HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-2013 PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA
Planning and Community Development
August 26, 2013 - 5:00 PM
Annex Conference Room 2
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. August 12, 2013 Minutes* (Welch)
III.ACTION
A. Resolution No. 4984* (Faber)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, expressing
support for veteran recognition measures in the city of Auburn and identifying
methods through which such recognition will be addressed
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Resolution No. 4985* (Faber)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement between the City of Auburn and
King County accepting grant funds for youth sports facilities.
B. Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP)*
(Yao/Chamberlain)
Review the draft Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP).
C. ZOA13-0003 - Student/Rental Housing Code Amendments* (Chamberlain)
Review the Planning Commission recommendations from the public hearing on
item ZOA13-0003 held August 20, 2013.
D. ZOA13-0005 - Amendments to C-1, Light Commercial Zone* (Chamberlain)
Review the Planning Commission recommendations from the public hearing on
item ZOA13-0005 held August 20, 2013.
E. ZOA13-0004 Amendments to ACC 16.10.110, Critical Areas Regulations*
(Dixon)
Review the Planning Commission recommendations from the public hearing on
item ZOA13-0004 held August 20, 2013.
F. Director's Report (Welch)
G. PCDC Matrix* (Welch)
Page 1 of 240
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 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
August 12, 2013 Minutes
Date:
August 21, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
August 12, 2013 Draft Minutes
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Planning and Community Development Committee to approve the August 12, 2013
Planning and Development Committee minutes as written.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Welch
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:CA.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 3 of 240
Planning and Community
Development
August 12, 2013 - 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 One Main Professional
Plaza, One East Main Street, Auburn, Washington.
A. Roll Call
Planning and Community Development Committee Chair Nancy
Backus, Vice-Chair Holman, and Member Wales were present.
Planning Commission Chair Judi Roland, Planning Commissioner
Joan Mason, Planning Commissioner Yolanda Trout, and Planning
Commissioner Robert Baggett were present.
Also present were Mayor Pete Lewis, Planning and Development
Director Nancy Welch, Planning Services Manager Elizabeth
Chamberlain, Development Services Manager Jeff Tate, Traffic
Engineer James Webb, and Planning Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the audience present: Councilmember Partridge, Rudy
Terry, Joyce Terry, Nichole Petrino-Salter, Dwight Hauck, Jean Lix,
Ed Bosch, Susan Weihe, Kim McHenry, Mike Cishosz, Sonia Zhu,
Claude Dacorsi, Spencer Alpert, Russ Campbell, Hank Galmish, and
Robert Whale of the Auburn Reporter.
B. Announcements
Chair Backus welcomed new Planning and Development Director
Nancy Welch.
C. Agenda Modifications
There were no agenda modifications.
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. July 22, 2013 Minutes (Welch)
Vice-Chair Holman moved and Member Wales seconded to approve
the July 22, 2013 Planning and Community Development
Committee minutes as written.
Page 1 of 6
CA.A Page 4 of 240
Motion carried unanimously. 3-0
III. ACTION
A. Resolution No. 4979 (Webb)
Traffic Engineer James Webb provided the staff report for Resolution
No. 4979. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn,
Washington, amending the 2014-2019 Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) of the City of Auburn pursuant to RCW
Chapter 35.77.
The amendment would modify the S 272nd/277th Street Corridor
Capacity & Non-Motorized Trail Improvements (TIP #6) and add an
additional project, 37th Street SE and A Street SE Traffic Signal
Safety Improvement (TIP #68). TIP #68 consists of the design, right-
of-way acquisition and construction of a new traffic signal at 37th
Street SE and A Street SE. Committee and staff discussed these
projects.
Vice-Chair Holman moved and Member Wales seconded to
recommend City Council approve Resolution No. 4979.
Motion carried unanimously. 3-0
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. School Impact Fee Exception (Tate)
Development Services Manager Jeff Tate reviewed Chapter 19.02 of
the Auburn City Code (ACC) regarding school impact fees and
exemptions. Recently, the City discussed, on a conceptual level,
locating dedicated student housing in the downtown area in
partnership with Green River Community College. Upon reviewing the
itemized proposed cost of the project, school impact fees were
discussed. There are currently no exceptions or exemptions noted in
ACC regarding student housing. Staff believes there is merit in
formalizing an approach to exempt school impact fees when there is a
dedicated contractual, binding agreement dedicating dwelling units in
the downtown area for college housing. There is a low likelihood of
college students having children who would impact the Auburn School
District.
Development Services Manager Tate asked the Committee if the
intent of the school impact fees authorized under Chapter 19.02 did
not include assessing this fee for student housing units.
In answer to the question from Committee, if the school impact fees
Page 2 of 6
CA.A Page 5 of 240
would be lost if the dedicated student housing is removed,
Development Services Manager Tate stated it would be managed the
same way as senior housing, ACC provides a clear exemption for
senior housing. If the specific, dedicated, stock housing is converted
to a different supply of housing over time the school impact fees can
be collected.
Committee is supportive of exempting the student housing units from
school impact fees and believes student housing in the downtown
area would be beneficial due to the services offered in the downtown
area for students.
B. Joint Session with the Planning Commission (Welch)
The Planning and Community Development Committee and the
Planning Commission held a joint session to discuss the following
items:
ZOA13-0003 - Student/Rental Housing Code Amendments
(Chamberlain)
Planning Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain provided
background information relating to the Student/Rental Housing Code
Amendments. The Committee, staff, and the Planning Commission
Members reviewed several elements from other jurisdictions
incorporated into a proposal by staff regarding student/rental housing,
Auburn City Code (ACC) amendments to Title 18, Zoning, and Title 5,
Business Licenses and Regulations. In addition to the code
amendments staff is recommending an update to the City’s website to
create a rental housing page, outlining the requirements for rentals.
On August 20, 2013 the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing to on the proposed ACC Title 18, Zoning, and Title 5,
Business License and Regulations.After reviewing and discussing the
proposed amendments, and the number of unrelated individuals
allowed in a communal residence proposed by staff, the Committee
and the Planning Commission Members recommended the following
next steps:
· Delete the definition Boardinghouse.
· Add a reference to ACC 9.10, Curfew Hours for Juveniles, to any proposed
ACCamendments or updates to the Auburn Business License application materials.
· As part of the business license application and ACC amendments, use the term
“minor”, not a specific age limit (“over the age of 15”).
· Staff was asked to review other areas with similar zoning in Auburn to see if there is
a negative impact under the proposed amendments.
Page 3 of 6
CA.A Page 6 of 240
· Mayor Lewis asked staff to meet with him to review any recommendations by the
City Attorney regarding ACC, Chapter 1.24, relating to code enforcement issues and
tools for illegal conversions.
· Implementation of any ordinance on updates to ACC Title 18, and Title 5 is to take
place upon approval by the City Council, rather than having a waiting period.
· Prior to the implementation of the program, staff has been asked to notify all
property owners, neighborhoods and GRCC of ACC updates relating to rental
housing. The City website and all related forms should also be updated. This is to
include code enforcement violation procedures.
· The Committee and Planning Commission Members emphasized that student
safety is the priority (the number of individuals within a rental unit) and parking,
garbage, and noise issues while important are secondary.
· Staff has been asked to include the code enforcement process on code violations
(including fines and liens) within the staff reports submitted to the Planning
Commission, Planning and Community Development Committee and City Council on
the topic of student/rental housing (ZOA13-0003).
· Staff has been asked to check with GRCC to determine if their policy allows minors
to live off campus (does the 2013-2014 GRCC policy allow a minor to live off
campus while attending the college).
· Staff has been asked to review other cities' codes relating to student rental housing,
specifically the City of Tacoma.
· The Committee and the Planning Commission Members are supportive of the
Conditional Use Permit for more than four unrelated individuals, requiring a public
hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
ZOA13-0005 - C-1, Light Commercial Zone, Code Amendments
(Chamberlain)
Planning Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain provided the staff
report of ZOA13-0005, C-1, Light Commercial Zone, Code
Amendments. Recent inquires from private developers have raised
questions about the viability of meeting the above standards,
concerns have been raised over the 50% requirements established.
The Committee, staff, and the Planning Commission Members
reviewed proposed concepts provided by staff. The Committee and
the Planning Commission Members concurred that it would be
beneficial to provide more alternatives and flexibility to the developer
in the C-1, Light Commercial Zone.
Chair Backus invited the audience members wishing to speak on this
Page 4 of 6
CA.A Page 7 of 240
topic to come forward.
Nicole Petrino-Salter, 32021 132nd Ave. SE., Auburn, Washington.
Ms. Petrino-Salter stated that she is one of the six families in the area
on Lea Hill directly affected by the C-1 Zoning. Ms. Petrino-Salter
noted that the staff report states The Seasons project has two vacant
spaces; those spaces have been vacant since occupancy. The
Seasons, Food Market, Hair Salon and restaurant up at Lea Hill are
struggling. These businesses are either being subsidized to prevent
going out of business or are on the verge of collapse. If the 18%
commercial spaces currently available are not occupied, or are on the
verge or collapse, why add more. Unoccupied commercial spaces
costing the owner money and other developers do not want to develop
where there is an abundance of unoccupied space.
The developer willing to purchase their properties is supportive of
adding commercial space, but has unoccupied commercial space at
The Seasons. Ms. Petrino-Salter believes the area is not in need of
additional commercial space. To require the developer to add
commercial space only to lose money on the project is
unreasonable. Ms. Petrino-Salter requested that the Committee
consider reducing the percentage of commercial space required. Lea
Hill is not a destination shopping area. She asked that 18% be the
maximum and that it be reduced from there.
Vice-Chair Holman asked Ms. Petrino-Salter what she would like to
see. In response, she stated more projects like The Seasons without
the commercial, residential. She states that the owners in this area
were offered a very good price for their property which they probably
will not get because of the commercial requirements, requiring them to
live in C-1 Zoning the rest of their lives because they are unable to sell
to a developer. Why would a developer want to build with such heavy-
duty requirements. Committee and staff discussed having more
apartments and pointed out without additional services and improved
road infrastructure the previous City Council did not move forward with
the idea. If more residential development is built an increase of
services and commercial property would be needed.
The Committee is supportive of flexibility, but still requiring some
commercial.
C. Director's Report
Planning and Development Director Nancy Welch reported the
following activity in the City's permitting devision:
As of July 31, 2013, 269 single-family residential permits were issued
compared to 222 this time last year (with a value of $59,000,000.00
Page 5 of 6
CA.A Page 8 of 240
compared to $50,000,000.00). As of July 31, 2013 the City issued
210 commercial permits, compared to 138 this time last year
($100,000,000.00 in value compared to $15,000,000.00).
To date, staff has completed 7,031 inspections, compared to 4,882
one year ago.
D. PCDC Status Matrix (Welch)
Committee reviewed the matrix and requested no changes or
additions.
V. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and
Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:02
p.m.
DATED this _______________ day of _____________________, 2013.
________________________________________
Nancy Backus - Chair
_________________________________________
Tina Kriss - Planning Secretary
Page 6 of 6
CA.A Page 9 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4984
Date:
August 16, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4984
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend City Council adopt
Resolution No. 4984.
Background Summary:
This Draft Resolution defines a process for approval of requests for structures in City
parks and subject to approval by the City Council as to which structures would be
approved and where the structures would be located. It also references a City policy to
be appended to the Resolution, and distinguishes smaller structures and delegates the
authority to approve their location to the Mayor and Parks Department. The policy is
intended to define the City’s position with regards to government speech and its rights to
control such structures in its City parks.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services Other: Legal, Municipal Services
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Faber
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:ACT.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.A Page 10 of 240
----------------------------
Resolution No. 4984
August 21, 2013
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 4 9 8 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DEFINING A
PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING REQUESTS FOR
PLACEMENT OF MONUMENTS, MEMORIALS AND
STRUCTURES TO BE LOCATED IN CITY PARKS
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn is an inclusive community and strives to make
all of its citizens feel welcome and a part of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City also recognizes the importance of parks in the
community; and
WHEREAS, different than the first amendment – freedom of speech - rights
of individuals or entities to express themselves, whether in City Parks or other
public forums, the City recognizes its rights to control what structures are
constructed on City Parks and its rights to
WHEREAS, the City also desires to preserve its rights to control what
permanent structures are erected in City parks, and the City reserves the right to
determining the which structures convey a positive community messages in keeping
with City’s Policy for Structures to be Located in City Parks, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City is receptive to and inviting of requests by individuals
and organizations to have monuments, memorials and structures placed in City
parks, within the parameters of the City’s so long as they are in keeping with the
City’s Policy for Structures to be Located in City Parks, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that a process be defined so that any citizens or
groups who are proposing, requesting or interested in monuments, memorials and
ACT.A Page 11 of 240
----------------------------
Resolution No. 4984
August 21, 2013
Page 2 of 3
structures to be located in City parks know the process through which those
requests would be considered and approved. .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. Proposals for monuments, memorials and structures shall be
the province of the City Council. The City Council delegates to the Mayor and Parks
Department the authority to place smaller monuments, memorials and structures,
including such things as benches and plaques, in City parks. Larger or more
significant monuments, memorials and structures shall be considered and approved
by the City Council, including the determination of where, and in which park such
monuments, memorials and structures shall be located.
Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this _____ day of _________________, 2013.
CITY OF AUBURN
ATTEST: ________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
ACT.A Page 12 of 240
----------------------------
Resolution No. 4984
August 21, 2013
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT “A”
City of Auburn Policy for Structures to be Located in City Parks
[Policy to be included ]
ACT.A Page 13 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4985
Date:
August 14, 2013
Department:
Parks/Art and Recreation
Attachments:
Resolution 4985
Attachment
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn applied for and was awarded grant funds in the amount of $60,000
for a free game play area at the new Lea Hill park.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Planning And Community Development
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Faber
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 14 of 240
-----------------------------
Resolution No. 4985
August 14, 2013
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 4 9 8 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUBURN AND KING COUNTY
ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS FOR YOUTH SPORTS
FACILITIES
WHEREAS, King County is the manager of the Youth Sports Facilities Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, King County has selected the City of Auburn to be awarded a Youth
Sports Facility Grant to assist in capital improvements for increased recreational
opportunities; and
WHEREAS, there is no matching obligation in the acceptance of these funds;
and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of the grant funds will benefit the citizens of Auburn
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an
agreement between the City and King County grant funds in the amount of $60,000,
which agreement shall be in substantial conformity with the agreement attached hereto,
marked as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this
legislation.
DI.A Page 15 of 240
-----------------------------
Resolution No. 4985
August 14, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and signed this _____ day of _______________________, 2013.
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 16 of 240
DI.A Page 17 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan
(CDPMP)
Date:
August 21, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Memorandum
Draft Comprehensive Downtown Parking
Management Plan
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached memorandum.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Yao/Chamberlain
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 18 of 240
Memorandum
To: Nancy Backus, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
John Holman, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee
Largo Wales, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee
From: Nancy Welch, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Department
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Services Manager
Gary Yao, Planner
Date: August 26, 2013
Re: Review draft of the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan, Task 4 (Short-
Term and Long-Term Strategies for Parking in Downtown Urban Center) and Task 5 (Plan
Finalization and Council Review) of the Draft Work 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 Report presented to PCDC in July 2012
(Task 2), and the draft Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan table of contents
(Task 3), the draft Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan is a deliverable of
Task 4 (Short-Term and Long-Term Strategies for Parking in Downtown Urban Center) and
Task 5 (Plan Finalization and Council Review).
Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP) – Draft
The draft Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP), which primarily
addresses parking policy within the Downtown Urban Center (DUC), begins with an overview of
the plan’s purpose and approach:
· To manage existing parking assets, assess current parking demand, forecast future
parking needs, and develop a first-rate downtown parking system as an additional
amenity that keeps up with existing businesses, projects underway, and future
development; and
· To balance business, residential, visitor, and commuter parking needs in light of
increased transit service and development.
The CDPMP is also guided by the 7 Simple Rules of Planning for parking:
· Pinpoint the Parking
DI.B Page 19 of 240
· Strike a Balance
· Crown the Customer King
· Provide “Free” Parking
· Reduce the “Last Mile”
· Clarify the Code
· Change It Up
The plan then moves into an overview of the City’s parking system, including existing and future
parking infrastructure and resources available and existing and future usage:
· Of the 4,879 parking spaces available inventoried as of December 2011, parking areas
that experience particularly vexing problems re: high occupancy are limited to the
Wayland Arms (King County Housing Authority) and MultiCare Auburn Medical Center
blocks for on-street parking and (on weekdays) the Auburn Transit Center garage and
surface parking lot blocks.
· In the short term (1-5 years) there is an anticipated increase in parking demand of
approximately 1,285 spaces and increase in parking supply of 819 spaces. At peak hour,
considering existing public on- and off-street parking spaces available in the entire DUC,
a 29-space deficit is anticipated.
· In the long term (6-10 years) there is an anticipated cumulative increase in parking
demand of approximately 1,509 spaces and increase in parking supply of 819 spaces. At
peak hour, considering existing public on- and off-street parking spaces available in the
entire DUC, a 253-space deficit is anticipated.
Other components of the City’s parking system are the existing organizational and management
structure, planning efforts, investment strategies, operations, and maintenance. Opportunities
for improvement highlighted include:
· Increase in coordination between City departments re: the parking system’s various
components (on-street, off-street, citations, marketing, etc.);
· Increase in regularity of planning for parking;
· Increase in planning for parking impacts on special event days;
· Continue coordination with police and potentially increase parking enforcement; and
· Refinement of marketing and communications for the parking system.
Case studies follow the review of each of these parking system components.
Parking best practices, including those from the aforementioned case studies, are then
summarized and collected into best practices toolbox (table), based on feedback from the
parking surveys received from Downtown businesses and citizens and staff’s research and
experience related to parking. Not all best practices are applicable to Downtown Auburn at this
time. As such, the recommended actions for each best practice are identified as follows:
continuation, modification, implementation, or no action. See Chapter 3 of the CDPMP for the
entirety of the best practices toolbox.
The CDPMP closes with a detailed action plan of existing best practices that the City can draw
from for modification or implementation. The action plan includes proposed near-term
recommendations (up to 1 year), short-term recommendations (1-5 years), and long-term
recommendations (6-10 years), as follows:
DI.B Page 20 of 240
Near-Term
· Revise timed parking limits to 3 hours throughout the DUC
· Develop and implement a 3-strikes parking enforcement policy
· Clarify existing code and implement a parking inventory database
· Update the City’s website to make more useful for parking seekers
· Design and install updated signs for on-street parking identifying availability and rules
Short-Term (1-5 Years)
· Re-implement and expand the residential parking zone beyond D ST NW per demand
· Designate one department or division that is the single point of contact for all parking-
related matters, despite whatever organizational structure exists behind-the-scenes
· Plan for spillover areas on the fringe of downtown
· Evaluate funding options and implement a multi-faceted plan to finance additional public
parking for anticipated parking deficits
· Require organizers to better plan for special events
· Establish a parking ambassador position
· Create alerts for parking availability-impacting maintenance and construction activity
· Design and install trailblazer signs to direct drivers to available off-street parking
· Design and install easy-to-read off-street parking signs
Long-Term (6-10 Years)
· Revise timed parking limits, as needed
· Increase transit access, citywide/regionally
· Continue to plan for spillover areas on the fringe of downtown
· Regularly reevaluate current programs against previous occupancy baseline
· Increase transit access, around downtown
Discussion
At the August 26, 2013 PCDC meeting, staff requests Committee feedback to further refine the
draft Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP). To assist in the
Committee’s discussion, staff has prepared the following questions:
1. Does the general scope of the draft CDPMP address the issues raised regarding parking
in Downtown Auburn?
2. Are the proposed near term, short term, and long term recommendations on the right
track? Are there other recommendations staff should evaluate in the next iteration of the
plan’s development?
3. What other questions or information would the Committee like regarding this issue?
Attachments:
1. Draft, Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan
DI.B Page 21 of 240
Comprehensive Downtown Parking
Management Plan (DRAFT)
City of Auburn Planning and Development Department
DI.B Page 22 of 240
2 of 48
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 3
1.Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4
1.1 – Purpose and Approach........................................................................................ 4
1.2 – Plan Components ................................................................................................ 5
1.3 – Plan Area and Applicability .................................................................................. 6
1.4 – 7 Simple Rules of Planning for Parking ................................................................ 7
2. The Parking System ................................................................................................. 9
2.1 – Existing Parking Infrastructure, Resources, and Usage ....................................... 9
2.2 – Future Parking Infrastructure, Resources, and Usage ....................................... 11
2.3 – Parking Organization, Management, Planning, and Investment......................... 21
2.4 – Parking Operations and Maintenance ................................................................ 29
3. The Parking Best Practices Toolbox ....................................................................... 39
3.1 – How to Use the Toolbox ..................................................................................... 39
3.2 – The Toolbox ....................................................................................................... 39
4. The Parking Action Plan ......................................................................................... 40
4.1 – Near-Term Recommendations ........................................................................... 40
4.2 – Short-Term Recommendations (1-5 Years) ....................................................... 42
4.3 – Long-Term Recommendations (6-10 Years) ...................................................... 46
DI.B Page 23 of 240
3 of 48
Executive Summary
Forthcoming.
DI.B Page 24 of 240
4 of 48
1.Introduction
1.1 – Purpose and Approach
The Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP) serves the same vision enumerated
for downtown in the City’s Auburn Downtown Plan and Comprehensive Plan: to support the
continuous revitalization of downtown Auburn as the physical and cultural heart of the Auburn
community and development of a mixed-use district. To facilitate that vision, the CDPMP is a
concerted effort to manage existing parking assets, assess current parking demand, forecast future
parking needs, and develop a first-rate downtown parking system as an additional amenity that
keeps up with existing businesses, projects underway, and future development.
Initiative for developing the CDPMP emerged in a downtown Auburn at the crossroads of:
Balancing business, residential, visitor, and commuter parking needs in downtown;
Evolving parking demands in downtown, including a new sushi restaurant and gym on E
Main ST and additional anticipated redevelopment in the Auburn Junction blocks south of
City Hall, the fruits of various downtown public art programs and multi-million dollar
investments in streetscape and infrastructure improvements; and
Expansion of Sounder commuter train services.
The first step towards the CDPMP were taken with the approval of the Draft Work Plan by the
Planning and Community Development Committee in July 2011. It has since progressed as follows:
October 2011 – Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis
was completed. The analysis inventoried all of the parking spaces available within
downtown, whether public or privately owned, and their occupancies throughout the day.
December 2011 – Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand
Analysis was revised to reflect changes to the user-type for City-owned and/or –operated
surface parking lots.
July 2012 – Citizens Survey/Business and Property Owners Survey/Stakeholder Interviews gauged
people’s perceptions of parking in downtown, the anecdotal statistics of the parking
experience.
August 2013 – Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP) draft is
completed. The CDPMP combines the previously gathered numerical and anecdotal
statistics of parking in downtown with professional staff insight and experiences of other
jurisdictions.
Future date – Public open houses will be conducted for the CDPMP, which will be refined
and presented to the Planning and Community Development Committee for finalization and
adoption of an administrative framework for staff to implement a first-rate parking system
in downtown.
DI.B Page 25 of 240
5 of 48
1.2 – Plan Components
The CDPMP is organized into three components: the Parking System (Chapter 2), Parking Best
Practices Toolbox (Chapter 3), and Parking Action Plan (Chapter 4).
Chapter 2 examines the existing parking system, with a focus on City-owned and City-run parking
in terms of physical parking resources, administration and planning, operations, and marketing, as
well as how other jurisdictions delegate and perform these tasks. The chapter is divided into the
following sections:
Existing and Future Infrastructure, Resources, and Usage
o How many and where are parking spaces located?
o Where are the most vexing parking issues?
o What are occupancy trends in downtown overall?
o How will parking demand change over time?
o How many parking spaces are expected to be added?
Organization, Management, Planning, and Investment
o Who in the City is responsible for what?
o How has the City planned for parking in the past?
o How does the City plan for parking in the future?
o How and when does the City invest in additional parking spaces?
Maintenance and Operations
o How does the City’s parking operate on a daily basis?
o How are parking regulations enforced?
o How are permit fees and violation fines paid?
o How are the City’s parking resources maintained?
Marketing and Communications
o How does the City get the word out about the parking options available for
businesses, residents, visitors, and commuters?
o How does the City show where parking is located?
Chapter 3, following review of the City’s existing parking system and case studies, presents the
various best practices employed in the provision of parking, parking demand management, and
operations of a parking system. Not all policies and practices listed in the toolbox are intended to be
applicable for the City in this iteration of the CDPMP; instead, it is a collection of tools that should
be considered whenever the City is looking to fine-tune its parking system.
Chapter 4, the final part of the CDPMP, assembles a recommended action plan of near-term (up to 1
year implementation), short-term (1-5 year implementation), and long-term (6-10 year
implementation) changes to the City’s parking system.
DI.B Page 26 of 240
6 of 48
1.3 – Plan Area and Applicability
The CDPMP, in terms of geographic implementation, primarily addresses parking policy within the
Downtown Urban Center (DUC) designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which includes the
Auburn Junction blocks where development activity of significant scale is expected.
The physical effects of parking policies applicable to the DUC, however, may not be necessarily
quarantined within the politically defined boundaries of the DUC. In response to that potential, staff
have identified Potential Parking Spillover Areas (PPSAs) where impacts of DUC parking policies
may warrant extension of DUC parking policies into those areas (or at the very least, consideration
Downtown Urban
Center (DUC)
Auburn Junction
DI.B Page 27 of 240
7 of 48
of toolbox best practices in Chapter 3) to diffuse the impacts. PPSAs were identified based on the
following criteria:
Areas within ¼-mile from the DUC and Downtown Business Improvement Area (BIA),
whose boundaries include areas not otherwise included within the DUC; and
Where availability of on-street public parking is potentially impacted by spillover parking
demand generated from the DUC and BIA and/or large businesses, institutions, public
gathering places, and other high parking demand uses within the PPSAs themselves.
Operationally speaking, the CDPMP’s recommended action plan in Chapter 4 primarily focuses on
City-owned and City-run parking resources. Many best practices identified in the toolbox in Chapter
3, especially those applicable to parking in private development, have already been adopted as part
of the development regulations applicable to the DUC contained in Auburn City Code (ACC)
Chapter 18.29 or in the Downtown Urban Center Design Standards.
1.4 – 7 Simple Rules of Planning for Parking
The 7 Simple Rules of Planning for Parking serve as guiding principles for development of Auburn-
specific parking policy in this iteration of the CDPMP. They derive from the parking supply and
demand realities observed in downtown Auburn, the feedback about downtown parking received1,
and staff analysis of parking approaches taken in other jurisdictions.
1. PINPOINT THE PARKING
Direct people effectively and efficiently to available parking. There is not a parking supply
problem everywhere, all the time.
2. STRIKE A BALANCE
Address the needs of overlapping and/or competing parking interests. In downtown Auburn,
these needs are broadly identified as those of residents, businesses, visitors, and commuters.
3. CROWN THE CUSTOMER KING
Prioritize visitor parking. Make visitor parking as easy as possible in prime locations.
4. PROVIDE ‚FREE‛ PARKING
Avoid paid parking, whenever possible. While parking is never truly without costs, visitors,
residents, businesses, and commuters should shoulder part of those costs only as a last resort.
5. REDUCE THE ‚LAST MILE‛
1 Besides specific problematic parking areas, responses from the Downtown Parking Survey conducted in July 2012
also identified the following parking concerns: the distance between parking space and destination, non -residents
parking on residential streets, confusing and/or lack of parking signage, and the poor design of parking spaces.
DI.B Page 28 of 240
8 of 48
Shorten the distance, perception-wise, between parking space and destination. The vibrantly
urban, compact, and walkable mixed-use character that downtown Auburn continues to grow
into is inherently incompatible with the provision of plentiful home-, office-, store-, and
restaurant- front parking.
6. CLARIFY THE CODE
Write code that streamlines the process of parking system organization, management, planning,
maintenance, and operations.
7. CHANGE IT UP
Reassess each component of the CDPMP to meet current needs, as parking system conditions
change and new parking best practices emerge. The CDPMP is not intended to be static; it
merely establishes the framework for fine-tuning the parking system at any given time.
DI.B Page 29 of 240
9 of 48
2. The Parking System
2.1 – Existing Parking Infrastructure, Resources, and Usage
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES
According to the Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis,
there were a total of 4,8791 parking spaces in the2 DUC as of December 2011. The different types of
parking available, along with the general locations of each type, are as follows:
On-street public parking (unlimited time, time-limited, permit only, and loading zones)
o Locations: almost all blocks in the DUC
Off-street public parking (time-limited)
o Locations: within one block from E/W Main ST (between the Auburn Justice Center
and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe railroad tracks)
Off-street permit parking (unlimited time)
o Locations: within one block from E/W Main ST (between the Auburn Justice Center
and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe railroad tracks)
Off-street private parking
o Locations: almost all blocks in the DUC
Approximately 1/5 of parking spaces in the DUC are City-owned and/or City-run; the remainder are
provided by the private sector. Neither the City nor the private sector currently provide hourly or
daily paid parking. Paid parking in the City is limited to monthly permit parking provided by the
City and parking provided as part of commercial and residential unit sales and leases in the private
sector.
EXISTING USAGE
The DUC as a whole skews toward higher parking occupancy during the first half of the day and
specifically experiences peak parking occupancy during lunchtime (11am-2pm)3 on weekdays, when
2,666 parking spaces are occupied (56%) and 2,213 parking spaces are available (44%). On the
weekend, the DUC experiences peak parking occupancy during daytime Saturday4, with 1,721 (35%)
parking spaces occupied and 3,158 (65%) spaces available.
2 Excluding on- and off-street public and private parking spaces inaccessible due to S Division ST Promenade
construction, other off-street private parking spaces in lots inaccessible for data collection, and single-family off-
street private garage and driveway parking; this underestimates the number of parking spaces available as of July
2013.
3 Morning (9-11am), lunchtime (11am-2pm), afternoon (2-5pm), and evening (5-7pm) time segments per the
Downtown Urban Center On-and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis.
4 Due to limited resources, data collected on weekends for the Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-Street Parking
Supply and Demand Analysis was limited to daytime and nighttime only, rather than specific time blocks. For the
same reason, off-street parking occupancies are extrapolated, as off-street parking observed does not include all
off-street parking spaces in the DUC.
DI.B Page 30 of 240
10 of 48
Block-by-block, peak parking occupancy also occurs during lunchtime on weekdays, with the
average block 43% occupied. Few blocks, even when considering on- and off-street parking
separately, ever exceed 85% occupied, the widely adopted threshold for optimal parking occupancy
espoused by Donald Shoup, parking professor, researcher, economist, and author of The High Cost of
Free Parking. For those blocks that do, very few exceed 85% occupancy for more than one time
segment per day.
There are 2 types of blocks with on- or off-street parking that exceed 85% occupancy throughout the
day. The less problematic are blocks with available parking spaces nearby when exceeding 85%
occupancy. For example, >85% occupancy in on-street parking on one block is potentially negated
with <85% occupancy in off-street parking on the same block and/or <85% occupancy in on- or off-
street parking within a 2-block radius. Blocks that fall into this category include the Auburn Avenue
Theater, Truitt Building, and Agrishop blocks for on-street parking and the Truitt Building and (on
the weekend) Multicare Auburn Medical Center blocks for off-street parking. The more vexing
blocks are those without available parking spaces nearby when exceeding 85% occupancy. These
include the Wayland Arms (King County Housing Authority) and Multicare Auburn Medical
Center blocks for on-street parking and (on weekdays) the Auburn Transit Center garage and
surface parking lot blocks.
DI.B Page 31 of 240
11 of 48
2.2 – Future Parking Infrastructure, Resources, and Usage
FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES
Prior to the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP), there has been no recent
consideration by the City to expand on- and off-street parking resources in the DUC.
Per the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, only one future roadway capacity improvement project
identified (F ST SE between 4th ST SE and Auburn Way S) includes the addition of on-street parking
and is located outside of the DUC.
Downtown Urban
Center (DUC)
Moderate Area of
Concern
Heavy Area of
Concern
DI.B Page 32 of 240
12 of 48
Additionally, neither land acquisitions for off-street parking nor improvement of existing municipal
properties for off-street parking have been identified in the 2013-2018 Capital Facilities Plan.
The Auburn Transit Center garage and surface parking lots, which are already at capacity, are not
operated by the City, but by Sound Transit. Sound Transit committed to a second Auburn Transit
Center parking garage as part of the Sound Transit 2 package of improvements approved by voters
in 2008, but the facility has been put on hold as funding has not been identified. Funding of $1.3
million to $1.5 million, however, does exist from Metro for an Auburn Transit Center-adjacent
parking facility that serves commuters during weekdays and other users at all other times. The
funding originates from the sale agreement for the existing Metro park ‘n ride near 15th ST NE and A
ST NE, but no construction date has been forecasted.
In other words, any expansion of parking supply in the foreseeable future will be in tandem with
private development. As of the report’s writing, only one project has emerged that will noticeably
increase parking supply in the DUC. The project occupies half of the northeastern block of Auburn
Junction, where development activity of significant scale is expected to occur in downtown Auburn.
Per the plans received by the Planning and Development Department, the project will be a 5-story,
126-unit, commercial/residential mixed use building providing a net increase of 1105 parking spaces
to the parking supply identified in the Downtown Urban Center On-and Off-Street Parking Supply and
Demand Analysis. Three (3) additional blocks of mixed use buildings totaling 693 units are expected
to be constructed in Auburn Junction6 and at least 693 parking spaces will be added to the DUC’s
parking supply7.
Other potential private development and redevelopment activity in the DUC is unlikely to result in
increases to the DUC’s parking supply. The Market Analysis prepared for the City by Gardner
Economics in 2011 noted that structured and underground parking is the biggest barrier to
development in the Auburn Junction blocks. In addition, the Auburn Junction Design Guidelines allow
for exemption from providing on-site parking for non-residential uses if ‚adequate parking in public
rights-of-way and offsite public facilities‛ can be demonstrated. For the rest of the DUC, ACC
Section 18.29.060(H) also specifies that changes of use in existing buildings, expansions of not more
than 25% in floor area, and new retail and restaurant developments of less than 3,000SF are exempt
from providing any additional parking spaces at all. While any development or redevelopment
activity in the DUC outside of those exemptions are required to contribute to contribute a fee in lieu
of providing required parking spaces, the date of construction for a City parking structure, if any, is
indeterminate.
As such, 819 parking spaces are anticipated to be added to the DUC overall in the foreseeable future.
FUTURE USAGE
5 The project will provide 54 parking spaces and repurpose the existing Cavanaugh parking structure, whose 56 -
space second floor was not included in the parking supply in the Downtown Urban Center On-and Off-Street
Parking Supply and Demand Analysis, to provide the remainder of its code-required parking.
6 See ‘FUTURE USAGE’ subsection for detailed demand modeling.
7 Per the Auburn Junction Design Standards, all residential uses in Auburn Junction are required to provide parking
spaces on-site per the ratio specified in ACC Section 18.29.060(H).
DI.B Page 33 of 240
13 of 48
Parking demand forecasting performed for the DUC derives from known projects in the pipeline,
the Market Analysis, Sound Transit’s June 2013 CEO Report, and Sound Transit’s 2012 Station Access
Analysis. The three (3) documents identify the primary demand-impacting trends and activities, as
follows:
Market Analysis (Gardner Economics)
Zoning for the DUC is still ahead of the market. Higher density development is not
financially feasible under current market conditions.
Demand for retail space in Auburn Junction will arrive only after residential development
has commenced.
Demand for office space in Auburn Junction is negligible and speculative office development
is unlikely 2010-2013.
Smaller scale (80-100 unit) apartment projects would likely be viable with phased
development of commercial space. Condominium project viability is unlikely.
CEO Report (Sound Transit)
Three (3) peak-direction and one (1) reverse peak-direction Sounder commuter rail
roundtrips will be added in the next 4 years, if plans are not otherwise derailed.
Station Access Analysis (Sound Transit)
Auburn Transit Center arrivals by car (park and ride) will decrease over time with shift to
arrivals by public transportation, bicycling, and walking.
Since anticipated development and redevelopment for the DUC is unclear relative to anticipated
development in Auburn Junction and the Sound Transit’s projections only extends to 2017, demand
forecasting in the current CDPMP will be limited in scope to the subsequent 10 years. Specifically,
parking demand in the DUC can be forecasted with reasonable accuracy in the short term (1-5 years)
and vaguer accuracy in the long term (6-10 years).
SHORT TERM (1-5 YEARS)
Residential Parking Demand:
The project at the northeastern Auburn Junction block will add 126 studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-
bedroom apartment units per application materials received by the Planning and Development
Department.
As previously identified, the remaining Auburn Junction blocks are likely to collectively add 693
apartment units8. Over the next 5 years, construction of 819 apartment units can be assumed
8 The 126-unit building proposed in half of the northeastern Auburn Junction block is reasonably consistent with
the Market Analysis. It is consequently realistic to assume that the other Auburn Junction blocks will be developed
DI.B Page 34 of 240
14 of 48
with reasonable confidence. Per the parking ratios specified in ACC Section 18.29.060(H), the
total new short-term residential parking demand is 819 spaces.
Commercial Parking Demand:
The project at the northeastern Auburn Junction block will add 5,195SF of commercial space per
application materials received by the Planning and Development Department.
While no project has come forward for the other blocks, ground floor spaces in Auburn Junction
that front E/W Main Street and S Division Street are required to be retail, restaurant, or personal
service uses per the Auburn Junction Design Guidelines. Given the ratio of commercial space to
parcel size in the proposed project in the northeastern block of Auburn Junction, it is assumed
that the entire ground floor for remaining blocks will be developed as commercial space.
Under that scenario, approximately 29,075SF of commercial space in total will become available
as a result of short-term development activity, of which 17,932SF will be occupied in the short-
term. This is based on the total SF of the remaining Auburn Junction parcels plus vacated
alleyways, less the following:
The Auburn Promenade Plaza and Sunbreak Café parcels at the northwest Auburn Junction
block; the former, a permanent public amenity and the latter, a successful restaurant entity;
and
11,143SF in the southeast Auburn Junction block, whose commercial spaces will unlikely be
occupied in the short-term, assuming that this block will be the last to develop and be
occupied due to use of one parcel as parking for Chase Bank across A ST SE, the length of
time necessary for the alley vacation process, and the lag between development of residences
and occupancy of associated commercial space identified by the Market Analysis.
The Market Analysis identified this commercial demand as retail or restaurant in nature rather
than for office space. More specifically, it predicted positive localized effects of a residential base
at Auburn Junction on demand for food (restaurants/groceries), apparel, healthcare,
entertainment (public venues/retail), personal care (services/retail), and books and magazines.
As demand for groceries is already served by the existing Safeway just east of Auburn Junction,
across A ST SE, it is unlikely that an additional grocery store will locate in Auburn Junction.
Since groundfloor spaces in Auburn Junction are required to be retail, restaurant, or personal
service uses, it is also unlikely that medical offices will locate in Auburn Junction.
Should the occupancy of the commercial space at Auburn Junction be divided evenly between
the localized short-term commercial demand generated by the projected residential base, the
following SF of occupancy and associated parking demand per ACC Section 18.29.060(H) is
expected:
with no more than 126 units each per half block. Excluding the parcels that contain the Sunbreak Café, a successful
restaurant entity that is unlikely to be developed, there are 2.75 blocks available for residential development.
DI.B Page 35 of 240
15 of 48
Food (restaurants) – 5,815SF at 0.5/4 seats9 = 34 parking spaces
Apparel – 5,815SF at 2/1,000SF = 12 parking spaces
Entertainment (public venues) – 2,908SF at 5/1,000SF10 = 15 parking spaces
Entertainment (retail) – 2,908SF at 2/1,000SF = 6 parking spaces
Personal care (services) – 2,908SF at 2/1,000SF11 = 6 parking spaces
Personal care (retail) – 2,908SF at 2/1,000SF = 6 parking spaces
Books and magazines – 5,815SF at 2/1,000SF = 12 parking spaces
The total new short-term commercial parking demand is therefore 91 spaces.
Auburn Transit Center Demand
Per the June 2013 CEO Report, Sound Transit intends to add one (1) peak-direction Sounder
commuter rail roundtrip in 2013, 2016, and 2017, and one (1) reverse peak-direction roundtrip in
2016, for a total of 3 additional morning trips to Seattle and 1 additional morning trip to Tacoma
in the short-term (thru 2018).
Per the 2013 Service Implementation Plan (SIP), there were 963 daily boardings in the morning
across seven (7) Seattle-bound trains and 21 daily boardings in the morning across two (2)
Tacoma-bound trains at Auburn Transit Center.
Assuming proportional growth between service and ridership, Sounder commuter rail service
expansion in the short-term could potentially bring 425 new riders to Auburn Transit Center.
Based on the 2012 Station Access Analysis, 65% of arrivals at Auburn Transit Center is by car
(park and ride)1213. By 2030, the same report projects that only 33% of arrivals will be by car (park
and ride) when taking into account the land use shifts expected at Auburn Junction, directly
adjacent Auburn Transit Center. The average decrease in car (park and ride) arrivals per year is
therefore 1.78% per year14 so that in the short term (thru 2018), car (park and ride) arrivals are
expected to decrease to 54%.
9 Each seat is 15SF of floor area (excluding kitchens) on average per Design and Equipment for Restaurants and
Food Service: A Management View, “A Business Link” (Government of Alberta website), and Chuck Gohn
Restaurant Associates NW; 30% of floor area is for kitchens per “The Average Cost of Opening a Restaurant”, based
on an Ohio State University Survey.
10 Per ACC Section 18.29.060(H) footnote (1), a parking study may be required to parking demand for uses not
listed; in lieu of doing so for the CDPMP, parking demand for entertainment venues in Auburn Junction were
calculated at 5/1,000SF, the ratio for commercial recreation (indoor) uses per ACC Section 18.52.020.
11 Per ACC Section 18.29.060(H) footnote (1), a parking study may be required to parking demand for uses not
listed; in lieu of doing so for the CDPMP, parking demand for personal care services in Auburn Junction were
calculated at 2/1,000SF, the ratio for retail uses in the DUC per ACC Section 18.29.060(H); retail uses below
15,000SF generate the same parking demand as personal service shops per ACC Section 18.52.020.
12 Observations by the City’s Public Works Department staff in 2012 noted higher percentages of arrivals by car
(park and ride).
13 Based on the 2011 State of the Stations, 62% of riders surveyed for Sounder commuter rail service arrived by car
(park and ride).
14 (65% in 2012 – 33% in 2030)/18 years = 1.78%
DI.B Page 36 of 240
16 of 48
Due to the anticipated mode shift in arrivals to Auburn Transit Center, the new total short-term
parking demand for 425 riders is 230 spaces.
Displaced Parking Demand
Existing off-street private, permit, and public parking lots in the Auburn Junction blocks will
become permanently displaced as part of development in the short term. During lunchtime on
weekdays, when the DUC experiences peak parking occupancy, the existing off-street parking
lots in the Auburn Junction parcels to be developed are occupied by 145 cars; during the day on
Saturday, when the DUC experiences peak parking occupancy on the weekend, the same are
occupied by 39 cars15.
In other words, the displaced total short-term parking demand is 145 spaces on weekdays and
39 spaces on weekends.
Total New Short-Term Parking Demand (At a Glance)
Parking Demand Generator No. of Parking Spaces
Residential 819
Commercial 91
Residential + Commercial 910
Auburn Transit Center 230
Displaced Parking Demand (Weekday) 145
Displaced Parking Demand (Weekend) 39
Total New Short-Term Parking Scenarios
Parking Scenario 1a: Weekday Peak (11am – 2pm)
New Auburn Transit Center Parking Garage NOT Constructed
Supply Demand Result
819 new dedicated off-street
parking spaces
1,285 parking spaces 466 deficit in dedicated off-street
parking spaces
2,105* existing unoccupied
parking spaces at weekday
peak in the DUC
466 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
1,639 surplus in total available
parking spaces in the DUC
437* existing public16
parking spaces
466 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
29 deficit in total available
public parking spaces in the
DUC
15 Extrapolated from off-street parking observed for the Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-Street Parking
Supply and Demand Analysis, which does not include data for all off-street parking spaces due to limited resources.
16 City-owned and/or run unlimited time, time-limited, and loading zones on-street public parking and time-limited
off-street parking open to non-permit holders.
DI.B Page 37 of 240
17 of 48
If Sound Transit does not construct a second Auburn Transit Center garage, dedicated off-street
parking is not anticipated to be adequately supplied. Though the new parking demand can be
absorbed into the DUC’s total existing parking resources, inclusive of permit-only and private
off-street parking spaces, it cannot be adequately absorbed by only the total available public
parking resources, even when considering the entire DUC.
Parking Scenario 1b: Weekday Peak (11am – 2pm)
New Auburn Transit Center Parking Garage IS Constructed
Supply Demand Result
1,140 new dedicated off-
street parking spaces
1,285 parking spaces 145 deficit in dedicated off-street
parking spaces
2,105* existing unoccupied
parking spaces at weekday
peak in the DUC
145 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
1,960 surplus in total available
parking spaces in the DUC
437* existing public parking
spaces
145 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
292 surplus in total available
public parking spaces in the
DUC
If Sound Transit does construct a second Auburn Transit Center garage, dedicated off-street
parking is still not anticipated to be adequately supplied. Though not only can the new parking
demand be absorbed into the DUC’s total existing parking resources, inclusive of permit-only
and private off-street parking spaces, it can also be adequately absorbed by only the total
available public parking resources in the entire DUC.
Parking Scenario 2: Weekend Peak (Daytime Saturday)
New Auburn Transit Center Parking Garage NOT Constructed
Supply Demand Result
819 new dedicated off-street
parking spaces
94917 parking spaces 130 deficit in dedicated off-street
parking spaces
3,158** existing unoccupied
parking spaces at weekend
peak in the DUC
130 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
3,028 surplus in total available
parking spaces in the DUC
429*** existing on-street
public parking spaces
130 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
299 surplus in total available
on-street public parking spaces
in the DUC
If Sound Transit does not construct a second Auburn Transit Center garage, dedicated off-street
parking is still not anticipated to be adequately supplied even with no Sounder commuter rail
service on weekends. That being said, the new parking demand can be adequately absorbed by
the total available public parking resources in the DUC, even without accounting for off-street
public parking resources.
17 Sounder commuter rail service does not currently run on weekends. Per the 2013 SIP, weekend Sounder
commuter rail service is not anticipated.
DI.B Page 38 of 240
18 of 48
* Adjusted for existing off-street private, permit, and public parking spaces in Auburn Junction
blocks that will become permanently displaced as part of development in the short term.
** Extrapolated from off-street parking observed for the Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-
Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis, which does not include data for all off-street parking
spaces due to limited resources.
*** Off-street public parking unable to be extrapolated from the off-street parking observed for
the Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis.
LONG TERM (6-10 YEARS)
Residential Parking Demand
Outside of the apartments developed in Auburn Junction over the short-term, the number of
apartments developed in the DUC overall over the long-term is unknown. The Market Analysis
did not analyze residential demand for the Auburn Junction blocks only, and no other City
document projects the expected apartment units in the DUC overall over the next 10 years with
reasonable confidence.
Assuming residential market saturation for the DUC and absent any anticipated new significant
residential development in the long-term, the total new long-term residential parking demand is
hence 0 spaces.
Commercial Parking Demand
The final 11,143SF of commercial space developed in the Auburn Junction blocks will likely be
occupied in the long term, to account for the lag between development of residences and
occupancy of associated commercial space identified by the Market Analysis.
Should the occupancy of the commercial space at Auburn Junction be divided evenly between
the long-term localized commercial demand generated by the projected residential base, the
following SF of occupancy and associated parking demand per ACC Section 18.29.060(H) is
expected18:
Food (restaurants) – 2,229SF at 0.5/4 seats = 13 parking spaces
Apparel – 2,229SF at 2/1,000SF = 4 parking spaces
Entertainment (public venues) – 1,114SF at 5/1,000SF = 6 parking spaces
Entertainment (retail) – 1,114SF at 2/1,000SF = 2 parking spaces
Personal care (services) – 1,114SF at 2/1,000SF = 2 parking spaces
Personal care (retail) – 1,114SF at 2/1,000SF = 2 parking spaces
Books and magazines – 2,229SF at 2/1,000SF = 4 parking spaces
18 See ‘Commercial Parking Demand’ under ‘FUTURE USAGE – SHORT-TERM (1-5 YEARS)’ for detailed calculation
methodology.
DI.B Page 39 of 240
19 of 48
The total new long-term commercial parking demand is therefore 33 spaces.
Auburn Transit Center Demand
While the June 2013 CEO Report and 2013 SIP identify Sounder commuter rail service expansion
for the short term, no document projects service levels beyond the short term (thru 2018).
Assuming that Sound Transit mirrors Sounder commuter rail service expansion in the short-
term, the agency will add 3 additional morning trips to Seattle and 1 additional morning trip to
Tacoma in the long-term as well (thru 2023).
Using the same assumption of proportional growth between service and ridership19, Sounder
commuter rail service expansion in the long-term could potentially bring 425 new riders to
Auburn Transit Center. Based on the 2012 Station Access Analysis, 65% of arrivals at Auburn
Transit Center is by car (park and ride)2021. By 2030, the same report projects that only 33% of
arrivals will be by car (park and ride) when taking into account the land use shifts expected at
Auburn Junction, directly adjacent Auburn Transit Center. The average decrease in car (park
and ride) arrivals per year is therefore 1.78% per year22 so that in the long term (thru 2023), car
(park and ride) arrivals are expected to decrease to 45%.
Due to the anticipated mode shift in arrivals to Auburn Transit Center, the new total long-term
parking demand for 425 riders is 191 spaces.
Displaced Parking Demand
Existing off-street private, permit, and public parking lots in the Auburn Junction blocks will
already have become permanently displaced as part of development in the short term.
The displaced total long-term parking demand is therefore 0 spaces on weekdays and
weekends.
Total New Long-Term Parking Demand (At a Glance)
Parking Demand Generator No. of Parking Spaces
Residential 0
Commercial 33
Residential + Commercial 33
Auburn Transit Center 191
Displaced Parking Demand (Weekday) 0
19 See ‘Auburn Transit Center Demand’ under ‘FUTURE USAGE – SHORT-TERM (1-5 YEARS)’ for detailed calculation
methodology.
20 Observations by the City’s Public Works Department staff in 2012 noted higher percentages of arrivals by car
(park and ride).
21 Based on the 2011 State of the Stations, 62% of riders surveyed for Sounder commuter rail service arrived by car
(park and ride).
22 (65% in 2012 – 33% in 2030)/18 years = 1.78%
DI.B Page 40 of 240
20 of 48
Displaced Parking Demand (Weekend) 0
Total New Long- and Short-Term Parking Combined Demand (At a Glance)
Parking Demand Generator No. of Parking Spaces
Residential 819
Commercial 124
Residential + Commercial 943
Auburn Transit Center 421
Displaced Parking Demand (Weekday) 145
Displaced Parking Demand (Weekend) 39
Total New Long-Term Parking Scenarios
Parking Scenario 1a: Weekday Peak (11am – 2pm)
New Auburn Transit Center Parking Garage NOT Constructed
Supply Demand Result
819 new dedicated off-street
parking spaces
1,509 parking spaces 690 deficit in dedicated off-street
parking spaces
2,105* existing unoccupied
parking spaces at weekday
peak in the DUC
690 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
1,415 surplus in total available
parking spaces in the DUC
437* existing public23
parking spaces
690 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
253 deficit in total available
public parking spaces in the
DUC
If Sound Transit does not construct a second Auburn Transit Center garage, dedicated off-street
parking is not anticipated to be adequately supplied. Though the new parking demand can be
absorbed into the DUC’s total existing parking resources, inclusive of permit-only and private
off-street parking spaces, it cannot be adequately absorbed by only the total available public
parking resources in the DUC.
Parking Scenario 1b: Weekday Peak (11am – 2pm)
New Auburn Transit Center Parking Garage IS Constructed
Supply Demand Result
1,240 new dedicated off-
street parking spaces
1,509 parking spaces 269 deficit in dedicated off-street
parking spaces
2,105* existing unoccupied
parking spaces at weekday
peak in the DUC
269 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
1,836 surplus in total available
parking spaces in the DUC
437* existing public parking
spaces
269 parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
168 surplus in total available
public parking spaces in the
23 City-owned and/or run unlimited time, time-limited, and loading zones on-street public parking and time-limited
off-street parking open to non-permit holders.
DI.B Page 41 of 240
21 of 48
street parking spaces DUC
If Sound Transit does construct a second Auburn Transit Center garage, dedicated off-street
parking is still not anticipated to be adequately supplied. Though not only can the new parking
demand be absorbed into the DUC’s total existing parking resources, inclusive of permit-only
and private off-street parking spaces, it can also be adequately absorbed by only the total
available public parking resources in the DUC.
Parking Scenario 2: Weekend Peak (Daytime Saturday)
New Auburn Transit Center Parking Garage NOT Constructed
Supply Demand Result
819 new dedicated off-street
parking spaces
98224 new parking spaces 163 deficit in dedicated off-street
parking spaces
3,158** existing unoccupied
parking spaces at weekend
peak in the DUC
163 new parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
2,995 surplus in total available
parking spaces in the DUC
429*** existing on-street
public parking spaces
163 new parking spaces not
provided by dedicated off-
street parking spaces
266 surplus in total available
on-street public parking spaces
in the DUC
If Sound Transit does not construct a second Auburn Transit Center garage, dedicated off-street
parking is still not anticipated to be adequately supplied even with no Sounder commuter rail
service on weekends. That being said, the new parking demand can be adequately absorbed by
the total available public parking resources in the DUC, even without accounting for off-street
public parking resources.
* Adjusted for existing off-street private, permit, and public parking spaces in Auburn Junction
blocks that will become permanently displaced as part of development in the short term.
** Extrapolated from off-street parking observed for the Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-
Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis, which does not include data for all off-street parking
spaces due to limited resources.
*** Off-street public parking unable to be extrapolated from the off-street parking observed for
the Downtown Urban Center On- and Off-Street Parking Supply and Demand Analysis.
2.3 – Parking Organization, Management, Planning, and Investment
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT (CITY OF AUBURN)
The DUC parking system, which includes privately and municipally owned and/or operated
parking spaces, falls under the authority of various private property owners and at least 5
24 Sounder commuter rail service does not currently run on weekends. Per the 2013 SIP, weekend Sounder
commuter rail service is not anticipated.
DI.B Page 42 of 240
22 of 48
departments within the City. These City departments include Planning and Development, Public
Works, Facilities, Police, and the Court Clerk. Responsibility for some components of the parking
system are shouldered exclusively by one department while responsibility for others are shared by
multiple departments. Responsibilities are not clearly identified in the ACC, and the City has not
previously dedicated any resources for a general coordinator or point of contact who manages all
parking-related issues and inquiries in the DUC.
The nature of the parking system’s organizational structure within the City results in two scenarios.
On one end of the spectrum, the occasional lack of coordination between departments in certain
components of the parking system makes the efficient provision of parking by the City challenging.
For example, the wayfinding signs interspersed in throughout the City (designed and placed by the
Public Works Department) directs drivers towards landmarks, but not off-street no-permit parking
in the DUC (designated and managed by the Planning and Development Department).
From a customer service perspective, another shortfall from the lack of coordination is the potential
inability of City staff to provide comprehensive and consistent parking information to parking
system end-users in the DUC. For example, Public Works and Planning and Development Staff may
not be able to provide direction on how to deal with a pay or contest a parking citation (processed
by the Court Clerk) when interacting with customers at the Permit Center.
On the other end of the spectrum, where departments currently share responsibility in certain
components of the parking system, responsibilities are not clearly defined. For instance, while the
design of signage in the City’s off-street parking lots is collaboratively executed between the
Facilities and Planning and Development Departments, the Public Works Department is identified
as the responsible entity for ‚marking‛ off-street permit parking spaces for the City’s vehicles per
the ACC.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT (CASE STUDIES)
Location(s): City of San Diego
Approach: One point of contact for all parking, multiple departments with collaborative
authority over the parking system.
Key Points: - The primary point of contact for the public is the ‘Parking Administration’,
which processes residential parking permits, payment of parking citations,
and provides general parking information from the City.
- Behind the scenes, however, one department or division is clearly defined as
the ultimate authority for a certain component of the parking system
Location(s): City of Vancouver, B.C.
Approach: One point of contact for on-street parking, one point of contact for off-street
parking, authority over the parking system split along the same lines.
DI.B Page 43 of 240
23 of 48
Key Points: - The primary on-street parking point of contact for the public is Engineering
Services, which processes residential and commercial on-street parking
permits, payment of on-street parking citations, requests for on-street
parking meters, and all other on-street parking related matters.
- The primary off-street parking point of contact for the public is Easypark, a
non-profit corporation owned by the City, which processes off-street parking
permits, payment of off-street parking citations, and all other matters related
to off-street parking.
Location(s): City of Champaign, IL, City of Lynchburg, VA, City of Monterey, CA
Approach: One point of contact for all parking, one department or parking authority with
control over the parking system.
Key Points: - The one department or parking authority usually does not have control over
parking standards for private development and enforcement of parking
regulations.
PLANNING (CITY OF AUBURN)
The City has not undertaken comprehensive planning for parking in the DUC with regularity, nor
has it adopted any framework for future parking planning efforts.
Downtown Parking Plan (1996)
In fact, the last comprehensive parking plan (the Downtown Parking Plan) adopted for the DUC
dates from 1996. The impetus for developing the Downtown Parking Plan was threefold:
Passage of the Commute Trip Reduction law in Washington State, which mandated
employers of a certain size to undertake measures to reduce single-occupancy vehicle
commutes; the Downtown Parking Plan examined parking supply and demand
management strategies as part of that mandate;
Recurring parking concerns expressed by the downtown business community; and
Anticipation of parking demand generated by a future transit hub (Auburn Transit
Center).
The scope of the Downtown Parking Plan included the following:
Extensive parking supply and demand analysis, including turnover rates, between the
hours of 7am and 6pm for all areas of downtown Auburn25;
Future demand forecasting, incorporating projections from the City’s Comprehensive Plan
tempered with observations of development trends in downtown Auburn;
25 “Downtown” did not include all blocks of DUC and was generally smaller in geographic area.
DI.B Page 44 of 240
24 of 48
Identification of significant downtown Auburn parking issues ; and
Parking policies to address identified parking issues.
The parking policies fell under the umbrella strategy of reducing demand for parking, utilizing
existing public parking resources more efficiently, increasing usage of underutilized private
parking through lease and shared parking arrangements, and providing guidance for future
purchase and establishment of public off-street parking lots in a manner that is phased, cost
effective, and affordable for the City and downtown business and property owners.
Some specific parking policies directly affecting the City’s physical parking resources have been
adopted, such as the conversion of on-street parking spaces along the west side of Auburn Way
S, between E Main ST and 2nd ST SE, to unlimited time, no-permit on-street parking, as it exists
today.
Most specific parking policies that more indirectly affect the City’s parking system have been
adopted in the ACC. Policies such as maximum off-street parking requirements for
development, shared parking and other required off-street parking reduction incentives, and
employer incentives for non-single occupancy vehicle commutes have been adopted in ACC
Chapter 18.52 – Off-Street Parking and Loading, ACC Chapter 18.29 – DUC Downtown Urban
Center District, and ACC Chapter 10.02 – Commute Trip Reduction.
Other parking policies have not been adopted and are no longer applicable currently. For
example, the proposed policy of encouraging employees to park in the residential
neighborhoods east of Auburn Way N/S conflicts with concerns raised about non-residents
parking on residential streets in the Downtown Parking Survey. On the other hand, some parking
policies were not adopted, but are still applicable, such as better use of signage to direct drivers
to available City off-street parking.
Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP)(2013)
The current CDPMP comes seventeen (17) years subsequent the last concerted comprehensive
planning effort. It contains much of the same elements as the Downtown Parking Plan as the level
of assessment performed is either equivalent or in excess of that in other cities’ plans.
Unlike the previous parking plan however, which was prepared by consultants, the current
CDPMP is a product of City staff. The CDPMP also adds the toolbox, which presents the various
best practices employed in the provision of parking, parking demand management, and
operations of a parking system. It is a collection of tools intended to be updated periodically and
should be considered at a glance whenever the City is looking to fine-tune its parking system. In
its current iteration it includes best practices for provision of special event parking and real -time
parking information, parking topics not addressed by the previous plan.
With the toolbox and as a whole, the CDPMP sets the framework for parking planning at a
specific point in time and allows for flexibility to update its contents to suit future parking
needs.
DI.B Page 45 of 240
25 of 48
PLANNING (CASE STUDIES)
As mentioned previously, the CDPMP matches or exceeds the level of assessment performed in
other cities’ parking plans. Where they differ is when cities choose to undertake an effort to produce
or procure a parking plan.
Location(s): City of Bellingham
Approach: Financial shortfalls in the budget.
Location(s): City of Pasadena, CA
Approach: Struggling downtown and the desire to spur new development.
Location(s): City of Redwood City, CA
Approach: Anticipation of new development and visitors who will mostly arrive by car.
Location(s): City of Ventura, CA
Approach: Simultaneous with update of Downtown Specific Plan.
INVESTMENT (CITY OF AUBURN)
The City’s current investment in the provision of off-street parking in the future is based on a two-
pronged fee-in-lieu-of strategy.
All Auburn Junction development, per the Auburn Junction Design Guidelines, must provide required
residential parking spaces on-site, though the same does not apply to non-residential uses. Although
required non-residential parking spaces do not need to be provided on-site, a fee-in-lieu-of
payment26 is required to be made towards a fund for a future parking structure in the DUC if the
non-residential demand cannot be adequately fulfilled by existing on- and off-street public parking
resources27.
DUC development at large also have the option for fee-in-lieu-of payments per ACC Section
18.29.060(H) as an alternative to provision of required spaces on-site28. Unlike the fee-in-lieu-of
payments for Auburn Junction development, however, neither the Downtown Urban Center Design
Standards nor the ACC direct these payments toward funding a future parking structure in the DUC.
INVESTMENT (CASE STUDY)
26 No per space fee-in-lieu-of payment is defined. Assessed on a case-by-case basis.
27 The radius from an Auburn Junction development within which existing on- and off-street public parking
resources may be considered “supply” is not defined.
28 The maximum number of required on-site parking spaces allowed via fee-in-lieu-of payments is not defined.
DI.B Page 46 of 240
26 of 48
Of the other cities’ parking plans surveyed, the Downtown Redmond Parking Study from 2008
examines the various options available for financing downtown parking infrastructure most
comprehensively. The options below29, however, are not exhaustive nor meant to be mutually
exclusive (use of multiple funding sources is the rule rather than exception for public financing).
Options Affecting Customers
Approach: Event surcharges
Key Points: - Ticketing fees that are authorized by a public facilities district, such as the
one established for the ShoWare Center in the City of Kent.
Approach: On-street parking fees
Key Points: - Parking meters and/or permits.
Approach: Parking fine revenues
Key Points: - N/A
Options Affecting Businesses
Approach: Business improvement area (BIA)
Key Points: - Assessment on business owners based on square footage, assessed land
value, and/or business and operation (B&O) taxes
- Useful for funding parking operations and marketing
Options Affecting Property Owners
Approach: Local improvement district (LID)
Key Points: - Assessment on property owners to repay bonds sold to finance improvement
- Benefit to the land must be more intense than to the rest of the city and must
be actual, physical, and material, and not merely speculative or conjectural
- Useful for funding capital development (ex. parking structure)
29 Updated to include current financing options available and not identified in the study.
DI.B Page 47 of 240
27 of 48
- Useful as one component of revenue bond without the need for general
obligation bond backing (and drawing down the available debt capacity of
the city)
Options Affecting Developers
Approach: Fee-in-lieu-of parking
Key Points: - N/A
Approach: Options affecting developers – public/private development partnerships
Key Points: - Ex. public acquisition of land and sale or lease of land/air rights not needed
for parking
- Ex. private development of mixed-use development with sale or lease back of
the public parking portion upon completion, a turnkey project
Options Affecting the General Public
Approach: General obligation bonds
Key Points: - Bonds issued to finance parking improvements underwritten by the general
fund when repayment of debt is unable to be serviced by parking revenues
alone
- Bonds can be issued by public vote or council decree
- Legal limit for all voter-approved debt in a city is 7.5% of assessed property
values; non-voted debt is 1.5% of assessed property values
Approach: Refinancing general obligation bonds
Key Points: - Refinancing existing debt and shifting savings from the general fund to debt
coverage for parking improvements
Approach: Revenue bonds
Key Points: - Bonds issued to finance parking improvements underwritten by parking and
other specific revenues rather than by the general fund; however, unless
utilization and revenue projections (such as LID revenues) are strong and
predictable enough to cover debt and operations and provide a coverage
cushion, general obligation bonds may still be required
DI.B Page 48 of 240
28 of 48
- Legal limit for debt is not affected, unless general obligation bond backing is
required
Approach: 63-20 financing
Key Points: - Bonds (tax-exempt) issued by a non-profit corporation on behalf of the city
- Financed assets must be ‚capital‛ and must be turned over free and clear to
the government by the time that bonded indebtedness is retired
Approach: Public facilities districts (PFD)
Key Points: - An independent taxing authority and district under Washington State statue
that may charge fees for the use of its facilities, levy an admissions tax not
exceeding 5%, and impose a vehicle parking tax not exceeding 10%
- State law also allows PFDs to impose two different types of sales and use
taxes: local sales and use taxes of up to 0.033% to finance regional centers and
local sales and use taxes up to 0.2% to finance, design, construct, remodel,
maintain, or operate public facilities (if approved by voters)
Approach: Downtown and neighborhood commercial districts
Key Points: - Uses incremental increases in local sales and use tax revenue subsequent
establishment of the district to finance community revitalization projects,
such as ‚publicly owned or lease facilities‛
Approach: Community revitalization financing
Key Points: - Uses incremental increases in property taxes to finance parking
improvements
- Tax ‚increment area‛ must be established with approval from local
governments imposing at least 75% of the regular property taxes
- Tax increment is calculate at 75% of any increase in assessed property value
Approach: Local revitalization financing
Key Points: - Uses incremental increases in local sales and use tax revenues and property
tax revenues within the ‚revitalization area‛, additional funds from other
local public sources, and a state contribution to finance parking
improvements
- Tax increment is calculate at 75% of any increase in assessed property value
DI.B Page 49 of 240
29 of 48
- State contribution applications are currently closed
Approach: State and federal grants
Key Points: - No current grants for downtown parking structures have been found
Approach: Parking fund
Key Points: - Establishes parking commissions and funding mechanisms for parking
improvements and maintenance and operations
Approach: General fund contribution
Key Points: - For a one-time capital improvement or on-going contributions to
maintenance and operations of a downtown parking system
2.4 – Parking Operations and Maintenance
OPERATIONS (CITY OF AUBURN)
Operation of the DUC parking system falls to the City for on-street parking spaces and off-street
public and permit parking lots and private property owners for off-street parking lots located on
their own property.
Activities associated with parking operations are minimal. None of the City’s on-street parking
spaces are metered, so operation is no more than ingress and egress from these spaces. Additionally,
no off-street parking lot operated by the City or privately owned ever ‚opens‛ or ‚closes‛ in the
DUC by way of gates or personnel. The only operational activity for parking is undertaken by
Multicare Auburn Medical Center, which contracts out to a private company for operation of its
complimentary valet service.
OPERATIONS (CASE STUDIES)
Location(s): Various
Approach: Parking meters and/or pay stations as a tool to promote parking turnover; act as
a means of distributing limited amount of on-street spaces in commercial areas
where demand exceeds supply; provide short-term parking spaces for shopping
or personal errands; improve traffic circulation and economic viability of
downtown commercial areas by maximizing the number of patron visits; and to
generate revenue for the city.
Key Points: - Individual conventional meters that accept coins and credit cards (City of
Salem)
DI.B Page 50 of 240
30 of 48
- Individual ‚smart‛ meters that accept coins, credit cards, and pay-by-phone,
with different prices at different times of the day; has resulted in higher
revenues and fewer parking citations, but may result in less turnover (City of
San Francisco)
- Individual ‚smart‛ meters that accept coins and credit cards, resets any
remaining parking time available to zero when a car leaves, and prohibits
drivers from paying for more time when the car has already parked for the
maximum time limit applicable to the parking space (City of Santa Monica)
- Conventional pay-and-display pay stations that accept coins and credit cards
(City of Boulder)
Location(s): City of Tacoma
Approach: Parking operations and maintenance contracted out to Republic Parking
Key Points: - Since 1987, Republic Parking has provided daily operational oversight for
2,500 parking spaces located within the city’s lots and garages
- The city’s budget for 2011-2012 allocated $1,214,800 for operations and
maintenance of its parking facilities; this includes $20,000 for Republic
Parking’s management fee of 1.5% of net parking revenues and the
remainder for ‘out of pocket’ expenses to operate and maintain its parking
facilities
Location(s): Research Drive Parking Garage, Duke University
Approach: Environmental and parking operation efficiency best practices
Key Points: - Received 2012 International Parking Institute Award of Excellence
- Environmentally sensitive design that incorporates vegetated canopies on the
roof, vegetated walls, and rainwater-collecting cisterns
- Real-time space availability display boards (spaces available on each level)
- Automated entries and exits and an express ramp for frequent users using
vehicle identification technology
- Pay stations for payment prior to leaving rather than payment at exits
Location(s): 123 Baxter Street Garage, New York
DI.B Page 51 of 240
31 of 48
Approach: Land use and parking operation efficiency through use of an automatic
mechanical parking system (a la a vending machine)
Key Points: - Entire process for parking or retrieval of a car takes around 2 minutes
- Occupies less space than conventional garages, which makes it especially
practical for high-density locations
- One attendant ‚operates‛ the entire garage
- Potential inefficient ingress and egress during periods of overwhelming
demand, such as morning and evening rush hour
- High initial investment
- Potential fire code limitations
- Potential for mechanical failure, as some systems have experienced, trapping
vehicles inside the garage
OPERATIONS – SPECIAL EVENTS (CITY OF AUBURN)
Several seasonal events currently draw big crowds to downtown Auburn and introduce additional
demand into the existing parking system, while sometimes simultaneously reducing available
parking supply.
Activities associated with the operation of the parking system on event days, like non-event days, is
similarly minimal. No personnel direct drivers to parking for the Auburn International Farmers
Market, which takes place weekly in the Auburn Transit Center plaza during summer months. Nor
do any personnel direct drivers to parking for the Auburn Good Ol’ Days festival, which takes place
annually in the vicinity of E/W Main Street and closes several streets. Maps of parking locations on
event days are not available online for either event and are generally not required for permit
approval of special events.
OPERATIONS – SPECIAL EVENTS (CASE STUDIES)
Location(s): River Days, Renton
Approach: Shuttles from off-site parking facilities and extensive information provided
Key Points: - Complimentary shuttles move people between off-site parking facilities and
the festival
- Information provided online include directions to parking lots and garages,
alternatives to taking the shuttle, and location and timing of street closures
DI.B Page 52 of 240
32 of 48
Source(s): ‚Special Event Parking Basics‛, Campus Safety Magazine
Approach: Parking operation efficiency and safety best practices
Key Points: - Changing cashier locations accommodates queues and promote faster
entrances and exits
- Payment upon entry prevents bottlenecks at exits
- Limiting cash transactions reduces delay
- Make multiple entrances and exits available
- Designated pedestrian walkways quickly and safely move visitors to and
from garage
OPERATIONS – RATES, FEES, ENFORCMENT, AND FINES (CTIY OF AUBURN)
RATES
No rates for hourly or daily parking have been established for the City, The City’s on- and off-
street parking spaces are available to drivers who park for the short-term or for the evening at
no cost. Likewise, privately owned and operated off-street parking lots in the City do no charge
for customer and visitor parking.
FEES
The City charges a $10 per month permit parking fee for parking in its off-street permit parking
lots. Permit parking is available for business owners, employees, downtown residents,
commuters who are residents of Auburn, and Green River Community College students.
Parking permits are acquired at the City’s Permit Center. Fees for permit parking are established
administratively by the Planning and Development Department.
Privately owned and operated off-street parking lots may assess monthly parking fees for its
tenants as well. Data for how many private property owners assess such a fee and how much
they charge is unavailable.
ENFORCEMENT
For City owned and/or operated on- and off-street parking spaces, 2 parking enforcement
officers in the Police Department enforce maximum time limits, amongst other parking
regulations, and impound abandoned vehicles.
DI.B Page 53 of 240
33 of 48
Enforcement in off-street parking lots owned and operated by private parties varies; typically,
private property owners contract out for towing services on larger off-street parking lots.
FINES
The City issued 3,383 parking citations in 2011 and levies a variety of fines for parking violations
cited. These fines include $25 for parking in excess of the maximum allowed time for on- or off-
street parking ($35 if not paid within 15 days of the parking citation’s issuance) and $30 for
violations of loading zone restrictions. Other parking violations with no fines defined include
parking in a no-parking zone and parking too far away from the curb.
Fines for parking citations are paid and processed at the Court Clerk. Many parking citations can
be waived by participation in community service for non-profits at a rate of $10 waived per hour
volunteered.
Fines for improper parking in privately owned and operated off-street parking lots are
established by private property owners. Towing fees are set by the companies that private
property owners contract towing services to.
OPERATIONS – RATES, FEES, ENFORCMENT, AND FINES (CASE STUDIES)
RATES
Location(s): City of Tacoma
Approach: Reinstatement of paid parking, removed during downtown’s decline in the
1970s, as on-street parking became increasingly congested again
Key Points: - During the first 6 months of operation (January – June 2011), revenue
exceeded projections by around $60,000 ($364,782.41 vs. $303,510.69)
- Bus pass sales doubled and off-street parking lot occupancy increased to
near-capacity for University of Washington (UW) – Tacoma
FEES
Location(s): City of Kent, City of Olympia, City of Puyallup, City of Renton, City of Tacoma
Approach: Charging for monthly off-street parking
Key Points: - Data includes monthly off-street parking lots and garages owned and/or
operated by the cities and by private parking operators as of February 2013
DI.B Page 54 of 240
34 of 48
- The lowest monthly rate for a parking lot was $15, operated by Diamond
Parking, and located next to the marine and Heritage Park Fountain, though
several blocks away from downtown Olympia
- The highest monthly rate for a parking lot was $148, operated by Republic
Parking on behalf of the City of Tacoma, and located next to many
businesses, attractions, and a Sound Transit LINK light rail station
- The unweighted average monthly rate for a parking lot was $56
- The lowest monthly rate for a parking garage was $35, operated by Diamond
Parking, at the downtown Renton transit center
- The highest monthly rate for a parking garage was $164, operated by
Republic Parking on behalf of the City of Tacoma, and located next to several
businesses, the Convention Center, Tacoma Art Museum, UW – Tacoma, and
a Sound Transit LINK light rail station
- The unweighted average monthly rate for a parking garage was $74
ENFORCEMENT
Location(s): City of Chattanooga, TN
Approach: Parking enforcement officers doubling as downtown customer service
representatives (‚parking ambassadors‛)
Key Points: - Parking ambassador service provided by Republic Parking
- In addition to parking enforcement, parking ambassadors assist people with
parking correctly, give courtesy garage passes to drivers who have
experienced difficulty with parking, provide maps and directions, provide
informal security in coordination with police, and pick up litter
- Newspapers report that parking spaces on the busiest commercial streets
have freed up considerably since parking ambassador program
implementation
FEES
Location(s): City of Somerville, MA
Approach: Superior customer service for parking permit and citation processing
DI.B Page 55 of 240
35 of 48
Key Points: - Customer service representatives at the Office of the Parking Clerk
consistently praised for efficiency and pleasantness, despite only an average
rating of 2 out of 5 stars on Yelp
MAINTENANCE (CITY OF AUBURN)
Maintenance of the City’s on-street parking, such as striping of spaces and signage, clearly falls to
the Public Works Department. Maintenance of the City’s off-street parking lots, on the other hand, is
not as clearly designated in code or in practice.
While the Facilities Department currently maintains off-street parking lot signs, the Planning
Department designates off-street public and permit parking spaces, processes parking permit fees,
and otherwise manages the City’s off-street parking resources.
Both on- or off-street parking owned and/or operated by the City is swept and restriped on a more
or less regular basis, but no formal maintenance schedule or plan exists. Likewise, private off-street
parking is required to be consistent with the applicable parking code at construction, but is not
explicitly mandated by any City code section to perform specific maintenance per a formal schedule.
MAINTENANCE (CASE STUDIES)
Location(s): City of Chicago, IL
Approach: On-street parking is operated and maintained by Chicago Parking Meters LLC
through a 75-year concession, which includes price-setting rights
Key Points: - $1.2 billion lump sum paid to the city, but long-term budget shortfall
- Rapid rise in parking rates
- Increase in inoperable meters
Location(s): City of Tacoma
Approach: Parking operations and maintenance contracted out to Republic Parking
Key Points: - Republic Parking operates and maintains all of the city’s 2,500+ off-street
parking spaces; maintenance costs incurred are reimbursed to Republic
Parking as part of the contract
Location(s): City of Vancouver
Approach: Maintenance of signs, meters, off-street parking lots and garages is performed by
the Parking Services Division in the Community and Economic Development
Department
DI.B Page 56 of 240
36 of 48
Key Points: - N/A
Location(s): City of West Hollywood, CA
Approach: Off-street parking lots and garages are operated and maintained by the Parking
Services Division in the Public Works Department
Key Points: - N/A
Location(s): Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH
Approach: Maintenance of off-street parking lots regularly scheduled
Key Points: - Text and email reminders to move cars for subscribers
- Signs at off-street parking lots the day of closure for maintenance
MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS (CITY OF AUBURN)
The City’s parking philosophy and parking policies require further refinement through the CDPMP
as neither are currently clearly defined. Regarding the former, the existing Downtown Parking Plan
does offer overall direction for the downtown parking. The Downtown Parking Plan, however, dates
from 1996 and is not an actively referenced document for downtown parking policymaking. The
City’s parking policies and fines themselves are contained in Auburn City Code, rather than at a
centralized location on the City’s website, and occasionally contradict with what is signed.
There are also opportunities for improvement in promoting City’s off-street permit parking
program, administered by the Planning and Development Department’s Permit Center, on the City’s
website and on off-street permit parking lot signage. Avenues of promotion beyond the City are
currently limited to the passing of information from the Auburn Downtown Association (ADA) and
Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce to its members.
The question of how to obtain a parking permit and where off-street permit parking exists for the
general public is typically answered at the Permit Center, where a map of off-street parking
available in the City is available. There is no map, however, that identifies the on- and off-street no-
permit parking spaces available to the general public.
At on-street parking spaces , the City has installed signs that identify time limits, although these
signs’ designs are not uniform On the other hand, signs with ‘FREE PARKING’ in a large-sized font
proclaim available public parking at each City owned and/or operated off-street parking lot. Due to
permit parking spaces interspersed amongst public parking spaces, while signed and marked
appropriately, drivers have expressed confusion deciphering whether a parking space was
designated for public or permit parking.
DI.B Page 57 of 240
37 of 48
MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS (CASE STUDIES)
Location(s): City of Ventura, CA
Approach: Radius map of destinations from main parking garage
Key Points: - Demonstrates the concept of ‚park-once‛ and visiting multiple destinations
Location(s): City of Denver, CO
Approach: Public Works Department ‚parking angels‛ reward legally parked cars with $5
parking cards during the holiday season
Key Points: - Caught the attention of multiple news sources (TV stations, newspapers,
online sources)
- Simultaneous with a social media campaign
Location(s): City of Denver, CO
Approach: Parking homepage with street sweeping reminders and all components of the
parking system front and center
Key Points: - Divided into four user-friendly links: ‘Report a Problem’ for broken meters,
lights, potholes/sinkholes, and illegally parked cars, ‘Parking Permits’ for
residential and handicap parking permits, ‘Public Parking’ for where and
how to park, and ‘Tickets and Towing’ for paying citations, removing boots,
and locating a towed vehicle
Location(s): City of New York, NY
Approach: Redesigned parking signs for readability
Key Points: - Fewer signs, less text, and more ‚white space‛
- Former signs were called ‚a cross between an Excel spreadsheet and a totem
pole‛ by Janette Sadik-Khan, Transportation Commissioner
Location(s): City of Novato, CA
Approach: Thematically tied-together signs
Key Points: - Parking signage is thematically tie to general car and pedestrian wayfinding
signage
DI.B Page 58 of 240
38 of 48
- ‚Trailblazer‛ signs directing drivers to parking are thematically tied to
parking facility signage
- On-location parking signage identify the location and/or name of the lot and
basic rules – and not much else
Location(s): City of Seattle
Approach: e-Park, a real-time live feed of available parking spaces in participating parking
garages throughout downtown
Key Points: - N/A
Location(s): City of Los Angeles, City of San Carlos, City of San Francisco, CA
Approach: Parker app provides real-time parking availability information for both on-street
parking spaces and off-street parking spaces in City and privately owned and/or
operated parking lots and garages
Key Points: - Availability is based on information transmitted from networked wireless
sensors at each parking space
- Each wireless sensor is self-powered, requires 4-6 minutes to install, and
costs $300/installation and $120/year in software licensing fees (per USA
Today in a 2011 article)
- The highest monthly rate for a parking lot was $148, operated by Republic
Parking on behalf of the City of Tacoma, and located next to many
businesses, attractions, and a Sound Transit LINK light rail station
- App provides a map of parking locations, rates, and types (time limits)
- App allows for adding inventory to its map database, even without paying
for and installing sensors at each parking space
- App can search for parking in proximity by destination and also direct
drivers via voice navigation to the nearest space
DI.B Page 59 of 240
39 of 48
3. The Parking Best Practices Toolbox
3.1 – How to Use the Toolbox
The Parking Best Practices Toolbox is a collection of general best practices employed in the provision
of parking, parking demand management, and operations of a parking system. Experiences of other
jurisdictions examined and guiding principles from planning and parking literature drove what best
practices ended up in the toolbox.
The best practices contained herein, however, are not meant to be static; some may be removed and
other may be added to the framework of the toolbox as parking patterns and results from parking
research continue to evolve. In addition, what is a parking best practice generally is not necessarily a
parking best practice specifically applicable to the DUC.
As such, the Parking Best Practices Toolbox has been structured as such:
Name of the best practice
Description of the best practice
Whether or not the best practice is currently implemented
The action currently proposed for the best practice:
o Continuation
o Modification
o Implementation
o No action
Where to find additional information, if available
o CDPMP parking action plan recommendation
o CDPMP case study
o Downtown Urban Center Design Standards
o Auburn City Code (ACC)
In short, the toolbox embodies an at-a-glance evaluation of best practices applicable generally and
specifically, in this CDPMP’s current iteration.
3.2 – The Toolbox
DI.B Page 60 of 240
BMP Description Now Action More Information
Timed parking
Maximum time limits for on- and off-street parking to promote turnover, encourage use of
other transport modes, and maximize the number of patrons using a limited number of
parking spaces Yes Modify
Near-term rec
Long-term rec
Paid on-street parking,
conventional metering
Charging for on-street parking to promote turnover, encourage use of other transport modes,
and maximize the number of patrons using a limited number of parking spaces by using
conventional meters/pay stations No No action1 Case study
Paid on-street parking, "smart"
metering
Charging for on-street parking to promote turnover, encourage use of other transport modes,
and maximize the number of patrons using a limited number of parking spaces by using
"smart" meters/pay stations that continuously update prices to reflect demand at specific
location and specific time of day No No action1 Case study
On-street permit parking
Provides long-term parking for residents and prevents other cars from parking all day in
spaces convenient and valuable to residents No Implement Short-term rec
Off-street permit parking
Provides long-term parking and shifts long-term parkers from more convenient and valuable
on-street parking spaces to off-street parking spaces Yes Continue
Commute trip reduction
Reduces parking demand by reducing the number of single-occupancy drivers; City
mandates employers of a certain size implement a commute trip reduction (CTR) plan;
elements may include getting rid of "free" parking, carpooling programs and financial
incentives for carpooling, transit subsidies, flexible work schedules, bike facilities Yes Continue ACC10.02.070
Unbundled parking
Reduces parking demand by unbundling parking from any lease, residential or commercial;
does not force any tenant to own or commute by car No No action2
Roadway pricing
Reduces parking demand and congestion by charging cars entering downtown a fee and
discouraging driving to or through downtown No No action1
Frequent transit access,
citywide/regional
Reduces parking demand and congestion by making trips to and from downtown more
enticing and feasible Yes Modify
Long-term rec
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Establish a parking maximum
Restrict the maximum number of parking spaces provided per use or development; in other
words "if you don't build it, they won't come"Yes Continue ACC18.29.060(H)
Eliminate parking minimums
Remove parking minimums and have market dictate the number of parking spaces so that
parking is not oversupplied No No action3
Reductions for shared parking
Reduce parking requirements when a parking facility is shared so that parking is not
oversupplied; operates with the assumption of park once - one parking space multiple
destinations within shopping center or vicinity Yes Continue ACC18.29.060(H)(3)
Smart growth
Reducing parking demand by encouraging development that is mixed use, diverse in housing
opportunities, unique in character, compact, walkable, and offers transportation alternatives
in addition to the automobile Yes Continue ACC18.29.010
Locating parking over, under,
behind, or side of buildings
Parking is not located in the front of a building; primary point of access to a buidling is not for
cars Yes Continue DUC Design Standards
Screen parking lots next to
streets
Reduces visual impact of headlights and surface parking lot in a pedestrian environment with
landscaping and/or architectural detailing Yes Continue DUC Design Standards
Screen parking structures
Reduce visual impact of headlights, garage lights, and scale of parking structures in a
pedestrian environment with landscaping and/or architectural detailing Yes Continue DUC Design Standards
Pedestrian connections in surface
parking lots Provide a distinctly identified pedestrian path between parked car and destination Yes Continue DUC Design Standards
Demand Management for Existing Infrastructure
Development Regulations and Design for Future Infrastructure
DI.B Page 61 of 240
BMP Description Now Action More Information
Surface parking lot lighting
Require surface parking lot lighting as a development requirement downtown to maximize
safety at night Yes Continue DUC Design Standards
Non-parking street frontage in
parking structure
Ground-level use other than parking spaces along perimeter of parking structures with street
frontage Yes Continue DUC Design Standards
Environmentally sensitive design
of parking structures
Incorporate such elements as vegetated cnaopies on the roof, vegetated walls, rainwater-
collecting cisterns, and context-fitting architecture Yes Continue
Short-term rec
DUC Design Standards
One point of contact for all City
parking matters
Designate one department or division that is the single point of contact for all parking-related
matters in the City, despite whatever the organizational structure is behind-the-scenes No Implement Short-term rec
Plan for spillover areas on the
fringe of downtown
Consider areas expected to experience impacts from DUC parking, even if not technically
located within the DUC No Implement
Short-term rec
Long-term rec
Regularly reevaluate current
programs against previous
occupancy baseline
Adjust permit rates, time limits, residential permit zones, etc. to respond to current parking
conditions downtown No Implement Long-term rec
Plan for investment to address
public parking supply deficits
Evaluate funding options and implement a multi-faceted plan to finance anticipated deficits in
public parking supply No Implement
Short-term rec
Case study
Real-time space availability
displays, in parking structure
Reduces the time it takes to find an open space in a parking structure, which are not as self-
explanatory as surface lots, but is more fitting for downtown No No action4 Case study
Automated entry/exit and express
ramps, in parking structure
Vehicle identification technology allows frequent users to easily enter and exit a parking
structure No No action4 Case study
Pay-before-leaving pay stations,
in parking structure Pay stations eliminates the need for additional staffing and delays when exiting No No action4 Case study
Plan for special events
Require organizers to designate event parking, distribute information for event parking, make
multiple exits available, and establish pedestrian paths No Implement
Long-term rec
Case study
Parking "ambassadors"
Establish parking ambassador positions whose responsibilities include provision of
information and informal safety, in addition to parking enforcement in the DUC No Implement
Short-term rec
Case study
Soft enforcement
Develop and implement 3-strikes parking enforcement policy wherein the first 2 strikes
consist of warnings and education on where to park No Implement Near-term rec
Transparency in parking policies Clarity of rules on the books and rules on the streets No Implement
Near-term rec
Case study
Frequent transit access, around
downtown Reduces the last mile between parking space and destination No Implement Long-term rec
Downtown valet Reduce last mile with centrally located valet station No No action5
Parking shuttle Reduce last mile with parking shuttle between lots and destinations No No action5
Carshare Reduce last mile with short-term rental cars limited to downtown (a la Car2Go)No No action5
Bikeshare Reduce last mile with short-term rental bikes limited to downtown (a la Denver B-cycle)No No action5
Clarity of maintenance roles
Assign maintenance roles for all aspects of on- and off-street parking to specific City
department or division in code or to private parking operator No No action
Alerts for availability-impacting
maintenance/construction
Alert interested parties and drivers through the City’s website, emails, text alerts, and pre-
closure on-location signage so that they are not caught off-guard when regularly available
parking becomes unavailable No Implement Short-term rec
Organization and Planning
Operations
Maintenance
DI.B Page 62 of 240
BMP Description Now Action More Information
One-stop website for all City
parking matters
Update website to include easy-to-locate map and information for on- and off-street public
and permit parking available in the City (including perhaps a ‘Where to Park If This Area is
Full’ feature for areas and lots that experience peak parking occupancy in excess of 85%),
pictures of all signs and explanations of what they mean, and better marketing for the City’s
off-street permit parking program No Implement
Near-term rec
Case study
Positive publicity for parking
system Creatively generate positive buzz about parking correctly in the City No Implement
Short-term rec
Case study
Easy-to-read on-street parking
signs
Design and install easy-to-read signs that identify availability and rules of on-street public
parking No Implement
Near-term rec
Case study
Trailblazer signs Directs people to available public parking No Implement
Short-term rec
Case study
Easy-to-read off-street parking
signs
Design and install easy-to-read signs that identify availability of off-street public parking,
identifier/location of off-street parking lot, and alternative parking options No Implement
Short-term rec
Case Study
Real-time availability off-street
parking sign Identifies real-time availability and locations of off-street public parking No No action5 Case study
Parker smartphone app
Identifies real-time availability and locations of on- and off-street parking, provides search for
parking by destination, and voice-guided navigation to nearest space No No action6 Case study
1 Current demand does not warrant best practice; current parking supply is sufficient; citizens not interested in best practice
2 Current transit service levels and development patterns not feasible to expect interest in completely car-free lifestyle; already in the Commute Trip Reduction Plan
3 Current deisre to address parking impacts of anticipated development; parking minimums are already more generous in the DUC than in the rest of the City
4 Currently no parking structures are planned
5 Current demand does not warrant best practice; unknown when sufficient depend is anticipated
6 Currently too expensive; not intuitive to use when parking remains available, as in the DUC overall
Marketing and Communications
DI.B Page 63 of 240
40 of 48
4. The Parking Action Plan
4.1 – Near-Term Recommendations
Best Practice
4.1.1 Timed parking
Action: Modify
Description: Revise parking time limits for the City’s on- and off-street public parking spaces
to 3 hours throughout the DUC
Pros: - Allows visitors to patronize multiple businesses at a leisurely pace, no matter
where they park
- Reduces the confusion of brought upon by a myriad of time limits and signs,
of which some currently conflict with each other, even on the same street
Cons: - Lacks the nuance of area-specific time limits that would address the various
needs for different types of parking in the DUC
- Additional costs will be incurred to replace signs if redevelopment and
increased demand necessitate area-specific time limits again
- May be more difficult for parking enforcement officers to discern cars parked
all day (cars of commuters and downtown employees, for example)
Best Practice
4.1.2 Soft enforcement
Action: Implement
Description: Develop and implement 3-strikes parking enforcement policy wherein the first 2
strikes consist of warnings and education on where to park
Pros: - Generates good will
- Allows those genuinely unfamiliar with downtown parking an opportunity
to park ‚correctly‛
- Reinforces a ‚customer-first‛ ethic amongst downtown employees who
choose to park on-street all day by providing impetus to purchase an off-
street parking permit
Cons: - May work too well with off-street permit parking demand exceeding supply
DI.B Page 64 of 240
41 of 48
- In itself, may shift too many cars to unlimited time on-street parking on
residential streets
Best Practice
4.1.3 Transparency in parking policies
Action: Implement
Description: Remove all code referencing the City’s on- and off-street parking, create a new
parking database maintained by staff, and insert new code specifying available
parking that adopts the parking database by reference
Pros: - Eliminates code that currently conflicts with on-street parking as-signed/as-
marked or is outdated
- Parking database can be updated administratively
- Parking database can serve double-duty as public information on where to
park in the DUC
Cons: - Parking database would require time to develop
Best Practice
4.1.4 One-stop website for all City parking matters
Action: Implement
Description: Update website to include easy-to-locate map and information for on- and off-
street public and permit parking available in the City (including perhaps a
‘Where to Park If This Area is Full’ feature for areas and lots that experience peak
parking occupancy in excess of 85%), pictures of all signs and explanations of
what they mean, and better marketing for the City’s off-street permit parking
program
Pros: - Centralizes information for DUC parking
- Provides information for alternative parking options when the desired
parking lot or street is full
- Provides information to help discern whether a parking space is public or
permit, addressing the difficulty of doing so raised in the Downtown Parking
Survey
- Relatively easy and inexpensive to implement
DI.B Page 65 of 240
42 of 48
Cons: - In itself, may not be the most intuitive tool for finding parking spaces,
especially for those that do not plan ahead or use smartphones
Best Practice
4.1.5 Easy-to-read on-street parking signs
Action: Implement
Description: Design and install easy-to-read signs that identify availability and rules of on-
street public parking
Pros: - Relatively easy and inexpensive to implement
Cons: - Additional costs will be incurred to replace signs if redevelopment and
increased demand necessitate area-specific time limits again
4.2 – Short-Term Recommendations (1-5 Years)
Best Practice
4.2.1 On-street permit parking
Action: Implement
Description: Re-implement and expand residential parking zone beyond D ST NW per
demand for and provide 2 free parking permits per garageless residence and 1
free parking permit per residence with garage; charge nominal fee for additional
permit and raise fees as demand necessitates
Pros: - Provides long-term parking for residents and prevents other cars from
parking all day in spaces convenient and valuable to residents, thereby
encouraging downtown employees and commuters to obtain off-street
parking permits
- Free permits to a certain extent is more or less in line with the overwhelming
Downtown Parking Survey response of not having to pay for parking
- Reinforces a ‚customer-first‛ ethic amongst downtown employees who
choose to park on-street all day by providing impetus to purchase an off-
street parking permit
Cons: - Past opposition has stalled implementation of residential parking zones in
areas just beyond the DUC
Best Practice
DI.B Page 66 of 240
43 of 48
4.2.2 One point of contact for all City parking matters
Action: Implement
Description: Designate one department or division that is the single point of contact for all
parking-related matters in the City, despite whatever the organizational
structure is behind-the-scenes
Pros: - Reduces confusion of who is in charge of parking in the City and increases
transparency, as perceived by the public; is a more user-friendly approach to
interactions with the public
Cons: - N/A
Best Practice
4.2.3 Plan for spillover areas on the fringe of downtown
Action: Implement
Description: Consider areas expected to experience impacts from DUC parking, even if not
technically located within the DUC
Pros: - Addresses potential parking spillover impacts from the DUC so that parking
problems are not simply shifted away from the DUC into surrounding areas
Cons: - Past opposition has stalled implementation of measures to mitigate spillover
effects of DUC parking, such as residential parking zones in areas just
beyond the DUC
Best Practice
4.2.4 Plan for investment to address public parking supply deficits
Action: Implement
Description: Evaluate funding options and implement a multi-faceted plan to finance
anticipated deficits in public parking supply
Pros: - Addresses potential public parking supply deficit identified by the CDPMP
- Reduces risk with diversity of funding options utilized
Cons: - Does not consider measures to reduce parking demand and congestion in
problem areas of downtown without expanding the physical infrastructure
of public parking
DI.B Page 67 of 240
44 of 48
Best Practice
4.2.5 Plan for special events
Action: Implement
Description: Require organizers to designate event parking, distribute information for event
parking, make multiple exits available, and establish pedestrian paths
Pros: - Addresses difficulties experienced during event parking, as expressed in
responses from the Downtown Parking Survey
- Addresses potential parking spillover impacts from the DUC so that parking
problems from special events are not simply shifted away from the DUC into
surrounding areas
- Generates goodwill with efficient organization of special events
Cons: - N/A
Best Practice
4.2.6 Parking ambassadors
Action: Implement
Description: Establish parking ambassador positions whose responsibilities include provision
of information and informal safety, in addition to parking enforcement in the
DUC
Pros: - Generates goodwill
- Reinforces a ‚customer-first‛ ethic by pointing people in the right direction
in terms of destinations and parking in the DUC, including alternative
parking options when the desired parking lot or street is full
- Decentralizes the delivery of information centralized at the City’s Permit
Center and website
- Provides additional transparency to parking policies
- Diversifies the role of existing parking enforcement officers
Cons: - Requires coordination between multiple departments (Planning and
Development, Public Works, Police, and the Court Clerk) and relies on one
representative to convey each department’s respective parking policies
DI.B Page 68 of 240
45 of 48
- Additional costs will be incurred if additional consultation and staffing from
private parking operators are required for implementation
Best Practice
4.2.7 Alerts for availability-impacting maintenance and construction activity
Action: Implement
Description: Alert interested parties and drivers through the City’s website, emails, text alerts,
and pre-closure on-location signage so that they are not caught off-guard when
regularly available parking becomes unavailable
Pros: - Provides additional transparency to parking availability
- Allows people to plan for alternative parking and/or transportation options
- Decentralizes the delivery of information centralized at the City’s Permit
Center and website (through text alerts and on-location signage)
- Utilizes existing City communication channels (website and construction
notices)
Cons: - Additional costs will be incurred if additional technological resources are
required (text alerts)
- May become annoying information overload if implemented incorrectly
Best Practice
4.2.8 Trailblazer signs
Action: Implement
Description: Direct drivers to available off-street parking
Pros: - Decentralizes the delivery of information centralized at the City’s Permit
Center and website
- Relatively easy and inexpensive to implement
Cons: - May work too well, shifting parking supply problems exclusively to off-
street parking lots
- Additional costs will be incurred to replace signs if comprehensive
downtown signage program is implemented in the future
DI.B Page 69 of 240
46 of 48
Best Practice
4.1.9 Easy-to-read off-street parking signs
Action: Modify
Description: Design and install easy-to-read signs that identify availability of off-street public
parking, identifier/location of off-street parking lot, and alternative parking
options
Pros: - Relatively easy and inexpensive to implement
- Reduces perceived last mile when off-street parking lot is easy to identify
and remember
- Reduces parking demand and congestion in problem areas of downtown
without expanding physical infrastructure of parking by shifting demand to
underutilized off-street parking lots
Cons: - May work too well, shifting parking supply problems to formerly
underutilized off-street parking lots
4.3 – Long-Term Recommendations (6-10 Years)
Best Practice
4.3.1 Timed parking
Action: Modify
Description: Revise parking time limits for the City’s on- and off-street public parking spaces
to area-specific time limits as-needed
Pros: - Provides nuanced time limits that address various needs for different types
of parking in the DUC, especially areas with high peak occupancy
- Increases the ultimate number of visitors to the DUC by increasing turnover
Cons: - May increase confusion brought upon by a myriad of time limits and signs
- Additional costs will be incurred to replace existing 3-hour time-limit signs
Best Practice
4.3.2 Frequent transit access, citywide/regional
Action: Modify
DI.B Page 70 of 240
47 of 48
Description: Reduces parking demand and congestion by making trips to and from
downtown more enticing and feasible
Pros: - Reduces parking demand and congestion without expanding physical
infrastructure of parking
- Expands the customer base for the DUC
- Responds to anticipated growth in demand required to support increase
from current levels of transit access
Cons: - May be difficult for buy-in from cash-strapped transit agencies
Best Practice
4.3.3 Plan for spillover areas on the fringe of downtown
Action: Implement
Description: Continue to consider areas expected to experience impacts from DUC parking,
even if not technically located within the DUC
Pros: - Addresses potential parking spillover impacts from the DUC so that parking
problems are not simply shifted away from the DUC into surrounding areas
- May be easier to implement in the long-term as potential parking spillover
impacts from the DUC become more identifiable
Cons: - Past opposition has stalled implementation of measures to mitigate spillover
effects of DUC parking, such as residential parking zones in areas just
beyond the DUC
Best Practice
4.3.4 Regularly reevaluate current programs against previous occupancy baseline
Action: Implement
Description: Adjust permit rates, time limits, residential permit zones, etc. to respond to
current parking conditions in the DUC
Pros: - Responds to current parking conditions in the DUC, implements current
parking best practices for the City, and modifies or eliminates failing parking
policies
DI.B Page 71 of 240
48 of 48
Cons: - Additional costs will be incurred if additional consultation and staffing from
private parking consultants are required for implementation rather than City
staff alone
Best Practice
4.3.6 Frequent transit access, around downtown
Action: Implement
Description: Reduces the last mile between parking space and destination
Pros: - Reduces parking demand and congestion in problem areas of downtown
without expanding physical infrastructure of parking
- Responds to anticipated growth in demand required to support increase
from current levels of transit access
Cons: - May be difficult for buy-in from cash-strapped transit agencies
- Additional costs will be incurred if additional consultation and staffing from
private paratransit operators for implementation is required
DI.B Page 72 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
ZOA13-0003 - Student/Rental Housing Code Amendments
Date:
August 21, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6477
Planning Commission public hearing
materials
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Over the last several months, the City has been working on an approach to address
student/rental housing within the City with attention on the single family residential
communities that are located nearby Green River Community College (GRCC). Some
of the concerns raised include parking impacts, unpermitted conversion of garages to
living space, lack of proper solid waste management, noise impacts, and an overall
conversion of single family residences to rentals.
A joint meeting was held between the Planning and Community Development
Committee (PCDC) and the Planning Commission on August 12, 2013 where the
program approach to rental housing and broad policy direction on proposed
amendments were discussed. Staff took the feedback provided and prepared draft code
amendments that were presented at the August 20, 2013 public hearing before the
Planning Commission. Public testimony was provided and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed amendments with a few minor changes.
At the August 26, 2013 PCDC meeting, staff will present the proposed code
amendments and Planning Commission’s recommendation. If the Committee is
comfortable with the proposed amendments, staff requests that this item be moved to
action.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Legal, Planning Commission
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Chamberlain
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 73 of 240
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 74 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 1 of 13
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 7 7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 5,
BUSINESS AND LICENSES REGULATIONS, AND TITLE
18, ZONING, RELATED TO RENTAL HOUSING
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has seen an increase in rental housing
particularly in residential neighborhoods adjacent to Green River Community College
and through citizen comment determined the City’s rental housing program needed to
be amended; and
WHEREAS, there is currently an inconsistency between the definitions within
Chapter 18.04 of the Auburn City Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to clarify the definitions and address the inconsistency
between the terms as they are currently written in the City Code, it is appropriate to
amend, delete, and create new definitions and establish criteria for rental housing within
single family residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, in order to address issues raised related to rental housing primarily
in single family residential neighborhoods, it is appropriate to amend the City’s rental
housing business license program; and
WHEREAS, following proper public notice, the Planning Commission considered
the proposed code amendments at a public hearing on August 20, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee reviewed the
Planning Commission’s recommendation at their August 26, 2013 meeting; and
DI.C Page 75 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 2 of 13
WHEREAS, the environmental review on the proposal has been completed in
accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with a
final Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued August 5, 2013; 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 August XX, 2013; 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. Repeal City Code. That section 18.04.180, definition of
boardinghouse, of the Auburn City Code is repealed.
Section 2. New Section City Code. That a new section 18.04.249 be and the
same hereby is created to read as follows:
18.04.249 Communal residence.
A dwelling, without an owner occupant, that is rented to a group of unrelated
individuals.
Section 3. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.04.330 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
DI.C Page 76 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 3 of 13
18.04.330 Dwelling.
Dwelling” means a building designed exclusively for residential purposes for
occupancy by a person, or family, or unrelated group with one or more rooms for living
and sleeping purposes, containing kitchen facilities and rooms with internal accessibility,
including single-family, two-family, and multiple-family dwellings, and townhouse
dwellings but not including hotels or motel units without kitchens. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Section 4. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.04.340 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.04.340 Dwellings, types of.
Types of dwellings” means:
A. Dwelling, Single-Family. “Single-family dwelling” means a detached building
designed exclusively for occupancy by one family or communal residence and
containing one dwelling unit that is permanently attached to the ground. A manufactured
home may be considered a single-family dwelling if sited per ACC 18.31.050.
B. Dwelling, Two-Family (Duplex). “Two-family dwelling” or “duplex” means a building
designed exclusively for occupancy by two families or communal residence living
independently of each other, and containing two dwelling units.
C. Dwelling, Multiple-Family. “Multiple-family dwelling” means a building designed for
occupancy by three or more families or communal residence living independently of
each other, and containing three or more dwelling units.
D. Dwelling, Townhouse. “Townhouse dwelling” means a building designed exclusively
for occupancy by one family or communal residence, occupying space from the ground
to the roof and not lying vertically under or over adjacent units, and attached to one or
more other dwelling units by common walls. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 6162 § 1, 2008;
Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Section 5. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.04.350 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.04.350 Dwelling unit.
“Dwelling unit” means one or more rooms designed for or occupied by one family
or communal residence for living or sleeping purposes and containing kitchen facilities
for use solely by one family. All rooms comprising a dwelling unit shall have access
through an interior door to other parts of the dwelling unit. An efficiency apartment, also
known as a studio apartment, constitutes a dwelling unit within the meaning of this title.
(Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
DI.C Page 77 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 4 of 13
Section 6. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.04.360 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.04.360 Family.
“Family” means a person living alone, two or more persons related by blood or
marriage, or any other analogous family union recognized under Federal and/or State
statute, a group of eight or fewer residents who are not related by blood or marriage
customarily living together as a single housekeeping unit and using common cooking
facilities, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, boardinghouse or
lodginghouse or communal residence. For the purposes of this definition, minors living
with a parent shall not be counted as part of the maximum number of residents. The
purpose of defining family is to assist in the regulation of occupancy standards within
dwelling units and to define different types of structures; it is not intended to interfere
with the civil rights of individuals who establish relationships under the terms of state
and federal laws. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
Section 7. New Section City Code. That a new section 18.04.677 be and the
same hereby is created to read as follows:
18.04.677 Owner occupied unit.
A dwelling unit in which the owner resides on a regular, permanent basis.
Section 8. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.04.794 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.04.794 Renting of rooms.
“Renting of rooms” means the provision of rooms for lodging purposes to not
more than two persons in addition to the owner occupied and/or family who lives in the
residence. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009.)
Section 9. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.07.020 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
18.07.020 Uses.
Table 18.07.020
Permitted Use Table – Residential Zoning Designations
DI.C Page 78 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 5 of 13
P = Permitted A = Administrative C = Conditional Use X = Not Permitted
Land Uses Zoning Designations
R-
C
R-
1
R-
5
R-
7
R-
10
R-
16
R-
20
A. Residential Uses.
Accessory dwelling units P P P P X1 X1 X1
Accessory use, residential P P P P P P P
Adult family home P P P P P P P
Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P
Boardinghouses (with three or more boarders) X X X X C C C
Communal residence 4 or less unrelated individuals P P P P P P P
Communal residence more than 4 unrelated individuals C C C C C C C
Duplexes; provided, that minimum lot size of zoning designation is met and
subject to compliance with Chapter 18.25 ACC (Infill Residential
Development Standards)
X X A P P P X
Foster care homes P P P P P P P
Group residence facilities (7 or more residents) X X X X C C C
Group residence facilities (6 or fewer residents) P P P P P P P
Keeping household pets4 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Multiple-family dwellings X X X X A P P
Neighborhood recreational buildings and facilities owned and managed by
the neighborhood homeowners’ association A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 P P
Renting of rooms, for lodging purposes only, to accommodate not more than
two persons in addition to the immediate family or owner occupied unit P P P P P P P
Residential care facilities including but not limited to assisted living facilities,
convalescent homes, continuing care retirement facilities P P X X A P P
Single-family detached dwellings, new P P P P P P X
Supportive housing, subject to the provisions of ACC 18.31.160 X X X X X P P
Swimming pools, tennis courts and similar outdoor recreation uses only
accessory to residential or park uses P P P P P P P
Townhouses (attached) X X X X P P P
DI.C Page 79 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 6 of 13
B. Commercial Uses.
Commercial horse riding and bridle trails A X X X X X X
Commercial retail, included as part of mixed-use development and not a
home occupation in compliance with Chapter 18.60 ACC X X X X A A A
Daycare, limited to a mini daycare center. Daycare center, preschool or
nursery school may also be permitted but must be located on an arterial X A A A A A A
Home-based daycare as regulated by RCW 35.63.185 and through receipt
of approved city business license P P P P P P P
Home occupations subject to compliance with Chapter 18.60 ACC P P P P P P P
Mixed-use development3 X X X X P P P
Nursing homes X X X X C C C
Private country clubs and golf courses, excluding driving ranges X X C C C X X
Privately owned and operated parks and playgrounds and not homeowners’
association-owned recreational area X A A A A P P
Professional offices, included as part of mixed-use development and not a
home occupation in compliance with Chapter 18.60 ACC X X X X A A A
C. Resource Uses.
Agricultural enterprise:7
When 50 percent, or more, of the total site area is dedicated to active
agricultural production during the growing season, and with 52 or less
special events per calendar year
A7 X X X X X X
When less than 50 percent of the total site area is dedicated to active
agricultural production during the growing season, or with more than 52
special events per calendar year
C7 X X X X X X
Agricultural type uses are permitted provided they are incidental and
secondary to the single-family use:
Agricultural crops and open field growing (commercial) P X X X X X X
Barns, silos and related structures P X X X X X X
Commercial greenhouses P X X X X X X
Pasturing and grazing4 P X X X X X X
Public and private stables4 P X X X X X X
Roadside stands, for the sale of agricultural products raised on the
premises. The stand cannot exceed 300 square feet in area and must meet P X X X X X X
DI.C Page 80 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 7 of 13
the applicable setback requirements
Fish hatcheries C X X X X X X
D. Government, Institutional, and Utility Uses.
Civic, social and fraternal clubs X X X X A A A
Government facilities A A A A A A A
Hospitals (except animal hospitals) X X X X X C C
Municipal parks and playgrounds A P P P P P P
Museums X X X X A A A
Religious institutions, less than one acre lot size A A A A A A A
Religious institutions, one acre or larger lot size C C C C C C C
Transmitting towers C C C C C C C
Type 1-D Wireless Communication Facility (see ACC 18.04.912(J)) P P P P P P P
Utility facilities and substations C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5
1. An accessory dwelling unit may be permitted with an existing single-family residence pursuant to ACC 18.31.120.
2. Please see the supplemental development standards for animals in ACC 18.31.210.
3. Individual uses that make up a mixed-use development must be permitted within the zone. If a use making up part
of a mixed-use development requires an administrative or conditional use permit, the individual use must apply for
and receive the administrative or conditional use approval, as applicable.
4. Proximity of pasture or livestock roaming area to wells, surface waters, and aquifer recharge zones is regulated by
the King or Pierce County board of health, and property owners shall comply with the provisions of the King County
board of health code.
5. Excludes all public and private utility facilities addressed under ACC 18.02.040(E).
6. Administrative use permit not required when approved as part of a subdivision or binding site plan.
7. Agricultural enterprise uses are subject to supplemental development standards under ACC 18.31.210, Agricultural
enterprises development standards.
(Ord. 6369 § 2, 2011; Ord. 6363 § 3, 2011; Ord. 6269 § 3, 2009; Ord. 6245 § 5, 2009.)
Section 10. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 18.31 of the Auburn City
Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
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.
DI.C Page 81 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 8 of 13
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 Communal residence.
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 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations.
18.31.210 Agricultural enterprises development standards.
18.31.220 Permitted animals.
18.31.230 Table of allowed districts.
18.31.130 ReservedCommunal residence.
Reserved. (Ord. 6245 § 15, 2009.)
A. Parking Requirements
1. There must be one off-street parking stall per renter. A landlord may reduce the off-
street parking requirement if an affidavit is signed that a tenant does not own a vehicle.
B. Solid Waste Management Requirements
1. ACC Section 8.08.070 requires all occupied units to have minimum garbage service.
The landlord is required to provide tenants with adequate garbage and recycle receptacles
meeting the minimum garage service level.
2. The landlord is responsible to provide each tenant with the solid waste collection
schedule and that schedule is to be posted within the unit.
C. An annual building inspection is required for a communal residence as part of the required
rental housing business license.
D. International Property Maintenance Code occupancy requirements are applicable to a
communal residence regardless of the number of individuals living in the residence.
E. Amortization Schedule
1. Existing communal residences have 6 months to become compliant with the
regulations outlined in this Title and Title 5 as it pertains to communal residences.
F. The following criteria are required to be met for any communal residence over 4 unrelated
individuals in addition to the required criteria for a conditional use permit under ACC 18.64.040.
As stated in ACC 18.07.020, a conditional use permit is required.
DI.C Page 82 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 9 of 13
1. Adequate living space based on the International Property Maintenance Code
standards will be taken into account when a request for more than 4 unrelated individuals is
requested.
2. A designated property manager that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is
required.
3. The request for more than 4 unrelated individuals will not adversely impact the
surrounding community.
4. The applicant must show how noise will be mitigated.
Section 11. Amendment to City Code. That Section 5.22.020 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
5.22.020 Business license – Fee.
Each rental housing business operating in the city, as defined herein, shall obtain
and maintain in good standing a “rental housing business license” issued by the city in
accordance with the procedures of this chapter and this title.
A. The fee for a rental housing business license shall be as set forth in the city of
Auburn fee schedule.
B. The business license fee shall be for the fiscal calendar year (July 1st through June
30thJanuary 1st through December 31st), and each applicant for the business license
must pay the full business license fee for the current calendar fiscal year or portion
thereof during which the applicant has engaged in business, regardless of when during
the calendar fiscal year the license is obtained.
C. The rental housing business license fee required by this chapter is in lieu of, and not
in addition to, the general business license fee required by Chapters 5.05 and 5.10
ACC; provided, however, that any person required to obtain a rental housing business
license must also obtain a general business license, at no cost, pursuant to Chapters
5.05 and 5.10 ACC. (Ord. 5882 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5651 § 1, 2002.)
Section 12. Amendment to City Code. That Section 5.22.040 of the Auburn
City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
5.22.040 Rental housing business license criteria.
A. Managers and operators of rental housing businesses shall comply with the
criteria established in this section and chapter in order to maintain their rental housing
business license in good standing as required by ACC 5.22.020. The city shall identify
and communicate with the managers and operators of rental housing businesses, as it
deems appropriate, regarding the criteria established in this chapter. The city shall
establish forums for information sharing and enforcement review, as it deems
appropriate, in order to encourage voluntary compliance with these criteria prior to
mandatory enforcement. Rental housing business owners or their non-owner managers
DI.C Page 83 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 10 of 13
shall comply as necessary with the following specific criteria as well as all other
requirements of this chapter in order to maintain their business license in good standing:
1. Attendance and participation in crime-free housing training programs when such
are offered by the Auburn police department or other city department and the
license holder is given written notice to attend. Attendance and participation may
be required by the city whenever a residential unit is the location for any criminal or
nuisance activity which results in an arrest for criminal activity or the issuance of
an infraction citation in the case of a nuisance, whether or not the arrestee or cited
person is a tenant;
2. Mutually derived crime prevention strategies as established and agreed to by
and between the city and the rental housing owner and/or manager;
3. City directed crime prevention strategies. If the implementation of criteria in
subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section is unsuccessful in eliminating recurring
criminal or nuisance activity the city will notify the rental housing business owner or
manager in writing of the requirement to comply with a particular city directed
crime prevention strategy. The city may implement a city directed crime prevention
strategy whenever a residential unit is the location for any criminal or nuisance
activity which results in an arrest or issuance of a citation whether or not the
person arrested or cited is a tenant. Strategies will be reasonably tailored to the
particular location and situation and will be consistent with strategies implemented
by other municipalities in similar situations;
4. Upon written request, the rental housing owner or manager shall allow
inspection of rental housing residential units consistent with their ability to do so
under the requirements of the landlord-tenant statutes of the state of Washington
and the Auburn City Code. The city may, with the legally obtained consent of an
occupant or owner, or pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, enter any building,
structure or premises in the city to inspect or perform any duty imposed by this
code;
5. In the event that recurring criminal or nuisance activity continues at any
particular location which is subject to the licensing requirements of this chapter and
the imposition of criteria in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section has failed
to eliminate the recurring criminal or nuisance activity at the location, the rental
housing owner may hire security officers selected by the manager-operator.
Voluntary implementation of manager-operator selected security shall stay
revocation of the business license so long as the security is effective in eliminating
the recurring criminal and/or nuisance activity at said licensed location;
6. In the event that criminal or nuisance activity continues to occur at any particular
location which is subject to the licensing requirements of this chapter and the
imposition of criteria in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section and
implementation of criteria in subsection (A)(5) of this section has failed to eliminate
recurring criminal or nuisance activity at the particular location the rental housing
owner may request or agree to city directed off-duty police security. Voluntary
implementation of city directed off-duty police security shall stay revocation of the
DI.C Page 84 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 11 of 13
business license so long as the security is effective in eliminating ongoing criminal
and/or nuisance activity at the particular licensed location;
7. In the event that the rental housing business owner does not comply with criteria
in subsections (A)(1) through (6) of this section, the city may revoke the rental
housing business owner’s license. Business license revocation shall be the
ultimate resort for enforcement purposes. Business license revocation shall occur
as otherwise set out in this chapter.
B. The criteria listed above shall be implemented in a priority beginning with criteria in
subsection (A)(1) of this section and ending with criteria in subsection (A)(7) of this
section. It is envisioned that most problems can be resolved by participation in crime-
free housing training and implementation of its recommended practices. Failure to
participate in strategies in subsections (A)(1) through (6) of this section may subject the
licensed/registered party to revocation. Any expense incurred in connection with
subsections (A)(2) through (5) of this section will be borne by the licensed/registered
party.
It is further provided that the “inspection of the residential units of rental housing units,”
subsection (A)(4) of this section, includes inspection of residential units in the complex
for any applicable health, building, fire, housing or life-safety code violations, or other
serious violations. (Ord. 5882 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5651 § 1, 2002.)
C. The following requirements are established for communal residences as defined in
Title 18.
1. The owner/landlord must provide the following information and any additional
information on the rental business license application form at the time of submittal:
a. Total number of bedrooms in the rental unit
b. Total number of occupants
2. The owner/landlord must provide updated information for each of the items
outlined in ACC 5.22.040(C)(1) each year with their rental business license renewal.
3. The owner/landlord must sign a statement that confirms their understanding
and acceptance of the conditions and obligations incurred as a landlord. At a minimum,
the statement will:
a. Outline the landlord’s responsibilities for providing a safe living
environment for their tenants.
b. That structural additions and modifications are to be properly permitted
and inspected.
c. That garbage and recycling will be properly managed.
d. That adequate off-street parking will be provided for all tenants meeting
the requirements of ACC 18.31.130.
e. That noise and other public nuisances, see Title 8 ACC, will be
monitored and controlled.
f. That annual inspections are required in order to obtain a rental housing
business license.
g. That anyone under the age of 18 is subject to the curfew regulations in
ACC 9.10.
DI.C Page 85 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 12 of 13
4. If the owner/landlord is in violation of the requirements for a communal residence,
then the code enforcement actions outlined in Chapter 1.25 will be taken.
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.
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:
DI.C Page 86 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6477
August 21, 2013
Page 13 of 13
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Published: _________________
DI.C Page 87 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0003
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 7, 2013
Page 1
Zoning Code Text Amendment
ZOA13-0003
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
I. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION:
Over the last several months a number of residents who live in the single family residential
communities that are located nearby Green River Community College (GRCC) have
expressed concern that they are observing a spike in rental homes in their neighborhood
that are occupied by students of GRCC. Their concerns include:
• Parking impacts,
• Unpermitted conversion of garages to living space,
• Overcrowding of single family homes with too many occupants,
• Lack of proper solid waste management,
• Noise impacts, and
• An overall conversion of single family residences to rentals.
This staff report outlines the proposed amendments and program approach to rental
housing, more specifically addressed to rentals within single family neighborhoods.
II. SEPA STATUS:
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6), non-project actions such as code amendments are not
exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non-Significance
August 5, 2013. The comment period ends August 19, 2013 and the appeal period ends
on September 3, 2013.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. In general, the intent of the proposed zoning code amendments is to address an
inconsistency in the code and comments received from citizens related to student/rental
housing. The City originally broke the project into two phases but through the review
process ultimately determined that a holistic program approach was needed.
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;
DI.C Page 88 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0003
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 7, 2013
Page 2
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.
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 as identified in the conclusion section of this staff report.
4. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6), non-project actions such as code amendments are
not exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non-
Significance August 5, 2013. The comment period ends August 19, 2013 and the
appeal period ends on September 3, 2013. As of the writing of this report, no
comments have been received.
5. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed code amendments outlined in this staff
report 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 August 5, 2013 and expedited
review was requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b). The Department of Commerce
DI.C Page 89 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0003
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 7, 2013
Page 3
acknowledged receipt on August 7, 2013. Expedited review has not been granted as of
the writing of this staff report. If the expedited review request is denied then the
standard 60-days applies from the submittal date of August 5, 2013.
6. Staff presented the proposed code amendment concepts and program approach to the
Planning Commission and Planning and Community Development Committee at a joint
meeting held on August 12, 2013 for review and discussion.
7. The public hearing notice was published on August 8, 2013 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for August 20,
2013. The public hearing notice was also posted at the City’s Annex Building at One
East Main Street and on the City’s website.
8. The following conclusions support the proposed amendment to Title 18, Zoning, and
Title 5, Business and Licenses Regulations scheduled for the Planning Commission’s
August 20, 2013 public hearing with a staff recommendation.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
1. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.68.020, amendments of Title 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.
Staff Analysis:
The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on August 8, 2013 which is
at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for August
20, 2013. The public hearing notice was also posted at the City’s Annex Building at One
East Main Street and on the City’s website.
2. These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan as
follows:
GP-2: The City should develop its plans and programs after thorough analysis of
community problems, potentials, and needs.
Chapter 4 – Housing: Auburn’s housing strategy is for home buyers and renters of all
income groups have sufficient opportunities to procure affordable housing.
HO – 28: The City recognizes that the development of safe neighborhoods requires
the cooperation of property owners and/or their property managers. The City shall
organize, educate, and assist property managers in the creation and preservation of
safe neighborhoods.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed code amendments address rental housing within the City of Auburn, more
specifically student rental housing, and deal with existing conflicts within the Auburn City
Code. Staff proposes to amend the following:
DI.C Page 90 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0003
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 7, 2013
Page 4
Title 18 – Zoning
• Amend the definition of family
• Amend the definition of dwelling
• Add a new definition communal residence
• Add a new definition owner occupied
• Delete the boardinghouse definition
• Add a new section to Supplemental Development Standards for Communal
Residence
Title 5 – Business and Licenses Regulations
• Amend Rental Housing Business License section by adding licensing
requirements for Communal Residence
• Housekeeping item changing the fiscal year to calendar year
The proposed code amendments balance the allowance of rental housing within residential
neighborhoods and address issues associated with rental housing that have arisen such a
parking, solid waste service, yard maintenance, and noise. Particularly with the proposed
amendments to Title 5, a heavier burden is placed on the owner/landlord of the rental unit to
make sure tenants are following regulations and being good neighbors within the
community. If the conditions of the rental housing business license are not adhered to, the
City may revoke the license and move into code enforcement action. Code enforcement
procedures are outlined in Chapter 1.25 of the Auburn City Code. Staff will bring additional
information regarding code enforcement procedures to the August 20, 2013 public hearing.
The proposed amendments also address potential safety concerns, such as illegal garage
conversions and number of bedrooms, by requiring an annual inspection of the rental unit
verifying the information submitted with rental housing business license application is
correct. A primary goal of the proposed code amendments is to address the situation where
individual leases for each bedroom in a unit exist versus the traditional rental housing
situation where there is one lease for the occupants by requiring more oversight by the
landlord and requiring an annual inspection of the rental property/unit.
Also as part of the overall program, the City will be adding a page to its website on rental
housing with information for landlords, tenants, FAQs, a list of compliant properties, and the
application forms. We will also be working with Green River Community College and
request that they also include similar information on their website.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/DECISION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the proposed code amendment as presented.
VI. EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Proposed code changes Auburn City Code
Exhibit 2 Request to Department of Commerce for Expedited State Review
DI.C Page 91 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0003
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 7, 2013
Page 5
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 Received
Exhibit 8 Table of Other Jurisdictions Regulations
Staff Report Prepared by: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Services Manager
DI.C Page 92 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 1
Title 18 – Zoning
Chapter 18.04
Definitions
18.04.180 Boardinghouse.
“Boardinghouse” means any dwelling in which three or more persons, either individually or as
families, are housed or lodged for hire with or without meals. A roominghouse or a furnished-
room house is a boardinghouse. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.04.XXX Communal residence.
A dwelling, without an owner occupant, that is rented to a group of unrelated individuals.
18.04.330 Dwelling.
“Dwelling” means a building designed exclusively for residential purposes for occupancy by a
person, or family, or unrelated group with one or more rooms for living and sleeping purposes,
containing kitchen facilities and rooms with internal accessibility, including single-family, two-
family, and multiple-family dwellings, and townhouse dwellings but not including hotels or motel
units without kitchens. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.04.340 Dwellings, types of.
“Types of dwellings” means:
A. Dwelling, Single-Family. “Single-family dwelling” means a detached building designed
exclusively for occupancy by one family or communal residence and containing one dwelling
unit that is permanently attached to the ground. A manufactured home may be considered a
single-family dwelling if sited per ACC 18.31.050.
B. Dwelling, Two-Family (Duplex). “Two-family dwelling” or “duplex” means a building designed
exclusively for occupancy by two families or communal residence living independently of each
other, and containing two dwelling units.
C. Dwelling, Multiple-Family. “Multiple-family dwelling” means a building designed for occupancy
by three or more families or communal residence living independently of each other, and
containing three or more dwelling units.
D. Dwelling, Townhouse. “Townhouse dwelling” means a building designed exclusively for
occupancy by one family or communal residence, occupying space from the ground to the roof
and not lying vertically under or over adjacent units, and attached to one or more other dwelling
units by common walls. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 6162 § 1, 2008; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.04.350 Dwelling unit.
“Dwelling unit” means one or more rooms designed for or occupied by one family or communal
residence for living or sleeping purposes and containing kitchen facilities for use solely by one
family. All rooms comprising a dwelling unit shall have access through an interior door to other
parts of the dwelling unit. An efficiency apartment, also known as a studio apartment,
constitutes a dwelling unit within the meaning of this title. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 4229 § 2,
1987.)
18.04.360 Family.
DI.C Page 93 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 2
“Family” means a person living alone, two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or any
other analogous family union recognized under Federal and/or State statute, or a group of eight
or fewer residents who are not related by blood or marriage customarily living together as a
single housekeeping unit and using common cooking facilities, as distinguished from a group
occupying a hotel, club, boardinghouse or lodginghouse or communal residence. For the
purposes of this definition, minors living with a parent shall not be counted as part of the
maximum number of residents. The purpose of defining family is to assist in the regulation of
occupancy standards within dwelling units and to define different types of structures; it is not
intended to interfere with the civil rights of individuals who establish relationships under the
terms of state and federal laws. (Ord. 6245 § 3, 2009; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.04.XXX Owner occupied unit.
A dwelling unit in which the owner resides on a regular, permanent basis.
18.04.794 Renting of rooms.
“Renting of rooms” means the provision of rooms for lodging purposes to not more than two
persons in addition to the owner occupant and/or family who lives in the residence. (Ord. 6245 §
3, 2009.)
Chapter 18.07
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Sections:
18.07.010 Intent.
18.07.020 Uses.
18.07.030 Development standards.
18.07.020 Uses.
Table 18.07.020
Permitted Use Table – Residential Zoning Designations
P = Permitted A = Administrative C = Conditional Use X = Not Permitted
Land Uses Zoning Designations
RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-
10
R-
16 R-20
A. Residential Uses.
DI.C Page 94 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 3
Accessory dwelling units P P P P X1 X1 X1
Accessory use, residential P P P P P P P
Adult family home P P P P P P P
Bed and breakfast P P P P P P P
Boardinghouses (with three or more boarders) X X X X C C C
Communal Residence 4 or less unrelated individuals P P P P P P P
Communal Residence more than 4 unrelated individuals C C C C C C C
Duplexes; provided, that minimum lot size of zoning designation is
met and subject to compliance with Chapter 18.25 ACC (Infill
Residential Development Standards)
X X A P P P X
Foster care homes P P P P P P P
Group residence facilities (7 or more residents) X X X X C C C
Group residence facilities (6 or fewer residents) P P P P P P P
Keeping household pets4 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Multiple-family dwellings X X X X A P P
Neighborhood recreational buildings and facilities owned and
managed by the neighborhood homeowners’ association
A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 P P
Renting of rooms, for lodging purposes only, to accommodate not
more than two persons in addition to the immediate family or owner
occupied unit
P P P P P P P
Residential care facilities including but not limited to assisted living
facilities, convalescent homes, continuing care retirement facilities
P P X X A P P
DI.C Page 95 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 4
Single-family detached dwellings, new P P P P P P X
Supportive housing, subject to the provisions of ACC 18.31.160 X X X X X P P
Swimming pools, tennis courts and similar outdoor recreation uses
only accessory to residential or park uses
P P P P P P P
Townhouses (attached) X X X X P P P
B. Commercial Uses.
Commercial horse riding and bridle trails A X X X X X X
Commercial retail, included as part of mixed-use development and
not a home occupation in compliance with Chapter 18.60 ACC
X X X X A A A
Daycare, limited to a mini daycare center. Daycare center, preschool
or nursery school may also be permitted but must be located on an
arterial
X A A A A A A
Home-based daycare as regulated by RCW 35.63.185 and through
receipt of approved city business license
P P P P P P P
Home occupations subject to compliance with Chapter 18.60 ACC P P P P P P P
Mixed-use development3 X X X X P P P
Nursing homes X X X X C C C
Private country clubs and golf courses, excluding driving ranges X X C C C X X
Privately owned and operated parks and playgrounds and not
homeowners’ association-owned recreational area
X A A A A P P
Professional offices, included as part of mixed-use development and
not a home occupation in compliance with Chapter 18.60 ACC
X X X X A A A
DI.C Page 96 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 5
C. Resource Uses.
Agricultural enterprise:7
When 50 percent, or more, of the total site area is dedicated to active
agricultural production during the growing season, and with 52 or less
special events per calendar year
A7 X X X X X X
When less than 50 percent of the total site area is dedicated to active
agricultural production during the growing season, or with more than
52 special events per calendar year
C7 X X X X X X
Agricultural type uses are permitted provided they are incidental and
secondary to the single-family use:
Agricultural crops and open field growing (commercial) P X X X X X X
Barns, silos and related structures P X X X X X X
Commercial greenhouses P X X X X X X
Pasturing and grazing4 P X X X X X X
Public and private stables4 P X X X X X X
Roadside stands, for the sale of agricultural products raised on the
premises. The stand cannot exceed 300 square feet in area and must
meet the applicable setback requirements
P X X X X X X
Fish hatcheries C X X X X X X
D. Government, Institutional, and Utility Uses.
Civic, social and fraternal clubs X X X X A A A
Government facilities A A A A A A A
DI.C Page 97 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 6
Hospitals (except animal hospitals) X X X X X C C
Municipal parks and playgrounds A P P P P P P
Museums X X X X A A A
Religious institutions, less than one acre lot size A A A A A A A
Religious institutions, one acre or larger lot size C C C C C C C
Transmitting towers C C C C C C C
Type 1-D Wireless Communication Facility (see ACC 18.04.912(J)) P P P P P P P
Utility facilities and substations C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5
1. An accessory dwelling unit may be permitted with an existing single-family residence pursuant to ACC
18.31.120.
2. Please see the supplemental development standards for animals in ACC 18.31.210.
3. Individual uses that make up a mixed-use development must be permitted within the zone. If a use
making up part of a mixed-use development requires an administrative or conditional use permit, the
individual use must apply for and receive the administrative or conditional use approval, as applicable.
4. Proximity of pasture or livestock roaming area to wells, surface waters, and aquifer recharge zones is
regulated by the King or Pierce County board of health, and property owners shall comply with the
provisions of the King County board of health code.
5. Excludes all public and private utility facilities addressed under ACC 18.02.040(E).
6. Administrative use permit not required when approved as part of a subdivision or binding site plan.
7. Agricultural enterprise uses are subject to supplemental development standards under ACC 18.31.210,
Agricultural enterprises development standards.
(Ord. 6369 § 2, 2011; Ord. 6363 § 3, 2011; Ord. 6269 § 3, 2009; Ord. 6245 § 5, 2009.)
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.
DI.C Page 98 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 7
18.31.115 Wetland mitigation.
18.31.120 Accessory dwelling units.
18.31.130 Reserved Communal Residence.
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 Architectural and site design review standards and regulations.
18.31.210 Agricultural enterprises development standards.
18.31.220 Permitted animals.
18.31.230 Table of allowed districts
18.31.130 Communal Residence
A. Parking Requirements
1. There must be one off-street parking stall per renter. A landlord may reduce the off-
street parking requirement if an affidavit is signed that a tenant does not own a vehicle.
B. Solid Waste Management Requirements
1. ACC Section 8.08.070 requires all occupied units to have minimum garage service.
The landlord is required to provide tenants with adequate garbage and recycle receptacles
meeting the minimum garage service level.
2. The landlord is responsible to provide each tenant with the solid waste collection
schedule and that schedule is to be posted within the unit.
C. An annual building inspection is required for a communal residence as part of the required
rental housing business license.
D. International Property Maintenance Code occupancy requirements are applicable to a
communal residence regardless of the number of individuals living in the residence.
E. Amortization Schedule
1. Existing communal residences have 6 months to become compliant with the
regulations outlined in this Title as it pertains to communal residences.
F. The following criteria are required to be met for any communal residence over 4 unrelated
individuals in addition to the required criteria for a conditional use permit under ACC 18.64.040.
As stated in ACC 18.07.XXX, a conditional use permit is required.
1. Adequate living space based on the International Property Maintenance Code
standards will be taken into account when a request for more than 4 unrelated individuals is
requested.
2. A designated property manager that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is
required.
3.The request for more than 4 unrelated individuals will not adversely impact the
surrounding community.
4. The applicant must show how noise will be mitigated.
Chapter 5.22
RENTAL HOUSING BUSINESS LICENSE AND STRATEGIES
Sections:
DI.C Page 99 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 8
5.22.010 Definitions.
5.22.020 Business license – Fee.
5.22.030 Advisory board on rental housing.
5.22.040 Rental housing business license criteria.
5.22.050 License application – Required – Form.
5.22.060 License application – Approval or disapproval procedure.
5.22.070 License – Display – Nontransferability – Responsibility.
5.22.080 License – Revocation.
5.22.090 Employment of law enforcement officers.
5.22.100 Duty to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations – Business
license revocation.
5.22.110 Reimbursement for transitional costs.
5.22.120 Violation – Penalty.
5.22.130 Nonexclusive enforcement.
5.22.020 Business license – Fee.
Each rental housing business operating in the city, as defined herein, shall obtain and maintain
in good standing a “rental housing business license” issued by the city in accordance with the
procedures of this chapter and this title.
A. The fee for a rental housing business license shall be as set forth in the city of Auburn fee
schedule.
B. The business license fee shall be for the fiscal calendar year (July 1st through June
30thJanuary 1st through December 31st), and each applicant for the business license must pay
the full business license fee for the current fiscal calendar year or portion thereof during which
the applicant has engaged in business, regardless of when during the fiscal calendar year the
license is obtained.
C. The rental housing business license fee required by this chapter is in lieu of, and not in
addition to, the general business license fee required by Chapters 5.05 and 5.10 ACC; provided,
however, that any person required to obtain a rental housing business license must also obtain
a general business license, at no cost, pursuant to Chapters 5.05 and 5.10 ACC. (Ord. 5882 §
1, 2005; Ord. 5651 § 1, 2002.)
5.22.040 Rental housing business license criteria.
A. Managers and operators of rental housing businesses shall comply with the criteria
established in this section and chapter in order to maintain their rental housing business license
in good standing as required by ACC 5.22.020. The city shall identify and communicate with the
managers and operators of rental housing businesses, as it deems appropriate, regarding the
criteria established in this chapter. The city shall establish forums for information sharing and
enforcement review, as it deems appropriate, in order to encourage voluntary compliance with
these criteria prior to mandatory enforcement. Rental housing business owners or their non-
owner managers shall comply as necessary with the following specific criteria as well as all
other requirements of this chapter in order to maintain their business license in good standing:
1. Attendance and participation in crime-free housing training programs when such
are offered by the Auburn police department or other city department and the
license holder is given written notice to attend. Attendance and participation may
be required by the city whenever a residential unit is the location for any criminal or
nuisance activity which results in an arrest for criminal activity or the issuance of an
DI.C Page 100 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 9
infraction citation in the case of a nuisance, whether or not the arrestee or cited
person is a tenant;
2. Mutually derived crime prevention strategies as established and agreed to by
and between the city and the rental housing owner and/or manager;
3. City directed crime prevention strategies. If the implementation of criteria in
subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section is unsuccessful in eliminating recurring
criminal or nuisance activity the city will notify the rental housing business owner or
manager in writing of the requirement to comply with a particular city directed crime
prevention strategy. The city may implement a city directed crime prevention
strategy whenever a residential unit is the location for any criminal or nuisance
activity which results in an arrest or issuance of a citation whether or not the
person arrested or cited is a tenant. Strategies will be reasonably tailored to the
particular location and situation and will be consistent with strategies implemented
by other municipalities in similar situations;
4. Upon written request, the rental housing owner or manager shall allow
inspection of rental housing residential units consistent with their ability to do so
under the requirements of the landlord-tenant statutes of the state of Washington
and the Auburn City Code. The city may, with the legally obtained consent of an
occupant or owner, or pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, enter any building,
structure or premises in the city to inspect or perform any duty imposed by this
code;
5. In the event that recurring criminal or nuisance activity continues at any
particular location which is subject to the licensing requirements of this chapter and
the imposition of criteria in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section has failed
to eliminate the recurring criminal or nuisance activity at the location, the rental
housing owner may hire security officers selected by the manager-operator.
Voluntary implementation of manager-operator selected security shall stay
revocation of the business license so long as the security is effective in eliminating
the recurring criminal and/or nuisance activity at said licensed location;
6. In the event that criminal or nuisance activity continues to occur at any particular
location which is subject to the licensing requirements of this chapter and the
imposition of criteria in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section and
implementation of criteria in subsection (A)(5) of this section has failed to eliminate
recurring criminal or nuisance activity at the particular location the rental housing
owner may request or agree to city directed off-duty police security. Voluntary
implementation of city directed off-duty police security shall stay revocation of the
business license so long as the security is effective in eliminating ongoing criminal
and/or nuisance activity at the particular licensed location;
7. In the event that the rental housing business owner does not comply with criteria
in subsections (A)(1) through (6) of this section, the city may revoke the rental
housing business owner’s license. Business license revocation shall be the
ultimate resort for enforcement purposes. Business license revocation shall occur
as otherwise set out in this chapter.
B. The criteria listed above shall be implemented in a priority beginning with criteria in
subsection (A)(1) of this section and ending with criteria in subsection (A)(7) of this section. It is
envisioned that most problems can be resolved by participation in crime-free housing training
and implementation of its recommended practices. Failure to participate in strategies in
DI.C Page 101 of 240
ZOA13-0003
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 10
subsections (A)(1) through (6) of this section may subject the licensed/registered party to
revocation. Any expense incurred in connection with subsections (A)(2) through (5) of this
section will be borne by the licensed/registered party.
It is further provided that the “inspection of the residential units of rental housing units,”
subsection (A)(4) of this section, includes inspection of residential units in the complex for any
applicable health, building, fire, housing or life-safety code violations, or other serious violations.
(Ord. 5882 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5651 § 1, 2002.)
C. The following requirements are established for communal residences as defined in Title 18.
1. The owner/landlord must provide the following information and any additional
information on the rental business license application form at the time of submittal:
a. Total number of bedrooms in the rental unit
b. Total number of occupants
c. Total number of occupants who are students
2. The owner/landlord must provide updated information for each of the items outlined in
ACC 5.22.040(C)(1) each year with their rental business license renewal.
3. The owner/landlord must sign a statement that confirms their understanding and
acceptance of the conditions and obligations incurred as a landlord. At a minimum, the
statement will:
a. Outline the landlord’s responsibilities for providing a safe living environment
for their tenants.
b. That structural additions and modifications are to be properly permitted and
inspected.
c. That garbage and recycling will be properly managed.
d. That adequate off-street parking will be provided for all tenants meeting the
requirements of ACC 18.31.130.
e. That noise and other public nuisances will be monitored and controlled.
f. That annual inspections are required in order to obtain a rental housing
business license.
g. That anyone under the age of 18 is subject to the curfew regulations in ACC
9.10.
4. If the owner/landlord is in violation of the requirements for a communal residence,
then the code enforcement actions outlined in Chapter 1.25 will be taken.
DI.C Page 102 of 240
1
Elizabeth Chamberlain
From:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Sent:Monday, August 05, 2013 4:27 PM
To:'DAHP'; 'larry.fisher@dfw.wa.gov'; 'ramin.pazooki@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'DNR';
'sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov'; 'MIT Cultural Program'; 'WA DOC'; 'Washington Environmental
Council'; 'Auburn School District'; Dave Hill; 'City of Federal Way'; 'Corbin, Douglas L';
'Futurewise'
Subject:DNS - two non-project action code amendments
Attachments:20130805154450514.pdf; Revised Checklist Student_Rental Housing.pdf; Proposed Code
Amendments and program SEPA version.pdf; 20130805154441529.pdf; Checklist C-1 Zone
Amendments.pdf; Multi Family Amendments SEPA version.pdf
Good Afternoon,
Attached please find the following:
Revised DNS, checklist, and proposed code amendments related to student/rental housing within the
City
DNS, checklist, and proposed code amendments related to the C-1, Light Commercial Zone, mixed use
requirements
The City anticipates a public hearing before the Planning Commission on August 20, 2013 and City Council
action in September.
For commerce – the City will be requesting expedited review for the proposed code amendments and will be
sending that request shortly under separate cover.
If there are any questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth F. Chamberlain, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Auburn
253-931-3092
DI.C Page 103 of 240
Dear Ms. Chamberlain:
Senior Planner
City of Auburn
25 W Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials
as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this
procedural requirement.
August 7, 2013
Elizabeth Chamberlain
City of Auburn - Proposed code amendments related to student/rental housing and proposed code
amendments related to the C-1, Light Commercial Zone, mixed use requirements. These materials
were received on August 06, 2013 and processed with the material ID # 19421. Expedited Review is
requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b).
If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you
have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106.
If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment requesting expedited review, then we have
forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for expedited review and comment. If one or more
state agencies indicate that they will be commenting, then Commerce will deny expedited review and the
standard 60-day review period (from date received) will apply. Commerce will notify you by e-mail regarding
of approval or denial of your expedited review request. If approved for expedited review, then final adoption
may occur no earlier than fifteen calendar days after the original date of receipt by Commerce. Please
remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption.
If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov,
or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048.
Sincerely,
Review Team
Growth Management Services
DI.C Page 104 of 240
REQUEST TO PUBLISH
Please publish the following Notice of Public Hearing in the Seattle Times on August 8, 2013
Bill the City of Auburn: City of Auburn
ATT: City Clerk
25 West Main
Auburn, WA. 98001
An "Affidavit of Publication" is requested for this billing. Thank you.
CITY OF AUBURN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission of the City of Auburn, Washington, will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 20, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall located at 25 West Main
Street on the following:
Case Number ZOA13-0003: Amendment to Auburn City Code
The proposal amends the Auburn City Code related student/rental housing. The proposed amendments
affect Title 18, Zoning, and Title 5, Business and Licenses Regulations.
Case Number ZOA13-0005: Amendment to Auburn City Code
The proposal amends the Auburn City Code related to the C-1, Light Commercial, Zone. Specifically, the
proposed code amendments address mixed-use development standards.
Case No. ZOA13-0004: Amendment to ACC 16.10.110, Critical Areas Regulations
Amendment to the critical areas regulations to authorize mitigation to be located outside the City under
certain circumstances which is currently not allowed.
The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main
Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be
submitted up until and at the public hearing for ZOA13-0003 and ZOA13-0005 to Elizabeth Chamberlain,
Planning Services Manager, Planning and Development Department, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA
98001-4988 or Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner, for ZOA13-0004 at the same address. If you have further
comments or questions, please contact Elizabeth Chamberlain at echamberlain@auburnwa.gov or at
(253) 931-3092.
For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this
hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of
service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of
request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services
or equipment.
DI.C Page 105 of 240
Planning and Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 of 16
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Student/Rental Housing Code Amendments
2. Name of Applicant:
City of Auburn
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant:
Planning and Development Department
25 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Services Manager
(253) 931-3092
4. Date checklist prepared:
Original Checklist – June 3, 2013 (Phase 1 of the code amendments)
Revised checklist - August 1, 2013 (code amendments not being broken into phases)
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Auburn
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Environmental Review – August 2013
Planning Commission Public Hearing – August 20, 2013
City Council Review – September 2013
City Council Action – September 2013
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related
to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
The City issued a DNS in June 2013 for Phase 1 of the student/rental housing code
amendments which was to amend the definition of family. After further review, the City
determined that breaking the code amendments into phases was not the best course of
action so the project is moving forward as one phase.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
DI.C Page 106 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 2 of 16
Determination of Non-Significance issued June 3, 2013 for the amendment to the
definition of family.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
None.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed
code amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and will forward a
recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not hold a
public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, or not adopting the
amendments.
Although not an approval or permit, the proposed zoning text amendments are also
subject to the 60-day State Agency review process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. The
City will be requesting expedited review.
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You need not
repeat those answers on this page.
The City has recently been faced with issues related to student/rental housing near
Green River Community College. The City will be proposing several code amendments
to Title 18, Zoning, and Title 5, Business Licenses and Regulation, to address rental
housing.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,
and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a
range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available.
While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required
to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
to this checklist.
The proposed code amendment would be applicable city wide.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. Earth:
A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other.
DI.C Page 107 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 3 of 16
The City of Auburn is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep hillsides
that plateau.
B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The slope of the valley walls in the city varies, but some slopes associated with the
valley walls reach 100%. Most sites on the valley floor have limited slopes.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the Oridia, Renton, Snohomish and Briscott
series. These soils are fairly poorly drained and formed in the alluvium (river sediments)
associated with the White and Green rivers. These are considered good agricultural soils,
though in many areas, are not well-drained. There is no designated prime farmland within
the City of Auburn.
The soils in the uplands are predominantly of the Alderwood series. These soils drain
moderately well and are typically located on slopes ranging from 0 - 70%.
D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
Many factors affect slope stability including soil type, parent material, slope and
drainage. These factors can be further affected by human intervention such as slope
alteration, and vegetation removal. The city has identified categories of geologic hazard
areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion and landslide hazard areas are
provided as Maps 9.6 and 9.7, respectively in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Not applicable. The proposed amendments are non-project actions, so no site
alteration, construction, or earthwork is proposed.
F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Not applicable. Non-project action.
G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Not applicable. The action does not involve site specific development proposals
H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth.
This is a non-project action so no site specific erosion control is proposed. However, the
existing comprehensive plan includes numerous policies to reduce or control erosion
through the use of best management practices, landscaping requirements, limitations on
alteration of steep slopes and other critical areas protections. Impacts to earth will be
DI.C Page 108 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 4 of 16
identified and, if necessary, mitigated during the development review process as specific
development proposals are made that might be associated with these plan amendments.
The city also has design and construction standards that address erosion control
measures.
2. Air:
A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project
is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
3. Water:
A. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If
yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into.
The major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River, Mill
Creek, Bowman Creek, and White Lake. The City has conducted an inventory of
wetlands within the city limits. These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
DI.C Page 109 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 5 of 16
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
Proposal is non-project action.
However, several areas within Auburn lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Green or
White River and Mill Creek. These areas as well as frequently flooded areas as defined
by the City of Auburn Public Works Department are shown on Map 9.4 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any
toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
4. Plants:
A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
DI.C Page 110 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 6 of 16
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. X
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. X
shrubs. X
grass. X
pasture. X
crop or grain. X
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage,
other.
X
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. X
other types of vegetation. X
B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Not applicable. This is non-project action. However, in general urban development
results in the removal or alteration of many types of vegetation.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site:
None that are known.
D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
5. Animals:
A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc.
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: urban animals such as dogs, cats,
squirrels, rodents, opossums, raccoons, etc. are also present in the city.
B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
There are nesting/breeding sites of bald eagles, great blue herons and green back heron
within Auburn as shown on Map 9.2 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
Environmental Impact Statement for the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that
peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the Aleutian Canadian Goose have been seen in the
Auburn area.
Chinook salmon are currently listed as a threatened species by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bull trout are also listed. Chinook salmon are known to use
the Green and White Rivers.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds.
DI.C Page 111 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 7 of 16
D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
6. Energy and Natural Resources:
A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project’s energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
7. Environmental Health:
A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
B. Noise:
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
DI.C Page 112 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 8 of 16
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
8. Land and Shoreline Use:
A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The City and PAA contain a variety of land uses including residential, industrial, commercial,
open space, and public land uses. The proposed code amendment would be applicable to
residential zoned property within the City.
B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe:
Much of the Green River Valley and the City of Auburn were used for agriculture at some
time in the past. Over the last several decades, rapid growth in the area resulted in
much of the agricultural land converting to urban uses. No land within the city is
designated as agricultural, though some parcels continue as that type of use.
C. Describe any structures on the site:
Structures within the City range from small single family detached homes to large industrial
and warehousing facilities.
D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
E. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
City zoning districts include: RR (Rural Residential); R-1 (1 du/acre) R-5 (5 du/acre); R-7
(7 du/acre); R-10 (10 du/acre), R-20 (20 du/acre); RMHP (Residential Manufactured
Home District); RO (Residential Office); RO-H (Residential Office-Hospital); CN
(Neighborhood Commercial); DUC (Downtown Urban Center); C1 (Light Commercial);
C2 (Central Business District); C3 (Heavy Commercial); M1 (Light Industrial); M2
(Heavy Industrial); BP (Business Park); LF (Airport Landing Field); P1 (Public Use); UNC
(Unclassified Use); I (Institutional Use); LH (Lea Hill).
The proposed code amendment would affect all the zoning districts.
F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
A Comprehensive Plan map of the City is contained in the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and includes 13 different plan designations.
G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
DI.C Page 113 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 9 of 16
Portions of the City along the Green and White Rivers fall under the Shoreline Master
Program. A map of the shoreline designations for those areas is Map 9.1 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts that are applicable to this proposed code
amendment doe fall within the City’s Shoreline Management area.
H. Has any part of the site been classified as an “environmentally sensitive” area? If
so, specify:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, areas of the City do have sensitive
areas and the regulation and protection of sensitive areas are addressed through the City’s
critical areas ordinance.
I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Not applicable. This is a non-project action and no specific development is proposed.
J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action.
K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action.
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action.
9. Housing:
A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
10. Aesthetics:
A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
DI.C Page 114 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 10 of 16
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
11. Light and Glare:
A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
12. Recreation:
A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and recreational facilities. Map 11.1 of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan shows the location of these facilities.
B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation:
A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe:
DI.C Page 115 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 11 of 16
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
However as a matter of information, in Auburn, the Blomeen House located at 324 B Street
NE is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Carnegie Library Building at 306
Auburn Avenue (currently Auburn Dance and Music Center) and the Auburn Post Office
(currently Seattle-King County Health Department) at 20 Auburn Avenue NE are local and
county landmarks. The Olson Farm, located at 28728 Green River Road South, was
designated as King County Landmark in 2000 and the Masonic Temple Building at the
southeast corner of Auburn Way South and East Main Street was designated as a King
County Historical Landmark in 2002.
B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Several Indian campsites have been identified along the Green and White rivers in the
Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in preliminary work for the Army Corps of
Engineers’ Special Area Management Plan.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
14. Transportation:
A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Figure 2-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the
City’s current and future classified street system.
B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
Not applicable, non-project action. However, Figure 4-1 of the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes
within the City. Also, a commuter rail station exists along the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe railroad right-of-way just south of West Main Street and east of C Street SW.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private):
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
DI.C Page 116 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 12 of 16
E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe:
There is no water transportation in the Auburn area other than for recreational uses.
The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time, local freight service is available.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both operate freight lines within Auburn.
Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between
Tacoma and Seattle. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through
Auburn but do not stop here. The Auburn Airport is located north of 15th Street NE.
F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Not applicable. Non-project action.
G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Non-project action.
15. Public Services:
A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe:
Not applicable. Non-project action.
B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any:
The comprehensive plan contains policies that seek to maintain a sufficient level of
service for public services as development occurs. Also, Auburn reviews under SEPA,
the impacts of significant development on these public services. Mitigation measures
are required to reduce significant adverse impacts.
16. Utilities:
A. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other
– Cable TV.
All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn.
B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed:
This is a non-project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a utilities
element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that
serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision.
Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. A new Comprehensive
Water Plan and new Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the City in 2009. A
DI.C Page 117 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 13 of 16
new Comprehensive Drainage Plan was adopted in 2009. A new six year Capital
Facilities Plan was adopted in 2012 (2013-2018).
These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a
project level and city-wide basis.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
OWNER/AGENT SIGNATURE: Elizabeth Chamberlain
DATE SUBMITTED: August 1, 2013 _
DI.C Page 118 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 14 of 16
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions.)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal that would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in
general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
The proposed code amendments to Title 18, Zoning, and Title 5, Business Licenses and
Regulations, should have a minimal change in discharging to water, emissions to air,
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise.
While the proposed code amendment could apply to undeveloped property, the City’s
stormwater design manual addresses stormwater discharges and the City has other
regulations addressing emissions to air and hazardous substances.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or
emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on reducing
the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of emissions to
the air. Policies in the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of
development proposals to encourage native vegetation. This should support wildlife habitat
areas, particularly near streams, as the policies assist the City in addressing adverse
impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from runoff since native plantings may require
less pesticide use.
An environmental review of all non-exempt (from SEPA) development will be conducted to
evaluate and mitigate impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic
substances. Evaluation of the site specific proposals will be based on the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance,
shoreline master program regulations, and the Design and Construction Manuals, also
provide additional protection for these types of impacts.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is not likely affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. However, as noted
below, the City has development standards to provide protection for these types of impacts.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to
protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. An environmental review under
SEPA of all non-exempt development is conducted to measure impacts. Evaluation based
DI.C Page 119 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 15 of 16
on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place
on a case-by-case basis.
Policies within the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development
proposals to encourage native vegetation be used and/or retained. This should support
wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the policies assist the city in addressing
adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat since native plantings may
require less pesticide use.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and the
shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these types of
impacts.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Future development will use natural gas and electricity and could result in increased
automobile uses. However, there does not appear to be any significant adverse increases
in the use of energy of natural resources resulting from the amendments being proposed to
the existing comprehensive plan over what might occur under existing plan designations.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
None specifically, as this is a non-project action. However, in addition to the provisions of
the Auburn Energy Management Plan (adopted in 1986), which encourages energy
conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, the comprehensive plan
places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such as
transit, walking, and biking. An environmental review under SEPA of all significant
development will be conducted to measure the project impacts.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Taken as a whole, there should not be any change in impacts from existing regulations on
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for government protection. Regulations are
in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas regardless of the use of the land or these
proposed code amendments.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
The comprehensive plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance, seek to protect
environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard areas, floodplain, wildlife
habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts of development on them. The
Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the implementation of innovative land management
techniques to protect these resources. An environmental review under SEPA for all non-exempt
development will be conducted to evaluate impacts.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
DI.C Page 120 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 16 of 16
Amendments can only be approved if it can be assured that future development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related regulations. Those
proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other existing
plans will not be approved.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations, such
as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land and
shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An environmental
review under SEPA of all development that is non-exempt will also be conducted to evaluate
a proposal’s land use and environmental impacts.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposed amendment could lead towards development that may increase demands on
public services, the transportation network, and utilities. The City has adopted a traffic
impact fee structure to address impacts to the transportation network.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The Auburn Comprehensive Plan presently incorporates the 2013-2018 Capital Facilities
Plan updated, which seeks to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as
development occurs.
Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water
Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan updates were adopted by the city in 2009. The
Comprehensive Drainage Plan update was also adopted in 2009. The Comprehensive
Transportation Plan was adopted in 2005 with updates during the 2006 and 2009
Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. These plans help ensure that utility impacts are
adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not appear to present any conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements.
DI.C Page 121 of 240
DI.C Page 122 of 240
DI.C Page 123 of 240
From:Jeff Tate
To:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Subject:FW: Follow Up Item From May 21st Community Meeting at Green River Community College
Date:Monday, June 17, 2013 12:47:32 PM
From: Robert Kent DeWitt [mailto:kent.dewitt@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:11 AM
To: Jeff Tate
Subject: Re: Follow Up Item From May 21st Community Meeting at Green River Community College
Good morning Mr. Tate,
Sorry for not get this done earlier.
A little about me first:
I am Robert Kent DeWitt, retired fire chief and former Asst. State Fire Marshal. I have a
Bachelors degree in Fire Command Administration but, more importantly, I have an AA
degree in Real Estate, which gives me some perspective on the issues related to residential
real estate here in my community.
I have a home in the Rainier Ridge development on Leah Hill. I purchased it about 10 years
ago, close to GRCC so my daughter could attend. I started renting rooms out to other
students while she was here so that she wouldn't be alone if I was off traveling (which I do a
lot of as I am retired).
I have continued to rent rooms to students because I am gone more than I am here and it
keeps the home occupied, which protects my property rather than being vacant and
uninsurable. I have had many international students over the years....some from Hong Kong,
mainland China, Taiwan, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Korea, California (?), and a few others that I
can't recall at the moment.
My house is a 4 bedroom rambler and I usually rent two rooms but have rented all of them on
occasion, depending on my plans for being here or not. I have also had ongoing maid service
to clean common areas as the students aren't big on cleaning other's messes. My yard is
professionally maintained as well. This protects my investment and keeps the neighbors
happy too.
I am familiar with various codes and have even been responsible for certain programs like
weed abatement requirements for maintenance of residential property. I am also aware of
building codes and requirements for habitable spaces. Both of these areas are generally
already in existing codes enforced by cities.
As a foreign traveler, I have visited over 23 countries around the world, many of them 3rd
world. Many cultures do not share the luxury of having a private bedroom for each person. In
my experience, the norm would be a shared room, sometimes entire families sharing one
sleeping room. I certainly do not advocate that but it is important to note what is relevant to
others.
DI.C Page 124 of 240
I recently attended an informational meeting at GRCC where issues of concern to neighbors
were discussed. Some of my neighbors seemed upset and, perhaps a little racist, as to their
concerns about students living in their midst. They talked about cars being parked and about
speeding cars as well. The few times I have seen speeders here, they were not students but
others who live here. I was almost hit once when I pulled onto 318th Way from 126th by a
car doing about 40. I made a hand signal for him to slow down and he came racing back to
ask what I was complaining about. I told him the speed limit was 25 and he insisted it was 35
though he was doing about 40+. I digress!
I think that as a responsible homeowner (landlord?) living here that I have the right to rent
out individual rooms to students. I am filling part of a huge need for housing. The
neighborhood is evolving as it does in every other college neighborhood. There are already
sufficient rules and codes dealing with yard maintenance (nuisance abatement), garages being
converted to living space (building code and fire codes), on street parking, speeding, etc. We
DO NOT need more rules, just enforcement of those already in existence.
The tricky part of the issue is probably in the area of number of occupants to occupy a
bedroom. For the sake of my property, I usually limit one person to each of the regular
bedrooms. However, I have in the past rented a room to a student with a baby, who shared
the same bedroom. I have also rented out the master bedroom to a couple (married but what
difference?). In this day and age of marriage for same sex couples and for same sex couples
to live together as a couple, how in the world do you expect to regulate that and why would
you want to?
From a truly pragmatic point of view, I think it is the home owner who should decide how
many people he rents his property to, not the government. Government can and should
regulate that the property be maintained in a clean and safe manner. As a homeowner, I know
that the wear and tear on a property is significantly increased when the number of people in
residence increases. But that is my problem, not the city's problem.
So regulate and enforce rules about smoke detectors, emergency lights, yard maintenance,
parking regulations (don't block driveways, etc.). But we do not need government telling us
how many people can be in our homes. Common sense and economic conditions will dictate
this. If my neighbors are truly concerned, then they should realize that their properties' value
is determined by their highest and best use, and that that use is changing. GRCC is growing
as is the entire world. Things have changed in this neighborhood and given the proximity to
GRCC, it is going to become more reliant on the availability as a student housing option.
The campus apartments currently charge about $700 per student to live in a 4 bedroom
apartment. My home is only a couple blocks away and I charge $550. Theoretically I could
bring in $2,200 per month if I didn't maintain space for myself. That leaves a lot of room for
maintenance and management as well as potential profit. There are waiting lists for the
apartments and I have never had problems with renting out rooms, usually renting to kids
who are friends of the ones who are graduating and moving on. Homes such as mine are
necessary for the college to function as an international school.
As an added note, I declare the income I receive by renting out rooms. Someone at the school
once told me that there was an IRS ruling that said I didn't have to claim it as income. That
didn't seem to make sense so I continue to claim on my taxes. If others are not, then perhaps
there is a need to evaluate this "exclusion" as a means of controlling the potential growth of
DI.C Page 125 of 240
rentals here in this neighborhood. But if my neighbors think that they can regulate room
rentals out of existence, then they should rethink their goals and realize that the economics of
it will dictate that this is no longer a simple neighborhood that will remain a cluster of
families living in isolation. The best use of the homes in this neighborhood is for auxiliary
student housing and that will be the future. Investors are going to buy our homes, not young
families. The values will be higher as a result and that should bode well for the existing
owners too.
I am sorry that I can not be there on the 18th. I will be visiting friends in Port Angeles and
then spending a few days in Oregon. However, I am willing to attend future meetings to
answer any questions you may have of me (subject to my travels of course) and you may also
feel free to call me at as well on my cell phone: . (I would prefer to not publish
my phone number in case my thoughts might provoke others to harass me though I would
gladly defend my opinions publicly at any time.
Thank you for the opportunity to be considered on this issue.
Robert Kent DeWitt
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Tate <jtate@auburnwa.gov > wrote:
Mr. Dewitt,
I apologize that the scheduling change creates a conflict. Written comments would be very
helpful. Perhaps we can schedule a phone call as well so that we can go over your comments
in advance of the June 18th meeting? That way, I can do the best job I can to present them to
the Planning Commission. Additionally, this first action is limited to revising the definition
of family so that we don’t have a gap in our code that allows up to 8 non-family members to
live together as a single housekeeping unit. Removing this language will help code
enforcement take action on properties that are loaded with renters who have no relation to
each other. I hope that you see this as a good first step for the City to take while we discuss
the next steps/actions.
I would be happy to make myself available for a phone call in the next two weeks, however I
think it would be most productive if you prepared your comments first so that I have a chance
to read them and we can have a little deeper conversation about how to get you plugged in
and to make sure you are able to influence the process.
Jeff Tate
From: Robert Kent DeWitt [mailto:kent.dewitt@gmail.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 8:47 AM
To: Jeff Tate
Subject: Re: Follow Up Item From May 21st Community Meeting at Green River
Community College
Jeff, I am disappointed that the meeting was changed. I had planned to be there tonight but
will be in Port Angeles on the 18th. I will try to put some of my concerns in writing and
DI.C Page 126 of 240
email to you before then if they can be presented to the hearing.
On Jun 4, 2013 8:20 AM, "Jeff Tate" <jtate@auburnwa.gov > wrote:
Good morning Lea Hill residents,
I wanted to provide an update to one of the subjects that we discussed on May 21st. During
the meeting I stated that the City's Planning Commission would be holding a public hearing
on June 4th to consider an amendment to City code which effects the number of non-family
members that can occupy a single home. I mentioned this item because it has an impact on
the authorities we have for addressing issues that spring up with some of the rental houses
throughout town. Modifying the definition of family would be the first item in a series of
potential code changes that works towards creating a more definable and manageable rental
housing program.
The purpose of this email is to inform those who are interested in this subject that tonight’s
meeting has been rescheduled to the evening of Tuesday, June 18th at 6:30 pm. There were
several other items on the agenda that are also rescheduled to June 18th .
I apologize for any inconvenience that this may create and hope that this email reaches you
before you make the trip to City Hall.
Jeff Tate
Interim Director of Planning and Development
The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which
it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication,
other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you.
The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which
it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication,
other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you.
--
DI.C Page 127 of 240
R. Kent DeWitt
kent.dewitt@gmail.com
DI.C Page 128 of 240
1
Elizabeth Chamberlain
From:Stacey Griffin (253) 394-3991 [forsalebystacey@yahoo.com]
Sent:Saturday, August 03, 2013 6:10 PM
To:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Subject:Citizen Comment to the PCDC-August 12, 2013
Dear Elizabeth,
I am not able to attend the meeting on August 12, but, would like my opinion heard. I live in Rainier Ridge at
31812 125th PL SE, Auburn. It has come to my attention that the zoning codes for my area are in consideration
for change. I bought my home 14 years ago with the intention of living in a community of other single family
homes with the knowledge that some rentals would be in the neighborhood. I am completely against the zone
codes being modified so that rooming and boarding houses would be legal in my neighborhood. The fact that it
is happening illegally already is bad enough, let's not make it worse. I find that home owners typically have a
better love for their house and therefore take better care. In turn that keeps the neighborhood looking nice and
the values higher than if the neighborhood was filled will boarding houses of people who do not have the same
love for the home. Being a Realtor I have seen more than the average person in regards to housing and
therefore have a strong opinion in this matter. If boarding/rooming houses are in need let's build some more
student housing and leave the existing neighborhoods alone. Enforcement of the current code would also be
appreciated to prevent further illegal activity from continuing. Kindly include my email in your discussion and
consideration.
Best Regards,
Stacey Griffin
Broker
RE/MAX Choice Executives
Cell: 253.394.3991
Office: 253.220.0858
Fax: 866.601.3274
Web: http://staceycgriffin.remaxagent.com
By the way, I'm never too busy for any of your referrals!
DI.C Page 129 of 240
1
Elizabeth Chamberlain
From:Hank Galmish [HGalmish@greenriver.edu]
Sent:Sunday, August 04, 2013 9:19 PM
To:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Subject:FW: Keep the Integrity of our Neighborhood
Dear Ms. Chamberlain,
I had this email sent back so I am forwarding it.
Hank Galmish
________________________________
From: HENRY GALMISH [hpgalmish@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:08 PM
To: Hank Galmish
Subject: FW: Keep the Integrity of our Neighborhood
________________________________
From: hpgalmish@msn.com
To: echamberlain@auburnwa.gov
Subject: Keep the Integrity of our Neighborhood
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 03:06:29 +0000
Dear Elizabeth,
I know that the City of Auburn is considering changing the zoning codes in the neighborhood adjacent to Green
River Community College. I am an English professor at Green River Community College, and I live in the
Ranier Ridge subdivision at 12443 SE 318th Way. I have lived at this location for over twelves years and over
the years have watched as people have bought houses in the area not to live in , but to carve up, cutting up
garages and even living rooms without permits, and changing their houses into Boarding Rooming Houses.
These are currently illegal by the code we live under. And now it appears that the city wants to change the
zone to accomodate these illegal conversions.
One of these conversions is right next to me, and I can attest that no family lives there. In fact, at times there
have been eight students living there. The house has been allowed to run down, cars have been parked on the
lawn, trash is left out for days, there has been little, if any, repair done on the structure, and rats have been
found on the property who have migrated onto my property. I maintain my home and find it offensive that the
city is willing to support people who do not live in the area who are going to make a quick buck at the expense
of the neighborhood. I know my neighbors and I love living in a neighborhood designed for families. I am aware
that a couple of my neighbors have filed complaints to the Planning/Code Enforcement Office of Auburn about
these conversions, only to learn that one of the long term code enforcers of Auburn is doing the same type of
illegal conversions in houses close to the college. Those who have complained have been visited by code
enforcers and have been cited for seeming "irregularities" on their property. It is appalling that those with the
authority to enforce the law are not only violating the laws themselves, but are also using their office and power
to stiffle legitimate complaints. This is a country of laws and not coercion. This problem has also been pointed
out to city officials.
And now the city is exploring possibilities of allowing Boarding Houses in our single family neighborhood. I am
totally against this possible change. The college needs to build more dorms if it cannot handle the international
students that it is recruiting, instead of creating a serious problem for the neighborhood that is affecting both
the quality and the safety of our home and our families. Of course, it is also affecting the economic values of
DI.C Page 130 of 240
2
our homes. I supported being annexed to Auburn because I thought we as a community would be more
protected by our elected representatives. I expect you to take that responsibility seriously.
I want this email to be officially included in your formal discussions and for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Hank Galmish
12443 SE 318th Way
Auburn, WA 98092
253-939-4943
DI.C Page 131 of 240
1
Elizabeth Chamberlain
From:thesurecure@netzero.net
Sent:Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:44 AM
To:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Subject:Citizen Comment to the PCDC - August 12, 2013
Hello,
We have lived at 12817 SE 318th Way for 5 years. We could rent an apartment for much cheaper than we pay
to live here; but we choose to live here because we want to live in a peaceful neighborhood of single family
homes.
Please do not change the zoning codes; we implore you to enforce the code as it now exists. If this turns into a
neighborhood of rooming houses, we will probably move.
Thank you for letting us express our concerns.
Jonathan and Julie Hord
DI.C Page 132 of 240
DI.C Page 133 of 240
DI.C Page 134 of 240
DI.C Page 135 of 240
DI.C Page 136 of 240
DI.C Page 137 of 240
DI.C Page 138 of 240
DI.C Page 139 of 240
DI.C Page 140 of 240
DI.C Page 141 of 240
DI.C Page 142 of 240
DI.C Page 143 of 240
DI.C Page 144 of 240
DI.C Page 145 of 240
DI.C Page 146 of 240
DI.C Page 147 of 240
DI.C Page 148 of 240
DI.C Page 149 of 240
DI.C Page 150 of 240
DI.C Page 151 of 240
DI.C Page 152 of 240
DI.C Page 153 of 240
Exhibit 8
Student/Rental Housing
Matrix of Jurisdictions’ Regulations
August 20, 2013 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Jurisdiction How Address Rental and Student Housing Proposed to be Incorporated into Auburn’s Amendments
Saint Paul, Minnesota • Established a moratorium while the issue was studied
• Created a student housing overlay district: limits a student
dwelling to be at least 150 feet from another student dwelling
located on a different lot
• Define student dwellings as a one or two family dwelling in which
at least one (1) unit is occupied by three (3) or four (4) students.
• … property which exceeds occupancy limits at the time the
article was adopted are ineligible for registration and
establishment as an existing student dwelling during the
registration and establishment period.
• Created an 18 month registration and establishment period for
existing student dwellings to register within 120 days of the
effective date of the code being adopted.
• Utilizing the 4 or less unrelated persons
• Considering a registration and establishment period for existing
rentals
Newark, New Jersey • Defined student home and limited where they could be located
by prohibiting them in certain subdivisions/streets
• Student home must have a rental permit
• Landlord ensure that tenants comply with applicable noise and
other code provisions
• Landlord is responsible for compliance with the occupancy limits
which is 3 students in a home
• Student home shall be located on a lot which is no closer to
another lawfully established student home than a distance
determined by multiplying times 10 the required lot width for a
single family detached dwelling in the zone in which the lot is
located (example: 50 foot lot width x 10 = 150 feet separation).
The code section also establishes existing rental units that have
a valid rental permit are considered a student home.
Public Outreach:
• The City of Newark and the University of Delaware jointly have a
website that provides a guide for owners and occupants of
single-family type rental housing.
• Effort is called Town & Gown; committee consists of City of
Newark officials/staff and University of Delaware staff.
Committees charge is established in Newark’s code.
• http://www.udel.edu/towngown/index.html
• Proposing that communal residences must have rental business
license
• Landlord responsible that tenants comply with code provisions –
will be part of the rental business license
• Landlord responsible for occupancy limits – Staff proposing 4 or
less permitted outright; more than 4 a conditional use permit
process required with public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner
Town of Hamden • Requires landlord to obtain a Student Housing Permit – includes
notice to adjacent property owners and information for tenants
• Requires that the unit meet building codes and fire codes
• No exterior changes to the building unless required for
compliance with building or fire code
• Meet parking requirement of one off-street parking space per
student with at least two spaces per dwelling unit having
unimpeded access
• Expanding the rental business license requirements to include
DI.C Page 154 of 240
Exhibit 8
• No parking in the required front or side yard that is unpaved
• Landlord must provide trash and recycling bins and posting
instructions regarding the pick -up schedules
• Submission of floor plans and any proposed modifications
• Providing a 24-hour contact person in the state to resolve
complaints
• Maximum of 4 students per dwelling unit providing compliance
with the building code for minimum square footage.
Boston • Extensive website with information specifically outlined for:
o Landlords
o Tenants – specific information for students
o Frequently Asked Questions
o Good Neighbor Handbook
o http://www.cityofboston.gov/dnd/brhc/
• Incorporate elements from City of Boston’s website into Auburn’s
website update when we implement the program
Tacoma • Definition of Student Housing but it is housing specifically
associated with the college/institution.
• The Student Housing is owned and operated by the
college/institution. Student Housing could be dormitories,
sororities, or fraternities.
• No definition of rental housing
• Definition of family allows up to 6 unrelated individuals to live
together
Des Moines, WA • Looked at Des Moines because of Highline Community College
• No specific definition for student housing or rental housing
• Definition of family allows up to 5 unrelated individuals to live
together
DI.C Page 155 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
ZOA13-0005 - Amendments to C-1, Light Commercial Zone
Date:
August 21, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6478
Planning Commission public hearing
materials
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Recent inquiries from private developers have raised questions about the market
viability of meeting the mixed-use standards required for the C-1, Light Commercial
zone. In particular, concerns have been raised over the required 50% of the cumulative
ground floor space for a development with 2 or more buildings be dedicated to
commercial retail, entertainment, of office uses.
A joint meeting was held between the Planning and Community Development
Committee (PCDC) and the Planning Commission on August 12, 2013 where the broad
policy proposal was presented and discussed. Staff took the feedback provided and
prepared draft code amendments that were presented at the August 20, 2013 public
hearing before the Planning Commission. Public testimony was provided and the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments as
presented by staff.
At the August 26, 2013 PCDC meeting, staff will present the proposed code
amendments and Planning Commission’s recommendation. If the Committee is
comfortable with the proposed amendments, staff requests that this item be moved to
action.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Planning, Legal, Planning Commission
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Chamberlain
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 156 of 240
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 157 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6478
August 21, 2013
Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 7 8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTION 18.57.030 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE C-1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL ZONE
AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the marketability of mixed-use development is still struggling
from the recession; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn wishes to balance multi-family
development, in commercial zones, with some requirement for commercial
development; and
WHEREAS, portions of the C-1 Light Commercial zone are within the
City’s identified economic development strategies area and requiring mixed-use
development within the C-1 zone supports the City’s goal of accommodating a
certain amount of housing units and employment growth; and
WHEREAS, following proper public notice, the Planning Commission
considered the proposed code amendments at a public hearing on August 20,
2013; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee
reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation at their August 26, 2013
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review on the proposal has been
completed in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) with a final Determination of Non-significance (DNS) issued August
5, 2013; and
DI.D Page 158 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6478
August 21, 2013
Page 2 of 7
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 August XX, 2013;
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 18.04.330 of the
Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
Section 18.57.030 Residential.
A. Multiple-Family Dwellings as Part of a Mixed-Use Development.
1. C-1 Zone. Multiple-family dwelling as part of a mixed-use development is
allowed; provided, that compliance to all of the following is demonstrated:
a. Multiple-family dwellings shall only occur concurrent with or
subsequent to the development and construction of nonresidential
components of the mixed-use development;
b. Applications for mixed-use development inclusive of multiple-family
residential dwellings shall include transportation and traffic analyses
appropriate to the type and scale of the proposed development based
on the concurrent determination of the planning director and city
engineer. The planning director and city engineer may require the
analysis to address, including, but not limited to, a.m. or p.m. traffic
impacts; and/or area circulation planning for motorized and
DI.D Page 159 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6478
August 21, 2013
Page 3 of 7
nonmotorized modes of travel and connectivity; and/or transportation
demand management (TDM) strategies;
c. Applications for the mixed-use development inclusive of multifamily
residential dwellings shall include written and plan information
demonstrating compliance to applicable design standards for mixed-
use development contained in the city of Auburn multifamily and
mixed-use design standards;
d. Applications for the mixed-use development inclusive of multifamily
residential dwellings shall comply, as applicable, with the
neighborhood review meeting requirements of ACC 18.02.130
(Neighborhood review meeting);
e. Mixed-use development comprised of a maximum of one building on a
development site shall have the entire 50 percent of the ground floor
comprised of one or more commercial retail, entertainment or office
uses that are permitted outright or conditionally; provided, that uses
normal and incidental to the building, including, but not limited to,
interior entrance areas, elevators and associated waiting areas,
mechanical rooms, and garbage/recycling areas, may be allowed on
the ground floor, except that non-street frontage vehicle garages
located on the ground floor together with all other normal and
incidental uses shall occupy a maximum of 50 percent of the ground
floor space; orand
f. Mixed-use development that is geographically distributed on a
development site amongst two or more buildings shall have a minimum
of 2550 percent of the cumulative building ground floor square footage
comprised of one or more commercial retail, entertainment or office
uses that are permitted outright or conditionally; or.
g. Mixed-use development that has more than two buildings shall have a
minimum percentage of the cumulative building ground floor square
footage comprised of one or more commercial retail, entertainment, or
office uses that are permitted outright or conditionally as follows:
1. For 3 buildings 20 percent of the cumulative building ground
floor square footage.
2. For 4 buildings, 15 percent of the cumulative building ground
floor square footage.
3. For 5 or more buildings 10 percent of the cumulative building
ground floor square footage.
h. A project proponent may select to set aside a non-residential building
pad(s), meeting the percentage requirements above, for future
development, provided that the site plan for the development must
identify the general location for the building(s), associated parking
areas, drive aisles, landscaping areas, and utility locations. During the
interim period that the non-residential site(s) remains undeveloped, it
DI.D Page 160 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6478
August 21, 2013
Page 4 of 7
must be maintained as a landscaped area meeting the requirements of
ACC 18.50.
2. C-2 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted as part of a mixed-use
development provided they are:
a. Located in a multi-story building the ground floor of which must contain
a permitted use listed in Table 18.23.030, “Permitted, Administrative,
Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone.” No density limitations shall
apply.
3. C-3 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted as part of a mixed-use
development provided 1,200 square feet of lot area is provided for each
dwelling unit.
4. C-4 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted provided they are:
a. Located in a multi-story building and the ground floor must contain a
permitted use or combination of uses, other than parking facility.
b. An exception to this ground floor commercial requirement is allowed for
uses accessory to the upper story residential at a rate of 1,500 square feet
of area per upper story of residential. The ground floor areas accessory to
the upper story residential may include, but are not limited to, entry space,
lobby, hallway, mail areas. The 1,500 square feet of upper floor area does
not include exiting required to meet applicable building and fire codes.
5. M-1 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted as part of a mixed-use
development, provided they are:
a. Located in a multi-story building the ground floor of which must contain
one of the retail or service uses listed in Table 18.23.030, “Permitted,
Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone.” The ground
floor may contain entrance and lobby areas which serve the dwellings.
B. Multiple-Family Dwellings, Stand-Alone.
1. C-3 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted provided:
a. One thousand two hundred square feet of lot area is provided for each
dwelling unit; and
b. The multiple-family development is arranged in the following manner
based on its orientation to a public roadway (Scenarios 1 – 4):
DI.D Page 161 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6478
August 21, 2013
Page 5 of 7
DI.D Page 162 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6478
August 21, 2013
Page 6 of 7
2. EP Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted provided:
a. The multiple-family development incorporates sustainable design and
green building practices and qualifies to be built green certified. (Ord.
6435 § 1, 2012.)
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.
DI.D Page 163 of 240
---------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6478
August 21, 2013
Page 7 of 7
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 164 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 13, 2013
Page 1
Zoning Code Text Amendment
ZOA13-0005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
I. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION:
Recent inquiries from private developers have raised questions about the market viability of
meeting the mixed-use standards required for the C-1, Light Commercial zone. In
particular, concerns have been raised over the required 50% of the cumulative ground floor
space for a development with 2 or more buildings be dedicated to commercial retail,
entertainment, of office uses.
This staff report outlines the proposed amendments related to mixed-use development
within the C-1, Light Commercial zone.
II. SEPA STATUS:
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6), non-project actions such as code amendments are not
exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non-Significance
August 5, 2013. The comment period ends August 19, 2013 and the appeal period ends
on September 3, 2013.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. In general, the intent of the proposed zoning code amendments is to amend what
amount of commercial is required for multi-family development within the C-1, Light
Commercial zone.
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
DI.D Page 165 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 13, 2013
Page 2
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.
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 as identified in the conclusion section of this staff report.
4. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6), non-project actions such as code amendments are
not exempt from environmental review. The City issued a Determination of Non-
Significance August 5, 2013. The comment period ends August 19, 2013 and the
appeal period ends on September 3, 2013. As of the writing of this report, no
comments have been received.
5. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed code amendments outlined in this staff
report 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 August 5, 2013 and expedited
review was requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b). The Department of Commerce
acknowledged receipt on August 7, 2013. Expedited review has not been granted as of
the writing of this staff report. If the expedited review request is denied then the
standard 60-days applies from the submittal date of August 5, 2013.
6. Staff presented the proposed code amendment approach to the Planning Commission
and Planning and Community Development Committee at a joint meeting held on
August 12, 2013 for review and discussion.
DI.D Page 166 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 13, 2013
Page 3
7. The public hearing notice was published on August 8, 2013 in the Seattle Times at least
10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for August 20,
2013. The public hearing notice was also posted at the City’s Annex Building at One
East Main Street and on the City’s website.
8. The following conclusions support the proposed amendment to Title 18, Zoning,
scheduled for the Planning Commission’s August 20, 2013 public hearing with a staff
recommendation.
IV. CONCLUSIONS:
1. Pursuant to ACC Section 18.68.020, amendments of Title 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.
Staff Analysis:
The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on August 8, 2013 which is
at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for August
20, 2013. The public hearing notice was also posted at the City’s Annex Building at One
East Main Street and on the City’s website.
2. These code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan as
follows:
LU-57: Mixed-use developments with both commercial and residential components are
encouraged in Light Commercial centers. These developments should include
primarily retail stores and offices designed to provide convenient shopping and other
services for nearby residents. Industrial and heavy commercial uses should be
excluded
Objective 9.3:
To encourage the appropriate use of areas adjacent to heavily traveled arterials while
minimizing land use and traffic conflicts by:
1. Managing the continued commercial development of existing commercial arterials in
a manner which minimizes traffic and land use conflicts.
2. Conserving residential qualities along heavily traveled arterials which are not yet
commercialized, by restricting commercial development to types which provide an
appropriate buffer.
3. Protecting existing, viable residential areas along lesser-traveled arterials, from
commercial development.
4. Concentrate population and employment growth within the eight key economic
development strategy areas within the City identified as follows:
• Auburn Way North Corridor
• Auburn Way South Corridor
DI.D Page 167 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 13, 2013
Page 4
• Urban Center
• Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone
• 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway/Supermall
• A Street SE Corridor
• SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE Corridor
• M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn Way South.
LU-58: The City has identified those existing commercial arterials that are appropriate
for continued commercial development and employment growth as well as a
concentration of population growth. These areas are identified as the eight economic
development strategy areas as identified under Objective 9.3. Sub-area plans for
these strategy areas should be developed.
ED-10: The City should develop a formal economic development strategy as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan to specifically identify the types of businesses most
consistent with community aspirations and lay out a program to attract those
businesses.
a. The City should work cooperatively with other governmental agencies in its
economic development efforts, including the Muckleshoot Tribe, King County,
Pierce County, the Port and the State.
b. The City should implement its economic development strategy through a
partnership with the private sector.
c. Identified in the 2005 Economic Development Strategies documents are six
strategy areas along with two additional strategy areas. These economic
development strategy areas are targeted for population and employment growth
to meet the City’s 20-year (2031) growth target. Sub-area plans should be
developed for these strategy areas. The economic development strategy areas
are as follows:
• Auburn Way North Corridor
• Auburn Way South Corridor
• Urban Center
• Auburn Environmental Park and Green Zone
• 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West Valley Highway/Supermall
• A Street SE Corridor
• SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE Corridor
• M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn South
ED-15: Implement the recommendations of the City’s 2005 Economic Development
Strategies brochure including the addition of the SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE
corridor and M Street SE between Auburn Way North and Auburn Way South. The
City’s 20-year housing and employment growth shall be concentrated to these
economic development strategy areas.
Problems related to Existing Uses – Lea Hill Area:
Area : Area annexed on January 1, 2008.
DI.D Page 168 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 13, 2013
Page 5
Problem: The City has been concerned for years that the rapid growth taking place
within the Lea Hill PAA will overwhelm city streets. Through annexation the City can
better manage the amount and type of growth in this area and help ensure that
appropriate infrastructure to support development is provided concurrent with that
development.
The Auburn City Council envisions retaining the predominantly single-family character of
the Lea Hill area rather than allow the trend of rapidly developing multi-family projects to
continue. The City's codes will help ensure that the neighborhood character, traffic and
environmentally sensitive features are protected and/or managed.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed code amendments recognize the market sensitivity surrounding mixed-
use development while maintaining the City’s goal of having the SE 312th/124th corridor,
Auburn Way South, A Street SE Corridor, and Urban Center Extended districts be
economic development strategy areas that supports both residential and commercial
development. Auburn has identified eight economic development strategy areas
throughout the City with the goal of concentrating population and employment growth
within these strategy areas and C-1, Light Commercial zoning currently exists in four of
the strategy areas. Over the next twenty years, Auburn will need to plan for
approximately 9,600 new housing units and 19,000 jobs (starting year is 2006). The
proposed code amendments allow for multifamily development within the C-1, Light
Commercial zone while requiring some commercial be incorporated into a project
meeting the goal of accommodating the City’s future housing and job growth.
To address the C-1, Light Commercial zone, specifically on Lea Hill, in 2008, when the
remainder of Lea Hill was annexed, the City added a policy statement limiting multi-
family development as the area had experienced a trend of multi-family development. In
order to balance slowing down the rapid multi-family development but still plan for
housing and job growth targets, the City implemented a mixed-use requirement if multi-
family is to be developed within the C-1, Light Commercial zone. The proposed
amendments today, recognize the market sensitivity of mixed-use projects while still
maintaining the City’s goal of limiting multi-family development to the SE 312th/124th
Avenue area and having commercial development be part of a project.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/DECISION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the proposed code amendment as presented.
VI. EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Proposed code changes Auburn City Code
Exhibit 2 Request 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 Letter(s) Received
DI.D Page 169 of 240
Zoning Code Text Amendment ZOA13-0005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
August 13, 2013
Page 6
Exhibit 8 Economic Development Strategy Areas
Staff Report Prepared by: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Services Manager
DI.D Page 170 of 240
ZOA13-0005
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 1
Chapter 18.57
STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES
Sections:
18.57.010 Intent.
18.57.015 Applicability.
18.57.020 Industrial, manufacturing and processing, wholesaling.
18.57.025 Recreation, education and public assembly.
18.57.030 Residential.
18.57.035 Retail.
18.57.040 Services.
18.57.045 Transportation, communication and infrastructure.
18.57.050 Vehicle sales and services.
ACC Section 18.57.030 Residential.
A. Multiple-Family Dwellings as Part of a Mixed-Use Development.
1. C-1 Zone. Multiple-family dwelling as part of a mixed-use development is allowed;
provided, that compliance to all of the following is demonstrated:
a. Multiple-family dwellings shall only occur concurrent with or subsequent to the
development and construction of nonresidential components of the mixed-use
development;
b. Applications for mixed-use development inclusive of multiple-family residential
dwellings shall include transportation and traffic analyses appropriate to the type and
scale of the proposed development based on the concurrent determination of the
planning director and city engineer. The planning director and city engineer may
require the analysis to address, including, but not limited to, a.m. or p.m. traffic
impacts; and/or area circulation planning for motorized and nonmotorized modes of
travel and connectivity; and/or transportation demand management (TDM)
strategies;
c. Applications for the mixed-use development inclusive of multifamily residential
dwellings shall include written and plan information demonstrating compliance to
applicable design standards for mixed-use development contained in the city of
Auburn multifamily and mixed-use design standards;
d. Applications for the mixed-use development inclusive of multifamily residential
dwellings shall comply, as applicable, with the neighborhood review meeting
requirements of ACC 18.02.130 (Neighborhood review meeting);
e. Mixed-use development comprised of a maximum of one building on a development
site shall have the entire 50 percent ground floor comprised of one or more
commercial retail, entertainment or office uses that are permitted outright or
conditionally; provided, that uses normal and incidental to the building, including, but
not limited to, interior entrance areas, elevators and associated waiting areas,
mechanical rooms, and garbage/recycling areas, may be allowed on the ground
floor, except that non-street frontage vehicle garages located on the ground floor
together with all other normal and incidental uses shall occupy a maximum of 50
percent of the ground floor space; orand
DI.D Page 171 of 240
ZOA13-0005
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 2
f. Mixed-use development that is geographically distributed on a development site
amongst two or more buildings shall have a minimum of 50 25 percent of the
cumulative building ground floor square footage comprised of one or more
commercial retail, entertainment or office uses that are permitted outright or
conditionally; or
g. Mixed-use development that has more than two buildings shall have a minimum
percentage of the cumulative building ground floor square footage comprised of one
or more commercial retail, entertainment, or office uses that are permitted outright or
conditionally as follows:
1. For 3 buildings 20 percent of the cumulative building ground floor square
footage.
2. For 4 buildings, 15 percent of the cumulative building ground floor square
footage.
3. For 5 or more buildings 10 percent of the cumulative building ground floor
square footage.
h. A project proponent may select to set aside a non-residential building pad(s), meeting
the percentage requirements above, for future development, provided that the site
plan for the development must identify the general location for the building(s),
associated parking areas, drive aisles, landscaping areas, and utility locations.
During the interim period that the non-residential site(s) remains undeveloped, it
must be maintained as a landscaped area meeting the requirements of ACC 18.50.
2. C-2 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted as part of a mixed-use development
provided they are:
a. Located in a multi-story building the ground floor of which must contain a permitted
use listed in Table 18.23.030, “Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited
Uses by Zone.” No density limitations shall apply.
3. C-3 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted as part of a mixed-use development
provided 1,200 square feet of lot area is provided for each dwelling unit.
4. C-4 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted provided they are:
a. Located in a multi-story building and the ground floor must contain a permitted use or
combination of uses, other than parking facility.
b. An exception to this ground floor commercial requirement is allowed for uses
accessory to the upper story residential at a rate of 1,500 square feet of area per
upper story of residential. The ground floor areas accessory to the upper story
residential may include, but are not limited to, entry space, lobby, hallway, mail
areas. The 1,500 square feet of upper floor area does not include exiting required to
meet applicable building and fire codes.
5. M-1 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted as part of a mixed-use development,
provided they are:
a. Located in a multi-story building the ground floor of which must contain one of the
retail or service uses listed in Table 18.23.030, “Permitted, Administrative,
Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone.” The ground floor may contain entrance
and lobby areas which serve the dwellings.
B. Multiple-Family Dwellings, Stand-Alone.
1. C-3 Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted provided:
DI.D Page 172 of 240
ZOA13-0005
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 3
a. One thousand two hundred square feet of lot area is provided for each dwelling unit;
and
b. The multiple-family development is arranged in the following manner based on its
orientation to a public roadway (Scenarios 1 – 4):
DI.D Page 173 of 240
ZOA13-0005
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Version 1
August 20, 2013
Page 4
2. EP Zone. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted provided:
a. The multiple-family development incorporates sustainable design and green building
practices and qualifies to be built green certified.
DI.D Page 174 of 240
1
Elizabeth Chamberlain
From:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Sent:Monday, August 05, 2013 4:27 PM
To:'DAHP'; 'larry.fisher@dfw.wa.gov'; 'ramin.pazooki@wsdot.wa.gov'; 'DNR';
'sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov'; 'MIT Cultural Program'; 'WA DOC'; 'Washington Environmental
Council'; 'Auburn School District'; Dave Hill; 'City of Federal Way'; 'Corbin, Douglas L';
'Futurewise'
Subject:DNS - two non-project action code amendments
Attachments:20130805154450514.pdf; Revised Checklist Student_Rental Housing.pdf; Proposed Code
Amendments and program SEPA version.pdf; 20130805154441529.pdf; Checklist C-1 Zone
Amendments.pdf; Multi Family Amendments SEPA version.pdf
Good Afternoon,
Attached please find the following:
Revised DNS, checklist, and proposed code amendments related to student/rental housing within the
City
DNS, checklist, and proposed code amendments related to the C-1, Light Commercial Zone, mixed use
requirements
The City anticipates a public hearing before the Planning Commission on August 20, 2013 and City Council
action in September.
For commerce – the City will be requesting expedited review for the proposed code amendments and will be
sending that request shortly under separate cover.
If there are any questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth F. Chamberlain, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Auburn
253-931-3092
DI.D Page 175 of 240
Dear Ms. Chamberlain:
Senior Planner
City of Auburn
25 W Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials
as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this
procedural requirement.
August 7, 2013
Elizabeth Chamberlain
City of Auburn - Proposed code amendments related to student/rental housing and proposed code
amendments related to the C-1, Light Commercial Zone, mixed use requirements. These materials
were received on August 06, 2013 and processed with the material ID # 19421. Expedited Review is
requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b).
If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you
have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106.
If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment requesting expedited review, then we have
forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for expedited review and comment. If one or more
state agencies indicate that they will be commenting, then Commerce will deny expedited review and the
standard 60-day review period (from date received) will apply. Commerce will notify you by e-mail regarding
of approval or denial of your expedited review request. If approved for expedited review, then final adoption
may occur no earlier than fifteen calendar days after the original date of receipt by Commerce. Please
remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption.
If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov,
or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048.
Sincerely,
Review Team
Growth Management Services
DI.D Page 176 of 240
REQUEST TO PUBLISH
Please publish the following Notice of Public Hearing in the Seattle Times on August 8, 2013
Bill the City of Auburn: City of Auburn
ATT: City Clerk
25 West Main
Auburn, WA. 98001
An "Affidavit of Publication" is requested for this billing. Thank you.
CITY OF AUBURN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission of the City of Auburn, Washington, will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 20, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall located at 25 West Main
Street on the following:
Case Number ZOA13-0003: Amendment to Auburn City Code
The proposal amends the Auburn City Code related student/rental housing. The proposed amendments
affect Title 18, Zoning, and Title 5, Business and Licenses Regulations.
Case Number ZOA13-0005: Amendment to Auburn City Code
The proposal amends the Auburn City Code related to the C-1, Light Commercial, Zone. Specifically, the
proposed code amendments address mixed-use development standards.
Case No. ZOA13-0004: Amendment to ACC 16.10.110, Critical Areas Regulations
Amendment to the critical areas regulations to authorize mitigation to be located outside the City under
certain circumstances which is currently not allowed.
The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main
Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be
submitted up until and at the public hearing for ZOA13-0003 and ZOA13-0005 to Elizabeth Chamberlain,
Planning Services Manager, Planning and Development Department, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA
98001-4988 or Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner, for ZOA13-0004 at the same address. If you have further
comments or questions, please contact Elizabeth Chamberlain at echamberlain@auburnwa.gov or at
(253) 931-3092.
For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this
hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meeting, as to the type of
service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of
request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services
or equipment.
DI.D Page 177 of 240
Planning and Development Department
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 of 16
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: C-1, Light Commercial Zone, Mixed-use
Amendments
2. Name of Applicant:
City of Auburn
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant:
Planning and Development Department
25 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Services Manager
(253) 931-3092
4. Date checklist prepared:
August 5, 2013
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Auburn
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Environmental Review – August 2013
Planning Commission Public Hearing – August 20, 2013
City Council Review – September 2013
City Council Action – September 2013
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related
to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
None
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
None
DI.D Page 178 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 2 of 16
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
None.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed
code amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and will forward a
recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not hold a
public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, or not adopting the
amendments.
Although not an approval or permit, the proposed zoning text amendments are also
subject to the 60-day State Agency review process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. The
City will be requesting expedited review.
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You need not
repeat those answers on this page.
The City put into place regulations that requires a certain amount of commercial
development when developing a multifamily project. The current regulations have not
responded well to the current market and the City is interested in making the regulations
more flexible by allowing alternatives to the traditional mixed-use development.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,
and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a
range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available.
While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required
to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
to this checklist.
The proposed code amendment would be applicable to properties zoned C-1, Light
Commercial.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. Earth:
A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other.
The City of Auburn is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep hillsides
that plateau.
DI.D Page 179 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 3 of 16
B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The slope of the valley walls in the city varies, but some slopes associated with the
valley walls reach 100%. Most sites on the valley floor have limited slopes.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the Oridia, Renton, Snohomish and Briscott
series. These soils are fairly poorly drained and formed in the alluvium (river sediments)
associated with the White and Green rivers. These are considered good agricultural soils,
though in many areas, are not well-drained. There is no designated prime farmland within
the City of Auburn.
The soils in the uplands are predominantly of the Alderwood series. These soils drain
moderately well and are typically located on slopes ranging from 0 - 70%.
D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
Many factors affect slope stability including soil type, parent material, slope and
drainage. These factors can be further affected by human intervention such as slope
alteration, and vegetation removal. The city has identified categories of geologic hazard
areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion and landslide hazard areas are
provided as Maps 9.6 and 9.7, respectively in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Not applicable. The proposed amendments are non-project actions, so no site
alteration, construction, or earthwork is proposed.
F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Not applicable. Non-project action.
G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Not applicable. The action does not involve site specific development proposals
H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth.
This is a non-project action so no site specific erosion control is proposed. However, the
existing comprehensive plan includes numerous policies to reduce or control erosion
through the use of best management practices, landscaping requirements, limitations on
alteration of steep slopes and other critical areas protections. Impacts to earth will be
identified and, if necessary, mitigated during the development review process as specific
development proposals are made that might be associated with these plan amendments.
DI.D Page 180 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 4 of 16
The city also has design and construction standards that address erosion control
measures.
2. Air:
A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project
is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
3. Water:
A. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If
yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into.
The major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River, Mill
Creek, Bowman Creek, and White Lake. The City has conducted an inventory of
wetlands within the city limits. These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
DI.D Page 181 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 5 of 16
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
Proposal is non-project action.
However, several areas within Auburn lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Green or
White River and Mill Creek. These areas as well as frequently flooded areas as defined
by the City of Auburn Public Works Department are shown on Map 9.4 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any
toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
4. Plants:
A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
DI.D Page 182 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 6 of 16
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. X
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. X
shrubs. X
grass. X
pasture. X
crop or grain. X
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage,
other.
X
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. X
other types of vegetation. X
B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Not applicable. This is non-project action. However, in general urban development
results in the removal or alteration of many types of vegetation.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site:
None that are known.
D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
5. Animals:
A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc.
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: urban animals such as dogs, cats,
squirrels, rodents, opossums, raccoons, etc. are also present in the city.
B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
There are nesting/breeding sites of bald eagles, great blue herons and green back heron
within Auburn as shown on Map 9.2 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
Environmental Impact Statement for the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that
peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the Aleutian Canadian Goose have been seen in the
Auburn area.
Chinook salmon are currently listed as a threatened species by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bull trout are also listed. Chinook salmon are known to use
the Green and White Rivers.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds.
DI.D Page 183 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 7 of 16
D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Not applicable. This is non-project action.
6. Energy and Natural Resources:
A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project’s energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
7. Environmental Health:
A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe.
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
B. Noise:
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
DI.D Page 184 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 8 of 16
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
8. Land and Shoreline Use:
A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The City and PAA contain a variety of land uses including residential, industrial, commercial,
open space, and public land uses. The proposed code amendment would be to properties
zoned C-1, Light Commercial.
B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe:
Much of the Green River Valley and the City of Auburn were used for agriculture at some
time in the past. Over the last several decades, rapid growth in the area resulted in
much of the agricultural land converting to urban uses. No land within the city is
designated as agricultural, though some parcels continue as that type of use.
C. Describe any structures on the site:
Structures within the City range from small single family detached homes to large industrial
and warehousing facilities.
D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
E. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
City zoning districts include: RR (Rural Residential); R-1 (1 du/acre) R-5 (5 du/acre); R-7
(7 du/acre); R-10 (10 du/acre), R-20 (20 du/acre); RMHP (Residential Manufactured
Home District); RO (Residential Office); RO-H (Residential Office-Hospital); CN
(Neighborhood Commercial); DUC (Downtown Urban Center); C1 (Light Commercial);
C2 (Central Business District); C3 (Heavy Commercial); M1 (Light Industrial); M2
(Heavy Industrial); BP (Business Park); LF (Airport Landing Field); P1 (Public Use); UNC
(Unclassified Use); I (Institutional Use); LH (Lea Hill).
The proposed code amendment would affect the C-1, Light Commercial zone.
F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
A Comprehensive Plan map of the City is contained in the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and includes 13 different plan designations.
G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
DI.D Page 185 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 9 of 16
Portions of the City along the Green and White Rivers fall under the Shoreline Master
Program. A map of the shoreline designations for those areas is Map 9.1 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts that are applicable to this proposed code
amendment do fall within the City’s Shoreline Management area.
H. Has any part of the site been classified as an “environmentally sensitive” area? If
so, specify:
Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, areas of the City do have sensitive
areas and the regulation and protection of sensitive areas are addressed through the City’s
critical areas ordinance.
I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Not applicable. This is a non-project action and no specific development is proposed.
J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action.
K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action.
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
None specifically. Proposal is a non-project action.
9. Housing:
A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
10. Aesthetics:
A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
DI.D Page 186 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 10 of 16
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
11. Light and Glare:
A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
12. Recreation:
A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and recreational facilities. Map 11.1 of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan shows the location of these facilities.
B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation:
A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe:
DI.D Page 187 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 11 of 16
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
However as a matter of information, in Auburn, the Blomeen House located at 324 B Street
NE is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Carnegie Library Building at 306
Auburn Avenue (currently Auburn Dance and Music Center) and the Auburn Post Office
(currently Seattle-King County Health Department) at 20 Auburn Avenue NE are local and
county landmarks. The Olson Farm, located at 28728 Green River Road South, was
designated as King County Landmark in 2000 and the Masonic Temple Building at the
southeast corner of Auburn Way South and East Main Street was designated as a King
County Historical Landmark in 2002.
B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Several Indian campsites have been identified along the Green and White rivers in the
Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in preliminary work for the Army Corps of
Engineers’ Special Area Management Plan.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
14. Transportation:
A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Figure 2-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the
City’s current and future classified street system.
B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
Not applicable, non-project action. However, Figure 4-1 of the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes
within the City. Also, a commuter rail station exists along the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe railroad right-of-way just south of West Main Street and east of C Street SW.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private):
Not applicable. Proposal is a non-project action.
DI.D Page 188 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 12 of 16
E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe:
There is no water transportation in the Auburn area other than for recreational uses.
The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time, local freight service is available.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both operate freight lines within Auburn.
Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between
Tacoma and Seattle. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through
Auburn but do not stop here. The Auburn Airport is located north of 15th Street NE.
F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Not applicable. Non-project action.
G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Not applicable. Non-project action.
15. Public Services:
A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe:
Not applicable. Non-project action.
B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impact on public services, if any:
The comprehensive plan contains policies that seek to maintain a sufficient level of
service for public services as development occurs. Also, Auburn reviews under SEPA,
the impacts of significant development on these public services. Mitigation measures
are required to reduce significant adverse impacts.
16. Utilities:
A. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other
– Cable TV.
All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn.
B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed:
This is a non-project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a utilities
element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that
serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision.
Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. A new Comprehensive
Water Plan and new Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the City in 2009. A
DI.D Page 189 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 13 of 16
new Comprehensive Drainage Plan was adopted in 2009. A new six year Capital
Facilities Plan was adopted in 2012 (2013-2018).
These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a
project level and city-wide basis.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
OWNER/AGENT SIGNATURE: Elizabeth Chamberlain
DATE SUBMITTED: August 5, 2013 _
DI.D Page 190 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 14 of 16
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions.)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal that would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in
general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
The proposed code amendments to the C-1, Light Commercial zone, should have a minimal
change in discharging to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or
hazardous substances or the production of noise. While the proposed code amendment
could apply to undeveloped property, the City’s stormwater design manual addresses
stormwater discharges and the City has other regulations addressing emissions to air and
hazardous substances.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or
emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on reducing
the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of emissions to
the air. Policies in the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of
development proposals to encourage native vegetation. This should support wildlife habitat
areas, particularly near streams, as the policies assist the City in addressing adverse
impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from runoff since native plantings may require
less pesticide use.
An environmental review of all non-exempt (from SEPA) development will be conducted to
evaluate and mitigate impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic
substances. Evaluation of the site specific proposals will be based on the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance,
shoreline master program regulations, and the Design and Construction Manuals, also
provide additional protection for these types of impacts.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposal is not likely affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life. However, as noted
below, the City has development standards to provide protection for these types of impacts.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to
protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. An environmental review under
SEPA of all non-exempt development is conducted to measure impacts. Evaluation based
DI.D Page 191 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 15 of 16
on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place
on a case-by-case basis.
Policies within the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of development
proposals to encourage native vegetation be used and/or retained. This should support
wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the policies assist the city in addressing
adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat since native plantings may
require less pesticide use.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and the
shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these types of
impacts.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Future development will use natural gas and electricity and could result in increased
automobile uses. However, there does not appear to be any significant adverse increases
in the use of energy of natural resources resulting from the amendments being proposed to
the existing comprehensive plan over what might occur under existing plan designations.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
None specifically, as this is a non-project action. However, in addition to the provisions of
the Auburn Energy Management Plan (adopted in 1986), which encourages energy
conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, the comprehensive plan
places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such as
transit, walking, and biking. An environmental review under SEPA of all significant
development will be conducted to measure the project impacts.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Taken as a whole, there should not be any change in impacts from existing regulations on
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for government protection. Regulations are
in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas regardless of the use of the land or these
proposed code amendments.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
The comprehensive plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance, seek to protect
environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard areas, floodplain, wildlife
habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts of development on them. The
Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the implementation of innovative land management
techniques to protect these resources. An environmental review under SEPA for all non-exempt
development will be conducted to evaluate impacts.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
DI.D Page 192 of 240
Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Page 16 of 16
Amendments can only be approved if it can be assured that future development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related regulations. Those
proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan policies or other existing
plans will not be approved.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations, such
as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land and
shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An environmental
review under SEPA of all development that is non-exempt will also be conducted to evaluate
a proposal’s land use and environmental impacts.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposed amendment could lead towards development that may increase demands on
public services, the transportation network, and utilities. The City has adopted a traffic
impact fee structure to address impacts to the transportation network.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The Auburn Comprehensive Plan presently incorporates the 2013-2018 Capital Facilities
Plan updated, which seeks to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as
development occurs.
Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water
Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan updates were adopted by the city in 2009. The
Comprehensive Drainage Plan update was also adopted in 2009. The Comprehensive
Transportation Plan was adopted in 2005 with updates during the 2006 and 2009
Comprehensive Plan amendment cycles. These plans help ensure that utility impacts are
adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not appear to present any conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements.
DI.D Page 193 of 240
DI.D Page 194 of 240
DI.D Page 195 of 240
1
Elizabeth Chamberlain
From:Jeff Tate
Sent:Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:04 AM
To:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Subject:Fwd: Lea Hill (C-1)
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nicole Petrino-Salter <nicolepetrinosalter@hotmail.com>
Date: July 23, 2013, 8:39:20 AM PDT
To: "nbackus@auburnwa.gov" <nbackus@auburnwa.gov>, "jtate@auburnwa.gov"
<jtate@auburnwa.gov>, "jholman@auburnwa.gov" <jholman@auburnwa.gov>,
"lwales@auburnwa.gov" <lwales@auburnwa.gov>
Subject: Lea Hill (C-1)
Deputy Mayor Nancy Backus, Interim Planning Director Jeff Tate, Councilman
John Holman, and Councilwoman Largo Wales:
As the property owners of the 14+ acres zoned C-1 in the Lea Hill location
bordering The Seasons apartments/commercial/retail space, we appreciate your
efforts on our behalf to address the City Code which stipulates all development
in this zoning/location must contain 50% allocated for ground
floor commercial/retail space for the mixed-use criteria. As most of you know,
this 50% requirement was and is responsible for the dissolving of two contracts
for the sales of our properties to a developer. It wasn't feasible when it first was
introduced, and it's currently not feasible fiscally, economically, and location-
wise.
Last evening (July 22, 2013), Deputy Mayor Backus asked us if we had anything
new to present besides what has been stated on record via personal visits to Mr.
Tate and emails to both Nancy and Jeff. Mr. Rudy Terry felt compelled to
emphasize we're at the mercy of all of you. May I take this time to give you a not-
so-hypothetical situation . . .
Living in the rural beauty of unincorporated Lea Hill, many of us have spent 20
to 40 years up here on the hill, most of our adult lives. Thinking this might just
be where we spend the rest of our lives, we realized as neighbors sold their
properties due to aging or deaths/inheritances, this would no longer be a rural
area. Those of us with large animals became concerned about their well-being
with more residential occupants and their curiosities. After annexation, we faced
the realities of being "in the city" and watched as multiple houses continued (and
continue) to be erected adjacent to our properties. When we collectively decided
DI.D Page 196 of 240
2
to sell to a developer who offered us prices we couldn't refuse, we signed
contracts and began to plan for our futures.
Some of our futures are on the shorter side of life. We've probably got one more
move in us. Others of us yearn for the more rural lifestyles to accomodate
large animals and pets. Most of us (not all) have spent a great deal of money on
our homes, properties, and contributed to the economy in Auburn for
many years. For some of us, our retirement depends on the sale of our property.
To be stopped and/or hindered from selling our properties by a City Code seems
unreasonable, but it has happened twice to us and leaves us with few options, if
any.
Last night the random percentage of 25% allotment for commercial/retail space
was suggested to illustrate there needed to be a new minimum percentage written
into the code. As you no doubt realize, this number (25%) is excessive. Since The
Seasons' percentage is at 18% and has two units vacant since its inception with
the food market being subsidized to stay in business, how can it be reasonable to
assume a higher or even a same percentage is realistic? With more vacancies at
the small retail location adjacent to the 7/11 on 124th and 312th it's clear that
Lea Hill has a surplus of empty retail/commercial space.
The more retail/commercial (higher percentage) space required, the less likely it
is that we will ever be able to sell our properties. What value is there for
a developer to waste money on empty building space(s)? We're asking for what
Nancy called "thinking outside the box". We're asking for a more reasonable
percentage (based on the allotted empty spaces and subsidized space on Lea Hill)
with flexible language to invite a developer to work with the city to accommodate
both of their needs. Make that percentage too high and no developer will invest
in a losing situation. If the code is too restrictive, the value of buildable land
diminishes along with the offers/prices for our properties.
If any of you were offered a price for your dwellings which you valued and could
not refuse, after deciding for your needs you needed to relocate, would you
appreciate the city making such unreasonable restrictions cementing
the impossibility for you to sell to the buyer of your choice? This has happened to
us more than once. We are landlocked. We are stuck. And it is because of the
city's regulations for development.
We realize this is a reiteration of all that's been presented to you, but we can't
emphasize it enough. Time is truly running out for us. Money for development is
tenuous at best. How long it will be available no one can say. We have what we
consider a dire need, and without your assistance, understanding, and action we
will remain stuck. The timeline presented at the meeting is clearly on a fast-track
which we deeply appreciate. However, without the helpful language and much
less restrictive requirements, we will be left with no options.
DI.D Page 197 of 240
3
Thank you for all that you've done so far, for hearing and listening, for taking
the time out of your multi-level work issues to include our needs in your
agendas. If we sound "desperate", it's because we are. Thank you.
(I would appreciate if you could let me know you've received this email. Thank
you.)
Respectfully,
Nicole Petrino-Salter
http://hopeofglory.typepad.com
DI.D Page 198 of 240
1
Elizabeth Chamberlain
From:Nicole Petrino-Salter [nicolepetrinosalter@hotmail.com]
Sent:Monday, August 19, 2013 4:33 PM
To:Elizabeth Chamberlain
Subject:C-1/Planning Commission Meeting
Elizabeth,
If it's not too late to submit another letter in support of our issues, I received this one from the Estate of Karen
L. Campbell from her brother Kevin P. Campbell:
Planning Commission, Planning and Community Development Committee, Elizabeth Chamberlain:
I'm sending this to support the Groups request to have the C-1 zoning code adjusted.
My sister, Karen Lyne Campbell resided at 31049 129th Place SE. She had been working with the
Group and the Developer through a number of attempts with the City of Auburn to come to a
workable solution. The code was always the stumbling block for moving forward with the sale of
the properties.
I am Karen's brother and now Estate Representative, Kevin P. Campbell.
I have read everything the group has put forth to the City on the C-1 issue.
I have followed the retail trend in the area over the last 20 plus years and watched the
neighborhoods change.
The encroachment of large homes overlooking the once semi-private properties and lifestyles of
Karen and her neighbors is lost.
To hold to the outdated C-1 code requirement now in play will be ruinous to the group in its quality
of life and for some financial as well.
Please work with our Group for a solution that benefits all. Vacant building spaces bring little
revenue.
I fully support the property owners Group in this endeavor.
Kevin P. Campbell
Brother and Estate Representative for Karen Lyne Campbell
Estate address: 31049 129th Pl SE, Auburn, WA 98092
Nicole Petrino-Salter
http://hopeofglory.typepad.com
DI.D Page 199 of 240
LAKETAPPS
18
18
MARYOLSONFARM
AUBURNGAMEFARM
AUBURNENVIRONMENTALPARK
MOUNTAINVIEWCEMETERY
BRANNANPARK
SUNSETPARK
GAMEFARMWILDERNESSPARK
GSAPARK
LEAHILLPARK
ROEGNERPARK
AUBURNNARROWSSTATEPARK
NORTHGREENRIVERPARK
HATCHERYNATURALAREA
NEELYBRIDGENATURALAREA
ISAACEVANSPARK
FENSTERPROPERTY
MILLPONDPARK
CEDARLANESPARK
LESGOVECOMMUNITYCAMPUS
SOOSCREEKPARKANDTRAIL
AUBURNDALEPARK
YMCASPORTFIELDS
FULMERPARK
ROTARYPARK
VETERANSMEMORIALPARK
CAMERONPARK
DORTHYBOTHELLPARK
LAKELANDHILLSPARK
SHAUGHNESSYPARK
RIVERPOINTPARK
JORNADAPARK
DYKSTRAPARK
GAINESPARK
SCOOTIEBROWNPARK
TERMINALPARK
LEAHILLTENNISCOURTS
BICENTENNIALPARK
BALLARDPARK
PIONEERCEMETARY
INDIANTOMPARK
CENTENNIALVIEWPOINTPARK
FORESTVILLATOTLOT
BSTREETPLAZA
SLAUGHTERMEMORIALPARK
167
167
BUENAVISTASCHOOL
AUBURNHIGHSCHOOL
TOTEMMIDDLESCHOOL
OLYMPICMIDDLESCHOOL
RAINIERMIDDLESCHOOL
CASCADEMIDDLESCHOOL
SEQUOIAMIDDLESCHOOL
VALLEYCHRISTIANSCHOOL
ILALKOELEMENTARYSCHOOL
AUBURNADVENTISTACADEMY
WESTAUBURNHIGHSCHOOL
CHINOOKELEMENTARYSCHOOLPIONEERELEMENTARYSCHOOL
HORIZONELEMENTARYSCHOOL
MOUNTBAKERMIDDLESCHOOL
LEAHILLELEMENTARYSCHOOL
HAZELWOODELEMENTARYSCHOOL
STJAMESOFTHOMASSCHOOL
GILDOREYELEMENTARYSCHOOL
WASHINGTONELEMENTARYSCHOOL
STARLAKEELEMENTARYSCHOOL
MILLENNIUMELEMENTARYSCHOOL
PINETREEELEMENTARYSCHOOL
AUBURNRIVERSIDEHIGHSCHOOL
HOLYFAMILYELEMENTARYSCHOOL
GREENRIVERCOMMUNITYCOLLEGE
DICKSCOBEEELEMENTARYSCHOOL
SCENICHILLELEMENTARYSCHOOL
NORTHWESTFAMILYCHURCHSCHOOL
MESSIAHLUTHERANCHURCHSCHOOL
MEADOWRIDGEELEMENTARYSCHOOL
TERMINALPARKELEMENTARYSCHOOL
AUBURNMOUNTAINVIEWHIGHSCHOOL
MEREDITHHILLELEMENTARYSCHOOL
LAKELANDHILLSELEMENTARYSCHOOL
ARTHURJACOBSENELEMENTARYSCHOOL
EVERGREENHEIGHTSELEMENTARYSCHOOL
MUCKLESHOOTCASINO
SUPERM ALL
S R 18 -E AS T
A ST SE
B ST NW
AUBURN WAY S
M ST SE
C ST SW
I ST NE
SR 167-SOUTH
SR 167-NORTH
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
S R 18 -W E S T
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E MAIN ST
WEST VALLEY HWY N
C ST NW
C ST NE
S 277TH ST
STUCK RIVER DR SE
2ND ST E
15TH ST SW
SE 304TH ST
W MAIN ST
LAKE TAPPS PK
W
Y SE
15TH ST NW
53RD ST SE
41ST ST SE
KERSEY WAY SE
51ST AVE S
29TH ST SE
M ST NW
SE 312TH ST
M ST NE
SE 320TH ST
SE 288TH ST
37TH ST SE
8TH ST NE
PAC
IFIC
AV
E S
22ND ST NE
37TH ST NW
SE 284TH ST
L
A
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZ RD SE
4
6
T
H
P
L
S
17TH ST SE
PERIMETER RD SW
25TH ST SE
12TH ST SE
R ST NE
S 296TH ST
ACADEMY DR SE
D ST SE
55TH AVE S
D ST NW
110TH AVE SE
A ST NE
4TH ST SE
104TH AVE SE
I ST NW
116TH AVE SE
A ST NW
WEST VALLEY HWY S
118TH AVE SE
GREEN RIVER RD SE
D ST NE
L E A H I L L R D S E
EMERALD DOWNS DR NW
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
E ST NE
S
C
E
NIC D
R S
E
O ST NE
W ST NW
6 9 T H S T S E
56TH AVE S
37TH ST NE
S 316TH ST
S 287TH ST
H ST NW
62ND ST SE
321ST ST S
44TH ST NW
CLAY ST NW
SR 167-SOUTH RAMP
SE 316TH ST
SR 18-EAST RAMP
14TH ST NE
AUBURN-BLACK DIAMOND RD SESR 167-N O R T H R A M P
RIVERWALK DR SE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
S
112TH AVE SE
EV ERG REEN WAY SE
K ST SE
144TH AVE SE
EA
ST VA
LLEY HW
Y E
I ST SE
4TH ST NE
HARVEY RD NE
BRIDGET AVE SE
L ST SE
7TH ST SE
4TH ST SW
5TH ST SE
S 331ST ST
DOGWOOD ST SE
FRONTAGE RD
F ST SE
C ST SE
T ST SE
PIKE ST NE
6 7 T H S T S E
EA
ST BLVD (BO
EING)
8TH ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
H ST SE
B ST SE
G ST SE
MILL POND DR SE
JOHN REDDINGTON RD NE
E ST SE
140TH AVE SE
52ND AVE S
G PL SE
RIVER DR SE
32ND ST NE
10
5
T
H
P
L S
E
SE 316TH PL
A ST SW
SE 310TH ST
47TH ST SE
56TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
32ND PL NE
54TH AVE S
SE 296TH WAY
QUI
NC
Y AVE
SE
U
S
T
N
W
SE 290TH ST
S 305TH ST
57TH PL S
J ST SE
35TH WAY SE
130TH AVE SE
127TH PL SE
28TH ST NE
OLIVE AVE SE
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
R ST NW
E
L
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
31ST ST NE
30TH ST NE
R I V E R V I E W D R N E
O ST SW
5 1 S T S T N E
B ST NE
26TH ST SE
65TH AVE S
HO
WARD RD SE
SE 323RD PL
SE 31 8 TH WAY
SE 301ST ST
3 2 N D S T S E
3RD ST SE
S 300TH ST
THOMAS AVE SE
A ST E
SE 287TH ST
6 4 T H S T S E
50TH ST SE
M
O
N
T
E
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
S
E
5 0 T H S T N E
10TH ST NE
HEMLOCK ST SE
29TH ST NW
31ST ST SE
V ST NW
21ST ST NE
108TH AVE SE
SE 304TH WAY
F O R E S T RI D G E D R S E
2ND ST NW
30TH ST SE
85TH AVE S
23RD ST SE
24TH ST SE
AUBURN AVE NE
22ND ST SE
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
D
R
S
E
H ST NE
S 318TH ST
SE 298TH PL
PIKE ST NW
64TH AVE S
G ST NE
S R 1 8-W EST R A M P
SUPERMALL DR SW
36TH ST SEO ST SE
S K Y W A Y L N S E
58TH AVE S
42ND ST NW
SE 282ND ST
LUND RD SW
D ST SW
S 288TH ST
TERRACE DR NW
16TH ST NE
17TH ST NE
ELLINGSON RD SW
1
0
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
E
SUPERMALL WAY SW
V ST SE
126TH AVE SE
HI CREST DR NW
51ST ST SE
19TH DR NE
10TH ST SE
49 TH ST NE
111TH PL SE
20TH ST SE
F ST SW
SE 295TH ST
V CT SE
NATHAN AVE SE
SE 326TH PL
E ST SW
SE 286TH ST
37T H W AY SE
66TH ST SE
7 2 N D S T S E
148TH AVE SE
Z ST SE
10
4T
H P
L SE
16TH ST SE
2ND ST SE
128TH
PL SE
13TH ST SE
42ND ST NE
G ST SW
ELM ST SE
B PL NW
73 RD S T S E
3RD ST NW
S 312TH ST
T ST NW
2 4 T H S T N W
PEARL AVE SE
S
U
M
N
E
R
-
TA
P
P
S
H
W
Y
E
6TH ST NW
ELM LN SE
SE 312TH WAY
SE 294TH ST
118TH
PL SE
SE 294TH PL
57TH ST SE
L ST NE
S 2 9 2 N D S T
55TH PL S
9TH ST SE
I
S
A
A
C
A
V
E
S
E
1ST ST SW
PERRY AVE SE
52ND PL S
GINKGO ST SE
105TH AVE SE
SE 285TH ST
C
H
A
R
L
O
T
T
E
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
Z
E
L
A
V
E
S
E
67TH LN SE
61ST ST SE
28TH ST SE
SUPER MA LL AC RD SW
T ST NE
SE 307TH PL
PANORAMA DR SE
15TH ST SE
109TH AVE SE
J ST NE
11TH ST NE
20TH ST NE
63RD ST SE
14TH ST SE
S 303RD PL
SE 299TH PL
26TH ST NE
45T H ST N E
SE 281ST ST
HEATHER AVE SE
SE 308TH PL
RANDALL AVE SE
SE 43RD ST
U
S
T
S
E
6 0 T H S T S E
K ST NE
S 319TH ST
SE 290TH PL
22ND ST NW
6TH ST SE
20TH ST NW
109TH PL SE
R PL SE
WARD AVE SE
61ST AVE S
52ND ST NE
S 3 1 4 T H S T
19TH ST SE
57TH DR SE
SE 289TH ST
S 302ND PL
SE 297TH ST
21ST ST SE
LAKE TAPPS DR SE
3RD ST SW
33RD ST SE
30TH ST NW
I PL NE
129TH PL SE
N DIVISION ST
SE 323RD ST
55TH ST SE
S E 3 0 7 T H S T
N ST SE
PIKE ST SE
DOGWOOD LN SE
MILL P O N D L O O P SE
S 324TH ST
WESTERN AVE NW
DOGWOOD DR SE
OLYMPIC ST SE
111TH AVE SE
D PL SE
114TH AVE SE
F ST NW
SE 292ND ST
TERRACE VIEW LN SE
14TH ST NW
107TH PL SE
117TH PL SE
53RD PL S
M D R N E
G ST NW
42ND PL NE
SE 306TH ST
INDUSTRY DR SW
1
1
2
T
H
P
L
S
E
5TH ST NE
134TH PL SE
12TH ST NE
ORAV ETZ PL SE
110TH PL SE
18TH ST NE
ORCHARD ST SE
35TH ST NE
8TH ST SW
SE 302ND PL
KATHERINE AVE SE
SE 286TH PL
JASMINE AVE SE
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
A
V
E
S
E
133RD AVE SE
1ST ST NE
59TH AVE S
43RD ST NE
S 296TH PL
SE 300TH ST
40TH ST NE
22ND WAY NE
63RD PL S
62ND LOOP SE
2ND ST NE
FIR ST SE
9TH ST NE
27TH ST SE
O CT SE
JAMES AVE SE
ELAINE AVE SE
3RD ST NE
66TH AVE S
130TH WAY SE
KENNEDY AVE SE
19TH PL SE
107TH AVE SE
UDALL AVE SE
SE 308TH ST
V PL SE
SE 305TH PL
S 307TH ST
SE 288TH PL
56TH PL S
SE 31 3 TH S T
SE 314TH PL
AABY DR NW
GREEN RIVER ACRD SE
SE 302ND ST
SE 45TH ST
28TH CT SE
16TH ST NW
121ST PL SE
S 297TH PL
SE 293RD ST
SE 318TH PL
SE 313TH PL
1ST ST SE
C PL SE
O PL NE
71ST ST SE
F P L N E
37TH PL SE
56
TH CT S
DOUGLAS AVE SE
125TH AVE SE
120TH
AVE SE
28TH PL SE
26TH ST NW
SE 304TH PL
1
1
3
T
H
P
L
S
E
S 2 9 2 N D P L
5 8 T H W A Y S E
S ST SE
SE 315TH ST
10TH ST NW
S 321ST ST
1
1
4
T
H
W
A
Y
S
E
S 328TH ST
S 329TH PL
49TH ST SE48TH C T S E
SE 311TH ST
SE 321ST PL
6
0
T
H
P
L
S
FRANKLIN AVE SE
SE 282ND WAY
67TH CT SE
11TH ST SE
SE 320TH PL7TH ST NE
128TH AVE SE
124TH PL SE
65TH ST SE
3RD CT SE
2 1 S T S T N W
SE 322ND PL
138TH AVE SE
44TH ST SE
CEDAR DR SE
167TH AVE E
W
E
S
L
E
Y
P
L
S
E
S 326TH LN
S 320TH ST
SE 309TH ST
122ND PL SE
178TH AVE E
SE 325TH PL
SE 315TH PL
181ST AVE E
122ND AVE SE
100TH
AVE SE
13TH ST NE
70TH ST SE
SE 305TH ST
23RD ST NE SE 306TH PL
123RD AVE SE
305TH PL SE
E
L
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
L
O
O
P
S
E
U ST NE
SE 324TH ST
171ST AVE E
54
TH PL S
JORDAN AVE SE
TRANSIT RD SW
8TH ST NW
5 T H S T S W
5
7
T
H
P
L
S
E
HAZEL L
N SE
S 294TH ST
A
N
N
E
T
T
E
AV
E
S
E
EVA N CT SE
SE 322ND ST
129TH AVE SE
15TH ST CT
137TH AVE SE
S E 2 9 1 S T S T
LAURELWOOD RD S
IRENE AVE SE
37TH CT SE
4TH PL NE
J
C
T S
E
L PL SE
53RD AVE S
SE 312TH PL
SE 306TH CT
SE 283RD ST
O CT N
E
SE 30 8 TH CT
L CT NE
59TH PL S
SE 29 7 TH PL
SE 324TH LN
115TH LN SE
S 288TH PL
68TH ST SE
S 336TH PL
SE 317TH CT
17TH DR SE
W PL NW
SE 312TH CT
M PL NE
51ST CT S
JUNIPER LN SE
C CT SE
PIKE PL NE
26
TH
P
L N
E
S 344TH CT
56TH CT SE
S 304TH ST
G ST SE
108TH AVE SE
SE 295TH ST
M ST NE
SE 29 0 TH PL
5TH ST NE
72ND ST SE
S ST SE
S 329TH PL
SE 307TH ST
D ST SE
1ST ST SE
PIKE ST SE
65 T H S T S E
108TH AVE SE
D ST NE
S 328TH ST
D ST NE
G ST SE
10
8TH
AVE
SE
O ST SE
PIKE ST NE
67TH ST SE
7TH ST SE
2 8 T H S T S E
52ND AVE S
30TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
R ST NE
1 6 T H S T N E
66TH ST SE
S 288TH ST
107TH
AVE SE
SR 18-WEST RAMP
1ST ST NE
8TH ST SE
50TH ST SE
112TH AVE SE
6TH ST SE
55TH AVE S
9TH ST NE
W ST NW
H ST SE
4TH ST NE
G ST NW
2 9 T H S T N W
SR 167-SOUTH RAMP
SE 288TH PL
124TH PL SE
A ST NE
4TH ST SE
5
7
T
H
P
L
S
67TH ST SE
16TH ST NE
SE 299TH ST
F ST SE
T ST SE
49TH ST SE
E ST NE
24TH ST SE
D ST NW
B ST SE
20TH ST SE
SR 167-SOUTH RAMP
21ST ST SE
D ST SE
112TH PL SE
25TH ST SE
A ST NW
15TH ST NE
51ST ST SE
CHAR
LOT
TE AVE SE
17TH ST NE
14TH ST SE
56TH AVE S
10TH ST NE
SR 167-NORTH RAMP
12TH ST NE
107TH AVE SE
R ST NW
52ND AVE S
SE 321ST PL
22ND ST SE
53RD PL S
K ST NE
PIKE ST NE
F ST SE
A ST NE
I
P
L
N
E
N ST NE
29TH ST NW
DOGWOOD ST SE
L ST SE
PI
KE
ST N
E
K ST SE
4TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
SR 167-NORTH RAMP
I PL NE
M
S
T
N
E
SE 286TH ST
2ND ST SE
I ST SE
D ST SE
C ST SE
D ST SE
108TH AVE SE
118TH AVE SE
3RD ST NE
N DIVISION ST
O
L
I
V
E
A
V
E
S
E
J ST NE
J ST SE
S 292ND ST
28TH ST SE
23RD ST SE
SE 305TH PL
15TH ST SE
57 TH ST SE
65TH ST SE
L
S
T
N
E
RIVERVIEW DR NE
G ST SE
SE 28 2 ND ST
SE 299TH PL
ELM ST SE
1ST ST NE
R ST SE
ELM ST SE
6 8 T H S T S E
SR 18-WEST RAMP
O ST NE
111TH
AVE SE
47TH ST SE
R ST NW
T ST SE
SE 295TH ST
D ST SE
5TH ST NE
1
2
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
SR 18-WEST R AMP
S E 3 1 0 T H S T
V ST NW
SE 301ST ST
129TH AVE SE
SE 282ND WAY
7TH ST NE
23RD ST SE
K ST NE
U ST NW
4 0 T H S T N E
52ND AVE S
D ST SE
SE 294TH ST
L ST NE
H ST NE
SE 314TH PL
K ST SE
SE 286TH PL
S E 3 2 6 T H P L
O ST NE
MONTEVISTA DR SE
17TH ST NE
5
7
T
H
P
L
S
32ND ST SE
K ST NE
HOWARD RD SE
FIR ST SE
SE 281ST ST
SE 315TH PL
A ST SE
2 4 T H S T S E
SR 167-NORTH RAMP
SE 302ND ST
116TH AVE SE
5 0 T H S T S E
55TH ST SE
51ST AVE S
SE 288TH ST
55TH AVE S
L ST SE
35TH WAY SE
56TH AVE S
Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
Map ID: 4095Printed On: 02/19/13
Economic Development Strategy Areas
Auburn City Limits
Potential Annexation Areas
15th ST Street SW/C Street SW/W Valley Highway
A Stre et SE Corridor
Auburn Environmental Park Developable Area
Auburn Way North Corridor
Auburn Way Sou th Corridor
Green Zone
M Stree t and Harvey Road Corridor Strate gy Are a
Northwest Auburn
SE 312th Stree t /124th Avenue SE Corridor
Urban Center
Urban Center Extended
1 INCH = 3,485 FEET
Map 14.3
The location of economic development strategies areasare depicted generally based on city council discussionsand the precise boundaries will be established throughsubsequent planning actions.DI.D Page 200 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
ZOA13-0004 Amendments to ACC 16.10.110, Critical Areas
Regulations
Date:
August 21, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
Agenda Bill
Exhibit A - Ordinance No. 6476
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D - DNS and Checklist
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
See attached Agenda Bill.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Planning And Community Development Other: Legal, Planning Commission
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:DI.E
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E Page 201 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6476, Proposed amendments to
Auburn City Code Section 16.10.110 related to mitigation standards,
criteria and plan requirements to allow mitigation outside the city (File No.
ZOA13-0004).
Date: August 21, 2013
Department: Planning and
Development
Attachments: See exhibit list (at end
of report)
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to review
Ordinance No. 6476 amending Auburn City Code Chapter Section 16.10.110
Summary:
The purpose of this amendment to the code is to provide greater flexibility in the city’s critical area
regulations and specifically to allow mitigation, especially wetland mitigation, to be located outside the city
limits which is not currently allowed.
The general approach of these code amendments was discussed with and reviewed by the Planning and
Community Development Committee of the City Council on May 28, 2013 at their regular meeting. The
Committee was supportive of the general approach.
Staff discussed and presented an earlier draft of the code amendment language to the Planning
Commission on July 2, 2013 at their regular meeting. The proposed critical areas regulations were
subsequently modified in response to comments from the Washington State Department of Ecology.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments on August 20, 2013
and forwarded a recommendation for approval based on staff recommendation.
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: Welch
Meeting Date: August 26, 2013 Item Number:
DI.E Page 202 of 240
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC
16.10.110 related to mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements
to allow mitigation outside the City (File No. ZOA12-0003)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 2 of 8
Background
The City adopted its critical area regulations in 2005 by Ordinance No. 5894. The adoption was
a culmination of a series of extensive workshops and hearings over more than a 9-month period
with the Planning Commission and City Council. The regulations have been in effect now for 8
years, and have been working well and proven effective.
One subject area of the critical areas that has been evolving since the time of the City’s
adoption of these regulations however, is the way in which mitigation is accomplished,
especially mitigation related to wetlands. Where mitigation or compensating for the impact is
appropriate, there is generally a movement and desire in the environmental regulating agencies
to move to an eco-region approach to addressing the impact and mitigation. In the case of
wetlands, this is generally based on a watershed area or drainage basin—replacing the
resource within the same contributory surface water area of a river or lake as the impact. This
watershed basis to evaluating the location of impacts and the location of the mitigation sites
takes into account the natural environment of the resource and the fact that environmental
resources do not always neatly fit into or observe jurisdictional or political boundaries.
Auburn City Code Section 16.10.110 establishes the standards, criteria, and plan requirements
for development activities that result in mitigation of impacts to critical areas. While this section
applies to all types of critical areas, it is most commonly implemented in relation to wetlands.
This is because other types of critical areas tend to be more geographically dependant. ACC
16.10.110.B states that “Mitigation Sites shall be located in the City.” And it is recommended
that this language be modified so that the location of mitigation sites can be more flexible and
can be located outside of the City. This may also include a location outside the city through a
mitigation bank or fee in-lieu. The change would allow the mitigation site to be located outside
the City for those projects that are allowed to impact critical areas.
While the City’s critical area regulations promote avoidance of impacts to critical areas and on-
site mitigation as preferred approaches, where these are not viable, mitigation within the same
watershed is a commonly accepted approach. Different portions of the City are located within
the watershed of the Green and White Rivers, each of which extend substantially beyond the
city limits which means there is potential for pursing mitigation opportunities outside the city.
The change would also increase consistency with the approach utilized by other agencies that
have jurisdiction for wetland impacts, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, thus making it
easier for applicants to meet the mitigation requirements of various levels of government that
have jurisdiction for regulating wetlands for the same project.
Findings of Fact
1. In summary, the intent of the proposed code amendment is to provide greater flexibility in
the administration of the city’s existing critical area regulations contained in Auburn City
Code (ACC) Section 16.10.
2. The City of Auburn contains numerous areas that can be identified and characterized as
critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the city include wetlands, streams
DI.E Page 203 of 240
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC
16.10.110 related to mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements
to allow mitigation outside the City (File No. ZOA12-0003)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 3 of 8
(and rivers), wildlife habitat, geologic hazards, ground water protection areas, and flood
hazard areas.
3. The City finds that these critical areas perform a variety of valuable and beneficial
biological and physical functions that benefit the city and its residents. Alteration of
certain critical areas may also pose a threat to public safety or to public and private
property or the environment. The city therefore finds that identification, regulation and
protection of critical areas are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general
welfare.
4. The critical area regulations and other sections as incorporated by reference contain
standards, procedures, criteria and requirements intended to identify, analyze, and
mitigate potential impacts to the city's critical areas, and to enhance and restore
degraded resources where possible. The general intent of these regulations is to avoid
impacts to critical areas. In appropriate circumstances, impacts to specified critical areas
resulting from regulated activities may be minimized, rectified, reduced and/or
compensated for, consistent with the requirements of this chapter.
5. It is the further stated intent of the city’s critical area regulations to:
1. Comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW) and implement rules to identify and protect critical areas and to
perform the review of development regulations required by RCW 36.70A.215;
2. Develop and implement a comprehensive, balanced and fair regulatory
program that avoids impacts to critical resources where possible, that requires
that mitigation be performed by those affecting critical areas, and that thereby
protects the public from injury, loss of life, property or financial losses due to
flooding, erosion, landslide, seismic events, soil subsidence, or steep slope
failure;
3. Implement the goals and policies of the Auburn comprehensive plan,
including those pertaining to natural features and environmental protection, as
well as goals relating to land use, housing, economic development,
transportation, and adequate public facilities;
4. Serve as a basis for exercise of the city's substantive authority under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the city's environmental review
procedures, where necessary to supplement these regulations, while also
reducing the city's reliance on project-level SEPA review;
5. Provide consistent standards, criteria and procedures that will enable the
city to effectively manage and protect critical areas while accommodating the
rights of property owners to use their property in a reasonable manner;
6. Provide greater certainty to property owners regarding uses and activities
that are permitted, prohibited, and/or regulated due to the presence of critical
areas;
7. Coordinate environmental review and permitting of proposals involving
critical areas with existing development review and approval processes to avoid
duplication and delay pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B
RCW;
DI.E Page 204 of 240
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC
16.10.110 related to mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements
to allow mitigation outside the City (File No. ZOA12-0003)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 4 of 8
8. Establish conservation and protection measures for threatened and
endangered fish species in compliance with the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act and the Growth Management Act requirements to preserve or
enhance anadromous fisheries, WAC 365-195-925;
9. Alert members of the public, including appraisers, assessors, owners,
potential buyers or lessees, to the development limitations of critical areas and
their required buffers.
6. The City adopted its critical area regulations in 2005 by Ordinance No. 5894.
7. The proposed amendment of the city’s critical area regulations is exempt from the
“Notice of Application” procedures under ACC 14.02.070, “Project permit or project
permit application” and ACC 14.02.040, “Development regulations”, since the adoption
or amendment of critical area regulation is a type of “development regulation” that is not
a "Project permit" or "project permit application". The Notice of Application is required
only for project permits and not development regulations.
8. The code amendment is subject to environmental review process under the Washington
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
was issued July 22, 2013 and the city observed a fourteen-day public comment period.
The City did not receive any comments in response to notice of the public comment
period.
9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed critical area code amendment was sent to
the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies as required
for the state review of modifications of development regulations. The amendments were
sent on June 27, 2013. The City requested expedited review, as allowed by their
procedures. The Department of Commerce granted expedited review and
acknowledged receipt on July 1, 2013.
10. In response to submittal of the proposed critical area amendment to the Washington
State Department of Commerce and other state agencies, the city received comments
from the Washington State Department of Ecology, Critical Area Ordinance Coordinator
and Alternative Mitigation Specialist. The comments made some edits to clarify under
what circumstances mitigation is allowed to be constructed off-site and added some
language to allow more mitigation options. The city incorporated their comments.
11. The general approach of these code amendments was discussed with and reviewed by
the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on May 28,
2013 at their regular meeting. The Committee was supportive of the general approach.
12. Staff discussed and presented an earlier draft of the code amendments language to the
Planning Commission on July 2, 2013 at their regular meeting. The proposed critical
areas regulations were subsequently modified in response to the Washington State
Department of Ecology comments received.
DI.E Page 205 of 240
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC
16.10.110 related to mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements
to allow mitigation outside the City (File No. ZOA12-0003)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 5 of 8
13. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments on
August 20, 2013 and forwarded a recommendation for approval.
14. The public hearing notice was published on August 8, 2013 in the Seattle Times
newspaper at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled
for August 20, 2013.
15. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Chapter 16.10.110,
scheduled for the Planning Commission’s August 20, 2013 public hearing with a staff
recommendation of approval.
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
flexibility in the City’s development regulations and prescribe the approach to
development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan also has sections that address the
protection and management of environmentally-sensitive or critical area resources. The
following goals, objectives, and policies excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan relate
to this proposal:
2. Excerpt from : 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. By providing a wider
DI.E Page 206 of 240
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC
16.10.110 related to mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements
to allow mitigation outside the City (File No. ZOA12-0003)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 6 of 8
range of methods critical area mitigation is accomplished this code amendment provides
predictability and consistency. Also, in furtherance of this goal, the code amendment
provides that mitigation banking or fee in lieu programs may also be used to satisfy
mitigation. On-site mitigation also continues to be an option.
3. A similar theme as the goal in Chapter 1 is expressed in Chapter 2 as follows:
CHAPTER 2 – GENERAL APPROACH TO PLANNING
“GOAL 2 – FLEXIBILITY: To provide predictability in the regulation of land use
and development, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also
provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow
development to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources, and
critical lands and in overall compliance with this Comprehensive Plan.”
“Objective 2.4. To provide for the development of innovative land management
techniques to implement this Comprehensive Plan.”
“Policies:
“GP-17 Flexible land development techniques including, but not limited
to, clustering and planned unit developments (PUDs) for the development
of residential, commercial, and industrial properties shall be considered to
implement this comprehensive plan.”
“GP-18 Flexibility should be provided to encourage compact urban
development, to protect critical areas and resource lands, to facilitate the
use of transit or non-motorized transportation, and to encourage the
redevelopment of underutilized or deteriorated property.”
“GP-19 Any flexibility should be easy to administer and should provide
the community with an adequate level of predictability.”
Complies: This goal, objective, and related policies address the need for flexibility in
critical area regulations while addressing the importance of protection and management
of critical areas.
4. Excerpt from : CHAPTER 9 – ENVIRONMENT
“GOAL 18. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment and preserve the
quality of life and to protect the area's most unique, sensitive and productive
natural resources. To encourage natural resource industries within the city to
operate in a manner which enhances, (rather than detracts from), the orderly
development of the City.”
DI.E Page 207 of 240
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC
16.10.110 related to mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements
to allow mitigation outside the City (File No. ZOA12-0003)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 7 of 8
“Objective 18.4 To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important
wetland resources in the City and region.”
“Policies:”
“EN-27 The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological
roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat, protecting
water quality, reducing the need for man-made flood and storm drainage
systems, maintaining water quality, and in providing recreational, open
space, educational and cultural opportunities. The City will consider these
roles and functions in all new development and will also pursue
opportunities to enhance the existing wetland system when these multiple
benefits can be achieved.”
“EN-28 The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of
biological and hydrological functions and values to the community
depending on the size, complexity and location of the individual system,
and that the overall degree of functions and values should be considered
when reviewing proposals which impact wetlands. In a similar manner,
the levels of protection afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its
existing function and values. The City shall continue to promote policies
and practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically connected
to the river systems to improve fish resources and aquatic habitat.”
“EN-29 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the
quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review process
and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures of
important wetland areas. Such mitigation may involve conservation,
enhancement or restoration or replacement of important wetlands, and
provisions for appropriate buffering. The goal of the mitigation should be
no net loss of wetland functions and values. A permanent deed
restriction shall be placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure
that they are preserved in perpetuity.”
“EN-30 Wetlands which are associated with a river or stream, or provide
significant plant and animal habitat opportunities are recognized by the
City as the most important wetland systems, and shall receive the highest
degree of protection and mitigation through conservation, enhancement
or relocation measures. Wetlands which are limited in size, are isolated
from major hydrological systems, or provide limited hydrological or plant
and animal habitat opportunities may be considered by the City for
development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate
mitigation.”
Complies: This goal, objective and the related policies address the need for flexibility in
the approach to critical area regulations and seek to balance the importance of
protection and management of critical areas commensurate with the quality of the
DI.E Page 208 of 240
Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC
16.10.110 related to mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements
to allow mitigation outside the City (File No. ZOA12-0003)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 8 of 8
resource. These policies, which are specifically related to wetlands, address
opportunities for enhancement of wetland resources as provided through mitigation,
address that mitigation should be designed to replace functions and values lost due to
impacts, that mitigation may involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or
replacement of wetlands and that the degree of protection and mitigation will vary with
the quality or the resource. The proposed code change provides increase flexibility
without a reduction in mitigation standards.
Staff Recommendation
Planning and Community Development Committee to review Ordinance No. 6476 amending
Auburn City Code Chapter Section 16.10.110 and recommend approval to the City Council.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 6476 Amending ACC 16.10.110, “Mitigation standards, criteria and
plan requirements”
Exhibit B: Request for Dept of Commerce for state review
Exhibit C: Request to publish hearing notice in newspaper
Exhibit D: Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) and Completed Environmental Checklist
Application.
DI.E Page 209 of 240
Ordinance No. 6476
August 21, 2013
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 7 6
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION
16.10.110 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO
THE LOCATION OF CRITICAL AREA MITIGATION
WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn critical areas
code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current development
needs and standards of the City; and
WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn critical areas
code are appropriate, in order to remain consistent with evolving scientific
understanding of critical areas and critical area replacement (mitigation) and in order to
facilitate the use and understanding of code sections; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment to the code is to provide the
flexibility to have critical area mitigation sites located outside the city limits when
ecologically preferable and when consistent with other provisions of the critical areas
code; and
WHEREAS, these code amendments were subject to environmental review
process under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued July 22, 2013 and the City
observed a fourteen-day public comment period. The City did not receive any
comments in response to notice of the public comment period; and
DI.E Page 210 of 240
Ordinance No. 6476
August 21, 2013
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, these code amendments were considered by the Planning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2013 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 May 28, 2013 and August
26, 2013, 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 16.10.110 of the
Auburn City Code entitled “Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements” is
hereby amended to read as follows:
16.10.110 Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements.
A. Mitigation Standards. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and
values shall be mitigated. Mitigation actions shall generally be implemented in
the preferred sequence identified in this chapter. Proposals which include less
preferred and/or compensatory mitigation shall demonstrate that:
1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department
have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid
impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations;
2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as
viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces; and
3. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values.
The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered
DI.E Page 211 of 240
Ordinance No. 6476
August 21, 2013
Page 3 of 4
wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical, and chemical
functions.
B. Location and Timing of Mitigation.
1. The preferred location of mitigation is on-site when ecologically
preferable to other alternatives. Mitigation may be allowed off-site when it is
determined by the department that on-site mitigation is not ecologically
preferable to other alternatives, or, in the case of wetlands, where the affected
site is identified as appropriate for off-site mitigation in the Mill Creek Special
Area Management Plan (SAMP), April 2000. The burden of proof shall be on the
applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on-site or is
consistent with the SAMP. If it is determined that on-site mitigation is not
ecologically preferable to other alternatives, mitigation shall be provided in the
same drainage basin as the permitted activity on property owned, secured, or
controlled by the applicant, or provided by the applicant using alternative
mitigation options such as mitigation banking or in-lieu fee programs. The
mitigation should result in no net loss to the critical area functions impacted and
associated watershed. Where mitigation is authorized to be located outside the
City limits, the Applicant shall assure to the satisfaction of the Department that
other requirements of this Chapter will be met, including but not limited to,
monitoring and maintenance.
2. In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant
demonstrates, and the department concurs, that greater functional and habitat
value can be achieved through out-of-kind mitigation.
3. When wetland, stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these
regulations, the mitigation project shall occur near an adequate water supply
(river, stream, ground water) with a hydrologic connection to the critical area to
ensure a successful mitigation or restoration. A natural hydrologic connection is
preferential as compared to one which relies upon manmade or constructed
features requiring routine maintenance.
4. Any mitigation plan shall be completed before initiation of other
permitted activities, unless a phased or concurrent schedule that assures
completion prior to occupancy has been approved by the department.
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,
DI.E Page 212 of 240
Ordinance No. 6476
August 21, 2013
Page 4 of 4
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:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
PUBLISHED: ______________
DI.E Page 213 of 240
Dear Mr. Dixon:
Principal Planner
City of Auburn
25 W Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001-4998
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials
as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this
procedural requirement.
July 1, 2013
Jeff Dixon
City of Auburn - Proposed amendment to code amendments to city's Critical Area Regulations (ACC
16.10) related to the location of mitigation sites outside the city. These materials were received on
June 27, 2013 and processed with the material ID # 19298. Expedited Review is requested under
RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b).
If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you
have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106.
If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment requesting expedited review, then we have
forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for expedited review and comment. If one or more
state agencies indicate that they will be commenting, then Commerce will deny expedited review and the
standard 60-day review period (from date received) will apply. Commerce will notify you by e-mail regarding
of approval or denial of your expedited review request. If approved for expedited review, then final adoption
may occur no earlier than fifteen calendar days after the original date of receipt by Commerce. Please
remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption.
If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov,
or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048.
Sincerely,
Review Team
Growth Management Services
DI.E Page 214 of 240
-Notice Details-
Total NET Cost: $122.65
Class Name: Hearing Notices
Account #: 107302
Advertiser Name: City of Auburn, Finance Dept
Agency Name:
Contact: Dani (City Clerk) 253-931-3037
Address: 25 W Main St
Auburn, WA 98001
Telephone: (253) 876-1980
These are the details of your notice scheduled to run on the dates indicated below.
CITY OF AUBURNNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission of the City of Auburn, Washington, will conduct a pub-lic hearing on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall located at 25 West Main Street on the following: Case Num-ber ZOA13-0003: Amendment to Auburn City CodeThe proposal amends the Auburn City Code related student/rental housing. The proposed amendments affect Title 18, Zoning, and Title 5, Business and Licenses Regulations. Case Number ZOA13-0005: Amendment to Auburn City Code The proposal amends the Auburn City Code re-lated to the C-1, Light Commercial, Zone. Specifically, the proposed code amend-ments address mixed-use development standards.Case No. ZOA13-0004: Amend-ment to ACC 16.10.110, Critical Areas Regulations Amendment to the critical areas regula-tions to authorize mitigation to be located outside the City under certain circum-stances which is currently not allowed. The public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Auburn City Hall, lo-cated at 25 West Main Street. The public is invited to attend to express comments or opinions. Written comments may be submitted up until and at the public hear-ing for ZOA13-0003 and ZOA13-0005 to Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Services Manager, Planning and Development De-partment, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 9800-4988 or Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner, for ZOA13-0004 at the same ad-dress. If you have further comments or questions, please contact Elizabeth Cham-berlain at echamberlain@auburnwa.gov or at (253) 931-3092. For citizens with speech, sight or hearing disabilities wish-ing to review documents pertaining to this hearing, should contact the City of Auburn within 10 calendar days prior to the meet-ing, as to the type of service or equipment needed. Each request will be considered individually according to the type of re-quest, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment.
*The ad preview below may not be to actual scale
Account Information
Legals Desk Contact Information
Phone # (206) 652-6018
Email: legals@seattletimes.com
Notice Placement Information
Prepayment Information
Seattle Times 08/08/13
NWclassifieds 08/08/13
NWclassifieds 08/09/13
NWclassifieds 08/10/13
NWclassifieds 08/11/13
NWclassifieds 08/12/13
NWclassifieds 08/13/13
NWclassifieds 08/14/13
Run Date(s)
Notice ID: 350288
Purchase Order #:
# of lines: 55
Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check # Amount
DI.E Page 215 of 240
DI.E Page 216 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Amendment to the Critical Area Regulations
of the Auburn City Code and specifically Section 16.10.110, “Mitigation standards,
criteria and plan requirements” to allow mitigation to be located outside the city.
2. Name of applicant:
City of Auburn, Planning and Development Department
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Planning and Development Department
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
(253) 931-3090
Attn: Jeff Dixon, Principal Planner
4. Date checklist prepared:
July 9, 2013
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Auburn, Planning and Development Department
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The non-project action is a proposal to amend Chapter 16.10 – Critical Area Regulations
of the Auburn City Code. More specifically, the amendments are proposed to Section
16.10.110, “Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements” to allow mitigation to be
located outside the city. The amendments are currently scheduled for Planning
Commission review and public hearing in late summer 2013 and City Council
consideration and adoption in early fall of 2013.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
This non-project SEPA Environmental Checklist application and addresses proposed
amendments to Title 16 of the Auburn City Code (ACC)
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Other environmental information consists of previous SEPA documents related to past
comprehensive plan amendments and code amendments as follows:
DI.E Page 217 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
City of Auburn. Determination of Non-Significance SEP11-0006 – City of Auburn Zoning
Code Amendments – Amending Chapters 18.50, 18.52, and 18.70 and Adding Chapter
18.55 Auburn City Code. September 15, 2011.
City of Auburn. Determination of Non-Significance SEP09-0025 – City of Auburn Zoning
Code Amendments - Chapter 18.56 Auburn City Code. August 21, 2009.
City of Auburn. Determination of Non-Significance SEP09-0021 – City of Auburn Zoning
Code Amendments - Chapters 18.04 and 18.26 ACC. July 30, 2009.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance SEP09-0012 - Amendments to
Title 17-Subdividions and Title 18-Zoning, of the Auburn City Code, and amendments to
the Auburn Comprehensive Zoning Map. May 2009.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2012 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2012, File No. SEP12-0023
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2011 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2011.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2010.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2009 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2009.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2008 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2008.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance—2007 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2007.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2006 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. August 2006.
City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2005 Comprehensive Plan
amendments. September 2005.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
No other approvals or proposal are pending. The proposal is a non-project action. The
proposed amendment would apply City-wide
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed
Auburn City Code amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and will
forward a recommendation to the Auburn City Council. The City Council may or may not
hold a public hearing prior to taking action adopting, adopting in part, modifying or not
adopting the amendments.
DI.E Page 218 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Although not an approval or permit, the proposed amendments area also subject to State
Agency review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description.)
Description of Proposal
The non-project action is a proposal to amend Chapter 16.10 – Critical Area Regulations
of the Auburn City Code. More specifically, the amendments propose to amend Section
16.10.110, “Mitigation standards, criteria and plan requirements” to allow mitigation to be
located outside the city.
The current language of the code requires that all mitigation sites constructed in
compensation for impact to regulated critical areas be located within the city. The City
seeks to revise the regulations to allow mitigation sites to be located outside the city
under certain circumstances.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,
and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a
range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available.
While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to
this checklist.
This is a non-project action located within the City of Auburn municipal boundaries.
DI.E Page 219 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
The City of Auburn is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep
hillsides and upland plateaus overlooking the valley. See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The slopes vary in the city and Potential Annexation Areas (PAA), but in some locations
slopes associated with the valley walls reach 100%. See Section D, Nonproject Action.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the
Oridia, Renton, Snohomish, and Briscott series. These soils are poorly drained and
formed in the alluvium (river sediments) associated with the White and Green rivers.
These are considered good agricultural soils, though in many areas, are not well-drained.
There is no designated farmland within the City of Auburn.
The hillsides and plateaus are made up of primarily Alderwood associated soils and a
small amount of Everett associated soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973).
Alderwood soils are moderately well drained gravelly sandy loams 20-40 inches deep.
Beneath these soils is glacial till with low permeability. Roots penetrate easily to the
hardpan layer. Runoff potential is slow to medium. Erosion and slippage hazard is
moderate; ranging to severe on steeper slope phases The Everett series consists of
somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by very gravelly sand. These soils
formed in very gravelly glacial outwash deposits under conifers. They are found on
terraces and terrace fronts and are gently undulating to moderately steep.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?
If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Many factors affect slope stability including soil type,
parent material, slope and drainage. These factors can be further affected by human
intervention such as slope alteration, and vegetation removal. The city has identified
categories of geologic hazard areas and inventoried these areas. Maps of the erosion
and landslide hazard areas are provided as Maps 9.6 and 9.7, respectively in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. The proposed amendments to the
Auburn City Code are non-project actions, no site alteration, construction, or earthwork is
proposed.
DI.E Page 220 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. The action does not involve site
specific development proposal.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a non-project action, no site specific erosion
control is proposed. However, the existing comprehensive plan includes numerous
policies to reduce or control erosion through the use of best management practices,
landscaping requirements, limitations on alteration of steep slopes and other critical
areas protections. Impacts to earth will be identified and, if necessary, mitigated during
the development review process as specific development proposals are made that might
be associated with these plan amendments.
The city also has adopted a City Engineering Design Standards Manual and a City
Construction Standards Manual that address erosion impacts (ACC Chapter 12.04 as
referenced by ACC 15.74).
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?
If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
DI.E Page 221 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river
it flows into.
The proposal is a city-wide nonproject action - See Section D, Nonproject Action. The
major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River, Mill Creek,
Bowman Creek, and White Lake. The city has conducted an inventory of wetlands within
the city limits. These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
Green and White Rivers in Auburn are Type S streams designated as Shorelines of the
State in the City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. The designated 100-year floodplain
areas for the Green River, White River, and Mill Creek, as well as frequently flooded
areas (as defined by the City of Auburn Public Works Department) are shown on Map
9.4 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
DI.E Page 222 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,
the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or
the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is non-project action.
The most likely type of critical area to be affected by this change is mitigation for wetland
impacts. The code will continue to contain a restriction to limit relocation of mitigation
site to the same watershed.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X Shrubs
X Grass
X Pasture
X crop or grain
X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk
cabbage, other
X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
X other types of vegetation
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. However, in general urban development can result in
the removal or alteration of vegetation. Existing City standards currently address
vegetation modification activities as they relate to critical areas protection (e.g. wetlands),
and landscaping requirements.
DI.E Page 223 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None known at this time.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
City Comprehensive Plan includes policies on retaining vegetation, ACC Chapter 15.74
governs tree and vegetation retention, and the City’s landscaping regulations (ACC
18.50) govern landscaping within the City. See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a
non-project action.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese,
ducks, crows, etc.
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: urban
animals such as dogs, cats, squirrels, rodents,
opossums, raccoons, etc. are also present in the city
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. There are nesting/breeding sites of bald eagles, great
blue herons and green back heron within Auburn as shown on Map 9.2 of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Auburn
Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the Aleutian
Canadian Goose have been seen in the Auburn area.
Chinook salmon are currently listed as a threatened species by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Bull trout are also listed. Chinook salmon are known to use
the Green and White Rivers.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory
birds, and the Green and White Rivers are known fish migration routes.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes policies that encourage preservation of wildlife
habitat and environmental features supportive of wildlife habitat. In addition, the City’s
critical areas regulations (ACC Chapter 16.10) offer protection for critical wildlife habitat,
among other things. See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a non-project action.
DI.E Page 224 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
6. Energy and natural resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
7. Environmental health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as
a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
8. Noise
a. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
b. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
DI.E Page 225 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
9. Land and shoreline use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The City contains a variety of land uses including
residential, industrial, institutional, commercial, open space, and public land uses.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Much of Green River/White River Valley and the City
of Auburn were used for agriculture at some time in the past. Over the last several
decades, growth in the area resulted in much of the agricultural land converting to urban
uses. No land within the city is designated as agricultural in city plans or zoning code,
though some parcels continue to be farmed.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Structures within the city and Potential Annexation
Areas (PAA) range from small single family detached homes to large industrial and
warehousing facilities. Properties subject to the proposed code amendments include all
areas of the city including vacant land, as well as properties improved with residential,
commercial, industrial and public/institutional structures.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. This is a non-project action. However, areas of the
city do contain environmentally-sensitive areas and the regulation and protection of these
environmentally sensitive areas are addressed through the city’s critical areas ordinance,
Chapter 16.10.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This is a non-project action and no
specific development is proposed.
DI.E Page 226 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action
and no specific development is proposed.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action
and no specific development is proposed.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal are compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. This proposal is to amend the City of Auburn Zoning
Code as described in response to the environmental checklist application Question A.11
above. The proposed amendments are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies as
described in Section D.
Also, the proposed amendments are circulated to State agencies for review in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.106.
10. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None. This proposal is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None specifically, as this is a non-project action.
11. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None specifically, as this is a non-project action.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None specifically, as this is a non-project action
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. None specifically, as this is a non-project action
DI.E Page 227 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
12. Light and glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
13. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and
recreational facilities. Map 11.1 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan shows the location of
these facilities.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
14. Historic and cultural preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The following sites in the City of Auburn are listed on
the National Register of Historic Places and the Washington State Heritage Register:
Auburn Public Library, 306 Auburn Avenue NE; Auburn Post Office, 20 Auburn Avenue
NE; Oscar Blomeen House, 324 B Street NE; Mary Olson Farm, 28728 Green River
Road NE. Additionally, the Auburn Masonic Temple located at 310 East Main Street is
designated as a City of Auburn Landmark..
DI.E Page 228 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Several Indian campsites have been identified along
the Green and White rivers in the Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack EIS and in
preliminary work for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Special Area Management Plan
(SAMP).
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Auburn City Code Chapter 18.49-Flexible
Development Alternatives and Chapter 18.25-Infill Residential Development Standards
provide incentives for additional measures of protection and/or restoration beyond those
otherwise required under Federal/State law and Auburn City Code for sites of historic or
cultural significance.
This proposal is a non-project action. All non-exempt projects will be required to conduct
project-level SEPA analysis.
15. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Figure 2-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan) shows the City’s current and
future classified street system.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Figure 4-1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan) shows the location of public
transit routes within the City. Also, a Sound Transit commuter rail station exists along
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way just south of West Main Street and
east of C Street SW.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private).
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. There is no water transportation in the Auburn area
other than for recreational uses. The area is particularly well served by rail. At this time,
DI.E Page 229 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
local freight service is available. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both
operate freight lines within Auburn. Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the
Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle. Service began September 18,
2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop here. The Auburn Municipal
Airport is located north of 15th Street NE.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
See Section D, Nonproject Action. Not applicable.
16. Public services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
The proposal is not expected to affect the total number of housing units, the number or
types of commercial developments that could be built, or to result in an increased need
for public services as compared with the current regulations.
See Section D, Nonproject Action.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
See Section D, Nonproject Action. The comprehensive plan contains policies that seek
to maintain a sufficient level of service for public services as development occurs. Also,
Auburn reviews the impacts of significant development on these public services during
project-level review and SEPA. Mitigation measures are required to reduce significant
adverse impacts.
17. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
All of the above utilities are available within the City of Auburn.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
This is a non-project action. However, the Comprehensive Plan includes a utilities
element (as required by the Growth Management Act), which describes the utilities that
serve the Auburn area and includes policies for their provision.
Also, the city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive
Water Plan and Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the city in 2001. The
DI.E Page 230 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Comprehensive Drainage Plan was adopted in 2002. A new six year Capital Facilities
Plan was adopted in 2012 (2013-2018).
These plans ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a
project level and city-wide basis.
C SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date Submitted: __________________________________________
DI.E Page 231 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
D SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be
aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the
proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the
proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
The proposal would not be likely to increase discharge to water, emissions to air,
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
The City seeks to change the city’s critical area regulations to allow increased flexibility in
where the mitigation is allowed to be performed or constructed as compensation for
impacts to environmentally-sensitive resources. The most common critical areas to use
this code provision are in relation to wetland resources since these are less
geographically dependent. The city’s regulations currently restrict mitigation to being
located only within the city limits. This location restriction was largely due to the fact that
when the regulations were first drafted and adopted, the City did not previously have a
critical areas ordinance and was not familiar with how all of the provisions of the
regulations would work. Due to this unfamiliarity, the city sought to have a greater
amount of regulatory control by requiring that the mitigation occur where the city had
regulatory oversight. Since the time of the adoption of the city’s first critical areas
ordinance, the city has greater experience and familiarity in how mitigation is performed
and the necessary oversight to ensure critical area functions are replaced.
The city code language continues to require that the mitigation site be located within the
same drainage basin. The change is therefore not anticipated to result in a change in
the hydrologic contribution within the drainage basin.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan contains provisions to reduce increases or
emissions caused by new development. Emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on
reducing the reliance on the automobile for transportation should reduce the amount of
emissions to the air. Policies in the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the
review of development proposals to encourage retention of and replanting of native
vegetation. This supports wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams, as the policies
assist the City in addressing adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat from
runoff since native plantings may require less pesticide use.
Non-exempt development will be subject to SEPA requirements to evaluate and mitigate
impacts related to discharges, emissions, and the release of toxic substances.
Evaluation of the site specific proposals will be based on the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case by case basis.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance (ACC
16.10), shoreline master program regulations (ACC 16.08), the City’s Engineering
DI.E Page 232 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Design Standard and Construction Standard Manuals (ACC 12.04) also provide
additional protection for these types of impacts.
Auburn City Code contains performance standards towards uses and activities with in
the City (ACC 18.31 – Supplemental Developmental Standards). These standards
regulate noise, emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous
substances.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
It is unlikely the proposed code amendment will have any adverse effect on plants,
animals, fish, or marine life.
The code change seeks to provide more flexibility in where mitigation is allowed. Under
the code provisions, mitigation will be allowed to be performed on-site as currently is
allowed, but also off-site. The most common critical areas to use this code provision are
wetland resources since there are often less geographically dependent. Those animals
and insects who depend the impact site (such as a wetland), that are less mobile and
cannot find alternate habitat in close proximity could perish on the replacement wetland
(mitigation) is allowed to be constructed at a further distance from. It is the goal of the
city’s critical area regulations to provide replacement functions for those functions being
lost due to the impact so it is not anticipated that the various functions of wetlands would
be diminished or lost.
The proposed amendments are not expected change the developable area of the City.
The proposed amendments would not introduce any new land uses in areas where they
are not currently allowed.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Generally, the adopted Auburn Comprehensive Plan and critical areas ordinance seek to
protect and conserve plants, animals, fish, and marine life. SEPA environmental review
of all non-exempt development is conducted to evaluate, reduce and avoid or mitigate
impacts. The evaluation is based on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and
appropriate mitigation will take place for each future development proposal on a case-by-
case basis.
Policies within the Environment Chapter also provide guidance in the review of
development proposals to encourage use of native vegetation and the retention of native
vegetation. This should support wildlife habitat areas, particularly near streams as the
policies assist the city in addressing adverse runoff impacts to water quality and wildlife
habitat since native plantings may require less pesticide use.
City development standards including but not limited to the critical areas ordinance and
the shoreline master program regulations also provide additional protection for these
types of impacts.
The City would authorize the mitigation to occur off-site when the location off-site is
ecologically preferable. When because of the particular circumstances of the site, the
location off-site will yield a greater ecological benefit or increased wetland functions.
DI.E Page 233 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
There are no expected significant increases in the use of energy or natural resources
resulting from the amendments being proposed.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
None specifically, as this is a non-project action. However, in addition to the provisions
of the Auburn Energy Management Plan (adopted in 1986), which encourages energy
conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, the comprehensive plan
places an emphasis on providing for alternative methods of travel to the automobile such
as transit, walking, and biking.
An environmental review under SEPA of all non-exempt development will be conducted
to measure the project impacts.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas
or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species
habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The proposal is unlikely to affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
The comprehensive plan and, in particular, the critical areas ordinance (ACC 16.10),
seek to protect environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, streams, geologically hazard
areas, floodplain, wildlife habitat, and aquifer recharge areas) and to reduce the impacts
of development on them. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan provides for the
implementation of innovative land management techniques to protect these resources.
Among the innovative land management techniques, the Flexible Development
Alternatives Chapter (ACC 18.49) includes incentives for enhancement or restoration of
critical area buffers, and/or encouraging development to locate farther from critical areas
than currently required by code.
SEPA environmental review for all non-exempt development will be conducted to
evaluate impacts.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
Amendments can only be approved if the Applicant can assure to the city that future
development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its policies and related
regulations. Those proposals that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan
policies or other existing plans will not be approved.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
The comprehensive plan, critical areas ordinance, and other development regulations,
such as the zoning ordinance and shoreline master program, seek to protect these land
and shoreline resources and to reduce the effects of development on them. An
DI.E Page 234 of 240
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
environmental review under SEPA of all future development that is non-exempt will also
be conducted to evaluate a proposal’s land use and environmental impacts.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposal is not expected to affect the total number of housing units or the number or
types of commercial developments that could be built in the City of Auburn, therefore the
proposal is not expected to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities as compared with the current zoning regulations.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The City has adopted a six-year Transportation Improvement Program (2013-2019) that
identifies projects to meet safety needs, capacity needs, access needs, projected
funding. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is an element of the City's overall
Comprehensive Plan. It is the City's long-range plan for developing its transportation
system over the next 15 years. This plan helps ensure that transportation impacts are
adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis.
The City has an adopted 2013-2018 Capital Facilities Plan. Also, the city actively
engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan and new
Comprehensive Sewer Plan were adopted by the city in 2001. The Comprehensive
Drainage Plan was adopted in 2002. A Comprehensive Transportation Plan was
adopted in 2005 with updates during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle.
These plans help ensure that utility impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on
a project level and city-wide basis.
An environmental review under SEPA for all non-exempt development will be conducted
to evaluate environmental impacts. Environmental impacts that must be addressed
during the SEPA review process include traffic, public services, and utilities.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
protection of the environment. The change would increase consistency with other
authorities since many county, state and federal agencies with jurisdiction for wetland
impacts are allowing alternate forms of mitigation, such as in-lieu fee programs or
wetland mitigation banking. Permit requirements of these other authorities often
encourage applicants to pursue alternate forms of mitigation.
DI.E Page 235 of 240
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
PCDC Matrix
Date:
August 21, 2013
Department:
Planning and Development
Attachments:
PCDC Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Welch
Meeting Date:August 26, 2013 Item Number:DI.G
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.G Page 236 of 240
PC
D
C
W
o
r
k
P
l
a
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
–
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
6
,
2
0
1
3
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
.
Au
g
u
s
t
2
6
,
2
0
1
3
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
W
e
l
c
h
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 May
28
,
2
0
1
3
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
n
a
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
b
a
s
i
s
.
2
Co
d
e
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
·
S
h
a
r
e
d
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
R
e
n
t
a
l
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Au
g
u
s
t
2
6
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
7
/
8
/
1
3
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
not be broken into phases
an
d
m
o
v
e
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
w
i
t
h
n
e
e
d
e
d
c
o
d
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
a
s
o
n
e
p
h
ase. The Planning
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
h
e
l
d
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
at the 8/20/13 meeting;
st
a
f
f
w
i
l
l
r
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
t
h
e
8
/
2
6
/
1
3
P
C
D
C
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
review of the Planning
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
·
C
l
u
s
t
e
r
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
20
1
4
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
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
th
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
o
t
t
a
g
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
20
1
4
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
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
th
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
TB
D
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
P
C
D
C
o
n
9
/
1
0
/
1
2
a
n
d
c
o
d
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
a
t
P
lanning Commission on
10
/
2
/
1
2
.
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
r
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
th more information to
di
s
c
u
s
s
o
n
c
e
l
l
t
o
w
e
r
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
o
d
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
·
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
20
1
4
W
e
l
c
h
/
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.
·
A
g
r
i
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
TB
D
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
St
a
f
f
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
b
a
c
k
o
n
c
e
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
h
a
s reviewed and made their
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
3
Ur
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
20
1
4
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
S
t
a
f
f
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
.
·
T
h
e
A
D
A
Sp
r
i
n
g
2
0
1
4
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Th
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
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
at the 3/25/13 meeting
an
d
w
i
l
l
r
e
t
u
r
n
i
n
t
h
e
s
p
r
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
1
4
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
a
n
n
ual update.
DI.G Page 237 of 240
Au
g
u
s
t
2
6
,
2
0
1
3
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
·
A
m
t
r
a
k
TB
D
M
a
y
o
r
L
e
w
i
s
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. Public Works
st
a
f
f
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
t
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
’
s
3
/
2
5
/
1
3
meeting, the WSDOT
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
p
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d to be complete in June,
20
1
3
.
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
p
a
s
s
e
d
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
4
9
4
9
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g an Amtrak stop in
Au
b
u
r
n
.
·
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
Au
g
u
s
t
2
6
C
h
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
.
A
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Management Plan will
ta
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
a
t
t
h
e
8
/
2
6
/
1
3
P
C
D
C
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
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
20
1
4
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
S
t
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
pl
a
n
a
n
d
b
r
i
n
g
b
a
c
k
t
o
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
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
20
1
4
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
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
.
6
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
K
i
o
s
k
s
T
B
D
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
a
s
t
o
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
the remaining 6 pedestrian
ki
o
s
k
s
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
t
o
o
k
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
1
/
2
8
/
1
3
and recommended
Co
u
n
c
i
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
ion of three kiosks.
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
7
A
u
b
u
r
n
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
A
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
St
a
f
f
i
s
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
d
d
itional property acquisitions in
th
e
A
E
P
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
.
8
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
TB
D
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
Fe
n
s
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
e
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
P
h
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
–
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
e
a
m
i
s
addressing SRFB
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
;
M
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
W
5
K
p
r
o
j
ect – Mill Creek update to
PC
D
C
8
/
2
6
/
1
3
u
n
d
e
r
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
’
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
D
r
a
f
t
9
5
%
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
s
t
a
f
f
i
s
wo
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
th
e
Ar
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
t
o
f
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
r
eal estate certification,
an
d
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
2
0
1
4
.
9
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
–
N
F
I
P
a
n
d
CR
S
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
3
An
d
e
r
s
e
n
Br
i
e
f
i
n
g
N
o
.
5
i
n
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
e
r
i
e
s
is scheduled for 9/2013; staff
is
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
2
0
1
3
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
C
R
S
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
r
equirements and
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
p
o
l
i
c
y
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
f
u
t
u
r
e
a
p
p
roach to CRS participation.
PA
R
K
S
,
A
R
T
S
&
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
10
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
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
C
on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
b
e
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
i
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
.
DI.G Page 238 of 240
Au
g
u
s
t
2
6
,
2
0
1
3
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
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
11
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
TB
D
Hu
r
s
h
PC
D
C
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
a
t
a
f
u
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
;
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
to be scheduled.
12
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
.
13
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
TB
D
H
u
r
s
h
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
g
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
.
BO
A
R
D
S
,
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
&
H
E
A
R
I
N
G
E
X
A
M
I
N
E
R
14
A
r
t
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
F
a
b
e
r
J
o
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
h
e
ld
o
n
1
1
/
2
6
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
15
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
H
u
r
s
h
J
o
i
n
t
m
ee
t
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
9
/
2
4
/
1
2
.
16
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
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
1
/
2
6
/
1
2
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
.
17
P
a
r
k
s
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
B
o
a
r
d
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
F
a
b
e
r
An
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
7
/
2
2
/
1
3
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
;
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
update will take place
7/
2
0
1
4
.
18
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
w
i
l
l
h
o
l
d
a
j
o
i
n
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
e
v
e
r
y
s
i
x
m
o
n
t
h
s with Planning
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
n
e
x
t
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
h
e
l
d
2
/
2
0
1
4
.
19
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
4
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
o
n
5
/
2
8
/
1
3
w
i
t
h
P
CD
C
.
20
U
r
b
a
n
T
r
e
e
B
o
a
r
d
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
3
F
a
b
e
r
A
n
n
u
a
l
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
cc
u
r
r
e
d
1
0
/
2
2
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
P
C
D
C
.
CO
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
V
E
P
L
A
N
/
C
A
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
)
21
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
T
B
D
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
l
a
i
n
20
1
3
–
2
0
1
4
A
u
b
u
r
n
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
.
M
a
j
o
r update of the
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
2
0
y
e
a
r
s
+
.
A
R
e
q
u
e
st for Qualifications went
ou
t
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
8
/
1
3
/
1
3
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
d
e
a
dline set for 9/3/13.
DI.G Page 239 of 240
Au
g
u
s
t
2
6
,
2
0
1
3
Page 4
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
22
W
a
t
e
r
,
S
e
w
e
r
,
S
t
o
r
m
Sc
o
p
e
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
W
a
t
e
r
,
Se
w
e
r
,
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
s
i
n
c
o
n
c
e
r
t
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
Up
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
s
a
s
the City updates its
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
.
23
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.
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
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
i
n
c
o
n
c
e
r
t
with the Comprehensive
Pl
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
24
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
20
1
4
Pa
r
a
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
4
9
3
7
,
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
1
9
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
mprovement Program
(T
I
P
)
w
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
o
n
6
/
1
7
/
1
3
b
y
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
25
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
Sc
o
p
e
:
6
-
y
e
a
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
pl
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
p
u
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
/
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
On
-
g
o
i
n
g
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
Up
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
sive plan update
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
T
h
e
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
a
p
p
roved by the City Council
12
/
1
7
/
1
2
.
OT
H
E
R
26
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.G Page 240 of 240