The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-28-2011 Agenda Packet Planning and Community Development November 28, 2011 - 5:30 PM Annex Conference Room 2 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call B. Announcements C. Agenda Modifications II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - November 14, 2011* (Synder) III. ACTION A. Resolution No. 4769* (Dowdy) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Aub urn, Washington, Setting the Time and Date for A Public Hearing Before the City Council on the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program. B. Ordinance No. 6394 - 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (Chamberlain) Request for Committee action to move Ordinance No. 6394 - 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to full City Council on December 5, 2011. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Resolution No. 4771* (Coleman) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Aub urn, Washington, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Was hington2 Advocates, LLC, for consulting services B. 2012 -2017 Transportation Improvement Program* (Dowdy) Review draft six-year Transportation Improvement Pr ogram. C. 2011 Phase II Code Update - Grouping 1* (Chamberlain) Discuss Planning Commission recommendation on amend ments to Title 18 - Zoning, related to parking regulations, landscaping regulations, administrative variance process, and outdoor lighting standards. D. Ordinance No. 6393 - School Impact Fees* (Chamberlain) Review the proposed school impact fees for 2012 fro m the four school districts within the City. E. Building Code and Land Use Code Issues for Business Use of Semi Truck Trailers* (Snyder) Discuss potential building and land use code issues and options for use of semi- truck trailers by businesses for conduct of certain business functions. F. Director's Report (Snyder) G. PCDC Status 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 avai lable for review at the City Clerk's Office. *Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet. AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Minutes - November 14, 2011 Date: November 21, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Draft Minutes Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:For information only, please see attachment.Background Summary:Reviewed by Council Committees:Councilmember:Norman Staff:Synder Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:CA.0 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED CA.0 Planning and Community Development November 14, 2011 - 5:30 PM Annex Conference Room 2 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call Chair Norman, Vice-Chair Backus and Member Partridg e were present. Also present were Mayor Pete Lewis, Planning and Develop ment Director Kevin Snyder, Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Pri ncipal Planner Jeff Dixon, Planner Stuart Wagner, Finance Director Shelley Col eman, City Attorney Dan Heid, Theater Operations Coordinator Jim Kleinbeck, Arts & Events Manager Julie Brewer, Arts Coordinator Maija McKnight, Economic D evelopment Manager Doug Lein, Contract Economic Development Planner William Thomas, and Planning and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss. Members of the Public in attendance included: Largo Wale, Wayne Osborne, John Holman, Nancy Wyatt, Colleen Maloney, Tanya Rottle,, Ronnie Schwend, Linda Elliott, Michael Chey, Cary Davidson, Councilmember Rich Wagner, and Robert Whale of the Auburn Reporter. B. Announcements 1. Auburn Arts Commission Update (Faber) Arts & Events Manager Julie Brewer and Arts Coordin ator Maija McKnight provided an update on the activities of the Auburn Arts Commission highlighting performing arts, visual arts, public a rt, advocacy, and support for local artists and arts organizations, and special p rojects and events working cross departmentally. The Arts Commisison continues to work to advocate and support local artists and art organizations exp anding many of the current programs in 2011. Arts Commissioner Linda Elliott d iscussed the current sister cities program and exploration of future sis ter city relationships. Arts Commission requested a future discussion on Council ’s vision for the Arts in Auburn. C. Agenda Modifications The following items will be removed and forwarded t o the November 28th, 2011 meeting: Resolution No. 4769 2012 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Program Phase II Code Update – Grouping 1 Page 1 of 6 CA.0 II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - October 24, 2011 (Snyder) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to Approve to approve the consent agenda as presented. Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. III. ACTION A. Ordinance No. 6385 Master Plan Code Amendment (Cha mberlain) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to Approve to approve Ordinance No. 6385 to full City Council for review and approval. Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain provided the staff report. Committee and staff reviewed the Planning Commissio n recommendations. Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. B. Resolution No. 4765 - Memorandum of Agreement and O ption to Purchase Real Property with Ceradimm, LLC (Snyder) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to Approve as amended approve Re solution No. 4765 with the deletion of “or within one year following the termination of thi s Agreement ”, Page 3, Section 3, RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL and “It is provided, however, that the GRANTEE ’S right of first refusal shall not survive beyond one year following the end of the te rm of this Option Agreement ”, Page 4, first sentence, to full council for consid eration. Planning and Development Director Kevin Snyder prov ided the briefing on Resolution No. 4765. Staff reviewed the additional language added on Page 3, No. 3, RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. Committee asked i f the City could keep a parcel for the City’s use, take part in a la nd swap, or receive an outside offer from a potential buyer/developer? Cit y Attorney Dan Heid stated under this agreement if executed and in each of the scenarios presented Ceradimm, LLC would exercise their Right of First Refusal whereby the City would determine a value/price and specific terms and conditions that have been approved by the City. Cer adimm, LLC would then have the option to meet the conditions/terms, inclu ding the price/value, and take action to purchase. City Attorney Heid stated the Right of First Refusa l was added to the agreement by Ceradimm, LLC to provide Ceradimm and opportunity to Page 2 of 6 CA.0 purchase while allowing the City flexibility should the City receive an offer to purchase from other potential buyers (it was not in the current agreement). City Attorney Heid stated once this agreement is te rminated with Ceradimm, LLC they have an additional year to exercise the Ri ght of First Refusal. Committee stated they are not supportive of allowin g an additional year after the agreement terminates. Committee expressed concern in tying the City up for an additional year with a developer/age nt especially if the agent has not exhibited previous activity. Director Snyd er stated although Spencer Alpert is a developer his primary roll is t o assist the City in engaging with potential developers for City owned p roperty. The Memorandum of Agreement clarifies City’s perspecti ve; the working relationship with Spencer Alpert as a strategic res ource to engage with potential buyers. Mayor Lewis asked Committee if they could support t his new agreement if the additional year was removed from the Right of F irst Refusal language. Committee stated they would be more inclined to mov e it forward. Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. C. Resolution No. 4766 - Exclusive Agency Listing Agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle (Snyder) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to approve Resolution No. 4766 to full City Council fo r review and approval. Planning and Development Director Kevin Snyder prov ided the staff report for Resolution No. 4766. Committee and staff reviewed t he changes to the agreement since the October 24, 2011 Planning and Community D evelopment Committee meeting. Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ordinance No. 6378 (Coleman) Finance Director Shelley Coleman provided the staff report. Staff and Committee discussed the various changes within budg et amendment No. 5, Ordinance No. 6378. Committee was supportive of Ordinance No. 6378 B. Resolution No. 4767 (Coleman) Finance Director Shelley Coleman briefed the Commit tee on Resolution No. Page 3 of 6 CA.0 4767; exercising this agreement would allow the Cit y to renew the services with the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce with the s ame terms and conditions that currently exist. Nancy Wyatt, Aubur n Area Chamber of Commerce President & COO highlighted various servic es and accomplishments of the Auburn Area Chamber of Comme rce. Committee asked if Ms. Wyatt could provide statisti cs from services provided from 2010 to 2011. C. Phase II Code Update - Grouping 1 (Wagner) Removed and forwarded to November 28, 2011 meeting. D. HCSA Laundry Facility Building Square Footage Incre ase* (Taylor) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to Approve to forward to full Ci ty Council HCSA Laundry Facility Square Footage Increase for recomm endation of review and approval. Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain provided the staff report. City Attorney Dan Heid provided a handout and reviewed t he quasi-judicial process. Planning Manager Chamberlain stated City C ouncil originally passed Ordinance No. 6297 approving a rezone of thr ee parcels from C3, Heavy Commercial, to BP, Business Park consistent w ith the conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant. The total are a of any proposed building was limited to 95,000 square feet. The City of Aubu rn has received a development application for an industrial laundry f acility at the subject site that would exceed the allowable building first floo r square footage by a total of 7,927 square feet or eight (8) percent. Changes to the original language of the rezone require a review by the Planning & Co mmunity Development Committee of the City Council or its successor. If the change is minor, less than 10% the Committee shall make a recommendation to the City Council; this request is less than 10%. Committee and staff discussed environmental practices for this proposed business. After review by Committee it was determined Committee would take action on this item . Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. E. 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Dixon) Discuss Planning Commission recommendation on 2011 annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Principal Planner Dixon reviewed the Planning Commi ssion recommendations for the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Ame ndments. Staff and Committee reviewed the potential uses of indust rial zoning within the Stuck River Road potential Special Plan Area and th e Bicycle Task Force recommendations from Planning Commission. Page 4 of 6 CA.0 Committee was pleased with the 2011 Comprehensive P lan Amendments and thanked staff for the organization of their wor k and binder provided for review. F. Draft Resolution No. 4772 (Chamberlain) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to Approve Resolution No. 4772 t o full City Council for review and approval. Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain provided the briefing for Resolution No. 4772. Committee and staff reviewed t he proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies. The proposed amendments are to have the policies consis tent with Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040. After discuss ion it was determined Committee would take action on this item. Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. G. Draft Resolution No. 4773 (Chamberlain) Councilmember Backus moved and Councilmember Partridge seconded to Approve Resolution No. 4733 t o full City Council for review and approval. Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain provided the briefing for Resolution No. 4773. Committee and staff reviewed t he proposed amendments to the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies. Staff reviewed the proposed three (3) candidate regional centers. After discussion Committee decided to take action. Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0. H. Land Use Strategies for Addressing Impact of Potent ial Partial or Full Loss of Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation Funds (Snyder) Planning Director Snyder provided the staff report. Director Snyder reviewed Governor Gregoire’s released Budget Reduction Alter natives (released at the end of October 2011). The Governor’s Alternatives ident ify as a potential budget reduction alternative a partial (25 percent) or ful l (100 percent) elimination of streamlined sales tax mitigation funding that the C ity of Auburn is a current recipient of. A partial or 25 percent elimination o f 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 o f publication of the Budget Reduction Alternatives specifically identify that s he had chosen to include this proposed alternative in her 2012 supplemental budge t proposal, however, there is the potential that it could be included either by t he Governor at a later date or by the Washington State Legislature during its special session that begins on November 28, 2011. Page 5 of 6 CA.0 The potential partial or full loss of this mitigati on funding has significant revenue implications for the City. In response to this pote ntial revenue impact, the City should consider whether current land use policies n eed to be revised to facilitate the transition of industrial zoned areas away from warehouse and distribution uses to manufacturing, industrial and retail uses that w ill help the City financially compensate for real loss in revenue through increas ed property taxes and sales taxes. Staff provided several questions for the Committee’s consideration. Those questions were discussed and the Committee provided initial policy feedback and direction to staff on warehouse and distribution la nd uses. I. Director's Report (Snyder) Director Snyder discussed various projects and comm ercial business activities in the City. J. PCDC Matrix (Snyder) Chair Norman recommended Committee contact staff wi th any questions. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further bsuiness to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, Chair Norman adjourned the m eeting at 8:30 p.m. APPROVED THIS _________ DAY OF _________________________. ______________________________________ Lynn Norman, Chair _______________________________________ Tina Kriss, Planning & Development Secretary Page 6 of 6 CA.0 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4769 Date: November 21, 2011 Department: Public Works Attachments: Resolution No. 4769 Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:Request for Committee action to move Resolution No. 4769 - Setting the Time and Date for a Public Hearing before the City Council of the 2012 -2017 Transportation Improvement Program.Background Summary:Pursuant to RCW 35.77.010 the City of Auburn is req uired to annually prepare and adopt a comprehensive Transportation Improvement Program (T IP) for each ensuing six calendar years. The TIP is the detailed programming document for transporta tion improvements over a six year period. The plan is intended to ensure that the City will have availabl e advance plans as a guide in carrying out a coordi nated street construction program. The City Council is required to conduct a public he aring to review the work accomplished under the six -year Transportation Improvement Program, and to ado pt a revised and extended plan. Reviewed by Council Committees:Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Norman Staff:Dowdy Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:ACT.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED ACT.A --------------------------- Resolution No. 4769 November 17, 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 Au burn annually prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation impro vement program for each ensuing six calendar years to ensure that the City w ill have available advance plans as a guide in carrying out a coordinated st reet construction program; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires the City Council to annually conduct a public hearing to review the work accomplished u nder 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 AUB URN, 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 w ork accomplished under the program, and to identify capital transportation sy stem improvement projects, and relevant transportation studies. ACT.A --------------------------- Resolution No. 4769 November 17, 2011 Page 2 Section 2. NOTICE OF HEARING. The Council hereby directs that a notice specifying the time and place of the public heari ng shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation and the not ice shall also be posted in three public places. Such public notice shall precede th e 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 19 th day of December, 2011, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in the Council Chamb ers of the Auburn City Hall at 25 West Main Street in Auburn, Washington, b efore the City Council. All persons interested in said 2012-2017 Transportation Impr ovement 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 ou t the directives of this legislation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. ACT.A --------------------------- Resolution No. 4769 November 17, 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.A AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6394 - 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Date: November 22, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Agenda Bill Ordinance No. 6394 Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:Request for Committee action to move Ordinance No. 6394 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to full City Council on December 5, 2011 .Background Summary:See attached agenda bill. Reviewed by Council Committees:Planning And Community Development, Public Works O ther: Planning Commission, Legal Councilmember:Norman Staff:Chamberlain Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:ACT.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED ACT.B AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Page 1 of 33 Agenda Subject CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehe nsive Plan Amendments – Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendme nts Date: November 17, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Draft Ordinance No. 6394 See separate working binder Budget Impact : N/A Administrative Recommendation: The Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 6394 to the Cit y Council Background Summary: The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Compre hensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requir ements, as amended. Since then the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by t he City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private citizens (privately-initiated). This year the city is initiating two map amendments and ten policy an d text amendments. In addition, this year the city receiv ed one privately-initiated plan map amendment and a combined request for a map amendment and associated privately–initiated policy/text amendment. This staff report and recommendation addresses: • Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments CPM # 1 & CPM #2 (City initiated) • Comprehensive Plan Map CPM #3 & CPM #4 (privately initiated - each separately) • Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 10. (city initiated) • Policy/Text Amendment P/T #11 (private initiated) Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewe d during a public hearing process before the City o f Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a rec ommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendm ents will occur prior to the end of this year. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Services Finance Parks Human Services Planning & Dev. Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources Action : Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____ Councilmember: Norman Staff: Snyder Meeting Date: November 28, 2011 Item Number: ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 2 of 33 At its October 18, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the following (Group #1): • CPM#1 – City initiated Map Amendment for city-owned storm/flood ponds • CPM#2 – City initiated Map Amendment for update to Natural Gas Map No. 6.2 • P/T #1 – Incorporate the Auburn School District Capita l Facilities Plan • P/T #2 – Incorporate the Dieringer School District Ca pital Facilities Plan • P/T #3 – Incorporate the Federal Way School District C apital Facilities Plan • P/T #4 – Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #5 - Incorporate the City’s Capital Facilities Pl an • P/T #6 – Revise Transportation Plan to recognize work of the Bicycle Task Force • P/T #7 – Revise Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Pl an for Project 13 (A&B) modeling • P/T #8 – Update the previously provisionally approv ed NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan • P/T #9 – Seven various housekeeping changes o Revise for target population numbers & census data o Add new section on Climate change and greenhouse gas em issions – o Recognize Economic Development Strategy Areas o Comprehensive Plan Appendix B, Reports and Studies, Incorporate the following documents: Downtown Urban Core Task Force Dr aft Final Report & Bicycle Task Force End Report o In Policy LU-15 change the reference to "street lights" in the description of road improvements within the Residential Conservancy z oning district o Clarify the term: "market factor" as used in this Buil dable Lands Section o Add policy statement to recognize support for and tran sition to alternatively powered vehicles • P/T #10 - Revise Chapters to emphasize manufacturing land uses in industrial areas At its November 9, 2011 public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the following (Group #2): • CPM#3 – Private initiated Map Amendment for Terrace View LLC, Change two parcels from Light Commercial to Heavy Commercial • CPM#4 – Private initiated Map Amendment for Segale Properties LLC, Expand boundaries of the Stuck River Road Special Plan Area to include additional ownership • P/T #11 – Private initiated Policy/Text Amendment f or Segale Properties LLC, to revise purpose and description of the Stuck River Road Special Plan Area. The Planning Commission has forwarded it recommendatio n to the City Council on all plan map and policy/text Amendments. City Council consideration and action on the amendments is required to occur prior to the end of this year. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on June 27, 2011, and November 14, 2011, and will be again at their November 28, 2011 meeting. The Public Works Committee of the City Council will review the amendments at their November 21, 2011 meeting. Ordinance No. 6394 is proposed for action at the December 5, 2011 City Co uncil meeting. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 3 of 33 A. Findings 1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Managemen t Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. E xcept in limited circumstances provided for in State law, comprehensive plan amendme nts shall be considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than on ce per year. 2. The City of Auburn established a June 10, 2011 dead line for the submittal of privately-initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy /text). Notice to the public of the filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, th e Seattle Times, and sent to a compiled notification list. The City received one privately-in itiated plan map amendment and a privately–initiated combined policy/text and map amen dment by the submittal deadline. 3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four school district capital facilities plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These capi tal facilities plans, as well as the City’s Capital Facilities Plan are referenced in Chapte r 5, Capital Facilities, of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. 4. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for th e Terrace View Properties, LLC Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment under city file SEP1 1-0009 on September 9, 2011. The comment period ended September 23, 2011 and the appeal period ended October 7, 2010. No comments have been received or appeals filed . 5. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on October 3, 2011 under City file # SEP11-0021. The comment period ended October 17, 2011 and the appeal period ends Octo ber 31, 2011. No comments have been received or appeals filed. 6. The Auburn School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2011 - 2017 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan April 22, 2011; the Dieringer School District issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the 201 2-2017 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan July 8, 2011; the Federal Way School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2012 Federal Way School D istrict Capital Facilities Plan April 23, 2011; and the Kent School District issued a Determinatio n of Non-Significance for the 2011-2012 through 2016-2017 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan June 7, 2011. 7. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensi ve plan amendments outlined for CPM# 3 (CPA11-0001) were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce, formerly the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Developme nt (CTED) and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review on Se ptember 9, 2011. The Washington State Office of Commerce acknowledged receipt on Septe mber 14, 2011. No comments have been received from Commerce or other state agencie s. 8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensi ve plan amendments outlined for CPM# 1, 2 and 4 and P/T #1 through #11 (CPA11-0002 and CPA11-0003) were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce, formerly the Dep artment of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and other state agencies as r equired for the 60-day state review on October 3, 2011. The Washington State Offi ce of Commerce by letter ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 4 of 33 acknowledged receipt on October 4, 2011. No comments h ave been received from Commerce or other state agencies. 9. Due to the nature of the city-initiated map amend ments and the city-initiated policy/text changes and receipt of only one privately-initiated m ap amendment and one privately initiated combined policy/text and map change, an optio nal process of a public open house was not conducted. 10. The public hearing notice was published on October 7, 2011 in the Seattle Times at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 18, 2011. Notices of the hearing were posted at City Hall, City H all Annex, Public Library and Post Office. 11. The public hearing notice was published on October 2 8, 2011 in the Seattle Times at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 9, 2011. 12. Public notice was also provided to property owners w ithin 300 feet of the subject site and the property was posted with a land use notice board th at included the public hearing notice. 13. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the proce ss for submittal of privately-initiated amendments and the processing of comprehensive plan amen dments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one publ ic hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such pub lic hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, inclu de the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspa per of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public h earing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all pr operty owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amen dment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspa per of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public h earing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all pr operty owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locat ions in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calen dar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expan d the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning co mmission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan ame ndments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. Th e planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendatio n consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehen sive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 5 of 33 E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments con sidered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consi stent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive p lan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 20 08.)” 14. On November 14, 2011, the Planning and Communit y Development Committee of the City Council reviewed the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendmen ts and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. 15. On November 21, 2011 the Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Public Works Committee had questions and/or discussion on the following proposed comprehensive plan amendments: P/T #11 – Private-initiated request by Segale Properties LL C for a text amendment - Chapter 14, “Comprehensive Plan Map”, page 14-21, Th e Public Works Committee expressed concern about the inclusion of “industrial” land uses in the set of land uses to be studied in the preparation of the Stuck River Road Sp ecial Area Plan. There was discussion that the Special Plan Area document which is subsequently prepared would require a public hearing by the Planning Commission and approval by th e City Council prior to implementation. There was discussion that after the stud y for preparation of the Special Area Plan, the “industrial” uses could be limited in l ocation to a certain portion of the site, limited in extent (coverage or proportion of the site ) or limited in type by the language of the future special area plan that is developed. The Commi ttee suggested amending the language with this year’s amendment to limit the fut ure industrial uses of the site to no greater than is currently in active gravel mining. St aff will prepare a revision to the language. P/T #10 - City initiated text amendment, Emphasize Manufactu ring land uses in Industrial zones – Chapter 3, “Land Use”, Chapter 8 “Economic Developme nt” and Chapter 14 “Comprehensive Plan Map”. The Public Works Committee n oted a difference in intent between the text amendments and the staff memo summar izing the amendments. The difference was explained due to changes made in response to the Planning Commission discussion. P/T #6 - City initiated text amendment, City of Auburn Ca pital Facilities Plan – Chapter 2, “Goals and Policies” page 11, The Public Works Committ ee noted that among the various goal and policy statements existing within the Plan, a goal and related policies should be added about the city’s desire to promote the city’s futu re construction of a community center facility in the Les Gove campus and utilize its construct ion and operation to build a sense of community that is inclusive of diverse populations includ ing, income levels, and national origins. P/T #6 - City initiated text amendment, City of Auburn Cap ital Facilities Plan – Chapter 3, “Capital Improvements - Transportation” page 17, The Public Works Committee suggested amending the language to anticipate the city’s use of both intersection and corridor level of service (LOS) standards in the future for transportatio n. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 6 of 33 P/T #6 - City initiated text amendment, City of Auburn Cap ital Facilities Plan – Chapter 3, “Capital Improvements - Transportation” page 22, For the improvements listed in Table T-2, Item 6 (S 277 th St – Auburn Way North to the Green River) and Item 8 (A Street NW, Phase 2) the Public Works Committee requested that some fundi ng be moved to an earlier year than as currently shown in 2017 in order that some desi gn could be funded to make the projects more eligible for grants or other outside so urces of funding. This was previously discussed by the Public Works Committee on the Capital Im provement Program. P/T #9 - City initiated text amendment, Seven various – Chapter 9, “The Environment” page 9-11, The Public Works Committee asked if the Nationa l League of Cities policies related to climate change issues are consulted by staff and the answer was “yes”. 16. The following report identifies all the Comprehe nsive Plan Map (CPM) and Policy/Text (P/T) amendments that were heard by the Planning Commission at their October 18, 2011 and November 9, 2011 public hearings along with the orig inal staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and the subsequent Planning Commissio n recommendation. --------------------------------------------------- OCTOBER 18, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ----------------------------------------------------- CPM #1 Revise Map No 14.1, Comprehensive Plan, to change from Light Industrial to Public/Quasi –Public, the designation of one city-owned parcel contai ning stormwater and compensatory flood storage ponds constructed as mitigation for the S 277th Street roadway improvement project. Discussion In 2002 the City of Auburn completed the reconstructio n of east-west South 277 th Street roadway between Frontage Road NW (the north-south ro adway; east of SR 167) and Auburn Way North. The purpose of this reconstruction was to i ncrease capacity and to provide grade separation of the roadway over the Burlington Northe rn and Union Pacific Railroad lines. As part of this reconstruction, the city undertook the const ruction of compensating flood storage ponds and stormwater ponds on the south side of the road to manage the impacts and increased runoff from filling and impervious surfaces fro m the project. Currently, the comprehensive Plan designation of a parcel containing th e flood storage and stormwater ponds is partially “Light Industrial” and partially “Publi c Quasi-Public”. To accurately reflect the encumbrance of the property with the city-owned flood storage and stormwater ponds, the designation is proposed to be changed to only reflect: “Public Quasi-Public”. The map revision would change one parcel from “Light Industrial” to “Pu blic/Quasi–Public”, and smooth the boundaries into a single unified shape. The parcel is i dentified as tax parcel number: 9360000184. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil CPM #2 Revise Map No. 6.2, Natural Gas Pipelines, to update r eferences and information shown. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 7 of 33 Discussion At the Planning and Community Development Committee meeting on October 25, 2010, the Council members asked that the city update Comprehensive Plan Map 6.2, Natural Gas Pipelines. A similar discussion was held at a subsequent P ublic Works Committee meeting. The map requires updating since it shows a utility line t hat doesn’t exist and there is a line shown in the legend that is not shown on the map. The Washington State Pipeline Atlas, King County, Washington, Utilities and Transportation Commission, Pipeline Safe ty Program, 2010 Edition, was consulted for revisions. Also, Puget Sound Energy was consulted for information on the location of their major transmission lines within the City. The map was revised in response to these information sources. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil P/T #1 Incorporate Auburn School District Capital Facilities Pla n 2011 through 2017, adopted May 9, 2011 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2011-2017. The CFP was adop ted by the Auburn School District School Board on May 9, 2011 and has been subject to sep arate SEPA review and a Determination of Non Significance (DNS). Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is incorporation of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capit al Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The fe e obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $5,557.30, an increase of $290.97 and for multi-family dwellings a fee of $2,305.22, an increase of $787.00. The actual impact fee that is assessed is set by ordinance by the Auburn City Council. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil P/T#2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facil ities Plan 2012-2017 adopted July 25, 2011 as part of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City w ith its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2012 - 2017. The CFP was adopted by the Dierin ger School District Board of Directors on ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 8 of 33 July 25, 2011. The CFP has been subject to separate SE PA review and a DNS. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis fo r the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Ca pital Facilities Plan indicates the net fee obligation of single-family dwellings of $5,681.0 0 and a negative net fee obligation of $1,304.00 for multiple family dwellings. However, t he district is not requesting a change from last year’s fees of $3,005. for single family resi dential and $0 for multiple family residential. The actual impact fee assessed is set by o rdinance by the Auburn City Council. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil P/T #3 Incorporate Federal Way School District Capital Facilit ies Plan 2012 adopted June 14, 2011 by the Federal Way School Board into the City Compr ehensive Plan. Discussion The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (2012). The CFP was adopted by the Fe deral Way School District School Board on June 14, 2011. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis fo r the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a change in the fee obligation s. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is $4,014.00, representing no change and for multi-family dwellings is $1,253, a decrease of $919.00. The actual impact fee assessed is set b y ordinance by the Auburn City Council. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil P/T #4 Incorporate Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 adopted June 22, 2011 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updat ed 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent Schoo l District School Board on June 22, 2011 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non Significance (DNS). Information contained in the School District C FP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school d istrict. The Planning Commission action ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 9 of 33 is incorporation of the Kent School District Capital Faci lities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not requesting a change in the fee obligations. The P lan indicates the net fee obligation for single-family dwellings of $5,486.00, representing no change, and for multi-family dwellings a fee of $3,378.00, also representing no change. The a ctual impact fee that is assessed is set by ordinance by the Auburn City Council. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil CPM #5 Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facili ties Plan 2012-2017, into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Discussion A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive p lan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing capital facilitie s (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, prop osed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-yea r plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Au burn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facili ties element as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must incl ude a capital facilities plan element. RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA states the fol lowing: A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned b y public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facili ties; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or n ew capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capi tal facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money f or such purposes; and (e)a requirement to reassess the land use element if pr obable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilit ies plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be include d in the capital facilities plan element. A capital facility is a structure, street or utility syst em improvement, or other long-lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided f or public purposes. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, road s, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sa nitary sewer systems, parks and ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 10 of 33 recreation facilities, and police and fire protection f acilities. These capital facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2017 is incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Capit al Facilities. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil CPM #6 Revise the separate Comprehensive Transportation Plan t o incorporate the work of the Bicycle Task Force Discussion The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a separate docu ment that is incorporated by reference into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The 2009 Comprehensive Plan contained substantive updates to the City’s non-motorized transpor tation elements including bicycle travel. In response to Council and community interest in bicycling issues and opportunities, Mayor Lewis formed the City of Auburn Bicycle Task Force in Ma rch 2010. Mayor Lewis charged the Task Force to develop recommendations on bicycle facilitie s, issues and opportunities centered on the principles of connections among and between the co mmunity, recreation and economic development. The Bicycle Task Force was comprised of 12 individuals plus representatives from Auburn School District, Green River Community College and Casca de Bicycle Club that were invited to be part of Task Force. The Chair was Terry Davis and th e Vice Chair was John Calnan who is a member of the City’s Transportation, Trails and Transit Committee. The Task Force met a total of 14 times between April 2010 and November 2010 incl uding a 3 hour community tour on Saturday, July 24, 2010 and a joint meeting with Aub urn Tourism Board and Auburn Downtown Association on August 12, 2010. The Committee worked o n a variety of issues including mapping of bicycle facilities and identification of bicycl e related projects and priorities. At the City Council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on November 29, 3010, Chair Davis presented the Task Force’s recommendations to the City C ouncil. As a result of the Council support of these recommendations staff has prepared upd ates to relevant chapters of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan that incorporated th ese recommendations. The Bicycle Task Force’s recommendations are divided into short-term recommendations and long-term recommendations as follows: Short-Term Recommendations: • Use Sharrows 1 /Share The Road Signage in residential and some non-r esidential areas of City. 1 Sharrows also known as shared lane markings, are on -street legends that reinforce the existing rules of the road. They are not separate bike lanes: a mo torist can still drive over the sharrows. Motorists should expect to see and share the lane with bicycl ists. Sharrows indicate to bicyclists the best plac e to ride in the lane. Sharrows are typically used in locations where the roadway width is not adequate ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 11 of 33 • Implement a Pilot Program Concept for Sharrows/Share the Road consisting of: o 18-24 month program period o Pre-established performance measurements o Pre-established reporting protocols o Future policy consideration opportunity for City Coun cil • Continue installation of bike lanes in parts of City where there is existing/adequate right-of-way. • Develop Auburn specific bicycle signage program to hig hlight corridors, connectors and in-city/out of city destinations. • Make improvements to existing Interurban Trail – sign age, pavement conditions, vegetation maintenance, grade crossings, and upgrades to user faci lities at Main Street crossing. Long-Term Recommendations: • Develop capital improvement program project with cost estimate for design and construction of bicycle/pedestrian bridge at southern terminus of M S t. west of existing Stuck River Vehicle Bridge. • Develop capital improvement program project with cost estimate for design and construction of innovative and safe pedestrian/bicycle crossing at M St ./Auburn Way South intersection. • Install one or more bike boxes 2 through “pilot program” approach to test effectivene ss and public response – possible locations West Main Street/C St reet intersection, M Street/Auburn Way South intersection, Ellingson Rd/A S treet intersection. • Install bicycle/pedestrian crossing warning systems along In terurban Trail at all crossing locations including 277 th Street, 37 th St. NW, West Main St. and 15 th St. SW. • Develop an official Auburn Bike Map In addition, the Task Force presented the City Council with bicycle oriented economic development recommendations including: Develop the Sounder Station as “starting point” for bike club rides. Rally the Auburn Downtown Association and Auburn Tour ism Board to develop business support for bicycle riders/create bike-friendly businesses . Create the perception of Auburn as “Bicycle City of S outh King County”. Use social media to advertise Auburn as a bicycle friend ly community. Connect with different types bicycle organizations abou t bicycling opportunities in Auburn. Establish an annual bike event in Auburn similar to R edmond Criterium and Enumclaw Days that offer bike awareness and other events such as time trials, road races and multiple terrain racing. to provide dedicated bike facilities or on downhill lanes where bicyclists might travel a similar spee d as motor vehicles. 2 Bike Boxes are a traffic control device at signali zed intersections that require motorists to stop a short distance before the crosswalk and allow bicyc lists to stop in the area between the cars and the crosswalk. Bicycle boxes give bicyclists priority b y allowing them to go to the head of the line ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 12 of 33 Develop an annual road race on Auburn streets; work with promoters to have different levels of road racing to appeal to multiple types of riders. Tie in with bicycle racing events at Pacific Raceway such as weekly criterium races, mountain biking and Cyclocross. In concert with these recommendations, a new map referr ed to as Figure 3-5 is proposed to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Transportation Pla n. This map specifies a bicycle system composed of key north/south corridors and east/west connect ors. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil P/T #7 Revise the separate document: Comprehensive Drainage Pl an (CDP) to Revise Plan Project Number 13 (A&B), Flooding of 30th Street NE. Discussion Revise the separate document: Comprehensive Drainage Pl an (CDP) to Revise Plan Project Number 13 (A&B), Flooding of 30th Street NE. The C omprehensive Drainage Plan is a separate document that is incorporated by reference in t he City’s Comprehensive Plan at Chapter 5, Capital Facilities. The 2009 Comprehensiv e Drainage Plan recognized that additional modeling of the Project Number 13 (A&B), flooding of 30th Street NE needed to be conducted to determine the appropriate method of addr essing flooding problems within this drainage basin. The City has completed the modeling a nd has proposed to revise the following portions of the plan to include the results and recommen dation of this modeling effort. The following sections are proposed to be revised: Executive Summary, Table ES-2, pg ES-9; Chapter 6, Capital Improvements, pg 6-19 thru 6-20; Chapter 7, Implementation Plan, pg 7-2 thru 7-4 & Implementation Plan Timeline; & Chapter 8, Financial Plan, pg 8-7 thru 8-9, Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil P/T #8 Update the previous conditionally-approved Northeast A uburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan (Approved by City Council Ordinance No. 618 3) – Referenced within Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map Discussion This policy text amendment is to update the previous con ditionally-approved Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan that was provisionally approved by the City ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 13 of 33 Council by Ordinance No. 6183 in 2008. This Special Ar ea Plan is incorporated by reference within Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map. Chapter 14 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area that covers properties east of Auburn Way North, west of the extension of I ST NE, south of 277 th ST and north of approximately 45 th ST NE. This Plan is proposed to be updated prior to the end of this year as part of the City’s 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan docket to reflect the current development plans and environmental documentation for the Auburn Gateway Project. More sp ecifically, the plan is being revised for the following reasons: • Impacts of the acquisition and development of an add itional 11 acres by Robertson Properties Group (RPG) subsequent to the original EIS ; • RPG’s determination to conduct phased project developme nt in two phases that could be developed independently or jointly; and, • Changes in city regulations and development standard s such as: o The city’s adoption of new floodplain regulations may affect the proposal. Unless future project is otherwise exempt under the provisio n of ACC 15.68.130, the project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and R iparian Habitat Zone (RHZ) and would be required to obtain a City of Auburn Flo odplain Development Permit, including the submittal of a habitat impact assessment r eport; o City adoption of a critical areas ordinance; o Changes in Comprehensive Plan transportation policie s; and • Changes in external circumstances over the intervening period of time including the completion of the Port of Seattle’s adjacent wetland m itigation property construction, the completion of the Trail Run Plat and the completion o f Monterey Park Plat and associated I Street NE extension) The proposed changes are shown in the original document with strike through and underline to indicate revisions. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil P/T #9 - VARIOUS (seven miscellaneous amendments) Item 9-A Revise for target population numbers & census data - Ch apter 3, Land Use; Chapter 4, Housing and Chapter 8, Economic Development Discussion The City is proposing to revise the text of three chapt ers (Chapters 3, 4 & 8) and two figures within these chapters (Figure 4.5 and Figure 8.1) of t he Comprehensive Plan to update the changes in city population as reported by U.S. Census Bu reau (American Community Survey) and population target data. In 1997 the Washington State legislature adopted a Bu ildable Lands amendment to the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.215). The amendme nt requires certain Washington ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 14 of 33 State counties and their cities to determine the amoun t of land suitable for urban development and to evaluate their capacity for growth based on past development history. Both Pierce and King Counties are subject to the State Buildable Lands requirement. In addition, both counties use the Buildable Lands effort to assist in the allocation of population/housing unit/employment targets to individu al jurisdictions within the respective counties as required by the GMA. The first buildable lands reports were based upon data through 2002; the second reports, published in 2007, a re current through 2005. The next scheduled update is 2012. In between the required rep orting time periods the population/housing unit/employment targets are estimat ed. The Buildable Lands analysis involves the identification of vacant and redevelopable land suitable for development over the planning horizon, generally 20 years. Land suitability takes into consideration estimates of how critical areas, land that might be needed for public purposes (e.g. parks, storm drainage), and land needed for fu ture streets will effect development of these vacant and redevelopable parcels. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil Item 9-B Add new section on Climate change and greenhouse gas emi ssions - Chapter 9, Environment, Objective 18.6 - Energy Efficiency Discussion In 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4477 resolving to join ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI- acronyms intenti onally don’t match) and pledging that the City of Auburn would undertake ICLEI’s five mile stones approach to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions. In 2010, the City complet ed an inventory of both municipal and community greenhouse gas emissions using a 2008 base year . The inventory, entitled Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the City of Auburn, Washi ngton, included base year estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and emissions forecasts for years 2015 and 2020. In 2010, the inventory was adopted as a policy background document fo r the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (see Comprehensive Plan Appendix B). To build on this policy direction, the City is proposing to add four policies to Chapter 9, Environme nt and also proposes to move the City’s existing objective and five policies related to air qu ality (Objective 18.2 and policies EN-18 through EN-22) to this section. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil Item 9-C Recognize Economic Development Strategy Areas - Chapter 3, Land Use, Chapter 8, Economic Development, pages, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan M ap ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 15 of 33 Discussion The City is proposing to revise the text of three chapt ers of the Comprehensive Plan to recognize additional economic strategy areas. In 2005 the city convened a focus group of business and com munity interests to identify economic development opportunities within the city. Th e results of these efforts were documented in the Economic Development Strategies document. It identified approaches and actions associated with six specific areas of the city. Durin g the 2011 city council retreat, two additional areas of the city were identified as addit ions to the 2005 Economic Development Strategies documents’ six strategy areas. These eight eco nomic development strategy areas are targeted for population and employment growth t o meet the City’s 20-year (2031) growth target. The retreat also recommended sub-area plans sho uld be developed for these strategy areas. The economic development strategy areas are as fo llows: • Auburn Way North Corridor • Auburn Way South Corridor • Urban Center • Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone • 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway/Sup ermall • A Street SE Corridor • SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE Corridor • M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn So uth The proposed policy changes generally add language to r ecognize the addition of the new economic strategy areas. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil Item 9-D Comprehensive Plan Appendix B, Reports and Studies, I ncorporate the following documents: Downtown Urban Core Task Force Draft Final Report & Bi cycle Task Force End Report Discussion Appendix B of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document l ists and summarizes reports that have been prepared or available as background to the Compr ehensive Plan. The general objective of these proposed policy/text amendments is to update a nd increase the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan. A summary of the Downtown Urban Core Task Force Draft Final Report & Bicycle Task Force End Report (a power point presenta tion) is proposed to be summarized. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 16 of 33 Item 9-E In Policy LU-15 change the reference to "street lights" in the description of road improvements within the Residential Conservancy zoning district, Chap ter 3, Land Use, Goal 7 - Residential Development Discussion At the December 13, 2010 Planning and Community Deve lopment Committee (PCDC) meeting of the city council, during the discussion of 2010 annual comprehensive plan amendments, the council members asked that the following change be iden tified for a future amendment. It was noted that there are street lights with Residential Co nservancy designated areas of the city; so to say that there are none is the document currently do es is inaccurate. The provision of street lights was compared to the City’s Public Works Design Stand ards. The Design Standards provide that street lights are only required at street intersections so the policy statement is being revised to agree. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil Item 9-F Clarify the term: "market factor" as used in this Build able Lands Section, Chapter 3, Land Use, Buildable Lands - Land Supply and Development Capacit y Discussion At the October 25, 2010 Planning and Community Devel opment Committee (PCDC) meeting of the city council, during the discussion of 2010 annual comp rehensive plan amendments the council members asked that an explanation of “market factor” be added to the text in the future. In this context “market factor” is used to adjust the a mount of vacant and redevelopable land that is not reasonably expected to become available duri ng the planning horizon. Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use, page 3-3, un der the section heading of: “Buildable Lands – Land Supply and Development Capacity” is being changed to add further explanation. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil Item 9-G Add policy statement to recognize support for and transi tion to alternatively powered vehicles Chapter 9, Environment, Objective 18.6, Energy Effici ency Discussion As part of last year’s amendments, a new policy EN-41.A was added to Objective 18.6 (Within Chapter 9, The Environment) to provide policy suppor t for future change in development regulations in response to House Bill 1481 adopted in A pril 2009, to encourage the transition to electric vehicle use. At the Planning and Community De velopment Committee (PCDC) meeting of the city council, during the discussion of 2010 annual comprehensive plan amendments the ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 17 of 33 council members asked that the policy be modified in t he future to recognize other alternative forms of power for vehicles. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil 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 Discussion The Washington State Legislature passed Substitute Sena te 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 de stination-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. P resently, they must collect based on the destination of the shipment or delivery - the "destin ation" of the sale. Destination-based sales tax applies only to businesses that ship or deliver the g oods they sell to locations within Washington. Under the destination based system, if a re tailer delivers or ships merchandise to a buyer in Washington State, the sales tax is collected base d 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 st ate. As a result of this legislation, the City of Auburn has experienced a net loss in sales tax reven ue totaling approximately $2 million annually due to the large presence of warehousing and distribution uses in the City. While the City has been a recipient of sales tax mitigation payme nts from the State of Washington that has served to offset these losses, the continued availabil ity of these payments is not certain due to current and future State budget issues In November 2004, the City Council approved Resolutio n No. 3782 that outlines an approach and actions the City will take related to land use pl anning, zoning and other matters in the event a streamlined sales tax proposal or other similar propo sals that change the tax structure are adopted. Included in this resolution is direction to con sider amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning codes to reevaluate the existing indust rial land use designations and patterns in the City. To ensure the City’s long-term ability to invest in pu blic infrastructure and services remains viable, the City must pursue implementation of polici es that incentivize the transition of current and future land uses in its industrial zones away from di stribution and warehouse uses. The City believes that manufacturing and industrial land uses shou ld over time largely replace warehouse and distribution land uses currently existing i n the City and that any future warehouse and distribution uses should be ancillary to an d necessary for the conduct of manufacturing and industrial uses. Manufacturing and i ndustrial uses are more appropriate and beneficial through higher and better use of the land, enhanced employment densities, increased property tax revenues and potential on-site sales tax r evenue generation for receipt of materials and other goods and services. In addition, the City be lieves that policies that promote and incentivize greater retail uses in industrial districts sho uld be implemented to increase the City’s overall base of retail uses thereby increasing the City’s overall collection of sales tax revenue. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 18 of 33 Text amendments to Chapters 3 (Land Use), 8 (Economic D evelopment) and 14 (Comprehensive Plan Map) of the Comprehensive Plan ha ve been prepared to create a policy foundation for the promotion and incentivization of manufacturing and industrial uses in industrial zoning districts to increase the overall dive rsity and number of these uses in the City of Auburn. In addition, text amendments that support the increased allowance of retail uses in the City’s industrial zoning districts have been prepa red. These amendments would create a policy framework to support changes in the City’s zoning code that would lead to greater use flexibility for these uses in industrial zoning districts, thereby assisting in increasing the City’s overall retail base and its collection of associated sales tax revenue. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil -------------------------------------------------- NOVEMBER 9, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ----------------------------------------------- CPM #3 1. The applicant submitted a comprehensive plan map ame ndment application on June 9, 2011 by the submittal deadline of June 10, 2011. The comprehensive plan map amendment application seeks to change the mapped land use designati on for two parcels shown on Map No 14.1, titled Comprehensive Plan. 2. The application was submitted by Jon Cheetham, Manag ing Member of Terrace View Properties, LLC on behalf of the limited liability corporation, applicant. 3. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan map Amendme nt, the applicant submitted an environmental checklist application. 4. The application seeks to change the comprehensive plan land use designation for two parcels located on the east side of A Street SE (a.k.a. East Valley Highway) from “Light Commercial” to “Heavy Commercial”. The parcels are ide ntified as tax parcels: 3121059056 and 31221059010 and together contain approximately 2 .22 acres. The properties are identified as being located at the address of 5680 A S treet SE. 5. The two parcels have been previously cleared and dev eloped. The majority of the area is graveled and the southern parcel contains a mobile home /office that appears vacant. 6. The adjacent street, A Street SE is designated a pr incipal arterial street in the city’s Comprehensive Transportation plan. 7. The property is located within the King County por tion of the City of Auburn. It was annexed to City in 1962 by Ordinance No. 1492 and was origina lly zoned UNCL, unclassified which assumes an R1, Single Family Residential standard (refe rring to the former code designation system). The properties were subsequently cha nged to R2, Single Family ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 19 of 33 Residential (referring to the former code designation system) in 1987 and then subsequently changed to C1, Light Commercial. 8. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site and surrounding properties are as follows: Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use Site Light Commercial C1, Light Commercial Vacant with mobile home/office North Light Commercial C1, Light Commercial Single family residential South Light Commercial C1, Light Commercial Construction Contractor’s yard in Pierce Co. portion of Auburn East Moderate Density Residential R-7 (Residential 7 du/acre) Undeveloped forested hillside West City limit boundary and in Pacific City limits, designated “Open Space” West of A Street SE & Burlington North Railroad line designated “Open space” in the city of Pacific. A Street SE and Burlington Northern railroad line within city limits and vacant beyond city limits ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 20 of 33 ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 21 of 33 9. The purpose of the comprehensive Plan is to provide a policy basis for the future zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive plan and Zoni ng Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code section: “ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. The zoning, land division and other development code s contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be mad e in conformity with the comprehensive plan. “ 10. The City code provides certain criteria for decision s for comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendment s. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted af ter significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, ob jectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight w hen considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof f or justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrat e that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision cr iteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent wi th the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain inter nally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based a re found to be invalid; 4. A determination of change or lack of change in con ditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW , the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County , as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Pu get Sound Region.” 11. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The Comprehensive Plan contains a number of areas of policy guidance that relate to this application. Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, star ting at page 14-10 provides the following purpose and description of the ‘Light Commer cial’ Comprehensive Plan designation: “Purpose: To create people oriented commercial areas to supply a wide range of general commercial services to area residents.” “Description: This category represents the prime commercial designatio n for small to moderate scale commercial activities. These commercial areas should be developed in a manner which is consistent with and attracts pedestrian oriented activities. The ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 22 of 33 ambiance of such areas should encourage leisure shopping an d should provide amenities conducive to attracting shoppers.” “Compatible Uses: A wide range of consumer oriented goods and services ar e compatible within this designation since the emphasis woul d be on performance criteria which create an attractive shopping environment. However, uses which rely on direct access by vehicles or involve heavy truck traffic (other than for merchandise delivery) are not appropriate in this category. Unsightly outdoor storage and similar activities should be prohibited. Permitted uses would consist of retail trade, offices, personal services, indoor eating establishments, financial institutions, governmental offices, and similar uses. Multiple family dwellings sho uld be encouraged as part of mixed-use developments where they do not interfere wi th the shopping character of the area, such as within the upper stories of buildings. Si nce taverns can break up the continuity of people oriented areas, taverns would be permitted generally only as a conditional use. Drive in windows should only be allow ed as ancillary to a permitted use, and only when carefully sited under the conditional use permit process in order to ensure that an area's pedestrian environment is not seriously affected.” (Emphasis added) “Criteria for Designation: This designation should include moderate sized shoppin g centers, and centrally located shopping areas. This desig nation should be preferred for commercial sites where visual and pedestrian amenities are an important concern outside of the downtown.” “Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Commercial areas which cannot be readily separated from high traffic volum es (such as shallow lots along busy arterials) should not be included in this desi gnation. Areas not large enough for separation from any adjacent heavier commercial or industrial area should not be designated as light commercial. (emphasis added )” “Appropriate Implementation: This designation is implemented by the C-1 Light Commercial District. This district provides for a wide ra nge of small and moderate scale commercial oriented towards the leisure shopper and pede strian oriented activities.” 12. For comparison, Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map , starting at page 14-12 provides the following purpose and description of the ‘Heavy Commerci al’ Comprehensive Plan designation: “Purpose: To provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and regional need for such services .” “Description: This category is intended to accommodate uses which are o riented to automobiles either as the mode or target of providing the commercial service. The category would also accommodate a wide range of heavie r commercial uses involving extensive storage or heavy vehicular movement.” “Compatible Uses: A wide variety of commercial services oriented to aut omobiles are appropriate within this category. This includes automo bile sales and service, drive in restaurant or other drive in commercial business, conveni ence stores, etc. Since these uses are also compatible with heavier commercial uses, lumb er yards, small scale ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 23 of 33 warehousing, contractor yards and similar heavy commercial uses are appropriate in this designation.” “Criteria for Designation: This designation should only be applied to areas wh ich are highly accessible to automobiles along major ar terials. Generally this category would characterize commercial strips. This zone is appropriate for the intersections of heavily traveled arterials, even if adjacent sites are best suited for another commercial designation.” (emphasis added) “Considerations Against Applying this Designation: Areas which conflict with single family residential areas or areas more suited for othe r uses. Whenever possible this category should be separated from all uses by extensive b uffering.” “Appropriate Implementation: This category is implemented by the C-3 Heavy Commercial District.” 13. Also, later in Chapter 3, Land Use, the document d escribes the purpose of the commercial land use designations of the plan. The comprehensive pl an provides the following guidance on commercial uses located along transportation corridors: “Highway Commercial “While commercial uses along arterials (often called "st rip commercial" development) provide important services to community residents, the pr oliferation of commercial uses along arterials raises several land use planning issues. On the negative side, strip commercial development creates traffic flow problems and conflict with adjacent land uses. Due to their "linear" nature, commercial strips re sult in a maximum area of contact between commercial uses and other land uses resulting in a high potential for land use conflicts. Poor visual character due to excessive signage an d architectural styles designed to attract attention instead of promoting a sense of community is an additional concern. Pedestrian shopping is made difficult, resulting in greater generation of automobile traffic, and large fields of asphalt parkin g lots are needed to accommodate single purpose vehicle trips.” “Despite the problems associated with commercial developm ent along arterials, many such locations are often quite unsuitable for other uses, due to the impacts associated with heavy traffic volumes. Also, many commercial uses thri ve at such locations due to high visibility and accessibility. The Plan seeks to mana ge existing arterial commercial areas to take advantage of the accessibility they provide, while minimizing traffic and land use conflicts and improving their visual appearance through an enhanced design review process and development standards.” “Objective 9.3. To encourage the appropriate use of areas adjacent to heavily traveled arterials while minimizing land use and traffic conflict s by: • “Managing the continued commercial development of exi sting commercial arterials in a manner which minimizes traffic and land use conflicts.” ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 24 of 33 • “Conserving residential qualities along heavily trave led arterials which are not yet commercialized, by restricting commercial development to types which provide an appropriate buffer.” • “Protecting existing, viable residential areas along l esser-traveled arterials, from commercial development.” The following excerpted policies relate to this discussion of commercial uses located along transportation corridors. “Policies: “LU-58 The City shall identify those existing comme rcial arterials that are appropriate for continued general (heavy) commercia l development, and those arterials that are appropriate for contin ued or future limited (i.e. professional office type) commercial developm ent.” (emphasis added) “LU-60 The City shall encourage the grouping of indi vidual commercial enterprises along commercial arterials to promote the sharing of pa rking areas, access drives and signs. Such grouping can be encouraged throu gh land division regulations, sign regulations and development standard s.” “LU-62 Arterials experiencing strong pressure for co mmercial development, but not yet committed to general (heavy) commercial uses, shall be designated for mixed light commercial and moderate density multi-family uses. Development regulations should encour age the development of professional office and similar uses and small scale multiple family housing, with development and desig n standards carefully drawn to ensure preservation of a quality living environment in adjacent neighborhoods. Development regulations co uld also allow other light commercial and higher density multi-fam ily housing, subject to an extensive public review, and possibly a desig n review process.” (emphasis added) LU-66 The City should develop design standards and guid elines for development along arterials to improve their visual appearance.” Thus, while commercial ‘strip’ development along corrid ors is generally discouraged as sprawl and can result in negative visual and functional i mpacts, it is recognized by the Comprehensive Plan that the location of commercial servi ces along corridors provides some community benefits and several policies are directed at i mplementing code changes and authorizing development only in a manner that seeks to minimize the negative effects. 14. In addition Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, recognizes that policy statements do not fit all circumstances. The Plan recognizes that in some case s the general policies established by this Plan need further articulation or cl arification due to particular concerns associated with specific geographic areas. In other cases, t he application of the Plan's general policies may be inappropriate for a specific ar ea due to unique circumstances, requiring that specific "exceptions" to these general po licies be established. The section ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 25 of 33 entitled “Transitions” identifies these specific areas and establishes either supplemental policies or exceptions to the general policy. This transi tion section specifically recognizes and addresses the entirety of the A Street SE corridor within the city as follows: “A Street SE Area: A Street SE corridor, extending from Highway 18 to t he north; to the city limits to the south, the BNSF rail lines/rail yard to the west a nd D Street SE (extended to the south) to the east. Problem: A Street SE provides for a significant level of tra ffic that offers the potential to attract customers to support existing and future business along this corridor. Challenges include better definition of t he transition between residential neighborhoods and future commercial development to provide predictability for both neighborhood residents and commercial uses, as well as how to address historical uses such as mobile home parks and industrial dev elopment along this corridor that occupy property that is better suited for other use s. (emphasis added) Policy III. H. Define appropriate transition bounda ries between commercial and residential development in a manner that protects resid ential uses while providing for economic development opportunities along the corridor. Policy III. I. To ensure protection the of adjacen t residential neighborhood and residential uses located east of B Street SE between 8 th and 17 th Streets SE from commercial development on the west side of B Street SE, , special development standards shall be adopted. The special development stan dards could include requirements for increased building and parking setbacks and/or landscape buffer treatment. The standards may also include the implemen tation of traffic calming measures as appropriate to reduce traffic impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood located east of B Street SE between 8 th and 17 th Streets SE.” Again, within this section, the Comprehensive Plan reco gnizes that commercial ‘strip’ development along transportation corridors is generall y discouraged as sprawl and if uncontrolled can result in negative visual and functional impacts. This language is balanced with recognition that commercial development along corr idors provides convenient needed services. Additionally, this section prescribes that transit ions should be provided between commercial uses and residential uses by city regulations and by the manner in which development is authorized. Considering the sum of all of the different sections of the Comprehensive Plan together, the more specific descriptions of each of the land use designati ons supports the requested change. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment seek s to change the designation to allow more intensive land uses and those which are attra ctive to vehicle service and the traveling public. Since the property is located along a heavily traveled principal arterial street, the proposed change more closely matches the descr iption of the purpose of the “Heavy Commercial” designation; it is located along a m ajor arterial and is highly accessible to automobiles. The current “Light Commercial designa tion is less appropriate for the properties since the development is readily accessible to v ehicles and there is not sufficient width to separate the development from the heavily t raveled corridor. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 26 of 33 However, the proposed amendment is not an expansion of an existing Heavy Commercial designated area and would interject a different desig nation between two areas currently designated as “Light Commercial”. It may be appropria te to re-evaluate this corridor. The City should consider docketing for a possible a future change to the land use designations along the east side of this corridor. This effort would provide an opportunity study and potentially change a more significant portion of the co rridor when impacts can be assessed and managed. 15. The second decision criterion is that the comprehen sive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequat e services . The proposed change by itself, if approved will not affect the ability to pr ovide adequate services. However, the change the Comprehensive Plan map, if approved could lead to cumulative applications by other properties in the vicinity for changes to the la nd use designation and intensification of development. While public services, such as police and fire could like accommodate the change in land use designation, full public infrastructu re is not currently in place. The Valley Regional Fire Authority did not have any comments in response to the application. While there is adequate water (16 inch water main) in A Str eet SE, the road continues to be two lanes; it has not been widened in the area of the subj ect properties as done in other segments farther to the north and south and has roadside ditches to provide storm drainage. Also, a sewer would have to be extended to serve the si te. However, to require that infrastructure as a precursor is not always viable as the C ity often relies upon development to provide the public infrastructure improvements nee ded to support the development as the development occurs. Under the current conditions, as wit h many properties in the city, the infrastructure improvements would be the responsibility of future development. At the time of development, adequate services would be provided for the development to be authorized so it is not anticipated that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services. 16. The third decision criterion is that the assumption s on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. While not completely invalid, the comprehensive pla n seeks to discourage commercial ‘strip’ development along cor ridors since it can result in negative visual and functional impacts, balanced with t his the Plan recognizes by the comprehensive plan that the location of commercial service s along corridors provides community benefits. Also, the more specific language o f the plan as found in the purpose statements of the land use designations for “Light Comme rcial” and “Heavy Commercial” support the application based on the site’s proximity to a heavily traveled arterial. 17. The fourth decision criterion is that there has bee n a change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates t he need for a proposed amendment. Again, the comprehensive plan seeks to discourage commerci al ‘strip’ development along corridors since it can result in negati ve visual and functional impacts, balanced with this, the Plan recognizes that the locatio n of commercial services along corridors provides community benefits. Also, the more spe cific language of the plan as found in the purpose statements of the land use designa tions for “Light Commercial” and “Heavy Commercial” support the requested change based on the site’s proximity to a heavily traveled arterial street. 18. The fifth decision criterion is that the change mus t be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Co untywide Planning Policies of the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Tr ansportation Strategy for the ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 27 of 33 Puget Sound Region”. The change if approved would continue to be consiste nt with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The proposal is consistent because it continues to allow commerci al uses; only of a more intensive nature and more specifically oriented to the traveling public. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil The Planning Commission also suggested that the east side of A Street SE between Lakeland Hills Boulevard SE and Lake Tapps Parkway SE be studie d in the future for potential changes in the land use designations. Policy/Text Amendment P/T #11 and Map Amendment CPM #4 1. The applicant submitted a comprehensive plan policy/t ext amendment and map amendment application on June 10, 2011 by the submittal deadline of June 10, 2010. The application was submitted for the purpose of initiating the process f or preparation of the special area plan called for the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The pre paration process of this special area plan document is expected to extend into next year and not be completed this year. This year some revisions and refinements of the Comprehensiv e Plan are proposed to lay the groundwork for future efforts. The current change con sists of two interrelated requests: a. comprehensive plan policy/text amendment request see ks to modify the discussion of the “Stuck River Road” and “Mount Rainer V ista” special planning areas discussion within Chapter 14; Comprehensive Plan M ap, and b. revise Map 14.1, Comprehensive Plan Map and Map 14 .2 Special Plan Areas to expand the boundary by adding seven parcels to the Stuc k River Road Special Plan area in the same manner on each map. 2. The application was submitted by Jami Balint, Attorn ey for Segale Properties, LLC on behalf of Segale Properties, LLC and Lisa Atkins, Property Ow ners. 3. The proposed policy/text amendments P/T #11, are fo und at pages 14-20 through 14-22 within Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map. The chang es generally include the following: c. Refer to the subsequent plan preparation as a “sub-ar ea plan” rather than “element” of the Comprehensive Plan. d. Eliminate the reference to the maximum number of dwelling units to be allowed and revise wording to instead determine the appropria te number of dwelling units as part the special area plan development process with pu blic input. e. Revise wording to refer to future stormwater manag ement within the special plan area to be consistent with city standards rather than d ischarging to Bowman Creek and to the city stormwater facilities as current wor ding does. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 28 of 33 f. Acknowledge that the two designated special plan are as (the Stuck River Road and Mount Rainer Vista) may be coordinated and develo ped jointly since they are contiguous. g. Revise wording to recognize that land uses could be d ifferent in the future as part of the special area plan preparation process and include commercial, institutional, industrial, and recreational uses in addi tion to residential uses that area already described. h. Change wording to indicate that active gravel mini ng is continuing within the special plan areas. The gravel mining is expected to cont inue for several years into the future. 4. The proposed map change, CPM #4, proposes to revise b oth, Map 14.1, “Comprehensive Plan”, and Map 14.2, “Special Plan Areas”, to expand t he boundary of the Stuck River Road Special Plan area to the southwest by adding parcels (Ap plicant originally proposed seven parcels; staff recommended an eighth). As both these ma ps show the special plan area, the same change affects both maps. The following map shows an expanded view of the change to Map 14.1 “Comprehensive Plan”. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 29 of 33 ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 30 of 33 5. The purpose of the comprehensive Plan is to provide a policy basis for the future zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive plan and Zoni ng Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code section: “ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and im plement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be mad e in conformity with the comprehensive plan. “ 6. The City code provides certain criteria for decisions for comprehensive plan amendments. “ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendment s. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted af ter significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, o bjectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burde n of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applican t, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relat es to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent wi th the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain inter nally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based a re found to be invalid; 4. A determination of change or lack of change in con ditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW , the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County , as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Pu get Sound Region.” 7. The first criterion is that the change must furt her and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Many of the designated special plan areas do not have an established mapped land use designation (such as low density residential or Light Ind ustrial). Essentially, the map is left blank. The purpose of the special area plan process is to determine the appropriate land use designation (and color) to be applied to the prop erties. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following general guidance on special area plans: “Purpose: To allow large areas within the City, under a singl e or a coordinated management, to be developed as a planned unit. This d esignation can also be used to provide flexibility when there is uncertainty regardi ng how an area may be most appropriately developed in the future. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 31 of 33 Description: This designation applies to specific areas identified as being appropriate for mixed, urban level development on a planned basi s. It is intended that the future development of these areas will be guided by individu al "elements" or “sub-area plans” of the Comprehensive Plan, to be developed and adopt ed at a later date. The Plan elements should be consistent with the following. Compatible Uses: Uses and intensities within Special Planning Areas shall be determined for each area through individual planning processes. Each individual planning process will result in the adoption of a Compr ehensive Plan element (sub-area plan) for that particular Special Planning Area. Each Plan element shall be consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.” In the Comprehensive Plan document, this general expla nation of the purpose of the Special area plans is followed by a narrative description of ea ch individual special plan area. The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments seek to clarify or augment the current description of the Stuck River Road and Mount Rainer V ista special plan areas to more accurately reflect the current circumstances of property o wnership, mining status and to provide greater flexibility in the future preparati on of the special area plan, such as determining appropriate land uses and the amount of d evelopment. The changes promote the future study to be undertaken as part the special a rea plan document development. The proposed changes are consistent with the overall Plan an d there will be a need to ensure that future changes also remain consistent. The proposed map change, as amended by the staff recommendation, also re mains consistent with the comprehensive plan. The map change pr oposes to make a special plan area larger to encompass seven parcels that are under t he same ownership as a majority of the parcels within the special plan area designation. T ypically, the special area plan preparation takes into account the nature and develop ment status of surrounding uses. The change expands the boundaries without affecting consisten cy. The change increases coordination of properties under the same ownership. 8. The second decision criterion is that the comprehen sive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequat e services. The proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan text and map amendment is gene ral in nature and does not affect the ability to provide adequate services. 9. The third decision criterion is that the assumption s on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid . While not completely invalid, the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments seek to clarify or a ugment the currently description of these specific special plan areas to more accurately refl ect the current circumstances of property ownership, mining status and to provide great er flexibility in the future preparation of the special area plan, such as determining appropriat e land uses and amount of development. The changes are designed to facilitate th e future study to be undertaken as part the special area plan document development. The map change also does not affect validity. The changes are for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and providing greater flexibilit y. This criterion in this circumstance does not relate well to the circumstances of this amendmen t application. ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 32 of 33 10. The fourth decision criterion is that there has bee n a change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates t he need for a proposed amendment. The change is needed since this reference has not been up dated to reflect progressive and alternate ways of managing stormwater runoff, such as infiltration into the ground that are provided for in the city’s stormwater standards. The change is also needed to provide flexibility in land uses and number of dwe llings to recognize the increased prominence and public acceptance of mixed use development projects such as planned communities. Again, the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments seek to clarify or augment the currently description of these specific special areas to more accurately reflect the current circumstances of property ownership, mining status and to provide greater flexibility in the future preparation of the special area plan, such as det ermining appropriate land uses and amount of development. The changes are designed to pr omote the future study to be undertaken as part the special area plan document devel opment. The map change is proposed to reflect the circumstance of ownership that m ay have changed since the time of the original establishment of the special area plan bou ndaries. The changes are for the purpose of increasing the accuracy and providing greater flexibility. This criterion does not relate well to the proposed amendments as the change s are of general benefit. 11. The fifth decision criterion is that the change mus t be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Co untywide Planning Policies of the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Tr ansportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The text changes proposed will continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The proposal is consistent because it does not change the abilit y to conduct land use studies to determine the general nature of allowed land uses. T he map changes also will remain consistent with the regional land use policy guidance. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council as amended as follows: Staff recommends that the map amendment also include pa rcel number 3221059031 (an eighth parcel) that is contiguous to the other parcels subject to this request and avoids an isolated parcel on the east side of Kersey Way SE that is surroun ded by the special area plan designation on three sides and Kersey Way SE on the fou rth. It is appropriate to include this parcel to make logical boundaries of the special plan ar ea and since it is also owned by Lisa Atkins, Applicant. The applicant has confirmed it is app ropriate to include this parcel. Staff recommends that the policy/text amendment revise wording of the description and purpose of the Stuck River Special Plan areas, Chapter 1 4, “Land Use Map”, as found on page 14-21 to include study of the potential of indust rial uses among the other uses studied for the area in the future. The applicant supports th is change. The change would read: “The land uses for the Stuck River Road Special Planning Area will be determined through the subarea planning process and the City Coun cil’s adoption of the subarea plan. Potential land uses applied through the subarea planning process could ACT.B Agenda Subject : CPA11-0001, CPA11-0002, & CPA11-0003, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Plan Map Amendments and Policy/Text Amendments Date: November 17, 2011 Page 33 of 33 include single-family residential, multi-family residen tial, commercial, institutional, industrial and recreational.” Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval to the City C ouncil as amended by the staff. ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 6394 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF RCW CHAPTER 36.70A WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopt ed a Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. 1703 which includes a Map establi shing the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations throughout th e City; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995 the City of Auburn adopt ed Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995 re affirmed that action by Ordinance No. 4788; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn published in the Seattle Times and Auburn Reporter an advertisement that the City was accepting co mprehensive plan amendment applications and established a deadline for su bmittal of June 10, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn received one privately-i nitiated amendment map amendment (CPA11-0001); and one privately-initi ated combined map amendment and text amendment (CPA11- 0002); and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn initiated two map amend ments and ten text amendments (CPA11-0003); and ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 2 WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments w ere processed by the Planning and Development Department as propose d Year 2011 amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, maintaining a current Capital Facilities Plan is required in order to meet regulations of the Growth Management Act under R CW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Year 2011 C omprehensive Plan amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were transmitted to t he Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Serv ices Division and other State agencies for the 60-day review period in accordan ce with RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City’s o fficial newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the Auburn Planning Commission on October 18, 2011 and November 9, 2011 conducted public hearings on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Auburn City Plann ing Commission heard public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consi deration; and WHEREAS, thereafter the Auburn City Planning Commissi on made recommendations to the City Council on the proposed Yea r 2011 Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments; and ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 3 WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011 the Planning and Comm unity Development Committee of the Auburn City Council rev iewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2011 the Public Works Committ ee of the Auburn City Council reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2011 the Planning and Comm unity Development Committee of the Auburn City Council mad e a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2011, the Auburn City Council considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as recommended by the City of Auburn Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUB URN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The 2011 Comprehensive Plan city-initiated Map Amen dments (CPA11-0003) are adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibits “A” and “B” as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file Exhibits “A” and “B” along with this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. Section 2. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA11-0003), including the amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan, amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan, Amendments to the Northeast Auburn/Rob ertson Properties Special ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 4 Area Plan, and various amendments to certain chapters of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 3, Land Use; Chapter 4, H ousing; Chapter 8, Economic Development; Chapter 9, The Environment; Cha pter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map; and Appendix B) are adopted and approved as set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Clerk shall file them along with this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. The full text of the Capital Facilities Plan of the City and the fo ur school districts Capital Facilities Plans are adopted with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, copies of which shall be on file with the Office of the City Clerk. The City Cl erk shall file them along with this Ordinance and keep them available for public inspection. Council adopts the Planning Commission’s recommendation dated October 18, 2 011 [as amended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on (date) ______________]. Council adopts the findings and conclusions outlined in th e staff report dated November 17, 2011, attached as Exhibit “D”. Section 3. Application CPA11-0001, Terrace View Properties, LLC Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land u se designation change from Light Commercial to Heavy Commercial for propert y identified by parcel numbers 3121059056 and 3121059010 is approved as set fo rth in Exhibit “E” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Council adopts the Planning Commission’s recommendation dated November 9, 2011 and the findings and conclusions outlined in the staff report dated November 17, 2011 attached as Exhibit “D”. ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 5 Section 4. Application CPA11-0002, Segale Properties, LLC Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, requesting a land u se designation change to include within the Stuck River Road Special Plan Area t he properties identified by the following eight parcel numbers: 3221059001, 322105900 2, 3221059003, 3221059004, 3221059008, 3221059024, 3221059026, and 3221059031 is approved as set forth in Exhibit “F” attached hereto and incorpo rated herein by reference. Also, the related Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments r equesting modification of the description and purpose of the Stuck River Road and Mount Rainer Vista Special Plan Areas to Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map, is a pproved as set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein b y reference. Council adopts the Planning Commission’s recommendation dated November 9, 2011 [as amended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on (date)_____________] Council adopts the findings and conclusions outlined in th e staff report dated November 17, 2011, attached as Exhibit “D”. Section 5 . The 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments modify the Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986 by Resol ution No. 1703 and adopted by Ordinance No. 4788 on September 5, 1995. Section 6 . The adopted Comprehensive Plan as amended is designate d as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act by the City's responsible envir onmental official in accordance with RCW. 43.21C.060. ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 6 Section 7 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por tion of this Ordinance or any of the Comprehensive Plan amendm ents adopted herein, is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Cou rt of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and ind ependent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remai ning portions thereof. Section 8 . The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such adm inistrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions o f this legislation to include incorporating into one document the adopted Co mprehensive Plan map and text amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Exhib it “B”, Exhibit “C”, Exhibit “D” Exhibit “E” and Exhibit “F” preparing and publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: Peter B. Lewis MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 7 __________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _____________________ ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 8 Exhibit A Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14.1, “Comp rehensive Plan”, showing the change from Light Industrial to Public Quasi-Public for city-owned storm and flood storage ponds . (Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder) ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 9 Exhibit B Colored Map No 6.2, “Gas Pipelines” with updated re ferences and information. (Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder) ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 10 Exhibit C The Auburn, Dieringer, Federal Way and Kent School District Capital Facilities Plans, City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Stor mwater Drainage Plan, Amendments to the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Proper ties Special Area Plan, and various amendments to the chapters of the Aubur n Comprehensive Plan including: * Chapter 3, Land Use; * Chapter 4, Housing; * Chapter 8, Economic Development; * Chapter 9, The Environment; * Chapter 14, Comprehensive Plan Map; and * Appendix B (See “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab in the working binder ) ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 11 Exhibit D PCD Committee Staff report dated November 17, 2011, ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 12 Exhibit E Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14.1, “Comp rehensive Plan”, showing the change from Light Commercial to Heavy Commercial for Terrace View Properties LLC and iden tified by parcel numbers 3121059056 and 3121059010 (Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder) ACT.B -------------------------- Draft Ordinance No. 6394 November 22, 2011 Page 13 Exhibit F Colored map which is a detail of Map No 14.1, “Comp rehensive Plan”, and Map No 14.2, “Special Plan Areas” showin g a land use designation change to include within the Stuck River Road Special Plan Area the properties identified by the following eight parcel numbers: 3221059001, 3221059002, 3221059003, 3221059004, 3221059008, 3221059024, 3221059026 for Segale Properties LLC (Please see “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the working binder) ACT.B AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4771 Date: November 17, 2011 Department: Finance Attachments: Resolution WA Advocates contract memo Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:City Council adopt Resolution No. 4771.Background Summary:Resolution No. 4771 authorizes the Mayor and City C lerk to execute an agreement for services with Washington2 Advocates, LLC for consul ting services on various municipal functions, tasks, and projects. Reviewed by Council Committees:Finance, Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Backus Staff:Coleman Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:DI.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DI.A ------------------------ Resolution No. 477 1 November 10, 2011 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 4 7 7 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH WASHINGTON ADVOCATES, LLC, FOR CONSULTING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City is engaged in or readying itself t o be engaged in various municipal functions, tasks and projects; and, WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interests to have av ailable the services of qualified consultants who will be able to assist the City on projects related to federal appropriations; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to retain Washington Advocat es, LLC to provide such services; and WHEREAS, Washington Advocates, LLC, is qualified and able to provide such consulting services in connection with the City’s need s, and is willing and agreeable to provide such services upon the terms and con ditions herein contained. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AU BURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1 . That the Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized t o execute an agreement in substantial conformity with the Agree ment attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this r eference. Section 2 . That the Mayor is authorized to implement such admini strative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. DI.A ------------------------ Resolution No. 477 1 November 10, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Section 3 . 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 ATTEST AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid City Attorney DI.A Exhibit A Resolution No. 4771 CITY OF AUBURN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL/CONSULTING SERVICES THlS AGREEMENT made and entered into on this ___ day of _________ 2011, by and between the City of Auburn, a municipal co rporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Washington² Advocates, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is engaged in or readying itself to be engaged in various municipal functions, tasks and projects; and, WHEREAS, it is in the City's best inte rests to have available the services of qualified consultants who will be able to assist the City on pr ojects related to federal appropriations; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to retain the Consultant to provide su ch services; and, WHEREAS, the Consultant is qual ified and able to provide such consulting services in connection wit h the City's needs, 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 prof essional manner tasks related to projects involving the Ci ty of Auburn also involving federal funding, including: a. Engaging in communication with appr opriate representatives of various agencies and entities who would be invo lved in such projects, and b. Advising and consulting with t he City regarding approaches and strategies on how to promote proj ects advantageous to the City, and c. Engaging in such other related tasks as are assigned by the Ci ty. 2. Independent Contractor . The Consultant shall perform the services as an independent co ntractor and shall not be deemed, by virtue of this Agreement and the performance thereof, to have entered into any partnership, joint ve nture, employment or other relationship with the City. Page 1 of 7 DI.A 3. Performance of Additional Services Prior to Execution of an Addendu m . The parties hereby agree that situations may arise in which services other than those described in Section 1 above are desired by the City and the time period for the completion of such services makes the execution of addendum impractical prior to the co mmencement of the Consultant's performance of the requested servic es. The Consultant hereby agrees that it shall perform such services upon the oral request of an authorized representative of the Cit y pending execution of an addendum, at a rate of compensation to be agreed to in c onnection therewith. The invoice procedure for any such additional se rvices shall be as described in Section 7 of this Agreement. 4. Consultant's Representations . The Consultant hereby r epresents 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 ti mely 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. In advance of any such designation, the Mayor of the City of Auburn shall se rve in such designated capacity. The City's designee shall have complete aut hority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and defi ne the City's policies and decisions with respect to the services. b. Examine and evaluate any and all studies, reports, memoranda, plans, and other documents prepared by t he Consultant in furtherance of the scope of services hereof, and r ender 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 Agr eement, work product and services of a quality and professional standar d acceptable to the City. 7. Compensation . As compensation for the Consultant 's performance of the services provided for herein, the City shall pay the Consul tant a monthly fee of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) duri ng the term hereof. The City shall also pay the Consultant's reasonabl e travel expenses incurred in connection with work done in furtherance of the scope of services hereof. The Consultant shall submit to t he City a monthly in voice or billing statement, and the City shall process t he invoice or statem ent in the next Page 2 of 7 DI.A Page 3 of 7 billing/claim cycle following receipt of the invoice or statement, and shall remit payment to the Consultant thereafter in the normal course. 8. Term of Agreement . The Term of this Agreement shall co mmence on the date hereof or on the 1st day of January, 2012, and s hall terminate on the 31st day of December, 2012, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 9. Ownership and Use of Documents . All documents, reports, memoranda, and any other materials created or otherwise prepared by the C onsultant as part of hi s performance of this Agreement (the "Work Products") shal l be owned by and become the property of the City, and may be us ed by the City for any purpose beneficial to the City. 10. Records Inspection and Audit . All compensation payments shall be s ubject 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 subjec t to inspection and audit by the City for a period of up to three (3) year s from the final payment for work performed under this Agreement. 11. Continuation of Performance . In the event that any dispute or c onflict arises between the parties while this Contract is in effect, the Cons ultant 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 Nina Collier, 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 Auburn City Hall 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 (253) 931-3000, Fax (253) 288-3132 Consultant Washington² Advocates, LLC P. O. Box 1462 Bellevue, WA 98009 (425) 467-6900, Fax (425) 467-1037 nina.collier@Washington2advocates.com DI.A 13. Notices . All notices or communications permitted or required to be given u nder this Agreement shall be in writ ing 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, he r or its address by giving not ice 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. 14. Insurance . The Consultant shall be responsible for maintaining, during the term of this Agreement and at its sole cost and expense, the type s of insurance coverages and in the amounts described below. The C onsultant 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 inju ry, death or property damage arising out of or in connection with the perfo rmance 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 anyone occurrence. b. Such workmen's compensation and other similar insurance as may be required by law. c. Professional liabili ty insurance with minimum liability limits of $1,000,000. 15. Indemnification . The Consultant shall indemnify and hol d 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 dam ages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of the negligent act or omissi on of the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, or any of t hem relating to or arising out of the performance of this Agreemen t. If a final judgment is rendered against the City, its officers, agents, employees and/or any of them, or jo intly against the City and the Consultant and their respective o fficers, 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 neg ligent acts or omissions. Page 4 of 7 DI.A 16. Assignment . Neither party to this Agreement shall assi gn any right or oblig ation hereunder in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of t he 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 specif ying with particularity the nature and extent of such amendment, modification or waiver. Any waiv er 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 t he remedies or rights of the parties hereto under and pursuant to this Agreement. 18. Termination and Suspension . Either party may terminate this Agreem ent upon written notice to the other party if the other party fails subs tantially 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 here in are no longer needed from the Consultant. If this Agreement is terminated through no f ault of the Consultant, the Consultant shall be compensated for services performe d prior to termination in accordance with the rate of compensation provided herein. 19. Parties in Interest . This Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits and obli gations provided for herein shall inure to and bind, t he parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided that th is section shall not be deemed to permit any transfer or assignment otherwise pr ohibited 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-contra ctors and their sureties. Page 5 of 7 DI.A Page 6 of 7 20. Costs to Prevailing Party . In the event of such liti gation or other legal action, to enforce any rights, responsibilities or obligati ons under this Agreement, t he prevailing parties shall be entitled to receive its reasonab le costs and attorney's fees. 21. Applicable Law . This Agreement and the rights of the par ties hereunder shall be governed by the interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washi ngton and venue for any action hereunder shall be in of the county in Wash ington State in which the property or project is loca ted, and if not site specific, then in King County, Washington; provided, however, that it is agreed and un derstood 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 par agraphs or sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference onl y 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 us ed herein, where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural and vice ve rsa and masculine, feminine and neuter expressions shall be interchangeable. Inte rpretation or construction of this Agreement shall not be affected by any det ermination as to who is the drafter of this Agreement, this Agreement having be en 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 ill egality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 24. Entire Agreement . This Agreement contains the entire underst anding 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 multip le counterparts, each of which shall be one and the same Agreement and shall bec ome effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party. DI.A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties her eto have caused this Agreement to be executed effective the day and year first set forth above. CITY OF AUBURN _____________________________ By: Peter B. Lewis, Mayor WASHINGTON² ADVOCATES, LLC _____________________________ By: Nina Collier, Partner Attest: _____________________________ Danielle E. Daskam City Clerk Approved as to form: _____________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Page 7 of 7 DI.A M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Pete Lewis and Carolyn Robertson FROM: Washington2 Advocates and T hompson Smitch Consulting Group DATE: November 14, 2011 SUBJECT: 2011 Accomplishments and 2012 Priorities -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As 2011 comes to a close, below please find a re view of the activities of your federal lobbying team this year on behalf of the City of A uburn and goals for 2012. Each firm, Washington2 Advocates (W2A) and Thompson, Smitch Consulti ng Group, brings a unique set of skills, background and relationships that to gether help advance the goals of the City of Auburn. While our focus is federal issues, we are a part of the C ity’s team assisting with important priorities at the state and local level as well. SUCESSES IN 2011 x Defend the Public Works Trust Fund -- In c onjunction with partners in Olympia the Auburn team successfully de fended the City’s position within the Public Works Trust Fund. This required a great deal of work w ithin an excep tionally short timeframe. x Game Farm Park -- We worked with the Ci ty and State Agency leadership to reach a potential deal for the rema ining Game Farm Park prope rty. Leveraging historical relationships with leadership at the Stat e Agencies, the Auburn team was able to navigate the State regulato ry environment and assemble a possible pathway for success in securing the remain ing four plus acres of the Game Farm Park property in perpetuity, thus avoiding the scheduled public au ction for the property. x Historic Post Office -- We have worked ex tensively with the King County Executive’s team to negotiate the sale of the Historic Post Office either to the City or to a local buyer. We have provided strategic c ounsel and support to ensure th e County understands this is a City priority. x Regional Firing Range -- Our team, rolled out an effort to secure funding sources for the Regional Firing Range with help from the Federa l Delegation. Although the Federal budgetary climate is presently difficult, the Auburn team wa s able to work DI.A with the City and the Federal delegation to secure critical meetin gs and briefings with potential funding part ners. Key to this effort is the Homeland Secu rity construct within Washington State. The team has been able to secure a briefing with Homeland Security leadership while at the same time briefing and gaining support from several Federal law enfo rcement agencies. We also assisted the City with an effort to develop letters of support from several local la w enforcement agencies and potential partners. x M Street Project -- Our team provided strategic counsel regarding the M street grade separation project, developing an alternative federal funding option for the City including grant options and a strategic plan engaging Senator Murray’s office. x Federal Funding -- The government relations team has been heavily involved in advocating for Auburn specific issues and prot ecting programs the City values most. Our teams have tracked, provided analysis, and advocated on behalf of funding with our delegation for several federal programs importa nt to the City including: High Speed Rail funding, COPS funding, Community Developmen t Block Grant funds among others. With heavy budget cuts worsening on a yearly basis the Federal Gove rnment is regularly proposing initiatives that coul d negatively impact the City of Auburn. Through our work the delegation has been effective at blun ting as much harmful policy as possible x Water and Flooding Issues -- Our team, performed extensive contingency planning on behalf of the City of Auburn concerni ng Howard Hansen Dam, city levees, the Corps, and FEMA. The Auburn team possess es a longstanding hist orical perspective and working knowledge on flood ing issues as a result of past work on Howard Hansen Dam and with the Corps. As a result the team was able to strategically plan for City options dependent upon the result of the fina l FEMA appeal. We have consistently communicated with the fede ral delegation, King County staff, and agency staff on issues of importance to Auburn whether the appeal of FEMA emergency funds for flooding prepar ation or on le vee issues. x Federal Legislation -- We have also worked with the delegation to support legislation or key provisions in legislation important to the City. A few examples include: o Congressman Reichert’s introduction of a fix for Health Reimbursement Accounts, and the Valley Cities Water Res ources Development Act requests. o Transportation Reauthorization: We mon itored action in the House and Senate on SAFETEA-LU, legislation that authori zes funding for federal transportation projects and briefed senior congressional staff on the requests for the City of Auburn. x Washington State Government -- We worked with the City on an ongoing basis to execute outreach to the Wash ington State Legislative leadership and the Governor’s office on issues of cr itical interest. The Auburn team has been effective leveraging existing Washington State Legislative and Offi ce of the Governor contacts to protect vital funding streams at the State level. Auburn and citi es across the St ate have and will face serious efforts to cut State funds that historical ly go towards police and fire amongst other important services. With ma ssive budget shortfalls in Olympia, the DI.A Auburn team is persistent in efforts to ensure that Auburn does no t endure grave budget cuts. x Building Relationships -- We helped on seve ral challenging issue management projects outside our traditional scope of work, and help ed build stronger relationships for the City with organizations that freque ntly create challenges and opportunities for Auburn. Those projects involved outreach to the following groups: newly elected members of the state legislature, lobbyists and cons ultants working on projects with other entities that potentially benefit or harm Auburn, S ound Transit board members and senior management, Port of Seattle commissioners a nd senior staff a variet y of elected council members and staff from the King County Counc il, and senior executives at Puget Sound Energy. WORK PLANNED FOR 2012: In 2012, we plan on working with the City of Auburn on the following projects and issues: x The federal and state budget climates demand a different approach in the coming years, the City will need a robust pl an to actively engage funding ag encies in its projects to be successful securing funds. We will work with the City of Auburn to strategize on the FY 2013 opportunities to include funding for: x Regional Tri-trails project; x Regional Training Center and Firi ng Range for law enforcement; x Completion of the Historic Post Office Sale; and x Game Farm Park x We will continue to work with the C ity on federal funding opportunities through the Water Resources Development Act. x We will continue our work with the City on water management issues around flooding – whether Howard Hansen Dam, FEMA re imbursement, or levee certification. x We will work to advance the City’s prioriti es as reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU makes its way through the legislative process. This legislation has the potential to provide funding for Auburn transportation projects. Seizing those opport unities will require a strategic and aggressive lobbying approach th at we look forward to helping you manage and execute. x We will continue to monitor bills and provide strategic guidance and counsel on engaging with the congressional delegati on on rail and Amtrak issues. x We will continue to monitor any legislative and regulatory activity related to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. DI.A x We will continue to promote the expansion of key relationships in the region, DC and local staff of Members of Congr ess, senior staff and commissi oners at the Port of Seattle and to regional political appointees (F EMA, EPA, NOAA Fisheries and HHS). x We will continue ongoing strategic discussions with City staff regarding these and other issues of significance to Auburn. CONCLUSION Your federal team very much enjoys the opportun ity to work on behalf of Auburn. We have had great success together, and we are looking forward to a productive 2012. Thank you for your business and for the time you have invested with us. We look forward to working with you throughout the year on these and ot her key projects for the City. DI.A AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program Date: November 21, 2011 Department: Public Works Attachments: Memo Council Priority Matrix Draft 2012 -2017 Transportation Improvement Program Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:For Discussion Only.Background Summary:See attached. Reviewed by Council Committees:Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Norman Staff:Dowdy Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:DI.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DI.B PCDC Page 1 11/21/2011 Memorandum Engineering Division To: P lanning & Community Development Committee (PCDC) Mayor Lewis From: Pablo Para, Traffic Engineer CC: Dennis Dowdy, Public Works Director Dennis Selle, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Ingrid Gaub, Assistant City Engineer Michelle Surdez, Senior Accountant Rich Wagner, Public Works Committee Chair Date: November 28, 2011 Re: 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program Updat e PURPOSE Discuss proposed 2012-2017 update to the Transporta tion Improvement Program (TIP). BACKGROUND The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TI P) 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 includ ed on the TIP to be eligible for state and federal grant programs. The TIP identifies secu red 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 doc ument are shown as having secured funding while projects in the last three years can be partially or completely unfunded. The TIP is a multiyear planning tool and document f or 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. The TIP set 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 needed utility improvements. DI.B PCDC Page 2 11/21/2011 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2012-2017 TIP Deletions: The following projects were substantially funded a nd/or completed in 2011 and are proposed to be removed from the 2012-2 017 TIP: TIP #2 Citywide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) PHASE 2 TIP #13 South Auburn Intelligent Transportation Sy stem (ITS) Expansion TIP #22 Skinner Road to 3rd Ave (Auburn Pacific Tr ail Phase 2) TIP #53 37 th & R St SE Pedestrian Connector Additions: Below are the proposed new additions to the 2012-20 17 TIP: TIP #2 AWS Pedestrian Improvements (Dogwood to Fir ) TIP #13 Mohawk Plastics Wetland Mitigation Project TIP #18 8 th St NE and SE 104 th St Intersection Improvements TIP #57 Downtown Pedestrian Lighting Improvements TIP #58 AWS Corridor Improvements (Fir St SE to He mlock 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 S treet 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 a nd PSRC for their acceptance. Nov. 28 th , 2001 – CAB & Resolution to set public hearing for 12/5/11 @ PCDC. Nov. 28 th , 2011 – Proposed TIP Amendments for discussion @ P CDC Dec. 5 th , 2011 – Proposed TIP Amendments for discussion @ PWC. Dec 12 th , 2011 – CAB & Resolution for action @ PCDC. Dec. 19 th , 2011 – City Council Meeting to conduct public hea ring & approve amended TIP Attachments: • Council Transportation Program Priority Projects M atrix (from Council Retreat) • Draft 2012 – 2017 Transportation Improvement Progr am DI.B 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 Cumulative Grant or Additional Funds Required Cumulative City Funds Required 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 $29,600,000$7,400,000 254 Kersey Way (Oravetz Road to So. City Limits)$800,000$80,000$4,000,000 2123432 3.45 $0 $32,800,000$8,200,000 314 West Valley Highway (SR 18 to W. Main)$2,000,000$200,000$5,000,000 3322444 3.40 $1,200,000 $36,000,000$8,203,000 45 M Street SE Underpass (E. Main to AWS)$5,000,000$500,000$22,400,000 1433444 3.30 $3,000,000 $53,400,000$10,203,000 520 M Street SE & AWS Intersection $400,000$40,000$2,000,000 4422432 3.15 $250,000 $55,000,000$15,203,000 611 M Street Corridor (4th NE to AWS)$1,560,000$156,000$7,800,000 3433432 3.10 $1,000,000 $61,240,000$15,603,000 714 West Valley Highway (W. Main to 15th NW)$1,600,000$160,000$8,000,000 2322442 3.10 $1,500,000 $67,640,000$17,163,000 886 Lakeland/Tapps Connector (Stewart, Bridge)$1,000,000$100,000$32,300,000 1433422 3.10 $0 $98,940,000$18,163,000 92,58 Auburn Way So. (Dogwood to Hemlock)$0$0$3,900,000 4421324 3.00 $0 $102,840,000$18,163,000 1014 West Valley Highway (37th to City Limits)$600,000$60,000$3,000,000 2324442 3.00 $500,000 $105,240,000$18,763,000 1129 277th (AWN to Green River Bridge)$820,000$82,000$4,100,000 3442422 2.95 $500,000 $108,520,000$19,583,000 1239,40,41,42 Lea Hill SE 312th,124th, 320th Corridor $1,900,000$190,000$4,600,000 3423332 2.90 $800,000 $111,220,000$21,483,000 1350,51 Intersections and ITS $1,600,000$160,000$8,000,000 3330232 2.80 $0 $117,620,000$23,083,000 141 A St. NW Phase 1 (3rd NW to 14th NW )$2,300,000$230,000$11,500,000 0344104 2.70 $2,000,000 $126,820,000$25,383,000 1543 Auburn Way So. & Riverwalk Intersection $480,000$48,000$2,400,000 4412322 2.70 $0 $128,740,000$25,863,000 1610 F Street SE (4th SE to AWS)$240,000$24,000$1,200,000 2313142 2.50 $0 $129,700,000$26,103,000 1747 Environmental Park District $3,940,000$394,000$19,700,000 0141331 2.40 $5,000,000 $145,460,000$30,043,000 1848 Downtown Streets and Sidewallks $2,400,000$240,000$12,000,000 1141242 2.40 $2,000,000 $155,060,000$32,443,000 197 15th SW Reconstruction (C St. to UPRR)$680,000$68,000$3,400,000 2113332 2.30 $0 $157,780,000$33,123,000 20Various Non-Motorized (Bike, ped.,12 TIP projects total)$3,400,000$340,000$17,000,000 2110222 2.25 $0 $171,380,000$36,523,000 213 Auburn Way Corridor (4th NE to 4th SE)$800,000$80,000$4,000,000 2221331 2.15 $0 $174,580,000$37,323,000 224 "I" St. NE (Developer participation) (40th to 52nd)$1,160,000$116,000$5,800,000 0342312 2.00 $1,100,000 $179,220,000$38,123,000 2362 Auburn Way So. (SR 18 to M SE, streetscape)$800,000$80,000$4,000,000 2244101 1.90 $0 $182,420,000$38,923,000 2463 29th and "R" SE Intersection $620,000$62,000$3,100,000 2412212 1.90 $0 $184,900,000$39,723,000 2561 Auburn Way So. Bypass (SR 18 to SR164)$13,000,000$1,300,000$65,000,000 0423400 1.85 $0 $236,900,000$52,723,000 268 A St. NW Phase 2 (W. Main to 3rd NW)$540,000$54,000$2,700,000 1231111 1.70 $500,000 $239,060,000$65,723,000 27 CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL $55,040,000$5,504,000$293,900,000 $26,850,000$3,192,080,000$748,955,000 2837 SOS Local Street Preservation (20 yrs)$40,000,000$2,000,000$40,000,000 1212133 2.60 $3,000,000 N/A$67,723,000 2935 Arterial Street Preservation (20 yrs)$60,000,000$3,000,000$60,000,000 1134442 3.40 $10,000,000 N/A$70,723,000 3036 Routine Street Maintenance (20 years)$40,000,000$2,000,000$40,000,000 3124243 3.30 $0 N/A$72,723,000 31N/A Engineering (20 yrs, 8 FTE, traffic)$20,000,000$1,000,000$20,000,000 4444444 4.00 $2,000,000 N/A$73,723,000 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.B T T r r a a n n s s p p o o r r t t a a t t i i o o n n I I m m p p r r o o v v e e m m e e n n t t P P r r o o g g r r a a m m 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 --2 2 0 0 1 1 7 7 DI.B DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program T T r r a a n n s s p p o o r r t t a a t t i i o o n n I I m m p p r r o o v v e e m m e e n n t t P P r r o o g g r r a a m m 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 --2 2 0 0 1 1 7 7 Approved by Auburn City Council December 19, 2011 City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 (253)-931-3010 www.auburnwa.gov DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program ii Cover Photos: Top right is 8 th St NE & R St NE Traffic Signal; bottom left is A ST NW Phase 1. DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program R esolution 4770 iii RESOLUTION NO. 4770 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBU RN, 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 WASHINGTO N WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires that the legislative body of each City pre pare and adopt a comprehensive Transportation Improvement Pr ogram (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 19, 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 28, 2011; and WHEREAS, said amendment to the 2012-2017 Transport ation 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 AUBU RN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows : Section 1 . There is attached hereto and denominated as Exhib it “A,” the terms of which are incorporated herewith by reference as tho ugh 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 o f such street or streets. Section 2 . That the City Engineer of the City of Auburn is h ereby 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 o f this Resolution. Section 3 . That the Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the dir ections of this legislation. Section 4. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 4770 iv 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program v Transportation Improvement Program 2012-2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1 Projects & Financing Plan Summary.....................................................................................................3 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary..................................................................................13 Roadway Improvement Projects...........................................................................................................15 A Street NW, Phase 1...........................................................................................................................15 AWS Ped Improvements Dogwood to Fir............................................................................................16 Auburn Way Corridor Imp....................................................................................................................17 I Street NE Corridor..............................................................................................................................18 M Street Grade Separation....................................................................................................................19 South 277th Street.................................................................................................................................20 15th Street SW Reconstruction.............................................................................................................21 A Street NW, Phase 2...........................................................................................................................22 D Street NW..........................................................................................................................................23 F Street SE............................................................................................................................................24 M Street NE..........................................................................................................................................25 BNSF Railyard Grade Crossing............................................................................................................26 West Valley Highway Imp....................................................................................................................27 8th Street NE Widening........................................................................................................................28 49th Street NE.......................................................................................................................................29 Traffic Calming Improvements.............................................................................................................30 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp. Phase 3....................................................................................................31 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp. Phase 1....................................................................................................32 124th Ave SE Corridor Imp. Phase 2....................................................................................................33 SE 320th Street Corridor Imp...............................................................................................................34 Downtown Promenade Imp..................................................................................................................35 Downtown Pedestrian Lighting............................................................................................................36 AWS Corridor Improvements Fir to Hemlock.....................................................................................37 M ST SE Corridor.................................................................................................................................38 Auburn Way South Bypass...................................................................................................................39 Auburn Way South Streetscape............................................................................................................40 Lea Hill Rd Segment 1..........................................................................................................................41 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2..........................................................................................................................42 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3..........................................................................................................................43 Intersection Improvement Projects.......................................................................................................45 Harvey Rd. & 8th Street NE Imp..........................................................................................................45 8th Street NE & R ST NE (104 th Ave SE U-turn)................................................................................46 Auburn Way North & 1st Street NE.....................................................................................................47 Auburn Way South & M Street SE.......................................................................................................48 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program vi Table of Contents (cont.) C Street NW & West Main Street.........................................................................................................49 F Street SE & 4th Street SE..................................................................................................................50 Railroad Crossing Imp..........................................................................................................................51 Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Dr SE...............................................................................................52 29 th St SE & R St SE.............................................................................................................................53 Traffic Signal & Intelligent Transportation Systems Projects...........................................................55 Traffic Signal Improvements................................................................................................................55 ITS Dynamic Message Signs................................................................................................................56 East Valley HWY ITS Expansion.........................................................................................................57 Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects...............................................................................59 BNSF/ East Valley HWY Ped. Underpass...........................................................................................59 Academy Drive Class 1 Trail................................................................................................................60 Metro Shuttles.......................................................................................................................................61 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program................................................................................................62 Citywide Arterial Bicycle and Safety Imp............................................................................................63 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements........................................................................................................64 A St NE Ped. Imp..................................................................................................................................65 Interurban Trailhead Imp......................................................................................................................66 Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements.....................................................................................67 Preliminary Engineering & Miscellaneous Projects............................................................................69 Mohawk Plastics Site Mitigation..........................................................................................................69 41st Street SE & A St SE Access Study...............................................................................................70 S 277 th St Wetland Mitigation..............................................................................................................71 104th Ave SE & Green River Rd Study...............................................................................................72 Environmental Park Study....................................................................................................................73 Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Study....................................................................................74 S 316th Bike and Ped Study..................................................................................................................75 Kersey Way SE Study...........................................................................................................................76 Mary Olson Farm Imp..........................................................................................................................77 Roadway Preservation Projects.............................................................................................................79 Annual Bridge Preservation Project......................................................................................................79 Annual Arterial Street Preservation......................................................................................................80 Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program....................................................................................................81 Local Street Imp. Program (SOS).........................................................................................................82 Project Summary Spreadsheet .…………………………….……………………………….Appendix A 2012-2017 TIP Project Map…..…………..………………………………………………….Appendix B DI.B 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 curr ent and future growth. The TIP along with the Comprehensive Transportation plan serve as source d ocuments 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 approximately $217 million wort h of transportation improvements (including Non-Motorized and roadway preservation) over the next s ix years. INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of the TIP is to identify priority tran sportation projects and assure that the city has advanced plans as a guide in carrying out a coordin ated transportation program. There are always more projects than available revenues. Therefore, a prim ary 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 secu red. Statutory Requirements Six Year Transportation Improvement Program - RCW 35.77.010 requires that each city prepare an d adopt a comprehensive transportation improvement pr ogram for the ensuing six calendar years consistent with its Comprehensive Transportation Pl an. 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 specifi cally set forth those projects and programs of regional significance for inclusion in the transportation improvement program for that region. The 2012-2017 TIP includes nine pr ojects of regional significance: TIP Project Number Project Title TIP #1 A St NW, Phase 1 TIP #4 I St NE Corridor TIP #5 M Street Grade Separation TIP # 6 S 277 th St Widening TIP #14 West Valley Highway Improvements TIP #50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs TIP #51 East Valley Highway ITS Expansion TIP #58 AWS Corridor Improvements TIP #61 Auburn Way South Bypass DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Executive Summary & Introduction 2 Methodology Annual updates of the TIP begins with developing a revenue forecast to provide a reasonable estimate o f funding available to accomplish the transportation improvement needs. Since the desire to construct transportation improvements typically exceeds the a vailable forecast revenue, it is necessary to estab lish some method of prioritizing the needs. Transportation needs are identified by examining th e 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 fe deral 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 categ ories; Roadway Improvements, Intersection Improvements, Signal & Intelligent Transportation S ystem Improvements, Non-Motorized & Transit Improvements, Preliminary Engineering & Miscellaneo us projects and Roadway Preservation Projects. Each project is identified as a Capacity or Non-capac ity improvement and those that lay within the limit s of a defined Arterial LOS Corridor per with Table 2 -2 of the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan are identified accordingly. Detailed project costs and funding sources are iden tified and provided for each project listed in the proposed TIP. The prioritized list is then financia lly constrained in the first three years to reflect the financial projections to yield the six-year Transpo rtation Improvement Program. After completing all reviews and compiling the document staff makes fina l recommendations to the Planning and Community Development Committee and City Council fo r approval. DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 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 Costs1,687,500 25,000 25,000 300,000 25,000 25,000 2,087,500 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue18,500 - - 150,000 - - 168,500 Grants785,000 - - - - - 785,000 Traffic Impact Fees684,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 25,000 25,000 934,000 Other (Development)200,000 - - - - - 200,000 2Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements Dogwood t o Fir ($50 K Expended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs106,500 784,300 - - - - 890,800 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue46,500 43,500 - - - - 90,000 Grants60,000 740,800 - - - - 800,800 Other Sources- - - - - - - 3 Auburn Way Corridor Improvements (4th St NE to 4th St SE)Capital Costs- - - - 818,700 3,000,000 3,818,700 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - 110,000 600,000 710,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 708,700 2,400,000 3,108,700 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - - - - - 4 'I' Street NE Corridor ($12,000 Expended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs409,300 - - - - 6,760,000 7,169,300 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue409,300 - - - - - 409,300 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - - - 5,760,000 5,760,000 5 'M' Street Grade Separation ($6,998,500 Expended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs7,549,735 8,684,828 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 16,716,563 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants4,791,535 4,208,465 - - - - 9,000,000 REET2 - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees661,400 - 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 1,143,400 Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - - PWTF Loan- 3,226,963 - - - - 3,226,963 Other (Agencies)2,096,800 1,249,400 - - - - 3,346,200 6 South 277th - Auburn Way North to Green River Bridg e ($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)- - - - - 2,500,000 2,500,000 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 - - - - - - - 8 A Street NW, Phase 2 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 (Developement)- - - - - - - DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 4 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects (Cont.)9D 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 10F 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 Sources- - - - - - - 11M 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 12Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Railyard ($31 Mill ion beyond 2017)Capital Costs- - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 14West Valley Hwy Improvements ($2,270,000 Expended Prior to 2011)Capital Costs5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 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 Sources- - - - - - - 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- - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 33Traffic Calming Improvements Capital Costs200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds- - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - - Other (Redflex)200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 5 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects (Cont.)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 Sources- - - - - - - 40124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1 Capital Costs50,000 150,000 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 25,000 185,000 - - - 260,000 Other Sources- - - - - - - 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 Sources- - - - - - - 42SE 320th St Corridor Improvements Capital Costs- - 30,000 60,000 580,000 - 670,000 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 Other Sources- - - - - - - 52Downtown Promenade Improvements Capital Costs145,000 - - - - - 145,000 Funding Sources:Grants (Federal)55,100 - - - - - 55,100 REET1 - - - - - - - Other (GO Bonds)89,900 - - - - - 89,900 57Downtown Pedestrian Lighting Capital Costs39,500 - - - - - 39,500 Funding Sources:Grants (Federal)- - - - - - - REET1 - - - - - - - Other (GO Bonds)39,500 - - - - - 39,500 58Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements Fir to Heml ock($296,300 Expended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs2,736,700 - - - - - 2,736,700 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants2,189,400 - - - - - 2,189,400 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other (Muckleshoot)547,300 - - - - - 547,300 60M 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 Sources- - - - - - - DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 6 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects (Cont.)61Auburn Way South Bypass ($27,550,000 Expenditures B eyond 2017) Capital Costs- - - - - 60,450,000 60,450,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 60,450,000 60,450,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - - Other Sources- - - - - - - 62Auburn Way South Streetscape Improvements 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 Sources- - - - 350,000 350,000 700,000 64Lea Hill Road Segment 1 (8th St NE from R St NE to 10 4th 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- - - - - 1,250,000 1,250,000 REET2 - - - - - - - Other Sources- - - - 450,000 12,200,000 12,650,000 65Lea Hill Segment 2 (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 Sources - - - - - - - 66Lea Hill Segment 3 (SE 312th St from 112th Ave SE to 12 4th 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- - - - - 700,000 700,000 REET2 - - - - - - - Other Sources- - - - - 525,000 525,000 Subtotal, Roadway Improvement Projects :Capital Costs12,929,235 9,924,128 3,250,500 8,825,900 17,664,600 119,330,500 171,924,863 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue479,300 43,500 - 384,000 1,119,000 3,000,000 5,025,800 Grants7,881,035 5,074,265 2,450,000 5,114,300 11,543,600 89,150,000 121,213,200 Traffic Impact Fees1,395,400 130,000 600,500 2,277,600 1,502,000 4,645,500 10,551,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - - PWTF - 3,226,963 - - - - 3,226,963 REET2 - - - - - - Other (Muckleshoot Tribe)547,300 - - - - - 547,300 Other (Redflex)200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Other (Other Agencies)2,096,800 1,249,400 - - - - 3,346,200 Other (GO Bonds)129,400 - - - - - 129,400 Other (Development)200,000 - - 850,000 2,500,000 9,260,000 12,810,000 Other Sources- - - - 800,000 13,075,000 13,875,000 Total Funding12,929,235 9,924,128 3,250,500 8,825,900 17,664,600 119,330,500 171,924,863 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 7 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Intersection Improvement Projects 17Harvey Road & 8th St NE Imp. (1,906,600 Expended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs87,300 86,900 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 517,500 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees87,300 86,900 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 517,500 Other (Redlex)- - - - - - - 188th St NE & R ST NE Improvements (104th Ave SE U-turn) (50,000 Expended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs332,000 - - - - - - Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue157,000 - - - - - - Grants (Federal)50,000 - - - - - - REET2 75,000 - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other (Redflex)50,000 - - - - - - 19Auburn Way North / 1st Street NE Signal Improveme nts 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 Sources- - - - - - - 20Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Imp rovements ($25,000 Expended Prior to 2011)Capital Costs75,000 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 21C 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 Sources- - - - - - - 25F St SE and 4th St SE Traffic Signal ($396,000 Ex pended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs1,000 - - - - - 1,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue1,000 - - - - - 1,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other Sources- - - - - - - DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 8 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Intersection Improvement Projects (Cont.)38Railroad 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 Sources- - - - - - - 43Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improve ments Capital Costs- - - 150,000 2,250,000 - 2,400,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants - - - 125,000 1,951,000 - 2,076,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - 25,000 299,000 - 324,000 6329th Street SE & R Street SE - Capital Costs- - - - - 2,945,000 2,945,000 Funding Sources:- - - - - - - Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants (State)- - - - - 2,325,000 2,325,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - 620,000 620,000 Other Sources- - - - - - - Subtotal, Intersection Imp. Projects:Capital Costs495,300 1,236,900 1,636,500 1,436,000 4,135,600 3,030,200 11,970,500 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue233,000 70,000 325,000 100,000 150,000 - 878,000 Grants 50,000 930,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 3,601,000 2,325,000 9,356,000 Traffic Impact Fees87,300 86,900 86,500 111,000 384,600 705,200 1,461,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees- 150,000 - - - - 150,000 REET2 75,000 - - - - - 75,000 Other (Redflex)50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Total Funding495,300 1,236,900 1,636,500 1,436,000 4,135,600 3,030,200 11,970,500 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 9 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation Syste m (ITS) Projects 34Traffic Signal Improvements Capital Costs175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Funding Sources:Urestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other (REET 2)175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 50ITS 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 Impact Fees- - - - - - - Other (REET2)- - - - - - - 51East 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 Other (REET2)- - - - - - - Subtotal, ITS Projects:Capital Costs175,000 975,000 395,000 175,000 395,000 175,000 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 Fees- 108,000 - - - - 108,000 REET2175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Total Funding175,000 975,000 395,000 175,000 395,000 175,000 2,290,000 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 10 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 23BNSF/E. Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass ($224,00 0 Expended Prior to 2012, $5 Million beyond 2017)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 24Academy 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 - - - - - - - 26METRO Shuttle: Auburn Community and Lakeland Shutt les Capital Costs220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 1,320,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 30Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program Capital Costs100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 31Citywide Arterial Bicycle and Safety Improv.Capital Costs100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 32Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Capital Costs20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 Grants - - - - - - - Other (REET2)- - - - - - - 44A ST NE Pedestrian Improvements Capital Costs- - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 45Interurban Trailhead Improvements Capital Costs- - - 210,000 - - 210,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants - - - 210,000 - - 210,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 56Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements Capital Costs373,500 - - - - - 373,500 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants373,500 - - - - - 373,500 Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Subtotal, Non-Motorized & Transit Projects:Capital Costs 813,500 500,000 440,000 910,000 865,000 5,725,000 9,253,500 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue420,000 320,000 420,000 370,000 462,500 362,500 2,355,000 Grants 373,500 - - 360,000 382,500 4,932,500 6,048,500 Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 Other (Other Agencies)- - - - - 250,000 250,000 Total Funding813,500 500,000 440,000 910,000 865,000 5,725,000 9,253,500 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total TIP#Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 13 Mohawk Plastics Site Wetland Mitigation ($656,000 E xpwnded Prior to 2012)Capital Costs25,000 20,000 25,000 20,000 25,000 65,000 180,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees25,000 20,000 25,000 20,000 25,000 65,000 180,000 27 41st Street SE and A Street SE Access Management St udy Capital Costs2,000 - - - - - 2,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue2,000 - - - - - 2,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 29 So. 277th, Wetland Mitigation ($204,000 Expended Pr ior to 2012)Capital Costs25,000 25,000 25,000 - - - 75,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue25,000 25,000 25,000 - - - 75,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 46104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study ($2,000 Exp ended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs3,000 - - - - - 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- - - - - - - 48 Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Stu dy ($2,000 Expended Prior to 2012)Capital Costs10,000 - - - - - 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 Costs5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - 54 Kersey Way Study Capital Costs 200,000 - - 3,650,000 - - 3,850,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 500,000 - - 500,000 Grants - - - 3,150,000 - - 3,150,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees200,000 - - - - - 200,000 55 Mary Olson Farm Capital Costs 1,000 - - - - - 1,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue1,000 1,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - - Subtotal, Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects:Capital Costs 271,000 45,000 50,000 3,670,000 30,000 65,000 4,131,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue46,000 25,000 25,000 500,000 5,000 - 601,000 Grants - - - 3,150,000 - - 3,150,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Traffic Impact Fees25,000 20,000 25,000 20,000 25,000 65,000 180,000 Total Funding 271,000 45,000 50,000 3,670,000 30,000 65,000 4,131,000 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 12 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total 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 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 7,800,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Arterial Street Fund 1051,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 7,800,000 36 Annual Arterial Crackseal Program Capital Costs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - Arterial Street Fund 105200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 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 Subtotal, Preservation Projects:Capital Costs3,550,000 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 Funding3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 21,300,000 SUMMARY:CAPITAL COSTS Roadway Projects12,929,235 9,924,128 3,250,500 8,825,900 17,664,600 119,330,500 171,924,863 Intersection Projects495,300 1,236,900 1,636,500 1,436,000 4,135,600 3,030,200 11,970,500 Signal & ITS Projects175,000 975,000 395,000 175,000 395,000 175,000 2,290,000 NonMotorized Projects813,500 500,000 440,000 910,000 865,000 5,725,000 9,253,500 Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects271,000 45,000 50,000 3,670,000 30,000 65,000 4,131,000 Preservation Projects3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 21,300,000 Total Costs 18,234,035 16,231,028 9,322,000 18,566,900 26,640,200 131,875,700 220,869,863 FUNDING SOURCES:Unrestricted Street Revenue1,228,300 508,500 850,000 1,404,000 1,816,500 3,412,500 9,219,800 Traffic Impact Fees1,507,700 344,900 712,000 2,408,600 1,911,600 5,415,700 12,300,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees200,000 150,000 - - - - 350,000 Local Street Fund 1032,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 Arterial Street Fund 1051,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 9,000,000 Grants8,304,535 6,696,265 3,865,000 9,849,300 15,717,100 96,407,500 140,839,700 Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 Other (REET2)250,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,125,000 Other (GO Bonds)129,400 - - - - - 129,400 Other (Agencies)2,096,800 1,249,400 - - - 250,000 3,596,200 Other (Development)200,000 - - 850,000 2,500,000 9,260,000 12,810,000 Other (Muckleshoot)547,300 - - - - - 597,300 Other (Redflex)250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,250,000 Other Sources- - - - 800,000 13,075,000 13,875,000 PWTF - 3,226,963 - - - - 3,226,963 Total Funding 18,234,035 16,231,028 9,322,000 18,566,900 26,640,200 131,875,700 220,869,863 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 13 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary 201220132014201520162017 Unrestricted Street Revenue Beginning Fund Balance1,200,000 506,700 543,200 238,200 (110,800) (1,372,300) Annual Revenue535,000 545,000 545,000 555,000 555,000 560,000 Project Expenses1,228,300 508,500 850,000 904,000 1,816,500 3,412,500 End of Year Fund Balance506,700 543,200 238,200 (110,800) (1,372,300) (4,224,800) Traffic Impact Fees Beginning Fund Balance1,049,313 341,613 796,713 884,713 (723,887) (1,835,487) Annual Revenue800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 Project Expenses1,507,700 344,900 712,000 2,408,600 1,911,600 5,515,700 End of Year Fund Balance341,613 796,713 884,713 (723,887) (1,835,487) (6,551,187) Traffic Mitigation Fees Beginning Fund Balance362,100 362,100 212,100 212,100 212,100 212,100 Annual Revenue- - - - - - Project Expenses- 150,000 - - - - End of Year Fund Balance362,100 212,100 212,100 212,100 212,100 212,100 Local Street Fund 103 Beginning Fund Balance- - - - - - Annual Revenue2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Project Expenses2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 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 1,500,000 Project Expenses1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 End of Year Fund Balance- - - - - - Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds Annual Budget20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 Project Expenses20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 Other (RedFlex in Fund 328)Annual Budget250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Project Expenses250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Other (REET2)Annual Budget250,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 Project Expenses250,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 Grants Secured8,304,535 1,500,000 - - - - Unsecured8,304,535 5,196,265 3,865,000 6,699,300 15,717,100 96,657,500 PWTFL Secured- 3,226,963 - - - - Unsecured- - - - - - Other (Other Agencies)Secured- - - - - - Unsecured2,096,800 1,249,400 - - - 250,000 Other (Development)Secured- - - - - - Unscured200,000 - - 850,000 2,500,000 9,260,000 Other (Muckleshoot)Secured547,300 - - - - - Unsecured- - - - - - Other Sources Secured- - - - - - Unsecured- - - - 800,000 13,075,000 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 14 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 15 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 - 277,462 427,462 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 25,000 925,060 1,175,060 Other Sources (Developer)*- 207,560 200,000 - 407,560 407,560 1,685,801 4,844,490 1,687,500 25,000 8,217,791 8,617,791 - 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 25,000 5,436,798 5,836,798 1,685,801 4,844,490 1,687,500 25,000 8,217,791 8,617,791 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue - 150,000 - - 168,500 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 785,000 - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 150,000 25,000 25,000 934,000 - Other Sources (Developer)*- - - - 200,000 - 25,000 300,000 25,000 25,000 2,087,500 - Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 25,000 300,000 25,000 25,000 2,087,500 - 25,000 300,000 25,000 25,000 2,087,500 - Grants / Other Sources:*Other funds are MultiCare h alf street contribution.Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:Construct a multi-lane arterial from 3rd St. NW to 14th St. NW. This project will improve mobility an d is tied to corridor development. It is consistent with the Comprehensi ve Plan and contributes to the completion of a nort h/south arterial corridor. The project length is approximately three-quarters of a mile. The City purchased ROW from the northern pr operty owner. If the property develops, some or a portion of those funds may be r eimbursed to the City (total cost was $251,000).Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $25,830.Adopted Budget Progress Summary:Pre-design was completed prior to 2007. Final desi gn was completed along with the environmental proce ss. Construction began in 2011 and is expected to be completed in 2012. Costs beyond 2012 are for wetland monitoring and plantin g.Future Impact on Operating Budget:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 16 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 to Fir 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 Federa l Discretionary Funds and $740,830 from State Ped & Bike Safety Grants.This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will construct pedestrian improvements along Auburn Way South between Dogwood St SE and F ir St SE that are consistent with WSDOT's SR-164 Route Development Plan. This pr oject includes sidewalk improvements, access manage ment, 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 awa rded $100,000 in federal funding and $740,830 in state funding in Ma y 2011.Future Impact on Operating Budget:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 17 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 secur ed.This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project is based on a pre-design study and is intended to improve pedestrian accessibility, appea rance, and link the downtown area along Auburn Way South between 4th St N E and 4th St SE. This project may include some pavemen t repairs. However, an overlay was completed as part of the Ci ty's Arterial Pavement Preservation Program in 2007. Although this was considered a temporary fix, the scope has been modi fied 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 Pr eservation Program.Future Impact on Operating Budget:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 18 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 - 409,300 - 421,127 421,127 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources (Development)- - - - - 5,760,000 Other (*Port of Seattle)- - - - - - 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 - - - - 409,300 - 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)- - - - - - - - - 6,760,000 7,169,300 Capital Expenditures:Design - - - 460,000 610,000 - Right of Way - - - 1,020,000 1,279,300 - Construction - - - 5,280,000 5,280,000 - - - - 6,760,000 7,169,300 - Grants / Other Sources:Mitigation Funds in the unrestricted fund balance. Grant is unsecured.The final alignment of the I Street Corridor is bei ng 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 ha s been delayed due to the delay of the nearby pendi ng development.Future Impact on Operating Budget:*Developer in kind funds/services support this proj ect but do not pass through the city. $409K is Port of Seattle Total Expenditures:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $25,200.Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 19 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 4,791,535 4,208,465 5,663,915 9,872,380 REET2 169,400 970,580 - - 1,139,980 1,139,980 Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)2,441,000 1,500,000 661,400 - 4,602,400 4,602,400 Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)- - - - - 3,613,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - 660,000 660,000 PWTFL - - - 3,226,963 - 3,226,963 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 7,549,735 8,684,828 14,548,235 23,233,063 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 7,549,735 8,684,828 7,914,935 16,599,763 PWTFL Debt Service - - - - - 3,613,500 3,870,400 3,128,100 7,549,735 8,684,828 14,548,235 23,233,063 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)- - - - 661,400 - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 482,000 3,131,500 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - 3,226,963 - Other Sources (Other Agencies)*- - - - 3,346,200 - 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 16,716,563 3,131,500 Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 16,234,563 - PWTFL Debt Service 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 482,000 3,131,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 120,500 16,716,563 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 St ate 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 est imated 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 w ere completed in 2011. Construction is expected to start in early 2012.Future Impact on Operating Budget:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 20 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. This project includes preliminary engineering, desi gn, right of way acquisition and construction of ma jor widening on S. 277th Street, including the addition of three lanes, one w estbound 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 thre e lanes eastbound and two lanes westbound.Progress Summary:The majority of this roadway is currently in the Ci ty of Kent's jurisdiction. Because the property ser ved from the roadway is in the City of Auburn, the plan is to annex this porti on of the roadway from Kent into the City of Auburn. The majority of this project is expected to be completed by adjacent dev elopments.Future Impact on Operating Budget:Total Expenditures:The annual maintenance costs for this project is es timated to be $27,250.Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 21 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.This project was originally scoped to include pavem ent preservation. The pavement preservation compon ent could still be combined with this project, but is also eligible fo r the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. This p roject 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:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 22 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 contr ibutions (cash or in kind services). Grant fundin g shown is unsecured.This project will have no impact on the operating b udget 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 pr oject may end up being funded all or in part by dev elopers. The project length is one fifth of a mile.Progress Summary:The parking garage constructed by the Auburn Region al Medical Center completed a portion of this proje ct 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 23 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 unsec ured.The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $11,450.Adopted Budget Construct a four-lane arterial per the city Compreh ensive Plan. It will improve north/south mobility. This project is tied to potential future development and will complete a ma jor north/south arterial corridor from Ellingson Ro ad SW (41st Street SE) to S. 277th St. The D St NW project length is approxim ately 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 24 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.The F St SE project includes pavement reconstructio n, installation of curbs, gutters, an 8-foot wide s idewalk on both sides, parking on one side, and a center turn-lane, as wel l as crash attenuation at the supports for the BNSF railroad bridge. This project improves mobility and safety along the corr idor. 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 separa tion project.Future Impact on Operating Budget:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $4100.Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 25 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 est imated to be $1,500.Adopted Budget This project will construct a complete 4 lane stree t 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 sc ope, 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 26 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: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 se parating the main north/south line and the Stampede Pass line, and conn ecting to 6th Street SE. The second alternative would provide a new corridor from 15th Street SW to A Street SE in the vicin ity of 12th Street SE and 17th Street SE, either via an overpass or underpass of the BNSF Railyard. This project improve s traffic flow significantly due to the potential d evelopment of the BNSF yard as an intermodal freight facility.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: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:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 27 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 St reet)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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will widen the roadway to accommodate an extension of the two way left turn lane, add cur b & gutter, storm drainage, repair failing roadway surface; install sidewalk on one si de of the roadway; install city standard street lig hting, improve bicycle accommodations, and install a new traffic signal at the intersection of West Main Street and West Vall ey Highway. This project will improve the capacity, safety, and driving comfort o f 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 28 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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget Add eastbound lane to Southside of 8th St NE. Current ly 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 exte nd 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 e stimate.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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 29 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 exp ected to fund and construct this project. The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $27,050.Adopted Budget Construct east/west corridor from Auburn Way North to I Street NE. The existing 49th Street NE extend s westerly to B Street NE. This project also includes a traffic signal at the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49th Stree t NE. This roadway was evaluated and recommended in the NE Special Plannin g Area. It is anticipated that this will be constr ucted 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 30 C APITAL 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 f rom General Fund.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost: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. Staf f receives complaints from citizens and then gathers data to confirm that a sp eeding issue and/or cut through traffic issue is pr esent. This money is for physical improvements to the streets once all other options have been exhausted. Physical improvements may inc lude items such as lighting, signing, striping, speed humps, speed tables, chica nes, traffic circles, and median treatments.Progress Summary:Program continues to implement valuable safety enhn ancements citywide. 2011 Improvements include const ruction of pedestrian activated crosswalk warning beacons, sig nage improvements and speed cushion installations.Future Impact on Operating Budget:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 31 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 3 TIP # 39 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)- - - - - 735,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 115,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - - 850,000 Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - 135,000 Construction - - - - - 715,000 - - - - - 850,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 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 - - - - - - - - 100,000 750,000 850,000 - Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - 85,000 50,000 135,000 - Construction - - 15,000 700,000 715,000 - - - 100,000 750,000 850,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant Funding is unsecured.This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acq uisition, and construction of improvements to the s ignalized intersection of SE 320th St and 124th Ave SE. Improvements include constructing bike lanes, sidewalks, dual southbound left turn l anes into GRCC, and ITS. A portion of this project is the main entrance to Gre en River Community College and will require additio nal on-site improvements by GRCC.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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 32 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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acq uisition, 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 33 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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acq uisition, and construction of improvements to the s ignalized intersection of SE 312th St and 124th Ave SE. Improvements include adding bike lanes, dual westbound left turn lanes, dual southbo und 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 34 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.This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acq uisition, and construction of a 3 lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on SE 320th St between 124th Ave SE and the western entra nce to GRCC.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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 35 LOCAL REVITALIZATION FUND (330)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Downtown Promenade Improvements TIP # 52 Project No:cp1005 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Ryan Vondrak/Elizabeth Chamberlain 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 Capital Improv. Fund- - - - - - Grants (Federal)- 2,137,986 55,100 - 2,193,086 2,193,086 REET1 - - - - - - Other (GO Bond)1,040,089 2,903,426 89,900 - 4,033,415 4,033,415 1,040,089 5,041,412 145,000 - 6,226,501 6,226,501 Capital Expenditures:Design 1,040,089 276,035 - - 1,316,124 1,316,124 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 4,765,377 145,000 - 4,910,377 4,910,377 1,040,089 5,041,412 145,000 - 6,226,501 6,226,501 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 - 2017 Beyond 2016 Funding Sources:Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - Grants (Federal)- - - - 55,100 - REET1 - - - - - - Other (GO Bond)- - - - 89,900 - - - - - 145,000 - Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 145,000 - - - - - 145,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Grant Funding is Federal EDA Grant. Other Funding is Local Revitalization Fundin g GO Bond revenue.This project will fund the design, coordination, pe rmitting and construction of Downtown Promenade imp rovements. Project includes storm, sewer, water and roadway improvements of Division S treet between Main St and 3rd St SW/SE.Progress Summary:Design and construction will be completed in 2011.Future Impact on Operating Budget:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:Adopted Budget DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 36 LOCAL REVITALIZATION FUND (330)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Downtown Pedestrian Lighting TIP # 57 Project No:cp1116 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Ryan Vondrak 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 Capital Improv. Fund- - - - - - Grants (Federal)- - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other (GO Bond)- 445,500 39,500 - 485,000 485,000 - 445,500 39,500 - 485,000 485,000 Capital Expenditures:Design - 16,500 - - 16,500 16,500 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 429,000 39,500 - 468,500 468,500 - 445,500 39,500 - 485,000 485,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 - 2017 Beyond 2016 Funding Sources:Capital Improv. Fund - - - - - - Grants (Federal)- - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other (GO Bond)- - - - 39,500 - - - - - 39,500 - Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - 39,500 - - - - - 39,500 - Grants / Other Sources:Other Funding is Local Revit alization Funding GO Bond revenue.Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Adjusted Budget This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Budget Amendments Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, coordination, pe rmitting and construction of Downtown street lighti ng replacements. Progress Summary:Design and construction will be completed in 2011.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 37 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South Corridor Imp., Fir ST SE to Hemloc k ST SE TIP # 58 Project No:cp1119 Project Type:Capacity 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 - - - - - - Grants (State)- 237,000 2,189,400 - 2,426,400 2,426,400 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources(Muckleshoot)- 59,300 547,300 - 606,600 606,600 - 296,300 2,736,700 3,033,000 3,033,000 Capital Expenditures:Design - 281,300 77,000 - 358,300 358,300 Right of Way - 15,000 262,000 - 277,000 277,000 Construction - - 2,397,700 - 2,397,700 2,397,700 - 296,300 2,736,700 - 3,033,000 3,033,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (State)- - - - 2,189,400 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other Sources(Muckleshoot)- - - - 547,300 - - - - - 3,033,000 - Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - 77,000 - Right of Way - - - - 262,000 - Construction - - - - 2,397,700 - - - - - 2,736,700 - Grants / Other Sources:State Grant is TIB.This annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $9,300.Adopted Budget This project will widen Auburn Way South between Fi r St SE and Hemlock St SE to five lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalks, illumination and storm improvements. A new traffic signal will also be constructed at Hemlock Street SE and connect to Auburn's Intelligent Transportation System. Progress Summary:Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) awarded grant in the amount of $2,426,400 on N ovember 19, 2010 to the City of Auburn. Future Impact on Operating Budget:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 38 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 contribu tes to the completion of a north/south arterial cor ridor.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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 39 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:cpxxx 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)- - - - - 60,450,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 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)- - - 60,450,000 60,450,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 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 - Grants / Other Sources:Adopted Budget Construction of a new Auburn Way South Bypass conne cting SR 164 to SR 18 via Riverwalk Drive and a new R Street interchange. The project will improve traffic operations on SR 164 a nd will have fewer intersections operating over cap acity during the PM Peak hour. It will also improve sight distance and roadway geometrics to provide drivers with improved visibility and ove rall 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 40 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:cpxxx 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 - 500,000 - Right of Way - - 1,450,000 - 1,450,000 - Construction - - - 2,800,000 2,800,000 - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 4,750,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Adopted Budget The purpose of this project is to revitalize and be autify Auburn Way South from the SR 18 interchange to the intersection of M Street SE. Proposed improvements include: enhancement of cross walks and pedestrian linkages; new and repaired sid ewalks; curb and gutter; pedestrian ramps; new landscaped medians; street tr ees; new lighting; pedestrian benches; trash recept acles; 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 4 1 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (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, includi ng widening of the Green River Bridge. Project inc ludes 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 4 2 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (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 ro adway 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 4 3 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Funds Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (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 ro adway 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 44 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 4 5 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 Improvemen ts 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 end ing 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 w ill improve traffic delays and vehicle queuing at t he 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 po or pavement condition and fill in any gaps in the sidewalk network. Progress Summary:Project was completed in 2010. Ongoing budget is fo r PWTFL debt payments.Future Impact on Operating Budget:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget Total Funding Sources:Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 4 6 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: 8th Street NE and R St NE Imp. (104th Ave SE St U-t urn)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 EndTotal 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 20142015201620172012-2017Beyond 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.The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $6,600.Adopted Budget This project includes the design, right of way acqu isistion and construction of intersection improveme nts 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 schedule d for 2012.Future Impact on Operating Budget:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 4 7 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.This project will construct a new complete traffic signal with controller cabinet and battery backup a long with necessary intersection improvements. Progress Summary:Design will be completed in 2013. Construction is p lanned for 2014.Future Impact on Operating Budget:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 4 8 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 .Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget Construct a westbound to northbound right turn pock et 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 fin al design to be completed in 2012. Construction wil l be completed when funding is secured.Future Impact on Operating Budget:DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 4 9 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 .Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget Reconstruct intersection at C St NW and W Main St. Pr oject would include a new traffic signal and modifi cations to the turning radii at each corner to help facilitate vehicular m ovements. The new traffic signal would allow for p rotected left turn phasing for northbound and southbound left turn movements. Thi s would also provide additional safety related to t he railroad pre-emption.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 50 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.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $6,600.Adopted Budget This project includes the construction of a new tra ffic signal at the intersection of 4th St SE and F St SE. Intersection improvements will include crosswalks and pedestrian signals. This pro ject was selected based on accident history, traffi c volumes, and pedestrian flow patterns. Progress Summary:Project was completed in 2011.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 51 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.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $5,000.Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, coordination, pe rmitting 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 cross ings on C St SW and A St NW.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 52 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improveme nts 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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acq uisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at Auburn Way S and Riverwalk Dr SE. This project will include cr eating eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, au xiliary signal heads and pedestrian safety enhancements.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 53 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 Intersection Improveme nts TIP # 63 Project No:cpxxx 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 (State)- - - - - 2,325,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 620,000 PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 2,945,000 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)- - - 2,325,000 2,325,000 - Traffic Impact Fees - - - 620,000 620,000 - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - 2,945,000 2,945,000 - 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:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, right of way acq uisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at 29th Street SE and R Street SE. This project will include creat ing eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, auxil iary signal heads and pedestrian safety enhancements.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection Improvement Projects 54 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Traffic Signal & Intelligent Transportation Systems I mprovement Projects 55 C APITAL 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:This project includes procuring and installing traf fic signal equipment upgrades for existing signals as well as safety/capacity improvements for existing and/or new signals. The City uses acci dent and traffic count data to identify intersectio ns in need of improvements.Progress Summary:Project continues to complete intersection safety i mprovements.Future Impact on Operating Budget:None Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Traffic Signal & Intelligent Transportation Systems I mprovement Projects 56 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.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $5000. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design and construction of Dynamic Message signs at various locations throu ghout the city. Dynamic message signs are an important tool in ITS for informing ro adway users. Priority locations for sign installati ons are based on the Comprehensive Transportation Plans ITS map and include Auburn Way N, Auburn Way S, W Valley Highway, E Valley Highwa y and Lea Hill Rd.Progress Summary:The first phase of this project is scheduled to beg in in 2014 or sooner if grant funding becomes avail able. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Traffic Signal & Intelligent Transportation Systems I mprovement Projects 57 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.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $5000. Adopted Budget This project will fund the design, coordination, pe rmitting and construction of ITS facilities from 41 st St SE to Lake Tapps Parkway.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Traffic Signal & Intelligent Transportation Systems I mprovement Projects 58 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 59 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.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 est imated to be $240.Adopted Budget Project to construct an undercrossing of the BNSF R ailroad in conjunction with a pedestrian bridge to allow a safe, direct, attractive non-motorized access between neighborhoo ds in the City of Pacific and schools in the City o f Auburn. Progress Summary:The design is on hold. Funding source is most like ly 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 significan tly impact the design. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 60 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.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $1,680.Adopted Budget This project will use existing right-of-way to repa ir 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: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 61 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 Shutt les TIP # 26 Project No:cpxxx Project Type:Transit Service 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:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget Operation costs associated with two new Metro route s: a Commuter Shuttle from the Lakeland Hills neigh borhood 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 s huttle will begin service in 2010. Funding assista nce will be requested through the Transit Now Partnership Program.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 62 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:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This is a bi-annual level of effort project used to fund small pedestrian safety studies and improveme nt projects. This project provides for pedestrian safety studies and improvem ents at various locations citywide. Projects are pr ioritized annually based on safety issues and pedestrian demands. Progress Summary:Project for 2011 was preliminary design of 8th St NE a nd SE 104th St intersection improvements. 2012 project is access improvements at Auburn Ave and 3rd St NE.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 63 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 b udget for street maintenance.Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:This is an annual level of effort project focused o n funding bicycle and safety improvements on classi fied roadways. Projects are prioritized annually based upon field studies. Project was previously called "Citywide Roadway Safet y Infrastructure Improvements.Progress Summary:Projects for 2011 included preliminary design of int ersection improvements at 8th st NE and SE 104th St an d pedestrian trail improvements at 37th St SE. 2012 Project has yet to be indentified.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 64 C APITAL 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:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Project will fund sidewalk improvements to a variet y of locations throughout the city. A sidewalk inv entory was completed in 2004. Annual projects are selected based upon crit eria such as: gap closure, safe walking routes to s chools, completion of downtown pedestrian corridor or "linkage", connecti vity to transit services, ADA requirements, and "Sa ve our Streets" (SOS) project locations.Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget:None DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 65 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.Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:The annual maintenance cost for this project is est imated to be $500.Adopted Budget This project completes a pedestrian connection betw een Downtown Auburn and the 8th St NE business dist rict. This project will improve a pedestrian crossing at 3rd St NE, and construct sid ewalks/access ramps along the A St NE corridor. Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 66 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: Interurban Trailhead Improvements TIP # 45 Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Class 1 Trail (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)- - - - - 210,000 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - 210,000 Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - - 20,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 190,000 - - - - - 210,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 210,000 - - 210,000 - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - PWTFL - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 210,000 - - 210,000 - Capital Expenditures:Design - 20,000 - - 20,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 190,000 - - 190,000 - - 210,000 - - 210,000 - 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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project provides funding for enhancements to e xisting trailheads and construction of new trailhea ds. Improvements include bike racks, kiosks, parking and access.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 67 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:cp1120 Project Type:Non-Motorized Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon 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 - Grants / Other Sources: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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will construct pedestrian improvements along the south side of SE 312th St east of the in tersection with 124th Ave SE, intersection improvements at 116th Ave SE & SE 304t h St, paint bike lanes on 116th Ave SE between SE 3 12th St and SE 304th St and improve curb ramps adjacent to Rainier Middle Schoo l.Progress Summary:The City was awarded $398,500 in federal funding in May 2011, which consists of $75,700 for School Dist rict education/encouragement, $1,800 for Police Dept. enf orcement and $321,000 for engineering, right of way , and construction.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 68 DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 69 C APITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Capital Projects Fund Project Title: Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project TIP #13 Project No:cp0767 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager: Jeff Dixon/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 General Fund - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 455,000 25,000 25,000 20,000 505,000 700,000 REET 2 176,150 - - - 176,150 176,150 631,150 25,000 25,000 20,000 681,150 175,000 Capital Expenditures:Design 148,300 - - - 148,300 - Right of Way - - - - - 552,850 Construction 482,850 25,000 25,000 20,000 532,850 876,150 631,150 25,000 25,000 20,000 681,150 175,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources:General Fund - - - - - - Grants - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 20,000 25,000 65,000 180,000 40,000 REET 2 - - - - - - 25,000 20,000 25,000 65,000 180,000 40,000 Capital Expenditures:- Design - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 25,000 20,000 25,000 65,000 180,000 40,000 25,000 20,000 25,000 65,000 180,000 40,000 Grants / Other Sources:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:It is anticipated that annual maintenance, monitori ng and reporting on the performance of the wetland mitigation project will be required for a period of 10 years, in conformance with permit re quirements. After the successful conclusion of thi s 10-year monitoring period, which is anticipated to be in December 2019, ongoing operati on expenses should be minimal.Adopted Budget The project consists of the design, construction, m aintenance and monitoring of approximately 2.2-acre s of wetland creation and approximately 0.4-acres of wetland enhancement within the Goedecke South Property owned by the Sew er Utility in order to compensate for approximately 1.6-acre wetland lo ss on the Mohawk Plastics property (Parcel # 132104 9056). The project was approved under an existing agreement approved b y Resolution No. 4196, June 2007. Progress Summary:The City received the DOE WQ Certification, WDFW HP A, and on May 7, 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 404 wetland permit (NWS-2007-1913). Subsequently, bid specifications and construction plans were prepared and construction began in October 2009. Construction was completed in January 2010 and the project is currently within the 10-year monitoring period, which involves annual maintenance, monitori ng and reporting. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 70 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 St udy 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:Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Total Funding Sources:This study will have no impact on the operating bud get 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 stud y 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, ali gnment, and cost. Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 71 ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund Project Title: South 277th - Wetland Mitigation TIP # 29 Project No:c410a0 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 126,220 122,400 25,000 25,000 273,620 323,620 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 126,220 122,400 25,000 25,000 273,620 323,620 Capital Expenditures:Design 81,903 31,000 12,500 12,500 125,403 150,403 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 44,317 91,400 12,500 12,500 148,217 173,217 126,220 122,400 25,000 25,000 273,620 323,620 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 - 2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 - - - 75,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - REET - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other - - - - - - 25,000 - - - 75,000 - Capital Expenditures:Design 12,500 - - - 37,500 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 12,500 - - - 37,500 - 25,000 - - - 75,000 - Grants / Other Sources: Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:This project will have no impact on the operating b udget for street maintenance.Adjusted Budget Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Total Expenditures:Forecasted Project Cost:Wetland mitigation for the 277th St Grade Separation project.Progress Summary:This is a 10-year obligation, which began in 2004.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 72 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: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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project will fund a pre-design study to determ ine the right of way, environmental and constructio n requirements for intersection safety improvements. This safety project scope will includ e sight distance improvements, constructing turn la nes, channelization, environmental mitigation, signage and clear zone improvements.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 73 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 74 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 Stu dy 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: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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project provides funding to complete a study o f the 2nd St SE & F St SE corridor between Les Gove Park and Downtown Auburn. Improvements may include pavement reconstruction, s idewalks, access ramps, signal modifications and ro ute signing.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 75 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 Stu dy 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: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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This project provides funding for completing a stud y to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities on S 316 th St from east of Evergreen Heights Elementary to 51st Ave S.Progress Summary:Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 76 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 EndTotal Project Funding Sources:Prior to 2011 Estimate 2012 Budget 2013 Budget Project Total Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 500,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 6,300,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - 200,000 - 200,000 700,000 Other - - - - - - - - 200,000 - 200,000 7,500,000 Capital Expenditures:Design - - 200,000 - 200,000 200,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 7,300,000 - - 200,000 - 200,000 7,500,000 TotalExpenditures 20142015201620172012-2017Beyond 2017 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue - 500,000 - - 500,000 - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 3,150,000 - - 3,150,000 3,150,000 REET - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - 200,000 500,000 Other - - - - - - 3,650,000 - - 3,850,000 3,650,000 Capital Expenditures:Design - - - - 200,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 3,650,000 - - 3,650,000 3,650,000 - 3,650,000 - - 3,850,000 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 horizont al/vertical geometric roadway improvements, roadsid e 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.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 77 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 Mitig ation Funds $101K received in prior years.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 b udget 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: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 78 DI.B Appendix A 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: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 b udget for street maintenance.Adopted Budget This is an annual level of effort project used to f und 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: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 80 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 9,166,000 REET2 - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - 1,366,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,666,000 9,166,000 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 8,856,000 - 1,366,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,666,000 9,166,000 Total Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017 Beyond 2017 Funding Sources:Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - - Utility Tax 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 7,800,000 - REET2 - - - - - - Bond Proceeds - - - - - - 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 7,800,000 - Capital Expenditures:Design 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 - Right of Way - - - - - - Construction 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 7,550,000 - 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 7,800,000 - Grants / Other Sources:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:None Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget 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 reha bilitation of various classified streets citywide. These projects may include overlays, rebuilds, spot repai rs, or a combination of these. This program is fun ded through a 1% utility tax that was adopted by Council in 2008. DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 81 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:Total Funding Sources:Total Expenditures:Total Expenditures:Total Funding Sources:Forecasted Project Cost:None Adopted Budget Budget Amendments Adjusted Budget Implement regular maintenance of various classified streets by sealing newly formed cracks. Sealing t he cracks will prolong the life of the pavement by stopping water from draining into the s ubbase of the road.Progress Summary:Program continues to successfully extend pavement l ife pavement citywide.Future Impact on Operating Budget: DI.B City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 82 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 Propositi on 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 patchi ng, pre-leveling, asphalt overlays and roadway reconstruction. The property tax levy lift may also be used to repay bonds should they be uti lized to fund this program.Progress Summary:This program has successfully completed overlays si nce 2005. In 2011 and 2012 the program will focus on major street reconstruction where street surfaces and the underl ying 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.B R o a dway Improvements Grant Status*Prior to 2012201220132014201520162017Beyond 2017 C207A01A St NW, Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW)S 4,100,0001,687,50025,00025,000300,00025,00025,000- 6,187,500 Cp11182Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements Dogwood to FirS 50,000- - - - - - - 50,000 C409A03Auburn Way Imp (4th St NE to 4th St SE)A'12 78,251- - - - 818,7003,000,000- 3,896,951 C415A04I St NE (40th St NE to 52nd St NE)N/A 11,827409,300- - - - 6,760,000- 7,181,127 C201A05M St SE Grade Separation (E Main to AWS)PS 6,998,5007,549,7008,684,828120,500120,500120,500120 ,500- 23,715,028 C222A06S 277th Street (AWN to Green River Bridge)A'11 19,085- - - - - 4,500,000- 4,519,085 cpxxxx715th St SW Reconstruction (C St SW to UPRR)A'12 - - - - - 375,0003,000,000- 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 - - - - - - 300,0006,000,0006,300,000 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 - - - - - - 1,000,00031,000,00032,000,00 0 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 cpxxxx1649th Street NE from Auburn Way North to M Street NE - - - - 850,0002,500,000- 3,350,000 Varies33Traffic Calming Improvements N/A 200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000- - 1,200,000 cpxxxx39124th Ave SE Corridor Imp Phase 3A'13 - - - - - 100,000750,000- 850,000 cpxxxx40124th Ave SE Corridor Imp Phase 1A'14 50,000150,0001,750,000- - - - 1,950,000 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- - - 1,180,000 cpxxxx52Downtown Promenade ImprovementsS - 145,000- - - - - - 145,000 cpxxxx57Downtown Pedestrian Lighting S - 39,500- - - - - - 39,500 cpxxxx58AWS Corridor Imp (Fir to Hemlock)S - 2,736,700- - - - - - 2,736,700 cpxxxx60M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS)A'15 - - - - 1,895,4004,745,400- - 6,640,800 cpxxxx61Auburn Way South Bypass A'17 - - - - - - 60,450,000- 60,450,000 cpxxxx62AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M Street SE)A'16 - - - - - 1,950,0002,800,000- 4,750,000 cpxxxx64Lea Hill Road Segment 1(R St NE to 104th Ave SE)A'16 - - - - - 6,250,00018,450,000- 24,700,000 cpxxxx65Lea Hill Road Segment 2 (104th to 112th Ave SE) A'17 - - - - - - 11,400,000- 11,400,000 cpxxxx66Lea Hill Road Segment 3 (112th to 124th Ave SE )A'1 7 - - - - - - 3,575,000- 3,575,000 14,749,64112,822,7009,139,8283,370,50010,515,90017,084,600119,130,50037,000,000223,813,669 Intersection Improvements CP061117Harvey/8th Street Imp - Debt ServiceN/A 303,90087,30086,90086,50086,00085,60085,200910,4001 ,731,800 cpxxxx188th St NE & R St NE Improvements (104th Ave SE U-Turn)S 50,000332,000- - - - - 382,000 cpxxxx19Auburn Way North/1 Street NE Signal ImpA'12 - - 50,000550,000- - - - 600,000 cpxxxx20Auburn Way South and M Street SE A'12 25,00075,0001,000,000- - - - 1,100,000 cpxxxx21C Street NW and West Main Street A'12 - - 100,000 1,000,000- - - 1,100,000 cpxxxx25F St SE & 4th St SE Traffic Signal S 273,4401,000 274,440 cpxxxx38Railroad Crossing Safety ImprovementsA'12 - - - - 1,200,0001,800,000- - 3,000,000 cpxxxx43Auburn Way South & Riverwalk ImpA'11 - - - - 150,0002,250,000- 2,400,000 cpxxxx6329th Street SE & R Street SE A'16 - - - - - - 2,945,000- 2,945,000 652,340495,3001,236,9001,636,5001,436,0004,135,6003 ,030,200910,40013,533,240 Traffic Signal & ITS Improvements Varies34Traffic Signal Improvement ProgramsN/A - 175,000175,000175,000175,000 175,000175,000- 1,050,000 cpxxxx50ITS Dynamic Message Signs A'13 - - - 220,000- 220,000- 440,000 cpxxxx51East Valley Hwy ITS Expansion A'13 - - 800,000- - - - 800,000 - 175,000975,000395,000175,000 395,000175,000- 2,290,000 Non-Motorized & Transit Improvements C229A023BNSF/East Valley Hwy. Ped UndercrossingPS 224,300- - - - - 4,800,0005,024,300 cpxxxx24Academy Drive Multi Use Trail A'12 - - - - 50,000425,000425,000- 900,000 NA26Auburn Community and Lakeland ShuttlesN/A - 220,000220,000220,000220,000 220,000220,000- 1,320,000 Varies30Citywide Pedestrian Crossing ProgramN/A - 100,000- 100,000- 100,000- - 300,000 Varies31Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Imp N/A 119,300100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000- 719,300 Varies32Citywide Sidewalk Improvements N/A 425,10020,000180,00020,000180,00020,000180,000- 1,025,100 cpxxxx44A St NE Pedestrian Improvements A'12 - - - - 150,000- - - 150,000 cpxxxx45Interurban Trailhead ImprovementsA'13 - - - - 210,000- - - 210,000 cpxxxx56Lea Hill Safe Routes to School ImprovementsA'10 25,000373,500- - - - - - 398,500 793,700813,500500,000440,000910,000865,0005,725,000 - 10,047,200 Prelim. Engineering and Misc. Improvements cpxxxx13Mohawk Plastics Site Wetland MitigationN/A 656,00025,00020,00025,00020,00025,00065,000- 836,000 cpxxxx2741st St SE and A St SE Access Management StudyN/A 8,0002,000- - - - - - 10,000 C410A29S 277th Street -Wetland Mitigation N/A 204,00025,00025,00025,000- - - - 279,000 cpxxxx46104th Ave SE & Green River Study N/A 2,0003,000- - - - - - 5,000 cpxxxx47Environmental Park Roadway Improvements StudyN/A - - - - - 5,000- - 5,000 cpxxxx48Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Imp StudyN/A - 10,000- - - - - - 10,000 cpxxxx49S. 316th St Bicycle & Pedestrian Imp StudyN/A - 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 cpxxxx54Kersey Way Study N/A - - - - - - 350,000350,000 cpxxxx55Mary Olson Farm Improvements N/A - 1,000- - - - - - 1,000 870,00070,00045,00050,00020,00030,000415,000- 1,500,000 Roadway Preservation Programs cpxxxx28Annual Bridge Maintenance N/A - 50,00050,00050,00050,00050,0 0050,000- 300,000 Varies35Arterial Streets (105 Fund) N/A - 1,300,0001,300,0001,300,0001 ,300,0001,300,0001,300,000- 7,800,000 Varies36Arterial Crack Seal (105 Fund) N/A - 200,000200,000200,000200,000 200,000200,000- 1,200,000 Varies37Local Streets - SOS (103 Fund)N/A - 2,000,0002,000,0002,000,0002 ,000,0002,000,0002,000,000- 12,000,000 - 3,550,0003,550,0003,550,0003 ,550,0003,550,0003,550,000- 21,300,000 17,065,68117,926,50015,446,7289,442,00042,815,22826 ,060,200132,025,70037,910,400272,484,109 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 N orthern 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 improvem ents.Project Description From I-405 to Sr-18, add one NB and SB general purpose l ane; from SR-18 to SR-161, add one NB HOT lane and one SB H OT 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 ra mp to southbound SR-167, adding northbound SR-167 ramp to W B SR-18 and closing SR-18 access to West Valley Highway.TOTAL Construct a new parking garage at the Auburn Transit Statio n Complete a five lane section roadway with new bridge ov er 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 Prog ram Project Summary Project Number TIP #Project Title Project Expenditures Appendix A DI.B DI.B EDGEWOOD ALGONA KING COUNTY PIERCE COUNTY KENT PACIFIC SUMNER LAKE TAPPS SUPERMALL MUCKLESHOOT CASINO 167 167 18 18 U S T S E H S T N E N S T N E E V E R G R E E N W A Y S E 1 1 8 T H A V E S E H S T S E L S T N E E A S T B L V D (B O E I N G )Z S T S E FIR ST SE 5 4 T H A V E S W S T N W E S T N E 5 7 T H P L S E G S T N E 5 6 T H A V E S T E R R A C E V I E W L N S E S E 3 2 0 T H S T A S T N W 5 0 T H S T S E 1 2 T H S T S E S E 3 0 4 T H S T 5 1 S T S T S E S 2 9 7 T H P L D S T S E F R O N T A G E R D 6 0 T H S T S E D S T S E S 2 8 8 T H S T A S T E S E 2 9 9 T H S T 6 7 T H S T S E 1 4 4 T H A V E S E 1 0 4 T H A V E S E P E A R L A V E S E 6 4 T H S T S E F S T S E 2 2 N D S T N E S E 3 1 6 T H S T P A C I F I C A V E S H S T S E M S T S E P I K E S T N W 1 4 2 N D A V E S E W E S T B L V D (B O E I N G )3 7 T H S T S E G R E E N R I V E R R D S E 5 4 T H A V E S P E R I M E T E R R D S W U S T N W D S T S E S E 3 1 5 T H P L 1 7 T H S T S E 4 2 N D S T N E C S T N E S T U C K R I V E R D R S E 1 0 5 T H A V E S E C L A Y S T N W 1 0 7 T H P L S E 1 0 5 T H P L S E M S T N W E S T S W S 3 0 0 T H P L S E 2 9 0 T H S T S E 2 9 9 T H S T 1 8 T H S T N E 1 2 T H S T S E 1 2 6 T H A V E S E 8 T H S T S E J S T S E E L M L N S E A S T S W 6 7 T H L N S E F S T S W 4 6 T H P L S O L I V E A V E S E T S T S E K S T S E 6 T H S T N E 4 3 R D S T N E 4 T H S T S E L S T N E E V E R G R E E N W A Y S E 1 0 9 T H P L S E 2 6 T H S T N E 5 1 S T P L N E 1 4 T H S T N E S E 2 9 5 T H S T 1 3 0 T H A V E S E S 2 9 6 T H P L L S T S E 5 1 S T S T N E 1 1 2 T H A V E S E 5 6 T H A V E S 2 5 T H S T S E I S A A C A V E S E 2 0 T H S T N E 5 7 T H P L S 1 1 6 T H A V E S E 6 1 S T A V E S S E 2 8 8 T H P L M D R N E O L I V E A V E S E S E 2 9 6 T H W A Y L S T N E S 2 9 2 N D S T W S T N W K S T N E 2 8 T H S T N E 3 3 R D S T S E 6 6 T H S T S E S E 3 0 4 T H W A Y N S T S E G S T N W T H O M A S A V E S E 5 9 T H S T S E S E 2 9 6 T H S T 4 T H S T N E 2 6 T H S T S E 7 2 N D S T S E 3 2 N D S T S E S 2 9 2 N D S T 1 1 4 T H P L S E T S T S E 3 2 N D S T N E 5 3 R D S T S E 7 3 R D S T S E 6 3 R D P L S E E L M S T S E S 2 9 6 T H S T 5 5 T H A V E S S E 3 1 4 T H P L 5 1 S T S T S E P I K E S T S E 5 6 T H S T S E 2 1 S T S T S E 2 3 R D S T S E 8 T H S T N E 6 3 R D S T S E 5 2 N D P L S 5 0 T H S T N E 1 9 T H D R N E P A N O R A M A D R S E S U P E R M A L L D R S W S K Y W A Y L N S E 1 9 T H P L S E 5 7 T H S T S E 2 4 T H S T N W S 2 9 2 N D S T S E 3 0 7 T H P L 3 0 T H S T N E 2 0 T H S T S E 3 0 T H S T N E S E 3 0 1 S T S T 3 7 T H W A Y S E 1 0 4 T H A V E S E 5 5 T H S T S E 2 7 T H S T S E 6 1 S T S T S E M A P L E D R S E 2 4 T H S T N E 6 5 T H S T S E 6 1 S T A V E S Q U I N C Y A V E S E 2 8 T H S T S E 2 N D S T N W 2 6 T H S T S E L U N D R D S W 2 N D S T S E S E 2 9 8 T H P L S E 2 9 3 R D S T 8 5 T H A V E S S E 3 1 0 T H S T 16TH ST SE C S T S E 4 T H S T N E D O G W O O D S T S E 3 R D S T N E 9 T H S T S E 2 N D S T N E K S T N E 4 9 T H S T N E 2 N D S T E 6 4 T H S T S E K S T S E 1 7 T H S T S E M S T N E V S T S E T S T N W V S T S E 3 3 R D S T S E 1 0 7 T H A V E S E O S T N E 1 4 T H S T S E G S T S E 3 3 R D S T S E S 2 9 6 T H S T K S T N E 2 6 T H S T N E S E 2 9 8 T H P L D S T N E 1 6 T H S T S E S E 2 8 8 T H S T 2 N D S T S E E S T S E S E 3 0 4 T H S T E M A I N S T 5 5 T H S T S E 1 1 T H S T N E S 3 1 0 T H S T S E 2 8 8 T H S T 4 2 N D S T N W D O G W O O D D R S E S E 2 9 5 T H S T S 3 3 1 S T S T S 3 1 4 T H S T 2 0 T H S T N W 7 T H S T S E 1 5 T H S T S E A S T N E 15TH ST SE 2 4 T H S T S E D S T S E 1 7 T H S T S E R S T N E B S T N E 5 6 T H A V E S E S T S E 8 T H S T S E D P L S E 3 2 N D P L N E 1 3 T H S T S E S E 2 8 6 T H S T N S T S E 2 2 N D S T S E 2 1 S T S T S E U C T N W 3 2 N D S T S E 2 5 T H S T S E 5 T H S T S E R P L N E 5 6 T H A V E S C S T S E H S T N W N S T N E K S T N E J S T N E S E 2 8 2 N D S T 1 7 6 T H A V E E S 3 0 0 T H S T 5 T H S T N E 5 T H S T N E 3 1 S T S T S E 3 0 T H S T S E 3 7 T H S T S E S 2 8 8 T H S T 6 5 T H A V E S S E 2 9 7 T H S T S E 3 0 0 T H S T S E 2 8 6 T H P L S 3 2 4 T H S T 4 4 T H S T N W S E 3 0 4 T H S T B P L N W 5 5 T H S T S E 2 1 S T S T S E 4 T H S T S W S 3 0 2 N D P L O ST SE S 3 1 9 T H S T S E 2 8 2 N D S T 1 9 T H S T S E S E 4 3 R D S T 3 0 T H S T N W S E 2 9 7 T H S T S 3 0 3 R D P L S E 3 0 7 T H S T H S T N E S E 2 8 4 T H S T A L P I N E D R S E 4 5 T H S T N E S E 2 8 1 S T S T S E 2 9 0 T H P L S E 4 2 N D S T 2 8 T H S T S E W A R D A V E S E 4 5 T H S T N E O L Y M P I C S T S E J S T S E 6 T H S T N W 5 7 T H S T S E S E 2 8 9 T H S T S 3 1 2 T H S T S E 2 8 5 T H S T 4 2 N D S T N E 2 2 N D W A Y N E 6 9 T H S T S E S E 2 9 4 T H S T 4 7 T H S T S E 2 3 R D S T S E S E 2 9 4 T H P L V S T N W 1 7 T H S T N E 1 6 T H S T N E S E 2 8 6 T H S T S E 3 2 6 T H P L S 3 1 8 T H S T G S T S E E V E R G R E E N W A Y S E R A N D A L L A V E S E 2 2 N D S T S E 2 3 R D S T S E 2 4 T H S T S E 2 5 T H S T S E H E A T H E R A V E S E S E 2 8 2 N D S T 2 1 S T S T N E 3 6 T H S T S E S E 3 1 2 T H W A Y 1 0 2 N D A V E S E 3 7 T H P L S E 2 9 T H S T N W S E 3 0 1 S T S T S E 2 8 7 T H S T 4 7 T H S T S E S E 2 8 4 T H S T H O W A R D R D S E I S T N W 1 4 0 T H A V E S E S 2 8 7 T H S T F O S T E R A V E S E 3 5 T H W A Y S E S E 3 2 1 S T P L S E 3 2 3 R D P L K S T S E 1 0 8 T H A V E S E L S T S E S U P E R M A L L W A Y S W C S T S E E A S T B L V D (B O E I N G )B S T S E 1 0 4 T H P L S E M S T N E M O N T E V I S T A D R S E D S T S W 1 0 8 T H A V E S E F S T N E G S T S E D S T S E 1 4 8 T H A V E S E B S T S E I S T S E F S T S E 1 1 1 T H P L S E B S T S E G S T S W T S T N E 1 1 8 T H P L S E M I L L P O N D D R S E 1 1 0 T H A V E S E P E R R Y A V E S E A C A D E M Y D R S E 1 1 2 T H A V E S E G S T S E G P L S E D S T S E H E M L O C K S T S E 1 1 6 T H A V E S E H A Z E L A V E S E 5 9 T H A V E S 6 4 T H A V E S E L M S T S E 5 2 N D A V E S R S T N W E L M S T S E V S T N W W E S T B L V D (B O E I N G )G I N K G O S T S E R I V E R D R S E 5 5 T H P L S 1 2 8 T H P L S E 5 7 T H D R S E R S T N W 6 9 T H S T S E E L I Z A B E T H A V E S E 68T H S T S E R I V E R V I E W D R N E S C E N I C D R S E C S T S E R P L S E P I K E S T N E D O G W O O D S T S E V C T S E 1 1 1 T H A V E S E 5 2 N D P L S D S T N E J S T N E L S T N E L S T S E S E 2 9 9 T H P L 5 8 T H A V E S I S T N E D S T S E D S T N W 6 2 N D L O O P S E 1 S T S T N E B R I D G E T A V E S E 1 0 8 T H A V E S E E S T N E 5 8 T H A V E S Q U I N C Y A V E S E L S T S E 5 1 S T A V E S A A B Y D R N W 5 5 T H A V E S H I G H L A N D D R S E C S T N E J S T N E O S T N E P I K E S T N E R S T S E D S T N W D S T N E 1 5 T H S T N E C S T N W M S T N E E M E R A L D D O W N S D R N W 1 2 4 T H A V E S E A S T N E E L L I N G S O N R D S W B O U N D A R Y B L V D S W O R A V E T Z R D S E 4 1 S T S T S E L E A H I L L R D S E L A K E T A P P S P K W Y S E 3 7 T H S T N E 5 1 S T A V E S 1 7 T H S T S E A U B U R N W A Y S 4 T H S T S E L A K E T A P P S P K W Y S E P E A S L E Y C A N Y O N R D S M S T S E 2 9 T H S T S E S E 2 8 1 S T S T M S T S E K E R S E Y W A Y S E 8 T H S T N E R S T S E W M A I N S T S E 3 0 4 T H S T L A K E L A N D H I L L S W A Y S E C S T S W 1 5 T H S T S W R I V E R W A L K D R S E A S T N W A U B U R N A V E N E A S T S E A S T S E E A S T V A L L E Y H W Y S E E M A I N S T I S T N E H A R V E Y R D N E 1 5 T H S T S W B S T N W 3 7 T H S T N W 1 5 T H S T N W S 3 1 6 T H S T T E R R A C E D R N W W E S T V A L L E Y H W Y N A U B U R N W A Y N A U B U R N W A Y N 1 1 2 T H A V E S E 1 5 T H S T S W 1 3 2 N D A V E S E 1 3 2 N D A V E S E C S T S W 1 5 T H S T N W A U B U R N -B L A C K D I A M O N D R D S E W E S T V A L L E Y H W Y S M I L I T A R Y R D S 2 1 4 T H A V E E F O R E S T C A N Y O N R D E 1 2 T H S T E P E A S L E Y C A N Y O N R D S 5 1 S T A V E S S 2 7 2 N D W A Y M I L I T A R Y R D S 9 T H S T E 1 6 T H S T E S 2 8 8 T H S T A U B U R N -B L A C K D I A M O N D R D S E A U B U R N W A Y N S U M N E R -T A P P S H W Y E 3 2 1 S T S T S M I L I T A R Y R D S 2 1 0 T H A V E E A U B U R N -EN U M C L A W R D S 1 8 2 N D A V E E 3 8 T H A V E S 1 2 4 T H A V E S E S T E W A R T R D S E S E 2 7 2 N D S T S 2 7 2 N D S T 2 4 T H S T E 8 T H S T E S 2 7 7 T H S T E A S T V A L L E Y H W Y S E S E K E N T -K A N G L E Y R D 6 8 T H A V E S E L L I N G S O N R D S W C E N T R A L A V E S S E 2 7 2 N D S T S E 2 7 4 T H S T 2 4 T H S T E 1 4 2 N D A V E E W E S T V A L L E Y H W Y S W 1 0 8 T H A V E S E J O V I T A B L V D E S 2 7 7 T H S T 1 1 6 T H A V E S E W E S T V A L L E Y H W Y N W S 3 2 8 T H S T 2 62 60 3 19 52 87 44 21 8 38 38 13 13 13 9 10 16 1 4 6 12 14 42 39 15 41 40 86 61 80 80 82 86 85 54 49 46 47 47 53 56 84 24 20 81 25 58 63 81 43 64 66 65 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 ID: 3829 Printed On: 10/11/11 City of Auburn 2012 - 2017 Transportation Improveme nt Program (TIP)01,1002,2003,3004,4005,500 FEET Corridor Improvements Intersection Improvements Non-Motorized Improvements Prelim Eng and Misc Improvements Recommended Regional Projects Roadway Improvements Signal & ITS Projects City of Auburn Parks Water Features (EXACT LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED)(FUTURE ALIGNMENT TO BE DETERMINED)Appendix B DI.B AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: 2011 Phase II Code Update - Grouping 1 Date: November 22, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Enclosure 1 - Table A - Summary of Changes - Zoning Code Enclosure 2 - Ordinance No. 6387 Amending Chapter 18.50 ACC Enclosure 3 - Ordinance No. 6388 Amending Chapter 18.52 ACC Enclosure 4 - Ordinance No. 6389 Amending Chapter 18.70 ACC Enclosure 5 - Ordinance No. 6390 Creating Chapter 18.55 ACC Enclosure 6 - Agenda Bill Staff Report to Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 4, 2011 Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:Committee to review Planning Commission recommendat ions.Background Summary:See attached memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees: Other: Planning Commission Councilmember:Norman Staff:Chamberlain Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:DI.C AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DI.C Memorandum Planning and Development Department To: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planni ng and Community Development Committee Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice- Chai r, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Member, Planning and Community Devel opment Committee From: Stuart Wagner, AICP, Planner CC: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager Date: November 28, 2011 Re: Proposed Amendments to Title 18 – Zoning, of the Auburn Zoning City Code related to parking and landscaping regulations, administr ative variance proces s, and outdoor lighting standards (Code Update Project – Phase 2 – Grouping 1) At its October 18, 2011 meeting the Planning Commission conduct ed a public hearing on the following zoning code text amendments related to Phase 2 of the Code Update Project (Grouping 1): x Amend existing code sections and adding new code sections wit hin the following Chapters: ACC 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening) and ACC 18.52 (Off Street Parking and Loading). x Amend Chapter ACC 18.70 (Variances, Special Exceptions and Administra tive Appeals) by adding an administrative variance process. x Create a new Chapter of the zoning code related to outd oor lighting, ACC 18.55. At the public hearing, the proposed zoning code text amendmen ts 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 Commissio n then discussed and recommended approval of the code amendments, with a single chan ge. The change they recommended is as follows: x On page 11 of the Landscaping and Screening - Ordinance 63 87 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 Internation al Society of Arborculture as a Certified Tree Trimmer or Certified Arborist or other qualifie d tree expert . The Planning Commission wanted more suggestive language rather than a requirement for certification in the code with regards tree pruning. Page 1 of 2 DI.C Page 2 of 2 Attached to this memorandum are the zoning code amendments reviewe d by the Planning Commission, now in ordinance format. If the Committee is satisf ied with these code amendments, staff will return with an agenda bill and fi nalized 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 – 1 st Grouping - Summary of Changes 2. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.50 – Landscaping and screenin g (revised) 3. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.52 – Off-street parking and loading (revised) 4. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.70 – Variances, Special Exceptio ns, and Administrative Appeals (new section) 5. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.55 – Outdoor Lighting Stan dards (new) 6. Planning Commission Agenda Bill - Staff Report DI.C T ABLE A: CODE UPDATE PROJECT – PHASE II – 1 st GROUPING - SUMMARY OF CHANGES PCDC 11/28/11 Zoning Code Chapter Objective Action Parking (revised) Clarify when the off-street parking and loading chapter applies Four scenarios are outlined in the applicability se ction – new development, change in use, modification to existing structures (or uses in land), and modifications to existing parking lots Avoid large and underutilized parking lots and inefficient use of land Established a parking maximum. The maximum number of parking spaces cannot exceed 125% of the minimum number of parking spaces required – ACC18.52.020 – ORD 6388 pg.6 Improve the readability of the development regulations and make them easier for property owners, applicants, and City residents to use The off-street parking requirements have been incor porated into a table format. See ACC Table 18.52.020 Disabled/Handicapped parking requirements (as requi red by federal guidelines and contained within the International B uilding Code (IBC)) have been inserted into the parking chapter (See Table 1 8.52.025) Increase the number of shared and reduced parking strategies A reduction in the number of required parking stall s is allowed 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). – ORD 6388 pg.12 & 13 Allow for parking lot surface alternatives Alternatives to paving may be provided subject to t he approval of the City (See ACC 18.52.050 – Parking Design, Development, a nd Maintenance) – ORD 6388 pg.18 Development proposals typically have trouble meeting all of the dimensional requirements for parking stalls and drive aisles. Alternative parking layouts may be allowed (includi ng dimensions of off-street parking spaces, maneuvering aisles, and driv eway openings) with planning director approval – ORD 6388 pg.25 DI.C TABLE A: CODE UPDATE PROJECT – PHASE II – 1 st GROUPING - SUMMARY OF CHANGES PCDC 11/28/11 Zoning Code Chapter Objective Action Landscaping (revised) Minimum planter widths (in the current code) are too small for landscaping to thrive A 5-ft landscape strip is not viewed as being appro priate so the minimum planter width in most required landscaped areas is 6-ft. Equivalents of 6-ft may be allowed along the property street frontage, where it can be 10-ft in some areas, none in others. Flexibility with on-site landscaping. An overall percentage of landscaping at a site (10-15%) must be achieved. The code has become less rigid about where landscap ing goes where some is needed within the parking lot, some along the fr ontage, and adjacent to residential zones. – ORD 6387 pg. 4 and 5. Storm drainage facilities (i.e. vegetated bioretent ion cells or water quality treatment swales) may be included in the required l andscape coverage requirement. Other landscaping provisions being considered: Retention of existing trees, use of native plantings, and additional requirements for long term maintenance of landscaping. Landscape plantings shall be compatible with the ch aracter and climate of the Pacific Northwest (50% of trees, shrubs, and gr ound cover shall be native or non-invasive species that have adapted to the region. – ORD 6387 pg. 5 and 6. Retain all significant trees in required planter ar eas (i.e. perimeter areas that abut street and residential properties) – ORD 6387 pg. 9 and 10. Limitations on allowable pruning and tree topping a re prohibited except under circumstances of branches interfering with ut ility lines, significant canopy dieback has occurred, or storm damage. – ORD 6387 pg. 13 Outdoor Lighting Discourage excessive lighting of outdoor spaces New code section that requires light shielding, lim its fixture heights, where accent lighting can be used, and list prohibited li ghts. Administrative Variance (new) Create a new administrative variance process for the City Under specific cases the Planning and Development D irector could grant relief to development standards (up to 25% for vari ances relating to building setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and lot width) DI.C DRAFT ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 1 of 15 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 wil l reorganize and update regulations and standards related to landsca ping and screening; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to ensur e that sufficient landscaping is a required component of all developm ent, that plant materials complement the natural character of the Pacific Nor thwest, and there is unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in ne w development; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Aubu rn Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 201 1, 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, 201 1, the Planning Commission made its recommendations for code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and conside red the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Envir onmental 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 Depart ment of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencie s as required for the 60-day state review; and WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department o f 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, up dates technical aspects of the code, improves the City’s development review proces s, and promote sustainability concepts where feasible NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AU BURN, 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.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 15 Chapter 18.50 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Sections: 18.50.010 Intent. 18.50.020 Scope.Applicability. 18.50.030 Definitions. 18.50.040 Types of landscaping. Landscape development standards. 18.50.045 Preservation of significant trees. 18.50 .050 Regulations by zone. 18.50.060 General l L andscape plan requirements. 18.50.070 Landscape maintenance requirements.Administration and Enforcement. 18.50.080 Modification of landscaping requirements.Alternative landscape plan. 18.50.010 Intent. The intent of this chapter is to provide minimum la ndscaping and screening requirements in order to maintain and protect property values, to e nhance the city's appearance, to visually unify the city and its neighborhoods, to improve the char acter of certain areas of the city, to reduce erosion and storm water runoff, to reduce CO2 emiss ions, improve air quality , and to maintain or replace existing vegetation and to prevent and abat e public nuisances. (Ord. 4914 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4773 § 1, 1995; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.50.020 Scope.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 e xisting 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 Chapte r accordingly ; provided, that if any existing foundation or fence layout precludes full complianc e 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.) 18.50.030 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following term s shall have the following meanings: A. "Deciduous trees" are a minimum of one and one -half to two inches in diameter at the time of planting; B. "Evergreen trees" are a minimum of four to six feet in height at the time o f planting and may include either broadleaf or conifer; C. "Groundcover" means low evergreen or deciduous plan tings planted at three -foot spacing, in all directions; D. "Shrubs" are a minimum of 18 to 24 i nches in height, or two gallons, at the time of planting; E. "Significant trees" means a healthy evergreen tree, six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade; or a healthy decidu ous tree four inches or more in diameter measured four feet a bove grade. The planning director may authorize the exclusion of any significant tree which for the reason of public hea lth, safety or reasonable site development is not desirable to maintain. (Ord. 4914 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4 229 § 2, 1987.) 18.50.040 Types o f landscaping. Landscape development standards. DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 15 A. General Location for Landscape Improvements. Lan dscaping shall be provided in the following locations for all types of development, u nless 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 r esidential 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 Ta ble 18-50-040 A and B 2. Unused Areas. All areas of a multifamily or nonres idential 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 loa ding areas are visible from a public street, shall be landscaped in compliance wi th this Chapter. 4. Outdoor Storage Areas, Recreational Vehicle Parkin g, and Refuse Areas. All outdoor storage areas, recreational vehicle parking , and refuse areas, when visible from adjoining properties or public streets, shall be landscaped i n compliance with this Chapter. B. Landscape Area Requirements by Zones. Minimum la ndscape area requirements are listed below by zones consistent with ACC 18.02.070 . Table 18.50.040 A Minimum Landscape Requirements by Zoning District Zones Minimum Landscape Coverage 1 Minimum Landscape Planter Width – Perimeter Areas 2 Abutting Street 3 Abutting Residential Property Residential Zones RC, R1, R5, and R7 Residential Zones 4 N/A N/A N/A R10, R16 and R20 Zones 5 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. DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 15 M2 10% 10 ft. 25 ft. Other RO 6 / RO-H 6 N/A N/A N/A DUC 7 N/A N/A N/A Notes: 1. Minimum landscape coverage required is the minim um percentage of net lot area that must be maintain ed with a vegetated pervious surface, Vegetated bioretenti on cells or water quality treatment swales (not per manently inundated or ponded areas) may be included in the required l andscape 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 containe d in ACC18.50.080, Alternative landscape plan. The redu ced landscape planter shall have an average width o f the requirement contained in Table 18.50.040. 4. Landscaping shall only be required in conjunctio n with an Administrative or Conditional Use Permit . The type and amount of landscaping shall be determined at th at time the Administrative or Conditional Use Permi t is approved. 5. Refer to ACC18.31.200 Multi-family Development a nd Mixed-use Development Design Standards and procedures for additional requirements. 6. Landscaping within the RO/RO-H zone is not requ ired unless site development includes the demolitio n of existing structure(s) together with new constructio n. Under this scenario the minimum landscape requi rements of the C1 zone shall be met. 7. Landscaping within the DUC zone shall be provide d as defined in the Downtown Urban Center Design Standards, see reference to ACC 18.29.070. C. Landscape Design and Planting Requirements. Land scape design and construction for new development or redevelopment shall be compatibl e 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 de sign, 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 s ubstituted for some but not of all shrubs or ground cover plants. If sodded lawn is used it cann ot cover more than 20 percent of the site and those portions of the lawn area must be served by a n 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 la ndscape features. c. As appropriate, building and site design shall inc lude 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 p lanters, 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 compati ble with the character and climate of the Pacific Northwest and complement the archite ctural design of structures on the site. a. Native Landscaping. Landscaping materials insta lled shall include species native to the Puget Sound lowland region of the Pacific No rthwest or non-invasive species that have adapted to the climactic conditions of the region i n the following minimum amounts: DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 6 of 15 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 improv ements. 3. Planting Size and Spacing. In order to balance b oth an immediate effect of a landscape installation and to allow sustained growt h of planting materials, minimum plant material sizes and plant spacing are as follows: a. Trees. Trees shall be a minimum of one and one-h alf in diameter breast height (dbh) at the time of planting. Evergreen trees sha ll be a minimum of four to six feet in height at the time of planting and may include either broadle af or conifer. Tree spacing within the perimeter planters along streets and abutting resid ential 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 i n 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-inc h spacing or 1-gallon pot with 18-inch spacing, Alternative spacing of particular species may be ap proved 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 i ncreased by the city where needed to ensure visual access for vehicles and pe destrians and provide clear vision at street, access tracts and driveway intersections (sight dis tance 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 triangl e. Sight distance triangles are determined in conformance with the City of Auburn Engineering Des ign 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 protect ed with vertical or extruded concrete curbs, or equivalent barriers. Bumper bloc ks shall not be used as a substitute for curbing and boundary around the landscaped area; ii. All parking lot landscaping must be located bet ween parking stalls, at the end of rows of parking, or between the end of rows of s talls 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 t o cover each parking lot planting area using the planting size and spacing r equirements 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, ease ments, or utility facilities may be allowed. Modifications that reduce landscape ar ea or plant material shall be made up elsewhere on-site, if possible. DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 7 of 15 vi. The requirements of this section shall not appl y to parking garages or to display areas for automotive and equipment sales an d rentals that are specifically designed, approved and constructed for the display purpose an d that do not reduce required landscape areas. b. Specific Parking Lot Landscaping Standards Table 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. 5. Landscaping for Outdoor Storage Areas, Recreatio nal Vehicle Parking and Refuse Areas. a. Outdoor storage areas and recreational vehicle p arking areas must be screened from view from adjacent streets and from all reside ntially 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 planti ng, which will provide a 100 percent sight-obscuring screen within three years from the time o f 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-obscuri ng fence. In addition to the trees, shrubs shall be planted at four-foot spacing, in all direc tions, and groundcover provided. b. Outdoor storage areas abutting the Interurban Tr ail (regardless of the zoning of the Interurban Trail) and other future trails conne cting to the Interurban Trail shall have a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer containing th e 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 nonresi dential uses must be screened from public view on all sides with a solid fence, wall, or gate cons tructed of cedar, redwood, masonry, or other similar building material reflecting the overall de sign of the site, and be appropriately landscaped (eg. climbing vines, arborvitae, etc). 6. Irrigation. No portion of any landscaped area sh all be located further away than 50 feet from a source of water adequate to irrigate th e landscaping. The source of water may be a manual (hose connection) or an automatic irrigation system. DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 8 of 15 A. Type I – Solid Screen. Type I landscaping is intended to pro vide a significant sight barrier to separate incompatib le uses. Type I landscaping shall consist of evergr een trees or tall shrubs, a minimum of six feet in height at the time of plan ting, which will provide a 100 percent sight -obscuring screen within three years from the time o f planting; 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 s hall be planted at four -foot spacing, in all directions, and gro undcover provided. B. Type II – Visual Screen. Type II landscaping is intended to c reate a visual separation between different uses or zones. Type II landscapin g shall consist of evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous , planted 20 feet on center. In addition to the trees, shrubs shall be planted at three -foot spacing, in all directions, and groundcover pr ovided. C. Type III – Visual Buffer. Type III landscaping is intended to provide a visual separation of uses from the s treet and the visual separation of compatible uses. Type III landscaping shall consist of evergreen and deciduous trees, with no m ore than 75 percent being deciduous, planted 30 feet on center. In addition to the trees, shrubs shall be planted at four -foot spacing in all directions, and groundcover provided. D. Type IV – See -Through Buffer. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide a visual relief between compatible uses. Type IV landscaping shall consist of deciduous trees, planted 30 feet on center, shru bs planted at four -foot spacing, in all directions, and groundcover pr ovided. (Ord. 4914 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(34), (35), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.50.050 Regulations by zone. A. R -C, R -1, R -5, R -7, and R -10 Residential Zones. Landscaping shall o nly be required in conjunction with an administrative or conditional u se permit. The type and amount of landscaping shall be determined at that time the administrative or conditional use permit is approved. B. R -16 and R -20 Residential Zones. 1. Street fro ntage: five -foot width of Type III; 2. Abutting R -C, R -1, R -5, or R -7 zone: five -foot width of Type III, adjacent parking or driveways will require a five -foot width of Type II; 3. Abutting R -10 zone: five -foot width of Type IV, adjacent parking or drivewa ys will require a five -foot width of Type III. C. RO and RO -H Districts. 1. Street frontage: 10 -foot width of Type III; 2. Abutting R -C, R -1, R -5, R -7, or R -10 zone: 10 -foot width of Type III, adjacent parking or driveways will require a 10 -foot width of T ype II; 3. Abutting R -16, R -20, R -MHC: five -foot width of Type IV, adjacent parking or driveways will require a five -foot width of Type III; 4. For conversions of single -family residences to commercial uses within the RO district, existing healthy landscap ing may be retained and utilized or supplemented to meet the intent of the code requirements as determi ned by the planning and development director or designee. See ACC 18.50.060 for plan re quirements. D. I, C -1, C -2, C -N, and P -1 Districts. 1. Street fron tage: five -foot width of Type III, no street frontage landscap ing is required for the C -2 zone except for parking lots and as may be requir ed by ACC 18.28.050(F); 2. Abutting R -C, R -1, R -5, R -7, or R -10 zone: five -foot width of Type II, adjacent parking or driveways will require a five -foot width of Type I; 3. Abutting R -16, R -20, RO, RO -H, or R -MHC zone: five -foot width of Type III, adjacent parking or driveways will require a five -foot width of Type II. E. C -3, LF Districts. 1. Street frontage: five -foot width of Type III; DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 9 of 15 2. Abutting R -C, R -1, R -5, R -7, or R -10 zone: 10 -foot width of Type II, adjacent parking or driveways will require a 10 -foot width of Type I; 3. Abutting R -16, R -20, RO, RO -H or R -MHC zone: 10 -foot width of Type III, adjacent parking or driveways will require a 10 -foot width of Type II; 4. Outdoor storage yards abutting any C, P, I or M -1 zone. F. M -1 District. 1. Street frontage: 10 -foot width of Type III, an additional 10 -foot width will be required when loading and unloading docks face a street. In lieu of the additional 10 -foot width of Type III landscaping, a Type II landscapin g may be provided; 2. Abutting any R zone: 10 -foot width of Type I; 3. Abutting I, C -1, C -2, P -1, or C -N zone: 10 -foot width of Type II, adjacent outdoor storag e yards will require a 10 -foot width of Type I; 4. Abutting C -3 or LF zone: 10 -foot width of Type III, adjacent outdoor storage ya rds will require a 10 -foot width of Type I; 5. For those buildings that have frontage on a street, a minimum of a 10 -foot widt h of Type III landscaping shall be placed next to the building; 6. Outdoor storage yards abutting other M -1 zoned property shall have a minimum width of a five -foot Type I landscaping; 7. Abutting the Interurban Trail. Outdoor storage yard s abutting the In terurban Trail (regardless of the zoning of the Interurban Trail) shall have a minimum 10 -foot width of Type I landscaping. G. M -2 District. 1. Street frontage: 10 -foot width of Type III; 2. Abutting any R zone: 30 -foot width of Type I; 3. Abutting I, C -1, C -2, P -1, or C -N zone: 10 -foot width of Type II, adjacent outdoor storage yards will require a 10 -foot width of Type I; 4. Abutting C -3 or LF zone: 10 -foot width of Type II, adjacent outdoor storage yar ds will require a 10 -foot width of Type I; 5. For tho se buildings that have frontage on a street a minim um of a 10 -foot width of Type II landscaping shall be placed next to the building. H. BP District. The amount and type of landscaping sha ll be determined at the time of the approval of the business park. T he landscaping requirements shall, however, be guid ed by the M -1 requirements and a minimum of 15 percent of the b usiness park shall be landscaped. I. EP District. 1. Except as provided for in subsection (I)(2) of this section, all required yards shall be landscaped with Type III landscaping. 2. The planning director may reduce the width of requi red landscaping by up to 50 percent for projects employing drip irrigation or s imilar water conservation measures, use of native plant materials, or xeriscaping. 3. In no case shall less than 15 percent of the lot be landscaped. 4. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened with a mini mum width of five -foot Type I landscaping. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6269 § 20, 2009; Ord. 6231 § 4, 2009; Ord. 6036 § 3, 2006; Ord. 586 3 § 5, 2004; Ord. 5342 § 2, 2000; Ord. 4914 § 1, 19 96; Ord. 4304 § 1(36) – (39), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 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 heal thy evergreen tree, six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade, or a healt hy deciduous tree four inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade. Alders an d cottonwoods are excluded from this definition. If the grade level adjoining a tree to be retained is to be altered to a degree that woul d DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 10 of 15 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 di stance requirements, utilities and storm drainage facilities may be exempted from this requi rement. 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 consultin g 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 safet y hazard. If additional significant trees are to be removed, the applicant shall seek approval of an “Alternative landscape plan” from the planning dire ctor under ACC 18.50.080. B. Encroachment into Dripline. No construction acti vities shall take place within the drip line of a tree to be retained without extra precautions as recommended by a certified arborist. The applicant may install impervious or compactable sur face within the area defined by the drip line when a qualified arborist determines that such acti vities 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 barric ade 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 bef ore major excavation with heavy equipment begins. 18.50.060 General landscape requirements Landscaping plan requirements . A. Persons Qualified to Prepare Landscape Plan. A landscape plan shall be required and shall be accurately drawn using an appropriate engineering scale and shall illustrate the followin g signed by a licensed landscape architect is not req uired. However, if the plan is determined by the City to be illegible or inadequate for review t he landscape plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect licensed in the state of Washin gton, a nursery professional certified pursuant to the Washington Certified Nursery Professional pr ogram, or a Washington State certified landscape technician. A. B. Application. A landscape plan shall be required and shall be accurately drawn using an appropriate engineering scale and contain all in formation specified by the planning director in the application form and accompanying checklist pro vided by the City. 1. Adjacent streets, public and private; 2. Boundaries and dimen sions of site; 3. Location of on -site buildings; 4. Location of on -site parking areas; 5. Location and size of landscape areas; 6. Location, species and size of planting materials; 7. Location of outdoor storage areas; 8. Location of significant trees; DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 11 of 15 9. Location of water sou rce(s). If the subject property is located within the RO di strict, a landscape plan signed by a licensed landscape architect is not required; however, a pla n shall be prepared by the applicant providing a written record of landscaping to be retained and m aintained, and generic naming of vegetation is acceptable. The plans shall be approved by the p lanning and development director or designee prior to issuance of any building permits. B. Driveways and Pedestrian Walkways. Landscaping is g enerally required along all street frontages with the exception of driveways and pedes trian walkways within the property. C. Fences. When fences and landscaping are required al ong the property line, the fence shall be set back of the landscaping if the fence a buts a street, so as to not obscure such landscaping. At other property lines the landscapin g shall be located to serve the greatest public benefit. D. Irrigation. No portion of any landscaped area shall be located further away than 50 feet from a source of water adequa te to irrigate the landscaping. E. Lawn Substitution. Sodded lawn may be substituted f or the required shrubs or ground cover but all portions of the lawn area must be ser ved by an automatic irrigation system. F. Maintenance G. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor sto rage yards that are visible from a street or are ad jacent to residentially zoned property shall be screened by a minimum of a five -foot width of Type I landscaping. Additional width may be required to co mply with ACC 18.50.050. H. Parking Lots. 1. A plante r area shall be required along the entire street fr ontage(s), except driveways and walkways; provided, that no sight -obscuring plants will be allowed whenever safe sight clearance is necessary for ingr ess and egress from a public street. The width of the p lanter area shall be as required in ACC 18.50.050(A ) through (H) for street frontages; 2. All lots with more than 12 spaces, a 100 -square -foot planter area shall be required at the end of each single row of parking, but in no case shall there be more than 10 parking spaces between any required planter area . The location of the planter area may be varied upon evidence submitted which shows t hat the intent of the landscaping requirements has not been lessened. Any variation m ust receive planning director appr oval; 3. Each planter area shall contain at least one tree, a minimum of one and one -half to two inches in caliper. For planter areas in exce ss of 30 feet in length, more trees are required and shall be spaced not further than 30 fe et apart; 4. Each plante r area shall contain shrubs, spaced three feet on c enter, and be a minimum of one gallon in size; 5. Residential and nonresidential parking lots with fi ve or less spaces shall be exempt from the parking lot landscape requirements. I. Performance Assurance J. Private Property. All required landscaping shall be located entirely on private property. When landscaping is required to separate adjacent u ses, the landscaping shall run the full length of the adjacent property. K. Sight Hazards. The building official and/or city engineer may review and modify landscape plans which may affect visibility for ing ress, or egress, corner lots or other intersections. Any reduction of landscaping shall b e made up elsewhere on -site. L. Significant Trees. All significant trees , as defined by ACC 18.50.030(E), shall be retained and made part of the landscape plan. M. Species. The applicant shall utilize plant material s which complement the natural character of the Pacific Northwest. DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 12 of 15 N. Landscaped Berms. In addition to the minimu m landscape requirements of ACC 18.50.050, landscaped berms may be required to miti gate any impacts associated with a specific project. The berms may be applied through an admini strative or conditional use permit, contract rezone, or as a condition associa ted with a mitigated determination of nonsignifican ce or environmental impact statement. The minimum height of the earth creating the berm shall be three feet and have a slope no greater than two -foot horizontal to one -foot vertical. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6231 § 5, 2009; Ord. 4914 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.50.070 Landscape Maintenance Requirements Administration and Enforcement. I. A. Performance assurance. 1. The required landscaping must be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy unless the building official planning director determines that a performance assurance device will adequately protect the interests of the city; 2. The performance assurance device shall only be vali d for a 120-day period and shall have a value of 100 percent of the estimated cost o f the landscaping to be performed, inclusive of planting materials and installation . If the landscaping has not been installed after t he 120 days then the assurance device may be used by the city t o perform any necessary work to implement the landscape plan. This time period can be extende d if the City determines that: a. Installation of the landscaping would not be suc cessful due to weather; or b. Product is not available due to the time of year . 2.3. The performance assurance device shall be accompani ed by an agreement granting the city and its agents the right to enter the prop erty and perform work. The agreement shall also hold the city harmless from all claims and expenses , including attorney's fees; 3.4. Upon completion of the required landscaping by the property owner the city shall release the performance assurance device. F. Maintenance B. Initial Maintenance Period. 1. The property owner shall be responsible for repl acing any unhealthy or dead plants for a period of two one years after the initial planting. 2. The building official planning director shall require a maintenance assurance device, unless converting a single-family residence to a no nresidential 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 main tenance assurance device shall equal at least 50 100 percent of the total landscape materials plus inst allation . 3. If the landscaping is not being properly maintai ned, the property owner shall be so notified by the city. If after 30 days from the cit y's notification the landscaping is still not being maintained then the maintenance device may be used by the city to perform any type of maintenance necessary to ensure compliance with thi s chapter. 4. The maintenance assurance device shall be accomp anied by an agreement granting the city and its agents the right to enter the prop erty and perform any necessary work. The agreement shall also hold the city harmless from al l 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. 6.5. DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 13 of 15 C. Maintenance of Landscape Area. A. Landscaping, including trees, shrubs, groundcover, or grass, planted as a requirement pursuant to this title, ACC Title 16 or ACC Title 1 7 shall be maintained in a healthy, living condition. Pruning of trees or shrubs shall be for the purpose of maintaining the tree or sh rub in a healthy growing condition, and shall not adversely affect the healthy living condition of the plant or excessively damage the natural growing process. 1. Tree and Shrub Pruning. A permit is not require d to prune trees and shrubs on private property. Pruning which results in the remo val of at least half of the live crown will be considered tree removal and subject to the provisio ns 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 Certifi ed Arborist or other qualified tree expert. Limitations on Allowable Pruning. Tree and shrub pr uning shall be allowed only for the following purposes: a. Removal of dead wood and diseased, crowed, and w eakly attached trunks and branches that create a hazard to private property a nd citizens; b. Providing adequate clearance and visibility for safe use of parking stalls, travel ways and walkways for the passage of persons and ve hicles; c. Eliminating traffic sign visibility obstructions ; d. Providing adequate visibility for security patro ls; 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, drain age lines and parking lot surfaces; or g. Providing visibility for merchant signs and incr easing parking lot lighting only when the aesthetics of the tree or shrub will not b e reduced. 2. Tree topping. Tree topping is prohibited, excep t 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. B. Violation of these provisions shall be processed in accordance with the procedures defined under Chapter 1.25 ACC. The prop erty 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 provis ions defined by Chapter 1.25 ACC 1. C. The corrective action plan shall be subject to the following replacement ratios: a. For plants that have died, replacement vegetatio n shall be at least 150 percent of the planting size required of the subject plant mat erial at the time of planting. The plants shall be of the same or similar species to those plants bein g replaced, unless alternate species are approved by the planning director. b. For trees or shrubs that have been excessively p runed, replacement vegetation shall be at least 200 percent of the size of the tr ee or shrub that was required by city regulations 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 approv ed by the planning director. D. Pruning of trees or shrubs done to alleviate docume nted public health and safety is permissible and shall not be considered a civil vio lation; provided, that documentation is provided to the city that a public health or safe ty concern exists. DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 14 of 15 2. E. The property owner or designee shall correct the in fraction or provide a schedule that defines how and when the infraction will be co rrected within the time provisions defined by Chapter 1.25 ACC. (Ord. 5777 § 1, 2003.) 18.50.080 M odification of landscaping requirements. Alternative landscaping plan. A. The director may authorize a reduced width of plant ing or waive some or all of the landscaping requirements if the applicant proposes an alternative method of landscaping that would achieve the intent and purpose of the landscaping r equired in this chapter and which, in the opinion of the director, provides a superior level of buffering/screening. Alternative landscaping techniques may include the use of native vegetation existing on site, the use of berms or increasing perimeter landscape width in strategic l ocations. B. Within the RO district, the planning and developmen t director or designee may authorize employment of alternate landscape methods ; provided, that the vegetation is m aintained pursuant to ACC 18.50.070. (Ord. 6287 § 2 , 2010; Ord. 6231 § 6, 2009; Ord. 5863 § 6, 2004.) The planning director may authorize modification of the landscape requirements when alternative plans comply with the intent of this ch apter and: A. The proposed landscaping provides for creative l andscape design; or B. Incorporates the increased retention of signific ant 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 C ode 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, t he minimum extent of which is delineated by a vertical line extending from the outer limit o f 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 invalid ity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance s hall not affect the validity of DI.C ---------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6387 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 15 of 15 the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, appro val 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.C DRAFT Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 1 of 26 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 t he City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to upd ate and better reflect the current development needs and standards of the City; and WHEREAS, a need has been identifi ed to address concerns over the regulations on off-street parking and loading; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinanc e is to establish regulations which provide for safe, attractive, and convenient off-street parking and loading and to ensure that parking areas are compatib le with surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning c ode amendments will increase the number of shared and reduced parking strategies, allow for alternative parking surfaces and allow alternative parking layo uts subject to approval by the planning director; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Au burn Planning Commission held a public hearing on Oc tober 18, 2011, on the proposed code amendments regarding off-street parking and lo ading, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, and variances; and WHEREAS, after fully consideri ng the testimony and information presented at the publi c hearing, on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 26 made its recommendations for code am endments to the City of Auburn City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has revi ewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirem ents of the State Environm ental Policy Act (SEPA) with a final determination of non-signifi cance (DNS) issued September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A .106, the proposed zoning code amendments were sent to the Washi ngton State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review; and WHEREAS, no comments regardi ng the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department of Comm erce or other state agencies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds t hat the proposed amendments improve the readability and use of use of the City Code, updates te chnical aspects of the code, improves the City’s developm ent review process, and promote sustainability concept s where feasible NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY CO UNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDA IN as follows: DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 26 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 General. Intent. 18.52.015 Applicability. 18.52.020 Required off -street parking – Minimum standards. 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-in through facilities. businesses . 18.52.050 Off -street parking area development and maintena nce. Parking Design and Development Standards. 18.52.060 Development of off-street parking spaces for single-fa mily dwellings and duplexes. 18.52.065 Commercial vehicl es in resi dential zones. 18.52.070 Off -street parking lots – Location. 18.52.080 Repealed. 18.52.090 Parking space dimensional requirements. 18.52.100 Existing off -street parking reduction. 18.52.110 Fractional spaces. 18.52.120 Parking in front or side yards – Prohibited generally. 18.52.125 Stacked parking. 18.52.130 Off-street loading space. 18.52.135 Alternate parking layouts. 18.52.010 General Intent. This chapter establishes regulations which pr ovide for safe, attractive, and convenient off-street parking and loading and to ensure that par king 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 co ntract rezones, developm ent 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 an d all uses of land (property) established, parking and loading facilities 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 increa se of five or less parking spaces required by the change, additional off-street park ing spaces need not be provided in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. 1. Special provisions for the RO, Residential Office distri ct: DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 26 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 parki ng requirements between the old and new uses is greater than two spaces; except that if the app licant submits an alternate parking plan sufficiently justifying that the existing parki ng meets the needs of the new use, the planning director may authorize the satisfaction of parking th rough the Special Exception Process b. Whenever there is a change from a residential use to a nonresidential use in an existing building within the RO, Residential Office zoning distri ct, 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 Alter nate 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 Us es of Land. Whenever an existing building or structure is modified or uses of land are modifi ed such that the modification would require an increase of more than five off-street parking spaces, additional off-str eet parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. D. Modification to Existing Parking Lots. 1. A. Off -street parking and loading lots shall be provided in accordance with the following provisions of this chapter for every building or use hereafter erected, altered, enlarged, or relocated. 1. Any new building , use or structure shall provide the required parking to the standards specified in this chapter. The provision of additional pa rking is not required for a change of use in existing buildings in the C -2 zoning district. 2. Whenever a new building replaces an existing building or there is an expansion of an existing building within the C -2 zoning district, the requirements of this section shall apply only if there is an incr ease in floor area of 25 percent or more (including the cumulative increase of previous expansions after the effective date (Apr il 1, 1997) of the ordinance amending this sectio n). 3. 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 18.50.06 4 0(H)C(4). 4. Any parcel of land that is used or is intended to be used as a parking area shall b e improved pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. This shall include all parking area , whethe r or not required by this chapter, except as provided in ACC 18.52.060 (A) and (B). 5 2 . For existing parking lots that are resurfaced in exce ss of 50 percent of their area, then at least five percent of the entire parking area shall be landscape d consistent with Chapter 18.50 ACC. 6 3 . If existing parking lots are restriped, then the new layout of the parking spa ces 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. B. These regulations shall not be retroactive to include any building or use existing at the time of passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter, except as follows: 1. When a building is located on a different site , there shall be provided off -street parking and loading spaces as required for new buildings . 2. When the number of units is increased by alteration or addi tion to a dwelling or other structure containing sleeping rooms, there shall be provided off -street parking and loading spaces for such additional units. When there are o ther alterations to a residential DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 26 structure , the requirements of this chapter shall apply whenever the value of such alterations or the cumulative value of previous alterations after the effective date (April 1, 1997) o f the ordinance amending this secti on exceeds 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the structure . 3. When there are alterations or additions to a nonresidenti al building outside the C -2 zoning district, there shall be provided off -street parking and loading spaces for any increase, including any cumulative increase of previous additions or alterations after the effective date (April 1, 1997) of the or dinance amending this section, in the gross fl oor area or number of seats, bowling lanes or clas srooms therein, except that when the aggregate number of spaces required for such alterations or addi tions is five or less, the off -street parking need not be provided. 4. Whenever any existing, nonresiden tial use in a building outside of the C -2 zoning district is changed to another use in the same building , the requirements of this section 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 five spaces. 5. Within the RO district, 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 alte rnate parking plan justifying that the existing parking meets the needs of the new use , the planning and development director may authorize through the special exception process. 6. Whenever there is a change from a residential use to a nonresidential use in an existing building , the requirements of this title shall apply in full to the new use ; except that the hearing examiner by means of a special exception may determine that a portion of the residential structure cannot be effectively utilized by the proposed commercial use and such area then may be excluded from the gross floor area used to compute the parking requirement. 7. Whenever there is a change from a residential use to a nonresidential use in an existing building within the RO district, the requirements of this title shall apply in full to the new use ; except that the planning and developm ent director by means of a special exception may determine that a portion of the residential structure cannot be effectively utilized by the proposed commercial use and such area then may be excluded from the gross floor area used to compute the parking requirement. 8. Whenever there is a change from a residential use to a nonresidential use in an existing building within the RO district, the requirements of this title shall apply in full to the new use ; except if the structure is being used as both a residence and business, the planning and development director by means of a special exception may approve a parking plan to meet the parking requirements for both uses . C. The required parking and/or loading shall have reasonable access to a street or alley and a capacity according to the use of the building listed in the following sections. D. Where a use is not listed, the planning director shall determine the number of required parking and/or loading spaces based upon similar uses for which the requirements are specified. E. Removal of required parking and/or loading spaces from practi cal use by obstruction, erection of buildings , or other actions as to reduce the parki ng and/or loading capacity or usefulness thereof below the minimum requirements estab lished in this chapter is prohibited. F. “Gross floor area ” includes all floor area within the ext erior walls of the building including area in halls, storage, and partitions, but excluding furnace and similar utility space used solely to maintain the building for occupancy . G. “Parking area” includes the parking spaces together with driveways and the access to a street. H. “Gross leasable area” is the gross floor area reduced by the area of public lobbies, common mall areas, permanently designated corridors, and atriums or courtyards provided solely for pedestrian or merchandise access to the building from the exterior, and/or for aesthetic DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 6 of 26 enhancement or natural lighting purposes. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6231 § 7, 2009; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.020 Required off -street parking – Minimu m standards. Number of off-street parking spaces required The number of off -street parking spaces shall be determined for Ee ach principal use of the land, building, or structure. For ancillary uses to the princip al use, required parking shall be calculate d the same as for the principal use, or as otherwise provided for in this chapter. shall provide the number of off-street park ing spaces required by this Section. The following standards are not applicable in the DU C, 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 proces s 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 gu ide 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 f or persons with disabilities, spaced provid ed in park and ride lots op erated by a public tran sit agency, spaces for carpools, spaces for electric vehicle charging and spaces wit hin 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 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 fr om practical use by obstruction, erection of buildings, or other actions as to reduce the parking or loa ding capacity or usefulness thereof below the minimum requirement s established in this chapter is prohibited. Table 18.52.020 Off-Street Parking Requirements by Land Us e 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 DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 7 of 26 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 dwellings 1 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 area10.00 Food retail stores and markets 1,000 square feet of floor are a5.00 Health and Fitness Clubs 1,000 square feet of floor area1 0.00 Hotel or Motel Guest room or rental unit 1.00 Mini-marts and self service gas stations 1,000 square feet of floor area5.00 Mortuaries or funeral homes Seat 2 0.25 Motor vehicle repair and services 1,000 square feet of floor area2.50 Personal service shops 1,000 squa re feet of floor area2.50 Retail commercial establishments, less than 15,000 square feet of floor area 1,000 square feet of floor area2.50 Retail commercial establishments, greater than 15,000 square feet of floor area 1,000 square feet of floor area4.00 Shopping centers 1,000 square feet of floor area4.00 Office Categories Business and professional offices 1,000 square feet of floor area2.00 Medical, dental, and other 1,000 square feet of floor area 5.00 DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 8 of 26 doctor’s offices Manufacturing Processing and Warehousing Categories All manufacturing, industrial, and processing uses, except the following: 1,000 square feet of floor area1.00 Warehousing 2,000 square feet of floor area1.00 Storage - Personal storage/mini-storage facilities Storage unit 3 Minimum of 2 spaces Recreation, Education, Public Assembly Categories Auditoriums, stadiums, and theaters Seat 2 0.25 Commercial recreation facilities - Indoor, except for the following: 1,000 square feet of floor area5.00 Bowling alleys Lanes 5.00 Pool and billiard rooms Table 2.00 Skating rinks 1,000 square feet of floor area5.00 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 area2.50 Meeting facility, public or private Seat 2 0.25 Religious assembly Seat 2 0.20 Schools (public and private) Kindergarten schools Employee 4 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 area5.00 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 DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 9 of 26 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 t otal 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 requ ired employee stalls A. Residential. 1. Single -family: one park ing space per two bedroom dwelling , two parking spaces per three or more bedroom dwelling ; 2. Two -family (duplex): one and one -half parking spaces per one bedroom and two bedroom living units, tw o parking spaces per three or more bedroom living units; 3. Multifamily: one and one -half parking s paces per one bedroom and two bedroom units, two parking spaces per three or more bedroom units, for developments in excess of 5 0 dwelling units , one screened space for each 10 dwelling units shall be provided for recreational vehicles ; 4. Mobile homes: one parking space per one bedroom and two bedroom units, two parking spaces per three or more bedroom units. Within mobile home parks, par king space shall not be allowed within required setbacks ; recreation and laundry areas shall prov ide off -street parking spaces equal to one per each 10 mobile home sites within the development; 5 . Boardinghouses and lodginghouses: one parking space for the proprietor plus one space per sleeping room for boarders and/or lodging use plus one additional space for each four persons employed on the premises; 6. Fraternities, sororities, and dormitories: one parking space for each four beds; 7. Multifamily dwellings , for the elderly, operated under contract with a pub lic agency or subsidized under a state, local or federal program: one parking space for each four d welling units ; a minimum of four spaces shall be provided. A binding legal agreement must be executed guaranteeing that the dwellings will be used exclusively for this use . The agreement shall be approved by the city attorney and recorded at the appropriate King County office, for propertie s located in King County, or recorded at the appropriate Pierce County office, fo r properties located in Pierce County; 8. Assisted living facility: one parking space per two units, plus one parking space for each two employees; 9. Supportive housing: one space per every two units, either loca ted on site or on an abutting property. Required parking may be reduced up to 25 percent if a supportive housing project is located within 500 feet of public tr ansit, support services and/or retail facilities meeting basic da ily needs. B. Commercial Activities. 1. Auto, boat, or recreational vehicle sales or leasing, new or used: one s pace per 5,000 square feet of outdoor sales area, one space per 1,000 square f eet of showroom and services facilities, and one space per each 250 square feet of offi ce area, but in no case shall there be less than six spaces provided. The outdoor sales area shall be paved in accordance with ACC 18.52.050 (A) and landscaped in accordance with ACC 18.50.060 (H)(1); 2. Repealed by Ord. 5777; 3. Food retail stores and markets: one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area ; a minimum of six parking spaces shall be provided; 4. M ini -marts and self -service gas stations: one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area in addition to pump island spaces; 5. Health and physical fitness clubs: one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area ; 6. Laundry, self -service: one parking space per four washing machines; a minimum of five parking spaces shall be provided; DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 10 of 26 7. Manufactured home sales lots: one space per 5,000 square feet of outdoor sales area, and one space per 250 square feet of office area; 8. Mortuaries or funeral homes: one parking space per four seats in the assembly area, computed as seven square feet of floor area per seat; 9. Motels, motor hotels and hotels: one and one -quarter parking spaces per sleeping unit; 10. Motorcycle and other small engine vehicle sales and serv ice: one space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area of the bui lding and one space for each 1,000 square feet of outdoor sales area. The outdoor sales area shall be paved in accordance with ACC 18.52.050 (A) and landscaped in accordance with AC C 18.50.060 (H)(1); 11. Motor vehicle repair and services: one parking space per 400 square feet of gross floor area ; a minimum of three spaces shall be provided; 12. Offices, includ ing professional and business, banks and related activities: o ne space per 300 square feet of gross floor area . Up to 400 square feet of unfinished basement floor area used exclusively for storage may be excluded from the parking requirement. “Unfinished basement floor area ” is defined as any floor level, below the first story of a building , which floor level is not provided sufficient light, ventilation, exit facilities, or sanitary facilities, as required for any legal occupancy classification. (See subsection D of this sect ion for doctors’ offices and clinics, etc.); 13. Personal service shops: one parking space per 400 square feet of gross floor area ; a minimum of two shall be provided; 14. Restaurants, nightclubs, taverns and lounges: one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area ; 15. Shopping centers: one parking space per 250 square feet of gross leasable floor area ; 16. Video arcades: within a range of one space per three video machines and one space per one machine as may be determined appropriate by the planning director , considering availability of existing parking, the nature of relate d business, and expected clientele of the arcade ; 17. Other retail establishments, including but no t limited to appliances, bakeries, dry cleaning, furniture stores, hardware stores, household equi pment service shops, clothing or shoe repair shops: one parking space per 500 s quare feet of gross floor area ; 18. Private lodges, with no over night boarding facilities: one park ing space per 100 square feet of gross floor area . C. Industrial and Manufacturing Activities. 1. Manufacturing, research and testing laboratories, creameries, bot tling establi shments, bakeries, canneries, printing, and engraving shops: one parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area ; 2. Warehouse and storage: Building Size Parking Requirements Up to 20,000 sq. ft.1 per 2,000 sq. ft. (3 minimum) 20,001 to 100,000 sq. ft. 1 per 2,500 sq. ft. (10 minimum) 100,000 sq. ft. and up 1 per 3,000 sq. ft. (40 minimum) 3 . Uncovered outdoor storage areas, which are incidental and subordinate to a principal use that otherwise meets the parking requirem ents, need not provide additional parking; 4. Office space shall provide parking as required for offices. D. Medical Facilities. 1. Convalescent, nursing and health institutions: one parking space for each employee per employee shift, plus one s pace for each three beds; 2. Hospitals: two parking spaces for each bed, plus parking for nonhospital space computed as determined elsewhere in this section; DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 11 of 26 3. Medical, dental, and other doctors’ office s: one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area . E. Public Assembly and Recreation. 1. Assembly halls, auditoriums, stadiums, sports arenas, and community clubs: one parking space per three fixed seats; where fixed seats consist of pews or benches, the seating capacity shall be computed upon not less than 18 linear inches of pew or bench length per seat. Where movable chairs are provided, each seven square fee t of the floor area to be occupied by such chairs shall be considered as a seat; 2. Bowling alleys: five spaces per bowling lane, additional parking for food and beverage on same premises shall be required as per subsection (B)(14) of this section and for spectator or assembly seating as per subsection (E)(1) of this section; 3. Churches: one parking space per five seats ; in computing seating capacity and requirements for assembly area without seats, use requirements as set forth for assembly halls per subsection (E)(1) of this section; 4. Danc e halls: one parking space per 100 square feet of gross floor area ; 5. Libraries and museums: one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area ; 6. Miniature and/or indoor golf: one parking space per hole; 7. Parks: as determined by the planning director and/or hearing examiner on an i ndividual basis; 8. Skating rinks: one parking space per 400 square feet of gross floor area . F. E ducational Activities. 1. Elementary and junior high schools: one and one -half parking spaces for each classroom or teaching station; 2. High schools: one parking space for each employee, plus one parking space for each eight students; 3. School auditoriums, stadiums and spo rts arenas: see requirements as set forth in subsection (E)(1) of this section; 4. Colleges and universities: upon review by planning director and hearing examiner; 5. Nursery s chools and daycare centers: one parking space for each employee plus loading and unloading areas; 6. Business and/or beauty schools: one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area . G. Other Uses . For uses not specifically identified in this chapter, parking shall be provided as spec ified for the use which, in the opinion of the planning director , is most similar to the use under consideration. (Ord. 6167 § 4, 2008; Ord. 6140 § 2, 2007; Ord. 6071 § 3, 2007; Ord. 5777 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5556 § 1, 2001; Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4304 § 1 (40), (41), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.025. Disabled/Handicapped P Parking Requirements A. Accessible parking spaces for the handicapped/disabled shall b e provided in compliance with the International Building Code (IBC), t he Federal Accessibility Guidelines, and Washington Administrative Code, as applicable. These spac es 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 f eet (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. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 12 of 26 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 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 parkin g. Except within the DUC zone, reductions of the quantity of required parking may be allowed based upon the following 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 wh en two or more uses with different peak parking demands will share a parki ng 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 subs tantial conflict in peak parking demand of the uses for which the s haring of parking is proposed. To evaluate the peak parking demand char acteristics or differences in hours and/or days of operation, evidenc e 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. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 13 of 26 If approved, a binding agreement pr oviding for the shared use of parking areas shall be executed by the parties involved, and must be filed with the City in a form approv ed by the planning director and be recorded. Shared parking privileges w ill continue in effect only as long as the agreement, binding on all parties, remains in force. Agreements must guarantee l ong-term availability of the parking, commensurate with the use served by the parking. If a shared parking agreement 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 nee d for fewer spaces (eg. sales receipts, documentation of customer frequency, information on parking standards required for the prop erty land use by other cities). In order for the reduction to occu r the planning director must find, satisfac tory evidence has been provided by the applicant, 3. Mixed Occupancies and Shared Uses In the case of two or mo re principal uses in the same building, the total requi rements for off-street parking facilities shall be 75 percent of the sum of the re quirements 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 sep arated in a manner which clearly sets the principal uses apart as separate businesses or operations. Various activities associated wit h 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 (wa lking distance) of a public transit stop. A public transit stop inclu des but is not limited to a bus stop, commuter train stop, or park and ride lot. Applicants requesting this reduction must provide a map identif ying 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 requ ired parking spaces may be allowed for a business or other use that creates a nd implements a site-specific Trip Reduction Plan and Program. The Trip Reduction Plan and Program shall be reviewed and approved by th e City and yearly reports shall be prov ided to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and ensure its continued maintenance and opera tion. 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 rece ive credit for one off-street parking sta ll for each 22 linear feet of abutting DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 14 of 26 right-of-way for parallel parking, ex cluding curb cuts. This provision shall be applied for on-street parking on the same side of t he street as the proposed land use. All parking for employees must be provi ded on-site. 7. Valet Service 1. For public assembly and recreational uses , hospitals, restaurants, funeral homes and other uses requiring more than 500 parking spaces , an applicant may be allowed to provide less t han the number of required spaces if valet parking is to be used . A reduction of up to 25 percent in the amount of required parking per Table 18.52.020 of as high as 25 percent may be permitted, depending on the size and type of the use if approved by the planning director. 2. The applicant may be required to provide a proof of future parking plan which shows the location for all minimum required parking spaces in conformance with applicable setback requirements. The cit y may require installation of some or all of the addit ional spaces whenever a need arises. The parking study and the proof of future parkin g plan must be approved by the planning director. A binding legal a greement guaranteeing the provisions of this section shall be approved by the city attorney and executed and recorded at the appropriate offices of King County for properties located in King County, or recorded a t the appropriate offices of Pierce County for properties located in Pierce County. (Ord. 6071 § 4, 2007; Ord. 5556 § 1, 2001; Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) and the project location as shown in the following tabl e: C -2 Zone Citywide Waiver of parking requirement for change of use or if addition is smaller than 25% of floor area (ACC 18.52.010(A)(1) and (2)) Yes No Waiver of parkin g requirement for change of use or additions if five or less spaces (ACC 18.52.010 (B)(3) and (4)) N/A Yes 25% reduction of required parking (ACC 18.52.030 (A)(1)(a)), with an additional 15% reduction (for a total of 40%) if located within a spec ified area (ACC 18.52.030 (A)(1)(b)) Yes No Multifamily residential use – One space per dwelling unit (ACC 18.52.030(A)(2)) Yes No Joint use of parking (ACC 18.52.030(B)) No Yes M ixed occupancies and shared uses (ACC 18.52.030 (C)) No Yes DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 15 of 26 C -2 Zone Citywide Reduced parking demand study (ACC 18.52.030 (D)) Yes Yes Valet parking (ACC 18.52.030 (E)) Y es Yes B. Joint Use of Parking Facilities. 1. 2. Calculation of Shared Parking Requirements. When joint use of parking facilities is proposed, the number of required parking spaces shall be determined by the following procedure: a. Multiply the minimum parking requiremen t for each individual use as provided in ACC 18.52.020 by the appropriate percentag e listed in the table below for each of the five designated time periods; b. Sum each of the five vertical columns for the table; c. The minimum parking requirement is giv en by the highest sum resulting from subsection (B)(2)(b) of this section. Calculat ion of Shared Parking Requirements Weekdays Weekends Uses Night Midnight 6:00 a.m. Day 9:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m. Evening 6:00 p.m. Midnight Day 9:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. Evening 6:00 p .m. 4:00 a.m. Residential 100% 60% 90% 80% 90% Office/Industrial 5% 100% 10% 10% 5% Commercial/Retail (non -office) 5% 70% 90% 100% 70% Hotel/Motel 80% 80% 100% 80% 100% Restaurant (non -fast food) 10% 50% 100% 50% 100% Entertainment/Recreation (theate rs, bowling alleys , etc.) 10% 40% 100% 80% 100% Churches 5% 10% 30% 100% 80% All others 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3. The provisions in this subsection B of this section shall not result in a reduction of more than 25 percent from the requirements which would apply in the absence of this subsection. These provisions shall not be applied in addition to the parking reduction for downtown (subsection (A)(1) of this section). 4. This provision shall o nly apply to residential uses within the commercial zoning districts. 5. The off -street parking facilities to be used jointly shall be located within a walking distance of 500 feet of the use whi ch they are to serve. 6. Reductions for the joint use of existing parking facilities may be allow ed where there has been a change in use of the existing building that reduced the parking requirem ents. Documentation of the change in use , the reduced parking requirement, the number of excess spaces and the analysis of subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2) of this section must be submitted to the planning director for approval. 7. The concerned parties shall execute a binding legal agreement for as long as the joint use of parking is proposed. The agreement shall be nonre vocable, and written such that DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 16 of 26 if the joint use parking becomes unavailable, then subs titute parking meeting all of the requirements of this chapter must be provided or the use must be discontinued. The agreement shall be approved by the city attorney and recorded at the app ropriate King County office for properties located in King County, or recorde d at the appropriate Pierce County office for properties located in Pierce County. C. D. Reduced Parking Demand Study. 1. An applicant may be allowed to provide less than the required parking spaces by submitting a parking study that descr ibes how parking demand can be met with a reduced parking requirement. Reasons for reducing the parking requ irement under this section may include, but are not limited to: (a) unique characteristics of the use , (b) location adjacent to transit facilities, or (c) adoption of an approved transportation demand management plan. 2. The applicant shall provide a proof of future parking plan which shows the lo cation for all minimum required parking spaces in conformance with all applicabl e requirements. These areas shall be set aside and landscaped or treated in such a manner so t hat they may not be used for parking. The city may require installation of some or all of the addition al spaces whenever a need arises. If the owner fails to compl y, the city may undertake the installation. A bond shall be secured for a five -year period to cover the costs of converting those spaces to parking. The value of the bond shall be determined by the planning director based upon the cost of installing the initial parking area . 3. The parking study and the proof of future parking plan must be approved by the planning director . A binding legal agreement guaranteeing the provisions of this section shall be approved by the city attorney and executed and recorded at the appropriate King County office for properties in King County, or recorded at the appropriate Pierce County office for proper ties located in Pierce County. E. 18.52.040 Drive-through in facilities businesses . All banks, savings and loan associations, food dispensing establishments, and other businesses which maintain drive-through in facilities which are intended to serve customers who remain in their motor vehicles during business transactions, or are designe d in such a manner that customers must leave their automobiles tempor arily 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 in facility shall be so located that sufficient stacking space is provided to accommodate for the handling of types of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hour s of such a facility. B. Driveway Location. The locati on of entrances and exits shall be determined by the city engineer. C. Shopping Centers. When located in a shopping center, drive-through in facilities shall provide sufficient stacking space to handle peak business deman ds 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 Off -str eet parking area development and maintenance.Parking Design, and Development, and Maintenance Standards Required parking areas shall be designed, constructed and ma intained in compliance with this Section: A. Location of parking. Off-street pa rking areas shall be located as follows: DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 17 of 26 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 spac e shall occupy any unimproved area within the required front setback, or side and rear setb ack, except as allowe d 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 appropriat e means to ensure continuous use of the parking facilities following the procedure contained in Table 18.52.030 (1) Joint Use o f 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 follow s for all parking areas other than for individual single family dwellings and dup lexes. 1. The location, design and construction of entra nces 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 ma y require a greater distance for uses with high vehicle trip generation or located along heavily-traveled, city des ignated arterial streets. C. Access to adjacent sites. The City may require that the design of a parking area to provide vehicle and pedestrian connections to parkin g areas on adjacent properties or to connect with adjoining public walkways (when a reciprocal access easeme nt 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 an d further displayed in Figure 18.52.050. Table 18.52.050 Parking Space and Drive Aisle Dimens ions 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. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 18 of 26 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 Dimen sions 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 ob tained by the planning director following the procedures contained in ACC 18.52.135. Alternat ive Parking Layouts. Compact spaces can be clustered or dispersed throughout the parking lot. Every compact parking space created pursuant to this section shall be clearly identified as such by pa inting the word “COMPACT” in upper case block letters, using white paint, on the pavement wi thin 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 wou ld reduce the unencumbered width of a sidewalk or walkway to less than four f eet. A vehicle is permitted to overhang into a landscaped area by two feet; provi ded, that the required landscape area of trees and shrubs are not reduced in quantity and not subject to potential dama ge. 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 fac ilities that have obtained a Temporary Use Permit pursuant to the requirements of ACC 18.46A – Temporary Uses; ho wever 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 DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 19 of 26 b. Not more than 50 percent of the front yard or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller, can be used as off-street parking surfac e. 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 trai lers, recreational vehicles, and boats on trailers, that are provi ded 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 mate rial 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 driveway s. The grade of access driveway s for off-street parking areas shall be subject to the driveway regulations c ontained 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 met hods 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 . Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private off -street parking area shall be developed and maintained as follows: A. The parking areas on private property, including interior drive ways and access to a public street, shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete pavement and shall have appropriate bumper guards where needed. Where a driveway crosses an impro ved public right -of -way, it shall be constructed with cement concrete. All pavemen t sections shall be designed to support the post development traffic loads antici pated due to the intended use as approved by the city engineer. For properties within the RO district converting from single -family residential to a nonresidential use, alternative pervious surfaces may be utiliz ed as approved by the city engineer. Required ADA parking space(s) shall meet all current ADA standards pursuant to current state require ments. B. Parking areas shall be used for vehicle par king only, with no sales, unless permitted elsewhere by this title, dead storage, repair work, or dismantl ing of any kind. C. If lighting is provided, it shall be hooded, shielded, d irected downward and not exceed one -half foot -candle at the property line. D. Drainage facilities for storm water are required and shall b e approved by the public works department. E. Ingress and egress shall be approved as to location and design by the public works department . F. A six -inch extruded concrete curb shall be provided around landscaped i slands, peninsulas or similar features. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 20 of 26 G. Driveways and parking stalls shall be clearly marked. Driveways or aisles that serve emergency access shall have a 20 -foot minimum width, an unobstructed vertical clearance of at least 13 feet six inches (see IFC), and be clearly marked. H. Landscaping: see Chapter 18.50 ACC. I. Sidewalks or pedestrian walkways shall be visi bly marked with striping or differentiated pavement. J. For parking lots in excess of 50 spaces, the design shall be approved by the city engineer and the planning director. Designs shall be reviewed for dimensional and landscaping requirements, drainage, pavement, pedestrian amenities, circula tion, arterial access and qu euing and driveway locations, bicycle parking location, lighting an d signage. K. The maximum grade of driveways should be no more than 12 percent. Grades of up to 15 percent may be allowed upon approval by t he city engineer and the planning director. A lan ding approach area shall be provided with a grade not excee ding eight percent. (Ord. 6231 § 7, 2009; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.060 Development of off -street parking spaces for single -family dwellings and duplexes. For parking areas serving single -family dwellings and duplexes, this section shall apply in l ieu of ACC 18.52.050. A. For those off -street parking spaces required purs uant to ACC 18.52.020(A)(1), the following standards shall apply: 1. Off -street parking spaces for single -f amily dwellings and duplexes on lots located in all zones except the R -R zone shall be paved with asphalt co ncrete or cement concrete. Each off -street parking space shall be connected to an impr oved street or alley by a driveway a minimum of 11 feet in wid th which shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concret e. 2. Off -street parking spaces for single -family dwellings on separate lots in the R -R zone may have an all weather surface. Each off -street parking space shall be connected to an improved str eet by a driveway which may have an all weather surface. The construction of the all weather surface shall be determined by the city engineer. The driveway approach, to a paved street, shall be paved and be at least 11 feet wide and 30 feet in length. 3. T he pavement width of a driveway to serve a single -family or duplex parking area shall be a minimum of 11 feet. If the driveway is a desig nated fire lane, the pavement width shall be at least 20 feet and have an unobstructed ve rtical clearance of at least 1 3 feet, six inches (UFC 902.2.2.1). B. 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 18.52.020(A)(1) shall meet the following s tandards: 1. Off -street parking spaces located in the front yard of lots located in all zones except the R -R (rural residential) zone shall hav e one of the following surfaces: a. Asphalt concrete or cement concrete pavement; or b. Gravel; provided, that we eds, mud or other fine material do not work their way to the surface of the gravel; and provided, that loose gr avel is contained on the subject property; or c. Any other materials including pavers or perm eable surfaces including grasscrete that are approve d by the city and that maintain a durable uniform surface. 2. Driveways that exclusivel y serve nonrequired off -street parking spaces are also subject to the surfacing requirement. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 21 of 26 3. Boats not on trailers shall not be stored in the front yard. C. Off -stree t parking, whether required or not required by the code, sha ll be subject to the following: 1. Single -Family Dwellings. a. Not more than 50 percent of the front yard or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller, can be off -street parking surfac e. However, exce pt as provided for in subsection (D)(2) of this section, in no instance shall a single -family dwelling be limited to le ss than 400 square feet of off -street parking surface in the front yard. For the purpose s of calculating the allowable area under this se ction, the front yard shal l be the area between the right -of -way and the portion of the single -family dwelling's front faca de farthest from the right -of -way. The width of the front yard shall extend to each side property line. b. On properties facing on tw o or more public rights -of -way, the total off -street parking surfaces for all front yards shall not be greater than 800 square feet. Exceptions may be considered pursuant to subsection (D)(1) of this section. 2. Duplexes. a. Not more than 50 percent of the front yard, or 1,600 square feet, whichever is smaller, can be off -street parking surface. However, except as provided for in subsection (D)(2) of this section, in no instance shall a duplex be limited to less than 800 square feet of off -street parking su rface in the front yard. For the purposes of calculating th e allowable area under this section, the front yard shall be the area between the right -of -way and the portion of the duplex's front facade farthest from the right -of -way. The width of the front ya rd shall extend to each side property line. b. On properties facing on two or more public rights -of -way, the total off -street parking surfaces for all front yards shall not be greater than 1,60 0 square feet. Exceptions may be considered pursuant to subsect ion (D)(1) of this section. D. The planning director may administratively revi ew and consider approving alternative off -street parking surfacing layouts to address the following: 1. Unique front -yard configurations including, but not limited to, panhan dle lots, cul -de -sac lots, corner lots, nonconforming development situations or situations where on -street parking on the block does not exist. 2. Situations where the minimum allowable square footage iden tified in subsections (C)(1)(a) and (2)(a) of this sect ion equals or exceeds the allowable area for off -street parking. In such instances, the planning director shall review and consider approving an alternative proposal to avoid surfacing of the entire front yard for off -street parking purposes. (Ord. 5913 § 1, 2005; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.065 Commercial vehicles in residential zones. 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 (R -1) single -family residential, (R -2) single -family residential, (R -3) duplex residential, (R -4) multiple -family residential, (LHR1) single -family residential, (LHR2) single -family residential, (LHR4) multiple -family residential, and (PUD) planned unit development. B. No person shall park more than one commercial vehicle on any property within the R1 Residential Zone single -family residential (R -S ) zoning district in the city, and no person shall DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 22 of 26 park more than two commercial vehicles on any property within the rural residential (R -R) Residential Conservancy RC zoning district in the city. C. It shall be a defense to a violation of this section that during the entire time that the vehicle was parked in the residentia l neighborhood the operator of the vehicle was actively engaged in making a delivery or providing services to residents in the immediate vicinity of where the vehicle was parked. (Ord. 6019 § 2, 2006.) 18.52.070 Off -street parking lots – Location. The fo llowing provisions shall apply in all zoning distri cts except the DUC zone: A. Single -family dwellings: required parking shall be located on the same lot as the building it is to serve. B. Multifa mily dwellings: required parking may be on a contiguous lot in the same zone if located within a walking distance of 500 feet of dwelling units . The lot shall be legally encumbered by an easement or other appropriate means to ensure continuous use of the parking facilities. Documentation shall require review and approval of the city attorney. C. Other uses: may be in areas other than on th e premises if the required amount of parking area is set aside for a particular use in such a lot , and such area is located within a walking distance of 500 feet from the premises and is in the same zone as the use . The lot or area to be utilized shall be legally encumbered by an easement or ot her appropriate means to ensure continuous use of the parking facilitie s. Documentation shall require review and approval of the city attorney. D. Whenever required parking facilities are located off -site, sidewalks, or an approved pedestrian facility, shall be provided connecting the satellite parking fa cility to the development being served. If lighting is provided, it shall be hooded, shielded, directed downward and not exceed on e -half foot -candle at the property line. E. A permit may be issued by the hearing examiner pursuant to the hearin g requirements of ACC 18.70.040 whenever parking is to be located at a walk ing distance greater than 500 feet from the use , or whenever parking for a use in a commercial or industrial zone is to be located in a residential zone if it is found that: 1. The required parking cannot be provided as required in subsections B and C of this section; 2. There is ad equate access provided between the parking area and the use ; 3. The character of the adjoining lan d uses would not be disrupted by the increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic; 4. The design and configuration of the parking area is compatible with adjacent uses . F. The planning director may authorize parking for a use to be located in a different zone (except as provided for in ACC 18.52.070 (E)) if the director makes the same findings as listed in ACC 18.52.070 (E). (Ord. 6071 § 5, 2007; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 43 04 § 1(42), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.080 Off-street parking – In-lieu of fees. Repealed by Ord. 4949. (Ord. 4688 § 2, 1994.) 18.52.090 Parking space dimensional requirements. A. Stan dard Sized Parking Spaces . 1. Standard sized parking spaces parallel to the driveway or aisle serv ing them shall be a minimum of nine feet wide and 22 feet long. Driveways or aisles serving standard sized parallel spaces shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide. 2. Standard sized parking spaces oriented at an angle to the driveway or aisle serving them shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional requirements set f orth by the following table, and further defined by subsection C of this section; provided, that aisle widths shall not be less than 10 feet. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 23 of 26 One -Way Two -Way A B C D D 30 9.0' 17.3' 12.0' 20.0' 45 9.0' 19.8' 15.0' 20.0' 60 9.0' 21.0' 18.0' 20.0' 90 9.0' 19.0' 24.0' 24.0' B. Compact Sized Parking Spaces . 1. In any off -street parking lot up to 30 percent of the spaces may be designated as “compact” spaces and be developed according to the minimum dimen sional requirements for compact spaces establis hed under this section. Municipally owned/leased automobile parking faci lities may designate up to 50 percent of the spaces as “compact.” 2. In the RO district, all parkin g spaces may be compact, except the required handicap space shall meet the current ADA standards. 3. Compact sized parking spaces oriented parallel to the driveway or aisle serving them shall be a minimum of eight feet wide and 20 f eet long. Driveways or aisles serving comp act sized parallel parking spaces shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 4. Compact sized parking spac es oriented at an angle to the driveway or aisle serving them shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional requirements set f orth by the following table and further defined by subsection C of this section; provided, that aisle widths shall not be less than 10 feet. One -Way Two -Way A B C D D 30 8.0' 14.9' 10.0' 20.0' 45 8.0' 17.0' 13.0' 20 .0' 60 8.0' 17.9' 16.0' 20.0' 90 8.0' 16.0' 22.0' 22.0' 5. Every compact parking space created pursuant to this section shall be clearly identified as such by painting the word “COMPACT” in upper ca se block letters, using white paint, on the pavement within the space. The addi tional use of signs to identify any large blocks of compact parking spaces is encouraged. Th e random distribution of compact spaces or blocks of compact spaces throughout a parking lot is also encouraged. 6. Existing parking lots may provide for compact parking spaces under the provisions of this section; provided, that the parking lot shall comply with all provisions of this chapter except that any parking lot which provides five percent of its area in landscaping shall be deemed to comply with all landscaping requirements. C. When determining the minimum dimensional requirements for standard and compact parking spaces oriented at an angle to the driveway or aisle serving them, t he following figure shall be consulted. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 24 of 26 D. Off -street parking lots shall comply with the handicapped parking space requirements. E. Overhang parking may be permitted. 1. The overhang area need not be paved but must be landscaped with deciduous t rees planted 30 feet on center and groundcover or sodded lawn provided. The trees shall be planted to avoid conflict with the vehicles. No overhang landscape areas, created excl usively for overhang parking, shall be considered to meet the landscape requirements of this title. The overhang land scape area must be a minimum width of five feet; however, th e maximum overhang allowed into the landscaped area shall be two feet. Overhangs into otherwise required landscaped areas are not permitted unless the width of the landscaped ar ea is increased by at least two feet and the plant material increased accordingly. 2. All parking spaces with overhangs shall have appropriate wheel stops provided. (Ord. 6231 § 8, 2009; Ord. 5733 § 4, 2003; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1 997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.100 Existing off -street parking reduction. Existing off -street parking facilities shall not be eliminated nor reduced to an amount less than that required for new buildings unless the facility or the associated use meets the requirements of any of the provisions of ACC 18.52.030 . (Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.110 Fractional spaces. When units or measurements determining the number of requi red parking spaces result in requirements of a fractional space, any fraction up to one-ha lf shall be disregarded, and fractions of one-h alf or over shall require one parking space. (Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.120 Parking in front or side yards – Prohibited generally. On any lot in any R -R, R -S, R -1, R -2, R -3, and R -4 district, the off -street parking and loading space required by this chapter shall not be provided in the required front or side yard area except as otherwise specified in this chapter. (Ord. 4949 § 1, 199 7; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.) 18.52.125 Stacked parking. Stacked parking, i.e., parking one car behind an other, is permitted for funeral homes, single-family homes on individual lots , and for designated employee parking within the RO, Resi dential Office district only, unless the use has complied with the requirement s of ACC Table 18.52.030 DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 25 of 26 Parking Quantity Reductions (Valet Service) 18.52.030 (E ). (Ord. 6231 § 9, 2009; Ord. 4949 § 1, 1997.) 18.52.130 Off-street loading space. Buildings devoted to retail trade, retail and whol esale food markets, warehouses, supply houses, wholesale and manufacturing trade, hotels, hospitals, laundry, dry cleaning establi shments or other buildings where large amounts of goods are received or ship ped shall provide lo ading 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 spa ce 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 le ngth and 14 feet in height; C. Loading space, exclusive of drivew ays and/or corridors leading thereto, shall not be con sidered 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 provide d; 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 o ff-street parking space is provided for a vehicle of the appropriate size, and that ingress to and egre ss from the off-street par king facility is possible with minimal disruption of traffic on the adjacent street. Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrativ e procedures as may be ne cessary 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 a ny clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of th is ordinance, or t he invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not af fect the validity of the remainder of this ordinanc e, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6388 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 26 of 26 Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after it s 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.C 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 in terest of the City to amend Section 18.70., “Variances, Special Exception s, and Administrative Appeals” adding an Administrative Variance process where under specific cases the planning director could grant relief to develop ment standards, not to exceed 25 percent of a quantifiable standard; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City’s la nd use decision making process should be revised so that minor issues are determined in relatively quick administrative processes and major issues are thoro ughly assessed and are subject to the full public scrutiny of the Hearing Examiner process; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Aub urn Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 201 1, 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, 201 1, the Planning Commission DI.C --------------------------------- 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 conside red the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Envir onmental 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 Depart ment of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other state agencie s as required for the 60-day state review; and WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments have been received from the Department o f Commerce or other state agencies; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A UBURN, 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 A PPEALS Sections: 18.70.010 Variances. 18.70.015 Administrative Variance 18.70.020 Special exceptions. DI.C --------------------------------- 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, aut horize a variance to the development regulations, subject to the criteria set below. 1. Building setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and l ot width a. Applicability. These shall include variances to building setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and lot width not to exceed 25 percent of a q uantifiable standard. b. Criteria. The planning director may, in specifi c 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 th e character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which t he lot is located. ii. That the special circumstances and conditions a ssociated with the variance are not a result of the actions of the applicant. iii. Literal interpretation of the provisions of th is 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 locate d. 2. Variance to building height a. Applicability. The construction of a principal o r 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 t he character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which t he lot is located. iii. The approval of the variance will be consisten t with the purpose of this title and the zoning district in which the property is locate d. B. In authorization of an administrative variance, the planning director may attach such conditions regarding the location, character and ot her features of the proposed structure or use as he/she may deem necessary to carry out the inten t 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 pe riod 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 origina l application. 18.70.030 Application. In addition to the requirements for a complete appl ication 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; DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6389 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 5 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.) Section 2 . Imp l ementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 3. Se v era b i l ity. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalid ity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance s hall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4 . E ff ecti v e date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, appro val and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: __________________ PASSED: _______________________ APPROVED: ____________________ CIT Y OF A UBU RN ______________________________ PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: _________________________ DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6389 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _________________ DI.C DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 9 0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.55 TO THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING OUTDOOR LIGHTING WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to t he City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to upd ate and better reflect the current development needs and standards of the City; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to establish regula tions which discourage excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourage energy conservation and promote exterior lightin g that promotes safe vehicular and pedestrian access to and within a devel opment while minimi zing impacts on adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, following proper notice, the City of Au burn Planning Commission held a public hearing on Oc tober 18, 2011, on the proposed code amendments regarding off-street parking and lo ading, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, and variances; and WHEREAS, after fully consideri ng the testimony and information presented at the publi c hearing, on October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission made its recommendations for code am endments to the City of Auburn City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has revi ewed and considered the Planning Commission recommendations; and WHEREAS, environmental review on the proposal has been completed in accordance with the requirem ents of the State Environm ental Policy Act (SEPA) Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 1 of 6 DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 2 of 6 with a final determination of non-signifi cance (DNS) issued September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A .106, the proposed zoning code amendments were sent to the Washi ngton 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 Comm erce or other state agencies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds t hat the proposed amendments improve the readability and use of use of the City Code, updates te chnical aspects of the code, improves the City’s developm ent review process, and promote sustainability concept s where feasible NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY CO UNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDA IN 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 18.55 OUTDOOR LIGHTING Sections 18.55.010 Intent 18.55.020 Applicability 18.55.030 General requirements 18.55.040 Prohibited lights 18.55.040 Exceptions DI.C 18.55.010 Intent. To discourage excessive lighting of out door 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. 18.55.020 Applicability. A. A lighting plan shall be re quired 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 t o property zoned residential; and 2. For projects undergoing redevelopment, expansion or remode l when the redevelopment requires site plan approval, or for tenant improvements or other minor building improvements when exterior lighting is proposed to be install ed or modified. B. These regulations do not apply to subdivisions or individua l dwelling units, with the exception of common areas. Examples of comm on areas include, but are not limited to, pathways, clubhouses, parki ng lots and play areas. C. These regulations are not app licable to public rights-of-way. D. These regulations do not apply to lighti ng necessary for emergency equipment and work conducted in the interests of law enforcement or for the safety, health, or welfare of the public. 18.55.050 General requirements. A. Shielding Required. Except as otherwise exempt, all outdoor lighting fixtures shall be constructed with shielding on all sides. The outdoor ligh t source (bulb or element) shall not be visible at or beyond the property line. Figure 18.55.030 Examples of light fi xtures with shielding on all sides B. Fixture heights. Lighting fixtures shall not exceed the following maximum heig hts: Table 18.55.030 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 --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 3 of 6 DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 4 of 6 C. Photometric Plan Requirement s. A photometric plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval when required under 18.33.020 - Applicab ility. The required elements of the plan shall be specified in application forms to be provide d by the City T he photometric plan will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the provisions in this Chapt er. 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 averag e 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-cand les of light. 3. In order to minimize light spillage on abutting resident ial property, illumination measured at the nearest residential structure or rear yard setba ck line shall not exceed one-tenth foot-candle. E. Accent lighting. Lighting used to accent architectu ral features, landscaping or art is permitted to be directed upward, provided that the fi xture shall be located, aimed, or shielded to minimize light spill. No permit is required for this type of l ighting. F. Periods of Illumination 1. All outdoor lighting systems shall be equippe d 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 act ivate lighting during times when it will be needed is encouraged to conserve ene rgy, provide safety and promote compatibility between differ ent land uses. Lowe r 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 count ry, state, or other civic entity; ii. Functioning as security lighting (e.g., illuminating a pathway, building entry, etc.) iii. Associated with special events, etc. 18.55.040 Prohibited lights. The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary p ermit is obtained for specific events with specific times of operation: A. Strobe lights, Search lights, laser source light s, or any similar high-intensity light except for emergency use by police and fire personnel or at their direct ion. B. Roof-mounted lights except for security purposes with motion detection and full shielding so that the glare of the light source is not visi ble from any public right-of-way or a neighboring residence. C. Any light that imitates or causes visual inte rference with a traffic signal or other necessary safety or emergency light 18.55.050 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 autho rities. D. Lighting for state and federal highways aut horized 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 proje cts H. Stadium and field lighting DI.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrativ e procedures as may be ne cessary 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 a ny clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of th is ordinance, or t he invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not af fect the validity of the remainder of this ordinanc e, 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 it s 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.C --------------------------------- Ordinance No. 6390 - DRAFT November 14, 2011 Page 6 of 6 _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: _________________ DI.C AGENDA BILL AP PROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Title 18 - Zoning, of the Auburn City Code related to parking and landscaping regulati ons, administrative variance process, and outdoor lighting standa rds (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 p roposed amendments and make a recommendation to City Council. Background Summary: The Code Update Project began in September 2008 and is pr ogressing in two phases. Phase 1, completed in June of 2009, updated the City’s residential-re lated zoning districts (Title 18 ACC) and subdivision code (Title 17 ACC). Phase 2 updates the City’s non-residential relat ed 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 object ives: * Improve development code readability and ease of use; and * Update technical content to address known iss ue areas and better support the City’s development review and quasi-judicial decision process; and * Ensure development code and design standards are coordinat ed and consistent with Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and other state l and use and environmental requirements; and * Promote sustainability concepts where feasible. The proposed amendments (Phase 2, Group 1) will affe ct the current zoning code as follows: Amend and delete existing code sections and add new code se ctions within the following Chapters: ACC 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening) and ACC 18.52 (Off St reet Parking and Loading). Amend Chapter ACC 18.70 (Variances, Special Exceptions and Administra tive 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 w ill 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.C Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-00 06) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 2 of 7 A. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: City of Auburn Planning and Development Depar tment, Kevin H. Snyder, AICP, Director B. RESPONSIBLE STAFF: Stuart Wagner, AICP Planner, City of A uburn 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 addi ng 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 (Varianc es, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals) by adding an administrative variance pr ocess. Lastly the proposal creates a new Chapter of the zoning code, ACC 18.53 – Outdoor Lighti ng Standards, to encourage appropriate use and design of out door 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 Cit y 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 propos ed zoning code amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, and other st ate agencies as required for t he 60-day state review. An acknowledgement letter was received on Septem ber 21, 2011. No comments were received from Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. DI.C Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-00 06) 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 Comm ittee provided initial policy feedback to staff. 7. The Planning Commission c onducted 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 Septem ber 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 amendment s to Title 18, Zoning, scheduled for the Planning Commission’s October 4, 2011 pu blic hearing with a staff recommendation. G. Conclusions 1. Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) Sect ion 18.68.030 and 18.68.040, the following public process is applicable: 18.68.030 Public hearing process A. Text Amendments. With t he exception of purely admin istrative 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 Co mmission 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 Serv ice Center (One East Main St reet), and on the City’s website meeting the requirement fo r posting the notice in thr ee general public locations. 2. The proposed amendments to Title 18 (Z oning) are intended to reorganize and update regulations and standards to create a more logical flow in t he 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 (C ritical Areas). Any future DI.C Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-00 06) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 4 of 7 development subject to the proposed amendment s to Title 18 will still be required to demonstrate compliance to applic able standards and regulation s pecified in ACC 16.10. 4. The proposed amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) will support current and future land a nd 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 inco nsistent with the City’s adopted plans and policies. 5. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.68, Amendments, does not have spec ific 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 Comprehensiv e 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 appropria te 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 wh ich govern landscaping shall be updated and revised and include provisions for continued maintenance. Comment : The intent of the landscapi ng and screening chapter is to pr ovide minimum landscaping and screening requirements in order to enhance the ci ty’s appearance and to visually unify the city and its neighborhoods. No changes have been made to the in tent statement. As stated in the applicability section, landscaping is requi red for all uses and acti vities developed in the city excluding single-family and duplex units on indi vidual lots. As such the visual quality of new development will be improv ed 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 pr opagation. Consideration shall be given to promoting the use of native vegetation. Policies EN-33 The City recognizes the important benefits of native vegetat ion including its role in attracting native wildlife, preserving the nat ural hydrology, and maintaining the natural character of the Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation can al so reduce the use of pesticides (thereby reducing t he amount of contaminants t hat 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 thr ough strategies that include, but are not limited to, the following: DI.C Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-00 06) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 5 of 7 o Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes an d 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 emphas ize the use of native plant materials that complement the natural char acter of the Pacific Northw est and which are adaptable to the climatic hydrological char acteristics of the region. Regulations should provide specificity as to native plant types in order to facilitate th eir use. EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnece ssary disturbance of nat ural 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 it s 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 prov isions on significant tree retention and the incorporation of native vegetati on into the landscape plantings. Significant trees located in required planter areas (i.e. perimeter areas that abut street and re sidential properties) now need to be retained unless determined to be dam aged, diseased, or pose a safety hazard and fifty percent of trees, shrubs, and ground co ver shall be native or non-invasive species that have adapted to the region. The new l andscaping regulations al so contain a minimum landscape coverage requirement. This percentage requirement (between 10-20% depending on zoning district) will ensure that sufficient landsc aping 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 regul ations 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 avoidanc e of large and underutilized pa rking lots by establishing parking maximums, increasing the number of shared and reduced parking strategies, DI.C Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-00 06) 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 la nd and improvement investments (both private development and public facilities), and can have a positive effect on long term property values. It al so fosters fairness and consistency, and eases administration. It has the disadvantage of not dealing well with changing conditions (e.g. new manufacturing technologies), unique ci rcumstances or when someone simply comes forward with a "better" idea. Flexib le 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 flexib ility in areas committed to industrial or commercial uses where performance standards are usually more impor tant than specific use restrictions. GOAL 2. FLEXIBILITY To provide predictability in the regulation of land use and developm ent, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow developm ent to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources and critical l ands in overall compliance with this comprehensive plan. Objective 2.1. To provide assurance that re sidential areas will be prot ected from intrusions by incompatible land uses. Policies: GP-11 Ordinance provisions des igned to protect residential areas shall give priority to providing predictability and st ability to the neighborhood. GP-12 Adequate buffering shall be required whenever new comme rcial or industrial uses abut areas designated for residential uses. Objective 2.2. To provide flexibility for majo r 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 standar ds which provide flexibility to respond to market conditions while ensuring compatibility with the Compr ehensive Plan, and with present and potential adjacent uses. Comments The proposed code amendments in clude new provisions that al low for greater flexibility in landscaping and parking lot design. Modifica tion of the landscaping requirements can be DI.C Agenda Subject: Proposed amendments to Auburn City Code related to the Code Update Project – Phase 2 - Grouping 1 (ZOA11-00 06) Date: September 27, 2011 Page 7 of 7 achieved through an alternativ e landscape plan that provi de for creative design, or incorporates an increased retenti on of significant trees or historical or architectural features found on a site. Further, alternative parking la youts can be allowed provided the appropriate number of parking spaces are provided and v ehicles 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 par king strategies. Here a reduc tion in the number of required parking stalls can be permitted if a developm ent is close to trans it, 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). Al l of the proposed code amendments described above provide flexibility for development. Policy guidance on lighting Objective 18.7. Enhance and maintain the qualit y 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 minimi ze 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 sect ion of the outdoor lighting chapt er, new regulations have been created to discourage excessive lighting of out door spaces, encourage energy conservation and promote exterior lighting t hat 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 ob jectives 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, Spec ial Exceptions, and Administrative Appeals (new section) Exhibit 4: Auburn City Code Chapter 18.53 – Outdoor Lighting Standards (new chapter) Exhibit 5: Determination of Non-Sign ificance 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 lette r from Department of Commerce DI.C AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6393 - School Impact Fees Date: November 22, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Ordinance No. 6393 Table Comparison of Impact Fee Proposal Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:For discussion only, Committee to review Ordinance No. 6393.Background Summary:See attached agenda bill. Reviewed by Council Committees:Planning And Community Development Other: Planning Commission, Legal Councilmember:Norman Staff:Chamberlain Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:DI.D AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DI.D AG ENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: ZOA11-0008; Ordinance No. 6393 related to school district impact fees Date: November 16, 2011 Department: Planning & Development Dept. Attachments: Ordinance No. 6393 Table Comparison of Impact Fee Proposal Budget Impact: $ Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to rec ommend to City Council to introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6393. Background Summary: Title 19 (Impact Fees) of the Auburn City Code cont ains standards and regulations pertaining to the imposition of impact fees in the City of Auburn. Ch apter 19.02 (School Impact Fees) addresses the establishment, calculation, collection and amendmen t of school impact fees within the municipal boundaries of the City of Auburn. Four school dist ricts occur within the City limits. Pursuant to Section 19.02.060 (Annual Council Revie w) of the Auburn City Code, on at least an annual basis, the Auburn City Council shall review the inf ormation submitted by the Districts pursuant to ACC 19.02.050. The review shall be in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element o f the city's comprehensive plan. The City Council may als o at this time determine if an adjustment to the amount of the impact fees is necessary. The City of Auburn annual Comprehensive Plan Amendm ent process for 2011 included requests for City approval of the Capital Facilities Plans of the fou r districts as follows: * 2011 - 2017 Auburn School District Capital Fac ilities Plan; * 2012-2017 Dieringer School District Capital Fa cilities Plan; * 2012 Federal Way School District Capital Facil ities Plan; and * 2011-2012 through 2016-2017 Kent School Distri ct Capital Facilities Plan. These requests were submitted in accordance with th e provisions of Section 19.02.050 (Submission of District Capital Facilities Plan and Data) of the A uburn City Code. The School Districts’ Capital Facilities Plans are contained in the working notebook (three ring binde r) associated with the 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Additional copies of the School Districts’ Capital Facilities Plans, are available from the Planning and Development Department. The Auburn City Council is scheduled to consider approv al of incorporating the School Districts’ Capital Facilities Plans into the at the regular council me eting on December 5, 2011. 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 Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____ Councilmember: Norman Staff: Snyder Meeting Date: November 28, 2011 Item Number: DI.D A g enda Subject: Ordinance No. 6393 D ate: November 16, 2011 Page 2 of 2 The approved Capital Facilities Plans contain propo sed school impact fees for each of the Districts. T he setting of the actual fees occurs through separate Council action amending Chapter 19.02 of the Auburn City Code. Section 19.02.060 (Annual Council Review ) specifies the following: On at least an annual basis, the city council shall review the information submitted by the district p ursuant to ACC 19.02.050. The review shall be in conjunctio n with any update of the capital facilities plan el ement of the city's comprehensive plan. The city council may also at this time determine if an adjustment to the amount of the impact fees is necessary; provided, t hat any school impact fee adjustment that would increase the school impact fee shall require the su bmittal of a written request for the adjustment by the applicable school district concurrent with the subm ittal of the annual capital facilities plan pursuan t to ACC 19.02.050. In making its decision to adjust impact fees, the city council will take into consideration the quality and completeness of the information provide d in the applicable school district capital facilit ies plan and may decide to enact a fee less than the amount supported by the capital facilities plan. Section 19.02.060 establishes that the Auburn City Council is not obligated to accept the fees propose d by the School Districts within their submitted Capi tal Facilities Plans and may establish fees that th e Council determines are more appropriate and consist ent with the public’s interest in reasonably mitiga ting school impacts within the affected portion of the C ity. Please note that the codified and on-line code sect ion ACC 19.02.115 lists the Dieringer School Distri ct SF dwelling unit school impact fee as $3,500. Howe ver this is due to a scribner’s error since the las t change to the school impact fees via Ordinance No. 6340, adopted December 20, 2010, continued to reflect Dieringer School District SF dwelling unit school impact fee as $3,005 (unchanged) effective 1-1-11. Please see the attached memo from the Lega l Department. DI.D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ordinance No. 6393 November 17, 2011 Page 1 of 7 ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 9 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON AMENDING SECTIONS 19.02.115, 19.02.120, 19.02.130 AND 19.02.140 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO SCHOOL IMPACTS FEES WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has adopted a school impact fee ordinance and collects school impact fees on behalf of certain school districts located or located in part within the City of Auburn; and WHEREAS, the Auburn School District, Dieringer School District, Federal Way School District, and the Kent School District, each being located in part within the City of Auburn, have provided the Cit y of Auburn with updated capita l facilities plans to be considered during the City’s 2011 annual co mprehensive plan amendment process that addresses among other things, the appropriate school impact fee for single family residential dwellings and multi- family residential dwelli ngs for each district; and WHEREAS, the Auburn School Dist rict issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the 2011 - 2017 Auburn School District Capit al Facilities Plan April 22, 2011; the Dieringer School District issued a Determination of Non- Significance for the 2012-2017 Dieringer School District Capital Faci lities Plan July 8, 2011; the Federal Way School District issued a Determination of Non-Significance f or the 2012 Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan April 23, 2011; and the Kent School District issued a Determination of Non-Significanc e for the 2011-2012 th rough 2016-2017 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan June 7, 2011; and DI.D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ordinance No. 6393 November 17, 2011 Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS the City of Auburn issued a De termination of Non-Significance (DNS) on October 3, 2011 for the Cit y of Auburn Year 2011 city-i nitiated comprehensive plan map and text amendments (File No. SEP11-0021) that inco rporated by reference the previous threshold determinations by the Auburn School, Dieringer School District, Federal Way School District and t he Kent School District, and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City’s offi cial newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, th e Auburn Planning Commission on October 18, 2011 conducted public hear ings on the proposed Auburn School District 2011-2017 Capital Facilities Plan, the proposed Dieringer School District 2012 - 2017 Capital Facilities Plan; the proposed Federal Way School District 2012 Capital Facilities Plan; and for the proposed Kent School Distric t 2011-2012 through 2016-2017 Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of th e public hearing on October 18, 2011, and subsequent deliberations, the Auburn Planning Commission, following individual positive motions, made separate recommendati ons to the Auburn City Council on the approval of the Auburn School District 2011 -2017 Capital Facilities Plan, the Dieringer School District 2012 - 2017 Capital Facilities Pl an; the Federal Way School District 2012 Capital Facilities Plan; and for the Kent School District 2011-2012 through 2016-2017 Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council cons idered the recommendations of the Auburn Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeti ng on December 19, 2011, and a positive motion approved the Auburn School District 2011-2017 Capital Facilities DI.D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ordinance No. 6393 November 17, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Plan, the Dieringer School District 2012 - 2017 Capital Facilities Pl an; the Federal Way School District 2012 Capital Facilities Plan ; and the Kent School District 2011-2012 through 2016-2017 Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2011 the P ublic Works Committee of the Auburn City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting reviewed the Pl anning Commission’s recommendations; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2011 the Pl anning and Community Development Committee of the Auburn City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting recommended to the Auburn City Council the approval of amendments to Title 19 (Impact Fees) and more specifically, Chapter 19.02 (School Impac t Fees) pertaining to school impact fees for single family residential dw elling units and multi-family dw elling units to be applied in the City of Auburn for the Auburn School Dist rict; Dieringer School District, Federal Way School District, and the Kent School District; respectively , based on the aforementioned capital facilities plans for each of these districts; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Code provides for adjustments to school impacts fees based on a review of the capital fa cilities plans for the districts; and WHEREAS, Section 19.02.060 (Annual Council Review) of the Auburn City Code specifies that the Auburn City Council will in making its decision to adjust impact fees take into consideration the quality and comp leteness of the information provided in the applicable school district capita l facilities plan and may decide to enact a fee less than the amount supported by the c apital facilities plan; and DI.D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ordinance No. 6393 November 17, 2011 Page 4 of 7 WHEREAS, on December 19, 2011, the Auburn City Council considered the recommendation of the Planni ng and Community Development Committee of the City Council at a regularly scheduled m eeting on December 12, 2011. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNC IL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO O RDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment to the City Code. Section 19.02.115 of the Auburn City Code is hereby amended to read as follows. 19.02.115 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Dieringer School District. The impact fee calculation and schedule below is based upon a review of the impact fee calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily residences set forth in the most recent version of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Pl an adopted by the Auburn city council as an element of the Auburn compr ehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of the appropr iate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and deve lopment to be funded by school impact fees bas ed on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 2011 2012 , the school impact fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dw elling Unit $3,005.00 Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $0.00 (Ord. 6279 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 1, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 1, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5950 § 2, 2005.) Section 2. Amendment to t he City Code. Section 19.02 .120 of the Auburn City Code is hereby amended to read as follows. 19.02.120 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Auburn School District. DI.D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ordinance No. 6393 November 17, 2011 Page 5 of 7 The impact fee calculation and sc hedule is based upon a review of the impact fee calculation for single -family residences and for multifamily residences set forth in the most re cent version of the Auburn School District’s Capital Facilities Plan adopt ed by the Auburn city council as an element of the Auburn comprehensiv e plan. The calculation is the determination of the appropr iate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and deve lopment to be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 2011 2012 , the school impact fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dw elling Unit $5,266.33 $5,557.30 Per Multifamily Dwe lling Unit $1,518.22 $2,305.22 (Ord. 6279 § 2, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 2, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 2, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 2, 2006; Ord. 5950 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5793 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5232 § 1, 1999.) Section 3. Amendment to t he City Code. Section 19.02 .130 is hereby amended as follows. 19.02.130 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Kent School District. The impact fee calculation and sc hedule is based upon a review of the impact fee and calculation fo r single-family residences and for multifamily residences set forth in t he most recent version of the Kent School District’s Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an element of the Auburn compr ehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of the appropr iate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and deve lopment to be funded by school impact fees bas ed on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 2011 2012 , the school impact fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dw elling Unit $5,486.00 Per Multifamily Dwe lling Unit $3,378.00 DI.D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ordinance No. 6393 November 17, 2011 Page 6 of 7 (Ord. 6279 § 3, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 3, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 3, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 3, 2006; Ord. 5950 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5233 § 1, 1 999.) Section 4. Amendment to the City Code. Section 19.02.140 of the Auburn City Code is hereby amended to read as follows. 19.02.140 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Federal Way School District. The impact fee calculation and sc hedule is based upon a review of the impact fee and calculation fo r single-family residences and for multifamily residences set forth in the most recent version of the Federal Way School District’s Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an element of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to be funded by school im pact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 2011 2012 , the school impact fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dw elling Unit $4,014.00 Per Multifamily Dwe lling Unit $2,172.00 $1,253.00 (Ord. 6279 § 4, 2009; Ord. 6214 § 4, 2008; Ord. 6134 § 4, 2007; Ord. 6060 § 4, 2006; Ord. 6042 § 1, 2006.) Section 5. Constitutionality and Invalidit y. If any section, subsection sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinanc e, is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction su ch portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holdi ng shall not affect the validity of the remain ing portions thereof. DI.D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ordinance No. 6393 November 17, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Section 6. Implementation. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 7. 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: ________________________ _____________________________________PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.D School Impact Fee Proposal (Effective Year 2012) School District Multiple Family Single Family Past 20 1 1 fee Per ACC 19.02 CFP says : Requested Change? Past 20 1 1 fee Per ACC 19.02 CFP says : Requested Change? Auburn $1,518.22 $2 ,305 .22 page 27 $2 ,305 .22 Increase of $787.00 $5,266.33 $5,557 .3 0 page 27 $5,557 .3 0 In crease of $290.97 Dieringer $0.00 ($1,304 .00 ) Page 14 $0.00 No Change $3,005.00 * $5 ,681 .00 Page 14 $3,005 .00 No Change Federal Way $2 ,172.00 $1,253 .00 Page 30 & 33 $1,253 .00 Decrease of $919.00 $4,014 .00 $4,014.00 Page 30 & 33 $4,014.00 No Change Kent $3,378.00 $3,378.00 Page 30 & 31 $3,378.00 No Change $5,486 .00 $5,486.00 Page 29 & 31 $5,486.00 No Change * The codified and on-line city code currently lists the Dieringer School District SF dwelling unit scho ol impact fee as $3,500. However this is due to a scr ibner’s error since Ordinance No. 6340, updating th e fees and adopted December 20, 2010, continued to r eflect Dieringer School District SF dwelling unit school impact fee as $3,005 (unchanged) effective 1 -1-11. DI.D AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Building Code and Land Use Code Issues for Business Use of Semi Truck Trailers Date: November 22, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:For discussion only.Background Summary:See attached memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees:Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:DI.E AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DI.E M emorandum TO: Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning and Community De velopment Committee Nancy Backus, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Develo pment Committee John Partridge, Planning and Community Development Committee FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director, Planning & Dev elopment Department CC Mayor Pete Lewis DATE: November 22, 2011 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION & INFORMATION: Building and Lan d Use Code Issues for Business Use of Semi-Truck Trailers O VERVIEW : The Planning and Development Department has recently been presented a policy issue that is not clearly addressed in the City’s adopted bui lding and land use codes. Specifically, this policy issue pertains to the use of semi-t ruck trailers by businesses for related business functions. These functions can include situa tions where people and equipment are placed within a semi truck trailer and a re accessed and used by business employees and customers. While staff cannot conclusiv ely determine why a party would choose to use a semi-truck trailer for busine ss purposes, it is conceivable that it is a lower cost method than constructing an addit ion or purchasing or leasing additional space. Because this issue is not clearly addressed in current City building and land use codes, there is the potential for the use o f the semi truck trailers to not be adequately regulated under the City’s building and l and use codes to insure that reasonable building life, health and safety issues are addressed and that land use compatibility and mitigation, where appropriate, are considered and applied. In theory and in practice, this could lead to business use of semi t ruck trailers for business purposes without adequate regulatory oversight by the City. Staff is seeking the Planning and Community Development Committee input and direction on potential policy approaches to address this policy issue. B ACKGROUND : Title 15 (Buildings and Construction) of the Auburn Ci ty Code contain the City’s building and construction regulations. The City of Auburn adopte d the 2009 edition of the International Codes in 2010. The Building Official ha s determined that semi truck trailers are not considered generally considered a structure under the current definition and provisions of the adopted building codes such that he co uld normally regulate issues affecting and addressing human occupancy of a constructed sp ace. This includes fire code issues as the size of a semi-truck trailer falls below t he threshold for application of fire code regulations. In this event, he cannot ensure that business use of semi truck DI.E 2 space will provide an equivalent level of protection o f occupants that he can address if it is occurring in a structure regulated under the currently adopted codes. While the Building Official could seek to “stretch” the applicabilit y of certain regulations (i.e. handicapped accessibility), this type of effort is limited at best and can open the City up to potential liability if it cannot be shown that the City relied upon an adequate regulatory base for enforcement of rules and the requirement of permits. The City of Auburn is authorized under Washington State statute to adopt “local amendments” to its building regulations that pertain to local government issues that are not addressed under other adopted codes and that do no loosen otherwise adopted regulations. The City could consider adopting local amendments specific to use of semi truck trailers. Regarding land use, business use of semi truck trailers for office or other purposes is not currently addressed in the City’s land use regulat ions because of the fact that a semi truck trailer is not considered a structure under curr ently adopted building code regulations. As such, staff is not able to easily determ ine how and when this type of use is appropriate and what level of regulation and publ ic review and input is appropriate. A possible approach could be the use of the City’s temporar y use regulations; however, these regulations are intended to address a temporary u se of property (i.e. six months) and are not appropriate for longer term uses of land . The City could consider amending its current land use regulations to address procedures and standards for the use of semi-truck trailers. It is important for this policy issue to distinguish betwe en temporary use of semi trailers versus more permanent use of semi trailers. Staff‘s reque st for Committee direction and input is focused on the latter as we have adequate poli cy tools in place to address the temporary situation. Q U ESTIONS : Staff seeks Committee feedback on the following question pertaining to this issue in advance of policy development efforts: 1. Does the Committee have specific questions or concerns pe rtaining to this policy issue that it wants further information from staff on? 2. Does the Committee concur that the use of semi truck t railers for business purposes on a permanent basis is a policy issue that warrants poten tial City regulatory action? 3. Does the City want staff to pursue development of d raft “local amendment” building code regulations pertaining to business use of semi truck tr ailers for future Committee discussion and eventual Planning Commission pol icy work efforts? 4. Does the Committee want staff to pursue development of draft land use regulations pertaining to business use of semi truck trailers for futur e Committee discussion and eventual Planning Commission policy work efforts? DI.E AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Director's Report Date: November 22, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: No Attachments Available Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:Discussion only.Background Summary:Reviewed by Council Committees:Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:DI.F AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DI.F AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: PCDC Status Matrix Date: November 21, 2011 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: PCDC Status Matrix Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation:For Information Only.Background Summary:Reviewed by Council Committees:Councilmember:Norman Staff:Snyder Meeting Date:November 28, 2011 Item Number:DI.G AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED DI.G PCDC Work Plan Matrix – November 28, 2011 November 28, 2011 Page 1 LAND USE CODES/POLICIES Topic/Issue Next on PCD Staff/Council Lead Comments 1 • Muckleshoot Tribe TBD Snyder Staff to stay in touch with Taylor and keep coordin ation & communication open with Tribe. 2 Code Update Work • Phase II Code Update November 28 Wagner Staff to discuss Phase II Group 1 Code Updates at the November 28 meeting to include parking, landscaping, variances, and outdoor lighting. • Cluster Subdivision Winter 2011-2012 Snyder Staff to prepare draft regulations for the P lanning Commission to review . • Cottage Housing Winter 2011-2012 Snyder Staff to prepare draft regulations for the P lanning Commission to review. • Cell Towers – stealth design, antennas, and revenue January 2012 Taylor Staff to bring to PCDC for discussion and p olicy direction. • Environmental Park District Fall 2011 Snyder Code work to follow green zone sum mit in fall, 2011. • Compressed Natural Gas TBD Dixon Waiting for application submittal for cod e work from applicant. Please Note: New additions underlined, deletions re moved, retreat items are highlighted. Topic/Issue Next on PCD Staff/Council Lead Comments DI.G November 28, 2011 Page 2 3 Urban Center/Downtown – joint review by Downtown Redevelopment Committee and PCDC • Healthcare District Overlay Winter 2011-2012 Chamberlain Staff to work with Mayor’s Office to engage Auburn Regional Medical Center in planning process. • Urban Center Expansion Spring 2012 Chamberlain Staff to prepare draft white paper on issues/opport unities/challenges for expansion of urban center. • ADA Spring 2012 Chamberlain Next update will be on in t he Spring of 2012. • Amtrak On-going Mayor Lewis/ Snyder City tracking potential station stops expansion stu dy by Amtrak. • Downtown Parking Management Plan On-going Snyder/ Chamberlain Parking inventory complete and under review, public survey elements being prepared. 4 7-year update to Comprehensive Plan On-going Snyder/ Chamberlain Legislature approved bill to extend deadline out to 2015. • Hazard Mitigation TBD Dixon Incorporate the hazard mitigation plans being devel oped either as a new element or appendix to the comprehensive plan. Sta ff to consider accomplishing as part of the 7-year comprehensive p lan update. • 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 28 Dixon Annual comprehensive plan amendments include city-i nitiated and private-initiated amendments to go before Committee for act ion November 28, 2011. 5 Historic Preservation Strategies Winter 2011-2012 Snyder/ Chamberlain Staff will formulate a strategy action plan and bri ng back to Committee. 6 Strategy Areas for Population/Business/Employment Winter 2011-2012 Snyder/ Chamberlain Staff conducted Auburn Way South Visual Preference Survey with Committee and will conduct Visual Preference Studie s for other strategy areas. DI.G November 28, 2011 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL 7 Auburn Environmental Park As Needed Snyder/ Andersen Staff is coordinating with WSDOT on Phase II acquis ition opportunities; Boardwalk design complete, construction process und erway. 8 ASCENT As Needed Snyder Continue to explore oppor tunities as part of Green Zone planning efforts. 10 Green Zone Summit TBD Snyder/ Andersen Summit date to be determined. 11 Green Zone Business Plan/Marketing Strategy TBD Snyder/ Andersen Staff to prepare draft business plan/marketing stra tegy for Committee input. PARKS, ARTS & RECREATION 12 Jacobson Park/BPA Master Plan TBD Faber Staff/Co nsultant will provide update based on Community Mee tings. 13 Lea Hill/Green River CC Park TBD Faber Memorandum of Understanding between the City and GR CC to swap property – Lea Hill park to GRCC and the Martin pro perty to the City for a new park. Lea Hill/Green River CC Park Master Plan Completed. 14 Les Gove Community Center Monthly as needed Faber/ R. Wagner Monthly updates as needed. 15 Theater Plan TBD Faber No future action is neede d on this topic until funding is located. 16 Transportation for activities TBD Faber Communit y Center Committee to review; late night activities for youth. DI.G November 28, 2011 Page 4 Topic/Issue Next on PCD Staff/Council Lead Comments COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION 17 Building Community TBD Hursh PCDC requested update at a future meeting; briefing to be scheduled. 18 Human Services Center Ongoing Hursh Review HS contract language and Consolidated Plan l anguage for mandatory participation in the One-Stop-Shop. Staf f provided an update to PCDC on 9/27/10. 19 Unify communities through centralized communication and outreach Fall 2012 Hursh Community Services to give annual u pdates. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & HEARING EXAMINER 20 Arts Commission November 2012 Faber Joint meeting held on 11/14/11 with PCDC. 21 Downtown Redevelopment Committee TBD Chamberlain/ Norman Monthly updates as needed. 22 Hearing Examiner Oct 2012 Dixon Hearing Examiner attended 10/24/11 meeting for annu al briefing with the Committee. 23 Parks & Recreation Board Summer 2012 Faber Annua l update occurred 6/13/11 with PCDC. 24 Planning Commission As Needed Snyder/ Chamberlain Possible joint meetings in 2012 for the Phase II Gr oup 2 Code Update work and sub-area plan work. 25 Transportation, Transit, and Trails TBD Thordar son Staff to schedule meeting with Transportation, Tran sit and Trails Committee Chair. 26 Urban Tree Board Summer 2012 Faber Annual update occurred 6/13/11 with PCDC. DI.G November 28, 2011 Page 5 Topic/Issue Next on PCD Staff/Council Lead Comments CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING (Long Range Planning) 27 Transportation Planning Scope: Long-term planning for the interrelationship between land use and transportation infrastructure On-going Hankins Comprehensive Transportation Update adopted by City Council in 2009. Updated annually as needed as part of comprehensive plan update process. 28 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Scope: 6-year transportation improvement program that is updated annually identifying transportation related capital projects November 28 Hankins Draft 6-year-transportation improvement program to be presented at Committee November 28 , 2011. 29 Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) Scope: 6-year capital improvement financial planning for sewer, water, stormwater and streets. On-going Finance Updated annually as needed as part of comprehensive plan update process. OTHER 31 Economic Development Updates As Needed Mayor Future briefings to be provided as needed. DI.G