HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-2012 Agenda Packet
Planning and Community Development
July 9, 2012 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
1. Presentation - Downtown Parking Survey Results* (Yao)
Findings of the Draft Downtown Parking Survey Report
(Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan - Task 2)
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - June 25, 2012* (Snyder)
III.ACTION
A. Resolution No. 4831* (Dowdy/Para)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Setting a
Hearing Date in Relation to Amending the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement
Program of the City of Auburn Pursuant to R.C.W. Chapter 35.77
B. Ordinance No. 6408* (Dixon)
Ordinance No. 6408, proposed zoning amendments to ACC Section 18.31.200
related to architectural and site design review standards and regulations.
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Resolution No. 4836* (Snyder/Heid/Dowdy)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the
Mayor to execute the transfer and exchange of real property between and with the
Washington State Department of Transportation regarding Phase II of the Auburn
Environmental Park.
B. Resolution No. 4832* (Dowdy/Para)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, Amending the
2012-2017 Six-Year Transportation Program of the City of Auburn Pursuant to
R.C.W. Chapter 35.77
C. 2013-2018 Transportation Improvement Program Update* (Dowdy/Para)
Review the draft six-year Transportation Improvement Program.
D. Ordinance No. 6416 - Amendment to ACC Section 1.04.060 and Section
18.02.020 Related to Collective Gardens.* (Taylor)
Review Planning Commission's recommendation on proposed zoning code
Page 1 of 510
amendments ACC Section 1.04.060 "Conflict and Ordinances with State and
Federal Law" and Section 18.02.020, "Authority to Adopt Code", related to
collective gardens.
E. Ordinance No. 6418 - Amendment to City Code* (Chamberlain)
Review Planning Commission's recommendation on amendments to Chapters
17.09 and 17.10 of Title 17 Land Adjustments and Divisions.
F. Ordinance No. 6419 - Amendment to City Code* (Chamberlain)
Review Planning Commission's recommendations on amendments to Title 18,
Zoning, related to the Downtown Urban Center Zone, Supplemental Development
Standards, Parking, and Home Occupations.
G. Ordinance No. 6420 - Amendment to City Code* (Chamberlain)
Review Planning Commission's recommendations on amendments to Chapter
19.02 (School Impact Fees).
H. Ordinance No. 6414 - Amendment to Auburn City Code* (Chamberlain)
Review Planning Commission recommendation on amendments to Section
12.64A.030, Chapter 13,40 and Creating a New Chapter 17.28.
I. Director's Report (Snyder)
J. PCDC Matrix* (Snyder)
V.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review
at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 2 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Presentation - Downtown Parking Survey Results
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Draft Downtown Parking Survey Report
Survey Questions
Appendix A1 to Survey Report
Appendix A2 to Survey Report
Appendix B to Survey Report
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Presentation only.
Background Summary:
See attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Yao
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:AN.1
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDAN.1 Page 3 of 510
Memorandum
To: Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Partridge, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Holman, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee
From: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director of Planning and Development
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager
Gary Yao, Planning Intern
Date: July 3, 2012
Re: Review of the Downtown Parking Survey Report, Task 2 (Public Outreach) of Draft Work
Plan for the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan
Background
Work on the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan commenced in August 2011
per approval of the Draft Work Plan by PCDC on July 11, 2011. Continuing from the Draft DUC
On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis (Task 1), presented to PCDC in
October 2011, the Draft Downtown Parking Survey Findings is a deliverable of Task 2: Public
Outreach.
Other tasks/objectives for the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan include:
• Specific/general public outreach to gather information, issues, and perspectives from
businesses, business organizations, users, and other interested parties;
• Evaluation of true parking conditions inclusive of potential parking needs for downtown
redevelopment efforts;
• Analysis of financing options for public parking, public-private parking, and other parking
scenarios;
• Identification/evaluation of appropriate parking management strategies for public parking
facilities; and,
• Presentation of short-term and long-term parking management strategies for review by
the Mayor’s Office, City Council, staff, and affected parties.
Downtown Parking Survey
The survey aggregates responses from Auburn citizens at-large, downtown Auburn business
and property owners, and a diverse cross-section of stakeholders regarding downtown parking.
Specifically, these responses address the perception of parking in downtown Auburn and the
preferred methods of moving forward in meeting future parking needs.
AN.1 Page 4 of 510
2
Discussion
At the July 9, 2012 PCDC meeting, staff requests Committee feedback to further refine the Draft
Downtown Parking Survey report for readability and other factors impacting the report’s
effectiveness at providing an overview of public perspectives on downtown parking.
AN.1 Page 5 of 510
DRAF
T
Downtown Parking
Survey
July
2012
AN.1 Page 6 of 510
AN.1 Page 7 of 510
Mayor Peter B. Lewis
City Council Members
Nancy Backus, Deputy Mayor
John Holman
Wayne Osborne
John Partridge
Bill Peloza
Rich Wagner
Largo Wales
Prepared by:
Planning and Development Department
Kevin Snyder, Planning Director
Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager
Gary Yao, Planning Intern
Special thanks to:
Bridget Dohse, Web Specialist
Dana Hinman, Public Affairs Manager
All survey participants - your feedback was invaluable!
Cover image (clockwise from top-left): Transit center surface
parking lot, A St NE between 2nd St NE and 3rd St NE, Truitt
Building at the corner of E Main St and A St SE, and surface
parking lot between Truitt Building and transit center.
AN.1 Page 8 of 510
Executive Summary
Introduction
Goals
Assumptions & Limitations
Survey constructs
Sample size and diversity
No response bias
Repeat responses
Changing conditions
Methodology
The Results
Key findings
Do people experience and/or feel there are
problems with parking in downtown Auburn?
What is appealing or not appealing
about downtown Auburn?
What role do people think the City
should play in parking?
How do people think the City should proceed
with addressing parking needs in the
future; should the City encourage privately
operated parking lots and facilities?
1
2
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
8
10
10
11
14
14
14
AN.1 Page 9 of 510
How do people think the City should
proceed with addressing parking needs in
the future; would people be willing to pay
for additional on- and off-street parking?
What other issues concern citizens and
business and property owners the most?
Conclusion
Glossary
Appendix A - Yes & No
Responses (Tallied)
Appendix B - All Questions &
Responses
Map 1.1 - Downtown Urban Center
Map 1.2 - Downtown Urban Center (85%+ blocks)
Figure 3.1 - S Division St
Map 4.1 - Downtown Urban Center & Business Improvement Area
Figure 5.1 - Parking problems? (citizens)
Map 5.1 - Parking problem areas (citizens)
Figure 5.1.1 - Parking problems? (business & property owners)
Figure 5.1.2 - Top 3 parking problems,
excluding lack of parking (citizens)
Figure 5.1.3 - Top 3 parking problems, excluding
lack of parking (business & property owners)
Figure 5.1.4 - Top 5 reasons for going downtown (citizens)
Figure 5.2 - The City’s role in parking (business & property owners)
Figure 5.3 - Top reasons against paying for additional parking
Figure 5.4 - Truitt Building-adjacent surface parking
Figure 5.4.1 - Loading zone on Auburn Way S
16
16
19
20
2
3
7
9
11
11
12
13
13
15
15
17
17
18AN.1 Page 10 of 510
AN.1 Page 11 of 510
1
Conducted in May 2012, the Downtown Parking Survey continues
in the footsteps of the 2011 Downtown Urban Center On-Street
and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis in the
development of a Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management
Plan. Whereas the analysis inventoried the occupancy of nearly
5,000 parking spaces in downtown Auburn, the survey measures
what downtown visitors, homeowners, business owners, and
property owners think about downtown parking and how the
City should move forward with addressing parking needs.
The results show a discrepancy between Auburn citizens at-large
and downtown Auburn business and property owners. While only
9% of citizens have expressed experiencing parking problems and
associated such problems with a general lack of parking, 34%
of business and property owners do the same. The discrepancy
is associated with the fact that citizens generally recognized
that parking scarcity was limited to certain places in downtown,
at certain times, or only for ADA-accessible parking. This is
consistent with the analysis, which found both on- and off-street
parking in downtown blocks to generally be sparsely occupied,
with persistent parking scarcity confined to specific areas.
On the other hand, Auburn citizens at-large and downtown Auburn
business and property owners were equally unwilling to pay money
for additional parking. Both also identified an overabundance
of permit- and user-restricted parking and distances between
parking spaces and destinations as key parking issues. Other
issues, though not necessarily leading issues for both citizens and
business and property owners, include confusing and/or a lack
of parking signage, poor parking space design, non-residents
parking on residential streets, inflexible time limits (the need
for more 3-hour parking), too much or too little enforcement.
For a Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management
Plan that supports existing businesses, projects underway,
and future development then, the focus should fall on
problem parking scarcity areas and other issues that
stand in the way of an easy parking experience.
AN.1 Page 12 of 510
^N
A
S
t
S
E
SR-18
Au
b
u
r
n
W
a
y
N
W Main St
DUC Boundary
N
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
t
2nd St SW
2nd St NE
2
The Downtown Parking Survey is the second step in the
development of a comprehensive parking management plan
for downtown Auburn. Prior to the survey, the Downtown
Urban Center On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply and
Demand Analysis had inventoried all available parking spaces
within the Downtown Urban Center (Map 1.1). Results from
the analysis, presented to the Planning and Community
Development Committee and The Auburn Downtown Association
in October 2011 and subsequently revised in December
2011, underscore the questions posed in the Downtown
Parking Survey and provide context to the survey’s results.
The 4,879 total on- and off-street parking spaces in Auburn’s
Downtown Urban Center are located on 46 blocks that average
36% occupancy on weekdays and 19% occupancy on weekends,
far below the 85% industry-standard threshold above which
Map 1.1 Downtown Urban Center
AN.1 Page 13 of 510
A
S
t
S
E
Au
b
u
r
n
W
a
y
N
N
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
t
SR-18
W Main St
2nd St SW
2nd St NE
^N
DUC Boundary
3
1 Fewer than 25% of blocks exceed 85% occupancy during weekends.
parking operates inefficiently. No more than 25% of those
blocks ever exceed the 85% threshold at any given point during
the week and those that do are centered on the transit center
and Auburn Regional Medical Center (ARMC) (Map 1.2).1 In
fact, few of those 25% exceed 85% occupancy throughout
the entire day or lack available parking in adjacent blocks.
Based on these findings, the analysis hypothesized that
the perception of downtown’s overall lack of parking
spaces, embodied in concerns that have been raised in
the past, do not reflect the reality of downtown parking.
The Downtown Parking Survey seeks to confirm whether
or not the assumed public perception holds true.
Map 1.2 Downtown Urban Center blocks where on-street or off-
street parking occupancy exceeds 85% once or more per day.
AN.1 Page 14 of 510
4
The Downtown Parking Survey provides a forum of
responses from visitors and downtown homeowners,
business owners, and property owners in an attempt to
find out whether those people actually believe that parking
downtown is difficult. Additionally, the survey also gauges:
• The factors that keep people coming and keep people
away from downtown and specifically, whether those
factors include the ease or difficulty of parking;
• The City’s role in downtown parking;
• The preferred method for addressing
downtown parking needs; and
• Any other downtown parking concerns.
AN.1 Page 15 of 510
5
Although the survey is of sufficient depth and
scope for assessment of the general perception on
parking in downtown Auburn, the following factors
should also be taken into consideration:
• Survey constructs;
• Sample size and diversity;
• No response bias;
• Repeat responses; and
• Changing conditions.
Survey constructs
Some survey questions took on a decidedly less neutral tone
than others, even when more or less asking the same thing.
For example, while Auburn citizens at-large were posed with
“When you come to Downtown Auburn do you experience
any problems with finding parking? Why?” downtown Auburn
business and property owners were asked to “tell us your top
3 concerns with parking in Downtown Auburn.” The results
appear to reflect the more preemptive wording of the latter, as
49% of citizens reported experiencing no problems parking
downtown, while only 12% of business and property owners
expressed that they either had no concerns with parking
or were otherwise not impacted negatively by parking.
The survey also asks about parking in “Downtown Auburn” without
explaining where those boundaries may be to survey takers.
While individual notions of what constitutes downtown Auburn
may differ from one another, responses reflect the downtown
areas each survey taker knows best, rather than assumptions
made about downtown areas they are unfamiliar with.
In the previously conducted analysis, downtown Auburn is
bounded by the limits of the Downtown Urban Center Zone.
Survey takers, however, did not have access to analysis
results, ensuring that their responses and perceptions would
be minimally colored by outside information and influences.
AN.1 Page 16 of 510
6
Sample size and diversity
At first glance the .21% participation rate on the part of
Auburn citizens at-large and the 7.2% participation on the
part of downtown Auburn business and property owners
appear to be woefully underwhelming statistics upon which
to make an assessment on public perception of downtown
parking. For comparison though, a participation rate of just
.00048% is the norm used for national political polling.2
With regards to sample diversity, one group included and
another excluded potentially distorted results. Absentee property
owners surveyed under the umbrella group of downtown
Auburn business and property owners may have responded
to the survey without being as cognizant of current parking
conditions as those business and property owners who are
constantly in the area. On the other hand, although non-
Auburn citizens are also potential downtown visitors, survey
responses were not actively solicited from that group.
No response bias
Survey targets who chose not to respond, but who
still have opinions regarding downtown parking
are underrepresented in survey responses.
Repeat responses
To the fullest extent possible, all repeat responses were
eliminated from survey results. For those responses that
included the information, responses with matching names
and/or e-mail addresses were only accounted for once. In
addition, the mailing notifying downtown Auburn businesses
and property owners of the survey included each owner only
once, even if they own multiple businesses and/or properties, to
minimize the possibility of repeat responses. That being said,
the possibility for repeat responses remains with names and
e-mail addresses not mandatory survey fields and the complex
ownership status of certain businesses and properties.
2 According to Public Agenda, a public opinion research and public engagement
organization, “a survey of 1,000 will be correct within 3 percentage points” for the
209 million adults in the U.S. <http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/best-estimates-
guide-sample-size-and-margin-error>.
AN.1 Page 17 of 510
7
Changing conditions
The baseline for comparison, the parking inventory taken in
August 2011 for the analysis presented in October 2011, may
not completely reflect parking in May 2012, the time frame
for the survey. For example, several sections of blocks did
not make it into the previously conducted analysis due to the
construction of the South Division Street Promenade (Figure
3.1). By April 2012 however, a month prior to the survey, parking
in these blocks have been added back to the downtown
parking supply, though not considered in the original analysis.
Figure 3.1 S Division St blocks reopened in April
2012, adding both on- and off-street parking
spaces to the downtown parking supply.
AN.1 Page 18 of 510
The Downtown Parking Survey consists of three sets of questions,3
tailored to each response group. To assess the visitors’ perspective
of downtown Auburn, a publicly accessible online survey targeted
responses from Auburn citizens at-large, with outreach assistance
from the City’s Communications and Multimedia Division.
Another set of survey questions sought responses from
businesses, homeowners, property owners, and others with a
more permanent presence in downtown Auburn. The Planning
and Development Department utilized its land and business
license databases to assemble a mailing list of all persons and
entities within the boundaries of the Downtown Urban Center
and downtown Business Improvement Area (BIA) (Map 4.1) and
mailed them an invitation to participate in the survey, also online.4
Additionally, 11 more in-depth interviews were conducted
(mostly in-person) with a sampling of stakeholders to further
explore overarching themes in perceptions of downtown
parking. These stakeholders included people and/or business
owners who have expressed particular concern over downtown
parking. These included small, independently owned
businesses, larger businesses and entities that potentially
may have the most parking needs, and organizations
representing the collective interest of downtown Auburn.
The online Auburn citizens at-large and downtown Auburn
business and property owner surveys went live on May 4,
2012, officially closed on May 31, 2012, and became publicly
inaccessible on June 4, 2012. During that time, 146 citizens
submitted responses to the survey and 29 business and/
or property owners did the same for their own. The majority
of the 11 stakeholder interviews occurred on various dates
in May 2012 with the final few completed in June 2012.
8
3 See Appendix A for the complete sets of questions and responses.
4 Eight letters to downtown business and property owners
were returned with no forwarding address.
AN.1 Page 19 of 510
E Main St
2nd St NE
4th St NE
1st St NW
3rd St NE
2nd St SE
3rd St SW
Cross St
S
E
4th St SE
H
S
t
N
W
F
S
t
N
W
D
S
t
S
W
F
S
t
S
W
C
S
t
N
W
A
S
t
S
W
N
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
t
1st St SE
Au
b
u
r
n A
ve
N
E
A
S
t
S
E
Au
b
u
r
n
Wa
y
S
3rd St NE
E
S
t
S
W
G
S
t
S
W
G
S
t
N
W
B
S
t
S
W
SR-1 8
DUC Boundary
BIA Parcels
Outside DUC
9
Map 4.1 Downtown Urban Center (DUC) and Business
Improvement Area (BIA) addresses included in survey
invitation mailing to business and property owners.
AN.1 Page 20 of 510
10
Key findings
• Discrepancies in perception of downtown parking exist
between Auburn citizens at-large and downtown Auburn
business and property owners, with more of the latter citing
parking problems and attributing problems to a general (not
location-, time-, or ADA accessibility-specific) lack of parking.
• Besides a lack of parking, the top 2 issues cited as the
cause of parking problems were difficult-to-find public
parking due to an overabundance of permit- and/or
user-restricted parking spaces and excessive distance
between downtown parking spaces and destinations.
• At the same time, although nearly half of all citizens
experienced parking problems, few cited parking
problems as a cause for keeping away from downtown.
• Almost one-half of all business and property owners
saw the City’s role as the provision of parking.
• Citizens mostly opposed privately operated
parking facilities while support from business
and property owners was only lukewarm.
• Both groups overwhelmingly opposed paying for
additional on- and off-street parking spaces.
Other downtown parking issues identified include:
• The need to refine current parking time-limit enforcement
that continues to keep parking spaces available for
customers without discouraging visitors from spending
an extended amount of time in downtown;
• The suggestions for more flexible time limits – 3
hours across the board, for example;
• The need for demand prior to development of more
parking, but also anticipating and planning for parking
needs of development and redevelopment; and
• The suggestion to use BIA funds for additional parking.
AN.1 Page 21 of 510
A
S
t
S
E
Au
b
u
r
n
W
a
y
N
N
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
t
SR-18
W Main St
2nd St SW
2nd St NE
^N
DUC Boundary
Citizens
49% –No problems51% –Problems
11
Map 5.1 Downtown areas and places identified by
citizens at-large as lacking in parking spaces.
Do people experience and/or feel there are
problems with parking in downtown Auburn?
Amongst the Auburn citizenry at-large, 51% expressed
experiencing problems with parking downtown and 49% did not
– almost an even split (Figure 5.1). Of those 51% of people who
experienced problems, only 68% said not having enough spaces
was the primary issue at hand. In other words, although a little over
half of the citizens experienced parking problems, only about 1 out
of 3 citizens (35%) surveyed overall experienced problems with
parking and attributed that to the lack of available parking spaces.
Of the subset that attributed parking problems with the lack
of available parking spaces, 39% identify 1 or more specific
places or areas where this is an issue (Map 5.1), and 31%
indicated that only during certain times and/or events that this
is an issue. Only 25% of that same subset indicated difficulty in
parking downtown due to the lack of available parking spaces,
without regard to location, time, or ADA-accessibility factors.
That translates to a mere 9% of citizens overall who have
experienced problems parking in downtown Auburn and
attributed said problems to a general lack of parking spaces.
Figure 5.1 A very slight majority of
citizens experienced problems with
finding parking downtown.
AN.1 Page 22 of 510
12% – No problems
88% – Problems
Business & Property Owners
12
5 See ‘Survey constructs’ under ‘Assumptions and Limitations’.
6 The average of responses expressing no concern, no impact, and
positive impact between questions 1 (“Please tell us your top 3
concenrs with parking in Downtown Auburn”) and question 2 (“How
does parking in Downtown Auburn impact your business?”)
Figure 5.1.1 The vast majority of business
and property owners expressed concern
over downtown parking problems.
The perception that downtown suffers from an overall absence
of parking is likely not a prevalent one amongst Auburn citizens.
Downtown Auburn business and property owners on the
other hand, expressed that there are problems with downtown
parking at a much higher rate5 of 88%, with only 12%6
expressing that they had no problems with downtown parking
(Figure 5.1.1). Of those 88% of people who had concerns
about parking problems, 52% said not having enough spaces
was the primary problem, meaning overall almost 1 out of
2 business and property owners (48%) associated parking
problems with the lack of parking spaces, while only about 1
out of 3 citizens experiencing parking problems did the same.
Within the subset that listed a parking problem as the lack of
available parking spaces, only 29% identify 1 or more specific
places or areas (namely, the transit center) and none indicated
that only during certain times and/or events that this is an issue.
A whopping 71% of that same subset was concerned with the
lack of available parking spaces, without regard to location, time,
or ADA-accessibility factors, compared to 25% of citizens.
That means 34% of downtown Auburn business and property
owners have expressed concern over parking problems in
downtown Auburn and stated said problem to be a general
lack of parking spaces, which is about 4 times the proportion
of Auburn citizens at-large. The perception that downtown
suffers from an overall absence of parking is a more prevalent one
amongst business and property owners than amongst citizens,
which is not surprising considering the frequency and permanence
of which the group is downtown and the varied demographic
of parking needs (customers’ and clients’, employees’, and
residents’) that business and property owners accommodate.
Though lack of parking (not general scarcity) is still the
primary problem experienced and concern voiced for both
Auburn citizens at-large and downtown Auburn business
and property owners, the top 3 other concerns for each
group include the following (Figure 5.1.2, 5.1.3):
AN.1 Page 23 of 510
Top 3 Parking Problems, Excluding the Lack of Parking (Citizens)
Top 3 Parking Problems, Excluding the Lack of Parking (Business & Property Owners)
8% – Difficult-to-find public parking due to an overabundance of permit- and user-restricted parking spaces
24% – Too many permit- and user-restricted parking spaces
6% (tie) – Spaces located too far away from destinations6% (tie) – Confusing and/or lack of parking signage
17% – Spaces located too far away from destinations
3% – Poor design of parking spaces
10% – Non-residents parking on residential streets
13
Figure 5.1.2
Figure 5.1.3
AN.1 Page 24 of 510
14
Citizens and business and property owners both cite permit-
and user-restricted parking and parking distance as top
concerns, but as is the case with thoughts pertaining to a
general lack of parking, the latter is more concerned with
these issues than the former. It is also worth mentioning, that
despite being an oft-mentioned problem, for every citizen
who noted the distance to parking spaces as a parking
problem, an almost equal number (5%) indicated a willingness
to walk a little further to find an unoccupied parking space.
What is appealing or not appealing
about downtown Auburn?
Although almost half (41%) of the business and property
owners surveyed responded to how parking impacted them
with the current parking situation, inconveniencing them and/
or driving away customers, only 6% of the citizens surveyed
cited difficult parking as a factor that kept them away from
downtown despite 51% of citizens experiencing parking
problems. In fact, difficult parking ranks a distant second to
the lack of good or appealing businesses, 3.5 times the survey
responses (21%), as what kept them away from downtown.
On the other hand, what brings people downtown (Figure 5.1.4)?
What role do people think the City
should play in parking?7
See Figure 5.2.
How do people think the City should proceed
with addressing parking needs in the
future; should the City encourage privately
operated parking lots and facilities?
Auburn citizens at-large opposed privately operated parking by a
slight margin (53% in opposition and 40% in support). Downtown
Auburn business and property owners, on the other hand,
largely supported or were indifferent towards privately operated
7 This questions only appeared on the business and property owner survey.
AN.1 Page 25 of 510
29% – Dining
21% – Shopping
10% – Supportinglocal businesses
9% – Proximity
8% – City Hall
Downtown Auburn
P O LICE
38% - Provision of parking (especially of
f
r
e
e
a
n
d
u
n
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
-
t
i
m
e
s
p
a
c
e
s
)
14% - Ensure availability for patrons
10%(tie) - Balancing the needs of busines
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
w
i
t
h
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
10%(tie) - Enforcement
10%(tie) - Ensuring a pleasant environm
e
n
t
around parking facilities
15
Figure 5.1.4 Top 5 Reasons for Going Downtown
Figure 5.2 The City’s role in parking.
AN.1 Page 26 of 510
16
parking facilities (24% in opposition and 41% in support).
The top8 cases and conditions made for
privately operated parking included:
• Easier parking, especially for train commuters – 17% (citizens)
• If designed or placed well – 7% (business & property owners)
• If it potentially attracts more customers – 5% (citizens)
• If it would not be paid parking – 5% (citizens)
The top cases made against privately operated parking included:
Parking would no longer be free, making downtown
less appealing to customers – 12% (citizens)
There is no need at this time – 12% (citizens)
There would be too many parking facilities, which would namely,
decrease downtown’s physical attractiveness – 8% (citizens)
How do people think the City should
proceed with addressing parking needs in
the future; would people be willing to pay
for additional on- and off-street parking?
Both Auburn citizens at-large and downtown Auburn
business and property owners overwhelmingly oppose
paying more for additional parking, at 78% and 76%
respectively. The top arguments made against paying for
additional parking spaces are shown in Figure 5.3.
What other issues concern citizens and
business and property owners the most?
Most of the free responses from the Auburn citizens
at-large and stakeholder surveys had echoed the
survey data included above. They did reveal, however,
several additional insights on downtown parking:
• Citizens wanted to see development
first prior to additional parking.
8 Statistically insignificant (less than 5%) responses excluded.
AN.1 Page 27 of 510
Top Reasons Against Paying for Additional Parking Spaces (Citizens)
25% – Paid parking would drive me away from Auburn (mostly to Kent and/or Kent Station)
16% – There is currently no need
9% – Parking should be free
Top Reasons Against Paying for Additional Parking Spaces (Business & Property Owners)
10% (tie) – I already pay enough to be downtown10% (tie) – Any additional financial burdens should be placed on other people & entities
17
• Stakeholders identified severe parking issues
at the Truitt Building block (Figure 5.4).
• Stakeholders thought enforcement was too strict,
especially for downtown visitors who legitimately have a
reason to park for more than 2 hours – but understood
the doubled-edged sword nature of enforcement in that
lack of enforcement would encourage overstaying time
limits for on-street parking by transit center commuters.
• Stakeholders wanted the City to plan comprehensively
for parking when the South Division Street blocks
redevelop, as well as ensuring adequate parking as
development occurs in the rest of downtown.
• Stakeholders saw issues with parking and driving
behavior in privately-owned, non-City lots.
• Stakeholders received few, if any, complaints
from customers regarding parking.
• Stakeholders stipulated that different businesses
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4 Surface parking lot adjacent to
Truitt Building block, shown near capacity.
AN.1 Page 28 of 510
18
peak at different times during the day and have
different lengths of time needed for parking, hence
the suggestion for 3-hour parking both on- and off-
street throughout downtown to increase flexibility.
• Stakeholders would not like to pay more for
parking, unless BIA funds are funneled into
additional parking lots and/or facilities.
• Stakeholders did not have any problems with
employees parking and walking further away.
• Stakeholders desired curbside loading zones, of
which few currently exist (Figure 5.4.1).
Figure 5.4.1 Loading zone on
Auburn Way S near E Main St.
AN.1 Page 29 of 510
19
The surveys’ results suggests that Auburn citizens at-large do
not experience parking problems downtown due to a lack of
parking spaces overall. Most citizens who do see a lack of parking
spaces downtown as a problem simultaneously recognize that
scarcity is localized in terms of location and time – consistent with
the 2011 inventory, though inconsistent with the 2011 analysis’
assumption that the public perceives a general lack of parking
spaces. Significantly higher numbers of downtown Auburn
business and property owners expressed concern regarding
parking problems in downtown and attributed them to a general
lack of parking spaces, but such views still remain in the minority.
Mentions of general parking scarcity is trumped by the number
of mentions related to location-, time-, and/or ADA accessibility-
specific lack of parking, difficult-to-find public parking due to an
overabundance of permit- and user-restricted parking spaces,
distances between parking spaces and destinations, and other
issues identified by survey takers and stakeholders. It is small
wonder then, that there is overwhelming opposition to paying for
more parking when the issue of supply, as consistent with the 2011
analysis, is not an all-encompassing issue in downtown Auburn.
Building upon both the 2011 analysis and these survey results,
the development of long- and short-term strategies for the
Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan will work to
ensure that parking plays a positive role in attracting and retaining
residents, visitors, and businesses to an active downtown Auburn.
AN.1 Page 30 of 510
20
ADA: Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.
Analysis: Refers to the 2011 Downtown Urban Center On-
Street and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis.
ARMC: Auburn Regional Medical Center.
Auburn citizens at-large: Citizens who do not own businesses,
residences, and/or properties in downtown Auburn.
Average occupancy: The sum of each block’s occupancy
ratio divided by the number of blocks; occupancy ratio/rate
being the percentage derived from the number of observed
cars divided by the number of parking spaces available.
BIA: Business Improvement Area; see Map 4.1.
Downtown: The area of land within the collective
boundaries of the Business Improvement Area
and Downtown Urban Center see Map 4.1.
Downtown Auburn business & property owners:
Citizens who own business, residences, and/or
properties in downtown Auburn; see Map 4.1.
DUC: Downtown Urban Center; see Map 1.1.
General lack of parking: Survey responses that mentioned an
insufficient number of downtown parking spaces without referring
to a specific location or time where such insufficiencies exist or
without referring to an insufficiency of ADA-accessible parking.
Inventory: Refers to the number of parking spaces
counted in the 2011 Downtown Urban Center On-Street
and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis.
AN.1 Page 31 of 510
21
Privately operated parking: Such paid parking lots and facilities
that are operated by for-profit companies and organizations
Survey: Refers to the Downtown Parking Survey
Stakeholders: A group of 11 people with whom in-
depth interviews were conducted to gauge the opinions
of small, independently owned businesses, larger
businesses and entities that potentially may have the
most parking needs, and organizations representing
the collective interest of downtown Auburn.
AN.1 Page 32 of 510
1
Downtown Parking Survey
Survey Questions
Citizens
1. Do you regularly visit Downtown Auburn for shopping, entertainment, or
eating purposes? Please tell us why…
2. When you come to Downtown Auburn do you experience any problems
with finding parking? Please tell us why…
3. Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking
lots and facilities in Downtown? Please tell us why…
4. Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in
Downtown Auburn? Please tell us why…
5. Please tell us any other thoughts you have regarding parking in
Downtown Auburn.
Business & Property Owners
1. Please tell us your top 3 concerns with parking in Downtown Auburn.
2. How does parking in Downtown Auburn impact your business operations?
3. What do you see as the City’s primary role in parking in the Downtown?
4. Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking
lots and facilities in Downtown?
5. Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in
Downtown Auburn?
Stakeholders
1. What are you top 3 concerns with parking in Downtown Auburn?
2. What do you believe the public perception of parking availability in the
Downtown is?
3. How does parking in Downtown Auburn impact your business operations?
4. What do you see as the City’s primary role in parking in the Downtown?
5. Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking
lots and facilities in Downtown?
AN.1 Page 33 of 510
2
6. Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in
Downtown Auburn?
7. Do you have any other concerns or issues regarding Downtown parking?
AN.1 Page 34 of 510
Appendix A1 - Citizens
Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR
1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1
18 Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat
19 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1
22 1 1 1 1
23 1 1 1 1
24 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1
26 1 1 1 1
27 1 1 1 1
28 1 1 1 1
29 1 1 1 1
30 1 1 1 1
31 1 1 1 1
32 1 1 1 1
33 1 1 1 1
34 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1
37 1 1 1 1
38 1 1 1 1
39 1 1 1 1
40 1 1 1 1
41 1 1 1 1
42 1 1 1 1
43 1 1 1 1
44 1 1 1 1
45 1 1 1 1
46 1 1 1 1
47 1 1 1 1
48 1 1 1 1
49 1 1 1 1
50 1 1 1 1
51 1 1 1 1
52 1 1 1 1
53 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4
A1.1AN.1 Page 35 of 510
Appendix A1 - Citizens
Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR
1 2 3 4
54 1 1 1 1
55 1 1 1 1
56 1 1 1 1
57 1 1 1 1
58 1 1 1 1
59 1 1 1 1
60 1 1 1 1
61 1 1 1 1
62 1 1 1 1
63 1 1 1 1
64 1 1 1 1
65 1 1 1 1
66 1 1 1 1
67 1 1 1 1
68 1 1 1 1
69 1 1 1 1
70 1 1 1 1
71 1 1 1 1
72 1 1 1 1
73 1 1 1 1
74 1 1 1 1
75 1 1 1 1
76 1 1 1 1
77 1 1 1 1
78 1 1 1 1
79 1 1 1 1
80 1 1 1 1
81 1 1 1 1
82 1 1 1 1
83 1 1 1 1
84 1 1 1 1
85 1 1 1 1
86 1 1 1 1
87 1 1 1 1
88 1 1 1 1
89 1 1 1 1
90 1 1 1 1
91 1 1 1 1
92 1 1 1 1
93 1 1 1 1
94 1 1 1 1
95 1 1 1 1
96 1 1 1 1
97 1 1 1 1
98 1 1 1 1
99 1 1 1 1
100 1 1 1 1
101 1 1 1 1
102 1 1 1 1
103 1 1 1 1
104 1 1 1 1
105 1 1 1 1
106 1 1 1 1
A1.2AN.1 Page 36 of 510
Appendix A1 - Citizens
Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR
1 2 3 4
107 1 1 1 1
108 1 1 1 1
109 1 1 1 1
110 1 1 1 1
111 1 1 1 1
112 1 1 1 1
113 1 1 1 1
114 Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat
115 1 1 1 1
116 1 1 1 1
117 1 1 1 1
118 1 1 1 1
119 1 1 1 1
120 1 1 1 1
121 1 1 1 1
122 1 1 1 1
123 1 1 1 1
124 1 1 1 1
125 1 1 1 1
126 1 1 1 1
127 1 1 1 1
128 1 1 1 1
129 1 1 1 1
130 1 1 1 1
131 1 1 1 1
132 1 1 1 1
133 1 1 1 1
134 1 1 1 1
135 1 1 1 1
136 1 1 1 1
137 1 1 1 1
138 1 1 1 1
139 1 1 1 1
140 1 1 1 1
141 1 1 1 1
142 1 1 1 1
143 1 1 1 1
144 1 1 1 1
145 1 1 1 1
146 1 1 1 1
147 1 1 1 1
148 1 1 1 1
Total 97 49 0 75 71 0 59 77 10 30 114 2
66%34%0%51%49%0%40%53%7%21%78%1%
Y - Yes N - No NR - No response
1 - Do you regularly visit downtown Auburn for shopping, entertainment, or eating purposes? Please tell us why.
2 - When you come to Downtown Auburn do you experience any problems with finding parking? Please tell us why.
3 - Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking lots and facilities in Downtown? Please tell us why.
4 - Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in Downtown Auburn? Please tell us why.
A1.3AN.1 Page 37 of 510
Appendix A2 - Business Property Owners
Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR Y N NR
1 1 1
2 1 1
3 1 1
4 1 1
5 1 1
6 1 1
7 1 1
8 1 1
9 1 1
10 1 1
11 1 1
12 1 1
13 1 1
14 1 1
15 1 1
16 1 1
17 1 1
18 1 1
19 1 1
20 1 1
21 1 1
22 1 1
23 Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat Repeat
24 1 1
25 1 1
26 1 1
27 1 1
28 1 1
29 1 1
30 1 1
Total 12 7 10 3 22 4
41%24%34%10%76%14%
Y - Yes N - No NR - No response
Note: 1-3 were not yes/no questions.
4 - Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking lots and facilities in Downtown?
5 - Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in Downtown Auburn?
4 5
A2.1AN.1 Page 38 of 510
B1
APPENDIX B
Citizens
Do you regularly visit Downtown Auburn for shopping, entertainment, or eating
purposes?
1. N – NOTHING THERE…All the good business have closed.
2. N – Not enough good shopping or eating establishments.
3. Y – I like going to local owned businesses.
4. N – Very little in downtown Auburn to go to.
5. N – Parking is terrible.
6. Y – It is my neighborhood and I enjoy shopping and eating in my neighborhood .
7. Y – Shop at Rottles, Nelson‟s & Safeway. Eat at several downtown restaurants. Attend functions at
The Ave.
8. Y – I work here.
9. Y – Convenient, close to home. Starting to be more choices for dining.
10. Y – I visit downtown to shop, eat, bank, organizational meetings, pay bills, etc.
11. Y – Close to home, convenient, love the Auburn Avenue Theater.
12. Y – We like OddFellas, Sunbreak and Station Bistro for brunch, lunch or dinner and go 2-3 times a
month. We sometimes use the BECU ATM machine outside Rottles but live in North Auburn so
grocery shop (and bank) at Top Foods and Fred Meyer. About once a year I buy shoes at Rottles
and/or Shoes „n More on Main Street. We have doctors‟ appointments in buildings in and near the
hospital. My husband gets haircuts at Robin‟s shop and lately has been terribly confused about
where to drive with the new plaza area and where to park. I agree that is now a very confusing
part of downtown. Is it really a street?
13. N – Not many unusual restaurants nor shops to make the trip justified. Mostly we come for the
theater.
14. N – No, I live off of A St having recently moved to Auburn in the past year. Moved from Kent after
purchasing a home in Auburn. I only park at the park and ride. Otherwise, I don‟t shop downtown
or eat because there isn‟t enough interesting places to shop or eat. This has made me second
guess my living close to downtown. It‟s really dead after 5 pm.
15. N – There are no stores that I am interested in other than Key Bank and Nelson‟s Jewelry.
16. Y – Eating out, getting haircut, massage, other services.
17. Y – Because we live in Auburn.
18. Repeat
19. Y – Like the 3 restaurants near the train station.
20. Y – blank
21. Y – US Post office, eating, grocery shopping, etc.
22. Y – Meetings at City Hall in the evening and Main Street businesses. I often circle the block a few
times to find one nearby. While not disabled, I have a condition making it very challenging to walk
even several block distances at times. If I have items to carry, proximity is even more critical.
23. N – I do come twice weekly to Auburn to attend the Christina Science Society on Main Street.
Sundays 9:45 AM and Wednesdays 6:45 PM. I occasionally shop at Safeway on Sundays and their
lot is very busy but I always find a spot.
24. N – Depressed area.
25. Y – I attend a weekly meeting and have sometimes experienced trouble finding parking.
26. Y – Meeting at the Truitt building and City Hall.
27. N – No parking.
28. Y – Grocery, jewelry store, consignment shop, clothing.
29. Y – I both work and shop in Downtown Auburn.
30. N – because there is nothing left of „downtown‟.
31. Y – Business-related meeting at Sunbreak Café. Not enough quality restaurants and events to
come downtown otherwise.
32. N – blank
AN.1 Page 39 of 510
B2
33. Y – blank
34. Y – Attend monthly meetings at city hall. In the evening.
35. Y – I enjoy eating at Oddfellas and having coffee at Zola‟s. I always REALLY enjoy the shows at the
Auburn Ave. I sometimes attend meetings at City Hall. I attend the Farmer‟s Market, the Art Walk,
and every parade.
36. N – blank
37. N – What is left in downtown Auburn to go shopping, entertainment or eating? Downtown is nearly
deserted.
38. Y – Favorite restaurant is Oddfellas.
39. Y – For shopping, eating and going to City Hall.
40. N – Not enough variety-stores, restaurants, no real entertainment (Auburn Avenue Theatre is not
enough). Businesses close too early.
41. N – The type of stores are not the type one goes to to obtain items of daily living or professional
help. Good family entertainment is not available. There is only one good eating establishment; it‟s
open only for breakfast and lunch. Not really much reason to visit downtown Auburn.
42. Y – blank
43. Y – blank
44. Y – I like to support the neighborhood I live in.
45. N – I only go there when I have to. Most recently was for a business meeting at the Auburn
Chamber of Commerce, which I could not find parking for, except for squeezing in along the street.
46. Y – (1) Visiting City Hall; (2) luncheon meals at “Odd Fellas” restaurant; banking at: (3) Key Bank;
(4) BoA; (5) general shopping on Main St.
47. Y – We attend events at the Ave Theater, we at the Bistro Station and other establishments, and
we visit the art displays at City Hall.
48. Y – Try to support local business.
49. Y – Shopping
50. Y – Eating and shopping.
51. Y – I support the community that I live in.
52. Y – To eat out, do business and Council meetings.
53. Y – blank
54. Y – Shopping, entertainment, restaurants.
55. N – There‟s no place that I want to shop or eat and no place to park near the businesses I might
want to shop. I‟ve even quit shopping Safeway because I have to park a half a block away most of
the time.
56. Y – I like the neighborly feel and the uniqueness Auburn has that you can‟t find in a mall.
57. Y – Shop at Safeway. Take classes at Corestar Pilates. See physicians at Mu lticare clinic in Auburn
General Hospital. Consider taking the train/bus but parking later in the morning.
58. N – Not enough parking…without having to walk a long ways.
59. N – blank
60. Y – I work in Auburn and frequently have lunch downtown.
61. Y – We go to dinner at Odd Fellows.
62. Y – It is close and I like to deal with local merchants.
63. Y – I enjoy our local downtown restaurants.
64. Y – Because I want shop local businesses.
65. Y – I want to be able to support my local community.
66. Y – blank
67. N – Other than an occasional trip to eat at Athens or the Sunbreak, there isn‟t a lot in to do in the
downtown area in terms of shopping, entertainment or dining. This is a problem. No matter how
many improvements are made to this area – and they are great improvements so far – the
businesses (restaurants, retail, etc.) need to start sprouting up in order for the citizens to want to
frequent downtown Auburn.
68. Y – It‟s where I work.
69. Y – blank
70. Y – Eating, shopping.
71. Y – Convenience, support local businesses.
72. Y – I regularly fill up gas at Safeway and purchase groceries at Safeway because of their low
prices, and because it is on the way home from work. I do not patronize any other businesses in
downtown for the following reasons: 1) All of the restaurants (with the exception of Oddfellow‟s, AN.1 Page 40 of 510
B3
King of Pho, Zola‟s Coffee) are, in my opinion, of low quality and/or do not have an inviting
atmosphere. 2) Many of our friends and co-workers live in either Tacoma or Seattle where there is
a much better variety and higher quality establishment. 3) Most of our shopping for clothing and
household items are done with a budget in mind, which leads us to establishments like JCPenney,
Ross, WalMart, McLendon‟s, or amazon.com (or a grocery store, such as Safeway or Top Foods).
73. Y – I shop at Safeway and shop and eat at various places mainly on Main Street.
74. Y – Mostly to visit restaurants.
75. Y – I live downtown and I shop and eat near where I live.
76. N – I live so close to downtown that when I have a mind to stop in somewhere, it is usually on the
spur of the moment since I past by or through almost daily. Unfortunately, when I see an
interesting shop, or other place, I don‟t usually see parking outside readily available, so I rarely
stop in.
77. N – Unfortunately there isn‟t enough offered in downtown Auburn so we find ourselves going to
Kent Station or Federal Way. We would LOVE to keep funds in our hometown and not have to drive
too far, but there needs to be more incentive to visit Auburn…things like restaurants, shopping (not
just small business, but also some larger, popular stores, etc.)
78. N – I don‟t utilize much of the downtown parking as there is a very limited number and type of
business in the central area that I find inviting to my needs. The good old boys of Auburn, and the
association they govern, have intentionally created a don‟t violate our territory attitude and this
limits the magnet of NEW stores this city needs.
79. N – I work in downtown Auburn and then leave to go home.
80. Y – I like the small-town atmosphere of Auburn, especially the “mom and pop” downtown
businesses.
81. Y – Like to keep my money in the local economy.
82. Y – Shopping and eating – it is where the restaurants I am familiar with are located.
83. Y – Eating, volunteer meetings, and work.
84. N – There aren‟t any shops or restaurants in downtown Auburn that have my attention.
85. Y – I eat at Sunbreak Café regularly.
86. N – Most of the downtown has been torn down.
87. Y – blank
88. Y – Entertainment, eating, parades, and business.
89. Y – Dining, occasional window shopping.
90. N – No parking, no reason to be there downtown is dead. No variety.
91. N – Because there isn‟t anything to do, any good places to eat, it looks run down, need I go on?
Why can‟t we have a downtown like Kent Station?
92. Y – We really like to support our community by eating locally.
93. Y – Work downtown.
94. N – blank
95. N – Because there is nowhere to park do I can commute to Seattle. I end up going to other cities
such as Federal Way and Kent because that becomes more convenient.
96. Y – Eating and shopping.
97. Y – It‟s close to home. I would go more often if Auburn had more specialty shops.
98. Y – Eating & also my child attends Children‟s Dance Theater.
99. Y – We eat at several downtown restaurants, attend functions at The Ave and shop in several of
the retail businesses.
100. Y – Because I live in Auburn. In addition, I commute to Seattle via the
Sounder train every weekday.
101. Y – Work downtown.
102. N – Although I travel through Auburn and meet with business partners in the area I do not
often shop and/or eat in Auburn as I live in Tacoma.
103. Y – I grew up in Auburn and though I don‟t live there now, it is still MY town.
104. Y – blank
105. Y – Shopping, entertainment, and eating.
106. Y – I live nearby.
107. N – I don‟t think there are enough shops that interest our family to get us to do much in the
area. There aren‟t a lot of places to eat in Auburn other than your normal burger a nd
sandwich places and we like more variety and if we are going to shop at little boutique style
stores we usually go to Seattle or somewhere with more eateries and more shops to our AN.1 Page 41 of 510
B4
liking. Also, on nice weekends or when there is an event downtown, there is never any
parking, even for the disabled.
108. N – Occasionally for Farmers Market, to eat. I guess we have other places that we‟d rather
go to. Not an issue of parking, etc.
109. N – Struggle with the type of local shopping and the comfort of the area it‟s not shopping or
entertainment friendly.
110. Y – I like to support small business.
111. N – Finding parking can be a hassle. Businesses don‟t interest me.
112. Y – Rottles, City Hall, Hospital, Sun Break.
113. Y – Shopping; occasional restauranting; functions at high school.
114. Repeat
115. Y – Eating.
116. Y – Eating yes – coffee with friends, lunch…why? Trying to support the economic viability of
Main Street.
117. Y – I visit downtown Auburn for shopping, entertainment, and eating purposes because I
live in Auburn.
118. Y – Shopping, entertainment, & eating.
119. N – There are too few stores or restaurants “downtown” to visit. In other words there is
nothing downtown for me, Rottles and Nelson‟s is about the only stores left worth visiting.
120. Y – I like to support local businesses and frequent the Comstocks, Ki d Savvy, and the tailor
in particular.
121. N – Limited venues & limited parking – with the exception of the fast food places.
122. Y – Commuter train, pay bills, eat.
123. N – The main businesses of Downtown Auburn I visit are the eateries located by the Transit
Center. The other stores and businesses currently downtown don‟t really appeal to me. I
used to shop in Lynn Norman‟s store and at JC Penney. I do purchase shoes at Rottles, but
find their clothing prices are higher than I want to pay. I also use the watch repair at
Nelsons and shoe repair. And I purchase some gas and groceries at Safeway.
124. Y – It‟s close. We don‟t have a lot of options for stores, good restaurants, or entertainment,
but when I go downtown I do like parking to be convenient…which is true wherever I go.
125. Y – Eating/entertainment/city hall.
126. Y – Auburn has a nice home town feel (as opposed to Federal Way). We live in the middle
and often come to Auburn instead of FW.
127. Y – It‟s close to home.
128. N – Nowhere to shop or eat.
129. Y – Live and shop in Auburn.
130. Y – Restaurants, shopping, meetings, events.
131. N – No money.
132. N – There isn‟t anything good to do in downtown Auburn.
133. N – Nothing to go to Auburn for. Plenty of parking spaces when I have driven thru.
134. Y – Shopping, entertainment, and eating.
135. N – Downtown is old and run down. No decent places to eat, and what entertainment and
stores? The only store worth driving down Main Street for is Rottles.
136. Y – I enjoy downtown Auburn, great restaurants, awesome bookstore!
137. Y – blank
138. Y – Appointments and shopping.
139. Y – Restaurants, shopping, dentist, hospital/medical.
140. Y – blank
141. Y – Bank downtown and Nelson‟s Jewelry.
142. Y – Usually 0900 to 1800 haircuts, grocery shopping.
143. Y – Auburn is so much more than my hometown. I love being able to have a “city”
experience in a rural setting. Covington sucks, Sumner is too far and the traffic is bad
certain times of the day.
144. N – Transportation from top of Elhi hill is very limited in hours.
145. Y – Mostly for eating at two different restaurants and to take the train downtown Seattle.
146. N – What entertainment? Can only do so much shopping at Rottles. There is no place to eat,
unless you want fast food.
147. Y – Dental Clinic. AN.1 Page 42 of 510
B5
148. N – I don‟t live in that area.
When you come to Downtown Auburn do you experience any problems with
finding parking?
1. Y – blank
2. N – blank
3. Y – Not many spots up and down the streets.
4. N – blank
5. Y – The few lots available that are not business-specific (like Safeway), fill up quickly.
6. Y – Sometimes I do. I am not sure where to find off street or street parking that is not time
restricted.
7. N – Can usually find a spot although sometimes not as close as I would like.
8. Y – Inadequate train parking.
9. Y – Sometimes parking is a challenge near city hall and the train station. New parking garage near
hospital has confusing labeling on spaces. For example, a women‟s health clinic has reserved
spaces, but in the evening? On weekends? And who knows or checks on whether I might be a
patient there or not? Main Street parking spots can be full, then it takes a lot of driving to find an
alternative parking spot.
10. Y – Main Street, for example, has easy access parking because of many business closures, etc.
11. N – My guess is not that many people shop in Auburn, and we have several lots available.
12. N – I sometimes park south of Rottles and once in a while on Main. There is currently so little
reason to spend time shopping in the downtown area, I haven‟t yet found a problem with finding a
space.
13. N – blank.
14. N – Only use the park and ride.
15. Y – I am not interested in walking for blocks to go to a store.
16. Y – Find Main St full of vehicles, seems from the apartment dwellers.
17. Y – Spots have been removed or restricted; there are fewer spaces, people with larger vehicles
take up more space.
18. Repeat
19. N – Usually is during the late afternoon, but can very easily find street parking, though I will have
to walk. No big deal as free parking is an excellent price.
20. Y – blank
21. N – Not really unless there is a street fair or a special event.
22. Y – Insufficient quantity of spaces near the business across from the Justice Center and near by the
City Hall. Also event parking such as 4th of July, Veterans day parade, Auburn Good Ole Days is
totally insufficient. Also there may be spaces nearby, but not obvious where they are. For example
City Hall doesn‟t direct where people should park and on street parking on Main is insufficient and
other streets reserved for police, etc.
23. N – blank
24. N – I only come to pay water bill and parking always seems to be available at City Hall.
25. Y – See above.
26. N – blank
27. Y – blank
28. Y – No spots left for on-street parking.
29. N – I may have to circle a block looking, but the Safeway parking lot is the only one that is often
overfilled.
30. Y – Because commuters are using the available parking, I am guessing. The only time I have not
had issue is when I have stopped by City Hall.
31. N – blank
32. N – blank
33. N – blank
34. N – At the time I attend the meetings I do not have parking problems.
35. Y – I find it difficult to find parking for Oddfellas. It is also difficult to find parking for the parades.
36. N – blank
37. Y – Too much is blocked off for „special‟ visitors…train for one.
AN.1 Page 43 of 510
B6
38. N – There are three parking lots available for parking that do not charge. Since one of the lots
serves a restaurant that is closed during the week or after breakfast, we do not have trouble
finding a place to park. The other lot is next to the vacant grocery liquidation building, so there are
usually spaces available.
39. Y – The permit spaces are not frequently full I believe there are too many permit and 2 hour
parking spaces.
40. N – Use transit & don‟t mind walking a short way – I don‟t need to park right in front of a business.
41. N – blank
42. Y – blank
43. N – I park in the parking lot of the store I‟m visiting.
44. Y – Though it appears this survey is focused on shopping, entertainment and eating. As a rule I
don‟t have trouble parking in downtown Auburn on the weekend or early on the week nights before
business‟ close but…I am attached to the train “bridge” is owned by Auburn and if so, I would like
to see it dedicated to commuters and see find another place for shoppers, etc. to use.
45. Y – Not enough spaces on the streets (well, they are all full) and not enough parking lots or
garages. Every sign says only for xx customers or whatever.
46. N – Not generally, but street parking for (2) is minimally adequate. If luncheon business was to
increase, street parking adjacent to the restaurant would probably be more difficult, and 1hr time
limits would discourage diners; (3) No problem; (4) Adequate most of the time; (5) Street parking
is frequently a problem. Unrestricted parking S of Rottles seems somewhat con gested for Main St
shoppers.
47. N – We can find open parking on A St South of Main St. for downtown visits.
48. Y – Since all the “new” improvements, park is difficult. Trying to find parking around the planning
department is a joke since most all areas have signs stating parking is for the bank or for the
permit holders or Paid parking. Downtown feels congested, cramped and unfriendly. Often I have
to park over at Safeway to have lunch along Main Street.
49. N – Parking in Safeway, banks have parking.
50. N – blank
51. N – blank
52. Y – Handicap parking.
53. N – blank
54. Y – Not enough ADA parking.
55. Y – Always. Handicap parking is a joke in this town. I don‟ know how no-one has file a suit. Unless
it‟s because there‟s no reason to park downtown.
56. Y – It isn‟t a problem at night, but during the day it can be difficult. I don‟t parallel park well and so
I will look for a place that parks nose in. It isn‟t an issue for me since I like to walk and don‟t
usually buy a lot of items that are heavy, but for some people with various limits this can be an
issue. During the farmers market times, it can always be an issue!
57. Y – About 30% of the time I have trouble finding parking. Usually if it is a 1 to 2 hour visit I can
find something, but if I was planning on taking the train or bus to work (Sumner) it is more difficult
finding long term parking.
58. Y – Not enough parking…without having to walk a long ways.
59. N – blank
60. N – I often walk from a parking place I have at work.
61. Y – There isn‟t enough down town.
62. Y – Not enough spots close to what I want and I am handicapped.
63. N – blank
64. Y – Too restrictive (example beside Safeway requiring a permit) and not enough.
65. N – I usually come during the weekend. There‟s adequate parking at that time.
66. N – blank
67. N – As a City employee, no I do not have any issues with finding parking. I also visit the Auburn
Regional Medical Center and do not experience any difficulties with being able to find sufficient
parking.
68. Y – It depends on where I am going and the time of day. If I want to be at the transit station there
is no parking during the daytime. All the spots are taken by commuters in the morning. Banking,
eating and shopping are usually not a problem.
69. Y – blank
70. Y – On Main Street. AN.1 Page 44 of 510
B7
71. N – blank
72. N – Safeway & King of Pho have parking lots. Street parking for Oddfellas‟s and Zola‟s are
adequate. You can always find a space within a block or two. (FYI, last night we went out to eat in
Seattle and parked over two blocks away. This was a slight deterrent, but the improvement in
quality of food and drinks made it worthwhile).
73. Y – Once in awhile parking is very limited along Main, but a majority of the time I park in the
Safeway parking lot and walk.
74. N – blank
75. Y – I often have to park blocks away until parking starts to become available at around 8:30 pm.
76. Y – I have not investigated the proximity of parking lots to stores I may want to access and it is
difficult to tell sometimes whether a parking lot is accessible to the public at large at no charge.
77. Y – When we ride the Sounder there is especially problems as minimal spots are available. There
needs to be a bigger/extra garage and that way again more people will be enticed to visit Auburn.
78. Y – Parking spaces in front of the train station businesses are not delineated by painted markings,
and this limits the number of vehicles that can park there. The parking across the street is only
free for those who want to park in a muddy, potholed lot with limited spaces (also not marked).
Much of the remainder of the city‟s lots are “pay to park” or get ticketed. So who wants to come
into the city only to find this type of unfriendly parking situation? I spend as little time in the
downtown area as possible just for this reason.
79. N – There is plenty of 3 hour parking close to where I work.
80. N – I usually park in the business parking lot near Safeway and then walk to the nearby stores on
Main.
81. Y – Main drag parking is hard to maneuver with my large van.
82. Y – There is no parking available near the establishments where I am a patron.
83. Y – Too many spaces marked “permit parking” only. I find it extremely frustrating and I think the
permit parking is unfriendly, overused, and unnecessary.
84. Y – Parking for commuters riding the Sounder Train is scarce. It will discourage people from
moving to the Auburn area.
85. N – There is adequate parking on Saturdays for the Sunbreak Café.
86. Y – Main Street is usually full.
87. N – I usually park by the Sunbreak Café. I‟ve never experience any problem with parking,
sometimes I might just need to walk an extra block. Overall, parking is super easy.
88. Y – Very few parking spaces you have to drive around several times before finding a parking space.
Sometimes I have my kids run down while I circle around for them.
89. Y – Why? Very little public parking.
90. Y – Not enough space within walking distance.
91. Y – Sound Transit and the Hospital take up a lot of the free parking.
92. Y – Street parking is pretty limited but I think that‟s because the restaurants are popular and
downtown is pretty small.
93. N – If there is no parking on Main Street I will park in my own lot.
94. N – blank
95. Y – I work from 9:30AM to 6:00PM in Seattle. I would love to park in downtown Auburn, but the
parking structure is always full.
96. Y – I am handicapped and there is non available at all.
97. Y – It would be more user friendly if downtown was traffic free and you had a few well placed
parking lots, then you could walk to shops, or whatever. It is less enjoyable if you are dodging
traffic or looking for that well-placed parking spot.
98. Y – For the dance studio, classes start at 5:00pm. Sunbreak has graciously allowed their parking
lot to be used for overflow. However, trying to cross the street to the studio/CDT is hard because
very few cars are willing to stop & allow kids to cross…that the cars coming through the green light
on Main or zooming through the stop sign across from Station Bistro. Any possibility of a cross-
walk?
99. N – There may not be parking immediately adjacent to where I wish to go, but can usually find
something within a short walking distance.
100. Y – The only time I have trouble finding parking is in the weekday mornings when I am
trying to catch the train. I wonder why the parking garage at the transit center wasn‟t built
taller (to add more floors) and why there are spaces commuters aren‟t allowed to use.
101. N – Park in the parking garage during work. Weekends it is not that busy. AN.1 Page 45 of 510
B8
102. Y – Sometime it is very congested when it comes to parking on the street. There does not
seem to be a designated public lot for visitors to use.
103. N – Usually find a place.
104. N – blank
105. Y – Sometimes…too many city only parking lots.
106. N – Not enough people frequent down t own Auburn to cause a parking problem.
107. Y – There aren‟t a lot of spaces for street parking, so when there is an event going on, you
either have to park n the garage at the transit station (which they don‟t like unless you are
using the transit) and hike it to the event, or you have to park in the TINY lot near the
tattoo parlor, and those spaces are always taken. I have a disabled placard and it is usually
impossible to find disabled parking, let alone a regular spot on a sunny/crowded day.
108. N – blank
109. N – Sometimes, but eventually find a spot.
110. Y – Sometimes. Parking on the street filled up and sometimes I find myself driving around
looking.
111. Y – At times I have to park and walk several blocks to get to where I want to be.
112. Y – Sometimes.
113. Y – Too few spots that are not 2 hour max.
114. Repeat
115. N – blank
116. Y – Depending on the time of day and day. It is not a chronic problem, but as the city
becomes vibrant, parking will be an issue that if addressed appropriate will encourage
growth OR if it not, will push people to Kent Commons, the SuperMall…all those places with
free parking.
117. N – Because I know of the spot on 1st NE, just off Main, across from Rottles. There is a
problem finding parking for walking on the new trail though; and that could be a dangerous
problem if people try parking in the private lots across the busy Main Street and try walking
across without a crosswalk.
118. Y – Parking isn‟t always clearly marked as to who can park in some places…the parking lot
by Curves…can I park there to go to the stores on E Main St? Signs are vague, so didn‟t go
into the store I wanted, as there wasn‟t street parking available right then…
119. N – Because there is nothing there!
120. Y – Sometimes it is just full up. Usually I do okay, though.
121. Y – Usually end up parking in the Safeway parking lot – and walking.
122. Y – Spaces are filled…duh, not enough parking.
123. N – I often come down with my husband on weekends to eat at Sun Break Café.
Occasionally we‟ll eat the Bistro instead. We usually park in the lot next to Sun Break.
124. Y – Depends on the time of day. We are losing business and we need convenient parking to
help those businesses. Doesn‟t help that we have so many street people hanging out.
125. N – For my purposes, there is adequate supply.
126. Y – For the use of the train.
127. N – Only if I shop at a large department store or grocery store, then I have no problem
finding a place to park. If, on the other hand, I want to park at the train station, it‟s very
difficult to find a parking space unless one is there very early in the morning.
128. N – I don‟t go to Downtown Auburn often.
129. N – The places I frequent have adequate parking.
130. Y – When streets are full, not sure where to park. There are a lot of lots that are restricted.
131. N – I have needed to park near City Hall, and have always found a space on Main St. When
there‟s a parade, I walk a little farther – no big deal!
132. N – On the rare occasion that I do go downtown Auburn (like for the Sunbreak Café), I don‟t
have trouble parking.
133. N – blank
134. N – blank
135. Y – Around the hospital area. Parking is miserable all around the medical area.
136. N – Parking is always plentiful, except near the train station.
137. N – blank
138. N – blank
139. N – blank AN.1 Page 46 of 510
B9
140. N – blank
141. N – Parking availability is not an issue.
142. N – During normal business hours, there generally isn‟t an issue.
143. Y – Street were closed for improvements, but not there are a couple of garage options.
144. Y – Area around hospital always packed.
145. N – Don‟t usually go during commuting times.
146. N – blank
147. Y – The clinic my children used to go to have 4 (seemed like it) parking spots, and it was
usually full. It takes time to look for an open spot along the street. To void missing their
appointment, we tried to be there at least an hour early to give me more time to look for a
parking spot. Needless to say, that hour could have been spent on something more
productive.
148. N – On the few occasions I have visited Auburn I easily found parking.
Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking lots and
facilities in Downtown?
1. N – blank
2. N – blank
3. Y – If it‟s easy to get around and find a place to park then maybe more people will come.
4. N – Didn‟t know there were any.
5. Y – To make parking more available. However, a city-owned lot that did not charge a fee (but had
a reasonable time limit on using the space), would be best. And, a better use of city funds than the
incredibly stupid “urban park” across from City Hall.
6. Y – Street parking is not consistently available.
7. Y – As the four block area near city hall is built up, more people will be downtown. It is often a little
difficult to park now – more workers, retail shops, dining establishments will create more of a
demand on parking.
8. Y – blank
9. Y – Especially for Sounder commuter vehicles. Any parking facilities need to make sense and
coordinate with foot traffic and visual landscape of downtown.
10. Y – As economy improves and more business re-open, need for parking will increase and the need
to handle that for potential customers is crucial.
11. Y – smart businesses provide easy access when possible.
12. Y – Hopefully there will be new businesses and a reason for needin g additional parking.
13. N – blank.
14. Y – Not sure about private parking lots. I think it‟s a good idea to encourage free parking around
downtown this will encourage consumers to come into the area. From what I see there isn‟t
anything to do downtown. No modern shops or food places. There needs to be more done other
than repaving the streets and light post.
15. Y – blank.
16. N – Private would create a fee for parking. I believe until the businesses are more established and
downtown has more occupancy, fees for parking could create a vacancy of customers.
17. Y – People won‟t park all day.
18. Repeat
19. N – Pay to park in downtown Auburn? What a way to kill potential visitors! Hello, who wants to go
visit downtown Seattle & pay big bucks to park?
20. Y – blank
21. N – I do not see a need at this time.
22. Y – We need to grow the structure supporting businesses and put parking closer to them. As it is,
they are only enough spots for a couple of people in a business at a time, and that will not grow a
business. Look at the vacancies. Parking and strict sign limits that prevent signs that can be read in
passing keep business un-trafficked.
23. N – blank
24. Y – I understand parking for train is difficult. More parking would be good for city revenues via
restaurants.
25. Y – As a former business owner, parking lots are essential to serve your customers.
AN.1 Page 47 of 510
B10
26. Y – blank
27. Y – blank
28. Y – But only if parking rate is reasonable or free for one hour. Let‟s say.
29. Blank – I would not like to see very tall buildings along Main Street simply to accommodate more
parking. If parking were a few blocks back from central core area it could work.
30. N – Not unless there is a boom in downtown development that entices folks to shop within Auburn.
31. N – I don‟t see a great need.
32. N – blank
33. Y – blank
34. Y – While parts of Main Street can be served by the lots across from and behind Rottles, even with
the low density of active businesses, parking can be problematic. As we make Main Street and the
Promenade area more attractive to business, a MAJOR consideration of every potential business
will be the availability of adequate parking.
35. N – A multitude of parking lots and garages would make the city look a little trashy.
36. Blank
37. N – We already have vacant lots, vacant store-fronts. Bring in businesses first, then worry about
parking.
38. Y – Yes, within reason. Not being charged for all parking is the most desired outcome.
39. N – blank
40. N – Short term solution-transit, pedestrian connectivity is long term solution.
41. Blank – Additional parking is only needed in specific areas: Safeway and the very core area of
downtown. The new parking garage north of city hall takes care of city hall and the hospital. People
don‟t like walking more than “two feet‟ from their car to their destination. Any additional parking
provided should be vertical; downtown building space is at a pr emium.
42. N – blank
43. N – There should be free parking for downtown shoppers.
44. Y – I wish you had a maybe instead of just yes or no answers. I would assume a private parking lot
cost money, but if that‟s the only way for people to enjoy downtown, I think people would use it.
45. N – I don‟t care whether the lots are private or public, but I do think that if private lots charge
money, people will avoid those lots and will avoid downtown Auburn, which will be harder on
businesses there. The street parking, which is free, will be much more difficult to find, and people
will begin parking in crazy places just to avoid paying for a space in a private lot. I think the city
gov should provide free lots, except I realize that it will be expensive.
46. N – Not sure. AS the city grows and economy recovers, it may be necessary to include private
parking lots or structures, but I would rather encourage merchant -supported parking improvement
districts. I have not studied the code, but due to the age of our City, I believe inadequate (o r
possibly no) requirements for parking were included as the “downtown” area was developed.
47. Y – blank
48. N – Why in the world would I want to pay to park? The downtown improvements have been a
waste of taxpayer money and do not support a friendly community.
49. N – Never had parking problems.
50. Y – It may bring more business?
51. Y – Only if there is business to support it. I heard that Auburn downtown might become a wine
tasting – lots of vendors. That is a good idea.
52. Y – As long they do not charge for them.
53. N – blank
54. N – We need businesses and apartments, not empty lots.
55. Blank – First you have to have a reason for people to want to visit downtown. Get and keep some
businesses downtown. Places have come & gone with out ever seeing them on Main Street. Who
even wants to drive downtown? Not me, I avoid it like the plague.
56. N – This was my “gut instinct” answer and if our town were larger it may make more sense, but we
really are not so large that walking distance is unrealistic.
57. Blank – Not sure how to answer when I do not understand what this would entail in the way of
property owned and how it would be used.
58. N – Too many private lots already you can park in publicly.
59. N – blank
60. N – People need ample free parking to shop at downtown businesses. You do not want to
discourage them by charging for parking. AN.1 Page 48 of 510
B11
61. Y – blank
62. Y – Yes, if does not start to look like Seattle and is not ugly.
63. N – Please don‟t increase the concrete jungle we already have in our downtown core.
64. Y – But not to charge that would defeat the purpose.
65. N – I think we should keep it local and simple. Only at the appropriate time should we consider
outside resources.
66. Y – blank
67. N – Again, it‟s been my experience that parking is not an issue downtown. There seems to be
sufficient parking available. Now I don‟t know about the transit station so there could be issues
with that area but in general – I don‟t see parking as an issue. If in the future the businesses start
to bring in more customers then I can see parking becoming a hassle. Personally, I still don‟t want
to see downtown “buried” in parking garages/facilities but if they‟re necessary so be it.
68. Y – If zoning permits people should have the choice.
69. Y – blank
70. Blank – It depends on where they are. Being disabled and trying to parallel park on Main Street is
the pits.
71. Y – More parking, more access, more purchasers.
72. N – The city & chamber of commerce should instead encourage an improvement in the type and
quality of businesses downtown. I am willing to be slightly hassled by parking issues (parking a
block or two away) if I can go out for a QUALITY meal and not have to drive to Kent or Federal
Way.
73. N – I think there are plenty of options for parking. I would tend to want more handicapped parking
if anything. I can walk to where I want to go from anywhere I park. That is not always easy for
those with disabilities.
74. Y – blank
75. Y – I would like to have some parking designated for residents of my building. I am concerned that
the increase in housing that will come with the redevelopment of downtown will lead to some very
serious parking shortages. Causing even more hardship for people with disabilities such as myself.
76. Blank
77. Y – Along with parking though there also needs to be more business. Making downtown Auburn
similar to Kent Station would result in more revenue and encourage p eople to spend money in
Auburn, not Kent all the time.
78. N – I have experienced the private parking facility “police” in Bellevue, who are very willing to give
you a ticket (illegal in my opinion) just because you parked and then walked out of the lot to a
business across the street. These individuals are usually foreigners who earn money for their
policing of the private lots. They are hard to communicate with, and I believe that only an
authorized law enforcement officer should be able to cite someone for a civil violation of this type.
Private owners can charge unusually high fines to suit their ownership and finances.
79. Y – If people can find parking easily it encourages them to come back knowing that there is an
abundance of parking.
80. N – I think if there is going to be such parking garages that they need to be multipurpose, e.g.,
they need to be small business store spaces AND the private parking lots, just not unsightly
parking garages that smell badly and become concrete garbage receptacles.
81. Y – blank
82. Y – Any additional well-designed parking would be a positive change.
83. N – No, no, no. Bring back free parking. Kent Station has the right idea with large free parking
areas and a big free parking garage.
84. Y – If this would provide more parking spots for commuters, then I would welcome it.
85. N – Why do you need more parking? You need more businesses!
86. Blank – Why, there are no shops to visit.
87. N – I think the parking is good as is.
88. Y – Blank
89. Y – Because I can‟t find a parking spot. Especially if I want to ride the Sounder.
90. N – blank
91. Y – More free parking = more access to downtown. Of course, you‟d have to provide a better
downtown. Like Kent Station.
92. N – I would hate to pay to park!
93. N – Not if you are talking about for a fee parking. AN.1 Page 49 of 510
B12
94. Y – blank
95. Y – I would pay a small fee to park there every month if I were guaranteed a spot.
96. N – Well private parking lots would just mean less admirable businesses in own, we need to bring
in businesses that are going to do good for our community not just allow parking for commuters
outside of our town.
97. Y – It would encourage people to see all that is available not just the one place they need to go,
walking by places they may not have noticed.
98. N – Paying for parking in Auburn? Come on! Don‟t give anyone ONE more reason to avoid
downtown Auburn!!!
99. Y – With more development, the need for parking will only increase. Not everyone is willing/able to
walk a bit to their destination. During special events parking really is at a premium even now.
100. N – The city should profit off the low overhead investment of parking lots, not private
companies.
101. Y – During the week I hear people complain that there is not enough parking when they
come into the Customer Service Center.
102. N – I think it would be easier to maintain and control public parking area not owned by
private owners. There could be some combination of maybe business leasing extra parking
lot space if available.
103. N – blank
104. N – blank
105. N – Too many restrictions already.
106. N – blank
107. Y – HOWEVER, I don‟t think that a private lot where you have to PAY to park (like Diamond
Parking) would go over very well in our city. There isn‟t enough shops or interesting
boutiques to render a whole lot of shopping downtown as it is, but if you charge for parking,
then it‟s REALLY not worth it.
108. Y – It is sometimes hard to find street parking, and I don‟t want to pay for lots.
109. N – blank
110. Blank – It depends? I don‟t think parking garages are particularly attractive. I know the City
has been working hard to making Downtown Auburn attractive.
111. N – Parking spaces should be easily access full for all. If a specific business or employer
needs private parking they should have to pay for that privilege.
112. N – You can always find something if you drive around and/or use the Safeway parking lot.
113. Y – Do you mean park for free? Easier business use and higher likelihood people will visit
Auburn, rather than Kent, for shopping.
114. Repeat
115. Y – Variety is always good.
116. Y – If we want to draw people to our city, it must be easy to park for free.
117. N – Private lots charge too much. I appreciate that Auburn allows me to park for a couple of
hours, here and there, for free. I also appreciate the garbage cans for when I purchase
items at shops/eateries and have garbage when I get back to my car. Private lots, rarely, if
ever, provide garbage cans.
118. Y – Depending on how much they want to charge…I hate having to pay for parking…
119. N – I guess I need to understand why there is a need for parking in “downtown”. It sounds
like the real issue is Sound Transit users and yes they do need more adequate parking, but
that shouldn‟t be an issue for “downtown”!
120. N – I don‟t want to see a bunch of pay lots around Auburn. It‟s ugly.
121. N – If I want to pay to park in town I will go to Seattle!
122. Y – There isn‟t enough parking space presently.
123. Y – I know the Transit garage is full on weekdays and there‟s limited parking available for
downtown businesses and their patrons to use so it makes sense to add more parking.
124. N – We can‟t afford to become like Bellevue where there is no parking and the only parking
that exists is expensive. We don‟t have that big a draw to charge for parking.
125. Y – Ample parking supports downtown small business and is the city‟s most obvious
example of support for small business. As a commercial Realtor with a soft spot for my
hometown of Auburn, I cringe when I experience the notion Auburn is where small
businesses go to die.
126. N – If costs go up I would say no, otherwise, yes. AN.1 Page 50 of 510
B13
127. N – I think the city should provide parking lots at no cost to the user.
128. N – blank
129. N – Seems to be adequate parking.
130. N – I prefer free parking to make it easy for patrons to shop.
131. N – They‟re ugly and expensive.
132. N – Unless the City of Auburn gets with the program and builds a decent downtown area
like Kent Station then I don‟t know why you‟d need more private parking.
133. N – blank
134. N – blank
135. N – I‟m sick and tired of being nickeled and dimed. It will discourage people from
downtown.
136. N – We should be encouraging transit. If there was better transit and a bike lane up Lea Hill
that was safe, there would be less need for parking downtown, as many could l eave their
cars at home.
137. N – blank
138. N – More lots mean more opportunities to charge for parking.
139. N – blank
140. N – If you make people pay, you will loose business – times are bad.
141. N – blank
142. N – Other than what I have listed above, there isn‟t other types of businesses located
downtown which I would use.
143. N – I‟d rather walk and enjoy less cars. In and out parking increases wait times on the
street to park next to shops.
144. Y – If it helps – why not?
145. N – There‟s plenty of parking for the number of options in downtown Auburn.
146. N – blank
147. N – Yes AND no. Tell us more about it.
148. Y – I work for a parking company and would love the opportunity to make a bid on
managing your parking needs. We currently manage among many the Pacific Place parking
garage for the city of Seattle.
Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in
Downtown Auburn?
1. N – blank
2. N – blank
3. Y – If I‟m going to be more than a couple of hours sure. Otherwise it‟s nice to park for quick trips.
4. N – Who wants another tax.
5. Y – Maybe, if no free parking is available. See above comment.
6. Y – This is again a maybe. Too expensive and I can go to Kent and park for free at the Kent
Station.
7. N – If I have to I will pay to park in a lot but not on the street. I think making people to pay to
park downtown will deter people for shopping & dining there. It‟s not that far to drive to Kent
where there is plenty of parking at Kent Station if not on the street.
8. Y – blank
9. Y – Don‟t know what you mean – meters? Spend money to build lots? Reconfiguring Main and side
streets to allow more on-street parking? Probably some combination of those. Just don‟t annoy the
few people who currently are coming to downtown. They don‟t need much excuse not to go there.
10. Y – Yes, only if there is an apparent need; not merely to increase revenue for it.
11. N – Not necessary at this point. Perhaps in time…
12. Y – If I felt there were going to be new businesses and a reason for needing additional parking, I
would agree.
13. N - It would make it easier to just go elsewhere – malls, if I have to pay got to Seattle or Tacoma.
14. N – blank.
15. N – There is not enough shopping to warrant paying.
16. N – At this time, I believe this would be harmful to the existing businesses.
17. N – Auburn is a small town, basically, not Seattle.
AN.1 Page 51 of 510
B14
18. Repeat
19. N – Again, little town, no pay lots! Kent doesn‟t charge, nor Sumner nor Federal Way. Let‟s not pay
„More than you imagined‟ OK?
20. Y- blank
21. N – I do not see a need at this time.
22. Y – During events, since I am at booths etc. Coming and going I would be willing to pay for
convenient and very close parking.
23. N – I‟m a Black Diamond resident and don‟t think I‟d be taxed for additional parking in Auburn.
24. N – Nope. I am nickel and dimed to death by Auburn already. Have you seen your water bills?! And
you wanted to increase my taxes for your Save Our Streets program? When I moved here 15 years
ago my taxes were $1700 now they area over $4000. I will not vote for any new taxes…ever!
25. Y – I am not sure what you are asking…to pay to install lots or to pay to use lots.
26. N – blank
27. Y – blank
28. Blank
29. N – Part of the joy of being smaller cities is the access without the cost to park for events or
shopping.
30. N – I mainly park at Safeway to shop and then get out. The bar in the middle of downtown is full of
drugs and the like and I have no interest in the few „businesses‟ that ARE there. I will be happy to
go to Kent or Southcenter and park there for free.
31. N – blank
32. N – blank
33. N – blank
34. N – Perhaps at a future date we could charge for parking. However, we are trying to revitalize a
town. We have a long way to go to say we have a stable vibrant downtown. Anything that would
discourage people from coming downtown should be eliminated if at all possible. I think the
Supermall, Kent station…just about everyplace around here would best Auburn if we charged for
parking. Personally, I would not be inclined to go downtown if I had to pay to park.
35. N – We are not Seattle.
36. Y – blank
37. N – 3 guesses.
38. N – If there is no need to pay, then I don‟t want to pay. Currently, the businesses don‟t seem to be
able to exceed demand for spaces.
39. N – If it would cost me to park in Auburn I would frequent places that provided free parking.
40. N – See above-use transit, bike, walk.
41. N – Not when I can go to Fred Meyer and obtain all I need at place.
42. N – blank
43. N – blank
44. Y – I pay City of Auburn $10 or $20 a month to park now but would not pay $11 or $12 per day
like you would to park in downtown Seattle for the day while at work. For a private lot. I realize
that we should all use more public transportation and that it‟s not up to our city to p rovide much
towards that. If the Metro ever gets a bus to run past the Muckleshoot past 7:00 pm I wouldn‟t
need to drive in.
45. N – Sorry, I would just go somewhere else. I don‟t work in downtown Auburn, and there‟s nothing
there that I can‟t find in Covington or Kent. I live centrally located between all 3 cities and I choose
Auburn last, mostly because of traffic patterns and parking. By traffic patterns, I mean that it takes
me awhile to get down from Lea Hill. I‟m not saying that you should change the road on Lea Hill,
but it does take me awhile to meander down the hill, then go south down Auburn Way South,
through all of the lights, etc. to get to downtown Auburn. I only go there if I need something
specific, usually to visit the GRCC SBDC. My usual places in Auburn are the library and Les Gove
park for special activities like Kids Day, OR north of downtown Auburn such as Fred Meyer or
Lowes.
46. N – Not at this time.
47. N – Not a good idea to charge people to visit downtown.
48. N – Are you folks out of your minds? Public access to local business and government shouldn‟t‟
have to be a pay per use activity. Its time to clean house and rid ourselves of greedy government.
49. Y – Probably for handicapped parking. We tend to forget their needs.
50. N – could be free like Kent Station AN.1 Page 52 of 510
B15
51. N – If I have to pay, then I can go to the mall – it would have to be a very good reason then for er
to shop downtown Auburn. I loved to shop downtown Seattle until parking became out rageous.
52. N – blank
53. N – blank
54. N – Any additional parking should be provided by new development.
55. N – We are small town downtown. And Auburn wasted lots of bucks with that stupid Division Street
thing. Auburn at least owes people a place to park. Even if there is nothing to park for.
56. N – Not unless we were planning a downtown expansion of considerable size that promises to
offset the cost and would bring additional funds to the town of Auburn.
57. Y – I am probably in the minority about paying for parking. If the City decided to charge for
parking and run a parking enterprise. It is really important to have a long term plan and be careful
where free parking is around any paid parking. You can push the problem outside the downtown
core as people look for free parking and paid parking will not bring in anticipated revenues.
58. Y – If it is reasonable price…If too expensive would avoid area.
59. N – blank
60. N – blank
61. N – I pay for enough in taxes and it‟s hard enough to get the city to come down by my house and
get their property taken care of.
62. N – I will where it‟s free.
63. N – I did find a need at this time to pay for parking downtown and I hope I don‟t have to in the
future.
64. N – No, again, that would defeat the purpose to encourage people to visit downtown.
65. N – I don‟t think that move is necessary at this time. Plus with this economy, people are cash
strapped enough as it is.
66. N – blank
67. N – Who wants to pay for parking? One of the reasons I don‟t a lot of time in downtown Seattle is
due to their expensive and limited parking.
68. Y – If it‟s where I need or want to be I will pay.
69. Blank – Sometimes.
70. N – Sometimes I go to Kent so I can park for free in the garage.
71. N – I refuse to pay for parking to shop. I will go to Covington or Kent before I pay to park and
shop. I do NOT go to Seattle for this reason.
72. N – Currently the quality of the businesses is not high enough to warrant paying for parking. If I
have to pay for parking, I might as well eat out in Tacoma or Seattle to get something high -quality
– or one of the locations with free parking in Kent, Federal Way, or Puyallup.
73. N – We are asked to pay for something everytime I turn around. I cannot afford more. Right now
one of the reasons I shop in Auburn or Kent is because I can park without a fee. If they start
charging every place I park, I would probably not come as often.
74. N – blank
75. Y – Yes, if the limits are extended beyond the 3 hour limit. I currently don‟t even buy a parking
pass. If I were guaranteed to get a spot on my block I would gladly pay $15 -20 month.
76. N – Unless I have some very specific business, I would normally turn to chain stores with a variety
of attractions such as groceries, apparel, and household items in one place. Parking is right outside
these stores and always free.
77. N – blank
78. N – I don‟t feel that we should have to pay to park in the city where we live and already pay taxes,
on or off the street. This is not an invitation to come and see what “More than you imagined”
means. It only encourages people to go to the mall where parking is free, and the variety of stores
to shop in is abundant and varied.
79. N – With Auburn being a smaller city than Seattle people tend to expect free parking just like a
mall.
80. N – Unemployed for almost two years now with little extra funds.
81. N – Don‟t have to pay for parking when I go to the mall or to a restaurant somewhere else (except
Seattle!).
82. Y – I already pay to park downtown.
83. N – See above.
84. Y – My company will reimburse some monthly parking. It would be worth it to have a guaranteed
spot if I could get the expense reimbursed. AN.1 Page 53 of 510
B16
85. N – If you had a flourishing downtown it might make sense, but you don‟t. Ha ving patrons and
business owners pay for parking when you are trying to encourage growth is count productive.
86. N – Are you kidding?
87. N – One of the reasons I go down to Auburn is the ease of free parking. If I had to pay for parking,
I would more than likely just go to Covington or Kent.
88. N – Blank
89. N – Pay parking discourages people from coming downtown. If it‟s pay, then I‟ll go to the mall.
90. N – blank
91. N – Oh come on. We don‟t have to pay for parking at Kent Station.
92. N – I‟m already spending money to eat, parking on top of that in a small town seems nuts. Unless
it was cheap parking meters.
93. N – I already pay to have my own lot.
94. N – blank
95. Y – If it if cheaper than parking in Seattle, yes.
96. N – I think we pay enough in taxes that they should already be covered.
97. Y – Off-street, yes, on-street, no.
98. N – There should be plenty of available parking in downtown Auburn! Does Kent Station charge?
NO! It would be crazy to charge for parking in such a little town that is trying so hard to get retail
and industry into it. BAD IDEA and one more reason to avoid an area. I no longer visit Seattle
because of the insane parking rates.
99. N – Downtown Kent is just as convenient and parking is free. People would just head there or
elsewhere if Auburn charged for parking.
100. N – I don‟t think so. I‟d need more information to understand why before paying. I‟d prefer
to park in the transit parking lot for free since I pay to commute and I stay off the roads.
Thank you.
101. N – I do not live in Auburn.
102. Y – Convenience and the hope that the money gained will go back into the community.
103. N – blank
104. N – blank
105. N – I will not shop/eat downtown if I have to pay for parking.
106. N – blank
107. N – There aren‟t enough shops or reasons for me to feel like it‟s worth paying to park. If I
am going to pay for parking to walk down a street of little shops, I would rather go the
Downtown Seattle where there are enough shops to make it worthwhile.
108. N – Would rather not. At least have weekends free, like meters are free on weekends.
Paying for parking is another deterrent for coming.
109. N – Do not frequent downtown Auburn.
110. Y – I know it‟s not realistic to park for free even though it would be nice to go to a show,
etc. find parking close by for free…
111. Y – Definitely if it is in a safe, secure, well lighted lot and the price is simil ar to street
parking.
112. N – No need.
113. N – Should be free lots when visiting merchants here – like Kent Street Station.
114. Repeat
115. Y – Sounder commuting.
116. N – I cannot emphasize enough the opinion that pay for parking is detrimental to
developing/revitalizing downtown. I want Main Street to be vital, but I will NOT pay to park
there. I will use my parking money for gas and go to a big mall – sorry but that is reality.
117. N – Because I will chose to shop and eat in Federal Way, which is just as close, has more to
offer near my home, has better neighborhood coverage on bus routes, and does not charge
me for parking.
118. N – Got to use the car to get downtown…to have to pay to park will not encourage me to
shop downtown…
119. N – Because it is a stupid idea, parking meters were installed eons ago when there was
actually a “downtown” and a variety of stores to visit, it didn‟t work then and it won‟t work
now. The city will lose the few patrons they have now visiting.
120. N – I can find parking most of the time already. I don‟t want to pay for parking.
121. N – blank AN.1 Page 54 of 510
B17
122. Y – It would control things a bit.
123. Y – I am willing to pay for additional parking if there‟s something I really want to do and see
in Downtown Auburn. I believe it would be helpful if there was additional parking people
could use that‟s close to Auburn Ave Theater.
124. N – Again, we don‟t have stores that draw. We have little to offer and I‟d go elsewhere.
125. Y – blank
126. N – Would be yes if very reasonable, low price. For example, we go to places like Seattle
much less because of the expensive parking situation.
127. N – Why pay for parking if I can go to a shopping mall and park for nothing?
128. N – blank
129. N – Pay parking drives business away when there are large parking lots at the large malls
and stores.
130. N – I think paying for parking would be deter people from shopping in downtown.
131. N – I like that Auburn has enough parking that we don‟t have to pay.
132. N – If patrons go to downtown Auburn for business, entertainment, food, etc. then why
should we pay extra for parking?
133. N – blank
134. N – blank
135. N – Because there is nothing in downtown worth paying for parking.
136. N – blank
137. N – blank
138. N – Let this area be one free of expensive parking which in the long run drives people away
from the core of Auburn to the Malls and other shopping areas where parking is free. When
this occurs the downtown merchants suffer and business eventually close. This is not what‟s
needed for Auburn.
139. N – Not necessary for my purposes.
140. N – Economy dictates – another cost, I will go to the mall or elsewhere.
141. N – Parking is not an issue.
142. N – There isn‟t anything to come to obtain services from.
143. N – I‟m already paying too much for HOV and gas.
144. N – In this economy – seriously?
145. N – If you want us to come shop and otherwise spend money in downtown Auburn I
recommend not charging for parking. I can just as easily go to the mall and shop and have
free parking. Spend some money on getting a theme going in downtown Auburn. Who do
you want to come spend money? Who has the money to spend? Focus on eateries? Focus
on kids? Focus on health – get some kind of theme going and attract people to downtown
Auburn.
146. N – Just open all the vacant lots for free parking
147. N – It depends on how much an hour.
148. Y – It is a way for the city to make revenue to make it the best it can be.
Please tell us any other thoughts you have regarding parking in Downtown
Auburn.
1. Blank
2. Blank
3. As long as the parking area is well lit and attractive. I don‟t think it should take away from the feel
that the downtown area is trying to project.
4. Blank
5. Blank
6. I have been unable to find parking at times to use the train to Seattle.
7. Blank
8. Blank
9. Coordinate parking time frames with the goal for how long you want visitors to stay, shop, and
spend money downtown. If you want them to stay for three or four hours, don‟t put 2-hours limits
on parking.
10. I have none, only build in parking as a priority when development happens.
AN.1 Page 55 of 510
B18
11. Perhaps if Auburn were more concerned with the “look” of downtown, the weeds everywhere, the
embarrassing mix of classy places and dives, parking would be more of a concern.
12. This comment is not about parking, but…As mentioned in #1, the new plaza area is very confusing.
I was a passenger in a car shortly after the area opened, it was about 1 p.m., we left Sunbreak and
the driver started driving through the plaza area. Another passenger yelled out, “this is not a street
for cars – look at the pavement!” We were all confused by the metal pipes and colored pavement,
and the driver kept going.
13. You possible could use more handicap.
14. Overall, there is a problem after normal working hours during the work week. I really can‟t say.
15. Blank
16. Blank
17. There aren‟t enough spaces in the Sounder garage, so people park on the streets.
18. Repeat
19. Keep it free & give people a reason to visit because it‟s free! Pay? Hmmm, not so many reasons to
visit!
20. Along with better parking, tell the Mayor he needs to get on the stick to increase business
development in the downtown core. It looks like a ghost town.
21. If we had a shopping area like they have in Kent by the train station then I would encourage one to
be built.
22. Traffic changes at M St have made visiting the Good Will and Rite Aid a night mare to get back on
to Auburn Way North. Find a better solution than blocking the road. Now people go down to the
Walgreens to turn around verses drive an extra mile or 2 over to A Street. Wha t business wants
that. It will get a shopper hit in a parking lot, as that entrance/exit is already poor visibility. Like
wise its terrible at the Market North of Longhorns off C Street. Parking needs to let people leave
the parking area with some form of convenient route both directions. A Uturn option at the light?
23. Blank
24. Build up the downtown area so we have a need for parking.
25. I think parking is essential to serve the businesses and others in downtown.
26. Blank
27. I take the Sounder Train to Seattle. I am willing to pay for parking, but I can‟t find a pay area new
the station. Very frustrating.
28. Blank
29. If the city continues to grow it will need more parking. If companies come in the buildings they are
in or adjacent to will need some kind of parking. Zoning to create shopping, entertainment, events
should look different than zones for company buildings, apartments, and high density
neighborhoods.
30. Blank
31. I like the vision for the downtown, but it will depend a lot on the quality of restaurants,
entertainment, and shopping. I like the Kent Station concept, especially the integrating of GRCC.
32. Blank
33. Blank
34. I understand the economic issues involved re providing free parking but for now, I think the city is
going to have to bite the bullet IF they expect to see the Promena de development go forward and
Main Street to flourish – it can but not with paid parking.
35. Most of the time, I am able to find a parking space if I am willing to drive around and be creative. I
don‟t think that charging for parking is the right answer. One of the beauties of living in a smaller
community is that we do not have to commute a long distance to find quality food/entertainment
and we DO NOT have to add parking costs on to the cost of our evening out.
36. Blank
37. City has placed an emphasis on „beauty‟ and run off good business that would attract people to go
downtown Auburn. Not much left to go for.
38. Blank
39. Blank
40. Look at Tacoma‟s streetcar program.
41. The lack of parking is a perceived problem. It‟s only lacking at the one or two places where people
shop for one or major items: food and medical care.
42. Blank
43. The parking garage does not have enough parking! AN.1 Page 56 of 510
B19
44. I have enjoyed living in Auburn for the last few years and have watched Les Gove Park and many
other places be improved. We need to think positive about what we want to see and it will happen.
45. I like that what you‟re doing with the construction downtown. I think in 10+ years it will feel like a
new city and will attract businesses. BUT, and I‟m just guessing, the area north of downtown,
between 9th (Fred Meyer) and 15th, are better areas for consumers to visit. Lots of parking, better
stores. I‟m not sure who goes to downtown or why. Also, I hate the hospital. I went there once to
the ER and it was dirty and there was a long wait. I called around and there was space in
Issaquah/Bellevue so I drove all the way up there, got in faster, and had better cleaner service. I
will never visit that hospital again. I‟ll go to Covington Multicare from now on. OK, honestly, I think
of downtown Auburn as a depressed area (financially depressed) full of poor people and old, run-
down buildings. So what exactly is downtown? Maybe you should advertise more once construction
is over in order to let people know what is there, like the Kent Downtown Partnership. Does Auburn
have one? Parking is not the issue. If there was something great downtown, then I would go there
regardless of cost or availability of parking. It‟s got to be something unique that I can‟t get in
Covington or Kent, and it‟s got to be something cool that I want to ha ve or do. Good luck!
46. Blank
47. Blank
48. Try going to the farmers market and park you small car in cramped parking spaces if you can find
one, and for the dents from others who can‟t their car doors opened from the smaller that your
small car spaces. Try going to lunch along Main Street or a city office mid-day and some 4 door
long bed pickup has taken two parking spots and you can‟t find anything within two blocks. Try
being unable to walk several blocks due to disabling pain. Hey, try to find parking at the post office
as well during lunch hours, and thank you for that new street to nowhere that we can‟t park on
while trying to get to the post office. And now your want to charge us for parking.
49. Blank
50. Blank
51. First you need business to support additional parking. Rig ht now downtown does not support that.
Second, parking needs to be free so people will shop. Third, times are not so good, so why add
another expense – I think you will defeat your own purpose.
52. Blank
53. Turn Main St. into a pedestrian mall.
54. It is essential to keep parking available near restaurants, especially the corner of Main and A across
from the Titus building.
55. Blank
56. Blank
57. It will hard to balance parking for the daytime commuters versus the business community needed
free parking to attract people to their businesses.
58. A public parking garage would be great in the center of down town.
59. Blank
60. Learn from the experience in Seattle where business/restaurant owners are frustrated by excess
parking charges. It hurts business: penny wise but pound foolish! Thank you
61. Add more parking either on the street or lots so we can go and shop and eat in Downtown and help
our city.
62. Keep Auburn friendly, clean and safe.
63. Blank
64. Blank
65. I used to take the Sounder into downtown Seattle. Parking was pretty tight then. Hopefully that
has improved. I noticed some parking spots are permit only. Is that necessary? Particularly during
the weekend or off-peak times?
66. Blank
67. I think it‟s hard to think about parking in downtown Auburn when the business isn‟t dictating that
we have issues – my opinion. I want the downtown area to grow and become a spot that people
from our City – and friends from outside of our City – want to come to for entertainment, great
shopping (not dime store or “junk” outlets), and great dining experiences. Even the improvements
in and around the Super Mall are nice…let‟s get some good businesses downtown! Panera Bread,
Jimmie John‟s, Ivar‟s, Target, state of the art movie theaters, REI, Ross, etc., etc., etc.
68. Blank
69. I would like to be able to park daily so I can use the train. Right now parking is an obstacle. AN.1 Page 57 of 510
B20
70. Blank
71. Paying to park is ridiculous.
72. Parking isn‟t the issue plaguing downtown Auburn. The type and quality of business IS THE ISSUE.
Auburn is not a small town separate from the Seattle-Tacoma area. We, personally, live in Auburn,
because we found an affordable and nice home, in a good neighborhood, near family, with
commutes that we can deal with. We work in Kirkland and Tacoma, and many of our friends live in
downtown Seattle. The business community needs to raise the bar and start meeting the same
standards of quality that businesses in Belltown, Capitol Hill, and Pioneer Square meet. No, I won‟t
patronize local businesses if there is nothing there worth spending my money on.
73. Focus on the handicapped parking situation and stay away of pay for parking meters or lots.
74. Blank
75. We need a lot more parking around the transit center/train station.
76. Blank
77. Blank
78. Blank
79. With an availability of free parking in the downtown area people will continue to frequent the area
thus making it more people/business friendly unlike downtown Seattle that has seen their
downtown merchants struggling due to excessive metering and ticketing.
80. Stay pretty, stay thoughtful, stay grounded, stay that little city in the country.
81. I like to support my local business community and putting a fee on parking would “drive” me to
another community where there‟s no fee.
82. Blank
83. Bring back lots of free parking. Kent Station has the right idea with large free parking areas and a
big free parking garage. There is very little in the way of entertainment or business in downtown
that would be worth paying for parking. Build the downtown area first and then decide if you want
to drive customers away by charging for parking. Volunteer groups meeting in the downtown area
need free parking.
84. The retail section of parking garage is rarely used during the business day. It would be better if
the whole thing were available to commuters. I think there is sufficient street parking for shoppers
and diners. It would also be good if parking were permitted in one of the many empty lots (or if ole
of those lots turned into another parking garage). Or even if the hospital was willing to sell some
public parking permits to use their garage (which is never full) or their lots.
85. If your goal is to encourage growth of new shops and patrons who might stimulate revenue it
makes no sense to discourage parking with extra fees. Maybe when Auburn is thriving it might be
more reasonable. I have been a tax payer in Auburn for over 36 years and can not believe the
decisions coming out of City Hall.
86. Blank
87. I don‟t think Downtown can handle paid parking at this time. Maybe once more shopping came and
more of a downtown life develops, it could support it.
88. Blank
89. Blank
90. Blank
91. Parking is the least of my worries about downtown. There needs to be a comprehensive plan to fix
it up so that it is similar to Kent Station. Need better restaurants. Not like the stupid Applebees we
have near the Lowes. Come on. I drive all the way to Kent, Covington, and Federal Way to eat at
the restaurants there. Auburn doesn‟t have anything.
92. Blank
93. Blank
94. Blank
95. It is my opinion hat due to the parking situation, the city is missing out on tax revenue because it
has become more convenient for me to shop and eat elsewhere.
96. I feel that instead of building that open area in downtown Auburn and wasting tax payers money
on something that is not being used for parking and only an eye sore now because we have all
these concrete post everywhere on 2nd and Division Street. And the cross over into downtown, you
could have used the monies to actually finish the parking garage that was started and that would
have allowed for more parking in the area.
97. Blank
AN.1 Page 58 of 510
B21
98. NO parking charges! Talk about shooting oneself in the proverbial foot. Do NOT charge More Than
You Imagine!
99. Blank
100. Blank
101. Blank
102. Blank
103. Blank
104. Blank
105. If Auburn wants citizens to visit downtown, it should be easy and accessible. Those that
work downtown should use parking garages and more remote areas, and leave street
parking and downtown lots for citizens making shorter visits.
106. Why is down town Auburn in such a bad state? Can‟t we come up with a plan to bring
people to our down town?
107. Blank
108. Would be great to have a larger parking structure in downtown area that is free for the first
2 hours, free on weekends, or something. To encourage people to come downtown.
109. Blank
110. Blank
111. Blank
112. I love downtown Auburn I like it the way it is.
113. If we want to encourage people to shop in Auburn, make it easier for them to find free
parking. Or they will go elsewhere.
114. Repeat
115. With so many non-residents of Auburn using the Sounder station the City needs to continue
its paid parking option for commuters. I have been a paying commuter parking lot user
since it was first offered and appreciate having it as an option since I am a long term
Auburn resident.
116. Blank
117. Blank
118. Blank
119. Before a lot of time is spent on parking, you might want to work on getting an “active”
downtown, there is obviously a huge problem with the city management when businesses
are not interested. The city needs a variety of stor es, like the good old days when there was
JC Penney‟s, Kasper‟s, Ben Franklin, gift and card shops, etc. Cement with water spouting
out of it doesn‟t quite cut it. Perhaps the committee members should take a look around
them, how many shoppers do you see walking “downtown”?
120. Blank
121. Blank
122. Need much more space to accommodate Sounder users.
123. Blank
124. It‟s great to plan ahead, but what is the plan to bring decent restaurants and shops that can
sustain to the area? We aren‟t like other suburban areas. None of the surrounding towns
charge for parking…Kent, Federal Way, Enumclaw, Des Moines…how can we? We have
nothing to offer people to justify a charge for parking. That would chase away what few
people actually shop here.
125. Blank
126. Any costs of parking would have to be minimal or they would have a deterrent effect (which
would not generate parking not $ for businesses and related tax revenue).
127. Blank
128. Blank
129. Blank
130. Large easy to read signs in parking lots. I have not noticed how many stores have bike
racks. Having bike racks is an important part of parking.
131. Downtown is starting to look a lot nicer; please don‟t take up valuable real estate with ugly
parking lots! Build an underground garage, if need be.
132. Before you worry about parking, worry about how you are going to get people t o even go
downtown Auburn. Had Auburn done what Kent station did then maybe you‟d parking
issues. Downtown Auburn is missing out. How about a movie theatre, retail shopping and AN.1 Page 59 of 510
B22
descent restaurants? Hm, ring any bells? KENT STATION is where your Auburn citi zens go
for entertainment and shopping.
133. Blank
134. Blank
135. If there was more “free” available parking, it might inspire more business to set-up shop in
the area. Have you seen what they did in Kent? Auburn could use the same makeover.
136. Blank
137. Blank
138. Do not make costly changes. People seem to enjoy the freedom of not hassling with parking
in downtown Auburn and as I see it helps the merchants also.
139. Blank
140. If you want people downtown, don‟t charge for parking – I thought Auburn was thinking of
becoming a wine tasting city – that would attract people – but make parking free.
141. The train station is the only thing that creates parking issues. The garage is full by 6:30 so
the overflow spills over onto the streets of both downtown and the surrounding
neighborhoods. So during business hours there is the possibility of a parking issue but when
I am in town on weekends I can park just about anyplace I want within a couple of blocks.
142. Parking isn‟t the issue, it is lack of availability of products and services. Fingernail polishers
don‟t cut it.
143. Wheelchair accessible areas should be readily available, the rest of us can walk.
144. Blank
145. I do like the Sunday Market and can‟t wait for it to get going again on June 10 th!
146. Downtown Auburn does not have much to offer, so there is not parking problem.
147. I don‟t mind walking from the parking lot to my destination, but I do not like going around
in circles looking for a parking spot. More free parking spaces are definitely appreciated!
148. As mentioned above we would be very interested in talking to someone about how we can
help manage your parking needs. We can work on many levels depending on each situation.
We monitor time limited parking, we run garages we even valet for special events or when
there is just not enough space to fit the demand.
Business & Property Owners
Please tell us your top 3 concerns with parking in Downtown Auburn.
1. 1) My primary concern as a home owner is that folks who ride the train drive their cars into town
and take up a too much of the residential parking because enough parking has not been provided
for them at the train station. This creates a real problem for folks who live downtown near the train
station who have no where else to park their cars when they come home from work.
2) My secondary concern is that I don‟t feel like our city officials are doing enough to determine the
negative impact of growth upon the home owners in the city. It seems to me that they are more
interest in trying to figure out ways to generate new tax revenue than they are in ensuring that
area residents are not negatively impacted.
3) My third concern is that the city is not adequately finding a way to charge commuters and new
businesses to our area for the negative impact they have on our roads and infrastructure. The
roads are under tremendous stress and now the city expects homeowners to pay for the repair that
should be paid for by the folks actually causing the increase wear and tear…NOT FAIR! If I came
over to your house and tore up your yard you would want me to pay for it wouldn‟t you?
2. 1) With the addition of the light rail station, the parking for residents in the West Main
neighborhoods has been taken over by the light rail users. The solution to limit the parking to 2
hours for parking in front of residences on West Main solved nothing for homeowners and basically
has made that parking completely unavailable to us. As the downtown area grows the problems will
increase and if past solutions are nay indication of future solutions, residential property owners are
the ones who will suffer.
2) The lack of parking near our homes affects our property values in a negative way.
3)
3. 1) Lots of permit parking in Auburn has made finding a parking place more difficult.
AN.1 Page 60 of 510
B23
2) Commuter parking needs are not keeping up with demand causing street parking to fill up for
the day.
3)
4. 1) Long term parking for owners of businesses and their employees does not seem to be readily
available.
2)
3)
5. 1) My first concern is the parking on one side of the street if on larger streets like E we could park
on both sides it might slow down traffic.
2) The lack of a plan if we want large amounts of people in town then any development needs to
accommodate parking.
3)
6. 1) It sucks…permit parking is not the answer to bringing shoppers to Auburn. We pay the ADA fees
and then you take parking off the table and start other projects…Where the hell is our money
going…and that metal arch is the second most STUPID thing done…1st is a Welcome to Auburn sign
at the bottom of Peasley Canyon Rd…Where the hell do you think they were going?
2)
3)
7. 1) None. There is little to park for and most of the businesses use what there is for employee and
their own parking.
2) Not sure there is a pressing need for parking. There needs to perhaps be a change of attitude
about parking and distance. Need a lot more activity before parking is an issue.
3)
8. 1) Nowhere for employees/owners to park.
2) Nowhere for clients to park.
3) Nowhere to park.
9. 1) Not enough parking spots open to the general public.
2) Where there is parking, there isn‟t any shops or offices to support those spots. Who wants to
park and walk a distance to get to their destination?
3)
10. 1) There is not enough parking for business owners and employees.
2) There is not enough secure parking for business owners and employees.
3)
11. 1) Off-street parking is limited.
2)
3)
12. 1) Others parking illegally on private property.
2) Professional appearance and maintenance of parking and associated landscaping.
3) Trip hazards on sidewalks.
13. 1) I am concerned that the parking in the old Mels Lumber space is prohibited.
2) I am concerned that the Cavanaugh land remains as a graveled lake, and that the sidewalk is
asphalt rather than cement as required, I believe, required by code. I am concerned it seems to be
reserved for contractors only.
3) I am concerned that the city owns more and more land downtown and appears that it is
restricting more of its parking to its employees and less to the citizens.
14. 1) My only concern at this time is that the residential parking zone (RPZ) remains in place for the
residents of D St NW. The implementation of the RPZ has dramatically changed what was difficult
situation with commuters filling all of the parking and leaving residents with no place to park.
2)
3)
15. 1) Keeping what unlimited parking there is along streets.
2) Keeping or having 3 hour parking in lots. We have folks who come in to study and might be here
a while.
3)
16. 1) Space near building, 329 East Main.
2) Attractive landscape.
3) Sitting area.
17. 1) Safe, nearby parking for my medical practice of 20. AN.1 Page 61 of 510
B24
2) The ongoing battle over parking in the garage owned jointly by the City of Auburn and Auburn
Regional Medical Center (soon to be Multicare)
3) Safe, nearby parking for our patients.
18. 1) I have none really as I think parking is really good! I am one block off Main and B.
2)
3)
19. 1) Misplacement of major available parking.
2) Open spaces that require a permit during peak hours while 3 hour parking is full.
3) Lack of enforcement. It should be done daily on every street and lot.
20. 1) Tickets when parking near the transit station. It is almost like you guys mark out an area so you
can ticket us.
2) Streets need to be resurfaced.
3) Hate the jogs at the corners. Narrows the street.
21. 1) Confused, jumbled zones…1-hour, 2-hour, loading, etc.
2) Uneven parking enforcement. One old guy I dealt with is an ass IMHO. Wasn‟t worth the $40 of
my time to fight it, though.
3)
22. 1) Massive abuse of the two hour parking limit. We need regular parking enforcement.
2) 15 minute touch-and-go parking spots. Our average customer is only in our store for 10
minutes.
3) There is no signage next to old Cavanugh‟s lot and A Street and Main, headed south. Parking is
abused there. Possible Sound Transit riders or downtown employees?
23. 1) Repeat
2) Repeat
3) Repeat
24. 1) Not enough street parking available near my building.
2)
3)
25. 1) Stalls for downtown parking.
2) Parking coming from the train.
3)
26. 1) Need more access, easier to park and shop elsewhere, no parallel parking required, no traffic
congestion.
2)
3)
27. 1) Customer parking.
2) Employee parking.
3)
28. 1) Need more free parking for residents and customers.
2) Need more parking during special events.
3)
29. 1) There is hardly any for employees or clients the police department took where my employees
used to park.
2)
3)
30. 1) Not enough parking.
2) Parking should be free for visitors/customers.
3) City should provide parking structures for use by businesses and customers.
How does parking in Downtown Auburn impact your business operations?
1. N/A
2. N/A
3. Because our building is so close to hospital, people who visit like t o park in our private parking area
even though it‟s clearly marked for apartment tenants only.
AN.1 Page 62 of 510
B25
4. We have parking on our own property for our vehicles, but I sometimes work with an attorney in
the downtown area and have to park for several hours if I drive instead of walk and I am always
concerned about getting a ticket.
5. N/A
6. Squashes it.
7. It doesn‟t affect us as we have our own.
8. There is nowhere to park for more than 3 hours during the day and if we have clients and other
attorneys at our office for deposition or settlement conference – everyone has to leave the office
and move their car after 3 hours. I realize you call this chain parking but because of the limited
parking in Auburn there is no other choice.
9. We are located near the train station and we can park in that building if we can‟t find any parking.
It would be helpful if there was more street parking.
10. Clients are concerned about the time limits for parking on the street.
11. N/A as we own a vacant lot only.
12. More street and public lot parking is needed. Peop le park on our private property and impair
business that our tenants are trying to do.
13. I am a landlord, but what has the greatest impact are the yellow plastic stakes down the middle of
main street immediately east of the Sounder railroad tracks. The exten t east should be shortened
to permit northward turns onto B Street. Be creative and don‟t use safety as an excuse.
14. Parking in downtown Auburn does not affect business operations as this is a residential address on
D St NW.
15. It is fine right now.
16. People want to park close.
17. If we do not have available parking near our clinic, for both our staff, our physicians and our
patients, we will lose business and be forced to consider relocation to another city.
18. I have the ability to tell my clients parking is free and within 12 block from me, so it impacts me in
a positive way.
19. Lack of daily enforcement of rule on Main St and in surrounding parking areas makes for no loss of
spaces from movement and loss of spaces from violation of the rules. Limited parking limits
customers and businesses from wanting to rent on Main Street leaving significant open spaces.
20. There is not enough parking on Auburn Ave near hospital.
21. Employees and visitors have to park more than a block away from our office.
22. Elderly have difficulty finding parking spots that are fairly close to our store. Many of the customers
are just dropping off and picking up repairs, and they are unable to find parking spots. We have
had complaints that they need to circle the block multiple times to find a space to park . Special
events at the Auburn Avenue Theatre during the Holidays captivate all the parking on Main Street
and adjacent lots. This also occurs during the Holiday Season, which is our busiest time of year.
Most shows are usually around 5:30 to 9:00pm during the holidays, take ALL parking for customers
shopping downtown that aren‟t attending shows. We use to stay open late, but we found it wasn‟t
worth while financially since there was absolutely no parking left. We realize that a lot of people
come to downtown Auburn, and we have the opportunity to show them our store, but most of
them, like normal are late to the show, and in a hurry and aren‟t in the shopping mood. Our
Holiday evening business use to be quite good with men, now it is non-existent.
Concerning my apartments, Auburn Court Apartments, I don‟t have any concerns with parking
because there are 35 off-street parking spaces.
23. Repeat
24. Tenants and their guests park in my building‟s assigned parking spaces all of the time.
25. Yes, but the 2 hour parking has helped.
26. Customers found it easier to park without all the wasted money on “beautification” taking up
spaces.
27. Parking near restaurant is only 3 hour parking. Employees cannot park for extended period while
working a shift. I also have customers in banquets that last sometimes for over 3 hours. Where can
they park?
28. Customers come to Auburn because free parking makes it easy for them. Without free easy
parking, they will go to the malls or somewhere else.
AN.1 Page 63 of 510
B26
29. Employees have to park quite a distance away and often get tickets because it‟s unclear. There
also isn‟t any handicapped parking close to my business. We have elderly employees and clients
that makes it difficult to find a spot. My clients have decreased significantly over the last 4 years.
30. Inability to provide cost effective parking has resulted in our project not being competitive with
other areas both in Auburn and elsewhere.
What do you see as the City’s primary role in parking in the Downtown?
1. The city must do a better job of managing the growth of businesses and the increase in train
commuters to make sure that parking is considered in the environmental impact study during the
planning states. If it can‟t be done without a negative impact on homeowners then it shouldn‟t be
done, period. Auburn is not the next Bellevue and never will be.
2. Before allowing new businesses to open or expand that said business needs to show that they can
provide adequate parking for their customers without impacting the surrounding areas.
3. Ensuring it‟s available so we can come downtown for services and shopping.
4. Business owners should have some parking accommodations.
5. Enforcement we have several people in this neighborhood who are illegally parking.
6. Overstepping their boundaries.
7. Make the environment a much more pleasant experience. The new plaza does not accomplish this
and is rather oppressive.
8. That there be plenty of FREE parking – and more than 3 hour parking. How are we supposed to run
a business when we don‟t even have anywhere to park?
9. I don‟t think the City has really done anything for the parking.
10. Provide free and ample parking.
11. Blank
12. Create parking for customers is #1. Employee parking is also needed.
13. What can I say? The city has taken complete control of parking.
14. The City needs to ensure there is adequate parking and/or facilitate the development of private
parking lots/facilities.
15. Maintaining.
16. Provide.
17. My Primary Goal: Maintain a working relationship with Auburn Regional (Multicare), Jeff Oliphant,
our building owner – to continue to allow our staff and patients to have access to parking in the
jointly owned garage. City‟s Primary Goal: Safe, well lit, nearby parking for businesses located in
downtown Auburn.
18. Well at some point I think we will need to see the City use it for revenue purposes beyond permits.
That is actually a good thing since it will mean people are coming down town in greater numbers.
19. Enforcement of current policies to evaluate effectiveness of parking restrictions. Build a parking
structure along Main St between Auburn Way and A Street that will allow more downtown parking
and will encourage more businesses to occupy space.
20. Make all parking lots accessible to all cars.
21. Blank
22. ENFORCEMENT! ENFORCEMENT! ENFORCEMENT! And add additional 15 minute parking spots. Until
habitual offenders are dealt with, we really won‟t know how much usable parking we have. And I
believe that one hour parking is sufficient, because two hour parking, unenforced becomes 4 hour
to all day parking. Apartments in downtown Auburn are also consuming a lot of parking spots.
(Max House, JC Penney‟s, and the Rainbow Café side upstairs apartments) Convenience of parking
makes a huge difference in people wanting to actually get out and shop downtown. Parking space
turns is the name of the game.
23. Repeat
24. Provide enough parking area for the businesses and residents.
25. Help the down town merchants I‟m not one.
26. Make sure vehicles are parked legally.
27. Blank
28. The City should establish more parking.
29. Blank
30. See Answer 4 below.
AN.1 Page 64 of 510
B27
Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking lots and
facilities in Downtown?
1. It depends…I think that every solution creates a new problem and so this needs to be studied to
determine if it has a negative impact on homeowners. If it does, then answer is absolutely “NO”.
2. Y – If this could be done off of main street and the properties were well maintained and lit. Also,
the 2nd parking structure for Sound Transit should be built as originally promised before this
happens.
3. N – I believe it will keep people from coming to Auburn downtown.
4. Blank
5. Y – However all future structures should be built with parking structures should be in the code.
6. Y
7. I think the parking for a downtown core is the collective responsibility of all involved. Individual lots
eat up valuable space and spread the commercial distances out, someth ing you don‟t want in a
downtown core. What you want is activity and proximity.
8. N – Between the fees collected just to do business in the City we should be able to park
somewhere so we can run our business to be able to pay the license fees to the City.
9. It would be beneficial to have the city to have more shops in Downtown to encourage more parking
lots.
10. N
11. Y – If parking is an issue, let someone develop them if you can‟t.
12. Y
13. Are you talking about private for profit parking lots? If you are, you will chase all commercial
activity to other nearby areas.
14. Y
15. If they are unlimited and free.
16. Y
17. N – My preference would be other types of businesses, such as shops and restaurants, but parking
is always welcome, unless lots become cost prohibitive.
18. If by private, you mean pay to park, I don‟t know. If people are willing to pay, then the City could
take advantage of that and charge at their lots. I believe development has certain provable metrics
and if that means private parking advances business more than public then we will probably see
that happen organically.
19. Y – Absolutely if properly placed to benefit the business corridor.
20. N
21. Blank
22. Y
23. Repeat
24. Y
25. Y
26. N – Parking is an issue already.
27. I do think we need more parking.
28. N
29. Y
30. The City has discouraged private parking lots/facilities by requiring only half of what successful
businesses need to function. I assume the rationale is to encourage development. But the problem
is the parking is needed. Thus, the City (like many other cities) has a moral obligation to make up
the difference – through municipal lots and structures financed through tax-exempt bonds, and
repayment through (a) reasonable business/employer/long term parking fees (no charge for 2 hour
or less parking) and (b) property tax assessments on benefitted properties.
Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in
Downtown Auburn?
1. N
2. N
AN.1 Page 65 of 510
B28
3. N
4. N
5. N
6. N
7. N – Most of us have already done so both individually and collectively in the lots the City is now
taking and in the BIA which was a parking program in the beginning. The City has also squandered
several opportunities for a downtown parking structure that would have located all that would ever
be required in a central location. I think the burden is now on the City and the citizens to decide if
they want to park downtown. Likely the answer is what for and no.
8. N – But I think that the commuters who do not pay an fees to the City should be made to pay for
their own parking – they are not sitting in the city of Auburn all day, visiting restaurants and
shopping like owners and employees are doing at lunch – so why all the free all day parking for
them?
9. N – At this time. If the Downtown area was similar to Sumner and/or Puyallup then maybe a fee
would be fine.
10. N
11. N – But we would be interested in selling our lot located at 18 W Main St. It would make great
parking area as it sits adjacent to parking on the South side of the lot.
12. N – Rents are already very low and high vacancy. This will further drive businesses out of
Downtown Auburn.
13. N – I‟m not willing to pay. Is the city government willing to pay? After all they are the major land
owner. The city government should have been more conservative with the so called traffic impact
fees levied.
14. N
15. N
16. Already did, city took away street parking in front on East Main, in exchange for lot, then took lot
for court parking.
17. I cannot speak to this as we are owned by Valley Medical Center. Our preference would be to not
pay for additional parking.
18. Y – I already do and will continue to use permits as needed. I talked to realtor yesterday who told
me he pays over $300 a month for business parking, ~$100 a year is a screamin deal, not to
mention there is plenty of free parking as well.
19. N – We should focus on free parking to bring shoppers into the area.
20. N
21. N – This isn‟t Seattle.
22. Y
23. Repeat
24. N
25. N
26. N
27. I cannot pay for all of my employees and customers. It might affect my business if customers had
to pay to park to patronize my business. My employees are limited to what they can afford so it
might be difficult to pay to park while working.
28. N – Not as a customer or small business owner. As a customer, if I had to pay for parking in
Auburn, I will shop somewhere else. As a small business owner, paid parking will turn off some
customers.
29. It would be an expense I couldn‟t afford for my employees with the decrease in business there. I
would be willing to rent a few spots during tax season for a reasonable price.
30. Y – Through long term tax exempt bonds/special assessments on properties that are benefitted.
See above answer.
Stakeholders
What are you top 3 concerns with parking in Downtown Auburn?
1. Anonymous
AN.1 Page 66 of 510
B29
1) Lack of: parking close by for customers and residents, comprehensive planning for parking, and
promised second Sound Transit garage.
2) Enforcement: good for preventing all-day commuter parking, too hard on long-term parking for
businesses when no other parking available (ex. lots taken away by Division St construction).
3) Understanding where parking actually exists, especially for those who live here.
2. Anonymous
1) Not a lack of parking – there won‟t be a lack of parking until there are customers
2) Too much enforcement, especially for 2-hour parking. Students are at classes that often go beyond
3 hours and having to move cars is a inconvenience/distraction.
3. Anonymous
1) The potential shortage of parking once redevelopment blocks redevelop.
2) Spots occupied by commuters now and conflict when blocks around transit center redevelop.
3) Currently, parking is adequate.
4. Anonymous
1) How do we persuade Sound Transit to fulfill its commitment to a second garage?
2) How to let people know the Promenade is now open for parking? How to let people know where
parking is available in general?
3) How to move storeowners and employees past a sense of entitlement for parking?
5. Anonymous
1) No concern with parking, especially since I usually drive over to Main St west of Auburn Way after
business hours.
6. Anonymous
1) Availability of employee parking. I currently subsidize half the price of permits my employees
purchase, and I am completely OK with that.
2) Enforcement, in the sense of people driving down the wrong way in the Safeway lot, etc.
3) Enforcement, in terms of the current inconsistency (no ticket one day, ticket the next). This is a
double-edged sword though.
7. Anonymous
1) My top concern is the area immediately outside the do or and how often cars park along the
building. It‟s a safety hazard with the blind corners. It would be nice to have a loading zone just
outside our door. Being able to access our front door is important.
2) The concurrence of events here, upstairs, next door, and across the street.
3) Overall, there‟s not really any parking problems right now, but when these blocks get redeveloped
will there be parking planned?
8. Anonymous
1) They went a little overboard by Safeway for employee parking and not enough for customers.
2) I have people parking on Division to walk 2-3 blocks to shop. This is very difficult for the elderly
and handicap.
9. Anonymous
1) There aren‟t really any concerns with regards to parking in downtown Auburn.
AN.1 Page 67 of 510
B30
2) I guess the only thing that is kind of a concern would be non-store parkers in our lot. They‟re a bit
tricky to tow since even if they aren‟t shopping at the store at the moment, they could still be
potential customers who will shop or have shopped with us at a different time.
10. Anonymous
1) My opinion is that we don‟t have a parking problem, we have a people problem.
2) The internal abuse of folks chain parking, parking in the Safeway lot, parking in the Parker Paint
lot, etc…We need to free up key parking for our “Guests”.
What do you believe the public perception of parking availability in the
Downtown is?
1. Anonymous
Poor – though typically no resounding complaints from customers. People generally do not stay for more
than 3 hours. Peak parking on weekends/at night – are all signs indicate unrestricted parking outside of
M-F 9-6?
2. Anonymous
Okay from the general public, but not so much the businesses. I have never received any complaints from
customers.
3. Anonymous
Customers see that there is parking, also available in Safeway, so no complaints. Complaints are due to
tickets – perhaps softer enforcement is necessary? Permit parking signs cause confusion – people don‟t
come already, so let‟s not have that be an additional deterrent.
4. Anonymous
Perception is worse than what it is in reality. How do we change this perception and alert people that lots
of parking is available?
5. Anonymous
People often ask where to park and end up parking in the parking lot for the shopping center across the
street, rather than on-street or in the public lot also across the street. People assume any open lot is okay
to park in. Not much attention is paid to signs. The „No Parking‟ sign just outside is confusing to many
people because they don‟t see that it only applies to that portion rather than the entire block.
6. Anonymous
People used to inadvertently park in permit spots and receive tickets.
7. Anonymous
That sometimes it‟s difficult to find parking, depending on the time of the day.
8. Anonymous
(blank)
9. Anonymous
AN.1 Page 68 of 510
B31
I‟m not too sure, but I‟m assuming it has gotten better, with the transit garage built and all. In terms of
any specific customer complaints, there hasn‟t really been any.
10. Anonymous
(blank)
How does parking in Downtown Auburn impact your business operations?
1. Anonymous
Yes, it is negatively impacted.
2. Anonymous
There are no current impacts.
3. Anonymous
Not so much. It does, however, affect the businesses with whom I network.
4. Anonymous
It was difficult when Division St was closed, but overall it has not really imp acted us. Board meetings are
1-1/2 hours long, so 2-hour limit is okay.
5. Anonymous
There is plenty of parking around. We also have our own parking behind here, which we share with other
tenants in the building. Since there is no loading zone though, we often load/unload in the „No Parking‟
area in front.
6. Anonymous
It doesn‟t. Permitting is a good solution to employee parking, even though some remain adverse to paying
even for a subsidized permit. Right now, unused spots at Safeway also abl e to be exploited.
The only thing that affects us is when employees park too close to the building.
7. Anonymous
It was good when the streets reopened! I work with Sunbreak for use of their lot when they are not open,
so parking is not really a huge issue. The only time it gets kind of crazy is around 4-6pm when the train
commuters are coming back, restaurant business is coming in, and kids are coming here for class. Also,
the 15-minute limits around that time make it tough for parents to park and stay for class.
8. Anonymous
Parking for me is fine. I have 4 in the garage, 4 in front (now that street is open) and the lot across the
street. I know many on the main drag have more issues because of too many restricted spots.
9. Anonymous
It doesn‟t really affect us either way since we currently have an ample-sized lot. I guess generally, the
more parking there is the better.
10. Anonymous
AN.1 Page 69 of 510
B32
(blank)
What do you see as the City’s primary role in parking in the Downtown?
1. Anonymous
Not any more than their role at present – already too proactive with enforcement. Comprehensive
planning. Educating people to go to the right places.
2. Anonymous
Reviewing existing conditions and policies for adequacy, especially as the parking needs change over time.
3. Anonymous
Using BIA money towards constructing a parking garage (or several if development pans out). No matter
how developed, people are still going to drive here.
4. Anonymous
Parking enforcement, if made to be 3 hours instead of 2. How to promote permit parking and that you are
not entitled to parking unless you own it?
5. Anonymous
Just to provide, but I don‟t see much of a role on this end of Main. On the other side of Auburn Way,
perhaps, which has more businesses and the possibility for more.
6. Anonymous
Nothing further than what it currently does now since it works and many other methods have already
been tested over the years. Perhaps the only other thing the City could do would be to change all parking
to 3 hours, to allow people to do multi ple things while downtown.
7. Anonymous
Making sure parking is provided with development. Enforcement, but it‟s a double-edged sword.
Commuters park in the lot outside all day long. The 15-minute time limit around 4-6pm is also when
parents are most likely to park (for about 90 minutes: 15 minutes before, 60 minutes for class, 15
minutes after class).
8. Anonymous
(blank)
9. Anonymous
To make sure that all businesses and development are „self-parked‟. What I mean by that is essentially
having development regulations that require enough parking depending on the business. For smaller
businesses, street parking would probably be okay. I‟m not saying that Auburn is doing this, but I know a
lot of other jurisdictions that have recently gone down the path of eliminating their parking requirements.
While I understand the whole concept of walking, transit, and live/work/play all in one place, I think it
sounds a little better in a seminar than in practice since the reality is, people are still going to drive. S o
basically, I would not like to see the domino effect of not en ough parking pushing people to the store‟s lot.
10. Anonymous
AN.1 Page 70 of 510
B33
(blank)
Do you think the City should encourage and allow more private parking lots and
facilities in Downtown?
1. Anonymous
It works in downtown Seattle, but I‟m not sure we‟re there yet. “Internal” parking, where the façade is
reserved, is preferable and surface lots up and down Main Street not so much. The bulk of trade parking
works fine on-street and there should be residential parking off-street.
2. Anonymous
No, I doubt any customers would come if there is paid parking. I would most likely leave town.
3. Anonymous
No, as the City would lose control over the parking situation, possibly resulting in $10/20/day parking.
4. Anonymous
Yes, it would take the burden off the City.
5. Anonymous
N/A
6. Anonymous
Hard to say, as it would depend on the nature of the business the parking lots/facilities will serve.
7. Anonymous
I‟m not sure what you mean, but if you are talki ng about private paid surface parking or garages, then no.
We‟re a “small town”. We need the development first to support it. My patrons probably would not pay
and I cannot afford to validate.
8. Anonymous
(blank)
9. Anonymous
(blank)
10. Anonymous
(blank)
Are you willing to pay for additional off-street and on-street parking in
Downtown Auburn?
1. Anonymous
No – we were already charged for parking (through LID fees under C2?) and the 84 stalls code has
required us to have are not actually available to us.
AN.1 Page 71 of 510
B34
2. Anonymous
No – I would leave town. The tone of the question sounds like the city wants more revenue. There are
already additional fees assessed by the BIA (and TADA?).
3. Anonymous
I think I pay enough as is, but would be okay with using BIA fees towards this.
4. Anonymous
I would prefer to apply BIA dues towards additional parking.
5. Anonymous
N/A
6. Anonymous
I have already spent quite a bit of money on LID fees, but I am okay with paying for maintenance and in
the future, if demand increases due to development.
7. Anonymous
I already feel like the BIA fees aren‟t really going towards anything…it feels like there is no additional
benefit of being downtown.
8. Anonymous
(blank)
9. Anonymous
Again, I could go either way, but I in general, more parking is better, however it is provided.
10. Anonymous
(blank)
Do you have any other concerns or issues regarding Downtown parking?
1. Anonymous
Keeping parking unrestricted after 5/6 pm helps especially with business here, dance st udio next door,
and downtown events. Parking packed during weekends, but people are walking around so that is fine and
downtown is enlivened. Have other communities‟ parking strategies been studied?
2. Anonymous
In South Seattle, we could give customers validations to avoid towing while parked at a private lot owned
by the same landlord of our building. Here, parking limits hinder people from say, spending an hour -and-
a-half at Rottle‟s and then going elsewhere.
3. Anonymous
AN.1 Page 72 of 510
B35
I currently pay more for having my own parking (taxes). Yet, other businesses who do not do so, but
sometimes share the same parking, complain and otherwise do not consider parking before choosing to
locate here. Also, employers/owners often abuse parking.
I would like to see consistency in parking restrictions (ex. all permit or all public in one lot, all 3-hour
across the City, etc.)
I would not like to see expensive parking as is the case in Seattle.
I would also not like to see the development standards (esp. with regards to parking requirements)
compromised while attracting development downtown.
Perhaps, work with Safeway to turn spaces into garage?
4. Anonymous
Parking is not a concern.
If the City is going to add more parking, either private or public is fine, whatever wo rks the best. On-
street time limits should be changed from 2 to 3 hours.
Ingress/egress site distance issues exist for our own parking lot – perhaps prohibit parking too close to
the driveway?
Promote the availability of permit parking!
5. Anonymous
Justice Center users do tend to park outside of the Justice Center lot.
Perhaps convert underused private parking lots into metered lots?
6. Anonymous
Parking is the least of downtown‟s problems, as long as we keep on providing time-limited parking for
consumers and affordable long-term parking for employees.
7. Anonymous
(blank)
8. Anonymous
(blank)
9. Anonymous
Not really. We have always had a good relationship with the city and we don‟t intend on moving out of
downtown. Overall, I would just not like to see if it got to a point that other parkers are taking our
parking.
10. Anonymous
If we can walk a few more feet or an extra block the „locals‟ [business owners and employees] can
have free parking!
Convert all free or 1-hour street parallel parking to 3-hour throughout the BIA.
Add „Guest parking‟ to timed street signage and parking lot time painted spaces.
Leave 3-hour on the first 2 rows of parking behind Main St (Safeway side). AN.1 Page 73 of 510
B36
In the same lot, convert all other „timed‟ spaces and Blue permit parking to free parking for
residents, business owners and employees, the back 2 rows.
Convert permit parking to 3-hour in „Sunbreak‟ lot.
Work with property owners to clearly mark private lots.
Paint/stripe all parallel parking on all of Main Street.
AN.1 Page 74 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Minutes - June 25, 2012
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Draft Minutes - June 25, 2012
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For information only, see attached minutes.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:CA.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 75 of 510
Planning and Community
Development
June 25, 2012 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nancy Backus called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in Annex Conference
Room 2 located on the second floor of the One Main Professional Plaza, One East
Main Street, Auburn, Washington.
A. Roll Call
Chair Nancy Back, Vice-Chair John Partridge, and Member John Holman were
present. Also present were Mayor Pete Lewis, Planning and Development
Director Kevin Snyder, Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Parks, Arts and
Recreational Director Daryl Faber, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Economic
Development Manager Doug Lein, Economic Development Planner William
Thomas, Principal Planner Jeff Dixon, and Planning Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the public present were: Councilmember Wagner, Councilmember
Osborne, Ashley Gonski, Scot Pondelick, and David Clark, AIA.
B. Announcements
1. Presentation (Snyder)
Ashley Gonsky - Washington State University (WSU) Project
Citizen Survey
Councilmember Wagner introduced Arizona State University graduate
student Ashley Gonsky to provide a presentation on the Washington State
University (WSU) Project Citizen Survey. In 2010 WSU junior architect
students participated in a project to design buildings for the Auburn
Environmental Park (AEP) district; emphasizing "Green Aesthetics". Ms.
Gonsky stated the AEP is about new, clean business and preservation of
sensitive environmental areas. Along with Green Aesthetics the goal of the
AEP is to provide environmental educational and recreational opportunities to
inspire the citizens of Auburn. In an effort to bring quantification to what the
Citizens understand or think about "Green Aesthetics", Ms. Gonsky
conducted a survey of 60 citizens ranging in age from 30 to 80 years old.
A majority of the people surveyed wanted more manufacturing within the
district. The other survey responders wanted small businesses in the district
for shopping similar to downtown. Some supported residential because of
location and transportation accessability.
Page 1 of 4
CA.A Page 76 of 510
Ms. Gonsky felt the question, "Is manufacturing within the district
appropriate", was limited and if a broader question was asked survey
responders may have chose mixed-use zoning. In her opinion Ms.
Gonsky believes mixed-use zoning was appropriate for the AEP District as it
provides direct application to the ideas of a manufacturing village and how,
under one site, buildings can be placed with multiple varieties of functions
that are appealing to the public.
Citizens preferred smaller, modest buildings as these would be consistent
with Auburn's aesthetics. The ability to see the cost and where dollars were
spent to improve the quality of life through green aesthetics was of concern
to those surveyed. Buildings blending with the environment and including a
water attachment system and more green design were the favorite projects
chosen. Water preservation and management was an important part of the
projects to citizens. Brick was the material citizens thought would preserve
the historical element of Auburn, and wood was the No. 1 recyclable building
material chosen by the citizens. Citizens preferred keeping the landscape
natural with increased wetland plantings to encourage walking the site.
One goal of the WSU project was to provide information to aid planners in
creating a series of design standards/guidelines and zoning codes to support
the AEP district. The survey will assist staff in understanding what citizens
feel is important and aid in the process. Ms. Gonsky stated placement
through green aesthetics will benefit the AEP District and provide real
potential for the City of Auburn.
C. Agenda Modifications
There were no agenda modifications.
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes - June 11, 2012 (Snyder)
Vice-Chair Partridge moved and Member Holman seconded to approve the June
11, 2012 minutes as written.
Motion Unanimously Carried. 3-0
III. ACTION
A. Resolution 4828 (Faber)
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington,
authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the cultural development
authority of King County ("4Culture") and authorizing the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the necessary contracts to accept said funds.
Vice-Chair Partridge moved and Member Holman seconded to forward Resolution
No. 4828 to full City Council for approval.
Page 2 of 4
CA.A Page 77 of 510
Motion Carried Unanimously. 3-0
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. May 2012 Sales Tax Summary (Coleman)
Finance Director Shelley Coleman provided a sales tax overview explaining what
the different economic sectors within the city are and how much each sector
contributes to sales tax. Certain sectors have benefited from incentives passed by
City Council to enhance and attract businesses within the City in certain sectors.
This review may aid in determining if other areas would benefit from those
enhancements.
Retail trade is the No. 1 sector of sales tax revenue with services, automotive,
construction, wholesale trade, manufacturing, and transportation/warehousing
following in descending order. Previous incentives have been focused on the
manufacturing sector; providing an increase in employment numbers. Committee
and staff reviewed the top economic sectors and how those tax revenues are
provided.
B. 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Dixon)
Principal Planner Jeff Dixon reviewed the upcoming 2012 Annual Comprehensive
Plan Amendments. The City will be processing city - initiated amendments, both
policy/text and map amendments. Private proposals, privately-initiated
Comprehensive Plan amendment applications, were accepted by the City of
Auburn until Friday, June 8, 2012. Two private - initiated map amendments have
been submitted.
Principal Planner Dixon reviewed the draft 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
schedule staff will be using to review and process those amendments over the
next six (6) months.
C. Director's Report (Snyder)
Planning Director Kevin Snyder updated Committee on Planning activities. There
are three public hearings scheduled for the July 3, Planning Commission meeting.
D. PCDC Status Matrix (Snyder)
There were no changes or additions requested for the matrix.
Page 3 of 4
CA.A Page 78 of 510
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before Committee, the meeting was adjourned
at 5:57 p.m.
DATED THIS ___________ DAY OF ______________, 2012.
___________________________________ _____________________________
Nancy Backus - Chair Tina Kriss - Planning Secretary
Page 4 of 4
CA.A Page 79 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4831
Date:
June 29, 2012
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4831
Revised TIP No. 43
Current TIP No. 43
Project Vicinity Map
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
That Planning and Community Development Committee recommend that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 4831.
Background Summary:
The purpose of this Resolution is for the City Council to set a time and date for a public hearing to amend
the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program, to revise an existing project for which the City is now
eligible to receive grant funding.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dowdy/Para
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:ACT.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.A Page 80 of 510
---------------------------
Resolution No. 4831
June 28, 2012
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 4831
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, SETTING A HEARING DATE IN
RELATION TO AMENDING THE 2012-2017 TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
PURSUANT TO R.C.W. CHAPTER 35.77
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2012, the City of Auburn was provided
notification by the Washington State Department of Transportation about a
grant award in the amount of $2,333,108 in funds based on an application that
the City submitted on October 28, 2011 for Auburn Way South (SR-164)
Corridor Safety Improvements; and
WHEREAS, as part of the award, the City is required to add the project
to the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the
Washington State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in order to be
eligible to obligate the awarded funds; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires that the legislative body of each
City is required to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for the ensuing six years. The program may at any
time be revised by a majority of the legislative body of a City, but only after
conducting a public hearing.
ACT.A Page 81 of 510
---------------------------
Resolution No. 4831
June 28, 2012
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Resolution is for the City
Council to set a time and date for a public hearing to amend the 2012-2017
Transportation Improvement Program, to revise an existing project for which the
City is now eligible to receive grant funding.
Section 2. NOTICE OF HEARING. The Council hereby directs that a
notice specifying the time and place of the public hearing shall be published one
time in a newspaper of general circulation and the notice shall also be posted in
three public places. Such public notice shall precede the public hearing by at
least 10 days.
Section 3. DATE OF HEARING. Pursuant to the requirements of State
law, a public hearing on said 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program
will be held on the 6th day of August, 2012, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as reasonably possible, in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall at 25
West Main Street in Auburn, Washington, before the City Council. All persons
interested in said 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program may attend
and testify at said hearing.
Section 4. AUTHORITY. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives
of this legislation.
ACT.A Page 82 of 510
---------------------------
Resolution No. 4831
June 28, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall be in full force and
effect upon passage and signatures hereon.
DATED and SIGNED this _____ day of July, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
_______________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
ACT.A Page 83 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements TIP # 43
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2011Estimate2012 Budget2013 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 250,000 - 2,333,108
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - 250,000 - 2,333,108
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 250,000 - 312,210
Right of Way - - - - - 69,585
Construction - - - - - 1,951,313
- - - 250,000 - 2,333,108
TotalExpenditures
20142015201620172012-2017Beyond 2017
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)2,083,108 - - - 2,333,108 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
2,083,108 - - - 2,333,108 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 62,210 - - - 312,210 -
Right of Way 69,585 - - - 69,585 -
Construction 1,951,313 - - - 1,951,313 -
2,083,108 - - - 2,333,108 -
G ra n t s /O t h e r S o u rc e s :
Adopted Budget
This project will improve access management, provide u-turns, upgrade transit stops and street lighting, widen to accomodate turn lanes
and pedestrians and bicycles, upgrade pavement markings, install pedestrian signals and audible pedestrian push buttons, and upgrade
traffic signals to change the phasing and to improve the visibility of the signal heads.
Progress Summary:
Grant funding was awarded in 2012 and does not require a local match.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
ACT.A Page 84 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improvements TIP # 43
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2011 YE 2012 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2011Estimate2012 Budget2013 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20142015201620172012-2017Beyond 2017
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 125,000 1,951,000 - 2,076,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - 25,000 299,000 - 324,000 -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- 150,000 2,250,000 - 2,400,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 150,000 - - 150,000 -
Right of Way - - 200,000 - 200,000 -
Construction - - 2,050,000 - 2,050,000 -
- 150,000 2,250,000 - 2,400,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured.
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at Auburn Way
S and Riverwalk Dr SE. This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, auxiliary signal heads and pedestrian
safety enhancements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
ACT.A Page 85 of 510
ACT.A Page 86 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6408
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Agenda Bill
Ordinance No. 6408
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Recomend to the full City Council approval of Ordinance No. 6408.
Background Summary:
See attached Agenda Bill.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Legal, Planning Commission
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:ACT.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.B Page 87 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6408, Amendment to Auburn City
Code Section 18.31.200 related to architectural and site design review
standards (File No. ZOA12-0003).
Date: June 28, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: Ordinance No 6408 Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to review
Ordinance No. 6408 and on amendments to Auburn City Code Chapter Section 18.31.200 and
recommend to full city council.
Background Summary:
The purpose of this zoning code amendment is to provide a consistent process and rules that apply for
the administration of the city’s existing architectural and site design review standards.
The City has architectural and site design review standards in effect that apply to three distinct
geographical areas of the City and another set that apply throughout the entire City based the specific
land use type. The purpose of these architectural and site design review standards code section is to
provide an administrative process for evaluating the design and arrangement of buildings and site
development to ensure quality design of the built environment. The authority for the architectural and
site design review standards (design standards) were previously adopted by the City Council and are
consistent with, and implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The design standards are
illustrated by text, figures and photos in each document.
The design standards applicable to each geographic area are unique and found in separate documents
that apply only to that area or type of land use project. The requirement for implementation of the design
standards is found in various sections of the zoning code.
As these design standards were adopted at different times and over a period of years there is not a
uniform set of regulations to administer the design standards. The design standards themselves are not
proposed to change through this code amendment.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the code changes on June 5, 2012.
There was no public comment at the hearing. The Planning Commission recommended approval
of the code amendment as presented.
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: Backus Staff: Snyder
Meeting Date: July 9, 2012 Item Number:
ACT.B Page 88 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendment to ACC 18.31.200
relating to architectural and site design review standards (File No.
ZOA12-0003)
Date: June 28, 2012
Page 2 of 7
Findings of Fact
1. In general, the intent of the proposed zoning code amendment is to provide a consistent
process and set of rules for the administration of the city’s existing various architectural
and site design review standards.
2. The purpose of having these architectural and site design review standards is to provide
an administrative process for evaluating the design and arrangement of buildings and
site development to ensure quality design of the built environment. The authority for the
architectural and site design standards (Design Standards) were previously adopted by
the City Council and are consistent with, and implement the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City has architectural and site design standards currently in effect that apply to three
distinct geographical areas of the City and another set of design standards that apply
throughout the entire City based the specific land use type (multiple family or mixed use
developments). The City’s current adopted Design Standards include the following:
• The Downtown Urban Center Design Standards were adopted by Ordinance
No. 6071 in January 2007 to implement the, then new, Downtown Urban Center,
DUC zoning district.
• The Auburn Junction Design Standards were adopted by Ordinance No. 6190
in July 2008 to address the four-block downtown catalyst area.
• Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development Design Standards were adopted
by the Council Planning and Community Development (PCD) Committee in June
2009 and subsequently amended by the PCD Committee in July 7, 2010.
• The Northeast Auburn Special Planning Area Architectural and Site Design
Standards were adopted by Resolution No. 4756 in December of 2011 as a
condition of the Development Agreement (DA) approved for the Northeast
Auburn /Robertson Properties’ Auburn Gateway Project.
4. Currently, the different design standards are implemented by different sections of the
zoning code. In turn, each of the zoning code sections reference the separate document
containing the specific design standards. The unique design standards for each; is in
each document illustrated by text, figures and photos.
5. The design standards documents themselves will not change through this code
amendment.
6. As these design standards were adopted at different times and over a period of years
there is not a uniform set of regulations to administer each set of the design standards.
ACT.B Page 89 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendment to ACC 18.31.200
relating to architectural and site design review standards (File No.
ZOA12-0003)
Date: June 28, 2012
Page 3 of 7
7. Near the end of 2011, during the development of the Northeast Auburn Special Planning
Area Architectural and Site Design Standards, it became apparent that the existing sets
of architectural and design standards should have a common set of procedures and
rules for implementation and these should be found in the same code section. The
Northeast Auburn Special Planning Area Architectural and Site Design Standards were
developed with the idea that a future code amendment would be processed to provide
common rules and procedures for administration.
8. The code section ACC 18.31.200 implementing the Multi-Family and Mixed-Use
Development Design Standards contains the most administrative procedures. Some
other code sections which implement design standards don’t contain any administrative
procedures. The code amendment will revise this existing code section ACC 18.31.200
to broaden its scope to apply to all of the design review standards in effect for the City.
9. Amending the code to address all the design review standards and have these
referenced within a single code section would have the following benefits:
• Provide for ease of locating and use by perspective applicants.
• Provide consistency in the administrative process applied to design review
processes of the city.
• Provide guidance for administration of the design review standards where such
regulations do not currently exist.
• Provide uniformity in the administrative provisions for:
o intent and purpose statements,
o exemptions from the design review process,
o timing of the review process,
o submittal requirements,
o decision criteria,
o Planning Director’s ability to review and interpret provisions of the
separate architectural and site design standards documents,
• Provide a process to adjust previous design review approvals; and for appealing
planning director’s decisions on design review decisions.
10. The process for zoning code text amendments is described in ACC 18.68.,
‘Amendments’. In subsection ACC 18.68.020.C it distinguishes between those text
code changes that are “procedural” contrasted with those that are “substantive” and
states:
“For the purposes of this chapter, substantive amendments shall be distinguished
from procedural or administrative amendments in accordance with the following:
"Substantive" matters relate to regulations that define or limit what can be done
in terms of conduct, use or action (e.g., what use may be made of land, what
requirements apply to development, what public infrastructure may be required of
certain developments), and "procedural" or "administrative" matters are those
that relate to the process of how an application to take such action must be
pursued (e.g., time limits for applications and appeals, what forms must be used,
and where or how applications must be submitted. Essentially, "procedural" or
ACT.B Page 90 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendment to ACC 18.31.200
relating to architectural and site design review standards (File No.
ZOA12-0003)
Date: June 28, 2012
Page 4 of 7
"administrative" matters are the mechanical rules by which substantive issues
may be pursued).”
11. The proposed code amendments are “procedural” since they relate to the manner in
which applications related to development are pursued, processed and allowed. The
code amendments do not change the design review standards as they do not define or
limit what can be built or constructed.
12. The code amendments are exempt from environmental review process under the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), specifically Section WAC 197-
11800(19) which exempts the adoption of rules and regulations related to governmental
procedures and containing no substantive standards respecting use or modification of
the environment. Since the proposal is exempt, no threshold determination (decision) is
required.
13. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this
agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state
agencies as required for the 60-day state review required for modification of
development regulations. The amendments were sent on March 30, 2012. The
Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on April 2, 2012.
14. The general approach of these code amendments was discussed with and reviewed by
the Planning and Community Development (PCD) Committee of the City Council on
February 27, 2012 at their regular meeting. The Committee was supportive of the
general approach.
15. Staff discussed and presented an earlier draft of the code amendments language to the
Planning Commission on March 6, 2012 at their regular meeting.
16. The public hearing notice was published on May 25, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for June 5, 2012.
The public notice of the hearing was also posted at multiple locations in city offices and
on the city’s website
17. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the code changes on June 5,
2012. There was no public comment at the hearing. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the code amendment as presented.
18. The Planning Commission recommendation of approval as recommended was
discussed with and reviewed by the Planning and Community Development (PCD)
Committee of the City Council on June 11, 2012 at their regular meeting.
19. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.31.200 and
thus staff is recommending approval.
ACT.B Page 91 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendment to ACC 18.31.200
relating to architectural and site design review standards (File No.
ZOA12-0003)
Date: June 28, 2012
Page 5 of 7
Conclusions
1. These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan contains several goals, objectives and policies that promote
the City’s use of design standards. For example, an entire Chapter, Chapter 12, ‘Urban
Design’ is devoted to establishing the city’s guidance for design review. The
Comprehensive Plan has fewer sections that address the more specific subject of
administration of these design review standards. The administration of the design
review standards is governed by the following goals, objectives, and policies from the
Comprehensive Plan:
2. CHAPTER 1 – PLAN BACKGROUND
“GOAL 2 – FLEXIBILITY: To provide predictability in the regulation of land use
and development, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also
provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow
development to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources,
cultural resources and critical lands and in overall compliance with this
Comprehensive Plan.”
“Discussion: Predictability of land development regulation is important to both
existing and future property owners and to new development. It assures property
owners that adjacent properties will develop in a consistent manner and it helps
new development to plan for their development based on knowing what is
allowed and what is not. Since all parcels are not identical, however, it is helpful
to have some flexibility in land development regulation. While a variance can
sometimes resolve some of these issues, regulations which provide some
flexibility in the form of performance standards can help to provide development
which better meets the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan rather than
strict adherence to a set standard established in the zoning ordinance.”
(emphasis added)
“A discussion of issues and polices related to this goal can be found in Chapter
2: General Approach to Planning.”
Complies: This goal sets out that all of the City’s regulations should be designed to
provide predictability while maintaining the ability for flexibility in development. By
providing a uniform set of administrative procedures for design review standards and the
design review process, this code amendment provides this predictability and
consistency. Also, in furtherance of this goal, the code amendment provides procedures
for the director’s interpretation of the design standards, adjusting design approvals and
appealing decisions to provide flexibility.
CHAPTER 1 – PLAN BACKGROUND
“GOAL 22 - URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL QUALITY: To ensure a high quality
visual environment through appropriate design standards and procedures which
ACT.B Page 92 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendment to ACC 18.31.200
relating to architectural and site design review standards (File No.
ZOA12-0003)
Date: June 28, 2012
Page 6 of 7
encourage high quality architectural and landscape design in all development
and through the placement of artwork in public places. The City recognizes the
linkages between transportation, land use and site design and encourage
development which eases access by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users.”
“Discussion: As urban areas develop, and particularly as densities increase,
the quality of development plays a major factor in maintaining the quality of life
for the area's residents and employees. Auburn places a high value on good
design, visual quality and landscaping in all development - new and old. Auburn
will seek to develop standards and programs to ensure that all development is of
high quality and is visually appealing.”
“A discussion of issues and policies related to this goal can be found in Chapter
4: Housing and Chapter 12: Urban Design.” (emphasis added)
Complies: This goal is directed at ensuring high quality architectural and landscape
design through appropriate use of design standards and procedures. This goal also
recognizes that an overall program related to the administration of design review
standards is a necessary element for the effective use.
3. CHAPTER 12 - URBAN DESIGN
“Objective 22.6. Establish a Design Review Process:
UD-28 The City developed new design standards for development within
downtown Auburn and for multi-family and mixed-use development. These
standards provide guidance for improved landscaping, site design and
architectural standards. These standards should be reviewed periodically to
keep with current planning trends and market demands.”
“UD-29 The City revised its ordinances to establish an administrative design
review procedure for development in the downtown and for multi-family and
mixed-use developments. It is handled as a responsibility of the Planning
Department and incorporated into current development review procedures to
minimize time and expense, both for the City and the applicant. Developments
subject to design review standards are outlined in city code.”
Complies: This objective and two related policies address the promulgation of design
standards and the associated procedures to implement these standards.
Staff Recommendation
Planning and Community Development Committee to discuss Planning Commission
recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
ACT.B Page 93 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendment to ACC 18.31.200
relating to architectural and site design review standards (File No.
ZOA12-0003)
Date: June 28, 2012
Page 7 of 7
Planning Commission Recommendation
Approval as presented.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Ordinance No. 6408, Proposed code changes to ACC 18.31.200, Multiple-
Family and Mixed-Use Design Standards and Procedures
ACT.B Page 94 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 1 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 0 8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTIONS 18.31.200 OF THE AUBURN CITY
CODE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW
STANDARDS
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, periodically amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code
are appropriate, in order to increase consistency of the code sections enacted
over different periods of time; and
WHEREAS, periodically amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code
are appropriate, in order to facilitate the use and understanding of code sections;
and
WHEREAS, currently the City has architectural and site design standards
that apply to three distinct geographical areas of the City and some that apply
throughout the City but only concern specific land use types; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment to the code is to provide a
consistent administrative review process for evaluating the design and
arrangement of site developments and buildings to ensure quality design of the
built environment; and
WHEREAS, these code amendments are exempt from environmental
review under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Section
ACT.B Page 95 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 2 of 12
WAC 197-11800 (19), since they are rules and regulations related to
governmental procedures and contain no substantive standards respecting use
or modification of the environment; and
WHEREAS, these code amendments were considered by the Planning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on June 5, 2012 and after the close
the public hearing the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation for
approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the code amendments were reviewed by the Planning and
Community Development Committee of the City Council on February 27, 2012;
and on June 11, 2012; and thereafter the Committee forwarded a
recommendation for approval to the full City Council.
WHEREAS, upon the recommendations, the City Council determines that
the following code changes are in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN, as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.31.200 of
the Auburn City Code entitled “Multifamily development and mixed use
development” is changed to read: “Architectural and site design review
standards” and the section is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.31.200 Multifamily development and mixed-use development Architectural
and site design review standards and proceduresregulations.
A. Intent and Purpose. The architectural and site design regulations provide
an administrative review process for evaluating the design and
arrangement of development. The architectural and site design
ACT.B Page 96 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 3 of 12
regulations are intended to be consistent with and implement the policies
of the comprehensive plan. The purposes of these design review
regulations are to:
1. Foster good decision-making for development through architectural
and site design within the context of the community's built and
natural environmental character, scale and diversity;
2. Promote the use of appropriate scale of buildings and the
configuration of open space and parking areas for development to
safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian activities;
3. Coordinate the interrelationship of buildings and public and private
open space;
4. Discourage monotony in building design and arrangement, while
promoting harmony among distinct building identities; and
5. Mitigate, through design and site plan measures, the visual impact
of large building facades, particularly those which have high public
visibility (Encourage the creative use of architectural and landscape
features in order to reduce the actual and perceived scale and bulk
of structures).
B . Applicability. The following land uses, types of development activities,
including all related site improvements, and geographic areasincluding all
related site improvements, are subject to the architectural and site design
standards and the , processes and regulations procedures for conducting
design review contained in this chapter:
1. Multiple-Family and Mixed Use Developments. The following
land uses and types of development are subject to the City’s
Multiple-Family and Mixed-Use Design Standards document unless
addressed by a different set of architectural and site design
standards applicable to a specific geographic area.
a. Multifamily development inclusive of triplexes and fourplexes
in all zones in the city where permitted outright or as a
conditional use and not otherwise addressed through the
city's Residential Iinfill Development design Sstandards
(ACC 18.25); and
2b. Mixed-Use Residential Development. Mixed-use
development containing residential living units in all zones in
the city where permitted outright or as a conditional use;
and,
3c. Retirement apartments, congregate living facilities and
senior housing complexes in all zones in the city where
permitted outright or as a conditional use.
2. Downtown Urban Center. The following locations of development
activities are subject to the City’s Downtown Urban Center Design
Standards document.
ACT.B Page 97 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 4 of 12
a. Properties located within the boundaries of the DUC,
Downtown Urban Center zoning district as identified on the
Comprehensive Zoning Map.
3. Auburn Junction. The following locations of development
activities are subject to the City’s Auburn Junction Design
Standards document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of West Main
Street, 2nd Street SE/SW, A Street SE, and A Street SW as
identified with Auburn City Code 18.29.070, Design
Standards of the DUC , Downtown Urban Center zone.
4. Northeast Auburn Special Planning Area. The following
locations of development activities are subject to the City’s Auburn
Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards document.
a. Properties located within the boundaries of the Auburn
Gateway Project as defined by the Development Agreement
approved by City Resolution No. 4756. The Auburn
Gateway Architectural and Site Design are addressed In
Section 4 of this Resolution and provided as Attachment 4 to
the Resolution.
CB. Exemptions. The following activities as determined by the Pplanning
Ddirector shall be exempt from the provisions of the design standards:
1. Any building activity that does not require a building permit; or
2. Interior construction work which does not alter the exterior of the
structure; or
3. Normal or routine building and site maintenance/repair that is
exempt from issuance of a permit requirements including the repair
or maintenance of structural members; or
4. Interior alterations that do not alter the exterior appearance of a
structure or modify an existing site condition; or
5. Site and exterior alterations that do not exceed 10 percent of the
assessed valuation of the property building or land per the most
recent county records; or
6. Building additions that are less than 10 percent of the existing floor
area of the existing building. Any cumulative floor area increase
from the adoption date of the ordinance establishing these
architectural and site design standards that totals more than 10
percent shall not be exempt unless the Pplanning Ddirector
determines compliance with these standards would be unfeasible
and/or unreasonable.
C. Description and Purpose. The design regulations are intended to be
consistent with and administered to help implement the policies of the
comprehensive plan. The purposes of these design review regulations are to:
ACT.B Page 98 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 5 of 12
1. Foster good decision-making for multifamily and mixed-use development
in architectural and site design within the context of the community's built and
natural environmental character, scale and diversity;
2. Promote the scale of buildings and the configuration of open space and
parking areas for multifamily and mixed-use development to safely and
comfortably accommodate pedestrian activities;
3. Discourage placement of multiple-family and mixed-use complexes
around large expanses of vehicular circulation and parking without providing
adequate places for recreational and play activities;
4. Discourage monotony in building design and in the arrangement of
multiple-family and mixed-use complexes, while promoting harmony among
distinct building identities; and
5. Mitigate, through design and site plan measures, the visual impact of large
building facades, particularly those which have high public visibility (these
standards encourage creative use of architectural and landscape features so as
to reduce the actual and perceived scale and bulk of multi-family and mixed-use
structures).
D. Design Standard Documents. Adopted by reference are the following
architectural and site design documentscity of Auburn multifamily and
mixed-use design standards, a, copiesy of which shall be maintained by
the city clerk. Theseis documents contains the standards for the design
and development of the built environment environment. pertaining to
multifamily and mixed-use development in applicable city zones. The
Pplanning Ddirector or designee shall have the authority to apply the
standards to specific development proposals. The following specific
architectural and designse standards documents may be amended upon
approval by the Pplanning and Ddevelopment Ccommittee of the Auburn
Ccity Ccouncil.:
1. Mixed Use and Multiple Family Development Design Standards.
2. Auburn Gateway Architectural and Site Design Standards.
3. Downtown Urban Center Design Standards.
4. Auburn Junction Design Standards.
E. Timing of Administrative Design Review.
1. Design review shall be conducted by the Pplanning Ddirector or
designee prior to or concurrent with the processing of as a part of site plan
review pursuant to building permits issuance and/or review of
discretionary land use approvals/permits.
2. The decision on the administrative design review shall be issued prior
to issuance of the building permits and/or issuance of discretionary land
use approvals/permits.
F. Pre-application Meeting –When Required Associated with a Design
Review.
1. A pre-application conference is required for the following instances:
ACT.B Page 99 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 6 of 12
a. For multi-family development in the R-10, R-16, and R-20
Residential zones; and
b. For mixed-use development containing residential living
units located within R-10, R-16 and R-20 Residential zones;
and
c. For mixed-use development containing residential living
units located within commercial zones; and
d. For retirement apartments, congregate living facilities and
senior housing complexes located within R-10, R-16 and R-
20 Residential zones, and all commercial zones.
2. A pre-application conference is strongly recommended for all other
projects subject to the city’s architectural and site design butreview
but is not required. for multifamily development inclusive of
triplexes and fourplexes located within R-5 and R-7 zones not
otherwise addressed through the city's infill design standards.
3. A pre-application conference is required for multi-family development in
the R-10, R-16, R-20 zones.
4. A pre-application conference is required for mixed-use development
containing residential living units located within R-10, R-16 and R-20 zones, and
all current commercial zones;
5. A pre-application conference is required for retirement apartments,
congregate living facilities and senior housing complexes located within R-10, R-
16 and R-20 zones, and all current commercial zones;
GF. Design Review Submittal Requirements. In addition to any other
documentation required for submittal of a complete application for building
permit or discretionary land use approvals/permitssite plan review, the
following items shall be required for the architectural and site design
review:
1. Elevation drawings prepared by an architect licensed in the Sstate
of Washington of all proposed construction including dimensional
drawings at one-eighth inch equals one foot or comparable scale
showing the type of exterior materials, color (where applicable due
to selection of a menu option), exterior finishes for buildings and
accessory structures, location and elevations of exterior lighting for
buildings, the type, style and model of exterior lighting fixtures
(where applicable due to zone transition standards), parking areas,
and fenestration details. Scaled drawings of elevations, conceptual
selection of major building materials, and conceptual selection of
colors where applicable may be submitted at preliminary site plan
review stage;
2. A to-scale landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect
licensed in the state of Washington showing existing vegetation to
be retained and proposed vegetation to be installed inclusive of the
common and botanical name of all vegetation, the location and
ACT.B Page 100 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 7 of 12
quantity of vegetation, the initial planting size and maximum growth
size of all vegetation and methods of irrigation, if applicable;
3. A context vicinity map that shows all structures on the property and
within 200 feet in each direction of the subject property drawn
approximately to scale but not to the accuracy of a survey;
4. A neighborhood circulation plan consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 17.16 ACC (Neighborhood Circulation Plan); and
5. Conceptual plans for any public infrastructure, including roads,
water, sewer, and storm facilities.
HG. Interpretations.
1. The Planning Director shall be authorized to interpret the meaning
of words, phrases and sentences which relate to the
implementation of the specific architectural and design standards
document. Any interpretations regarding implementation of the
specific architectural and design standard document shall be made
in accordance with its intent or purpose statements and the intent
and purpose statements of this chapter. For interpretations, life
safety and public health regulations shall be given priority over all
other regulations.
2. Administrative interpretations may be appealed to the hearing
examiner as prescribed in Chapter 18.70.050 ACC.
Any affected person may challenge an interpretation and determination of the
planning director pertaining to this section subject to the city's administrative
appeal provisions of Chapter 14.13 ACC.
IH. Design Review Adjustments.
1. Authority for design review adjustments. The Pplanning Ddirector
or designee shall have the authority, subject to the provisions of
this section and upon such conditions as the Pplanning Ddirector or
designee may deem necessary to comply with the provisions of this
section, to approve design adjustments as follows:
a1. An adjustment to architectural or site design requirements
such that no more than two of the total number of required
menu items in the Ccity of Auburn Mmultifamily and Mmixed-
Uuse Ddesign Sstandards are out of compliance.
b2. An adjustment to required building wall and roof modulation
standards, as contained in the Ccity of Auburn Mmultifamily
and Mmixed-use Ddesign Sstandards, up to 20 percent of
the amount of any quantified standards contained therein.
c. An adjustment to the architectural or site design
requirements that remains consistent with the purpose and
intent of the architectural and site design standards.
2I. Required Findings to Grant Design Review Adjustments. Each
determination granting an adjustment by the Pplanning Ddirector or
ACT.B Page 101 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 8 of 12
designee shall be supported by written findings showing specifically
wherein all of the following conditions exist:
a1. That the granting of such adjustment does not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and/or zone of
the subject site; and
b2. That the granting of such adjustment will not adversely affect
the established character of the surrounding neighborhood,
discourage maintenance or upgrades on surrounding
properties, nor result in perpetuation of those design
qualities and conditions which the comprehensive plan
intends to eliminate or avoid; and
c3. That the project incorporates alternate design characteristics
that are equivalent or superior to those otherwise achieved
by strict adherence to stated menu options; and
4. That each of the findings under subsection L of this section (Director
Authority and Findings) are made by the planning director or designee in granting
such adjustment.
3J. Public Notification and Action on Design Review Adjustment
Applications. Upon the filing of a properly completed application
and associated request for a design review adjustment, the
Pplanning Ddirector or designee shall comply with the Ccity's Type
II land use review requirements for issuance of a properly noticed
and appealable land use decision.
4K. Appeal of Director's Decision Action on Design Review
Adjustments.
a1. If a written objection to the initial determination notice is filed
within 10 14 business days of said notification, the Pplanning
Ddirector or designee shall reconsider the initial
determination in light of the objection(s) as raised and render
a final decision on the permit. This final decision shall result
in either the Pplanning Ddirector's affirmation of the original
determination of approval, the approval with additional
modifications or denial.
b2. Upon completion of the Pplanning Ddirector's
reconsideration, all parties notified of the original
determination shall receive notification of the Pplanning
Ddirector's final decision. Any party aggrieved by the
Pplanning Ddirector's final decision may file an appeal of that
decision to the Hhearing Eexaminer in accordance with the
Ccity's land use appeal provisions. Such appeals for
Hhearing Eexaminer review must be filed within 10 14
business days from the date the written decision was made
and shall include the following:
ACT.B Page 102 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 9 of 12
ia. The appeal shall be filed on forms provided by the
Ddepartment of Pplanning and Ddevelopment.
iib. The appeal shall clearly state the decision being
appealed, setting forth the specific reason, rationale,
and/or basis for the appeal.
iiic. Fees associated with the appeal shall be paid to the
city upon filing of the appeal in accordance with a fee
schedule established by resolution.
53. Upon filing of a timely and complete appeal, the hearing examiner
shall conduct a public hearing to consider the merits of the appeal.
This hearing shall be subject to the city's public noticing and public
hearing requirements and shall include notification of all parties
notified of the Pplanning Ddirector's final decision. The hearing
examiner may affirm the Pplanning Ddirector's decision or may
remand the matter to the Pplanning Ddirector for further review in
accord with the examiner's direction.
64. If no written objection is filed to the initial determination within the
specified time limits, the Pplanning Ddirector shall render a final
decision on the permit in accord with the initial determination.
J Approval Criteria for Design Review. The Planning Director or designee
may approve, or modify and approve, or deny an application for an
administrative design review. L. Director Authority and Findings. The
planning director or designee shall approve, approve with modifications or
deny each project application subject to design review. Each
determination granting approval or approval with modifications shall be
supported by written findings showing the applicant satisfies all the
following criteriaspecifically wherein all applicable conditions exist:
1. The plans and supplemental materials submitted to support the
plan meet the requirements of the specific architectural and site
design documentsregulations;
2. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive
plan;
3. The proposed development meets required setback, landscaping,
architectural style and materials, such that the building walls have
sufficient visual variety to mitigate the appearance of large facades,
particularly from public rights-of-way and single-family residential
zones.
43. Applicable only to In addition to the criteria in subsections 1 through
3, for multiple-family residential and retirement apartment projects,
the director or designee must determine that the following key
review criteria have been met:
a. The proposed development is arranged in a manner that
either:
ACT.B Page 103 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 10 of 12
i. Provides a courtyard space creating a cohesive
identity for the building cluster and public open space
furnished to facilitate its use; or
ii. Possesses a traditional streetscape orientation that
provides clearly identifiable and visible entries from
the street, views from residential units onto the street
and reinforces pedestrian-oriented streetscape
characteristics (e.g., building edge abutting sidewalk,
entries onto the street); or
iii. Faces and facilitates views of a major open space
system;
b. The proposed development provides a variety in
architectural massing and articulation to reduce the apparent
size of the buildings and to distinguish vertical and horizontal
dimensions;
c. The proposed development contains a combination of
elements such as architectural forms, massing, assortment
of materials, colors, and color bands sufficient to distinguish
distinct portions and stories of the building;
d. Residential buildings in large multiple-family projects or
mixed-use projects are physically integrated into the
complex possessing sufficiently different appearance or
placement to be able to distinguish one building from
another;
e. Unit entrances are individualized by use of design features
that make each entrance distinct or which facilitate additional
personalization by residents;
f. Areas dedicated to parking are sufficiently visually broken up
and contain a complement of vegetative materials to project
a landscaped appearance;
g. Where applicable, a transition is created that minimizes
impacts from multifamily and mixed-use development
projects on neighboring lower density residential dwelling
units in abutting or adjacent single-family zones; and
h. Where applicable, in cases of granting density or height
bonuses, the project has provided community benefits,
facilities or improvements above and beyond those required
in the municipal code and supports the goals, objectives and
policies of the comprehensive plan;
4. The proposed development meets required setback, landscaping,
architectural style and materials, such that the building walls have sufficient
visual variety to mitigate the appearance of large facades, particularly from public
rights-of-way and single-family residential zones. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord.
6245 § 15, 2009.)
ACT.B Page 104 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 11 of 12
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized
to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to
carry out the directions of this legislation.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance
are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause,
sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or
the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall
not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of
its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect
and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
APPROVED: ____________________
CITY OF AUBURN
ATTEST:
___________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ACT.B Page 105 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6408
June 6, 2012
Page 12 of 12
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
ACT.B Page 106 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4836
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Exhibit 1 - Map of affected property
Exhibit 2 - Resolution No. 4836
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Other: City Attorney's Office, Public Works Department
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder/Heid/Dowdy
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 107 of 510
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Partridge, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Holman, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee
FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Planning and Development Department Director
Dennis Dowdy, P.E., Public Works Director
Dan Heid, City Attorney
Chris Andersen, Environmental Protection Manager
CC: Mayor Pete Lewis
DATE: July 5, 2012
RE: Resolution No. 4836 – Transfer of Real Property Between and With the
Washington State Department of Transportation Regarding Phase II of the
Auburn Environmental Park
Summary:
The proposed transfer and exchange of real property between the City of Auburn and the
Washington State Department of Transportation (refer to Exhibit 1 for affected properties).
Resolution No. 4836 (refer to Exhibit 2), inclusive of a detailed Agreement between the
two parties, would upon passage by the City Council, authorize to the Mayor to complete
negotiations and execute the Agreement.
Background:
The City of Auburn and the Washington State Department of Transportation have been
negotiating for some time on the transfer and exchange of real property between the
entities (refer to Exhibit 1). This real property negotiation involves the transfer and
exchange of 48.24 acres1 of current State owned property immediately west of State
Route 167 and south of 15th Street NW to the City inclusive of 34.04 acres of non-
mitigation land and two environmental mitigation sites, of which one is certified and has
met federal agency requirements while the other is in year 5 of 10 of its compliance
program2 before being eligible for certification (refer to Exhibit 2). The real property
transfer also involves the transfer and exchange of 9.91 acres of current City-owned
1 The State’s total current ownership is 58.29 acres that was originally acquired for future highway
expansion and to create environmental mitigation sites when required by nearby highway projects.
The State has determined that it only needs 10.05 acres of its current ownership for future highway
projects.
2 Per the proposed agreement, the State would retain responsibility for maintenance and monitoring
of the non-certified mitigation site until it is certified.
DI.A Page 108 of 510
property (a portion of the properties referred to locally as Godecke North) to the State. The
State needs this property for use in planned improvements to State Route 167. As part of
its acquisition of this property from the City, the State is obligated to pay the cost to
relocate an existing City sewer line located on the City’s property. The current estimated
cost to relocate this line is approximately $2 million. The fair market value of the 34.04
acres of the State owned land3 is currently $680,000 while the fair market value of the City
owned property is currently $789,7004. Based on the higher land value of the City owned
land, the State proposes to pay the City $109,700, within 30 days after deed recordation,
to account for this difference in fair market values. The City and the State propose to split
incidental costs such as closing and recording costs associated with execution of the
transfer and exchange.
The current City property is owned by the City’s sewer enterprise fund. The Public Works
Department has determined that this property is not needed by the fund for current or
future needs. Because the transfer and exchange of properties between the two entities
involves land owned by the City’s sewer fund, any land acquired by the City from the State
would also be legally under the ownership of the sewer fund. The 48.24 acres proposed
for transfer to the City of Auburn comprises a significant portion of Phase II of the Auburn
Environmental Park previously identified by the Auburn City Council bringing the Park’s
total combined acreage to approximately 198 acres. On-going operation and maintenance
of the acquired land would be the responsibility of the sewer fund with input and
assistance from the City’s environmental services staff.
Recommendation:
Staff from Planning and Development, Public Works and Legal will be in attendance at the
July 9th meeting to discuss the Agreement and answer any questions or provide additional
information. Although this item is presented for discussion only, the Committee, at its
discretion, may elect to move this Resolution to an Action item and recommend to the full
City Council approval of Resolution No. 4836.
3 For purposes of appraising land values, the two mitigation sites were determined to not have any
land value resulting from their restricted status as environmental mitigation sites.
4 The State conducted appraisals of the properties that were reviewed and agreed to by the City.
DI.A Page 109 of 510
Resolution No. 4836 - Location of Exchange Properties
Printed Date:
Information shown is for general reference
purposes only and does not necessarily
represent exact geographic or cartographic
data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no
warranty as to its accuracy.
Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS
7/5/2012
DI.A Page 110 of 510
Exhibit 2
--------------------------------------
Resolution No. 4836
July 3, 2012
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 4 8 3 6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS FOR THE TRANSFER AND
EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY
AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION REGARDING PHASE II OF THE
AUBURN ENVIRONMENTAL PARK
WHEREAS, the owner of a piece of property located in the vicinity of 15th Street
Northwest and State Highway 167 and identified by the City of Auburn as part of its
intended eventual Auburn Environmental Park (Phase II) made some claims against the
City and the State of Washington regarding that property, claiming that the property was
taken by inverse condemnation since storm water run-off mostly coming from
improvements State Highway 167 damaged the utility of his property; and
WHEREAS, particularly since the City was interested in acquiring this property
for the Auburn Environmental Park, the parties, including the City of Auburn and the
property owner, as well as the State of Washington Department of Transportation,
reached an agreement in the resolution of any and all such claims by the owner, which
agreement was approved by the City Council through Resolution No. 4626, passed on
July 19, 2010; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the resolution of the claims, the City was to be
responsible for payment of the agreed-upon price to the owner of the property and the
Department of Transportation was to convey to the City property on the West side of
State Highway 167 and identified by the City of Auburn as part of its intended eventual
Auburn Environmental Park, Phase II; and
DI.A Page 111 of 510
Exhibit 2
--------------------------------------
Resolution No. 4836
July 3, 2012
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the agreement between the City and the Department of
Transportation was that instead of participating in or contributing to the payment of
monies to the owner, the Department of Transportation would convey to the City certain
property located on the west side of State Highway 167, which conveyance was slated
to occur after the Department of Transportation used that property for wetland mitigation
purposes; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the interests of the City and the Department of
Transportation to have the property conveyed to the City, the Department of
Transportation identified an interest it had in other property owned by the City which it
sought to acquire and for which it was willing to make the conveyance of the property on
the west side of State Highway 167 sooner, rather than waiting until it had used the
property for wetland mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Department of Transportation negotiated terms
providing for the exchange of properties and related responsibilities, relating to both the
exchange of property to the City for the Auburn Environmental Park and the property to
be acquired by the Department of Transportation, and which responsibilities included
the obligation of the Department of Transportation to pay the City for decommissioning
and removing from service a section City sewage facilities located on the property to be
acquired by the Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the terms of the agreement between the City and the Department of
Transportation are beneficial to the parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
DI.A Page 112 of 510
Exhibit 2
--------------------------------------
Resolution No. 4836
July 3, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Section 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute the
Agreement and documents providing for the transfer and exchange of real property
between the City and the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding
Phase II of the Auburn Environmental Park in substantial conformity with the documents
attached hereto, collectively marked as Exhibit “A” to this Resolution and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and
signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this _____ day of _________________, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
___________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
DI.A Page 113 of 510
Exhibit A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AGREEMENT TO
TRANSFER REAL PROPERTY
The State of Washington, acting by and through its Department of Transportation
(Department) and the City of Auburn (City), collectively referred to as the Parties, enter this
Agreement on the date last written on its final page. This Agreement binds the successors,
assigns, subsidiaries, officials, agents, representatives, servants, employees, officers, and sureties
of both Parties.
I. RECITALS
This Agreement is based on the following facts and representations, all of which the
Parties agree are true:
A. The Auburn Land Company (ALC) owned property, consisting of approximately 28.92
acres, within Auburn’s city limits that is located immediately east of SR 167 (a state
limited access highway) and immediately south of 15th Street NW (a city street). A legal
description of the ALC property is attached as Exhibit A. ALC claimed the Parties were
depositing and trapping water on ALC’s property. ALC sued the Parties under King
County Superior Court cause number 07-2-16064-7 KNT.
B. ALC’s suit sought at least $6,000,000 from the Parties. Both Parties had defenses to
ALC’s claims and suit. Neither Party admitted liability.
C. Under two separate agreements (collected in Exhibit D), the City paid $75,000 to obtain
dismissal of ALC’s lawsuit and ALC released all claims against both the City and the
Department. The City subsequently purchased ALC’s property (the ALC property) for
the 2010 King County assessed value of $629,800.00. Exhibit G, attached hereto, is the
real estate purchase and sale agreement for that transaction. The Department did not
contribute any cash to the settlement payment or to the purchase of the ALC property.
D. The City granted the Department a drainage easement to drain highway stormwater onto
the ALC property. The recorded easement is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
E. The State of Washington owns property, consisting of approximately 58.29 acres, west of
and across SR 167 from the ALC property. The property is bordered by West Valley
Highway (a city street), SR 167, and by 15th Street NW, which connects the other two
roads. A legal description of the state-owned property is attached as Exhibit B. The
State acquired this property for the Department’s future highway expansion and to create
environmental mitigation sites when required by nearby Department highway projects.
F. The Department has created two environmental mitigation sites on the state-owned
property. One mitigation site, consisting of approximately 8.71 acres (379,408 square
feet), has been certified by the agency requiring the mitigation. A legal description of
this mitigation site is attached as Exhibit C-1. The other mitigation site, consisting of
approximately 5.49 acres (239,145 square feet), is in Year 5 of a 10 year monitoring
Page 1 of 11
DI.A Page 114 of 510
Exhibit A
period and has not yet been certified by the agency requiring the mitigation. A legal
description of this mitigation site is attached as Exhibit C-2. The 5.49 acre site may be
certified in less than the full 10 years. The existing mitigation sites are depicted on
Exhibit C, attached hereto.
G. The Department needs 10.05 acres of the state-owned property for future highway
projects. The approximate boundaries of this reserved 10.05 acres are also depicted on
Exhibit C.
H. Once the Department has established a certified mitigation site, it has used the state-
owned property for the public purpose for which it was acquired. Transfer of a certified
mitigation site reduces the Department’s maintenance obligations.
I. The City is creating a large environmental park, consisting of wetlands. The City has
identified both the ALC property and the state-owned property as within the boundaries
of the future park. The City also lacks adequate mitigation land, potentially restricting
new development within the City.
J. Acquiring the ALC property provided the City with potential mitigation land and added
to the City’s environmental park. Transfer of the two mitigation sites from the state-
owned property would also add to the City’s environmental park.
K. The Department has authority under RCW 47.12.370 to transfer environmental mitigation
sites to other entities, including local governments, so long as the transferee agrees to
assume all future maintenance and operation obligations in perpetuity.
L. As part of a planned improvement to SR 167, the Department needs to acquire
approximately 9.91 acres (431,858 square feet) from an approximately 23.06 acre
(1,004,400 square feet) parcel of City-owned land located west of SR 167, north of SR
18, and east of West Valley Highway. That parcel is also known as and is hereinafter
referred to as Department Parcel Number 1-22952. The legal description of the 9.91 acre
portion of Parcel Number 1-22952 that the Department wishes to acquire is attached
hereto as Exhibit H. Parcel Number 1-22952 and the portion of it that the Department
wishes to acquire are also both depicted on a Department Sundry Site Plan, attached
hereto as Exhibit I.
M. Approximately 34.04 acres (1,482,783 square feet) of the State-owned property is not
being used for existing mitigation projects or being reserved for future highway projects.
The Department has determined that those 34.04 acres are surplus to its needs. The legal
description of this surplus property is attached as Exhibit C-3.Those 34.04 acres are also
depicted on Exhibit C.
N. The just compensation for the 9.91 acre portion of parcel 1-22952 that the Department
wishes to acquire is approximately$789,700. The fair market value of the remaining
34.04 acres of the State-owned land is approximately $680,000. Exchange of the two
properties would provide the City with potential mitigation land and add to the City’s
Page 2 of 11
DI.A Page 115 of 510
Exhibit A
environmental park. The exchange would also provide the Department the land it needs
for its SR 167 highway project.
O. Whether it acquires the 9.91 acres of parcel 1-22952 by purchase or exchange, the
Department would be obligated to pay the cost to relocate a City sewer line located on
those 9.91 acres.
P. The Department has authority under at least RCW 47.12.063, RCW 47.12.080, and RCW
47.12.287 to exchange its 34.04 acres for the City’s 9.91 acres.
Q. To the extent that this Agreement is not authorized by the statutes governing the
Department’s transfer, exchange, or sale of state-owned property, the Department enters
into this Agreement based on its and the Washington State Attorney General’s authority
to settle claims against the Department.
R. The Parties entered into the agreements collected in Exhibit D and into this agreement in
part to eliminate the risk of ALC’s claims in a way that reduced public expense and that
achieved legitimate public purposes of each Party. The Parties also wish to obtain
property needed to fulfill the public purposes of each Party with minimum expenditure of
public funds.
II. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now, therefore, in furtherance of the foregoing, for value received, and in consideration
of the following terms and conditions and the attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and
K, which are incorporated herein by this reference, the Parties agree as follows:
1. In lieu of a cash contribution to the City’s payments to dismiss the ALC lawsuit and to
release ALC’s claims, the Department agrees to convey by quitclaim deed the two
existing mitigation sites located on the state-owned property described in Exhibit B, but
only on the following terms and conditions:
a. The Department will reserve a drainage easement burdening the transferred property,
which will substantially conform to the drainage easement included within Exhibit F,
a sample quitclaim deed for transfer of the mitigation sites.
b. The Department agrees to maintain and monitor the 5.49 acre mitigation site until it is
certified by the agency requiring mitigation. The Department will reserve an
easement allowing it access to perform the necessary maintenance and monitoring
until the site is certified.
c. Sole consideration for Department conveyance of the two mitigation sites will be (i)
the City’s agreement to forever assume all future maintenance and operation
obligations and costs required to properly maintain and operate each mitigation site
after each is certified; (ii) the City’s actions that resulted in dismissal/release of
Page 3 of 11
DI.A Page 116 of 510
Exhibit A
ALC’s claims against the State; and (iii) the City’s agreement to fully comply with
Section 2, below.
d. Conveyance of each mitigation site will be by quitclaim deed complying with RCW
47.12.370, as now or hereinafter amended. The Department will prepare and send to
the City quitclaim deeds, which will substantially conform to the sample attached as
Exhibit F, for the two existing mitigation sites within 90 days after this agreement is
fully signed, together with copies of the documents creating, permitting, and/or
certifying each mitigation site. The City shall be responsible for any closing,
recording, or filing costs in connection with the said quitclaim deeds.
2. As required by RCW 47.12.370, the City agrees to accept ownership of transferred
environmental mitigation sites by quitclaim deed and, unless the sites, or either of them,
revert(s) back to State ownership pursuant to paragraph 2.e, below, to be responsible in
perpetuity for the maintenance, operation, and preservation of the mitigation sites after
each is certified by the agency requiring mitigation, including all costs associated with
such responsibilities, as follows in paragraphs 2.a. through 2.d. The City agrees that
failure to comply with any provision of this paragraph or of paragraphs 2.a. through 2.d.
will result in reversion of the conveyed mitigation site pursuant to paragraph 2.e:
a. The City may only use and allow others to use each transferred mitigation site as a
mitigation site consistent with preservation of the functions and values of the
particular site identified in the documents creating, permitting, or certifying the site,
as those documents exist on the effective date of this agreement or as they may be
amended, superseded, or replaced in the future with the approval of the responsible
regulatory agency. In addition, any new or additional uses must also be approved and
permitted by all applicable regulatory agencies.
b. The City shall comply with the requirements and restrictions included in the quitclaim
deed transferring each mitigation site.
c. The City shall maintain and pay the cost to maintain each conveyed mitigation site in
perpetuity according to all restrictions and requirements as listed in the quitclaim
deed, listed in documents creating, permitting, or certifying each site, as those
documents exist on the effective date of this agreement or as they may be amended,
superseded, or replaced in the future with the approval of the responsible regulatory
agency, and in a manner complying with any other applicable permits, laws and
regulations pertaining to maintenance and operation of each mitigation site.
d. The City understands and agrees that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) will
be monitoring the City’s obligations to maintain, operate and preserve the conveyed
mitigation sites. The Department will notify the Corps when each mitigation site is
conveyed to the City. If the Corps sends a compliance notice to the Department
instead of to the City, the Department will forward the notice to the City. Should the
City of Auburn conduct any activities affecting the conveyed mitigations sites that
Page 4 of 11
DI.A Page 117 of 510
Exhibit A
violate the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (also known as
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) as defined by CFR 33 Part 326.3, the City of
Auburn will be subject to Regulatory Enforcement by the Corps under Title 33 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 326 Enforcement. If, after the Regulatory
Enforcement process has concluded, the City is not in compliance with Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, the mitigation site permit terms, or any corrective action
approved or required by the Corps, provisions of Section 2.e, below, will be
implemented.
e.
i. The City agrees that should it fail to perpetually use either conveyed
mitigation site to preserve its functions and values as a mitigation site, the
conveyed mitigation site will automatically revert to the ownership of the
State of Washington without cost or further obligation on the part of the
Department.
ii. The City further agrees that should it fail to perpetually maintain and operate
either conveyed mitigation site in a manner that complies with this
Agreement, the quitclaim deed, the Corps, and any documents creating,
permitting, or certifying each mitigation site, as those documents exist on the
effective date of this agreement or as they may be amended, superseded, or
replaced in the future with the approval of the responsible regulatory agencies,
the conveyed mitigation site will automatically revert to the ownership of the
State of Washington without cost or further obligation on the part of the
Department. A failure to so perpetually maintain and operate is established if
it is determined, after conclusion of an administrative process, such as the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Enforcement process, that the
City’s activities are not in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act or other applicable law.
iii. Should either conveyed mitigation site revert to State ownership under “i” or
“ii” above, the City agrees to quitclaim such mitigation site to the State of
Washington immediately upon request. Should ownership of either or both
mitigation sites revert to the State of Washington, the City will pay any costs
and fees associated with transferring ownership.
f. Should ownership of either or both mitigation sites revert to the State of Washington
under Section 2.e within five years of the City altering the drainage within lands
conveyed under this agreement, then the City will reimburse the Department’s costs
to restore the site and bring it into full compliance with the documents creating,
permitting, or certifying the site; PROVIDED that should the City pay for and obtain
a study prepared by a Department-approved expert that concludes the City’s drainage
alteration was not a cause of the mitigation site non-compliance, then the City is not
obligated to reimburse the Department’s costs.
3. The Department further agrees to convey to the City the approximately 34.04 acres of
non-mitigation and non-right-of-way land contained within the larger State-owned
property described in Exhibit B and depicted in Exhibit C in exchange for the City
Page 5 of 11
DI.A Page 118 of 510
Exhibit A
conveying to the State a fee simple interest in the approximately 9.91 acres of parcel 1-
22952 described in Exhibit H and depicted in Exhibit I, but only on the following terms
and conditions:
a. The Department will reserve a perpetual, non-exclusive drainage easement for storm
and surface water flow and storage over, on, under, and across the transferred
property for the historic and on-going storm and surface water flow or storage caused
by or due to the construction, reconstruction, operation, and/or maintenance of the
adjacent State Route 167 highway, its associated drainage system, and its other
structures, including the Mill Creek conveyance under State Route 167, thus
benefitting the State Route 167 right of way, including the right of ingress and egress
over the transferred property to inspect, and monitor water flow and storage and also
to maintain the 50 foot wide area currently containing a drainage ditch (depicted as a
small dashed rectangle on Exhibit “C”), PROVIDED, that this easement does not
prohibit the City from altering drainage on the described lands, but only if doing so
does not adversely impact the State’s easement, and PROVIDED further that changes
in water flow and storage caused by future Department projects fall within the scope
of this easement to the extent that they are permitted by applicable regulatory
agencies.
b. The City will convey a fee simple interest in its property by quitclaim deed, in a form
prepared by the Department. The State will convey its property by a quitclaim deed
consistent with the statutes authorizing exchange of real property in Chapter 47.12
RCW, in a form prepared by the Department. The Department shall prepare the
necessary deeds within 90 days after this agreement is fully signed. Each Party shall
be responsible for any closing, recording, or filing costs associated with the property
conveyed to that Party. Other than as expressly provided herein, the parties accept
the properties conveyed to them “as is.”
c. Consideration for each Party’s conveyance of real property under this Section 3 will
be (i) receipt of real property from the other Party and (ii) resolution of the lawsuit
referenced above. Consideration for the City’s conveyance also includes the
Department’s payment of $109,700, the difference in the fair market values of the
two parcels being exchanged. The Department agrees to pay this amount within 30
days after the deed from the City to the Department is recorded.
d. The Department agrees to remove the existing City-owned sewer pipe on the property
the City is conveying to the State and to pay the City $2,067,500 as the cost to install
a new sewer line on non-transferred City-owned property that would otherwise be
damaged by that amount by the loss of the sewer line. Prior to advertising for the
removal work, the Department will submit to the City for review and approval, its
plans and specifications for removal and plugging the sewer. Upon project
completion, the Department will provide the City with as built plans in AutoCAD
electronic format and on Mylar. The City will be responsible for installing the new
sewer line when and where it determines necessary, but not on the land conveyed to
the State.
Page 6 of 11
DI.A Page 119 of 510
Exhibit A
e. King County has an interest in and a mitigation site on a portion of parcel 1-22952
(depicted in Exhibit I) not being conveyed to the State. The Department will grant
King County and the City a non-exclusive easement allowing access for necessary
maintenance and monitoring of this existing site. The physical area included within
this easement is shown on Exhibit I.
f. The Department will construct the portion of the access road located on the portion of
parcel 1-22952 being conveyed to the State. The City has constructed the portion of
the road from the eastern edge of the West Valley Highway to the western edge of the
property the City is conveying to the State so as to accommodate an access roadway
aligned with the access easement depicted on Exhibit I and page 2 of Exhibit K. The
Department will construct the connection between the road portions each party has
constructed on the access easement depicted on Exhibit I and page 2 of Exhibit K.
g. The City will grant the Department a Right of Entry, attached hereto as Exhibit K, so
that the Department can connect the access road constructed by the Department to the
portion constructed by the City.
h. If the property exchange takes place before the City completes construction of its
West Valley Highway Improvements – SR18 to West Main Street Project, then the
Department will grant a permit to the City of Auburn to allow staging of construction
equipment and storage of materials for that project during the construction of said
West Valley Highway Improvements. The permit is attached hereto as Exhibit J,
setting forth the terms of and area within the permit. Following the construction of
said West Valley Highway Improvements, the City shall remove any equipment and
materials related to the City’s West Valley Highway construction project from the
construction staging/material storage area. The parties agree that the permit does not
obligate the City to perform future site remediation from past practices prior to the
said West Valley Highway Improvements.
4. The City understands and agrees that for any of the state-owned lands to be conveyed
under this Agreement, the Department shall retain ownership all rights of access, light,
view and air between the state-owned lands conveyed and SR 167. The City further
understands and agrees that the City, its successors and/or assigns shall not have any
rights of ingress or egress (to, from and between) the state-owned lands conveyed and SR
167. The City further understands and agrees that the City and its successors and/or
assigns shall not be entitled to any damages for the loss of access, light, view or air in
connection with any construction, reconstruction, operation or maintenance of SR 167.
This term shall be contained in all conveyance documents to the City.
5. Each Party fully releases and discharges the other from and against any and all claims,
demands, actions, causes of action, obligations, costs, expenses, damages, losses, and
liabilities, of any kind or nature, existing, claimed to exist, or which can hereafter ever arise
out of or result from or in connection with any past, current, or future act, error, or omission
relating to the City’s and the Department’s actions or inactions claimed to affect ALC’s
Page 7 of 11
DI.A Page 120 of 510
Exhibit A
property in any way, the facts alleged in ALC’s previously filed claims for damages, or the
facts alleged in ALC’s lawsuit.
6. Any property conveyed to the City or to the Department under this Agreement shall be
conveyed by quitclaim deed to the City or to the Department on an “as is” “where is” and
“with all faults” basis. Each party hereby waives and relinquishes all rights and
privileges arising out of, or with respect to, any representations, warranties or covenants,
whether express or implied, which may have been made or given, or which may be
deemed to have been made or given, by the other party or its representatives, except for
those representations, warranties and covenants set forth in this Agreement.
Except to the extent of any representations or warranties set forth elsewhere in this
Agreement, each party has not relied upon and will not rely upon, and the other party
expressly disclaims, any representations or warranties with respect to, and shall have no
liability for: (i) the condition of the property or any buildings, structures or improvements
located thereon or the suitability thereof for habitation, occupancy or for the intended use
of the parties or for any use whatsoever; (ii) any applicable building, zoning or fire laws
or regulations or with respect to compliance therewith or with respect to the existence of
or compliance with any required permits, if any, of any governmental agency; (iii) the
availability or existence of any water, sewer or utilities, any rights thereto, or any water,
sewer or utility districts; (iv) access to any public or private sanitary sewer system; (v)
the fact that all or a portion of the property may be located on or near an earthquake fault
line; or (vi) the presence of any hazardous substances in any improvements on the
property, including without limitation asbestos or formaldehyde, or the presence of any
environmentally hazardous wastes or materials on or under the property. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, except to the extent of any representations or
warranties set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, each party shall have no liability to the
other party with respect to the condition of the property under common law, or any
federal, state, or local law or regulation, including but not limited to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 as amended, 42
U.S.C.A. sections 9601 et seq., and the Washington Model Toxics Control Act
(“MTCA”), RCW 70.105d. Each party hereby releases and waives any and all claims
which the party has or may have against the other party under any of the foregoing laws
or with respect to the condition of the property, except to the extent of any claims the
party may have arising from any express representations, warranties or covenants of the
other party under this Agreement. Each party acknowledges to the other party that it has
been given the opportunity under this Agreement to fully inspect the property and each
party assumes the responsibility and risks of all defects and conditions, including such
defects and conditions, if any, that cannot be observed by casual inspection, subject to the
exception of rights expressly set forth above.
7. Once fully executed, this Agreement binds the Parties until all terms and conditions are
met and until each Party has conveyed the property it has agreed to convey. But the
City’s obligations regarding maintenance of conveyed mitigations sites, as set forth in
Section 2 and elsewhere in this Agreement, is perpetual and shall not terminate unless the
sites have reverted back to State ownership in accordance with paragraph 2.e.
Page 8 of 11
DI.A Page 121 of 510
Exhibit A
8. The entire Agreement between the Parties hereto is contained in this Agreement and the
Exhibits hereto; and this Agreement supersedes all previous representations, negotiations,
understandings, or agreements, written and oral, with respect to ALC’s claims against the
Parties and with respect to the properties described in Exhibits A, B, C-1, C-2, C-3, and
H. No modification, termination or amendment of this Agreement may be made except
by written agreement signed by those authorized to bind the Parties subsequent to the
date of this Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein.
9. No failure by either Party to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant, duty,
agreement, or condition of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy consequent
upon a breach thereof shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or any other covenant,
agreement, term or condition. Either Party hereto, by notice, and only by notice as
provided herein may, but shall be under no obligation to, waive any of its rights or any
conditions to its obligations hereunder, or any duty, obligation or covenant of the other
Party hereto. But neither Party can waive the City’s obligations under Section 2; the City
defaults by violating any of those obligations, and title to the conveyed mitigation site
shall automatically revert to the State of Washington.
10. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such
counterpart hereof shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts
together shall constitute but one agreement. Signatures transmitted by email or facsimile
shall be deemed originals.
11. Each of the provisions of this Agreement has been reviewed and negotiated, and
represent the combined work product of the Parties hereto. No presumption or other
rules of construction which would interpret the provisions of this Agreement in favor of
or against the Party preparing the same shall be applicable in connection with the
construction or interpretation of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
12. This Agreement and the right of the Parties hereto shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the Parties agree that in any
such action, venue shall lie exclusively in Thurston County, Washington. In the event of
any controversy, claim, or dispute arising out of this Agreement, each Party shall be
solely responsible for the payment of its own legal expenses, including but not limited to,
attorneys’ fees and costs.
13. No Party to this Agreement shall transfer or assign any right or obligation hereunder
without the prior written consent of the other Party.
14. Summary of Exhibits: The following Exhibits are incorporated into this Agreement:
Exhibit A Legal description of former Auburn Land Company property
Exhibit B Legal Description of State Owned Property, including property to be
conveyed to the City and property to be retained by the State
Page 9 of 11
DI.A Page 122 of 510
Exhibit A
Exhibit C Graphic Illustrating State Owned Property, including property to be
retained as right of way, mitigation sites to be conveyed, and non-mitigation property to
be conveyed
Exhibit C-1 Legal description of 8.71 Acre mitigation site
Exhibit C-2 Legal description of 5.49 Acre mitigation site
Exhibit C-3 Legal description of 34.04 Acre surplus property
Exhibit D Agreements dismissing Auburn Land Company’s lawsuit and releasing its
claims
Exhibit E Recorded Drainage Easement granted by City to State over former Auburn
Land Company Property
Exhibit F Sample Quitclaim Deed conveying State mitigation sites to the City and
reserving easements
Exhibit G Purchase & Sale Agreement by which City purchased Property from
Auburn Land Company
Exhibit H Legal Description for Property State is acquiring from City
Exhibit I Department Sundry Site Plan depicting Department Parcel Number 1-
22952, including the portion to be acquired by State from the City
Exhibit J Department Permit authorizing City’s temporary use of portion of land
City is transferring to State during City’s West Valley Highway Project
Exhibit K Right of Entry granted to Department by City
15. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement shall be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to a Party
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement shall be given by personal delivery or by
depositing the same in the United States mail, addressed to such Party, postage prepaid,
regular and certified mail, with return receipt requested, at the addresses set forth below.
Such notices, demands or requests may also be transmitted via facsimile, provided that
the provisions of this section are otherwise complied with. All notices, demands and
requests shall be deemed effective and received upon the earlier of actual receipt, whether
served by personal delivery or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested, or
three (3) days after depositing the same into the mail, as established by the postmark date.
By giving to the other Party at least three (3) business days’ written notice thereof, the
Parties hereto and their respective authorized successors and assigns shall have the right
from time to time at any time during the term of this Agreement to change their
respective addresses and each shall have the right to specify as its address any other
Page 10 of 11
DI.A Page 123 of 510
Exhibit A
Page 11 of 11
address within the United States. The present addresses for notice are as follows, and the
Parties also agree to accept service of process at said addresses:
DEPARTMENT:
Department of Transportation
Attn: Northwest Region Real Estate Services Manager
15700 Dayton Avenue North
P.O. Box 330310
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
CITY:
City of Auburn
Attn: ___________________
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4916
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and
year last written below.
CITY DEPARTMENT
_______________________________ _________________________________
By: Peter B. Lewis By: John L. Jensen
Its: Mayor Its: NWR Real Estate Services Manager
Date: __________________________ Date: ____________________________
DI.A Page 124 of 510
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description for King County Tax Parcel No. 1221049009, commonly identified as 801
15th Street Northwest, Auburn, WA 98002:
That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North,
Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying west of the Seattle-Tacoma Interurban
Railway, as established by instruments recorded under Auditor’s File Nos. 214685 and 220487.
EXCEPT that portion appropriated by the State of Washington under Stipulated Judgment and
Decree of Appropriation in King County Superior Court No. 718093 on November 24, 1971.
DI.A Page 125 of 510
EXHIBIT B – page 1
EXHIBIT B
Legal description for the State environmental mitigation and right-of-way
expansion land located west of SR 167, east of West Valley Highway,
and south of 15th Street NW in or near Auburn, Washington
PARCEL "A":
The southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 4 East,
W. M., in King County Washington;
EXCEPT portion conveyed to King County for State Aid Road No. 69 (West Valley Highway)
by deed recorded under Recording Number 694367, in King County, Washington;
AND EXCEPT that portion condemned in King County Superior Court Cause Number 718093
for SR 167;
AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Auburn for street purposes by deed recorded
under Recording Number 6310375.
PARCEL "B":
The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 4 East,
W.M. in King County Washington:
EXCEPT that part of the west 550 feet lying northerly of the south 615 feet:
AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to King County for State Aid Road No. 69 (West
Valley Highway) by deed recorded under Recording Number 694383;
AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Auburn for street purposes by deed recorded
under Recording Number 6310375;
AND EXCEPT that portion condemned in King County Superior Court Cause Number 7l8093
for SR 167;
AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Auburn by deed recorded under Recording
Number 8112230547.
PARCEL "C":
That portion of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 11, Township 21 North,
Range 4 East, W. M., in King County, Washington, lying easterly of the easterly margin of SR
181 (West Valley Highway);
EXCEPT that portion condemned in King County Superior Court Cause Number 718093.
DI.A Page 126 of 510
EXHIBIT B – page 2
PARCEL "D":
That part of the west 550.00 feet lying northerly of the south 615. 00 feet of the northwest
quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King
County, Washington;
EXCEPT that portion conveyed to King County for State Aid Road No. 69 (West Valley
Highway) by deed recorded under Recording Number 694383;
AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Auburn for street purposes by deed recorded
under Recording Number 6310375;
AND EXCEPT that portion condemned in King County Superior Court Cause Number 718093
for SR 167;
AND EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Auburn by deed recorded under Recording
Number 8112230547.
DI.A Page 127 of 510
DATE
SR 167 KING COUNTY
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON STATE
EXHIBIT C
PARCEL 1-15619
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS
+
+
(10.05 ACRES)
FUTURE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BY WSDOT FOR
AREA TO BE RETAINED
W
E
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
IG
H
W
A
Y
15th STREET NW
S
R
1
6
7
RESERVED)
(DRAINAGE EASEMENT
5.49 ACRES
MITIGATION SITE
WSDOT
RESERVED)
(DRAINAGE EASEMENT
8.71 ACRES
MITIGATION SITE
WSDOT
RESERVED)
(DRAINAGE EASEMENT
34.04 ACRES
TO CITY OF AUBURN
AREA TO BE CONVEYED
EXHIBIT C2
SEE
DESCRIPTION,
FOR LEGAL
SEE EXHIBIT C3
DESCRIPTION,
FOR LEGAL
SEE EXHIBIT C1
DESCRIPTION,
FOR LEGAL
DI.A Page 128 of 510
EXHIBIT C-1
Legal Description of the approximately 8.71 acre (379,408 sf) certified mitigation site, ICN
1-17-09477 (southwest parcel; sheet 6)
Those portions of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 11, and the southwest
quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, all in Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in
King County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of the West Valley Highway and the south line
of said Section 11; thence northeasterly and northerly along the east margin of said West Valley
Highway to a point opposite Highway Engineer's Station (hereinafter referred to as HES) 579+17
on the SR 167 line survey of SR 167, Auburn: 17th St. SW to S. 285th St., and 1,182± feet
westerly therefrom; thence easterly to a point opposite HES 579+12 on said line survey and
1,013 feet westerly therefrom; thence easterly to a point opposite HES 579+01 on said line
survey and 574 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite HES 578+47 on
said line survey and 580 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite HES
577+39 on said line survey and 592 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite
HES 576+29 on said line survey and 599 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point
opposite HES 575+13 on said line survey and 600 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a
point opposite HES 574+04 on said line survey and 592 feet westerly therefrom; thence
southerly to a point opposite HES 572+91 on said line survey and 574 feet westerly therefrom;
thence southerly to a point opposite HES 571+72 on said line survey and 575± feet westerly
therefrom, said point lying on the south line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
said Section 12; thence westerly along said south line to the corner common to Sections 11, 12,
13, and 14, T. 21 N, R.4E, WM; then westerly along the south line of said Section 11 to the point
of beginning;
EXCEPT that portion conveyed to Halvard Thurmod and Pearl V. Thurmod, under King County
Recording No. 6722632.
The lands herein described contain an area of 379,408 square feet, more or less, the specific
details concerning all of which are to be found on sheet 6 of that certain plan entitled SR 167,
Auburn: 17th St. SW to S. 285th St., now of record and on file in the office of the Secretary of
Transportation at Olympia, and bearing date of approval June 12, 1969, as revised
DI.A Page 129 of 510
EXHIBIT C-2
Legal Description of the approximately 5.49 acre (239,145 sf) uncertified mitigation site,
ICN 1-17-09476 (middle/west parcel; sheet 6)
Those portions of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the
southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County,
Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the easterly margin of West Valley Highway opposite Highway
Engineer's Station (hereinafter referred to as HES) 579+17 on the SR 167 line survey of SR 167,
Auburn: 17th St. SW to S. 285th St., and 1,182± feet westerly therefrom; thence easterly to a
point opposite HES 579+12 on said line survey and 1,013 feet westerly therefrom; thence
northerly to a point opposite HES 580+21 on said line survey and 1,021 feet westerly therefrom;
thence easterly to a point opposite HES 580+12 on said line survey and 763 feet westerly
therefrom; thence northerly parallel with said SR 167 line survey to a point opposite HES
581+68 thereon; thence northwesterly to a point opposite HES 583+29 on said line survey and
917 feet westerly therefrom; thence northerly to a point opposite HES 585+49 on said line
survey and 916 feet westerly therefrom; thence northeasterly to a point opposite HES 585+97 on
said line survey and 802 feet westerly therefrom; thence northwesterly to a point opposite HES
587+01 on said line survey and 860 feet westerly therefrom; thence southwesterly to a point
opposite HES 586+37 on said line survey and 1,188 feet westerly therefrom, said point being on
the easterly margin of the West Valley Highway; thence southerly along said easterly margin to
the point of beginning.
The lands herein described contain an area of 239,145 square feet, more or less, the specific
details concerning all of which are to be found on sheet 6 of that certain plan entitled SR 167,
Auburn: 17th St. SW to S. 285th St., now of record and on file in the office of the Secretary of
Transportation at Olympia, and bearing date of approval June 12, 1969, as revised.
DI.A Page 130 of 510
EXHIBIT C-3
Legal Description of the approximately 34.04 acre (1,482,783 sf) surplus State property,
ICN 1-17-08645 (east/north parcel; on sheets 6 and 7)
Those portions of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the
southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County,
Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the easterly margin of West Valley Highway opposite Highway
Engineer's Station (hereinafter referred to as HES) 579+17 on the SR 167 line survey of SR 167,
Auburn: 17th St. SW to S. 285th St., and 1,182± feet westerly therefrom; thence easterly to a
point opposite HES 579+12 on said SR 167 line survey and 1,013 feet westerly therefrom, said
point being the True Point of Beginning; thence easterly to a point opposite HES 579+01 on said
SR 167 line survey and 574 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite HES
578+47 on said SR 167 line survey and 580 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point
opposite HES 577+39 on said SR 167 line survey and 592 feet westerly therefrom; thence
southerly to a point opposite HES 576+29 on said SR 167 line survey and 599 feet westerly
therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite HES 575+13 on said SR 167 line survey and 600
feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite HES 574+04 on said SR 167 line
survey and 592 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite HES 572+91 on
said SR 167 line survey and 574 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to a point opposite
HES 571+72 on said SR 167 line survey and 575± feet westerly therefrom, said point lying on
the south line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 12; thence
easterly along said south line to the westerly right of way line of SR 167, said point being
opposite HES 572+13.85 on said SR 167 line survey and 165 feet westerly therefrom; thence
northerly along said westerly right of way line to a point opposite HES 583+00 on said SR 167
line survey and 165 feet westerly therefrom; thence northwesterly to a point opposite HES
587+00 on said SR 167 line survey and 215 feet westerly therefrom; thence northwesterly to a
point opposite HES 592+00 on said SR 167 line survey and 455 feet westerly therefrom; thence
northwesterly to a point opposite HES (15th St. NW)5+50 on the 15th St. N.W. Ext. line survey
of said Highway and 370 feet southerly therefrom; thence northwesterly to a point opposite HES
(15th St. NW)1+37± on said 15th St. N.W. Ext. line survey and 192.32 feet southerly therefrom,
said point lying on the easterly margin of the West Valley Highway; thence southerly along said
easterly margin to a point opposite HES 586+37 on the SR 167 line survey of said Highway and
1,188 feet westerly therefrom; thence northeasterly to a point opposite HES 587+01 on said SR
167 line survey and 860 feet westerly therefrom; thence southeasterly to a point opposite HES
585+97 on said SR 167 line survey and 802 feet westerly therefrom; thence southwesterly to a
point opposite HES 585+49 on said SR 167 line survey and 916 feet westerly therefrom; thence
southerly to a point opposite HES 583+29 on said SR 167 line survey and 917 feet westerly
therefrom; thence southeasterly to a point opposite HES 581+68 on said SR 167 line survey and
763 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly parallel with said SR 167 line survey to a point
opposite HES 580+12 thereon; thence westerly to a point opposite HES 580+21 on said SR 167
line survey and 1,021 feet westerly therefrom; thence southerly to the True Point of Beginning.
Exhibit C-3 – page 1 DI.A Page 131 of 510
Exhibit C-3 – page 2
The lands herein described contain an area of 1,482,783 square feet, more or less, the specific
details concerning all of which are to be found on sheets 6 and 7 of that certain plan entitled SR
167, Auburn: 17th St. SW to S. 285th St., now of record and on file in the office of the Secretary
of Transportation at Olympia, and bearing date of approval June 12, 1969, as revised.
DI.A Page 132 of 510
DI.A Page 133 of 510
DI.A Page 134 of 510
DI.A Page 135 of 510
DI.A Page 136 of 510
DI.A Page 137 of 510
DI.A Page 138 of 510
DI.A Page 139 of 510
DI.A Page 140 of 510
DI.A Page 141 of 510
DI.A Page 142 of 510
DI.A Page 143 of 510
DI.A Page 144 of 510
DI.A Page 145 of 510
DI.A Page 146 of 510
DI.A Page 147 of 510
DI.A Page 148 of 510
DI.A Page 149 of 510
DI.A Page 150 of 510
DI.A Page 151 of 510
DI.A Page 152 of 510
DI.A Page 153 of 510
DI.A Page 154 of 510
DI.A Page 155 of 510
DI.A Page 156 of 510
DI.A Page 157 of 510
DI.A Page 158 of 510
DI.A Page 159 of 510
DI.A Page 160 of 510
DI.A Page 161 of 510
DI.A Page 162 of 510
EXHIBIT H
King County Sundry Site Plans,
Mill Creek Floodplain Storage and Wetlands Mitigation Area
All that portion of the southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 21 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said
Section 14; thence North 89°57'08" West 969.29 feet to the easterly margin of West Valley
Highway; thence South 12°53'25" West along said easterly margin 142.99 feet; thence
continue southerly along the said easterly margin along the arc of a curve to the right
having a radius of 2,895 feet an arc distance of 324.05 feet, said point being on the
southerly boundary line of an existing 20 foot sanitary sewer easement recorded under
Recording No. 8109100300; thence South 85°40'28" East along the southerly boundary
line of said sanitary sewer easement 99.23 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence
continuing South 85°40'28" East 383.32 feet; thence South 22°12'39" West 104.36 feet;
thence South 25º58'40" East 52.84 feet; thence South 43º20'08" West 198.65 feet; thence
South 27º37'28" West 54.44 feet; thence South 58º04'28" East 195.33 feet; thence
southwesterly along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 50 feet, an arc
distance of 10.40 feet; thence South 35º40'35" West 384.02 feet; thence southwesterly
along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 350 feet, an arc distance of 391.75
feet; thence North 80º11'35" West 115.63 feet; thence South 09º48'25" West 12.15 feet;
thence North 69º41'20" West 61.88 feet; thence North 16º34'03" East 278.65 feet; thence
North 23º29'46" East 227.32 feet; thence North 21º53'56" East 150.55 feet; thence North
12º55'06" East 91.65 feet; thence North 38º44'24" East 163.99 feet; thence North 21º46'10"
East 74.40 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
The lands herein described contain an area of 431,858 square feet, more or less, the
specific details concerning all of which are to be found on sheet 69 of that certain plan
entitled King County Sundry Site Plans, Mill Creek Floodplain Storage and Wetlands
Mitigation Area, now of record and on file in the office of the Secretary of Transportation
at Olympia, bearing date of approval August 6, 2009, revised May 3, 2012.
DI.A Page 163 of 510
DI.A Page 164 of 510
DI.A Page 165 of 510
DI.A Page 166 of 510
DI.A Page 167 of 510
DI.A Page 168 of 510
DI.A Page 169 of 510
DI.A Page 170 of 510
DI.A Page 171 of 510
DI.A Page 172 of 510
DI.A Page 173 of 510
DI.A Page 174 of 510
DI.A Page 175 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4832
Date:
June 29, 2012
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Memo
Resolution No. 4832
Revised TIP No. 43
Current TIP No. 43
Project Vicinity Map
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
See attached memo.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dowdy/Para
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 176 of 510
Page 1 of 1
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Community Development Committee, Mayor Lewis
FROM: Pablo Para, Traffic Engineer
RE: Proposed Modification to the Auburn 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program
DATE: June 29, 2012
CC: Kevin Snyder, Dennis Dowdy, Dennis Selle, Ingrid Gaub
Background
The City of Auburn was recently awarded a grant from the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) for $2,333,108 with no match requirement to complete corridor capacity and
safety improvements on Auburn Way South between Muckleshoot Plaza and Dogwood St SE. This
program distributes funds from SAFETEA-LU's Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP).
As part of the award, Auburn is required to add the project to the city’s 2012-2017 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in order to be
eligible to obligate the awarded federal funds. Since there is an existing project on the TIP that closely
matches the scope staff is proposing to revise that existing project to satisfy the WSDOT requirement.
Pursuant to RCW 35.77.010 the legislative body of each city is required to prepare and adopt a
comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six years. The program may at any time be
revised by a majority of the legislative body of a city, but only after conducting a public hearing.
Schedule:
PWC /PCDC Discussion: July 2, 2012 & July 9, 2012
PCDC/Council Action on Public Hearing Resolution: July 9, 2012 & July 16, 2012
PCDC/Council Action on Adoption Resolution: July 23, 2012 & August 6, 2012
Attached for review are:
Resolution 4832:
TIP Mod Project Sheet TIP#43
Current TIP#43
Project Map
DI.B Page 177 of 510
---------------------------
Resolution No. 4832
June 28, 2012
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 4832
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2012-2017 SIX-YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN PURSUANT TO RCW CHAPTER 35.77
WHEREAS, The City of Auburn was identified by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) as a candidate eligible for up to
$2,333,108 under the Corridor category of the City Safety program; and
WHEREAS, the City submitted a grant application on October 28, 2011
for Citywide Safety Traffic Signal Improvements which detailed a proposal to
implement low-cost and widespread improvements at signalized intersections
addressing many of the intersection related collisions identified by WSDOT; and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2012, the City of Auburn was provided
notification by the Washington State Department of Transportation that an
award in the amount of $2,333,108 was granted based on an application
submitted; and
WHEREAS, as part of the award, the City is required to add the project
to the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the
Washington State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in order to be
eligible to obligate the awarded funds; and
DI.B Page 178 of 510
---------------------------
Resolution No. 4832
June 28, 2012
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, a public hearing to consider
amending the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program for the City of
Auburn was held on August 6, 2012 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 June 8th, 2012; and
WHEREAS, said amendment to the 2012-2017 Transportation
Improvement Program of the City of Auburn was approved by the City Council
by motion duly made and carried in said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. There is attached hereto and denominated as Exhibit “A” and
the terms of which are incorporated herewith by reference as though fully set
forth, a designation of the streets within the corporate limits of the City of
Auburn to be improved in the manner therein set forth during the year set for
the improvement of such street or streets.
Section 2. That the City Engineer of the City of Auburn is hereby
directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Washington State
Department of Transportation for filing not more than thirty (30) days after the
adoption of this Resolution.
DI.B Page 179 of 510
---------------------------
Resolution No. 4832
June 28, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of
this legislation.
Section 4. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
DATED this ____ day of August, 2012
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
DI.B Page 180 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements TIP # 43
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2011 YE 2012 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2011Estimate2012 Budget2013 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 250,000 - 2,333,108
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - 250,000 - 2,333,108
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 250,000 - 312,210
Right of Way - - - - - 69,585
Construction - - - - - 1,951,313
- - - 250,000 - 2,333,108
TotalExpenditures
20142015201620172012-2017Beyond 2017
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)2,083,108 - - - 2,333,108 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
2,083,108 - - - 2,333,108 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 62,210 - - - 312,210 -
Right of Way 69,585 - - - 69,585 -
Construction 1,951,313 - - - 1,951,313 -
2,083,108 - - - 2,333,108 -
G ra n t s /O t h e r S o u rc e s :
Adopted Budget
This project will improve access management, provide u-turns, upgrade transit stops and street lighting, widen to accomodate turn lanes
and pedestrians and bicycles, upgrade pavement markings, install pedestrian signals and audible pedestrian push buttons, and upgrade
traffic signals to change the phasing and to improve the visibility of the signal heads.
Progress Summary:
Grant funding was awarded in 2012 and does not require a local match.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.B Page 181 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2012-2017 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South & Riverwalk Intersection Improvements TIP # 43
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2011YTD Actual201211 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
2011 YE 2012 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2011Estimate2012 Budget2013 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20142015201620172012-2017Beyond 2017
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 125,000 1,951,000 - 2,076,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - 25,000 299,000 - 324,000 -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- 150,000 2,250,000 - 2,400,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 150,000 - - 150,000 -
Right of Way - - 200,000 - 200,000 -
Construction - - 2,050,000 - 2,050,000 -
- 150,000 2,250,000 - 2,400,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:Grant funding is unsecured.
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at Auburn Way
S and Riverwalk Dr SE. This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, auxiliary signal heads and pedestrian
safety enhancements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
DI.B Page 182 of 510
DI.B Page 183 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
2013-2018 Transportation Improvement Program Update
Date:
July 2, 2012
Department:
Public Works
Attachments:
Memo
Financial Summary and TIP Sheets
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dowdy/Para
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 184 of 510
PCDC Page 1 7/2/2012
Memorandum
Engineering Division
To: Planning & Community Development Committee (PCDC)
Mayor Lewis
From: Pablo Para, Traffic Engineer
CC: Dennis Dowdy, Dennis Selle, Ingrid Gaub, Martin Chaw
Date: July 2, 2012
Re: 2013-2018 Transportation Improvement Program Update
PURPOSE
Discuss proposed 2013-2018 update to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
BACKGROUND
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is required to be amended
annually as required by RCW 35.77.010. For Auburn, the primary importance of the TIP
is that, in most instances, projects must be included on the TIP to be eligible for state
and federal grant programs. The TIP identifies secured or reasonably expected
revenues and expenditures for each of the projects included in the TIP. Typically,
projects listed in the first three years of the document are shown as having secured
funding while projects in the last three years can be partially or completely unfunded.
The TIP is a multiyear planning tool and document for the development of transportation
facilities within the City and does not represent a financial commitment by the City.
Once the TIP is approved, projects are budgeted and funded through the City’s biennial
budget. The TIP sets priorities for the acquisition of project funding and is a prerequisite
of most grant programs. Staff also uses the TIP to coordinate future transportation
projects with needed utility improvements.
DI.C Page 185 of 510
PCDC Page 2 7/2/2012
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2013-2018 TIP
Deletions: The following projects are proposed to be removed from the TIP. TIP#’s
64-66 will be added to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
TIP #14 West valley Highway Improvements
TIP #25 F St SE & 4th St SE traffic Signal
TIP #33 Traffic Calming Improvements
TIP #52 Downtown Promenade Improvements
TIP #53 37th & R St SE Pedestrian Connector
TIP #55 Mary Olson Farm Improvements
TIP #57 Downtown Pedestrian Lighting
TIP #64 Lea Hill Road Segment 1 (R St NE to 104th Ave SE)
TIP #65 Lea Hill Road Segment 2 (104th Ave Se to 112th Ave SE)
TIP #66 Lea Hill Road Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE)
Additions: Below are the proposed new projects to the 2013-2018 TIP:
TIP #22 West Valley Highway System Improvements
TIP #43 Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements
TIP #67 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvement Project
NEXT STEPS
Staff will commence the TIP amendment process based on the below schedule. The
final approved TIP document will be sent to WSDOT and PSRC for their acceptance.
July 16, 2012 – 1st PWC Review of Draft TIP.
July 23, 2012 – 2nd PCDC Review of Draft TIP and action on Resolution to set
public hearing.
Aug 6, 2012 – 2nd Review of Draft TIP at PWC.
Aug 13, 2012 – Final PCDC Review of TIP and action on Resolution for adoption.
Aug 20, 2012 – City Council Meeting to conduct public hearing & approve
amended TIP
Attachments:
• Draft 2013 – 2018 Transportation Improvement Program Project Sheets.
DI.C Page 186 of 510
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects
1 'A' Street NW, Phase 1 ($8.2M Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - 150,000 - - - 150,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees25,000 25,000 200,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 325,000
2 Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements ($192K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 748,830 - - - - - 748,830
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue43,500 - - - - - 43,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)705,330 - - - - - 705,330
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
3 Auburn Way Corridor Improvements (4th NE to 4th 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- - - - - - -
4 'I' Street NE Corridor ($162K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs - - - - - 6,760,000 6,760,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
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 ($15.3M Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 6,714,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 7,239,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)3,664,485 - - - - - 3,664,485
Traffic Impact Fees15,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 540,000
Traffic Mitigation Fees- - - - - - -
PWTF Loan1,800,115 - - - - - 1,800,115
Other (Agencies)1,249,400 - - - - - 1,249,400
6 South 277th - Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge ($122K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 1,024,300 1,453,000 5,170,000 - - - 7,647,300
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue156,600 - - - - - 156,600
Grants (Fed,State,Local)867,700 153,000 3,879,300 - - - 4,900,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - 290,700 - - - 290,700
Other (Development)- 1,300,000 1,000,000 - - - 2,300,000
7 15th 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
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
DI.C Page 187 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
8 A Street NW, Phase 2 ($150K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs:- - 150,000 - 3,000,000 - 3,150,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - 150,000 - - - 150,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
9 'D' Street NW, 37th to 44th ($6M 2018)
Capital Costs - - - - - 300,000 300,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 250,000 250,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - 50,000 50,000
10 'F' Street SE, 4th to AWS ($8K Expended Prior to 2013)
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
Traffic Impact Fees- - 50,000 250,000 - - 300,000
11 'M' Street NE, E. Main to 4th
Capital Costs - 50,000 275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,475,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 225,000 1,000,000 - - 1,225,000
Traffic Impact Fees- 50,000 50,000 150,000 - - 250,000
12 Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Railyard ($31M beyond 2018)
Capital Costs- - - - - 1,125,000 1,125,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - -
Other (Development)- - - - - 1,125,000 1,125,000
15 8th 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
Traffic Impact Fees- - 90,000 200,000 - - 290,000
16 49th 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)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
Other (Development)- - 850,000 2,500,000 - - -
DI.C Page 188 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
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
40 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 1
Capital Costs 50,000 150,000 1,750,000 - - - 1,950,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 125,000 1,565,000 - - - 1,690,000
Traffic Impact Fees50,000 25,000 185,000 - - - 210,000
41 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2
Capital Costs - - 50,000 200,000 1,000,000 - 1,250,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 150,000 865,000 - 1,015,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - 50,000 50,000 135,000 - 235,000
42 SE 320th St Corridor Improvements
Capital Costs - - 50,000 60,000 580,000 - 690,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 47,500 502,000 - 549,500
Traffic Impact Fees- - 50,000 12,500 78,000 - 140,500
43 Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor safety Improvements
Capital Costs 250,000 2,083,108 - - - - 2,333,108
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)250,000 2,083,108 - - - - 2,333,108
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
58 Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements Fir to Hemlock ($702K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 2,331,947 - - - - - 2,331,947
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)1,865,558 - - - - - 1,865,558
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
Other (Muckleshoot)466,389 - - - - - 466,389
59 Auburn Ave & 3rd ST NE Pedestrian & Access Improvements
Capital Costs 15,000 200,000 700,500 - - - 915,500
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue3,000 40,000 140,100 - - - 183,100
Grants (Fed,State,Local)12,000 160,000 560,400 - - - 732,400
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
DI.C Page 189 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
60 M Street SE Corridor (8TH St SE to AWS)
Capital Costs - - - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - 925,000 3,750,000 - 4,675,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - 750,000 750,000 - 1,500,000
61 Auburn Way South Bypass
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- - - - - - -
62 Auburn Way South Streetscape Improvements
Capital Costs - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 200,000 200,000 - 400,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - 1,200,000 2,050,000 - 3,250,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
REET2- - - 550,000 550,000 - 1,100,000
63 29th St SE & R St NE Improvements
Capital Costs - - - - - 1,800,000 1,800,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - 850,000 850,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - 500,000 500,000
REET2- - - - - 450,000 450,000
Subtotal, Roadway Improvement Projects:
Capital Costs 11,159,077 4,066,108 10,150,500 11,640,000 16,828,700 73,565,000 127,409,385
Funding Sources
Unrestricted Street Revenue203,100 40,000 440,100 525,000 1,060,000 600,000 2,868,200
Grants7,365,073 2,521,108 6,789,700 6,507,500 14,025,700 64,950,000 102,159,081
Traffic Impact Fees90,000 205,000 1,070,700 1,557,500 1,193,000 680,000 4,796,200
Other (Other Agencies)1,249,400 - - - - - 1,249,400
Other (Development)- 1,300,000 1,850,000 2,500,000 - 6,885,000 12,535,000
Other (Muckleshoot Tribe)466,389 - - - - - 466,389
PWTF1,800,115 - - - - - 1,800,115
REET2 - - - 550,000 550,000 450,000 1,550,000
Total Funding11,174,077 4,066,108 10,150,500 11,640,000 16,828,700 73,565,000 127,424,385
DI.C Page 190 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
TIP#Intersection, Signal & ITS Improvement Projects
17 Harvey Road & 8th St NE Imp. ($2M Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 86,900 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees86,900 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000
18 8th St NE & 104th St NE Intersection Improvements ($159K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 233,400 - - - - - 233,400
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue148,400 - - - - - 148,400
Grants (Federal)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
REET2 75,000 - - - - - 75,000
Other (Redflex)10,000 - - - - - 10,000
19 Auburn Way North / 1st Street NE Signal Improvements
Capital Costs - 50,000 550,000 - - - 600,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- 50,000 125,000 - - - 175,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - 425,000 - - - 425,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
20 Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Improvements ($100K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 150,000 850,000 - - - - 1,000,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Federal)- 850,000 - - - - 850,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees150,000 - - - - - 150,000
21 C Street NW and West Main Street
Capital Costs - 100,000 1,000,000 - - - 1,100,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- 20,000 200,000 - - - 220,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- 80,000 800,000 - - - 880,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
34 Traffic Signal Improvements
Capital Costs 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
REET2175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000
38 Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements
Capital Costs - - - 1,200,000 1,800,000 - 3,000,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 100,000 150,000 - 250,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - 1,100,000 1,650,000 - 2,750,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
DI.C Page 191 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs ($880K beyond 2016)
Capital Costs - - 220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - 30,000 - 30,000 - 60,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - 190,000 - 190,000 - 380,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
51 East Valley Highway ITS Expansion
Capital Costs - - 800,000 - - - 800,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants- - 692,000 - - - 692,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - 108,000 - - - 108,000
63 29th Street SE & R Street SE
Capital Costs - - - - - 1,800,000 1,800,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - 850,000 850,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - 500,000 500,000
REET2- - - - - 450,000 -
67 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvement Project
Capital Costs 405,000 - - - - - 405,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue5,000 - - - - - 5,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)400,000 - - - - - 400,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
Subtotal, Intersection, Signal & ITS Imp. Projects:
Capital Costs 1,050,300 1,261,500 2,831,000 1,460,600 2,280,200 2,059,800 10,943,400
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue153,400 70,000 355,000 100,000 180,000 - 858,400
Grants (Fed, State, Local)400,000 930,000 2,107,000 1,100,000 1,840,000 850,000 7,227,000
Traffic Impact Fees86,900 86,500 194,000 85,600 85,200 584,800 1,123,000
Traffic Mitigation Fees150,000 - - - - - 150,000
REET2250,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 625,000 1,575,000
Other (Redflex)10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Total Funding1,050,300 1,261,500 2,831,000 1,460,600 2,280,200 2,059,800 10,943,400
DI.C Page 192 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
TIP:Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects
23 BNSF/E. Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass ($224K Expended Prior to 2012)
Capital Costs - - - - 4,800,000 5,000,000 9,800,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - 4,550,000 5,000,000 9,550,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
Other (Other Agencies)- - - - 250,000 - 250,000
24 Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail
Capital Costs - - - 50,000 425,000 425,000 900,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - 50,000 42,500 42,500 135,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - 382,500 382,500 765,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
26 METRO Shuttle: Auburn Community and Lakeland Shuttles
Capital Costs 240,000 240,000 250,000 250,000 260,000 260,000 1,500,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue240,000 240,000 250,000 250,000 260,000 260,000 1,500,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
30 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Program
Capital Costs 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
31 Citywide Arterial Bicycle and Safety Improv.
Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
32 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements
Capital Costs 20,000 180,000 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- - - - - - -
REET2- - - - - - -
DI.C Page 193 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
44 A ST NE Pedestrian Improvements
Capital Costs - - - 150,000 - - 150,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - 150,000 - - 150,000
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
45 Interurban Trailhead Improvements
Capital Costs - - - 210,000 - - 210,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - 210,000 - - 210,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - -
56 Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements ($36K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 363,500 - - - - - 363,500
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)363,500 - - - - - 363,500
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
Subtotal, Non-Motorized & Transit Projects:
Capital Costs 823,500 520,000 470,000 940,000 5,705,000 5,965,000 14,423,500
Funding Sources
Unrestricted Street Revenue440,000 340,000 450,000 400,000 502,500 402,500 2,535,000
Grants363,500 - - 360,000 4,932,500 5,382,500 11,038,500
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
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 Funding823,500 520,000 470,000 940,000 5,705,000 5,965,000 14,423,500
DI.C Page 194 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
TIP#Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects
13 Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project ($681K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000
27 41st Street SE and A Street SE Access Management Study
Capital Costs 8,840 - - - - - 8,840
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue8,840 - - - - - 8,840
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
29 So. 277th, Wetland Mitigation ($270K Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 25,000 25,000 - - - - 50,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue25,000 25,000 - - - - 50,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees
46 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study ($2,000 Expended Prior to 2013)
Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue5,000 - - - - - 5,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
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 (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
48 Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Study
Capital Costs 10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue10,000 - - - - - 10,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
49 S 316th St Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Study
Capital Costs - - 5,000 - - - 5,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - 5,000 - - - 5,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
54 Kersey Way Study
Capital Costs - - 200,000 - - - 200,000
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - 200,000 - - - 200,000
Subtotal, Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects:
Capital Costs 73,840 50,000 225,000 25,000 65,000 20,000 458,840
Funding Sources
Unrestricted Street Revenue48,840 25,000 5,000 5,000 - - 83,840
Grants - - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees25,000 25,000 220,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 375,000
Total Funding73,840 50,000 225,000 25,000 65,000 20,000 458,840
DI.C Page 195 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
TIP#Roadway Preservation Projects
22 West Valley Highway System Improvements
Capital Costs 1,120,000 - - - - - 1,120,000
Funding Sources:
Arterial Preservation Funds560,000 - - - - - 560,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)560,000 - - - - - 560,000
Utility tax- - - - - - -
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 (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees- - - - - - -
35 Annual Arterial Street Preservation
Capital Costs 1,300,000 1,800,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 8,300,000
Funding Sources:
Arterial Preservation Funds- 500,000 - - - - 500,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Utility Tax1,300,000 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:
Arterial Preservation Funds- - - - - - -
Grants (Fed, State, Local)- - - - - - -
Utility Tax200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000
37 Local Street Preservation Program SOS
Capital Costs 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 13,000,000
Funding Sources:
Local St Preservation Funds1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000
Grants- - - - - - -
Property Tax2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Totals
Subtotal, Preservation Projects:
Capital Costs5,670,000 4,050,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 23,920,000
Funding Sources
Unrestricted Street Revenue50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000
Arterial Preservation Funds560,000 500,000 - - - - 1,060,000
Grants (Fed, State, Local)560,000 - - - - - 560,000
Utility Tax1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 9,000,000
Local St Preservation Funds1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000
Property Tax2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000
Total Funding5,670,000 4,050,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 23,920,000
DI.C Page 196 of 510
2013-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FINANCING
SUMMARY:
CAPITAL COSTS
Roadway Projects11,159,077 4,066,108 10,150,500 11,640,000 16,828,700 73,565,000 127,409,385
Int., Signal & ITS Projects1,050,300 1,261,500 2,831,000 1,460,600 2,280,200 2,059,800 10,943,400
NonMotorized Projects823,500 520,000 470,000 940,000 5,705,000 5,965,000 14,423,500
Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects73,840 50,000 225,000 25,000 65,000 20,000 458,840
Preservation Projects5,670,000 4,050,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 3,550,000 23,920,000
Total Costs 18,776,717 9,947,608 17,226,500 17,615,600 28,428,900 85,159,800 177,155,125
FUNDING SOURCES:
Unrestricted Street Revenue895,340 525,000 1,300,100 1,080,000 1,792,500 1,052,500 6,645,440
Traffic Impact Fees201,900 316,500 1,484,700 1,663,100 1,343,200 1,284,800 6,294,200
Traffic Mitigation Fees150,000 - - - - - 150,000
Local Street Fund 1033,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 13,000,000
Arterial Street Fund 1052,060,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 10,060,000
Grants8,688,573 3,451,108 8,896,700 7,967,500 20,798,200 71,182,500 120,984,581
Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000
REET2250,000 175,000 175,000 725,000 725,000 1,075,000 3,125,000
Other (Agencies)1,249,400 - - - 250,000 - 1,499,400
Other (Development)- 1,300,000 1,850,000 2,500,000 - 6,885,000 12,535,000
Other (Muckleshoot)466,389 - - - - - 466,389
Other (Redflex)10,000 - - - - - 10,000
PWTF1,800,115 - - - - - 1,800,115
Total Funding18,791,717 9,947,608 17,226,500 17,615,600 28,428,900 85,159,800 177,170,125
Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Unrestricted Street Revenue
Beginning Fund Balance1,002,000 451,000 521,000 266,000 (693,000) (1,794,500)
Annual Revenue535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000
Project Expenses895,340 525,000 1,300,100 1,080,000 1,792,500 1,052,500
End of Year Fund Balance641,660 461,000 (244,100) (279,000) (1,950,500) (2,312,000)
Traffic Impact Fees
Beginning Fund Balance1,311,600 1,909,700 2,393,200 1,708,500 845,400 302,200
Annual Revenue800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000
Project Expenses201,900 316,500 1,484,700 1,663,100 1,343,200 1,284,800
End of Year Fund Balance1,909,700 2,393,200 1,708,500 845,400 302,200 (182,600)
Traffic Mitigation Fees
Beginning Fund Balance427,330 277,330 277,330 277,330 277,330 277,330
Annual Revenue- - - - - -
Project Expenses150,000 - - - - -
End of Year Fund Balance277,330 277,330 277,330 277,330 277,330 277,330
Local Street Fund 103
Beginning Fund Balance1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970
Annual Revenue3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Project Expenses3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
End of Year Fund Balance 1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970 1,118,970
Arterial Street Fund 105
Beginning Fund Balance1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369
Annual Revenue2,060,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Project Expenses2,060,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
End of Year Fund Balance1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369 1,239,369
Grants
Secured Grants7,321,243 153,000 - - - -
Unsecured Grants1,367,330 3,298,108 8,896,700 7,967,500 20,798,200 71,182,500
DI.C Page 197 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 258,962 18,504 - - 277,466 427,466
Grants (Fed,State,Local)4,680,402 1,900,338 - - 6,580,740 6,580,740
Traffic Impact Fees 187,309 737,751 25,000 25,000 950,060 1,450,060
Other Sources (Developer)*209,123 198,437 - - 407,560 407,560
5,335,796 2,855,030 25,000 25,000 8,215,826 8,865,826
200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,667,209 - 10,000 10,000 1,677,209 1,817,209
Right of Way 1,072,268 - - - 1,072,268 1,072,268
Construction 2,596,319 2,855,030 15,000 15,000 5,466,349 5,976,349
5,335,796 2,855,030 25,000 25,000 8,215,826 8,865,826
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 150,000 - - - 150,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 325,000 200,000
Other Sources (Developer)*- - - - - -
350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 100,000 50,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 300,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 375,000 150,000
350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 200,000
Grants / Other Sources:Other Source is MultiCare 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 and is tied to corridor
development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor.
The project length is approximately three-quarters of a mile. The City purchased ROW from the northern property owner. If
the property develops, some or a portion of those funds may be reimbursed to the City (total cost was $251,000).
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,830.
Adopted Budget
Progress Summary:
Pre-design was completed prior to 2007. Final design and environmental permitting were completed in 2011. Construction
was completed in 2012 and required wetland monitoring will continue until 2023.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
DI.C Page 198 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,624 54,876 43,500 - 100,000 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 135,500 705,330 - 840,830 840,830
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - - -
1,624 190,376 748,830 - 940,830 940,830
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,624 180,376 50,000 - 232,000 232,000
Right of Way - 10,000 - - 10,000 10,000
Construction - - 698,830 - 698,830 698,830
1,624 190,376 748,830 - 940,830 940,830
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 43,500 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 705,330 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other Sources - - - - - -
- - - - 748,830 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 50,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 698,830 -
- - - - 748,830 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will construct pedestrian improvements along Auburn Way South between Dogwood St SE and Fir St SE that are consistent
with WSDOT's SR-164 Route Development Plan. This project includes sidewalk improvements, access management, a mid-block
pedestrian crossing, construction of a u-turn wedge at Fir St SE and street lighting.
Progress Summary:
Project design began in 2012 with construction expected to be completed in 2013. The City was awarded $100,000 in federal
funding and $740,830 in state funding in May 2011.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 199 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 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
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
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:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project is based on a pre-design study and is intended to improve pedestrian accessibility, appearance, and link the
downtown area along Auburn Way South between 4th St NE and 4th St SE. This project may include some pavement
repairs. However, an overlay was completed as part of the City's Arterial Pavement Preservation Program in 2007. Although
this was considered a temporary fix, the scope has been modified to account for the pavement work. The project length is
approximately a half mile.
Progress Summary:
The pavement portion has been minimized due to the work completed in 2007 under the Arterial Pavement Preservation
Program.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 200 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: I Street NE Corridor (45th St. NE to S 277th St) TIP # 4
Project No:c415a0, cp1207
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD, Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 21
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 11,827 150,000 - - 161,827 161,827
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,000,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other Sources (Development)- - - - - 5,760,000
Other (*Port of Seattle)- - - - - -
11,827 150,000 - - 161,827 6,921,827
Capital Expenditures:
Design 11,827 25,000 - - 36,827 460,000
Right of Way - - - - - 1,020,000
Construction - 125,000 - - 125,000 5,280,000
11,827 150,000 - - 161,827 6,921,827
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 11,827 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other Sources (Development)- - - 5,760,000 5,760,000 -
Other (Port of Seattle)- - - - - -
- - - 6,760,000 6,771,827
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 460,000 471,827 -
Right of Way - - - 1,020,000 1,020,000 -
Construction - - - 5,280,000 5,280,000 -
- - - 6,760,000 6,771,827 -
Grants / Other Sources:
The final alignment of the I Street Corridor is being analyzed as part of the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan Environmental
Impact Study. A portion of the ROW and Construction will be developer funded. The cross section will likely be a 5-lane arterial
per the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Progress Summary:
This project is development driven. 2012 expenditures were for design and construction of culvert crossing.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Expenditures:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,200.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 201 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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:Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# 6
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 150,000 - - 150,000 150,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)872,372 5,169,000 3,664,485 - 9,705,857 9,705,857
REET2 1,140,000 - - - 1,140,000 1,140,000
Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)3,128,260 1,228,300 - - 4,356,560 4,356,560
Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)- - 15,000 105,000 15,000 3,040,000
Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - 660,000 660,000
PWTFL - 1,008,084 1,800,115 - 2,808,199 2,808,199
Other Sources (Other Agencies)*235,079 1,753,351 1,249,400 - 3,237,830 3,237,830
6,035,711 9,308,735 6,729,000 105,000 22,073,446 22,058,446
Debt Service:
3,040,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 2,674,716 - - - 2,674,716 2,674,716
Right of Way 3,358,708 - - - 3,358,708 3,358,708
Construction 2,287 9,308,735 6,714,000 - 16,025,022 16,025,022
PWTFL Debt Service - - - 105,000 - 3,025,000
6,035,711 9,308,735 6,714,000 105,000 22,058,446 22,058,446
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 3,664,485 -
REET2 - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)- - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 540,000 2,500,000
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - 1,800,115 -
Other Sources (Other Agencies)*- - - - 1,249,400 -
105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 7,254,000 2,500,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 6,714,000 -
PWTFL Debt Service 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 525,000 2,500,000
105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 7,239,000 2,500,000
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Grants / Other Sources: Other Agencies are King County Metro Sewer, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and BNSF Railway
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $21,827.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Construction of a grade separated railroad crossing of M St SE at the BNSF Stampede Pass tracks.
Progress Summary:
100% Design Drawings and right of way acquisition were completed in 2011. Construction started in early 2012 and is
schedule for completion in 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
DI.C Page 202 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 19,085 102,700 156,600 - 278,385 278,385
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 867,700 153,000 867,700 4,900,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 290,700
Other (Development Funds)*- - - 1,300,000 - 2,300,000
Other - - - - - -
19,085 102,700 1,024,300 1,453,000 1,146,085 7,769,085
Capital Expenditures:
Design 19,085 102,700 1,007,000 153,000 1,128,785 1,281,785
Right of Way - - 17,300 1,300,000 17,300 1,317,300
Construction - - - - - 5,170,000
19,085 102,700 1,024,300 1,453,000 1,146,085 7,769,085
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 156,600 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)3,879,300 - - - 4,900,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees 290,700 - - - 290,700 -
Other (Development Funds)*1,000,000 - - - 2,300,000 -
Other - - - - - -
5,170,000 - - - 7,647,300 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 1,160,000 -
Right of Way - - - - 1,317,300 -
Construction 5,170,000 - - - 5,170,000 -
5,170,000 - - - 7,647,300 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project includes preliminary engineering, design, right of way acquisition and construction of major widening on S. 277th
Street, including the addition of three lanes, one westbound and two eastbound, a Class 1 trail, and storm improvements. The
project length is nine-tenths of a mile.
Progress Summary:
Staff is cooridnating with the City of Kent and King County to complete annexation of roadway into City of Auburn jurisdiction.
Robertson Properties Group is participating in this project and is dedicating all necessary roadway frontage to the City.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Expenditures:
The annual maintenance costs for this project is estimated to be $27,250.
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 203 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This project was originally scoped to include pavement preservation. The pavement preservation component could still be
combined with this project, but is also eligible for the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. This project should look to
improve the railroad crossing grades as well as the vertical sight distance to the interurban trail to the west of the tracks. The
cost estimate listed below is planning level cost.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 204 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 150,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,000,000
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other (Developer)*150,000 - - - 150,000 150,000
150,000 - - - 150,000 3,300,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 400,000
Right of Way - - - - - 250,000
Construction 150,000 - - - 150,000 2,650,000
150,000 - - - 150,000 3,300,000
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 150,000 - - - 150,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other (Developer)*- - - - - -
150,000 - 3,000,000 - 3,150,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 150,000 - 250,000 - 400,000 -
Right of Way - - 250,000 - 250,000 -
Construction - - 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 -
150,000 - 3,000,000 - 3,150,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Construct a multi-lane arterial from W Main to 3rd St NW. This project will connect A St NW, Phase 1 to the Sound Transit
Station and the Central Business District. This project may end up being funded all or in part by developers. The project
length is one fifth of a mile.
Progress Summary:
The parking garage constructed by the Auburn Regional Medical Center completed a portion of this project in 2009.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 205 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 5,250,000
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 1,050,000
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 6,300,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 1,050,000
Right of Way - - - - - 1,750,000
Construction - - - - - 3,500,000
- - - - - 6,300,000
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 250,000 250,000 5,000,000
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 50,000 1,000,000
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:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $11,450.
Adopted Budget
Construct a four-lane arterial per the city Comprehensive Plan. It will improve north/south mobility. This project is tied to
potential future development and will complete a major north/south arterial corridor from Ellingson Road SW (41st Street SE)
to S. 277th St. The D St NW project length is approximately 0.42 miles.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 206 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 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
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
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:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $4100.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
The F St SE project includes pavement reconstruction, installation of curbs, gutters, an 8-foot wide sidewalk on both sides,
parking on one side, and a center turn-lane, as well as crash attenuation at the supports for the BNSF railroad bridge. This
project improves mobility and safety along the corridor. The project length is approximately 0.3 miles.
Progress Summary:
Preliminary design and survey work was completed in 2009. Final design and construction are planned to be completed
following construction of the M Street grade separation project.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 207 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,500.
Adopted Budget
This project will construct a complete 4 lane street section on M St NE between south of E Main St and 4th St NE.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design will be done in 2014 to refine project scope, alignment, and cost.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 208 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Railyard TIP # 12
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - 32,125,000
- - - - - 32,125,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 3,625,000
Right of Way - - - - - 4,000,000
Construction - - - - - 24,500,000
- - - - - 32,125,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other (Developer)- - - 1,125,000 1,125,000 31,000,000
- - - 1,125,000 1,125,000 31,000,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 1,125,000 1,125,000 2,500,000
Right of Way - - - - - 4,000,000
Construction - - - - - 24,500,000
- - - 1,125,000 1,125,000 31,000,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This project consists of a grade-separated crossing of the BNSF Railyard, either from SR-18 to 6th Street SE or from 15th
Street SW to A Street SE. The first alternative would entail realigning the SR-18 eastbound ramp, grade separating the main
north/south line and the Stampede Pass line, and connecting to 6th Street SE. The second alternative would provide a new
corridor from 15th Street SW to A Street SE in the vicinity of 12th Street SE and 17th Street SE, either via an overpass or
underpass of the BNSF Railyard. This project improves traffic flow significantly due to the potential development of the BNSF
yard as an intermodal freight facility.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 209 of 510
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
General Fund - - - - - -
Grants - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 470,380 34,620 25,000 25,000 530,000 700,000
REET 2 176,150 - - - 176,150 176,150
646,530 34,620 25,000 25,000 706,150 145,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - 84,620
Construction - 34,620 25,000 25,000 59,620 -
- 34,620 25,000 25,000 59,620 145,000
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
General Fund - - - - - -
Grants - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000 20,000
REET 2 - - - - - -
20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000 20,000
Capital Expenditures:-
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000 20,000
20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 175,000 20,000
Grants / Other Sources:
It is anticipated that annual maintenance, monitoring and reporting on the performance of the wetland mitigation project will be required
for a period of 10 years, in conformance with permit requirements. After the successful conclusion of this 10-year monitoring period,
which is anticipated to be in December 2019, ongoing operation expenses should be minimal.
Adopted Budget
The project consists of the design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of approximately 2.2-acres of wetland creation
and approximately 0.4-acres of wetland enhancement within the Goedecke South Property owned by the Sewer Utility in order
to compensate for approximately 1.6-acre wetland loss on the Mohawk Plastics property (Parcel # 1321049056). The project
was approved under an existing agreement approved by Resolution No. 4196, June 2007.
Progress Summary:
The City received the DOE WQ Certification, WDFW HPA, 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, monitoring and reporting.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 210 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Add eastbound lane to Southside of 8th St NE. Currently the lane exists from M St NE and drops as a right turn only lane at
the intersection of 8th St NE and Pike St. This would extend the lane to R St NE where it would then be a right turn only lane
onto R St NE southbound. This is a planning level cost estimate.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 211 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 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 - - - - - 250,000
Right of Way - - - - - 600,000
Construction - - - - - 2,500,000
- - - - - 3,350,000
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
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 250,000 - - - 250,000 -
Right of Way 600,000 - - - 600,000 -
Construction - 2,500,000 - - 2,500,000 -
850,000 2,500,000 - - 3,350,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $27,050.
Adopted Budget
Construct east/west corridor from Auburn Way North to I Street NE. The existing 49th Street NE extends westerly to B Street
NE. This project also includes a traffic signal at the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49th Street NE. This roadway was
evaluated and recommended in the NE Special Planning Area. It is anticipated that this will be constructed by future
development. It is approximately 3/4 of a mile in length.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 212 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Harvey Road & 8th Street NE Intersection Improvements TIP # 17
Project No:cp0611
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:None LOS Corridor ID# 5,19
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)174,800 87,300 86,900 86,500 349,000 1,603,100
Traffic Impact Fees 204,500 - - - 204,500 204,500
PWTF 1,527,300 - - - 1,527,300 1,527,300
1,906,600 87,300 86,900 86,500 2,080,800 1,731,800
Debt Service:
1,603,100
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
Long Term Debt - PWTF - 87,300 86,900 86,500 174,200 1,428,300
- 87,300 86,900 86,500 174,200 -
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000 826,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
PWTF - - - - - -
86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000 826,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
Long Term Debt - PWTF 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000 826,000
86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 515,000 826,000
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Add one eastbound through/right turn lane on 8th St NE approaching Harvey Rd. Modify traffic signals and traffic channelization
to accommodate the new lane. The additional lane will improve traffic delays and vehicle queuing at the intersection of Harvey
Rd and 8th St NE in all directions. This project will reconstruct M St NE from 4th St NE to 8th St NE, a segment of roadway
approximately 0.3 miles in length with four travel lanes. The reconstruction will fix the existing poor pavement condition and fill in
any gaps in the sidewalk network.
Progress Summary:
Project was completed in 2010. Ongoing budget is for PWTFL debt payments.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 213 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 8th Street NE and SE 104th St Intersection Improvements TIP # 18
Project No:CP1104
Project Type:Intersection Improvement, Capacity
Project Manager:Robert Lee LOS Corridor ID# 19
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 8,600 - 148,400 - 157,000 157,000
Grants (Federal)- 100,000 - - 100,000 100,000
REET2 - - 75,000 - 75,000 75,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other (Redflex)- 40,000 10,000 - 50,000 50,000
8,600 140,000 233,400 - 382,000 382,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 7,122 110,000 - - 117,122 117,122
Right of Way 1,478 30,000 - - 31,478 31,478
Construction - - 233,400 - 233,400 233,400
8,600 140,000 233,400 - 382,000 382,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 148,400 -
Grants (Federal)- - - - - -
REET2 - - - - 75,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other (Redflex)- - - - 10,000 -
- - - - 233,400 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 233,400 -
- - - - 233,400 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $6,600.
Adopted Budget
This project includes the design, right of way acquisistion and construction of intersection improvements that will either consist
of either a traffic signal with easbound u-turn capacity or a roundabout design.
Progress Summary:
The design began in 2011 with construction scheduled for 2012.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
DI.C Page 214 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 funds are unsecure.
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This project will construct a new complete traffic signal with controller cabinet and battery backup along with necessary
intersection improvements.
Progress Summary:
Design will be completed in 2014. Construction is planned for 2015.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 215 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Imp.TIP # 20
Project No:cp1024
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 3,4
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 19,830 80,170 - - 100,000 100,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - 850,000 - 850,000
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Funds - - 150,000 - 150,000 150,000
Other - - - - - -
19,830 80,170 150,000 850,000 250,000 1,100,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 19,830 80,170 50,000 - 130,170 150,000
Right of Way - - 100,000 - 100,000 100,000
Construction - - - 850,000 - 850,000
19,830 80,170 150,000 850,000 250,000 1,100,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 850,000 -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Funds - - - - 150,000 -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 1,000,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 50,000 -
Right of Way - - - - 100,000 -
Construction - - - - 850,000 -
- - - - 1,000,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Construct a westbound to northbound right turn pocket at the intersection of Auburn Way S and M St SE. This project would
also improve the turning radius at this same corner allowing drivers to make a safe right turn on red (after stopping and
yielding to oncoming vehicles). Currently the intersection geometry has necessitated the City placing a legal restriction on this
movement.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design is anticipated to begin in 2011 with final design to be completed in 2012. Construction will be completed when
funding is secured.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 216 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
Right of Way - - - - - 400,000
Construction - - - - - 600,000
- - - 100,000 - 1,100,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Reconstruct intersection at C St NW and W Main St. Project would include a new traffic signal and modifications to the
turning radii at each corner to help facilitate vehicular movements. The new traffic signal would allow for protected left turn
phasing for northbound and southbound left turn movements. This would also provide additional safety related to the railroad
pre-emption.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 217 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: West Valley Highway System Preservation (15th NW to 37th NW)
Project No:cpxxxx TIP #22
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Artertial Preservation Fund - - 560,000 - 560,000 560,000
Grant Funding(Federal, State, Local)- - 560,000 - 560,000 560,000
Utility Tax - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - -
- - 1,120,000 - 1,120,000 1,120,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 134,000 - 134,000 134,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - 986,000 - 986,000 986,000
- - 1,120,000 - 1,120,000 1,120,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Artertial Preservation Fund - - - - 560,000 -
Grant Funding(Federal, State, Local)- - - - 560,000 -
Utility Tax - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - -
- - - - 1,120,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 134,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 986,000 -
- - - - 1,120,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
Description: The West Valley Highway System Preservation project will overlay the failing portions of the street pavement
between 15th Street NW and 37th Street NW. This entails the installation of a leveling course, providing a 2”-3” thick asphalt
concrete overlay, and includes minor surface utility adjustments.
Progress Summary:
FHWA STP Grant funding was secured in 2012.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
DI.C Page 218 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 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
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 4,550,000 5,000,000 9,550,000 -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other (Other Agencies)*- - 250,000 - 250,000 -
- - 4,800,000 5,000,000 9,800,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 750,000 - 750,000 -
Right of Way - - 50,000 - 50,000 -
Construction - - 4,000,000 5,000,000 9,000,000 -
- - 4,800,000 5,000,000 9,800,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $240.
Adopted Budget
Project to construct an undercrossing of the BNSF Railroad in conjunction with a pedestrian bridge to allow a safe, direct,
attractive non-motorized access between neighborhoods in the City of Pacific and schools in the City of Auburn.
Progress Summary:
The design is on hold. Funding source is most likely a federal earmark. Currently this project is on hold pending some
discussions with BNSF RR. They are in the process of planning for a third rail which would significantly impact the design.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 219 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,680.
Adopted Budget
This project will use existing right-of-way to repair the damaged roadbed to a usable multi-use trail on Academy Dr from the
Green River Rd to Auburn Way S.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 220 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: METRO Shuttle: Auburn Community and Lakeland Shuttles TIP # 26
Project No:NA
Project Type:Other
Project Manager:Pablo Para
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 220,000 240,000 240,000 460,000 1,720,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Other (TBD)- - - - - -
- 220,000 240,000 240,000 460,000 1,720,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Operating Costs - 220,000 240,000 240,000 460,000 1,720,000
- 220,000 240,000 240,000 460,000 1,720,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 250,000 250,000 260,000 260,000 1,500,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Other (TBD)- - - - - -
250,000 250,000 260,000 260,000 1,500,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Operating Costs 250,000 250,000 260,000 260,000 1,500,000 -
250,000 250,000 260,000 260,000 1,500,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Operation costs associated with two new Metro routes: a Commuter Shuttle from the Lakeland Hills neighborhood to Auburn Station and a
Community Shuttle linking residential neighborhoods with commercial and service centers.
Progress Summary:
Lakeland Hill Service began in 2009. The community shuttle will begin service in 2010. Funding assistance will be requested
through the Transit Now Partnership Program.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 221 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 41st Street SE and A Street SE Access Management Study TIP # 27
Project No:cp1110
Project Type:Safety (Non-Capacity)
Project Manager:Pablo Para LOS Corridor ID# 10,33
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000 10,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000 10,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000 10,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
1,160 - 8,840 - 10,000 10,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 8,840 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 8,840 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 8,840 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
- - - - 8,840 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This study will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
Study the area from 37th St SE to the White River on A St SE including 41st St SE from D St SE to C St SE. The study
should review the safety and access needs of the traveling public and the adjacent properties.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design will be done to refine project scope, alignment, and cost.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 222 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Annual Bridge Preservation Project TIP # 28
Project No:Various
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual)
Project Manager:Pablo Para
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 350,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 350,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 35,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - 45,000 45,000 45,000 90,000 315,000
- 50,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 350,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 270,000 -
50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This is an annual level of effort project used to fund bridge improvements as identified by the city's annual bridge inspection program.
Progress Summary:
Program completed load rating calculations for nine bridges in 2011. 2012 project completed miscellaneous bridge repairs.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 223 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: South 277th - Wetland Mitigation TIP # 29
Project No:c410a0
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 212,267 57,050 25,000 25,000 294,317 319,317
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
212,267 57,050 25,000 25,000 294,317 319,317
Capital Expenditures:
Design 81,903 18,000 10,000 10,000 109,903 119,903
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 130,364 39,050 15,000 15,000 184,414 199,414
212,267 57,050 25,000 25,000 294,317 319,317
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 50,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 50,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 20,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 30,000 -
- - - - 50,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
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:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 224 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 - 100,000 300,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 10,000 - 10,000 - 30,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 90,000 - 90,000 - 270,000 -
100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This is a bi-annual level of effort project used to fund small pedestrian safety studies and improvement projects. This project
provides for pedestrian safety studies and improvements at various locations citywide. Projects are prioritized annually based
on safety issues and pedestrian demands.
Progress Summary:
Project for 2011 was preliminary design of 8th St NE and SE 104th St intersection improvements. 2012 project is access
improvements at Auburn Ave and 3rd St NE.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 225 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - 90,000 90,000 90,000 540,000
- - 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adjusted Budget
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
This is an annual level of effort project focused on funding bicycle and safety improvements on classified roadways. Projects
are prioritized annually based upon field studies. Project was previously called "Citywide Roadway Safety Infrastructure
Improvements.
Progress Summary:
Projects for 2011 included preliminary design of intersection improvements at 8th st NE and SE 104th St and pedestrian trail
improvements at 37th St SE. 2012 Project has yet to be indentified.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 226 of 510
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Citywide Sidewalk Improvements TIP #32
Project No:Various
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual)
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue - 235,000 20,000 180,000 435,000 835,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET 2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- 235,000 20,000 180,000 435,000 835,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 20,000 20,000 - 40,000 80,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - 215,000 - 180,000 395,000 755,000
- 235,000 20,000 180,000 255,000 835,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 20,000 20,000 - 60,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - 180,000 - 180,000 540,000 -
20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 600,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Project will fund sidewalk improvements to a variety of locations throughout the city. A sidewalk inventory was completed in
2004. Annual projects are selected based upon criteria such as: gap closure, safe walking routes to schools, completion of
downtown pedestrian corridor or "linkage", connectivity to transit services, ADA requirements, and "Save our Streets" (SOS)
project locations.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 227 of 510
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Capital Projects Fund
Project Title: Traffic Signal Improvements TIP #34
Project No:various
Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual)
Project Manager:Scott Nutter
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Cap. Improv. Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET 2 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 525,000 1,225,000
Other - - - - - -
- 175,000 175,000 175,000 525,000 1,225,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 175,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - 150,000 150,000 150,000 300,000 1,050,000
- 175,000 175,000 175,000 300,000 1,225,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 -
175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
This project includes procuring and installing traffic signal equipment upgrades for existing signals as well as safety/capacity
improvements for existing and/or new signals. The City uses accident and traffic count data to identify intersections in need of
improvements.
Progress Summary:
Project continues to complete various intersection improvements.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
DI.C Page 228 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Arterial Street Preservation Program
Project No:cpxxxx TIP #35
Project Type:Annual, Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Artertial Preservation Fund - 185,000 - 500,000 185,000 685,000
Property Tax - - - - - -
Utility Tax - 1,566,500 1,300,000 1,300,000 2,866,500 9,366,500
REET2 - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - -
- 1,751,500 1,300,000 1,800,000 3,051,500 10,051,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 50,000 40,000 50,000 90,000 300,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - 1,701,500 1,260,000 1,750,000 2,961,500 9,751,500
- 1,751,500 1,300,000 1,800,000 3,051,500 10,051,500
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Artertial Preservation Fund - - - - 500,000 -
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 8,300,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 250,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 1,260,000 8,050,000 -
1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 8,300,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted 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 rehabilitation of various classified streets citywide. These
projects may include overlays, rebuilds, spot repairs, or a combination of these. This program is funded through a 1% utility
tax that was adopted by Council in 2008.
None
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 229 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (105)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - - -
Utility Tax - 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000 1,400,000
REET - - - - - -
Bond proceeds - - - - - -
- 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000 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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - - -
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 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:
Adopted Budget
Implement regular maintenance of various classified streets by sealing newly formed cracks. Sealing the cracks will prolong the life of the
pavement by stopping water from draining into the subbase of the road.
Progress Summary:
Program continues to successfully extend pavement life pavement citywide.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 230 of 510
LOCAL STREET FUND (103)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Funds
Project Title: Local Street Improvement Program
Project No:Various TIP #37
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:Wickstrom
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Local Street Fund - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Property Tax - 3,021,110 2,000,000 2,000,000 5,021,110 15,021,110
Utility Mitigation - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- 3,021,110 3,000,000 2,000,000 6,021,110 16,021,110
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 521,110 500,000 200,000 1,021,110 2,021,110
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - 2,500,000 2,500,000 1,800,000 5,000,000 14,000,000
- 3,021,110 3,000,000 2,000,000 6,021,110 16,021,110
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Local Street Fund - - - - 1,000,000 -
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 13,000,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,500,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 11,500,000 -
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 13,000,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
This program was created after passage of Proposition 1 on the November '04 ballot, setting the City's property tax levy limits and
creating a dedicated local street fund to be used solely for local street improvements. The program will focus on the preservation of local
streets (unclassified streets) within the City of Auburn. The work will include crack sealing, asphalt patching, pre-leveling, asphalt
overlays and roadway reconstruction. The property tax levy lift may also be used to repay bonds should they be utilized to fund this
program.
Progress Summary:
This program has successfully completed overlays since 2005. In 2011 and 2012 the program will focus on major street
reconstruction where street surfaces and the underlying base has failed.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
None
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 231 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, coordination, permitting and construction of four quadrant gates at the W Main St, 3rd St NW, and 37th St
NW BNSF Railroad crossings as well as active grade crossing lights and gates at the private spur crossings on C St SW and A St NW.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 232 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 735,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 115,000
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 850,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 100,000
Right of Way - - - - - 50,000
Construction - - - - - 700,000
- - - - - 850,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 - 100,000 - - 100,000 -
Right of Way - - 50,000 - 50,000 -
Construction - - 700,000 - 700,000 -
- 100,000 750,000 - 850,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of improvements to the signalized intersection of SE 320th St
and 124th Ave SE. Improvements include constructing bike lanes, sidewalks, dual southbound left turn lanes into GRCC, and ITS. A
portion of this project is the main entrance to Green River Community College and will require additional 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.C Page 233 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a 4-lane section with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
124th Ave SE between SE 318th St and SE 312th St.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design is planned for 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 234 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 1,015,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 - 235,000
Other - - - - - -
- - - 50,000 - 1,250,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 50,000 - 150,000
Right of Way - - - - - 100,000
Construction - - - - - 1,000,000
- - - 50,000 - 1,250,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)150,000 865,000 - - 1,015,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 135,000 - - 235,000 -
Other - - - - - -
200,000 1,000,000 - - 1,250,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 100,000 - - - 150,000 -
Right of Way 100,000 - - - 100,000 -
Construction - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 -
200,000 1,000,000 - - 1,250,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of improvements to the signalized intersection of SE 312th St
and 124th Ave SE. Improvements include adding bike lanes, dual westbound left turn lanes, dual southbound thru lanes, northbound right
turn pocket, ITS and pedestrian safety improvements.
Progress Summary:
Pre-design is scheduled for 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 235 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 549,500
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 140,500
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 690,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 110,000
Right of Way - - - - - 60,000
Construction - - - - - 520,000
- - - - - 690,000
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 47,500 502,000 - 549,500 -
Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 12,500 78,000 - 140,500 -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
50,000 60,000 580,000 - 690,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 50,000 60,000 - - 110,000 -
Right of Way - - 60,000 - 60,000 -
Construction - - 520,000 - 520,000 -
50,000 60,000 580,000 - 690,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition, and construction of a 3 lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on SE
320th St between 124th Ave SE and the western entrance to GRCC.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 236 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements TIP # 43
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 250,000 2,083,108 250,000 2,333,108
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - 250,000 2,083,108 250,000 2,333,108
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - 250,000 62,210 250,000 312,210
Right of Way - - - 69,585 - 69,585
Construction - - - 1,951,313 - 1,951,313
- - 250,000 2,083,108 250,000 2,333,108
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 2,333,108 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 2,333,108 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 312,210 -
Right of Way - - - - 69,585 -
Construction - - - - 1,951,313 -
- - - - 2,333,108 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will improve access management, provide u-turns, upgrade transit stops and street lighting, widen to accomodate turn lanes
and pedestrians and bicycles, upgrade pavement markings, install pedestrian signals and audible pedestrian push buttons, and upgrade
traffic signals to change the phasing and to improve the visibility of the signal heads.
Progress Summary:
Grant funding was awarded in 2012 and does not require a local match.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 237 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 funds are unsecure.
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $500.
Adopted Budget
This project completes a pedestrian connection between Downtown Auburn and the 8th St NE business district. This project will improve a
pedestrian crossing at 3rd St NE, and construct sidewalks/access ramps along the A St NE corridor.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 238 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 funds are unsecure.
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project provides funding for enhancements to existing trailheads and construction of new trailheads. Improvements include bike
racks, kiosks, parking and access.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 239 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 5,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 5,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
- - - - 5,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund a pre-design study to determine the right of way, environmental and construction requirements for intersection safety
improvements. This safety project scope will include sight distance improvements, constructing turn lanes, channelization, environmental
mitigation, signage and clear zone improvements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 240 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Environmental Park Roadway Improvements Study TIP # 47
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on
Operating Budget:This project will have no
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
Adopted Budget - - - -
Budget Amendments - - - -
Adjusted Budget - - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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:
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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:
This project will fund a study to determine the feasibility, scope and cost of low impact roadway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements in
the Environmental Park area. Included in this study scope is a connection between Clay St NW and Western St NW.
DI.C Page 241 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Downtown to Les Gove Non-Motorized Improvements Study TIP # 48
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Bike Lanes, Sidewalks and Transit Improvement Study (Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 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
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 10,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 10,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 10,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
- - - - 10,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project provides funding to complete a study of the 2nd St SE & F St SE corridor between Les Gove Park and Downtown Auburn.
Improvements may include pavement reconstruction, sidewalks, access ramps, signal modifications and route signing.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 242 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: S 316th Street Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvement Study TIP # 49
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Class 2 Bike Lanes / Sidewalks (Capacity)
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 37
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - 5,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
5,000 - - - 5,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 5,000 - - - 5,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
5,000 - - - 5,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project provides funding for completing a study to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities on S 316th St from east of Evergreen Heights
Elementary to 51st Ave S.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 243 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: ITS Dynamic Message Signs TIP # 50
Project No:cpxxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity (ITS)
Project Manager:TBD
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 60,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 380,000
REET - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 440,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 40,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - 400,000
- - - - - 440,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 30,000 - 30,000 - 60,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)190,000 - 190,000 - 380,000 -
REET - - - - - -
PWTFL - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 20,000 - 20,000 - 40,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 200,000 - 200,000 - 400,000 -
220,000 - 220,000 - 440,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5000.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design and construction of Dynamic Message signs at various locations throughout the city. Dynamic message
signs are an important tool in ITS for informing roadway users. Priority locations for sign installations are based on the Comprehensive
Transportation Plans ITS map and include Auburn Way N, Auburn Way S, W Valley Highway, E Valley Highway and Lea Hill Rd.
Progress Summary:
The first phase of this project is scheduled to begin in 2014 or sooner if grant funding becomes available.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 244 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
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 -
Grants / Other Sources:
The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5000.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, coordination, permitting and construction of ITS facilities from 41st St SE to Lake Tapps Parkway.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 245 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
REET - - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - 200,000
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 200,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 200,000
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
- - - - - 200,000
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - -
- - - - - -
Traffic Mitigation Fees 200,000 - - - 200,000 -
Other (Developer)*- - - - -
200,000 - - - 200,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design 200,000 - - - 200,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - -
200,000 - - - 200,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
None
Adopted Budget
This project will study improvements to the Kersey Way SE corridor from the White River Bridge to the southern city limits. The
study will develop the scope and costs for horizontal/vertical geometric roadway improvements, roadside hazard mitigation, street
lighting and non-motorized trail construction. The project length is approximately two miles.
Progress Summary:
Design will begin in 2015 after major transportation comprehensive plan update has been completed.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 246 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Lea Hill Safe Routes to School Improvements TIP # 56
Project No:cp1120
Project Type:Non-Motorized
Project Manager:Kim Truong LOS Corridor ID# 19
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012 Estimate 2013 Budget 2014 Budget Project Total Cost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 777 - - - 777 777
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 35,000 363,500 - 398,500 398,500
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
777 35,000 363,500 - 399,277 399,277
Capital Expenditures:
Design 777 35,000 15,000 - 50,777 50,777
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - 348,500 - 348,500 348,500
777 35,000 363,500 - 399,277 399,277
TotalExpenditures
2015 2016 2017 2018 2013-2018 Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 363,500 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 363,500 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 15,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 348,500 -
- - - - 363,500 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will construct pedestrian improvements along the south side of SE 312th St east of the intersection with 124th Ave SE,
intersection improvements at 116th Ave SE & SE 304th St, paint bike lanes on 116th Ave SE between SE 312th St and SE 304th St and
improve curb ramps adjacent to Rainier Middle School.
Progress Summary:
The City was awarded $398,500 in federal funding in May 2011, which consists of $75,700 for School District
education/encouragement, $1,800 for Police Dept. enforcement and $321,000 for engineering, right of way, and construction.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Forecasted Project Cost:
DI.C Page 247 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South Corridor Imp., Fir ST SE to Hemlock ST SE TIP # 58
Project No:cp1119
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Leah Dunsdon LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 849 - - - 849 849
Grants (State)842 560,000 1,865,558 - 2,426,400 2,426,400
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other Sources(Muckleshoot)211 140,000 466,389 - 606,600 606,600
1,902 700,000 2,331,947 3,033,849 3,033,849
Capital Expenditures:
Design 1,902 475,000 - - 476,902 476,902
Right of Way - 225,000 - - 225,000 225,000
Construction - - 2,331,947 - 2,331,947 2,331,947
1,902 700,000 2,331,947 - 3,033,849 3,033,849
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (State)- - - - 1,865,558 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
Other Sources(Muckleshoot)- - - - 466,389 -
- - - - 2,331,947 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 2,331,947 -
- - - - 2,331,947 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $9,300.
Adopted Budget
This project will widen Auburn Way South between Fir 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 November 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.C Page 248 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Ave NE & 3rd St NE Pedestrian & Access Improvements TIP # 59
Project No:cp1023
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:Robert Lee LOS Corridor ID# 2
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue 8,538 - 3,000 40,000 11,538 191,638
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 12,000 160,000 12,000 732,400
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
8,538 - 15,000 200,000 23,538 924,038
Capital Expenditures:
Design 8,538 - 15,000 200,000 23,538 223,538
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - - 700,500
8,538 - 15,000 200,000 23,538 924,038
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue 140,100 - - - 183,100 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)560,400 - - - 732,400 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
700,500 - - - 915,500 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 215,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction 700,500 - - - 700,500 -
700,500 - - - 915,500 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
Adopted Budget
This project will improve access, safety and operations for pedestrian, bicyclists and motorized vehicles at the intersections of 3rd St NE &
Auburn Ave, 4th St NE and Auburn Ave, and 4th St NE & Auburn Way North. Improvements include a new traffic signal and geometric
improvements at 3rd Street NE to add a missing pedestrian crossing and add northbound left turn movement; removing all ADA
obstructions from the pedestrian path within the project limits, restricting uncontrolled accesses near the intersection, and modifying the
traffic signal at Auburn Way North and 4th St NE to eliminate the east/west split phase operation.
Progress Summary:
Survey and predesign were started in 2010-2011. Design will be completed in 2013 and construction is scheduled for 2014.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
DI.C Page 249 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 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: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 500,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 4,675,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 1,500,000
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 6,675,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 650,000
Right of Way - - - - - 1,275,000
Construction - - - - - 4,750,000
- - - - - 6,675,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 250,000 250,000 - 500,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 925,000 3,750,000 - 4,675,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - 750,000 750,000 - 1,500,000 -
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 650,000 - - 650,000 -
Right of Way - 1,275,000 - - 1,275,000 -
Construction - - 4,750,000 - 4,750,000 -
- 1,925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
Construct a multi-lane arterial from 8TH Street SE to AWS. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor development. It is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 250 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Auburn Way South Bypass TIP # 61
Project No:xxx
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID#4
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
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
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
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 connecting SR 164 to SR 18 via Dogwood Dr or Muckleshoot Plaza and a new
interchange east of Auburn Way South. The project will improve traffic operations on SR 164 and will have fewer intersections operating
over capacity during the PM Peak hour.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 251 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR 18 to M Street SE)TIP # 62
Project No:xxx
Project Type:Miscellaneous
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 400,000
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - 3,250,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - 1,100,000
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 4,750,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - 500,000
Right of Way - - - - - 1,450,000
Construction - - - - - 2,800,000
- - - - - 4,750,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 200,000 200,000 - 400,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- 1,200,000 2,050,000 - 3,250,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - 550,000 550,000 - 1,100,000 -
Other - - - - - -
- 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 500,000 - - - -
Right of Way - 1,450,000 - - - -
Construction - - 2,800,000 - - -
- 1,950,000 2,800,000 - - -
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
The purpose of this project is to revitalize and beautify Auburn Way South from the SR 18 interchange to the intersection of M Street SE.
Proposed improvements include: enhancement of crosswalks and pedestrian linkages; new and repaired sidewalks; curb and gutter;
pedestrian ramps; new landscaped medians; street trees; new lighting; pedestrian benches; trash receptacles; recycling containers and
other appropriate amenities.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 252 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: 29th Street SE & R Street SE TIP # 63
Project No:cpXXX
Project Type:Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID#4
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - -
Grants (State)- - - - - 850,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 500,000
REET - - - - - 450,000
Other - - - - - -
- - - - - 1,800,000
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - - -
Right of Way - - - - - 450,000
Construction - - - - 1,000,000
- - - - - 1,800,000
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - -
Grants (State)- - - 850,000 850,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - 500,000 500,000 -
REET - - - 450,000 450,000 -
Other - - - - - -
- - - 1,800,000 1,800,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - 350,000 350,000 -
Right of Way - - - 450,000 450,000 -
Construction - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 -
- - - 1,800,000 1,800,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance.
Adopted Budget
This project will fund the design, right of way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at 29th Street
SE and R Street SE. This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left turn lanes, auxiliary signal heads and pedestrian
safety enhancements.
Progress Summary:
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Expenditures:
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 253 of 510
ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102)Capital Facilities Plan
Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2013-2018 Special Revenue Fund
Project Title: Citywide Traffic Signals Safety Improvements TIP # 67
Project No:cpxxx
Project Type:Non-Capacity
Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A
Description:
Budget: 2012YTD Actual201312 Budget
BudgetExpendituresBudgetBalance
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Activity:
(Previous Yrs)2012 YE 2013 Year EndTotal Project
Funding Sources:Prior to 2012Estimate2013 Budget2014 BudgetProject TotalCost
Unrestricted Street Revenue - 2,500 5,000 - 7,500 7,500
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - 400,000 - 400,000 400,000
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- 2,500 405,000 - 407,500 407,500
Capital Expenditures:
Design - 2,500 80,000 - 82,500 82,500
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - 325,000 - 325,000 325,000
- 2,500 405,000 - 407,500 407,500
TotalExpenditures
20152016201720182013-2018Beyond 2018
Funding Sources:
Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - 5,000 -
Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 400,000 -
Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - -
REET2 - - - - - -
Other - - - - - -
- - - - 405,000 -
Capital Expenditures:
Design - - - - 80,000 -
Right of Way - - - - - -
Construction - - - - 325,000 -
- - - - 405,000 -
Grants / Other Sources:
Adopted Budget
This project will improve traffic signal phasing and timing, improve visibility of traffic signal heads, and install countdown pedestrian signal
displays and ADA pedestrian pushbuttons.
Progress Summary:
Grant funding was awarded June 2012 with no local match requirement. Project will be designed and constructed in 2013.
Future Impact on Operating Budget:
There is no impact to the street maintenance budget.
Total Expenditures:
Budget Amendments
Adjusted Budget
Total Funding Sources:
Total Expenditures:
Forecasted Project Cost:
Total Funding Sources:
DI.C Page 254 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6416 -
Amendment to ACC Section
1.04.060 and Section
18.02.020 Related to Collective
Gardens.
Date:
July 2, 2012
Department:
Planning and
Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Ordinance No. 6416
Planning
Commission Agenda
Bill
Exhibits A - G
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development Other: Legal, Planning
Commission
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Taylor
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 255 of 510
Page 1 of 1
Memorandum
To: Councilmember Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development
Committee
Councilmember John Partridge, Vice- Chair, Planning and Community Development
Committee
Councilmember John Holman, Member, Planning and Community Development
Committee
From: Hillary Taylor, Senior Planner
CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Planning and Development Director
Dan Heid, City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Rob Roscoe, Risk Manager, HR Facilities/Risk Management
Jamie Sidell, Commander - Investigations, Police Department
Date: July 2, 2012
Re: Ordinance No. 6416 a proposal to amend ACC section 18.02.020 and section
1.04.060
On July 3rd a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on Ordinance No.
6416. Working with the City Attorney’s Office, Planning Department staff presented the
proposed ordinance, an ordinance that proposes to amend the Auburn City Code in two
ways. The proposed ordinance will amend Auburn City Code section 18.02.020 ‘Authority to
adopt code’ and will create a new section, 1.04.060 ‘Conflict and ordinances with State and
Federal law’. The stated purpose of the ordinance is to establish clear policy for the City
“relating to conflicts with State and Federal law and Engrossed Second Substitute Bill 5073
regarding medical cannabis collective gardens and medical cannabis dispensaries.”
Background: At the May 29, 2012 Planning and Community Development Committee
meeting, staff presented to the Committee to provide an update on staff research in
compliance with the work plan established by Resolution No. 4739, which established a one
year moratorium on Collective Gardens. Please see the background summary included in
the agenda bill for the July 3rd Planning Commission meeting.
Action: Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed code changes as
presented by staff. Request that the Planning and Community Development Committee
discuss the proposed ordinance with the option to take action to move this item to City
Council at the regularly scheduled July 16, 2012 meeting.
Exhibits:
1) Ordinance No. 6416
2) The agenda bill and associated exhibits (A-G) for ZOA12-0002 as presented at the
regularly scheduled City of Auburn Planning Commission on July 3, 2012.
DI.D Page 256 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 1 of 10
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 1 6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, CREATING A SECTION
1.04.060 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE AND AMENDING
SECTION 18.02.020 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE,
RELATING TO CONFLICTS WITH STATE OR FEDERAL
LAW AND ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE
BILL 5073 REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS
COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND MEDICAL CANNABIS
DISPENSARIES
WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington
State on November 3rd, 1998 and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW, sought to
create an affirmative defense for “qualifying patients” to the charge of possession of
marijuana (cannabis); and
WHEREAS, more recently, during the 2011 session, the Washington State
Legislature considered a bill (E2SSB 5073, ultimately adopted as Chapter 181, Laws of
2011) that would have legalized by authorizing the licensing of medical marijuana or
cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and processing facilities; and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2011, Governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions
of E2SSB 5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing
medical marijuana or cannabis dispensaries, processing facilities and production
facilities; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide qualifying patients with a new means of access to
an adequate, safe, consistent and secure source of medical cannabis, E2SSB 5073
also contained a provision authorizing “collective gardens” which would authorize
qualifying patients the ability to produce, grow, process, transport and deliver cannabis
DI.D Page 257 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 2 of 10
for medical use, and that provision was approved by Governor Gregoire, effective on
July 22, 2011; and
WHEREAS, E2SSB 5073, as approved, further authorized cities to adopt and
enforce zoning requirements regarding production and processing of medical cannabis;
and
WHEREAS, cannabis remains a controlled substance under the Controlled
Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Ch. 13 and the U.S. Department of Justice and United
States Attorneys in the State of Washington have continued to maintain that cannabis
(marijuana) is illegal to possess, distribute, dispense or manufacture under federal law;
and
WHEREAS, Section 18.02.020 of the City Code, states that the City of Auburn
comprehensive zoning ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority of Article XI,
Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Washington
authorizes each city and county to “to make and enforce within its limits all such local
police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws”; and
WHEREAS, the test for determining whether an ordinance conflicts with general
laws is “whether the ordinance permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and
prohibits, and vice versa”1; and
1 See Parkland Light & Water Co. v. Tacoma-Pierce County Bd. of Health, 151 Wn.2d 428, 433, 90 P.3d
37 (2004); City of Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 111, 356 P.2d 292 (1960) (quoting Salt Lake
City v. Kusse, 97 Utah 113, 119, 93 P.2d 671 (1938)), accord City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wn.2d 341,
352, 908 P.2d 359 (1995).
DI.D Page 258 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 3 of 10
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4739,
providing for an initial one year moratorium on the establishment of medical cannabis
collective gardens and set a public hearing for September 19, 2011, in order to take
public testimony regarding the moratorium and interim regulations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW36.70A.390 a public hearing was held on
September 19, 2011, and no public testimony was received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council sought to identify what changes in the City Code
would be necessary and/or appropriate to address collective gardens as described in
Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 as approved by Governor Gregoire on
April 29, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for
review and recommendation on the issue of cannabis collective gardens; and
WHEREAS, as part of the process for the adoption of zoning regulations, the
land use impacts of collective gardens must be identified; and
WHEREAS, many jurisdictions around the country that have approved medical
marijuana uses have experienced numerous land use impacts, such as:
• conversion of residential uses into marijuana cultivation and processing
facilities, removing valuable housing stock in a community;
DI.D Page 259 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 4 of 10
• degrading neighborhood aesthetics due to shuttered up homes, offensive
odors; increased night-time traffic; parking issues; loitering from potential purchasers
looking to buy from a collective member;
• environmental damages from chemicals being discharged into surrounding and
off-site soil and storm and sanitary sewer systems;
• serious risk of fire hazard due to overloaded service connections used to
operate grow lights and fans;
• improper ventilation leading to high levels of moisture and mold;
• illegal structural modifications; and
• criminal issues such as home invasions, burglaries of medical marijuana
facilities, theft and property damage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the information on medical
marijuana and considered options available to the City; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission acknowledged that the issues pose
obstacles for the City and put the City in the middle of a conflicts between the new state
law and federal law, as the state law seeks to permit what is criminally prohibited under
federal law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated and made a recommendation
to the City Council that the moratorium be extended for six (6) month to see whether
future legislation could resolve the conflict or whether the federal government could re-
classify cannabis so that it could be used for medical purposes in a way consistent with
DI.D Page 260 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 5 of 10
state and federal law, or in some other way that would accommodate cannabis
collective gardens; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, the Planning Commission felt that both the
Commission and the City were in the throws of a dilemma that could not be solved or
resolved at the city level; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also recognized that it would not be
consistent with the municipal authority for the Commission to recommend for adoption,
or for the City Council to enact, regulations as are in conflict with federal criminal laws;
and
WHEREAS, the reluctance to recommend or enact regulations that are in conflict
with federal criminal laws is further heightened because the U.S. Attorneys for this state
have indicated their intention to enforce federal marijuana laws, notwithstanding actions
by the state to decriminalize certain cannabis uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission’s
recommendations and concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the impacts of collective gardens and
cannabis dispensaries, potential regulations on the subject in light of the new legislation,
and other factors related thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Medical Cannabis Collective
Gardens “marijuana”, is in conflict with current Federal law which recognizes marijuana
as a controlled substance; and
DI.D Page 261 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 6 of 10
WHEREAS, because possession of marijuana is illegal and is a criminal offense
under federal law, it would not be appropriate for the City to permit or allow possession
of marijuana to occur within the City, particularly as the actions of permitting or allowing
such could conceivably subject the persons involved - those being permitted to engage
in illegal conduct and those permitting others to engage in illegal conduct 2 - to criminal
prosecution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has thus determined that because it is illegal under
federal law, the City should not permit or allow Medical Cannabis Collective Gardens in
the City of Auburn, just as it should not permit or allow any conduct that is illegal.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings
in support of this ordinance, together with the recitals expressed herein.
1. Following the 2011 Washington State Legislative Session, the City Council
considered the recent changes in state law that allowed local governments to approve
and regulate “medical marijuana collective gardens.”
2. On August 15, 2011, the City Council passed Resolution No. 4739,
establishing a moratorium, which moratorium was imposed to provide adequate time to
refer this matter to the Planning Commission for study and for recommendations back to
the City Council on possible regulations that the City could implement on medical
marijuana collective gardens.
2 Concern for possible prosecution for violation of federal marijuana laws of state employees involved in licensing
marijuana facilities was a basis for Governor Gregoire vetoing portions of E2SSB 5073.
DI.D Page 262 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 7 of 10
3. City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2011, in order to take
testimony regarding the moratorium and interim regulation. No public comment was
received.
4. The City Council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for review
and development of recommendations for regulation of medical marijuana collective
gardens.
5. At various meetings since the passage of City of Auburn Resolution No. 4739,
the Planning Commission held study sessions to review and discuss possible impacts of
collective gardens, including such things as:
a. Conversion of residential uses into marijuana cultivation and processing
facilities, removing valuable housing stock in a community;
b. Degrading neighborhood aesthetics due to shuttered up homes, offensive
odors; increased night-time traffic; parking issues; loitering from potential purchasers
looking to buy from a collective member;
c. Environmental damages from chemicals being discharged into surrounding
and off- site soil and storm and sanitary sewer systems;
d. Serious risk of fire hazard due to overloaded service connections used to
operate grow lights and fans;
e. Improper ventilation leading to high levels of moisture and mold;
f. Illegal structural modifications; and
g. Criminal issues such as home invasions, burglaries of medical marijuana
facilities, theft and property damage.
DI.D Page 263 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 8 of 10
6. The Planning Commission communicated its concerns through staff and
forwarded its recommendations to the City Council that the moratorium either be
extended to see if future state or federal action could resolve the conflict between state
and federal law, or that the City just recognize the fact that it cannot enact regulations
that are in conflict with federal law, and thus that it not permit, license or allow marijuana
facilities that violate federal law.
Section 2. Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073. Engrossed
Second Substitute Senate Bill 5073 [Chapter 181 of the laws (of the State of
Washington) of 2011], as it is currently worded, poses a conflict with federal law that the
City Council cannot reconcile, and thus the provisions of the bill cannot be enacted or
adopted into ordinance or city code.
Section 3. New Section to City Code. A new Section 1.04.060 of the
City Code is created to read as follows:
1.04.060 Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law.
All ordinances and city code provisions, and regulations therein,
shall not be in conflict with all other regulations and or requirements of
state and federal law, insofar as not permitting or allowing any action, use
or conduct which is in violation of or prohibited by any state or federal
laws, regulations or codes. Any such provisions that cannot be
implemented or enforced because of provisions of state or federal law, or
that cannot be reconciled with any state or federal law shall be deemed to
be in conflict therewith. Any provisions of city ordinances or of the city
code deemed by the City Council to be in conflict with state or federal law
shall be null and void. This provision does not allow any action, use or
conduct which is in violation of any local, state or federal laws, regulations,
codes and/or ordinances. Any action, use or conduct which is not
permitted or allowed is prohibited.
Section 4. Amendment to City Code. Section 18.02.020 of the City
Code is amended to read as follows:
DI.D Page 264 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 9 of 10
18.02.020 Authority to adopt code.
The city of Auburn comprehensive zoning ordinance is adopted by
city of Auburn ordinance, pursuant to Article XI, Section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution, the State Growth Management Act, RCW
Title 35A, Optional Municipal Code, and Chapter 36.70B RCW. In
accordance with Section 1.04.060 of the City Code, and notwithstanding
any provisions otherwise, this Title does not permit or allow any action,
use or conduct which is in violation of or prohibited by any state or federal
laws, regulations or codes. Any action, use or conduct which is prohibited
by state or federal law is prohibited hereby. (Ord. 6245 § 2, 2009.)
Section 5. Moratorium Cancelled. In accordance herewith, the Moratorium
established by Resolution No. 4739 is hereby cancelled.
Section 6. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation, including directing the City Clerk, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3), to send a
copy of this Ordinance to the State Department of Commerce for its files within ten (10)
days after adoption of this ordinance, and further, forwarding copies of this Ordinance to
those persons who represent the citizens of the City of Auburn in the U. S. Congress
and in the Washington State Legislature, to express concerns about the state/federal
conflict involving marijuana laws, the dilemma in which cities find themselves, and the
need for state and federal authorities to resolve the conflict.
Section 7. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
DI.D Page 265 of 510
-----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6416
June 11, 2012
Page 10 of 10
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
APPROVED: ____________________
CITY OF AUBURN
________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Published: _________________
DI.D Page 266 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Amendments to Auburn City Code Chapter 18.02.020,
and a new section 1.04.060 related to collective gardens (ZOA12-0002)
Date: June 20, 2012
Department: Planning, and Development
Attachments: See exhibit list,
below
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on amendments to
Auburn City Code Chapters 18.02.020, and 1.04.060 and make a recommendation to City Council.
Background Summary:
At the February 7, 2012 and May 8, 2012 Planning Commission meetings, staff presented two
memorandums on Resolution No. 4739 which was adopted by City Council on August 15, 2011, and
which established a moratorium on collective gardens. The moratorium expires on August 15, 2012. As
part of the resolution, Council specified a work plan for the creation of regulations for collective gardens.
In accordance with the work plan, staff continues to research pending legal decisions regarding the
legality of marijuana and associated collective gardens.
After the staff presentation to the Planning Commission at the May 8th meeting, staff became aware that a
city in the State had moved forward with a policy regarding collective gardens. On May 14th the City
Council of Pasco held a workshop on collective gardens and indicated that the City will likely adopt an
ordinance stating that the City will not allow anything in the zoning code that violates state or federal law.
Staff made note of this policy decision along with the policy established by the City of Woodinville earlier
this year. The City of Woodinville adopted Ordinance No. 541 on February 21st of this year prohibiting the
land use of collective gardens within the City limits.
At the May 29, 2012 Planning and Community Development Committee meeting, staff provided an
update on the research for the creation of regulations for collective gardens in compliance with the work
plan established by Resolution No. 4739. In response, the Committee directed that staff should further
investigate the approaches taken by the Cities of Woodinville and Pasco to adopt an ordinance that will
not allow anything in the zoning code that violates State and or Federal law.
Staff presented the recommendations of the Planning and Community Development Committee back to
the Planning Commission at the June 5th meeting. On June 4th, the City of Pasco approved Ordinance
No. 4059 repealing the moratorium on medical marijuana collective gardens and amending the Pasco
Municipal Code to state that it “does not allow any use which is in violation of any local, State, or Federal
laws, regulations, codes, and/or ordinances.”
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: Taylor
Meeting Date: July 3, 2012 Item Number:
DI.D Page 267 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendments to Auburn City Code
Chapter 18.02.020, and New Chapter 1.04.060 relating to collective
gardens (ZOA12-0002)
Date: June 20, 2012
Page 2 of 5
Findings of Fact
1. Following the 2011 Washington State Legislative Session, the City Council considered the
recent changes in State law that allowed local governments to approve and regulate
“medical marijuana collective gardens.” “Medical marijuana collective gardens” are defined
by the language in the bill please see Exhibit E for the full text of the legislation.
2. On August 15, 2011, the City Council passed Resolution No. 4739, establishing a
moratorium. The moratorium was imposed to provide adequate time to refer this matter to
the Planning Commission for study and for recommendations back to the City Council on
possible regulations that the City could implement on medical marijuana collective gardens.
3. City Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2011, in order to take testimony
regarding the moratorium and interim regulations. No public comment was received.
4. The City Council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for review and
development of recommendations for regulation of medical marijuana collective gardens.
5. At various meetings since the passage of City of Auburn Resolution No. 4739, the Planning
Commission has held study sessions to review and discuss possible impacts of collective
gardens. The range of impacts include such things as:
a. Conversion of residential uses into marijuana cultivation and processing facilities,
removing valuable housing stock in the community;
b. Degrading neighborhood aesthetics due to shuttered up homes, offensive odors;
increased night-time traffic; parking issues; loitering from potential purchasers
looking to buy from a collective member;
c. Environmental damages from chemicals being discharged into surrounding and
off- site soil and storm and sanitary sewer systems;
d. Serious risk of fire hazard due to overloaded electrical service connections used
to operate grow lights and fans;
e. Improper ventilation of indoor growing operations leading to high levels of
moisture and mold;
f. Illegal structural modifications of buildings to accommodate such uses; and
g. Criminal issues such as home invasions, burglaries of medical marijuana
facilities, theft and property damage.
6. At the February 7, 2012 and May 8, 2012 Planning Commission meetings, staff presented
two memorandums in accordance with the work plan established by the moratorium
(Resolution No. 4739), staff continued to research pending legal decisions regarding the
legality of marijuana and associated collective gardens.
7. At the May 29, 2012 Planning and Community Development Committee meeting, staff
provided an update on the research for the creation of regulations for collective gardens in
compliance with the work plan. In response, the Committee directed that staff should further
investigate the approaches taken by the Cities of Woodinville and Pasco to adopt an
ordinance that will not allow anything in the zoning code that violates State and or Federal
law.
DI.D Page 268 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendments to Auburn City Code
Chapter 18.02.020, and New Chapter 1.04.060 relating to collective
gardens (ZOA12-0002)
Date: June 20, 2012
Page 3 of 5
8. Staff presented the recommendations of the Planning and Community Development
Committee back to the Planning Commission at the June 5th meeting. On June 4th, the
City of Pasco approved Ordinance No. 4059 repealing the moratorium on medical marijuana
collective gardens and amending the Pasco Municipal Code to state that it “does not allow
any use which is in violation of any local, State, or Federal laws, regulations, codes, and/or
ordinances.”
9. At the July 3, 2012 meeting the Planning Commission can communicate its concerns
through staff to recommend for two possible courses of action to the City Council. The
Planning Commission can recommend that either:
a. The moratorium be extended to allow time for State or Federal legislative
changes that resolve the conflict between State and Federal law, or
b. That the City just recognize the fact that it cannot enact regulations that are in
conflict with Federal law, and adopt regulations that do not permit, license
or allow collective garden marijuana facilities.
10. This code amendment and proposed new code section are supported by the City of
Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposal complies with the following policies. An
analysis of the proposal’s consistency to these policies follows in the Conclusions section,
below.
• The second policy statement in Chapter 2 the general planning approach, GP 2, which
states that the City should develop its plans and programs after thorough analysis of
community problems, potentials and needs.
• The proposed changes are supported by policy GP 11 which states that ordinance
provisions designed to protect residential areas shall give priority to providing
predictability and stability to the neighborhood.
• The proposed changes are supported by policy GP 23 – which states that the City
should continue its participation in various State and Federal agencies and organizations
concerned with land use planning and development and the protection of natural and
cultural resources and critical areas.
• Further the proposed changes are supported by policy GP 30 – which states that the
City should seek to establish and maintain an image appropriate for the community to
assist in most effectively attracting the types of economic activities which best meet the
needs and desires of the community.
11. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed amendment to
Chapters 18.02.020, and new section 1.04.060 on June 15, 2012. The comment period
ends on June 30, 2012. Staff has not received any comments on the proposed amendment.
The appeal period ends on July 16, 2012.
12. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this
agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state
agencies as required for the expedited State review and were received by Department of
Commerce on June 15, 2012. Staff received a letter of response from the State Department
of Commerce on June 21 documenting that “the procedural requirement under RCW
36.70A.106” has been met.
DI.D Page 269 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendments to Auburn City Code
Chapter 18.02.020, and New Chapter 1.04.060 relating to collective
gardens (ZOA12-0002)
Date: June 20, 2012
Page 4 of 5
13. The public hearing notice was published on June 18, 2012 in the Seattle Times newspaper
at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for July 3, 2012.
14. The following discussion outlines the proposed amendments to Chapters 18.02.020,
‘Authority to adopt code”, and 1.04.060 “Conflict of ordinances with state or federal law’
scheduled for the Planning Commission’s July 3, 2012 public hearing with a staff
recommendation:
Conclusions
These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan, by the
following objectives and policies found in Chapter 2 – General Planning Approach:
1) GP 2 -- The City should develop its plans and programs after thorough analysis of
community problems, potentials and needs.
Complies. The proposal achieves general planning approach Policy GP- 2 which states that
the City of Auburn should develop its plans and programs after thorough analysis of community
problems, potentials and needs. The proposed amendment and new code section supports the
ability of the City of Auburn to manage growth in the City that is in full compliance with all
applicable State and Federal laws.
2) GP 11 – Ordinance provisions designed to protect residential areas shall give priority to
providing predictability and stability to the neighborhood.
Complies. The proposed amendment and new code section comply with Policy GP-11 which
states that the City of Auburn should adopt ordinance provisions designed to protect residential
areas and give priority to providing predictability and stability to neighborhoods. The proposed
amendment and new code section provides clear direction to support neighborhoods from uses
which may be in conflict with applicable State and Federal laws. The proposed amendment and
new code section also provide direction to the community when there may be a conflict between
State and Federal law. The proposed amendment directs the community to require that all
applicable changes to the zoning code shall be in compliance with the laws as established both
legislative bodies.
3) GP 23 – The City should continue its participation in various State and Federal agencies
and organizations concerned with land use planning and development and the protection of
natural and cultural resources and critical areas.
Complies. The proposed amendment and new code section also supports Policy GP-23 which
state that the City should continue its participation in various State and Federal agencies and
organizations concerned with land use planning and development and the protection of natural
and cultural resources and critical areas. Mayor Lewis, as a member of the United States
Conference of Mayors, recently signed a letter of support urging the Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings for the reclassification of medical cannabis from
Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act so qualifying patients who follow
State law may obtain the medication they need through the traditional and safe method of
physician prescribing and pharmacy dispensing. The proposed amendments support the City’s
DI.D Page 270 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Amendments to Auburn City Code
Chapter 18.02.020, and New Chapter 1.04.060 relating to collective
gardens (ZOA12-0002)
Date: June 20, 2012
Page 5 of 5
continued participation in various State and Federal agencies and organizations concerned with
land use planning and development. The City’s participation in these agencies and
organizations allows the City to seek direction from these agencies to ask for clear direction in
order to reasonably apply State and Federal laws.
4) GP 30 – The City should seek to establish and maintain an image appropriate for the
community to assist in most effectively attracting the types of economic activities which best
meet the needs and desires of the community.
Complies. The proposed amendment and new code section further complies with the General
Planning Approach chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, Policy GP-30 which states that the City
should seek to establish and maintain an image appropriate for the community to assist in most
effectively attracting the types of economic activities which best meet the needs and desires of
the community. The City establishes an image of reasonableness by establishing a policy that
clearly states that no new ordinances shall be adopted that are in conflict with either State or
Federal law. This policy creates a clear boundary for the City when the burden of resolution
should be taken by another agency. The application of local, State, and Federal regulations is
important to the business community as there are direct implications for the cost of starting and
maintaining a business. The clear application of laws is important to establish and
communicate to the business community an image of credibility, reliability and predictability.
Maintenance of this image through consistent action is important for the attraction of the types
of economic activities which best meet the needs and desires of the community.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Proposed code changes to ACC to amend 18.02.020 ‘Authority to adopt code’ and
create a new section 1.04.060 ‘Conflict and ordinances with State and Federal law’
Exhibit B: Senate Bill E2SBB 5073, this bill allowed local governments to approve and regulate
“medical marijuana collective gardens”
Exhibit C: City of Auburn Resolution No. 4739, enacting a moratorium on “collective gardens”
Exhibit D: Associated SEPA review, SEP12-0020, Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
Exhibit E: Associated SEPA review, SEP12-0020, Environmental Checklist Application
Exhibit F: Request letter to the Department of Commerce for an expedited State review of
development regulations, and letter of receipt
Exhibit G: Request to the newspaper to publish a public hearing notice
DI.D Page 271 of 510
DI.D Page 272 of 510
DI.D Page 273 of 510
DI.D Page 274 of 510
DI.D Page 275 of 510
DI.D Page 276 of 510
DI.D Page 277 of 510
DI.D Page 278 of 510
DI.D Page 279 of 510
DI.D Page 280 of 510
DI.D Page 281 of 510
DI.D Page 282 of 510
DI.D Page 283 of 510
DI.D Page 284 of 510
DI.D Page 285 of 510
DI.D Page 286 of 510
DI.D Page 287 of 510
DI.D Page 288 of 510
DI.D Page 289 of 510
DI.D Page 290 of 510
DI.D Page 291 of 510
DI.D Page 292 of 510
DI.D Page 293 of 510
DI.D Page 294 of 510
DI.D Page 295 of 510
DI.D Page 296 of 510
DI.D Page 297 of 510
DI.D Page 298 of 510
DI.D Page 299 of 510
DI.D Page 300 of 510
DI.D Page 301 of 510
DI.D Page 302 of 510
DI.D Page 303 of 510
DI.D Page 304 of 510
DI.D Page 305 of 510
DI.D Page 306 of 510
DI.D Page 307 of 510
DI.D Page 308 of 510
DI.D Page 309 of 510
DI.D Page 310 of 510
DI.D Page 311 of 510
DI.D Page 312 of 510
DI.D Page 313 of 510
DI.D Page 314 of 510
DI.D Page 315 of 510
DI.D Page 316 of 510
DI.D Page 317 of 510
DI.D Page 318 of 510
DI.D Page 319 of 510
DI.D Page 320 of 510
DI.D Page 321 of 510
DI.D Page 322 of 510
DI.D Page 323 of 510
DI.D Page 324 of 510
DI.D Page 325 of 510
DI.D Page 326 of 510
DI.D Page 327 of 510
DI.D Page 328 of 510
DI.D Page 329 of 510
DI.D Page 330 of 510
DI.D Page 331 of 510
DI.D Page 332 of 510
DI.D Page 333 of 510
DI.D Page 334 of 510
DI.D Page 335 of 510
DI.D Page 336 of 510
DI.D Page 337 of 510
DI.D Page 338 of 510
DI.D Page 339 of 510
DI.D Page 340 of 510
DI.D Page 341 of 510
DI.D Page 342 of 510
DI.D Page 343 of 510
DI.D Page 344 of 510
DI.D Page 345 of 510
DI.D Page 346 of 510
DI.D Page 347 of 510
DI.D Page 348 of 510
DI.D Page 349 of 510
DI.D Page 350 of 510
DI.D Page 351 of 510
DI.D Page 352 of 510
DI.D Page 353 of 510
DI.D Page 354 of 510
DI.D Page 355 of 510
DI.D Page 356 of 510
DI.D Page 357 of 510
DI.D Page 358 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6418 - Amendment to City Code
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Attachment No. 1 - Ordinance No. 6418
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 3
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Background
Over the past several years, the City made significant changes to the municipal code,
specifically to Title 17, which addresses land adjustments. Now that these revised codes
have been in place and applied to various projects, staff has identified amendments that
are needed to clarify regulations and amendments related to recent changes in state law.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code amendments at their June 5,
2012 meeting and held a public hearing on the amendments at their July 3, 2012
meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed code
amendments as recommended by staff.
Discussion of the Proposed Code Amendments
Title 17 - Land Adjustments and Divisions
Short Plats
1. Modify Section 17.09.035 to be consistent with state law by referencing the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) section related to setting lot corners for short plats.
2. Add a new section to17.09.050 to specifically call out the requirement that safe way
conditions for students be considered in the short plat project.
3. Modify Section 17.09.070 to be consistent with the changes proposed in Section
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E Page 359 of 510
17.09.110, Time Limitations.
4. Revise Section 17.09.110 to be consistent with recent changes in state law regarding
when short plats need to be recorded. While the recent changes in state law do not
specifically reference short plats, staff is recommending that short plats and preliminary
plat timeframes are the same. The time frame for filing a final short plat is extended an
additional two years, for a total of nine years, if the preliminary short plat was approved
on or before December 31, 2007.
Preliminary Plats
5. Modify Section 17.10.020(A)(3) to be specific that the neighborhood circulation plan
also needs to address safe walking paths for students as required by state law.
6. Modify Section 17.10.100(formerly 17.10.110) to reflect the recent changes in state
law related to the timing of filing a final plat. Preliminary plats approved on or before
December 31, 2007 have nine years to file a final plat. If a preliminary plat was approved
on or before December 31, 2014 but after December 31, 2007 then a final plat needs to
be filed within seven years.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 6418
Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Public Hearing Packet
Attachment 3 - Supplemental Information to the Planning Commission
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning Commission, Legal
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Chamberlain
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.E
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E Page 360 of 510
DRAFT
Attachment 1
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 1 of 20
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 1 8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
CHAPTERS 17.09 AND 17.10 WITHIN TITLE 17
LAND ADJUSTMENTS AND DIVISIONS OF THE
AUBURN CITY CODE
WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn
subidivision code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current
development needs and standards of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted significant changes to its subdivision title in
2009 and there are housekeeping amendments needed to clarify those
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the state legislature recently passed changes to RCW
58.17.140 related to the filing of final plats and the City is modifying its
regulations accordingly; and
WHEREAS, following proper public notice, the Planning Commission
considered the proposed code amendments at a public hearing on July 3, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information
presented at the public hearing, on July 3, 2012, the Planning Commission made
its recommendations on the code amendments to the City of Auburn City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee
reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation at their July 9, 2012
DI.E Page 361 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 2 of 20
meeting and forwarded their recommendation to the City Council at their July XX,
2012 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review on the proposal has been
completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) with a final Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued June 13,
2012; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code
amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce,
Growth Management Services, and other state agencies as required with
expedited review requested and acknowledgment received on June 14, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code
amendments have been received from the Department of Commerce or other
state agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council finds that the proposed amendments
provide clarification to the subdivision title and comply with recent changes to
state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That section 17.09.035 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
DI.E Page 362 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 3 of 20
17.09.035 Survey requirements.
A. A licensed professional land surveyor licensed in the state of
Washington shall complete all lot staking pursuant to RCW 58.09.040(1) prior to
the recording of the short subdivision.
B. All lot corners, including interior lot corners, shall be marked with a
permanent marker that bears the land surveyor’s registration number. When the
boundary lines follow a meandering line, the “corners” shall be set as directed by
the city of Auburn.
C. When the legal description of the short subdivision utilizes partial or
complete section subdivisional breakdown to establish the boundaries, section
subdivision survey information shall be shown in accordance with the
requirements of WAC 332-130-030.
D. All reference monuments used in the establishment of the short
subdivision corners shall be identified, described and noted as set or found.
When appropriate, the survey shall reference previous surveys that served as the
basis for the survey.
E. When the short subdivision is adjacent to a constructed public right-of-
way and the plat corners or its offset represent a quarter corner, section corner or
donation land claim that is not of record or has been lost (or obliterated), a
standard monument shall be placed.
F. Whenever a short subdivision is adjacent to existing right-of-way, the
centerline of the right-of-way shall be located on the plat drawing. If the
constructed improvements fall outside of the documented right-of-way, the
surveyor shall identify the existing edge of the pavement and limits of the
maintained right-of-way section on the drawing and show its relationship to said
centerline.
G. All requirements of Chapter 58.09 RCW and Chapter 332-130 WAC
governing minimum standards for land boundary surveys shall be met and a note
shall be placed that reads:
THIS SURVEY COMPLIES WITH ALL THE STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES OF THE “SURVEY RECORDING ACT” CHAPTER
58.09 RCW AND WAC 332-130.
H. The side lot lines of each lot, which if extended would intersect with the
curb, shall be marked on the curb. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6006 § 3, 2006.
Formerly 17.14.035)
Section 2. That section 17.09.050 of the Auburn City Code be and the
same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.09.050 Development requirements.
A. Lot Area and Dimensions. Each lot created by short subdivision shall
contain sufficient square footage and lot dimensions to meet the requirements of
DI.E Page 363 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 4 of 20
ACC Title 18. Each lot to be served by an on-site sewage disposal system shall
be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in area and shall also meet the minimum lot
area requirements of the county department of health rules and regulations. Land
contained in access easements, tracts or panhandles shall not be included in lot
area or lot dimension calculations for the purposes of this section.
B. Every lot within a short subdivision shall be capable of being
reasonably served by public or private sewage disposal, water, storm drainage
facilities and streets. The city will not approve a short subdivision for which a
building permit cannot be issued because of insufficient infrastructure.
C. Conformance with Adopted Plans. Street, water, sewer and storm
drainage facilities adjacent to or within the short subdivision shall be in
conformance with adopted city ordinances, standards and policies. Easements
for utilities recommended by such plans shall be provided to the city, with the
exact location of such easements to be determined by the city engineer.
D. Floods, Flood Control and Storm Drainage.
1. Where any portion of the proposed short subdivision lies within an
area of special flood hazard or regulatory floodway, conformance with
adopted city flood hazard area ordinances, standards and policies shall be
required.
2. A conceptual storm drainage/site grading plan shall be required to
be submitted, as part of the short subdivision application, unless waived by
the city engineer.
3. The proposed subdivision should have one or more new lots in the
regulatory floodplain set aside for open space use through deed restriction,
easement, subdivision covenant, or donation to a public agency. The
density of the development in the portion of the development outside the
regulatory floodplain may be increased in accordance with applicable land
use and subdivision regulations.
4. If a parcel has a buildable site outside the regulatory floodplain, it
shall not be subdivided to create a new lot, tract, or parcel within a binding
site plan that does not have a buildable site outside the regulatory
floodplain. This provision does not apply to lots set aside from development
and preserved as open space.
E. Adjacent Streets. When any public street lying adjacent to the property
being short subdivided has insufficient width or for any other reason does not
conform to minimum street standards, in accordance with the city design and
construction standards, sufficient additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the
city and appropriate improvements shall be made by the subdivider to conform
the abutting half of the street to such standards consistent with Chapter 12.64A
ACC. Deferral of such improvement requirements shall be in conformance with
the city of Auburn design and construction standards.
F. Access.
DI.E Page 364 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 5 of 20
1. All short subdivisions shall border on an opened, constructed and
maintained public street. All lots within a short subdivision shall either
border on an opened, constructed and maintained public street or shall be
served by a private street, access easement, tract or panhandle having
direct access to such a public street. Where private streets and access
easements are provided, they shall be improved or guaranteed to the city of
Auburn and be in conformance with the city of Auburn design and
construction standards.
2. All private streets, access easements and panhandles shall be
capable of meeting the fire access requirements of Chapter 15.36A ACC
and the development standards of Chapters 17.14 and 18.31 ACC, in
addition to any other requirements of this title, including, but not limited to,
an adequate surface for access and minimum turnaround requirements on
dead-end streets or access easements as specified by the fire department.
3. All proposals shall ensure that all buildable lots shall have at least one
access road connected to land outside the regulatory floodplain with the
surface of the road at or above the FPE.
G. Dedication of Streets. Dedication of a public street or streets may be
required, whenever the city engineer finds that one or more of the following
conditions applies:
1. The general alignment of a proposed private street, access easement
or panhandle follows the general alignment of a future arterial as shown in
the comprehensive plan; or
2. The general alignment of a proposed private street, access easement
or panhandle can be reasonably modified to provide a desirable through-
connection between two or more existing or planned public streets or
arterials; or
3. A public street would be necessary to provide adequate access to
adjacent property not subject to the proposed short subdivision.
H. Non-motorized Requirements. In addition to any frontage improvement
requirements and compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions
for students who walk to and from school shall be considered.
HI. Fire Hydrants. All lots within a short subdivision shall be capable of
being served by a fire hydrant as required by Chapter 13.16 ACC. Property
zoned RC, residential conservancy, may be exempt, provided the requirements
of ACC 13.16.030 are met.
IJ. The final recorded subdivision plat shall include a notice that part of the
property is in the SFHA, riparian habitat zone and/or channel migration area, as
appropriate. (Ord. 6295 § 6, 2010; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 12, 2008;
Ord. 6006 § 3, 2006. Formerly 17.14.055).
DI.E Page 365 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 6 of 20
Section 3. Amendment to City Code. That section 17.09.070 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.09.070 Final short subdivision approval.
A. Timeframe for Final Short Subdivision Approval. A final short
subdivision meeting all requirements of this title and the conditions and
requirements of the written decision granting preliminary short subdivision
approval shall be submitted to the Auburn planning and development department
within five years of the date of preliminary short subdivision approvalthe
timeframes specified in ACC 17.09.110, unless otherwise extended by the
director or designee.
B. Procedures. Final short subdivision applications shall be processed as
a Type II land use action.
C. Application. An application for final short subdivision approval meeting
all requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW and this title shall be submitted to the
department of planning and development accompanied by the following:
1. Application materials consistent with the requirements of ACC
17.02.065.
2. A copy of the approved preliminary short subdivision.
3. A final short subdivision drawing meeting the requirements of Chapter
58.17 RCW, including certifications, dedications, and title reports;
4. Agency recommendations pursuant to RCW 58.17.150;
5. A recordable survey and surveyor’s signature meeting the
requirements of Chapter 58.09 RCW and RCW 58.17.250. The map and
legal descriptions included in the application for final short subdivision shall
be prepared and certified by a professional land surveyor licensed in the
state of Washington in a format acceptable to the city of Auburn and the
Survey Recording Act.
6. A title insurance report, not older than 30 days prior to the date of
application, confirming that the title of the land in the proposed subdivision
is vested in the name of the owners whose signatures appear on the final
short subdivision’s certificate.
7. Computation data for all lots, streets and easements located within the
plat.
8. Failure of an applicant to submit all required application materials shall
be considered a lack of compliance with this section, and the director or
designee may withhold the application from further consideration until such
time as the application is complete.
9. Declaration blocks shall be provided for the original tract owner,
surveyor, approving governmental agencies, and recording certification, in a
manner as prescribed by the director.
DI.E Page 366 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 7 of 20
10. Proof of the date of last legal segregation of the parcel of land to be
short subdivided, if deemed necessary by the planning director.
11. Copy of restrictions, if any, to be imposed upon the use of the land.
Such restrictions must be recorded simultaneously with the short
subdivision.
12. In any short subdivision where lots are served or to be served by a
private road, the subdivider shall furnish a copy of such further covenants or
documents that will result in:
a. Each lot owner having access thereto and having responsibility for
maintenance of any private road contained within the short subdivision
in such a condition as to allow free access for emergency vehicles;
b. Such covenants or documents shall obligate any seller to give actual
notice to any prospective purchaser of the method of maintenance of
the private road, which notice shall be caused to be included in any
deeds or contracts relating to such sale and such covenants or
documents shall be recorded simultaneously with the short subdivision.
D. Preparation. The final short subdivision shall be prepared by a
professional land surveyor licensed by the state of Washington. The preparer
shall, by placing his or her signature and stamp upon the face of the final short
subdivision, certify that the final short subdivision is a true and correct
representation of the land actually surveyed by the preparer, that the existing
monuments shown thereon exist as located and that all dimensional and
geodetic details are correct.
E. Scale and Format. The final plat shall be drawn with reproducible ink on
Mylar measuring 18 inches by 24 inches in size, with a one-inch border on one
edge and a one-half-inch border for the other three edges for projects in King
County and measuring 18 inches by 24 inches with a two-inch border on the left
edge and a one-half-inch border for the other three edges for projects in Pierce
County. The final short subdivision shall be accurate, legible and drawn to an
engineering (decimal) scale of 100 feet or fewer to the inch. If more than one
sheet is required, an index sheet showing the entire subdivision with street and
highway names and block numbers (if any) shall be provided. Each sheet,
including the index sheet, shall be of the above-specified size. All signatures or
certifications appearing on a final short subdivision shall be in reproducible black
ink.
F. Final Short Subdivision Contents. A final short subdivision drawing shall
contain the following information:
1. The name of the short subdivision, if applicable;
2. Legal description of the property being subdivided;
3. Numeric scale, graphic scale, basis of bearings and date of
preparation of the final short subdivision;
DI.E Page 367 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 8 of 20
4. The boundary line of the short subdivision, referenced to city datum in
accordance with city design and construction standards and based on an
accurate traverse, with angular and linear dimensions and bearings;
5. The exact location, width and assigned name of all streets, alleys and
other public ways within and adjacent to the short subdivision;
6. A table depicting the assigned address for each lot within the short
subdivision;
7. The exact location, width and purpose of all easements and
dedications for rights-of-way provided for public and private services and
utilities;
8. True courses and distances to the nearest established street lines, or
section or quarter section corner monuments which shall accurately locate
the short subdivision;
9. Municipal, township, county or section lines accurately tied to the lines
of the plat by distances and courses;
10. All lot and block numbers and lines, with accurate dimensions in feet
and hundredths of feet;
11. The radii, internal angles, points of curvature, tangent bearings and
lengths of all arcs;
12. The accurate location of each permanent control monument. One
such monument shall be located at each and every controlling corner on the
boundaries of the parcel of land being subdivided; at each street centerline
intersection, each point of curvature (PC), each point of tangency (PT), and
each point of reverse curve (PRC); and at each intersection of a street
centerline with a plat boundary;
13. All plat meander lines or reference lines along bodies of water shall
be established above, but not farther than 20 feet from, the high water line
of such body;
14. Accurate outlines and legal descriptions of any areas to be dedicated
or reserved for public use, with the purposes of such dedication or
reservation and any limitations indicated thereon and in the dedication;
15. Accurate outlines of any areas to be reserved by deed covenant for
common use of owners of property within the subdivision, together with the
purposes of such reservation;
16. Any restrictions or conditions on the lots or tracts within the short
subdivision, as required by the director, or at the discretion of the property
owner;
17. A signed certification stating that the short subdivision has been
made with the free consent, and in accordance with the desires, of the
owner or owners. If the short subdivision includes a dedication, the
certificate or a separate written instrument shall contain the dedication of all
streets and other areas to the public, any individual or individuals, religious
society or societies, or to any corporation, public or private, as shown on the
DI.E Page 368 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 9 of 20
plat, and a waiver of all claims for damages against any governmental
authority which may be occasioned to the adjacent land by the established
construction, drainage or maintenance of said street or other areas so
dedicated. Such certificate or instrument shall be signed and acknowledged
before a notary public by all parties having any interest in the lands
subdivided. An offer of dedication may include a waiver of right of direct
access to any street from any property. Such waiver may be required by the
city engineer as a condition of approval. Roads not dedicated to the public
must be clearly marked on the face of the plat. Any dedication, donation or
grant as shown on the face of the plat shall be considered as a quit claim
deed to the said donee or grantee for use for the purpose intended by the
donation or grant. At the discretion of the city engineer, conveyances of
right-of-way may be required to be by statutory warranty deed. The
acceptance of right-of-way by the city shall not obligate the city to improve
or develop the lands in the right-of-way;
18. Forms for the appropriate certifications of the city engineer and
planning director, as follows:
CITY ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that this short plat is in compliance with the
certificate of improvements issued pursuant to ACC 17.14.015, and is
consistent with all applicable City improvement standards and
requirements in force on the date of preliminary short plat approval,
this ______ day of _____________, 20___.
______________________________
Auburn City Engineer
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify on this ______ day of ______________, 20____,
that this final plat is in substantial conformance with the preliminary
plat and any conditions attached thereto, which preliminary short plat
was approved on the ______ day of ______________, 20____,
1920. A form for the approval of the applicable county (King/Pierce)
assessor, as follows or as required by the applicable county, if different:
ASSESSOR’S APPROVAL
Examined and approved this ______ day of ______________,
20___.
______________________________
County Assessor
______________________________
Deputy County Assessor
____________________________
Account number
210. A form for the certificate of the applicable county recorder
(King/Pierce), as follows or as required by the applicable county, if different:
DI.E Page 369 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 10 of 20
RECORDING CERTIFICATE
Filed for record at the request of the City of Auburn this ______ day
of ____________, 20___ at _____ minutes past ______ __.M., and
recorded in Volume _____ of Plats, page ________ Records of (King
or Pierce) County, Washington.
County Recording Number _____.
______________________________
Manager
______________________________
Superintendent of Records
221. Any additional pertinent information as required at the discretion of
the city engineer or planning director.
G. Decision-Making Criteria for Final Short Subdivision Approval. The
following criteria shall be used by the director or designee in consideration of final
short subdivision approval:
1. Whether conditions imposed when the preliminary short subdivision
was approved have been met;
2. The completion of the required improvements or their financial
guarantee in conformance with Chapter 17.14 ACC;
3. Whether the final short subdivision is in conformance with the city’s
zoning regulations and all other applicable land use regulations;
4. The director or designee shall not approve a final short subdivision
until he or she determines that it conforms to the approved preliminary short
subdivision and any conditions and restrictions imposed at time of
preliminary approval. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009.)
Section 4. Amendment to City Code. That section 17.09.110 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.09.110 Time limitations.
A. Preliminary approvals for short subdivisions shall be valid for a period
of five seven years following the date of the notice of final decision if the date of
the preliminary short plat approval is on or before December 31, 2014, and within
five years of the date of preliminary short plat approval if the preliminary short
plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015.; provided, that for any preliminary
approval in effect on June 10, 2010, through December 31, 2014, the approvals
shall be for a period of seven years following the date of the notice.
B. If the preliminary short plat approval is on or before December 31,
2007 then the final short plat shall be submitted to the City for approval within
nine years of the date of preliminary short plat approval and not subject to
requirements adopted under RCW 90.58.
DI.E Page 370 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 11 of 20
CB. Extensions. The director or designee may administratively authorize
through a Type I land use action extensions to preliminary short subdivision
approvals. For purposes of this section, the authority to issue extensions shall
apply to preliminary short subdivision approvals previously issued by the city.
Extensions shall be issued in one-year increments up to a maximum of three
years, subject to the following criteria and conditions:
1. An applicant for an extension shall make a written request for the
extension a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to expiration of the
preliminary short subdivision approval.
2. The director or designee shall in consideration of granting an
extension find:
a. There have not been any substantial changes in the laws governing
the development of the short subdivision, with which lack of compliance
would be contrary to the public health, safety and welfare; or
b. The applicant has pursued final platting in good faith. Good faith
shall be evidenced by progress on final surveying, engineering,
construction or bonding of improvements; or
c. There have been substantial changes in economic conditions and
market forces that have substantively limited the ability of the applicant
to pursue final platting.
3. A condition of any extension approval shall be that the subject short
subdivision shall comply with state or federal mandates required of the city
and/or life, health and safety requirements of the city in effect at the time of
any extension approval.
DC. At the same time the director or designee is considering the extension,
he or she may add conditions or requirements upon factual determination that
the addition of conditions or requirements will benefit the public health, safety
and welfare.
DE. A short subdivision granted preliminary approval, but not filed for final
plat approval within the applicable time period or extended time period, shall be
void. (Ord. 6317 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009.).
Section 5. Amendment to City Code. That section 17.10.020 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.020 Application, submittal and contents.
A. Application. In addition to the requirements for a completed application
as provided in ACC Title 14, an application for subdivision approval shall include:
1. Application requirements found in ACC 17.02.065;
2. A preliminary plat meeting the requirements of RCW 58.17.160 for a
preliminary subdivision;
DI.E Page 371 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 12 of 20
3. A neighborhood circulation plan meeting the requirements of Chapter
17.16 ACC and RCW 58.17.110(2) for safe walking paths for students;
4. Where any lot is proposed to be served by an on-site sewage disposal
system, results of preliminary percolation tests for each such proposed lot,
conducted under the county department of health rules and regulations;
5. A conceptual utility/site grading plan and/or methodology prepared in
accordance with the city’s comprehensive plans, standards or ordinance
requirements. The conceptual utility/site grading plan shall include adequate
horizontal and vertical information to ensure that utilities can be constructed
consistent with the preliminary plat layout;
6. The location of other utilities other than those provided by the city;
7. The application shall include a transportation site plan for streets,
pedestrian, and bike facilities. The site plan shall include adequate
horizontal and vertical information to ensure the transportation facilities can
be constructed consistent with the preliminary plat layout;
8. A title report, with liability for errors not to exceed the assessed value
of the lots on the date of application. The title report shall be issued no more
than 30 days prior to the application date;
9. Copy of restrictions, if any, to be imposed upon the use of the land.
Such restrictions must be recorded simultaneously with the subdivision.
B. Preparation. The preliminary plat or short plat shall be prepared by a
professional engineer or professional land surveyor registered or licensed by the
state of Washington. The preparer shall, by placing his or her signature and
stamp upon the face of the plat, certify that all information is portrayed accurately
and that the proposed subdivision or short subdivision complies with the
standards and requirements of this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance and any
other applicable land use and development controls.
C. Scale and Format. The preliminary plat shall be drawn with reproducible
black ink on Mylar. All geographic information portrayed by the preliminary plat
shall be accurate, legible, and drawn to an engineering (decimal) scale.
D. Preliminary Plat Contents. A preliminary plat shall provide the following
information:
1. General Information. The following information shall appear on each
sheet of a preliminary plat or short plat:
a. The name of the proposed subdivision, together with the words
“preliminary plat”;
b. The name and address of the applicant;
c. The name, address, stamp and signature of the professional
engineer or professional land surveyor who prepared the preliminary
plat or short plat;
d. Numeric scale, graphic scale, true north point and date of
preparation;
e. A form for the endorsement of the planning director, as follows:
DI.E Page 372 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 13 of 20
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION _____ OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ON (Date) ________
_________________________________
Director, Planning and Development Dept.
________
Date
f. Legal description of preliminary plat.
2. Existing Geographic Features. Existing geographic features, as
detailed in city application requirements, shall be drawn lightly in relation to
proposed geographic features.
3. Proposed Geographic Features. Proposed geographic features, as
detailed in city application requirements, shall be shown.
4. Additional Information. The following additional information shall be
shown on the face of the preliminary plat:
a. For proposed subdivisions involving residential land uses, a table
providing the following information for each distinct residential area:
i. Proposed land use (e.g., single-family, duplex, multifamily);
ii. Number of dwelling units;
iii. Gross acreage;
iv. Existing zoning designation;
v. Proposed zoning designation;
vi. Approximate area of smallest lot;
b. Proposed source of domestic water supply;
c. Proposed sewage disposal system;
d. Typical street cross section(s);
e. Proposed storm drainage system;
f. For preliminary plats that are related to a planned unit development
(PUD), the following information shall also be provided:
i. The ordinance and contract of the PUD rezone if previously
done;
ii. The location of perimeter walls and fences on the boundary of
the PUD and an indication of the height and materials;
iii. The location and size of any entrance signs;
iv. A landscaping plan;
v. Any covenants not previously approved. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010;
Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998;
Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.020)
Section 6. Amendment to City Code. That section 17.10.050 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.050 Hearing examiner review of preliminary plats.
DI.E Page 373 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 14 of 20
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.66 ACC, the hearing examiner
shall within 104 calendar days of the closure of the public hearing approve, deny,
or approve with conditions the preliminary plat. The hearing examiner shall not
recommend approval of the preliminary plat unless he finds the proposed
subdivision is in conformance with the findings of fact as outlined in ACC
17.10.070.
B. Pursuant to the provisions of ACC 18.66.150, the planning director or
any interested party affected by the recommendation of the examiner who
asserts that the hearing examiner based that recommendation on an erroneous
procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make
a written request for review by the examiner within seven calendar days after the
written decision of the examiner has been rendered. The request for
reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant,
and the examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the
examiner deems proper. The examiner may request further information which
shall be provided within 104 calendar days of the examiner’s request. The
examiner’s written decision on the request for consideration shall be transmitted
to all parties of record within 104 calendar days of receipt of the request for
reconsideration or receipt of the additional information requested, whichever is
later. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 4, 2008; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840
§ 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.050.)
Section 7. Amendment to City Code. That section 17.10.070 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.0670 Findings of fact.
Preliminary plats shall only be approved if findings of fact are drawn to support
the following:
A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways,
water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and schools;
B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of
the comprehensive plan;
C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of
any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city
council;
D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of
this title, as enumerated in ACC 17.02.030;
E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning
ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and
DI.E Page 374 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 15 of 20
specifications as adopted by the city, or as modified and approved as part of a
previously approved PUD;
F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are
mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse
effect upon the quality of the environment;
G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or
abate public nuisances. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 §
1, 1996; Ord. 4772 § 1, 1995; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.070)
Section 8. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.10.080 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.0780 Notice of decision to applicant.
Following the decision of the hearing examiner approving or rejecting a
preliminary plat, the director shall notify the applicant of the decision. The notice
shall be accompanied by a copy of the decision. If the decision is for approval or
approval with conditions, the notice shall advise the applicant to prepare an
improvement method report, as described by Chapter 17.14 ACC, and shall
inform the applicant regarding the applicable time limitations on final plat
submittal. This notice of decision is in addition to any notice of decision required
under ACC Title 14. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 5, 2008; Ord. 5140 § 1,
1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.080.)
Section 9. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.10.090 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.0890 Transfer of property.
If performance of an offer or agreement to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer
a lot, tract or parcel of land, following preliminary plat approval but prior to final
plat approval, is expressly conditioned on the recording of the final plat
containing the lot, tract or parcel under this chapter, the offer or agreement does
not violate any provision of this chapter. All payments on account of an offer or
agreement conditioned as provided in this section shall be deposited in an
escrow or other regulated trust account and no disbursement to sellers shall be
permitted until the final plat is recorded. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 5140 § 1,
1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.090.)
DI.E Page 375 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 16 of 20
Section 10. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.10.100 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.9100 Adjustments of an approved preliminary plat.
A. Minor Adjustments. Minor adjustments may be made and approved by
the planning director. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise
dimensions of the plat but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement
of the lots and streets. Such dimensional requirements shall not vary more than
10 percent from the original. The adjustments cannot be inconsistent with the
requirements of the preliminary plat approval. The adjustments cannot cause the
subdivision to be in violation of this title, the zoning ordinance, any other
applicable city land use control, Chapter 58.17 RCW, or any other applicable
state law or regulation. Minor adjustments shall be reviewed for consistency with
this chapter and the regulations of this title, as well as the following criteria:
1. The adjustment maintains the design intent or purpose of the original
approval; and
2. The adjustment maintains the quality of design or product established
by the original approval; and
3. The adjustment does not cause a significant environmental or land use
impact on or beyond the site; and
4. The adjustment is not precluded by the terms of this title or by state law
from being decided administratively; and
5. Circumstances render it impractical, unfeasible or detrimental to the
public interest to accomplish the subject condition or requirement of
preliminary plat or short plat approval.
B. Major Adjustments. Major adjustments are those that, when determined
by the planning director, substantially change the basic design, layout, open
space or other requirements of the plat. When the planning director determines a
change constitutes a major adjustment, a new application for a preliminary plat is
required and shall be processed as a new and separate application. (Ord. 6239
§ 1, 2009; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.
Formerly 17.06.100.)
Section 11. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.10.110 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.1010 Time limitations.
A. Preliminary approvals for subdivisions shall be valid for a period of five seven
years following the date of the notice of final decision if the date of the preliminary plat
DI.E Page 376 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 17 of 20
approval is on or before December 31, 2014, and within five years of the date of
preliminary plat approval if the preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015.
B. If the preliminary short plat approval is on or before December 31,
2007 then the final plat shall be submitted to the City for approval within nine
years of the date of preliminary plat approval and not subject to requirements
adopted under RCW 90.58.; provided, that for any notice of final decision in
effect on June 10, 2010, through December 31, 2014, the approvals shall be for
a period of seven years following the date of the notice.
CB. Extensions. The director or designee may administratively authorize
through a Type I land use action extensions to preliminary plat approvals. For
purposes of this section, the authority to issue extensions shall apply to
preliminary plat approvals previously issued by the city. Extensions shall be
issued in one-year increments up to a maximum of three years, subject to the
following criteria and conditions:
1. An applicant for an extension shall make a written request for the
extension a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to expiration of the
preliminary plat approval.
2. The director or designee shall in consideration of granting an
extension find:
a. There have not been any substantial changes in the laws
governing the development of the plat, with which lack of compliance
would be contrary to the public health, safety and welfare; or
b. The applicant has pursued final platting diligently, as evidenced
by progress on final surveying, engineering, construction or the
financial security of improvements; or
c. There have been substantial changes in economic conditions
and market forces that have substantively limited the ability of the
applicant to pursue final platting.
3. A condition of any extension approval shall be that the subdivision
shall comply with state or federal mandates required of the city and/or life,
health and safety requirements of the city in effect at the time of any
extension approval.
C. At the same time the director or designee is considering the extension,
he or she may add conditions or requirements upon factual determination that
the addition of conditions or requirements will benefit the public health, safety
and welfare.
D. A plat granted preliminary approval, but not filed for final plat approval
within the applicable time period or extended time period, shall be null and void.
(Ord. 6317 § 3, 2010; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 6, 2008; Ord. 5140 § 1,
1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.110.)
DI.E Page 377 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 18 of 20
Section 12. Amendment to City Code. That Section 17.10.120 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
17.10.1120 Development standards for panhandle lot access and private access
tracts.
A. Panhandle Lot Access.
1. The maximum length of a panhandle lot access within the R-5,
R-7, R-10, R-16, R-20, and RO zones and residential PUDs shall be 150
feet. When there are unique physical limitations of the property including
but not limited to steep slopes, significant vegetation, or sensitive
environmental areas that would be impacted less if a longer panhandle
length were provided, then the planning director may allow additional
length. The planning director may also allow for additional length if there
is an existing intervening parcel of the property (that has a lot depth
greater than 150 feet) between the proposed panhandle lot and the
abutting street. There shall be no limitation of length within the other
zoning districts of the city.
2. All residential and nonresidential panhandle accesses shall meet
the standards of the city of Auburn engineering, design and construction
standards manual.
3. If two panhandle accesses within the same plat abut each other,
then one common paved driveway, spanning both panhandles, may be
provided as part of the two panhandles. The pavement width of the
driveway shall be determined using the same methodology as subsection
(A)(2) of this section.
4. Not more than two panhandle accesses within the same plat may
abut each other. Alternatively, a separate access tract shall be required in
lieu of more than two separate panhandle accesses. The separate access
tract shall meet the requirements of subsection B of this section.
B. Private Access Tracts and/or Easements.
1. Private access tracts and/or easements will be allowed when it is
physically impractical to provide a lot with direct access to a public street
due to unique physical limitations of the property, including but not limited
to steep slopes, significant vegetation, or sensitive environmental areas. If
the lot abuts an arterial, an access tract may also be allowed to provide
an alternate access to the lot if it is impractical to provide for another
public street due to the aforementioned physical limitations. The use of
access tracts cannot preclude or hinder the alignment of future public
streets that would otherwise serve the area.
2. Access tracts can only be created through a plat process
pursuant to Chapter 17.09 ACC and this chapter. Ownership and
DI.E Page 378 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 19 of 20
maintenance responsibilities will also be determined as part of the plat
process.
3. The maximum number of lots to be served by one access tract
shall be six. If a lot abuts an access tract and a public street, then the
front lot line shall be oriented to the public.
4. All access tracts and/or easements must connect to a public
street and the maximum length shall be 150 feet as measured from the
edge of the public street right-of-way. Additional length may be allowed if
the unique physical limitations of the property including but not limited to
steep slopes, significant vegetation, or sensitive environmental areas
would be impacted less if additional length were provided. The access
tract shall not allow for through vehicle access.
5. Private access tracts and/or easements shall meet city of Auburn
design and construction standards.
C. Emergency Access Provisions. Irrespective of the requirements of this
section, additional provisions may be required if needed to provide for adequate
emergency access as determined by the Auburn fire marshal. The additional
provisions may include but not be limited to providing for turnarounds, additional
access tract width, fire hydrants or sprinklering of the building. (Ord. 6239 § 1,
2009.)
Section 13. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 14. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of
the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons
or circumstances.
DI.E Page 379 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6418
June 29, 2012
Page 20 of 20
Section 15. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as
provided by law.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
APPROVED: ____________________
CITY OF AUBURN
______________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Published: _________________
DI.E Page 380 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0005: Proposed amendments to Auburn City
Code Titles 17, 18, and 19 related to “Housekeeping Amendments”
Date: June 18, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See exhibit list (at end
of report)
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Background Summary:
Over the past several years, the City made significant changes to the municipal code, specifically to Title
17, which addresses land adjustments, and to the zoning code (Title 18), specifically the residential
zoning districts, parking chapter, landscaping chapter, and supplemental development standards. In
2009 the subdivision and residential zoning designations were overhauled with amendments adopted by
the City Council on June 1, 2009 as part of the Phase 1 Code Update project. Phase 2, Group 1 of the
Code Update project, which included amendments to the parking, landscaping, and variance chapters,
and created a new outdoor lighting chapter, were adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2011.
Now that these revised codes have been in place and applied to various projects, staff has identified
amendments that are needed to clarify regulations. The proposed code amendments also include
changes related to recent amendments in state law as well as recommended changes to the school
impact fee chapter as a result of council feedback during the comprehensive plan amendment process
last year.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at their June 5, 2012 meeting.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Chamberlain
Meeting Date: July 3, 2012 Item Number:
DI.E Page 381 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0005: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Titles 17, 18, and 19 related to
“Housekeeping Amendments”
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 2 of 6
Findings of Fact
1. In general, the intent of the proposed zoning code amendments is to provide clarification
in the regulations, address recent changes in state law, and address comments received
from customer inquiries.
2. The process for zoning code text amendments is described in ACC Chapter 18.68.,
18.68.020 Initiation of amendments.
B. Text.
1. The city council, or planning and development committee of the city council, upon its
own motion may request the planning commission to conduct a public hearing to amend
any portion or all of this title; provided, that text amendments that are purely
administrative or procedural do not require a public hearing, nor do they require
preliminary review or recommendations of the planning commission;
2. The planning commission may upon its own motion call for a public hearing to amend
any portion or all of this title, with the exception of purely administrative or procedural
amendments;
3. Any resident or property owner of the city may petition the city to request an
amendment to the text of this title.
C. For the purposes of this chapter, substantive amendments shall be distinguished from
procedural or administrative amendments in accordance with the following: “Substantive”
matters relate to regulations that define or limit what can be done in terms of conduct,
use or action (e.g., what use may be made of land, what requirements apply to
development, what public infrastructure may be required of certain developments), and
“procedural” or “administrative” matters are those that relate to the process of how an
application to take such action must be pursued (e.g., time limits for applications and
appeals, what forms must be used, and where or how applications must be submitted.
Essentially, “procedural” or “administrative” matters are the mechanical rules by which
substantive issues may be pursued). (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6198 § 3, 2008; Ord.
4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(46), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.68.030 Public hearing process.
A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural
amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all
amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the
city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing.
C. City Council Decision. The city council may affirm, modify or disaffirm any
recommendation of the planning commission or hearing examiner with regard to
amendments of the text or map of this title. (Ord. 6198 § 4, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements.
A. Text Amendments.
DI.E Page 382 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0005: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Titles 17, 18, and 19 related to
“Housekeeping Amendments”
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 3 of 6
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.
3. The process for amending Title 17, Land Adjustments and Divisions, is outlined in ACC
Section 17.02.090.
17.02.090 Amendments.
A. Initiation of Amendments.
1. The city council, or the planning and development committee of the city council, upon
its own motion may request the planning commission to conduct a public hearing to
amend any portion or all of this title; provided, that no public hearing is required for a
purely administrative or procedural amendment of any portion of this title;
2. The planning commission may upon its own motion call for a public hearing to amend
any portion or all of this title, with the exception of purely administrative or procedural
amendments;
3. Any resident or property owner of the city may petition the city to request an
amendment to the text of this title.
B. Public Hearing and Notice.
1. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural amendments, the planning
director shall schedule a public hearing to be held before the planning commission for
any proposal to amend this title or to adopt or repeal any ordinance under the authority
established by Chapter 58.17 RCW. The director shall cause notice of such hearing to
be given as follows:
a. By sending to any individual or organization which has submitted a request for
notification a notice indicating the time and place of public hearing, describing the
general nature of the proposal, and indicating how copies of the proposed ordinance or
amendment can be obtained; and
b. By publishing in a newspaper of general circulation in the area a notice indicating the
time and place of public hearing, describing the general nature of the proposal, and
indicating how copies of the proposed ordinance or amendment may be obtained.
2. For all proposals to make purely administrative or procedural amendments to this title,
the planning director shall cause notice of such proposed amendment to be given as
follows:
a. By sending to any individual or organization which has submitted a request for
notification advance notice of the proposed amendment that indicates how copies of the
proposed amendment can be obtained.
b. By publishing in a newspaper of general circulation in the area advance notice of the
proposed amendment that indicates how copies of the proposed amendment can be
obtained.
3. For the purposes of this section, substantive amendments shall be distinguished from
procedural or administrative amendments in accordance with the following: substantive
matters relate to regulations that define or limit what can be done in terms of conduct,
use or action (e.g., what use may be made of land, what requirements apply to
DI.E Page 383 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0005: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Titles 17, 18, and 19 related to
“Housekeeping Amendments”
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 4 of 6
development), and procedural or administrative matters are those that relate to the
process of how an application to take such action must be pursued (e.g., time limits for
applications and appeals, what forms must be used, and where or how applications must
be submitted. Essentially, procedural or administrative matters are the mechanical rules
by which substantive issues may be pursued).
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. After the public hearing has been closed,
the planning commission shall recommend to the council either adoption, adoption with
modifications, or rejection of the proposed ordinance or amendment. In formulating its
recommendation, the commission shall consider, among other things, the relationship
between the proposed ordinance or amendment and the comprehensive plan, other
applicable city policies, and other existing land use controls.
D. City Council Action. The planning director shall forward the planning commission’s
recommendation, in writing, to the council. The council may elect to hold its own public
hearing, either before the full council or before a council committee, in which case the
city clerk shall cause adequate notice to be given. The council shall consider, but shall
not be bound by, the planning commission’s recommendation in reaching its own
decision. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009.)
4. The proposed code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive
Plan as identified in the conclusion section of this staff report.
5. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposed amendments on June
13, 2012. The 14-day comment period ends on June 27, 2012. The appeal periods
ends on July 11, 2012.
6. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this
agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state
agencies as required for the 60-day state review required for modification of
development regulations. The amendments were sent on June 13, 2012 and expedited
review was requested. The Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on June
14, 2012. Expedited has not been granted as of the writing of this staff report. If the
request is denied then the standard 60-days applies from the submittal date of June 13,
2012.
7. Staff presented the draft code language to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2012 for
review and discussion.
8. Two comments on the proposed amendments were received; one from the Auburn
School District and the second from the Federal Way School District.
9. The public hearing notice was published on June 20, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for July 3, 2012.
10. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Title 17, Land
Adjustments and Divisions, Title 18, Zoning, and Title 19, Impact Fees scheduled for the
Planning Commission’s July 3, 2012 public hearing with a staff recommendation.
DI.E Page 384 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0005: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Titles 17, 18, and 19 related to
“Housekeeping Amendments”
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 5 of 6
Conclusions
1. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.68.020 and 17.02.090, amendments of Titles 17 and 18
require a public hearing before the Planning Commission with a public hearing notice
published at least 10-days prior to the public hearing date.
Comment:
The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on June 20, 2012 which is
at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for July 3,
2012. The public hearing notice was also posted on the City’s website.
2. These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan as
follows:
GP-3: The Planning Department will develop an annual work program that includes
work elements directed toward studying basic community needs, policy development,
and code administration.
LU-44: Home occupations in residential neighborhoods shall be permitted only if they
comply with performance standards that ensure compatibility with adjacent residential
uses.
Chapter 5 – Capital Facilities
Comment:
The proposed code amendments comply with the above comprehensive plan polices or
chapters. The Planning Department has set up an annual program where staff
documents potential amendments to the municipal code that have identified through use
of the code on project applications, results of customer inquiries, or to address changes
at the state level.
One of the proposed amendments addresses the Home Occupation regulations
(Chapter 18.64) specifically, home occupations operating on federal holidays. Staff
received a customer inquiry questioning why home occupations could not operate on
federal holidays when other businesses could operate. Allowing a home occupation
business to operate on federal holidays is not incompatible with residential uses. The
home occupation regulations would still limit the number of vehicle trips to the business.
The proposed amendment to Title 19, Impact Fees, revises when school districts are to
submit their request for an impact fee increase. When the City processes the school
district capital facilities plan (CFP) we also want to know if a school impact fee increase
is being requested so that increase can be reviewed concurrently with the CFP.
Annually the City adopts by reference the four school district CFPs.
The remaining code amendments modify when the deadline for final short plat and final
plat submittals to be consistent with recent changes in state law, clarify regulations that
were part of the Phase 1 code update work, and remove from the Downtown Urban
DI.E Page 385 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0005: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Titles 17, 18, and 19 related to
“Housekeeping Amendments”
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 6 of 6
Center zoning district chapter the review by the Downtown Redevelopment Committee
as that council committee no longer exists.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council.
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1 Proposed code changes to Title 17, Land Adjustments and Division, Title 18,
Zoning, and Title 19, Impact Fees
Exhibit 2 Request letter to Department of Commerce for Expedited State Review
Exhibit 3 Department of Commerce acknowledgement letter
Exhibit 4 Request to publish hearing notice in newspaper
Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 6 Determination of Non-Significance
Exhibit 7 Comments Letters
DI.E Page 386 of 510
Exhibit 1
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 1 of 22
Title 17 – Land Adjustments and Divisions
Chapter 17.09
SHORT SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
17.09.010 General provisions.
17.09.020 Pre-application conference.
17.09.030 Preliminary application.
17.09.035 Survey requirements.
17.09.040 Reserved.
17.09.050 Development requirements.
17.09.060 Preliminary short subdivision approval.
17.09.070 Final short subdivision approval.
17.09.080 Distribution and filing.
17.09.090 Conditional approval requirements.
17.09.100 Release of improvement guarantee.
17.09.110 Time limitations.
17.09.120 Terms of approval.
17.09.035 Survey requirements.
A. A licensed professional land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington shall complete all
lot staking pursuant to RCW 58.09.040(1) prior to the recording of the short subdivision.
B. All lot corners, including interior lot corners, shall be marked with a permanent marker that
bears the land surveyor’s registration number. When the boundary lines follow a meandering
line, the “corners” shall be set as directed by the city of Auburn.
C. When the legal description of the short subdivision utilizes partial or complete section
subdivisional breakdown to establish the boundaries, section subdivision survey information
shall be shown in accordance with the requirements of WAC 332-130-030.
D. All reference monuments used in the establishment of the short subdivision corners shall be
identified, described and noted as set or found. When appropriate, the survey shall reference
previous surveys that served as the basis for the survey.
E. When the short subdivision is adjacent to a constructed public right-of-way and the plat
corners or its offset represent a quarter corner, section corner or donation land claim that is not
of record or has been lost (or obliterated), a standard monument shall be placed.
F. Whenever a short subdivision is adjacent to existing right-of-way, the centerline of the right-
of-way shall be located on the plat drawing. If the constructed improvements fall outside of the
documented right-of-way, the surveyor shall identify the existing edge of the pavement and
limits of the maintained right-of-way section on the drawing and show its relationship to said
centerline.
G. All requirements of Chapter 58.09 RCW and Chapter 332-130 WAC governing minimum
standards for land boundary surveys shall be met and a note shall be placed that reads:
THIS SURVEY COMPLIES WITH ALL THE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES OF
THE “SURVEY RECORDING ACT” CHAPTER 58.09 RCW AND WAC 332-130.
H. The side lot lines of each lot, which if extended would intersect with the curb, shall be marked
on the curb. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6006 § 3, 2006. Formerly 17.14.035)
17.09.050 Development requirements.
DI.E Page 387 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 2 of 22
A. Lot Area and Dimensions. Each lot created by short subdivision shall contain sufficient
square footage and lot dimensions to meet the requirements of ACC Title 18. Each lot to be
served by an on-site sewage disposal system shall be a minimum of 15,000 square feet in area
and shall also meet the minimum lot area requirements of the county department of health rules
and regulations. Land contained in access easements, tracts or panhandles shall not be
included in lot area or lot dimension calculations for the purposes of this section.
B. Every lot within a short subdivision shall be capable of being reasonably served by public or
private sewage disposal, water, storm drainage facilities and streets. The city will not approve a
short subdivision for which a building permit cannot be issued because of insufficient
infrastructure.
C. Conformance with Adopted Plans. Street, water, sewer and storm drainage facilities adjacent
to or within the short subdivision shall be in conformance with adopted city ordinances,
standards and policies. Easements for utilities recommended by such plans shall be provided to
the city, with the exact location of such easements to be determined by the city engineer.
D. Floods, Flood Control and Storm Drainage.
1. Where any portion of the proposed short subdivision lies within an area of special flood
hazard or regulatory floodway, conformance with adopted city flood hazard area
ordinances, standards and policies shall be required.
2. A conceptual storm drainage/site grading plan shall be required to be submitted, as part
of the short subdivision application, unless waived by the city engineer.
3. The proposed subdivision should have one or more new lots in the regulatory floodplain
set aside for open space use through deed restriction, easement, subdivision covenant, or
donation to a public agency. The density of the development in the portion of the
development outside the regulatory floodplain may be increased in accordance with
applicable land use and subdivision regulations.
4. If a parcel has a buildable site outside the regulatory floodplain, it shall not be
subdivided to create a new lot, tract, or parcel within a binding site plan that does not have
a buildable site outside the regulatory floodplain. This provision does not apply to lots set
aside from development and preserved as open space.
E. Adjacent Streets. When any public street lying adjacent to the property being short
subdivided has insufficient width or for any other reason does not conform to minimum street
standards, in accordance with the city design and construction standards, sufficient additional
right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city and appropriate improvements shall be made by the
subdivider to conform the abutting half of the street to such standards consistent with Chapter
12.64A ACC. Deferral of such improvement requirements shall be in conformance with the city
of Auburn design and construction standards.
F. Access.
1. All short subdivisions shall border on an opened, constructed and maintained public
street. All lots within a short subdivision shall either border on an opened, constructed and
maintained public street or shall be served by a private street, access easement, tract or
panhandle having direct access to such a public street. Where private streets and access
easements are provided, they shall be improved or guaranteed to the city of Auburn and
be in conformance with the city of Auburn design and construction standards.
2. All private streets, access easements and panhandles shall be capable of meeting the
fire access requirements of Chapter 15.36A ACC and the development standards of
Chapters 17.14 and 18.31 ACC, in addition to any other requirements of this title,
including, but not limited to, an adequate surface for access and minimum turnaround
requirements on dead-end streets or access easements as specified by the fire
department.
DI.E Page 388 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 3 of 22
3. All proposals shall ensure that all buildable lots shall have at least one access road
connected to land outside the regulatory floodplain with the surface of the road at or above
the FPE.
G. Dedication of Streets. Dedication of a public street or streets may be required, whenever the
city engineer finds that one or more of the following conditions applies:
1. The general alignment of a proposed private street, access easement or panhandle
follows the general alignment of a future arterial as shown in the comprehensive plan; or
2. The general alignment of a proposed private street, access easement or panhandle can
be reasonably modified to provide a desirable through-connection between two or more
existing or planned public streets or arterials; or
3. A public street would be necessary to provide adequate access to adjacent property not
subject to the proposed short subdivision.
H. Non-motorized Requirements. In addition to any frontage improvement requirements and
compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, sidewalks and other planning
features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school shall be
considered.
H. Fire Hydrants. All lots within a short subdivision shall be capable of being served by a fire
hydrant as required by Chapter 13.16 ACC. Property zoned RC, residential conservancy, may
be exempt, provided the requirements of ACC 13.16.030 are met.
I. The final recorded subdivision plat shall include a notice that part of the property is in the
SFHA, riparian habitat zone and/or channel migration area, as appropriate. (Ord. 6295 § 6,
2010; Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 12, 2008; Ord. 6006 § 3, 2006. Formerly 17.14.055)
17.09.070 Final short subdivision approval.
A. Timeframe for Final Short Subdivision Approval. A final short subdivision meeting all
requirements of this title and the conditions and requirements of the written decision granting
preliminary short subdivision approval shall be submitted to the Auburn planning and
development department within five years of the date of preliminary short subdivision
approvalthe timeframes specified in ACC 17.09.110, unless otherwise extended by the director
or designee.
B. Procedures. Final short subdivision applications shall be processed as a Type II land use
action.
C. Application. An application for final short subdivision approval meeting all requirements of
Chapter 58.17 RCW and this title shall be submitted to the department of planning and
development accompanied by the following:
1. Application materials consistent with the requirements of ACC 17.02.065.
2. A copy of the approved preliminary short subdivision.
3. A final short subdivision drawing meeting the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW,
including certifications, dedications, and title reports;
4. Agency recommendations pursuant to RCW 58.17.150;
5. A recordable survey and surveyor’s signature meeting the requirements of Chapter
58.09 RCW and RCW 58.17.250. The map and legal descriptions included in the
application for final short subdivision shall be prepared and certified by a professional land
surveyor licensed in the state of Washington in a format acceptable to the city of Auburn
and the Survey Recording Act.
6. A title insurance report, not older than 30 days prior to the date of application,
confirming that the title of the land in the proposed subdivision is vested in the name of the
owners whose signatures appear on the final short subdivision’s certificate.
7. Computation data for all lots, streets and easements located within the plat.
DI.E Page 389 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 4 of 22
8. Failure of an applicant to submit all required application materials shall be considered a
lack of compliance with this section, and the director or designee may withhold the
application from further consideration until such time as the application is complete.
9. Declaration blocks shall be provided for the original tract owner, surveyor, approving
governmental agencies, and recording certification, in a manner as prescribed by the
director.
10. Proof of the date of last legal segregation of the parcel of land to be short subdivided,
if deemed necessary by the planning director.
11. Copy of restrictions, if any, to be imposed upon the use of the land. Such restrictions
must be recorded simultaneously with the short subdivision.
12. In any short subdivision where lots are served or to be served by a private road, the
subdivider shall furnish a copy of such further covenants or documents that will result in:
a. Each lot owner having access thereto and having responsibility for maintenance of
any private road contained within the short subdivision in such a condition as to allow
free access for emergency vehicles;
b. Such covenants or documents shall obligate any seller to give actual notice to any
prospective purchaser of the method of maintenance of the private road, which notice
shall be caused to be included in any deeds or contracts relating to such sale and
such covenants or documents shall be recorded simultaneously with the short
subdivision.
D. Preparation. The final short subdivision shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor
licensed by the state of Washington. The preparer shall, by placing his or her signature and
stamp upon the face of the final short subdivision, certify that the final short subdivision is a true
and correct representation of the land actually surveyed by the preparer, that the existing
monuments shown thereon exist as located and that all dimensional and geodetic details are
correct.
E. Scale and Format. The final plat shall be drawn with reproducible ink on Mylar measuring 18
inches by 24 inches in size, with a one-inch border on one edge and a one-half-inch border for
the other three edges for projects in King County and measuring 18 inches by 24 inches with a
two-inch border on the left edge and a one-half-inch border for the other three edges for projects
in Pierce County. The final short subdivision shall be accurate, legible and drawn to an
engineering (decimal) scale of 100 feet or fewer to the inch. If more than one sheet is required,
an index sheet showing the entire subdivision with street and highway names and block
numbers (if any) shall be provided. Each sheet, including the index sheet, shall be of the above-
specified size. All signatures or certifications appearing on a final short subdivision shall be in
reproducible black ink.
F. Final Short Subdivision Contents. A final short subdivision drawing shall contain the following
information:
1. The name of the short subdivision, if applicable;
2. Legal description of the property being subdivided;
3. Numeric scale, graphic scale, basis of bearings and date of preparation of the final short
subdivision;
4. The boundary line of the short subdivision, referenced to city datum in accordance with
city design and construction standards and based on an accurate traverse, with angular
and linear dimensions and bearings;
5. The exact location, width and assigned name of all streets, alleys and other public ways
within and adjacent to the short subdivision;
6. A table depicting the assigned address for each lot within the short subdivision;
7. The exact location, width and purpose of all easements and dedications for rights-of-
way provided for public and private services and utilities;
DI.E Page 390 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 5 of 22
8. True courses and distances to the nearest established street lines, or section or quarter
section corner monuments which shall accurately locate the short subdivision;
9. Municipal, township, county or section lines accurately tied to the lines of the plat by
distances and courses;
10. All lot and block numbers and lines, with accurate dimensions in feet and hundredths
of feet;
11. The radii, internal angles, points of curvature, tangent bearings and lengths of all arcs;
12. The accurate location of each permanent control monument. One such monument
shall be located at each and every controlling corner on the boundaries of the parcel of
land being subdivided; at each street centerline intersection, each point of curvature (PC),
each point of tangency (PT), and each point of reverse curve (PRC); and at each
intersection of a street centerline with a plat boundary;
13. All plat meander lines or reference lines along bodies of water shall be established
above, but not farther than 20 feet from, the high water line of such body;
14. Accurate outlines and legal descriptions of any areas to be dedicated or reserved for
public use, with the purposes of such dedication or reservation and any limitations
indicated thereon and in the dedication;
15. Accurate outlines of any areas to be reserved by deed covenant for common use of
owners of property within the subdivision, together with the purposes of such reservation;
16. Any restrictions or conditions on the lots or tracts within the short subdivision, as
required by the director, or at the discretion of the property owner;
17. A signed certification stating that the short subdivision has been made with the free
consent, and in accordance with the desires, of the owner or owners. If the short
subdivision includes a dedication, the certificate or a separate written instrument shall
contain the dedication of all streets and other areas to the public, any individual or
individuals, religious society or societies, or to any corporation, public or private, as shown
on the plat, and a waiver of all claims for damages against any governmental authority
which may be occasioned to the adjacent land by the established construction, drainage
or maintenance of said street or other areas so dedicated. Such certificate or instrument
shall be signed and acknowledged before a notary public by all parties having any interest
in the lands subdivided. An offer of dedication may include a waiver of right of direct
access to any street from any property. Such waiver may be required by the city engineer
as a condition of approval. Roads not dedicated to the public must be clearly marked on
the face of the plat. Any dedication, donation or grant as shown on the face of the plat
shall be considered as a quit claim deed to the said donee or grantee for use for the
purpose intended by the donation or grant. At the discretion of the city engineer,
conveyances of right-of-way may be required to be by statutory warranty deed. The
acceptance of right-of-way by the city shall not obligate the city to improve or develop the
lands in the right-of-way;
18. Forms for the appropriate certifications of the city engineer and planning director, as
follows:
CITY ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that this short plat is in compliance with the certificate of
improvements issued pursuant to ACC 17.14.015, and is consistent with all
applicable City improvement standards and requirements in force on the date of
preliminary short plat approval, this ______ day of _____________, 20___.
______________________________
Auburn City Engineer
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S CERTIFICATE
DI.E Page 391 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 6 of 22
I hereby certify on this ______ day of ______________, 20____, that this final plat is
in substantial conformance with the preliminary plat and any conditions attached
thereto, which preliminary short plat was approved on the ______ day of
______________, 20____,
20. A form for the approval of the applicable county (King/Pierce) assessor, as follows or
as required by the applicable county, if different:
ASSESSOR’S APPROVAL
Examined and approved this ______ day of ______________, 20___.
______________________________
County Assessor
______________________________
Deputy County Assessor
____________________________
Account number
21. A form for the certificate of the applicable county recorder (King/Pierce), as follows or
as required by the applicable county, if different:
RECORDING CERTIFICATE
Filed for record at the request of the City of Auburn this ______ day of
____________, 20___ at _____ minutes past ______ __.M., and recorded in
Volume _____ of Plats, page ________ Records of (King or Pierce) County,
Washington.
County Recording Number _____.
______________________________
Manager
______________________________
Superintendent of Records
22. Any additional pertinent information as required at the discretion of the city engineer or
planning director.
G. Decision-Making Criteria for Final Short Subdivision Approval. The following criteria shall be
used by the director or designee in consideration of final short subdivision approval:
1. Whether conditions imposed when the preliminary short subdivision was approved have
been met;
2. The completion of the required improvements or their financial guarantee in
conformance with Chapter 17.14 ACC;
3. Whether the final short subdivision is in conformance with the city’s zoning regulations
and all other applicable land use regulations;
4. The director or designee shall not approve a final short subdivision until he or she
determines that it conforms to the approved preliminary short subdivision and any
conditions and restrictions imposed at time of preliminary approval. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010;
Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009.)
17.09.110 Time limitations.
A. Preliminary approvals for short subdivisions shall be valid for a period of five seven years
following the date of the notice of final decision if the date of the preliminary short plat approval
is on or before December 31, 2014, and within five years of the date of preliminary short plat
approval if the preliminary short plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015.; provided, that for
any preliminary approval in effect on June 10, 2010, through December 31, 2014, the approvals
shall be for a period of seven years following the date of the notice.
DI.E Page 392 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 7 of 22
B. If the preliminary short plat approval is on or before December 31, 2007 then the final short
plat shall be submitted to the City for approval within nine years of the date of preliminary short
plat approval and not subject to requirements adopted under RCW 90.58.
CB. Extensions. The director or designee may administratively authorize through a Type I land
use action extensions to preliminary short subdivision approvals. For purposes of this section,
the authority to issue extensions shall apply to preliminary short subdivision approvals
previously issued by the city. Extensions shall be issued in one-year increments up to a
maximum of three years, subject to the following criteria and conditions:
1. An applicant for an extension shall make a written request for the extension a minimum
of 30 calendar days prior to expiration of the preliminary short subdivision approval.
2. The director or designee shall in consideration of granting an extension find:
a. There have not been any substantial changes in the laws governing the
development of the short subdivision, with which lack of compliance would be
contrary to the public health, safety and welfare; or
b. The applicant has pursued final platting in good faith. Good faith shall be
evidenced by progress on final surveying, engineering, construction or bonding of
improvements; or
c. There have been substantial changes in economic conditions and market forces
that have substantively limited the ability of the applicant to pursue final platting.
3. A condition of any extension approval shall be that the subject short subdivision shall
comply with state or federal mandates required of the city and/or life, health and safety
requirements of the city in effect at the time of any extension approval.
DC. At the same time the director or designee is considering the extension, he or she may add
conditions or requirements upon factual determination that the addition of conditions or
requirements will benefit the public health, safety and welfare.
D. A short subdivision granted preliminary approval, but not filed for final plat approval within the
applicable time period or extended time period, shall be void. (Ord. 6317 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6239
§ 1, 2009.)
Chapter 17.10
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
17.10.010 Pre-application conference.
17.10.020 Application, submittal and contents.
17.10.030 Review process.
17.10.040 Administrative review.
17.10.050 Hearing examiner review of preliminary plats.
17.10.070 Findings of fact.
17.10.080 Notice of decision to applicant.
17.10.090 Transfer of property.
17.10.100 Adjustments of an approved preliminary plat.
17.10.110 Time limitations.
17.10.120 Development standards for panhandle lot access and private access tracts.
17.10.020 Application, submittal and contents.
A. Application. In addition to the requirements for a completed application as provided in ACC
Title 14, an application for subdivision approval shall include:
1. Application requirements found in ACC 17.02.065;
DI.E Page 393 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 8 of 22
2. A preliminary plat meeting the requirements of RCW 58.17.160 for a preliminary
subdivision;
3. A neighborhood circulation plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17.16 ACC and
RCW 58.17.110(2) for safe walking paths for students;
4. Where any lot is proposed to be served by an on-site sewage disposal system,
results of preliminary percolation tests for each such proposed lot, conducted under the
county department of health rules and regulations;
5. A conceptual utility/site grading plan and/or methodology prepared in accordance
with the city’s comprehensive plans, standards or ordinance requirements. The
conceptual utility/site grading plan shall include adequate horizontal and vertical
information to ensure that utilities can be constructed consistent with the preliminary
plat layout;
6. The location of other utilities other than those provided by the city;
7. The application shall include a transportation site plan for streets, pedestrian, and
bike facilities. The site plan shall include adequate horizontal and vertical information to
ensure the transportation facilities can be constructed consistent with the preliminary
plat layout;
8. A title report, with liability for errors not to exceed the assessed value of the lots on
the date of application. The title report shall be issued no more than 30 days prior to the
application date;
9. Copy of restrictions, if any, to be imposed upon the use of the land. Such restrictions
must be recorded simultaneously with the subdivision.
B. Preparation. The preliminary plat or short plat shall be prepared by a professional engineer or
professional land surveyor registered or licensed by the state of Washington. The preparer
shall, by placing his or her signature and stamp upon the face of the plat, certify that all
information is portrayed accurately and that the proposed subdivision or short subdivision
complies with the standards and requirements of this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance and any
other applicable land use and development controls.
C. Scale and Format. The preliminary plat shall be drawn with reproducible black ink on Mylar.
All geographic information portrayed by the preliminary plat shall be accurate, legible, and
drawn to an engineering (decimal) scale.
D. Preliminary Plat Contents. A preliminary plat shall provide the following information:
1. General Information. The following information shall appear on each sheet of a
preliminary plat or short plat:
a. The name of the proposed subdivision, together with the words “preliminary
plat”;
b. The name and address of the applicant;
c. The name, address, stamp and signature of the professional engineer or
professional land surveyor who prepared the preliminary plat or short plat;
d. Numeric scale, graphic scale, true north point and date of preparation;
e. A form for the endorsement of the planning director, as follows:
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION _____ OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON (Date)
________
_________________________________
Director, Planning and Development Dept.
________
Date
f. Legal description of preliminary plat.
DI.E Page 394 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 9 of 22
2. Existing Geographic Features. Existing geographic features, as detailed in city
application requirements, shall be drawn lightly in relation to proposed geographic
features.
3. Proposed Geographic Features. Proposed geographic features, as detailed in city
application requirements, shall be shown.
4. Additional Information. The following additional information shall be shown on the
face of the preliminary plat:
a. For proposed subdivisions involving residential land uses, a table providing the
following information for each distinct residential area:
i. Proposed land use (e.g., single-family, duplex, multifamily);
ii. Number of dwelling units;
iii. Gross acreage;
iv. Existing zoning designation;
v. Proposed zoning designation;
vi. Approximate area of smallest lot;
b. Proposed source of domestic water supply;
c. Proposed sewage disposal system;
d. Typical street cross section(s);
e. Proposed storm drainage system;
f. For preliminary plats that are related to a planned unit development (PUD), the
following information shall also be provided:
i. The ordinance and contract of the PUD rezone if previously done;
ii. The location of perimeter walls and fences on the boundary of the PUD and
an indication of the height and materials;
iii. The location and size of any entrance signs;
iv. A landscaping plan;
v. Any covenants not previously approved. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6239
§ 1, 2009; Ord. 5170 § 1, 1998; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.020)
17.10.050 Hearing examiner review of preliminary plats.
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.66 ACC, the hearing examiner shall within 104
calendar days of the closure of the public hearing approve, deny, or approve with conditions the
preliminary plat. The hearing examiner shall not recommend approval of the preliminary plat
unless he finds the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the findings of fact as outlined
in ACC 17.10.070.
B. Pursuant to the provisions of ACC 18.66.150, the planning director or any interested party
affected by the recommendation of the examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based
that recommendation on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may
make a written request for review by the examiner within seven calendar days after the written
decision of the examiner has been rendered. The request for reconsideration shall set forth the
specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the examiner may, after review of the record,
take further action as the examiner deems proper. The examiner may request further
information which shall be provided within 104 calendar days of the examiner’s request. The
examiner’s written decision on the request for consideration shall be transmitted to all parties of
record within 104 calendar days of receipt of the request for reconsideration or receipt of the
additional information requested, whichever is later. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 4, 2008;
Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.050.)
DI.E Page 395 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 10 of 22
17.10.0670 Findings of fact.
Preliminary plats shall only be approved if findings of fact are drawn to support the following:
A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks, playgrounds and schools;
B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive
plan;
C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council;
D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as enumerated
in ACC 17.02.030;
E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other
applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or as
modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD;
F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the
preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment;
G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances.
(Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4772 § 1, 1995; Ord.
4296 § 2, 1988. Formerly 17.06.070)
17.10.0780 Notice of decision to applicant.
Following the decision of the hearing examiner approving or rejecting a preliminary plat, the
director shall notify the applicant of the decision. The notice shall be accompanied by a copy of
the decision. If the decision is for approval or approval with conditions, the notice shall advise
the applicant to prepare an improvement method report, as described by Chapter 17.14 ACC,
and shall inform the applicant regarding the applicable time limitations on final plat submittal.
This notice of decision is in addition to any notice of decision required under ACC Title 14. (Ord.
6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 6186 § 5, 2008; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2,
1988. Formerly 17.06.080.)
17.10.0890 Transfer of property.
If performance of an offer or agreement to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer a lot, tract or parcel
of land, following preliminary plat approval but prior to final plat approval, is expressly
conditioned on the recording of the final plat containing the lot, tract or parcel under this chapter,
the offer or agreement does not violate any provision of this chapter. All payments on account of
an offer or agreement conditioned as provided in this section shall be deposited in an escrow or
other regulated trust account and no disbursement to sellers shall be permitted until the final
plat is recorded. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2,
1988. Formerly 17.06.090.)
17.10.9100 Adjustments of an approved preliminary plat.
A. Minor Adjustments. Minor adjustments may be made and approved by the planning director.
Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions of the plat but which do
not affect the basic character or arrangement of the lots and streets. Such dimensional
requirements shall not vary more than 10 percent from the original. The adjustments cannot be
inconsistent with the requirements of the preliminary plat approval. The adjustments cannot
cause the subdivision to be in violation of this title, the zoning ordinance, any other applicable
city land use control, Chapter 58.17 RCW, or any other applicable state law or regulation. Minor
DI.E Page 396 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 11 of 22
adjustments shall be reviewed for consistency with this chapter and the regulations of this title,
as well as the following criteria:
1. The adjustment maintains the design intent or purpose of the original approval; and
2. The adjustment maintains the quality of design or product established by the original
approval; and
3. The adjustment does not cause a significant environmental or land use impact on or
beyond the site; and
4. The adjustment is not precluded by the terms of this title or by state law from being
decided administratively; and
5. Circumstances render it impractical, unfeasible or detrimental to the public interest to
accomplish the subject condition or requirement of preliminary plat or short plat
approval.
B. Major Adjustments. Major adjustments are those that, when determined by the planning
director, substantially change the basic design, layout, open space or other requirements of the
plat. When the planning director determines a change constitutes a major adjustment, a new
application for a preliminary plat is required and shall be processed as a new and separate
application. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2,
1988. Formerly 17.06.100.)
17.10.1010 Time limitations.
A. Preliminary approvals for subdivisions shall be valid for a period of five seven years following
the date of the notice of final decision if the date of the preliminary plat approval is on or before
December 31, 2014, and within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval if the
preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015.
B. If the preliminary short plat approval is on or before December 31, 2007 then the final plat
shall be submitted to the City for approval within nine years of the date of preliminary plat
approval and not subject to requirements adopted under RCW 90.58.; provided, that for any
notice of final decision in effect on June 10, 2010, through December 31, 2014, the approvals
shall be for a period of seven years following the date of the notice.
CB. Extensions. The director or designee may administratively authorize through a Type I land
use action extensions to preliminary plat approvals. For purposes of this section, the authority to
issue extensions shall apply to preliminary plat approvals previously issued by the city.
Extensions shall be issued in one-year increments up to a maximum of three years, subject to
the following criteria and conditions:
1. An applicant for an extension shall make a written request for the extension a
minimum of 30 calendar days prior to expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
2. The director or designee shall in consideration of granting an extension find:
a. There have not been any substantial changes in the laws governing the
development of the plat, with which lack of compliance would be contrary to the
public health, safety and welfare; or
b. The applicant has pursued final platting diligently, as evidenced by progress on
final surveying, engineering, construction or the financial security of improvements;
or
c. There have been substantial changes in economic conditions and market forces
that have substantively limited the ability of the applicant to pursue final platting.
3. A condition of any extension approval shall be that the subdivision shall comply with
state or federal mandates required of the city and/or life, health and safety requirements
of the city in effect at the time of any extension approval.
DI.E Page 397 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 12 of 22
C. At the same time the director or designee is considering the extension, he or she may add
conditions or requirements upon factual determination that the addition of conditions or
requirements will benefit the public health, safety and welfare.
D. A plat granted preliminary approval, but not filed for final plat approval within the applicable
time period or extended time period, shall be null and void. (Ord. 6317 § 3, 2010; Ord. 6239 § 1,
2009; Ord. 6186 § 6, 2008; Ord. 5140 § 1, 1998; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.
Formerly 17.06.110.)
17.10.1120 Development standards for panhandle lot access and private access tracts.
A. Panhandle Lot Access.
1. The maximum length of a panhandle lot access within the R-5, R-7, R-10, R-16, R-
20, and RO zones and residential PUDs shall be 150 feet. When there are unique
physical limitations of the property including but not limited to steep slopes, significant
vegetation, or sensitive environmental areas that would be impacted less if a longer
panhandle length were provided, then the planning director may allow additional length.
The planning director may also allow for additional length if there is an existing
intervening parcel of the property (that has a lot depth greater than 150 feet) between
the proposed panhandle lot and the abutting street. There shall be no limitation of
length within the other zoning districts of the city.
2. All residential and nonresidential panhandle accesses shall meet the standards of the
city of Auburn engineering, design and construction standards manual.
3. If two panhandle accesses within the same plat abut each other, then one common
paved driveway, spanning both panhandles, may be provided as part of the two
panhandles. The pavement width of the driveway shall be determined using the same
methodology as subsection (A)(2) of this section.
4. Not more than two panhandle accesses within the same plat may abut each other.
Alternatively, a separate access tract shall be required in lieu of more than two separate
panhandle accesses. The separate access tract shall meet the requirements of
subsection B of this section.
B. Private Access Tracts and/or Easements.
1. Private access tracts and/or easements will be allowed when it is physically
impractical to provide a lot with direct access to a public street due to unique physical
limitations of the property, including but not limited to steep slopes, significant
vegetation, or sensitive environmental areas. If the lot abuts an arterial, an access tract
may also be allowed to provide an alternate access to the lot if it is impractical to
provide for another public street due to the aforementioned physical limitations. The use
of access tracts cannot preclude or hinder the alignment of future public streets that
would otherwise serve the area.
2. Access tracts can only be created through a plat process pursuant to Chapter 17.09
ACC and this chapter. Ownership and maintenance responsibilities will also be
determined as part of the plat process.
3. The maximum number of lots to be served by one access tract shall be six. If a lot
abuts an access tract and a public street, then the front lot line shall be oriented to the
public.
4. All access tracts and/or easements must connect to a public street and the maximum
length shall be 150 feet as measured from the edge of the public street right-of-way.
Additional length may be allowed if the unique physical limitations of the property
including but not limited to steep slopes, significant vegetation, or sensitive
environmental areas would be impacted less if additional length were provided. The
access tract shall not allow for through vehicle access.
DI.E Page 398 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 13 of 22
5. Private access tracts and/or easements shall meet city of Auburn design and
construction standards.
C. Emergency Access Provisions. Irrespective of the requirements of this section, additional
provisions may be required if needed to provide for adequate emergency access as determined
by the Auburn fire marshal. The additional provisions may include but not be limited to providing
for turnarounds, additional access tract width, fire hydrants or sprinklering of the building. (Ord.
6239 § 1, 2009.)
Title 18 – Zoning
Chapter 18.29
DUC DOWNTOWN URBAN CENTER DISTRICT
Sections:
18.29.010 Intent.
18.29.020 Scope.
18.29.030 Process.
18.29.040 Definitions.
18.29.050 Use limitations.
18.29.053 Uses/activities requiring an administrative use permit.
18.29.055 Uses/activities requiring a conditional use permit.
18.29.060 Development standards.
18.29.070 Design standards.
18.29.060 Development standards.
I. Signs. The design of all signs shall be in conformance with the design standards referenced in
ACC 18.29.070. Allowable types, numbers and sizes of signs shall be as follows:
1. Freestanding. Not allowed, except for monument signs as described within the
“Downtown Auburn Design Standards”; no more than one per street frontage; maximum
size: 64 square feet, calculated at a rate of one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of
site frontage; minimum entitlement shall be 32 square feet; maximum height: five feet.
2. Wall signs: maximum area of 150 square feet per building facade, calculated at a rate of
one square foot of sign area for every lineal foot of facade; minimum entitlement shall be
16 square feet.
3. Suspended signs attached under a marquee or canopy: one double-faced sign, no
greater than three square feet per face allowed for each building entrance; minimum
maximum clearance above grade: eight feet.
4. Portable Signs. Except for Main Street frontages, Oone portable sign may be allowed
for each business entrance, not to exceed one portable sign per building frontage, subject
to the following:
a. May be placed within public right-of-way subject to the guidelines provided by the
director in consultation with the city engineer such that sign placement does not
interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic and conforms to the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
b. May not exceed 36 inches in height and 30 inches in width and be limited to two
faces.
c. May be displayed during business hours only.
d. Must be constructed of either wood or another sturdy material to ensure stability in
the wind.
e. May not move, spin, flash, or otherwise be animated.
DI.E Page 399 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 14 of 22
f. Shall meet applicable supplemental design requirements of the Auburn downtown
association.
18.29.070 Design standards.
Adopted by reference are the “Downtown Auburn Design Standards,” and the “Auburn Junction
Design Standards,” a copy of which shall be maintained by the city clerk. This document
contains standards for development of the built environment in the DUC zone. The director shall
have the authority to apply the standards to specific development proposals. These standards
may be amended upon approval by the planning and community development committee of the
Auburn city council except amendments related to the four block redevelopment, bounded by
West Main Street, 2nd Street SE, Auburn Avenue, and “A” Street SW, and properties within one
block radius may be amended upon approval by the downtown redevelopment committee of the
Auburn city council. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6190 § 1, 2008; Ord. 6071 § 6 (Exh. A), 2007.)
Chapter 18.31
SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Sections:
18.31.010 Daycare standards.
18.31.020 Fences.
18.31.030 Height limitations – Exceptions.
18.31.040 Lots.
18.31.050 Single-family dwelling siting and design standards.
18.31.060 Recreational vehicle parks.
18.31.070 Setbacks.
18.31.080 Heliports.
18.31.090 Work release, prerelease and similar facilities.
18.31.100 Wireless communications facilities siting standards.
18.31.110 Siting of microcells.
18.31.115 Wetland mitigation.
18.31.120 Accessory dwelling units.
18.31.130 Reserved.
18.31.140 Gated residential subdivisions.
18.31.150 Secure community transition facilities.
18.31.160 Supportive housing development standards.
18.31.170 Reserved.
18.31.180 Performance standards.
18.31.190 Supplemental development standards for residential mobile home communities.
18.31.200 Multifamily development and mixed-use development design standards and
procedures.
18.31.210 Agricultural enterprises development standards.
18.31.220 Permitted animals.
18.31.230 Table of allowed districts.
18.31.020 Fences.
A. Height Regulations. The minimum or maximum height requirements as stipulated throughout
this chapter shall be considered to be met if the height of the fence is within six percent of the
height required. The height of the fence shall be determined from the existing, established grade
on the property.
DI.E Page 400 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 15 of 22
1. The following regulations shall apply in the R-1, R-5, R-7, R-10, R-16, R-20, R-MHC,
RO, RO-H, I, C-N, C-1, C-2, and DUC zones:
a. Fences may be constructed to a height not to exceed the following in each of the
required setback areas, as regulated per each zone, or as modified by subsection B
of this section:
i. Front setback: 42 inches; provided, that fences constructed of chain link,
wrought iron or similar materials that provide visibility may be 72 inches in
height;
ii. Side setback: 72 inches;
iii. Rear setback: 72 inches;
iv. Street side setback: 72 inches.
2. Fences and walls built within the building area of a lot may be as high as the maximum
building height allowed within the applicable zone. Building permits are required for fences
exceeding six feet in height.
3. If the fence includes a gate or similar feature, a vehicle refuge area shall be provided
within the driveway to avoid blocking the street of the public right-of-way.
B. Special Height Restrictions.
1. There shall not be anything constructed or reconstructed, and no obstruction permitted,
within the sight distance triangle area as required by city of Auburn engineering design
standards.
2. In general, no fence, hedge, structure or other obstruction shall act as a sight hazard to
traffic, and the city engineer may order the removal of such hazard whether or not such
object otherwise complies with the provisions of this title.
C. Screened Fence.
1. A screened fence shall consist, at a minimum, of a chain link fence interwoven with
slats placed in every row or available space in the fence.
2. A 100 percent sight-obscuring fence shall be constructed of solid wood, metal, concrete
or other appropriate material which totally conceals the subject use from adjoining uses.
D. Fences and Associated Landscaping.
1. When landscaping is required along the property line, the fence shall be set back a
minimum of five feet if the fence abuts a street right-of-way, so as to not obscure such
landscaping.
2. At other property lines, the landscaping shall be located to serve the greatest public
benefit.
E. Obstructions – Generally Prohibited.
1. In no case shall any fence and/or hedge be constructed or grown such that it deters or
hinders the fire authority from gaining access to any fire authority connection, fire
protection control valve, fire hydrant, or fire authority appliance or device. Minimum
clearance requirements for fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the city design and
construction standards.
2. In no case shall any fence and/or hedge obstruct the visibility of any fire hydrant from a
distance of 150 feet, in any direction, of vehicular approach to the hydrant.
3. In no case shall any fence and/or hedge be constructed or grown in a manner which
interferes with access to storm or sanitary sewer manholes and other appurtenances
which require access for maintenance purposes.
F. Other than in the P-1, M-1 or M-2 zones, no fence may include the use of barbed wire;
provided, that pasture areas a minimum of one acre in area may be fenced with barbed wire in
any zone. Barbed wire may be attached to the top of and in addition to the height of a 72-inch
fence in the above zones, provided it does not extend more than one additional foot in height.
DI.E Page 401 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 16 of 22
See ACC Section 8.12.060 for additional requirements for nuisances related to fences such as
electric fences.
G. Any fence located within a front setback that features a locking gate or similar security device
shall provide emergency access in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. (Ord. 6245 § 15,
2009.)
18.31.120 Accessory dwelling units.
Accessory dwelling units are permitted outright in all residential zones that permit single-family
homes, and may be developed with new or existing single-family homes. The development
standards of the underlying zone and the following siting and performance standards shall apply
to all accessory dwelling units as defined by ACC 18.04.018.
A. The home or accessory dwelling unit must be the principal place of residence for the
homeowner.
B. Only one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted per single-family residence.
C. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be larger than 50 percent of the square footage of the
single-family home with garage space not being included in the calculation. In no case shall the
accessory dwelling unit be more than 950 square feet, nor less than 300 square feet, nor have
more than two bedrooms.
D. Exterior Appearance/Modifications.
1. Any alterations shall not change the appearance from that of a single-family residence,
as determined by the planning director.
2. Only one exterior entrance is allowed to the accessory dwelling unit and it can be
located no closer than 10 feet to an adjoining property line.
3. Any exterior stairs shall be placed in the rear or side setback and no closer than 10 feet
to an adjoining property line.
4. Where garage space is converted to living space, the garage door shall be replaced
with materials that match the exterior of the house. If a detached garage is converted, its
appearance must still be that of a detached garage and the detached garage must be able
to be used for parking of at least one vehicle.
E. Parking Requirements.
1. The parking required for the existing single-family home must meet all requirements of
the zoning code including amount, size and setback requirements in order for an
accessory dwelling unit to be allowed.
2. One additional parking space, beyond those required for the single-family home, is
required for an accessory dwelling unit. The additional parking space must also meet all
requirements of the zoning code.
3. Newly created parking shall make use of existing curb cuts, when possible.
F. An accessory dwelling unit may not be sold as a separate piece of property, or as a
condominium unit, unless allowed by the existing zoning on the property.
G. Any homeowner seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall apply for approval in
accordance with the following procedures:
1. The homeowner shall apply for an accessory dwelling unit permit with the city. A
complete application shall include a properly completed application form, floor and
structural plans, and fees. and an affidavit of owner residency. The affidavit of owner
residency must be signed before a notary public affirming that the owner meets the
requirements of subsections A through E of this section.
2. Before issuance of the certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit permit,
the homeowner must provide a copy of a statement recorded with the county records and
elections officein which the subject property is located resides. The statement must read:
DI.E Page 402 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 17 of 22
An application for a permit for an accessory dwelling unit has been submitted to the
city of Auburn by the owner of this property. Future owners are advised that the
owner of the property must comply with all requirements of the Auburn Zoning Code,
as amended, if the accessory dwelling unit is to be occupied or rented.
H. If an accessory dwelling unit is to be removed, appropriate permits and inspections must first
be received from the city. If a homeowner wants to remove the statement as required by
subsection (G)(2) of this section from the property’s title, then the city shall issue an appropriate
release upon evidence that the accessory dwelling unit has been removed. The release shall be
recorded by the homeowner with the county records and elections office and a copy of the
recorded release shall be provided to the city. (Ord. 6245 § 15, 2009.)
Chapter 18.60
HOME OCCUPATIONS
Sections:
18.60.010 Purpose.
18.60.020 Requirements.
18.60.030 Exemptions.
18.60.040 Special home occupation permit.
18.60.050 Businesses not permitted as home occupations.
18.60.060 Termination.
18.60.020 Requirements.
Home occupations are required to have a business license as issued by the city, comply with all city
codes and ordinances, and shall be consistent with the following provisions:
A. Only members of the immediate family residing on the premises and no more than one non-resident
may be employed at any one time; provided, that home occupations with a nonresident employee shall
provide off-street parking for the employee on site;
B. No mechanical equipment is used except such as is commonly or customarily used for domestic,
household or personal purposes for a dwelling unit (or as deemed similar in terms of power, quantity,
noise, emissions and type);
C. Not more than one-fourth of the floor area of any building is devoted to such occupation, except for
bed and breakfasts;
D. That such occupation shall not require internal or external alteration or involve construction features
not customarily found in a dwelling;
E. The home occupation shall not involve the use of personal commercial vehicles as defined in ACC
18.04.245 for the distribution of materials to or from the premises. Deliveries or pickups by commercial
delivery services shall not apply toward this limitation provided such pickup or delivery does not exceed
twice per day;
F. The conduct of any home occupation, including but not limited to the storage of goods and equipment,
shall not reduce or render unusable areas provided for the required off-street parking. Additional parking
is not allowed in order to conduct a home occupation, except what may be required through the issuance
of a special home occupation permit pursuant to ACC 18.60.040;
G. Only one sign is permitted, not to exceed 18 inches by 24 inches in area, nonilluminated, and attached
to a building, except that home occupations in commercial or industrial zones may have signs consistent
with the applicable zoning district;
H. No display pertaining to the occupation, other than the one permitted sign, is visible from the street or
adjacent residences;
I. No more animals are maintained on the premises than what may otherwise be permitted in the zone;
J. Except for bed and breakfasts, employee and customer visits shall be limited to the following hours of
operation:
1. Employees from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
on Saturday and Sundays;
DI.E Page 403 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 18 of 22
2. Customers from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday;
3. No employee or customer visits shall be permitted on Sundays or federal holidays;
K. Traffic generated by the home occupation shall be limited to a maximum of eight (two-way)
client/delivery-related trips per day for those hom e occupations that operate by appointment only and do
not have overlapping client visits. All other home occupations shall be limited to five (two-way)
client/delivery trips per day;
L. Outdoor storage of materials, goods, products or equipment is not allowed;
M. The home occupation is to be conducted in such a manner that the residence shall not differ from its
residential character either by the use of colors, materials, construction, lighting, signs, or the em issions
of sounds, noises, vibrations or odors or result in traffic impacts inconsistent with the character of the area
in which the home occupation is located. (Ord. 6141 § 1, 2007; Ord. 5897 § 21, 2005; Ord. 4229 § 2,
1987.)
Chapter 18.52
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
Sections:
18.52.005 Intent.
18.52.010 Applicability.
18.52.020 Number of off-street parking spaces required.
18.52.025 Disabled/handicapped parking requirements.
18.52.030 Reductions of the quantity of required parking.
18.52.040 Drive-through facilities.
18.52.050 Parking design, development, and maintenance standards.
18.52.060 Repealed.
18.52.065 Commercial vehicles in residential zones.
18.52.070 –
18.52.100 Repealed.
18.52.110 Fractional spaces.
18.52.120 Repealed.
18.52.125 Stacked parking.
18.52.130 Off-street loading space.
18.52.135 Alternate parking layouts.
18.52.020 Number of off-street parking spaces required.
Each principal use of the land, building, or structure shall provide the number of off-street
parking spaces required by this section. The following standards are not applicable in the DUC,
downtown urban center zone; refer to Chapter 18.29 ACC for specific requirements for that
zone.
A. Parking Requirements by Land Use.
1. Minimum Number of Parking Spaces. Each land use shall provide the minimum number
of off-street parking spaces required by Table 18.52.020, except where a greater number
of spaces are required through a more specific approval process such as an
administrative use permit or conditional use permit approval.
2. Uses Not Listed. Where a use is not listed in Table 18.52.020 the planning director shall
determine the number of required parking and/or loading spaces. The planning director
shall use the requirements in Table 18.52.020 as a guide in determining the number of off-
street parking spaces required based on the similarity of uses or may consider a parking
generation study.
B. Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. Except for required parking spaces for persons with
disabilities, spaces provided in park and ride lots operated by a public transit agency, spaces for
DI.E Page 404 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 19 of 22
carpools, spaces for electric vehicle charging and spaces within structured parking with two or
more levels, the maximum number of parking spaces for nonresidential 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: two spaces per 1,000 square feet
(sf) of floor area), the floor area shall be construed to mean gross floor area (defined in 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 from practical use by obstruction,
erection of buildings, or other actions as to reduce the parking or loading capacity or usefulness
thereof below the minimum requirements established in this chapter is prohibited.
Table 18.52.020 Off-Street Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type: Unit of Measure: Required Parking Rate
(spaces per unit of
measure):
Residential Categories
Single-family, detached dwelling, adult family
home
Dwelling unit 2.00
Two-family dwelling (duplex) Dwelling unit 2.00
Multifamily dwelling (one and two bedroom units) Dwelling unit 1.50
Multifamily dwelling (three bedroom units or more) Dwelling unit 2.00
Mobile home dwellings1 Dwelling unit 2.00
Assisted living facilities 4 bedrooms 1.00
Plus one space for
each two employees
Group living (includes supportive housing,
boardinghouse)
2 bedrooms 1.00
Commercial Categories
Auto, boat, or recreational vehicle sales or leasing,
new or used
5,000 square feet of outdoor
sales area
1,000 square feet of
showroom and service
facilities
1.00
1.00
Daycare centers Each 10 children in care 2.00
Eating and drinking establishments 1,000 square feet of floor
area
10.00
Food retail stores and markets 1,000 square feet of floor
area
5.00
Health and fitness clubs 1,000 square feet of floor
area
10.00
DI.E Page 405 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 20 of 22
Hotel or motel Guest room or rental unit 1.00
Mini-marts and self service gas stations 1,000 square feet of floor
area
5.00
Mortuaries or funeral homes Seat2 0.25
Motor vehicle repair and services 1,000 square feet of floor
area
2.50
Personal service shops 1,000 square feet of floor
area
2.50
Retail commercial establishments, less than
15,000 square feet of floor area
1,000 square feet of floor
area
2.50
Retail commercial establishments, greater than
15,000 square feet of floor area
1,000 square feet of floor
area
4.00
Shopping centers 1,000 square feet of floor
area
4.00
Office Categories
Business and professional offices 1,000 square feet of floor
area
2.00
Medical, dental, and other doctor’s offices 1,000 square feet of floor
area
5.00
Manufacturing Processing and Warehousing
Categories (See 18.52.020(D)
All manufacturing, industrial, and processing uses,
except the following:
1,000 square feet of floor
area
1.00
Warehousing 2,000 square feet of floor
area
1.00
Storage – Personal storage/mini-storage facilities Storage unit3 Minimum of 2 spaces
Recreation, Education, Public Assembly
Categories
Auditoriums, stadiums, and theaters Seat2 0.25
Commercial recreation facilities – Indoor, except
for the following:
1,000 square feet of floor
area
5.00
Bowling alleys Lanes 5.00
Pool and billiard rooms Table 2.00
Skating rinks 1,000 square feet of floor
area
5.00
Commercial recreation facilities – Outdoor 1,000 square feet of usable
recreational area
3.00
Hospitals Bed 1.75
Library, museum 1,000 square feet of floor
area
2.50
Meeting facility, public or private Seat2 0.25
DI.E Page 406 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 21 of 22
Religious assembly Seat2 0.20
Schools (public and private)
Kindergarten schools Employee4 1.00
Elementary/middle schools Teaching station 1.20
Secondary (high) schools Student 0.40
College or university (including trade and
business schools)
Student 0.75
Studios (dance, martial arts, etc.) 1,000 square feet of floor
area
5.00
Tennis/racquetball/handball or other sport courts Court
Each 300 sf of floor area for
accessory uses
2.00
1.00
Recreational uses not listed elsewhere Same as retail, based on size
Notes:
1. Within mobile home parks, parking space shall not be allowed within the required setbacks.
Guest parking shall be provided within the development: five percent of total requirement.
2. Seat, 18 inches of bench, or 25 square feet of floor space.
3. Parking shall be provided by parking/driving lanes adjacent to buildings. Two parking spaces
shall be provided adjacent to the manager’s quarters.
4. There shall be two visitor-parking stalls provided for each 10 required employee stalls.
(Ord. 6388 § 1, 2011; 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.)
Title 19 – Impact Fees
Chapter 19.02
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
Sections:
19.02.010 Purpose.
19.02.020 Definitions.
19.02.030 Determination of the amount of the impact fees.
19.02.040 Interlocal agreement between the city and district.
19.02.050 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data.
19.02.060 Annual council review.
19.02.070 Fee collection.
19.02.080 Exemptions.
19.02.090 Adjustments, exceptions and appeals.
19.02.100 Impact fee accounts and refunds.
19.02.110 Impact fee formula.
19.02.115 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Dieringer School District.
19.02.120 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Auburn School District.
19.02.130 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Kent School District.
19.02.140 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Federal Way School District.
DI.E Page 407 of 510
Draft Code Amendment
Version 21
May 21, 2012June 21, 2012
Page 22 of 22
19.02.050 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data.
A. On an annual basis (by July 1stthe second Friday in June or on a date agreed to by district
and the city and stipulated in the interlocal agreement), any district for which the city is collecting
impact fees shall submit the following materials to the city council:
1. The district’s capital facilities plan (as defined herein) as adopted by the school board;
2. The district’s enrollment projections over the next six years, its current enrollment and
the district’s enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year;
3. The district’s adopted standard of service;
4. The district’s overall capacity over the next six years, which shall take into account the
available capacity from school facilities planned by the district but not yet built and be a
function of the district’s standard of service as measured by the number of students which
can be housed in district facilities; and
5. An inventory of the district’s existing facilities; and
6. If the school impact fee adjustment request by the school district increases the school
impact fee, the request shall be in writing to the City and submitted concurrently with the
district’s capital facilities plan..
B. To the extent that the district’s standard of service identifies a deficiency in its existing
facilities, the district’s capital facilities plan must identify the sources of funding other than
impact fees for building or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the existing student
population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable period of time.
C. Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the adopted standard of service.
If sufficient funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital facilities plan which
meets the adopted standard of service, the district’s capital facilities plan should document the
reason for the funding gap, and identify all sources of funding that the district plans to use to
meet the adopted standard of service.
D. The district shall also submit annually to the city a report showing the capital improvements
for which the impact fees have been used.
E. In its development of the financing plan component of its capital facilities plan, the district
shall plan on a six-year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following
steps:
1. Establish a six-year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues, levies,
and/or financing measures required by and consistent with that plan and as approved by
the school board consistent with state law; and
2. Where applicable, apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state requirements
for eligibility to the best of the district’s ability. (Ord. 6341 § 2, 2011; Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.)
DI.E Page 408 of 510
DI.E Page 409 of 510
DI.E Page 410 of 510
DI.E Page 411 of 510
DI.E Page 412 of 510
DI.E Page 413 of 510
DI.E Page 414 of 510
DI.E Page 415 of 510
DI.E Page 416 of 510
DI.E Page 417 of 510
DI.E Page 418 of 510
DI.E Page 419 of 510
DI.E Page 420 of 510
DI.E Page 421 of 510
DI.E Page 422 of 510
DI.E Page 423 of 510
DI.E Page 424 of 510
DI.E Page 425 of 510
DI.E Page 426 of 510
DI.E Page 427 of 510
DI.E Page 428 of 510
DI.E Page 429 of 510
DI.E Page 430 of 510
DI.E Page 431 of 510
DI.E Page 432 of 510
DI.E Page 433 of 510
DI.E Page 434 of 510
DI.E Page 435 of 510
DI.E Page 436 of 510
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
DI.E Page 437 of 510
DI.E Page 438 of 510
DI.E Page 439 of 510
DI.E Page 440 of 510
DI.E Page 441 of 510
DI.E Page 442 of 510
Downtown Urban Center and Auburn Junction Legend
Printed On:6/21/2012
Created by City of Auburn eGIS
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.
Parcels
Street Centerlines
Zoning
C1 Light Commercial District
C2 Central Business District
C3 Heavy Commercial District
C4 Mixed Use Commercial
CN Neighborhood Shopping District
DUC Downtown Urban Center
EP Environmental Park District
I Institutional Use District
Lakeland Hills South PUD
LF Airport Landing Field District
M1 Light Industrial District
M2 Heavy Industrial District
P1 Public Use District
PUD Planned Unit Development
R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre
R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre
R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre
R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre
R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre
Residential Conservency
RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units
RO Residential Office District
RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital)
TV Terrace View
UNC Unclassified Use District
DI.E Page 443 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6419 - Amendment to City Code
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 6419
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Planning Commission, Legal
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Chamberlain
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.F
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.F Page 444 of 510
Memorandum
To: Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Partridge, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Holman, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee
From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager
CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Planning and Development Director
Date: June 29, 2012
Re: Ordinance No. 6419 Proposed Code Amendments to Title 18 – Zoning
Background
Over the past several years, the City made significant changes to the municipal code,
specifically to the zoning code, including changes to the parking chapter, landscaping chapter,
and supplemental development standards. Now that these revised codes have been in place
and applied to various projects, staff has identified amendments that are needed to clarify
regulations.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code amendments at their June 5, 2012
meeting and held a public hearing on the amendments at their July 3, 2012 meeting. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed code amendments as
recommended by staff.
Discussion of the Proposed Code Amendments
Title 18 – Zoning
Downtown Urban Center
1. Remove the “except for Main Street” from the portable sign section. This was not
intended when the code was originally adopted and staff is recommending that the
businesses along Main Street be permitted to have one portable sign.
2. Delete the requirement that portable signs need to comply with design standards
established by the Auburn Downtown Association. To staff’s knowledge these standards
do not exist and staff recommends that the City be the only review entity in regards to
signage.
DI.F Page 445 of 510
2
3. Delete the reference to the downtown redevelopment committee and have the planning
and community development review the Auburn Junction Design Standards. The reason
for this change is the downtown redevelopment committee no longer exists.
Supplemental Development Standards
4. Add to Section 18.31.020, Fences, a requirement that a vehicle refuge area be required
within a driveway if the fence includes a gate so the vehicle does not block the right-of-
way.
5. Add to Section 18.31.020(F), a reference to Section 8.12.060 related to electric fences.
6. Modify Section 18.31.120, Accessory Dwelling Units, to remove the requirement that the
owner provides an affidavit stating they meet the requirements for accessory dwelling
units. This is a requirement that is not really needed as part of the permit process staff
verifies that the application meets all the code requirements.
7. Modify Section 18.31.120 that before certificate of occupancy the homeowner shall
record the accessory dwelling unit statement rather than requiring the statement to be
recorded before the permit is issued.
Home Occupations
8. Modify the requirements to allow home occupations to have customers and an outside
employee, if one is employed, and to have the business open on federal holidays similar
to other businesses.
Off- Street Parking and Loading
9. Clarify in Section 18.52.020, specifically for manufacturing and warehouse uses, that the
parking is calculated for the manufacturing or warehouse use and if office is proposed
the office space is calculated using the office parking rate. Section 18.52.020(D)
requires the separate parking calculation but staff recommends specifically highlighting
the requirement for manufacturing and warehouse uses for applicants reading the City’s
code. Recently a new application was submitted for an industrial use and the applicant
calculate the parking only for the warehouse use not separately calculating the office
use.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 6419
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Public Hearing Packet; See Attachment 1 on Ordinance
No. 6418
DI.F Page 446 of 510
DRAFT
Attachment 1
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 1 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 1 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS
18.29, 18.31, 18.52, AND 18.60 WITHIN TITLE 18 ZONING
OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE
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 modified its committee structure via Resolution No.
4779 removing the Downtown Redevelopment Committee; and
WHEREAS, following proper public notice, the Planning Commission considered
the proposed code amendments at a public hearing on July 3, 2012; and
WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the
public hearing, on July 3, 2012, the Planning Commission made its recommendations
on the code amendments to the City of Auburn City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee reviewed the
Planning Commission’s recommendation at their July 9, 2012 meeting and forwarded
their recommendation to the City Council at their July XX, 2012 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review on the proposal has been completed in
accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a
final Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued June 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code
amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth
DI.F Page 447 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 2 of 12
Management Services, and other state agencies as required with expedited review
requested and acknowledgment received on June 14, 2012; and
WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments
have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council finds that the proposed amendments
provide clarification to the subdivision title and comply with recent changes to state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.29.060 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.29.060 Development standards.
I. Signs. The design of all signs shall be in conformance with the design standards
referenced in ACC 18.29.070. Allowable types, numbers and sizes of signs shall be as
follows:
1. Freestanding. Not allowed, except for monument signs as described within the
“Downtown Auburn Design Standards”; no more than one per street frontage;
maximum size: 64 square feet, calculated at a rate of one square foot of sign area
per lineal foot of site frontage; minimum entitlement shall be 32 square feet;
maximum height: five feet.
2. Wall signs: maximum area of 150 square feet per building facade, calculated
at a rate of one square foot of sign area for every lineal foot of facade; minimum
entitlement shall be 16 square feet.
3. Suspended signs attached under a marquee or canopy: one double-faced
sign, no greater than three square feet per face allowed for each building entrance;
minimum maximum clearance above grade: eight feet.
4. Portable Signs. Except for Main Street frontages, Oone portable sign may be
allowed for each business entrance, not to exceed one portable sign per building
frontage, subject to the following:
a. May be placed within public right-of-way subject to the guidelines
provided by the director in consultation with the city engineer such that sign
placement does not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic and conforms
to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
b. May not exceed 36 inches in height and 30 inches in width and be
limited to two faces.
DI.F Page 448 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 3 of 12
c. May be displayed during business hours only.
d. Must be constructed of either wood or another sturdy material to ensure
stability in the wind.
e. May not move, spin, flash, or otherwise be animated.
f. Shall meet applicable supplemental design requirements of the Auburn
downtown association.
Section 2. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.29.070 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.29.070 Design standards.
Adopted by reference are the “Downtown Auburn Design Standards,” and the
“Auburn Junction Design Standards,” a copy of which shall be maintained by the city
clerk. Theseis documents contains standards for development of the built environment
in the DUC zone. The director shall have the authority to apply the standards to specific
development proposals. These standards may be amended upon approval by the
planning and community development committee of the Auburn city council except
amendments related to the four block redevelopment, bounded by West Main Street,
2nd Street SE, Auburn Avenue, and “A” Street SW, and properties within one block
radius may be amended upon approval by the downtown redevelopment committee of
the Auburn city council. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6190 § 1, 2008; Ord. 6071 § 6 (Exh.
A), 2007.)
Section 3. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.31.020 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.31.020 Fences.
A. Height Regulations. The minimum or maximum height requirements as
stipulated throughout this chapter shall be considered to be met if the height of the
fence is within six percent of the height required. The height of the fence shall be
determined from the existing, established grade on the property.
1. The following regulations shall apply in the R-1, R-5, R-7, R-10, R-16, R-20,
R-MHC, RO, RO-H, I, C-N, C-1, C-2, and DUC zones:
a. Fences may be constructed to a height not to exceed the following in
each of the required setback areas, as regulated per each zone, or as
modified by subsection B of this section:
i. Front setback: 42 inches; provided, that fences constructed of
chain link, wrought iron or similar materials that provide visibility may be
72 inches in height;
ii. Side setback: 72 inches;
iii. Rear setback: 72 inches;
iv. Street side setback: 72 inches.
DI.F Page 449 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 4 of 12
2. Fences and walls built within the building area of a lot may be as high as the
maximum building height allowed within the applicable zone. Building permits are
required for fences exceeding six feet in height.
3. If the fence includes a gate or similar feature, a vehicle refuge area shall be
provided within the driveway to avoid blocking the street.
B. Special Height Restrictions.
1. There shall not be anything constructed or reconstructed, and no obstruction
permitted, within the sight distance triangle area as required by city of Auburn
engineering design standards.
2. In general, no fence, hedge, structure or other obstruction shall act as a sight
hazard to traffic, and the city engineer may order the removal of such hazard
whether or not such object otherwise complies with the provisions of this title.
C. Screened Fence.
1. A screened fence shall consist, at a minimum, of a chain link fence
interwoven with slats placed in every row or available space in the fence.
2. A 100 percent sight-obscuring fence shall be constructed of solid wood,
metal, concrete or other appropriate material which totally conceals the subject
use from adjoining uses.
D. Fences and Associated Landscaping.
1. When landscaping is required along the property line, the fence shall be set
back a minimum of five feet if the fence abuts a street right-of-way, so as to not
obscure such landscaping.
2. At other property lines, the landscaping shall be located to serve the greatest
public benefit.
E. Obstructions – Generally Prohibited.
1. In no case shall any fence and/or hedge be constructed or grown such that it
deters or hinders the fire authority from gaining access to any fire authority
connection, fire protection control valve, fire hydrant, or fire authority appliance or
device. Minimum clearance requirements for fire hydrants shall be in accordance
with the city design and construction standards.
2. In no case shall any fence and/or hedge obstruct the visibility of any fire
hydrant from a distance of 150 feet, in any direction, of vehicular approach to the
hydrant.
3. In no case shall any fence and/or hedge be constructed or grown in a manner
which interferes with access to storm or sanitary sewer manholes and other
appurtenances which require access for maintenance purposes.
F. Other than in the P-1, M-1 or M-2 zones, no fence may include the use of
barbed wire; provided, that pasture areas a minimum of one acre in area may be fenced
with barbed wire in any zone. Barbed wire may be attached to the top of and in addition
to the height of a 72-inch fence in the above zones, provided it does not extend more
than one additional foot in height. See ACC Section 8.12.060 for additional
requirements for nuisances related to fences such as electric fences.
G. Any fence located within a front setback that features a locking gate or similar
security device shall provide emergency access in a manner acceptable to the fire
marshal. (Ord. 6245 § 15, 2009.)
DI.F Page 450 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 5 of 12
Section 4. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.31.120 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.31.120 Accessory dwelling units.
Accessory dwelling units are permitted outright in all residential zones that permit
single-family homes, and may be developed with new or existing single-family homes.
The development standards of the underlying zone and the following siting and
performance standards shall apply to all accessory dwelling units as defined by ACC
18.04.018.
A. The home or accessory dwelling unit must be the principal place of residence
for the homeowner.
B. Only one accessory dwelling unit may be permitted per single-family
residence.
C. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be larger than 50 percent of the square
footage of the single-family home with garage space not being included in the
calculation. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit be more than 950 square feet,
nor less than 300 square feet, nor have more than two bedrooms.
D. Exterior Appearance/Modifications.
1. Any alterations shall not change the appearance from that of a single-family
residence, as determined by the planning director.
2. Only one exterior entrance is allowed to the accessory dwelling unit and it can
be located no closer than 10 feet to an adjoining property line.
3. Any exterior stairs shall be placed in the rear or side setback and no closer
than 10 feet to an adjoining property line.
4. Where garage space is converted to living space, the garage door shall be
replaced with materials that match the exterior of the house. If a detached garage
is converted, its appearance must still be that of a detached garage and the
detached garage must be able to be used for parking of at least one vehicle.
E. Parking Requirements.
1. The parking required for the existing single-family home must meet all
requirements of the zoning code including amount, size and setback requirements
in order for an accessory dwelling unit to be allowed.
2. One additional parking space, beyond those required for the single-family
home, is required for an accessory dwelling unit. The additional parking space
must also meet all requirements of the zoning code.
3. Newly created parking shall make use of existing curb cuts, when possible.
F. An accessory dwelling unit may not be sold as a separate piece of property, or
as a condominium unit, unless allowed by the existing zoning on the property.
G. Any homeowner seeking to establish an accessory dwelling unit shall apply for
approval in accordance with the following procedures:
1. The homeowner shall apply for an accessory dwelling unit permit with the city.
A complete application shall include a properly completed application form, floor
and structural plans, and fees. and an affidavit of owner residency. The affidavit of
DI.F Page 451 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 6 of 12
owner residency must be signed before a notary public affirming that the owner
meets the requirements of subsections A through E of this section.
2. Before issuance of the certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit
permit, the homeowner must provide a copy of a statement recorded with the
county records and elections officein which the subject property is located resides.
The statement must read:
An application for a permit for an accessory dwelling unit has been submitted
to the city of Auburn by the owner of this property. Future owners are advised
that the owner of the property must comply with all requirements of the
Auburn Zoning Code, as amended, if the accessory dwelling unit is to be
occupied or rented.
H. If an accessory dwelling unit is to be removed, appropriate permits and
inspections must first be received from the city. If a homeowner wants to remove the
statement as required by subsection (G)(2) of this section from the property’s title, then
the city shall issue an appropriate release upon evidence that the accessory dwelling
unit has been removed. The release shall be recorded by the homeowner with the
county records and elections office and a copy of the recorded release shall be provided
to the city. (Ord. 6245 § 15, 2009.)
Section 5. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.52.020 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.52.020 Number of off-street parking spaces required.
Each principal use of the land, building, or structure shall provide the number of
off-street parking spaces required by this section. The following standards are not
applicable in the DUC, downtown urban center zone; refer to Chapter 18.29 ACC for
specific requirements for that zone.
A. Parking Requirements by Land Use.
1. Minimum Number of Parking Spaces. Each land use shall provide the
minimum number of off-street parking spaces required by Table 18.52.020, except
where a greater number of spaces are required through a more specific approval
process such as an administrative use permit or conditional use permit approval.
2. Uses Not Listed. Where a use is not listed in Table 18.52.020 the planning
director shall determine the number of required parking and/or loading spaces. The
planning director shall use the requirements in Table 18.52.020 as a guide in
determining the number of off-street parking spaces required based on the
similarity of uses or may consider a parking generation study.
B. Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. Except for required parking spaces for
persons with disabilities, spaces provided in park and ride lots operated by a public
transit agency, spaces for carpools, spaces for electric vehicle charging and spaces
within structured parking with two or more levels, the maximum number of parking
spaces for nonresidential uses shall not exceed 125 percent of the minimum spaces
required by Table 18.52.020.
DI.F Page 452 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 7 of 12
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: two spaces per
1,000 square feet (sf) of floor area), the floor area shall be construed to mean gross
floor area (defined in 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 from practical use
by obstruction, erection of buildings, or other actions as to reduce the parking or loading
capacity or usefulness thereof below the minimum requirements established in this
chapter is prohibited.
Table 18.52.020 Off-Street Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type: Unit of Measure: Required Parking
Rate (spaces per
unit of measure):
Residential Categories
Single-family, detached dwelling, adult
family home
Dwelling unit 2.00
Two-family dwelling (duplex) Dwelling unit 2.00
Multifamily dwelling (one and two bedroom
units)
Dwelling unit 1.50
Multifamily dwelling (three bedroom units
or more)
Dwelling unit 2.00
Mobile home dwellings1 Dwelling unit 2.00
Assisted living facilities 4 bedrooms 1.00
Plus one space for
each two
employees
Group living (includes supportive housing,
boardinghouse)
2 bedrooms 1.00
Commercial Categories
Auto, boat, or recreational vehicle sales or
leasing, new or used
5,000 square feet of
outdoor sales area
1,000 square feet of
showroom and service
facilities
1.00
1.00
DI.F Page 453 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 8 of 12
Daycare centers Each 10 children in
care
2.00
Eating and drinking establishments 1,000 square feet of
floor area
10.00
Food retail stores and markets 1,000 square feet of
floor area
5.00
Health and fitness clubs 1,000 square feet of
floor area
10.00
Hotel or motel Guest room or rental
unit
1.00
Mini-marts and self service gas stations 1,000 square feet of
floor area
5.00
Mortuaries or funeral homes Seat2 0.25
Motor vehicle repair and services 1,000 square feet of
floor area
2.50
Personal service shops 1,000 square feet of
floor area
2.50
Retail commercial establishments, less
than 15,000 square feet of floor area
1,000 square feet of
floor area
2.50
Retail commercial establishments, greater
than 15,000 square feet of floor area
1,000 square feet of
floor area
4.00
Shopping centers 1,000 square feet of
floor area
4.00
Office Categories
Business and professional offices 1,000 square feet of
floor area
2.00
Medical, dental, and other doctor’s offices 1,000 square feet of
floor area
5.00
Manufacturing Processing and
Warehousing Categories (See
18.52.020(D)
All manufacturing, industrial, and
processing uses, except the following:
1,000 square feet of
floor area
1.00
Warehousing 2,000 square feet of
floor area
1.00
Storage – Personal storage/mini-storage Storage unit3 Minimum of 2
DI.F Page 454 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 9 of 12
facilities spaces
Recreation, Education, Public Assembly
Categories
Auditoriums, stadiums, and theaters Seat2 0.25
Commercial recreation facilities – Indoor,
except for the following:
1,000 square feet of
floor area
5.00
Bowling alleys Lanes 5.00
Pool and billiard rooms Table 2.00
Skating rinks 1,000 square feet of
floor area
5.00
Commercial recreation facilities – Outdoor 1,000 square feet of
usable recreational
area
3.00
Hospitals Bed 1.75
Library, museum 1,000 square feet of
floor area
2.50
Meeting facility, public or private Seat2 0.25
Religious assembly Seat2 0.20
Schools (public and private)
Kindergarten schools Employee4 1.00
Elementary/middle schools Teaching station 1.20
Secondary (high) schools Student 0.40
College or university (including trade and
business schools)
Student 0.75
Studios (dance, martial arts, etc.) 1,000 square feet of
floor area
5.00
Tennis/racquetball/handball or other sport
courts
Court
Each 300 sf of floor
area for accessory
uses
2.00
1.00
Recreational uses not listed elsewhere Same as retail, based
on size
Notes:
DI.F Page 455 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 10 of 12
1. Within mobile home parks, parking space shall not be allowed within the required
setbacks. Guest parking shall be provided within the development: five percent of total
requirement.
2. Seat, 18 inches of bench, or 25 square feet of floor space.
3. Parking shall be provided by parking/driving lanes adjacent to buildings. Two
parking spaces shall be provided adjacent to the manager’s quarters.
4. There shall be two visitor-parking stalls provided for each 10 required employee
stalls.
(Ord. 6388 § 1, 2011; 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.)
Section 6. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.60.020 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.60.020 Requirements.
Home occupations are required to have a business license as issued by the city, comply
with all city codes and ordinances, and shall be consistent with the following provisions:
A. Only members of the immediate family residing on the premises and no more
than one non-resident may be employed at any one time; provided, that home
occupations with a nonresident employee shall provide off-street parking for the
employee on site;
B. No mechanical equipment is used except such as is commonly or customarily
used for domestic, household or personal purposes for a dwelling unit (or as deemed
similar in terms of power, quantity, noise, emissions and type);
C. Not more than one-fourth of the floor area of any building is devoted to such
occupation, except for bed and breakfasts;
D. That such occupation shall not require internal or external alteration or involve
construction features not customarily found in a dwelling;
E. The home occupation shall not involve the use of personal commercial
vehicles as defined in ACC 18.04.245 for the distribution of materials to or from the
premises. Deliveries or pickups by commercial delivery services shall not apply toward
this limitation provided such pickup or delivery does not exceed twice per day;
F. The conduct of any home occupation, including but not limited to the storage
of goods and equipment, shall not reduce or render unusable areas provided for the
required off-street parking. Additional parking is not allowed in order to conduct a home
occupation, except what may be required through the issuance of a special home
occupation permit pursuant to ACC 18.60.040;
G. Only one sign is permitted, not to exceed 18 inches by 24 inches in area,
nonilluminated, and attached to a building, except that home occupations in commercial
or industrial zones may have signs consistent with the applicable zoning district;
H. No display pertaining to the occupation, other than the one permitted sign, is
visible from the street or adjacent residences;
DI.F Page 456 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 11 of 12
I. No more animals are maintained on the premises than what may otherwise be
permitted in the zone;
J. Except for bed and breakfasts, employee and customer visits shall be limited
to the following hours of operation:
1. Employees from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sundays;
2. Customers from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday;
3. No employee or customer visits shall be permitted on Sundays or federal
holidays;
K. Traffic generated by the home occupation shall be limited to a maximum of
eight (two-way) client/delivery-related trips per day for those home occupations that
operate by appointment only and do not have overlapping client visits. All other home
occupations shall be limited to five (two-way) client/delivery trips per day;
L. Outdoor storage of materials, goods, products or equipment is not allowed;
M. The home occupation is to be conducted in such a manner that the residence
shall not differ from its residential character either by the use of colors, materials,
construction, lighting, signs, or the emissions of sounds, noises, vibrations or odors or
result in traffic impacts inconsistent with the character of the area in which the home
occupation is located. (Ord. 6141 § 1, 2007; Ord. 5897 § 21, 2005; Ord. 4229 § 2,
1987.)
Section 7. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 8. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared
to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph,
subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application
thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 9. 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: __________________
DI.F Page 457 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6419
June 29, 2012
Page 12 of 12
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.F Page 458 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6420 - Amendment to City Code
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 6420
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Planning Commission, Legal
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Chamberlain
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.G
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.G Page 459 of 510
Memorandum
To: Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Partridge, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Holman, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee
From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager
CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Planning and Development Director
Date: June 29, 2012
Re: Ordinance No. 6420 Proposed Code Amendments to Title 19 – Impact Fees
Background
During the 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, the Planning and Community
Development Committee requested that school impact fee adjustment requests that result in an
increase to the school impact fee be submitted to the City for review when the school district
submits their capital facilities plan.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code amendments at their June 5, 2012
meeting and held a public hearing on the amendments at their July 3, 2012 meeting. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed code amendments as
recommended by staff.
Discussion of the Proposed Code Amendments
Title 19 – Impact Fees
1. Add a new subsection to Section 19.02.050 that if the school district is requesting an
increase to the school impact fee, that request shall be in writing to the City and
submitted concurrently with the district’s capital facilities plan.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 6419
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Public Hearing Packet; See Attachment 1 on Ordinance
No. 6418
DI.G Page 460 of 510
DRAFT
Attachment 1
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6420
June 29, 2012
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 2 0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
19.02.050 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATED TO
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn code are
appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development needs and
standards of the City; and
WHEREAS, during the 2011 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, the
City Council requested that school impact fee adjustment requests that result in an
increase be submitted to the City for review when the school district submits their capital
facilities plan rather than later in the process; and
WHEREAS, following proper public notice, the Planning Commission considered
the proposed code amendment at a public hearing on July 3, 2012; and
WHEREAS, after fully considering the testimony and information presented at the
public hearing, on July 3, 2012, the Planning Commission made its recommendations
on the code amendment to the City of Auburn City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee reviewed the
Planning Commission’s recommendation at their July 9, 2012 meeting and forwarded
their recommendation to the City Council at their July XX, 2012 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review on the proposal has been completed in
accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a
final Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued June 13, 2012; and
DI.G Page 461 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6420
June 29, 2012
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code
amendments were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth
Management Services, and other state agencies as required with expedited review
requested and acknowledgment received on June 14, 2012; and
WHEREAS, no comments regarding the proposed zoning code amendments
have been received from the Department of Commerce or other state agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council finds that the proposed amendments
provide clarification to the subdivision title and comply with recent changes to state law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That section 19.02.050 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
19.02.050 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data.
A. On an annual basis (by July 1st or on a date agreed to by district and the city
and stipulated in the interlocal agreement), any district for which the city is collecting
impact fees shall submit the following materials to the city council:
1. The district’s capital facilities plan (as defined herein) as adopted by the school
board;
2. The district’s enrollment projections over the next six years, its current
enrollment and the district’s enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the
previous year;
3. The district’s adopted standard of service;
4. The district’s overall capacity over the next six years, which shall take into
account the available capacity from school facilities planned by the district but not
yet built and be a function of the district’s standard of service as measured by the
number of students which can be housed in district facilities; and
5. An inventory of the district’s existing facilities; and
6. If the school impact fee adjustment request by the school district increases
the school impact fee, the request shall be in writing to the City and submitted
concurrently with the district’s capital facilities plan..
B. To the extent that the district’s standard of service identifies a deficiency in its
existing facilities, the district’s capital facilities plan must identify the sources of funding
other than impact fees for building or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the
DI.G Page 462 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6420
June 29, 2012
Page 3 of 4
existing student population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable
period of time.
C. Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the adopted
standard of service. If sufficient funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a
capital facilities plan which meets the adopted standard of service, the district’s capital
facilities plan should document the reason for the funding gap, and identify all sources
of funding that the district plans to use to meet the adopted standard of service.
D. The district shall also submit annually to the city a report showing the capital
improvements for which the impact fees have been used.
E. In its development of the financing plan component of its capital facilities plan,
the district shall plan on a six-year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by
taking the following steps:
1. Establish a six-year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues,
levies, and/or financing measures required by and consistent with that plan and as
approved by the school board consistent with state law; and
2. Where applicable, apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state
requirements for eligibility to the best of the district’s ability. (Ord. 6341 § 2, 2011;
Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.)
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared
to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph,
subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application
thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
DI.G Page 463 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6420
June 29, 2012
Page 4 of 4
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.G Page 464 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6414 - Amendment to Auburn City Code
Date:
July 3, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 6414
Attachment 2 - Planning Commission
Public Hearing Packet
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Planning Commission, Legal
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Chamberlain
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.H
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.H Page 465 of 510
Memorandum
To: Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Partridge, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Holman, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee
From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Manager
CC: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Planning and Development Director
Date: June 29, 2012
Re: Proposed Amendments to Auburn City Code - Section 12.64A.030, Chapter 13.40, and
New Chapter 17.28
Background
The City, as part of its requirements for public improvements, requires that conduit be
constructed when frontage improvements are required within arterial streets for the City’s data
and communications network.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed code amendments at their June 5, 2012
meeting and held a public hearing at their July 3, 2012 meeting. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the code amendments as recommended by staff.
Discussion of the Proposed Code Amendments
The proposed code changes require the conduit be constructed when frontage improvements
are required within any street not just arterial streets. Staff is also recommending a new chapter
be created to Title 17, Land Adjustments and Divisions, specifically related to infrastructure
conduit. This proposed new chapter would apply to development activity governed by Title 17,
such as short plats and preliminary plats.
These recommended code changes are needed for the City to continue providing services to
the public that allow for system wide coordinated management of facilities (e.g. traffic control
devices) that are monitored remotely and whereas new technologies present additional
opportunities for the City to utilize its data and communication infrastructure to enhance public
services.
DI.H Page 466 of 510
2
By requiring these improvements as part of the street improvements is more cost effective while
the street is under construction as part of a development rather than opening the street only for
installation of conduit.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 6414
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Public Hearing Packet
DI.H Page 467 of 510
DRAFT
Attachment 1
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 1 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
12.64A.030 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE AND
CREATING A SECTION 13.40.040 AND A NEW CHAPTER
17.28 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE
INSTALLATION OF CITY-OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that enhancing the City’s data and
communications infrastructure allows the City to provide services to the public in a more
effective and efficient manner; and
WHEREAS, making remote data access available to the City’s police officers,
inspectors, utility staff, and other field personnel allows them to devote more time to
providing services to the community and less time traveling to and from City offices and
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has a number of utility facilities, traffic control devices, and
other equipment located throughout the City that are monitored and operated remotely;
and
WHEREAS, increasing the number of such remote facilities connected to the
City’s data and communications infrastructure allows for system-wide, coordinated
management of such facilities; and
WHEREAS, new technologies may present additional opportunities for the City to
use its data and communications infrastructure to enhance its provision of public
services; and
DI.H Page 468 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the installation of City-owned conduit
throughout the City would enhance the City’s data and communications infrastructure;
and
WHEREAS, requiring the placement of City conduits in trenches opened in City
rights-of-way as part of a development project allows for expansion of the City conduit
system at a lower cost to the public and with fewer opening of the City’s streets; and
WHEREAS, the cost of adding such conduit to an already opened trench would
be proportional to the benefit of enhanced public services received by the owner of the
developing property; and
WHEREAS, it is important to the City and to those persons and entities within the
City who depend on the availability of the data and communications infrastructure
services that would be able to be provided through the conduits in City streets to have
those conduits and infrastructure in as many streets as possible, and all due
consideration shall be given to the need for the installation of City-owned conduit in
street improvements, in terms of the improvements that should be required in
connection with the related development or permit activity.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Section 12.64A.030 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
12.64A.030 Requirements.
The city engineer shall determine in consultation with police; parks,
arts, and recreation; planning and development department; information
services; and the local fire authority whether one or more of the following
public right-of-way improvements are necessary to mitigate the impacts of
a permitted action set forth in ACC 12.64A.020. which improvements shall,
DI.H Page 469 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 3 of 5
after construction and installation, be dedicated to and owned by the City
Construction or provision of those improvements in the manner specified
by the city engineer shall be a condition of granting said permit:
A. Paved roadway on the same side of the street as the subject
property;
B. Street lighting;
C. Sidewalks on the same side of the street as the subject
property;
D. Concrete curbs and gutters on the same side of the street as
the subject property;
E. Storm drainage systems;
F. Street landscaping and appurtenances on the same side of
the street as the subject property;
G. Traffic control and other safety devices including, but not
limited to, provisions for channelization, pavement markings, signage,
pedestrian safety, and traffic calming;
H. Dedication of public right-of-way on the same side of the
street as the subject property;
I. Conduit at least three inches in diameter in arterial any
streets/public right-of-way being improved under this chapter. (Ord. 6287 §
2, 2010; Ord. 6112 § 1, 2007; Ord. 6083 § 2, 2007.)
Section 2. New Section to City Code. That a new Section 13.40.040 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
13.40.040 Dedication and ownership of improvements.
Unless otherwise expressly provided, the improvements required
pursuant to this Chapter 13.40 shall, after construction and installation, be
dedicated to and owned by the City.
Section 3. New Chapter to City Code. That a new Chapter 17.28 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
Chapter 17.28
Infrastructure Conduit
Section:
17.28.010 Infrastructure conduit in streets.
17.28.010 Infrastructure conduit in streets.
In addition to the other requirements set forth in this Title 17, any
time street improvements or right-of-way improvements are to be provided
in connection with development activity governed hereby, the City review
process shall determine in consultation with public works, police, parks,
DI.H Page 470 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 4 of 5
arts, and recreation; planning and development departments, information
services, and with the local fire authority, whether conduit at least three
inches in diameter should be included therein, in which cases, if so
required, the applicant shall construct said improvement in conformance
with the public facility extension requirements of Chapter 13.40 of the City
Code.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 6. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
DATED and SIGNED this ____ day of _______________, 2012.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
APPROVED: ____________________
CITY OF AUBURN
______________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
DI.H Page 471 of 510
DRAFT
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 5 of 5
___________________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
Published: _________________
DI.H Page 472 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0006: Proposed amendments to Auburn City
Code Section 12.64A.030, Chapter 13.40, and Creating a New Chapter,
Chapter 17.28
Date: June 18, 2012
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See exhibit list (at end
of report)
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Background Summary:
The City, as part of its requirements for public improvements, requires that conduit be constructed when
frontage improvements are required within arterial streets for the City’s data and communications
network.
The proposed code changes require the conduit be constructed when frontage improvements are
required within any street not just arterial streets. Staff is also recommending a new chapter be created
to Title 17, Land Adjustments and Divisions, specifically related to infrastructure conduit. This proposed
new chapter would apply to development activity governed by Title 17, such as short plats and
preliminary plats.
These recommended code changes are needed for the City to continue providing services to the public
that allow for system wide coordinated management of facilities (e.g. traffic control devices) that are
monitored remotely and whereas new technologies present additional opportunities for the City to utilize
its data and communication infrastructure to enhance public services.
By requiring these improvements as part of the street improvements is more cost effective while the street
is under construction as part of a development rather than opening the street only for installation of
conduit.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Information Services
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Chamberlain
Meeting Date: July 3, 2012 Item Number:
DI.H Page 473 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0006: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Section 12.64A.030, Chapter 13.40,
and Creating a New Chapter, Chapter 17.28
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 2 of 5
Findings of Fact
1. In general, the intent of the proposed code amendments is to provide for conduit when
frontage improvements are required of projects so that the City’s data and
communication network can be enhanced.
2. The process for zoning code text amendments is described in ACC Chapter 18.68.,
18.68.020 Initiation of amendments.
B. Text.
1. The city council, or planning and development committee of the city council, upon its
own motion may request the planning commission to conduct a public hearing to amend
any portion or all of this title; provided, that text amendments that are purely
administrative or procedural do not require a public hearing, nor do they require
preliminary review or recommendations of the planning commission;
2. The planning commission may upon its own motion call for a public hearing to amend
any portion or all of this title, with the exception of purely administrative or procedural
amendments;
3. Any resident or property owner of the city may petition the city to request an
amendment to the text of this title.
C. For the purposes of this chapter, substantive amendments shall be distinguished from
procedural or administrative amendments in accordance with the following: “Substantive”
matters relate to regulations that define or limit what can be done in terms of conduct,
use or action (e.g., what use may be made of land, what requirements apply to
development, what public infrastructure may be required of certain developments), and
“procedural” or “administrative” matters are those that relate to the process of how an
application to take such action must be pursued (e.g., time limits for applications and
appeals, what forms must be used, and where or how applications must be submitted.
Essentially, “procedural” or “administrative” matters are the mechanical rules by which
substantive issues may be pursued). (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 6198 § 3, 2008; Ord.
4840 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4304 § 1(46), 1988; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.68.030 Public hearing process.
A. Text Amendments. With the exception of purely administrative or procedural
amendments, the planning commission shall conduct at least one public hearing on all
amendments to this title. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the
city council who may or may not conduct a public hearing.
C. City Council Decision. The city council may affirm, modify or disaffirm any
recommendation of the planning commission or hearing examiner with regard to
amendments of the text or map of this title. (Ord. 6198 § 4, 2008; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.68.040 Public hearing notice requirements.
A. Text Amendments.
DI.H Page 474 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0006: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Section 12.64A.030, Chapter 13.40,
and Creating a New Chapter, Chapter 17.28
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 3 of 5
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.
3. The proposed code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn Comprehensive
Plan.
4. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued for the proposed amendments on June
13, 2012. The 14-day comment period ends on June 27, 2012. The appeal periods
ends on July 11, 2012.
5. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendments outlined in this
agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state
agencies as required for the 60-day state review required for modification of
development regulations. The amendments were sent on June 13, 2012 and expedited
review was requested. The Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on June
14, 2012. Expedited has not been granted as of the writing of this staff report. If the
request is denied then the standard 60-days applies from the submittal date of June 13,
2012.
6. Staff presented the draft code language to the Planning Commission on June 5, 2012 for
review and discussion.
7. The public hearing notice was published on June 20, 2012 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for July 3, 2012.
8. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Section 12.64A.030,
Chapter 13.40, and Title 17, Land Adjustments and Divisions scheduled for the Planning
Commission’s July 3, 2012 public hearing with a staff recommendation.
Conclusions
1. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.68.020 amendments to Title 18, Zoning, require a public
hearing before the Planning Commission with a public hearing notice published at least
10-days prior to the public hearing date.
Comment:
The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on June 20, 2012 which is
at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for July 3,
2012. The public hearing notice was also posted on the City’s website.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
DI.H Page 475 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0006: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Section 12.64A.030, Chapter 13.40,
and Creating a New Chapter, Chapter 17.28
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 4 of 5
Chapter 5 – Capital Facilities
CF-12 No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum of
facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a proportionate
share of related system needs.
Objective 13.4 To enhance the City’s communications and data infrastructure through
installation of City-owned conduit throughout the city.
Policies:
CF-55 To allow for expansion of the City’s conduit system with minimal disruption to
streets and at a lower cost to the public, the City shall require the placement of conduits
as part of arterial street (as defined in the City of Auburn Transportation Plan)
improvement projects whether private or public development projects.
CF-56 The City shall explore new technologies that may present additional opportunities
for the City to use its communications and data infrastructure to enhance its provisions
of public services.
CF-57 To increase system-wide coordinated management of facilities, the City shall
work towards increasing the number of remote monitoring facilities for utility facilities,
traffic control devices, and other equipment located throughout the city.
CF-58 Whenever possible, make remote data access available to the City’s police
officers, inspectors, utility staff, and other field personnel.
Comment:
The proposed code amendments comply with the above comprehensive plan objective and
policies. Through the proposed code amendments, the City is allowing for expansion of the
City’s conduit system with minimal disruption to the public by requiring the installation of conduit
when certain frontage improvements may be required of development projects. Requiring the
installation of conduit when work within the public right-of-way is already taking place is more
cost effective and less disruptive to the public then making the improvements at a different time.
A goal of the City’s is to expand the City’s data and communication network to provide system
wide coordination of facilities such as traffic control devices and other utility facilities that are
monitored and operated remotely.
Developments are expected to provide for their proportionate share of related system needs
and the City has identified its data and communication network as a system need. The
proposed code amendments are structured to allow the flexibility of requiring conduit to be
installed when certain frontage improvements are required not an absolute requirement.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council.
DI.H Page 476 of 510
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: ZOA12-0006: Proposed
amendments to Auburn City Code Section 12.64A.030, Chapter 13.40,
and Creating a New Chapter, Chapter 17.28
Date: June 18, 2012
Page 5 of 5
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1 Proposed code changes to Section 12.64A.030, Chapter 13.40, and a new
chapter 17.28
Exhibit 2 Request letter to Department of Commerce for Expedited State Review
Exhibit 3 Department of Commerce acknowledgement letter
Exhibit 4 Request to publish hearing notice in newspaper
Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist
Exhibit 6 Determination of Non-Significance
DI.H Page 477 of 510
Exhibit 1
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 1 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
12.64A.030 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE AND
CREATING A SECTION 13.40.040 AND A NEW CHAPTER
17.28 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE
INSTALLATION OF CITY-OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that enhancing the City’s data and
communications infrastructure allows the City to provide services to the public in a more
effective and efficient manner; and
WHEREAS, making remote data access available to the City’s police officers,
inspectors, utility staff, and other field personnel allows them to devote more time to
providing services to the community and less time traveling to and from City offices and
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has a number of utility facilities, traffic control devices, and
other equipment located throughout the City that are monitored and operated remotely;
and
WHEREAS, increasing the number of such remote facilities connected to the
City’s data and communications infrastructure allows for system-wide, coordinated
management of such facilities; and
WHEREAS, new technologies may present additional opportunities for the City to
use its data and communications infrastructure to enhance its provision of public
services; and
DI.H Page 478 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the installation of City-owned conduit
throughout the City would enhance the City’s data and communications infrastructure;
and
WHEREAS, requiring the placement of City conduits in trenches opened in City
rights-of-way as part of a development project allows for expansion of the City conduit
system at a lower cost to the public and with fewer opening of the City’s streets; and
WHEREAS, the cost of adding such conduit to an already opened trench would
be proportional to the benefit of enhanced public services received by the owner of the
developing property; and
WHEREAS, it is important to the City and to those persons and entities within the
City who depend on the availability of the data and communications infrastructure
services that would be able to be provided through the conduits in City streets to have
those conduits and infrastructure in as many streets as possible, and all due
consideration shall be given to the need for the installation of City-owned conduit in
street improvements, in terms of the improvements that should be required in
connection with the related development or permit activity.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Section 12.64A.030 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
12.64A.030 Requirements.
The city engineer shall determine in consultation with police; parks,
arts, and recreation; planning and development department; information
services; and the local fire authority whether one or more of the following
public right-of-way improvements are necessary to mitigate the impacts of
a permitted action set forth in ACC 12.64A.020. which improvements shall,
after construction and installation, be dedicated to and owned by the City
DI.H Page 479 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 3 of 5
Construction or provision of those improvements in the manner specified
by the city engineer shall be a condition of granting said permit:
A. Paved roadway on the same side of the street as the subject
property;
B. Street lighting;
C. Sidewalks on the same side of the street as the subject
property;
D. Concrete curbs and gutters on the same side of the street as
the subject property;
E. Storm drainage systems;
F. Street landscaping and appurtenances on the same side of
the street as the subject property;
G. Traffic control and other safety devices including, but not
limited to, provisions for channelization, pavement markings, signage,
pedestrian safety, and traffic calming;
H. Dedication of public right-of-way on the same side of the
street as the subject property;
I. Conduit at least three inches in diameter in arterial any
streets/public right-of-way being improved under this chapter. (Ord. 6287 §
2, 2010; Ord. 6112 § 1, 2007; Ord. 6083 § 2, 2007.)
Section 2. New Section to City Code. That a new Section 13.40.040 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
13.40.040 Dedication and ownership of improvements.
Unless otherwise expressly provided, the improvements required
pursuant to this Chapter 13.40 shall, after construction and installation, be
dedicated to and owned by the City.
Section 3. New Chapter to City Code. That a new Chapter 17.28 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
Chapter 17.28
Infrastructure Conduit
Section:
17.28.010 Infrastructure conduit in streets.
17.28.010 Infrastructure conduit in streets.
In addition to the other requirements set forth in this Title 17, any
time street improvements or right-of-way improvements are to be provided
in connection with development activity governed hereby, the City review
process shall determine in consultation with public works, police, parks,
arts, and recreation; planning and development departments, information
services, and with the local fire authority, whether conduit at least three
DI.H Page 480 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 4 of 5
inches in diameter should be included therein, in which cases, if so
required, the applicant shall construct said improvement in conformance
with the public facility extension requirements of Chapter 13.40 of the City
Code.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,
section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or
the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 6. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five
days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
DATED and SIGNED this ____ day of _______________, 2012.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
APPROVED: ____________________
CITY OF AUBURN
______________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
DI.H Page 481 of 510
----------------------------
Ordinance No. 6414
May 30, 2012
Page 5 of 5
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
Published: _________________
DI.H Page 482 of 510
DI.H Page 483 of 510
DI.H Page 484 of 510
DI.H Page 485 of 510
DI.H Page 486 of 510
DI.H Page 487 of 510
DI.H Page 488 of 510
DI.H Page 489 of 510
DI.H Page 490 of 510
DI.H Page 491 of 510
DI.H Page 492 of 510
DI.H Page 493 of 510
DI.H Page 494 of 510
DI.H Page 495 of 510
DI.H Page 496 of 510
DI.H Page 497 of 510
DI.H Page 498 of 510
DI.H Page 499 of 510
DI.H Page 500 of 510
DI.H Page 501 of 510
DI.H Page 502 of 510
DI.H Page 503 of 510
DI.H Page 504 of 510
DI.H Page 505 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Director's Report
Date:
July 5, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
No Attachments Available
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For information only.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.I
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.I Page 506 of 510
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
PCDC Matrix
Date:
July 5, 2012
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
PCDC Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only, see attached matrix.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:July 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.J
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.J Page 507 of 510
PC
D
C
W
o
r
k
P
l
a
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
–
J
u
l
y
9
,
2
0
1
2
Pl
e
a
s
e
N
o
t
e
:
N
e
w
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
u
n
d
e
r
l
i
n
e
d
,
d
e
l
e
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
mo
v
e
d
,
r
e
t
r
e
a
t
i
t
e
m
s
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
.
Ju
l
y
9
,
2
0
1
2
LA
N
D
U
S
E
C
O
D
E
S
/
P
O
L
I
C
I
E
S
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
1
•
M
u
c
k
l
e
s
h
o
o
t
T
r
i
b
e
TB
D
S
n
y
d
e
r
St
a
f
f
t
o
s
t
a
y
i
n
t
o
u
c
h
w
i
t
h
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
t
.
a
n
d
k
e
e
p
coordination &
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
n
w
i
t
h
T
r
i
b
e
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
m
e
t
w
i
t
h
t
he Muckleshoot Tribe
Ma
r
c
h
2
6
,
2
0
1
2
.
2
Co
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
W
o
r
k
•
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
–
G
r
o
u
p
2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
2
Wa
g
n
e
r
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
,
G
r
o
u
p
2
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
t
o
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
on for discussion and
pu
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
.
•
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
la
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
•
C
o
t
t
a
g
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
S
n
y
d
e
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
r
a
f
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
ns
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
•
C
e
l
l
T
o
w
e
r
s
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
Ta
y
l
o
r
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
t
o
P
C
D
C
f
o
r
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
o
li
c
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
•
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
20
1
2
S
n
y
d
e
r
C
o
d
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
r
e
t
r
e
a
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
3
U
r
b
a
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
•
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
m
e
t
w
i
t
h
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
o
n
4
/
2
3
/
1
2
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
p
o
t
ential overlay; staff will meet
wi
t
h
P
C
D
C
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
s
p
r
i
n
g
r
e
t
r
e
a
t
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
op a work plan.
•
U
r
b
a
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
/
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
/
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
f
o
r
expansion of urban center
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
p
l
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
n
4
/
2
3
/
1
2
;
staff will bring this item back
fo
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
s
p
r
i
n
g
r
e
t
r
e
a
t
.
•
T
A
D
A
TB
D
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
A
f
u
t
u
r
e
u
p
d
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
T
h
e
A
u
b
u
r
n
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n will be scheduled at a
la
t
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
•
A
m
t
r
a
k
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
Ma
y
o
r
L
e
w
i
s
/
Sn
y
d
e
r
Ci
t
y
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
p
s
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
u
dy by Amtrak.
•
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Ju
l
y
9
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
u
r
v
e
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
and data compilation
be
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
.
DI.J Page 508 of 510
Ju
l
y
9
,
2
0
1
2
Page 2
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
4
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
S
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
w
i
l
l
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
e
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
b
r
i
ng back to Committee.
5
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
A
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
/
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
/
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Co
d
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
o
uncil retreat direction.
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
6
A
u
b
u
r
n
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
St
a
f
f
i
s
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
W
S
D
O
T
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
a
c
q
u
i
s
ition opportunities.
7
G
r
e
e
n
Z
o
n
e
S
u
m
m
i
t
2
0
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
On
h
o
l
d
u
n
t
i
l
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
“
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
s
f
u
r
ther vetted”.
8
Gr
e
e
n
Z
o
n
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
Pl
a
n
/
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
20
1
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
Co
d
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
o
uncil retreat direction.
PA
R
K
S
,
A
R
T
S
&
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
9
L
e
a
H
i
l
l
/
G
r
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
C
P
a
r
k
T
B
D
F
a
b
e
r
F
i
n
a
l
C
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
o
n
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
.
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
t
o
b
i
d
in June.
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
10
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Su
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
2
Hu
r
s
h
PC
D
C
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
t
a
f
u
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
;
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
to be scheduled.
11
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
H
u
r
s
h
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
p
r
o
v
id
e
d
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
o
r
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
12
Un
i
f
y
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
ce
n
t
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
2
H
u
r
s
h
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
g
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
u
pd
a
t
e
s
.
BO
A
R
D
S
,
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
&
H
E
A
R
I
N
G
E
X
A
M
I
N
E
R
13
A
r
t
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
2
Fa
b
e
r
J
o
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
o
n
1
1
/
1
4
/
1
1
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
DI.J Page 509 of 510
Ju
l
y
9
,
2
0
1
2
Page 3
To
p
i
c
/
I
s
s
u
e
Ne
x
t
o
n
P
C
D
St
a
f
f
/
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Le
a
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
14
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
2
D
i
x
o
n
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d
1
0
/
2
4
/
1
1
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
n
n
u
al briefing with the
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
15
P
a
r
k
s
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
B
o
a
r
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
1
3
F
a
b
e
r
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
6
/
1
1
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
16
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
J
u
l
y
2
3
Sn
y
d
e
r
/
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Jo
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
c
h
e
d
u
e
d
f
o
r
J
u
l
y
2
3
,
2
0
1
2
.
17
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
T
r
a
i
l
s
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
3
Th
o
r
d
a
r
s
o
n
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
5
/
2
3
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
18
U
r
b
a
n
T
r
e
e
B
o
a
r
d
T
B
D
F
a
b
e
r
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
6
/
1
3
/
1
1
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
CA
P
I
T
A
L
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
(
L
o
n
g
R
a
n
g
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
)
19
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Sc
o
p
e
:
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
th
e
i
n
t
e
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
la
n
d
u
s
e
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
P
a
r
a
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
Council in 2009.
Up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
plan update process.
20
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
Sc
o
p
e
:
6
-
y
e
a
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
i
s
up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
2
Pa
r
a
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
T
I
P
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
19, 2011. The next six-
ye
a
r
T
I
P
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
2
.
21
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
(
C
I
P
)
Sc
o
p
e
:
6
-
y
e
a
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
fo
r
s
e
w
e
r
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
OT
H
E
R
22
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
M
a
y
o
r
F
u
t
ur
e
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
s
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
DI.J Page 510 of 510