The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-14-2011 Agenda Packet Planning and Community Development November 14, 2011 - 5:30 PM Annex Conference Room 2 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call B. Announcements 1. Auburn Arts Commission Update* (Faber) Auburn Arts Commission to provide an annual update on program and policy development, event/program support, and planning. C. Agenda Modifications II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - October 24, 2011* (Snyder) III. ACTION A. Ordinance No. 6385 Master Plan Code Amendment* (Chamberlain) Proposed code amendment to create a master plan process for institutional and commercial land uses on properties on certain acreages. B. Resolution No. 4765 - Memorandum of Agreement and Option to Purchase Real Property with Ceradimm, LLC (Snyder) Request for Committee action to move to full Council on November 21, 2011 proposed revisions to Memorandum of Agreement and Option to Purchase Real Property with Ceradimm, LLC. This Resolution will supersede Resolution No. 4663 approved by the City Council on December 20, 2010 pertaining to the Master Development Agreement with Alpert International. Committee previously recommended approval of original Resolution on October 24, 2011. C. Resolution No. 4766 - Exclusive Agency Listing Agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle (Snyder) Request for Committee action to move to full Council on November 21, 2011 proposed revisions to an Exclusive Listing Agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle for commercial and residential brokerage services for specific City controlled properties in Downtown Auburn. Committee previously recommended approval of original Resolution on October 24, 2011. D. Resolution No. 4769* (Hankins) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Setting the Time and Date for a Public Hearing Before the City Council of the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ordinance No. 6378* (Coleman) Amendment to Ordinance No. 6339, 2011-2012 Biennial Budget as amended by Ordinance Nos. 6351, 6352, 6362 and 6370, authorizing amendments to the City of Auburn 2011-2012 Budget as set forth in Schedule "A". B. Resolution No. 4767* (Coleman) Agreement for Services between City of Auburn and Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce to operate a visitor information center, promote tourism awareness within the City and to provide services associated with supporting the City's economic development efforts. C. 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)* (Hankins) Review draft six-year Transportation Improvement program. D. Phase II Code Update - Grouping 1* (Wagner) Discuss Planning Commission recommendation on amendments to Title 18- Zoning, related to parking regulations, landscaping regulations, administrative variance process, and outdoor lighting standards. E. HCSA Laundry Facility Building Square Footage Increase** (Taylor) Discussion of proposed building square footage increase. Per previously approved rezone ordinance, City Council is required to approve increases in building square footage for the rezoned property. F. 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (Dixon) Discuss Planning Commission recommendation on 2011 annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments. G. Draft Resolution No. 4772* (Chamberlain) Review the draft Resolutions ratifying the amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies related to a Vision 2040 consistency update and designation of 3 new Candidate Centers in Pierce County. H. Draft Resolution No. 4773* (Chamberlain) Review the draft Resolutions ratifying the amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies related to a Vision 2040 consistency update and designation of 3 new Candidate Centers in Pierce County. I. Land Use Strategies for Addressing Impact of Potential Partial or Full Loss of Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation Funds* (Snyder) Discussion of potential land use strategies to address potential 25 percent to 100 percent elimination of streamlines sales tax mitigation funding resulting from the Govenor's published Budget Reduction Alternatives (October 2011). J. Director's Report (Snyder) K. PCDC Matrix* (Snyder) V. ADJOURNMENT Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website (http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review at the City Clerk's Office. *Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet. AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Auburn Arts Commission Update Date: November 8, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memo Overview Storefront Press Release Storefronts Auburn Brochure Copy Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For information only. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Faber Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:AN.0 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDAN.0 DISCUSSION ITEM Agenda Subject: Arts Commission Annual Presentation Date: 11/07/2011 Department: Parks, Arts & Recreation Attachments: Storefronts Auburn Summary Budget Impact: Administrative Recommendation: Discussion Item Background Summary: The Auburn Arts Commission will present a summary of programs and events from 2011 and a discussion on programs and goals for the future An update on the new “Storefronts Auburn” program will be specifically addressed Councilmember: Staff: McKnight Meeting Date: 11/14/2011 Item Number: AN.0 Program: Auburn Storefronts Department: Parks, Arts and Recreation and Planning Staff: Maija McKnight Budget: $10,000, Grant Funded by 4Culture through 2012 This program was initiated by the Parks department in partnership with Planning staff as a means of energizing Auburn’s downtown core while providing opportunities for artists. City of Auburn entered into a contract with Shunpike to manage the program for 2012 following the artist selection and initiation of building owner participation. Contracting with an outside organization to manage the program was a necessity for liability and insurance reasons. There are three ‘tracks’ in which individuals can apply: installation, residency, and creative business. These will be scheduled in three different storefronts in downtown for a three-month time frame throughout 2012. A selection panel, including downtown business owners, will review and determine the artists and artwork that will be on display. Various events, open houses and programs will be planned and coordinated with the changing storefronts throughout the year. Timeline: Application Deadline: Wednesday, November 9 Selection Panel, Wednesday, November 16 First Occupancy: Prior to January 1, 2012 Attachments: Press Release Flyer to Distribute to Building Owners explaining the program AN.0 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 20, 2011 Contact: Matthew Richter, Storefronts Program Manager matthew@shunpike.org or 206.240.5001 www.storefrontsseattle.com www.storefrontsauburn.com Storefronts Seattle announces The Launch of Storefronts Auburn Storefronts Seattle, together with the City of Auburn, is proud to announce the expansion of the Storefronts program. Beginning this Winter, Storefronts will begin to program vacant retail spaces along the Main Street corridor of downtown Auburn. Storefronts Auburn has also issued a Request for Proposals from artists and artists interested in presenting work in Auburn. Please see www.storefrontsauburn.com or www.auburnwa.gov/arts for more information about that request. Program Manager Matthew Richter says, “We’ve been able to work within various Seattle neighborhoods and are looking forward to working with Auburn and local artists to enliven Auburn’s Downtown and energize the streetscape. Expansion into Auburn with the launch of Storefronts Auburn is a great way to start connecting to communities outside of Seattle and to really start thinking about the art and artist communities of the whole Pacific Northwest region.” As Storefronts Seattle begins to expand, it is fulfilling its mission of supporting any and every neighborhood in need of vitalization and support. W ith the cooperation of property owners, community groups, and government, Storefronts hopes to introduce Auburn, and the region, to a completely new way of thinking about art space, about retail space, and about neighborhood. About Storefronts Seattle Storefronts debuted in late 2010 as an experiment in activating vacant spaces with art, creative enterprise, and performance. Since that time, this incredibly successful program has presented over 50 artists and groups in short-term residencies in Chinatown / International District, Pioneer Square, and South Lake Union. Storefronts is dedicated to providing exposure and support to regional artists, and to revitalizing our urban core(s) and neighborhoods. We use the arts and pop-up creative enterprise to help protect neighborhoods from the growing darkness of high vacancy rates, reduced street traffic, and a disengaged streetscape. We activate the neighborhood and we help to bring vibrancy to the urban environment. We join with long-term area businesses in staking a claim for community and for neighborhood. The Storefronts Seattle project is a collaboration of The Alliance for Pioneer Square, City of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development, T he Historic South Downtown Foundation, City of Seattle’s Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs, 4Culture, Chinatown-International District Business Improvement Area, Seattle Chinatown-International District Preservation and Development Authority, Vulcan, Inc, The City of Auburn, The Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce, and is produced by Shunpike. AN.0 About Shunpike Shunpike’s mission is to strengthen the Seattle arts community by partnering with small and mid- size arts groups to develop the business tools they need to succeed. Shunpike was founded in 2001 to support a vibrant and diverse local arts community where arts groups of all sizes could thrive. We realized that efficient use of resources and smart management could help arts groups do what they do best—now and in the long-term. Working in close partnership with these groups, we help solve problems quickly and impart vital skills in finance, organizational management and arts administration. By customizing our services for the needs of each group, we strike a balance between what we do for clients and what we teach them to do on their own. Since our inception, we have supported work by more than 2,000 artists in live performance, film, literary arts, visual arts, and arts education. To learn more please visit www.shunpike.org About City of Auburn The City of Auburn Arts Commission’s purpose is to foster the growth of the arts in Auburn through the presentation of various arts programs, community initiatives and the program partnerships. Through a shared vision, leadership and service, the Auburn Arts Commission’s goal is to integrate the arts into all aspects of community life. To learn more please visit www.auburnwa.gov/arts AN.0 AN.0 Storefronts Auburn Beautifies It’s been said that one missing tooth ruins a good smile. One vacant storefront can ruin a good block. Storefronts keeps properties, blocks, and neighborhoods looking healthy, vital, and beautiful. t)FMQTQSPQFSUJFTSFOUGBTUFS t,FFQTQSPQFSUJFTPDDVQJFEBOEMJWFMZ t3FQMBDFTMJHIUCVMCT QBJOUT DMFBOT t(SBCTBUUFOUJPOXJUIWJTVBMMZBSSFTUJOH large-scale art installations Storefronts Creates Cultural Destinations Neighborhood after neighborhood in Seattle has discovered that “arts night out” is an effective means of increasing foot traffic and building support for other non-arts businesses. Storefronts programs integrate properties into an existing neighborhood arts night or creates a new arts-night-out if none exists. t5IPVTBOETPGXBMLJOHUPVSNBQTBSF printed and distributed t0QFOJOH/JHIUFWFOUTBSFQSPEVDFE every quarter t)PTUFEXBMLJOHUPVSTPGBSUTQSPKFDUT take place regularly Storefronts Raises /FJHICPSIPPE7JTJCJMJUZ Television, online, radio, and print outlets all love a good “solutions” story, and the press coverage that Storefronts has generated is impressive: tSeattle Weekly’s Best of Seattle awards: i4FBUUMFT#FTU/FX(BMMFSZw t Puget Sound Business Journal: i5IF"SU1JPOFFST7BDBOU4UPSFGSPOUT Being Brought to Life” (front page) tBrynn Ellis Real Estate Letteri1PQ6Q Storefronts Improve Local Retail Areas” tKING5’s New Day program: “A vital and desperately needed new program” tALL Business: “Creating an Oasis in the Retail Desert” t Seattle Channel’s Arts Beat: “The coolest new arts program to hit the streets in years” tNWCN’s evening news: “Reinvigorating Seattle’s downtown arts and retail scene” AN.0 4UPSFGSPOUT)BT Economic Impact 4UPSFGSPOUTQSPKFDUTDBOCSJOHUIPVTBOETPG people to a block, and those people have to eat, have to drink, and like to shop, year-round. The economic impact of the program goes far beyond the artists’ materials and direct costs, to the meals, coffees, and goods that artists and audiences consume. t&BDIQSPKFDUCSJOHTIVOESFETPGVOJRVF visitors to each storefront every month. t/FJHICPSJOHCVTJOFTTFTSFQPSUVQUPB tripling in foot traffic when popular Storefronts 4FBUUMFQSPKFDUTNPWFJOOFYUEPPS t4FBUUMFTBSUTJOEVTUSJFTHFOFSBUFNJMMJPO of economic activity annually, including NJMMJPOJOSFMBUFETQFOEJOHCZBSUT audiences. Storefronts Artists Are 7FUUFE"OE-FHJUJNBUF Our staff matches storefronts with artists from an extensive roster of installations, creative enterprises, and PUIFSQPQVQUFNQPSBSZBSUTQSPKFDUT selected through a strict vetting process. t1SPKFDUTJODMVEF(FOJVT"XBSE 4FBUUMF.BZPST Arts Award, Footlight Award, and Betty Bowen Award winning artists t1SPKFDUTBSFBHFBQQSPQSJBUFGPSBMM neighborhoods and locations t4UPSFGSPOUTSPTUFSPGQSPKFDUTJTKVEHFEBOE created by a rotating group of property owners, neighborhood representatives, and museum and gallery professionals. AN.0 AN.0 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Minutes - October 24, 2011 Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Draft 10/24/11 Minutes Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For information only. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:CA.0 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.0 Planning and Community Development October 24, 2011 - 5:30 PM Annex Conference Room 2 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Norman called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room No. 2, located on the second floor of One Main Street Building, One East Main Street, Auburn, WA. A. Roll Call Chair Norman, Vice-Chair Backus and Member Partridge were present. Also present were Mayor Pete Lewis, Planning & Development Director Kevin Snyder, Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Assistant City Attorney Doug Ruth, Risk Manager Rob Roscoe, Planning Intern Gary Yao, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Community Services Manager Hichael Hursh, Economic Development Manager Dough Lein, Engineering Aide Amber Mund, Museum Director Patricia Cosgrove, Auburn Economic Development Manager Doug Lein, City Engineer Dennis Selle, Parks, Arts & Recreation Director Daryl Faber, and Planning and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss. Members of the Public in attendance included: Wayne Osborne; Mike Horner of Jones Lang LaSalle; Spencer Alpert, Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examer; and Robert Whale of the Auburn Reporter. B. Announcements 1. Hearing Examiner Annual Report (Snyder) Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts provided an update on issues of common concern on various development matters. Mr. Olbrechts informed Committee the Public Works design standards state the Public Works Director makes a final decision to grant deviations but City Code states the Hearing Examiner makes the determination for subdivisions, a conflict that needs to be addressed. Mr. Olbrechts stated if the City is looking to continue streamlining their development process, they may want to look into requiring short plats to have up to nine (9) lots. Currently other jurisdictions have up to 9 and the City provides only four (4). Committee requested a brief summary of this update from Hearing Examiner. C. Agenda Modifications A. Change of Order Page 1 of 6 CA.0 Discussion Item IV. E. Community Services Update will be moved under action item III. B. B. Executive Session At 5:36 p.m., Chair Norman recessed the meeting to executive session for approximately ten (10) minutes. Committee, Mayor Lewis, Assistant City Attorney Doug Ruth, and Planning and Development Director Kevin Snyder were present. At 5:48 p.m. the meeting was reconvened by Chair Norman. II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - October 10, 2011 (Snyder) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to Approve Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. III. ACTION A. Resolution No. 4763 - 2011 Annual Action Plan Amendment (Hursh) Community Services Manager Michael Hursh provided the staff report. The preparation of an annual action plan is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive federal fund for Community Development Block grant (CDBG) program. The City of Auburn anticipates approx. $60,000 of unused CDBG funds will be available for projects. Proposed projects include construction of Terry Home II ($50K) and rehabilitation of a City- owned transitional house ($10K). This change requires an amendment. Committee and Community Services Manager Michael Hursh discussed the various funds, amendments, and how they would be used. Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to forward Resolution No. 4763 – 2011 Annual Action Plan Amendment to full City Council for review and approval. Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0 B. Resolution No. 4764 - 2012 Annual Action Plan (Hursh) Community Services Manager Michael Hursh provided a briefing on the 2012 Annual Action Plan. The plan outlines proposed expenditures to implement the City's efforts related to its CDBG projects. 2012 CDBG funding is expected to be approximately $400,000. Committee and staff discussed future fund availability and potential allocations for spending. Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to forward Resolution No. Resolution No. 4764 – 2012 Annual Action Plan to full City Council for review and approval. Page 2 of 6 CA.0 Motion Passed Unanimously. 3-0 C. Resolution No. 4757 - Museum Services Contract (Faber) Parks, Arts, and Recreational Manager Daryl Faber provided the staff report for the Museum Services Contract. The City of Auburn and the White River Valley Historical Society have been in partnership since 1992 managing the White River Valley Museum under contract, expiring November 27, 2011. Staff’s recommendation is to extend this contract for an additional ten years to 2021 and to add language to include the management of Mary Olson Farm. Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to forward Resolution No. Resolution No. 4757 – Museum Services Contract to full City Council for review and approval. Motion Passed Unanimously. 3-0 D. Resolution No. 4765 - Memorandum of Agreement and Option to Purchase Real Property with Ceradimm, LLC (Snyder) Planning & Community Development Director Kevin Snyder provided the staff report on Resolution No. 4765. The Auburn City Council previously entered into a Master Development Agreement with Alpert International LLLP for development of properties belonging to the City and assistance in development proposals for other neighboring properties in the downtown area. City staff has jointly identified the need to clarify roles and responsibilities currently assigned to Alpert International, LLLP in the Master Development Agreement; the more appropriate agreement instrument to do so would be a Memorandum of Agreement and associated Option to Purchase Real Property. The approval of Resolution No. 4765 would replace and supersede the Master Development Agreement currently in effect as of the Council's passage of Resolution No. 4663. In addition, Alpert International LLLP has recently combined its operations with Ceradimm, LLC so the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement and/or Option to Purchase Real Property would occur with Ceradimm, LLC of which Spencer Alpert is a member. Planning Director Snyder provided a handout to Committee with changes to page 125 of 233, detailing the of negotiations. Committee and staff reviewed the changes. Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to forward Resolution No. Resolution No. 4765 – Memorandum of Agreement and Option to Purchase Real Property with Ceradimm, LLC with the revised language on page 125 of 233 to full City Council for consideration. Motion Passed Unanimously. 3-0 E. Resolution No. 4766 - Exclusive Agency Listing Agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle (Snyder) Planning & Development Director Kevin Snyder provided the background Page 3 of 6 CA.0 information on Resolution No. 4766. The City of Auburn owns certain real property in the area of Auburn commonly referred to as Downtown Auburn and desires to see these properties developed with commercial and/or residential land uses in conformance with previously adopted design standards and guidelines. City staff believes that the City is in need of professional real estate brokerage services to assist the City in marketing and negotiations for lease or sale of these City owned properties for commercial and/or residential land uses. City staff has identified Jones Lang LaSalle as the recommended provider of professional real estate services for the City. Director Snyder stated this agreement is for City owned property only and the agreement will commence upon City Council approval of Resolution No. 4766 Committee asked if the City could use property for municipal use; Director Snyder answered “yes”, under the Exclusive Agency Lease Listing Agreement, page 137 of 233, 6. (d) the City would voluntarily remove the property from the listing agreement and notify Jones Lang La Salle. Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to forward Resolution No. Resolution No. 4765 – Memorandum of Agreement and Option to Purchase Real Property with Ceradimm, LLC with the revised language on page 125 of 233 to full City Council for consideration. Motion Passed Unanimously. 3-0 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Agreement to Exchange Real Property - Green River Community College (Heineman) Parks, Arts, and Recreation Director Daryl Faber and Risk Manager Rob Roscoe provided the staff report on the Agreement to Exchange Real Property with Green River Community College. The property declares certain City property as surplus, and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and agreement between the City of Auburn and the State of Washington for an exchange of property for joint use and maintenance of property and the College’s contribution of $1.5 million toward athletic improvements that the City will have constructed on the Martin property in the course of relocating Lea Hill Park to that site. Director Faber provided a handout showing the Lea Hill Park post construction. Committee and staff discussed the terms of the agreement, and City’s responsibility under the contract. Committee was supportive with the City moving forward with the agreement. B. Ordinance No. 6379 (Coleman) Finance Director Shelley Coleman provided the staff report for Ordinance No. 6379. Under State law, cities operating under a biennial budget are required to adopt a midterm budget ordinance to amend second year appropriations for Page 4 of 6 CA.0 changes incurred during the first half of the biennium. Ordinance No. 6379 amends the 2012 Adopted Budget (of the 2011-2012 biennium). Committee discussed several of the adjustments. Committee determined the Community Center and City Hall remodel budget items are merely place holders with no commitment to spend money at this time; Committee is supportive of Ordinance No. 6379. C. Downtown Parking Managment Study* (Chamberlain/Yao) Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain and Planning Intern Gary Yao presented this staff report. As part of the work on the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan staff has completed the On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis; a deliverable of Task 1: Supply/Demand Analysis. Planning Intern Yao provided a PowerPoint presentation to review the draft Downtown Urban Center (DUC) On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis. Committee highlighted the following items in response to the analysis: 1. Spillover effects: No physical barriers prevent parking in the DUC while working at or patronizing establishments beyond its boundaries (and vise versa). In collecting data after the Auburn Good Ol’ Day’s event of 2011, no increase or spillover parking effects were observed. 2. With the noticeable exception of off-street long-term parking for Auburn Regional Medical Center (ARMC) and Sound Transit, supply of parking is not a problem for DUC Blocks. In combination with physical and psychological factors, those highly occupied blocks and those around them exude an impression of unavailable short-term parking. Within the framework of available data, validity of such impressions necessitates verification via surveys of relevant stakeholders. 3. Signage would be helpful in educating the public on available parking. D. Resolution No. 4755 (Mund) Terry Home, Inc has applied to the City for vacation of the right-of-way of 8th Street NE, west of A Street NE shown on Exhibit "B". The applicant currently owns two parcels immediately south of the right-of-way and is proposing to incorporate the right-of-way into their development plans for these parcels. The application has been reviewed by City staff and utility purveyors who have an interest in this right-of-way. Resolution No. 4755, if adopted by City Council, sets the date of the public hearing for December 5, 2011. Committee was supportive of Resolution No. 4755. E. Community Services Update (Hursh) Community Services Manager Michael Hursh provided an update on the Community Services Division work efforts and future planning. Community Page 5 of 6 CA.0 Services continues to extend staffs efforts to coordinate and meet the growing needs of the community. Committee requested a summary report from Community Services Manager Michael Hursh. F. Cluster Subdivision (Snyder) Planning & Development Director Snyder opened discussion on Cluster Subdivisions. Director Snyder confirmed the Lea Hill or West Hill areas are likely to be one the few places cluster subdivisions would work. Committee is supportive of having Cluster Subdivisions as a tool (rather than making it prescriptive), with language to provide for flexibility. G. Director's Report (Snyder) Committee and staff reviewed various projects within the City. H. PCDC Status Matrix (Snyder) Chair Norman requested Committee contact staff for any questions or comments. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. APPROVED THIS ________ DAY OF ______________. ___________________________________ Lynn Norman, Chair ____________________________________ Tina Kriss, Planning and Development Secretary Page 6 of 6 CA.0 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6385 Master Plan Code Amendment Date: November 8, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Draft Ordinance No. 6385 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Exhbits 2-7 Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6385 Background Summary: Since the annexation of the Lea Hill area in January 2008, the City has been discussing a master plan concept that would be applicable to institutional uses such as a community college and potentially larger scale commercial issues. This conversion has continued with the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) further refining the concept of a master plan process. Initial policy direction was provided by the PCDC to staff. Staff worked with the Planning Commission on the draft code amendment with the Planning Commission providing feedback on the amendment at their August 2, 2011 meeting and holding the public hearing on September 7, 2011. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed code amendment with the following changes: Section 18.XX.030 add "and mitigation" to the end of subsection B.2.Section 8.XX.030 add "including any approved extension" under subsection DSection 18.XX.070 add "conceptual" before approval Requested that staff revise Incentive #2 under Table 18.XX.070.1 to make sure the proposed incentive is measurable The Planning and Community Development Committee reviewed and discussed the Planning Commission recommendation at their September 26, 2011 meeting. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Other: Legal, Public Works AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.A Councilmember:Norman Staff:Chamberlain Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:ACT.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 1 of 12 ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 8 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 14.03.010 AND 14.03.030 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO PROJECT PERMIT DECISIONS AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 18.53 TO THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO MASTER PLANS WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development needs and standards of the City; and WHEREAS, upon the annexation of Lea Hill on January 1, 2008, Green River Community College is within the city limits and the City realized that a master plan process may benefit larger institutional uses to assist with long term planning; and WHEREAS, a master plan process allows for the long term planning or phased developments for certain types of land uses such as larger institutional or commercial uses where the phased development can be planned holistically; and WHEREAS, a master plan process allows for early and frequent public involvement; and WHEREAS, following proper public notice, the Planning Commission considered the master plan code amendments at a public hearing on September 7, 2011; and WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the public hearing, on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 2 of 12 made its recommendations for code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation at their November 14, 2011 meeting and forwarded their recommendation to the City Council at their November 28, 2011 meeting; and WHEREAS, the environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a final Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued August 9, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60- day state review and acknowledgment received on August 16, 2011; and WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council find that the proposed amendments provides a new process, through incentives, for larger institutional and commercial uses to develop phased projects and engage in long term planning efforts. ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 3 of 12 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That section 14.03.010 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: 14.03.010 Type I decisions. Type I decisions are administrative decisions made by the city which are not subject to environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) codified at Chapter 43.21C RCW. Type I decisions include, but are not limited to, the following project applications: A. Building permit; B. Plumbing permit; C. Mechanical permit; D. Utility permit; E. Special permit; F. Excavation permit; G. Land clearing permit; H. Grading permit; I. Floodplain development permit; J. Public facility extension agreement; K. Right-of-way use permit; L. Lot line adjustment; M. Home occupation permit; N. Temporary use permit (administrative); O. Administrative use permit; P. Short subdivision (plat); Q. Mobile home closure plans R. Extensions or minor amendment to an approved master plan. (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 5746 § 2, 2003; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) Section 2. That section 14.03.030 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: 14.03.030 Type III decisions. Type III decisions are quasi-judicial final decisions made by the hearing examiner following a recommendation by staff. Type III decisions include, but are not limited to, the following project applications: A. Temporary use permit; B. Substantial shoreline development permit; ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 4 of 12 C. Variance; D. Special exceptions; E. Special home occupation permit; F. Preliminary plat; G. Conditional use permit; H. Surface mining permit; I. Master Plan. (Ord. 6295 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6184 § 3, 2008; Ord. 4835 § 1, 1996.) Section 3. That a new Chapter 18.53 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows: Chapter 18.53 Master Plans Sections: 18.53.010 Intent 18.53.020 Applicability 18.53.030 Approval Process and Effect of Approved Master Plan 18.53.040 Public Participation 18.53.050 Decision Criteria 18.53.060 Components of the Master Plan 18.53.070 Incentive Based Approach 18.53.080 Extensions 18.53.090 Revocations 18.53.010 Intent. A. This Chapter establishes standards and criteria for the development of a Master Plan. The provisions of this Chapter are voluntary and incentive-based. B. The master plan is intended to establish conditions with which all concurrent and subsequent land use approvals implementing the master plan shall comply. The master plan process provides long term guidance for a large area so that the continuity of the overall development is maintained. The process allows for development to occur in phases where coordination of public facilities is needed, when a master plan is needed to determine how best to develop the area, or when a master plan is needed to integrate various uses. C. Use of a Master Plan is intended to recognize the valuable role played by public facilities such as educational and religious institutions as well as large scale commercial development providing the community with needed services. ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 5 of 12 D. This Chapter provides the vehicle for large-scale, multi-phased developments by obtaining conceptual approval of several projects at one time and coordinating future provisions of infrastructure capacity. It allows the City to plan for the extension/expansion of public infrastructure in a timely and efficient manner. E. The processes in this Chapter provide opportunities for adjacent property owners, homeowner associations, and businesses to evaluate the cumulative impacts associated with the full build out of large scale public facilities and commercial developments. They allow for public input on the design and development standards of these projects to minimize impacts to adjacent properties and protect the character of the surrounding areas. They also ensure that large scale public facilities and commercial developments are compatible with community character and values. 18.53.020 Applicability. A. Institutional Uses such as community colleges, religious institutions, or public/private schools on properties 5 acres or greater may apply for a master plan. B. Commercial or mixed-use projects on properties 10 acres or greater where the applicant plans a phased development over several years may apply for a master plan. C. Property included within the master plan shall be under the same ownership or a signed agreement must establish control over multiple ownerships. D. A master plan application may be combined with other applications such as a rezone or preliminary plat. 18.53.030 Approval Process and Effects of Approved Master Plan. A. The initial approval of a master plan shall be a Type III Decision as provided for in ACC Section 14.03.030. B. The master plan can be approved for a maximum ten years with a review by the City at year five. At year five, the City will review the following: 1. Whether the phasing established under the original master plan still meets the needs of the applicant. 2. Whether traffic substantially changed within the first five years of the master plan to an extent that would warrant additional review and mitigation. C. No later than six months prior to the end of the fifth year in the master plan, the applicant shall conduct a neighborhood review meeting pursuant to ACC 18.02.130. D. The master plan, including any approved extension, vests as to the uses and standards contained in the master plan for the period of approval except for development regulations related to public health and safety issues, including but not limited to building codes, fire codes, mechanical codes, ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 6 of 12 plumbing codes, electrical codes, and property maintenance codes, which shall vest upon the City’s acceptance of a completed permit application for each specific permit. The City reserves the authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations if, and to the extent required by, a serious threat to the public health and safety, as determined by the City. The City also reserves the authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations, if federal or state laws require new or different standards. E. Subsequent project applications shall be consistent with the master plan. F. The master plan will be treated as a single site for purposes of calculating impact fee credits per Section 19.04.060. 18.53.040 Public Participation A. The applicant shall conduct at a minimum one neighborhood meeting as provided for in ACC Section 18.02.130 prior to the submittal of a master plan application. B. Public notification shall be provided in accordance with ACC Section 14.07.040, except that notices shall be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. 18.53.050 Decision Criteria A. The proposed master plan shall be consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. B. The proposed master plan shall comply with all applicable city codes. If the proposal incorporates elements from the incentive-based approach outlined in Section 18.53.060, development standards may be different from that of the underlying zone. C. There shall be sufficient capacity in the public transportation system to support the development of all phases of the master plan either through existing infrastructure, planned and programmed City improvements that are included in the CIP to the transportation network (e.g. concurrency), and additional improvements proposed in the master plan. D. The master plan shall include provisions for the availability of public services such as transportation, water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, police, fire, and transit. E. The master plan shall show how the proposal protects designated resources such as significant trees and critical areas, if applicable, in compliance with city code. F. All potential off-site impacts such as noise, glare, and traffic shall be identified and mitigated to the extent practicable to bring the project within adopted City standards. ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 7 of 12 G. The proposed master plan shall be integrated with adjacent land uses through site design, landscaping, parking/traffic management, and multi-modal transportation elements that limit potential conflicts between the proposed use(s) and adjacent uses. 18.53.060 Components of the Master Plan The applicant shall submit a master plan application with the following components and meeting the requirements on the applicable checklist. The review body (e.g. Hearing Examiner) may modify the proposal, particularly those portions dealing with development standards and review procedures. A. The current and possible future boundaries, including the boundaries of each phase, of the use for the duration of the master plan. B. A narrative that addresses the following: 1. The decision criteria outlined in ACC Section 18.53.050. 2. Description of present uses, affiliated uses, proposed uses, and possible future uses for the project boundaries. 3. Description of present uses and affiliated uses for the adjacent properties. 4. If residential units are proposed then minimum and maximum floor areas, densities, and number of units shall be identified. 5. If office and/or commercial is proposed then minimum and maximum floor area ratios shall be identified. C. A conceptual site plan shall be submitted meeting the requirements of the applicable checklist. D. A conceptual open space/recreation plan showing tree retention and removal, recreation areas (if residential units are proposed,) and view corridors if applicable. E. Proposed standards that will control development of the possible future uses that are in addition to or substitute for the requirements of the underlying zone. The proposed standards will need to include at a minimum: 1. Height 2. Setbacks 3. Floor Area Ratio limits 4. Landscaping requirements 5. Parking requirements 6. Signage 7. View corridors 8. Façade treatments 9. Other architectural design controls F. Proposed development phases, probable sequence for proposed developments, estimated dates, and interim uses of the property awaiting development. The plan shall also address any proposed temporary uses or locations of uses during construction periods. ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 8 of 12 G. Information on the following items for each phase: 1. Traffic impact analysis that addresses the requirements outlined in the City’s Engineering Design Standards. 2. Non-motorized plan showing pedestrian and bicycle connections before, during, and after implementation of the master plan. 3. Parking study that shows the projected peak parking demand, an analysis of this demand compared to proposed on-site and off-site parking supply, potential impacts to the on-street parking system if applicable, and proposed mitigation measures. 4. Circulation plan for all modes of transportation including the following: a. The planned street system shall be compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Engineering Design Standards. Development that is proposed in areas of the City that have a planned street system, which is a part of the comprehensive plan or the City’s six- year plan, and any other street plan, shall make provisions for such streets and must not cause implementation of such street plans to become unattainable. b. Master Plans that are proposed in areas of the City that have planned routes or facilities for bicycles, equestrian, or other non-motorized transportation mode which are a part of the comprehensive plan or the City’s six-year plan, and any other street plan, shall make provisions for such routes and must not prevent implementation of such routes. c. When abutting vacant or underdeveloped land, new development shall provide the opportunity for future connection to its interior pathway system through the use of pathway stub-outs, building configuration, or parking lot layout. The proposed location of future non-motorized and pedestrian connections shall be reviewed in conjunction with applicable development approval. d. Developments shall include an integrated non-motorized circulation system that connects buildings, open spaces, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system. e. Pedestrian connections to existing or proposed trails/pedestrian routes on adjacent properties shall be provided unless there are physical constraints such as sensitive areas that preclude the construction of a pedestrian connection. 5. The planned water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Utility Plans and in conformance with the City’s engineering design standards. The conceptual utility plans shall contain sufficient information to demonstrate that the system layouts and methods of service are feasible. The City may also require additional design information (e.g. a preliminary drainage analysis) prior to approving the conceptual plans. 18.53.070 Incentive Based Approach ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 9 of 12 Master plans are not a required process for large-scale developments. However, master plans provide the vehicle for large-scale, multi-phased developments to obtain conceptual approval of several projects at one time coordinating future provisions of infrastructure, gather early public input, and provide the applicant with a certain level of certainty for a multi-phased project. The following table outlines incentives for establishing a master plan and can be cumulative incentives: Table 18.53.070.1 Incentives 1. Complete a master plan • Expedited permit review • Parking reductions • Expedited reviews for tenants 2. Building(s) comply with the International Green Building Code.1 • One additional story beyond the maximum height for the underlying zone for 50 percent of the buildings in the development. The applicant may also submit for a 50% refund in the building plan review and inspection fees once the minimum certification is achieved. 3. Inclusion of accessible public open spaces/plazas and/or sustainable landscaping approaches • Reduction in required landscaping • Less inspection/reporting (if possible) 4. At least 50 % of the off-street parking for the development is located in parking structures, some or all of which may be above-grade as long as the parking garage does not front a public street. If the parking garage does front a public street, then the following standards apply: a. Include ground level details such as plinths for columns, projecting window sills, kickplates. b. Upper levels screened architecturally with at least two different elements. • One additional story beyond the maximum height for the underlying zone for all buildings in the development • Residential floor area of up to 4.0 • Reduction in minimum parking standard 1 The International Green Building Code would need to be adopted by reference in Chapter 15.06 ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 10 of 12 5. Use of Low Impact Development • Increased lot coverage than what is permitted in the underlying zoning if open spaces improved with swales, permeable pavement. 18.53.080 Extensions and Modifications A. An approved master plan may be extended beyond the ten years for a maximum of five additional years provided: 1. The applicant shall submit a complete extension request to the city for review not later than one year prior to the ten year expiration date. 2. The applicant shall demonstrate that the additional time frame is needed to complete the phasing of the original approved master plan. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate that there will not be any additional impacts created by extending the time frame. B. An approved master plan may be modified as follows: 1. A minor amendment to an approved master plan may be applied for as a miscellaneous administrative decision processed as a Type I decision pursuant to ACC 14.03.010. A minor amendment is defined as not adding more than 20 percent to the gross square footage of the master plan. Minor adjustments shall be reviewed for consistency with this chapter and the regulations of this title, as well as the following criteria: a. The adjustment maintains the design intent or purpose of the original approval; and b. The adjustment maintains the quality of design or product established by the original approval; and c. The adjustment does not cause a significant environmental or land use impact on or beyond the site; and d. The adjustment is not precluded by the terms of this title or by state law from being decided administratively; and e. Circumstances render it impractical, unfeasible, or detrimental to the public interest to accomplish the subject condition or requirement of the master plan approval. 2. Major amendments are those that, when determined by the planning director, substantially change the basic design, layout, open space or other requirements of the plat. When the planning director determines a change constitutes a major adjustment, a new application for a master plan is required and shall be processed as a new and separate application. 18.53.090 Revocations A. The planning director or designee may revoke or suspend any permit granted under this chapter if any of the following conditions is found to exist: 1. Fraud in obtaining the permit; ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 11 of 12 2. Concealment or misrepresentation of any material fact on the application or on any subsequent applications or reports; 3. The operation is found to be in violation of the approved plans, conditions of approvals, or the terms of the permit and the owner has failed to correct the violation after proper notice thereof. B. The planning director’s or designee’s decision can be appealed pursuant to Section 14.13.010 and 18.70.050. Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 6. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: __________________ PASSED: _______________________ APPROVED: ____________________ CITY OF AUBURN ______________________________ ACT.A ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6385 November 3, 2011 Page 12 of 12 PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _________________ ACT.A AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) Date: August 30, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: See Exhibit list below. Budget Impact: N/A Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed Master Plan Code Amendment and make a recommendation to City Council. Background Summary: Since the annexation of the Lea Hill area in Januar y 2008, the City has been discussing a master plan concept that would be applicable to institutional uses such as a community college and potentially larger scale commercial uses. This conversation has continued with the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) further refining the concept of a master plan process. Initial policy direction was provided by the PCDC to staff. A draft code amendment creating a master plan process was brought before the Planning Commission for discussion at the August 2, 2011 meeting. The amendment outlines the master plan process, applicability, length of the master plan approval, decision criteria, and an incentive based approach. The September 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting will involve a public hearing on the proposed code amendments for the creation of a new zoning code chapter related a master plans. The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council and will make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed code amendment. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources Information Services Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____ Councilmember: Staff: Chamberlain Meeting Date: September 7, 2011 Item Number: ACT.A Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) Date: August 30, 2011 Page 2 of 5 A. Findings of Fact 1. Title 18 of the Auburn City Code (ACC), includes Chapter 18.68, Amendments, which addresses amendments to Title 18, Zoning. 2. The proposed code amendment creates a new chapter in Title 18 related to a master plan process. The amendment outlines the master plan process, applicability, length of the master plan approval, decision criteria, modifications, and an incentive based approach. 3. The proposed code amendment is supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. 4. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposed amendment creating a master plan process on August 9, 2011. The 15-day comment period ended August 23, 2011 with no comments received. The appeal periods ends on September 6, 2011. As of the writing of this report an appeal has not been filed. 5. One comment has been received related to the proposed code amendment from Richard Weinman, Weinman Consulting LLC, on August 2, 2011. Changes to the proposed code amendment have been made where appropriate. 6. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. An acknowledgement letter was received on August 16, 2011. No comments were received from Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. 7. Initial concepts were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee on March 8, 2010, May 24, 2010, and March 14, 2011 and the Committee provided initial policy feedback to staff. 8. Staff presented the draft code language to the Planning Commission on August 2, 2011. 9. The public hearing notice was published on August 25, 2011 in the Seattle Times at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for September 7, 2011. 10. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Title 18, Zoning, creating a new zoning code chapter related to Master Plans scheduled for the Planning Commission’s September 7, 2011 public hearing with a staff recommendation. B. Conclusions 1. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, the following public process is applicable: 18.68.030 Public hearing process ACT.A Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) Date: August 30, 2011 Page 3 of 5 A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing. 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements A. Text Amendments. 1. Planning Commission. For text amendments that require a public hearing under ACC 18.68.030(A), notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. Comment: The public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for September 7, 2011 meeting the requirement under ACC 18.68.030. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times, the City’s official newspaper, on August 25, 2011 at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The public hearing notice was also posted at City Hall (25 West Main Street), the Customer Service Center (One East Main Street), and on the City’s website meeting the requirement for posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.68, Amendments, does not have specific decision criteria for text amendments to the zoning title. At a minimum, proposed text amendments are to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040. The proposed code amendment is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies: Objective 1.2 – To establish a procedure to assess the growth impacts of major development proposals. Comment: The proposed master plan code amendment implements this objective by creating a process that looks at large scale institutional and commercial developments holistically to assess the growth impacts of these types of developments. The intent of the master plan code is to provide long term guidance for a large scale development, provides the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of all phases of the a large scale development at one time while allowing an applicant to obtain approval for multi-phases at one time, and provides the opportunity for early public involvement. A master plan process allows the City to evaluate the growth impacts related to traffic, utilities, and other services for a large scale development early in the process and assists in future capital facility planning as well. Policy GP-17: Flexible land development techniques including, but not limited to, clustering and planned unit developments for the development of residential, ACT.A Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) Date: August 30, 2011 Page 4 of 5 commercial, and industrial properties shall be considered to implement this comprehensive plan. Comment: The proposed master plan process is a flexible development technique by allowing an applicant to gain approvals of a multi-phased project at one time rather than approvals at each phase. By developing a master plan for a large scale /multi-phased development, the City is able to analyze the impacts upfront to transportation and utility infrastructure while the applicant obtains certainty for their proposal. The proposed code amendment establishes a master plan approval timeframe of ten years with potential for a five year extension. This timeframe vests a development proposal to the standards in place at project approval for all phases rather than having the potential of development regulations changing over time impacting subsequent phases of a project unless state or federal mandates change beyond the City’s control that require modifications to the master plan. Built into the proposed text amendment are incentives if an applicant chooses to go through a master plan process. An applicant may achieve more density or additional stories if certain development features are incorporated such as low impact development. Policy LU-5: Link together regionally significant land uses such as the SuperMall, Green River Community College, Boeing, Emerald Downs, and commercial uses on Auburn Way in a manner that enhances the regional stature of Auburn… Comment: The proposed master plan process would be applicable to institutional uses on sites with a minimum of 5 acres, such as Green River Community College, and for commercial uses on sites with a minimum of 10 acres, such as the SuperMall. The master plan process could be useful for institutional uses that need to plan out capital investments over a long period of time as well as larger scale commercial sites that could redevelop in the future. Planning out future improvements/developments over a ten year timeframe allows for a holistic review of the development and how the project could link with significant regional uses within the City. Policy EN-17A: Encourage the use of low impact development techniques in public and private development proposals in order to minimize impervious surfaces and improve water quality. Comment: The proposed code amendment includes an incentive table that allows an applicant to increase density and/or floor area (e.g. additional stories) and increased lot coverage than what is permitted in the underlying zone if low impact development is incorporated into the project. ACT.A Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to Master Plans (ZOA11-0005) Date: August 30, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed master plan text amendment as presented by staff based on the findings of fact and conclusions. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Proposed Master Plan Code Amendment Exhibit 2: Determination of Non-Significance and Affidavit of Publication Exhibit 3: Environmental Checklist Exhibit 4: Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Publication Exhibit 5: Letter to Department of Commerce for 60-day State Review Exhibit 6: Acknowledgment letter from Department of Commerce Exhibit 7: Comment letter from Richard Weinman ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A ACT.A AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4765 - Memorandum of Agreement and Option to Purchase Real Property with Ceradimm, LLC Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: No Attachments Available Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:ACT.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.B AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4766 - Exclusive Agency Listing Agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: No Attachments Available Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:ACT.C AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.C AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4769 Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Public Works Attachments: Resolution No. 4769 Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: City Council to adopt Resolution No. 4769. Background Summary: Pursuant to RCW 35.77.010 the City of Auburn is required to annually prepare and adopt a comprehensive Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for each ensuing six calendar years. The TIP is the detailed programming document for transportation improvements over a six year period. The plan is intended to ensure that the City will have available advance plans as a guide in carrying out a coordinated street construction program. The City Council is required to conduct a public hearing to review the work accomplished under the six- year Transportation Improvement Program, and to adopt a revised and extended plan. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Norman Staff:Hankins Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:ACT.D AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.D --------------------------- Resolution No. 4769 November 21, 2011 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4769 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 2012-2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires that the City of Auburn annually prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation improvement program for each ensuing six calendar years to ensure that the City will have available advance plans as a guide in carrying out a coordinated street construction program; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires the City Council to annually conduct a public hearing to review the work accomplished under each six-year Transportation Improvement Program, and to adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation improvement program. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Resolution is for the City Council to set a time and date for a public hearing on the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program, to review the work accomplished under the program, and to identify capital transportation system improvement projects, and relevant transportation studies. ACT.D --------------------------- Resolution No. 4769 November 21, 2011 Page 2 Section 2. NOTICE OF HEARING. The Council hereby directs that a notice specifying the time and place of the public hearing shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation and the notice shall also be posted in three public places. Such public notice shall precede the public hearing by at least 10 days. Section 3. DATE OF HEARING. Pursuant to the requirements of State law, a public hearing on said 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program will be held on the 5th day of December, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall at 25 West Main Street in Auburn, Washington, before the City Council. All persons interested in said 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program may attend and testify at said hearing. Section 4. AUTHORITY. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. ACT.D --------------------------- Resolution No. 4769 November 21, 2011 Page 3 DATED and SIGNED this _____ day of December, 2011. CITY OF AUBURN _______________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney ACT.D AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6378 Date: November 4, 2011 Department: Finance Attachments: Memo Ordinance 3. Busget Adjustments Summary BA#5 - Revised Budget Impact: -$128,480 Administrative Recommendation: City Council to introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6378 Background Summary: Attached is proposed budget amendment #5 for your review. This budget amendment makes final changes to the 2011 budget as follows: Recognize revenue and grant funding received and public employee pension contribution rate adjustments. Approval of this budget amendment will reduce the 2011 budget, as amended, by $128,480 to $273,287,907. Details of this amendment is included in the attached staff memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees: Finance, Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Norman Staff:Coleman Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Interoffice Memorandum To: City Council From: Shelley Coleman, Finance Director CC: Pete Lewis, Mayor Date: November 7, 2011 Re: 2011 Budget Amendment #5 Attached is proposed budget amendment #5 for your review. This budget amendment makes final changes to the 2011 budget as follows: Recognize revenues and grant funding received. Changes include: o nues. 2011 revenues for the Solid Waste Fund are adjusted consistent with the revised rates per the Council adopted June 2011 rate study. o Plannin Solid Waste reve g Department EPA grant for assessment of wetland mitigation sites in 2011 (per City resolution #4536) elopment Association Grant funding to assist Auburn Youth ent tribution rate adjustments. o he State recently announced changes to the contribution rates, with rates for employers change from 7.07% to 7.25% effective Sept Approv 80 to $273,287,907. Details of this amendment is included in Schedule A attached. 1. Proposed Ordinance #6378 (budget adjustment #5) mary of proposed 2011 budget adjustments by fund and department (Schedule A) o Planning Department Housing and Community Dev Resources in property acquisition for Teen drop-in program. o Police Department federal Edward Byrne grants for overtime and emergency managem in 2011 Recognize public employee pension con T increasing from 5.31% to 7.07% effective July 1, 2011 and a second ember 1, 2011. al of this budget amendment will reduce the 2011 budget, as amended by -$128,4 Attachments: 2. Sum DI.A ORDINANCE NO. 6378 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6339, THE 2011-2012 BIENNIAL BUDGET ORDINANCE AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 6351, ORDINANCE NO. 6352, ORDINANCE NO. 6362 AND ORDINANCE 6370 AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF AUBURN 2011-2012 BUDGET AS SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE “A” WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of December 6, 2010, adopted Ordinance No. 6339 which adopted the City of Auburn 2011-2012 Biennial budget; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of February 22, 2011, adopted Ordinance No. 6351 which amended Ordinance No. 6339 which adopted the City of Auburn 2011-2012 Biennial budget; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of April 4, 2011, adopted Ordinance No. 6352 which amended Ordinance No. 6351; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of July 18, 2011, adopted Ordinance No. 6362 which amended Ordinance No. 6352; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council at its regular meeting of September 6, 2011 adopted Ordinance No. 6370 which amended Ordinance 6362; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn deems it necessary to appropriate additional funds to the various funds of the 2011 budget; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been approved by one more than the majority of all councilpersons in accordance with RCW 35A.34.200. ------------------------- Ordinance No. 6378 November 2, 2011 Page 1 of 3 DI.A NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment of the 2011-2012 Biennial Budget. The 2011- 2012 Biennial Budget of the City of Auburn is amended pursuant to Chapter 35A.34 RCW, to reflect the revenues and expenditures as shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Mayor of the City of Auburn, Washington is hereby authorized to utilize revenue and expenditure amounts shown on said Schedule “A”. A copy of said Schedule “A” is on file with the City Clerk and available for public inspection. Section 2. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of such code, ordinance or regulation or the application thereof to other person or circumstance shall not be affected. Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. ------------------------- Ordinance No. 6378 November 2, 2011 Page 2 of 3 DI.A ------------------------- Ordinance No. 6378 November 2, 2011 Page 3 of 3 INTRODUCED: _______________ PASSED: ____________________ APPROVED: _________________ ____________________________ PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________ Danielle E. Daskam City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Daniel B. Heid City Attorney PUBLISHED:__________________ DI.A General Fund (#001) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance General Fund Adopted Budget 11,763,355 49,863,903 55,139,320 6,487,938 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- 46,000 135,360 (89,360) BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)650,000 195,270 620,080 225,190 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)2,968,999 46,441 24,580 2,990,860 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- (61,000) (38,330) (22,670) BA#5 (Proposed) Planning Direct Federal Grant -Carry forward EPA grant for assessment of active wetland mitigation sites per res. 4536 31,300 31,300 - Police Federal Grant - Edward Byrne; fund Police overtime 33,630 33,630 - Indirect Federal Grant -Emergency Management Performance Grant 4,560 4,560 - Parks Insurance Recoveries related to Auburn theater equipment replacement 5,500 5,500 Minor equipment for theater funded by insurance recovery proceeds 5,500 (5,500) State Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 Mayor/Council 3,350 (3,350) Human Resources 11,960 (11,960) Finance 2,640 (2,640) City Attorney 5,170 (5,170) Planning 9,950 (9,950) Police 8,820 (8,820) Public Works 20,050 (20,050) Parks 15,590 (15,590) Streets 500 (500) Changes to meet GASB 54 Requirements - Record MVFT revenues directly to Fund 102 Reduce MVFT revenue - to be recorded in Fund 102 & Fund 120 (537,100) (537,100) Reduce Trsfr Out of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax to Fund 102 (530,000) 530,000 Reduce Trsfr Out of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax to Fund 120 (7,100) 7,100 BA#5 Total - (462,110) (384,080) (78,030) Revised Budget 15,382,354 49,628,504 55,496,930 9,513,928 Total Resources / Expenditures 65,010,858 65,010,858 Schedule A Summary of Budget Adjustments by Fund Budget Amendment # 5 Ordinance 6378 Page 1 of 7 DI.A Arterial Street Fund (#102) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 383,118 13,210,200 13,328,300 265,018 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)736,300 1,842,200 2,608,500 (30,000) BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)647,926 578,330 618,330 607,926 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Changes to meet GASB 54 Requirements - Record MVFT revenues directly to Fund 102 Reduce Trsfr In of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax from Gen Fund (530,000) - (530,000) Recognize Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue 530,000 530,000 BA#5 Total - - - - Revised Budget 1,767,344 15,630,730 16,555,130 842,944 Total Resources / Expenditures 17,398,074 17,398,074 Local Street Fund (#103) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 940,806 2,155,000 2,000,000 1,095,806 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)400,000 - 398,216 1,784 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)721,769 - 1,000,000 (278,231) BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 - - 824 (824) BA#5 Total - - 824 (824) Revised Budget 2,062,575 2,155,000 3,399,040 818,535 Total Resources / Expenditures 4,217,575 4,217,575 Housing and Community Development Grant Fund (#119) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 99,286 510,000 542,410 66,876 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)- - (1,480) 1,480 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)(55,987) (55,987) BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Recognize receipt of HCDA grant funding for Auburn Youth Resources Increase budgeted grant funding 140,400 140,400 Increase expense budget for property acquisition - - 140,400 (140,400) BA#5 Total - 140,400 140,400 - Revised Budget 43,299 650,400 681,330 12,369 Total Resources / Expenditures 693,699 693,699 Page 2 of 7 DI.A Recreation Trails Fund (#120) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 8,177 7,200 - 15,377 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)- - - - BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)17 - - 17 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Changes to meet GASB 54 Requirements - Record MVFT revenues directly to Fund 102 Reduce Trsfr In of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax from Gen. Fund (7,100) (7,100) Budget Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue 7,100 7,100 BA#5 Total - - - - Revised Budget 8,194 7,200 - 15,394 Total Resources / Expenditures 15,394 15,394 Business Improvement Area Fund (#121) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 44,396 53,100 54,000 43,496 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)512 (9,248) 26,000 (34,736) BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)(91) - - (91) BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Increase operating budget for higher than anticipated expenses - - 5,000 (5,000) BA#5 Total - - 5,000 (5,000) Revised Budget 44,817 43,852 85,000 3,669 Total Resources / Expenditures 88,669 88,669 Cumulative Reserve Fund (#122) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 5,623,464 23,000 44,900 5,601,564 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)78,450 - 78,450 - BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)30,118 - 400,000 (369,882) BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Transfer Out to Cemetery Fund to support cash flow needs - - 200,000 (200,000) BA#5 Total - - 200,000 (200,000) Revised Budget 5,732,032 23,000 723,350 5,031,682 Total Resources / Expenditures 5,755,032 5,755,032 Page 3 of 7 DI.A Mitigation Fees Fund (#124) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 3,444,973 900,000 2,679,200 1,665,773 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)601,170 - 601,170 - BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)290,693 - - 290,693 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Increase expenses to reflect higher Fire Impact & Mitigation collections (used for Station #34 construction)- - 212,300 (212,300) BA#5 Total - - 212,300 (212,300) Revised Budget 4,336,836 900,000 3,492,670 1,744,166 Total Resources / Expenditures 5,236,836 5,236,836 Municipal Park Construction Fund (#321) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 374,368 19,089,200 19,261,700 201,868 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)219,120 2,225,280 2,444,400 - BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)(246,405) 130,000 - (116,405) BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - - - BA#5 (proposed) Federal Grant funding for Game Farm Soccer Field lighting 83,200 83,200 BA#5 Total - 83,200 - 83,200 Revised Budget 347,083 21,527,680 21,706,100 168,663 Total Resources / Expenditures 21,874,763 21,874,763 Water Fund (#430) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 19,168,199 10,918,400 27,509,320 2,577,279 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)2,113,700 - 2,081,270 32,430 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)324,168 209,000 47,580 485,588 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - (30,320) 30,320 BA#5 (proposed) Reduce Estimated Water Sales revenue due to lower usage (1,180,900) (1,180,900) Recognize water billing adjustment 600,000 600,000 Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 23,140 (23,140) BA#5 Total - (580,900) 23,140 (604,040) Revised Budget 21,606,067 10,546,500 29,630,990 2,521,577 Total Resources / Expenditures 32,152,567 32,152,567 Page 4 of 7 DI.A Sewer Fund (#431) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 10,818,244 17,956,300 25,602,100 3,172,444 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - 37,000 (37,000) BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)2,156,900 - 2,123,810 33,090 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)3,046,835 104,900 53,570 3,098,165 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - (30,320) 30,320 BA#5 (proposed) Recognize grant funding for January 2011 storm Indirect Federal Grant 34,400 - 34,400 State Grant 5,600 - 5,600 Grant funded expenses 40,000 (40,000) Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 13,000 (13,000) BA#5 Total - 40,000 53,000 (13,000) Revised Budget 16,021,979 18,101,200 27,839,160 6,284,019 Total Resources / Expenditures 34,123,179 34,123,179 Storm Drainage Fund (#432) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 7,695,982 7,213,700 13,066,950 1,842,732 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)1,304,260 - 1,264,410 39,850 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)795,296 60,800 57,800 798,296 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - (31,910) 31,910 BA#5 (proposed) Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 22,080 (22,080) BA#5 Total - - 22,080 (22,080) Revised Budget 9,795,538 7,274,500 14,379,330 2,690,708 Total Resources / Expenditures 17,070,038 17,070,038 Solid Waste Fund (#434) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 800,406 9,513,800 9,883,470 430,736 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)- - (8,990) 8,990 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)(24,716) 16,230 16,230 (24,716) BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - 1,600 (1,600) BA#5 (proposed) Adjust fund revenues and expenses per June 2011 rate study Increase solid waste service revenues 450,930 450,930 Adjust est. Waste Management fees 475,340 (475,340) Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 - - 2,310 (2,310) BA#5 Total - 450,930 477,650 (26,720) Revised Budget 775,690 9,980,960 10,369,960 386,690 Total Resources / Expenditures 10,756,650 10,756,650 Page 5 of 7 DI.A Cemetery Fund (#436) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 300,328 924,800 1,078,930 146,198 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)- - (9,080) 9,080 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)(176,199) - (28,500) (147,699) BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - 950 (950) BA#5 (proposed) Transfer In from Cumulative Reserve Fund to meet cash flow needs 200,000 200,000 - - - BA#5 Total - 200,000 - 200,000 Revised Budget 124,129 1,124,800 1,042,300 206,629 Total Resources / Expenditures 1,248,929 1,248,929 Golf Course Fund (#437) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 228,668 1,806,200 1,939,380 95,488 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)- - (10,840) 10,840 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)(224,916) 400,000 - 175,084 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- (82,000) (82,000) - BA#5 (proposed) Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 3,190 (3,190) Carry forward 2010 principal & interest payment of Interfund loan (to be paid in 2011) - - 39,600 (39,600) BA#5 Total - - 42,790 (42,790) Revised Budget 3,752 2,124,200 1,889,330 238,622 Total Resources / Expenditures 2,127,952 2,127,952 Facilities Fund (#505) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 307,539 3,999,300 3,960,400 346,439 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)30,000 26,790 61,110 (4,320) BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)377,405 34,000 (43,000) 454,405 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- (105,300) (105,300) - BA#5 (proposed)- - - - BA#5 Total - - - - Revised Budget 714,944 3,954,790 3,873,210 796,524 Total Resources / Expenditures 4,669,734 4,669,734 Page 6 of 7 DI.A Information Services Fund (#518) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 3,546,577 4,271,670 5,720,450 2,097,797 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- 5,500 5,500 - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)108,000 217,000 302,080 22,920 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)295,216 6,400 43,300 258,316 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- 24,000 18,400 5,600 BA#5 (proposed) Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 - - 8,840 (8,840) BA#5 Total - - 8,840 (8,840) Revised Budget 3,949,793 4,524,570 6,098,570 2,375,793 Total Resources / Expenditures 8,474,363 8,474,363 Equipment Rental Fund (#550) Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 4,857,654 2,827,100 4,825,800 2,858,954 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- - - - BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)151,600 - 144,070 7,530 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)816,941 - 20,000 796,941 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- - 640 (640) BA#5 (proposed) Employer Pension Rate Increase effective 7/01/11 - - 1,800 (1,800) BA#5 Total - - 1,800 (1,800) Revised Budget 5,826,195 2,827,100 4,992,310 3,660,985 Total Resources / Expenditures 8,653,295 8,653,295 Grand Total - All Funds Beg. Fund Balance 2011 Revenues 2011 Expenditures Ending Fund Balance Adopted Budget 88,306,158 154,702,653 203,375,808 39,633,003 BA#1 (Adopted; ordinance #6351)- 51,500 177,860 (126,360) BA#2 (Adopted; ordinance #6352)11,357,642 5,741,642 16,784,946 314,338 BA#3 (Adopted; ordinance #6362)10,454,281 3,026,811 2,374,861 11,106,231 BA#4 (Adopted; ordinance #6370)- (224,300) (190,650) (33,650) BA#5 (proposed)- (128,480) 803,744 (932,224) Revised Budget 110,118,081 163,169,826 223,326,569 49,961,338 Total Resources / Expenditures 273,287,907 273,287,907 Page 7 of 7 DI.A AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4767 Date: November 4, 2011 Department: Finance Attachments: Agreement Resolution No. 4767 Status Report Accomplishments Budget Impact: $85,000 Administrative Recommendation: City Council adopt Resolution No. 4767. Background Summary: A Resolution No. 4767 authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement for services with the Auburn Chamber of Commerce to operate a visitor information center, promote tourism awareness within the City and to provide services associated with supporting the City's Economic Development efforts. Reviewed by Council Committees: Finance, Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Coleman Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 1 of 10 CITY OF AUBURN AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on this day of _____________, 201__, by and between the City of Auburn, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as “City” and The Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant.” W I T N E S S E T H : WHEREAS, The City is engaged in its projects of operating a visitor information center, promoting tourism, and economic development, and is in need of services of individuals, employees or firms for organizational work on said project; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to retain the Consultant to provide certain services in connection with the City’s work on said projects; and, WHEREAS, the Consultant is qualified and able to provide consulting services in connection with the City’s needs for the above-described work/project, and is willing and agreeable to provide such services upon the terms and conditions herein contained. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform in a good and professional manner the tasks described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (The tasks described on Exhibit “A” shall be individually referred to as a “task,” and collectively referred to as the “services.”) The Consultant shall perform the services as an independent contractor and shall not be deemed, by virtue of this Agreement and the performance thereof, to have entered into any partnership, joint venture, employment or other relationship with the City. 2. Additional Services. From time to time hereafter, the parties hereto may agree to the performance by the Consultant of additional services with respect to related work or projects. Any such agreement(s) shall be set forth in writing and shall be executed by the respective parties prior to the Consultant’s performance of the services there under, except as may be provided to the contrary in Section 3 of this Agreement. Upon proper completion and execution of an addendum (agreement for additional services), such addendum shall be incorporated into this Agreement and shall have the same force and effect as if the terms of such addendum were a part of this Agreement as originally executed. The performance of services pursuant to an addendum shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement except where the addendum provides to the contrary, in which case the terms and conditions of any such addendum shall control. In all other respects, any addendum shall supplement and be construed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. DI.B Page 2 of 10 3. Performance of Additional Services Prior to Execution of an Addendum. The parties hereby agree that situations may arise in which services other than those described on Exhibit “A” are desired by the City and the time period for the completion of such services makes the execution of addendum impractical prior to the commencement of the Consultant’s performance of the requested services. The Consultant hereby agrees that it shall perform such services upon the oral request of an authorized representative of the City pending execution of an addendum, at a rate of compensation to be agreed to in connection therewith. The invoice procedure for any such additional services shall be as described in Section 7 of this Agreement. 4. Consultant’s Representations. The Consultant hereby represents and warrants that he has all necessary licenses and certifications to perform the services provided for herein, and is qualified to perform such services. 5. City’s Responsibilities. The City shall do the following in a timely manner so as not to delay the services of the Consultant: a. Designate in writing a person to act as the City’s representative with respect to the services. The City’s designee shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define the City’s policies and decisions with respect to the services. b. Furnish the Consultant with all information, criteria, objectives, schedules and standards for the project and the services provided for herein. c. Arrange for access to the property or facilities as required for the Consultant to perform the services provided for herein. d. Examine and evaluate all studies, reports, memoranda, plans, sketches, and other documents prepared by the Consultant and render decisions regarding such documents in a timely manner to prevent delay of the services. 6. Acceptable Standards. The Consultant shall be responsible to provide, in connection with the services contemplated in this Agreement, work product and services of a quality and professional standard acceptable to the City. 7. Compensation. As compensation for the Consultant’s performance of the services provided for herein, the City shall pay the Consultant the fees and costs specified on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part hereof (or as specified in an addendum). The Consultant shall submit to the City an invoice or statement of time spent on tasks included in the scope of work provided herein, and the City shall process the invoice or statement in the next billing/claim cycle following receipt of the invoice or statement, and shall remit payment to the Consultant thereafter in the normal course, subject to any conditions or provisions in this Agreement or addendum. 8. Time for Performance and Term of Agreement. The Consultant shall perform the services provided for herein in accordance with the direction and scheduling provided by the City. The Term of this Agreement shall DI.B Page 3 of 10 commence on the date hereof and shall terminate on December 31, 2012, or upon another date if mutually agreed to in writing by the parties, subject to the restrictions in section 18. 9. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, reports, memoranda, diagrams, sketches, plans, surveys, design calculations, working drawings and any other materials created or otherwise prepared by the Consultant as part of his performance of this Agreement (the “Work Products”) shall be owned by and become the property of the City, and may be used by the City for any purpose beneficial to the City. 10. Records Inspection and Audit. All compensation payments shall be subject to the adjustments for any amounts found upon audit or otherwise to have been improperly invoiced, and all records and books of accounts pertaining to any work performed under this Agreement shall be subject to inspection and audit by the City for a period of up to three (3) years from the final payment for work performed under this Agreement. 11. Continuation of Performance. In the event that any dispute or conflict arises between the parties while this Contract is in effect, the Consultant agrees that, notwithstanding such dispute or conflict, the Consultant shall continue to make a good faith effort to cooperate and continue work toward successful completion of assigned duties and responsibilities. 12. Administration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be administered by the Chief Operating Officer of the Chamber, on behalf of the Consultant, and by the Mayor of the City, or designee, on behalf of the City. Any written notices required by the terms of this Agreement shall be served on or mailed to the following addresses: City of Auburn Consultant Auburn City Hall Auburn Chamber of Commerce 25 West Main 108 N. Division Suite B Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931-3000 FAX (253) 288-3132 (253) 833-0700 Fax (253) 735 4091 13. Notices. All notices or communications permitted or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered in person or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, for mailing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed, if to a party of this Agreement, to the address for the party set forth above, or if to a person not a party to this Agreement, to the address designated by a party to this Agreement in the foregoing manner. Any party may change his, her or its address by giving notice in writing, stating his, her or its new address, to any other party, all pursuant to the procedure set forth in this section of the Agreement. DI.B Page 4 of 10 14. Insurance. The Consultant shall be responsible for maintaining, during the term of this Agreement and at its sole cost and expense, the types of insurance coverages and in the amounts described below. The Consultant shall furnish evidence, satisfactory to the City, of all such policies. During the term hereof, the Consultant shall take out and maintain in full force and effect the following insurance policies: a. Comprehensive public liability insurance, including automobile and property damage, insuring the City and the Consultant against loss or liability for damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising out of or in connection with the performance by the Consultant of its obligations hereunder, with minimum liability limits of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit for personal injury, death or property damage in any one occurrence. b. Such workmen’s compensation and other similar insurance as may be required by law. c. Professional liability insurance with minimum liability limits of $1,000,000. 15. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of the negligent act or omission of the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. If a final judgment is rendered against the City, its officers, agents, employees and/or any of them, or jointly against the City and the Consultant and their respective officers, agents and employees, or any of them, the Consultant shall satisfy the same to the extent that such judgment was due to the Consultant’s negligent acts or omissions. 16. Assignment. Neither party to this Agreement shall assign any right or obligation hereunder in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party hereto. No assignment or transfer of any interest under this Agreement shall be deemed to release the assignor from any liability or obligation under this Agreement, or to cause any such liability or obligation to be reduced to a secondary liability or obligation. 17. Amendment, Modification or Waiver. No amendment, modification or waiver of any condition, provision or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing, signed by the party or parties to be bound, or such party’s or parties’ duly authorized representative(s) and specifying with particularity the nature and extent of such amendment, modification or waiver. Any waiver by any party of any default of the other party shall not effect or impair any right arising from any subsequent default. Nothing herein shall limit the remedies or rights of the parties hereto under and pursuant to this Agreement. DI.B Page 5 of 10 18. Termination and Suspension. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the other party if the other party fails substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the party terminating the Agreement. The City may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven (7) days written notice to the Consultant if the services provided for herein are no longer needed from the Consultant. If this Agreement is terminated through no fault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination in accordance with the rate of compensation provided in Exhibit “B” hereof. 19. Parties in Interest. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits and obligations provided for herein shall inure to and bind, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided that this section shall not be deemed to permit any transfer or assignment otherwise prohibited by this Agreement. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of the parties hereto and it does not create a contractual relationship with or exist for the benefit of any third party, including contractors, sub-contractors and their sureties. 20. Costs to Prevailing Party. In the event of such litigation or other legal action, to enforce any rights, responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement, the prevailing parties shall be entitled to receive its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. 21. Applicable Law. This Agreement and the rights of the parties hereunder shall be governed by the interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue for any action hereunder shall be in of the county in Washington State in which the property or project is located, and if not site specific, then in King County, Washington; provided, however, that it is agreed and understood that any applicable statute of limitation shall commence no later than the substantial completion by the Consultant of the services. 22. Captions, Headings and Titles. All captions, headings or titles in the paragraphs or sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement or act as a limitation of the scope of the particular paragraph or sections to which they apply. As used herein, where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and masculine, feminine and neuter expressions shall be interchangeable. Interpretation or construction of this Agreement shall not be affected by any determination as to who is the drafter of this Agreement, this Agreement having been drafted by mutual agreement of the parties. 23. Severable Provisions. Each provision of this Agreement is intended to be severable. If any provision hereof is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. DI.B Page 6 of 10 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto in respect to the transactions contemplated hereby and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to such subject matter. 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be one and the same Agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed effective the day and year first set forth above. CITY OF AUBURN CONSULTANT ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Peter B. Lewis, Mayor Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ Attest: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Danielle Daskam City Clerk Title: _______________________________ Approved as to form: ____________________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.B Page 7 of 10 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF _____________ ) ON THIS day of , 201 , before me, personally appeared and , to me known to be the and of the Contractor, the party(ies) who executed - the corporation/company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be his/her/their the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation/company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 201 . _______________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at ___________________ My Commission Expires: __________________ DI.B Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT A TASKS AND SERVICES Service as Auburn’s Visitor Information Center: Annually $25,000 • Handle inquiries made by visitors, new residents and employees via phone, e-mail, mail, walk up, and respond with the appropriate information and materials • Operate the City’s storefront Visitor Information Center where visitors obtain materials and advice during normal business hours. The center will provide sufficient space, display racks, appropriate materials and receptionist. • Produce and distribute the City business directory, community profile, street maps, and lists containing information about community resources and/or business services. • Respond to requests from publishers seeking information about Auburn for their magazines, web pages and/or directories. • Provide City hotels with brochures promoting local attractions, businesses and shops. Provide support and service to the City’s economic development goals and outreach to current and future business community members. Annually $15,000 • Assist the City in meeting with current and potential businesses to discuss inducements to conducting or locating a business in Auburn. • Provide input, feedback and serve on City technical and advisory committees for issues. (Proposed city codes, comprehensive plans and updates, design review, proposed capital improvements, city business processes, and other emerging issues mutually agreed upon). • Serve as the referral service for individuals seeking to do business with an Auburn business. • Meet with and provide tours of the City, when scheduling permits, for prospective business investors in conjunction with the City’s Economic Development Manger and Planning Department. Actively promote Auburn to prospective new business investors by attending meetings and providing appropriate information. • Maintain and provide demographic information up to a 30-mile radius from the downtown area. • Organize and conduct orientations for new employee groups as an incentive for businesses to locate in Auburn. DI.B Page 9 of 10 Provide a service to promote Tourism Awareness for the City of Auburn. Annually $45,000 • Coordinate all public relations, marketing, media relations, advertising, and event planning for the Auburn Tourism Board. • Liaise on marketing and communications matters and coordinate with the individual Board members, who comprise representatives from the City Council, the Auburn Chamber of Commerce, all the major attractions, the lodging sector and other tourism-related businesses. • Follow up on activities to involve existing and new strategic partners. • Twice a year the consultant shall provide a report to the Finance Committee on progress made with the Tourism Awareness project. DI.B Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT B COSTS Annual compensation for current scope of work not to exceed $85,000. DI.B ------------------------- Resolution No. 4767 October 26, 2011 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 4767 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUBURN AND THE AUBURN AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO OPERATE A VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER, PROMOTE TOURISM AWARENESS WITHIN THE CITY AND TO PROVIDE SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH SUPPORTING THE CITY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS WHEREAS, The City is engaged in its projects of operating a visitor information center, promoting tourism and economic development, and is in need of services of individuals, employees or firms for organizational work on said project; and, WHEREAS, the City collects a lodging tax for the purpose of promoting Auburn as a tourist destination; and WHEREAS, the City desires to retain the Consultant to provide certain services in connection with the City’s work on said projects; and WHEREAS, the Consultant is qualified and able to provide consulting services in connection with the City’s needs for the above-described work/project, and is willing and agreeable to provide such services upon the terms and conditions herein contained. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: DI.B ------------------------- Resolution No. 4767 October 26, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Section 1. Purpose. The Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Auburn are hereby authorized to execute an Agreement for Services with The Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce to operate a Visitor Information Center and to provide services associated with supporting the City’s economic development efforts. Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor of the City of Auburn is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this resolution. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. DATED and SIGNED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________ , 2011. CITY OF AUBURN ____________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk DI.B ------------------------- Resolution No. 4767 October 26, 2011 Page 3 of 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.B MEMORANDUM TO: CITY OF AUBURN COUNCIL MEMBERS, FINANCE COMMITTEE , AND COMMUNITY & PLANNING DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: AUBURN AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUBJECT: SERVICES AGREEMENT UPDATE /CONTRACT RENEWAL – VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER, E CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM DATE: 11/2/11 CC: AUBURN AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dear City Council Members, Thank you for this opportunity to present you with an end-of-the-year report identifying some of the highlights of the services the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce is pleased to have provided the City pursuant to our contract for services. As you know, these services assist the City by supplementing its efforts with regard to Visitor/Tourism Information, the City's Economic Development Goals and Outreach to Current and Future Business Community Members in ways that leverage the credibility, experience and resources of the Chamber. While there is some overlap, I have organized this summary to encompass the general scope of services in the referenced contract, as follows: SERVE AS AUBURN’S VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER: Handle inquiries made by visitors, new residents and employees via phone, email, mail, walk-in and respond with the appropriate information and materials; Operate the City's storefront Visitor Information Center where visitors obtain materials and advice during normal business hours. The center will provide sufficient space, display racks, appropriate materials and receptionist. Consistent with the terms of the contract for services, the Chamber maintains and operates Auburn's Visitor Information Center where people know to seek out the Chamber as the first point of contact, whether a visitor or new resident, to obtain a wide variety of materials and advice. The Chamber-operated Visitor Information Center dominates the entire front portion of the Chamber’s Lobby, with easy visibility & access from the street. It includes large display racks stocked with varied and valuable visitor-related materials. DI.B 2 | Page The Visitor Information Center signage on the storefront is a large banner across the first three windows to loudly state “Visitor Information Center”; and with a larger window sign that boldly lists Auburn Tourism as one of the main components in our office and offers the universal “I” symbol denoting an information center is located here. With each walk-in, visitors and prospective businesses are able to take multiple pieces of information that the Chamber provides. It is often their first point of contact in our community. When we mail out relocation and/or vacation packets, a variety of information is sent, including information about the City of Auburn, parks & recreation, public art, the golf course, trails, etc., as well as Auburn businesses and visitor services. The valuable contribution the Chamber is uniquely able to provide in its contract with the City, is our ability to staff the Visitor Information Center with employees having extensive personal knowledge of the greater Auburn area, and a genuine desire to promote the City of Auburn. With the construction for the Division Street Promenade, we have seen a marked decrease in the amount of walk-ins, but we are pleased to know that those individuals and businesses that want to find us, have been able to. We are excitedly anticipating the opening of this new “jewel” for our community, which will create a more appealing entrance to our office. Produce and distribute the City business directory, community profile, street maps, and lists containing information about community resources and/or business services. Respond to requests from publishers seeking information about Auburn for their magazines, web pages and/or directories. Provide City hotels with brochures promoting local attractions, businesses and shops. The Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce produces a Community Directory each year in January and prints 5,000. All but 240 of the 2011 directories have been distributed. We will have the 2012 directories delivered to us in mid-January. We currently distribute these Community Directories to: City Hall Member advertisers for use with prospective and current customers and firms Auburn Library Muckleshoot Library Senior Center Parks & Rec Building Auburn Airport Local Hotels Small Business Assistance Center Green River Community College The SuperMall All event visitors that deal directly with our Tourism Marketing Coordinator DI.B 3 | Page New teachers (in conjunction with the New Teacher Breakfast hosted by the Chamber and the Auburn School District’s recruitment efforts); and We mail out the Community Directory in the Chamber's "Relocation/Tourism/Inquiry Packets" The Chamber’s Community Directory continues to receive a very strong response from the Auburn Business Community. We believe the desire of local businesses to advertise in the Community Directory is an affirmation of the effectiveness of the Chamber's Community Directory in presenting the strengths and assets of the Auburn area, and local businesses, to both current and prospective visitors. They see it as a primary resource for direct contact with their customers and clients. The Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce also produces a Local Area Map every two to three years. 10,000 of each edition are printed. Our map came out in June 2011 and of those 10,000 we have been able to distribute approximately 4,000 thus far. We currently distribute these Local Area Maps to: City Hall Member advertisers Auburn Library Muckleshoot Library Senior Center Parks & Rec Building Auburn Airport Local Hotels Small Business Assistance Center Green River Community College The SuperMall All event visitors that deal directly with our Tourism Marketing Coordinator New teachers (in conjunction with the New Teacher Breakfast hosted by the Chamber and the Auburn School District’s recruitment efforts); and We mail out the Local Area Map in the Chamber's "Relocation/Tourism/Inquiry Packets" DI.B 4 | Page PROVIDE SUPPORT AND SERVICE TO THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OUTREACH TO CURRENT AND FUTURE BUSINESS COMMUNITY MEMBERS. Assist the City in meeting with current and potential businesses to discuss inducements to conducting or locating a business in Auburn. Provide input, feedback and serve on City technical and advisory committees for issues. (Proposed city codes, comprehensive plans and updates, design review, proposed capital improvements, city business processes, and other emerging issues mutually agreed upon.) Serve as the referral service for individuals seeking to do business with an Auburn business. Meet with and provide tours of the City, when scheduling permits, for prospective business investors in conjunction with the City's Economic Development Manager and Planning Department. Actively promote Auburn to prospective new business investors by attending meetings and providing appropriate information. Maintain and provide demographic information up to a 30-mile radius from the downtown area. Organize and conduct orientations for new employee groups as an incentive for businesses to locate in Auburn. Chamber leaders and the Chamber’s President & COO have been active participants on the all important Streets Task Force (twice); and took the lead on the Urban Core Task Force, a new 50-year visioning process for the downtown area and surrounding business community. The Chamber’s President & COO has greatly appreciated the opportunity to be called in as an active participate in significant recruitment and retention meetings, partnering with the City’s Economic Development Manager and the City’s Planning Director. The Chamber has furthered the partnership with the City’s Economic Development staff in co-sponsoring several events such as: Import/Export Forum; Business Development Classes, and more that are scheduled for the coming months. Chamber staff members have been active in giving “windshield tours” of the city to prospective businesses whenever requested. The Chamber participates, along with other chambers, with the Valley Cities Mayors' group to identify issues where it may forge and implement partnerships on issues critical to enhance economic vitality for Auburn, and the south-end region. The Chamber is also an integral founding partner on the South Sound Chambers of Commerce Legislative Coalition (SSCCLC) that puts forth issues to better our region’s economy. The Chamber just took on the added responsibility as being the Administrator for the SSCCLC. Chamber board members, especially executive committee members, have actively (proactively) been soliciting new businesses to move to Auburn. (Example: Ronnie Roberts with Gosanko Chocolate Art recruited U-Line to open a facility in Auburn.) DI.B 5 | Page PROVIDE A SERVICE TO PROMOTE TOURISM AWARENESS FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN. Coordinate all public relations, marketing, media relations, advertising, and event planning for the Auburn Tourism Board. Liaise on marketing and communications matters and coordinate with the individual Board members, who comprise representatives from the City Council, the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, all the major attractions, the lodging sector and other tourism-related businesses. Follow up on activities to involve existing and new strategic partners. Several Chamber Board Members and the President & COO participate on the Auburn Tourism Board, working to bring tourists to our area. This effort both builds the growing strength of our local tourism economy and generates additional sales tax revenues to support city services including both capital and operational expenses. As part of our 5-year Strategic Plan, the Chamber's leadership is committed to pursuing a community-wide, partnership effort to market on a consistent basis a branded welcome message to tourists in connection with all the major events that put heads in beds, dollars in retail establishments and seats in restaurants. Our Tourism Marketing Coordinator, Debbie Luce, has provided a comprehensive report to the City Council Members on the progress of the Tourism Board and the great strides made with that Board. This report highlights the 2nd year of our highly successful Autumn Wedding Show. (See separate report from Debbie Luce.) DI.B 6 | Page Summary Data Regarding Visitor Information, Tourism & Economic Development Inquiries The following data reflects recorded Chamber activity in responding to Visitor Information Center (Tourism) and Economic Development Inquiries from January 1, 2011 through November 1, 2011. Visitor Information Center/Tourism Walk-ins 2,759 (down due to road construction) Phone 15,232 (up due to road construction) Email 11,935 Mail Incoming 562 Outgoing 8,517 Economic Development Walk-ins 53 Phone 197 Email 42 Mail Incoming 11 Outgoing 83 General Information Request (non VIC/Tourism/ED related) Combined 6,714 Amount of time spent on each: Walk-ins: 15 - 60 minutes Phone: 3 - 30 minutes Email: 3 - 5 minutes Mail: 3 - 15 minutes Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this year-end status report identifying some of the highlights of the services the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce is pleased to provide the City pursuant to our contract for services. We look forward to another year of providing these essentials services for the City of Auburn. Sincerely, AUBURN AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Nancy E. Wyatt President/COO DI.B Auburn Tourism Board 2011 Accomplishments Overall Accomplishments that follow the Strategic Plan: Worked with Finance Senior Accountant for monthly financial review Maintain Website and Blog Negotiated 2011 contract with Clear Channel for banners at the Sounder Train Station Participate in City Events representing the Tourism Board Answer all tourism related questions from walk-ins and phone calls 1. Respond to all tourism information requests with follow up if necessary - phone, mail and website 2. Respond to all newcomer inquires about Auburn Update Chamber staff on current events that are tourism related Update Tourism Partners and Hotels on current events Continue to work closely with City of Auburn, Parks Department, Multimedia, Senior Citizens Supervisor, The Auburn Downtown Association and Cultural Arts to assist in promotion, advertising and up coming events Continue to work with Auburn School District to promote school functions that need hotel accommodations: Bands for Veterans Day Parade, Soft Ball and Fast Pitch Tournaments, Cup Stacking Tournament, Miss Auburn Pageant, Jazz Festival, Junior Olympics etc. Other groups: YMCA, NW Skating Invitational at Auburn Skate Connection, Auburn Airport Continue branding in all forms of printed materials, banners, ads, website design Hold and coordinate monthly ATB meetings Prepare all paperwork for meeting including agenda, financials and minutes Attended all ATB meetings, organized meetings and produced meeting materials Organize Visitor Information material in Chamber lobby Work with and visit all hotels on a weekly basis - more if needed Check all websites of attractions on a weekly basis for updated information Develop and Implement ATB Monthly Update Calendar Distribute Updated Calendar to hotels to inform front desk staff and management of upcoming events Post monthly calendars in 7 locations: B Street Plaza kiosk, Train Station, Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, Auburn Ave., SuperMall, The Auburn Downtown Association and Auburn Reporter Updates and FYI’s go to all of the ATB partners on a regular basis Updates also act as a communication tool to update partners on important information that might affect their business Post yearly and monthly events on website and in the Chamber Connections Newsletter Write tourism article each month in the Chamber Connections Keep up to date restaurant list, with recommendations on large group choices DI.B Tourism Website Incorporated the “More Than You Imagined” branding to the overall look of the site which is used in all printed material Ensure lodging and restaurant information is complete and valid Up to date attraction information Up to date new business information Working on content development and updating on a weekly basis Post all current events Add links and removed them as needed Add news and media articles Update any Hotel or Business Partner changes Answered all inquiries from site Worked on maximization of links from and to the Auburn Tourism site and ATB’s reps’ site Auburn news feed directly from the Tourism Blog which keeps the Home Page current Things To Do section automatically populates from the calendar Highlight months largest events on website Home Page Continue to Update Tourism Fact Sheet Update all facts on the two sided sheet as needed Displayed in Chamber lobby Send out in every information and newcomer packet Maintain partner contact list Maintain list on a monthly basis Continue to seek new valued partners Local Community Outreach Program Welcome Display at the front counter of the Finance Department with business cards, brochures and directions to Visitor Center Worked with the Auburn Reporter to include tourism in the 2011 Residence Guide Attend South King County Event and Wedding Vendors Meet-Up Continued to reach out to clubs and organizations as guest speaker Cold call to local businesses with hotel information and attractions Distribute chocolate bars with City logo to area businesses and groups Developed Tourism Packet for visitor as well as business travelers for HR departments Write monthly article for Chamber Connections Newsletter Continue to use the More Than You Imagined tag line Maintained a great working relationship with all major local and area attractions and local hotels Maintain an ongoing branding image for Auburn Tourism Third year participating with DECA DI.B Participate in Veterans Day Parade Participate in yearly Association of Visitor Information Centers of Washington (AVICW) conference Second year as a Board Member on the AVICW Board of Directors and participate in quarterly Board Meetings Participate in opening day of the International Farmers Market Provide Tote Bag for the International Farmers Market sponsored by Emerald Downs Our goal in 2009 was to continue to educate our local citizens by showcasing all the tourism opportunities available in Auburn. We also wanted to promote the opening of the Auburn International Farmers Market. This being accomplished in 2009 our goal was to expand our outreach outside of Auburn. The Board of Directors and the Lodging Tax Advisory Board decided to have a Wedding Show to accomplish our goal while still showcasing all that Auburn has to offer. The 2010 Autumn Wedding Show at Emerald Downs was a huge success allowing us to host an even larger Wedding Show in 2011. There were over 3,000 guests attending the 2010 show. Auburn businesses were given a $100 discounted vendor rate and prime booth placement. Our hotels were given free 5 x 10 booth space. 2011 Autumn Wedding Show at Emerald Downs October 1st and 2nd Developed Budget Updated the 2010 website Developed a time line Developed Vendor Rules & Guidelines Developed Application for Vendors Began sending out information packets on a weekly basics Sent a total of 500 or more letters and applications and developed a good vendor list in all wedding related categories Designed a filing system for vendors Designed Sponsor Packets Designed Save the Date Cards for Vendors to display in their businesses Signed-up Tote Bag Sponsor - The Mane Team Booked Fashion Show with Group USA and Rottles Clothing & Shoes Acquired a vendor to oversee the Fashion Shows Signed up - models Worked with the Wolf Radio for Grand Prize Worked with Star Radio for Grand Prize Kept Website up to date Completed art work for Emerald Downs programs Sent out invoices Designed all print material Had display table at all Chamber Luncheons with Banner In Chamber E-blasts In Chambers Slide Show at luncheons Continue to gather information on advertising opportunities DI.B Arranged concessions for vendors Had additional advertising with the Wolf giving vendor prizes on the air Advertising on both radio stations websites Added Vendor “How To Seminars” for both Saturday & Sunday Secured Banner Permits Secured advertising at SuperMall rolling kiosks Worked with MC and Fashion Show content Secured Mayor Prize Sponsor - $3,200 Engagement Ring and $1,000 Gift Certificate Marci Jewelers Attended Hat’s and Heels on August 13th for possible vendors Secured 2,500 Free Wedding Magazines to give out Designed and ordered Bridal Gift Bag Advertising: 1. E Entertainment, Travel Channel, TLC and Style. Advertising began on September 19th 2. Star 101.5 - Two week radio campaign and 2 hour remote on Saturday 3. Wolf 107.7 Two week radio campaign 4. 16 Screens Kiosk at the SuperMall. 5. ShowCase Media on their website and magazine 6. Advertising on the Knot website 7. Advertising on Seattle Weekly e-blast to 5,000 subscribers 8. Adverting on MySeattleWedding.com 9. Auburn Reporter 10. Posters 11. Banners 12. Highline Community College Newsletter 13. Save the Date Cards 14. Chamber News Letters 15. Emerald Downs Newsletters 16. Emerald Downs Program the entire racing season. 17. AutumnWeddingShow.com 18. AuburnTourism.com 19. Chamber e-blasts 20. South Sound Wedding & Event Magazine 21. Chamber Luncheons Final Vendors 64 Chamber Ambassadors help vendors set up Over 2,500 people attended Handed out 750 gift bags Already have vendors set up for next year We are now on the Wedding Show circuit for 2012 Letters and applications will be sent out to all 2011 Vendors Prepared and sent out Brides List, Groom List and Other List Sent Thanks You letter to models in Fashion Show Send out surveys to all vendors DI.B Hotel Occupancy Occupancy came up a little from last year All 6 hotels had a good summer Visited hotels regularly asking if they have special groups coming in that we can make goodie bags for their guests (great PR) Have assisted hotels with various issues on a regular basis Continue to distribute Thank You for Staying in hotels that are given to large groups and special guest Will once again work with hotels offering Winter Rates from November thru March Also established Special Rates for Emerald Downs, Auburn Regional Medical Center, Funeral Homes Advertising, Researched all possible free advertising Board decided not to participate in printed Guides for 2011/2012 Member of the Tacoma Visitor and Information Center and are in the Tacoma Visitor Guide Arranged inclusion in calendar in Hometown Values - Free Sent 400 Brochures to Tacoma Tall Ships Event again this year Linked our site to all area attraction websites Distribute Map/Brochures - Visited to check on stock count on a regular basis Hotels Airport Local businesses Car Dealers, Rental Car Companies Public Library City Hall Auburn Regional Hospital Parks Department Senior Citizen Center Muckleshoot Casino, Iron Horse Casino, Emerald Downs, White River Amphitheatre, Auburn Ave, SuperMall, Auburn Golf Course, White River Valley Museum, etc. Target Markets determined by the ATB Board. (Certified Folder Display). Work with Certified to insure the best possible information centers to display Map/Brochure Changed our advertising strategies with Certified Folder Display and we will not be advertising with them in 2012 Action Items and Goals which follow the Tourism Boards Program of Work Increase Hotel Occupancy Having met our goals on educating our community first in 2009 and 2010, we expanded our focus to promote to the South Sound area and beyond Resell the Banners at Sounder Train Station and sign a new contract with Clear Channel DI.B Work on 2012 Autumn Bridal Show at Emerald Downs and all related partners 1. Position our event in between Seattle and Tacoma Wedding Events and promote all that we have to offer 2. Advertise our Community as a Tourist Destination 3. Work to make the Wedding Show pay for itself Continue to grow or partnerships Continue to provide up to date information about our city Change advertising strategy to promote Auburn on radio, TV and websites Work to bring in other events Assist all entertainment properties promoting their Special Events Work with PR firm to choose markets to advertise Auburn Work with Green River Community College to provide International Students and their parents special information packets about Auburn Work with Washington Tourism Alliance (Washington has canceled State Tourism Office funding as of July 1, 2011) to make sure we continue to promote Washington and our community Member of the Washington Tourism Alliance DI.B AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Public Works Attachments: Memo Draft 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Council Priority Matrix Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Background Summary: See attached memo. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Hankins Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.C AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C PCDC Page 1 11/9/2011 Memorandum Engineering Division To: Planning & Community Development Committee (PCDC) Mayor Lewis From: Chris Hankins, Transportation Planner CC: Dennis Dowdy, Public Works Director Dennis Selle, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Ingrid Gaub, Assistant City Engineer Pablo Para, Traffic Engineer Michelle Surdez, Senior Accountant Rich Wagner, Public Works Committee Chair Date: November 14, 2011 Re: 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program Amendments PURPOSE Discuss proposed amendments to the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). BACKGROUND The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is required to be amended annually as required by RCW 35.77.010. For Auburn, the primary importance of the TIP is that, in most instances, projects must be included on the TIP to be eligible for state and federal grant programs. The TIP identifies secured or reasonably expected revenues and expenditures for each of the projects included in the TIP. Typically, projects listed in the first three years of the document are shown as having secured funding while projects in the last three years can be partially or completely unfunded. The TIP then, by definition, represents a more comprehensive plan list of projects deemed necessary to ensure the efficient and safe operation of the City’s transportation system now and into the future. It is important to note that the TIP is primarily a multiyear planning tool and document for the development of transportation facilities within the City and does not represent a financial commitment by the City. Once the TIP is approved, projects are budgeted and funded through the City’s biennial budget for the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The TIP helps sets priorities for the acquisition of project funding and is a prerequisite of most grant programs. Staff also uses the TIP to coordinate future transportation projects with DI.C PCDC Page 2 11/9/2011 needed utility improvements, so that utility work can be budgeted and programmed to occur prior to roadway projects. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2012-2017 TIP Deletions: The following projects were substantially funded and/or completed in 2011 and are proposed to be removed from the 2012-2017 TIP: TIP #2 Citywide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) PHASE 2 TIP #13 South Auburn Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Expansion TIP #22 Skinner Road to 3rd Ave (Auburn Pacific Trail Phase 2) TIP #52 Downtown Promenade Improvements Additions: Below are the proposed new additions to the 2012-2017 TIP: TIP #2 AWS Corridor Improvements Phase 1 TIP #18 8th St NE and SE 104th St Intersection Improvements TIP #58 AWS Corridor Improvements (Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE) TIP #60 M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS) TIP #61 Auburn Way South Bypass TIP #62 AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M Street SE) TIP #63 29th Street SE & R Street SE TIP #64 Lea Hill Segment 1 (8th St NE from R St NE to 104th Ave SE) TIP #65 Lea Hill Segment 2 (SE 320th St from 104th Ave SE to 112th Ave SE ) TIP #66 Lea Hill Segment 3 (SE 320th St from 112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE ) NEXT STEPS Staff will commence the TIP amendment process based on the below schedule. The final approved TIP document will be sent to WSDOT and PSRC for their acceptance. Nov. 14th, 2001 – CAB & Resolution to set public hearing for 12/5/11 @ PCDC. Nov. 14th, 2011 – Proposed TIP Amendments for discussion @ PCDC Nov. 21st , 2011 – Proposed TIP Amendments for discussion @ PWC. Nov. 28th, 2011 – CAB & Resolution for action @ PCDC. Dec. 5th, 2011 – City Council Meeting to conduct public hearing & approve amended TIP Attachments: The following attached documents are provided for the Committee’s review: • Major Transportation Improvements and Preservation Matrix (from Council Retreat) • Draft 2012 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Program • Draft 2012 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Program Project Map DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm 22001122--22001177 DI.C ii TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm 22001122--22001177 Approved by Auburn City Council December 5, 2011 City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 (253)-931-3010 www.auburnwa.gov DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program iii Cover Photos: Top right is F ST SE at 4th St SE Signal Improvements; bottom left is A ST NW Capacity Improvement Project. DI.C iv RESOLUTION NO. 4769 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2012-2017 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF AUBURN PURSUANT TO R.C.W. CHAPTER 35.77 OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires that the legislative body of each City prepare and adopt a comprehensive Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the ensuing six years, but only after conducting a public hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to review the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Auburn was held on December 5th, 2011 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, pursuant to notice published in the legal newspaper of the City of Auburn on November 17, 2011; and WHEREAS, said amendment to the 20121-2017 Transportation Improvement Plan of the City of Auburn was approved by the City Council by motion duly made and carried in said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. There is attached hereto and denominated as Exhibit “A,” the terms of which are incorporated herewith by reference as though fully set forth, a designation of the streets within the corporate limits of the City of Auburn to be improved in the manner therein set forth during the year set for the improvement of such street or streets. Section 2. That the City Engineer of the City of Auburn is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Washington State Department of Transportation for filing not more than thirty (30) days after the adoption of this Resolution. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 4. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 4770 v DATED this ___ day of December, 2011 CITY OF AUBURN PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: ______________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.C vi Transportation Improvement Program 2011-2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1 Projects & Financing Plan Summary.....................................................................................................3 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary..................................................................................13 Roadway Improvement Projects...........................................................................................................17 A Street NW, Phase 1...........................................................................................................................17 Auburn Way South Pedestrian Imp. - Dogwood St. SE to I St SE……………………………………18 Auburn Way Corridor Imp..................................................................................................................189 I Street NE Corridor..............................................................................................................................20 M Street Grade Separation....................................................................................................................21 South 277th Street.................................................................................................................................22 15th Street SW Reconstruction.............................................................................................................23 A Street NW, Phase 2...........................................................................................................................24 D Street NW..........................................................................................................................................25 F Street SE............................................................................................................................................26 M Street NE..........................................................................................................................................27 BNSF Railyard Grade Crossing............................................................................................................28 West Valley Highway Imp....................................................................................................................29 8th Street NE Widening........................................................................................................................30 49th Street NE.......................................................................................................................................31 Traffic Calming Improvements.............................................................................................................32 M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS)……………………………………………………………33 Auburn Way South Bypass……………………………………………………………………………34 Auburn Way South Streetscape Improvements……………………………………………………….35 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp. Phase 1…………………………………………………………………..36 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp. Phase 2 …………………………………………………………………37 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp. Phase 3....................................................................................................38 AWS Corridor (Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE …………………………………………………………39 29th St SE & R St SE…………………………………………………………………………………..40 Lea Hill Segment 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………41 Lea Hill Segment 2 …………………………………………………………………………………...42 Lea Hill Segment 3 .........................................................................................................................43 SE 320th Street Corridor Imp...............................................................................................................44 Intersection Improvement Projects.......................................................................................................45 8th Street NE & R Street NE................................................................................................................45 Auburn Way North & 1st Street NE.....................................................................................................46 Auburn Way South & M Street SE.......................................................................................................47 C Street NW & West Main Street.........................................................................................................48 F Street SE & 4th Street SE..................................................................................................................49 DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program vii Railroad Crossing Imp..........................................................................................................................50 Traffic Signal Improvements................................................................................................................51 ITS Dynamic Message Signs................................................................................................................52 East Valley HWY ITS Expansion.........................................................................................................53 Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects...............................................................................54 BNSF/ East Valley HWY Ped. Underpass...........................................................................................54 Academy Drive Class 1 Trail................................................................................................................55 Metro Shuttles.......................................................................................................................................56 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program................................................................................................57 Citywide Arterial Bicycle and Safety Imp............................................................................................58 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements........................................................................................................59 A St NE Ped. Imp..................................................................................................................................60 Interurban Trailhead Imp......................................................................................................................61 37th Street SE & R St SE Ped Connector.............................................................................................62 Lea Hill Pedestrian Improvements........................................................................................................62 Preliminary Engineering & Miscellaneous Projects............................................................................63 41st St SE & A St SE Access Management Study …………………………………………………...63 104th Ave SE & Green River Rd Study ……………………………………………………………..64 Environmental Park Study …………………………………………………………………………...65 Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Study……………………………………………………….66 S 316th Bike and Ped Study..................................................................................................................67 Kersey Way Study…………………………………………………………………………………….68 Mary Olson Farm…………………………………………………………………………………… 69 Roadway Preservation Projects ………………………………………………………………………70 Annual Bridge Preservation Project …………………………………………………………………..70 Annual Arterial Street Preservation ………………………………………………………..................71 Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program …………………………………………………………………72 Local Street Imp. Program (SOS) …………………………………………………………………….73 Project Summary Spreadsheet .…………………………….……………………………….Appendix A 2012-2017 TIP Project Map…..…………..………………………………………………….Appendix B DI.C DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Executive Summary & Introduction 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a 6-year plan (2012-2017) for transportation improvements that supports the City of Auburns current and future growth. The TIP along with the Comprehensive Transportation plan serve as source documents for the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan which is a Comprehensive Plan element required by Washington’s Growth Management Act. The program may be revised at any time by a majority of the City Council after a public hearing. The 2012-2017 TIP recognizes over $128 million worth of transportation improvements (including Non-Motorized and roadway preservation) over the next six years. INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of the TIP is to identify priority transportation projects and assure that the city has advanced plans as a guide in carrying out a coordinated transportation program. There are always more projects than available revenues. Therefore, a primary objective of the TIP is to integrate the two to produce a comprehensive, realistic program for the orderly development and maintenance of our street system. Projects are required to be included in the TIP in order to be eligible for state and federal grants. Grant funding for projects listed may not yet be secured. Statutory Requirements Six Year Transportation Improvement Program - RCW 35.77.010 requires that each city prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation improvement program for the ensuing six calendar years consistent with its Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) shall be filed with the Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) each year within 30 days of adoption. Projects of Regional Significance - RCW 35.77.010 also requires each city to specifically set forth those projects and programs of regional significance for inclusion in the transportation improvement program for that region. The 2011-2016 TIP includes 6 projects of regional significance: TIP Project Number Project Title TIP #5 M Street Grade Separation TIP # 6 S 277th St Widening TIP #13 South Auburn ITS Expansion TIP #14 West Valley Highway Improvements TIP #50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs TIP #51 East Valley Highway ITS Expansion DI.C 2 Methodology Annual updates of the TIP begins with developing a revenue forecast to provide a reasonable estimate of funding available to accomplish the transportation improvement needs. Since the desire to construct transportation improvements typically exceeds the available forecast revenue, it is necessary to establish some method of prioritizing the needs. Transportation needs are identified by examining the latest information concerning level of service, safety and accident history, growth trends, traffic studies and the City’s adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The likelihood of receiving federal or state grants for various improvements, community interests and values are also considered. All of these factors yield a prioritized list of transportation improvements. Projects are placed into one of the following categories; Roadway Improvements, Intersection Improvements, Signal & Intelligent Transportation System Improvements, Non-Motorized & Transit Improvements, Preliminary Engineering & Miscellaneous projects and Roadway Preservation Projects. Each project is identified as a Capacity or Non-capacity improvement and those that lay within the limits of a defined Arterial LOS Corridor per with Table 2-2 of the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan are identified accordingly. There are also Citywide Programs included in the TIP such as the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program, Annual Bridge Preservation Program, Local Street Improvement Program, Annual Arterial Street Preservation Program, amongst other ongoing efforts. Detailed project costs and funding sources are identified and provided for each project listed in the proposed TIP. The prioritized list is then financially constrained in the first three years to reflect the financial projections to yield the six-year Transportation Improvement Program. After completing all reviews and compiling the document staff makes final recommendations to the Planning and Community Development Committee and City Council for approval. DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 3 Projects & Financing Plan Summary 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects 1 'A' Street NW, Phase 1 ($4.1 Million Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 1,687,500 - - - - - 1,687,500 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue18,500 - - - - - 18,500 Grants785,000 - - - - - 785,000 Traffic Impact Fees684,000 - - - - - 684,000 Other (Development)200,000 - - - - - 200,000 2Auburn Way Corridor Improvements Capital Costs 106,500 - - - 818,700 3,000,000 3,925,200 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - 110,000 600,000 710,000 Grants- - - - 708,700 2,400,000 3,108,700 Other Sources- - - - - - 4 'I' Street NE Corridor ($12,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 409,300 - - - - 6,760,000 7,169,300 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other Sources (Port of Seattle)409,300 409,300 Other Sources (Development)- - - - - 5,760,000 5,760,000 5 'M' Street Grade Separation ($5,498,500 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 7,549,700 8,935,000 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 16,966,700 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants4,791,500 4,208,500 - - - - 9,000,000 REET2- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees661,400 1,500,000 - - - - 2,161,400 Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - - PWTF Loan- 1,977,100 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 2,459,100 Other (Other Agencies)2,096,800 1,249,400 - - - - 3,346,200 6South 277th - Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge ($19,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs - - - - - 4,500,000 4,500,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - Other (Development Funds)*- - - - - 2,500,000 2,500,000 Other (Port of Seattle)**- - - - - - - 715th St SW Reconstruction Capital Costs - - - - 375,000 3,000,000 3,375,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - 75,000 500,000 575,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 300,000 2,500,000 2,800,000 REET - - - - - - - DI.C 4 2012-2017 Roadway Improvement Projects Cont… 8 A Street NW, Phase 2 ($250,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs:- - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 REET - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other (Developer)*- - - - - - - 9 'D' Street NW, 37th to 44th ($6 Million beyond 2017) Capital Costs - - - - - 300,000 300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants- - - 250,000 250,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - 50,000 50,000 10 'F' Street SE, 4th to AWS ($8,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs - - 250,000 2,250,000 - - 2,500,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 200,000 2,000,000 - - 2,200,000 REET- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - 50,000 250,000 - - 300,000 Other- - - - - - - 11 'M' Street NE, E. Main to 4th Capital Costs - 50,000 275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - 225,000 1,000,000 - - 1,225,000 Traffic Impact Fees- 50,000 50,000 150,000 - - 250,000 14West Valley Hwy Improvements ($2,270,000 Expended Prior to 2011) Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - - - - - - REET2- - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other (Storm Fund 432)- - - - - - - 158th Street NE Widening (Pike Street to R Street NE) Capital Costs - - 450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 360,000800,000- - 1,160,000 REET- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - 90,000 200,000 - - 290,000 Other- - - - - - - 1649th Street NE from Auburn Way North to M Street NE Capital Costs - - - 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - - REET- - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds- - - 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 Other (Development)*- - - - - - - DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 5 2012-2017 Roadway Projects Continued… 39 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 3 Capital Costs - - - - 100,000 750,000 850,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 85,000 650,000 735,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - 15,000 100,000 115,000 Other- - - - - - - 40 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1 Capital Costs 50,000 150,000 1,750,000 - - - 1,950,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 125,000 1,565,000 - - - 1,690,000 Traffic Impact Fees50,000 25,000 185000- - - 210,000 Other- - - - - - - 41124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2 Capital Costs - - 30,000 150,000 1,000,000 - 1,180,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 100,000 865,000 - 965,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - 30,000 50,000 135,000 - 215,000 Other- - - - - - - 42SE 320th St Corridor Improvements Capital Costs - - 30,000 60,000 580,000 - 670,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 51,500 502,100 - 553,600 Grants- - 30,000 8,500 77,900 - 116,400 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other- - - - - - - 58Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements Phase 2 ($296,250 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 2,736,700 - - - - - 2,736,700 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants2,189,400 - - - - - 2,189,400 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other Sources (Muckleshoot)547,300 - - - - - 547,300 59M Street SE 4TH to 3RD Capital Costs - - 741,000 741,000 - - 1,482,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - 234,000 234,000 - - 468,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 75,000 75,000 - - 150,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - 312,000 312,000 - - 624,000 REET2- - - - - - - Other- - 120,000 120,000 - - 240,000 DI.C 6 2012-2017 Roadway Projects Continued… 60 M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS) Capital Costs - - - 1,895,400 4,745,400 - 6,640,800 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 234,000 234,000 - 468,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 397,800 3,247,800 - 3,645,600 Traffic Impact Fees- - - 1,263,600 1,263,600 - 2,527,200 REET2- - - - - - - Other- - - - - - - 61 Auburn Way South Bypass ($27,550,000 Expenditures Beyond 2017) Capital Costs - - - - - 60,450,000 60,450,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - 40,225,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 13,000,000 13,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - REET2- - - - - 7,225,000 7,225,000 Other- - - - - 60,450,000 60,450,000 62 Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements Phase 2 Capital Costs - - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 4,750,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - 400,000 400,000 800,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 1,200,000 2,050,000 3,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - REET2- - - - - - - Other- - - - 350,000 350,000 700,000 63 Lea Hill Segment 1 (8th St NE from R St NE to 104th Ave SE) Capital Costs - - - - 6,250,000 18,450,000 24,700,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - 300,000 1,250,000 1,550,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 5,500,000 3,750,000 9,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - REET2- - - - - 1,250,000 1,250,000 Other- - - - 450,000 12,200,000 12,650,000 64 Lea Hill Segment 2 (SE 320th St from 104th Ave SE to 112th Ave SE ) Capital Costs - - - - - 11,400,000 11,400,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 9,000,000 9,000,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 2,400,000 2,400,000 Other - - - - - - - 65 Lea Hill Segment 3 (SE 320th St from 112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE ) Capital Costs - - - - - 3,575,000 3,575,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - 250,000 250,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,100,000 2,100,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - REET2- - - - - 700,000 700,000 Other- - - - - 525,000 525,000 DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 7 2012-2017 Roadway Projects Continued… Subtotal, Roadway Improvement Projects: Capital Costs 12,544,700 9,135,000 3,646,500 8,216,900 18,439,600 118,105,500 170,088,200 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue23,500 - 234,000 519,500 1,621,100 43,225,000 45,623,100 Grants7,765,900 4,333,500 2,455,000 4,381,300 11,984,400 41,700,000 72,620,100 Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - 850,000 2,500,000 - Traffic Impact Fees1,395,400 1,575,000 717,000 2,225,600 1,413,600 2,550,000 9,876,600 Other (Other Agencies)2,096,800 1,249,400 - - - - 3,346,200 Other (Storm Fund 432)- - - - - - - Other (Redflex in Fund 328)- - - - - - - Other (Development)200,000 - 120,000 - - 8,260,000 8,580,000 Other - - - 120,000 800,000 73,525,000 - Other Sources (Muckleshoot)547,300 - - - - - - Other (Port of Seattle)409,300 - - - - - - PWTF - 1,977,100 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 2,459,100 REET2 - - - - - 9,175,000 Total Funding 12,438,200 9,135,000 3,646,500 8,216,900 18,439,600 178,555,500 230,431,700 TIP#Intersection Improvement Projects 19Auburn Way North / 1st Street NE Signal Improvements Capital Costs - 50,000 550,000 - - - 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- 50,000 125,000 - - - 175,000 Grants- - 425,000 - - - 425,000 Other- - - - - - - 20 Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Improvements ($25,000 Expended Prior to 2011) Capital Costs 75,000 1,000,000 - - - - 1,075,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue75,000 - - - - - 75,000 Grants- 850,000 - - - - 850,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees- 150,000 - - - - 150,000 21 C Street NW and West Main Street Capital Costs- 100,000 1,000,000 - - - 1,100,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- 20,000 200,000 - - - 220,000 Grants- 80,000 800,000 - - - 880,000 Other- - - - - - - 25 F St SE and 4th St SE Traffic Signal ($396,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs1,000 - - - - - 1,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue1,000 - - - - - 1,000 Grants- - - - - - - Other- - - - - - - DI.C 8 2012-2017 TIP Intersection Improvement Projects Cont… 38 Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Capital Costs - - - 1,200,000 1,800,000 - 3,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 100,000 150,000 - 250,000 Grants- - - 1,100,000 1,650,000 - 2,750,000 Other- - - - - - - 43 Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improvements Capital Costs - - - - 2,250,000 - 2,250,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - - - 1,951,000 - 1,951,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - 299,000 - 299,000 Subtotal, Intersection Imp. Projects: Capital Costs 76,000 1,150,000 1,550,000 1,200,000 4,050,000 - 8,026,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue76,000 70,000 325,000 100,000 150,000 - 721,000 Grants - 930,000 1,225,000 1,100,000 3,601,000 - 6,856,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - 299,000 - 299,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees- 150,000 - - - 150,000 Total Funding 76,000 1,150,000 1,550,000 1,200,000 4,050,000 - 8,026,000 TIP:Traffic Signal & Intelligent Transportation Systems Projects 34Traffic Signal Improvements Capital Costs 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds- - - - - - - Grants- - - - - - - Other (REET 2 in Fund 328)175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs ($880K beyond 2016) Capital Costs - - 220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - 30,000 - 30,000 - 60,000 Grants- - 190,000 - 190,000 - 380,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - - 51 East Valley Highway ITS Expansion Capital Costs - 800,000 - - - - 800,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- 692,000 - - - - 692,000 Traffic Impact Fees- 108,000 - - - - 108,000 DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 9 2012-2017 TIP Traffic Signal & ITS Projects Cont… Subtotal, Traffic Signal & ITS Projects: Capital Costs 175,000 975,000 395,000 175,000 395,000 175,000 2,290,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue- - 30,000 - 30,000 - 60,000 Grants - 692,000 190,000 - 190,000 1,072,000 Traffic Impact Fees108,000 - - 108,000 Other (REET2 in Fund 328)175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Total Funding 175,000 975,000 395,000 175,000 395,000 175,000 2,290,000 TIP#Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 2Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements - Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE Capital Costs 106500784300- - - - 890,800 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue60000740800- - - - 800,800 Grants46,500 43,500 - - - - 90,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other- - - - - - - Total Funding 106,500 784,300 890,800 23BNSF/E. Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass ($224,000 Expended Prior to 2012, $5 Million beyond 2015) Capital Costs - - - - - 4,800,000 4,800,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - - - - 4,550,000 4,550,000 Other (Other Agencies)- - - - - 250,000 250,000 24 Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail Capital Costs - - - 50,000 425,000 425,000 900,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 50,000 42,500 42,500 135,000 Grants- - - - 382,500 382,500 765,000 Other- - - - - - - 26 METRO Shuttle: Auburn Community and Lakeland Shuttles Capital Costs 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 30 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program Capital Costs 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 DI.C 10 2012-2017 TIP Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects Cont… Grants- - - - - - - Other- - - - - - - 31 Citywide Arterial Bicycle and Safety Improv. Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Grants- - - - - - - Other- - - - - - - 32 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Capital Costs 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 600,000 Grants- - - - - - - Other (REET2 in Fund 328)- - - - - - - 44 A ST NE Pedestrian Improvements Capital Costs - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants- - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 45 Interurban Trailhead Improvements Capital Costs - - - 210,000 - - 210,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - - 210,000 - - 210,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - - 56 Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements Capital Costs 373,500 - - - - - 373,500 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants373,500 - - - - - 373,500 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Subtotal, Non-Motorized & Transit Projects: Capital Costs 1,080,000 1,124,300 600,000 750,000 1,025,000 5,565,000 10,144,300 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue646,500 363,500 420,000 370,000 462,500 362,500 2,625,000 Grants433,500 740,800 - 360,000 382,500 4,932,500 6,849,300 Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - - Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds- 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 420,000 Other (Other Agencies)- - - - 250,000 250,000 Total Funding 1,080,000 1,124,300 600,000 750,000 1,025,000 5,565,000 10,144,300 DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 11 2012-2017 TIP Preliminary Engineering & Misc. Projects Cont… TIP#Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 2741st Street SE and A Street SE Access Management Study Capital Costs 2,000 - - - - - 2,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue2,000 - - - - - 2,000 Grants- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 29So. 277th, Wetland Mitigation ($204,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 25,000 - - - 75,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue25,000 25,000 25,000 - - - 75,000 Grants- - - - - - - Other- - - - - - - 46 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study ($2,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 3,000 - - - - - 3,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue3,000 - - - - - 3,000 Grants- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 47 Environmental Park Roadway Improvements Study Capital Costs - - - - 5,000 - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - 5,000 - 5,000 Grants- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 48Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Study ($2,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Grants- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 49S 316th St Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Study ($1,000 Expended Prior to 2012) Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 54 Kersey Way Study Capital Costs - - - - - 350,000 350,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - - - - 250,000 250,000 DI.C 12 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - 100,000 100,000 Subtotal, Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects: Capital Costs 45,000 25,000 25,000 - 5,000 350,000 450,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue45,000 25,000 25,000 - 5,000 - 100,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - 100,000 100,000 Grants - - - - - 250,000 250,000 Total Funding 45,000 25,000 25,000 - 5,000 350,000 450,000 TIP#Roadway Preservation Projects 28 Annual Bridge Preservation Project Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Grants- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 35 Annual Arterial Street Preservation Capital Costs 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 8,400,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - - - - - - Arterial Street Fund 1051,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 8,400,000 36 Annual Arterial Crackseal Program Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - - - - - - Arterial Street Fund 105100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 37 Local Street Preservation Program SOS Capital Costs 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants- - - - - - - Local Street Fund 1032,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Totals DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 13 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL Capital Costs 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 21,300,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Arterial Street Fund 1051,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 9,000,000 Local Street Fund 1032,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 Total Funding 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 21,300,000 SUMMARY: CAPITAL COSTS Roadway Projects12,544,700 9,135,000 3,646,500 8,216,900 18,439,600 118,105,500 170,088,200 Intersection Projects76,000 1,150,000 1,550,000 1,200,000 4,050,000 - 8,026,000 Signal & ITS Projects175,000 975,000 395,000 175,000 395,000 175,000 2,290,000 NonMotorized Projects1,080,000 1,124,300 600,000 750,000 1,025,000 5,565,000 10,144,300 Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects45,000 25,000 25,000 - 5,000 350,000 450,000 Preservation Projects3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 34,184,300 Total Costs 17,470,700 15,959,300 9,766,500 13,891,900 27,464,600 127,745,500 225,182,800 FUNDING SOURCES: Unrestricted Street Revenue841,000 508,500 850,000 520,000 697,500 43,637,500 3,806,000 Traffic Impact Fees1,395,400 108,000 - - 299,000 2,650,000 507,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees- 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Local Street Fund 1032,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,563,000 12,706,900 DI.C 14 2012-2017 Funding Allocation by Category Signals & ITS, 2,290,000 Roadway 170,088,200 Non Motorized, 10,144,300 Prel. Eng. & Misc. 450,000 Preservation $34,184,300 Intersections 8,026,000 2012-2017 Project Funding Sources Other (Development), $170,088,200 Other (Agencies), $3,755,500 Grants, $16,966,700 Other (Muckleshoot), $547,300 Arterial Street Fund $15,732,500 Local Street Fund $12,706,900 Other (REET2) $1,050,000 Unrestricted Cap. Imp. $420,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees, $150,000 Unrestricted Street Revenue, $3,806,000 Traffic Impact Fees, $507,000 DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 15 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Unrestricted Street Revenue Beginning Fund Balance592,000 286,000 312,500 7,500 32,500 (110,000) Annual Revenue535,000 535,000 545,000 545,000 555,000 555,000 Project Expenses841,000 508,500 850,000 520,000 697,500 13,412,500 End of Year Fund Balance286,000 312,500 7,500 32,500 (110,000) (12,967,500) Traffic Impact Fees Beginning Fund Balance2,680,500 2,085,100 2,777,100 3,577,100 4,377,100 4,878,100 Annual Revenue800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 Project Expenses1,395,400 108,000 - - 299,000 2,650,000 End of Year Fund Balance2,085,100 2,777,100 3,577,100 4,377,100 4,878,100 3,028,100 Traffic Mitigation Fees BeginningFund Balance235,000 235,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 Annual Revenue- - - - - - Project Expenses- 150,000 - - - - End of Year Fund Balance235,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 Local Street Fund 103 Beginning Fund Balance- - - - - - Annual Revenue2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,563,000 Project Expenses2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,563,000 End of Year Fund Balance- - - - - - Arterial Street Fund 105 Beginning Fund Balance- - - - - - Annual Revenue1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 8,232,500 Project Expenses1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 8,232,500 End of Year Fund Balance- - - - - - Grants Secured Grants8,726,000 - - - - - Unsecured Grants(526,600) 2,362,800 1,415,000 1,460,000 4,173,500 46,882,500 Project Expenses8,199,400 2,362,800 1,415,000 1,460,000 4,173,500 46,882,500 Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds Annual Revenue- 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 Project Expenses- 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 Other (REET2 in Fund 328) Annual Revenue175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 Project Expenses175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 Other (Other Agencies) Annual Revenue2,506,100 - - - - 43,550,000 Project Expenses2,506,100 - - - - 43,550,000 Other (Development) Annual Revenue200,000 9,135,000 3,646,500 8,216,900 18,439,600 8,260,000 Project Expenses200,000 9,135,000 3,646,500 8,216,900 18,439,600 8,260,000 DI.C 16 DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 17 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street NW, Phase 1 (3rd St. NW to 14th St. NW) TIP # 1 Project No:c207a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Ingrid Gaub LOS Corridor ID# 18 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 258,962 - 18,500 - 277,462 277,462 Grants (Fed,State,Local)1,235,779 4,586,930 785,000 - 6,607,709 6,607,709 Traffic Impact Fees 191,060 50,000 684,000 - 925,060 925,060 Other Sources (Developer)*- 207,560 200,000 - 407,560 407,560 1,685,801 4,844,490 1,687,500 - 8,217,791 8,217,791 - Capital Expenditures: Design 1,390,404 326,819 - - 1,717,223 1,717,223 Right of Way 295,397 768,373 - - 1,063,770 1,063,770 Construction - 3,749,298 1,687,500 - 5,436,798 5,436,798 1,685,801 4,844,490 1,687,500 - 8,217,791 8,217,791 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 18,500 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 785,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 684,000 - Other Sources (Developer)*- - - - 200,000 - - - - - 1,687,500 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,687,500 - - - - - 1,687,500 - Grants / Other Sources:*Other funds are MultiCare half street contribution. Construct a multi-lane arterial from 3rd St. NW to 14th St. NW. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor. The project length is approximately three-quarters of a mile. The City purchased ROW from the northern property owner. If the property develops, some or a portion of those funds may be reimbursed to the City (total cost was $251,000). Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,830. Adopted Budget Progress Summary: Pre-design was completed prior to 2007. Final design was completed along with the environmental process. Construction began in 2011 and is expected to be completed in 2012. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 18 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements - Dogwood St. SE to Fi TIP # 2 Project No:cp1118 Project Type:Non-Motorized Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon LOS Corridor ID# 4 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 10,000 46,500 43,500 56,500 100,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 40,000 60,000 740,800 100,000 840,800 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - 50,000 106,500 784,300 156,500 940,800 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 105,000 40,000 155,000 195,000 Right of Way - - 1,500 - 1,500 1,500 Construction - - - 744,300 - 744,300 - 50,000 106,500 784,300 156,500 940,800 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 - 2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 90,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 800,800 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - - - - 890,800 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 145,000 - Right of Way - - - - 1,500 - Construction - - - - 744,300 - - - - - 890,800 - Grants / Other Sources:Grants are $100K from Federal Discretionary Funds and $740,830 from State Ped & Bike Safety Grants. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will construct pedestrian improvements along Auburn Way South between Dogwood St SE and Fir St SE that are consistent with WSDOT's SR-164 Route Development Plan. This project includes sidewalk improvements, access management, a mid-block pedestrian crossing, construction of a u-turn wedge at Fir St SE and street lighting. Progress Summary: Project design will begin in 2011 with construction expected to be completed in 2013. The City was awarded $100,000 in federal funding and $740,830 in state funding in May 2011. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 19 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way Corridor Imp. (4th St NE to 4th St SE) TIP # 3 Project No:c409a0 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2-3 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 78,251 - - - 78,251 788,251 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,108,700 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - 78,251 - - - 78,251 3,896,951 Capital Expenditures: Design 78,251 - - - 78,251 696,951 Right of Way - - - - - 200,000 Construction - - - - - 3,000,000 78,251 - - - 78,251 3,896,951 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 - 2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 110,000 600,000 710,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 708,700 2,400,000 3,108,700 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - - 818,700 3,000,000 3,818,700 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - 618,700 - 618,700 - Right of Way - - 200,000 - 200,000 - Construction - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 - - - 818,700 3,000,000 3,818,700 - Grants / Other Sources: Grant funding is not secured. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project is based on a pre-design study and is intended to improve pedestrian accessibility, appearance, and link the downtown area along Auburn Way South between 4th St NE and 4th St SE. This project may include some pavement repairs. However, an overlay was completed as part of the City's Arterial Pavement Preservation Program in 2007. Although this was considered a temporary fix, the scope has been modified to account for the pavement work. The project length is approximately a half mile. Progress Summary: The pavement portion has been minimized due to the work completed in 2007 under the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 20 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: I Street NE Corridor (45th St. NE to S 277th St) TIP # 4 Project No:c415a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 21 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 11,827 - - - 11,827 11,827 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources (Development)- - - - - 5,760,000 Other (*Port of Seattle)- - 409,300 - 409,300 409,300 11,827 - 409,300 - 421,127 7,181,127 Capital Expenditures: Design 10,957 - 150,000 - 160,957 610,000 Right of Way 870 - 259,300 - 260,170 1,279,300 Construction - - - - - 5,280,000 11,827 - 409,300 - 421,127 7,181,127 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 11,827 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources (Development)- - - 5,760,000 5,760,000 - Other (Port of Seattle)- - - - 409,300 - - - - 6,760,000 7,181,127 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 460,000 620,957 - Right of Way - - - 1,020,000 1,280,170 - Construction - - - 5,280,000 5,280,000 - - - - 6,760,000 7,181,127 - Total Expenditures: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,200. Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The final alignment of the I Street Corridor is being analyzed as part of the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan Environmental Impact Study. A portion of the ROW and Construction will be developer funded. The cross section will likely be a 5-lane arterial per the city's Comprehensive Plan. Progress Summary: This project is development driven. The project has been delayed due to the delay of the nearby pending development. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 21 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street Grade Separation (3rd St SE to 8th St SE) TIP # 5 Project No:c201a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 6 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 150,000 - - 150,000 150,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)419,800 452,580 4,791,500 4,208,500 5,663,880 9,872,380 REET2 169,400 970,580 - - 1,139,980 1,139,980 Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)2,441,000 - 661,400 1,500,000 3,102,400 4,602,400 Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)- - - - - 3,613,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - 660,000 660,000 PWTFL - 1,500,000 - 1,977,100 1,500,000 3,477,100 Other Sources (Other Agencies)*180,200 54,940 2,096,800 1,249,400 2,331,940 3,581,340 3,870,400 3,128,100 7,549,700 8,935,000 14,548,200 23,483,200 Debt Service: 3,613,500 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,522,300 511,000 - - 3,033,300 3,033,300 Right of Way 1,348,100 2,251,900 - - 3,600,000 3,600,000 Construction - 365,200 7,549,700 8,935,000 7,914,900 16,849,900 PWTFL Debt Service - - - - - 3,613,500 3,870,400 3,128,100 7,549,700 8,935,000 14,548,200 23,483,200 TotalExpenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 9,000,000 - REET2 - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)- - - - 2,161,400 - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 482,000 3,131,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - 1,977,100 - Other Sources (Other Agencies)*- - - - 3,346,200 - 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 16,966,700 3,131,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 16,484,700 - PWTFL Debt Service 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 482,000 3,131,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 16,966,700 3,131,500 Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Grants / Other Sources: *Grants are Federal and State (FMSIB secured, TIB unsecured) funds. Other Agencies include Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, BNSF, PSE and King County. PWTFL has 30 Year repayment schedule. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $21,827. Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Construction of a grade separated railroad crossing of M St SE at the BNSF Stampede Pass tracks. Progress Summary: 100% Design Drawings and right of way acquisition were completed in 2011. Construction is expected to start in early 2012. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 22 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: South 277th (Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge) TIP # 6 Project No:c222a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 15 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 19,085 - - 19,085 19,085 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Development Funds)*- - - - - 2,500,000 Other - - - - - - 19,085 - - - 19,085 4,519,085 Capital Expenditures: Design 18,510 - - - 18,510 268,510 Right of Way 575 - - - 575 250,575 Construction - - - - - 4,000,000 19,085 - - - 19,085 4,519,085 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Development Funds)*- - - 2,500,000 2,500,000 - Other - - - - - - - - - 4,500,000 4,500,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 250,000 250,000 - Right of Way - - - 250,000 250,000 - Construction - - - 4,000,000 4,000,000 - - - - 4,500,000 4,500,000 - Grants / Other Sources:*Developer funds or in kind services. Total Expenditures: The annual maintenance costs for this project is estimated to be $27,250. Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: This project includes preliminary engineering, design, right of way acquisition and construction of major widening on S. 277th Street, including the addition of three lanes, one westbound and two eastbound, a Class 1 trail, storm, sewer and water improvements. The project length is nine-tenths of a mile. The final configuration will include three lanes eastbound and two lanes westbound. Progress Summary: The majority of this roadway is currently in the City of Kent's jurisdiction. Because the property served from the roadway is in the City of Auburn, the plan is to annex this portion of the roadway from Kent into the City of Auburn. The majority of this project is expected to be completed by adjacent developments. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 23 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 15th Street SW Reconstruction TIP # 7 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 12 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 575,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,800,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 3,375,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 375,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 3,000,000 - - - - - 3,375,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 75,000 500,000 575,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 300,000 2,500,000 2,800,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - Other - - - - - - - - 375,000 3,000,000 3,375,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - 375,000 - 375,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 - - - 375,000 3,000,000 3,375,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: This project was originally scoped to include pavement preservation. The pavement preservation component could still be combined with this project, but is also eligible for the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. This project should look to improve the railroad crossing grades as well as the vertical sight distance to the interurban trail to the west of the tracks. The cost estimate listed below is planning level cost. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 24 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main to 3rd St NW) TIP # 8 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 18 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,000,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Developer)*150,000 - - - 150,000 150,000 150,000 - - - 150,000 3,150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - - 250,000 Construction 150,000 - - - 150,000 2,650,000 150,000 - - - 150,000 3,150,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 3,000,000 3,000,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - Other (Developer)*- - - - - - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - 250,000 250,000 - Right of Way - - - 250,000 250,000 - Construction - - - 2,500,000 2,500,000 - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 - Grants / Other Sources:*Anticipated developer contributions (cash or in kind services). Grant funding shown is unsecured. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget Construct a multi-lane arterial from W Main to 3rd St NW. This project will connect A St NW, Phase 1 to the Sound Transit Station and the Central Business District. This project may end up being funded all or in part by developers. The project length is one fifth of a mile. Progress Summary: The parking garage constructed by the Auburn Regional Medical Center completed a portion of this project in 2009. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 25 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: D Street NW (37th St NW to 44th St NW) TIP # 9 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 20 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201111 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 4,250,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 2,050,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - - 6,300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 1,050,000 Right of Way - - - - - 1,750,000 Construction - - - - - 3,500,000 - - - - - 6,300,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 250,000 250,000 4,000,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 50,000 2,000,000 Other - - - - - - - - - 300,000 300,000 6,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 300,000 300,000 750,000 Right of Way - - - - - 1,750,000 Construction - - - - - 3,500,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 6,000,000 Grants / Other Sources:Grant Funding shown is unsecured. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $11,450. Adopted Budget Construct a four-lane arterial per the city Comprehensive Plan. It will improve north/south mobility. This project is tied to potential future development and will complete a major north/south arterial corridor from Ellingson Road SW (41st Street SE) to S. 277th St. The D St NW project length is approximately 0.42 miles. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 26 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: F Street SE (4th St SE to Auburn Way S) TIP # 10 Project No:cp0911 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,200,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 7,620 - - - - 307,620 Other - - - - - - 7,620 - - - - 2,507,620 Capital Expenditures: Design 7,620 - - - 7,620 257,620 Right of Way - - - - - 75,000 Construction - - - - - 2,175,000 7,620 - - - 7,620 2,507,620 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)200,000 2,000,000 - - 2,200,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 250,000 - - 300,000 - Other - - - - - - 250,000 2,250,000 - - 2,500,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 250,000 - - 250,000 - Right of Way - 75,000 - - 75,000 - Construction - 2,175,000 - - 2,175,000 - 250,000 2,250,000 - - 2,500,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $4100. Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: The F St SE project includes pavement reconstruction, installation of curbs, gutters, an 8-foot wide sidewalk on both sides, parking on one side, and a center turn-lane, as well as crash attenuation at the supports for the BNSF railroad bridge. This project improves mobility and safety along the corridor. The project length is approximately 0.3 miles. Progress Summary: Preliminary design and survey work was completed in 2009. Final design and construction are planned to be completed following construction of the M Street grade separation project. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 27 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE) TIP # 11 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 5 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,225,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 - 250,000 Other - - - - - - - - - 50,000 - 1,475,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 50,000 - 125,000 Right of Way - - - - - 200,000 Construction - - - - - 1,150,000 - - - 50,000 - 1,475,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)225,000 1,000,000 - - 1,225,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 150,000 - - 250,000 - Other - - - - - - 275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 75,000 - - - 125,000 - Right of Way 200,000 - - - 200,000 - Construction - 1,150,000 - 1,150,000 - 275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,500. Adopted Budget This project will construct a complete 4 lane street section on M St NE between south of E Main St and 4th St NE. Progress Summary: Pre-design will be done in 2013 to refine project scope, alignment, and cost. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 28 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Railyard TIP # 12 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - 32,000,000 - - - - - 32,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 3,500,000 Right of Way - - - - - 4,000,000 Construction - - - - - 24,500,000 - - - - - 32,000,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Developer)- - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 31,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 31,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,500,000 Right of Way - - - - - 4,000,000 Construction - - - - - 24,500,000 - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 31,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Not scheduled for completion until after 2015. Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: This project consists of a grade-separated crossing of the BNSF Railyard, either from SR-18 to 6th Street SE or from 15th Street SW to A Street SE. The first alternative would entail realigning the SR-18 eastbound ramp, grade separating the main north/south line and the Stampede Pass line, and connecting to 6th Street SE. The second alternative would provide a new corridor from 15th Street SW to A Street SE in the vicinity of 12th Street SE and 17th Street SE, either via an overpass or underpass of the BNSF Railyard. This project improves traffic flow significantly due to the potential development of the BNSF yard as an intermodal freight facility. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 29 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: West Valley Hwy Improvements (SR-18 to West Main Street)TIP # 14 Project No:cp0916 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 35 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 58,730 5,000 - - 63,730 Grants (Fed,State,Local)139,726 2,210,920 - - - 2,350,646 REET 2 53,302 41,680 - - - 94,982 Traffic Mitigation Fees 75,000 - - - - 75,000 Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 530,000 - - - 555,000 293,028 2,841,330 5,000 - - 3,139,358 - - Capital Expenditures:- Design 293,028 339,680 - - 632,708 632,708 Right of Way - 5,580 - - 5,580 5,580 Construction - 2,496,070 5,000 - 2,501,070 2,501,070 293,028 2,841,330 5,000 - 3,139,358 3,139,358 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - 5,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 - Grants / Other Sources: TIB Grant (secured). This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will widen the roadway to accommodate an extension of the two way left turn lane, add curb & gutter, storm drainage, repair failing roadway surface; install sidewalk on one side of the roadway; install city standard street lighting, improve bicycle accommodations, and install a new traffic signal at the intersection of West Main Street and West Valley Highway. This project will improve the capacity, safety, and driving comfort of the corridor as well as reduce the amount of time maintenance staff spends doing temporary repairs. Progress Summary: Design started in 2010 and construction is planned for 2011. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 30 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 8th Street NE Widening (Pike St to R St NE)TIP # 15 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,160,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 290,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - - 1,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - - 250,000 Construction - - - - - 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,450,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)360,000 800,000 - - 1,160,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 90,000 200,000 - - 290,000 - Other - - - - - - 450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 200,000 - - - 200,000 - Right of Way 250,000 - - - 250,000 - Construction - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 - 450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Grant funding is unsecured. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget Add eastbound lane to Southside of 8th St NE. Currently the lane exists from M St NE and drops as a right turn only lane at the intersection of 8th St NE and Pike St. This would extend the lane to R St NE where it would then be a right turn only lane onto R St NE southbound. This is a planning level cost estimate. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 31 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 49th Street NE from Auburn Way North to I Street NE TIP # 16 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 29 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - - - Other (Development)*- - - - - 3,350,000 - - - - - 3,350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - - 650,000 Construction - - - - - 2,500,000 - - - - - 3,350,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - - - Other (Development)*- 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 - - 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - 200,000 - - 200,000 - Right of Way - 650,000 - - 650,000 - Construction - - 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 - - 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 - Grants / Other Sources: *Future development is expected to fund and construct this project. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $27,050. Adopted Budget Construct east/west corridor from Auburn Way North to I Street NE. The existing 49th Street NE extends westerly to B Street NE. This project also includes a traffic signal at the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49th Street NE. This roadway was evaluated and recommended in the NE Special Planning Area. It is anticipated that this will be constructed by future development. It is approximately 3/4 of a mile in length. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 32 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Traffic Calming Improvements TIP #33 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:Pablo Para Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - Other (Redflex)- 200,000 200,000 200,000 600,000 1,400,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 600,000 1,400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 140,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 180,000 180,000 180,000 360,000 1,260,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000 1,400,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - Other (Redflex)200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 1,080,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Redflex money transferred from General Fund. Annual maintenance cost for these improvements are estimated to be Adopted Budget The City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program was adopted by City Council in November of 2005. Staff receives complaints from citizens and then gathers data to confirm that a speeding issue and/or cut through traffic issue is present. This money is for physical improvements to the streets once all other options have been exhausted. Physical improvements may include items such as lighting, signing, striping, speed humps, speed tables, chicanes, traffic circles, and median treatments. Progress Summary: Program continues to implement valuable safety enhnancements citywide. 2011 Improvements include construction of pedestrian activated crosswalk warning beacons, signage improvements and speed cushion installations. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 33 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS)TIP # 60 Project No:xxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 5 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 468,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,645,600 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 2,527,200 REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 6,640,800 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 631,800 Right of Way - - - - - 1,263,600 Construction - - - - - 4,745,400 - - - - - 6,640,800 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 - 2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 234,000 234,000 - 468,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 397,800 3,247,800 - 3,645,600 - Traffic Impact Fees - 1,263,600 1,263,600 - 2,527,200 - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 1,895,400 4,745,400 - 6,640,800 - Capital Expenditures: Design - 631,800 - - 631,800 - Right of Way - 1,263,600 - - 1,263,600 - Construction - - 4,745,400 - 4,745,400 - - 1,895,400 4,745,400 - 6,640,800 - Grants / Other Sources: Adopted Budget Construct a multi-lane arterial from 8TH Street SE to AWS. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 34 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South Bypass TIP # 61 Project No:xxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID#4 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 40,225,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 13,000,000 REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - 7,225,000 - - - - - 60,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 6,500,000 Right of Way - - - - - 8,450,000 Construction - - - - - 45,500,000 - - - - - 60,450,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 40,225,000 40,225,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 13,000,000 13,000,000 - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - 7,225,000 7,225,000 - - - - 60,450,000 60,450,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 6,500,000 6,500,000 - Right of Way - - - 8,450,000 8,450,000 - Construction - - - 45,500,000 45,500,000 - - - - 60,450,000 60,450,000 - Adopted Budget Construction of a new Auburn Way South Bypass connecting SR 164 to SR 18 via Riverwalk Drive and a new R Street interchange. The project will improve traffic operations on SR 164 and will have fewer intersections operating over capacity during the PM Peak hour. It will also improve sight distance and roadway geometrics to provide drivers with improved visibility and overall safety. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 35 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M Street SE)TIP # 62 Project No:xxx Project Type:Miscellaneous Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 800,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - 700,000 - - - - - 4,750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 500,000 Right of Way - - - - - 1,450,000 Construction - - - - - 2,800,000 - - - - - 4,750,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 400,000 400,000 800,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 1,200,000 2,050,000 3,250,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - 350,000 350,000 700,000 - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 4,750,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - 500,000 - - - Right of Way - - 1,450,000 - - - Construction - - - 2,800,000 - - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - - Grants / Other Sources: Adopted Budget The purpose of this project is to revitalize and beautify Auburn Way South from the SR 18 interchange to the intersection of M Street SE. Proposed improvements include: enhancement of crosswalks and pedestrian linkages; new and repaired sidewalks; curb and gutter; pedestrian ramps; new landscaped medians; street trees; new lighting; pedestrian benches; trash receptacles; recycling containers and other appropriate amenities. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 36 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1 TIP # 40 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 125,000 - 1,690,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 25,000 50,000 260,000 Other - - - - - - - - 50,000 150,000 50,000 1,950,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 150,000 50,000 200,000 Right of Way - - - - - 250,000 Construction - - - - - 1,500,000 - - 50,000 150,000 50,000 1,950,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)1,565,000 - - - 1,690,000 - Traffic Impact Fees 185,000 - - - 260,000 - Other - - - - - - 1,750,000 - - - 1,950,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 200,000 - Right of Way 250,000 - - - 250,000 - Construction 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - 1,750,000 - - - 1,950,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a 4-lane section with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on 124th Ave SE between SE 318th St and SE 312th St. Progress Summary: Pre-design is planned for 2013. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 37 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2 TIP # 41 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19, 23 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 965,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 30,000 - 215,000 Other - - - - - - - - - 30,000 - 1,180,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 30,000 - 80,000 Right of Way - - - - - 100,000 Construction - - - - - 1,000,000 - - - 30,000 - 1,180,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)100,000 865,000 - - 965,000 - Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 135,000 - - 215,000 - Other - - - - - - 150,000 1,000,000 - - 1,180,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 - - - 80,000 - Right of Way 100,000 - - - 100,000 - Construction - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 - 150,000 1,000,000 - - 1,180,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of improvements to the signalized intersection of SE 312th St and 124th Ave SE. Improvements include adding bike lanes, dual westbound left turn lanes, dual southbound thru lanes, northbound right turn pocket, ITS and pedestrian safety improvements. Progress Summary: Pre-design is scheduled for 2013. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 38 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements TIP # 42 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23, 25 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 553,600 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 116,400 PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 670,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 90,000 Right of Way - - - - - 60,000 Construction - - - - - 520,000 - - - - - 670,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 51,500 502,100 - 553,600 - Traffic Impact Fees 30,000 8,500 77,900 - 116,400 - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 30,000 60,000 580,000 - 670,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 30,000 60,000 - - 90,000 - Right of Way - - 60,000 - 60,000 - Construction - - 520,000 - 520,000 - 30,000 60,000 580,000 - 670,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a 3 lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on SE 320th St between 124th Ave SE and the western entrance to GRCC. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 39 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improvements TIP # 43 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,076,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 324,000 PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 2,400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 150,000 Right of Way - - - - - 200,000 Construction - - - - - 2,050,000 - - - - - 2,400,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 125,000 1,951,000 - 2,076,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - 25,000 299,000 - 324,000 - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 150,000 2,250,000 - 2,400,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - 150,000 - - 150,000 - Right of Way - - 200,000 - 200,000 - Construction - - 2,050,000 - 2,050,000 - - 150,000 2,250,000 - 2,400,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at Auburn Way S and Riverwalk Dr SE. This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, auxiliary signal heads and pedestrian safety enhancements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 40 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 29th Street SE & R Street SE TIP # 63 Project No:XXX Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:XXX LOS Corridor ID#4 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (State)- - - - - 500,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - 620,000 PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 1,120,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 310,000 Right of Way - - - - - 465,000 Construction - - - - 2,170,000 - - - - - 2,945,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (State)- - - 500,000 500,000 - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - 620,000 620,000 - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 1,120,000 1,120,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 310,000 310,000 - Right of Way - - - 465,000 465,000 - Construction - - - 2,170,000 2,170,000 - - - - 2,945,000 2,945,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at 29th Street SE and R Street SE. This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, auxiliary signal heads and pedestrian safety enhancements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 41 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2010-2015 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Segment 1 (8th St NE from R St NE to 104th Ave SE) TIP # 64 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201212 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 1,550,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 9,250,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 1,250,000 Other - - - - - 12,650,000 - - - - - 24,700,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 2,500,000 Right of Way - - - - - 3,750,000 Construction - - - - - 18,450,000 - - - - - 24,700,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 300,000 1,250,000 1,550,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 5,500,000 3,750,000 9,250,000 - REET - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 1,250,000 1,250,000 - Other - - 450,000 12,200,000 12,650,000 - - - 6,250,000 18,450,000 24,700,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 - Right of Way - - 3,750,000 - 3,750,000 - Construction - - 18,450,000 18,450,000 - - - 6,250,000 18,450,000 24,700,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Adopted Budget Expand current two-lane roadway to 4-lanes, including widening of the Green River Bridge. Project includes bike lanes and sidewalks. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 42 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2010-2015 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Segment 2 (SE 320th St from 104th Ave SE to 112th Ave SE ) TIP # 65 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID #23 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 9,000,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 2,400,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - - 11,400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 1,200,000 Right of Way - - - - - 1,800,000 Construction - - - - - 8,400,000 - - - - - 11,400,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 9,000,000 9,000,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 2,400,000 2,400,000 - Other - - - - - - - - - 11,400,000 11,400,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 - Right of Way - - - 1,800,000 1,800,000 - Construction - - - 8,400,000 8,400,000 - - - - 11,400,000 11,400,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Adopted Budget Project includes widening from existing 2-lane roadway to 4-lanes with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 43 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2010-2015 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Segment 3 (SE 320th St from 112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE ) TIP # 66 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity LOS Corridor ID #23 Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 250,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,100,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 700,000 Other - - - - - 525,000 - - - - - 3,575,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 350,000 Right of Way - - - - - 525,000 Construction - - - - - 2,700,000 - - - - - 3,575,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 250,000 250,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 2,100,000 2,100,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 700,000 700,000 - Other - - - 525,000 525,000 - - - - 3,575,000 3,575,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 350,000 350,000 - Right of Way - - - 525,000 525,000 - Construction - - - 2,700,000 2,700,000 - - - - 3,575,000 3,575,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Adopted Budget Project includes widening from existing 2-lane roadway to 4-lanes with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 44 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Harvey Road & 8th Street NE Intersection Improvements TIP # 17 Project No:cp0611 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 5,19 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)87,100 87,700 87,300 86,900 262,100 1,602,700 Traffic Impact Fees 204,500 - - - 204,500 204,500 PWTF 1,527,300 - - - 1,527,300 1,527,300 1,818,900 87,700 87,300 86,900 1,993,900 1,731,800 Debt Service: 1,602,700 Capital Expenditures: Design 285,000 - - - 285,000 285,000 Right of Way 196,500 - - - 196,500 196,500 Construction 1,250,300 - - - 1,250,300 1,250,300 Long Term Debt - PWTF 87,100 87,700 87,300 86,900 262,100 1,602,700 1,818,900 87,700 87,300 86,900 1,993,900 1,731,800 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 517,500 910,400 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - PWTF - - - - - - 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 517,500 910,400 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - Long Term Debt - PWTF 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 517,500 910,400 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 517,500 910,400 Grants / Other Sources: PWTFLhas a 20 year term ending in 2028. Budget Amendments Add one eastbound through/right turn lane on 8th St NE approaching Harvey Rd. Modify traffic signals and traffic channelization to accommodate the new lane. The additional lane will improve traffic delays and vehicle queuing at the intersection of Harvey Rd and 8th St NE in all directions. This project will reconstruct M St NE from 4th St NE to 8th St NE, a segment of roadway approximately 0.3 miles in length with four travel lanes. The reconstruction will fix the existing poor pavement condition and fill in any gaps in the sidewalk network. Progress Summary: Project was completed in 2010. Ongoing budget is for PWTFL debt payments. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget Total Funding Sources: Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 45 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 8th Street NE and SE 104th St Intersection Improvements TIP # 18 Project No:CP1104 Project Type:Intersection Improvement, Capacity Project Manager:Robert Lee LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 157,000 - - 157,000 Grants (Federal)- 50,000 50,000 - - 100,000 REET2 - - 75,000 - 75,000 75,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Redflex)- - 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 332,000 - 125,000 382,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 30,000 - - 30,000 30,000 Right of Way - 20,000 - - 20,000 20,000 Construction - - 332,000 - 332,000 332,000 - 50,000 332,000 - 382,000 382,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 157,000 - Grants (Federal)- - - - 50,000 - REET2 - - - - 75,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Redflex)- - - - 50,000 - - - - - 332,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 332,000 - - - - - 332,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Federal Discretionary grant is secured. Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $6,600. Adopted Budget This project includes the design, right of way acquisistion and construction of intersection improvements that will either consist of either a traffic signal with easbound u-turn capacity or a roundabout design. Progress Summary: The design began in 2011 with construction scheduled for 2012. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 46 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way North / 1st Street NE Signal Improvements TIP # 19 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 50,000 - 175,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 425,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 50,000 - 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 50,000 - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - 100,000 Construction - - - - - 450,000 - - - 50,000 - 600,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 125,000 - - - 175,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)425,000 - - - 425,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 550,000 - - - 600,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 50,000 - Right of Way 100,000 - - - 100,000 - Construction 450,000 - - - 450,000 - 550,000 - - - 600,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: This project will construct a new complete traffic signal with controller cabinet and battery backup along with necessary intersection improvements. Progress Summary: Design will be completed in 2013. Construction is planned for 2014. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 47 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Imp.TIP # 20 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 3,4 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 25,000 75,000 - - 100,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 850,000 - 850,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds - - 150,000 - 150,000 Other - - - - - - - 25,000 75,000 1,000,000 - 1,100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 25,000 75,000 - - 100,000 Right of Way - - 200,000 - 200,000 Construction - - 800,000 - 800,000 - 25,000 75,000 1,000,000 100,000 1,100,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 75,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 850,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - 150,000 - Other - - - - - - - - - - 1,075,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 75,000 - Right of Way - - - - 200,000 - Construction - - - - 800,000 - - - - - 1,075,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Grant funding is unsecured. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget Construct a westbound to northbound right turn pocket at the intersection of Auburn Way S and M St SE. This project would also improve the turning radius at this same corner allowing drivers to make a safe right turn on red (after stopping and yielding to oncoming vehicles). Currently the intersection geometry has necessitated the City placing a legal restriction on this movement. Progress Summary: Pre-design is anticipated to begin in 2011 with final design to be completed in 2012. Construction will be completed when funding is secured. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 48 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: C Street NW and West Main Street TIP # 21 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 11 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 20,000 - 220,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 80,000 - 880,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 100,000 - 1,100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - 400,000 Construction - - - - - 600,000 - - - 100,000 - 1,100,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 200,000 - - - 220,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)800,000 - - - 880,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,100,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 100,000 - Right of Way 400,000 - - - 400,000 - Construction 600,000 - - - 600,000 - 1,000,000 - - - 1,100,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Grant Funding is unsecured. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget Reconstruct intersection at C St NW and W Main St. Project would include a new traffic signal and modifications to the turning radii at each corner to help facilitate vehicular movements. The new traffic signal would allow for protected left turn phasing for northbound and southbound left turn movements. This would also provide additional safety related to the railroad pre-emption. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 49 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: F Street SE & 4th Street SE Traffic Signal TIP # 25 Project No:cp0914 Project Type:Non-Capacity Intersection Improvement Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 7,807 1,090 1,000 - 9,897 9,897 Grants (Fed,State,Local)265,633 127,470 - - 393,103 393,103 REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 273,440 128,560 1,000 - 403,000 403,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 48,168 - - - 48,168 48,168 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 225,272 128,560 1,000 - 354,832 354,832 273,440 128,560 1,000 - 403,000 403,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 1,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,000 - - - - - 1,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant is Federal HSIP funded and does not require a city match. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $6,600. Adopted Budget This project includes the construction of a new traffic signal at the intersection of 4th St SE and F St SE. Intersection improvements will include crosswalks and pedestrian signals. This project was selected based on accident history, traffic volumes, and pedestrian flow patterns. Progress Summary: Project was completed in 2011. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 50 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements TIP # 38 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Intersection Safety (Non-Capacity) Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 250,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 2,750,000 REET - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 3,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 500,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 2,500,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 150,000 - 250,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)1,100,000 1,650,000 - 2,750,000 - REET - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 1,200,000 1,800,000 - 3,000,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - 200,000 300,000 - 500,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 1,000,000 1,500,000 - 2,500,000 - - 1,200,000 1,800,000 - 3,000,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, coordination, permitting and construction of four quadrant gates at the W Main St, 3rd St NW, and 37th St NW BNSF Railroad crossings as well as active grade crossing lights and gates at the private spur crossings on C St SW and A St NW. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 51 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Traffic Signal Improvements TIP #34 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:Scott Nutter Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous 2 Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET 2 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 1,225,000 Other - - - - - - - 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 1,225,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 70,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 165,000 165,000 165,000 330,000 1,155,000 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 1,225,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET 2 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 - Other - - - - - - 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 990,000 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 - Grants / Other Sources: None Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget This project includes procuring and installing traffic signal equipment upgrades for existing signals as well as safety/capacity improvements for existing and/or new signals. The City uses accident and traffic count data to identify intersections in need of improvements. Progress Summary: Project continues to complete intersection safety improvements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C 52 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: ITS Dynamic Message Signs TIP # 50 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (ITS) Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 180,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,140,000 REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 1,320,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 120,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 1,200,000 - - - - - 1,320,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 30,000 - 30,000 - 60,000 120,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)190,000 - 190,000 - 380,000 760,000 REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000 880,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 20,000 - 20,000 - 40,000 80,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 200,000 - 200,000 - 400,000 800,000 220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000 880,000 Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5000. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design and construction of Dynamic Message signs at various locations throughout the city. Dynamic message signs are an important tool in ITS for informing roadway users. Priority locations for sign installations are based on the Comprehensive Transportation Plans ITS map and include Auburn Way N, Auburn Way S, W Valley Highway, E Valley Highway and Lea Hill Rd. Progress Summary: The first phase of this project is scheduled to begin in 2014 or sooner if grant funding becomes available. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 53 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: East Valley Highway ITS Expansion TIP # 51 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 692,000 - 692,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 108,000 - 108,000 Other - - - - - - - - - 800,000 - 800,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 85,000 - 85,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - 715,000 - 715,000 - - - 800,000 - 800,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 692,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 108,000 - Other - - - - - - - - - - 800,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 85,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 715,000 - - - - - 800,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5000. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, coordination, permitting and construction of ITS facilities from 41st St SE to Lake Tapps Parkway. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C 54 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: BNSF/E. Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass TIP # 23 Project No:c229a0 Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Capacity) Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 53,900 - - - 53,900 53,900 Grants (Fed,State,Local)170,400 - - - 170,400 9,720,400 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - Other - - - - - 250,000 224,300 - - - 224,300 10,024,300 Capital Expenditures: Design 224,300 - - - 224,300 974,300 Right of Way - - - - - 50,000 Construction - - - - - 9,000,000 224,300 - - - 224,300 10,024,300 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 4,550,000 4,550,000 5,000,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Other Agencies)*- - - 250,000 250,000 - - - - 4,800,000 4,800,000 5,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 750,000 750,000 - Right of Way - - - 50,000 50,000 - Construction - - - 4,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 - - - 4,800,000 4,800,000 5,000,000 Grants / Other Sources: *KC Open Space Bond and High Speed Rail Safety Money. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $240. Adopted Budget Project to construct an undercrossing of the BNSF Railroad in conjunction with a pedestrian bridge to allow a safe, direct, attractive non-motorized access between neighborhoods in the City of Pacific and schools in the City of Auburn. Progress Summary: The design is on hold. Funding source is most likely a federal earmark. Currently this project is on hold pending some discussions with BNSF RR. They are in the process of planning for a third rail which would significantly impact the design. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 55 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail TIP # 24 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Capacity) Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 135,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 765,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - - - - - 900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 850,000 - - - - - 900,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 50,000 42,500 42,500 135,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 382,500 382,500 765,000 - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - 50,000 425,000 425,000 900,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - - 50,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - 425,000 425,000 850,000 - - 50,000 425,000 425,000 900,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant Funding is unsecured. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,680. Adopted Budget This project will use existing right-of-way to repair the damaged roadbed to a usable multi-use trail on Academy Dr from the Green River Rd to Auburn Way S. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C 56 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: METRO Shuttle: Auburn Community and Lakeland Shuttles TIP # 26 Project No:NA Project Type:Other Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 300,628 220,000 220,000 220,000 740,628 1,840,628 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Other (TBD)- - - - - - 300,628 220,000 220,000 220,000 740,628 1,840,628 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Operating Costs 300,628 220,000 220,000 220,000 740,628 1,840,628 300,628 220,000 220,000 220,000 740,628 1,840,628 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Other (TBD)- - - - - - 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Operating Costs 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 - 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget Operation costs associated with two new Metro routes: a Commuter Shuttle from the Lakeland Hills neighborhood to Auburn Station and a Community Shuttle linking residential neighborhoods with commercial and service centers. Progress Summary: Lakeland Hill Service began in 2009. The community shuttle will begin service in 2010. Funding assistance will be requested through the Transit Now Partnership Program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 57 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program TIP # 30 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Bi-Annual) Project Manager:Pablo Para Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 100,000 100,000 300,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - 10,000 30,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - 90,000 - 90,000 270,000 - - 100,000 - 100,000 300,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 - 100,000 300,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 - 10,000 - 30,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 90,000 - 90,000 - 270,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This is a bi-annual level of effort project used to fund small pedestrian safety studies and improvement projects. This project provides for pedestrian safety studies and improvements at various locations citywide. Projects are prioritized annually based on safety issues and pedestrian demands. Progress Summary: Project for 2011 was preliminary design of 8th St NE and SE 104th St intersection improvements. 2012 project is access improvements at Auburn Ave and 3rd St NE. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C 58 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Improvements TIP # 31 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Safety) Project Manager:Various Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 19,300 100,000 100,000 100,000 219,300 719,300 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 19,300 100,000 100,000 100,000 219,300 719,300 Capital Expenditures: Design 19,300 57,000 10,000 10,000 86,300 136,300 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 43,000 90,000 90,000 133,000 583,000 19,300 100,000 100,000 100,000 219,300 719,300 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 540,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: This is an annual level of effort project focused on funding bicycle and safety improvements on classified roadways. Projects are prioritized annually based upon field studies. Project was previously called "Citywide Roadway Safety Infrastructure Improvements. Progress Summary: Projects for 2011 included preliminary design of intersection improvements at 8th st NE and SE 104th St and pedestrian trail improvements at 37th St SE. 2012 Project has yet to be indentified. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 59 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Citywide Sidewalk Improvements TIP #32 Project No:Various Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue - 180,000 20,000 180,000 380,000 780,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 180,000 20,000 180,000 380,000 780,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 2,000 2,000 10,000 4,000 38,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 170,000 18,000 170,000 358,000 734,000 - 172,000 20,000 180,000 192,000 772,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET 2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 2,000 10,000 2,000 10,000 36,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 18,000 170,000 18,000 170,000 564,000 - 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Project will fund sidewalk improvements to a variety of locations throughout the city. A sidewalk inventory was completed in 2004. Annual projects are selected based upon criteria such as: gap closure, safe walking routes to schools, completion of downtown pedestrian corridor or "linkage", connectivity to transit services, ADA requirements, and "Save our Streets" (SOS) project locations. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: None Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C 60 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements TIP # 44 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Sidewalk Improvements (Non-Capacity) Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 150,000 REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 15,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 135,000 - - - - - 150,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 150,000 - - 150,000 - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - 15,000 - - 15,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 135,000 - - 135,000 - - 150,000 - - 150,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured. The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500. Adopted Budget This project completes a pedestrian connection between Downtown Auburn and the 8th St NE business district. This project will improve a pedestrian crossing at 3rd St NE, and construct sidewalks/access ramps along the A St NE corridor. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 61 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 37th Street SE & R Street SE Pedestrian Connector TIP # 53 Project No:cp0803 Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Capacity) Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 9,400 64,100 1,000 - - 74,500 Grants (State)27,900 96,400 - - - 124,300 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 37,300 160,500 1,000 - - 198,800 Capital Expenditures: Design 37,300 10,000 - - 47,300 47,300 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 150,500 1,000 - 151,500 151,500 37,300 160,500 1,000 - 198,800 198,800 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 1,000 - Grants (State)- - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,000 - - - - - 1,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is State Ped & Bike Safety Grant. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will construct a pedestrian connection between 37th ST SE & R St providing a link between south Auburn and the White River Trail and Game Farm Park. Progress Summary: Project construction is expected to be completed in 2011. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C 62 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements TIP # 56 Project No:cpXXXX Project Type:Non-Motorized Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 25,000 373,500 - 398,500 398,500 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 25,000 373,500 - 398,500 398,500 Capital Expenditures: Design - 25,000 - - 25,000 25,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - 373,500 - 373,500 373,500 - 25,000 373,500 - 398,500 398,500 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 373,500 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 373,500 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 373,500 - - - - - 373,500 - This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will construct pedestrian improvements along the south side of SE 312th St east of the intersection with 124th Ave SE, intersection improvements at 116th Ave SE & SE 304th St, paint bike lanes on 116th Ave SE between SE 312th St and SE 304th St and improve curb ramps adjacent to Rainier Middle School. Progress Summary: The City was awarded $398,500 in federal funding in May 2011, which consists of $75,700 for School District education/encouragement, $1,800 for Police Dept. enforcement and $321,000 for engineering, right of way, and construction. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 63 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 41st Street SE and A Street SE Access Management Study TIP # 27 Project No:cp1110 Project Type:Safety (Non-Capacity) Project Manager:Pablo Para LOS Corridor ID# 10,33 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 8,000 2,000 - 10,000 10,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 8,000 2,000 - 10,000 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 8,000 2,000 - 10,000 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - 8,000 2,000 - 10,000 10,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 2,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 2,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 2,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - 2,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This study will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget Study the area from 37th St SE to the White River on A St SE including 41st St SE from D St SE to C St SE. The study should review the safety and access needs of the traveling public and the adjacent properties. Progress Summary: Pre-design will be done to refine project scope, alignment, and cost. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C 64 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study TIP # 46 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Intersection Safety) Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom LOS Corridor ID# 24 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 2,000 3,000 - 5,000 5,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 2,000 3,000 - 5,000 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 2,000 3,000 - 5,000 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - 2,000 3,000 - 5,000 5,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 3,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 3,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 3,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - 3,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project will fund a pre-design study to determine the right of way, environmental and construction requirements for intersection safety improvements. This safety project scope will include sight distance improvements, constructing turn lanes, channelization, environmental mitigation, signage and clear zone improvements. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 65 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Environmental Park Roadway Improvements Study TIP # 47 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD Description: This project will fund a Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget:This project will have no Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance Adopted Budget - - - - Budget Amendments - - - - Adjusted Budget - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 5,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - Total Expenditures:- - - - - 5,000 Forecasted Project Cost: Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 5,000 - 5,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 5,000 - 5,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - 5,000 - 5,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - Total Expenditures:- - 5,000 - 5,000 - Grants / Other Sources: DI.C 66 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Study TIP # 48 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Bike Lanes, Sidewalks and Transit Improvement Study (Capacity) Project Manager:TBD Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 10,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 10,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project provides funding to complete a study of the 2nd St SE & F St SE corridor between Les Gove Park and Downtown Auburn. Improvements may include pavement reconstruction, sidewalks, access ramps, signal modifications and route signing. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 67 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: S 316th Street Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Study TIP # 49 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Class 2 Bike Lanes / Sidewalks (Capacity) Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 37 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 5,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 5,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 5,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - 5,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This project provides funding for completing a study to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities on S 316th St from east of Evergreen Heights Elementary to 51st Ave S. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C 68 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Kersey Way Study TIP # 54 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4 Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,400,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 600,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - - 4,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 350,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 3,650,000 - - - - - 4,000,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 250,000 250,000 3,150,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 100,000 100,000 500,000 Other (Developer)*- - - - - - - - 350,000 350,000 3,650,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 350,000 350,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 3,650,000 - - - 350,000 350,000 3,650,000 Grants / Other Sources: None Adopted Budget This project will study improvements to the Kersey Way SE corridor from the White River Bridge to the southern city limits. The study will develop the scope and costs for horizontal/vertical geometric roadway improvements, roadside hazard mitigation, street lighting and non-motorized trail construction. The project length is approximately two miles. Progress Summary: Design will begin in 2017. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Forecasted Project Cost: Total Funding Sources: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 69 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Mary Olson Farm Improvements TIP # 55 Project No:cp0815 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 85,100 20,000 1,000 - 106,100 106,100 Grants (Federal)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 85,100 20,000 1,000 - 106,100 106,100 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 85,100 20,000 1,000 - - 106,100 85,100 20,000 1,000 - 106,100 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 1,000 - Grants (Federal)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,000 - - - - - 1,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Federal grant is FHWA Mitigation Funds $101K received in prior years. This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This is a historical preservation project required as mitigation for S 277th Reconstruction Project. Progress Summary: Phase 1 was the S. 277th St Reconstruction Project. Phase II of the project was completed in 2009 and Phase 3 is scheduled to be completed in 2011. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C 70 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Annual Bridge Preservation Project TIP # 28 Project No:Various Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: 2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 400,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 400,000 - 100,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 400,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 - Grants / Other Sources: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Adopted Budget This is an annual level of effort project used to fund bridge improvements as identified by the city's annual bridge inspection program. Progress Summary: Program completed load rating calculations for nine bridges in 2011. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 71 STREET FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Arterial Street Preservation Program Project No:cpxxxx TIP #35 Project Type:Annual, Non-Capacity Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - - Utility Tax - 1,366,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,666,000 9,566,000 REET2 - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 1,366,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,666,000 9,566,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 60,000 25,000 25,000 85,000 310,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 1,306,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 2,581,000 9,256,000 - 1,366,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,666,000 9,566,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - - Utility Tax 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 8,200,000 - REET2 - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 8,200,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 7,950,000 - 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 8,200,000 - Grants / Other Sources: None Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Progress Summary: Program continues to successfully complete annual patching and overlay projects citywide. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Description: Implement regular pavement maintenance and/or rehabilitation of various classified streets citywide. These projects may include overlays, rebuilds, spot repairs, or a combination of these. This program is funded through a 1% utility tax that was adopted by Council in 2008. DI.C STREET FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Arterial Crack Seal Program Project No:cpxxxx TIP #36 Project Type:Annual, Non-Capacity Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Utility Tax - 140,000 200,000 200,000 340,000 1,340,000 REET - - - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - - - 140,000 200,000 200,000 340,000 1,340,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 15,000 15,000 25,000 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 130,000 185,000 185,000 315,000 1,240,000 - 140,000 200,000 200,000 340,000 1,340,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Utility Tax 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 - REET - - - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 1,110,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 - Grants / Other Sources: None Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: Implement regular maintenance of various classified streets by sealing newly formed cracks. Sealing the cracks will prolong the life of the pavement by stopping water from draining into the subbase of the road. Progress Summary: Program continues to successfully extend pavement life pavement citywide. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 73 77 LOCAL STREET FUND (103)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Local Street Improvement Program Project No:Various TIP #37 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Wickstrom Description: Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance - - - - - - - - - - - - Activity: (Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year End Total Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Local Street Fund - - - - - - Property Tax - 3,398,220 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,398,220 15,398,220 Utility Mitigation - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 3,398,220 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,398,220 15,398,220 Capital Expenditures: Design - 120,000 180,000 180,000 300,000 1,200,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 3,278,220 1,820,000 1,820,000 5,098,220 14,198,220 - 3,398,220 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,398,220 15,398,220 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources: Local Street Fund - - - - - - Property Tax 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 - Utility Mitigation - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 1,080,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 1,820,000 1,820,000 1,820,000 1,820,000 10,920,000 - 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 - Grants / Other Sources: None Adopted Budget This program was created after passage of Proposition 1 on the November '04 ballot, setting the City's property tax levy limits and creating a dedicated local street fund to be used solely for local street improvements. The program will focus on the preservation of local streets (unclassified streets) within the City of Auburn. The work will include crack sealing, asphalt patching, pre-leveling, asphalt overlays and roadway reconstruction. The property tax levy lift may also be used to repay bonds should they be utilized to fund this program. Progress Summary: This program has successfully completed overlays since 2005. In 2011 and 2012 the program will focus on major street reconstruction where street surfaces and the underlying base has failed. Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources: Total Expenditures: Total Expenditures: Total Funding Sources: Forecasted Project Cost: DI.C Roadway Improvements Grant Status*Prior to 2012201220132014201520162017Beyond 2017 C207A01A St NW, Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW)S 6,714,5591,687,500- - - - - - 8,402,059 cpxxxx2Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements Phase 1S 50,000106,500784,300- - - 3,000,000- 940,800 C409A03Auburn Way Imp (4th St NE to 4th St SE)A'12 78,251- - - - 818,700421,127- 1,318,078 C415A04I St NE (40th St NE to 52nd St NE)N/A 11,827409,300 - - - 6,760,000120,500- 7,301,627 C201A05M St SE Grade Separation (E Main to AWS)PS 6,998,5007,549,7008,935,000120,500120,500120,500- - 23,483,200 C222A06S 277th Street (AWN to Green River Bridge)A'11 19,085- - - - 4,500,0004,500,000- 9,019,085 cpxxxx715th St SW Reconstruction (C St SW to UPRR)A'12 - - - - - 375,000 3,000,000 - 3,375,000 cpxxxx8A St NW, Phase 2 (W Main to 3rd St NW)A'10 150,000- - - - - 3,000,000- 3,150,000 cpxxxx9D St NW (37th St NW to 44th St NW)A'14 - - - - - 300,000300,0006,000,0006,600,000 CP091110F St SE (4th St SE to AWS)A'13 7,620- - 250,0002,250,000- - - 2,507,620 cpxxxx11M St NE (E Main St to 4th St NE)A'13 - - 50,000275,0001,150,000- - - 1,475,000 cpxxxx12BNSF Railyard Grade-Separated CrossingN/A - - - - - 1,000,000- 31,000,00032,000,000 cpxxxx14West Valley Hwy Improvemnts (SR-18 to West Main Street)S 3,134,3585,000- - - - - - 3,139,358 cpxxxx158th St NE (Pike St to R St NE)A'12 - - - 450,0001,000,000- - - 1,450,000 Varies33Traffic Calming Improvements N/A 200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000- - 1,200,000 cpxxxx1649th Street NE from Auburn Way North to I Street NE - - - - 850,000- - 850,000 cpxxxx60M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS)A'15 - - - - 1,895,400- - - 1,895,400 cpxxxx61Auburn Way South Bypass A'17 - - - - - - 60,450,000- 60,450,000 cpxxxx62AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M Street SE)A'16 - - - - - 2,800,000- - 2,800,000 cpxxxx40124th Ave SE Corridor Imp Phase 1A'14 50,000150,0001,750,000- 750,000- 3,000,0005,700,000 cpxxxx41124th Ave SE Corridor Imp Phase 2A'11 - - - 150,0001,750,000- - - 1,900,000 cpxxxx42SE 320th St Corridor Imp A'12 - - 30,000150,0001,000,000- - 750,0001,930,000 cpxxxx 58AWS Corridor (Fir ST SE to Hemlock ST SE)S - 2,736,700- - - - - - 2,736,700 cpxxxx6329th Street SE & R Street SE A'17 - - - - - - - - - cpxxxx64Lea Hill Segment 1(8th St NE from R St NE to 104th Ave SE)A'16 - - - - - - 18,450,000- 18,450,000 cpxxxx65Lea Hill Segment 2 (SE 320th St from 104th to 112th Ave SE) A'17 - - - - - 11,400,0002,800,000- 14,200,000 cpxxxx66Lea Hill Segment 3 (SE 320th from 112th to 124th Ave SE )A'17 - - - - - - 3,575,000- 3,575,000 17,364,20012,544,7009,135,0003,646,5008,216,90018,439,600118,105,50040,750,000219,848,927 Intersection Improvements CP061117Harvey/8th Street Imp - Debt ServiceN/A 303,90087,30086,90086,50086,00085,60085,200910,4001,731,800 cpxxxx8th St NE & SE 104th St Intersection ImprovementsS 50,000 332,000 382,000 cpxxxx19Auburn Way North/1 Street NE Signal ImpA'11 - - 50,000550,000- - - - 600,000 cpxxxx20Auburn Way South and M Street SE A'12 25,00075,0001,000,000- - - - 1,100,000 cpxxxxF St SE & 4th St SE Traffic Signal S 273,4401,000 274,440 cpxxxx21C Street NW and West Main Street A'12 - - 100,000 1,000,000- - - 1,100,000 cpxxxx38Railroad Crossing Safety ImprovementsA'12 - - - - 1,200,0001,800,000- - 3,000,000 cpxxxx43Auburn Way South & Riverwalk ImpA'14 - - - 150,000850,000- - 1,000,000 652,340495,3001,236,9001,786,5002,136,0001,885,60085,200910,4009,188,240 Traffic Signal & ITS Improvements Varies34Traffic Signal Imp N/A 350,000175,000175,000175,000175,000175,000175,000- 1,400,000 cpxxxx50ITS Dynamic Message Signs A'13 - - - - 220,000- 220,000440,000 cpxxxx51East Valley Hwy ITS Expansion A'13 - 800,000220,000- - - - 1,020,000 350,000975,000395,000175,000395,000175,000395,000- 2,860,000 Non-Motorized & Transit Improvements C229A023BNSF/East Valley Hwy. Ped UndercrossingPS 224,300- - - - - 4,800,0005,024,300 cpxxxx24Academy Drive Multi Use Trail A'12 - - - 10,000150,000425,000425,000- 1,010,000 NA26Auburn Community and Lakeland ShuttlesN/A 520,628220,000220,000220,000220,000220,000220,000- 1,840,628 Varies30Citywide Pedestrian Crossing ProgramN/A 100,000- 100,000- 100,000- 100,000- 400,000 Varies31Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Imp N/A 119,300100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000- 719,300 Varies32Citywide Sidewalk Improvements N/A 425,10028,000172,00028,000172,00028,000172,000- 1,025,100 cpxxxx44A St NE Pedestrian Improvements A'12 - - - 150,000- - - - 150,000 cpxxxx45Interurban Trailhead ImprovementsA'13 - - - - 210,000- - - 210,000 cpxxxx5337th St SE & R St SE Pedestrian ConnectorS 197,8001,000- - - - - - 198,800 cpxxxx56Lea Hill Pedestrian Improvements A'10 25,000373,500- - - - - - 398,500 1,612,128722,500600,000750,0001,025,000773,0005,817,000- 466,368,903 Prelim. Engineering and Misc. Improvements cpxxxx2741st St SE and A St SE Access Management StudyN/A - 8,00025,00025,000- - - - 58,000 C410A29S 277th Street -Wetland Mitigation N/A - 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 cpxxxx46104th Ave SE & Green River Study N/A - - - - - 5,000- - 5,000 cpxxxx47Environmental Park Roadway Improvements StudyN/A - 5,000- - - - - - 5,000 cpxxxx48Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Imp StudyN/A - 2,000- - - - - - 2,000 cpxxxx49S. 316th St Bicycle & Pedestrian Imp StudyN/A - 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 cpxxxx54Kersey Way Study N/A - - - - - - 350,000 3,650,000 cpxxxx54Mary Olson Farm Improvements N/A - - - - - - - - 3,650,000 - 45,00025,00025,000- 5,000350,000- 3,750,000 Roadway Preservation Programs cpxxxx28Annual Bridge Maintenance N/A 100,00050,00050,00050,00050,000 50,000 50,000 - 400,000 Varies35Arterial Streets (105 Fund) N/A 2,955,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,0001,400,000- 11,355,000 Varies36Arterial Crack Seal (105 Fund) N/A 300,000100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000- 900,000 Varies37Local Streets - SOS (103 Fund)N/A 8,108,9002,000,0002,000,0002,000,0002,000,0002,000,0002,000,000- 20,108,900 11,463,9003,550,0003,550,0003,550,0003,550,0003,550,0003,550,000- 32,363,900 19,978,66818,332,50014,941,9009,933,00043,207,40024,828,200128,302,70041,660,400734,379,970 Recommended Regional Projects N/A 80SR-167 Expansion (I405-SR509) - WSDOT N/A 81SR-18 & SR-167 Interchange - WSDOT N/A 82 SR-164 Corridor Improvements (SR-18 to Academy Drive) - WSDOT N/A 84 Green River Class I Trail, (SR-18 to Northern City Limit) - King County N/A 8551st Ave S & S 316th St Signal - King County N/A 86North Tapps Corridor Widening (EVH to SR-167) - Pierce County N/A 87Auburn Transit Station Parking Garage-SoundTransit S = Secured PS = Partially Secured A = Applied or will apply '10 = Year 32,300,000 45,000,000 Cost *Grant Status 2,000,000 650,000 31,600,000 4,572,550,000 Construct Class I Trail along Green River from SR-18 to Northern City limits. Construct new traffic signal at intersection of 51st Ave S and S 316th St with turn lanes. Subtotal TOTAL Construct corridor improvements consistent with WSDOT SR-164 Corridor Improvement Study. Project includes intersection improvements, roadway widening and roadside improvements. Project Description From I-405 to Sr-18, add one NB and SB general purpose lane; from SR-18 to SR-161, add one NB HOT lane and one SB HOT lane, add direct NB/SB HOV/HOT lane connection ramps between SR-167 & I405; add NB and SB auxiliary lanes between SR516 and S 277th Street; extend Sr 167 from SR-161 to SR-509. Complete freeway interchange by adding eastbound SR-18 ramp to southbound SR-167, adding northbound SR-167 ramp to WB SR-18 and closing SR-18 access to West Valley Highway. TOTAL Construct a new parking garage at the Auburn Transit Station Complete a five lane section roadway with new bridge over the white river and railroad grade separation from EVH to SR-167. Subtotal Subtotal 61,000,000 4,400,000,000 Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Total Project Cost City of Auburn 2012 - 2017 Transportation Improvement Program Project Summary Project Number TIP #Project Title Project Expenditures DI.C City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program 75 DI.C Council Operations Committee (COC) Planning for the May 12th, 2011 City Council Retreat Auburn Major Transportation Investments, 2011 - 2031 Council Prioritization Scoring (Edited with Final Scores) % Weighted Criteria; give "Grade Point Average" score COC DISCUSSION DRAFT 20%10%25%15%15%5%5%25%10% line ref TIP #Item Descriptions Capital Projects, Preservation and Operations City Future Cost City Cost per yr Project Total Cost Score weighted Included Cost of Utilities 164,65,66 Lea Hill Road & Bridge (Pike to 124th SE)$7,400,000$740,000$37,000,000 4424432 3.50 $7,500,000 254 Kersey Way (Oravetz Road to So. City Limits)$800,000$80,000$4,000,000 2123432 3.45 $0 314 West Valley Highway (SR 18 to W. Main)$2,000,000$200,000$5,000,000 3322444 3.40 $1,200,000 45 M Street SE Underpass (E. Main to AWS)$5,000,000$500,000$22,400,000 1433444 3.30 $3,000,000 520 M Street SE & AWS Intersection $400,000$40,000$2,000,000 4422432 3.15 $250,000 611 M Street Corridor (4th NE to AWS)$1,560,000$156,000$7,800,000 3433432 3.10 $1,000,000 714 West Valley Highway (W. Main to 15th NW)$1,600,000$160,000$8,000,000 2322442 3.10 $1,500,000 886 Lakeland/Tapps Connector (Stewart, Bridge)$1,000,000$100,000$32,300,000 1433422 3.10 $0 92,58 Auburn Way So. (Dogwood to Hemlock)$0$0$3,900,000 4421324 3.00 $0 1014 West Valley Highway (37th to City Limits)$600,000$60,000$3,000,000 2324442 3.00 $500,000 1129 277th (AWN to Green River Bridge)$820,000$82,000$4,100,000 3442422 2.95 $500,000 1239,40,41,42 Lea Hill SE 312th,124th, 320th Corridor $1,900,000$190,000$4,600,000 3423332 2.90 $800,000 1350,51 Intersections and ITS $1,600,000$160,000$8,000,000 3330232 2.80 $0 141 A St. NW Phase 1 (3rd NW to 14th NW )$2,300,000$230,000$11,500,000 0344104 2.70 $2,000,000 1543 Auburn Way So. & Riverwalk Intersection $480,000$48,000$2,400,000 4412322 2.70 $0 1610 F Street SE (4th SE to AWS)$240,000$24,000$1,200,000 2313142 2.50 $0 1747 Environmental Park District $3,940,000$394,000$19,700,000 0141331 2.40 $5,000,000 1848 Downtown Streets and Sidewallks $2,400,000$240,000$12,000,000 1141242 2.40 $2,000,000 197 15th SW Reconstruction (C St. to UPRR)$680,000$68,000$3,400,000 2113332 2.30 $0 20Various Non-Motorized (Bike, ped.,12 TIP projects total)$3,400,000$340,000$17,000,000 2110222 2.25 $0 213 Auburn Way Corridor (4th NE to 4th SE)$800,000$80,000$4,000,000 2221331 2.15 $0 224 "I" St. NE (Developer participation) (40th to 52nd)$1,160,000$116,000$5,800,000 0342312 2.00 $1,100,000 2362 Auburn Way So. (SR 18 to M SE, streetscape)$800,000$80,000$4,000,000 2244101 1.90 $0 2463 29th and "R" SE Intersection $620,000$62,000$3,100,000 2412212 1.90 $0 2561 Auburn Way So. Bypass (SR 18 to SR164)$13,000,000$1,300,000$65,000,000 0423400 1.85 $0 268 A St. NW Phase 2 (W. Main to 3rd NW)$540,000$54,000$2,700,000 1231111 1.70 $500,000 27 CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL $55,040,000$5,504,000$293,900,000 $26,850,000 2837 SOS Local Street Preservation (20 yrs)$40,000,000$2,000,000$40,000,000 1212133 2.60 $3,000,000 2935 Arterial Street Preservation (20 yrs)$60,000,000$3,000,000$60,000,000 1134442 3.40 $10,000,000 3036 Routine Street Maintenance (20 years)$40,000,000$2,000,000$40,000,000 3124243 3.30 $0 31N/A Engineering (20 yrs, 8 FTE, traffic)$20,000,000$1,000,000$20,000,000 4444444 4.00 $2,000,000 32 PRESERVATION & OPERATIONS TOTAL $160,000,000$8,000,000$160,000,000 $15,000,000 33 CAPITAL PLUS PRESERV. & OPS TOTAL $215,040,000$13,504,000$453,900,000 $41,850,000 Safety Congestion Economic Stimulus Freight Regional Connectivity Financial Feasibility Urgency & Condition * Critera score: 4 = high to 0 = low for each item Bond or LID cost / yr @ Criteria * Critera weight (out of total 100%) City capital match @ 20% DI.C AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Phase II Code Update - Grouping 1 Date: November 8, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memo Table A - Summary of Changes - Zoning Code Ord6387 - Amending Chapter 18 50 ACC Ord6388 - Amending Chapter 18 52 ACC Ord6389 - Amending Chapter 18 70 ACC Ord6390 Creating Chapter 18 53 ACC Agenda Bill Staff Report to Planning Commission 10-4-11 Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: See memo. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Wagner Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.D AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 1 of 2 Memorandum Planning and Development Department To: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice- Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee From: Stuart Wagner, AICP, Planner CC: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager Date: November 14, 2011 Re: Proposed Amendments to Title 18 – Zoning, of the Auburn Zoning City Code related to parking and landscaping regulations, administrative variance process, and outdoor lighting standards (Code Update Project – Phase 2 – Grouping 1) At its October 18, 2011 meeting the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the following zoning code text amendments related to Phase 2 of the Code Update Project (Grouping 1): • Amend existing code sections and adding new code sections within the following Chapters: ACC 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening) and ACC 18.52 (Off Street Parking and Loading). • Amend Chapter ACC 18.70 (Variances, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals) by adding an administrative variance process. • Create a new Chapter of the zoning code related to outdoor lighting, ACC 18.53. At the public hearing, the proposed zoning code text amendments were summarized by staff. Staff also went over changes made to the text amendments after a discussion was held with the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011. The Planning Commission then discussed and recommended approval of the code amendments, with a single change. The change they recommended is as follows: • On page 11 of the Landscaping and Screening - Ordinance 6387 under Section 18.50.70 C.1. -Tree and shrub pruning. Tree pruning should shall be performed by a landscape contractor, one that is certified by the International Society of Arborculture as a Certified Tree Trimmer or Certified Arborist or other qualified tree expert. The Planning Commission wanted more suggestive language in the code with regards tree pruning DI.D Page 2 of 2 Attached to this memorandum are the zoning code amendments reviewed by the Planning Commission, now in ordinance format. If the Committee is satisfied with these code amendments, staff will return with an agenda bill and finalized ordinances for review prior to Council action. Due to the large number of code amendments proposed staff has summarized them in a table (See Enclosure 1). Enclosures 1. Table A: Code Update Project – Phase II – 1st Grouping - Summary of Changes 2. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.50 – Landscaping and screening (revised) 3. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.52 – Off-street parking and loading (revised) 4. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.70 – Variances, Special Exceptions, and Administrative Appeals (new section) 5. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.53 – Outdoor Lighting Standards (new) 6. Planning Commission Agenda Bill - Staff Report DI.D TA B L E A : C O D E U P D A T E P R O J E C T – P H A S E I I – 1 st G R O U P I N G - S U M M A R Y O F C H A N G E S Pl a n n i n g an d De v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e - 1 1 / 1 4 / 1 1 Zo n i n g C o d e Ch a p t e r Ob j e c t i v e Ac t i o n Pa r k i n g ( r e v i s e d ) Cl a r i f y w h e n t h e o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g a n d lo a d i n g c h a p t e r a p p l i e s Fo u r s c e n a r i o s a r e o u t l i n e d i n t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y s e ct i o n – n e w d e v e l o p m e n t , ch a n g e i n u s e , m o d i f i c a t i o n t o e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s (o r u s e s i n l a n d ) , a n d mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o e x i s t i n g p a r k i n g l o t s Av o i d l a r g e a n d u n d e r u t i l i z e d p a r k i n g lo t s a n d i n e f f i c i e n t u s e o f l a n d Es t a b l i s h e d a p a r k i n g m a x i m u m . T h e m a x i m u m n u m b e r of p a r k i n g s p a c e s ca n n o t e x c e e d 1 2 5 % o f t h e m i n i m u m n u m b e r o f p a r k i n g s p a c e s r e q u i r e d – AC C 1 8 . 5 2 . 0 2 0 – OR D 6 3 8 8 p g . 6 Im p r o v e t h e r e a d a b i l i t y o f t h e de v e l o p m e n t r e g u l a t i o n s a n d m a k e th e m e a s i e r f o r p r o p e r t y o w n e r s , ap p l i c a n t s , a n d C i t y r e s i d e n t s t o u s e Th e o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e b e e n i n c o r po r a t e d i n t o a t a b l e fo r m a t . S e e A C C T a b l e 1 8 . 5 2 . 0 2 0 Di s a b l e d / H a n d i c a p p e d p a r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s ( a s r e q u i re d b y f e d e r a l gu i d e l i n e s a n d c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l B ui l d i n g C o d e ( I B C ) ) h a v e be e n i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e p a r k i n g c h a p t e r ( S e e T a b l e 1 8. 5 2 . 0 2 5 ) In c r e a s e t h e n u m b e r o f s h a r e d a n d re d u c e d p a r k i n g s t r a t e g i e s A r e d u c t i o n i n t h e n u m b e r o f r e q u i r e d p a r k i n g s t a l l s i s a l l o w e d i f a de v e l o p m e n t i s c l o s e t o t r a n s i t , h a s a l o w p a r k i n g de m a n d , o r i n c o r p o r a t e s bi c y c l e p a r k i n g a n d / o r c a r s h a r i n g s t a l l s ( i . e . z i p c a r s ) . – O R D 6 3 8 8 p g . 1 2 & 13 Al l o w f o r p a r k i n g l o t s u r f a c e a l t e r n a t i v e s Al t e r n a t i v e s t o p a v i n g m a y b e p r o v i d e d s u b j e c t t o t he a p p r o v a l o f t h e C i t y (S e e A C C 1 8 . 5 2 . 0 5 0 – P a r k i n g D e s i g n , D e v e l o p m e n t , a nd M a i n t e n a n c e ) – OR D 6 3 8 8 p g . 1 8 De v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l s t y p i c a l l y h a v e tr o u b l e m e e t i n g a l l o f t h e d i m e n s i o n a l re q u i r e m e n t s f o r p a r k i n g s t a l l s a n d d r i v e ai s l e s . Al t e r n a t i v e p a r k i n g l a y o u t s m a y b e a l l o w e d ( i n c l u d i ng d i m e n s i o n s o f o f f - st r e e t p a r k i n g s p a c e s , m a n e u v e r i n g a i s l e s , a n d d r i v ew a y o p e n i n g s ) w i t h pl a n n i n g d i r e c t o r a p p r o v a l – O R D 6 3 8 8 p g . 2 5 DI.D TA B L E A : C O D E U P D A T E P R O J E C T – P H A S E I I – 1 st G R O U P I N G - S U M M A R Y O F C H A N G E S Pl a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e - 1 1 / 1 4 / 1 1 Zo n i n g C o d e Ch a p t e r Ob j e c t i v e Ac t i o n La n d s c a p i n g (r e v i s e d ) Mi n i m u m p l a n t e r w i d t h s ( i n t h e c u r r e n t co d e ) a r e t o o s m a l l f o r l a n d s c a p i n g t o th r i v e A 5 - f t l a n d s c a p e s t r i p i s n o t v i e w e d a s b e i n g a p p r o pr i a t e s o t h e m i n i m u m pl a n t e r w i d t h i n m o s t r e q u i r e d l a n d s c a p e d a r e a s i s 6- f t . E q u i v a l e n t s o f 6 - f t ma y b e a l l o w e d a l o n g t h e p r o p e r t y s t r e e t f r o n t a g e , wh e r e i t c a n b e 1 0 - f t i n so m e a r e a s , n o n e i n o t h e r s . Fl e x i b i l i t y w i t h o n - s i t e l a n d s c a p i n g . An o v e r a l l p e r c e n t a g e o f l a n d s c a p i n g a t a s i t e ( 1 0 - 15 % ) m u s t b e a c h i e v e d . Th e c o d e h a s b e c o m e l e s s r i g i d a b o u t w h e r e l a n d s c a p in g g o e s w h e r e s o m e is n e e d e d w i t h i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t , s o m e a l o n g t h e f r on t a g e , a n d a d j a c e n t t o re s i d e n t i a l z o n e s . – O R D 6 3 8 7 p g . 4 a n d 5 . St o r m d r a i n a g e f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . v e g e t a t e d b i o r e t e n t io n c e l l s o r w a t e r q u a l i t y tr e a t m e n t s w a l e s ) m a y b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e q u i r e d l an d s c a p e c o v e r a g e re q u i r e m e n t . Ot h e r l a n d s c a p i n g p r o v i s i o n s b e i n g co n s i d e r e d : R e t e n t i o n o f e x i s t i n g t r e e s , us e o f n a t i v e p l a n t i n g s , a n d a d d i t i o n a l re q u i r e m e n t s f o r l o n g t e r m m a i n t e n a n c e of l a n d s c a p i n g . La n d s c a p e p l a n t i n g s s h a l l b e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e c h ar a c t e r a n d c l i m a t e o f th e P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t ( 5 0 % o f t r e e s , s h r u b s , a n d g r ou n d c o v e r s h a l l b e na t i v e o r n o n - i n v a s i v e s p e c i e s t h a t h a v e a d a p t e d t o t h e r e g i o n . – O R D 6 3 8 7 pg . 5 a n d 6 . Re t a i n a l l s i g n i f i c a n t t r e e s i n r e q u i r e d p l a n t e r a r ea s ( i . e . p e r i m e t e r a r e a s t h a t ab u t s t r e e t a n d r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s ) – O R D 6 3 8 7 p g . 9 a n d 1 0 . Li m i t a t i o n s o n a l l o w a b l e p r u n i n g a n d t r e e t o p p i n g a re p r o h i b i t e d e x c e p t un d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f b r a n c h e s i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h u t il i t y l i n e s , s i g n i f i c a n t ca n o p y d i e b a c k h a s o c c u r r e d , o r s t o r m d a m a g e . – O R D 6 3 8 7 p g . 1 3 Ou t d o o r L i g h t i n g Di s c o u r a g e e x c e s s i v e l i g h t i n g o f ou t d o o r s p a c e s Ne w c o d e s e c t i o n t h a t r e q u i r e s l i g h t s h i e l d i n g , l i m it s f i x t u r e h e i g h t s , w h e r e ac c e n t l i g h t i n g c a n b e u s e d , a n d l i s t p r o h i b i t e d l i gh t s . Ad m i n i s t r a t i v e Va r i a n c e ( n e w ) Cr e a t e a n e w a d m i n i s t r a t i v e v a r i a n c e pr o c e s s f o r t h e C i t y Un d e r s p e c i f i c c a s e s t h e P l a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t D ir e c t o r c o u l d g r a n t re l i e f t o d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s ( u p t o 2 5 % f o r v a r i an c e s r e l a t i n g t o b u i l d i n g se t b a c k s , l o t c o v e r a g e , l o t a r e a , a n d l o t w i d t h ) DI.D DRAFT ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 1 of 11 ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 8 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.50 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 18.04.318 TO CHAPTER 18.04 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO DEFINITIONS WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development needs and standards of the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning code amendments will reorganize and update regulations and standards related to landscaping and screening; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that sufficient landscaping is a required component of all development, that plant materials complement the natural character of the Pacific Northwest, and there is unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Auburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2011, on the proposed code amendments regarding off-street parking and loading, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, and variances; and WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the public hearing, on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission made its recommendations for code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 11 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a final determination of non-significance (DNS) issued September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60- day state review; and WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments improve the readability and use of use of the City Code, updates technical aspects of the code, improves the City’s development review process, and promote sustainability concepts where feasible NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 18.50 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Chapter 18.50 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Sections: 18.50.010 Intent. 18.50.020 Applicability. 18.50.040 Landscape development standards. 18.50.045 Preservation of significant trees. 18.50.060 Landscape plan requirements. 18.50.070 Administration and Enforcement. 18.50.080 Alternative landscape plan. 18.50.010 Intent. The intent of this chapter is to provide minimum landscaping and screening requirements in order to maintain and protect property values, to enhance the city's appearance, to visually unify the city and its neighborhoods, to improve the character of certain areas of the city, to reduce erosion and storm water runoff, to reduce CO2 emissions, improve air quality, and to maintain or replace existing vegetation and to prevent and abate public nuisances. (Ord. 4914 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4773 § 1, 1995; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.50.020 Applicability. A. This chapter applies to all uses and activities developed in the city excluding single-family and duplex units on individual lots. B. When additions, alterations, or repairs of any existing building or structure exceed 50 percent of the value of the building or structure, or a residential use is converted to a nonresidential use, then such building or structure shall be considered to be a new use and site landscaping provided in accordance with this Chapter; provided, that if any existing foundation or fence layout precludes full compliance herewith, then the landscaping requirements may be modified by the planning director in approved landscape plans. (Ord. 4914 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(33), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.50.040 Landscape development standards. A. General Location for Landscape Improvements. Landscaping shall be provided in the following locations for all types of development, unless the City determines that the required landscape is not necessary to fulfill the purposes of this chapter. 1. Perimeter Areas. All areas that abut a street or residential property shall be landscaped in compliance with this chapter, except where occupied by a primary building, walk or driveway. Minimum landscape areas are listed in Table 18-50-040 A and B 2. Unused Areas. All areas of a multifamily or nonresidential project site not intended for a specific use (including areas planned for future phases of a phased development), shall be landscaped with existing natural vegetation, native grasses or similar. 3. Parking/Loading Areas. Parking lots, and where loading areas are visible from a public street, shall be landscaped in compliance with this Chapter. 4. Outdoor Storage Areas, Recreational Vehicle Parking, and Refuse Areas. All outdoor storage areas, recreational vehicle parking, and refuse areas, when visible from adjoining properties or public streets, shall be landscaped in compliance with this Chapter. B. Landscape Area Requirements by Zones. Minimum landscape area requirements are listed below by zones consistent with ACC 18.02.070. DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 11 Table 18.50.040 A Minimum Landscape Requirements by Zoning District Zones Minimum Landscape Coverage1 Minimum Landscape Planter Width – Perimeter Areas2 Abutting Street3 Abutting Residential Property Residential Zones RC, R1, R5, and R7 Residential Zones4 N/A N/A N/A R10, R16 and R20 Zones5 20% 6 ft. 10 ft. Non Residential Zones C2 10% 0 ft. 6 ft. C1, CN 10% 6 ft. 10 ft. C3, I, P1 15% 6 ft. 10 ft. EP 10% 10 ft. 10 ft. BP 15% 10 ft. 10 ft. M1 10% 10 ft. 10 ft. M2 10% 10 ft. 25 ft. Other RO6 / RO-H6 N/A N/A N/A DUC7 N/A N/A N/A Notes: 1. Minimum landscape coverage required is the minimum percentage of net lot area that must be maintained with a vegetated pervious surface, Vegetated bioretention cells or water quality treatment swales (not permanently inundated or ponded areas) may be included in the required landscape coverage percentage. 2. Listed planter widths shall be located entirely on private property. 3. The minimum landscape planter abutting a street may be reduced in size using the provision contained in ACC18.50.080, Alternative landscape plan. The reduced landscape planter shall have an average width of the requirement contained in Table 18.50.040. 4. Landscaping shall only be required in conjunction with an Administrative or Conditional Use Permit. The type and amount of landscaping shall be determined at that time the Administrative or Conditional Use Permit is approved. 5. Refer to ACC18.31.200 Multi-family Development and Mixed-use Development Design Standards and procedures for additional requirements. DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 11 6. Landscaping within the RO/RO-H zone is not required unless site development includes the demolition of existing structure(s) together with new construction. Under this scenario the minimum landscape requirements of the C1 zone shall be met. 7. Landscaping within the DUC zone shall be provided as defined in the Downtown Urban Center Design Standards, see reference to ACC 18.29.070. C. Landscape Design and Planting Requirements. Landscape design and construction for new development or redevelopment shall be compatible with the surrounding urban and natural environment. Landscape plantings shall comply with the plant type, size, and spacing provisions listed below. 1. Landscape Design. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral part of the overall site plan with the purpose of enhancing building design, public views and spaces, and providing buffers, transitions, and screening. a. All required planting areas shall be covered with a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants. Sodded lawn (not seed) may be substituted for some but not of all shrubs or ground cover plants. If sodded lawn is used it cannot cover more than 20 percent of the site and those portions of the lawn area must be served by an automatic irrigation system. b. Planting design shall have focal points at project entries, plaza areas, and other areas of interest using distinct planting and/or landscape features. c. As appropriate, building and site design shall include the use of landscaping against buildings to visually break up expanses of wall, soften appearance, and create visual interest through the use of planting areas, wall planters, and/or raised planters Loose rock, gravel, decorative rock or stone shall not exceed 20 percent of the planting area. 2. Plant Types. Landscape planting shall be compatible with the character and climate of the Pacific Northwest and complement the architectural design of structures on the site. a. Native Landscaping. Landscaping materials installed shall include species native to the Puget Sound lowland region of the Pacific Northwest or non-invasive species that have adapted to the climactic conditions of the region in the following minimum amounts: i. 50 percent of trees. ii. 50 percent of ground cover and shrubs. b. Trees. Trees planted within ten (10) feet of a public street, sidewalk, paved trail, or walkway shall be a deep-rooted species and shall be separated from hardscapes by a root barrier to prevent physical damage to public improvements. 3. Planting Size and Spacing. In order to balance both an immediate effect of a landscape installation and to allow sustained growth of planting materials, minimum plant material sizes and plant spacing are as follows: a. Trees. Trees shall be a minimum of one and one-half in diameter breast height (dbh) at the time of planting. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four to six feet in height at the time of planting and may include either broadleaf or conifer. Tree spacing within the perimeter planters along streets and abutting residential property shall be planted no further apart on center than the mature diameter of the proposed species. b. Shrubs. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 18 inches in height, or two gallon size containers, at the time of planting. c. Groundcover. Groundcover means low evergreen or deciduous plantings and shall be planted from either 4-inch pot with 12-inch spacing or 1-gallon pot with 18-inch spacing, DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Alternative spacing of particular species may be approved by the city if documentation concerning the effectiveness of the ground cover is submitted with the landscape plan. d. Additional Spacing Provisions. i. Tree size and spacing at installation shall be increased by the city where needed to ensure visual access for vehicles and pedestrians and provide clear vision at street, access tracts and driveway intersections (sight distance triangles). ii. Trees or shrubs with a full-grown height equal to or greater than 30 inches shall not be planted in any sight distance triangle. Sight distance triangles are determined in conformance with the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards, Chapter 10. iii. A minimum distance of 15 feet is required from the mature diameter of trees and the center of street light standards. 4. Landscaping Requirements for Parking Areas. a. General Parking Lot Landscaping Standards i. All parking lot landscape areas shall be protected with vertical or extruded concrete curbs, or equivalent barriers. Bumper blocks shall not be used as a substitute for curbing and boundary around the landscaped area; ii. All parking lot landscaping must be located between parking stalls, at the end of rows of parking, or between the end of rows of stalls and the property line. iii. The maximum distance between any parking stall and required parking area landscaping shall be no more than 50 feet. iv. Shrubs, ground cover or lawn shall be planted to cover each parking lot planting area using the planting size and spacing requirements specific in ACC 18.50.040 3. above. All ground cover shall have a mature height of not more than 24 inches. v. Modifications to protect drainage features, easements, or utility facilities may be allowed. Modifications that reduce landscape area or plant material shall be made up elsewhere on-site, if possible. vi. The requirements of this section shall not apply to parking garages or to display areas for automotive and equipment sales and rentals that are specifically designed, approved and constructed for the display purpose and that do not reduce required landscape areas. b. Specific Parking Lot Landscaping StandardsTable 18.50.040 B Specific Parking Lot Landscaping Standards Landscaped Area Required Planting Area Design Requirements Plantings Required 12 parking stalls or less No requirement 13-75 parking stalls 7% of surface parking stalls (exclusive of circulation) Minimum planter width: 6 feet Trees shall be provided at the rate of a minimum of one per planter and/or one per 100 square feet of planter. 76 parking stalls or more 10% of surface parking stalls (exclusive of circulation) Minimum planter width: 6 feet Trees shall be provided at the rate of a minimum of one per planter and/or one per 100 square feet of planter. DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 7 of 11 5. Landscaping for Outdoor Storage Areas, Recreational Vehicle Parking and Refuse Areas. a. Outdoor storage areas and recreational vehicle parking areas must be screened from view from adjacent streets and from all residentially zoned land by a minimum six (6) foot wide landscape buffer. This landscape buffer shall contain evergreen trees or tall shrubs, a minimum of six feet in height at the time of planting, which will provide a 100 percent sight- obscuring screen within three years from the time of planting is required; or a combination of evergreen trees or deciduous trees, planted 20 feet on center with no more than 30 percent being deciduous and backed by a 100 percent sight-obscuring fence. In addition to the trees, shrubs shall be planted at four-foot spacing, in all directions, and groundcover provided. b. Outdoor storage areas abutting the Interurban Trail (regardless of the zoning of the Interurban Trail) and other future trails connecting to the Interurban Trail shall have a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer containing the planting materials specified in ACC 18.50.040 5(a), above. c. Trash containers, dumpsters, trash compactors, and recycling bins associated with multiplex, multi-unit residential, and nonresidential uses must be screened from public view on all sides with a solid fence, wall, or gate constructed of cedar, redwood, masonry, or other similar building material reflecting the overall design of the site, and be appropriately landscaped (eg. climbing vines, arborvitae, etc). 6. Irrigation. No portion of any landscaped area shall be located further away than 50 feet from a source of water adequate to irrigate the landscaping. The source of water may be a manual (hose connection) or an automatic irrigation system. 18.50.045 Preservation of significant trees. A. Retention. In the required perimeter landscaping area, applicants shall retain all significant trees. A significant tree means a healthy evergreen tree, six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade, or a healthy deciduous tree four inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade. Alders and cottonwoods are excluded from this definition. If the grade level adjoining a tree to be retained is to be altered to a degree that would endanger the viability of a tree or trees, then the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be capable of protecting the tree. Areas devoted to driveways, curb cuts, and sight distance requirements, utilities and storm drainage facilities may be exempted from this requirement. Significant trees may also be exempted from this requirement if it is determined by the planning director based on satisfactory evidence pursuant to report prepared by a consulting arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. The report submitted to the city shall demonstrate the significant tree is: 1. Damaged; or 2. Diseased; or 3. Has weak structural integrity that poses a safety hazard. If additional significant trees are to be removed, the applicant shall seek approval of an “Alternative landscape plan” from the planning director under ACC 18.50.080. B. Encroachment into Dripline. No construction activities shall take place within the drip line of a tree to be retained without extra precautions as recommended by a certified arborist. The DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 8 of 11 applicant may install impervious or compactable surface within the area defined by the drip line when a qualified arborist determines that such activities will not endanger the tree or trees. (See the definition of “drip line” in ACC 18.04.318) C. Tree Protection. All significant trees that are to be retained must be protected during construction by installation of a protective barricade or fence. This will require preliminary identification of the proposed area of disturbance for staff inspection and approval, then installation of a protective barricade or fence before major excavation with heavy equipment begins. 18.50.060 Landscaping plan requirements. A. Persons Qualified to Prepare Landscape Plan. A landscape plan signed by a licensed landscape architect is not required. However, if the plan is determined by the City to be illegible or inadequate for review the landscape plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect licensed in the state of Washington, a nursery professional certified pursuant to the Washington Certified Nursery Professional program, or a Washington State certified landscape technician. B. Application. A landscape plan shall be required and shall be accurately drawn using an appropriate engineering scale and contain all information specified by the planning director in the application form and accompanying checklist provided by the City. 18.50.070 Administration and Enforcement. A. Performance assurance. 1. The required landscaping must be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy unless the planning director determines that a performance assurance device will adequately protect the interests of the city; 2. The performance assurance device shall only be valid for a 120-day period and shall have a value of 100 percent of the estimated cost of the landscaping to be performed, inclusive of planting materials and installation. If the landscaping has not been installed after the 120 days then the assurance device may be used by the city to perform any necessary work to implement the landscape plan. This time period can be extended if the City determines that: a. Installation of the landscaping would not be successful due to weather; or b. Product is not available due to the time of year. 3. The performance assurance device shall be accompanied by an agreement granting the city and its agents the right to enter the property and perform work. The agreement shall also hold the city harmless from all claims and expenses, including attorney's fees; 4. Upon completion of the required landscaping by the property owner the city shall release the performance assurance device. B. Initial Maintenance Period. 1. The property owner shall be responsible for replacing any unhealthy or dead plants for a period of one year after the initial planting. 2. The planning director shall require a maintenance assurance device, unless converting a single-family residence to a nonresidential use within the RO district, for a period of one year from the completion of planting in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. The value of the maintenance assurance device shall equal at least 100 percent of the total landscape materials plus installation. 3. If the landscaping is not being properly maintained, the property owner shall be so notified by the city. If after 30 days from the city's notification the landscaping is still not being DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 9 of 11 maintained then the maintenance device may be used by the city to perform any type of maintenance necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter. 4. The maintenance assurance device shall be accompanied by an agreement granting the city and its agents the right to enter the property and perform any necessary work. The agreement shall also hold the city harmless from all claims and expenses, including attorney's fees. 5. Upon completion of the one-year maintenance period, and if maintenance has not been performed by the city, the city shall release the maintenance assurance device. C. Maintenance of Landscape Area. Landscaping, including trees, shrubs, groundcover, or grass, planted as a requirement pursuant to this title, ACC Title 16 or ACC Title 17 shall be maintained in a healthy, living condition. 1. Tree and Shrub Pruning. A permit is not required to prune trees and shrubs on private property. Pruning which results in the removal of at least half of the live crown will be considered tree removal and subject to the provisions in ACC18.50.070 D. Tree pruning should be performed by a landscape contractor, one that is certified by the International Society of Arborculture as a Certified Tree Trimmer or Certified Arborist or other qualified tree expert. Limitations on Allowable Pruning. Tree and shrub pruning shall be allowed only for the following purposes: a. Removal of dead wood and diseased, crowed, and weakly attached trunks and branches that create a hazard to private property and citizens; b. Providing adequate clearance and visibility for safe use of parking stalls, travel ways and walkways for the passage of persons and vehicles; c. Eliminating traffic sign visibility obstructions; d. Providing adequate visibility for security patrols; e. Repairing split trees and limbs in order to save a tree and its appearance; f. Removing or severing tree roots that are causing damage to public or private property, including curbs, gutters, sidewalk, drainage lines and parking lot surfaces; or g. Providing visibility for merchant signs and increasing parking lot lighting only when the aesthetics of the tree or shrub will not be reduced. 2. Tree topping. Tree topping is prohibited, except under the following circumstances: a. Branches interfering with utility lines; b. Significant canopy dieback has occurred; c. Storm damage or prior incorrect pruning requires correction; D. Enforcement. Violation of these provisions shall be processed in accordance with the procedures defined under Chapter 1.25 ACC. The property owner or designee responsible for correcting the violation shall provide a corrective action plan that defines how and when the infraction will be corrected within the time provisions defined by Chapter 1.25 ACC 1. The corrective action plan shall be subject to the following replacement ratios: a. For plants that have died, replacement vegetation shall be at least 150 percent of the planting size required of the subject plant material at the time of planting. The plants shall be of the same or similar species to those plants being replaced, unless alternate species are approved by the planning director. b. For trees or shrubs that have been excessively pruned, replacement vegetation shall be at least 200 percent of the size of the tree or shrub that was required by city regulations DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 10 of 11 at the time of planting. The trees or shrubs shall be of the same or similar species of the plants being replaced, unless alternate species are approved by the planning director. 2. The property owner or designee shall correct the infraction or provide a schedule that defines how and when the infraction will be corrected within the time provisions defined by Chapter 1.25 ACC. (Ord. 5777 § 1, 2003.) 18.50.080 Alternative landscaping plan. The planning director may authorize modification of the landscape requirements when alternative plans comply with the intent of this chapter and: A. The proposed landscaping provides for creative landscape design; or B. Incorporates the increased retention of significant trees and naturally occurring undergrowth; or C. Incorporates historic or architectural features such as fountains, sculptures, structures and the like. Section 2. That a new section 18.04.318 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows: ACC 18.04.318 Dripline. “Dripline” An area encircling the base of a tree, the minimum extent of which is delineated by a vertical line extending from the outer limit of a tree’s branch tips down to the ground. Section 3. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. DI.D ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 11 of 11 Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: __________________ PASSED: _______________________ APPROVED: ____________________ CITY OF AUBURN ______________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _________________ DI.D DRAFT Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 1 of 15 ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 8 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 18.52 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development needs and standards of the City; and WHEREAS, a need has been identified to address concerns over the regulations on off-street parking and loading; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations which provide for safe, attractive, and convenient off-street parking and loading and to ensure that parking areas are compatible with surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning code amendments will increase the number of shared and reduced parking strategies, allow for alternative parking surfaces and allow alternative parking layouts subject to approval by the planning director; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Auburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2011, on the proposed code amendments regarding off-street parking and loading, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, and variances; and WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the public hearing, on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 15 made its recommendations for code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a final determination of non-significance (DNS) issued September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60- day state review; and WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments improve the readability and use of use of the City Code, updates technical aspects of the code, improves the City’s development review process, and promote sustainability concepts where feasible NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 15 Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 18.52 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: Chapter 18.52 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING Sections 18.52.010 Intent. 18.52.015 Applicability. 18.52.020 Number of off-street parking spaces required.18.52.025 Disabled/Handicapped Parking Requirements. 18.52.030 Reductions of the quantity of required parking. 18.52.040 Drive- through facilities. 18.52.050 Parking Design and Development Standards. 18.52.060 Development of off-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings and duplexes. 18.52.065 Commercial vehicles in residential zones. 18.52.080 Repealed. 18.52.110 Fractional spaces. 18.52.125 Stacked parking. 18.52.130 Off-street loading space. 18.52.135 Alternate parking layouts. 18.52.010 Intent. This chapter establishes regulations which provide for safe, attractive, and convenient off- street parking and loading and to ensure that parking areas are compatible with surrounding land uses. The City discourages providing parking in excess of that required by this Chapter. 18.52.015 Applicability. Except as otherwise provided in adopted contract rezones, development agreements, design standards and guidelines, or similar more specific process, off-street parking and loading provisions of this chapter shall apply as follows: A. New Development. For all buildings or structures erected and all uses of land (property) established, parking and loading facilit ies shall be provided as required by this Chapter. B. Change in Use. When the use of any building, structure, or land is changed, increasing the intensity such that the change creates an increase of five or less parking spaces required by the change, additional off-street parking spaces need not be provided in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. 1. Special provisions for the RO, Residential Office district: a. Within the RO, Residential Office zoning district, if any existing, nonresidential use is changed to another use, the requirements of this chapter shall apply in full to the new use if and only if the change in parking requirements between the old and new uses is greater than two spaces; except that if the applicant submits an alternate parking plan sufficiently justifying that the existing parking meets the needs of the new use, the planning director may authorize the satisfaction of parking through the Special Exception Process DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 15 b. Whenever there is a change from a residential use to a nonresidential use in an existing building within the RO, Residential Office zoning district, the requirements of this Chapter shall apply in full to the new use; except if the structure is being used as both a residence and business, then if the applicant submits an Alternate Parking Plan sufficiently justifying that the parking meets the needs of both uses, the planning director may authorize the satisfaction of parking through the Special Exception Process. C. Modification to Existing Structures or Uses of Land. Whenever an existing building or structure is modified or uses of land are modified such that the modification would require an increase of more than five off-street parking spaces, additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. D. Modification to Existing Parking Lots. 1. Any parking lot hereafter physically altered shall comply with all of the provisions of this Chapter, except that such lot which provides five percent of its area in landscaping and the landscaping is healthy and good maintenance shall be deemed to comply with ACC 18.50.040C(4). 2. For existing parking lots that are resurfaced in excess of 50 percent of their area, then at least five percent of the entire parking area shall be landscaped consistent with Chapter 18.50 ACC. 3. If existing parking lots are restriped, then the new layout of the parking spaces shall be the same as the previous layout or, if changed, then the changed layout shall conform to the existing dimensional requirements of this chapter. 18.52.020 Number of off-street parking spaces required Each principal use of the land, building, or structure shall provide the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Section. The following standards are not applicable in the DUC, Downtown Urban Center zone; refer to Chapter 18.29 ACC for specific requirements for that zone. A. Parking requirements by land use 1. Minimum number of parking spaces. Each land use shall provide the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required by Table 18.52.020, except where a greater number of spaces are required through a more specific approval process such as an administrative use permit or conditional use permit approval. 2. Uses not listed. Where a use is not listed in Table 18.52.020 the planning director shall determine the number of required parking and/or loading spaces. The planning director shall use the requirements in Table 18.52.020 as a guide in determining the number of off-street parking spaces required based on the similarity of uses or may consider a parking generation study. B. Maximum number of parking spaces. Except for required parking spaces for persons with disabilities, spaced provided in park and ride lots operated by a public transit agency, spaces for carpools, spaces for electric vehicle charging and spaces within structured parking with 2 or more levels, the maximum number of parking spaces for non-residential uses shall not exceed 125 percent of the minimum spaces required by Table 18.52.020 C. Measurement of floor area. In any case where Table 18.52.020 establishes a parking requirement based on floor area in square feet (for example: 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet (sf) of floor area), the floor area shall be construed to mean gross floor area (Def ACC 18.04.430). D. Use with accessory components. A single use with accessory components shall provide parking for the primary use, and each component. For example, a hotel with a meeting room may DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 15 be required to provide the parking spaces required by Table 18.52.020 for a hotel (i.e. the guest rooms), and for a meeting room. E. Obstruction. Removal of required parking or loading spaces from practical use by obstruction, erection of buildings, or other actions as to reduce the parking or loading capacity or usefulness thereof below the minimum requirements established in this chapter is prohibited. Table 18.52.020 Off-Street Parking Requirements by Land Use Land Use Type: Unit of Measure: Required Parking Rate (spaces per unit of measure): Residential Categories Single family, detached dwelling, Adult family home Dwelling unit 2.00 Two-family dwelling (duplex) Dwelling unit 2.00 Multifamily dwelling (one and two bedroom units) Dwelling unit 1.50 Multifamily dwelling (three bedroom units or more) Dwelling unit 2.00 Mobile home dwellings1 Dwelling unit 2.00 Assisted Living Facilities 4 bedrooms 1.00 Plus one space for each two employees Group living (includes supportive housing, boardinghouse) 2 bedrooms 1.00 Commercial Categories Auto, boat, or recreational vehicle sales or leasing, new or used 5,000 square feet of outdoor sales area 1,000 square feet of showroom and service facilities 1.00 1.00 Day-care centers Each 10 children in care 2.00 Eating and drinking establishments 1,000 square feet of floor area 10.00 Food retail stores and markets 1,000 square feet of floor area 5.00 Health and Fitness Clubs 1,000 square feet of floor area 10.00 Hotel or Motel Guest room or rental unit 1.00 Mini-marts and self service gas stations 1,000 square feet of floor area 5.00 Mortuaries or funeral homes Seat2 0.25 DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 6 of 15 Motor vehicle repair and services 1,000 square feet of floor area 2.50 Personal service shops 1,000 square feet of floor area 2.50 Retail commercial establishments, less than 15,000 square feet of floor area 1,000 square feet of floor area 2.50 Retail commercial establishments, greater than 15,000 square feet of floor area 1,000 square feet of floor area 4.00 Shopping centers 1,000 square feet of floor area 4.00 Office Categories Business and professional offices 1,000 square feet of floor area 2.00 Medical, dental, and other doctor’s offices 1,000 square feet of floor area 5.00 Manufacturing Processing and Warehousing Categories All manufacturing, industrial, and processing uses, except the following: 1,000 square feet of floor area 1.00 Warehousing 2,000 square feet of floor area 1.00 Storage - Personal storage/mini- storage facilities Storage unit3 Minimum of 2 spaces Recreation, Education, Public Assembly Categories Auditoriums, stadiums, and theaters Seat2 0.25 Commercial recreation facilities - Indoor, except for the following: 1,000 square feet of floor area 5.00 Bowling alleys Lanes 5.00 Pool and billiard rooms Table 2.00 Skating rinks 1,000 square feet of floor area 5.00 Commercial recreation facilities - Outdoor 1,000 square feet of usable recreational area 3.00 Hospitals Bed 1.75 Library, museum 1,000 square feet of floor area 2.50 Meeting facility, public or private Seat2 0.25 Religious assembly Seat2 0.20 Schools (public and private) DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 7 of 15 Kindergarten schools Employee4 1.00 Elementary/middle schools Teaching station 1.20 Secondary (high) schools Student 0.40 College or university (including trade and business schools) Student 0.75 Studios (dance, martial arts, etc.) 1,000 square feet of floor area 5.00 Tennis/racquetball/handball or other sport courts Court Each 300 sf of floor area for accessory uses. 2.00 1.00 Recreational uses not listed elsewhere Same as retail, based on size Notes: 1. Within mobile home parks, parking space shall not be allowed within the required setbacks. Guest parking shall be provided within the development: 5% of total requirement. 2. Seat, 18 inches of bench, or 25 square feet of floor space. 3. Parking shall be provided by parking/driving lanes adjacent to buildings. Two parking spaces shall be provided adjacent to the manager’s quarters. 4. There shall be 2 visitor-parking stalls provided for each 10 required employee stalls 18.52.025. Disabled/Handicapped Parking Requirements A. Accessible parking spaces for the handicapped/disabled shall be provided in compliance with the International Building Code (IBC), the Federal Accessibility Guidelines, and Washington Administrative Code, as applicable. These spaces shall count towards fulfilling the off-street parking requirements of this Chapter. B. Accessible car and van parking space size shall be as follows: 1. Car parking spaces shall be eight feet (96 inches) minimum in width.2. Van parking spaces shall be 11 feet (132 inches) minimum in width. Exception: Van parking spaces shall be permitted to be eight feet (96 inches) minimum in width where the adjacent access aisle is eight feet (96 inches) minimum in width. Table 18.52.025 – Accessible Parking Spaces Required Total Parking Spaces Provided Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 8 of 15 Table 18.52.025 – Accessible Parking Spaces Required Total Parking Spaces Provided Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 501 to 1,000 2% of total More than 1,000 20, plus one for each 100 over 1,000 18.52.030 Reductions of the quantity of required parking. Except within the DUC zone, reductions of the quantity of required parking may be allowed based upon the provisions in Table 18.52.030 Parking Quantity Reductions Table 18.52.030 Parking Quantity Reductions 1. Joint Use of Parking Facilities A reduction in the total number of required parking spaces may be allowed when two or more uses with different peak parking demands will share a parking facility. In order for the reduction to occur the planning director must determine, based on satisfactory evidence provided by the applicant, that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours and no substantial conflict in peak parking demand of the uses for which the sharing of parking is proposed. To evaluate the peak parking demand characteristics or differences in hours and/or days of operation, evidence including, but not limited to, a description of the uses and their operational characteristics, and a development plan shall be provided by the applicant and accompany the request. If approved, a binding agreement providing for the shared use of parking areas shall be executed by the parties involved, and must be filed with the City in a form approved by the planning director and be recorded. Shared parking privileges will continue in effect only as long as the agreement, binding on all parties, remains in force. Agreements must guarantee long-term availability of the parking, commensurate with the use served by the parking. If a shared parking agreement DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 9 of 15 lapses or is no longer valid, then parking must be provided as otherwise required by this chapter. 2. Reduction of parking for a use with low parking demand A reduction of up to 50 percent of the total number of required parking allowed for the re-use of an existing building, based on quantitative information provided by the applicant that documents the need for fewer spaces (eg. sales receipts, documentation of customer frequency, information on parking standards required for the property land use by other cities). In order for the reduction to occur the planning director must find, satisfactory evidence has been provided by the applicant, 3. Mixed Occupancies and Shared Uses In the case of two or more principal uses in the same building, the total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be 75 percent of the sum of the requirements for the principal uses computed separately. In order for a use to be considered a separate principal use under the terms of this section, the uses must be physically and managerially separate in a manner which clearly sets the principal uses apart as separate businesses or operations. Various activities associated with single businesses shall not be considered separate uses. 4. Transit Access A reduction in the total number of required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percentage for sites located within a ¼ mile (walking distance) of a public transit stop. A public transit stop includes but is not limited to a bus stop, commuter train stop, or park and ride lot. Applicants requesting this reduction must provide a map identifying the site and transit service schedules for all transit routes within ¼ mile of the site. 5. Trip Reduction Plan A reduction of up to 25 percent in the total number of required parking spaces may be allowed for a business or other use that creates and implements a site-specific Trip Reduction Plan and Program. The Trip Reduction Plan and Program shall be reviewed and approved by the City and yearly reports shall be provided to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and ensure its continued maintenance and operation. 6. Credit for On-street Parking – Non- residential All multi-family uses and non-residential uses located adjacent to a public right-of-way where on-street parking is permitted may receive credit for one off-street parking stall for each 22 linear feet of abutting right-of-way for parallel parking, excluding curb cuts. This provision shall be applied for on-street parking on the same side of the street as the proposed land use. All parking for employees m ust be provided on-site. 7. Valet Service A reduction of up to 25 percent in the amount of required parking per Table 18.52.020 may be permitted, depending on the size and type of DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 10 of 15 the use if approved by the planning director. 18.52.040 Drive-through facilities. All banks, savings and loan associations, food dispensing establishments, and other businesses which maintain drive-through facilities which are intended to serve customers who remain in their motor vehicles during business transactions, or are designed in such a manner that customers must leave their automobiles temporarily in a driving lane located adjacent to the facility, shall provide on-site stacking space for the stacking of motor vehicles as follows: A. Stacking Space. The drive-through facility shall be so located that sufficient stacking space is provided to accommodate the types of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours of such a facility. B. Driveway Location. The location of entrances and exits shall be determined by the city engineer. C. Shopping Centers. When located in a shopping center, drive-through facilities shall provide sufficient stacking space to handle peak business demands and shall not in any way obstruct the normal circulation pattern of the shopping center and not unreasonable interfere with non-motorized circulation. (Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.050 Parking Design, Development, and Maintenance Standards Required parking areas shall be designed, constructed and maintained in compliance with this Section: A. Location of parking. Off-street parking areas shall be located as follows: 1. Residential parking. Residential parking shall be located on the same site as each residential dwelling unit served; except for a mixed-use development as defined by ACC 18.04.625. No required residential parking space shall occupy any unimproved area within the required front setback, or side and rear setback, except as allowed by ACC 18.52.050 E – Surfacing of Parking Areas, 2. Non-residential parking. Non-residential parking shall be located on the same site as the use served, or off-site. If parking is to be located off-site it is subject to the following requirements: a. The lot or area to be utilized for parking shall be legally encumbered by an easement or other appropriate means to ensure continuous use of the parking facilities following the procedure contained in Table 18.52.030 (1) Joint Use of Parking Facilities. b. Whenever required parking facilities are located off-site, sidewalks, or an approved pedestrian facility, shall be provided connecting the satellite parking facility to the development being served. B. Access to parking. Access to parking shall be provided as follows for all parking areas other than for individual single family dwellings and duplexes. 1. The location, design and construction of entrances and exits from the street right-of- way shall be determined by the city engineer. 2. A commercial or industrial use shall have access driveways from the public or private street that are not intersected by a parking aisle, parking space, or another access driveway for a minimum distance of 40 feet from the street right-of-way, to provide a queuing area for vehicles entering and exiting the parking area. The city engineer may require a greater distance for uses with high vehicle trip generation or located along heavily-traveled, city designated arterial streets. DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 11 of 15 C. Access to adjacent sites. The City may require that the design of a parking area to provide vehicle and pedestrian connections to parking areas on adjacent properties or to connect with adjoining public walkways (when a reciprocal access easement is available or can reasonably be provided). D. Parking stall and aisle dimensional standards. 1. Minimum dimensions. Each parking space and parking lot aisle shall comply with the minimum dimension requirements in Table 18.52.050 and further displayed in Figure 18.52.050. Table 18.52.050 Parking Space and Drive Aisle Dimensions Parking Stall Type Minimum Stall Dimensions Minimum Width for Drive Aisle with Parking(c) Width(a) Length(b) One-Way Two-Way Standard parallel 9 ft. 22 ft. 12 ft. 20 ft. Standard 45-degree 9 ft. 19 ft. 15ft. 20 ft. Standard 60-degree 9 ft. 19 ft. 18 ft. 20 ft. Standard 90-degree 9 ft. 19 ft. 20 ft. 24 ft. Compact 8 ft. 16 ft. 20 ft. 22 ft. Figure 18.52.050 - Parking Space and Drive Aisle Dimensions 2. Compact parking. Compact spaces may be allowed within a parking lot up to a maximum of 30 percent of the total number of spaces. This maximum percentage can be increased to 50 percent when approval is obtained b y the planning director following the procedures contained in ACC 18.52.135. Alternative Parking Layouts. Compact spaces can be clustered or dispersed throughout the parking lot. Every compact parking space created pursuant DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 12 of 15 to this section shall be clearly identified as such by painting the word “COMPACT” in upper case block letters, using white paint, on the pavement within the space or through the use of signage. 3. Vehicle Overhang. Vehicular overhang of up to two feet is permitted, provided no vehicle shall overhang into a sidewalk or walkway which would reduce the unencumbered width of a sidewalk or walkway to less than four feet. A vehicle is permitted to overhang into a landscaped area by two feet; provided, that the required landscape area of trees and shrubs are not reduced in quantity and not subject to potential damage. E. Surfacing of parking areas. Areas used for parking on private property, including interior driveways and access to a public street, shall be paved with asphalt concrete, cement concrete pavement, or pervious pavement and shall have appropriate bumper guards where needed. Paving is not required for temporary parking facilities that have obtained a Temporary Use Permit pursuant to the requirements of ACC 18.46A – Temporary Uses; however dust mitigation is required. Where a driveway crosses an improved public right-of-way, it shall be constructed with cement concrete. All pavement sections shall be designed to support the post development traffic loads anticipated due to the intended use as approved by the city engineer. 1. Alternative paving systems may be provided subject to the approval of the City. The alternative must provide results equivalent to paving. 2. For parking areas serving single-family dwellings and duplexes when located on individual lots, this section shall apply: a. Each off-street parking space shall be connected to an improved street or alley by a driveway a minimum of 11 feet in width b. Not more than 50 percent of the front yard or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller, can be used as off-street parking surface. For the purposes of calculating the allowable area under this section, the front yard shall be the area between the right-of-way and the portion of the single-family dwelling’s front facade farthest from the right-of-way. The width of the front yard shall extend to each side property line. c. Driveways that exclusively serve non-required off-street parking spaces are also subject to the surfacing requirement. d. Off street vehicle parking spaces, including those for trailers, recreational vehicles, and boats on trailers, that are provided in addition to those required pursuant to ACC Table 18.52.020 shall be paved with one the surfaces listed above (Section 18.52.050 E), or gravel provided, that weeds, mud or other fine material do not work their way to the surface of the gravel; and provided, that loose gravel is contained on the subject property. e. Boats not on trailers shall not be stored in the front yard. F. Grades of access driveways. The grade of access driveways for off-street parking areas shall be subject to the driveway regulations contained in Chapter 10.04 of the Engineering Design Standards. G. Sidewalks or pedestrian walkways. Sidewalks or pedestrian walkways shall be visibly marked with differentiated pavement or other methods such as reflective/LED markers, double row of landscaping, or raised pavement. H. Landscaping. See Chapter 18.50 ACC. I. Lighting. See Chapter 18.53 ACC. 18.52.065 Commercial vehicles in residential zones. DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 13 of 15 A. No person shall park any commercial vehicle on any property within the following zoning districts in the city: Residential Zones R5, R7, R10, R16, and R20 and (PUD) planned unit development. B. No person shall park more than one commercial vehicle on any property within the R1 Residential Zone ) zoning district in the city, and no person shall park more than two commercial vehicles on any property within the Residential Conservancy RC zoning district in the city. 18.52.080 Off-street parking – In-lieu of fees. Repealed by Ord. 4949. (Ord. 4688 § 2, 1994.) 18.52.110 Fractional spaces. When units or measurements determining the number of required parking spaces result in requirements of a fractional space, any fraction up to one-half shall be disregarded, and fractions of one-half or over shall require one parking space. (Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.125 Stacked parking. Stacked parking, i.e., parking one car behind another, is permitted for funeral homes, single-family homes on individual lots, and for designated employee parking within the RO, Residential Office district only, unless the use has complied with the requirements of ACC Table 18.52.030 Parking Quantity Reductions (Valet Service) . (Ord. 6231 § 9, 2009; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997.) 18.52.130 Off-street loading space. Buildings devoted to retail trade, retail and wholesale food markets, warehouses, supply houses, wholesale and manufacturing trade, hotels, hospitals, laundry, dry cleaning establishments or other buildings where large amounts of goods are received or shipped shall provide loading and unloading space on the same premises as the building as follows: A. Buildings of 6,000 square feet or more of floor area, one off-street loading and unloading space plus one additional off-street loading space for each 20,000 square feet of floor area; B. Each loading space shall be not less than 10 feet in width, 25 feet in length and 14 feet in height; C. Loading space, exclusive of driveways and/or corridors leading thereto, shall not be considered as providing off-street parking space. (Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.135 Alternate parking layouts. Layouts and dimensions of off-street parking spaces, maneuvering aisles, driveways, driveway openings, and other related features different from those prescribed in Sections 18.52.050 ACC may be approved by the planning director upon written findings that demonstrate: A. The number of off-street parking spaces required by Section 18.52.020 ACC (unless reductions are permitted under Section 18.52.030) are provided; B. There is substantial reason for varying the standard; and C. Ingress and egress is approved by the City Traffic Engineer where he or she ensures that adequate ingress to and egress from each required off-street parking space is provided for a vehicle of the appropriate size, and that ingress to and egress from the off-street parking facility is possible with minimal disruption of traffic on the adjacent street. DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 14 of 15 Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: __________________ PASSED: _______________________ APPROVED: ____________________ CITY OF AUBURN ______________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 15 of 15 _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _________________ DI.D DRAFT Ordinance No. 6389 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 8 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 18.70 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development needs and standards of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interest of the City to amend Section 18.70., “Variances, Special Exceptions, and Administrative Appeals” adding an Administrative Variance process where under specific cases the planning director could grant relief to development standards, not to exceed 25 percent of a quantifiable standard; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City’s land use decision making process should be revised so that minor issues are determined in relatively quick administrative processes and major issues are thoroughly assessed and are subject to the full public scrutiny of the Hearing Examiner process; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Auburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2011, on the proposed code amendments regarding off-street parking and loading, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, and variances; and WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the public hearing, on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6389 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 5 made its recommendations for code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a final determination of non-significance (DNS) issued September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60- day state review; and WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 18.70 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: Chapter 18.70 VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Sections: 18.70.010 Variances. 18.70.015 Administrative Variance 18.70.020 Special exceptions. DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6389 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 5 18.70.025 Variances in regulatory floodplains. 18.70.030 Application. 18.70.040 Hearing date and notice. 18.70.050 Administrative appeals. 18.70.060 Appeal of hearing examiner’s decision. 18.70.015 Administrative Variance A. The planning director may in specific cases, authorize a variance to the development regulations, subject to the criteria set below. 1. Building setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and lot width a. Applicability. These shall include variances to building setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and lot width not to exceed 25 percent of a quantifiable standard. b. Criteria. The planning director may, in specific cases, authorize a variance to the development regulations, subject to compliance with one or more of the following criteria: i. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. ii. That the special circumstances and conditions associated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the applicant. iii. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. iv. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located. 2. Variance to building height a. Applicability. The construction of a principal or accessory building which exceeds the height limit may be authorized upon a lot. b. Criteria. The planning director may, in specific cases, authorize a variance to the height of buildings, subject to compliance with one or more of the following criteria: i. Additional height shall be the minimum necessary to afford relief. ii. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the lot is located. iii. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is located. B. In authorization of an administrative variance, the planning director may attach such conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed structure or use as he/she may deem necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this title and in the public interest. C. A variance so authorized shall become void after the expiration of one year, or longer period if specified at the time of issuance, if no building permit, occupancy permit or business registration has been issued in accordance with the plans for which such variance was authorized. The planning director may extend the period of variance authorization for one additional year upon a finding that there has been no basic change in pertinent conditions surrounding the property at the time of the original application. 18.70.030 Application. In addition to the requirements for a complete application as set forth in ACC Title 14, a site plan shall be required with each application for a variance, administrative variance or special exception. The site plan shall be accurately drawn using an appropriate engineering scale and shall illustrate the following: A. Adjacent street; B. Boundaries and dimensions of site; C. Location of buildings; D. Location of parking areas; E. Location of feature needing variance. (Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6389 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: __________________ PASSED: _______________________ APPROVED: ____________________ CITY OF AUBURN ______________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6389 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 5 _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _________________ DI.D DRAFT Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 1 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 9 0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.53 TO THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING OUTDOOR LIGHTING WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development needs and standards of the City; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations which discourage excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourage energy conservation and promote exterior lighting that promotes safe vehicular and pedestrian access to and within a development while minimizing impacts on adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Auburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2011, on the proposed code amendments regarding off-street parking and loading, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, and variances; and WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the public hearing, on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission made its recommendations for code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 6 with a final determination of non-significance (DNS) issued September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60- day state review; and WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments improve the readability and use of use of the City Code, updates technical aspects of the code, improves the City’s development review process, and promote sustainability concepts where feasible NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 18.53 of the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows: Chapter 18.53 OUTDOOR LIGHTING Sections 18.53.010 Intent 18.53.020 Applicability 18.53.030 General requirements 18.53.040 Prohibited lights 18.53.040 Exceptions DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 6 18.53.010 Intent. To discourage excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourage energy conservation and promote exterior lighting that promotes safe vehicular and pedestrian access to and within a development while minimizing impacts on adjacent properties. 18.53.020 Applicability. A. A lighting plan shall be required for projects as follows: 1. When an exterior lighting installation is part of a new development proposal requiring site plan review, an administrative or conditional use permit, or other development application that requires outside lighting or is a commercial project adjacent to property zoned residential; and 2. For projects undergoing redevelopment, expansion or remodel when the redevelopment requires site plan approval, or for tenant improvements or other minor building improvements when exterior lighting is proposed to be installed or modified. B. These regulations do not apply to subdivisions or individual dwelling units, with the exception of common areas. Examples of common areas include, but are not limited to, pathways, clubhouses, parking lots and play areas. C. These regulations are not applicable to public rights-of-way. D. These regulations do not apply to lighting necessary for emergency equipment and work conducted in the interests of law enforcement or for the safety, health, or welfare of the public. 18.53.030 General requirements. A. Shielding Required. Except as otherwise exempt, all outdoor lighting fixtures shall be constructed with shielding on all sides.. The outdoor light source (bulb or element) shall not be visible at or beyond the property line. Figure 18.53.030 Examples of light fixtures with shielding on all sides B. Fixture heights. Lighting fixtures shall not exceed the following maximum heights: Table 18.53.030 Outdoor Lighting Location Fixture Height (Maximum as measured to the top of the fixture from grade) Within 50’ of a residential zoning district 16-ft Surface Parking Area C1, C3, M1, M2, EP All Other districts 30-ft 24-ft DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 6 C. Photometric Plan Requirements. A photometric plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval when required under 18.33.020 - Applicability. The required elements of the plan shall be specified in application forms to be provided by the City The photometric plan will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the provisions in this Chapter. D. Level of Illumination. 1. Parking lots, driveways, and trash enclosures/areas shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one foot-candle of light and an average not to exceed four foot-candles of light. 2. Pedestrian walkways shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained one-half foot- candle of light and an average not to exceed two foot-candles of light. 3. In order to minimize light spillage on abutting residential property, illumination measured at the nearest residential structure or rear yard setback line shall not exceed one-tenth foot-candle. E. Accent lighting. Lighting used to accent architectural features, landscaping or art is permitted to be directed upward, provided that the fixture shall be located, aimed, or shielded to minimize light spill. No permit is required for this type of lighting. F. Periods of Illumination 1. All outdoor lighting systems shall be equipped with automatic switches conforming to the requirements of Section 1513.6.2 of the Washington Energy Code. 2. The use of sensor technologies, timers or other means to activate lighting during times when it will be needed is encouraged to conserve energy, provide safety and promote compatibility between different land uses. Lower lighting levels at off-peak times are encouraged as a safety measure. 3. However, outdoor lights may remain on during the required off hours when: i. Illuminating flags representing country, state, or other civic entity; ii. Functioning as security lighting (e.g., illuminating a pathway, building entry, etc.) iii. Associated with special events, etc. 18.53.040 Prohibited lights. The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary permit is obtained for specific events with specific times of operation: A. Strobe lights, Search lights, laser source lights, or any similar high-intensity light except for emergency use by police and fire personnel or at their direction. B. Roof-mounted lights except for security purposes with motion detection and full shielding so that the glare of the light source is not visible from any public right-of-way or a neighboring residence. C. Any light that imitates or causes visual interference with a traffic signal or other necessary safety or emergency light 18.53.050 Exceptions. The following light sources are exempt from the requirements of this section. A. Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes. B. Temporary lights used for holiday decorations C. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities. D. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of Transportation. E. Internal lighting of permitted signs. F. Outdoor lighting for public monuments. G. Temporary lighting in use during active construction projects H. Stadium and field lighting DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: __________________ PASSED: _______________________ APPROVED: ____________________ CITY OF AUBURN ______________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DI.D --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 6 of 6 _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _________________ DI.D AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Title 18 - Zoning, of the Auburn City Code related to parking and landscaping regulations, administrative variance process, and outdoor lighting standards (Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1). Date: September 27, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: See Exhibit list below.Budget Impact: N/A Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments and make a recommendation to City Council. Background Summary: The Code Update Project began in September 2008 and is progressing in two phases. Phase 1, completed in June of 2009, updated the City’s residential-related zoning districts (Title 18 ACC) and subdivision code (Title 17 ACC). Phase 2 updates the City’s non-residential related zoning districts (Title 18 ACC) and chapters that regulate non-residential and multi-family developments such as off-street parking and landscaping. The Code Update Project is intended to meet four key objectives: * Improve development code readability and ease of use; and * Update technical content to address known issue areas and better support the City’s development review and quasi-judicial decision process; and * Ensure development code and design standards are coordinated and consistent with Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and other state land use and environmental requirements; and * Promote sustainability concepts where feasible. The proposed amendments (Phase 2, Group 1) will affect the current zoning code as follows: Amend and delete existing code sections and add new code sections within the following Chapters: ACC 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening) and ACC 18.52 (Off Street Parking and Loading). Amend Chapter ACC 18.70 (Variances, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals) by adding an administrative variance process. And lastly create a new Chapter of the zoning code related to outdoor lighting. The October 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting will involve a public hearing on the proposed code amendments. The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council and will make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed code amendment. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources Information Services Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____ Councilmember: Staff: Wagner Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Item Number: DI.D Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-0006) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 2 of 7 A. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: City of Auburn Planning and Development Department, Kevin H. Snyder, AICP, Director B. RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Stuart Wagner, AICP Planner, City of Auburn Planning and Development Department C. AREA OF IMPACT: Citywide D. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 4, 2011 E. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION DATE: Currently scheduled for November 21, 2011 F. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Title 18 of the Auburn City Code (ACC), includes Chapter 18.68, Amendments, which addresses amendments to Title 18, Zoning. 2. The proposed code amendment addresses specific chapters of the zoning code that regulate non-residential and multi-family developments. This includes amending and deleting existing code sections together with adding new code sections in the following Chapters: ACC 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening) and ACC 18.52 (Off Street Parking and Loading). The proposal also amends Chapter 18.70 (Variances, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals) by adding an administrative variance process. Lastly the proposal creates a new Chapter of the zoning code, ACC 18.53 – Outdoor Lighting Standards, to encourage appropriate use and design of outdoor lighting in certain zones of the City and encourage energy conservation. 3. The proposed code amendment is supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as discussed under the conclusions’ section of this report. 4. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the City initiated Code Amendments on September 15, 2011 under city file SEP11-0020. The Determination of Non-Significance was published in the September 15, 2011 edition of the Seattle Times. To date no comments have been received. The comment period ends September 29, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. 5. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. An acknowledgement letter was received on September 21, 2011. No comments were received from Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. DI.D Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-0006) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 3 of 7 6. Initial concepts were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee on February 14, 2011 and May 23, 2011 and the Committee provided initial policy feedback to staff. 7. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed work study session on August 23, 2011 to review and discuss with staff potential amendment issues and ideas inclusive of the potential amendments to Title 18 (Zoning). 8. The public hearing notice was published on September 23, 2011 in the Seattle Times at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 4, 2011. 9. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Title 18, Zoning, scheduled for the Planning Commission’s October 4, 2011 public hearing with a staff recommendation. G. Conclusions 1. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, the following public process is applicable: 18.68.030 Public hearing process A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing. 18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements A. Text Amendments. 1. Planning Commission. For text amendments that require a public hearing under ACC 18.68.030(A), notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, at least 10 days prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. City Council. Notice of a public hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation in the area, prior to the public hearing and by posting the notice in three general public locations. Comment: The public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for October 4, 2011 meeting the requirement under ACC 18.68.030. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times, the City’s official newspaper, on September 23, 2011 at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The public hearing notice was also posted at City Hall (25 West Main Street), the Customer Service Center (One East Main Street), and on the City’s website meeting the requirement for posting the notice in three general public locations. 2. The proposed amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) are intended to reorganize and update regulations and standards to create a more logical flow in the regulation of land uses and to appropriately reflect changes in state law. In addition, these amendments are intended to reduce redundancy and vagueness, add or modify definitions and make the regulations easier to use and understand. 3. The proposed amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) do not require any changes to the City’s current critical area regulations contained in ACC 16.10 (Critical Areas). Any future DI.D Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-0006) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 4 of 7 development subject to the proposed amendments to Title 18 will still be required to demonstrate compliance to applicable standards and regulation specified in ACC 16.10. 4. The proposed amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) will support current and future land and shoreline uses that are consistent with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan and current Shoreline Master Program. Staff has not proposed substantive or non-substantive amendments to Title 18 that would be deemed inconsistent with the City’s adopted plans and policies. 5. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.68, Amendments, does not have specific decision criteria for text amendments to the zoning title. At a minimum, proposed text amendments are to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040. The proposed code amendment is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies: Policy guidance on landscaping Objective 22.2. To improve the visual quality of new development Policies UD-14 Industrial development shall incorporate appropriate landscaping and site design to minimize its visual impact on surrounding development. UD-15 The City should require all projects, both public and private, to include landscaping. Codes and regulations which govern landscaping shall be updated and revised and include provisions for continued maintenance. Comment: The intent of the landscaping and screening chapter is to provide minimum landscaping and screening requirements in order to enhance the city’s appearance and to visually unify the city and its neighborhoods. No changes have been made to the intent statement. As stated in the applicability section, landscaping is required for all uses and activities developed in the city excluding single-family and duplex units on individual lots. As such the visual quality of new development will be improved by the requirements found within the landscaping and screening chapter of Title 18 – Zoning. Objective 18.5. To recognize the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation and to promote its retention and propagation. Consideration shall be given to promoting the use of native vegetation. Policies EN-33 The City recognizes the important benefits 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 can also reduce the use of pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminants that may enter nearby water systems) and reduce watering required of non-native species (thereby promoting conservation). The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and private development plans through strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following: DI.D Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-0006) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 5 of 7 o Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes and in public facilities. o Providing greater clarity in development regulations in how native 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 complement the natural character of the Pacific Northwest and which are adaptable to the climatic hydrological characteristics of the region. Regulations should provide specificity as to native plant types in order to facilitate their use. EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development. EN-35 The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants in landscaping for both public and private projects. EN-36 The City shall update and amend its landscaping ordinances to ensure that sufficient landscaping is a required component of all development. Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and quantity of landscaping. EN-37 The City shall strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted at protecting large stands of trees and significant trees within the City. Comment: The new landscaping regulations contain provisions on significant tree retention and the incorporation of native vegetation into the landscape plantings. Significant trees located in required planter areas (i.e. perimeter areas that abut street and residential properties) now need to be retained unless determined to be damaged, diseased, or pose a safety hazard and fifty percent of trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be native or non-invasive species that have adapted to the region. The new landscaping regulations also contain a minimum landscape coverage requirement. This percentage requirement (between 10-20% depending on zoning district) will ensure that sufficient landscaping is a required component of all development. Policy guidance on off-street parking Objective 9.3. To encourage the appropriate use of areas adjacent to heavily traveled arterials while minimizing land use conflicts: Policy LU-60 The City shall encourage the grouping of individual commercial enterprises along commercial arterials to promote the sharing of parking areas, access drives and signs. Such grouping can be encouraged through land division regulations, sign regulations and development standards. Comment: The comprehensive plan does not contain a lot of policy guidance on off-street parking. The City however should have regulations in place that provide for safe, attractive, and convenient off-street parking and that it be compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed code amendments to the off-street parking chapter of Title 18 – Zoning accomplish these goals through the avoidance of large and underutilized parking lots by establishing parking maximums, increasing the number of shared and reduced parking strategies, DI.D Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-0006) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 6 of 7 allowing for alternative parking lot surfaces, and permitted alternative parking layouts subject to approval by the planning director. The proposed amendments will bring a more balanced approach to parking and land use. Policy guidance on flexibility Chapter 2 - General Approach to Planning Predictability in land use regulation fosters confidence in land and improvement investments (both private development and public facilities), and can have a positive effect on long term property values. It also fosters fairness and consistency, and eases administration. It has the disadvantage of not dealing well with changing conditions (e.g. new manufacturing technologies), unique circumstances or when someone simply comes forward with a "better" idea. Flexible regulations can deal with such conditions and circumstances, but may require a large commitment of time, expertise and other resources to manage. Auburn's policy will be mixed; stressing predictability in single family neighborhoods, while allowing flexibility in areas committed to industrial or commercial uses where performance standards are usually more important than specific use restrictions. GOAL 2. FLEXIBILITY To provide predictability in the regulation of land use and development, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow development to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources and critical lands in overall compliance with this comprehensive plan. Objective 2.1. To provide assurance that residential areas will be protected from intrusions by incompatible land uses. Policies: GP-11 Ordinance provisions designed to protect residential areas shall give priority to providing predictability and stability to the neighborhood. GP-12 Adequate buffering shall be required whenever new commercial or industrial uses abut areas designated for residential uses. Objective 2.2. To provide flexibility for major new commercial or industrial developments to respond to changing market conditions without threatening the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan. Policy: GP-13 Ordinances regulating developing commercial or industrial areas should be based on performance standards which provide flexibility to respond to market conditions while ensuring compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, and with present and potential adjacent uses. Comments The proposed code amendments include new provisions that allow for greater flexibility in landscaping and parking lot design. Modification of the landscaping requirements can be DI.D Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-0006) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 7 of 7 achieved through an alternative landscape plan that provide for creative design, or incorporates an increased retention of significant trees or historical or architectural features found on a site. Further, alternative parking layouts can be allowed provided the appropriate number of parking spaces are provided and vehicles can move in and out in a safe manner and with minimal disruption of traffic on the adjacent street. Additional flexibility is provided through a series of shared and reduced parking strategies. Here a reduction in the number of required parking stalls can be permitted if a development is close to transit, has a low parking demand, or incorporates bicycle parking and/or car sharing stalls (i.e. zip cars). Lastly a new administrative variance process has been created where under specific cases the planning director could grant relief to development standards (up to 25% for variances related to building setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and lot width). All of the proposed code amendments described above provide flexibility for development. Policy guidance on lighting Objective 18.7. Enhance and maintain the quality of life for the City's inhabitants by promoting a healthy environment and reducing the adverse impact of environmental nuisances. Policy: EN-43 The City shall seek to minimize the exposure of area inhabitants to excessive levels of light and glare. Performance measures for light and glare exposure to surrounding development should be adopted and enforced. Comment: As stated in the intent section of the outdoor lighting chapter, new regulations have been created to discourage excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourage energy conservation and promote exterior lighting that promotes safe vehicular and pedestrian access to and within a development while minimizing impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed code amendments are in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed zoning code text amendment as presented by staff based on the findings of fact and conclusions. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Auburn City Code Chapter 18.50 – Landscaping and Screening (revised) Exhibit 2: Auburn City Code Chapter 18.52 – Off-street Parking and Loading (revised) Exhibit 3: Auburn City Code Chapter 18.70 – Variances, Special Exceptions, and Administrative Appeals (new section) Exhibit 4: Auburn City Code Chapter 18.53 – Outdoor Lighting Standards (new chapter) Exhibit 5: Determination of Non-Significance and Affidavit of Publication Exhibit 6: Environmental Checklist Exhibit 7: Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Publication Exhibit 8: Letter to Department of Commerce for 60-day State Review Exhibit 9: Acknowledgment letter from Department of Commerce DI.D AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: HCSA Laundry Facility Building Square Footage Increase* Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Exhibit A Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: On March 10, 2010, the City Council passed Ordinance 6297 approving the rezone of three adjacent parcels (Parcel Nos. 1221049041, 1221049042 and 1221409043) located just north of 15th Street NW, and just to the east of State Route 167 in the City of Auburn from C3, Heavy Commercial, to BP, Business Park (Exhibit A). Condition No. 4 of the Ordinance specified the following: "The general location of the proposed building to be developed on the subject site shall be consistent with the conceptual site plan dated February 5, 2010. The total area of any proposed building shall be limited to 95,000 square feet. The proposed storm drainage facility may increase depending on the outcome of the final site plan review which could impact location of parking spaces and will be reviewed as part of the final site plan review process. The project shall comply with the retail space requirements of Condition 2(B)(1) of Auburn Ordinance No. 5607. The City of Auburn has received a development application for an industrial laundry facility at the subject site that would have a first floor building square footage of 102,822 square feet and a total building square footage of 145,927 square feet. On May 18, 2011, the Planning Director determined that an institutional laundry service would be consistent with janitorial services and is an allowed use in the zone if the application shows compliance with all other provisions of Ordinance 6297 and that for purposes of this rezone, building area would be calculated based on first floor square footage. The proposed development exceeds the allowable building square footage by a total of 7,927 square feet or eight (8) percent. Condition 11 of the Ordinance states the following: If changes to the language of the rezone are required such proposed changes shall be reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council or its successor. If the change is minor - less than 10% change - then the Committee AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E shall make a recommendation to the City Council. If the change is major - greater than 10% modification - then the Committee shall refer the change to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Staff requests Committee feedback and input on the requested change to the language of the rezone to allow for the less than 10 change in allowable building square footage. The Committee's and Council's consideration in this matter is considered to be quasi- juidicial requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because this quasi-judicial action was specified by previous Council action on this matter, the Committee and City Council should conduct themselves in accordance with appropriate quasi-judicial procedures. The City Attorney's Office will provide a separate memo on appropriate quasi-judicial procedures applicable to this requested action. Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Norman Staff:Taylor Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.E AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E 836 Vicinity Map HCSA Laundry Facility Printed Date: Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS 11/9/2011 ft0 Parcels DI.E AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Summary Matrix Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For information only, see memorandum attached. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Finance Other: Legal, Planning Commission Councilmember:Norman Staff:Dixon Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.F AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.F Page 1 of 4 Memorandum To: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice- Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee From: Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner Planning and Development Department Date: November 8, 2011 Re: 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Planning Commission Recommendations Planning Commission Actions The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the first group of comprehensive plan amendments on October 18, 2011. Amendments consist of those proposed to the Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and those affecting plan Policies and Text (P/T) as follows: Case Number CPA11-0003: City of Auburn 2011 Comprehensive Plan City-Initiated Map and Policy/Text Amendments MAP AMENDMENTS CPM #1 Map Amendment to Map 14.1, Change the Comprehensive Plan Designation for property containing city storm pond and compensatory flood storage facility from Light Industrial to Public / Quasi - Public designation. CPM #2 Map Amendment to Natural Gas (petroleum) Pipelines, Map 6.2, Update references and information shown on this map. POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENTS P/T #1 Incorporate Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2011- 2017 P/T #2 Incorporate Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017 DI.F Page 2 of 4 P/T#3 Incorporate Federal Way Public Schools 2012 Capital Facilities Plan P/T #4 Incorporate Kent School District 2011/2012 – 2016/2017 Capital Facilities Plan P/T #5 Incorporate City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017 P/T #6 Comprehensive Transportation Plan - Chapter 3, Non-Motorized, add narrative of Bicycle Task Force in Section 3.2 - Bicycle Travel, Add Table 3-2 - Priority Bicycle Facilities Inventory, Add Figure 3-5, Bicycle Corridors and Connectors & Chapter 5, Non-Motorized, add 11 new policies to Section 5.3 Non-Motorized System. P/T #7 Comprehensive Drainage Plan (CDP) - Revise Plan Project Number 13 (A&B), Flooding of 30th Street NE. - Executive Summary, Table ES-2; Chapter 6, Capital Improvements,; Chapter 7 Implementation Plan, & Implementation Plan Timeline; Chapter 8, Financial Plan P/T #8 Update the previous conditionally-approved Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan (Ordinance No. 6183) – Referenced within Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map P/T #9 Revise for target population numbers & census data - Chapter 3, Land Use; Chapter 8, Economic Development, & Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map P/T #9 Add new section on Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions - Chapter 9, Environment, Objective 18.6 - Energy Efficiency, P/T #9 Recognize Economic Development Strategy Areas - Chapter 3, Land Use, Chapter 8, Economic Development, pages, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map P/T #9 Comprehensive Plan Appendix B, Reports and Studies, Incorporate the following documents: Downtown Urban Core Task Force Draft Final Report & Bicycle Task Force End Report P/T #9 In Policy LU-15 change the reference to "street lights" in the description of road improvements within the Residential Conservancy zoning district to recognize that it is only required at intersections. Chapter 3, Land Use, Goal 7 - Residential Development, P/T #9 Clarify the term: "market factor" as used in this Buildable Lands Section Chapter 3, Land Use, Buildable Lands - Land Supply and Development Capacity P/T #9 Add policy statement to recognize support for and transition to alternatively powered vehicles Chapter 9, Environment, Objective 18.6, Energy Efficiency. P/T #10 Revise discussion and/or policies to emphasize manufacturing land uses in industrial zones Chapter 3, Land Use; Chapter 8, Economic Development; Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map. DI.F Page 3 of 4 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the second group of comprehensive plan amendments on November 9, 2011 which consisted of the following items: Case Number CPA11-0001: Private proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Terrace View Properties, LLC. CPM #3 Map amendment to Map No 14.1 to change the subject property’s land use designation from Light Commercial to Heavy Commercial for two parcels located at 5680 A Street SE. Parcels Case Number CPA11-0002, Private proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Segale Properties, LLC. CPM #4 Map Amendment to Special Plan Areas, Map 14.1 and 14.2, for the addition of seven parcels to the Stuck River Road Special Plan Area that are owned by the property owner of other parcels within Stuck River Road Special Plan Area and are adjacent to the current boundaries. P/T #11 Policy/Text revision to description and purpose of the Stuck River Road and Mount Rainer Vista Special Plan Areas, Chapter 14, Land Use Map Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations Attached to this memo is an updated summary table outlining the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Map and Policy/Text Amendments), staff’s recommendation, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation for each amendment The Planning Commission’s recommendation for the items of the November 9, 2011 hearing are shown as “pending” since the hearing had not been conducted by the time of writing of this memo and the recommendations will be reported at the November 14, 2011 PCDC meeting. Background Materials Also included is the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments’ working binder. The binder is organized by: • Staff Reports; • Environmental Review; • General Information and Correspondence (includes comment letters from public); • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments; and • Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments. In the front of the binder you will find an index to the contents of the binder along with the schedule showing the remaining meeting dates leading to a City Council decision. DI.F Page 4 of 4 Discussion Staff introduced the proposed amendments at the June 27, 2011 PCDC meeting. At the November 14, 2011 PCDC meeting, staff will review and discuss the proposed annual Comprehensive Plan amendments and Planning Commission recommendations. If you have any questions on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments please contact me by email at jdixon@auburnwa.gov or at 253-804-5033. DI.F Ye ar 2 0 1 1 A n n u a l C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n A m e n d m e n t S u m m a r y (C P M = C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n M a p A m e n d m e n t ; P / T = P o l i c y / T e x t A m e n d m e n t ) Cr e a t e d : O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 Re v i s e d N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 1 o f 4 CP M # Ti t l e De s c r i p t i o n St a f f Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n PC D C Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Ci t y C o u n c i l Ac t i o n No t e s CP M # 1 Ma p N o . 1 4 . 1 Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n M a p 1 4 . 1 , c h a n g e f r o m L i g h t In d u s t r i a l t o P u b l i c / Q u a s i - P u b l i c d e s i g n a t i o n t h e ar e a c o n t a i n i n g c i t y - o w n e d s t o r m w a t e r a n d co m p e n s a t o r y f l o o d s t o r a g e p o n d s c o n s t r u c t e d a s mi t i g a t i o n f o r t h e C i t y ’ s S 2 7 7 t h S T r o a d w a y Im p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . CP M #2 Na t u r a l G a s Pi p e l i n e s , M a p No . 6 . 2 Na t u r a l G a s P i p e l i n e s , M a p 6 . 2 U p d a t e r e f e r e n c e s an d i n f o r m a t i o n s h o w n o n t h i s m a p Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . CP M #3 Ma p N o . 1 4 . 1 , Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n Ch a n g e m a p p e d d e s i g n a t i o n o f t w o p a r c e l s o n t h e ea s t s i d e o f A S T S E f r o m L i g h t C o m m e r c i a l t o He a v y C o m m e r c i a l Ap p r o v a l Pe n d i n g A p p l i c a n t s e e k s a b i l i t y f o r g r e a t e r r a n g e a n d v a r ie t y o f u s e s f o r fu t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d m a r k e t a b i l i t y . CP M # 4 Ma p N o . 1 4 . 1 , Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n & M a p N o 14 . 2 S p e c i a l P l a n Ar e a s En l a r g e t h e s p e c i a l p l a n a r e a s t o i n c l u d e 7 ad d i t i o n a l p a r c e l s u n d e r s a m e o w n e r s h i p . ( A d d 8 pa r c e l s w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n ) (S e e a l s o r e l a t e d P o l i c y / T e x t A m e n d m e n t P / T # 1 1 ) Ap p r o v a l w i t h mo d i f i c a t i o n t o in c l u d e a n a d d i t i o n a l pa r c e l N o . 32 2 1 0 5 9 0 3 1 , o w n e d by L i s a A t k i n s , c o - ap p l i c a n t . T h e Ap p l i c a n t c o n c u r s . Pe n d i n g E n c o m p a s s p r o p e r t y h o l d i n g s w i t h i n t h e s p e c i a l p l an a r e a . P/ T # Ti t l e De s c r i p t i o n St a f f Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n PC D C Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Ci t y C o u n c i l Ac t i o n No t e s P/ T #1 Au b u r n S c h o o l Di s t r i c t C a p i t a l Fa c i l i t i e s P l a n (2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 7 ) In c o r p o r a t e A u b u r n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t C a p i t a l F a c i l i t i es Pl a n 2 0 1 1 t h r o u g h 2 0 1 7 , a d o p t e d M a y 9 , 2 0 1 1 i n t o th e C i t y o f A u b u r n C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e A u b u r n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t r e p r es e n t a t i v e i n d i c a t e d h e c o u l d n o t at t e n d t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n p u b l i c h e a r i n g d u e t o a c o n f l i c t . Th e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t t h e P C h e a r i n g . T h e P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . DI.F Cr e a t e d : O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 Re v i s e d N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 2 o f 4 P/ T # Ti t l e De s c r i p t i o n St a f f Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n PC D C Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Ci t y C o u n c i l Ac t i o n No t e s P/ T #2 Di e r i n g e r S c h o o l Di s t r i c t C a p i t a l Fa c i l i t i e s P l a n (2 0 1 2 – 2 0 1 7 ) In c o r p o r a t e t h e D i e r i n g e r S c h o o l D i s t r i c t C a p i t a l Fa c i l i t i e s P l a n 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 a d o p t e d J u l y 2 5 , 2 0 1 1 a s pa r t o f t h e A u b u r n C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T #3 Fe d e r a l W a y Ca p i t a l F a c i l i t i e s Pl a n ( 2 0 1 2 ) In c o r p o r a t e F e d e r a l W a y S c h o o l D i s t r i c t C a p i t a l Fa c i l i t i e s P l a n 2 0 1 2 a d o p t e d J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 b y t h e Fe d e r a l W a y S c h o o l B o a r d i n t o t h e C i t y Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l S a l l y M c L e a n o f t h e F e d e r a l W a y S c h o o l D i s t r i c t t e s t i f i e d i n s u p p o r t of a d o p t i o n a t t h e 1 0 - 1 8 - 1 1 P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n h e a ri n g . Pl a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d ap p r o v a l . P/ T #4 Ke n t S c h o o l Di s t r i c t C a p i t a l Fa c i l i t i e s P l a n (2 0 1 1 / 2 0 1 2 – 20 1 6 / 2 0 1 7 ) In c o r p o r a t e K e n t S c h o o l D i s t r i c t C a p i t a l F a c i l i t i e s Pl a n 2 0 1 1 - 2 0 1 2 t o 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 1 7 a d o p t e d J u n e 2 2 , 20 1 1 i n t o t h e C i t y o f A u b u r n C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T #5 Ci t y o f A u b u r n ’ s 6- y e a r C a p i t a l Fa c i l i t i e s P l a n 20 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 In c o r p o r a t e t h e C i t y o f A u b u r n ’ s 6 - y e a r C a p i t a l Fa c i l i t i e s P l a n 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 , i n t o t h e C i t y ’ s Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T #6 In c o r p o r a t e t h e wo r k o f t h e Bi c y c l e T a s k Fo r c e Re v i s e t h e s e p a r a t e C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Pl a n t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e w o r k o f t h e B i c y c l e T a s k Fo r c e Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l S o m e P C m e m b e r s e x p r e s s e d c o n c e rn a b o u t m u l t i p l e p a r a l l e l b i k e ro u t e s , u s e o f s h a r r o w s a n d b i k e b o x e s a n d t h e n e e d f o r p u b l i c ed u c a t i o n . B i c y c l e T a s k F o r c e C h a i r , T e r r y D a v i s t es t i f i e d i n su p p o r t t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n A m e n d m e n t . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d 4 t o 2 t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T #7 Re v i s e P l a n Pr o j e c t N u m b e r 13 ( A & B ) , Fl o o d i n g o f 3 0 t h St r e e t N E . Co m p r e h e n s i v e Dr a i n a g e P l a n Re v i s e t h e s e p a r a t e d o c u m e n t : C o m p r e h e n s i v e Dr a i n a g e P l a n ( C D P ) t o R e v i s e P l a n P r o j e c t Nu m b e r 1 3 ( A & B ) , F l o o d i n g o f 3 0 t h S t r e e t N E . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e 2 0 0 9 C o m p r e h e n s i v e D r a i n a g e P l a n r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l mo d e l i n g o f t h e P r o j e c t N u m b e r 1 3 ( A & B ) , f l o o d i n g o f 3 0 t h S t r e e t NE n e e d e d t o b e c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i at e m e t h o d of a d d r e s s i n g f l o o d i n g p r o b l e m s w i t h i n t h i s d r a i n a g e b a s i n . T h e Ci t y h a s c o m p l e t e d t h e m o d e l i n g a n d h a s p r o p o s e d t o r e v i s e t h e fo l l o w i n g p o r t i o n s o f t h e p l a n t o i n c l u d e t h e r e s u l ts a n d re c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h i s m o d e l i n g e f f o r t . Th e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t t h e P C h e a r i n g . P l a nn i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . DI.F Cr e a t e d : O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 Re v i s e d N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 3 o f 4 P/ T # Ti t l e De s c r i p t i o n St a f f Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n PC D C Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Ci t y C o u n c i l Ac t i o n No t e s P/ T #8 Up d a t e t h e No r t h e a s t Au b u r n / R o b e r t s o n P r o p e r t i e s Sp e c i a l A r e a Pl a n Up d a t e t h e p r e v i o u s c o n d i t i o n a l l y - a p p r o v e d No r t h e a s t A u b u r n / R o b e r t s o n P r o p e r t i e s S p e c i a l Ar e a P l a n ( A p p r o v e d b y C i t y C o u n c i l O r d i n a n c e N o . 61 8 3 ) – R e f e r e n c e d w i t h i n C h a p t e r 1 4 , Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n M a p Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e p l a n i s b e i n g r e v i s e d f o r t he f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : • a c q u i s i t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n a d d i t i o n a l 1 1 a c re s b y R P G su b s e q u e n t t o t h e o r i g i n a l E I S ; • R P G ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o c o n d u c t p h a s e d p r o j e c t d e v e lo p m e n t i n tw o p h a s e s t h a t c o u l d b e d e v e l o p e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o r j o i n t l y ; an d , • C h a n g e s i n i n t e r s e c t i o n s i g n a l i z a t i o n • C h a n g e s i n c i t y r e g u l a t i o n s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a rd s • C h a n g e s i n s u r r o u n d i n g d e v e l o p m e n t . Th e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t t h e P C h e a r i n g . P l a nn i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T # 9 , It e m A Re v i s e f o r t a r g e t po p u l a t i o n nu m b e r s & ce n s u s d a t a Re v i s e f o r t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n n u m b e r s & c e n s u s d a t a - C h a p t e r 3 , L a n d U s e ; C h a p t e r 4 , H o u s i n g a n d Ch a p t e r 8 , E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T #9 , I t e m B Ad d s e c t i o n o n Cl i m a t e c h a n g e an d g r e e n h o u s e ga s e m i s s i o n s Ad d n e w s e c t i o n o n C l i m a t e c h a n g e a n d gr e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s - C h a p t e r 9 , En v i r o n m e n t , O b j e c t i v e 1 8 . 6 - E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l I n 2 0 1 0 , t h e C i t y c o m p l e t e d a n in v e n t o r y o f b o t h m u n i c i p a l a n d co m m u n i t y g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s u s i n g a 2 0 0 8 b a s e y e a r . Th e i n v e n t o r y , e n t i t l e d “ G r e e n h o u s e G a s I n v e n t o r y f or t h e C i t y o f Au b u r n , W a s h i n g t o n ” , i n c l u d e d b a s e y e a r e s t i m a t e s o f g r e e n h o u s e ga s e m i s s i o n s a n d e m i s s i o n s f o r e c a s t s f o r y e a r s 2 0 1 5 a n d 2 0 2 0 . Th e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t t h e P C h e a r i n g . P l a nn i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T #9 , It e m C Re c o g n i z e Ec o n o m i c De v e l o p m e n t St r a t e g y A r e a s Re c o g n i z e E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t S t r a t e g y A r e a s - Ch a p t e r 3 , L a n d U s e , C h a p t e r 8 , E c o n o m i c De v e l o p m e n t , p a g e s , C h a p t e r 1 4 , C o m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n M a p Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . A l l i t e m s in P / T # 9 w e r e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e s a m e m o t i o n . P/ T #9 , It e m D In c o r p o r a t e do c u m e n t s i n t o Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n A p p e n d i x B , Re p o r t s a n d St u d i e s Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n A p p e n d i x B , R e p o r t s a n d St u d i e s , I n c o r p o r a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g d o c u m e n t s : Do w n t o w n U r b a n C o r e T a s k F o r c e D r a f t F i n a l Re p o r t & B i c y c l e T a s k F o r c e E n d R e p o r t . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . A l l i t e m s in P / T # 9 w e r e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e s a m e m o t i o n . P/ T / #9 , It e m E Re f e r e n c e t o "s t r e e t l i g h t s " i n th e R e s i d e n t i a l Co n s e r v a n c y zo n i n g d i s t r i c t , In P o l i c y L U - 1 5 c h a n g e t h e r e f e r e n c e t o " s t r e e t li g h t s " i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f r o a d i m p r o v e m e n t s wi t h i n t h e R e s i d e n t i a l C o n s e r v a n c y z o n i n g d i s t r i c t , Ch a p t e r 3 , L a n d U s e , G o a l 7 - R e s i d e n t i a l De v e l o p m e n t Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . A l l i t e m s in P / T # 9 w e r e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e s a m e m o t i o n . DI.F Cr e a t e d : O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 Re v i s e d N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 4 o f 4 P/ T # Ti t l e De s c r i p t i o n St a f f Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n PC D C Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Ci t y C o u n c i l Ac t i o n No t e s P/ T #9 . It e m F Cl a r i f y t e r m : "m a r k e t f a c t o r " as u s e d i n t h i s Bu i l d a b l e L a n d s Se c t i o n , Cl a r i f y t h e t e r m : " m a r k e t f a c t o r " a s u s e d i n t h i s Bu i l d a b l e L a n d s S e c t i o n , C h a p t e r 3 , L a n d U s e , Bu i l d a b l e L a n d s - L a n d S u p p l y a n d D e v e l o p m e n t Ca p a c i t y Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . A l l it e m s i n P / T # 9 w e r e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e s a m e m o t i o n . P/ T #9 . It e m G Ad d r e c o g n i t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e l y po w e r e d v e h i c l e s Ad d p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t t o r e c o g n i z e s u p p o r t f o r a n d tr a n s i t i o n t o a l t e r n a t i v e l y p o w e r e d v e h i c l e s C h a p t e r 9, E n v i r o n m e n t , O b j e c t i v e 1 8 . 6 , E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y . Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . A l l it e m s i n P / T # 9 w e r e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e s a m e m o t i o n . P/ T #1 0 Em p h a s i z e ma n u f a c t u r i n g la n d u s e s i n in d u s t r i a l z o n e s Re v i s e d i s c u s s i o n a n d p o l i c i e s t o e m p h a s i z e ma n u f a c t u r i n g l a n d u s e s i n i n d u s t r i a l z o n e s C h a p t e r 3, L a n d U s e ; C h a p t e r 8 , E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t ; Ch a p t e r 1 4 , C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n M a p Ap p r o v a l A p p r o v a l T h e r e w a s n o p u b l i c c o m m e n t a t th e P C h e a r i n g . P l a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n v o t e d u n a n i m o u s l y t o r e c o m m e n d a p p r o v a l . P/ T #1 1 Am e n d W h i t e Ri v e r R o a d a n d Mo u n t R a i n e r Vi s t a S p e c i a l Pl a n A r e a s Am e n d W h i t e R i v e r R o a d a n d M o u n t R a i n e r V i s t a Sp e c i a l P l a n A r e a s , C h a p t e r 1 4 , C o m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n M a p f o r f u t u r e p l a n p r e p a r a t i o n (S e e a l s o r e l a t e d M a p A m e n d m e n t C P M # 4 ) Ap p r o v a l Pe n d i n g R e v i s i o n t o t h e d e s c r i p t i o n a n d p u r p o s e o f t h e S t uc k R i v e r a n d Mo u n t R a i n i e r V i s t a S p e c i a l P l a n a r e a s , C h a p t e r 1 4 , L a n d U s e Ma p . DI.F AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Draft Resolution No. 4772 Date: November 8, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memo to PCDC Exhibit A - Draft Resolution No. 4772 Exhibit B - Letter from Pierce County and Ordinance Exhibit C - CPPs adopted by 2011-34s Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion. Background Summary: See the attached memo. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Chamberlain Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.G AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.G Page 1 of 2 Memorandum Planning and Development Dept. To: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice- Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager CC: Mayor Lewis Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Date: November 7, 2011 Re: Amendments to Pierce County’s Countywide Planning Policies – Vision 2040 Consistency Update Information When Vision 2040 was adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly in May 2008, there were provisions for the four counties to update their Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to be consistent with the Multi-County Planning Policies identified in Vision 2040. Pierce County began that work, through the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC), towards the end of 2009 and has continued that work through March 2011. The GMCC is a staff level committee representing each jurisdiction in Pierce County that makes recommendations, related to growth management, to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC). The GMCC has been working on proposed changes to the CPPs to be consistent with Vision 2040 has made their recommendation to the PCRC. The PCRC has been reviewing the CPP amendments and has made their recommendation to the Pierce County Council for ratification. The Pierce County Council approved Ordinance No. 2011-34s on July 19, 2011 and has sent the amended Pierce County CPPs for ratification to the cities and towns. The amendments to the CPPs become effective when 60 percent of the jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75 percent of the total population adopt the amendments. This threshold correlates to 14 cities and towns and Pierce County representing a minimum of 601,612 people. DI.G Page 2 of 2 Staff provided an update to the Committee at your May 9, 2011 meeting on the proposed amendments. At the November 14, 2011 meeting, staff will review the amended CPPs with the Committee. Exhibits: Exhibit A – Resolution No. 4772 Exhibit B – Cover Letter from Pierce County and Pierce County Ordinance No. 2001-34s Exhibit C – Amended Countywide Planning Policies DI.G _______________________ Resolution No. 4772 November 7, 2011 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 4 7 7 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE COUNTY, THEREBY AMENDING THE PIERCE COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH VISION 2040 WHEREAS, on July 1, 1990, the Growth Management Act (the GMA) became effective (Chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington); and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires Counties, Cities, and Towns to plan for housing affordable to all economic segments of the population; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 1995, the Pierce County Council passed Resolution R95-17 affirming the commitment of the County to continue discussions with other local jurisdictions to resolve implementation of the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies are written policy statements which are to be used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which the County and Municipal comprehensive plans are developed and adopted; and WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly adopted Vision 2040 in May 2008, which established a vision to address growth at the regional level and required that Counties amend their Countywide Planning Policies to be consistent with the Multicounty Planning Policies in Vision 2040; and WHEREAS, the City participated in the amendment process and helped develop the proposed Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies through participation in Pierce County’s Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC), a staff level committee that reviews amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning DI.G _______________________ Resolution No. 4772 November 7, 2011 Page 2 of 3 Policies and makes recommendations to the Pierce County Regional Council(PCRC); and WHEREAS, the Pierce County Regional Council recommended adoption of the proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies on April 21, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Pierce County Council adopted Ordinance No. 2011-34s on July 19, 2011; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies must be adopted through amendment of the original interlocal agreement or by a new interlocal agreement ratified by 60 percent of member jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75 percent of the total population; and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement titled “Amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies” was developed for the purpose of implementing the recommended amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. The amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies are attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute the interlocal agreement for the purpose of amending the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies in accordance with the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, Chapter 39.34 RCW. Section 3. That a copy of the resolution and signed interlocal agreement authorizing approval shall be provided to Pierce County. DI.G _______________________ Resolution No. 4772 November 7, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Section 4. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 5. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. Dated and signed this _____ day of _________________, 2011. CITY OF AUBURN _________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.G Exhibit B DI.G DI.G DI.G DI.G DI.G DI.G DI.G DI.G DI.G DI.G Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2011-34s Page 1 of 113 Pierce County Council 930 Tacoma Ave S, Rm 1046 Tacoma, WA 98402 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2011-34s Exhibit C to Memo DI.G Countywide Planning Policies for Pierce County, Washington Adopted by the Pierce County Regional Council April 21, 2011 Effective ** DI.G COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON PIERCE COUNTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Councilmember Bobbi Allison, Chair, Town of Eatonville Councilmember Derek Young, Vice Chair, City of Gig Harbor Councilmember Richard Wagner, City of Auburn Councilmember Mark Hamilton, City of Bonney Lake Mayor Pat Johnson, City of Buckley Mayor Richie Morgan, Town of Carbonado Councilmember Larry Wilcox, City of DuPont Councilmember Donna O’Ravez, City of Edgewood Councilmember Glenn Hull, City of Fife Councilmember Kathy McVay, City of Fircrest Councilmember Don Anderson, City of Lakewood Councilmember Jason Whalen, City of Lakewood Debra Perry, City of Milton Councilmember David Inge, City of Orting Councilmember John Jones, City of Pacific Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Executive Councilmember Joyce McDonald, Pierce County Council Councilmember Roger Bush, Pierce County Council Councilmember Timothy M. Farrell, Pierce County Council Commissioner Clare Petrich, Port of Tacoma Councilmember John Knutsen, City of Puyallup Councilmember Nicole Martineau, City of Puyallup Councilmember Michelle Walker, City of Roy Mayor Bruce Hopkins, Town of Ruston Mayor Peggy Levesque, Town of South Prairie Mayor Ron Lucas, Town of Steilacoom Councilmember Steve Allsop, City of Sumner Councilmember Joseph Lonergan, City of Tacoma Councilmember Lauren Walker, City of Tacoma Councilmember Marty Campbell, City of Tacoma Councilmember Eric Choiniere, City of University Place Councilmember Caroline Bellici, City of University Place Councilmember Becky Gilbert, Town of Wilkeson Ex officio Members: Chris Picard, Office of Urban Mobility Neel Parikh, Pierce County Library District Kelly Hayden, Pierce Transit Norman Abbott, Puget Sound Regional Council Tom Washington, WSDOT Recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council April 21, 2011 DI.G TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 II. RULES OF INTERPRETATION ........................................................................................11 III. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES (CPPs).............................................................12 Preamble to Countywide Planning Policies.............................................................................12 Affordable Housing...................................................................................................................13 Agricultural Lands.....................................................................................................................18 Amendments and Transition.....................................................................................................24 Buildable Lands.........................................................................................................................28 Community and Urban Design.................................................................................................32 Economic Development and Employment ..............................................................................34 Education...................................................................................................................................39 Fiscal Impact..............................................................................................................................42 Health and Well-being...............................................................................................................43 Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation................................................................46 Natural Resources, Open Space, and Protection of Environmentally-Sensitive Lands, and the Environment..................................................................................................................49 Rural Areas................................................................................................................................63 Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide Nature Significance................................................................................................................................66 Transportation Facilities and Strategies....................................................................................70 Urban Growth Areas.................................................................................................................78 This document was originally adopted on June 30, 1992 and amended on April 9, 1996, December 17, 1996, and November 18, 2004, November 17, 2008. TO BE UPDATED DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Background and Statutory Framework In response to legislative findings that uncoordinated and unplanned growth together with a lack of common goals toward land conservation pose a threat to the environment, to the public health, safety and welfare, and to sustainable economic development, the State legislature enacted the Growth Management Act.1 The Act identifies 13 14 planning goals which are intended to be used exclusively to guide for the purpose of guiding the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of municipalities and counties required to plan.2 The categories in which goals have been propounded are: urban growth, sprawl reduction, transportation, housing, economic development, property rights, permits, natural resource industries, open space and recreation, shoreline, environment, citizen participation and coordination, public facilities and services, and historic preservation. The principal focus of the Growth Management Act is on the comprehensive plan, which the County and each municipality must adopt by July 1, 1993. Land development regulations must be adopted within one (1) year thereafter. The Act specifies mandatory3 and optional4 plan elements as follows: Mandatory Elements Optional Elements land use housing capital facilities utilities rural (County only) transportation conservation solar energy recreation economic development* historic preservation* any other relating to the physical development of the jurisdiction In addition, subarea plans are permitted.5 1 RCW Chapter 36.70A (1990). 2 RCW 36.70A.020(1) - (13 14). 3 RCW 36.70A.070. 4 RCW 36.70A.080(1). 5 RCW 36.70A.080(2). * RCW 36.70.070(9): these optional elements become mandatory if state funding is provided. DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 2 One of the most important planning tenets expressed in the Growth Management Act is the consistency requirement, which takes many forms as follows: x consistency of municipal/County plans with the planning goals identified in RCW 36.70A.020 x internal consistency between plan elements x consistency of all other plan elements with the future land use map x consistency of any subarea plans with the comprehensive plan x consistency of the transportation element with the land use element x consistency of the transportation element with the six-year plans required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems x consistency between the County Comprehensive Plan and the comprehensive plans of all municipalities within the County x consistency of comprehensive plans of each municipality and county with comprehensive plans of neighboring municipalities and counties with common borders or faced with related regional issues x consistency of development regulations with the comprehensive plan x consistency of capital budget decisions with the comprehensive plan x consistency with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) as required by RCW 36.70A.210(7) x consistency of state agency actions in relation to the location, financing and expansion of transportation systems and other public facilities with county and municipal comprehensive planning Despite the fact that the word "consistency" is used repeatedly in the Growth Management Act, it is not defined. The Standard Planning Enabling Act promulgated in 1928 by the United States Department of Commerce established the concept that zoning regulations should be "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." In the 64 years since the model act was developed this concept has evolved from being merely advisory or guiding to one that mandates that the goals, objectives, policies, and strategies of each document must be in agreement with and harmonious with the provisions of all other required documents. The consistency doctrine has been continually strengthened by both state statutes and by court decisions in both ‘consistency statute states’ and those states adopting the concept by increasingly vigorous interpretation of the "in accordance with" statutory language. DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 3 A second planning tenet which the Growth Management Act promotes is concurrency -- i.e., that concept that public facilities and services necessary to serve new development at adopted level of service standards are actually available at the time of development. The concurrency requirement is stated generally in the planning goals6 as follows: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. In the transportation element, which is a required plan element for all municipal and County comprehensive plans, the concurrency requirement is restated in more forceful terms as follows:7 . . . local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies; the importance of considering multimodal transportation improvements is set forth in RCW 36.70A.108. Concurrent with the development means that for non-transportation facilities, improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development and in the case of transportation facilities, that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six (6) years. Portions of the mandatory planning, consistency, and concurrency requirements combine to suggest a strong relationship between the accommodation of growth and the provision and financing of public facilities and services to meet facility and service demands generated by that growth. This relationship is then strengthened by the Urban Growth Area boundary designation and public facility requirements.8 In order to accomplish these new planning and plan implementation requirements, the legislature has expressly authorized the use of innovative techniques,9 including impact fees.10 6 RCW 36.70A.020(12). 7 RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). 8 RCW 36.70A.110. 9 RCW 36.70A.090. 10 RCW 82.02.050 - .090. DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 4 In 1991, the State legislature amended the Growth Management Act, inter alia, to require that the legislative body of the County adopt countywide planning policies, in cooperation with the municipalities in the County. Countywide planning policies are written policy statements establishing a countywide framework from which county and municipal comprehensive plans are developed and adopted. The framework is intended to ensure that municipal and County comprehensive plans are consistent.11 The development of the countywide planning policies was is intended to be a collaborative process between the County and the municipalities. The legislation required the County legislative body to convene a meeting with representatives of each municipality. The County and the municipalities then determine the process in by which they will agree to all provisions and procedures of the countywide planning policies including, but not limited to, desired planning policies, deadlines, and ratification. No later than July 1, 1992, tThe legislative authority of the County is required to adopt countywide planning policies in accordance with the agreed-upon process after holding the requisite public hearing or hearings.12 The Countywide Planning Policies are not substitutes for comprehensive plans but, rather goals, objectives, policies, and strategies to guide the production of the County and municipal comprehensive plans. The Countywide Planning Policies shall, at a minimum, address the following:13 (a) Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.110; (b) Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development; (c) Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature; (d) Policies for countywide transportation facilities and strategies; (e) Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution; (f) Policies for joint County and city planning within urban growth areas; (g) Policies for countywide economic development and employment; and 11 RCW 36.70A.210(1). 12 RCW 36.70A.210(2). 13 RCW 36.70A.210(3)(a) - (h). DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 5 (h) An analysis of the fiscal impact. B. Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, Pierce County and the municipalities have entered into an Interlocal Agreement for the development, and adoption, and amendment of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).14 The Agreement provides for the establishment of a Steering Committee consisting of one elected official from Pierce County and one elected official from every municipality in the County. The principal responsibility of drafting the Countywide Planning Policies was given to the Steering Committee.15 The Steering Committee is now the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) and receivesd technical/staff support from the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC) and the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC).16 The Steering Committee was authorized to retain consultants and pursuant to such authority hired the national and regional consulting firms of Freilich, Leitner, Carlisle & Shortlidge and Northwest Strategies.17 Ratification of and amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies requires the affirmative vote of 60% of the affected governments in Pierce County representing a minimum of 75% of the total Pierce County population as designated by the State Office of Financial Management at the time of the proposed ratification. C. Methodology for the Development of Countywide Planning Policies Countywide planning policies are policy documents that have both a procedural and a substantive effect on the comprehensive plans of cities and the county. The immediate purpose of the CPPs is to achieve consistency between and among the plans of cities and the county on regional matters. A long-term purpose of the CPPs is to facilitate the transformation of local governance in urban growth areas so that cities become the primary providers of urban governmental services and counties become the providers of regional and rural services and the makers of regional policies. [Poulsbo, 92-3-0009c, FDO, at 23.] [Also, Snoqualmie, 92-3-0004c, FDO, at 9.] Another purpose is to facilitate urban growth at urban densities. The Countywide Planning Policies are intended to provide the guiding goals, objectives, policies and strategies for the subsequent adoption of comprehensive plans, but are not to be a substitute for such plans. The level of detail in the Countywide Planning Policies must be sufficient to provide specific guidance, yet not so detailed as to constrain appropriate local choice in future 14 Interlocal Agreement: Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991)(See Attachment "B"). 15 Interlocal Agreement, 2. 16 Interlocal Agreement, 4. 17 Interlocal Agreement, 5. DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 6 comprehensive planning by the County and municipalities. This is particularly true because the Countywide Planning Policies apply to the County and all municipalities, both large and small, both adjacent to other urban areas and remote from other urban areas, each with somewhat different characteristics. Given this context, the development of Countywide Planning Policies acceptable to the County and the municipalities was no small task. It was accomplished through a two-step process. Step 1 The Consultants developed a matrix for each policy area which emphasized the individual components (elements) of the issues and the alternative courses of action/decisions that could be made with respect to each element. Thus, for example, for the Fiscal Impact Policy, elements included: x What types of decisions/projects should trigger an analysis of fiscal impact? x What types of decisions/projects should be exempt from a fiscal impact analysis? x Is there a defined threshold? x How will the results of the Fiscal Impact Analysis be used? x When in the development approval process should the Fiscal Impact Analysis be done? The elements were intentionally stated in the form of questions to stimulate discussion by the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (consisting of technical staff from the governing entities) and the Steering Committee; and, similarly, they were intentionally phrased so that a simple "yes" or "no" answer was impossible. This methodology was particularly effective because it broadened the viewpoints of the Steering Committee members through use of a wide range of alternative formulations and at the same time compelled them to think in terms of the effects both countywide and in their particular municipality. In addition, in place of reading lengthy issue papers on the various policy areas, the key elements were packaged to allow for timely review and comment. The Step 1 process elicited considerable discussion and the results from Step 1 were very encouraging. Each policy area was, however, still being viewed independently. Step 2 Step 2 was needed to build on the work in Step 1 in order to develop a comprehensive and coordinated set of Countywide Planning Policies. To accomplish that task, the Consultants developed a set of conceptual Alternative Development Scenarios. These included: Trend Development; Compact Development; Modified Trend Development; and Adequate Public Facilities/Concurrency-Based Development. For each alternative development scenario, the Consultants identified the principal characteristics, the development impacts that the alternative is likely to exhibit, the principal advantages/disadvantages, the consistency of the alternative DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 7 with the Growth Management Act and the regional VISION 2020 Plan, and the degree of conformity of the alternative with the State Planning Goals and the individual Countywide Planning Policies areas. The GMCC developed conceptual maps to illustrate the alternative development scenarios. These maps were not intended to suggest actual or precise boundaries of any sort, but were merely used to convey graphically the differences in the alternatives. The presentation of the alternative development scenarios and conceptual maps effectively served their intended purpose which was to transform individual policy areas into a comprehensive and coordinated set of policy directives. In particular, the alternative development scenario analysis highlighted some of the key issues that needed to be addressed in the Urban Growth Area policy, which is the cornerstone of the Countywide Planning Policies. These issues included: x delineation of Urban Growth Areas; x determination and delineation of "tiers" within Urban Growth Areas; x linkage of tier delineations to capital improvements programming; x timing and phasing of growth; x public facility and service adequacy; x public facility and service availability at the time of development – concurrency; x facility service provision and extension policies, with a particular focus on sanitary sewer service; x financing of facility and service provision and extension and imposition of full, but fair share of costs on new development; x joint County-municipal planning in Urban Growth Areas. D. Effect of Adoption of Countywide Planning Policies Countywide Planning Policies are written policy statements used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which county and municipal comprehensive plans are developed and adopted. The framework is intended to ensure that municipal and County comprehensive plans are consistent.18 While the Growth Management Act does not specify the legal effect of adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies, it clearly acknowledges their importance by providing that failure to adopt Countywide Planning Policies meeting the requirements may result in the imposition of sanctions19 including, but not limited to the withholding of state revenues and rescinding the County 18 RCW 36.70A.210(1). 19 RCW 36.70A.210(5). DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 8 or municipality's authority to collect the real estate excise tax.20 Cities and the Governor may appeal adopted Countywide Planning Policies to the appropriate Growth Planning Hearings Board within sixty (60) days of the adoption of the policy.21 After the 60-day period, Countywide Planning Policies cannot be directly challenged. However, tThe effectiveness of the Countywide Planning Policies is not based merely on the fact that they are adopted, but rather on the fact that they must be adhered to and implemented in the County and municipality comprehensive plans and development regulations. The legislation provides a process to challenge the failure of a County or municipality to comply with the Countywide Planning Policies through petition to the Growth Planning Management Hearings Board.22 The Growth Planning Management Hearings Board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging either: (a) that the State, county or municipality is not in compliance with the Growth Management Act; or (b) that the 20-year growth management planning population projections adopted by the State Office of Financial Management should be adjusted.23 Petitions must be filed within sixty (60) days after publication of the ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan or development regulations.24 Comprehensive plans and development regulations and amendments thereto are presumed valid upon adoption.25 The Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) must be consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs). The most recent set of these is set forth in PSRC’s VISION 2040, which specifically requires that the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies be updated, where necessary, by December 31, 2010, to address the MPPs in VISION 2040. The Countywide Planning Policies should also be updated to address changes in the Growth Management Act language and interpretation that have taken place since the original adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies in 1995. The 2009 update to those provisions of the Washington Administrative Code that provide guidance for implementation of the Growth Management Act should be of assistance in identifying Growth Management Act changes and requirements. It should also be noted that Federal agencies and Indian tribes may participate in and cooperate with the countywide planning policy adoption process and that adopted countywide planning policies must be adhered to by state agencies. RCW 36.70A.210(4) 20 RCW 36.70A.340(2) and (3). 21 RCW 36.70A.210(6). 22 RCW 36.70A.250. 23 RCW 36.70A.280(1). 24 RCW 36.70A.290(2). 25 RCW 36.70A.320. DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 9 VISION 2040 VISION 2040 is the long-range growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region adopted in April 2008 by the PSRC General Assembly. VISION 2040 promotes an environmentally friendly growth pattern that will contain the expansion of urban growth areas, conserve farm and forest lands, support compact communities where people may both live and work, and envisions that a significant share of new employment and housing will occur in vibrant urban centers. VISION 2040 promotes the theme of “people, prosperity, planet” as a sustainability framework. The Regional Growth Strategy set forth in VISION 2040 provides specific guidance for the distribution of future population and employment growth through the year 2040 into types of places defined as “regional geographies.” The Regional Growth Strategy reflects a substantial shift in future growth patterns for many jurisdictions and implementation will be challenging. Jurisdictions in some regional geographies will likely be planning for targets that are above or below the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy because they are on a front- or back-loaded growth trajectory toward 2040. In other regional geographies, recent growth has been at such significant odds with the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy (such as recent growth in unincorporated urban Pierce County from 2000 to 2007 has already accounted for more than half of the 40-year growth allocation), that the 2040 goal will likely not be met. In such cases, jurisdictions are asked to set growth targets as close to VISION 2040 as reasonably possible in an effort to “bend the trend” of future growth to more closely conform to the Regional Growth Strategy. Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 includes a set of multicounty planning policies that provide an integrated framework for addressing land use, economic development, transportation, public facilities, and environmental issues. Multicounty planning policies are adopted by two or more counties and establish a common regionwide framework that ensures consistency among county and city comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070, and countywide planning policies adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. Multicounty planning policies provide a framework for regional plans developed within a multicounty region, including regional transportation plans established under RCW 47.80.023, as well as plans of cities, counties, and others that have common borders or related regional issues as required under RCW 36.70A.100. The regional transportation planning organization, pursuant to RCW 47.80.020, should be the agency to develop, adopt, and administer multicounty planning policies. Multicounty planning policies address, at a minimum, the same topics identified for countywide planning as identified in RCW 36.70A.210(3), except for those responsibilities assigned exclusively to counties. DI.G Introduction Ratification Date 10 In order to provide an on-going region-wide framework, a schedule for reviewing and revising the multicounty planning policies may be established. This schedule should relate to the review and revision deadlines for county and city comprehensive plans pursuant to 36.70A.130. DI.G Rules of Interpretation Ratification Date 11 II. RULES OF INTERPRETATION 1. Words and terms used in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be defined as set forth in the Policies and in the Growth Management Act to the extent defined therein. To the extent not defined therein, words and terms shall be given their plain and ordinary meanings, except as otherwise provided herein. 2. The term "shall" is intended to be mandatory; the terms "may" and should are directory advisory only. While the terms "shall and will" is are mandatory, it should shall be understood and implied that the policy statement in which it is they are used is applicable to a municipality and/or the County only when, through objective determination, the circumstances on which the Policy is premised are relevant. 3. It is understood and implied that policies are applicable to municipalities and/or the County only, if through objective determination, the circumstances upon which the Policy is premised are "reasonable" and "appropriate" to such municipality and/or the County. DI.G Preamble to Countywide Planning Policies Ratification Date 12 III. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES (CPPs) PREAMBLE TO COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Countywide Planning Policies are written policy statements which are to be used solely for establishing a Countywide framework from which the County and municipal comprehensive plans are developed and adopted. The framework is intended to ensure that the County and municipal comprehensive plans are consistent, as required by the Washington statutes. RCW 43.17.250 Countywide Planning Policy Incentives requires State agencies that provide funding to review local proposals for consistency with any adopted countywide planning policies. State agencies will review local proposals to determine if they are addressed by a Countywide Planning Policy and accord additional preference to the County, city, or town if such Countywide Planning Policy exists. The County, and many of the municipalities within the County, typically address specific proposals within their local comprehensive plans and capital facilities plans. These locally adopted plans serve to supplement and refine the more generalized policies contained within the Countywide Planning Policies. Therefore, this document, as well as any locally adopted comprehensive plan and/or capital facilities plan, shall be considered by State agencies in making determinations under RCW 43.17.250. DI.G Affordable Housing Ratification Date 13 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON THE "NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION AND PARAMETERS FOR ITS DISTRIBUTION" Background - Requirement of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act mandates identifies as a planning goal to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations that counties and cities encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of the existing housing stock. [RCW 36.70A.020(4)] The term "affordable housing" is not defined, but the context in which it appears suggests that its meaning was intended to be broadly construed to refer to housing of varying costs, since the reference is to all economic segments of the community. The Washington State Growth Management Act requires the adoption of countywide planning policies for affordable housing in order to establish a consistent county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted. These policies are required to, at a minimum, “consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution” [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e)]. The Washington State Growth Management Act also identifies mandatory and optional plan elements. [RCW 36.70A.070 and .080]. A Housing Element is a mandatory plan element that must, at a minimum, include the following [RCW 36.70A.070(2)]: (a) an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth; (b) a statement of goals, policies and objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement and development of housing, including single-family residences; (c) identification of sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government- assisted housing, housing for low income families, manufactured housing, multi-family housing, group homes, and foster care facilities; (d) adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Since the Comprehensive Plan of every city and county must be an internally consistent document [RCW 36.70A.070] and all plan elements must be consistent with the future land use map prepared as part of the required land use element [RCW 36.70A.070], these other plan elements will, to a great extent, dictate what will be in the housing element. Thus, the land use element, relying upon estimates of future population, growth, average numbers of persons per household, and land use densities, will indicate how much (and where) land needs to be made available to accommodate the identified housing needs. The capital facilities, transportation DI.G Affordable Housing Ratification Date 14 and utilities elements will then indicate when and how public facilities will be provided to accommodate the projected housing, by type, density and location. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 recognizes that to meet the demands of a growing and changing population in the central Puget Sound, the region needs to develop vibrant communities that offer a diverse and well-distributed mix of homes affordable to both owners and renters in every demographic and income group. VISION 2040 encourages housing production that will meet our needs and places a major emphasis providing residences that are safe and healthy, attractive, and close to jobs, shopping, and other amenities. The Multicounty Planning Policies address 1) housing diversity and affordability, 2) jobs-housing balance, and 3) best practices for home construction. These Multicounty Planning Policies place an emphasis on preserving and expanding housing affordability, incorporating quality and environmentally responsible design in homebuilding, and offering healthy and safe home choices for all the region’s residents. Countywide Planning Policy AH-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine the extent of the need for housing for all economic segments of the population, both existing and projected for its jurisdiction over the planning period. AH-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, should explore and identify opportunities to reutilize and redevelop existing parcels where rehabilitation of the buildings is not cost-effective, provided the same is consistent with the countywide policy on historic, archaeological, and cultural preservation. AH-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall encourage the availability of housing affordable to all economic segments of the population for each jurisdiction. 3.1 For the purpose of the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies the following definitions shall apply: 3.1.1 “Affordable housing” shall mean the housing affordable to households earning up to 80 percent of the countywide median income. 3.1.2 “Low income households” shall mean households earning 80 percent or less of the countywide median income. 3.1.3 “Moderate income households” shall mean households earning 80 to 120 percent of the countywide median income. 3.1.4 “Special Needs Housing” shall mean supportive housing opportunities for populations with specialized requirements, such as the physically and mentally disabled, the elderly, people with medical conditions, the homeless, victims of domestic violence, foster youth, refugees, and others. DI.G Affordable Housing Ratification Date 15 3.2 Affordable housing needs not typically met by the private housing market should be addressed through a more coordinated countywide approach/strategy. 3.2.1 Each jurisdiction may adopt plans and policies for meeting its affordable and moderate income housing needs in a manner that reflects its unique demographic characteristics, comprehensive plan vision and policies, development and infrastructure capacity, location and proximity to job centers, local workforce, and access to transportation. 3.3 It shall be the goal of each jurisdiction in Pierce County that a minimum of 25% of the growth population allocation is satisfied through affordable housing. 3.3.1 Jurisdictions with designated regional centers should consider incorporating affordable housing allocations as part of their adopted allocations for these centers. 3.4 Each jurisdiction should provide a sufficient supply of special needs housing opportunities that is equitably and rationally distributed throughout the County. AH-4. The County and each municipality in the County should establish a countywide program by an organization capable of long-term consistent coordination of regional housing planning, design, development, funding, and housing management. All jurisdictions should be represented in directing the work program and priorities of the organization. AH-5. Jurisdictions should plan to meet their affordable and moderate-income housing needs goal by utilizing a range of strategies that will result in the preservation of existing, and production of new, affordable and moderate-income housing that is safe and healthy. 5.1 Techniques to preserve existing affordable and moderate-income housing stock may include repair, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation and redevelopment in order to extend the useful life of existing affordable housing units. 5.1.1 Jurisdictions should seek and secure state funds such as the Housing Trust Fund, and federal subsidy funds such as Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership, and other sources to implement housing preservation programs. 5.2 Jurisdictions should promote the use of reasonable measures and innovative techniques (e.g., clustering, accessory dwelling units, cottage housing, small lots, planned urban developments, and mixed use) to stimulate new higher- density affordable and moderate-income housing stock on residentially-zoned vacant and underutilized parcels. DI.G Affordable Housing Ratification Date 16 5.3 To promote affordable housing and ensure access to services and jobs, jurisdictions should consider the availability and proximity of public transportation, governmental and commercial services necessary to support residents’ needs. 5.4 Jurisdictions should consider providing incentives to developers and builders of affordable housing for moderate- and low-income households, such as but not limited to: 5.4.1 A menu of alternative development regulations (e.g. higher density, reduced lot width/area and reduced parking stalls) in exchange for housing that is ensured to be affordable. 5.4.2 A toolkit of financial incentives (e.g., permit and fee waivers or multi- family tax exemptions) and grant writing assistance, through the regional housing organization, that may be dependent on the amount of affordable housing proposed. 5.4.3 A toolkit of technical assistance (e.g., mapping, expedited processing and permit approval) to affordable housing developers that may be dependent on the amount of affordable housing proposed. 5.5 Jurisdictions should consider inclusionary zoning measures as a condition of major rezones and development. 5.5.1 New fully contained communities in unincorporated Pierce County shall contain a mix of dwelling units to provide for the affordable and moderate-income housing needs that will be created as a result of the development, as well as helping to accommodate a share of the county’s overall affordable housing need as expressed in policy 3.3. AH-6. The County, and each municipality in the County, should cooperatively maximize available local, state, and federal funding opportunities and private resources in the development of affordable housing for households. 6.1 All jurisdictions should jointly explore opportunities to develop a countywide funding mechanism and the potential for both voter approved measures (bond or levy), and nonvoter approved sources of revenue to support the development of affordable housing. 6.2 All jurisdictions should pursue state legislative changes to give local jurisdictions the authority to provide tax relief to developers of affordable housing. 6.3 All jurisdictions should explore opportunities to dedicate revenues from sales of publicly owned properties, including tax title sales, to affordable housing projects. DI.G Affordable Housing Ratification Date 17 6.4 All jurisdictions should explore the feasibility of additional resources to facilitate the development of affordable housing such as a new countywide organization (based on inter-local agreements), expansion of existing non- profit partnerships, increased coordination with local public housing authorities, a county-wide land trust, as well as future involvement of larger County employers, in the provision of housing assistance for their workers. AH-7. The County, and each municipality in the County, should explore and identify opportunities to reduce land costs for non-profit and for-profit developers to build affordable housing. 7.1 Jurisdictions should explore options to dedicate or make available below market- rate surplus land for affordable housing projects. 7.2 All jurisdictions should explore and identify opportunities to assemble, reutilize, and redevelop existing parcels. 7.3 All jurisdictions should review and streamline development standards and regulations to advance their public benefit, provide flexibility, and minimize costs to housing. AH-8. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall periodically monitor and assess their success in meeting the housing needs to accommodate their 20-year population allocation. 8.1 Jurisdictions should utilize the available data and analyses provided by federal, state, and local sources to monitor their progress in meeting housing demand as part of the required Growth Management Act comprehensive plan update process. 8.2 Countywide housing allocations shall be periodically monitored and evaluated to determine if countywide needs are being adequately met; the evaluation should identify all regulatory, programmatic, and financial measures taken to address the allocation need. 8.3 Each jurisdiction should provide, if available, the quantity of affordable housing units created, preserved, or rehabilitated since the previous required update. 8.4 Jurisdictions should consider using a consistent reporting template for their evaluations to facilitate the countywide monitoring and assessment. 8.5 In conjunction with the Growth Management Act Update schedule, a report should be forwarded from GMCC to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) addressing the progress in developing new affordable housing. DI.G Agricultural Lands Ratification Date 18 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies the maintenance and enhancement of natural resource-based industries, including productive agricultural industries, and the conservation of productive agricultural lands as planning goals to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. [RCW 36.70A.020(8)]. While the expression of planning goals in the Growth Management Act is linked to "natural resource industries," including productive timber and fisheries, a separate policy for Agricultural Lands has been proposed developed because of their unique importance in Pierce County and their relationship to urban growth area boundaries and policies. Although the Growth Management Act does not expressly require a countywide planning policy on agricultural lands, the requirement was added by the Interlocal Agreement: Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991). VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 recognizes that the agricultural land in the central Puget Sound region is among the most productive in Washington State. It also recognized that the loss of these lands, along with their productivity, has impacts on the environment, including air and water quality and quantity, our economy, and ultimately the health of the region’s people. VISION 2040 also identifies threats to the region’s agricultural lands, including urban development, incompatible adjacent land uses, and the loss of supporting services. VISION 2040 seeks to permanently protect these key agricultural resource lands. The Multicounty Planning Policies calls for conserving the region’s natural resource lands, establishing best management practices that protect the long-term integrity and productivity of these lands, limiting the conversion of these lands, and ensuring that development does not adversely impact these lands. Countywide Planning Policy Ag-1. The County, and each municipality choosing to designate agricultural lands of long term commercial significance in the County, shall do so using the methodology and criteria stated in WAC 365-190-050. Cities are encouraged to coordinate their agricultural resource lands designations with the County and adjacent jurisdictions and are encouraged to adopt the same criteria. define agricultural lands. At a minimum, the definition shall be based upon one of the following criteria: Designation shall be based on the following factors: 1.1 The land is not already characterized by urban growth. the definition in RCW 36.70A.030(2): "land primarily devoted to the commercial production of DI.G Agricultural Lands Ratification Date 19 horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.041 through 84.33.140, or livestock, and that has long term commercial significance for agricultural production" (and, including poultry raising, horse farms and ranches); 1.2 The land is used or capable of being used for agricultural production. identification based upon current land use, planned land use or soil type (i.e., soils identified by the Soil Conservation Service as having high productivity for agricultural use); 1.2.1 Lands that are currently used for agricultural production and that are capable of being used must be evaluated for designation, including lands receiving “use value assessments”. 1.2.2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability soils classification system based on the growing capacity, productivity, and composition shall be assessed. 1.3 The long-term commercial significance for agriculture shall be determined by considering: lands currently receiving "use value assessments" pursuant to Washington statutes and contracts with the County. 1.3.1 The classification of prime and unique farmland soils; 1.3.2 The types of agriculture that exist in the area and their interactivity and contribution to the regional economy; 1.3.3 The availability of water for agriculture; 1.3.4 The availability of public facilities, including roads used for transporting agricultural products; 1.3.5 Tax status, including current use taxation, optional benefit rating system, and the transfer or purchase of development rights; 1.3.6 The availability of public services; 1.3.7 The relationship and proximity to urban growth areas, markets and suppliers; 1.3.8 Predominant parcel sizes; 1.3.9 Land use settlement patterns and their compatibility with agricultural practices; 1.3.10 Intensity of nearby land uses; 1.3.11 History of land development permits issued nearby, and the extent that permits issued within five hundred feet of designated resource lands have included a notice of potential incompatibility of residential development with activities associated with resource land uses per RCW 36.70A.060 (1)(b); and 1.3.12 Land values under alternative uses. 1.4 When designating agricultural resource lands, the County and cities should consider food security issues, including providing food supplies for food banks, DI.G Agricultural Lands Ratification Date 20 schools and institutions, vocational training opportunities and preserving heritage or artisanal foods. 1.5 Designation of at least a minimum amount of agricultural land county-wide necessary to maintain economic viability for the agricultural industry, and retain businesses supporting agriculture such as processors, suppliers, and equipment dealers should be considered. 1.6 Agricultural lands of local significance should be designated through consultation with the public and stakeholders such as, local conservation districts, and organizations promoting farming and local agricultural producers. These lands may include designated critical areas such as bogs used to grow cranberries or farmed wetlands. Ag-2. The purposes of agricultural preservation are: 2.1 ensuring that agricultural lands are treated sensitively to their location and the presence of urban growth pressures; 2.2 preventing urban sprawl; 2.3 maintaining open space and/or providing a visual green belt; 2.4 retaining natural systems and natural processes; 2.5 preserving the local economic base; 2.6 preserving a rural lifestyle character; 2.7 maintaining specialty crops; 2.8 maintaining regional, state and national agricultural reserves.; 2.9 enhancing the local food system through the production of fresh and minimally processed foods. Ag-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall achieve agricultural preservation through: 3.1 implementing agricultural area zoning that maintains maintaining large minimum lot sizes in agricultural areas, prohibition of conversion to non-farm uses and urban scale development, and flexible approaches such as clustering; 3.2 buffering agricultural areas from urban development; DI.G Agricultural Lands Ratification Date 21 3.3 creating agricultural zoning districts avoiding location of major new roads or capacity expansions in agricultural areas unless management is controlled to inhibit intrusion of non-farming uses; 3.4 purchase of development rights; 3.5 transfer of development rights within the jurisdiction, including the designation of receiving zones for agricultural development rights and between jurisdictions, including the designation of receiving zones by local agreement; 3.6 lease of development rights for a term of years; 3.7 "anti-nuisance" laws to protect agricultural activities from being defined as a public nuisance; 3.8 preferential tax treatment ("use value assessment"); 3.9 other innovative techniques including, but not limited to, purchase-leaseback through issuance of bonds, university purchase for research, and prevention of the formation of improvement districts or the creation of benefit assessments within designated agricultural preservation areas.; 3.10 reduced fee structure for agricultural related permitting. Ag-4. The County, and each municipality in the County that chooses to designate agricultural lands, shall address the effect of practices on non-point source pollution and groundwater impacts including the use of “best management practices” to reduce pesticides and fertilizers, and minimize risk to human health and the environment. , shall allow limited development in some agricultural areas based upon stated criteria related to the predominant agricultural uses. Ag-5. The County, and each municipality in the County that chooses to designate agricultural lands shall work to: , shall address the effect of agricultural practices on non-point source pollution and ground-water impacts. 5.1 protect agricultural areas from encroachment by incompatible uses; 5.2 encourage related development such as farmers markets and roadside stands; 5.3 protect smaller-sized agricultural parcels which are not individually viable for agricultural production but, which are within a large area of more viable parcels should be considered for designation; and 5.4 to provide agricultural surface water drainage and avoid draining of water from high density residential areas to agricultural lands. DI.G Agricultural Lands Ratification Date 22 6. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall extend the agricultural policies to locations within and/or adjacent to agricultural preservation areas in order to: 6.3 protect such areas from encroachment by incompatible uses; and 6.4 protect related development such as farmers markets and roadside stands. 6.5 protect smaller-sized agricultural parcels which are not individually viable for agricultural production but, which taken cumulatively with other smaller-sized parcels in the area, have long term significance for agricultural production. 7Ag-6. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address the conversion of agricultural land from agricultural to non-agricultural use by: 76.1 establishing criteria for zoning changes and comprehensive plan amendments; 76.2 establishing legal and financial mechanisms so that property owners realize economic value that would have accrued from conversion, but land remains in agricultural use if within Urban Growth Areas. 8. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall identify agricultural lands that are the most susceptible to conversion (which often are also the best and most productive agricultural lands and the lands which serve the most important agricultural purposes) by: 8.1 identifying agricultural lands which are most sensitive to urban growth pressures and which, therefore, require the most immediate attention; 8.2 utilizing agricultural land classifications established by the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development [RCW 36.70A.050(1)]; 8.3 consulting with and involving owners of agricultural lands. 9. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall identify agricultural lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products [RCW 36.70A.170(1)(a)] by developing standards and undertaking a land use survey. 10Ag-7. The County, and each municipality in the County choosing to designate agricultural lands, shall ensure that prime agricultural lands presently in the unincorporated County or within a municipality are preserved and protected by the enactment of appropriate land use controls; or by including the land in the urban growth area boundary of a municipality only if the municipality has delineated standards and criteria relating to preserving the agricultural lands, and transfer and purchase of development right programs. DI.G Agricultural Lands Ratification Date 23 11Ag-8. The County, and each municipality in the County choosing to designate agricultural lands, shall coordinate agricultural land preservation policies with other Countywide Planning Policies through: 128.1 correlating agricultural land preservation policies with urban growth area policies and with public facility and service provision policies to avoid the extension of urban services to areas intended for continued agricultural use; 138.2 ensuring that public facility and service extension, even if not directly serving the agricultural lands, do not stimulate the conversion of agricultural land or make its preservation and protection more difficult. and 148.3 joint jurisdictional planning of agricultural land. Ag-9. Encourage the siting and support the continued operation of community gardens. DI.G Amendments and Transition Ratification Date 24 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITION Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act contemplates that the Countywide Planning Policies will remain effective throughout the comprehensive plan preparation, adoption and implementation processes to ensure that municipal and county comprehensive plans are consistent, as required by the Act [RCW 36.70A.210(1)]. Because the factors, data and analysis upon which the Countywide Planning Policies have been formulated are subject to change, it is important that a process be established to effectuate such changes, when appropriate and needed. The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that each County which adopts a comprehensive plan designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature [RCW 36.70A.110(1)]. As discussed above, the factors, data and analysis upon which the UGA designations are initially made are similarly subject to change. Countywide Planning Policy AT-1. Countywide Planning Policies adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act may be amended by Pierce County and ratified by the municipalities in the County using the same process by which the Countywide Planning Policies are originally adopted as set forth in the Interlocal Agreement: Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991). 1.1 Ratification of amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies requires the affirmative vote of 60% of the affected governments in the County representing a minimum of 75% of the total Pierce County population as designated by the State Office of Financial Management at the time of the proposed ratification. 1.2 Demonstration of ratification shall be by execution of an interlocal agreement or by adoption of an amendment to the initial Interlocal Agreement the absence of a legislative action to disapprove a proposed amendment. 1.2.1 A jurisdiction shall be deemed as casting an affirmative vote if it has not taken legislative action to disapprove a proposed amendment within 180 days from the date the Pierce County Council formally authorizes the Pierce County Executive to enter into an interlocal agreement. 1.3 An amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies or to any individual policy (all hereinafter referred to as proposed amendments) may be initiated by the County or any municipality in the County or by the Pierce County Regional Council. The proposed amendment shall include the following: DI.G Amendments and Transition Ratification Date 25 1.2.1 the exact language of the proposed amendment (shown in "strike out" for deletions and "underlineation highlight" for additions); 1.2.2 a brief explanation of the need for the proposed amendment, including the factors, data or analyses that have changed since the original adoption of the Countywide Planning Policies and/or the experiences with the existing Countywide Planning Policies that have prompted the proposed amendment. 1.3 A proposed amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies shall be initially referred to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) for analysis and recommendation. AT-2. Urban Growth Area boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the Growth Management Act may be amended by Pierce County and accepted by the municipalities in the County pursuant to the same process by which the Urban Growth Areas were originally adopted and pursuant to subpolicies UGA-1. and UGA-2. of the “Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development.” 2.1 An amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries may be initiated by the County or any municipality in the County. 2.2 A proposed amendment to Urban Growth Area boundaries shall include: 2.2.1 a map indicating the existing urban growth area boundary and the proposed boundary modification; 2.2.2 a statement indicating how, and the extent to which, the proposed boundary modification complies with each of the factors listed in subpolicies 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Countywide Planning Policy on Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services to Such Development. 2.2.3 a statement indicating the factors, data or analyses that have changed since the designation of the initial Urban Growth Area boundaries and/or the experience with the existing Urban Growth Area boundaries that have prompted the proposed amendment. 2.3 The urban growth area of a jurisdiction may be expanded only if: 2.3.1 the jurisdiction’s observed development densities are consistent with the planned density assumptions as documented in the most recently published Buildable Lands Report as required by RCW 36.70A.215., and 2.3.2 there is a demonstrated need for additional residential or employment capacity within the urban growth area affiliated with an individual jurisdiction and a demonstrated need county-wide; or the expansion results in a no net gain to the countywide UGA. DI.G Amendments and Transition Ratification Date 26 2.3.13 If the consistency evaluation, as required through the Countywide Planning Policies on Buildable Lands, policies BL-3. and BL-4., identifies an inconsistency between the observed and planned densities, the jurisdiction shall either: 1) demonstrate reasonable measures were adopted to rectify the inconsistencies. Documentation shall also be submitted that summarizes the monitoring results of the effectiveness of the measures in rectifying density inconsistencies, or 2) document updated development data that indicates consistency. 2.4 To ensure the orderly development of urban lands, predictability in the provision of urban services, and the eventual annexation of urban growth areas, Pierce County may incorporate criteria into its comprehensive plan policies for evaluating amendments proposing to remove properties from the urban growth area. The criteria should, at a minimum, include the existing development pattern and density, vested development applications, and infrastructure and service needs to accommodate the existing and future residents. In general, any lands proposed to be removed from the urban growth area shall be rural in character and not require any urban level infrastructure or service needs. 2.45 A proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area boundaries shall be referred to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) for its review and recommendation. AT-3. The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) shall have the following responsibilities in addition to those already specified in the Interlocal Agreement: Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, dated September 24, 1991): 3.31 development of model, uniform implementation methodologies for the County, and all cities in the County, to be used at their discretion; 3.42 assistance in resolution of interjurisdictional disputes; 3.53 input to joint planning issues in Urban Growth Areas; 3.64 input with respect to Countywide facilities; 3.75 advice and consultation on phased development, short plats, vested rights and related issues; 3.86 coordination of these responsibilities with the Puget Sound Regional Council; DI.G Amendments and Transition Ratification Date 27 3.97 making a recommendation on the respective location of municipal and the County Urban Growth Area boundaries consistent with these policies; 3.108 making a recommendation with regard to dissolution of the Boundary Review Board; 3.119 monitoring development in the County, including population and employment growth and its effect on the development capacity within urban growth areas; 3.1210 advice and consultation on population disaggregation. 3.11 The Pierce County council shall be the responsible body for adopting housing and employment targets for Pierce County jurisdictions, subject to appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. The adopted targets shall be attached to the CPP publications as Appendix A for ease of reference. Appendix A shall be updated to reflect future County Council action. Appendix A shall not be considered a component of the CPPs and, accordingly, an update to Appendix A shall not constitute an amendment to the CPPs requiring ratification by Pierce County jurisdictions. DI.G Buildable Lands Ratification Date 28 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON BUILDABLE LANDS Background Requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 RCW 36.70A.215 requires six counties, including Pierce County, to evaluate whether a county and its municipalities are achieving urban densities within urban growth areas. To do this, the counties and municipalities are to compare growth and development assumptions, targets, and objectives contained in the Countywide Planning Policies and the County and city and town comprehensive plans with actual growth and development that has occurred. At a minimum, the evaluation is to determine if there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the countywide population projection and determine the density of housing that has been constructed and amount of land developed for commercial and industrial uses within the urban growth area. Detailed procedures, standards, and definitions for implementing this policy and complying with RCW 36.70A.215 are found in the current report titled Pierce County Buildable Lands, Procedures for Collecting and Monitoring Data, hereinafter referred to as the Procedures Report. Countywide Planning Policy BL-1. Pierce County in cooperation with Pierce County cities and towns shall establish a Pierce County Buildable Lands Program to provide a Countywide monitoring and analysis mechanism to meet the requirements of 36.70.A.215 Buildable Lands. 1.1 The Program shall be coordinated through Pierce County Planning and Land Services. 1.2 The focus of the Buildable Lands Program shall be an analysis of annual development data as related to locally adopted comprehensive plan goals and policies, the calculation of residential and employment land capacity as compared to the 20-year need, and identification of actions to rectify inconsistencies. 1.3 The primary product of the Buildable Lands Program shall be the publication of a Buildable Lands Report every five years, the first being by September 1, 2002. BL-12. Each municipality within Pierce County shall provide information on land development activities to the County and assist in an inventory of buildable lands. The development activity information shall be incorporated into a population/employment analysis of the jurisdiction’s residential/commercial/ industrial zoned lands to determine if there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the countywide population projection allocated to each jurisdiction. The County and municipalities shall follow the guidelines specified in the Procedures Report for the collection, monitoring, and analysis of development activity and potential residential/employment capacity. DI.G Buildable Lands Ratification Date 29 2.1 Municipalities are encouraged to submit the annual development data by June 1 of each year. 2.2 Pierce County shall summarize the submitted annual development data by zoning classification for each jurisdiction. 2.3 Prior to the publication of submitted annual development data, representatives from each municipality shall have an opportunity to review and suggest modifications to summarized development data. BL-3. Each municipality within Pierce County shall assist the County in conducting an inventory of buildable lands. The County and municipalities shall follow the guidelines specified in the Procedures Report for the collection, monitoring, and analysis of development activity and potential residential/employment capacity. 3.1 Pierce County shall confer with each municipality to identify the appropriate criteria for each of its zoning classifications to identify buildable lands: vacant - subdividable, vacant - not subdividable, underdeveloped residential and redevelopable lands. 3.2 Pierce County shall forward the preliminary results of the buildable lands inventory to representatives of each municipality for local review and modification. BL-4. Pierce County, in consultation with its municipalities, shall conduct an analysis of inventoried buildable lands to evaluate the County’s ability to accommodate its 20- year population and employment land needs. BL-25. Pierce County, in cooperation with the municipalities, shall prepare a Buildable Lands Capacity Report every five years, with the first report completed by September 2002. The report will detail growth, development, and the ability to accommodate future population and employment land needs. 5.1 The Buildable Lands Report shall include a summary of development activity by zoning classification and detail assumptions incorporated in the residential and employment capacity analysis for each jurisdiction. 5.2 Prior to the publication of a draft report, representatives from each municipality shall have an opportunity to review and suggest modifications to information associated with their jurisdiction. BL-36. Pierce County, in cooperation with the municipalities, shall conduct a consistency evaluation between the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies, comprehensive plan goals and actual densities of built-out projects within the five-year observation period for Pierce County and the municipalities within it. The evaluation may be incorporated into the Buildable Lands Report or into a separate report. DI.G Buildable Lands Ratification Date 30 6.1 The results of the consistency evaluation shall be reported in a separate report. 6.2 The consistency evaluation should be completed within one year of the publication of the latest Buildable Lands Report. 6.3 Pierce County shall be the responsible agency for conducting the evaluation. 6.4 The consistency evaluation shall address if the observed density resulted in a jurisdiction achieving at least the average net density of 4 dwelling unit per acre as stipulated in Urban Growth Areas, Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision Of Urban Services to Such Development – policy 6.1 of these Countywide Planning Policies. 6.5 The consistency evaluation shall address if the observed density within a jurisdiction was consistent with the density assumption incorporated within the residential capacity analysis. 6.6 The consistency evaluation shall compare the housing needs associated with the allocated population with the housing unit capacity calculated through the residential capacity analysis. 6.7 The consistency evaluation shall compare the land needs associated with the employment targets with the employment capacity calculated through the employment capacity analysis. 6.8 The consistency evaluation report shall be forwarded to the respective jurisdictions for review and comment. BL-47. The County and municipalities shall use the results of the consistency evaluation to determine the most appropriate means to address identified inconsistencies between observed and planned densities and ensure suitable land to accommodate future population and employment needs. In addressing the inconsistencies, the County and municipalities shall identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, that may be taken to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215. Each respective jurisdiction shall be responsible for taking action as necessary to rectify the inconsistency as determined by that jurisdiction. BL-58. The County and each municipality shall resolve disputes between and among jurisdictions regarding inconsistencies in the collection and analysis of land development activities and residential and employment capacity analysis findings by first attempting to reach an agreement through negotiation or through a designated mediation process agreeable to all parties. In case of an impasse, the matter shall be referred to the Pierce County Regional Council for review and resolution. DI.G Buildable Lands Ratification Date 31 BL-9. The County should establish an opportunity for stakeholders to be informed and provide feedback on the various aspects of the Buildable Lands Program. 9.1 An ad hoc committee should be re-established every five years to review appropriate development information, assumptions, and methodology applied to calculate the residential and employment capacity analysis. BL-10. Pierce County and its cities and towns are not obligated to fulfill the countywide planning policies for the Buildable Lands Program if GMA is amended with provisions suspending the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215. DI.G Community and Urban Design Ratification Date 32 NEW CHAPTER COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON COMMUNITY AND URBAN DESIGN Background - Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies as a planning goal to encourage development in urban areas and to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. To encourage this type of urban development that has increased density, and is compact and serviced by multiple transportation alternatives, it requires close attention to the urban design, community context and character, in order to function effectively and consistent with the vision of an individual community. The Growth Management Act does not expressly require that the County adopt a planning policy on urban design; however, VISION 2040 and the Multicounty Planning Policies provide goals and policies related to regional design and urban design. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 called for identifying and protecting significant visual and cultural resources that preserve community character. It calls for designing facilities throughout the region that advance community development, and for creating parks and civic spaces. VISION 2040 also advances redevelopment and infill as opportunities for revitalizing communities, including along linear corridors (such as low-scale retail strips along the thoroughfares). Open space and parks at a variety of scales create public amenities, contribute to the character of communities, and provide opportunities for recreation and physical activity. Countywide Planning Policy CU-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, will develop high quality, compact communities that: 1.1 impart a sense of place; 1.2 preserve local character; 1.3 provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types; and 1.4 encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. CU-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall design public buildings and public spaces that contribute to the unique sense of community and a sense of place. CU-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall design transportation projects and other infrastructure to achieve community development objectives and improve the community. DI.G Community and Urban Design Ratification Date 33 CU-4. Promote context-sensitive design of transportation facilities, both for facilities to fit in the context of the communities in which they are located, as well as applying urban design principles for projects in centers and transit station areas. DI.G Economic Development and Employment Ratification Date 34 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act mandates identifies as a planning goal to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations, that counties and cities encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of the state, especially for unemployed and disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities [RCW 36.70A.020(5)]. Additionally, the Growth Management Act expressly requires that the County adopt a planning policy on countywide economic development and employment [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(g)]. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 recognizes that a robust economy is integral to our environmental, social, and financial well-being. It acknowledges that a healthy and diverse economy is vital for paying for public services, supporting arts and cultural institutions, and building our communities. The Multicounty Planning Policies for economic development in VISION 2040 are organized around the topics of business, people, and places. An emphasis is placed on enriching the region’s businesses and employment market through job retention, growth, and diversification. Importance is also placed on small and locally owned businesses, because they create jobs, can offer family- wage jobs, and make vital contributions to the sustainability of the region’s economy and prosperity. VISION 2040 recognizes the region’s economic well-being is also dependent upon the safe and reliable movement of people, goods and services, and information and includes provisions for prioritizing economic development and transportation funding to centers. Countywide Planning Policy Ec-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, will work to achieve a prospering and sustainable regional economy by supporting business and job creation, investing in all people, sustaining environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities, and high quality of life. This will involve assuring assure consistency between economic development policies and adopted comprehensive plans by: 1.1 considering the future development of commercial and industrial facilities [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(g)] and creating in the land use element of each comprehensive plan a designation of areas for "commerce" and "industry" [RCW 36.70A.070(1)]; DI.G Economic Development and Employment Ratification Date 35 1.2 providing within the areas designated for urban development, sufficient land to accommodate projected development within a market-based system; 1.3 designating and zoning large tracts of appropriate developable land equitably distributed throughout the various jurisdictions based on the related population, employment base and land areas of the jurisdiction for planned commercial and industrial centers, and local housing and employment targets; 1.3.1. "Equitably," means with consideration for the population and its characteristics, including the skills of the current population; the current employment base and its characteristics (i.e., type of businesses and industries, permanency of the existing employment base, past trends and current projections); the amount of land in the jurisdiction; the amount of vacant land in the jurisdiction appropriately zoned for economic development; the current unemployment rate; current commuting patterns; and others, factors as appropriate. 1.4 providing adequate public facilities and services to areas designated for economic development; employment centers and an adequate supply of housing with good access to employment centers. 1.5 separating, buffering, or leaving natural buffers between residential development and areas of economic development where it is necessary due to the type, characteristics and impacts of the economic development activity; 1.6 developing and adopting standards at the municipal level to guide commercial and industrial development in park-like a settings; that is appropriately landscaped; 1.7 evaluating federal, state, and local regulatory, taxing, facility financing and expenditure practices and then making changes to assure that they these practices favor economic development at appropriate locations. 1.8 leveraging the region’s and county’s position as an international gateway by supporting businesses, ports, and agencies involved in trade-related activities. 1.9 encouraging the private, public, and nonprofit sectors to incorporate environmental and social responsibility into their practices. 1.10 maximizing the use of existing designated manufacturing and industrial centers by focusing appropriate types and amounts of employment growth in these areas and by protecting them from incompatible adjacent uses. Ec-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall promote diverse economic opportunities for all citizens of the County, especially the unemployed, disadvantaged DI.G Economic Development and Employment Ratification Date 36 persons, minorities and small businesses. The following measures may be used in accomplishing this policy, where appropriate: 2.1 determining a reasonable "jobs/housing" balance and then coordinating land use and development policies to help achieve the designated balance of adequate affordable housing near accessible to employment centers; 2.2 identifying urban land suitable for the accommodation of a wide range of non- residential development activities; 2.3 utilizing state and/or federal programs and financial assistance to the maximum extent possible appropriate; 2.4 encouraging redevelopment of declining underutilized commercial areas; 2.5 encouraging flexibility in local zoning and land use controls in order to permit a variety of economic uses, but doing so without sacrificing necessary sound design and development standards; 2.6 encouraging programs, in conjunction with other public, quasi-public and private entities, in order to attract desirable or appropriate businesses and industriesy;, particularly those that diversify the economic base and/or provide family-wage jobs; 2.7 to the extent possible, encouraging the location of economic development activities in areas served by public transit and adequate transportation facilities; 2.8 maintaining and enhancing natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agriculture, fishing and mining; 2.9 collectively targeting the appropriate creation and retention of specific firms and industries including small business enterprises within established and emerging industry clusters that export goods and services, import capital, and have growth potential; 2.10 promoting educational, job training, and cultural opportunities, particularly for those facing unique obstacles and/or those with special needs; 2.11 providing opportunities and locations for incubator industries.; 2.12 fostering a supportive environment for business startups, small businesses, and locally owned businesses to help them continue to prosper. Ec-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall encourage economic development in areas in which there is an imbalance between available are insufficient employment opportunities and for the local population base by: DI.G Economic Development and Employment Ratification Date 37 3.1 considering development incentives for economic development; 3.2 marketing development opportunities in slow growth areas. Ec-4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall take the following steps to ensure that economic growth remains within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services and public facilities: 4.1 identifying existing and future demand for services; 4.2 encouraging the location of economic development activities within Urban Growth Areas; 4.3 limiting incompatible economic development activities in or adjacent to designated natural resource lands and critical areas and/or by requiring adequate buffers between economic development activities projects and designated natural resource lands and critical areas, and by ensuring that economic development activities occur in areas with adequate public facilities. Ec-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall plan for sufficient economic growth and development to ensure an appropriate balance of land uses which will produce a sound financial posture position given the fiscal/economic costs and benefits derived from different land uses by: 5.1 iensuring that the land use element of each Comprehensive Plan allows for an appropriate mix and balance of uses; 5.2 reducing inefficient, sprawling development patterns; 5.3 reducing transportation demand; 5.4 coordinating the provision of public facilities and services and/or insuring that new development supports the cost of public facility and service expansions made necessary by such development; 5.5 promoting development in areas with existing available public facility capacity; 5.6 encouraging joint public/private development. as appropriate; 5.7 concentrating a significant amount of economic growth in designated centers; 5.8 ensuring the efficient flow of people, goods, services, and information in and through the region with infrastructure investments, particularly in and connecting designated centers [See the Centers policies in the Urban Growth Area sections]. DI.G Economic Development and Employment Ratification Date 38 Ec-6. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall work to strengthen existing businesses and industries and to add to the diversity of economic opportunity and employment by: 6.1 promoting infill development to assist in maintaining a viable market for existing businesses; 6.2 utilizing redevelopment or other techniques, public financing mechanisms, where appropriate, to maintain existing businesses; 6.3 making available information, technical assistance and loans for business expansion and job creation; 6.4 protecting existing viable economic development activities businesses from incompatible neighbors; 6.5 streamlining permit processing; 6.6 striving to maintain adequate public facilities and service levels; 6.7 evaluating regulatory and other constraints to continued business operations and devising an appropriate plan to minimize the effect of such constraints.; 6.8 supporting the contributions of the region’s and county’s culturally and ethnically diverse communities in helping the region and the county continue to expand its international economy; 6.9 in rural areas promoting compatible occupations (such as, but not limited to, tourism, cottage and home-based businesses, and local services) that do not conflict with rural character and resource-based land uses, but provides needed employment in cities in the rural areas; and 6.10 in rural and natural resource areas supporting economic activity at a size and scale that is compatible with the long-term integrity and productivity of these lands. Ec-7. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall provide both the private sector and the public sector with information necessary to support and promote economic development by: 7.1 coordinating the collection and dissemination of information with various local governments; 7.2 cooperating with private and quasi-private entities and sharing information to attract new industries. DI.G Education Ratification Date 39 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON EDUCATION Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act does not identify education as a planning goal to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. Neither is education listed as a planning policy requirement in the Growth Management Act. However, the list of topics identified in the Growth Management Act is intended to delineate only the minimum policy requirements. Education was identified as an additional policy area in the Interlocal Agreement: “Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991)”. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 contains policies related to education obtainment, services, and the siting of education facilities. It calls for ensuring accessible and high quality education and skills-training programs to all of the region’s residents and integrates the provision of education facilities and services with care for the environment. VISION addresses the provision of educational facilities and services that are provided to both urban and rural populations by calling for the siting of schools, institutions, and other community facilities that primarily serve urban populations within the urban growth area in locations where they will promote the local desired growth plans. It also calls for locating schools, institutions, and other community facilities serving rural residents in neighboring cities and towns and design these facilities in keeping with the size and scale of the local community. Countywide Planning Policy Ed-1. "Educational Facilities,": includes means all public and private educational facilities, including, but not limited to, kindergartens, elementary schools, middle schools, junior high schools, high schools, junior colleges, colleges, academies, and similar institutions. Ed-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall strive to achieve excellence in education and to offer diverse educational opportunities to be made available to all residents of the County, cities, and towns by: 2.1 developing a broad tax base; 2.2 encouraging citizen participation; 2.3 encouraging coordination between educational and employment requirements. 2.4 working to ensure that the region and the county has high quality and accessible training programs that give people opportunities to learn, maintain and upgrade DI.G Education Ratification Date 40 skills necessary to meet the current and forecast needs of the regional and global economy. Ed-3. The County, and each municipality the County, shall coordinate with other institutions or governmental entities responsible for providing educational services, in order to ensure the provision of educational facilities along with other necessary public facilities and services and along with established and planned growth patterns through: 3.1 the capital facilities plan element; 3.2 the land use element; 3.3 school site location decisions; 3.4 coordination and, if necessary, formal interlocal agreements between school districts and other governmental entities exercising land use planning, regulation, and capital improvement planning functions; 3.5 the possible use of impact fees, voluntary advancements, and other regulatory requirements for a portion of school facility financing; 3.6 encouragingement of joint (municipal/school district) use of playgrounds, parks, open-spaces and recreational facilities; 3.7 supporting for sufficient funding of educational facilities and services; 3.8 supporting for the provision of educational facilities and services to meet specialized needs. Ed-4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address the issue of the multiplicity of coordinate with school districts by: 4.1 incorporating school facility location criteria, developed in conjunction with the local school district, in the local comprehensive plan; 4.2 including school districts in the comprehensive planning process; 4.3 developing a common base of data and sharing the data with school districts concerning population, household, and school-age population projections, non- educational capital facility needs, and land uses; 4.4 initiating dialogues with school districts about school district boundaries and service areas in relation to municipal boundaries, designated urban growth areas, annexation plans, and service extension plans and policies. DI.G Education Ratification Date 41 Ed-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine specific siting requirements for all public and private educational facilities and shall meet specific educational facility needs by: 5.1 locating schools in a manner that is consistently with the local comprehensive plan, including the capital facilities element; 5.2 deciding all facility locations, types and sizes with consideration for the provision of other necessary public facilities and services and the compatibility and effect of the provision of such facilities on land use and development patterns.; and 5.3 working toward standards that would prioritize the location of these facilities to be in urban areas, with consideration to existing facilities in rural areas. DI.G Fiscal Impact Ratification Date 42 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON FISCAL IMPACT Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that the Countywide Planning Policies address the “an analysis of fiscal impact” [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(h)]. However, the legislature did not define the scope of the required fiscal impact analysis to be addressed in the Countywide Planning Policies. During the legislative proceedings a number of alternatives were discussed, ranging from fiscal analysis of the policies themselves, fiscal analysis of the comprehensive plans and implementing regulations, fiscal analysis of governmental decisions affecting jurisdictional responsibilities and/or boundaries and fiscal analysis of significant public and private development projects. From these alternatives, the County, and each municipality, has determined that at the Countywide Planning Policy level fiscal impact analysis will be required only for governmental decisions affecting jurisdictional responsibilities and/or boundaries and significant public and private development projects. Countywide Planning Policy FI-1. The purposes of fiscal impact analysis are to assess the relative costs of providing public facilities and services, with the public revenues that will be derived from: (a) decisions affecting jurisdictional responsibilities and/or boundaries and (b) significant public and private development projects. FI-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall use the results of the any required fiscal impact analysis as one of the factors in determining acceptance, modification, or rejection of the proposal/project. DI.G Health and Well-Being Ratification Date 43 NEW CHAPTER COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON HEALTH AND WELL-BEING Background - Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies as a planning goal to encourage development in urban areas and to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. The GMA also encourages multimodal transportation systems to encourage walking and other alternatives to the automobile. These transportation options provide for greater opportunity for walking and exercise that further promotes health and well-being. Compact communities can also encourage more efficient use of resources, reduced air pollution, and thereby reduce impacts on climate change. The GMA also sets forth a goal to protect the environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life, including air and water quality. These are also related to healthy living as well as climate change. VISION 2040 contains specific goals and policies addressing health and well-being, climate, change and air and water quality. In 2005, the legislature amended the GMA to require communities to adopt and implement plans and strategies to promote an increase in physical activity among Washington State citizens. In response to this requirement, jurisdictions updated transportation elements to include a pedestrian and bicycle component, as well as identified planned improvements for those facilities and corridors. Other strategies for achieving improved public health include the adoption of “Complete Streets” policies, policies addressing the development and improvement of infrastructure supportive of community walkability, and improvements addressing the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Jurisdictions continue to adopt these mechanisms to enhance public health, consistent with the 2005 amendments to the GMA. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 acknowledges that the health and well-being of the region’s people is fundamental to maintaining and improving the region’s sustainability and quality of life. It recognizes that human health is affected by the health of the natural environment, the strength of our region’s communities and social networks, the way we build our cities and transportation systems, and the aesthetics and functionality of those systems. VISION 2040 addresses numerous ways that human health can be impacted in the central Puget Sound region, such as exposure to air and water pollution, automobile- related injuries and deaths, chronic diseases related to physical inactivity, and lack of fresh and healthy foods. It further recognizes that attention to health as a consequence of planning and infrastructure decisions can improve quality of life, reduce health care costs, and lessen impacts from lost productivity. VISION 2040 addresses many of the region’s health concerns by providing strategies that will significantly reduce air and water pollution from transportation activities and other sources. A core concept of VISION 2040 is improving the safety of the transportation system for drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. Multicounty planning policies call for designing DI.G Health and Well-Being Ratification Date 44 transportation facilities to serve all users safely and efficiently. This includes building and improving sidewalks, bike lanes, trails and paths and adopting land use strategies to bring homes closer to jobs, shopping, services, and recreation activities. VISION 2040 also states that health considerations should be addressed in regional and local planning and decision-making processes. It encourages design guidelines in the construction of buildings and facilities and regional farming and food production. Countywide Planning Policy HW-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, will be designed to promote physical, social, and mental well-being so that all people can live healthier and more active lives by: 1.1 designing communities to provide an improved environment for walking and bicycling; and 1.2 developing and implementing design guidelines to encourage construction of healthy buildings and facilities to promote healthy people; and 1.3 developing and implementing community plans and programs, such as community gardens and farmer’s markets, that provide support for agricultural, farmland, and aquatic uses that facilitate the production of fresh and minimally processed healthy foods, and encourage community access to those resources. HW-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall incorporate provisions addressing health and well-being into appropriate regional, countywide, and local planning and decision-making processes. HW-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall promote cooperation and coordination among transportation providers, local government, and developers to ensure that joint- and mixed-use developments are designed to promote and improve physical, mental, and social health and reduce the impacts of climate change on the natural and built environments. HW-4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall promote and develop transportation systems and options that minimize negative impacts to human health by: 4.1 improving the safety of the transportation system and, in the long term, achieve the state’s goal of zero deaths and disabling injuries; and 4.2 improve local street patterns-including their design and how they are used, for walking, bicycling, and transit use to enhance communities, connectivity, and physical activity, such as through the adoption of “Complete Streets” policies. DI.G Health and Well-Being Ratification Date 45 HW-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall protect and enhance the environment and public health and safety when providing public services and facilities by: 5.1 coordinating, designing, and planning for public safety services and programs; 5.2 consider use of health impact assessment tools when developing and evaluating planning projects to identify possible impacts of projects on community health; and 5.3 encouraging health and human service facilities to locate near centers and transit for efficient accessibility to service delivery. DI.G Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation Ratification Date 46 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act mandates identifies as a planning goal to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations, that counties and cities identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance. [RCW 36.70A.020(13)]. The term "significance" is not defined. , although However, it is well-recognized that the federal and state governments have programs that have been in operation for some time by which land, sites, structures and districts of national significance are/or may be placed on the National Register of Historic Places and land, sites and structures of state significance are/or may be placed on the State Register of Historic Places. Certain cities, including Tacoma, have adopted local programs to designate land, sites and structures of local significance. Although the Growth Management Act Amendments do does not require a countywide planning policy on historic, archaeological and cultural preservation, that requirement was added by the Interlocal Agreement: “Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R91-172, September 24, 1991)”. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 promotes the preservation of significant visual and cultural resources, including public views, landmarks and cultural landscapes, and areas of special interest, in addition to historic and archeological resources. VISION 2040 also contains policies that promote urban design techniques to preserve these assets in recognition of the economic value of sense of place. Countywide Planning Policy HAC-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, utilizing applicable federal, state, and local designations, if relevant, (and where appropriate in cooperation with the Indian tribes) shall identify the presence of federal, state, and local historic, archaeological and cultural lands, sites, and structures, of significance within their boundaries. HAC-2. The County, and each municipality in the County may, utilizing County standards or locally-developed standards, identify and designate local historic, archaeological and cultural lands, sites, and structures of significance within their boundaries. 2.1 Recommendations for local designations may be made by any person or entity or by any municipality or governmental body. 2.2 The municipality may designate an individual, commission or committee to be responsible for review of recommendations and to forward such recommendations on to the legislative body. DI.G Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation Ratification Date 47 2.3 Designations shall only be made by the local legislative body if the land, site, or structure has only local significance. 2.4 All such designations shall be reflected in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. 2.5 Any municipality may request that the County's Landmarks Commission and/or staff provide assistance in designating land, sites, or structures; if sought, such assistance may be provided pursuant to an interlocal agreement. 2.6 Preservation of significant lands, sites, and structures shall be encouraged or accomplished by the County, and each municipality in the County, through any one or a combination of the following techniques, as determined to be appropriate by the local legislative body: 2.6.1 Designation; 2.6.2 Incentives for preservation; 2.6.3 Loans and grants; 2.6.4 Public purchase; 2.6.5 ‘Non-development’ easement; 2.6.6 Development rights transfer; 2.6.7 Restrictive covenants; 2.6.8 Regulations for protection, maintenance, and approval of appropriate development; 2.6.9 Plans/policies/standards for preservation as set by the (U.S. Department of the Interior).; 2.6.10 Certified Local Government designation. 2.7 The County, and each municipality in the County, may utilize one or more of the following criteria, or others as may be determined to be appropriate, to make designation decisions for recommended lands, sites or structures: 2.7.1 Archaeological, historic, or cultural "significance;" 2.7.2 Condition; 2.7.3 Uniqueness; 2.7.4 Accessibility; 2.7.5 Cost/benefit; 2.7.6 Extent to which land, site, or structure is undisturbed; 2.7.7 Presence of incompatible land uses or activities; 2.7.8 Presence of environmental, health, or safety hazards; 2.7.9 Tourism potential; 2.7.10 Educational value; 2.7.11 Consent of owner. DI.G Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Preservation Ratification Date 48 2.8 The legislative body of the County, and each municipality in the County, may utilize one or more of the following criteria or others as may be determined to be appropriate, to make a de-designation decision: 2.8.1 Error in historical/archaeological/cultural research for the original designation; 2.8.2 Economic hardship for the owner leaving no reasonable use of the land, site, or structure; 2.8.3 Deterioration of lands, site, or structure; 2.8.4 Discovery of other (better) examples of lands, sites, or structures; 2.8.5 Presence of land, site, or structure on state or federal registers. HAC-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall encourage public education programs regarding historic, archaeological, and cultural lands, sites, and structures as a means of raising public awareness of the value of maintaining those resources. HAC-4. Utilize urban design strategies and approaches to ensure that changes to the built environment preserve and enhance the region's and the county’s unique attributes and each community's distinctive identity in recognition of the economic value of sense of place. DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 49 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON NATURAL RESOURCES, OPEN SPACE, AND PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY-SENSITIVE LANDS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies the following as planning goals: (1) maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural and fisheries industries [RCW 36.70A.020(8)]; (2) encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses [RCW 36.70A.020(8)]; (3) encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks [RCW 36.70A.020(9)]; and, (4) protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water [RCW 36.70A.020(10)]. Although these goals are stated individually, tThe degree of interconnectedness between them these goals leads to the development of a single, comprehensive planning policy. Although the Growth Management Act does not expressly require a countywide planning policy on natural resources, open space, and protection of environmentally sensitive lands, the addition of such a policy was specifically identified in the Pierce County Interlocal Agreement: “Framework Agreement for the Adoption of the Countywide Planning Policy (Pierce County Council Resolution No. R-91-172, September 24, 1991)”. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 acknowledges that certain development patterns and practices have damaged and threaten to further disrupt the region’s ecosystems. It recognizes that while some impacts are irreversible, the region can curb pollution, change land use and transportation patterns, and better manage waste to protect key ecological functions and help restore the environment. VISION 2040 stresses the ecological, economic, and health benefits of preserving and restoring our natural environment. The Multicounty Planning Policies in VISION 2040 have been developed around the theme of environmental stewardship and sustainability. This is further expressed in VISION 2040’s theme of people, prosperity and planet. This theme recognizes the important relationship between our communities, our economy, and our environment. VISION 2040 acknowledges that atmospheric pollution threatens to alter the way the natural environment functions and to affect human health and well-being. It recognizes that the average annual temperatures are already rising in the Pacific Northwest and that reduced snowpack and earlier spring runoffs could result in increasing water shortages and drought conditions. VISION 2040’s commitment to sustainable growth, clean transportation, and environmentally friendly development practices will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create healthier communities. VISION 2040 also provides guidance for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and planning for various impacts caused by climate change. Included is an overarching goal that calls for reducing pollutants which contribute to climate change. Multicounty planning policies commit the region to comply with recent state directives regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases and call on DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 50 jurisdictions and agencies to include an analysis of climate change impacts when performing environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act. Additional provisions call for reducing the rate of energy use per capita and developing new energy management technology as part of meeting the region’s energy needs. Countywide Planning Policy Env-1. The following governmental entities shall act in a coordinatedion manner to identify, designate, and conserve resources, and to protect open space and environmentally sensitive lands: 1.1 The State [RCW 36.70A.050(1)]; 1.2 The County; 1.3 Municipalities; 1.4 Special Purpose Districts and entities; 1.5 The Puget Sound Regional Council and Regional Authorities (Puget Sound Clean Air Pollution Control Agency, Regional Transportation Planning Organization et al); 1.6 The Federal government; 1.7 Tribal governments; 1.8 Public utilities. 2. "Natural resources" shall be defined, for the purpose of these policies, to include: mineral resources and mineral lands, productive timber lands, and fisheries industries. 3Env-2. Countywide natural resources identified and designated pursuant to this Policy shall be maintained and enhanced through one or more of the following means: 32.1 conservation; 32.2 conservation combined with planned use; 32.3 planned use; 32.4 enhancement; 32.5 education; 32.6 preservation; DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 51 32.7 purchase/acquisition; 32.8 regulatory approaches; and 32.9 compensable approaches. 4Env-3. The governmental entities specified in subpolicy 1 shall work cooperatively and consistently with each other to achieve this Policy through: 43.1 identifying, designating, maintaining, conserving, enhancing, and/or protecting, as appropriate, natural resources through the adoption of specific elements in the county and municipal comprehensive plans; 43.2 developing appropriate implementation strategies and regulations; 43.3 adopting local capital improvement programs designed to achieve the objectives of this Policy; 43.4 coordinating standards and criteria between the programs of the governmental entities specified in subpolicy 1, including where necessary the use of inter- governmental agreements, so as to be consistent with the objectives of this Policy.; 3.5 using integrated and interdisciplinary approaches for environmental planning and assessment; and 3.6 using the best information available at all levels of planning, especially scientific information, when establishing and implementing environmental standards established by the local, state, or federal government. 5Env-4. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall consider the following regarding natural resources: 54.1 placing a primary emphasis on maintaining, enhancing, conserving, and/or protecting, as appropriate, designated and identified natural resources including lands of local, county, and statewide significance; 54.2 developing and applying criteria for limitinged development, if allowed, so as to maintain, enhance, and conserve identified and designated important, productive or economically viable natural resources or natural resource based industries; 54.3 ensuring the provision of buffers to protect environmentally sensitive lands where economic use of natural resource lands will cause adverse impacts; 54.4 adopting a "no net loss" approach where applicable; DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 52 54.5 utilizing positive incentives to ensure conservation over time; 54.6 utilizing transfer of development rights; purchase of development rights; conservation easements; or other flexible, clustered or compensable regulatory approaches (see CPPs for Agricultural Lands and Open Space); 54.7 educating of all segments of the community concerning the importance of these Policy objectives; 54.8 emphasizing the prevention of air and water quality degradation.; 4.9 establish best management practices that protect the long-term integrity of the natural environment, adjacent land uses, and the long-term productivity of resource lands; 4.10 support the sustainability of designated resource lands. Conversion of lands to other uses is strongly discouraged; and 4.11 ensure that resource lands and their related economic activities are not adversely impacted by development on adjacent non-resource lands. 6Env-5. Environmentally sensitive lands, for the purpose of the Policy, shall include all designated critical areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.030(5) including, but not limited to, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, geologically hazardous lands and shall include water supply areas, shorelines, creeks, streams, lakes, rivers, deltas, frequently flooded areas, estuaries, and unique geologic features such as canyons. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall maintain the following relationship between environmentally sensitive lands and development: 65.1 give priority to protection of environmentally sensitive lands; 65.2 develop standards and criteria for limitinged development, if permitted allowed, in the County or in municipal comprehensive plans; 65.3 where development is permitted allowed, provide protection for environmentally-sensitive lands through the provision of appropriate buffers; 65.4 adopt a "no net loss" approach; 65.5 utilize of positive incentives for conservation; 65.6 utilize of transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, or other flexible, clustered or compensatory regulatory approaches; DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 53 65.7 designate environmentally sensitive lands of local, county and statewide significance; 65.8 educate all segments of the community concerning the importance of these Policy objectives. 7Env-6. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine the amount of development permitted on environmentally sensitive lands by according to the nature of the area sought to be protected, and to do so on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with SEPA regulations. Enhancements of to environmentally sensitive lands, such as parks and observation towers, may be allowed. 8Env-7. The County, and each municipality in the County, as well as the other governmental entities specified in subpolicy 1 shall be in compliance with and seek to exceed federal and state environmental quality standards where required to achieve the objectives of this Policy; 9Env-8. The County, and each municipality in the County, as well as the other governmental entities specified in subpolicy 1 shall consider policies on environmentally sensitive lands in conjunction with other Countywide Planning Policies, including, but not limited to, policies which address: 98.1 urban growth areas; 98.2 contiguous orderly development and the provision of urban services to such development; 98.3 capital facility siting; 98.4 transportation congestion management efficiency; 8.5 siting of transportation facilities; 8.6 operations and maintenance of transportation facilities; 9.58.7 infill development; 9.68.8 affordable housing; 9.78.9 state and local Shoreline Master Programs; 9.88.10 goals and mandates of federal and state land jurisdiction agencies including the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service and Tribal governments; 9.98.11 watershed management. DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 54 10Env-9.Open space, for the purpose of this Policy shall include parks, recreation areas, greenbelts/natural buffers, scenic and natural amenities or unique geological features or unique resources. 1Env-10.The County, and each municipality in the County, shall develop a plan for the provision and designation of open space considering the following: 110.1 environmentally sensitive lands may also include open space and/or greenbelt areas; 110.2 open space areas are located only within urban growth areas; 110.3 open space is defined in conjunction with recreation and facilities.; 10.4 open space and environmentally sensitive lands that create linkages across jurisdictional boundaries and coordination with these entities; 10.5 encourage open space cluster design; and 10.6 encourage natural buffering as part of development design. 12. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall designate appropriate open space: 12.1 following an assessment of local needs and based upon specific criteria; 12.1.1 to encourage open space cluster design; 12.1.2 to encourage natural buffering as part of development design; 12.2 upon the recommendation of the governing body; 12.3 if such areas meet the above criteria of 12.1 and 12.2 and are in: 12.3.1 aquifer recharge areas; 12.3.2 floodplains; 12.3.3 unique resource areas; 12.3.4 rare and endangered species (plant/animal) habitat. Env-131.The County, and each municipality in the County, may make the following uses of open space: 131.1 recreational areas, including parks (golf courses, picnic areas, bicycle, equestrian and walking trails) and general recreation; 131.2 uses as considered on a case-by-case basis; DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 55 131.3 uses derived from community definition (i.e., greenbelts) Env-142.The County, and each municipality in the County, shall encourage new housing to locate in a compatible fashion (i.e., clustered design) with open space designations or outside of designated open spaces. Env-153.The County, and each municipality in the County, shall regulate open space through tools such as: 153.1 zoning and subdivision ordinances, including but not limited to cluster and minimum lot size zoning, overlay zones and adequate off-site public facility regulations; 153.2 development impact fees for park and open space acquisition; 153.3 dedication of land or money in-lieu of land; 153.4 designation of open space corridors; 153.5 soil conservation measures; 153.6 wetlands, shorelines, floodplain or other environmentally sensitive lands ordinances; and 153.7 development agreements. Env-164.The County, and each municipality in the County, shall cooperatively inventory existing and newly designated potential open space by creating: 164.1 local and regional planning inventories.y; 16.2 regional inventory. Env-175.The County, and each municipality in the County, shall authorize the following methods of retention of open space land or wildlife corridors: 175.1 public acquisition of property in fee simple or through development easement acquisition; 175.2 private acquisition with covenants, conditions and/or restrictions limiting the use of the property to open space; 175.3 alternatives to public purchase, including, but not limited to: DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 56 175.3.1 flexible zoning, subdivision and regulatory approaches designed for protection or preservation; 175.3.2 land trust; 175.3.3 conservation easement; 175.3.4 transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, and other compensable regulatory approaches; 175.3.5 rails-to-trails; 175.3.6 donations; 175.3.7 preferential assessments; 175.3.8 planned developments; 175.3.9 dedications; 175.3.10 impact fees; 175.3.11 view easements; 175.3.12 use value assessments.; 175.4 retention of existing open space through: 175.4.1 coordination with the designation of natural resource lands of statewide significance; 175.4.2 required open space preservation within and without Urban Growth Boundaries established by PSRC Pierce County; 175.4.3 coordination with agricultural land owners and right to farm policies. 15.4.4 preserving, and enhancing significant regional open space networks and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries. General Env-816.The County, and each municipality in the County, should protect and enhance the natural ecosystems through comprehensive plan policies and development regulations that reflect natural constraints and protect sensitive features. 16.1 Preserve and enhance habitat to prevent species from inclusion on the endangered species list and to accelerate their removal from the list. 16.2 Identify and protect wildlife corridors both inside and outside the urban growth area. 16.3 Preserve and restore native vegetation to protect habitat, especially where it contributes to the overall ecological function and where invasive species are a significant threat to native ecosystems. 16.4 Maintain natural hydrological functions, ecosystems and watersheds and, where feasible, restore to a more natural state. 16.5 Restore, where appropriate and possible, freshwater and marine shorelines, watersheds, and estuaries to a natural condition for ecological function and value. DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 57 16.6 Reduce the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers to the extent feasible and identify alternatives that minimize risks to human health and the environment. 16.7 Identify and address the impacts of climate change on hydrological systems. Env-197.The County, and each municipality in the County, should preserve, protect, and where practicable, restore natural habitat critical for the conservation of salmonid species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, through the adoption of comprehensive plan policies that seek to protect, maintain, or restore aquatic ecosystems. 197.1 Jurisdictions should consider creation of a Public Benefit Rating System under the Current Use Assessment Program (RCW 84.34) or other Tax Incentive Programs that includes a higher priority for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 197.2 Consider fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas when designating land use designations and companion zoning regulations. 197.3 Amend existing critical area regulations, as necessary, to protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas from development impacts. Coordination of Watershed Planning and Land Use Planning “Watershed” means a geographic area that drains toward or contributes flow to a stream or river and the geographic limits of a watershed are defined by the points at which the ground slope changes to drain surface water into the tributaries that feed the stream or river system. Env2018. The County, and each municipality in the County, should protect the natural habitat critical for the conservation of salmonid species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, whenever practicable, through the use of planning activities or study techniques that are capable of determining changes in stream hydrology and water quality. 2018.1 The County, and each municipality in the County, should coordinate watershed planning and land use planning activities and implementation activities within a watershed boundary including: 2018.1.1 recognize that watershed planning may be useful in analyzing changes in stream hydrology, flooding, water quality and capital facilities under different land use scenarios; 2018.1.2 evaluate the use of vegetation retention, tree conservation, and maximum impervious surface standards; 2018.1.3 whenever possible, utilize watershed boundaries instead of jurisdictional boundaries for plans and studies; DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 58 2018.1.4 consider the implications of planning and implementation activities on natural environmental and built systems that are located outside jurisdictional boundaries but within the shared watershed; 2018.1.5 when updating land use plans and regulations, consider information that is contained within watershed plans. Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation 21Env-19. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall work together to identify and protect natural habitat corridors that cross jurisdictional boundaries. 2119.1 Establish informational sharing workshops or present information at established coordinating committees. 2119.2Whenever possible, utilize watershed boundaries instead of jurisdictional boundaries for plans and studies. 19.3 Establish a common method for assessing the habitat needs for sensitive species. 2Env-20.The County, and each municipality in the County, should coordinate watershed/aquatic restoration planning and implementation activities within a watershed. 220.1 Consider the implications of planning and implementation activities not only within jurisdictional boundaries, but also the implications of decisions and activities on habitat for critical fish species that is located outside jurisdictional boundaries but within the shared watershed. 20.2 Encourage involvement with local drainage districts in planning process. Env-231. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall cooperatively work together to create and adopt modifications to their Critical Areas Regulations that include the best available science for the protection of existing habitat, wetlands, estuaries, and riparian areas by avoiding negative impacts. 231.1 Encourage the removal of invasive species and the replanting of natural vegetation. 231.2 Encourage local community groups in critical habitat restoration and enhancement efforts. 231.3 Utilize incentives to encourage landowners to retain, enhance, or restore critical habitat. DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 59 231.4 Develop complementary, coordinated, integrated, and flexible approaches for the collection, analysis, and sharing of monitoring information (e.g., GIS data, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. Development Standards Env-242. Upon adoption of a state classification system, the County and each municipality in the County, should work together to establish a single system for stream typing. Env-253. The County, and each municipality in the County, should maintain or enhance water quality through control of runoff and best management practices to maintain natural aquatic communities and beneficial uses. Monitoring, Best Available Science and Adaptive Management Env-264. The County, and each municipality in the County, should work cooperatively toward creating and implementing methodologies designed to determine the effectiveness of enhancement and recovery strategies for listed species. (The term recovery is applied to species and not to habitat.) 264.1 Monitoring and evaluation strategies should be designed to develop data and information that can be used to evaluate future policy choices and management actions. 264.2 Whenever practicable, adoption of local plans, which include Cconservation Pplans or watershed basin plans, should include monitoring and evaluation criteria. 24.3 Use the best information available at all levels of planning, especially scientific information. Env-275. The County, and each municipality in the County, recognizes that the best available science to address listed species recovery issues is evolving. Each jurisdiction should apply an adaptive management strategy to determine how well the objectives of listed species recovery and critical habitat preservation/restoration are being achieved. 275.1 Consider the results of pilot developments in land use planning. Env-26. Ensure that all residents, regardless of social or economic status, live in a healthy environment with minimal exposure to pollution. Env-27. Locate development in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural features and promote the use of innovative environmentally sensitive development practices, including design, materials, construction, and on-going maintenance. DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 60 Env-28. Mitigate noise caused by traffic, industries, and other sources or adjust land uses as appropriate to secure the same result. Air Quality Env-29. Reach and maintain air pollution attainment level/standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Env-30. The County and each municipality in the County shall strive, as appropriate, to improve the countywide overall air quality for particulates, ozone, and toxics through measures such as: 30.1 Providing education to the community about the sources and implications of particulate matter, ozone (smog) and air toxics; 30.2 Coordinating and partnering across jurisdictional boundaries on a air quality issues, strategies, and education efforts; 30.3 Employing methods to reduce particulates by improving indoor and outdoor wood burning activities and wood as a source of heat; 30.4 Strengthening efforts to reduce pollutants from construction activities (i.e., fugitive dust) 30.5 Strengthening efforts to reduce pollutants from transportation activities by: 30.5.1 including pollution reduction methods through technologies such as the use of cleaner fuels and vehicle programs, for example, electric charging stations, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and partnering to construct intra-jurisdictional trails and nonmotorized facilities, linear trails, and low speed vehicles; 30.5.2 reducing vehicle miles traveled and auto dependency; 30.5.3 designing and prioritizing compact communities and neighborhood accessibility for daily goods and services. 30.6 Reducing air toxics emissions through freight infrastructure investment, diesel retrofits, woodstove change-out programs, and various community-scale projects. Climate Change Env-31. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall strive to meet State mandates on climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases. DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 61 31.1 Jurisdictions should work to address climate change and greenhouse gases by undertaking such actions as: 31.1.1 conducting a baseline assessment and inventory of carbon/energy footprint of its community and municipal operations; 31.1.2 creating and adopting a climate action plan; 31.1.3 providing outreach to developers and residents to educate about the sources of greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change; 31.1.4 assessing the impact of the development of capital facilities may have on climate change; and 31.2 Jurisdictions should address adaptation and mitigation strategies from the effects of climate change in long range plans such as shoreline master programs and comprehensive plans. 31.3 Jurisdictions should encourage the development community to reduce impacts of proposed projects on climate change. 31.3.1 Work to promote green development standards (e.g., LEED and equivalent, and low impact development) in both public and private development and operations. 31.4 Include an analysis (i.e., supplemental greenhouse gas/climate change impact worksheet) of climate change impacts and potential mitigation when conducting an environmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act. 31.5 Jurisdictions should consider the carbon sequestration potential of natural resources and open space. 31.5.1 Direct development into urban areas and compact centers to prevent and reduce the urbanization of ecologically sensitive areas and natural resources; and 31.5.2 Encourage countywide carbon sequestration through: 31.5.2.1 Increasing the amount of vegetation and canopy cover in urban areas by coordinating the preservation and growth of open space; 31.5.2.2 Developing a comprehensive strategy to maintain and restore vegetation and increase canopy cover in rural areas. DI.G Natural Resources, Open Space, Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Lands & Environment Ratification Date 62 31.6 Jurisdictions should support energy management technologies and alternative energy sources. 31.6.1 Cooperate with regional initiatives and efforts toward the development and use of energy management technologies; 31.6.2 Reduce greenhouse gases by expanding the use of biofuels, energy efficiency/conservation and alternative energy sources within municipal and private development and operations; 31.6.3 Investigate and pursue opportunities for district heating (thermal energy on a neighborhood scale); 31.6.4 Investigate and pursue opportunities for landfill methane sequestration; and 31.6.5 Adjust development standards to allow, encourage, and preserve opportunities for alternative energy infrastructure, such as solar panels. 31.7 Jurisdictions should include climate change mitigation strategies in local transportation planning. 31.7.1 Cooperate with regional and countywide transportation initiatives to develop strong regional public transportation options; 31.7.2 Increase alternatives to driving alone; and 31.7.3 Encourage private and public development of transit oriented development throughout the county to reduce the need for personal vehicle use. DI.G Rural Areas Ratification Date 63 NEW CHAPTER COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON RURAL AREAS Background - Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that county comprehensive plans include a rural element that includes lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. This element is guided by multiple sections in the GMA related to rural areas, including RCW 36.70A.030 (Definitions), RCW 36.70A.011 (Findings - Rural lands), RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (Comprehensive plans - Mandatory elements - Rural Element); and others. Rural elements are intended to recognize the importance of rural lands and rural character to Washington's economy, its people, and its environment, while respecting regional differences. In the rural element, counties are to foster land use patterns and develop a local vision of rural character that will: help preserve rural-based economies and traditional rural lifestyles; encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents; foster opportunities for small-scale, rural- based employment and self-employment; permit the operation of rural-based agricultural, commercial, recreational, and tourist businesses that are consistent with existing and planned land use patterns; be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; foster the private stewardship of the land and preservation of open space; and enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life. While the GMA assigns responsibility for adopting a rural element to counties, all jurisdictions in a county, particularly those surrounded by or adjacent to rural lands, have an interest in what occurs on rural lands. Hence, rural lands are included in the Countywide Planning Policies in order to achieve consistency between and among the plans of cities and the county. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 identifies rural lands as permanent and vital parts of the region. It recognizes that rural lands accommodate many activities associated with natural resources, as well as small-scale farming and cottage industries. VISION 2040 emphasizes the preservation of these lands and acknowledges that managing rural growth by directing urban-type development into designated urban lands helps to preserve vital ecosystems and economically productive lands. VISION 2040 also acknowledges recent successes in directing growth away from rural lands. However, it acknowledges that conversion pressures from urban development continue today, particularly through vesting, and calls for continued use of rural lands for farming, forestry, recreation, and low-density development supported by rural services. The Multicounty Planning Policies reinforce this and call for minimizing environmental impacts to rural lands, while providing long-term solutions for the environmental and economic sustainability of rural-based industries. DI.G Rural Areas Ratification Date 64 Countywide Planning Policies Rur-1. Overarching Goal: The County will sustain the ecological functions, resource value, lifestyle, and character of rural lands for future generations by limiting the types and intensities of development in rural areas. Development Patterns Rur-2. Ensure that development in rural areas is consistent with the countywide and regional vision. Rur-3. Prohibit urban net densities in rural areas. Rur-4. Review and revise criteria and regulations to avoid new fully contained communities outside of the designated urban growth area because of their potential to create sprawl and undermine local, countywide, state, and regional growth management goals. Rur-5. In the event that a proposal is made for creating a new fully contained community, the county shall make the proposal available to the Growth Management Coordinating Committee, Pierce County Regional Council, other counties, and to the Regional Council for advance review and comment on countywide and regional impacts. Rur-6. Use existing and new tools and strategies to address vested development to ensure that future growth meets existing permitting and development standards and encourage consolidation where appropriate . Rur-7. Ensure that development occurring in rural areas is rural in character and is focused into communities and activity areas. Rur-8. Accommodate the county’s growth first and foremost in the urban area. Ensure that development in rural areas is consistent with the rural vision. Rur-9. Direct commercial, retail, and community services that serve rural residents into neighboring cities and existing activity areas to prevent the conversion of rural land into commercial uses. Economic Development Rur-10. Support economic activity in rural and natural resource areas at a size and scale that is compatible with the long-term integrity and productivity of these lands. Rur-11. Direct commercial, retail, and community services that serve rural residents into neighboring cities and existing activity areas to prevent the conversion of rural land into commercial uses. DI.G Rural Areas Ratification Date 65 Environment Rur-13. Contribute to improved ecological functions and more appropriate use of rural lands by minimizing impacts through innovative and environmentally sensitive land use management and development practices. Rur-14. Support long-term solutions for the environmental and economic sustainability of agriculture and forestry within rural areas. Transportation Rur-15. Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in rural and resource areas. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and efficient travel through rural areas, appropriate rural development regulations and strong commitments to access management should be in place prior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to prevent unplanned growth in rural areas. Rur-16. Maintain the long-term viability of permanent rural land by avoiding the construction of new highways and major roads in rural areas. Rur-17. Promote transit service to and from existing cities in rural areas. Public Services Rur-18. Do not provide urban services in rural areas. Design services for limited access when they are needed to solve isolated health and sanitation problems, so as not to increase the development potential of the surrounding rural area. Rur-19. Encourage the design of public facilities and utilities in rural areas to be at a size and scale appropriate to rural locations, so as not to increase development pressure. Rur-20. Work with schools, institutions, and other community facilities serving rural residents in neighboring cities and towns and design these facilities in keeping with the size and scale of the local community. Rur-21. Apply development regulations in rural areas that would mitigate the impact of roadway projects that may lead to unplanned growth in the rural area. DI.G Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities Ratification Date 66 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON SITING OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC CAPITAL FACILITIES OF A COUNTYWIDE OR STATEWIDE NATURE SIGNIFICANCE Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that the comprehensive plan of the County and of each municipality in the County include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities [RCW 36.70A.200(1)]. "Essential" public facilities include, but are not limited to, those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in- patient facilities, including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group homes [RCW 36.70A.200(1)]. The State Office of Financial Management is required to maintain a list of essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six (6) years. Facilities may be added to the list at any time. The Growth Management Act further mandates that no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities [RCW 36.70A.200(2)]. Countywide Planning Policy EPF-1. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall adopt a policy and incorporate same in its comprehensive plan, on the siting of essential public capital facilities of a Countywide or statewide nature. 1.1 In addition to eEssential public facilities, other capital facilities included must be for a public use, must have a useful life of 10 years or more and be either: 1.1.1 a Countywide facility which has the potential for serving the entire County or more than one jurisdiction in the County; or 1.1.2 a statewide facility which serves or has the potential for serving the entire state, or which serves less than the entire state, but more than one county. EPF-2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall identify lands useful for public purposes and incorporate such designations in their respective comprehensive plans. EPF-3. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall incorporate a policy and process in their respective comprehensive plans to identify and site essential public facilities on the list maintained by the State Office of Financial Management. The process and policy shall include the following components: 3.1 a requirement that the state provide a justifiable need for the public facility and for its location in Pierce County based upon forecasted needs and a logical service area, and the distribution of facilities in the region and state; DI.G Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities Ratification Date 67 3.2 a requirement that the state establish a public process by which the residents of the County and of affected and "host" municipalities have a reasonable opportunity to participate in the site selection process. EPF-4. The County and municipal policies shall be based upon the following criteria: 4.1 Specific facility requirements: 4.1.1 minimum acreage; 4.1.2 accessibility; 4.1.3 transportation needs and services; 4.1.4 supporting public facility and public service needs and the availability thereof; 4.1.5 health and safety; 4.1.6 site design; 4.1.7 zoning of site; 4.1.8 availability of alternative sites; 4.1.9 community-wide distribution of facilities.; 4.1.10 natural boundaries that determine routes and connections. 4.2 Impacts of the facility: 4.2.1 land use compatibility; 4.2.2 existing land use and development in adjacent and surrounding areas; 4.2.3 existing zoning of surrounding areas; 4.2.4 existing Comprehensive Plan designation for surrounding areas; 4.2.5 present and proposed population density of surrounding area; 4.2.6 environmental impacts and opportunities to mitigate environmental impacts; 4.2.7 effect on agricultural, forest or mineral lands, critical areas and historic, archaeological and cultural sites; 4.2.8 effect on areas outside of Pierce County; 4.2.9 effect on designated open space corridors; 4.2.10 "spin-off" (secondary and tertiary) impacts; 4.2.11 effect on the likelihood of associated development being induced by the siting of the facility. 4.3 Impacts of the facility siting on urban growth area designations and policies: 4.3.1 urban nature of facility; 4.3.2 existing urban growth near facility site; 4.3.3 compatibility of urban growth with the facility; 4.3.4 compatibility of facility siting with respect to urban growth area boundaries. 4.3.5 timing and location of facilities that guide growth and development. DI.G Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities Ratification Date 68 EPF-5. The County and municipal policies shall ensure that the facility siting is consistent with the adopted County and municipal comprehensive plans, including; 5.1 the future land use map and other required and optional plan elements not otherwise listed below; 5.2 the identification of lands for public purposes in the land use element; 5.3 the capital facilities plan element and budget; 5.4 the utilities element; 5.5 the rural element; 5.6 the transportation element; 5.7 the housing element; 5.8 the comprehensive plans of adjacent jurisdictions that may be affected by the facility siting; 5.9 regional general welfare considerations. EPF-6. The County and municipal policies may include standards and criteria related to: 6.1 the time required for construction; 6.2 property acquisition; 6.3 control of on- and off-site impacts during construction; 6.4 expediting and streamlining necessary government approvals and permits if all other elements of the County or municipal policies have been met; 6.5 the quasi-public or public nature of the facility, balancing the need for the facility against the external impacts generated by its siting and the availability of alternative sites with lesser impacts.; 6.6 zoning of area around site to protect against encroachment. EPF-7. The County and municipal policies may include standards and criteria related to: 7.1 facility operations; 7.2 health and safety; DI.G Siting of Essential Public Capital Facilities Ratification Date 69 7.3 nuisance effects; 7.4 maintenance of standards congruent with applicable governmental regulations, particularly as they may change and become more stringent over time.; 7.5 sustainable development practices. EPF-8. The County and municipal policies on facility siting shall be coordinated with and advance other planning goals including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: 8.1 reduction of sprawl development; 8.2 promotion of economic development and employment opportunities; 8.3 protection of the environment; 8.4 positive fiscal impact and on-going benefit to the host jurisdiction; 8.5 serving population groups needing affordable housing; 8.6 receipt of financial or other incentives from the state and/or the County or other municipalities; 8.7 fair distribution of such public facilities throughout the County and state; 8.8 requiring state and federal projects to be consistent with this policy. DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 70 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND STRATEGIES Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act identifies transportation facilities planning and, specifically, encouraging efficient multi-modal transportation systems based on regional priorities and coordinated with local comprehensive plans, as a planning goal to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations [RCW 36.70A.020(3)]. In addition, it identifies a transportation element as a mandatory element of a county or city comprehensive plan [RCW 36.70A.070(6)]. The transportation element must include: (a) land use assumptions used in estimating travel; (b) facilities and services needs; (c) finance; (d) intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions; and (e) demand management strategies [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)- (c)]. The Growth Management Act expressly requires a Countywide Planning Policy on transportation facilities and strategies [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(d)]. The Commute Reduction Efficiency Act of 2006 (RCW 70.94.521-531) goal is to reduce congestion on the roadway network and help address the air pollution issues within the urban areas. This act requires local governments to work with their larger employers to develop and implement strategies for reducing their single occupant auto trips. Jurisdictions affected by the commute trip reduction (CTR) law are required to develop local CTR plans that include the documenting of local transportation setting of the affected work sites and the strategies by which the rate of single occupant vehicle use may be reduced. VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 offers an integrated approach to addressing land use and transportation, along with the environment and economic development. It calls for a clean, sustainable transportation future that supports the regional growth strategy. Sustainable transportation involves the efficient and environmentally sensitive movement of people, information, goods and services – with attention to safety and health. Sustainable transportation minimizes the impacts of transportation activities on our air, water, and climate. It includes the design of walkable cities and bikable neighborhoods, as well as using alternatives to driving alone. It relies on cleaner, renewable resources for energy. The transportation-related multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040 are presented in three groups. The first group of policies calls for maintaining, preserving, and operating the existing transportation system in a safer and more efficient way. They advance transportation that is less polluting. The second group of policies call for developing the system to support the regional growth center, particularly travel within and between centers. Investments are to be prioritized to serve centers and to support pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development. The policies address complete streets to serve all users, green streets that are better for the environment, and context- sensitive design, that guides the development of transportation facilities to better fit within the context of the communities in which they are located. There are policies addressing nonmotorized transportation as well as freight. The final group of policies address greater transportation options, DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 71 including alternatives to driving alone, mobility choices for people with special needs, and avoiding new roads or capacity expansion in rural areas. Countywide Planning Policy Tr-1. Promote a sustainable transportation system that assures the ability of future generations to provide transportation infrastructure and services in an effective, efficient, clean, and cost effective manner. Tr-2. Improve safety in the transportation system by working toward the state’s “zero death and disabling injury” target. 1Tr-3. For the purpose of this Policy, the following transportation services shall be deemed Countywide in nature: 23.1 state and federal highways; 33.2 major arterials; 43.3 public transit facilities and services; 53.4 waterborne transportation (ferries, shipping); 63.5 airports (passenger or freight); 73.6 rail facilities (passenger or freight).; 3.7 nonmotorized facilities. 2Tr-4. The following facilities and system components shall be included in the multi-modal network: 24.1 roads, including major highways, arterials and collectors; 24.2 public transit, including bus, rail, vanpool, paratransit, and park & and ride lots and other emerging concepts; 24.3 nonmotorized facilities; 24.4 ferries; 24.5 airports; 24.6 parking facilities; 24.7 facilities related to transportation demand management. DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 72 3Tr-5. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall consider the impacts of their respective planning activities on neighboring jurisdictional (inclusive of WSDOT) roadway facilities when developing and administering their level of service standards. coordinate service levels between jurisdictions including federal and state departments of transportation and other transportation service providers by: 35.1 designating or adopting roadway, intersection and transit multimodal Llevels of Sservice (LOS) per RCW 36.70A.108 such as:; 5.1.1 for roadways and intersection; and 5.1.2 transit levels of service (e.g., hours of service, headways, pedestrian environment, accessibility, safety, rider comfort, reliability, transfer necessity, cost, and travel time). 3.2 understanding that the adopted LOS will affect not only the quality of the transportation system, but also the amount of public investment required and the permissible growth levels which the transportation system can support; 3.35.2 entering into interlocal agreements, where necessary, to establish uniform, coordinated service levels between jurisdictions for countywide facilities. 4Tr-6. In the County, and in each municipality in the County, the adopted LOS may be: 46.1 set below existing levels (thereby allowing reserve capacity for growth and minimizing the need for new capital investment, but, perhaps allowing congestion above what is tolerable to the public); 46.2 set above existing levels (thereby increasing comfort and convenience of travel, enhancing economic development and minimizing some environmental impacts, but, perhaps, requiring additional public expenditures and/or precipitating development moratoria); 46.3 set at existing levels (thereby allowing new development to mitigate full marginal impacts, but, existing level may not mirror what is acceptable to the public); 46.4 set at different levels of service in different zones; 46.5 set at different levels of service based on facility classifications; 46.6 set for multi-modal facilities;. 46.7 taken directly from standards developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation for Highways of Statewide Significance and directly from DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 73 standards developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council for regionally significant state highways. 5Tr-7. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall determine the adequacy of transportation facilities, including transit infrastructure, taking into account existing development, approved but unbuilt development, current and future roadway conditions, and proposed development multiple modes of transportation through utilization of: 57.1 capacity-to-demand levels of service (LOS); 57.2 availability of capacity based on current and future demand including phased capacity; 57.3 coordination of appropriate standards of design across jurisdictional lines. 6Tr-8. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address substandard LOS for existing facilities or "existing deficiencies" by: 68.1 designating funding mechanisms within each jurisdiction; 68.2 prioritizing facilities needed facility needs in capital improvement and transportation improvement programs to correct existing deficiencies in capital improvements/transportation improvements programs; 68.3 using transportation demand management (i.e., demand-side regulations) to minimize demand created by existing users of transportation facilities; 68.4 using transportation systems management (i.e., supply-side adjustments to transportation system) to redirect traffic to uncongested areas and to modify travel behavior to promote cost effective methods of moving people and goods;. 8.5 promoting nonmotorized travel. 7. The following jurisdictions will be responsible for the correction of existing transportation deficiencies in the Urban Growth Areas: 7.1 the County, in unincorporated areas; 7.2 a municipality, in incorporated areas; 7.3 joint County-municipal, when part of an agreement for a joint planning area. 8Tr-9. The County, and each municipality in the County, in cooperation with the transit and transportation agencies, shall adopt parking regulatory codes for: DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 74 89.1 establish policies and/or regulations for park/ and ride facilities; 89.2 parking requirements for public facilities so as to encourage public transit use. 9Tr-10. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address concurrency through the following methods: 910.1 providing transportation facilities needed to accommodate new development within six years of development approval; 910.2 limiting new development to a level that can be accommodated by existing facilities and facilities planned for completion over the next six years; 910.3 encouraging new and existing development to implement measures to decrease congestion and enhance mobility through transportation demand and congestion management. 10Tr-11. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address compatibility between land use and transportation facilities by: 1011.1 Requiring new transportation facilities and services in areas in which new growth is appropriate or desirable to be phased within a twenty-year time frame consistent with six year capital improvement programs; 1011.2 restricting Discouraging the extension of new transportation facilities into areas not planned for growth (e.g., outside urban growth areas) and avoiding planning of major roads and capacity expansion in rural and resource areas; 1011.3 Using development regulations to ensure that development does not create demands exceeding the capacity of the transportation system, including transit alternatives. 10.3.1 density limits in areas outside of urban growth areas; 10.3.2 concurrency management and adequate public facility regulation; 10.3.3 integrated multi-modal and non-motorized networks. 1011.4 Using land use regulations to increase the modal split between automobiles and other forms of travel: 1011.4.1 Designating high densities in transit and transportation corridors and designated Transit Oriented Development (TOD) sites; 1011.4.2 Dedications/ and impact fees to provide public transit facilities; 1011.4.3 require Requiring pedestrian-oriented design; 1011.4.4 Encouraginge or requiringe mixed use development and TOD; 1011.4.5 Facilitatinge ease of access for physically challenged individuals. DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 75 11.5 Developing plans or planning provisions, where appropriate, to protect the continued operation of general aviation airports by using adopted land compatibility standards such as those published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to discourage incompatible land uses and development on adjacent land. 10.5 approving transportation facilities in conjunction with land use approvals. Tr-112. The County and each municipality shall plan and implement programs, as appropriate, for designing, constructing and operating transportation facilities for all users, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Tr-113. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address environmental impacts of the transportation policies through: 113.1 programming capital improvements and transportation facilities designed to alleviate and mitigate impacts on land use, air quality and energy consumption such as high-occupancy vehicle lanes, public transit infrastructure, or bicycle/pedestrian facilities designed for home-to-work travel; 113.2 locating and constructing transportation improvements so as to discourage adverse impacts on water quality and other environmental features resources. 12. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall address energy consumption/conservation by: 12.1 designing transportation improvements to encourage alternatives to automobile travel; 12.2 locating and designing new development so as to encourage pedestrian or non- automobile travel; 12.3 providing regulatory and financial incentives to encourage the public and private sector to conserve energy; 12.4 reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled and number of vehicle trips. Tr-14. The County and each municipality should use low-impact development practices or environmentally appropriate approaches for the design, construction and operation of transportation facilities to reduce and mitigate environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, storm water runoff from streets and roadways. Tr-135. The County, and each municipality in the County, and in cooperation with transit agencies, shall provide promote the following facilities and services to encourage DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 76 alternatives to automobile travel and/or to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (modal split, trip generation and trip length) including: 135.1 structural alternatives (public transit [such as fixed grade separated guideways guideway/rail systems, for buses, paratransit services and rail applications]; construction of new high-occupant vehicle lanes; limitations on highway/roadway construction; carpool/vanpool facilities; non-recreational bicycle/pedestrian facilities); 135.2 non-structural/regulatory alternatives (growth management [concurrency; urban growth areas]; road/congestion pricing; auto-restricted zones; parking management; site design; ridesharing incentives, and transportation systems and demand management). 14. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall utilize the following transportation systems management measures (i.e., measures to improve the efficiency of the existing transportation network by utilizing lower cost and more quickly implemented improvements) to make the most efficient use of the existing roadway system: 14.1 structural improvements (e.g., super street arterials, signalization improvements, computerized signal systems, one-way streets, ramp metering, designation of HOV lanes, reversible traffic lanes); 14.2 non-structural improvements (e.g., incident detection and monitoring systems; network surveillance and control; motorist information systems; turn prohibitions; alternative work hours). Tr-16. The County and its cities shall work with transit agencies to identify and preserve existing rights-of-way in order to preserve options for future transit alignments. Tr-17. The County and cities will work in cooperation with WSDOT and Port authorities to plan and implement projects and programs to meet freight mobility and access needs, including the establishment of programs designed to maintain, preserve and expand freight rail capacity including planning for needed capital improvements. Tr-158. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall consider a number of financing measures, including but not limited to: 158.1 general revenues; 158.2 fuel taxes; 158.3 toll roads and other user fees; 158.4 bonding; DI.G Transportation Facilities and Strategies Ratification Date 77 158.5 congestion pricing; 158.6 public/private partnerships, and public/public partnerships; 158.7 assessment and improvement districts, facility benefit assessments, impact fees, dedication of right-of-way and voluntary funding agreements; 14.8 grants; 154.89 others, as may be appropriate. 16. Access needs and control for County and/or municipal funded transportation facilities will be coordinated through: 16.1 designating limited access facilities in the regional plan; 16.2 determining access regulations through mutual agreement by the affected jurisdictions and/or by an agency designated by the affected jurisdictions; 16.3 developing access regulations by the agency having primary jurisdiction or funding responsibility. Tr-19. Protect the transportation investments and preservation of assets through the proper operations and maintenance. Tr-20. Protect the transportation system against disaster, develop prevention and recovery strategies, and plan for coordinated responses by using transportation-related preparedness, prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery strategies and procedures adopted in the emergency management plans and hazard mitigation plans of the County and cities, as well as the Washington State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 78 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY ON URBAN GROWTH AREAS, PROMOTION OF CONTIGUOUS AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT Background - Requirements of Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act has as planning goals identifies the encouragement of development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner [RCW 36.70A.020(1)],the reduction of sprawl (i.e., the inappropriate or premature conversion of undeveloped land into low-density development) [RCW 36.70A.020(2)], and the provision of adequate public facilities and services necessary to support urban development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use (without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards) [RCW 36.70A.020(12)] as planning goals. to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The Growth Management Act further requires (1) that the County designate an "urban growth area" (UGA) or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth shall occur only if it is not "urban" in character; (2) that each municipality in the County be included within an UGA; (3) that an UGA include territory outside of existing municipal boundaries only if such territory is characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to territory that is already characterized by urban growth. [RCW 36.70A.110(1); for definition of "urban growth" see RCW 36.70A.030(17).] The designated UGAs shall be of adequate size and appropriate permissible densities so as to accommodate the urban growth that is projected by the State Office of Financial Management to occur in the County for the succeeding 20-year period. While each UGA shall permit urban densities, it shall also include greenbelt and open space areas [RCW 36.70A.110(2)]. As to the timing and sequencing of urban growth and development over the 20-year planning period, urban growth shall occur first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and service capacities to service such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources [RCW 36.70A.110(3)]. Urban government services shall be provided primarily by cities, and should not be provided in rural areas it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development [RCW 36.70A.110(4)]. The Growth Management Act Amendments expressly require that countywide planning policies address the implementation of UGA designations [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(a)], the promotion of contiguous and orderly development, the provision of urban services to such development [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(b)], and the coordination of joint county and municipal planning within UGAs [RCW 36.70A.210(3)(f)]. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 79 VISION 2040 Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 calls for a more efficient, sustainable, and strategic use of the region’s land. It identifies urban lands as a critical component to accommodate population and employment growth in a sustainable way. VISION 2040 calls for directing development to the region’s existing urban lands, especially in centers and compact communities, and limiting growth on rural lands. The Regional Growth Strategy found in VISION 2040 allocates 93 percent of the region’s future population growth and 97 percent of its employment growth into the existing urban growth area. Cities are divided into four distinct groups: Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, Large Cities, and Small Cities. An additional geography is Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. VISION 2040 recognizes that unincorporated urban lands are often similar in character to cities they are adjacent to, calling for them to be affiliated with adjacent cities for joint planning purposes and future annexation. VISION 2040 recognizes that compact development creates vibrant, livable, and healthy urban communities that offer economic opportunities for all, provide housing and transportation choices, and use our resources wisely. The Multicounty Planning Policies support the effective use of urban land and include provisions that address brownfield and contaminated site clean-up, the development of compact communities and centers with pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented locations and a mix of residences, jobs, retail, and other amenities, and the siting of facilities and major public amenities in compact urban communities and centers. VISION 2040 recognizes that centers provide easy access to jobs, services, shopping, and entertainment. With their mix of uses and pedestrian-friendly design, they can rely less on forms of transportation that contribute to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. VISION 2040 identifies 27 regional growth centers. These places play an important role as locations of the region’s most significant business, governmental, and cultural facilities. The 18 cities that have one or more regional growth centers are expected to accommodate a significant portion of the region’s residential growth (53 percent) and employment growth (71 percent). VISION 2040 calls for local jurisdictions with regional growth centers to adopt housing and employment targets for each center. Eight regional manufacturing/industrial centers have also been designated. These are locations for more intensive commercial and industrial activity. Both regional growth centers and regional manufacturing/industrial centers are focal points for economic development and transportation infrastructure investments. Subregional centers, including downtowns in suburban cities and other neighborhood centers, also play an important role in VISION 2040’s Regional Growth Strategy. These, too, are strategic locations for concentrating jobs, housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. VISION 2040 calls for each of the region’s cities to develop one or more central places as compact mixed-use hubs for concentrating residences, jobs, shops, and community facilities. Urban services addressed in VISION 2040 include wastewater and stormwater systems, solid waste, energy, telecommunications, emergency services, and water supply. An overarching goal of VISION 2040 is to provide sufficient and efficient public services and facilities in a manner that is healthy, safe, and economically viable. Conservation is a major theme throughout VISION 2040. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 80 The Multicounty Planning Policies address increasing recycling and reducing waste and encouraging more efficient use of water, low-impact development techniques, and renewable and alternative energy. The Multicounty Planning Policies also address siting of public facilities and the appropriateness and scale of particular public services. VISION 2040 calls for jurisdictions to invest in facilities and amenities that serve centers and restrict urban facilities in rural and resource areas. The Multicounty Planning Policies also discourage schools and other institutions serving urban residents from locating outside the urban growth area. Principles of Understanding Between Pierce County and the Municipalities in Pierce County While following the goals and regulations of the Growth Management Act, Pierce County and the municipalities in Pierce County will strive to protect the individual identities and spirit of each of our cities and of the rural areas and unincorporated communities. Further agreements will be necessary to carry out the framework of joint planning adopted herein. These agreements will be between the County and each city and between the various cities. The services provided within our communities by special purpose districts are of vital importance to our citizens. Consistent with the adopted regional strategy, these districts will be part of future individual and group negotiations under the framework adopted by the County and municipal governments. While the Growth Management Act defines sewer service as an urban service, Pierce County currently is a major provider of both sewer transmission and treatment services. The County and municipalities recognize that it is appropriate for the County and municipalities to continue to provide sewer transmission and treatment services. The County recognizes that unincorporated lands within UGAs are often potential annexation areas for cities. These are also areas where incorporation of new cities can occur. The County will work with existing municipalities and emerging communities to make such transitions efficiently. At the same time, annexations and incorporations have direct and significant impacts on the revenue of county government, and therefore, may affect the ability of the County to fulfill its role as a provider of certain regional services. The municipalities will work closely with the County to develop appropriate revenue sharing and contractual services arrangements that facilitate the goals of GMA. The Countywide Planning Policies are intended to be the consistent "theme" of growth management planning among the County and municipalities. The policies also spell out processes and mechanisms designed to foster open communication and feedback among the jurisdictions. The County and the cities and towns will adhere to the processes and mechanisms provided in the policies. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 81 Growth Targets The Regional Growth Strategy set forth in VISION 2040 provides guidance for the distribution of future population and employment growth through the year 2040 within the Central Puget Sound Region. This strategy in combination with the Office of Financial Management’s population forecasts provide a framework for establishing growth targets consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Consistent with VISION 2040, these growth targets are the minimum number of residents, housing units, or jobs a given jurisdiction is planning to accommodate within the appropriate planning horizon and are informational tools integrated into local land use plans to assist in formulating future residential and employment land needs. These targets are to be developed through a collaborative countywide process that ensures all jurisdictions are accommodating a fair share of growth. Achievement of the future envisioned by VISION 2040 will be challenging. Jurisdictions in some regional geographies will likely be planning for growth targets that are above or below the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy because they are on a front- or back-loaded growth trajectory toward 2040. In other regional geographies, recent growth has been at such significant odds with the policy direction set by the Regional Growth Strategy (such as recent growth in unincorporated urban Pierce County from 2000 to 2007 has already accounted for more than half of the 40-year growth allocation), that the 2040 goal will likely be exceeded. In such cases, jurisdictions are asked to set growth targets as close to VISION 2040 as reasonably possible in an effort to “bend the trend” of future growth to more closely conform to the Regional Growth Strategy. If a jurisdiction’s adopted target is lower or higher than expected from a straight-line application of the Regional Growth Strategy, certification by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) will be based on the actions and measures taken or proposed to be put in place to bend the trend, not just on an assessment of the adopted targets. It is recognized that some of the urban growth areas in existence prior to the adoption of VISION 2040 may contain more potential housing and employment capacity based upon zoning, allowed density, land division patterns, and other factors than is needed to accommodate the growth target of the associated geography. In many cases, these urban growth areas have been in existence for a decade or more, contain existing development patterns which are urban in character, and are served by sanitary sewer and other urban infrastructure. These areas are largely expected to remain within the urban growth area consistent with their urban character. Expansion of these urban growth area boundaries that do not comply with provisions in the Amendments and Transition section of these policies is acknowledged to be inconsistent with CPPs and is strongly discouraged. Centers Centers are to be areas of concentrated employment and/or housing within UGAs which serve as the hubs of transit and transportation systems. Centers and connecting corridors are integral to creating compact urban development that conserves resources and creates additional transportation, housing, and shopping choices. Centers are an important part of the regional strategy (VISION 2040) for urban growth and are required to be addressed in the Countywide Planning Policies. Centers will become focal points for growth within the county's UGA and will be areas where public investment is directed. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 82 Centers are to: x be priority locations for accommodating growth; x strengthen existing development patterns; x promote housing opportunities close to employment; x support development of an extensive multimodal transportation system which reduces dependency on automobiles; x reduce congestion and improve air quality; and x maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services. VISION 2040, the adopted regional growth strategy, identifies several different types of centers as an integral feature for accommodating residential and employment growth. , including three types of Urban Centers: (1) Regional Center, (2) Metropolitan Center, (3) Urban Center, which feature a mix of land uses, as well as a category for Town Center. (Note: In 2003, PSRC replaced the term “Urban Centers” with “Regional Growth Centers.” Regional Growth Centers is the term used in PSRC’s Designation Criteria.) The strategy describes Regional Growth Centers, and other centers that may be designated through countywide processes or locally. Regional Growth Centers once regionally designated are located either in Metropolitan Cities, or in Core Cities. VISION 2040 also identifies Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, which consist primarily of manufacturing and industrial uses. (See 1995 VISION 2040 Update, pages 85 and 86.) Pierce County has five Urban Centers and two Manufacturing/Industrial Centers that have been adopted into the regional vision. Pierce County has five Regional Growth Centers and two Manufacturing/Industrial Centers that have been adopted into the regional growth strategy. Pierce County Regional Growth Centers are designated as either located in Tacoma, which is a Metropolitan City, and in Lakewood and Puyallup, which are Core Cities. Centers, Regional Growth Centers, or Countywide Centers as follows: Regional Growth Centers in the Metropolitan City Centers Tacoma Central Business District Tacoma Mall Regional Growth Centers in Core Cities Tacoma Mall Lakewood Puyallup Downtown Puyallup South Hill Currently there are no designated Countywide Centers. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are areas where employee- or land-intensive uses will be located. These centers differ from Regional Growth Centers in that they consist of an extensive land base and the exclusion of non-manufacturing or manufacturing-supportive uses is an essential feature of their character. These areas are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing, industrial, and advanced technology employment uses. Large retail and non-related office uses are discouraged. Other than caretakers' residences, housing is prohibited within Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. However, these centers should be linked to high density housing DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 83 areas by an efficient multimodal transportation system. The efficiency of rail and overland freight to markets is the critical element for manufacturers and industries located in these centers. The designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, within Pierce County are as follows: Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Frederickson Port of Tacoma Within Pierce County, a limited number of additional centers may be designated through amendment of the Countywide Planning Policies consistent with the process below. Designated centers may vary substantially in the number of households and jobs they contain today. The intent of the Countywide Planning Policies is that Regional Growth Centers become attractive places to live and work, while supporting efficient public services such as transit and being responsive to the local market for jobs and housing. The Countywide Planning Policies establish target levels for housing and employment needed to achieve the benefit of a center. Some centers will reach these levels over the next twenty years, while for others the criteria set a path for growth over a longer term, providing capacity to accommodate growth beyond the twenty year horizon. County-Level Centers Designation Process The County and any municipality in the County that is planning to include a Metropolitan City Center, Regional Growth Center, Countywide Center or Manufacturing / Industrial Center within its boundaries shall specifically define the area of such center within its comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan shall include policies aimed at focusing growth within the center and along corridors consistent with the applicable criteria contained within the Countywide Planning Policies. The County or municipality shall adopt regulations that reinforce the center’s designation. No more often than once every two years, the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) shall invite jurisdictions with centers already adopted in their comprehensive plan that seek to be designated as centers in the Countywide Planning Policies to submit a request for such designation. Said request shall be processed in accordance with established procedures for amending the Countywide Planning Policies. Each jurisdiction seeking to have a center designated in the Countywide Planning Policies shall provide the PCRC with a report demonstrating that the proposed center meets the minimum criteria for designation together with a statement and map describing the center, its consistency with the applicable Countywide Planning Policies, and how adopted regulations will serve the center. Transit services shall be defined in the broadest sense and shall include local and regional bus service, rail where appropriate, vanpool, carpool, and other transportation demand measures designed to reduce vehicle trips. The minimum designation criteria to establish a candidate center by type are as follows: DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 84 Metropolitan City Center Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size; Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; Employment: a minimum of 25 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands with a minimum of 15,000 employees; Population: a minimum of ten households per gross acre; and Transit: serve as a focal point for regional and local transit services. Regional Growth Center Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size; Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; Employment: a minimum of 2,000 employees; Population: a minimum of seven households per gross acre; and Transit: serve as a focal point for regional and local transit services. Countywide Center Area: up to one square mile in size; Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; Employment: a minimum of 1,000 employees; Population: a minimum of 6 households per gross acre; and Transit: serve as a focal point for local transit services. Manufacturing / Industrial Center Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; Employment: a minimum of 7,500 jobs and/or 2,000 truck trips per day; and Transportation: within one mile of a state or federal highway or national rail line. The minimum criteria report and statement shall be reviewed by the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC) for consistency with Countywide Planning Policies, the Transportation Coordination Committee for consistency with transportation improvements plans of WSDOT, and with Pierce Transit’s comprehensive plan. The coordinating committees shall provide joint recommendation to the PCRC. Once included in the Countywide Planning Policies, the jurisdiction where a center is located may go on to seek regional designation of the center from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in accordance with its established criteria and process. In order to be designated a Regional Growth Center the center should meet the regional criteria and requirements including those in VISION 2040, the regional growth, economic and transportation strategy as may be amended and designated by the Puget Sound Regional Council. After county-level designation occurs within the Countywide Planning Policies and until regional- level designation by the PSRC occurs the center shall be considered a “candidate” Regional Growth Center. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 85 Each jurisdiction which designates a Regional Growth Center shall establish 20-year household and employment growth targets for that Center. The expected range of targets will reflect the diversity of the various centers and allow communities to effectively plan for needed services. The target ranges not only set a policy for the level of growth envisioned for each center, but also for the timing and funding of infrastructure improvements. Reaching the target ranges will require careful planning of public investment and providing incentives for private investments. Urban Growth Outside of Centers A variety of urban land uses and areas of growth will occur outside of designated centers but within the UGA. Local land use plans will guide the location, scale, timing and design of development within UGAs. The UGA will be where the majority of future growth and development will be targeted. Development should be encouraged which complements the desired focus of growth into centers and supports a multimodal transportation system. For example, policies which encourage infill and revitalization of communities would help to achieve the regional and statewide objectives of a compact and concentrated development pattern within urban areas. The Countywide Planning Policies provide guidance for development and the provision of urban services to support development within the UGA. Satellite Cities and Towns The cities and towns in the rural areas are a significant part of Pierce County's diversity and heritage. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns are the appropriate providers of local rural services for the community. They also contribute to the variety of development patterns and housing choices within the county. As municipalities, these cities and towns provide urban services and are located within the County's designated UGA. The urban services, residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large, contiguous portion of the UGA in Pierce County. Countywide Planning Policy UGA-1. The County shall designate a countywide urban growth area, and identify where appropriate municipal urban growth areas within the countywide urban growth area, based on consultations between the County and each municipality. and pursuant to the following process: 1.1 Preliminary County designation of proposed countywide urban growth area; 1.2 Initial proposals for municipal urban growth areas made by municipalities; 1.1 County review of initial municipal urban growth area proposals considering: 1.1.1 Growth Management Act criteria and standards; 1.1.2 coordination with other countywide policies, particularly those on agricultural land preservation; natural resources, open space and DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 86 protection of environmentally-sensitive lands; transportation; and affordable housing; 1.1.3 overlapping proposed municipal urban growth area boundaries; 1.1.4 gaps between proposed urban growth area boundaries. 1.21 County referral of proposed urban growth area designations to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC). 1.21.1 The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) may refer the proposed designations to the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC), or its successor entity for technical advice and for a report. 1.21.2 The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) may conduct public meetings to review the proposed designation and, at such meetings, may accept oral or written comments and communications from the public. 1.21.3 At the conclusion of its review and analysis, the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) shall make a recommendation to the County and to the municipalities in the County. 1.3 County designation and attempt to reach agreement through negotiation with each municipality or, in case of impasse, through a designated mediation process within the County prior to State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development review; 1.3.1 if no agreement, justification by County in writing for designated urban growth area delineation; 1.3.2 possible formal objection by municipality to Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board; 1.3.3 resolution of conflict via mediation by State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development; 1.4 Following an agreement between the County and municipality on the designation of the urban growth area, or, in the case of an impasse, following a designation determination via mediation by the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development or directive by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, the legislative body of the County shall consider adoption of the urban growth area designation by ordinance. 1.5 The adopted urban growth area designations shall be transmitted to the legislative bodies of each municipality in the County and said municipality shall consider ratification by resolution or ordinance. 1.62 Once adopted by the County, the urban growth area designations shall not be changed except in accordance with the Countywide Policy on “Amendments and Transition.” DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 87 1.2.1 A jurisdiction shall not be required to modify existing urban growth area boundaries in order to reduce the residential or employment capacity to conform to adopted growth targets reflecting VISION 2040’s Regional Growth Strategy. Jurisdictions shall, however, consider the adopted growth targets when updating their local comprehensive plans. 1.2.2 Growth targets are the minimum number of residents, housing units, or jobs a given jurisdiction is planning to accommodate within the appropriate planning horizon and are to be developed through a collaborative countywide process that ensures all jurisdictions are accommodating a fair share of growth. These targets are informational tools integrated into local land use plans to assist in formulating future residential and employment land needs. UGA-2. The following specific factors and criteria shall dictate the size and boundaries of urban growth areas: 2.1 Size 2.1.1 Urban growth areas must be of sufficient size to accommodate only the urban growth projected to occur over the succeeding 20-year planning period taking into account the following: a. land with natural constraints, such as critical areas (environmentally- sensitive land); b. agricultural land to be preserved; c. greenbelts and open space; d. New Fully Contained Communities pursuant to RCW § 36.70A.350 consistent with the classification of centers as specified in the VISION 2020 Plan. (New fully contained communities are characterized by mixed uses, i.e., residential of various types and styles, commercial, office and other, presence of employment centers, affordable housing and transportation modalities. A large- scale residential-only development does not qualify as a new fully contained community for purposes of this Policy.); e. maintaining a supply of developable land sufficient to allow market forces to operate and precluding the possibility of a land monopoly but no more than is absolutely essential to achieve the above purpose; f. existing projects with development potential at various stages of the approval or permitting process (i.e., the "pipeline"); g. land use patterns created by subdivisions, short plats or large lot divisions; h. build-out of existing development and areas which are currently only partially built out; i. follow existing parcel boundary lines (if a parcel is split and more than 50% is within the urban growth boundary, the entire parcel shall DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 88 be considered part of the urban growth area as long as the increase does not exceed 2% of the municipality's total urban growth area). 2.1.2. The County, and each municipality in the County, shall cooperatively develop and propose objective standards and criteria to disaggregate the State Office of Financial Management's Countywide growth forecasts and VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy forecasts for the allocation of projected population to the County and municipalities, taking into account utilizing as the primary criteria the availability and concurrency of public facilities and services with the impact of development, as well as the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. 2.1.3 The County shall use a consistent countywide targeting process for allocating population and employment growth consistent with the regional vision, including establishing: a. local employment targets, b. local housing targets based on population projections, and c. local housing and employment targets for each designated regional growth center. 2.2 Boundaries 2.2.1 Any of the following shall be considered in determining the location of urban growth area boundaries: a. geographic, topographic, and manmade features; b. public facility and service availability, limits and extensions; c. jurisdictional boundaries including special improvement districts; d. location of designated natural resource lands and critical areas; e. avoidance of unserviceable islands of County land surrounded by other jurisdictional entities; f. Destination 2030 urban/rural line and PSCAA burn ban line. Phasing of Development within the Urban Growth Area 2.3 The County and each municipality in the County shall seek to direct growth as follows: a. first to cities and towns, centers and urbanized areas with existing infrastructure capacity; b. second to areas that are already urbanized such that infrastructure improvements can be easily extended; and c. last to areas requiring major infrastructure improvements. 2.3.1 Capital facilities plans shall identify existing, planned, and future infrastructure needs within Urban Growth Areas. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 89 2.3.2 The County and each municipality in the County should identify appropriate levels of service and concurrency standards that address schools, sewer, water, and parks. 2.3.3 The County and each municipality in the County shall identify appropriate levels of service and multimodal concurrency standards that address roads. 2.4 Municipal urban growth area boundaries shall be determined as set forth above and with consideration for the following additional factors: 2.4.1 the VISION 2020 2040 document, including Multicounty Planning Policies; 2.4.2 the carrying capacity of the land considering natural resources, agricultural land and environmentally-sensitive lands; 2.4.3 population, housing, and employment projections; 2.4.4 financial capabilities and urban services capacities; 2.4.5 consistency and compatibility with neighborhood, local and regional plans; 2.4.6 the existing land use and subdivision pattern. 2.5 The urban growth area in unincorporated portions of the County shall be limited to the following: 2.5.1 build-out of existing partially developed areas with urban services; 2.5.2 new fully contained communities; 2.5.3 redevelopment corridors. 2.6 The County's urban growth area may be extended to allow for build-out of newly developed areas only if development capacity within municipal urban growth boundaries and growth in the areas identified in Policy 2.5 is determined to be inadequate to meet total population and employment projections consistent with the other policies set forth herein. 2.7 Encourage efficient use of urban land by maximizing the development potential of existing urban lands, such as advancing development that achieves zoned density. 2.8 The municipal urban growth areas as well as unincorporated urban growth areas not affiliated with a city or town, in existence prior to the adoption of VISION 2040 may contain capacity beyond that needed to accommodate the growth target per regional geography for the succeeding 20-year planning period based upon existing zoning designations, allowed density, existing land division patterns, and similar factors. It is permissible for such areas to continue to be designated as urban growth areas. Expansion of these urban growth areas boundaries is acknowledged to be inconsistent with the CPPs and strongly DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 90 discouraged if the urban growth area expansion is not in accordance with policy AT-2.3. Urban Public Services UGA-3. Within the delineated urban growth areas, the County, and each municipality in the County, shall adopt measures to ensure that growth and development are timed and phased consistent with the provision of adequate public facilities and services. 3.1 "Adequacy" shall be defined by locally established service level standards for local facilities and services both on the site and off-site. For facilities and services provided by other agencies, adequacy shall be defined by level of service standards mutually agreed upon by the service provider and the jurisdiction served. The definition of levels of service standards may allow for the phasing-in of such standards as may be provided in the capital facilities element of County or municipal comprehensive plans. 3.2 "Public facilities" include: 3.2.1 Streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, and traffic signals 3.2.2 Domestic water systems 3.2.3 Sanitary sewer systems 3.2.4 Storm sewer systems 3.2.5 Park and recreational facilities 3.2.6 Schools 3.3 "Public services" include: 3.3.1 Fire protection and suppression 3.3.2 Law enforcement 3.3.3 Public health 3.3.4 Education 3.3.5 Recreation 3.3.6 Environmental protection 3.3.7 Other governmental services, including power, transit and libraries 3.4 Public Sanitary Sewer Service. The following policies shall be applicable to the provision of public sanitary sewer service in the County and its municipalities: 3.4.1 Relationship of Sewer Interceptors to Comprehensive Plans. The timing, phasing and location of sewer interceptor expansions shall be included in the capital facilities element of the applicable municipal or County comprehensive plans and shall be consistent with Countywide Planning Policies, the Urban Growth Area boundaries and the local comprehensive land use plan. The phased expansions shall be coordinated among the DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 91 County and the municipalities therein and shall give priority to existing unserved urbanized areas within the Urban Growth Area except as provided in 3.4.2 a. and b. below. 3.4.2 Public Sewer Interceptor and Service Extensions/Expansions: a. Public sewer interceptors shall only extend or expand outside of Urban Growth Areas where: (i) sewer service will remedy ground water contamination and other health problems by replacing septic systems, or (ii) a formal binding agreement to service an approved planned development was made prior to the establishment of the Urban Growth Area, or (iii) an interceptor will convey wastewater originating within a designated Urban Growth Area to sewerage facilities in another designated Urban Growth Area, or b. New sanitary sewer service inside Urban Growth Areas must follow phasing of capital facilities as provided in the municipality's adopted comprehensive plan or any adopted Sewer Master Plan unless: (i) sewer service will remedy ground water contamination and other health problems by replacing septic systems and community on-site sewage systems, or (ii) a new municipality incorporates, or (iii) a formal binding agreement to service an approved planned development was made prior to the establishment of the Urban Growth Area; (iv) an interceptor will convey wastewater originating within a designated Urban Growth Area to sewerage facilities in another designated Urban Growth Area. c. New sanitary sewer service connections from interceptors shall not be made available to properties outside the Urban Growth Area except as provided in (a) above. d. Sanitary Sewer service shall not be provided in areas designated "rural," except as provided in 3.4.2(a)(i)(ii) e. A sewer interceptor or trunk line constructed or planned for construction through a rural area to convey wastewater from a designated Urban Growth Area to sewerage facilities in a designated Urban Growth Area shall not constitute a change of conditions that can be used as the basis for a change in land use designation or urban/rural designation, either for adjacent or nearby properties. 3.4.3 On-Site and Community Sewage Systems a. In order to protect the public health and safety of the citizens of Pierce County and of the municipalities in the County, to preserve and protect environmental quality including, but not limited to, water quality and to protect aquifer recharge areas, to work toward the goal of eliminating the development of new residential and commercial DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 92 uses on on-site and community sewage systems within the urban areas in the unincorporated County or within municipal boundaries consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, the County and each municipality shall adopt policies on the use of on-site and community sewage including: (i) the most current Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health Land Use Regulations for On-Site and Community Sewerage Systems (ii) policies which require connection to sanitary sewers when they are available in the following circumstances: (a) if a septic system fails, (b) for all new development except existing single-family lots, (c) for development with dry sewer systems. (iii) if sewer service is not available, dry sewer facilities shall be required. b. New industrial development on community or on-site sewage systems shall not be allowed in urban areas in the unincorporated County or within municipal boundaries. Sanitary facilities necessary for recreation sites may be exempt from this policy. c. It is not the intent of these policies to require any individual property owner on an existing, properly permitted and functioning septic system to connect to a public sewer unless: (i) the septic system fails; (ii) or the system is not in compliance with the most current version of the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health Land Use Regulations or the current use of the property changes; (iii) or the density of development on the property increases; (iv) or the existing septic system was originally permitted as an interim system to be abandoned when sewers became available; (v) or a municipality had a mandatory policy. 3.4.4 Achieving an adopted Level of Sewer Service a. The County, each municipality, and sewer providers shall work together to achieve adopted levels of service for sewers. All sewer service providers shall work with municipalities to process sewer permits in a manner that allows municipalities to comply with timelines imposed under RCW 36.70B.080(1). b. The County, each municipality, and their sewer providers shall work to secure funding sources to achieve the adopted levels of sewer service such as: (i) Grants (ii) Public Works Trust Fund (iii) State Revolving Fund (iv) Centennial Clean Water Fund DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 93 (v) Municipally imposed surcharges to fund sewer improvements in the jurisdictions where the surcharges are collected. 3.4.5 The availability or potential for availability of sewer treatment plant capacity shall not be used to justify expansion of the sewer system or development in a manner inconsistent with the Countywide Planning Policy, Urban Growth Area boundaries and the applicable municipal or County comprehensive land use plans. 3.5 Non-Municipal Service-Provision Entities 3.5.1 Special purpose districts shall conform their capital facility and service plans so as to be consistent with the capital facility element of the County or municipal comprehensive plans. 3.5.2 Where facilities and services will be provided by special purpose, improvement or facility service provision entities, such entities shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services with the County, and each affected municipality in the County, so that new growth and development is, in fact, served by adequate public facilities and services at the time of development. 3.6 The County, and each municipality in the County, shall adopt plans and implementation measures to ensure that sprawl and leapfrog development are discouraged in accordance with the following: 3.6.1 urban growth within UGA boundaries is located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development; 3.6.2 urban growth is located next in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources; 3.6.3 "urban growth" refers to a predominance of areas or uses within the Urban Growth Area which exhibit one or a combination of the following: a. intensive use of land for buildings and structures; b. high percentage of impermeable surfaces; c. incompatibility with the primary use of land for the production of food, other agricultural products or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources; d. need for urban governmental services. 3.6.4 "Characterized by urban growth" refers to: a. land having urban growth on it; b. land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth. 3.6.5 Urban government services shall be provided primarily by cities and urban government services shall not be provided in rural areas. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 94 3.7 Public facilities and services will be considered available "at the time of development" as follows: 3.7.1 as to all public facilities and services other than transportation, if the facility or service is in place at the time demand is created, or if the County or municipality has made appropriate provision to meet the demand for the public facility or service through one or more of the following techniques: a. inclusion of the public facility or service in the applicable County or municipal capital facilities plan element and specification of the full source of the funding for such project; b. impact fees; c. required land dedication; d. assessment districts; e. users fees and charges; f. utility fees; g. other. 3.7.2 as to transportation facilities, if needed transportation improvements are within the then existing 6-year capital facilities plan element and program, but only if a specific financial commitment to the transportation improvement project has been made. 3.7.3 public facilities and services will not be considered available at the time of development unless they are provided consistently with the applicable level of service standards adopted in the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. 3.8 Public facility and service adequacy shall be determined by the County, and each municipality in the County, based upon: 3.8.1 the specific public facility or service; 3.8.2 the adopted or established level of service standard a. established by each municipality for local facilities and services; b. by mutual agreement between provider and municipality served for other facilities and services; c. established through interlocal agreements for cross-jurisdictional facilities and services. 3.8.3 the current usage of the existing public facilities and services, existing development commitments and obligations, the vested or non-vested status of pipeline approvals or existing lots of record, and new development applications. 3.8.4 where development projects partially meet adequacy of public facilities and services standards, development approval may be authorized for that portion of the project that meets the adequacy standards or the project may be phased to coincide with the phasing of future availability of adequate public facilities and services. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 95 3.9 Facility and service provision/extension to new development areas shall be subject to the following: 3.9.1 imposition of requirement for payment of the full, but fair, share of costs of needed facilities and services on the new development through: a. impact fees; b. assessment districts; c. user fees and charges; d. surcharges; e. dedication; f. utility fees; g. other, as appropriate. 3.9.2 consideration of the total impact of the facility or service extension on the achievement of other policies, goals and objectives, in addition to the impact on the area being served. 3.9.3 if necessary to minimize off-site impacts, specify that such service extensions (e.g., sewer, water) are not subject to connection by intervening landowners. Joint Planning UGA-4. Joint planning. Joint planning between local governments can provide numerous possible benefits, including but not limited to: x More efficient delivery of services x Shared use of public facilities x Coordinated permitting processes x Cost-sharing for planning and construction of public facilities (e.g., water, sewer infrastructure, parks, etc.) x Consistent development standards x Shared regional data, including GIS data x Proactive identification of potential issues 4.1 Joint planning may be municipal-municipal as well as municipal-County. The County and each municipality shall jointly plan for the designated urban growth area of that municipality (outside of municipal corporate limits) and may include municipal utility service areas. Joint municipal-municipal planning may occur in those other areas where the respective jurisdictions agree such planning would be beneficial. 4.2 Any jurisdiction initiating joint planning with one or more other jurisdictions shall do so by submitting a written proposal from its legislative authority to the legislative authority of the other jurisdiction(s). In forming its proposal, the initiating jurisdiction should consider the Joint Planning Framework recommended by the Pierce County Regional Council, April 15, 1993, and DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 96 adopted by Resolution No. R93-127 of the Pierce County Council, July 13, 1993. The proposal shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 4.2.1 size of the proposed joint planning study area; 4.2.2 location of the proposed study area in relation to urban growth boundaries; 4.2.3 description of the issues proposed to be addressed in the joint planning process; 4.2.4 proposed end-product of the joint planning process (e.g., amendments to comprehensive plans or implementing ordinances of each jurisdiction, interlocal agreement, etc.); 4.2.5 proposed resources (e.g., staff, funding, technology, etc.) to be provided by the initiating jurisdiction toward completing the joint planning process; 4.2.6 evidence that notification of the joint planning process will be provided to residents, property owners, businesses, service providers, special districts, or other parties affected by the proposed joint planning process. 4.3 A jurisdiction receiving a proposal under policy 4.2 (above) for joint municipal-County planning required by these policies (see 4.1 above) shall respond by either: 4.3.1 issuing a resolution of its legislative authority indicating an intent to enter into a joint planning process as proposed; or 4.3.2 entering into discussions with the proposing jurisdiction regarding alternatives to joint planning proposal; or 4.3.3 proposing to Pierce County that the proposal be included as part of an appropriate community planning process, if mutually agreeable to all jurisdictions involved. If at any time Pierce County receives more proposals for participation in joint planning than its resources will provide, the County shall forward the proposals to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) for consideration and a recommendation on prioritization based on planning needs. The Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) shall consider proposals for joint planning that have been forwarded to them, and prioritize the proposals according to the probable benefit to the County as a whole. Prioritization shall be based on the information included in the proposal, plus other criteria agreed upon by the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC). These criteria could include, but are not limited to: 4.3.4 rate of growth in the proposed study area; 4.3.5 scope of existing municipal utility provision in the proposed study area; 4.3.6 existence of special districts serving both the proposed study area and the municipality; 4.3.7 degree to which development standards or comprehensive plan policies may differ between jurisdictions within the proposed study area; DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 97 4.3.8 criteria 4.5.1 through 4.5.3 below. 4.4 When joint planning is required, the joint planning effort shall determine and resolve issues including, but not limited to, the following: 4.4.1 how zoning, subdivision and other land use approvals in designated urban growth areas of municipalities will be coordinated; 4.4.2 how appropriate service level standards for determining adequacy and availability of public facilities and services will be coordinated; 4.4.3 how the rate, timing, and sequencing of boundary changes will be coordinated; 4.4.4 how the provision of capital improvements to an area will be coordinated; 4.4.5 to what extent a jurisdiction(s) may exercise extra jurisdictional responsibility. 4.5 Joint planning may be based upon factors including, but not limited to, the following: 4.5.1 contemplated changes in municipal and special purpose district boundaries; 4.5.2 the likelihood that development, capital improvements, or regulations will have significant impacts across a jurisdictional boundary; 4.5.3 the consideration of how public facilities and services are and should be provided and by which jurisdiction(s). UGA-5. Urban Development Standards. 5.1 The provisions of this section shall apply to all municipalities and urban growth areas located in the County. 5.2 The following development standards shall be the minimum required for urban developments and shall apply to all new development in urban growth areas, except as provided in Section 5.6 below. 5.2.1 Streets, Roads and Arterials. All public streets, roads, and arterials shall be constructed to the minimum requirements outlined in the City and County Design Standards adopted pursuant to RCW 35.78.030 and RCW 43.32.020. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be required on both sides. Private streets and roads may be approved, but shall be required to meet these requirements. 5.2.2 Street Lighting. Street lighting shall be required at signalized intersections. Street lighting in new subdivisions shall be provided at all intersections controlled by a traffic signal or sign, and at certain road corners, elbows, and cul-de-sacs. Installation and maintenance of street lighting in subdivisions shall be the responsibility of the developer or homeowner's association unless the local jurisdiction assumes DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 98 responsibility. When ownership of the street lighting has not been assumed by the local jurisdiction, the light standards shall be located on private property. 5.2.3 Domestic Water. A domestic water system must meet requirements under RCW 70.119 and WAC 246-290 for group "A" systems, or the functional equivalent. 5.2.4 Storm Water Facilities. A storm water drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Department of Ecology Storm Drainage Technical Manual or a locally adopted storm water manual approved by DOE. 5.2.5 Sanitary Sewer. (Refer to policy 3.4) 5.2.6 The County and each municipality shall develop policies that require developers to extend sewers to their developments to design the facilities to allow further extension to adjacent unsewered areas. 5.2.7 Fire Protection. Fire protection and flow requirements shall be in accordance with Pierce County Code Chapter 15.12. 5.2.8 Solid Waste and Recycling. Garbage pick-up shall be provided weekly, and recycling and yard waste pick-up biweekly, consistent with federal and state laws and regulations. 5.3 It is desired by the signatories to these policies that the following Urban Development Standards be the minimum goals for urban developments in Urban Growth Areas. 5.3.1 Street Cleaning. Standards for street cleaning shall be discussed and should be developed, consistent with requirements of federal and state water quality standards. 5.3.2 Transit. Urban transit service plans adopted by the Pierce County Public Transit Benefit Authority. 5.3.3 Library. Appropriate jurisdictions should provide 450 square feet of library space per 1,000 persons. 5.3.4 Parks and Recreation. Provisions for parks at a level of 3.0 acres of neighborhood/community parks per 1,000 population should be made for all plats and short plats as required by RCW 58.17. Such provision can be made either through dedication to the public of land, or through provision of funds, as mitigation, for park land purposes. 5.4 All development within an urban growth area shall be provided services pursuant to the provision of this agreement and the joint planning agreements adopted pursuant to it. It is recognized that the County may provide certain urban services within an Urban Growth Area, and that cities may provide certain urban services within the same area, but outside their current municipal boundaries. 5.5 The County and each municipality shall enter into an interlocal cooperation agreement providing for the approval and delivery of public facilities and DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 99 services in the Urban Growth Area. Such further agreements shall include, where appropriate, provisions relating to services such as law enforcement and schools and the services of special purpose districts and other service providers. 5.6 Ordinances allowing low impact development standards and create environmentally-sensitive development shall be allowed as alternative development standards. Any other ordinances allowing variances and deviations to the urban development standards may be adopted by each responsible jurisdiction for those limited circumstances necessary to allow for recognition of community plans and goals, recognized historic character, or special physical or engineering circumstances, as long as such variances and deviations are otherwise consistent with these policies. A legislative authority adopting a variance or deviation to the minimum urban development standards under this section must inform the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) of such adoption. UGA-6. The County and each municipality shall adopt within their respective comprehensive plans, policies to ensure that development within the urban growth area uses land efficiently, provides for a wide variety of uses, conserves natural resources, and allows for the connection of communities to an efficient, transit-oriented, multimodal transportation system. Policies shall: 6.1 provide for more choices in housing types and moderate increases in density to achieve at least an average net density of four units per acre; 6.2 support infill and compact development; and 6.3 provide for land uses that encourage travel by foot, bike and transit. UGA-7. The County and each municipality shall provide for conveniently located, appropriately scaled commercial development to serve the immediate local needs of the surrounding community by encouraging revitalization of underused commercial areas before establishing new areas. UGA-8. The County and each municipality shall adopt plans to encourage concentrated development within the urban growth area which will accommodate the twenty year projected population and employment growth. UGA-9. The County and each municipality neighboring Joint Base Lewis-McChord should develop planning provisions, including development regulations that encourage adjacent land uses that are compatible with military uses. UGA-910. Satellite Cities and Towns are local focal points where people come together for a variety of activities, including business, shopping, living and recreation. These cities and towns may include the core of small to medium sized cities and towns and may also be located in unincorporated areas. Often Satellite Cities and Towns include a DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 100 strong public presence because they are the location of city hall, main street and other public spaces. UGA-101. Satellite Cities and Towns will be characterized by a compact urban form that includes a moderately dense mix of locally-oriented retail, jobs and housing that promotes walking, transit usage and community activity. 101.1 Satellite Cities and Towns will be developed at a higher density than surrounding urban and rural areas; 101.2 small scale forms of intensification such as accessory housing units and development of vacant lots and parking lots help achieve the qualities of centers while preserving the neighborhood character. UGA-112. At a minimum, Satellite Cities and Towns will be served by State Routes which connect them to other centers and to the regional high capacity transit system. In some instances, Satellite Cities and Towns may have direct connections to the local public transportation system. OVERALL POLICIES FOR NON-INDUSTRIAL CENTERS Vision Concepts and Principles UGA-123. Centers shall be designated based upon the following: 123.1 consistency with specific criteria for centers adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies; 123.2 the center's location in the County and its potential for fostering a logical and desirable countywide transportation system and distribution of centers; 123.3 the total number of centers in the County that can be reasonably developed based on projected growth over the next twenty years; 123.4 environmental analysis which shall include demonstration that urban services including an adequate supply of drinking water are available to serve projected growth within the center and that the jurisdiction is capable of ensuring concurrent urban services to new development; 123.5 if a jurisdiction designates a center, it must also adopt the center's designation and provisions in its comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure that growth targeted to centers is achieved and urban services will be provided; 123.6 Centers shall be characterized by all of the following: 123.6.1 clearly defined geographic boundaries; DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 101 123.6.2 intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support high-capacity transit; 123.6.3 pedestrian-oriented land uses and amenities; 123.6.4 pedestrian connections shall be provided throughout; 123.6.5 urban design standards which reflect the local community; 123.6.6 provisions to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use especially during peak hours and commute times; 123.6.7 provisions for bicycle use; 123.6.8 sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; 123.6.9 uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities; and 123.6.10 centers shall be located in urban growth areas. UGA-134. Each jurisdiction which designates a center within its comprehensive plan shall define the type of center and specify the exact geographic boundaries of the center. Centers shall not exceed one and one-half square miles of land and Countywide centers shall not exceed one square mile of land. Infrastructure and services shall be either present and available or planned and financed consistent with the expected rate of growth. 14.1 Infrastructure and services shall be either present and available or planned and financed consistent with the expected rate of growth. 14.2 Priority for transportation and infrastructure funds shall be given to designated centers. Design Features of Centers UGA-145. The County and each jurisdiction that designates a center within its comprehensive plan shall encourage density and development to achieve targeted growth. 145.1 Any of the following approaches could be used to implement center development: 145.1.1 encouraging higher residential densities within centers; 145.1.2 avoiding creation of large blocks of single-use zones; 145.1.3 allowing for greater intensity of use within centers; 145.1.4 increasing building heights, greater floor/area ratios within centers; 145.1.5 minimizing setbacks within centers; 145.1.6 allowing buildings to locate close to street to enhance pedestrian accessibility; and 145.1.7 encouraging placement of parking to rear of structures. 145.2 Designated centers are expected to receive a higher proportion significant share of projected growth in conjunction with periodic disaggregation of countywide population allocations. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 102 UGA-156. Centers shall provide necessary capital facilities needed to accommodate the projected growth in population and employment. Facilities include, but are not limited to, roads, sewers and other utilities, schools, parks, and open space. In order to provide balance between higher intensity of use within centers, public and/or private open space shall be provided. UGA-167. Streetscape amenities (landscaping, furniture, etc.) shall be provided within centers to create a pedestrian friendly environment. UGA-178. The following regulatory mechanisms shall be used within centers. 178.1 Adopt development standards that encourage pedestrian-scaled development such as those that address: 178.1.1 interconnections between buildings and sidewalks; 178.1.2 pedestrian links between residential and non-residential areas; 178.1.3 street trees/furniture; and 178.1.4 minimizing separations between uses. Transportation, Parking and Circulation UGA-189. To encourage transit use within centers, jurisdictions shall establish mechanisms to limit the use of single occupancy vehicles. Such mechanisms should include: 189.1 charges for parking; 189.2 limiting the number of off-street parking spaces; 189.3 establishing minimum and maximum parking requirements; 189.4 commute trip reduction (CTR) measures and other transportation demand management measures; and 189.5 development of commuter programs for multiple employers not otherwise affected by the CTR law.; and 19.6 providing nonmotorized transportation facilities. UGA-1920. Centers should receive a high priority for the location of high-capacity transit stations and/or transit centers. UGA-201. Locate higher densities/intensities of use close to transit stops within centers and seek opportunities to: 201.1 create a core area to support transit and high occupancy vehicle use; DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 103 201.2 allow/encourage all types of transit facilities (transit centers, bus pullouts, etc.) within centers; and 201.3 establish incentives for developers to provide transit and transportation demand management supportive amenities. UGA-212. Allow on-street parking within centers in order to narrow the streetscape, provide a buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians, and provide common parking areas. UGA-223. Provisions for non-motorized transportation shall be provided, including but not limited to: 223.1 bicycle-friendly roadway design; 223.2 wider outside lane or shared parking/bike lanes; 223.3 bike-activated signals; 223.4 covered, secure bicycle parking at all places of employment; 223.5 bicycle racks; and 223.6 pedestrian pathways. Implementation Strategies UGA-234. Jurisdictions should consider incentives for development within centers such as: 234.1 streamlined permitting; 234.2 financial incentives; 234.3 density bonuses or transfer of development rights; 234.4 using SEPA Planned Action provisions to streamline environmental review by conducting environmental analysis during planning and providing permit applicants and public with more certainty of how impacts will be addressed; and 234.5 shared mitigation such as stormwater detention and joint parking. UGA-25. Improve transit service efficiency through the development of transportation infrastructure within and between countywide and regional centers. UGA-26. Design roadway and nonmotorized networks to promote more and better utilize transit services. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 104 METROPOLITAN CITY CENTER Vision Concepts and Principles UGA-257. Metropolitan City Centers function as anchors within the region for a high density mix of business, residential, public, cultural and recreational uses, and day and night activity. They are characterized by their historic role as the central business districts and regional centers of commerce. Metropolitan City Centers may also serve national or international roles. Design UGA-268. Metropolitan City Centers shall plan for a development pattern that will provide a successful mix of uses and densities that will efficiently support high capacity transit and shall plan to meet the following criteria: 268.1 a minimum of 50 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands; 268.2 a minimum of 15 households per gross acre; 268.3 a minimum of 30,000 employees; and 268.4 not exceed a maximum of 1-1/2 square miles in size. Transportation, Parking and Circulation UGA-279. Metropolitan City Centers shall be planned to have fast and frequent high capacity transit and other forms of transit. UGA-30. A Metropolitan City Center shall meet at minimum the following criteria for consideration as a candidate for countywide center: 30.1 Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size; 30.2 Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; 30.3 Employment: a minimum of 25 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands with a minimum of 15,000 employees; 30.4 Population: a minimum of ten households per gross acre; and 30.5 Transit: serve as a focal point for regional and local transit services. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 105 REGIONAL GROWTH CENTER Vision Concepts and Principles UGA-2831. Regional Growth Centers are locations that include a dense mix of business, commercial, residential and cultural activity within a compact area. Regional Growth Centers are targeted for employment and residential growth, and provide excellent transportation service, including fast, convenient high capacity transit service, as well as investment in major public amenities. Design Features of Centers UGA-2932. Regional Growth Centers shall plan to meet the following criteria: 2932.1 a minimum of 25 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands; and 2932.2 a minimum of 10 households per gross acre; and/or 2932.3 a minimum of 15,000 employees; and 2932.4 not to exceed a maximum of 1-1/2 square miles in size.; and 32.5 planning policies recognizing the need to receive a significant share of the regional growth. Transportation, Parking and Circulation UGA-303. Regional Growth Centers shall plan to have fast and frequent high capacity transit, as well as other forms of transit. UGA-34. A Regional Growth Center shall meet at a minimum the following criteria for consideration as a candidate for countywide center: 34.1 Area: up to 1-1/2 square miles in size; 34.2 Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; 34.3 Employment: a minimum of 2,000 employees; 34.4 Population: a minimum of seven households per gross acre; and 34.5 Transit: serve as a focal point for regional and local transit services. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 106 COUNTYWIDE CENTER Vision Concepts and Principles UGA-315. Countywide Centers are local focal points where people come together for a variety of activities, including business, shopping, living and recreation. These centers may include the core of small to medium-sized cities and may also be located in unincorporated areas. Often Countywide Centers include a strong public presence because they are the location of city hall, main street, and other public spaces. Countywide Centers are also potentially candidates for designation as regional centers. Design Features of Centers UGA-326. Countywide Centers shall be characterized by a compact urban form that includes a moderately dense mix of locally-oriented retail, jobs and housing that promotes walking, transit usage and community activity. 326.1 Countywide Centers shall be developed at a higher density than surrounding urban areas to take advantage of connecting centers. 326.2 Small-scale forms of intensification such as accessory housing units and development of vacant lots and parking lots help achieve the qualities of centers while preserving neighborhood character. UGA-337. Countywide Centers shall plan for a development pattern that will provide a successful mix of uses and densities that will efficiently support transit. Each Countywide Center shall plan to meet the following criteria: 337.1 a minimum of 15 employees per gross acre of non-residential lands; 337.2 a minimum of 7 households per gross acre; 337.3 a minimum of 2,000 employees; and 337.4 not to exceed a maximum of 1 square mile in size. Transportation, Parking and Circulation UGA-348. At a minimum, Countywide Centers shall plan to be served by public transit and/or ferries which connect them to other centers, to surrounding residential communities, and to the regional high capacity transit system. Countywide Centers should have direct connections to high capacity local and regional transit hubs. UGA-39. Minimum criteria for designation as Countywide Center: DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 107 39.1 Area: up to one square mile in size; 39.2 Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; 39.3 Employment: a minimum of 1,000 employees; 39.4 Population: a minimum of six households per gross acre; and 39.5 Transit: serve as a focal point for local transit services. MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER Vision Concepts and Principles UGA-3540. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be locally determined and designated based on the following steps: 3540.1 consistency with specific criteria for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers adopted within the Countywide Planning Policies; 3540.2 consideration of the Center's location in the County and region, especially relative to existing and proposed transportation facilities; 3540.3 consideration of the total number of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in the County that are needed over the next twenty years based on projected need for manufacturing/industrial land to satisfy regional projections of demand for manufacturing/industrial land uses; 3540.4 environmental analysis which shall include demonstration that the jurisdiction is capable of concurrent service to new development; and 3540.5 adoption within the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan of the center's designation and provisions to ensure that job growth targeted to the Manufacturing/Industrial Center is achieved. Design Features of Centers UGA-3641. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be characterized by the following: 3641.1 clearly defined geographic boundaries; 3641.2 intensity of land uses sufficient to support alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use; 3641.3 direct access to regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway systems for the movement of goods; DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 108 3641.4 provisions to prohibit housing; and 3641.5 identified transportation linkages to high-density housing areas. UGA-3742. Provisions to achieve targeted employment growth should include: 3742.1 preservation and encouragement of the aggregation of vacant land parcels sized for manufacturing/industrial uses; 3742.2 prohibition of land uses which are not compatible with manufacturing/industrial, manufacturing/industrial supportive, and advanced technology uses; 3742.3 limiting the size and number of offices and retail uses and allowing only as an accessory use to serve the needs of employees within centers; and 3742.4 reuse and intensification of the land. Transportation, Parking and Circulation UGA-3843. Transportation network within Manufacturing/Industrial Centers should provide for the needs of freight movement and employees by ensuring a variety of transportation modes such as transit, rail, and trucking facilities. UGA-3944. The transportation system within Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be built to accommodate truck traffic and acceleration. Review of projects should consider infrastructure enhancements such as: 3944.1 turn lanes and turn pockets to allow turning vehicles to move out of through traffic lanes; 3944.2 designing turn lanes with a width to allow freight vehicles to turn without interrupting the flow of traffic in other lanes; 3944.3 designing the far side of intersections with acceleration lanes for trucking vehicles and heavy loads to facilitate traffic flow; 3944.4 constructing climbing lanes where necessary to allow for slow moving vehicles; 3944.5 providing off-street truck loading facilities to separate goods loading and unloading; and 3944.6 arterial grade separations with rail freight and designation of Heavy Haul corridors or truck only lanes. DI.G Urban Growth Areas Ratification Date 109 Implementation Strategies UGA-405. All jurisdictions will support transportation capital improvement projects which support access and movement of goods to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. UGA-416. Jurisdictions having a designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center shall: 416.1 plan for and fund capital facility improvement projects which support the movement of goods; 416.2 coordinate with utility providers to ensure that utility facilities are available to serve such centers; 416.3 provide buffers around the center to reduce conflicts with adjacent land uses; 416.4 facilitate land assembly; 416.5 assist in recruiting appropriate businesses; and 416.6 encourage employers to participate in commute trip reduction program. UGA-47. A Manufacturing/Industrial Center shall meet at a minimum the following criteria for consideration as a candidate for Countywide Center: 47.1 Capital Facilities: served by sanitary sewers; 47.2 Employment: a minimum of 7,500 jobs and/or 2,000 truck trips per day; and 47.3 Transportation: within one mile of a state or federal highway or national rail line. Prioritization of Funding for Centers UGA-48. Regional and countywide transportation and economic development funds should be prioritized for centers and transportation and infrastructure servicing centers in Pierce County that have been designated regionally; it is also appropriate for countywide and local funding to be directed to centers and transportation and infrastructure servicing centers designated exclusively at the countywide level or identified locally by a jurisdiction. DI.G AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Draft Resolution No. 4773 Date: November 8, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memo for Resolution No. 4773 Exhibit "1" Exhibit A Exhibit "2" Exhibit "3" Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion. Background Summary: See attached memo Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Chamberlain Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.H AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.H Page 1 of 2 Memorandum Planning and Development Dept. To: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice- Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager CC: Mayor Lewis Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Date: November 7, 2011 Re: Amendments to Pierce County’s Countywide Planning Policies – Candidate Regional Centers Information The Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) were amended in 2009 to allow for a process to designate new Candidate Regional Centers. When the CPPs were originally adopted in 1992, six Regional Growth Centers were identified. There are three proposed Candidate Regional Centers: • Cities of Sumner and Pacific for a new Manufacturing and Industrial Center • City of Tacoma for a new Manufacturing and Industrial Center • City of University Place for a new Regional Growth Center The three jurisdictions submitted their applications to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) and those were forwarded to the Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC) for review. After reviewing the applications against the criteria outlined in the CPPs, the GMCC made its recommendation of approval on January 27, 2011 and forwarded that recommendation to the PCRC. The PCRC reviewed the proposals and recommended approval of the proposals in three separate motions on March 17, 2011. As the first step in the ratification process, the Pierce County Council adopted Ordinance No. 20001-35s on August 9, 2011 and forwarded the approved amendments to the Pierce County cities and towns for ratification. DI.H Page 2 of 2 The amendments to the CPPs become effective when 60 percent of the jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75 percent of the total population adopt the amendments. This threshold correlates to 14 cities and towns and Pierce County representing a minimum of 601,612 people. Exhibits: Exhibit 1 – Resolution No. 4773 Exhibit 2 – Cover letter from Pierce County and Pierce County Ordinance No. 2001-35s Exhibit 3 – Map of the proposed Candidate Regional Center DI.H _______________________ Resolution No. 4773 November 7, 2011 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 4 7 7 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PIERCE COUNTY, THEREBY AMENDING THE PIERCE COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES DESIGNATING THREE NEW CANDIDATE REGIONAL CENTERS WHEREAS, on July 1, 1990, the Growth Management Act (the GMA) became effective (Chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington); and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires Counties, Cities, and Towns to plan for housing affordable to all economic segments of the population; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 1995, the Pierce County Council passed Resolution R95-17 affirming the commitment of the County to continue discussions with other local jurisdictions to resolve implementation of the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies are written policy statements which are to be used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which the County and Municipal comprehensive plans are d eveloped and adopted; and WHEREAS, the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies were amended in 2009 to allow for a process to designate new Candidate Regional Centers; and WHEREAS, the City participated in the amendment process and helped develop the proposed Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies through participation in Pierce County’s Growth Management Coordinating Committee (GMCC), a staff level committee that reviews amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies and makes recommendations to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC); and Exhibit "1" DI.H _______________________ Resolution No. 4773 November 7, 2011 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Cities of Sumner and Pacific submitted an application to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) for designation of a Candidate Regional Industrial/Manufacturing Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Tacoma submitted an application to the Pierce County Regional Council (PCRC) for designation of a Candidate Regional Industrial/Manufacturing Center; and WHEREAS, the City of University Place submitted an application to the PCRC for designation as a Candidate Regional Growth Center; an d WHEREAS, the PCRC recommended adoption of the proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies on March 17, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Pierce County Council adopted Ordinance No. 2011-35s on August 9, 2011; and WHEREAS, amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies must be adopted through amendment of the original interlocal agreement or by a new interlocal agreement ratified by 60 percent of member jurisdictions in Pierce County representing 75 percent of the total population; and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement titled “Amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies” was developed for the purpose of implementing the recommended amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. The amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies are attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. DI.H _______________________ Resolution No. 4773 November 7, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to execute the interlocal agreement for the purpose of amending the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies in accordance with the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, Chapter 39.34 RCW. Section 3. That a copy of the resolution and signed interlocal agreements authorizing approval shall be provided to Pierce Coun ty. Section 4. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 5. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. Dated and signed this _____ day of _________________, 2011. CITY OF AUBURN _________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.H Exhibit A DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H Exhibit "2" DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H DI.H Exhibit "3" DI.H Ex h i b i t " 3 " DI.H Exhibit "3" DI.H AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Land Use Strategies for Addressing Impact of Potential Partial or Full Loss of Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation Funds Date: November 9, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Exhibit A Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For Discussion Only. Background Summary: See memorandum attached. Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.I AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.I Memorandum TO: Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community De velopment Committee Nancy Backus, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee John Partridge, Planning and Community Development Committee FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director, Planning & Development Department CC Mayor Pete Lewis DATE: November 9, 2011 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION & INFORMATION: Land Use Strategies for Addressing Impact of Potential Partial or Full Loss of Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation Funds OVERVIEW: Governor Gregoire released her Budget Reduction Alternatives at the end of October 201. The Governor’s Alternatives identify as a potential budget reduction alternative a partial (25 percent) or full (100) elimination of streamlined sales tax mitigation funding that the City of Auburn is a current recipient of. A partial or 25 percent elimination of this funding would mean a loss of $500,000 while a full or 100 percent elimination would mean a loss of $2,000,000. Governor Gregoire did not at the time of publication of the Budget Reduction Alternatives specifically identify that she had chosen to include this proposed alternative in her 2012 supplemental budget proposal, however, there is the potential that it could be included either by the Governor at a later date or by the Washington State Legislature during its special session that begins on November 28, 2011. The potential partial or full loss of this mitigation funding has significant revenue implications for the City. In response to this potential revenue impact, the City should consider whether current land use policies need to be revised to facilitate the transition of industrial zoned areas away from warehouse and distribution uses to manufacturing, industrial and retail uses that will help the City financially compensate for real loss in revenue through increased property taxes and sales taxes. BACKGROUND: The Washington State Legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 5089 on March 22, 2007 that became effective on July 1, 2008 that changed Washington’s sales tax collection system from an origin-based system for local retail sales tax to a destination- based system. Previously, Washington retailers collected local sales tax based on the jurisdiction from which a product was shipped or delivered - the "origin" of the sale. Presently, they must collect based on the destination of the shipment or delivery - the "destination" of the sale. Destination-based sales tax applies only to businesses that ship or delivers the goods they sell to locations within Washington. Under the DI.I 2 destination based system, if a retailer delivers or ships merchandise to a buyer in Washington State, the sales tax is collected based on the rate at the location where the buyer receives or takes possession of the merchandise. The destination based system has shifted the distribution of local sales tax around the state. As a result of this legislation, the City of Auburn has experienced a net loss in sales tax revenue totaling approximately $2 million annually due to the large presence of warehousing and distribution uses in the City. This change in tax structure has put the City of Auburn at a disadvantage and negatively impacts its tax revenue situation that has been temporarily buttressed through the receipt of streamlined sales tax mitigation payments from the State of Washington. The City’s economic development strategies are dependent upon the City being able to continue a strong public investment program in infrastructure and services. The City’s ability to continue this public investment is contingent upon maintaining solvent public revenue streams, particularly sales tax. Sales tax comprises the largest source of monies to the City’s General Fund, approximately 30 percent in 2010. The potential loss of the aforementioned sales tax revenue will directly and adversely affect the City’s ability to adequately fund the capital infrastructure and services necessary to support the realization of the City’s economic development strategies. This is especially applicable to industrial areas supporting warehouse and distribution centers that are origin based in nature. Auburn historically invested in infrastructure to support businesses engaged in warehouse and distribution activities that ship goods to other destinations. This investment has included previous issuance of debt funding for related supportive infrastructure. In addition, the loss of a significant source of revenue may impact future bond ratings for the City. Prior to its passage in 2008 by the Washington State Legislature, the City of Auburn had recognized the potential implications of streamlined sales tax. Based on the potential passage of streamlined sales tax, the Auburn City Council approved Resolution No. 3782 (see attached Exhibit “A”) in November 2004. Resolution No. 3782 outlines an approach and actions the City will take related to land use planning, transportation planning and capital facilities planning in the event a streamlined sales tax proposal or other similar proposals that change the tax structure are adopted. Because of the State’s mitigation funding, the actions considered by this Resolution have not had to occur, however, with the potential that this mitigation funding may disappear, these and/or other actions will likely need to be considered by the City Council. As part of the 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments, staff has prepared new policies in Chapters 3, 8 and 14 of the Comprehensive Plan that would establish a policy foundation for incentivizing increased manufacturing and industrial uses and retail uses in the industrially zoned areas of the City. The Planning Commission recently completed its public hearing and recommendation actions on these policies and has forwarded them to City Council for its consideration. Because of the potential loss of partial or full sales tax mitigation funding, staff believes that the focus should now be a prescriptive approach that may be in some instances supported by incentives. QUESTIONS: Staff seeks Committee feedback on the following question pertaining to this issue in advance of policy development efforts: DI.I 3 1. Does the Committee concur that zoning controls for industrial zoning districts should be implemented that prohibit new warehouse and distribution land uses in industrial districts and authorize warehouse and distribution functions to support the primary site operations for manufacturing and industrial uses on a limited incidental basis only? 2. Does the Committee concur that zoning controls for industrial districts should be established that significantly limit the expansion of existing warehouse and distribution land uses and buildings that do not want to consider the introduction of new retail uses to their properties? 3. Does the Committee concur that zoning controls for industrial districts should be established that immediately prohibit new warehouse and distribution use at a site and associated building(s) when vacated by an existing warehouse and distribution use and/or when partially or fully destroyed? 4. Does the Committee concur that zoning controls should be implemented that require the introduction of retail businesses onto properties currently used for warehouse and distribution uses that want to expand? 5. Does the Committee concur that regulatory and financial incentives should be identified and implemented where appropriate to provide increased opportunities and encouragement for the establishment of new or expanded manufacturing and industrial uses and jobs in the City? 6. Does the Committee concur that changes in comprehensive plan policies and zoning regulations and standards should be implemented to create policies, regulations and incentives for the increased use of land and buildings in industrially zoned areas for sales tax producing commercial retail uses? 7. Which of the following does the Committee support? a. Designation of existing warehouse and distribution uses in the City as legal non-conforming uses. b. Establishment of a transition period (e.g. 5 years) that upon expiration results in a legal non-conforming use status for warehouse and distribution related properties/uses/buildings. The implementation of a transition period could help in an orderly transition of properties currently occupied and used for warehouse and distribution land uses to manufacturing and industrial uses and or retail uses without negatively impacting land values and sale and marketing opportunities. c. Establishment of a special status designation for existing warehouse and distribution businesses that does not make them non-conforming land uses but severely restricts their ability to expand and/or be replaced pursuant to the questions specified above. DI.I DI.I DI.I DI.I AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Director's Report Date: November 8, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: No Attachments Available Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For information only. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.J AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.J AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: PCDC Matrix Date: November 8, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: PCDC Matrix Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For information only. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 14, 2011 Item Number:DI.K AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.K PCDC W o r k Plan M a t r i x – N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 No v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 1 LA N D U S E C O D E S / P O L I C I E S To p i c / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s 1 • M u c k l e s h o o t T r i b e TB D S n y d e r St a f f t o s t a y i n t o u c h w i t h T a y l o r a n d k e e p c o o r d i n at i o n & c o m m u n i c a t i o n op e n w i t h T r i b e . 2 Co d e U p d a t e W o r k • P h a s e I I C o d e U p d a t e Fa l l 2 0 1 1 W a g n e r In c l u d e s n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l z o n e s a n d l o o k i n g a t r e t a i l w i t h i n i n d u s t r i a l z o n e s , pa r k i n g , l a n d s c a p i n g , v a r i a n c e s , a n d o t h e r m i s c . c o de c h a n g e s . • C l u s t e r S u b d i v i s i o n TB D Sn y d e r At t h e O c t o b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 P C D C m e e t i n g s t a f f r e v i e w e d o p t i o n s f o r o p e n sp a c e w i t h C o m m i t t e e , C o m m i t t e e i s s u p p o r t i v e o f h a vi n g C l u s t e r Su b d i v i s i o n s a s a t o o l w i t h l a n g u a g e t o p r o v i d e f l e xi b i l i t y . • C o t t a g e H o u s i n g W i n t e r 2 0 1 1 - 20 1 2 Sn y d e r St a f f m e t w i t h C o m m i t t e e o n 3 / 2 8 / 1 1 , C o m m i t t e e p r o v id e d f e e d b a c k . S t a f f to b r i n g b e f o r e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n f o r r e v i e w a n d pu b l i c h e a r i n g t h e n ba c k t o P C D C . • C e l l T o w e r s – s t e a l t h d e s i g n , an t e n n a s , a n d r e v e n u e TB D T a y l o r W i l l b e i n c o r p o r a t e d a s p a r t o f t h e o t h e r m i s c e l l a n e o u s c o d e a m e n d m e n t s . • E n v i r o n m e n t a l P a r k D i s t r i c t Fa l l 2 0 1 1 S n y d e r C o d e w o r k t o f o l l o w g r e e n z o n e s u m mi t i n f a l l , 2 0 1 1 . • M a s t e r P l a n C o d e A m e n d m e n t No v e m b e r 1 4 C h a m b e r l a i n St a f f t o b r i n g p r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n t s t o P l a n n i n g C o m m is s i o n f o r r e v i e w an d p u b l i c h e a r i n g t h e n b a c k t o P C D C . • C o m p r e s s e d N a t u r a l G a s TB D D i x o n W a i t i n g f o r a p p l i c a t i o n s u b m i t t a l f o r c o d e w o r k f r o m a p p l i c a n t . Pl e a s e N o t e : N e w a d d i t i o n s u n d e r l i n e d , d e l e t i o n s r e mo v e d , r e t r e a t i t e m s a r e h i g h l i g h t e d . DI.K No v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 2 To p ic / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s 3 Ur b a n C e n t e r / D o w n t o w n – j o i n t re v i e w b y D o w n t o w n R e d e v e l o p m e n t Co m m i t t e e a n d P C D C On g o i n g C h a m b e r l a i n • H e a l t h c a r e D i s t r i c t O v e r l a y Wi n t e r 2 0 1 1 - 20 1 2 Ch a m b e r l a i n St a f f t o w o r k w i t h M a y o r ’ s O f f i c e t o e n g a g e A u b u r n Re g i o n a l M e d i c a l C e n t e r in p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . • U r b a n C e n t e r E x p a n s i o n Fa l l / W i n t e r 20 1 1 Ch a m b e r l a i n St a f f t o p r e p a r e d r a f t w h i t e p a p e r o n i s s u e s / o p p o r t un i t i e s / c h a l l e n g e s f o r ex p a n s i o n o f u r b a n c e n t e r . • A D A Sp r i n g 2 0 1 2 C h a m b e r l a i n N e x t u p d a t e w i l l b e o n i n t he S p r i n g o f 2 0 1 2 . • A m t r a k On - g o i n g Ma y o r L e w i s / Sn y d e r Ci t y t r a c k i n g p o t e n t i a l s t a t i o n s t o p s e x p a n s i o n s t u dy b y A m t r a k . • D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g Ma n a g e m e n t P l a n On - g o i n g Sn y d e r / Ch a m b e r l a i n Pa r k i n g s u r v e y i n v e n t o r y c o m p l e t e a n d u n d e r r e v i e w . 4 7- y e a r u p d a t e t o C o m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n On - g o i n g Sn y d e r / Ch a m b e r l a i n Le g i s l a t u r e a p p r o v e d b i l l t o e x t e n d d e a d l i n e o u t t o 2 0 1 5 . • S u s t a i n a b i l i t y / C l i m a t e C h a n g e Po l i c y D e v e l o p m e n t No v e m b e r 20 1 1 An d e r s e n Po l i c y w o r k t o b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e 2 0 1 1 C o m p r e he n s i v e P l a n Am e n d m e n t s . • H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n TB D D i x o n In c o r p o r a t e t h e h a z a r d m i t i g a t i o n p l a n s b e i n g d e v e l op e d e i t h e r a s a n e w el e m e n t o r a p p e n d i x t o t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n . S t a ff t o c o n s i d e r ac c o m p l i s h i n g a s p a r t o f t h e 7 - y e a r c o m p r e h e n s i v e p la n u p d a t e . • 2 0 1 1 A n n u a l C o m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n A m e n d m e n t s Fa l l 2 0 1 1 D i x o n An n u a l c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n a m e n d m e n t s i n c l u d e c i t y - i ni t i a t e d a n d p r i v a t e - in i t i a t e d a m e n d m e n t s . 5 H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n S t r a t e g i e s Wi n t e r 2 0 1 1 - 20 1 2 Sn y d e r / Ch a m b e r l a i n St a f f w i l l f o r m u l a t e a s t r a t e g y a c t i o n p l a n a n d b r i ng b a c k t o C o m m i t t e e . 6 St r a t e g y A r e a s f o r Po p u l a t i o n / B u s i n e s s / E m p l o y m e n t Wi n t e r 2 0 1 1 - 20 1 2 Sn y d e r / Ch a m b e r l a i n St a f f c o n d u c t e d A u b u r n W a y S o u t h V i s u a l P r e f e r e n c e Su r v e y w i t h Co m m i t t e e a n d w i l l c o n d u c t V i s u a l P r e f e r e n c e S t u d i e s f o r o t h e r s t r a t e g y ar e a s . DI.K No v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 3 ENV I R O N M E N T A L 7 A u b u r n E n v i r o n m e n t a l P a r k F a l l 2 0 1 1 Sn y d e r / An d e r s e n St a f f i s c o o r d i n a t i n g w i t h W S D O T o n P h a s e I I a c q u i s it i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; Bo a r d w a l k d e s i g n c o m p l e t e , c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s u n d er w a y . 8 A S C E N T A s N e e d e d S n y d e r C o n t i n u e t o e x p l o r e o p p o r tu n i t i e s a s p a r t o f G r e e n Z o n e p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s . 10 G r e e n Z o n e S u m m i t T B D Sn y d e r / An d e r s e n Su m m i t d a t e t o b e d e t e r m i n e d . 11 Gr e e n Z o n e B u s i n e s s P l a n / M a r k e t i n g St r a t e g y TB D Sn y d e r / An d e r s e n St a f f t o p r e p a r e d r a f t b u s i n e s s p l a n / m a r k e t i n g s t r a te g y f o r C o m m i t t e e i n p u t . PA R K S , A R T S & R E C R E A T I O N 12 J a c o b s o n P a r k / B P A M a s t e r P l a n T B D F a b e r S t a f f / C o ns u l t a n t w i l l p r o v i d e u p d a t e b a s e d o n C o m m u n i t y M e e ti n g s . 13 L e a H i l l / G r e e n R i v e r C C P a r k T B D F a b e r Me m o r a n d u m o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n t h e C i t y a n d G R CC t o s w a p pr o p e r t y – L e a H i l l p a r k t o G R C C a n d t h e M a r t i n p r o pe r t y t o t h e C i t y f o r a ne w p a r k . L e a H i l l / G r e e n R i v e r C C P a r k M a s t e r P l a n C o m p l e t e d . 14 L e s G o v e C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r Mo n t h l y as n e e d e d Fa b e r / R . Wa g n e r Mo n t h l y u p d a t e s a s n e e d e d . 15 T h e a t e r P l a n T B D F a b e r N o f u t u r e a c t i o n i s n e e d e d o n t h i s t o p i c u n t i l f u n d i n g i s l o c a t e d . 16 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r a c t i v i t i e s T B D F a b e r C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r C o m m i t t e e t o r e v i e w ; l a t e n i g h t a c t i v i t i e s f o r y o u t h . DI.K No v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 4 To p ic / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s CO M M U N I T Y S E R V I C E S D I V I S I O N 17 B u i l d i n g C o m m u n i t y TB D Hu r s h PC D C r e q u e s t e d u p d a t e a t a f u t u r e m e e t i n g ; b r i e f i n g t o b e s c h e d u l e d . 18 H u m a n S e r v i c e s C e n t e r O n g o i n g H u r s h Re v i e w H S c o n t r a c t l a n g u a g e a n d C o n s o l i d a t e d P l a n l an g u a g e f o r ma n d a t o r y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e O n e - S t o p - S h o p . S t a f f p r o v i d e d a n u p d a t e t o PC D C o n 9 / 2 7 / 1 0 . 19 Un i f y c o m m u n i t i e s t h r o u g h ce n t r a l i z e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d ou t r e a c h Fa l l 2 0 1 2 H u r s h C o m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s t o g i v e a n n u a l u p d a t e s . BO A R D S , C O M M I S S I O N S & H E A R I N G E X A M I N E R 20 A r t s C o m m i s s i o n N o v e m b e r 1 4 F a b e r J o i n t m e e t i n g he l d o n 1 0 / 1 1 / 1 0 w i t h P C D C . 21 Do w n t o w n R e d e v e l o p m e n t Co m m i t t e e TB D Ch a m b e r l a i n / No r m a n Mo n t h l y u p d a t e s a s n e e d e d . 22 H e a r i n g E x a m i n e r O c t 2 0 1 2 D i x o n He a r i n g E x a m i n e r a t t e n d e d 1 0 / 2 4 / 1 1 m e e t i n g f o r a n n u a l b r i e f i n g w i t h t h e Co m m i t t e e . 23 P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n B o a r d S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 F a b e r A n n u a l u p d a t e o c c u r r e d 6 / 1 3 / 1 1 w i t h P C D C . 24 P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n T B D Sn y d e r / Ch a m b e r l a i n Jo i n t m e e t i n g s i n 2 0 1 1 t o b e h e l d o n c o d e u p d a t e e f fo r t s . 25 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , T r a n s i t , a n d T r a i l s T B D T h o r d a r so n St a f f t o s c h e d u l e m e e t i n g w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , T r a n si t a n d T r a i l s C o m m i t t e e Ch a i r . 26 U r b a n T r e e B o a r d S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 F a b e r A n n u a l u p d a t e o c c u r r e d 6 / 1 3 / 1 1 w i t h P C D C . DI.K No v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 Pa g e 5 To p ic / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s CA P I T A L F A C I L I T I E S P L A N N I N G ( L o n g R a n g e P l a n n i n g ) 27 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Sc o p e : L o n g - t e r m p l a n n i n g f o r t h e in t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n l a n d u s e an d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e On - g o i n g H a n k i n s Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n U p d a t e a d o p t e d b y C i t y C o u n c i l i n 2 0 0 9 . Up d a t e d a n n u a l l y a s n e e d e d a s p a r t o f c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n u p d a t e pr o c e s s . 28 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m (T I P ) Sc o p e : 6 - y e a r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n im p r o v e m e n t p r o g r a m t h a t i s up d a t e d a n n u a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g tr a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t e d c a p i t a l pr o j e c t s No v e m b e r 1 4 Ha n k i n s Dr a f t 6 - y e a r - t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t p r o g r a m t o be p r e s e n t e d a t Co m m i t t e e N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 . 29 Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n s ( C I P ) Sc o p e : 6 - y e a r c a p i t a l i m p r o v e m e n t fi n a n c i a l p l a n n i n g f o r s e w e r , w a t e r , st o r m w a t e r a n d s t r e e t s . On - g o i n g F i n a n c e Up d a t e d a n n u a l l y a s n e e d e d a s p a r t o f c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n u p d a t e pr o c e s s . OT H E R 31 E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t U p d a t e s T B D M a y o r F u t u r e b ri e f i n g s t o b e p r o v i d e d a s n e e d e d . DI.K