6153 6296 6167 i 8239
~
i
6-8 2860 2970 2980 3049 3151 3294 3274 3169 3144 3097 3206 3196 i 3213
7-8 1898 1989 1982 2021 2047 2183 2254 2165 2086 2080 2110 2156 ; 2172
7-9 3054 3191 3204 3426 3488 3656 3715 3544 3458 3427 3366 3400 ~ 3393
9-12 4245 4225 4311 4498 4535 4634 4663 5032 5241 5320 5299 5234 6061
10-12 3089 3023 3089 3093 3094 3161 3202 3653 3869 3983 4043 3990 ~ 3840
prJ10-11 Page 3 Ocwoer 2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT E )LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2010
TABLE Factors Used in Projectlons
2 Factor AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS
3 AS FUNCTION OF KING COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATES
Factor Average Pupil Change Belween Grede CAL- TOTAL YEAR ADJUSTED AUBURN KINDERGARTEN
1 Levels ENDAR LIVE 213rds 1/3rds OF LIVE KDG ENROLLMENT AS A°k OF
13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR BASE YEAR BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS ENROLL BIRTHS ENROLL. ADJUSTED LIVE BIRTHS
K to 1 53.33 K to 1 39.80 1972 13,719 9,746 4,573 78179 13,539 598 4.417%
1 to 2 7.58 1 to 2 8.20 1973 13,449 8,966 4,483 79/80 13,478 618 4.585°k
-
2 to 3 ~ 18.33 2 to 3 15.20 1974 13,493 8,995 4,488 80/61 13,524 600 4.436%
3 to 4 24.75 3 l0 4 35.20 1975 13,540 9,027 4,513 81/82 13,687 588 4.296°k
_ ~
4 to 5 18.83 4 l0 5 18.40 1976 13,761 9,174 4,587 ~ 82183 14,375 698 4.856%
5 to 6 10.58 5 to 8 0.40 1977 14,882 9,788 4,894 83184 14,956 668 4.452%
6 to 7 16.33 6 to 7 17.00 1978 15,096 10,064 5,032 ~ 84/85 16,048 726 4.524%
7 to 8 13.63 7 to 8 13.20 1978 16,524 11,016 5,508 ~ 85186 16,708 792 4.740%
8 to 9 293.00 8 to 9 216.20 1980 16,800 11,200 5,600 86/87 17,000 829 4.876°k
9 to 10 (69.58) 9 to 10 7.20 1981 17,100 11,400 5,700 87188 18,241 769 4.216%
10 to 11 (90.67) 10 to 11 (36.80) 1982 18,811 12,541 8,270 88/89 18,626 817 4.388°k
11 to 12 (60.50) 11 to 12 1.40 1983 18,533 12,355 6,178 89190 18,827 871 4.626°~
total 235.83 total 335.40 1984 18,974 12,649 6,325 90/91 19,510 858 4.398%
Factor 1 is the averege gain or loss of pupils as they 1985 19,778 13,185 6,593 91/92 19,893 909 4.569°h
move from one grade level to the neM. Factor 1 uses 1986 19,951 13,301 6,650 92/93 21,852 920 4.210%
ihe past (12) OR (5) years of changes. 1987 22,603 15,202 7,601 I 93/94 21,624 930 4.301°k
1988 21,034 14,023 7,011 94/95 24,062 927 3.853%
Factor Average Pupil Change By Grade Level 1989 25,576 17,051 8,525 ~ 95196 26,358 954 3.619%
2 1990 26,749 - 17,833 8,916 ~ 96/97 24,116 963 3.993%
13 YEAR BASE 6 YEAR BASE 1991 22,799 15,199 7,600 ~ 97/98 20,973 978 4.663%
K 13.00 K 11.00 1992 20,060 13,373 8,687 98/99 21,573 654 3.959%
1 5.92 1 20.60 1993 22,330 14,887 7,443 99/00 22,129 849 3.837%
2 (0.58) 2 10.80 1994 22,029 14,686 7,343 00101 24,013 912 3.798°k
3 0.33 3 2.20 1995 25,005 16,670 8,335 01/02 22,717 846 3.724%
4 4.17 4 17.00 1996 21,573 14,382 7,191 ~ 02/03 21,622 905 4.186%
5 8.08 5 2.80 1997 21,646 14,431 7,215 ~ 03/04 22,023 922 4.186°k
6 8.58 6 7.40 1998 22,212 14,808 7,404 04/05 22,075 892 4.041%
7 10.08 7 6.40 1999 22,007 14,671 7,336 I 05/06 22,327 955 4.277%
8 12.75 8 (5.00) 2000 22,487 14,991 7,496 i 06/07 22,014 941 4.274% Last S
9 5.42 9 31.60) 2001 21,778 14,519 7,259 ~ 07/08 21,835 996 4.582°/b year
10 6.08 10 (29.00) 2002 21,863 14,575 7,288 ; 08/09 22,242 998 4.487% Average
11 20.92 11 15.20 2003 22,431 14,954 7,477 ; 09/10 22,726 1032 Actual 4.641% 4.481%
12 35.58 12 51.20 2004 22,874 15,249 7,625 10/11 22,745 1010 4.441%
Factor 2 fs the average change in grade level size i 2005 22,680 15,120 7,560 ~ 11/12 23,723 1014 <--Prjctd Average
1from 94/95 OR 01/02. i 2006 24,244 16,163 8,081 ~ 12/13 24,683 1018 <--Prjctd Average
2007 24,902 16,601 8,301 ~ 13/14 25,094 10b8 <--Prjctd Average
2008 25,190 16,793 8,397 ~ 14/15 25,101 1101 <--Prjctd Average
2009 25,057 16,705 8,352 ' 15/16 ' number from DOH
_ Source: Center for Health Statistics, Washington Stele Department of Health
prj10-11 Page 4 Oclober 2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENTfNROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -_October 2010
TABLE OISTRICTNPRO:lECT10NS 3.13 ~Based~orr 13`YearHisto ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ.- PROJ' PROJ PROJ . PROJ PROJ' RROJ. PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12/13 13N4 14/15 15H6 16/17 17/18 18/19 19%20 20/21 21%22 22/23 23-24
KDG 1010 1023 1036 1049 1082 1075 1088 1701 1114 1127 1140 1153 1186 1179
1 1066 1063 1076 1089 1102 1115 1128 1141 1154 1167 1180 1193 1206 1219
2 1016 1074 1071 1084 1097 1110 1123 1136 1149 1162 ~1175 1188 1201 1214
3 1013 1034 1092 1089 1102 1115 1128 1141 1154 1167 1180 1193 1206 1219
4 1024 1038 1059 1117 1114 1127 1140 1153 1166 1179 1192 1205 1218 1231
5 1079 1043 1057 1078 1136 1133 1146 1159 1172 1185 1198 1211 1224 1237
6 1041 1090 1053 1067 1089 1146 1143 1156 1169 1182 1195 1208 1221 1234
7 1060 1057 1106 1070 1084 1105 1162 1160 1173 1188 1199 1212 1225 1238
8 1112 1074 1071 1120 1084 1097 1119 1176 1174 1187 1200 1213 1226 1239
9 1221 1405 1367 1364 14.13 1377 1390 1412 1489 1467 1480 1493 1506 1519
10 1238 1151 1335 1297 1295 1343 1307 1321 1342 1400 1397 1410 1423 1436
11 1258 1147 1061 1245 1207 1204 1253 1216 1230 1251 1309 1306 1319 1332
12 1344 1198 1087 1000 1184 1148 1143 1192 1158 1170 1191 1249 1246 1259
TOTALS 14482 14397 14471 14669 14967 15093 15271 15465 15622 15829 16036 16234 16387 16556
Percent of Gain (0.59)% 0.52°k 1.37% 2.03% 0.85% 1.18% 1.27% 1.02% 1.33% 1.30% 1.23% 0.94°k 1.03%
Pu il Gain . 85 74 198 298 127 178 193 158 207 206 198 153 169
TABLE ,DISTRICT PROJECTIONS
3.6 Based on B Year<Htst
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11N2 12/13 13/14 14115 15/16 16J17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20121 21/22 22l23 23-24
KDG 1010 1021 1032 1043 1054 1065 1076 1087 1098 1109 1120 1131 1142 1153
1 1066 1050 1061 1072 1083 1094 1105 1116 1127 1138 1149 1160 1171 1182
2 1016 1074 1058 1069 1080 1091 1102 1113 1124 1135 1146 1157 1168 1179
3 1013 1031 1089 1073 1084 1095 1106 1117 1128 1139 1150 1161 1172 1163
4 1024 1048 1066 1125 1108 1119 1130 1141 1152 1163 1174 1185 1196 1207
5 1079 1042 1067 1085 1143 1127 1138 1149 1160 1171 1182 1193 1204 1215
6 1041 1079 1043 1067 1085 1143 1127 1138 1149 1160 1171 1182 1193 1204
7 1060 1058 1096 1060 1084 1102 1160 1744 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 1210
8 1112 1073 1071 1110 1073 1097 1115 1174 1157 1168 1179 1190 1201 1212
9 1221 1328 1289 1287 1326 1289 1313 1332 1390 1374 1385 1396 1407 1418
10 1238 1228 1335 1297 1295 1333 1296 1321 1339 1397 1381 1392 1403 1414
11 1258 1201 1191 1299 1260 1258 1296 1260 1264 1302 1360 1344 1355 1366
12 1344 1259 1203 1193 1300 1261 1259 1298 1261 1285 1303 1362 1345 1356
TOTALS 14482 14494 14602 14778 14975 15075 15225 15389 15524 15708 15878 16041 16157 16300
Percentof Gain 0.09% 0.75°k 1.20°k • 1.33% 0.67°k 1.00% 1.07°h 0.68% 1.18% 1.08% 1.03% 0.72% 0.89%
Pu il Gain 12 108 176 197 100 150 163 136 183 170 763 116 143
prJ10-11 . . Rayo 0 ' Oc,.,.,er2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT,f 1LLMENTiPROJECTIONS':-:October 20110
TABLE DIS1'RICT,PROJECTIONS
3:13A ~Based`on.Birth:Retes &:13,Year'Histo :v ACTUAL PRQJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ 'PROJ` PROJ `PROil PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12/13 13N4 14115 15116; 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 29/22` 22/23 23-24
K 1010 1014 1015 1058 1101
1 1066 1063 1067 1068 1112 1154 •
2 1016 1074 1071 1075 1076 1119 ,1162
3 1013 1034 1092 1089 1093 1094 1138 1180
4 1024 1038 1059 1117 1114 1118 1119 1162 1205 .
5 1079 1043 1057 1078 1136 1133 1137 1137 1181 1224
6 1041 1090 1053 1067 1089 1146 1143 1147 1148 1192 1234
7 1060 1057 1108 1070 1084 1105 1162 1160 1184. 1164 1208 1251
8 1112 1074 1071 1120' 1084 1097 1119 1176 1174 1177 1178 1222 1265 9 1221 1405 1367 1364 1413 1377 1390 1412 1469 1467 1470 1471 1515 1558
10 1238 1151 1335 1297 1295 1343 ' 1307 1321 7342 1400 1397 1401 1402 1445
11~ 1258 1147 1061; 1245 1207 1204 1253 1216 1230 1251 1309 1306 1310 1311
12 1344 1188 1087 1000 1184 1146 1143 1192 1156 1170 1191 1249 1246 1250
TOTALS'' •14482 14388, 14441 14648 14985 -7
Percent of Gaini (0:65)% 0:37°k ''1:44% 2.30% ' ' .
Pu il' Gain 94 S3207 337 TABLE DISTRICT PROJECTIONS '
3.6A Baseii~on BI'rth~Rates:&6~Year~Histo ACTUAL PROJ' PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ I PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12113 13114 14115 15116 16117 17/18 18/19 19/20 20121_ 21/22 22/23 23-24
KDG 1010 1014 1015 • 1058 1101
1 1086 1050 1054 1054 1098 1141
2 -1016 1074 1058 1062 1063 1106 1149 3 1013 1031 1089: 1073 1077. 1078 1121 1164
4 1024 . 1048 1066 ' 1125 1108 1112 1113 ' 1157 1199 .
' 5` 1079 1042 1067 . 1085 1143 1127 1131 1131' . 1175 1218
6 1041 1079 1043 1087 1085 1143 1127 1131 1132 1175 1218
7 1060 1058 1096 1060 1084 1102 1160 1144 1148 1149 1192 1235
8 1112 1073 1071 7110 1073 1097 1115 1174 1157 1161 1162 1206 1248
9 1221 1328 1289 1287 1326 1289 1313 1332 1390 1374 1377 1378 1422 1465
10 1238 1228 1335 1297 1295 1333 1298 1321 1339 1397 1381 1385 1385 1429
11 1258' 1201 1191 1299 1260 1258 1296 1260 1284 1302 1360 1344 1348 1349
12 1344 1259 1203 1193 1300 1261 1259 1298 1281 1285 1303 1362 1345 1349
TOTALS 14482 14487 14578 14769 15013
Percent ofGain 0:04°r6 0.63% 1.31°h 1.65%
Pu fl Gain 5 91 191 244
prJ10-11 Page 6 •October 2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS -'October.2010
TABLE
• 3E.13 Based on-13 Yea~ Histo ,
GRADE 10/11 11l12 121-13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17118 18/19 19/20 .20121 21/22 22l23 23-24
1 1066 1063 1078 1089 1102 1115 1128 1141 1154 1167 1180 1193 1206 1219
2 1018 1074 1071 1084 1097 1110 1123 1136 1149 1162 1175 1188 1201 1214
3 1013 7034 1092 1089 1102 1115 1128 1141 1154 1167 1180 1193 1206 1219
4 1024 1038 1059 1117 1114 1127 1140 1153 1166 1179 1192 1205 1218 1231
year
5 1079 1043 1057 1078 1136 1133 1146 1159 1172 1185 1198 1211 1224 1237 year 13
K - 5 TOT 6208 6275 6397 6506 6813 6675 6753 6831 6909 6987 7065 7143 7221 7299 645 1091
ercen o am o a . o . . 131/0 . 12% . . o .
Pu il Gain 67 116 115 107 62 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
TABLE- P O CTIO S.~ 3E.6 Baseil'on 6Yeac?Nist x.r GRADE 10/11 11/12 121.13 13/14 14/15 15/16 161.17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/27 22l23 23-24
1 1068 1050 1061 1072 1083 1094 1105 1116 1127 1138 1149 1160 1171 1182
2 1016 1074 '1058 1069 1080 1091 1102 1113 1124 1135 1146 1157 1168 1179
3 1013 1031 1089 1073 1084 1095 1106 1117 1128 1139 1150 1161 1172 1183
4 1024 1048 1066 1125 1108 1119 1130 1141 1152 1163 1174 1185 1196 1207
5 1079 1042 1067 1085 1143 1.127 1138 1149 1160 1171 1182 1193 1204 1215 year 13 year
K - 5 TOT 6208 6267 6373 6466 6552 6591 6657 6723 6789 6855 6921 6987 7053 7119 449 1
ercen o ain . o . o . o . o 0 0 . o U. o . o U. o U. o 0
Pu il Gain 59 106 93 86 39 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 - 66
T BLE O CTIO S: F~ ; _ 3E.13A :8esed,on.Birth:Retes & 13 Year Hi§to
ACT AL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PRO PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10111 11N2 12f13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17118 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22123 23-24
1 1066 1063 1067 1068 1112 1154
2 1016 1074 1071 1075 1076 1119 1162
3 1013 1034 1092 1089 1093 1094 1138 1180
4 1024 1038 1059 1117 1114 1118 1119 1162 1205
5 1079 1043 1057 1078 1136 1133 1137 1137 1161 1224 year
K- 5 TOT 8208 6266 6360 6485 6631
ercen o ain 0.939/6 1.51110 . o 0
Pu il Gain 58 95 125 146
TAB6E - 5: RO C O S 3E:6A Based,on:Birth Rates 8~6 Year Histo
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ I PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11N2 12N3 13/14 14/15 15/16 16117 17/18 18/19 19/20 20121 21/22 22/23 23-24
G 1010 1014 1015 058 10
1 1066 1050 1054 1054 1098 1141
2 1016 1074 1058 1062 1063 1106 1149
3 1013 1031 1089 1073 1077 1078 1121. 1169
4 1024 1048 1086 1125 1108 1112 1113 1157 7199
5 1079 1042 1087 1085 1143 1127 1131 1131 1175 1218 year
K- 5 TOT 6208 8260 8349 8457 6590
ercen o am Pu il Gain 52 89 108 133
Pry'10-11 Paye 7 Oct.,uer 2010
; AUBURN SCHOOL.DISTRICT $TUDENT F XLMENT' PROJECTIONS - Octobe"r 2010i
TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
31VIS.13 Based;on ,13 Year Hlat `
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ FROJ PROJ RROJ I?ROJ' PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 '11l12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15116 16/17 17/.18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22123 23-24 '
6 1041 1090: 1053 1067 1089 - 1146 1143 1:156 1169 1182 1195 1208 , 1221 1234
7 1060 1057 1106 1070 1084 1105 1162 1•160 1173 1186 1199 1212 1225 1238
8 1112 1074 1071 1120 1089 _ 1097 1119 1178 1174 1187 1200 1213 1226 1239 6 year 13 year .
6-8 TOT 3213 3221 3231 3257 3256. 3348 3425 3492 3516 3555 3594 3633 3672 3711 211 498
PerC811t of Gain 0.24% 030% 0.81% (0.03)% 2.85% 2.28°h 1.98°h 0.67% 1,11% 1:10% 1.09% 1.07% 1.06%
Pu fl .Gain 8 10 26 1 93 76 68 23 39 39 39 39 39
TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
3MS.6 Based on.6 Year Hist
AC7UAL PROil PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10111 17112 12/13 13114 -14/15 15/16 16l17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22123 23-24
6. 1041 1079 1093 9067 1085 1143 1127 `1138 1149 1180 1171 1182 1193 1204
7" 1060, 1058 1096 1060 1084 1102 1,160 1144 1155 1186 1177 1188 1198 12]0
8 1112 1073-_ 1071 1110 1073 1097 1115 1174 1157 7168 1179 1190 1201 1212 6 year 13 year
6-8 TOT 3213! 3211 3210 3236 3242 3343 3403 3456 3462 ' 3495 3528 3561 3594 3627 190 414
PercentoEGBin (O.OZ)°k -.01% .81% .18% 3.10% 1.80% 1.56% .17% :95% .94% .94.% .93°k .92%
Pu 8 Gain 2 0 26, 6 101 60 53 6 33 33 33 33 33
TABLE MIDOI:ESCHOOL PROJECTIONS 3MS:13A Based`on Birth Rates 8~.13 YesnHi§to
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ. PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12/13 13l14 14J15 15/16 16/]7. 17/18 18/19 19120 20/21 21/22 22123 23-24
6 1041 , 1090 1053 1067 1089 1146 1143 1147 1148 1192 1234
7 1060 1057 1106 1070 '1084 1105 1182 1160 1164 1164 1208 1251
8 1117 1074 1071 1,120 1084 1097 1119 1176 1174 1177 1178 1222 1265 8 year I 10 year
6-8 TOT 3213 3221 3231 3257 3256 3348 3425 3483 3485 3533 3821 211 408
Percent of Gain 0.24% 0.30% 0.81% (0.03)% 2.85% 228% 1.71% 0.06% 1.38°k 2.47%
Pu il Gain & 10 28 1 93 76 59 2 48 87
TABLE MIDDLE SCHOOL3PROJECTIONS
3MS.6A Besedion Birth Rates & 8'Year~Histo
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11112 12/13 13/14 14/15 15l16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20121 21122 22/23 23-24
6 1041 1079 1043 1067 1085 1143 1127 1131 1132 1175 1218
7, 1060 1058 1096 1060 1084 1102 1160 1144 1148 1149 1192 1235
8 1112 1073 1071 1110 1073 1097 1115 1174 1157 1181 1182 1206 1248 6 year 10 year
6-8 TOT 3213 3211 3210 3236 3242 3343 3403 3449 3437 3485 3573 190 360
PerCent of Galn (0.07)% (0.01)% 0.81% 0.18% 3.10% 1.80% 1.35% (0.34)°k 1.40% 2.50%
Pu I Gain 2 (0 26 6 101 60 46 12) 48 87
prj10-11 Page 8 October 2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT'ENROLLMENT'PROJECTIONS - October 2010
TABLE SR HIGH FROJECTIONS
3SH.13 Based on 13=Yeai;Hisio i
AGTUAL, PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ. PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12/.13 13/14 14/15 15116. 16/77 17/18 18/79 18I20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24
9 1221 1405 - 1367 1364 1413 1377 1390 1412 1469 1467 1480 1493 1506 1519
10 1238 1151 1335 ]297 1295 1343 1307 1321 1342 1400 1397 1410 1423 1436
11 1258 1147 1061 1245 1207 1204 1253 1216 1230 1251 1309 1308 1319 1332
12 1344 1198 1087 1000 1184 1146 1143 1192 1156 1170 1191 1249 1246 1259 6 year 13 year
9-12 TOT 5061 4901 4850 4906 5098 5070 5093 5141 5197 5287 5377 5457 5494 5546 32 485
Percent of Gain (3.16)% (1.05)% 1:17% 3:91% (0.56)% 0.46% 0:93°h 1.10% 1.73% 1;69°h 1.51% 0.67°k 0.95%
Pu f Gain 160 51 57 192 28 24 47 56 90 89 81 36 52
TABLE . SR HIGH PROJECTIONS
3SH:6 Based' "
on Histo Jn >
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11l12 12/13 13/,14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21l22 22/23 23-24
9 1221 1328 1289 1287 1326 1289 1313 1332 1390 1374 1385 1396 1407 1418
10 1238 1228 1335 1297 1295 1333 1296 1321 1339 1397 1381 1392 1403 1414
11 1258 1201 1191 1299 1260 1258 1296 1260 1284 1302 1360 1344 1355 1366
12 1344 1259 1203 1193 1300 1261 1259 1298 1261 1285 1303 1362 1345 1356 6 year 13 year
9-12 TOT 5061 5017 5019 5075 5180 5141 5165 5208 5273 5358 5429 5493 5510 5554 104 493
Percent of Gain (0.87)% 0.04% 1.13% 2.06% (0.75)% 0.47% 0:86% 1.23% 1.60% 1.33% 1.18% 0.31% 0.80%
Pu il Gain 44 2 57 105 39 24 44 64 84 71 64 17 44
TABLE SR: HIGH PROUECTIONS.
3SH.13A Based on-BirtFi~Rates & 13 ~Year Histor'y
~
ACTIJAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12/13 13l14 14115 15116 16/17 17/18 18l19 19/20 20121 21/22 22/23 23-24
9 1221 1405 1367 1364 1413 1377 1390 1412 1469 1467 1470 1471 1515 1558
10 1238 1151 1335 1297 1295 1343 1307 1321 1342 1400 1397 1401 1402 1445
11 1258 1147 1061 1245 1207 1204 1253 121'6 1230 1251 1309 1306 1310 1311
12 1344 1198 1087 1000 1184 1146 1143 1192 1156 1170 1191 1249 1246 1250 6 year ; 13 year
9-12 TOT 5061 4901 4850 4906 5098 5070 5093 5141 5197 5287 5367 5427 5472 5564 32 503
PerCBntofGain (3.16)°h (1.05)°k 1.17% 3:91% (0.56)% 0.46% 0.93% 1.10°k 1.73°k 1.51% 1.11% 0.84% 1.68%
Pu il Gain. 160 51 57 192 28 24 47 56 90 80 60 46 91
TABLE SR ;HI(3H;PRUJECTIONS
3SH.6A Besed on Birtti'Rates &6.Year Histo
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ RROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11112 12/13 13/14 14115 15J16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23-24
9 1221 1328 1289 1287 1326 1289 1313 1332 1390 1374 1377 1378 1422 1465
10 1238 1228 1335 1297 1295 1333 1296 1321 1339 1387 1381 1385 1385 1429
11 1258 1201 1191 1299 1260 1258 1298 1260 1284 1302 ' 1360 1344 1348 1349
12_ 1344 1259 1203 1193 1300 1261 1259 1298 1261 1285 1303 1362 1345 1349 6 year 13 year
9-12 TOT 5061 5017 5019 5075 5180 5141 5165 5209 5273 5358 5422 5468 5500 5592 104 531
Percent of Gain (0.87)% 0.04% 1.13% 2.06% (0.75)% 0.47% 0.86°k 1.23% 1.60°k 1.19% 0:86% 0:59% 1.66%
Pu il Gain 44 - 2 57 105 39 24 44 64 84 64 47 32 91
prJ10-11 Page 9 Ocwoer 2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT E `LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2010
TABLE PROJECTION COMPAR150NSF;
4_ BY GftADE GROUP. ;
KINDERGARTEN fPROJ ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 1/12 12/13 13114 14/15 15/16 18117 17118 18/19 19/20 20/21 21l22 22/23 23-24 8 year ~ 13 year
E.13 1010 1023 1036 1049 1062 1075 1088 1101 1114 1127 1140 1153 1166 1179 78 ; 189
E.8 1010 1021 1032 1043 1054. 1065 1076 1067 1098 1109 1120 1131 1142 1153 68 ~ 143
E.13A 1010 1014 1015 1058 1101
E.6A 1010 1014 1015 1058 1101
GRD 1 GRD 5
[ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ FPROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12113 13/14 14/15 15116 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21122 22/23 23-24 _ 6,year _ 13 year
E.13 5198 5252 5355 5457 555.1 5600 5665 5730 5795 5860 5925 5990 6055 6120 467 , 922
E.6 5198 5246: 5341 5423 5498 5526 5581 5636 5691 5746 5801 5856 . 5911 5968 383 j 788
E.13A 5198 5252 5346 5427 5530 _
E.6A 5198 52461 • 5334 5399 5489
GRD 6 GRD 8
ACTUAL PR09 'PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ. PROJ
GRADE 10N1 11/12 12113 13/14 14/15 15/.16 16N7 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21122 22/23 23-24 6 year ' 13 year
MS.13 3213 3221 3231 3257 3256 3348 3425 3492 3518 3555 3594' 3633 3672 3711 211 498
MS:6 3213 3211 3270 3236 3242 3343 3403 3456 3462 3495 3528 3561 3594 3627 190 414
MS.13A 3213 3221. 3231 3257 3256 3348 3425 3483 3485 3533 3621
MS.6A 3213 3211 3210 3236 3242 3343 3403 3449 3437 3485 3573
GRD 9 GRD 12
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 1,1112 12/13 13/14 14715 15l16 16l17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20121 21/22 22/23 23=24 8 year 13 year
SH.13 5061 4901 4850 ' 4906 , 5098 5070 5093 5141 5197 5287 5377 5457 5494 5546 32 485
SH,6 5061 5017. 5019 5075 5180 5141 5165 5209 5273 5358 5429 5493 5510 5554 - 104 493
. SH.13A 5061 4901 4850 4906 -5098 5070 5093 5141 5197 5287 5367. 5427 5472 5564 32 503
SH.6A 5061 5017 5019 5075 5180 5141 5165 5209 5273 5358 5422 5468 5500 5592 104 531
DISTRICT TOTALS
ACTUAL PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ
GRADE 10/11 11/12 12/43 13/14 14115 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19l20 20l21 21/22 22/23 23-24 6 year 13 year
3.13 14482 14397 14471 14669 14967. 15093 15271 15465 15822 15829 16036 16234 18387 16556 788 2074 ~
3.6 14482 14494 14602 14778 14975 15075 15225 15389 15524 15708 15878 16041 16157. 18300 743 1818 ,
313A 14482 14388 14441 14648 14985
3.6A 14482 14487 14578 14769 15013
Prj10-11 . ` Page 10 Octoder.2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2010
TABLE I'ROJECTION COMPARISONS
5 BY GRADE OROUP
Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY 8 Using Average Kdg Increase
Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY 8 Using Average Kdg Increase
Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates
Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY 8 King Cty Birth Rates
Grades 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
K- 5 Total Diff °k Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff %
ACTUAL 5837 Xooc W 5856 poc xooc 5844 Xooc xooc 5914 Xooc xooc 5741 xooc xooc
Prj3E.13 6049 212 3.63% 5778 (78) (0.54)% 5811 (33) 3.15% 5827 (87) (1.47)% 5723 (18) (0.31)%
Prj 3E.6 6026 189 3.24% 5735 (121) (0.96)% 5864 (180) 2.74% 5802 (112) (1.89)% 5735 (6) (0.10)%
Prj 3E.13A 5936 99 1.70°k 5811 (45) (2.64)°k 5919 75 1.51% 5639 (75) (1.27)% 5743 2 0.03%
P' 3E.6A 5917 80 1.37% 5785 (71 2.93 % 5895 51 1.15% 5831 83 1.40 % 5776 35 0.61%
Gredes 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
6-8 Total Diff % Tolal Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff %
ACTUAL 2860 xooc ~ooc 2970 Xooc M 2980 M M 3049 M xoc 3151 xooc Xooc
Prj 3E.13 2910 50 1.75°/u 2927 (43) (2.64)°/u 3023 (80) (2.62)% 3025 (24) (0.79)% 3185 34 1.08%
PfJ 3E.6 2878 18 0.63% 2895 (75) (2.70)% 3009 (75) (2.46)% 3011 (38) (1.25)% 3192 41 1.30%
Prj 3E.13A 2910 50 1.75% 2927 (43) (2.64)% 3023 (80) (2.62)% 3025 (24) (0.79)°k 3185 34 1.08%
Pf' 3E.6A 2876 18 0.63% 2895 75 2.70 % 3009 75 2.46 % 3011 38 1.25 % 3192 41 1.30%
Grades 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
9- 12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff %
ACTUAL 4245 Xooc xooc 4225 Xooc m 4311 xooc xooc 4498 poc M 4535 M ~ooc
Prj 3E.13 4110 (135) (3.18)% 4301 76 2.74% 4369 58 (0.32)% 4455 (43) (0.96)°h 4577 42 0.93%
Prj 3E.6 4103 (142) (3.35)% 4313 88 1.51% 4394 83 (1.49)% 4476 (22) (0.49)% 4594 59 1.30%
Pd 3E.13A 4110 (135) (3.18)% 4301 76 2.74% 4369 58 (0.32)% 4455 (43) (0.96)% 4577 42 0.93%
P' 3E.6A 4103 142) 3.35 % 4313 88 1.51% 4394 83 1.49 % 4476 22 0.49 % 4594 59 1.30%
/UI 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff %
ACTUAL 12942 xooc ~ooc 13051 M xooc 13135 ~ooc W 13461 xooc xooc 13427 xooc Xoc
PrJ3E.13 13069 127 0.98% 13006 (45) (0.34)% 13203 68 (0.30)% 13307 (154) 0.97% 13485 58 0.43%
Prj3E.6 13007 65 0.50% 12943 (108) (0.83)% 13067 (68) (0.82)% 13289 (172) 0.50% 13521 94 0.70%
PrJ3E.13A 12956 14 0.11% 13039 (12) (0.09)% 13311 176 (1.44)% 13319 (142) 0.10% 13505 78 0.58%
P 3E.6A 12898 44 0.34)% 12993 58) 0.44 °k 13298 183 1.89 % 13318 143 0.33 % 13562 135 1.01%
prj10-11 Page 11 Octooer 2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT F )LLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2010
TABLE PROJECTION COMPARISONS
5 BY GRADE GROUP ConUnued
Total = Oclober 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counts Prj 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase
Diff = Number Projectlon Is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg increase
Percent ProJection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY 8 King Cty Birth Rates
Prj 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY 8 King Cty Birth Rates
Grades 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
K- 5 Total Diff % Toial Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff %
ACTUAL 5774 xoc xooc 5735 Xooc xoc 5887 xooc xooc 8033 xoc xooc 6142 xooc Xooc
Prj3E.13 5655 (119) (2.06)% 5761 26 (0.49)% 5750 (137) (2.33)°k 5871 (162) (2.69)% 6085 (57) (0.93)%
Prj 3E.6 5682 (112) (1.94)°/n 5821 86 (0.34)% 5795 (92) (1.56)% 5921 (112) (1.86)°r6 8138 (4) (0.07)°/u
Prj 3E.13A 5605 (189) (2.93)°k 5709 (26) (1.24)% 5750 (137) (2.33)% 5869 (164) (2.72)°k 6059 (83) (1.35)°k
Pr 3E.6A 5631 143 2.48 % 5756 21 0.81 % 5784 103 1.75 °h 5912 121 2.01 °r6 6094 48 0.78 %
Grades 2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2006-07 2007-08
6-8 Total Diff °k Total Diff °k Total Diff °h Tolel Diff % Total Diff %
ACTUAL 3294 Xooc Xooc 3274 Voc xooc 3169 xooc Xoc 3144 Xooc Xooc 3097 xooc Voc
Prj 3E.13 3214 (80) (2.43)% 3295 21 (8.88)% 3132 (37) (1.17)°k 3131 (13) (0.41)% 3107 10 0.32%
Prj 3E.6 3216 (78) (2.37)% 3311 37 (6.06)% 3137 (32) (1.01)% 3146 2 0.06°k 3116 19 0.61%
Prj 3E.13A 3214 (80) (2.43)% 3295 21 (8.88)% 3132 (37) (1.17)°k 3131 (13) (0.41)% 3107 10 0.32%
Pr 3E.6A 3216 78 2.37 % 3311 37 6.06 % 3137 32 1.01 % 3146 2 0.06% 3116 19 0.61 %
Grades 2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2006-07 2007-08
9- 12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff %
ACTUAL 4834 Xooc xoot 4663 xooc xoot 5032 xooc xoot 5241 xooc xooc 5320 xooc W
Pd 3E.13 4630 (4) (0.09)% 4783 120 5.90°k 4898 (134) (2.66)% 6085 (156) (2.98)% 5790 (130) (2.44)%
Pd 3E.8 4639 5 0.11°k 4769 106 3.69% 4880 (152) (3.02)% 5086 (155) (2.98)% 5182 (128) (2.41)%
Prj3E.13A 4630 (4) (0.09)% 4783 120 5.90% 4898 (134) (2.66)% 5085 (156) (2.98)% 5190 (130) (2.44)%
P 3E.6A 4639 5 0.11% 4769 108 3.69% 4880 152 3.02 % 5086 155 2.96 % 5192 (128 2.41 °k
AIl 2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2006-07 2007-08
Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff
ACTUAL 13702 ~ooc xooc 13672 Xooc xooc 13672 xooc poc 14418 ~ooc xooc 14559 Xooc xooc
Prj 3E.13 13499 (203) (1.48)°k 13839 167 1.22% 13499 (173) (1.27)°h 14087 (331) (2.30)% 14382 (177) (1.22)%
PrJ 3E.8 13517 (185) (1.35)% 13901 229 1.67% 13542 (130) (0.95)% 14153 (265) (1.84)% 14446 (113) (0.78)%
Prj 3E.13A 13449 (253) (1.85)% 13787 115 0.84% 13447 (225) (1.65)°/u 14085 (333) (2.31)°/u 14356 (203) (1.39)%
Pr 3E.6A 13486 216 1.56 % 13836 164 1.20% 13510 162 1.18 % 14144 274 1.90 % 14402 157 1.08 %
pd1 o-l I Page 12 October 2010
AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - October 2010
TABLE PROJECTION COMPARI50NS
5 BY GRADE GROUP Gontinued
Total = October 1 Actual Count AND Projected Counis Pd 3.13 - 13 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase
Diff = Number Projection is under(-) or over Actual Prj 3.6 - 6 YEAR HISTORY & Using Average Kdg Increase
Percent Projection is under(-) or over Actual . Pd 3.13A 13 YEAR HISTORY 8 King Cty 8irth Rates
Pd 3.6A - 6 YEAR HISTORY & King Cty Birth Rates
(3rades 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Average Historical Data is grouped by
K- 5 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff % K- 5, 6-8, 9-12 articulation
ACTUAL 6198 Xooc xooc 8159 xooc xooc 6208 xooc xooc xooc xooc pattern.
Pry'3E.13 6179 (19) (0.31)% 8254 95 1.54% 8282 74 1.19% (22) (0.10)%
Pry' 3E.6 6237 39 0.63°,6 8294 135 2.19°k 6323 115 1.85% (16) 0.10% Articulation pattern has no
Prj 3E.13A 6129 (69) (1.11)% 6237 78 1.27% 6252 44 0.71 % (31) (0.71)% numeric impact on efficacy
Pry' 3E.6A 6172 (26) (0.42)% 6264 105 1.70% 6269 61 0.98% (17) (0.49)% of projection models.
Grades 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Average
6-8 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff °!o
ACTUAL 3206 xooc xooc 3196 Xooc xooc 3213 xooc Xoot xooc xooc
Pd 3E.13 3179 (27) (0.84)°k 3242 46 1.44°k 3234 21 0.65% (7) (1.05)%
Pd 3E.6 3195 (11) (0.34)% 3243 47 1.47% 3236 23 0.72% (9) (0.85)°/u
Prj 3E.13A 3179 (27) (0.84)% 3242 46 1.44% 3234 21 0.65% (7) (1.05)%
Prj 3E.6A 3195 (11) (0.34)% 3243 47 1.47% 3236 23 0.72% (9) (0.85)%
Gredes 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Average
9- 12 Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff %
ACTUAL 5299 xooc xooc 5234 xooc Xooc 5081 xooc xooc poc Xooc
Prj 3E.13 5129 (170) (3.21)% 5074 (160) (3.06)% 4921 (140) (2.77)% (47) (0.68)°/u
PrJ 3E.6 5155 (144) (2.72)% 5128 (106) (2.03)°k 5027 (34) (0.67)% (31) (0.75)%
Pd 3E.13A 5129 (170) (3.21)% 5074 (160) (3.06)% 4921 (140) (2.77)% (47) (0.68)%
Pr) 3E.6A 5155 (144) (2.72)°/u 5129 (105) (2.01)% 5027 (34) (0.67)%(31) (0.75)%
Ail 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Average Average
Grades Total Diff % Total Diff % Total Diff % Diff %
ACTUAL 14703 boc xooc 14589 xooc xooc 14482 xooc poc xooc W
Prj 3E.13 14487 (216) (1.47)% 14570 (19) (0.13)% 14437 (45) (0.31)% (56) (0.29)%
Prj3E.6 14587 (116) (0.79)% 14665 76 0.52% 14586 104 0.72% (36) (0.15)%
Prj 3E.13A 14437 (266) (1.81)% 14553 (36) (0.25)% 14407 (75) (0.52)% (69) (0.60)%
PrJ3E.6A 14522 (181) (1.23)% 14636 47 0.32% 14532 50 0.35% (38) (0.45)%
prj10-11 Page 13 Ociuoer 2010
Appendix A,2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN -
Enrollment Projecfions
Buildout Data for Enroliment Projections-March 2011
BASE DATA - BUILDOUT SCHEDULE Student Generation Factors
ASSUMPTIONS: 2010 Auburn Single Multi- ,
1 Uses Bulld Out Est/mates received from deve/opers. Factors Family Family
2 Student Generatlon Factors are updated Auburn data for 2011 as allowed per King County Ordinance Elementary 0:3130 0.1240
3 Takes area labe/ed Lake/and ProJects @.50% and dTvldes across 2011-16. Middle School 0.1'540 0.0560
4 Takes area /abe/ed Kersey Project @ 50% divides across 2011-2016 SeniorHigh 0.1650 0.0519
5 Takes area /abe/ed Brldges anal other Lea Hlll area deve/opments and projects across 2011-2017 Total 0.6320 0.2319
6/ncludes known develo ments In N. Auburn and other non-Lea Hlll and non-Lakeland develo ments see Deve/o ment Growth
Tab/e lAubum Schoo/ Distr
1 Develo ment 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
LakelandlKersey Single Family 50 60 70 80 SO 80 420
Lea Nill Area Single Family 50 85 100 175 200 200 200 1010
Other Sin le Famil Units 35 40 50 65 65 55 45 355
Total Sin le Famil Units 135 185 220 320 345 335 245 1785
Pro'ected Pu ils:
Elementary Pupfls ' K-5 42 58 69 100 108 105 77 559
Mid School Pupils 6-8 21 28 _ 34 49 53 52 38 275
Sr. High Pupils 9-12 22 . 31 36 53 57 55 40 295
Total K-12 85 117 139 202 218 212 155 1128
Multi Famil Units 25 75 75 100 100 0 0 375
Total Multi Famil Units 25 75 75 100 100 0 0 375
Pro'ected Pu ils:
° Elementary Pupils K-5 3 9 9 12 12 0 0 44
Mid School Pupils 6-8 1 4 4, 6 6 0 0 11
`Se. High Pupils 9-12 1 4 4 5 5 0 0 25,
.
Total K-12 8 17 17 23 23 0 0 80
Total Housin Units 160 260 295 420 445 335 245 2160
Elementary Pupils K-5 ` 45 . ` 67 , 78 1 t3 120 105 77 605 '
Mid School Pu ils 6-8 22 33 38 55 59 52 38 '296
Sr. High~Pupils 9-12 `.24 34 40 58 62 55. 40 314 `
- Total K-12 ' 91 134 156 225 241 212 155 1215
Cumulatlve Pro ection 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Elementary. - Grades K-5 45 113 191 303 424 529 605
Mid Schoof- Grades 6- 8 22 55 93 148 207 258 296
Senior High - Grades 9- 12 24 58 98 156 218 274. 314 -
Total 91 225 382 607 849 1060 1215
Buildou►. .,rch 11 + ND3.6 ave projectlons
Buildout Data for Enrolirr °rojections-March 2011
TABLE New ProJects - Annual New Pupils Added 8 Distributed
2 b Grade Level
6 Year Percent of average
GRADE Average Pupils by Grade 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Enroll. & Level
KDG 989 6.83% 1010 6 15 26 41 58 72 83
1 1014 7.01% 1066 6 16 27 43 59 74 85
2 1004 6.93% 42.18% 1016 6 16 26 42 59 74 84
3 1014 7.01% 1013 6 16 27 43 59 74 85
4 1031 7.12% 1024 6 16 27 43 60 76 87
5 1053 7.28% 1079 7 16 28 44 62 77 88
6 1041 7.19% 1041 7 16 27 44 81 76 87
_ 7 1053 7.28% 21.91°h 1080 7 16 28 44 62 77 88
8 1077 7.44% 1112 7 17 28 45 63 79 90
9 1302 8.99% 1221 8 20 34 55 76 ' 95 109
10 1335 9.22% 35.91 % 1238 8 21 35 56 78 98 112
11 1295 8.94% 1258 8 20 34 54 76 95 109
12 1267 8.76% 1344 8 20 33 53 74 93 106
Totals 14473 100.00% Total 14482 91 225 382 607 849 1060 1215
TABLE 6 year Historical Data
3 Avera e Enrollment and Percenta e Distributed b Grade Level
Grade 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 6 r Ave %
KDG 955 941 996 998 1032 1010 988.67 6.83%
1 963 1012 995 1015 1033 7 066 1014.00 7.01 °/a
2 963 1002 1019 1024 998 1018 1003.67 6.93%
3 1002 1031 997 1048 993 1013 1014.00 7.01%
4 939 1049 1057 1044 1073 1024 1031.00 7.12%
5 1065 998 1078 1069 1030 1079 1053.17 7.28°/a
6 1004 1058 1007 1096 1040 1041 1041.00 7.19%
7 1028 1014 1057 1034 1125 1060 1053.00 7.28%
8 1137 1072 1033 1076 1031 1112 1076.83 7.44%
9 1379 1372 1337 1256 1244 1221 1301.50 8.99%
10 1383 1400 1368 1341 1277 1238 1334.50 9.22%
11 1182 1322 1352 1350 1303 1258 1294.50 8.94%
12 1088 1147 1263 1352 1410 1344 1267.33 8.76%
Totals 14088 14418 14559 14703 14589 14482 14473.17 100.00%
% of change 2.34% 0.98% 0.99% -0.78% -0.73%
change 330 141 144 -114 -107
Buildouts March 11 + ND3.6 ave projections 46
Buildout Data for Enrollment Projections-March 2011
TABLE 4 New Projects - Pupil Projection Cumulative
ND 3.13 b Grade Level U dated March 2011
Uses a'cohort survival' GRADE 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
mode/ assuming 100% of Actual Projected Projected Projected Pro ected Projected Pro ected Projected
previous year new KDG 1010 1029 1051 1075 1103 1133 1160 1184
enroUees move to the next 1 1068 1070 1092 1116 1145 1175 1203 1226
gradeleveL 2 1016 1080 1087 1110 1139 1169 1196 1220
3 1013 1041 1108 1116 1145 1175 1203 1226
Kindergarten calculates 4 1024 1044 1075 1144 1157 1187 1216 1240
previous years number plus 5 1079 1049 1073 1106 1180 1195 1223 1247
K-5 6208 6313 6486 6667 6869 7033 7201 7344
Current generation based on 6 1041 1096 1070 1095 1132 1207 1220 1244
% of total enrollment. Other 7 1060 1064 1122 1098 1128 1167 1240 1248
factoruses 100% cohort 8 1112 1081 1088 1148 1129 1160 1198 1267
survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3213 3241 3280 3340 3389 3534 3857 3759
history. 9 1221 1413 1387 1399 1467 1453 1486 1521
10 1238 1160 1356 1332 1351 1421 1405 1433
11 1258 1155 1081 1279 1261 1280 1347 1325
12 7344 1205 1107 1034 1237 1220 1236 1298
GR 9-12 5061 4934 4931 5044 5316 5374 5474 5577
Total 14482 14488 14697 15051 15574 15942 16331 16680
% of charlge 0.04% 1.44% 2.41% 3.47% 2.36% 2.44% 2.13%
change 6 209 354 523 368 389 348
TABLE 5 New Projects - Pupil Projection Cumulative
ND 3.6 b Grade Level U dated March 2011
Uses a'cohort survival' GRADE 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
model assuming 100% of Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Pro'ected Projected Projected Projected
previous year new KDG 1010 1027 1047 1069 1095 1123 1148 1170 1183 1197
enrollees move to the next 1 1066 1056 1077 1099 1125 1153 1179 1201 1215 1228
gradeleveL 2 1016 1081 1074 1095 1122 1150 1176 1197 1211 1225
3 1013 1038 1105 1100 1127 1155 1180 1202 1216 1230
Kindergarten calculates 4 1024 1055 1082 1152 1152 1180 1206 1228 1242 1256
previous years number plus 5 1079 1049 1083 1113 1187 1189 1215 1237 1251 1265
K-5 6208 8305 6468 6627 8809 6949 7104 7238 7318 7401
Current generation based on 6 1041 1086 1059 1094 1129 1204 1203 1226 1240 1254
% of total enrollment. Other 7 7060 1065 1113 1088 1128 1164 1238 1233 1247 1261
factoruses 100% cohort 8 1112 1080 1088 1138 1118 1160 1194 1264 1278 1293
survival, based on 6 year GR 6-8 3213 3231 3260 3320 3375 3529 3635 3722 3764 3807
history. 9 1221 1336 1310 1322 1380 1366 1409 1441 1457 1474
10 1238 1237 1356 1332 1351 1411 1394 1433 1449 1465
11 1258 1209 1212 1333 1314 1334 1391 1368 1384 1400
12 1344 1267 1222 1226 1353 1336 1352 1404 1420 1436
GR 9-12 5061 5050 5100 5213 5398 5446 5546 5648 5710 5775
Total• 14482 14586 14828 15160 15582 15924 16288 16604 16792 16983
% of change 0.71 °/a 1.66% 2.24% 2.78% 2.19% 2.27% 1.95% 1.14% 1.13%
chan e+/- 104 242 332 422 342 362 318 188
Bufldoui. rch 11 + ND3.6 ave projections
Buildout Data for Enrollrr °rojections-March 2011
TABLE 6 New Developments - Pupil Projection Cumulative
ND3.13A b Grade Level U dated March 2011
Uses a'cohort survival' GRADE 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
model assumfng 100% oi Actual Pro ected Pro'ected Pro'ected Pro'ected Pro ected Pro'ected Pro'ected
prevlous year new KDG 1010 1020 1030 1084 1143
enro//ees move to the nexf 1 1066 1070 1083 1095 1154 1214
gradelevel. 2 1016 1080 1087 1101 1118 1178 1236
3 1013 1041 1108 1116 1136 1153 1212 1265
Kindergarten calculates 4 1024 1044 1075 1144 . 1157 1178 1194 1249
birth rate average plus 5 1079 1049 1073 1106 1180 1195 1214 1226
6208 6304 6455 6646 6887 5918 4855 3740
Current generation based on 6 1041 1096 1070 1095 1132 1207 1220 1235
% of total enrollment. Other 7 1060 1064 1122 1098 1128 1167 1240 1248
factoruses 100% cohort 8 1112 1081 1088 1148 1129 1160 1198 1267
survival, based on 6 year 3213 3241 3280 3340 3389 3534 3657 3749
history. 9 1221 1413 1387 1399 1467 1453 1486 1521
10 1238 1160 1356 1332 1351 1421 1405 1433
11 1258 1155 1081 1279 1261 1280 1347 1325
12 1344 1205 1107 1034 1237 1220 1236 1298
5061 4934 4931 5044 5316 5374 5474 5577
Total 14482 14479 14666 15030 15592
°h of change -0.02% 1.29% 2.48% 3.74%
change -3 187 364 562
TABLE 7 New ProJects - Pupil ProJection Cumulative
ND 3.6A lby Grade Level U deted March 2011
Uses a'cohorf survival' GRADE 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
model assum/ng 100% of Actual Pro'ected Pro ected Pro'ected Pro'ected Pro ected Pro'ected Pro'ected
previous year new KDG 1010 1020 1030 1084 1143
enrollees move to the next 1 1066 1056 1069 1081 1141 1200
grade/eveL 2 1016 1081 1074 1088 1105 1165 1223
3 1013 1038 1105 1100 1120 1137 1196 1249
Kindergarten calculates 4 1024 1055 1082 1152 1152 1173 1189 1243
birth rate average plus 5 1079 1049 1083 1113 1187 1189 1208 1220
6208 6298 6444 6618 6846
Current generation based on 6 1041 1086 1059 1094 1129 1204 1203 1218
% of total enrollment. Other 7 1080 1065 1113 1088 1128 1164 1238 1233
factoruses 100% cohort 8 1112 1080 1088 1138 1118 1160 1194 1264
survival, based on 6 year 3213 3231 3260 3320 3375 3529 3635 3715
history. 9 1221 1336 1310 1322 1380 1366 1409 1441
10 1238 1237 1356 1332 1351 1411 1394 1433
11 1258 1209 1212 1333 1314 1334 1391 7368
12 1344 1267 1222 1226 1353 1336 1352 1404
5081 6050 5100 5213 5398 54+18 5548 5646
Total 14482 14578 14803 15151 15820 % of change 0.67% 1.54% 2.35% 3.10%
change
Bu(Idouts March 11 + ND3.6 ave projections 48
Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey
Auburn Sr )I District
Development Gt _ _..n since 1/1/05
March, 2011
SINGLE FAMILY
ni s urren o e 5tudent Genergt on Factors
Development Name parcels Occu anc Occu ied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS 7otal
Alder Meadows 30 30 0 2 6 5 13 0.067 0.200 0.167 0.433
As en Meadows 21 21 0 10 9 5 24 0.476 0.429 0.238 1.143
Aubum Place 14 14 0 10 3 1 14 0.714 0.214 0.071 1.000
Cambrid e Pointe 26 26 0 13 4 6 23 0.500 0.154 0.231 0.885
Dawson Hills 6 6 0 7 3 8 18 1.167 0.500 1.333 3.000
Hazel Park 15 15 0 22 14 11 47 1.467 0.933 0.733 3.133
Kelli Meadows 8 8 0 3 0 1 4 0.375 0.000 0.125 0.500
Lakeland: The Reserve 80 80 0 33 14 11 58 0.413 0.175 0.138 0.725
Lakeland: Verona South 400 400 0 99 42 67 208 0.248 0.105 0.168 0.520
Lakeland: Verona North 181 181 0 47 21 16 84 0.260 0.116 0.088 0.464
Little Fieids 8 8 0 1 1 3 5 0.125 0.125 0.375 0.625
Marchini Meadows 83 83 0 38 16 17 71 0.458 0.193 0.205 0.855
Pacific View-Meadows 78 78 0 18 16 11 45 0.231 0.205 0.141 0.577
River Rim 11 11 0 7 4 2 13 0.636 0.364 0.182 1.182
Sera Monte 33 33 0 9 3 1 13 0.273 0.091 0.030 0.394
Washin ton National, Div 1 42 42 0 5 4 6 15 0.119 0.095 0.143 0.357
Totals 1036 0 324 160 171 655 0.313 0.154 0.165 0.632
Develo ments Under Construction
Development Name Units/ Current To Be student Generation Factors
Parcels Occu anc Occu ied Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total
Beaver Meadows 60 30 30 4 5 4 13 9 5 5 19
Greenview 16 6 10 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 6
Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 76 33 43 7 2 1 10 13 7 7 27
Lakeland: Vista Hei hts 125 117 8 30 11 6 47 3 1 1 5
Trail Run 169 135 34 11 8 7 26 11 5 6 21
River ointe 118 100 18 25 13 21 59 6 3 3 11
Totals 564 421 143 78 40 40 758 45 22 24 90
4/5/2011
Auburn School District Development Growth since 1/1/05
March, 2011
2011 and u Pro'ected with Plats Submitted
Units! Current ~ To Be °~Student Generatfon Tactors}
Development Name parcels Occu anc . Occu ied .Eleml =Middle HS.,: . Totai.:: '
Alicia Glenn 3:1 0 31 10 5 5 20
Anderson Acres 14 0 14 4 2 2 9
Backbone Rid e 7 0 7 2 1 1 4
Brandon Meadows 55 0 55 17 8 9 35
Brandon Place 78 0 78 24 12 13 49
Brid es 386 0 386 121 60 64 244
Bridle Estates 18 0 18 6 3 3 11 '
Cam-West 99 0 99 31 15 16 63
Carrin ton Pointe 24 0 24 8 4 4 15
Dal'it Dhaliwal Plat 8 0 8 3 1 1 5
Estes Park 31 0 31 10 5 5 20
Ha reet Kan 8 0 8 3 1 1 5
Hazel Hei hts 22 0 22 7 3 4 14
Hazel View 20 0 20 6 3 3 13
Kendall Rid e 106 0 106 33 16 17 67
Kerse 3 Pro'ect 373 0 373 117 58 62 236
Lakeland: ;East Fhase 1 130 0 130 41 20 21 82
Lakeland: Foresf Glen At Lakeland 30 0 30 9 5 5 19
Lakeland: Park Rid e 256 0 256 80 40 42 162
Lawson Place 14 0. 14 4 2 2 9_
Me an's Meadows 9 0 9 3 1 1 6
Montere Park 174 0 174 54 27 29 110
Mountain View Estates 37 0 37 12 6 6 23
New Ho e Lutheran Plat 8 0 8 3 1 1 5
Rid e At Tail Timbers 104 0 104 . 33 16 17 66
-
S encer Piace 13 013 4 2 2 8
Sti s Plat 29 U 29 9 4 5 18
Vinta e Place 25 10 25 8 4 4 16: Willow Place 18 0 18 6 3 3 11
Yates Plat ' 16 10 16 5 2 3 10
Totals 2143 2143 v.,1;355 `
' - y
Total from Under Constructiorr 0, ;
45
;
Grand Total Students Antici ated 715 353 377 1445
. j12011
Auburn S( I District
Development G. ,i since 1/1l05
March, 2011
MULTI FAMILY
Development Name Units/ Current To Be Student Generatlan Factors
Parcels Occu anc Occu ied Slem Mlddle HS total Elem Middle HS Total
Butte Estates 29 29 0 8 4 2 14 0.276 0.1379 0.069 0.483
Cox/Woodward TH 8 8 0 2 3 0 5 0.250 0.375 0 0.625
Lakeland: Ca ri 168 168 0 2 1 2 5 0.012 0.006 0.0119 0.030
Lakeland: Carrara 170 170 0 10 4 5 19 0.059 0.0235 0.0294 0.112
Lakeland: Madera 70 70 0 2 0 1 3 0.029 0 0.0143 0.043
Lakeland: Palermo A ts 362 362 0 30 8 14 52 0.083 0.0221 0.0387 0.144
Lakeland: Siena 101 101 0 2 2 3 7 0.020 0.0198 0.0297 0.069
Lakeland: Sorano 79 79 0 1 0 1 2 0.013 0 0.0127 0.025
Pacific Ave Du lexes 12 12 0 5 2 1 8 0.417 0.1667 0.0833 0.667
Pasa Fino II 19 19 0 1 1 2 4 0.053 0.0526 0.1053 0.211
Seasons at Lea Hill Villa e 332 332 0 104 51 39 194 0.313 0.1536 0.1175 0.584
1350 0 167 76 70 313 0.124 0.056 0.0519 0.232
i
2011 Under Constuction
Development Name Units/ Current To Be Student Generation Factors
Parcels Occu anc Occu ied Elem Middle HS Totai Elem Middle HS Total
Trail Run Townhomes 115 100 15 3 0 1 4 2 1 1 4
2011 and be ond
Unltsl Current To Be Student Cieneretion Factors
Development Name
Parcels Occu anc Occu ied Elem Middle HS Total
Auburn Hills A t/TH 205 0 205 25 12 11 48
Crai Commercial 10 0 10 1 1 1 2
"D" Street Plat 32 0 32 4 2 2 7
Montere Park 65 0 65 8 4 3 15
Sundallen Condos 48 0 48 6 3 2 11
Totals 360 360 45 20 19 83
Com lexes Under Construction 2 1 1 4
Total Antici ated Students 46 21 19 87
a/51zo11
, .
~ , ~lii~• ~~~f
Dier-inger School ~ Dist~ict
Copftal'.Facilities Plan .
. .
2012~-2,017
Board 14pproved July 25, 2011
DIERING.LR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343
1320-178`h Avenue East
Sumner, Washington 98390
(253) 862-2537
_ BOARD OF DIRECTORS
John McKenna
Jim Barfoot
Pete George
, Corey Pawlak
James Prema
,
Dr. Judy Nenmeier-Martinson, Superintendent
' • . .
D-ieringer
eve . ~ -child for
~
Educatomg ~
.
. .
Confidence to-day and
. .
~ Contribut ion tom'01TOW ~
Daeringer School District _No. 343 Dieringer School l)istrict
An Overview
Established in 1890, Dieringer School District consalidated with Lake Tapps School
District in 1936: The Distric#'s tUree schools, Lalce Tapps Elementary Schoal, Dieringer .
Heights Elementary School and North Tapps Middle School, provide K through 8th
gcade education, and serve as hubs for cemmunity activrties as well. Dieringer School
District #343 is loca#ed in unincorporated Pierce Couniy, bounded on the east by the
'White River, on.the west by the Stuck River, on the north by the city of Aubum, and on
the south by the cities of Bonney Lake and Sumner: The Disirict surrounds the northern
twa-thirds af Lake Tapps and covers approximately 5.5 squara miles.
The current student enrallment is approximately 1,432 students_ in grades kindergarten
through eight.. Students in grades first through third aze housed at Lake Tapps
Elementazy, constru.cted in 2445 as a replacement project. Dieringer Heights Elementary ,
opened in the fall of 2440 and is home ta students in kindergarten, fourth and fifth grade..
Originally constrtructed in 1992 and added on to in 1998 and 2009, North Tapps Middle School houses students in grades sixth-eighth. The district supports an additiona1593
higli schaol students who may select to attend any public high school. The majority chose
to attend Auburn Riverside,.Sumner and Bonney Lake High Schools.
:The district has a long standing history of providing high quality education for all aur -
students. Our goai is for our students to gain the slalls that will allow them to become
successful, confident, contributing members of society. Dieringei is composed_of.
sttidents who come to school well prepared and eager to learn..Parents are concerned with
sfiident success and provide autstanding support for their child=en and the Dieri.nger
School District The PTA and many volunteers contribute cauntiess hours and resources
to our schools and students; The community supports the schools through the passage af
fiunding issues to support bus acquisitian, student access to cuirent teclinology and the
construction of school facilities
DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343
Capital Facilities. Plan Update, 2011
,
Gurrent Facilities Inventory of Public Schools
NAME- ' CAPACTTY LC)CATION :
Lake Tapps Elementary 396 I320-178h Ave E., Lake Tapps
Dieringer Heighfs Elementary 547 21727 - 308t. E., Lake Tapps
North Tapps Middle Schaol . 567 20029-121 St, E., Lake Tapps ~ ; .
High School 0 _
TOTAL . 1,510 :
a m m . . ~ - • E ei - a: ~ - . id -'w Tr
~ ~ ~ ~ •
o ~ ~.e.~.~ - - . • • .
. 1 ~
IAUBURN ~ ~ • ~ - e, . ~ . ~ . ' .
' Z.t . . ~
8 8, Q'or E
; • tl ' . i . ' : , .~!a~'y't-7~,", • htUC1RE8N00'1,'• ~lNDI
t . .
i ~ ~ + ~ • ~ , .t • p "n.:~,w; ! .lc. , .
' ~ g I ` L ~ ~ ~f~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ' _ 4 t
' R0 4,~~! , - _ ~ r..'.r ~ ' ROMAno
j Q, W : . •
~ aa , (f ' ' , - + i t , ' •
E ~ , y~v. 1 • u 04'
' ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ • ~ • ' rfo ~ * . .
, ~ > . , ! i~ • .
~ ~ ~ ~ • ' ' • .
. .
.
Q.
'i
,
suM a
40
! 44 . I ~t •.`,~~I.a I~ ~Ili I ~ .p . .
I . .
.
I
ti • 0~
.
~
~
~
0 . 1
i s
I'
~ . .
~
~
~
~
0 ~
~
ae
-
7 ' • i I~ ' ~ , V
,
~ DIERINGER SCHOOL
~ DISTRICT N0, :343
ea ecbm1ebwa ta.vow m- rs+.t ~ • ' ' , ~
1 ~ ' ~ . • ~ ~ ~ . 1~, _
so
I ~ ~ b'~ ~i ~'O O ~ • m) 1
~ ~ •
) ~.bM M.~ •
; i ~ ~ ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ` ~ ~ • ' ~ I' _ S' ~ . ~ ~
. , . • , . . ~
• . • ~i . •
. . • ~ • ' . , • • ~ . .
. . , . . , .
~ • .
.i
i , i . , . . . . . • • ' , . . . .
I
~ . 7 •
. ~ ~ .
~ , • . , . ,
; , ,
Enrollment Projections
The Dieringer School District is located in an azea that continues to experience growth.
This growth can be noted by reviewing the following indicators: enrollment trend data,
proposed housing development, the assessed valuatian of the real properry and the
mitigation impact fees received for new canstruction.
The District continues to experience slow, steady growth in sttident enrollment This has
mirr~red the Pierce County and Puget Sound Educational Service Dishict (PSESD)
enrollment growth over the same period. A review of pmposed construction withi.n the
borders of the Dieringer School Disttict indicates that the growth trend can be expected to
continue over the next four yeazs and beyond. This grawth trend will be slowed by
current economic canditions; but will pick up in 2011 and beyond. There are 373 single
family residents slated for construction within the next five years. The multi-family
projects will contribute an addrtional 342 residential units dwring that time. These
projects, #agether with individual lots and general in migration, are anticipated to
generate an additiona1378 students in kindergarten through eigbth grade.
Infoimation from Pierce caunty Planning & Land Services indicates that there is space
and zoning for approximately 1,200 additional housing lots in the western portion of the
district This ereates a potential for 576 additional students, kindergarten through eighth
grade that aze not iacluded in the above numbers.
To partially address tbis growth, the District passed a 2006 bond issue to canstruct an
additional five classreoms at Dieri.nger Heights Elementary. Thase classrooms were
campleted and occupied in 2009. The bond issue also providsd for the addition of an
awdliary gym, health and fitness classroom, and four science rooms at North Tapps
M'iddle School. Those projects were campleted in 2009 and the new instructional spaces
are in use. Future anticipated growth will create the need to acquire an additional school
site and construct an additional school to house the growi.ng student enrollment
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
2012
CAPIT'AI. FACII.I'I'IES PLAN
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Tony Moore
Amye :Bronson-Doherty
Ed Barney
Angela Griffin
Suzanne Smith
SUPERINTENDENT
Rob Neu
Prepared by: Sally D. McLean
Tanya 1Vascimento
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
'I'ABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
INTRODUCTION 2-3
SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Introduction . 4
Inventory of Educational Facilities . 5
Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 6
Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 7
Needs Forecast - New Facilities 8
Six Year Finance Plan 9
SECTION 2 MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Introduction 11
1VIap - Elementary Boundaries 12
Map - Middle School Boundaries 13
Map - High School Boundaries 14
SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Introduction 15
Building Capacities 16-17
Portable Locations 18-19
Student Forecast 20=22
Capacity Summaries 23-27
King County Impact Fee Calculations 28-30
SECTION 4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2011 31-33 :
PLAN _
1
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act
(SHB)2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee
Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way_Ordinance Na 95-249
effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.3260 effective
March 1996, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way
Public Schools has updated its 2012 Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2011.
This Plan is scheduled for adoption by King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal
Way and the City of Auburn and is incorpora.ted in the Comprehensive Plans of each
jurisdiction by reference. This plan is also included in the Facilities Plan element of the
Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To da.te, the City of Des Moines has not
adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact
fees as part of the SEPA process.
The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas
within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning
Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council four Urban Growth Area
Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designa.tion was made within the
Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal: Way Public Schools boundaries.
King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to
, meet the region's need for housing, jobs, services, culture; and recreation. This Plan's
estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption.
This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which
requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not
intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may
prepare interim plans consistent with Boazd policies or management need.
Currently, the District plans to replace Federal Way High School and to increase capacity
by approximately 200 students. Federal Way High School was built in 1938. It has been
added onto at least 10 times and currently has an almost maze-like layout. Based on a
2006 bond estimated construcrion cost, the estimated cost to rebuild Federal Way High
School is $81 million. Final construction costs are under consideration by the Board for
the February 2012 bond election. Plans to replace,Decatur High School and to increase
capacity by approximately 200 students aze planned in a later phase. None of the cost to
replace Decatur High School is included in the Impact Fee calculation in this Plan.
The non-instructional projects included in the plan will consolidate support services
operations at a single location. The current Transporta:tion and Maintenance facility
cannot continue to meet the Disfrict needs in the future. Nutrition services and other
administrative functions will also relocate to this centralized location.
The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and
capacity at our schools. One such factor is SHB 2776, which will phase in full-day
kindergarten for all students and decrease K-3 class size from 20 to 17. This is proposed
to be fully funded by 2017-18. Using current enrollment, the decrease in class size would
create the need for an additiona169 classes for K-3 students. This number would
2
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
significantly increase by 2017-18. The District will follow this bill as itprogresses and.
assess the facility impact this bill will create. Another factor would be the inclusion of a
Program of :Early Learning for at risk children within the overall Program of Basic
Education.: The District will also continue to follow the changes in legislation
surrounding the Running Start program. Changes in availability and cost to parents of
this program could result in the return of high school students to our schools. -
We will also continue to study school boundaries as new housing and fluctuating
populations impact specific schools. Some shifts in boundaries may be required in the
coming years. We currently have three areas under review for boundary changes. Tlie
maps included,in this Plan reflect our current bouridaries.
,
3
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FAGILITIES PLAN
SECTION 1- THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The State Growth 1Vlanagement Act requires that several pieces of information be
gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing
comniunity.
This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and
expected fuiure facility requirements for Federa.l Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan
that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed
follows this.
4
' FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
EI:EMENTARY SCHOOLS
Adelaide 1635 SW 300 St Federal Way 98023
Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th St Federal Way 98023 .
Camelot 4041 S 298`b St Aubuin 98001
Enterprise 35101 5`h Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Green Gables 32607 47`b Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308t" St Auburn 98001,
Lake Grove 303 SW 308`b St Federal Way 98023
Lalceland 35827 32°d Ave S Auburn 98001 .
Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003
Meiedith Hill 5830 S 300'b St Auburn 98001
Mirror Lake 625 S 314`b St Federal Way 98003
Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289`b St Federal Way 98003
Olympic View 2626 SW 327`h St Federal Way 98023
PantherLake 34424 15` Ave S Federal Way 98003
Rainier View 3015 S 368h St Federal Way . 98003
Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Silver Lake 1310 SW 325ffi Pl Federal Way 98023
Star Lake 4014 S 270'b St Kent 98032
Sunnycrest 24629 42rd Ave S Kent 98032
Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320`h St Federal Way 98023
Valhalla 27847 42°a Ave S Auburn 98001
Wildwood 2405 S 300th St Federal Way 98003
Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16'' Ave S Des Moines - 98198
MIDDI.E SCHOOLS
Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9d' Ave S Federal Way 98003
Illahee 36001 ls` Ave S Federal Way 98003
Kilo 4400 S 308'b St Auburn 98001
Lakota 1415 SW 314`h St Federal Way 98023
Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003
Saghalie 33914 19'' Ave SW Federal Way 98023
Sequoyah 3450 S 360'b ST Aubum 98001
Totem 26630 40`h Ave S Kent 98032
TAF Academy (6-12) . 26630 40'h Ave S Kent 98032
HIGH SCHOOLS
Decatur 2800-SW 320'h St Federal Way 98023
Federal Way 30611 16" Ave S Federal Way.. 98003
Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288`h St Aubum 98001
Todd Beamer 3599916`h Ave S FederaT Way 98003
Cazeer Academy at Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003
ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS
Merit School 36001 V Ave S Federal Way 98003
Intemet Academy 31455 28t' Ave S Federal Way 98003
- Employment Transirion Program 33250 2V Ave SW Federal Way 98023
5
FEDERAL WAY RUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES
Develoaed Proaertv
Administrative.Building 3140518'h Ave S- Federal Way 98003
1VIOT Site 10.66 S 320" St Federal Way 98003
Central Kitchen 1344 S 308th St Federal Way 98003 .
' Federal Way.Memorial Field 1300 S 308' St Federal Way 98003
Northwest Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003
LeaSed Space .
Community Resource Center 1813 S Commons Federal Way 98003
Student Support Annex 32020 l st Ave S Federal Way 98003
Notes: '
In November 2011; the Administrative Building, Community Resource Center, and .
3tudent Support Annex will be relocated to the Northwest Gorporate Center. The leases
for the Community Resource Center and the Student Support Annex will end in
November 201 L. In 2010, construction began on Site 81. .`The MOT Site & Central
Kitchen will be relocated to this site in late 2011. The Administration Building and MOT
Site have been surplussed and will be mazketed for sale:.
Undeveloped Proaertv
Site Location
#
75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW - 9.2 Acres
65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S- 8.8 Acres -
60 E of lOth Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335t' Streets - 10.04 Acres
73 N of SW 320`h and east of 45th PL SW - 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S- 17.47 Acres
82 1" Way S and S 342na St = Minimal acreage
96 S 308`h St and 10 Ave S-.3fi Acres
81 S 332nd St and 9th Ave S -20 Acres
Notes:
Not all undeveloped properties are la.rge enough to meet school construction
requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed
to house students in the District.
6
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES -
EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF
FUNDS
Purchase arid Relocate Interim Gapacity Anticipated source of funds is
Portables Im act:Fees.
Federal Way High School Replace Existing Building, Future bond authorization
Increase Ca aci
Decatur High School Replace Existing Building, Future bond authorization.
Increase Ca aei
The'District is also replacing some non-instruerional facilities. The District has
purchased 20 acres (Site #81) for construction of consolidated facilities for support
services functions.~ Transportation, Nutrition Services, Maintenance and other non-
instructional functions will be housed at this centralized locarion. .
As part of the multi-phase plan, the District intends to increase capacity for high school,
students with expansion at the Federal Way High School site. Increased capacity at Federal Wa Hi
_y 'gh and Decatur High in later phases supplant the need for constn:iction_of
a fifth comprehensive high schooL
7
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACIL,ITIES
NEW FACILITY LOCATION " ANTICIPATED SOURCE
OF FUNDS
No current plans for additional facilities.
8
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012' CAPITAL FAGILITIES PLAN
Six Year Finance Plan
Secured Funding Soucces.
Ln ct Fees l $357,360
Land'3ale Funda 2 $6,582,427
Bond Funds (3) $53,685,554
State Match (4) $5,622;21 S
TOTAL $53 OS 702
Proj ected Revenue Sources
State Match 5 $20,000;000
Bond orLe Funds $103;000,000
Land Fund Sales $10,000;000
Im ct Fees 8 $800;000
TOTAL $133;800,000
Actual and Planned Expenditures Total Secured Funding and.Projected Revenue $186,882,702
NEW SCHOO[,S ' Gurrent and Budget 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Total;Cost
PdorYesre' 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 201546 2016r17 2017-18 2011-2017
MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION
ederal Wa Hi School 9 $26,625,000 36 250,000 18,125,0 00 . $81,000,00 $81;000 000
SITE ACQUISITION
ormenCenter $190000 $195,000 200,000 200,000 205,000 $215,000 220;000 225,000 $1,460;000 $1650000
(Employrr►ent Transtion Pmgram) (l0)
TEMPORARY FACILITIES ~ -1~---~
ortables. il $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $800,000 $800 0110
llrOTAL $190,000,$395,000 $27,025,000 $36,650,000 $18,530,000 $215,000 $220,000 $225,000 $83,260,000 $83,430,000
NOTES: .
1. These fces are currently.being held in, a King.County, City ofFederal Way and City of Kent impact fee account, and will be
available for use by the District for system improvements. This is year end balance on 12/31/10.
2. These funds are expected to come from the sale ofthe current ESC and MOT sites. This is year end balance on 12/31/10.
3. This is the 12/3 UlO balance of bond funds. This figure includea interest earnings.
4. This represents ihe balance of State;Match Funds for Va16a11a,.Panther Lake, Lakeland,'and Sunnycrest Elementaries end Lakota Middle School, work on specific building upgrades is occurring.
This is the balance.on 12/31/10.
5. This is anticipated State Match foi projects euached to cuttent band issues. This is based on December 2010 OSPI approved awards. State Match funds are being used for high priority repairs, upgrades
and system improvements to existmg buildings. These improvements inctude HVAG, and other st;uctural improvements ere not related io cepacity increase.
-
6. 7'hese include $22m of voterapproded;,but not issued' and $81 m scheduled for voter approvaliin February 2012.
7. Projected sale of surplus piopertiea These.funds wilTbe used'to retire debt incurted for the acquisition of a replacement Educational Support Center.
8. These ere projectad fees besed upon~known,residendal developmenta in the Districrover the next six years: This figure asaumes $25,000 per month for the next six years.
This figure has been adjusted toxeflecl the,cuqent economy..
9. Pending Board approval en&voterauthorization in Febuary 2012
IO..Norman Center was purchased in 2010 to house the Employment Transition Program. The $2. Im punchase has been financed through a state approved local program tluough 2020.
11. These fee.v represent the cost of purchasing and installing new,portables. The portable expendiwre in future years may replace existing portables that aze not functional.
These may not increase capaciry and aze;not included in the capacity summary. _
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SECTION 2- MAPS OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Federal Way Public Schools has twenty-one elementary schools (grades K-5), two
schools with a K-8 grade configuration, seven middle school schools (grades 6-8), four
high schools (grades 9-12) and three small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public
Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The TAF Academy serves students in grades 6-
1 2 who reside in the Totem Middle School service area. The Career Academy at Truman
High School serves students in grades 9-12. The Internet Academy serves grades K-12.
The following maps show the service area boundaries for each school, by school type.
(Career Academy at Truman High School, Merit School, Internet Academy and Federal
Way Public Academy serve students from throughout the District). The identified
boundaries are reviewed annually. Any change in grade configuration or adoption of
programs that affect school populations may necessitate a change in school service areas.
The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility
infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public
facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to
that tievelopment. School Districts are different. If the District does not have permanent
facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or
untiT boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding
facilities.
Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the District and is not taken
lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to ~
change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school.
, We currently have 3 areas under consideration for boundary changes.
It is im ortant to realize that a sin le housin develo ment doe
p g g p s not requue the
construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth
throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the
district, not just around a single development.
11
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILI'TIES _PLAN
E L E M E I'lI TA'RY_ SC 1-I QOL_BOL! NDAitI E S
9ertanrtay sa,ools
Name
1 Adelaide
. 2 Brigadoon
~ 3 Camelo!
4 Enterprise i ~
5 Green Gables
8 take Dolbff
7 Lake Grwe F
, 8 Lakeland E`~'`j- ~ t P v'~J I
9 d,ark Umn
m taereaah Nm
11 b,linw lake
12 Naufilis(148)
73 OlqmpicViem
~ 14 Pardher L.ak e ;
rf?{ ~r
~ 15 RainierYrew
18 Sherwmod Forest
rr sia.er tike
Ie st~r Lake
t9 Sunrty.«es! „n I ' ` i j ~ ~ u \
' t 20 Tuain Lices
21 Valh8ue
22 WAdwood
23 Woodmont(14S) "
~ asdme scnools
` ~--~4 i • - ~ ~ ~ ~
Hign scnools
e Administrative Buildings
Undeveloped S@es ' _ ~ f ` ~ . ~ , ~
~
~
~
J
• c . . ~ _ ~
:
M
yr
12
FEDERAL WAY Pi7BLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES FLAN
MIDDLE S_Cf1OOL_BOUNDARIES
M ddle Schools
Ham
38' Federal Way PubGcAeademy
30 IOaAee
i
31 Kao
32 Lakota IN
33 Sacajanrea
=34 SaphaGe
MR-01,375equopah 7 r ~~1[ t, ~
35 Totem
Eemerdary Sohcols
Nigh Sohools
~.Administrative Buad'mps
Undeveloped Sites,
E \
1 1
[ ~J ~x
. ~•t~~' ~ ~ ~ V~ ~ i
4 PN
~ < < ti
7 f~ i^✓` ~ i.i' 1;`.
~ C t 1'
z
LV
~ ~ s r
~
N
tiU
S "w' t ~ t 3
13
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
HIC;~1°I--SCHOQL BOUNDAItIES
~
. Hgh $d100l8
Nane f ~ ' ~ f t~~
40 Oecahu F ~
41 Fetleral Way
Q1 TAomasJefMrs on
45 Todd Beemer
400 CmeerAoademyffiTruman
51 EmploqrnerRTrais3ionProgrsn
Elementary SQhoOls `~y f~ t
toSdme Schools
Adntinistra5oe Bw76ngs
E-='- Undereloped S@a
~~-'y I 1✓ ~J
~ i J
~
~
- ,
. ~
-
f~
i ~
~4
n,LOi
f ~
~-i-~l rfir i
~ `j~~ ~ ,i', ` ~ ~ , ;f~~r•"
,1-
\
) E '
T ~ ^
N r2t ~s
yM
i
14
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
. Building Capacities - The Education Program
Portable Locations
Student Forecast- 2012 through 2018 ~
Capacity Summaries
King CountyImpact Fees - Single and Multi-Family Units .15
FEDERAL WAY PUBL;IC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Buildiniz Capacities
This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District's "standard of service" in order to
ascertain the District's current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public
Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not .
take into consideration the education program needs. In general, the District's current target class size provides that the average class size for a
standard classroom for grades K through 2 should be 20 students. In grades 3-5 the target
is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for-
students with Individualized Education Prograin (Special Education) needs are calculated
at 12 "seats per classroom.
. Using the OSPI square footage calculation as a base line, the Districthas calculated a
program capacity for all schools: A recent Study & Survey was the basis for changes to
the OSPI building report. The following list clarifies the adjustments to the OSPI calculation. - "
Music Rooms:
Each elementary school requires a'standard classroom for music instruction.
All Day Kindergarten:
Every elementary school operates at, least one all day Kindergarten:program. These all
day Kindergarten programS require additional capacity because the. standard classroom is
available for one all day session rather than two half day sessions. The District will
operate 52 sections of all day Kindergarten in 2011-12.
Special Education Resource. Rooms;
Each elementary and middle school requues the use of a standard classroom(s) for
special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities.
English as a Second Language Programs:
Each elementary, middle school and high school requires the use of a standard classroom
for students learning English as a second language.
Middle School Computer I.abs:
Each auddle schooT has computer labs, except Totem 1Vliddle School. Wireless access
has been installed at all secondary schools: If additional classroom space is needed, these
computer labs may be converted to mobile carts.
High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: '
Each high school provides special education resource room and career development
classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities.
PreschooUECEAP/Headstart:
Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically
developing students at 8 elementary schools. We also have.the.ECEAP and Headstart
program at 6 schools (3 elementary &.3 high schools). These programs decrease capacity
at those sites.
16 ,
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FAGILITIES PLAN
BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITIES
E.FIVIDVTARYBUII.DING DIDDLESCHOOL BUII.DING
PROCdiAM CAPACTf Y PROGtAM CAPACITY
SchoolName. Headcount . SchoolName Headcount FTE
Adelaide 372 Dlahee . 855 864
Bri adoon 319 K7o... 829_ _ 837_--
129
Camelot 269 Lakota 707 714
Fnt rise 458 Saca' wea 655 662
_
(
reen Gables 437 Sa halie 804 812
Lake DoIloff 433 Se uo ah 569 '575
Lake Cirove 323 Totem 739 746
Iakeland " 406 Fedeial Wa Public Acade 209 211 '
Mazk Twam 287 Technolo Access Foundation Acade
Mereditli HHiIII 453 12011 TOTAL 5,367 5,421
Muror Iake 325 -
Nautilus (K-8) 367
Olympic View 348 *Nfiddle School Awr 'e 737 744
. Pantherlake 434 '
Ramier Vew 432 HI(H SCHOOL BiJILDING
Sherwood Forest " 423 PRO(RAM CAPACII'Y
. Silver Laloe ' 410
Star lake 361 School Name Headcounf FI'E
Sunn- crest 382 Decatur 1249 1,336
Tvib Iakes 197 Federal Wa 1538 1,645
ValhaDa 442 Thomas Jeffetson , 1349 . 1,443
Wfldwood 297 Todd Beamer 1123 1,201
Woodmont (K-8 346 Careei.Acade at Traman 163 174:.
2011 TOTAL 8,621 Fedeial Way Public Academy 109 117
- Eniployment Ttansition Program 48 51
. Technology Access Foundation Aeademy**
Igementuy Awr e 375 2011 TOTAL 5,579 5,967
*ffi h School Ave e 1,315 1406
Notes:
* Federal Way Public Academy, Career Academy at Truman High School, and Euployment Transition Progrdm
aze non-boundary schools. These schools are not used 'm the calculafed avernges.
Technology Access Foundation Academy,is housed entirely in portables
oa the TofemMiddle School site.
. 17
_ FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAI. FACILITIES PLAN
Portable Locations
~ The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic
education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity
for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates ,
througliout the year and from year to year.
. Portables are used as temporary facilities or interim measures to house students when. : increasing population. impacts a school attendance area. ; Portables may also be required
to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also
provide temporary housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and.
constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used
for other purposes such as storage or child care programs, or moved to another school for .
an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to "age or physical, condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these.
unfit portables. It is the practice and philosophy of Federal Way Public Schools that
portables are not acceptable as perinanent facilities. _
The following page provides a list of the location of the . portable facilities, used for
temporary educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools: _
18
FEDER.AL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES' PLAN
POItTABI,E LOCATIONS
PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED
AT ELEMENTARY SCFIOOLS AT HIGA SCHOOLS
. NON NON -
PIS'1RUCIfONAL PIS1RUClIONAL INSTIQICTDNAL 1NS'6tUCIiOT1AL
Adelaide__ - 1 2 Decatur 9
Bri adooa • 1_ Federal Wa 2 1
C.amelot . 1 Thomas Jefferson 10
Ent `ri"se 2 1 iTodd Beamer 9
Green Gables 1 TAF Academ ' 8 1
Lake Dolloff 1 1 TOTAL 38 ' 2
Lake Grove 1 1
Lakeland -
Mark Twain 2 1
Meredith Hill 1 2
Mirror Lake 4 PORTABLES' LOCATED
Nautilus 1 AT SUPPORT FACILTTIES
O mpic iew 1 1 '
Panther Lake_ MOT 1
Rainier View . 1 2 TDC 5
Sherwood Fotest • 3 1 'I'OTAL 6
_
Silver Lake 1 3
Star Lake 4
Sunnycrest HEAD START PORTABLES AT DISTRICT SITES
Twin Lakes 3
Valhalla Sherwood Forest 1
Wildwood 4
Woodmont 3 Tohal 1
TOTAL 31 20
PORTABLES LOCATED
AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS
NON
QVS78UCI7OVAL NLS7RUCIfONAL -
Illahee 3
Kilo 7
Lakota
Sacaj awea 7
Saghalie _ 2 2 Sequayah 1 1
Totem
Merit 3
TAF Academ 8 1
28 7
19
FEDERAL WAY Pi7BLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Student Forecast
Student enrolhnent projections are a basic component of budget development.
Enrollment projections influence many of the financial esrimates that go into budget
preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the
forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructionaT supplies and materials are
also made on the basis of projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue
projections are directly related to enrolhnent projections.
Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department.
Projections must be detailed at v.arious levels, district total, school-building totals, grade
level and program level to include yocational and special education students.
The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis
of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time.
In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses
historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This
method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each
grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted
. . factors tostudy several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are
common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases
survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The
district collects information on birth rates within the district's, census tracts, and treats
these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years.
The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods.for projecting
student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below.
The first method is a statistical cohort analysis that produces ten distinct forecasts. These
are forecast of enrollment for one.yeaz. The projections vary depending on the number of
years of historical information and how they are weighted.
A second method is a projectionusing an enrolhnent projection software package that
allows the user to project independently at school or grade level and to aggregate these
projections for the district leyel. -The Enrollment Master'rm software provides statistical
methods including trend line, standard grade progression (cohort) and combinations of
these methods. This software produces a five-yeaz projection of school enrollment.
In December 2006, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections forthe
Federal Way School Distric:t. The report was complete in January 2007. The model used
to forecast next year's enrolhnent uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade
growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide
average), assumes growth from.new housing or losses due to net losses from migration.
This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast
provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based
on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. Most of the methods used
for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of
20
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for
the school-age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to
provide a range of possible projections for the District tothe year 2017. This model
produces a projection that is between 23,000 and 24,000 when applied to the low,
medium and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning
and is consistent with estimates frorn various models.
Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the .
cohort survival metliod. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther
out the projections are made. The Federal Way School Districtlong-range projections
are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional
. demographers as they project future housing and population in the region: The long-range
projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similarage trend in student
gopulations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the
State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current
' local eeonomic conditions. Current economic conditions do appear to be affecting
'enrollment. This is reflected in the District's projections. The District tracks new
development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student
yield i'rom proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns.
Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twentyyears. The
Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions
comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of ttie school
district community in the future.
21
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Full Time Equivalent Enrollment History and Projections
Simplified FTE (K Headcount=.5 FTE; Middle School FTE=.99 Headcount; High School FTE =.935Headcount)
Total K -12 Percent
Calendar Yr Schoal Year Elementary Mid(IIe Schod H' Scltod FI'E Chan e
2006 2005-06 9,105 5,309 6,770 21,184
2007 2006-07 9,022 5,261 6,754 21,037 -0.79/6
2008 2007-08 8,912 5,167 6,637 20,716 -l.S%
2009 2008-09 8,865 5,155 6,456 20,476 -1.2%
2010 2009-10 8,738 5,119 6,594 20,451 -Q 1%
2011 2010-11 8,753 5,142 6,544 20,439 -0.1%
2012 B2011-12 8,759 5,166 6,425 20,350 -0.4%
2013 P2012-13 8,848 5,118 6,385 20,351 0.0%
2014 P2013-14 8,948 5,093 6,396 20,437 0.4%
2015 P2014-15 9,034 5,138 6,363 20,535 0.5%
2016 P2015-16 9,111 5,215 6,320 20,646 0.5%
2017 P2016-17 9,215 5,258 6,284 20,757 0.5%
2018 P2017-18 9,310 5,286 6,294 20,890 0.6%
Elementaryg 5 Middle School 6-8 High School 9-12
22,000 EnrolMent History and Six Year Forecast
21,000 77
7~
20,000
j
t-'z, ~
Ft~ ~ f 7 i;u,~ 4 ~ '
19.000
~ ~pu
a ~ y .-xr . £ € . ~ -
18,000
.
C
1!~/,OOO E ~ c£ ~ t fr4 5 4
~ ~ ,6 f . e+ I~ ~ w
LL J`, *ro .
1V,000
,
L L C , r, ~ 2S ,tr' sn k 'AU3:rr~
,
f''t', f: z~"j •,i
~
`czt
15,000
~ q 4
~Oj
~
SchoolY¢er
oFTE
22
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
. Capacitv Summaries
All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools '
The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information and the Student
Forecast information. Tlie result demonstrates the requirements for new, or remodeled.
facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim
measures. .
The information is organized in spreadsheet format, with a page summarizing the entire
District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle
school, and high school levels individually.
The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are
in place each year.
23
FEDER.AL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CAPACTTY S UMMARY- ALL (RADES
Bud et - - Pro'ected - -
Calendar Yeaz 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
CAPACTTY SchoolYear 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 2015-16 2016r17 2017-18
BUIIDING PROMAM
HFADCOUNT CAPACTTY 19,567 19,667 19,667 19,667 19,867 19,867 19,867
FTECAPALTTY . ~ ~
~ ~,1~ : ~,1% 24Q~ _ ?A,~ . .?Add or subtract changes to capacity
Increase Capacity - Lakeland and Sunnycrest 100
Increase Capacity at Federal Way HS 200
Ad' sted Program Headcount Ca ac' 19,667 19,667 19,667 19,867 19,867 19,867 19,867
3t~.. _ ZU,309:
,?6
INROLLMaVT
BasicFTEFnrollment 20,350 20,351 20,437 20,535 20,646 20,757 20,890
lntemet Academy Enrolhnent (AAFTE) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315) (315)
..Sc . . ~ , .
Basic,F'I'E Fnmllm~x w~thhouf,In:temet Acad _ . 20,035_.. .24,036 2~,I22 =
~ `
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSID)
W : . , . PR6QtAMFTECAPACTIY_ 3 J V~ 32 ~ .133 26 w
RIIACATABLE CAPACITY
(urrent Pottable Capacity 2,300 2,325 2,325 2,325 2,275 2,275 2,275
Deduct Portable Capacrty (25) (50)
Add New Portable Capacity 50
325 2;275 _
Ad' ` te Portabie 214Z3 ~ Z,Z IS 2;275 2;275,
SURPLiTS OR (UNHOUSID)
PROGItAMAND RIIACATABLE
A312...~ 1264~~.
24
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CAPACITY S UIVIlVIARY - FLFIVIFIV'I'ARY S CHOOIS
Bud et - - Pro'ected - -
Calendar Yeaz 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
CAPACTTY SchoolYear 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
BUII.DING PROCRAM
HEAD COUNT CAPACTTY 8,621 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721
_
FiBCAPACfTY
8,621 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721
1. Increase Capacity Lakeland
and Sunn crest 100
Ad' sted Pro ram Headcount Ca ac' 8,721 8,721 81721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721
Ad' #ed Pro FTE Capacity 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8,721 8k,772
1
INROLLIVffiVT
Basic FTE Enrollment 8,759 8,848 8,948 9,034 9,111 9,215 9,310
2. Intemet Academy (AAFTE)(3~ (3~ ~ (3~ (36) (3~ (36) (36)
Basir, FTE Enroltcuent wahoux Internet Acadenry 8;723 8,812 8,912 8,998 9,075 9,179 9,274
SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSID)
+(3 PROC~tAM CAPAGTTY 2 91~v 91 7~ 54 -F;
758 ' ~(S
RIIACATABLE CAPACTTY 3.
Current Portable Capacity 775 800 800 800 800 800 800
Subtract single portable fromMirror Lake (25)
Add double portable to Muror Lake 50
Ad° sted Portabie Capacity 80Q $IXf 800 800 800 800 800
SURPLUS OR (UNHOLSID)
PRO(RAMAND RIIACATABLE
_ _
CAPACTi'Y 798 709 609 523 446 342 247
NOTFS:
1. Increase Capacity at Iakeland, and Sunnycrest
2. Intemet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full tune use of school facflities.
3. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to teuiporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only.
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs.
The District may begin to pull portables from the instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables
will determme feasibility for continued instructional use.
25
FEDER.AL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILIT'IES PLAN
CAPACiTY S UNIlHARY- MmDLE SCHOOIS
Budget - - Pro'ected - -
Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
CAPACII'Y School Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
BUILDING PROQtAM
HEADC70iJNf CAPACITI' 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367
_ . . _ _ .
FTE CAPALfI"Y 5,421 5,429 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421
Add or subtract changes ai capacity
Ad' ted Program Headcount Ca ac' 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367 5,367
Ad' sted Progmm Fl"E Capacity 5,421 5,421 3,421 5,421 5,421 5,421 5,421
INROLLIVffiVT'
BasicF'TEFnroltcnent 5,166 5,118 5Ij0794) 3 5,138 5;215 5,258 5,286
1. Intemet Academy (AA~ (74) (74) _ (74) (74) (74) (74)
Basic FrEFnmllment without Inteinet Aca S,(igZ 5,044 5,019 5,064 5,141 5,184 5,212 :
SURPLUS OR (UNHUUSID)_ _
PRUQtAMCAPACTTY 329 V. 3'17 -402 357 Z80 23'7 2d9
RIIACATABLECAPACITY 2.
Current Portable Capacity 575 575 575 575 575 575 575
_..Add/Subtract portable capacity
~ _Ad' sted Portable Ca ac' ' 575 575 575 575 575 573 575
SURPLUS OR ([AVHOUSID)
PROGdtAM AND RIIACATABLE
_
~
ACH'Y 904 952 977 932 85i 812 784
NO'TES:
1. Intemet Academy students are mcluded in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities.
2. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to teniporanly house students untfl permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only.
The actual number of portables that will be used wfll be based on actual student population needs.
The District may begin to pull portables fromthe instructional inventory. Age and condition of the portables
will detemine feasibility for continued 'mstructional use.
26
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
CAPACI Tl' S UMMARY - AIGH SCHOOLS
Bud et - - Pro'ected - -
Calendar Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
CAPACTI'Y School Yeaz 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 201415 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
BUII.DING PRO(RAM
HF.ADCAUNT CAPACITY 5,579 5,579__ 5,579 5,579-- _5,779 5,779 5,779
_ .
FTE CAPALTTY 5,967 5,967 5,967 5,967 5,157 ; 6,167 . _6,167 _
Add or subtract changes m capacity
Add capacity to Federal Way HS 200
Ad' sted Program Headcount Ca acit 5,579 5,579 5,579 5,779 5,779 5,779 5,7
79
Ad" ted Pmgram FTE Capacity 5,967 5,967 ' 5,967 6J67 6,167 b,167 6,157
IINROLLMEVT
Basic FTE Fnrolhnent 6,425 6,385 6,396 6,363 6,320 6,284 6,294
1. Intemet Academy (AAFT~ (205) (205) (20~ (205) (205) _ (205) (20~
scc Ed withaut intemet Academy 6,22t? 6,180 6,191 6,158 6,115 6,079 b,089
_ _._S URPLUS OR (UNAOUSID)
PROGRAMCAi'ACTZ'Y 253 213 24 -_9._. 52 88 78
RFLOCATABLE CAPACTI'I' 2.
Cument Portable Capacity 950 950 950 950 900 900 900
Add/Subtiact portable capacity
Subtract porta.ble capacity at Federal Way HS (50)
_ _ .
Ad' ted Portabk Capacity 950 950 950 900 900 900 900
SURPLLIS OR ([JNHOiPSID)
PROGa2AM AND RIIACATABLE
3. CAPAGITY 697 737 726 909 952 98$ 978
NOTES:
1. Intemet Acadeary students are mcluded 'm projections but do not requum full time use of school facilities.
2. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number ofportables available and other administrative techniques which
can be used to temporarily house students until permanent faci7rties are available. This is a calculated number only.
The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs.
The District may begin to puD portables fromthe instructional mventory. Age and condition ofthe portables
will determine feasibility for continued 'mstructional use.
3. Capacity for unhoused students will be accomrmdated with traveling teachers and
no plannmg time in some classrooms.
27
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
King Countv, the Citv of Federal Wav, and the City of Kent 'Impact Fee Calculations
Single and Mu1ti-Family Residences -
Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees
to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities.
To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was
established. This formula can be found in King CountyCode 21A and was substanrially
adopted by the, Gity„ of Federal Way and Kent. The formula requires.the District to
establish a"Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be
added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some
standard construction costs, which are unique to that district.
- STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ANALYSIS
Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined sepazately for
single-family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2012 Capital Facilities
Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single-family units that were
constructed in the last five (5) years.
= IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Following the calculations for the student generation factor is a copy of the Impact Fee
Calculation for single family and multi-family units based on King Gounty Code 21A and
the Crrowth Management Act.
➢ Temporary Facility Cost is the average cost of a portable purchased within the last 12
months.
Plan Year 2012 Plan Year 2011
Single Family Units* $4,014 $4,014
Mu1ti-Fami1 Units $1,253 $2,172
*Due to current economic conditions, Federal Way Public Schools has made the decision
to retain the impact fee for Single Family Units at the 2011 rate instead of the updated
2012 rate of $4,461.
28 _
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
, STUDENT GENERATION
NEW CONSTRUCTION IN PRIOR S.YEARS
Single Family Student Generation
Number of Numberof Number of Number of Number of Elementary Middle 3chool High School Total
Single Family Multi-Family Elementary Middle School High School Student Student Student Student
DEVELOPMENT Dwellin s Dwellin s S#udents 3tudents Students Factor Factor Factor Factor
11 Bri hton Park 15 0 9 2 2 0.6000 0.1333 0.1333 0.8666
11 The Green 13 0 8 3 1 0.6154 012308 0.0769 0.9231
(10) Geekside Lane 34 0 10 3 8 02941 0:0882 0.2353 0.6176
(10) Grande Vista 27 0 12 9 6 0.4444 0:3333 0.2222 0.9999
(09) Lakota Crest 43 0 12 7 3 0.2799 0.1628 0.0698 0:5117
(09) Tuscany 22 0 9 3 3 0.4091 0.1364 0.1364 0.6819
(08) Northlake Ridge IV 92 0 28 14 20 0.3043 0.1522 0.2174 0:6739
(08) Collingtree Park 41 0 21 9 7 0.5122 0:2195 0.1707 0.9024
07 Colella Estates 87 0 33 14 23 0.3793 0.1609 0.2644 0.8046
(07) Woodbrook 175 0 40 27 42 02286 0A543 0.2400 0.6229
Total 9 0 182 91 115
Student Generationk
0`.3315 0.1658 0.2095' 0.7067
Student Generation rate is based on totals.
Multi-Family Student Generation
Elementa Middle School Mi h School Total
Aubum ' 0.124 0.056 0.052 0:232
Issa uah 0.073 0:025 • 0.042 0.140
Kent 0.331 0.067 0.124 0.522
Lake Washington 0.062 0.019 . 0.016 0:097.
Average 0:148 0:042. 0:059 i0:248
. FEDERAL WAY Pi7BLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
1MPACT FEE .
Sc.6ool Srte Acquisitioo Cost: Student Student
Facility Cost / Facility Factor ' Factor Cost/ Cost/
Acrea e Acre Ca aci SFR MFR SFR MFR
Elementary 0.3315 0.1480 $0 $0
lviiddle School 0.1658 _ 0.0420 $0 $0
"HighSchool 4.85 $216,718 51 0.2095 :~0.0590 $4;313 $1,215
TOTAL .$4,313 ~ $1215
School Construction Cost: Student Student
°/a Perm Fac./ Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/
Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR
Eleinentary 95.90% 03 315 0.1480 $0 $0
Middle Sehool 94.76% 0.1658 0.0420 $0 $0
High School 96.53% $10,530,000 200 0.2095 ~ 0.0590 `$10;647 $2,999
ToTnL $10,647 $2,999
Temporary Facility Cost: Student Student
% Temp Fac. Facility Facility Factor. Factor Cost/ Cost/
Total S Ft Cost Size SFR MFR SFR MFR
Elementary 4.10% $199,832 25 03315 0.1480 $109 $49
Middle School 5.24%0:1658 0.0420
High School 3.47% 0.2095 0.0590
TOTAL $109 $49
State Matching Credit Calculation: Student Student
Construction Cost Sq. Ft. . State Factor Factor CostL Cost/
Allocation/S Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR
Elementary , $180.17 0.3315 0.1480 $0 $0
Middle School $180.17 0.1658 0.0420 $0 $0
High School.. $180.17 130 62:53°/a 0.2095 0.0590 $3,068 ' $864
• Total $3;068 $864
Taa Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR
Average Assessed Value (March 2011) $257,849 $74,692
Capital Bond Interest Rate (March 2011) 4.91 % 4.91%
Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $1,999,773 $579,281
Years Amortized 10 10
Property Tax Levy Rate $1.54 . $1.54 "
Present Value of Revenue Stream $3,079 $892
Single Family Multi-Family
Residences Residences
Mitigation Fee Summary
Site Acquisition Cost $ 4;313 $ 1,215
Permanent Facility Cost $ 10,647 $ 2,999
Temporary Facility Cost $ 109 $ 49
State Mafch Credit $ (3,068) $ (864)
Tax Payment Credit $ (3,079) $ (892)
Sub-Total $ 8,922 $ 2,506
50% Local Share „ $ 4,461 $ 1,253
alculated:Im act Fee $ 4,461 S 1,253
012 Ima ct Fee $ 4;014 $ 1,253
, 30
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FAGILIT,IES PLAN
. SECTION 4
SUMIVIARY OF CHANGES FROM THE 2011 CAPITAL FACII.ITIES PL,AN
The 2012 Capital Facilities Plan is an updated document, based on the 2011 Capital
Facilities Plan. The changes between the 2011 Plan and the 2012 Plan are listed below.
. SECTION I- THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
- SIX-YEAR.FINANCE PLAN
- - The Six Year Finance Plan has been rolled forward to reflect 2012-2018
SECTION III - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
CAPACITY
Elementary capacity includes space for All Day Kindergarten programs at every
elementary school. Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on
page 17:
PORTABLES .
T'he list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new -
. portables purchased,.:Portable Locations can be found on page 19.
STUDENT FORECAST
Tlie Student Forecast now covers 2012 through 2018 Enrollment history and projections
. are found on page 22.
- - CAPACITX SUMMARY
The_ changes in the Capacity Summaryare a reflection of the changes in the capacities
and student forecast.- New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown
as incieases,to capacity. Gapacity Summaries are found on pages 24-27.
IIVIPACT FEE CALCULATION - IUNG COUNTY CODE 21A
The Impact Fee Calculations have changed due to changes in several factors. The
adjustment made in the Impact Fee Calculation, causing a change in the Impact Fee
between the 2011 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2012 Capital Facilities Plan can be
found on page 32 and 33.
31
FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES'PLAN
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2011 TO 2012
STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS
Student Generation factors are based on rates for new developments constructed over a
period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation. The changes in
student Generation factors between the 2,011 Capital Facilities Plan and the 2012 Capital
Facilities Plan are due :to developments that were deleted or added based upon the age of
the developments and the year placed in the survey. The Student Generation worksheet
is found on page 29. ,
SCHOOL CONSTR UCTION COSTS
The anticipated cost based on 2006 estimates for replacing Federal Way High is
$81, 000, 000. The replacement will add 200 additional seats. The current capacity of
Federal Way High is 1538. The addition or200 seats will increase capacity by 13%.
Total Cost $8I,000, 000 x .l3 = $10,533,000
SCHOOL ACQUISITION COSTS
The district purchased the Norman Center to house the Employment Transition Program
and at a later date the ECEAP program. The purchase and use of this site increased our
high school capacity by SI students.
Total Cost $2,100,000 /2 = $1,050,000
The District will use the above formulas created as a base for the 2012 Capital Facilities
Plan. T11e capacity of Federal Way High may vary from,year to year as programs are
added or changed and construction cost may increase over time.
32
FEDER.AL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2012 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
I1VIPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROIVI 2011 TO 2012
IMPACT FEE
Item From/To Comment
Percent of Permanent 95.710/o to 95.16% Report #3 OSPI
Facilities
4.29% to 4.84% Updated portable inventory
Percent Temporary Facilities
Average Cost of Portable $183,996 to $199,832 Updated avera.ge of portables
Classroom purchased and plaeed in 2010
Coiistruction Cost Allocation $180.17 to $180.17 Change effective July 2010
~
Staxe Match 61.86% to 62.53% Change effective July 2011
Average Assessed Value SFR - Per Puget Sound Educational
$267,668 to $257,849 Service District (ESD 121)
MFR -
$84,429 to $74,692
Capital Bond.Interest Rate 4.33% to 4.91% Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.72 to $1.54 King County Treasury Division
Single Family Student Yield Updated Housing Inventory
Elementary .3507 to .3315
Middle School .1701 to.1658
High School .2236 to .2095
Multi-Family Student Yield Updated Gounty-Wide Average
Elementary .1650 to .148
Middle School .0530 to .042
High School .0640 to .059
Impact Fee SFR - Due to current economic conditions,
$4,014 to $4,014 SFR retained at 2011 rate.
(Calculated 2012 SFR $4,461)
MFR _ MFR based on the upda:ted
$2,172 to $1,253 calculation
33
A
~ ~ Y ~ ; t~ ~ 'a t ~ q F ~d S !K y.l e J ~ nE .
4&
~
'L"'Ol 1 20tl 2 2016-20tl 7
'4'
Y~~. . .
fq' °.53. ~ q`: ~ •d~ I
New Panther Lake Elementary School opened in Fall 2009
Kent ScFiooClnistrzct No. 415 provides educationaCservice to
esidents of vnincorporated J!Ung County
and &sidents of tFie Cities of
W-ent, Covingtory.Au6ur•n, Renton
BfackD1.'amon4 Vaple tiaCCey, arcdSea7ac, `tNaskington
ApriC 2011
W
# F - {4 ~ ~ j1 6 q
_
Kent School District No. 415
- - 12033 SE 256th Street
Kent, VNashington 98030-6643
(253) 373-7295 <
SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 - 2012 ~ 2016 - 2017
. 4ft:
KENT
SWooL e~cr _
BOARD. ofDIRECTORS
. .
Bill Boyce
Jim Berrios .
Tim Clark . . ,
Karen DeBruler
Debbie Sfraus ADMINISTRATION Dr. Edward Lee Vargas - Superintendent
Dr. Richard A. Stedry - Chief Business Officer
Dr. Linda Del Giudice - Chief Accountability Officer `
Dr. Merri Rieger - Chief Student,Achievement Officer
Dr. Brent Jones - Chief Talent Officer
Thuan Nguyen = Chief Information & Automated Operations Officer
Chris Loftis- Executive Director, Communications & School Gommunity Partnerships
Kent School District Six-YearCapital Facilities Plan April 2011
, -
,
m ~ 4 = r
ij
IStiKENT
nOO'L
SIX - YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011- 2012 - 2016 = 2017
April 20'61
For informatibn on the Plan, please call the
Finance & Planning Department at (253) 373-7295
Capital Facilities Plan
Contributing Staff
Gwenn Escher-Derdowski
Enrollment & Planning Administrator
Ralph Fortunato, CSBS- Interim Director for Fiscal Services
Debbi'Smith,.Business Services Department
Fred Long, Supervisor of Facilities & Construction
Karla WiIkerson, Facilities DeparCment
Don Walkup, Supervisor of.Transportation Department -
Maps by Jana Tucker, IT - Graphic Designer
Ken4 School Distrid Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011
s +i M Y. a y
' ' ` _ . ` . . . . _ . • . . Y . ' _
Si.x-ear CapitaC Eacilities (Plan
Ta6e of Contents
Section Page Number
I Executive Summary 2
I I Six-Year Enrollment Projection & History 4
I I I District Standard of Service 9
I V Inventory, Capacity & Maps of Existing Schools 12
V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan 15
V I Relocatable Classrooms 18 '
V I I Projected Classroom Capacity 19 -
V I I I Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules 24
I X Summary of Changes to Previous Plan 31
X Appendixes 32
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011
I Executive Summary
,
This 8ix-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent
School District (ttie "District") as the organization's facilities planning document,
in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growtfi Management Act,
King County Code K.C.C. 21A:43 and Cities of Kent;.Covington, Auburn, Renton,
Black Diamond, Maple Valley; a;nd SeaTac. This annual Plan update was
prepared using data available in the - spring of 2011 for the 2010-2011 school
year.
This Plan is consistent with prior tong-term capital facilities plans adopted by the
Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document
for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic Long
Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, taking into account
a longer or shorter time period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities,
and other needs. of the District as may be required.
Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by
. Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn and
Renton and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive
Plans of each jurisdiction. The frst ordinance implementing impact fees for the
unincorporated areas of Kent School District was effective September 15, 1993.
In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent
School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a
fee-implementing ordinance for the. District. For impact fees to be collected in the
incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent; Covington, Aubum and
Renton must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances.
This Plan has also been submitted to cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and
SeaTac.
This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service in order to ascertain _
current and future capacity. : While ,the State Superintendent of Public Insfruction
establishes., square footage guidelines for capacity; those guitlelines do not
account for local prograrn needs in the District. _The Gr.owth Management. Act,
King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the Disfrict to make
adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of
the District. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District.
Program capacity is based on an average -capacity and updated to reflect
changes to special programs served in each building. Relocatables in the
capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent
facilities.
• (continued)
Kent School Disfict Soc-Year Capital Faalities Plan April 2011 Page 2
I Executive Summary (continued)
. The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District
standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The
District's: program capacity of permanent`facilities reflects program changes and
the reduction of class size to meet .the standard of service for Kenf Schoof
District. Relocatables provide -additional ttansitional capacity until permanent
facilities are completed.
Kent School District is the fourth largest district in the state. Enrollment is
electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) on Form P-223. Although funding apportionment is based on
Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), Enrollment on October 1 is a
widely recognized "snapshot in time". that is used to report the District's
enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI - the Office of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction.
P-223 FTE reports Kindergarten at .5 forall.elementary schools except those five
schools with Full 'Day Kindergarten funded by State Apportionment. P-223
Reports include all students in Grades K- 12 and excludes Early Childhood
Education [ECE] students and college=only Running Start students. The Board of Directors has approved Full Day Kindergarten for all Elemenfary
Schools for 2011-12 and those projections are continued'in fufure years.
The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of
transitional facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. The
District , plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the .
transitional use of relocatables.
A fnancing plan is included in Section V I I I which demonstrates the District's
ability, fo implement this Plan. Pursuant fo the requirements of the Growth
Managemenf Act, this Plan will be updated annually with changes in #he fee .
scfiedules adjusted accordingly.
I Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 3
I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection ,
For capital facilities planning, growth projections are based on cohort survival
and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the
nezt ,six years. (see rabre 2) The student generation factor, as defined on the next
page, is ttie basis for the growth projections froin new developments.
King County live birfhs and the District's relational percentage average were `
used to d".etermine the number of kindergartners entering the system. (see raare 1)
8.134% of 24,244 King County live births in 2006 is projected for 1,972 students
expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2011. This is a significant increase of
1,564 live births in King County over the previous year. Together with
proportional growth from new construction, 8.134% of King County, births is
equivalent to the number of students projected to enter kindergaiten in the
disfict for the next six-year period. (see raeie 2)
Full Day Kindergarten ("FDKn) programs at all 28 elementary schools require an
adjustment to the Kindergarten forecast for projecting FDK at 1.0 FTE for capital
facilities planning. P-223 Reports will continue to include FDK students at 1.0 for
five schools with FDK funded by state apportionment, and all other kindergarten
students will continue to be reported at.50 FTE. (seerable 2 a)
Early Childhood Education students (also identified as "ECE", "Preschool Special
Education [SE] or handicapped students") are #orecast and reported separately.
Capacity is reserved fo serve the ECE programs at seven elementary schools.
The first grade population is traditionally 7- 8% larger than the kindergarten
populafion due to growth and transfers to the District from private kindergartens.
Cohort survival mefhod uses hisforical enrollment data to forecast the number of
students projected for the following year.
Near term projections assume some growth from new developments to be offset
by current local economic conditions. With notable exceptions, the expectation is
that enrollment increases will occur District-wide in the fong term. District
, projections are based on historical growth pattetns combined with continuing
development of projects in the pipeline dependent on markeUgrowth conditions.
The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact
to schools and monitor conditions to reflect adjustments in this assumption. The
six-year enrolfinent projection anticipates moderate enrollment growth from new
development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district.
Information on new residential developments and the completion of these
proposed developments in all jurisdictions may be considered in the District's
future analysis of growth projections.
(Continuea)
Kent School Distrid Six-Year Capital Faalfies Plan April 2011 . Page 4
I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection '(conL~ueco
Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments.
The Kent School District serves . seven permitting jurisdictions: uninco[porated.
King. County, the cities of Kent, Covington, Aubum and Renton and smaller
poctions of the cities of SeaTac, Black Diamond, and Maple Valley. The west
Lake Sawyer area of Kent School District is in the city of Black Diamond.
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR
"Student, Factor". is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a
school districf to describe how many students of each grade span are expected
to be generated by a. dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual
student. generated rates for developments completed within the last five years.
F.ollowing. these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is
as follows: -
Single Family Elementary .486 Middle School .130 .
Senior High .250 .
Total . .866 Multi-Family Elementary .331 Middle School .067 Senior High .124
Total .522 -
The student generation factor is based on a survey of 2,023 single family
dwelling units and 1,527 multi-family dwelling units with no adjusfinent for
occupancy rates. Please refer to Appendix E on Page 36 ofi the Capital Fa.cilities
Plan for details of the Student Generation Factor survey.
. ,
The _ actual number of students in those residential developments was
determined using the District's. Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation
System which provides 'an accurate cbunt of enrolled studenfs in identifiable new
de.velopment areas,
Kent School DisVict Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 5
; KENT' 'SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 ,
OCTOBER P 223 F T E(Full Time Equivalent), ENROLLMENT HISTORY
LB = Live BiAhs LB in 1985 L8 in 1988 LB in 1887 LB in 7888 LB in 1989 LB in 1990 l8 in1991 LB In 1992 LB In 1983 l8 in'1984 ' CB in'1995 ! LB In 1998 . LB In.1997 LB 10998 LB in.1989 LB In 2000 LB In 2001 LB In 2002 LB in 2003 LB In 2004 LB 6i 2005
1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 :
Odober FTE Enroliment 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1.11998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20
Kinp County Live BiRhs z 19.825 19,999 20,449 21,289 22,541 23,104 23,002 23,188 22;355 22,010 21,817 21.573 21.848 22,272 22,007 22,487 21,778 21.863 22,431 22,874 22;680
Increase/Decrease 851 174 450 840 1,252 563 -102 188 -833 -345 ,-193 -244 73 588 -205 480 -709 85 568 443 -194
Kindergarten I Birth 95 Z 8.86°k 9.49% 9.40% 9.07% 8.47°/6 8.54% 8.44°h 8.38°/6 827% 8.56% 8.25°/6 8.41 °/6 8.06°/6 8.05% 8.33% 8.41 °k 8.22°k 8.29% 8.47% .8.32% 8,1396
Kindergarten 1'2'3 880 949 862 , 985 955 987 971 972 925 942 900 907 873 894 917 943 895 908 788 758 749
State Apportionment-funded Full Day Kindergarten'' 2 ' 3. (P.22' R°P°" Exckide" TWaofi-ne`ea s cra"arnxa°° Fun o°y p . 385 388 343
Grade 1. 1,852 1,945 2,029 2,017 1,987 1,975 . 2,152 2,085 2,084 1,989 2,069 1,938 1,922 1,851 1,954 1938 2003 1873 1920. 1958 1992
Grade 2 1,773 1,944 1,998 2,048 1,937 2,011 1,979 2,194 2,095 2,078 2,015 2,087 1,936 1,985 1,835 1981 1998 2045 1916 1962 1939
Gfade 31,824 1,866 1,950 1,972 -105 1;959 2,025 . 2,058 2,208 2,111 2,098 2,040 2,055 1,975. 2,020 1962 2028 2033 " 2081 1978 2000
Grade 4 1,793 . 1,918 1,900, 1,939 1,942 2;012 1,986 2,084 2,045 21222, 2,086 2,188 2,088 2,072 2,057 2024 2015 2049 2060 '2044 1954
Grade 5.. ~ 1,702 . 1;865 1';911 1,907 , 11899 1,924 1,968 2,023 . 2,108 2,037 2:251 2,109 2,149 2,067 2102 2090 2051 2020 2044' 2088 2082
Grade 6 1,829 1;733, 11,885 1,951 ; 1,915 1,895 .1,924 2,038 2,045 2,119 2,058 2,253 2,151 2,205 2,139 2164 2101 2098 2081' 2070 2130
Grade 7 1,824 1.720 1,812 1,915 1.948 1.925 1.899 1.982 2.083 2.081 2.208 2,127 2,380 2,209 2.243 2200 2205 2130 2117 2115 2092
Grede 8 1,545 1,828 1,724 1,799 1,882 . 1;941 1,927 1,938 1,970 2,015 2,033 2,154 2,079 2,351 2,221 2293 2254 2184 2143 2168 2151
Grade 9-JuniorHigh 1,483 1,612 1,689 1,716 1,800 1,894 1,983 1,931 1,825 2,102 2,208 2,246 2,404 2,309
Grade 9- Senbr Hgh 2,705 2767 2772 2560 2573 2487 2434
Grade 10 1;488 1,480 1,663 1,898 1,690 1,765 1,851 1,977 1,853 2,045 .2,113 2,084 2,039 2,207 . 2,124 2173 . 2212 2474 ` 2245 2213 2233
Gtede 11 1;360 1,400 1,409 1,537 1,529 1;808 1,881 1,797. 1,849 1,782 1,770 1,835 1,823 1,787 1,907 1799 1881 1882 1988 1958 . 1949
GrAde 12 1,202` 1,255 1,290 1,340 11,388 1,430 1,465 11507 1,832 1,537 1,432 1,440 ' 1,475 1,468 1,448 ~ 1475 1451 1491 1549 1819 1573
TotelEnraliment4 20,135 21,312. 22,222 22,803 22,794 23,323 23,792 24,580 24,882 25,080 25,238 25,344 25,354 25,358 25,770 25,809 25,884 25,745 25,828 25,778 25,821
Yeary FTE
Increase/ Decrease 918 1,178 909 582 -10 529 489 788 322 178 178 108 9 4 412 39 55 -118 83 -50 -167
- Cumulative increase 916 2,084 3,003 3,585 3,575 4,104 4,574 5,341 5,663 5,841 8,019 8,128 6,135 6,140 6,552 6,681 6,848 6,527 8,810 8,560 6,403
~ FTE enrollment counta have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Most Kindergarten studeMs are repoAed at .5 FTE ailhough mosl elementary schoola now provide some fuli day Kindergaden progrems.
Z This number indicates actuai biAhs in King County 5 years prior to enrollmenl year as updated by King County HeaMh Dept. KeM School Dfsfricl percentage based on adual KindergaAen enrollment 5 years leter.
3 StarUng in 2008, Kindergarten swdents ere repoAed et 1.0 (same as headcouni) at 5 schools which qualified for Fu0 Dey Kindergarten (FDK) /unded fhrough State Apportionment. See 7abfe 2A for Fup Dey KindergeAen detail.
Fw Fun Day Kinderperten at ather schools, ihe second haN uf 1he day fa funding by Federel 8 Slete Calegodcei graMa or tuiUon & studente are reported at .5 FTE on the P-223 Enropment RepoA which generales state (undtng.
4 EnrollmerH reported lo the slate on Form P-223 geoeretes basic education funding and exdudes Eerly Childhood Educetion ("ECE" &"B2" or BfAh to 2 Preachool Special Educalbn) and college-only Running Start students.
Odober 2010 P-223 HeadcouM = 26,830 8 Full HeadcouM = 27,349. Futl Headcoum indudea Kindergarten, Early ChUdhood Educalbn 8 coilege-ony Running SIaA students at 1:0 Headcount.
KeM School DlsUicM Six-Year Capilal FacilfUea Plan Tabl@ I Aprl 2011 ; Pape 6
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
SIX - YEAR F T E ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
State-funded FDK at 20 Schools LB in 2004 LB in 2005 LB in 2006 LB in 2007 LB in 2008 L8 Est 2009 LB Est 2010
ACTUAL P R O J E C T I O` N:
October 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ' 201'5 2016
King County Live Births' 22,680 24,244 ' 24,899 25,222 25,057 25,104 25,200 '
Increase ! Decrease 494 1,564 655 323 -165 43 100 .
Kindergarten 1 Birth °k 2 8.13% 8.13°k 8.13% 8.13% 8.13% 8.13°r6 8.1A
2/ Kindergarten FTE @.5 749 0 0 0 0 0 0.
2" FD Kindergarten @ 1.0 343 1,972 2,024 2,050 2,038 2,042 2,050
Grade 1 1992 1,912 2,075 2,129 2,156 2,144 2,148
Grade 2 1939 1,973 1,903 2,064 2,118 2,144 2;133
Grade 3 2000 1,977 2,020 1,949 2,113 2,168 2,195
Grade 4 1954 1,979 1,965 2,008 1,938 2,100 2,154
Grade 5 2082 1,990 2,027 2,012 2,056 1,985 2,150
Grade 6 2130 2,126 2,054 2,092 2,076 2,122 - 2,049
Grade 7 2092 2,153 2,159 2,087 2,125 2,109 2;155
Grade 8 2151 2,127 2,200 2,206 2,132 2,171 2,155
Grade 9 2434 2,414 2;399 2,481 2,487 2,404 2,448
Grade 10 2233 2,202 2,195 2,181 2,255 2,261 2,186
Grade 11 1949 1,967 1,950 1,944 1,931 1,997 2,002
Grade 12 1573 1,567 1,591 1,578 1,573 1,563 1,616
Total FTE Enrollment 25,621 26,359 26,562 26,781 26,998 27,210 271441 .
. . . Note: 2 / ] /4
Yearly Increase/Decrease 3 -157 738 203 219 217 212 231
Yearly Increase/Decrease % -0.61 % 2.88% 0.77% 0.82% 0.81 % 0.79% 0.85%.
Cumulative Increase -157 581 7114 1,003 1,220 1;432 1,663
Full Time E uivalent FTE 25,621 26,359 26,562 26,781 26,998 27,210. 27,441 ~ Kndergarten enrollment projection is based on Kent SD percentage of live births in IGng County fiVe years previous.
2 IGndergaiten FTE projection is calculated by using the DistricYs previous year perceMage of King County births five years
earlier compared to actual kindergarten enrollment in the previous year. (ExGudes ECE - Early,Childhood Education) .
3 Kmdergarten projection is at1.0 forFull Day Kindergarten (FDK) at all 28 Elementary schools. 2010 FDK funded at 5 schools by
state apportionment and second 1I2 of day funded by FederaP & 8tate Categorical Grarits and Tuition.
4 Oct. 2010 P223 FTE is 25,621 & Headcount is 26,630. FuII Headcourrt with ECE Preschool 8 Running Start studeMs = 27;349.
FG R O W T H P R O J E C T I O N S - Adjustments for current economic factors
For facilities planning purposes, this six-yearenrollment projection anticipates conservative enro1lment
growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district.
Kent School DisVict Sbc-Year Capital Faclities Ptan Table 2 April 2011 Page 7
KENT• SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 416
CAPACITY of ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS & KINDERGARTEN PROJECTIONS for October 2011
1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1:0'FTH .5 FTE .5 FTE .6 FTE Oct-11
Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast ProJected Full Day '
2010.2011 for tor for for tor for Kindergarten 'Elem
Program 1:0 Funded 1.0 Funded 1.0 Funded 0.50 Funded 0.50 Funded 0.50'Funded Students Schl .
State Title I by Combined Optional ' Headcount / FTE
F ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ABR Ca aci Apportionment ARRA S6m I-728 Kindergarten 7uMlon,Based Beaic'Ed Abrv
FDK FDK ~ FDK KAI 81/2 Day 112 Day (8 FDIQ 112 Day K Only @ 1.0 @.5o 11.0 Code
Carriage Crest Elementary cc 452 33 80 30 cc
Ceder Valley Elementery cv 458 80 e0 30 cv
Covington Elementary 2 co 504 70 84 32 co
Creslwood Elemenlary cw 458 31 82 41 cw
East Hill Elementary E►i 478 70 88 43 EH
Emerald Park Z . ea 504 84 . 88 39 er
Fairvvood'Elementary . Fw 408 31 68 33 ew '
Oeorge T.'Daniel Elementary ~ oe 458 BB ' 88 88 oe
GlenridgeiElementary 'an 438 82 88 33 oa ,
Greas.LeRe;Elementary oL 452 . 18 30-. 15 ai.
Horizon Elementary.? Me 504 64 , 78 38 HE
Jenkina Creek Elementery rc 404 48 56 28 ic
Kent Elemenfary Ke 476 78 78 76 KE
Lake Youngs Elementary LY 510 17 42 21 LY
MarUn Sortun Elementary Ma 480 92 92 48 Ms
Meadow Rldge Elementary ~ MR 478 77 77 77 LiR
Meridian Elementary Me 524 80 70 35 rE
Millennium:Elementary 2 ML 504 72 a 82 . 41 ru: Neey-O'Bden,Elementery , pa " 452 94 124 62 No
Panther Lake Elementary PL 552 178 90 45: vL
Park 0rchard Elementary eo 486 . 71 71 . 71 Po
Pine Tree Elementery a pT 528 66 a 82 31 wr
Ridgewood Elementary aw 504 34 70 35 Rw
Savvyer Woods.Elementary sw 504 31 52 28 sw
Scenic Hill Elamentary sH 476 88 88 SH
Soos Creek Elementery sc 408 52 50 . 25, sc
Sptingbrook Elementery se 452 58 84 42 se
Sunrise Elementary sR 504 35 82 311 sa
Elementary TOTAL 13,384 380 790 268 0 164 86 1972 1178 '
4
' 798 0.5 FrE x x 1582 -
28 Elementary Schools S. 11 4 0 6 3 rrq se fvic 380
HeadcauM 1872
Note 1: 6 schoola have State Apportlonment-tunded FDK included on P-223 Enroliment Reporta at 1.0 FTE and projected at 1.0 FTE. (DE - KE - MR - PO - 8H)
Note 2: KAI = Kindergarten Acedemic Intervendon at AAL & PT in 09-10 became FbK funded by grenta in 2010-11. 4 FDK were funded by I-728 et CO - EP - HE - ME fn 2010-11.
Note_3:20 schools have Federel & State Categodcal Granl-(unded FDK projected at 1.0 FTE - 3 schoola have only 1/2 Day-Kind. - 5 have OpUonal Tuilion-based & 1/2 DayKindergarten all projected at
Note 4: In 2011-12 ALL 28 Elementary Schoola wlll have Full Day Kindergarten.
Kent School DisU(d Six-Year Capilal Fadlities Rlen Tabl@ 2 A Apdl 2011 Page S.
i
III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service"
In . order to determine the capacity of facilities in a school district, King County Code 21A.06 references a"standard of service" that each school district must
establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service
identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students
and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the district which
would best serve the student population.
This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District.
The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as
"impact" schools and the standard of service targets a.lower class size at those
facilities. Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same
standard of service as the permanent facilities. (See Appendix A, e& C)
The standard of service defined herein may continue to change in the future.
Kenf School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process
combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This
process will_ affect various aspects of the District's standacd of service and futuce
changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans.
: Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students
Class size for Kindergarten is planned for an average of 24 or fewer students.
~ Class size for grades 1- 4 is planned for an average of 25 or fewer students. _
Class size for grades 5- 6 is planned for an average of 29 or fewer studenfs.
Program capacity:for general education elementary classrooms is calculated.at_
an average of 24 students per classroom because of .fluctuations befinreen
primary and intermediate grade levels (i.e. third/fourth.or fourth/fifth grade split
classes, etc.). " -
In 2010, most elementary schools meet the criteria required to provide full day
kindergarten programs (FDK = Full Day Kindergarten) with the second half of the
day funded by state apportionment, Federal & State Categorical Grants or
tuition. For 2011, five FDK Programs have state funding and the. others.will be
funded through Basic Ed and Educational Programs and Operations Levy.
Students have scheduled time in a computer lab. Students may also be provided
music instruction. and physical education in a separate classroom or facility.
Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self-
contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. ,
(corrtinuec)
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facitities Plan April . 2011 Page 9
II I Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continuea)
Identified students will also be pcovided other educational opportunities in
classrooms for programs such. as those designated as follows:
English Language Leame:rs (E L L) Inclusive Services / Tiered lntervention in SE Support Center Programs
Early Childhood Education (ECE) (3-4 yc. old students with disabilities)
Developmental Kindergarten in SC Programs
Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Self-contained Special Education Support-Center Programs (SC)
Adaptive Support Center for Mild, Modetate & Severe Disabilities (ASGDD)
Speech & Language Therapy & Programs for Hearing Impaired students
Occupational & Physical Therapy Programs (OT/PT)
Education for Disadvantaged Students (T'itle I) - Federal Program .
Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) - State Program .
District Remediation Programs
Education for Highly Capable 5tudents (formerly "Gifted" Program)
Some of the above special programs require specialized classroom space, as
well as music and physical education classrooms, computer labs, etc.; thus, the
permanent capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced.
Some students, for example, .leave their regular classroom for a short period of
time to receive instruction in ttiese special programs and °pull-out° space must
be allocated to serve these programs. '
Some newer. buildings hav.e been constructed to accommodate most of these
programs; some older, buildings have been modified, and in some
circumstances, these modifications reduce the classroom capacity of the
buildings. When programs change, program capacify is updated to reflect the
change in program and capacity.
Current Standards of Servicefor Secondar_v Students
The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and
educational opporfunities provided to secondary students which directly affect
the capacity of the school buildings.
Class size for grades 7- 12 is planned for an average of 30 or fewer sfudents.
Special Education for sfudents .with disabilities may be provided in a, self-
contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program.
(con6nuec9
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 10
. 1 . - - - . .
I I I Current Kent School Disfrict "Stapdard of Service" (cormnued)
Identified secondary students will also be provided other educational
opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows:
Computer, Multi-media & Technologylabs & Programs -(Nova Net - Advanced Academics)
Technology Academy programs at Kent-Meridian High School & Miil Creek Middle School
Science Programs & Labs - Biotogy, Chemistry, Physics, Qceanography, Astronomy,
Meteorology, Marine Biology, General Science, etc.
English Language,Leamers (E L L)
Integrated Rrograrris.& Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance)
Basic Skills Programs
T'ransition Outreacti Program (TOP) for 18-21 year old Special Education students
Child Development Preschool and Daycare Programs
Music Programs - Band, Orchestra, Chorus, Jazz Band, etc. -
Art Programs- Painting, Design, Drawing; Ceramics, Pottery,.Rhotography, etc.
Theater Arts - Drama; Stage Tech, etc.
Joumalism and Yearbook Classes Highly Capable (Honors or Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs
Intemational Baccalaureate ("I B") Program
Kent Phoenix Academy - Pertormance Leaming Center, Gateway;.Uirtual High School &
Kent Success program with evening classes designed for credit retrieval
Traffic Safety Education
JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps
Variety of Career 8 Technical Education Programs (CTE-Vocational Education)
Family $ Consumer Science - Culinary Arts, Sewing, Careers w/Children/Educ.; etc..
_ Health & Human Services - Sports Medicine, Sign Language, Cosmetology, etc.
_ Business Education = Word Processing, Accounting, Business Law & Math, DECA; FBLA (Future Business Leaders), Sales & Marketing, Economics, Web Design
Technical & Indusfry - Woodworfcing, Cabinet Making, Building Trades, Metats,
Automo#nre & Manufacturing Technology, Welding, Machine Shop; brafting, Drawing,
CAD (Computer-aided Design), Electronics, Engineering & Design, Aviation, ASL, etc.
Graphic & Commercial Arts,Media,:.Photography, Theater & Stage, Ag & Horticulture
Many of these programs and others require specialized classroom space which
can reduce the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition,
alternative home school assistance, choice and transition programs are provided
for students in grades 3- 12 at Kent Mountain View Academy.
Space or Classroom Utilization
As a resuit of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized
rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to~ FiaVe a work space
during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of
regular teaching stat'ions at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual
utilization of classrooms, the District has determined that the standard utilization
rate is 85% for secondary schools. Program capacity at elementary schools
reflects 100% utilization at the elementary level.
Kent School Distrid Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 11
I V Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools
Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 27,741 studenfs
; and transitional (relocatabie) capacity to house 1,389. This capacity is based on
the Disfrict's Standard of Service as set forth in Section I I I. Included in this Plan
is an inventory of the District's schools by type, . address and current capacity.
(See Tab/e 3, on Page 13)
The ratio between permanent capacity and transitional capacity is 97% - 3%.
The program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs, additional
classrooms and new schools. Program capacity has been updated in this Plan to
reflect program changes and_ new capacity for the new Panther Lake Elemenfary
School and building additions at the high schools.
Kent Mountain View Academy (formerly Kent Learning Center and Grandview
Elementary) serves Grades 3. - 12 with transition, choice and, home school
assistance programs. It is- locafed in the former Grandview School in the western
part of the District in the city of SeaTac. This school was originally designed as
an elementary school and is included in the elementary capacity for tliis Plan.
Kent, Phoenix Academy 'is a, non-traditional high school which opened in Fall
2007 in the renoVated site and building that formerly served Sequoia Middle
School. Kent Phoenix: Academy has four special programs including #he
Performance Learning Center, Gateway, Virtual High School and Kent Success.
Kent Success replaced the former Night Academy at Kent-Meridian High School
and provides aftemoon and evening classes for credit retrievaL
~ Calculation of Elemenfary, Middle School and Senior.High School capacities are
. set forth in Appendices A; B and C. A map of existing schools is included on
- Page 14.
Kent School District Sa-Year Capital Facilities Plan , April 2011 Page 12
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT PIo.415
INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS
2010-2011
Year
SCHOOL opened . ABR ' ADDRESS. Program
Capacity ~
Carriage Crest Elemerhiry 1990 CC 18235 -140th Avenue SE, Rernon 98058 452
Cedar Valley Etementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberiane Way SE, Covington 98042 456
Covington Elementary 1961 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 504
Cresrivood Etementary 1980 CW 25225 -180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 456
Ea§tNill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Sftet; Kent 98031 476
Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 504
Fairvwood Elementary 1969 FW 16600 -148th Avenue SE, ReMon 98058 408
George T. Daniel Elemerrtary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248tlt Street, Kent 98030 456,
Glenridge Eiemerrtary 1996 . GR 19405 -120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 456
Grass Lake Elemertary 1971 Gl 28700 -191 st Place SE, Kent 98042 452
Horizon ElemeMary 1990 HE 27641 -144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 504
Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915 -186th Avenue SE; Covington 98042 404
Kent Elementary 1999/1938 KE 24700 - 64th AVenue South; Kent 98032 476
Lake Youngs Etementary 1965 LY 19660 -142nd Avenue SE, ICerrt 98042 510
Martin Sortun Elemerrtary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 480
Meadow. Ridge Etementary 1994 MR 27710 -108th Avenue 5E, Kent 98030 476
Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 -140tli Avenue SE, Kerrt 98042 524
Millennium Elementary. 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 504
Neely-O'Brien Elemerrtary 1e9o 1190 NO 6300 South 236th SUeet, KeM 98032 . 452
Panther.Lake EJemerftry • 2009 i 19se PL 20831 -108th Avenue SE, Kerd 98031 552
Park Orchard FJemerrtary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent. 98031 486
Pine Tree ElemeMary 1967 PT 27825 -118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 528
Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030 -162nd Place SE, ReMOn 98058 504
Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135 - 228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 504
Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 476
Soos Creek Elemertary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 408
Springbrook ElemerMary 1969 SB 20035 -100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 452
Sunri~e Elementary 1992 SR 22300 -132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 504
ElemeMary TOTAL 13,364
Cedar Heights Middle Sdhool 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Covington 98042 923
Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251 st Street, Covington 98042 793
Meeker Middle Schoot 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd SVeet, Renton 98058 890
Meridian Middle School 1958 MM 23480 -120th Avenue SE, . Kent 98031 790
Mill Creek MS 8 TeCinology Academy Z 2005/ t952 MC 620 Nath Central Avenue, Kent 98032 828
Northwood Middle School 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th SVeet, Rerrton 98058 972
• Middle SChool TOTAL 5,196
Kent-Meridian HS 8 Tech Academy 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Stfeet, Kent 98030 1,851
KeMlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 2,157
Kentridge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 • 2,270
Kerrtwaod Senior High School 1981 KW 25800 -164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 2;137
Senior High TOTAL 8,415
Kerrt Mountain vew Academy 3 1997 / 1965 MV/LC 22420 Military Road, Des Manes 98198 416
Kent Phoenix Academy 4 2007 / 1966 PH 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 350 .
DISTRICT TOTAL 27,741
1 Changes to capaaty reflect program changes and new building additions at high schools.
Z Mill Creek Middle School and Tectinology Academy replaced renovated Kent Junior High in 2005.
3 Kent Mourrtain Yew Academy serves grades 3-12. The school was formerly known as Kent Leaming Center & Grandview ElemerHary.
4 Kent Phcenix Academy is a non-traditiorral high school which opened in FaI12007 in the former Sequoia MS building.
Kent School Dishid Six-Year Capital Faalities Plan Table 3 April 2011 Page 13
.
W ,
~ N m jIrvvOOd. .
Elementary
~ Kent,School 'D.istrict No, 415
~ A
g • SE PetrovHsk - Ridgewood Lake
N , Elementary Deslre SBNII~gi residen#s of
~ ;H Cbrriage Crest ~
N E~ mentary • • Unincorporated King County
~ £ M dd~a ~h
• Meeker ool City of Kent
~O o
Middle S hod ~,i~Of RentQ(~
Glen~idge Lake
~ Springbrook Elementary . ~Youngs CIt~/ Of AUbUrI~
Elementary Elementa
~ , • H;gh s~h~, City of Sea Tac
SE 208th St Lake City of Covington
~ S 212th St c ~ Youngs
Panfher Lake Emerald Park CI~/ Of MCIpIB' VGIIB~/
Elementary Elementary' ~ • ~ .
Soos Creek• City of Black Diamond
~ Elementary OSundse
Elementary
• Kent m Park Orchard Mountaln View ; ,~b1 ~Elementary. •
" Academy ~ ~ Meridlan , .
eely O'Bden *Middle School ,
~ Elementary~ East Hill v SE 240th St
Eleme ntary SE 240 m W 1~
Kent Mill Creek • Danlel > ~
lementary, le School 0 Elementary ~ ~ Mattson
Q
v~ Martin 0 A Middle Sch I
.
~ Rd Sortun Crestwo '
K H gh Sch~oao • Elementary SE 256th.St EleCodar fary
m ~ N • • Meridian •Kentwood , Pipe take . • "Adminisiraflon Elementary ;Hlgh Schooi Valley
- a ~ Scenic,Hill ~ > Center . ' Elementary• B Elementary Q, • . Lake : •
c KenT Pho nix ~~Meddian ZEIementary enkins
Academy Creek 9 Cedar Helghts
a 0 Middle Sch I SE 272nd St
- Mlllennium Keni-Kangley Road
Elementa
• Hodzon Covington
Meadow Ridge ~ Elementary Elementary
Elementary pine Tree y Grass Lake Elementary Elementary
5E CPVin9ton-Saq'Yer R.
a, .
Lake
p Sawyer
~
LOke Kenflake•
~ High School
~ 28 Elementary Schools ~a Morton
~ 6 Mlddle SChoOls sawyerwoods~
~ 4 Senior High Schools E~eme"r°ry
Kent Mountain View Academy (Grades 3-12)
m Kent Phoenix Academy (9-12) .
~
~
J
A '
V Six Year Planning and Construction Plan
At the fime of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2011, the following projects are
completed or in the planning phase in Kent School District: .
o Three new classrooms were added when the Auxiliary Gym project was recently
completed for Kent-Meridian. High School. Construction is in progress for the Main Gym
project that wilf also provide additional classroom capacity at Kent=Meridian in 2011-12.
• In February 2006, voters approved construction funding for replacement of Panther,Lake
Elementary School. A new site was acquired nearby and the °New" Panther Lake
Elementary opened in Fall 2009 with a 28% increase in capacity. The district has received
authorization from OSPI for °Old" Ranttier. Lake Elementary School to be held in reserve
for utilization in the event of flooding in the Kent Valley.
• Planning is on hold for a replacement school for Covington Elementary School. The ,
project is pending satisfactory financial resources to fund the project.
In February 2006, voters also approved construction funding for a future Elementary
School identified as Elementary #31 (actual #29) to accommodate new growth.
e Enrollment projections reflect future need for additional capacity at the elementary school
level. Future fac'ility and site needs are reflected in this Plan.
• Some funding for purchase of additional portables may be provided by impact fees as
needed. Sites are based on need for additional capacity.
As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and
decision-makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all
studenfs when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and
. developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety as well as bus
pull-outs and turn-arounds for school buses.
Included in this Plan is an inventory of potential projects and sites identified by
the District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future. (see
Tab/e 4 on Page 16 & Site map on Page 17)
Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for
some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in
this Plan. Some funding is secured for purchase ofi additional sites buf some may
be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties, meet _
current school construction requirements and some property may be traded or -
sold to meet fufure facility needs.
2006 voter approval of $106M bond issue for capital improvement included the
consfruction funding for new Elementary School #31 (actual #29), -replacement
of Panther Lake Elementary, and cl_assroom additions to.._high schools. Some
impact fees have been or will be applied to those projects. The Board will
continue annual review of standard of service and those decisions will be
reflected in the each update of the Capital Facilities Plan.
Kent School DisVict Six-Year Capital Faalifies Plan April 2011 Page 15
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.4.15
Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity
Projected Projected % for
SGHOOL / FACILITY / SITE. LOCATION T e Status Completion Program new
• , Date Capacity Growth ,
' APProxtrtfate APProiirtate -
#On
~ Map ELEMENTARY (Num6ers assigned to future schools may not comeJate with number of existrng schools.)
Replacemerrt
5 Replacement for Covington Elementary (U) SE 256th Street 8154th Ave SE Eiementary Planning 201415 600 16%
Covington Elem - Capacity to be replaced 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington Elemerrtary Pianning 201415 -504
New
Eleme6tary*31 (Actua! #29 ) (F) Locatlon TBD - To be detertnined 2 Elementary Planning 2015-16 600 100%
Site forElementary # 31 (Unfundecn~ To be detertnined Z Site Pianning 201415 100%
MIDDLE SCHOOL '
No Projects required at this time
SENIOR HIGH
. Chassroom in
KeM-Meridian HS - Classroom Additlons (F) 10020 SE 256th Sbeet, Kent Additions Progress 2011-12 53 100%
Additional . .
Capacity
• TEMPORARY FACILI----~
Relocatables For placement as needed New Planning 2011 + 24 -31 eaa, 100%
#,on twa use Land Use
Map ° OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Desienatio+ Type Jurisdiciion
, 4 Covington area North (Near Mattson MS) SE 251 & 164 SE, Covington_ 98042 urban Elementary City of Covington
7 Covington area South (Scarsella) SE 290 $156 SE. Kent 98042 Rural Elementary King County
b Covington area West (HaUeson-WiksVom) SE 256 & 154 SE, CoVington 98042 Urban Elementary City of Covington
3 Ham Lake area (Pollard) 16820 SE 240, Kent 98042 Rurai Elementary King County
8 S.E of Lake Morton area (West property) SE 332 & 204 SE, Kent 98042 ` Rural 5econdary King County
2 Shady Lk area (Sowers, Blaine, Drahata, Paroline) 17426 SE192 Street, Renton 98058 Urban Etementary Kng County
1 So. King Co. Adivity Center (fortner Nike sfte) SE 167 8170 SE, Renton 98058 Rural TBD 2 King CouMy
12 South Central site (Plemmons-Yeh-Wms) SE 286th St 8 124th Ave SE, Aubum 98092 Urban TBD Z King County
Notes:
' Unfunded faality needs wiil be reviewed in the future.
2 TBD - To be detertnined - Some sites are acquired but placement, timing and/or configuration have not been detertnined.
3 Numbers correspond to sites on Site Bank Map on Page 17. Other Map site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 27.
Kent Scfiool District Six-Year Capital Faalfies Pian Table 4 Apn1 2011 Page 16,
~ N m Falrwood
Kent School District No. 415
Elemenipry
o :
y A ~ ' Site Bank
0 SE Petrovlt Rd ~ Ridgewood e
W . Eementary
VI
amaee cres
N Q Elementary
~ Norffiwood ~ Lake PrO AV u'sltlOns
School
Middl e Deslre p ~s•rrtyy q
~ SE 192nd St ~ Meeker
n ~ Middle School
~i Gienddge . Lake Youngs
9 Springbrook Elementary *Elementary
~ Elementary
y ~ HlghtS~hool Lake Youngs
~ S SE 208th ST
~
y S 212th St anther La• EmeraM Park
Elemenfary Elementary
Panther
~ Replacement E e°menfary~ ~ 0 sunrise
> ElemenTary
~Kent ~ ParkOrchard a
Mounialn View Elementary
Acade N
my ~ .~b ~
NeelyO'Brlen 3 *Meddlan ~
~ Elementary 0. EasT HIII SE 24 Middle School SE 240th St
ElementaryKent ~ *MIII Creek I* v~
s Elementary• Iddle School Doniel m'
Kent- Elemen ary Q Mattson
~ ?a 0 Merldl9h SMoartUin Middle Scho restwood
Elementary lementory
~ ~he' SE 256ih St
m • • Meridian
ke
9 m N Admfnlstration EfemenTary Kentwood Cedar Val Pipe La
ley
a Scenic HIII 0 m CenTer 0 High School Elementary
p Elementary Q 0 •
4- Kent Phoenlx Lake Merldian Jenkins
m € Academy Millennium Creek ~ Cedar Helghts
V ~ SElementa Elementary ~ Middle School SE 272 nd St
Meadow Ridge N Kent-Kangley Road
~Elementary m Hodzon Covingtory
SPine Tree Q Elementary ElemenTa ,
ElemeMary.o ~~Qr
c ~ Grass Lake
N •ElemeMary
SE 288 Sireet ~p Go n ~on
vl
of 5~ r Rq
O~
~o .
Lake
SE 304fh Strset Kentlake 0 Sawyer
Hlgh School
- Lake E nt ryod~
o ,
~ Morton.
J -
03 . . . . . , . . . . " . . - . . - .
~ •
~ r SE 336th St
V Y Relocatable Classrooms
For the purpose of clarification, the term "portabies" and the more descriptively
accurate term, "relocatables" 'are used interchangeably in this Plan. The Plan
also references use of portables or relocafabies as interim or transitional
capacity and facilities. Currently, . the District utilizes relocatables to house students in excess ofi
permanent capacity, for program purposes at some school locations, and some
for other purposes. (See Appendices A B C D)
Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten
programs, program.capacity and the need for additional permanent capacity, the
District anticipates the need to purchase some add'itional relocatables during the
next six-year period.
During the time period covered by this. Plan, the District does not anticipate that
all of the District's relocatables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During
the useful life of some of the relocatables, the school-age population may decline
in some communities and 'increase in others, and these relocatables provide the
flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community.
Portables, or relocatables, may be used as.interim or transitional facilities:
1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school
facilities. .
2. To cover the gap befinreen the time of demand for increased
capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet
that demand.
3. To rrieet unique program requirements.
Relocatables currently in: the, District's inventory are continually evaluated
resulting in some being improved and some'replaced. Quality concerns will be
among those addressed by review of capital facilities needs for the next bond
issue. `The Plan projects that the Districf will use relocatables to accommodate interim
housing needs for the next six years and beyond; The use of relocatables, their
impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle ~and operational costs, and the
interrelationship between relocatables, emerging technologies and educational
restructuring will continue to be examined.
Kent School Distrid Siz-Year Capital Faalitles Plan ApN 2011 Page 18
V I I Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity
As stated in Section I V, the program capacity study is periodically updated for
changes in speciai programs and reflects class size fluctuations, grade levei splits, etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 13,
the program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison ChBttS. (See Tables 5& 5 A-B-C on pages 20 - 23)
Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis
and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). 'The frst
school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment "snapshot in time"
to. report enrollment for the year.
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 2010 was 25,621.48.
Kindergarten students are reported at .5 although many schools provide full day
kindergarten ("FDK") with alternative funding for the second half of the day.
State Apportionment-funded Full Day Kindergarten programs will report and
project some Kindergarten students at 1.00 FTE at qualifying FDK schools. The
P-223 FTE Report excludes Early Childhood Education ("ECE° preschool)
studenfs and College-only Running Start sfudents. (see rebles s& sa-a-c on pa9es Zo-zs)
In October there were 681 students in 11th and 12th grade participating in the
Running Start program at 10-20 different colleges and receiving credits toward
both high school and college graduation. 329 of these students attended classes
only at the college ("college-onlyn) and are excluded from FTE and headcountfor
capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has the highest
Running Start program enrollment in the state.
Kent School District 'continues to be the fourth largest district in the state of
Washington. P-223 Headcount for October 2010 was 26,630 with kindergarten
students. counted at 1.0 and excluding ECE and college-only Running Starf
students. A full headcount of all students enrolled in Ocfober 2010 totals 27,349
which includes ECE and college-only Running Start students.
Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility inventory and capacity,
current standard of service, relocatable capacity, and future planned additional
classroom space, the District anticipates having sufficient capacity to house
StUd@C1tS OV@r th@ tl@Xt SIX y@BfS. (See Table 5 and Tables 5 A-B-C on Pages 20 - 23)
This does not mean that.some schools'will not experience overcrowding. There
may be a need for additional relocafables and/or new schools to accommodate
growth within the D'istrict. New schools may be designed to accommodate
placement of future relocatables. Boundary changes, limited, and costfy
movement of relocatables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational
restructuring will all play a major role in addressing overcrowding and
underutilization of facilifies in different parts of the District..
Kerrt School District Six-Year Capital Faali6es Plan April 2011 Page 19
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY
TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2o10-2o11 2011-2012 2012-2o13 2013-2014 20142015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Actual P R ' O J E C T E D
Permanent Program Capaci 1 27,741 27,741 27,794 27,794 27,794 27,890 28,490
Chan es to Permanent Capaci '
Kent-Meridian HS - 2011-12 Additions (F) 2 53
2 Classrooms added at KM
Replacemerrt school with projected increase in capadty: Covington Elementary 3 (Uniunded) . 600
To Repiace anrent Covington Elementary capaaty -504
New Elementary # 31 (eauai #29) (Funded) 600
Permanent Program Capaaty Subtotal 27,741 27,794 27,794 27,794 27,890 28,490 28,490
IMerim Relocatable Ca aci
`6ementery Relocatable Capadty Required 0 168 312 528 624 240 408
Middle School RelxaWble Capadly Required 417 O O 0 0 0 0 0
Senior High Relocatable Capacity Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Relocatable Capacity Required 1/6 0 168 312 528 624 240 408
TOTAL CAPACITY ' 27,741 27,962 28,106 28,322 28,514 28,730 28,898
ITOTAL FTE ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 5 25,621 26,359 26,562 26,781 26,998 27,210 27,441
DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY ~ 2,120 1,603 1, 544 1,541 1,516 1,520 1,457
~ Capacity is based on standard of senrice for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes.
2 Classroom additions are under construction at Kent-Meridian HS and expected to be available for 2011-12 school year.
~ 3 Replacement school for Covington Elementary will increase capacity and will be built on a different existing site.
4 In Fall 2004, 9th grade moved to the high schools which increased capacity available at Middle School 7th - 8th grade levels.
5 FTE = Full Time Equivalent EnrollmenUProjections (i.e. 1/2 day lGndergaRen student =.5 & FuII Day fGndergarten siudent = 1.0 FTE).
6 2010-2011 total dassroom relocatable capacity is 1,389.
7 School capaatymeets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are proposedYor middle schools.
Kent School District,Six-YearCapital Facilities,Plan T1bI@ rJ April 2011 Page 20
~
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SEIVIOR HIGH - Grades 9 -12
SCHOOL YEAR 2o10-2o11 2011-2012 1-2612-2013 2013-2014 2o14-2o15 1,2015-20161_ 2o16-2o17
Adual P R O J E. C T E D
Senior Hi h Permanent Capaci ' 8,765 8,765 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818
Includes KeM Phoenix Academy Z
lChahges to Hi h School Ca aci
Kent-Meridian HS - 2011-12 Additions (F)
2 Ciassrooms added es% ubivzuon) 53
Subtotai 8,765 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818
iRelocat-able Capacity Required 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAC CAPACITY ' 8,765 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818 8,818
FTE ENROCLMENT / PROJECTION 3 $,189 8,150 8,135 8,184 8,246 8,225 . 8,252 '
SURPLUS DEFICi. CAPACITY 576 668 683 634 572 593 566
Numlier of Relocatables Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Classroom Relocatabies required atthis time. Some Relocatabies used for dassroom and program purposes.
~ Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes.
Z Kent Phoenix Academy opened in Fall 2007 serving grades 9- 12 with four special programs.
3 FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or projections, excluding CoUege-only Running Start students.
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A April 2011 Page 21
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and' CAPACITY
NIlDDLE SCHOOL - Grades 7 - 8
SCHOOL YEAR 2010-2011 2011-20~2 2012-20 13 2013-2014 20142015 2015-20162016-2017
Actual P R O J E ~ C T -E D
iMiddle School Permanent Capaci ' 5;196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196
lchanges to Middle School Ca aci
4 Mill Creek MS & Technology Academy
are open during Phase 2 of Renovation
(No new capacity added'in renovation)
Subtotal 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 ` 5,196
Relocatabie Capaci Re uired' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CAPACITY 1&3 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 5,196 - 096
FTE ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION Z 4,243 4,280 4,359 4,293 4,257 4,280 4,3.10
ISURPLUS DEFICIT _CAPACITY.4 953 916 837 903 939 916 886
Number of Relocatabtes Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Classroom Relocatables required at middleschools at this time. Some Relocatables used for Gassroom and program purposes.
I Capacity is based on standard of service.for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program, changes.
2 FTE = Approximate Full Time Eguivalent Enroilment or Projections -
3 Surplus capacity due to grade level reconfiguration - All 9th grade students moved to the high schools in Falt 2004.
° Middle School capacity meets concurrency requirements and no impact fees are collected for middle schools:
Aprii 2011 Page 22
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 475 -
PROJECTED ENROLLMEN7 and CAPACITY
ELEMENTARV - Grades K - 6. ~
SCHOOL YEAR 201 0-z011 1 20111-20ll2 2012-2013 2013-2014 20142015 2016-2016 .201 6-1o17
Actuai P R O J E C T E D
lElementary Permanent Capaci ' 13,364 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,876 14,476
Kent Mountain View Academy Z 416
Chan es to Elementa Ca ac'
Replacement school with projected increase in qpacity:
Covington Elementary ° (unrunded) 600
Will replace current Covington Elemerrtary capacity -504
New Elementary # 31 (Funaed) 5 600
subtotai 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,780 13,876 14,476 14,476
Relocatabie Capacity Required' 0 168 312 528 624 240 408 .
TOTAL CAPACITY 2 131780 13,948 14,092 14,308 14,500 14,716 14,884
[7,;; ENROLLMENT PROJECTION 3 13,189 13,929 14,068 14,304 14,495 14,705 14,879
ISURPLUS DEFICI CAPACITY 591 19 24 4 5 11 5
Number of Relocatables Required 0 7 13 22 26 10 17
26 Glassroorfi Relocatables required in 201415. Someadditional Relocatables used for program purposes.
~ Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes.
? Kent Mountain vew Apdemy is a special program at the former Grandview School serving students in Grades 3-12: '
The school building (formerly Kent Leaming Center & Grandview Elem.) was designed as an elementary school.
3 FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projections (Kindergarten @ 1.0 & exduding ECE)
: ACL Elementary Schools will have FULL Day Kindergarten starting in 2011-12.
lo Fa112011, Kindergarten projeotion changes to 1.0 FTE for Full Day Kindergarten programs at ALL 28 Elementary Sehools.
4 Replacement school for Covington Efementary will increase capacity and is planned for a different ewsting site.
5 Site seledion and consVuction timing for Elementary #31 is pending review of location and capacity needs. Kent School Distrid Six-Year Capital Facili6es Plan Table 5 C April 2011 Page 23
,
; V I I I Finance Plan
The finance plan shown on Tab/e 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to
finance improvements for the years.2011 - 2012 through 2016 - 2017. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based
on voter approval of future bond issues, collection of impact fees under the State
Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State
Environmental Policy Act.
In February 2002, voters approved a$69.5 million bond issue for capital construction and improvements. The bond issue partially funded building additions at three high
schools which coincided with moving 9t grade students from junior high to senior high
- schools in September 2004: The District received some State Funding Assistance.
(formerly known as "state matching funds°) and has utilized impact fees for the senior
high additions.
In February 2006, voters approved a$106 million bond issue that included funds for
replacement of Panther Lake Elementary School with increased capacity, as well as
, constrwction of new Elementary School #31 (actual #29) to accommodate growth. The
new Panther Lake Elementary School replaced the previous Panther Lake Elementary
in Eall of 2009. -
The bond issue also funded Phase II of the renovation for Mill Creek Middle School and
renovation of Sequoia Middle School for reconfiguration as a non-traditional high school, Kent Phoenix Academy, which opened in September 2007.
2006 construction funding apprqval also provided for additional classrooms at Kentlake
High School and two projects at Kent-Meridian High SchooL The projects at Kent-
Meridian High School provide additional capacity with several new classrooms . and
gymnasium space. The first project at K-M was completed and the second is currently
• under construction. Some impact fees have been or will be utilized only for the new
construction that will increase capacity.
The district has designated $16 million of the 2006 bond authorization for construction of
an addifional elementary school ("Elementary #31"), currently scheduled for completion
in the fall of 2015, dependent on enrollment levels: Although the school is identified as
°Efementary School #31" it will actually be the 29"' elementary school in the district.
The Finance Plan includes a few new relocatables to provide additional capacity and
some may be funded from impact fees.
- Enrollment projections reflect future need for addifional capacity at the elementary level
and unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future and reported in annual
updates of the Capital Facilities Plan.
For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from
Kent School District Facilities Department. Pfease see pages 26-27 for a summary of
" the cost basis. Kent School DisVict Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 24
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.41b
SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN
mpact
Secured
SCHOOL Unsecured FFees
Loca1 Stete State Z or Locel 3 6
FACILITIES " 2011 20.12 2013 2014 2015 2016. ! TOTAL 8~
EsUmeted. • Estlmated
PERMANENT FACILITIES
Kenl-Meridian H(gh School F $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $400,000 $1,100,000
Classroom AddiQons I - 2
No Middle School Projects at this time
Covington Elementary Replacement ~ U $31,840,000 $31,840,000 $26,745,800 $5,094,400
Elementary # 31 1 - 2 - 3 F $33,400,000 $33,400,000 $16,000,000 $6,940,000 $10,460,000
Elementary Site 3 U $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
TEMPORARY FACIUTIES
F
Additlonal Relocatables 3 - 4 U $255,000 $264,000 $277,000 $796,000 . $798,000
2 relocetables 2 relocaleWes 2 relocatebles
OTHER
N/A
TOtaiS $255;000 $1,764,000 • $277,000 $36,840,000 . $33,400,000 $0 $72;536,000 $16,400,000 $33,685,600 $22,450,400
• F = Funded U = Unfunded NOTES: • :
~ Based on estimates of actual or fuiure conslructfon costs from FaciliGes Department. (See Page 25 for CostBasis Summary).
2 The Distrid an8cipales receiving some State Funding'ConsUudion Assistance{formerly known as "matching.funds") for these projecls.
3 Facility needs are pendUg review. Some oLthese;projecls may tie funded with impact feea. 4 Cost oi Relocatables based on current costsand adjusted for inflalionior iufure years.
° Fees in this cotumn are based:on amount of fees collected to date and estimated fees on fulure units.
Kent Schoo' •riot Six-Year Capital FaGIltles Plan TabI@ ~ , April 2011 PagP ^'i:
V I I I Finance Pian - Cost Basis Summary
For impact fee calculations, consfruction costs are based on cost of the last
elementary school, adjusted for inflation, and projected cosfi of the next
elementary school.
Elementary School Cost Projected Cost
Millennium Elementary #30
Opened in 2000 $129182,768
Cost of Panther Lake Elementary
Replacement (Opened in Fall 2009) $261700,000
Projected cost - Covington `Elementary
Replacement (Projected to open in 2014) $31,840,000 Projected cost of Elementary #31 in 2015 $33,400,000
Average cost of CoVington Elementary
Replacement & Elementary #31' $32,620,000
Construction cost of high school addition:
-
Senior High School Additions Projected Cost Total
Kent-Meridian HS - 2011-12Addition #2 $1,500,000
Classroom Additions only
Construction cost ofi new HS capacity $1,500,000
Site Acquisition Cost
The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built
on within the last ten years. Flease see Table 7 on page 27 for a list of site
acquisition costs and averages.
District Adjustment .
The impact fee calculations on pages 29 and 30 include a"District Adjustrnent"
to reduce the fees calculated -by the impact fee ,formulas. Based on current
economic conditions, the District has adjusted the impact fees to keep the same
- rates. as those currently in place and made no adjustment for increase in the
Consumer Price lndex:
Kent School District Six=Year Capital Faalfies Plan April 2011 Page 26 '
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415
Site Acquisitions & Costs
Average of $ites Purchased or Built on within last 15 Years
Type.B Year Open /
'
# on Map SCh001 / Sit@ I'urchased Locadon Acreage Gost Avg.cosVacre Total Average Cost! Acre
Elementary
'
13f Urban Panther Lake Elementary Replacement Site 200e 10200 SE 216 St, Kent 98031 9.40 $4,485,013 $477,129
5/ urban Elementary Site (Halleson & Wikstrom) 2004 15435 SE 258 St, Covin9ron 9e042 10.00 $1,093,910 $108,391
Etementary Site Subtotal 18.40 $5,578,923 $287,573
Elem slte avera e
Middle School
UrSan Northwood Middle School 1996 17007 SE 184 st, Renton 98058 24:42 $655,138 $26;828
10 / Urban Mill Greek MS (Kent JH) ! McMillan St. assemblege 2002 411-432 McMillan St, Kent 98032 1.23 $844,866 $886,883
12/ Urban So Central Site - Unincorp KC (Plemmons, Yeh, Wms) 1999 E of 124 5E blw 288-298 PI (UKC) 39.36 $1,938;020 $49,188
Mlddle scnool Site subcotal 65.01 $3,436,024 $52,854
Mlddle 8ch1 Site Avg. -
Senior High
11 I Urban K-M High School Addition (Kent 8 8 Britt Smith) 2002 & 2003 10002 sE 256th street 6.31 $3,310,000 $524,564
Senior High Kentlake High School (Kombol Morris) 1997 21401 SE 300 St, Kent 98042 40.00 $537,534 $13,438
6/ Urban Keniwood Sr Hi Addition (sandnu) 1998 16807 SE 256th Street 3.83 $302,117 $78,882
Senior High Site Subtolal 50.14 $4,149,651 $82,761
Sr HI Site Avera e
Note: All rural,sites were purr,hased prior to adoption of Urban Growth Area. .
Numbers correspond to IocaNons on Site Bank 8 Acqulaitions Map on Page 17.
Prortles urchased prior,to 1996 , .
1/ Rural So. King County AcUvfty Center (Nike site).purchased pr(or to 1996.
4/ Urban Site - Covington area North (So of Mattson MS) 1984 Total Acxeage & Cost Total Average Cost / Acre
3/ Rural Site - Ham Lake east (Pollard) 1992 134.55 $13,164,588 $97,842
7/ Rural Site - South of CoVington (Scersella) 1993
8/ Rural Site - SE of Lake Morton:area (West) 1993
2/ Urban Site - Shedy Lake (Sowers-Blaine-Drehota-Paroline) 1995
9/ Urban Old KenkElementary replaced and curcenUy leased out
Kent Scho .rict Six-Year Cepital Facilitles Plan Tat April 2011 3;27 '
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
- FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Student Generation Factors - Single Family Stuoent Generation Factors - Multi-Family
x Elementary (Grades K- 6) 0.486 Elementary 0.331 .
x Middle School (Grades 7- 8) 0.130 Middle School 0.067 ,
x Senior High (Grades 9-12) 0.250 Senior High 0.124
x Total 0.866 Total 0.522
Projected Increased Student Capacity OSP1- Square Footage per Student
x Elementary 600 Elementary 90
x Middle School 900 Middle School 917 _
x Senior Nigh Addifion ' 53 Senior High 130
- Special Education 144
Required Site Acreage per Facility
z Elementary (required) 11 Average Site Cost /Acre
x Middle School (required) 21 Elementary $287,573
x Senior High:(required) 32 Middle School $0' - Senior High $0
New Facility Construction Cost
x Elementary * $32,620,000 Temporary Facility Capacity 8 Cost ,
x Middle School $0 Elementary @ 24 $127,500 _
x Senior High ` $1,500,000 Middle School @ 29 $0
• see cosrbasis on P9. 26 SeniorHigh @ 31 $0
- Temporary Facility Square Footage State Funding Assistance Credit curnr-am nn=n
x Elernentary 70,892 District Funding Assistance Percerrtage 56.65%
x Middle School 16,376
x Senior High 22,064 •
X Tofal 3% 109,332 Construction Cost Allowance cca - costi5q. Ft
Area Cost Allowance (EfFective Juy 09) _$180.17_
. Pertnanent Facility Square Footage x Elementary (induaes EaNV,o) 1,470,543
x Middle School 667,829 District Average Assessed Value
x Senior High 1,111,036 Single Famiy Residence $268,279
X Total 97% 3,249,408
Total. Facilities Square Footage District: Average Assessed Value .
x Elementary 1,541,435 Multi-Family Residence $99,888
x Middle School 667,829 Apartmertts 71% Condos 29% -
x Senior Hjgh 1,133,100
x Total 3,342;364 Capital Levy Tax Rate/$1,000
Currerrt / $1.000 Tax Rate (1.7236) $1.84
Developer Provided Sites / Facilities
Value 0 Genera( Obligation Bond Interest Rate
Dwelling lJnits 0 Current Bond lnterest Rate 4.91 %
KeM School District Spc-Year Capital Fealities Plan April 2011 Page 28
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY REStDENCE
Site Acquisition Cost per Singie Family Residence
Fortnula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capaaty).x Student Generation Fador
Required Site Acreage ' Average Site CosVAcre Facility Capacity Student Factor
A 1. (Elementary) 11 $287,573 600 0.486 ' $2,562.28
A 2 (Middle Schooq 21 $0 1,065 0.130 $0
A 3 (SeniorHigh) 32 $0 1,000 0.250 $0
0.866
A b $2.ss2:2s
Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence
Formula: ((Facil'dy Cost / Facility Capaary) xStudent Factor) x(PertnanenUTotal Square Footage Ratio)
F Construction Cost Fac+lity Capaaty StudeM Fador Footage Ratio "
B 1 (Elementary) $32,620,000 600 0.486 0.97 •$25,629.53
B 2 (Middle Schoaq $0 900 0.130 0.97 $0
B 3 (Senior High) $1,500,000 53 .0 250 0.97 $6,863.21
0.866 B b - - - -
$32,492.74
Temporary Facility Cost per Single Famity Residence
Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x StudeM Faetor) x(Temporary / Total,Square Footage Ratio) ,
Facility Cost Facility Capacity Studerrt Faator Footage Ratio
C 1 (Elementary) $127,500 24 0.486 0.03 $77.46
C 2 (Middle Schooq $0 29 0.130 ' 0.03 $0
C 3 (Senior High) $0 31 0.250 0.03 $0
0.866 C 40 - $77.46
State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly "State Match")
Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SFI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Fadoc
I Area Cost Allowance SPI Sq. Ft / StudeM Equalization % Studerrt Facbor
D 1 (Elementary) $180.17 90 0.5665 0.486 $4,464,38
D 2 (Middle Schooi) $180.17 117 0 0.130 $0
D 3 (Senior High) $180.17 130 0.5665 0.250 $3,317:15
. D !4, $7,781.54
Tax Credit per Single Family Residence
Average SF Residential Assessed Value $268,279 Current Capital Levy Rate / $1,000 $1.84
Current Bond Irrterest Rate 4.91 °k
Years Amortized (10 Years) 10 TC b $3,838.62
Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units
0 0 FC b 0
Fee Recap
A= SRe Acquiskion per SF Residence $2,562.28
B= Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $32,492.74
C Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $77.46 _
Subtotal $35,132.47
D= State Match Credit per Residence $7,781.54
TC = Tax CredB per Residence $3,838.62
Subtotal - $11,620.15
Total Unfunded Need $23,512:32 50°k DeveloperFee Obligation $11,756 ,
FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) 0 .
District Adjustment (See Page 28 tor explanation) ($6,270)
Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family $5,486
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 29
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unlt .
Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Gapacity) x Student Generafion Factor
Required Site Aaeage Average Site Cost/ACre Faality Capacity . Student Factor
A 1 (Elementary) 11 $287,573 . 500 0.331 $2,094.11 •
A 2 (Middte SchooQ 21 $O 1,065 0.067 $0
A 3 (Senior High) 32 $0 1,000 . 0.124 $0
0.522
A s2.094;11
PermanentFacility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit.
Formula: ((Facil'ity Cost CFacility Capacity)x Student Factor) x(Permanent / Total Square Footage Ratio)
Construdion Ccst Facility Capacity Stuc]eM Factor Footage Ratio
B 1 (Elementary) $32,620,000 600 0.331 0.97 $17,455.51
B 2 (Middle SchooQ $0 900 0.067 0.97 - $0
B 3 (Senior High) $1,500,000 53 0.124 0.97 $3,404.15
0.522 B ~ $20.859.66
Temporary Facility Cost per Multi-FamityResidence Unit
Formula: ((Facility.Cost / Faciliry Capaciry) x Sfudent Fador) x(Temporary/ Total Square Footage Ratio)
F Faality Cost Faality Capacity StudeM Factor Footage RaUo
C 1 (Elementary) $127;500 24 0.331 0.03 $52.75
C 2 (Middle Schooq $0 29 0.067 0.03 $0
C 3.(Senior High) $0 31 0.124 0.03 $0
0.522 C `a $52:75
, State Funding Assistance Creditper Multi-FamilyResidence (formerly "State Match")
Fortnula: Area Cost Aliowance. x SPI Square Feet per.student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor
Area Cost Allowance SPI Sq. Ft / Student Equalization ° Student Factor
D 1 (Elementary) $180.17 90 0:5665 0.331 $3,040.56
D 2 (Middte School) $180.17 717 0 0.067 $O
D 3 (Senior High) $180.17 130 0.5665 .0 124 $1,645:31
D $4,685.86
Tax Credit per Multi-Famity Residence.Unit ,
Average MF Residential Assessed Vatue $99,888
Current Capital Levy Rate /$1,000 $1.84
Current Bond interest Rate 4.91%
Years Amortized (10 Years) 10. TC 4, $1,429.23
Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units
p p FC b 0
Fee Recap
A= Site Acquisition per MuRNFamily Unif $2,094.11
B= Permanent Facil'ity Cost per MF UniY $20,859.66
G= Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $52.75 `
Subtotal $23,006.52
b= State Match Credit per MF Unit $4,685.86 '
TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,429.23 -
Subtotal - $6,115.09
Totai Unfunded Need $16,891.42
50°h Developer Fee Obligation $8,446
FC = Facil'dy Credit (if applicable) 0
District AdjustmeM (SeePage 26 for explanation) . ($5,068)
Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit - Multi-family $3,378 ,
Kent School Distrid Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 30
IX Summary of Changes to Aprii 2010 Capital Facilities Plan
The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan"), is updated annually based on: previous Plans in
effect since, 1993. The primarychanges from the April 2010 Plan are summarized here.
New Panther Lake Elementary School replaced "Old" Panther Lake Elementary and opened in Fall 2009. °Old°' Panther Lake Elementary is being held in reserve for
utilization in the event of flood emergency in the Kent Valley. Future projects include potential replacement and expansion of- Covington Elementary
School, fufure new Elementary School #31 (acfual #29), and one project that increases
capacity af Kent-Meridian High School to accommodate new growth.
Changes to capacity continue to reflect fluctuations in class size as well as program
changes. Changes in relocatables or transitional capacity reflect use, purchase, sale,
surplus and/or movement between facilities.
The student enrollment forecast is updated, annually. Six-year Kindergarten projections _
were modified to meet the requirements for Full. Day Kindergarten programs at all
Elementary scFiools in 2011-12. ,
The district expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formerly called °state
matching funds°) for projects in this Plan and tax credit facfors are updated annually.
Biennial update of student generation rates was completed la"st year. 'Unfunded site and '
facility needs will 6e reviewed in the future: ' Based on cuRent economic conditions, the District Adjustment results in no change to
the current impact fees.
Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include:
ITEM GradeRype FROM TO Commenfs
Student Generation Factor Elem 0.445 0.486 Biennial Update in 2010
Single Family (SF) Ms 0.118 0.130
SH 0.245 0.250
Total 0.808 0.866 + .58
Student Generation, Factor Eiem 0.296 " 0.331 Biennial Update in 2010
Multi-Famify (MF) nns 0.075 0.067 SH 0.111 0.124
Total 0.482 0.522 +.40
State Funding Assistance Ratios (•smca nnacc,•) 56.06% 56.65% Per OSPI Website,
Af@8 COSt AlI0W3nC@ (former Boeckh Index) $174.26 $180.17 Per OSPI Website
Average Assessed Valuation (AV) sF $277,129 $268,279 Per Puget Souncl ESD
AV - Average of Condominiums & Apts. MF $109,125 $99,888 Per Puget Sound ESD
Debt Service Capital Levy Rate /$1000 $1•72 $1-84 Per King Co. Assessor Report
General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 4.33% 4.91% MarketRate
Impact Fee - Single Family SF $5,486 $5,486 No Change to fee
Impact Fee - Multi-Family MF $3,378 $3,378 No Change to fee.
Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 31
X
Appendixes .
Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools l .
Appendix B: Calculations of Capacifies for Middie Schools Appendix C: Calculations of Capacities for. Senior High Schools
- Appendix D: Use of Relocatables Appendix E: Student Generation Factor Survey
KenYSchool District Sa-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2011 Page 32
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
STAPIDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLAAENT
~
K S D Number of Std/High Cep = 8E I.IP ':Special ' 2010-2011 Propram Claesroom Retocatenle 10/1l2010 1011/2010 F
ELEMENTARY ABR 8td Nigh Cep Capacity ELL . Program Program Use Use Cepadty, P223 FiE 4 P223 Hdcount D
3CHOO[ Classrooms at24averege'. CR. Capaefty Capadly' I.Relocatablesi Relocetebles aEnrollment Enrollmen4 K°
e= ECE a h• Hlphry CapeWs Propramt 0 ECE 8 K :5 or 1.0 O ECE 8 K@1.0
Carriage Crest CC 18 432 b 20 452 1 0 0 452.14 482 T
Cedar Valley CV/e 18 432 8 24 458 2 0 0 303.50 332 AR
Covington CO/e 20 480 5 24 504 1 0 0 438.50 . 489 H
Creahvood CW 19 458 2 0 458 4 1 24 454.00 493 T
East HIII EH 18 432 J 44 478 3 3 72 475.08 517 AR
Emerald Park EP 21 504 2 0 504 2 0 0 497.52 530 T
Fairwood FWIe 17 408 3 0 408 . 3 0 0 413.72 449 T
George T. Daniel Elem DE 18 432 5 24 458 1 0 0 406.12 407 A
Glenddge GR 19 458 4 0 458 2 0 0 489.50 520 T
Grass Leke ciUh 18 432 4 20 452 1 0 0 408.58 422 H
Horizon HE 21 504 2 0 504 3 0 0 485.50 501 H
Jenkins Creek JC 15 380 7 44 404 3 1 24 288.00 323 AA ,
Kent Elem. KEieh 17 408 B 88 478 2 2 48 666.00 555 A
Lake Younga LYm 21 504 7, 20 610 0 0 0 441.88 483 H
Martln Sortun MS 19 458 3 24 480 1 1 24 517:05 580 AR
Meadow Ridge MWe 17 406 8 68 478 0 4 98 520.10 521 A
Meridfan Elementary Merh 21 504 3 20 524 3 2 48 553.02 585 T
Miilennlum Elementery ML 20 480 3 24 504 0 0 0 487.05 528 K ~
Neely-O'Brien NO 16 384 5 88 452 b 5 120 809.54 870 AR
Panlhe► Lake (New) PL 15 380 3 38 652 4 0 0 531.50 575 AR
Park Orchard PO 18 432 7 54 488 2 0 0 445.03 448 A
Pine Tree PTm 21 504 4 24 528 3 0 0 510.23 541 K
Ridgewood RWIh 21 504 1 0 504 1 2 48 525.48 581 T
Sawyer Woods SW 21 504 2 0 504 0 0 0 457.00 482 H
Scenic HIII SH 17 408 8 88 478 3 9 72 581.00 581 A
Soos Cteek SClB 17 408 4 0 408 ' 3 0' 0 328.50 353 T
Spdngbrook SB 17 408 5 44 452 2 0 0 437.50 478 AR
3unrise swn 21 504 2 0 604 3 0 0 512.00 541 T
Kent Mtn. View Acedemy MV 14 356 3 80 418 0 0 0 88.12 98 0 '
, Elementary TOTAL' 535 12,880 122 778 13,780 I 68 24 576 13,189;17 13,982
Elementery classroom capadryls based oaaverage of 24: 18-221rrK-3, 23 in Grade 4& 29 in Grades b>B. InGudes adJustrnents tor clasa size reductlon w program ctienges.
Z Kent School DistrldiStanderd'of Service reserves some rooms for pull-oul programs. le. 20 Toial = 77 Standard + 1 Computer Lab'+ 1 Music + 1 Integrated Program Gassroom.
' Elementary schools have 100% space utilkadon rate: 4 Elementary. FTE repoAa Kind @.5 FDK C 1'A - P223 Headcount reports Kinderparten @ 1.0. Excludes ECE'preschoolers.
g FDK'= FuII Dey Kindergatten T= TuiGon-based AR = ARRA Tiqe I Funded Schoolwide K= KAI TiUe I Funded A= State Apportionment Funded H= Half Day KindergaAen only
Kent SGa 'ct Six-Year Capital Eaciuues Plen APPEN A Apol 2011 Pagr
KENT 'SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415
STANDARD of SERVICE - PROGRAM CAPACITY - INVENTORY of, RELOCATABLES - FTE and HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT
K S D #of S~endara aei,w sPsaalEa Spec Spedal'' 2010-2011 Program Classroom Relocatebie 101112010 101112010
Mi~nLe ABR Sttl :Cepadty' ~ eu eu Prgm Program Program Use Use Capacity P223FTE' Headcount°
ScHOOL Clsrtns Bt 25-29 CIS Capedly ClSrtils Ce Ci Cepedty ' Rebcetebles Relocetebles at 29 ea. Enrollment Enrollment
g esx uwhaua, ~ esx uwn.dan . a ea% uaiaauo U x uu"uwn
Cedar Heights Middle School CH 32 782 9 93 2 48 923 0 2 145 710.79 712
Mattson Middle School MA 24 585 8 59 7 160 793 4 0 0 646.68 648
Meeker Mlddle School MK 33 807 4 59 1 24 890 0 0 0 833.21 634
Meridian Middle School MJ 28 631 b 84 4 95 790 3 5 145 858.60 657
Mill Creek Middle Schod MC 30 729 5 51 2 48 828 0 2 58 854.00 854
Northwood Middle School NW 33 807 4 46 5 119 972 0 0 0 654.24 855
Kent MountaimView Academy (Gradea 3-• 12) Middle School Orade 7- 8 Enrollment See Elem 88.00 88
Middle School TOTAI 178 4,341 33 372 21 494 5,196 _ 7 9 348 4;243.52 4,248 -
. .
APPENDIX B
K S D # of Standard 8E! IP sPeaai ea Spec 3pecial 1 2010-2011 Program Classroom Relocatable 1011/2010 10f1/2010
sENlort HIGH ABR Std Capadry ELL eu Prgm Program Program Use Use Capacity P223 FTE' Headoount'
SCHOOL Clsrms at 25-31 Cls Ca Clsrms Ca ci Capacity 2 Reloceteblea rtelocatawes at 31 ea. Enrollment Enrollment
~ 88% UdYxatbn ~ 85% UNIcaUon ~ 85% Ullltretlo ~ BB% UlNtretion
Kent-Meridian.Senior High KM 53 1,376 8 110 12 286 1,851 3 6 186 1,928;34 1,983
Kentlake'Senlor High KL 58 1,508 12 145 14 333 2,157 0 2 62 1,688:72 1,735
KenVidge Senior High KR 69 1,766 11 123 16 381 2,270 0 4 124 2,141:85 2,187
Kenlwood Senior High KW 65 1,692 5 51 17 394 2,137 8 3 93 1,966.60 2,031
Kent Mountain View Academy (Grades 3-12) Senior High Grade 9-12 Enrollment See Elem 153.98 159
Kent Phoenix Academy PH Non-tradftlonal High School 350 301.40 315
Regional JusHce Center 4 RJ N/A N/A 10.00 10
Senior High TOTAL 245 6,342 36 429 59 1,394 8,785 8 15 465 8,18879 8,420
APPENDIX C Excludes Running Start 8
Earl Childhood Ed students
DISTRICT TOTAL 958 23;543 191 1,579 80 1,888 27,741 73 48 1,389 25,621.48 26,830
1 Speaal Progrem capacity includes dassrooms requiring speclalized use such as SpeGel Educatlon, Careec& Technical EducaGon Programa; Gomputeriaba, etc.
2 Secondary school capacity Is adjusted for-8596 utilizaUon rate. 9th grede moved:to HS in 2004. Revised Facility:Use 8tudy is in progress for 2011-12.
3 Enrollment is reported on FTE &'Head6ounbbasis,.P221 Neadcount exdudes EGE & College-only Running Start students. Full headcount fnduding ECE & R5 = 27,949.
Some totals may be slighdy difFerent due ro, rounding. .
4 19 Juveniles served at King CountyRegional:Justice:Center are reported separetely for InstituGonal Funding on Form E=872: Total RJ oount in October 2010 is 29.
Kent School Dlatrict Six-Year Capital FaclliUes Plan , TOtBI of Appendices A B$ C npn61 2011 Page 34
i
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No.415
USE of RELOCATABLES
Sci►oolYeai 2010-2011 . 2011-2012 2012=2013 2013-2019 2014-2015 •2015-2018 2016-2017
Relocata6le Use No. of Sfudent ' No. of SWdent No. of Studeal No. of , Sludenl No. of Studenl No. o( StLUidenl No. of StudaM
Relocetablea Capacity Relocetablea Capacly Relocalables CapeGly Rebcafeblea Cepaciry Relocatables Capedry ,Relocatables CapaGty Relocatablas Cepscfty
Relocatables for classroom use ae aa ae 48 48 48, 48
Relocatabies for program use 73 73 73 73 73 73 73
(ie. Gomputer labs, music, etc.)
Elemenlery Capacity Required @ 24 Z 0 0 7 168 13 312 22 528 26 824 10 240 17 408
. Middle School Capacfty Requtred @ 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Senior High Capacity Required ~ 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0
# of Relocatables Utilized " 121 121 121 121 121 121 121
Classroom Relocatable/Capacity Required 0 0 7 168 13 312 22 628 26 824 10 240 17 408
Plan for Allocation ofRequired Classroom Relocatable Facilities included In Finance Plan:
Elementary 112 0 7 13 22 26 1017
Middle School 3 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
Senior High ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 7 13 22 26 10 17
pecial programs ia based on need and flucluaUons of,enroliment at each school:
~ Use'o( addiUonal;relocatables (or classrooms or s
2
Full Day Kindergarten will increase the need:fw relocatables at the elementary, levei unUl permanent capacity can be provided. ' 3 Grade Level ReconfiguraUon - In 2004, 9lh grade studenls:moved.tofiigh schools creatlng sufficient permanent capadty at mfddle schools.
4 Although retocalables are utilized for a wide veriety of purposes, new canslruction and boundary adjuatments are-timed tominimize the requirement for relocalables.
Kent 8chool'"`'icl Sbc-Year Capitel FaGlfGes Plan APPENDIY D nPrii 2011 ee~- '45
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No:415
Student Generation Facto"r ,Survey
Ed„" Elementary Totei: . S t u d e n t s Student Generation Factor
r Sin le Famil Develo ments nree unite Total eiem ,.~nns Hs Total Eie►„ MS HS
41e Eegle Crest - Park Vlew - Soulhridge HE 219 208 126 28 54 0.950 0.575 0.128 0.247
ley Easiland Meadowa - Kent SC 13 19 9 4 8 1.482 0.692 0.308 0.482
aes Eastpointe M8 99 35 25 4 8 0.354 0.253 0.040 0.081
ses Fem CresTEast - Kent SR 171 153 91 20 42 0.895 0;532 0.117 0.248
4ao Fem Crest Weat - Kent SR 130 112 75 19 18 0.882 0.577 0.148 0,138
41o Highland 8 Rhododendron Eslates ML 41 39 - 20 9 10 0.951 0.488 0.220 0.244
sza Kentleke Highlands SW 127 138 85 17 38 1:087 0.669 0.134 0.283
431 Meridian Ridge HE 70 31 24 2 5 0.443 0.343 0.029 0.071
aee North I'arke Meadows & Parke,Meadows South CW 108 107 58 21 30 1.009 0.528 0.198 0,283
ezs Panthen Meadows GR 32 32 20 4 S 1.000 0:625 0.125 0.250
tas Rose's Meadow ML 37 17 . 9 4 4 0c459 0.243 0.108 0.108
ia Savana / The! Reserve / Stonefield / Crofton Hllls CO 351 370 174 55 141 1.059 0.498 0.157 0.402
ezo Tamareck Ridge CW 134 73 39 9 25 0.545 0.291 0.087 0.187
t7s The Parks - Fairwood/Renton RW 172 153 67 28 58 0.890 0.390 0.183 0.337
41s Trovilsky Park - Renton RW 167 131 89 18 24 0.784 0.533 0.108 0.144
07 Wood Creek - Covington CW 154 134 74 22 38 0.870 0.481 0.143 0.247
Totel. 2,023 1,752 983 264 , 505 0.866 0.486 0.130 . 0.250~~
E,WO9 ' eiemer,tery Total S t u d e n t s Student Generation Factor
o Multi-Famfl Develo ments Area Unfta Total Elem MS HS Totel Elem . MS HS
41e Adagio Apartmenta - Covinglon CO 200 74 43 7 24 0:370 0.215 0.035 0.120
412 Alderbrook Apartmenta - Kent EH 207 135 92 20 23 0.852 0.944 0.097 0:111
i5s Arterra Apartments - Kent SH 81 88 44 12 12 0.840 0.543 0.148 0.148
146 Fairwood Pond Apartments - Renton FW 194 88 44 7 15 0.340 0.227 0.036 0.077
414 Park Place Apartments - Kent SH 51 87 56 11 20 1.708 1.098 0.216 0.392
147 Red.Mill et Fairvvood - Renton CC 98 21 13 1 7 0.219 0.135 0.010 0.073
337 Rivervfew - The Parks - Kent NO 148 58 24 10 22 0.378 0.162 0.088 0.149
i02 Rodc Creek Landing - KeM SB 211 93 88 11 16 0.441 0.313 0.052 0.078
413 Silver Springa Apartments - Kent PL 251 172 116 18 38 0:685 0.982 0.072 0.151
1e2 Sunrise at Benson Condos - Kent GR 88 25 7 8 12 0:284 0:080 0.088 0.136
Total 1,527 787 505 103 789 0.522 0.331 0:067 0:124
APPENDIX
Kent School;4►atrict sic-YearCepitatFacii~ties elan E /r~~ zo~~ Pege 38
-
Table of Contents COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1. Sub-basin drainage areas prioritized for evaluation and inventory ......................................................5
Figure ES-2. Timeline for NPDES Permit compliance ............................................................................................12
Figure 2-1. Public Works Department staff organizafional chart 2-3
Figure 4-1. Natural drainage features of the cityof Aubum .............:......:...::..............................................:........4-15
Figure 4-2. Drainage sub-basins for the Aubum stormwater utility :.::............................:.....................................4-17
Figure 4-3. Surface geology in the vicinity of the Aubum stormwater utility ........................................................4-19
Figure 4-4. Hydrologic "soil groups for soils in the vicinity of the Aubum stormwater utility ...:..............................4-21
Figure 4-5. Land use designations for the city of Aubum (Comp Plan; 2008) .....................................................4-23
Figure 4-6. Sub-basin priorities for system inventory ..............:..............................:............................................4-25
Fi ure 4-7. Draina e infrastructure for the Aubum stormwater utili 427 ~
9 9 tY
Figure 4-8. City and storm drainage critical facilities for the city of Aubum .........................................................429
Figure 4-9. Observed drainage problerri locations for the Aubum stormwater utility ...........................................431
Figure 4-10. City of Aubum downtown area and urban center I
Figure 5-1. Example of annualized cost of ownership with minimum highlighted in red (age 23) .........................5-6
~ Figure 6-1. Projeet locations, stormwater utility Capital Improvement Program 6-3
Figure 6-2. Proposed capital improvements-at Aubum Way S pump station, Phase 1(CIP Project 11A) ..........6-11
Figure 6-3. Proposed bypass, piping at 2nd and G Streets (CIP Froject 12) ......:.............................:..................6-17
Figure 6-4. Prooosed capital improvements to relieve floodin4 at 30th Street NE (CIP Proiect 13A.
13B, and 13C) 6-21
Figure 6-5. Proposed capital improvements at West Main Street (CIP Project 14) .......................................:.....6-25
Figu[e 6-6. Proposed capital improvements at 296th Street pond in West Hill area (CIP Project 15A and B)..,.6-29
Figure 6-7. Proposed capital improvements at Bry's Cove Pond in West Hill area (CIP Project 16A and B)...... 6-33
Figure 6-8. Future annual spending for repair and replacement given calculated optimal fiming ........:...::.........:6-37
Figure 6-9. Relative criticality of stormwater drainage pipes idenfified for condition assessment .......................6-24
Figure 7-1. Annual costs for 6-year CIP .............................................................................................:........:.........7-3
Figure 7-2. Timeline for NPDES Permif compliance .....................................................................:...................:...7-8
Figure 7-3. Distribution of pipe ages based on the City's current criticality database 7-10
IV
Use oi contenLs on this sheet is subject to the limitations specifed at the end of this document.
Ex,_,.ive Summary COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGL.-AN
.b Project . o 6-Year . 0
ProJect 6-ysar CIP Total proJect
number Pro ect name Pdarlty 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015-2028 costs
1 R St. SE Storm Drain Improvement 1 $770,000 770,000
2 SCADA (Telemetry) Upgrades 1 100,000 240,000 340,000
3 White River Storm Pump Station Replacement, Phase 1 2 300,000 300,000
4 White River Storm Pump Statlon Replacement, Phase 2 2 2,200,000 2,200,000
5 Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement 1 300,000 700,000 1,000,000
6 M St. NEIHaroey Rd. & 8th St. Improvements 2 100,000 100,000
7 Les Gove Neighbofiood Improvement 3 175,000 25,000 200,000
8 West Valley Highway 3 1,500,000 1,500,000
9 Port of Seaflle Mitigation Agreement Project 8 1 600,000 _ 600,000
10 M&0 Facflity Improvements 2 300,000 300,000
11 A Relieve Aubum Way 5 Flooding, Phase 1 1 400,000 400,000
11 B Relieve Aubum Way S Flooding, Phase 2 2 1,638,000 1,638,000
12 Bypass at 2nd and G Streets SE 2 453,000 453,000
13A Relieve 30th St. NE Area Flooding, Phase 1 1 250.000 2.697.000 2,947,000
-t;545-099 4,543;A89
13B Relieve 30th St. NE Area Flooding, Phase 2$ 1 75.000 595.000 670.000
a-8. ~488 4;8~4;899
13C Relieve 30th St. NE Area Floodina. Phase 3 1 1.154.000 1.154,000
14 West Main St. Pump Upgrade 2 1,135,000 1,135,000
15A South 296th St. South Pond Expansion, Phase 1 1 453,800 453,800 .
158 South 296th St. South Pond Expansion, Phase 2b 2 1,072,000 1,072,000
16A Bry's Cove Pond Expansion, Phase 1 2 113,000 113,000
168 Bry's Cove Pond Expansion, Phase 2 2 445,000 445,000
17 Storm Drainage Infrastructure Repair 8 Replacemenlh 1 400,000 412,000 424,360 437,091 450,204 463,710 5,600,000 8,187,365
18 ARedal Utility Improvements 1 200,000 206,000 212,180 218,545 225,102 231,855 1,293,682
19 SOS Utility Improvements 1 500,000 412,000 912,000
20 Regional Drainage Improvement Projects 3 579,637 7,000,000 7,579,637
Tofal 6-year CIP cost for priorily 1 projects 2.670.000 2.183.800 147. 6,540 905.636 3,447,306 1.290.565 6.754.000 18.727.847
2;279-088 1,565,899 1,264,369 437,901 1;883,294 1,611,719 6,654,908 46402-,M
Total 6-year CIP cost for priority 2 projects 400.000 2,313,000 3,010,000 453,000 1,135,000 445,000 0 7,756,000
400;AAB 7-;Q;9A9
Tofal 6-year CIP cost for priority 3 projects 175.000 25.000 1.500.000 0 0 579.637 7,000,000 9.279.637
875;099 643;888 4,712,199 218,545 226;182 844-.M 44-Mg
Total 6•year CIP cost $3,245,000 $4,521,800 $5,886,540 1358 636 582 306 2 315 202 13 754 000 135,763,484
${409,636 53463;39G 42^m 03AKAA9 S346"3~484
a. Funds expire !n 2011.
6. Project indudes cosfs in both the 6-year and 20-year CIP.
ES-9
Use ot contents on this sheei is subjecl to ihe limita6ons specified at the end ot ihis document.
6: Capital Improvements COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
• ' • , '
Project name: Relieve 30th St. NE Area Floodin4
Location: Street floodina in 30th St. NE 6etween C St. NE and Aubum Wav North; east of I St. NE between 32nd St. NE and 35th St.
NE: C St. NE beiween 30th St NE and 37th St: NE
Priori : 1
Schedule: Phase consfiuction with Phase 1 in 2013. Phase 2 in 2014, and Phase 3 in 2015
Problem The north central area of Aubum has a historv of surface floodina with sianificant floodin4 occurrina about once everv few
summarv: vears. The December 3, 2007, storm event aroduced extensive floodin4 that included (a) inundation of 30th St. NE in the
vicinitv of C St. NE: (b) extended duration of inundation near I St. NE adiacent to the CRISTA Minisfies oropertv and (c)
floodinq alonq C St. NE northuvard toward 37th St. NE. The floodinq on C St. NE required sandbaaainq to orotect local
businesses. Ttie floodinq alonq 30th St. NE was hiqh enouah to overtoa the sidewalk near-the intersecfion. In addiUon to the
problems noted above, the qravilv:stortn drain.that runs eastward in 30th St NE to the Brannan Park Puma Station does not
have enouafi capacitv and surchames freauentlv. The surcharqinq of the 30th St oioeline causes backups in confibutin9
svstems, notabfv the Citv Aimort and nearbv arivate oronertv. In addition: the residential develoamert east of I St NE
between 32nd St. NE, and 35th St. NE_commonlv exoeriences orolonQed aeriods of standinp water due to hiah around water _
imoads fiom tlie'Green River on its infiliration svstem.
Descrigtion: This aroiect consists of sewrate uaarades that address floodind alonq 30th St. NE. C St. NE and I St. NE. The
implementation of these aroiects wuld occur in phases, as fundina, staff availabilitv, and GIP oriorities allow.
Phase 1 would address the floodinq alon4 30th St. NE. This oroiect would install a new storm drain from the northwest
comer of the airport oroaerN (MH_I10Z) to the exisUnq Brannan Park storm pump station. 7his aipe_would realace the
existinq 30-inch diameter oioe aenerallv located alona the 30th Sf: NE aliqnment and the northerlv'boundarv of Brannan
Parc bv improvina the convevance sVstem's'hVdraulic caaaaiv. there6v reducinq the notential for stormwater floodina into
the street.The oioe would be set ata consisteM slope of 0.2 oercent. which would increase flow velocities to help avoid the
, current droblems with siltation ofthe oioe and'standina water. The orooosed oioe alianment would followthe public riaht of
" wav until the aioe tums east from I St: NE towarcl Brannan Park. This oofion of aine would then be constructed within an
existina stortn easement across public and orivate vnperM.'To reduce-construction impacts to private orooerfies, towards
the east end of the aroiect the oine cauld be located entirelv within Brannan Park; to the north of the oark's ball fields. Some
tree removal mav be necessarv for consVuction within the aark. Kev comaonents include:
_ - - _ ,
0 3.820 feet of 42-in.~iameter qravitv stortn drain from the NW comer of airport orooertv to the existina Brannan Park storm
oumo station
e Removal of floatable caature baffles uostream of the Brannan Park ouma station (these are not needed to arotect the
pumos and reduce the svstem's hvdraulic caoaatv)
Phase 2 would address the floodinq adiacent to I St. NE. This proiecE would locate a storm drain line to cauture stomiwater
from the two residential developments at the west edae for the former CRISTA Minisfies orooertv. Currentlv, stormwater
flows are dischamed onto a deoressed area on the CRISTA Ministries aroaeM where'its infiltration is limited bv hiqh
qroundwater IeVels:that occur durinq eztended ceriods of hiqh flows on the Green River. The storm water ponds within the
parkinp of the two residential develooments and presents a nuisance and ootential hazard to local residents. This phase
' would construct a new stortn drain within l St. NE southward to connect inb theupuraded 42-inch diameter (Phase.l) storm
drain near the_intersection at I St NE! and 30tfi St. NE. The 42minch diameter line would have sufficient available caoacitv to
convev the I St. NE flows. Kev comoonents of Pfiase 2 include: .
e 1,760 feet of 15-inch diameter qravitv storm drain
• Catch basin and incidental oradinq to collect stormwater at the uostream end of svstem
Phase 3 would address floodina in C St. NE near 37th St. NE. Currentlv stormwater flows alona C St. NE are conveved and
dischamed to Mill Creek via the 37tti St. NE storm convevance line. Denosition of sediment within Mill Creek has raised the
water levels within the creek and diminished the caoacitv of the aravdv svstem in C St. NE and downstream in 37th $t._NE.
This oroiect would reduce floodinm in C St: NE bv redirectina wet weathet hiah flows soufhward to the 42-+nch diameter
jPhase 11 storm drain in 30th St.-NE, BV redirectinq the C St. NE drainaqe into the Brannan Park svstem, these flows would
no lonqer be affected bv hiah water levels in Mill Creek. To avoid deeneninq the Phase 1 qravitv line (and extensive retrofds
to the Brannan Park pumo sta6on), this proiect would include a wet weather Ouma station and force main cannection to 30th
St. NE. The uactraded 42-inch diameter oioe in 30th St. NE would have sufficierrt caaacitv for these additional flows. Kev
components of Phase 3 include:
e Wet weather pump station (estimated caaacitv of 4.5 to 7 cfs).
e 1,730 feet of 15-inch diameter force main
• Diversion structure in C St. NE for oump station
6-19
Use of contents on this sheet is subjecc to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
6: Capital Improvements COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
This proied would not require extensive modfications to the Brannan Park puma station. However, uaon comoletion atv
staff should considec lowerinQ the Jevel settinqs :for pumos 4 and 5, since the hvdraulic imorovements will allow more
stomiwater to reach the pumo sta6on.
LOS oal s Floodina disruotion that inundates the roadwavs to an impassable level no more than once everv 25 vears. (LOS Goal 2)
addressed: Roodina causina oronefi+ damaae no more than once everv 50 vears (LOS Goal 3) •
Recommended o prior to im0ementin4 this aroiect, citv staff should conduct an additional review of the orivate stortnwater facilities alon4
re~ign the C St. NE corridor to refine the desi4n capacitV of the orooosed aump station.
refinements:
Gost estimate: Gravity storm drain: install 3.820 feet of 42-in.-diameter oioe from airoort to Brannan Park PS 1 584 000
Phase 1 Subtotal line-item costs 1584 000
Contractor overhead, profit and mobilization (18% of"subtotal of line-item costs) 285 000
Washinaton State sales tax (9.5% of all above construction costs) 178 000
' Construction continqencV (200/c of all above construction costs) 09 000
Subtotal conslruction costs 2 456 000
Adminishation. enqineerinq desiQn and oermittinq (20% of construcfion costs) 91000
~ CIP 13A (Phase 1) oroiect cost: 2 947 000
,
Cost estimate: Graviiv storm drain: install 1.760 feet of 15-in.-diameter oipe (alonq I St NE to Phase f storm drain) 360 000
Phase 2 Subtotal line-item costs :
360 000
Contrdctor overhead, orofit and mobiliza6on (18% of subtotal of line-item costs)....................................... 65 000
Washington State sales tax (9.5% of all above construction wsts) ~
0 000
Construction continqencv (20% of all above construction costs) 93 000
Subtotal construction costs 558000
Administra6on, enaineerina desiqn and aermittina (20% of oonstruction costs)
112 000
CIP 136 (Phase 21 proiecf cost. 670 000
Cost estimatec Stormwater pump station: 7-cfs oump station lopted C St. NE to the south of 37th St. NE 320 000 ~
Phase 3 Force main: install 1:730 feet of 1. 5-4n.-diameter oiae (connect to Phase 1 storm drain) $300,000
Subtotal lrne-item costs 620 000
Contractor overhead, profit and mobilization (18% of subtotal of line-item costs) 112 000
Washinqton 3tate sales tax (9.5X of alf above construction costs) 70 000
Construction cordinqencv (20% of all above construction costs) 160 000
Subtotal consbuction costs 96$ 2000
,
Administration, enaineerina desian and aermittinq (25°k of construction costs) 192 000
- CIP 136 (Phase 3) project cosf, 1 154 000 ~
' Total CIP 13 project cost (Phases 1. 2, 3) . 771000
6-20
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
~ t ~ ~ ° • ~ i -
~.w~e 'Z •s ~ -I . ~ c. ~ : ~ ,K ,,,i, .
.
4 -t`
~
Yw 4
ai . ~ ~ _ •y~„ . r~+'.,._„~ S'"` . . , . - . t y's~- . t
rt'41, a ~ =PHASE 3 ~ New pump s~tion in C St NE
New 1,7301ffOrCe rnain in C StNE
.
, e
i a
'~a.
. , . ~n~ ~ . t s'mm`` ;'+m -'h, ~ R 2~ ~ ...~.,~a . Y ~,,,n, t•••. ~fi..~p .,,.+~..g ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ d .v~*„.:
. ' q_ = " r.., ~ . ~•e.+~ .
~3. ~ •;.a y aw+, r~ r .F r"~ ' ~ e r~T` ~ ~ `at ~ ~ Z't` 4
k
4, ~~E ~
New1,7601f15-indrairr~ge
piPe in 1 St NE
. r---• r+.., ~ a 3 r . "'r"'--r ~ ~ ~ , r ~
~^pi 'AV
,
,
,11 ~l(18Rd ,.~X ~ a~...« msw~^ ~ e • . ^'~3 ~:k;; z . ~v µg..: .s<;., S _ v~. t" y -
~ .~....~u. . ".a.° J.E ~ ^ >!a'mT^~s s ,:•~s^~„ ,..n,.e%ti ~„dz,~~~'~ , ~
A~
~
~ ~
~O
e'
3UF ' ~ - ~ v~ ~ "~`t ~ ,.'~.~9•~ A' }9 ~ $_t ~
k^'
t ~ ~a r • ` ; ~ ~~y~~
"~a
z-~ PFIASE 1: g W t~ ~'„yw`~v+°°'4 ~SYe ~ ~Y 6 ~ ug o ~.~s4
New 3,8~If 42-in drairrage Brarman Park
pipe in 30th St NE > Pump Station
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~
anft~-°- r«.~ i„'~`'.
~ r.-- p , _ x ~ ✓ ° ' ~ . ~ : ' .
~ ~ ~ ~st ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . 6~ V w;3- ~ x . ~ t;~f m`'`' x
,
._~O~ha.
q ° ` -s-i ~ t~`..xo~ ~,-~~ss ~ s`. ~s p i'.
~ i.~n _ tv^--•~~ .K '1 ar~"'~S j .~..~~~y~,1J.'r o ~ ~Y~',1 'x ~l..n',~}~.~s''~.' ~ ~ 4'xF ~ZF,.,~9,s.,
F ~ ~ii r ~ 2 ~ ~oc~ ~ 3' ' ~3'Q~ = x y+~
4
r :
j , r , ° ~ r• ~ ~.~j.'..'r 4 .;a• cS ~~~~,'S„ ~ x,x-~.6w
LEGEND
, ; a~ . . - . ~ ~ • ,2 ~ ~ ~ , q ~ ~ ~M' ~ Proposed Pump Station
.
Existing Pump Station
~ •
Proposed Drainage Pipe
~ . ~a~~~s ~ ,~~h~~ Ith~ _
Proposed Force Main
Existing Drainage Pipe
17th^ V.,w ;l~~~ ~
Pond
~ n
Project will relieve flooding to
,
.
LOS #2 goal
.
a
:
~
.
x' 4
flow pacity
. - ; ~ 4 M~.
:OMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
)ecember 2009 (Revised July 2011) . RGURE 6-4
PROJECT 13: RELIEVE 30TH ST. NE
m wo o 500 tom `mQF" ~:11'§
F~1 AREA FLOODING
, mcn=,,wore« N or+
11.Nubien\138806 Aubuan ModeGug Suppwt On-Call (2010)\Task 091- Reddmgon Levee SabaddGLS\lvf?m1AufiumStaxm CdP13_W2.nmd
6: Capital lmprovements COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
. , :
_
~ ' - - -
Le&2tf9F~
PA~- 4
BegiR senstFudeFi 2013 (Phase 1) and 2014 (124ase-2)
PF9gl@~
SURNBay: .
Deswiptm'
aFea:
_ ,
efthe-disshapgle-peiaO:
•e e
6-1 9
Use of contenfs on this sheet is subject to the limitations specifed at the end of this document.
6: Capital improvements COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATERDRAINAGE PLAN
addFS6684:
ReseMMeaded
refiReMeadr.: . . ~ .
~ _ ~
6est estim+atpo: 57~898
THODC~-F. . ~ . , . .
. . . 6aRdrwaping 6 • . 1p'1'OPOC
:,C MM/ r E-lfCFA EE~'JfS
, . a . . V49,009
. : WashingWR (9.59A fi $8~~988
C-A-ASON-9-IfiA-A qvnfingenGy ° ' $214-089
$-~A9B
. . . ' . o ,
~ 6~~e,5,,E,~,,5q t t+Fpate: . $~8889
.
T'~" ~nn r...+~... i....4nll A,flf1l1 innt ni 14ffin. ~li.~.~e4eF n'pno n . . ~ .
. . , ~
. ,Qfhfni../ e'T:im6059 ''C7"WTOOD ' .
. . - 0 .
. ~ ~'F~tftltf .
. eePAFIgBRGY ' 0 . . ~ NOS) C InMI~~$O77COE~)T.~$C ~7itlBOrytllri7
y
. .
' . . . . , . . . _ . pendng Q ~ . - . .
.
$422~91W
~ . . . , . . . . _ . . , - .
. _ ~ . . . . , $2,109,090 .
- : - ~
_ $4.6
pFo
PAE2REial fkIRdlng - _
epfiw.
6-Z0
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
. . M . _
. • .
7T r
42nds PHASE l:
as'
1) Expand exutzng stormwater pond +20 acre feet
2) Replace pond outlet structure
,
4L,
3) Landscaping and site restoration
PHASE 2:
7 4) New 15 cfs pump station ~
5) New 4, 000 foot, 18-in diameter force main
v
q. .
~Qj.P q
r"^'~a
AV
nnamed x'T~~~`~"~
3!t ~.~5'',.r~a
r°°` , y-m. , "i , . / " Y,~
-4~i-~
`'~"`.`t;`°"'.'~"'°~ ~ TP
M . ~ a.. ~r r x a~q T ~ a~, ~ ''i
;
Gm ".'L p~+, ~~~S. a~~ A•' 7'^'~ a y+~¢
f ~'P^~+«~Aw M, ~ F q j1, Y h R'~r i d'ea'~ 'S~ ap p ~ .yt g~ .
.3~'
b
~ • " t ' „.~..r.~. C' y ~'3^: rC { t : . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`A c
.
~r-~~~ FOITTI@f ~idS~
. i ~ ~ Q • .
Mimstries Property
i . . ..W { . L.+ ..w.r.w • . : ~ " d.. :.1 ~
f y + 4~ lF
a€~,~
~ ' ~.u' ~ _ s'C L .~,~...a~.. ~q
, .
~ . ; " . ~y - • z.n. z..~ ~ F e,~ '
rb
Force Main
Expand Pond ,
. p „~s a
n
N.~.. +2~ aNCl.~.l
` +new outiet structure ~
F .
;
30th ~
~
PS
New Pump Stabon
Brannan Park
~ r
Pump Station ,
Aqi`v~ . ~ ~`.'«7 ~ . • ~bT'~ ` ~J ~ r ~ '«a .s~,. ~ ~ Z .
~ ~m ~ , Unnametl~..~° x ~ ~ ~
1 t~ ~ •s r^~.«~r" 1' ~~w ~ z : ' b : ~ ~ ~ ~ tt;' ~
, 026th~~.~e,~
~ '......r b ~ 304th
,i ~ .k-~ A~ ~ F,; ~:~.;.r
YV411%•
. ,
'It`a.. . ...~,-4~1,- p~~' ..~.,,~,^w~y~.~ . G{ ~ ~dh..r0~, ~ ,
6 " ~ t _ } ~ ' . 24toj
,
,24~ ~t. • 3,
,
e d 3 ' LEGEND
Proposed New Pump Station ~
.
~ FP7S Existing Pump Station
~
Z 0
Storm Drain (Node)
Storm Drain (Pipe)
Pond
s
Primary benefit area: Project will relieve flooding
to meet LOS #2 goal (25-yr flow capacity).
Secondary benefd area: Project will reduce severity
~ a
oJ'~~~ and duration of flooding but not to meet LOS #2 goal.
~ ~-~~q.. s''~ " a. . ~S ,r^> G~-°r~ _a•;~ -t , 15th , . ~a ~ a ~ ^°a:..-r~,,,•.~: ~~,-c ~,~:-~«za~..-~..,-- ~,:--.-,~,=...,~a.
COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
December 2009 FIGURE 6-4
soo o soo ,.ooo 0 amroF ~ PROJECTI3: RELIEVE FLOODING
Feet AT 30TH STREET NE
1 ;nd, _ 1,ooo reM wASHtNCtoh
P:\135347 Aubirtn Dramage Phau II\GIS\WIIXD\Dreinage PIan Figures\AurbumStocm_Fig6-4(CIP 13).mxd
.
7:.Implementation Plan COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
. .
Z
~p
roJect nenne
~ Project number,. ~Poto~ty. ~A~2d14 , ear pra]ect cost~
1 R St. SE Stortn Drain Improvement 1 $770,000 $770,000
2 SCADA (Telemetry) Upgrades 1 • 100;000 240,000 340,000 _
3 White River Stortn Pump Station Replacement, Phase 1 24 300,000 300,000
4 White River Storm Pump Station Replacement, Phase 2 2 2,200,000 2,200,000
5 Peasley Canyon.Culvert Replacement 1 300,000 700,000 1,000,000
6 M St. NElHarvey Rd: & 8th St. lmprovements 2 100,000 100,000
7 Les Gove Neighborhood Improvement 3 175,000 25,000 200,000
8 WestValleyHighway . 3 , 1,500,000 1,500,000
9 Port of Seattle Mitigation Agreement Projecta 1 600,000 600,000
10 M&0 Facility Improvements 2 300,000 300,000
11A Relieve Aubum Way S Flooding, Phase 1 1 400,000 400,000
118 Relieve Aubum Way S Flooding, Phase 2 2 1,638,000 1,638,000
12 Bypass at 2nd and G Streets SE 2 453,000 453,000
13A Relieve 30th St. NE Area Flooding, Phase:l 1. : 52 0.000; 2,697.000 2,94T.000
! - ,
13B Relieve 30th St. NE Area Flooding, Phase2-b 1 • 75.000 595.000: 870.000;
4,954,998' 4864;099
13C Relieve 30fh St: NE Area Floodina. Phase 3c 1 0
14 West Main St. Pump Upgrade 2 1,135,000 1,135,000 15A South 296th St. South Pond Expansion, Phase 1 1 453,800 453,800
15B South 296th SL South'Pond Expansion, Phase 2 2' 1,072,000 1,072,000
16A Bry's Cove Pond Expansion,.Phase 1 2 113,000 113,000.
16B Br/s Cove Pond Expansion; Phase 2 2 445,000 445,000 .
17 Storm DrainageJnfrestructure:Repaic& Replacementh 1 400,000 412,000 . 424,360.; 437,091 . 450,204 463,710 2,587,365
18 Arterial Preservation Utility lmprovements 13 200,000 208,000 ' 212,180 218,545 ; 225,102 231,855 1;293,682
19 SOS Utility Improvements 13 500,000: 412,000 912,000
20 Regfonal Drainage Improvement Projectsb 3 579,637 579,637
Tota16-year CIP cost for priority 1 projects 2•670.000 2.183.800 1.476.540 905.636 3.447.306. 1.290.565 11.973.847
2,279;889 .1,565,899 1;264,368 437-,991 1;883;294 4§17-,4A 8;048-,16f
Tota16-year CIP cost for priority 2 projects 400.000 -2,313,000 3,010,000 ' 453,000 1,135,000 445,000 7,756,000
480;999 ~A88
Tota16-year CIP cost for p►iority 3 projects 175,000 25.000 . 1.500.000 0, 0 579.637 2.279.637 '
GZ5,998 643999 11,Z112,189 218,646 225,402 9444M 4496;3%
Total 6-year CIP cost $3,245,000 $4,521,800 $5,986,540 1358 636: 582 306 2 315 202 22 009 484 .
. ~ _Woaw 8;363,M $2474,M 8mgmk
, . a. Funds explre in 2011. .
b. Add'rtional project cosfs induded in 20-year C1P. c. Proiect 13C is scheduled affer 2014 and !s included in the 20-vear CIP.
i
7-2
Use af contents on.lhis sheel is subjecl tc 36ons speafied at ihe:end of:this document.
7: Implementation Plan COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAG_E. PI.AN
$6,000,000 m Priarity 3
. s Priority 2 e Priority 1(Project) _ _ _
co $5,000,000 - ~ Priority 1(Programmatic)
-
p
:
cL $4,000,000
-
_ _
v -
cc '4 .
. Q~ ~ . . _ . .
~ $3,000,000
, _ _ .
~ _
_
cu $2,000,000 ~
,
c _ . - . . _
$1000,000
$0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Fiaure 7-1. Annua/ costs for 6; eay r Clp
Long-term stormwater convevance demands should remain near current levels because unlike
wastewater 121anning where 12612ularion growth brings additional flow demands. most new and
redevelopment projects will be subject to the City's development staridards for onsite storrnwater
control. Local stormwater detention and inte ated low-im act develo m nt ID, stormwater
features should control stormwater flows to maintain Q12roximate exisring levels.
After existing drainage.problems are addressed, the City will begin to shift its ~riorities aa,~from
responding to known drainage tiroblems toward managin~~g storm drainage assets to ensure
that LOS goals are. conrinuously met. These long-range capital improvements will focus on
12rogrammatic activiries, such as developing a repair and reglacement schedule that examines asset
inspeetion_and maintenance results to idenrifvassets that are nearing the end of their economic life..
Pro,jects idenufied for 20-year CIP are less sgecific than the 6-year CIP 12rojects. As new data are
collected and.additional informauon is gathered, a better understanding of the 12roblem will be
attained and the capital im6rovement 12rojects will take shQe. The following section 12rovides
recommendations for acuvities that will assist with developin,g sl2ecific 20-year CIP 12rojects.
Table 7-2 summarizes the 12roject expenditures in the years 2015 to 2028 and forecasts total CIP
costs for the 20-year period from 2009 through 2028.
7-3.
Use of wMeMS on this sheet is subject to the limitations specfied at the end of this document -
7: Implementation Plan COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
$6,000,000 - 0, Priority 3
Priority 2
Priority 1 (Project)
N $5,000,000
■ Priority 1 (Programmatic)
o ~
n. $4,000,000 --__------,r_~~~_~~~ = - - -
~ _ = = = = _
$3,000,000 _ MOK" 1W
- -
~
~ - - !
~ $2,000,000
Q _
. ~ _
$1,000,000 _ ~
$0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
,
's development standafds for- eitsit-e sterfnwftte-r
eatttral. 13aeal sterznwftter detefition md integrftted law impaet develepmeftt ffJD) starniwftte
features should eea"el sterfnwft" flews to fnai mate e3d9faigg levels.
Ll b
After eNis6ag drftktftge pr-oblems e&e addressed,
,
~
7-3
Use of contents on this sheet is su6ject to the limitations specified at lhe end of this document
1
~
~
7: Implementation Plan COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE:PLAN
.6 • 0 0 ~ °
~W~'` ~ Project cosis far 2015-2028
~numbe~~ ~ ; ~ Pro,~ect name ~ q ; Pnorrty {ZO~J doilar~ ~
13C4 Relieve 30th St. NE Area Flooding, Phase 32 1 1 154 000
17 Storm Drainage Infrastvcture Repair & Replacement 1 5,600,000
10 Regional Drainage Improvement Projects 3 7,000,000
Tota12015 2028ClPcostforpriority 1 projects 6,754,000
6,654;898
Tota12015-2028 ClP cost for priority 2 projects 0 Tofal 2015-2028 ClP cost for priorny 3 projects 7,000,000
Total CIP cost (2015 to 2028) 13 754 00
5~3,~b4898
Total 20-year CIP cost 35 763 48a
$34;~4~,~84
Even with the benefit of staff experience and detailed hydraulic investigations, the recommended
capital improvement projects reflect some uncertainty in the engineering calculations. To help
minimize uncertaiiiry, 6-year and 20-year CIPs have been developed in conjunction with a
monitoring plan to obtain information that can be used in predesign studies to refine the sizing of
project components. The effort expended by the City to collect flow and level data to refine the CIP
elements will bring substantial benefits in reduced costs (as the engineering uncertainty envelope is
narrowed) and/or improved performance of CIP projects-and likely both. The monitoring plan is
included as Appendix E and summarized in the following section.
7.2 M0111t01'1119
Evaluating the adequary of the stormwater drainage system and analyzingpotential capital
improvements require extensive data to produce accurate and reliable results. Such data include not
only infrastructure data such as pipe sizes, invert elevations, and outfalllocations, but also
stormwater data such as flow rates, runoff volumes, and flooding elevatioris. The City should
continue to collect these types of data and store them in a consistent and organized manner. The
following secuons describe specific recommendations for additional monitoring data collection.
7.2.1 Precepitation Monitoring
Precipitation is the source of stormwater runoff. Precipitation intensity and duration da.ta are needed
to cliaracterize rainfall-runoff processes and adequately design for drainage of stormwater runoff.
The Ciry has been collecting precipitarion data at ciry hall since 1995, and is currently using an Onset
model RG3 HOBO tipping bucket gauge to record precipitation data. The City should continue to
monitor precipitation at city ha:ll using this equipment. However, an upgrade to telemetry=capable
equipment should be considered when the City's data telemetry system is implemented (CIP Projeet
2), which is scheduled for 2009 and 2011. Integrating the rain gauge data into the telemetry sy"stem
will simplify data collecrion and minimize the chance of losing important data due to an undetected
equipment failure. It is also reeommended that a manual rain gauge be kept as a backup and to
validate recorded data.
7-4 '
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
; IMPLEMENTATION PLAN pCTIVITIES TIMELINE 6•year CIP Timetrame ~ Remaining 10•yearClP Summary
; Ci1y af Aubum Comprehensive Stormweter`Dreinage Plan 2009 2010 ' 2011 ` 2012 . 2013 2014 ' . 1015 ~ 2020 . 2025 . : 2030
Qt 02' 03 Q4 Q1 Q2' Q3 44 -01 Q2 03 'Q4 Q1 02 Q3 Qd Q1 Q2 Q8 Q4 Q1 p2 Q3 qq
CIP .
1. R Street SE Storm Drain Improvement
. . , . _ _ , .
. . , . . _ .
,
. _ .
i ,
KEY
2. SCADA (TelemeUY) UP9rades
i . . . . . , -
I 3. Wliite RiVer Slorm Pump Station Replacement, Phase 1 ■ Activity
: . . . . . . , , .
; 4. White River Storm Pump Station Replacement, Phase 2 IM Optional
. .
! - .
~ 5. Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Continued
; . . . , ,
; 6. M Street NElHarvey Road & Sth Street Improvements into next
_ . . . . . ,
i 7. Les Gove Nelghborhood Improvement permit term
, _
. _ , . ,
~ 8. West Valley Highway , . . _ . . , , , , . ' - ► Data feed
• . . . . . . ~ ,
. :
' 9. Port of Seattle MitigaQon Project ' , . _ . . , , '
'10: M&0 Facilily Improvements
11. Improvements for Aubum Way S. SR 18 at M and 17th St.
' 12. Bypass at 2nd Street SE and' G Street SE
,
'13.Relieve'30thStreetNEAreaFlooding T
' 14.Wes{Main'St:PumpUpgrade ; =----+----►■~Ill~lrNll~l~~~
15. South 296th Street Pond Expansion
16. Bry's Cove Pond'Expansion
17'. Sform Drainage InfrastNCture Repeir & ReplacemenE
! 18. Arterial PreseNation Ufility Improvements ;
,
; .
19. SOSUtility lmprovements
i ~
; 20. Regional Drainage Improvement. Proje,cts
Monitoring , Q-Pipe-B4. ParCing lot near Henry
Road
~ Q-Pipe-C346. G Street $E'and 2 -
nd Street 5E
Q-Pipe-1386, B Street SE and 121h Street SE'
'Q-Pipe-C26. M Street SE and'Aubum Way S
'Q-Pipe-C59. Dogwood Street'
'Q-Pipe-P2. Near West Main and SR 187
Q-Pipe-110. 30th Street NE near airport '
~
WL-Mill-01,02,03,04; Mill Creek Profile
; WL-Pond-Ot. West Airporl Pond , ' J
~ WL•Pond-02. A Street SE and 17th Street SE
WL-Pond-03. D Street SE and 21st Street SE
WL-Pond-04. South 296th Street at 55th Ave' S 'WL-Pond-05. South 296th Street at 57th Place S
WL-Pond-06. U Street SE and 29th Street SE
WL-Pond-07. M Street SE and 37th'Streef SE '
WL-Pond-08,09,10,11. Large Ponds for Dam Safety
•DES Compliance (Sectio
-
SWMP administrative tasks '
4 - - - -
~
Devefop new stormwater manual
DeveCop SWPPPs for City, fadlities ' ` ; ! ~ LL•- i
Update codes, standards, SOPs, maintenance for IDDE
'Uptlate codes, standards, SOPs; maint. for construction, 0&M w'
. . , . _r _ i--^- j--.-- . ~ - - ~ . - i
Publiceducatianandouireach,IDDEandoutfallmonitoring'
o .
' Completesysteminventory
,
, Conducthew econamic life-cycle analyses --J
,
' Update, check; revise system inVentory
~ UP datecritical' database! - - - - - - - - =
, ; , •
. . i , i
, .
. . _ . , . , . . .
RiskAssessment - AssetVulnerability Analysis
; ; . _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ ; . ; ; . , . ~
Evaluate M&0 program
~ . .
, , . , , :
Expand functionality of Cartegraph CMMS safWare
i
'Establish specific suStainability goals end standaMs
Review and refine LOS Goals
'Assist with Mill Creek Restoration Studies
' Evaluate Siormwater Management for Dawntown Area ' ' '
_
_ _ i
.
rIMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIVITIES TIMELINE Detailed 6•year CIP Timeframe ~ Remaining 20•year CIP Summary.
i Ciiy of Aubum Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 2009 2010 2011 ' 2012 2013 2014 '2015 2020 2025 2030
~ ai 02 Q3 04 Qi Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 04 Q1 02 Q3 Q4 01 Q2. Q3 Q4 Q1 02 Q3 Q4 ~
1. R Street SE Storm Drain Improvement
, 2. SCADA (Telemetry) Up9rades K E Y
3. White,River Storm Pump Station Replacement, Phase 1 , i, , , ■ Activity
! 4. White,River Storm Pump Station Replacement, Phase 2 ; 0 Optional
~ ,5. Peasley Canyon Culvert Replacement Continued
j 6. M Street NE1Harvey Road & 8th Street Improvements into nexl
; 7. Les Gove Neighborhood Improvement permit lerm
, j 8, West Valley Highway Data feed
~ 9. Port of Seattle Mitigation Project
' ,10, M&0 Facility Improvements
, 11. Improvements for Aubum Way S, $R 18 at M and 17th St.
12. Bypass at 2nd Street SE and G Street SE _Il■~ `
-
3 13: Relieve 30th Street NE Area Flooding , -r - ;
,
14. West Main St. Pump Upgrade
15. South 296th Street Pond Expansion
3 16, Bry's Cove Pond Expansion
,
17; Storm Drainage InfrastNCture Repair & Replacement ,
18. Arterial Preseroation Utility Improvements
19. SOS UtilityJmprovements
20. Regional Drainage Improvement Projects
onito
Q-Pipe-134. Parking lot near Henry Road
Q-Pipe-C346. G Street SE and 2nd Sireet SE
Q-Pipe-B86. B Street SE and 12th Street SE
; Q-Pipe-C26. M Street SE and Aubum Way S
i
Q-Pipe-C59. Dogwood Street
' Q-Pipe-P2. Near West Main and SR 167
' Q-Pipe-110. 30th Street NE near airport I -•----------------1
WL-Mill-01,02,03,04; Mill Creek Profile
' WL-Pond-01. West Airport Pond
WL-Pond-02. A Street SE and 17th Street SE
WL-Pond-03. D Street SE and 21st Street SE
WL-Pond-04. South 296th Street at 55th Ave S
WL-Pond-05. South 296th Street at 57th Place S
~ WL-Pond-06. U Street SE and 29th Street SE '
' WL-Pond-07. M Street SE and 37th Street SE
WL-Pond-09,09,10,11. Large Ponds for Dam Safery
PD ,
~
i SWMP administrative tasks ' ' ' - ' ' - '
,
i Develop new stormwaier manual
Develop SWPPPs far City facilities LL•~
Update codes, standards, SOPs; maintenance for IDDE
Update codes,'standards, SOPs, mainf. for constNCtion, 0&M i w`
-
Public education and outreach, IDDE and ouffall monitoring
, ' i
,ditional Studies and Activities (Sectio
I Complete system inventory
! i , , ; ;
i Conduct new economic life-cycle analyses
Update, check, revise system inventory
, Update criticality database : I _ : .i----
Risk Assessment'- Asset Vulnerability Analysis
I
' Eveluate M&0 program
Expand functionality of Cartegraph CMMS software ' ' i '
; 'Establish specf8c sustainabiliiy goals and standards
~ 'Review and refine LOS Goals
'Assist with Mill Creek Restoration Studies ' ' ' ' ' ' ~
~ ' ' Evaluate Stormwater Management for powntown Area ' ' ' ' i
8: Fnanaal Plan COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
8.2.3 Capital Funding, Plan
The CIP developed for this Drainage Plan totals 18 separate projects valued.at.$22.0 249:H million
3
pe~en'
Significant projects during the 2009=2014 period include the following.
m annual storm drainage infrastructure repair/replacement projects: $2.6 million
~ arterial utility improvements: $1.3:million
~ relieving Aubum Way S flooding phases 1 and 2: $2.0 million
" relieving 30th Street NE axea flooding phases 1 and 2: $3_6 ~-5 million
° White River storm pump station replacement: $2.0 million
0 PeasleyCanyon culvert replacement: $1.0 million
■ West Main Street pump upgrade: $1.1 million
° S. 296th Street south pond e$pansion phases 1 and 2: $1.5 million
° West Valley Highway improvements: $1.5 million
■ SOS utility improvements: $900,000
■ R Street storm drain improvements: $770,000
■ Port of Seattle mitiga.rion agreement project: $600,000 .
■ SCADA telemetry upgrades: $520,0004.
Table 8-3 summarizes the annual costs associated with the 6-year CIP.
s .
~Aimuai C1P 2899~eNaFS~~~~ ~~`wn ~ ~ ,_,vy~~,~w. ~ -
2009 3,245,000 3,44a99B
2010 4,521,0004;484;898 ,4-a99~8B
2011 _ 5,986,540 61969;899 6;9,H48_
2012 1.358.636
20113. 4.582.306 34~ ~385
2014 2.315.202 Z58"98 "9,4,564 6-year total 22 009 484 $29;64,8A $24447-,M
3
>
4 Values escalated to yeaz of project construction based upon an annual inflation rate of 3 percent.
. &7
Use of contents on this shest is subject to the limitations speci6ed at the,end oi this document.
8: Financial Flan COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN
: le~ 1 ~ .e i •
~
;
"~~1 ~~,;10% ~W ~`201~ : Totat ,
~.n._.
Total capital projects $3,245,000 521 800 $5,986;540 1 358 636 582 306 ' 2 315 202 22 009 484
S4~9a~9A $1,498,636 $3,3&3,395 $2,694;564. _4p-,897;446
2010 Ciry planned revenue bond $0 $2,500,000 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 ~ $24500,000
New revenue bond proceeds $0 $0 $4,658,723 $875,441 $3,147,475 $2,489,419 $11,171,058
Use of_ system. dev_elopment changes $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 . $200,000 $200,000 $20.0,000 $1,200,000
Use of capifal fund balance $3,045,000 1 821 800 $1,127,817 283195 1 34 831 74 17 7138 426
5~98$99 $3~85 _ $~8 $~146
Totaf funding sources 53,245,000 4 521800 $5,986,540 1 358 636 4 582 306 2 315 202 :W 009 484
S4;&99;~98 $"A ON $3;363;395 $Z-694,~4 8~9;~9~45
8.3 Available CIP Funding Ass6stance ancl Financing
Itesources Feasible long-term capital funding strategies should be defined to ensure that aclequate resources are
available to fund the CIP identified in this Dra.inage Plan. In add.ition to the utility's resouraes such
as accumulated cash reserves, capital revenues, bond proceeds, and SDCs, capital needs can also be
met from outside sources such as grants, low-interest loans, and bond financing. The foIlowing is a
summary of utility and outside resources.
8.3.1 Utili#y Resources
Utility resources appropriate for funding capital needs include accumulated cash in the CIP funds,
bond proceeds, and capital revenues such as SDCs. The first two resources have been discussed in
the Financial Policies section. Capital-related revenues are discussed below.
8.3.1.1 System Development Charges
An SDC as provided for by RCW 35.92.025 refers to a one-time charge imposed on new customers as
a condition of connecrion to the utility system. The purpose of the SDC is twofold: to promote equity
between newand existing. customers, and to provide a source of revenue to fund capital projects.
Equity is served by providing a vehicle for new customers to share in the, capital costs incurred to
support their addition to the systerri. SDC revenues provide a source of eash flow used to support
utiliry capital needs; revenue can be used only to fund utility capital projects or to pay debt service
incurred to finance those projects.
In the absence of an SDC, growth-related capital costs would be borne in large part by existing
customers. In addirion, the net investment in the utility already collected from existing customers,
whether through rates, charges; and/or assessments, would be diluted by the addition of new
customers, effectively subsidizing new customers with prior customers' payments. To establish equity,
an SDC should recover a proportionate share of the existing and future infrastructure costs from a
new customer. From a financial perspective, a new customer should become finaneially equivalent to
an existing customer by paying the SDC.
The following table summarizes the City's current SDC schedule.
8-9
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limita5ons specified at the end of this document.
,LSee nage 3-3for clarification of "»wrket factoc": see napes 3.-7 through r•ornuatted: Font: ~ta~ic -
- J
-
3=81or chairres related nonulatinn.and census see naze3=14 for italic ~
c[arification of street light standards in. RC zone: and see nases 34 5 FonnaltW& Fo„t: Itaiic~
throuQl: 3-31 for chanQes related to econonuc develonment strateQies
areas. Formatted: Font: Italic ~
_ . ~
CI--APTER 3
LAND USE -
Al~
IntrOduction Land use planning enables the City of Aubum to manage rts anticipated
growth and development while taking into cons~ideration the specifc
community vision and desires. - By desigmting how piand can be used,
those considerations necessary for orderly girowih including the creation of
jobs, the provision of recreational opportumties, strong and stable
~ M
~ .
neighborhoods and an efficient transportation system_ can be pursued.
Aqburn Today
To better understand aid evaluat the context for the City's future growth,
it is helpful to evaluafe #~►e City's existing land use and zoning.
~ e T~\
am`~"oVerv~ew of the zoned acreage within the City of
Figure 3.1 provides .
• Auburn and'th~ pefcentage that acreage represents of the City's overall
land are~~Laiu~rvzon~ed for reside.ntial purposes, especially single family
residential; is clealy p;edominant and represents ab6ut 49 percent (RC,
R1; RS, R7~an~, R10 zones) ofthe City's wned acreage. Of commercial
anda-industnal zoned land,.the 1VI1 (Light Industrial) wne, is most
predoininant, consisting of 9 percent of the wned acreage in the city.
Land zoned Pl (Public Use District) is another significant.land use zone
consisting of 8:5 percent of the city's zoned acreage.
~
~oeleeed:.4menaaa2010
Page 3_1
I raft 2011 '
~ Laoa u~
Figure 3.1
City ofAubum
Acreage of Land by Zoning District
PERCENTAGE
ZONE ACREAGE OF CITY
RC (Resiclential Consetvancy) 1,481 7.58%
Rl (Residential 1 du/acre) 1,405 7.190/o
RS (Residential 5 du/sere) 4,281 21.926/6
R7 (Residential 7 du/acre) 2,076 10.63%
R10 (Residential 10 du/acre) 244 ~ 1.25%
R20 (Residentia120 du/acre)) 608 ~3:13%
RMHC (Residential Maaufactured/Mobile
Home Units) 455V 233%
RO (Residential Office) 95 0.49%
RO-H(Residential0fficeHospital) 1.0" 0.005%
CN (Neighborhood Commercial) ' •12 0.06%
C1 (LightCommercial) ft302 ,1:55%
C2 (Central Business District) ~ M 33 0.17%
DUC (Downtowri Urban Center) ~ ~ 135 0.69%
~N,
C3 (Heavy Commercial) ~ 1,432 7.33% BP (Business Park) 0 0.000/0
EP (Environmental Pazic) 276 1.41% .
M1 (Lig6t Indush-ial) 1,762 9.020/o
M2 (Heavy Industnal) 1,099 5.63%
LF (Landing Field) ~-f 112 0.57%
P] (Public Use DistrLCt) ~ 1,665 8.47%
I (Instiiunonal) ~ ~ 584 2.99%
U (UnclassiSed , J~,~ 432 2.21% PUD (Plaimed Unit Development) 984 5.04%
. TV (Terrece View)'"`- 59 0.30%
r,,.
TOTAL 19,533 100%
Source: Ciry,ofAubum. Geographic Information Services (GIS)
The above data includes area in the West Hill and Lea Hill.annexations.
The small remaining areas outside of the city limits but within the city's
Potential Annezation Area (PAA) are not included. -
BUILDABLE LANDS - LAND SUPPLY AND DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY
In 1997 the Washington State legislature adopted a Buildable Lands
amendment io the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A,215). ,
The amendment requires certain Washington State counties and their cities
, ~oeieoda:'nn,ma~a20 10
I
, Page 3-2 I raft 2011 '
I Land Use
to determine the amount of land suitable for urban development and to ,
evaluate their capacity for growth based on past development history.
Both Pierce and,King Counties are subject to the State Buildable Lands
' requirement. In addition, tioth counties use the Buildable Lands effort to
assist in the allocation of population/housing unitlemployment targets to
individual jurisdictions within the respective counties as required by the
GMA. The first buildable lands reports were based upon data through
2002; the second reports, published in 2007, are current through 2005.
The Buildable Lands analysis involves the identification of vacant and
redevelopable land suitable for development over the planning horizon,
through 2022. Land suitability takes into consideration estimates of,how
critical areas, land that might be needed for public purposes'114parks,
~ storm drainage), and land needed for future streets will effect development
of these vacant and redevelopable parcels. It also means,adjusting the
amount of vacant and redevelopable land using a maiazket:-factor or discount
factor to exc.lude land that, based on historical trends,is dot reasonably
expected to 6ecome available for sale or lease-durutg the planning horizon.
Mz ~
Land Supply and Housing Unit Capacity@
As indicated above, both King.and Pieice Counties aze subject to the
State's Buildable Lands legi,,s°lation. An pprozimation of Auburn's
~
devel_opment capacity was;madeathrough an analysis of all vacant and
underutilized land within tHe City,rVacant land is defiried as any parcel
with no structures ~itdertitilized or redevelopable land is defined as a
parcel with potential foi ll or redevelopment.
V '
The followmg°summanzes the results and conclusions of these analyses by
county (Kuig.and~Pierce). While the objective behind each counties'
Buildable Lands effort was similar, the approaches were.slightly different.
Deiailed~u3formation regarding the Buildable Lands analysis may be found
"e individual Buildable Lands reports prepared by the respective
N-\
COUIIl~
2007 King County Buildable Lands Analysis
Figure 3.2 identifies the gross and adjusted net vacant and redevelopable
land by residential land use type from the Buildable,Lands analysis for
King County. Adjusted net acre.s represent the amount of gross acres
available for development after assumptions about critical areas; future
right of way needs; future larid for pub(ic uses aad the market factor have
been considered. (Note: t}iis analysis was based upon the City limits as of
December 31, 2005. and therefore does not include the.recent annexations
- of Lea and West Hills.'The 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report did
~ oeiemed:Aeaea zoio ~
,
,
Page 3-3
I aft 2011 '
I Land Use
not provide specific analysis for the large Lea HiIC and West Hill PAAs
that in 2005, were still unincorporated).
Figure 3.2
Gross and Adjusted Net Acres of Vacant
and Redevelopable Land by Residential Zoning Type (King County)
Gross Acres' Adjusted
Net Acres 1
Single Family` 1,323.5 8882
Vacant
Single Family 603.7 349
Redevelo able
Multi-Family/ 37 32.5
Mixed Use £ ~
Vacant
~
Multi-FamilyL 145.8 I07-94~ >
Mixed Use ,
Redevelo able.
~ TOTAL 2,110 1077s67
(1) "Adjusted Net Acres" represents land,°avaitable•for development after
critical areas, anticipated right-of way and ppblic purposes needs and a market factor
have been taken in4o account. #
(2) "Other" represents mixed usgopportunitie`sx ctrtain zones.
After deducting for co `nstraints, futwe right-of-way and public purpose
~
. needs, and after.apply~'mg a`'-"market'factor, the Buildable Lands:analysis
shows that Auburn has approximately 1,377.5 adjusted net acres of vacant
and redevelopable r~''esidentially zoned land during the planning period
through 2023.., As , n Figure 3.2, the majority of available land for
development zon' for single-family residential purposes.
BasecI^on the residential land supply analysis and historical densities, .an
-t
- estimate of housing unit capacity was developed. Figure 3.3, identifies the
estimated,fcapacity (in housing units) in King County by the predominant
zoning~type. This estimate shows a capacity of approximately 6,525
housing units in the King County portion of the City exists to the year
2022.
. ~eced:.~ma~a zoio I
, -
, .
Page 3-4
I Qraft 2011
'
~
I Land Use
Figure 3.3
Housing Unit Capacity By Residential Zoning Type (King Couaty)
Capacity
ousin Units
Sin le Famil 3,958
Mu1ti-Family 2,002
Mixed Use 565
TOTAL 6,525
(1) Capacity figures include imits in the pipeline.
Employment Capacity (King County)
F 'Mx
As part of the King County Buildable Lands analys.is, employirient
capacity was also estimated. This methodology iuvelved4similar
approach as the residential capacity analysis. The supply of both vacant
and redevelopable commercial and industriar-landwas determined. As
~
with residential capacify, "net land supply foc commerc~rs ial and industrial
purposes took into consideration cntical areas, anticipated future right-of
VYV
ways, land for public purposes and applieda°martcet factor to land that
may not be available for.development du ng the planning period.
~
Estimates of how much commercial and industrial square footage could be
developed on propertywere calculated. Employcnent capacity was
developed applymg a;„floorlarea.per employee ratio.
Figure 3.4 identifies°ttiegross and adjusted net vacant and redevelopable
land by commercia'1°aiand uidustrial land use from the King County
Buildable"Lanils analysis. Again, adjusted net acres represents the amount
~
of gross acres avatlable for development after assumptions about critical
;e,~
azeas constrauits,. future right.of way needs, land for public uses and the
Arket faior have been considered.
~
~ oeleted: nmendea 2010
_ Page 3-5 ,
.
I ft2011 '
.
I Land Use
Figure 3.4
Gross and Adjusted Net Acres of Commercial and Industrial
Land Supply (King County)
Gross Acres Adjusted
Net Acres 1
Commercial 164 136.1 '
Vacant
Commercial 81.8 66
Redevel able
Industrial Vacant 4993 327.3
Industrial 256.9 1763
Redevelo able ~
Mixed Use 2 1.6 ~
Vacant ~"N
Mixed Use 56.4 45.5 ,
, Redevelo able 10~ :
TOTAL 1,060.2 ;:753
1. "Adjusted Net Acres" represents land aftta''caitical areas; future anticipated
streets, land forpublic purposes and market!,f hct~r' have'.lieen considered. _
~
Figure 3.4 indicates that approximately 1,060'1grossacres of vacant and
redevelopable commercial, `industrial.;andzmix ed use zoned land exists,
with most of this land bemg industri~alyg£z~on, ed. Adjusted for constraints,
future infrastructure needs and a mazket factor, slightly more than 750 net
acres exists.
~
Figure 3:5 below sucriinanzes employment capacity developed as part of
the Buildable Lands ana'lysis by land use zone type. It shows that the City
of Auburn has employment capacity for over 17,750 jobs, with a majority
of those jobs being on industrially zoned land. `
~
~ Figure 3.5
~ Employment Capacity byZoning Type (King County)
Zone T e _ Em lo ment Cs aci
Commercial 3,559
Industrial 12,053
Mixed Use 736
Other 1 1,410
TOTAL 17,759
(1) "Other" includes estimates of employment associated with pipeline projects
identified at the time of the Buildable Lands analysis.
Pierce County Buildable Lands Analysis
While the overall objective of the Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis
was similar to King County's, certain elements were done differently: The
- , ~ ueietea: a,mcuaea zoio I
Page 3-6 ,'I raft 2011 '
I Land Use.
majority of land within.the city limits at the time of the buildable lands .
analysis (Year2005) was`part of the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit
Development (PUD). Tlie majority of the additional residential vacant
land was part of approved preliminary plats. T'herefore, estimates of
residential population housing units were based on planned densities
established as part of the PUD approval and a related annexation
agreement with the deyeloper; and also took in account the other approved
projects. Estimates of eiaployment were based on known employment
areas within the PUD.
Based on the Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis, it was determined
that the City of Aubum's population growth to the year 2022 would be
10,500 people. This translates irito the need for approximately t,789
housing units.
The Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis includes a 2022 employment
target of 403 and an employment capacity of543 T$vs estimate was
based on the likely employment generated by the commercial parcels
located within Lakeland Hills South PUD aad other vac~ant commercial
lands a7ong A St. SE. "(Specifics regarding the Pierce County Bwldable Lands analysis may be found in
the "Pierce County Buildable Land Reports A:Monitoring and Evaluation
analysis of Urban Growth and -evelopment Capacity for Pierce County and its
Cities and Towns",'Septemher 1 ~.007.)
Evaluation of Cauacitv AuLrainst Proiected Growth -Taftts
King County and-Pierce-County both have allocated housing unit and
employment targets tti~ :local jurisdictions. These targ,ets were . recentlv
~dated with-the r~nsecl ponulation forecasu released bv the Offce of 8
Financiat Mattagement for each countv. The City of Aubum's allocation °weted` ZZ
targets.aaze presenied below in Figure 3.f- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ 'ueietea: 5,534
Deietea:6,o79
Figure 3.6 ~~eeed: 1,789
C~ of Auburn 2006-203 Housin _Unit/EmLloYment/PoP_ ulation_ 403
:-L-----g _ _
Allocations (King and Pierce counties) ueletiea: 10,500.
oeleted: .4v of the tirgees assigned m
Housing Units Employment Populacion 6,.1,Auttirn mKins County are within sne.
developmmt capaciry idenpSed in the
Buildable I.ands analysis. Based on the
Kin Coun 620 9 350 N/A Bwldable Lands anatysis the Ciry had a
Pierce Coun 86 06 950 ~smplus residwdal capaciry of about 784
+uniu ove its mrget and asuplus capacity
ofover 11,680 emP1oYces ovcits
tar8et•
iIn Piace Connry, thae is apprwdwately
These revised housing,and emplovment target numbers were updated to , 8166 =a~a~ ~z acs~t ~a a ai i
- - - - - - - ~ ~l~t's~~~. ov~u,,nem ,5
assist jurisdictions in their.comprehensive plan updates as well as coincide wffic;ent„es;akntiW capac;lyv,,;,nm the
with the updates to the_CountMide Planning Policies. An updated citrlinfi+s roniuft zougroa,n
buildable lands repoit will not be completed unti12012 and at thattime the p1OJO"10ns-
~ neieoed: nmenaea zoio I
,
Page 3-7 ,
I Q,raft 2011
I Land Use
I Citv will be able to determine its housine and emplovment capacity and
whether land use chan¢es are warranted:
Buildable Lands Analvsis Limitafions -
It is important to nofe limitations to the Buildable Lands analysis. The
Buildable Lands analysis is based on identifying actual densities for a
five-year period and then applying these densities to available land.
Whether or not the densities achieved for the discrete five-year period will
be a true reflection of future densities is one consideration. As land
becomes increasingly scarce and land values rise, there will be a tendency
for land to be.rimore intensely used over time with higher densities. -
Also, how much land could be developed is not a predictor of whether it
will be developed. Ultimately the market will dictate howk
,much land-will
be developed. Attempting to predict the mazket was beyond the scope of
the Buildable Lands analysis.
Issues and Background
Auburn's Potential
Annezation Area Auburn's Comprehensive Plan contains poiicies which designate types and
intensities of land uses that will acco,,,,,, mpl~sh the City's long range goals.
Since the Rlan depicts a lotig, term perspective of tlie City's growth, it is
appropriate to also include onNthe Comprehensive Plan map those azeas
which may not currently beswithin';the City limits, but are planned to be in
the future. These areas.Adre within the city's potentiaT annexation azea
(PAA). (Map I. L)~ However, due to recent annexations, the amount of land
remaining withmt~he PAA:is relatively small. ~ °
~ ~ .
The city ~rovides water and sewer service to many portions ofthe PAA.
In acldit~on,;growtti~ in the PAA can have significant impacts on other City
services :~Hence, it is important for City decision makers to consider the
gro, v~th mk these areas as well, as within the city limits when malcing
decisians~conceming capital projects such as water and sewei extensioris
and road projects: (For a more thorough discussion of these issues; see
Chapter 13, "Development in the Unincorporated Areas and Annexation.")
GOAL 5. . CITY EXPANSION AND ANNEXATION
To ensure the orderly development and annexation of the City's potential
annexation area in a manner that ensures adequate and cost-effective
provision of required urban services and facilities; reduces sprawl,
implements the, goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan; and protects designated nual areas.
, Iueieted:.a,mmaeazoto ~
Page 3-8
I raft2011 '
I . Land Use
Olijective 5.1 To designate Auburn's potential annexation azea and to include those azeas
on the City's Comprehensive P1an Map.
Policies:
LU-1 Aubum's Potential Annexation Area is shown on Map 3.1.
Map '3:1 also depicts Growth Impact Areas. These Growth
Impact Areas are generally adjacent cities or unincorporated
County lands in which development that occurs potentially
impacts;ttie city of Aubum.
LU-2 The Au6um City Council, may revise the boundanes .of the
Potential Annexation Area in the future, in resp e to ~
a. Amendments to the King County~ Urban~Growth Area as
specified'in the King County Countywide=Policies;.
,
b. Discussions between Aubuin and adjacent jurisdictions
regarding Potential Annexation Area~boundaries;
. c. Discussions with Pierce:Co~nty conceming the designation
of Potential Annexation°;Area boundaries; or.
~
d. Changed: c amstances relating to population and
employment; growth and projecEions, urban service
1:6
feasibii"Ry;;.or. similaz factors.
_ ~ , , .
Urban Form Planning deals wrth~ie ,tiasic geographic form of the city. Auburn's `
existing forni;~separates, the' city into two parts: a concentration of
employmen~ba`se,onthe west with sufficient existing and potential jobs to
be of~;regional significance (region serving azea), and residential and
loo`~illy onenfed business uses to the east (community serving area). This
existing policy of a."split" form has generally been effective in avoiding
gross"tand°use conflicts between residential uses and more intensive (e.g.
industrial) land uses. Thi's Plan's policies maintain this basic split policy.
However; Auburn's dowatown area is also treated as a unique (both region
and community-serving) part ofthe city's form.
Another aspect of a city's form is its development intensity. Varying
intensities of development require different configurations of city services
and facilities and create different community impacts. The location of
different intensities-can also assist in establishing the city's character and
identity, and can be iastrumental in furthering othei important goals
(protection of critical areas, protection against naiural hazards, etc.).
oeleead: .ammaaa 2010
~
Page 3-9 /
I raft 2011 i
I Land Use
_ Policy established by the 1969 Comprehensive Plan assumed that the city
would eventually be completely urban in character and the City's approach
to developing its service delivery system was driven by this assumption. '
At that time no City policy or program addressed agricultural preservation.
While extensive areas with rural development require expensive
restructuring of the City service delivery system, strategic long-term
protection of some of the§e areas can assist in limiting urban sprawl,
maintaining diversity of living environinents, and protecting important
environmental resources, in particular the City's water source at.Coal Creek Springs. This Plan designates a limited amount, of Residential
Conservancy azea for this purpose, which should not significantly affect
the overall cost of city services. .
,
GOAL 6. URBAN FORM ~
To establish an orderl urban form which sepates, uses on tlie basis of
their functional relati nship to the communi ~az` ~
ty,can1wHich reinforces'the
~
identity of the community. ~ 1
Objective 6.1. To physically separate region serving empl yment centers and other
regionally oriented land uses from;,areas tliat. aTe residential.or local in
character while ensuring that regianal facalities strengthen the community
as a whole and enhance downtown Auburn."
AV 'Q .
Policies:
LU-3 Areas on the valley floor which aze suitable to support large
scale economic,development projects should be reserved, for
the most"part,~for :uses which support Auburn's role as a
:4gionaI~,~employment and commercial center (to be lrnown as
~ the;Region Serving Area - See Map 3.2).
LU4 ~,Aieas delineated` on the Urban Form Map (Map 32) as the
Community Serving Area should be reserved for uses which
= ,A'are local in character or serve local markets. .
LU-5 Link together . regionally significant land uses such as the
SuperMall, Green River Communiry College; Boeing, Emerald
Downs, and commercial uses'on Auburn Way in a manner that
enhances the regional stature of Auburn while providing
serdices, employment and tax base for the community.
Linkages should be designed to enhance Downtown Auburn as
the community's focal point.
Objective 6.2. Maintain downtown as an area that uniquely serves both regional and
community, needs.
, l Detezad: ,an=aea 2010 ~
Page 3-10
I aft 2011
I _ Land Use
Policies:
LU-6 The downtown urban center shall be the focal point of the
_ Auburn community. It should include a mix of uses including,
- but not limited to, government and civic uses, retail, residenrial
~ and services that are appropriate to fill that role.
LU-6A Focus growth and ' development in the Auburn Downtown
urban center to support economic development, complement
transif oriented development, direct growth pressures away
from singl'e family residential neighborhoods, andAnplement
regional growth management strategies.
Objective 6.3. To protect community identity while promoting diversity and conserving
_ rural amenities, by designating rural areas along theMcity's .peripliery and in
v
areas with significant environmental values.
. 8 ..I, .
Policies: ~ 0 ~
LU-7., The City shall supportfxhe Coynty, agricultural program in
securing the.development.ri ghts„to straxegically located parcels,
especially along the northern city boundary and at the start of
the Upper Green `~iver Valley `
V
LU-8 The CityAhould lumt:_accessible Ciry utility systems into the
Upper G"reen~~alley, and shall limit density, thus preserving
the ctiaracter o~ the area and encowaging continued cultivation
on these prnpes.
' LU-9 ~ The , C~~ ~Nshall Protect Coal Creek SP~ nrigs bY: 1) limitin
~ ty g
densityto less than one residential unit per fow acres witliin
th~~~
area tcibutary to the Coal Creek Springs Watershed and by
e
designating a. Special Planning Area for the Mt: Rainier
~ - ` Vista site. "
LU-10 The City sha11 support low density County wning adjacent to
the city on'the Enumclaw Plateau Agicultural District and will '
not extend City sewer and water facilities into the area if it will
promote urban development.
LU-11 Tfie City shall consider the impacts of new development
activities on resources (including agricultural resource lands,
cultural resowces; forest resource lands,, and mineral resource
areas (1vlap 9.4)), the environment and natural resources
~ oeleted: Amenaea zoio ~
~
Page 3-1 1 I ,~r,aft 2011 '
I Land Use
(particulazly critical areas, wildlife habitats and water quality)
as part of its environmental review process.
Objective 6.4 Maintain low-density "uiban separators" azeas which protect
environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and
between urban areas, consistent .with the King County Countywide `
Planning Policies.
Policy:
LU-12 The City shall maintain wban separators in the Lea Hill area as
, designated by King County,
Residential
Development Within most communities, a range of housing densrties„.is allowed to
provide a variety of housing opportunities. The wider the range, the eater the o ortuni for individuals to fmd housm
gr pp ty g~relative to their
particular needs, affordability and preference.
While the City's policy provides for a relahv le y~ wide range of residential
densities, development over the past decade has`been heavily concentrated
. ~ ,;.ee
toward the middle and upper levels of the raage(S discussion in Chapter
4, Housing Element).
As land costs have escalated in the region however, Auburn has remained
relatively affordable to the average family.
_ This P(an provides aftiaVt}ie City should seek to restore the traditional
character of the qcommiuiity by encouraging preservation and development
of housmg that is suifaUle,xo the retention and attraction of families within
the commun'*, is would be best accomplished by focusing multi- .
faznily development in the 'urban center, protecting the residential
chazacter of existing single family, neighborhoods and promoting the °
development r of new neighborhoods of single family homes.
C isequently; residential land use policies will emphasize the creation and
preseTVation of single family neighborhoods, while stili encouraging the
•y
development of other housing types for those who need or want them.
GOAL 7. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
To emphasize housing development at single family densities, in order to
reestablish a mix of housing types appropriate for a family oriented
community, while recognizing the need and desire for both lower density
and higher density housing appropriately located to meet the housing
needs of:all members of the community.
Ddeeed: nmwaW zoW ~
,
Page 3-12
`
I a.~201 I
~ I Land Use
Objective 7.1. To establish a systerh of residential densities that accommodates a range
of housing choices appropiiate for the city.
Policies:
LU-13 The City should promote the provision, preservation and
maintenance of adequate housing for the city's residents by
encouraging a balanced mix of housing types and values
appropriate to the income levels and lifestyles of area residents.
Auburn has always been willing to accept, its, "fair share" of
low and moderate cost housing opportunities: However, this
has translated into a. great disparity in Puget Sound
, communities with cities such as Aubum receiving~more of
these types of housing than other comparable,~comm"i nities.
This has had impacts in terms of the.costs ofrrieering,human .
service needs as well as some poorly mainta'ined multifamily
properties which have caused a vartety nf,pFoblems. Aubum
will work to insiire that housmg~~umits are q itably distributed
across the region in terms of botti ph~sicail:i&ation and cost.
LU-14 Residential' densities i~,:in;~„ ar~s aesi~~a "residential .
, ~ ~
conservancy", which represent,~~
~areas that haye environmenta.l
constraints or whic~~ promote p~rotection of City water sources,
should be no greater than 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres until such
time public fac]rties are available., Where it is found through a
land use appro~val process to be supportive of the purpose of
. the "re§ideatial conservancy" designation, where it does not
substantially ~'adversely impact the surrounding residential
communi't~yA,and, demonstrates compliance to development
, Astandazsds~ specified in the zoning code, agricultural uses ancl
limited ommercial uses in support of agricultural uses may be
3~~~``~allowe~~with appropriate environmental protection.
_ ~
LU :1~ The, area designated `residential conservancy„ allows for a.
lifestyle similar to that of niral areas since the lower density
.
established protects the critical areas sucH as the City's Coal
Creek Springs watershed. A rural lifestyle, generally includes
allowance of farm animals, streets not urban in character (e:g.
d limited
I no sidewalks, stteet lights onlv at intersections), an
agricultural type uses. The "residential conservancy" also
allows appropriate-scale commercial activity in support of
agricultural uses where it is found through a land use approval
process to be supportive of the purpose of the "residential
conservancy" designation, where it does not substantially
adversely impact the surrounding residential community and
odemed: Amenaea 2010 ~
Page 3-13
I a
I LaDd Use
demonstrates compliance to development standards specified in
the zoning code.
. LU-16 Residential densities within designated "urban separators"
should be no greater than 1 dwelling unit per acre. Clustering
of allowed density onto a portion of a site should be favorably
considered.
LU-17 Residential densities in azeas designated for.' single family
residential use should be no greater than 7 units per net acre.
These areas should be serded with good transit availability (1/4
mile or less to a route with at least half hourservice).
Accessory dwelling units should be permitted to, allow
increased densities. The bulk of the single fa nily resid'ential
community should be developed at a density of lietween 4 and
7 dwelling units per net acre. Increased density is"ichievable
through flexible development standards, ;;if, certain criteria aze
met, as established in city code
ii, W J,
LU-18 Residential densities in areas designated for multiple family
development should not,~exceed 20 uiiits per net acre. Multiple
family densities shouldtigenerally decrease with proximity to
single family areas: Multi~p,le fimily densities may exceed 20 units per acre provided they`a e within walking distance ofl/4
mile from regional, transit facilities or aze targeted to
populations not,,requg outdoor recreation areas and having
low private.automobile usage (e.g. nursing homes). These
targeted developments should be located in close proximity to
shoppmg, medical and pu6lic transportation services.
creasdensity i'sachievatile through flexible developriient.
~standazds,"` if certain criteria are met, as establi"shed in city code.
Objecti've 7.2. To desigriate'land for the development of new single family homes.
..;:.a
Policies."
LU-19 Jn applying-the land use designations of the Comprehensive
Plan, first consideration sttall be given to designating an area
for single family residential use.
LU-20 Most of the undeveloped areas of the Community Serving Area
of the city (see Map 3.2) shall be reserved for single family
dwellings. . The ability to buffer the azea from incompatible
land uses and heavily traveled arterials or highways should be
considered in designating currently undeveloped areas for ,
future single family use. Such buffering can be accomplished
, I oeieroed: Ameaea Zoio I
Page,3-14 ,'I raft 2011
i Laod U.
by taking advantage of topographic variations and other natural
features, requiring expanded setbacks along arterials, by
orienting lots, and houses away from arterials, by designating
moderate density multiple family areas as transitional areas,
and by other means.
Objective 7.3. To promote the development :of quality single family neighborhoods
which relate the design and types of residential azeas to important natural
~ and manmade features.
Policies:
LU-21 Residential development should be related to topography,
circulation, and other amenities, as guided by policies of this
Plan.
LU-22 Residentiat development should be disc,oui~~aged in poorly
drained areas. ~
AET
LU-23 The development of new neighborhoods,;should be governed by
development standards-whicW° a]lovi~ some flexibility.
Flexibility should be consideted to encourage compact urban
development, to ,.providelo,prctection . of critical areas and
resource lands ;(including,``b` not limited to, agricultural
resource lands, '~ultural resources, forest resource lands,
mineral resource areas-;(Map 9.4) hillsides or wetlands), and to
facilitate non,`motorized transportation. Increased density is
, achie,vable through flexible development standards, if certain
critenagare:met,'as established in city code.
LU-24 ~~'Ttie-~de,veiopment of residential areas should recognize the
portance of community and public facilities in developing a
~
~sense of neighborhood and community.
LU-25, Residential development of shoreline areas shall. be in accord
- with the City's Shoreline Management Program and should
provide for the retention of public access to these areas.
Special care should be taken in the de.sign of residential azeas .
iri shoreline areas to reduce the potential conflict between
residential use and public access.
LU-26 Emphasis shall be placed upon the manner in which the
recreational needs of the residents shall be met in the approval
of any residential development.
oeteted: nm.aea 2oio ~
,
Page 3-15
,
I Z212011
I Land Use
LU-27 Any change from the residential conservancy designation sha11
be to a single family designation. Single family residential
areas should also be used to buffer rural azeas from other urban
uses.
LU-28 Areas abutting major arterials should be cazefully planned to
avoid potential conflict between the development ofthe arterial
and single family uses. Single family uses in such azeas should
be platted in a manner which orients the units away from the
arterial. Where such orientation is not possible, a transition
azea should be allowed for non-singie family uses which
reduce total driveway connections to the arterial. Tn,any case,
` non-motorized access between residential areas' and~"arterials
sfiould be provided. In areas with existmg,:;smgle' family
developments, substantial flexibility can be ped for street front buffering.
Objecfive 7.4. To establish new neighborhoods in a way that~will minimize the potential
for intrusion of incompatible uses.
«
~
Policies:
LU-29 Development design shouldutilize and preserve natural
features, includ~g,, but not limited to, topography and stands of
trees, to sep ara e ui -,inpatible land uses and densities.
LU-30 Development, design should use open spaces, including parks,
to separat~e mcompatible uses.
~
LU-31 z~ Developinent codes shall be modified to allow the City to
,%reqµire ~that landscaped buffers, natural azea preservation or
„,~~other ineasures are utilized to separate new residential
~ v ~developments from incompatible uses and major streets. These
buffers should permit access between the residential area and
V`P'
the major street by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Multiple Family
Housing The escalating gap between the costs of housing and the ability to pay rental or mortgage prices has increased the demand for multi-family units.
Unforlunately, it is clear that the development of multiple family
dwellings in single family areas has created an adverse reaction. The level
of conflict between single family neighborhoods and multiple family
dwellings must be reduced. Since much of this reaction is related to the
design of these strvctures, design standards could substantially reduce tliis
problem for new construction.
oeietea:_nmmaaa zoio J
- ,
Page 3•16
I aft 2011 '
I - Land Use
Objective 7.5. To meet the need for multiple family dwellings while avoiding conflict
with single family residenrial areas.
' Policies:
LU-32 In considering where future higher density development should
locate, prior ity §hall be given to designated Special Planning
Areas (where such use can be balanced and planned with single
family azeas),.the Downtown and azeas with high levels of
' transit service.
LU-33 Unless required for other purposes, the ne,ed formew: yhigher
density developments shall be based on local2 need for =such
units and should not substantially exceed a fair fegi~Onal share
of such housing.
~
LU-34 Multiple-family developments should be located functionally
convenient to the necessary upporting:~facilities includingutilities,,arterials, parks, transit service,,.etc: ,
esare developed for multifamily
LU-35 Design codes and guidelui v
housing to ensiire~~high qualrty design and compatibility with
surrounding development. 'I~iese staridazds should be reviewed
periodically fib 'remain consistent with planning trends and
. mazket demands,. ~k~.'
LU-36 Multtpie,fam~ly~dwellings sha11 not be permitted as a matter of
right sn ~singae~' family residential districts, but should be
hpermitted only where necessary to remove potential blight, to
buffer suigle: family uses from incompatible uses or activities;
to alIow effective use of vacant areas. Standards for such
~ `~~siring should provide for design review to ensure compatibility
land.provide that-the density of development is consistent with
~ the density of the adjoining single family uses.
LU-37 Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged as a buffer
between single family areas and more intense uses. Such
buffering is appropriate along arterials where existing platting
prevents effectiye lot layout for single family units. Also, such
buffering_ is appropriate between single. fataily areas and
commercial and industrial uses. Where there are established
single family areas; the design and siting of. moderate density
units shall :be controlled to reduce potenrial conflicts and to en-
sure buffering, of uses. Higher density units are not to be
considered such a buffer.
oeietad: Aeoara zoio ~
_ - - ~
Page3-17
I a,2°'-' `
I I.and Use
LU-38 Higher density developments or larger scale multiple family developments should be limited to residential areas where they
can be developed as a unit with the necessary supporting
facilities. Such development shall provide adequate access by
developed arterials with minimal ,potential to generate traffic
through single family areas. Extensive buffering measures
shall be required where ;such areas adjoin single family
residential azeas. Care should be exercised to avoid creating
barriers to pedestrian and bicycle movement. Where feasible,
new multiple family development should be planned in
conjunction with single family and moderater„ density
development.
Manufactured
Homes Manufactured homes provide affordable housing . to many Auburn
' residents. In many cases; they provide the oppor"t~ity of home ownership -
to households which cannot afford-to,purchase;more traditional types of
housing. However, poorly designed,: high density manufactured home .
parks can raise the same issues that multiple family developments pose.
Careful design and placementof manufactured housing in pazks especially
. with appropriate landscaping, can greatly reduce problems associated with
such development
r~
This Plan's policies contuiue to'recognize the.benefits that manufactured
homes can have on housig affordability. Im'proved codes requiring high
standards,fori#he d i~ and siting of manufactured home parks and units
on individual~lots should be implemented.
Objective 7.6 To continue to;:allow manufactured homes as'an affordable form of home
ownership,; provided ttiat such developments aze carried out in a manner
whichp supports rather than detracts from the quality of the community and
adjacent uses.
Policies:
LU-39 The siting of new manufactured home parks shall be subject to
the same policies applicable to high density residential
de'velopment. Manufactured home park densities should not
exceed 8 units per acre. New manufactured home pazks shall
be bordered or contained by physical features, or planned and
designed as part of a larger development incorporating other
oeleoad: ,ammaea 20 10
~
~
Page 3-18
I raft 2011 '
I I.and Use_
housing types in a manner which limits further manufactured
home park expansion into adjacent azeas.
LU-40 Manufactured homes shall be permitted on "single family lots provided that they are sited and constructed. in a manner which
would blend with adjacent homes. Manufactured homes must
be new units, meet minimum dimensional standards (double
wide) and be placed on permanent foundations, consistent with
State law. ,
Moderate and High
Income Housing The City wants to increase the amount of housing oriented toward those
with moderate and high incomes. A jurisdiction typically encourages a
type of development by providing incentives which lower the cost of
producing that development type, thereby increasing~\its potential
profitability. With the limited fmancial resources available to
municipalities it is difficult to justify financial:mcentiv"es to increase the
profitability.of the production of mazket rate;housing.'„±Further, since the
production of housing for moderate and hi~er mcome:groups is profitable
V.
without these incentives, it is not cleaz that incenttves will have the desired
effect of increasing the number of houses produced.
y~
Potential solutions to this issue need;to address the demand side of the
market rather than the su~fy. The market will provide these types of
housing if there is sufficient~demand for it within the city. Aubum can
increase the demand~for housirig. by those with moderate and higher
incomes by improving~ts~ image within the region and making itself
lrnown as a desuable place to live. A comprehensive approach to
.
increasing the demarid~foi `moderate and high income housing is through
,
the implementatton of this comprehensive plan. By building a community
, with parks an d~openspaces, job opportunities, high environmentai quality,
andFabun~darit supportive services including commuter rail, Aubum will
.
cr0ate for.yiself a ri►ore desirable image within the region and therefore a
widec Prange of income groups will choose to live in Auburn.
p~
POlICy: LU-41 Development regulations should ensure that Aubum obtains its
"fair share" of high end single family housing. This does not
represent a decrease in Auburn's commitrnent to maintaining
the majority of its housing stock as housing affordable to
middle income households.
, Neigh.borhood
, I Detetea:Am~a~a Zoio ~
Page3-19
I praft 2011 '
' I Land Use
Quality Auburn's ezisting stable residential neighborhoods form an important
component of the community's character. Maintaining the vitality and
stability of these neighborhoods is a key goal of this Comprehensive Plan.
GOAL 8. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY
To maintain and protect all viable and stable residential neighborhoods.
Objective 8.1 To maintain and enhance all viable and stable residential neighborhoods.
Policies
LU-42 Regulatory decisions in all residential neighbortioods shall
result in maintenance or enhancement of the1neighbortiood's
residential character. ~ .
a The location of uses other than those,,p itted outright
-
shall only be allowed as specified `in tliis comprehensive -
plan and in the zoning code,,,
b. Approval of any non4tsidential larid use shall occw only
after a public hearmg=process.
~
c. The City recognizes the important role that public facilities
(such as:~sidewalks, neighborhood parks and elementary
schools) and limited scale quasi-public uses (such as
smaller churches and daycaze centers) play in maintaining
viable residential neighborhoods.
F d= Smgle family detached residential neighborhoods should be
~ ;protected from intrusion by non-residential or lazge scale
:;r • mulfi-family uses. LU-4311:_,,~ `The City shall seek to abate existing incompatible uses in
residential neighborhoods. Mineral extraction operations
within mineral resource azeas (Map 9.4) operating in
compliance with the conditions of their permit are not
incompatible uses.
LU-44 Home occupations in residential neighborhoods shall be
permitted only if they comply with performance standards that ,
ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses.
LU-45 Limited agricultural uses and commercial uses (such as daycare
centers) may be permitted as a principal use, but only under
ceieoaa: a,mnaea soio I
,
Page 3-20
I raft 2011 '
I ' l.and Use
- appropriate conditions, by means of conditional use or
admiriistratiye use periiiits when landscaping and design
features can:be used to minimize impacts on surrounding uses
and the site is:
a. Along the border of residential neighborhoods; or
b. In specific azeas where site specific conditions may limit
the use of the site for residenrial uses; or
c. Along arterials transecting residential neighborhoods.
~
LU-46 Development standards and regulations for residential areas
should avoid unnecessary bazriers to the :fenovahoand
improvement, of homes in established neighbortiaods built to
previous standards.
LU-47 T'he City should give special attention to unproving the quality
of low income neighborhoods and s~k t&ariiplement programs
which encourage rehabilitation of deteriorating structures and
facilities in such neighborhood(Guidance for this policy is
provided by.the.City's annual Block Grant Program Plan.)
Objective 83 To provide for the orderly~ ition to 4other uses of older residential areas
that are no longer viable:;
. AYII'
Policies:
~ . ~
LU-48 The ~manageTeAt of azeas in transition from existing residences
to a. planned non-residential use, should balance the needs of
existing residents with the need to accommodate new uses:
LU-49R~ ~Greater flexibility should be provided for home occupations in
` transitional azeas.
LU-50 Whenever. considering a conversion from single family to .
another use, the applicant's burden shall be on demoristrating
the unsuitability of an azea for continued single family use.
Commercia!
Development Commercial land development provides needed services and jobs to
Auburn and regional residents and visito.rs. Further; it is a major
component of Auburii's tax 6ase through the sales tax'and property taxes it
generates.
oeieted: nmenaea zoio ~
,
Page 3-21
I a'-' '
I Land Use
There are several different types of commercial land, each providing
different types of services and jobs. The discussion and policies that
follow recognize the importance of each of these types: of commercial
development and the important role that they play.
GOAL 9. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
To maintain and establish a variety of commercial environments which
provide the full range of commercial services to the community and region
in a manner which reduces conflicts between different types' of
commercial services and other uses.
Neighborhood Commercial
- Small commercial centers within or adjacent to residential neigliborhoods
serve a useful function in providing convenient accessito neighborhood
' residents for their "everyday" or "convenience" shopping needs. These
centers can serve to reduce the number of automobile trips or at least
shorten them by providing services neaz'y; one's residence. For
neighborhood centers to provide thes4e benefits;"at ention must be paid to
ensuring adequate access to these ccente'rszfrom the adjacent neighborhood.
However, these commercial area5 can also adversely affect a
neighborhood by generatmg~ trai~ic andland use conflicts.
Due largely to the exfensive coiiimercialization of Auburn Way and the
north/south orientationiof the developed portions of Auburn, few
residential neighborhoods rywithin the city lie more than several blocks
from a commercial area:~``Significant outlying commercial centers have
also been;,"developed, so that the ' currently developed residential
_ neighborhoods~~ are--'adequately served. However, future iazge scale
o.
residential~developments will create a need for new small-scale
cnmmeraal centers. This Plan's policy toward neighborhood commercial
centers balances needs for shopping convenience with the protection of
residerit~a`ty"neigh6orhoods; and seeks to (imit the development of new
inappropriate commercial strips.
Objective 9.1. . To provide for the convenience commercial needs of residential areas,
while protecting existing and future residential neighborhoods from the
disruptive effects of commercial intrusions.
Policies:
LU-51 Existing neighborhood oriented commercial centers should:be
identified and designated. Commercial uses within these
Deleted: nmcaoa 2010
~
,
Page 3-22
I a>> '
I ' ~Land U,71
centers should be limited to those having primary mazket azeas
considerably smaller than the entire community.
LU-52 Designazed neighborhood commercial centers. should be
' prevented from spreading along the arterials that serve them.
LU-53 A prime consideration in permitting the expansion of existing
neighborhood commercial areas shall be the ability to
adequately buffer any nearby residences from disruptive
impacts. .
LU-54 In some. instances of existing neighborhood "commercial
- centers, a transition zone of moderate density residenti,al uses
should be designated between the center azid, single 'family
residential areas.
LU-55 New,neighborhood commercial centers §should be considered '
under the "Special Planning Areas concep ~,Such azeas should
be carefully designed and mtegrated iut6~ the overall azea
development plan so as to minirnizeti~Vaffic and land use
conflicts. Commercial ases,should bealimited to those having
primary market areas `appro ately the size of the special
planning area. X~
LU-56 Consideration°should be given to providing adequate access to
neighborhood coauriercial development by . non-motorized
modes sue~iaas~'~walking and biking. Barriers to thes.e modes .
such4s walls and fences should be remoyed when possible and .
_
shall ~e avoided` m new development:
Mixed Use Centers :
Commercial~~centers at times can through a proper mix of uses be
int"egrated with residential components. These mix use centers serve in
providing ' convenient services, alternative living environments, and
efficienf use of both land and infrastructure.
Objective 92 To provide where appropriate mixed use of commercial and residential
development designed to assure compatibility, of uses inside the
commercial center an d adjacent residential neighborhoods
Policy:
LU- 57 Mixed-use developments with both commercial and residential
components aze encouraged in Light Coinmercial centers.
These deyelopments should include primarily retail stores and
I
Weed: ,ammaea 2010
,
- Page 3-23
I raft 2011 '
I Land iTse
offices designed to provide convenient shopping and other .
services for nearby residents. Industrial and heavy commercial
uses should be exclucied.
Design features of mixed-use developments should include the
integration of the retail and/or office uses and residential units
within the same building or on the same parcel. Ground leVel
spaces should be built and used predominately to accommodate
retail and office uses. Off-street parking should be located
behind or to the side of the buildings, or enclosed within
buildings. Accessible pedestrian connections and bicycle paths
must be designed to facilitate safe connections within the
development, along adjacent roads adjacent and to~,-adjacent
residential developments. ''t,
~
Design guide(ines for mixed-use development `liave been developed. These guidelines should~ reviewed and amended
PeriodicallY to be consistent with-vicurrent Plammng trends and
. ~ _
mazket demands. %p
N.
~
Highway Commercial
While commercial uses a~long arterials°(often called "strip c.ommercial"
development) provide „unportant services to, community residents, the
proliferation of comineicial uses"~=~albng arterials raises several land use
planning issues. Ori~~t~e' negative side, strip commercial development
creates traffic flofw, probiems and conflicf with adjacent land uses. Due to
their "linear" nature,-commeicial strips result- in a" maximum azea of
contact betvi+ en commercial uses and other land uses resulting in a high
potential~~for~Rland~u~e conflicts. Poor visual character.due to excessive
signage~~and azchrtectural styles designed to attract attention instead of
promotmg . anse of community is an additional concern. Pedestrian
shopping,ts made difficult, resulting in greater generation of automobile
traff c;°'and large fields of asphalt parking lots are needed to accommodate
single puipose vehicle trips.
Despite the problems associated with commercial development along
arterials, many such locations are often quite unsuitable for other uses, due
to the impacts associated with heavy traffic volumes. Also, many
commercial uses thrive at such locations due to high visibility and
accessibility. The Plan seeks to manage existing arterial commercial areas
to talce advantage of the accessibility they provide, while minimizing
traffic and 1and use conflicts and improving their visual appearance '
througli an enhanced design review process and development standards. '
oeieted: A.maea ioio ~
,
,
Page 3-24
I rafl 2011 '
I I.and Use
06jective 9:3. To encourage .the appiopriate use of areas adjacent to heavily traveled
arterials while minimizing land use and traffic conflicts by:
~ 1_Managing . tlie continued commercial development of 8X15tIIlgt Formatbed: Numbered + Level: 1+
commercial arterials. in a manner which minimizes traffic and land use Numbering Style: S,:z, 3; + start
at: 1+ Alignmerrt: Left +.Aiigned at:
conflicts: . 0" + Tab after. 0" + Inderrt at:
" 0.25^
~ 2_Gonserving residential qualities along heavily traveled arterials which• r•ormamed: Numbered + Level: 1+
are not yet commercialized, by restricting commercial development to Numberir,y sryie: i, z, s; + start
. at: 1+ Aiignment: Left + Aligned at:
rypes which provide an appropriate buffer. 0° + Tab after. 0° + Indent at:
o.zs^
3. Protecting existing, viable residential areas along lesser-traveled• - - - Formattea: Numbered + Level:. 1+
. ~Numbering Style: 1, 2,:3, + Start
' arterials, from commercial development. at: l+Alignmerrt: LeR + Aligned at:
0" + Tab after: 0" + Inderrt aL•
4. Concentrate pooulation and emploment erowth wrthin the seven kevt, 0.25"
economic development strategy areas withm the Ciiv identified as Ust Para9raPh, Lef~
fOllOWS: Inderrt: Left: 0", Henging: 0.25",
~ ~rmNo 6ullet's or numbering
FornnatEed: Numbered + Level: 1 +
• Auburn Way North Corridor ~~~t•. Humberiny style: i, 2, 3; start
• Auburn Wav South Corridor at: 1 + aiqnmerit: Left + aigned at:
0" + Tab after: 0" + Inderrt at:
, • Urban Center o.zs^
"
o Aubuin Environmental Park and`G"reen Zone , Formatted: Ust Paragraph, Left; No
• I5t' Street SW/C Street"'SW/V1!est=Valley Highway/Supermall bullers or numberiny
• A Street SE Comdor rormatted: Inderd: Left: 0.25",
~ Bulleted + Level: 1+ Aligned at:
o SE 312~ Street/i24d' A enue SE Corridor ~ 0.5^ +Tab after: 0^ + indent at:
• M Street SE between Aubiii~n Wav North and Auburn Wav South. o:~s^
FormaUed: superscript
Policies: ~'R*`~ .
~
4G L~ ~ Fonnatted: Superscript
LU-58 , The City~has identified those existing-commercial arterials that
sball;dw*
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6,,areappropnate for continued Fommercia! _development and_ Dekftd; g~eral (heavy)
emplovment growth as well as a concentration of population
oivth. These areas are identified_as the seven economic
evelopment strategv areas as identified under_Objective 9.3.
Sub-area Qlans for these strateev areas should be develoned,__- oeiecea: .ana mowartcrials rnac are
_ appropriau for coatinuca or tuture
limited (i.e. professional offix tYPe)
LU-59 The Cityshall review its standazds relating to the number, size comm«tiW aeve►opmem
and location of driveways to ensure consistency with goals and
policies relating to arterial commercial development.
LU-60 'The City shall encourage the grouping of individual ,
commercial enterprises along commercial arterials to promote
the sharing of parking azeas, access drives and signs. Such
grouping can be encouraged through land division regulations,
sign regulations and development stan'dards.
~ neieced: amenaea zoio ~
. Page 3-25
I ,~raft 2011 ~
Land Use
LU-61 Moderate density multiple, family residential development sha11
be used to buffer general (heavy) commercial arterial
development from single family development. Extensive
screening and landscaping shall be used to buffer general
commercial uses from multiple family uses. Howeyer, the
placement of walls and fences and site designs wfiich prevent
easy access by bicyclists and pedestrians should be avoided.
. LU-62 Arterials experiencing strong pressure for commercial
I development, but not yet committed to commercial uses,_shall_ oe~eted: gm~~ (n~.-y)
-
be designated for mixed Ase commercial and_
multi-family uses. Development regulations should encourage ~'-CWewd, moderae
' the development of professional office and similar `uses and
~ Jnultiple_ ` family housing,_ _with _ developmeirtM and "design oeleem: ~u_~e
standards carefully drawn to ensure preservation ;of a quality
. De~ed: Developmeatreguladons
~ living environment in adjacent.neighborhoods.
.
u conld also atlow other light commccial
:and higliw densiry multi-family housing,
LU-63 Residential arterials having .go~,od potential for long term ~j«x w~ ~ve P~~ ~a ~
maintenance of a quality li~ing~.envffonment should be ~ly8~'~Sprotected from the intrusion of commercial uses. . In some.
instances, these may be~appropriate locations for churches and
other religious institutions, or moderate density multiple family
uses.
, LU-64 Newly developed~rterials shall incorporate design featwes,
and development of adjacent land sha11 be managed such that
creation of;new commercial strips is avoided. Laiid division
. regulations shall result in single family residences being
~
orientad~awaym-from the arterial; with access provided by a non-
arterial'stieet.
~ S1
~ _ - Delebed• Commccial
I LU~lon~ _ the Auburn Wa South Conidor. _ _
ed. employment and~
population gowth should be limited to north of the R Street SE d"'`i°pme°` e
'overpas§.
LU-66 Tfie City should develop design standards and guidelines for
development along arterials to improve their visual appearance.
The Regional SuperMal!
The development of the "SuperMall of the Great Northwest on 155 acres
neaz the junction of SR167 and SR18 in the 1990's has led to a
"destination" mall attracting consumers from long distances.
During the Mall's development review, a number of issues were raised.
Included in these issues were the impacts of the SuperMall on Auburn
~ oeioed:.Arneruaea ioio ~
Page 3-26
I aft201T '
I Land Use
downtown and the possibility of commercial sprawl azound the SuperMall
that would exacerbate impacts to the downtown and traffic around the
SuperMall.
_ Since that time, several factors have changed. Auburn's downtown, as a
designated urban center, has developed a more specific vision for the
community. Also, it is not expected that the SuperMall will develop to its
, maximum square footage and retail commercial uses have become a more
important local government revenue source.
The City should continue its commitment to the SuperMall's development
as a regional attraction, and take advantage of the SuperMall's' presence to
complement strategies related to downtown preservation and d`evelopment.
. ~
Objective 9:4. To capture the retail mazket of customers visiting ihetSupecMall and
strengthen Auburn's role. as a major retail co m'ercial center for the
%
region.
• ~ -..;.>;Policies:
LU-67 Support commeTCia1 development around the SuperMall that
complements its rale as a~regional shopping center as well as
future redevelopment that could include high densi housine.
LU-68 The City,#qll oppose°~the deve(opment of a regional shopping
center in ttiewimincorporated areas in the vicinity of the city.
I*- N
LU-69 The 11 l s ek ways to draw customers from the SuperMall
~mto;the d"owntown and other areas within the city.
LU 74:,e Crty shall continue to recognize. and support the
~ ~d~'evelopment of downtown Auburn as a focal point of the
~Auburn community.
Downtown -
Auburn Downtowns have historically served as the business, cultural and
govemmental focal poirits of their. communiries.. In many communities
(like Auburn) this role has been challenged by new shopping patterns
focused on regional malls and commercial areas outside of the downtown.
Maintaining, a healthy and vital downtown Auburri continues to be
important as it is recognized by residents as a focal point of the com-
munity and an important element of the Ciry's identity. ,
In May 2001, the Auburn City Council adopted the Auburn Downtown
Plan. The 'Auburn Downtown Plan is the City's updated strategy to
~
Deleted: nroWasa 2010
- - ~
Page 3-27
I ~,e-ft?°"
I C.and Use
continue its downtown revitalization efforts consistent with State, regional
and local growth management planning concepts and strategies. The
Auburn Downtown Plan, and this Plan, provides that Downtown Auburn
should remain the commercial, cultural and governmental focal point for
the community: Efforts to enhance this function for powntown Auburn
aze strongly supported.
T'he Auburn Downtown Plan is based on implementing policies and
strategies through partnerships and innovative techniques. The City, the
downtown business community and members of the community at-large
will need to work closely together to maintain and upgrade the quality of
the downtown working, living and shopping'environment ~
.
Part of the impetus for developing new strategies to approach downtown
revitalization is the development of the Sound Transi° Coinmuter Rail
Transit Station. The Auburn Downtown Plan,-seeks io build on the
excitement and energy resulting from public ;mvestment in the Transit
Station and in other public investments such~as ttie Third Street Grade
Separation project. ~
The Aubum Downtown Plan envisions downt wn as an urban center.
Designation as an wban center wa~ac.hieved in 2004. Auburn's urban
center: . ~
NN
' • Establishes a 220 acre ~planning azea that is the focus for downtown
redevelopmeni~ • Provides ince tir+es for downtown development and redevelopment
through pohcy. direction that supports:
~
-Elimiriarion af transportatiori impact fees;
Eiunination of stormwater improvements for
elopm~t of existing sites that do not result in an
mcrease in~impervious surface;
~ower~level of service for transportation facilities; and,
-Reduction in the off-street pazking requirements compazed
" to96ther areas in the city.
e Encourages non-motorized pedestrian and bicycle connections and
linkages to and within the urban center area
• Encourages protection of historic assets and resources from
redevelopment activities.
o Identifies potential catalyst projects and sites to spur development
activity in the downtown and better focus redevelopment and
marketing efforts.
o Encourages more residential development downtown and also 24-
hour type uses and nighttime actiyity.
• Seeks to remove undesirable land uses and other blighting
influences in the downtown area.
oelebed: nmmdea 20 10
~
~
, .
Page 3-28 ,
I raft 201 I '
I
I Land Use
e Promotes street improvements and enhancements to improve access
and the visual qualities of the streetscape. .
In early 2007, the City established a new zoning district for the majority of
dovmtown, the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) district. Unlike other
zones, this district allows all types of land uses unless specifically
prohibited. In addition; it regulates the intensity of development by
allowed Floor Area Ratio .(FAR) and provides incentives for higher
intensity of use. The DUC zone also features relaxed pazking standards
from those found in other zone districts and by reference, adopted Design
Standards to ensure a high quality of development in the downtown area.
-~z
GOAL 10 DOWNTOWN
To encourage development and redevelopment within Downtown Aubuin
which reflects its unique character as the community's historic center, thaf
is consistent with the Auburn Downtown Plan's uision for powntown
Auburn as an urban center within King ~County and the Puget Sound
region.
06jective 10.1 To preserve and enhance the role of"downto~vn Auburn.as thefocal point
of the Auburn community for business,• governmental and cultural
activities.
Policies:
T ~
f.
LU-71 For the putpose of implementing the goal and policies for
downtown Aiiburn,
at "downtown" shall generally be considered
th area t-ounded on the south by Higliway 18; on the east by
e~"F'~AStreet; on the north by Park Avenue (extended); and on the
~,,~.°e Union Pacific tracks. (SeeMap 3.3)
L0=72 '~Aubum's urban center/regional growth center boundaries shall
;be •those 'established as the planning area for the Auburn
Downtown Plan adopted May 2001 (See Map 3.4).
LU-73 Implement the policies and strategies of the Aubum Downtown
Plan to support development of Auburn's urban center.
LU-74 Encourage the attainment of urban center growth forecasts
_ through implementation of higher intensity development to
achieve the efficient use of land.
LU-75 Downtown shall continue to be recognized as the business,
govemmental and cultural focal point of ttie community. A
diversity of uses including multifamily residential should be
celeoed: .e.mmaea zoio ~
- ,
,
,Page 3-29
I Draft 2011 '
I L,end Use
_ encouraged to maintain a vibrant, active and competitive center
for the City of Aubum.
LU76 The City should continue to support the development and
rehabilitation of multiple family housing in the Downtown, as
part of mixed use projects.
LU-77 The Gity shall maintain an ongoing downtown planning and
action program involving the downtown business community
and other interested groups. This activity should be guided by
this Alan and the.Auburn Downtown Plan.
F~ .
LU-78 The City shall continue to give priority consideration,to:the '
maintenance and improvement of public facilihes and sernces
in the downtown area
Downtown Land Uses
~
Objective 10.2 To recognize areas within the downtown tliat liave identifable characters
and uses. ~
. ~ „
LU-79 The area north of First Street4North, west of Auburn Avenue,
south of Fifth StreetNorthNeast of the Burlington Northern
tracks should be ~desi~ated `and managed as a medical and
~
professional services azea. New heavy commercial _and
indusmalT~uses,r sho`ulzl be prohibited and existing ones
amortized Commercial uses supporting medical and
professional uses should receive priority.
LU-80 ~~Theazea lymg generally east of "D" Street S.E. and south of
Main Street (not including the Main Street frontage) shall be
~designated for mixed residential and commercial uses.
LU~81 =The area lying generally between Aubum Way North (but not
I~ "properties abutting ARN) and Auburn High School should be
designated for multiple family residential uses.
LU-82 Automobile oriented uses within the Downtown Urban Center
shall be developed and located in accordance with the policy .
direction of the Auburn Downtown Plan and` implementing
~DUC, Downtown Urban Center code requirements..
LU-82.,A The area Iving generallv south of East Main Street and east of ud~ea: s ~
,
the Justice Center shali be maintained as a sinele family
residential area.
, l oeietede Amenaaa soio I
,
,
Page 3-30
I aft201] '
I Land Use
Downtown Urban Design
Objective 10.2: To ensure that all new development and redevelopment in the downtown
reflect the unique character of the area.
LU-83 The City shall, develop programs and ordinances to preserve
and protect downtown's historic character. Development codes
should be revised as needed to recognize the uniqueness of
downtown through appropriate performance standards and
design guidelines. A high level of visual amenity should be
pursued, and'no heavy outdoor uses or outdoor stoiage should
be allowed.
LU-84 The downtown area shall be comprised of a mia~ture of uses
consistent with the area's' role as the focal point of the
community. These uses shall be primanly "people-oriented" as
opposed to "automobile-oriented", shall include
~.A
commercial, medical, governriiental, prafessional services,
cultural and residential uses.
LU-85 Regulations for the reta~l c~re of downtown should encourage
retail uses,- but ghould discourage uses which result in a high
proportion of ,single use "veh'icle trips- (such as fast food
restaurants anfl'4ri°ve-through windows): ,
Downtown TrarrsportcAtiori
Objective 103: To emphasize pedestriaIIlraffic and transit usage in the downtown.
LU-86 ~E~hasii should be given to enhancing pedestrian linkages
b Ietw en the Hospital area, the Main Street retail core, the
Perfflrmirig . Arts Center, the southwestern portion of
Downtown, and the, parking azea adjacent to Safeway. An
`important element of this emphasis will be to reduce the
' pedestrian barrier effect of Auburn Avenue and Auburn Way.
LU-87 The City should build upon past efforts to iinprove pedestrian
- amenities, through public improvements, sign regulations and
developinent standards. The maintenance of public and private
improvements should be given priority commensurate with
downtown's role as the focal point of the community.
LU-88 The City sha11 work- with transit providers to increase the
availabiliry and effectiveness of transit . in downtown and
oeietea: nma~a zoio I
Page 3-31
I aft 201 ] •
I I.and Use between downtown, other commercial and employment areas,
residential areas, and the region at large. •
LU-89 As regional transportation programs such as commuter rail aze
implemented, the City will strive to ensure that the downtown
is a beneficiary.
Downtown Parking
Objective 10.4: To develop a parking program for the downtown which recognizes the
area's historic pedestrian character, while providing sufficient parking for
customers of alI businesses, residents, and commuters.
LU-90 A strong Downtown shall be encouraged thiough improved
pazking, circulation, and the grouping of bus% ~outlets and
governmental services. Parking standard's should be~developed
which recognize the unique nature of downtown parking
~ .
demand. The City should work,with the business community
in public/private partnerships 9 develop ag coordinated and
effective approach to providing • adequate pazking and
circulation. °
~
LU-91 A strong Downto,wn shall be,:encouraged through improved
- pazking; circu~lafi ; and grouping of business outlets and
governmental,"sernces. - T'he development of public pazking
lots to serue~the downtown should be guided by a Downtown
Pazking Plan. ~Y
~~~Qky .
LU-92 The Crty~views `adequate parking in the downtown azea as a
,cntical~step in implementing the downtown policies and the
~ reh&abihtation policies of this Plan. All business in the
w~downtown area will be hindered if adequate parking is not
available. However, parking needs coupled with rehabilitation
~needs in the downtown area require special policies:
a. Some flexibility in the general pazking requirements of the
City may be necessary to accommodate reuse of existing
buildings and to- accommodate new development. Sucfi
flexibility should be directed at seeking to pool parking
resources through the formation of a Downtown pazking
LID when such parking cannot be provided by the business
or through shared pazking agreements.
b. Since rigid parking requirements will interfere with
redevelopment of downtown, and the pattern of existing
- - development restricts the amount of parking available,
odeted: a,m=aca zoio, I
.
Page 3-32
I raft 201 ] '
I . L80d USC
public development of parking in the downtown area is
aPPropriate.
;
- c. A comprehensiye study of the parking needs of downtown
should be made to determine the most efficient method of •
meeting the unique parking demands of the area.
d. Parking policy for the downtown, needs to balance the
impact of parking on downtown's pedestrian chazacter;
econoinic development and transit usage.
Downtown Redevelopment ° , • £ .
Objective 10.5: To work with all interested groups on revitalizing theDowntown area:
LU-93 The City of Aubum should strive to maintain activAe working
relationships with the Aubum Downtowrr , Association, the
. £~.:<..T . -
Chamber of Commerce and other~Zgroups whose goal is the
revitalization of downtown. 'Ilie City will~`seek to become a
partner with these , and other groups; where feasible, in
public/private partnerships that,fiuther/the goal of downtown
revitalization::
LU-94 The City shall continue to suppoR legislation to improve fiscal
leverage m urban ehabilitation programs.
LU-95 The City siiall ontinue to support the redevelopment efforts of
the prtvaie s~ector in the downtown area..~
Industrial e
Development Aubum's industraal~iand and the development that it supports accounts for
a sign~ca~,percentage of the City's tax base: It also prQvides a large
mmiber ofJotis to,both city and regional residents. Good indastrial land is
a imited resource. and should. 6e fully utilized to maximize its potential
y, ~
benefits,Industrial development typically utilizes extensive amounts of
land and is typically located near major transportation facilities. For these
reasons, industrial activities are often quite visible. For, people traveling
on SR167, industrial - development is the primary view they have of
Auburn. .
Streamlined Sales Tax legislation changes the tax structure within the state
and has specific conseguences for industrial, warehouse and distribution
cities such as Auburn. In response to the State':s consideration of such
legislation, the Auburn Cify Council approved Resolution No. 3782 in
November 2004.
~neleeed:Ammaeazoio - I
•
Page 3-33 ,
`
a~' 1
I • Land Use
Resolution No. 3782 outlines an appmach and actions the City will' take related to land use planning, zoning ; and othei. matters irr the event a
streamlined sales tax proposal or othe; similar proposals that change the
tax strucfure> are adopted. Included in ttiis resolution is direction to
consider amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning codes to
reevaluate the existing industrial land use designations and patterns in the
City.
GOAL 11. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
To provide for, establish and maintain a balance of industrial uses that
, respond to local and regional needs and enhance the city's image through
optimal siting and location, taking info consideration tax policy impacts of
streamlined sales tax and/or other similar legislation. ~
Type of Industrial Uses
~ .
There is a wide variety of possible indus~~uses"thatiFcould be sited in
Auburn. As with the mix of residential }uses;~the=mix of industry also
affects the image ofthe city. The; regional image,of thecity is that of an
industrial suburb with an emphasis.on'heavyindustry. This image is quite
apparent as one travels along Highway 167 where there is an almost
unending view of high-bay warehouse buildings.
~
Different types of industnal areas should be sepazated since some types of
' industrial activities conflict with; other industrial activities (especially
those of a more desirable' character). Such separation should be based
primarily on perforrnance standards.
~v,„
Location of Inclustr~al Uses "D
Before~#he adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, there had lieen little
separation offuarious types of industrial uses. At the time, there was no
well,unders`tood policy basis regarding the separation of different rypes of
indusaF`uses and some areas very suitable for high quality light
industrial uses were committed to heavier uses. High 'visibility corridors
developed with a heavier industrial character and established a heavy
industry image for the city. T7ie Plan provides clear distinction between
different. industrial uses. It also reserves areas for light industrial uses.
Objective 11.1., To create a physical image for the city conducive to amacting light
industry. Policies:
Deleoea: nmmdea Zoio I
,
Page3-34 raft 2011
I Land Use. LU-96 Highly yisible areas which tend to establish the image of the
city should not be used by heavy industrial uses.
LU-97 The City shall promote high quality development of all light ,
industrial and warehouse areas.
LU-98 T'he City shall aggressiyely seek to abate all potentially
blighting influences in industrial areas, especially in azeas
visible to regional traffic flows and in areas designated for light
industrial uses.
Objective 11.2. To establish performance standards appropriate for developirig industrial
areas. P,
Policies:
LU-99 : Compatibility among land uses should be enhanced through
landscaping, building orientationaand setbaclcs, traffic. control
and other measures to reduce potentiil conAicts.
x~ ~
LU-100 All industrial developrrtent should",~ancorporate aesthetically
pleasing building and site ~itesign. • The City shall amend its
codes, and performance~standards which govern industrial
development to ffiplement this`policy.
~ '
~a .
' a. Procedwes~shall`,be established to ensure aesthetically
pleasing~building and site design in areas designated for
. light mdu~s*al azeas.
b~ k,~Apgropriate landscaping and site development standazds A
shall iegulate site development in heavy:industrial areas.
V, c "~;Unsightly views, such as heavy machinery, service
entrances, storage areas, moftop equipment, loading docks,
and parking areas should be screenal from view of adjacent
retail; commercial, light industrial arid residential azeas and
from public streets.
LU-101 Needed rights-of-way, on-site and off-site road. improvements,
and utilities should be assured before development occurs.
LU-102 Indiyidual development projects shall proyide the following
minimal improvements in accordance with established City
staridards:
• , ~ oeleEed: nmenaea 2010
,
Page 3-35
I a,~ fti°~~ ,
I L:and Use
a. Full standazd streets and sidewalks in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
, b. Adequate off §treet parking for employees and patrons.
_ c: Landscaping.
d. Storm drainage.
e. Water.
f. Sanitary sewers.
g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed streets.
Objective 11.4. To reserve areas appropriate for industrial development.
Policies:
LU=103 Any significant industrial activity shall be ited to the
designated Region Serving Area of the_city (see, Map 3.2). The
City recognizes that industrial developme~n~s place varying
demands.' on the community's equaIity`'of~,life and service ' capabilities. In addition to demo`nstrating` a developments'
consistency with Plan policies, applicabie land use regulations;
and enyironmental polic,ies,~~significant'industrial development .
shall be encouraged tok,provide a balance between service
demarids and impacts plac~ on the city's quality of life vs. the
local benefits denved frorii such deyelopment. The extent:fo
which industnal development is promoted shall also take into
consideratiori tax pol'icy and tax structure impacts upon the
City`=~~ ~LU-104 Residential` `~~,uses in industrial azeas shall be allowed in
mdustnaf'areas that have been established :;to promote a
busines,s~park environment that complements, environmental
fe~atures; and/or if deyelopment standards are developed to
promote .compatibility between residential and other non-
F.residential land uses.
.
LU 105 The grouping of uses which will mutually benefit each other or
provide needed services will be encouraged.
a. Compatible commercial uses may be permitted in
de§ignated industrial areas.
b. Planned developments (such as "office parks") which
° provide a mixture of light industrial with supporting
commercial uses are encouraged.
odetede nromaea 2010
~
Page 3-36 -
I Ddrft 20111,1
I I.and Use "
c. Uses which supporh industrial and warehouse activities
should be located near those uses:
LU-106 Development.of designated industrial sites shall be consistent
with applicable environmental sta.ndards and policies.
LU-107 Land made available. for industrial development, and uses
allowed in industrial zones, shall take into consideration
impacts of tax pol.icy and tax structure upon the City of
Auburn. Objective 11.4. To reserve and protect areas which aze highly suitable-for ligtit„-industrial
development.
Policies:
;
LU-108 Designation of light industrial azeas~ s"ha11, have priority over
heavier industrial uses.
LU-109 Highly visible areas (land visibl from SR167 or SR18) which
tend to establish the image~of the ctty'should not be used by
heavy industrial uses Rathei; efforts should be made to
develop zoning-1 districts ~that complement industrial
' development adjacent to environmental features such as the
Auburn Environ"m6htal Pazk
Objective 11.5. To identify azeas appr'opnate for heavy industrial uses.
Policies: '
R Y~ ~ LU-I 10~H ~ mdustrial uses shall be separated from lighter industrial,
-
commercial and residential areas.
LL1~ 1,11 e most appropriate areas for heavy industrial uses are in the
central part ofthe Region Serving Area adjoining the rail lines.
LU-112 . Heavy industrial uses are appropriate in the southern portion of
the Region Serving Area which is now developed in large scale
industrial facilities.
LU-113 Heavy industrial uses shall be strictly prohi6ited from the
Community Serving Area of Auburn (see Map 3.2). The only
exception to tfiis general policy shall be the continued heavy
industrial use of the area east of "A" Street S.E.; as shown by
the Comprehensive Plan Map.
, I oeleoed: Ama~a Zoio (
,
- ,
_ : - -
Page 3-37
I „~raft 2011 '
I Land Use
Redevelopment
and Infill A major goal of the Growth Management Act is to reduce urban sprawl.
One way to minimize sprawl is to fully develop areas already receiving
ur6an services prior to extending these services to additional areas. A
further benefit of redevelopment is that it may lead to the removal of
buildings and uses that detract firom an area. Redevelopment can serve as
a major catalyst in the stabilization and revitalization of areas throughout
the ciry: ~
GOAL 12. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT
To encourage redevelopment of underutilized azeas to reduce'!sprawl and
take full advantage of the City's investment in existing infrastnicture.
Objective: 12.1 To facilitate infill development.
Policies: ~
LU-114 Encourage well designed infill and redevelopment projects to
fully utilize previous investment m existing infrastructure in
the single family reside,ntia, moderate' density residenfial, and
fiigh density residential iie~signated areas of the City.
. ~ ;
LU-li5 Reduce the consumption o'undeveloped land by facilitating
..,a
the redevelopment°=of underutilized land and infill of vacant
pazcels whenever possible in the single family residential,
moderate `~density residential, and high density residential
designated areas of the City.
LU-116 4;E plore~innovative mechanisms to encourage the more
efficienruse of land including density bonuses and sale of air
~
LL7='2,:17 Identify areas for commercial infill development and focus
F, street and utility systems improvements to facilitate their
~ development.
J1 neieaea:.a,mwaeaioio ~
. .
Page 3-38 '
I raft 201 I '
i
I.(See na-aes 4-3 and 4-7 and revised F&ure 4.5 for ciranQes related to wrmattad: rrorrt: itwic <
nnnulation aird census.) -
FormattedsleR, ~vvvv. nu~
Fonnatbad: Forrt: Itaiic
_ ~
Famatbed: Forrt: Italic.
CHAPTElZ 4
HOUSING
Introduction
The Growth Management Act requires a housing element addressing the ,
availability of affordable housing for all segmen.ts of~the population.
Housing affordability_ can be an issue for all income~cafegories. The
primary supplier of housing for more affluent income groups is`the market
place, with government playing only a minor_ role ~ However, the. market
place only marginally meets the housing needs of°lower income groups,
and therefore the govemment plays a mo e s gnificant~role in providing
affordable housing to thes.e income groups ~
While the importance of th'is section shauld not be underestimated, it is
crucial to note other important facfors ~ The affordability of housing
regards a wide range of- issu s and rel t d topics; for instance, land use,
economic development.~d-<human services. Each of these topics
influences the development and character of Auburn_'s housing stock. To
understand this plan~'s~approach to affordable housing requires looking at
the plan as, a whole and not~solely this section.
~
Thi,s eleme prapareci with the understanding that regional and national
trends tirve
~nsiderable impact on housing. Regional and federal
~
policies,~land av.~aalaliility, labor and material cost, financial mazkets
including yuiterest rates, consumer demands; all exercise , influence on
housing development and are beyond the immediate influence of the City
of Auliurn .
Even with these limitations, Auburn's Compre}iensive Plan 'contairis
reasonable and feasible strategies and policies. By implementing this
Comprehensive Plan; , Auburn can sustain and enhance those attributes that
currently make it a desirable place to live. -
Background
and Issues Housing Market Analysis In the yeaz 2000, the median sales price of a single family residence in
Auburn was $161,950 and the median value of a home was $153,400,
Page 41
Amended 2009
~
I Housing •
. according xo the King County. Assessor. Compared' to the rest of King
County, the cost of housing in Auburn is a bargain: In yeaz 2000 the median sales price of a single family residence in King Coun.ty was `
$289,800 and the median value was $236,000. Four years later the
median sales price of a home in Auburn increased to $262,000 and the
median value of homes is $176,000. The cost of housing in Aubum is still
considerably less than the rest of King County, but it is quickly catching
up. The following table represents a snapshot ofthe housing market on
two separate dates. Several of the homes for sale that are less than
"
$100,000 are mobile homes in designated manufactured home parks.
Figure 4.1
Homes for Sale in Auburn
5/18/2004 x'6/2/2002,
Total Number of SF Houses 429 ` 474
Median Price:
262,000. $239,950 .
Number of Uniu
Over $325,000 .9$ ~ 93
$250,000 to $325;000 ~ 4 146 118
$175,000 fo $250,0000' 15 `186
$100,000 to $175 000 32 72
Lessthan $100;000 38 5
~
Housin¢ Affordabilitv ~
Affordability concems all households, regazdless of income. It pertains to
a househol'd':s :attempt to reach a balance between its financial means and
ifdesire~or~decent housing and amenities. The accepted definition -of -
ai~ardability is based on the percentage of household income spent on
dwelling ; costs. Dwelling costs for an owner occupied unit include
principal and interest payments; taxes, insurance and public utilities. A
housing unit•is considered affordable if monthly dwelling costs are less
than 30% of the household's gross income. If a larger share of household
income is spent on dwelling costs, then the household is probably
sacrificing money that would normally be spent for other basic needs such
as food, health care, child care, education, etc.
The term "affordability gap" refers to the difference between the average .
price of housing - either rented or owned - and tlie recommended,
affordable price of housing. A positive gap means the price of housing is
less than the recommended amount that a household could afford to pay.
; I Delebei,: .amenaea 2oo9 I
, .
Page 42
I aft 2011 '
. I HOUSIDg . . o _
Households with. positive affordability gaps have several choices of
affordable housing. A negative gap indicates the price of housing exceeds
the recommended amount for housing. Households with a negatiye
affordability gap have fewer housing choices.
According to t14007-2009 3-year American Community Surve~(ACS);_ M3 zooo c~
the median household income in King County was 8 387 per yeaz or ;_-7,
$5,699~ per month. _ For half of the households in King County, _housing_
costs of less than l 710~er _month would be affordable 130% of_ 699__
per month}. The median househoincome for Auburn is $53.853 or Deleted_a,dso
$4,488 per month. For half the households in Auburn, housinC costs of
less than $1,346 per month would be affordable.. The 2007 2009 ACS - ceieem: census
-
indicated the median rent paid by - -
Aubum, residents :was 75 er~month D
elebBd: 639
and the median mortgage payment was ' 618 per _month TSubsequently, Weted;1,06,
Auburn has a number of affordabie housing choices rel`ative to King
County in generaL Figure 4.2 -represents the rel'ative~affordability of
>
housing costs relative to the King County Medi elio
an Housld Income.
Figure 4.2
Housing Affordability by Income?;Level
Inrnme Group 1'r 2000 Monthty-~ , Aftordable % Auburn
Household Inotime ~ Housing Costs House6olds
Very Low Income 9ess than S1,2S5' SO to $385 16°h
0-290% of KCMI A ess:than S8 per houu
Low Inwme ,,~S1,286 to-~Sper 2,215 $386 to E664 24% 30-49% of KCMI •t $8 - 513 hour
Moderate Income $2;276 to $3,544 ~5 to SI,060 16°h 5a79%ofKCMI S13-S20 hour
Low-Median Income:H• $3;545 to $4,430
SO-99% of KCMI $20 - 525 per hrnu $1,061 to 51;330 14°h
Hig6-Medtan.IaeOme $4,431 to $5,270 $1,331 to $1,580 9%
101-119% of K~ ~ $25 - $30 er hour Uppa Income mnre thau $5,270
120% or more ef ICCNH more then 535 per 6ow $1581 or more 21 °k
$OIffCC:=,,U.$.,CCIISUS BIIfCSU . .
Cost Bnrden
Figure 43 shows the percentage of total households in Auburn and King
County relative to the amount of their household income spent on housing
costs. In both King County and Aubum approximately one out of three
households pay 35% or more of their household income for housing costs.
Approximately 75% of Auburn households who eam le'ss than $20,000 per
year pay more than 30%for their housing costs. For income groups above
$20,000 per year, an even greater percentage of King County households
have unaffordable housing. A larger percentage of hoiiseholds eaming
between $35,000 to $50;000 per year can find affordable housing in
Auburn than the rest of King County.
• , ~ oeleted: Amenaea 2oo9 ~
Page 43
I praft 2011
' I Hoasing
Figure 43
Hous,eholds Paying More Than 30% for
Housing Costs By Income Group
i~~ GrouP ■ Aubum O King Co. 0 Bierce Co' .
$100,000 or more:
$75.000 to $99,999:
$50,000 t0 $74,999:
~
$35,000 to $49,999:
$20,000 to $34,999:
$10,000 to $19,999 ~
Less than $10.000: ~
x Tow Mousenolm ie uwome oroup
$OUTCC: U.S. CCt]SUS B1ITCSU . . . .
Assisted Housing p 4"~
~
%
The bulk of the assised,
fi-psing is provided by the King County Housing
Authority (KCHA):'.i:KCHA administers 11,626 units of housing dispersed
among 23 suburban citiesand~unincorPorated areas of King CountY.It~
offers honsing` a'.Pro `';r s that include:
~T~►
' ka~
i?ublic housing for families, senior citizens and people living
~ with disabilities;
Affordable work force housmg;
„ Emergency and iransition facilrties for homeless and special
needs populations;
• Homeownership initiatives;
• Section 8 certificate and voucher programs, as well as
• Home repair and weatherization forprivate dwellings.
As of April 1999 KCHA manages 3,384 public housing units for families,
seniors, and people with special needs in the county outside Seattle and
Renton. The.stock of public housing is quite diverse, ranging from single
family to townhouse to,muitifamily developments. Most family
developments are small, having 30 units or less. The populations served
by the KCHA include families, the elderly, chronically mentally ill,- - - IDialeted: Arnendd 2009 I
.
Page 4-4 I raft 2011 -
I Housing
developmentally disabled, victims of domestic violence, youth, and
persons with AIDS. Eligible families earn no more than 50% of the King
County median income. Rents aze not more than 30% of the tenant's net
income. Approximately 678 units, which is 20% of KCHA total units, are
located in Auburn.
Figure 4.4
KCHA Rental Units Located in Auburn
Development Name Number Type of
of Units Housing
Green River Homes I 60 ' F/S/D
Green River Homes II 60 F/S/D
Wayland Arms 67 SfD
Burndale 50 °F"'=-
Firwood Circle 50 ~JR
Plaza Seventeen 70 ,`S/D
GustaVes Manor 35~ :~4 S/D
Auburn Squaze 160 F
Tall Cedars Mobile 126 `~'4 F
Home Pazk -;o ~ -
Totals ~~~,w 678
~
D: Disabled F: Family S:Senior
~
~ ~
King County Housmg A~tho ty administers the Section 8 Housing
Assistance Program a+i~`iich~subsidizes the rental payments of low income
~
' households. Approximately 8:7% of King County's voucheis and
certificates are issued to~urn landlords and tenants. According to
informat~on provided kiy ~CCHA. Auburn currently has 1,246 Section 8
assisted housing uriits. Tfie ICing County Consolidated Plan states that in
>
1999 Au,burn had,.999 housing units funded through Section 8. Apparently
theInurr~beT of Section 8 units has'increased 25% over the iiast five years.
Then
ed for public housirig exceeds the supply of available public
housing,aiid/or Section 8' housing vouchers. As`of April 1999,
approximately 2,400 applicants were on the.waiting listfor public
housing. Among these applicants, 62% qualify for federal preference for
admission. Applicants in the federal preference. category are given the
highest prioriry on the waiting list based on need: Once preference is
assigned, they are given, tiousing according to the date: and. time of their
qualification. The aveiage waiting time for assisted housing is about two
years.
Deleeea: .am~aea 2009 ~
~
~
Page 45 ,
I aft 2011 '
, ~
I Housing ,
Household Proiections
I The City of Aubum's ';a 031 Population Projection" forecast that Auburn - oeieem: zoso
- -
will experienceFontinued prowth over the next 20,years_ Housing _ _ ceieeed: gr than avem9c
developments in the Pierce County portion of Auburn combined with -
annexations of Lea Hill and West Hill, will drive Auburn's growth over
the next twenty years. Figure 4.5 represents the projected housing growth
I indicated in the City's "Year 2021,Popul4tion Eshmate" with an update to ~eted .zo
year 2010 with the 2010 Census data. neieeed: n~ayao%ot
_ .
aubum'e new housing units wdl be built
F' ure 4.S ' Lakeland Hitls SoWh PUD located
I ~ in the Aerce County pation of Aubum.
Housing Unit Growth Projections
1970 to 201L- - - - - - ' Imebod: Zo _
~ - _
40.000
:
37,454
35,000
i
, 3'_.fi34
30,nnn
25.000 ;
:0,000 :
16,-G7
15.000 ;
3.35?
10,0U0 ~
. SO
5,000 :
0 : .
]9'0 1990 1990 2000 2010 2020 2031
Di nbuhon of Housing Amone Income Grouas
KingCounty's growth management policies recornmend Auburn plan for
370/o of its projected new housing units, be affordable to low and moderate
_ income households as follows: 20% for low income and 17% for moderate
income households: The King Counry Planning Policies state that in azeas '
identified as city expansion areas, King County and the respective cities
should plan cooperatively for affordable housing development and
preservation. Figure 4.6 represents the projected distribution of new
housing:units relative to respective income groups to the year 2020. The
distribution between single family and multi-family dwelling units is
consistent with the mix of types of housing units reported in the Year 2000
Census. ~ ueiebad:. Awnaea 1069 1
;
Page 4-6
I ' aft2011 ~
I Housing
Figure 4.6
Auburn's Year 2020 Housing Target
Total SF Nff SF MF , ToYal Total HiT % Total
2000 2010 2010 2020 2020 New HU Yr 2020 Yr 2020
ess than 50% 5347 0 777 0 717 1494 6841 20%
0°/r80% 4841 100 407 100 368 975. 5816 17%
0%-120% 3944 1224 816 1130 754 3924 7868 236/o
120%+ 3552 4500 769 4000 863 . 10132 13684 40%
TotaI4 17,684 5,824 2,769 5,230 2,702 16,525 34,209 100%
Housing Strategy Auburn's Overall Housing Development Strategy
Over the past iwenty years, Aubum responded posit~ ly to the housing
needs of low and moderate income groups,Over 6e,,next twenty years,
Aubum will attem t to economical( mt " e its communi b
P Y.- h' Y
diversifyirig its housing stock to include "all iincome groups. Auburn
currently has a relatively small portion of houseWds consisting of middle,
and higher income groups. By strivuig ;to bruig its number of low and
moderate income households~in line ~?vrtti,the rest of King County, while
increasing the growth rate~f housetio[ds with. more affluent incomes,
Auburn should achieve a~mor~ even distribution and diversity of social-
economic groups
Residential and~ comiannity development in Auburn will reflect a
collection of uitiirally, . diverse and economically integrated
neighborhoods. Neighborhoods consisting predominantly of single family
residences, jomed togethei by a pedestrian oriented transportation system,
alon~ ith' , com lemen~TY Public sPaces, educational facilities, '
vv~. P
recreational °and social services sufficient to promote and sustain an
amenable~qua~lity. of life' for a family-oriented community. Development .A_:
actrvrties will cultivate a sustainable community whereby:
e Home buyers and renters of all income groups have sufficient
opportunities to procure affordable housing.
• Existing neighborhoods along with properties of special and/or historic value are preserved for the enjoyment and enhancement of
future generations.
• A balanced' -mix of affordable housing types exist that are
appropriate for a family-oriented community in order to meet the
needs of all economic segments of the population. -
~ udetm: nmenaee 2009 ~
Page 47 •
I aft 2011 '
I Housing
o Pub(ic and private agencies implement policies and offer programs
or projects that help alleviate physical and economic, distress;
conserve energy resources; improve the quality and quantity of
community services; and eliminate conditions that are detrimental
to health, safety and public welfare.
• Residential developments aze monitored for the purpose of
reducing the isolation of income groups and groups with special
needs; the -determination of ezisting and future housing needs;
better utilization of land and other resources that enhance the
availability of affordable housing opportunities ~
~
HOUSING
POLICIES GOALS AND POLICIES RELATED TO HOUSING
GOAL 4 COMMUNITY CHARACTER
~
To maintain and. enhance Aubum's character as ya farnily-oriented
community while managing potential economic,•opportunities in a manner
that provides necessary employment Iand, fiscal support for neededservices~
and while recognizing the need-4-64aprovide human services and
opportunities for housing to a:wide anay ofhousehold types and sizes.'
Objective 4.2 Provide services and facilities'~that serve low income families and prevent
~r>•,
individuals from becoming,homeless.
HO-1 Encoi~rageti,and,;support human and health service organizations
that offerfpro`grams and facilities for people with special needs,
~~panc~ulazly programs that address homelessness and help
~peo,gle to remain within the community.
oz ~
H0=2 ~Special attention shall be given to maintaining and improving
F~ t}ie quality of public services in declining areas of the Ciry.
HO-3 The City shall seek and provide assistance to nonprofit agencies
operating emergency shelters and transitional housing for,
homeless people and other groups with special needs.
Objective 4.3 To preserve and promote those community facilities and programs that are
importantto the safery, health and social needs of families and children.
HO-4 The City shall recognize the important role of public
improvements, facilities and programs in providing a healthy
family environment within the community.
. , l odq~.d: nm.ava 2009 1
Page 4-8
~ aJ~r ft 2011 '
I Hoasing
HO-5 The City of Auburn shall review proposals to site facilities
providing new or expanded human services within the City to
determine their potenrial impacts and whether they meet the `
. needs of the Auburn community. Important caveats in the
City's consideration will include the following:
a. While Auburn will willingly accept its regional share of
facilities which provide residential services; or influence
residential location decisions, Aubum will expect other
communities "to accept their share as well.
b. The fund"mg of human service centers sited in Auburn that
serve an area larger than Auburn would rely on an equitable
regional sowce of funding. ~
c. The siting of all facilities shall be based on=sound land use
~
planning principles and should establis:.'h, working
relationships with affected neighborhoods °
~
Objective 4.4 Explore all ayailable federal, state'and loca3piograms a~d private options
for financing afF6rdable housing, removing= or teducing risk factors, and
preserving safe neighborhoods.
HO-6 The City will involve both the public and private sectors in the
provision of affordable housingN-V
HO-7 The City of Auburn a~!ill support national, state and especially
regional efforts,t#o add'ress the humarr service needs of the
region and the City.
HO-8 In most cases,~the City will favor regional responses to.human
,sI.
~ se ~rvice needs. However, such regional efforts must be
`~~~~,consisieni-"witli the concepts of fiscal equity:. In other words,
zt these efforts should mutually affect persons or cominunities of
y, s,imilaz income, on both the revenue (tax) and expenditure
- ,(service) sides of the equation.
. .
` HO-9 The City shall evaluate housing codes on an ongoing basis to
determine their effectiveness and appropriate enforcement.
~
, I oeietied: .amaea 2009 ~
,
,
Page 49
I aft 2011 '
I Honsing
GOAL 7 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
To erriphasize housing development at. single family densities in order to
reestablish a mix of housing types appropriate for a family-oriented
community while recognizing the need and desire for both rural densiry
and moderate density housing appropriated located to meet the housing
needs of all members of the community.
Objective 7.7 Conserve the existing housing stock because it is the most affordable form
of housing.
HO-10 Any, assessment of the need for affordable housingu'jn Auburn
shall be based on the community providing its fair' share of
regional need for low and moderate income households
HO-11 The City will work with all jwisdictions within the region to
develop a regional approval to affordable 'housing. Each
jurisdiction should be uiged to praa+ide for its fair share of ttie
region's affordable housingneed ~
HO-12 T'he City will involve both?;the putilic arid private sectors in the
. provision of affordable housmg6°
HO-13 The Ciry shall,~allow appropnately designed manufactured
housing wittun single family _neighborhoods, consistent with
state law.
/0"
HO-14 T'he Cityshali"^allow manufactured housing parks and multiple
family developpent in appropriately zoned but limited areas. "
HO-15 ~ The C~ty tivill assist low-income persons, who are displaced as:a
result of redeyelopment, find affordable housing in accordance
M ~'~w~th~state and federal laws and regulations.
~ .
HO-Ik Information and resource§ that educate and guide low-income--
. persons toward affordable housing _ opportunities will be
prepared and made available.
HO-17 Through its building permit process, the City will inventory and .
liack affordable housing opportunities within _ Auburn.
Information about affordable housing units will be distributed to nonprofit agencies serving the homeless and low-income
persons.
; I bWeeea: ammaea 2009 I
. Page 410
I aft 2011 '
_ I _ Honsing
Objective 7.8 To respond to the, housing needs of individuals and families that cannot
afford or do not choose to live in traditional detached single-family ~
housing.
HO-18 -Encourage residential development in Downtown, particulazly
housing that is integrated with commercial development.
HO-19 Allow accessory dwelling units as' an affordable housing
strategy.
GOAL 8 NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY -
To maintain and protect all viable and stable residential neighborhoods.
Objective 8.3 Conserve the livability of yia6le residential areas through the preservation
of existing housing stock and amenities.
HO-20 The City shall seek available;> assistance for housing
rehabilitation. Assistance will~~include~:::the development of
residential infrastructure and the reliabilitation of individual
~ .
• pmperties.
~
H0-21 ' The City will work withazk~ owners, managers and park
tenants to develop ~olicies °land-use regulations to preserve
manufactured homi~parks and the affordable housing they offer.
HO-22 The City "l,eiicourage and assist in the renovation of surplus
public and comm~ercial buildings into affordable housing.
. 3 ~
HO-23 / ~e Crtq~will seek, encourage and assist nonprofit organizations
\~~aet}uirmg depreciated apartment units for the purpose of
mamtaining and ensuring their long-term affordability.
.
41V
HO-24
T~,he City will work with neighborhood groups to deyelop
;}y~'neighborhood strategic plans for specific areas within the City.
These areas will be:determined based upon need, City Council
direction and the availability of staff resowces. These plans
will address issues and concerns which include, but aze not
limited to, proje.cted growth/decline, neighborhood identify,
safety, educa;ion, youth and recreational activities.
odetea: .aro.a~a zoos ~
,
- ,
Page 4-11
I , raft 201 l
I Hoasiag
Goal 12 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT
To encourage redevelopment of underutilized areas to reduce sprawl and
take full advantage of the City's investment in existing infrastructure.
Objeetive 12.1 Provide flexibility in development regulations so that a variety of housing
types and. site. planning techniques. can achieve the maximum housing
potential of a particular site.
HO-25 The-City shall identify rehabilitation areas, with prioriry given
to blighted azeas with a relatively large population of low- .
income` persons, for possible designation with ~rformance
_ zoning. Criteria for performance wning~~shall iriclude
generation of affordable housing, protection o€ natusal features
and open spaces, impact on existing utilities, traffic generation,
~
neighborhood compatibility, and ~.x the, ._,policies of this
Comprehensive Plan. 4;;~n
HO-26 T'he City shall develop incentives to~~develop underutilized
parcels into new uses that.~allow therrirto function as pedestrian-
oriented, mixed-use neighborhoods. Existing uses which aze
complementary, economical, and physically viable shall _
integrate into the; f rm and' fiuiction of the neighborhood.
HO-27 The Cityq~has ado^*ed innovative zoning provisions to
encourage'infiil° development of underutilized pazcels in zones
which, through Auburn Comprehensive Plan goals and policies,
have ~een~ -identified as areas where infill residential
development shou.ld be encouraged. Certain development
~requuements for infill development may be relaxed, while
~requinng adherence to specific design requirements to enswe
oiripatibility with the character of nearby existing residential
~5#ructures.
Objective 12.2 To develop economically integrated, walkable neighborhoods which
generate a secure atmosphere for both residents and visitors.
HO-28 The City recognizes that the development of safe
neighborhoods requires the cooperation of property owners
and/or their property managers. The City shall ' organize,
etiucate and assist properiy managers in the creation and
preservation of safe neighborhoods.
HO-29 T'he City shall seek and provide assistance for the reduction of
lead-based paint hazards.
, f ndetm:_.a,m=aea _200
-
Page 4-12
I raft 2011 '
I Housing ' '
HO-30 The City will continue its program to repair and/or replace
deteriorated sidewalks and remove bazriers to pedestrian traffic.
H.U.D. block grant funds may be used to remove pedestrian
barriers and pay the tax assessments levied upon low income .
households for sidewalk repairs.
HO-31 The City will continue to inswe.that funding becomes available
to support youth and social services in Auburn.
GOAL 22 URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL QUALTTY
To ensure a hi uali visual environment throu
gh q ty gh appropnate design
standards and procedures which encourage high quality architectural and
landscape design in all development and through the placementof aitwork
in public places. The City recbgnizes the linkages tieiween transportarion;
land use and site design and encourage developmen which eases access
. by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.
HO-32 Ensure that all affordable'zhousiag development is consistent
with current housing 9ual~~~staniiards.
HO-33 The City will encourage van~~ed . and humari-scaled building
> V:design that W provides a visual interest to pedestrians,
compatibiliLy with hfstoric buildings 'or other neighborhood
structures, and enhances the streetscape.
''~'z ~
H0-34 Conserve developable land and natural resources through a
variety of housiag types, conservation and site planning
~~techniques that achieve the maximum housing potential and
~
passive energy use of a particulaz site.
odetea: .a,menaea 2009 U
. Page 4-13 I . . raft 2011 '
i
.(See aaw 8-2 throuQh 8-3 and revised Figure 8.1 for c/ranzes related to - rormatted: Fonrt: talic
population and census and napes.8-S tluou,p,~1: 8-8 for changes related Fo„n~: rrorn: italic
economic develaament strateQV areas.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOMUMe&' Fom:.ttaiic ~
CHAPTER 8
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
~
IntroducNon
Auburn's economic base drives and shapes the commumty-,,-dnd region.
Auburn residents and the surrounding region benefit from tkie jobs and
services"Auburn's economic base offers. Thiovghffiepayment of:sales,
properry and other taxes; the Gityof Auburn>r:an furid and provide services
and public facilities wliicfi Auburn residentsOemand"azid/or require.
~
It is clearly in the City's best interest to£`ma~ntain and expand our economic
base in unison with implementmg'~,11 of'the goals of tHis Comprehensive
Plan. This section of the plan will °'ielpkto define tlie City's goals and -
policies in this vital area~~~~~~ea~\
~
V
Issues &
, Background Historic Trends
Historicaily, a vaz~ety of factors have shaped Au6ur~'s economy. At the
yy„„ Sw
turn of the~`h~century, the City offered services to support agriculture
and lroads. Downtown offered a full range of services and retail
opportunrties. ``In later yeazs, automotive sales became a significant factor.
~iz'ation As of the region expanded to include Auburn, the vitality of
Downtown Auburn was impacted liy new shopping malls located outside
the community and liy changirig retail trends; At the same time, Auburr►'s
importance as the home of large industrial and wacehousing operations
increased. This same period saw the growth of retail along commercial
- "strips"'§ucli"as Auburn Way`and TSthStieet NW: _Large;refailers sucli as
Fred Meyer and many major supermarket chains located in the
community. ' .
The development of the SuperMall in the 1990's led to Auburn becoming
a major player in the regional retail market. Au6urn shoppers no longer
needed to leave the City fo visit retail malls for many of their purchases. ~Deletied: Am-ded 2008 ~
Page 8-1 ,'I i ft 2011 '
I Economic Developmerit
, During ; that same decade, Emerald Downs and the Muckleshoot Casino ~
also contributed to commercial recreation facilities in Auburn and ;
associated employment growth.
Today, Auburn provides over 38,000 jobs for residents throughout the
region. Auburn has a strong industrial sector that includes Boeing, the
General Service Administration (GSA) and numerous waiazehouse and
distribution facilities. Auburn Regional Medical Center and the growing
medical office community also provide a significant number of jobs. The
retail and service sectors aze expanding as small businesses are created. .
Educational uses such as the Auburn School District and Green River
Community College also add to the area's employment base. n.;
While development has continued throughout the City, Downtown A6burn
remains the heart and soul of the community. With its historical character
and pedestrian oriented development pattem, Downtown.,Aubi~irn reflects
many of the qualities being sought by other communiUes: Given its urban
center designation, Auburn Station, and theZmceniives the City has in .
place, Downtown Auburn remains poised fo'i c6fitiniie&~evitalization.
~ a,
EMPLOXMENT
GROWTH
EMPLOYMENT
f►ubum Qrovides over~38,000jobs for residents throu~hout the re~ion.ueietm:.~orzooa,
Aubum has a diverseind'ustrial sector that includes Boeing, the General .
Services Admimstration (GSA) and numerous warehouse and distribution
facilities ~ Auburn ;Regional Medical Center and the growing medical
office commumty;zalso provide a significant number of jobs. The retail
an&service sectors continue to expand as companies locate in Auburn and
w~small ~usinesses are created. Educational uses such as the Auburn
Scliob! Dis: tnct add to the employment base.
.
Between 1995 W 2000, the number of jobs located in Aubum increased
34% compazed to an overall increase of 22% throughout the rest of King
County. Manufacturing jobs remain the largest category in Auburn,
despite the loss of nearly 2,000 manufacturing jobs since 1990. The
remaining job categories all experienced job growth. Retail jobs increased
substantially along with jobs in wazehousing, transportation, _ and
communicaxion industries. Figure 8.1 compares the type of jobs located in
~ Auburn since 1995, ueletea: o
, ~ ceteme: .e,mwaea 2069 ~
Page $-2 I aft 2011
,
I Economic Development '
Figure 8.1
~ Jobs Located in Auburn 1995-2010
45.000
40,000 . W_
:ts,oan ; -
;
30.000
25.000 :
20,000
• 1995.Tnbs
~ is,aoa ~ . a Zaaaao►s '
10,000
■zoioJot~s Q
s.ooo ' -
C4► ~ ~C:~ 6~`' ~ ~s
~ Source: Puget Sound Regional Council:co '
veced'emplovmeut dafa.
It is expected that Aubum's employment~base will continue to grow into
the future. To the year~,201.'4 the King_ County_Countywide_ Planning_ - odeted: za
I Policies have assi Auburn's~ ob base to increase bY 9._350 ,1'obs. It_. _ - oe~etiea: 6,0~ F~
should be noted that °ttunumber is not a maximum, but the City's _mos_t
recent assigned share of furiue projected growth in the County.
~
vt,
Retail Sales °
Aubum's business v'community is keeping pace with both Auburn's
~ .
population4growi~l~► and rts increase in more affluent households. Between
1~95 an2003, retail sales in Auburn increased 59% or roughly 8% per
year- As ~bown in. Figure 8:2, Aubum is the sixth largest retail center in
Piercean~'Kmg Counties outside of Tacoma, Seattle and Bellewe:
neteoea: A~aea 2009 ~
,
,
Page 8-3
I raft 20l 1
I Economic Development
Figure 8.2 City Retail Sales (Outside of Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue)
Yr 1995 Rank 95 Yr 2003 Rank '03
Kem 1,507,693,474 2 2,005,340,826 1
Tukwila 1,572,309,882 1 1,798,012,039 2
Renton 1,117,803,594 4 1,763,639,632 3
Redmond 1,345,470,014 3 1,640,192,690 4
Puyallup 788,047,838 8 1,474,074,155 5
Aubum 910,528,894 6 1,450,240,653 6
Kirkland 1,032,278,016 5 1,356,322,041 7
Woodinville 276,251,793 12 1,356,322,041 8
Federal Way885,908,414 7 1,179,841,030 V9. - Issaquah 473,022,152 10 1,008,655 951 TOt
Source: State of Washington Department of Revenue
Beginning in 1997, retail sales in Auburn began ~n~reasing at a'rate faster
than the rest of King County.. In the Yeaz 2400, refail sales in ,King
County fell whereas sales in Aubum remamed steady. At the end of 2002,
retail sales continue to remain steady and'>higlier `than the rest of King
County. Figure 8.3 illustrates this comparisonw,tietween Auburn, King
County andWashington State. 'r~~
, Figure 83V
Comparison of Retail Sales
, 60%
50%
40% - -
i
i
30% v ~ ,
i
20%
/
,
. i
10%0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
~Aubum - Kin Courity Washin ton State
Source: Washington State Dept of Revenue
1 Delebed: Ammdeil2o09 ~
, .
Page 8-4
I aft 20 11 '
I Ecooomic Development
STREAMLINED SALES TAX .
The State of Washington recently adopted streamlined sales-tax (SST)
legislation. Prior to SST; sales tax collection in Washington State was
based on the site of origin, rather than on the site of delivery. Under the
SST tax structure, sales tax is collected at the site of delivery rather than
from those azeas from which they were shipped. This change in, tax
structure will put Aubum at a disadvantage and negatively impact its tax
revenue.
Specifically, Auburn. and similar cities 'have historically invested in
infrastructure to support businesses engaged in warehouse and distribution
activities. that ship goods to other destinations. Another concem for
Aubum and similar cities that have invested in infrastructure i clude how
the debt that has already been extended for such infrastructure wi115be paid
and how the loss of a significant source of revenue will ect bond
ratings.
Based on the potential passage of SST, the Aubum ~City:Council approved
Resolution No. 3782 in November 2004. R solirtion~t~ 3782 outlines an
approach and actions the Gity will take related.~to land use planning,
~as
zoning and other matters in the eventa str~r►luaed sales tax proposal or
other similar proposals that change the tax tructure aze adopted.
~ .
2005 ECONONIIC DEV"""PMENT STRATEGIES
In 2005 the City of Aubu~ought together a focus group of diverse
business and commirnity, interests that identified several economic
development:areas wrdii,a~the City. The focus group's effort is reflected in
.
an Economic Dev,elopmeru Strategies document that includes strategies
' and actions needecl ta~`affect necessary change for specific strategy areas
.
~ within the city: Implementation of these strategies is intended to enable
the Cify<~to Vachieve the City's economic development potential.
Implementanon~of'actions and straxegies in the Economic Development
Stidtegiesits appropriate and reflected in various elements of the Aubum
Comprehepsrve Plan.
Since the development of the Economic Development Strate ies
document additional _economic development strategy areas have been
identified to include the SE 31e Streed12!C Avenue SE corridor within-;,- rormatee~ superscriPt
the recently annexed portion of Lea Hill and M Street SE between Auburn Formame& Supersa;pt
Way North and Aubum Way South.
Goals and ' PoliCies ECONOMIC DEyELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL 17. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ndeMa: ,a,mmaea 2069 ~
Page 8-5
I raft 2011 •
I Economic Development
To ensure the long-term economic health of the City and the region
through a diversified economic base that supports a wide range of. ,
employment opportunities for Auburn's residents and those of the region
and through the promotion of quality industrial and commercial
development which matches the aspirations of the community.
Objective 9.1, Promote a diversified economic base capable of withstanding changes in
interest rates, inflation, tax structure and market conditions.
ED-1 City promotion of new industry shall be directed at attracting
business that diversifies the City's tax base, offers secure, quality
employment opportunities, is sensitive to community`~ualues and
promotes the development of attractive facilities.
ED-2 Emerald Downs, the Muckleshoot Casino, and the":SuperMall of
the Great Northwest offer opportunities /,,,,forN"economic
diversifcation that should be optimized b~the City.
ED-3 . The importance of Downtown(kAuburn-"; as a unique retail
environment and subregional center, ~of *:commerce should be
considered in the City's economic,planP`~
ED-4 The adoption of Streamhne~Sale& Tax (SST) shall constitute an
emergency for thet4purpose,s~of amending the Comprehensive
' Plan outside ofAe normal amendment cycle in order to, among
other items;~,~Aimplemeni; the , intent of Aubum City Council
Resolution No.3782, if.needed.
' v~~"~
Objective 9.2. Produce commercial~r~+dauidustrial siting policies which are based on the _
assessmen ofzlocal;.needs and the'availability of.transportation and other
mfrastractur„eqn to serve it.
~
ED=S Devefopment of industrial areas should be based on performance
standards appropriate for the site and with appropriaie flexibility -
6; ~,Rwithm those standard's to accommodate changiag market
conditions..
ED-6 Revitalize depreciated and/or obsolete commercial and industrial
sites through innovative regulations that redesign the site in
accordance with modern design standazds. and
industriaUcommercial uses.
ED-7 Uses which serve regional needs and purposes (such as major
industrial plants) must be sepaiated from commuriity serving
uses in order to minimize traffic and other conflicts.
udecea: amma4a 2009 ~
Page S-6
I , raft 2011
_ I Economic Development
Objective 9:3. Develop effective land use polices and economic development strategies
that provide long-term and stable employment, increase per capita income
and reduce tfie tax bwden of Auburn residents.
ED-8 Auburn should continue to provide an economic base not only
for the Auburn area but also for the soutti King County and north
Pierce County region.
ED-9 Implementation of economic development piograms shall' be
consistent with the policies of this Plan.
ED-10 The City should develop a formal economic development
strategy.as an element ofthe Comprehensive Plan to specifically'
identify the types of businesses rriost consistent !,*ith community
aspirations and lay out a program. to atttract thoseQusinesses. a. The City should work cooperatively witli; ather governmental
agencies in its economic developmentrefforts, including the
Muckleshoot Tribe, King Connty; Piercce'County, the Port
and the State. ~
b: The City should implemerit its economic development
strategy fhro~igh~a partnership ;vith, the private sector. , .
a Identifed an the~2005 Economic Develo ment Strate 'es
documerrts are six s tegy areas alona with two additional
strateQVL'areas: These economic development strate areas
arettargeted"'for population and employment growth to meet
the.~Cia"U~veaz (2031) growth target. Sub-area vlans
`s}toul`d~be developed for these strategy ~areas. The economic
development strategy azeas are as follows:
AuburnWav North Gorridor rormattect: indeM ~ett: o.ss^,
•,;Auburn Way South Corridor Hanyin9: o.zs^, Bulleted + Level: 1
+ Aiigned at 0.5" + Tab after: 0" +
zk~ o Urbari Center indent at: 0:75", Tabs: 1.13", Left
e. Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone • 15! Street SW/C Street SW/West Vallev r•o~: suverscript.
Highway/Supermall
• A Street SE Corridar
• SE 3] t Sfreet/1242 Avenue SE Corridor r•ormateede supeiscript
e M- Street SE between Auburn Wav T1orth and Auburn ' r-ormatted: superscript
South
ED-11 Enswe that economic development strategies are reviewed
regularly in order to be flexible and. respond to changes in the
market. , (I oeieoea: n~aea 2009 ~
,
Page 8-7
I raft 201 I '
I Economie Development
ED-12 The City should,work with the private sector, school districts and
Green River Community College to develop programs to provide
training. Consideration of special needs of economically
disadvantaged citizens and neighborhoods and people with physical impairments and developmental" disabilities should be
included in these programs.
ED-13 Support continued devetopment of the Sound Transit Commuter
Rail system, as an important means of expanding the City's and
the region's economic base.
~
ED-14 City infrastructure plans and programs should~ tatce into
copsideration economic development plans and p-rograms.°
IN
ED-15 Implement the recommendations of the City's/
,2005`Economic Development Strategies brochure includina..tlie addition. of the
SE 312th Street/124"' Avenue SEzcorridor and M Street SE Fo.matte& suPerscript
between Auburn WaYNorth and Aubum Wavs,South. The City's
20-vear housing and emplovment growfh sfiall be concentrated to
•
these economic development sfrated areasr Dderoea:.
~Y
Objective 9.4 Maintain an adequate sup~p3y of land ~ to support future economic
development and assure tlie~availability of economic opportunities for
future generations.
~
ED-16 Economic deveiopment programs should be viewed as a way to
shape the character of the City's future economy : rather than '
merely~iespond to market trends as they occur.
ED-17 Land;suitalile for large scale development in the Region Serving
Area of the City should be identified and designated for
~eco'nqmic, development.
The integrity of lazge, contiguously owned properties suitable
for i ndustrial use should 6e conserved by use of appropriate
, industrial subdivision standards.
b. The City should identify and resolve any environmental
constraints affecting such land by means of the appropriate ,
environmental review procedures as early as feasible.
c. The need to support such land with the necessary
infrastructure should be considered in the development of the
City's public facility plans.
Ddeoea: Ameaa4a zoo§ ~
,
,
I . Page 8-8
raft2U11 '
I Economic Devdopment
d. Innovative and flexible development regulations should be
utilized to enable the development of environmentally
' constrained sites while protecting those characteristics.
Objective 9.5 Utilize the City's unique environmental opportunities and planned
infrastructure to build on and support economic development efforts.
ED-18 Integrate the Aubum Environmental Park (AEP) into the City's
economic development efforts by encouraging compatible high
tech businesses fo locate, in its vicinity.. Amend regulations to
establish appropriate land uses for that area as well as develop
strategies and incentives to promote the area as a"Green Zone"
for economic development.
~.~4.,
ED-19 Utilize the future extension of I Street NE asan economic
development opporlunity. Development of I Street NE should
establish it as stand alone corridor and `not "'"back side" to
Auburn Way North. Conditionalw.use permrt; applications for
commercial uses and nursing homei'~; aloag"this corridor and
whose impacts can.be adequately mitigated ~shouldbe supported.
~ED-20 Use the M Street SE underp ass,apd development of M Street SE
and R Street SE bypass coni►ection as an opportunity to create
_
and encourage ttteclustering~of complementary business and
services in that area.'-
.
~
, f ry~t~a, ~ . , .
;~~.,:ye"', . •
neleeede ammaea 2oo9 I
Page 8-9 ,'I ft DraMll
'
, -
.
.(See vages 9-5_and 9-34 through 9-36for c/tan-ees related to clinwte rormactea: Forrt: Bold, ItaBc ~
. . - - - ~ - -_.61~<~~.s~
chanzet see adQes 9-1t Mr chai~es related tn alternatire:nbwered_ rorn,attech Fom: eoid ~
vehicles Fonnamet Forrt:eold,Italic
Formatted: Font: Bold
FonnatDe~ Ford: Bold, Italic
Formatt,t~ Forrt: Bold, Italic ___._._..J
CHAP'I'ER 9
THE ENVIIZONMENT
~
~h-
. 6 ~
Introduction
One of the key' attractions of Auburn and theA/Puget Sound Region has
always been the abundant aatural resources found~~roughouf the area.
The Green River Va11ey was: once a major suppher of~gricultural goods
for the region and farming remains in some parts,of the valley. Thick
forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitats are fourid-tivoughout the area. As '
the area develops, many of these f~es'which serve to make the area
attractive in the first place, are,bemg lost ;Tlie strong emphasis placed on
the designation and protection of resourcev lands and critical areas in the
Growth Management Act, the:.;,Countywide Policies and this plan reflect
~ ,
the iinportant role that~~tlie§e ar~~.eas play in maintaining the health, safety '
and welfare of the area's cifizens. ~ _
. ~
ISSU@S
Environmental
Constraints
and Land Use The Ciry's' overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of
env~ tuneiital information and factors tfiat aze important to the
commu°`r~iiry: This information can be used to decide if; where and how
certain kinds of development and other activities:shoul'd be allowed.
City policy shoulcl ' recognize the natural constraiiits placed on
development by such factors as unsta6le slopes, flooding and wetlands. A
critical environmental concem is the proper management of gravel
extraction; .This is an industry which has been active:in Auburn for many
yeazs and wHich remains a viable industry. The City should esta.6lish cleaz
policies to guide the retention of valued aspects of the City's environment,
such as protection of the City's open space and significant wildlife
~ oeiemd: nmma«i 2010
I:
habitats. The policy should seek to ensure ample opportunity for the ;Dejetec~ Q ---------=m_~~
Page 9-1
~I Draft 2011~'- -
Environment
City's residents to meet their recreational needs. Policies shou.ld be
esta.blished to protect the public health, safety and quality of life,, and to
also protect the azea's most unique, sensitive and productive
environmental resources. New development should be directed towazd
areas where their adverse impacts can be minimized.
This Plan has increased the. specificity of the City's policies relating to use
, and protection of the natwal environment It also provides a set of general
policies which will be used to require the mitigation of significant adverse
impacts.
GOAL 18. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ,
To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment and;preserve the
quality of life, and to protect the area's most unique, 5ensitive and
productive natural resources. To encourage naiural resource;industries
within the. city to opeiate in a manner which. yentiaiices, (rather than
detracts from), the orderly development oftlie Crty. RN
Objective 18.1. To continue to enhance and maintain the qualiry of surface water, ground
%
water, and shoreline resources in the qty_ari d Region. ,
_
•
Policies: . .
EN-1 The Ciry shawseek to ensure adequate and healthful supplies of
domestic water by protecting groundwater from degradation, by
v A~_
providng for~,a``surface water infiltration, by minimizing or
prohibihng ;~unnecessary withdrawals of groundwater and by
prevgntmg~unintended groundwater discharges caused by
~distuibance,ofwater-bearing:geological formations.
E1~-2c~~ Stoimwater drainage improveinent projects that are proposed to
discharge to groundwater, such as open water inf ltration ponds,
shall provide for surface, water pretreatment designed to
'\:k,:Y standazds outlined in the Washington State Depaztment of
Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western
. Washington. Drainage improvement projects that may, potentially
result in. the exchange of surface and ground waters, such as
detention ponds, shall also incorporate these standards.
EN-3 The City shall seek to minimize degradation to suiface :water
quality and aquatic habitat of creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, ;lakes
and othet water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of
such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to
preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of such waters by ,I~~ zoio
Delete& v
Page 9-2
-
I Draft2011
Environment
requiring the use of current Best Management Practices for
control of stormwater'and nonpoint runoff.
EN-4 The City will regulate anynew storm water discharges to creeks,
streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies with the goal
of no degradation of the water quality or habitat of the receiving
waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the
water quality and habitat of receiving waters.
EN-5 T'he City Shoreline Master Program, shall govern the
development of all designated Shorelines of the City,,(Map 9.1).
Lands adjacent to these areas should be managed iriPa manner
consistent with that program. . ~ ~
~
EN-6 Where possible, streams and river banks should be,.kept in a
natural' condition, ancl degraded streambank Ws should be enhanced
or restored.
J
r s"
• EN-7 Uses along the Green and Whrte Rivers `should be limited to
residential, agricultural, open space,~recreational, mineral
resource extraction and'Npubiic - and quasi-public uses.
Commercial developmenAhall`only be allowed. on the rivers, if
such development~adiis new~public access to the shoreline azea
and is constructetl',in,a manner that will protect the shoreline and
water quahtyF pf the iiirers through the use of Best Management
Practices.
EN=8 Storm e r~ramage~~structures and facilities located within tlie
shoreline eri~v onment, pazklands, or pu6lic open sp'ace shall
incorporatkhigh standazds of design to enhance the natural
° appeaiance; protect significant cultural resources and appropriate
p~ use~of the site and surrounding area. Any such facilities located
within the shoreline environment shall be consistent with the
~
kM Sfate Shoreline Management Act and the . City's Shoreline
anagement Program. If accessible to the general public, such
facilities should, whenever possible, be designed to preclude the
need for security fencing, and should use native vegetation and
be properly maintained.
EN-9 The City shall discourage the use of sepric tanks except in those
areas which are designated for Residential Conservancy_and have
suitable soils.
Page 9-3
I Draft201L
~
Environment
EN-10 The City's design stanclards , shall ensure that the post
development peak storcnwater runoff rates do not exceed the
predevelopment rates.
EN-I 1 The City will seek to enswe that the quality of water leaving the
City is of equivalent quality. to the water entering. T'his will be
accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface
and ground waters through. education programs and
implementation and enforcement of Best Management Practices.
EN-12 The City shall continue to work with adjacent jurisdictions to
enhance and protect -water quality in the region.,,,through
coordinated and consistent programs and regulattons
EN-13 1'he City shall consider the impacts of new development on water
quality as part of its environmental review process and require
any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts` on fish resources
shall be a priority concern in such,reviews.
~
EN-14 The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to
enhance and protect water;quat. ity<as ~dictated by the City's Design
and Construction Staadacds~and the Washington - State
Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washingion ~In. all new development, approved water
quality treatmeiit measures that are applicable and represent the
best available science or technology shall be required prior to
dischazging storni waters into the City storm drairiage system or
into environmeiitally sensitive azeas (e:g. wetlarids, rivers, and
groundwater) EN-IS ~h"FCity iecognizes that new development can have impacts
M,'~nc~tading, but not limited to, flooding, erosion and decreased
water"quality on downstream communities and natural drainage
~ courses. The City shall continue to actively participate in
developing and implementing regional water quality planning
and flood hazard reduction efforts within the Green River, Mill
Creek and White River drainage basins. The findings and
recommendations of these regional efforts, including, but not
limited to, the "Draft" Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
for the Mill Creek Basin, the "Draft" Mill Creek Flood Control
Plan, the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement, and
the Mill Creek Water Quality Management Plan, sliall be
considered by the City as City programs and plans are developed
and updated. _
' ~odetied:.a~aeasoio
-
Page
I Draft 201 _
/
Environment
EN-16 The City recognizes the value and efficiency of utilizing existing
natural systems (e.g., wetlands) for storm water conveyance and
storage. However, these natural systems can be severely
impacted or destroyed by the uiioontrolled release of
contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems for
storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider the potential for adverse impacts through the enviionmental review ~
process. Impo.rtant natural systems shall not be used for storm
drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated
that adverse impacts:can be adequately mitigated to a less than
significant level
EN-17 . The_ City_recognizes that stormwater treatment ,facilrties,;do not
function effciently. unless maintained. The Criy 'shall strive to
ensure that public:and private stormwater collection,;detention
and treatment systems aze properly maintatned aticl functioning as
designed.
EN-17A Encourage the use of low impact development techniques in
public and private development p oVposals0
in order to minimize
impervious surfaces and impro.ve Water quality. _
Deleted: Objxave 18.2.. To connnue
g° • w mhhance and maintain the qualiry of air
. resources in the Ciry and ReBon.
.
4
Deleted: Po&cies
I _ , ~';W_ _ . . _ . . De~ted: EN-18 . "I'he Ciry shall seek W ~
sxws and mmmtain such ldvds of e'u
qualiry as will protect tium- healdi.
I -E - - - - - - - - - - - P+n'mt injurytoplm andmmimallife, I
pievem inj~uy to praperry, foster the I
~ comfort and convemence of inea ~
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - infiabitants, mmd facilitate the enjoymeut i
-
~ of t6e nanval athactioas of du msa i
' I DEIEtF.de EN-19 'lhe City will
~ 2 continue to support aiid roly on the
vffiious State, Fedaal and local proan
tn contmue to protcct md enhance
I
9uali1Y•
DeleEed: EN-20. The Ciry shall
I , - encou:age the retwtion of vegemtiam md i
encourage landscaping in order W provide ,
. ` 5lurinB of suspendad Pmtiticulates• ~
Objective 18.3. To continue to enhance, and maintain the quality of. land, wildlife and oe~etea: ~EN-21 _ The City shall 7
vegetative resources in: the Ci,ty: and region. support an inaeased role for public
sportarion as a me~s m reduce ~
locally generated air emissions. ~
, Deleted: EN-22 _ T7ie City shall ~
con9der thairrpacts of new developmmt I
on air quality as a pmt of iLs
mvimnmental review process and raquae ~
-Y ePPropn- mitiBatinB measu*a•
~ Ddeted: Ameaded 2010 ~
` Dele~l: Q
Page 9-5
I Draft 201
L
Environment
Policies:
EN-23 The Ciry shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing
the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and
groundcover; by promoting tHe design and development of
landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and
by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat.
EN-24 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats
(Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its enviionmental -
review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures.
Such mitigation may involve the retention of sigriificant habitats
and the use of native land§cape vegetation. ~T
. ~M\ EN-25 The preferred method of crossing a watercourse that has habitat
suitable for anadromous fish use;,Wthat has the potential to be
_ rehabilitated for fish use in the firturelis a"°-tindge. The use of
culverts shall be discouraged as a crossing method for such
watercourses. _Culvert systems may be~considered if streambeds
similar to natural chaniielcan be provided, no loss of
anadromous fish habitat wicxur or the cost of a bridge is
A~~
prohibitive as reasonable method of mitigation.
EN-26 The City shall work ui collaboration with other agencies, the
. developmen coriimumty and other affected or interested parties
to proteet!~Adentified wildlife corridors and encourage the
clusteruig -~of 'significant or adjacent resources to maintain
, aonnectivity of these systems. ~
Objective 18.4. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetland
resources in the City and region.
Policies '
EN-27 The City recognizes tlie important biological and hydrological
roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animaP habitat, .
protecting water quality, reducing the need for man-made flood
and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in
providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural,
opportunities. T'he City will consider these roles and functions 'in
all new development and will also pursue opportunities to
enhance the existing wetland system when these multiple benefits
can be achieved. ~m12010 ° Iodebea:
• Page 9-6
I Draft201L_
Envirooment
EN-28 The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of
biological and hydrological functions and . values to the
community depending on the size, complexity and location of the
individual system, and that the overall degree of functions and
values should be considered when reviewing proposals which
impact wetlands. In a similar manner, the levels of protection
afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its existing function
and values. The City sha11 continue to promote policies and
practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically
connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and
aquatic habitat.
,
EN-29 1'he City shall consider the impacts of new development on .the
quality of wetland resource§ as. part of its environmental review
process and sha11 reguire appropriate mit[gationPand, monitoring
measures of impoitant wetland areas;ka 4,Such mitigation may. involve conservation, enhancemeuf or,restoration or replacement
of_ impoitant wetlands,: and provisions' for appropriate buffering.
The goal of the mitigation, should be,46 net loss of wetland
functions and' values. A" permanent ' deed restriction shall be
placed on any wetlands creafed"or enhanced to ensure that they
are preserv ed in perpetuity
EN-30 Wetlands whicsl,aze associated with a river or stream, or provide
significant p7an~d ariiriial habitat opportunities are recognized
by `the City 9,",tlie most important wetland systems, and shall
receive .tlie;higti"~'es~t degree of protection and mitigation through.
conservahon;` enhancement or relocation measures.. Wetlands
~ ich , aze lunited in size, are isolated from major hydrological
- systems~or~provide l. imited hydrological or plant and animal
' hab~itat opportunities may be considered by the City for ,
development and' displacement in conjunction with appropriate
~
~iitigation.
EN-31 Speculative filling- of wetlands shall only be permitted if in
compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill
Creek, when it is adopted.
E14-32 It is the City's intent to pursue development of an area-wide
wetlands management program for the entire City to establish a
systems approach to wetlands management. The Gity shall work
with adjacent communities to adopt and implement the Special
Area M_ariagement Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Greek Basin, a draft _
version of which has been deve]oped with the U.S. Army Corps , I~~~ ~ma~a zoio ~
' odebed: ~
Page 9-7
( Dra-~-.........
Environment
of Engineers. The pwpose of the SAMP is to establish uniform
wetland definitions and methodology throughout the planning
azea, to develop a regional consensus and predictability by '
identifying important.wetlands which must be conserved and less
important wetlands which may be developed. The SANII' is
intended to ensure a balance of the City's commitrnent between
environmental and economic development interests. The City
shall strive to streamline the permitting process for development
in the areas covered by the SAMP.
~
Map 9.3: General Location of Wetlands
~
Map Note: This map provides an illustration of wetlands located.within
Aubum. Prepared on an area-wide basis, the inventorymap provides a
general delineation of lmown wetlands based on the U.S. Aimy Corps of
Engineers defnition and the 1989 Federal Ma~nual Forr~ Identifying and Delineating,Jurisdictional Wetlands field methodology:. ~It is important to
note that this map is only a wetland inveiitory and a a wetland plan.
Over time wetlands develop, expand and'°contractin conjunction with
changing climatic, natural and arnficial conditions.~
The map does not imply that a parceljc e"red by a wetland designation is
fully occupied by wetlands.:,It' is an ihowever, that an in depth
wetland delineation is reqnired. Therefore, future site specifia wetland
studies conducted by the propertyqowner will identify the precise location,
delineation and functional- characteristic§ of known wetland areas, and
additional wetland are~as~not previously inventoried. The Au6urn Planning .
Departrnent hasetland 'ieports that can 'provide informafion regarding soils,'hydrolqgy, vegetation and wildlife for these wetlands. '
. ~ ~ ~ , . .
Objective 18.5. , To 7ecog1 ze the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation
and to promoteIts retention and pmpagation. Consideration'shall be given
to promoUng tlie use of native vegetation.
Policies:
EN-33 The City recognizes the important benefiu of native vegetation
including its role in attracting native wildlife, preserving the
natural. hydrology, and maintaining the natural character of the
Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation cam also reduce the
use of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminants
that may enter neazby water systems) and reduce watering
. required of non-native species (thereby promoting con'"servation). The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation' as an a 2010
odetede ¶ 1
Page 9-8 ;
I Draft20] - - -
Environment
integral part of public and private development plans through
strategies thai include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes
and in public facilities.
o Providing greater clarity in development regulations in how
natiye plants can be used in private-development proposals.
o Pursuing opportunities to educate the public about the
benefits of native plants. `
EN-33A Development regulations shall emphasize. the use of native plant
materials that coinplement the natural chazacter of,.the Pacific
Northwest and which are adaptable to the' climatic trydrological
characteristics of the region. Regulations fs~hould A provide
specificity as to native plant'types in order to facilifate their use.
EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnecessary?disturbance of natural
vegetation in .new deyelopment.
°`"K~
EN-35 . The City shall encourage the use of water"c'onserving plants in
landscaping forboth, public and pnvatelpr~jects.
EN-36 The City sha11 update and~aineriti, its_landscaping ordinances to
ensure that sufficiefdlandscapmg°`is a required component of all
developmenL Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and
quantity of la~nflscaping F,4
EN-37 The City„ shalT'strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted at
protecting~.largestands of trees and significant trees within the
EN 38 ~e C'~ty~shall develop a tree planting and maintenance program.
Objective- 18.6. To promot'e energy efficiency and management of resources in the
development and operation of public facilities and services, as well as in
private development.
Policies:
EN-39 The City sha(1 encourage the use of renewable energy and other
natural resources over non-renewable resources wherever
practicable and~ shall protect deposits or supplies of important
non-renewable, natural resources from developments or activities
which will preclude_ their future utilization. ~
. ~ ue~eiee: ~~ava zmo I
Page 9-9
I Dra-------------'-
Environment
EN-40 The City of Aubum Energy Management Plan. is hereby
incorporated as an elerrient in this Comprehensive Plan.
EN-41 The City encourages site design practices that maximize winter
exposure to solar radiarion.
EN4L.A The City shall encourage and promote eneriz,y efficienc,y and
environmental qualitv bv supporting the use of alternative modes of power
for vehicles, especiallv those usinQ sustainable energv sources and
supportina a broad range of opportunities for rechar e of electric yehicles, -fndeoed by sm=tin88broM mge~
rn~t;es
Objective 18.7: Enhance and maintain the quality of life for the Citys~inhabitants by ofoppo - for .etcle ge.
pmmoting a healthy environment and reducing the adverse 'unpact of °ekftd: ¶
environmental nuisances. ~
Policies: EN42 The City shall seek to minimize the exposurt f area:inhabitants
to t he harm f u l e ffec t s o f ezcess noise,Te r form°ance measures foi
noise impact on surrounding devel`opment sl ould be adopted' and
enforced.
EN43 The .City shall seek to muiimi'zethe exposure of area inhabitants
to excessive levels.of liglit and,glare. Performance measures for
light and glaze exposure.to surcounding dev,elopment should'be
adopted and enforced.
EN44 The Crty, sha11 seek to minimize the exposwe of azea inhabitants .
~
frbm noxious plant.species.
. . sr g ~
xV
Objective 18.8. To establtsh~management policies which effectively control the operation'
and 1',loeaUoi~of mineral extraction in the City, in order to reduce the mhxerent adveise impacts thati such activities produce in an urban
,
~=:8 W
envrmnment. .
~
. .
Policies:.
EN-45 The cost effective availability of sand and grav,el materials is
needed to support the development of freeways, roads, public
works, and private construction. Mineral extraction may
therefore be permitted if in accord with these policies.
EN-46 Existing mineral extraction operations (as specifically authorized
by a Gity permit to mine) shall be allowed to continue operation
for the duration of, and in accord with, their existing peimits. ~Weted"Amenaed 2010
I
' oeteted: ¶
Page 9-10
I Draft201
- - - - -
Environment
EN47 Mineral extraction operations shall not be-considered a permitted
use in any zoning district. T1iey are to be reviewed as special
uses and shall be conducted only in accord with' the measures
needed to mitigate any adverse impact. Permits for the operation
shall be denied. whenever any impact is deemed by the City
Council to be unacceptable or cannot be acceptably mitigated.
EN-48 A final grading; drainage and erosion - control plan shall be
su6mitted with every application. Gonditions of operation shall
be spelled out in detail with performance bond.s Frequired to
ensure compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions will be
adequate grounds for suspension and sub'sequen# termination of
- the permit. . . °
EN-49 : The burden to demonstrate compliance w;t6 these policies and to
~..demonstrate the need for_a new permrt'or*renewal of a permit
, for any mineral extraction operation~rests olely on the operator.
The burden to operate in compliance with tliese policies and any
permit issued in 'accord with the saineAshall also be on the
operator.
EN-50 The City shall consider impacts~f mining on goundwater and
surface water qualrtyas well as possible changes in hydrology as
a result of the;mir►' g during the environmental review process
and r uu~e'` "eq appr~opriate`~mitigating measures to prevent water
quality degrailation.
Z.., ~
EN-51 Mineral res~,o ce. areas :or lands are those lands which have high
quahty resources that can be commercially mined for a minimum
` of twenty yeais (Map 9.4). Properties around which urban growth
accurring sHould-not be considered as mineral resource areas.
As required by RCW 36.70A.060, the C.ity sha11 require
notification on all plats, short plats, development permits and
'~building permits issued for development within 500 feet of these
lands, on which a variety of commercial activities may occw that
are not compatible with residential development for certain
periods oflimited duration. , .
EN-52 Additional mineral extraction operations or major expansion of
existing operations onto adjacent parcels. shall be permitted
within mineral resource areas. Impacts of the operations must be
studied thoroughly under the provisions of $EPA,. and the Gity
shall requue implementation of all reasonable mitigating
measures ideatified in those studies. Permits for the operation , I~~: AmdedZoio •
: : Page 9-11
I Draft 201 _ : - - - .
Environment
and renewal of permits for existing operations shall be denied
whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mitigated.
EN-53 Additional mineral extraction operations or expansions of
existing operations will only be allowed outside of mineral
resource areas where it is advisable to modify slope to create
usable land (or to provide another public benefit associated with
the site) and where the community will suffer no substantial short
-
or long term adverse effect. Impacts of the operations must be
studied thoroughly under the provisions of SEPA, and the City
shall require implementation, of all reasonable,, mitigating
measures identified in those studies. Permits for the~:operation
and renewal of permits for existing operations9.shall be:denied
whenever any impact cannot be acceptably mrtigatecl. EN-54 New mineral extraction operations and ~expansion of existing
mineral extraction operations will not bet}ermitted in azeas
designated for "open space" uses
EN-55 The creation of usable land consistent with this comprehensive
plan should be the end result~of a mineral extraction operation.
T'he amount of material to«beremoved shall be consistent with
the. end use. While this poli~ shall be rigidly applied to
developed areas,~~arid~,to all areas outside of mineral resource
azeas, somem. flexibility_ may be appropriate within mineral
resource areas
EN-56 Aesthehc 'qualrties, erosion control, the effect on community and
the-creation°of "usable land which. is consistent with approved
WasHington State Department of Natural Resowces and City
- Reci' amati~miPlans shall be . the primary considerations ina
~
%decsion to grant a permit for a new mineral extraction operation
extend the scope of ari existing mineral extraction operation
.
. outside designated mineral resource azeas.
GOAL 19. HAZARDS
"To minimize the risk from environmental and manmade hazards to present
and fufure.residents ofthe community.
Objective 19.1. To reduce potenrial hazards associated with flood plains without unduly
restricting the benefits associated with the continued developmenf of the
Lower Green River Valley floor.
~
Policies: coetied• .amenaea zo~o
ueleped: ¶ :
• ` - t
Page 9-12
. . r:,'/
I Draft 201 _ ;
Environmeot
EN-57 The City shall seek to protect human health and safety and to
minimize damage to the property of area inhabitants by
minimizing the potential for and extent of flooding or inundation.
EN-58. Flood prone properties outside of the floodway may be
developable piovided that such development can meet the
standards set forth in the National Flood Insurance Program.
EN-59 Any subdivision of `property within the flood plain shall avoid
creating lots which would be subject to serious threats to life,
health and property from floodwaters.
, . ~
EN-60 Site plan review shall be required under SEPA for;any significant
(e.g. over the SEPA threshold) development in the tlood plain.
Appropriate' mitigating measures shaW'be required whenever
needed to reduce potential hazards '
EN-61 Any development within the floodwaq; which would reduce the
capacity of the floodway shall be prohiliit~. '
.y
EN-62 The City -shall enact ordinaiices and review development
proposals in a mannet which'restrtricts and controls the dischazge
of storm water from new development. At a minimum the peak
dischazge ratex 'after 'development shall not exceed the peak
dischazge rate befo"re development.
EN-63 The City's~de„~velopment standards should require control and
manage~ of~stoim waters in a manner which minimizes
~unpa`cts fro~m flooding.
"
r:~-- ~ EN~ Y:The`~,wCity shall consider the impacts of new development on
frequently flooded areas (Map 9.5) as part of its environmental
~ review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures.
~ As part :of tliis revim process; flood engineering and impact
studies may be required.. Within FEMA d_esignated 100 year
floodplains, the City of Auburn Regulato .ry Floodplain, and other
designated frequently flooded azeas, such mitigatiori may include
flood engineering studies; the provision of compensatory flood
storage, floodproofing of strvctures, elevating of structures, and
downstream or. upstream improvements.
EN-65 Areas designated as frequently flooded areas should include 100
year future.condition floodplains wherever future condition flows _
-
• ~ celemde nmwaoa zoio
' Deleted: ¶
Page 9-13
I Drafi201L----------'- ,
Enviroomeot
have been modeled and adopted by the City as part of a basin
plan.
EN-66 Land uses and public and quasi-public facilities which would
present special risks, such as hazardous waste storage facilities,
hospitals, schools, nursing homes; : and police and fire stations,
should not be constructed'in designated frequently flooded areas
unless no reasonable alternative is available. If these facilities
are located in designated frequently flooded areas; these facilities
and the access routes needed for their ,operation, should be built
in a manner t}iat protects, public health and safety during at least
the 100 year flood. In addition; special measures shouldw,be talcen to ensure that hazardous or toxic substances aze~not released into
~
flood waters.
~
EN-67 Developers in floodprone areas shall!~,provi8e geotechnical
information which identifies.. seasonal~highgroundwater
• elevations for a basis to design ~ stormwater facilities in
conformance with City design cnteria
EN-68 The Mill Creek Basin Flood"Control Plan, when completed, shall
be the basis for the establishinent of downstream drainage
conditions for development in.thai'azea.
~
06jective 19:2. To ensure that development is properly located and constructed with
respect to the limitatioas of the underiying soils and subsurface drainage.
Policies
EN-69 'e1~he~Cftty ~shall seek to ensure that landnot be developed or otherwise modified in a manner which will result in or
. significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide,
subsidence or substantial soil. erosion. The City'§ development
°~;~tandazds shall dictate the "use of Best Management Practices to ,
minimize the potential for these problems.
EN-70 Where there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.6),
grading should be kept to a minimum and disturbed vegetation
should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for
clearing and grading activity.
" EN-71 . The City shall consider the impacts of new development on
hazards associated with soils and subsurface drainage as a part of I~!?~~~~ Zo~o~~,,,,~ I
Page 9-14
I Qra----------------------- - •
Environment
its environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigating measures.
EN-72 Large scale speculative filling and grading activities not
associated with a development proposal shall be discouraged as it
reduces - a vegetated site's natural ability to provide erosion
control and biofltration, a6sorb.storm water, and filter suspended
particulates. In instances where speculative filling is deemed
appropriate, disturbed vegetation shall be restored as soon- as
possible, and appropriate ineaswes to control erosion and
, sedimentation until.the site is developed shall be required. :
EN-73 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on:~Class
I and Class.III landslide hazard areas (Map 9:7)'"as part of its
Y
environmental review process and require anypropriate
, mitigating measwes. The impacts of theµitew development, both
m Y'3 , . . .
during and after con'stivction; on adjacent properties.shall also be
considered.
EN-74 Auburn will seek to retam areas witlt sPopes in excess of 40
percent as primarily open~space„areas m order to protect against
erosion and landslide hazards' and-to limit significant removal of
vegetation to help,_;~ conser`v"uburn's identity within the
metropolitan region~Slopes greater than 15 percent with zones of
emergent wat~ w(spnngs or ground water seepages) and all slopes
with mapable landslide~'potential identified by a geotechnical
stady shall be~~rotected from alteration.
T__,~.,.
EN-75 The ~Citywill'"require that a geotechnical report prepazed by a
~
professional engineer licensed by the State of Wasfiington with
~experttst~in geotechnical engineering be submitted for all
gnifcant activities proposed within Class I and Class III
landside hazard areas (Map 9.7). The City sha11 develop
` administrative guidelines. which identify the procedures and
~information required for the geotechnical reports.
EN-76 New development within Class I and Class III landslide hazard
areas (Map 9.7) shall tie designed and located to minimize site
disturbance and removal of vegetation, and to maintain the
natural topographic character of the site. Clustering of structures,
minimizing building footprints, and retaining trees and other
natural vegetation, shall be considered.
Objective 19.1 To reduce risks associated with the transporta,tion and storage of
~ ce~eeed: .a,~ma~a soio ~
hazardous materials.
Deleted:4 ~
Page 9-15
I Draft2=01~-------------------
Environment
Policies:
EN-77 The Ciry shall seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants
to the risk of explosion or hazardous emissions; and to require
proposals involving the potential risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances to include specific measures
which will protect the public health, safety and welfare.
EN-78 The risk of hazardous materials, substances and wastes shall be
incorporated into the City's emergency management programs. .
EN-79 New commercial (other than retail commercial) or indusffial uses
which involve the transpoR or storage of hazardous materials,
substances or wastes shall only 6e located in that pottion of the
designated . Region Serving Area of,~the ~Cifq ~ 6etween the
Bwlington Northern Railroad tracks and eastWof the West Valley
Highway. ~ 14h
~
EN-80 Any existing wholesale storage or manufacturing of hazardous
materials, substances or wastes ~~n tHe designated Community
; Serving Area of the C~ty;~or within 2000 feet of a school or
medical facility, shall, be consideied a non-conforming use and
The Ciry should as"sevely seek its removal.
EN-81 The treatment, storage, piocessing, handling and disposal of any
hazardous material, substances or wastes shall be only.,;in the
strictest'.omplianee with any applicable local, state or federal
law.,
EN-82 The~:Crty~ shall consider the impacts posed by new development
on risks associated with hazardous materials, substances and
. "r wastes as a part of its environmental review process and require
y appropriate mitigating measures.
an
EN-83 The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle/King
County, and the King County Solid Waste Interlocal Resolution
No. 90-001, are hereby adopted and incorporated as an element ,
of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
EN-84 The City's surface water, ground water, sanitary, and storm
drainage systems shall be protected from contamination by
hazardous materials or other contaminants.
: . ~ ceieeed: .a,menaea 20 10
~
ueleted:,~,,
Page 9-16
I Draft201 --y:~
Environment
EN-85 Use or removal of existing underground storage tanks shall only
be done in the strictest compliance with applicable local, state
' and federal law.
GOAL 20 POLICIES FOR PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED FISH
SPECIES
The City recognizes that anadromous Salmonids require clean, cool, well-
oxygenated water in adequate quantity for survival and especially dwing
the critical periods ofrearing and migration both before spawning and
after juveniles emerge. Salmonid eggs are highly affected during~;,,
incubation and hatching liy water temperature, flow velocity, watec',quality
and excessive turbidity. Streams composed of complex hatiitats witha
high proportion ofriffles ancl pools provide productiye spawnirig,habitats,
as well as juvenile rearing areas in eddying and off-channe"1 areas.
, Objective 20.1 To aid in the protection of listed and candidate"endanger d f sh species.
Policies:
. .
EN-86 The City will continue to pazhc.i.lpate and support the various
State, Federal and~Jocal programs. including Water Resource
.
Inventory. Area (WRIA) Na 9(Green River) and WRIA No. 10
(White-Stuck,River) to -rotect and.restore endangered species.
X'S
EN-87 The City shall,teek to rriinimize surface water quality and aquatic
habitat `d "~ation of creeks, streazns, rivers, :ponds, lakes and
r -
other~water"Ciodies; to preserve and eahance the suitability of
,such wate% bodies as habitat for restoration of endangered -
- spenies iP-t-
S"
88 The City shall obtain information during the review of
development proposals, as it relates to the Endangered Species
N~~Act, so that best management practices and best available science
aze considered . and included in the City's evaluation and
decision-making process.
EN-89 The City shall identify the types and qualities of aquatic
resources within its borders and further develop 'plans and
program for the protection and enhancement of these resources
based on their characteristics.
~ ne~~ea: .am~a zo~o - ~
ueletea: ¶ _ J
Page
I llraft201----------- -I,
Environment
GOAL 21 GENERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN AUBURN'S
SHORELINES
The following general policies and' regulations apply to all shorelines of
the state that are located in Auburn, regardless of the specific shoreline
environment designation in any one location.
Objective 21.1 Ensure conservation and restoration within Aubum's shorelines.
Polices:
EN-90 Prioritize enhancement and restoration efforts at`public par]cs and
public open space lands.
4s~ a
EN-91 Work with owners of other publicly o ed 3and to encourage
restoration and entiancement projects `
~
EN-92 Work with the publ►c and `other~nterested parties to prioritize
restoration opportunities ~ident fied in the Shoreline Inventory
and Charactenzation`Report : -Z,.~ -
~
EN-93 Promote vegetation restoiation, and the control of invasive weeds
and nonnative species to• avoid adyerse impacu to hydrology,
and reduce the hazard of s(ope>failwes or accelerated erosion.
EN-94 .qnt~agiate~b'ioengineering and/or soft engineering approaches, into
local and regional flood control measures, infrastructure, and
iela~ed capital improvement projects.
EN-95 Develop a program to implement restoration projects, including
funding strategies.
EN-96 Monitor and adaptively manage restoration projects.
EN-97 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County,
Watershed Resowce Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 and 10 Forums,
the Muckleshoot Tribe, and other governmental and non-
governmental organizations to explore how local governments : ~°e!eted`aAm`°dedzoio
uete~ede ¶
Page 9-18
-
I Draft20
Eovironment
(with their assistance) can best address the needs of preserving
ecological processes and shoreline functions.
EN-98 Continue to work with the State, King County, Pierce County,
Green River Flood Control Zone District, and the Inter-County
River Improvement Agencyto identify and implement flood
. management strategies that protect existing development and
restores floodplain and channel migration functions.
EN-99 Continue to work with the WRIA 9 and 10 Forums to~'restore
shoreline habitats and seasonal ranges that support lis"tedlt;;a
endangered and threatened species, as well as other.anadromous
9 -o~,
fisheries.
EN-100 Create incentives that will make it,economically or otherwise
ariractive to integrate shoreline ecological restoiation into
development pcojects: ~
~
~
EN-101 Bncourage restoration or enhanceinent of native riparian
vegetation through1mcentives%id non-regulatory programs.
~ ,
EN-102 Establish pub~lic,'education materials to provide shoreline
landowneis technical assistance about th'e'benefits of native
~
" vegetation p~'~IanUngs.
EN 103 Exploi pportunities with other educational organizationsand
°"~agencies to develop an on-going program of shoreline education
for all ages.
r~
EN-104 Identify azeas where kiosks and interpretive signs can enhance
the educational experiences of users of shoreline areas.
EN-105 Develop strategies to fund shoreline-related educational and
interpretive.projects. Objective 21.2 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.
Polices: a zoto ~ ~ .
Del~ed: ¶
Page 9-19
I Draft20TL----------------------------------------------
;
Environment ,
EN-106 Developments and activities in the City's shoreline should be
planned and designed to retain native vegetation or replace
shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net loss of .
the ecological fiinctions and ecosystem-wide processes
performed by_vegetation.
EN-107 Woody debris should be left in river corridors to enhance wildlife
habitat and shoreline ecological functions, except where it
threatens personal safety or critical infrastructure, such'as bridge •
pilings. In such cases where debris poses a threat, it should be
_ dislodged, but should not be removed from theriver.
Objective 21.3 EnvironmentalImpact Mitigation.
Polices:
~
EN-108 All shoreline use and development should be carried out in a
manner that avoids and minunizes adverse impacts so that the
resulting ecological s'conditions do not become worse than the
cwrent condition °`.~'his means assuring no net loss of ecological
~
functions and processes and protecting critical areas designated
in Appendixl'A, Chapter°,16.10 "Critical Areas" that are:located in
the shoreli e"`Should a proposed use and development
otential ~
p ly,create ,~significant adverse environmenfalimpacts not otherwise : avoided or mitigated by compliance with the 'master
.pro ~gram, the Director should require mitigation measures to
~ i et loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Objective 21.4 Crrttcal AtMas~V
Policies: .
EN-109 Provide a level of protection to crirical areas within the shoreline '
that is at least equal to that which is provided by the City's
critical areas regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth
Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan.
EN-110 Allow activiries in critical areas that protect and, where possible,
restore the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of
the Ciry's shoreline. If conflicts between the SMP and the critical
cdeeede q
Page 9-20 '
I Draft201 , " .
Environment
area regulations arise, the regulations that are most consistent
with the SMA or its WAC provisions will govem.
• EN-111 Preserve, protect,.restore and/or mitigate wetlands within and
associated with the City's shorelines to achieve no net loss of
wetland area and wetland functions. -
EN-112 Developments in shoreline areas that are identified as
geologically hazardous.or pose a foreseeable risk to people and
improvements during tlie iife of the development should not be
allowed.
Objective 21.5 Public Access (including yiews). °
g~. ~
•
Policies:
_
EN-113 Public access impTOVements should not result in adverse impacts
t.~
W the natural` chaazacter~zand quality,a of the shoreline and
:
- associated wetlands or result;ana;net:loss of shoreline ecological
functions. Developments and activities within the shoreline
should not. impau or detract from the public's visual or physical
access to the water.
EN-114 Protection .and enhancement of ttie public's physical and visual .
access to shoreIines should be encouraged. .
EN-115 The ainouiit and diversity of public access to shorelines should be
' ~:increased -fnwmer- consistenL with the natural shoreline
character, property rights, and public safety.
4/
~
A ~
EN 1`16 ~ Publicly owned shorelines should be lirriited to water-dependent
n or public recreation uses,. otherwise such shorelines should
, remain protecteci, undeveloped open space.
EN-117 Public access should be designed to provide for public safety.
Public access facilities should provide auziliary facilities, such as
parking and.sanitation facilities, when appropriate, and should be
designed to be ADA accessible. ~
• ~ ceieeed• nmenaoa 2010 ~
Page 9-21 ,
I Draft 2014
Environment
Objective 21.6 Flood Hazard Reduction.
Policies:
EN-118 The City should manage flood protection through the City's
Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage P1an, Comprehensive Plan,
stormwater regulations, and flood hazard area regulations.
EN-119, Discourage development within the floodplains associated with
the City's shorelines that would individually or cumulatively
result in an increase to the risk of flood damage.
. , ~ . : .
EN-120 Non-structural flood hazard reduction measures should be given
preference over structural measwes 0'Sirucdual flood, hazard
~:r~~~
reduction measures should be avoided whenev,er possible. When :
necessary, they should be accomplished~in,a_rrianner that assures no net loss of ecological function `and ecosystem-wide processes.
Non-structural measures i s;nclude setbacks, land use controls
prohibiting or limitmg development m areas that. have--are
historically flooded, stortnw~er management plans, - or
, bioengineering measures.
EN-121 Wtiere possible, public access sh'ould be integrated into publicly
financed flood control and management facilities.
~
~
Objective21.7 Water Qualrty;`Stocm Water and Non-Point Pollution.
Policies
E~
~4~ ~ EN-122 ylfie City should prevent impacts to water quality.and storm water
quantity that would result_in a net loss of shoreline ecolqgical
functions; or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or
' recreational opportunities.
EN-123 Stotm water management treatment, conveyance, or discharge
facilities should be discouraged in the shoreline jurisdiction;
unless no other feasible alternative is available.
~l
~ pdeead: AmmaQa 2010
ndeeea: ¶
Page 9-22
I L?raft201 -
Environment
EN-124 Low impact development techniques that. allow for greater
amount of storm water to infiltrate into the soil should be
encouraged to reduce storm water run-off.
EN-125. Encourage conservation of existing shoreline vegetation which
provides-water quality protection by slowing and filtering storm
water ivr►-off.
Objective 21.8 Educational and Archeological Areas and Historic Sites.
Policies:
EN-126 Where possible, Educational and Archeolo"gical ~Areas and
Historic sites in the shoreline should be pe;manently preserved
for scientific study, education, and public observation.
~
EN-127 Consideration should be "°=grven,v ta~~~the National Historic .
Preservation Act of 1966 an,d:Chapter 43.51 RCW to provide for
the protection, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of
districts; ' sites, buildings, stnictures and objects located or
associated with'the `shoreline that are. significant in American,
Washington~ " d.~, local:: history, architecture, archeology • or ,
culture
~
EN-128 VWtiere feasible and appropriate, access trails to shorelines should
~~~ca~orate,~ access 'to educarional signage aclmowledging
~
~~protected, historical, cultural and archeological sites, or areas in
~'~~the ~oreline.
Objective 219 Nonconforming Use and Development Standards.
Policies:
EN-129 Legally established uses and developments that predate the
Ciry's Shoreline Master Program (1973, as amended) should be
allowed to-continue as legal nonconforming uses provided that
future developmentr or redevelopment does not increase the
degree of nonconformiry with this program.
•eeee:n-aeazoio ~
,,,,,.,o. .
' Dele6ed: y
.
Page 9-23 .
I Draft2014------------
Environment
GOAL 22 SHORELINE MODIFICATION
Shoreline modifications are generally relaxed to construction of a physical
element such as a levee, bulkhead, or pier at or near the edge of a river or
extending into the channel. Other modification actions include dredging,
filling, or vegetation clearing. Modifications are usually undertaken in
support of or in preparation for an allowed shoreline use or development.
Objective22.1 ProhibitedModifications
Ttie following shoreline modifications are prohibited in all shoreline environments unless addressed separately in this shoreline maste program
under another use:
1. Breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs:
2. Dune modifications; and Ar
~
3. Piers and 'docks. Objective22.2 Dredging,Dredge Material DisposaL~°~~~ .5P
Policies:
~
EN-130 Dredging and dredge aterial disposal should be done in manner
which avoids or~minimizes significant ecological impacts. Where
impacCS: caanot be avoided, mitigation measures are required that
~
result m,no,net~oss of shoreline ecological functions.
EN 131 Dredge spo l disposal in water bodies, on shorelands, or wetlands
F~wAin 'a river's channel migration zone should be discouraged,
ezcept as needed for habitat improvement.
EN-132 New development sha11 be sited and designed to avoid or, if that
is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance
dredging:
Objective22.3 Piers and Docks.
Policies:
. ~ ce~etied: ~~aoa soio ~
Deb"& 4 -
Pagn9-14: ;
Draft201'----------------------------------------------
Environment
EN-133 The City should discourage the construcrion of new piers, docks,
or floats in the shoreline jurisdiction along th'e Green and White
- Rivers.
Objective 22.4 Shoreline Stabilization (bulkheads and revetments).
Policies:
EN-134, Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or
increased shoreline stabilization on the same 'or other affected
properties where there has been no previoush'need for
stabilization, should be discouraged.
NN
EN-135 New shoreline uses and development sketild~be locaLed away
from the shoreline in order to preclude` the need for new
stabilization structures.
EN-136 Structural' or "hard" shoreline- stabil~zafion tectiniques and
structures should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that
non-structural or `~scift" shoreline protection measures are not
40
feasible
EN-137 The cumulativeweffect of allowing bulkheads or revetments along
river segmsnts should be evaluated. If it is determined tliat the
cumulative~effects of bulkheads or revetmeats would have an
, ve~e eff„ect on shoreline functions or p"rocesses, then permits
~a for<~hein~should not be granted. '
EN 138 Bullcheads should not be permitted as a solution to geo-physical
~
}iroblems such as mass slope failure, sloughmg; or land slides.
Bulkheads and revetments . should only be: approved for the
purposes of protecting existing developments by preventing bank
erosion by the, rivers.
06jective 22.5 Clearing and Grading:
Policies:
~ne~eoed:n~a~12010 oeletede 1f ~
Page 9-25
.
I DraR?O1L----------------------------------------------
Environment
EN-139 Clearing and grading activities should only be allowed in
association with a permitted shoreline development. ,
EN-140 Clearing and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum
necessary for the intended development, includirig residential development.
Objective 22.6 Fi1L
Policies:
$F
EN-141 Fill placed waterwazd of the OHWM should be prohiliited and
only allowed to facilitate water dependen# usekt?e`storation
projects.
~EN-142 Where permitted, fill should be the mmunum necessary to
provide for the proposed u"d st ould`'be permitted only when
~
tied to a specifc development proposal that is permitted by the
Shoreline Master Program.
d0; ~x
EN-143 The penmete`_r~of fill activities should be designed to avoid or
eliminate erostori and sedimentation impacts, both during initial
fill activrties and over time.
Objective 22.7 ShorelincHabitatand Natwal Systems Enhancement Projects.
P licies
EN-1 d All proposed shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement
_ projects should assure that the activities associated with each
project address legitimate restoration needs and priorities and
facilitate implementation of the Restoraxion Plan developed with
this Shoreline Master Program pursuant to WAC 173-26-
201(2)(f)-
GOAL 23 SHORELINE USE
I ceiema: Ammaoa 20 10
DeleW:9
Page 9-26
I raft201---------- •
Environment
Shoreline use activities are developments or activities that.exist or are
anticipated to occupy shoreline locations.
Objective 23.1 Prohibited Uses within the Shoreline Environment.,
Policies: ,
EN-145 The following uses should be prohibited in all shoreline
environments unless addressed separately in this the Shoreline
Master Program under another use: See Section 1-2 of the
Shoreline Master Program for definitions of the following uses:
I. Boat houses; • ~ ~
2. Commercial development;
3.. Forest practices; e ~
~
4. Industrial development; 5. New or expanded minmg; and-"
6. Permanent solid waste`sto~rage or transfer
• ~~~i .
~
Objective 23.2 Agriculture 4Policies: 4~ "
EN-146 lfiis Pragram allows for existing, ongoing agricultural activities
. ~ , `r
while also ° am~aming shoreline ecological fiinctions and
, processes
EN-147 Agricultural activities that do not meet the definition for existing
and origoing agricultural activities should not be allowed in the
t=~ slioreline. ' . -
EN-148 Appropriaie farm management techniques and new development
constcuction shbuld 6e encouraged to prevent contamination of
nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant, fish,
and animal life from fertilizer, herbicides and pesticide use and
application.`
EN-149 A vegetative buffer should be encouragedto be placed and , J~~; ,~;~a~a
maintained between agricultural larids and water bodies or Deleted: ¶-"100610°°°
Page 9-27
, I Draft 2014 -
Environment
wetlands in order to reduce hannful bank erosion and resulting in
sedimentation, enhance water quality, provide shade, reduce
flood hazard, and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
EN-I50 Public access to the shoreline should be encouraged where it does
not conflict with agicultural activities.
EN-151 Proposals to convert agricultural uses to other uses should
comply with all policies and regulations established by the
Comprehensive Plan and this Master Program for said„uses and
should not result in a nef loss ofecological functions
Objective 23.3 Aquaculture
Policies:
rg 4,
P ~
EN-152 Aquaculture is a water-dependent use, and when consistent with
~ ~
. control of pollution and avo. ~dancetof adverse impacts to the
environment and preservati n of xtiabitat for resident native
species, is, an acce~-
ed use of the shoreline. d '
EN-153 Development of aqua~cuiture facilities and associaxed activities,
such as hatciieries and fish counting stations should assure no net
loss to shorelme ecological func_tions or processes. Aquacultural
facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread
dtsease to'native aquatic life, establish new non-native species
which-cause significant ecological impacts, or signifcantly
impact ttie=aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
i ~
EN=154 Since locations for aquaculture activities are somewhat limited
ar►d require specific water quality, temperature, oxygen content,
and adjacent land use conditions, and 6ecause the technology
associated with some forms of aquaculture is still experimental,
some latitude should be given when implementing the
regulations ofthis section, provided that potential impacts on
existing uses and shoreline ecological functions and processes
are given due consideration. Experimental aquaculture projects
should be monitored and adaptively managed to maintain
shoreline ecological functions and processes.
Objective 23.4 . Boating Facilities.
• I ceieted• ~~aea soio
Delebed:
Page 9-28
Draft201~'--------- •
- -
,
Environment
Policies:
EN-155 Boating facilities should not be allowed unless they are _
accessible to the general public or serve a community.
EN-156 New boat launching ramps should be allowed only where they
are located at sites with suitable env"vonmental conditions,
shoreline configurations, access and neighboring uses. ,
~
~
EN-157 Development of new or modifications to existing boa1°sunching
ramps and associated and accessory uses should not resultin a
net loss of shoreline ecological functions or other significazit
adverse impacts.
Objective 23.5 In-Stream Structural Use.
~
Policies:
~w
EN-158 Approval of applications for in stream structures should require
inclusion of ptovisions for the protection and preservation of
ecosystem-wide proc sses, ecological functions, andcultural resources, includmg;mbut not limited to, fish and fish passage,
wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydro
geological processes, and"natural scenic vistas. ,
EN-159 The~locaUo~i an~ d~planning of in-stream structures:should give _c~onsideration to the full range of public interests, watershed
'1Zfunctfions-an": d processes, and environmental concems, with
~ µ=:,,spe~cia1 emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and
~
~ species.
EN-160 Non-strvctural and non-regulatory methods to protect, enhance,
and restore shoreline ecological functions and processes and
other shoreline resources should be encouraged as an alternative
to structurai in-§tream structures.
Objective 23.6 Mining. ,
Policies:
• ~ oe~emdp ,4menaea zoio
DeleEed: ¶ ~~~N~~~
Page 9-29
I Draft201
Eovironment
EN-163 Limit mining activitiesneat the shoreline to existing mining uses.
Objective 23.7 Recreation. _
Policies:
EN-162 Prioritize shoreline recreational development that provides public
access, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the
State over otlier non water-oriented recreational use§.
EN4-63 Shoreline areas with the potential for providing recreation or;
public access opportunitie's; should be identified foithhis use`and,
wherever possible, acqu'ved and incorporated into th~,Public '
:
Park and open space system..
~ ~
.
.
~
. ~
EN-164 Public recreational facilities should°be located` ,v,.designed and
operated in a manner consLStent with the puipose of the
.
environment designation m~whiclr'they~ire.located and such that
no net loss of shoreline ecological,functions or ecosystem-wide
processes result
: .
EN-165 The coordmation of local; state, and federal recreation planning
should be en
couraged so as to mutually satisfy needs. Shoreline
recreaf o ai,devet,opments'should be consistent with the City's
Comprehen§ive ~Plan and Parks; Recreation and Open Space
Plan E .
~
ell
EN-166 Recreational development should not interfere with public use of
~ navigable waters.
Objective 23.8 Residential Development.
Policies:
EN-167 New over-water residences, including floating homes, are not a
preferred use and should be prohibited.
ceietea Ammaeazoio
Iceteoea: I,,,,
Page 9-30
,
I Draft201
Environment
EN-168 New mulriunit residential development and land subdivisioas for .
more than four parcels should provide community and/or public
access in conformance to the City's public access pl'anning and.
this Shoreline Master Program. Adjoining access shall be
considered in making this determination.
EN-169 Accessory deyelopment (to eithermultiple family or single
family) sliould be designed and located to blend into the site as
much as possible.
EN-170 New residential development should avoid the need far new
shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures that
« y
would cause significant impacts to other properties oi;public
improvements or a net.loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Objectiye 23.9 , Signs.
s9
Policies: „p
F
k~~~ ~
EN-171. Signs should be des,igned, constructed and placed so that they are
compatible with the natural qu~al ty of the shoreline environment
4V and adjacent lan,d and;water uses.
Objective 23.10 Transportation. ~
~O~ , O&.
Policies: ~Y~
~ ~~.EN- :7Z,,~FTan, locatie, design and where appropriate construct, proposed
.~~aad~. non-motorized systems and parking facilities where routes
Il have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile
oreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline
N~`~
functions or adversely impact existing or planned
water-dependent uses. Where other options are available and
feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within
shoreline jurisdiction.
EN-173 The number of river crossings should be minimized,.
. ~ ne~eted .~a~a zoio~
¶,„e4oo°4a~
Page 9-31 '
I Draft 201L
Environment
EN-174 Parking facilities in shorelines are not preferred and shall be
allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use and then
as remote from the shoreline as possible.
EN-175 Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along the White and Green Rivers wherever possible.
EN-176 Joint use of transportation corridors within the shoreline
jwisdiction for roads, utilities, and non-motorized transportation should be encouraged.
EN-177 New railroad corridors should be prohibited.
Objective 23:11 Utilities.
.
Policies:
~
EN-178 Utility facilities should' be`'~esigned and located to assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological fimctions, preserve the natwal
landscape and vista"s;;preserve and protect fish and wildlife
habitat, and mmimize cqnflicts with present and planned land
and shoreline uses:
EN-179 Pnmary utility~production and processing facilities, such as
~~~power planis; sewage treatment plants; water reclamation plants,
or ~.of`those facilities that aze non-water-oriented should not
~ be'allowed in shorelineazeas.
EN-180-
,,Utilities should utilize existing transportation and utilities sites,
rights-of-way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of
rights-of-way and corridors should be encouraged.
- EN-181 Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as
power lines, cables, and pipelines, shall be located outside ofthe
shoreline area where feasible. Where no other oprion exists,
utilities sfiould be placed underground or alongside or under
bridges.
~ odepm: nnmanaoa
oeleEad: ~
Page 9-32
I Draft201-------------------- '
Environment
EN-182 New utilities facilities should be locafed so as not to require
extensive shoreline protection structures.
EN-183 Where storm water management, conyeyance, and dischazge
facilities are permitted in the shoreline, they should be limited to
the minimum s.ize, needed to accomplish their pwpose and should be sited and designed in a manner that avoids; or mitigates
adverse effects to the physical, hydrologic, or ecological
functions.
}
EN-184 Stormwater conveyance facilities should utilize existing ,w
- transportation and uUlity sites, rights-of-way and comdors,
whenevei possible. Joint use of right-of-way and omdors
should be encouraged. ,
ude6ed: ¶
GOAL 24' CLiMATE PROTEGTION AND A1R UAi.1TY`~~
In 2009, the City Council adonted Resolution No. 4477 resolviniz to join Formatoed: indern: r.eft: o^
ICLEI - Local Govemments for Sustainabilitv (IGLEi) andpledging that
the City of Auburn would undertal.ejCLEF,s fuemilestones approach to reduce greenhouse gas and:air.jollution,emissions..ln 2010, the Citv
compieted an inventorv of,l»"h municipalrand corrimunitv greenhouse cas
emissions usinQ a 2008,base year. The inventory, entitled Greenhouse Gas - Formateea: No underiine
Inventory for rthe CiW5~6f ,4aburnWashinaton, included base Year
estimates of greenhou e°~gas emissions and emissions forecasts for yyears
2015 and 2020. The jnveritorV was adopted as a policv backeround
document foc the"CitP@f'~,4uburn Comprehensive Plan (see
Comprehensiue Plan Appendix B). •~g-- . 4~
The is oprotect human health, private propeny, public infrastructure,
.t ~
the sier► ~fican`rviews and v-isu-al aesthetics of, from and within the Ciry, the
longterrfi,economic healtfi ofxhe Citv and retion, and to preserve the
aualit~Zof life en,joved within the Citv by maintainina air quality, and
addressing both the causes and effects of climate chan2e.
Ob'ective 24.1. To reduce areenhouse aas emissions from all activities within the Ci of• - Formatted: Justified, ind txft:
. Auburn and to miti~?ate the impact of climate chang~bv fullv -l.s^
implementina the ICLEI `Five Milestones' to reduce greenhouse Qas
emissions..
POliCies: Formatted: Inderd: Left: 0"~
~ DdeEed: Ammdcd 2010
, . . . . . . .
• Delebed:9
_ Page 9-33
I Draft201
Environment
EN-185 The Citv shall establish emission reduction targets for municipal Fonnamed: inaern: Lert: o^ ~
and communitv greenhouse gas.emissions.
EN-186 The Citv shall develop a Climate Action Plan that details the
policies and actions that the Citv will take to reduce areenhouse
gas emissions and achieve its emissions reducfion tareets. '
EN-I87 The Citv shall ensure that appropriate ereenhouse gas emission
reduction strateQies and actions are emploved witfi the Ci y of
- Auburn to achieve its emissions reductions targets bvIddonting
the policies and implementing the measures containedinAhe
Climate Action Plan.
EN-188 The Citv shall conduct onoine monitorine=.to..evaluate proress
on the implementation of ineasures:to-red e oi avoid
greenhouse =as emissions and meet the:Citv's emissions
_ reductions taraets. ~ „4,
. ~
A?~
Obiective 24.2.. To continue to enhance and mainfain the:>:ualitv of air resources in the
~
Citv and Reaion:
~
~ Policies:
EN-189The City shallseek to - -secure and maintain such_ levels of air- _ . - ndetad: .
qualitv as' llprotect: human health, prevent injurv to plant and '
aninial lifeg p event injury to propertv, foster the comfort and conv nience of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjovment of `
l Nthe4a2ra"'ttractions of the area.
EN-190 T7ie Citv will continue to support and rely on the various State,
Federal and locaf pro,rarris to continue to protect and enhance air
~ ualitv.
EN-191 The Citv shall encourage the retention of vegetation and.
encourage landscaping in order to provide filterine of suspended
ar[ip cullates•
EN-192 The Ciri shall support an increased role for publictransbortation
as a means to reduce locallv generated air emissions.
• ~ ueie~,ea:..~~ae12610
~
.
. ,
: ueleted
; ;
. Page 9-34
Lhaft201 ;
Environment.
EN-193 The Citvshall_consider the impacts of new_develonment on air
quality as a.part of its environmental review process and require
anv appropriate mitigating measures.
. ~
.
>
Q4,
AIr ~
~ ,
~ .
%
. ~ oe~eoed: .amenae12010 Page 9-35
I
i
lSee nap-es 14-20-throueh 74-22 for chanPes related tn snecial nlan areas --'Fmmaeeed: Forrt: italic ~
and nages 14-25 "throuPh 14-28 for chanpes related to economic
develownent sndteev areas.l - t wrmaited: Fom: itaiic
CHAPTER 14
COMPIaEHENSIVE PLAliT M
`
. ,
Y~
~
~w
Introduction
The previous chapters presented the goals, objechves"artd policies intended
gmprehensive Plan
to guide Aubum's futuie physical development~ Thq~
Map presented in this chapter (Map:l4.l)' apphes,rtiose policies to the
various areas of the City, by indicating the appropriate locations for
various categories of land use: The Plan JVtap should be; consulted together
with the written policies of t6is P116whe decisions about land use and
public faciliiy developmentai conside~red~
N,
This chapter also ezplams ttie::
'Teasoning and intention behind tlie Plan
-
Map's land use desi'gnations. This should be useful in developing and
applying `iinplementmg~ tools (such as .zoning provisions); for interpreting
the Plan Map as it appltes, to specific regulatory decisions or development
proposals,~and madjusting or amending the Plan 1VIap when changing
condrtioas orn -le markets warrant.
Finally, this citapter sets, forth some special policie§ intended to deal with
the unique~problems or.opportunities that exist, in certain specific locations
a~~~ ~
wrthin~yAuburn. These specific policies supplement the general goals,
objectives and policies of earlier chapters.
Land Use
Designations: Ptan Map
Residential Categories ,
Residential Conservancy
~ oeiet,ea: Ammaea zoo's I
• Page 141
,~raft 2011 ,1
Chapftrl4 I
Purpose: To protect and preserve. ` natural areas with signifcant.
environmental constraints or values from urban levels of developmentand
to protect the Ciry's water sources.
Description: This category should consist primarily of low density
residential uses (with densities not exceeding one unit per four acres) in
. azeas with environmental constraints and/or azeas requiring special
protection such as the City's watershed, which is a significant waier
resource. Examples include the Coal Creek Springs watershed area and
low-lying areas along the Green River that are isolated from' urban
services. From a practical standpoint, this watershed' area cannot be readily
served by. public facilities due to its. physical separation from public
facilities by an existing gravel mine operation that is expected`to continue
operation yeazs into the firture. T'he designation will serve-tolboth protect
environmental features and hold areas for higher density development until such time public facilities become available. ~
The area designated "residential conservancy~" allows~for a lifestyle similar
' to that of rural' areas since the lower density" established protects the
critical areas such. as the City's Coal16reek=.Sp`gs watershed. A rural
lifestyle generally includes allowance f f oa m animals, streets not urban in.
character, (e.g. no sidewalks,:street-iights); and limited agricultural type
llSCS.
Compatible Uses: Low densit}~`residential uses consistent with protecting
the City's water resowces and environmental constraints are appropriate.
Low intensity cottage iridustry appropriate for.rural azeas may be allowed,
subject to revi w~'aWarious. public and' quasi-public uses which. are
7
consistent with a~i al`character may be permitted as'conditional uses.
Resource extractNe,1uses can only be allowed if the basic environmental
character of~the area is preserved. gg, -
Those, areas with critical areas shall be appropriate for low density
~s,
residantaal; with the intent to protect environmentally critical areas from impacts associated with more intensive development: These,
environmentally critical areas..area valued as a community resource,.both
for conservation purposes and public enjoyment; provided that the .
environmentally critical areas area protected, low density single family
residential_ use may be appropriate.
Criteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to _ areas
with either significant environmental values worthy of protection or to
those azeas which may pose environmental hazards if developed, such as
areas tributary to public water sources. It may also be appropriate, to a ,
limited extent, as a means of delimiting the edge of the Ciry or to areas
, I pele.te* ~a~a zoo9 I
. .
, -
,
Page 14-2 ,
a~-~ -
Comp. Plaq I
Map
that are impractical to develop to urban levels until a latertime period due
to pre-existing development pattems and the absence of public facilities.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Due to the costs of
. proyiding City services to these areas, this designation should be applied
sparingly. It should be applied as a means of conserving :s,ignificant
enviionmental resources, to achieve watershed protection. and/or fo azeas
where development served by public facilities has been made impractical
due to pre-existing use patterns.
Appropriate Implementation: The RC (residential conservancy) district
will implement this designation.
` ,L
~
Single Family' ~ .
Purpose: To designate and protect areas for piedominantlysingle family
dwellings.
Description: T'his category includes tho se areas t+eserved primarily for
single family dwellings. Implementing reg"ulations~,:should provide for an
appropriate range of lot sizes, clustered and,mixed'housing types as part of
a planned development. -
l~g ~ :
Compatible Uses: Single,~,ily residerices and uses that serve or support
residential development, suc.as " . schools, daycare centers, churches and
,
pazks shall be considered app"ropriate and may be perinitted on a
conditional basis. Ottt6~q public buildings and semi-public uses may be
permitted if desigtted and~ d out in a manner which enhances rather than
detracts from the resideniial character of the azea. In siting such uses,
however, special --"are shall be given to ensuring adequate parking,
landscaping,~and~~affic circulation with a minimum of conflict with
restdentiaFuses. ~Uses which generate significant traffc (such as large
cliurches) ~shoiild only locate on developed arterials in areas zoned for
instilutional. uses.
Intrusion of industrial uses into any of these single family areas shall be
prohibited. Only very limifed commercial uses such as home occupations
or strictly limited appropriate conditional uses can be allowed. ~
Planned developments should be favorably considered in these
designations in order to allow optimal flexibility. In providing such
flexibility, the emphasis should be on small alley-loaded lot single family
development, limited low density multifamily housing and a mixture of
types, and design diversity should be sought. Except where conditional
use permits have been previously ganted, alternate structure types should
Deiemed: a,mma~a 2009 ~
Page 14-3
aft2 1111
Chapter 14 I
not exceed more than 40 percent of the units, and alternative structures
should in most cases contain no more than four dwelling units each.
. However, where substantial offsetting community benefits can b.e
identified, such altemative structures may be allowed to contain more than
three units each.
Criteria for'Designation: Areas suitable for this designation include
those areas designated in goals and policies of this Plan as single family
areas. Consistent with those policies, areas within the Community Serving
Area of the City suitable for this category should be reserved for these
uses. This designation should also be applied to azeas adjacent to lower
density residential plan designations. It"
Considerations Against Applying this, Designation This designation
would not be generally appropriaie (although exceptions may exist) in the
following azeas: 6'
A
1. Areas with high volumes of tfiiough traffic.
~
2. Areas developed m ormorer appropriate under the Plan
policies for another Use
3. Areas wrthm the Region 5erving Area of the City.
k..
Appropriate Implementation ~Three zones may be used to implement
this category:
1) R 1 Permits dne dwelling unit per net acre. This zone is primarily
app~iei?; to °areas designated as urban separators under the King
~ .
County; Countywide Planning Policies where rezones from existing
densrties.(typically one unit per acre) are not allowed for a 20 year
. .
penod~and/or to azeas with significant environmental constraints. It
~~~A m~y.also be applied in limited instances to areas where greater
;;'densrt~es are limited by environmental constraints.
2) R-5: Permits 4-5 dwelling units per net acre. This zone is
intended to create a tiving environment of optimum standards for
single fainily dwellings. Duplexes are conditionally permitted
sabject to meeting infill residential design standards. It is intended
to be applied to the relatively undeveloped portions of the City,
azeas where existing development patterns aze consistent with the
density and upland azeas where greater densities would strain the
transportation system.
, J oeieted: .e,mma~a 2009 I
Pagft14-4 :
- - - - -
Comp. Pian I
Map
3) R 7: Permits5-7 dwelling units per net acre. This zone provides
for relatively small lot sizes. It may be applied to the older
neighborhoods of the City and reflects the typically smaller lot
. sizes found there. Application of this zone should be considered
for areas considered appropriate for a mix of housing types,
particularly in some of the Specia( Planning Areas as discussed
below.
Moderate Density Purpose: To provide a transition between single family residential areas
s,
and other more intensive designations, as well as other activities which
reduce the suitability of potential residential areas for single famii:y~uses
(such as high traffic volumes). In so doing, tliis designation will offer
opportunities for housing, types which balance residential aznenities with
~a
the need to provide economical housing choice; in a manner consistent
with conserving the character of adjacent single family~areas.
Description: Moderate density residentiail areas are planned to
N -
accommodate moderate densities of ;;varying residential dwelling types.
Appropriate densities in these areag shali;;ra ge from 8 to 10 units net per
~g
acre and potentially 16 units.per net acre,Jwhere properties have frontage
on an arterial or residenhal~"""collector'P-1Dwelling types would generally
range from single family7units°e to multiple-family dwellings, with larger '
structures ailowed the same overall density) where offsetting
community benefits can,,be identified. Structuies designed to be occupied
~r
by owner-managers shalfbe encouraged within this designation.
~
Compatible 'Uses ' Public and quasi-public uses that have land use
impactslsun~ar;to moderate.to high density residential uses aze appropriate
within':,th s`is~~ ategory., Also, uses which require access to traffic (such as
schools siid c rches) are appropriate for these areas. Caazefiilly developed
low intensity office, or residentially related commercial uses (such as day
care centers) can be compatible if developed properly. This designation
can include manufactured home parks.
Criteria for Designation: Areas particularly appropriate for such
designation aze:
1. Areas between single family residential uses and all other uses.
2. Areas adjacent to, or close to arterials' designated in the
transportation element.
3. Existing manufactured home pazks. ~ neietea: a,mena4a 2009 ~
Page 14-5 '
. 2011 •1
Ghapter 14 I
4. Areas sandwiched between higher intensity uses, but not directly
served by an arterial.
5. Urban infill areas not appropriate for single family uses but also
not capable of supporting higher density uses.
Considerafions Against Applying this Designation: Areas to generally
be avoided by moderate density residential designations include:
1. Areas surrounded by lower density uses.
2. Areas more appropriate for commercial or higher density ses due
to traffic or extensively developed public facilrties.
4,
3. Areas within the Region Serving Area$&signaied by this Plan
~
(except as otherwise providedby the Plan) C-~
4. Any azeas not planned to be served tiy water and sewer systems.
Appropriate Implementation This-designationcan be implemented by
. , ~
two zones:
f~
1) R-10: Permits 10Aweiling units per net acre. The zoning allows
single family dweli ngs and duplexes as permitted uses. Multiple-
family dwellings; some residential supporting uses, and
professional, o6ices as part of a mixed-use development may be
permitt ed as conditional uses:
2) R6 =P its 16 dwelling units per net acre. The zoning,allows
fora~varie,ty of housing types, include single family, duplexes, and
~ multiple-family dwellings and mixed-use development.
3) R: MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Community permits the
development of manufactured home pazks on property that is at
least 5 acres in size. The base density is 10 dwelling uriits per net
acre.
High Density.
Purpose: To provide an opportunity for the location o.f the most
economical forms of housing in azeas appropriately situated for such uses
under the policies of this Plan.
~ ceioeea:..e,mmaea 2609 ~
.
Page 14-6
ft 2011 '
Comp. Plan I
, Map
Description: This category shall be applied to those areas which are -
either now developed or are reserved for multiple family dwellings.
Densities may range fiom 16 to 20 units per acre. Dwelling types may
range from single family units to apartment complexes, and may include
manufactured home parks when located adjacent to major arterial streets.
Adequate on-site open space areas should be provided for all multi-family
developments. Densities exceeding 20 units per acre and special
developinent standazds may be authorized for senior housing projects,
within the Downtown area and within 1/4 mile of regional transit seryice.
Compatible Uses: Compatible uses aze similar to those idendfied under
the other residential categories, except higher intensrties of use may be
appropriate. Public uses and open spaces which tend to :yisuall;Aelieve
the high densiry character of these areas should be encouraged.;
. .~X
Criteria for Designation: In addition to azeas eady~(&veloped to this
density, this designation should be applied.only fieas which have or
may be most efficiently served with high capaci#y and:high quality public
services and facilities. Of particulaz concem is th~:piovision of adequate
traffic circulation, and this category-sha11 le applied"to areas"with `
developed arterial access: Other srting concern§ may include access to
commercial services and open-yspace amenrties. This category may also be
applied to azeas which aze~~threatened °with deterioration and multiple
family dwellings offer the potential for rehabilitation. '
AN
Considerations Agains#"'Applying this Designation: Areas not
appropriate_ for th~s;,~zone,yinclude azeas surrounded, withouf physical
separation; b lower intensity uses.
Appropnate~lm.plementation: T'his designation can be implemented by
two-ioars _
1) ~ RJb: Permits 16 units per net acre. The zoning allows for a
vanety of housing types include single family,' duplexes, and
mulriple-family dwellings and mixed-use developinent.
2) R-20: Permits 20 units per net acre and multiple-family residential
and mixed-use, development. Residential suppoiting uses and
. some professional offices are permitted as conditional uses.
3) R-MHC: Manufactured/Mobile Home Commuriity permits the
development of manufactured home parks on property that is at
least 5 acres in size: The base density is 10 dwelling units per net
acre"............................................
neIeWd: .a,mmaW 2009_
Page 14-7
2 ~~.1
Ghapter 14 I
In no case should these uses be authorized for construction until all
appropriate public facilities aTe ayailable to full standazd.
Publicly or Quasi-
Publicly Owned or
Public Access
Categories
Open Space
Purpose: To ensure adequate open space amenities for present and future
residents by reserving and protecting important open space re`souraes and
to identify lands useful for public purposes (RCW 36.70A`:130) as well as
open space corridors (RCW 36.70A.160) as required by the G'1VIA. \00 ~
Description: . T'his category shall be applied 'to areas which aze to be
managed in a largely open space character ~~It includes,,parks, watersheds,
' shoreline areas; significant wildlife habitafs, lazge~storm drainage ponds,
utility corridors with public access and areas-_with'significant development
restrictions, such as steep slope and &d hazard`areas.
Compatible Uses: Appropnate usesclude low intensity recreational
uses, low density residera"tial`uses and associated open areas, wildlife
habitat, stormwater detetition, w"atershed and similar low intensity uses.
~6..
6.
~
Criteria for Designation This designation should be applied to any site
in which exists qi signifcant developmental hazard or open space value
suitable for public~ protection without unduly encroaching on private
ProPerty nghts~
Appropnate-tImplementation: Whece land in this category is owned
publicly rthshall be implemented by the P-1 Public Use District. Land in
this category which is privately owned will generally be zoned for low
density residential use. Where the open space is linear it may be
appropriately managed by means other than zoning, such as public
ownership or easements, particularly as development takes place on
adjacent larid. The Shoreline Management Program shall regulate the
open spaces designated adjacent to the rivers. Subdivisions of property
involving steep slope or shoreline areas shall consider these development
limitations and avoid creating inappropriate or unbuildable lots.
Public and Quasi-Public
nprecea: A..aea 2009 ~
Page 14-8 '
ft 2011
Comp. Plsn I
Map
Purpose: To designate areas of significant size needed to provide public
and quasi-public services to the community.
Description: This category includes those areas which are reserved for
public or quasi-public _uses of a developed character. It is intended to
include those of a significant exfent, and not those smaller public uses
which are consistent with and may be included in another designation.
Public uses of an industrial character, such as the General Services
Administration, aze included in the industrial designation. Streets, utilities -
and other public activities supporting other uses aze not considered
separate uses and aze notso mapped: This designation includes lazge
churches; private scfiools and similar. ~ uses of a quasi-publio~character.
Developed pazks are al'so designated under this category';'
Compatible Uses: Uses more appropriately designated under another
category should - not be designated under tfiis category; A irrespective of
ownership. Industrial and_ commercial uses~which~aaze=affliated with and
managecl by educ.ational institutions for vo~catonal~ducational purposes
may be classified as a public use and permitted on a5conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: Designation of these azeas should be consistent
with the character of adjacent,uses.
Appropriste Implementaho This designation will generally be '
- implemented by three;zones:
1) P-1 (Public Us+e) Distiict provides for the location and development of
public uses that se +ewthe cultural, educational, recreational, and public
. seivice n ~eeds of"ihecoinm►mity.
2) I (IiistatuttonalYse) District provides for similar uses; but includes
scfiools and typically allows a much broader list of uses.
3j~ LF (Landmg Field) District provides for the operation and
~management of the Auburn Municipal Airport.
" The designation can also be implemented as a conditional use under
various zones. Approval of these types of uses (and open space uses), not
individually designated on the Plan Map, under a conditional' use permit or
remne consistent with or' related to adjacent zoning, shall not be
considered inconsistent with the designations under this Plan.
Commercial Categories
Light Commercial "
,'ll oektea: Amenaea 2009 ~
Page 14-9 20111]
Qr#
Chapter 14 I
Purpose: To create people oriented commercial areas to supply a wide
range of general commercial services to area residents.
Description: This category represents the prime commercial designation
for small to moderate scale commercial activities. These commercial
areas should, be developed in a manner which is consisterit with and
attracts pedestrian oriented activities. The ambiance of such areas should
encourage leisure shopping and should provide amenities conducive to
- amacting shoppers.
Compatible Uses: A wide range of consumer oriented goods, and services
are compatible within this designation since the emphasis would be on
performance criteria which create an, attractive shopp'mg, envuonment.
However, uses wfiich rely on direct access by vehicles or mvolve fieavy
truck traffic (other than for merchandise delivery) aze not appropriate in
this category. Unsightly outdoor storage and suriilar activities should be
prohibited. Permitted uses would consist of retail t ade, offices, personal
services, indoor eating establishments, fin -ancial°institutions, governmental
u ~
offices, and similar uses. Mul,tiple famil dwy ellmgsshould be encouraged
as part of mixed-use developments~ where at~ey ~do` not interfere with the
shopping character of the azea, such witTim the upper stories of
buildings. Since tavems can break''up the. continuity of people oriented
azeas, tavems would be pefthitted geri ""erally only as a conditional use.
Drive in windows should"onty be allowed as ancillary to a permitted use,
and only when carefuliy sited under the conditional use permit process in
order to ensure that-an ;area's pedestrian environment is not seriously
affected.
Criteria fot,,Designation: This designation should include moderate
sized shopping ceirters, and centrally located shopping areas. This
designahon shobe preferred for commercial sites where visual and
pedestrian`ameniries are an important concern outside of the downtown.
Consitlerations Against Applying this Designation: Commercial areas
which can not b'e readily separated from high traffic volumes (such as
~ shallow lots along busy arterials) should not be included :in ttiis
designation. ' Areas not large enough for separation 'from any adjacent
heavier commercial or industrial area should not be designated as light
commercial.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the
G1 Light Commercial District. This district provides for a wide range of
small and moderate scale commercial oriented towards the leisure shopper
and pedestrian oriented activities.
Delebed: Ammded 2009 ~
Page 14-10
praft2011 ~
Comp. Plan I "
Ma
Downtown
Pqrpose: To create a vibrant people oriented downtown which serves as
the business, governmental and cultural focal point of the Community that
includes multifamilyresidential development.
Description: This category is intended to be applied only in Downtown
Aubum. The area should 'be developed in a manner which is. c.onsistent
with and amacts pedestrian oriented activities, The ambiance of the
downtown should encourage leisure shopping, should provide services to
local residents, area employees and should provide amenities conducive to
attracting visitors and shoppers.
Compatible Uses: A broad mix of uses is appropriate and encouraged
within the Downtown: A wide range of consum'er oriented''goods and
, services are compatible within this `designation=smc,e thAe'mphasis would
be on performance criteria which create an aitrachvea°~Oedestrian oriented
~ .~..:shopping environnient. However, uses uvhich~ rely on direct access by
C, - ~
vehicles or involve heavy truck traffic (other an for merchandise
delivery) are not appropriate in this -category. nsightly outdoor storage
and similaz activities should be prohibited'`Peiinitted uses would consist
of retail trade, offces; personal services,; indoor eating establishments,
financial'institutions; goveminental offices, and siinilar uses. Multiple
family dwellings shouid'abncouraged; particularly within the 'upper
stories of buildmgs.~~+hich ineli de retail and commercial uses. Since
tavems can break up`the°continuity of people oriented area§, they should
be prohibited. Dnve in~indows should not be"permitted to maintain the
, area's pedestrian enxiranment. Pazking standazds within the downtown
should reflect„'the pedestrian orientation of the area, but also consider
parking`sjunpact for;economic development. ,
~ Cntenakfoi\\''Designation: This designation should apply only in
Downtow&Auburn.
AV Considerations Against Applying this Designation: This designation
should not be used other tHan for the Downtown area.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation can be implemented by
the following zoning districts: 1) The primary core of downtown should be implemented by the
Downtown Urban Center zone, which allows for a broad range of
uses with no residential densiry limitations. .
~ DeWbed: .4meaaea 2009 ~
- Page 1411 '
Qraft 2011 , j
Chapterl4 I
2) Other commercial areas within the downtown may be implemented
by the G2 Central Business District.
Heavy Commercial
Purpose: To provide automobile oriented commercial azeas to meet both
the local and regional need for such services.
Description; This category is intended to accommodate uses which are
oriented to automobiles either as the mode or target of providing the
commercial service. The category would also accommodate a wide range
of headier commercial uses involving extensive storage or heavy vehicular
movement.
Compatible Uses: A wide variety of,.commercial services`'oriented to
automobiles are appropriate within this catego.ry~`"m- This includes
automobile sales and service, drive m restaurant or other drive in
commercial business; conven_ience stores, etc ,~Smcejtieseuses are also - compatible with heavier commercial uses, lumber yazds, small scale
Y
wazehousing; "contractor yards andV .slmilar;hea~y commercial uses aze
appropriate in this designation.
Criteris for Designation This designation should only be applied to
areas which are highly,,accessible to automobiles along major arterials.
Generally this category `would characterize commercial strips. This zone
is appropriate for tlie: mteTSections of heavily traveled arterials, even if
adjacent sites are best suited for another commercial designation. .
Considerahous Against Applying this Designation: Areas which
conflict~with single family residential areas or azeas more suited for other
uses, a.,,Whenever possible ttiis. category should be separated from all uses
byextensivebuffering.
: Appropnate Implementation: T'his category is implemented by the C-3
Heavy Commercial District. .
Neighborhood Commercial
Purpose: To provide accessible commercial services frequently needed in
residential areas without creating land use conflicts between those
commercial uses and the residential areas they serve.
Description: Residential azeas require commercial services almost on a
daily basis. Such services, while necessary, can also conflict with the
quality of residential areas. Consequently, commercial areas need to be I DCleted: Ameqded 2009 I
.
Page 14-12
Oraft 201 1 -
Comp. Plan ~
Map
reserved that are either carefully restricted (if located within residential
azeas) or are accessible to, but buffered from, residential areas.
Compatible Usesc In restricted areas (those within neighborhoods), uses
must be carefully controlled both in tlie kind of uses permitted and in
terms of design and other performance criteria A much less restricted
type of neighborhood commercial use can be designated near intersections
of a' major arterial and a residential arterial. A much wider range of
commercial activities are appropriate in such an area, including grocery
stores, convenience stores; service stations, ' hardware stores, small
restaurants and, drinking establishments. However; activities (such as
.
outdoor storage) which can alter the character of these aieas mto;,heavier
commercial areas should only be permitted on a conditional basis inworder
to control potential adverse impacts.
~
Criteria for Designation: In all cases, neighborhood commercial azeas
should be at the intersections of major stiee~ts, In°the;,case of restricted
types; such streets may be residential arterials; while: i-n-;the case of the less restricted rype at least one of the streets sh,'4 ould be a major arterial.
Adequate buffering should be plaruied in the process of designating any
new areas as neighbochood commertial
t~
aG
Considerations Against A lying this`Designation; This designation
should be avoided whene'ver` t is not possible to adequately buffer the
commercial uses from~adjacent residential uses.
n~ - w
v
Appropriate Impiementation: This category is implemented by the C-N
~
Neighborhood Commericial°District.
Office-Reside»rral
Pu~rpose To° reserve areas to accommodate. professional offices for
: expanding;"`medical and business services, while providing a transition
between`residential uses and more intensive uses and activities.
Description: This category is a restricted commercial designation
reseived oniy for certain types of activities. As a growing medical center,
areas need to be reserved to accommodate growth in this sector, which is
lazgely expressed in the. form of professional offices. This category also
assures space to accommodate the iapid _growth that is occurring in
business services and other service oriented activities. Such uses also
provide a means for an appropriate transition for areas originally
developed as a residential area but now not appropriaie for that type of
use. i~ Cddeeed: aroeaaea 2009 ~
Page 14-13
ll ,i
Chapter 14 I
Compatible Uses: To be fully effective as a transition or a buffer, resi-
dential uses should be permitted on a conditional basis.
Criteria for Designation: As a transition this designation can serve as an
appropriate buffer between heavily traveled arterials and established single
family areas. It would be particularly appropriate in areas where lazge
traffic volumes have affected an established residential area. It can be
applied where amenity values mitigate against heavy commercial uses
along major arterials. This designation should also be used to
accommodate the expansion of inedical services in the azea around Auburn Regional Medical Center.
Considerations Against Applying this Designation This zone is
intended for particular applicatioris as described. It generally should not
be applied on a large scale basis.
~
Appropriate Implementation: ~'his category is,;,'unplemented by two
zones:
_ A"
1) RO - Residential Office District whichis intended to primarily
accommodate business and rrprof~essional offces where they aze
compatible with residential us es:
2) RO-H Residenrial Office=Hospital District is to be used exclusively
for the azea around Auburn Regional Medical Center.
Industrial Categories
Light Industrial
P~rpose To:reserve guality industrial lands for activities that implement .
the City's economic development policy. -
Description: This category is intended to accommodate a wide range of
industrial and commercial uses. It is distinguished from heavier industrial
uses by means of performance criteria. All significant activities shall fake
place inside 6uildings, and the processing or storage of fiazardous
materials shall be strictly controlled and permitted only as an incidental
part of another use. The siting and design of industrial buildings shall be `
of an "industrial or business park" character. Certain residential uses may
be permitted, especially in industrial areas that have been established to
promote a business park environment that complements environmental
features, and/or if development standards are developed to promote -
compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses. ~W-to: ,,;mmaea 2600 ~
Page 14-14 '
ft 2011 ' -
Comp. Plan I
Map
Compatible Uses: A wide range of industrial and heavy commercial uses
, may be perniitted, subject to performance standaids. These uses include
warehousing and indoor processing of materials: Certain residential _uses
may be perinitted if development standarils aze esta6lished to promote
compatibility between residential and other non-residential land uses. Outside storage sha1T be permitted only subject to performance criteria
addressing its quantity and location to ensure it is compatible with
adjacent uses and so that such storage would not detract from the potential
use of the azea for ~light industry. In all cases such storage shall be
extensively screened. In the Environmental Park District thatji`inplements
the "Light Industrial" plan map designation; outdoor ¢:storage "will be
strictly limited to promote compatibility with adjacent ermranmental land
uses. Uses involving substantial storage or processing ffthazardous
materials as well as substantial emissions should not,be, permitted in these
areas. A wide range of commercial activities may'be;allowed provided
that such uses support iather than detract fro `'the industrial character of
~ /n.
the area.
The Burlirigton Northern Santa Fe Raike>k Aubum Yard located within
the Railroad Special Plan Area,is considered a comparible use at its current
level of usage (as of Augu #14, 1996)-'It is not bound by the policies
concerning outside storage ui der the existing light. industrial clesignation
as it was an exishng use pnor ta;he development of this policy. Should
BNSF decide to reacfivate its applications to upgrade the yard to an
intermodal faciuty, the 'proposal will be subject to the essential public
. facility siting process as defined in the Capital'Facilities Element (Chapter
Cnteria for Designation: This designation should be applied to a
mafority a:
of the Region Serv
ing Area designated under this Plan. It is
paiticularlyrappropriate for industrial land within high visbility corridors.
This c~egory should separa.te heavy industrial azeas from other uses.
Considerations Against .Applying t6is Designation: Within the
Community Serving Area; this designation should only be applied to sites
now developed as light industrial sites. Industrial sites along rail corridors
are generally more appropriate for heavier industrial uses, unless in high
visibility corridors.
Appropriate Implementation: This designation is imp'lernented by the
M-1, Environmental Park (EP) or Business Pazk (BP) zone.
Heavy Industrial ~ oeieeea: &.maea 2009 ~
Page 14-I5,'r 2 11,
i
Chapter 14 I •
Purpose: To provide a place for needed heavy industrial uses in azeas
appropriately sited for such uses. Description: 1'his designation allows the full range of industrial uses as
well as certain commercial uses. Certain residential uses may be permitted .
if deVelopment §tandards aze developed to promote compatibility between
residential and other non-residential land uses.
Compatible Uses: While this zone shouid be reserved primarily for the
heavier forms of industrial activities, a wide range of industrial and
commercial activities may be permitted, along with residentia zuses with
appropriate compatibility protections.
Criferia for Designation: The most appropriate area for this4`designation
is in the central part of the Region Serving Area=atijoiraing the rail lines.
This designation is also appropriate in the southein portion of the area
which is now develop.ed in large scale industrial, facilities (the Boeing and
. ,
the General Services Administrati'on facilities)
Considerations Against Applying th~s Designation: This designation
can only, be applied in the„ Cominumty. Serving Area .to . sites now
developed.in this character ~along A-Street .S.E. These areas should not -
,
abut commercial or residantialq°areas; heavy industry should be buffered by
light industrial uses.:.ItAis not an appropriate designation for highly visible
areas.
Appropnate Impleinentahon: This designation is implemented; by the
M-2 zone
Plann_ed Areas
. •
Special Plan_ Areas (See Map 14.2)
Purpose: To allow large azeas within the City, under a single or a
coordinated management, to be developed as a planned unit. This
designation can also be used to provide flexibility when there is
uncertainty regarding how an azea may be most appropriately developed in
the future.
Description: This designation applies to specific areas identified as being
appropriate for mixed, urban level development on a planned basis. It is
intended that the future development of these areas will be guided by
individual "elements" or "sub-area plans" of the Comprehensive Plan, to
oektede i,menaea 2009 ~
Page 14-16
&LL2011 - - --a-----------------------------------------------------'
- Comp. Plan
Map
be developed and adopted at a later date. The Plan elements should be
consistent with the following.
Compatible Usesc Uses 'aad intensities within_ Special Planning Areas
shall be determined foi each area through individual planning processes.
Each individual planning process will result in the adoption of a
Compreliensive Plan element (sub-area plan) for tliat part'icular Special
Planning Area Each Plan element shall be consistent with the general
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive. Plan. Development
of the individual Plan elements shall also be based upon the following
guidelines: ~
Academy Special Planning Area: The Aubum Adventist-Acade yPlan
was adopted by resolution No. 2254 in November 1991 and;is considered
to 6e an element of the Comprehensive Plan. T'he Plan apapli s to tha azea
within the property owned by the Academy andIllows,for a diversiy of
uses on the site, primarily those related to the.missio and objectives of the
Academy. As part of the adoption of the Plan;~the~area was zoned under
the I-lnstitutional Use District which permit"s uses such as schools,
daycare, churches, nursing.homes; recreationyand s gle family uses.
~b
Auburn North Bust'ness Area Plannrng,Arerl: The Aubum North Business
Area Plan.was a.dopted by resolution~ No. 2283 in Mazch 1992 and is
considered to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The.Plan covers
an approximately 20011~acre area`w,located directly north of the Aubum
Central Business Distnct.~The Plan calls for development to be pedestrian
oriented with hig1i density residential and light commercial components.
~k
Downtown 5'pecial Plannrng Ared: Downtown Aubum is a unique area in
the CityK~vtudi';has,received significant attention in the past and there will
be coutinu e d,,emphasis in the future. This Compreheasive Plan recognizes
Db ntown as~ the business, governmental and cultural focal point of
Au w4th a renewed emphasis on providing housing in the Downtown.
Devel`opment of the Downtown should be consistent with the 2001
Aubum Downtown Plan.
Lakeland Hills Special Planning Area: The Lakeland Hills Plan was
adopted by resolution No. 1851 in April 1988 and is considered to be.an
element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan covers the approximately
458 acres ofthe Lakeland Hills development which fa11s within the King
County portion of the city. The Plan calls for a mix of residential uses
including single and multi-family housing as well as supporting
recreational, commercial, public and quasi-public uses. The plan calls for
phasing of development in coordination with the provision of necessary
urban services. I
, I cekfta: An=aca 2009
Page 14-17 ,
11
Chapter 14
Lakeland Hills South Special Planning Area: The Lakeland Hills South
Plan initially covered approximately 685 acres owned by The Lakeland
Company within Pierce County and contained within the City of Auburn
potential annexation area (urban growth area). The Plan is intended to be _
consistent with the conditions of approval of the Lakeland Hills South
PDD (Pierce County Hearings Examiner Case No. Z15-90/IJP9-70) as
amended.
The City of Auburn has accepted the Lakeland Hills South PUD as an
approved PUD. This acceptance is implemented in part,through an
annexation and utilities agreement between the City and the d veloper of
Lakeland Hills South PUD. The Lakeland Hills SouthFaPUD is ~further
implemented by the City's zoning code, including ACC` Chapter~18.76
entitled "Planned Unit Development District-Lakeland Hills South Special
Plan Area". Residential development within the PUD is pnmarily~single family and
moderate density dwellings with a wide, range pf lot sizes; including lots
smaller than those typically allowed,by the,. City~s zoning ordinance for
non-PUD's. The maximum allo able<,'number of residential units
rovided for originally was 3,408 based up,, on an overall
p _ gross density of 5
units per acre. High density` multifamtly units are limited to one area of
the PUD to approximately 669~;~►its. Twenty acres are to be used for light
commercial development and significant area has been set aside as open
space. In 2007, the``d~veioper of Lakeland Hills South PUD was granted an expansion to.the Laketand Hills South PUD to add an additional4 acres
of commercial land~°raisuig the total azea of light commercial land to 24
~
acres. The development includes a developed 15-acre park, an
undeveloped 15 acre park, two 5-acrepazks and a linear park along Lakeland Hills VJay. The locations of the parks are shown on the
comprehensive. plan map. Changing the location ofany or all of the parks
does,not constitute a comprehensive plan amendment provided that the
total~ P ark acreage does not change and the location is agireed uPon bY the
.
City.
Within the Lakeland Hills South Special Plan area only, the permitted
densiry ranges for the comprehensive plan designations are as follows: .
Single Family Residential: 1-6 units per acre; Moderate Density
Residential: 2-14 units per acre; and High Density Residential: 12-19 units -
per acre. The development has occurred in phases in coordination with the
provision of required urban services and in 2008, the development is
nearing completion.
, I ceietea: Anicaaea z609 ~
Page 14-18 `
,Draft 2011 '
Comp. Ptan I
Map
, In 2004, the developer of Lakeland Hills South PUD requested an
expansion to the Lakeland Hilis South PUD involving several parcels
' totaling approximately 77 acres -:bringing the total PUD acreage to
approximately 762 acres. The proposal designated these additional parcels
as "Moderate Density Residential" (from "Single Family Residential") with the objective of increasing the total number of units allowed in; the
PUD from 3,408 to approximately 3,658. Subsequently, in 2005, it was
determined and agreed that the total number of units within even the
expanded boundaries of the PUD would be no greater than 3,408.
Lakeview Special Pdanning Area: T'he Lakeview Special Planning Area is
curreritly the site oftwo independent sand and, gravel mining operations.
While mining activity continues in the eastern operation, indications in
1995 are that the western operation has ceased. Activity~in,the western
portion is now limited to a concrete batch plant ' and~`luture site
reclamation. Following reclamation, the azea should biedeveloped as a
primarily single family residential neighborhood bf low;to moderate urban
density. A planned development would befp ularly appropriate for this
approximately 235 acre site. _ The permitted diivelop ent density of the
site wiil dependheavily_ upon the ability of,the'trarisportation system near
the site to handle the new uses SConsideration shall be given to the
environmental, recreational and amenity value of White Lake, as well as
the historical and cultural stgnificance to `the Muckleshoot Tribe, in the
development of the Lakev~iew<;,Plan element Permif applications have
. been accepted and aze 66rrently being processed by the City with respect to
the mining activity on theleastem portion of the area. The permit process
should continue; bowever, any permit for continued mining in this portion
of the area should,be lunited to 10 years to encourage completion of the
mining, an & subsequent reclarnation by the property owner in preparation
for developmenL The Lakeview Plan element should be adopted prior to
the City'~s accept nce orprocessing of any other permit applications for the.
mining operatiod in ihe Iakeview Special .Planning Area. The -
envvonmeiital information and analysis included in the Final
Enviro`nmental Impact Statement for Lakeview (November 1980), shall be
considered in the development of the Lakeview Plan element. While
heavy commercial or industrial uses would not be appropriate as
permanent uses of thi's area, conversion of the area now zoned for heavy
industry to office commercial (or similaz) uses would be appropriate.
Rail Yard Special Planning Area: This approximately 150 acre Special
Planning Area is iocated in ttie south-central portion of the City and
surrounded by SR-18 to the North; Ellingson Road to the South, C Street
SW to the west and A° Street SE to the East. The Special Planning Area
should consider both sides of C Street and A Street: Consideration should
be given to: ~ nekoed: ,a..aea 2009 ~
- - . ,
• Page 14-19 '
ftZO>> j
Chapter 14 I
1. The needs of Burlington Northem.
~ i
2. Providing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access across the site to
connect the southeast and southwest sides of the city.
3. Providing a more visually appealing "entry corridor" into the City
from the south along A and C Streets.
4. Allowing for a mix of uses including single and multifamily
development and commercial and industrial uses where
appropriate.
Mt. Rainier Yista: Special Planning Area: T'his 145 acre Special Plarining
Area is located south of Coal Creek Spnngs Watershed,> Overall development of the Mt. Rainier Vista ~sub-area ~Qlan shall be consistent ~►~~t
,
with the following conditions:
1. Primary consideration in use an d developinent of the property shall
be given to protection of.Coal Creek 5 Springs'. water quality.
Development types, patterris and standards determined to pose a.
substantial risk to the public wjiter squrce shall not be allowed.
I 2. The maximum numbei ~qf dwelling units Ewill be determined as nart _ oeietea: euoWea ~o~ ~
of anv sub-area plan Qrocess., Dwelling units shall be located ~°'°~0'~' ~as
within portions of:the property where development poses the least
risk of contamination for Coal Greek Springs. Lands upon which
any level~of development would have a high risk for contaminating
the~;water supply shall not be developed,,but would be retained as
open0eI';~The development pattern shall provide for a logical
<,transitton "between azeas designated for rural uses and those
~ ~ ~
designated for single family residential use.
3 "~A,fi dwelling units shall be served by municipal water and sanitary
sewer service, and urban roads. If 53rd Street S.E. is the major
access to serve the Special Planning Area, the developer will be
responsible for developing the street to urban standazds, from the
property owners' eastern property line that abuts 53rd Street, west
to the intersection of 53rd and Kersey Way.
4. Percolation type storm sewer disposal systems shall not be
permitted. All surface water drainage shall be conveyed,Fonsistent '°eloWd0 `O
I with the Citv's current storm drainne standazds. Treatment of °e~ad? tn° smcx xiver .~,8 ao,~
. _ , _ _ Creex or municipat storniwata faciliries .
stormwater sha11 occur prior to its discharge to any surface water ~ ~Dekftd: nxd -
, ~ oe~e~ea: n~a~dzoo9 I
.
Page 14-20
ft2
_ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ' _ ' ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ J .
Comp. Plan I
N4aP
body, consistent with standard public works or other requirements
~ in general effect at the time of development.
5. The site shall be zoned temporarily, at one u.nit per four acres, until
the ub-az_ is completed_ and the long-term _ urban zoning_ ieietad: spi.] Runnin8A.
~~t
determined.
6. The Mt. Rainier Vista special planning area boundary may be
modified through the development of the subareaplan.
7. T'he Mt. Rainier_ Vista and Stuck River Road Special Plannine
Areas shall be coordinated subarea nlans. ~
Stuck River Road Special Planning Area: A portion of 1,Stuck River
Road Special Planning Area is currently the site of a large sand°and gravel
mining operation. This area and other adjacentsiand, comprising a total of
approximately 661 acres has been designated..as a long tetm resource area
(mineral resource area), so development of the,Speeialp%iia Plan for this
area should be a low priority as mining is expeated-to continue on this site
for as long as 30 years. The land uses for the :Stuck River Road Special
71 Planning Area will be determined~thro~gh the subarea planning process
and the Citv Council's adoption of the subarea plan. Potential land uses
applied through the subarea~planning 'process could include single-family
residential, multi-familv"V r sidential, commercial, institutional, and
recreational.A mix of housing tvnes rangine from single familv residential "_-oeleeed: rnis vproxinuotly 560 acn:
to multi-familv resiaentiaT~ is aPProPriate for this lannin area. The ~`O'°nf81~"
P g 2675 dwelling umts; mcluding a
4Ubazea;121an shauid.beldopted taking into_consideration the period during~ modaateamountofmultiplefmnily
~
which mmirig is expectecl-and the intent of the ultimate development of the "°"S.
area. An actrve perniit has been,processed by the City with respect to the_ ~ °ekted: Pi° damt
cation
mining ~gM~4yq on~a portion (approximately 285 acres) of the mineral ' . amli
extraction o,peranon. The permit process should continue, however, any Delete& accqAW ana is cuffentlr
z:f"
permit for jmming in 'the mineral. resource area should be granted for the ~s
hfeEof the~iesource, with reviews conducted periodically (ever five years)
to detetmine whether changes in the originally proposed mineral extraction
operation have arisen and give rise to the need for additional or revised
' permit conditions to'address tlie new impacts (if any) of any such changes.
Any permit applications for additional acreage within"the mineral resource
area shall be processed by the City. Development of this area should not
occur until adequate public facilities aze available to support the
development consis.tent with City concutrency policy.
The City recognizes the potential for expanding the Stuck River Road
Special Planning Area to include additional land east of Kersey Way and
north of the Covington-Chehalis power line easement, and will consider a
proposal by all affected property owners. If the area is expanded, the ~Deiebod; Add 2009 I
;
Page 14-21
E)raft2011fl
Chapter 14 I
number of non-multiple family, non-manufactured home park dwellings
units may be increased proportionate to the increase in acreage. Any such _
proposal shall specifically apportion the types and quantities of -
development to occur within each separate ownership. .
' Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area: This special plan area covers the
property east of Auburn Way North, west of the Green River, south of
277th (52nd Street) and north of approximately 37th Street NE. Several
property owners in this azea are. interested in developing a master plan
which will address, among other things, the following issues:
1. I Street alignment and design
2. Storm drainage and other utility issues
3. Land use types and density ~
4. Financing necessary infrastructure improvements
5. The Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation proposal~
Criteria for Designation: Additional Special'Plammrig Areas may only
be designated through amendments of the Compre hensrve Plan. "
Appropriate Implementation Planelements establishing City policy ,
regarding the develoPm ent of the S'ecial Planning Areas shall be adoP.
ted
r; P:~ ~
by amendment of the Comprehensrve Plar►; or,shall be adopted concurrent
with adopfion of the Compiehensive Plan. Special Planning Area elements
shall _ be implementeds m the ~same inanner as other elements of the
Comprehensrve. Plari;,t
,that'` is, under the City's zoning and subdivision
' ordinances, development.standards and public facilities progra.ms.
'k
~
Plan 1VIap ~A "Policies
In some cases the general policies established by this Plan need further
aThculati nrt or clarification due to particulaz geographic . concems
associ~ated~~with specific areas. In other cases, the application of the Plan's
generalpolicies may be inappropriate for a specific area due to unique
circumstances, requiring that specific "exceptions" to these general
policies be established. This section identifies these specific areas and
establishes either supplemental policies or exceptions to the general
policy; as appropriate. Urban Separators Urban separators are areas designated for low-densiry uses in the King
County Countywide Planning Policies. They are intended to be
"permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resowce lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors
within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual,
recreational, and wildlife benefits:" T'here are two primary areas of.urban. ~n*ebeee,a~ ZOO9 ~
,
Page 14-22
. . praft2011 _ __--_____J
, Comp. Plan ~
Map
separators within the Lea Hill portion of the City of Auburn, which the,
~ City is obligated to maintain (and not redesignate) until at least the year
2022, pursuant to the Countywid'e Planning Policies and an annexation
agreement with King County. Urban separators aze deemed to be both a
regional as well as local concern and' no 'modifications to development
regulations governing their use may be made without King County review
and concurrence. Therefore, the areas designated as "ur6an separator" on
the Comprehensive Land Use map, will 6e zoned for densities not to
exceed one dwelling unit per acre, with lot clustering being required if a
subdivision of land is proposed.
Infrastructu re 8
~
Related
Policies Pike Stceet
Area: North of 8th. N..E.; e.ast of Harvey Road, and south of 22nd N.E.
Problem: This area is inadequately served;by idential arterials. Further
intensification-of use in.this area would compound this problein.
I~~~
Policy III.A. No increase in denstty~or ot~er development which would
increase traffic demand m this,azea should lie approved.
8th Street N.E.
Area: 8th Street N E~between Auburn Way and M Street.
Problem: The C, ompretiensive Plan Map designates multiple family use
as the ultirr►ate use ui ~~a6c4d with the Comprehensive Plan policies. While
8th Streetis esignated as a major arterial, it is not currently constructed to
that stailrdA d is not able to support current traff c demand adequately.
The:r;Rian `d
esignation would greatly increase traffc volume's. Water
seryice is~also`rnot sufficient to support multiple family densities at the
present tlme. .
Policy M.B. Implementation of the Plan designations should not occur,
until 8th Street is constructed to the adequate arterial standard and water
service is upgaded. Up zones should not be granted from current zoning .
until these systems aze upgraded or guaranteed.
Aubuxn Way South, Auburn Black Diamond Road
Area: Auburn_Way South in the vicinity.of the Enumclaw Plateau; Area
between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and the Burlington Northern
Railroad. .
oeMed: A..da 2009 I
-
• Page 14-23
I
C6apter 14 I
Problem: T'his Plan does not fully represent,the intensity of uses that
could ultimately be supported in these azeas (in part due to the current
weakness of the City's infrastructure to suppo;t future growth). In spite of this fact, the development intensity now planned will still need to be
coordinated with the necessary infrastructure to support that growth.
Particularly significant is the need to assess the ability of both Auburn
Way and Aubum-Black Diamond Road to support continued increases in
traffic volumes.
Policy III.C. The, area between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and the
Burlington Northem Railroad tracks is designated as Rural by~the Plan
Map. The primary reason for this Rural designation is the; cwrent)ack of .
urban facilities necessary to support wban developiiient. 1Vlajor
development proposals shall be carefully'assessed under SEPA„to ensure
that the development can be supported, by the avaxlable: facilities. Once
property owners are able to demonstrate to the City=thaf they can provide
urban services (municipa( water and "sewevservice, urban roads and storm
wa#er management) necessary to support~~'the intensity of deVelopment .
proposed within the entire area, thewPlan desig~ation and zoning for.this
area should :be changed to an urbanW ~ residential or commercial
~M.. ~
classification. T'he appropriate classification(s) sha11 be determined after_ a
review of the development proposal and'the pertinent Comprehensive Plan
policies.
conomic Develo ent Stratep-v Areas - ce~ued: r~;n4n n~,
In 2005 the Crt~ of Auburn_ brou hg t-together a focus oup of diverse- wrmamea: tndert: t.ett: o^, Frst
tine: o"
business and comiriuni interests that. identified several economic
development areas withm the Citv. The focus g,roup's effort is reflected in
an Economic 'Development. Strategies document that includes, strat ies
and aceions needto affecf necessarv change for specific strategy areas
wrttiin theNc&, Identified in the 2005 Econoinic Develonment Sfrate ies
docuinentgare six strategv azeas along with two additional'strategy areas.
These economic development strategv azeas are targeted for ponulation
and emnlovment 2rowth to meet the Citv's:20-vear (2031) growth target
Sub-area plans should be developed for these strateQV areas. The strategy
azeas are as follows:
~ Auburn Way North Corridor • Auburn Wav South Corridor
o Urban Center
• Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone
• 15'h Street SW/C Street SW/West Vallev Highwav/Supermall
a A Street SE Corridor
• SE 312`h StreeU124t° Avenue SE Corridor
oe~etedc_;Ammaea 2
oo9 ~
• _
~
- Page 14-24 ft20]] JI ~ - - - - l - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J . .
Comp. Plan
Map
• M Street SE between Aubum Wav North and Auburn South t-- Mrritaftec: Inderrt: Left o.zs°,
~ • Line.spacing: single, Butieted +
Level: 1+ Aligned at: O.S' + Tab
after: 0" + Inderd at: 0.75", Allow
hanging punduation, Adjust space
' between Latin and Asian teict, AdjusE
.
~ space between Asian tact and
- - - - -
numbers, Ford Nignmerrt: Auto,
Tabs: 0.5", Left
` Fonnatbed:Inderrt:Frstline: 0"
~
FortnatEed: Indent: Left: 0.5", Frst
•---------------.------------------------------------,SI line: 0"
j~ DeleEed: I Sfh Streer Commercial Area¶
'Spec* Arca: Area servod by 15th Street N.E.
;
@ ~ md N. W. betwxn D Strut N.E. md B
StreetN.W.¶
Problems Related 9
to Eaisting Uses ~ ~ Problem: 1hePlanMapdesgnatesthe
ii, i area immediauly served by ISth Street as
conmccial. Mostoftherstofthearea
West AIlIlRli2 rerains the indusuiat desigriation of the
b --------previousPlm. Actualdovdopmmtof
F
Area: South of West Main between the rail line~y, s. ~ ~ tWs am wu aepena an niarxit trenas,
and commccial use is as awoPnau as
a
a~ i ai , light industrial. Expanaon of the area
Problem: This is an older part of town developed in a pattern of i 01i , designat«d as heavr indusrrial Woula
Ii conflict with the westwmd expansion of
commercial uses along Main Street..and residentta~ uses south to Highway
k t,e w~,. t
18. This area is in the Region Serving Area as designated in this Plan. ~I
" P Poliry M.D. Additional appropris[e
The homes in this area aze ~typically older:singg family homes that have conmercial zonmg in this arm wouid na
been converted to mulri-family housmg. Some may have historic be mcontlict with this rhm. Fura,Q
yitp neavy mausuiat mning neyond me area
significance. Preservahon andgrestoration of the ezisting housing in this ;,,,,O ,
~~s ~ now desippatod wrould conflict with this
i,qd t
area is a priority.
AY~' ,;,,o man.
DeleLek easrhfain &Vcdq
Policy III.J. 11iii,azea sliould be planned for local serving multiple family ^'m Eas` Ma1° s°°d net'^°co A°b'°"
Way and M Strat¶
, uses even thoughlrtis,:mf theVRegion Serving Area 011 ~
` 10!! ProWem: A fiill range of comm
4 I : ~ II~I~ 1
• ,4~rport"tlrea~~~~-------------------------------- Fom,amed:Fom:soid
,
Area:~:Indnstrially designated area east of the Airport. I For„actea: Fonr: eold
oeieted: cotaen
r.;angkT
Prolii~em .,,~This area is highly suited for air related activities. Other 'I~ ~~8 Z
industrw°'type uses are now located here. leo„natted; Fom• Italic
i~
~i DeleEed: Area: _ A Strat SE coridor.
Policy M.J. The City will encourage use in this azea to take advantage of extena;ng wgbWay iswthe nortn
its proximity to the Airport. ito mo «ty Emits w ch.
Detetea: aevetopmenc srandards coula
1Dcl"deraquirommts for m"`as°°
,L-ea - Hill Areg _ ------.-----------------------------------I buildingandparldngsetbacks 4
Ares: Area annexed on January 1,2008. ForinaMed: Font: Bold
Dele6ed: er
Problem: The City has been concerned for years that the rapid growth 'Formatted: Ford: Boid
talcing place within the Lea.Hill PAA will overwhelin city streets. Through `
annexation the City can better manage the amount and type of growth in F°rma~a` F°rrt` B°ia
, j uelecea: .a,mmaea 2009 ~
Page 14-25 , Q3ft20lIkj
Chapter 14 I
this area and help enswe that appropriate infrastrvcture to support
development is provided concwrent with that development.
: The Auburn City Gouncil envisions retaining the predominantly single-
family character of the Lea Hill area rather than allow the trend. of rapidly
developing multi-family projects to continue. The City's codes will help
~ ensure' that the neighborhood chazacter, traffic, and env"vonmeritally
sensitive features are protected and/or managed.
.
, . ~ ~~m - . .
. . ' ' .,..,i J"; .
. _ _ . . '
Deleted. Ammded 2009 .
- -
,
,
Page 14-26 ,
~U011 - -
East Main Street - -
Area: East Main Street between Aubum Way and M Street.
Problem: A full range of commercial uses will seek to locate in this area. Such uses
could adversely affect adjacent residential amenities. Heavy commercial strip zoning
would be particulazly detrimental, not only to adjacent areas but also to the capacity of
, Main Street. Existing commercial uses have nonetheless been accommoda.ted.
Folicy III.E. Land use decisions shall seek to minimize any adverse impact on adjacent
residential uses. Existing.commercial uses should be allowed to continue as permitted
uses. New development should be consistent with the office/residential use designation.
M Street Residential
Area: Area along "M" Street S.E., south of East Main and north of Highway 18.
Problem: This is a high quality viable residential azea: Pressure will continue for
conversion fo commercial uses. Once some conversion occurs, the area will no longer be
viable as a residential area.
Policy III.F. The City will resist conversion in this azea from single family.
Eiriabetfi~dtambeiiam ~.:...~~~8/iJ?A115 OS:OO,PM E~
Golden Tridngle '
Area: Bordered on the north by Highway 18, on the south and west by Aubum Way
South, and on the east by Dogwood Street.
Prnblem: Aubum Way South provides a thoroughfare for thousands of commuters each
day. The "pass through" traffic represents thousands of potential customers for the
bus'inesses in this area. The challenge is to create an area that encoura.ges potential
consumers to take the time to patronize the businesses in this area, either through
stoppirig during their commute or retiuning during leisure time hours.
Policy III. G. Support opportunities for the development of commercial clusters at 12th
Street SE and Aubum Way South, Aubum Way South to M Street SE south of 12 Street
SE, and on the east side of 12th and M Street SE. Capitalize on possible relocations of
existing uses to develop coordinated commercial cluster opportunities and on the
development of Les Gove Pazk to support adjacent commercial and high end residential
development.
A Street SE
~Y.Elizabeth t~amberlam,~,~` t, 8 8 2011•3e11e00.~ PM~~
_
Area: A Street SE corridor, extending from Highway 18 to the north to the city lim7ts to
the south, the BNSF rail lines/rail yard to the west and D Street SE (extended to the
south) to the east.
, Probleffi: A Street SE provides for a significant level of traffic that offers: the .potential to
attract customers to support existing and future business along this corridor. Challenges
. include better definition of the transition between residential neighborhoods and future
commercial development to provide predicta.bility for both neighborhood residents and
commercial uses, as well as how to address historical uses such as mobile home parks and
industrial development along this corridor that occupy property that is better suited for
other uses.
Policy III. H. Define appropriate transition boundaries between commercial and
iesidential development in a manner that protects residential uses while providing for
economic development opportunities along the corridor. .
Policy III. I. To ensure protection the of adjacent residential neighborhooci and ' residential uses located east of B Street SE between 8~' and 170' Streets SE from
eomme.rcial development on the west side of B Street SE, special development standards
shall be adopted. The
Pa9d25„ '~izatietli:C;hamberiam,~=~
development standards could include requirements for increased building and parking
setbacks andlor landscape buffer treatment. The standards may also include the
implementation of traffic calming measures as appropriate to reduce traffic impacts on
the adjacent residential neighborhood located east of B Street SE between 8h and 17th
Streets SE.
~
2011 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map: CPAI 1-0003, City Storm Properties
i
EXISTING
~
~i
- -
S 177r i i sr i. i1,~.
~ ~ _ ~
;
~ t
=~r:i ra sa
- - -
I
~ -
~ -
~ -
• PROPOSED ~ I I
~
i ~
s 77TH sT
C~•~n ~ ~ ~
I
r
I I i
i~-
_ . \
1{~ ~
\
,
I
,n - -
I
• -
~ Gislire L.and l:se D2signuuun ~ I.ich( Indusu~i:d Paricis
~\\J Proposctl Land Usc Desienafion ~ Public and Quasi-Public
1\ \ 1 ' ~
~ ~ Hra~~y Commcrcial ~ Auburn Cily Limits
2011 Proposed Comprchensive Plai1 Amcndment Map: CPA 11-0003, City Stonn Properties Aerial
Cr_ -
~ .,J t ~r• , r ~
~ , - ~.,4, - .~'i'
,
,y ~ q
~t7~, 4~~~ . C ~'y.
y~,M
Y~
. ~ ~ . . . . l ~ a . . - , _ .yk'r' , c i~. ~~u~ ~
t.
~
- ~ Y _ i, ~ _
t i
i~~ I . '~,e ~ .
. 4 . ~ ~ ~ t~ Ak ~ I _ - .r~`•~~~-~ ~~i. ~ Y - . m . , ~
s -
q . _ _ . ^ ~ . . y . . , ~ . . .
Z~ , P9~ ,~>~r tr a~ 1~':,~"`°,',y~;y, - ~~,e~e~-.s - a"! _ ~rr
7 - ~ ~ ~ J , ~ _ . , . ~~'iC►F+, 1 ~ 1t , :,v' ; a i
I f' , _ y _ ~ . ' _ ~ , _ fi':, • ~ ' ~ ~ w ~ ~
RM,
~ ~ _ . , _ rY'. x _ ~ { ~ _ ! ~ r. ~y.S~ 1 - , y~~i_v~~i r .
T ~b ~ : . ' . . , r".
Y • ~
~ 1 ~ IP l I I..~~;r' ~.dL ~ . ~ ~ h ~ V +11,
~ . . ~ W ts.-~ . -~"'m, ~ - - t~'k~ . ^`~'b~~.
~ at_. ~ .L' ~ s ;:ir, ` ~ ~ _",r ~~„h ~-'i
~~.0 . lk
.i ■ 1, ~ . . . ~ ~ 'I .
;a ~ • r-
. ~
y► ` / , ~ , I
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~s . ~ ~ . . ~ C ~ ~ _ a~~~' I , . ~ •
yTr
x Jr.
~
~ '+'•i'~' ' a l ~ 1' ~ ~ ~ } r
~ Proposed Lanci Usc DcSignation
O
~ City of Auburn
i
i~ ~ ~ ~ ! er ~ • r.* -
n~
~ 1 ~
e7
~ --:rJ I; l~ ~ 1 II ~ r~•
~
'
i
~
I~ wtl
V=
_ ~ ~i~"' '`f ~ rt,
18,
- -
_ i _I . I. I~ ~ i I''r \ I I
. . . ~ . . h i i - . .
1 wR
~ r
18
' ~ ~ ~ ~ A ♦ ~/6
I rr.} I I f 6J" .
~
_ _ _ _ _ `
~
I I
,II
I
_ ~ .
k-~~~
I
~ I
1 i \
- ~ '
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
~
~
1 ~I I
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '
• 1
~
1.
I _ _ I
I I
lAKE
7APP5
Map 6.2 ~BPOlymprtl'ipeline
AU BURN ~~ge1 Sound Encrgy (P;[)
H':\SI I INGTON ~
Natural Gas Pipelines ^i °g,°°^16°,
1.'orthwett ViPi•line Co
~ -US Oil 6 Relininq Pipeline
~ ~ AulumCiryLimitv
\
~I -
ai
, W
1
~ 1 ~ II h I fi
I I I~ 4
II i i~ , i Il
{ i- I
I ~
il T 167;
.
. F~. i
.:I
~
I
~
~
a.. .
:
~
:
,
1 ~r
~=j I ! M~ I2~ -'y i i
18
n,
~ ~ ~
F
~
~
L8 ` - ' '
.
~ - ~
~ w
~ - , ~ ~
_
-
7
, ~ -
~
,
- - ~
D _m
~
~
~ 167)
-
I~
- - - - -
~
~ ~ - ~
~
~ ~ ~ ,
~
~
~
-
Map 6.2
t nY OF ■u~ Lnumdmv Natulai Gas Pipciinc
AUI~ITRN Gas Pipelines E~,~Tgy,~~SkJ
„~s f ~ ~
rirdu- wdiim» . cas
t:- Aul,urn ('iiy LimiIs
2011 Proposed Comprehensive PlanAmendmenY Map: CPAl 1-0001, TV LLC
EXISTING I -
~
~
I F I
d
, i'
~ i!~
i ~
z~
;
-
- - -
-
-
- - - i - -
- - -
-
u
~
5
~
J -
~
i-J
• PROPOSED I I
~
i
I ~
~
~
iu
vi
I ~V)
~
,
-
- - , - - - ~ - - -
~
~ I
~
-
~
~
-
~
~
~
~ ~ -
~ V~ _
,
Existine Land Use Designation Mocierate Density Residential Auburn City Litnils
~ -
F771 Proposed Land Use Designation I.ichl Cnmmerciul ~ Parcels
SinglrFamily Retiidential llcavy Commercial
2011 Proposed Coinprehensive Plan Amendment Map: CPA11-0001, TV LLC: Aerial
~ ~ fi
C~ L
~ ~ ~ a • c. ' ~r_ ~ . z, <
~T
~ ~ `~tA°~
i
_ ~ y~" .j ' . . , ~ . " 3~. .
~ I.. m ~S. ' • i '1~ t I - ~~X ~ 1 ~ , . . i^' -TT _
:
' ~l" ' . • ii ~II ~~1 ~ . ~
-
y ' 3G l Y ~ ~ . ,1
~ ' • . ' . ~`~'r ~ ^ ~
~s-.~~.+~~. _ " . . • ~ _ - ~ 5 4 -4 i ~ ~ ' ~ } Dt- ?.i ti~
. h ~ ~'Y i~ I „L
. _ - ~ ~ f}
L
. _ .
-
-
_ . ~ i ~ . ~ ~ .
_ u~-
t .
~ .
_ - - AL;.~
- ~ ~ r'':: r' ~ ~j ~"s~i ~~s~$ - t. . '6' ' 'F°~w~ ~ ~'`y-~
` L " . . -
'
. =Y y . A . 'X '~i w
•
I:r?Yf'-
. D. •'~~FfiiII ~J~..t . _r.~>..~ - _
~ Proposed Land Use Designation
O
~ City of Auburn